Monday, 9 December 2013

Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh-CHRIST, TRUE AND PERFECT MAN


The Incarnation, the fact that God became Man, is a revelation both of God and of Man. In order to understand, therefore, how fully man is revealed through the Incarnation, one must rediscover how fully God is revealed. The gods of antiquity, of philosophical discourse, were always images of the greatness of man or of the greatness which man could perceive or imagine in a superhuman being. What no religion, no philosophy, ever dared present was a god who becomes man, suffers and empties himself of his splendour in order to become fully and completely accessible to us. In the Incarnation we discover that our God, the Holy One of Israel, the Creator of the world, the Beauty that surpasses all beauty, the Truth and the only Reality of the world, - that this God chooses, in an act of love, so to identify himself with the destinies of mankind, so to take upon himself total and ultimate responsibility for his creative act, that all the beauty of the world is called forth, while at the same time he gives the world the freedom that destroys and distorts this beauty. This God who chooses to become frail, vulnerable, defenceless and contemptible in the eyes of all those who believe only in strength, in power and in visible temporal victory - such a god a devout, believing man could not have invented. To conceive of a god in such terms would have been blasphemy. And yet. God reveals himself as such: vulnerable, defenceless, frail and contemptible. This is the folly of the Cross of which St Paul speaks. And the folly is not only ours; it is the folly of God as well. A certain number of mystics speak of divine Love as being folly, because to offer love to creatures like us, who may be incapable of responding, who may reject it and trample it underfoot as the swine trample the pearl of great price in the parable, is folly. But then, as St Paul says, the folly of God is wiser than the wisdom of men. If we are to speak of the revelation of man in all his splendour through Christ, we must realise that this can only be accomplished by a God who accepts to become defenceless. Angelus Silesius, the German mystic, says: 'I am as great as God; he is as small as I'. We need to think about what this means. On the other hand, as I have said, the Incarnation is also a revelation of the greatness of man. It is a revelation of the fact that man was created by God in such a way that, not only in spirit, but also in soul and in body, he can be not only spirit-bearing, but God-bearing, He can not only see God face to face, be a friend to God, stand in the deepest possible relation of obedience and communion, but can also, in the daring and inspiring words of St Peter, become a partaker of the divine nature, can become, even while remaining man, what God is in his nature, just as God, being God by nature, becomes man by participation. The union is equally complete - and glorious - in both cases. The Incarnation is not only a revelation of man in his greatness, in his divine potential, it is also a revelation in new terms of the potential of the created physical world. For if the divinity of Christ could unite itself to the body of the Incarnation, it means that the material body of the Incarnation was capable of such unity with God himself - not with the Divine as a notion, not with the Divine as simply a grace of God bestowed upon us - that, with God, it can be truly divinised. If this is true for the body of Christ, then it is true for all the material reality of this world. It means that the words of St Paul, when he says that a day will come when God shall be 'all in all,' must be taken in the most realistic sense. God, the divine Presence, will pervade all things created - all humanity, and all the created world. The world will then become the glorious vesture of God, the body of God, the Incarnation of a God who will always be beyond his world, but who will become immanent to everything in this world, to all he has created. In the sacraments we already have a vision of this very act. When we say that this bread and this wine become the Body and Blood of Christ we see, in eschatological terms, what bread and wine, and all matter represented by them, are called to be: the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ. Thus the Incarnation gives us not only a historical image of a relationship between God the Saviour and us. It gives us a vast panorama, a vision of what the whole world is called to be in God: 'I in them and thou in me. I in thee, Father, and they in me.' Saint Paul says, our life is already 'hid with Christ in God'. When we think of the Incarnation and of Christ the Man, we must be careful not to fall into the heresy of dividing the Godhead from humanity, of looking at them separately instead of seeing them in their oneness. This oneness was beautifully expressed by St Maximus the Confessor, who says that the union between the humanity and divinity of Christ is like the union of fire and iron that takes place when you plunge a sword of iron into a furnace until it glows with fire. 'Fire and iron,' he says, 'are united now in an indistinguishable way. You can no longer separate the one from the other.' This is the dogma of Chalcedon. Their unity is such that, to use St Maximus' own words, 'one can now burn with iron and cut with fire'. The image of fire and a created object leads us straight into the biblical imagery of God as fire, straight to the God who reveals himself in the burning bush. Father Lev Gillet writes that the fire of God burns only what is evil and does not feed itself on what it sets aflame. It transforms it into a flaming bush without reducing it to ashes. This is what happens in the Incarnation. God, the divine Fire, comes upon a human being, and it is this human entity which is made into a plenitude of Being, without any change in its nature. This takes place in exactly the same way as the bread becomes the Body of Christ and the wine becomes the Blood of Christ in the liturgy. They still remain themselves, because God does not annihilate his creature in the process in order to make it into something else, something essentially different. Incidentally, part of the temptation which the devil offered to Christ was just this. 'You have created stones,' he said, 'now undo your act of creation and make them into bread. You have created bread and wine, undo your act of creation, annihilate their very reality to make them something different'. No. God makes things different by raising them to an eschatological state. In the first prayer of the Canon of the Liturgy we say: 'Thou didst not cease to do all things, until thou hadst brought us up to heaven and bestowed on us thy Kingdom which is to come.' Logically this is absurd. How can we participate now in something which is ahead of us? And yet, this is eschatological reality: things final and decisive are already here, because God has come into the world, and because the world is no longer a world that stands face to face with God. It is a world in which God is immanent, even while he remains the transcendent God. And this is the God in whom we believe. At the end of the ninth chapter of the Book of Job, in verse 33, Job describes his despairing conflict with God and says: 'Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both'. There was indeed no one who could take a step that would bring him between the two conflicting parties, between God Almighty and man in his frailty - and simultaneously in his purity of intention and, therefore, in his righteousness. There was no one who could be the equal of both, who could step into the conflict, put his hand on the Lord's shoulder and on man's shoulder, not to divide them, but to bring together what was severed. This is achieved in the Incarnation. In the Incarnation this conflict between God and man becomes a confrontation within one Person, a Person who is simultaneously, and equally, both man and God. In that Person there is a unity which is God and man, the hypostasis of Christ, in which all that is human is confronted with all that is God's so that the conflict is resolved from within by the inner tragedy and victory of the unity between these two. From within the perspective of the Incarnation one can see what the word intercession really signifies. The word intercede means 'take a step' that brings one to the heart of a conflict. That is what Christ does. But at the same time he unites, he brings all the conflict within himself and resolves it there. And this is why, having resolved it within himself, he can resolve it for the whole world, for men, for history and for the cosmos. This way of resolving the conflict involves both the two natures and the two wills. There can be no resolving of this conflict, if Christ is not truly God and truly man in all aspects except sin. But neither can this conflict be resolved unless Christ - the hypostasis - possesses two wills. If the will of God overpowers the will of man, harmony is not restored. If the will of man remains forever independent of the will of God and in a state of confrontation with it, there is again no harmony. It is only because there is in Christ all that is man, including the freedom of man, and all that is God, including the freedom of God, the greatness, the humility, the surrender and kenosis of God, that victory can be won. Two natures are united, and a new Adam is born. Why? When Adam was created he was not created as an individual, as part of an already existing multiplicity of human beings. He was in himself the total humanity of that moment. But at the moment he was not an individual, but a person. There was no dividedness, no fragmentation, no sin, no evil in him. He is completely whole, with the wholeness of innocence, and of saintliness. He knows God, and is known by God, in terms of communion, of knowledge 'face to face', of vision and contemplation. In the Incarnation, Christ is not simply an individual among other individuals. In the language of St John's Gospel, he is born not of the will of man, nor of the will of the flesh, but of the will of God. He is a new creation, his humanity is part of the created world. He is new because though he has ancestry, his ancestry does not sum up the whole of his ascent towards existence. He possesses an ancestry which is given him. We see this in the genealogy of Christ, which moves step by step through the centuries of Hebrew history. But God is his Father. Christ has a dual ancestry that somehow sums up all of us. There is an openness into eternity, the absolute and the divine. He is unique because he is totally man, possessed of the human flesh he has received from the Virgin. But he is also the Son of God, as St Luke's gospel teaches us: 'The Holy Spirit shall overshadow thee, so that the Holy One who shall be born of thee shall be called and be - in reality - the Son of God.' It is in this context that we must think with deep reverence of the Mother of God and of her virginity, her ascent to holiness, and the Incarnation. In the Incarnation she became the unwedded bride, the bride who has known no man, the bride of the Most High, the bride of God. She represents in her own virginal person - which means she is totally open to God, totally surrendered and given - the whole of creation in its striving and longing and groaning for unity. That striving falls short of realisation for all of us, but is fulfilled in her. As the bride of the Lamb she is Creation; in that sense, she is wedded to the living God. There can be no thought of a human marriage, because it would be a mystical adultery. She is the wife, the bride of God and she can be the wife, the bride, of no man. Having become the dwelling place of the incarnate God, it is unthinkable that she should afterwards turn away into the ordinariness of life. It is even more unthinkable that Joseph, knowing of the Incarnation, should be able to treat her otherwise than as the sacred vessel of the Incarnation, an object of reverence and veneration. In the Incarnation and at the Nativity we can see that God, in Christ, delivers himself to mankind in the total defencelessness of a child. He gives himself. We can do with him whatever we choose. These words were used in the Gospel with reference to St John the Baptist, but they also apply here. We see what divine Love, and, ultimately, what perfect human love must be: a total gift of self, defenceless, totally vulnerable, and calling forth a response. This is essential, because we will be measured in our human dignity, in our human ability to understand God and commune with him by the way in which we can relate to a vulnerable and defenceless God. Christ says at the Last Supper: 'No one takes my life from me. I give it freely'. The Book of Revelation speaks of the Lamb of God slain before all ages. The sacrifice of the Son is intrinsic to the mystery of divine Love as addressed to the created world. The Son of God is the prototype of man. We are created in his image. Our ideal presence is already there in the Trinity. This image is projected into history and finds its place in history, when the time is ripe. The words of Christ at the Last Supper are important because they indicate that this is not a unilateral act by God, but the co-operation of God and man in the salvation of the world. There is a passage in the works of Charles Williams in which, speaking of the Incarnation, he says that it took place when a maiden of Israel proved capable of pronouncing the Holy Name with all her might, with all her heart, with all her will and all her flesh. Then the Word became flesh. This is co-operation between man and the created world on the one hand, and God on the other. In the child of Bethlehem, we see God delivering his Son into our hands. It is a moment when the Lamb of God is truly a defenceless and vulnerable lamb. It is a moment when we can see God sacrificing his Son for the salvation of the world. He sends him forth to death. We have an image of this in Abraham and Isaac. But in the case of Isaac, God provided a ram. In the case of his only-begotten Son, he did not provide a substitute. The Son had to die for the salvation of the world. There is a great deal one could say about the imagery of sacrifice and the innocent victim in the Old Testament. It is always the blameless, the most perfect victim which must be offered in sacrifice, - in order to prepare Israel for the ultimate sacrifice of the Son of God. But this should also make us understand that evil, hatred, all evil human passions, always result in the death and suffering of the innocent. One person drinks and drives, and another is killed on the road. There is also a corollary to this in the moment when Christ is brought to the temple by his Mother and Joseph. We must realise that this is the next step in the fulfillment of the Law. In Exodus, after the flight from Egypt, the Lord says to Moses that the people of Israel must bring forth the first-born male child of every marriage as an offering to Him. This implies a blood-offering in ransom for the first-born of Egypt who had to die that Israel might be freed. As in the story of Abraham and Isaac, however, the Lord allows a substitute. But when the Lord Jesus Christ is brought by his Mother to the temple, God takes possession of him, waits until the right time and accepts him as the blood-offering, as the ultimate sacrifice. This is what we must remember when we bring children for churching. This is what 'churching' signifies; every child is brought into the temple on the very same terms as Christ: to become God's own. By our will to be his, the child is surrendered unto life and unto death. Now I will turn to the significance, in this context, of the baptism of Christ. Earlier Bishop George spoke of the 'gradual perfecting' of the human nature of Christ. There is a certain ambiguity in this expression. What I believe he meant to say is not that there were originally stages of imperfection that were corrected afterwards, but that by the fact that Christ was born truly man, at every stage of his development in childhood and youth, he was adequate to that age and to that stage. And whenever a new faculty - whether of intelligence, of sensitivity, or of will - unfolded in him in the process of his maturing on the human level, this faculty was taken up by the Divinity and integrated into his total perfection, the divine-human harmony that is the incarnate Son of God. At every step he was perfect in the total and perfect union of his humanity and his Divinity. There was never a moment when he was less perfect, or imperfect, and then grew into perfection, though one can speak of a movement in which his humanity entered ever more fully the vocation which the God in him called him to fulfil. We find this in the Baptism of Christ. At that moment he comes to the Jordan, a man of thirty - and all the Fathers teach us that he had attained his full and perfect human maturity. At that moment, he, the man, Jesus Christ (cf. St Paul), with his free will, in the fullness of his humanity, chooses to fulfil his vocation. Here again there are the two wills, but at that moment the two wills are fulfilled in one harmony, which is the divine Will, to which the human will not only acquiesces, but with which the human will identifies gloriously, joyfully and sacrificially. At the moment when Christ came to the banks of Jordan, St John the Baptist did not know why he should baptise him. He saw in him the Lamb of God, the One who was pure, holy and without stain. What significance could baptism have? That every kind of sinner had come to the banks of Jordan, had immersed himself in its waters, had cleansed himself of evil and sin, and that these waters had become heavy with the sin of man, with the deadliness of sin, so that when the Lord Jesus Christ was plunged into them as wool is plunged into a dye, he came out with the sin of man imprinted on him. In the myth of Hercules and his combat with the centaur, the centaur is a being which is half-human and half-horse, that is, bestiality united to humanity. In a sense, this is our condition. We are all centaurs. We have all our glorious humanity in us, and yet we allow it to be defiled. In his combat with this monstrous being - and, in a sense, we are all monstrous, as contrasted with the surpassing beauty of Christ - Hercules wounds the centaur. In order to avenge himself, the centaur drenches his tunic in his own blood and sends it to Hercules, who puts it on. It clings to his flesh and burns him cruelly, yet he cannot take it off. Eventually he tears it away - with his flesh and with his life. This is an image which one could aptly use for what happens to Christ when he takes upon himself our humanity, our humanity which is like the centaur's tunic, drenched with murderous, lethal blood. Then he comes up out of Jordan, ready for the victory, and upon his humanity there comes the Holy Spirit of God in the form of a dove, the Spirit that fills him with power, not only in his divinity, for his humanity also is now fulfilled to total perfection. This will be revealed to us later, at the Transfiguration, when it is not the divinity of God that shines through in spite of the humanity. At that moment we see his humanity transfigured with Divinity and shining in all its glory. But this situation, this vision is incommunicable. The Apostles could see it, but they could not take part in it. It is only in the Resurrection, when all separatedness will be overcome, that the victory of Christ, his risen and transfigured humanity, will be capable of becoming ours . In the context of the humanity of Christ all the temptations offer a double challenge. The first challenge is this: 'You are filled with power. There is no limit to your power. The Spirit is not only upon .you, but within you. God is in you. Why can you not do anything you choose, if you are the Son of God?" In challenging Christ to prove that he is God the devil in effect says: 'You have created a world. Make it different for your own convenience. This world belongs to me, I will give you everything, provided you become one of my subjects. You are God. You are all powerful. You are filled with the Spirit. Show it. Throw yourself down from the pinnacle, that everyone may see and recognise you'. This is the temptation to power which would undo totally the kenosis , the emptying of self, the very act of the Incarnation. It would make the incarnate Son of God into a fallen god, and nothing else. Later Christ was tempted again. Satan reappeared while he was on the way to Caesaria Philippi, after he was recognised as the Son of God by Peter. Christ then began to tell his disciples about his Passion, but Peter turned to Him and said: 'Be merciful to yourself'. This was temptation to weakness. 'You cannot do it. Are you not flesh and blood? Have pity on yourself'. And he said the same words to Peter as he had said to Satan: 'Get thee behind me. Thou thinkest the things of the earth, and not the things of God'. So there are two temptations: power and weakness are equally tempting, and equally dangerous, for him and for us. We must strike the wonderful balance of faith that allows the power of God to be made manifest in weakness. As St Paul says: 'All things are possible for me in the sustaining power of Christ.' For me, 'and yet it is Christ's power, not mine'. At this point Christ becomes 'The Man of the Seventh Day'. At the end of Creation, the Lord rested on the Sabbath, the seventh day. What happened? It is a moment when, having fulfilled all his creative work, he handed it over to man to bring to perfection. St Maximus the Confessor tells us that man was created in such a way that he was at one not only with all the material and psychic world, but also with the spiritual world of the angels and of God himself. Being at the very centre, capable of communing with the one and the other, man could unite both, and so lead the whole of creation unto that perfection which is expressed by St Paul as 'God being all in all'. Man was put in charge of creation, but he betrayed it into the hands of Satan. So Christ becomes the New Adam, the One who takes upon himself to be the Leader, the head of the created world, to lead it to its vocation. This is why so many of the miracles of Christ are performed on the Sabbath. It is the Day of Man. It is the day when God rested from his works and said: 'Now it is for man to bring to perfection what had been made perfect, and to restore to wholeness what has been fragmented and broken and destroyed.' Christ did not perform miracles on the Sabbath in order to challenge the pharisees and the scribes. These miracles were acts by which he asserted himself as the New Adam who takes upon himself and fulfills the vocation of man. By accepting to be the New Adam he takes upon himself the complex destiny of being Perfect Man, and therefore has an absolute horror and revulsion against all sin, all evil, all impurity. And yet he accepts to be clothed in our fallen nature, with all its frailty, though without sin. He is crucified by the frailty of fallen man, because he is himself free. As St Maximus the Confessor says: 'In the Incarnation Christ becomes immortal, because it is impossible to conceive of humanity united inseparably to Divinity, and remaining mortal. Yet he takes upon himself everything, including mortality'. And he also takes upon himself the very condition of mortality - the loss of God - in order to be totally at one with us. So as God he is Love crucified. As man, he is the Perfect Man, crucified by the imperfection of the world which he has accepted to bear in the form of his flesh. Thus he finds himself in history with a dual solidarity. He is totally, unreservedly and ultimately at one with God. But at the same time he is as ultimately and as absolutely, by choice and by the desire of love, at one with the fallen world. The result is that, while he is of both, he is rejected by both. Because he is God's own, he is rejected by man; he must die 'outside the walls'. He cannot even be killed in Jerusalem. He cannot be killed, like the prophets, in the temple or within the precincts of the temple. He must be rejected from the very city of men. Because he has made himself one with man and has accepted the final predicament of man, the loss of God in Adam, he has to die alone, without God. That is what Archimandrite Sophrony once called 'a metaphysical swoon', a moment when, in his humanity, in his dying, he lost the sense of being at one with the Father. 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' This is not the recitation of a prophetic psalm. One does not recite psalms when one is dying on the Cross. One cries out, 'Lord, have mercy'. One cries without words. But one does not recite a psalm for the edification of those standing around. The loss of God is a real event. Christ cannot die, otherwise than by losing God. This is the tragedy of the Cross. This is the inconceivable greatness of divine Love. He is not only vulnerable at that moment. He is undone. In his address Bishop George defined death as extinction. I do not believe this to be true. In the Old Testament, death is an atrocious, appalling moment when body and soul are severed from one another. The soul of each one of us who has lost God on earth, through the sin of our first parents and our own, descends into sheol; into the pit, the place where God is not. The body, which was the only way in which we could communicate with God - by our cry to him, by longing, by hope, by desire, is undone in corruption. It is the utter separatedness of the living human soul from God which is the tragedy of death and sheol in the Old Testament. This is what is signified by the icon of the Harrowing of Hell, or by the words 'he descended into hell' of the Apostles Creed. Soul and body are torn apart. But Divinity does not abandon either his body or his soul. The body of Christ lies incorruptible, because it is inseparably united with Divinity. The soul of Christ descends into hell, as the prayer says, in the splendour of his Godhead. And then the place where God was not, the place of his utter and radical absence, is filled with the divine Presence. This explains the words of the psalm: 'Where shall I flee from before thy face? In heaven is thy dwelling, in hell thou art also'. This, then, is the victory. This is what happens on Good Friday when, at the end of Matins, we already sing of the Resurrection. The Resurrection is not simply the resurrection of the body of Christ. It is victory over death, over sin, over Satan. Hell is emptied and laid waste. And Christ rests in the tomb, like God on the Seventh Day. The victory is won. Not only the victory of creation that opened the tragic history of mankind, but the ultimate victory. On Saturday we sing the Resurrection because body and soul are now united. Christ appears to us victorious. Separation is undone by the Cross and by the descent into hell. Separation can no longer hold Christ, either in the tomb or in hell. The Resurrection is the inevitable glorious result of this victory. Then comes the Ascension, when we see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Glory. We see where we ourselves belong; and we can say, with St Paul, that our life is 'hid with Christ in God'. 

Sourozh. 1983. N.14. P. 1-13

“Πρέπει να ασχολούμαστε μόνο με την ψυχή μας κι όχι με τους άλλους…”


Υπάρχει μια λανθασμένη αντίληψη σε μερικούς Χριστιανούς, που αποτελεί εμπόδιο της ιεραποστολικής εργασίας. Η αντίληψη ότι «πρέπει να ασχολούμαστε μόνο με την ψυχή μας και όχι με τους άλλους. Για τους άλλους θα φροντίσει ο Θεός. Εμείς πρέπει να βλέπουμε την αμαρτωλότητα και αναξιότητά μας. Να κοιτάξουμε πως θα διορθωθούμε εμείς οι ίδιοι. Να μελετούμε πνευματικά βιβλία, να προσευχόμαστε, να καταρτιζόμαστε. Όσο για τους άλλους… δε μας πέφτει λόγος».
Η αντίληψη αυτή στη βάση της είναι ορθή, αλλά μονομερής. Ναι, πρέπει να καλλιεργήσουμε πρώτα τον εαυτό μας. Και το είπαμε αυτό στο κεφάλαιο των προσόντων που πρέπει να έχει ο ιεραποστολικώς εργαζόμενος. (Σ.Σ.: Αυτό το κεφάλαιο θα το παρουσιάσουμε προσεχώς.)
Να προσέξουμε όμως μήπως πίσω από την άποψη αυτή κρύβεται κάποια δειλία και ατολμία ομολογίας ή η ραθυμία μας και η αμέλειά μας για τους άλλους. Ασφαλώς ωραίο πράγμα είναι να μένεις κλεισμένος στο σπίτι σου, να μελετάς, να προσεύχεσαι, να αισθάνεσαι κατάνυξη πνευματική. Αλλά δεν πρέπει να αρκείσαι σ’ αυτό μόνο. Είπαμε ότι η αγάπη προς τον πλησίον, που είναι μεγάλη και θεία εντολή, πρέπει να σε κινητοποιεί, για να μεταδώσεις αυτός που εσύ απόλαυσες κοντά στο Χριστό. Διαφορετικά αμαρτάνεις.
Εάν πάλι ισχυριστεί κανείς, ότι θέλει προηγουμένως να διορθωθεί ο ίδιος και έπειτα να εργαστεί για τους άλλους, θα του απαντήσουμε, ότι ο άνθρωπος που βρήκε μια πηγή δροσερού νερού και ξεδίψασε ο ίδιος, χωρίς χρονοτριβή καλεί σ’ αυτήν την πηγή και τους άλλους συνοδοιπόρους του, που υποφέρουν από δίψα. Τους δείχνει την πηγή αμέσως. Δεν τους αφήνει να ταλαιπωρούνται…
Όταν ο Φίλιππος γνώρισε το Χριστό, δεν κράτησε τη χαρά της γνωριμίας για το άτομο του. Αλλά έσπευσε αμέσως προς το φίλο του Ναθαναήλ και τον κάλεσε κι αυτόν. «Ευρήκαμεν τον Μεσσίαν… έρχου και ίδε» του είπε (Ιωαν. α΄ 46-47).
Αυτό πρέπει να κάνουμε κι εμείς μιμούμενοι το φλογερό ζήλο των πρώτων και αγνών εκείνων του Κυρίου μαθητών και να αφήσουμε κατά μέρος κάθε πρόφαση και δικαιολογία.
Εκείνοι που ισχυρίζονται ότι είναι ανάγκη να κοιτάξουν τον ατομικό τους καταρτισμό και γι’ αυτό δεν αισθάνονται ότι είναι ώριμοι να εργαστούν ιεραποστολικώς για τους άλλους ως δήθεν ανάξιοι, ας έχουν και το εξής υπόψη: Ο άγιος Ιωάννης της Κλίμακας, που ήταν μεγάλος δάσκαλος του μοναχισμού και της ορθόδοξης πνευματικότητας, γράφει τα εξής:
«Εκείνος που κρατεί τον ωφέλιμο και διδασκαλικό λόγο και δεν το μεταδίδει στους άλλους, … ούτε ποτίζει ώσπερ δροσοβόλος και ιαματική πηγή τας διψώσας ψυχάς, μέλλει να τιμωρηθή».
(Λόγος ΛΑ΄ § οστ΄)
Επίσης ο ίδιος τονίζει:
«Δεν είναι κανένα άλλο δώρο άξιο, που να το δέχεται παρ’ ημών ο Θεός με περισσότερη χαρά, όσο το να ελευθερώνουμε ψυχές εκ των δαιμόνων και να τις φέρνουμε σ’ Αυτόν (το Θεό) διορθωμένες με τη μετάνοια. Γιατί όλος ο κόσμος δεν είναι αντάξιος να αλλάξουμε μια ψυχή με αυτόν».
(Λόγος 31ος 90)
Και ο άγιος και Μέγας Αθανάσιος, απευθυνόμενος προς κάποιον όσιο άνδρα, το Δρακόντιο, που είχε εκλεγεί Επίσκοπος, αλλά από ταπεινοφροσύνη δεν ήθελε να δεχτεί την επισκοπή του, του έγραφε:
«Ω αγαπητέ Δρακόντιε… οι λαοί προσδοκούν να τους φέρεις τροφή, τη διδασκαλία των Αγίων Γραφών. Όταν λοιπόν οι προσδοκώντες λιμώττωσι (υποφέρουν από την πείνα), εσύ όμως τρέφεις μόνο τον εαυτό σου και έλθει ο Κύριος Ιησούς και θα παρουσιαστούμε ενώπιόν Του, ποια απολογία θα έχεις να του πεις;»
(Μ. Αθανασίου, Επιστολή 49η, προς Δρακόντιο § 2)

Από το βιβλίο “Εκστρατεία Ιεραποστολής” του Αρχιμανδρίτου Γρηγορίου Π. Χαραλαμπίδη, θεολόγου – ιεροκήρυκα, το οποίο κυκλοφορεί από τις εκδόσεις “ο Σωτήρ”.

Πηγή:diakonima

Sunday, 8 December 2013

Saint Theophylact of Ochrid-The Healing of the Woman with a Spirit of Infirmity

 Twenty-seventh Sunday after Pentecost
The Healing of the Woman with a Spirit of Infirmity

Luke 13:10-17

From The Explanation of the Gospel of St. Luke

by Blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Ochrid and Bulgaria

10-17. And He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. And, behold, there was a woman who had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bent over, and could in no wise straighten herself. And when Jesus saw her, He called her to Him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And He laid His hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God. And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day. The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead it away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? And when He had said these things, all His adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by Him. The woman suffered from this affliction as a result of demonic assault, as the Lord Himself says, This woman,  whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years. Perhaps God had departed from her on account of certain sins, and as a result Satan was punishing her. For Satan is in part the cause of all the hardships which afflict our bodies, when God on high permits him. From the very beginning it was Satan who brought about our fall by which we lost the incorruptibility in which we had been created; it was Satan who caused us to be bound to diseased bodies prone to suffering, symbolized by the garments of dead skins in which Adam and Eve were wrapped (Gen. 3:22). But now the Lord, with the majestic voice of the Godhead, full of power, drives out the infirmity of this woman. He places His hands on her, so that we might learn that His holy flesh imparted both the power and the energy of the Logos. For His flesh was His own, and not that of some other human person alongside Him, separate from Him in hypostasis, as the impious Nestorius thinks. (1) So great is the goodness of the Lord, Who in this manner took mercy on His own creation. But Satan, who had bound the woman in the first place, was vexed at her deliverance because he desired her continued affliction, and so he bound the ruler of the synagogue with spite, and through the mouth of this man, Satan reviled the miracle. This is how he always attacks the good. Therefore the Lord uses the apt example of irrational animals to rebuke the man who was indignant that a healing had taken place on the Sabbath. And thus not only this man, but all the other adversaries of Jesus as well, were put to shame by Christ's words. For it was insane to hinder the healing of a man on the Sabbath using as a pretext the commandment that the Sabbath be a day of rest. So it was, that even while the people were rejoicing at the Lord's deeds, His adversaries were put to shame by His words. For these adversaries, instead of joining in the jubilation which followed His work of healing, burned with rage that He had healed at all. But the multitude, because they derived benefit from His signs, rejoiced and took pleasure in this healing. You must also understand these miracles to refer to the inner man. The soul is bent over in infirmity whenever it inclines to earthly thoughts alone and imagines nothing that is heavenly and divine. It can truly be said that such a soul has been infirm for eighteen years. For when a man is feeble in keeping the commandments of the divine law, which are ten in number, and is weak in his hope of the eighth age, the age to come, it can be said that he has been bent over for ten and eight years. (2) Is not that man indeed bent over who is attached to the earth, and who always sins in disregard of the commandments, and who does not look for the age to come? But the Lord heals such a soul on the Sabbath in the assembly of the synagogue. For when a man assembles together within himself thoughts of confession (Judah means "confession") and keeps the Sabbath, that is, he rests from doing evil, then Jesus heals him, not only by word when He says to him, Thou art loosed from thine infirmity, but also by deed. For when He has placed His hands on us, He requires that we accept the energy from His divine hands to do in collaboration with Him the works of virtue. We must not be satisfied to receive only that healing which comes by word and by instruction.

1. The heretic Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 to 431 A,D., taught that the co-unoriginate Logos was not conceived and did not take flesh in the Virgins womb, but instead was united to Christ the man at some later time. This implied that the two natures of Christ, the divine and the human, were not united in one hypostasis, that is, in one person, but in two, and therefore were not truly united. If this were so, Christ would not have accomplished the salvation of the human race. As a result Nestorius called the Virgin Mary Christokos, that is, the Birthgiver of Christ, but refused to call her the Theotokos, the Birthgiver of God. This false teaching was condemned as heresy at the Third Ecumenical Council held in Ephesus in the year 431, and from that time Nestorius and all who follow his teaching have been outside the Church.
2. The Greek text of the Gospel expresses the number of years in this fashion: ete deka kai okto, "ten and eight years."

Τό μυστήριο τοῦ Εὐχελαίου. Τί εἶναι τό ῞Αγιο Εὐχέλαιο;


Ἐπισκόπου Ἀνδρέου Ἀράντ καί Χουνεντοάρας
 
Τό ῞Αγιο Εὐχέλαιο εἶναι τό Μυστήριο μέ τό ὁποῖο παρέχεται ἡ σωματική καί ψυχική ὑγεία σέ ἀσθενεῖς, πού ἐπαλείφονται μέ ἁγιασμένο λάδι, ἀφοῦ διαβάζονται καί ὡρισμένες εὐχές. Τό ῞Αγιο Εὐχέλαιο μεταδίδει τήν Θεία Χάρι στούς πιστούς καί τούς καθαρίζει ἀπό ψυχικές ἁμαρτίες καί τίς σωματικές τους ἀρρώστειες.
Πότε καί πῶς καθιερώθηκε τό Μυστήριο αὐτό;
῾Ο Κύριός μας 'Ιησοῦς Χριστός, ἔδωκε στούς 'Αποστόλους, ὄχι μόνο τήν ἐξουσία νά συγχωροῦν ἁμαρτίες, ἀλλά καί τήν Χάρι νά διώκουν ἀκάθαρτα πνεύματα καί νά θεραπεύουν άρρώστειες καί ἀδυναμίες τῶν ἀνθρώπων (Λουκ,9,1-2), «ἤλειφον ἐλαίῳ πολλούς ἀρρώστους καί ἐθεράπευον» (Μαρκ.6,7-13).
Μαρτυρία διά τό Μυστήριο αὐτό εὑρίσκομε στήν ἐπιστολή τοῦ 'Αποστόλου 'Ιακώβου, (5,14-15),«ἀσθενεῖ τις ἐν ὑμῖν; προσκαλεσάσθω τούς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς 'Εκκλησίας, καί προσευξάσθωσαν ἐπ' αὐτόν ἀλείψαντες αὐτόν ἐλαίῳ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου· καί ἡ εὐχή τῆς πίστεως σώσῃ τόν κάμνοντα, καί ἐγερεῖ αὐτόν ὁ Κύριος· κἄν ἁμαρτίας ᾖ πεποιηκώς, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ».
Αὐτό πού ἐδίδασκαν καί ἐπετέλουν οἱ ῞Αγιοι 'Απόστολοι, δέν προήρχοντο ἀπ' αὐτούς, ἀλλά ἀπό ἐντολές καί ἀποκάλυψιν τοῦ Σωτῆρος μας Χριστοῦ. Οἱ ῾Ιερεῖς τῆς 'Εκκλησίας δέν κάνουν τίποτε ἄλλο παρά αὐτά πού ὁ Κύριος καί οἱ ῞Αγιοι 'Απόστολοι τούς ἐδίδαξαν.
Ποῦ καί πῶς τελεῖται τό ῾Ιερό Εὐχέλαιο;
Τό ῞Αγιο Εὐχέλαιο τελεῖται στήν 'Εκκλησία καί στά σπίτια τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπό ἑπτά ῾Ιερεῖς, (σέ περίπτωσι ἐλλείψεως γίνεται ἀπό πέντε ἤ ἀπό τρεῖς, ἀπό δύο ἤ ἀκόμη καί ἀπό ἕνα).'Ανάβουν ἑπτά κανδυλάκια, διαβάζουν ἑπτά ἀποστολικές καί ἑπτά εὐαγγελικές περικοπές καί ἀρκετές προσευχές γιά τήν συγχώρησι τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν καί τήν θεραπεία τῶν ἀσθενῶν, οἱ ὁποῖοι καί ἀλείφονται ἑπτά φορές ἀπό τό ἁγιασμένο λάδι (ὅταν εἶναι ἑπτά ῾Ιερεῖς).
Πρίν ἀπό τήν ἀκολουθία τοῦ Εὐχελαίου, οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ἐξομολογοῦνται γιά νά εἶναι προετοιμασμένοι ψυχικά γιά τήν λῆψι τῆς εὐλογίας τοῦ Μυστηρίου αὐτοῦ.
Μέ ῞Αγιο Εὐχέλαιο κλείνουμε ἐδῶ τήν ὀρθόδοξη χριστιανική διδασκαλία γιά τά ἑπτά Μυστήρια τῆς 'Εκκλησίας μας, οἱ ὁποῖες εἶναι οἱ ἑπτά θαυμαστές πηγές ἀπό τίς ὁποῖες ἐκχύνεται ἐπάνω στούς Χριστιανούς οἱ Χάριτες τοῦ ῾Αγίου Πνεύματος.
Θά συνεχίσωμε τήν διδασκαλία αὐτή πιό εὐρύτερα στό δεύτερο μέρος τῆς κατηχήσεως αὐτῆς, ὅπου θά ὁμιλήσωμε γιά τήν χριστιανική λατρεία
῞Οποιος δέχεται καί ἐφαρμόζει μέ εὐλάβεια τήν διδασκαλίαν αὐτή γιά τά ἑπτά Μυστήρια, σώζεται ἀπό τήν ἐνοχή τῆς ἁμαρτίας καί κληρονομεῖ τήν αἰώνια ζωή. ῞Οποιος δέν τά δέχεται τιμωρεῖται. ῾Η σωτηρία εἶναι καθαρότης, φωτισμός καί ἁγιασμός τῆς ψυχῆς μέ τήν Χάρι τῶν Μυστηρίων, τήν ἀληθινή πίστι καί τά ἀγαθά ἔργα.
῾Ο Κύριός μας 'Ιησοῦς Χριστός ἔστειλε τούς 'Αποστόλους στόν κόσμο νά διδάξουν τούς ἀνθρώπους τί νά πιστεύουν καί νά φυλάξουν τίς ἐντολές πού τούς ἔδωσε (Ματ.28,20), «ὁ δέ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται» (Μαρκ.16,16).

Saturday, 7 December 2013

Are you religious or spiritual?


Our Lord didn’t directly delineate religiosity versus spirituality


While getting to know someone you might ask, “Do you go to church?” It is increasingly common to hear the response, “Oh, I’m not religious, but I am spiritual.” Your acquaintance may go on to explain he finds religion to be too hypocritical, legalistic, and full of strife. “Look at all the wars that have been due to religion!” he exclaims, “And I don’t want some preacher telling me how to live my life when he can’t follow his own rules!” When asked what he means by being spiritual, the answer is something like, “I believe there is a life-force, I meditate, and occasionally I read books about spirituality; so I don’t need religion.”

Has religion become passe? Is it valid to separate faith into two opposing camps: religious versus spiritual? Is the Church merely a religious institution? To answer these questions, it is important to: (1) define and contrast what is meant by being religious and by being spiritual; (2) look within the Gospels to see what Jesus taught and modeled; and, (3) have an appropriate understanding of the role the Church plays in our Orthodox Faith.

 Religious

A typical dictionary definition of “religious” is: devotion to a superhuman controlling power, a god, entitled to obedience and worship. You have to believe in a deity in order to be religious, and “devotion” implies having made a commitment to an ongoing relationship with that deity. Whenever there is a formal relationship there has to be “rules” (laws, disciplines, duties) to maintain a beneficial coexistence. You have to worship and obey God in a particular manner in order to receive God’s blessings. Eventually the rules get codified, and the canons by necessity become organized and institutionalized. In the process, you give up some freedom when you become religious; this is whatSt. Paul meant in being “a slave of Christ” (1 Corinthians 7:22). The antonym for being religious is “secularism:” involvement solely with the affairs of the world, the temporal, and the mundane.

Was Jesus Christ religious? He was circumcised a Jew (Luke 2:21) and received a Jewish religious education (Luke 2:46). He taught at the synagogues (Matthew 13:54) and attended the religious holidays in Jerusalem(John 2:23). He upheld the Mosaic law and prophetic teachings, and He instructed others to also keep the commandments of God (Matthew 5:17-20, 7:12). He encouraged those He healed to offer the Mosaic ritual sacrifice (Matthew 8:4). He affirmed that people must obey their religious leaders (Matthew 23:3) and pay the temple tax (Luke 20:25; 21:1-4). He was tried as a Jew (John 18:12-14, 19-24) and was buried according to Jewish religious tradition (John 19:38-42). Jesus also instituted with His followers new religious practices like Baptism (Matthew 3:13-17) and the Eucharist (Matthew 26:26-29). There should be no question that Jesus was religious.

Spiritual

A typical dictionary definition of “spiritual” is: being concerned with the spirit—the metaphysical, incorporeal, immaterial, ultimate, ideal, etc. You can be spiritual without believing in a deity; instead, you can believe in ghosts, witchcraft, ESP, reincarnation, universal love, etc. Also “concerned” in the above definition is merely an intellectual interest or awareness to something. You can acknowledge the truth of a spiritual principle but not necessarily strive to make it an ongoing rule in your life. Therefore, you do not have to follow any particular system of behavior when being spiritual; there are seemingly no set moral constraints. You may try to develop a particular lifestyle in accordance with your spiritual beliefs, but you’re accountable to no one except yourself. Consequently, there is a lot of freedom to being spiritual—believe and act in whatever way you deem is right. The antonym for being spiritual is “materialism:” involvement with the gathering of wealth, sensual experiences, and physical comfort.

Was Jesus Christ spiritual? He went beyond just keeping religious laws and taught that your attitude and character are just as important as your behavior (e.g., “You heard it said. . . , but I tell you. . . .”—Matthew 5:21-48). He said it is what is within rather than outside of us that makes us unclean (Mark 7:17-23). He taught the spiritual disciplines—like alms giving, prayer, and fasting—in ways contrary to the showy style popular amongst the religious teachers of that time (Matthew 6:1-18). He was against the idolatrous pursuit of wealth and being materialistic (Matthew 6:19-24; 8:20; 19:21), so He opposed the luxurious and comfortable life many of the religious leaders had (Matthew 23:6,25). He cleansed the temple of merchants which was contrary to what religious leaders had allowed (John 2:13-17). He spoke against the self-serving and hypocritical practices of the religious leaders in general (Matthew 23). He gleaned and healed on the Sabbath—both considered “work” and therefore contrary to Jewish religious tradition (Mark 3:1-6; Luke 6:1-11). Though His primary mission was to His fellow Jews, Jesus associated with and helped: tax collectors, Romans, Samaritans, lepers, and others who were “outside” of typical Jewish religious acceptance. So, yes, by our modern definition Jesus was spiritual.

However, Our Lord didn’t directly delineate religiosity versus spirituality. It is more accurate to view Jesus as trying to reform Judaism while also establishing the kingdom of God. Yet it is instructive to see by the definitions given above that Jesus was incorporating a life where both religious practice and spiritual understanding were embraced. He never

abandoned Jewish religion for a life of pure spirituality, nor did He so toe the religious line that He exhorted external behavioral perfection (i.e., Pharisaical legalism) without internal spiritual transformation.

Religion and Spirituality Compared

The Church Fathers never separated spirituality from religion. When they used the word “spiritual” it was in reference to “life in the Holy Spirit” rather than our modern definition of being interested in the immaterial. The Church Fathers also didn’t separate religion into physical and non-physical; they thought any division of the body from the spirit was non-Orthodox as it denied the incarnation. True spirituality is always incorporated into the life of the Church; the great litany of the Divine Liturgy addresses both man’s material and immaterial needs. So up until the modern era, religion and spirituality were a mated couple. How did they become divorced? Over time, various criticisms were leveled at religion provoking people to look for spirituality apart from the Church; three of those criticisms will be discussed below. Also presented will be how practicing spirituality without religion also garners criticism.

Orthodox Church

(1) The religious hold to an institutionalized creed and canons that all within the religion are held accountable to follow. Often the religious will get criticized for having beliefs and practices that are rigidly legalistic or over-defined—seeming governing every minute aspect of life. The religious are also judged for not being able to live up to all their rules despite years of church attendance and indoctrination; therefore, sometimes the religious are seen as being insincere about their beliefs and the clergy are viewed as being hypocritical.

In reaction to the above, the spiritual want an individually defined creed that there is little or no external accountability to. They want the freedom to define their beliefs and practices as strict or loose as they deem fit. Yet in the process the spiritual are criticized for having beliefs that are poorly formulated, confusing, or contradictory. This is because their beliefs are often chosen smorgasbord style from any number of different theologies and philosophies. Also, due to the private, non-accountable creed of the spiritual, they are sometimes judged as being wishy-washy: they change their beliefs depending on the popular guru of the moment or some new discovery made from their spiritual reading.



(2) The religious are sometimes perceived as being exclusive of others who don’t share their beliefs and practices. They are seen as rejecting of, sometimes violently, those who hold to a different religion or who in some way don’t fit into their social sphere. However, moral exclusivity—intolerance to sinful behavior—is a good thing: it tends to uphold traditional or conservative values which are necessary for the well-being of families and communities.

Because the spiritual tend to believe whatever they want, they see themselves as being non-judgmental inclusive of others. They usually accept people’s differing spiritual beliefs and practices, because in their thinking “all roads go to god.” Yet, because of the freedom and inclusion orientation of the spiritual, they tend to be more morally non-traditional or liberal and so tolerate behavior that can be detrimental to the well-being of the individual or society.

(3) The religious may pride themselves in being committed to their local church, and faithfully volunteering to do charitable and educational endeavors within their community. However, they are sometimes judged as blindly doing what is religiously required of them without full understanding or conviction. Their motive may be a need for social acceptance or status. The religious are sometimes viewed as being overly concerned with raising money and increasing church attendance—horizontal growth—than the virtuous transformation of their character.

Conversely, the spiritual may pride themselves as being more active in developing their beliefs. They zealously tend to research and study information about various spiritual interests, and they are open to trying a variety of spiritual experiences. However, their motive can purely be out of a desire to achieve some type of “spiritual high”—an ecstatic, transcendent, or mystical experience. The spiritual are often seen as being overly concerned with their own enlightened knowledge—vertical growth—than directly improving their communities (i.e., “so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good”).

Both the religious and the spiritual have their pros and cons. What is needed is a balance where the benefits of religion and spirituality are reunited. Can the Church exemplify a “religious spirituality” or a “spiritual religiousness?”

The Church as both Religious and Spiritual

Ideally the Church, as the visible icon of Christ, is both religious and spiritual. She upholds both “devotion” to God as well as “concern” for spiritual matters. The Church exhorts corporate worship and obedience to religious duties, as well as encouraging individual wrestling with understanding and developing the Faith. She leads us both by consensus (corporate religious accountability) as well as by conscience (individual spiritual conviction). Growth is horizontal and vertical. Socially, She is exclusive when it comes to matters of morality and safeguarding the truth, but inclusive when it comes to caring for people regardless of race or creed. Therefore, the true Church is both conservative and liberal. The first response you give to those who are anti-religious is that when the Church is fully exemplifying our Lord and Savior, She is both religious and spiritual.

Unfortunately, over the centuries the Church has sometimes failed to accurately portray itself to the populace in the above ways. As an institution governed by the frailty of men, the Church has at times been overly religious, with all its negative connotations, rather than also being spiritual. The pharisaical religious milieu of Jesus’ time reflects an insincere, pretentious, self-righteous form of faith that is lacking in spiritual depth, grace, and humility (Matthew 23:13-36). However,
you can have profound spiritual experiences without pleasing God through keeping religious commandments.St. Paul wrote of the Israelites:

“Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness” (1 Corinthians 10:1-5).

Yet regardless of how imbalanced the Church may be at times, the New Testament clearly states we are not submitting to God if we do not participate in the Church (Hebrews 10:25). The Church is the “body” of Christ, and our Lord is Her head (Ephesians 4:11-16; Colossians 1:18,24). You cannot separate spirituality from religion without decapitation! The Apostle Paul united both religion and spirituality when he stated: “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself?” and “He who unites himself with the Lord is one with Him in spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:15,17). Your second response to those who would denigrate the Bride of Christ (Revelations 19:7-8) as a religious institution is: there is no unity, wholeness, and accountability to the Faith (John 17:20-23; Ephesians 4:1-4) if people are being spiritual without also being religious.

Finally, how do you respond to the charge that the Church is too “hypocritical, legalistic, and full of strife?” The expectations placed upon the Church needs to be more realistic. Within Scripture, religion was seen as being practical (e.g, James 1:26-27). There are two connotations to something that is practical: (1) As a tool, the Church’s effectiveness is dependent on the one who wields it. Church leaders do not always direct the Church as She was intended to be used. Tools can be abused, and in the wrong hands tools can also be weapons. (2) The Christian life is something that is practiced rather than being right every time it is applied. People grow in the Faith in the same way people grow physically. It is unrealistic to expect people going to church would automatically have perfected behavior. Would you expect a child to instantly develop a perfect athletic physique, who could seriously contend for a gold medal in the Olympic decathlon, after only a short time of competing at track and field events? Yet, even after becoming full-grown adults, people still have physical mishaps—do something awkward, clumsy, or accidental. In the same way, even the most advanced in the Faith, including our Church leaders, occasionally stumble and fall.

The third response to those that dismiss being involved in the Church is that associating with Her is not for the faint-hearted; true religion is definitely not for the cowardly or lazy. Just as in marriage, being involved in the Church can be very difficult at times; She can be exasperating and exhausting. Yet the Church is where you put all your religious behavior and spiritual principles into practice: going to church is where your faith is worked out (Philippians 2:12; James 2:14-17) and where you become trained in righteousness (Hebrews 12:7-11). Can you become a decathlete and avoid the track field? No! Neither can you persevere in winning the spiritual race (1 Corinthians 9:24-27) without attending your local Orthodox parish (Hebrews 12:1).

In summary, can you be spiritual without being religious? Not if you are an Orthodox Christian and understand the necessity for both. The true Church exemplifies both religion and spirituality: She is where we obey God’s will to be unified in the Faith, and through our relationship with Her we grow into maturity, completion, and Christ-likeness. The Church was God’s plan all along for His creation. The Apostle Paul wrote:

“His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to His eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Ephesians 3:10-11, NIV).

Source:Pemptousia.com

Friday, 6 December 2013

Γιά τήν εὐχή καί τήν ἀλεπουδίτσα.


Π. Τύχων Σεβκούνωφ 

Στην Αίγυπτο όπου υπήρχαν στη βαθιά χριστιανική αρχαιότητα πολλά μεγάλα μοναστήρια, ζούσε ένας μοναχός που ήταν φίλος με έναν αγράμματο απονήρευτο αγρότη-φελάχο. Μια μέρα ο φελάχος είπε στο μοναχό:
«Κι εγώ λατρεύω το Θεό που δημιούργησε αυτό τον κόσμο! Κάθε απόγευμα χύνω σε μια γαβάθα κατσικίσιο γάλα και το βάζω κάτω από ένα φοίνικα. Το βράδυ ο Θεός έρχεται και πίνει το γαλατάκι μου. Του αρέσει πάρα πολύ! Ούτε μια φορά δεν έμεινε κάτι στη γαβάθα».
Όταν άκουσε αυτά τα λόγια ο μοναχός, δε μπόρεσε να μη γελάσει. Καλόψυχα και κατανοητά εξήγησε στο φίλο του ότι ο Θεός δε χρειάζεται κατσικίσιο γάλα.
Όμως ο αγρότης επέμενε με πείσμα στο δικό του. Τότε ο μοναχός πρότεινε την επόμενη νύχτα να παρακολουθήσουν κρυφά  τι συμβαίνει, όταν αφήσουν τη γαβάθα με το γάλα κάτω από τον φοίνικα.
Το είπαν και το έκαναν:
τη νύχτα ο μοναχός κι ο αγρότης κρύφτηκαν κοντά και στο φως του φεγγαριού σύντομα είδαν ότι μια αλεπουδίτσα είχε πλησιάσει κρυφά τη γαβάθα κι έγλειφε όλο το γάλα ώσπου να την αφήσει πεντακάθαρη.
Αυτή η αποκάλυψη χτύπησε τον αγρότη σαν κεραυνός! «Ναι», παραδέχτηκε συντετριμμένος, «τώρα το βλέπω, δεν ήταν ο Θεός!».
Ο μοναχός προσπάθησε να καθησυχάσει τον αγρότη κι άρχισε να εξηγεί ότι ο Θεός είναι Πνεύμα, ότι είναι απόλυτα διαφορετικός σε σχέση με τον κόσμο μας, ότι οι άνθρωποι Τον γνωρίζουν με ιδιαίτερο τρόπο… Όμως ο αγρότης στεκόταν μπροστά του με το κεφάλι κάτω και μετά άρχισε να κλαίει κι έφυγε για την καλύβα του.
Ο μοναχός πήγε κι αυτός στο κελί του. Όμως όταν πλησίασε είδε με κατάπληξη έναν άγγελο στην πόρτα να του φράζει το δρόμο. Ο μοναχός τρομαγμένος έπεσε στα γόνατα κι ο άγγελος είπε:
«Αυτός ο απλός άνθρωπος δεν είχε ούτε παιδεία ούτε σοφία ούτε μόρφωση για να λατρέψει το Θεό διαφορετικά απ’ ό,τι έκανε. Κι εσύ με τη σοφία και τη μόρφωσή σου του πήρες αυτή τη δυνατότητα. Θα πεις ότι χωρίς αμφιβολία έκρινες σωστά; Όμως ένα πράμα δεν ξέρεις, ω σοφέ: ο Θεός βλέποντας την ειλικρινή καρδιά αυτού του αγρότη, κάθε βράδυ έστελνε στο φοίνικα την αλεπουδίτσα για να τον καθησυχάσει και να δεχτεί τη θυσία του».

Απόσπασμα από το βιβλίο “Σχεδόν Άγιοι”
του Αρχιμ. Τύχων Σεβκούνωβ

Ελεύθεροι… που είμαστε δεμένοι χειροπόδαρα!


Άλλο ένα πράγμα που παρατηρώ, γράφεις, είναι το πως τρέχουν όλοι με κομμένη ανάσα πέρα-δώθε, κυνηγώντας, θαρρείς, κάτι που ποτέ δεν καταφέρνουν να πιάσουν. Τί φασαρία, τί αναβρασμός, τί πήγαιν’ έλα είν’ εκείνο που βλέπω, όποτε περνάω από πολυσύχναστο δρόμο; Διαπιστώνω, όμως, ότι το ίδιο συμβαίνει και στα σπίτια, ίσως και μέσα στις ψυχές των ανθρώπων. Τα ‘χω χαμένα! Μπορεί κανείς, αλήθεια, να ζει μ’ αυτόν τον τρόπο;…

Παρατηρώ, επίσης, το πώς καταναγκάζουν και καταπιέζουν ο ένας τον άλλο. Κανένας δεν έχει τη δική του βούληση. Κανένας δεν είναι ελεύθερος. Δεν τολμάς να ντυθείς όπως θα ‘θελες, να φερθείς όπως θα ‘θελες, να πεις ό,τι θα ‘θελες. Δεν μπορείς να ξεχωρίσεις από τους υπόλοιπους. Ό,τι κάνουν, επιβάλλεται από έναν άγραφο νόμο, ένα νόμο στον οποίο όλοι υποτάσσονται, ένα νόμο, ωστόσο, που κανένας δεν ξέρει το πώς καθιερώθηκε, μα ούτε και το πώς να τον αποφύγει. Μ’ αυτόν τον τρόπο αλληλοβασανίζονται. Δεν τολμάς ν’ ακούσεις κανέναν – τί θλιβερό!

Εγώ, π.χ., τα καταφέρνω στο τραγούδι. Όταν μπορώ να τραγουδήσω, τότε το τραγούδι είναι πραγματική απόλαυση και για μένα και για τους ακροατές. Υπάρχουν όμως περιπτώσεις, που, είτε μπορώ είτε όχι, αναγκάζομαι να τραγουδήσω. Και το κάνω, γιατί το επιβάλλει ο «νόμος» της ευγένειας. Η άρνησή μου θα είναι αντίθετη σ’ αυτόν το «νόμο». Έτσι, λοιπόν, τραγουδάω, μολονότι μου είναι αφόρητο: Το στήθος μου τσακίζεται, αλλά πιέζομαι, για να δείξω ότι τραγουδάω με κέφι. Το έχω παρατηρήσει και σε άλλους αυτό. Ε, να ποιά είναι η ελευθερία μας! Εξωτερικά όλοι φαινόμαστε ελεύθεροι άνθρωποι· ελεύθεροι, που είμαστε δεμένοι χειροπόδαρα!

Με αφορμή αυτή την παρατήρηση, άρχισα να εξετάζω συστηματικά, αν οι άνθρωποι κάνουν με την καρδιά τους όλα όσα κάνουν. Και το αποτέλεσμα; Δεν ξέρω αν πέφτω έξω, αλλά τίποτα δεν είδα να γίνεται με ειλικρινή εγκαρδιότητα και αυθόρμητη διάθεση. Κενές αβρότητες, πρόθυμες τάχα εξυπηρετήσεις, εκφράσεις αλληλοθαυμασμού και αλληλοεκτιμήσεως -μα όλα συμβατικά και επιφανειακά. Πίσω από τη βιτρίνα, κάτω από την εξωτερική εμφάνιση και συμπεριφορά, την τόσο λεπτή και ευγενική, κρύβεται ένα εντελώς διαφορετικό πνεύμα, ένα πνεύμα, που, αν ερχόταν ποτέ στο φως, θα διαπιστώναμε ότι στην πραγματικότητα όχι μόνο λεπτό δεν είναι, μα ούτε καν υποφερτό.

Τελικά, λοιπόν, τί αποδεικνύεται; Ότι οι κοσμικές συγκεντρώσεις μας δεν είναι παρά συναθροίσεις ηθοποιών που υποκρίνονται. Τί κωμωδία!

Τη μεγαλύτερη έκπληξη, όμως, μου την προξενεί η γενική ψυχρότητα που βλέπω γύρω μου. Πώς μπορούν να δείχνουν όλοι ότι είναι φίλοι μεταξύ τους, έτοιμοι να προσφέρουν στους άλλους ακόμα και το πουκάμισο τους, βαθύτερα όμως να έχουν τόση ψυχρότητα;

Οι διαπιστώσεις σου είναι απόλυτα σωστές. Δεν έχω τίποτα να προσθέσω σε όσα γράφεις. Όλα τούτα, πάντως, παρατηρήθηκαν και καταγράφηκαν από πολύ παλιά, για να τ’ αντιμετωπίσουμε προετοιμασμένοι. Αιώνες πριν ο άγιος Μακάριος ο Μέγας περιέγραψε την ακαταστασία, την πολύβουη κίνηση και το μάταιο κυνηγητό της επίγειας ζωής, που το γεύτηκες ήδη. «Οι κάτοικοι της γης», γράφει ο άγιος, «και τα τέκνα του κόσμου τούτου μοιάζουν με το σιτάρι μέσα στο κόσκινο. Έτσι κοσκινίζονται και οι ψυχές με τους άστατους κοσμικούς λογισμούς, την ακατάπαυστη ταραχή των γήινων πραγμάτων και τις πολύπλοκες υλικές φροντίδες. Ο σατανάς ταρακουνάει με το κόσκινο, δηλαδή με τις επίγειες μέριμνες, ολόκληρο το αμαρτωλό γένος των ανθρώπων. Μετά το προπατορικό αμάρτημα, αφότου δηλαδή ο Αδάμ αθέτησε την εντολή του Θεού και βρέθηκε κάτω από την εξουσία του διαβόλου, ο άρχοντας του σκότους κοσκινίζει με ακατάπαυστους απατηλούς λογισμούς τους ανθρώπους, χτυπώντας τους στα τοιχώματα του κόσκινου αυτής της γης. Όπως, δηλαδή, το κόσκινο ταρακουνάει και περιστρέφει και χτυπάει το σιτάρι, έτσι και ο διάβολος, αιχμαλωτίζοντας με τα γήινα πράγματα τις ψυχές των αμαρτωλών απογόνων του Αδάμ, τις ταράζει, τις αναστατώνει, τις ξεσηκώνει και τις παρασύρει σε μάταιους λογισμούς, σε αισχρές επιθυμίες και σε κοσμικούς δεσμούς, εξαπατώντας τες και ξελογιάζοντας τες ακατάπαυστα. Ο Κύριος είχε μιλήσει προφητικά στους αποστόλους Του για τον μελλοντικό τους πειρασμό: Ο σατανάς ζήτησε να σας δοκιμάσει σαν το σιτάρι στο κόσκινο. Εγώ, όμως, προσευχήθηκα στον Πατέρα μου να μη σας εγκαταλείψει η πίστη σας. Η ρήση και απόφαση, άλλωστε, που εξαγγέλθηκε από το Δημιουργό στον Κάιν, είναι ξεκάθαρη: Θα στενάζεις και θα τρέμεις και θα χτυπιέσαι πάνω στη γη. Αυτό ακριβώς συμβαίνει, μεταφορικά, με όλους τους αμαρτωλούς. Νιώθουν ανασφάλεια και αβεβαιότητα μέσα στους άστατους λογισμούς της δειλίας, μέσα στο φόβο, τη σύγχυση, την επιθυμία, την ηδονή· γιατί ο άρχοντας του κόσμου τούτου πειράζει όσους δεν έχουν αναγεννηθεί από το Θεό, περιστρέφοντας άστατα, σαν το σιτάρι μέσα στο κόσκινο, τους λογισμούς τους, προκαλώντας τους αίσθημα ανασφάλειας και παγιδεύοντάς τους με κοσμικές άπατες, σαρκικές ηδονές, φόβους και συγχύσεις».

Να οι δικές σου παρατηρήσεις από μια άλλη σκοπιά! Εσύ περιέγραψες τον τρόπο εξέλιξης των πραγμάτων ο άγιος Μακάριος αποκάλυψε την αιτία και την προέλευσή τους. Είναι, όμως, αδύνατο ν’ ασχοληθεί κανείς μ’ αυτή την πλευρά του ζητήματος, αν δεν υιοθετήσει και την αντίστοιχη διαλεκτική μέθοδο. Σου ζητάω, λοιπόν, ν’ αποδεχθείς την αντίληψη που εκφράζει ο άγιος Μακάριος, γιατί αγγίζει την ουσία του θέματος και θα σου χρησιμεύσει ως ανασχετικός παράγοντας απέναντι στη γοητεία της κοσμικής ζωής. Για να μάθεις πιο πολλά, αλλά και για να εξοικειωθείς περισσότερο μ’ αυτή τη συλλογιστική μέθοδο, διάβασε, αν θέλεις, ολόκληρη την πέμπτη ομιλία του αγίου Μακαρίου.

Από την πλευρά μου θα ήθελα να προσθέσω τούτο μόνο: Το ασταμάτητο κυνηγητό και το ανικανοποίητο όλων απ’ όλα σχετίζεται μ’ εκείνο ακριβώς που σου έγραψα στο προηγούμενο γράμμα μου, ότι δηλαδή δεν μπορεί να ικανοποιηθεί μ’ έναν τέτοιο τρόπο ζωής κάθε πλευρά η ανάγκη της ανθρώπινης φύσεως. Σου το εξηγώ με απλά λόγια: Μια ανικανοποίητη ανάγκη, λ.χ. η πείνα, απαιτεί ικανοποίηση, κι έτσι σπρώχνει τον άνθρωπο στην αναζήτηση τροφής. Όσο εκείνος κινείται μέσα σε πλαίσια όπου δεν είναι δυνατό να ικανοποιηθεί η πείνα του, αυτή δεν καταστέλλεται. Απεναντίας, μάλιστα, θεριεύει.

Έτσι, όμως, ούτε και το κυνήγι της τροφής σταματάει. Να, κάτι τέτοιο συμβαίνει και με τούς ανθρώπους που ζουν μέσα στο πνεύμα του κόσμου τούτου. Ακατάπαυστα αναζητούν τροφή για την πεινασμένη τους ψυχή. Αλλά μάταια. Ο εχθρός τους έχει τυφλώσει, και δεν συναισθάνονται την πλάνη τους: Έχουν πάρει λάθος δρόμο, ακολουθούν λάθος κατεύθυνση. Έτσι βασανίζονται μέσα στ’ αδιέξοδα και πνίγονται μέσα στο σκοτάδι. Κανένας δεν μπορεί να τους ανοίξει τα μάτια. Τρέχουν πέρα-δώθε σαν άγρια θηρία και βρυχώνται σαν τα λιοντάρια, που τριγυρνούν στη ζούγκλα αναζητώντας κάτι να καταβροχθίσουν.



(Οσίου Θεοφάνους του εγκλείστου, «Ο δρόμος της ζωής». Ι.Μ.Παρακλήτου)
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...