DISCUSSION ON LOVE

 

Mercy and Truth are met together;

righteousness and peace have kissed each other

(Ps. 85:10)

God is love (I Jn. 4:8)

 

The more one observes life and pastoral activity around us the more one is firmly convinced that the significance of the above words from Scripture is very far from us, that we unfortunately are very far from mercy, from truth and even more from love.

Mercy and love meet in God. The union of these two virtues was reflected in the image of God’s creation, man, until he fell. Now we observe a split within ourselves, enmity, irreconcilability of those characteristics which in the Lord embrace one another, which are inseparably and constitute Divine Love.

God is love, always unchangeable and constant. He is merciful even in every instance of His divine anger. He is merciful in His every concern about His creation. At the same time His mercy without righteous judgement would not be loving, no, even more so His righteous judgement would not be loving without mercy.

Strictly speaking God is simple, He is love and in the various aspects of His relation to creation, we observe that creation itself perceives this love in a two-fold manner: as anger or as mercy, as righteous judgement, or as compassion. Regardless, the essence of any divine activity still remains one and the same — love.

It is not so in man, due to his fallen nature. Both anger and love for our neighbor act in us according to passions: instead of mercy — man pleasing, instead of righteousness — the wrath of man which, worketh not the righteousness of God (James 1:20). What is the basis of our love for someone, even if we are not aware of love itself in the given situation, or of the reasons for love?

If we were to give an honest answer to this question we would have to give the following reasons: first, blood relationship — which if examined under a moral assessment of love would be considered neutral: to love ones relatives is usually not good or bad (One can say here that normal good relations between relatives is not forced and consequently a reward is not given by God to those, who love those who love them (cf. Lk. 6:32)). Secondly, where a blood relationship is not an issue, there is vanity, man-pleasing, desire for gain, lust; although these passions are carefully masked, sometimes even mixed with something resembling a higher ideal. The fact is that we really feel nothing for our fellow man, as the image of God, as our brother, also redeemed by Christ. We subconsciously notice or sense in our neighbor that which is in us, we love that part of ourselves in him, but not the Divine, i.e. that part which the Holy Fathers command us to love in him. Therefore the reasons for our closeness or attachment to our neighbor is in fact the result of that very sinful self love which is spoken about in any book of asceticism, namely, love of glory (vanity, man-pleasing), love of money (or any form of love of gain), love of the flesh (we love someone because of their outward appearance and mannerisms, others, perhaps who are better inwardly, we drive away because of their unattractiveness).

Is not our love poisoned by these three things, no matter how pure it might seem to us? If this is so then there is no better proof that there is no true love in us but rather only some form of self-love. Another proof of this is the instability of our love.

Why is this so? Because our love for our neighbor is not infused with divine truth. Because we love according to our own standards and do not desire to enter into God’s intention in relation to the object of our love. Mercy does not meet with truth in us, and therefore mercy does not turn into love. Truth almost never extricates itself from the bonds of the wrath of man which worketh not righteousness.

According to Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov, love for our neighbor must not express itself in fits of passion, but rather in a consistent fulfillment of God’s will in relation to our neighbor. This is how the saints, who only by many sorrows, acquired love. We believe that they possessed this gift of love; we observe this in their lives. Those who possess this gift acted quite differently from the ordinary person. We cannot explain of what exactly the love of the saints consisted and how they learned it. We do no not comprehend because we ourselves do not possess it, we have not reached that level. It would be sufficient, however, if we would at least acknowledge our weakness and spiritual poverty.

If in fact according to Holy Scripture love is the goal of Christian life, what are we to do? Without it the image of God cannot be formed in us; without it we will never see the Kingdom; without it all good deeds and acts of self-sacrifice are useless, as St Paul so clearly writes in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (Chapter 13).

