The chapter that follows refers to the subject of "ethics" which has been a concern for people over the last centuries and is at the centre of existing Christianity's proposals about life. Many of these issues may now be anachronisms and may not be such a concern for some people. However, the ethical question is still important in my view and I believe it's no good just pushing it back, but good to bring it to the forefront, although I know there will be many protests and outbursts of annoyance. This is not a "new moral code of ethics" but simply some thoughts - maybe mistaken ones - which didn't only come from the writer's imagination, but which are a source of concern to many ordinary people with whom we discussed it. So I hope the arguments will be welcomed.
If you ask an ordinary person, particularly a young person, what they think of Christianity, they will probably say that it is an ideal worldview - it is love for your fellow man, which is wonderful in theory but has never worked out in practice and probably never will. The ordinary person will probably mention the Holy Inquisition and the Dark Ages, the Crusades, and maybe even refer to orgies reportedly enjoyed by high-ranking and low-ranking clergymen. The average person will probably mention lots of examples from his parish, his neighbourhood, his country and from all over the world (now that we all have TV and Internet, we are just like a big village), all showing the failure of "Actual Existing Christianity" which represents what he understands and experiences as "church." If you asked this person what his opinion would be if, by a miracle or by magic, the past could be erased and we could start again from the beginning, he might tell you that there are other problems which would prevent him joining in this way of life, and one of the most basic is the way in which the present church deals with the problem of sex.
Contemporary people who want to approach this Christian proposal and who have good intentions, still feel anxiety and guilt, all bound up with prejudices and ideas concerning "the forbidden fruit" of the sexual issue. We could point out the following landmarks if we wanted to analyse these ideas which upset and worry people so much in their lives; and which they would be able to face better if it was offered to them in a human perspective.
Adolescence
The young person's first encounter with sexual desire is almost always awkward and clumsy. It is an explosive combination of lovely, romantic, Platonic love, with a torturing, constraining, biological urge. Of course, the human sexual act is not just a mechanical procedure as it is for animals, but a complicated process where except from the physical part, there's also a "spiritual", emotional, cerebral - whatever element. This emotional participation, which is mostly kept under control by the human will, is the crucial difference between people's and animal's behaviour. If major significance is given to the mechanistic part, which until now was deliberately overlooked, it is done not to overestimate the "material" and downplay the "spiritual" element of the sexual act, but because the Church's view, if it does not ignore, certainly underestimates this dimension of the issue, and considers that it can be suppressed, without consequences, for indefinite periods of time until it is totally wiped out.
Despite the unwritten law, accepted both inside and outside the Church, that nature cannot be forced, and will take revenge if it is forced, the Church insists on deviating from this rule, without telling us clearly which part of Christ's teaching dictates this deviation. The "it is good for a man not to touch a woman"7.1 and the "eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake"7.2, refer, I think, to a particular "moment" of the dissemination of the Christian message, at a time of great need, which couldn't leave any margin for the co-existence of normal marital life with continuous preaching activity. Christianity is, of course, diachronic7.3 but some specific events "encyst"7.4 in the course of Historic Time, as for example the issue of "the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols"7.4 is a concern of a particular period of time. The Church, as living reality, faces each problem that comes up in the course of time. The Fathers in their time prayed for "those travelling by ship or road"; would it be a modern innovation to pray for "those travelling by aeroplane?" So the situation set up in those days by necessity that served a particular purpose, cannot be projected today in the way that it really is, without being combined with a "reason" for such a sacrifice.
Before a person reaches his mature and fulfilled phase of human love, he may go through other immature stages, including what the Anglo-Saxons call "release from sexual tension"; the Church laconically calls it masturbation. But what is masturbation, or in Greek "onanism"? It is Onan's crime who married, according to Jewish tradition, his deceased brother's wife. "And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother" 7.5.
What moral relationship could exist between this specific example and the widespread phenomenon ("everybody did, everybody stopped") of relief from sexual tension? Only the interpretation of the Scriptures by Pharisees, which sticks to the very letter of the Law, and which rejects God's leniency, can explain it.
Onan's situation is a classic example of practical contraception, known as "coitus interruptus", used even nowadays by people who can't afford other types of contraception. Even from a "legal" point of view, since relief from sexual tension has no motive (i.e. avoiding conception), it is not really breaking the Law as it is in the case described in the Old Testament. For any sensible honest man it seems the result of simple logic, and not sophistry or daring interpretation.
Additionally, the theoretical foundation of the "illegal act" - the particular reference in the Old Testament - refers only to the man and leaves the woman free from any guilt. And if we see it from the narrow, short-sighted view of the "letter of the Law" this is logical, since from a biological point of view in the woman there is no "fullness of hollow organs" to be emptied so as to bring about sexual relief. That's why it would have been strange for a sin to be only concerned with men, which is, of course, against every concept of impartiality and equal-rights. The last phase of the sexual episode concerns women as well, even though their participation is quite different.
There is no intention of describing the sexual act here, as it is a very complicated, integrated process of body and soul, more or less known to everybody. Only fierce defenders of the "legal" ethical purity may want to break it up and look at it in pieces. The churches of the world, from what I understand, have fragmental and incomplete views on the subject under discussion. Certainly the Roman Catholics list it as a crime or a sin, although of course the Pope frequently issues encyclicals slightly altering the list of sins. (Recently there have been newspaper reports on the exclusion of this particular "infringement" from the list of sins). I don't know about Protestants. For the Orthodox, for whom I might have an opinion, (from what may be suspected from whatsoever is "sliding" through the cracks in the wall of silence, because certainly confessors are reluctant on any such discussion), matters are more vague and thus more relaxed, with a more pronounced sense of personal sensitivity, responsibility and freedom. This attitude of course is more common among the lower echelons of married clergymen in parishes. For the "celibate" and those "in authority" we had better not say a word. "Openly" they are inexorable and unyielding, but "in secret" they fix things up and make them smoother.
The problem is not a trifling one. Without making too much of it, nor being obsessive, but also without keeping quiet, and prudishly keeping our eyes shut, the issue is that it exists. And it is perhaps one of the main obstacles that keeps young people from having a close relationship and communication with the Church. I do think it is a pity that the main, hugely influential and "catalytic" issue, of young people's spiritual course which follows puberty, to be a "formal" and perhaps mistaken interpretation of one tiny part of the Old Testament. (And I am sure that the Devil has had a hand in magnifying this "sinfulness", guilt and anxiety).
I can see and hear the anger of relentless representatives of the priesthood. They seem to be saying, will everything be leveled, will we give our blessing to unharnessed immunity from guilt? Wait a moment, reverends. Please modify the strength of your thunder and lightning and don't only look at the legal aspect but at the biological side of our unhappy earthly reality. There are also other biological functions (and "emptying of hollow organs") which we look on as disgusting, because we are so "respectable", although of course doctors and medical staff can look at them in their real dimension. Leave the "height" and the "air" of the curule chair7.6 behind and become doctors yourselves as you should. Don't be hard on young people who get unavoidably dirty as they pass through the mud. Give them the strength and courage to see clearly ahead of them, instead of looking down at the mud, and losing sight of the vision of a beautiful life full of love. Help them so that their journey may be short in their quest to find this beautiful life.
Maybe here we should mention another much misunderstood issue, which has been blown out of all proportion by the narrow-mindedness of some priests and high-up clergy. It is the "but I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart"7.7, which upsets both sinners and confessors. Is the choice of the word "adultery" totally a coincidence? And if it is not what is the meaning of "adultery"? Does not it mean that the man or woman concerned here must be married? Then of course the meaning of the verse becomes completely clear. Here the insidious threat to the sacredness of the marriage tie is defeated at its roots. It is not by chance that in most human societies there are clear signs which easily allow a third party to understand whether a man or a woman are united in matrimony. Furthermore, the inhibitions which are established early at a young age, neutralising the "desire" not only for relatives or friends of the other sex, but also for "engaged" persons, develop reflexes which almost automatically protect humans from falling into this sin. And here the narrow-mindedness is revealed: "Nomothetes"7.8 themselves, above Him, who sets the limits ("because of the infirmity of [ ] flesh"7.9), ignore the meaning of adultery and expand it "after their own pleasure"7.10 , to other situations outside marriage.
It is pretty miserable and wretched to become obsessed with this quotation in particular, when in the same chapter of the Gospel according to Saint Mathew it is stated categorically: "But I say unto you, Swear not at all"7.11. This is not a sufficient reason for the existing Church to enforce the forbidding of oath (as in the case of the "evil seeing") but, on the contrary, to impose it and bless it. Why should there always be double standards?
The natural attraction between two people who are not bound together by marriage, but who do not rule out this possibility, and are even going in that direction, is deemed a deadly sin. The Church prays for remission of sins and faults. In our "sharp contention"7.11a zeal as "Lawgivers" we equate felonies with misdemeanours and put ourselves at rest. Haven't we done the same with the misdemeanour of "relief from sexual tension"?
Where can love find place to blossom in the uptight garden, which is full of "thorns and thistles", traps, guilt and sterile prohibitions? Love suffered from the pettiness and narrow-mindedness of traditional "spokesmen" for the spirit of Christianity. But love is the forerunner of God's great love to mankind and our love of God. How can we comprehend the splendour of this Love? God gave us the opportunity to enjoy some nuggets of this Love on earth. For example the love that parents and children have for each other, the love between relatives or real friends and, of course, the love between man and woman, a beautiful, pure, real love. I don't think there's anyone on earth who hasn't tasted even a little of these types of love, and if there is such a person, he must be very unhappy. Of course the love that earthly man experiences, passes through our "bondage of corruption"7.12 and "changed" nature, and there is the same relevance between this and Divine Love as between our blurred reflection in the ancient mirror and our true faces.
Love and preparation for marriage
During adolescence, and afterwards, a young person feels the sexual instinct in its biological form, but he will also know it as a wonderful and thrilling experience of love. Regardless of whether they find a kindred spirit, their other half that suits them perfectly (or just a person who has nothing in common but love's madness drives them on) when the "romantic" period is over, they will feel the overwhelming and overmastering need to consummate this relationship physically.
Let us not forget that the sexual instinct is as strong (sometimes even stronger) than the other basic instinct of self-preservation which everyone has. And we must not overlook the fact that this emerges from a strong complexus of systems and organs, from the nervous, endocrine and genitourinary (with the participation of skin, cardiovascular and respiratory) systems, down to the last muscle, nerve or gland cell. All this solid, but harmonious biological background was not created by the cunning and devious human brain, but was given to him as a gift not only for his perpetuation, but also for his pleasure, happiness and completion: to give and receive love. People's perversion and cunning is shown in the fact that they heighten it to an end in itself and make it the main purpose (together with authority, power and money) of their earthly life. This is no excuse for their "demonisation" (whether conscious or unconscious) by existing Christianity or Christian authorities. To them, the happiness Love offered to the human being is a compromise, "concession" and almost out of necessity, allowed marginally and within preset strict conditions. On the other hand, the suppression and strangling of instinct (especially for the whole life) is for them the best, the ideal, "the angel's way" (even if only for a few people) to lead a Christian life. For them, the central point or nucleus of Christian teaching is not Love, but the strict upholding of Christian "ethics". There is no ray of understanding or sympathy for the poor man who is squeezed between the Hammer of (forcibly and with the brunt of a natural phenomenon coming about) Impetus and the Anvil of inflexible, relentless and merciless Law. Even if a right-minded cleric wanted to express public sympathy and solidarity for his tortured fellow men, he would never dare, because immediately would start up the conspiracy of whispering that he was apparently trying to give amnesty to his own "improprieties". It is as if there is no margin of leniency for the fact that our poor man is not responsible for the construction of neural networks, reflexes, hormone secretions and the reproduction of cell populations.
A real person, who as such combines the earthly and the heavenly, tries to live his life, honouring the two elements of his existence. "It is not good that the man should be alone"7.13. This divine assertion, our daily experience, is what a real person tries to approach within the limits of his capabilities. First and foremost the field of fulfillment is marriage. But when somebody finds their partner and when they ensure the conditions necessary to build their "nest", it is not as simple as planning dreamy vacations! Marriage is a painful daily struggle which is helped and supplemented by God's grace. They are asking for the latter and trying hard for the former. In the mean time, life progresses with its own implacable rhythms. There is no magic button that you can (even with a great effort) switch off and on at will and at the "right" time: to put desire on hold, to stop erotic feelings. Of course it is true that our daily toil, spiritual life, continuous alertness, persistent effort in the years when we are building the prerequisites of our earthly happiness (because real happiness "is not of this world"7.14) alleviates the tension and makes its control less troublesome. The fact that we are always in a rush, continually under pressure during our creative years, searching for happiness, all this moderates the intensity of natural urges and makes it easier to control them. We can all remember our hardworking student years and their stress, or our tears while attempting to make a career for ourselves. All these assisted our struggle for patience and perseverance; and helped us so that our path of waiting and deprivation would not seem endless.
Nowadays too, there is stress and uncertainty, but the economic comfort secured by the toil of the previous generation, the "after midnight" life - a "tread" for young and old - , the continuous presence of "personal" TV with its stormy and distorted erotic excitement make things more difficult and tormenting. (Fortunately there is the natural defense of satiation).
Here real effort and struggle is needed. But battles are not always victorious. Life is too hard for the difficulties to be overcome with "pedagogic" slogans and transitory artificial enthusiasms which bring excitement, which is shortly replaced by "emergency landings". And what about the Church? Instead of helping people by trying (on a large scale or on a personal level) to make the long journey short and to confirm Jesus' words "my burden is light"7.15), they make their struggle harder by telling them to read "Pure Youth"7.16 , or the lives of saintly monks; identifying the consummation of erotic relationships with the sin of prostitution! When just the opening of a dictionary would solve any misunderstanding. In the end what is prostitution? "The practice of engaging in relatively indiscriminate sexual activity, in general with individuals other than a spouse or friend, in exchange for immediate payment in money or other valuables". How easily they compare the, in an atmosphere of love and companionship (with the prospect of marriage) relationship, with a "cold", "bought" act. Obsolete minds insist in wordiness7.17, refusing even to agree on the meaning of a word; thus showing to the struggling young man the Church's hard, relentless and fierce face.
Family Planning - Birth Control
As a person inevitably grows older, and passes the stage of the awakening of the sexual instinct and the time of (successfully or unsuccessfully) falling in love, married life, except in a minority of cases, is next on the list. Here you would expect to breathe a sigh of relief and our Christian should freely be able to enjoy blessed conjugal life with all its consequences. This is not the case however. The new situation is that you must operate on certain narrow rails, be very careful not to get de-railed, and stick only to a certain timetable. In the case of matrimony there are no hard and fast rules, but it is not difficult to invent them. A verse from the Old Testament ("God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply"7.18 and another from the New Testament ("woman will be saved through bearing children"7.19), of a broad "euchological"7.20 character, without specific commandments being substantiated, are transformed to halters which strangle every possibility of the enjoyment of love within a marriage.
But let us try to decipher how a simple Christian could understand this depressing situation. How could he accept that a fatherly blessing, given by every parent at their child's wedding, "be fruitful, and multiply" can suddenly change into an implacable command and complete coercion! The desire to "multiply" is of course part of his DNA, a gift of the Creator and a necessary condition for the perpetuation of His Creation to which He gave His blessing. How many people, who do not consciously accept the idea of a Creator, obeying this inner command, continuously wish and try to have offspring! Do not tell me that it is only the rich and famous of this world who egoistically pursue the perpetuation of their wealth, their authority and fame. Simple people, with no selfishness and self-love, pursue the joy of children. Whenever this pursuit becomes difficult or unattainable their desire becomes an obsession, a mania, so that we are amazed at how many sacrifices and expenses they will undertake to achieve their goal. At the same time, people do have the right and the freedom to decide responsibly how many children they want to have, according to their economic situation.
