I am an ordinary, anonymous person, who is the subject of many kinds of authority. I am a citizen for my country, a member for my society, a consumer for the business, a fan for football, a voter to the political parties, a viewer for the television stations and a believer for religion.
All these authorities state pompously that they are working for me; they are serving me, indeed exhausting themselves for me. I wish I could believe them, but I just cannot, especially when they exaggerate. Of course they care and they do a lot for me, not out of the goodness of their hearts but for the simple reason that they cannot exist without me.
I fully realise that all the above social structures, apart from religion, exist for a selfish, yet legitimate, purpose: their own benefit. If to a certain extent they do assist me, I acknowledge it, and I am grateful, as far as I can trace and evaluate it.
I do get upset though when religion takes part in this game. This is what I am going to concentrate on, and to be frank with my co-mortals, who are honouring these lines with their attention, I want to warn them: if they are not interested in this subject (note: not religion itself but the personal attitude of a free individual regarding religion, in the context of the problem of existence), then let them not waste their time without reason. They have chosen the wrong book to read.
Of course religion does not accept that it has any authority over us and abominates any such suggestion. By saying "Religion" (in Greece) we mean Christian teaching (whatever that means for each of us on a theoretical or practical level), and to ascribe "authority" to such a concept is really unfair. However, if we mean our present situation of "coordinated" and "delegated" men of the Church, expressed in a particular administrative structure, we can certainly speak without hesitation of authority, which has a further adverse circumstance for Religion. All types of authority have had to create channels for some kind of feedback: The state with its periodic elections, the media have their popularity polls and dialogue with viewers and readers, consumer society has market research and so forth. There is nothing like that for religion, which for some people might seem strange, even unacceptable.
The prevailing religion sends forth its message, proclaims its teaching in any possible way, but it has not formulated a means to evaluate to what extent its message is perceived by its follower. Not only if it is merely acceptable but also whether it is comprehensible at least. It is not taken into account whether some topics, which consist of an obstinately repeated sermon and do not refer to basic dogmatic issues (where any discussion is meaningless) arouse the spiritual interest of the faithful or simply exhaust him, sometimes to the point of un-avowed indignation. Such matters of non-primary importance are, for example, the scholastic observance of Byzantine form in worship, or the extravagant praise and unbounded support of Byzantine history (whose legacy are imperial mitres and costly vestments) and the massive and indiscriminate upgrading of every old tradition to a dogmatic acceptance.
I am not in a position to know if there is in our country or indeed anywhere in the world, an honest, integrated, and continuous procedure from (any) Church to listen to "the people which stand by"1.1 who are according to the Church itself, free, unique and unrepeatable personalities. Did the Church ever listen to them? Did it ever hold a frank conversation with them like the one Christ had with the Samaritan woman? With the lawyer1.2, the rich young man asking for eternal life1.3 , the person who beat him during his martyrdom or his disciple Thomas? With the latter especially, He did not lash out at him, but accepted his doubts, and seeing his good intention, He, very reasonably and graciously, helped him with tangible evidence in order to get over them.
Our modern day religious society is not accustomed, for the most part, to this kind of dialogue. Have you ever come across people with merely different points of view being invited to take part in religious programs, seminars and the like? (Stop press: God permitted us to see this a short while ago: A well-known member of the Communist Party was heard on the Church Channel. (Would that such self-evident but previously unthinkable practices be continued)!
And these practices were impossible to imagine because around the corner lies in wait the "deviation from the True Faith", "heresy", the "curse of the monastic community" - the cerberi1.4 of religious tradition and heritage. God did not hesitate to put the future of the human race at risk, respecting the freedom which He himself gave - the freedom of choice and personal responsibility. This is the price of freedom: danger and risk. Little lead toy soldiers, unlike human beings, are at no risk of losing their lives.
Certain contemporary religious leaders are so "enlightened", that they consider any difference of opinion as a "scandal" or as the loss of sheep from their flock. They do not even suspect that they should search for the cause of the scandal elsewhere and should accept the simple fact that to make someone follow you it is not enough to bombard them with "words for words and other words"1.5 but to explain simply and frankly your point of view, to let them hear other opinions and to allow them to make their own free choice, not with words as the main criterion, but deeds (“in secret”1.6 , not blown-up for people to see). Then it is possible for them to trust, not you, the authority, but the Truth. You know what the Truth is, but you do not seem to fully trust it.
Unfortunately, the dialogue of today is like this: These are the given beliefs and traditions of the Church. Either you accept them as they are and stay, or you do not accept them, and leave. But what if this tradition overcomes or abolishes the "Law"? For example, Christ’s teaching says clearly "Swear not at all"1.7. Yet tradition allows and sometimes imposes it. Clearly referred to also that "a bishop may be the husband of a woman"1.8, but tradition insists on the celibacy of bishops. Who does it refer to when it says “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition”1.9?
This tradition! From being a precious and treasured experience of "God’s people", at a particular place and time, it has ended up as a “Procrustean”1.10 bed on which every free individual’s good or bad deed is measured. At the same time, an automatic issue of a decision to condemn, "weighed, measured and found lacking"1.11is made, not by a heavenly Judge, but by his earthly “infallible” representative.
It is just as if you see someone with your own eyes murdering a fellow man: you get out your gun without hesitation and exact justice. You don't need a Judge since you caught him red-handed. Saint Paul, the Apostle of the Nations says: "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God"1.12.
Did you have a civil marriage ceremony? If so you have put yourself "out of the camp"1.13. Is it impossible that you have repented even at the last moment? Is it unlikely that you would believe, accepting that you are liable to error, that this "unlawful act" could not be a deadly sin? Is it possible that each person's thoughts and intentions could be "followed" by the parish clergyman at every moment? So that instead of expecting Final Judgment, you are sent to Hell beginning from this life, without even having a proper burial.
(On this point it could be argued that this practice hardly ever happened. True, because the vast majority of parish clergy, to do them justice, prefer not always to follow the "bishop's line" to the letter and rather obey their own conscience and their own sense of decency).
To such a level have we lowered the area of Freedom, where by God’s grace and not by keeping to the rules, are found the beloved disciple of Jesus, but also the Thief, the Myrrh Bearing Women, but also the Whore, the Prodigal’s brother, but also the Prodigal himself, the Righteous Joseph but also the Unjust Publican; shortly, the whole of humanity? The answer is ready on the tip of the tongue: has penitence been forgotten? Not at all. But penitence may not be exclusively certified by the priest or by society. The malefactor on the Cross may have something to tell us.
As to whether penitence exists and how real it is, only one Person can tell. Unless we think we know it all. And we interpret some concessions by God for administrative qualifications in our present life to fill the needs of our human frailty as an unchecked and absolute authority of "bind and loose"1.14. "Does it hold true that there are the "anise and cummin" and the "weightier matters of the law"1.15 a normal devout person may ask. Of course the distinction holds true, they answer. So why does the Church put our conventional Sunday and Feast-Day church-going (nobody says we should abolish it) on the same level or even higher than the very essence of Christianity, the constant exercise of Love?
Does the Church make mistakes? Yes and no. As a holy institution, no. As an activity of earthly representatives who, of course, are likely to make errors and wrong choices, yes. What are these errors and wrong choices, did you ever find the courage to ask? We are asked to examine ourselves and to be penitent every day. Have you ever looked at yourselves? Unless you mean that the only self analysis people care about today is when you proclaimed someone, rightly or wrongly, as a Saint.
Are you beyond judgment, falsifying the meaning of "judge not, that ye be not judged"1.16? Of course we should not judge persons. This is not our responsibility and we must not appropriate to ourselves responsibilities that are not ours. We must show love and understanding for our brother, whoever he is. But don't we have the right, at least, to make known our point of view, even if it is mistaken, or would that be seen as libel against the Church?
If someone criticises a particular point of view or practice of Church leadership, does that mean that he is fighting the Church itself? Is it not a little egotistical to identify the hierarchy of the Church with its lay members? Does the congregation owe its existence to the leaders of the Church? Does anyone ever deny, that there are luminaries in the higher echelons of the Church who are full of love, and who enjoy the spontaneous respect and honour of their flock?
You must not fall into the trap of generalisation, when you know that even among the Scribes there was a Nicodemus, but can these exceptions be an alibi, to prevent every adverse criticism or difference of opinion?
The history of the Church refers to many examples of the criticism of situations, not persons, with the purpose of improving the "area" that somebody cares for and loves. Why do you pre-judge the intention of every man? Can you possibly "trieth the hearts and reins"1.17 to know with certainty who is a hypocrite or Pharisee? If he has "spoken evil, bear witness of the evil"1.18 and present more substantial arguments instead of resorting to easy insults, such as "Heretic", "Atheist", or "Jehovah’s Witness". That is what the lay-person expects from you, not copying practices and methods of political parties and ideological tirades. He wants to feel that the Church is above all that.
The aforementioned reflections are not concerned with all religious people and their spiritual leadership, nor do they mean to dispute the worthiness, or the treasure of the earthly presence of the Kingdom of God. On the contrary, they want to help, insofar as a humble human being can help.
[1.1] Joh. 11, 42
[1.2] Luk. 10, 25
[1.3] Mar. 10, 22
[1.4] Cerberus (pl. cerberi) = a dog
represented in mythology (such as that of
Ancient Greece and Scandinavia) as standing guard in the underworld.
In Greek mythology this was Cerberus, a three-headed, dragon-tailed dog.
[1.5] G. Seferis (Nobel Prize, 1963)
[1.6] Mat. 6, 4
[1.7] "But I say unto you, Swear not at all;
neither by heaven; for it is God's throne"
Mat. 5, 34
[1.8] "A bishop then must be the husband of
one wife" 1 Tim. 3, 2
[1.9] Mar. 7, 13
[1.10] "Procrustean" from Procrustes = also called
Polypemon, Damastes, or Procoptas, in Greek legend, a robberdwelling somewhere in Attica-in some versions, in the neighbourhood of Eleusis. His father was said to be Poseidon. Procrustes had an iron bed (or, according to some accounts, two beds) on which he compelled his victims to lie. Here, if a victim was shorter than the bed, he stretched him by hammering or racking the body to fit. Alternatively, if the victim was longer than the bed, he cut off the legs to make the body fit the bed's length. In either event the victim died. Ultimately Procrustes was slain by his own method at the hands of the young Attic hero Theseus, who as a young man went about slaying robbers and monsters that pervaded the countryside. The "bed of Procrustes" or "Procrustean bed" has become proverbial for arbitrarily - and perhaps ruthlessly - forcing someone or something to fit into an unnatural scheme or pattern.
[1.11] Greek saying
[1.12] 1 Cor. 4, 5
[1.13] Le 24, 14
[1.14] "And I will give unto thee the keys of
the kingdom of heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" Mat. 16, 19
[1.15] "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint
and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone". Mat. 23, 23
[1.16] Mat. 7, 1
[1.17] "the righteous God trieth the hearts and
reins" Ps. 7, 9 or "thou who triest the minds and hearts, thou righteous God". Trieth, triest = tries
[1.18] "Jesus answered him, If I have spoken
evil, bear witness of the evil: but
if well, why smitest thou me"? Joh. 18, 23
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment