Going dark

I have decided not to post anything to this blog for the duration of Lent, so don’t expect to see anything new here until at least Bright Week (week beginning 6 May). To be honest, I may not start up again then – of late, I have been wondering whether this blog actually serves any useful purpose or is in reality nothing more than a vanity project (a way of scribbling ‘Lawrence was here’ on the virtual wall of the Internet). So, one of the things I will be doing during Lent is asking myself whether posting here is a good use of my time.

The real meaning of fasting

Great Lent begins in less than a week, so here is St John Chrysostom on the real meaning of fasting:

For the value of fasting consists not in abstinence from food, but in withdrawing from sinful practices; since he who limits his fasting only to an abstinence from meats, is one who especially disparages it. Do you fast? Give me proof of it by your works! Is it said by what kind of works? If you see a poor man, take pity on him! If you see in enemy, be reconciled to him! If you see a friend gaining honour, envy him not! If you see a handsome woman, pass her by! For let not the mouth only fast, but also the eye, and the ear, and the feet, and the hands, and all the members of our bodies.

Let the hands fast, by being pure from rapine and avarice. Let the feet fast, by ceasing from running to the unlawful spectacles. Let the eyes fast, being taught never to fix themselves rudely upon handsome countenances, or to busy themselves with strange beauties. For looking is the food of the eyes, but if this be such as is unlawful or forbidden, it mars the fast; and upsets the whole safety of the soul; but if it be lawful and safe, it adorns fasting. For it would be among things the most absurd to abstain from lawful food because of the fast, but with the eyes to touch even what is forbidden.

Do you not eat flesh? Feed not upon lasciviousness by means of the eyes. Let the ear fast also. The fasting of the ear consists in refusing to receive evil speakings and calumnies. ‘You shall not receive a false report,’ it says. Let the mouth too fast from disgraceful speeches and railing. For what does it profit if we abstain from birds and fishes; and yet bite and devour our brethren? The evil speaker eats the flesh of his brother, and bites the body of his neighbour. Because of this Paul utters the fearful saying, ‘If you bite and devour one another, take heed that you be not consumed one of another.’ [Galatians 5:15] (John Chrysostom, On the Statues, Homily 3)

Sunshine: a review

All of us have pet hates. Writers are no exception. In fact, they may be the paradigm example of people with pet hates. One writer friend of mine cannot bear vampire stories or stories written in the first person. I must admit I’m not wild about vampire stories myself (too many of them are simply an excuse for the author to indulge in soft porn). As for first-person narrative, it is very effective when it is done well, but it is very hard to do well, and the bad stuff can be really cringe-making.

Having said that, I have found the exception that may or may not prove the rule. Robin McKinley’s 2003 novel Sunshine is a (sort of) vampire story and it is unquestionably written (very well) in the first person. I picked the book up from a second-hand book stall simply on the strength of the author’s name: she has written some seriously good fantasy of a fairly traditional kind.

The novel is set in . . . well, at first, I thought it was a post-apocalyptic America, but after a few pages I realized that it couldn’t be our world at all. For a start, magic is openly used. And the world is populated by other sentient beings besides humankind: the Others include various kinds of demon and, of course, vampires. The human race appears to be recovering from a catastrophic conflict known as the Voodoo Wars. However, as one of the characters reveals midway through the book, there is an ongoing conflict between vampires and humankind, and the vampires are winning.

The central character of the novel is a young woman called Rae (‘Sunshine’ to her friends). At the beginning of the novel, she wants nothing more than to continue enjoying her quiet life, working in her step-father’s coffee shop alongside her boyfriend, an ex-biker called Mel. The idyll is shattered when she is captured by a band of vampires. Remarkably they don’t kill her immediately: she is intended as food for a vampire they are holding captive. Even more remarkably she manages to escape (and release the captive vampire) by tapping into the magical power she has inherited from her long-vanished biological father. The novel follows her as she tries to come to terms with her dubious gift and forges an unlikely alliance with the vampire she freed.

There are hints of Buffy the Vampire Slayer here – but only hints. Yes, there is action and adventure but there is also really good characterization and excellent description. In particular, the magical systems that operate in this alternate earth are well thought out and lovingly described. Likewise with the vampires: instead of being just another take on an increasingly clichéd monster, McKinley’s vampires are unhuman in a number of new ways (not least their spatial perception and the way they move from place to place).

