Forgiveness as a therapeutic tool and the “Psychology” of the Early Fathers

Rev. Dr Adamantios G. Avgoustidis, Psychiatrist and Theologian

Forgiveness is one of the exclusive human qualities or attitudes, crucial to the basic make-up of the human person, especially when we speak in terms of the spiritual tradition of Christianity. Recent formulations define forgiveness as the opposite of resentfulness, rancor and hatred, entailing the relinquishment for justification and punishment. These issues, initially belonging to the ground of philosophical, theological or sociological speculation, appeared recently on the scene of psychological research and applications.

The reason for the concern of Psychology regarding “theological” or “moral” topics deals with strong evidence, which indicates these moral values to have an influence on psychological or physical health. During the early 60’s, forgiveness was valued for its psychotherapeutic effects in the treatment of alcoholism. Yet, the religious load of the concept haltered psychology from recognizing the possible therapeutic importance of its emotional content –even for alcoholism– at least until the late 80’s.

It was only around 1986, when increasing concern appeared in the medical, psychiatric or psychological literature, the concept having been almost completely neglected until then except for some considerations dealing with the treatment of anger. Nevertheless, literature refered to the healing “paradox” of forgiveness.

The initial effort to use forgiveness in the treatment of alcoholism extended to adults facing psychological disturbances and who had been victims of abuse by alcoholic parents during their childhood. Parallel to this, therapists working with individuals, who had been physically or sexually assaulted by their parents, began to wonder about the importance of forgiveness as a therapeutic means for the relief of those patients from the catastrophic tendencies that mastered the relationship between them and their ancestors. These approaches soon became very popular and many writings on forgiveness, addressed to the public or to the counselors, appeared on the scene. Publicity challenged other caregivers, as well. Questions about the therapeutic value of forgiveness arose, either in the area of physical health -as in cancer patients-, or in psychotherapy, as in strategic family therapy.

Today, an increasing number of researchers work on questions regarding the possible contribution of forgiveness to an effective psychotherapy when the therapist promotes the patient’s forgiving abilities. That is because, according to some references, the physical illness of some hospitalized patients is rooted in emotional ground. Their speculation is that many patients use their illness as self-punishment, while pertinent symptoms and break-down episodes stay as an unconscious avowal of their suppressed guilt.

What is new about forgiveness?

How new and modern are all these speculations? The purpose of this paper is twofold. One is to bring to light some ways of thinking and some information originating in early eastern Christian spirituality. The other is to discuss those issues within the framework of modern Psychology. One of the goals of this research is to show both, how an erring Christianity cannot help the human being, and how psychology may be restrained by its own methodology and predetermination.

The principal source for this study is the work of Saint John Climacus (6th century), known as “The Ladder of divine ascent”. Because of his work, which has deeply influenced the entire Eastern Christian spiritual tradition, the author is also known as “Saint John of the Ladder” (“Ladder”). The text is included among the most read and fundamental ascetic writings, comparable to the importance of theological compilations such as that of Saint Maximos the Confessor.

The writer of the Ladder represents the spiritual tradition of Eastern Christianity. In his work, John Climacus explains that, if someone wants to rid himself from the passion of anger and rage, first he has to struggle against the “daughters of anger”, named as “remembrance of Wrongs (resentfulness or malice), Hate, Hostility and Self-justification”.

In chapter 9, On Malice (on resentfulness), John Climacus argues that this “passion” belongs to the passions originating from other passions. This “dark and loathsome passion, it comes to be but has no offspring, so that one need not say too much about it”. He insists, however, that its importance should not be undervalued, “never imagine that this dark vice is a passion of no importance, for it often reaches out even to spiritual men”.

He suggests that people who can not cope with their raging memories and remain unable to erase resentfulness from their hearts could get a first stage of relief by trying to show to the “enemy” their repentance, even if it is only empty words. He believes that, even then, this manipulation motivates the subject to go through and become conscious of his/her malice. The outcome of doing so might be a realization of one’ s hypocriticism. Then, this self-consciousness can enforce an emotional change, since “if after great effort you still fail to root out this thorn, go to your enemy and apologize, if only with empty words whose insincerity may shame you. Then as conscience, like a fire, comes to give you pain, you may find that a sincere love of your enemy may come to life”.

Although this prescription sounds like an apparent simplification, it hides in its depth the core idea of a well-turned manipulation, that is on common use in contemporary psychotherapeutic technique. John Climacus, actually, proposes a therapeutic intervention that aims in bringing to the surface other deeper conflicts, by copying with the defense mechanisms like negation, rationalization and reaction formation that may characterize hypocritical behavior. His intervention starts with the conflicts closer to conscience, so resistance is softer and the acceptance of the unconscious guiltiness becomes easier. In the case of a successful fermentation, the resistance becomes less rigid, so the road opens to the approach of deeper psychological conflicts, hidden behind resentfulness, nourishing and sustaining it. It is worth mentioning that, in the Ladder’s words, “to forget wrongs is to prove oneself truly repentant”. In Greek, repentance is “metanoia” which means a change of mind (meta-noia).

Before the end of chapter 9, On Malice, the term “hostility” is used as a synonym of resentfulness. According to the Ladder, forgiveness is the proof of genuine repentance, because “to brood on them (the hated) and at the same time to imagine one is practicing repentance is to act like the man who is convinced he is running when in fact he is fast asleep”. This definition indicates a psychological differentiation between those two conditions. Hostility presupposes a conscious abomination and aversion when resentfulness functions either subconsciously or unconsciously, as “long-standing grievance (long stored resentment)”. That is how some people are “silently harboring resentment within themselves”. And, that is why the non genuine and conscious forbearance could only be the result of the intrinsic suppression of emotions which remain hidden and repressed, “long stored”, “harbored”.

