Εμφάνιση αναρτήσεων με ετικέτα Pentecostal. Εμφάνιση όλων των αναρτήσεων
Εμφάνιση αναρτήσεων με ετικέτα Pentecostal. Εμφάνιση όλων των αναρτήσεων

Τετάρτη 10 Ιουνίου 2020

Baptism by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament (Digital book)

 
by Nicholas Mavromagoulos
 
 Scriptural evidence, step-by-step, of the Baptism by the Holy Spirit, the gifts bestowed, and a Christian's overall spiritual path, as delivered from the Apostolic era through to our time.  A book that responds to the Pentecostals' positions and elucidates the true opus of the Holy Spirit within the Church.


INTRODUCTION

1. Preparing for the “baptism by the Holy Spirit”, the “Promise of the Father”.

2. The “Promise of the Father” : the “Gift of the Holy Spirit”.

3. The “Promise of the Spirit” to the “reborn sons” of God.

4. The “Spirit of the Promise” cries out in the heart of the son.

5. Rebirth : Baptism in water and in the Holy Spirit.

6. The “Holy Spirit of the Promise” : the “Seal”, the “Betrothal ring”, and the “Chrism”.

7. The mute sighs of the Spirit in the hearts of the sons.

8. The worship of God “in the Spirit”.

9. The one who "speaks in tongues", “in the Spirit”.

10. The species of tongues - what "glossolalia" involves

11. The difference between “interpretation”, “prophecy” and “tongues”.

12. The “tongues” are manifested “in the Spirit”, mutely inside the heart.

13. One thing to “speak in other tongues” and another to “utter”.

14. The species of tongues, are incessantly manifested.

15. The speakers of tongues in the Holy Bible are called: “sons of God”.

16. Before the heart is activated "in the Spirit", a "son" does not differ from a "servant"

17. The "unbeliever" and the "idiotes" (Greek for private / lay person)

18. Enlightenment a. The sons of God are those being enlightened. b. The sons of God: sons of the Light. c. The son with the cleansed heart becomes enlightened. d. "Enlightenment" takes place in the hearts where the Holy Spirit dwells, in the sons of God. e. The "enlightened" ones are the "inheritors"; that is, the "sons of God" f. Enlightenment is: the Promise given to Abraham for his inheritors, and the Realm of the Saints. g. Enlightenment is: the "Life" that the Lord gives. h. Enlightenment is: "God's glory".

19. The enlightenment of a Christian occurs, with the entry of Christ the Divine Logos in his heart.

20. Towards perfection.

21. “Awareness”.

22. The term: “in the likeness of”.

23. “Spiritual Life” and “Spiritual Death”.

24. “Friends of God”.

25. The “fulfilment of Godhood”.

26. The Grace of God.

27. The age of the saints.

EPILOGUE

Translation: KN 

In Greek
Digital Books 

Δευτέρα 6 Ιανουαρίου 2020

"A generous orthodoxy" – And the journey of a South African spiritual seeker to the Orthodox Church


A number of people, several of them Orthodox, have asked me what I thought of Brian McLaren’s book A generous orthodoxy. I’ve now, at last, managed to get hold of a copy of the book, and I’m busy reading it so I thought I would write some preliminary impressions. Though it is possible that I may change my mind about it when I’ve finished reading it, I doubt that I will.
I’ve been trying to get hold of a copy of the book since before hearing Brian McLaren speak in Pretoria last year, looking for it in every bookshop I’ve gone into, and eventually had to get it by mail-order.
One person who asked me about it said
I thought you might be one of the best people to ask about the book named above, written by Brian McLaren (Zondervan 2004). It is making it’s rounds like wildfire in some church communities in Xxxxx (no Orthodox ones that I am aware of – thank goodness!) I just hate it when the word ‘Orthodox’ is used so generally – ie small ‘o’ orthodoxy. I am not a theologian, but would like to know if you have seen or heard of this book and how I might respond to someone supporting the very wishy-washy ‘all-inclusive’ tone. I have yet to get the book myself, just talked to some friends who are reading it – and they can justify just about anything as a result!…
And my initial response is that I think the book might be quite useful for some Protestants, to shake some of their presuppositions about what the Christian faith is.
There’s a lot in McLaren’s book that I agree with, and I reached many of McLaren’s conclusions some 40 years ago. And that was when I read Fr Alexander Schmemann’s book For the life of the world, and realised that the answers to many of the questions and problems I found in Western Christianity were in Orthodox Christianity all along.
For example, in the book McLaren describes seven different kinds of Jesus, four Protestant, one Roman Catholic, one Orthodox, and one a bit of a mixture of the others (Liberation Theology).
But in fact Orthodoxy encompasses all of them. Like other Western theological writers (such as David Bosch), the view McLaren ascribes to Orthodoxy is perhaps that part of Orthodoxy that is most noticeably missing in Western theology, but the others are not necessarily missing from Orthodoxy.
Western Christians have often latched on to one or other aspect of the Christian faith, and ignored or denied others. McLaren takes some of these, in the order in which he found them in his own spiritual pilgrimage, and describes their strengths and weaknesses.
And my own pilgrimage was similar.
My parents were what McLaren would probably call post-Christian — dropped out of church in their teens, my father was an atheist, my mother an agnostic, and I never went to a church service until I went to a Christmas service with a friend at the age of 11, and a few weeks later went to high school at a church school (St Stithian’s College, Methodist) that was just starting. Since it was a church school it had to have a scripture period, which was taken by the maths teacher, who didn’t have any discernible Christian faith, so he simply got us to take it in turns to read the Bible aloud, starting at Genesis 1. It was the first I’d heard of it, found it interesting and began reading ahead, and asked my parents for a Bible of my own on my birthday.
The following year we got some additional teachers, some of whom were Evangelical with a capital E, and so I became an Evangelical with a capital E, with a little bit of input from Zionists whom I’d met baptising people in the Jukskei River.
In my last year at school I got the idea that I ought to be an Anglican priest, without knowing anything about it. At the same time, however, the local Anglican parish had a mission, and my mother went along and and got converted, and passed along to me the books she had read as a result, Main line by A.W.G. Duffield and The King’s highway by George D. Carleton (sometime Archdeacon of Modderpoort, O.F.S.). The missioner who converted my mother was High Church Anglican, and the books (as the titles alone make clear) took the line that Mainline Christianity was Anglican, Roman Catholic and Orthodox, which were the three “branches” of the Catholic Church, and the rest were detours and by-ways. And so I became an Anglo-Catholic (a “spike” as opposed to a “prot”), and went to university where the chaplain, Tom Comber, was an Anglo-Catholic with a strong social conscience (he was a card-carrying Liberal at a time when it was very dangerous to be such a thing in South Africa).
I saw no reason to discard what I had learnt in my earlier Evangelical phase (personal commitment to following Christ). I just discovered that there was more to being a Christian than that — that the Christian faith was also expressed in ritual worship, and that it entailed seeking justice in the world.

I went ot the University of Natal and majored in Biblical Studies and Theology and learnt about Atonement Theories and Principalities and Powers, which led me to see that the political struggle in South Africa had roots that went down to the depths where angels and demons are locked in mortal combat. So in the mid-1960s I entered a Liberation Theology phase, at a time when the only book available on the topic was G.B. Caird’s Principalities and powers. A few years later my thoughts were more adequately articulated by writers like Walter Wink, though by the time his books came out, I’d moved on a bit.
Then I went to England for post-graduate study, and was appalled by the boss-nation theology of the Church of England, and found the liberal Protestantism of Bultmann and John “Honest to God” Robinson and the conservative reaction to it equally rebarbative, and reacted rather strongly against them, and wanted to shout “a plague on both your houses”, and became an African nationalist. I believed that British Christianity (and Western Christianity generally) were in fatal decline, and that the future of Christianity lay in Africa and Latin-America, where God spoke to and though oppressed and down-trodden people, and not in the materialist idolatry of the boss-nations of the West.
Then in 1968, shortly before returning to South Africa, I went to a seminar on Orthodox theology for non-Orthodox theological students — a week of lectures at the World Council of Churches study centre in Bossey, Switzerland, followed by Holy Week in St Sergius in Paris. It culminated in the Paschal Vigil, and seeing the entire congregation give each other the Easter Kiss (it lasted 45 minutes), followed by the Paschal Homily of St John Chrysostom just blew me away.

