Spoilt Rotten, part 2

Anthony Daniels

It's been quite a few months since I first posted on Theodore Dalrymple's (real name: Anthony Daniels) book, Spoilt Rotten!: The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality.  As promised, what follows is a second posting concerning this fantastic work.  If you are not familiar with the writings of Theodore Dalrymple, I highly recommend Our Culture, What's Left of It as an introduction to his thought and writings.  I expect to post on various other works of his in the future.

Spoilt Rotten!, despite the unfortunate cover art depicting either a screaming child or a child with a tattoo on his back (depending on which version of the book you see), covers far more than the topic of child-rearing and the affect of sentimentality on it; this is but a small portion of the book.  More generally, the book discusses the mindset and affects of sentimentality on culture as a whole.

One of the recurring themes of this work is that sentimentality leads to brutality.  This is a theme about which I have done much thinking over the years, though I could never quite understand it well enough to put it into words.  The main curiosity for me, however, was this: how is it that so many people can enter a public crowd, shouting/protesting/advocating about some great social issue, seeking what they consider to be justice and love, and yet, to their neighbor - especially if their neighbor disagrees with them - they can be so vicious, unloving, and often unjust?  How is it that a protester seeking the well being of a group of people in a third-world country thousands of miles away will, when confronted, shout obscenities and even physically threaten someone on the other side of the picket line?  More simply, I suppose, why is it that so many who express love for "humanity" and seek what is best for it can so easily hate their neighbor?

Dalrymple's book contains many insights into these very phenomena.  In speaking of the definitions given for the word "sentimentality" in various dictionaries, he writes:

The definition above misses an important characteristic of the kind of sentimentality to which I want to draw attention, namely its public character. It is no longer enough to shed an unseen tear in private over the death of Little Nell; it is necessary to do so, or do the modern equivalent, in full public view. 

He continues:

The public expression of sentimentality has important consequences. In the first place, it demands a response from those who witness it. This response has generally to be sympathetic and affirmatory, unless the witness is prepared to risk a confrontation with the sentimental person and be accused of hardness o heart or outright cruelty. There is therefore something coercive or bullying about public displays of sentimentality. Join in, or at least refrain from criticism. (83)

For those who do not join in, then, or openly criticize some aspect of the public displays of sentimentality, threats are not only uncommon; they are seen as just expressions of those who really care.  Dalrymple gives plenty of examples of this throughout his book, but I think any observer of human behavior in our modern culture would be unable to deny the truth in this.

I remember, for instance, when I was in high school and an openly-homesexual student was attacked.  He told the story of how some students attacked him from behind, hurling anti-gay slurs along with their punches and kicks.  The police got involved, but because this student was not able to see his attackers, nobody was caught.  Local news outlets began to characterize the school as a whole as hateful bigots.  One day, in discussing these things, a classmate of mine made the comment that, based on the evidence that he had seen, the "facts" of the attack seemed unlikely; this student went so far as to suggest that the victim had actually harmed himself and made up the story.  In response, indignant voices could be heard around the school stating that the boy who had expressed this opinion ought to be "beat up" for such a suggestion... and severely so.

The problem was, a couple of weeks later, the victim of the attack was attacked again... only this time, it was - unbeknownst to him - caught on a school camera.  He had indeed caused his own injuries and, as the video showed, was doing it again.

The point of this story has nothing to do with homosexuality or the reality that gay students have been attacked for their sexuality; this could have been any number of unrelated scenarios.  The focus, instead, is on this student who, when examining the facts, came to a correct conclusion. His conclusion, however, went against the grain of public sentimentality, and no matter how much the facts seemed to align with his conclusions regarding what had happened, he "deserved" physical harm for not expressing the mass' concern.  Thus, sentimentality lead to brutality.

The love and care so publicly expressed today for various individuals, groups, nations, or causes is conditional (and often very uninformed), and so it really falls short of true and real love.  This is why such revolutionaries as we find with Marxist mentalities can believe that revolution - meant to enact a beautiful future with happiness and prosperity for all humanity - must begin with the violent overthrow and murder of all those who "stand in the way"... even if that means they just disagree with ones political opinions.  Love necessarily begins with one's neighbor; until one learns to love one's neighbor, regardless of who he is or what he does, love of "humanity" will never be real.  It is only a love of one's ideal conception of humanity... and that is never real in the first place.

The thing that worries me the most is that, with the advances of technology our culture has seen, especially with social networking, this dangerous sentimentality is spreading.  I can't recall the number of times that I have seen Facebook status updates speaking about how "terrible" and "hateful" some public figure is for a poor joke or ____-ist (racist, sexist, etc) or "bigoted" statement was.  When I grew up, I was taught to ignore small people who made small statements; to give them attention - even negative attention - didn't help me but helped them accomplish what they may have intended from the start.  If I needed to respond, I would do so privately with the person who said the stupid thing or with the person who felt offended by it.  Today, however, it is imperative to make a public display of our outrage... and woe to those who don't do similarly or who are critical of those who do.  The message is simple: I care, and you better too... or else.

A Re-posting of a Critique of a Critique of Fr. John Romanides

Fr. John Romanides

As the oh-so-clear title of this post indicates, this is an unoriginal post... just a reblogging, really, of someone else's blog and the comments written about that post.  The original post (made 3 years ago) can be found here on Ora Et Labora, a now-dead blog but still one of my very favorites.  I came across this post recently which discusses one of my former professors - Fr. Theodore Stylianopoulos' - critique of the theology of Fr. John Romanides.  When reading the comments on this post, I began to wonder if some of them were made by a seminary friend of mine who, upon contacting him, said that he did, indeed, write the comments.  With his permission, I am re-posting his comments, though I will provide the context first by re-posting the original blog from Ora Et Labora.  I thank all who allowed me this thievery.  

Fr. Theodore Stylianopoulos

The original post concerns a section of Fr. Stylianopoulos' work The New Testament: An Orthodox Perspective, Vol 1: Scripture, Tradition, and Hermeneutics.  In this section, after Fr. Stylianopoulos offers an appraisal of various modern theologians, he turns his attention to Fr. John Romanides.  I, too, as Paul, the author of the comments following the original text states, can remember Fr. Stylianopoulos speaking about this during one of his lectures.  One of the things I recall well was that the critique was done on a scholarly basis, not a personal one.  Thus, it didn't seem like an attack at all but an ongoing discussion in scholarly Orthodox circles.  However, I agree more with the comments made by my friend than Fr. Stylianopoulos'.  Paul's comments aren't exactly how I would put everything, but he and I share a similar outlook on these things.  Either way, it is certainly an interesting discussion.  What follows, again, is the original text from Fr. Stylianopoulos' book, then the comments from the aforementioned blog:

The hermeneutical position of Father John Romanides, the final one to be reviewed here, in part answers the last questions. Such questions could be addressed if one could point to a living authority which would combine in itself the mystical and the discursive, the transcendent and the practical, and thus act as normative criterion and unfailing discernment of Christian truth in the every changing present and unknown future. This is exactly the hermeneutical position of Father Romanides, who constructs an entire theological and biblical hermeneutic based on the model of the charismatic saint. [1] The following paragraphs summarize his position.
For Professor Romanides, the saints par excellence were the prophets and the apostles, those who had direct experiences of God in a continuous and dynamic state of glorification, which is called by the Church fathers theoria or theosis by grace. According to Professor Romanides, the sublime revelatory experiences of the prophets and the apostles were beyond speculative concepts and images, granting to the beholders immediate knowledge of God and enabling them to guide others toward God infallibly to through concept-bearing words and images appropriate to the level of understanding of their hearts. This tradition of the vision of God and participation in the divine glory is a living tradition in Eastern Christianity, continuing in a presumably limited number of known and unknown saints today – an ongoing Pentecost that constitutes the highest revelation and knowledge of God. An intriguing point by Father Romanides is that the true meaning of sola Scriptura is none other than theosis, deification by grace, summing up the God among prophets, apostles, and saints. The same unitive experience is the “key to opening the Bible’s secrets... [without which] the Bible remains a hidden mystery even to biblical scholars,” [2] whether Orthodox or not. For Romanides, only the true saint (“saint alone?”) – the one who has moved beyond the stage of purification and has reached the stage of illumination and perfection – can unerringly interpret biblical revelation at the level of words and concepts by virtue of enjoying the “same species of knowledge” as did the prophets and the apostles themselves. 

Professor Romanides’ hermeneutical proposal vigorously claims independent theoretical aspects and practical applications [3], that is, it advocates a unity of the mystical and the practical. On the practical side, one can find today unnamed saints who have attained theoria, are wholly liberated from the enslavement of sin, the devil, and selfish love; and who, in God’s glory and selfless love are infallible witnesses and instructors of the ways of God. They are theologians in the classic sense of the word – authoritative knowers and spokespersons of God not by speculative reason but by direct experience of God in the manner of the prophets and the apostles. Such persons and only such persons, who have been cleansed of their evil passions and have reached at least illumination and the discernment of spirits, if not actual theosis, can be true guides in biblical interpretation. All others are only “so-called theologians,” presumably imposters and perverters of truth in varying degrees. According to this “theoria – based theology,” learning and application go together. The student must attach himself to a teacher who has experienced illumination. The teacher, as spiritual father, can guide the student but cannot actualize in him theoria, which is a gift of the Holy Spirit alone. Nevertheless, all this means that:  

"an Orthodox theologian and spiritual father is the same thing. One cannot be a  theologian without being a spiritual father and one cannot be a spiritual father without being a theologian." [4] 

