Swiss Dogmatics
“Swiss dogmatics” by @Basil Lourie
translated by yours truly Foreword by the author
The idea of the following course started on an Internet forum with a strange name, “Swiss Time” – hence the strange title of the course. Don’t look for some modern version of John Calvin’s Geneva Catechism – this may be a very approximate explanation of faith, by it is, nevertheless, an explanation of Orthodox faith, and no other. This explanation is intended for a specific kind of people, the kind that has many traits, but the most definitive is this: their main interest in life has to do with the very meaning of life (or death) – and, additionally, their self-preservation instinct is tuned down to a minimum. It is exactly to these people that I wish to show that Orthodoxy is neither “Father bless”, nor “Poetics of Byzantine literature”. Introduction
To begin answering serious questions, like those of Orthodox dogmatics, with “The way I see it…” or “In my opinion…” would be both ridiculous and, more importantly, sinful. I’m not going to present “my way” here, nor do I hold any “opinions”. If you believe, there is no space left for “opinions” where dogmatics ought to apply. So here you go, help yourself to some dogmas!
P.A. Florensky once wrote some poetic nonsense about dogmas, something along the lines of: “Dogma is a Golden Formula of the Existence on the…. (something – can’t remember which body part he chose) .. of Eternity.” But to think that a dogma is some kind of a formula is a serious mistake. The whole academic “theological science” is exactly that persistent mistake; it chews and chews on its formulas, till they start dripping from its ears.
Among some of the most important “formulas” (i.e. formulations of the dogmas) there are a few which were first created by heretics, and then were reinterpreted and wielded by the orthodox, and later they were again repurposed by new heretics, and left by the orthodox. Dogma is a teaching of the Church, and, therefore, it is not one formula or the other, but the very reality which formulas are attempting to describe. And these formulas sometimes need to be “refreshed”, or else they start to flake off, just like old paintings and murals do. And formulas relate to their corresponding realities exactly in the same manner as icons relate to theirs – except formulas are “painted” with words. But this “paint”, too, can grow old and go bad, although not as fast as wood and oil paint does. Formulas change, while faith remains unchanging. That should be quite obvious, because the reality of the Eternity cannot change. (Oh, in *some* sense it can – notice how saying “can’t change”, I’ve already used a formula? – a good formula, but limited, as every formula would necessarily be). We need formulas for as long as they point to that reality, without which – and outside of which – they cannot be understood at all. Now then, enough with the foreword, let’s talk about realities.
Lecture 1
What’s it all about? (or, as a theologians could say, ‘Cur Deus homo?’ – a title of the completely heretical, from the orthodox point of view, treatise of Anselm of Canterbury (XII), “Why did God become man?”) Take any (which is to say, silly) “christian” book and you will immediately get the answer; it’s going to be along the lines of: “God became man, so that man would become a good man”. Now, do you want to be a “good man”? I, personally, don’t – whatever that “goodness” might mean. If I have to stay a man, I would rather be a man that I myself want to be, not a man that someone else – even God – would consider “good”. And if I were to think a bit harder, I would discover that there is nothing in the idea of a “man” – any kind of man, “man” in general – there is nothing in it that would, on its own, be worth living for: meaningless things don’t
acquire meaning of their own, not even if they become infinitely prolonged. Such picture of a Paradise – as an infinite and happy human existence – looks disturbingly similar to Mohammedan pleasures of the afterlife. But that’s in Islam – just basic earthly pleasures, raised to some infinite power, while Christians seem to have something different, some psychedelic states of being “high” and experiencing “trips” which you don’t get from drugs in this life. At this point even Muslim ideas start to look healthy by comparison! That’s why we should not read such processed “christian” junk food. We should eat simple, healthy and wholesome food, even if it is sometimes rough, and takes effort to digest. Such are the writings of the Holy Fathers – who wrote about teachings of the Church not because they were appointed to some offices, but because they themselves had become the source of the teachings of the Church, for in them the real goal of the Incarnation of Christ was attained. And they themselves phrased it like this:
“God became man, so that man would become God”.
Now that puts it all in place. God is absolute, and therefore doesn’t need any other “meaning” to justify His existence – quite the opposite, it is He Himself, Who gives meaning to everything that has meaning. The purpose of the creation of man was that man would become God – of course, become God while still being human, or else why create man in the first place? Now, how would that come to be? – Just how the mirror opposite came to be in Jesus Christ, when God became man without ceasing being God, and exactly because it happened in Jesus Christ.The goal of becoming God, even without the events of the Fall, never was attainable for the man. Thus, the Incarnation would happen in any case, independently of the Fall of Adam and Eve. Of course, if there were no Fall (in theory, this was a possible scenario, since the Sin of the Forefathers was a free choice of our progenitors; they could have chosen differently), the circumstances of the Incarnation of God would be quite different – without sin there would be no death, thus no Cross, no Resurrection…
Being God has nothing to do with an infinitely prolonged human existence. It is a real Eternity, not only without an end, but also without a beginning. It is not in time, time being only an element of the material world, in which, by definition, we have notions of past, present, and future. God is uncreated, and so man, a creature by his nature, joining with the uncreated God, himself becomes uncreated – thus, as St John Damascene fittingly summed it up in a rhyme: “ou Theos sarkoute, alla sarks theoute” – “not Deity assumes flesh, but flesh is deified”. From here it becomes clear why God did not create man complete right from the beginning. For what could it possibly mean, to create the Uncreated? One can’t be made God against one’s will – and, clearly, living beings are born and created without any formalities of “prior consent”. Strictly speaking, God created an “incomplete” man, not fully mature. Apostle Paul uses similar terminology: he speaks of the goal of Christian life as becoming a “perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”. Thus, a man who had not reached this measure could be rightly called immature. To choose whether or not to become God depended on the man, that is, on this “half-man”. If the choice was “yes”, Incarnation would happen. And indeed, that’s what happened, although not without some long and painful adventures on the part of the human race. The final “yes” for all of mankind was given by the Theotokos, Who said to the archangel: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be unto me according to your word” – with these words She submitted to the Incarnation. And after Her, of course, every man must repeat this “yes” personally for himself. Obviously, no one is forced – those who don’t want to, do not repeat this choice. Indeed, that’s what happens most often. As St. John Chrysostom (IV century) said concerning the Zacchaeus, who had climbed up the tree in order to see Jesus amidst the crowds, at which point Jesus noticed him and came to his house: “he climbed two steps towards the heavens, and Heaven itself came down into his home”. This is the rough idea of how the process of becoming God goes, the process that is also called deification, (theosis in Greek) – or, more familiarly, “salvation”. Please don’t think that salvation in the orthodox sense is anything other than deification: “salvation is
nothing else, but the deification of the saved”, states a classical definition, given by St. Dionysius the Areopagite.
This is the high and inspiring – for believers, at least – goal of the Christian life. But if you choose to look at it from some “religious aesthetics” point of view, you will likely find some more attractive “stuff” in Christian life…
Becoming God either starts here, in this earthly life, or it doesn’t happen at all. And here it happens in different people to a different degree. Those who struggle hard attain contemplation and vision of God (which, however, does not yet guarantee salvation, for even such people were known to have lost their souls). They see God as Light – the very same Uncreated Light, and not the common natural light – which shone forth from Christ’s body before His disciples, when He took them to mount Tabor to pray (the event we call Transfiguration). Just as Christ’s body shone on that day, so all the Christians, who are connected to Christ, can see that Light inside and outside of themselves. A great deal was written about that by St. Simeon the New Theologian, whom we commemorate on the very day I am writing this. And those Christians, who are not strong enough to see the Tabor Light, are still not devoid of it: it dwells in them, even if they don’t see it. I’ve written so much about this Light because it is exactly what is painted on the icons. That is the meaning of the golden halos, golden background, golden folds on clothes, etc. Same is the meaning of blue circles, squares and ovals, which sometimes encompass some figures on certain icons (of course, I am talking about real icons here, and not the scribble in “Italian Renaissance style”, which conveys nothing but emotional hype). Earthly lives of Christians are lived in this very Light, even if they themselves cannot see it. It is very beautiful, of course. Medieval Slavs saw it back then, when Prince Vladimir had sent an envoy to Constantinople to observe the Orthodox service. Later, the ambassadors said they could not tell whether they “were still on earth or in heaven”.
In 1970s the new generation of Soviet people, who grew tired of the half-hearted “protest” of the 60’s generation, learned about this beauty, and rushed to Orthodoxy. The memorial of that period is “Poetics of Byzantine Literature” of S. Averintsev – and, probably, Averintsev himself.
Oh, rush they did – and they failed. Orthodoxy is beautiful – but it is not the beauty on the display at the museum or at the antiques store. It is the beauty like that of the wild nature. Very wild nature, in fact. A person initiated by “poetics of byzantine literature” is no more capable of living in Orthodoxy, than a person who likes to read about Africa is capable of surviving real jungle and malaria.
Lecture 2
Why a sophisticated person can’t be Orthodox (teaching about the Church) 2.1 What do we mean by “beautiful life”?
Life is worth living only for the sake of Beauty and Truth (these are, most likely, one and the same anyway). Some people think otherwise, but those people would not be still reading this. So let’s assume there’s no argument here. Still, there can be huge differences not only in interpreting what “Beauty” or “Truth” are, but, first and foremost, in what “for the sake of” means. The difference was explained precisely by a certain eastern mystic, who, when asked whether he loves tomatoes, replied thus:
– [I love] to eat [them], yes… But [if you mean] just [for fun] – no… (Russian: “Кушать – лублу … а так – нэт ..”)
(This “eastern mystic” is a a character from a famous Russian joke, a hot-blooded and simple vegetable vendor from one of the former southern Soviet republics.
And the “for fun” reference – in Russian, the same verb is used for both “like”, as in “like [to eat] tomatoes”, and for “love” in romantic and sensual sense – A. K.)
So we seek Beauty – but what for? Just to have it sitting next to us, like a collection of pretty trinkets, which would serve as a decoration of our life – or for the purpose of making that Beauty the internal content, the meaning of our life?
We could also explain it with another example, more biblical in style.
There is a certain similarity – and a no less certain difference – in loving “women” (in general) and loving your wife. We all have at least some vague notion that this difference is quite fundamental, because it implies two entirely different kinds of relationships. A man uses his freedom quite differently, when he is being interested in just the opposite sex – or when he is entering into the marriage. A man in a good – beautiful – marriage, is not called “free”, but, if you think about it, he became no less, but rather more free; before, he just had options, possibilities, which he could either enact or waste. Taken “on their own”, these options have no value whatsoever. They only have value if there is a way to properly use them – “I love to eat them. But if you mean just for fun – then no”. So the question really is: “Do you love life, and do you love freedom?” – “I love to eat them…” – that is, to put them both to some proper use. All of this has direct connection to the search for God. One can seek – and even find – in drastically different ways and manners. Some need God “for real” – so that their lives obtain meaning. And others seek Him “just for fun”, out of curiosity. Some seek to commit their lives to God, and some are just looking for casual flirting. What will happen as a result depends not only on the seeker, but also on the other side. Just like in relationships with the opposite sex, both sides are free. But there is an important difference. If it doesn’t work out with one man or a woman, you can always find another. But what about God? Well, turns out, you “can”, too. That is, there are some who would be very happy to “negotiate on behalf of God” on your terms, and they will be readily at your service. Now this situation can get quite complicated, but it is still not unlike
looking for a spouse. After all, doesn’t it sometimes happen, when everything sounds good and great on the first date, but then in the end you are cheated and robbed, or worse? That’s why in Bible, and especially in the Old Testament, God is employing the marriage terminology when talking about His relationship with the faithful, and is heard giving a warning: “I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God… you shall have no other gods before me.” The reason for this is explained, among other places, in the Psalm of David: “For all the gods of the nations are devils”. Just as it would be extremely naive to think that all women are equally suitable to be wives for the sole reason of all them being of female gender, so it would be unwise to assume that all creatures without flesh are to be trusted. Angels and demons (who are creatures with the same nature, just differently “attuned”) are very much like us: as we are made of rational soul and body, and animals are made of the body without the rational soul, so it’s quite simple to imagine that there are yet others, with rational soul, but without a body. And their souls have the same freedom of choice as ours. Thus, there are also non-corporeal creatures who would not think twice before claiming to be “gods”. (Well, this should not come as a huge surprise, for even among men there were quite a few who made similar claims.) But this can’t be helped – where there is demand, there will always be a supply. Too many people want to be “friends” with God on their terms. Naturally, in the end they do find those who are all too happy to cater to their demands. Still, God is One, One and Only. He Himself call around Him (with Him, in Him) His flock, both men and angels. Those who were “called” in such a manner are, in Greek, named with a word which is derived from the verb “to call”, ecclesia, and simply “church” in English. Preliminarily the Church was “called” forth in the Old Testament, and finally – in the New Testament.
2.2 Like marriage, but better
Of course, this assembly, which we call Church, had a goal. It survived, albeit barely, till the First Coming of Christ, even though by that time it existed only as a marginal sect of the followers of St. John the Baptist, surrounded by the official cult which by that time had gone completely astray, and by the vast masses of those who once were God’s People, but now became tired of all and any religions altogether. Of course, none of that could stop Christ, and the goal was attained: the Church of the Old Testament transformed into the Church of the New Testament. If we can explain what a Church is (from now on we’re talking exclusively about the Church of the New Testament), then we will immediately understand what Orthodoxy is. There are many organizations that call themselves “churches”, but if you were to ask them what that word means, they would give you an answer from which you will instantly know that they are not even claiming to be the Church in an orthodox sense. (I once had a conversation about this with a now reposed friend and colleague, an old Jesuit, who knew a great deal about both Western and Eastern theology; I told him, that even if Roman Catholic teachings of Church were true, that would still mean that there is no Church in Catholicism; he went silent, then sighed quietly and agreed). In all the heterodox conceptions both Church and the Kingdom of Heaven turn into something like the Old Testament Church. But Christ didn’t come in order to move people from one “assembly” into another. “God became man, so that man would become God”, and not for man to transfer from one group of people to another. So what is this assembly, what is this “ecclesia”, which becomes God? And what is this teaching, that can’t even be mimicked by the heterodox? Apostle Paul formulated this teaching as follows: Church is the Body of Christ – and not in some metaphorical or symbolical sense, but in the most straightforward and physical. In Old Testament relationship with God was compared to marriage, but, unlike marriage, there still was no union in “one flesh” (although the commandment of circumcision hinted that such a union will come in the future). And in the New Testament it’s the other way: relationship with God is actually in a higher, not lesser, degree consummated in the flesh, when compared to marriage. In Old
Testament the union with God was similar to the union of husband and wife. And in the New Testament the picture is a reverse opposite – the union between husband and wife is but a pale and weak resemblance of the union between the Church and Christ. Marriage union in the flesh is as weak as the human flesh that seals this union. But the union with Christ in His flesh is as strong as His flesh – God’s flesh; it has the strength of God. So, Body of Christ, the Church, is a physical unity of God with Christians. If Incarnation was limited only to Jesus, what use would it be for the rest of mankind? How, then, would it be possible for them to become God inasmuch, as God became man, which was – “perfectly”? That’s why Incarnation was never meant to be limited to the body of “historical Jesus”: the Body of Christ started to “grow” (St. John Damascene) as more Christians were joining Him. It is in order to make this joining possible, that Christ established the Eucharist (the word is translated as “thanksgiving”) – the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, under the guise of simple human food, bread and wine. Because of His presence in the Eucharist, Christ is always present in His Body – that is, in Church. And thanks to the same Eucharist, all true orthodox people are in Christ. If they stray from Christ with their minds and fall away (which happens constantly to almost everyone, except the saints), then Eucharist is also their means to repent and renew the violated unity. And if they don’t fall away, then they can say together with Simeon the New Theologian: “my hand is Christ, and my leg is Christ” (XV Hymn to the Love of God). Here it’s important that it is said exactly like that – “hand is Christ” and so on, and not “my hand is the hand of Christ” etc. There’s no personal identification of self with Christ (like it happened in some sects, e.g. Russian “khlysts”). On the contrary, everyone needs their own personality, and God wants us precisely as unique personalities. Becoming God, Joe and Jane don’t become Jesus – they become the Joe and Jane that Creator wanted them to be. Instead of the impossible – and unnecessary – mixing with Christ’s person, there is a physical – in the flesh – union of Body of Christ (human nature united with God), one and the same body in Jesus, and in St. Simeon the New Theologian, and true Orthodox Christians John and Jane who had reached salvation.
Body of Christ can split and partition, as bodies can, but at the same time it remains undivided and one, as God – because it is the Body of God. Thus in every little particle of the Eucharist Christ is present entirely, just as Christ is present entirely in every part of the body of St. Simeon the New Theologian – he actually enumerated these body parts in such naturalistic frankness, that some “pious” translators didn’t even dare to publish his text without first censoring it. So this is what heretics – i.e. those who call themselves Christians but don’t agree with the faith confessed by the true Orthodox Church – don’t believe in. They don’t believe that the whole point of establishing the Church of Christ was in this, that the Body of Christ, the same one born by the Theotokos, crucified, buried, resurrected and sitting at the right hand of the Father, is to become the one body with every Joe and Jane. (Yet some other heretics – a rather rare kind – take this dogma to the other extreme and turn it inside out: they say that all Joes and Janes must become “christs” and “mothers of God”. But, let’s repeat, God does not want a second or millionth Christ, what He wants is all those Joes and Janes in Christ’s Body.) This final and unchanging being in Church, that is, in Body of Christ, is the salvation – as it is understood by the Orthodox Church; it is this deification, or theosis. Heretics may say that they lead to salvation. But if we ask them, what do they mean by this word, they themselves will explain something completely different. They just don’t believe that Body of Christ is the Body of God. And those few who do believe that, will certainly not believe that that very same Body must become one with every Joe and Jane. That’s why there is no salvation outside the Church. The Church itself is salvation and the Kingdom of Heaven. There is no other Body of Christ apart from the Church, and there won’t be, and indeed can’t be. For the world, after the First Coming of Christ, which is detailed in the Gospel, there will be a Second Coming – in the end of history, the end of time. Between these two comings there was a “break”, when Christ ascended from Earth to Heaven. But for the Church there was no “break”, there could not possibly have been one – Christ Himself said to his disciples, “lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world”. The Church already lives on the “other side” of history; the “life of the age to come” had
already started in it. The Church is waiting for one last thing – when the darkness of the world, which surrounds it, and against which Church had always fought and will fight to the final victory, will disappear.
Oh… it’s morning again, and I still didn’t get to the point I’ve promised earlier, the question of why a sophisticated person cannot be orthodox. For now I will answer very, very briefly: because of the natural curiosity of sophisticated people. Being sophisticated basically means the state, when you want things not “to eat”, but rather “just for fun”… Next time I will be more specific.
Lecture 3
Two approaches: ideology and freedom (on orthodox asceticism)
So you become a believer, join the Church through partaking in Her Mysteries, and… a natural course of events would be: and end your earthly life, passing from it into the Kingdom of Heaven. The shortest path, right? In reality, however, it’s not what’s happening, at least – not exactly. And the reason for it is that the “shortest path” is hardly ever short. And what is even worse, not all Christians at the end of their paths arrive to the Kingdom of Heaven. Alright, why then to endanger their souls, why leave them to live after their baptism and Holy Communion? At the very least, at this point it becomes obvious, that it is not sufficient to simply participate in Church’s Mysteries to acquire salvation; it’s obvious that something else is required of man, something beyond his initial belief, and it’s just for that “something else” that he is allotted some time between his joining the Church and eventual journey to the afterlife. Finally, it is also obvious that during this period of time man continues to exercise his free will. Why is all that necessary? Is a simple desire to be saved, together with the confession that such salvation lies only with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, not enough?
The answer to this question is straightforward: yes, it is enough. However, this “simple desire to be saved” must become truly simple, not composite, not a mere resultant vector of many different, multidirectional and inevitably opposite desires. We all know how it happens, when something that might look good and simple, may turn out to be not quite simple – and not at all good. 3.0 Excursion: Demon of gluttony is defeated by a demon of slothfulness.
Here are a few examples. How many times did it happen that we were doing something nice, while at that same time thinking, how others will think good of us (that’s called “vainglory”), or how others will then be indebted to us (a simple bribery), or, even if no one will see our good deed, we ourselves will know we’ve done it (enter pride, which doesn’t care about opinions of others, for it only needs one “true witness” – oneself). Of course all these background thoughts should not *stop* us from doing that nice thing we were about to do. But the problem is, sometimes those thoughts are not really that far in the “background”: just think how often do we feel the “righteous anger” against our neighbours due to some transgression of theirs, but, alas, in reality we just don’t like that person, our neighbour, regardless of what he really did, and we just found a “valid” excuse for our anger; now in *such* cases we would do good if we put our “righteousness” away, even it hurts our cause. Simply speaking, we shouldn’t be deluded about the real price of our “virtues”: we are really swift to do good deeds – even struggling against our own passions! – only when we are encouraged in this by our other passions. “Demon of gluttony is defeated by a demon of slothfulness”, “demon of fornication is conquered by a demon of vainglory” – such are the basic formulae for ascetic life of a novice Christian. And even that is much better than nothing at all. Finally, on a hundredth pass from one demon to another, a Christian – with God’s help – will manage to get a hold of his own soul… even if only for a minute or two. And then it starts again… There, shame on him who said that nothing really important is happening between the baptism and death! And this struggle is not useless nor hopeless – just a very hard and long one.
And same goes for the faith itself. Of course, on one hand, faith is a prerequisite for a Christian life, because without faith, no one would even come to Church in the first place – but at the same time, the faith is the chief fruit, main product of a truly Christian life. As one man in the Gospel had said: “Lord, I believe; help Thou my unbelief!” There’s belief, and then there’s belief… even if it’s the same thing being believed in! It is belief – or lack thereof – that guides and determines our actions. Therefore when we speak about faith, we speak about a man as a whole, not about some of his separate virtues or passions. Just as virtues in a person can easily mix with passions, so can faith freely mixes with unbelief. Thus, we might put it, the goal of a Christian is to live his life in such a way, so that starting with a teaspoon of faith in a barrel of unbelief, he ends up with a full barrel of faith. Let’s talk about faith for a bit longer. Here’s the Apostolic of definition of faith – St. Paul’s Epistle to Hebrews, part 11, verse 1: “faith is a substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”. Thus, faith is a “substance”, that is, a reality, or “realness” of things hoped for, and “evidence” (in a meaning of “showing”) of the invisible. Since the subject of Christian hope is invisible, we’re talking about one and the same thing here – about the reality which faith “shows”, because it is that reality. So let’s observe the difference between the Christian understanding of faith, and what it is, unfortunately, typically swapped with: for Christians, faith is not some psychological state, but a reality, of which one can be a part, in a greater or lesser degree.
3.1 Christianity as ideology
Ideology is not a bad thing, when it’s kept in its proper place. The only problem is, the “proper place” of ideology is pretty limited. Suffice it to say, one doesn’t attain salvation through ideology. Faith, of course, is not an ideology. But ideology can either help or hinder it – depending on the ideology. Unfortunately, just because we have consciously accepted some truths of faith, this alone does not make them the truths of our lives – and as long as that is the case,
what we’ve got is only an ideology. For example, recall me talking about deification in the first lecture. If someone thought I spoke of it from personal experience of deification, let me dispel that illusion. Yes, I did it because of my faith in deification – but, at this point, simply accepted on the ideological level. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with dogmatic truths, truths of the faith, being accepted on the ideological level – it is, in fact, a necessary step; just not sufficient. Dogmas are not expressed in common rational constructs, like those used to express secular ideologies. Rather, they are expressed in constructs which are a part of the Divine reality, in the same manner that icons are a part of that reality – which is to say, really and actually. Thus even “ideological” (the quotation marks here are used to differentiate from secular ideologies) acceptance of dogmas can already be called faith. But the difference between this faith and that faith with which we arrive to our salvation is the same as the difference between a room full of icons of Saints and the actual Kingdom of Heaven. Well, arguing strongly that “ideological” faith is not sufficient for salvation is a lot like trying to break through an already open door. No one is really arguing against this. We better get back to the beginning of this talk and ask – why is “ideological” faith not sufficient? After all, everything that is necessary is present there – participating in Divine Mysteries, and our free will. So what’s the problem?The problem lies exactly in the sad but true fact that there’s very little “freedom” of will in “ideology”. Yes, there’s some, but that freedom is very superficial. It’s not of the magnitude where it actually allows us to control our lives. “For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I” (Epistle to Romans, 7:15) – and that’s Apostle Paul talking! We might honestly _want_ our life to be governed by our love for God (assuming we actually do have some of it), but still most of the time, and to a much greater extent, it is governed by completely different – yet also our own – desires.God may very well be our biggest “interest”. But take a look around, there are so many things so close and so dear to us – sure, they may be less “interesting”, but still more necessary. The necessity of God we merely “acknowledge”, while the necessity of many, many other things we can feel, directly and immediately, and
especially at times when we risk to lose them. And so, we must ask, which of the two will govern our life? This way we might forever remain with our “ideological” faith, and live to the age when, on a quiet Saturday evenings, we will take it out of deep cellars of our memory, in order to show it to our grandchildren – an old map of a far-away land, which we had never reached. And never will. Quite possibly, our grandchildren, too, will pass it on, from one generation to the next, treasuring it as a family relic, a memory of their beloved ancestor, until some large catastrophe will destroy the family nest, and no one will remember what treasures were kept therein. Catastrophes of XX century destroyed all such “family nests” – Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Georgia… Orthodox Church in these countries was being undermined from within, until, finally, the facade came crashing down. When clouds of dust had dissipated, few remembered Orthodoxy, and most of those who did remember, thought about it in terms of “national identity”, and not a faith with dogmas and canons. True Church only survived underground – in “catacombs”. These are the True Orthodox churches, which in all those and other countries are a minority, faithful to the Holy Fathers of the past, not to the apostate patriarchs of the present. Once more: Christianity as “ideology” is necessary, but not sufficient.
3.2 Christianity as freedom
Ideology is not enough for the very reason that it’s only a midpoint between slavery and freedom , and not a complete freedom. Freedom is present in it inasmuch as it’s freely chosen. But in this case it is constraint that is freely chosen. For example, a man pursues something, but he knows that he should be pursuing something else, and he makes an effort to restrict himself. That’s how ideology works, and that is the base for any kind of education and training – and not only for children, but for adults too. Yet in this manner, through the way of force – even if you submit yourself to it willingly – one cannot become God. God cannot be “made” nor “forced”, the very thought is absurd.
So, for salvation it is necessary that not just one of the many drives of our soul be directed towards God, but that our whole, entire soul is directed to God; all other goals must lose their attractiveness. Then, and only then, will our love for God become free – and unto salvation. Gospels mention this many times, but you won’t see these words in any of those “versions” of Gospels which were absorbed by the secular culture. This is the main reason why one should read the Gospels, and better yet, the entire New Testament, personally, and not be satisfied by paraphrases. The Gospel in secular cultures turns into some kind of an altruistic teaching “not of this world”, in the sense of it not being quite “fit for the real life”. And truly, the real Gospel is “not of this world” – but in a very different sense. The same Christ, Who says of Himself that He “came to save the world” (John 12:47), gives to His disciples a commandment: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world” (1 John 2:15). Of course, one can’t save what one does not love, and God loves the world as His creation. In another place it’s said, that: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son…” So when we read about not loving the world, or even contempt for the world, something else is meant there: one should not become attached to the world, should not become addicted to it. One must love the world with the same love as God loves the world: it’s in no way “weaker” than human attachments, but it is absolutely incompatible with them. For a Christian, the world is a huge pile of things that don’t belong to him. This includes not only things that could be his property, say, according to the law, but even his “inner world” (a very good notion, for it is indeed the world, same old world, which made its way inside us) – i.e. all these emotional conditions, thoughts… everything, except that “self” which is in there, praying, and which is the only truly inner aspect of our “self”.It is exactly the prayer, only occasionally strengthened by the efforts of our will, that truly separates us from the world. Starting as a simple address to God, without any words or with some random words, it leads a man deeper and deeper into another, Divine reality, which does not mix with the reality of this world, like water does not mix with oil. After one tastes its sweetness, he no longer likes world’s sour and bitter taste. “In sweetest Jesus the world had gone sour” – said on this subject
V.V. Rozanov, who, ironically enough, was a great champion of the world against Christianity. Renunciation of the world can, of course, happen on the grounds of some ideology – then the person starts acting like mentally deranged. Sometimes, a once sharp and sensitive person changes beyond any recognition. What happens here is, ideology created for that man a new modified version of the same old world. Real renunciation of the world gives a clearer and sharper vision of the world, even to a person who was formerly lacking it. It’s only natural, for where else could we possibly get more sobriety with respect to the world, if not from God? External prayer – with certain words and in certain time – serves as scaffolding for support of the internal prayer. And internal prayer is precisely what gives us the internal freedom, and it is both a fruit and a precondition of all of our Christian virtues. We can even say that it is only this prayer that is the real “action of faith” – unfortunately, Portuguese already “patented” this name for a very different purpose (“auto da fe”). The practice of internal prayer begins with a mental appeal to God – constantly repeated “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, the sinner”, or simply “Lord, have mercy”, – and if the mind is so busy, that it can’t focus on these words, then at least one can keep the memory of God – the memory of God being present, right here, right now. As for what the practice of internal prayer ends with… even those, who, unlike me, experienced it, found it hard to express. It is called theoria, direct vision of God: man cannot see God (as told in Bible on multiple occasions), but God Himself can, and so those who attained deification, also can see Him (this was explained in fourteenth century by St. Gregory Palamas). In any case, even for a novice Christian in the middle of the vanity of this world, the internal prayer opens as a window into another reality. While a Christian is praying, he’s not alone, and he’s got nothing to fear and nothing to lose in this world, in which he needs nothing. But if he’s internally distracted from the prayer, then he gives himself up for the mockery of those forces that start pulling him by his worldly attachments, as if by strings. Internal prayer will be very difficult: thoughts are swarming in your mind, or there’s a headache, or you feel sleepy… but if you abandon it and start doing
something seemingly more interesting, then an uncomfortable feeling of emptiness rises in you. As if you were a room on a cold day, where someone had forgotten to close the window a long time ago..Through the internal prayer one starts to know God and love Him. And love for God detaches from the world. Thus, Christianity is freedom, freedom from the world. But only those are truly free from the world who do not live in the world. To speak more directly and more traditionally: those who had died to the world.
3.3 Christianity as “suicide”
During the baptism the words of Apostle Paul are read, that we are baptized into Christ’s death. To resurrect with Christ, we partake in His death. This death from the early ages of Christianity was called “voluntary death”; here, the same expression was used, as one used in Roman Empire for suicide (mors voluntaria). Our real participation in the death of Christ starts in baptism, and reaches fullness in our own death – our death in this world. The world, speaking through one of its prophets, Friedrich Nietzsche, already called Christ a suicide. And in the eyes of the world, everyone who follows Christ looks pretty much the same. Martyrdom for Christ resembles suicide even externally: many martyrs would surrender to their deaths voluntarily, even having an option – or at least a hope – to escape from their persecutors. Some martyrs even killed themselves, not waiting for their executioners to put their hands on them. This never prevented Church, otherwise very strict and uncompromising on suicides, from glorifying such martyrs as saints, and words of their condemnation were only rarely spoken in the Latin West, which was falling away from the Orthodoxy. But even a “peaceful” course of a truly Christian life is not too far from the idea of the suicide. Great teachers of Christian life for both monastics and laymen, Egyptian ascetics of fourth and fifth centuries, left us the following edifying story.
A novice complained to his elder, that he can’t calmly bear humiliation from the people. Then the elder sent him to the cemetery, and told him to try his best at
cursing and humiliating the dead buried there. Once the novice returned, the elder asked him, what was the dead men’s reaction. It turned out, there was none. Then he sent him there again, except this time with the task of glorifying the dead with eloquent praises. The reaction from the dead remained the same. Then the elder said: and so you must be for the world like these dead.
But a Christian can be dead only to the world. This way, for God he will stay very much alive. His life is the internal prayer, which has the same vital significance for him, as breathing has for our physical life. Normally it is exactly by breathing that we determine whether a person is dead or alive. A man who is not praying internally (even if he is praying externally, that is, reading all the appointed prayers and is present at the services) may be alive for the world, but for God he is dead.
Many people, not just Christians, arrive to the conclusion that the world on itself is not worth living for. It’s much easier to say who doesn’t arrive to this conclusion: those who are too busy:
She even wanted to hang herself, But there was school, and exams, and the need to graduate… (A. Vasiliev, “Orbit sugar-free”, “Splean”)
Even when we arrive to this thought, we still stand at the crossroads. What we may think about God will have little significance on the outcome; to be honest, I suspect it is absolutely irrelevant. All our “thoughts”, our “emotional states”, all these euphoria and depressions – all that is just garbage, which flies in our faces, obscuring our vision of reality. To see that reality, we have to start with something completely different: we have to start praying: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”.
Bishop Gregory (Lourié) of Petrograd and Gdov, (Hieromonk at the time of writing).