KGB Christianity and the Woke Right

 

Part 1:

After the Bolsheviks took power in Russia in 1917, an open campaign of terror was launched against all religions, and particularly against the Russian Orthodox Church.

One of the targeted groups was the clergy, especially those of the Russian Orthodox Church. Priests, monks and nuns were crucified, thrown into cauldrons of boiling tar, scalped, strangled, drowned in holes in the ice, given Communion with melted lead. In the summer of 1918 in one diocese, 47 clergymen were shot, drowned, or axed to death. An estimated 3,000 were put to death in that year alone.

Seven decades later, the situation was different. Soviet communism, unable to compete with the West economically and ideologically bankrupt, was in crisis. In 1991, under the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union was officially dissolved. The Soviet Union disbanded, but did it disappear, or did it take on a new form?

As described by Charles Glover in his book, Black Wind White Snow, in 1987 the Moscow Communist Party leader, and later Soviet Politburo member, Yuri Prokofiev led a team seeking to rebrand secular communism “by imbuing it with a theological meaning” in order to create a “fusion of communism, nationalism and Orthodox Christianity.” Prokofiev later co-founded the Strategic Culture Foundation and led it until 2015. Still active today, it has been sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department for being a front for the Russian SVR intelligence service.

In 1987 Moscow Communist Party leader Yuri Prokofiev led a team seeking to rebrand secular communism “by imbuing it with a theological meaning” in order to create a “fusion of communism, nationalism and Orthodox Christianity.”

The Soviets had long employed “active measures” to infiltrate and subvert western institutions, especially religious institutions like the World Council of Churches. Yuri Bezmenov, who defected from the KGB in the 1980s, wrote in Love Letter to America that religious leaders affiliated with the World Council of Churches gave an “air of legitimacy and ‘holiness’ to the junta of the Soviet mass murderers and oppressors of religion.”

Father Gleb Yakunin, a former Orthodox priest who was excommunicated in 1997 due to his criticism of what the church had become, states that “the Church was so thoroughly infiltrated by the KGB that ‘virtually the entire episcopate were recruited as informers’.” Glover explains:

Instead of purging the former collaborators, it is those who have raised the issue, like Father Yakunin, who have been purged. Yakunin believes that as a result of the Soviet period, the Church needs ‘a new protestant reformation’, in which the entire episcopate would be replaced. Anything short of that would leave the Church, and its immense moral weight, in the hands of the KGB, which once infiltrated it and now (in its new incarnation) runs it as a bastion of a new version of imperial nationalism – a ‘virus’, as he put it – which is eating Russia from within.

Russia’s Christian Church, as the organization that suffered most from communism, had a chance to be the nation’s conscience. With its moral weight, it could have guided Russia beyond its Soviet nightmare, by helping the country confront its past, accept it and heal itself. Instead, it has become a hive of former collaborators, who see the Orthodox Church not as a way to remember, but as a way to forget.

The 16th Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus’, Patriarch Kirill, the Primate and supreme spiritual leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, was a KGB intelligence officer in Switzerland in the 1970s and officially represented Moscow at the World Council of Churches (WCC). In 2012, Kirill called the 12 years of ex-KGB Lieutenant Colonel Vladimir Putin’s rule a “miracle of God” and depicted him as an almost messianic figure.

The Patriarch has preached a doctrine called Russkiy Mir, meaning the “Russian World.” It embodies the idea that Russia has a spiritual duty to unify all Russian populations under its leadership, including those living outside its borders. He broadened the term to include non-Russians who adopt the Russian World’s ideology.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the Russian Orthodox Church preached to its 100 million adherents that the West is “Satanic” and that the invasion is a “holy war,” reminiscent of how Islamists declare jihad as a synonym for “holy war.” The Church also mirrors Islamism’s doctrine that dying in “holy war” guarantees entry into heaven. Kirill ruled, “We believe that this sacrifice washes away all the sins they have committed,” referring to Russians who die in the war in Ukraine. 

KGB Christianity’s Alliance with Islamism

Patriarch Kirill said in 2016, “Together we have to defeat the propaganda machine directed against our moral values, and to counter the demonization of Islam.”

Russia’s KGB Christianity sees Islamism as not just an ally of convenience against a common enemy but more as its permanent partner in a joint “holy war” against the West. Putin says the Russian Orthodox Church is closer to Islam than to the Protestant Christianity that prevails in the West.

Alexander Dugin, a top Russian political theorist sometimes referred to as “Putin’s Brain” and advisor to the Iranian regime, preaches that the Christian and Islamic End Times prophecies are compatible. During a 2015 visit to Teheran, Dugin referred to modernity as “Satan,” the West as “the hereditary house of Satan,” and Iran as “the main base of war against modernity.” He said that Russia must follow Iran as “the model for returning to tradition.” He proposed the construction of a “bridge” between Iranian religious thinkers and Russian traditionalists.

This shared vision of returning to “tradition” apparently includes generous portions of state violence against its own population. When the Islamic Republic of Iran murdered an estimated 30,000 protesters in January 2026, with arrests and disappearances of many more, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei did not utter a single word condemning the blood-soaked crackdown. He merely reiterated that nothing could change the fundamentals of the relationship between Russia and Iran.

Dugin has advocated “Russian fascism” as the means to establish a “Russian order of things.” He was an advocate of “Novorossiya,” or a New Russia, that would grow by annexing southern and eastern Ukraine. Following the annexation of Crimea and the outbreak of conflict in the Donbas in 2014, he was widely reported to have said, “Kill, kill, and kill again!” regarding officials of the Ukrainian government. This provoked protests in Russia. He was fired from his teaching position at Moscow State University, but was later rehabilitated as a thinker whose ideas were welcomed by Putin’s government. As discussed by BBC News Russian, his 1997 book Foundations of Geopolitics:

found an audience among hardliners in power. It was on the reading list at the Military Academy of the Russian General Staff, where the philosopher himself taught, conducted research, and lectured. The textbook on geopolitics recommended by the Russian education ministry also quotes him at length. He called Ukraine’s independence an existential threat to Russia.

Russia’s strategy against the West includes “active measures” to demoralize, divide, and weaken America, the leading defender of the concept of universal, God-given rights. As explained by Dugin in Foundations of Geopolitics:

[Russia must] weaken, demoralize, deceive, and ultimately, defeat the enemy as much as possible. It is especially important to bring geopolitical turmoil into the US domestic reality by encouraging all kinds of separatism, various ethnic, social, and racial conflicts, and actively supporting all dissident movements of extremist, racist, and sectarian groups that destabilize internal political processes in the USA.

Foundations of Geopolitics favorably profiled several geopolitical theorists who had close ties to Nazism, including:

Karl Haushofer, a prominent German general whose geopolitical theories were adapted by the Nazi regime. Dugin adopted his concepts of Grossraum (large space) and land vs. sea power as pillars for his anti-Western worldview.

Julius Evola, an Italian philosopher who espoused “spiritual racism” and worked closely with the Nazi SS. Dugin translated his work into Russian and embraced his vision of a a highly stratified, traditionalist society mobilized against modernity. Evola and French traditionalist René Guénon argued that the world had once been hierarchical and pure. Now, we live not in an age of mythic heroes but rather in the “Kali Yuga”: an age of chaos and mediocrity, that could only be transformed through the power of “secret wisdom” and “purifying bloodshed.”

The natural order of things — in which everyone knew and respected their natural and social function — had been overturned by the false promise of democracy. “Nobody any longer occupies the place that he should,” Guénon lamented. But a secret truth, available to occult initiates and handed down to those spiritual aristocrats wise enough to transcend their era, could re-enchant our alienated modernity through the power of secret wisdom and purifying bloodshed, an apocalypse that presages a return to a more pristine state of being.

Carl Schmitt, a German Nazi jurist, anti-semite, and political theorist whose ideas about “friend/enemy” distinctions and the creation of a conservative, continental international order shaped Dugin’s anti-Atlanticist positions.

Dugin advocated the reconstitution of the Soviet/Russian empire and a new alliance with Japan, Iran and Germany to form a geopolitical ‘axis’ that would eject the United States and its “Atlanticist” minions from the continent.

The key to creating ‘Eurasia’ is to reject a narrow nationalistic agenda which could alienate potential allies. He quoted New Right theorist Jean-François Thiriart, who said ‘the main mistake of Hitler was that he tried to make Europe German. Instead, he should have tried to make it European.’ Russia, it followed, would not be making a Russian Empire, but a Eurasian one. Dugin explained, “The Eurasian Empire will be constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, the strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us.”

Dugin charges Western modernity with creating slavery and for the devastation and the economic exploitation of millions of people on the planet. His views ignore the following facts:

1) slavery has existed in virtually every society since the beginning of humanity,

2) at the behest of Abolitionist Christians, Great Britain abolished the slave trade in the Commonwealth in 1807 and then slavery in 1833, and used its Navy to fight against the Arab/African slave trade for more than 5 decades. After a bloody Civil War, the United States ended the institution of slavery in 1865.

