A David against the Goliath of PC? Or spiritual warfare?

*

How to oppose PC, assuming that you want to?

One thing not to do, one pitfall is to see yourself as a David pitted against the Goliath of political correctness - and to nurture the hope of slaying PC with a single, perfectly-directed swirl of your slingshot.

That is a self-gratifying fantasy based on pride.

But, on the other hand, a single person's principled efforts over a period of time can make an extraordinary effect.

*

(Naturally it never is a single person who produces the effect, many others are involved, nonetheless the effect may depend on a single person. Leaving aside, here, the operations of Grace.)

*

As an example consider Eugene Rose (1934-1982) - a young Californian academic who eventually became Hieromonk Seraphim Rose.

Read if possible, Father Seraphim Rose, his Life and Works - a thousand page biography and summary by Hieromonk Damascene. Look around the internet to estimate his current influence.

Look at those dates: Fr Seraphim died aged 48.

Consider that he did not become an Orthodox Christian until his mid twenties, and did not publish a book until the mid-1970s.

*

Consider also that he lived a deliberately obscure monastic life (not even living in a normal-sized and established monastery but in a tiny rural 'skete' inhabited by just two monks, for much of the time), mostly isolated, and engaging for much of his adult life in a great deal of 'manual labor' - such as tending a shop, printing and building.

And of course in religious practices such as participating in long services, fasting and praying.

Does this look like a strategy for changing the world?

Is hermetic isolation a subtle tactic for socio-political transformation?

Or is it a mere unrepeatable random fluke?

*

Seraphim Rose was not a David confronting the Goliath of the modern world in direct battle.

Nor did Seraphim Rose go in for shrewd tactics and compromises, or for 'playing the system'?

Nor did he get boosted by a powerful institution (at the time the worldly centres of Orthodoxy were mostly crushed or under Communist control - especially the Russian church).

Then reflect on his actual impact on 'the world' - even thinking merely of the English language world and ignoring the effects on Greek, Russian and other Orthodox cultures.

*

My point is that the example of Seraphim Rose proves that an individual can make a positive difference, even nowadays, even when measured in a worldly scale.

And this was achieved by doing almost the opposite of trying to make a difference to the world: by a near complete focus on things of the spirit, and on the next world.

*

Yet Seraphim Rose was trying to change the world, explicitly so; and his first written book 'Nihilism' (written before he became a monk) makes this crystal clear.

It is perhaps the best analysis of nihilism, and a premonition of post-Communist political correctness - written at a socio-political level of analysis - but published only after his death -

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html.

*

Of course, this is not intended as an alternative strategy for a political movement!

It is the opposite; that it is time to stop thinking in terms of political movements and instead to model ourselves on devout and other-worldly saints rather than devious and Machiavellian dictators.

And in doing so, not to seek situations that (we hope) will display our heroism (the David and Goliath scenario - although naturally these should not be shirked if they arise).

*

In a nutshell, political correctness is not something we ought to seek to slay (how could something so formless and dispersed be slain, except by general catastrophe?).

Seraphim Rose did not work in that way - yet nobody has a deeper understanding of the psychology of PC, and the absolute necessity that PC be replaced.

The necessity, I mean, for our souls - each one of them; never-mind the necessity for PC to be replaced to sustain social order.

*

The problem of PC is that it would destroy our souls, would render us incapable of attaining salvation - would indeed destroy our humanity.

*

The David and Goliath scenario is deceptive because in the profoundest sense, this-worldly, nihilistic political correctness cannot be fought: it should be - it must be - displaced.

And displaced in our hearts - by the other-worldly, the transcendental.

The battle against political correctness (against nihilism) is, indeed, essentially an example of spiritual warfare.

Seraphim Rose is a spiritual inspiration - and his effect on the world is 'merely' a by-product.

*

Considered as such; the example of Seraphim Rose shows that the war could be won, even yet.

*

Seymour Glass compared with Seraphim Rose

*

I have just been reading my favourite JD Salinger stories about the Glass family ^ - which focus on the life and suicide of their American-born fictional 'saint' Seymour; and I have just started a re-read of the biography of the first real life American-born Saint (of the Russian Orthodox Church) Hieromonk Seraphim of Platina + - born as Eugene Rose (and usually called Fr Seraphim Rose).

The comparison is interesting.

*

The fictional Seymour Glass was born in 1917, while Seraphim Rose was born in 1934 - half a generation later.

*

Seymour Glass was raised in New York City on the East Coast of the USA, was something of a child prodigy who was often termed a 'genius' (by his family), and attended the local elite university - Columbia.

Seraphim Rose was raised in California on the West Coast of the USA, was something of a child prodigy who was sometimes termed a genius (by his friends), and attended the local elite liberal arts college - Pomona.

*

Both Seymour and Seraphim developed an intense personal and scholarly interest in Eastern religions, meditation, Buddhism, Oriental languages and the like.

*

In the end, Seymour developed a personal, eclectic, syncretic religion incorporating elements of Christianity, Hinduism (especially reincarnation), Zen, and a life dedicated to personal poetic creativity.

While Seraphim became a Russian Orthodox Christian of the most traditional kind, an ascetic monk, and led a life dedicated to attaining holiness (theosis) and evangelism via his writings and translations.

*

Seymour died young in 1948 at the age of 31 - shooting himself probably due to psychological war trauma and despair at living up to his own ideals.

Seraphim died young in 1982 at the age of 48 - from an acute medical illness.

*

After his death, Seymour became a kind-of saint to those who knew him personally, then to Western youth via the writings of JD Salinger and the (fictional) example of his life.

After his death, Seraphim became a Saint to those who knew him personally, and then to Eastern post-communist youth via his own writings and the example of his life.

*

Seymour Glass was a seeker; Seraphim Rose was a finder.

***


^ Raise High the Roofbeam, Carpenters; Zooey; Seymour: an introduction all by JD Salinger.

+ Father Seraphim Rose: his life and works by Hieromonk Damascene.

*

Christian Seeker: Deal with individuals, stick with individuals

Something struck me about modern "seekers" who are dissatisfied with mainstream atheistic materialism, and want something not just better, but a real answer to the questions of life and reality. 

Often this search is self-sabotaged or hijacked by assumed constraints that make it impossible ever to find an answer; and one of these wrecking assumptions is that The Answer will be found in a "tradition": that is, a large group of many prestigious persons, an ancient group (believed to extend back centuries, perhaps millennia).

What too often seems to happen is that some seeker comes across an individual person, one Man, who interests them strongly, evokes a sympathy or empathic identification, "speaks to them" - but this one Man describes himself as speaking on-behalf-of and from a tradition. 

And then the seeker finds that he is supposed to believe and affirm not just the particular person whose work, and perhaps life, has so inspired him; but a whole bunch of other people - perhaps in many times and places - and to say that the whole bunch of them are good, true, coherent, and worthy of obedience. 

An example might clarify what I mean. 

I became interested in and attracted to Eastern Orthodox Christianity via the specific and (to me) inspiring personage of the US monk Seraphim Rose 1934-1982. I read a good deal of Rose's work, thought about it, tried to understand it and tease out the implications... 

Of course, as always (for me) I disagreed with much, thought much of it was wrong - nonetheless I was deeply impressed and attracted by aspects of the spirituality he described and lived.

But the next step is the killer, which is that Rose regarded himself as an ordinary and "orthodox" member of the Russian Orthodox church (overseas branch - he lived during the USSR era, and he knew mostly exiled Russians and their descendants), and a representative of Eastern Orthodoxy generally. 

The Man Seraphim Rose affirmed a world-view that regarded The Man as of little significance, and The Group as primary. 

So I was pretty much compelled to read and experience more widely, more generally - I was pushed into reading Seraphim Rose - not as A Man but as a representative of a domination/ church/ tradition - and it was that group (across many centuries, in many places) which mattered most. 

I began with a fascination and sympathy for one Man, and I soon ended-up pushed towards pledging belief and obedience to a vast group of many people, of many nations, with several warring factions and schismatic groups. 

My attention was diffused to many writers, many nations, many times, many disputes and schisms, many policies and actions...

