Just a small celebration: I've been able to attend liturgy at my local Orthodox parish with regularity of late, and I've also been able to bring my kids with me. Right now I'm praying my wife will join (she's a believer, just not quite ready to come with me) at some point soon.
They also have weekly open prayer time every Tuesday, and as God would have it, they'll be open on election day next week. I plan to spend part of my morning there praying that day.
Ah, fun to read someone else tracking much the same as me! As a catechumen Im attending regularly and hope my wife and grown children will eventually join me.
Raised Catholic, it seems I’ve spent the last 50 yrs looking everywhere outside Christianity for something or someone to worship. I started saying a secular prayer, then other prayers I learned in 12 step family support group, then read Paul’s story. I read Everyday Saints, walked into a Serbian Orthodox Church in Seattle and found what I’ve been looking for.
I feel like a child again, wretched & sinful yet forgiven & hopeful as daily prayer brings me closer to my heavenly Father.
I can’t tell how I know this to be true. I’ve concluded that our society has no answers for me and I was able to take the leap of faith. Orthodox Christianity welcomes the mystery of our relationship to God and I feel no need to find words to justify it.
It was a pleasure to hear you deliver the Erasmus Lecture. The white balloon floating above your head was a bit distracting at first, but then I imagined it was appropriate. Walker Percy said the way is marked with signs and so I took the balloon to be the blessing of the Holy Spirit.
Wish I could have made the Erasmus lecture, but getting into NYC has become too much of a chore for me in my later years. Yesterday I had coffee with someone who was there and he gave me an interesting perspective on the attendees. Apparently the development directors of a certain group of religious and conservative colleges use the lecture as a way to meet and fraternize.
Paul, in the lecture you identify "Do not resist evil" and field questions to that point.
It reminds me of an experience I once led for self-defense. We learned how to protect one's home in various ways. I shared a message, which seemed to fall on deaf ears:
Even if we choose to defend our family's lives, there is a way to do so with compassion; understanding the trauma and sadness that led this person to think their best course of action was to invade my space and threaten my family.
I felt alone in that feeling. All too often the rah-rah ethic departs from the Christian one.
I do not consider myself a Christian, though I attend mass often with my wife on Sunday (she is Catholic), but I deeply appreciate the challenge to both the secular status quo AND the co-opting of Christianity for 'that which is very much not Christian'.
Congratulation on relly good lecture. But here's the thing. Isn't The Church itself somewhat equated to what we talk about as civilization? Let's take Christian monasticism. It is known fact that after the fall of Roman Empire it was the Monasteries where knowledges and technologies were preserved. It was Cistersians Order that was civilizing force of newly christianised Poland. Not much difference in the world of Orthodoxy - famous Kiev Mohyla Academy was established under auspieces of Bratsky Monastyr and Pecherska Lavra. Christian monasticism is inextricably connected to the process of developement of European modernity - it is enough to mention early developements in agrugulture technics, land management, even proto-modern-economy (as in ora and labora ethics). As Paul argues that at the heart of Christianity is this radical contra-mundum attitude, Polish renegade priest (and once respected Catholic theologian) Tomasz Polak insists that very condition to mantain that attitude is to have this very wordly structures of civilized institution that are irreversibly prone to corruption and decay. In other words - no Desert Fathers without Cîteaux Abbey. They feed on each other. To be regarded as Wild Saint there must Cathedral somewhere.
Agree. There is a book of conversations between David Caley and Ivan Illitch that goes into this problem in great depth.
To my mind, we live in a fallen world which we will not repair with our will, and this world has beauty and tragedy in it. Getting older, I feel more and more torn apart seeing how good and evil intertwine, and really can not be separated, as we would so much like to believe. Fortunately, I feel that there is relief, and deliverance in death from the anguish ? that comes from seeing too much of this : breathtaking and painful beauty AND ugliness.
This may sound pessimistic, but maybe we are called on to accept certain things, and accepting is much harder than we can imagine.
This is an interesting comment especially in light of my parish's conversations around technology use. My priest is quite anti technology, and a friend of mine is very much in the "it's just how you use the thing" camp. I tend to lean more in agreement with my priest, but his lack of having a cell phone is often quite frustrating. It's tempting to just want to pull back and reject everything, but I think in the same way Orthodoxy is good at meeting people on the spiritual level they are at, there is likely a proper way to do this with technology level of the people around too.
I believe that Paul mentioned in the lecture that the Christian Civilization of the first millennium was a secondary effect of the spiritual experience of the monks. So it wasn't the goal. As opposed to the idea of "defending Christian Civilization" which is a goal without actually taking Christ into account.
I'm thinking of applying to a clinical psychology graduate program founded by Quakers that encourages integrating students' Christian traditions into their clinical practice and research. One of the program's research directors is inquiring at a local Orthodox parish, too, and is interested in working with me to center my Orthodox faith in my clinical practice if I enter into the program. It all seems very promising, though there are some things I would like more clarity on.
From an Orthodox perspective, what is the value and purpose of psychotherapy compared to having a conversation with one's spiritual father or parish clergy? My parish priest affirmed that there is value, but there is a part of me that feels unsure about the extent of that value given the extent to which it relies on psychological science. I have learned from Philip Sherrard that modern science, including Psychology, has a very problematic conception of Man and Creation in general, and my philosophy of science research revealed that much of the methods and interpretation of psychological science work is pretty shoddy. On the other hand, there are multiple Orthodox in my community who engage in clinical practice professionally (with one going to school in the program I'm thinking of applying to) and some say that clinical work is more of an art than a science with significant personal flexibility in how one engages in the practice.
What is the relationship between the Friends/Quaker tradition and Orthodox tradition? I know that historically it is a Protestant movement that came out of England, but I also have a feeling it may be very close to Orthodoxy in some ways.
Might I recommend reaching out to Dr. Albert Rossi with your questions? He's a professor at St. Vlad's and a personal friend. He's been a Quaker, and he's a clinical psychologist, so he'd be uniquely qualified to answer your questions. (And he's just a really kind guy.) https://www.svots.edu/profile/dr-albert-s-rossi
I can definitely understand your questions. I was trained as a clinical psychologist, and a psychoanalyst. Strangely enough, although I have reserves about the foundations of modern clinical psychology, much more in debt to a scientific approach, I have fewer reserves about Freud's approach to psychoanalysis on European soil.
I like the idea that psychotherapy and psychoanalysis are more ARTS than sciences, and it would even be nice if we could extent the status of "art" to medecine itself, which USED TO BE CONSIDERED an art anyway.
As I have said here before, Paul Tournier, a Swiss M.D., and general practitioner living and writing up until the '70's ?, wrote a book that came out before WW2, called "Medecine of the Person", and his approach as a Christian, in clinical vignettes in the book shows a great understanding of the relationship between therapist and patient, the place of faith, of God. Tournier has great honesty, and he reveals himself in his approach : his doubts, his failures, and the larger role of confession in therapy. He has great insight into Freudian psychoanalysis and its limits.
Some people may say his theoretical approach is dated, but right now, I am not at all impressed with the current state of our science, and scientists, not to mention our therapeutic approach to Man's suffering, in body and in mind intertwined.
Debra I have been training as a spiritual director in the Carmelite Catholic tradition and we have had psychotherapists and counsellors on the programme because they are frustrated at not providing spiritual care within the psychology paradigm. I’ve noticed that spiritual care in the NHS is starting to be referred to as ‘psycho spiritual’ which concerns me as it pulls the spiritual into a materialist understanding of reality…. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
More than 20 years ago, now, I discussed this problem with the pastor at my parents' Cumberland Presbyterian Church in New Mexico. I told him that in my opinion, the society was evolving towards a point where a psychological therapeutic approach to human suffering would become incompatible with a religious approach. I have been outside of American society for a long time now, but in France, there is considerable tension between Paul Tournier's approach to treating his patients in their physical and mental suffering, and "modern" approaches that appear to me to evacuate the person's suffering, his account of his suffering, his understanding or explanation, and in my opinion, no therapy will go very far if the therapist can not listen to his patient, and take into account what he is saying as important. That is... the bottom line.
Often on this site, I gripe about the opposition between "spiritual" and "materialist", mainly because in France, it appears to me that NOBODY manages to understand that our bodies are material and spiritual intertwined, and not separated. It is no better to get stuck in Scylla than it is to be stuck in Charybdis, in my opinion...
I’m just wondering if you have come across the work of Robert Falconer? He has written a really interesting book called the The Others Within Us, he is a psychotherapist who works with Internal Family Systems but also discusses what he calls Unattached Bundles, apparent autonomous entities existing within people. The spiritual implications of his work are profound. There are so many parallels with Christian theology. He isn’t explicitly Christian, he talks about indigenous healing as well but I highly recommend reading it. Best wishes to you😃
For some reason, I did not get an alert for your response, so just saw it now.
The idea of autonomous entities existing within people echoes Paul's questions about possession, I think, and the status of what we do not recognize as being part of us, or as being OUR production.
On this subject....
When I was pregnant with the first child who would be born into this world and live, after two miscarried babies, early in term, I found myself on a psychoanalyst's couch telling him that I could not own up to what was coming out of my mouth because I had no reason to be saying it. And I gradually reconstructed that I was remembering my mother's pregnancy with me, because what I was saying corresponded to things that she could have said at the time.
Possession ? Difficult to locate memories ? Hard to say. A die hard rationalist would have a difficult time explaining the anguish that I suffered at the time.
The idea of being the unknowing, unaware host of my mother's thoughts and feelings at the time, that I recorded as an unborn foetus, seems like a possible explanation, without necessarily going the route of an autonomous entity expressing itself within me.
The Greek rationalist that I still like to hang onto prefers to consider ME as the source of my feelings of estrangement and alienation.
Thanks for your reply. It's interesting what you say about spiritual and materialist. I hadn't meant it in that way - ie separated. I meant materialist as another word for 'atheist'; that is, when there is no God then everything becomes purely material and measured solely by scientific method. It's helpful to have this pointed out - I will take care to use my language more carefully. Sadly I don't know enough about Greek mythology to understand the difference between the two monsters!
Dear Daniel. Read Timothy Patitsas’ book called The Ethics of Beauty!! It is incredible, turning our understanding of soul mending on its head in its insistence that we must begin with Beauty/Theophany rather than the rational mind.
I've been watching some youtube videos of a Catholic nun called Miriam James Heidland recently. Her style may not be to everyone's taste but she has some interesting thoughts on the relation between psycholgical therapies and healing as transformative Christian practice and the place of each which may interest you. I've met a few Quakers who are very nice people but from what I know about them the absence of hierarchy, solid doctrine and liturgy in their practice would be very different from what you encounter in Orthodoxy.
My sense of the Quaker tradition is that in practice, they tend to be much more radically pacifist than other Protestant traditions. I believe this orientation is more in line with the Orthodox way than is commonly acknowledged, even if the formal structure of the tradition is very different. In the Against Christian Civilization lecture, Kingsnorth talks about how radically pacifist Christ is in the Bible
That’s interesting Daniel. I’d love to hear more about this. I am a fellow at a Catholic institute in England looking into how Christianity might support spiritual formation of healthcare professionals and spiritual care of patients. At the moment I can’t see how this might be - UK NHS has become quite averse to religion, possibly particularly Christianity…
I find both Friends and Orthodox very beautiful, but in many ways, at opposite poles of a spectrum. I've spent several Sundays visiting in each as part of my search. If I lived in the States where liturgy in English is available, I'd become a catechumen. Officially I'm Catholic.
Friends emphasize simplicity. Orthodox churches are marvels of beauty, but simplicity in vision and sound is not there. Friends emphasize only going straight to God, there can be no priest or even minister. You know the Orthodox belief on this. Friends, though their faith, do frequently wind up active in social justice and peace type movements (most, not all are pacifist in most instances), whereas Orthodox may or may not be involved, they may feel different individual calls and do not feel war is always wrong (It would not surprise me if Paul, now or in the future, identifies as personally pacifist.) In a Quaker meeting, the entire time, typically an hour, is silent prayer and meditation. This is unless someone there stands and speaks because they believe the Holy Spirit has given them a word - I did not see such words given in any meeting I attended, so I do not think it is a great deal of time given to such words. Orthodoxy is a prescribed liturgy of words.
What is the same? Centrally - emphasis on the fire of the Holy Spirit in the heart transforming us. And that sameness, to my way of thinking, makes the differences not terribly important in its light.
And I've been silly - I see just below that you have referral to an expert. Still, I will leave my humble post as an example of what one lay person might perceived.
It is not silly to share your personal experience. Any one person, even an "expert", is going to be viewing their experiences through the lens God and they have mutually built over the course of their lives, and that will affect what they attend to, remember, and conclude to be important.
Thank you very much for sharing your experience with me. May the fire of the Holy Spirit transform and perfect all our hearts.
a humble request for Paul when he next has time: it's been more than 40 days since he wrote his essay "Everything is Myth," when he mentioned he would be forswearing some things for the sake of putting the peace of the heart before everything else. I wonder what if anything was yielded by that renunciation of sorts for a greater gain? I know it took courage and humility to even share that deeply personal instruction in prayer. He may well prefer to keep the results of those decisions more private than what led him to them. Nonetheless, i will inquire. And with thanks regardless.
"Do not resist an evil person." "Turn the other cheek." I wonder what the meaning of those are exactly. If someone insults me - fine, I'd let that go. If someone stole from me, I might be willing to let that go. If someone broke into my house with the intent to harm my wife or children, I'd resist with all my strength. If people took those absolutely literally, would Europe have just let Hitler take over? My interpretation of those statements has been that we should be willing to be wronged - to a certain extent. To act with grace and forgiveness - to a certain extent. If we are supposed to abide by those in an absolute literal fashion, in every situation...I don't think that's something I can do. I'd love to hear other people's thoughts, though.
I bought into this ultra pacifism until a drug addled guy went through his neighborhood stabbing people. He killed two little girls watching tv in their basement. One fought him. A guy coming home from school finally stopped him. He used violence. Should he have allowed the guy to rampage? At least four people were killed in the rampage. So I’m with you on this I think.
I'm interested in hearing your definition of "absolute" and "literal". Big words, there. A lot hinges on what you mean by them.
I have gotten to the point in life where I can definitely see that I have brought evil into the world unwittingly, not knowing what I was doing. And often with the best of intentions, too. Jesus once talked about ignoring the mote in your neighbor's eye since you had a hard time seeing with the beam in your own. I have tested this one, and found it to be true.
I mean letting an evil person do whatever they want without trying to stop them in any way or letting a person hit you in the face until they are tired of doing so.
O.K. But you still have not answered my question on "absolute" and "literal", and that question is what is the most important to me.
A few years ago, I met with quite a few tensions in the relationship that I had with a piano teacher who I felt goaded me quite a bit, in a subtle way. He was not hitting me in the face, but picking away at me. "Needling" is the word that works best. At one point in time, in a state of sheer rage, I picked his hand up, and the violence stopped. He pointed out to me that my gesture was prohibited, and he was right. We are not supposed to touch each other. Men and women are not supposed to touch each other at all unless they are already intimate.
Thinking about what I did (under God's guidance ?), it came to me that the gesture was perfect, in a way : it stopped the violence between us ; it was not the same thing as my breaking into tears would have been, or humbly accepting everything that he was dishing out. My provocative gesture stopped the violence between us, because it surprised BOTH of us, really. I did not expect to do it, and he definitely did not expect me to do it either.
I think Jesus was the kind of man who understood that sometimes you have to go in there, not knowing ahead of time what you are going to say, and/or do, and improvise as best as possible, while trusting to God ? an outside force ? to protect you, in faith, and this attitude is what resolves a lot of violent situations. It means not deciding ahead of time what you should do, and this is very difficult.
I also told somebody recently that you need to go in there while putting your faith in THE OTHER PERSON'S capacity to protect you, not your own, and this sounds crazy, but it works... miracles.
My understanding: the instruction (and it is an instruction) not to personally resist evil also comes with related instructions: to love your neighbour as yourself, and to lay down your life for others. I understand this to mean that resisting violence in order to protect people is not a bad thing. If someone comes for my children I will of course protect them in any way I can. But I don't then need to shoot the attacker dead. This was the understanding that the best Christians in, for example, Nazi Germany had: that if necessary they were prepared to be martrys for their faith, but they also had a clear duty to protect the weak and vulnerable.
As a Christian, one could argue that loving your neighbor might involve protecting them from (resisting) an evil person. I think you’re making that point above. Well, I can wish the Bible were clearer on things, but in the end, we just have to interpret it and apply it the best we can.
I find Walter Wink helpful on Jesus's 'third way' teaching on not resisting evil, which is a teaching given to crowds of people who are suffering violence and humiliations every day. Its anything but passive, but a tactical and non-violent refusal to answer like with like. For example he points out that turning the other cheek would mean that your assailant would have to hit you on the the right cheek with their right hand (hard to do). The left hand wasn't used as it was used for unclean tasks. The Qumran community had a ten day suspension from meetings as a penalty for even gesturing with the left hand. The only possible blow would be a backhand and such a blow would only be landed to humiliate not to injure and it was administered by Masters to inferiors, slaves, wives, Romans, Jews etc. It was used to force people back into line. Jesus says if anyone strikes YOU. - an audience used to being degraded. Wink argues that Jesus is saying if they backhand you, turn the other cheek. If you think about it this makes it impossible for for the boss to backhand you again (he suggests your nose would be in the way) and so it is impossible . The masters only resort would be to punch you with the right fist - but only equals fought with fists and the last thing the master would want to do would be to suggest some equality with a subservient. Wink thinks this an act of defiance in which the master is rendered incapable of demonstrating his dominance in the relationship. He can beat the slave but no longer cow him. Meek compliance is what the master wants and this cheeky behaviour won't stop a flogging or worse but the point has been made. The Powers that be he writes have lost their power to make people submit. This non-violence Wink suggests is saying " I'm a human being, just like you. I refuse to be humiliated any longer. I am your equal. I am a child of God, I wont take it anymore". Its an interesting take on the teaching if nothing more.
I do sometimes wonder what I would do if my home was invaded by someone who appeared intent on hurting my wife and children. I wonder what Jesus would do. I can picture him getting between my family and the attacker. I can see him with his arms spread ready to sacrifice himself. If he had a stick he might use it to keep the attacker at bay. But I cannot picture him using violence in an attempt to incapacitate anyone, no matter how provoked or what the consequences would be. I would like to think that in this, as in all things, I would act in imitation of my Lord and Savior. But what would happen in the moment I do not know.
Jesus was the first non-violent revolutionary — He taught us to never use violent force, even in self-defense, even to fight evil, but always turn the other cheek.
We were not created to obey the promptings of our own nature. We were created to obey the infinite law of God. The law of love, which God implanted in the soul of every man. When the law of love rules in our hearts every use of force is unnecessary and unlawful. We do not dispute with anyone, we do not attack anyone, we do not use violence against anyone. We bear violence. We do not oppose it.
“He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear His voice in the streets. A bruised reed He shall not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench, till He send forth judgment unto victory."
The teachings of Jesus were given to us at such great cost — His radical humility, His blessings upon the meek, the love of neighbor and enemy, the woe unto those who think they are rich, the humbling of those who think they are on top. “If we were to truly follow the teachings of Jesus, if we were to stumble toward the Creator with love and awe, then creation itself would not now be groaning under our weight”. THE CROSS AND THE MACHINE
Paul -what if someone sincerely believes they are protecting children by opposing woke policy in various venues: church, schools, government, etc. And by teaching others to do so? I'd suppose to a certain extent it is a question of vocation - surely some have a vocation to do this at least to some extent? -Or do they not? (I know it can be done to the detriment of one's soul if overdone - nor must one fight forever as if they are the only one to do it.)
I do like what you said about understanding why your home invader acted as they did even whilst protecting your family.
Personally I think that preventing gender ideology from being taught in schools is a good example of protecting children. Childern everywhere are under assault from highly sexualised woke ideology and much of it is toxic. I think there is a good Christian case for opposing it, and I do. I suppose I would try to do it on the same basis - whilst trying to love those who promote it (our 'enemies' in that narrow sense at least).
I'm not arguing against action. Christ was deeply active in the world. But not with violence, or hatred.
I’d suggest looking at the life of St. Porphyrios. The film “Man of God” particularly focusing on this. St. Porphyrios said nothing in his own defense when attacked with lies and slander. But later in life, when he had a convent of nuns under his care, he stood his ground and fought for them when they were similarly attacked.
Not physical fighting, of course, but I think we can draw a useful principle from this. As individuals we should accept and even embrace attacks on ourselves, but we have a responsibility to protect those under our care.
From my meagre perspective, this injunction to "resist not evil", found in the Sermon on the Mount, has nothing to do with a universal declaration of pacifism.
For in the first part of the Christ's statement (Matthew 5:38–39) He says, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you,..."
This has more to do with the reformation of Justice away from vengeance and towards a more robust adjudication of morality as the proper way to deal with those who have wronged us.
Also, If we practice an earthly pacifism to evil are we to submit to spiritual evils in like manner? If not, then have we not just exacerbated our divided being when we respond to evil one way on earth and another way "against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."?
The whole point of Theosis is unity; not division, and in the spiritual realm one either fights or dies.
Hi Paul, Was able to attend your superb Erasmus lecture, hosted by First Things! Alas, did not have the opportunity to ask this question: It seems that both in the lecture and in your writing on the Machine, you're almost at the point of using the language of possession (in the Biblical sense of the word) to describe our culture, its threats and collapse. In your lecture you suggested that part of the remedy can be found in the example of the Orthodox saints, especially their practice of prayer. If what we're dealing with in the West can only "come out by prayer and fasting", what would things begin to look like at the local - even national - level, if we got really serious about praying and fasting? More saints? More churches? Less predatory commerce? Thanks again for an excellent lecture!
A very good question! But this does seem like the work. I do feel like we are possessed. This is what I tried to get at in that speech of mine. We need to get down the the nuts and bolts here. We can't do much about the rotten culture, the love of money, Big Tech etc. Not politically anyway. But prayer and monastery-building and that life at the ground level - we have some power there.
Just a couple of comments. I listened to your talk and was glad to hear Christopher Dawsons name. I think he was very prescient about the times we now find ourselves.
Also about resisting evil ...there is a common saying that whatever one resists persists...is this just common sense? Does our intellectualizing create more confusion ?
The politics here are full of this but maybe that's the point? Division I've heard is the work of the devil.
I loved this lecture. I liked your "no-more-compromising' attitude. I liked that you encouraged everybody to take responsbilty for their own decisions and find their own pathways along the ideas you proposed instead of giving the one and only recipe that works. I loved your vulnerability and your passion and your steadfastness. I also liked the way you showed what is missing from the cultural Christians' worldview. "Where is Christ in all this?" is definitely the central question for all times! Thank you, Paul!
It is written: "My thoughts are Not your thoughts, my ways are Not your ways" alot for me to ponder there! Resist Evil - phew, such hard and deep enquiry! My values are opposed to world values - are they Christian? Yes I choose and have not felt attracted to evil, yet I realise how for some 'being offered the world' when they are facing possible death, is a tough call! It is hard work becoming Christian! Yet will it Be the Only thing that can save us?! Or do we die in order to live?
I have taken to reflecting on many of the themes of your talk over the past few years, as they are themes which seem to be haunting me. I am finding both wisdom and comfort in your work and that of many others. I am in some sense searching out ways in which to transform myself. A question, perhaps to the group is: for people like myself who live in a rural setting where there is no access to the Orthodox Church, what can we do? I have been called to attend various liturgies. Whenever I am in the big city (about 4 hours from where I live) I walk through the doors, but that's rare. Do I need to embrace the practice of the faith in isolation? Perhaps as the desert fathers did? Is that even possible? Any guidance from the audience would be beautiful. Thanks!
The Orthodox see the Church as an Ark of salvation, the body of Christ. I would go whenever you are able. It's not easy sometimes, but then the narrow way isn't supposed to be. After reading many works of Saints, it has become clear to me that 'going it alone' is not wise, and can be dangerous without a good guide (ie. spiritual father/elder). God bless you in your endeavours.
Just a small celebration: I've been able to attend liturgy at my local Orthodox parish with regularity of late, and I've also been able to bring my kids with me. Right now I'm praying my wife will join (she's a believer, just not quite ready to come with me) at some point soon.
They also have weekly open prayer time every Tuesday, and as God would have it, they'll be open on election day next week. I plan to spend part of my morning there praying that day.
Glory to God!
Ah, fun to read someone else tracking much the same as me! As a catechumen Im attending regularly and hope my wife and grown children will eventually join me.
Raised Catholic, it seems I’ve spent the last 50 yrs looking everywhere outside Christianity for something or someone to worship. I started saying a secular prayer, then other prayers I learned in 12 step family support group, then read Paul’s story. I read Everyday Saints, walked into a Serbian Orthodox Church in Seattle and found what I’ve been looking for.
I feel like a child again, wretched & sinful yet forgiven & hopeful as daily prayer brings me closer to my heavenly Father.
I can’t tell how I know this to be true. I’ve concluded that our society has no answers for me and I was able to take the leap of faith. Orthodox Christianity welcomes the mystery of our relationship to God and I feel no need to find words to justify it.
Glory to God for all things.
It was a pleasure to hear you deliver the Erasmus Lecture. The white balloon floating above your head was a bit distracting at first, but then I imagined it was appropriate. Walker Percy said the way is marked with signs and so I took the balloon to be the blessing of the Holy Spirit.
What Augustine, CS Lewis, and Shakespeare can teach us about the only way to save medicine:
https://gaty.substack.com/p/only-god-can-save-medicine
Well said; thank you for the link!
Wish I could have made the Erasmus lecture, but getting into NYC has become too much of a chore for me in my later years. Yesterday I had coffee with someone who was there and he gave me an interesting perspective on the attendees. Apparently the development directors of a certain group of religious and conservative colleges use the lecture as a way to meet and fraternize.
Paul, in the lecture you identify "Do not resist evil" and field questions to that point.
It reminds me of an experience I once led for self-defense. We learned how to protect one's home in various ways. I shared a message, which seemed to fall on deaf ears:
Even if we choose to defend our family's lives, there is a way to do so with compassion; understanding the trauma and sadness that led this person to think their best course of action was to invade my space and threaten my family.
I felt alone in that feeling. All too often the rah-rah ethic departs from the Christian one.
I do not consider myself a Christian, though I attend mass often with my wife on Sunday (she is Catholic), but I deeply appreciate the challenge to both the secular status quo AND the co-opting of Christianity for 'that which is very much not Christian'.
Excellent lecture. Bravo
Congratulation on relly good lecture. But here's the thing. Isn't The Church itself somewhat equated to what we talk about as civilization? Let's take Christian monasticism. It is known fact that after the fall of Roman Empire it was the Monasteries where knowledges and technologies were preserved. It was Cistersians Order that was civilizing force of newly christianised Poland. Not much difference in the world of Orthodoxy - famous Kiev Mohyla Academy was established under auspieces of Bratsky Monastyr and Pecherska Lavra. Christian monasticism is inextricably connected to the process of developement of European modernity - it is enough to mention early developements in agrugulture technics, land management, even proto-modern-economy (as in ora and labora ethics). As Paul argues that at the heart of Christianity is this radical contra-mundum attitude, Polish renegade priest (and once respected Catholic theologian) Tomasz Polak insists that very condition to mantain that attitude is to have this very wordly structures of civilized institution that are irreversibly prone to corruption and decay. In other words - no Desert Fathers without Cîteaux Abbey. They feed on each other. To be regarded as Wild Saint there must Cathedral somewhere.
Agree. There is a book of conversations between David Caley and Ivan Illitch that goes into this problem in great depth.
To my mind, we live in a fallen world which we will not repair with our will, and this world has beauty and tragedy in it. Getting older, I feel more and more torn apart seeing how good and evil intertwine, and really can not be separated, as we would so much like to believe. Fortunately, I feel that there is relief, and deliverance in death from the anguish ? that comes from seeing too much of this : breathtaking and painful beauty AND ugliness.
This may sound pessimistic, but maybe we are called on to accept certain things, and accepting is much harder than we can imagine.
This is an interesting comment especially in light of my parish's conversations around technology use. My priest is quite anti technology, and a friend of mine is very much in the "it's just how you use the thing" camp. I tend to lean more in agreement with my priest, but his lack of having a cell phone is often quite frustrating. It's tempting to just want to pull back and reject everything, but I think in the same way Orthodoxy is good at meeting people on the spiritual level they are at, there is likely a proper way to do this with technology level of the people around too.
I believe that Paul mentioned in the lecture that the Christian Civilization of the first millennium was a secondary effect of the spiritual experience of the monks. So it wasn't the goal. As opposed to the idea of "defending Christian Civilization" which is a goal without actually taking Christ into account.
I'm thinking of applying to a clinical psychology graduate program founded by Quakers that encourages integrating students' Christian traditions into their clinical practice and research. One of the program's research directors is inquiring at a local Orthodox parish, too, and is interested in working with me to center my Orthodox faith in my clinical practice if I enter into the program. It all seems very promising, though there are some things I would like more clarity on.
From an Orthodox perspective, what is the value and purpose of psychotherapy compared to having a conversation with one's spiritual father or parish clergy? My parish priest affirmed that there is value, but there is a part of me that feels unsure about the extent of that value given the extent to which it relies on psychological science. I have learned from Philip Sherrard that modern science, including Psychology, has a very problematic conception of Man and Creation in general, and my philosophy of science research revealed that much of the methods and interpretation of psychological science work is pretty shoddy. On the other hand, there are multiple Orthodox in my community who engage in clinical practice professionally (with one going to school in the program I'm thinking of applying to) and some say that clinical work is more of an art than a science with significant personal flexibility in how one engages in the practice.
What is the relationship between the Friends/Quaker tradition and Orthodox tradition? I know that historically it is a Protestant movement that came out of England, but I also have a feeling it may be very close to Orthodoxy in some ways.
Might I recommend reaching out to Dr. Albert Rossi with your questions? He's a professor at St. Vlad's and a personal friend. He's been a Quaker, and he's a clinical psychologist, so he'd be uniquely qualified to answer your questions. (And he's just a really kind guy.) https://www.svots.edu/profile/dr-albert-s-rossi
That's amazing, thank you so much for recommending him! I'll reach out to him soon to see if he'd be interested in talking with me about this.
Absolutely! He's written a couple of books that might be of interest to you, too. They're available at Ancient Faith, I believe.
I can definitely understand your questions. I was trained as a clinical psychologist, and a psychoanalyst. Strangely enough, although I have reserves about the foundations of modern clinical psychology, much more in debt to a scientific approach, I have fewer reserves about Freud's approach to psychoanalysis on European soil.
I like the idea that psychotherapy and psychoanalysis are more ARTS than sciences, and it would even be nice if we could extent the status of "art" to medecine itself, which USED TO BE CONSIDERED an art anyway.
As I have said here before, Paul Tournier, a Swiss M.D., and general practitioner living and writing up until the '70's ?, wrote a book that came out before WW2, called "Medecine of the Person", and his approach as a Christian, in clinical vignettes in the book shows a great understanding of the relationship between therapist and patient, the place of faith, of God. Tournier has great honesty, and he reveals himself in his approach : his doubts, his failures, and the larger role of confession in therapy. He has great insight into Freudian psychoanalysis and its limits.
Some people may say his theoretical approach is dated, but right now, I am not at all impressed with the current state of our science, and scientists, not to mention our therapeutic approach to Man's suffering, in body and in mind intertwined.
Good luck with your questions.
Debra I have been training as a spiritual director in the Carmelite Catholic tradition and we have had psychotherapists and counsellors on the programme because they are frustrated at not providing spiritual care within the psychology paradigm. I’ve noticed that spiritual care in the NHS is starting to be referred to as ‘psycho spiritual’ which concerns me as it pulls the spiritual into a materialist understanding of reality…. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
More than 20 years ago, now, I discussed this problem with the pastor at my parents' Cumberland Presbyterian Church in New Mexico. I told him that in my opinion, the society was evolving towards a point where a psychological therapeutic approach to human suffering would become incompatible with a religious approach. I have been outside of American society for a long time now, but in France, there is considerable tension between Paul Tournier's approach to treating his patients in their physical and mental suffering, and "modern" approaches that appear to me to evacuate the person's suffering, his account of his suffering, his understanding or explanation, and in my opinion, no therapy will go very far if the therapist can not listen to his patient, and take into account what he is saying as important. That is... the bottom line.
Often on this site, I gripe about the opposition between "spiritual" and "materialist", mainly because in France, it appears to me that NOBODY manages to understand that our bodies are material and spiritual intertwined, and not separated. It is no better to get stuck in Scylla than it is to be stuck in Charybdis, in my opinion...
Hello Debra
I’m just wondering if you have come across the work of Robert Falconer? He has written a really interesting book called the The Others Within Us, he is a psychotherapist who works with Internal Family Systems but also discusses what he calls Unattached Bundles, apparent autonomous entities existing within people. The spiritual implications of his work are profound. There are so many parallels with Christian theology. He isn’t explicitly Christian, he talks about indigenous healing as well but I highly recommend reading it. Best wishes to you😃
For some reason, I did not get an alert for your response, so just saw it now.
The idea of autonomous entities existing within people echoes Paul's questions about possession, I think, and the status of what we do not recognize as being part of us, or as being OUR production.
On this subject....
When I was pregnant with the first child who would be born into this world and live, after two miscarried babies, early in term, I found myself on a psychoanalyst's couch telling him that I could not own up to what was coming out of my mouth because I had no reason to be saying it. And I gradually reconstructed that I was remembering my mother's pregnancy with me, because what I was saying corresponded to things that she could have said at the time.
Possession ? Difficult to locate memories ? Hard to say. A die hard rationalist would have a difficult time explaining the anguish that I suffered at the time.
The idea of being the unknowing, unaware host of my mother's thoughts and feelings at the time, that I recorded as an unborn foetus, seems like a possible explanation, without necessarily going the route of an autonomous entity expressing itself within me.
The Greek rationalist that I still like to hang onto prefers to consider ME as the source of my feelings of estrangement and alienation.
Thanks for your reply. It's interesting what you say about spiritual and materialist. I hadn't meant it in that way - ie separated. I meant materialist as another word for 'atheist'; that is, when there is no God then everything becomes purely material and measured solely by scientific method. It's helpful to have this pointed out - I will take care to use my language more carefully. Sadly I don't know enough about Greek mythology to understand the difference between the two monsters!
Dear Daniel. Read Timothy Patitsas’ book called The Ethics of Beauty!! It is incredible, turning our understanding of soul mending on its head in its insistence that we must begin with Beauty/Theophany rather than the rational mind.
I've been watching some youtube videos of a Catholic nun called Miriam James Heidland recently. Her style may not be to everyone's taste but she has some interesting thoughts on the relation between psycholgical therapies and healing as transformative Christian practice and the place of each which may interest you. I've met a few Quakers who are very nice people but from what I know about them the absence of hierarchy, solid doctrine and liturgy in their practice would be very different from what you encounter in Orthodoxy.
My sense of the Quaker tradition is that in practice, they tend to be much more radically pacifist than other Protestant traditions. I believe this orientation is more in line with the Orthodox way than is commonly acknowledged, even if the formal structure of the tradition is very different. In the Against Christian Civilization lecture, Kingsnorth talks about how radically pacifist Christ is in the Bible
That’s interesting Daniel. I’d love to hear more about this. I am a fellow at a Catholic institute in England looking into how Christianity might support spiritual formation of healthcare professionals and spiritual care of patients. At the moment I can’t see how this might be - UK NHS has become quite averse to religion, possibly particularly Christianity…
Hi AW
I am a school chaplain and I can say the same for schools.
I find both Friends and Orthodox very beautiful, but in many ways, at opposite poles of a spectrum. I've spent several Sundays visiting in each as part of my search. If I lived in the States where liturgy in English is available, I'd become a catechumen. Officially I'm Catholic.
Friends emphasize simplicity. Orthodox churches are marvels of beauty, but simplicity in vision and sound is not there. Friends emphasize only going straight to God, there can be no priest or even minister. You know the Orthodox belief on this. Friends, though their faith, do frequently wind up active in social justice and peace type movements (most, not all are pacifist in most instances), whereas Orthodox may or may not be involved, they may feel different individual calls and do not feel war is always wrong (It would not surprise me if Paul, now or in the future, identifies as personally pacifist.) In a Quaker meeting, the entire time, typically an hour, is silent prayer and meditation. This is unless someone there stands and speaks because they believe the Holy Spirit has given them a word - I did not see such words given in any meeting I attended, so I do not think it is a great deal of time given to such words. Orthodoxy is a prescribed liturgy of words.
What is the same? Centrally - emphasis on the fire of the Holy Spirit in the heart transforming us. And that sameness, to my way of thinking, makes the differences not terribly important in its light.
And I've been silly - I see just below that you have referral to an expert. Still, I will leave my humble post as an example of what one lay person might perceived.
It is not silly to share your personal experience. Any one person, even an "expert", is going to be viewing their experiences through the lens God and they have mutually built over the course of their lives, and that will affect what they attend to, remember, and conclude to be important.
Thank you very much for sharing your experience with me. May the fire of the Holy Spirit transform and perfect all our hearts.
Happy Trails, Paul, and thanks for gracing us with your presence at Ashley’s shindig over the weekend, always good to hear you and break bread.
Also, I insist that it was you who came up with ‘Satanic Rectangle’
A review of the weekend from Amelia
https://writersblogck.substack.com/p/anti-machine-conference
a humble request for Paul when he next has time: it's been more than 40 days since he wrote his essay "Everything is Myth," when he mentioned he would be forswearing some things for the sake of putting the peace of the heart before everything else. I wonder what if anything was yielded by that renunciation of sorts for a greater gain? I know it took courage and humility to even share that deeply personal instruction in prayer. He may well prefer to keep the results of those decisions more private than what led him to them. Nonetheless, i will inquire. And with thanks regardless.
Safe travels back.
For those who couldn’t be there in person—the room was filled to the brim, standing room only, proof of light in a dark time.
And I actually got to meet Paul in person—I did blabber away, but at least my knees didn’t shake.
All in all a great event.
"Do not resist an evil person." "Turn the other cheek." I wonder what the meaning of those are exactly. If someone insults me - fine, I'd let that go. If someone stole from me, I might be willing to let that go. If someone broke into my house with the intent to harm my wife or children, I'd resist with all my strength. If people took those absolutely literally, would Europe have just let Hitler take over? My interpretation of those statements has been that we should be willing to be wronged - to a certain extent. To act with grace and forgiveness - to a certain extent. If we are supposed to abide by those in an absolute literal fashion, in every situation...I don't think that's something I can do. I'd love to hear other people's thoughts, though.
I bought into this ultra pacifism until a drug addled guy went through his neighborhood stabbing people. He killed two little girls watching tv in their basement. One fought him. A guy coming home from school finally stopped him. He used violence. Should he have allowed the guy to rampage? At least four people were killed in the rampage. So I’m with you on this I think.
I'm interested in hearing your definition of "absolute" and "literal". Big words, there. A lot hinges on what you mean by them.
I have gotten to the point in life where I can definitely see that I have brought evil into the world unwittingly, not knowing what I was doing. And often with the best of intentions, too. Jesus once talked about ignoring the mote in your neighbor's eye since you had a hard time seeing with the beam in your own. I have tested this one, and found it to be true.
I mean letting an evil person do whatever they want without trying to stop them in any way or letting a person hit you in the face until they are tired of doing so.
O.K. But you still have not answered my question on "absolute" and "literal", and that question is what is the most important to me.
A few years ago, I met with quite a few tensions in the relationship that I had with a piano teacher who I felt goaded me quite a bit, in a subtle way. He was not hitting me in the face, but picking away at me. "Needling" is the word that works best. At one point in time, in a state of sheer rage, I picked his hand up, and the violence stopped. He pointed out to me that my gesture was prohibited, and he was right. We are not supposed to touch each other. Men and women are not supposed to touch each other at all unless they are already intimate.
Thinking about what I did (under God's guidance ?), it came to me that the gesture was perfect, in a way : it stopped the violence between us ; it was not the same thing as my breaking into tears would have been, or humbly accepting everything that he was dishing out. My provocative gesture stopped the violence between us, because it surprised BOTH of us, really. I did not expect to do it, and he definitely did not expect me to do it either.
I think Jesus was the kind of man who understood that sometimes you have to go in there, not knowing ahead of time what you are going to say, and/or do, and improvise as best as possible, while trusting to God ? an outside force ? to protect you, in faith, and this attitude is what resolves a lot of violent situations. It means not deciding ahead of time what you should do, and this is very difficult.
I also told somebody recently that you need to go in there while putting your faith in THE OTHER PERSON'S capacity to protect you, not your own, and this sounds crazy, but it works... miracles.
My understanding: the instruction (and it is an instruction) not to personally resist evil also comes with related instructions: to love your neighbour as yourself, and to lay down your life for others. I understand this to mean that resisting violence in order to protect people is not a bad thing. If someone comes for my children I will of course protect them in any way I can. But I don't then need to shoot the attacker dead. This was the understanding that the best Christians in, for example, Nazi Germany had: that if necessary they were prepared to be martrys for their faith, but they also had a clear duty to protect the weak and vulnerable.
As a Christian, one could argue that loving your neighbor might involve protecting them from (resisting) an evil person. I think you’re making that point above. Well, I can wish the Bible were clearer on things, but in the end, we just have to interpret it and apply it the best we can.
I find Walter Wink helpful on Jesus's 'third way' teaching on not resisting evil, which is a teaching given to crowds of people who are suffering violence and humiliations every day. Its anything but passive, but a tactical and non-violent refusal to answer like with like. For example he points out that turning the other cheek would mean that your assailant would have to hit you on the the right cheek with their right hand (hard to do). The left hand wasn't used as it was used for unclean tasks. The Qumran community had a ten day suspension from meetings as a penalty for even gesturing with the left hand. The only possible blow would be a backhand and such a blow would only be landed to humiliate not to injure and it was administered by Masters to inferiors, slaves, wives, Romans, Jews etc. It was used to force people back into line. Jesus says if anyone strikes YOU. - an audience used to being degraded. Wink argues that Jesus is saying if they backhand you, turn the other cheek. If you think about it this makes it impossible for for the boss to backhand you again (he suggests your nose would be in the way) and so it is impossible . The masters only resort would be to punch you with the right fist - but only equals fought with fists and the last thing the master would want to do would be to suggest some equality with a subservient. Wink thinks this an act of defiance in which the master is rendered incapable of demonstrating his dominance in the relationship. He can beat the slave but no longer cow him. Meek compliance is what the master wants and this cheeky behaviour won't stop a flogging or worse but the point has been made. The Powers that be he writes have lost their power to make people submit. This non-violence Wink suggests is saying " I'm a human being, just like you. I refuse to be humiliated any longer. I am your equal. I am a child of God, I wont take it anymore". Its an interesting take on the teaching if nothing more.