John Climacus argues that the case when an interpretation of Christian faith is delivered under the possession of one’s resentful malicious interest it is proof of active (but unconscious) resentfulness. In his words, “Malice is an exponent of Scripture that twists the words of the Spirit to suit itself”.

It is this unconscious function of resentfulness and the suppression of the inner conflicts that maintain the anger in people’s souls, yet making them appear as devoted faithful, gentle and peaceful in their behavior. According to John Climacus as “worms thrive in a rotten tree; (so) malice thrives in the deceptively meek and silent”.

The aforementioned remarks about hostility stand for hate as well, the other “daughter of anger”, except for the fact that here we are facing full conscious resentfulness and hostility. Self-justification, the last “daughter”, had a particular meaning in the context. We must keep in mind that the text is initially addressed to the monks of a monastic community. In the Ladder, self-justification is synonymous to disputation in the sense of repentance negation.

From John Climacus’ “Ladder” to contemporary Psychology.

Modern psychoanalysis defines anger as the imminent emotional response to a physical or thinkable assault (i.e. primary anger) while hate is a secondary response that requires an internal process. This process includes chronic anger and resentment. Therefore, resentment, hostility and hate are the implications of anger (i.e. secondary anger). In John Climacus’ writings we meet a similar distinction, though he expressed himself in a more literary way. He personalizes anger and asks “him” to bring himself to light. In “his” answer, anger declares: “I come from many sources and I have more than one father. My mothers are Vainglory, Avarice, Greed. And Lust too. My father is named Conceit. My daughters have the names Remembrance of Wrongs, Hate, Hostility, and Self-justification”. What we have here is a case of deep psychological thinking, literately expressed, which, in fact, defines primary and secondary anger.

Moreover, the use of expressions like “long stored resentment” or “silently harboring resentment within themselves” refers to withheld, suppressed emotions. We could argue that, those expressions indicate John Climacus is aware of some psychological defensive mechanisms which psychoanalysis described almost fifteen centuries later.

Indeed, in the Ladder, one frequently meets expressions that could justify the writer’s awareness of what psychoanalysis defined as “the unconscious”. We can brand such strong indications where he points out the way passions and virtues co-exist. In his formulation, passions and virtues are interlaced: “When we draw water from a well, it can happen that we inadvertently also bring up a frog. When we acquire virtues we can sometimes find ourselves involved with the vices that are imperceptibly interwoven with them. … Malice with prudence, duplicity, procrastination, slovenliness, stubbornness, willfulness, and disobedience with meekness, refusal to learn with silence, … nasty condemnation with love… sarcasm with chastity. And behind all the virtues follow vainglory as a slave, or rather a poison, for everything”.

It took another fifteen centuries for modern western pastoral counseling, with the great help of psychology, to prescribe an almost identical process in order for one to achieve forgiveness. According to recent knowledge, the process starts when the subject recognizes that inside him (her) there is resentfulness and anger. The therapeutic procedure presupposes the overcoming of psychological resistance such as negation and repression of negative emotions, which darken the awareness of his (hers) own ill will. Some researchers split this first stage in two steps. The “hurt-stage”, referring to the recognition of the traumatic events behind resentment and the “anger-stage”, referring to the negative emotions of guilt which obstruct the individual to gain insight of the problem. The next step is the recognition of one’s own blame and guiltiness. The main obstacle to this development is the rationalized acceptance of an indefinite guilt, usually based on abstract, theoretical schemes of general sinfulness in a religious context.

The last remark is indicative of the negative impact that a distorted theological upbringing could cause. The idea of Christ being crucified for the gratification of Divine Justice leads to the inevitable question: If God himself demands a justification by His Son’s sacrifice in order to forgive the sinner, then how could a human being forgive one who hurt him before the potential forgiver got any personal satisfaction and justification? The theological tradition, to which John Climacus belongs, provides a crystal clear teaching on the issue. The Crucifixion of Jesus does not serve a legalistic satisfaction of Divine Justice. It is an absolutely free, willful action in order to combat the power of evil and unbar the way of the human being towards Resurrection. The principal question here is not moral but ontological. For the writer of the Ladder, the demand for justice and moral vindication, as we mean it in the social or secular sense, is almost of no importance during the ascent on the ladder of virtues.

John Climacus is an ascetic. His diligence focuses on the achievement of the highest virtues, such as humility, discernment, dispassion and love. Those are the assumptions of sanctity and salvation to him. It is worth mentioning that these “extremities” do not sound so peculiar today as in the past, thanks to psychology. J.M. Brandsma argues, for instance, that “forgiveness … often requires a humbling of the self to admit a dependency or to give up more or less, a defensively grandiose aspect of the self”.

The healing process integrates with the “blessing” of all those who harmed us. Even though this seems to be a satisfying end, the Ladder demands more than that. John Climacus believes that the criterion of being liberated of this “rot”, of this “putrefaction will come not when you pray for the man who offended you, not when you give him presents, not when you invite him to share a meal with you, but only when, on hearing of some catastrophe that has afflicted him in body or soul, you suffer and you lament for him as if for yourself”.

Genuine and false forgiveness

Psychology maintained, more or less, an aloof stance to what Christian forgiveness really is, suggesting that Christian courtesy constitutes a type of pseudo-forgiveness. Therefore, what seems to be a behavior of absolution is the underground of the interior resentful fomentation of the desire to revenge. John Climacus’ definition of what genuine forgiveness is, answers these objections with prophetic vigor. This kind of psychological interpretation shows a very limited capacity to apprehend the vast dimensions of self-transcendence a spiritually struggling believer has to achieve. The outcome of this narrow sight is an apprehension of forgiveness shrunk inside borders cut out by the function of psychological defense mechanisms, such as the reaction formation and so on. In that case, forgiveness is nothing more than a substitute of hatred.

Similar implications are generated from the apprehension of forgiveness as identical to guiltiness. This conception understands indulgence as a self-serving use of forgiveness on the purpose of the subject’s effort to avoid a potential failure of communication with the other person. In addition, forgiveness is identified with a defensive psychological function used by the subject in order to avoid potential conflicts and psychological traumatization. This attitude may also conceal conscious or unconscious trends of mastership or authoritarianism, while declaring -indirectly but with clarity- either the superiority of the one who forgives or the depth of the forgiven to the forgiver.

All these possible variations are out of the Ladder’s mentality. John Climacus declares that “to forget wrongs is to prove oneself truly repentant”, and genuine repentance does not compromise with any neurotic self-justification. He underlines that “a sign of true repentance is the admission that all troubles, and more besides, whether visible or not, were richly deserved”. Realistic or not, this kind of spirituality does not leave space for any kind of pseudo-forgiveness.

All of the aforementioned leads us to a crossroad, where we meet a crucial differentiation between what could be called patristic anthropology versus anthropology of psychology and their sociological and cultural projections. In other words, we arrive at the area where the truth and value of any theoretical presumption is tested. Indeed, the ideas and inspiration behind any philosophical, theological or psychological anthropology constitutes the takeoff that determines the human cultural guise and morale. The guise that is being shaped by values inspired from the contemporary anthropological stream, formented in the string of wrong or right psychological assumption or a genuine or warped religious faith.

Towards a therapy of malice

John Climacus does not propose any specialized “therapy” for resentfulness but the effort to overcome it in the frame of trying to fight the passion of anger by using the means of traditional eastern spirituality, that is, by one mainly trying to achieve repentance and humility. In his experience “the man who has put a stop to anger has also wiped out remembrance of wrongs, since offspring can come only from a living parent”, and, as we mentioned above, remembrance of wrongs, hate, hostility and self-justification are the “daughters” of “anger the oppressor”. He argues that meekness is a most effective curative factor, contributing to a successful confrontation of anger’s daughters, who obstruct the growth of forgiveness. We ought to have in mind, that John Climacus is rather indifferent to an extrinsic imitation of virtuousness with no intrinsic spiritual substructure.

Unlike what is thought to be self-evident in western Christianity, where the criterion of a proper behavior is an extrinsic one, rather unaware of any ontological or anthropological requirements, he does not interpret the passions with moralistic or legalistic criteria. At any rate, he does not underestimate the significance of the expressed behavior, especially when he compares a passion to its opposite virtue, because, he believes, it can be of great help in diagnosing or treating. In his words, “this sea (“the foul and bitter ocean of passions”) has to be stirred up, provoked and made angry so as to jettison onto dry land the wood, the hay, the corruption carried into it by the rivers of passion. Notice what happens in nature. After a storm at sea comes a deep calm”.

In our times, while Christianity has become a secularized, religious utilitarianism, meekness is apprehended as a value itself, a “must” of the pious behavior. But in the Ladder such a justification is unknown. Its author ignores any kind of self-justifying virtues. The battle for the conquest of virtuousness cannot be limited into the narrowness of an extrinsic behavioral calmness but it has to be extended to the conquest of other more fundamental virtues, which presuppose the “gymnastic” to acquire and consolidate meekness. In the eastern Christian tradition, meekness is not some kind of a release from tension, anxiety or hyperexcitability but an intermediate stage and a means in striving to achieve genuine humility. As Climacus quotes, “it is impossible to destroy wild beasts without arms. It is impossible to achieve freedom from anger without humility”.

The formulation of John Climacus on what is meekness sounds very interesting. He says that meekness “is a mind consistent amid honor or dishonor”. We can assume that he refers to vainglory, self conceit, arrogance, which are included among the “ancestors” of anger. It is obvious that for him -and Eastern Christian tradition at large- meekness is not just a pious behavior, but the externalization of an internal spirituality based on the possessions of a holy humility, which is not a pathetic but rather an assertive one.

Summarizing all of the aforementioned we could now suggest that what the Ladder proposes for the treatment of malice is “gain the placidy and meekness and you gained forgiveness”, an option which might be also acceptable from psychology as an end to its self. However, in the context of eastern Christian spirituality it is still nothing more than a prerequisite to the conquest of dispassion and love, these two being the end of a therapy aiming to a reconciliation and personal communication with God.

Ontology vs. Deontology

Even this very limited information allows us to defend that a basic difference between modern psychology and patristic anthropology is the lack of an ontological verification from the standpoint of psychology. This permits the formation of theories that interpret the human being’s functions and behavior in a dehumanizing context that neglects the complexity and the “humanity” of mankind. The implications of such simplifications can be observed in psychological theories, like in behaviorism or even in psychoanalysis, when they postulate to minimize the human existence within the limits of their speculations or interpretations.

We must be aware of the distance between the understanding of a certain behavior and its causal factors and the formation of dogmatic formulations about what a human being is, based on these partial understandings. It is worth mentioning that in this patristic anthropological approach, it is the ontological prerequisites that lead to the modulation of a certain morality and not the ethical laws.

Yet, a fundamental question needs to be answered: Is there any practical significance of all that information, derived from the very past? In what way could a writing of monastic literature, or even the patristic mind at large inspire the formulation of proposals able to be adjusted to contemporary life?

The answer could be easy. If we try to get into the “mind of the Fathers”, understand their anthropological prerequisites and the rationale of their therapeutic approach, then we may find ourselves facing answers standing above dualistic classifications of type modern-past, monastic-secular, progressive-traditional, liberal-conservative and so on. Kallistos Ware argues, it is wrong to believe that “the Ladder is of no interest to those in the “world”. Surely not. It has been read with the utmost profit by many thousands of married Christians; and, whatever the author’s original intention, there is nothing surprising in that. … Whether monastic or married, all the baptized are responding to the same Gospel call; the outward conditions of their response may vary, but the path is essentially one”. A genuine patristic text is characterized by its effort to seek and express possible ways for the faithful who seek to meet a factual evangelical ethos. This kind of a morality, based on love and not on abstract laws, constitutes the substantial component and the standard for a civilization that demands to be called Christian.

