Forgiving

...And forgive us our debts
as we have forgiven our debtors...

The most difficult thing to do is to forgive someone.

Why should it be?

Jesus is rather severe with his disciples on the matter of forgiveness of sins: ‘Unless you forgive your brother from the heart, neither will your Heavenly Father forgive you.’

When the other has sinned against us, we are injured in our self-esteem. Forgiving the husband who has sinned against our marriage requires humility. Forgiving the brother who has sinned against his commitments to us and who has consciously attempted to humiliate us requires humility.

Our self-love is damaged by the sin of the other and only humility can bring us to forgive the other. This can be quite a struggle. It may require us to pray to God to grant us forgiveness of the other: we must bring forth our weakness to God so that he might help us to make that gesture of Christian love which is forgiveness.

To forgive the other we have to open our heart to him or her, even if he or she is thousands of miles away. This is painful. We don’t want to do it. We want to hate the other, the one who has sinned against us.

We are reminded of a story. A missionary in Africa told us that he had wronged a pet chimpanzee. Now chimpanzees aren’t stupid. There the chimpanzee is in his cage. He bides his time. When the missionary approaches unsuspecting, he picks up some mud from the floor of the cage and slings it in his face.

This is a true story.

This is what we want to do. We don’t want to forgive our husband, our brother. We want to sling mud in their face.

When we look into our own heart we see that we really don’t want to give up our self-love in order to forgive the other. We have to pray for the grace to forgive the other. We have to recognize that our pride is preventing us from forgiving the other.

Christmas is notorious in the helping professions for the strains it puts on family life. Family scenes, even murders, happen around Christmas. One of the reasons is that we harbour resentments towards our close family members because of the sins they have committed—against us! How dare they!

Now a beginning to preventing family scenes and worse at Christmas is to make an attempt from now to forgive the other.

How should we proceed?

Well, we have already mentioned one way: we might pray to Jesus to help us to forgive the other. That is already an act of humility, already a recognition of our weakness.

The next thing we could do, if we have a problem with forgiveness, is to go to confession. This is not to suggest that we are at fault—after all, the other may really have sinned against us—but it is to suggest that ‘cleaning out the pot’ of our heart will make us see things a little bit more clearly when we look into ourselves regarding the person who has sinned against us. A good confession might make us just a little bit humbler, which is a beginning on the road to forgiving the other.

And of course, part of being able to forgive the other is to recognize that we ourselves are sinners who are in need of the forgiveness that Jesus proffered.

Forgiving the other doesn’t necessarily mean cozying up to them. If someone has given us a beating on the street, it is one thing to forgive them, another to go out drinking with them: we have to judge in prudence and common sense what we should do about the other once we have forgiven them.

Once we have forgiven, then we are free. There is no longer a conflict in our heart; there is no longer a problem in our relations with the other. We see clearly in love even if we see clearly from a distance. For once we have forgiven we have a clarity that will allow us to judge what to do. And that might mean having nothing further to do with the person on any level of intimacy—or it might mean just the opposite: we have to exercise wisdom and prudence. And forgiveness gives us the freedom and clarity to allow us to judge correctly what to do.

On Becoming an Orthodox Monk

Many people wonder how to become an Orthodox monk. This blog, ‘Orthodox Monk’, attempts to answer that question after a fashion and according to how we, the blog author, understand Orthodox monasticism.

This blog has been composed much like a book. The curious will find information on becoming an Orthodox monk not in a specific post but in the blog taken as a whole. If anyone is interested in ‘Orthodox Monk’s views on how to become an Orthodox monk, they should read the archives of this blog.

In particular we recommend that they read the full text of the tonsure to the Great Schema. We have also posted separately basic commentary on the meaning of the vows and more general commentary on the broader implications of the vows. These links are also available at the beginning of the post that has the full text of the tonsure.

Now the curious might think that Orthodox monasticism is interesting but that the Great Schema is beyond his or her abilities. That may or may not be true. However, the Great Schema is the standard and criterion of all Orthodox monasticism. A detailed study of the Service of Tonsure to the Great Schema is important for the curious seeker who wishes to understand ‘what Orthodox monasticism is all about’. There is a principle in liturgical studies: ‘As the Church prays, so it believes.’ A primary source for the theology of Orthodox monasticism is the actual Service of Tonsure to the Great Schema where the Orthodox Church prays corporately.

That having been said, here is a summary of our views on becoming an Orthodox monk or nun:

First of all, you have to be a member of the Orthodox Church. In this regard we would caution the curious that out there is a plethora of pseudo-Orthodox churches, jurisdictions and monasteries which are more nests of snakes than havens of salvation. We would strongly recommend that any reader who is not a member of a canonical Orthodox Church—a Church in communion with the Patriarchs and Archbishops of the various national churches that are historically recognized as Orthodox—get his or her position regularized before proceeding further in actualizing his or her interest in Orthodox monasticism. No point setting sail in a rotten ship.