Regarding his charge of the West’s economic exploitation of millions of people around the world, Dugin ignores the track record of free market capitalism pioneered in Great Britain, Europe and the United States in liberating billions of people around the world from grinding poverty.

In 1820, due to grinding poverty 94% of the world’s population struggled to survive. One hundred seventy years later, in 1990, 35% lived in poverty, and by 2015, that declined to under 10%. During the 70 years, between 1950 and 2020, the average global income per person rose by 307%, something never seen before in all history. These were the consequences of countries adopting aspects of western (Judeo-Christian) concepts of universal human rights, the right to private property, and the rule of law.

* * *

Part 2: 

It’s true that material progress and opportunity, if detached from a sense of meaning and attachment to one’s community, faith or nation, cannot solve the problems of modern alienation. One can see why Russians and those who have lived in the Russian/Soviet sphere could be attracted to Dugin’s/Putin’s ideas for a Eurasian Empire centered on Russian identity and allegiance to the Orthodox Church, but how to explain the promotion of Dugin’s ideas in America by segments of the MAGA Right?

The fact that western conservative influencers like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Alex Jones and others have offered Russian/Eurasian theorist/propagandist Alexander Dugin repeated opportunities to spread his views to millions of Americans, often with little to no pushback, has to be considered one of the great triumphs in Russian information warfare. The strategy of exploiting American conspiracy theorists who echo Russian disinformation is called “narrative laundering” and is a key component of Russia’s cognitive warfare in the 21st century.

Ryan Mauro, senior fellow for counter extremism for the Capital Research Center asks how can these prominent influencers who once espoused an America First patriot narrative now praise a Putin style of repressive government? In June 2026, Candace spoke at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) in Russia, participating in a “Family Values” panel, where she praised Russian values.

Mauro warns that, “SPIEF is a hotspot for Russian intelligence and is organized by the senior-most levels of the Russian government. Putin’s top advisors and the First Deputy Director of the FSB, the successor to the KGB, are on the Organizing Committee. Investigative documents show that SPIEF activities, specifically including its panels, are “recruitment pipelines” for “state-directed soft power programs” to enlist “foreign influencers” in projects such as “media partnerships.”

Russia’s “comprehensive ecosystem” complements its state-directed media and the media work of those on the panel. RT (formerly Russia Today), for example, frequently amplifies Owens’s content. The network posted over a dozen clips of her interview with Hunter Biden in May, 2026.

Dugin, Owens, Jones and many others refer to the U.S. and Israel as the “Epstein Class” and claim that Jeffrey Epstein’s operations were a front for Israeli intelligence. In reality, Epstein’s ties to the Russian government and China are far more extensive than any evidence linking him to Mossad or the CIA. One of the “Epstein files” available at the U.S. Department of Justice shows that in 2013 Epstein tried to relay a message to Putin offering to help Russia “leapfrog the global community by reinventing the financial system of the 21st century.”

Ryan Mauro has also reported on Epstein’s ties to the above-mentioned St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF). His close friend, Sergey Belyakov, an FSB (successor to the KGB) Academy graduate who led SPIEF, spoke at the 2026 forum along with Candace. SPIEF helped Epstein get a Russian visa. In return Epstein helped SPIEF recruit attendees.

Mauro notes that:

The Epstein files revealed that Epstein asked for the SPIEF official’s help in dealing with a Russian model who was blackmailing powerful businessmen in New York. The SPIEF official provided him with information about her. Epstein appears to have threatened her life by warning her that he’d send the FSB after her as an “enemy of the [Russian] people.” SPIEF is widely reported to swarm with Russian models & escorts who target affluent men. Many of them are likely doing so as part of honeypot intel operations to acquire “kompromat.”

The New York Times also reported on Epstein’s connection with Belyakov and commented:

The Kremlin has seized on the latest release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein, saying the lurid details of his ties with leading American and European figures in business, politics and culture underscore the moral depravity of the West.

Yet the files also detail Mr. Epstein’s contacts inside similar circles in Russia, where he cultivated officials and traded favors, including with those he hoped might facilitate a meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin.

Another speaker at SPIEF 2026 was Scott Ritter, a former UN inspector and convicted pedophile, who is under FBI investigation for illegally acting as a foreign agent of Russia. He constantly appears on anti-American media platforms to declare that victory is imminent for Russia, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. He openly roots for the U.S., Israel and the West to be defeated.

Dugin explicitly explained the important role of “right-wing republican” influencers like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Alex Jones in his agenda to promote American isolationism and to support dissident movements in the USA when he wrote in Foundations of Geopolitics:

It makes sense to support isolationist tendencies in US politics, the theses of those (often right-wing republican) circles that believe that the US should confine itself to its domestic problems. This state of affairs is highly advantageous to Russia, even if ‘isolationism’ is carried out within the original Monroe doctrine wording, i.e. if the US limits its influence to two Americas. This does not mean that Eurasia should give up on destabilizing the Latin American world by seeking to remove certain regions from US control. All levels of geopolitical pressure on the US must be engaged.

Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and Alex Jones repeatedly espouse such isolationist themes, often quoting directly from Kremlin-backed sources, not only arguing against American involvement or support for the wars in Ukraine and Iran, but also expressing outright admiration for Putin’s Russia, which has been ranked by Freedom House as one of the worst nations in the world in terms of abusing human rights, criminalization of anti-war dissent, detention of political prisoners, and heavy restriction of independent media. Their online broadcasts have repeatedly been featured on Russian media outlets. 

Russian state media (@RT_com) has posted about Candace Owens 119 times since the start of 2026. That’s roughly one Candace Owens post every 1.3 days - or 5–6 posts per week, from January through early June.

Carlson has been quoted, clipped or broadcast literally hundreds of times since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Leaked Kremlin memos instructed Russian state media to use his segments as much as possible since his talking points aligned with Moscow’s agenda.

In mid-2024, the Russian state network Rossiya 24 began regularly airing voice-over dubbed versions of Tucker’s internet broadcasts as a dedicated segment called “TUCKER. Rossiya 24,” featuring hundreds of individual episodes. He has repeatedly expressed his admiration for Russia, including multiple broadcasts from that country as well as a fawning 2-hour interview with Putin in 2024.

Other Carson statements about the Russian president and defending Russia’s war in Ukraine include: “Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him?”

So you can only criticize Putin if he personally attacked you or tried to get you fired? What about the Russian dissidents who were not fired, but rather poisoned to death during Putin’s presidency? Several Russian defectors, exiled intelligence officers, journalists and prominent opposition leaders fell victim to state-linked assassinations. Here are brief descriptions of five of them: 

Alexei Navalny, Russia’s most prominent anti-corruption opposition leader survived a 2020 Novichok nerve agent attack. Following that he was imprisoned in an Arctic penal colony where he died in February 2024. An international inquiry and multiple European nations concluded he was killed using the deadly toxin epibatidine.

Boris Nemtsov. The reformist former regional governor and deputy prime minister was a rising political star in the 1990s but became one of Putin’s most vocal opponents was shot dead on February 27, 2015 in a gangland-style killing on a bridge near the Kremlin, at age 55.

A liberal lawmaker early in Putin’s presidency, Nemtsov helped lead protests against stacked parliamentary elections and Putin’s return to the presidency in 2012. He staunchly opposed Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in 2014, calling it “despicable,” “impudent,” and “harmful for Russia.” At the time of his killing, he and associates had been working on a report detailing evidence of the extent of Moscow’s interference in the neighboring country.

Natalya Estemirova. On July 16, 2009, the body of the renowned human rights activist, with bullet wounds to her head and chest, was found in Ingushetia, hours after her abduction near her home in the capital of Chechnya, Grozny. Natalya Estemirova had been investigating hundreds of suspected rights abuses in Chechnya, including kidnapping and murder. The rights group she worked for, Memorial, said the initial investigation pointed to the possible involvement of local law enforcement officers.

Anna Politkovskaya, one of Russia’s most prominent journalists and a persistent chronicler of rights abuses in Chechnya. On October 7, 2006, Politkovskaya was shot dead in her apartment building, in an execution-style killing. Two men were sentenced to life in prison and three others to long prison terms in 2014 for their involvement, but relatives, colleagues, and Western governments suspect that Russian authorities will never pinpoint or punish the masterminds of her killing because a thorough investigation would lead too close to Putin’s government or the Kremlin-backed leadership in Chechnya.

Alexander Litvenko, a former KGB and FSB officer who defected to the United Kingdom, died in a London hospital in 2006 after ingesting radioactive polonium-210, which was slipped into his green tea at an upscale hotel.

Since Russia’s initiation of war against Ukraine, it has engaged in routine kidnapping, hostage-taking, and violence against civilians. Occupying authorities under orders from the Kremlin have been particularly harsh toward Protestant Christians and institutions, often painting them as agents of the United States.