In one sense I was supposed to join with a vast, ancient and extremely heterogeneous church - all of which I was supposed to approve in a general way (even bizarre perversions such as "stylites")... 

But in another sense the almost-constant reality of internal disputes, (even warring schisms) meant that the actuality of what I "ought to do" was inevitably something much smaller, more local, and more modern. 

In the end of the process, when rigorously pursued (so far as I could tell) most of Eastern Orthodoxy was too modernized, lax and corrupted to satisfy those who took Seraphim Rose seriously. So that there was just one specific monastic church, 300 miles away, in schism with the Moscow Patriarchate; that it was right and necessary for me to join, support, attend and obey. 

In microcosm, I think this is pretty typical of a serious, rigorous, Christian seeker in the West of 2024.

We might be attracted to Christianity by the work or life of a particular person, alive or dead - and then there is that horrible realization that we are supposed to set aside what attracted us, and instead subordinate to a vast nebulous group...

A group that (to all appearances) includes all kinds of apparently unappealing and seemingly evil people, doing apparently stupid and terrible things, in all kinds of times and places, and with all sorts of (what look like) contradictions - and we are supposed (with solemn oaths) to pledge to all this...

Yet, the facts of 2024 in The West also mean that this big, messy, vision of a "universal church" will - if taken seriously - ultimately lead to some very small, very recently formed, very localized and minority (even within The Church) grouping of a handful of Christians. 

What I draw from such experiences (of myself, and what I have observed in others) is that in our time and place, and when we are really serious about things: we ought to deal with individuals, not with groups - and stick with individuals. 

Even though this contradicts what these same individuals advise and argue!

Thus, the engagement must be critical. The ideal relationship is not that of an apprentice to his Master, nor even a student to his teacher - but more like getting to know an older, more experienced and able friend.  

It would (for instance) be better to stay-with Seraphim Rose - a specific individual that I benefited from reading - or whoever it might be; stay as long as there is benefit, and work to develop an intense and sustained relationship - in which you do not merely absorb the ideas, but engage creatively with the ideas... 

Not in a submissive, obedience-orientated fashion; but kind of dialogue pursued in a free, positive and personal way, as between two mutually-respecting persons. 

Father Seraphim Rose: the beginning of an era - or its end?

*

On the whole, I would regard Father Seraphim Rose, the American born Russian Orthodox monk (later 'Hieromonk' or Priest--monk) as the Western man of the Twentieth Century most advanced in holiness (theosis) of whom I know.

But the way in which I understand this fact has changed since first I became aware of him and absolutley immersed myself in his work somewhat more than three years ago.

*

Fr Seraphim died in 1982, and at first I assumed that his life marked the beginning of an Orthodox revival in the West, with Fr Seraphim as a bridge between Holy Russia and the modern world - most specifically by his discipleship to St John Maximovitch

http://orthodoxwiki.org/John_(Maximovitch)_the_Wonderworker

But, as I discovered more about his legacy and the events following the death of Fr Seraphim, my perspective changed, and he seemed more like the final fruition of Holy Russia, its rounding-out; than a bridge into modernity.

In particular, modern Orthodoxy does not seem to have solved the dichotomy about which Fr Seraphim wrote so much: as he describes it this dichotomy is between, on the one hand, apostasy and accommodation to the prevailing society (mostly Leftism-Liberalism, although in modern Russia there are also anti-liberal currents); and on the other hand the distortion of 'ultra-correctness' in which strict adherence to liturgical and devotional forms combines with a cold hearted and uncharitable disposition which negates the value of these practices.

*

Fr Seraphim was quite clear that after the death of St John Maximovitch, there were then no true Spiritual Fathers (Holy Elders, startsi) in the United States nor indeed anywhere else, and this meant that the chain of discipleship stretching back to the life of Christ was now broken, extinct.

The cause of this was, seemingly, the Russian Revolution, the Martyrdom of Tsar Nicholas and the systematic destruction by the Bolsheviks of Holy Russia and its monastic traditions.

But whatever its cause, the effect was drastically to reduce the possible degree of theosis or sanctity in the modern world, since without the supervision of a Holy Elder and the ascetic disciplines of monasticism, the higher degrees of theosis were impossible.

Hence there are now no Saints, and nobody with the authority to resolve misunderstandings and disagreements, to interpret scripture, to guide the Church etc.

*

So, by Fr Seraphim Rose's own account, and the accounts of those he regarded as authoritative, Orthodoxy is now and irreversibly a much diminished thing; and - I infer - does not any longer stand with its peak above all other Christian denominations, but is simply one of a group of valid denominations with its own particular strengths and weaknesses.

Yet, by his work of translation and interpretations, and by the example of his life, Fr Seraphim Rose has made it possible for us to appreciate what has been lost from the world.

*

What is it to be spiritually uncompromising? (With reference to the Christian Litmus Test Fail of so-called "AI")

A couple of years after becoming a Christian, I encountered the work of Fr Seraphim Rose - I warmed to him immediately, as he was a modern Westerner who had become an uncompromising and spiritually-dedicated Eastern Orthodox monk - while at the same time embodying a warm-hearted, loving nature.  

One of my greatest disappointments on becoming a Christian was the insipid worldly compromise of all the Christians I knew-of: they were, where it most mattered, spiritually indistinguishable from the mainstream of atheistic materialists. 

Seraphim Rose - with his ascetic and hermit-like life - was (it seemed to me) on a different and qualitatively higher level of holiness; that very unusually enabled him to discern clearly; and give full value to the depth, as well as breadth, of the modern spiritual malaise.

By contrast, other Christians I came across really did not seem to grasp the profundity and seriousness of our civilization's spiritual malaise. 

However; I fairly soon recognized that the monastic life - which attempts to live materially in a way that is compatible with spiritual understanding; is not an answer. 

Seraphim Rose was almost unique among monks in his warm-hearted asceticism; because other monks are either warm-hearted but worldly, deluded, often corrupt -- or else they may be genuinely ascetic but with a narrow, harsh and prideful rigidity. (A group that Seraphim Rose called "the super-correct".) 

In other words, I now distinguish between the inner spiritual self on the one hand; and the public and social self. 

Indeed, I think that the - inevitably failing - attempt of people to live their lives fully in accordance with the highest Christian hopes; is actually a major source of spiritual corruption among Christians.

What actually happens is that Christians cut their Christianity to fit the cloth of their nature and circumstances. 

In other words, the limitations of their personality and abilities, and the pressure of their lives, are allowed to dictate the scope and aspirations of their Christian faith.

They limit their definitions of Christianity to whatever they can themselves accomplish.    

Examples include the spiritual Litmus Tests of our time. 

The practicalities of living in an evil totalitarian system mean that most people will "inevitably", more-or-less, go-along-with the demonically-originated evil strategies that are designed to engineer our society into a machine of damnation. 

A current example - a spiritual test that most Christians have failed spectacularly! - is so-called "AI". 

The way it seems to work is that a Christian finds himself in a work or life situation in which he is compelled to use, and even to work-with and develop and propagandize-for - "AI" systems. Compelled in that either he follows these bureaucratic diktats, or else he fails to get the job, is sacked from his current job, or cannot get promoted above a low level. 

Or else the Christian cannot resist the temptations of using AI to amuse or divert himself. 

Or he may find that he cannot resist using "AI" to add a professional (pseudo-creative) gloss to his own productions; or to project an image of greater knowledge, competence, understanding than he personally possesses - maybe at work, or in his hobbies.  

Then, because Christian finds himself in his actions and life either compelled to use, or expediently using, "AI" - he argues that therefore "AI" is not (in its actual origins, and implementation) intentionally evil; but is merely a neutral tool; or a Must-Do qualitative breakthrough in societal capability - with potential significant benefits for humanity that we therefore have a duty to exploit... 

Because Christian actually uses "AI" and has no intention of stopping; he infers that - because he is A Christian - therefore "AI" must be A Good Thing, and he soon finds himself defending and proselytising for "AI" in both public - but also even in private.   

I have come to believe that if Christians try to insist upon a compatibility of Christian actions with spiritual aspirations; what this actually leads-to is a dishonest denial of real and significant evil among Christians, and the air-brushing of their own sins as trivial or non-existent.

"Rigorous" and devout Christians are therefore, in practice (nearly-always) those who make a big deal about their own avoidance of some categories of Big Sins (like murder, theft, rape, sexual infidelity and unchastity, drug use &c.) - while denying, engaging-in and defending many other sins; but especially those expedient and publicly acceptable besetting-sins of mainstream modern life...

Sins such as systematic untruthfulness  - eg. the frequent and extreme levels of habitual and pervasive dishonesty that are now a condition of all middle class employment, including in all churches. Or fear and resentment. 

And defending or promoting the cause of global AI.  

The orthodox and traditional idea is that all men ought to cease from all sinning; so the answer to such examples of sinning as lying for money and status, and covering-up the demonic totalitarian plans for corrupting Mankind with "AI" - is that people ought to stop doing this - as people should stop doing everything bad. 

My view is different, because I accept as a fact that people cannot (as well as will not) stop sinning*. 

People who must deceive in order to keep their jobs and get promotions, will continue to deceive. 

People who are managerially-instructed to implement and promote "AI" will continue to do this; and those who personally get pleasure or profit from using "AI" systems will continue to exploit them for such purposes. 

In general terms: people will continue to sin, and will continue to have no serious intention of ceasing from sin. 

However, this is not a reason to pretend that sins are not sins, that evil strategies are not real, that people personally aren't working to overall-promote the plans of the demonic world rulers. 

But following what I take to be a core teaching of Jesus, I expect that all Men are and will be sinners and will not, cannot stop doing this, and shall not even have any serious or workable plans to stop sinning - and this applies even the most devout and ascetic and good of modern monks like Seraphim Rose, even in the most ideally un-worldly of environments. 

I see no reason why this our pervasively-sinful and evil-promoting lives are incompatible with being a genuinely devout and uncompromising Christian in our spiritual aspirations.  

In sum: we must not compromise our Christian principles in all their depth and rigour merely because we cannot and never will live-up-to-them. 

Indeed, only by separating our spiritual understanding and aims from the corruptions of everyday life; can we really discern, understand, appreciate the nature of this world - and the profundity of our own corruption - and do this without being overwhelmed by despair (which is itself a potentially terrible sin).  

We can always be at work at clarifying our spiritual nature in the most uncompromising way - indifferent to the constraints and practicalities that are inescapable. 

+++

* This is what Jesus also says, by my understanding; at least in the Fourth Gospel. Jesus does not select his followers for their good behaviour, nor does he say that his followers should cease from all sinning - but instead Jesus implies and says he came to save actual sinners. Stopping sinning - either in particular or in general - is Not the way that Men attain eternal resurrected Heavenly life. 

In politics, policy and life - establishing the intention of others is (almost) everything

So much discussion is rendered futile by the primacy of intent - and that this fact is not recognised, or else rendered an insoluble mystery and ruled-out. This applies also in Christian life.

Discussion nearly always focuses on explicit, observable things like policy statements, laws, and people's actions. Yet these are only understandable in terms of the intentions behind them - the same behaviour can have opposite interpretations depending on the framework of intentions (or motivations) that it is embedded-in.

For example, when I was reading the Letters of Fr Seraphim Rose a few years ago - there were parts when he was at the same time resisting theological 'liberals' and 'ultra-correct' conservatives. The liberals were those who were changing, diluting, and dropping items of faith on the basis that the heart was what mattered. This was what I expected to see. But he was also resisting the 'ultra-correct', who were highly specific and rigid concerning permissible rituals, practises etc - and neglected the intentions and emotions behind them. And indeed I have seen Seraphim Rose criticised both for being a rigid traditionalist and liberalising radical.

At the end of the liberalising path, Christianity dies by being absorbed into mainstream secularism; at the end of the ultra-correct path, Christianity dies by being absorbed by legalistic bureaucracy. Either way, Christianity dies when the intention is other than Christian.

In the end, it was clear that even in Eastern Orthodoxy, which superficially seems a straightforward adherence to 'tradition', there are serious and insoluble difficulties about judging on the basis of actions and ignoring intentions.

In the blog 'reactosphere' - especially among the likes of Roman Catholics and Calvinists - the same debate is repeatedly played-out. And the real debate is - it seems to me - about the underlying intent: this is what needs to be discussed and decided.

For example, if the real, genuine, operative intent of a Christian liberaliser is to change the rules in order to promote his own career, or so as to permit engagement his favourite sexual activity - then whatever policy he promotes will not be what it seems, but merely a stalking-horse for the next stage in his self-gratification.

(This can be seen in the Church of England; where women who personally regard the priesthood as a job which they want to do, and then they want to be promoted to Bishop, will argue - sometimes using 'Christian' reasons - why this is necessary and beneficial; or priests who personally want to have sex outside of the context of a traditional marriage (i.e. between an adult man and women) will make theological arguments about the Christian duty of 'inclusion' to allow or encourage this.)

On the conservative and traditional side, can be seen a rigid legalism of attitude; for example Protestant pastors who reflexively and unrestrainedly (that is, without regard either for the Christian virtue of honesty or the Christian vice of bearing false witness) vilified the Harry Potter series because they contained magic. (This example may seem trivial, but I regard it as perhaps the single most significant lost opposrtunity for Christian evangelism of Western young people over the past couple of decades.) Or the ignorant, aggressive and (I infer) hate-fuelled way that serious, conservative Christians of different denominations talk about each other.

Again it is the intention which is controlling the situation; and conservative Christians are often driven by a desire to gain status by excoriating other people for their failure strictly to follow the rules, practises, and other observable and measurable outcomes. They are like the performance managers of corporations whose entire focus is on errors and complaints, and who use this to gain personal control (and personal gratification) by keeping the spotlight relentlessly on the failures of other people.

My point is that Seraphim Rose was 100 percent correct that neither rule-following nor rule-breaking are of the essence. The essence lies in what is behind this - in intentions, motivations and the like. In the heart.

Now, of course, intentions are not visible - people do not have transparent heads in which we can read their true intentions. And people lie and decieve - including lying to themselves and deceiving themselves - a pre-requisite for effective manipulation of others.

And to make matters worse there are radicals and reactionaries and misguided Christians who are always harping-on about not judging other people - by which they mean that because we cannot be sure of what is going on in the intentions of another, we are forbidden to make an inference on the topic - and must therefore either always assume the best intentions, or the worst.

This is dangerous, deadly nonsense! - even if it is sincerely and compassionately motivated - for the simple reason that intentions are the most important factor - and so they cannot be ignored.

So we should be upfront in talking about and thinking about the intentions of others. For example, in public life, in leadership, in politics and the like... we should be talking less about what people say and their policies, and more about what kind of a person they are. Furthermore, we cannot read-off what kind of person they are from what they have done - because until we know their intentions we cannot interpret what they have done.

So we must be wary about asking for 'evidence' of the intentions of others, and we must be wary of having an assumption of either good or bad intentions - because in practice such assumptions cannot often be overturned by 'evidence'. We need to aim at intuiting intentions - which is how the most socially-adept people behave in real life.

But how do we know the intentions of others? The answer is by paying careful attention to them, over period of time - in personal contact, in a number of situations, and with time to think about it and take notice of our hearts - the discernment of the heart as a Seraphim Rose called it - more than listening exclusively to our heads/ intellect or to our gut feelings/ immediate urges (both of which are easily fooled).

With public figures this process is more difficult and may be impossible. So be it - it is one reason why our mass society functions so badly. Nonetheless we must make such decisions and be open about the fact. (And, of course, our decisions must be open to revision - when our genuine intuitions change.) 

The single most important thing we can know about someone is his intentions (or, as GK Chesterton put it - his 'philosophy'; by which I would understand his metaphysical assumptions and his motivations in life).

This knowledge cannot be had for the asking, nor given by the telling -  the knowledge is not explicit nor quantifiable; in the end it comes from no specific technique or technology but from loving attention to communications (including those that are too subtle to recognise and beyond the sense to detect) and to our own most profound responses.

Second-hand Christians and spiritual scaremongering

For a couple of years back in 2010-11, I was deeply immersed in Eastern Orthodox Christianity (as can be seen from this blog, at that time) - and I was especially interested by that tradition's embrace of mysticism and spiritual experience; how this 'worked' and how they dealt with the problems. 

The US lay-monk Seraphim Rose (later a priest-monk) wrote on this topic with what seemed like great insight and a full acknowledgement of modern conditions. 

What I derived from this; was that the ascetic monks and hermits of the EO tradition (including the millennium before the Great Schism division of the Catholic church; which was caused by divergence of the Western Latin tradition - especially the emerging influence of philosophical theology) were indeed actively seeking a direct and personal relationship with the divine and with spiritual Beings - with God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, Mary the mother of God, angels, and saints - dead and living.  

This active seeking of mystical spiritual experience was pursued by very extreme measures! Including extreme asceticism (lack of food, extremes of heat or cold, immobility,) and heroic vigils (staying awake praying for many hours, sometimes is adverse conditions), and by prolonged meditation including solitude for extended periods - sometimes years. 

The EO tradition is, however, very aware of the problem of achieving spiritual experiences that are demonic rather than with representatives of God. 

This is often represented as demonic attack, or sometimes of succumbing to temptations such as spiritual pride, or being deceived. Some of the greatest of Saints are represented as susceptible - for example it seems that England's greatest Saint - Cuthbert - was assailed (i.e. badly tempted) by demons when he went into solitude on the island of Inner Farne, off the coast of Northumberland. 

Seraphim Rose also explained that there was no valid method or system by which angels and demons could be distinguished reliably, because demons were capable of impersonating angels convincingly; and because the mystic's own evaluations were affected by his own (inevitable, because human) sinful impulses. 

According to SR; over many centuries, the best method for protecting mystics from demonic temptations was a Spiritual Father who had himself known and overcome such temptations, and who might reasonably be assumed to be wholly dedicated to the spiritual good of his spiritual sons and daughters. There was (especially, and in the end, only) in Russia an unbroken lineage of Spiritual Fathers in the premier monasteries, that ensured the overall and across-time integrity of the Russian Orthodox tradition. 

But this lineage was broken, permanently, with the Russian Revolution of 1917; and the subsequent murder of the Tsar and his family, and (essentially) all of the true-hearted Bishops, Abbots and holy monks - except those who escaped overseas and were dispersed in non-Orthodox nations (and they left no heirs of their stature). 

What I got from this was that direct mystical spiritual-contact was essential to Eastern Orthodoxy over many, many centuries; therefore it was worth taking the risks of being deceived by demons - even though there was no really reliable method of ensuring that some aspirants were not deceived. 

There could be, and was, pre-selection of those monks who were best motivated - before they were allowed to become extreme ascetics, or hermits. But this was no guarantee, since all Men are sinful, hence susceptible, to some extent. 

And even the best supervision by Holy Fathers did not reach into the 'desert' conditions of the hermits, which may last for years - e.g. there was nobody to supervise St Cuthbert in the harsh solitude of Inner Farne.  

But the background to all this implicitly seems to have been that personal contact between Men and spiritual Beings, and God; was so vital that risks must be taken. 

Eastern Orthodoxy works in a society in which there is a communal spirituality, such that individuals are immersed in the group mind of the people; such that the Tsar really can represent his people in relation to God; and monks really can be intermediaries between the divine and the mass of lay-people. 

But modern Western consciousness excludes this possibility; and therefore we are confronted by a choice between - on the one hand - personally taking the same kind of risks that the Eastern Orthodox monks used to take - but without the possibility of valid human supervision (because the churches are all net-corrupted, and Men of the spiritual stature of past Holy Fathers are not to be found - Seraphim Rose was very definite about that). 

And - on the other hand - practicing a second-hand faith. 

Practicing, that is, a Christianity that has lost its beating heart of contact with the divine, angels, and good-spirits of other kinds; a Christianity of mere scholarship... A Christian faith that is about being a Christian - got from books and other-people, following rules and rituals, doing set tasks, and expressing certain formulae of words - rather than actually being a Christian.

That mainstream modern Christianity is merely second-hand and not a real faith and therefore weak and easily (eagerly!) corruptible, was made obvious in 2020 - if it was not already so. 

The problem is that being a second-hand Christian, is another way of Not being a Christian.  

That is why a second-hand Christianity that engages in spiritual scaremongering, and eschews or proscribes direct and personal spiritual contacts with God, Jesus Christ and the wide range of divine and good spiritual Beings - is a weak, fake Christianity - because it is spiritually dead. 

Therefore, the only way actually to be a Christian is to take the risks of being deceived. 

And to have faith that anyone who is genuinely motivated to God and Jesus Christ will be able to receive the necessary divine corrections, when things go wrong. 

(When, not if, things go wrong.)

Now that traditions of Spiritual discipleship are broken, and now that Men have no good churches upon which faith can be pinned; and when our consciousness has become individual and agentic, rather than being immersed in a group (so that Christians must take personal responsibility)... 

We can be sure - 100% confident - that God our Heavenly Father and the Creator - has ensured that every single person is, nonetheless,able to get the experiences and guidance he needs for attaining salvation and spiritual development. 

If individual spiritual knowledge and mystical experience are indeed a necessary part of being a Christian, as was believed by the Eastern Orthodox for nearly 2000 years - then we can be sure and confident that this has been made possible. 

Possible for me, and for you. So; if you do not already know this by experience, than it is time you found out (that is; if you desire to be and remain Christian). 

To summarize: There is no safe way to be a Christian; therefore the danger of spiritual scaremongering is considerable, and safety-first-ism must be rejected - since the sanction for yielding to spiritual scaremongering is to become first a second-hand Christian, then (because that is so feeble and easily corruptible) not-at-all. 

One who rejects personal discernment and responsibility and seeks safety in external institutions and rules - will simply not be a Christian before very long, will be led by the nose away from Jesus Christ. 

Remember: This is (here-and-now) a world where all major institutions (national and global - including the churches) are under overall-demonic control.

Demons want all religion to be mediated by human institutions, because demons can control institutions.

Surely that is obvious? 

Thus; all Christians need direct spiritual contact with - and guidance from - the divine and all possible Beings of Good; and must therefore take courage, take the risks - in a spirit of trial-and-error; while being always open to correction by "divine-feedback" (which will me made available): and ready for repentance. 

Note added: I suppose I should say again what I have already stated so many times: which is that I think the current situation is that many (most? all?) real Christians have actually already started doing exactly what I recommend - have used personal discernment and taken personal responsibility for their Christian faith, including their choice of denomination and church, and which "authorities" to follow in that particular church. But... Because this has been unconscious, hidden from their own awareness; they have not acknowledged explicitly to themselves that this is what they have actually done -- and instead they pretend/ assert that their choices were actually compelled by "evidence", "reason", "logic" or some such external and supposedly-objective source (for which they, personally, eschew responsibility for choosing; claiming necessity). These are living in a situation of Bad Faith by denial of what is true. Since such a situation is fundamentally incoherent; therefore their Christianity is weak - and readily corrupted or diverted. I suspect that something of this kind is responsible for the incremental loss of once-real Christians, year by year, as they fail one or another Litmus Test; become this-worldly in their primary orientation and aspirations; or fall into an externally-controlled form of second-hand Christianity that presages de facto exit from the faith. 

The New World Order and political correctness

*

From Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works by Hieromonk Damascene - pp 696-8.

"Today (in 1982), some New Age circles speak of "The Plan" for a "New World Order," which would include a uni­versal credit system, a universal tax, a global police force, and an inter­national authority that would control the world's food supply and transportation systems. In this Utopian scheme, wars, disease, hunger, pollution, and poverty will end. All forms of discrimination will cease, and people's allegiance to tribe or nation will be replaced by a planetary consciousness." (...)

"Never has there been more talk of “peace and security” than today. One of the chief organs of the U.N. is the Security Council, and organizations for “world peace” are everywhere. It men do achieve finally a semblance of “peace and security,” it would seem to contemporary man to be a state like heaven on earth – a millennium. The practical way to do this is to unite all governments under one. For the first time in history such a ideal becomes a possible goal of practical politics – a world ruler is conceivable now. For the first time, the Antichrist becomes an historical possibility." (...)

"With the establishment of the European Union, the creation of the Euro currency, the control of former Eastern-bloc countries by Western financial interests, the advances towards a cashless society, the formation of an international criminal tribunal by the United Nations and NATO, we see what appear to be the forerunners of such a one-world system. Some of these developments are not necessarily evil by themselves. Taken together, however, they help to set up a global apparatus which can make way for the rising religion of the future."

***

The Western elites have long since embraced the idea of a New World Order, global government, dissolution of national boundaries and so on.

The rationale is hedonic: prosperity and peace..

And if not prosperity, then at least peace...

And if not peace, then at least pacifism.

*

Political correctness is the 'religion' of such folk - or rather the spirituality, or if not that then the perspective on life and the human condition.

PC is (presumably) supposed to synergize with global government - the ethical system of multiculturalism and diversity combining with a mixed word without border - all under the 'benign' leadership of democratically elected... and so on.

*

When Fr Seraphim Rose died in 1982 it certainly looked as if world government was the trend - and since then there has certainly been an expansion of global bureaucracies.

Yet the reality is that governments - both national and international - have lost control.

Stripped of the means of effective government by political correctness; national and international governments are mostly Brezhnev-style corrupt bureaucracies - engaged in a propaganda of denying reality (by means of replacing experience with virtual reality via the mass media) and simply relabelling what happens as desirable - re-interpreting trends asif they were beneficial to the cause of global peace and prosperity.

*

So the real trends are now running against global governance by the Western elites, and the proponents of a New World Order are reduced to aspirational statements and cheer-leading chaos (in order to justify their salaries and status).

Instead of an actual world government, we have a bunch of grafting charlatans pretending to be a world government.

*

What went wrong for them? What happened to their dreams of power?

Political correctness: that's what happened.

*

PC is the Achilles Heel of the would-be international Leftist dictatorship.

*

Even as PC justifies the global elite in their takeover of all and everything, at the same time all and everything is being ever-more-rapidly subverted by the chaos caused by PC - perhaps above all the truly massive demographic transformation and population movement which the world is experiencing.

Vast population growth in undeveloped countries, decline in developed countries and international migrations of populations - such as we are experiencing are 1. approved of by PC, 2. uncontrollable by PC-approved mechanisms, and 3. utterly destructive of governance.

PC can do nothing about all this (except prevent the subject being mentioned, the problem being analyzed, or action being taken) and responds by approving-of, pointing out the potential benefits of ... whatever happens.

*

(What - you haven't heard about the impending and unstoppable demographic cataclysm? I am not surprised. It is no accident. Rest assured that the ruling elite have no plans to do anything about it.)

*

So rather than world government, we have a world bureaucracy and a world mass media engaging in depicting in virtual reality what they want to happen, rather than what is happening; and - when this fails to convince - in the creative re-labeling of 'apparent' chaos, violence and impoverishment as actually nascent order, peace and prosperity.

Merely broken eggs en route to a vast and delicious global omelet.

*

When Fr Seraphim Rose died in 1982, who would have thought it!

International dictatorship sabotaged by its own scruples!

Maybe PC is not such a bad thing after all - insofar as chaos is preferable to totalitarianism.

*

Fr. Seraphim Rose on 'fun'

"[Modern life has become] a constant search for "fun" which, by the way, is a word totally unheard of in any other vocabulary; in 19th century Russia they wouldn't have understood what this word meant, or any serious civilization.

"Life is a constant search for "fun" which is so empty of any serious meaning that a visitor from any 19th-century country, looking at our popular television programs, amusement parks, advertisements, movies, music—at almost any aspect of our popular culture—would think he had stumbled across a land of imbeciles who have lost all contact with normal reality.

***

"It is important for us to realize, as we try ourselves to lead a Christian life today, that the world which has been formed by our pampered times makes demands on the soul, whether in religion or in secular life, which are what one has to call totalitarian.

***

"The message of this universal temptation that attacks men today—quite openly in its secular forms, but usually more hidden in its religious forms—is: Live for the present, enjoy yourself, relax, be comfortable.

"Behind this message is another, more sinister undertone which is openly expressed only in the officially atheist countries which are one step ahead of the free world in this respect. In fact, we should realize that what is happening in the world today is very similar whether it occurs behind the Iron Curtain or in the free world. There are different varieties of it, but there is a very similar attack to get our soul.

"In the communist countries which have an official doctrine of atheism, they tell quite openly that you are to: Forget about God and any other life but the present; remove from your life the fear of God and reverence for holy things; regard those who still believe in God in the "old-fashioned' way as enemies who must be exterminated.

"One might take, as a symbol of our carefree, fun-loving, self-worshipping times, our American "Disneyland"; if so, we should not neglect to see behind it the more sinister symbol that shows where the "me generation" is really heading: the Soviet Gulag, the chain of concentration camps that already governs the life of nearly half the world's population."

The Orthodox World-View - by Father Seraphim Rose of Platina

 http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/rose_wv.aspx 

Comment:

I was watching a kids movie called Sharkboy and Lavagirl the other day, and the plot revolved around the right of kids to have fun and the evil of grown-ups who thwarted this. 

This was a rather naive, pop-culture expression of a fundamental modern reality: good equals fun and evil equals those who would prevent us having fun. 

***

What makes Seraphim Rose use the word 'totalitarian' is the insight that to impose fun on society would be a totalitarian project - in outcome for sure, and quite possibly in aim as well...

The late Gordon Brown, New Labour UK government was playing with the idea of replacing Gross Domestic Product (and economic measures of governmental success)  with some version of Gross National  Happiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness) - based on surveys. 

That government would be regarded as best which would lead to the best 'happiness' ratings on poll... 

Aside from the incoherence and vacuousness of the ide, its utter lack of validity, its openness to corruption and its invitation to dishonesty - it would be a short and decisive step into totalitarianism for governments to deploy their power to 'make people happy'. 

What a nightmare! - and easy enough to imagine since most Sci Fi readers have already experienced it vicariously.  


***

Fun as the focus of life makes perfect sense in a secular society - if life is about nothing more than self-gratification, if 'heroism' is delusion, if God is dead; then anyone who interferes with self-gratification is evil. 

(Except that even this does not make sense, since evil people are merely having fun themselves in preventing the fun of others. A philosophy of fun cannot coherently argue that one kind of fun is better than another. Why should the fun of many count for more than the fun of one? - is fun something to be weighed and measured like coal? - that sound like a pretty un-fun perspective...) 


***

Fun has been the basic, counter-culture morality since romantic times and indeed earlier - from the clowns of Shakespeare, the 'artists' of La Boheme, through to the hippes of Easy Rider, and the slobs of Animal House. 

And all the amoral anti-heros and hedonistic sidekicks of high culture from Diogenes the Kynic, Leporello and Papageno in Mozart's operas, the Good Soldier Svejk, Han Solo...

We sympathize, we admire the clear-sightedness of these characters, their lack of 'hypocrisy', their quick wits, their simplicity... 

But when it exists in isolation this is a grown-up-kids morality, a pampered-pets morality - a pre-enlightened, non-self-aware, young animal perspective on life. 

Not the kind of morality which could sustain a civilization or a reflective adult life. Not the kind of morality which can, in fact, sustain a *human* life.

And indeed as soon as one becomes *aware* that fun is indeed the underlying morality - as soon as a counter-culture philosophy becomes explicit; when fun is 'officially' placed at the centre of things: it is the most dreadful, despairing, dull, desolate concept of life.

Limited sympathy for politically correct nihilists - Seraphim Rose

*

From Nihilism by Eugene Rose (later Father Seraphim Rose)

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html

*

"Anyone aware of the too-obvious imperfections and evils of modern civilization that have been the more immediate occasion and cause of the Nihilist reaction--though we shall see that these too have been the fruit of an incipient Nihilism--cannot but feel a measure of sympathy with some, at least, of the men who have participated in that reaction.

"Such sympathy may take the form of pity for men who may, from one point of view, be seen as innocent "victims" of the conditions against which their effort has been directed; or again, it may be expressed in the common opinion that certain types of Nihilist phenomena have actually a "positive" significance and have a role to play in some "new development" of history or of man.