This suggestion might seem strange for those who believe that the human being is born evil in itself, and, unfortunately, the physiological or psychological determinism leans toward this view. But this is not in the spirit of the Fathers. John Climacus’ teaching is crystal clear on that issue:

“God neither caused nor created evil and, therefore, those who assert that certain passions come naturally to the soul are quite wrong. What they fail to realize is that we have taken natural attributes of our own and turned them into passions. For instance, the seed that we have for the sake of procreating children is abused by us for the sake of fornication. Nature has provided us with anger as something to be turned against the serpent, but we have used it against our neighbor. We have a natural urge to excel in virtue, but instead we compete in evil. Nature stirs within us the desire for glory, but the glory of a heavenly kind”.

The most desperate quest of recent times is for values and criteria that could lead us to overcome the decay of cultural principles, and the rediscovery of patristic authenticity could be a treasure trove for that search. The attempt to lay the foundations for a dialogue between Theology and Psychology might bring up some crucial issues, such as the importance of humility as a cultural factor, of forgiveness in a world that starves for peace but does whatever possible to undermine it, for love as an existential achievement and not as bare sentimentalism, and so on. We may need to re-discover a type of asceticism for ordinary life. The data for this inspiration seem to be hidden for almost two thousand years in the forgotten old Christian writings. It is up to us to profit by it.

Source:  Orthodox Pastoral Counseling Center at Belgrade

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Psychotherapy to Spiritual Therapy

Lecture presented on 7^th European Conference of Pastoral Care and Counseling

From Psychotherapy to Spiritual Therapy: Orthodox Pastoral Counseling Center in Belgrade

Aleksandra Sajkov, psychotherapist
Aleksandar Lukić, theologian

The loss of spiritual and social values and the crisis in human relationships lasted almost 60 years. This period was marked by the rule of non-Christian ethics and morality in our country. Moreover, thousands of families have lost their homes and loved ones, while hundreds of thousands have become refugees. This is the consequence of the disintegration of the Former Yugoslavia, the wars that followed and, unfortunately, the current Kosovo tragedy.

This situation resulted in appearance of a large number of spiritual and psychological disorders. Records of the center indicate the evident increase of depression, fear, drug and alcohol abuse, marital problems, identity and relationship problems, low self-esteem, emotional deprivation and adaptation problems (especially present in the population of Kosovo refugees and displaced persons).

Feeling the need for professional help necessary in the process of overcoming the above-mentioned problems, the majority of our clients sought help in medical institutions which do not focus on the spiritual dimension of personality and are not in the position to deal with spiritual problems. As a result, their services are reduced to minimal conversation and increased use of drugs. This kind of treatment often does not suit the needs of the clients and they do not get any closer to the solution of their problems.

As an alternative to this phenomenon, emerged the need to establish a center specialising in pastoral psychology which is the union between the healing sources of faith, contemporary psychology and psychotherapy.

Orthodox Pastoral Counseling Center of the Belgrade – Karlovci Archdiocese was opened in Belgrade on 14^th of April 1997 in the presence and with the blessing of His Eminence Serbian Patriarch Pavle and with the approval of the Holy Synod.

The center was founded with the aim of providing psychological help given by Orthodox Christian experts, as well as an introduction to the basics of the teachings of Christ for the sick, the weak, the discouraged and the spiritually impoverished. Collaborators of the center are highly educated and experienced experts in the fields of theology, psychiatry, sociology and psychology, who apply their wide knowledge in everyday work. Currently, 24 collaborators are employed in the center on a permanent basis.

The very fact that our center is the only one of this kind in Yugoslavia, namely, the only institution specializing in this specific branch of psychology and counseling, is surely one of the reasons for permanent increase in the number of clients using the services of the center. Our four year long experience tells us that the above-mentioned alternative would be a good way of solving existing problems. In the period from May 1997 to June 2001, 9705 individual/family counseling sessions were held in the center. The enclosed records show that the number of clients increases each month. The number of over 400 therapy/counseling sessions per month has already been reached.

The very idea of opening new similar centers involves thinking about staff, namely, specialists of different helping professions (psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, theologians, defectologists…) who would work in these centers, adopting the postulates of pastoral counseling. In October 1999, the center founded “School for Orthodox Bases of Pastoral Counselling”. School participants are final-year students of theology, psychology, medicine and future social workers. The goal of the school is to integrate the Church into the development of secular society, introduce future professional helpers to Christian norms and values and make it possible for the members of different groups of professional helpers to get to know each other through joint work and theology and psychology–related activities. It becomes quite clear that this type of education cannot be limited to a certain period of time (one or two academic years). On the contrary, it is something that is intended to last in the future, or more precisely, as long as there is the need for such kind of help in solving different problems.

Naturally, the need for such kind of help is not limited to one region (the Belgrade-Karlovci Archdiocese), because the problems the center deals with are, more or less, present in all areas, both urban and rural. Users of the services offered by our center are not just from Belgrade. They come from other parts of Serbia, Montenegro and even from the Republic of Srpska. That’s why we came up with the idea that it would be very good to have similar counselling facilities in these regions as well. On 19 April 2001, the Montenegro – Archdiocese decided to establish Spiritual – Counseling Center “St. Basil of Ostrog” in Podgorica, which marked the next step in the process of widening the range of our activities. The new center will be founded on the same principles as its Belgrade counterpart.

In addition to its counselling and educational programs the center launched the project called “Mission”.

We were guided by the words of Apostle Paul: “And turned I to the Judean as a Judean to win them to my side: to those under the law as ruled by the law; to those outlawed turned I as an outlaw, although I am not to God outlawed, but am I in the law of Christ, to win to my side those who are out of law. To the weak turned I as a weak, to win them to my side: I was everything to everybody to save who I can”…(1.Kor.9.20-22).

