How Occultists Remade the World

Christopher Coome | May 01, 2026

 

 

This March, Pope Leo hosted a private meeting for several priests from the International Association of Exorcists. Their goal was to lobby the Roman Pontiff into increasing the number of trained exorcists available to every Catholic diocese. The world, they said, was witnessing an unprecedented rise in “occultism, esotericism, and Satanism.” The current exorcists on hand were insufficient to respond to the increasing number of “people seriously disturbed by the extraordinary action of the devil as a result of frequenting occult sects.” Two years prior, Pope Francis had publicly warned that “our secularized world is teeming with magicians, occultism, spiritism, astrologers and satanic sects.” 

The supernatural, it would appear, is on the move, and popes and priests aren’t the only ones who have noticed. By some estimates, practitioners of Wicca now outnumber mainline Presbyterians in America. In 2021, Pew reported that roughly 33 percent of American Christians believe in reincarnation. By 2025, it was estimated that 30 percent of all Americans, Christians or otherwise, were practicing astrology, tarot, or other forms of divination, and that 62 percent believed in one or more New Age ideas, be it psychics, crystals, spiritual energies, “positive thinking,” or the “law of attraction.” Popular religiosity appears to be shifting, and it’s not hard to see where it is headed. 

How did this happen? The answer might surprise you. How the Western world thinks about religion, particularly the occult, has been changing for centuries, and what we are seeing today is only the most recent manifestation of a tectonic shift in the Western imagination. The rise of contemporary occultism was set into motion almost one hundred and fifty years ago by a network of revolutionary mystics who set out to reshape the world. They were more successful than almost anyone could have imagined.

In 1875, a Russian adventurer named Helena Blavatsky and her freemason associate, Henry Steel Olcott, hosted a coterie of ghost-hunters, kabbalists, and amateur Egyptologists for an evening of friendly conversation. After discussions that ranged from the long-lost wisdom of the pre-Christian world to the scientific foundations of psychic powers, the associates formed what would become the most influential occult organization in human history: the Theosophical Society. 

The Theosophical Society served as the nexus of a cultural eruption aimed squarely at the religious and scientific foundations of Western civilization. Theosophists and their fellow travellers capitalized on the disorienting world of the late-nineteenth century—a world of trains and telegraphs, rapid industrialization, and the heights of European imperialism—and set about reconciling every conceivable antithesis of fin de siècle life: religion and science, East and West, the modern and the pre-modern. Blavatsky’s occult revival blended scientific rhetoric with Hermeticism and the Kabbalah, and added liberal doses of Hinduism and Buddhism. It invited its adherents to step into a realm of alchemy, magic, and astrology; a world of enchantment that chafes against limitations of any kind. In the world of the occult, borders prove porous, heaven is immanent, and power is only a bargain away.

Scholars often describe occultism as drawing from the “waste basket” of ideas discarded by theological, philosophical, and scientific orthodoxies as these disciplines advanced from the early modern to modern eras. Yet, this wastebasket is never emptied. Instead, what falls in begins to ferment, and in 1875, what had been growing there burst into the mainstream. The occult phenomenon that followed was dominated by four organizations: the Theosophical Society, the Anthroposophical Society, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and the Ordo Templi Orientis. But Blavatsky and her Theosophy stand apart.

Theosophy played a pivotal role in making the religions of Hinduism and Buddhism popular topics of Western interest. The astral world, the akashic records, reincarnation, chakras, and deference to Indian gurus were all served up by theosophists and readily digested by audiences eager for novelty and exoticism. Blavatsky, of course, denied that she had any ideas of her own, and claimed to be in communication with unseen Indian masters or mahatmas who had chosen her to be their herald in the modern world. Significantly, Blavatsky and her followers were not just street-corner mystics and mediums—they claimed to have a spiritual mandate to overthrow the intellectual and religious foundations of the modern world. They were revolutionaries, and they fused their spiritual aspirations with anti-colonial activism and socialist rhetoric, promising a universal brotherhood of mankind and a transcendent, post-Christian future. The results were far-reaching.

The New Age movement, the popularity of reincarnation and “spiritual evolution,” the belief in “mind over matter”—all of this is downstream from the Theosophical Society and associated movements. Theosophy also informed how millions of Americans think about religion. The transformations of popular piety and church attendance in the late twentieth century didn’t just reflect the spread of secular materialist views. How Americans looked at religion was also transformed by a host of popular figures who championed religious universalism and personal transformation over traditional religious structures, many of them influenced by Theosophy.

he literature scholar Joseph Campbell did more than anyone to popularize comparative religion and mythology in the twentieth century. Campbell’s most iconic work, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, promoted his notion of the “monomyth” or “hero’s journey,” which he argued was the underlying pattern of major religious narratives. The clear implication was that Christianity was just one more iteration of the monomyth—something Theosophy had taught since its inception. 

One of Campbell’s formative influences was the leading theosophist Jiddu Krishnamurti, whom he met in the 1920s on a steamship crossing the Atlantic. Krishnamurti taught Campbell that “truth is a pathless land” and that all religious particularities and dogmatic structures were ephemeral; he encouraged him to study Indian religions. Campbell responded by dedicating his life to studying religion, with a particular attraction to Hinduism. Campbell’s writings would serve as primary source material for George Lucas while writing Star Wars.

The popular writer Aldous Huxley was similarly influenced by Theosophy. While most famous today for his dystopian novel Brave New World, in the mid-twentieth century, Huxley was equally known for his experiments with LSD and the pursuit of a religion-less spirituality. His 1945 work, The Perennial Philosophy, argued that all world religions pointed to a singular, universal divine reality, and that humans could contact this reality through mystical experiences. This is Theosophy in a nutshell. Huxley had learned about it nearly thirty years earlier, while teaching at Eton College in England. In 1917, Huxley wrote to his father about his long discussions on Theosophy. Huxley wasn’t impressed with the more esoteric aspects of the movement, but as to its primary principle that all religions were expressions of the same divine truth, he thought that Theosophy “seems a good enough religion,” and claimed that “a little judicious Theosophy seems on the whole an excellent thing.” 

Christmas Humphreys, the leading British Buddhist of the twentieth century, similarly began his spiritual quest in Theosophy. Humphreys was a successful barrister and noted judge at the Old Bailey in London, but it was not life as a jurist that would make him famous. While a teenager, Humphreys’s older brother died, leading him to explore spirituality as an answer to life’s great mysteries. As a university student, Humphreys joined the Cambridge Theosophical Lodge. With its blend of Eastern mysticism and scientific rhetoric, Theosophy seemed to him more rational than faith-oriented and dogmatic Christianity. In 1924, Humphrey chartered the London Buddhist Lodge of the Theosophical Society, but in 1926 he broke away from Theosophy and renamed the lodge the Buddhist Society. Humphreys and his society would become the most influential sources for the popularization of Buddhism in Britain. Today, he is remembered as a founder of Western Buddhism.

In America, one of Humphrey’s students played a similar role. Alan Watts served as the secretary for the Buddhist Society when he was only sixteen. Initially drawn to Eastern mysticism through a love of Chinese art, Watts was set on a spiritual path by Humphreys, later claiming that the godfather of British Buddhism “gave me an education which no money could possibly buy.” In 1951, Watts moved to California and worked as a lecturer and popular radio host, pontificating to rapt audiences on the wonders of Buddhism, Taoism, and Vedanta. In 1957, he published The Way of Zen which introduced generations of Americans to Zen Buddhism and the ability to achieve personal transformation without the anchors of faith and church. Watts’ books have sold hundreds of thousands of copies and have never been out of print. 

Together, Campbell, Huxley, Humphreys, and Watts contributed to a paradigm shift that moved spirituality out from the pews and into the world of the free-flowing and the feel-good. They were a formative influence on the counterculture movements of the 1960s and 1970s. The hippies were more than just long hair, flower power, and groovy music: They were consciously engaged in a cultural revolution aimed at surpassing traditional religion, coercive government structures, and the limitations of everyday consciousness; they believed in communitarianism, natural living, and blended Eastern spirituality with a penchant for astrology. 

If the hippies sound a bit theosophical, that is no accident. The values and lifestyles of the hippies can be traced to the German Lebensreform—or life reform—movement, a wide-ranging cultural upheaval of the nineteenth century focused on naturalism, alternative medicine, and often, running naked through the woods. In Germany, Theosophy became deeply intertwined with Lebensreform, and this entanglement served as the incentive for a theosophical commune in the idyllic mountain town of Ascona, Switzerland. In Ascona, we can see the entire hippie movement in microcosm: a theosophical retreat where members practiced vegetarianism, smoked hashish, embraced naturalism, and often went without footwear. Many of these German life-reformers and theosophists moved to California and brought their ideas with them. 

Back in Europe, German occultism had an even broader influence. Whether it was the dizzying high of being a newly unified empire or the disorientation of rapid industrialization, occultism in Germany was widespread, provocative, and dangerously serious. One of the most significant occultists to emerge was the Austrian-born Rudolf Steiner. A leading scholar of Goethe and a passionate neo-Romantic, Steiner was deeply suspicious of the rising materialism and skepticism of the European intelligentsia. In 1902, he was appointed the General Secretary of the German Theosophical Society and began advertising himself as a clairvoyant. However, Steiner attempted to translate Blavatsky’s occult precedents into more discernably Western currents. Unlike other theosophists, Steiner was convinced that it was the West, not the East, that was destined to lead the world to a new spiritual future. And within the West, it was Germany that was to play the leading role.

Steiner broke from the Theosophical Society in 1912 and created his own movement, Anthroposophy, and positioned himself as the prophet of a distinctly Teutonic-European spiritual renaissance. As tensions built before the outbreak of war in 1914, Steiner emerged as a patriotic supporter of the German cause. He framed the war as a major step in the spiritual evolution of the world and the ascension of Germany to its rightful place as the leader of the West. He was also the spiritual advisor to General Helmuth von Moltke, Chief of the German General Staff. Like Steiner, von Moltke believed that the war was an act of providence destined to lead Germany to its rightful place on the world stage. Accordingly, von Moltke was a key figure in the escalation of the conflict, eschewing political options in favor of military action. Unfortunately, it was also von Moltke who was in charge of the German army in the opening months of the war, and who chose to invade France through Belgium, triggering Britain’s entry into the war. Instead of landing a knockout blow, France and Germany settled into trench warfare.  This ended any hopes of a quick German victory and set Europe on course for four years of civilization-ending carnage. 

Beyond his potential entanglements in geopolitics, one aspect that would separate Steiner’s Anthroposophy from its theosophical parent was its emphasis on practical pursuits. Whereas Theosophy focused primarily on contemplative mysticism, under Steiner’s leadership, German anthroposophists began a program of applying his clairvoyant insights to medicine, agriculture, and education. The unifying theme in all these applications was the conviction that contemporary, industrial, and regimented ways of producing everything from foodstuffs to children had severed reality from its natural cosmic rhythms.

In medicine, Steiner’s ideas became fellow travellers alongside homeopathy, emphasizing holistic medicine and natural remedies. The popular medical and cosmetics company, Weleda, is inspired by anthroposophical practices. In agriculture, Steiner pioneered biodynamics, a mystical-organic method that uses alchemical fertilizers and tries to harness the energies of the solstices. The method is particularly popular with vintners, and you can probably find biodynamic products in your local wine store. Steiner’s fears about modern industrial and chemical practices prefigured the contemporary organic agricultural movement, whose founders were inspired by his ideas. In education, Steiner pioneered Waldorf schools, a global network of private schools that practice a unique pedagogy based on his vision of human and adolescent development. Another pioneer of alternative education, Maria Montessori, lived for almost ten years at the Theosophical Headquarters at Adyar, India. 

India, the holy land of the theosophical movement, was also affected by Blavatsky’s followers. In the late nineteenth century, after centuries of colonial interference, India was a far cry from the confident nation of today. In 1889, a young Indian law student named Mohandas Gandhi was devouring English literature, full of doubts about Indian civilization, and enthralled by all that the West had to offer. It was also there that he fell in with theosophists who encouraged him to read the Bhagavad Gita and Blavatsky’s works. The young Gandhi had internalized the polemics of the Christian missionaries who roamed India, but these readings led him back to his ancestral faith. Gandhi would of course play the pivotal role in liberating India from British rule. Yet even before the formal awakening of Hindu nationalism, theosophists were active in India, building schools and battling missionaries to keep Hindus from converting to Christianity. A theosophist named Annie Besant was the first female president of the Indian National Congress in 1917. 