The first step towards this goal of love, and I hope that by God’s mercy I understand this correctly, is to deeply acknowledge that in fact we do not really love anyone: not God, not the person closest to us. The next step is to feel truly sorry about this in our hearts and weep over it. Then all will become clear. From the Holy Fathers we learn that true love does not just appear by itself but is given by God to those who are capable of accepting it. How and when this happens can only be known through experience, which for now we do not have.

On the path towards true love, which proceeds from God, through rejection of the love which comes from our fallen nature, impure love, defiled by self, there is nothing which contradicts the Gospel. Is there anything in worldly teaching more paradoxical than the Gospel? In every line of the Gospel, Divine Truth overturns the preconceived notions of our fallen nature. It begins with the obvious paradox: repent for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand (Mt. 3:2). No sooner does the Kingdom draw near, when the old man should rejoice and be glad, than we are advised to weep and put on sackcloth and ashes. The Jews even to this very day, for example, cannot associate the arrival of the Messiah with repentance. Furthermore, from the view-point of human reasoning, we see nine paradoxes in the Beatitudes. Even the manner in which they are presented increases the unusualness of what they say to us. In the first lines spiritual poverty and weeping are glorified, in the last lines long-suffering and bearing evil, that which awaits those who decide to follow the above mentioned paradoxical commandments. The extreme paradox is found in the parable of the grain of wheat, which brings forth fruit only by its death (Jn. 12:24), and also the instruction to save ones soul by losing it (Jn. 25).

Instead of the word “paradox,” which is easy for us to understand, the Church uses the more elevated but less understandable word “mystery,” i.e. that which is difficult to grasp, that which turns around our usual understanding of things. The mysterious, hidden teaching of the Gospel is then crowned with the mystery of the Cross and the Resurrection — justification through condemnation, liberation through captivity, healing through sickness and wounds, glory through extreme dishonor and degradation, life through death, ascension to Heaven through descent into the nethermost parts of the earth...

The Gospel overturns and casts aside everything in the natural man. Could the Koran or Talmud boast of anything resembling this? Quite the opposite, the god of the Talmud or the Koran does not demand an about-face from his followers, i.e., a conversion, he does not demand that one kill one’s soul in order to gain it, he does not call one to the Cross for the sake of Resurrection, and he does not lead one through the narrow path into the spacious Kingdom.

Thus we realize that the above teachings are foreign to divine truth, they are filled with human understanding, for they confirm one in one’s natural condition which is nothing more than death for the soul. A vivid example of the opposition of the Christian confession to the Moslem, which caters to fallen nature, is found in the life of the 42 Martyrs of Ammorea (March 6). The following are the words of the Martyrs’ tempters: “Leave that narrow path which the Son of Mary commanded you to follow, rather follow that easy path in this life and the next, which has been shown to us by the great prophet. Was our prophet speaking about the impossible when he taught that God has the power to reward those who obey Him in this life and in the next make them inherit paradise? Contrary to all common sense you despise God’s gifts, offered here and in the next life... For God being merciful, seeing that man is worn out attempting to put the difficult law of Jesus into practice, therefore sent His prophet Mohammed in order to free people from such labor and discomfort, promising after all the joys of the present life blessedness in the other world, and teaching that those who obey Him will be saved by faith alone, without doing good works.”

In answer to this unshakable logic (according to human reasoning) the holy, spiritual love of the Martyrs answered from a different point of reference: “Is it really possible that you believe it pleasing to God when the flesh is overcome by every desire and the reason is so submissive to passions that one does not even consider breaking away from foul deeds through continence?...” The Life ends with the customary martyric confession, No one shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rm. 8:39).

As we can see, both sides explain the love of God, each group according to its own understanding...

Therefore the only way one can accept the Gospel and the voice of Heavenly Truth with one’s heart is to raise oneself above the realm of worldly common sense into the realm of the paradox. It is imperative to see one’s fallen state, to acknowledge that all of our nature in its present state is turned inside out, upside down, that it needs to be thoroughly worked over, our perceptions changed. We need to reexamine our values in light of those which the Gospel affirms. Human nature, having fallen in love with its sinful state, feels no need for a fundamental change, and inevitably distorts and rejects both the Gospel and Heaven. To a great extent, all that we have mentioned so far can be applied to our question about love. No one is so far from God’s love in the Gospel than the person who claims to be full of love, who nurtures the natural love of fallen nature in contrast to the Gospel’s self-denial.

