Faith: The Place of Mystery

I've been reading Brene brown's book "The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who you Think You're Supposed to be and Embrace who you Are".  Dr. Brown is a social worker and is a research professor at the University of Houston. This book focuses on vulnerability, courage, worthiness, and shame, shared ten guideposts on the power of wholehearted living-a way of engaging with the world from a place of worthiness. I recommend this book to any who's felt down at any point in life. This passage on faith touched me and I hope you enjoy it as I did.
__________________________________________________________

I've come to realize that faith and reason are not natural enemies. It's our human need for certainty and our need to "be right" that have pitted faith and reason against each other in an almost reckless way. We force ourselves to choose and defend one way of knowing the world at the expense of the other.

I understand that faith and reason can clash and create uncomfortable tensions-those tensions play out in my life, and I can feel them in my bones. But this work has forced me to see that it's our fear of the unknown and our fear of being wrong that create most of our conflict and anxiety. We need both faith and reason to make meaning in an uncertain world.

I can't tell you how many time I've heard the terms having faith and my faith in my interviews with men and women who are living the wholehearted journey. At first I thought that faith meant "there's a reason for everything". I personally struggled with that because I'm not comfortable with using God or faith or spirituality to explain tragedy. It actually feels like substituting certainty for faith when people say, "There's a reason for everything".

But I quickly learned from the interviews that faith meant something else to these people. Here's how I define faith based on the research interviews:

Faith is a place of mystery, where we find the courage to believe in what we cannot see and the strength to let go of our fear of uncertainty. 

I also learned that it's not always the scientists who struggle with faith and the religious who fully embrace uncertainty. Many forms of fundamentalism and extremism are about choosing certainty over faith. 

I love this from theologian Richard Rohr: "My scientist friends have come up with the things like 'principles of uncertainty' and dark holes. They're willing to live inside imagined hypotheses and theories. But many religious folks insist on answers that are always true. We love closure, resolution and clarity, while thinking that we are people of 'faith'! How strange that the very word 'faith' has come to means its exact opposite". 

Faith is essential when we decide to live and love with our whole hearts in a world where most of us want assurances before we risk being vulnerable and getting hurt. To say, "I'm going to engage wholeheartedly in my life" requires believing without seeing. 

Brene Brown, The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who you Think You're Supposed to be and Embrace who you Are. Pages 90-91.  

Beauty Will Save the World-Part 2

Firstly, we must respect all human life (those who are rich and those who are poor) because just like the rich build our society the poor teach our society. Secondly, the quote points to a central theme within humanity; the struggle and tension between physical and spiritual beauty in the midst of suffering. In the midst of trial and suffering how can one see beauty clearly? Beauty is a path leading to the truth but the modern world is disfigured and trapped in darkness. How can we overcome this train of thought? Authentic beauty unlocks the desire of the heart, the craving to know, to love, to unite with others and to reach beyond our capabilities. If we acknowledge that beauty touches us closely, that it sores us, that it has the ability to open our eyes, then we rediscover the joy of seeing and most importantly to grasp the profound meaning of our existence. This is portrayed in the life of the idiot. The saving power of beauty could not overcome his sickness, but nonetheless illumined his vision, “What matter though it be only disease, an abnormal tension of the brain, if when I recall and analyze the moment, it seems to have been one of harmony and beauty in the highest degree-an instant of deepest sensation, overflowing with unbound joy and rapture, ecstatic devotion, and completest life?” In the midst of his suffering, he saw, in a paradoxical manner, the heart of reality.  

The fight for beauty is a battle of the soul and is linked to the crisis of faith. Dostoevsky indicated this tension in his epic, The Brothers Karamazov, “The awful thing is that beauty is mysterious as well as terrible. God and the devil are fighting there and the battlefield is the heart of man”. What looks beautiful might not be beautiful, and what seems terrible, such as a dead body, may show true beauty. Dostoevsky manifests this tension by placing the idiot in the midst of his suffering and insanity to speak the line, “Beauty will save the world”. Beauty is understood only in paradox. How can we see beauty in that which is good? We won’t appreciate beauty if we see it in good actions. However, when we encounter suffering or maybe death, it is at those moments that we begin to appreciate and clearly see beauty. As an individual dies we remember all the good moments and events he or she enjoyed when they were alive. Beauty that begins to develop from the deepest and darkest point of the heart is the starting point of authentic beauty. 

For good or bad, beauty has power. This power is not found in materialism and secularism but rather it is a power that illumines the path toward truth and goodness. If beauty does not point toward the truth and the good, it becomes divorced from our beings. It becomes a darkness, which makes human beings turn on each other. The Idiot demonstrates this when he said, “Such beauty is real power…with such beauty as that one might overthrow the world”. This beauty can be found in every simple act done with our fellow human. From eating a meal to talking to the stranger on the bus, beauty has the power to save humanity from utter destruction. When beauty sheds its light in the right direction, it saves the world, not overthrow it. It is in suffering that we find joy. The realism of suffering is scandalous (Christ on the cross), but suffering represents itself as an opportunity (Christ rose from the dead). We must learn to work with each other to overcome the darkness imposed by the deceptive beauty the world throws our way (materialism etc). In contemplating the suffering of Christ, in particular, we see a beauty which starts with Christ taking on our fallen nature and overcame the darkness. Christ suffering leads to the resurrection, a resurrection not done as a selfish act but rather as a redemptive one. This explains why the icon of the resurrection is always showing Christ rising from the dead holding in his hands Adam and Eve. It is a challenging beauty, but a powerful one-with power to transform our own suffering and lack of beauty. It is a beauty that scares us and makes us vulnerable and ultimately is the same beauty that will save the world.

Dostoevsky was a Christian philosopher, and a person who contemplated the mystery of man. Even as a religious individual he allowed himself to grow as a free-thinker and a powerful artist. Being a religious man, a free-thinker and an artist were not differentiated in him and did not exclude one another, but penetrated all his thoughts and works. In his beliefs, he never separated truth from good and beauty. In his artistic creativity he never placed beauty apart from good and the truth. I agree with how Dostoevsky intertwined these three topics because these three lived only in unity with each other. If we separate the good, truth and beauty, they all become an indistinct feeling, a powerless surge; truth becomes empty words; beauty and good become nothing more than a mere idol. These three, understood in unity, form one absolute idea. The human body, having been revealed and become God, fitting into itself all aspects of Christ-becomes the greatest good, the highest truth, and perfect beauty. If Christ is understood as the perfect human, the one who personifies all that is good, beautiful and true, then we are called to live and to be held in the same standard as Christ. Truth is good, perceived by the human mind; beauty is the same good and the same truth expressed in living form. The full expression, the end, the ultimate goal, and being united to God-already exist's in everything. This is why Dostoevsky said that beauty will save the world. The world and life comes in full circle to its creator. If beauty saves the world then all that is beautiful and good is expressed in truth through humanity.  

I love, Therefore I Am

The following is an article I stumbled upon from 2009 written by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. Metropolitan Kallistos is a bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Great Britain. From 1966 until 2001, he lectured in Eastern Orthodox Studies at the University of Oxford. In 2007, the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate elevated Bishop Kallistos to Titular Metropolitan of Diokleia. He is a member of the advisory board of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship. His books include The Orthodox Church, The Orthodox Way and The Inner Kingdom. This text (first published in Again magazine) is adapted from a lecture he gave in August 1998 at the Eagle River Institute of Orthodox Christian Studies in Alaska.
______________________________________

Most of the time we think we know who we are. But do we, in fact, know in the full and profound sense who we are?

One text that is very important for the Orthodox understanding of the human person is Psalm 64:6 [LXX 63:7]: “The heart is deep.” That means the human person is a profound mystery. There are depths or if you would like, heights within myself of which I have very little understanding.

Who am I? The answer is not at all obvious. My personhood as a human being ranges widely over space and time. And indeed it reaches out beyond space into infinity, and beyond time into eternity. Our human personhood is created, but it transcends the created order. I am called to be a “partaker of the divine nature,” as Peter said in his second letter. I am called to share, that is to say, in the uncreated energies of the living God. Our human vocation is theosis deification, divinization. As St. Basil the Great says, “The human being is a creature that is called to become God.”

I am reminded of the story of the Fall at the beginning of Genesis, of the promise of the serpent, who says to Eve, “You shall be as God.” The irony behind that story is that this was exactly the divine intention. The humans were indeed called to divine life. But the Fall consisted in the fact that Adam and Eve grasped with self-will that which God, in His own time and way, would have conferred upon them as a gift.

The limits of our personhood are very wide-ranging indeed. We should adopt a dynamic view of what it is to be a person. We shouldn’t think that our personhood is something fixed. To be a person is to grow. To be on a journey. And this journey is a journey that has no limits, that stretches out forever, that goes on even in heaven. Some people have an idea of heaven as a place where you do nothing in particular. But surely that is deceptive. Surely heaven means that we continue to advance by God’s mercy from glory to glory. Heaven is an end without end.

St. Irenaeus remarks, “Even in the age to come God will always have new things to teach us, and we shall always have new things to learn.” Even in heaven, we shall never be in a position to say to God, “You are repeating Yourself. We have heard it all before.” On the contrary, heaven means continuing wonder and unending discovery. To quote J.R.R. Tolkien in The Fellowship of the Ring, “The Road goes ever on and on.”

Now there is a specific reason for this mysterious and indefinable character of human personhood. And this reason is given to us by St. Gregory of Nyssa, writing in the fourth century. “God,” says he, “is a mystery beyond all understanding.” We humans are formed in God’s image. The image should reproduce the characteristics of the archetype, of the original. So if God is beyond understanding, then the human person formed in God’s image is likewise beyond understanding. Precisely because God is a mystery, I too am a mystery.

Now in mentioning the image, we’ve come to the most important factor in our humanness. Who am I? As a human person, I am formed in the image of God. That is the most significant and basic fact about my personhood. We are God’s living icons. Each of us is a created expression of God’s infinite and uncreated self-expression. So this means it is impossible to understand the human person apart from God. Humans cut off from God are no longer authentically human. They are subhuman.

If we lose our sense of the divine, we lose equally our sense of the human. And that we can see very clearly from the story, for example, of Soviet communism in the 70 years which followed the revolution of 1917. Soviet communism sought to establish a society where the existence of God would be denied and the worship of God would be suppressed and eliminated. At the same time, Soviet communism showed an appalling disregard for the dignity of the human person.

Those two things go together. Whoever affirms the human also affirms God. Whoever denies God also denies the human person. The human being cannot be properly understood except with reference to the divine. The human being is not autonomous, not self-contained. I do not contain my meaning within myself. As a person in God’s image, I point always beyond myself to the divine realm.

I remember a visit in my student years in Oxford from Archimandrite Sophrony, the disciple of St. Silouan of Mt. Athos. He gave a talk on Orthodoxy, and there was a discussion afterwards. Towards the end, the chairman said, “We have time for just one more question.” Somebody got up at the back of the audience and said, “Fr. Sophrony, please tell us what is God?”

Fr. Sophrony answered very briefly, “You tell me what is man?” God and the human person are two mysteries that are interconnected, and neither can be understood apart from the other. “In the image of God” means there’s a vertical reference in our personhood. We can only be understood in terms of our link with the divine.

But then, let’s think of another point. “In the image of God” means in the image of the Trinity. As St. Gregory the Theologian says, “When I say God, I mean Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” That is what as Christians we mean by God. We don’t understand God as a series of abstractions. We understand God as three Persons. And that we see very clearly from the Creed. We begin in the Creed by saying, “I believe in One God.” And then we don’t continue by saying, “Who is an uncaused cause, who is primordial reality, who is the ground of being.” This is the way many modern theologians speak. But in the Creed we say, “I believe in One God … the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” We continue, that is to say, in specific personal terms.

God for us is Trinity. And if we’re in the image of God we’re in the image of the Triune God. What does that mean for our understanding of our personhood? Let’s think first of the Trinity, and then of ourselves.

“God is love” declares St. John in his first letter, and goes on to say, “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear.” In true love there is no exclusiveness, no jealousy. True love is open, not closed. God is love. There is no fear in love. And so God is not the love of one. God is not love in the sense of being self-love, turned in upon itself. God is not a closed unit. God is not a unit, but a union. God is love in the sense of shared love, the mutual love of three Persons in one.

When the Cappadocian Fathers in the fourth century are describing God, one of their key words is koinonia, meaning fellowship, communion, or relationship. As St. Basil says in his work on the Holy Spirit, “The union of the Godhead lies in the koinonia, the interrelationship, of the Persons.” So this then is what the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is saying: God is shared love, not self-love. God is openness, exchange, solidarity, self-giving.

Now, we are to apply all this to human persons made in the image of God. “God is love,” says St. John. And that great English prophet of the eighteenth century, William Blake, says, “Man is love.” God is love, not self-love but mutual love, and the same is true then of the human person. God is koinonia, relationship, communion.

So also is the human person in the Trinitarian image. God is openness, exchange, solidarity, self-giving. The same is true of the human person when living in a Trinitarian mode according to the divine image.

There’s a very helpful book by a British philosopher, John Macmurray, entitled Persons in Relationship, published in 1961. Macmurray insists that relationship is constitutive of personhood. He argues that there is no true person unless there are at least two persons communicating with each other. In other words, I need you in order to be myself. All this is true because God is Trinity.

From this it follows that the characteristic human word is not “I” but “we”. If we are all the time saying, “I, I, I,” then we are not realizing our true personhood. That’s expressed in the poem of Walter de la Mare, “Napoleon”:

What is the world, O soldiers?

It is I:

I, this incessant snow,

This northern sky;

Soldiers, this solitude

Through which we go

Is I.

Whether the historical Napoleon was actually like that or not, de la Mare’s point is surely valid. Self-centeredness is in the end coldness, isolation. It is a desert. It’s no coincidence that in the Lord’s Prayer, the model of prayer that God has given us, and which teaches what we are to be, the word “us” comes five times, the word “our” three times, the word “we” once. But nowhere in the Lord’s Prayer do we find the words “me” or “mine” or “I”.

In the beginning of the era of modern philosophy in the early seventeenth century, the philosopher Descartes put forward his famous dictum, “Cogito ergo sum”  “I think therefore I am.” And following that model, a great deal of discussion of human personhood since then has centered round the notion of self-awareness, self-consciousness. But the difficulty of that model is that it doesn’t bring in the element of relationship. So instead of saying “Cogito ergo sum, ought we not as Christians who believe in the Trinity say, “Amo ergo sum I love therefore I am”? And still more, ought we not to say, “Amor ergo sum”  “I am loved therefore I am”?

One modern poem that I love particularly, by the English poet Kathleen Raine, has exactly as its title “Amo Ergo Sum.” Let me quote some words from it:

Because I love

The sun pours out its rays of living gold

Pours out its gold and silver on the sea.

Because I love

The ferns grow green, and green the grass, and green

The transparent sunlit trees.

Because I love

All night the river flows into my sleep,

Ten thousand living things are sleeping in my arms,

And sleeping wake, and flowing are at rest.

This is the key to personhood according to the Trinitarian image. Not isolated self-awareness, but relationship in mutual love. In the words of the great Romanian theologian Fr. Dumitru Staniloae, “In so far as I am not loved, I am unintelligible to myself.”

If, then, we think of the divine image, we should not only think of the vertical dimension of our being the image of God; we should also think of the Trinitarian implication, which means that the image has a horizontal dimension relationship with my fellow humans. Perhaps the best definition of the human animal is “a creature capable of mutual love after the image of God the Holy Trinity.” So here is the essence of our personhood: co-inherence; dwelling in others.

What is said by Christ in His prayer to the Father at the Last Supper is surely very significant for our understanding of personhood: “That they all may be one, as you, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us” (John 17:21). Exactly. The mutual love of the three Divine Persons is seen as the model for our human personhood. This is vital for our salvation. We are here on earth to reproduce within time the love that passes in eternity between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Great Divide: Secularism and the Church

Powerlessness has its own speech. Weakness has its own triumph. The world cannot be served from a place of power, but it can be served from the cross. On the cross the world stabs its own heart, but the cross is a school and to run away from it is to run away from the future. Fr. Bishoy Kamel

Fr. Alexander Schmemann prophetically wrote over 50 years ago (1964) that the liturgical crisis the Orthodox Church is facing is not liturgical renewal but the ideological crisis of secularism in the west being imposed on the church. This secularism Fr. Schmemann argues has destroy the beauty of the liturgy and has turned our church to a "Sunday Church". These words can still be used today. The church still finds itself stuck as a "Sunday church" not catering to the poor and needy (those deprived of Christ) but rather serves in how the best serve the church. Father Matthew the Poor summed up the work of the church as that who serves the poor when he said,

"The Church should never desire rule or ownership on earth. Woe to the church that possesses much! Woe to the church that has numerous investments stored away in the national and central banks, only to be eaten away by the moth! Woe to the church whose assets are large while her poor are hungry! Woe to the church which owns many acres and buildings but has no poor eating at her table! But blessed is the church which is satisfied with Christ the Word, and gives daily from her riches, that the people might claim ownership with her in heaven-possessions which cannot be buried, pass away, or perish". Taken from "Words for Our Time" Page 120.  

We should never think of the church as an institution among other institutions but rather as Fr. Schmemann puts it, the place in which the kingdom has been bestowed upon all of creation. The liturgy becomes this journey which leads into the dimension of the kingdom. It is not an escape from the world, rather it is the arrival at a vantage point from which we can see more deeply into the reality of the world. The liturgy is the manifestation of the kingdom on the earth. The issue with secularism is that it has divorced the "sacred" from the "profane". What has naturally occurred from this separation is a division between the "life in the world" and a "life in the church". This great divide has separated the church from its function to serve all nations. Nowadays, especially in the west, the church is perceived as an activity. The priest constantly asks people to do something for the Church. Their activism is measure in quantitative criteria: how many meetings, how much money, how much "doing". What is dangerous is not the activity itself, but the reduction of the Church, the identification of this activity with life in the church. The entire point of the church, the sacramental principle of its life, lies in taking us way from "activity", in making us commune with a new life, the Kingdom. The idea of the church, also demands that we wold bring into the world this experience of a new life in order to purify the world with the life and experience of the church. Sadly the opposite happens and we bring activism into the church, the fuss of the world, and fill the church with worldly cares. What happens is that the church ceases to produce life and it becomes a church of the world.    

We have to recover the meaning of what it means to live in the body of Christ. This notion that the sacrament is set our against, or existing outside the rest of life has taken hold amongst many of the church goers. This distinction between the sacred (sacraments) and profane (the world) has caused a great divide. With the coming of Christ and establishing the new life the scared and profane has been broken. All that we do and participate in has become an offering to God; a sacramental and a calling for the life of the world. We must begin to restore the imagine and likeness of God in who we are as human beings. By inquiring about the traditions, church fathers, scriptures and the church we will begin to restore this image and unite that which has been divided between the "sacred" and "profane". Fr. Schmemann summed up Christianity beautifully when he said,   

 "Religion is needed where there is a wall of separation between God and man. But Christ who is both God and man has broken down the wall between man and God. He has inaugurated a new life, not a new religion" (For the Life of the World 19-20). 

If we understand Christ establishing new life for us when we must understand Christ as our starting point in anything that we do in the church. Baptizing all nations begins with the person of Christ. We must turn our focus away from "activities" and "fundraisers" and turn our focus to Christ and his kingdom. If we cannot even feed the poor how then can we begin to feed ourselves who are constantly deprived of Christ? It is in the Eucharist that we find life. Once we come to the realization that all we do is Eucharistic (unites us to God) then we will realize that all of life, good and bad, unites us to that which has brought us life; Christ!

"And so the Eucharist is not simply a way of discharging our duty of thanks to god, although it is that as well. It is not merely one possible relationship to God. It is rather the only possible holding together-in one moment, in one act-of the whole truth about god and man. It is the sacrament of the world sinful and suffering, the sky darkened, the tortured Many dying: but it is also the sacrament of the change, His transfiguration, His rising, His kingdom. In one sense we look back, giving thanks for the simple goodness of God's original gift to us. In another sense we look forward, eschatologically, to the ultimate repair and transfiguration of that gift, to its last consummation in Christ". Fr. Alexander Schmemann

 The following are different sayings I came across that relate to this topic!

T.S Eliot, a Anglo-Catholic said in 1930: 

There is no good in making Christianity easy and pleasant; "Youth," or the better part of it, is more likely to come to a difficult religion than to an easy one. For some, the intellectual way of approach must be emphasized, there is need of a more intellectual laity. For them and for others, the way of discipline and asceticism must be emphasized; for even the humblest Christian layman can and must live what, in the modern world is comparatively an ascetic life. Discipline of the emotions is even rarer, and in the modern world still more difficult, than discipline of the mind...thought, study, mortification, sacrifice: it is such notions as these that should be impressed upon the young...you will never attract the young by making Christianity easy; but a good many can be attracted by finding it difficult: difficult both to the disorderly mind and to the unruly passions. 

Fr. Stephen Freeman in a recent blog entry entitled Grace and Psychology of God said:

In our modern culture, Christian belief has become divorced from Christian Church (this was an intended outcome of the Reformation). Thus people, self-identified as individuals, struggle to have a "relationship" with God in a manner that is analogous to their "relationship" with other individuals. The nature of these "contractual" events is largely perceived as psychological. How we feel about one another and what we think about one another is seen to be the basis of how we treat one another. And so in our cultural "social contract" we seek to control, even to legislate how we feel about one another. We imagine that eliminating "hate" and "prejudice", "racism" and "sexism" will impact violence. But despite that unflagging efforts of modernity, violence not only continues but escalates. With God the "contract" is often extended or renamed a "covenant," an agreement between a human being and God that stipulates requirements and behaviors and outcomes. Grace, perceived as a divine emotion or attitude, is part of the contract. God's promised manner of performance. The result of this imaginary divine milieu has been the gradual decrease of the Church (or anything resembling it). The Church as sacrament and mystery has been replaced by the sentimentality of the individual. People attend Christian assemblies because they "like" them and they encourage them to "feel" good. Teaching is interpreted as learning to manage the "relationship" (contract, emotions, obligations) with God.    

Fr. Johnathan Tobias says: 

Real beliefs actually produce real religion, like church attendance, prayer and charity. But "religious opinions" have no power to produce any real religion. The mere fact that Americas "agree" with a survey statement reveals only an observation that Americas have a positive opinion on God's existence, with the strong likelihood that they might not want to do anything at all about that opinion. If religion is demoted to the level of opinion, or, more accurately, "consumer choice," then like any other choice it can always be easily replaced and switched out with something more convenient or entertaining. Maybe something more "personally fulfilling" will come along. This state of affairs is really contemporary stuff--religion is not only privatized now, it is also commoditized. Like everything else, religion is passed through a "values clarification" mental evaluation that judges whether or not it is "doing anything good" for the individual. Is it entertaining? Is it fulfilling? Are my kids happy in the youth group? As I attracted to the leader and the crowd? Do I feel better about myself?     

The Search for Truth-How Should Orthodox Christians relate to Philosophy Today?

The following is a blog entry written by Samuel Kaldas. Sam is Coptic youth currently study in Sydney Australia and if the title of the blog did not give it away his major is Philosophy. I have been in communication with Sam for over a year and our dialogues and close friendship have developed fruitful dialogues about many things ranging from church topics to philosophy topics to talks about Father Matthew the Poor or just nonsense talks about the most silliest things you can think off. Sam currently has begun a blog called This Great Mystery and he has build a team around him who constantly write and post on this blog. Thank you for sharing this Sam and if anyone else would like to write on the blog you can get a hold off me anytime! Thank you! Enjoy.
___________________________________

Philosophy is simpler than it sounds. Really. It’s so simple, in fact, that children tend to do very good philosophy with no formal training. For one, children tend to ask a lot why questions - to the point that it can become annoying. Even at university levels, philosophy never really becomes much more than a very formal, systematic and professional way of dealing with the kinds of questions that children ask: Why can’t I do that? Who am I exactly? Does my dog have feelings like I do? How do I know that you’re a real person and not just a robot?

To practically minded people, philosophy can look like a waste of time. It doesn’t have many practical applications: no philosopher will ever get to watch their work curing cancer or making cars faster. But the questions philosophers ask aren’t simply idle curiosities, with no relevance to the real world. On the contrary, it could be argued that philosophy has a greater influence on the real world than any branch of science or engineering. Why? Because philosophy attempts to answer the questions that give meaning to every other aspect of human life: What’s the point of life? What is a human being? Do we have free will? What is truth? What is right and wrong? Is there a God? A culture’s answers to those questions will tell you what kind of people they are; in a very real sense, philosophy is the measure of a society’s soul. Other disciplines can make things bigger, better and faster, but only philosophy is concerned with what we ought to do with our ever-growing power.

Clearly, philosophy is important. But let’s be frank: philosophy makes a lot of Copts nervous. If you’ve studied philosophy and mentioned that fact at church, you’ve no doubt heard things like, “I don’t know man, the last guy I knew who studied philosophy became an atheist,” or “Be careful, don’t get pulled in.” And to be fair, philosophy’s reputation as a ‘dangerous’ subject isn’t totally underserved. Philosophy is one of the only academic disciplines which demands that you put everything you believe on the line, including your beliefs about God, human purpose and meaning. No-one cares what engineers or doctors do on a Sunday or what they believe about right or wrong, so long as their religious beliefs don’t impact their work. In philosophy however, you’re required to justify all your beliefs, including and especially religious ones, and pit them against a host of other beliefs all vying for your attention. That has caught many a young Christian off-guard. It doesn’t help that although things vary from college to college, philosophy tutors and lecturers at secular universities can often be critical of religion.

So what are we to do? Does the hostile climate of contemporary philosophy mean that Christians ought to stay right away? As Orthodox Christians, we’re used to looking to the early church for guidance; and when it comes to the question of how Christians ought to relate to philosophy, the early church has some very interesting things to say indeed. One particularly helpful example, I think, is the story of St. Basil and St. Gregory - the authors of the two most frequently used Coptic liturgies. It’s a little known fact that these two saints became good friends long before either them were ordained, and that they first met at university. Not a Christian university, but the ‘secular’ (‘pagan’ might be more accurate) university of Athens, where they studied philosophy.

The intellectual climate at the Athenian university back then was no less hostile to Christianity than it is today.  In fact, it was hostile to pretty much everyone. If modern universities are ‘marketplaces of ideas’, the Athenian university in Basil’s time was the ‘battlefield of ideas’; the rivalries between professors and competing schools of thought were extremely heated, and frequently broke out into very real violence (Wenzel 2010). New students were particularly vulnerable: a pagan called Libanius was once welcomed to the university by being kept against his will in a small room until he agreed to attend only the lectures of his captors’ teacher. This kind of thing doesn’t seem to have been uncommon. Remembering his school days, St. Gregory would later say of the Athenian students: “They are just like men devoted to horses and exhibitions, as we see, at the horse-races; they leap, they shout, raise clouds of dust, they drive in their seats, they beat the air …” (Orat. 43, Ch. 15) The philosophy classes of Athens were hardly friendly places.

But that didn’t dissuade either saint from entering the fray. Many years later, at St. Basil’s funeral, St. Gregory praised his friend for having emerged from this clamour of conflicting opinions and deceitful rhetoricians as a humble but powerful Christian voice:

“… as to what he was to his masters, what he was to his classmates, equalling the former, surpassing the latter in every form of culture, what renown he won in a short time from all, both of the common people, and of the leaders of the state; by showing both a culture beyond his years, and a steadfastness of character beyond his culture. An orator among orators, even before the chair of the rhetoricians, a philosopher among philosophers, even before the doctrines of philosophers … So much deference was paid to him in every respect by all.” (Orat. 43, Ch. 13)

The intellectual and social world at Athens was deeply hostile to Christianity, and yet, with the help and guidance of Christian teachers (Ch. 21), the two young saints were not only able to keep their faith alive throughout their time there, they even strengthened it. Their peers may not have agreed with them, but they respected them as ‘philosophers among philosophers, even before the doctrines of philosophers.’

So why exactly would St. Gregory and St. Basil would persevere through such a hostile environment? Probably, they had realised for themselves something that St. Clement of Alexandria had argued centuries earlier. “Philosophy,” said St. Clement, “is characterized by investigation into truth and the nature of things (this is the truth of which the Lord Himself said, “I am the truth”).” Philosophy, ancient and modern, hostile or not, is always the search for truth. And for Christians, Christ is the truth, which makes philosophy nothing more than the search for Christ. St. Gregory described his friendship with St. Basil as growing chiefly because of their united commitment to philosophy: “… as time went on, we acknowledged our mutual affection, and that philosophy was our aim, we were all in all to one another, housemates, messmates, intimates, with one object in life, or an affection for each other ever growing warmer and stronger.” (Ch. 19) For these saints, as for many of the Church Fathers, philosophy was a fundamentally Christian activity; St. Clement even went so far as to say that philosophy was to the Greeks like the Law was to the Jews (Stromata 1.5). To the Christian, any search for truth can only lead to Christ.

There are many more examples of ancient Christian philosophers: from St. Justin the Martyr to Pope Peter of Alexandria, and even St. Paul the Apostle who debated with the philosophers in the Athens long before St. Basil and St. Gregory would arrive there three centuries later (Acts 17:15-34). And fortunately, there’s no shortage of contemporary Christian philosophers either; St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press just published a book (Turning East - see below) featuring interviews with sixteen Orthodox Christian philosophers, many of whom don’t teach at Christian universities.

None of this is to deny that philosophy can be extremely difficult, and even dangerous when done badly - it’s certainly not everyone’s cup of tea, and all students of philosophy, including the Christian ones, absolutely must be skeptical and discerning with their teachers and peers. But budding Orthodox philosophers need more than warnings and horror stories: they need teachers like St. Basil and St. Gregory who can enter the confusing din of conflicting voices and and emerge as humble and respected ‘philosophers among philosophers.’ What’s more, they need to be trusted to enter that din themselves, because even though He might be hard to hear amidst all the angry voices, Christ is in that din too.

+++++

Further reading/Bibliography:

“What is Philosophy?’’, Florida State University Website: <http://philosophy.fsu.edu/content/view/full/36588>.

St. Gregory’s Funeral Oration for St. Basil (Orat. 43), (esp. Ch. 11 and Ch’s 15-22) - <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310243.htm>.

St. Clement’s Stromata - Book 1, Ch’s 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 - <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02101.htm>.

Also: “Clement of Alexandria: The Original Christian Philosopher” by Mark Moussa - <http://www.coptic.net/articles/clementofalexandria.txt>.

St. Justin Martyr’s First Apology, Ch’s 2-3 <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm>.

St. Basil’s Address to the Youth on the Right Use of Pagan Literature, <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/basil_litterature01.htm>.

“Turning East: Contemporary Philosophers and the Ancient Christian Faith”, SVS Press - <http://www.svspress.com/turning-east-contemporary-philosophers-and-the-ancient-christian-faith/>.

Wenzel, A. (2010). “Libanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Ideal of Athens in Late Antiquity” in Journal of Late Antiquity. Vol. 3, Number 2, Fall 2010.

Matushka Juliana Schmemann on Mission

Fr. Alexander and his wife Matushka Juliana

A good friend shared this quote by Matushka Juliana Schmemann and it had me thinking about the paradigm of mission the church has been preaching to the people. Unfortunately mission has been based on a backlash, a misunderstanding of Christ and the Eucharist. Mission today has been reduced to a few fallacies based on the idea that we need to break away from "old archaic" ways of doing "certain actions" within the church. To give a few examples priests think that the liturgy must be done in English and the Arabic needs to be thrown out of the church (speaking about context of countries where the main language is English) and that we must incorporate worship songs into the service. Now I am not saying an all English liturgy is bad or worship songs need to be axed. On the other hand mission needs these tools in order to baptize all nations because if we are not using the language of the land as a tool for mission then all we have done is impose our own cultural heritage in country that does not share those heritages. Mission first and foremost as Matushka Juliana stresses is based on what we have to offer to people.

We must offer Christ to all. Christ is our starting point and our goal. Christ took on our humanity in order that we might share in his body. This is the paradigm the church needs to operate on. When translating this paradigm to mission it is no different. Mission begins and ends with the person of Christ. If Christ ceases to be our starting point then the church will become nothing more than mere activities done in light of social gatherings to cater to the needs of people. When theology is false Christianity is reduced to nothing more than mere activities. Mission is rooted in theology, a theology that is lived and expressed for the life of the world. Mission rooted in theology is a dynamic expression of what it means to be a Christian. Christianity being a way of life is a life lived for others. Mission is rooted in how we treat others through our offerings to them. (The first part of the liturgy is ironically known as the offertory). We offer ourselves because Christ showed us what it means to be a human through his incarnation. Our lives being rooted in the person of Christ has become a life offered to others. The first Orthodox missionaries who came through Alaska realized the importance of preaching the faith through the culture of the natives in Alaska and individuals such as St. Innocent and St. Herman understood this and were able to adapt the faith to the natives. Sadly today many Orthodox Churches have failed in this regard to missioning to all nations.

When you walk into a church today you will find the liturgy prayed in the language of the motherland (Arabic, Russian etc.) and the vernacular is not used. Worship songs are being incorporated into the service because we think this is what it means to be Christian. This however, is all rooted in the understanding that if we copy and paste protestant songs and continue using the old languages we will appease both the younger generations and the older generations. This however is not true. In fact the opposite is true in that many youths are leaving the church and the church fails in its missionary activity. The church, in order to be a place of mission must be rooted in the people who make the body of Christ. We must figure out how to talk to the people and the culture we are brought into (in my particular example-Canada). When we figure this out we must begin to incorporate this into our liturgy and language of mission. Simply coping and pasting does not solve the issue to the problem. We must be engaged in the culture in order to find beauty which is rooted in the person of Christ. Many have asked how does this look like? Are we to incorporate rap music in our hymns? Of course not (because this again is copying and pasting) however we must study carefully the culture and once we have come up with what it means "to be a Canadian" and how to express this in the liturgy it is only then that we can truly serve those around us through the context of mission. It is only then that the following words by Matushka Juliana will resonate throughout the life of the church.  
___________________________________________________________________

I never stopped trying to exercise my missionary efforts while teaching or talking to or counselling my students. I wasn't bent on having them join my church, but I was trying to be contagious and to instill in them a sense of faith, of trust, of beauty, and finally of joy. 

My idea always was, and still is, to try to discover what is missing in a person's vision of life, what venue to use in order to reach people on their own ground. Whenever I feel a void, I try to fill it with hope and higher expectations from real life; not career, nor knowledge, but the poetic sacred aspect of life, so often missing from people's lives.

I insist that it is our sacred duty as those blessed with such abundant blessings from our life: our faith, our church and its services, Pascha, the beauty of nature, faithful friends, etc., to share these blessings with any and all who come into our lives, who cross our path and who dwell, if even momentarily, in our line of vision...

...Every one of us, every day has a chance to proclaim one's faith and love in deeds and works, in compassion and love, in bringing peace and being truly grateful. 

This is mission. Give unto others what we have in abundance." 

+ Matushka Julianna Schmemann, "The Joy to Serve" (Montreal: Alexander Press, 2009) 78-80. 

Father Robert Barron's 7 Keys to the New Evangelization

Fr. Robert Barron spoke recently on Evangelization and how to be an effective missionary! This is by far the most refreshing talk I have heard on this topic given by Fr. Barron! His non-reductionist approach to beauty, goodness and Christ being our starting point to Evangelize the world is presented clearly and to all who are interested in missionary work within the church. I personally loved all 7 points as they touched upon aspects that the world needs however the first two really got to me! Two points I think we as Christians take for granted. 

Firstly, we forget that our faith is beautiful and it is to be held by all. We learn to love and out of this unconditional love we see the beauty that is present in all. By appreciating the beautifulness of creation and how God created everything good we learn to see Christ in all and by seeing Christ we use everything in the world as a tool to evangelize and bring beauty and genuine love to every human being.

Secondly, we must be honest with those who approach us or whom we approach when speaking about the faith. We cannot dumb anything down in order to "get more people to come to the church". This is a reductionist approach. We must be honest in presenting the faith and through our honesty people will see the good and appreciate it more. If we cannot be honest with the people around us how can we be honest when we partake of the Eucharist! Being honest means being ourselves. We are broken individuals working together in the body of Christ. When people see this and realize how beautiful it is when we are honest with them it is only then that Christ will take a hold of their hearts and transform it for the glory of His kingdom. 

I have attached on the bottom the talk that was given by Fr. Barron in Los Angeles California!        

1. Lead with the Beautiful

It's less threatening. We are a beautiful religion. Truth/Goodness make people defensive. You can come to learn to love from beauty. Start from the goodness of the faith, then move to the truth. Look at what Pope Francis is doing by leading with the beauty of a holy life, then leading people to the good and to the truth.

2. Don't dumb down the message

It doesn't help when we allow faith to become the most dumbed down subject in society. Evangelize by being clear, articulate, and smart-with the full arsenal of our tradition. A dumbed-down Catholicism will not serve.

3. Preach with Ardor

We need some fire! As Aristotle notes, in the end people only listen to a really excited speaker. Muster up some excitement for the Gospel! "I don't think the purpose of Vatican II was to modernize the Church. The purpose of Vatican II was to Christify the world. It's goal was to send us out light-bearers to the end of the world. Ardor comes from clarity about the Resurrection: the risen Jesus is the Good News! People don't die for myths, legends, and literary devices-they do it for a resurrected Jesus! We need to be clear about that.

4. Tell the Great Story

There is a temptation to present a "pure Christianity" without the Old Testament story. This means the story is an abstract version and Jesus is more of a "Gnostic guru". But there is something haywire in presenting Jesus without the Old Testament. He is an Israelite. If we forget Israel, we forget who we are. The fulfillment of the story of salvation needs to have the story told from the beginning. Jesus can't be understood without placing him within the history of Israel and the Messiah that all of Israel has always waited for. He is the new Adam, Moses, Abraham, David, etc. The new Eden is now established in the person of Jesus. If you de-Judaize Jesus, He becomes just another spiritual teacher. Evangelization is a subversive message that there is a new king in town!   

5. God does not need us...and He loves us anyways

Embrace Irenaeus' understanding that God is perfect and doesn't need us. What a great truth that is! "There is no greater humanism possible than Orthodox Christianity." God's love is perfectly selfless. He is not a rival to us nor wants to get something out of us. He wants us to be "fully alive". He's like the bush in Exodus 3 that is on fire, but not consumed-that's an image of God taking on human flesh. He never destroys us when He comes into us; he enhances us. Jesus is the burning bush.  

6. We are made for God

Everyone is wired to want a relationship with God. Everybody has a hungry heart, to quote Bruce Springsteen. We are all looking for God. We don't just want truths or goods-we want truth and goodness itself. To evangelize is to tap into that desire. We all sometimes run after false gods, but the church needs to be the new Elijah who publicly and vigorously challenges the priests of the false gods (wealth, pleasure, honor, power). Only in giving yourself away in love is meaning found. The church is meant to be a light to the world; we can't keep it to ourselves.

7. Use the New Media

Before using new media, Catholic evangelists must become very adept at old media, namely books. Immerse ourselves and others in the tradition of the Church. But then, yes, yes, yes to the new media. We would be horribly derelict if we didn't use the tools we have before us. We can't allow others to control the world of new media. Statistics show that the majority of those who become atheists do so through new media. We need to be present online. 

Beauty Will Save the World

This beautiful entry was taken from this blog and its based on the words written by the famous Russian author Dostoevsky! The entry was taken from the magazine "Jacob's Well", which is published by the diocese of New York and New Jersey who's spiritual father is Bishop Michael! I hope you all enjoy!

Beauty Will Save the World

By Nancy Forest-Flier From Jacob’s Well, Fall 1997/Winter 1998

Dostoevsky wrote, “Beauty will save the world.” I used to think of this as a romantic idea that we will be saved by the beautiful things around us that the world will be saved if it can be made more attractive. The idea seemed romantic, something expressed, by such sentiments as “there’s beauty in everything, if only we would stop and smell the flowers.” This suggests there is a gulf between the world and ourselves. We have to put on the right eyeglasses to see it properly. Today I realized that Dostoevsky meant is that beauty must be our principle of life-that beauty is not a perception, an influence, to be found outside us; it is the principle which must characterize the way we do everything. Everything we do must be done in beauty, with grace. The phrase “the beautiful gesture” kept coming back to me. Everything we do, even digging a ditch or scrubbing the floor, must be done in beauty. This does not mean that we are trying to make a beautiful ditch or a beautiful floor. It doesn’t mean that we are trying to become beautiful ditch diggers or floor scrubbing. It has to do with the way in which we execute the task, the way we live every minute as we do what we do; it has to do with being attentive to the activity at hand, acting without being concerned with how we look as we act. It is an innocent acting, not concerned with appearances or results or rewards; it is not concerned with being treated fairly with getting even, with showing off, with making an impression, with getting the damn work out of the way, with wallowing in self-pity over one’s misfortune. I would think it is not even concerned with acting out of certainty that this is God’s will. I think it is simply making the beautiful gesture.       

But why? Because this is the radical application of being at the center, where God is.

As I was cleaning the bathroom today, I was suddenly overcome with this sense that I must do this work as a beautiful gesture. This is the only free action available to me. If I act out of sense of resentment (because other people in the family are not doing that I’m doing), or anger (because the bathroom has a way of getting very messy very often), or self-pity (poor me!), then I’m a salve to myself and my work will be exhausting.

Even if I work out of sense of pride (I’ve got to make this place shine) or some simple ethic of good behavior (God expects me to be a responsible wife and mother; this is how I become a good person), I’m still a slave to myself. The only way to go about it with joy, as a free person, is to work in the presence of God, in prayer. And this, I think, is how beauty will save the world.

I felt this all day long. I started the day making blueberry muffins; I finished the day making soup and pita bread, thinking all the while about the beautiful gesture.   

The paradigm for living this way is the liturgy. Every action we perform in the liturgy should be a beautiful gesture, from lighting candles and reverencing icons to receiving Holy Communion. It’s the school where we learn how to live from moment to moment.