I returned to South Africa just in time for the Message to the people of South Africa to be released, which pointed out that apartheid was worse than a heresy, it was a pseudogospel. There was much talk of a confessing church, and “Obedience to God” groups were formed. But a few years later Bishop Bill Burnett, who had been general secretary of the South African Council of Churches at the time the “Message” was published, became disillusioned with the powerlessness of ecumenical and ecclesiastical bureaucracy. He said that after experiencing the baptism of the Holy Spirit  he realised that the one who does God’s work is God, and that too often bureaucratic structures and committees simply got in the way of the revolution of the Holy Spirit.
And so I became charismatic, which many Anglicans seemed to regard as a new brand of “churchmanship” — there had previously been “Anglo-Catholics” and “Evangelicals” and now there were “Charismatics” as well. I don’t think it was meant to be that way, and I  went to work in the Anglican diocese of Zululand, where the charismatic renewal had started in the 1940s and 1950s, earlier than in most other places in South Africa, and had come to permeate the whole life of the church and was not seen as something separate from it. I wrote a book about that called Black charismatic Anglicans (Unisa, 1991 — now out of print).
Back when I had been studying in England a sociological researcher  was doing a study of theological students in different institutions, and asked me to state my “churchmanship”. He offered the following choices.
  1. Anglo-Catholic
  2. Prayer-Book Catholic
  3. Modern Churchman
  4. Liberal Evangelical
  5. Conservative Evangelical
I said “none of the above” or “all except 3”, but those weren’t acceptable so he said he would put me down as “Prayer-book Catholic” because I came from South Africa, and that was what he thought other people who came from South Africa were. That led me to think about how I would describe my “churchmanship”, and at the end of my two years in college, when he came for the next round of interviews, I told him I was “revolutionary orthodox”.
And that brings me back to Brian McLaren, because back in 1968 I was using the term “orthodox” with a small “o” in much the same way as McLaren uses it in his book. Though my spiritual journey had followed a slightly different order to that of McLaren, I think we’ve touched most of the same bases.
McLaren likes to talk of being post-evangelical, post-Protestant, post-
liberal, post-conservative, post-modern and post- a few other things. But when I read his book as an Orthodox Christian I see it as primarily pre-Orthodox, because that is more or less where I was when I realised that whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the various Western visions of Christianity they simply weren’t going to get it together, and were going to carry on squabbling about them for the rest of my life time and for a long time beyond that. And even if two or three of the factions did get together, it would only be in order to gang up against the others. And meanwhile, the fulness of all I had been looking for, and partly found, was there all along in Orthodoxy with a capital O.
And so, like Brian McLaren, I can quote G.K. Chesterton, who wrote:
I am the man who with utmost daring discovered what had been discovered before… I did try to found a heresy of my own, and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered it was orthodoxy.
And when I reached in my own life the stage that Brian McLaren describes in his book, I joined the Orthodox Church.
A generous orthodoxy is not a book that Orthodox Christians need to read, unless they want to discuss it with people who have read it, and have questions about it.
But if I knew people who found it very interesting, eye-opening and exciting, I would recommend that their next step should be to read Alexander Schmemann’s For the life of the world. It was fifteen years after I first read it that I actually joined the Orthodox Church, and God alone knows if it was only my own obstinacy that made it take so long, or because God had some more things to show me along the way.
But there is also a warning. If you do consider joining the Orthodox Church, you will not find perfection. The Orthodox Church is both a school for saints and a hospital for sinners. There is a full range, from the best to the worst. The Orthodox Church is full of very bad people, including bad bishops, bad priests and bad deacons. But, as we pray when we are about to receive the holy communion, the Lord Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first.

See also

The Orthodox Church in the Republic of South Africa  
Orthodox South Africa (tag)  

 
Theosis (deification): The True Purpose of Human Life





Charismatic Revival As a Sign of the Times 
LIVE, BEYOND THE LIMITS!

Σάββατο 14 Ιανουαρίου 2017

The Authority of the Church, the Protestants & the African Initiated Churches


The purpose of this study (original title "The Authority of the Church") is to point out certain differences between Protestantism and Orthodoxy, and to arouse the interest of Protestants who have never become properly acquainted with the Orthodox Church of the Lord.
Note of our blog: It also regards the African Initiated Churches (
African Indigenous Churches), which are the "Protestantism of Africa".

  The canonical Orthodox Bishop Neophytos in Kenya (from here)

Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries

1. Arbitrary authority

It is customary amongst Protestant religions -when someone disagrees with certain of their dogmas- to break away and form another, independent team of their own. These teams quite often evolve into self-dependent, separate religions, which baptize, distribute bread and wine, ordain “elders” and pursue many other activities.

There are also teams, even individual persons, who congregate and study the Bible without the presence of “elders”, or any other kind of infrastructure. The latter usually believe it is wrong for someone to belong to a religion and they maintain that a Christian should remain free of any commitments in any religious area.