Next, becoming an Orthodox monk or nun is not like becoming a lawyer or doctor or accountant. A lawyer or doctor or accountant can practise wherever he wants in his jurisdiction. You have to become a monk or nun in a particular monastery. That monastery has to be recognized by the particular jurisdiction that you belong to. Part of the process of becoming an Orthodox monk or nun is finding a monastery suitable for you. In the history of Orthodox monasticism, this has ordinarily been seen as a matter of finding an Elder who can guide you and of joining yourself to that Elder in the monastery where he himself is located. Be that as it may, no one becomes an Orthodox monk or nun ‘at large’: a monk or nun must always be written into some monastery or other, whether or not he or she has found a particular guide in that monastery. And that monastery is ultimately under the authority of the local Bishop.

Next, Orthodox monasticism is difficult. It is not for everyone. As Christ himself says in the Gospel concerning the life of chastity: ‘This word is not for everyone but for those to whom it has been given.’ To become an Orthodox monk or nun, you have to be called.

Next, a study of the text of the vows of the Great Schema will make clear just what is being renounced and what is being embraced. Do not be deceived. The monastery is not a refuge for homosexuals, paedophiles, those fearful of the opposite sex or those who cannot ‘make it in the world’. It is a difficult life. It is for those who seek to unite themselves to God. For those who are willing to struggle to do so.

The Service of Tonsure includes the admonition: ‘You have chosen a good work (in becoming a monk or nun), but only if you bring it to completion.’ People fall on the way. That is why there is always a period of novitiate. The postulant has to test the monastery and test himself or herself—and be tested!—whether he or she really has a vocation and to that particular monastery: whether he or she can carry their cross in the particular monastery where they are doing their novitiate. And as the service of tonsure points out, the crosses get heavier, not lighter, as the monastic life proceeds.

You have to be in love to become a monk or nun—in love with Jesus, in love with his Father, in love with the Holy Spirit. You have to be determined, unwilling to back down. But at the same time humble and obedient. We do not come to the monastery expecting Grace to be showered down on us but the calling of the monk or nun is to a union in love with the Holy Trinity in this life—to the extent possible given who we are and given the human condition of life in the flesh.

Next, the canons of the Orthodox Church forbid a monk from seeking ordination to the priesthood: ordination must be offered by his Superior. The importance of this is that the postulant has to be clear in his mind just what his vocation really is and what he can expect once he becomes a monk. We do not come to the monastery expecting to become teachers: those who want to teach others, assuming that they are not just confused, should consider the priesthood rather than the monastic life. The case of the unmarried priest is special and does not really belong to the scope of this blog.

Finally, you have to be right with God to become a monk or nun. Do you attend Church? Do you go to confession? Do you lead a moral life? These are fundamental questions that we must ask ourselves. Start with a good confession to a sound priest. Discuss with him your interest in the monastic state. See what he has to say. And may God direct your steps.

Hope

When I was an infant, I spoke as an infant, I thought in the manner of an infant, I calculated as an infant; when I became a full-grown man I abolished the things of an infant. For now we see in an enigma by means of a mirror, then face to face; now I know in part but then I will know just as I have been known. Now, then, there remain faith, hope and spiritual love, these three things; the greatest of these is spiritual love.

(I Cor. 13, 11 – 13.)

What role does hope play in the life of the Orthodox monk and, in general, the Orthodox Christian?

Let us look at the role of hope in the life of an Orthodox Christian who has a mystical orientation. One way to look at Orthodoxy is to treat it as the ‘mystical’ form of Christianity. This would be to treat Orthodoxy as a road to gnosis of the one true God—perhaps one road among many in various religions—whereas other forms of Christianity are hung up on institutional parameters or worse. From this point of view, hope really doesn’t play a role: what we are interested in is a set of techniques, notably the Jesus Prayer, which will bring us to gnosis. In this take on religion, Orthodoxy has embedded in it a particularly interesting form of yoga—perhaps without the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church really understanding that.

Let us consider St Paul, who wrote the above passage. St Paul was transported in an ecstasy to the Third Heaven where he heard words ‘which it is not lawful for man to speak’. He qualifies as a mystic. Yet in the passage above, he says: ‘now we see in an enigma by means of a mirror, then face to face; now I know in part but then I will know just as I have been known.’ The ‘then’ that St Paul is referring to is not a condition of gnosis of God in a mystical experience in the present life but a condition of gnosis of God in the Parousia; or, if you will, in the Second Coming; or even, again, in part after our death. Hence, St Paul, the mystic par excellence of the Orthodox Church, thinks that our gnosis of God before the Parousia is partial. Moreover, he says that in this life three things remain: faith, hope and spiritual love, of which the greatest is spiritual love.