Russia’s 2016 Yarovaya Law (named for the law’s political champion, Irina Yarovaya) claims to counter terrorism and secure public safety, but the law restricts Christians’ freedom of worship and evangelism. The law and its amendments characterize Christians and churches outside the Russian Orthodox Church as religious extremists, criminalizing the speech and activities of Russian Christians who faithfully witness for Christ.

Russia, which shows little tolerance for independent belief systems within its own borders, has exported its worst practices to the territories it occupies in Ukraine. The Helsinki Commission has documented that Russia has engaged in routine kidnapping, hostage-taking, and violence against Ukrainian civilians. The Commission found that occupying authorities under orders from the Kremlin have been particularly harsh toward Protestant Christians and institutions, often painting them as agents of the United States.

More recently, Dugin has suggested that the apocalyptic final battle will feature a Zionist and Western coalition led by a Jewish Antichrist facing off against a coalition consisting of the Muslim world led by the Mahdi (Islam’s messianic figure) and the Orthodox Christians led by a mysterious figure or entity called Katechon that is prophesied to resist the Antichrist. Dugin believes Russia is Katechon.

Woke Right Dugin/Putin acolytes in the West might want to reflect on what kind of world the Muslim/Orthodox alliance would spread if they were victorious. It would be a world of theocratic dictatorships where government power is used to silence dissent and punish “infidel” religions, precisely what already exists in Iran and Russia today.

Considering Russia’s partnership with the Islamic Republic of Iran, I wonder if Woke Right enthusiasts have considered that, unlike Mohammed and his disciples, Jesus and his disciples did not spread their faith with a sword. History has shown that the embrace of state violence to impose religious beliefs and practices does not lead to a Kingdom of Heaven, but rather to a kingdom of hell.

It’s true that the democratic West is not perfect. Its freedoms have been used to promote self-destructive addictions and lifestyles, but those same freedoms allow citizens to pursue truth as guided by their own conscience. The Russian KGB “Christian” state claims to defend the moral, traditional, and even Godly foundations of civilization, while conducting active measures to exacerbate racial and other social divisions as well as LGBTQ rights including pedophilia in the U.S. Meanwhile it has successfully enlisted leading woke right influencers, who should be defending American founding principles, to launder its narratives.

 

Sources:

Part 1: https://genderwars.substack.com/p/kgb-christianity-and-the-woke-right

Part 2: https://genderwars.substack.com/p/kgb-christianity-and-the-woke-right-b69

 

Shared by https://orthodoxyforall.blogspot.com/2026/06/kgb-christianity-and-woke-right.html

We Cannot Blame God for the Existence of Evil

Compiled and translated by Saint Nektarios Monastery, Roscoe, NY

 

 

From the teachings of St. John Chrysostom

Someone may ask: “Why didn’t God get rid of the devil as soon as he deceived man in Paradise?” This was because of His great concern for us. If the devil had reigned by force, then there would be some grounds for this question. However, since he has been deprived of such power and was left only with the ability to persuade—and it is up to is if we choose to listen to him or not—why do you want to reject the opportunity to prosper and eliminate the cause for crowns? Even if God had allowed the devil to exist, knowing that he would be unbeatable and that he would defeat every single person, this still should not make you skeptical. It would still be up to us whether or not we allow the devil to prevail, and he would be unable to defeat anyone by force—only them who voluntary submit to him.

Additionally, if there are already many people who overcame his power, just as there are many who will defeat him in the future, why do you want to deprive these people (who will advance in virtue and attain a glorious victory) of such great honor? God allowed the devil to remain in order for man, who had been previously defeated by him, to vanquish him in turn. This will constitute the greatest hell possible for the devil and will bring upon him the worst condemnation.

If one continues with this type of reasoning, one will end up blaming and finding fault with God’s providence, and defaming God’s entire creation. One will criticize God for creating mouths and eyes; for human beings use their mouth to curse God and preach corruptive beliefs, and with their eyes they desire things which they shouldn’t and fall into adultery. Does this mean that God should have created people without a tongue and eyes? With this type of logic, we should also cut off people’s legs and sever their hands, since legs are used to race toward a variety of evils and hands are often covered in blood. Not even the ears can be spared from this savage syllogism, since they accept unbeneficial sounds and convey destructive teachings to the soul. Therefore, we should also cut off the ears. If this were to happen, then we must also do away with food, drinks, the sky and the earth, the moon and all the stars, along with all the genera of irrational animals. What would be the need for all these things if man, for whom they were all created, was cut to pieces and so pathetically dismembered?

Do you see how this lethal train of thought necessarily leads to a laughable and absurd conclusion? The devil does evil to and harms himself, not us. On the contrary, if we want, we can harvest innumerable good things on account of the devil—without, of course, him realizing or desiring this.

From the teachings of St. Basil the Great

The person who claims that God is responsible for evil resembles the person who doesn’t believe in the existence of God at all. The latter maintains that He doesn’t exist, whereas the former contends that He is not good. For, if God is the cause of evil, then clearly He is not good. Such people ask: “Why are there illnesses? Why is there death? Why are there natural disasters? Why are there wars? All these things are bad, and they are the works of God.” “Therefore,” they conclude, “who else can we blame for these events other than God?”

God, of course, decides when He will take someone’s life. However, death is not something bad; unless someone is referring to the death of a sinner, for whom departure from this life becomes the beginning of his suffering in Hell. God is not even responsible for the tortures in Hell—we ourselves are! We and our free will are the beginning and root of sin.

There are two types of evil: one is what we ourselves perceive as evil, based on our feelings; the other is indeed an evil in essence. True evil depends on us. Such is injustice, debauchery, hatred, murder, and the like; for these things defile the soul that was created in the image of our Creator. We also label as evil whatever we find difficult and painful. Such are physical illnesses, accidents, lack of the basic necessities, loss of money, and death of family members. Each of these things is permitted by our wise and good Master for our benefit. He takes away the instrument of injustice (that is, wealth) from them who make incorrect use of it. He allows illnesses to come upon people when it is more beneficial to bind their body parts than to have them race unrestricted toward sin. Deaths are permitted to occur when the limit of life is reached, which God’s righteous judgment has appointed from the onset for each person; for He foresees well in advance what is best for each one of us. Famine, draughts, and floods commonly plague cities and nations in order to restrict excessive evil and sinfulness.

A physician is a benefactor, even though he induces pain and suffering to the body—for he battles the illness not the sick person. Similarly, God is good because He uses punishments in part to work out the salvation of the whole. You never blame the doctor when he cuts, cauterizes, or even amputates parts of your body. On the contrary, you pay him and call him your savior because he eradicates the disease while it is still in the early stages, before it spreads to the entire body. However, when you hear of an earthquake or that a ship sunk at sea, without hesitation you open your mouth and blaspheme the true Physician and Savior! Just as the illness itself and not the physician is the cause of surgical procedures and cauterization, in the same manner various calamities that strike cities are the result of the inhabitants’ vast sinfulness, and, thus, release God from any and all blame.

Illnesses, draughts, and infertility of the earth, even the most difficult circumstances in the life of each person, all these prevent evil from increasing and spreading. Hence, all these “bad” things that are permitted by God actually remove the cause of the generation of true evil. Both physical ailments and adversities beyond our control have been permitted to distance us from sin. Therefore, God destroys evil; evil does not come from God. Doctors cure diseases; they do not generate diseases within the body.

Sin is the primary and chief evil, and it is indeed worthy of being called an evil. Sin depends on our own free volition. It is up to us to either stay away from sinfulness or to be wicked. All other evils are permitted either to reveal a person’s courage and virtue, as in the case of Job, or to heal and rectify sins that have been committed in the past, such as with the prophet David, or to render more careful and prudent them who easily slide into sin, such as in the case of Dathan and Abiram (Num. 16:27), who served as a lesson and example for others.

Now that you have come to know the various forms of evil that God allows, now that you have understood well that sin is the only true evil, whereas things that seem evil on account of pain are in fact very beneficial and lead to the eternal salvation of the soul, cease being dissatisfied with God’s decisions and divine interventions. In general, never consider God to be the cause of the existence of evil. Do not even imagine that evil is an entity. Evil is not something that exists like some creature, nor can it be viewed as a living substance. Rather, it appears after the soul is crippled.

God created the soul, but not sin. But then, why is the soul generally capable of becoming evil? This is on account of the free will, which is especially befitting to rational beings. “But why don’t we have sinlessness embedded in our nature,” someone may ask, “so that even if we wanted to, we could not sin?” Because you also do not consider your slaves as friends when you hold them captive by force, but when you see them willingly serving you. Similarly, God is not pleased with things that take place out of necessity, but with what takes place on account of virtue. And virtue takes place through man’s free choice—not through force. Free choice depends on us, and we have our free will. Therefore, he who blames the Creator for not making us sinless by nature prefers to have irrational instead of rational souls, and motionless, inert beings instead of ones who can make voluntary decisions and take actions.

