Monday, August 20, 2012

Unruly

‘When you go to the Temple, be on your guard. Go near so you can hear. The offering is more valuable than the sacrifice of fools, even if they are unaware of doing wrong,’ writes the wise Qohelet (Ecclesiastes 4:17 JB). Who knows what he meant when he originally wrote down his thoughts in that ancient scroll? But as with the rest of holy and divine scripture, the Lord knows what would be made of His words from the moment they were received by the Qahal, the Church, until the end of time. I find myself remembering this verse and applying it very often these days.

‘You can tell them by their fruits,’ says the Lord in the holy gospels. ‘Can you pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles?’ His metaphor (Matthew 7:15-20) shows how ridiculously easy it is, or should be, for the disciple to distinguish false prophets from true. For what is a prophet after all, but one who dares to speak in God’s name, claiming authority which can only be given by God, who also accompanies that authority by signs? What signs? There are many. Read the bible. ‘Signs and wonders’ are more than story-telling. Infallibly, Christ’s sheep know His voice.

And so we were recently hearers of a seminarian’s homily, which seemed to revolve around the idea that what we need to do is attend more religious services, and at those we do attend, to arrive on time and not leave before they’re finished. The rewards of this good behavior were amply held out to us, and also the reverse. Heaven isn’t gained by those who stay away, but those who come to church punctually and faithfully, will have their reward. Honestly, I’ve never doubted that, but it is a general truth that cannot be used to corral and regiment the unruly flock of Christ.

For we are unruly. We follow a Lord who, though He fulfilled every commandment was yet called a law-breaker. Indeed, He observed the faith festivals of the Jews because He was a Jew, but wherever He went He revealed the Reality underlying all religious observance. What Reality? Well, that He and the Father are One, and that if we have seen Him, Jesus Christ, we have seen the Father. He keeps telling us in the gospels that He is only saying and doing what He hears the Father saying and what He sees Him doing. ‘The disciple is not superior to his Teacher’ (Matthew 10:24). We are unruly.

For the following of the Lord Jesus Christ is not the road of rules, but His life revealed to us in the scriptures is the rule of the road.

Our seminarian piously recounted for us the story of a man of his acquaintance who was very holy—so holy in fact that, like the Theotokos and many other saints, he was vouchsafed the date of his repose. What made this man holy was his faithfulness and piety. He never missed a service at the seminary chapel, Sundays or weekdays. Never came late, but always early or on time. He prayed daily the Chairetismoi, the poem written by Romanos the Melodist to glorify the Mother of God. He had a spiritual father to whom he frequently confessed and to whose word he was obedient.

The reward of his piety was a vision of the Theotokos three days before his death, which he revealed to his spiritual father. His sacrifices had been accepted, he was told. He would enter paradise in three days. And true to her word, he reposed on the third day. Such are the blessed rewards granted to the saints of God.

I have no doubt the man was a saint. I also don’t believe that the preacher even told us a tenth part of the good that this man of faith carried out for God. I wonder what it was like to know him when he was still alive in the flesh. Did he share with the young men at seminary anything of his real life, that which lay as the foundation of the pious building that they could see? Probably not, for the saints are invisible in their comings and goings, their mercies and their acts of love, invisible to themselves as well as to others. He worshiped and loved Panagia.’ I wondered, ‘Does the preacher know why?’

To hear his homily, one would gather that the highest form of devotion to God is religious activity, piling up divine liturgies, orthros and vesper and paráklisis services, placing oneself in the hands of a spiritual father—in short, becoming essentially a ‘white monastic,’ that is, to be living like a monk, but in the world, not within the monastery. I’m sorry but I don’t even remember what the gospel lesson was at that service. If he touched upon it in his homily, perhaps it was an exegetical opening for whatever else was on his mind to tell us. We all listened respectfully, as he concluded his story.

And I repeated to the man next to me in the pew who was looking a bit uncomfortable and squirming in his seat, ‘Christ’s sheep know His voice.’

1 comment:

Jacob said...

Fascinating.

He needs to read a bit more scripture and a bit less of other things:

So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

“But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

“So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

What is interesting here - of course - the kingdom is about labor vs idleness. Liturgy is an abstract reflection of the labor of love that exists in the concrete. It is the request for more resources inside for work that is being done outside.

If no work is being done outside the liturgy, there is no reasonable expectation for payment within the liturgy. This is the most basic element of the divine economy.

Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors - it is sheer lunacy to not preach these two things together, or to try to accomplish one without participating in the other at all.

Put another way, if you wish to be revitalized by liturgical practice, well - St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil carefully crafted the liturgy with as many hints and leads as possible to get a person in the right frame of mind, but you still have to actively approach the relationship. Indeed, there is a point just prior to receiving the eucharist that you are called to set aside earthly cares - for that single moment - because you are about to get paid for new labors in advance. Up until that point, however, the concrete trials and needs of the world are ever present in your mind - every person bears their own labor - evaluates their moment, their week in the case of Sunday liturgy - what does our life bring to the table? Where does love need to go? For those who are not catechumens, this is the contemplative yet laborious mode of the divine liturgy. e.g. For this place where God's love is needed, Lord have mercy. It is one's royal account of the state of the kingdom to God the Father.

A person SHOULD be able to fully craft an entire custom liturgy based entirely on the losses and needs they face every day, and the trust and faith they have in God every day, and the celebration of the resurrection that is the eucharist, where the love of God can raise us from the dead - and is therefore capable of handling lesser challenges.

But the fathers are generous and provide a liturgical formula that allows us to conduct ourselves in an upright fashion, especially on days or weeks where we can barely tell which way is up, and have no idea if God is there or not, etc. The foibles of human frailty require it. This is why, in Orthodox tradition, a priest should ALWAYS have the service book - should always read the service book - not work strictly from memory, etc.

What DO they teach them at these schools?!