The impact of theosophical occultism may seem relatively benign so far.  But some of the twentieth century’s most dangerous minds were also inspired by Blavatsky and the movement she founded. Nazis and hippies, it turns out, were not as far apart as one might think. The Lebensreform movement and the theosophical community at Ascona—with their new ideas about naturalism and holism—were as influential in the development of fascism as they were in the California counterculture. 

The Thule Society was the most influential of several early twentieth-century fusions of Theosophy and racial mysticism, functioning as part occult order, part Aryan supremacy think tank. It was created in part by Rudolf von Sebettendorf, a freemason, occultist, and student of Guido von List, another theosophy-influenced neopagan and racial mystic. Its doctrines blended theosophical occultism and racial theories into a mystical cult of Aryanism or “Ariosophy.” With its emphasis on the wisdom of pre-Christian and Indian religions, Theosophy provided a handy kit of spiritual idioms for romantic German nationalists eager to cobble together new religious movements centered on the exceptionality of Aryans. Proto-fascists in Austria and Germany welded together an entire cosmology based on antisemitism, Aryanism, Wotanism, runes, and a twisted expression of Theosophy. While there were other organizations in the racial-occult milieu, the Thule Society stands apart. Beyond simple spiritual concerns, the Thule Society believed that the restoration of Germany required public action. In 1918, the society purchased a newspaper, the Münchener Beobachter, and used it as the primary organ of their movement. But this wasn’t enough. The following year, in 1919, two members of the society, Karl Harrer and Anton Drexler, who had been active in extremist nationalist circles, came together to produce a new political party: the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP). That same year, an unknown corporal named Adolf Hitler joined the party. Encouraged by Hitler’s growing influence, in 1920 the DAP rebranded itself as the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP). 

The Nazi Party had just been born, and its womb was a volatile mix of racism, antisemitism, and the occult impulses of Theosophy. While Hitler himself never joined the Thule Society, leading Nazis such as Alfred Rosenberg, Rudolf Hess, Dietrich Eckhart, Hans Frank, and Julius Lehmann were active members. By August 1919, the Thule Society’s newspaper, the Münchener Beobachter, had changed its name to the Völkischer Beobachter—the primary newspaper of the Nazi Party. 

By the time the Nazis came to power, Rudolf Steiner had already led most German theosophists into Anthroposophy, but the Theosophical Society persisted in its own right. Dr. J. M. Verweyen, a scholar from Bonn, led a revival of the Theosophical Society in Germany in the 1920’s and publicly spoke on what he saw as the fundamental compatibility of National Socialism and Theosophy. But Hitler, unlike many of his leading henchmen, had no interest in occultism, and once in power, he clamped down on Weimar occultism. Dr. Verweyen died in Bergen-Belsen in 1945. 

Steiner, for his part, died in 1925, leaving his movement without its captain to navigate the rise of the Nazis. Unsurprisingly, like much of German civil society, many anthroposophists accorded themselves to the Nazi movement, and leading Nazis like Heinrich Himmler were interested in the practical applications of anthroposophical occultism. Throughout Nazi occupied eastern Europe, and surrounding concentration camps like Dachau, inmates were cruelly forced to labor in biodynamic plantations—the earthy organicism of anthroposophical agriculture appealing to the Nazi fantasy of Blut und Boden and its vision of a natural, wholesome Volk. Both Steiner and Blavatsky, it must be said, would have been appalled. 

A gentler expression of reactionary occultism was found in the person of René Guénon, the founder of Traditionalism. In the opening decade of the twentieth century, Guénon was deeply involved in the occult movement in France, dabbling in gnosticism, freemasonry, and Theosophy. But he failed to find what he was looking for. Theosophy appeared to him to be an inauthentic mishmash of Eastern and Western religions. Instead, Guénon came to believe that true gnosis and esoteric truths could only be found through participation in traditional religions like Catholicism, Hinduism, or Islam. Far from abandoning what he found appealing in the occult milieu, he postulated a universal esoteric core to all major world religions that could be pursued by a gnostic elect for mystical transformation. This universal core and the pursuit of it, Guénon termed “Tradition.” 

Guénon published many books, two of which would stand out as particularly influential: The Crisis of the Modern World (1927) and The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times (1945). In these books, Guénon outlined what he saw as the failure of the modern, Western world and the importance of hierarchy, religion, and tradition. For Guénon and later traditionalists, the modern world is the age of Kali Yuga, the Hindu dark ages at the end of a cosmic cycle marked by chaos and collapse. Ultimately, Guénon’s despair for the modern West led him to convert from Catholicism to Sufi Islam. 

From the early twentieth century to today, Guénon’s writings on comparative religion, symbolism, and the critique of modernity have inspired countless scholars and activists, and his works remain a lightning rod for individuals opposed to what they see as the barren materialism and vapid culture of the modern world. Political activists such as MAGA architect Steve Bannon, Aleksander Dugin—the guru of Russian Traditionalism and Eurasianism—and Ali Shariati—an Iranian intellectual and the “ideologue of the Iranian Revolution”—found inspiration in his anti-modernism and political formulations. 

Another student of Guénon was Julius Evola, a minor Sicilian aristocrat and artist, who dabbled in poetry, Dadaism, and Futurism as a young man. After serving in the First World War, Evola suffered a spiritual crisis that led him to Nietzscheanism, Buddhism, and then to occultism and René Guénon. In Rome in the 1920’s, Evola became an associate of Arturo Reghini, a neopagan, freemason, and occultist who advocated for the return of Roman paganism and introduced Evola to Guénon. Evola and Reghini—along with a leading Italian anthroposophist, Giovanni Colassa—founded the Ur Group, a nexus of Italian Traditionalism where members practiced ceremonial magic in pursuit of transcendence. Both Evola and Reghini enthusiastically supported the rise of Italian Fascism. 

Under Mussolini’s regime, Evola became a leading fascist mystic and philosopher, his emphasis on power, hierarchy, and authority meshing easily with the values then ascendant in Italy. Evola had a personal relationship with Mussolini and leading members of the Nazi SS and wrote repeatedly on the spiritual foundations of racism, or the racial foundations of spirituality. His works were widely circulated among the Fascist and Nazi elite. Like Guénon, Evola believed that modernity constituted a dark age—the Kali Yuga—and that “spiritual aristocrats” were needed to lead the world out of the quagmire of democracy, egalitarianism, and decadence. 

While he wrote abundantly on alchemy, Tantra, and occultism, Evola’s most significant works—while inseparable from his occult and traditionalist ideas—were political and philosophical. These included Pagan Imperialism (1928), Revolt Against the Modern World (1934), Men Among the Ruins (1953), and Ride the Tiger (1961). As a leading fascist intellectual who survived the war, Evola and his writings helped to midwife radical right-wing movements across the Western world. Today, his works are staples on the far right and proliferate across online message boards—fawned over by everyone from genuine fascists to young men eager for something provocative. And just like his master Guénon, Evola and his works exerted an influence on Steve Bannon and Aleksandr Dugin.

The other great apostle of occultism is Aleister Crowley—the “wickedest man in the world,” the “Great Beast,” the modern world’s first professional troll. Aleister, born Edward Alexander Crowley, was raised as a polite child in the closed and conservative confines of the Plymouth Brethren, a fundamentalist and evangelical sect. From his initial upbringing, where he was terrified of the Rapture leaving him behind, Crowley would grow to embrace a unique form of occult hedonism and single-handedly serve as one of the major wellsprings of contemporary Satanism and neopaganism.

Crowley received his occult education in an organization called the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. The Golden Dawn was a society created by three freemasons who styled themselves Rosicrucians and wanted to practice ceremonial magic. Inspired by Blavatsky’s Theosophy, the founders of the Golden Dawn set about creating what would become the most influential magical society in history. The Golden Dawn blended the mythos of the Rosicrucians with medieval grimoires, Tarot cards, alchemical motifs and Kabbalism into an enduring synthesis. Famous members included W. B. Yeats, Constance Wilde—the wife of Oscar Wilde—Mina Bergson—sister to the French philosopher, Henri Bergson—Annie Horniman, who pioneered the Irish Theater movement, and of course, Aleister Crowley. Two other members, less well-known today, were Arthur Machen and Algernon Blackwood, authors of Gothic and supernatural fiction who would prove influential in the genesis of fantasy literature. 

When the egos that had crafted the Golden Dawn began to collide and the order collapsed in on itself, Crowley was sent into the occult wilderness. During a trip to Egypt, he claimed to have encountered a discarnate spirit named Aiwass and became convinced that he had been chosen by the “gods” to be the herald of a new religion called Thelema—the Greek word for “will.” The maxim of this new religious movement was accordingly: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” Crowley would join and eventually commandeer an occult order from Germany known as the Ordo Templi Orientis—which had a penchant for sexual mysticism—and transform it into the vehicle for his Thelema. 

Unlike many of the middle- and upper-class mystics who made up the occult movement, Crowley revelled in overt displays of transgression, violating every Victorian piety he could get his hands on. He referred to himself as the “Great Beast 666,” wrote garish poems about sex and bestiality, and used bodily fluids in certain of his ceremonies. To Crowley, Christendom and Western normativity were nothing but a bad joke and an arbitrary set of rules, and he set about embodying the “transgressive deviance” that he believed was the only true route to virtue. For Crowley, sex and occultism offered the best path to individual autonomy.  

Gerald Gardner, the founder of Wicca was a student of Crowley, and Anton LaVey, the founder of contemporary Satanism and the Church of Satan, devoured Crowley’s writings. The Beatles put Crowley on the cover of their Sgt. Pepper’s album and Jimmy Page, the founder of Led Zeppelin, was a devoted follower and collector of Crowley memorabilia. David Bowie, Ozzy Osbourne, and Marilyn Manson were all likewise familiar with Crowley and influenced by him to one degree or another. Such is the legacy of the world’s most infamous magician. 

From contemporary attitudes to sex and religion to organic produce and Rock and Roll, it is an open question whether the occult revival really ended. What we can say is that something changed. Beginning in the late nineteenth century, just as Western science, scholarship and imperialism were reaching previously unimaginable heights, just as Darwinism, Marxism, and scientific materialism were emerging as defining trends on the intellectual scene, something burst forth from the waste basket of esotericism and occultism. Nourished on a Romantic yearning for the dreamy harmony of a pre-Christian and pre-modern world, this creature from the deep traveled on the same trains and telegraphs that transported modernity to the far corners of the globe. Everything it touched was changed.

The occult movement—the movement of Blavatsky and Crowley, of Evola and Guénon—reshaped our memories of the past and the horizons upon which we paint our futures. If we may give Blavatsky her due, we can say in Buddhist terms that Blavatsky turned the Wheel of Dharma; she inaugurated a new age. 

As influential as many other occultists have been, Blavatsky was the most important. Her disdain for Christianity and reverence for pagan antiquity; her preference for all things Eastern over Western; her aspirations and superstitions—all of it proved influential on everything from avant-garde artists and Hippies to Nazis and Traditionalists. From the New Age section at Barnes & Noble to your expensive glass of biodynamic wine; to the rise of fascism and contemporary populism; from our religious marketplace to how we paint and play music—all of it has been affected by a cultural turning set in motion by Helena Blavatsky.

As the Western world abandons its historic faith traditions, it isn’t becoming atheist, but agnostic, and it is within the vague milieu of agnosticism that these occult ideas travel. With the intellectual and spiritual coherence offered by religion fading, we may find that people turn to the wastebasket of occultism and its mysterious depths for answers the churches used to provide. Of one thing we can be sure, as the world braces for crises on every front, people will be looking for answers. 

 

Christopher Coome is a postdoctoral fellow at Duke University and the author of The Foundations of Re-Enchantment: Freemasonry, Theosophy, and the Occult Revival.

