On the deviation of Western "Christendom" from the Orthodox ethosby Protopresbyter John S.

Romanides On matters like these however, contemporary Orthodox find it difficult to give replies, because in our day, they have alienated themselves so much from this tradition, that they not longer consider the Orthodox Christian `regimen' in the context of ailment and therapy. They no longer regard Orthodoxy as a therapeutic regimen, even though all of the prayers of the Church are quite clear on this point; because, who, after all, is Christ for the Orthodox Christian? Isn't He constantly addressed in the benedictions and the `troparia' hymns of the Church as "the physician of our souls and our bodies"? If you were to examine Papist or Protestant tradition, this form of address for Christ (as a physician) is nowhere to be found! Christ is called a "physician", only in the Orthodox Tradition. So, why was this tradition erased from the Papists and the Protestants, and why is it, when we Orthodox speak of a therapeutic regimen, they are surprised? The reason is that the need for catharsis and enlightenment and the need for inner change have left these people, in their Theology. According to them, it is not the person who changes; it is God! According to them, man does not change. The only thing that man has to do according to them is to become a "good guy". And when a former "bad guy" becomes a "good guy", that is when God will love him. Otherwise, God will abhor him! If that person remains or becomes a "bad guy", then God will simply not love him! In other words, if a person becomes a "good guy", then God will change and be good to him; and now, instead of not loving that person, God will now love him! When a person becomes a "bad guy", God becomes angry, and, when a person becomes a "good guy", God becomes happy! Unfortunately, this is what is happening in Europe. However, the problem is that this is not happening in Europe only, but in Greece also, and this spirit is prevalent in very many of those who are in the Church. Orthodoxy has reached the point of becoming a religion, where God changes His dispositions! When a person is good, God will love him. When he is bad, God

will not love him.[vii]. In other words, God punishes and God rewards! Thus, the essence of Orthodoxy in Greece nowadays has become a mere moralism. Aren't these precisely the lessons that our children were taught in the Sunday schools and the paraecclesiastic Organizations which upheld Western standards and corrupted the Orthodox spirit? So, if, after all this, someone still wishes to learn why Orthodoxy ended up in this sorry state, then they only have to read Adamantios Korais! (**) He was the one who, after the 1821 revolution against the Turkish occupation, inaugurated this mentality in Greece. He was the one who instigated the persecution against Hesychasm, against traditional Monasticism, against the Orthodox (and only correct) therapy of man's soul. But we should start from somewhere else. Let us suppose that a researching scientist, who has nothing to do with religions an atheist, let's say decides to do some research on religious traditions and that when he gets to Orthodoxy, he digs around, he discovers, and he describes his findings. He will most probably say: "Well, just look at this! This tradition here speaks of the soul, of a noetic energy of the soul and of a specific therapeutic regimen". This person, on furthering his research, will reach the point of acknowledging that if this therapeutic regimen were to be followed by human societies, it would bring very beneficial results, both to the health of individuals, and subsequently to societies. Then, with his continued search, he would he would begin to discern when this tradition first appeared, what its sources are, for how many centuries it was successfully applied in practice, where it continues to be practiced, and then, continuing his search, he would discover why this tradition is no longer found among the majority of Orthodox nowadays, and why Orthodoxy has undergone such a change. This researcher would continue, only to find that this happened, because Hesychasm and traditional Monasticism the two bearers of this Tradition had been subjected to persecutions. But why was this tradition persecuted? Because the places where it flourished began to be culturally westernized, the way it happened in Russia after the reformation of Peter the "Great", and in Greece after the 1821 revolution. The contemporary

historian Toynbee says that the Orthodox civilization is being gradually assimilated by Western culture. [viii] He has written an entire book, in which he discerns that the currently existing civilizations are five only, as compared to the 20-25 that existed in the past. These five civilizations are the civilizations of India, of the far East (China-Japan), of Europe, of Orthodoxy, and of the primitive cultures still found in Australia and Africa. And it is Toynbee's theory that all civilizations are being westernized nowadays. In the past, attempts were made to impose this westernization through the missionary work of Western missionaries. Europeans, both in the past and in our time, systematically dispatched and continue to dispatch entire armies of missionaries, in order to not only Christianize, but to westernize other nations also. This is why these heresies also exist in Greece, and why they continue to be active. This missionary aim however according to Toynbee- was unsuccessful in the idolatrous nations of Africa and elsewhere, because missionaries tended to cause divisions among the people; for example, in a family of idolaters, one member would become a Lutheran, the other brother an Anglican, the other a Baptist, the cousin a Methodist, the other one a Pentecostal, the other one an Evangelical, etc., thus, not only did they splinter that nation into many pieces from a religious aspect, they even actually shattered the families themselves. Thus, it was verified that missionary work of this kind had failed altogether in westernizing the people of the "third world". So, in 1948, Toynbee suggested another solution. This westernization had to be imposed through technology, and also through the economy.

The social scope of Orthodoxy

So, we now ask, "What is the social aspect of the matter?" We have the person any person who is living inside a society who has to act as a healthy social unit. The therapy

that we mentioned previously, regarding the noetic energy of man's soul, when completed, will automatically produce a social person; in other words, a person with a robust soul, who will become active socially, in every area. And he who is thus automatically healed, is tacitly ordained a physician for the others the still unhealed. This is because the medical science called "Orthodoxy" differs from all the other sciences, inasmuch as the one who is healed automatically becomes a healer. The implementation itself of the therapeutic regimen on oneself becomes the means for healing others. This is why it is inconceivable for a person who has been healed to not have any spiritual children, i.e., those who are in a spiritual dependence with him, whom he will counsel and guide towards their subsequent healing. In the ancient Church, there was no official or specific `therapist', given that every Christian was a healer. That was the mission of the ancient Church. The missionary task of the ancient Church was not the same as today's Orthodox Church, which at times consists of an advertising of our wonderful dogmas or our tradition of worship, as though these are some kind of products being displayed fro sale. We say for example: "Look here, children! We have the finest dogmas, the best form of worship, the best-sounding cantors, the most beautiful attire see how lovely the Bishop's cape is! etc., and we strive to impress others with our pastoral staffs, our cassocks, our stoles, when attempting to do missionary work. Of course there might be a certain degree of sense and success in a mission performed in such a manner, but that is not the genuine form of missionary work, the way that the ancient Church saw it. Nowadays, missionary work is comprised mainly of the following: We enlighten people who are superstitious and we make them Orthodox Christians, without trying to heal them. But in doing this, we have been replacing or exchanging their previous dogma with another, new dogma. We exchange inside them the one superstition with another superstition. And this is because when Orthodoxy is presented and offered in such a way, one can only wonder, how does it differs from a superstition? If Orthodoxy is presented and provided like a Christianity that does not heal (even though its chief role is healing), then how is it different to a superstition?

There are Christians in the West, who likewise have dogmas themselves, and who even acknowledge certain Synods; in other words, there are heretics whose dogmas do not appear to have any huge differences when compared to the Orthodox dogmas. The difference is not as vast as the one between Christians and idolaters. Therefore, if the Orthodox dogmas do not have a seemingly awesome difference with those of the heterodox Christians, and, if the Orthodox dogmatic teaching (the way it is being taught today in Greece) is totally unrelated to the therapeutic regimen of the Orthodox Tradition, then how does the Orthodox tradition differ from the tradition of the heterodox, from this aspect? And why should a non-Orthodox believe in Orthodoxy and not some other Christian dogma, since both of them, in the way they are presented, are certainly not presented as paths that lead towards healing, but as superstitions? Nowadays, we are looking at changing man's mentality, at changing the dogma, at changing the way we look at life, and thus construe this as repentance. Nowadays in Orthodoxy, repentance is linked only to the acceptance of Christ. In other words, we accept Christ, and, because we have accepted Him, we go to church, light a candle every now and then, and we even become "good guys"; and, if we are youngsters, we go to Sunday School or, if we are adults, we might go to an occasional religious event and supposedly this proves we are living in repentance; that is, we are supposedly penitents. Or, if we have done something bad in our life and have felt some degree of contrition and have asked for forgiveness, we also call this `repentance'. But this is not repentance. This is simply remorse or regret. Regret is just the beginning of repentance. Man's soul is not cleansed through mere regret. For the soul of man to be cleansed of its passions, it must be preceded by a fear of God and repentance, which continues during the stage of catharsis and is completed upon divine enlightenment; i.e., the enlightening of man's `nous' by the Grace of the Holy Spirit. So, if the Orthodox no longer preoccupy themselves with this therapeutic regimen, in what do they differ from the nonOrthodox? In the dogma? What do they need the Orthodox dogma for, if they don't use it for the healing of their soul? The dogma will be of no use to them in this way.

(**) Adamantios Korais: one of the founding fathers of the modern Greek State, after the 1821 revolution against the Turkish occupation of Greece. [vii] Professor George Mantzarides, in a commentary regarding the contents of the book by Archmandrite Zacharias Zacharou titled "A Reference to the Theology of the Elder Sophrony" (a publication by the Holy Monastry of the Precious Forerunner, Essex, England, 2000), which was published in the magazine "Synaxis"(booklet 85, JanMar 2003, pages 94-98), mentions the following (on page 98): ... Love towards one's enemy constitutes an undeniable criterion of the truth and of the "catholicity" (the `overall' hypostasis) of the Church. In the teaching of saint Siluan and the Elder Sophrony, people are not discerned as `enemies' and `friends' (or, as `good' and `bad'), but as ones who have knowledge of God, or who are ignorant of God. Wherever people are acknowledged as `enemies', it means that a segment of the corpus of mankind is rejected, thus jeopardizing the universality of its "overall hypostasis". The observance of the commandment of love towards one's enemy signifies that man is embracing all people; that he becomes universally "catholic" (Greek=overall). And at an ecclesiological level, love towards one's enemy constitutes a criterion that verifies this `catholicity'. A true Church is the one that keeps alive the love towards one's enemies (p.350). This note is an extremely important one and especially opportune in our day and age.

[viii] The term "Western" here is not intended as a geographical inference, but as a cultural and religious one, signifying the Western, Papist and Protestant religious and cultural tradition.