On the theoretical side, Father Romanides offers equally important observations. He raises the critically presuppositions of theologizing as such. According to Father John, the Augustinian approach to Scripture and theology departed from the biblical and patristic experiential model and lost sight, as well of the decisive distinction between Creator and creature. It assumed in platonic fashion the existence of eternal archetypes or uncreated universals, and thus presupposed a real similarity or analogy between the uncreated and created orders of being, as if both belonged to a single system of truth, which could be penetrate by the human intellect. In specific moments of inspiration, so Augustine taught, according to Professor Romanides, God infallibly conveyed what he wanted to the biblical authors in concept-bearing words and images that the authors themselves did not necessarily fully understand. In this Augustinian perspective, the Bible was identified with created forms of divine revelation. Revelation itself was erroneously identified with the very words of Scripture. Consequently, the human intellect, ever probing the world of immutable divine truths, could gradually gain higher knowledge of the eternal archetypes, including the mystery of the Holy Trinity – a knowledge that could be even superior to that of the prophets and the apostles themselves. This Augustinian epistemology, according to Professor Romanides, is the fatal substructure of all Western speculative thought, which necessarily cracked in modern centuries as philosophical nominalism and scientific study of the flux of all things “weakened the idea of unchanging and immutable truths so dear to western philosophical and theological systems.” In these terms, one could also quite likely explain the general collapse in Western culture of belief in the existence of absolute truth, law, and moral norms as criteria of thought and conduct. [5] 

Here is how Professor Romanides sums up his hermeneutical position:

"Dialectical speculation can never become the source of authoritative teaching as though the Church, whether by means of a Pope, or Councils or Protestant Biblical scholars, could transform research into dogma... 

The authority for Christian truth is not the written words of the Bible themselves which cannot in themselves either express God or convey an adequate concept concerning God, but rather the individual Apostle, Prophet and Saint who is glorified in Christ and united in this experience of glory to all the friends of God of all ages. 

Thus the Bible, the writings of the Fathers and the decisions of the Councils are not revelation, but about revelation. Revelation itself transcends words and concepts although it inspires those participating in divine glory to express accurately and unerringly what is inexpressible in words and concepts... 

For the Fathers authority is not only the Bible, but the Bible plus those glorified... The Bible as a book is not in itself either inspired or infallible. It becomes inspired and infallible when the communion of the Saints who have the experience of divine glory described in, but not conveyed by, the Bible. To those outside of the living tradition of theoria the Bible is a Book which does not unlock its mysteries." [6] 

Professor Romanides‘ hermeneutical thought is incisive in both its biblical focus on the direct experience of God which is the heart of biblical revelation, as well as in its philosophical sophistication, a radical liberation of thought from platonist epistemology. As regards the latter, to affirm that trust must be sought in personal and relational terms rather than abstract and eternal archetypes, is simultaneously relief from the anguish of a philosophical deadend and, as well, the opening of new horizons in the search for lived truth. As regards the former, to lift up the significance of the immediate and direct experience of God is to engage the substance of Scripture’s witness and, as well, the essence of the common human odyssey. For nothing is more profound and urgent than for each human being to gain personal intimations of the living God. 

Indeed, the personal-experiental and the nominalist-philosophical perspectives are integrated in a most intriguing way by Professor Romanides, a way that simply rings true and gives his thought a powerful and attractive unity. It is certainly a worthy witness of the great Church fathers who, as philosophical sophisticates in their age, increasingly turned their back to Plato and deliberately followed the biblical way of knowing God. Not the least of Professor Romanides‘ merits is to remind modern scholars of the essential continuity and coherence of biblical and patristic theology. In his own efforts to exorcise the platonist ghost that always drives persons to relate more to abstract truths and absolute values rather than the living God himself, he has clearly discerned what is the core of patristic thought, namely, the scriptural content and vision. The way of the fathers is the way of Scripture. One could add that faithfulness to Scripture was precisely the driving force that pushed back the horizons of platonism in the thought of ancient Christian thinkers, an interesting way of thinking about how “Moses overcame Plato,” that is, how platonist ontology gave way to biblical personalism. [7] 

However, the hermeneutical proposal by Professor Romanides is burdened by one-sidedness in its own way because of certain unnecessarily extreme claims that detract from the value and persuasiveness of Father John’s thought. On the philosophical level, leaving aside the question of the interpretation of Augustine to experts in this area, a radical kind of nominalism must be tempered with the consideration that “concept-bearing words and images” carry a certain stability of meaning. While rejecting the idea of eternal universals and archetypes, one must still take account of the biblical and patristic view that there are in Scripture clear and abiding teachings about God and his ways accessible to all. One does not necessarily have to adopt platonist metaphysics about immutable truth to affirm that the Bible, at the communication level of words and images, contains abiding insights, principles, and truths concerning such things as God and idols, grace and free will, love and hate, honesty and lying, forgiveness and retaliation, justice and exploitation, giving and selfishness, hope and despair. 