The first step towards God’s love is to make room in oneself for it, and understand that in fact you actually love no one. Do not confirm that which is human, sinful, spoiled but give place to that which is God’s, that which is pure and firmly established.

To simply clear out a place is not enough. One needs to build on it. The Holy Fathers indicate the means: to fulfill the Gospels’ commandments in relation to our neighbor. The commandments are very simple to understand but very difficult for the passionate soul to fulfill. We can only fulfill them by relating to our neighbor as to an image of God, redeemed by Christ, instead of in a personal, passionate manner. For example, our charity will only be pure from passionate attachment and pleasing to God when we do good not for the sake of “the least of our brethren” [humanism] but for the sake of Christ, Who comes to us in our neighbor. Only then will the good deed not be tainted with stinginess, vanity, bound by our own will, filled with sweet self-praise and the feelings usual in such circumstances, which do more harm than the good derived from the so called charity.

God’s providence has established a very useful and convenient relationship between people, which by its very essence makes it possible to avoid sullied, human love and develop pure, Divine Love. This relationship is called pastorship. It is no wonder that the highest examples of love for people are given to us by holy pastors of the Church. There are two external conditions that make it easier.

First of all, in the majority of cases the relationship develops in a neutral area. The pastor and the flock have probably never had any previously worldly relationship, and most likely will not draw closer in the conditions they live in. This helps to prevent passionate worldly attachments, which so hamper true love, especially if passionate attachments are strengthened by worldly love.

Secondly, pastoral relationships by their very nature, as a rule, immediately become very elevated. The main theme of the relationship is the salvation of the soul, that which is most needful, that about which Christ commanded us to concern ourselves most of all.

The first condition leads to the state in which the pastor will in the least amount possible be involved in the daily life of the flock, hence not revealing the slightest bit of his personal sinful “I”.

The second condition helps the flock to not seek their personal “me” in the pastor. Thus the conditions for the development and growth of true love, free from all human attachment, are created, or more precisely, are given by God to the best advantage.

Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) frequently cites in his pastoral discussions the example of St. Seraphim of Sarov, who felt more love for those who came to him, according to the degree that they were hardened in sin. Any priest through his own experience can understand the feelings of the Saint for sinners, despite the fact that we do not have the Grace filled love that the Saint possessed. Under these circumstances [of pastorship] two factors are at work which help alleviate the conflict [of human and divine love]: there is no human attachment towards the sinner, and the sinner could come to the Saint only for the things of God. Both sides are equally distant from that which might now humanly disturb those relationships. In this case the “Pastoral effect,” if one may call it that, would be maximal.

Again, according to human understanding, a paradox, according to God’s plan, the obvious.

Under the conditions of such a two-edged “purge” by God of our relationships, the priest has nothing of his “self” in those who come to him, and those who come to the priest have nothing worldly to introduce into their relationship with the priest; here God Himself works through proper love. True love will arise if we do nothing to hinder those, independent from us, foreordained, optimal conditions.

Unfortunately we are fallen humans who do not enter into God’s intentions.

The priest, nonetheless, finds his ego in the person who comes to him. This sinful self begins to ingrate itself in the sheep through vanity, or the opposite, he becomes humanly weary of most of the flock because they are not interesting. It is also possible that the priest becomes materialistically interested in the flock through avarice. Finally there is the possibility that the most shameful and foul attachments arise, through lust, which is more or less thinly disguised. We are not speaking of direct assaults on chastity, but it is sufficient to say that the relation to various people develops due to purely external attractiveness, which means that it is passionate.

Thus the pastor, willingly or not, brings into the relationship his self where it does not belong, destroying the first advantageous condition in pastoral activity cited above. The spiritual child often meets the priest half way and ruins the second indicated condition which depends on him, thus further complicating the pastoral relationship. He is far from seeking Christ Who lives in the priest, but rather looks for the man within the priest. The motives for such a search, for a man instead of God, are also precisely found in the trident of selfness: love of glory (vanity, and man pleasing), avarice (though not often), and sensuality (which incidentally often looks for moral compromises and physical relaxation through friendship with the priest).

Both wickedly harmful things, the selfness of the pastor, and the ego of the spiritual child, kill love. The worst that can happen is that human attachment replaces divine love and both sides are satisfied with the situation; the pastor does not pester with moral strictness, and the spiritual child takes advantage of the friendship to receive an easy blessing for everything he wants. Both looked for the man and both found him. Thus God is not found and death continues to reign.

How well Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov writes about this in one of his letters, concerning the activities of a pastor: “You are alive for people and love them with the fire of natural love. Therefore people live for you and Christ is dead. Say for all those that you love: Lord, everything is Thine, and who am I? This is exactly the point, it all belongs to God, we will not abduct you... Let us die to natural love for our neighbor and come alive with true love for him, with love in God… (and this will happen) when we see ourselves as foul. Spiritual guides fulfill their duties when they desire that Christ is glorified and developed in the souls they guide... The opposite occurs when those who are entrusted to them are led through their guidance to themselves and not to Christ, I declare truly, that this is spiritual adultery!” (Collected Works, vol. 7, pp. 111-113).

These words are truly akin to the paradoxical grain of wheat in the Gospel which brings forth fruit only with its death!

Incidentally, our words are not directed to fellow-pastors but to the flock, to people who come to the Church of Christ and are completely justified in looking for love, namely that kind of love which they do not find in the world around us. How should they conduct themselves in order not to be deceived?

One only need look at the examples of God’s love in action, in order for it to become automatically apparent what one should expect from the Church. As we said before, God’s love is the union of mercy and truth, righteous judgement which punishes, and mercy which condescends. In this processes the primary activity is precisely chastising. Righteousness shall go before him (Ps. 84:14) says the Singer of Psalms immediately after his inspired contemplation of the divine union of mercy and truth. One can discern this truth from the very fall of Adam, which first made man a criminal violator of God’s Law and only then as a result of this, a miserable soul in need of forgiveness. First, the exile from paradise, and only then the promise of the coming Saviour after a thousand years. First, the flood, and then the blessing of Noah. First, the captivity in Egypt, and then the miraculous deliverance through the Red Sea. First, the forty years in the desert, then the promised land. It is forever thus: in the evening sorrow, and joy in the morning (Ps. 29:6). Joy is only harvested by those who sow with tears (Ps. 125:5).

With the coming of Christ, the order generally has not changed. There is more joy than before only because the future joy has shone even more brightly. Sorrows on the earth have not diminished, if anything they have increased. Christ never gave or promised rest and happiness to anyone on earth. Sorrows, like Adam’s, mark the whole of our life on earth. Divine joys, not sinful, ones are granted only according to the measure of our weaknesses, preserving us from despair, from loss of faith, from collapse. The present joys are merely a glimmer of the future true joy of communion with God. If this were not so then nothing would be accomplished. First fasts, then feasts; first struggles, then crowns; first persecution and insults, then glory in the Kingdom; first death, then resurrection.

All of this is simple and logical. First there came our fall, which all of us inherited when we received a body and a soul, then the fruits of redemption given, although not in actuality, i.e., not immediately to everyone, but only potentially, only to those who have come to faith and have labored for the sake of faith.

