It has been a decade since the 2016 Pan-Orthodox Council took place in Crete. Some may consider it a flop; others may hail some of its decisions as important in world Orthodoxy (albeit, these hails seem to be quite faint). The Russian Church, the largest by numbers and accounting for approximately half of all Orthodox Christians in the world, did not participate in the Council, and neither did the Churches of Antioch, Georgia, and Bulgaria. The Orthodox Church in America (OCA) was not invited. Should the Good Lord tarry, there will be another council eventually, and the organizers may do a better job next time.

The idea of convening a pan-Orthodox council may date as far back as 1902. In 1930, one of the earliest meetings of an inter-Orthodox preparatory committee was held on Mount Athos. Two World Wars later, in 1961, the preparations began in earnest with a meeting of a pan-Orthodox conference in Rhodes. In 1968, the preparatory committee met in Geneva and prepared drafts of some of the documents. One of those documents is of particular interest to our project; it is titled The harmonization of ecclesiastical rules on fasting with the requirements of modern life.1

Unfortunately, what was adopted in 2016 is nowhere near as useful as what was proposed in 1968. The 2016 document titled The importance of fasting and its observance today consists of nine paragraphs, eight of which are little more than pious platitudes of no practical importance. Paragraph nine is the only one worth re-visiting here:

Fasting for three or more days prior to Holy Communion is left to the discretion of the piety of the faithful, according to the words of Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite: “… fasting before partaking of Communion is not decreed by the divine Canons. Nevertheless, those who are able to fast even a whole week before it, are doing the right thing” (Commentary of the 13^th canon of Sixth Ecumenical Council, Pedalion – English translation 307). However, the totality of the Church’s faithful must observe the holy fasts and the abstinence from food from midnight for frequent participation in Holy Communion, which is the most profound expression of the essence of the Church. The faithful should become accustomed to fasting as an expression of repentance, as the fulfillment of a spiritual pledge, to achieve a particular spiritual end in times of temptation, in conjunction with supplications to God, for adults approaching the sacrament of baptism, prior to ordination, in cases where penance is imposed, as well as during pilgrimages and other similar instances.

Abstain from food from midnight and become accustomed to fasting to achieve a particular spiritual end. (It is rather unfortunate that the latter clause is not elaborated.) While it is not necessarily completely useless to re-state the obvious from time to time, it is nonetheless disappointing that it took over a century of preparation and an elevated council convened at a great expense to remind the faithful that they should fast before Communion.

The 1968 document was far more interesting and useful. It was prepared by the Church of Serbia and included an overview of the fasting discipline beginning with pre-Christian times as well as a number of recommendations for the faithful of our time. We may return to the aforementioned overview in another post, for it is interesting in its own right, but for now, let us take a closer look at the practical recommendations:

1. All currently valid orders regarding fasting are to be strictly observed by monks and those who wish to do so from the sacred clergy and pious people.

   Note: This point creates a two-tier system - one for monastics and those who wish to imitate them (at least in the fasting discipline) and a different one for everyone else. This seems sensible, considering that the current fasting practice was developed by monks for monks and was not necessarily meant for lay people carrying their cross in the world. (It seems unclear what is meant by “all currently valid orders,” but since this is directed primarily at monks, we shall not dwell on this here.)

2. All other Christians who have difficulties in following the existing orders about fasting due to conditions of life, climate, the availability of fasting food, and also with the aim of preserving in God’s people the mindfulness of the sacred institution of fasting and temperance, to allow the consumption of certain, non-fasting, in modern understanding, foodstuffs, which must be understood as a softening of the fast.

   Note: Once again, there is that word - “orders”; and once again, it is unclear what the Serbs mean by that. Are there actual orders or even decrees issued by Serbian hierarchs concerning fasting? It may be interesting to peruse some of these orders. As for the larger point, and as we have discussed repeatedly elsewhere, the fasting rules as we have them were developed in the Mediterranean world, and it seems unreasonable to rely on shrimp while living in the Mid-West or to look for olive oil in Upstate New York. To be sure, these foods may be available through global transportation networks and refrigeration, but it is hardly sustainable to observe a fast while relying on products from another part of the globe or ones that cost several times the price of local food. Such practices destroy the essence of the Christian fast and turn it into a rabbinical practice of kashrut - a very, very different discipline.

3. Observe the fast on Wednesdays and Fridays all year but with the allowance of plant oil and fish, except the times when these days coincide with the feasts of the Elevation of the Cross, Beheading of John the Forerunner, Eve of Theophany, and also Wednesdays and Fridays of Great Lent.

4. Leave in place the orders of the Typikon concerning Wednesdays and Fridays of fast-free weeks. Besides this, allow the consumption of non-fasting foods on all Wednesdays and Fridays in the period from Thomas Sunday until Ascension.

   Note: That is to say, this point makes the entire 40 days from Pascha to Ascension fast-free. Some traditions already do this - contrary to the Typikon - but not the Russian tradition, and, apparently, not the Serbian one either.

5. Keep the length of Great Lent in its present form, according to the instructions of the Typikon and its orders concerning the quality and kind of food in the First and Passion Weeks. On all other days of Lent - from the second week until Palm Sunday - allow the consumption of fish and plant oil, except on Wednesdays and Fridays (see par. 3).

   Note: What is obviously missing from this recommendation is any mention of actual fasting during Lent - that is to say, abstaining from food until evening, for example, as we have discussed numerous times elsewhere. Perhaps, the Commission is leaving this question to the discretion of each individual Christian (which, perhaps, would be quite sensible, if it were so).

6. Concerning the Nativity Fast, the Commission offers two options:

   a) to shorten it to 20 days, beginning the fast on the day following the memory of Great Martyr Barbara (see instruction in the Typikon), and during the entirety of the fast, allow the consumption of fish and plant oil, except for the last five days, or

   b) to keep the fast at 40 days and allow fish and oil on all days, except the first three and the last three, in which to keep a strict fast.

7. Limit Peter’s Fast to eight days before the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul, when the period between the Sunday of All Saints and the Feast is more than eight days. During the entirety of the Fast, allow fish and plant oil.

8. Keep the Dormition Fast in its present form in length, but allow the consumption of fish and plant oil on all days, except Wednesdays and Fridays.

9. Allow the consumption of non-fasting food on the Feasts of Peter and Paul and Dormition, if they happen to fall on Wednesday or Friday

It seems clear that what the Commission proposed was the return to earlier fasting practices - perhaps, more than a thousand years earlier in some cases - before the monastic rules and “orders” as we know them were fully developed, and before they gradually gained influence in the lives of the laity. This is certainly not an unreasonable direction to take: make lengthy fasts less lengthy or less strict in order to allow for stricter and more meaningful observances of shorter fasts and special days immediately before major feasts. If these recommendations were ever adopted by the Church, they would eliminate the unnecessary and unproductive feelings of guilt by those who cannot keep monastic “orders,” while allowing those so inclined to keep as strict a fast as they wish (which, to be fair, has always been an option). Another important point is brought up in recommendation number two which mentions both climate and the availability of certain products. While this recommendation does not elaborate, it nonetheless has the potential of beginning a much -needed conversation about reasonable adaptations of Mediterranean dietary expectations to climates and circumstances very different from what is experienced in Greece or Italy.

This is what could have been at the Pan-Orthodox Council. Perhaps, with God’s help, the various primates and hierarchs of the Local Churches may one day overcome their differences and gather in a true pan-Orthodox manner; and maybe then more meaningful documents will be adopted. But considering that it took over a century just to have the Council of 2016, we may not witness the next one in our lifetime.

“Even so, come Lord Jesus.” (Rev 22:20)

As always, if you liked this post, please share it with your friends and relations; and if you are saving money by fasting without lobster and sea scallops, consider gifting someone a subscription to Phroneo. Phroneo is not produced in China - it is completely local - so it is one of the few gifts you can give without paying a tariff.

Share Phroneo

Give a gift subscription

Share Phroneo

Several recent questions for our “Ask me anything” project have touched on the effects of asceticism on health. Indeed, care for our health is a universal human pursuit, and not only in the United States, where healthcare can be so expensive that it can alter the course of a family’s life. The universal human concern for good health stems from the fact that ill health often causes suffering. Thus, intentionally acting in a way that may damage our health is not particularly wise; and the concerns about the effects of asceticism on health are certainly legitimate. Below are some general thoughts on the topic of Christianity, asceticism, and health that add to the context for the discussion.

These thoughts were in response to a talk I attended some years ago, in which a speaker mentioned that many people in America were preoccupied with their bodies more than with their souls. The example he gave was of people who religiously go to the gym, spend many more hours working out than they do praying or attending church services, and spend a lot more money on gym memberships than they donate to the church. By these actions, the speaker proposed, they show what their true priorities are. Perhaps he was right, but this is a common rhetorical device employed by many preachers, and it may be somewhat unfair. People often spend much more on their mortgage or education than they do on a gym membership; even a car payment is usually much larger than a gym membership. In this context, it may not be unreasonable to discuss priorities, but a gym membership rarely if ever rises to the top. Perhaps, some people truly do devote their lives to worshiping their own flesh and meat by becoming “health nuts,” but this hardly describes most people - certainly, not most American Orthodox people or most Americans in general.

For some reason which I do not fully understand, there is a custom among some Orthodox Christians to look down on people who take care of their health, but the very same people do not seem to find it un-Orthodox when someone ruins his health. For whatever reason which also eludes me, it is considered perfectly Orthodox to consume large amounts of starchy, greasy, sugary foods - even during Great Lent. (A vegan triple-dark-chocolate cake is lenten, is it not?) People can spend more money on vegan desserts and fake burgers than they donate to their church or give to the poor, and spend more time on the couch or mindlessly scrolling through Orthodox chat groups than they do in prayer or at church, and somehow no one accuses them of having wrong priorities. Or what about people who buy new cars, while their old car is perfectly serviceable, instead of giving more money to their church? Or what about people who buy many more clothes than they actually need and are convinced that they need a new outfit for every Church holiday? Or what about people whose television sets are the latest and the largest (and the most expensive)? There are so many ways that people waste their time and money instead of praying or feeding the poor or helping the church, that it is rather odd that those trying to stay healthy and to take proper care of their God-given bodies are singled-out for their priorities.

When people do not take care of their health or even damage it through their lifestyle choices, they are not accused of being un-Orthodox. But when people eat healthy foods and go for a jog every morning or exercise at the gym, they are accused of loving their flesh too much. Something is wrong with this thinking. It seems to me that it is the people who suffer from gluttony, laziness, intemperance, and a lack of discipline that are the ones that cater to their flesh. They give in to its desires and pleasures. But healthy eating and exercise take a lot of discipline of the body, mastering of the body, willpower to fight against the demands and urges of the body - in a word, it is very similar to asceticism. It is not an accident that the word asceticism quite literally means “training” or “exercise” and used to mean the training of an athlete preparing for a competition. Everyone who tries to follow a healthy diet will attest to how difficult it is, and how much willpower it takes, and how it is very much like fasting. Everyone who regularly exercises, knows how much effort it takes, but also how much energy it gives in return for being able to pray and attend services. On the other hand, how much effort or willpower does it take to eat a vegan cake or to sit and scroll through Substack? And what spiritual benefit is gained from being overweight or from owning a large-screen television set? Interestingly, the very same people who shy away from diet and exercise also give themselves every conceivable dispensation from fasting and other ascetic pursuits on account that strict asceticism may be bad for their health. I have personally been told by some that they simply could not skip a meal, and that foregoing meat would be bad for their health.

Thus, the more relevant question may be not whether asceticism can be detrimental to our health, but whether a lack of asceticism can. It appears that our bodies have a very strong innate regulator when it comes to deprivations. If we fast too strictly, the hunger will naturally drive most of us to break any fast or diet. If we get too little sleep, we will become very tired to the point of being unable to function. If we make too many prostrations, we will be too sore the next day to do any more of them. But when it comes to abundance, we do not seem to have the same natural governors. Most of us can easily eat too much; and according to statistics, most of us do. It may be difficult to sleep beyond a certain number of hours, but many of us seem to have little difficulty lounging while binge-watching shows or scrolling through other people’s lives on social media. And it is not particularly difficult to do too few prostrations, spend too little time in prayer, or observe too lenient of a fast. Thus, we would do well to worry not about too much asceticism but about too little.

Aheloy and Hercules: the origin of the Horn of Plenty by Jacob Jordaens, 1649

In fact, whether for the sake of good health, sanity, the environment - or for Christ’s sake - we would do well to adopt a worldview and a lifestyle of moderation. This is not solely about food or prostrations; this is about the whole of life, starting with the basics.

Moderation in food - both quantity and quality. If we are not hesitant to feast from time to time or to go for seconds or enjoy desserts, then we should not hesitate to fast from time to time or to skip a meal or two or to forego dessert, as such exercises may indeed be beneficial not only for our spiritual practice but also for our physical health.

Moderation in rest - a proper schedule of rest, including rest from addictive technology; no one has ever said after an hour of doom-scrolling or voyeuring other people’s lives: “This was an hour of my life well-spent.” Most of us should not aspire to spend sleepless vigils in kneeling and prayer, but most of us do not aspire to this anyway. And yet, many people have the experience of regularly sacrificing some of their sleep for a party or a movie or to mindless scrolling. Perhaps, if we are to sacrifice something so precious as restorative sleep, we should consider carefully what we get in return for such a sacrifice; and perhaps, if we decide that sleep is not a priority, replacing it with prayer is better than giving it to social media or mindless video clips.

Moderation in possessions - “Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be?” (Lk 12:20) Possessions take up space not only in our homes but also in our hearts and minds; they fill our lives with worry and anxiety about acquiring and caring for our things, rather than for our souls. “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matt 6:19-21)

And yes, moderation in fasting - we must have enough strength to fulfill obligations to our families and the society. This is hardly a concern for most of us, but if someone finds himself drawn to fasting so much that he is tormenting his loved ones or is unable to properly discharge his duties as a father or a husband due to malnutrition and emaciation, then perhaps he should seek the middle way of moderation.

For some, perhaps - even moderation in prayer; our whole life should be a ceaseless prayer, but what precisely does one hope to accomplish by obsessively rattling off more and more akathists? Once again, this is very rarely a cause for concern for a modern man, and many of us would do well to find more time for prayer.

These are not particularly profound thoughts, and not even particularly Christian. Thinkers of many traditions who contemplated a proper and healthy life agree that moderation is an important key to it. For most of us in the Western world, veering too far into asceticism is rarely a problem which must be addressed. Our modern civilization has prioritized consumption over moderation. Our own governments refer to us as “consumers,” and our economies sputter when we are slow to consume. Our healthcare system is overburdened with diseases of over-consumption and too much leisure, while cases of starvation and physical exhaustion are usually indicative of criminal abuse, rather than a genuine lack or over-zealous self-denial and asceticism.1

Quite clearly, however, statistical averages are not particularly relevant to individual lives. Each man struggles with his own burden, even if those around him do not. Neither consumption nor moderation should be a competition. Just as it is foolhardy to compete with the proverbial Joneses in exhibitionist splurging, it is just as unwise to compete in asceticism. Our only measuring stick should be our own yester-selves. As Jordan Peterson once said: “Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today.”2 Despite some other things he may have also said, this one seems like a very sensible piece of advice indeed.

Subscribe now

Share Phroneo

Last but not least, if you are ready to spent less on vegan coffee creamers and fake lab-created burgers, consider becoming a paying subscriber to Phroneo - it is only $5 per month, which is far-less than what one would spend on a “lenten” cake or corn-syrup-drenched honey-walnut shrimp.

Share Phroneo

Question: A question about fasting from fruit until the feast of Transfiguration. Before the near year-round availability of fresh fruit, it makes sense that waiting to eat the “first fruits” of apples, peaches, grapes around the Feast of Transfiguration aligned with the growing season. How about now, in the 21st century? Some say we should abstain from eating fruits (specifically apples, peaches, grapes) from the Apostles’ Feast (29 June/12 July) until Transfiguration (Aug 6/19). Others refrain from eating these from the beginning of Dormition Fast until Transfiguration. And then, are we talking about the true first fruits (that is, locally produced apples, peaches, grapes) or whatever is in the supermarket, which may come from a different region? is whatever observance concerning fruit a “lower case” tradition or is it Tradition?

Excellent question! And you are right to be confused. First things first. There is in fact a rule in the Typikon1, according to which, monks may not eat grapes until they are blessed on Transfiguration. The rule is specifically about fresh grapes and concerns the new harvest. Quite naturally, grapes from the previous year’s harvest are processed either into wine or raisins, which are then used to make raisin wine, but this rule is about neither - only fresh grapes. After the grapes are blessed, they are served to the monastic brethren three times per week: on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.

There is a sentence at the end of that paragraph which is as follows:

The same rule is also for figs and other vegetables: their times are known, whenever each one ripens.

What may be confusing at first glance is the phrase “the same rule.” That is to say, “the same rule” may include the prohibition to eat “figs and other vegetables” until they are brought to the church and blessed. However, the context suggests that the “rule” is simply that as the various fruits and vegetables ripen - each one at a different time, according to its season - they are offered to the brethren three times per week: on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. For example, the Typikon of Nikephoros Mystikos (1162) speaks about serving fresh figs and melons to the brethren after the Feast of Dormition, because figs and melons ripen later than do grapes:

At the refectory, however, twice or even three times a week after the feast, grapes shall be served up until the time of the vintage; but when figs and melons and other fruits are in season, they shall partake of them also almost every day, if they have any.2

Naturally, it is not palatable to eat figs or melons before they ripen, and thus there is a certain kind of natural “fast” that is observed when there are no fresh figs to be had. But the prohibition against eating fruit until Transfiguration seems to be exclusively about grapes. There is a very specific reason for this rule, but this is not the question at hand.

As Christianity spread to areas where grapes do not grow, it appears that a folk tradition developed to abstain from apples until they are blessed on Transfiguration. This is pure folklore and has nothing at all to do with Christianity, the Church, or theology. However, this practice has become a part of cultural tradition, and some priests seem to encourage it. The inclusion of peaches into this rule, and the various periods during which one should abstain from this “forbidden fruit” is a further elaboration on this folklore. This practice may be harmless enough, and the abstinence may even enhance the pleasure of biting into a juicy peach or apple following the Liturgy on Transfiguration, but there is no support for this dopamine manipulation in Christian theology.

That said, the tradition of offering to God the firstfruits is one of the core tenets found in the Bible. In a recognition that “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof” (Ps 24:1), people have been offering the first and the best of what the earth produces to God since the days of Cain and Abel (Gen 4:2-4). The concept is quite simple, really. Everything belongs to God, including the food which He gives to us for our nourishment. That is to say, this is an image (εἰκών) of God feeding us from His table. Therefor, the first and the best must be brought to God’s altar, and only then - we eat from that which remains and has been sanctified by the offering. This rule applied to all mainstay foodstuffs, such as meat, bread, and wine; and partaking of a new harvest or a new flock of lambs was allowed only after the new crop or flock has been sanctified through the offering.3

For example, when Israel settled in the Promised Land, the new harvest was first to be sanctified, before anyone could eat of it (Lev 23:10-14):

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest:

And he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.

And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the Lord.

And the meat offering thereof shall be two tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the Lord for a sweet savour: and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin.

And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

(Note that wine is included in the offerings - this is one connection to the monastic rule about grapes, but there are other reasons as well.)

In other words, nothing of the new harvest was to be consumed until it was sanctified, but foodstuffs from a previous harvest had already been sanctified and could be consumed. This may have included leftover wheat and barley, dried fruits, but perhaps not meat or wine, since meat is difficult to preserve for a whole year, and wine naturally turns into vinegar after just a few months.

The modern world built its supply chains and grocery stores without taking religious principles into account; the main principle of a modern economy seems to be continuous consumption. Indeed, one can purchase any fruit from anywhere in the world in any season, and wine stabilized with sulfates can last for decades without turning into vinegar. Most of us are completely divorced from seasons of food production, harvests, lambing, etc. It really makes no rational sense to buy fruits produced thousands of miles away and bring them to be blessed as firstfruits on Transfiguration. For many people, this tradition has become merely symbolic at best or acquired a hint of superstition at worst. Instead of bringing the firstfruits of their labours as an offering to God, people seem to desire that a cucumber they purchased at the local supermarket magically become a “blessed cucumber”; although, I sincerely doubt that even a skilled theologian could explain what a “blessed cucumber” is with any degree of coherence. In other words, rather than bringing an offering to God, people nowadays wish to receive something from God instead. A more appropriate celebration would include, perhaps, farmers within a community bringing the new harvest to be blessed and sanctified, and for all the faithful to eat of this sanctified food at a common meal, but in today’s Western world - especially, in city parishes - this would be a tall order indeed.

Even more to the point, it may be time to re-envision the entire tradition to include not only the agricultural celebration but something that is also appropriate for office workers, professionals, manufacturers, marketers, and others. (Although, it is difficult to imagine what an AI developer could bring to church as his firstfruits.)

By the way, the historical event of the Transfiguration took place not too long before the Crucifixion - that is to say, in February or March, not in August. Moving the celebration to August likely had a missionary purpose of countering certain Pagan rituals that used to take place at this time of year; but that is a different story altogether.

If you enjoy Phroneo, please share it with your friends and relations. Perhaps, you will consider becoming a paying subscriber or gift a subscription to someone you like (or to someone you do not like). No, this will not really count as your bringing of the firstfruits to the temple, but it will definitely help keep Phroneo going.

Subscribe now

Share Phroneo

In previous discussions, we have touched on the fact that much of what is now commonly understood as “fasting” - that is to say, vegan dieting - is guided by principles developed in the Mediterranean world: people replace steak with lobster, eggs with shrimp, animal fats with olive oil and tahini, and so on. All of these substitutions are enabled by modern transportation systems, and the faithful end up eating foods produced on the other side of the globe and transported across thousands of miles. One may even suggest that these sprawling supply chains are a blessing from God, and that we should be thankful that we can buy shrimp from Thailand and olive oil from Greece in Upstate New York or Wisconsin. But there is at least one aspect of this modern convenience that seems to destroy the very spirit of what Christian fasting actually is. In this post, I would like to discuss this point in more detail in an attempt to begin a much-needed conversation on this topic.

