You know that among the pagans the rulers lord it over them, and their great men make their authority felt. This is not to happen among you. No; anyone who wants to be great among you must be your servant, and anyone who wants to be first among you must be your slave, just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many. Matthew 20:25-28
It's curious how we have found so many ways to get around this saying of Jesus. One hierarch who otherwise declares himself the bridge-builder and the vicar of Christ on earth, humbly adds the epithet servant of the servants of God to the other titles by which he is known, and though protocol demands he be referred to as ‘his Holiness,’ we are advised that this form of address pertains not to him personally, but to what Christ has made him. That may be so; I don't know. But I ask myself, how does this differ from referring to the Queen as ‘her Majesty’?
Like all other human societies, the Church organizes itself in tiers according to rules of order. Is this not to be avoided? After all, even Christ had His inner ring of disciples, Peter, James and John, and even there we find an ambition for preeminence among its members which gave Him occasion to speak the words cited above, ‘anyone who wants to be great…’
Though Holy Church has institutions like the offices of bishop, presbyter and deacon, and has even added more classifications to these simple New Testament ones, the fact remains that within her we find strange inversions happening, even from the earliest times, that prove the saying of Jesus fulfilled and write a spiritual history of mankind that remains almost impossible of documentation.
In the ancient Church, we have figures like elders Barsanouphios and John in Gaza, simple men who from their desert cells guided countless lives both during their time and up to the present day. Bishops even feared them for their God-bestowed authority, and heeded their instructions, yet they considered themselves the worst of sinners.
In the film Ostrov, the simple, half-mad Fr Anatoly, after burning his abbot's best boots, nearly suffocating him in a smoke-filled boiler room, and then casting his precious down-filled comforter into the sea, sits side by side with him, both of them covered with soot and smoke, and talks to himself or them both, complaining that God has made him the leader of the monastery, and he simply can't understand why, since of all men he is the most sinful. You can tell that he's not just saying this out of humility; he really believes it. This is Fr Anatoly speaking, now, not the abbot. The abbot just sits there beside him silently and with a look of abject relief, thanking God for delivering him, at the hands of this madman, from his earthly crutches.
It is strange, too, how our perceptions of others can be so different, one person viewing another as a great saint, another criticizing him harshly. As C. S. Lewis writes, ‘What you see and what you hear depends a great deal on where you are standing. It also depends on what sort of person you are.’ I have known bishops who, I think, were great saints and men of God, yet I still hear them being traduced even after they have been reposed, and called bad men. Conversely, I am sure there are others whom I blame and others praise. So much for our private judgments. Why judge at all? But as Jesus says, ‘Wisdom is vindicated by all her children’ (Luke 7:35).
Holy Church is both the most merciful refuge for the afflicted and at the same time the most dangerous place for souls who still seek the world. Her structures and order can both relieve the afflicted and afflict the pious. The lowlier you are in spirit, the less you are jolted by the cataracts in the flow of churchly life, whether you are positioned at the top, as a chief shepherd, or just one of the lesser sheep. The stronger is your hold on the control of life, your own or that of others, the greater is your danger, to yourself and to others. A ride over the cataracts might throw you out of the boat, your stiff stance working ironically against you.
Spiritual freedom—ultimately, this is what it all boils down to. As the apostle writes, ‘When Christ freed us, He meant us to remain free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery’ (Galatians 5:1). All worldly systems of social organization lead to slavery and preserve it among men. Only Christ Jesus, in His divine teaching and holy example, has set us free from this when He turned the world upside down, as His disciples continue to do, for which the world blames them.
These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also. They are all defying Caesar's decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus.
Acts 17:6-7
3 comments:
There are a couple of thoughts that come to my mind. (1) Regarding Christ's inner circle: yes, there seemed to be an order and organization of roles. In other words, there was not chaos, a free-for-all, or first-come-first-serve. However, and I think this is the key difference between Christ's circle and the social circles of the world: nobody was excluded from Christ. Everyone had and has access according to their needs and role within the Church. Nobody will feel slighted. That is, not spiritually, although in human terms people are still afflicted with ambition, vanity, etc.
(2) Regarding how different people can view the same person in different ways: this is a little off your topic, but it is what comes to my mind. Sometimes, the same person will treat different people in different ways. In other words, some people are treated better and they will, therefore, have a more positive view of that individual. This happens often in families. One child might be abused or scapegoated, while the other child will be upheld as the parents' joy. Of course, the child who is abused is going to have a different perspective as to the parents' character--because he is "standing" (referring to the C.S. Lewis quote) in a different place. It takes a lot of maturity and objectivity to be able to see all facets of an individual. So, the abused child might always remember the terror and the lucky child might always live in denial over the whole family structure and dynamics. I suppose both are in the "yoke of slavery" unless they can figure it out or renounce it, and ultimately remain free in Christ.
It is also possible that contrasting perspectives can all be correct at the same time. Some people are more perceptive than others, and I will distinguish between perception and judgment. Judgment is to be avoided, and even accurate perception might not be of any advantage: unless your sanity rests on the clarification of reality and, even then, that clarification might not receive validation from anyone else. So, you will end up sane and alone, or go further insane because of the aloneness.
I think also, sometimes we see what we need to see. If we need a saint in order to maintain our faith, then we see a saint. If we need to hide our own sins, then we criticize others. Reality and truth are sensitive issues, probably always prone to some degree of subjectivity in each human mind, yet not necessarily opposed to love and mercy.
Very perceptive analysis and explanation, Melanie! Thanks for adding it to my post.
Dear Romanos,
Please forgive me if I ramble on a little more. You can always delete this if it is inappropriate. I am thinking more about people and our perception of them. You do not have to believe in Christ in order to be persecuted; you only have to tell the truth. Many if not most people cannot bear to look at the realities of this world: it is too horrible or, at best, uncomfortable. I think the only people who see reality in the totality of its cruelty are the victims of incest or child-molestation. They must live with that reality every day of their lives. That is, if they do not drink and drug in order to function emotionally: until the process of addiction overwhelms their functioning and they are back to facing that horrible reality as sober people.
Let's look at a recent child-abuse scandal in the university system. Apparently, for many years a certain university employee molested boys who were placed in his mentorship. Who would have perceived this man as child molestor except the boys who experienced this treatment? Other people perceived this man as loyal employee, a hero of the school, a good husband and father. And, maybe he was all of these things at the same time. But, even after the molestations were made known, some people continued to deny this reality, to defend the perpetrator, to make excuses for their own failures to report the abuse and to protect the kids.
I know that I am using an extreme example, but I think it puts perspective and perception under a better light. There is a tension between unpleasant reality versus honesty with oneself and others, between experience and observation versus self-expression and possible persecution, and between suffering versus prayer, love, and mercy.
Post a Comment