From Kung Furious to King Calm

Kung Furious is furious.  We’re pounding on the martial arts.  Here’s what he says in his comment on ‘A Lost Modern Man’ :

“...for reasons that would take too long to explain, should not practise the martial arts” [see ‘A Lost Modern Man’]

You also wrote the following in your ‘The Jesus Prayer 3’ post:

"Let's suppose that you're Orthodox. The first thing to do to begin the Jesus Prayer is to make a good confession to an Orthodox priest. [...] The first thing is your relationship to God. Here it is very important to make a very detailed confession to the priest concerning anything which might have disturbed your relationship to God. [...] Have you ever practised non-Christian forms of meditation and prayer, including hatha yoga, T’ai Chi Ch’uan and EVEN KARATE?"

What about judo or kickboxing or the mixed martial arts?

I know that the (eastern) martial arts are full of philosophical blabber and spiritual 'this' and spiritual 'that' but if someone tries to avoid these things and is only interested in the exercises, the kicking, punching, grappling and so on, then why shouldn't he practise a martial art?

Is it because of their aggressive nature? Or because of the "tribal ballet dances" (as I like to call the kata/taolu, the choreographed patterns of movements) and their strong emphasis on imagination? Or because of the breathing exercises?

Please explain. And if you know some stories and can give some examples, I would really like to "hear" them.

Thank you.

There are two separate issues about the martial arts here, Kung Furious.  Let’s take the Jesus Prayer first.  When we wrote ‘The Jesus Prayer 3’ we were concerned about having the aspirant to the practice of the Jesus Prayer in a serious, intensive way completely cleanse his or her soul from every non-Western, non-Christian experience they might have had so that the Jesus Prayer would operate in his or her soul as intended by the Fathers of the Orthodox Church.  We still think the advice holds.  If you want to practise the Jesus Prayer, cleanse your soul.

Now in the second case, we were faced with an email from someone that seemed to us to be under a great deal of nervous tension.  We wanted to calm him down.  Apart from the issue with the Jesus Prayer discussed in the previous paragraph, there is the fact that karate ‘hypes’ you up so that when you walk into a tavern your eyes immediately scan the room for potential attackers.  We have seen this with a sixth degree black belt.  Under the circumstances, we did not think that it was in the interest of A Lost Modern Man to have that sort of sensibility and nervous tension.

Well, what about T’ai Chi Ch’uan, aikido and so on?  They’re soft style; they shouldn’t create this sort of problem.  Well other issues arise, and the best thing to do when you are spiritually searching and need to calm your nervous system down is to stop all the martial arts, whatever the style.  You should be getting exercise, certainly, but of a sort that isn’t going to create this sort of nervous tension.

Our advice to A Lost Modern Man was based on our assessment that he needed to calm his nervous system down.  In the case where someone doesn’t have the nervous intensity that we sensed with A Lost Modern Man, the practice of a martial art as a sport would, with the permission of the confessor, be acceptable.

Moreover, in the case where someone is professionally obliged to practise the martial arts—for example, he is a member of the United States Secret Service—obviously he’s not going to stop.

The ‘tribal ballet’ aspect of the oriental martial arts doesn’t bother us.  It’s fun to watch, although we’re not much for the extreme forms where the fighters ‘fly’ several hundred meters through the air on wires.

We were wondering whether to entitle this post ‘From King Kong to King Calm’.  We also wondered if Theodor had shown up in a new incarnation.

John (Updated)

We have received several comments on our post ‘A Lost Modern Man’.  Let us take the comment by John first.  He has actually submitted two comments, the second one being just an afterthought.  We will discuss them together.  First of all, here are the comments:

I sympathize much with "A Lost Modern Man"; I have been 'Orthodox' all my conscious life, but only recently became interested in my faith after reading Crime and Punishment [by Fyodor Dostoevsky].

After this I have tried to learn what I can, from the absolute basics, from books at home and the internet. I got mixed up between genuine Orthodox and those who call themselves Orthodox [see the post], but I hope that I am over the worst of that now having read what the modern Elders have to say on the subject.

I am still left with the fact that I see conflicts between my daily life and what I read I should do everywhere. Not only with my secularist friends, but at home too.

I am only 17, still living with my parents (who are separated), and am very much still under their authority. From things like prayer and fasting (or lack thereof), to things said which seem to contradict the Orthodox teaching, and I don’t just mean things that are perhaps best referred to as controversial contemporary issues.

Still worse, I don’t feel like I can trust my priest and confessor for similar reasons, both on praxis and theoria, although to a lesser extent.

I seem to be judging just about everyone I know in some way or another.

I know that obedience and humility are very important. I have also read that I should not “correct” others, but is this always the case? What if they ask me about the same things? What about since what my parents do directly affects what I am able to do? Also, does the situation change at all after I become 18 or go to university?

Any thoughts at all would be much appreciated.

And:

Forgive my ignorance.

I did not mean theoria, but I don't really know exactly how to say what I mean, although it has nothing to do with theoria. The idea of 'correctness' in Theology in a theoretical sense is what I mean I suppose.

There are a number of issues here.  Let’s first outline, as is our custom, what we think John to be saying.

1        John is a cradle Orthodox, but he really didn’t become interested in his Orthodoxy until he read Dostoevsky.

2        He got mixed up with non-canonical Orthodox but has escaped from their clutches (we aren’t being sarcastic; we’re just expressing the point in a direct way).

3        He feels out of joint with his secular friends and with his home life.  In particular there is a big tension between what he reads and what he sees around him.

4        He is 17 years old, living at home and under his parents’ authority.

5        His parents are espousing views and otherwise providing role models that contradict sound Orthodox teaching.

6        He feels he can’t trust his priest and confessor because of this contradiction between theory and practice.  Evidently what John means is that what he reads (theory) and what he sees his priest doing (practice) don’t agree, so he feels he can’t trust (or presumably even confide in) his priest.

7        He feels that with this situation he is judging everyone, which he realizes is not good (if it’s true).

8        He knows that obedience and humility are very important.

9        He’s read that he should not correct others.  Is this true in all cases?  What if they ask him?  (We think John means, what if others ask his opinion about these matters.)

10   What about the fact that his parents, who according to 2 above are not living or teaching an Orthodox life, directly influence what he is able to do?

11    What happens when he turns 18?

12    What happens when he goes to University (if he goes)?

13    He’s not sure if theoria is the right word.  What he means is ‘theological theory’.

John is at an age when in the West men and women begin to grow apart from their parents.  There is a legal, theological and psychological dimension to this.  First of all, so that we don’t repeat ourselves unnecessarily, John should read ‘Justin’.  Not all of that post will apply to him, but much of it will.  And since we don’t really want to discuss the specifically psychological aspects of the situation here, John should look carefully at that post concerning the psychological aspects.