Let us therefore stop correcting the Wise God. Let us stop seeking something better than what He has made. If we are unaware of the reasons behind certain things God has planned, let us at least maintain one dogma in our soul with certainty: there is no evil that comes from the Good God.

From the writings of St. John of Damascus

It is common for the Holy Scriptures to refer to things that God allows as His action and work. Nonetheless, even when it says that “God creates evil” (Isa. 45:7), or that there is no “evil in the city which God has not created” (Amos 3:6), it is not trying to present God as the cause of evil. The word “evil” has two meanings. Sometimes it describes what is inherently evil, that is, whatever is opposed to virtue and God’s will. Other times, it refers to the bad things that we perceive, such as pain, sorrow, and misfortune. All these things seem evil because they cause pain; however, in reality they are good things. For people with understanding, they become the cause of repentance and salvation. These are the “evils” that the Bible describes as taking place through God. Even so, we should realize that we ourselves are the cause of even these evils. Because involuntary evils [i.e. sorrows] result from voluntary evils [i.e. sins].

There is One God Who is the only source of good, and Who is free of all evil. “But then,” some people ask, “where does evil come from? Since it is impossible for evil to be brought forth from good.” Evil is nothing other than the deprivation of good, and the deviation from the natural state to an unnatural state. All things that God created are very good, when they remain as they were created. However, when they voluntarily distance themselves from the natural state and proceed to an unnatural state, they become evil.

In their natural state, all things serve and obey the Creator. When, however, one of these creations willingly flees and becomes disobedient to its Creator, it creates evil within itself. Because evil is neither an entity nor an attribute of any substance. Rather, it is an event; that is, a voluntary turning away from the natural to an unnatural state—which is the same as sin.

From where did sin arise? It is the invention of the devil’s free will. Is then the devil evil? He was not created evil but good. He was created a bright and radiant angel by God; however, as a rational and free being, he willingly distanced himself from the natural state of virtue and entered the darkness of evil after separating himself from God, Who is the only good One and the Creator of light.

God out of goodness created all things out of nothing, and He knows beforehand everything that will occur. If they had not been created, then no one would have become evil...If people who were to come into existence due to God’s goodness were prevented from being created on account that they would become evil as a result of their own choice, then evil would have defeated God’s goodness. And so, everything that God created, He created good and very well. Each person on his own chooses to become good or evil.

From the writings of St. Gregory Palamas

Why then did God initially create people who would end up being punished? He did so not to punish them, but to save them; this is apparent from the fact that He calls and invites them to salvation. Because if He wanted to punish certain people, He would not call all people to salvation…But what type of logic is this? Whoever does not agree with the above, but merely wants to blame God, such a person by extension maintains that rational beings should not have been created at all. What need would there be for logic if it was not up to man’s disposition and free will? How could someone have free will and choice if he was incapable—if he so desired—of also becoming evil? However, if someone cannot become evil, then he certainly is not capable of becoming good either.

Therefore, whoever states that God should not have created all the people who will go to Hell maintains that He should not have created the people who will be saved either, nor any logical and free-willed beings in general. Furthermore, if everything in the universe was created for logical nature [i.e. for man], this argument asserts that God shouldn’t have created anything. Do you see the extent of the nonsense? But since through the rational and free-willed generation of man (whom God created), some people would become evil while others good on account of voluntary choice and different use of the free will, what should the truly good God have done? Should He not have created the good people on account of the people who would become evil? No one would be able to come up with anything more unjust than this. Because even if there was only one person who would become good, even then it would not be proper for God to desist from creating. Because one person who does the will of the Lord is worth more than thousands of transgressors…

But let us ask the people (who blame Him Who wants everyone to be saved) about them who do not desire their own salvation: Since we are mortal and physical beings, it is necessary for us to eat. Our body assimilates and stores one part of the food we digest in order to sustain itself, whereas it excretes the other unusable and foul-smelling constituents. Do you avoid eating food altogether because part of it will be converted into feces, or do you consume food in its entirety on account of the portion that (through the digestive system) is extracted, assimilated, and incorporated to sustain your body? Words are unnecessary because we provide the answer in practice, as we eat daily and accept the fraction of food that is unsuitable for our biology on account of the portion of the food that is necessary for us. Why do we do this? On account of the innate love we have for life. In the same manner, on account of His intrinsic and inherent goodness and benevolence, God would not have avoided bringing into existence good people on account of them who would end up being evil on their own; but on account of the good people, He also created them who would become evil.

How One Should Understand “Who Is My Mother?”

From the Amphilochia by St. Photios the Great (+ 893)

Translated by Hierodeacon Photii of St. Gregory Palamas Monastery, Etna, CA

 

 

It is not at all surprising if someone with an unstable mind stumbles on that from which there shine forth for many salvation and edification. But it is astonishing that the noetic light does not refuse to shine with knowledge even on those who deliberately make themselves blind to it and that it does not disdain to guide them to the perception of truth. For even our Lord and Savior, the stone which was laid as the head of the corner, became for the perishing a stumbling block, the stone that was rejected (I St. Peter 2:7-9), not being so Himself, but only appearing thus to those gone astray.

Thus the Savior says here, “Who is my mother?” not rejecting His Mother, as the lawless mind of the impious would like to think, and not with a view to denigrating Her who gave Him birth. For could He Who was, in His youthful years, subject, according to the laws of nature, to His Mother and Who upheld her maternal prerogatives, begin, on coming of age, to behave towards His Mother with diminished respect and gratitude? Obviously, this saying is not of one rejecting His Mother, but one expressive of a different sentiment. For how could it naturally follow, and how could it remain undisputed should He disdain to recognize as His Mother, and verbally deny His relationship to her from whom He deigned, in His love for mankind, to appear in this world in the flesh, and from whose immaculate blood He was well-pleased to fashion for Himself, and to clothe Himself in, the form of a mortal, having previously brought about, ordained, and granted her this actual relationship in very truth? And if He was planning to disavow her (oh, what blasphemy!), why did He approve of her at all in the first place? Why would He take on the form of the essence of which He considered an insult? For this is the conclusion that those with audacious tongues have reached. But their mindlessness can be refuted by this and many other means.

It is possible, however, that someone, thinking himself not far from the understanding of the Gospels, [1] will say that the Savior said these words, not undermining the honor due to His Mother nor, much less, at all denying His natural relationship with, and love for, her—by no means!—but that, while ascribing His Mother due respect, He nonetheless preferred the salvation of men, and the teachings that lead to it, over care for her. After all, it was for their sake that He had a mother, and that there occurred His birth, His exalted self-abasement and condescension from the Father’s bosom, His dwelling and remaining among men, His voluntary Cross, His death between two thieves, and later His entombment and Resurrection. We could further support this argument with the thought that Jesus could not have acted in any other way than to lay out the chain of providential events according to this scheme. For in a manner consistent with other salvific teachings, the Savior taught us not to prefer father, mother, or wife over His soul-profiting teachings and dedication to Him. For, He says, “Whosoever will not leave father and mother” and so on, “is not worthy of me” (cf. St. Matthew 10:37); that is, whosoever does not prefer my saving exhortations and admonitions, as well as love for me, falls away from the eternal good things and falls short of the blessedness, in which those who have preferred my laws and Divine love to familial ties eternally delight.

Showing the ease and attainability of this commandment, the Savior Himself is the first to fulfill it and prefers the instruction of His hearers to the pleasure of being in the company of His Mother. It is as if to say, “Just as I, teaching you and being concerned about your salvation, have put care about my mother in second place, preferring to save you, so ought you to exchange all the relationships and sympathies that proceed from the bonds of the flesh for your own salvation and the fulfillment and keeping of my teachings and laws.” For the same reason, He refused permission to the one who asked to go bury his father (St. Matthew 8:21; St. Luke 9:59-60), not as an excuse to despise one’s father (in no manner, and especially at a funeral!) or to reject relations and to scorn love, but as a constant exhortation to prefer the salvation of the soul over any fleshly ties and connections. This then, as we said earlier, is one approach that one can put forth, thinking by this not to deprive His Mother of supreme honor, but endeavoring equally to maintain proper respect and reverence. However, this method of comparison expounds matters in such a way that what is compared is brought down to a vulgar level, and it does not free her from low estimation.

I am aware that some of our blessed Fathers, whom I often and in many things enthusiastically endorse, but whom I do not praise for this opinion, in trying to refute an impious view, have come to this conclusion: that the Mother of Jesus, having succumbed to a human weakness and having been puffed up by vain self-opinion, as is natural to womanly nature, was proud because of her Son and sought to proclaim far and wide her joy at being the mother of such a Son; and that the reason why she came while He was teaching was that, when He would be praised for His teaching, she could be glorified with Him and could share His praises. Thus the Savior, cleansing others from passions of the soul and desiring to free His Mother from such defects, said these words as a rebuke: “Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?” These individuals have just expressed whatever ideas came to them.