People with these reasonable ideas, are imposed on by the Church to have as many children as possible. And what if these responsible and free people see that they can not really support or bring up as many children as this, if they want to give them even the basics? Then they commit the sin of "little faith" or "non trust" in the God. So simple!
Should not the Church take into consideration that bringing lives into the world demands a measure of foresight and responsibility? You can not just leave them to their fate or to God's Providence. The Church seems to say: "that's your problem." Ahead waits the eternal punishment "offered" by the Church; behind lies the "hell" offered by the reality of life. Where is the beauty, the warmth, and the consolation of Jesus, who said "my yoke is easy, and my burden is light"7.21?
I believe that child-bearing and the upbringing of children, is one of our many roads to salvation. The pain, sacrifice and bitter experiences of parents are really the testing ground of faith, perseverance and love, but not the only one. If for any reason you do not have children - you may not be married - you will not go to hell. A perverse idea, but one that is right for the celibate, is this: the dissociation between pleasure and the process of reproduction is not allowed. You could say that this is obvious, but if you look more closely, you will see that it is not so simple. "Behold the fowls of the air"7.22. We can see from this that the beautiful winged passer-by in heaven is enjoying the delicious fruit of the cherry tree. The cherry tree is generously offering (without the wretched principle of "one for you and one for me" bartering), the sweet fruit with the seed for the multiplying of the plant. This does not mean that this relationship is an unequal one, since many times when conditions are favourable the aim of the cherry-tree is accomplished. In this context we should have thought of the fact that not every erotic contact actually starts off the reproduction process. The fact that in each intercourse the male provides millions of genital cells in order for fertilisation to be achieved, has something (apart from selecting the best among millions) to tell us. Nature is not stingy; compared to people's misery it is very generous. It is also indubitable that a person with diabetes who can not use sugar, uses saccharine or aspartame without any feeling of guilt for the dissociation of enjoyment from dietary need. Isn't it the same for overweight people who go for tasty snacks with as few calories as possible?
Long ago things were much stricter. They say (and let the theologians tell us if it is a mistake) that Saint Kosmas7.23 advised couples to avoid intercourse after the wife became pregnant. Today things are more relaxed, since the Pope who looks after the details of conjugal life, allows the use of some "natural" methods of contraception. Now, whether it is better to use a thermometer to determine a woman's most fertile time of the month, or whether you should use another method of contraception, I leave it to specialists and theologians who became experts in biology issues, to find the right verse from Holy Scriptures to enlighten us.
Times have changed, and some basic ideas have changed too. In the past some of those who interpreted Christian ethics very strictly, published a book with the title: "Salvation through Child-bearing". I had not read it because it was not really of interest to me at that time. But when I went to look for it later, I was informed that it was no longer available. But the notions of this book still survive in the minds of some people. Fortunately in very few, because I think that the vast majority of Orthodox married priests and lay-people now believe that freedom and responsibility is the answer. On this point, as on many others, the Orthodox chose a wise, prudent and clever strategy. Despite the demands of a hard-core group "to take sides", the Orthodox did not tie themselves up with decisions made by the Holy Synod, which would have had to be revoked. The slow-moving bureaucracy of the "Synodic"7.24 system at least has some good points.
Towards a more human approach
Finding himself with this "strict tackling" and being closely watched throughout his sexually active life (which for a man is only a few years less than the total of his biological existence) the poor man goes on and enjoys the short earthly life, gifted to him. A lot of pressure is put on him for all relative activities, every thought or action which does not follow the canons of the Church, makes him believe he is guilty and that there is sufficient reason for strict punishment. That is why it is no coincidence - against the opposite claims - that the number of consciously religious people, objectively speaking, are being dramatically reduced. That is a pity, because one of the main reasons for this falling off, is the facing of this issue in a narrow-minded and scholastic spirit, in direct contrast to the Christian Spirit ("The wind blows where it wills)"7.24a .
That is fine up to here. Maybe lots of people would agree with the above statements. But by itself, that means nothing. We are all very good at judging and criticising, we all have outbursts of rage when narrow-mindedness and hypocrisy overstep the mark. But if we imagined that we had the magic ability to abolish in one moment whatever annoyed us, what would be our proposal for a replacement?
The prevailing idea nowadays concerning our existence, and the materialistic admission that everything in this world is created and evolved by chance, even though there are inevitable necessary social barriers, leads to a situation of immunity or unrestrained behaviour. I do not think any of my readers would in their hearts accept the ethics of the cave and the jungle. So what is the alternative? I think everyone knows in their heart of hearts. First of all, we all agree that love is a delightful, thrilling, sweet experience. It is true that the meeting of two people in a divine breeze, which lifts them into magical and unknown worlds, is probably the most superb thing you can experience in this life. It is the foretaste, or shadowy experience of the great, unique, holy love we are waiting for. But it is also true that there are very few who can say that they experienced this delightful thing in all its fullness.
For current church circles everything is ideal and incredibly simple. The young person is born and grows up in an idyllic family environment. He learns "Christian teaching" from his very early years. He gets through adolescence fighting with his sword, defeating unethical desires, then he finds with his "incorporeal" eyes (so as not “look at [her] lustfully") a kindred spirit who gives him her soul but not her body, until after marriage (except, perhaps, for an allowable stolen kiss). If the wedding is unavoidably delayed for any reason (and we know how difficult it is to set up an average, tolerable "family nest" these days), they try to endure the martyrdom of the "forbidden fruit" by any means possible as long as they keep to the conventions. The two young people, victorious, are crowned in the wedding ceremony, create the family they so much wanted, they find love, respect and tenderness in one another, have lots of children, that they bring up in the Church so as to continue in their turn, the perfect new circle of life.
Meanwhile the blissful parents continue their calm and peaceful lives, understanding and respecting each other, in wonderful earthly happiness. Everything will be perfect, nothing will spoil or injure the dignity of these couples (things that usually happen in other non-Christian couples). Unfortunately, sometimes this is all a hypocritical cover-up. This type of "ideal" life with no spot or wrinkle, hiding hypocrisy, cannot move a free, lively, uncompromised young person, even though a Christian life is still far better than the life of a couple that believes in nothing but their personal satisfaction and the enjoyment of material goods.
But apart from the "saintly" and the "materialistic" way of life, there is also the "human". This lifestyle is based on the idea that the world and the human race are not products of Chance and Necessity, but of a higher Power, full of love. The human being has got a material and biological background, but it also has the gift of something divine (the "breath of God"), which separates it from other animate beings. So this person, either by "revelation" or self-knowledge accepts that in the frame of Creation and of life, the sexual instinct, while similar to that of animals, functions on a different level, presupposes love and attraction, and finds its human expression in a permanent self-sacrificial but rewarding relationship, that of marriage, which is something more than a biological, social, or material relationship. First and foremost, it is the best place to bring up children in a normal, harmonious environment. For those who believe in God, it is a divine institution, where a couple can approach, as far as it is humanly possible, the harmony of body and soul. This is the ideal, and must be seen as such, but because the ideal is to be approached, not to be conquered, those who recommend it must make it clear that this utopian view is not open to everyone, just because they want it.
So many couples who seem perfect on the outside, hide hypocrisy, ulterior motives, feelings of insecurity, anxiety, guilt and fear. It would be unjust to deny that many couples who follow the commands of present-day Christianity live a harmonious and happy life. This does not rule out many other couples, who are not "in the bridal chamber", but who enjoy a similar lifestyle.
There can be, of course, no discussion concerning the materialistic view of the existence (and consequently of marriage), which was kept egotistically far from every human attempt to break, with divine help, the shell of brutish individuality and to breathe fresh air. Earthly man drags himself around with no purpose or reason, on the surface of the earth, which was made and abandoned by a blind, inhuman and merciless fate. In this context, it is easy to see how falsely they experience the joy of love.
So we must say "no" to the ideal, theoretic, perfect way, "no" to the materialistic, earthly, brutish way; "yes" to the humane version. A young person should go through his life, in particular this difficult and sensitive period of it, without anxiety, taboo, and feelings of guilt. He knows that his life will not be perfect or idyllic. There will be diversions and deviations from his ideal progress. He would very much like it to be ideal, but his compass has not stuck on the fact that the centre of his spiritual life should be how he deals with the sexual instinct. It is of course a part, and an important one, of the whole Christian way of life, just like all the other issues dealt with in the Commandments. This young person does not fall into the devil's trap of trying to make him forget that the main, exclusive purpose of our life here is the exercise of Love for God and to our fellow men, and everything else is to help and serve this unique purpose. "These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone”7.25.
Fortunately we have Jesus' sweet gaze to help us. He "hath redeemed us from the curse of the law" and the inhumane authority of the Scribes and Pharisees. (I do know that I grieve and upset many true Christians, clerics and lay-people, who will think it unjust that I have put them in the same category. I do remind them for the hundredth time that they are not to be numbered with the rest, but must enjoy the love and honour of the people who despite the gloom and confusion, can still hear, see, and understand, and give just praise). A married priest who is very proper in his behaviour, because he does not have authority, wishes to imitate Jesus in his tenderness and love of humanity, when he meets each unique human personality, whom God has entrusted him with, but is crushed between tradition which says he has personal responsibility for the "sins" of his flock where he was not strict enough, and the impending suspicion of his Bishop that he is falling into heretical ideas.
[7.1] 1 Cor. 7, 1
[7.2] Mat. 19, 12
[7.3] dia = through, chronos = time; of, relating to, or dealing with phenomena (as of language or culture) as they occur or change over a period of time
[7.4]1 Cor. 8, 4
[7.5] Ge. 38, 9
[7.6] Latin Sella Curulis, a style of chair reserved in ancient Rome for the use of the highest government dignitaries and usually made like a campstool with curved legs. Ordinarily made of ivory, with or without arms, it probably derived its name from the chariot (currus) in which a magistrate was conveyed to a place of judgment; it served early as a seat of judgment.
[7.7] Mat. 5, 28
[7.8] Nomothete = Lawmaker, from nomos = law,
theto = put
[7.9] Rom. 6, 19
[7.10] Hebr. 12, 10
[7.11]Mat. 5, 34
[7.11a] Act. 15, 39
[7.12] Rom. 8, 21
[7.13] Ge. 2, 18
[7.14] Joh. 18, 36
[7.15] Mat. 11, 30
[7.16] A book written by the Hungarian writer Tihamer Toth ("trendy" of the 50's) enforcing an ideal, "pure", Quakerish life style.
[7.17] It is not irrelevant that in Greek "wordiness" is synonymous to "Byzantinology".
[7.18] Gen. 1, 22
[7.19] 1 Tim. 2, 15
[7.20] Euchologion = book of prayers and liturgical wishes
[7.21] Mat. 11, 30
[7.22] Mat. 6, 26
[7.23] A local Saint, who lived and preached in the Northern-West areas of Greece, during the late period of Ottoman domination.
[7.24] In Eastern Orthodoxy no bishop can be consecrated or exercise his ministry without being in unity with his colleagues—i.e., be a member of an episcopal council, or "Synod". In this democratic system the Head (Metropolite, Archbishop or Patriarch) is "Primus inter pares" (First among equals).
[7.24a] Joh. 3, 8
[7.25] Mat. 23, 23
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment