Asceticism is.... Everything!

[Justin Kissel]

Lately I've been reading a lot of (the English translations of) Justin Popovich, and I've noticed a trend in his writings. I was rereading "The Ascetic Podvig of Living in the World" [1] by Metropolitan Laurus tonight, and I noticed the same trend. That trend is: asceticism is everything. Now, of course I don't mean "everything" in the same way that we would say that "God is everything," but in a very real way asceticism is linked to everything in the christocentric life.

Does asceticism relate to Ecclesiology? Yes. The Church is the "theanthropic body of the God-man," and each of us are "cells," or small parts of that body. We are each, in a very real way (ie. not just in some abstract way), a living part of the "body of Christ". We are not dead cells, but are alive literally "in Christ," and it is by participation in the virtues and asceticism that we maintain and strengthen this connection with the body of Christ. In fact, Justin Popovich identifies this as the exact purpose of the body of Christ (ie. the Church): to "infuse the God-human virtues and ascetic exertions into the people's way of living; to have their life and soul knit firm with the Christ-like God-human virtues". So not only does asceticism have an ecclesiological character for each of us personally, (how we relate to the Church) but the Church's mission itself is partically ascetical in nature (how the Church relates to her members).

Does asceticism relate to epistemology? Yes. In Orthodox thought (or, at least, in the minds of many saints), asceticism leads to a purer faith and a higher, deeper knowledge. Asceticism, by cleansing the sense organs--by clearing out the muck that bogs down the soul--allows us to more fully understand the truths of God. This is why we look to the saints for how we should view things: not because we blindly follow our fore-fathers, but because the saints had risen to the point where they understand much more perfectly and deeply the truths of God. Asceticism, of course, is only one aspect of cleansing the sense organs, but it is a necessary one. This is also why the Orthodox must (and do) fight against philosophies that neglect ascetical discplines and focus purely on the "intellectual" tasks (e.g., reading, thinking, etc.)

Does asceticism relate to how we live our lives? Yes. The Fathers say that ascetic disciplines have a direct effect how we live our lives. Things like sleeping too long, then, are not just sins in themselves, but are said to have a direct impact on us even while awake. Likewise, someone who avoids fasting and always fills himself until he is content will run into problems that a strict faster won't. Asceticism is essentially seen as the "basic training" that prepares us for daily life: for living the christocentric life every day. It teaches us to say--with the apostle Paul--that we can be content in whatever situation we find ourselves. It teaches us to be in control of our thoughts and body, and therefore we are better able to avoid sins and errors that would normally beset us.

Does asceticism relate to us loving God? Yes. It's an unfortunate thing, but it's largely a true thing: when times are good we have a tendency to forget God, and when times are bad we remember to turn to him. This is unfortunate, but everything from the Scriptural witness to modern day observation can confirm this. One thing that asceticism does--if done christocentrically and not legalistically--is make us stop and think about God, instead of just satisfying every want and desire that pops up. It is the rich man, the man who has it easy and doesn't have to worry about hardship, who is given the repeated warnings in the New Testament. And the man who does have hardship? James says that such a man should have joy, for it leads to perfection. It is easy living that tends to dull our mind and soften us up (though paradoxically our hearts become hard). It is by austere living that we can most completely focus on God and love him.

Does asceticism relate to us loving our Neighbors? Yes. Asceticism, technically speaking, is often the renouncing or avoiding of something that is normally enjoyed. Asceticism, then, teaches us to "get along" without all the things we might ordinarily take for granted. Asceticism teaches us experientially that our own wants are not to be the focus of our lives: it implants this into our very souls. Many times when we have a chance to help others, we find ourselves thinking over whether we should. "That girl has a flat tire, should I help?" "That elderly gentleman has a lot of snow on his walk way, it's a very long walk way, should I shovel it for him?" Asceticism resolves this by helping to change the disposition of our entire soul. We do not find ourselves thinking (in the best case scenario) "well it's my Christian duty to help". There is no thinking over the situation for the christocentric ascetic: the person in need will be helped, and that is simply the way it is. The ascetics whole life is spent directing the focus away from his own wants and inclinations, and everything is focused on God and what he commands. He commands that we love and help our neighbor, therefore, there is no question that the ascetic will help. The ascetic's back hurting is of little consequence to him, and the fact that stopping to help change a tire will cause the ascetic to get home from work later is also of little concern. This possibly seems amazing or unrealistic to us, but we need look no further than true ascetics in the lives of the saints to see the truth in this. (On this last point, Saint Justin Popovich says: "Saints are the people who live on earth by holy, eternal Divine truths. That is why the Lives of the Saints are actually applied dogmatics, for in them all the holy eternal dogmatic truths are experieced in all their life-creating and creative energies.)

Most importantly, does asceticism relate to our salvation? Yes. And how does this happen? We don't "work" our way to salvation, just like going through trials doesn't necessarily lead to perfection. Yet the Bible says that both are true: "work out our own salvation" (Phil. 2:12) and that we are perfected through patience in trials (James 1:2-4). The answer is that it is God's grace that does everything, with our cooperation. Our works and trials effect our salvation to the degree that God is a participant in them. This is why Saint John Chrysostom tells us to forget our good deeds as soon as we do them: if we dwell on them they are of no benefit. (works must be done through faith, and must not lead to pride or boasting). Likewise, trials must be experienced with faith in God and joy, and not with us cursing God the whole time for the "rotten situation He put us in". In this same way, asceticism effects our salvific health. Asceticism brings us closer and more deeply knitted into the body of Christ, and it allows us to more fully focus on God. It is not our own deeds that brings this about, but our cooperation with God's grace through asceticism that does this. Salvation is a life long goal and process, and our faith is an ascetic faith: salvation is attained, by God's grace, by participation in this ascetic faith.

I hope everyone will forgive me for rambling on, and I hope I didn't get anything seriously wrong. This is what I've been seeing in the Fathers, and in the Scriptures. I bring all of this up because I think this is one aspect of Orthodox Christianity that is very lacking in America. Most of us (I include myself here) are allowing our American trial and tribulation to keep us down. Our trial is ease of life. This is our adversary: this is our Diocletian. We here in America seem to be losing the battle. This is not a new thing, we shouldn't despair (there were great apostasies back then too), but it's still disheartening. I say this not to judge, of course; I just hope that we in American can grab ahold of this aspect of the christocentric life. Perhaps this is already present in ROCOR and the other traditionalist groups; I hope it is, but do not yet have enough experience to know. I only know that many of the parishes (and even one monastery) I've been in were lacking asceticism. And if asceticism is indeed everything, and modern American Orthodoxy lacks it, then...

I say this to encourage! I'm very upbeat in disposition: I'm ready for Orthodox in America to burst forth and testify to the truth of the God-man! This witness must begin with each of us working on ourselves though, so I hope we all get ourselves together. If I have made any errors, please correct me. If I have said anything positive and correct, it is only because of the holy saints. May saints Seraphim and Justin, the two modern saints who most eloquently told us to get ourselves inwardly right, pray for us!

Justin

[1] http://www.tserkovnost.org/podvig.html

[尼古拉前执事]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Paradosis,

Code: Select all

 You are absolutely right of course. I started reading it this morning and had to finish it this afternoon at work. That was a very in-depth treatise and I appreciate you taking the time to formulate it and post it here. God Bless!

[Seraphim Reeves]

It is impossible for me to envision a "credible Christianity" without asceticism.

At a most basic level, it should be obvious that we're all called to "quit" sin. That is, of itself, a type of renunciation.

However, our will is not healthy; we're born sickly. Thus, it's not enough to simply aim for "good enough." We need to be like athletes, excercising ourselves. I remember when I took tai-jutsu as a youth that my sensei said "practice high kicks, so that the lower kicks that you'll really use in a fight will be all the more accurate and strong".

Of course now I'm so tightly wound and inflexible that I could do hardly any sort of kick. However, the principle still stands. It becomes even more important when you start at a disadvantage (as all men do.)

This is where Orthodox/Patristic Christianity parts ways from other "Christian creeds", even those which ostensibly look like Orthodoxy (such as Roman Catholicism, even that form which existed in modern times in the centuries before Vatican II). Most people would agree with the assessment, that liturgically speaking, Orthodoxy is "maximalist", where as the Latins tended to be "minimalists" (I say "Latins", because not all of the ancient westerners were "Latins"; the Gallican Churches, for example, had many elements that now would be viewed as being "Byzantine"). However, I think in terms of piety and devotion, the Latins devolved into a "minimalist" mentality as well.

Why did this occur? It's hard to say for sure, but I have a theory.

In short, when the main point of asceticism became penal substitution/satisfaction/punishment, and not cleansing a person of their sinful tendencies and making the flesh submissive, people in the west (ecclesiastical leaders included) looked at penance increasingly in terms of "ok, how much do you owe on your tab." Given fallen human nature, we of course only want to pay what is "absolutely necessary", and the Latin Church (like a fair bill collector) increasingly only expects the "absolute least payment". Even before Vatican II, Roman Catholicism's asceticism (at least for layman) was relatively tame compared to Orthodoxy; they had long abandoned fasting on Wednesdays, and the Friday observance was also lessened. Now, even that doesn't exist, and their Lenten observance is practically non-existant.

A similar problem exists in many forms of Protestantism (where almost no form of fasting or penance exists). Instinctively, I've always had a distrust of men who claim to be ambassador's of Christ, but dress just as fashionably (and in as costly rainment) as well paid attorneys and executives (as many of the more "evangelical" Protestant ministers do.) Even if a Priest cannot say that he "has no place to lay his head", he should at least attempt to emulate the simplicity of Christ in his lifestyle and rainment (thus, why the Church's traditions regarding proper clerical dress and even hair arrangement are so valuable.)

I think this is one major area that people interested in comparative religion studies neglect, when comparing/contrasting Orthodox Christianity with non-Orthodox creeds. There is, simply put, no Orthodox Christianity without long vigils, lots of standing, lots of protstrations, fasting, etc. These things can be called "exteriors" to a certain extent, but collectively they are the "bits and pieces" that make up a single body, that body being the Orthodox Christian "way".

Seraphim

[Steve]

I have stashed this one away on my hard drive.

You never did answer me, how does one be so young and be so wise?

Never mind, don't answer, I don't want to lead you into prideful situation!

[Seraphim Reeves]

I was skimming the forum this morning, and had some further thoughts on "fasting."

I've read/been told (and it's definately my experience) that our passions are all "linked together" in one way or another. For example, if one is excited to anger, other things like lust, gluttony, avarice, etc. are more likely to follow.

In a similar sense, this is why fasting from foods is valuable to the whole man, because even though directly one may say it only goes after "gluttony", the truth is it attacks all of the imbalances in our bodies (and soul!). Many Saints have said, that it is impossible to pray properly with a full stomach.

Perhaps part of that sentiment (not able to pray with a full stomach) is the result of our fallen human condition; it would not be a problem for someone in "good condition", right off the Eden assembly line. But for us, who live (hopefully only tentatively) in death's grasp (a grip which will, however, be loosened if we persevere in Christ), there are constant distractions and attacks (from our flesh, let alone from the devil and other people) which make such a thing (having our bodies pampered and yet still be mindful of God) impossible.

Even great saints never relented in their ascetic feats; if anything, they had the common characteristic of becoming even more severe in their practices as they progressed. With this raised conciousness, they also became far more insistant on their own personal sinfulness and unworthiness (a characteristic which often puzzled those who knew them, since they were the best of humanity).

