I have invested quite a bit of thinking (this is the thirteenth post of this series) around the notion of philosophia as a way of life (with obvious reliance on Pierre Hadot's works Philosophy as a Way of Life and What is Ancient Philosophy?), and of Christianity as a philosophia. That ancient philosophy understood itself differently from present day academic philosophy would seem to go without saying (though the implications of that assertion are surely much more controversial), and that several important second century Christian documents present Christianity as a philosophia, similar though superior to ancient philosophiai, ought also be relatively uncontroversial. But whether one ought to invest in advocacy of the notion of Christianity as a philosophia is surely less obvious. What is important is to simply live the Christian faith as it has been passed down from the incarnate ministry of our Lord to today.
That is to say, the imposition of the structures of ultimate principles (logoi), a distinctive discourse (dialogos), and soulish exercises (askeses) is the imposition of external classificatory categories and structures that it is not clear arise naturally from within Christianity itself. That is to say, while the Holy Trinity, the Divine Liturgy and prayer (logoi, dialogos, and askesis, respectively) are in themselves entirely Christian, the organization of these realities along the lines suggested above is arguably questionable. One could argue that these are Hadot's own classification of aspects of ancient philosophical schools, which schools themselves might well not classify themselves in this way, and that further, to apply Hadot's structures on Christianity via ancient philosophy is suspect at best.
But as a heuristic device, at very least, these categories and structures can prove helpful in reflecting on the Christian Faith and its practice, and I hope these reflections have made this evident.
As I hope I have demonstrated, there can be no compartmentalizing of the Christian Faith and life, for the divine call is total and radical, and in this way it brings wholeness and unity to otherwise fractured human existence. That is to say, the way of life, the philosophia that is Christianity cannot be added to one's existence, as though a weekend hobby. It is, rather, the entirety of that which revolves around the Holy Trinity, the center of one's existence.
There are at least two implications of this which ought be obvious. First, the organic wholeness of Christianity makes impossible any division away from the way of life transmitted without interruption from Pentecost as well any division within the way Christians have always lived. That is to say, there can be no spontaneous generation of the Christian philosophia. One cannot affirm the fundamental Christian realities or principles, nor can one study and imitate the unique Christian discourse and askeses, without taking on the Christian way of life from within that life Christians have practiced from the beginning. That is to say, Christianity cannot be franchised. One must become a part of the only philosophia that is Christianity if one is to truly have that way of life that is Christian. I will say it bluntly. The some purported twenty-odd thousand Protestant groups worldwide seek this very impossibility: to make the Church over from scratch as from theory. I know whence I speak, for my heritage churches' raison d'etre was to “restore the New Testament Church in our day,” leap-frogging over some seventeen hundred years of the life of the Church to “start anew.” But this is little better than schism, well-intentioned though it be. There is only one New Testament Church, and true to Christ's promise, it has never ceased to exist. This is the Church with the original and life-giving philosophia. All others, simply by virtue of failing to live the Christian way of life from within, ultimately create other philosophiai which are not that which comes from Christ in the Holy Spirit and Pentecost.
Nor can any of the fundamental structures which organize Christianity as a philosophia be isolated from or emphasized out of proportion to the rest. By this I mean that one cannot elevate the elements, say, of dialogos over those of askesis. Doctrine cannot replace practice. (Nor, for that matter, practice doctrine.) Having spent nearly my entire life as a Protestant (which, formally, I still am, though I have been pursuing Orthodoxy for three years and hope soon sacramentally to become Orthodox), I can tell you that while Protestantism arguably pursues the fundamental principles of the Christian Faith, in most instances various Protestant groups focus either on doctrine--and too often a particular doctrine derived apart from the mind of the Church--over the way of life that that doctrine entails, or they focus on practice over the living doctrine needed to justify and support those practices. What results is on the one hand a sort of neo-gnosticism, in which as long as one believes correctly (witness the various confessional documents and statements of faith of Protestant bodies and groups), one has done the primary thing necessary, and the practice of that doctrine, though not unimportant, is given much less focus. On the other hand there is the imposition of practices that are hardly conformed to historic Christianity, and are justified ad hoc either through the purported ends sought or achieved, or through a superficial prooftexting of Scripture and doctrine which deviates from the objective and historic Christian norm (witness many of the practices that go on in “discipling” ministries and charismatic groups).
Further, the way of life of the Christian Faith will necessarily and essentially put us in opposition to our non-Christian neighbor, our culture and society, and all that which opposes Christ. That is to say, by virtue of living the Christian Faith, we will have enemies, human and demonic. If there is one overriding rebellion of the ecumenical/interfaith movements against biblical and historic Christianity it is this: the Church has enemies. “Do not be surprised,” St. John tells us, “that the world hates you” (1 John 3:13). This is the same St. John who says “Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 John 5:12). And: “Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9). Indeed, St. John is merely being faithful to the Lord who Himself said:
"If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: 'They hated me without a cause.' (John 15:18-25)
Thus, as much as it offends the sensibilities of the world, even and especially the religious world that claims Christ's name, Christians must be steadfast in maintaining their Lord's exclusive claims: He is the way the truth and the life (John 14:6), and there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved (Acts 5:12). Indeed, He who fills the universe has chosen to inhabit His unique dwelling place, the household of God, the Church (Ephesians 1:22-23; 1 Timothy 3:15).
This is not to say that there is no good at all in one's non-Christian neighbor or in human society--for the Church has never believed that the image of God has been utterly destroyed in mankind--but it is to say that fragmented revelations of the divine image do not constitute the whole. Just because some religious teaching may participate in an incomplete way with the truth of which the Church is pillar and ground does not mean that such a religion or its teaching is Christian. It simply means that on this or another point which converges with the Christian Faith, Christians can affirm this specific teaching, while also obligating themselves to the clarity of love that reiterates Christ's exclusive claims. But in affirming these fragmentary truths, we also affirm the fullness which the Church alone possesses.
None of these truths are comfortable, nor are they given to the making of social friendships. But that is the way of things in the life that is Christianity. That we find these truths uncomfortable ourselves, or find ourselves resistant to them, may only illustrate how far we are from the Christian philosophia. Please God that all of us may be more and more conformed to the life of Christ in His Church.
[The remainder of the posts in this series can be found here.]
I had intended for this to be my final post (at least for some time) on Christianity and philosophia. But my own recent experiences and a request from a fellow parishioner have prodded me to focus my attention on Christian philosophia and the Sacrament, or Mystery, of Marriage and concomitant fatherhood. So my concluding thoughts will have to come next time.
It should go without saying that if one wants to know deeper and more worthwhile thoughts than mine on Christian fatherhood, one should talk to the sort of Christian man who has seen daughters enter the convent or become khourias, matushkas and presbyteras and has seen sons become priests and monastics, who has seen his grandchildren baptized, and whose wife embodies Proverbs 31. That is the sort of man St. Paul envisions in 1 Timothy 3:4 and Ephesians 5:21-6:9.
Further, one must also be adamant about that fact that marriage and fatherhood are subsumed within the Christian philosophia, within the Christian way of life, and are not ends to themselves, or separate ways of life. One should be cautious about using such terms as “balancing” marriage or parenthood and a career since this gives rise to the sort of compartmentalizing thought that fragments life and fractures that which should be whole. One does not add marriage and fatherhood to one's life as though to one's resume. Rather, marriage and fatherhood, if they are to be full, complete and joyful, must be grounded in and arise from within the Christian philosophia. For only the philosophia that is Christianity can give them life and meaning.
We see this precisely in the haustafel passage in Ephesians 5:21-6:9. It must not be forgotten that Ephesians 5 follows Ephesians 4, and that Ephesians 4 itself comes from Ephesians 1-3. For if
In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and insight, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, for an administration of the fullness of the times, He might bring together all things in Christ, those in heaven and those on the earth--In Him. (Ephesians 1:7-10)
and if
He subjected all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him filling all things in all. (Ephesians 1:22-23)
and if
you are no longer strangers and aliens, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19-22)
and if
There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)
then when St. Paul writes about the Christian household in Ephesians 5:21-6:9, it is clear that such a household comes out of the reality of the Church, the household of God, founded in and on Christ.
This means, of course, that marriage and fatherhood will be grounded in the same logoi, or principles, the same dialogos, or discourse, and the same askeses, or soulish exercises, that form the philosophia that is Christianity. Just as the Holy Eucharist is the central Sacrament of the Church's life, so, too, is the Holy Eucharist the central Sacrament of marriage and fatherhood. Just as Christian discourse is grounded in the Creed, so, too are marriage and fatherhood grounded. Just as fasting, prayer and almsgiving are the “ good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10), so, too, do these mark out the formation of Christians husbands for their wives (and wives for their husbands) and of Christian fathers for their children.
For the Christian husband, the procreation and nurture of children is both the natural and concomitant obligation and responsibility that accompanies this one-fleshed covenant. That children are no longer thought of as an obvious and integral part of marriage in our society is surely a strong indication of its fallenness into the demonic hatred of life. This does not negate the legitimate, though rare, vocation of a couple toward married celibacy, nor does it entail a condemnation and judgment on those couples who are infertile. The one is a calling that must be confirmed by the Church and has produced not a few saints, the other is pathway that must be ministered to by the Church and has likewise produced not a few saints. But both of these are exceptions that prove the rule. Children are the natural procreative end of the union of man and wife, and the embodiment of the conjugal fidelity, trust, love and joy which knit the two lives together.
That is to say, for the Christian husband, marriage is not about individual satisfaction and fulfillment, but about giving himself up for wife and children, as did Christ for the Church, in an act of love that accomplishes the presentation of his family before God in holiness (Ephesians 5:25-33). That is to say, a Christian husband and father sees his marital and paternal duties to be not the mere physical provision necessary to his home (though this is not discounted in any way), but rather that even the procurement of physical provision is focused on and in the life of repentance and sanctification Christ makes real for his Church. This may very well mean that the Christian husband and father sets aside the career he once envisioned for himself, or his various pursuits and desires, as a hindrance and obstacle to the salvation of his wife and children. In a very real sense, the headship of the Christian husband and father embodies for his family--and the watching world--St. Paul's words to the Corinthians: “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3). If for Christ to do the will of his Father and to accomplish his work was his food (John 4:34), then the Christian husband and father will not find life and peace anywhere else.
Perhaps the one distinctive feature of marriage and of Christian fatherhood, especially as these reflect the way of life, the philosophia of the Church, is the understanding that our Lord's is a Kingdom “not of this world” (John 18:36). This means that the concerns of a Christian husband and father, reflective as they are of the Christian philosophia, are oriented not toward this-worldly satisfaction and success, but toward the Kingdom that has already broken into this world and is our inheritance and home. For the Christian husband and father, this may well mean crucifying his own deep and natural longings for grandchildren and a paternal legacy to foster and encourage a monastic vocation in his children. It will certainly mean the most difficult task of inculcating in his children a holy distaste for the ungodly aspects of our culture, particularly its deadly self-absorption, gluttonous consumption and unbridled lust. It will mean that from the wedding and from conception onward, he will have to build into his marriage and his children an identification with the Church and her Lord that is as deep and as natural as breathing. All this of course is predicated on the fact that the Christian husband and father is himself living a life of repentance characterized by this Kingdom orientation.
In other words, Christian marriage and Christian fatherhood are themselves particular embodiments of a distinctive way of life that both silently condemns the surrounding culture and embodies for it the good news of life in Christ, the way of life that sets of Christianity from all other philosophiai.
[The remainder of the posts in this series can be found here.]
To reiterate from my previous post: Christianity as a philosophia has three important components: a fundamental principle (or principles), or logos(-oi); in which is rooted a distinct discourse and discursive method, or a way of speaking and thinking; around which are built specific "soulish exercises," or askeses, which serve to inculcate the fundamental principle(s) and to further the communal discourse. Apologia, or defense, is certainly part of a way of life, but is not necessarily a dominant feature of such discourse, and in any case is meant as a defense more than as a proselytizing method. Proselytization of converts occurrs via the public nature of the way of life in which a particular philosophia is lived. Potential disciples "drop in" as it were on the dialogoi and instruction that goes on in philosophia (which philosophia is an embodiment of the three primary components noted above) and in an existential pre-theoretical choice, attracted by the beauty and goodness they perceive in that philosophia, enter the community as a disciple and take up that way of life, its principles and its particular disourse.
Modern Christianity, and modern society in general, has lost this conception of a particular philosophy (or religion, or, more broadly, worldview) as a way of life. Belief has been so separated from life-ways, that one can hold any number of beliefs, even systematically, which are in conflict with the way one lives ones life, and yet still be considered a faithful adherent of the belief system one espouses. Take, for example, the affluent Buddhism of various celebrites, or consumerist Christianity, or what have you. This may well be why a statistically large percentage of the American population thinks of themselves as Christian, but whose lives do not significantly resemble the way of life that has been Christianity through two millennia. It is certainly how it is that members of our society can, over a period of a lifetime, adhere to any number of differing belief systems without significantly altering the way they live.
Modern evangelization efforts tend to feed rather than correct this phenomenon, centered as they all too often are on a change of belief prior to a change of life. In methodology that reflects more a market consumerism than historic evangelization, modern attempts at witnessing focus on "relevance," and therapeutic solutions to life critical scenarios (all oriented toward the improvement of one's own life) that will inexplicably occur simply by changing one's belief system.
This is backward from the practice of ancient Christianity wherein converts were first inculcated in a way of life and then were catechised in the more systematic beliefs and doctrines that Christians held. Whereas today we seek salvation prior to conversion, ancient Christianity sought salvation through conversion. One did not register a "decision," later to be instructed in the faith. One first took on the way of life the Church lived as an inextricable part of the process of conversion. Ancient Christianity understood salvation not as a point in time but as a life-process extended through time and into eternity.
That is to say, if Christianity is primarily a way of life rather than a confession, then evangelization will be by way of that way of life. It will be incarnational, and centered around and in the community that is the Church. Indeed, no evangelization could take place apart from the Church. Potential converts will be "won" to the faith in and through the very means by which the life of the Church is expressed: the Liturgy; the devotion to the apostle's teaching; the Sacraments; communal fellowship from home to home, with each home an ecclesiola, or "little church"; prayers around the table and at the undertaking of various tasks, especially the utilization of the Jesus prayer and the tchotki; the care of the widows, the orphans, the poor; the commitment of each home to care for its extended members, especially the old and infirm; the emphasis on procreation and the celebration and protection of the new life; and on and on.
It is through the intersection and intertwining of non-Church members with the life of the Church of her members that the beauty and goodness of the Christian philosophia will open pathways for the listening and the reception of Christian discourse in the Scriptures and Liturgy, the sermons and catechetical instructions, the written texts of doctrine and the lives of the saints. Only in the context of a way of life will Chrisitan discourse make any sort of sense or in any way be warranted. Not even pragmatic arguments meant for the secularized public square can provide justification for Christianity's unique principles, or Logoi, and the revelation that proceeds from them.
Regrettably, modern Christianity resembles too much the various philosophiai which oppose it, and the explication of its doctrines are then at intuitive variance with the ways of life presented to found those teachings. The judgment of those outside the Church on us as hypocrites is only too well-matched. It is not for us to strengthen our discourse so much as it is for us to strengthen our way of life in the life of the Church.
Specifically this means, of course, daily repentance from being conformed to the mind of the society outside the Church and the daily offering of our bodies as our reasonable act of worship. That is to say, the incarnate embodiment of our faith. Pragmatically, this means inviting non-Christians into the circles of our way of life, to allow them to see this Faith embodied. On the strength of the beauty and goodness they see, like the disciples of antiquity, they will make the pre-theoretical existential choice to take on this way of life and be inculcated in its principles and discourses.
I will, in the next reflection, draw these posts to a close with some concluding thoughts.
[The remainder of the posts in this series can be found here.]
If Christianity is, indeed, a philosophia, then it will also have three important components: a distinct discourse and discursive method, or a way of speaking and thinking; this discourse will be rooted in a fundamental principle (or principles), or logos(-oi); around which are built specific "soulish exercises," or askeses, which serve to inculcate the fundamental principle(s) and to further the communal discourse. Though a defense of a particular philosophia in antiquity was part of that way of life, apologia was not necessarily a dominant feature of such discourse, and in any case was meant as a defense more than as a proselytizing method. Proselytization of converts occurred via the public nature of the way of life in which a particular philosophia was lived. Would-be disciples "dropped in" as it were on the dialogoi and instruction that went on in the Academy, the Lyceum, the Stoa and the Garden, that were embodiments of their respective philosophiai, and in an existential pre-theoretical choice, attracted by the beauty and goodness they perceived in that particular philosophia, entered the community as a disciple.
This was true as well, with regard to Christianity. The public display of the Christian philosophia was primarily centered on the way of life they shared: care of the poor, the orphans and the widows; mutual love exhibited in the concrete life shared among them, for example, the sharing of possessions and care for the sick; the devotion to the apostles' teaching and to the gathered worship (though not on public display was the portion of the Liturgy dealing with Holy Eucharist), and other visible demonstrations of Christian lived faith.
Christianity certainly has fundamental principles: the Holy Trinity, God the Father, the incarnate Logos, and the Holy Spirit. And the discourse rooted in these principles is also distinct: sin, repentance and judgment; grace, new creation and resurrection; and so forth. This discourse has its own forms: liturgy, preaching, confession, catechesis, etc.. And this way of life has its own askeses which further this way of life: fasting, prayer, almsgiving, confession of sin, the Sacraments, and others.
Modern society, too, has its own philosophiai, though these are far less formal than the schools of antiquity. Think for example of modern Western consumerist society. It has its organizing principle: the “free” market and capitalist economies; its discourse: Gross National Domestic Product, inflation, unemployment, income, sale, discount, and so forth; and its askeses: advertising, shopping venues, and entertainment. I claim that these are not formalized, but that is only to say, there is not an overall philosophia that is articulated (the “consumerist way of life” say) in a systematic way. But that is not to say that certain aspects of this informal philosophia are not formalized; advertising, for example, is extremely formalized, as is consumer spending patterns (induced by such gimmicks as semi-annual, holiday, and seasonal sales, and the behavior modification and manipulation that accompanies these contrived sales). There is a particular outlook and thinking, and public discourse if you will, that is shaped by these economic principles and their respective askeses such that one finds ones identity strongly associated with particular buying decisions (which also feed into other consumer driven mythologies and identifications such as buying organic foods and environmentally friendly products).
Concomitant with such consumerism is the cult of celebrity and its religious ascetical component of entertainment. Much of what drives consumerism is the notion of entertainment (think of the mutliform uses to which home computers are put, as well as the uses to which most technological advancement is put) and the manipulative power of celebrity, both in identification as well as in consumer endorsements.
One may very well identify other modern day philosophiai, though in the affluent West, one is hard pressed to find one more influential, if less formally conceptualized. But clearly this identification of consumerism as the West's primary philosophia clarifies and juxtaposes some extremely important implications.
One can very well note at least two important realizations: consumerism is both an anti-christ, preaching a demonic and rival philosphia to that of Christianity, and consumerism is an extremely powerful and potent philosophia which is both its own way of life and parasitic upon others. Not even Christianity is immune from its influence.
Consumerism is anti-christ and demonic precisely because it opposes nearly every major principle of Christianity. It is thoroughly monistic in its materialism; there is no other reality than economic production. It replaces love of God and neighbor with quantitative manipulation of human beings and utter servitude to self-interested profitability. And instead of self-denying sacrifice for the good of one's neighbor is substituted passive acceptance of any and all forms of self-gratification. (I should note that in speaking of consumerism and identifying one of its principles as capitalism, I am not saying that Marxist, or other forms of, socialism aren't as equally anti-christian and demonic. These, though of a different form, are consumerisms just as insidious as the Western capitalist variety.)
Clearly, consumerism is its own way of life as can be objectively observed pervasively throughout Western society. But it is parasitic as well: it will infect its host and drain away its life, assimilating the lifeless shell into itself. One need look no further than the cult of celebrity and marketing that is rife in modern Western Christianity. All that is left of these hollowed out husks of what may once have been Christian is a thin veneer covering over a way of life that is exactly identical to godless consumerism.
One must be clear here: consumerism is not the same things as consumption. The difference is that between consumption as a way of life, and consumption subsumed within a way of life. All humans consume, and necessarily so. Not all consumption must be strictly utilitarian, either; for utilitarianism is its own philosphia. The wasteful plenitude of beauty crafted into life and the universe is testimony enough for the proper place of non-utilitarian consumption, such as that of celebration.
But the philosophia that is Christianity is at diametrical odds with the philosophia of pervasive consumerism. This is easily told by simply comparing the opposing ways of life. A consumerist will not fast, unless such a fast is for self-gratification such as weight loss. A consumerist will not pray, unless such prayer is simply the self-hypnotic mantra utilized to acquire those things one wants. A consumerist will not give alms, unless such giving will decrease the amount of taxes owed or the amount of tax refunded. Worship for a consumer is entirely subjective and focused on the gratification of the self. Christian worship is utterly objective and focused on the Holy Trinity. A consumerist seeks for security in this life, and measures such in terms of portfolios, insurance policies and possessions. A Christian places all his trust in the Holy Trinity he has never seen, nor will see apart from holiness. These comparisons do not presume to assert that there are no subjective benefits that sometimes come from fasting, prayer and almsgiving, nor that the subjective gratification that one often receives from true worship is somehow to be deplored, nor that a Christian cannot make godly use of his finances, insurance policies and possessions. But he knows that all these benefits are undeserved and not to be sought in themselves and that all wealth and possessions are matters of stewardship and are as transitory as the morning fog. To be sure, the Christian way of life is attacked on all sides by consumerism's structures and disciples and its pernicious capacity as a parasite, and Christians do well to handle such consumerist tools and products with a great deal of wisdom and perspicacity. And this can only be done if a Christian is thoroughly formed in and supported by the Christian philosophia.
This formation and support can only come from the Christian philosophia that is still lived in the community directly descended from the apostles. Only that philosophia that has been handed down by one living generation to the next and that can be organically traced to Christ through his apostles is the Christian philosophia, and therefore only that one which can make real both the living of the Christian faith and the combating of the philosophiai, especially that of consumerism in the West, that would suck the life out of the individual Christian and his community, leaving only an empty shell, a thin veneer that is Christian in name only.
I have spent the entirety of this post dealing with the opposition between the Christian philosophia and the philosophia of consumerism. In my next reflection on this series I will think about what it means to proselytize (or in Christian terminology, to evangelize) within the rubrics of a philosophia.
[The remainder of the posts in this series can be found here.]
Contemporary Christians concerned about authentic Christianity usually see philosophy and Christianity as incompatible. They usually cite the following as their authority:
Βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται ὁ συλαγωγῶν διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης, κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου καὶ οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν· ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ &