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.
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'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😃
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…
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’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.
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!
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!
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
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'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😃
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.
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’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.
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!
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.