Converts and Orthodox Saints And Fathers

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Fri 1 August 2003 4:56 pm

In another thread someone mentioned something that I think would be good to discuss:

Many convert accept Father Seraphim as infalliable and never read the other views. (not saying you)

It is true that some converts can get caught up in making too much of certain people, and making them into almost infallible men and women. I think I understand exactly what was meant by this above statement, and I wholeheartedly concur with it's author. Many times we converts do read something by a Saint or Father, from Fr. Seraphim to Saint John Chrysostom, and tend to simply take what is said as "gospel truth" without any further thinking. Oddly enough, those who are looked to as sources (e.g., Fr. Seraphim or St. John) did not themselves approve of such a confident placing of one's faith in all that a man said, even if he were a very holy, learned man. In this I think we converts maybe get a bit too "quote happy" sometimes, using quotes like proof-texts, or compiling lists of quotes to support our position. We would be better served to spend more time reading the Fathers, rather than collecting quotes by them that deals with certain subjects, but too often we take the less profitable route. Most of these people seem to be to the "far right".

On the other hand, I've seen an opposite reaction among some converts, where they become a cradle-wanna-be and attack anything and everything that appears to them to be the product of "baggage" from before they converted. I've noticed that most of these people are moderate or modernist, and half the time attack others because they are themselves being convicted. Whenever these types of converts get confronted with something they don't want to hear, they just accuse those converts who are more to the right of being "puritans," the claim is made that they are "looking for guru's" and so forth. I know, I've been called these things and had worse said about me (though I would hope that I am not in the first group of converts mentioned above). For this group of converts (the moderates/modernists), anything and everything said by a Saint or Father needs to be closely scrutinized and discussed. Normally what the Fathers said about entertainment, fasting, modesty, etc. gets pitched out the window as irrelevant.

The third type of convert are in between these two... or rather, above them. I don't say that I'm in this third type, but I try to seek after conforming myself to this position, the traditionalist position, as much as I can. In this position, the convert does not take everything a saint says as "gospel truth," but he does treat the words of the saints as precious. Even when it is obvious that something being said is not relevant for modern applications (e.g., canons dealing with slavery), such a convert still has a hard time mentioning the word "irrelevant" and "saint" in the same sentence. He will do so, and explain himself, but it is not easy for him, both because the spirit is never irrelevant, and because it is so easy for either side to misunderstand what he has said (e.g., the modernists hear what he says and thinks they can pitch the canon or quote entirely; while the person on the far right attacks the traditionalist for daring to "judge a saint" or think that he "knows better than a saint"... and you can be sure that the guy on the far right will have a half dozen patristic quotes to show you that you're wrong). [Just a note here, I'm not talking about anyone here on this forum when I mention those on the far right. Just as an example, while OOD does give many quotes, he always does so within a totally Orthodox framework, and not in a Protestant "I have more proof texts than you!" type of way.]

One thing I rarely see mentioned in these types of discussion is the fact that Orthodox cradles have baggage as well. Anyone who is exposed to the secular world for any amount of time today will have "baggage". Maybe it's not "religious" baggage from a past Church, but secular baggage is just as dangerous--if not more so. Also rarely discussed, at least from what I've seen, is the fact that cradles are not immune to having "zeal without knowledge" (a charge usually thrown at converts). Indeed, there have been a number of instances in Greece documented where cradle Greeks (and educated men at that) caused schism or disruption over very small "canonical infractions". Overly zealous religious fervor is not just a convert problem (though of course they are in more danger).

Miriam · Post by **Miriam** » Sat 2 August 2003 5:59 pm

Peter,
You make some very valid points, but in some ways I think you don’t go far enough. You said: “ It is true that some converts can get caught up in making too much of certain people, and making them into almost infallible men and women.” This statement is very true before we even get to the topic of saints. If one considers our treatment of priests, monks, nuns and other ordained figures one can see this phenomena occurring all around us. I have been guilty of it myself. In our adulation of our spiritual guides we often forget that they are plain and simple men and women, walking the same path as we are. Often they are no further along then we are. Our spiritual guides have taken upon themselves the burden of guiding us, but that does not always mean that they can do that well. When we shower them with adulation we fill them with a sort of prideful feeling that they are doing good and just things. I fear that this makes them somewhat sloppy, because they forget to depend on God but instead depend on their “successes” and their own “knowledge”. That “knowledge” may be greater than our own, but it is not always wisely used and at times in their zealousness they make grave mistakes.