Since the Center, from its onset started the activity of linking (psychology and theology, medicine, social work, pedagogy and church experience) it was only natural that the expansion of activity aspired to connect to some other fields of human knowledge, too.

There are various activities included, such as workshops named “Conversations about religion”. They came following last year’s generation of students, most of whom from other faculties (medicine, psychology, soc.work) who wanted to either gain elementary knowledge of religion, or learn more about it. Group consists of 40 – 50 participants, and the themes vary from basic religiogious issues and it’s application in every day’s life, to very complex theological questions. The relations between the Church and the State, applying Holy Fathers’ norms in everyday spiritual strangle – were the first subjects discussed. The very structure of these workshops usually is: directed discussion leading toward as much as possible concrete conclusion of a discussed issue. The goal is to be able to apply the acquired learning into day-to-day living faith, share it with the others and establish it as the foundation of personal and professional life. These dialogs take place once a week.

Public lectures were held in various cultural centers, scientific institutions and schools. Lectures were delivered by Serbian Orthodox Church dignitaries and eminent foreign and local experts in the field of pastoral psychology.

Members of our staff were invited to take part in TV and radio shows focusing on the problems that the Center and the School deal with.

We also established a web center which includes a complete Internet presentation, regularly updated with the latest news about the activities of the center and reading material on pastoral psychology. The most important part of this activity is establishing this type of communication with all the people interested in the services offered by the center.

COUNSELLING

Our concept of pastoral counseling is derived from Orthodox frame of reference, based on ontological theology and patristic anthropology. According to our opinion, pastoral counseling can’t be separated from spiritual guidance and Liturgical life.

Holistic attitude considers all three aspects of human being : body, soul and spirit.

Psychotherapy is aimed towards solving the problems of psychological and bodily nature. Moreover, it is often incapable to cope with spiritual dimensions of human being. Paradox is that psychology, in recent development, became the science without the subject : out of soul. We have developed experimental disciplines in psychology, coping with various aspects of behavior, cognitive processes, unconsciousness, but a whole soul and spirit are missing.

Therefore, the basic aim of our pastoral counseling is to move from psychotherapy to spiritual therapy which, on the other side, can’t be separated from the Liturgy as the center of our lives. In Orthodox ontological theology, Liturgy means community, and there is no community without The Holly Communion which is the center of our spiritual life. Confession, as the Holly Sacrament, is realized as the specific process of spiritual therapy, aimed to gain freedom from passions. According to our spiritual inheritance, dealing with passions means dealing and limiting the source of sins. The sin is just a symptom of underlying passion. So, there is no use of punishing the sinner: the bottom line is to guide him towards truly repentant. Spiritual father doesn` t forgive, he gives forgiveness.

When we are talking about spiritual guidance inseparable from Church, Church is realized in eschatological way, like the Body of Christ. All our activities, all our practice are the part of prolonged Liturgy. Everything leads to Liturgy, which is consider like constant and never ending process.

It’s not rare that our clients have resistance towards church, realized like religious organization. At the same time, they have no doubt in Church as the Body of Christ.

The task of psychotherapist in our Center is to help client solving the psychological problem in order to prepare him to the next level, which is always the level of spiritual guidance and incorporation in the living Liturgy.

By making priests part of our team, we provide spiritual guidance through Confession which leads to Communion.

The basic psychological assumptions of our approach are derived from the work of early Fathers. For example : Personality concept of Capadocian Fathers and the concept of Cross.

Therefore, the human being is realized as a Personality only in relation toward God and other human beings. It means that we always have to bare in mind two dimensions of the human Cross : vertical one – relation to God and horizontal one – relation to our neighbours. The bottom line of our pastoral counseling is that the most important therapeutic tool of psychotherapist is his personal style. Therapist acts more with what he really is, than what he says.

Neither all of our clients are believers, nor we force them to declare themselves in such a way. Therapist is not the rapist. Personal style, personality, real belief in resurrection and joy are more effective than anything else.

Source: Orthodox Pastoral Counseling Center in Belgrade

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Flesh of My Flesh – Greek Patristic Exegeses of the Creation of Eve

Greek Patristic Exegeses of the Creation of Eve

Valerie A. Karras

This article was published in the St. Nina Quarterly, Volume 2, No. 1.

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.” (Gen. 2:18, 21-23 NRSV)

Genesis contains two at times mutually contradictory accounts of creation. The first one, the so-called priestly (or P) narrative, extends from Gen. 1:1 to 2:4 and relates the progression of creation in a systematic, basically “evolutionary” manner which culminates with humanity. This is the account in which God makes humanity in His own image, male and female, and gives him dominion over the earth. In their exegesis of Gen. 1:27 – “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them” (NRSV) – the Greek Fathers stress the common divine inheritance of male and female created in God’s image. They interpret the phrase “male and female he created them” in an inclusive, not a descriptive or normative, sense. In other words, they do not understand gender to be an aspect of God’s image in humanity; rather, they interpret the verse to include both man and woman in the full reception of God’s image.¹ The second (although chronologically older), or Yahwist, account, Gen. 2:4 to 2:25, places the creation of humanity, Adam, before that of any other life form, plant or animal. Woman, on the other hand, is created after all other beings, in the manner related by the colorful account quoted above.

How do the Greek Fathers deal with these two sometimes conflicting descriptions of creation?

[ Here is the rest of this article ]

related articles:
The Living Breath of God and the Three Steps in Fashioning Humanity
Rev. Eugen J. Pentiuc, Th.D., Ph.D.

