So Poetic, Yet So True
An anonymous man who calls himself Mathetes (a disciple of the Apostles) writes (at approximately A.D. 130) the following simile comparing the Christian soul to the heathen world. This is great stuff; I hope you gain from it as I did.
Chapter VI.-The Relation of Christians to the World.We must remember the indicative and the imperative: we are, in a sense, what Mathetes describes as Christian souls, yet most importantly, we as Christian souls must continually strive to be what Mathetes describes-- in thought and deed we must be strangers to this world dailyTo sum up all in one word-what the soul is in the body, that are Christians in the world. The soul is dispersed through all the members of the body, and Christians are scattered through all the cities of the world. The soul dwells in the body, yet is not of the body; and Christians dwell in the world, yet are not of the world. The invisible soul is guarded by the visible body, and Christians are known indeed to be in the world, but their godliness remains invisible. The flesh hates the soul, and wars against it, though itself suffering no injury, because it is prevented from enjoying pleasures; the world also hates the Christians, though in nowise injured, because they abjure pleasures. The soul loves the flesh that hates it, and [loves also] the members; Christians likewise love those that hate them. The soul is imprisoned in the body, yet preserves that very body; and Christians are confined in the world as in a prison, and yet they are the preservers of the world. The immortal soul dwells in a mortal tabernacle; and Christians dwell as sojourners in corruptible [bodies], looking for an incorruptible dwelling in the heavens. The soul, when but ill-provided with food and drink, becomes better; in like manner, the Christians, though subjected day by day to punishment, increase the more in number.
Lord keep us from both pride and apathy.
Posted by jeremy stock at August 4, 2002 10:03 PMGood stuff. I'm reading Philokalia right now, and the soul/body distinction keeps coming up. What do you all think about that? I've always heard early Christian fathers as having drank too deeply of Platonism, and that was why they thought this way. But then sometimes, while reading them myself, I also experientially can attest to what they're saying about the soul. The fact that this guy was a disciple of the apostles and thought this way is interesting.
Posted by: scott cunningha m at August 5, 2002 02:38 PMScott,
It does seem the early Greeks were certainly influenced by, at least, Platonic language/definitions/context, but I would argue that the basic idea of the Soul as our spiritual aspect and the body as our physical aspect is just plain biblical.
I too have many of the same intuitions concerning certain experiences related in the Philokalia; to me the whole area of study, however, is one of mystery and ought to be treated with very little dogmatism, and a lot of humble ascent in faith (that's my opinion anyway).
The fact that this guy was a disciple of the apostles and thought this way is interesting.Yes, indeed. When reading the early early fathers it is very interesting just how much of what is modern day Orthodoxy is apparent in the texts, and almost as interesting is how much reading the early early fathers highlights just how much Protestantism has modified Christian practice. The question I always pose to my Protestant friends is "on what authority/justification does the Protestant church abolish/nulify/modify the tradition of the Church?"
I'm very excited about your Christian journey, and I want you to know you're in my prayers. May God lead you to His truth.
Posted by: jeremy at August 5, 2002 10:21 PMscott,
Don't ask me why I called you "Tim." :-)
sorry about that.
Hope to talk with you more soon.
Posted by: jeremy at August 5, 2002 10:26 PMhehe, did you call me tim? I could'nt find it. Thanks for the prayers. I completely agree with what you said about the philokalia,
I too have many of the same intuitions concerning certain experiences related in the Philokalia; to me the whole area of study, however, is one of mystery and ought to be treated with very little dogmatism, and a lot of humble ascent in faith (that's my opinion anyway).
Not to go on a tangent (I actually have no ability to control myself from not going on tangents, though), but it seems like monks are writing about spiritual practices and spiritual experiences which are themselves the product of a lot of development from mucho experience and reflection on those experiencs. What I mean is, I don't think - like you said - that this is some kind of encyclopediac dogmatics. You see some subtle differences between different writers when talking about how the demons tempt us, for instance. Some will make "self-esteem," "gluttony," and "listlessness" chief, while another writer might make only self-esteem chief, while another might make a few others chief and central. The editors of my edition call these early monks as spiritual masters and having developed a very mature "psychology of the soul." It seems like one should humbly believe much of this material, insofar as one can experientially attest to its validity. That didn't quite come out right - not that I'm the arbiter of truth. Rather, these writers speak of wisdom, and not truth in its strict, logical form. That still didn't come out right.
I've also been surprised to have my view of monasticism changed. They are very forthright in talking about the dangers of living lives of isoloation, and talking about the need for communal life. I remember reading, on one of Wayne's links, about something concerning the purpose that the monastic community had for the Church, at large. Do you know, offhand, what the theology of the monasticism is, exactly? I mean, what exactly is the purpose of the monastery, theologically? Was it solely to serve as a way for these particular people to be provided an environment more conducive to spiritual growth? Did it serve a purpose outside of that community itself, too?
How do you think about reading these early writers, who were monks, given taht you're about to be married, Jeremy? I am married, with a baby, and with a full-time vocation. I struggle to figure out how I can realistically attempt to adopt these practices without possessing the long periods of "stillness". Do you feel that tension at all? I mean, I know that the Philokalia was compiled specifically for 1) monks and 2) the Orthodox Church. Being a married Presbyterian, I probably answered my own question. But, still, I was just curious what you thought.
I am already planning on embarking on reading more of these early Christian writers. St. Basil is the next person I hope to read.
Posted by: scott cunningham at August 7, 2002 09:40 AMScott,
Monasticism, especially as described in the Philokalia, is VERY interesting, and very foreign to Protestant ears. I accord with much of what you said concerning the individuality of the ascetic experience. One thing that really strikes me is just how humble these men and women are. Repenting before the Lord in disgust at their sin is never far from their lips; it is as if the more sanctified they become the more aware of their sin they become. One almost expects to find men free from temptation and evil, yet we see that even after years of monastic life they still feel they must fall on their knees begging God for mercy. To me, that is everything.
As to the "theology" of monasticism, I can give but the little I know. But I can point you in the direction of some great works that more than touch on the subject.
In a nutshell, the "monk" as we know him today came into prevalence during the Nicene period (the period just following Constantine's ascent to power beginning around A.D. 313) in reaction to a very real cessation of persecution. From the time of Christ's death to 313 or so the Church was under intense and brutal religous, cival, and social persecution (during this time martyrdom was a nearly common end to a Christian life). For obvious reasons, there were very few "Jack Christians" during this time. Those men and women who claimed the name of Christ meant it, for they knew very well they might die for their faith. One could easily say the Christian life during this time of persecution was painful, humbling, sobering, and often bloody.
So, when Constantine took the throne he made Christianity the religion of the land; this edict virtually overnight brought peace to the Church, i.e., the persecutions stopped. As a result of this "Pax Christus," if you will, many persons of questionable faith flooded into the Church...the Christian life was seen as "easy" especially by those persons who had survived the onslaught of torture just a few years prior. This "easy Christianity" fostered in many a want to remove themselves from such easy believism. Many people, feeling that prayer and supplication was more difficult when amidst the pleasures of peaceful life, sought the hills and mountains establishing monastaries where one could come and live a life devoid of those now readily available pleasures.
The desire to truly devote one's life to God (putting aside all earthly hedonistic pleasures, giving up one's belongings, etc), to spend time in constant prayer and fasting, is a choice that those men and women made then, and is a choice that some make today: those men and women are the ascetics and monks of Christendom.
I highly recommend reading Philip Schaff's 8 volume History of the Christian Church (especially the first 4 volumes) He writes so well, and even though it is from a sometimes-obvious Protestant perspective, his scholarship is so thorough that it overshadows much of the bias.
Another History well worth reading (that I have yet to get through) is Jaroslav Pelikan's The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition; being volume ONE of THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION
The must read, and major source for all subsequent church histories is Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History written in the early 4th century.
I hope this is helpful even though I feel I was, as always, too wordy than needed. Thanks for reading.
Posted by: jeremy at August 7, 2002 08:14 PMFriendship make prosperity more shining and lessens adversity by dividing and sharing it.
Posted by: Shimura Haru at January 10, 2004 04:35 AMhigh quality replica jewelry Rolex watches, wrist watch, Replica Watch purchase your affordable realistic Rolex replica watch today at http://www.pro-rolex-replica-watches.com
Posted by: Rolex Replica at November 7, 2004 04:18 PM