"The latter attitude, again, is itself one of the more obvious fruits of the very Nihilism in question here; but the former attitude, at least, is not entirely devoid of truth or justice.

"For that very reason, however, we must be all the more careful not to give it undue importance. It is all too easy, in the atmosphere of intellectual fog that pervades Liberal and Humanist circles today, to allow sympathy for an unfortunate person to pass over into receptivity to his ideas.

"The Nihilist, to be sure, is in some sense "sick," and his sickness is a testimony to the sickness of an age whose best--as well as worst--elements turn to Nihilism; but sickness is not cured, nor even properly diagnosed by "sympathy."

"In any case there is no such thing as an entirely "innocent victim." The Nihilist is all too obviously involved in the very sins and guilt of mankind that have produced the evils of our age; and in taking arms--as do all Nihilists not only against real or imagined "abuses" and "injustices" in the social and religious order, but also against order itself and the Truth that underlies that order, the Nihilist takes an active part in the work of Satan (for such it is) that can by no means be explained away by the mythology of the "innocent victim."

"No one, in the last analysis, serves Satan against his will."

***

Comment:

Thinking back to my own days as a PC Nihilist, and of course the frequent (daily, hourly) lapses into that state which naturally I still experience, this passage is absolutely correct: I was not an innocent victim of ideology, nor was I mererly in error; but I actively embraced nihilism, invited it into my mind - essentially as a means to justify living for my own worldly comfort and gratification. My behaviour was understandable, my situation one to evoke sympathy; but I was wrong and I was actively fighting against even the possibility of Truth, Beauty and Virtue

*

Despairing of This World is a problem for 'traditional' forms of Christianity

After I became a Christian, my path was towards a traditional and orthodox understanding, based upon a strong church. 

There were two problems. The first is that there were exceedingly few strong and Christian churches even a decade ago but since the birdemic there are none. 

The second line is to seek a traditional and orthodox Christianity based-upon either a small but devout church, or some traditionalist section from within one of the large churches: the first is mostly followed by serious Protestants, the latter by serious Catholics - both Eastern and Western. 

But there is a problem with any serious attempt to lead a traditionalist life for one who is realistic about This World, and that is the tendency to despair about This World - and to live entirely in hope and expectation of The World To Come. 

I saw this most vividly and explicitly within the most traditionalist branches of the Eastern Orthodox church, towards which I was gravitating under the influence of reading Fr Seraphim Rose. Rose died in 1982; but even forty years ago, he could perceive that the tradition of Orthodoxy had been broken (by the Russian Revolution, after which there were no Orthodox nations). For one who bases his Christian life on tradition - that break must be irreversible.

It meant that we had entered the End Times, and that the best that could be hoped was each individual person becoming ever more isolated from the True Church; using personal discernment to try and discover and cling-to whatever he could of traditional doctrines and practices. But aware that this path could only decline, dwindle-towards... well, not nothing, but very little. 

And to treasure that 'very little' was the only and best prospect. 

Realistically and honestly; such a Christian mortal life could only be a lifetime of incremental retreat and rearguard fighting; destined to lose; and therefore, all hope would be directed towards escaping this mortal life with faith intact. 

In other words; traditionalists were called-upon to live without hope for this mortal life - except the real-but-shrinking hope of holding-onto enough of Christian faith to reach the next world of resurrection into Heaven. 

Hope was therefore to be directed almost (but not quite) entirely towards our own death. 

This is indeed a possible way of surviving spiritually in this mortal life; and it is a path some people within the orthodox traditional churches have apparently chosen - including some who do not seem fully to realize that they have chosen it.

I say this because such Christians apparently continue to interact with this mortal life as if there was hope of reversing its spiritual decline; but they betray their real feelings by expressing an almost impatient desire for their own death (when God wills it, obviously - not by suicide) and/or for the end of the world. 

Indeed, most Christians will have experienced exactly this feeling from time to time. 

Yet I think it is mistaken. I believe that a fuller view of Christian life will recognize that God will not sustain any situation - any person's life, any civilization - without good and positive reason. 

So long as we personally are alive, and our civilization continues; this is because there is important spiritual work yet to be done in-line with God's plans - IF we make the right choices.  

In other words, we ought to (must) continue to hope for this mortal life as well as for the immortal life to come - yet this hope needs to be realistic and truthful, and therefore spiritual rather than material. 

We need, I think, to be able to accept that these may be (seem to be) the End Times in which this world (including its churches) is in terminal decline, a decline that cannot be reversed and will lead (overall) to massive physical suffering...

And yet we need to have a hope-full, positive, attitude to the spiritual possibilities of this life. 

In practice - for me, and perhaps most people - Christian hope cannot be wholly negative and defensive in the way that seems to be entailed by traditionalism. 

Therefore, I think it is absolutely reasonable to suppose that God will always be working to enable each person to have solid grounds for positive spiritual achievement in his or her own mortal life - whatever the fate of The World.

Consequently I came to reject a Christianity based in traditionalism and orthodoxy of theology that (when honestly conceptualized, as by Seraphim Rose) offered no realistic and positive hope for this mortal life. 

To be positively hope-full for this mortal life (as well as for the life to come) entails moving the focus away from civilization, nation and church to the level of the individual Christian. 

Which led me to 'Romantic Christianity'.   

I hope I have made it clear that I regard traditionalist/ orthodox Christianity to be a valid option, a genuinely possible way of Christian life. 

But it is a desperate situation to be in - and one that cannot be sustained by many people. There is a tendency to lose the slender and dwindling hope altogether - and then to despair of This World. And such despair is a sin - because This World, however corrupt, is yet God's creation. 

Which may be why there has been such a massive apostasy from traditional Christian (and other) churches - especially at the levels of leadership: an abandonment of Christianity in this world - and its replacement with mainstream secular left values. 

There is an alternative way of being Christian - one which offers the possibility of a hopeful attitude to this moral world, and a sense of positive purpose for this mortal life; but it involves regarding tradition, orthodoxy, church, human-groups as being of secondary, not primary, importance. Indeed, I believe that the alternative is a deeper and more validly Christ-derived truth. This is the motivation for much of my theological writing. 

How to change minds? 'Burn' hearts by contact with Truth

*

From the introduction to God's revelation to the human heart by Fr. Seraphim Rose.

This introduction was written by Hieromonk Damascene and described Fr. Seraphim's lecture at University of California, Santa Cruz on May 15, 1981:


***

[Fr. Seraphim's] ultimate aim, of course, was to awaken people to that which they truly desired: the living Christ.


He recognized that, for all the spiritual denseness of contemporary Western man, the basic process of his conversion was no different from what it had been in past ages.


Conversion takes place when something in the heart begins to 'burn' at being in contact with God-revealed truth.


*


Before this can take place, however, the person often has to feel an absence of truth, and to actually experience suffering as a result of this want.


*


People in the affluent West often have this feeling of spiritual torment suppressed from their consciousness, so occupied are they with physical comforts and stimulations. 


In countries where people are deprived of freedom and comfort, on the other hand, the spiritual hunger of man becomes more immediate and desperate. 


[Hieromonk Damascene describing the beliefs of Fr. Seraphim Rose.]

*

Reason to be joyful - we could be living 'a blessed life', 'heaven on earth'

"But why should we speak of the end of the world? Are we really living in the last times of this world? Why do we bind together the future of Russia and the end of the world?

Even secular writers speak of our “apocalyptic” times. And truly, the problems that plague the world today — the exhaustion of resources and food, overpopulation, the literal monsters created by modern technology, and especially weapons capable of destroying entire countries or even the whole civilized earth — all point to the approach of a crisis in human history quite beyond anything the world has ever seen, and perhaps to the literal end of life upon earth.

At the same time, religious thinkers point to the blossoming of non-Christian religious movements in our times and predict a “new age” in which a “new religious consciousness” will dominate men's minds and put an end to the 2000-year reign of Christianity. Astrologers refer to the “Aquarian Age’ which they think is to begin around the year 2000. And the very approach of the year 2000 is enough to inspire in many minds the idea of a new epoch, somehow different from all the rest of human history.

Among many non-Orthodox Christians these ideas take the form of a teaching called “chiliasm” or “millenarianism” — the belief that Christ is soon to come to earth and reign right here with His saints for a thousand years before the end of the world. This teaching is a heresy that was condemned by the early Church Fathers; it has its origin in a misinterpretation of the book of Revelations (the Apocalypse).

The Orthodox Church teaches that the reign of Christ with His saints, when the devil is “bound” for a thousand years [Apoc 20:3] is the period we are now living in, the whole period (1000 being a number symbolizing wholeness) between the first and second comings of Christ. In this period the saints do reign with Christ in His Church, but it is a mystical reign which is not to be defined in the outward, political sense that chiliasts give to it.

The devil is truly bound in this period — that is, restricted in the exercise of his ill will against humanity — and believers who live the life of the Church and receive the holy Mysteries of Christ live a blessed life, preparing them for the eternal heavenly Kingdom.

The non-Orthodox, who do not have holy Mysteries and have not tasted of the true life of the Church, cannot understand this mystical reign of Christ and so look for a political and outward reign."

The future of Russia by Fr. Seraphim Rose 1981


"The actual thousand years of the Apocalypse is the life in the Church which is now, that is, the life of Grace; and anyone who lives it sees that, compared to the people outside, it is indeed heaven on earth. But this is not the end. This is our preparation for the true kingdom of God which has no end."

Signs of the Times by Fr. Seraphim Rose 1980

Why Liberalism/ PC is immune to reason and evidence - Seraphim Rose

*

From Nihilism by Eugene (Seraphim) Rose c 1962 

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html#2 

Italics were added.

*

"In the Liberal world-view, therefore - in its theology, its ethics, its politics, and in other areas we have not examined as well - truth has been weakened, softened, compromised; in all realms truth that was once absolute has become less certain, if not entirely "relative."

*

"Now it is possible - and this in fact amounts to a definition of the Liberal enterprise - to preserve for a time the fruits of a system and a truth of which one is uncertain or skeptical; but one can build nothing positive upon such uncertainty, nor upon the attempt to make it intellectually respectable in the various relativistic doctrines we have already examined.

*

"There is and can be no philosophical apology for Liberalism; its apologies, when not simply rhetorical, are emotional and pragmatic.

*

"But the most striking fact about the Liberal, to any relatively unbiased observer, is not so much the inadequacy of his doctrine as his own seeming oblivion to this inadequacy.

"This fact, which is understandably irritating to well-meaning critics of Liberalism, has only one plausible explanation. The Liberal is undisturbed even by fundamental deficiencies and contradictions in his own philosophy because his primary interest is elsewhere.

"If he is not concerned to found the political and social order upon Divine Truth, if he is indifferent to the reality of Heaven and Hell, if he conceives of God as a mere idea of a vague impersonal power, it is because he is more immediately interested in worldly ends, and because everything else is vague or abstract to him.

*

"The Liberal may be interested in culture, in learning, in business, or merely in comfort; but in every one of his pursuits the dimension of the absolute is simply absent.

"He is unable, or unwilling, to think in terms of ends, of ultimate things.

"The thirst for absolute truth has vanished; it has been swallowed up in worldliness. "

*


[Note: 'worldliness' means the hedonic perspective: the primary focus on human happiness and suffering in this world. It can be seen that almost-all modern Western people and institutions, including almost-all Christian denominations, are primarily (most-often exclusively) concerned with worldliness. Almost-all modern Western people and institutions are therefore Liberal - including almost-all of those who consider themselves to be Libertarian or Conservative.]  

Corruption of education and academia by 'liberal' regimes - Seraphim Rose

*

From Nihilism by Eugene (Seraphim) Rose, written circa 1962 -

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html#2

*

The totalitarian Nihilist regimes of this century [- both Communist and Fascist -] have undertaken, as an integral part of their programs, the ruthless "reeducation" of their peoples.

Few subjected to this process for any length of time have entirely escaped its influence; in a landscape where all is nightmare, one's sense of reality and truth inevitably suffers.

*

A subtler "reeducation," quite humane in its means but nonetheless Nihilist in its consequences, has been practiced for some time in the free world, and nowhere more persistently or effectively than in its intellectual center, the academic world.

Here external coercion is replaced by internal persuasion; a deadly skepticism reigns, hidden behind the remains of a "Christian heritage" in which few believe, and even fewer with deep conviction.

The profound responsibility the scholar once possessed, the communication of truth, has been reneged; and all the pretended "humility" that seeks to conceal this fact behind sophisticated chatter on "the limits of human knowledge," is but another mask of the Nihilism the Liberal academician shares with the extremists of our day.

Youth that--until it is "reeducated" in the academic environment - still thirsts for truth, is taught instead of truth the "history of ideas," or its interest is diverted into "comparative" studies, and the all-pervading relativism and skepticism inculcated in these studies is sufficient to kill in almost all the natural thirst for truth.

*

The academic world--and these words are neither lightly nor easily spoken--has become today, in large part, a source of corruption.

It is corrupting to hear or read the words of men who do not believe in truth.

It is yet more corrupting to receive, in place of truth, more learning and scholarship which, if they are presented as ends in themselves, are no more than parodies of the truth they were meant to serve, no more than a facade behind which there is no substance.

It is, tragically, corrupting even to be, exposed to the primary virtue still left to the academic world, the integrity of the best of its representatives--if this integrity serves, not the truth, but skeptical scholarship, and so seduces men all the more effectively to the gospel of subjectivism and unbelief this scholarship conceals.

It is corrupting, finally, simply to live and work in an atmosphere totally permeated by a false conception of truth, wherein Christian Truth is seen as irrelevant to the central academic concerns, wherein even those who still believe this Truth can only sporadically make their voices heard above the skepticism promoted by the academic system.

*

The evil, of course, lies primarily in the system itself, which is founded upon untruth, and only incidentally in the many professors whom this system permits and encourages to preach it.

*

Where do questions lead us? do the answers get thinner as more precise?

*

One special quality of modernity is the thinness of life.

The way in which questioning leads us down a path in which every answer is more precise but also more detached than the previous answer - until we find ourselves in a realm of pure disengaged abstraction.

Twas not always thus!

*

Questions used to lead to myth - to mystery; not to dead academicism.

This is why - despite his being the greatest, most complete in achievement, of all philosophers - ultimately I would regard Thomas Aquinas as the first step in a disastrous direction.

My experience with Aquinas is typical of my experience with almost all Western higher thought since Aquinas - that as we pursue the path of reason we find ourselves ever further adrift and alienated. We may be bludgeoned into acceptance, or we may be repelled and leave the arena - but in neither instance are we really satisfied.

On the one hand, we want explanations to be concrete and clear, on the other hand to be of personal as well as universal significance - in other words, we want relevant myths, but also we want the myths to be true as well as relevant.

*

It is extremely rare to come across anything which satisfies this craving. And our own corruption of spirit often sabotages us in the search - our own inability to think mythically, our inability to accept mystery rather than pull it apart until it dies, our inability to believe in any kind of reality (whether mythical or otherwise) - all these socially conditioned habits stand in the path, and block it.

Yet it is precisely this which I find in Orthodoxy as expounded by Fr. Seraphim Rose. Uniquely, he seemed able to be clear and exact without killing the mystery and myth; his expounding of the Orthodox understanding of the Soul After Death is an example.

The exposition of traditional doctrines (such as the 'toll houses', and the angels and demons that meet the newly-separated soul) is both very clear (to a child-like extent) and also very non-literal, both asserted as true and simultaneously as mythic.

Somehow the story element is not philosophized out of existence, nor yet is it regarded as metaphorical purely.

*

It is a mark of our contemporary corruption (fragmentation and atomization of thought) that this style of unified intellectual thinking is so very, very rare now - and indeed has become all but impossible for the intellectual and/ or educated elite.

How fortunate, then, that we have at least (and perhaps it is enough) the work of Seraphim Rose - which although modern is accessible to those in broad sympathy, and although traditional yet addresses modern concerns and deficiencies.

*

Daily spiritual injections - Seraphim Rose

"Again, in everything one must be looking upward, and not downward, at the kingdom of heaven and not down at the details of earthly life. 

"That is, the details of earthly life must be second, and this looking upward must be with zeal, determination and constancy. (...)

"Constancy involves also a regular reading of spiritual texts, for example at mealtime, because we must be constantly injected with other-worldliness.  

"This means constantly nourishing ourselves with these texts, whether in services or in reading, in order to fight against the other side, against the worldliness that constantly gnaws at us. If for just one day we stop these other-worldly "injections," it is obvious that worldliness starts taking over. (...) 

"These injections—daily injections of heavenly food—are the outward side, and the inward side is what is called spiritual life."

Fr Seraphim Rose - From "In Step With Sts. Patrick and Gregory of Tours" - http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/rose_tours.aspx

Comment:

I find this concept of 'spiritual injections' both amusing and valuable - it is perhaps a way that we can use modernity to counteract modernity . 

The mass media provides the strongest of temptations to distraction and worldliness; yet, at the same time, this historically-unprecedented dissemination of all types of information may provide (for those who are motivated and disciplined) the ingredients necessary to administer frequent 'spiritual injections'. 
 

The poorest, the feeblest Christianity there has ever been

*

From The Northern Thebaid: monastic saints of the Russian north:

*

"The great Greek and Near-Eastern Patristic epoch had already produced the basic texts of Orthodox spirituality and monasticism, but the final Patristic flowering in Russia - where the purity of Orthodox tradition was sealed by the sanctity of the wonderworking elders - was to provide the connecting link between the Patristic tradition and the Orthodox faithful of today, some of whom have seen the last great Orthodox Elders of the golden chain of Orthodox spirituality which has come down unbroken from the Egyptian desert to us.

"The spiritual strength of Orthodoxy today, whether Russian or non-Russian, rests directly upon the saints of the Northern Thebaid, who have bequeathed to the Orthodox faithful their experience of communion with and the example of their God-pleasing lives.  

*

"How can we make use of this holy inheritance in their own lives today?

"We must not deceive ourselves: the life of the desert-dwellers of the Northern Thebaid is far beyond us in our time of unparalleled spiritual emptiness. In any epoch the monastic life is limited by the kind of life which is being led in the world. 

"At a time when daily Orthodox life in Russia was both extremely difficult and very sober, monasticism could flourish; but in our time when ordinary life has become abnormally comfortable and the world-view of even the best religious and intellectual leaders is shockingly frivolous, what more is to be expected than that luke-warm spirituality with comfort with which bold voices from inside Soviet Russia even now are reproaching the free West?

*

"Everywhere today the disease of disbelief has entered deeply into the minds, and most of all the hearts, of men. Our Orthodoxy, even when it is outwardly still correct, is the poorest, the feeblest Christianity there has ever been. 

*

"And still the voice of the Northern Thebaid calls us—not, it may be, to go to the desert but at least to keep alive the fragrance of the desert in our hearts: to dwell in mind and heart with these angel-like men and women and  have them as our truest friends, conversing with them in prayer; to be always aloof from the attachments and passions of this life, even when they center about some institution or leader of the church organization; to be first of all a citizen of the Heavenly Jerusalem, the City on high towards which all our Christian labors are directed, and only secondarily a member of this world below which perishes.

*

Epilogue to The Northern Thebaid - Monk Seraphim Rose 1975

* 

Comment:

The Christian church is at a very low ebb of weakness now. Seraphim Rose says here that we "have seen the last great Orthodox Elders of the golden chain of Orthodox spirituality which has come down unbroken from the Egyptian desert to us."

So modern Christians in the West are bereft of the help which used to come from great Orthodox elders, from people of advanced holiness.

Yet, "The spiritual strength of Orthodoxy today, whether Russian or non-Russian, rests directly upon the saints of the Northern Thebaid, who have bequeathed to the Orthodox faithful their experience of communion with and the example of their God-pleasing lives."

In a more general sense, although we lack direct personal guidance, we still have indirect, written records - more widely avaiable than ever before. 

*

So - aside from seeking truth truth (an activity which has little attraction for most humans most of the time) - what is there to attract people to traditional Christianity? 

Not political power, not the probability of a bright future.

Also not the propsect of advanced and exciting and absorbing spiritual states - since these are regarded as being spiritually hazardous without prior purification (rare in modern hedonic conditions) and spiritual supervision (which, now the golden chain has been broken, is all-but impossible). 

* 

Spiritual consolation is there for those who repent. 

But what of those many people who feel no need for spiritual consolation? 

(They actually do need it, of course, but they do not feel the need, and will not be persuaded of their need - resist any such persuasion deftly, firmly and aggressively. I remember this well.) 

*

While traditional spirituality required, arose from, sustained solitary prayer - from confronting life naked; modern life is continually interrupting any such possibility. There are frequent and intrusive external interruptions, and there is the temptation and habit of yielding-to and seeking-out interruptions (as an anaesthetic to boredom, misery, and form of discomfort). 


How could a spiritual awareness ever dawn upon one who was surrounded by media stimuli, working, in company, connected by electronic communications 24/7, regularly dosed with food and drinks and alcohol and drugs?...


*



 

Fr. Seraphim Rose on the genuine Orthodox tradition

"Meanwhile, the genuine Orthodox tradition continues as it has always been, trying to preserve its integrity in the midst of (...) conflicting currents. 

"Fortunately, this tradition has a way—with the help of God, Who looks after His Church—of preserving itself from the extremes that often try to deflect it from its course. This self-preservation and self-continuity of the Orthodox tradition is not something that requires the assistance of 'brilliant theologians'; it is the result of the uninterrupted 'catholic consciousness' of the Church which has guided the Church from the very beginning of its existence. 

"It is this catholic consciousness which preserved the wholeness of Russian Orthodoxy in the 1920’s when the extreme reforms of the 'Living Church' seemed to have taken possession of the Church and many of its leading hierarchs and theologians; this same catholic consciousness is at work today and will continue to preserve Christ’s Church through all the trials of the present day, just as it has for nearly 2000 years. 

"Those who speak for it are often not the 'brilliant theologians', who can be led astray as easily as anyone else, but more often humble laborers in Christ’s vineyard who would be surprised and even offended that anyone should make anything of their labors or even call them 'theologians'. (...)

"In all his writings, Fr. Michael is not trying to discover anything Тnew~~ in Orthodox tradition, or to stand out for the sharpness of his cri-ticisms — common faults in today’s academic theology. Rather, he attempts to give only his own humble, serene reflections on the wealth of Orthodox teaching which he accepts as already established and experi-enced by centuries of theologians and simple Christians before him. 

"Even when, for the sake of truth, he does find it necessary to criticize a view, whether inside or outside the Orthodox Church, he does it with such gentleness and good intention that it is impossible for anyone to be offended by him.
 

"Most of all, in Fr. Michael’s writings one may see a characteristic of genuine Orthodox theology that is so often lost sight of in our cold, rationalistic age. Theology is not primarily a matter of arguments, criticisms, proofs and disproofs; it is first of all men’s word about God, in accordance with the Divinely-revealed teaching of Orthodoxy.

"Therefore, its first purpose and intent is always to inspire, to warm the heart, to lift one above the petty preoccupations of earth in order to glimpse the Divine beginning and end of all things and so to give one the energy and encouragement to struggle towards God and our heavenly homeland. 

"This is certainly the meaning and spirit of the theology of Orthodoxy’s three pre-eminent 'theologians': St. John the Evangelist, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. Symeon the New Theologian; they, one may say, have set the tone for Orthodox theology, and this remains the tone and the task of theology even in our cold-hearted and analytic age.

"Father Michael’s theology is in this warm-hearted and inspiring tone. He is not the only one to write Orthodox theology with this intent today, but he is one of the few, in an older generation that is fast vanishing, who can serve as a link between us and the genuine theology of the Holy Fathers."

*

From: Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky: theology in the ancient tradition. Preface to Orthodox Dogmatic Theoology - by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, translated by Fr. Seraphim Rose.Third edition. 2009. St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood. 

A transcription is at : http://www.synod.com/01newstucture/pagesen/legacy/serrosethology.html