Read more

In a previous post, we discussed a principle of the Typikon by which the measure of fasting for monastics and laity differs only in terms of the complete dispensation from fasting - an occasion on which laity feast on meat while monks are satisfied with eggs and cheese. In other words, if we propose that monastics do not eat meat not as a matter of fasting, but as a matter of lifestyle, then the Typikon does not make any distinctions in fasting rules for laity and monastics, with one or two notable exceptions to be discussed in a future post. But what exactly is fasting? Does this strange and at times obsessive fascination with the culinary “ladder of divine ascent” - from meat to cheese, from fish to oil, and from wine to water - is this the correct way to understand the Typikon, and is this what fasting is?

In a modern Orthodox context, fasting typically and sadly almost always has come to mean abstinence from certain kinds of foods, such as meat, eggs and milk products, fish, oil, etc. Perhaps the strictest fasting day of the entire year, Great and Holy Friday, is usually observed as complete abstinence from food and drink until the bringing out of the Shroud, an icon of Christ’s lifeless Body taken down from the cross, which happens in most parish churches sometime between two and three o’clock in the afternoon. After this service, according to one source, one may eat only “stale bread and raw water” (that is to say, not boiled). Setting such curiosities aside for the moment, let us examine what fasting actually is.

In the most immediate sense, fasting is a complete abstinence from all food of every kind. The rules of the Typikon concerning when fish is allowed or when wine is allowed are not rules of fasting but of feasting - what kinds of delicacies are to be consumed in place of the usual “stale bread and raw water” on account of a celebration. It is important to re-iterate that the default condition assumed by the Typikon is that of perpetual fasting, and the rules, in most cases, do not impose fasting but rather interrupt or suspend it to one degree or another. When one of the popular calendars shows that fish is allowed, for example, this does not mean that we fast from meat and cheese, but rather that when we break our fast at an appointed time, we do so by feasting on fish (or wine, or oil, etc.).

To the early Christians, the idea that some foods are “fasting” while others are not would have been quite foreign. Even modern Christians understand that when Christ fasted for forty days and forty nights, He did not do so by eating tofu and having wine and oil on the week-ends. Likewise, when we learn that a certain kind of malicious spirit “goeth not out but by prayer and fasting” (Matt 17:21), we understand that this does not mean by shrimp and almond milk. An echo of this earlier meaning of fasting can also be found in the English word breakfast - literally, the breaking of a fast after not eating anything during the night.

The traditional fast usually lasted all day until evening at which time it was broken by consuming food - any food, even “stale bread and raw water” breaks a fast. This is why the Gospel specifies that Christ fasted for forty days and forty nights” (Matt 4:2), meaning that He did not break His fast with a nightly meal. Thus, for example, the Typikon speaks of one daily meal on Fridays after the ninth hour (3 pm) - a meal which liturgically belongs to the following day. The Typikon makes this point clear by referring to Wednesdays and Fridays as the eves of Thursdays and Saturdays (see ch. 35). As for Great and Holy Friday, the notation is that “we do not eat on this day of crucifixion.”

It is sometimes proposed that such feats of faith as complete abstinence from food for a few hours was possible for early Christians who were helped by either the Holy Spirit, or their own inner strength, or both, but are no longer possible for many modern Christians who are weak in faith, weak in body, and cannot tolerate even the thought of hunger, much less the feeling of it. So far, I have found no evidence to support such a proposition. On the one hand, early Christians were likely more similar to us than different in any significant way. They believed, struggled, doubted, repented, and in general, lived lives that were just as human in every respect as ours. On the other hand, we do not think that intermittent fasting, or running a marathon, or lifting pieces of metal for no apparent practical purpose only to set them back down and lift them again and again a few more times, are superhuman feats. Even if some of us do not dabble in such things, we understand that most could, if they set their mind to it. Additionally, with more than 70% of Americans being overweight, for many of us, it is theoretically much easier to skip a few meals than it was for our much leaner ancestors, especially since most of us, unlike them, are not subsistence farmers slaving away - often, quite literally - in back-breaking agricultural jobs.

Is it necessary to follow the rules of the Typikon? Cleary not. Most lay people and not a few clergy use the Typikon more as a guiding principle, a direction, than a strict rule by which to live. This is likely the way Orthodoxy has been practiced “everywhere, always, and by all,” to paraphrase the Vincentian Canon. And yet, the “True North” of the Typikon is not purely abstract. If life can be imagined as a winding path through difficult terrain, then we may have to deviate from following the North Star from time to time in order to avoid a swamp or to go around a cliff or a mountain. But we should not deviate solely for the sake of deviance; and if there is a meadow or a level field ahead, why not try walking in as much a northerly direction as possible?

Pilgrim in a Rocky Valley (Pilger im Felsental) by Carl Gustav Carus (1789–1869)

Naturally, much like many other aspects of our lifestyles, fasting of any kind is primarily a matter of habit. Thus, as a practical matter, you may consider starting by skipping breakfasts on Wednesdays and Fridays and having the first meal of the day around noon consisting of “stale bread and raw water,” if you wish, or whatever soy product God happens to give you this day. When the Nativity fast begins in about three months, you may choose to wait until 3 pm to have your first meal. What is the worst thing that can happen? You might discover that it is not for you and go back to obsessing over food labels to ensure there are no milk by-products in your vegan wrap or to carefully picking out crumbs of feta from your Greek salad. Or you may find the practice of actual fasting simple and beneficial and decide to continue with it. If we believe ourselves to be walking in the footsteps of Christ’s disciples, early Christians, Fathers of the Church, and those who walked this path ahead of us, why not trust their experience and give it a try?

See also: “Want to eat sausage? Go ahead!”

This is a reader-supported publication; please share Phroneo with your friends and relations. And if you are saving money by fasting, please consider becoming a paying subscriber - the subscription is only $5 per month; and subscribing to Phroneo is much easier than picking out feta from a Greek salad.

Share Phroneo

Share Phroneo

August 14 Gregorian calendar / August 1 Julian calendar

The Russian Church traditionally celebrates the baptism of the Rus on July 15 Julian / July 28 Gregorian calendar. But of course, this is not the day that the Rus were baptized; this is the day that Grand Prince Vladimir I, the Baptizer of the Rus, reposed in the Lord. There are other curiosities that surround this event.

Saint Vladimir was actually baptized with the name Basil. Vladimir or *Voldiměrъ (Old Norse: Valdamarr) was his pre-baptismal or Pagan name.

According to the Primary Chronicle written more than a century after the event, at his baptism, Vladimir recited the Arian Creed. In English, this means that instead of saying that the Christ is “of one essence with the Father,” Vladimir said that He is “of like essence with the Father.” He also used the same word - “подобосущен (όμοιούσιος)” - in reference to the Holy Spirit: “of like essence with the Father and the Son.”1 It is not clear why the Chronicle uses this term or whether it is the very term that Vladimir used when reciting the Creed, but it says what it says:

Когда же Владимира крестили и научили его вере христианской, сказали ему так: “Пусть никакие еретики не прельстят тебя, но веруй, говоря так: “Верую во единого Бога Отца Вседержителя, творца неба и земли” - и до конца этот символ веры. И еще: “Верую во единого Бога Отца нерожденного и во единого Сына рожденного, в единый Дух Святой, исходящий: три совершенных естества, мысленных, разделяемых по числу и естеством, но не в божественной сущности: ибо разделяется Бог нераздельно и соединяется без смешения, Отец, Бог Отец, вечно существующий, пребывает в отцовстве, нерожденный, безначальный, начало и первопричина всему, только нерождением своим старший, чем Сын и Дух; от него же рождается Сын прежде всех времен. Дух же Святой исходит вне времени и вне тела; вместе есть Отец, вместе Сын, вместе и Дух Святой. Сын же подобосущен Отцу, только рождением отличаясь от Отца и Духа. Дух же пресвятой подобосущен Отцу и Сыну и вечно сосуществует с ними…

As for the baptism of the Rus, it was not the baptism of Russia or Ukraine or even of the Kievan Rus, if what is meant by the latter is a loose confederation of principalities or anything resembling a state. What actually occurred on that day was the baptism of the elites and possibly merchants and craftsmen who lived in the city of Kiev. Vladimir declared that whoever did not come to be baptized would become his enemy: “Если не придет кто завтра на реку - будь то богатый, или бедный, или нищий, или раб, - будет мне врагом.“ It took some time for the elites in other principalities to be baptized; and as for peasants, their Christianization took until the 14th or 15th century, and in some cases, much later than that.

The baptism of the Rus, 1345

As the story goes, Byzantine Emperor Basil II struggled to put down a rebellion of 987 and requested help from the Kievan Vikings. In exchange, he agreed to send Princess Anna as a bride for Vladimir, under the condition that the latter be baptized. Vladimir sent an army, and the rebellion was put down, but the Emperor did not hurry to fulfill his part of the agreement, at which point Vladimir took over Chersonesus (modern-day Kherson), the main Byzantine trading post on the Black Sea. The pretext to the occupation may have been to suppress the remnants of the rebellion against imperial authority, but Vladimir held the city, which forced Basil II to finally send his sister Anna. Vladimir was baptized and married to Anna in Chersonesus. Scholars date these events to 989 or 990. If this dating is correct, this would mean that in 988, when the baptism of Kiev presumably took place, Vladimir himself was not yet baptized.

The baptism of Prince Vladimir, V.M. Vasnetsov, 1890

Prince Vladimir greets Princess Anna Porphyrogenita in Chersonesus

Curiously, as far as the Greeks were concerned, the baptism of the Rus had happened a century earlier. It is said that, while the legendary Viking chieftain Rurik (Old Norse: Hrøríkʀ) decided to rule Novgorod, two of his warriors named Askold and Dir (Old Norse: Hǫskuldr and Dýri) - undoubtedly, with a retinue - settled in Kiev on the Dnieper. They subjugated the Polans (or Polanians) who lived there and began to rule in their own right. In the year 860, the Kievan Rus - that is to say, the Rus who lived in Kiev and were led by Askold and Dir - attacked Constantinople. They never took the city but pillaged and destroyed the suburbs. As part of the peace treaty, the Rus agreed to be baptized and to receive a bishop and a priest. Patriarch of Constantinople Saint Photius I even sent an encyclical to other patriarchs in 866 announcing the baptism of the Rus. It is clear that not of the Rus Vikings decided to be baptized, but it appears that a good number of them did, and Christianity began to spread among them. This process was not happening in isolation. At around the same time, in Great Moravia - a Central European state which encompassed a large part of what is now Ukraine - upon arriving there, Byzantine missionaries Cyril and Methodius found a translation of the Gospel and Psalter “written in the Russian script” (“обрѣте тоу Ѥвангєліє и Псалтырь, роусьскыми письмены писано”)2 - that is to say, probably, written in the language of the Rus Vikings. Several decades later, a Rus-Byzantine treaty of 944 allowed for two forms of taking an oath by the Kievan Rus in order to ratify it: one was a Pagan form before the statue of the god Perun and a Christian one, which took place in the cathedral of Saint Elijah in Kiev. Prince Igor, who ruled Kiev in that year, took the Pagan form of the oath.

The murder of Askold and Dir by Oleg, Klavdiy Lebedev, 19th c.

At the time of the death of Rurik in Novgorod in 879, his son Igor (Old Norse: Ingvarr) was too young to rule, and Rurik’s kinsman Oleg (Old Norse: Helgi) became regent. Oleg coveted Kiev for its position on the trading route from Scandinavia to Byzantium, so he killed Askold and Dir in 882, after declaring that they were not legitimate chieftains, and moved Rurik’s throne to Kiev. Interestingly, a church was built above the grave of Askold, which may indicate that he was seen as a promoter of Christianity among the Rus. It appears that with the arrival of the Novgorod Rus in Kiev, the spread of Christianity slowed but not stopped, as is evident from the 944 treaty mentioned above. Igor’s wife Olga (Old Norse: Helga) travelled to Constantinople and was baptized in 955 or 957, after the death of her husband.

The Baptism of Olga by Sergey Kirilov, 1993

Sviatoslav ( Old Norse: Sveinald), the son of Igor and Olga, remained a Pagan, but his son Yaropolk, the older brother of Vladimir the Great, may have been baptized or become a catechumen. In favour of his possible baptism, some scholars point to the fact that he married a Greek nun. (No, Martin Luther was not the first to marry a nun. Although, in Yaropolk’s defence, some argue that the woman may have been a concubine, not a lawful wife, in which case whether or not he was a Christian would have had no bearing on the relationship.). In 978 or 980, Yaropolk was killed by Vladimir, who took the Kievan throne and his pregnant Greek wife, from whom was born Sviatopolk I of Kiev. However, in 1044, Yaroslav the Wise dug up the bones of his uncle Yaropolk and had them baptized - at least, this is what is written in the Primary Chronicle. (The application of the 26th3 canon of the Council of Carthage, which reads in part, “nor let the ignorance of the presbyters baptize those who are dead,” is a topic for another discussion.)

Yaroslav the Wise, a forensic reconstruction by Mikhail Gerasimov, 1940

While the Primary Chronicle does not give the date of the “second” baptism of the Rus - only the year of 988 - 16th-century chronicles state that this event took place on August 1 according to Julian calendar, which falls on August 14 according to Gregorian calendar. In other words, in addition to the Feast of the Procession of the Life-giving Cross, the Feast of the All-Merciful Saviour, the memory of the Seven Brothers Maccabee, and other commemorations, we also celebrate the baptism of the Rus in Kiev.

In accordance with an ancient Byzantine tradition, water is blessed on the first day of every month. This is not always done any longer; and yet on this day, August 1 on Julian calendar, water is blessed in many Russian churches in remembrance of the baptism of the Rus.

“The Baptism of Rus” by V. M. Vasnetsov, 1895-1896. Saint Vladimir cathedral, Kiev

Last but not least, if you enjoy Phroneo, please share it with your friends and relations. You will not become an enemy of Saint Vladimir if you do not subscribe, but please consider becoming a paying subscriber or gifting a subscription to someone who might appreciate it. This will help a lot.

Subscribe now

Share Phroneo

The Dormition Fast is a sad example of the division caused among Orthodox Churches by the use of two different calendars. Those on the old calendar fast from August 14 to 27 and celebrate the Feast of Dormition on August 28. Those on the new calendar begin their fast on August 1 and celebrate Dormition on August 15. Thus, the two groups of “calendarists” fast together for only one day, August 14, and do not celebrate together at all. Of course, this is not a problem in isolated communities but presents an obstacle to fellowship for Christians from two communities following different calendars. It can only be hoped that the merciful Lord, who prayed that all of His disciples be united, will grant wisdom to church leaders to heal this unfortunate division.

Fresco by Theophan the Greek, 1392

Dormition Fast was likely observed in some form, perhaps as short as one day, for as long as Dormition was celebrated - likely, from the fifth century - but no definite mention of this fast appears until the ninth century - not even in the Typikons of monasteries. However, an epistle by Saint Theodore the Studite (759-826) titled Διδασκαλία χρονική τῆς Μονής τοῦ Στουδίου1 does mention the fast before Dormition, further showing that this tradition existed in Constantinople at that time. In this epistle, Saint Theodore writes that the Dormition Fast is to be kept in the same manner as the Nativity Fast and the Fast of the Holy Apostles: “on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.”2 That is to say, on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday a fast is observed all day until it is broken in the evening with a meal consisting of xerophagy. It appears from the wording that Tuesdays and Thursdays were different - perhaps, in that two meals were offered, with the first of the two being earlier in the day.3 The present-day Typikon prescribes fasting until the 9th hour on all five of the week-days, the difference being only in the meal that is used for the breaking of the fast in the evening.

In 920, a local Council in Constantinople mentioned the Dormition Fast but only indirectly. In 1085, monks on Mount Athos seem to have found this mention and were confused about the existence of this fast of which they had not known. And it was not until the 1166 Council that Dormition Fast was finally and officially regularized. The confusion about the exact dates of this fast may be found in one of the Typikons4 of that time period, which states that the fast begins on August 1, but because this is the feast of the Maccabees, actual fasting does not begin until August 2. Theodore Balsamon, the Patriarch of Antioch5 from 1193 to 1199, is known to have written numerous letters and encyclicals urging his flock to keep the Dormition Fast, which fact may indicate that it was not widely observed in Antioch prior to the end of the 12th century.

Be that as it may, the present-day fasting rules found in the Sabaite Typikon, chapter 33 are as follows:

It is necessary to know about the Fast of the Most Holy Theotokos:

In the fast of the Dormition of our Holy Lady Theotokos, 15 days6 except Christ’s Transfiguration, we fast until the 9th hour (3 p.m.) on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and eat xerophagy7… On Tuesday and Thursday - cooked food without oil. On Saturday and Sunday - cooked food with oil, and we drink wine; fish, however, we do not eat until the Dormition of the Theotokos; only on Christ’s Transfiguration do we eat fish twice in that day.

It is important to remember that this is a monastic rule, and lay people are certainly under no obligation to observe monastic rules. However, because Dormition Fast is relatively short - only two weeks, it seems to be the perfect opportunity to practice stricter fasting without experiencing a burn-out, and there are many options for experimentation. One may, for example, observe a stricter fast on Wednesday and Friday or also on Monday. The same may try fasting until noon or 3 p.m. or 6 p.m.; or try each option to determine which may suit him best. To be sure, fasting is not only about abstaining from food or is not primarily about abstaining from food. In much the same way, education is not about primary school, and yet attempting to send a seven-year-old directly to graduate school may not be a good strategy. It is the same with fasting: fasting may be the first and the easiest step of Christian asceticism, but this is precisely why it makes a strong and necessary foundation for loftier aspirations and should not be disregarded. No one who intends to build a temple begins with the dome but rather establishes a proper foundation first. It is the same with the temple of our soul: one who aspires to such heights as noetic arts, would do well to begin with a proper foundation in the practice of fasting among other disciplines and not build his house on the sand of mere dreams, thoughts, and wishes about things divine (cf. Matt 7:26, 27).

***

As always, if you enjoyed this post, may I ask you to share it with your friends? And if you are saving money by experimenting with fasting, perhaps you will consider giving Phroneo as a gift to someone you think might enjoy it as much as you do. Thank you.

Share Phroneo

Here is a pious peasant tale of the kind that abound in the Slavic world. It is usually very difficult or impossible to know where or when these tales originate. The most that can often be ascertained is when and where a tale was first written down by an ethnographer. The topics of these pious tales range from a 17th-century village being visited by the Mother of God, to Christ’s origins in Galicia (with Galilee apparently being conflated with Galicia, an area that nowadays spans southeastern Poland and western Ukraine), to the various troubles that befall a peasant who does not honour a religious festival, and many others. Here is a tale about fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays.

A certain pious woman strictly observed Wednesdays and Fridays; she did not eat food on these days, nor did she drink any water. When she became old, the woman decided to sell her cow. Returning from the market after dark, she decided to spend the night in a village through which she was passing. The hosts found out from her whence she was coming and how much money she had received for the cow; and an evil thought entered their hearts: to kill the old woman and take her money.

When the night fell and they decided to commence their deed, suddenly, they heard a knock at the door.

- Who is there? - asked the host opening the door. He sees two young men standing there, and they say to him:

- Let the mother1 go!

- There is no mother here!

- Let her go! - they said again in a stern voice, - Grandmother, come out, we do not want them to hurt you!

Thus, the hosts were forced to let the old woman go. The young men escorted her to her village and said:

- You should know that in that house, they wanted to kill you and to take your money. God be with you!

The old woman fell to the ground at their feet:

- Dear sons2, tell me your names, I will be praying for you!

One of them said: “My name is Friday,” and the other one: “My name is Wednesday.” The Lord had sent two angels, and they saved the old woman, because no good deed is forgotten by God and brings benefit even in this life.

The Pious Reader would do well not to apply the strictest standards of dogmatic theology to these tales; they are best enjoyed as poems or songs - in other words, as art, rather than as scholastic theological pronouncements.

Share Phroneo

This is a reader-supported publication. If you are enjoying the posts, please share them with your friends and family! And if you are saving a lot of money by fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays, please consider gifting an angel in your life a paid subscription - it is only $5 per month ($4 if you subscribe for a year). (Of course, a subscription is not quite as useful as a cow, but neither does it cost nearly as much.)

Lord, make me to know mine end, and the measure of my days, what it is: that I may know how frail I am. Behold, thou hast made my days as an handbreadth; and mine age is as nothing before thee: verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity.

- Ps 39:4, 5

Following my recent post titled “A longing for the end of time,” I received an interesting question asking to elaborate on my view of time with respect to the Holy Eucharist and whether in my opinion, at the Final Judgment, time continues to infinity or comes to completion and stops altogether. In other words, the question is whether the life to come is eternal or everlasting. Below is a portion of my response.

With respect to the question of time, I must confess that I refuse to take a position. When I was young - I am not any longer - I dabbled in such things as these. Now I am old and find these things largely irrelevant to living a Christian life. Such musings are interesting to those who find them interesting - and I do, I really do - but in the final analysis, I see no compelling reason to suspect that either the proponents of life eternal or those of life everlasting are more favoured by God than their dialectical opponents, and both may be able to inherit whatever it is that the Good Lord has in store for them - if such be their aim. The main problem with this debate as I see it is that in order to engage in it intelligently, I must have a working definition of what time actually is, and I have not yet found a satisfactory one - not in physics, and not in theology either. Thus, debating whether something stops or ends or collapses or continues into a mathematical infinity, without defining what that something is, seems a bit silly - albeit, not altogether devoid of some intellectual entertainment. I suppose, in this particular case, I am in agreement with Erasmus: “Devoutly, no doubt, did the apostles consecrate the Eucharist; yet, had they been asked the question touching the “terminus a quo,” and the “terminus ad quem” of transubstantiation; of the manner how the same body can be in several places at one and the same time; of the difference the body of Christ has in heaven from that of the cross, or this in the Sacrament; in what point of time transubstantiation is, whereas prayer, by means of which it is, as being a discrete quantity, is transient; they would not, I conceive, have answered with the same subtlety as the Scotists dispute and define it.”1 Perhaps, I am just getting too old for abstract academic exercises…

When it comes to the Holy Eucharist, my view has always been that, with respect to it, time neither stops nor continues to infinity. If I had to find a word for what I believe takes place, I would say that time and space collapse. What I mean by this is that in celebrating the Eucharist, we do not recreate it, for this would be absurd and impossible, but partake of the one and only Mystical Supper. It may be said that this Mystical Supper is outside of time, thus rendering the question “when?” meaningless. Or it may be said that the event of the Mystical Supper moves at the speed of causality with respect to all reference frames - in other words, it has no rest frame; and while it is possible for an outside observer to define it as an event in spacetime, as we become partakers of it, as we enter into its reference frame, the Lorentz factor collapses to infinity for us also, and we can no longer speak of time with any degree of coherence. In other words, within the reference frame of the Eucharist, it is meaningless to speak of the passage of time; and in the absence of time as a meaningful variable, it becomes equally meaningless to speak of space, thus making it possible to iconographically propose that in partaking of the Eucharist, we find ourselves partakers of the one and only Mystical Supper - in that space, at that time; and, since it moves at the speed of causality, in all of space and outside of time. Something like that, I suppose... but what do I know?!

Sisyphus by Friedrich John after Matthäus Loder, 19th century

My post, however, was not meant to be an elucidation of mathematical concepts, nay, not even theology; rather, it was but a feeble attempt at expressing a feeling, an emotion triggered by a re-reading of Albert Camus. Alas, I am quite incapable of poetry, painting, or musical composition, and have no other option but to process feelings through prose. Feelings, however, are both fleeting and utterly unreliable as a basis for doing proper philosophy. In essence, this was my inner Sisyphus taking a brief moment to scribble some graffiti on his rock before hoisting it onto his shoulders and starting back up the hill. This poor guy - his perception of time can definitely be described as ever-lasting and never-ending. (Although, the punishment, I suppose is not in that the rock keeps rolling down every time, but in that all of it is absurdly meaningless - except, perhaps, for the graffiti: “Sisyphus + Merope = love forever.“)

Share Phroneo

This is a reader-supported publication. If you enjoy our posts, please share Phroneo with your friends and relations. And if you are so inclined, please consider becoming a paying subscriber. It is only $5 per month - one need not be the king of Ephyra in order to enjoy Phroneo.

Time is relentlessly running away, which forces one to contend with the horror of approaching death, causing him to question all that he does and his very life - a brief and insignificant moment “which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven” of oblivion. The nature of heaven may be in that time is no more; yea, this may also be the nature of hell - thus, the former relieving existential dread, while the latter making it timeless. Indeed, hell may very well be not a place of cauldrons and pitch-forks, but of dread with no end - not that the end is not forthcoming or not yet visible, and thus can still be hoped for, but that in the absence of time, an end cannot exist, which fact makes hope impossible.1

The natural deterministic mode of existence is common to both man and beast - eat, sleep, procreate. But some men are not satisfied with what is natural to animals and reach for the timeless in their attempt to defy determinism: art, philosophy, theology - all would amount to rather useless pursuits for animals, which often interfere with appetite, sleep, and procreation. Socrates had children as likely did the Apostle Peter, but the significance of their having offspring is overshadowed by their other accomplishments to such a degree that they may well have been celibate. (And perhaps, Peter lived as one after meeting Jesus, but there is no compelling reason to think so.) Speaking of celibates, it is often said that monastics, while choosing the path of natural childlessness, gain many spiritual children. Perhaps, this is so in a few cases. But no young novice enters a monastery and dies to the world for the express purpose of having “spiritual children.” (And if a man expressly entered a monastery in order to acquire spiritual children, his intention would be scrutinized as odd at best or even indicative of some delusion.) In its purest form, monasticism, from μονος - alone, solitary, is driven by anything but a desire to father children - spiritual or otherwise (albeit, both sometimes happen to monks).

In a very direct way, monasticism is a radical and rebellious solution to the approaching doom and dread of death; it is a form of willful suicide, when one refuses to participate in the “rat race” of the world - accomplishments, marriage, children, careers, accolades, grandchildren, friends, parties, vacations, etc., etc. - on account of the ephemerality and meaninglessness of such things, of their being but distractions from the main task; and such a man chooses to die to the world, because in a way, we are all already dead, some of us just do not know it yet. And if this is so, why wait around? This death to the world is rebellion against the impending death of everything worldly and of the world itself. This is not to say that having children or careers is incompatible with Christian living, but no one seems to think that at the Final Judgment, one will be taken to task for having too few children, having attended too few parties, or having not achieved his full potential at the office. Monasticism appears to be just that - a refusal to have children or to attend parties or to work for promotions and vacations - that is, monasticism in its purest form. Perhaps, this does not describe all monks. But what do I know? I am not a monk.

“A monk” by M. Nesterov

There is another path. Some would propose that monasticism is an attempt to run away, to escape from the God-given burden, to forsake the heavier cross of living in the world for a lighter one of living in a setting shielded from worries, troubles, doubts, temptations, and responsibilities. Indeed, it may be much easier to observe the strictest fast for days-on-end than it is to raise a family. Having tried both, I can confirm that this is so. At least, this is so for me. And while the consequences of being a neglectful monk may indeed be dire for the monk, the consequences of being a neglectful father reach far beyond one person and negatively affect his children and, often, the larger society.

Besides, most monks find themselves in a supportive community which is intimately involved in their spiritual progress. Many men living in the world find themselves in isolation, carrying their domestic and spiritual burdens solely by themselves. It may well be argued that this should not be so - fair enough - but it is. While not all monks attempt a solitary lifestyle, many lay men are hermits in this world and must be successful at spiritual self-reliance or plummet off the ridge of heaven, doomed both by their lack of skill as charioteers and by the “horse of evil nature [which] weighs the chariot down” and will not listen to its hapless owner. The tradition of learning the art of “training horses” - for it is an art at least as much as a craft - if it ever existed in the world, is now mostly confined to books which, while of some use, cannot fully replace true apprenticeship to a good master. (Here, I will not endeavor to speak of women or on their behalf, except to mention that they seem to have an easier time connecting with others - something which may be natural for women, but, alas! not for men.)

Be that as it may, the end of time, including one’s personal end of time, may have been something that most people welcomed or, at least, with which they were reasonably comfortable.2 Death caused by accident, disease, or war was commonplace for much of human history. Child mortality was around 50% and more in many cases, which means that every family experienced several child deaths in its lifetime. While a small number of those who survived childhood lived in luxury and later on the pages of our history books, an overwhelming majority of humans made a living by subsistence farming or were slaves and are now long-forgotten. In the words of Thomas Hobbes, who was likely not far off the mark, life was “poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” It is in this context that the prayer of Revelation 22:20 can be understood: “Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus” - a sentiment all but foreign to the present-day Church with her obsession with “Many years, many years, ma-a-a-a-ny years!” Of the endless litanies in which she prays “again and again” for seasonable weather and abundance of the fruits of the earth, there is but one petition mentioning a Christian ending to our lives.

Anton Chekhov

One of the masters of the short story, Anton Chekhov maintained a remarkable indifference in facing his own death. Perhaps, as a medical doctor, he had become desensitized; perhaps, his lengthy struggle with tuberculosis helped him to become a close acquaintance of the scythe-wielding visitor. But perhaps, as sometimes happens with restless souls, he felt deeper into the essence of Christ’s teaching than many of his self-content contemporaries. A self-professed atheist - likely, a Christian whose honesty with himself did not allow him to use this title - Chekhov once wrote: “I would gladly become a monk if monasteries would accept people who are not religious and who do not have to pray” - an insight into life - yea, into living - so profound that one can contemplate it for a long time. He yearned to die to the world - as is the aim of monasticism; and yet, when Tolstoy3 visited him on his death bed, Chekhov did not want to talk about afterlife; he still had a little bit of this life left and did not want to waste it on the fruitless musings of his troubled friend. Perhaps, he would have made a good monk - maybe as good as the Blessed Augustine. He died as he lived - simply and unpretentiously; he was 44 years old. It seems, some can accomplish more in their 44 short years than some others in their 84. I do wonder: how old was the Good Thief?

“Many years, many years, many, many years…”

Such restless souls as Chekhov and Saint Augustine, Thomas, and yes, even Tolstoy, as unpleasant and confused as he was, and so many others - they revolt against babbitry,

And though they know the dark is right,

They rage, and write,

They think, compose, create,

To face the dying of the light.

They write, because they see little worth in much else, because in thoughts, ideas, images they find a connection to things more permanent than anything filling their material existence. Mostly, they write for themselves, although they do enjoy a sense of validation, if their ideas happen to resonate with others. As Andrei Tarkovsky once noted:

“A man writes because he is tormented, because he doubts. He needs to constantly prove to himself and the others that he’s worth something. And if I know for sure that I’m a genius? Why write then? What the hell for?”

Andrei Tarkovsky on the set of “Stalker”

Yet all this writing is never enough; it is never complete and fails to complete - at least, for the writer. The Old Adam did not write anything, as far as anyone can tell4, and neither did the New Adam5 - except, perhaps, with His finger in the dust - an unmistakable symbol of the impermanence of the written word. Because man writes out of torment and doubt, his literary compositions can never give meaning to his life - they are quite literally never enough, and many writers die before they finish their “final” work. (If they do manage to finish it, it is not their final, and there will be another one which they will not finish.)

Writing then, is just another attachment; perhaps, it is loftier than some, yet fundamentally the same. The Apostle Paul writes that Christians are to be “strangers and pilgrims on the earth” (Heb 11:13; cf. 1 Pet 2:11). Strangers have no attachments to a place, which is not theirs, or to its implements. Nothing we do - and nothing we write - is particularly meaningful in the final analysis. This is not to say that some actions are not intrinsically better than others or that all writing is created equal but that, to borrow from Paul, “God will destroy both one and the other” (1 Cor 6:13).

The Buddha taught something quite similar, when he urged his disciples to free themselves from attachments to the things of this world. In Buddhism, when all attachments are shed, when possessions are given up, love6, affection, hatred, or any other emotion no longer troubles the still waters of consciousness, when all is extinguished, one is left with nothing - quite literally. The ultimate goal of Buddhism is nirvāṇa - the dissolution of self in śūnyatā, the great void of nothingness.

In Christianity, when all material possessions have been given away to the poor, all earthly attachments have been released, when all books and paintings have been burnt, when the “many, many years” have been cut painfully short by an accident or an illness or the passage of time - “Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.” (Jas 4:14) - when one has died to the world and lost even his very name, when nothing earthly remains - there is the Christ. There is no void, no emptiness, no nothingness, no extinguishing; there is the Christ who is the fullness of life, the source of all being, being itself. The meaning of life cannot be found in any act or deed, art, a musical or literary composition, biological or spiritual progeny, life-span or health-span - “Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?” (Eccles 1:2, 3) The meaning of life is found not in any product thereof, but in its source - the Christ.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (Jn 1:4, 5)

“[W]ise men at their end know dark is right, because their words had forked no lightning…” - but there is light, divine light, the light which comes not “of the will of man, but of God” (13).

Dylan Thomas

Time is relentlessly running away, which forces one to contend with the horror of approaching death, causing him to question all that he does and his very life - a brief and insignificant moment “which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven” of oblivion. It is much later than we think. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

-

If you enjoyed this post, please share it with your friends - this will help keep this project going, and Anton Chekhov and Dylan Thomas would approve.

Share Phroneo

The Gospel of Matthew, chapter 14:

22 And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.

23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.

24 But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.

25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.

27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.

28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.

29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.

30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.

31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

32 And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.

33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

34 And when they were gone over, they came into the land of Gennesaret.

In reading today’s Gospel passage, many of us may be understandably drawn to the image of Christ walking on water. Yet for the ancients, such things as God, or gods, or prophets walking on water, or flying through the air in a fiery chariot, or sailing inside the belly of a fish were not at all supernatural. In fact, the word supernatural is not found in the Scriptures. In our worldview, we have divided phenomena into those we can dissect or natural and those that defy our theoretical analysis or supernatural. The ancients did not often bother with theoretical analysis; to their mind, the world was whole, and a god walking on water was as much a part of the natural order of things as was a star pointing the way to the newly-born Christ. To be sure, speaking donkeys or a few loaves and fishes multiplying to feed a crowd of several thousand were not very common events; they reminded people that God intervened in their affairs, and they marveled at that (Ps 118:23). But it was not altogether unexpected that the One who gave sight to the blind and raised the dead from their graves would also walk on water as if it were dry land. This passage is not about that. It is about the iconography of all things pointing to Jesus as the Son of God; and also, it is about Peter - and through him, about us.

The image of the Lord’s disciples in a ship, “in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves,” unmistakably points to the Church - that is, to us - in the midst of the sea of life, buffeted by a contrary wind.

Christ comes “in the fourth watch of the night” - that is to say, early in the morning (the fourth watch is between 3 am and 6 am); and this points to both the prophetic writing about God’s help which comes in the early morning and to Christ’s resurrection, through which salvation came to all the world.

Ps 143:8 - “Cause me to hear thy lovingkindness in the morning; for in thee do I trust: cause me to know the way wherein I should walk; for I lift up my soul unto thee.”

Isa 17:14 - “And behold at eveningtide trouble; and before the morning he is not.”

Matt 28:1 - “In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.”

We should remember that the first readers and hearers of the Gospel knew the Scriptures very well and recognized the references to which the author is alluding. When they heard that Jesus came to His disciples walking on water, they undoubtedly recalled the words from the Book of Job, chapter 9, verse 8: “[God] alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.”

Yet in the dark, in the middle of a stormy lake, the disciples, whose hearts were hardened (Mk 6:52), thought that they were seeing a ghost and were troubled and afraid. Christ calmed the storm in their minds by revealing to them yet again who He was: “It is I” - “ἐγώ εἰμι.” It is not completely clear in English, but the Greek ἐγώ εἰμι is a way of conveying the sacred name of God - “I am” (Ex 3:14).1 Consider a scene from the Gospel of John, chapter 18, verse 4 through 6: “Jesus saith unto them, I am he (ἐγώ εἰμι). And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he (ἐγώ εἰμι), they went backward, and fell to the ground.” These were Jews, “a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees” (Matt 14:3), the temple guards, who came to arrest Jesus; and when they heard the sacred name of God: “I am that I am” - they stepped back and made a prostration, as pious Jews should do any time that they hear the name of God spoken.2

Thus, when Jesus came into the ship and calmed the storm - “He maketh the storm a calm, So that the waves thereof are still.” (Ps 107:29) - and upon hearing the divine name of God, the disciples “worshipped Him [προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ - “bowed, made a prostration”], saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.”3 In these ways, the Scripture tells us who Jesus is. But what about us? Who are we in this story?

What is somewhat unusual in this account is what happens to Peter. The idea that God can miraculously cause a man to walk on water is not any more unbelievable to the ancient mind than that He can cause a donkey to speak (Num 22:28) or turn water into wine (Jn 2:3-10). But this is not quite what happened. The walking on water is not a miracle performed by God - for if this were so, Peter surely would not have begun to sink - but an image (εἰκών) of a sacrament: God says, “Let it be so,” but in order for it to be so, man must co-labour with God. Unlike a miracle, a sacrament requires a full and willing participation of man.

Perhaps, man is the weakest link in this relationship; perhaps, man lacks faith, is full of doubt, and begins to sink almost immediately every time. But if he has ever walked on water - even just one step, yea, even half a step - then he knows that it is possible, he knows that God is near, and that His kingdom is at hand. This is why we should never despair, even when we are sinking. Our failure to make more than one small uncertain step on water is not a lack of faith but a presence of it - albeit, imperfect: “Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.” A man who lacks faith would not be eager to get out of the boat during a storm, and he certainly is not able to make even one step!

God gives us the power to tread on the waves that buffet our lives and on every lion and adder (Ps 91:13), but He does not expect that we will never fail. Every child must first crawl, then walk - stumbling and falling at first - and only later - run; and every Christian will stumble at times or begin to sink. And just as a child can be assured that his parents will lift him up when he falls - even more so, a Christian can be assured that God’s help is near, and His right hand will hold him up (Ps 18:35).

Jesus et Pierre Sur Les Eaux (Jesus and Peter on the Water), by Gustave Brion, 1863

Thus, the most important lesson that the Gospel presents to us is not that God can walk on water, or that He can calm a storm, but that through Christ, we also shall not fear the tempest which tosses us (Isa 54:11), but must cry out like Peter: “Lord, save me,” and the Lord will raise us up (Matt 14:31), and the wind will cease (32).

Share Phroneo

In Part 1, we briefly discussed the ubiquitous or near-ubiquitous nature of prostrations in human cultures to signal reverence, humility, submission, and similar inner states, as well as some of the research from the field of embodied cognition. In Part 2, we briefly touched on the practice and meaning of prostrations in ancient Mesopotamia. And in this, the third part, we will turn our attention to the ancient Greeks.

It is, perhaps, uncontroversial to propose that Christianity has its roots stretching not only into the ancient Near East but also into the Graeco-Roman world. The people who were “believing on the Lord Jesus Christ” and being saved (Acts 16:31) were not only the Hebrews, but also the Romans, the Corinthians, and the Galatians - each group expanding the initially-mostly-Jewish context of Christianity with their own, Graeco-Roman language, customs, and worldviews.

Curiously, ancient Greeks were not much into kneeling or prostrating themselves even before their gods, and most certainly not before mere mortals.

Read more

Share Phroneo

Welcome to Episode 15 of “Ask me anything” in which we ponder about who might be in danger of being an unbeliever, according to Saint John of Damascus. For previous episodes, please follow this link. If you would like to participate in the discussion or ask a question, please leave a comment or send a direct message. And please share Phroneo with your friends and relations.

A Pious Reader asks:

St John of Damascus, in An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, chapter 10, first paragraph, states that “For he that believes not according to the tradition of the Catholic Church, or who has intercourse with the devil through strange works, is an unbeliever.” This statement about those who “believe not according to the Church” is the bothersome part. Though it seems straightforward, I do not want to read my own thoughts or assumptions, or past experience, into that line.

This question is a bit outside my wheelhouse - albeit, not completely overboard, I suppose.

It is important to note that in Orthodoxy, personal sanctity does not equal dogmatic and, especially, doctrinal inerrancy. The fact that Saint John composed a book which he decided to title An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, does not automatically make the work absolute, binding, or inerrant. It is an excellent summary of the patristic consensus on the most important dogmas of the Church - consensus being the operative word, since all Fathers expressed at least some views, with which other Fathers disagreed.

Read more

Most people today consume a lot of various media content. This may be in the form of television shows, movies, music, books, magazines, Substack, and perhaps some other forms of media known only to teenagers. Most people are aware that some content - such as pornography, for example - is not compatible with the Christian faith and life, even if they are not always sure exactly why this is. But in many other cases it may be difficult to determine whether a movie or a song is appropriate, or whether it is compatible with the Christian faith. Perhaps, the following thoughts will prove helpful in this matter.

YOLO

That is correct: you only live once. Somehow, this very helpful reminder has become a license to do things that one would otherwise be prudently-hesitant to do. But this catchy phrase should really remind us that there is a limited amount of time that we have in this earthly life. It may not feel that way - especially, when one is young - but this is so. We rarely value this time, even though on a smaller scale, we all understand what it is to have a large task and very little time to finish it. We all know what it is like to work against a deadline (think of writing a paper the night before it is due). It is the same in our lives: we are working against a deadline. This deadline is our physical death, and the task is truly great - we must prepare for a life with God. This means that we must have our priorities in an order that will help us complete this great task. Think of how much time we can spend watching useless television shows, movies that excite our senses in the moment but leave us with nothing worth having the minute a show is over, or browsing other people’s lives on social media instead of living our own. If we spend only one hour each day on this (many people spend a lot more), that is an entire day missing out of every month or two whole weeks out of a year. Maybe this does not sound like much, but it amounts to an entire year in 25 years - say, from age 15 to 40 - a whole year completely wasted, and from 40 to 65 - another year spent staring at a screen. If you were given a year to do whatever you wanted, would you really just sit on a couch watching TV and “liking” other people’s FaceBook posts? So, this is the first problem: screens waste a lot of time that can be much better spent living the life that God gave us for a specific purpose: to learn to be with Him.

You are what you eat

We often have a lot of good sense about what we eat. If something is fresh and healthy we eat it. If something is rotten or poisonous, we stay away from it. And we know that if we eat something poisonous, we will become ill and can even die. Why, then, do we not have the same good sense about our brains? Why do we allow things that are poisonous to enter into our minds? What we allow to enter into our minds through the eyes and ears can be even more dangerous than bad food. Bad food can only afflict our bodies; bad content can corrupt our minds and souls. Is it ok to watch something that is only “a little” bad? - Well, is it ok to eat food that is only a little spoilt? Perhaps it is, but it would be prudent not to. We would not take the chance of getting sick; and if something looks or smells just a bit off, or if it is a mushroom we do not recognize, we throw it out - it is not worth the risk. Why not apply the same wisdom when it comes to our minds? Once you see something, you cannot unsee it. Your stomach can vomit, but your mind is not so easily cleansed.

Most content is not produced for our benefit. Its goal is to earn money for those who produce it. And producers will appeal to every base and sinful passion in order to keep our attention. There is a reason why shows are steadily becoming more sexualized and violent - sex and violence capture and keep people’s attention. But they also introduce sin into our minds. This sin in the form of thoughts and memories remains in our brains long after the show is over, and buries itself deeper into our being. In this we see that we are not just struggling with bad habits, pornographic television, and the various weaknesses of our bodies. We are also struggling with evil spirits, and we must take the fallen angels and this struggle seriously. Some of us who are older may still remember when it was unacceptable to use profanity if women or children could overhear. Nowadays, some young women are so skilled at the art of expletives, they could make a sailor blush. And the poor children! Media influence on our minds is tremendous. Often people will believe a lie just because they saw it on TV; or they will become accustomed and desensitized to sin just because “everyone” in movies is doing it; or they might go and buy something that they had no idea existed, but an advertisement told them that they deserved it and had to have it. As Abraham Lincoln once said so eloquently, “do not believe everything you read on the internet.”

What to do about it

1. As Christians, our primary goal is a life with God. Make a rule to spend at least as much time on your spiritual life as you do on entertainment. This spiritual life has many different expressions: prayer, reading from the Scripture, participating in church services, or helping and supporting other people. But it is important that in 25 years, you will not have spent an entire year of your life sitting in front of a screen but instead - at least that much - working on your soul.

2. Guard your soul at least as well as you guard your stomach. Be vigilant about what you put into your mind at least as much as you are vigilant about what you put into your body, and even more so, because, after all, your soul is at stake. Remember the words of the Apostle Paul: “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Phil 4:8).

3. Try technology-free days. Perhaps, once a week or once a month, but try turning off your television, telephone, computer, whatever other device, and engaging fully with the world which God has so beautifully fashioned. The best time for limiting technology distractions and time wasted is the fasting periods of the Church. In Russian, the word for fast is the same as the word for guard or sentry post (the word is literally ‘пост’). Be on guard, guard your soul from those who want to exploit the weaknesses of your nature for their personal gain and from demons who want you to be as filled with filth as they are.

Time is more precious than anything else we have. Other things can be bought and sold, but even the richest man cannot buy even the smallest measure of time. Other things can be recovered, restored, rebuilt, or built anew. Time, once it is gone, can never be reclaimed. The time of our life is an immeasurable treasure given to us; let us spend every bit of it wisely. It is later than we think.

If you think this post was not a complete waste of your time, please share it with your family, friends, and even your enemies; and please consider becoming a subscriber. While you cannot buy time, you can certainly buy a subscription. The yearly subscription is $50 or a little more than $4 per month - only a fraction of the price of a cell-phone plan.

Subscribe now

Share Phroneo

A Pious Reader asks:

When one is fasting does it occur that sleep departs from you because of hunger, and if so how do you deal with that situation?

First, it is important to note that a question like this comes from someone actually trying to fast. Here at Phroneo, I believe that it is important to try, to experiment, to discover one’s actual limits and abilities - not to simply read about someone else’s fasting or what some ancient people did centuries ago. The experience of the Fathers and Mothers of the Church is not always appropriate for direct and indiscriminate copying; but it is also foolish to spend one’s life as a Christian never even trying to partake of the ascetical traditions of the Church. And insofar as it is so, this question is very encouraging indeed.

Pablo Picasso, The Ascetic (L’Ascète), 1903.

On a personal note, the Pious Reader’s observation seems correct: a complete abstinence from food does seem to correlate with less sleep duration - especially, after a couple of days of not eating any food.

Read more

Gospel of Matthew 9:27-35

²⁷ And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou son of David, have mercy on us.

²⁸ And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.

²⁹ Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.

³⁰ And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it.

³¹ But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country.

³² As they went out, behold, they brought to him a dumb man possessed with a devil.

³³ And when the devil was cast out, the dumb spake: and the multitudes marvelled, saying, It was never so seen in Israel.

³⁴ But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.

³⁵ And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.

In today’s Gospel reading, the Holy Church presents to us two accounts which may at first glance seem unrelated. In the first instance, Christ heals two blind men; in the second - He restores health to a different man possessed by a dumb spirit. But as always, the Gospel is not a record of events or a historical account for the edification of ethnographers and anthropologists. The Gospel is the manual for life - our life; and the Church offers specific lessons to us not at random but with purpose and intent.

In the first of the two accounts, we see two men who may be physically blind, but their spiritual eyes see very clearly. They followed Jesus for some distance - not an easy task for someone who is blind; and when He had come into a house, they came to Him. Perhaps, they could hear the excitement of the crowd and navigated their way by sound; perhaps, they were able to get help from some kind person who could lead them toward the Christ. They could have given up - after all, they had the excuse that they could not see. Giving up would have been easy; likely, they often sat by the side of a road and begged passers-by: “Sir, madam, have mercy on us!” Some surely did; others just kept walking - tens, hundreds, maybe thousands of people walking by. But this One was different - they saw it! They left their “cozy” spots in the dirt on the side of the road, left the pennies that the people in the crowd could have dropped in their cups or hats, maybe even left the very hats and cups behind - I do not know this, but I would like to think that they did, as did the fishermen who “straightway left their nets” (Matt 4:20) - and followed Christ.

But before they can be healed, Jesus wants them to answer a question: “Believe ye that I am able to do this?” Of course, He knew the answer, He was not asking this for His own sake. But perhaps, the two men had to answer this question for themselves. Being healed is no trivial thing: one can no longer receive charity from others; one has to take on social obligations; and once healed, people were no longer exempt from carrying the burden of the Law of Moses (cf. Matt 8:4, Jn 5:14). Perhaps, the two men did not think of all of these things, because they could not truly believe that they could be healed. Perhaps, they hoped and their hearts burned within them as they walked after Him by the way (cf. Lk 24:32); but Christ wanted them to make the decision - to be healed or to return to their usual spot to continue their usual lives. It is certainly not an easy life to be blind, but they made it thus far, did they not?

We all receive according to our faith. Sometimes, we complain that God is a “hard man,” that He does not give and “takes away even that which we have” (Matt 25: 24, 29). Perhaps, this is because we never “said unto him, Yea, Lord” (9:28). Perhaps, we are still worried that someone might take our “cozy” spot in the dirt. Perhaps, we are still clenching our tin can with a few pennies in it and are too afraid to let go and to take on something greater, because to whom “much is given, of him shall be much required” (Lk 12:48): “Lo, there thou hast that is thine” (Matt 25:25).

The second account is also about blindness; but instead of being about people who cannot see, this story is about people who refuse to see. A dumb man who was possessed with a devil was brought to Jesus. The man must have been tormented - this is how people knew that he was possessed and not merely unable to speak. But for all their vileness, evil spirits seem to have enough sense to either be silent (9:32, 17:15) or to say what they actually know to be true (Mk 5:7, Lk 8:28). Not so with the Pharisees: when Christ cast out the devil, they accused Him of being on the side of the prince of the devils. Did they believe this? It is impossible to know, but there are some indications in the Scripture that the teachers and rulers of the people knew on whose side Jesus was when they saw that “the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them” (Matt 11:5). No, they were not genuinely mistaken about yet another travelling preacher; Christ was different - “it was never so seen in Israel” (9:33). When Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, the scribes, the chief priests, and the Pharisees knew all too well that there is only One who can breathe the breath of life into a man (Gen 2:7), and still they “consulted that they might [kill Jesus and] put Lazarus also to death” (Jn 12:10). No, there was no mistake. Verily it would have been better for them to do as the dumb devil and just be silent. Instead, they bore false witness against the Giver of the Law (Ex 20:16).

“The blind leading the blind” by David Teniers the Younger

Oh, if these stiff-necked people (Ex 32:9, cf. Acts 7:51) deceived only themselves - this would be bad enough. But they deceive others, those who listen to them, those whom they are supposed to lead - “they be blind leaders of the blind” (Matt 15:14). It was “the chief priests and the elders [who] persuaded the crowd … to have Jesus executed” (27:20); and the crowd obediently “shouted all the louder, ‘Crucify him!’” (23).

In presenting to us this Gospel lesson, the Holy Church cautions us to be careful when we hear claims that God wants us to do something, or that He wants something else to be this way or that, or that something is of the devil. - What is it that makes them qualified to speak on behalf of God or to discern spirits? How can we be certain that they speak in good faith and will not lead us astray or even into a rebellion against God for the sake of their selfish pursuits to seize the vineyard which does not belong to them (21:38)?

Let us, therefore, be “wise as serpents” (10:16) - not a “faithless and perverse generation” (17:17), but those “who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Heb 5:14); and let us not follow a mad crowd which today sings “Hosanna in the highest” (Matt 21:9) but tomorrow shouts “Crucify Him” (27:23). But let us “beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. [We] shall know them by their fruits.” (7:15, 16) Therefore, let us be observant and careful about to whom we listen and whom we allow into our souls. Let us carefully “consider the outcome of their life [before we] imitate their faith” (Heb 13:7).

Share Phroneo

One of the obvious and readily-observable differences between the Orthodox and Western understanding of marriage is that in the West, marriage is what two people do, while in the East, it is something that is done to them. This difference is expressed in the wedding service. In the West, the two people give a set of vows, thus entering into a contract with each other. In the Orthodox service, no vows are exchanged; after the initial inquiry as to whether they want to be married to each other (more on that later), they say absolutely nothing. They also do nothing - everything is done to them: crowns are placed on their heads, they are led by the priest around a stand with the Gospel book on it, the common cup is given to them, even their wedding rings are placed on their fingers by other people - either their “sponsors” or the priest. Whatever the historical development of the Orthodox rite may have been, its form appears to point to the belief in the sacramental nature of marriage. In this way, the rite of marriage is similar to the Eucharist. One does not produce the Body and Blood of Christ the way that one would negotiate and produce a contract. All of the actions of the priest and the congregation are not aimed at the production of the Gifts, but at preparing themselves for the reception of the sacrament.

When we speak of the sacramental nature of marriage, I think that we mean something very specific. Marriage is not a sacrament because it is listed as such in the brochure; it is not a sacrament because God blesses the couple in some general way. One possible definition of a sacrament, to be more precise for the purposes of this study, is a change (μεταβολή)- it is not quantitative (whereby vows, blessings, certificates, etc. are added to the couple) but qualitative - the couple does not remain the same two people they were before the wedding but is changed (”changing them by Your Holy Spirit” in the Eucharistic sense - Μεταβαλὼν τῷ Πνεύματί Σου τῷ ῾Αγίῳ) into something they were not - a specific icon of Christ and His Church.

Just saying this, however, does not make it so. Many Orthodox marriages do not resemble the icon of Christ and look very similar to whatever model of marriage that the contemporary society happens to present. It may not be an idle question to ask whether our theology is having much practical effect in actual marriages. The sacramental nature of an Orthodox marriage and the real presence of God as the third Person in the “trinity” of God, man and woman, is not always made real; and the sacrament remains nominal, as some baptisms and communions also do.

One possible way to correct that is to shift focus from marriage being an arrangement where one receives, into an arrangement where one gives. The secular understanding of marriage very often is as a means by which things are to be gained: love, companionship, children, financial security, status, etc. Orthodoxy could present a model which focuses on the giving, the “emptying” of self. (This would probably help make Orthodox marriages stronger.) The Orthodox model for marriage could begin with the vision of marriage as a witness (μαρτύριον) to Christ’s self-sacrifice. In fact, when we speak of marriage being an icon of Christ and His Church, perhaps, we could clarify that it is specifically the self-sacrificial love of Christ that should be reflected through marriage - at least, Paul seems to imply just that in Ephesians 5: 28-33; at least, the Church seems to understand Paul’s exhortation in just that way. And as an ‘Orthodox heritage club’ is changed into the Church by the Eucharistic presence and action of the Holy Spirit, the married couple is no longer merely a socio-economic unit or an instrument of demographic policy for the state, but a “small Church,” the Body of Christ, His image in and to the world.

One aspect of the wedding ceremony which may be interesting in this context is the question about the free and unconstrained will that is asked in the beginning of the marriage service. It would seem that historically, there rarely was “free and unconstrained” mutual consent in most Christian (and non-Christian) marriages. In Russia as in many other cultures, marriages were often arranged by the parents, albeit, not always without input from their children - at least, in peasant settings. And undoubtedly, mutual attraction may have been a factor in some marriages, but the “freedom to marry” did not exist as an institution until very recently.1 Even nowadays, various circumstances - from an unplanned pregnancy to economic considerations or social pressures - place certain constraints on people’s freedom to decide. So, if the words about the free and unconstrained will truly mean an absolute freedom and a complete lack of constraints, then either few marriages ever rise to this standard, or the words must mean something different - not what we think of initially. One possibility is that at that moment, free and unconstrained will is to be “created” - the person makes a choice to take on the responsibility and to say “I do.” In other words, the question is not so much whether the couple came to the temple under a complete lack of any constraints, but whether they are willing to put their free and unconstrained will into their relationship from this point forward. This is not a meaningless choice, since on the other side of it is a rejection of personal responsibility and surrender to circumstances. In other words, what is happening will be happening regardless of whether the two people have lingering reservations - the wedding will take place. But it is within the couple’s power to make the marriage work or not. And even though the context of the wedding service seems to suggest otherwise at first glance, this very act of putting human will into the ceremony is a necessary intrinsic element of the sacrament.

Elsewhere, I have written about a distinction between miracles, works of man, and sacraments. When God acts alone, it is a miracle; when man acts alone, it is works of man; when the wills and acts of God and man intersect in synergy, it is a sacrament. The “free and unconstrained will” of the human participants then, is necessary in order for a marriage to become a sacrament. And it cannot be some general will to marry; it has to be specific and immediate - the will to take “this person whom you see here before you” as your spouse. Again, there is a Eucharistic parallel to this mystery: man cannot become the Body of Christ by his will; God cannot turn man into the Body of Christ against man’s will; only at the intersection of God’s will and man’s will - in their co-laboring - the sacrament of the Body is realized: “Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us [first and foremost] and upon these gifts here presented.”

On the other hand, the question must be asked: to what exactly the two people are consenting, what are they willing? It is certainly not the matter of living together or having babies - people have been doing that without the Church’s blessing for thousands of years, and many continue to do so now. When we speak of marriage as an icon of Christ and His Church, it is not the icon of cohabitation or procreation but of martyrdom. The crowning, the central element of the service, has only one meaning: the bestowal of martyrs’ crowns. The real question to which the spouses respond “I do,” is not whether they want to live together and make babies, but whether they are accepting the cross and making the sacrifice: “Do you have the free and unconstrained will to give your life for this person whom you see here before you? No lists of vows or contracts with small print to negotiate - because when you give away your life, you give it all and you lose it all, expecting no barter, no deal, no benefit in return.” In other words, it is the same “I do” as that of Christ at the pre-eternal Council of the Holy Trinity (совет превечный) or in the Garden of Gethsemane.

It may be that this is the only way that the question about the free will makes sense. Marriage may be pre-arranged or the decision is constrained in some way - and such are the realities of earthly life; but the self-sacrifice in the image of Christ can never be pre-arranged or constrained, it is always a free choice - just like His.

How is this concept expressed liturgically? The connection between wedding rites and the Eucharist is not a mistake - it makes intuitive sense, even if it lacks historicity. Thus, ideally, every Liturgy should point to Christ’s sacrifice to us and compel us to reflect this image back to our spouses and to the world. And when Christ’s self-sacrifice is realized as the model for our marriages, the Eucharist becomes the liturgical expression of answering “I do,” which then changes that brief moment at the beginning of the wedding service from something seemingly-unimportant and not altogether memorable into something which is connected to the timelessness of the Eucharist and to the image and likeness of Christ in the spouses.

Share Phroneo

For more on the topic of marriage, please take a look at some of our previous posts:

Saints Peter and Fevronia of Murom

Family planning

Birth control

A note on marital fasting

Subscribe now

Last but not least, this is a reader-supported publication; please share it with your friends and family! And if you would like access to all our posts, please consider becoming a paid subscriber - it is only $5 per month ($4 if you subscribe for a year); getting married will cost incomparably more than that and may even cost you your very life :-)

(To read “Adapt and overcome,” please click here.)

Recently, several articles in media outlets, such as this one in The New York Times, reported on a study showing that with more Americans taking GLP-1 receptor agonists and losing weight, airlines will save more than half a billion dollars a year on fuel costs; which means that a quarter of a billion gallons of jet fuel will not be burnt and emitted into the atmosphere. This may be irrelevant for Greta Thunberg, who prefers to travel by yacht, but it may be a very important consideration for those people who are concerned about climate change, yet cannot avail themselves of a yacht.

It turns out that being overweight contributes to global warming; and losing weight is an effective way to combat climate change. Naturally, the effects of one’s weight loss go far beyond travel by airplane. Gasoline-powered cars burn up to 2% more fuel for every 100 lbs of extra weight and up to 8% more when driving uphill. The exact numbers for electric vehicles are difficult to find, but some data suggests that for every 100 lbs of extra weight, the effective range of an electric vehicle is decreased by 1-2%. The maths are simple: more energy is required to move more weight, by whichever means this weight is moved - an airplane, a car, a locomotive, a horse-drawn carriage, or a rikshaw. An internal combustion engine requires more fossil fuel; a horse and a rikshaw require more food (and, consequently, both emit more methane) - whatever the source of energy, consumption must increase in order to move heavier weight across distance.

And speaking of consumption… I am not a scientist, but if I understand correctly, GLP-1 receptor agonists work, essentially, by suppressing appetite. (They mimic GLP-1, which slows gastric emptying and reduces appetite and cravings in the brain.) In other words, people on GLP-1 drugs lose weight because they simply consume less food, which, it turns out, is good for the environment. The opposite is also true: the level of consumption required to gain and maintain additional 100-200 lbs of body mass for years and decades, causes additional harm to the environment. Thus, one of the most effective ways to fight climate change for an individual person may be to lose weight
- not to parade around with placards, which take vast amounts of energy to produce - especially, if the "non-profit" agency producing them happens to use artificial intelligence in their "creative" work.

GLP-1 receptor agonists are one way to consume less. Proper Christian fasting - as opposed to vegan dieting - is another way. And since I know almost nothing about Ozempic, I will speak of fasting.

Proper fasting reduces consumption. For example, if one fasts on a Wednesday or a Friday until the ninth hour and then breaks the fast with one simple meal, this means that he does not consume the other two meals or snacks on that day - a win for the environment and a win for the waistline. Naturally, with a reduction in consumption, comes a reduction in body mass. Your car will consume less fuel, your rickshaw will require less food (and emit less methane), you can feel good about flying in an airplane. You will be able to take the money you save by consuming less and give it to the poor, just as Saint John Chrysostom and other Church Fathers teach about proper fasting.

If you want to learn more about Christian fasting (as opposed to vegan dieting), subscribe to Phroneo; it is still only $5 per month - the price of a gallon of petrol. When you subscribe, you will be able to over-consume as much Phroneo content as you want, including this wonderful interview about fasting practices of Athonite monks - all without contributing to global warming. To be sure, Christians do not fast because of concerns about climate change. But if climate change is something that concerns you, adopting a more ascetical lifestyle just may be the answer.

Subscribe now

In popular forms of Orthodoxy, Saint Peter the Fisherman is sometimes seen as the patron saint of fishermen – a very relevant connection for some of us. In times past, when most people lived closer to nature rather than on the concrete slabs which are our modern cities, on the feast day of the Holy Apostles, fishermen gathered in churches for special prayer services in honor of Saint Peter the Fisherman. Perhaps, a more sophisticated mind will quickly correct the simplicity of the village fisherman and point out that it is God, not Saint Peter per se - albeit, by the prayers and the intersessions of Saint Peter - who grants us the fruits of our labors, including the toils of a fisherman. But sophistication does not always correspond to supreme wisdom. In his simple way, a fisherman believes that Saint Peter surely knows first-hand what it is like to “toil all night and take nothing” (Lk 5:5). And it is the eagerness of Saint Peter to follow the word of Christ that continues to inspire a fisherman: “Nevertheless at Thy word I will let down the net” (ibid.). And so it is with many of us: even after fishing all night and catching nothing, we would still rather be fishing – especially, since Christ Himself urges us to go back out and fish some more – because maybe, just maybe, with God’s blessing and by the prayers and the intersessions of the Holy Apostle Peter the Fisherman, we too can catch “a great multitude of fishes” (6).

Share Phroneo

In this project, we have been mostly focusing on the dietary aspects of fasting, but most Christians are well-aware that the discipline of fasting regulates a variety of activities - such as prayer, sleep, entertainment. It is not uncommon, for example, that people choose to forego movies or concerts during Lent specifically as an expression of fasting. One activity which is often mentioned in connection to fasting is marital relations - that is to say, sex.

The problem with sex is that it is usually not discussed in polite society. Some pastors do mention on occasion that “spouses should abstain” before Communion and during fasting periods, but not all pastors broach the subject, and those that do, prudently refrain from going into any detail. Thus, it is not altogether uncommon that some new converts do not find out that they should abstain from sex on the evening before Communion until months or even years later. Perhaps, such things should be obvious, but are not always or to all.

The scriptural basis for the practice of abstinence is known well enough; it is the Apostle Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 7, verse 5:

Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

In a truly Eve-ish manner, this admonition is often interpreted to mean that spouses should abstain from sex during the fasts of the Church. Protopresbyter Alexander Lebedev, a long-time rector of the Holy Transfiguration Cathedral in Los Angeles, California, tells a story from his seminary days. Already married, seminarian Alexander rented a house from a lady who lived near the seminary. This well-meaning and God-fearing lady offered to him and his wife the following word of advice concerning sex: it is not allowed on Sunday, because it is the Day of the Lord; it is not allowed on Monday, because it is the day of the bodiless hosts (bodiless being the key word here); it is not allowed on Tuesday, because it is the eve of a fasting day; it is not allowed on Wednesday, because it is a fasting day, not on Thursday or Friday either for the same reasons; and neither is it allowed on Saturday, because it is the eve of Sunday, which is the Day of the Lord. Whether or not this story happened exactly the way Father Alexander recollects, it accurately conveys the attitude of some pious people toward sex.

In a rather-comical twist, ethnographers report that Russian peasants invented an ingenious work-around: since sex is forbidden on the “eves” of so many days, they assumed that engaging in it during the daytime was not against the rules and proceeded with the task of procreation accordingly, often conceiving children not only during lengthy fasting periods, but also on Saturdays. (Consider this ethnographic observation in the context of our discussion of the special time between morning and evening in this post.) In Russian villages, there was even a special term to describe a child conceived on a Saturday. The additional complication, at least in some peasant traditions, was their belief that the act of proper conception takes three consecutive days. Thus, for a child to be fully and properly formed, it would not be enough to engage in the act on a Thursday - the prospective parents would need to repeat the process on Friday and Saturday. In other words, it was all for a good cause.

Ethnography aside, the direct meaning of Paul’s instruction, is the exact opposite of abstinence. Paul does not say to abstain; rather, quite literally, he says not to abstain: “defraud ye not one the other.” The apparent problem that Paul is addressing is not that the Corinthians had too much sex, but that they were practicing too much abstinence.

The following is Father Alexander’s explanation of some of the rules concerning marital relations and fasting. Perhaps, some may find it useful.

The scriptural admonition is for married couples not to deny each other sexual relations, except by mutual consent for the purpose of prayer and fasting. Abstinence from sexual relations (by mutual consent) is certainly appropriate the evening before receiving the Holy Sacraments, and during the day that one receives them. It is certainly not an absolute “requirement” of the Church to abstain on all fast days (and on the eves of fast days), or during the 11 days after the Nativity when marriages are not permitted. The Russian Church in the 13th century1 issued guidelines for married clergy on these issues, and they included as days of mandatory abstinence only the first and last week of Great Lent, the two weeks of Dormition Lent, and Wednesdays and Fridays during Nativity Lent and the Lent of the Holy Apostles. The married state is blessed and the marriage bed is undefiled.2 The Holy Church in protecting the sanctity of marriage and the well-being of the spouses, as well as encouraging procreation and the raising of “fair children” has no interest in creating artificial impediments to preclude spouses from “rejoicing in one another.”

Share Phroneo

This is a reader-supported publication. If you enjoy Phroneo, please share it with your friends and family! This will help a lot. Thank you!