Orthodox Perspectives on Creation -Report of the WCC Inter-Orthodox Consultation, Sofia, Bulgaria, October 1987 (Extracts)

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Orthodoxy as Therapy

by Protopresbyter George Metallinos

If we wished to conventionally define Christianity, as Orthodoxy, we would say it is the experiencing of the presence of the Uncreated (=of God) throughout history, and the potential of creation (=mankind) becoming God “by Grace”.
Given the perpetual presence of God in Christ, in historical reality, Christianity offers mankind the possibility of theosis, just as Medical Science offers mankind the possibility of preserving or restoring his health through a specific therapeutic procedure and a specific way of life.

The writer is in a position to appreciate the coincidence between the medical and ecclesiastic poemantic sciences, because, as a diabetic and a Christian, he is aware that in both cases, he has to faithfully abide by the rules that have been set out, in order to attain both these two goals.

The unique and absolute goal of life in Christ is theosis, in other words, our union with God, so that man – through his participation in God’s uncreated energy – may become “by the Grace of God” that which God is by nature (=without beginning and without end). This is what “salvation” means, in Christianity. It is not the moral improvement of man, but a re-creation, a re-construction in Christ, of man and of society, through an existing and an existential relationship with Christ, Who is the incarnate manifestation of God in History. This is what the Apostle Paul’s words imply, in Corinthians II 5:17 : “If someone is in Christ, he is a new creation”. Whoever is united with Christ is a new creation.

That is why – Christianically – the incarnation of God-Logos – this redemptory “intrusion” of the Eternal and the Beyond-time God into Historical time – represents the commencement of a new world, of a (literally) “New Age”, which continues throughout the passing centuries, in the persons of authentic Christians: the Saints. The Church exists in this world, both as the “body of Christ” as well as “in Christ”, in order to offer salvation, through one’s embodiment in this regenerative procedure. This redemptory task of the Church is fulfilled by means of a specific therapeutic method, whereby throughout history, the Church essentially acts as a universal Infirmary. “Spiritual Infirmary” (spiritual hospital) is the characterization given to the Church by the blessed Chrysostom (†407).

Further along, we shall examine the answers given to the following questions:

What is the sickness that Christian Orthodoxy cures?

What is the therapeutic method it implements?

What is the identity of authentic Christianity, which radically separates it from all of its heretic deviations, and from every other form of religion?

1. The sickness of human nature is the fallen state of mankind, along with all of creation, which likewise suffers (“sighs and groans together” – Romans 8:22) together with mankind. This diagnosis applies to every single person (regardless whether they are Christian or not, or whether they believe or not), on account of the overall unity of mankind (ref. Acts 17:26). Christian Orthodoxy does not confine itself within the narrow boundaries of one religion – which cares only for its own followers – but, just like God, “wants all people to be saved and to arrive at the realization of the truth” (Timothy I, 2:4), since God is “the Saviour of all persons” (Timothy I, 4:10). Thus, the sickness that Christianity refers to pertains to all of mankind; Romans 5:12: “death has come upon all people, since all of them have sinned (=they have veered from their path towards theosis). Just as the fall (i.e. sickness) is a panhuman issue, so is salvation-therapy directly dependent on the inner functions of each person.

The natural (authentic) state of a person is (patristically) defined by the functioning inside him of three mnemonic systems; two of which are familiar and monitored by medical science, while the third is something handled by poemantic therapeutics. The first system is cellular memory (DNA), which determines everything inside a human organism. The second is the cerebral cellular memory, brain function, which regulates our association with our self and our environment. Both these systems are familiar to medical science, whose work it is to maintain their harmonious operation.

The experience of the Saints is familiar with one other mnemonic system: that of the heart, or ‘noetic’ memory, which functions inside the heart. In Orthodox tradition, the heart does not only have a natural operation, as a mere pump that circulates the blood. Furthermore, according to patristic teaching, neither the brain nor the central nervous system is the center of our self-awareness; again, it is the heart, because, beyond its natural function, it also has a supernatural function. Under certain circumstances, it becomes the place of our communion with God, or, His uncreated energy. This is of course perceived through the experience of the Saints, and not through any logical function or through an intellectual theologizing.

Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (†1809), in recapitulating the overall patristic tradition in his work “Hortative Manual”, calls the heart a natural and supernatural center, but also a paranormal center, whenever its supernatural faculty becomes idle on account of the heart being dominated by passions. The heart’s supernatural faculty is the ultimate prerequisite for perfection, for man’s fulfillment, in other words, his theosis, for a complete embodiment in the communion in Christ.

In its supernatural faculty, the heart becomes the space where the mind can be activated. In the Orthodox terminology codex, the mind (ΝΟΥΣ – appearing in the New Testament as ‘the spirit of man’ and ‘the eye of the soul’) is an energy of the soul, by means of which man can know God, and can reach the state of ‘seeing’ God. We must of course clarify that ‘knowledge’ of God does not imply knowledge of His incomprehensible and inapproachable divine essence. This distinction between ‘essence’ and ‘energy’ in God is the crucial difference between Orthodoxy and all other versions of Christianity. The energy of the mind inside the heart is called the ‘noetic faculty’ of the heart. We again stress that according to Orthodoxy, the Mind (ΝΟΥΣ) and Logic (ΛΟΓΙΚΗ) are not the same thing, because logic functions within the brain, whereas the mind functions within the heart.

The noetic faculty is manifested as the “incessant prayer” (ref. Thessalonians I, 5:17) of the Holy Spirit inside the heart (ref. Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:26, Thessalonians I 5:19) and is named by our Holy Fathers as “the memory of God”. When man has in his heart the “memory of God”, in other words, when he hears in his heart “the voice” (Corinthians I 14:2, Galatians 4:6, etc.), he can sense God “dwelling” inside him (Romans 8:11). Saint Basil the Great in his 2nd epistle says that the memory of God remains incessant when it is not interrupted by mundane cares, and the mind “departs” towards God; in other words, when it is in communion with God. But this does not mean that the faithful who has been activated by this divine energy withdraws from the needs of everyday life, by remaining motionless or in some kind of ecstasy; it means that his Mind is liberated from these cares, which are items that preoccupy only his Logic. To use an example that we can relate to: A scientist, who has re-acquired his noetic faculty, will use his logic to tackle his problems, while his mind inside his heart will preserve the memory of God incessantly. The person who preserves all three mnemonic systems is the Saint. To Orthodoxy, he is a healthy (normal) person. This is why Orthodoxy’s therapy is linked to man’s course towards holiness.