But, are these stances and customs proper? Could there be something that all these people have overlooked and should re-examine?

A first question that arises in the first instance is the issue of authority. Perhaps certain people should ask themselves: “With what authority am I creating a new religion? With what right do I baptize, or distribute bread and wine, or ordain Elders? Is it really alright for one to proceed with such actions? Who put me in charge, who made me an Elder, so that I too can superintend over a new congregation?”

Similarly, those who are “independent” of religions should ask themselves: “Is it possible for me to be following - as I claim- the paradigm of the apostles and the first Christians, when I don’t belong to any Church the way they did? Where are the Elders of my congregation? When was someone of us ordained, by someone who had this authority? With what authority do I baptize? Is my participation in the supper of the Lord a valid one, when it is an arbitrary participation? How can I be a part of the worldwide and all-time body of the Church, when I have no communion with any of the other Churches of the Lord? Or is my team, or my person, perhaps the only one that is Christian? So, which are the Churches of the Lord, according to the paradigm of the apostles?

As strange as it may sound to a Christian, there are many people who actually do act this arbitrarily in such important matters as faith and salvation. The reason for this behavior is that is has become a force of habit, from their Protestant roots. 


 
The canonical Orthodox Bishop Jonah of Uganda 
(from the article Natives Africans bishops in the Orthodox Church)

When Protestantism introduced Reform in the West, it did not comprise a continuation of an apostolically rendered arrangement, it was merely an autonomous and independent protest; there was no historical continuance in their protestation, and no-one with such authority ever ordained Luther or Calvin as Elders in their new religion. Even if they had been ordained by a former Papist (since there was no-one in this new religion to perform an ordination), this ordination would still not be valid, because the Papists had already been pronounced a heretic congregation at that time. No-one from another religion would undertake to ordain Elders in a newly-formed, rivalrous faith. This would have been incongruous, because both the ordainer of the one religion and the ordained of the other religion are equally in heresy, and consequently, the ordination is deemed invalid.

So, given that Protestantism suddenly penetrated history, it naturally found itself without Elders and without any legally bestowed authority to perform its religious obligations. It was therefore compelled to act arbitrarily, from the very first moment it appeared.

Conclusion: All Protestant “elders” officiate arbitrarily; they have no historical continuance and no authority to officiate.

It is no wonder, that all affiliated Protestant groups act in a similar way; they just haven’t realized that what they do is impermissible. 



2. The paradigm of the apostles

One excuse that is offered by Protestants is that since all Christians belong to a “Regal Priesthood”, they all have the authority to baptize and to elect Elders, as well as to distribute bread and wine. Thus, they do not need any special ordination for these things. And although there is a multitude of Church regulations (Canons) that prove the absurdity of these assertions, we feel obliged to convince them of the facts, by referring them to the paradigm of the apostles themselves, since they refuse to accept the regulations of the Church.

We shall therefore prove that in the era of the apostles, the hieratic status of Christians did not comprise a prerequisite that allowed them to act arbitrarily. We shall see how ordination as well as a given mission was compulsory, in order for someone to be able to baptize, distribute bread and wine, or superintend the Christian congregations of the first centuries.

This continues to apply in the Church of the Lord to this day, as it always did, and as is witnessed by all the proto-Christian writings that have been preserved until now. In the narrations of the Acts of the Apostles, it is clear that God did not act independently of His Church, as Protestants assert.

Let’s look at a few examples:

When the 7 deacons were elected in the Church, this didn’t take place arbitrarily; the laying on of the Apostle’s hands was necessary: “whom they placed before the apostles, and while praying, they (apostles) placed their hands upon them” (Acts 6/VI 3-6)p,

These 7 deacons weren’t “appointed” by any arbitrary religious leadership; it was after the laying on of the hands of the apostles themselves. As for the Apostles, they too had received authority for all this, from Jesus Christ Himself, and they also never acted arbitrarily: “Verily I say unto you, whatever is bound by you on earth is bound in heaven and whatever is unbound by you on earth is unbound in heaven. And again, verily I say unto you, that if two amongst you should agree on anything that they might request, it will be done unto them, by my Father in heaven” (Matthew 18/XVIII 18,19)

“..for Jesus said to them again: Peace be with you. Just as my Father sent me forth, thus I send you forth. Having said this, He blew His breath upon them and said to them: Receive Holy Spirit. If you discharge (people’s) sins, they will be forgiven; if you do not discharge them, they will be remain firm” (John 20/XX 21-23)

It is therefore clearly evident that in the Church there is a line of authority: the Father sent forth the Son, the Son sent forth the apostles, and they, with the tremendous authority that was bestowed upon them, commenced to distribute authority to others. 



Apostle Paul ordain st Titus in Crete (icon from here)

Let’s examine a few more tracts of the Holy Bible as examples:

When Philip the evangelist preached in Samaria - despite all the miracles that he performed – he did not have the authority to transmit the Holy Spirit into the newly baptized, because only the apostles had this authority at the time. “When the Apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had embraced the Word of God, they sent there Peter and John, who, on their way down (to Samaria) prayed for them, so that they might receive Holy Spirit…. On seeing that the Spirit is given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, Simon brought them money, saying: “Give me this authority also, so that whomever I lay my hands on will receive Holy Spirit.” (Acts 8/VIII 4-19)

When Saul (the one who was later renamed Paul) converted to the Christian faith and was sent forth by Jesus Christ Himself, the mission and the instructions given by the very Lord were not enough! The Lord sent him Ananias ( who was a Christian and had the power of healing ), to baptize Saul and to transmit the Holy Spirit into him. This narration is in Acts 9/IX 1 - 19. But even Ananias, when placing his hands on Saul, declares that he had received the authority to do so: “ and on laying his hands upon him, he (Ananias) said: Saul my brother, the Lord sent me: Jesus, the One who you saw on the road that you were coming from, so that you can regain your sight and be filled with Holy Spirit.”

It is evident here, how significant the source of every authority for every action was, to the first Christians. Good intentions were not enough, not even the decision of the Lord; The act had to be endorsed by a Christian appointed by the Lord, so that everything be done in Ecclesiastic order. 


 
The canonical Orthodox Bishop Ieronymos of Mwanza, Tanzania (from here)

But even so, the mission given directly by the Lord did not suffice for the apostle Paul. Following a revelation, he sought out the apostles that preceded him, so that he might obtain from them the authority to perform his mission of preaching to nations. This narration is in Galatians 2/II 1 - 10: ΄΄Then……. I went up to Jerusalem…... according to a revelation. And I reported to them (the apostles) the gospel that I preach to the nations - and personally to them that are cognizant - for them to determine whether I am -or have been- heading towards a void…….and upon ascertaining the grace that was bestowed upon me, James and Peter and John – who are believed to be pillars – offered the communion of (laid) their right hand on myself and Barnabas…..”...΄΄

The exact same thing happened, when the Lord sent Peter to Cornelius; the Lord didn’t send the Holy Spirit to Cornelius directly; He first sent Peter, in order to baptize Cornelius as well. (Acts 10/X 44-48)

Even in Antioch, when the Holy Spirit sent Paul and Barnabas on a mission, this took place only after those who had the authority laid their hands upon them. (Acts 13/XIII 1 - 3).

The apostle Paul in turn laid his hands upon Timothy, in order to convey authority to him, so that he may undertake the office of Bishop in Ephesus: ΄΄I wish to remind you to rekindle the charisma of God that is within you by the laying on of my hands” (Timothy Β 1/I 6).

In the same way, both Timothy as well as Titus in Crete had been given the authority to ordain Elders. (Timothy Α 5/V 17 - 20. Titus 1/I 5).


Saint Ignatius (icon), a 2nd century bishop, acted in the same spirit:΄΄Without that (approval) of a Bishop, not even baptism is permitted...΄΄ (Smyrnaeans, 8). ΄΄It (the Eucharist) is one, being under a Bishop΄΄. (Magnesians, 6-7).

We see therefore, that the offices of the Church are not just for everyone who believes in Christ; the officiator has to first receive the authority from those who have it, and who can transmit it to them.

It would therefore be a wise move, for those who arbitrarily undertake Church functions, to reconsider their ways and seek to acquire the authority from those who have such authority in the Orthodox Church: from those who are the successors of the apostles according to the Lord’s intention.

N.M.
Translation by A.N.

Greek text


See also
 
African Initiated Churches in Search of Orthodoxy... 
During the time that Luther and Calvin were formulating the Reformation...
How “White” is the Orthodox Church?
Charismatic Revival As a Sign of the Times 
 
Ancient Christian faith (Orthodox Church) in Africa

The Orthodox Church of Alexandria & the Patriarchate of Alexandria
Orthodox Mission in Tropical Africa (& the Decolonization of Africa) 

The Orthodox Church in Uganda, an outgrowth of indigenous self discovery
"THE WAY" - An Introduction to the Orthodox Faith
Theosis (deification): The True Purpose of Human Life

LIVE, BEYOND THE LIMITS!
«African needs to be helped, to find his divine roots, for his soul to be at peace, to become united with God...»

Τετάρτη 12 Οκτωβρίου 2016

St. Symeon the New Theologian's First Vision of Uncreated Glory




The vision of the young St. Symeon the New Theologian of God's uncreated light at the age of twenty is one of the most misunderstood Patristic passages that has been used to justify many false visions. Many times ordinary people have revealed to me stories of personal visions of light that anyone with even a small amount of discernment can recognize either as psychological or demonic in origin. I have also entered into debates and discussions with Orthodox theologians regarding visions of God's light received by non-Orthodox, such as the mystics of the West or Buddhists of the East. In almost all cases the vision of St. Symeon at the age of twenty is used to justify their emotion-filled arguments for the validity and divine origin of these visions. Their argument, though misinformed, is simple: Symeon saw God's uncreated light then fell into sin, so if Symeon can have such a vision then why can't anyone (including non-Orthodox)? They also argue against the need for purification and illumination to take place before such a vision can be granted. Are such interpretations justified?

It has become clear to me that of the many who have tried to use the above emotion-filled justifications have hardly or even never read the works of St. Symeon. The account in which he describes his vision at the age of twenty is described in his homily On Faith. The event St. Symeon describes is written in the third person in which he uses the pseudonym "George" to describe his actual experience. When he was fourteen he had approached his spiritual father Symeon the Elder to enter the monastic life, but considering the young Symeon immature at the time he rejected his entrance and told him to live a monastic sort of life in the world until he was mature enough - which didn't happen until he was twenty-seven. Thus seven years prior to his entering the monastic path did he have his vision.

From the age of fourteen until twenty St. Symeon strove to imitate that which he read in the writings of St. Mark the Ascetic. His day job was managing a patrician's household in Constantinople and engaged in the worldly affairs of the palace. But at night he would keep vigil and pray with tears and do as many prostrations as his conscience told him to do so that, at the advice of St. Mark, he never slept until his conscience was satisfied. He describes himself as regarding "all material things of life with indifference and even approached food and drink without taking pleasure in them or doing so with frequency." He says that he never observed long fasts beyond the prescribed fasts of the Church, he never slept on the ground, wear a hair shirt, or was tonsured a monk. Yet he had faith and actualized it in the world, as he says in his discourse: "By these deeds his faith received wings and reached heaven."

 
 
It was in this context that one night, while praying "God have mercy on me a sinner" with his mind, that "suddenly a flood of divine radiance appeared from above and filled all the room." He describes the vision as "nothing but light all around" him, to the point where he thought he was falling because even the ground was filled with light. "Oblivious of all the world he was filled with tears and ineffable joy and gladness." However St. Symeon goes on to describe that above him in the heavens there appeared another more clear light that was surrounding his spiritual father Symeon the Elder.

Following this vision, Symeon continued about his daily business affairs in the palace. This is something he would come to regret however. He writes:

"What we have related about this young man is amazing and unexpected, and we have never heard that anything like it has happened to anyone else. Even though it may have happened in some cases or will happen in the future, yet men should know that they will be deprived of so great a blessing unless they promptly withdraw from the world, or they will soon lose what they have received."

And by this Symeon reveals the reason for relating this story: that when one has been purified and illumined one must withdraw from the world completely to maintain the grace within. Symeon basically goes on to say that he received this vision of his spiritual father in uncreated glory because, through the prayer of Symeon the Elder, Christ was calling him to a monastic life and to the emulation of his elder. Young Symeon did not do this but remained in the world and Satan came out strongly against him to prevent his withdrawal to a monastery. He fell into despair as a result of his disobedience. It was only through the guidance and prayers of his spiritual father that he was able to free himself of his despair and recover. It was only until he completely renounced the world and repented with extreme ascetic feats after many years that he got a glimpse of what he had seen earlier, though Symeon is writing in the third person so we don't know how humble he was being at this point.

When we thus examine what St. Symeon says in his own words and in proper context, it is extremely far-reaching for Orthodox to use this example as a justification for the vision of uncreated glory of the non-Orthodox or even themselves outside of the context of purification and illumination within the Orthodox tradition. So when Symeon says that he lived a worldly life, he does not mean that he lived a sinful life in the world but that he maintained a busy occupation in the world while living faithful to God's commandments. And his post-vision despair is only the result of not being obedient to his monastic calling at the right time. This does not take away the fact that Symeon was living an ascetical life in the world, molding his faith by his works, and attaining a state of inner purification so as to be found worthy of the vision of divine glory. And it was not until after much effort for his disobedience to his heavenly calling that he was able to recover that which he lost. As St. Symeon
explains in the same homily following the description of his vision by quoting St. Gregory the Theologian:

"Gregory the Theologian said: 'It is written, The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Prov. 1:7). For where there is fear there is the keeping of the commandments. Where there is the keeping of the commandments, there is the purification of the flesh, and from the cloud that besets the soul and prevents it from clearly seeing God's ray of light. Where there is purification there is illumination. Illumination is the fulfillment of those who desire either the greatest of all supremely great things, or even that which is above all greatness.' By this saying he showed that illumination of the Spirit is the goal of every virtue. He who attains to this illumination has arrived at the end and limit of all things that can be perceived and has found the beginning of the knowledge of spiritual things."

Interestingly this is all very similar to the vision of Saul on his way to Damascus before he was baptized Paul and made into an Apostle. Saul was a persecutor of the Church, yet beheld the resurrected Lord of glory. However, as a persecutor and being outside the Church, this vision was not the result of being found worthy due to his inner purification. Instead this vision of divine glory was like hell fire to him and it blinded him for his unworthiness. He was commanded to be baptized to receive his sight, and by baptism he was purified and illumined which he actualized by going into the desert for two years to study and pray. And by his obedience he progressed from glory to glory, whereas Symeon initially was disobedient and prevented from doing so until he repented.
 
Please, see also:
 

Πέμπτη 7 Ιουλίου 2016

Neoliberalism and the Gospel - Or: “Christian Businessman”, an oxymoron


Khanya (Orthodox Christians from South Africa)
 
Jesus The Market is Lord
Elijah
And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word (I Kings 18:21).
It seems to me that for many Christians the Gospel of Neoliberalism has replaced the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I’ve known that for a long time, and have blogged about it before (here, and here, and here).
But today I was reminded of it again when several people brought various articles on it to my attention:
As one of these articles points out, Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us | Paul Verhaeghe | Comment is free | theguardian.com:
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace. This is a typical symptom of the impotent venting their frustration on the weak – in psychology it’s known as displaced aggression. There is a buried sense of fear, ranging from performance anxiety to a broader social fear of the threatening other.
Constant evaluations at work cause a decline in autonomy and a growing dependence on external, often shifting, norms. This results in what the sociologist Richard Sennett has aptly described as the “infantilisation of the workers”.
And this Sick of this market-driven world? You should be | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian:
Today the dominant narrative is that of market fundamentalism, widely known in Europe as neoliberalism. The story it tells is that the market can resolve almost all social, economic and political problems. The less the state regulates and taxes us, the better off we will be. Public services should be privatised, public spending should be cut, and business should be freed from social control. In countries such as the UK and the US, this story has shaped our norms and values for around 35 years: since Thatcher and Reagan came to power. It is rapidly colonising the rest of the world.
But in some ways this point is the most telling, and raises the question that Elijah put to the Israel of old: Sick of this market-driven world? You should be | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian:
Neoliberalism draws on the ancient Greek idea that our ethics are innate (and governed by a state of nature it calls the market) and on the Christian idea that humankind is inherently selfish and acquisitive. Rather than seeking to suppress these characteristics, neoliberalism celebrates them: it claims that unrestricted competition, driven by self-interest, leads to innovation and economic growth, enhancing the welfare of all.
When a Christian script was running in many people’s minds (see Counterscript to know what that refers to) Greed was regarded as one of the Seven Deadly Sins, but in the Gospel according to Neoliberalism, it is the supreme virtue.
elijah1And for many Christians, the Neoliberal script has started to drown out the Christian one, and so raises the question of Elijah: How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.
“Baal” is a word that means lord or master, and the deity referred to was Melqart, the god of the Phoenician city of Tyre. Melqart was a god of rain and fertility, and hence of material prosperity, and was invoked by Phoenician traders for protection of their commercial enterprises. In other words, the cult of Baal was a prosperity cult, which had lured the people of Israel, and was actively promoted by their Phoenician queen Jezebel, the wife of King Ahab. The people of Israel had the prosperity script playing in their minds.
In our day too, many Christians have the prosperity script playing in their minds.

The post immediately preceding this one, on Neopentecostal churches and their celebrity pastors [& here], points to a phenomenon that Christian missiologists like to refer to as inculturation or contextualisation, which, in a good sense, means making the Christian gospel understandable to people living in a particular culture or context. But in the prosperity gospel preached by some Neopentecostals, the Christian gospel has been swamped by the values of Neoliberalism. One could say that “prosperity theology” is the contextualisation of the Christian gospel in a society dominated by Neoliberal values, but to such an extent that the result is syncretism.
But while the Neopentecostals sometimes do this explicitly, many other Christian groups do it implicitly, and we need to ask ourselves where our values really come from — from the gospel of Jesus Christ, or from the gospel of the Market. Jesus Christ is the love of God incarnate, but the Market, or Melqart, or Mammon, is the love of money incarnate.
When the world urges us to celebrate the virtues of Greed, whether subtly or blatantly, do we resist it? Are we even aware of what is happening? Or do we simply allow that script to play in our heads, telling us “You deserve it”?
Last week a couple of journalists were asking me why Neopentecostal churches that preach a properity gospel, like T.B. Joshua’s Synagogue Church of all Nations, are growing in popularity, and one answer is that given by George Monbiot in the article quoted above — that the values of Neoliberalism, promoted by Reagan and Thatcher, are now colonising the whole world.

Blessed are the sarcastic, for they shall succeed in business

Khanya

I have sometimes suspected that the phrase “Christian Businessman” was an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, and that suspicion was reinforced by an article I have just read on the Web. Harvard Study Shows that Sarcasm is Actually Good for You:
Data from a recent study entitled, The Highest Form of Intelligence: Sarcasm Increases Creativity for Both Expressers and Recipients, suggests that the delivery and deciphering of sarcasm offers psychological benefits that have been largely underappreciated and long overlooked.
The article tells us that the research was sponsored by Harvard Business School, Columbia Business School and INSEAD (“The Business School for the World”).
For as long as I can remember, I have been aware of the saying “Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.”
The article I just cited tells us that people who believe that are stupid and uncreative.
So what is sarcasm, and why is it something that Christians should avoid if possible?
sarcasm n. Bitter or wounding remark, taunt, esp. one ironically worded [1]
sarcasmThe English word sarcasm is derived from the Greek sarkasmos, which suggests the image of a predator devouring its prey. So if, as the article, suggests the people most likely to succeed in business are those who habitually go around making nasty remarks about others, and the most effective bosses are those who habitually tear strips off their underlings, the term “unscrupulous businessman” is a pleonastic redundancy.
Well what’s new? I think most of us knew that.
I think we all knew that “business ethics” was a contradiction in terms. I recall seeing a cartoon in Mad magazine that had some tongue-in-cheek suggestions for commemorative postage stamps (remember them?), and one showed two people hugging each other, each with knife in hand, stabbing the other in the back. That was to commemorate 100 years of business ethics.
What’s new in this article is a kind of psychological proof that nastiness works, that being sarcastic gives you the edge in business. So sarcasm is a virtue to be inculcated and cultivated. Yet it is the very opposite of ubuntu and Christian values.
Nearly every Sunday in Orthodox Churches we sing the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12).
Why so often?
Perhaps because of the frequency with which we are bombarded with propaganda to do the opposite.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy, but being sarcastic is the very opposite of being merciful.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Wrong, say the business gurus. Blessed are the pushy.
It is perhaps easier to find Christian values among the scruffy beatniks and drop-outs from society than among the business leaders.
As one beat generation writer said to the square who offered him an advertising job: ‘I’ll scrub your floors and carry out your slops to make a living, but I will not lie for you, pimp for you, stool for you or rat for you.'[2]
It is the worshippers of the bitch-goddess Success who hold out sarcasm as a virtue and a behavioural ideal.
______________

Notes
[1] Concise Oxford Dictionary, Fifth Edition.
[2] Lipton, Lawrence. 1959. The holy barbarians. New York: Messner.

See also

Christ divided: liberalism, ecumenism and race in South Africa

Is capitalism compatible with Orthodox Christianity?
Capitalism, Protestant Ethics & Orthodox Tradition  
Fathers of Church & Capitalism : Interest, Usury, Capitalism
The holy anarchists... in the Egyptian Desert
 
Orthodox Mission in Tropical Africa (& the Decolonization of Africa)
Orthodox Monasticism
LIVE, BEYOND THE LIMITS!
«African needs to be helped, to find his divine roots, for his soul to be at peace, to become united with God...»