Now the Parousia is the wedding of the Bridegroom, Jesus, with his Bride, the Church: this wedding is consummated with the Church as a whole, yes, but also with each member of the Church as an individual person: each Orthodox Christian’s union with Jesus and with God the Father in the Parousia is a personal matter: we are not kneaded into faceless bread.

This means that in the Parousia our gnosis is not merely a matter of an intellectual gnosis of God but also of a union in spiritual love of two persons. This union of spiritual love certainly includes a dimension of intellectual gnosis, we have no intention of denying that. We are merely emphasizing that that is not the only aspect of this union.

Hence when we enter into the bridal chamber of Christ, we consummate our union with him as a person. This marriage ultimately takes place in the Parousia.

Now we cannot expect the fullness of this spiritual marriage in the present life. This is not to say that even in this life there is not a spiritual condition of union with the Holy Spirit, and thus with the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. However, because we are still in the flesh, ‘...now we see in an enigma by means of a mirror ... now I know in part’. In no case in this life is our union with the Holy Trinity consummated in fullness. Because of that, ‘...there remain faith, hope and spiritual love...’.

Moreover, because we are in the flesh, as Christians we live the imitation of Christ. By that we mean that just as Christ carried his Cross and was crucified, so we too must carry our Cross and be crucified with Christ. The Gospel is clear: ‘He who would be my disciple...’. Hence, although we may wish to overlay a yogic template on Orthodox Christianity so as to use it as a method of yoga leading to intellectual gnosis of God in this life, which intellectual gnosis would be our ‘enlightenment’, as baptized members of the Orthodox Church we are inserted into a different dynamic, that of carrying the Cross of Christ while we are in this flesh even if we are in fact mystics.

And that is where hope comes in.

Let us take the case of the two thieves who were crucified with Christ. The one blasphemed Christ in despair over his future—after all, there he was on the cross dying—while the other expressed faith and hope in Christ and was saved.

The good thief died in hope while the second thief died in despair. This stark choice is open to every Christian in the adverse circumstances that he encounters in his life.

As we have pointed out, because of the nature of Christianity as the imitation of Christ, the Orthodox Christian is sure to encounter the Cross. The Orthodox Christian is sure to encounter adversity. On that, both the Gospel and St Paul are clear.

Moreover, it might be pointed out that in early times Christians were often sent to the mines to labour until they dropped dead. In more recent times, in the greatest persecution of the Orthodox Church in its history, Orthodox Christians were sent to the Gulag to die. Some returned, having been transformed, as Solzhenitsyn remarks somewhere, into fire.

A small digression: We have wondered about ‘Supermax’ penitentiaries in the United States such as the one in Florence, Colorado. They seem to us ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ as banned by the US Bill of Rights. That is precisely because the penal regime seems calculated to induce despair in the inmate. By all accounts, after a short time the inmate ‘rots’. He is kept in solitary confinement in a cement cell without amenities for 23 hours a day and allowed 1 hour a day of solitary exercise in the prison yard. And this until he dies. While these men are dangerous, surely this regime is far beyond anything necessary for the security of the state: surely this is a vindictive punishment designed to destroy the man. It would take a spiritual giant to keep hope in such a situation.

We will encounter adversity whether we deserve it or not. Sometimes we are in the position of the good thief who is being punished justly for his sins; sometimes we are in the position of Job, tempted by the Devil through the permission of God as a test of his faith. And this despite the fact that we may be accomplished practitioners of the Jesus Prayer and therefore doing quite well, thank you, according to the false model of Orthodox Christianity as the ‘mystical road of Orthodoxy’ that leads us where all the mystics of all the Ages have gone.

What is the characteristic of hope? It is precisely that we do not fall into despair in adversity. It is not that we do not experience the adversity as adversity, that we do not experience the pain, whether of body or of soul, as pain, but that we do not succumb to despair. We do not lose our faith in Jesus; we do not lose our cool; we do not give up.

In this regard we might look at some hope substitutes. The classic substitute is the bottle: a shot of whiskey makes things look bright. Two shots of whiskey makes things look even brighter. Even a monk can fall into this temptation. Then there are the various ‘recreational drugs’ that take the place of hope, the various pills. These things are classically pursuits of a culture that lives for the moment; that is not oriented to the Parousia, whatever the culture might think it believes; that does not live in hope. (This is not to deny that everything from whiskey to pills has a proper use in its time and place: we are not anti-medicine.)

Someone we know who is quite wealthy is caught somewhere in this trap: mixed up, she has passed from cocaine to compulsive sex. She is in various therapies. She has studied meditation with the best teachers at the best oriental monasteries. Now she thinks she is an atheist. She is not stupid but she is chained in her own ‘Supermax’ of the spirit—‘without hope in the world’, as St Paul says.

The classic case is of course the cancer patient. There is really no cure for most forms of cancer and ultimately most cancer patients are going to experience severe pain and/or the conscious realization that they are dying. Here prayer is important, but even more important is hope: the cancer patient must not lose hope.

Those of us who suffer from emotional or cognitive disorders must also be careful not to lose hope.

Even if the adversities we suffer on a dreary Fall day are not as serious as all that, still as Orthodox Christians we must maintain hope. And that hope is something given to us by the presence of the Holy Spirit in us. Does not the Divine Liturgy pray that God might send down upon us the gift of the Holy Spirit? But we must cooperate with the Holy Spirit and refuse the thoughts that lead us to doubt and despair.

—Best Wishes to All
Orthodox Monk

Orthodox Monk Has Come Back From ‘Second Life’

Orthodox Monk has come back from ‘Second Life’ to compose a post on popular culture and the Orthodox, and stumbled on the live televised presentation in the presence of the President of the United States, of the Congressional Gold Medal to the Dalai Lama. One fantasy to another.

We were originally intending to discuss popular culture and here we have another sort of popular culture: the ‘Presentation of the Colors’, the singing of the ‘Star Spangled Banner’, the self-congratulation of the American authorities in the face of the Chinese oppression of the Tibetans. Bizarre.

Let us start with ‘Second Life’. We originally got interested in it because it seemed to be very popular. So we signed up. We have spent some hours wandering around and talking to several long-time denizens of ‘Second Life’.

In ‘Second Life’, you chat with a real person’s ‘avatar’—his personal animated icon. Each person has control over the appearance and behaviour of his avatar. He is on-line and gives you, through the mask of his self-created on-line identity, whatever answer he wants to give you, whatever behaviour he wants to show you. You can purchase animations for ALL aspects of human behaviour within ‘Second Life’. Private parties sell these animations. These animations constitute the repertoire of behaviours that your avatar can engage in with other avatars.

The conversations take place in an animated environment that it is possible for a person to buy a piece of. He can then build a building, plant trees and decorate his stake according to his taste. This is all animated. For a price he can upload his own visual furnishings into ‘Second Life’.

A person can move around this animated environment via a variety of techniques. His avatar has a location in space and can converse in public with avatars found in the same space. It is also possible to send a private IM (instant message) to an avatar either locally or at a distance.

If the person is off-line, the best you can do is send him an IM (instant message), which he later picks up coming on-line.

It’s an animated chat-room dedicated to people role-playing their dreams.

In ‘Second Life’, for a price there is the possibility of setting up a group according to your taste and of inviting others to join it; there is also the possibility, usually free, of joining existing groups. So there is a very strong aspect of social networking in ‘Second Life’. We are struck by the degree to which Americans seek out social networking: they must find their culture very lonely.

Some Real Life organizations have outposts in ‘Second Life’. These outposts are explicitly identified with the organization’s Real Life identity and carry out promotional work for the organization.

We imagine that some Real Life organizations also have a covert presence in ‘Second Life’, just as they do on Wikipedia.

‘Second Life’ is important. It is probably one of the most important recent inventions in popular culture.

On the other hand, if we were a parent (as we are writing these words, we are listening live to the boilerplate rhetoric in praise of the Dalai Lama) we would be very worried about letting our son wander around ‘Second Life’—and as for our daughter: well!

Most parents probably don’t realize just what their children have access to on the Web. Give your child a computer in his or her room, a web-cam and a broadband link to the Web—and there you go. It’s not just ‘Second Life’. There’s a whole lot on the Web that is just plain dangerous, not only for the immature but even for the mature.

One of the things that they have access to is a live video stream of the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to the Dalai Lama, just like Orthodox Monk has.

We now have the Allegro from Mozart’s ‘Divertimento in D’ with the Air Force Strings.

We got out of ‘Second Life’ rather dizzy this time. We had gone shopping for free goods. We tried to strike up a conversation in the shop with an overly sexy woman (we are describing her avatar). She was more genteel than some of the flesh in ‘Second Life’ but this is surely a matter of degree. There were prominent signs in the shop (its name is something ‘Dove’; you can find it in Inventory under Freebie) saying no weapons and no nudity and no self-advertising for ‘escort services’. There must be a reason. The weapons range from hand-guns to knives to wands. This is a reflection of people’s fantasies but people’s fantasies are based on the life they know lived in the real world and in the media.

In our initial exposure to ‘Second Life’, we were rather struck by the very commercial orientation of Linden Lab, the creator of ‘Second Life’: everything in ‘Second Life’ is bought and sold. With a little real money you can get from Linden Lab a little on-line play money to buy these things. You can then make Linden play money doing business in ‘Second Life’ and reconvert through Linden Lab the Linden play money to real money. We didn’t check the spread that Linden is offering. Linden Lab evidently gets very, very rich.

This is the philosophy that is being promoted in ‘Second Life’. It’s not just about Linden Lab making money but the promotion of a money philosophy. It’s hard for us to explain. It’s a cultural thing: life is about money. This seems to be connected to other aspects of the Web.

We saw evidence in ‘Second Life’ that some ‘Second Life’ users were trying to make a buck and comments we heard in our conversations with avatars indicated that sex and money are the two big problems in ‘Second Life’. We would add deranged religion to that list.

We did have a very long, pleasant and interesting conversation with one denizen of ‘Second Life’ who was very polite and very polished. She comes from a different culture. Sometimes, of course, she was a little harried and fell out of character. But we had the impression that we were dealing with a good soul—and one very delicate.

Now we have Eli Weisel in the presentation ceremony.

We also had a long talk with someone who was distressed with the commercialism and immorality of ‘Second Life’ and who wanted to do something about it. He was hoping to offer counselling to the denizens of ‘Second Life’ (he claimed to have training). This would be on-line counselling through his anonymous avatar at the place he has built in ‘Second Life’.

We have no way of knowing if he is or is not a charlatan.

We were somewhat put off by his ‘build’ (his cyber-building; what his visitors see and experience when they visit his avatar at his place in ‘Second Life’). We told him so with some suggestions for improvement. Since his build was a bit up our alley, we thought that we could tell him something without revealing that we had practical experience in the field: after all, we are anonymous too.

He was somewhat put off by our remarks and disappeared on us.

The truth of the matter is that—

‘The Dalai Lama is a man of true spiritual convictions….’ Eli Weisel.

As we listen to Eli Weisel, we wonder about American Civil Religion.

We’re now up to the Republican Leader of the House of Representatives.

We’re now up to the Republican Leader of the Senate.

This is going to go on for a while.

Now it’s Senator Reid.

Senator Reid thinks that there is no one in the world more deserving of the Congressional Gold Medal than the Dalai Lama.

We thought the United States was run by Evangelical Christians. What’s going on?

‘With this Gold Medal we affirm the special relationship between the Dalai Lama and the United States.’ Nancy Pelosi. (We are live-blogging without a recording so we might have a few words wrong.)

Roosevelt’s Gold Watch. The one he sent to the Dalai Lama as a child in Lhasa.

‘Just a simple monk.… Living manifestation of the Living Buddha.’ No such thing, Nancy. The Incarnation of the Buddhist God of Compassion. Chenrezig in Tibetan, Avalokitesvara in Sanskrit, Nancy. A Buddhist Bodhisattva, Nancy.

And then a pitch from Nancy Pelosi for the Chinese authorities to invite the Dalai Lama to Beijing.

If President Bush is indeed a fundamentalist Christian, how is he handling this? He’s sitting two metres away.

Unfortunately, a photo from TIME Magazine, which we came across a week after the event, seems to give us the answer.  (Update 2011-03-25: the TIME link we originally posted is now dead, so, claiming fair use, we insert a screen capture of the photo here:)

‘And today you bring peace to the capital (Capitol?) of the United States. Thank you and congratulations.’ Nancy Pelosi.

‘Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States.’

‘Thank you.’

Religious freedom and basic human rights. This is a pitch for religious pluralism in a liberal democratic context. We are rather surprised to hear this coming from President Bush. We thought that he was a fundamentalist Protestant elected by right-wing fundamentalists. Have his views been misrepresented?

‘Statue of Liberty at his bedside.’

‘When he first visited Washington, the Dalai Lama walked to the Jefferson Memorial.’ But Jefferson issued his own version of the Gospel with all the miracles deleted, George.

Do they know what the Dalai Lama teaches?

The Dalai Lama has the medal in his hand amidst flashes and applause.

Now he speaks. This we wanted to see.

He handles himself very well.

We are getting bored with the Dalai Lama. That we didn’t expect. He’s going on and on.

He firmly supports the President on the issues of religious freedom and democracy. The same and more for Nancy Pelosi.

He wants the Americans to help the dialogue with the Chinese leaders to move forward.

‘As a champion of freedom and democracy you must… Global warming…’

This seems a little trendy.

Isn’t this dangerous? If the United States weren’t at war, encouraging the Bush program of democracy would be okay—but with the United States at war and breathing the flames of an attack on Iran, isn’t this encouraging chaos? Isn’t this sowing the wind so as to reap the whirlwind?

Not a word about the wars that America is involved in and threatening to get involved in, not a word about human rights abuses by America.

We suppose that this might be marked up to upaya, skilful means, on the part of the Dalai Lama.

Given that the Chinese hold a trillion dollars in American paper, is presenting the Congressional Gold Medal to the Dalai Lama as part of a gesture of political pressure on Beijing, upaya, skilful means, on the part of America?

‘Deeply interconnected nature of today’s world.’ Well that’s what this post is about.

The Dalai Lama leaves arm-in-arm with the President of the United States. The Air Force Strings play a recessional.

The Dalai Lama’s speech was quite political.

Let’s get down to business. No, Orthodox Monk hasn’t been spending the last month or two in ‘Second Life’. That would be charming: ‘Orthodox Monk lost in ‘Second Life’. If spotted, please IM (instant message) the Abbot.’

We visited some of the religious stuff in ‘Second Life.’ Watch out. Bad vibes. There is some very clearly demonic stuff—even and especially in that which purports to be real religion and not outright occultism. Since ‘Second Life’ is all about dreams and since dreams are the province of demons, it shouldn’t surprise us that demons are influencing the people building personal stakes in ‘Second Life’. In this regard, it might be a laboratory for the enterprising psychologist. The enterprising monk doesn’t need such a laboratory. He has it in his cell. Ask St Silouan.

People act out dreams in ‘Second Life’. Sometimes the dreams are charming, as with the first person we had a long conversation with. Sometimes they are devilish. And this is what you and your children are getting involved with.

What is clear is that if you are a jerk in Real Life, you are a jerk in ‘Second Life’. If you are courteous in Real Life, you are courteous in ‘Second Life’. If you are a fundamentalist in Real Life, you are a fundamentalist in ‘Second Life’. If you are an artistic genius in Real Life—well, then, you might produce momentous work in ‘Second Life’.

People bring to ‘Second Life’ the passions they have in Real Life. As we have been discussing, our passions are what the demons stimulate when they tempt us.

We also bring our talents and our virtues to ‘Second Life’, but ‘Second Life’ rather opens us up to the tempting influence of our passions, so that in ‘Second Life’ we might fall rather more easily than we would at the breakfast table in front of our mother. And if we are unformed children, even 80 years old, we are truly defenceless lambs in the midst of ravenous lions.

Should Orthodox Monk strike up a charitable fund among his readers (say, via a PayPal tip jar in the margin of his blog) in order to get a big fast machine and a big fast broadband link and waste his time playing the philosopher to people wearing funny hats in ‘Second Life’? (For our visits to ‘Second Life’ we have been guests on another link far away from our home.)

On the Web people usually have polls about such things. We can announce the result in advance: It’s not for us. We think that there is room for a real Orthodox presence in ‘Second Life’, but given the obvious charlatanism masquerading as Orthodox Christianity in ‘Second Life’, you would have to be very, very strong spiritually and very, very bored in Real Life to become an Orthodox cyber-missionary to ‘Second Life’. Moreover, since there is so much deranged stuff in ‘Second Life’, how would anyone know you were legit? And how would you know that the person talking to you for your counsel was talking to you sincerely and honestly?

While we think that ‘Second Life’ is very important culturally, it reminds us a bit of the Haight-Ashbury in the 1960’s: there was a life-cycle, we understand from our reading, in the evolution of the Haight-Ashbury which led to its eventual demise as a living sub-culture. We wonder if ‘Second Life’ is not going to go through the same evolution, so that while the concept might be very important, the actual atmosphere in ‘Second Life’ might be such that good people will just leave for other parts while the hustlers move in, while the paedophiles prey on the young.

We noticed that there is a group in ‘Second Life’ dedicated to eradicating paedophilia from ‘Second Life’. As St Gregory of Nyssa remarked, people don't make laws about things that don't happen: if there’s a ‘Second Life’ group dedicated to eradicating paedophilia from ‘Second Life’, there must be a reason.

That is not to say that a genius in art or theatre or architecture couldn’t do wonders in ‘Second Life’.

Well, so here is our post. Welcome back from ‘Second Life’, Orthodox Monk. Try to do something about your own spiritual life.

Patience Please!

Orthodox Monk is busy and unable to post for a short while.

How to Choose a Monastery

Someone has sent us a brief email asking us if we can recommend a monastery for him to enter.

No we can’t.

This is a bit like asking someone: ‘Who should I marry?’

There are Elders in the Orthodox Church who are able to say—marry your friend Mary whom you’ve known since you were both 10 years old. Unfortunately, or fortunately, we are not such an Orthodox Elder.

There is great danger in requesting advice on the Internet: we are an anonymous blogger and the person who sent us the email has no idea who we are. As someone once said, ‘On the Internet, no one knows that you’re a dog.’ Bow-wow.

The first questions that should be asked are: Do you attend Church? Do you believe what the Orthodox Church believes? Do you attend the mysteries (sacraments) of the Church? Do you go to confession? Have you done any wrong to anyone? Have you corrected that wrong? And so on. We do not have the answers to these questions for the person who emailed us. We are not clairvoyant.

The first person to ask if you are interested in becoming a monk is your confessor: make a good confession and discuss with your confessor your interest in becoming a monk. Discuss with him your character and whether monasticism is suitable for you. If your confessor thinks that you are suited, discuss your weaknesses and your strengths with him, so that he can help you understand where you could fit in.

Every Orthodox monastery requires a period of novitiate. This is to test whether you are able to become a monk in the particular monastery that you are living in.

Finally, you should pray to God to help your confessor discern what the best thing for you to do is.

May God help you to find your way.

With best wishes—

—Orthodox Monk

Orthodox Monasticism 27 – St Barsanuphios on Various Origenist Doctrines

Questions 606 – 607

Question 606

Question:

Forgive me for the sake of the Lord, Father who loves Mankind, for I am greatly afflicted. For I was reading in a dogmatic book and I see that my heart has been agitated; and I am afraid to declare this matter to you and I am unable to be silent because of the tempting thoughts (logismoi). What therefore do you order me to do, Father?

Answer:

Since the Devil wishes to put you into an occupation which is not beneficial, say what you want and God will not give him a place.

Question 607

Question:

Concerning the Resurrection of the bodies of the saints, tell me whether they are raised in this body in which we now are, which body has bones and sinews, or in an ethereal and spherical body.[1] For they also say that in the Resurrection to come the body of the Lord will be of such a sort [i.e. ethereal and spherical], denying that he rose from the dead in our own body, which very body he received for the sake of our salvation from the Holy and Ever-Virgin Mary, She Who Gave Birth to God. And they say that this is what the Apostle says: ‘He will transform the body of our humility so that it become conformed to the body of his glory.’ And, again, they say that the Apostle said: ‘Flesh and blood is not able to inherit the Kingdom of God.’ They then say this: ‘It is not possible for this body to continue through the Ages because it is constituted of food and in the Age to come there is no eating and drinking.’

And again they say that concerning our Lord Jesus Christ the Apostle says: ‘When all things are subjected to him, then he also, the Son, will be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, so that God [sc. the Father] be all things in all.’ And again, pronouncing that which is said in Ecclesiastes—‘It has already come to pass in the Ages which have occurred before us.’—they construct the pre-existence [of souls] here. And they assure us that the saying in the Gospels—‘You will not depart from there until you have paid the last coin.’— [means that there] is an end to Hell.

Therefore, for the sake of the Lord clarify these things for me, Master, so that the Enemy not deceive me and from ignorance I fall into his wicked snares, for out of my foolishness I am shaken on all sides since I did not keep your holy words and I did not from the beginning distance myself from discussion concerning these things, for they constitute a great danger to the soul.

And pray for me, good Father, so that in future I sober up and keep my mind on tears for my sins; and forgive me that I dared to ask you these things but as [you are] one who knows everything, permit me to speak.

Answer:

Brother, I wrote to you previously that the Devil has sown in you an untimely occupation; for your time is to weep and to mourn for your sins. However, so that I not leave you in tempting thoughts (logismoi), if you wish to learn about the Resurrection, if you believe in the Prophets, God has shown us how it will be through Ezekiel the Prophet: how bone was brought together with bone and joint with joint, and veins and skin and sinews and thus they were raised.

And the Apostle, knowing that we are raised in bodies [of flesh and blood] taught, saying: ‘For this corruptible [body] must be clothed with incorruptibility, and this mortal [body] be clothed with immortality.’ Do not be deceived: the bodies are raised together with the bones and sinews and hair and thus they will be to the Age, but, however, more luminous and more glorious, according to the saying of the Lord who says: ‘Then the righteous will shine as the sun in the Kingdom of Heaven.’ This glory is added to the bodies, as if I should say that a man enters into the presence of the King a countryman and the King makes him a Field Marshall and he goes out glorified. Is it not the same thing? Has not the body been changed? Or, as a man who is a deacon suddenly ordained bishop and he is immediately found glorified, thus also here.

And what now? As they are now men in the body do they not become bearers of God (theophoroi)? And how did Moses see the Lord, and before him Abraham and Jacob and Stephen in the Acts of the Apostles, and the others? Perhaps they were bodiless? Thus it will be in the Resurrection: on the one hand, these bodies; on the other hand, incorruptible and immortal and more glorious. For this reason, concerning the human body the Apostle says: ‘It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory; a body which is earthly (psychikon) is sown, a body which is spiritual is raised.’ He says these things because many saints are not known to men but instead are dishonourable in their eyes; and when there they receive glory as an ordination, they will be made known to all, that they are spiritual men. For that reason he says: ‘A body which is earthly (psychikon) in the sight of men is sown, a body which is spiritual and glorious is raised,’ and all will be in wonder. This then the Apostle says: ‘He will transform the body of our humility so that it become conformed to the body of his glory.’ He makes the [bodies] luminous according to his own body, as the Apostle John said: ‘When he will be made manifest, then we will be similar to him.’ For the Son of God is Light and they will be sons of God, according to the Apostle, and sons of Light. It is in this sense that he says ‘he will transform’.

Concerning the fact that he says, ‘When all things are subjected to him, then he also, the Son, will be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, so that God [sc. the Father] be all things in all,’ first learn to whom he wrote these things, the Corinthians. At that time paganism (hellenismos) was at its acme and there was this custom among certain of the [pagan] Greeks: when the son of their king came of age, he rose up and slew his own father. And so that they not, accepting the proclamation of the Apostle, according to their custom also understand the same sort of thing concerning the Son of God, he exiled this society[2] from them, saying to them: ‘When all things are subjected to him, then he also, the Son, will be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, so that God [sc. the Father] be all things in all.’ But [this will occur] when his enemies come bound beneath his feet—he means the Devil and his hosts and those who follow the Devil’s intentions. For this reason therefore the Apostles said: ‘We do not yet see all things subjected to him.’ Until when? Until the angels come of God the Father, he who said: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’ He leads these enemies to the judgement of the Son of God: ‘For the Father judges no one; but he has given all judgement to the Son.’ And to learn how he will surrender the Kingdom to the God and Father, listen.

The Son of God, having been incarnated, came to call and to sanctify through his holy blood a holy nation, a people set apart, a people zealous for good works, a royal priesthood. And understand that once his enemies have been subjected to him and he judges them, then he himself as a model of subjection will surrender the Kingdom, which he has taken care of—the holy people—to the God and Father, saying: ‘Behold! I and the children you gave me.’ And to learn the equality [of the Son and the Father]: the Father has given all judgement to the Son, and the Son has given those whom he called to the Father. And thus the word is fulfilled: ‘When all things are subjected to him, then he also, the Son, will be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, so that God [sc. the Father] be all things in all.’

Concerning the Ages about which the Ecclesiast[3] spoke, know that every time (chronos) of man is his Age (aion).[4] For this reason he did not say: ‘It has already come to pass in the Ages which have occurred before this world,’ but ‘in the Ages of this world, which [Ages] are before us.’ And if you wish to learn that the uneducated and the unsupported pervert the Scriptures and allegorize according to the teaching of the Devil, the Apostle said, ‘Foods are for the belly and the belly for foods, but God will abolish this and those,’ speaking concerning gluttony and indifference and prodigality, so that he did not abolish the foods and the belly from the vessels. Knowing, therefore, he who is saying these things, that he is speaking on account of the passions and that the Lord abolished these things from him and from those close to him, the Apostle began to say ‘neither will we be judged if we eat nor will we be justified if we do not eat.’

Concerning the future, thus God spoke, ‘Men will be equal to the angels, neither eating nor drinking, nor desiring,’ and nothing is impossible to him. He showed this through Moses for he [i.e. Moses] made a fast for forty days and forty nights; and he [i.e. God] who did this is able to make man to be this way for all the years of the Age. However, if one were to babble and say, ‘But afterwards he ate, and concerning the Saviour the same,’ he showed a partial example of the future things, just as in the case of the Resurrection, for he raised the dead, showing us through the Apostles that there will be a Resurrection. And if after that they died, we should not therefore distance ourselves from the Resurrection. But, however, he says: ‘Man will not live by bread alone, but by every word proceeding through the Spirit of God.’ What do you have to say to this, unless you wish to pervert it as also the remaining scriptures?

Concerning ‘Flesh and blood will not inherit the Kingdom of God, neither corruption incorruption,’ he calls ‘flesh and blood’ impurity and wickedness and the intentions [of the flesh]. And do you wish to learn that men become spiritual even being in the body? Hear the Lord saying to Nicodemus: ‘You must be born from above.’ Later, he said: ‘Through water and the Spirit’. ‘Being born of the Spirit, you are spiritual.’ And again he says: ‘Neither from bloods nor from the intention of a man, nor from the intention of the flesh, but from God were they born.’ And: ‘God is Spirit.’ If, then, still being here [on earth] they became spiritual, having been born of God, how will God be unable to make them spiritual there also?

Concerning ‘He will not go out from there until he renders up the last coin’, he said this signifying the Hell of those Ages. For from where will they render up? If a poor debtor is put into prison and he is ordered by the ruler not to get out until he pays up the debt which is owed, is it your judgement that he ever gets out? Things are not that way. Do not be deceived like a foolish man. No one makes progress there, but if someone has something there, he has it from here, whether good or rotten or enjoyable.

Well, leave this foolish talk and do not follow the demons and their teaching: once they lift up and once they throw down. Humble yourself before God, therefore, weeping for your sins and mourning for your passions. Keep in the mind the Scripture which says: ‘And now, Israel.’ And again: ‘And now I have begun.’ Pay attention to yourself.

Well, may God forgive you. Look where your heart inclines to investigate.

---

[1] This was a tenet of the Origenists.

[2] Thus the text. Probably a copyist’s error for ‘concept’.

[3] The Elder is now turning to the quotation proffered from Ecclesiastes (see above).

[4] This is unclear.