First of all, the investigation of the truth shows that His Mother in no wise displayed anything of the like; nor did she have a prideful self-opinion. After all, she did not come to Him without warning when He was teaching, and did not break into the midst of the assembly. Neither did she interrupt the word of instruction or say anything high-minded or boastful, but, standing outside with all reverence, only made her presence known, or maybe did not even send word, but wisely reckoned that those who saw her would carry the message. How is such behavior reflective of a vainglorious woman seeking to take pride and exalt herself in the eminence of her Son? How differently would a slave act if need arose to come to his master? That is why the word of Jesus directed to His Mother is not a rebuke or some way of correcting shortcomings through a reproach, for there was nowhere any shortcoming. Rather, this word checked the mockery of the Jews. For just as the quibbling and ungrateful Jews, in order to slander and insult the Savior, would at times say, “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” and, at times, “Are not His Mother and brethren with us?” (St. Matthew 13:55-56), or again, “We know this Man whence He is” (St. John 7:27), and then, while He was teaching and instructing the multitude about the salvation of the soul, envied Him and wished Him evil, and were aroused to slander Him, even though there were no grounds at all for slander, they now resorted to their usual invective and subjected His Mother and brethren to censure and denigration, as if to say: “Whom do You teach? And whom do You consider yourself? Are You not the son of a poor woman and are Your brothers, who live from the work of their hands, any different from You? There they stand outside and seek You. Leave off Your teaching and run to Your relatives. Live the same life as they and do not dare to assume the dignity of a teacher.” That is why, when they, according to their habit, were speaking evil, the Savior, having put forth to them a magnanimous and meek answer, said: “I am so far from being ashamed of my mother and brethren, that not only do I not turn away from her whom nature gave me as mother and those whom public opinion holds as my kinsmen, nor do I consider them a shame and reproach. But all those whom you see here listening to the holy and saving words I do not consider unworthy of the appellation of fathers and brothers, provided only that they do the will of the Father, even if the aforementioned fleshly love is not supported by nature or opinion. Who is my mother and who are my brethren? Why do you twist these names into insults and reproaches? I am so far from being ashamed of them that I have even decided to bind my true disciples with these same appellations and relationships.”

From this we can see that not only did the words He said not bear any ingratitude or disdain for His Mother, but accorded to her the greatest and most fitting honor. He reserves such a high degree of respect, glory, and appropriate love for her that those who do the Father’s will and those who have ascended this height of virtue He raises to the relationship and calling of a mother, as something great and glorious, a special dignity, and because of which the name “brethren” is even now used as something honorable. How could it be that, as the crown and pinnacle of blessedness, He conferred upon and granted to the inheritors of the Heavenly Kingdom the very relationship which He decided (if He indeed decided) to reject and the calling which He deemed proper (if He did so deem) to annul? Therefore, I think it becomes absolutely self-evident that, as was said before, the words “Who is my mother?” and what follows not only do not entail any violation of love and respect for His Mother, but rather express, from every standpoint, the glory and praise due to her.

In the same manner, the passage, “O Lady, what hath this to do with me and thee? Mine hour is not yet come” (St. John 2:4), could be turned, for the unwise, to the opposite of what they have fabricated, and redirected toward a pious and correct understanding of things divine. If someone carefully investigates for what reason this was said, and if Divine Grace will work together with him and help him in his investigation, then it will be discovered that these words accord the mother glory and honor, rather than any form of disparagement whatsoever. In the working of miracles, there was nothing common between mother and Son, since it is proper only to the Godhead to work miracles on His own, while the human nature does not do this on its own, but on account of the Word Who has assumed it. Nevertheless, even where there is no commonality between Mother and Son, look how He shows exceeding honor, even in that in which they differ. When His Mother asks Him to perform the miracle, He, having shown that this is not something common between them and having added that the time for miracles had not yet come, showed that respect and honor for His Mother prevailed over both the particular timing and the differences in abilities. Thus this saying is so far from diminishing His Mother’s glory that it actually multiplies this glory many times over. If it is taken into consideration that she is more important than timeliness and transcends the laws of the proper sequence of performing signs, and also that her request was granted, then how much honor and respect would we have failed to see, had none of this been said or transpired? For by what He uttered and did, it is as though He says: “Commonality of nature does not entail commonality of working miracles (O Lady, what hath this to do with me and thee?), and the time is not appropriate for Godly deeds; however, so that you and those whom necessity has brought to see and hear should come to know that I maintain your maternal rights intact, and that I myself am he who established the law that children show honor to mothers, or rather, that I place respect, obedience, and honor towards you before the proper sequence and timeliness, behold, I hold your request higher than all these things and turn water into wine.”

Here the words “what hath this to do with me and thee?” are not said with the same meaning with which they were said to the one who asked Him to arbitrate the matter about the fatherly inheritance. For there, He, having said, “What is that between me and thee? Man, who made me a ruler or a judge over you?” (cf. St. Luke 12:13-14), by deed confirmed the denial of the request and did not want to become the arbiter of a base argument or of material gain, and so after the verbal refusal followed an objection by deed. Here, however, using the same form of speech, He did not dismiss her maternal request for a miracle and did not leave the plea without attention, but, having shown, even in the commonality of nature, their difference regarding Divine deeds, He fulfilled the request, clearly establishing that, as has been said numerous times, His love for, and honor of, His Mother had more meaning to Him than convenience of time or the particulars of miracle-working.

 

1. For this phrase, the Greek text in Patrologia Graeca, Vol. Cl, col. 341C has been used, since it more effectively conveys the Saint’s meaning.

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXXIV (2017), No. 3, pp. 10-15.

How to Love God

His Eminence, Metropolitan Demetrius of America

 

 

God is love, as St. John the Theologian tells us, and God’s love is like an abyss—it is endless. This means that we can never truly love God the way that we should love Him. St. Paul the Apostle tells us that we progress from glory to glory, which basically means that, even though we may progress to higher and higher stages in our love for God, we never reach the top, that is, perfect love for God. There is no end to the wondrous process of growing in our love for God, not even in the next life. It continues to increase for eternity: Grace increases, love increases, as does everything good that comes with this jubilant, everlasting growth.

So, first we should admit the reality that we do not love God the way that we should love God. If we are commanded to love God the way that He loves us, then we clearly see that we fall short. There is just no comparison. However, at the same time, we should never despair, because despair is the joy of the devil. We should put all of our hope in God.

We start showing our love for God in actions first and foremost. We can talk about how we love God until we are blue in the face, but we actually express our love with actions; as the saying goes, “actions speak louder than words.” What are actions? Following His holy commandments and living a Christian life with humility and charity. When we fail at that, we should have a spiritual sensitivity and should be ready to repent. As the Saints have taught us, to fall is human, but to remain fallen is demonic. Repentance is also an expression of our love for God.

As I said, there are different stages of love for God. We must always look at ourselves as beginners, because if we think that we are advanced, or if we expect that we are very progressed, then pride has entered in. This is why despair often follows: despair is an offshoot of pride.

Prayer is the key. St. John of Kronstadt teaches us that there are three attributes of true prayer: humility, simplicity, and love for God. We should always pray to increase our love for God, and we should pray that our Lord teaches us to love Him the way that we should love Him.

How do we know if we are on the right track? If you have developed, in your conscience, love for the services of the Church, a wanting to go to the services, as well as saying your prayers and remembering our Lord throughout the day, this is a positive sign that you may be on the right track; but put all of your hope in God. The prerequisite for all this, of course, is being in the Church, having the True Faith. Your spiritual Father should be your guide on this journey; he can help you gauge your spiritual direction.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXXIV (2017), No. 3, pp. 56-57.

An Edifying and Moving Story from the Holy Mountain

 

There was once a monk on Mt. Athos who dwelled in Karyes. [1] He drank every day to the point of inebriation and came to be a source of scandal to pilgrims. Eventually he died and some faithful went to Elder Paisios to tell him, with particular joy, that at last this enormous problem was solved.

Father Paisios replied to them that he was aware of the death of the monk, since he had seen an entire host of Angels coming to receive his soul.

The pilgrims were taken aback and protested, as some of them tried to explain to Elder Paisios just who it was about whom they were speaking, thinking that the Elder had not understood. The Elder told them: “The monk in question was born in Asia Minor, shortly before the destruction, [2] when the Turks rounded up all of the males. So that he would not be taken from them, his parents took him with them to the harvest, and so that he would not cry, they put raki [3] in his milk, so that he could sleep. On this account, when he grew up, he became an alcoholic. At one point, after being persuaded by advice from various physicians not to have a family, he went to Mt. Athos and became a monk.

“There he found an Elder, and he told him that he was an alcoholic. The Elder told him to do prostrations and prayers every evening and to ask the Panagia [4] to help him to reduce by one the glasses of liquor that he drank each day.

“After one year, he succeeded, by struggle and repentance, reducing the twenty glasses that he drank to nineteen. His struggle continued with the passing of time, and he reached the point that he drank only two or three glasses of liquor a day, with which, nonetheless, he would become inebriated. The world for years saw an alcoholic monk who scandalized pilgrims; God beheld a combative fighter engaged in a great struggle to subdue his passion...

 

NOTES

1. Administrative center of the monastic republic of Mt. Athos, Greece.

2. The Turkish onslaught against the Greeks in Asia Minor (1916 to 1922), ending in the final expulsion of the Greeks by a population exchange.

3. An anise-flavored liqueur similar to ouzo.

4. The “All-Holy One,” or the Mother of God (Theotokos).

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXXII (2015), No. 2.

Pastoral Theology and Depression: A Ministry of Love

THE NEGATIVE REPERCUSSIONS OF A STEREOTYPICAL AND SIMPLISTIC APPROACH TO DEPRESSION IN PASTORAL PRACTICE AND

THE THERAPEUTIC POTENTIALITY OF UNCONDITIONAL LOVE

Nikitas Kafkios, clinical psychologist | September 9, 2012

 

 

I. Grief and Depression

In our presentation, we intend to show analytically the negative effects that habitually arise out of a simplistic pastoral approach to depression and to argue that unconditional respect for the freedom of the individual person in conjunction with Christian love is the foundation of true, supportive pastoral intervention.

In psychiatry and clinical psychology, grief is considered a physiological and demiurgic reaction of a person confronting unforeseen traumatic events that contravene one’s security and worth or upset his existential equilibrium. However, when grief becomes more and more intense with the passage of time and impedes one’s physical activities, such as work, eating, sleep, and personal interactions, we can diagnose it as depression.

More precisely, the clinical symptoms of depression are the following: constant grieving, loss of energy, and exhaustion; an increased or decreased desire for food; a proclivity towards isolation and social detachment; anxiety or worry about everything; vacillation, difficulty in making decisions; loss of interest in seeking loving companionship or for intimate relations; feelings of guilt, self-loathing, and unworthiness; too much or too little sleep; a poor disposition during the greater part of the day, almost daily; a reduction of interest in, or enjoyment of, nearly all activities; worry and gloom concerning the future; no hope in any area.

II. The Stereotypes of a Simplistic Approach to Depression:

The Initial Error of “Theological Reductionism”

The stereotypes that we will analyze derive, to a greater or lesser degree, from a corresponding error in assumptions about the experience of depression in the hermeneutic dimensions of pastoral theology. Personal life events, the knowledge and experience of each individual, define his existential horizon and his concept of the world. The more fixed one is on this horizon, that is, the more complete and unique he considers his way of life and his view of reality, the more difficult it is for him to feel what another is feeling and to see reality through another’s eyes: “We can never assume his personality, his life, and his person in such a way as to experience his life exactly as he lives it.” [1]

A spiritual Father, like any other person, is handicapped in comprehending and grasping the existential outlook of an individual who suffers from depression. He perceives and explains the experience and the existential condition of the sufferer [2] by way of his own person and his own experiences of grief. For this reason, he many times finds it difficult to conceive of and understand the seriousness of the symptoms of depression, and believes that a patient can be cured if he or she simply tries harder to apply the Will of God in his or her life. However, it is obvious that it is not possible to understand and to help a sufferer if one assesses the sufferer’s life experience and behaviors by way of one’s own interpretive filters and ethical and religious standards.

As well, it is not correct to make a patient guilty after the fact, when pastoral intervention does not function therapeutically in his or her case. In assessing the experience of depression through the prism of Scripture or the writings of the Holy Fathers, a spiritual Father removes himself from the Weltanschauung and experiential horizon of the believer and falls to the error of theological reductionism; that is, the reduction of the biopsychological phenomenon of depression to the level of theology. Depression is a psychopathological phenomenon, and it is not correct to overlook its psychopathological dimension and to explain it by the principles and axioms of theology. Committing such an error, we wrongly come to think of pathological depression as an experience of grief, the reasons for which derive from selfishness and a distancing of oneself from God.

By this alien theological explanation and the pastoral guidance that it entails, the believer who is afflicted by depression, instead of finding relief, feels that his spiritual Father does not understand him and does not accept him, but rejects him. The error of theological reductionism contributes to the creation of various stereotypes. We will analyze seven of these stereotypes and ascertain what their consequences are for pastoral practice:

1. “Depression is a matter of choice. One who is afflicted by depression chooses to be afflicted.”

This stereotype is based on the following widely held notion: each person is responsible for his actions and his life experiences; therefore, his suffering means that his grief is by choice. “In the case of certain people—do not let this strike you as strange— they like to be in constant perplexity, to be anxious, to be gloomy, to be suspicious, to be jealous, and to be angry.” [3]

In keeping with the Church’s theology, the fall of man to ruination, illness, and death occurred because of the urging of the Devil, but also with the free consent of man. Just as the first man freely chose to fall, so every person freely chooses to distance himself from God and to fall to sin. Since ruination, illness, and death result from sin, this means that an individual who suffers from depression chooses to fall to the sin of depression.

Personally, I believe that the fall to which the First-Created [Adam and Eve] succumbed has not the slightest connection with a “fall” to depression. I personally believe that depression is not a choice; the choice is in how one chooses to deal with depression. No one would consciously choose to be afflicted or to suffer. A patient cannot choose to be free from depression, though he can learn to cope, as best he can, with negative feelings.

Even in a case where someone becomes accustomed to expressing himself in a depressed manner, such that he somehow gets something from his depression, such as the sympathy and concern of others, in reality this involves an unconscious choice or a neurotic indicator. The phrase, “You do not want to change,” or “If you wanted to, you could,” demonstrates a lack of respect for the peculiar uniqueness and the weakness of a patient. It constitutes an act of violence against his person, which leads to feelings of despondency and abandonment. When a spiritual Father to whom the patient turns to get help considers the patient responsible for his difficulties and attributes guilt to him, the patient inevitably feels betrayed and hopelessly alone.

2. “A depressed person is not suffering from something pathological. He is healthy, but does not try hard enough to help himself”

This stereotype is related to the foregoing one. Since one chooses to fall to depression, he is not ill, but a tormented sinner. Additionally, if he would put forth enough effort, he could overcome his depression by his own strength, calling on the help of God. Anyway, whatever the case, he is surely responsible for his sick condition; for even if God will not help him, this simply means that he is not calling on God in the right way, or stems from his not fulfilling the requirements for receiving God’s help.

In reality, however, with depression it is precisely the ability for conscious effort that has suffered injury. The patient finds it difficult to achieve practical goals. He knows the ways by which he could help himself, but he feels as though he cannot put forth the effort to apply in practice all of the things that could help him. He does not need direction, but strength and energy; he does not need advice, but the necessary existential basics that would allow him to trust his own abilities and to cure himself.

The spiritual Father asks the patient to struggle against the sinful sickness of depression in order to be cured. But to struggle with the power of his will to overcome depression is like trying to turn on his cell phone when its battery has gone dead, or trying to rise into the air by pulling on his shoestrings. The believer feels that he is being asked something that is impossible for him to accomplish. As a consequence of this, he feels an intensification of the negative sensations of guilt, shame, unworthiness, and fear that were already preexistent in him as symptoms of depression.

3. “Psychotherapy or pharmacological assistance is not necessary.”

The majority of spiritual Fathers, and especially those who enjoy only theological reading and do not have experience with, or have not studied, psychopathology, doubt the validity and the usefulness of psychiatry and psychotherapy. “So many have become psychiatric physicians, psychoanalysts, psychologists, and they treat patients.... What patients, indeed? Who are you to treat such patients?” [4] Yet, most scientific statistical studies show that anti-depressants and anxiety medications, in conjunction with psychotherapeutic support, offer crucial aid, in most instances, in confronting depression. In severe forms of depression, pharmaceutical treatment is absolutely necessary.

Psychotherapy helps the person undergoing therapy come to know himself, to recognize and to accept his weaknesses, and with a calm sense of humility to surrender them to the power and love of God. More specifically, psychotherapy can help a person who suffers from depression

• to recognize and rethink thoughts and behaviors that result in the creation of the feelings of despondency, culpability, and guilt that accompany and are found at the roots of depression;

• to know which of the problems that beset him can be resolved, and in what way, and which of them cannot be resolved, but with which it behooves him to co-exist harmoniously;

• to improve his relationship with loved ones;

• to reintroduce into his life pleasing activities that can reawaken within him the joy of life;

• to claim his rights and not retreat out of fear of the opinions of others;

• to base his choices on his own values and on his own desires;

• to gain control of his life;

• to develop his abilities, setting realistic goals for the future, and to assume the responsibility and the risk for these choices.

The disdain of a spiritual Father for psychiatry and psychotherapy turns the believer away from the possibility of accepting the counsel of science, so as to be helped.

4. “Depression is the result of sinful experiences. The accumulation of sin and misdeeds distances man from the salubrious path of God and leads him to depression… Illness, every form of illness, is a consequence of the fall of man. This means that sickness is tied to sin and to human nature. It is not ‘natural,’ therefore, for man to become sick, but unnatural (παρά φνσιν).” [5]

In actuality, depression is a psychopathological phenomenon that has as much connection to sin as a bone fracture or sugar diabetes. Despite this, most spiritual Fathers are certain that, since depression manifests itself in the sphere of behavior and psychology, confronting it, in terms of assessment and therapy, belongs to the jurisdiction of pastoral psychology. With the conviction that clinical depression is a spiritual disease, and as a consequence derives from a departure from God, selfishness, and egotism, the spiritual Father approaches the patient as a sinner.

Accordingly, the spiritual Father advises, admonishes, and urges the sufferer to change his way of life and to align his life with the Will of God. In this attempt, however, he usually fails to take into account the psychological dimension of depressive experiences. And when we are ignorant of the psychology of a patient, that is, the characteristics of his personality, his needs, his desires, his interpersonal relationships, his traumatic experiences, his fears, his insecurities, and his unrealistic aspirations, it is not possible to help him.

5. “Depression is the result of selfishness and unbridled egotism. ...The chief reason for depression and all that we call demonic, Satanic...is that you have within you an inflated ego.” [6]

The individual who is afflicted by depression presents with behaviors that can easily be construed as egotistical, such as grumbling, making demands on others, withdrawal from society, sleeping long hours, and a lack of desire to work or to interact with others. The experience of depression drains an individual of all of his energy to act and he becomes preoccupied with nothing other than his own problems.

The patient is bogged down by grief and is continually preoccupied with what he is thinking about and what he feels. This painful, overwhelming preoccupation of an individual with his own self is wrongly taken by some spiritual Fathers to be egocentrism: “The depressed individual experiences sadness, bitterness, and pain precisely because he will not bend, will not show humility, will not repent, but is [rather] overcome by wounded pride and the desire to please others.” [7]

In reality, a person who suffers from depression is not selfish, since he has no love for himself; he does not have inner balance and harmony, has excessive feelings of guilt and inadequacy for his faults and weaknesses—and especially for his depression; he is not happy, enjoys nothing, does not look after himself, and does not satisfy his basic needs. With depression, a person does not suffer from unbridled egotism, but from a pathological egocentrism, since his pain makes him attend constantly to his needs and focus insistently on his negative feelings and weaknesses.

6. “The cause of depression is a lack of faith, prayer, love, and trust in God. If you find a good Elder and partake of the Mysteries of the Church, you will overcome it. ...We greatly set upon the Will of God when, on account of the grievances and worries that come to us, we fall to gloom, murmuring, hopelessness, immeasurable sadness, and stern coldness.” [8]

Of course, the cultivation of spiritual virtues and participation in the Mysteries help one in facing grief, but the person who suffers from depression typically has not the slightest desire to be present at services or to engage in spiritual struggle. The believer who lives with the symptoms of pathological depression not only has no appetite or desire to respond to the guidance of his spiritual Father or the Church, but he is likewise not able to cope with his basic everyday obligations.

Because he finds it difficult to keep himself clean, to eat, or to sleep, it is only natural that he should find it even more difficult to pray, to participate in services, to fast, or to show love and provide comfort to those in his family environment. Depression, like other psychopathological disturbances, does not arise from, and is not reinforced by, a lack of faith, obedience, love, or trust in God.

On the contrary, depression impedes a conscious growth in faith, obedience, love, and trust in God. A person suffering from depression feels that his life is empty, without any meaning; as a result, it is very difficult for him to feel at a conscious level that he can trust in God. He feels that all of his powers are ineffective, and he is struck by panic in seeking any improvement in his condition. Anything outside his need to survive or to alleviate his grief he considers an unrealistic luxury.

Many Grace-endowed spiritual Fathers believe that prayer and the worship of God, with the help of Grace, transform depression into joy. “Prayer and the worship of God transform depression, little by little, and turn it into joy, because the Grace of God acts on it. Here one must have the strength to draw on the Grace of God, Who will help you to unite with Him.” [9]

They do not explain, however, by what means the debilitated sufferer, who lacks exactly strength and power, is able to draw on Grace. This is so only if by “power” we mean our delivery from our weakness and its placement in God’s hands: “Place the sickness of your nature in the hands of God, fully realizing your own weakness, and you will then receive the gift of wisdom, without even knowing it.” [10] In the pit of grief, God is present, and it is possible to have a relationship of silent prayer with Him there.

The wounded with the Wounded One, the crucified with the Crucified One, the one who is alone with the One Who alone is, in a mystical, personal relationship of communion.

7. “Depression is a demonic-Satanic condition. ...He (the Devil) succeeds in tapping our very energy and makes it into grief, depression, and whatever—I don’t know what the so-called psychiatrists may call it. We do not call it by the names they use. We call it satanic activity; we call it coldness; we call it evil thought; we call it the demon of coldness, the demon of immorality, the demon, the demon, the demon. There are different demons for every Satanic activity that is created in us. [11] ...That is, what had overtaken her [a depressed person—see endnote below] was a psychic force, and instead of becoming something good, the Devil made this psychic power into depression and tormented the person.” [12]

We cannot prove that depression results from satanic activity; nor can we prove the contrary. In most instances, however, the assumption of satanic intervention is not necessary, since the phenomenon of depression is more easily and more simply explained on the basis of the biochemistry of the brain, personal history, or the negative experiences, thoughts, and behaviors of the patient. In the past, in the realm of the Church all diseases were considered the results of satanic activity, and even bodily disease; indeed, we often hear our brothers and sisters reduce anything difficult or negative to demonic activity. The devil is made responsible for all of their errors, failures, and weaknesses.

I believe that if something negative can be simply and easily explained by simple and objective givens, there is no need to ascribe responsibility for it to evil spirits. Therefore, it is preferable to limit the attribution of the phenomenon of satanic influences to other unusual demonic disturbances, and not to instances of depression.

 

 

III. The Pastoral Aspect of Love

A. Grief and Depression as a Gift

Aside from his positive support in confronting the everyday problems that result from the associated effects of depression, a spiritual Father can help assist a patient with love, humility, and prayer. A spiritual Father’s love, in particular, is a necessary prerequisite for soteriologically fruitful pastoral activity. Depression is not simply a painful experience without significance or meaning. As the expression of human weakness par excellence, there is concealed within depression a therapeutic and soteriological power.

In the Church, grief is transformed into a gift; illness, by the Grace of God, mystically prepares the ground of the soul for the manifestation of God. At a spiritual level, a person becomes capable, to the extent that he recognizes his weakness, of surrendering himself to the love of God. The existential return to God, that is, repentance, is consummated to the extent that human weakness is baptized in the Grace of God.

The role of the Grace-endowed spiritual Father is to make the Grace of God visible to the believer through unconditional love; without this love, the spiritual Father cannot carry out his work. “The Grace-endowed spiritual Father loves and feels the pain of a soul.... A spiritual Father who is not resolved even to go into hell for the love of his spiritual children is not a spiritual Father.” [14]

In the following paragraphs we will focus especially on love, basing ourselves on the supposition that it is closely related to, and inseparable from, humility and prayer. First, however, we will make extensive reference to the therapeutic power of depression itself, since it is our belief that depression contains within it the possibility of becoming holy humility.

B. The Therapeutic Power of Weakness

In the Church, external circumstances of a disadvantageous kind, temptations, and illnesses are considered basic presuppositions for the salvation of man. “No one who has not experienced temptation can enter into the Kingdom of God, and no such one can be saved.” [15] Human weakness is made wholly visible in the experience of depression. The believer is called to hand himself over to the love of God, so as to become perfectly strong: “My strength is made perfect in weakness.” [16]

Even though in the state of depression a patient may find it difficult to pray for keenness of mind, to participate in the Church’s services, or to help himself in any way whatever, it is possible for his relationship to God to function at a deeper, internal level. For when a person is ill and cannot help himself, it is then that God activates the mystery of sadness in his heart, in order to save him. “The person takes part in his salvation by synergy, even if the possibility of synergy is a gift of Grace… Man is not a passive, but an active, recipient of Grace. It is simply that even this active reception is a Divine gift.” [17]

In the Church, illness is considered a precursor to spiritual health and power: “When I am ill, only then am I strong.” [18] The deadlock of sorrow in a person suffering from depression has existential and spiritual meaning; for God works in the heart of a person by means of illness and grief: “Their souls are guided, by visible instances of grief, to virtue.” [19] Depression can more greatly connect one to knowledge of God through repentance than visible and demonstrable ascetic practices. The crushing sadness of the soul brings into action the succor of Grace; pain comes to act as a therapeutic means of cleansing, that one might partake of the joy of the Holy Spirit.

“Since by this crushing sadness the soul is freed from anger and bitterness, its place is taken by spiritual Grace.” [20] The Providence of God renders worthy human errors and sadness, leading a well-intentioned individual to the blessed state of humble self-knowledge. In the Orthodox spiritual tradition, self-knowledge is humility and humility is self-knowledge. “He who truly knows himself possesses humility. And when a man is made humble, the Grace of God will certainly come upon him.” [21]

The intensity of despair increases the probability that the heart of the sufferer will be energized by the mystery of repentance. Nothingness lies on the border of the sensible perception of God; an existential void can potentially spark a change of course and the entrusting of one’s existence to God. “With my whole heart I cried unto the compassionate God, and He hearkened unto me from the lowest depth of Hades, and brought my life out of corruption.” [22] This shifting in the center of gravity from the impotent self to the omnipotence of God unlocks the possibility of salvation.

How this change of course and surrender to God vis-a-vis one’s existence can be brought to fruition is mysterious and something that cannot be explained [merely] by scrutinizing the factors that determine the life of an individual. “By the Grace of God I am what I am..., yet not I labored, but the Grace of God which was with me.” [23] The love of a genial spiritual Father works in synergy, in an essential way, with the functioning of the mystery of repentance, such that the depression of the impotent believer is turned over to the therapeutic omnipotence of God.

The therapeutic function of Divine love does not mean the inevitable relief of symptoms, but rather the enlightenment of the soul by the Grace of God. “For the Church, therapy is not a psychogonical and moral matter, but an ontological one. The aim of therapy is not to relieve the symptoms of a person’s illness, but to regenerate him.” [24] And when a person is united with God, the sadness of these symptoms subsides to the extent that they are endowed with eschatological significance in the Holy Spirit. It is then that these symptoms are experienced as the marks of crucifixion and take on a resurrectional significance.

C. Unconditional Love in Christ

The spiritual Father who is unable to understand the depth and the complex functionings of human existence rushes to offer the believer concrete counsel and guidance. He wants immediately to solve the problems of the sufferer and to place him on the right path. For this reason, he adopts a pastoral approach based on reason, words, and action, and does not appreciate the therapeutic functionality of unknowing, of silence, of humility, and of love. A spiritual Father is called to love, and is not called to focus on the existential and spiritual weaknesses of the believer or to counsel him in self-evident ethical matters. “Many times I see something in the agony of another, understanding or knowing what he has done, yet out of respect I do not say anything to him, if he does not tell me himself.... It does not help, indeed, to play the teacher to another and to examine him about his habits, if he does not grant you that right.” [25]

The Grace-endowed Elder, and especially in Confession, embraces with discretion a pastoral approach that is rooted in humility and unconditional love. He does not seek to aid the believer so much with his own knowledge and social skills, as to do so with the revelation of the love of God. “It is a great delusion for you to think that by your efforts you can change a man.... When someone prays for another person, this is fine; but when one tries to change him, it is not. That is solely in the Hands of God.” [26]

Instead of insisting, propose solutions with correct religious counsel, it being preferable to respect the existential reality of the believer and to embrace with maternal affection his sadness, his weaknesses, and his freedom. In this way, the encounter of the spiritual Father and the believer is elevated to the experience of peaceful Grace, which is inspired by the therapeutic energy of Divine love. The love of the spiritual Father for the believer is the catalyst, so that sadness and depression might operate in a sanctifying manner.

In pastoral communication, the spiritual Father who loves, being filled with the love of God, communicates with the believer, having emptied out himself. He adopts the way of seeing and living of the believer, without being tied to his personal theoretical schemata about the world and his individual systems of belief. Within the boundaries of charismatic, unconditional, distinctive love, a believer can be absolutely and freely himself, without feelings that his spiritual Father is judging him, confining him, or failing to understand him.

D. The Cognizance of God

Love is the cognizance of God. The spiritual Father vividly manifests this love to the degree that he participates in it. Sweet, prayerful, humble love is therapeutic. “If you wish to correct someone’s errors, do not think that you can correct him by your own power. Pray to God, Who ‘searches the heart and the reins,’ with your whole soul, that the Same may enlighten the heart of the person.” [27] In our daily communication, let us affirm that the condition in which life experiences place one person affects the condition in which another’s life experiences place him; common sentiments, such as joy, sadness, anxiety, fear or enthusiasm, are passed from one to another, like liquid elements flowing from one container to another.

This communion in life experiences, and specifically the influence which the love of the spiritual Father exercises over the believer, we can better understand with the following example: If we place two guitars opposite one another and stroke a string on the first guitar, we will observe that a corresponding string on the other guitar will begin to vibrate. In the same way, in the relationship of a spiritual Father and believer, when the spiritual Father feels sweet love in his heart, this love awakens the Divine therapeutic power which is hidden in the heart of the believer. “One soul communicates with another and the one soul senses the other.” [28]

A Grace-filled spiritual Father sees in the face of the believer a potential Saint; he sees Christ Himself. With the spiritual sensory organs of love and humility, he feels that the believer is one with him within the Body of Christ, the Church.

 

Endnotes and References

1. Nikitas Kafkios (2009), “The acceptance without limits of the existential presuppositions of the person in pastoral practice.” See www.psyche.gr/poimantiki3.htm. (Emphasis added.)

2. A psychologist uses the term “άσθενής” (a patient or ill individual) in accordance with the etymological meaning of the term: “ασθενής” or one who is without “σθένος,” or strength. As well, this term underscores the fact that a person who suffers from depression bears no fault on account of what is happening to him, and cannot be cured simply by the power of his will.

3. Metropolitan Nicholas (Chatzenikolaou) of Mesogaia and Lavreotike (2010), from an interview in the newspaper Makedonia. [One might rightly note, of course, that His Eminence is not necessarily addressing, in his comments, the issue of clinical depression or pathological behavior, but certain personality traits that individuals sometimes adopt in social interaction. At the same time, the line that separates personality traits from personality disorders of a pathological kind is a thin one, and we must therefore take the author’s comments quite seriously.]

4. Constantine Giannitsiotes, Near to Elder Porphyries. Athens: Ekdosis Hierou Hesychasteriou “He Metamorphosis tou Soteros,” 2006, p. 199.

5. Metropolitan John (Zezioulas) of Pergamon, “Theology and Psychiatry in Dialogue,” in Conference Proceedings. Athens: Ekdoseis “Apostolike Diakonia,” 1999, pp. 141-156.

6. Elder Porphyrios, Hieromonk, A Conversation on Depression. Melesi (Greece): Ekdosis Hierou Gynaikeiou Hesychasteriou “He Metamorphosis tou Soteros,” n.d., p. 12.

7. Elder Paisios the Hagiorite, “Discourse V,” in Passions and Virtues. Sourote (Thessalonike): Ekdosis Hierou Hesychasteriou “Evangelistes Ioannes ho Theologos,” 2006, p. 139.

8. Staretz Zacharias, Apophthegmata From Russian Saints and Elders. See http://users.uoa.gr/~nektar/orthodoxy/gerontikon/gerontikon5_russians.htm.

9. Constantine C. Karakoles, The Gift of Discernment (Elder Porphyrios). Melesi (Greece): Ekdosis Hierou Gynaikeiou Hesychasteriou “He Metamorphosis tou Soteros,” 2011, p. 352.

10. St. John the Sinaite, The Ladder, “On Chastity II,” Step XV.

11. Elder Porphyrios, op. cit., p. 10.

12. Elder Porphyrios is referring to a discussion of his with a certain female professor.

13. St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite, The Book of Barsanouphios and John. Ekdoseis Soteriou Schoina, 1960, pp. 82-83 (Reply 110).

14. Elder Paisios the Hagiorite, Spiritual Struggle, “Discourse III.” Sourote (Thessalonike): Ekdosis Hierou Hesychasteriou “Evangelistes Ioannes ho Theologos,” 2007.

15. St. Anthony the Great, Patrologia Grceca LXV, col. 77A.

16. II Corinthians 12:9-10.

17. Nikitas Kafkios (2010), “Freedom and Divine Grace: The Role of Human Effort in The Work of Salvation.” See www.psyche.gr./graceandworks.htm.

18. II Corinthians 12:10.

19. St. Isaac the Syrian, Ascetical Homilies, “Discourse XXV.” Thessalonike: Ekdoseis Basileiou Regopoulos, 1997, p. 28.

20. St. Gregory Palamas, ‘To the Nun Xene,” in The Philokalia. Ekdoseos “To Periboli tes Panagias,” Vol. IV, p. 98.

21. Elder Paisios, op. cit.

22. St. Andrew of Crete, “The Great Canon,” Ode VI.

23.1 Corinthians 15:10.

24. Metropolitan John (Zezioulas) of Pergamon, op. cit.

25. Elder Paisios the Hagiorite, op. cit.

26. Nun Gabrielia, The Eldress Gabrielia. Athens: Ekdoseis “Eptalophos,” 1996, p. 181.

27. St. John of Kronstadt, My Life in Christ. Athens: Ekdoseis “Aster,” 1974, p. 25.

28. Elder Porphyrios Kavsokalybites, Life and Writings. Chrysopege, Chania (Crete): Ekdosis Hieras Mones Zoodochou Peges, 2003, p. 273.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXXII (2015), No. 1, pp. 4-18.