The non-function or the below-par function of man’s noetic faculty is the essence of his fall. The much-debated “ancestral sin” was precisely man’s mishandling –from that very early moment of his historical presence- of the preservation of God’s memory (=his communion with God) inside his heart. This is the morbid state that all of the ancestral descendants participate in; because it was no moral or personal sin, but a sickness of man’s nature (“Our nature has become ill, of this sin”, observes Saint Cyril of Alexandria – †444), which is transmitted from person to person, exactly like the sickness that a tree transmits to all the other trees that originate from it.

The inactivating of the noetic faculty or the memory of God, and confusing it with the function of the brain (which happens to all of us), subjugates man to stress and to the environment, and to the quest for bliss through individualism and an anti-social stance. While ill because of his fallen state, man uses God and his fellow man to secure his personal security and happiness. Personal use of God is found in “religion” (=the attempt to elicit strength from the divine), which can degenerate into a self-deification of man (“I became a self-idol” says Saint Andrew of Crete, in his ‘Major Canon’). The use of fellow-man -and subsequently creation in general- is achieved by exploiting them in every possible way. This, therefore, is the sickness that man seeks to cure, by becoming fully incorporated in the “spiritual hospital” of the Church.

2. The purpose of the Church’s presence in the world –as a communion in Christ- is man’s cure; the restoration of his heart-centred communion with God; in other words, of his noetic faculty. According to the professor fr. John Romanides, “the patristic tradition is neither a social philosophy, nor a system of morals, or a religious dogmatism; it is a therapeutic method. In this context, it is very similar to Medicine and especially Psychiatry. The noetic energy of the soul that prays mentally and incessantly inside the heart is a natural ‘instrument’, which everyone possesses and is in need of therapy. Neither philosophy, nor any of the known positive or social sciences can cure this ‘instrument’. This is why the incurable cases are not even aware of this instrument’s existence.”

The need for man to be cured is a panhuman issue, related firstly to the restoration of every person to his natural state of existence, through the reactivation of the third mnemonic faculty. However, it also extends to man’s social presence. In order for man to be in communion with his fellow man as a brother, his self-interest (which in the long run acts as self-love) must be transformed into selflessness ( ref. Corinthians I, 13:8 ) “love….does not ask for reciprocation..”). Selfless love exists: it is the love of the Triadic God (Romans 5:8, John I 4:7), which gives everything without seeking anything in exchange. That is why Christian Orthodoxy’s social ideal is not “common possessions”, but the “lack of possessions”, as a willed resignation from any sort of demand. Only then can justice be possible.

The therapeutic method that is offered by the Church is the spiritual life; the life in the Holy Spirit. Spiritual life is experienced as an exercise (Ascesis) and a participation in the Uncreated Grace, through the Sacraments. Ascesis is the violation of our self-ruled and inanimate through sin nature, which is coursing headlong into a spiritual or eternal death, i.e. the eternal separation from the Grace of God. Ascesis aspires to victory over our passions, with the intention of conquering the inner subservience to those pestiferous focal points of man and participating in Christ’s Cross and His Resurrection.

The Christian, who is practicing such restraint under the guidance of his Therapist-Spiritual Father, becomes receptive to Grace, which he receives through his participation in the sacramental life of the ecclesiastic corpus. There cannot be any un-exercising Christian, just as there cannot be a cured person who does not follow the therapeutic advice that the doctor prescribed for him.

3. The above lead us to certain constants, which verify the identity of Christian Orthodoxy:

(a) The Church –as the body of Christ- functions as a therapy Centre-hospital. Otherwise, it would not be a Church, but a “Religion”. The Clergy are initially selected by the cured, in order to function as therapists. The therapeutic function of the Church is preserved today, mostly in Monasteries which, having survived secularism, continue the Church of the Apostolic times.

(b) The scientists of ecclesiastic therapy are the already cured persons. Those who have not had the experience of therapy cannot be therapists. That is the essential difference between the poemantic therapeutic science and medical science. The scientists of ecclesiastic therapy (Fathers and Mothers) bring forth other Therapists, just as the Professors of Medicine bring forth their successors.

(c) The Church’s confining itself to a simple forgiveness of sins so that a place in paradise may be secured constitutes alienation and is tantamount to medical science forgiving the patient, so that he might be healed after death! The Church cannot send someone to Paradise or to Hell. Besides, Paradise and Hell are not places, they are ways of existence. By healing mankind, the Church prepares the person so that he might eternally look upon Christ in His uncreated light as a view of Paradise, and not as a view of Hell, or as “an all-consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29). And this of course concerns every single person, because ALL people shall look eternally upon Christ, as “the Judge” of the whole world.

(d) The validity of science is verified by the achievement of its goals (i.e., in Medicine, it is the curing of the patient). It is the way that authentic scientific medicine is distinguished from charlatanry. The criterion of poemantic therapy by the Church is also the achievement of spiritual healing, by opening the way towards theosis. Therapy is not transferred to the afterlife; it takes place during man’s lifetime, here, in this world (hinc et nunc). This can be seen in the undeteriorated relics of the Saints that have overcome biological deterioration, such as the relics of the Eptanisos Saints: Spiridon, Gerasimos, Dionysios and Theodora Augusta. Undeteriorated relics are, in our tradition, the indisputable evidence of theosis, or in other words the fulfilment of the Church’s ascetic therapy.