We need to remember that they use that same facility that we use to discern the writings of the pillars of the church. They interpret as much as we do. Some are better at it than others. Their own worldly socializations and worldly “baggage” often serve to color their perceptions. It is when they impose those perceptions on us that a danger appears. We often don’t perceive that danger.

We set such people up on a pedestal, as if they hold all the answers, but they really do not, they are walking that same narrow path to enlightenment as we are. There have been too many instances where they hold us to a greater standard than they impose on themselves and the result is that someone is driven away, spiritually harmed. Rather than see that as a flaw of their own, resulting from their actions, the “blame” is placed on us. We were unwilling to commit, we did not have the true calling, we were too weak, etc… The possibility that they caused the problem rarely gets considered.

I am not saying that ALL spiritual guides fall into this category. I have known many who have been cognizant of the dangers of adulation and have striven to avoid it. I am not inferring that they should not have our respect, as Christians we should respect everyone. I am not saying that we should not listen to them, everyone deserves to be listened to, but rather I am saying that we should use our God given conscious—that little voice of our guardian angel – a bit more often to help us when dealing with all situations.

Unfortunately, in many ways the church itself fosters these situations. One of the greatest failings of the modern Church is that she has ill equipped her members with spiritual knowledge. I know that many converts complain of the lack of knowledge found in the cradle born, but I know that frequently the church did not provide a means to learn, to discuss for adults. Once you “finished” Sunday or Saturday school that was the extent of your learning. To question was frowned upon and ridiculed. The fact that we lived in a non-Orthodox world, were exposed to non-Orthodox ideas, did not merit attention. As a result the church lost much of her strength. Her youth lost faith and looked elsewhere. While there are and were pockets where this did not occur, there were far more where it did. Why else would churches have died out, been closed or sold off?

When I was in my twenties I asked our parish priest to provide a monthly class for adults in spiritual matters. I wanted to learn more, as did a fair number of others. Our priest was a teacher in the HTM monastery. He was considered a “great” theological thinker. He scoffed at the idea of classes and did everything he could to squash the whole thing. We didn’t need it he said, we should just come to church, that was all that we needed. He also mentioned that we were not Protestants who needed “bible studies”. We never did get any kind of classes for adults.

When considering the Saints we need to be conscious of the circumstances within which they wrote their commentaries. What item in church history called upon them to write their teachings? Can those circumstances be translated into our times? Should we take everything so literally or are there items, which are inappropriate for our times? Items that cause more harm than good? Perhaps in such instances we need to seek a re-examination. Unfortunately, there are few truly great thinkers in our time. God has not sent us any and we must struggle with what we have and pray that God sends us help in our struggles. I have great reverence for the saints of our church, some more than others. We have to remember that on the path to their saintliness, they some times made mistakes too. Some God chose to correct, but others He left for us to discernfor ourselves.

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Sat 2 August 2003 9:26 pm

Miriam,

Welcome to the forum!

I'm curious--and I've been pondering this for a while--how do you think we can have people becoming spiritual fathers without having too many who are way off base? The problem is that the best spiritual fathers are most times also the most humble, but because of their humility, they shy away from being a spiritual father (thinking themselves unworthy). And in a "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" sort of thing, some people will (probably rightly) say that there are few spiritual fathers because there are few spiritual children, how then how do we learn to be good spiritual children if there are no spiritual fathers to guide us? Which needs to come first, the good spiritual fathers or the spiritual children? I imagine that the answer is both need to grow together, but I'm curious what you think about this whole area of spiritual leadership.

I'm sorry to hear about the education thing at the parish. I've seen similar statements made, though I'm never quite sure how to take them. In the book Scripture and Tradition, for instance, the authors (Arch. Chrysostomos and Bp. Auxentios) put down "Protestant style Bible studies" (I'm paraphrasing from memory). Well I can understand that if meant a certain way... but not if meant in the way that your priest apparently was thinking of. This is one reason that I'm glad we have the internet. Learning on the internet is filled with danger... you have to be so cautious and as hard as you can to stay rooted in real life. Yet, there are so many resources available online (such as volume upon volume of works by Church Fathers), I'm very thankful for it. And I mean no disrespect to anyone who holds an opposing view, but I hope this spirit of utilizing various methods for education (including classes for adults) becomes common place. There are more distractions vying for our attention in the modern world, I think we need to combat it by offering more chances to learn and do good things, and not just assume that people will learn and do good things on their own.

Miriam · Post by **Miriam** » Sat 2 August 2003 11:12 pm

First, thank you for the welcome! Second, I’m embarrassed I got your name wrong! Oy! I had read something by Peter before your post and for some reason his name stuck in my brain. My apologies.

The best way I have found to deal with the lack of spiritual fathers is to have several. (I’m sure many are saying –Huh?- and – That’s not right… but let me explain…) There are things you can talk to your priest about and then there are the things that you are too reticent about to speak freely. Face it we all have those things. I solved part of this problem by choosing a second spiritual father at the Holy Trinity Monastery. I saw him frequently enough that he knew who I was, but infrequently enough that I was able to bring up things that would otherwise embarrass me if I saw him frequently. I realize this is not a perfect method and not always available to all, but it worked for me. It was when I lost my second spiritual father that I fell into the dangers that I spoke of above.

Good spiritual fathers are few and far apart. Years ago there seemed to be more of them, the signs of the times suggest that we are losing them. I fear for the times to come. The solution to this problem is, I think, complex and not one any of the jurisdictions are willing to embrace. Classes I think would help, if for no other reason than they would make “bad” spiritual fathers seek answers from the few good fathers or even their Bishops. A few years ago, I posed a problem to our parish priest for which, he had no ready answer, and he dumped the problem into our bishop’s lap. The bishop had to come up with the proper answer to my problem.

Our hierarchy must accept that we are no longer simple sheep following a shepherd. We are a generation, which has been taught to seek knowledge, to ask uncomfortable questions and to desire deep and meaningful answers. You can’t just brush us off. The churches must accept this fact and change to accommodate it or they will perish. We on the other hand need to be more demanding of the church for our needs.

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Mon 4 August 2003 9:22 am

Maybe I just look like a Peter? I think you bring up a number of good points, and I do think that our hierarchy will be able to adapt, as long as they (continue to) let love lead their decisions (true love, of course, not a compromising, false love). And I hate to say this since it will probably sound horrible to some people, but I think that as more men who grew up and have lived in our society become deacons, priests and bishops, things will naturally change on their own.

Liudmilla · Post by **Liudmilla** » Wed 6 August 2003 12:02 am

I hope you are right that they will adapt. I find however that in many cases it's hard for the young voices to be heard and listened to. I have run into a lot of "You are too young and an implied..too ignorant), so be quiet and listen to your elders" attitude over the years and am as a result a bit jaded with respect to this. It's been almost fifty years since we landed on these shores, how much longer is it going to take?

Natasha · Post by **Natasha** » Sat 9 August 2003 10:45 am

Miriam wrote: "Our hierarchy must accept that we are no longer simple sheep following a shepherd. We are a generation, which has been taught to seek knowledge, to ask uncomfortable questions and to desire deep and meaningful answers. You can’t just brush us off. The churches must accept this fact and change to accommodate it or they will perish. We on the other hand need to be more demanding of the church for our needs."

What is your background? I am just astounded that you are demanding the Church to change, or "perish". Can you be more specific as to what needs to change? What is not being accommodated? Please enlighten us as to what is lacking. You said, "we are no longer simple sheep following a shepherd" I find it interesting that you used that phrase.