One does not have to read very far in the theological and practical writings of the Church fathers, such as Basil and Chrysostom, to see the massive authority they attached to the letter and plain meaning of Scripture as secure instruction about God and his will for all. These fathers relied heavily on the clarity and stability of meaning resident in the biblical text they derived by grammatical exegesis and assumed that any reader could follow without esoteric techniques. To claim that “the Bible is not inspired” as it stands is to fly into the face of the whole patristic tradition and undercut Scripture’s plain witness to God’s dealing with all people. To seem to claim that stable and secure meaning at the level of words and images cannot at all be gained by ordinary human understanding is to undercut at once human communication, scholarship, as well as the hope of meaningful dialogue and possible reconciliation between disputants, whether orthodox or heretical. We are not saying that the plain meaning of word and images available to all is everything but that it is an integral part of that same truth about God and of God, which all are invited to seek. 

The central difficulty of Professor Romanides‘ proposal is the extreme convergence on the charismatic saint who seems to be raised above the Bible, above the Councils, and even above the Church. We do not question the rich and valued tradition of spiritual fathers in Eastern Christianity. [8] Nor do we question the foundational role of the key biblical figures and of the great saints in the total life of the people of God. What we do question is the exclusivity of the charismatic model, which seems to raise the saint to a theological super figure. One is tempted to compare the vagueness of the ideal saint of whom so much is required to the vagueness of the Protestant emphasis on the word of God to which similar superiority is attributed.
But who are these supreme saints who enjoy an exactly identical experience of God and can communicate unerringly between them and with others who are not blessed with theoria? After the experience of the transfiguration of Jesus, John and James were not above looking for special honors in the coming kingdom they apparently still awaited in earthly form (Mk 10:35ff.). Despite their unarguable stature, the apostles Peter and Paul could have a striking difference on an important matter of ecclesial life, which compelled Paul to face up to Peter (Gal 2:11-14). [9] The Book of Acts also reports “a sharp contention” between Paul and Barnabas over John Mark’s instability which caused their separation in missionary work (Acts 15:36-41). If such disputes occurred among the apostles, one would not be hard pressed to provide numerous examples from among the Church fathers themselves. In fact, most heretics could be described as charismatic figures. 

What evidence does Professor Romanides provide for the above hermeneutical model? Three references from St Gregory the Theologian about the impossibility of conceiving God and the necessity of spiritual cleansing when seeking knowledge of the sublime mystery of God. [10] He also refers to the verb thereo (“observe,” “perceive,” “behold,” etc.) used in the Gospel of John in connection with seeing and knowing Christ. Father Romanides takes the liberty of translating this verb as a noun (“may have theoria,” Jn 17:24) and thereby injecting in it the technical patristic meaning. But the noun is never used in the Gospel of John and only once in the entire New Testament and there with a different nuance (Lk 23:48), hardly sufficient scriptural evidence for a technical, heightened understanding of theoria. In fact, the Fourth Gospel offers an abundance of gnosiological terms (eidenai, gignoskein, pisteuein, blepein, oran, theorein, etc.), all of them applied indiscriminately to Christ’s relations to all, believers and unbelievers. 

With regard to Gregory, the intent of the first two cited orations is that, duly cleansed, let us philosophize within our proper bounds” [11] because “the divine nature cannot be apprehended by human reason.” [12] Gregory is talking about proper use of reason fulfilled by faith. [13] His appeal to mystical knowledge is over against Arian and Eunomian rationalism, not the ordinary use of reason in gaining knowledge about God, which is available to all. Gregory himself makes ample use of both reason and rhetoric gained from his classical Greek education, not least in his use of the Greek notion of theosis which, to be sure, he fills with biblical meaning. All this is by no means to deny that the experiential and mystical dimension is unimportant in either the Fourth Gospel or Gregory. On the contrary, we affirm its importance in both. However, it is to point out that neither the Fourth Gospel, nor Gregory, in their overall witness raise the charismatic believer or saint as the infallible criterion of the knowledge of God and about God above Scripture and above the Church. The total testimony of the Bible and the fathers does not support such an exclusive model as a hermeneutical criterion. 

In biblical and theological hermeneutics, we cannot be satisfied with a proposal that seems to suggest that the authoritative charismatic figure is beyond critique, a position open to the charge of arbitrariness and subjectivism. The charismatic figure is important in the Judeo-Christian tradition but cannot be separated from the people of God, the realm of the faith community whose corporate character is the prevailing point of reference. The apostolic advice is: “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world (Jn 4:1).” Among the Church fathers, St Symeon the New Theologian advocated, as perhaps no other Orthodox saint, the unerring wisdom and even sinlessness of the beholder of Christ’s glory, and himself claimed to be such. Nevertheless, despite his strong statements about the spiritual blindness of all others, he invites his hearers, who had not yet beheld the glory of the risen Christ, to judge for themselves the truthfulness of his own words. For example, he writes: “This, in my opinion, is the truth of the matter, and such is God’s counsel toward us... You, on your part, must see and test that which we say.” [14]
Charismatic claims must be tested out by the communal tradition and life of the Church as the final criterion. Experience of God belongs to the whole Church and not only to an elite group, which would smack of gnosticism. Personal mystical cognition has significance, especially for the beholders of the glory of God, but cannot exclusively either dominate or absorb access to knowledge of God available to all. For otherwise, not only would the faithful be deprived of their role of guardian of the faith but also the Church would be cut off from communication with the world to which it is charged to preach the gospel meaningfully. Rather, a hermeneutical model is needed that takes into account a greater balance between faith and reason, mystical cognition and scholarship, individual and faith community, Church and culture, according to the testimony of the Church fathers.  

Footnotes: 

[1] A comprehensive statement of his position may be found in his length article “Critical Examination of the Applications of Theology,” in Proces-Verbaux du deuxieme Congres de Theologie Orthodoxe, ed, Savas Agouridis (Athens, 1978), pp. 413-441). Father Romanides many years ago was my first theology professor at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, and he opened my eyes to exciting theological insights and to the necessity of paying close attention to “presuppositions.” To him I owe my foundational theological thinking, albeit qualified by critical historical scholarship of the Bible and the Church fathers. Father Romanides is now retired but still active in Greece and abroad. [He reposed in 2001 -- F.C.] 

[2] Ibid., p. 423 and more broadly pp. 421-426. 

[3] Father Romanides time and again confidently parallels his theological and hermeneutical approach to the experimental method of the hard and soft sciences, involving both interdependent theorizing and actual testing by observable and measurable standards, pp. 413, 423, 432, and 436-437. 

[4] Ibid., p. 434. See also pp. 432-433. 

[5] Ibid., pp. 413, 416, 418-421. 

[6] Ibid., pp. 427 and 432. 

[7] J. Pelikan, The Christian Tradition 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), p. 33, writes that, according to the Eastern fathers, “theology was not a science of divine ontology but of divine revelation.” This patristic emphasis on faith and Scripture, rather than on reason and philosophical speculation – while viewing the two perspectives as complementary and mutually supportive, not antithetical – is more fully laid out by Pelikan in hisChristianity and Classical Culture. In contemporary Orthodox theology, biblical and patristic personalism as contrasted to Greek philosophical ontology is the touchstone of the work of John D. Zizoulas, Being as Communion(Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985) and Christos Yannaras, The Freedom of Morality, trans. Elizabeth Briere (Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984).

[8] See Kallistos Ware, “The Spiritual Father in Orthodox Christianity,” CC (Summer/Fall, 1974), pp. 269-312, and Irenee Hausherr, S. J., Spiritual Direction in the Early Christian East (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1990), with a foreword by Kallistos Ware. Douglas Burton-Christie, The Word in the Desert, ends his study on the ancient monastic use of Scripture by underscoring the significance of persons who lived Scripture and were “Christ-bearers” and “mediators of God to humanity.” His ending sentence reads: “The ultimate expression of the desert hermeneutic was a person [his emphasis], one who embodied the sacred texts and who drew others out of themselves into a world of infinite possibilities,” p. 300. 

[9] One can understand but not accept the interpretation of some Church fathers, going back to Origen, that Peter and Paul simulated the conflict in order to teach a lesson to Jewish and Gentiles Christians. But, on the premise of the dignity and unfailing agreement between apostles, would not these Christians also be offended even by a simulated conflict, just as later Christians were apparently offended who took the disagreement as real? 

[10] Theological Orations, 1.3; 2.3, and 2.14. 

[11] Theological Orations, 1.5. 

[12] Ibid., 211. 

[13] See Faith Gives Fullness to Reasoning: The Five Theological Orations of Gregory of Nazianzenby Frederick W. Norris who lifts up the following Gregorian citation, p. v: “When we abandon faith to take the power of reason as our shield, when we use philosophical enquiry to destroy the credibility of the Spirit, then reason gives way in the face of the vastness of realities... Give way it must... [being] the frail organ of human understanding. What happens then? The frailty of our reasoning looks like a frailty in our creed. Thus it is that as Paul too judges, smartness of argument is revealed as a nullifying of the Cross. Faith, in fact, is what gives fullness to our reasoning” (Oration 29.21). 

[14] C. J. deCatazaro, trans. Symeon the New Theologian: Discourses, p. 354

Here, with some grammatical and spelling corrections and some comments unnecessary to include for my purposes deleted, are the comments posted by my seminarian friend:

I was a student of Fr. Stylianopoulos at one time and respect much about him. I remember the specific day and lecture in which he explained the views on Fr. Romanides that he expresses in his book. At the time, I was unsure about them and cautious; after some time and study, I now pretty firmly disagree with them. There are various places in which I think that Fr. Stylianopoulos' understanding of Fr. Romanides is off. Here are a few of my thoughts:  

1) Fr. Stylianopoulos writes that one must admit that "there are in Scripture clear and abiding teachings about God and his ways accessible to all." He then lists the topics: "God and idols, grace and free will, love and hate, honesty and lying, forgiveness and retaliation, justice and exploitation, giving and selfishness, hope and despair." In each of these cases, however, I can think of a person or denomination which holds a false, distorted, or misunderstood vision. The topics and their exceptions might look like this: God and idols-iconoclasts. Grace and free will-Luther and Calvin. Love and hate-contemporary responses to homosexuals as "Hell-deserving." Forgiveness and retaliation-"Just war" theory. Justice and exploitation-Liberation theology. Etc etc etc... Though some distortions or misinterpretations may seem clear to us, to others they have not been; further, some are downright theologically confusing topics. Without a God-bearing saint to sort these things out and raise up the truth, multi-denominational Christianity makes sense as a result.  

2) Fr. Stylianopoulos seems to understand Fr. Romanides as saying that the charismatic elder is to be taken as infallible. Based on what I've read of Fr. Romanides, however, it is not the charismatic elder that he understands as infallible but the Spirit of God, the Tradition of the Church, in which he lives. This is why saints can disagree with one another. When the consciousness of the Church is revealed, the saints humbly submit to it (Hence, Sts. Peter and Paul). Thus, to say that Fr. Romanides raises the charismatic saint "above the Bible, above the Councils, and even above the Church" is incorrect; the Spirit of God, in which the saints live, is the Interpreter of Scripture, the Verification of Councils, and the Spirit and Breath of the Church. It is not that the charismatic saint is above these things, but he/she resides in this same holy Spirit WITH ALL THE SAINTS.  

3) Fr. Stylianopoulos does not appear to understand the word "charismatic" in the way in which Fr. Romanides means it. When he (Fr. Stylianopoulos) writes that "most heretics could be described as charismatic figures," my response is that they certainly could not (at least, not in the way in which Fr. Romanides intends the term). This, in fact, is Fr. Romanides' whole point. The heretic places his intellect above his nous, his mind above his heart. He does not express revealed theology but philosophized (purely speculative) theology. This is what separates a theologian from a "theologian-so-called." Not all of the latter are heretics, buy they keep from being so by following - intellectually - the theology expressed and learned - 'experientially' - by the Saints before them. Had the heretics achieved theoria or theosis (and thus become defined as "charismatic"), they would have fled their heresy.  

4) Fr. Stylianopoulos seems to think that Fr. Romanides is disparaging formal education and intellectual knowledge. This, I don't believe, is the case. Fr. Romanides himself was a brilliant and learned scholar. However, intellectual knowledge itself is not enough, and it often leads to improper interpretation and theology. The Fathers of the Church would still have been great theologians without their secular education; however, they might not have been so well-known or involved in the theological battles of their day. Their education, however, allowed them to express what they learned through experience. Hence, we see St. Athanasius, the greatest fighter of Arianism, going to St. Anthony for advice about the heresy. St. Athanasius, himself a Divine-bearing man, saw the spiritually advanced state of St. Anthony who, though a great theologian, was not in the position to write against the Arians in the same way. Education helped St. Athanasius do what many great theologians have done: put into the best possible words what, in reality, is inexpressible. The experience is still necessary. It is interesting that Fr. Stylianopoulos quotes St. Gregory the Theologian. We accept him today as such an authority not because of his secular knowledge but because he was a theologian in the truest sense; he experienced that which he theologized.  

5) Finally, Fr. Styliapoulos insists that the "experience of God belongs to the whole Church and not only to an elite group, which would smack of gnosticism." I doubt that Fr. Romanides would disagree; this is, thus, an unfair argument. Fr. Romanides... believed that the experience of God belonged to all people; however, very few of us actually experience and live it in this life. We look to those who have for answers to our theological questions. This is absolutely not to take away the collective authority of the people of God. However, we cannot go to the opposite extreme and say that, as an Orthodox Christian, we automatically become guardians of all Truth and can be seen as authorities on theological topics. It was St. Maximus - a "charismatic" saint - who had to argue AGAINST the "people of God," the bishops, scholars, and "theologians" of the Church. I hate to write this, but I think that, if a great heresy were to invade the Church today, the vast majority of the faithful would not know where to stand. Where would they turn but to the living saints of our age? This is not setting the saint apart from and above the Body of Christ; it is recognizing him/her as one who has been transfigured, one who lives in Christ and in whom Christ lives. We are all struggling toward this; we look to those who have accomplished it for our purest voice.   

In the end, I think that we always want secular knowledge mixed with our charismatic elders. The greatest saints of our day - Sts. Nektarios or Justin Popovich, for instance - were both scholars and had achieved theoria. However, if I had to choose between an education-lacking Saint or a Grace-lacking scholar, I would choose the former. 

Why do so many couples separate only AFTER marriage?

               

From The Mystery of Marriage: A Fellowship of Love by Hieromonk Gregorios:

Today we have de-facto proof of the consequences of premarital sexual relations - there is no need to speak theoretically. If we doubt the words of the Gospel and the God-bearing Fathers, let us examine some examples from today's world. Marriage is experiencing a severe crisis, and one of the most fundamental causes of that is premarital sex. In marriage, somehow it is inevitable that we will face many difficulties and we need the constant presence of divine Grace. If instead of preparing for marriage seriously we live carelessly in sin, and thus naturally without God's grace, it should come as no surprise that we will meet certain disaster, with no one to blame but ourselves.

We see couples bound by attachments for many years without agreeing to marry. When they finally do celebrate the Sacrament, shortly thereafter they divorce. One might ask, 'Why did they end up separating after receiving God's blessing?' Because they came to celebrate the Sacrament of Marriage in a completely secular manner, without any feeling of repentance for their premarital life together. (my emphasis - Averky) (25)

Thoughts and Cherry Trees

                                

A friend of a clergy brother of mine - Joy Corey - wrote a book entitled The Tools of Spiritual Warfare.  I was reminded recently of a passage in this book that explains why it is important to rid ourselves of sinful thoughts before they actually have time to settle in our heads.  Seeing as I came across this book on my shelves recently, I thought I would pass along the passage in mind:

However, it is much easier if we catch the passionate thought while it is still just a thought. [The previous paragraph spoke about how passions can take stir up our emotions and become very difficult to defeat - Averky] It is like pulling weeds.  I have a neighbor who has wild cherry trees that spring up around her house. The birds pick the wild cherries from around the neighborhood and drop the seeds everywhere. In the spring, the little cherry trees sprout up. If she gets out and pulls them up in the spring, she can do it easily with two fingers; but if she lets them grow through the summer, she has to grab them with two hands and pull with all her might. If she lets them grow a whole year, she needs a shovel to dig them out. Fighting against passionate thoughts is the same. We cannot stop the seeds of sin from landing in our minds (the demons are like birds, dropping seeds of sin everywhere). But we can pay attention, and as soon as an inappropriate thought comes to our mind, we can immediately call our to God for help and the thought flees with very little effort: 'Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner.' But if we let the thought linger, it becomes more and more difficult - and sometimes more and more painful - to expel it." (126-127)

An Unknown Prophet

Today marks the 35th anniversary since Alexander Solzhenitsyn's famous Harvard Address.  Solzhenitsyn remains almost completely unknown today, though I mean this in two senses: there are many who don't recognize even his name or don't know who he is even if his name is recognized, or there are those who know who he is but still cannot understand what his message was.  This address, for instance, was highly criticized by those both on the political Left and the political Right.  The speech, however, transcends this sometimes simplistic division. Further, though, and perhaps more importantly, this speech, I have come to believe, really can't be understood outside of the context of Orthodoxy.  I hope to write more on this speech in the future, but for now, I hope you enjoy Solzhenitsyn in his own words...  He, along with Dostoevsky, remains one of the most fascinating prophets of our modern world.

A World Split Apart

See the above link for the full text of his Harvard Address.

Did St. Nektarios Reinstate the Female Diaconate?

                              

One of the ongoing "debates" while I was at seminary was the issue of "reinstating" the female diaconate.  I put the term "debates" in quotations because it was only openly discussed here and there; there was a definite undercurrent, however, with a select few students and a couple of individuals in the faculty or administration who clearly desired this, some even openly advocating it.

I put the term "reinstating" in quotation marks because, based on my research and understanding of the issue,  what is actually desired is not what was once the practice.  My views on this issue would take too long to fully explain for the time being, but one aspect of the debate did seem to pop up more than any other.  This was the assertion that even St. Nektarios believed in the reinstatement of the female diaconate, as he he ordained, within the context of the Liturgy, two females as deacons.  A few points were often made with this belief (either explicitly or implied):

1) St. Nektarios was an "activist" in this issue, his actions being a clear endorsement of bringing the female diaconate back to the Church.

2) The deaconesses were made within the context of the Liturgy, showing that this was, indeed, an ordination.  This leaves no question that the deaconesses were members of the third order of the priesthood (i.e. bishop, priest, deacon).

3) Further evidence that this was an ordination is that the service making the deaconesses involved the laying on of hands.

4) The deaconesses wore the traditional vestments of deacons, including the orarion (or stole), further proving that they were full deacons as any male would be.

5) The deaconesses performed all of the regular functions that a male deacon would during the services.

These assertions have varying degrees of truth, as we shall see.  With the recent publication by Holy Cross Orthodox Press of an English translation of St. Nectarios of Pentapolis and the Island of Aegina: The Monastic Ideal by Celopas Syrongylis, we can discover where the truth in these issues lies.  In a lengthy footnote on page 15, we read:

We consider it beneficial to cite an excerpt of this letter from St. Nectarios, which mentions the laying on of hands for subdeaconesses: "Regarding the subdeaconesses, I inform you that they are primarily the sacristans of the sanctuary. Their dress was adopted according to the manner that the readers who are in the churches of the cities wear their holy vestments. Cuffs were allowed for the following reasons. Because there are no deacons in female convents, and no priests in this particular one, and as I am neither able to attend to the cleanliness of the church, nor to constantly remain in the church serving as a sacristan, and as the sanctuary has an absolute need for appointed persons to clean the holy vessels, change the covers and cloths of the holy altar, move the holy artophorion [or tabernacle], and perform every other duty of a sacristan in the sanctuary, I thought to appoint two [subdeaconesses], so that they can alternate performing duties in the sanctuary.  In an absolute necessity, they bring the Holy Eucharist to very sick sisters in a small chalice designed for this purpose. Aside from this necessary exception, they are sacristans in all their other duties" (Mattheakis, 'O Άγιος Νεκτάριος Κεφαλάς, 147).

Athens university Theological School Professor Evangelos Theodorou examines the laying of hands on deaconesses in his doctoral thesis. In a footnote in his thesis' epilogue, he refers to the dress and the method of the laying of hands on the nuns of Holy Trinity Convent in Aegina during both St. Nectarios' era and afterward. The significance of the subject we are studying compels us to include the aforementioned footnote: "In Aegina, e.g., Holy Trinity Convent established by the local saint Metropolitan Nectarios of Pentapolis (1846-1920), there exist today 'deaconesses' - nuns enabled by the ever-memorable Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, Archbishop of Athens, to wear the deacon's orarion [stole], cense, adorn the holy altar and, in the absence of a clergyman, read passages from the Gospel during services and give the presanctified Gifts to sick nuns. Although they were bestowed their position through the prayers recited during the laying on of hands on subdeacons, and not during the Divine Liturgy, there is an elderly and very venerable 'deaconess' currently serving as abbess in the Convent of the Dormition [named Panagia Chrysoleontissa] in Aegina, whom St. Nectarios himself 'ordained' on the day of Pentecost in 1911, inside the holy sanctuary during the Divine Liturgy through the laying on of hands and the prayers recited during the ordination of a deacon, saying, 'The Divine Grace....' This 'deaconess' (Nun Magdalene Moustaka) was ordained while she was still a nun in Holy Trinity Convent. The nun being ordained did not wear a tunic reaching her feet, but one that almost reached her back, along with a deacon's stole and maniples. She succeeded another deaconess upon whom St. Nectarios also bestowed this title and served the convent in this capacity. Because some people considered this 'laying on of hands' improper, St. Nectarios gave an explanation to the then Archbishop of Athens Theokletos, stressing that the work that he assigned them resembled more that of a subdeacon and was a necessity of the convent, especially during the absence of a priest. It is evident that St. Nectarios' action, taken for all it is worth, was essentially in accordance with the long-standing practices of the Church. We received information regarding all this from the righteous and venerable abbess, as well as from several 'deaconesses' in Holy Trinity Convent in Aegina"... (see original footnote for citation - Averky)

The ever-memorable Nun Nectaria (whose secular name was Zenobia Lalaouni) spent her childhood years in Aegina, near St. Nectarios. In an interview, an excerpt of which was been included here, she speaks of the method with which the saint of the twentieth century used to choose nuns from his convent to officially appoint as subdeaconesses: "When he would come out during the Small and Great Entrances, he had two nuns with him, serving as subdeaconesses, who wore the deacon's crossed stole. When he was to officially lay hands on a subdeaconess, he would pray for God to reveal to him which nuns were worthy of this position. He would ask God to give him a 'sign' to show him who was worthy of assuming this service. And so he would 'see' one or two nuns in the church 'wearing' the stole, without, of course, him having given it to them. He would call them immediately and place the stole upon them" (Melinos, Μίλησα με τον Άγιο Νεκτάριο, 1:252, 254).

St. Nectarios laid hands on two nuns in his convent, thus bestowing upon them the office of subdeaconess: Elizabeth Roka and Magdalene Moustaka, the latter of which later became abbess of the Panagia Chrysoleontissa Convent in Aegina. Having accepted St. Nectarios' practice, Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopouolos of Athens proceeded to lay hands on other nuns in Holy Trinity Convent, pronouncing them subdeaconesses, on two occasions, only a few years after St. Nectarios' death. On the first occasion the nuns named to this position were Christophora, Kyriaki, Evniki, and Paraskevi, and on the second occasion, they were Nuns Ephrosini, Theoktisti, and Haritini (Matteakis, 'O Άγιος Νεκτάριος Κεφαλάς, 147-48).  

The Pastor and the Porn Star...

See link:

How Porn Mogul and Pastor Became Friends

This was posted by a friend and fellow clergyman on Facebook... An interesting video, to be sure.