Source: https://www.compactmag.com/article/how-occultists-remade-the-world/

Encyclical on the Orthodox View of Human Sexuality (2020)

The Holy Eparchial Synod of the Genuine Orthodox Christians in America

 

 

Protocol No 2020−3

Cobleskill, New York

August 19, 2020 (Old Style)

To the Genuine Orthodox Christians in the Lands of the Americas Who are Faithful in Christ Jesus:

Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. [1]

Beloved Christians:

The Church of Christ holds chastity to be among the greatest of virtues. In its purest form as virginity, it emulates the bodiless life of the Angels, while in its lesser form as honorable Christian marriage, it provides a vehicle for families to be created and live in harmony. Now, however, we are living in a time when sins of the flesh are being promoted as never before in history. Traditional Christian chastity has been abandoned, forgotten, and maligned, while being replaced by unrestrained sexual license. This new and completely secular form of morality, commonly called “the Sexual Revolution,” came into its own in the late 1960s and has since gotten progressively worse. The proponents of this revolution have entirely usurped the popular culture of the West, bombarding Christians, especially the youth, with a message of diabolical effect which has unseated the love of Christ from their hearts and separated them from God. Moreover, they have marched through the institutions originally formed to serve the common good, such as schools and the media, abusing the public trust which these institutions still command. The Sexual Revolution has had widespread effects on human behavior. In its wake, we see a landscape devastated by moral confusion, spiritual darkness, mental illness, sexual perversion and bondage, rape, abuse, and broken families and communities.

As a result, many people are confused about God’s will as it pertains to sexuality and family life. In what follows, we shall present a brief list of the key issues relating to these subjects, in order to remind the Orthodox faithful of the truth as revealed by our Lord in Sacred Scripture and as preserved in Holy Tradition, and encourage them to adhere with fervor to the moral teaching of the Church.

On Sexuality and Marriage. Marriage exists for the sake of channeling sexuality toward chastity, childbearing, and family life. Sexual relations presuppose, as precursors, love, sacrificial commitment, and the Church’s Mystery of marriage. Sexual relations, then, outside of marriage are contrary to its purpose as ordained by God, Who is the cause, principle, intelligibility, and end of all things.

On Beauty, Modesty, and Shame. True human beauty is the image of God manifested in virtue. Modesty is a quality of temperance, while shame, being the fear of baseness, preserves the Divine image in each person and protects human dignity.

On Premarital Cohabitation. For a man and a woman to “hook up” temporarily or live informally together without being married constitutes the sin of fornication. Fornication reduces the human capacity for trust and fosters the objectification of others, viewing them not as individuals but solely as instruments for personal sexual gratification. Only a lifelong commitment consecrated in the Mystery of marriage preserves the union of a man and a woman undefiled.

On Divorce and Remarriage. Marriage is intended by God to be an indissoluble bond, and in the Gospel, the Lord mentions only infidelity as a just cause for divorce. If the Church permits divorce in other, extreme situations, this is to be understood not as a norm, but as an expression of economy: of God’s wonted compassionate condescension toward our weakness. As for remarriage, it represents a certain failure to attain the high standard of Christian perfection, which is why the tenor of the service for a second (and by extension a third) marriage is, to a degree, penitential.

On Abortion. Deliberately inducing an abortion is infanticide, since it is at conception that the infant receives his or her individual existence. Abortion is also the ultimate violation of that most sacred and primary of bonds so central to the flourishing of human society: the love that exists between a mother and her child.

On In-Vitro Fertilization. Procreation should occur in the natural way, not in a laboratory separated from human bodies. Apart from the destruction of unwanted zygotes, which constitutes the taking of human life, in-vitro fertilization separates the act of procreation from human love, mutual affection between husband and wife, and the natural locus of conception and gestation. Couples who have difficulty conceiving should accept God’s will and consider whether it is not guiding them to the noble act of adopting a child and giving him or her a good Christian home.

On Birth Control. According to the Holy Fathers, the primary purpose of the sexual act is procreation. Therefore, any attempt to prevent the conception of a child within marital relations represents a falling away from the standard of evangelic perfection proclaimed by Christ. For this reason, the Holy Church cannot encourage the use of birth control, either of the so-called “natural” or “artificial” type. Birth control should especially not be used for the purpose of maintaining a lifestyle characterized by self-indulgence or “conspicuous consumption.”

On Unnatural Acts. Although marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled, [2] sexual activities outside of natural intercourse are blameworthy. This includes sexual acts committed alone.

On Pornography. Our Lord severely reproves the viewing of unclean images when He declares, “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” [3] Pornography is an addiction which floods the heart with spiritual darkness, defiles the mind with images of depravity, creates false expectations, and reduces the soul’s capacity for spousal love.

On Homosexuality. Men and women complement each other in their physiologies and psychologies, and it is only a union between man and woman that rightly begets and nurtures life. To lust after one’s own sex sinfully overturns the whole Divinely-ordained purpose of human sexuality. The Church teaches that same-sex concupiscence is not simply a failure to achieve the lofty Christian standard, but an abrogation of it. It is a passion extrinsic and contrary to nature, and as such must be resisted.

On Same-Sex Marriage. From what has been said above, it is evident that the Church must regard same-sex marriage with the utmost disfavor, since it normalizes sexual perversion and promotes it as being equal to Divinely-ordained Christian marriage.

On Gender Roles and Feminism. The Church defends the true dignity of men and women by remaining faithful to the prophetic teaching: So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them; [4] that is, they are equal spiritually but remain distinct, with separate, interdependent roles. Although the Industrial Revolution and accompanying social developments have created new opportunities for women, women remain biologically and psychologically adapted to be the primary caregivers of children in a family, and it is wrong for them to neglect their marriage or parental responsibilities in the name of their career.

On Transvestitism. Sacred Scripture states that the woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are an abomination unto the Lord thy God. [5] The Church, therefore, remains faithful to Divine Revelation in teaching that men and women are to dress and present themselves in accordance with their sex, lest they disfigure their gender and deface the image of God manifest in them.

On Gender Fluidity and Transgenderism. Sex is providentially assigned by God to each of us for our particular salvation and is not subject to arbitrary whim. Men and women are to act in accordance with traditional standards for their gender. To deny natural gender differentiation and seek radical emancipation from human biology through chemically and surgically mutilating the body is a rebellion against God’s providence shown toward us at our birth. Those who do this harm both their bodies and their souls.

Beloved Christians:

Our Lord has provided for us to live in these trying days so that we might work out our salvation by remaining pure and faithful to Him amid the surrounding dissipation and by bearing witness to His Gospel in word and deed. We shall be judged, however, if we fail both to guard ourselves and to ensure the spiritual well-being of our children by passing down to our posterity the Pearl of Great Price that we received from our Fathers. For this reason, we must become vigilant guardians of our children’s hearts and minds, and active advocates of their moral formation. Orthodox parents should inspire their children to loyalty to our Savior Christ. They should praise virtues such as virginity, chastity, modesty, fatherhood, and motherhood, and take strong measures to shield the eyes of the young from impure and suggestive imagery. These should include restricting access to the Internet, the media, and the products of the entertainment industry. Where possible, they should become vocal defenders of Christian morality in their local schools. Where this is impossible, they should seriously consider opting out of their local system of public education and embracing Christian education in the form of private schooling, homeschooling, or one of the many hybrid forms of education available today.

To those who have been wounded by the Sexual Revolution, to those beguiled by its doctrines, to those who have lived by its misbeliefs, we say: Take heart and arise. The Church of Christ teaches the truth with clarity and conviction, proclaiming the Gospel of repentance and the forgiveness of sins. Through the mystery of repentance, we rise from spiritual death unto newness of life. In this task, sinners have the Church as their advocate rather than their judge; for the Church, acting through the Hierarchs and spiritual Fathers, is always ready to exercise mercy and economy in order to condescend to the sinner and raise up an ailing soul. This, dear Christians, is the spirit of true Christian love. Each of the sins and failings enumerated above violates this spirit of love in one way or another. They disfigure those most sacred bonds which constitute society and are essential to true human flourishing and well-being: the love of a mother for her child, the love of a man for his wife, the love of true friends, the blameless love of self, the love of man for life, and, above all, the love of man for God. Let us cleave therefore to that pure love in Christ, that love which is alien to any perverted sexual passion promoted by the world, for “by this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, that ye have true and undefiled love one toward another.” [6]

Your fervent suppliants before the Lord,

The Holy Eparchial Synod

✠ Metropolitan Demetrius of America, President

✠ Metropolitan Photios of Demetrias

✠ Metropolitan Moses of Toronto

✠ Bishop Auxentios of Etna and Portland

✠ Bishop Christodoulos of Theoupolis

✠ Bishop Maximus of Pelagonia

 

NOTES

1. Ephesians 1:2–4.

2. Hebrews 13:4.

3. St. Matthew 5:28.

4. Genesis 1:27.

5. Deuteronomy 22:5.

6. St. John 13:35.

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXVII (2020), No. 3, pp. 3-8.

Online: https://hotca.org/documents/encyclicals/954-encylical-on-human-sexuality

 

 

Holy Confession: Questions and Answers

The Holy Monastery of Machairas

 

 

BEFORE CONFESSION

What is Confession?

Confession is one of the fundamental Mysteries of the Church. It gives us the opportunity to be “reconciled” with God, to examine our faith and our lives, and to attain spiritual health. It is an act of repentance. And repentance means changing ourselves, turning around, being transformed. When we sin, we distance ourselves from God. But when we repent, confess our sins, and ask for forgiveness, we return to Him.

Confession frees us from the burden of sin. Furthermore, it gives us the opportunity to discuss our deepest concerns, receive advice, and be strengthened spiritually.

How was it instituted? Is it perhaps a recent invention of the clergy?

The Mystery was instituted by Christ Himself. He gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins (John 20:23). The Apostles then passed on this gift to the bishops and presbyters of the Church. Thus, it is perpetuated through canonical ordination.

Is Confession necessary for everyone?

Only someone who is without sin has no need of Confession. Saint John the Theologian writes that whoever considers himself sinless is deluded and far from the truth (1 John 1:8). But even the only sinless One, Christ, received the baptism of repentance from the Forerunner and demonstrated the necessity of the Mystery. For this reason, Confession is an integral part of Orthodox Christian life.

Who can hear Confessions?

As mentioned above, Confession takes place before a spiritual father, that is, a priest who has been specially appointed to this ministry. Of course, we need to contact him so that he can arrange a time and place for us, unless he hears Confessions on regularly scheduled days and at fixed hours, in which case prior arrangements are unnecessary.

But the spiritual father also has sins!

The spiritual father does not forgive our sins through his own holiness or power, but through the grace given to him by God; he merely acts as an intermediary. He also makes sure to confess his own sins to another spiritual father.

DURING CONFESSION

Where does Confession take place?

Confession usually takes place in the church. However, it may also take place in a chapel or another location.

How does it take place?

We sit facing the icons and, at the prompting of the spiritual father, confess our sins. We may also consult the spiritual father about any matter that concerns us. When we have finished our Confession, we kneel, and the spiritual father places his epitrachelion, a symbol of his priestly ministry, over our head and asks God to forgive our sins. Before leaving, we venerate the epitrachelion and kiss the spiritual father's hand.

What should I say during Confession?

In Confession, we examine our feelings, thoughts, words, actions, behavior, habits, values, priorities, goals, direction, and way of life. We do not limit ourselves to our personal spiritual life, but also examine our family relationships, social relationships, work, and even our recreation. This is because our entire life must be illumined by the Holy Spirit. We do this not to condemn ourselves, but to ensure that we remain on the path toward Christ. We can therefore submit matters that concern us to the judgment of our spiritual father, so that we may make decisions and choices that help us progress spiritually, while at the same time avoiding others that could harm our souls.

I haven't killed anyone or stolen anything... What do I have to confess?

When we ask such a question, we reveal that we do not know the teaching of Christ. For Christ teaches us that even sinful thoughts distance us from God. Moreover, we sin not only when we do something evil, but also when we fail to do what is good. After all, who can claim that he truly fulfills the commandment of love, especially toward his enemies?

Is there an easy way to examine myself according to the law of God?

There are the Ten Commandments and their interpretation in the light of the New Testament. However, the most perfect and precise criterion is the commandment of love for God and for our fellow man. According to the words of Christ, all the other commandments are contained in this commandment (cf. Matt. 22:40). We cannot, for example, love God and violate His commandments. Nor is it possible to love others and at the same time commit injustices against them. Indeed, the genuineness of our love for God is revealed by our love for our fellow man (1 John 4:20). Thus, when we are indifferent toward others or mistreat them, we show that we have no love for God. We disregard His commandment to love our fellow man and fail to respect His creations.

I find it difficult to talk about such personal matters. I feel ashamed. What will the spiritual father think?

We should regard the confessional as a doctor's office and the spiritual father as a physician. For us, Confession is a matter of spiritual—and often physical—health. For the spiritual father, however, it is something quite ordinary. He will not be shocked by our sins. He has certainly heard worse. Besides, is it not strange that shame, which is absent when we commit sin, should overwhelm us when we repent?

I am afraid that the spiritual father might reveal my sins.

The spiritual father has a sacred duty to preserve the confidentiality of Confession, which is also recognized by law. If he violates this duty, he is subject to disciplinary action by his Bishop and the Ecclesiastical Courts. As we mentioned earlier, we should regard the spiritual father as a healer. We therefore need to place a corresponding degree of trust in him. For this reason, we choose our spiritual father freely and on our own responsibility, so that he may be a person of faith and virtue who has a good reputation among the faithful. Indeed, the tradition of our Church recommends regular Confession to the same spiritual father and discourages changing spiritual fathers. Moreover, experience has shown that we ourselves are usually responsible for the disclosure of details of our personal lives when we confide in unsuitable people who do not even have the status of a spiritual father.

How should we confess our sins to the spiritual father?

A simple, clear, and brief account is sufficient. Neither details (especially concerning matters of the flesh) nor lengthy introductions or excuses are necessary. If necessary, the spiritual father will ask for more information. What is certainly needed is humility and an awareness of our sins.

What might the spiritual father say to me?

He may explain the seriousness of a sin, offer advice on how to avoid it, or answer a question we have asked him.

AFTER CONFESSION

After the spiritual father's prayer, have all my sins been forgiven? Might I need to confess some of them again?

The spiritual father's prayer grants the remission of all the sins we have confessed. Consequently, any doubt we may have about this indicates a lack of faith in the Mystery and in the power of God. If, however, we omitted something essential concerning a particular sin, we need to clarify it the next time we go to Confession.

What if I forget a sin? What if I conceal one out of shame?

If we have forgotten something, and provided it is not serious, we may mention it at our next Confession. However, if we deliberately omitted a sin, then we should not consider that we have received absolution, and we should not receive Holy Communion, even if we have obtained permission from the spiritual father.

Is Holy Communion necessary after Confession?

Repentance is not limited to the Mystery of Confession. Our “reconciliation” and union with God are not complete without Holy Communion. This is the sacramental union with Christ the God-Man, the culmination of the Mysteries. Confession prepares us for Holy Communion.

May I therefore receive Holy Communion now that I have confessed?

After Confession, we should ask the spiritual father for permission to receive Holy Communion. He will determine the time, frequency, and manner of our preparation (fasting, prayer, forgiveness, and reconciliation with others).

But what is the point of confessing regularly when I know that I will repeat the same sins?

Just as someone suffering from a chronic illness does not cease striving to be cured, so too someone who truly desires spiritual health continually strives to attain it. This is man's spiritual struggle: lifelong repentance. The Mystery of Confession ensures that no sin can separate us from the mercy of God. Only a lack of repentance can condemn us to be eternally deprived of His mercy.

 

Greek source: https://analogion.gr/logos/sp-life/14-confession

Illness and Healing in the Orthodox Tradition and in Contemporary Heresies

Fr. Sotirios O. Athanasoulias

Original Greek source: Ὀρθοδοξία καί αἵρεσις [Orthodoxy and Heresy], Holy Metropolis of Mantineia and Kynouria, Issue 85, October–December 2013.

 

 

Human Suffering as an Object of Exploitation

A phenomenon that is assuming enormous proportions in our time with each passing day is the activity of individuals and groups who claim to cure every illness and to be able to eliminate human suffering. An uncontrolled and virtually limitless industry of “alternative” or “holistic” medicine is spreading rapidly throughout the world, promising easy and quick solutions and enjoying the support of the mass media, publishers, newspaper and magazine columnists, and others. As we all know, medical science is responsible for the treatment of diseases. However, despite the fact that this science has made enormous advances in its field, saving millions of human lives every day, its methods are now being challenged by certain groups. For example, groups and individuals associated with occultism and the New Age claim that conventional medicine has failed to heal the human person as a whole. They maintain that it focuses on the disease rather than on the patient himself, administering “poisons” (medications) that ultimately destroy him. The more hospitals, pharmaceutical factories, medications, and doctors increase in number, the more diseases and patients multiply, these groups observe (cf. F. Chalas, Occultism – Theosophy, 1977, p. 60). They put forward various theories concerning the origins and treatment of disease, which they consider far more effective than those of conventional medicine. In other circles, Protestant “healers,” who claim to possess the “gift” of healing, organize performances featuring spectacular “cures” of patients before crowds of their followers. Finally, certain individuals, presenting themselves as supposed scientists or researchers, claim to have discovered the key to healing or a method that eliminates all diseases (which, strangely enough, none of their fellow scientists accepts!). As a result, they create an aura of sensationalism around themselves and mislead others.

These phenomena are multiplying precisely because they are based on the exploitation of human suffering. People afflicted by severe and incurable diseases, desperate and disappointed by other avenues of treatment, seek somewhere to turn, with the result that they become victims of exploitation and certain unscrupulous individuals enrich themselves at their expense, without providing the desired result: a cure! The situation becomes particularly dangerous when patients with serious health problems are persuaded to discontinue conventional medical treatment (e.g., medications essential for maintaining their health) in order to follow the advice of such fraudulent or charlatan “healers.” As might be expected, many of these cases result in death much sooner than would otherwise have occurred! In this regard, the State bears an enormous responsibility, since it is obliged, also by constitutional mandate, to protect health as a legally protected good.

In previous issues of our publication (Nos. 5, 76, 77), we had dealt in detail with one of the “Unorthodox Therapeutic Methods,” as they are characterized by the Athens Medical Association, namely Homeopathy. However, the rapid spread of these methods compels us to return to the subject. For the same reasons, this year’s “Pan-Orthodox Conference of Representatives of Orthodox Churches and Holy Metropolises on Matters of Heresies and Para-Religion,” organized annually by the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece (Volos, November 2013), had as its theme “The Problem of Illness: Heretical and Occultist Approaches,” and issued a very interesting set of Conclusions. In what follows, we shall examine the phenomenon of “healing” (a) within the sphere of Christian heresies and (b) within the sphere of occultism and groups belonging to the New Age movement. Finally, we shall see how the Orthodox Christian Tradition views this subject.

Protestant “Healers”

Among the Christian heresies of the broader Protestant world, evangelists began appearing in America and Europe after the Second World War who organized public gatherings attended by large crowds of believers and proclaimed that they could cure all diseases. The best known among them are William Branham, Oral Roberts, T. L. Osborn, Reinhard Bonnke, and others. Their common characteristic is what is known as “power evangelism,” that is, preaching accompanied by “signs” (supposed miracles) and especially by “healings.” T. L. Osborn, for example, in his book entitled Healing from Christ, claims to have healed hundreds of thousands of sick people suffering from “every kind of disease imaginable” and to have accomplished “even the resurrection of the dead” (Ant. Alevizopoulos, Handbook of Heresies and Para-Christian Groups, 1994, p. 334).

Among these “healers” and their groups, illness is always viewed negatively. Every illness is considered a fruit of sin and is believed to originate exclusively from the devil. The children of God do not fall ill. But even if they do fall ill because of their personal sins, they are healed through faith. Those who do not believe or who do not have sufficient faith are not healed. In many cases, this presupposes the conception of a harsh and punitive God, who punishes sinners with illnesses or abandons them into the hands of the devil. The true Christian never falls ill, because Christ took upon Himself our illnesses vicariously. God does not desire illness, pain, or afflictions of any kind.

Of course, many of the above phenomena of “healing” are simply cases of fraud, which is why groups of Protestant “healers” often accuse one another of deceiving their followers through supposed healings of people pretending to be ill. Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that some of these “healings” are works or deceptions of the devil. In most cases, of course, no healing takes place, and then suffering and disappointed people are driven to even greater despair, since they are also held responsible for the failure of the healing: “Your faith is weak. God does not want you to be healed, and that is why you have not recovered!”

In any case, the aforementioned “healers” overlook the fact that the Apostle Paul himself suffered from an infirmity, without this meaning that he ceased to be a “child of God” and became a “child of the devil”! Indeed, he himself wrote: “I will glory in mine infirmities,” “for my strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:7–10)!

The “Holistic Therapies” of the New Age

The approach to illness and its treatment within the spheres of occultism and the New Age is entirely different. In essence, these are closely related spheres, since New Age groups draw their beliefs and practices from occultism (Magic, Alchemy, Astrology, Theosophy, etc.), just as they also draw from Eastern religions (Hinduism and Buddhism). These spheres presuppose conceptions of God, man, and the world that are entirely different from and incompatible with their Christian counterparts. Consequently, their therapeutic methods, the so-called “alternative” or “holistic therapies” (Homeopathy, Acupuncture, Reflexology, Reiki, Ayurveda, Iridology, Aromatherapy, Crystal Healing, Bioenergetic Therapies, Esoteric Healing, Shiatsu, pseudoscientific psychotherapies, and others), are founded upon a worldview that is opposed to and incompatible with the Orthodox faith. In essence, they constitute the application, in the field of health, of the conceptions of God, man, and the world found in Eastern religions, and together they constitute “New Age Medicine.” Through these methods, unsuspecting Orthodox Christians come into contact with Occultism and end up worshipping idols and deities of ancient pre-Christian civilizations.

According to the teachings of these groups, God is identified with Nature or with the Universe. Everything is God, everything is One (a holistic view of all things), and everything is Energy. This Energy is known by various names among these groups, such as “Universal Energy,” “Superconsciousness,” “Vital Energy,” “Prana,” “Chi,” “Aura,” and others. Health or illness depends on whether or not this Energy flows properly within the human person. “Man draws his energy reserves from the Universe, which is a sea of energies … The Universe, in other words, is the electrical outlet, while the human nervous system is the cable that supplies him with energy. If at some point the energy balance within man is disturbed … disorders arise” (Chr. Tsiakkas, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religions and Heresies, 2002, pp. 389–390). Healing is identified precisely with the restoration of the normal flow of this Energy within the human person, that is, with its release from blockages (“unblocking”). The various groups in this sphere propose different methods of “unblocking” this Energy. Thus, Homeopathy proposes the potentized homeopathic remedy, while Acupuncture proposes the insertion of needles at appropriate points along what its practitioners regard as the “energy channels” of the human body. Other “therapies,” such as Reiki, propose “unblocking” through “the laying on of hands by a person of a high spiritual level, … who is in reality a channel of universal energies,” and so forth. Here we can clearly discern the role of the “healer” or “physician” in the so-called “alternative therapies.” He usually heals not with medications or medical equipment, but solely with his hands. His role resembles that of a magician or miracle worker, and he is considered a person possessing “charismatic abilities.” He is believed to be able to manipulate cosmic forces and transmit them to others for their healing!

It is evident that these beliefs are based on pre-scientific mythical notions and unproven principles, which, as a rule, are drawn from the realm of fantasy. They are not consistent with modern scientific developments and methods, and for this reason they are characterized as pseudosciences by official Greek and international medical organizations and associations. Nevertheless, for their followers, they constitute the “greatest secret of medicine,” which modern conventional medicine knows nothing about and which was revealed to the world by the hierarchy of the “Great White Brotherhood” through individuals such as Helena Blavatsky (1831–1891), the founder of Theosophy. The methods that possess this secret are called “holistic” because they do not treat merely a single illness, but the human person in his entirety, the human person as a “whole.” The “healing” offered is not limited to diseases of the body, but extends also to the passions of the soul. It delivers man from every vice: ignorance, fear, hatred, anger, pride, envy, and so forth. It is evident that the so-called “alternative therapies” do not merely propose a method of treatment, but a system of salvation, or, more precisely, a system of self-salvation, through which a person acquires divine attributes and himself becomes “God.” They claim that every person can acquire the occult secret of medicine and heal himself by discovering his “God-Self” and activating the occult powers supposedly hidden within him. In other cases, everyone is called upon to identify himself with “Nature” and the “Laws of Nature,” which contain omnipotence within themselves and can help him to heal himself or acquire divine attributes. He is called upon “to unite his soul with the Intelligible Realities, or with the Soul of the Universe or of Nature, whereupon that man, becoming a theurgist, acts in an exemplary manner like Nature, which produces all things” (F. Chalas, op. cit., p. 7). According to the occultists of the New Age, it was precisely by this method that Jesus Christ performed healings, and it is by the same method that the Saints of the Church perform healings. However, the Byzantines have removed the occult elements from their Lives, and these no longer exude the fragrance of Occultism!

However, if the above is true, the question remains unanswered: Why did those who discovered this “greatest secret of medicine,” “the elixir of life or the secret of immortality” (ibid., p. 7), ultimately fall ill and die themselves?

Illness and Healing in the Orthodox Tradition

It is a fact that both the “holistic therapies” of the New Age and the preaching of Protestant “healers” contain elements of truth. The notion that the human person should be healed in his entirety is, generally speaking, correct. “And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it,” observes the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 12:26), while it is well known that Christ, when performing miracles, also sought the healing of the soul: “Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more” (John 5:14).

The gift of healing, which Protestant “healers” claim to possess, is known in Holy Scripture and the Orthodox Tradition. However, the framework within which healing is understood is entirely foreign to Christianity in the first case, and erroneous (heretical) in the second.

According to the Orthodox Tradition, God is not an impersonal energy identified with the universe, but a Person, or, more precisely, three Persons, Who are entirely transcendent to the world in respect of Their essence and “present everywhere” in the world through Their energy, which sustains all things in existence and life. The world is God's creation out of nothing, as is man. Man is superior to the world, as the “king of creation,” and has no need to identify himself with the world or with the “laws of the universe” in order to evolve or be healed.

It is a fact that God created man healthy and does not desire illness, nor is He Himself its source or cause. The ultimate cause of our illnesses is sin. When the first man disobeyed God's commandment and sinned in Paradise, the gates were thrown wide open for death to enter human life, along with the forerunners of death, namely illnesses. From that time onward, “human nature became thoroughly diseased,” according to the characteristic expression of Saint Cyril of Alexandria. However, the fact that the presence of illness in human life generally is due to sin does not mean that its occurrence in every case is attributable exclusively to the personal sins of the sufferer, as certain Protestant “healers” claim. If that were so, the Saints would not fall ill. Yet, in most cases, the opposite is true. Of course, in many cases illnesses are due to personal sins: “Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” the Disciples ask the Lord before the healing of the man born blind (John 9:2), receiving the answer: “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him” (John 9:3). Thus, there are illnesses that are due to our personal sins and illnesses that occur so that the glory of God may be manifested. There are also, however, illnesses caused by the devil, as in the case of the woman bent over in the Gospel, whom he had kept bound for eighteen years (Luke 13:11–16). If the devil can cause illnesses, he can also free people from those illnesses that he himself has caused, and such an occurrence is usually perceived as a healing or a miracle.

For our salvation and for the life of the world, the Son of God came into the world and became man. Among other things, He came to undo the consequences of the fall of man, which include illnesses. Indeed, Christ is the only true Healer, the “Physician of our souls and bodies,” the only One Who can eliminate every illness. Of course, the complete abolition of death and our illnesses will take place at the End Times, after His Second Coming. Nevertheless, the Incarnation and Christ’s victory over death transformed pain and illness into a “place” and a “means” of our salvation. This means that although God does not positively will (“according to His good pleasure”) illnesses, He often permits them (“by condescension”) when some greater benefit is to result from them.

For the relief of the afflictions caused by illness, Christ, even before His Incarnation, had given man medical science and physicians. Holy Scripture clearly testifies that both medical science and the physician are gifts of God to man: “He hath given men skill” (Wisdom of Sirach 38:6), “Honour a physician ... for the Lord hath created him” (38:1), and “The Lord hath created medicines out of the earth” (38:4). The above means that, ultimately, healing through a physician is healing through Christ! Nevertheless, Christ has not entrusted the entire responsibility for healing to medical scientists. He retains the right either to intervene Himself and heal whenever and wherever He wills, or to heal through the gift of healing, which He bestows upon His Saints. Thus, alongside medical treatments, genuine miracles and genuine miraculous healings also exist and take place. There are, however, also perverse imitations of genuine miracles, false healings, frauds, or deceptions of the devil, such as the “healings” found within the broader sphere of Protestantism.

On the basis of the above, when an Orthodox believer falls ill, he ought first to turn to Jesus Christ, the “Physician of our souls and bodies,” that is, to place his healing within the context of his relationship with God. At the same time, he ought to seek the assistance of appropriately qualified physicians and, in any case, must avoid by every means the so-called “alternative” or “holistic therapies” of the New Age.

The Metaphysics of Temptation in Eastern Orthodox Monasticism

Ilias Bantekas

 

I. INTRODUCTION

The object of this treatise is to set out the teachings and monastic tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church regarding the nature of temptations and the remedies available to combat them. In order to do so we examine the origin of temptations as mental representations, the role of demons as the senders of temptations, the mechanisms whereby their addressees, namely human souls, receive the mental representations and thereafter inflame the irascible and concupiscible faculties of the soul and produce an impulse. Moreover, we observe the nature of the warfare between the demons and human beings and the role of God in allowing us to be afflicted by demons and their temptations. We also examine in what way God himself tempts us and what is the purpose of such intervention. Finally, we examine the remedies proposed by the most experienced monks, as these have come down through oral and written tradition, classifying such remedies into those appropriate for all monks irrespective of experience (universal) and those reserved only for the most experienced brethren. It should be noted from the outset that the premise of the sources used in this thesis have as their primary audience monastic communities and not secular people. Thus, although it is possible for people from all walks of life to understand and follow the prescripts outlined here – at least to some degree, as far as people living in the world are concerned - the context and the audience are specific in the minds of their authors.

II. LOGISMOI OR MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS

The Orthodox tradition believes that passions and bad thoughts or suggestions are stored in our heart, and it is from there that they afflict our body and intellect. Mat. 15:19 claims that “for out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander”. How is this to be explained in practical and experiential terms? Temptations and logismoi are synonymous terms, at least in their effect. The latter signify a suggestion or mental representation whose origin lies outside the heart, and which according to the disposition and content of the suggestion this may be a good or bad one. In this essay we are concerned with bad logismoi, which are always bad suggestions, in the sense that they bring turbulence to where should otherwise reign internal peace and they urge the mind towards vice.

Monastic tradition explains that temptations as logismoi correlate to the three faculties of the soul, that is the rational, the concupiscible (appetitive) and the irascible (thumikon) and thus three types of logismoi are borne: From the rational originate the logismoi of faithlessness towards God, non-discernment and all those typically described as blasphemous.[1] From the concupiscible faculty are borne the logismoi of hedonism, ambition, love for money and all those generally called filthy logismoi.[2] From the irascible faculty are derived the logismoi of murder, revenge, hate, upheaval and all those known as wicked.[3] As we shall observe in proceeding sections, St. Nicodemus puts forward the notion that one should fight such logismoi by nurturing their opposite virtues. Evagrius Ponticus is best known for his thorough examination and categorisation of thoughts and temptation in his works On Thoughts and the Praktikos (abbreviated Greek version of The Monk: A Treatise on the Practical Life). The three principal evil thoughts are gluttony, vainglory and avarice. These give rise to the other five, namely, lust, despondency, pride, dejection and anger.[4] He teaches that each of these vices has its associated demon and that they are all linked to the principal three as follows: gluttony is the gateway to lustful thoughts and leads the unwary ascetic to fornication through the disturbance of the soul’s concupiscible faculty. Avarice culminates in a fight over food, possessions, or human esteem and disturbs the irascible part of the soul. Finally, privation of any of these leads to despondency and failure to destroy avarice leads to pride.[5] 

In attempting to find an answer as to the origin of these mental representations, the apologists, chiefly Origen, and the early Church Fathers, turned to the sixth petition in the Lord’s prayer, i.e., “lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil”. Origen, a master of allegory, did not sanction a literal interpretation, since in his view temptations are a necessary part of our human condition. The consequence of this exegesis is that the petition concerns our efforts against succumbing to temptations and not that they should cease altogether.[6] For Gregory of Nyssa, temptations are inevitable in worldly life since the world lies in the Evil one. The Evil is known by many names, in accordance with its numerous evil manifestations. In this sense, he describes logismoi as attacks by Evil in the form of worldly allurements.[7] Gregory’s perception of temptation is therefore no different from Origen, but whereas the latter views temptation as a transitory stage in our earthly struggle, Gregory suggests without hesitation that the cure lies in asceticism.[8] Neither of these definitions, however, explain why temptations persist in the ascetic struggle – and to a far higher degree than in worldly life – as well as why God allows Evil to provoke our soul and with almost certainty lead us to succumb to sin. Finally, to Macarius of Egypt, the spiritual inheritance of the Fall is indwelling sin, “the evil inheritance of the passions”.[9] 

To Orthodox ascetics the Evil one is both a corporeal and non-corporeal entity. It is chiefly against him that their entire worldly (that is, both corporeal and mental) struggle is concentrated. His only goal is to obstruct our vision of God’s ineffable light and glory by keeping us in our current darkness through an endless chain of worldly allurements. This concept, however, contains a number of theological contradictions. For one thing, God is the primary cause of all existence and therefore of Evil. Secondly, God alone is Goodness, Love and Justness, hence it is not possible that He may wish our imprisonment to Satan. The only rational conclusion is thus that God permits Evil to inflict tempting logismoi to humanity so that we may arrive to a humble knowledge of ourselves and of our weakness and receive His grace.[10] Equally, because of our natural will, which is shaped on the basis of God’s indivisible qualities, it is not futile for us to expect to defeat temptations if we put aside our gnomic will[11] and live a life in Christ. Satan, or the Evil One, comes to us either as a corporeal entity and inflicts actual bodily pain and sufferings (this is rare, however),[12] but he primarily imparts suggestions or logismoi which find their way to our mind and heart and in turn stir up various passions. The former – that is, the corporeal presence of Satan - is beyond the scope of temptations as such, so we shall confine our analysis only to the latter. Temptations, therefore, are personified and evoked by the demons. Evagrius differentiates between two classes of demons and their corresponding vices. The first tempt the human person as a human being, while the second as an irrational animal. The first instil in us mental representations of vainglory and pride – to which irrational beings are insusceptible – while the second class move our irascibility and concupiscibility contrary to nature.[13] 

St. Athanasius describes the logismoi inflicting St. Anthony in the desert, and emanating from Satan, as being of two kinds: those that exist only in the form of filthy thoughts and those that are generated through the impersonation by Satan of enticing objects or living entities, such as women, glory and gold.[14] The latter kind does not constitute a suggestion per se, but much like a suggestion it arouses and kindles the passions of the heart through the medium of sight. Satan’s temptation is therefore both a logismos, or suggestion that is not transmitted via the five senses, as well as a conception that is mediated through one of the five senses. This necessarily means that neither the logismos, nor the sense perception, are in themselves powerful enough to provoke deviation from Christ. Rather, they are part of the chain of causes that lead to sin in the following sequence: logismos --> flaring of passion --> action upon the passion. This explanation is helpful in understanding in later sections why Orthodox ascetics claim that our struggle is viable only at the stage of fighting logismoi, whereas the next stage wherein the logismoi have kindled the passions is extremely difficult to be overcome, much like a dam whose protective wall has given way to the surging water.

Since Satan tempts us to the end, thus our life is a constant fight with him.[15] In fact, Satan, who is the source of evil, made that most evil suggestion to our first parents.[16] St. Paul succinctly describes the purpose of our earthly struggle as being “not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places”.[17] Orthodox tradition believes that Satan’s grandest success is convincing us of his non-existence. According to St. Nicodemus, Satan – who is in fact more than one entity – dwells around the heart by virtue of his energy and not by essence. Before baptism, grace moves man to good deeds from outside, while Satan dwells inside the heart. Following baptism, however, God allows Satan to wonder in the periphery of the heart in order to test our will. It is there that the Evil one tries to “smoke out the mind with lust for the flesh”. That is why, argues St. Nicodemus, the fathers vehemently stress that Satan does not want people knowing where he dwells, so that they will not fight him.[18] Satan struggles against us in six ways: up, down, right left, front and back. Up, corresponds to our struggles towards virtue; below, our omissions through negligence which we suffer in order to attain this virtue; the right represents the demons fooling us with a good cause in order to turn us towards evil; left denotes that although evil is staring us in the eye, they urge us to sin; front is when the demons fight us with logismoi and images of things which are to follow; behind, finally, their fight against us with memories and prejudices of things past.[19] 

We have seen in what way God allows Satan to attack us with logismoi or perceptible objects, but it is equally true that God himself inflicts temptations upon us for much the same reason. God’s temptations, however, are an emanation of what God is, Love, and this is the way in which they come to us. Satan’s afflictions are not caused by love but are ultimately sanctified by God for our benefit. Thus, St. John of Damascus, interprets Mark 5:13 – Christ giving permission to the demons to enter the swines – as God permitting:

… even the just man to meet with misfortunes so that the virtue hidden in him may be made known to others, as in the case of Job. At other times, He permits something iniquitous to be done so that through this apparently iniquitous action some great and excellent thing may be brought about, as was the salvation of men by the Cross. In still another way, He permits the devout man to suffer evil either so that he may not fall into the presumption from the strength and grace that have been given him, as in the case of Paul. Someone may be abandoned for a while for the correction of others so that by observing his state they may be instructed. … God provides for all creation, and through all creation He does good and instructs, oftentimes using even the demons themselves for this purpose, as in the case of Job and in that of the swine.[20] 

It is evident, therefore, that God himself tempts us with logismoi and perceptible images for our benefit.[21] Temptations, whether as logismoi, or perceptible images or situations, are numerous in kind, ranging from lustful thoughts to calamities such as death of familial persons and sicknesses. As we shall see in the section on remedies, self-control over the three principal vices/temptations, coupled with ascetic/bodily and spiritual exercises helps to avoid any adverse turbulence in the spirit and does not kindle the passions contrary to nature. It is not clear from the relevant literature whether the early church fathers and later ascetics considered that Satan has the power to inflict the whole range of perceptible images – including death and sickness - or rather, whether God’s Providence allows him to do so. The question is all the more relevant in light of the fathers’ admission that Satan at times assumes a corporeal existence in order to physically harm those ascetics that have erected an impregnable wall to his logismoi. The answer must necessarily be an affirmative one, since even individuals can harm each other. We must, however, qualify Satan’s power over man and predicate it always on God’s loving providence.

Finally, in some writings a third origin of temptation is cited; other people and our sinful nature.[22] It is doubtful, however, that we are able to produce temptations for ourselves, as this would negate the rationale for the temptation itself. Instead, when one says that through our sins we tempt ourselves, the correct interpretation must be that we employ gnomic will vis-à-vis our temptations. As regards temptations emanating from and directed towards other human beings, these constitute a third type to the extent that they are not provoked by God or Satan. It is irrational to consider that even these do not have a place within God’s Providence, although they are subject to the free will of the tempter.

III STIRRING OF PASSIONS AS A RESULT OF TEMPTATIONS

Christ’s temptation in the garden of Gesthemane constitutes the archetypal temptation of human existence. The temptation in that case was impending death by crucifixion and the fear produced as a result. However, Christ does not allow his gnomic will to overpower his natural will and thus prevents through free will the penetration of temptation into the heart where it inflames the passions which eventually lead to sin.

St. John Damascus eloquently explains the domino effect that results in the arousal of passion.

Passion is a movement of the appetitive faculty which is felt as a result of a sensory impression of good or evil. It may also be defined in another way: passion is an irrational movement of the soul to an impression of good or evil. Thus, the impression of good arouses the desire, whereas that of evil arouses the anger. Passion in the general or common sense is defined thus: passion is a movement in one thing caused by another.[23] 

Passion is indeed a reaction to an external event. However, even where the external event (logismos) is not prevented from entering the soul’s faculties, we, unlike brute irrational animals, are equipped with an internal mechanism – through our cognitive and vital faculties - by which to dissipate it before giving rise to uncontrolled impulses. In brute animals, when an appetite for something arises it is immediately followed by an appetite to act because their appetite is irrational and they lack a natural will. Our soul, on the other hand, possesses natural will and as a result any external suggestion giving rise to an appetite goes through a successive process of deliberation, followed by judgment, then by opinion, finally culminating in choice or selection. It is then that one moves to act, and this is called impulse.[24] It is evident that the natural will of the soul sets in motion its cognitive faculties in order to prevent the logismos from succumbing to gnome. It follows that they who do not employ, or who have blunted, their cognitive faculties will inevitably give in to gnomic impulses. The danger in this case is, as St. Gregory of Nyssa points out, that succumbing to one passion gives rise to all passions, since human weaknesses are linked together and related to each other and if one of them destroys the protective barrier of our rational faculty, the whole train of passions enters the soul.[25] 

While the terminology employed by the early and later fathers, as well as by more contemporary ascetics, is not consistent, they are generally agreed that the phase of passion encompasses the moment where the logismos enters the soul until such time as it is refined into an impulse against or in favour of evil. Evagrius is rather more specific on the matter. He distinguishes in man a concupiscible (desire) and an irascible (incensive) power, both given to him by God and constituting an integral part of his nature. The irascible faculty is intended to drive away wolf-like intellections, while the desire serves to lovingly tend the sheep and produce feelings of compassion and love.[26] While it is evident that these two faculties are designed to serve a spiritual purpose, Evagrius calls them passions to the extent that they are unchecked and uncontrolled, the misuse of which can lead to exactly the opposite effect for which they were given to us (e.g. the incensive turns to wrath and the desiring turns to lust). The passion is a potentially flammable material, but it is ignited only by logismoi and other external images and free will against its true nature. Therefore, it is not the logismos or temptation that is itself the vainglory injected in the soul, but the unchecked logismos inflames the vice of vainglory in the irascible part of the soul. In this sense, we can defend ourselves from logismoi and temptations, but we cannot obliterate the underlying passions that lie scattered around the heart because they are part of our nature.[27] Obviously, for the untrained soul, the passing of the temptation into the rational faculties will almost certainly lead to a sinful impulse, but it is not impossible for a strong gnomic will to be defeated at that stage. However, it is for this reason that the trained ascetics warn us against entertaining bad logismoi, even where we perceive ourselves to be spiritually strong.[28] We become unsusceptible to passion when our vision is guided solely by our natural will. In this way, “our souls are moved by intelligent energies in the direction of the things of the intellect [and it is then that] our senses and all that go with them are no longer needed”.[29] 

IV. THE NATURE OF THE “ENEMY’S” STRUGGLE AGAINST US

We have already noted that Satan’s greatest victory is his hiding and thus our false certainty of his non-existence. It is well understood that Evil, or Satan and all his manifestations are not self-subsistent. Pseudo-Dennys, for example, delves into an examination of evil in order to demonstrate the superabundance of Good and the Goodness of Being in God. He explains that since God is Good and the cause of being, every created being is necessarily good as stemming from his nature. Evil has therefore originated from Good and is potentially good, being a weakness and deficiency of the good.[30] Assuming that we have knowledge of, or faith in the Evil’s existence, of what help is this to us if we cannot discern where he is and what he is doing to divert our attention to evil rather than Good. Evil fights us with bad logismoi alone, as it is unable to penetrate our hearts or take command itself of our soul. Since evil is itself a creature of God in the same way as we are, and since the substance and energy of souls is the creation of God alone, no creature can create a new soul or destroy an existing one. All that is permitted by our Creator is the blurring of the vision of the soul’s natural will. Satan, therefore, does not have any power upon us, unless we accept his suggestions and allow them to obfuscate our natural will.

In this internal struggle, therefore, St. Nicodemus admonishes the young monks to be fearful of themselves, as well as of their countless enemies, to which, he adds, they are powerless of offering even the slightest resistance. He further admonishes fear of the enemy’s habit of constant fighting, his stratagems and transformations into angels of light,[31] as well as his numerous traps.[32] A monk’s vigilance – as well as any person who wants to avert Satan from molesting one’s soul – is never-ending; it is constant until the very last breath of one’s life. The monk is aware, more than anyone else, that our only chance against the onslaughts of Satan, whose only weapon is constituted by logismoi or external representations (that excite our sensory faculties and give rise to logismoi), is to block logismoi from penetrating our mind. We will examine in other sections how this may be achieved through constant prayer, chanting, fasting and other means. It is exactly this aspect of our struggle that is emphasised in Scripture in unequivocal terms: “Give heed to thyself, lest perhaps a wicked thought steal in upon thee”.[33] St. Basil explains that men are very easily prone to sins of thought because the movement of the mind does not require any physical exertion and may even be accomplished in a state of weariness. The mind must, therefore, exercise precaution constantly in prohibiting any unchecked thoughts, imaginings or sensual images to infiltrate the soul.[34] He explains the precise meaning of the command “give heed to thyself” in terms of our spiritual struggle as meaning:

Keep the eye of your soul sleeplessly on guard, for “Thou art going in the midst of snares”.[35] Traps set by the enemy lie concealed everywhere. Look about you in all directions, therefore, “that you may be saved as a swallow from the traps and as a bird from the snare”.[36] The deer cannot be caught with traps because of the keenness of his vision; whence its name, deriving from its own sharpsightedness. A bird, if alert, easily flies out of the range of the huntsman’s snare. See to it, then, that you are not more remiss than the animals in protecting yourself. Never let yourself be caught in the snares of the Devil and so become his prey, the captured plaything of his will.[37] 

Evil does not present the same temptations or external images to all people. It does so according to each person’s inclinations toward sin and the intensity varies in accordance with each individual’s personal struggle. For those who are strong in the spiritual life, the Devil seeks to win their mind with theological and philosophical intrigues. Thus, he provides those with an acute mind and those that are prone to a high opinion of their intellect, pseudo-lofty ideas and philosophical enquiries.[38] This pride that comes with boasting in human wisdom that was severely criticised by Paul in 1 Cor. 1:18-31 is an example of allowing the logismos of pride in the minds of those claiming to possess worldly wisdom. To those who are prone to entertaining lustful thoughts the Devil showers them with external images and logismoi that flare their passions. People that have not exercised heed in themselves, or who postpone advent towards a spiritual life, cannot perceive that such logismoi are unnatural and that they have a particular origin, target and purpose. Each of these persons allows the logismos to penetrate the mind and from there to flare the passion until it becomes an inescapable impulse, being wholly unaware of the overall scheme.

However, even they who are aware of this overall scheme, particularly monks and pious individuals, find the devil’s snares no less difficult to combat against. The harder they resist, the more Evil intensifies its efforts through luring temptations. St. Nicodemus warns that when Evil knows that we are resisting hard against temptations and we actually seem to be victorious, Evil takes all temptations away from us so that we may fall into pride and vainglory. Thus, when we have committed ourselves to a struggle against Satan, and the latter removes all temptations from our existence, we should make a mental effort to bring to our mind those temptations that afflict us the most and proceed to fight them as though they were real and hate them from within our hearts.[39] This idea that we should fight the devil in the attacking sense, rather than wait for him to tempt us in order that we may then resist, is central to St. Nicodemus’s ascetic theology for those individuals that have advanced in their spiritual ascent. This is in accord with the theological literature we have examined thus far, which suggests that our struggle against Satan in our worldly life does not end. The consequence of this observation is that absent God’s grace, we have no absolute mastery over our soul and body in this life. St. Nicodemus grounds his rationale regarding an attacking stance towards Satan not only in monastic tradition and experiential asceticism, but also in Scripture, particularly Psalm 18:37-38, which reads: “I pursued my enemies and overtook them and did not turn my back until they were consumed. I struck them down so that they were not able to rise; they fell under my feet”. He explains that when we are improving in the virtues, Satan transforms himself into goodness so that we may follow him to a certain height, only to drop us suddenly and thus cause us worldly grief and alienation from God.[40] 

It is not clear from the theological literature why it is that Satan wants to tempt us and lure us away from God. St. John Climacus teaches that demons afflict us either because we are sensual, proud, or out of sheer envy. The last of these is a ground for rejoicing, the middle for pity, whereas the first leads to a prospect of lifelong failure.[41] St. Nicodemus briefly states that peace is a state of tranquillity achieved through grace and struggle, which Satan wants to disturb and destroy.[42] This still fails to explain why. We have already explained that Satan is a creature of God and therefore good by nature, but obfuscated by gnome, and thus lacking natural will. Despite being a creature like us, he possesses powers which we have not realised yet, failing ourselves to employ our natural will. One may venture to conjecture that our temptations originate in Satan (and God for educational purposes), but Satan is not subject to temptations by God because he remembers his union with Him and does not feel any loss in being apart from Him. Therefore, the educational purpose of temptations granted us by God would have no effect on Satan. We can only conclude that the purpose of temptations originating from Satan is adherence to gnomic will. This, moreover, demonstrates the extent of our free will as a present from our Creator, since God will not force even Satan to return to Him, who has seen and remembers His glory. In the next section we shall examine the origination of logismoi and other temptations from God Himself.

V. TEMPTATIONS INFLICTED DIRECTLY BY GOD AND THEIR ULTIMATE PURPOSE

God as Goodness naturally wills that the whole of humanity be saved. Nonetheless, the Creator’s Providence is responsible in that respect only with regard to those things that do not depend on us; to those that do, we are responsible through the exercise of our free will.[43] God’s providential scheme is therefore focused around our salvation and this is his particular justice. Since this informs His nature it is beyond our comprehension, since we cannot know his nature, as the creature cannot know its Creator. For the church fathers and ascetics all that happens to us and which is beyond our control belongs to the realm of God’s justice. At times it appears as a disparaging calamity, as in the case of death and sickness, while in others it is revealed in the powerlessness of the individual in the face of adversities, vanity and lack of self-control. To the one of little faith, all these instances demonstrate either the lack of God, or the existence of a cruel God, but to the one who believes strongly in God’s providence and Goodness, he accepts it as part of God’s justice that is intended to train us in ascending to Him. St. John Damascus thus explains that:

Some of the things that are due to providence are by approval, whereas others are by permission. All those that are undeniably good are by approval, whereas all those that are by permission [there are many kinds]. Thus, He often permits even the just man to meet with misfortunes so that the virtue hidden in him may be made known to others. At other times, He permits something iniquitous to be done so that through this apparently iniquitous action some great and excellent thing may be brought about, as was the salvation of men by the Cross. In still another way, He permits the devout man to suffer evil either so that he may not depart from his right conscience or so that he may not fall into presumption from the strength and grace that have been given him, as in the case of Paul.[44] 

Thus, where God inflicts certain conditions upon us, or permits Satan to infiltrate our mind with logismoi,[45] His purpose is soteriological. A death in the family, a sudden sickness, etc, involve a radical reappraisal of one’s life and stance towards the will of God and it is subsequently a question of which logismos the inflicted person will retain; the good one, which has faith in God’s justice and gives thanks to Him despite the misfortune and the pain it is causing, or the bad one, which blinded by pain does not believe in the existence of God. God allows for all these misfortunes so that we may come to a humble knowledge of ourselves and of our weaknesses.[46] Rational thinking suggests that as long as evil persists during our lifetime, temptations emanating from that source will not cease and neither will those derived from God himself. We are therefore destined to live in a perpetual state of temptations while in the flesh. Equally, any attempt to obliterate temptations altogether is futile, since even if we could overpower Satan who is a creature like us, we cannot overpower that which pertains to the substance of God (i.e., the providential origin of temptations). Temptation is therefore ultimately providential and not the result of evil. It is to be welcomed, but fought. This oxymoron is obvious primarily in the Lord’s Prayer, particularly the part where we ask that we not be led into temptation, while at the same time asking that God’s will be done. If God’s will within His scheme of providential justice involves our affliction with temptations, we would be negating our demand of His will if were to demand that we not be afflicted with temptations. It must be, therefore, that this latter part of the Prayer has a meaning which is consonant with God’s will. If our metaphysical understanding of God is through the manifestation of His effects, the Orthodox ascetic will find it utterly natural to accept all misfortunes and calamities as gifts from God. He will thank God for these and will pray that he not be permitted to indulge in sorrowful thinking or sink into bad logismoi as a result. The ascetic will have faith and pray that he harvest the maximum crop out of every sorrow in life so that he will be showered with an abundance of grace in this and the afterlife. Thus, there is no oxymoron in the Lord’s Prayer, simply our inability to conceive and understand God’s justice and love.

The ascetic fathers, therefore, confirm that God does not obliterate all temptations, but leaves some to fight us until death, so that we may not forget the war and allow passions to take us over and in order to always seek God, avoid love for self, hate our passions deep within our hearts, be tested until the end and to learn by such test the value of virtue and never let it go and to fear not death when it comes.[47] For the ascetic who understands this process, his exercise encompasses besides defence to temptations also an immeasurable amount of patience and forbearing. We must assume that since Christ suffered from temptations until His very end, God does not remove them by grace even vis-à-vis the most uplifted spiritual beings because of the danger of vainglory. The ascetic fathers teach that in those exceptional cases where a monk has managed to erect an impenetrable wall against the temptations of Satan, that person must either strive to discover within himself and uproot the passions that would have been inflamed by intruding temptations, and/or retain a trace of temptations, in order to keep awake the soul’s struggle and vigilance.[48] St. Nicodemus instructs younger monks as follows: One must contemplate that temptations themselves are necessary instruments in order to acquire the virtues. Thus, when one requests the virtues from God, one essentially requests these instruments and temptations too. Otherwise, our prayer is in vain and is done merely to annoy God. What is more, God does not grant the virtue of patience without the sorrows that are the result and instrument of patience. Neither does He grant humility without frown and contempt. For this reason, we must love, invite and thank God for these temptations.[49] 

God is, however, especially discerning in the way which He provides temptations to human beings. St. Nicodemus explains to his audience what they should have already observed; that serious temptations and afflictions only occur to those that more than others want to give themselves to the service of God and turn away from things that harm them. Such temptations do not arise immediately in their struggle, but only after having served God for some time and cleansed their hearts somewhat. St. Nicodemus explains that we never see sinners and those who have given their life to the world suffering from such afflictions, or even complain of being tempted.[50] The experienced ascetic and the pious man is discerning of the existence of temptations, temptations themselves, the inflammable nature of passions and the impulse to sin and they also have faith in God’s justice. While it would be true to say that ascetics have an acute awareness of temptation because they have full knowledge of and live by the yardstick of piety and are thus able to perceive every bad logismos and affliction, ordinary people who live by the flesh alone are imperceptible to the origin, existence and effects of logismoi and take every affliction for granted without further examination. This does not mean, contrary to what St. Nicodemus suggests, that non-ascetics are less fought by logismoi and misfortunes than ascetics, since we have already explained that the purpose of God is to save everyone. Rather, on the one hand ascetics are more discerning of their logismoi and on the other God’s temptations correspond to the measure of each person’s weakness and are meant to build up through exercise. This is a slow process, but the speed of progress belongs to each one of us and is a matter of free will.

It is, therefore, out of love that God gives us temptations, so that we can remove ourselves from a false viewing of our existence. As an example, or a type, he brought the Apostle Peter in such a position as to renounce Christ thrice and thus realise his natural condition and sickness and repent through humility. Again, to Paul he gave vision of all there is in heaven, but afflicted him with a physical condition, so that by humbling himself he should only boast about his sickness.[51] The diversity in temptation is exemplified by the diversity in human life and character and thus God’s gifts are individual. It is the way that we ultimately receive them and deal with them that is crucial for our spiritual advent.

VI. REMEDIES AGAINST TEMPTATIONS

The treatises examined in this article, it should be remembered, are addressed to those engaged in the monastic life. While the nature of this struggle against the demons is one and objective, the remedies offered are of two kinds: a) those that are suited for everyone, and; b) remedies administered in accordance with experience and spiritual progress, and which are not to be exercised by inexperienced brethren.[52] Among the universal remedies are included: a) practicing of the opposing virtue that corresponds to each temptation; b) discernment; c) prayer, psalmody and vigils. The most common exercises reserved only for the most experienced monks are the direct use of the irascible faculty to attack the demons and a direct confrontation against them.

The early desert fathers analyse each form of temptation on its own specific merits. The demon of fornication is to be fought through regimented fasting and other practices that prevent the body from succumbing to sensual appetites, such as all-night vigils, labour and other bodily toils.[53] At the same time, the monk should pray ceaselessly and engage in psalmodies. The latter are intended to prevent the logismos/temptation from entering the intellect, and the monk, at least in his/her early stages, must avoid any contact with the opposite sex and fight through prayer the intrusion of lustful thoughts.[54] Evagrius suggests a complementary exercise for fighting the demon of fornication. He argues that the demon of vainglory and that of fornication are naturally opposed, because the former promises honours and the latter is the forerunner of dishonour. In this manner, they are unable to attack the soul simultaneously and thus [experienced monks may] if one of these demons approaches, one may employ the thoughts of the opposing demon.[55] The demon of avarice is to be curbed through renunciation of all worldly possessions. The fathers teach, however, that when monks practice such renunciation, the demon of avarice suggests to them in more subtle ways and under the guise of charity that if they were to be entrusted with the administration of property or the accumulation of wealth they would be able to provide for the poor. The monk who succumbs to such logismoi is not only overcome by the demon of avarice, but also by the demons of vainglory and pride who at that stage have convinced their poor victim of his/her glorious hospitality, charity and goodness.[56] The demons of vainglory and pride usually attack the monk during such time as he/she has achieved some spiritual progress. Evagrius teaches that alone among all thoughts, vainglory encompasses an abundance of matter, filling the mind of the anchorite with numerous words and objects.[57] This demon may suggest to the monk that he now requires solitude in order to perfect himself and thus urges him to abandon the monastery and the guidance of his/her spiritual father. The advice in this case is to remain in one’s cell and not only to remain in the monastery, but also to avoid contact with the outside world for fear that the demon of fornication may find him unprotected. Each author gives a particular emphasis on a virtue that he considers central to ascetic spiritual efforts. For St. John Climacus, the destruction of vainglory and pride through humility is key to opposing all other demons. Such humility is particularly achieved through strict and unwavering obedience to one’s spiritual father,[58] by remembrance of death,[59] mourning[60] and by meekness.[61] 

The demon of anger finds fertile ground to attack the monk when he/she is fighting for food, wealth or esteem.[62] If one, therefore, masters the three principal temptations, then the demon of anger will be defeated as well. Equally, the demons of dejection and despondency attack the ascetic either during particular parts of the day, or as constant logismoi. Unlike other demons, that of despondency does not involve the element of pleasure in his mental representation sent to the monk. Both the temptations of despondency and that of dejection urge the monk to leave his cell and even the monastery on a permanent basis because he cannot find any form of spiritual rest or solace as a result of the temptation. The remedy for this temptation is to close one’s thoughts to such suggestions and remain in one’s cell until such time as the demon is defeated.[63] 

Ascetic discernment is of two types: a) the first is an exercise that is intended for the struggling ascetic in order to differentiate between those thoughts and visions which come from God and those that come from the demons, whereas; b) the second type is the state attained by those who are pure in heart, body and speech and through which they possess a solid understanding of the will of God at all times, places and in all things.[64] As far as the first type of discernment is concerned, Evagrius distinguishes between three types of thoughts, i.e., angelic, human and demonic.[65] We have discussed the latter, but the monk must constantly be alert in order to distinguish the origin of each thought. Evagrian discernment encompasses an intellectual exercise. He teaches that when a logismos is afflicting a monk, he/she must intellectually distinguish “the thought [itself], what it is, how many elements it consists of, and among these what sort of thing it is that most afflicts the mind”. A thorough application of this exercise helps to dissipate the thought and make the demon flee.[66] Evagrius also proposes an additional mental exercise that is only reserved for the more experienced and purified ascetics. This exercise involves contemplating the limited power of demons and their total inability in perverting the will of God when that is expressed.[67] This is tantamount to rationalising one’s fears, as is for example the rationalisation of the fear of darkness, but in the case of the demons this is intellectually possible only if one actually perceives the activity of the demons. St. John Cassian suggests that true discrimination comes only as a result of humility and this in turn is achieved by confession not only of what a monk does but also of what he/she thinks and by never trusting one’s own thoughts and always being immersed in obedience.[68] 

When an inexperienced monk is attacked by a particular demon, he/she is not always well placed to defend with mental exercises. The demons find as easy prey a coarse, overfed and over-indulging body and a defenceless from external thoughts mind. The ascetic must therefore avoid exposing his body to over-indulgence and his mind to any sort of appeasement and relaxation. This involves a very strict and strenuous regime of fasting – the early desert ascetics ate and drank water once a day – all night vigils and ceaseless prayer. Sleep is deemed not only to invite the demons to tamper with the concupiscible and irascible faculties of the soul,[69] but is also an over-indulgence which the monk has to combat in order to avoid being attacked by those temptations that are grounded in the body. In their early stages, monks will find it particularly difficult and exhausting to fast in such a way, to stay awake for the better part of the day and concentrate on their prayer, but these difficulties are as much attributed to habit as well as to the demons themselves. This constant alertness is best exemplified in the words of St. John Climacus, who argues that when temptation comes the best weapons are:

“sackcloth and ashes, all night vigils, standing up, hunger, the merest touch of water when we are thirsty, time passed among the burial places of the dead, and most important of all, humility of heart; and if possible a spiritual director or a helpful brother, old in wisdom rather than years, should also support us”.[70] 

Recalling the words of St. Paul (Eph. 5:19), Evagrius tells us that psalms, hymns and spiritual songs call the mind to the constant remembrance of virtue, cooling our boiling irascibility and extinguishing our desires.[71] Prayer, similarly, has a twofold purpose for Evagrius. On the one hand, it invigorates and purifies the mind for the struggle ahead “since it is naturally constituted for prayer even without this body”, while on the other hand it is useful for fighting the demons on behalf of all the powers of the soul.[72] The twentieth century Russian Athonite, St. Silouan, was in his early monastic years troubled by demons during his prayer. In fact, he himself recalls how his cell was filled with demons that made every effort to prevent him from praying with a pure mind. The Lord communicated to the staretz’s (Russian monastic elder) soul that the proud always suffer from devils to which St. Silouan asked the Lord what he should do to make his soul humble. The Lord responded as follows: “Keep thy mind in hell, and despair not”.[73] 

Finally, let us discuss the remedies suitable only for the experienced ascetics. The first of these is the employment of anger against demonic thoughts. The irascible part of the soul is naturally inclined against the demons and it is only unnaturally that it is directed otherwise.[74] Impassibility and perfection may be deemed attained when perfect hatred against the demons is coupled with absence of anger against other human beings. Such natural hatred, however, is reserved for the experience ascetics, particularly those that have overcome human anger. Evagrius claims that when the soul has forgotten its natural relationship with the irascible faculty, God abandons the monk by permitting him to suffer terror at the hands of the demons for some time, until the soul returns to its original hatred.[75] The second remedy for the experienced ascetics that have overcome vainglory involves a direct confrontation with the demons, either by citing passages from the Bible – as did Jesus himself when tempted – or through speaking the true word of God and thus proving to Satan that he is wrong. Such methods are strongly discouraged in the case of persons that have yet to achieve some degree of impassibility, urging them instead to fight logismoi through contempt, silence and turning one’s eyes from them.[76] 

VII. CONCLUSION

The Eastern Orthodox Church and its monastic community have developed a long and consistent theology on temptations afflicting ascetic life. Temptations are viewed as mental representations, otherwise known as logismoi, which are conveyed by the demons in order to cause the stirring of the passions in human beings. According to the Evagrian scheme regarding the classification of demonic thoughts – and which has been accepted down the centuries with very slight modifications, if any – three principal demons/temptations exist: gluttony, avarice and vainglory. These give rise to the other five, namely, lust, despondency, pride, dejection and anger. Rejection of the principal three necessarily cuts off access to the latter five. The purpose of such temptations is their intrusion in the human soul and inflaming of its irascible and concupiscible faculties, thereby giving rise to an impulse and perpetration of the corresponding vice. This constitutes an unnatural exercise of the two faculties, whose existence in the soul is reserved for love and procreation (concupiscible) and hatred of the demons (irascible).

The fact that the demons are responsible for this invisible warfare does not mean that they are capable of challenging God for spiritual dominion. On the contrary, they too are creatures of God and as such were made in his image, which is Good. Therefore, demons and evil in general are a perversion of goodness, not a self-subsistent reality. This means that the demons can afflict us but they do not know the inner depths of our souls. The Lord allows them to tempt us so that through such a struggle we can come to realise our weaknesses and infirmities. This is consistent with Christian doctrine that no one can be saved contrary to his/her own will. The affliction of logismoi differ from person to person and Orthodox monks are adamant that the demons’ greatest achievement is to convince people that they do not in fact exist. Secular people, preoccupied with a myriad or worldly affairs, do not ponder on the origin and content of their thoughts, whereas monks, having set aside all worldly affairs, are constantly conscious of this warfare in their souls.

Monastic tradition since the days of the early desert fathers of the fourth century has developed antidotes to the war against spiritual life. For one thing, they teach us to practice the opposing virtues that corresponding to each vice. In its extreme form, this is very difficult for those leading a secular life, but not for the monk whose ascetic environment and vow of poverty is ideally suited for practicing the opposing virtues of gluttony, vainglory and avarice. Nonetheless, no monk has ever been free from these three demons and the example of the demon of avarice subtly intruding the soul of even the most committed brethren by suggesting that if he were to administer property or own some money he/she could do many charitable works, is instructive. The boundaries between avarice and vainglory, gluttony and fornication are so close that the monks are instructed to confess all thoughts to their spiritual fathers and strictly abide with their advice, as well as practice discernment with regard to their thoughts. Those individuals that overindulge in bodily pleasures and have a slack mind (these two are connected in any event) fall easy prey to the demons. Therefore, it is important that the body be hardened and the mind not be allowed to wander. The former is achieved through fasting, all night vigils, manual labour, austerity, while the latter by ceaseless prayer and psalmody. An exercise typically reserved for the most experienced brethren, involves employment of the irascible faculty of the soul to stir up hatred against the demons.

 

Notes:

[1] St. Nicodemus Agiorite, Invisible War [Aoratos Polemos], p. 53. This treatise was composed in the latter half of the 18^th century.

[2] Id.

[3] Id, p. 54.

[4] Evagrius, On Thoughts 1, translated by R. E. Sinkewitz, Evagrius of Pontus (OUP, 2003); see also, St. John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, translated by C. Liubheid and N. Russell (SPCK, 1982), who follows the Evagrian scheme of evil thoughts and vices, at pp. 235-55; similarly, St. John Cassian, On the Eight Vices, in the Philokalia, translated by G. E. H. Palmer, P. Sherrard and K. Ware (Faber and Faber, 1979-1995), pp. 73-93.

[5] Evagrius, On Thoughts 1, id.

[6] St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Lord’s Prayer, Introduction, pp. 14-15.

[7] Id, pp. 82-83.

[8] Id.

[9] St. Macarius, in M. Plested, The Macarian Legacy: The Place of Macarius-Symeon in the Eastern Christian Tradition (OUP 2004), p. 79.

[10] St. Nicodemus, supra note 1, pp. 23, 133.

[11] See Maximus Confessor, Opuscule 3.

[12] St. Athanasius, The Life of Saint Anthony, pp. 26-29; see also, Gerontikon: Compilation of the Wisdom of the Fathers [Gerontikon: Stalagmaties apo tên Peterikê Sophia], pp. 389-91. This treatise, also known as Euergetinos, is compiled with anecdotal stories and sayings of the desert fathers of the first six centuries.

[13] Evagrius, On Thoughts 18, supra note 4.

[14] St. Athanasius, supra note 12, pp. 22-23.

[15] St. John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instructions, pp. 182-84.

[16] Gen. 3:1; see also St. John Damascus, Orthodox Faith: Book Two, pp. 228-29.

[17] Eph. 6:12-14.

[18] St. Nicodemus, supra note 1, p. 120.

[19] St. Nicodemus, id, p. 135.

[20] St. John Damascus, supra note 16, pp. 261, 263.

[21] See St. Macarius of Egypt, in Plested, supra note 9, pp. 36-38. Macarius calls the advent of temptation an education for the soul.

[22] St. Nicodemus, supra note 1, p. 23; St. Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, pp. 33-34; Gerontikon, supra note 12, p. 387.

[23] St. John Damascus, Orthodox Faith: Book Two, pp. 246-47.

[24] Id, pp. 247-51.

[25] St. Gregory Nyssa, On Virginity, p. 25.

[26] Evagrius, On Thoughts 17; St. John Climacus, supra note 4, at p. 251.

[27] Evagrius demonstrates the arousal of passions absent temptations by reference to demonic arousal of passions during sleep, wherein the perceptive senses are shut off to logismoi. Hence, passions exist within us in dormant form and can be aroused by memory. On Thoughts 4, 27-29, id.

[28] Gerontas Paisios Aghiorite, Lectures C: Spiritual Struggle [Gerontas Paisios, Logioi G: Pneumakitos Agônas] (2004), pp. 20-32.

[29] Pseudo- Dennys, Divine Names 4:11.

[30] Id, chp. 4:19-20.

[31] 2 Cor. 11:14.

[32] St. Nicodemus, supra note 1, pp. 22-23.

[33] Deut. 15:9.

[34] St. Basil, Ascetical Works, vol. I, pp. 432.

[35] Eccl. 9:20.

[36] Prov. 6:5.

[37] 2 Tim. 2:26; St. Basil, Ascetical Works, vol. I, p. 434.

[38] St. Nicodemus, supra note 1, p. 37.

[39] Id, p. 52.

[40] Id, pp. 174-75.

[41] St. John Climacus, supra note 4, at p. 239.

[42] St. Nicodemus, supra note 1, at p. 124.

[43] St. John Damascus, Orthodox Faith: Book Two, pp. 260-61.

[44] Id. p. 261.

[45] Id, p. 263.

[46] St. Nicodemus interprets 2 Cor. 1:9, where Paul says that on account of their terrible afflictions in Asia they “would rely not on [themselves] but on God who raises the dead”, as exalting one to ponder at one’s own sickness by observing one’s thoughts and deeds for a single day in order to realise how ignorant, selfish and stupid these are. Supra note 1, pp. 23, 133.

[47] St. Nicodemus, id, p. 63.

[48] Id, pp. 163-64.

[49] Id.

[50] Id, p. 286.

[51] Id, pp. 288-89.

[52] St. Nicodemus, id, pp. 50-51, distinguishes between remedies suitable for the weak and alternative ones for the more experienced brethren.

[53] Such asceticism is not contrary to the bodily hardships castigated by St. Paul in Col. 2:20-23, because in the Colossian context Paul criticised severity that by itself and without the intervention of grace was preached as providing spiritual maturity and knowledge of all things. Monks, on the other hand, practice asceticism in order to invite God’s grace.

[54] Evagrius, On Thoughts 3 and 16; St. John Cassian, On Eight Vices, supra note 4, p. 76.

[55] Evagrius, Praktikos 58.

[56] Evagrius, On Thoughts 21; Evagrius, Praktikos 18.

[57] Evagrius, On Thoughts 14, 15.

[58] St. John Climacus, supra note 4, pp. 91-120

[59] Id, pp. 132-135.

[60] Id, pp. 136-145

[61] Id, pp. 146-151

[62] Evagrius, Thoughts 1.

[63] Id, 9, 12.

[64] St. John Climacus, supra note 4, p. 229.

[65] Evagrius, Thoughts 8.

[66] Evagrius, Thoughts 19.

[67] Id.

[68] St. John Cassian, On the Holy Fathers of Sketis, p. 103, in Philokalia, supra note 4.

[69] Evagrius, Praktikos 54, 55.

[70] St. John Climacus, supra note 4, p. 179.

[71] Evagrius, Praktikos 71.

[72] Id, 49.

[73] Sophrony, Archimandrite, The Undistorted Image: Staretz Silouan (The Faith Press, 1958), p. 200.

[74] Evagrius, Thoughts 5; St. John Climacus, supra note 4, p. 153.

[75] Id, 10.

[76] St. Nicodemus, supra note 1, pp. 50-51.

 

Source: Ilias Bantekas, “The Metaphysics of Temptation in Eastern Orthodox Monasticism,” Theandros, 4(2), 2006/2007.