I do sometimes wonder what I would do if my home was invaded by someone who appeared intent on hurting my wife and children. I wonder what Jesus would do. I can picture him getting between my family and the attacker. I can see him with his arms spread ready to sacrifice himself. If he had a stick he might use it to keep the attacker at bay. But I cannot picture him using violence in an attempt to incapacitate anyone, no matter how provoked or what the consequences would be. I would like to think that in this, as in all things, I would act in imitation of my Lord and Savior. But what would happen in the moment I do not know.
Jesus was the first non-violent revolutionary — He taught us to never use violent force, even in self-defense, even to fight evil, but always turn the other cheek.
We were not created to obey the promptings of our own nature. We were created to obey the infinite law of God. The law of love, which God implanted in the soul of every man. When the law of love rules in our hearts every use of force is unnecessary and unlawful. We do not dispute with anyone, we do not attack anyone, we do not use violence against anyone. We bear violence. We do not oppose it.
“He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear His voice in the streets. A bruised reed He shall not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench, till He send forth judgment unto victory."
The teachings of Jesus were given to us at such great cost — His radical humility, His blessings upon the meek, the love of neighbor and enemy, the woe unto those who think they are rich, the humbling of those who think they are on top. “If we were to truly follow the teachings of Jesus, if we were to stumble toward the Creator with love and awe, then creation itself would not now be groaning under our weight”. THE CROSS AND THE MACHINE
Paul -what if someone sincerely believes they are protecting children by opposing woke policy in various venues: church, schools, government, etc. And by teaching others to do so? I'd suppose to a certain extent it is a question of vocation - surely some have a vocation to do this at least to some extent? -Or do they not? (I know it can be done to the detriment of one's soul if overdone - nor must one fight forever as if they are the only one to do it.)
I do like what you said about understanding why your home invader acted as they did even whilst protecting your family.
Personally I think that preventing gender ideology from being taught in schools is a good example of protecting children. Childern everywhere are under assault from highly sexualised woke ideology and much of it is toxic. I think there is a good Christian case for opposing it, and I do. I suppose I would try to do it on the same basis - whilst trying to love those who promote it (our 'enemies' in that narrow sense at least).
I'm not arguing against action. Christ was deeply active in the world. But not with violence, or hatred.
I’d suggest looking at the life of St. Porphyrios. The film “Man of God” particularly focusing on this. St. Porphyrios said nothing in his own defense when attacked with lies and slander. But later in life, when he had a convent of nuns under his care, he stood his ground and fought for them when they were similarly attacked.
Not physical fighting, of course, but I think we can draw a useful principle from this. As individuals we should accept and even embrace attacks on ourselves, but we have a responsibility to protect those under our care.
St. Nectarios, actually
D’oh! Thank you for the correction. I don’t know why I keep getting their names mixed up.
From my meagre perspective, this injunction to "resist not evil", found in the Sermon on the Mount, has nothing to do with a universal declaration of pacifism.
For in the first part of the Christ's statement (Matthew 5:38–39) He says, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you,..."
This has more to do with the reformation of Justice away from vengeance and towards a more robust adjudication of morality as the proper way to deal with those who have wronged us.
Also, If we practice an earthly pacifism to evil are we to submit to spiritual evils in like manner? If not, then have we not just exacerbated our divided being when we respond to evil one way on earth and another way "against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."?
The whole point of Theosis is unity; not division, and in the spiritual realm one either fights or dies.
Hi Paul, Was able to attend your superb Erasmus lecture, hosted by First Things! Alas, did not have the opportunity to ask this question: It seems that both in the lecture and in your writing on the Machine, you're almost at the point of using the language of possession (in the Biblical sense of the word) to describe our culture, its threats and collapse. In your lecture you suggested that part of the remedy can be found in the example of the Orthodox saints, especially their practice of prayer. If what we're dealing with in the West can only "come out by prayer and fasting", what would things begin to look like at the local - even national - level, if we got really serious about praying and fasting? More saints? More churches? Less predatory commerce? Thanks again for an excellent lecture!
A very good question! But this does seem like the work. I do feel like we are possessed. This is what I tried to get at in that speech of mine. We need to get down the the nuts and bolts here. We can't do much about the rotten culture, the love of money, Big Tech etc. Not politically anyway. But prayer and monastery-building and that life at the ground level - we have some power there.
Thanks, Paul! And thanks, again, for a superb lecture!
Just a couple of comments. I listened to your talk and was glad to hear Christopher Dawsons name. I think he was very prescient about the times we now find ourselves.
Also about resisting evil ...there is a common saying that whatever one resists persists...is this just common sense? Does our intellectualizing create more confusion ?
The politics here are full of this but maybe that's the point? Division I've heard is the work of the devil.
I loved this lecture. I liked your "no-more-compromising' attitude. I liked that you encouraged everybody to take responsbilty for their own decisions and find their own pathways along the ideas you proposed instead of giving the one and only recipe that works. I loved your vulnerability and your passion and your steadfastness. I also liked the way you showed what is missing from the cultural Christians' worldview. "Where is Christ in all this?" is definitely the central question for all times! Thank you, Paul!
It is written: "My thoughts are Not your thoughts, my ways are Not your ways" alot for me to ponder there! Resist Evil - phew, such hard and deep enquiry! My values are opposed to world values - are they Christian? Yes I choose and have not felt attracted to evil, yet I realise how for some 'being offered the world' when they are facing possible death, is a tough call! It is hard work becoming Christian! Yet will it Be the Only thing that can save us?! Or do we die in order to live?
I have taken to reflecting on many of the themes of your talk over the past few years, as they are themes which seem to be haunting me. I am finding both wisdom and comfort in your work and that of many others. I am in some sense searching out ways in which to transform myself. A question, perhaps to the group is: for people like myself who live in a rural setting where there is no access to the Orthodox Church, what can we do? I have been called to attend various liturgies. Whenever I am in the big city (about 4 hours from where I live) I walk through the doors, but that's rare. Do I need to embrace the practice of the faith in isolation? Perhaps as the desert fathers did? Is that even possible? Any guidance from the audience would be beautiful. Thanks!
The Orthodox see the Church as an Ark of salvation, the body of Christ. I would go whenever you are able. It's not easy sometimes, but then the narrow way isn't supposed to be. After reading many works of Saints, it has become clear to me that 'going it alone' is not wise, and can be dangerous without a good guide (ie. spiritual father/elder). God bless you in your endeavours.