I would like to ask the Medical scientists of our country to pay special attention to the issue of the non-deterioration of holy relics, given that they haven’t been scientifically interfered with, but, in them is manifest the energy of Divine Grace; because it has been observed that, at the moment when the cellular system should begin to disintegrate, it automatically ceases to, and instead of emanating any malodour of decay, the body emanates a distinctive fragrance. I limit this comment to the medical symptoms, and will not venture into the aspect of miraculous phenomena as evidence of theosis, because that aspect belongs to another sphere of discussion.

(e) Lastly, the divine texts of the Church (Holy Bible, Synodic and Patristic texts) do not constitute coding systems of any Christian ideology; they bear a therapeutic character and function in the same way that university dissertations function in medical science. The same applies to the liturgical texts, as for example the Benedictions. The simple reading of a Benediction (prayer), without the combined effort of the faithful in the therapeutic procedure of the Church, would be no different to the instance where a patient resorts to the doctor for his excruciating pains, and, instead of an immediate intervention by the doctor, he is limited to being placed on an operating table, and being read the chapter that pertains to his specific ailment.

This, in a nutshell, is Orthodoxy. It doesn’t matter whether one accepts it or not. However, with regard to scientists, I have tried -as a colleague in science myself- to scientifically respond to the question: “What is Orthodoxy”.

Any other version of Christianity constitutes a counterfeiting and a perversion of it, even if it aspires to presenting itself as something Orthodox.

Bibliographical Notes

* Fr. John S. Romanides, “Romans or neoroman Fathers of the Church”, Thessaloniki 1984.
* Fr. John S. Romanides, “Religion is a neurobiological ailment, and Orthodoxy is its cure”, from the volume “Orthodoxy, Hellenism… Holy Monastery of Koutloumousion Publications, Volume B,, 1996, pages 66-67.
* Fr. John S. Romanides, “Church Synods and Civilization”, from THEOLOGY, vol.63 (1992) pg.421-450 and in Greek vol.66 (1995) pg.646-680.
* Fr. Hierotheos Vlachos (presently Metropolitan of Nafpaktos), “Orthodox Psychotherapy”, Edessa 1986.
* Fr. Hierotheos Vlachos (presently Metropolitan of Nafpaktos), “Minor Introduction into Orthodox Spirituality”, Athens.
* Fr. Hierotheos Vlachos (presently Metropolitan of Nafpaktos), “Existential Psychology and Orthodox Psychotherapy”, Levadia 1995.

Also by the author, the following studies:
* Fr. G. Metallinos, “An Orthodox View of Society”, Athens 1986.
* Fr. G. Metallinos, “Theological witness of ecclesiastic worship”, Athens 1996. (N. B.: In these books one can find more bibliography)

Notes – Clarifications
1. The Uncreated = Something that has not been manufactured. This applies only to the Triadic God. The Created = Creation in general, with man at its apex. God is not a “universal” power, as designated by New Age terminology (“everything is one, everyone is God!”), because, as the Creator of all, He transcends the entire universe, given that in essence He is “Something” entirely different (Das ganz Andere). There is no analogous association between the created and the Uncreated. That is why the Uncreated makes Himself know, through His self-revelation.

2. A significant Christian text of the 2nd century, “The Poemen (Shepherd) of Hermas”, says that in order for us to become members of the Body of Christ, we must be “squared” stones (=suitable for building) and not rounded ones!

3. According to fr. John Romanides, to whom we essentially owe the return to the “Philokalian” (=therapeutic-ascetic) view of our Faith, and in fact at an academic level; “Religion” implies every kind of “associating” of the uncreated and the created, as is done in idolatry. The “religious” person projects his “predudices” (=thoughts, meanings) into the divine realm, thus “manufacturing” his own God (this can also occur in the non-Patristic facet of “Orthodoxy”). The aim is “atonement”, “placation” of the “divine” and finally, the “utilizing” of God to one’s own advantage (the magic formula: do ut des). In our tradition however, our God does not need to be “placated”, because “He first loved us” (John I’ 4:19) Our God acts as “Love” (John I, 4:16) and selfless love at that. He gives us everything, and never asks for anything in return from His creations. This is why selflessness is the essence of Christian love, which goes far beyond the notion of a transaction.

4. This is expressed by the familiar and oft-repeated liturgical chant: “Ourselves and each other, and our entire life, let us appose unto Christ our Lord”.

Proper incorporation is normally found in Monasteries, wherever they function in the orthodox tradition of course. That is why Monasteries (for example those of the Holy Mountain) continue to be the model “parishes” of this “world”.

Translation by A. N.

Source: Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Inquiries

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Ecclesiastic Psychotherapy vs. Secular Therapeutic Techniques

by Fr. Constantine Strategopoulos

We have before us an immensely significant issue; and a very delicate one, which we need to examine very seriously, because this very comparison that the subject denotes – Ecclesiastic Psychotherapy versus Secular Therapeutic Techniques – can generate much confusion and even unnecessary oppositions. Given that the subject is a huge one, I will try –in the limited time that I have at my disposal- to give a simple outline, a somewhat broad one, and also to present to your kind attention some very important meanings with simple words, so that you might have some sort of clue, some level of understanding, whenever you encounter these analyses, which will enable you to comprehend them a little better.

            First of all, what does this comparison aspire to?  What is its objective?  We need to firstly clarify certain meanings; we need to know what we have before us, and what those meanings are exactly; what terminology is involved. What exactly do we mean by the word “psychotherapy”?  And secondly, we need to stress something that is both essential and  crucial to our Church; that is, the risk of acknowledging inappropriate elements.

[ Read the remainder of this article here ]

Fr. Constantine Strategopoulos was for many years Head of the Department for Overseas Mission of the Church of Greece

Blogged with the Flock Browser