Neil Gaiman thinks very highly of it; so, I’m in good company:

I woke up too early, so started reading Robin McKinley's forthcoming novel “SUNSHINE” in the bath. It’s an astonishing piece of work. A gripping, funny, page-turning pretty much perfect work of magical literature that exists more or less at the unlikely crossroads of Chocolat, Interview With a Vampire, Misery and the tale of Beauty and the Beast. It’s not quite SF, and it’s not really horror, and only kind of a love story, and it’s all three while still being solidly Fantastique. It also does that nice thing where the author assumes the readers are smart, and she treats us like we’re smart, and we purr and get smarter and work harder for all that. It’ll be nominated for awards, and win them; in the meantime I really hope, when it’s published, it finds its audience, which is, potentially, huge. (https://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/2003/07/well-what-i-say-is-dear-whatever-gets.asp)

Learning to see in black and white

I’ve just embarked on a course on Developing Your Mono Vision led by Simon Ellingworth.

Why? Because I really like the simplicity and degree of abstraction that black and white brings to a photograph. It is no coincidence that one of my photographic heroes is the great landscape photographer Ansel Adams.

But actually working out what might make a good black and white image is not straightforward when we see the world in ‘glorious technicolor’. So, I’ve come across a couple of tricks that might help train my eye for monochrome:

1. Using my smartphone: I have discovered that the Lightroom Camera app allows you to set the screen so that it displays in monochrome simply by choosing one of the two black and white presets that are available in the app. (As long as you are shooting in raw this  won’t affect the final image.)
2. Using my DSLR: The same thing can be done using Live View. On my Nikon, it is simply a matter of setting Picture Control to monochrome.

Love of neighbour: some practical implications

As we approach Lent, it seems right to conclude the theme begun by my post last Friday on a positive note. So, here is some timeless advice from St Dorotheos of Gaza on how we should respond to those we disagree with, or have been hurt by, or who we believe have fallen into error or sin:

Should it happen that you see a brother doing wrong, don’t despise him and wipe your hands of him and keep silence and let him be destroyed, nor again curse him or speak ill of him. But with sympathy and the fear of God speak to someone who is able to set him up again, or you yourself speak to him with love and humility saying, ‘Pardon me, brother, but I consider – being careless myself – we probably do not act rightly in doing so-and-so.’ If he does not listen to you, speak to another in whom you see he has full confidence, or to his dean, or to the abbot, according to the gravity of the fault; but above all, as we have said, speak with a view to setting him straight again, not to gossip idly or to defame him or despise him, not, so to speak, to hold him up as a bad example, nor to condemn him or to pretend to be righteous by doing so. If a man having any of the dispositions I mentioned above speaks to the abbot himself, he is not speaking for the correction of his brother, nor is he if he speaks only on account of injury done to himself; that is a transgression, it is speaking ill of his brother. But let him grope about in his own heart and if he experiences there a movement of anger or resentment let him not speak. (From Discourse on the Fear of God)

Thou shalt not bear false witness

One aspect of the divisiveness referred to by Metropolitan Saba in my previous post is the increasing tendency of (particularly American?) Orthodox Christians to use the blogosphere  and social media to spread lies about other Orthodox whose theology, ethics, and/or politics they disagree with. And I was reminded of a book review I wrote thirty years ago, which catalogued similar tactics used by evangelicals against New Agers. Normally, I would not post a review of a (not very good) book that is long out of print, but it seems so relevant that I have decided to make an exception:

I have recently read a very disturbing book. Casting the First Stone (Shaftesbury: Element Books, 1993) by R. A. Gilbert is a catalogue of intolerance towards New Agers and neopagans. Sadly, but understandably, the book is a reaction against such intolerance and as a result tends to adopt similar tactics, e.g. guilt by association and condemnation by innuendo rather than rational argument.

While hardly a classic, Gilbert’s work did set me thinking. It reminded me of the tremendous amount of verbal hostility which conservative Christians exhibit towards those whose views differ from their own. Setting aside isolated examples of illegal activities (e.g. kidnappings and fire bombings) cited by Gilbert, it has to be admitted that there is a fundamentalist smear campaign against the New Age. Epithets like ‘barbarism’ and ‘darkness’ are used freely; we are warned that ‘New Age could lead to another Holocaust’; it is even suggested that New Agers promote human sacrifice. More generally, Christian commentators are tempted to describe the current resurgence of esoteric spirituality as a satanic conspiracy.

What is the attraction of witch-hunting? Witch-hunters are very concerned to draw clear distinctions between Light and Darkness, between the children of this world and the children of God, and in this way to maintain the purity of the faith. Witch-hunting identifies those from whom we must separate ourselves if we are to be free from impurities. At present, this appears to include many forms of mysticism, psychology, environmentalism, and alternative medicine. Presenting these as facets of a satanic conspiracy is an easy and emotive alternative to the task of providing rational and biblical critiques; critiques which, precisely because they are more nuanced, may not draw the same sharp distinctions.

As a corollary, such witch-hunting serves to promote particular interpretations of Scripture. A striking feature has been the extent to which the witch-hunters’ shibboleths have been used to put fellow Christians beyond the pale. Outrageous accusations have been levelled against prominent Christian leaders and organizations solely because their doctrinal stance or political agenda differs from those of the witch-hunters. Thus James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, C. S. Lewis, Ron Sider, World Vision, and IVCP have all been accused of having New Age or occult connections!

If the purpose of witch hunting is to draw clear boundaries between true believers and heretics, one must also ask about the effect of such barriers. They have certainly created a great deal of pain as believers have been encouraged to sever all ties with satanic influences including their own parents.

One effect is to demonize the accused. If the New Age is a satanic conspiracy, then consciously or unconsciously New Agers are satanic conspirators. Christians may pray for them and act against them, but dare not befriend them for fear of spiritual pollution. Thus it acts as a major hindrance to evangelism: demons are exorcised not evangelized! It also provides disturbed individuals with a religious pretext for illegal acts against New Agers (in much the same way that the presentation of abortionists as murderers has provided a pretext for violence and murder).

In the face of such hostility, it is not surprising to find that New Agers and occultists are increasingly resistant to the gospel. Too many of them have been hurt by the ignorance, fear, and malice of individual Christians and entire churches.

Such demonization can only too easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I know of people who are convinced that they cannot become Christians because they have been (wrongly) diagnosed as demon-possessed. Witch-hunters have distorted their self-perception to the point where they are incapable of hearing the gospel. This may even happen with entire groups. For example, the Benandanti were members of a pagan fertility cult which flourished in mediaeval Italy. At the major agricultural festivals they would go into trance and do psychic battle against the forces of evil in order to ensure the fertility of the crops and the well-being of society. Eventually they came to the attention of the Inquisition. Fifty years of persecution resulted in their gradual realignment with the very forces of evil they had once combatted!

But if witch-hunting demonizes its victims it also dehumanizes its practitioners. If we present others as darkness incarnate, we tend to think of ourselves as all light. The witch-hunter’s obsession with purity translates into a failure to recognize that we might be mistaken or sinful. Truth is one of the first casualties as we descend to the adversarial standards of the courtroom (or worse). We come to believe that, in the interests of truth, we are entitled (even called by God) to bear false witness against our pagan neighbours. Since we can no longer admit our own darkness, we go to unedifying lengths to justify the sins of Christians past and present. For example, some American fundamentalists justify the genocide of native American Indians by claiming that it was divine judgement upon people who indulged in idolatry and human sacrifice.

I believe that we should take the ninth commandment very seriously in this context: ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.’ Accusations of satanic conspiracy are a form of false witness. The accusers do not intend to suggest that New Agers or neopagans are engaged in a conspiracy in the legal sense. They simply use such language to blacken the character of their victims. But in what sense is the New Age or neopaganism any more or less satanic than any other non-Christian belief system including the free-market capitalism that so many evangelicals have bought into?

The command not to bear false witness is much more than an ethical injunction. It is also fundamental to mission and evangelism. It is a call to eschew simplistic Christian polemic against other faiths or other branches of our own faith. It is a reminder that the starting point of mission must be understanding and respect. It implies that, when we are confronted with those whose beliefs differ from our own, we must take time to hear what they have to say for themselves.

The destructive potential of campaigns against unorthodoxy far outweighs any benefits. Remember the parable of the wheat and the tares. When his servants sought permission to pull up the weeds, the Lord of the Harvest replied ‘No, because while you are pulling up the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest’ (Matt. 13:29f.). Those who are called to sow the good seed of the gospel should not indulge in weeding on their own behalf.

Metropolitan Saba on the new pharisaism

Last week Metropolitan Saba (Isper) of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America marked the first anniversary of his appointment by publishing the following essay. I repost it here in full because of its importance for Orthodox Christianity generally.

He has done us a great service by speaking out about the fundamentalism that has been spreading through the Orthodox Church over recent decades. He reminds us that our unity in Christ is characterized by ‘love, humility, and dialogue’. And he warns against the spirit of divisiveness that encourages us to judge others over adiaphora such as calendars, the use of multiple spoons in communion, or what script should be used on icons.

The New Pharisaism

There is a negative trend in the Church these days, with certain people criticizing everything. They adhere in an extreme way to what they believe is authentic, while attacking all that they consider innovative, calling it heresy that destroys the Faith and the Church of Christ. The adherents of this trend tend to be aggressive in their attacks and fundamentalist in their opinions, denouncing as heretics all those who disagree with their opinions, views, and citations.

They employ the interpretation of Scriptures as they see fit, for their purposes. They adhere to the letter and not to the spirit of the text, neglecting what St. Paul said: ‘For the letter kills, but the spirit gives life’ (2 Cor. 3:6).

The Church was not born yesterday; her earthly age is 21 centuries. She has experienced all kinds of systems, situations, cultures, and heresies. The Church, through the power of the Holy Spirit, has always expressed her faith and steadfastly witnessed to it – even unto martyrdom – through different circumstances and pressures, wars and persecutions, peace and freedom, on top of intellectual, cultural, and religious or atheistic trends. According to the word of the Lord, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it’ (Matt. 16:18).

The followers of this new trend forget all the good and the benefits that the Church provides. They fail to see God’s acts in history and blind themselves from seeing how history works. Therefore, their responses come as brutal, hostile attacks, lacking the love that marks disciples of Christ.

They remain on the surface and do not dive into the essence of things, failing to differentiate between the essential and the superficial. They do not assign any importance to the changing course of history or the turning points of science and the challenges these pose. In their rigid view, humans are subject to requirements of the Faith according to their historical formulations, without regard to human capabilities and advances across generations.

They claim, for example, that churches should be built of stone. They argue that the life of the brick does not exceed one hundred years, which necessitates the demolition of the church building after the expiration of the brick’s effectiveness. They ignore the number of stone churches that were destroyed by the passage of time and by wars and earthquakes. They also forget churches that were turned into places of worship for other religions, or even into animal pens, due to their desecration and the disappearance of Christians from these places, as in northern and southern Syria.

These people are armed with the malleable phrase ‘according to the holy fathers’ to support their opinion. If you ask most of them about their references, they cannot provide an answer. The phrase ‘holy fathers’ has become a term used to defend and justify their positions, but often without knowledge or understanding. This happens with some Christian groups that cling to the letter of the Scripture while disregarding the living word of God that comes through the perpetual presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church of Christ.

According to these people, the Church must remain captive to expressions, systems, and traditions (and I do not mean ‘Holy Tradition’) formulated by the Spirit for a specific era, in order for the Church to express its faith among different languages and cultures. According to them, if the Church expresses something in some way at some time, then this expression must prevail at all times. The Holy Spirit, therefore, must stop working, according to these people, lest He invents something new, necessary, and beneficial for the salvation of man. Do you think that a person is saved through moulds and forms, or through the Holy Spirit alive and effective in him?

In addition, you sense in them a fear for the upright faith, bordering on terror – to the point that it almost becomes a pathological obsession, seeing in everything a conspiracy against the Orthodox Church and the truth that it faithfully preserves. They believe that they are the only ones to preserve the truth, so they resort to strict adherence to the forms and calendars that the Church knew in the past, which were a successful expression of the upright faith in the cultures of that time. Writing the names of saints on icons in the local language becomes a heresy, because the ancient Greek letters, in their view, alone are appropriate to the Orthodox art of the icon! They circulate a saying of Saint Nektarios, ‘Poor thing, Orthodoxy,’ claiming themselves to be the defenders of Orthodoxy. Every effort in the Church, according to them, whether pastoral, institutional, or spiritual, is aimed at eliminating the faith and fragmenting the Church.

If these people poison the Church with a spirit of hatred, discord, blasphemy, and hostility toward every leader, guide, and spiritual father who does not say what they say, then they miss seeing themselves as a tool of Satan, who is targeting their Church. Truly, this is his murkiest trap. He abuses the naivete of some Church members to split it. They fall under the delusion that they are cleansing it.

Faithfulness is required of all believers. You may differ with your brethren regarding matters unrelated to doctrine. We prevent fracture with continual love, humility, and dialogue. However, to monopolize Christ, appoint yourself as His spokesman, and break from His true Church to establish what you want His Church to be means that you have sunk to a level of pride that makes you a tool in the hands of Satan.

Truly, this is the greatest sin.