The Psychology Roots of Jurisdictionalism-Part II

Jursidictionalism Avoidant Personality and Our Broken Sense of Self . To expand on the egoism of jurisdictionalism, let me offer an illustration drawn from psychotherapy. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ( DSM ) of the American is a Psychiatric Association includes a personality disorder called avoidant personality disorder . The diagnostic criteria for describes avoidant personality disorder as a “pervasive pattern of social inhibition, feelings of inadequacy, and hypersensitivity to negative evaluation, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

1. Avoids occupational activities that involve significant interpersonal contact, because of fears of criticism, disapproval, or rejection

2. Is unwilling to get involved with people unless certain of being liked

3. Shows restraint initiating intimate relationships because of the fear of being ashamed, ridiculed, or rejected due to severe low self-worth.

4. Is preoccupied with being criticized or rejected in social situations

5. Is inhibited in new interpersonal situations because of feelings of inadequacy

6. Views self as socially inept, personally unappealing, or inferior to others

7. Is unusually reluctant to take personal risks or to engage in any new activities because they may prove embarrassing.”

I would argue that, mutatis mutandis , this summarizes the situation that we now face as a Church both here in America as well as worldwide.

Personality disorders typically reflect a damage sense of self. For all that we must respond with compassion to those who sense of self is damaged, our compassion ought not to blind us to the kind of damage that can be done to self and others by someone who responds out of their broken sense of self.

For all of our theological scholarship, I would suggest that in all levels of the Church, we have failed to translate that theology in such a way that it fosters in people a healthy sense of self. Absent that healthy sense of self, it is difficult to bear up under the suffering that is coming our way as we try to reconcile the cultural and linguistic estrangements that we have enshrined, and made rigid, in our overlapping jurisdictions.

To put the matter another way, for all that theology matters, we must not neglect the fact that our challenge as a Church is fundamentally psychological. As such not only is it resistant to a theological solution, it is grounded in our emphasizing theology at the expense of a careful consideration of the sociological and psychological dimension of the Christian life. Our problem is psychological not theological. We know what we believe about the Church, but we cannot find it in ourselves to live what we believe, at least beyond a certain point.

Just as a failure in psychology lead to the Great Schism (in the sense that we East and West were not only psychological estranged but also defensive in the face of the evidence of that estrangement) 1,000 years ago, so to today, we face also an similar failure to appreciate the power of our psychological differences. Add to this the way in which the surrounding culture exacerbates these differences and we are facing a crisis point every bit as serious as what we faced in the 11 ^th century.

This brings to an end my reflections on the current jurisdictional controversy facing the Church in America. I thank you for the kind gift of your attention, comments, questions and criticisms.

As always, your comments, questions and criticisms are not only welcome, they are actively sought.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2009 Gregory R Jensen.

My Recent Webinar on Leadership Now Online

For those interested, the slides and a recording of the webinar I did yesterday (Tuesday) for the Diocese of the Chicago and the Midwest (OCA) on the psychology of leadership are now both available online.  You can find them here: Diocese’s Webinar Project.  You can find the link to my presentations, as well as an upcoming webinar on religion in America by Fr Basil Aden, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Illinois’ Rock Valley College, in the center right column.

If I may ask a small favor, if you do review the slides or listen to the webinar, would you please direct any thought you have about the presentation to Joseph Kormos who direct of the Parish Health Ministry for the diocese and to me.  Joe’s email address is available here: Diocesan Administration.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2009 Gregory R Jensen.

The Psychological Roots of Orthodox Jurisdictionalism-Part I

While I think it is always intellectually dangerous to argue sociologically from psychological data, I do think that it can be done if we are careful. Given the importance of character and personality for not only the style of leadership but also the decisions made by leadership but personally and corporately, I think it is worth reflecting on what (potentially at least) how personality and character contribute to the pastoral situation of the Church here in America.

I will conclude this series of reflection therefore with an admittedly informal look at what I am calling here the psychological roots of Orthodox jurisdictionalism.

Egoism & Our Fractured Visible Unity . Whether we call it pietism or moralistic therapetic deism, it is not only Western Christians, but also the vast majority of Orthodox Christians in the United States, who have come to embrace a radically individualist approach to the Gospel. Ironically, it is as true for those self-professed adherents of “traditional” Orthodox as it is for the main body of Orthodox Christians (whether cradle born or convert). Surveying the Orthodox Christian landscape in America, I see this not only in the sadism and masochism of those who make pain the sine qua non of the Orthodox faith, but also in the current jurisdictional controversy that we now face in the Orthodox Church in the States.

Before I continue, let me make a theological observation. The lack of administrative or visible unity of the Orthodox Church in the United States (and indeed in South America, Western Europe, Asia and Australia) does not to my mind invalidate the fact that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The failure of Christians to live the Gospel fully does not mean the Gospel isn’t true. “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”

Chesterton’s observation is true not only about the Christian ideal, it is also true for the struggle for jurisdictional unity in the Church in America and in the other parts of the world where overlapping jurisdictions have simply become accepted as how we do things. We know how we are to live, we know what we are to do because we know what we have been given, but it is hard and we do not want to suffer it.

The historical reasons for our overlapping jurisdictions are well know to most Orthodox Christians (and observers of the Church as well). What worries me is that, fueled as they are by pietism and moralistic therapetic deism, if we are not careful the Orthodox Church will find itself facing schism. In the more irenic telling of the events that lead up to the Great Schism in the 11 ^th century, the growing cultural and linguistic estrangement between the Latin West and the Greek East is often sited as a prime cause of the division. This is not to minimize the real theological and pastoral difference between the two communities. Rather it is to highlight that the lack of a common spoken language and shared culture made reconciliation in the face of these more substantial difference difficult and indeed impossible.

To suggest a similar situation is growing in the contemporary Orthodox Church might seem alarmist, but having served in both the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese and the Orthodox Church in America, it amazes me the lack of real contact and understand between the clergy and faithful of both communities. The political freedoms and material wealth that the Church has in America has allowed us (and not only the GOA and OCA, but all the Orthodox jurisdictions) to go our own separate ways.

Oh, we do get together now and then—mostly on the Sunday of Orthodoxy—b ut that’s not a real encounter. It is more like neighbors who wave to each other over the fence in the morning on their way to work getting together for a block party once a year. We enjoy seeing each other, eating each other’s foods, but, well, ya’ know, beyond that we get, uncomfortable.

This uncomfortable feeling, I would argue, is the sign that our different jurisdiction our a matter of our own individual and collective egos writ large. For no doubt understandable reasons, and whether we were baptized in the Church as infants or came later in life, we have used the Church and the Church’s tradition to shore up our own rather frail sense of self (and again, both individually and collectively).

I will post tomorrow the conclusion of this series with some unapologetically psychological thoughts on why we personally and corporately, resist the establishment of an administratively united Orthodox Church.

As always, your comments, questions and criticisms are not only welcome, they are actively sought.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2009 Gregory R Jensen.

American Christianity and the Ascetical Ideal

Back to my series on suffering, pain and the thoughts about the Orthodox Church here in America.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

American Pietism and the Ascetical Ideal. In the approach that has come dominate in American Christianity, moralistic therapeutic deism, suffering not only has no place it is the enemy and the sign that I have failed. For many contemporary Christians I should not suffer. Contemporary Christians, and again this includes Orthodox Christians, the Gospel (in the words of the study authors)

is not a religion of repentance from sin, of keeping the Sabbath, of living as a servant of sovereign divinity, of steadfastly saying one’s prayers, of faithfully observing high holy days, of building character through suffering, of basking in God’s love and grace, of spending oneself in gratitude and love for the cause of social justice, et cetera. Rather, what appears to be the actual dominant religion among U.S. teenagers is centrally about feeling good, happy, secure, at peace. It is about attaining subjective well-being, being able to resolve problems, and getting along amiably with other people.

All of this flies in the face not only of the idea that suffering is part of the Christian life but also the idea that asceticism is an essential element of our life as disciples of Christ.

As an aside, until very recently, even the most dedicated Christian proponent of salvation by faith alone would have held to at least a broadly ascetical vision of the Christian life. If nothing else, there were simply things that you did not do if you were a believer. While traditional Christian asceticism is not really a matter of not drinking, smoking or dancing, the emphasis on these in some Christian circles kept alive at least a vestige of the ascetical life.

Asceticism is important because, as Christos Yannaras reminds us in his own work, it shifts the locus of my life from my virtue as mine to the life of the Church. Or, to use my earlier language, as virtue as something I choose as expression and satisfaction of my own ego and virtue as a gift that I receive. As a mode of pietism, moralistic therapeutic deism assumes that

It is not man’s dynamic, personal participation in the body of the Church’s communion which saves him despite his individual unworthiness, restoring him safe and whole to the existential possibility of personal universality, and transforming even his sin, through repentance, into the possibility of receiving God’s grace and love. Rather it is primarily man’s individual attainments, the way he as an individual lives up to religious duties and moral commandments and imitates the “virtues” of Christ, that ensure him a justification which can be objectively veri. fied. For pietism, the Church is a phenomenon dependent upon individual justification; it is the assembly of morally “reborn” individuals, a gathering of the “pure,” a complement and an aid to individual religious feeling. (“Pietism as an Ecclesiological Heresy,” chapter 8 in The Freedom of Morality. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood, NY: 1984, pp. 119-136. Available online at the American Orthodox Institute .)

American Christianity, or maybe more accurately, the American approach to Christianity has become markedly individualist and is likewise, markedly devoid of any theological and ascetical content beyond the what is allowed by pietism that dominate our cultural conversation about religion.

I will post today the first of a two reflection on the psychological foundations (and risks) of the Orthodox Church’s jurisdictional disunity here in America.

As always, your comments, questions and criticisms are not only welcome, they are actively sought.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2009 Gregory R Jensen.

The Psychology of Leadership II: Applying the Research to the Parish Webinar

In this the second of two webinars we will look at how we can foster styles of leadership that are strength based, collaborative and appreciative.

He will explore leadership that values collaboration/cooperation between clergy and the laity.

This will be contrasted with approaches built around competition and/or collusion.

We will look a a strength based approach to parish leadership that makes appreciative use of the unique our talents and gifts that God has given the lay people and clergy who make up the parish community.

Sponsored by the OCA Diocese of Chicago and the Midwest, you can register for the webinar here: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/401198899.

Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Time: 3:00pm – 4:00pm

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2009 Gregory R Jensen.

What has Aleksandr Lukashenko told Benedict XVI?

Potentially interesting, and from my point of view hopeful, developments in Orthodox/Catholic ecumenical relations.  Russia Today is reporting online that the president of Belarus, Aleksandr Lukashenko, is (in the article reports) said “he was going to present the Pope with a number of questions from the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, Kirill. Talking to the Pope, he also expressed hope that Benedict XVI would come to Belarus.”  What makes the potential visit of the Pontiff to Belarus is part of the “canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church.”  Evidently, according to the article, Lukashenko,”wants to play a role in organizing a historical meeting of the Pope and the Patriarch on Belarusian territory. That was what he proposed to Patriarch Kirill while in Moscow this spring.”

“The idea to bring leaders of the two branches of Christianity together in Belarus is not a new one.”  In fact, 

Aleksandr Lukashenko proposed it as early as in 2002. However, today it has taken on an interesting twist: Kirill already met Benedict XVI several times as a head of the Department for External Church Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church. He was also often criticized for his ecumenical policies, as he advocates for deeper cooperation with the Catholic Church. All this makes the possibility of a meeting between the leaders of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches greater than ever. And if Lukashenko’s proposal is accepted, Belarus will play an important role as a conciliator and a peacemaker. In this sense, Lukashenko is doing a great job, improving Belarus’ image on an international level and doing a favor for Kirill who, according to all indications, would like to meet the Pope.

While it is to early to say what, if anything, will come of Likashenko’s plan, it is an interesting development.

You can read the rest of the article here: “What has Aleksandr Lukashenko told Benedict XVI?“

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2009 Gregory R Jensen.

American Religious Culture

A continuation of the series I began last week on the Church in America…

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. Sadly, much of contemporary Christianity—and I would include here contemporary Orthodox Christians—have lost the sense that suffering is an essential part of the spiritual life. In its place, as I said above, we have substituted some form of moralistic therapeutic deism. Let me explain what moralistic therapeutic deism is and try and contrast it to suffering and the Christian ascetical tradition.

In a piece that appeared in the Christian Post on April 18 2005 (“ Moralistic Therapeutic Deism–the New American Religion ”), R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, reports on the work of “Christian Smith and his fellow researchers with the National Study of Youth and Religion at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.” Smith and his colleagues “took a close look at the religious beliefs held by American teenagers” and “ found that the faith held and described by most adolescents came down to something the researchers identified as “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.”

Following Smith, Mohler goes on to describe moralistic therapeutic deism as a belief system that centers on beliefs such as these:

1. “A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.”

2. “God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.”

3. “The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.”

4. “God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.”

5. “Good people go to heaven when they die.”

While the study focused on adolescents, the findings are more generally applicable to American Christianity including American Orthodox Christianity (for confirmation of this second point, see my posts on the 2008 Pew Charitable Trust US Religious Landscape Survey). As Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton put the matter in their “Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Eyes of American Teenagers,”

To the extent that the teens we interviewed did manage to articulate what they understood and believed religiously, it became clear that most religious teenagers either do not really comprehend what their own religious traditions say they are supposed to believe, or they do understand it and simply do not care to believe it . Either way, it is apparent that most religiously affiliated U.S. teens are not particularly interested in espousing and upholding the beliefs of their faith traditions , or that t heir communities of faith are failing in attempts to educate their youth, or both .”

In place of a firmly held and clearly articulated faith, many of us (and again, not just teenagers) hold to the informal moral relativism that Smith and Denton call Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. MTD “is about inculcating a moralistic approach to life. It teaches that central to living a good and happy life is being a good, moral person. That means being nice, kind, pleasant, respectful, responsible, at work on self-improvement, taking care of one’s health, and doing one’s best to be successful.”

I will post tomorrow a brief comparison between Moralistic Therapeutic Deism and the Christian ascetical ideal, an ideal I would argue that was until recently common to all (or at least most) Christian communities in America.

As always, your comments, questions and criticisms are not only welcome, they are actively sought.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2009 Gregory R Jensen.

Thomas Sunday

Sunday, April 26, 2009: ANTIPASCHA. 2nd SUNDAY OF PASCHA — Tone 1. St. Thomas Sunday. Hieromartyr Basil, Bishop of Amasea (ca. 322). St. Stephen, Bishop of Perm (1396). Righteous Virgin Glaphyra (322). St. Joannicius of Devich in Serbia (13th c.).

Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained. Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” So he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.” And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

( John 20:19-31)

Christ is Risen!

Christos Voskrese!

Christos Anesti!

We heard most of this morning’s Gospel last Sunday at Agape Vespers. Unlike last week, however, the Gospel reading stopped at verse 25 where Thomas, having just heard from his fellow disciples the news of the resurrection says: “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”

There is, as there was the case with the final Gospel ( Mt 27:62-66) that we heard at the end of both the Twelve Passion Gospels at Matins on Great Holy Thursday evening and at the Lamentations Service that is the Matins service for Great and Holy Friday evening at Lamentations, something stark about the Gospel reading for Agape Vespers.

Especially because I know the story I expect the Gospel to come (in both cases) to a successful conclusion. I want to move quickly past that moment when the Jews “ sealing the stone, and setting a watch,” ( Mt 27.66) and to the moment when “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary,” encounter with an angel and announcement of the Resurrection in Matthew 28. And likewise, I want Thomas’ challenge to be answered, I want the Risen Lord Jesus to appear to Thomas as Jesus appeared to the women disciples and eventually to the disciples.

In wanting to hear the proclamation of the Resurrection, I’m desiring something that good. There should be no question that in wanting this I want what is good. The problem is not so much, or so it seems to me, what I want to move toward as what I am so anxious of leaving behind.

In one sense the story of Jesus’ last week is far from humanity’s finest hour. Religious faith and the laws of civil society are both bent and twisted to serve the ravenous desires of the human ego for power and control. And as much as the events of Holy Week are a chronicle of sin in high places, of the ways in which those charged with the common good in the religious and secular arenas are willing to betray the trust of their office, it is also a very intimate, homey story of sin. It is not only those who a great who betray Jesus. He suffers betrayal and abandonment at the hands of those who He loved and who loved Him.

And it seems that at first not even the news of His Resurrection can undo humanity’s commitment to our self-defeating life of sin.

And even when there is faith, even when the news of the Resurrection is received, it is reception isn’t pure. Human ego and our desire to dominate one another is still present, mixed in as it were, with our faith. It is worth remembering that the same men who in John’s Gospel proclaims the Resurrection to Thomas are inclined (in the words of Luke’s Gospel) to dismiss the women’s proclamation “as idle tales,” that did not believe (24.11).

St Mark sketches out for us a bit more of the “apostolic” disbelief in the Resurrection.

Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. She went and told those who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe ( 16.9-11).

The story of the Resurrection, like the events of Great and Holy Week that precede it, is also not humanity’s finest moment.

St Peter Chrysologus, the fifth century bishop of Ravenna, describes the Apostle Thomas “a sleuth” and “a little too clever” for his own good. Rhetorically, he asks about Thomas

Why does the hand of a faithful disciple in this fashion retrace those wounds that an unholy hand inflict? Why does the hand of a dutiful follower strive to reopen the side that the lance of an unholy soldier pierced? Why does the harsh curiosity of a servant repeat the torturers imposed by the rage of persecutors? Why is a disciple so inquisitive about proving from His torments that He is the Lord, for His pain that He is God, and from His wounds that He is the heavenly Physician? (“Sermon,” 84.8, quoted in ACCS , NT vol IV b, p. 367)

Why, in other words, can we (like Thomas) not leave sinfulness behind?

Peter explains that Thomas’ questions are asked in anticipation of his “going to preach” the Gospel “to the Gentile.” And so Thomas takes on the role of a “ conscientious investigator” so that through his careful examination “he might provide a foundation for the faith needed for such a mystery.” And Christ, in anticipation of the Gospel which was to be proclaimed, “kept His wounds . . . to provide evidence of His Resurrection.”

Like it or not, the path to faith must, necessarily, proceed along the way of doubt and disbelief. Not because, as some would have it, because faith and doubt are two sides of the same coin. No, I must walk the path of unbelieving because that is my beginning point. All the ways in which we say humanity fail during the events of Great and Holy Week are not simply history, they are my story as well.

And, just like Thomas, my faith is weak and demands proof. And, again like Thomas, my need for proof is so strong that I am willing to be cruel if cruelty is what it takes to undo my disbelief.

To stop here, to see only the depth of human sinfulness and more deprivation, is to tell only half the story. If the events of Great and Holy Week reveals the depths to which human beings can sink, they also make clear the heights to which we can ascend. If Holy Week is our darkest moment, it is also in Christ and in those who did not abandon Him, Mary the Theotokos, “His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, . . . Mary Magdalene [and] the disciple whom He loved” (Jn 19.25, 26) our finest moment. If in Adam we betray Him, in Him and in the faithful few who stand by Him, we are faithful.

The temptation though is to imagine that some how I can separate in myself Thomas from John (to name only two disciples), that my own unbelief and cruelty are themselves something other than faith and love misdirected and undeified. It is so easy for me to blame Thomas and praise John.

Curiously, the Apostle John does not blame Thomas, he does not begrudge his brother apostle his questions and doubts. In fact, at the end of his life, the Beloved Disciple looks back to the events he records for us and remembers Thomas’ challenge: “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”

And remembering those long ago events, he writes to the Church:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life— the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us— that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write to you that your joy may be full. ( 1 Jn 1.1-4)

My brothers and sisters in Christ, our doubts, or little (and not so little) acts of cruelty and betrayal are the signs that we have not yet been transformed by divine love. But that transformation cannot happen if I deny the presence of doubt, or cruelty, or betrayal or any other sin in my own heart.

To borrow from St Romanus the Melodius, human sinfulness is part of “the bramble which endured fire” which, though “burned” is “not consumed.” The Fire of God’s love does not destroy, it heals what is ill and transfigures what is earthly. And once deified, “To many who had a little doubt” Thomas is able to “presuade them to say, ‘Thou art our Lord and God.” (“Kontakion on Doubting Thomas,” 30.1-3, ACCS , NT vol IV b, pp. 371-372).

But none of this comes for me any more easily then it did for Thomas and the others. It requires that I pause and reflect not simply upon my own sinfulness or God’s mercy. Rather I must see both together and then, like Thomas, reach out to the God Who again and again comes to find me who does not even know I am lost.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2009 Gregory R Jensen.

The Anthropology of Suffering

Suffering Isn’t Suffering Unless It Hurts. When I was a student my confessor was a Cistercian monk from Hungary name Fr Chris (I may have mentioned him before). One of the things he would frequently remind me of is that the one thing Christ promises His disciples is that we will suffer in this life. “And,” he would conclude, “suffering isn’t suffering if it doesn’t hurt.” Father’s counsel to me came to mind this morning as I thought about the current controversy taking shape between Metropolitan Jonah and the Orthodox Church in America on one side and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople on the other side.

The importance of suffering in the spiritual life is often overlooked. Rather than tell people that suffering is simply part and parcel of our life in Christ we pass over the issue in silence. Sometimes instead of looking squarely at the truth we substitute what some have called moralistic therapeutic deism for a clear discussion and preaching on the anthropological non-negotiable elements of the Christian life: asceticism and a willingness to suffer the first stage of the spiritual, purification, on the road to illumination and eventual union (or theosis to use more traditional Orthodox terminology).

Asceticism and purification are not only necessary to our life in Christ, they necessarily require from the person a willingness to suffer. But this raises two questions: First, what is it that I mean when I say we will suffer? What, in other words, does it mean to suffer in Christ? And second, what does this have to do with the current controversy we see in the Church?

What It Means To Suffer . There are subgroups within the Orthodox Church for whom suffering plays a central role in how they understand the Christian life. For these individuals, the absence of suffering in a person’s is suspect—really Christians are in pain. This approach the spiritual life is, in my view, an aberration and reflects a mis-reading of monastic literature.

At its core it confuses suffering with sadism and masochism (and not infrequently there is a sexual component to these groups, but that is for another day). Sadism and masochism emphasizing as they do human pain are, I would argue, pseudo-forms of suffering. When, as often happens even in otherwise healthy persons and communities, they inform especially a our understand of asceticism and the three fold path of the spiritual life, they can lead to any number of aberrations in the spiritual life and the life of the community.

The problem here is this: Unlike suffering, sadism and masochism are psychologically and often behaviorally active. The sadist seeks to inflict pain; the masochist seeks out the infliction of pain on him. In both cases, pain is the object of the ego’s desire, a way of maintaining the illusion of one’s own power and control in the face of the mystery of being (and Being for that matter). Neither the sadist nor the masochist suffer, neither is passive in the face of the mystery of being (and Being) who bear up under the weight of this mystery, but actors who seek to impose their own ego onto the mystery and shape its expression according to their own desires.

Let me qualify what I said a moment ago about the passivity of suffering. Suffering in the spiritual is passive in the sense that I do not choose suffering, it is not the object of my decision as is, for example, the fact that I am writing this essay. I do not choose suffering, I do not move toward it either physically or psychologically. Suffering chooses me, suffering comes to me.

The passive character of suffering does not preclude activity on my part. While I may not, and indeed cannot, choose suffering, I can exercise my will bear suffering, to not flee from it. Again, suffering is not something I choose but it is something that, when it comes to me, I accept.

I will in my next post look (on Monday, 4/27/09) at what seems to me to be the dominate theme in American Religious Culture, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.

As always, your comments, questions and criticisms are not only welcome, they are actively sought.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2009 Gregory R Jensen.

Thinking About the Church in America

Over the next few days, I want to reflect with you on the current controversy facing the Orthodox Church here in America. The flash point of this has been the very public exchange of views over the last few weeks between Metropolitan JONAH, Primate of the Orthodox Church in America, and various representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. In what follows I argue that these differences point to more fundamentally cultural, pastoral and psychological challenges facing not only Orthodox Christians but American Christianity in general (and insofar as American culture has come to dominate in many parts of the world, this is not simply an American or Christian problem.)

Beginning today, I will offer a serious of reflections that I hope will provide if not solutions, at least a general frame of reference for discussion and debate as well discern together what God would have for His Church here in America. The topics are, in order:

1. The Anthropology of Suffering
2. American Religious Culture
3. The Ascetical Ideal
4. The Psychology Roots of Jurisdictionalism

I will post today a reflection on suffering.

As always, your comments, questions and criticisms are not only welcome, they are actively sought.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2009 Gregory R Jensen.