From a legal point of view John will have to check what the law says in his jurisdiction about the legal age of majority.  It might be 18 but we are not legal experts, certainly not in John’s jurisdiction, and we cannot give legal advice.

Also John will have to check just what the legal age of majority implies.  It might imply, or might not, we don’t know, that John can leave his parents’ house at the legal age of majority.  It might also imply that his parents can turf him out of the house and quit feeding and clothing him, we don’t know.  This is something that John will have to check.  Where is he going to check?  The local police might tell him; there might be some sort of free legal aid service that he can drop by and ask (without telling anyone); there might be other similar sorts of agencies either private or state-run that he can drop by and ask.  This is merely to sort out his legal status.  We’re not suggesting that he undergo counselling.

Next, the Ten Commandments are clear that we should honour our father and mother.  Does that mean that we should sin because our parents are sinning?  No.  Does it mean John should correct his parents?  Under the circumstances that he has described, as we understand them, no.  However, because of the delicacy of the matter, it would be good to discuss these matters with a trusted confessor.

But John doesn’t trust his confessor.  What is he going to do?  Well, in extremis, he will keep his head down until he attains to the legal age of majority and then he will consult a confessor, wherever that confessor is located, that he trusts.  We imagine that once John goes to University he will encounter other Orthodox priests and, if he has prayed to Lord to give him a confessor, one whom he can trust without forcing himself.  It is very important to be intuitively comfortable with your confessor.  We can’t emphasize this strongly enough.  We have to trust the man.

We also imagine that his parents will not be monitoring John’s every footstep after he goes to University, so he should be able to travel a certain distance to visit with a confessor he thinks he can trust.  John isn’t positive that he will go to University; we would recommend that he go if he can, unless the trusted confessor tells him that he has to break off relations with his family and that implies that they won’t support him to go to University, etc., etc.—we can’t describe every possible situation that might develop.

Of course, in University John will encounter other temptations.

What John shouldn’t be doing is arguing with anyone about the Orthodox faith, especially his parents.  He should be praying for family and friends that he sees to be on the wrong road, without judging them—as John grows he will learn how weak he himself is and thus come to be more compassionate about his parents’ and family’s and friends’ weaknesses.

Under the circumstances, we suggest that John express his opinion when asked and only with the utmost circumspection.  There is nothing good that is going to come of conflict and argument.

The words praxis and theoria ordinarily mean contemplation (theoria), especially contemplation given supernaturally by the Holy Spirit, and the active life of keeping the commandments (praxis).  However, even Elders have used the words in a more commonsense way, where the words correspond to ‘theory’ and ‘practice’.  So there’s nothing wrong with John’s usage.

Incidentally John, the road to God is through keeping the Commandments.  Hence, what you should be doing is reading the Gospel, going to Church (without ostentation) and doing what the Church says.

If there are serious issues of sin which you cannot confess because you can’t trust your local priest, then you are going to have to not receive communion until you have made a good confession to a priest you can trust.  You can receive all the other mysteries, however; it is only Holy Communion that has a strict requirement for the Orthodox to be free of serious sin.  This is not to encourage people to attend the other mysteries in an unworthy way; it is to deal with the issue of a young man not being able to trust his local priest—until the time that he attains to the legal age of majority.

May God bless him.

UPDATE:

John has posted the following comment below:

Dear Father(s):

Thank you for your time and advice: I shall try to do (and not do) as you have advised.

Despite what I said, I am actually quite close to my parents; they and my priest are all nice people, somewhat nicer than I am. Unfortunately that does not invalidate my previous remarks.

There is one thing I would like to clarify, though; I said I didn't feel like I could trust my confessor. I remember Saint Pimen said you shouldn't open your heart to someone you don't trust from your heart, or something to that effect, not having the book to hand: does this mean I should not confess to him at all? At the moment I do (occasionally), although you seem to indicate that perhaps I shouldn't.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that even if I'm not sure about what he does or says on a variety of matters, does that prevent me from confessing anything to him?

Writing this, I suppose it may seem that what I say appears to be contradictory. If this is the case, it is because such is the state of my life.

Pray for me.

John

In answer to your question, if you feel that you can confess to the priest without holding anything back because of your lack of trust for him, then there is no reason for you not to confess.  In other words, you have to judge just what it is that you have done, and just what the problem is with the priest.  Is he going to violate the confidentiality of the confessional?  Is he going to gossip about you?  Is he going to give you bad advice saying that sin is not sin and what is not sin is sin?  Is he going to bind you in conscience to a penance that creates serious problems?

There are a number of levels of confession.  I can confess that I have murdered my brother and presumably will do so before I’m hung even if I have my doubts about the trustworthiness of the confessor.  The only thing that matters is if his priestly orders are valid so that his prayers for forgiveness are valid so that I can depart with a clear conscience.

It’s another thing, though, to ask a confessor for guidance.  “I’m not getting along with my parents; they’re not providing a sound role model; and you’re not so great yourself.  What should I do with my life?”  Such a confession would be best reserved for a priest you can trust.

Orthodox Monk

A Lost Modern Man

We have received an email asking our advice.  The sender has given us permission to discuss his email here on the blog.  Here is the email, slightly edited both to protect the identity of the sender and to correct a few typos:

Fathers,

I have been studying Orthodoxy for about a year now and am currently attending a certain Eastern Orthodox Church in a certain city here in the United States.   (This church belongs to a certain well-known jurisdiction.)

My question for you is how does one live the Gospel while still in the world?

Having come from an Evangelical and later an Atheist background all I know about ‘Christianity’ is that when you become a Christian your job is then to preach the Gospel.  This has never sat well with me because the more I study the more I realize that I know nothing.  So who am I to go out and share the Gospel when I am so weak and foolish?

I get confused because I like to read Philosophy and the Church Fathers. When I do this I feel like my mind is being pulled a thousand different directions. The one constant that I always come back to is that humanity is desperately hopeless without Jesus Christ.  The struggle I have is that I don’t know how to go about living. For example, If Jesus Christ is all that matters what am I doing just going about my life and struggling for the things of this world i.e. career, house, car, and so forth?

I feel like my life is being lived in vain. I also feel like I have so much work that needs to be done on my soul. I am not disciplined, my prayer life is poor at best and I don’t think I really understand the power of the incarnate Christ, God who became Man.

Having read quite of bit of Philosophy I see the world as completely opposed to the Gospel.  It appears that Modern Life does all it can to distract the soul.  From endless mindless TV/Radio shows to a vast Internet that can satisfy temporarily all the earthly pleasures.  To even the realization that Modern Life is a tier-based system of pleasure.  Those at the top tier get all the pleasures of the world whenever they want. Those at the bottom also have access to pleasures but work for the ones at the top.  It seems like the world we live in is centered around the divinity of man and in complete contrast to Christianity.

That being said its easy to point fingers. Even if the world is so terribly upside down, so is my soul. My soul is what God has entrusted to me. So my question is: How do I live the Gospel knowing that the world is? And knowing also that my soul is also upside down? How do I act? What are my primary concerns in life?

Thank you for your consideration.

A Lost Modern Man

There are a number of issues here.  First of all let’s run through what we know and don’t know.

A Lost Modern Man lives in a certain American city.  We happen to know that that city is characterized by a banal materialism.  ALMM doesn’t say what his age is but he seems a relatively young although mature man.  He also doesn’t say what his education is, although he seems quite intelligent.  He doesn’t say what his professional and economic situation is but we infer that he has a job which lets him get by and even consider obtaining material goods such as a house and a car.

ALMM started off Evangelical—whether by a youthful conversion or by family upbringing he doesn’t say.  Evidently disillusioned he left that for Atheism.  Evidently finding that Atheism didn’t give him the answers, he has been studying Orthodoxy for about a year.  He has attended an Orthodox Church in his city for at least part of that period.  It’s not clear to us if he attended other churches, whether Orthodox or not, before coming to rest, at least for the moment, in the particular Orthodox Church he is now attending.  From what we gather he has not been received into the Orthodox Church, since we are sure he would have mentioned that.

Now the first issue that ALMM raises is how he should live the Gospel.

The next issue he raises is his reading Philosophy and the Fathers of the Church, which makes his thoughts ricochet around his mind like pinballs.

However, and this is the next issue, he realizes that the only answer is Jesus Christ.

The next issue is that he feels he is living his life in vain.

The next issue is that on the basis of his readings in philosophy, ALMM feels that the world is completely opposed to the Gospel.

Moreover, the next issue is that modern life does all it can to distract the soul with temporary pleasures.

The next issue is that there is a tier-based social structure to the system of distracting pleasures.

The next issue is that this system of distracting pleasures is founded on the divinity of man.

The bottom line is that the world is upside down, just like ALMM’s soul.  What should he do?

We have spelled the issues out in a formal schematic way because we think we have to address each of them.

Let us start with ALMM’s position at the Orthodox Church he is attending.  There seems a problem here.  ALMM has been attending the particular Orthodox Church he has for a while and still has very fundamental issues of alienation from the society he lives in.  It doesn’t sound like the particular Church he is now attending (we know NOTHING about it) has been able to respond to him pastorally.  It may be that ALMM should be looking around at other CANONICAL Orthodox Churches, perhaps in the vicinity, perhaps—if he is able to continue his career elsewhere—a little further afield.

There are a couple of points we would like to make here.  The particular city that ALMM is living in is a banal, materialistic American city.  At the best of times, it’s not going to be a particularly spiritual place to live although there might be a community of interesting and accepting canonical Orthodox somewhere close to where ALMM lives.  It might be that ALMM can and should move elsewhere, to where he can find a more congenial place to live.  Of course this is assuming that he doesn’t have obligations that keep him where he is.  However, we’re not sure that moving to Manhattan would solve ALMM’s problems.  People are interesting in Manhattan, yes—perhaps too interesting.

Next, ALMM really should be undergoing a course of instruction, preferably one-on-one, in Orthodoxy.  This is not an intellectual endeavour the way they teach courses on Orthodoxy in University, but a spiritual preparation for Baptism.  Here we wonder if the ‘pastoral team’ at ALMM’s current church is really able to respond to ALMM’s needs.

Here what ALMM should understand is that entering the Orthodox Church is a mystagogy: a spiritual passage that leads from one spiritual place (where we are) to another spiritual place (membership in the Church, being a member of the Body of Christ).

Moreover, we would emphasize to ALMM that the proper means of being received into the Orthodox Church is Baptism.  This is not fanaticism on our part.  We can see that ALMM is out of joint with the society around him.  What he needs is a transforming experience that puts him into joint with Christ.  The only sure transforming experience to do this is Orthodox Baptism.

Indeed, if it is necessary, when it is time to enter the Church, if ALMM’s current Orthodox Church will not accept to receive him by Baptism, he should move on to another CANONICAL jurisdiction that will.  This is not to say that he has to live the rest of his life in that new jurisdiction, but that he should be received into the Orthodox Church by a canonical baptism in a canonical jurisdiction.  We would caution ALMM to avoid non-canonical jurisdictions in and around his city; they will destroy him.

It is very difficult for someone with a strong Evangelical background to convert to Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy is a way of life, not an ideology.  And it is a completely different way of life from what someone would have lived among the Evangelicals.  We often encounter a situation where someone makes a physical conversion from Evangelical Christianity to Orthodoxy but persists in thinking like an Evangelical.  It is only Orthodox Baptism that has the power to change this.  Moreover, even with Baptism it can take years for the baptized person to slough off the Evangelical mind-set.

We would recommend that ALMM read our translation of the Gnostic Chapters of Diadochos of Photiki (look in the right margin at the topics).  St Diadochos spends much time discussing the actual results of Baptism on a person.  After a fashion, St Diadochos is analyzing the mystagogical path from where we are to where we should be.

Now how should ALMM live the Gospel?  When we are medical students, we learn; we do not heal, except perhaps under the direction of the Professor.  Moreover, when we are patients in the hospital we do not even learn; we merely follow the doctors’ instructions.  ALMM should be learning what the Orthodox Church teaches about God, Man and Society.  He should be learning, not teaching, and he should not feel obliged to proclaim the Gospel—except, if he wishes, to answer someone simply if they ask him what he believes.  But if the other party wishes to get into a debate, ALMM should simply say that he is learning and not in a position to debate issues.

Given the fact that reading Philosophy and the Fathers of the Church makes ALMM’s head spin, we would recommend that for the moment he stop reading Philosophy and restrict his readings in the Fathers of the Church to St John Chrysostom, in particular St John’s Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew.

This is not to close off ALMM from serious thought but to stop his mind from being a pinball machine.  We suspect that ALMM is cut out for the study of theology but now is not the time.  Later, after he has become a member of the Orthodox Church, he can turn to a more systematic study of Philosophy and Theology.

However, it is far too early for ALMM to begin such a formal academic study of Philosophy and Theology; it would only damage him.  What ALMM needs is to hook up with someone who can ground him in Christ in the Orthodox Church, someone who will guide him spiritually to baptism and the practice of membership in the Orthodox Church, also giving him a strong basic Orthodox intellectual formation.  That Orthodox intellectual formation will be necessary when ALMM turns to the systematic study of Philosophy and Theology, to give him an inner criterion to separate the wheat from the chaff.

For similar reasons, we would recommend that ALMM lay off coffee, tea and whatever other stimulating beverages he drinks (including too much beer), and turn to drinking herbal teas.  Again, this is to get ALMM’s mind to slow down.

ALMM should do exercise, but for reasons that would take too long to explain, should not practice the martial arts (assuming that he does).

ALMM should make an effort to be polite to people.

Some temporary pleasures are acceptable to the Orthodox Church.  ALMM should have some recreation that is not inimical to the Gospel.  We think he knows what that means.

Next, ALMM raises issues about the structure of society.  St John Chrysostom challenged the Empress Eudocia concerning a widow’s vineyard that the Empress coveted and seized.  He was exiled by the Empress.  He was force-marched to death, dying in the Caucasus.  Both in his Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew and in his own personal life, St John Chrysostom showed us the teaching of Christ concerning human society: what the Orthodox Church accepts as being legitimate structures of human society and what it condemns.

Concerning the issue as to whether the world is inimical to the Gospel, it will be important for ALMM, both as a thinker and as a person, to learn just what the Orthodox Church’s teaching is on the world.  Here we should point out that just as the Orthodox Church does not take the position that man is completely depraved by the sin of Adam, utterly incapable of doing good except through salvation by divine election—as the Calvinist strain of Evangelical Christianity teaches—so it is important for ALMM to learn that the Orthodox Church is more about transfiguring the world than condemning it utterly and irrevocably.  Here it might be useful for ALMM to read the Life of St. Seraphim of Sarov.

What is important for A Lost Modern Man to understand is that Orthodoxy is a way of life, a new way of seeing the world, a way of seeing the world that is transfigured by the grace of the Holy Spirit given in Baptism and Holy Communion, along with the other mysteries (sacraments) of the Church.  It behoves him to meet people who manifest that new life in their being and actions, and if he so chooses, to prepare himself to participate in that new life beginning with a canonical baptism.

May God bless him.

Fasting in the Orthodox Church

After our post on meat-eating in the Orthodox Church, we received a comment from ‘Melissa’:

Great post! I would like more information on the role of meat in the Orthodox Church. I know that abstaining from meat is a part of many fasts. Where does this come from historically?

This got us to thinking.  And we thought and thought.  Which is why this post is so delayed.  Those of our readers who are already celebrating the twelve days of Christmas will wonder; those who are still in Advent will understand.  However, just because we have thought about this post doesn’t mean it’s any good.

If one goes to Melissa’s profile page one finds links to a couple of blogs that Melissa runs.  It seems that Melissa follows a diet called ‘Paleo’.  This is new to us.  Briefly, without our having investigated it very much, ‘Paleo’ is a diet that orients its follower to eating the way the Palaeolithic natives ate in the region where the person lives.  Presumably, a person living on the Great Plains would eat much the same foods that a Plains Indian would have eaten before Cortez came.  This got us to thinking about discussing why the Orthodox fast, and how.

First of all, at the risk of irritating ‘Paleos’ with our ignorance of their diet, we want to make one remark.  It is all well and good within reason to eat the way a Plains Indian ate if you live on the Great Plains, but only if you live in the same conditions that the Plains Indian lived.  The energy consumption of a pre-Cortez Plains Indian in winter was completely different from the energy consumption of someone living in Indianapolis with central heating and an automobile.  (By ‘energy consumption’ we here mean the number of calories burned to keep alive, and the dietary source of those calories, not any issue with carbon footprints.)  Similarly, there was an adage on the tundra that you had to drink fresh reindeer blood to stay alive.  But who living in a centrally heated home in a town on the tundra would think that today the thing to do was to drink fresh reindeer blood?  What we are saying is that a ‘Paleo’ diet has to be adapted to the actual conditions of life today of the person who wishes to make use of the insights of the Palaeolithic natives of his region.

However, and now we are turning to the actual purpose of this post, we would like to discuss why the Orthodox fast, and how.  The origins of fasting in the Orthodox Church are to be found in the Old Testament.  There, fasting is a sign to God of, and also a means of, our repentance.  It is a sign to God of our repentance because it is a visible act that ‘God can see’ that I am sorry for what I did: I am denying myself because I am sorry.  That is why Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement, is a strict fast.  Even Jews who are otherwise unobservant might find themselves keeping that fast.  The key to understanding this is to see that what is refused in this sort of fasting is what we normally are entitled to: normally there is nothing wrong with eating the sheep in my flock.  Indeed, as Abraham demonstrated, it is good to slaughter the sheep in your flock to feed the stranger who has come to you.  However, by denying ourselves that to which we are entitled we are showing to God we are sorry.

Similarly, fasting was historically tied to sexual abstinence.  During a fast a man was not to touch a woman.  We imagine that this is still true among more Orthodox Jews.  This is also true in the Orthodox Church today.  It is also true in Islam, for example during Ramadan.

Fasting is a means of repentance because it takes us away from the flesh to the spiritual.  The flesh withers, as it were, but in our bodily weakness, our spirit is made more pure and more able to turn to God in prayer.  In this regard, one should consider the references to fasting in the New Testament.  Jesus is clear that while the Bridegroom is with them, the disciples cannot fast, but they will fast when the Bridegroom is taken from them.  Moreover, there is the case of the demon that the disciples could not cast out, which type the Lord said could only be cast out with fasting and prayer (following the textus receptus version of the passage).

So now we can understand the role of the great fast periods in the Church, particularly Great Lent.  It is a period of repentance in preparation for the joy of Easter.  Similarly with the 40-day Advent fast before Christmas.  Similarly with the 15-day strict fast before the Dormition of the Mother of God in August, and the milder fast that extends from the Monday after All Saints (the Sunday after Pentecost) to the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul.

Moreover, in the New Testament the Pharisee fasts twice a week.  The Orthodox Church has kept those two days of fasts—Wednesday and Friday.  Monks also fast on Mondays.

So we can see that the Holy Spirit has woven an intricate web of fasts that extend throughout the whole year.

Now how do the Orthodox fast?  This is a little difficult for us to explain theoretically but easy to explain practically.  Let us start with the practical issues.

There is a list of types of foods, as follows, from the richest foods to the poorest foods. :

1.      animal meats;

2.      dairy products (milk, cheese, eggs, butter, yogurt etc.);

3.      fish;

4.      wine and olive oil;

5.      cooked food;

6.      raw nuts, fruits and vegetables.

The principle is that if on a certain day you can eat an item on the list, you can eat all the items below it on the list but none of the items above it on the list.  If you can eat animal meat on a certain day, say Christmas, you can eat anything.  Hence the way 5 is to be interpreted is that it is food cooked over the fire without wine or oil or anything else above it on the list.  A thin vegetable soup.  But at least it’s cooked; if you’ve reached 6, you’re left with raw nuts, fruits and vegetables.

Now we have to define what an animal is for the purposes of the above list.  An animal is a land creature that has blood.  A goat is an animal.  A snail is not an animal.

Next, what is a fish?  A fish is a sea creature with blood in it.  A tuna is a fish.  An octopus or a clam is not a fish.

What happens to snails, clams and octopus?  They can be eaten on days that animal meats and fish are forbidden, for example during Lent.  However, they have to be prepared with things permitted for the day in question.  For example we do not eat meat or dairy products during Lent, so while we could eat clams, we wouldn’t be able to eat a New England clam chowder soup—it has milk, butter and pork in it.  However, we could, if we wanted to, eat a clam chowder soup on Easter.  Obviously these fast rules were not designed with Howard Johnson’s in view.

Now what we can’t tell you is why the list is structured the way it is.  First of all, it does seem to make intuitive sense: animal meat is more energizing than cheese or yoghurt, which is more energizing than fish (some people might dispute the second assertion).

The list also clearly derives from the experience of the Mediterranean Basin.  It indeed has much in common with what is known as the Mediterranean Diet.  If you follow the fast rules of the Orthodox Church, you will be eating a Mediterranean Diet.

Of course, this presents issues if you’re an Orthodox in Northern Alaska or Northern Russia.  In very different climates there is the matter of the climate itself.  Different climates have different demands in terms of the foods that a person needs.  Someone living in Egypt has different bodily demands than someone living in Siberia.  This is where ‘Paleo’ comes in again.  But while the climate plays a role for anyone living in a region, there is also an issue with how you’re living.  A reindeer herder in Lapland has different metabolic demands from the sedentary doctor living in a centrally-heated house in Lapland and driving a car to the reindeer herder’s tent.

There is also the matter of the foods which are locally available.  Olive oil is very important to the Orthodox fast regime, but olives do not grow above Romania because of the climate.  Compared to the Greek, the Russian or the Finn is going to eat more animal fat than he is going to eat vegetable oil.  But part of the problem with urbanization is that people in the city continue to eat just as their parents ate on the farm before mechanization.  Then they die early.

Moreover, the Orthodox fast regime is an issue even in the Far East, since dairy products are an important component of the Orthodox fast rules and many Far Easterners have a genetically-based intolerance to milk products.

We are not promoting one or another solution to these issues; we are merely pointing out that the issues exist.

Now how do we know what we can eat when?  This is a matter of the liturgical typikon of the Orthodox Church.  The liturgical typikon is a calendar of all the days in the year and the feasts that fall on each day, including movable feasts such as Easter.  For each day the liturgical typikon prescribes what on the list can be eaten and what can’t.  Now the liturgical typikon is very complex, being about 1000 pages long, and has to deal with such issues as ‘What happens if Good Friday falls on March 25, the Feast of the Annunciation?’  This can happen.  It has to analyze what services are performed and what can be eaten.

Now let us turn to a very basic issue.  As we pointed out, the Holy Spirit has woven a very complex web of fast rules for the Orthodox, which fast rules were, we said, designed to help the member of the Orthodox Church repent and turn to God.  But there is nothing really in the theology of the Orthodox fast that discusses the health of the faster.  In other words, fasting in the Orthodox Church is not a matter of adherence to a program of bodily health or psychological well-being based on the foods we eat.  We do not fast in the Orthodox Church to feel good, to reduce our blood pressure or to overcome genetically-based health issues.  We fast to turn to God.

Well, then what about the health issues?  The Orthodox Church respects medicine, so if a medical doctor were to tell someone to stop eating animal fats because of his high blood pressure, the Church would accept that.  But the medical judgement is not the business of the priest.  The priest is telling you how to get to God, not how to lower your blood pressure.

Now, the confusion starts with dietary regimes that are philosophically based.  In ancient times, for example, the Epicureans recommended eating bread and cheese as a healthy balanced diet conducive to the state of mind that Epicureanism wished to promote in its adherents (a sort of equanimity).  The Stoics had another diet that derived from their own philosophy.  Today, there is a diet called ‘Macrobiotic’ that derives from certain Japanese philosophical principles; that diet too is what we might call a spiritual path.  Similarly for the dietary aspects of hatha yoga.  These are really philosophical systems that use diet to achieve certain philosophical goals for the adherent of the philosophical system.

So the first problem is with diets related to philosophical systems that ultimately have a completely different world-view from the Orthodox Church, making quite different claims about Man and God.

The confusion increases when the philosophical system makes scientific claims.  While it is not a diet, acupuncture comes to mind.  It seems to be empirically demonstrable that you can stop pain with acupuncture.  Western science accepts that but no one knows how it works.  The philosophical explanations given in Chinese medicine bear no real connection to Western physiology.  So is acupuncture a scientific medical treatment?  Is it an Eastern philosophical tradition in competition with Orthodoxy?  We are not proposing an answer, but there is room for serious confusion.

There are diets, for example the Macrobiotic, and perhaps even the ‘Paleo’, that occupy a similar grey area between science and philosophical system.  In such diets it is not merely that there is a philosophical system connected to the diet, but that there are also scientific claims made about the results of following the diet.  These claims might or might not make sense in the context of Western Science.  Here the Orthodox, or even the practitioners of the diet looking at Orthodoxy, have to be clear in themselves just what it is they understand to be the teaching of the Orthodox Church and whether that would be in conflict with any aspect of the diet taken as a philosophical system.  That is not to say that you should kill yourself eating things that destroy your body.  It is to say that there might be a conflict between the theology of the Orthodox Church and the philosophical principles of the diet in question.

For those of our readers who are awaiting Christmas, we wish you all a blessed and holy Christmas and Theophany.  For those who are already celebrating the Twelve Days of Christmas, may God bless you.

­–Orthodox Monk

Meat-Eating in the Orthodox Church

We have received a request for a post and we would like to respond. This turns out to be our Thanksgiving post. But the question is about the Orthodox attitude to meat-eating. We think the timing is coincidental. But here you have our 2010 Thanksgiving post, those of you who celebrate Thanksgiving today.

The request goes like this, (slightly edited, see the comment on our post New Look for the original text):

I would be interested in reading a post that addresses compassionate diet and its relation to Orthodoxy. To elaborate, over time I have become increasingly concerned with unnecessary animal suffering as a component of human dietary patterns. Of course, this concern presupposes:

that animals are capable of suffering; as may be evident from:

(1a) scientific evidence wherein we can observe biological prerequisites for pain;

(1b) psychological evidence wherein we can observe stress, pain avoidance patterns, etc;

(1c) human-commonality wherein God-image differentiated sentience does not seem to confer an entirely unique mode of suffering (i.e. when I suffer, there is a strong existential analogy to how animals suffer, and as such I should be able to empathize in a real way);

that there is a standard of necessity; ostensibly that:

(2a) necessary suffering either has some teleological good in view (i.e. if I choose to suffer breaking my attachment to meat as a way to reduce animal suffering) or it is unavoidable in the course of mitigating or preventing an even greater suffering;

(2b) pleasure (at least impassioned) is not a teleological good if it is acquired in a manner which causes suffering (sadism?). If the basis of this concern is well-founded, then it seems that there is a good warrant to examine one's own dietary practices.

In addition to the above, I wonder whether a diet which minimizes death and suffering is:

1. prophetic insofar that it points to an eschatological reality where death and suffering are no more (perhaps akin to how celibacy may be prophetic);

2. a way to be more consistently pro-life;

3. part of a compassionate Christianity which is not surpassed by Buddhism's regard for animal life;

4. consistent with a eremitic/monastic precedent (which would seem related to the prophetic aspect at least).

What has to be discussed is Orthodox anthropology in relation to animal suffering and in relation to Buddhist anthropology.

Let us state the obvious. Christianity arises out of the Old Testament and can only be understood in that framework. This is not to say that both the Lord and the Church did not look at the Old Testament in certain ways that are now normative. It is to say that ‘Salvation is from the Jews’, as Our Lord said; that he was a Jew according to the flesh; and that he followed the Mosaic Law.

The basic element of Orthodox anthropology that concerns us is the creation of Man, and the relation of Man to the animals. Man is different from the animals in that God himself fashioned Man from the dust of the earth and breathed into him a breath of life, later taking a rib from Adam from which to fashion Eve. In the case of the animals, God merely gave a command and they were created.

Man was created in the image and likeness of God. The animals were not. There is a disjunction between the nature of Man and the nature of animals.

This is different from Buddhism in that Buddhism treats all sentient beings (‘sentient’ means ‘having sensation’) as being the same sort of thing. In Buddhism there is a continuity between Man and the animals. Indeed Buddhism treats all animals as ‘mothers’ to Man because of the doctrine of reincarnation: all animals were once men and all men were once animals. So there is a very big difference between Orthodox Christian anthropology and Buddhist anthropology.

St Gregory of Nyssa addresses the creation of Man in a work called On the Making of Man. This work was written to finish his brother St Basil the Great’s own work On the Six Days of Creation, interrupted at the creation of Man by Basil’s death.

The interesting thing that St Gregory does in On the Making of Man is combine Aristotelian psychology with the Genesis creation narrative in a way which really seems to foresee the Theory of Evolution. In Aristotelian psychology, there are a number of souls—the plant, the animal and the human—which coexist in Man. We might look at these various souls as functionalities in man. The Vegetative functionality is mere cellular nutrition; the Animal functionality is the sentient experience of one’s environment; the Human functionality is the image of God in Man. Man as the union of body and soul has all these functionalities.

Moreover, according to St Gregory these different souls or functionalities were created by God in stages (the days of creation). The Vegetative soul or functionality was created when the Lord created the plants. The Animal soul or functionality was created when the Lord created the animals. So in On the Making of Man we have the outline of a theory of evolution which treats of the gradual development of vegetative and animal functionalities in the world; and when man is created and given human functionalities, it is on the foundation of these lesser vegetative and animal functionalities which already exist in Creation.

Now the issue that ‘Memory of Death’ is raising revolves around the nature of suffering. Is it merely something that Man has because he has the Human functionality (soul) of the Image of God, or is it something Man shares with the animals as part of his animal functionality?

Clearly, all animals, by definition sentient, can feel pain. No one ever suggested that only Man can feel pain. Moreover, we do not think that anyone would want to insist that animals cannot suffer.

However, in the Old Testament, despite the fact that they can suffer, animals are eaten and sacrificed to God. When Our Lord cleansed the Temple, he did not suggest that sacrificing animals to God was wrong; he was reacting to the avarice of the men buying and selling in the Temple. At no time did Our Lord ever say that we should not eat meat. While he himself is recorded in the Gospel of John only as eating fish (after his resurrection), he attended various meals during his ministry and meat would have been served at those meals. At no time is he recorded as objecting to the meat.

Moreover, Our Lord at no time taught that sacrificing animals was wrong. Indeed, he directed at least one person he healed to show himself to the priest and to make the prescribed sacrifice so as to demonstrate that he was now clean.

Our Lord’s mother and Joseph the Guardian offered the prescribed sacrifice of two young birds when Our Lord was presented in the Temple on the 40^th day after his birth.

Moreover, Our Lord, as a devout Jew, would have eaten the Passover lamb every year.  The Mosaic Law is clear that anyone who does not eat the Passover lamb is to be cut off from the Jewish people.  Clearly, if Jesus was not keeping the Passover, that would have been one of the charges against him in his trial.

(We are referring to the sacrifice of animals not in relation to Thanksgiving but to discuss Our Lord’s attitude to animals. Thanksgiving is a secular feast having its roots in Puritan culture in early America; it has nothing to do with Orthodoxy.)

In the New Testament, it is evident that some Christians (including, we believe, St James the Brother of the Lord) ate only vegetables. In the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem where St James was present, the Gentile converts to Christianity were exempted from the ritual provisions of the Mosaic law except that they were not to eat blood or animals that had been strangled (both things forbidden in the Mosaic law). Clearly, meat-eating was permitted.

In Acts St Peter was shown a vision of a sheet held up by its four corners that was full of all the animals of the earth and told to eat of all of them. He at first refused, saying that he had never eaten anything unclean, but God insisted. Hence, God explicitly allowed the eating not only of animals but of animals that Jews had previously considered unclean.

In his Epistles St Paul legislates that meat-eating is acceptable. He makes some points: we should not eat meat that we know is sacrificed to idols (although we can eat meat sold in the market without raising questions on the grounds of conscience if we do not know if the meat was sacrificed to an idol); we should not have disputes between those who eat only vegetables and those who eat meat: St Paul would rather not ever eat meat than cause scandal to a brother who eats only vegetables. Hence, St Paul has no problem with meat-eating but he also has no problem with people who are vegetarian. He thinks that the issues are elsewhere.

It should be clear from the above that there can be no dogmatic basis in Christianity for a ban on meat-eating.

Some points.

1. From the beginning, being vegetarian was acceptable—but as a personal choice, not as a dogmatic position.
2. Monks in the Orthodox Church do not normally eat meat. This derives from 4^th Century Egypt. We don’t really recall a long explanation of why. If there is a prophetic or eschatological element in this, it is not emphasized. Moreover, in cases of serious illness monks are served meat.
3. If an Orthodox Christian follows the fast rules of the Church, he will not eat that much meat. This is good from the point of view of the person’s health since a high-meat diet is dangerous from a medical point of view. The fast rules of the Church are based on the Mediterranean Diet, which is considered beneficial.

(The situation among the religious in the Roman Catholic Church is somewhat more ambiguous: the older orders with deeper roots in Egyptian monasticism do not ordinarily eat meat. The Cistercians come to mind. However newer orders which are not really monastic, such as the Jesuits, do eat meat.)

Now given that animals do suffer, should a Christian take this into account? We would imagine that a Christian would want to slaughter an animal with the least suffering simply on the basis of being a human being with a conscience. But we have never heard of the Bishops of the Church occupying themselves with slaughter-house practices.

It is true that industrial meat-raising—such as of pigs or chickens in sheds—is terrible from two points of view. First the animals are treated as commodities or machines, so they presumably suffer. Second, they are filled with all kinds of drugs and chemicals and whatever to get them ready as fast as possible for slaughter at a good price, and the food these animals are provided is an unnatural concoction. Apart from any issue of compassion for sentient beings, this makes the meat potentially dangerous for human consumption. But it is a long way to go from finding these practices distasteful to reaching a dogmatic position on meat-eating.

It should also be pointed out that although Buddhist anthropology makes the human nature continuous with the animal nature, Buddhist norms on meat-eating are by no means consistent across all forms of Buddhism. The Dalai Lama, for example eats meat, by all accounts with a good appetite. Only some schools of Mahayana Buddhism absolutely forbid the eating of meat. Hence, trying to accommodate Orthodox Christianity to Buddhist compassion for all sentient beings is to follow a will-o’-the-wisp.

Happy Thanksgiving to all our American readers!

–Orthodox Monk

New Look

We decided to use labels on the blog. That forced us to upgrade the template, and to a new design.  It’s not bad.  We’ve tried to bring the labels up to date.

The Gift of Tongues

We have received an email from a man in Brazil who wishes to learn how the Orthodox Church views the gift of tongues as practised among the Pentecostalists of the ‘Assemblies of God’.  The Assemblies of God is a classical Pentecostalist church that derives from the Azusa Street Revival of the early 20^th Century in Los Angeles.  This is the church that in Wasilla Sarah Palin grew up in and was re-baptized in (she has since changed churches without publicly renouncing any of her beliefs).  However, Palin’s particular Assemblies of God church in Wasilla evidently taught a doctrine that was condemned by the majority of other Assemblies of God churches in the late 1940’s.

We have already discussed Pentecostalism a number of times.  In our post called Pentecostalism and the Jesus Prayer, we made some remarks on the contrast between the operation of the charisms among Orthodox saints and among the Pentecostalists.  We received two comments, which we printed on the post, and exchanged emails with the persons making the comments.  In those comments a variety of issues were raised, to which we responded in another post called Ecclesiological Dimensions in the Pentecostalist Practice of the Jesus Prayer.  So this is a third time in recent history that we are addressing Pentecostalism and Orthodoxy.

Here is the man’s email.  Since he is clearly a non-native speaker of English, we have had to edit his text.  We have appended his original text as a footnote.  We have changed his name both in the text and in the footnote.  The name he gives in the text does not in any event agree with the name on his email address, so it is not even clear to us that the name he provides in his email is in fact the man’s real name.

Hello,

My name is Alphonso Luis Borges and I am a Pentecostal Christian, currently attending the church called the ‘Assemblies of God’ located in Brazil.

My question is about the ‘Gift of Tongues’.

The Pentecostal gift of tongues is the ability to speak languages and/or dialects.  These dialects may be known, unknown or so-called dialects of angels.

I grew up with and lived with this phenomenon for 30 years.  I recently met a friend who is Orthodox Christian and he told me the gift of tongues is not the ability to ‘speak new languages’.

From what he told me that I could understand, the gift of tongues happens silently in the heart of every Son of God and when this person has the gift of interpreting languages, he can then through the voice build up the Church (people) with prophecies, teachings and so on.

I would humbly ask that you explain to me what then is the ‘Gift of Tongues’ in the tradition of the Greek Orthodox Church.

Hugs.[1]

First of all, let us look at what Alphonso thinks his friend is telling him about the gift of tongues in the Orthodox Church.  Now we frankly are not clear what Alphonso means or what his Orthodox friend actually told him.  It appears to us that what was said by the Orthodox friend is that through assiduous practice, the Jesus Prayer becomes automatic, repeated in the heart.[2]  Then through further grace, the practitioner of the Jesus Prayer is given the gifts of the word and prophecy in order to edify the church.  This would be the condition of an Elder of the Orthodox Church.[3]  So what appears to us to be meant is the known progression by means of the Jesus Prayer, say among the Elders on Mt Athos, or at Optina in the 19^th Century, of the monk from beginner through to the condition of Elder.  Examples would be the Elders of Mt. Athos or Optina or, most notably, St Seraphim of Sarov.  It should be noted that a monk proceeding on this road normally has an Elder to guide him.

If this is what Alphonso’s Orthodox friend means, we have no problem with any of it.  This is a well-known progression.  The only caveat that we have is that not everyone on Mt Athos is an Elder, and not everyone at Optina was an Elder or Staretz (Russian for Elder), and not everyone at Sarov was a Saint.

Next, we emphasized the historical background of the origin of the Assemblies of God about 100 years ago to emphasize the difference between such a new and young church and the Orthodox Church.

Next, we have to look at how the Orthodox Church looks at the spiritual life, the charisms and in particular the Holy Spirit.  We have discussed much of this in other posts, but we think it important to repeat all of this material in one place for Alphonso.

The Orthodox Church teaches us that we receive the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Baptism.  This Baptism cleanses the nous or innermost soul of the person from the Devil and from all demons and demonic influences.  Baptism then grants the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the innermost soul of the person.  This indwelling of the Holy Spirit is lost only in cases of denial of Christ—if we join another religion for example.  In the Orthodox Church, Chrismation—anointing with specially blessed oil—corresponds to the laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Spirit that the Apostles did after they baptized converts.  In the Orthodox Church Chrismation occurs right after Baptism, at the same time.  Since the person has in Baptism received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, this laying on of hands or Chrismation is for the reception of the Holy Spirit in the way the Apostles received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost and through the laying on of hands subsequently transmitted it to others who were baptized; it is for the reception of the power and charisms of the Holy Spirit.

Even if after your Orthodox Baptism you commit murder, you do not lose the Holy Spirit—you are in bad shape but you are still Orthodox and can still repent and still go to confession and still ultimately receive communion and be saved.  But if you deny Christ, say by becoming a Buddhist—even without doing anything bad like killing someone—you have lost the Holy Spirit.  You are no longer Christian.  You cannot merely go to confession.  What happens in these cases, and only in these cases, is that the person is received back into the Church through a second Chrismation.  Normally he or she is not allowed to receive communion until he or she is on his or her death bed.

Since the Orthodox Church practises infant baptism and Orthodox receive the Holy Spirit in Baptism, all Orthodox have the Holy Spirit.  But clearly not all Orthodox are Elders.  There’s more to it.

Now it has to be understood that the interpretation of the laying on of hands for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as implying the ability to speak in tongues in the way Pentecostalists speak in tongues today derives from Protestant experiences in 19^th Century England, Wales and the United States.  There was no such doctrine or practice before that.  There are certainly episodes of speaking in tongues in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles of Paul, but it is not obvious that the same thing is being referred to.

Let us look at Acts.  On the day of Pentecost, Scripture records that the Apostles were praising God and that the Jews who came at the sound of the mighty wind heard the Apostles praising God each in his own language, which were all the languages under Heaven because the Jews had come from everywhere.  Elder Porphyrios (1906 – 1991) interprets this to mean that although the Apostles were speaking in Hebrew, through the Grace of the Holy Spirit each of their listeners heard them in his own language.  Peter speaks Hebrew; Solomon from Persia hears him in Persian; Barnabas from Cyprus hears him in Greek.

In the Orthodox Church, it is recorded that St Ephraim the Syrian visited St Basil the Great (4th Century) and the two communicated by this means: each spoke his own language and the other understood.

In the actual life of Elder Porphyrios, it is recorded that an atheist French woman visited him in Greece and the two communicated in this way: Elder Porphyrios spoke Greek; the woman spoke French; and the two understood each other.  The French woman was later received into the Orthodox Church.  She is, as far as we know, still alive.  This event would have occurred within the last 50 years.

Now in the Epistles of Paul it is recorded that a person might speak a new or even angelic language.  However, the question arises, did a Church service that St Paul attended sound like an Assemblies of God service today?  We really do not have any way to know.  There is simply not enough information for us to judge.

However, there is no recorded case that we are aware of that following voluntary Orthodox Baptism and Chrismation of an adult, that person spoke in tongues in the way people who have been ‘baptized in the Spirit’ do in the Assemblies of God or any other Pentecostalist or charismatic church or group.  It just doesn’t happen in the Orthodox Church.  Moreover, practice on Mt Athos, that beacon of discernment, is to receive members of the Orthodox Church who convert to Pentecostalism with rebaptism by the Pentecostalists and who then return to the Orthodox Church—to receive them back into the Orthodox Church by Chrismation after certain other prayers.

Hence, it is quite clear that there is no tradition in the Orthodox Church of speaking in tongues in the way that it is done in the Assemblies of God.

Now the question arises of charisms in the Orthodox Church.  Here there are two points to make.  St John Chrysostom (died 5^th Century) discusses the question of the cessation of the charisms.  We do not recall exactly what his answer was; our point is that the growing rarity of the charisms was already an issue then.

In the Orthodox Church, great Elders and great Saints do exercise the charisms of the Holy Spirit.  Great miracle workers and healers and prophets who come to mind are St Seraphim of Sarov (died early 19th Century), St John Kronstadt (died early 20^th Century), Elder Paisios (1924 – 1994) and Elder Porphyrios (1906 – 1991).  There are many others.  However, what characterizes all these great healers and miracle workers and prophets in the Orthodox Church is that before they either received the charisms or publicly exercised them they went through the preparation of a long and arduous asceticism so that they might be spiritually cleansed from their tendencies to sin.  Such Elders and Saints are characterized by great personal holiness.  Such Elders and Saints are also characterized by their rareness.

This is different from Pentecostalist circles where the charisms are acquired quickly (sometimes it seems that all it takes is to go to a revival).  The charisms are also quite common (how many persons are claiming to be Apostles and Prophets today?).  These charisms are exercised quickly after their reception (no preparation for a public ministry). These charisms are often exercised by persons who might not only lack distinction for their holiness but might even be involved in serious sin.  There’s nothing odder than a great miracle worker who gets a divorce on account of his adultery.

What Alphonso has to understand is that Orthodoxy is a completely different road from the Assemblies of God.

---

[1] Hello

My name is Alphonso Luis Borges and I am a Pentecostal Christian, currently has attended the church called the Assemblies of God located in Brazil.

My question is about the "Gift of Tongues."

In designing the Pentecostal gift of tongues is the ability to speak languages and / or dialects known (these dialects may be known, unknown or so-called dialects of angels).

I grew up and lived for 30 years this phenomenon has recently met a friend who is Orthodox Christian, and he told me the gift of tongues is not the ability to "speak new languages."

From what he told me and I could understand, the gift of tongues happens silently in the heart of every Son of God and when this person has the gift of interpreting languages, can then through the voice  build up the Church (people) with prophecies, teachings and so on .

I would humbly that you explain to me what then is the "Gift of Tongues" in the tradition of the Greek Orthodox Church.

Hugs.

[2] The reader can find much material in the early posts on the Jesus Prayer.

[3] An Elder is a senior monk in the Orthodox Church, one distinguished by his gifts of clairvoyance and prophecy.  We have various posts on the blog that discuss Elders.