Desertion in the Desert: Examining Whether the Desert Fathers Were Seperatists..

[Gxg (G²)]

I was recently talking with another individual within Orthodoxy and the subject of the Desert Fathers came up--as we both heavily love their work and seek to walk as they did to the best of our ability.

As much as I admire them within the world of Eastern Christianity, my friend alerted me to the fact that they have often been considered as supporting all things deemed to be apart of the Church as Orthodoxy sees it...and yet in his view, they were very much at odds a number of times. Studying the history of the Desert Fathers in the late 3rd and 4th Centuries and how they naturally developed from living mostly alone to forming loose-knit communities, and later, close-knit ones, I was a bit struck at witnessing how in many ways they seemed to be seperatists.

Many communities within Eastern Monastic circles seemed to radically disconnected themselves from the rest of the world. Last year, I was blessed to get ahold of a book on that very issue, entitled In the Heart of the Desert, Revised: The Spirituality of the Desert Fathers and Mothers by Rev. Dr. John Chryssavgis. Was glad to get ahold of it a couple of months ago after having my eye on it for awhile. There's an online version of it here and it has been very intriguing seeing their lifestyles--and the implications their actions.

To them, it seemed that the only way to address many of the things they saw to be injustices would be to stop being apart of a broken system and to instead try to live outside of the system.​

For me, it seemed similar to what many of the Essenes did when they saw much corruption happening in Jerusalem amongst the differing camps of Judaism (i.e. Pharisees, Zealots, Herodians, Sadducees, etc), many feeling as if they needed to cut themselves out entirely from the mess since they had tried to address it (such as what occurred with the Essenes)...and yet found themselves slowly made into a minority before being pushed out entirely prior to the arrival of Christ. And with the Desert Fathers, it seemed that they had the same experiences of choosing to become sectarian from the corruption in the empire. As the Church was emerging from persecution, many of them had become disenchanted with how quickly the Church became worldly and left for the desert as a protest. Although others came out into the wilderness to meet them and be amazed at their lifesyles, others seemed to be perplexed at how their desire to address corruption by living seperate seemed to encourage change in others....and yet, it still fostered a great deal of disconnection from addressing the issues of injustice that other groups were battling in the Empire.​

For others romanticizing the hermit communities of the Egyptian desert, as seen in St. Athanasius's Life of Anthony (Vita Antonii), it was noteworthy examining the severe discipline of the Desert Fathers in order to obtain God's blessing--requiring that a Christian had to deny his ambitions for prosperity, honours in civic life, desire to satisfy carnal appetites, and instead, according to the sayings of the Desert Fathers themselves, consider that "the treasure house of the monk is voluntary poverty", and "any virtue that is commented on and made a public show of is destroyed". Compared to many camps of the Church that seemed to combine their walks with the State--including supporting War and fighting---the example set by the Desert Fathers was a kind of a muscular Christianity, whereby a man could replace the glory of pagan war/lusty appetites with a kind of glory in spiritual excellence through the seeking of God's presence in a Christian community set apart.​

One would think that the legalization of Christianity by the Roman Empire in 313--through the work of Constantine--would give others like St.Anthony and the Desert Fathers reasons to stay in the main cities/support the Church where it was present..but it was perplexing to see how it simply gave Anthony a greater resolve to go out into the desert since Anthony, who was nostalgic for the tradition of martyrdom, saw withdrawal and asceticism as an alternative...and the only solution.

And with the Desert Fathers, those I have in mind are not only those from St.Anthony's generation. For usually, when people talk about the Desert Fathers and Mothers, they mean those ascetics from the period of St. Antony, St. Pachomius, Evagrius Ponticus, St. Simeon the Stylite, and St. Shenoute. But there are also those in following generations. In my mind, the second and third generations of Desert Fathers are those who lived in the sixth and seventh centuries. For the sixth century Desert Fathers lived in the era after the Council of Chalcedon, in the days when the Church was drawing ever closer to fragmentation over Christological issues. By the seventh century, the monasticism of the Desert had lost some of her impetus, no doubt due to the ongoing disputes between the Chalcedonian imperial church and the anti-Chalcedonians, who by this stage had formed a separate church in Syria through the efforts of Jacob Baradaeus and were well on the road to schism in Egypt. There were also things such as the exhausting wars between the Empire and Persia which affected the Syrian and Palestinian heartland of Desert monasticism....and the seventh century with the Arab invasions, through which the Desert was lost to the Christian Empire.

There are others who felt that many of the political battles that followed immediately after Christianity was legalized--including the many Councils developed (including the Ganster Synod/Robber Synod)--should never have been engaged in due to the methodology that went down....some feeling that working with Constantine was a sign of compromise since the man was noted to have done many horrible things himself (noted here from previous discussion when it came to discussing the development of Byzantine Christianity).

When I was talking to my Orthodox brother (a Bishop/Priest), he noted how the Desert Fathers themselves were not necessarily under a priest as are groups today. Studying for myself, it intrigued me seeing how the Desert Fathers/MOthers were not clerics..and that many Bishops/Clerical councils detested these "monks," who withdrew from sacraments, homilies, and episcopal oversight to live alone in caves/hovels. By the mid-fourth century, these monastic communities were furnishing bishops for the churches....but only after a long time of fourth-century councils forbidding clerics from joining them. More discussed in an excellent book entitled The Evolution Of The Monastic Ideal: From The Earliest Times Down To The Coming Of The Friars, A Second Chapter In The History Of Christian Renunciation - Page 17.

There were other things that seemed to surprise me by the example of the Desert Fathers, as I always assumed they were Eastern Orthodox since I first came across them when I witnessed another Eastern Orthodox member say they were years ago....until talking with my Orthodox brother/doing more study (alongside interaction with Coptic Orthodox believers) and seeing the way that they were simply the root for Eastern Monasticism--that they were neither Eastern Orthodox or Oriential Orthoddox alone. For the CHurch was united, with the Desert Fathers contributing to it even as they may've differed from it....until the 5th century when some didn't agree with the Council of Chalcedon, being labeled subsquently as "Non-Chalcedonian" since they didn't agree with the councils' thinking there was something wrong about seeing Christ as having one nature, human and divine.....and thus leading to a split. According to some, the Oriential Orthodox seemed to maintain what the early church had always done/wanted to be consistent.

Considering how much I've been shaped/blessed by Coptic Orthodoxy (both in relationships and study), it did make me think back.....specifically on how often it seemed odd, IMHO, whenever I looked back/considered others in Eastern Orthodoxy would quote Desert Fathers in claim that they belonged only to their camp while simultaneously saying that those within Coptic Orthodoxy are not truly "Orthodox" as Eastern Orthodoxy is. To me, it seemed interesting that some within a camp would utilize others in the name of what they felt was proper and tell the camp of origin for the Desert Fathers that they were "lesser" in any kind of way. By no means, of course, am I saying that all within Eastern Orthodoxy have done this....but seeing it a couple of times and hearing others note it, it was hard to ignore.

My friend noted to me how easy it is for others to be apart of the Church and yet not fully within it at times when it seems that what is done in the name of the CHurch may not be in line with the foundation of the Church--Christ.

There have been other books which I've found to be very informative over the years...from “The Sayings of the Desert Fathers” by Benedicta Ward /Cistercian Publications – most complete collection--to "The Forgotten Desert Mothers: Sayings, Lives, and Stories of Early Christian Women" by Laura Swan and Christianity in the Land of the Pharaohs: The Coptic Orthodox Church by Jill Kamil. But in going through all of them, there does seem to be a theme present of being radical..compared to some of the other leaders/branches of the Church.

And as often as some of them may've been called "seperatists" or not fully apart of the Body, their example paved the way for many things that the Body benefits from today. Much of their lifestyles reminded me of others who are within Eastern Christian monastic circles and monk lifestyles...and yet not necessarily holding to everything done in the name of the Church or Eastern Orthodoxy. Whereas others may seek to have the State backing the CHurch/enforcing what it feels is just, others feel that it is necessary to back away from all State Influences and live life on the margins. We've had similar debates/dynamics where I attend service. For at the Messianic Jewish fellowship I attend, our fellowship (one branch of the ministry) is within the Eastern Christian tradition itself as it concerns Monasticism (discussed here, #21 , #35, #98 ), due to how the main rabbi I work under is Jewish (Sephardic)/grew up in the MJish camp...and yet he was also an Eastern Orthodox monk/bishop for some time... and ordained me last March within the school, everything practiced from the Divine Liturgy to experiencing chrismation in the Eastern Church..including professing loyalty to the Holy/venerable and blessed Patriarch of Antioch (Mar Ignatius) and the Holy/venerable and blessed Patriarch of Alexandria (Pope Shenouda, who recently passed...of the Coptic Orthodox Church). Working with others, be it Messianic Jews/Gentiles or Byzantine Jews (i.e. Eastern Catholics) or Hebrew Catholics....We've often differed from other groups in the Protestant camp attacking Orthodoxy---including others who try to wage war with the Church---and yet we're not centered on being solely for what's seen in Orthodox ideology. The Desert Fathers in their own example have always stood out as it concerns identifying with them....especially as it concerns means of social change they brought up with having counter-cultural living occurring. And the Monastic tradition...

If anyone within Eastern Orthodoxy thinks I may be off, my apologies. But from what I read, seperating/seeking to live righteously did seem to be the impression that I got from much of Desert Monasticism...be it with St.Anthony or St.Moses the Black and others. And I was curious as to whether or not there are any within Orthodoxy who may feel likewise. If you saw something evil happening in the world socially, how would you respond to it? With a situation such as the wrong doing...or really any other form of social injustice, be it from outside or within the Church, what you suggest?​

For anyone interested in resource information, here are some good considerations:

• Lives of the Monks of Palestine. by J Binnsm, of Cistercian Publications.
• THE ORIGINS OF CHRISTIAN MONASTICISM There are monks
• Desert Christians : an Introduction to the Literature of Early Monasticism...

Blessings

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Anthony, who was nostalgic for the tradition of martyrdom, saw withdrawal and asceticism as an alternative...

In regards to the OP, from one of the Orthodox ministries I've greatly enjoyed following over the years--as seen here and here in the article entitled Why some fundamentalists need to study history! | OrthoCuban and How monks avoided becoming fundamentalists | OrthoCuban (as it concerns the Desert Fathers and how they differed from other groups today):

One of the problems with Anabaptist theology is that in some strains of it there is an emphasis on perfection that leads to a strict separation from other believers. Many Anabaptists had (and have) a very commendable desire to reach out for Christian perfection. That desire is something that we should all have. Many of the early Anabaptists separated themselves out into communities in order to be better able to live Christian lives. Again, this is commendable, if one thinks of the early monks and their desire to live out a Christian life. Among the descendants of the Anabaptists are the Mennonites, the Amish, the Old Order Brethren, the Bruderhofs, etc. They generally have in common a desire to live a common life apart from others, a desire that the life they live apart be a simple life, and a strong belief in pacifism that includes an avoidance of both physical and verbal violence.

But, somewhere along the line something went wrong with some of the other Anabaptists. These are often actually descendants of the English Separatist movement of the very early 1600′s. They have adopted many of the Anabaptist outlooks without their emphases on community and non-violence. They lay claim to a spiritual descent from the Anabaptists, but in reality they simply adopted emphases, such as adult baptism, perfection, etc.

The original Anabaptist emphasis on each person reading their Bible and interpreting it was heavily leavened by the fact that they lived in community, so that individual interpretations were often reined in by the normal back and forth of a committed community, and thereby kept from too much extremism and division.

But, the English Separatists came together more for self-protection than out of a desire for community. Among them were the Puritans, many of whom eventually came to the colonies. But, they were not the only ones to come. And, in America there was no necessity to really live together and agree with each other. Rather, there was plenty of empty land, and one could always move out and start one’s own homestead, or church, if one did not agree with the theology of others in the community. It is said of Daniel Boone that when asked why he left Kentucky he replied: “Too many people! Too crowded, too crowded! I want some elbow room.”

In what became the United States, the separatist emphasis changed. Originally, the English Separatists wanted separation of Church and State, just like most of the continental Anabaptists. But, somehow that concept of separation slowly merged with the Anabaptists desire for a separation that would allow the living out of a cleaner Christian life.

And, when the two concepts merged, we got people who do not believe in living in community but believe in separating themselves from those whose theology and practice is not clean enough. They have the emphasis on the individual interpretation of Scripture without the leaven of a loving committed community that will give them feedback. And, without the input of a loving community, too many of them have turned their desire for growth in the Christian life into a legalism that defines Christianity by a set of doctrinal propositions and behavioral rules without the love that an Anabaptist community so often demonstrates. Eventually it becomes a point of pride to have separated oneself rather than the admission that one is too weak to live out the Christian life without the support of a community.


.....Why did the early monks not fall into the same trap? Well, actually, some of the early Christians did. You can read about the Novatian heresy sometime. But, in reality, how did the monastic movement avoid–by and large–the trap of a separatism that removes the person claiming to be a Christian from being a part or contact with the Church?

. . the monastic movement started from some of the same concerns the Anabaptists had about the purity of the Church and the failure of Christians to practice, or at least try to live, a life of increasing Christian perfection. So, the monastic movement could have easily fallen into the same trap. And, when the monastic movement started the Church was not yet approved by the empire, so it would have been rather easy for them to leave without the rest of the Church being able to do much about it. (The previous sentence is for those who buy into imperial conspiracy theories.)

Perhaps I should emphasize that my question is why the monastic movement did not fall into that trap. You see, the reality is that individual Christians are quite sinful and prone to behavior and thoughts that do not match their stated beliefs. So, yes, there are monks that are proud and separatist and arrogant, etc. You can read stories about their getting into fights on Mount Athos over who gets possession of the monastery. Even worse, there are monks who periodically get into fistfights at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre thereby violating their very vows. And, worst of all, there are monks who have begun to believe that only the monastics are the saviors and preservers of Orthodoxy, based on some historical events in the history of the Church. Those monks often cause division and are dangerous to the Church.

But, having cited individual examples, the question remains. How did the monastic movement avoid separating itself out of the Church? After all, the vast majority of monks do not fit the description above, anymore than the vast majority of Christians are separatists fundamentalists. Well there are several reasons, but the one I consider most important would be their life of prayer and introspection.

As they went out into the desert–for it was into the Middle Eastern desert that they went–the early monastics wished to avoid the lax and “sinful” life of their city brethren. And, so they began a process of prayer and introspection. I am convinced that it was at that time that the Holy Spirit did some significant work. You see, there is a funny thing about introspection.

You never know what you will find when you look inside yourself. Long before the advent of modern psychology, the monks found that inside themselves was an absolutely twisted mess of impulses, desires, and plain old sin. I suspect that they had expected to find some sin. But when you read the Desert Fathers, you become aware that they found sinful impulses far beyond anything that they had expected.

And, that was their salvation. You see, as they realized how sinful they truly were, they began to realize that they were no different than their city brethren. They may not have acted out on their impulses, but they realized that they had each and every impulse that they had seen in their city brethren, and maybe more. You actually catch a glimpse of this type of thinking in a very modern detective series, the Father Brown series by G. K. Chesterton. There were 52 Father Brown stories. In one of them Father Brown has identified the murderer and is asked how he was able to figure it out. His answer was, “You see it was I who killed all those people…I mean that I thought and thought about how a man might come to be like that until I realized that I really was like that in everything but actual final consent to the action.”

Yes, the monks realized that they were like any common murderer in everything but their final consent to the action. And, when they realized that, they were kept from going in the direction of so many modern separatist fundamentalists. They became incredibly forgiving and loving people. In fact, we have records of bishops complaining about the Desert Fathers because they were so willing to forgive that they were supposedly interfering with proper church discipline. And, we have stories of Desert Fathers actually taking on someone else’s punishment, not because they were imitating Christ, but because they were convinced that they deserved the punishment, given their inmost thoughts. But, in taking on that punishment and letting the other go free, they actually did imitate the sinless Christ.

​

​

For more:

​

Desert Fathers & Mothers: Humility as the Path to God ​

The flight of these men to the desert was neither purely negative nor purely individualistic. They were not rebels against society. True, they were in a certain sense "anarchists," and it will do no harm to think of them in that light. They were men who did not believe in letting themselves be passively guided and ruled by a decadent state, and who believed that there was a way of getting along without slavish dependence on accepted, conventional values. But they did not intend to place themselves above society. They did not reject society with proud contempt, as if they were superior to other men. On the contrary, one of the reasons why they fled from the world of men was that in the world men were divided into those who were successful, and imposed their will on others, and those who had to give in and be imposed upon. The Desert Fathers declined to be ruled by men, but had no desire to rule over others themselves. Nor did they fly from human fellowship--the very fact that they uttered..."words" of advice to one another is proof that they were eminently social. The society they sought was one where all men were truly equal, where the only authority under God was the charismatic authority of wisdom, experience and love....

-Thomas Merton...Sayings from the Desert Fathers of the Fourth Century
​

There were others made by Brother OrthoCuban from the perspective of why others may choose to remain where they are many times rather than be forced to join into something apart from the Lord's leading. For more:

• How not to argue for the Church | OrthoCuban
• Wait, so the Church is not perfect? | OrthoCuban
• On those who are happy to be Protestant | OrthoCuban

Also, on a side note, there are others (powerful examples) within the world of Orthodoxy who've had similar dynamics to the Desert Fathers

Specifically, I'm reminded of the Bahitawis, the Holy Men of Ethiopia who've worked in Ethiopian Orthodoxy (more shared here in The History of Ethiopia - Page 174 as well as The Ethiopian Tewahedo Church: an integrally African church - Page 60)---with them being very similar to Nazarites in the way they chose to live a consecrated lifestyle...and many of them did the same as the Desert Fathers when it came to addressing many things occurring within Ethiopian Orthodoxy that may've led to mess---with them ending up persecuted as a result. Their example is something that has been very inspiring to me, alongside the world of Ethiopian Orthodoxy (as said before ) and Oriential Orthodoxy in general

​

ABBA QIDDUS KEDUS KIDUS & The Bahitawis & Debteras | ​

Regardless, blessings to all. Shalom ...​

 

[Thekla]

Thank-you

I'm no historian, but I do think that the monastics are essential to keeping the Church "on course". They have operated, at times, as the conscience and at other times the memory of the Church.

It seems the Holy Fools are not unlike the desert monastics, but recognize the desert in "civilized" locales.

I'll consider these postings more, but this is what comes to mind so far.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Thank-you

I'm no historian, but I do think that the monastics are essential to keeping the Church "on course". They have operated, at times, as the conscience and at other times the memory of the Church.
.

Thanks for sharing

Not fully certain as to what it is that you meant by saying that the monastics were essential for keeping the Church "on course" when it came to what you noted with conscience and memory--as it concerns the difference between being the conscience and the memory of the Church. Part of me was thinking at one point how conscience can be related to memory since feeling negative on something may indicate a memory of knowing where it was shown to be either right or wrong.....

If you'd like to expound more on that, cool. Nonetheless, thank you for sharing as you did.

It seems the Holy Fools are not unlike the desert monastics, but recognize the desert in "civilized" locales.

Interesting to consider, seeing how the Holy Fools were very radical in their lifestyles even though they never sought to live in physical deserts--even though the places they did venture into were very barren. Some of it reminds me of people such as St.Simeon the New Theologian, who was mentored by one of the most famous Holy Fools (Symeon the Pious ) and whose authority for many of his teachings derived from the traditions of the Desert Fathers/ early Christian monks and ascetics.

I'll consider these postings more, but this is what comes to mind so far

Your thoughts are much appreciated

 

[snowpumpkin]

I LOVE these charts!! I am struggling with Orthodoxy BECAUSE of my studying of church history. I with this chart had been presented to me in my cathecishm class instead of this one: just search for images of the orthodoxy church timeline or chart

ARRRGGGHHH, not being able to post links before 50 posts is extremely frustrating.

 

[Thekla]

Thanks for sharing

Not fully certain as to what it is that you meant by saying that the monastics were essential for keeping the Church "on course" when it came to what you noted with conscience and memory--as it concerns the difference between being the conscience and the memory of the Church. Part of me was thinking at one point how conscience can be related to memory since feeling negative on something may indicate a memory of knowing where it was shown to be either right or wrong.....

Sorry - I kinda forgot to return

They are related I suppose ... (though the conscience is considered to be God given, and to all people).

As an example, the monastics were at the forefront of the battle against iconoclasm.

Though the site is no longer available (at least at last check), I read a monograph (publ. iirc through the Dumbarton Oaks/Harvard program in Byzantine Studies) that discussed the Byzantine understanding of two standing armies: the military and the monastics, the former charged with protecting the state and the latter who excelled at spiritual warfare.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I LOVE these charts!! I am struggling with Orthodoxy BECAUSE of my studying of church history. I with this chart had been presented to me in my cathecishm class instead of this one: just search for images of the orthodoxy church timeline or chart

.

Charts can help alot in seeing things, as it concerns having a visual perspective to go with the words presented. Tried searching for the charts you said under the name you gave...and the only ones I could find were the following:

​

The other one I was able to find was here.....

ARRRGGGHHH, not being able to post links before 50 posts is extremely frustrating

Generally, if you have a link you can't yet post, you can always share it with others by giving the name of the site the link is found on or giving part of the link by taking out the standard beginning part of it (i.e. "
http: " being removed from the rest of what's given).

 

[snowpumpkin]

Charts can help alot in seeing things, as it concerns having a visual perspective to go with the words presented. Tried searching for the charts you said under the name you gave...and the only ones I could find were the following:

​

Generally, if you have a link you can't yet post, you can always share it with others by giving the name of the site the link is found on or giving part of the link by taking out the standard beginning part of it (i.e. "
http: " being removed from the rest of what's given).

I made many different attempts to alter the link to get it in my post and it didn't work. Anyone, that chart shows what I mean. The chart I was given did not have all those comments but the actual diagram is accurate. It shows Orthodoxy as a straight, constant line along the bottom, then the breaking off of the RCC, and the Protestant Reformation breaking off from the RCC line. That is an Orthodox perspective of history.

While I've been reading about the early church and development of Christianity, I'm finding the more realistic representation to be along the lines of the chart provided in the original post! I just feel like I wasn't given the whole story.

It all comes down to what you believe to be the truth I guess.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Sorry - I kinda forgot to return
.

Wasn't tripping at all, sis

They are related I suppose ... (though the conscience is considered to be God given, and to all people).

Conscience..something that sadly can be seared or suppressed (as I Timothy 4 and Romans 1 notes).

As an example, the monastics were at the forefront of the battle against iconoclasm.

Thank goodness for them standing out as they did and refusing to "go with the flow", so to speak, when so many others in the Church seemed to be fighting aggressively against it. For many, it seemed that the monastics were "out of time", so to speak...a relic of the past. But in truth, they were keeping people connected to that which was always present/ should never be forgotten.

Though the site is no longer available (at least at last check), I read a monograph (publ. iirc through the Dumbarton Oaks/Harvard program in Byzantine Studies) that discussed the Byzantine understanding of two standing armies: the military and the monastics, the former charged with protecting the state and the latter who excelled at spiritual warfare

Will try to find the site when I have the chance, although it is interesting to consider the Byzantine understanding of warfare. Part of me, when studying Orthodoxy, is rather amazed at seeing the dynamic of monastics who were militant...something which I've sought to share before in another discussion:

I'm not trigger happy and pray it never becomes necessary but if it did, I would be shooting to kill.

But then I'm a very poor example of an Orthodox Christian. Then again there is the story if St. Mercurius taking care of the emperor so it's possible. There are also devoutly Orthodox soldiers and cops so that would be something to think about.

I think having someone from a soldier background where death was a reality--and they were conflicted about it (be it as a body guard, an assassian/enforcer, a member of a Special Operations groups or simply as a cop) is perhaps the greatest way to bring out conflict in a character that's worth following. For in many cases, having the options NOT to take life is not an option.

......................To have a monk who is seeking to be peaceful and yet being forced to take life/ask forgiveness....never certain of where he stands as he goes on his own journey, would be a great way of conveying the struggle others have when it comes to learning how to follow the Lord.

In addition to someone such as St.Mercurius being an example to base a comic book story on, I'm reminded of Alexander Peresvet, also spelled Peresviet (Russian: Александр Пересве&#1090, who was a Russian Orthodox Christian monk who fought in a single combat with the Tatar champion Temir-murza (known in most Russian sources as Chelubey or Cheli-bey) at the opening of the Battle of Kulikovo (8 September 1380), where they killed each other. He is believed to have hailed from the Bryansk area and took the monastic habit at the Rostov Monastery of Saints Boris and Gleb. Later he moved to the Monastery of Pereslavl-Zalessky under the service of Dmitri Donskoi. He later moved to the Trinity Abbey where he became a follower of Sergius of Radonezh...and at some point, Alexander and his friend Rodion Oslyabya joined Russian troops approaching to fight against Mamai invasion. As the battle of Kulikovo was opened by single combat between the two champions, the Russian champion was Alexander Peresvet and the Horde champion was Temir-murza. More can be found here on the matter.. and here at Icon of Saint Alexander Peresvet (Radonezhsky)

Some of it seems similar to one story that was found within the scriptureshinehas was willing to kill if he felt it would glorify the Lord in His Holiness and advancing what he knew to be true of the Kingdom...and some of this is similar to what happened in Biblical history when there were others that were fighters seeking to defend what they felt was the faith. I'm reminded of the Zealots of scripture., as the Zealots had a different view of serving God that their sister group the Pharisees.

For the Zealots take on a differing light when realizing how many of them were devout priests who were willing to act on Violence whereas other priests/holy men avoided it...and the Zealots, although others may disagree with them, were men seeking to do what they felt was honorable.

More on the Zealots can be discussed here .....

Zealots are truly amazing...and in reading the scriptures, I've found it interesting to see how not all things associated with them were counter to Christ. I'm reminded of others such as Simon the Zealot ( Luke 6:14-16 / Luke 6 / Matthew 10:3-5 / Matthew 10 /Mark 3:17-19 Mark 3 ), who was the "terrorist" of the apostolic group (and most likely a problem, especially when dealing with tax-collectors and understanding the History between them and the Zealots..already against government in a myriad of ways ).

He (Christ) had many diverse individuals apart of His inner circle---despite how BOTH sides had significant issue with the other, with Zealots wishing to overthrow Rome and feeling as if Tax-Collectors had "Sold out".


Considering the fact that Jesus opposed violent rebellion against Rome, many probably wondered why Jesus would choose such a fellow.....and adding to that is the irony in how Matthew was a tax collector. Tax collectors were very much in league with Rome. There were probably no two groups of Jews in Palestine who hated each other more than the tax collectors and the zealots. Yet, Jesus chose one of each. Most people probably would have been afraid that these two fellows would kill each other...but the Lord wasn’t. For he understood that the kingdom of God was more powerful than the hatred of men. And the very fact Jesus chose two men so opposite in their worldviews was a demonstration of its power.

And perhaps Christ chose Simon due to family relation--making the issue more close to home. For in the Gospels, some feel Simon the Zealot is identified with Simon the "brother" of Jesus mentioned in Gospel of Mark 6:3 :
Some things to consider.... Simon was called a "Zealot" in his lifestyle before ministry with Jesus, probably a member of the Zealot party, which was a party determined to overthrow Roman Domination in Palestine. Interestingly enough, the "Zealot" term is still used for the man AFTER Christ rose from the Grave, Acts 1:12-14 Acts 1 .IMHO, it gives room to indicate that even after being in the midst of Jesus, that which he may have been known for was probably with him to one degree or another---such as still possibly wishing for Rome to be overthrown or having sympathies for those against Roman Oppression. When considering how the man died, there are many traditions. One tradition states that he traveled in the Middle East and Africa. Christian Ethiopians claim that he was crucified in Samaria, while Justus Lipsius writes that he was sawn in half at Suanir, Persia. However, Moses of Chorene writes that he was martyred at Weriosphora in Caucasian Iberia. Tradition also claims he died peacefully at Edessa. Another tradition says he visited Britain -- possibly Glastonbury -- and was martyred in Caistor, modern-day Lincolnshire.

Another interesting tradition, doubtless inspired by his title "the Zealot", states that he was involved in a Jewish revolt against the Romans, which was brutally suppressed in A.D 70. If the last tradition is true, it'd make his character interesting.

If knowing of the work by Robert Eisenman (Eisenman 1997 pp 33-4), he pointed out the contemporary talmudic references to Zealots as kanna'im "but not really as a group — rather as avenging priests in the Temple." For more info, one can look up the work entitled James the Brother of Jesus : The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. (Viking Penguin). But on Simon, when Jesus called him, nowhere is there sign that there was an immediate change over night..especially considering how often they argued amongst themselves...

................................

Going back to Orthodox members who were violent, IMHO, to see others within Orthodox history who were soldiers defending the faith is interesting to consider...

To my knowledge, there were quite of few monk saints who, when need arose, would exchange their monastic garb for that of a warrior..such as those who sought to save Holy Russia from the onslaught of apostates or pagans. These Christ-loving warriors considered it their duty to follow in the steps of the disciples of St. Sergius of Radonezh, who went to the Kulikovo battlefield and saved Russia..

Actually, I was referring to St. Mercurius' killing of Julian the Apostate after St. Basil prayed that he (Julian) not return from the war. He disappeared from the icon then reappeared with blood on his spear.

Mercurius killed others whom he felt were not in line with the Lord, to my knowledge....his killing of Julian being something he's most famous for since he felt it would help end Julian's attempts to slow the spread of Christianity.

For a long time I've wanted to write a story about a monk who was a former SOG type and struggled with violent tendencies. He would get into a situation where he killed a man to save the life of a child, then get close to the family. Despite all his efforts, the child falls in with the wrong crowd and takes a bad path that leads to his dying in sin. When he questions God about he receives a vision, or maybe is told by a holy Elder, that God would have spared the child that fate as well as the man the monk killed, who would have repented and led others to Christ.

Yeah, I know. I never said it was a good story.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Though the site is no longer available (at least at last check), I read a monograph (publ. iirc through the Dumbarton Oaks/Harvard program in Byzantine Studies) that discussed the Byzantine understanding of two standing armies: the military and the monastics, the former charged with protecting the state and the latter who excelled at spiritual warfare.

Was able to find the site you're speaking of (I think ), entitled Byzantine Studies Program — Dumbarton Oaks

However, I've not been able to find the monograph you mentioned.

That said, I do wonder how the Byzantines were able to have what they did with warfare since one (as the monastics practiced) seemed to be about seeking to realize that having to be about protecting the state via violence is not necessarily the way to go....

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I made many different attempts to alter the link to get it in my post and it didn't work. .

K. Is the link found at a paticular website that anyone could go on their own/investigate...and if so, what is the name of the site?

Anyone, that chart shows what I mean. The chart I was given did not have all those comments but the actual diagram is accurate. It shows Orthodoxy as a straight, constant line along the bottom, then the breaking off of the RCC, and the Protestant Reformation breaking off from the RCC line. That is an Orthodox perspective of history.

Interesting, as I was also thinking of how the Assyrian Church was seen by many Orthodox to have broken off as well.

While I've been reading about the early church and development of Christianity, I'm finding the more realistic representation to be along the lines of the chart provided in the original post! I just feel like I wasn't given the whole story.

It all comes down to what you believe to be the truth I guess

Curious as to what parts you personally feel should have been mentioned more so.

The charts from the OP (which can be found here/here & here as well as from the article entitled Eastern “Blind Spot” or “Cross-Pollination”? | Orthocath ...all with slight variations with each other) were very beneficial in understanding the ways things flowed from a linear perspective like watching how a tree evolves and which branches develop first or last...especially on the other branches of Eastern Christianity which are often obsure to so many. But if you have differing reasons, would love to hear.

 

[snowpumpkin]

K. Is the link found at a paticular website that anyone could go on their own/investigate...and if so, what is the name of the site?

Interesting, as I was also thinking of how the Assyrian Church was seen by many Orthodox to have broken off as well.

Curious as to what parts you personally feel should have been mentioned more so..

Just the rest of the story. The first 1,000 years of Christianity was not all neatly contained in one single line like it was presented to me. I had no idea about the Assyrian or Oriental churches until I learned about them on my own. I knew there were heresies, but not that actual sections of the church had broken off and continued to this day prior to the Great Scism in 1054.

I also had no idea that there are Eastern and Western Rite churches intermingled between the two. Or that some Orthodox churches are not in communion with others. It is not as neat and clean as I was lead to believe.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Just the rest of the story. The first 1,000 years of Christianity was not all neatly contained in one single line like it was presented to me. I had no idea about the Assyrian or Oriental churches until I learned about them on my own.

More than understand what you're saying. Indeed, life for those in the Assyrian or Oriental Orthodox (Coptic, Indian, Syrian, Ethopian, etc) Churches is not something I found discussed in many circles until I too discovered it on my own with my one of my close friends who grew up Orthodox..with us relating more so to Coptic Orthodoxy (as that's where the most relationship is held, more discussed here ) and Ethopian Orthodoxy. It was amazing considering the ways that they themselves (Assyrian church, Jacobites, etc) changed the world of Asian culture and other areas...and the ways the Oriental Orthodox impacted the world for the Gospel was something I wished I had learned of growing up so that I'd have a more complete view on the ways the Lord worked throughout the world.

I'm thankful that at the fellowship I'm at the priest I work with is very informed on those issues. For where we're at, although we identify with Coptic Orthodox Christianity (and more specifically, Syriac Orthodoxy as the primary) when it comes to Orthodoxy since the cradle/birthplace of Christian monasticism was born within Coptic monasticism (which is what the Desert Fathers seem closest to), we greatly appreciate the many other aspects of Eastern Christianity . As shared earlier, although we admire the Patriarch of Alexandria, we also have love for the Patriarch of Antioch (Mar Ignatius) and identify much with them.

We love the early Syrian Church Fathers ...examples being people such as St. Isaac the Syrian (of the Assyrian Church, which is within the Syriac tradition of Eastern Christianity)..held to be a saint both within the Eastern Orthodox world and Catholicism. Due to how he consciously avoided writing on topics that were disputed or discussed in the contemporary theological debates, he was able to have a certain ecumenical potential, and is probably the reason that he has come to be venerated and appreciated among many different Christian traditions. There was an excellent book on the issue entitled The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian (more here ). Others often dislike the man intensely, athough there are others not apart of the camp he was with and yet still able to note where he had many wonderful contbutions (more shared here on that ). St.Isaac is one of my favorite heros to study and I've always found it amazing seeing others in the Syrian world who were very distinct/expressive when it came to the stories they shared to give truth

Others we appreciate are people like Ephrem the Syrian, held as a saint throughout the world in many denominations and exceddingly brilliant in how he succeeded in a unique way to reconcile the vocation of the theologian with that of the poet (more shared here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc). He is perhaps the most famous writer in Syriac Christianity, which in its earliest form is often regarded as a more ‘Semitic’ Christianity, in Antiquity, than that of the Mediterranean Greek- and Latin-speaking area. This is because Syriac is originally a local dialect of Aramaic in northern Mesopotamia, linguistically not too dissimilar from the Jewish Aramaic of the Babylonian rabbis, though written in different characters.

Sadly, with St.Ephrem, he often seemed to make comments about Jewish culture that've been deemed to be either crude or misinformed---others even labeling him anti-semitic in his writings. Some of the things he noted I dislike greatly, alongside Jewish believers I work with who do not appreciate the anti-Jewish sentiments he had in some of his writings.......and yet we prefer to go the route of most scholars who choose to focus on the many very fine examples of Ephrem’s poetry on more exalted themes, and to ignore crude/near-sighted comments on his Jewish neighbours. The same mindset goes for other things written by the fathers that seemed off when it came to describing Jewish culture....for ultimately, imperfect people will act imperfect and there's no reason to ignore where the Lord did work throught them (just as he did through many of the other fathers). You can imagine how difficult things can get many times when working with other Jewish believers who feel such and yet have to go toe-to-toe with others (be it Jew or Gentile) who assume one loving Jewish culture can't support anything from other church fathers who often seemed to be against it....but you learn to live/let live

With Ephrem, it has always been interesting to consider his complex relationship with Judaism-----for as much as he may have spoken against it, he adopted Jewish literary forms, particularly in wordplay (see Puns and Pundits: Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature which has a chapter on Ephrem.)...and he often praises many of the righteous persons of the Old Testament (all of whom point to Christ). Moreover, in some cases, criticism given of Judaism itself was justified, just as many Jewish rabbis criticized their own as well when it came to doing things the Lord never desired. There was an excellent review on the issue here and here on the matter that deals with not demonizing all aspects of what certain fathers said due to context being missed...and there've been other Jewish believers involved in Eastern CHristianity who've often noted the same (if going here, here, here, here, here, here, here , and here at Jewish Christianity in apostolic times: A native Jewish Church ).

I knew there were heresies, but not that actual sections of the church had broken off and continued to this day prior to the Great Scism in 1054.

Going back to what you said earlier about other branches in the early church....indeed, it is very intriguing to see the ways that many camps, long before the Great Schism, had their own developments/stories going on for a myriad of reasons.....and yet, due to the lack of awareness of them, people are often unaware of what has truly happened on the other side of the street---no different than it'd be with cultures seperated for ages and only knowing of the side of history relevant to them...and then being surprised to find out others who differed from the traditional thoughts they may've had.

​

To see how there were events akin to "civil wars" waged in major camps that split off from other ones...I was truly tripped out and it made me realize just how multi-layered events could be in the development of groups. Sometimes, it seems that perhaps there's only one side of history given due to whoever it is that is in charge or influencing the historical views given, no different than when Protestants may only record the good found in their camps while neglecting to share the beauty in others...or how many Catholics may only share the ways they may contributed to the Body of Christ and yet selectively leaving out where other camps (be it in the Protestant Movement or the Orthodox world) did the same as they did.

I also had no idea that there are Eastern and Western Rite churches intermingled between the two. Or that some Orthodox churches are not in communion with others. It is not as neat and clean as I was lead to believe

It always makes me chuckle when seeing others hear from afar about something called Orthodoxy and think it's all the same...only to realize the many ways that there is diversity, be it seeing how Eastern Orthodox has differing levels (i.e. Greek Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc) or how Eastern Orthodox differ from Coptic Orthodox or how Ethopian Orthodox differ from Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (also known as the Indian Orthodox Church), as I used to be in the camp thinking they were all the same.

As if that wasn't compicated enough, you ended up running into awareness of how each individual camp had differing branches within it that also took unique course. I'm reminded of Oriential Orthodoxy in India and how multi-faceted it is by itself:

I also had no idea that there are Eastern and Western Rite churches intermingled between the two.

As it concerns the dynamics of Eastern and Western rite churches, their histories do fascinate me alot...although it's interesting to see how much heat they may take from all sides, as it concerns the many ways that others in Latin Rites may not favor those in Eastern rites within Catholicism while there may be alot of people in Orthodoxy who don't really enjoy Eastern Catholicism ( which has always had me struggling since Eastern Catholicism/Byzantine Catholics is something I always found fascinating in the same way as Orthodoxy is fascinating , having much in common with Orthodoxy/beauty within it ). I remember when I learned about Byzantine culture/theology from people such as Joseph Raya (more discussed here in #70 ), who was the Archbishop of Akko, Haifa, Nazareth and all Galilee and also did extensive work with Dr. Martin Luther King (as both a co-laborer and dear friend). Seeing the ways he had a deep passion for Eastern culture, I always had the impression from him that the Byzantine/ Eastern side were unified...until I became a bit shocked seeing the ways that there were mini-battles occurring, regadless of connections.

And then, of course, there's the reality of where many within Orthodoxy may have significant battles/disagreements on many issues.

Alot of things bring to remembrance the reality that history is never as clean/"cut and dried" as many can make it out to be.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Just the rest of the story. The first 1,000 years of Christianity was not all neatly contained in one single line like it was presented to me. I had no idea about the Assyrian or Oriental churches until I learned about them on my own. I knew there were heresies, but not that actual sections of the church had broken off and continued to this day prior to the Great Scism in 1054.

I also had no idea that there are Eastern and Western Rite churches intermingled between the two. Or that some Orthodox churches are not in communion with others. It is not as neat and clean as I was lead to believe.

With the Eastern Churches that broke of and ended up as Eastern and Western Rite churchs intermingled between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, they've had to go through some variations which are interesting to consider. As it is, myself being Oriential Orthodox (as well as Messianic) and working with others who are have Catholicity in the OO Tradition, there are variations many are not aware of which are very amazing. For Orthodox sometimes refer to their church as the Orthodox Catholic Church - more noted in the thread by Sister Daughter of Ararat in her thread Are Orthodox at all Catholic? . And where I'm at, it has been the case that we already work with other Catholics - specifically, Antiochian Catholic Church. One can see more dialouges on the issue of where they're coming from and how they have addressed others:

• Mystery of the Church
• Antiochian Catholic Church in America
• Gregory Ned Blevins - Kodak, Antiochian Catholic Church in ...

Many things others are not aware of with the other aspects of the Eastern Tradition - as it concerns why others may disagree (and for better places of expressing that, there was an amazing research blog from an Orthodox perspective that addressed the beautiful aspects of the Assyrian Church of the East - as seen in East Meets East).

That said, if I may ask, what did you find when you asked others in your class (or elsewhere) on their thoughts on camps within history that had their own evolutionary tracks/developments in parallel with Orthodoxy?

 

[Thekla]

Wasn't tripping at all, sis

Conscience..something that sadly can be seared or suppressed (as I Timothy 4 and Romans 1 notes).

and still an important teaching to remember ...

Thank goodness for them standing out as they did and refusing to "go with the flow", so to speak, when so many others in the Church seemed to be fighting aggressively against it. For many, it seemed that the monastics were "out of time", so to speak...a relic of the past. But in truth, they were keeping people connected to that which was always present/ should never be forgotten.

Exactly !

The monasteries are still pilgrimage sites, and not a few priests encourage this. In fact, they are a great place to 'wash' the world off oneself.

Everything in a monastery (imo) seems so ... normal. As if this is what real life feels like. I recall vividly, as I was walking through the candle-making workshop in our local monastery, a nun looking up and smiling at me; a most natural, easy, smile. I was blown away - for I realized that though I'd never met her, I knew her ! No words, just a brief encounter, but she was so "all there", so present, the moment was as if an exchange between old friends who have known each other since childhood. And that is when I realized one of the great values of monasteries; they demonstrate what we are to become, to be. What life is in Christ.

Will try to find the site when I have the chance, although it is interesting to consider the Byzantine understanding of warfare. Part of me, when studying Orthodoxy, is rather amazed at seeing the dynamic of monastics who were militant...something which I've sought to share before in another discussion:

​

I wish I could source the piece again; it was in an archive that (at last look) is no longer available. Me being me, I don't recall the author or title (pretty lame for a bookseller ). The bookmark was lost in a computer crash. (Which may be a blessing, as I tend to collect too many to use ...)

 

[Gxg (G²)]

and still an important teaching to remember ...

Exactly !

The monasteries are still pilgrimage sites, and not a few priests encourage this. In fact, they are a great place to 'wash' the world off oneself.

Like SPiritual Sanctuaries or Cities of Refuge...

Everything in a monastery (imo) seems so ... normal. As if this is what real life feels like. I recall vividly, as I was walking through the candle-making workshop in our local monastery, a nun looking up and smiling at me; a most natural, easy, smile. I was blown away - for I realized that though I'd never met her, I knew her ! No words, just a brief encounter, but she was so "all there", so present, the moment was as if an exchange between old friends who have known each other since childhood. And that is when I realized one of the great values of monasteries; they demonstrate what we are to become, to be. What life is in Christ

Interesting to consider, as I recalled reading one book on the issue--entitled "Punk Monk: New Monasticism and the Ancient Art of Breathing"--that discussed the reality of how there are certain areas where it seems that Heaven/Earth meet and one can feel closer to what eternity was meant to feel like...with the author also noting how many monestaries often were noted for being "hot zones" when it came to miracles/healings and the Lord at work powerfully because of the type of atmosphere that was set up via prayer/intercession and seperation unto the Lord. Being for monasticism (within the realm of what one may call being a "Missional Monk" ) and the ways that ascetism can connect one with the Lord, the concept of pilgrimage sites/the nuns and men of God living it it have always touched me.

I pray I don't come off the wrong way in what follows ...I always felt that the Desert Fathers tended to be a bit like "Punk Monks" in how radical they were and yet focused on seeing the prescense of the Lord present in His saints so that they'd realize the reality of eternity...and just how fleeting this current world is. For them, it was always about mission and what they did was outreach in amazing ways...just as the nun you talked to impacted you in how she lived/existed.

I wish I could source the piece again; it was in an archive that (at last look) is no longer available. Me being me, I don't recall the author or title (pretty lame for a bookseller ). The bookmark was lost in a computer crash. (Which may be a blessing, as I tend to collect too many to use

.

Bummer....

Who knows, as perhaps it may show up elsewhere And trust me when I say I relate to you since I often do not recall authors or titles on alot of booksellers, similar to people who don't know the names of others and say "Remember the big dude with blond hair and brown eyes? That's the one who gave the speech that was significant"

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Everything in a monastery (imo) seems so ... normal. As if this is what real life feels like. I recall vividly, as I was walking through the candle-making workshop in our local monastery, a nun looking up and smiling at me; a most natural, easy, smile. I was blown away - for I realized that though I'd never met her, I knew her ! No words, just a brief encounter, but she was so "all there", so present, the moment was as if an exchange between old friends who have known each other since childhood. And that is when I realized one of the great values of monasteries; they demonstrate what we are to become, to be. What life is in Christ.

Would love to meet the nun you met, as she seems like a cool sister. Nuns, in the work they do, are truly some of the most extradionary people around (as I grew up around it, due to how I attended a Catholic elementary school when I was younger and my family grew up Catholic). And the work that many monestaries did was radical, especially when seeing how they would be set up to serve as "hub stations"/nexus zones for others to be empowered so that they could go back out into the world and do the Mission of the Gospel.

On a side note, for the sake of humor, there are times I get a bit humored thinking back on how my view of a monastery was akin to what I saw via the media like movies such as "Sister Act" (yes, one of my favorites ):

Sister Act- I Will Follow Him
Sister Act - Oh Maria​

 

[Thekla]

Like SPiritual Sanctuaries or Cities of Refuge...

yup

Interesting to consider, as I recalled reading one book on the issue--entitled "Punk Monk: New Monasticism and the Ancient Art of Breathing"--that discussed the reality of how there are certain areas where it seems that Heaven/Earth meet and one can feel closer to what eternity was meant to feel like...with the author also noting how many monestaries often were noted for being "hot zones" when it came to miracles/healings and the Lord at work powerfully because of the type of atmosphere that was set up via prayer/intercession and seperation unto the Lord. Being for monasticism (within the realm of what one may call being a "Missional Monk" ) and the ways that ascetism can connect one with the Lord, the concept of pilgrimage sites/the nuns and men of God living it it have always touched me.

From what I know that is actually what we are to be and 'make' on earth - to be "thin spots", vessels of the Holy Spirit, overflowing.

I pray I don't come off the wrong way in what follows ...I always felt that the Desert Fathers tended to be a bit like "Punk Monks" in how radical they were and yet focused on seeing the prescense of the Lord present in His saints so that they'd realize the reality of eternity...and just how fleeting this current world is. For them, it was always about mission and what they did was outreach in amazing ways...just as the nun you talked to impacted you in how she lived/existed.

Not wrong, no

Death to the World - The Last True Rebellion

The parallel is apt - most 'punks' I knew (and the movement in general) were a reaction against values held by the status quo. (I think the DiY movement was more interesting, as it was not a "reaction against" something, but had a similar ethos). As with Dada - this sense of 'something is wrong' can be found in Art, Literature, Philosophy, etc.

It's just that monastics had the answer - the heart, and Christ, and thus the remedy ... As one priest said, "the Church is a Hospital, and the Monasteries the ICU".

Bummer....

Who knows, as perhaps it may show up elsewhere And trust me when I say I relate to you since I often do not recall authors or titles on alot of booksellers, similar to people who don't know the names of others and say "Remember the big dude with blond hair and brown eyes? That's the one who gave the speech that was significant"

The bookseller's nightmare - on both sides !

 

[Gxg (G²)]

yup !

From what I know that is actually what we are to be and 'make' on earth - to be "thin spots", vessels of the Holy Spirit, overflowing.

One wonders how to go about doing that many times...and it's hard not to wonder if there are many times the Lord may be present somewhere and others missed it due to looking for the wrong things--or judging based on how he did it in one setting and forgetting that the Lord does not always go in line with forumla or expectations (as was the case in the days of Christ when others failed to realize where He was in Luke 19:43-45 ...or Jacob, when the Lord appeared to him and he realized he didn't even realize it in Genesis 28:14 )

Not wrong, no
Death to the World - The Last True Rebellion

Wow...

That's a pretty intense website. Had no idea, although what they noted there was pretty spot on. Was there anything from it that you enjoyed?

The parallel is apt - most 'punks' I knew (and the movement in general) were a reaction against values held by the status quo.

Kind of seems similar to Hip Hop culture, specifically underground Hip Hop..in that not everything is accepted simply because the majority do so.

(I think the DiY movement was more interesting, as it was not a "reaction against" something, but had a similar ethos). As with Dada - this sense of 'something is wrong' can be found in Art, Literature, Philosophy, etc.

Do you feel that the "something is wrong" theme has ever reached a point where it became wrong in/of itself due to the spirits others walked in or others choosing to paint a scenario as "wrong" when there was actually alot of "right" present within it?

The DiY movement was interesting, indeed....although you wonder how you can seek to go against something if there does not seem to be any reason to.

It's just that monastics had the answer - the heart, and Christ, and thus the remedy ... As one priest said, "the Church is a Hospital, and the Monasteries the ICU".

Good quote to live by, as the priest noted I just wonder at what point a Hospital can become a hospice or a prison emergency ward if there"s too much restriction/no room for what may be necessary disagreement (as the monastics had when it came to loving the Church and yet not feeling as if they were bound to walk lock-step in line with every facet of it that the majority went with when it seemed to go against the heart of Christ).

For more explanation (in the event I'm not making sense), part of me cannot help but wonder of what often may happen when someone for one form of ministry may end up exalting that form as if it is the only way to minister. For those loving the monasteries, there may be others who have love that goes into the realm of extreme zeal...to the point where anyone who may not be up for visiting monasteries or seeing them as the only way of spiritual development are condemned....amd if others develop differing ways of ministry that may incorporate certain aspects of monasteries while differing from them in others (i.e. a Boiler Room/Prayer room or Prayer houses that they may have in places dedicated to intercession for the community..or Monastic communites where the arts /incarnational ministry are utilized, as with others such as the New Monastics like Shane Claiborne), people can be quick to say that healing/the workings of the Holy Spirit may not be present due to how it's different than the expression they were used to.

IMHO, there are times where it seems that significant challenge arises whenever there's a desire to get back to an "original" form of Christian spirituality since what happened previously already had present within differing camps, each feeling they were the "originals" others needed to follow even as they sought to be "original" in regards to what the early church held to.....with the examples of the Desert Fathers being a prime example in their resisting Imperial Christianity at many points even when others in the Church felt their actions were not appropriate or a reflection of what the Church was to be about. Adding to those factors are the reality that many "original" expressions were colored by cultural expression - i.e., pre-modernism, primitive scientific understanding, flat-earth cosmology, etc. For others, it seems that the challenge was to forge an authentic spirituality that can speak to, as well as receive from, the larger culture. ....for IMHO, it's the Church's role to act out the creational microcosm - that is, the Church's very existence is a sign and a foretaste of the New Creation, in which God is making all things new.


It is because of those issues that part of me often feels that one cannot make cultural norms based in the Church an idol when it comes to seeing how something was expressed in one era...and not being willing to change it at any point in order to help others see things more clearly if something arises. For just as others in the Byzantine era contexualized the Faith as they understood it in their times so as to be better able to make disciples/convey truth ....in the same manner Jewish believers from a Hellenized background used Greek concepts/imagery to convey Biblical principles to others in the Greek world so that they'd understand).... so it is the case, IMHO, that there should never be such a focus on the past that there's never ability to understand (or be able) to know when change may be necessary.

Granted, the mindset of "cultural adaptability" can indeed be taken overrboard....to the point of where we get so caught up in trying to make "translate" the Gospel to the point that the message gets lost at some point and it becomes of no relevance anymore because it's gotten to the point where we can basically re-shape Jesus into our image apart from how he was ORIGINALLY seen. As another believer said best:

Contexualization is the theological method that tries to translate the biblical mesage into different cultural settings. Contexualization is certainly needed when we apply scripture. It's because of contexualization that we don't wear sandals, togas, speak Greek, and use horses for transportation. However, some people wave the contexualization flag to the point of overcontexualizating the scriptures until they have no present relevance at all. Overcontexualization eats up the biblical text to where it disappears entirely. ANd we are left to create the church after our own image. F.F. Bruce warns against the dangers of extreme contexualization saying,

The restement of the Gospel in a new idiom is necessary in every generation----as necessary as its translation into new languages. But in too much that passes for restatement of the Gospel, the Gospel itself disappears, and the resultant product is what Paul would have called 'another gospel' which is in fact no gospel at all' (Galatians 1:6/Galatians 1:15 ). When the Christian message is so thoroughly accommodated to the prevalent climate of opinion that it becomes one more expression of that climate of opinion, it is no longer a Christrian message.
​

I've met many advocates of the cultural adaptability paradigm. And I've been fascinated to discover that every one of them believes that there are normative church practices that transcend time and culture.

That said, there does seem to be a lot of Biblical precedent for knowing how to express concepts in differing ways than what may've existed before if the need arose for it.

Biblically, many of the things Paul did were a bit new for their time (even though they've become standard for us today). Paul capitalized on the "unknown God" and used it as a springboard to tell them about the one true God in Acts 17...but in another sense, he quoted a mystical love poem written to Zeus, as if it's subject were the one true God. It's really not far from "grooving to the latest tune to Zeus saying it should be sung to Yahweh"..........saying, essentially, "this is what you've been worshiping, ignorantly, and this is the fuller meaning of what you've been doing"....

I think it's one of the finest examples of cross-cultural ministry recorded in scripture, and was certainly an inspiration over the ages for the "Christianization" of pagan holidays and customs: from the hairdos of the monks to the dates of feasts to the symbols and words used to the liturgy itself (patterned after the coronation ceremony of an emperor) to the songs and hymns sung. IMHO, it's tragic when the church has taken the contextualization of one generation or one culture and declared that as normative for all time - or used it to condemn a new framing, a new contextualization. Personally...this is something that I must say has been my biggest concern with the "high" churches, especially Orthodoxy. I don't understand why the culture, art, hymnology, and symbols of 4th-century Byzantium are held in such high regard as to be considered in essence the peak of perfection, the summit of revelation...but anything differing from that, be it Assyrian or Oriential Orthodox and so forth, is treated with disdain or contempt.

The same could of course be said for Modern Western Protestant Evangelicalism: what makes 16th-century Geneva the stopping-point for theological understanding?

The example of the Fathers seems to stand out since they were very much Eastern in their thinking...and yet they were necessarily for the sake of continining with the status quo. In many ways, they were revolutionary in their actions---creating a NEW kind of community that was not present before...even though they did so in order to preserve what they felt was consistent with the testimony of the Apostles/early church of the past....and that naturally caused alot to question their actions since others disagreeing with them seemed to think they may have not been in line with the Church fully or holding a view consistent with the apostles. Two sides (the Fathers and those in the Empire with Imperial Christianity ) both felt that they had access to what the Church was supposed to be about......yet they disagreed.

Still wrestling with how that all works out..

But from where I'm at now, I do think one can appreciate the past while learning from the present/moving in harmony. I'm reminded of St. Melito of Sardis, for he had a great love of history and liturgy, attached to the traditions of the ancients, yet he recognized that the old world — great as it was — was passing away in many respects and had wisdom in knowing how to change with it within reason. St. Symeon the New Theologian is another, as it concerns the ways he was a bit radical in some of his views on the Holy Spirit compared to others. ...even though he was one who was mentored by one of the most famous Holy Fools (Symeon the Pious ) and whose authority for many of his teachings derived from the traditions of the Desert Fathers/ early Christian monks and ascetics.

Within modern times, there are others that seemed to have echoed the same, such as Kalistos Ware in the ways he goes about ecumenical work with Orthodoxy/Evangelical relations (more here ) or others like Bradley Nassif here /here) who has done similar when it comes to noting at certain points where he, as an Orthodox leader, may feel like many in Orthodoxy have been shifting in certain views so as to be in better positions for spreading the Gospel....even though he's of the mindset that others should learn from Orthodoxy.

For a current example (abeit one outside of Orthodoxy), if you've ever heard of a man known as Louiee Giglio, he had some excellent thoughts to share on the matter which have always stood out to me.

In many ways, the Gospel is a story of how to move forward, and why, and everyone has an idea of how and why to move forward. And as believers, we have an idea, a story, for how and why to move forward…and that gospel, that story is Jesus. In his sermon, Louie discussesd what was occurring with modernization within Hong Kong. Giglio described a recent trip to Hong Kong where he discovered that trees are so scarce that they actually go to great lengths to build skyscrapers around the few trees that do already exist. They didn’t scrap building plans because of the trees that were already established, they didn’t raze the trees but instead they designed and integrated the trees into their building plans. He called this process, “excavation and renovation” and illustrated it with the great story of his own partnership with songwriter Chris Tomlin and the creation of “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone).” They maintained the integrity of this historic hymn of the Church, but created a simple but powerful new chorus that a new generation of worshippers can claim as their own. Masterful. For more on what Louie taught, one can go online/look up an article under the name of "Trees Of Hong Kong by Louie Giglio"

As said by Louie, Hong Kong went through the process of modernizing...and preserved. And they made the past central though they leaned forward for what can be, should be…and that is what the church has got to do if we are going to be transcendent.

Jesus is the constant, and He is in the midst of us. And that is the gospel. Much of the body has been very ignorant of how much what occurred in the past has truly impacted the Church..and thus, it's paramount for study to occur on such.

The bookseller's nightmare - on both sides

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The parallel is apt - most 'punks' I knew (and the movement in general) were a reaction against values held by the status quo. (I think the DiY movement was more interesting, as it was not a "reaction against" something, but had a similar ethos). As with Dada - this sense of 'something is wrong' can be found in Art, Literature, Philosophy, etc.

It's just that monastics had the answer - the heart, and Christ, and thus the remedy ... As one priest said, "the Church is a Hospital, and the Monasteries the ICU".

Concerning what was noted earlier when it came to the thought that perhaps there can be times where Hospitals can become a negative, I came across something recently and wanted to see what your thoughts were on it.

In their words, as it concerns an interesting analogy they utilized ---

We see this today with hospitals. Places dedicated to providing medical care to human beings can become so caught up in politics and management conflicts that the medical care they are supposed to provide becomes undermined and, in many cases, people suffer. We see the same with the church. The organisation of the church to facilitate the incarnation of the gospel quickly becomes an obstacle to the very nature and purpose of the church in the first place, and people are harmed more than helped.

Often, in reaction, we think that, in having no programmes, no hierarchy, the removal of the institution will solve the problem.

After all, if the institution is getting in the way of the purpose, get rid of the institution. This response is increasingly ingrained in us, such that even using the word ‘institution’ is anathema to those seeking new ways of doing and being church. But I think how ever well intentioned, this approach is naive and inadequate to the task of being Church.

What we need is not the absence of institutions, but an articulate institutional imagination, something more than the incapacity of being ‘anti-institutional’. For if we get rid of hospitals, we might remove the problems they produce as institutions, but with it we also remove the provision of medical care from all those who had access to it before, or we restrict it to only a few who are in proximity to those who can provide it with no institutional support, or those who know how to provide to themselves. Which is what much of the ‘institution-less’ church has come to look like.

​

And as someone said in response to that:

Is it really possible for those of us with a vested interest in maintaining the institutional church (i.e., our salaries, benefits, and pensions are derived from it) to imagine Christianity in its natural habitat? It would be like a zookeeper trying to embrace the philosophy that all zoo animals belong in the wild. It would not be good for his career, to say the least. In spite of all the eloquent arguments a zookeeper might muster regarding the social, cultural, and educational value of the zoo industry, it would be unconvincing to those who are strong animal rights activists.
​

And as someone else said in response to that:

You might define institutions as inherently bad, in which case use other words, structure, organisation, habitat. What I’m trying to get at, is the fallacy of the axiomatic that if we get rid of structures, programs, practices, organising, something better takes place, when often something as bad takes shape.

Now taking the Zoo analogy, it shows us that a Zoo produces a certain kind of way life for animals very different from the wild. But does it immediately relate to church? Should churches produce christians who are like animals in the wild?

That can sound like something more natural and organic, but it also begs the question is the church about living like animals in the wild. Even in the widl we intervene to help animals with structure and programmes and practices.

The body of Jesus is organisaed, the NT is immediatey full of people organising their lives around Jesus together, in worship, families and work, with lots of structure. Jesus organised his ministry around 12 disciples.

I do think the post-organisational church is a myth. It might have wonderful dreams about what church should be, and how it is not being that. But to turn a dream into reality you need to do something with others, or it remains a dream.

We do need to re-train ourselve, into ways, patterns, habitats of conscious practice and formation of Christian identity and mission, around the vision of Jesus.
​

Hearing that exchange interested me---especially in regards to the ZOO Analogy.

To be clear, as you know, I'm not for the mindset of others that are dogmatically focused on claiming all things within the Institutional Church are somehow flawed or an issue. Grew up with that and I greatly hated it whenever it seemed others were essentially trying to wage war with the Church on so many things and yet were never able to see the beauty of the Church and how very much they ignorant of it. ..and regardless of where there may've been things done wrongly within Institutional Christianity (such as with the era of Constantine)---as discussed here , here and here---the Lord was still present. For any saying otherwise, I often say they need to do better research

However, in the exchange that those individuals had, being in a zoo seems to often be akin to what many feel when it comes to people feeling "caged" within an environment that will not allow differing concepts/forms of thought to come forth. There are times I can relate, as it concerns things like heresies and dangerous ideologies.....for there are many valid times that certain ideas should not be allowed to be discussed in church. The suppression of views saying that Christ was not Deity or that Christ was never Human were things that should never have been allowed nor should they be given room today because of how dangerous they can be.

But at other points, it seems that some things are valid for mentioning...and alot of suppression can occur while people try to ensure that others still stay within a system/look normal with status quo as if all are cool with the way things are, like keeping animals in a zoo for display and having others think they are content with it that way even as they may not be evolving as they were meant.

There are times I'm reminded of other Orthodox/Non-Orthodox members who saw things they felt were issues.....and yet, due to fears from others that they'd somehow try to "destroy the Church" with heresies simply because others having deadly heresies disagreed, all forms of disagreement were treated with a "one size fits all" mindset. Sadly, people reacted to that by shutting down all discussion and it felt very much like "thought police"---which I disagree with since people should be able to discuss concepts/think critically on various ideas rather than isolating themselves in their own worlds and living in a Christian "Bubble". It has indeed been one of the things that has troubled me for years---hence, why the ZOO analogy spoke strongly to me. It is the reality of what occurs for many when it seems there’s the desire to be wild/organic and yet the reality that for many who did so, they went extict due to a myriad of factors which the Zoo realized were a threat, hence why it is in existence to protect others. Same with the institutional church/many of the factors in place that hinder growth---and also conversations with other camps thinking differently than others and that could lead to the realization of new ideas that could lead to growth since anything counter to how a group has always done it will always been seen as a "threat", even when it's with good intentions.….

I think it is interesting to note that those fighting against rethinking/restructuring the status quo of the way Church looks sort of have a vested interest in keeping things as is - issues of power, authority, heirarchy, etc., all come into play. Just like, as we were discussing elsewhere with the ecumenical councils - there's a lot more going on under the surface than just debates on whether couches and candles are allowed in church.

I can only imagine how the Desert Fathers felt when it came to where they naturally went in differing directions than others in Imperial Christianity---and how wise they were to leave when they did since difference of thought were not supported many times, based on who had State Power to enforce a view.

And today, there are many others who've sought to do the exact same as they have in honor of their tradition. I'm thankful others have followed in their footsteps doing similar. In example, one can go here ...Or here to the following:

• Milking the Desert"
• Deir Mar Musa, Syria
• Deir Mar Musa
• A journey to Deir Mar Musa
• the road to mar mousa el-habashi