Sayings of Maximus the Confessor

     I don't suppose there can ever be one ULTIMATE theologian within the Church—maybe, for Orthodox, it would be, quite rightly, Saint Gregory the Theologian—but I think if I was a betting man, my money might be, just might be, on Saint Maximus the Confessor.
     Here are a few sayings from Saint Maximus that give us just a glimmer of the Saint's broad, deep thought.

Food is not evil, but gluttony is. Childbearing is not evil, but fornication is. Money is not evil, but avarice is. Glory is not evil, but vainglory is. Indeed, there is no evil in existing things, but only in their misuse.

Temptations come on some people for the cleansing of previous sins, on other for the beautification of their current perfection, and on yet others, as preparation for things to come, except temptations, which are for the increase of a man's faith and virtue, as it was with Job.

Theology without practice is the theology of demons

Do not say that faith in Christ alone can save you, for this is not possible if you do not attain love for Him, which is demonstrated by deeds. As for mere faith: "The demons also believe and tremble" (James, 2:19). The action of love consists in heartfelt good deeds toward one's neighbor, magnanimity, patience, and sober use of things.

If God suffers in the flesh when He is made man, should we not rejoice when we suffer, for we have God to share our sufferings? This shared suffering confers the kingdom on us. For he spoke truly who said, 'If we suffer with Him, then we shall also be glorified with Him' (Rom. 8:17).

For him who is perfect in love and has reached the summit of dispassion there is no difference between his own or another's, or between Christians and unbelievers, or between slave and free, or between male and female. But because he has risen above the tyranny of the passions and has fixed his attention on the single nature of man, he looks on all in the same way and shows the same disposition to all. For in him there is neither Greek nor Jew, male nor female, bond not free, but Christ who 'is all, and in all' (Col. 3:11; cf. Gal. 3:28).

The person who loves God cannot help loving every man as himself, even though he is grieved by the passions of those who are not yet purified. But when they amend their lives, his delight is indescribable and knows no bounds.

He who has not yet attained divine knowledge energized by love is proud of his spiritual progress. But he who has been granted such knowledge repeats with deep conviction the words uttered by the patriarch Abraham when he was granted the manifestation of God: 'I am dust and ashes' (Gen. 18:27).

Dispassion and humility lead to spiritual knowledge. Without them no one will see the Lord.

Christianity is an entirely new way of being human.

The Modern Project

     The following is from Father Stephen Freeman—who hosts a wonderful podcast on Ancient Faith Radio, and is also the author of the acclaimed "Glory to God for All Things" blog.  This is the transcript of one of his talks from a couple of years ago.  It is a good presentation on how "modernity" is often at odds with classical Christianity.  Most Christians in America, and in the West in general, who think of themselves as "conservative" if not "classical" are just as much products of modernity as their more liberal counterparts.  Only in the Christianity offered to us by the Church Fathers and the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Churches (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Coptic Orthodoxy) do you find proper representations of classical Christianity, and, even there, classical Christianity is often threatened by "Catholics" and "Orthodox" who are themselves shaped by modernity and its offspring.

The Modern Project

by Father Stephen Freeman

When I was doing a graduate degree in theology, it was not uncommon to hear discussions of what was called the “project of modernity.” It was an academic catch-phrase to describe the social-philosophical-political-religious efforts to construct the modern world. The Enlightenment, which took place in the 17th and 18th centuries describes a collection of efforts that changed how people saw the world, how they saw themselves, how they saw their faith, how they saw the state. It brought new ways of thinking into the mainstream of Western culture and newly imagined the meaning and construction of politics; it pondered and reinvented Christianity. Most importantly, it re-imagined what it meant to be a human being. We, today, are heirs of that legacy. The most uneducated person who never heard anything about the Enlightenment, the most uneducated person in our society shares the assumptions of the “modern project,” regardless of whether they’re even remotely aware of I, for we are the modern project.

In the modern project, human beings are understood to be autonomous centers of consciousness whose choices and decisions bring about their self-actualization. That’s a mouthful, but I’ll explain what I mean. First, we are autonomous centers of consciousness. That is, we understand that our identity is rooted in the fact that we’re conscious and aware and that the center of myself belongs to me alone. I can choose to share with others and make common cause with others, but I am defined only by myself. So this is also a heart of individualism: I am my own man.

Secondly, our choices and decisions are what bring about our self-actualization, that who I am in the world we think of as being a product of our experiences and the choices and decisions we make and have made. Those decisions, we think, create our identity—they are our means of actualization. So we’re self-actualized; my decisions and choices are what determine the meaning of my life so that I am who I choose to be.

When you look at these critical ideas, it’s easy to understand why the primary driving force of modern history is freedom. This definition of what it means to be human makes a certain version of freedom the most essential part of life, such that a nything that restricts freedom quickly becomes an enemy of individual existence and self-actualization. Only if I am free to choose am I able to properly exist as a self-actualized individual.

These are not necessarily conscious ideas, but they are almost universal in the modern world. We don’t have to think about them; we think them. We discuss “freedom” and “choice” without ever having to define our terms, with a wide-range of social agreement. Just as certain Christian groups played a major role in the development of the modern world-view, so their spiritual heirs today have become the dominant modern form of Christianity.

Churches, for instance, that practice infant baptism, which used to be a normative classical Christian practice and was once the dominant practice among all Protestants with the exception of Baptists, but churches who engage in that practice today constantly have to defend themselves. Infant baptism in the modern world seems to contradict the most basic assumptions about human freedom. “Shouldn’t a child be able to choose for themselves whether to be baptized?” The logic of that seems obvious to a modern man. Anything that impinges or limits choice seems dangerous or questionable within the modern project. A relationship with Christ is something that must be freely chosen. “The Hour of Decision” is a phrase that resonates with the modern heart.

Church discipline on moral matters—or on other matters, but on moral matters—has come under increasing scrutiny. Church discipline, of course, impinges on people’s freedom. Modern persons may associate themselves with a church so that they become “Catholic” or “Orthodox” or “Presbyterian,” or whatever, but that the moral details of their lives should be governed by that association seems questionable to them. For instance, a majority of Americans who identify as “Roman Catholic” ignore that Church’s teaching on many social issues—particularly those issues that they regard as “private,” that is, sexual issues. The Church serves a function in their lives, but only the private choice of the individual is given the power to define and determine true identity. In such a world, words like “Catholic,” “Orthodox,” “Calvinist” are more a label, a self-chosen identifier, than a community in which identity and life themselves are formed.

There is a civilizational clash between classical Christianity and the “modern project,” and I’ll explain that. In the classical understanding we are not autonomous individuals. We are contingent beings, that is, beings whose lives depend on something else. We’re contingent beings whose existence is in fact a gift: a gift with purpose, meaning, and direction that’s given by God. We have value as persons not because of our choices or our ability to choose but because we are created in the image of God. Thus the least of us, including the incompetent, even those in a vegetative state, have true worth and dignity, because it’s a gift.

We’re not defined by our choices and decisions. Who we are is the gift of God—it’s a given. Its identity is a matter of revelation and transformation in the Christian life and not a private work of self-construction. Our choices and decisions are not unimportant, but they only have relative merit or power. In the end, we are God’s creation, and our decisions only have meaning in relationship to him.

The civilizational clash is perhaps most poignant at the places where modern choice and classical “givenness” most contradict one another. The most common points have been on the level of biology and relationships. The instincts of classical Christianity are to treat biology and relationships as “given"s. For instance, gender, in classical Christianity, is not a choice; it’s something you’re born with. Family is biological rather than associational. We don’t choose our family; our family is given to us. Sexual relationships serve a given order rather than our private needs. We don’t self-define our sexuality.

The instincts of the modern period are to maximize freedom and choice. Biology it considers to be real, but not necessarily determinative (thus some today even self-identify their gender). Family is increasingly defined as a set of choices: relationships, that is, that we prefer, not that are given to us. The “givenness” of blood-ties with inherent responsibilities [is] largely disappearing in current jurisprudence, that is, in the practice of our courts. Thus we have what we call the “accident of birth,” which cannot begin to compete with “freedom of choice.” How can family have the same power as my freedom, since I didn’t choose my family?

The often maligned popular version of relativism that says, “If it’s true for you,” is simply an expression that maximizes choice. Truth that is not chosen is experienced in the modern world as oppressive. “You’re trying to put your truth on me.” The classical Christian world of doctrine and dogma is thus endangered as a set of extremely inconvenient truths. They wonder in the modern project, “Why would it be wrong for us to re-imagine God?”

Christian civilization ended somewhere around the time that the modern world began. It depends on where you want to set the dates, but somewhere around the time the modern world began, classical Christian civilization ended. They cannot co-exist. The “modern project” has not asked how it could save Christian civilization; that civilization was its enemy from the beginning. The modern question has been: “What do we want the world to look like?” For how the world looks is considered to be a matter of choice. Thus Protestant theology, which is itself a modern project, has largely been driven not by deeper exploration of its roots and traditions, but by continued exploration and re-imaginings of the Christian gospel. Sola Scriptura was never imagined to be a controlling force directing the course of civilization. It was first and foremost a wedge used to dismiss the classical Church and its Traditions. Like the American Constitution, Scripture has been “evolving” ever since in the hands of moderns.

Today, classical Christianity has not disappeared. It remains and is a thorn in the side of modernity. The popular media keep a constant watch, for instance, on the Vatican, hoping for any sign that its classical foundations are slipping. Orthodoxy in its resurrected Russian vehemence is characterized as allied with a “thug,” and as thoroughly reactionary.

Meanwhile, Christianity in its classical form is set upon a difficult road. The temptation is simply to be reactionary, that is, for classical Christianity to see itself as simply the conservative “choice,” in which case the “modern project” will be complete. For if Christianity will simply agree to be a choice, then it can be understood in modern times—and marginalized. It is, however, the classical contention that we are not the product of our own choices, that our lives are defined by God’s gracious gift and that all things are relative to God alone, and this flies in the face of the modern world. It is the place of Tradition—something given that is not a choice—that refuses to yield to modern pressures.


The spirituality of classical Christianity is that of self-emptying rather than self-choosing. It recognizes that life is, finally, always a “given.” The demands of blood and kinship are real and rightly lay claim on us. My imaginings and demands for a world of my own fashioning are seen as temptations that draw me away from the difficult tasks that lay most rightly at hand. The “modern project” has always promised a better world, and for those with the wealth and intelligence to profit most from freedom, the promise has paid great dividends. But the promise has also been a hollow mockery of our existence, for we are, in fact, contingent, and though we may imagine ourselves able to be something other than what we are, in the end, the grave refuses to yield to our choices. In perhaps the greatest irony of all, the “modern project” now champions the right to die—as if we actually had a choice.

Welcome to Classical Christianity

     Christianity is still rather popular these days in America.  If you live in the South as I do—the so-called “Bible Belt”, to be precise—then you might even say that it’s wildly popular.

     And therein lies the problem.  Popular. Pop.

     When things are popular in our modern culture, then one needs to take a serious look at just what is being taught and practiced.  Much of what passes for Christianity these days rarely resembles the ancient Tradition[1].  Christianity in today’s world is too often simply a reflection of the culture itself.  And modern culture is most decidedly not Christian.

     The goal of this blog will be to present essays, articles, quotes, art, and prayers that are representative of traditional, classical Christianity.

Conversion

     About 8 years ago, I “re-converted” to the religion of my youth.[2]  And 4 years ago, I formally converted to the Orthodox Church.  Orthodoxy is ancient, classical, and traditional.  That’s what I love about it and part of the reason for my conversion.

     I grew up in the South—Texas, Arkansas, Alabama—and, like a vast majority of southerners, what I learned about Christianity came from my upbringing in the Southern Baptist Church.  And, although I am sure that there are classical Christians in many Southern Baptist churches, the church doesn’t teach, and therefore practice, classical Christianity.[3]  When I discovered Christianity as it was practiced in the Early Church, and then the classical branches that sprang forth from it, I recall being miffed that none of it was taught in the churches I attended during childhood.

     But that’s exactly what this blog is going to be about: Classical Christianity, its thought, and its practice, and how it should be applied in the modern, secular world that we live in.  Here are some of the things that we will cover (although this is not necessarily an exhaustive list):

• Classical theism: Traditional Christians, both ancient and modern, were, and always have been, proponents of what is typically termed classical theism.  This is in opposition to what is commonly (but not always) termed theistic personalism.  Most modern-day atheists, for instance, attack not classical theism, but theistic personalism, but that is not the theistic God of classical Christianity.  (Nor is it the God of classical Islam or Judaism, for that matter.)
• Sacraments: Classical Christianity is, by and large, sacramental Christianity.  (If you are confused at all by what that means, I will attempt to find plenty of articles to answer your confusion.)
• Salvation:  When classical Christians speak of salvation—especially as the term is often used in the Early Church—they typically mean something different than what is meant by modern-day Americans.  (Along these same lines, we will discuss theosis as the synonym for salvation.)
• The reading of Holy Scripture: Classical Christians typically read scripture in ways other than literalism—although it may certainly be read that way on occasion, too.  Often, the allegorical, metaphorical, and mystical meanings of scripture are just as important—more so, in many cases—than the literal meaning.  We will approach Holy Scripture from the vantage of point of how it was classically read in the Early Church and by the Church Fathers.
• Saints: Christianity—to paraphrase Tertullian—was built on the blood of the martyrs.  We will discuss why the Saints are important in order to properly understand Christianity in its classic context.
• Prayer: Prayer is much more than the vague prayers that many modern-day Christians utter to an equally vague deity.  Classical Christianity has a rich heritage of prayers that will be posted here.

Varied Sources

     I have a couple of other “Christian” blogs that primarily deal with specifically Orthodox issues and elements.  Unfortunately, due to the time involved in crafting pieces, I never get around to writing on them.  That’s where this blog comes in; it’s going to be different.  Instead of relying on my own mind and writing ability, I will post articles, essays, quotes, and excerpts from books written by more qualified authors than myself.  Much of the material will be directly from classical—and, therefore, ancient—texts, while others will be new material written from the classical point of view.

     I will try to include a lot of material that will be of interest to the average reader and churchgoer.  A lot of the artwork, poetry, prayers, and theologically rich hymnography of the Church can be understood by all people—I don’t want readers to think that it will simply be stuffy academia that’s presented (although I won’t shy away from some of that).

     I will try my best to include writers both Eastern and Western, Greek and Latin, Orthodox and Catholic—not to mention some Protestants that “fit the mould” of the classicist.

---

[1] Here I have in mind much of popular “non-denominational” Christianity, mega-churches, and movies such as the recent “God is NOT dead.”  If modern Christians actually think these things constitute Christianity, then we are already in deep trouble.  And, yes, I understand that there are well-meaning, “good” people that are followers of all of the above, but it’s still not Christianity, in the classical, traditional sense.

[2] To put an exact date, or even a year, on it would be inaccurate.  It wasn’t simply a matter of there being a “before” and an “after”, but, rather, it was an ongoing, organically evolving process with many halts, and then many leaps forward—and sometimes backward—at other times.

[3] A lot of evangelical Christians are “conservative”, to be sure, but this doesn’t mean that they are traditional.