Fasting has the same effect as experiencing poor health or poverty/hardship does; it strips a person of worldly affections, leaving only God as the central object of their love. For those who can endure it, it goes beyond abstinance from food, but abstinance from marriage and natural family life entirely, and for those who can endure further, even regular human companionship (such as was the case of many of the Prophets and of hermits).

I think there is a connection here between the desert, and the "Christian way" in general. It is quite fitting that the revelation of God's saving work began in the desert. I remember in high school I had a teacher of history, who while very kind and knowledgable (he was loved and respected by all of the students), was quite naturalistic in his view of religion and human development. I remember taking a course with him on the development of civilizations, in which we were told that while primitives who live in lush jungles are bound to be animists (seeing as they do not see the sky very clearly and they live in darkness and in a scary world surrounded by beasts and strange critters), and those who live where there are plains/mountains and clear skies are likely to develop some kind of astral cult (worshipping celestial objects), etc., the desert was the most likely place for "monotheism to develop."

I actually agree with my former teacher, but I see it from a different angle. Rather than being naturalistic, I simply believe that the desert is God's chosen nursury to begin the work of redeeming mankind. It is the place least likely to give distraction and feed our tendency to be deluded. It's severe, it's pretty flat and there's not much to look at. While belief in the true God is not "inevitable" apart from His grace in such a setting (as other middle eastern religions of old reveal), it certainly is the most condusive place to nurture weak humans towards commitment to the one and only true God.

While we don't all live in the desert, perhaps by fasting (and not simply from foods, but also from other lawful pleasures) we bring something of the desert into our lives.

Seraphim

[cparks]

In short, when the main point of asceticism became penal substitution/satisfaction/punishment, and not cleansing a person of their sinful tendencies and making the flesh submissive, people in the west (ecclesiastical leaders included) looked at penance increasingly in terms of "ok, how much do you owe on your tab."

This is where Orthodoxy can begin to make sense to a Protestant, as the distinctive doctrines of the Reformation really do attempt to correct this. If a person can see that both Roman Catholic and Protestant soteriology flow from the same Augustinian framework, and then realize that the Bible can be viewed through something other than an Augustinian lens, then it becomes possible to see the beauty of Orthodoxy and view asceticism as a means for cure and not morose masochism.

This topic actually came up just last night in our class after Vespers. There were a number of Protestant inquirers there and the topic of "submitting the flesh to the spirit" was discussed. The knee-jerk reaction is to assume some sort of negativity about the body or some "insufficiency" in the sacrifice of Christ.

Orthodox get accused of "piling on" when it comes to criticizing medieval western theology, but I just don't think it's possible for a Protestant to understand the Orthodox concept of asceticism without such a critique. I know it wasn't for me, and it seems to hold true for just about every Protestant I talk to.

Cheers,

Chrysostomos

[Seraphim Reeves]

Chrysostomos,

This is where Orthodoxy can begin to make sense to a Protestant, as the distinctive doctrines of the Reformation really do attempt to correct this. If a person can see that both Roman Catholic and Protestant soteriology flow from the same Augustinian framework, and then realize that the Bible can be viewed through something other than an Augustinian lens, then it becomes possible to see the beauty of Orthodoxy and view asceticism as a means for cure and not morose masochism.

In some respects I think the Protestant Reformation was an attempt to "turn back the clock", but I also think it was just as hopelessly enslaved to the same perverse thought processes as Roman Catholicism was. There is also the problem of throwing the baby out with the bath water, but this goes without saying.

One thing that I think needs to be dealt with carefully, are critiques of things "western." This may sound funny coming from me, as I often (to the annoyance of many Roman Catholics on these forums) point out the basic problems of contemporary western Christian creeds (in particular Catholicism, since it's the only one of them that really holds up a pretense of apostolicity and antiquity.) But I think care should be taken for the following reasons...

1) It's way too easy to play the "blame St.Augustine" game. This is a terrible simplification of what went wrong in the west, and too many Orthodox writers are guilty of this. This is in part because they are neither familiar with St.Augustine, nor do they really have any depth of knowledge (beyond the very superficial "recognition of differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism") about western Christianity, whether ancient or modern. St.Augustine was personally guilty more of exageration than of actual distortion; please keep in mind that the penal system of indulgences and the whole of Papism as it came to develop towards the final years of the first millenia would have horrified St.Augustine just as much as any other Orthodox believer.

2) Orthodoxy is a "received" faith; that is what true tradition is, what we received from our God bearing fathers in all ages; not simply our understanding of the ancient fathers, but a continuous apostolic succession (which in Orthodox Christianity refers not simply to "valid orders", but to the transmission of the faith and the Church Herself across time and space). I hate to say it, but while there is much good in the "neo-patristic movement", there is also a lot of arrogance and sheer ignorance; if Protestants are guilty of making a private understanding of the Bible, many of the "neo-Palamite" and "neo-Patristic" scholars are not much different, save that they throw in the early Church Fathers (and the defenders of hesychastic teaching against the Barlaamites) as well as the books of the Bible.

3) Point number two, sadly, leads to what I think is the most dangerous thing of all; perverse teachings about God. I hate to say it, but some of the things I read from modern Orthodox academia destroy the "personhood" of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, and render the Lord into the same abstraction that these same polemicists accuse the scholastic Latins of doing during the middle ages. While it is true that the Fathers said the Scriptures must be read with a "purified mind", neither did they ever teach that God is basically a wall of karma before Whom we must simply "go with it". This is the impression however that I have received from any number of modern authors (even, sadly, some involved in the Old Calendarist movement...though most conspicuously, it's almost always in the radical, schism prone parts of this umbrella called "Old Calendarism"...indeed, odd that the fanatical rightists and the fanatical leftists fundamentally have a lot in common!).

Truly, I cannot say enough about point (3); to me these writers are just as dangerous as any theological "crypto-papist" ever was. While I think it's very important to point out the extravagances and problems with heretical/schismatical western Christian thought, it does absolutely no good to once again "throw the baby out with the bath water" and pretend God never decides to punish men, that the word "wrath" appears in the Bible for no reason but to be explained away (even if we can fairly say, of course, that God's wrath is not like man's, in that it lacks all moral evil and is supremely informed by mercy and charity).

Thus, why the great transmittors of Orthodoxy up to our very age are so important; and precisely why these crypto-Protestant (in their mind set) authors hate or berate these Saints (like the arrogance one often reads in their works when they address modern Russian teachers like Sts. Ignatius (Brianchaninov), Theophan the Recluse, or even John of San Francisco) - because they see in their writings a style of speaking and ideas which don't fit their scholarly, private version of Orthodoxy. Of course, one wonders how much they've read the early Fathers (for example, when St.John Chrysostomos speaks explicitly of the Divine Liturgy involving an "immolation" of Christ upon the altar, and other things that I'm sure sound way to "papist" and "legalist" for these "modern teachers"), but that's something else for a more thorough critic to delve into. I'm satisified to read Saints, and leave their books to collect dust (though to be sure, there are some modern authors who are worth reading...though interestingly enough, their personal sanctity and struggles went along with their writings, which is almost never the case of modern Orthodox scholastics.)

Forgive the length of this reply (and don't interpret it as a tyrade against you.) However, I have a very strong opinion (and am very wary) of this type of thinking, as I think it's just as distorted (if not more so) than the distortions and problems they (these writers) think they're purifying Orthodoxy of (and to a degree, they are correct, there was a "western captivity" to various degrees of Orthodoxy during the last several centuries.)

In short, whenever I read something dumping on St.Augustine, my little "warning" light goes off and often (though not always) I find my suspicions confirmed.

Seraphim