None of us will ever be at peace with God, never be united to His Holy Church which originates in Heaven, until we recognize love instead of anger in every chastisement of the Lord. At least until we begin to accept the reality of things, any form of love remains foreign to us. Even the eternal torments of hell, prepared for those rational creatures who are unrepentant and hardened in heart against God, could only be summoned against His very enemies by God’s mercy. For to be close to God, to be a participant in His divine energies in any form would be much more painful for them due to their own hard-heartedness, than for them to be totally distanced from any action of God’s goodness (i.e., in hell). If this is indeed true in relation to the eternal fate of sinners, then how merciful are all earthly chastisements of God! Exile form Paradise, the flaming sword, forbiddance from the tree of life, consequently preventing the immortality of evil, the waters of the flood, the fires of Sodom, the slavery in Egypt, the wandering in the desert, the attacks of foreign tribes, the sufferings of captivity, the wickedness of persecutors, and all the most familiar types of sorrows — all of this by the action of God’s love, leading the fallen to repentance and correction. Death itself for the people of the Old Testament granted them the possibility of repentance there, from whence Christ lifted up those who repented after His burial. For the New Testament race, death often opened up the very doors of the Kingdom. To him who accepts with gratitude those sorrows allowed by God, union with God’s mercy and truth are offered in love. Such a person enters into an understanding of God’s intention, seeing the action of Providence not only in simple terms of mercy versus anger but in all encompassing fullness.

In short, this is the picture of God’s activity in relation to all of humanity. Let us apply this to our personal life. If we have seriously come to the Church then we can immediately assume that sorrows have accompanied us. God’s truth came before and is before us on this salvific path. Have these sorrows brought forth their necessary fruit? This can be known by our reaction to the divine words which the Church, through the clergy, usually addresses those who come to Her. As the love of God was initially revealed to fallen humanity through chastisement, so in the words of the Church to a fallen person there is accusation, although it might be diluted a thousand times with every compassion and comfort; the main thing is that it announces the good news of salvation.

Such, for example, are St. Peter’s words at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40). The great joy of Christ’s Resurrection and the Descent of the Holy Spirit is proclaimed. However, these real and incomparable sources of divine joy are for the time being not real for the hearers. The spiritual state of the hearers is not hidden from the Apostle, this state of theirs is as unchangeable as the comfort of the good news proclaimed is lofty. This state is none other than persistence in the sin of deicide (Acts 2:36)! It is true that the mood of the hearers became compunctionate, but take note, only as a reaction to the Apostle’s denunciation (Acts 2:37). Then they asked, “What should we do?” The answer was most simple: repent, and then be baptized unto the remission of sins, and receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit. But first — repent!

Repent! Is this not an accusation? Do not the words. “you sinner,” stand behind it? But the Church and God’s love poured out in the words of the Church, have no other appraisal of the situation, no other advice to those who come to Her. One can alter the form, though not the content of the accusation. Of course the sinner today does not meet a living vessel of the Holy Spirit like St. Peter. He could by his word alone smite to death those who stubbornly resisted (Acts 5). Now the sinner meets a like sinner — the priest. It is the duty of the latter sinner (the priest) to announce to the former sinner God’s will, to call him to repentance. The essence of this is in the word of God. The form used to pass on this truth is merely the means of sweetening a bitter pill. The method depends on human means. Here we might speak of the art of the pastor and his human qualities.

 The main thing is not to confuse the method and the content. It is terrible when they consider a pastor full of love who does not accuse of sin, does not call to repentance, does not offer the sinner divine healing. This type of call to repentance, one might say even invitation to Confession, takes place with even such a consoling priest as described above, though the process remains totally external and deliberately shallow. Here Confession becomes formalized, all the spiritual, paradoxical teaching of the Gospel becomes clouded, all that is Godly is pushed aside. On the other hand, all that is human blossoms in all its fallen state. Love is quenched without it ever having been kindled — man-pleasing triumphs.

What will the person coming to Confession say in answer to the divine determination about repentance that he is made to face? If the previous action of God’s righteous judgement has through sorrows had an effect on him, then the call to repentance will not be limited to the externally strict aspect of accusation. This positive reaction is a sign that the person has come for the things of God, and not of man. This is a sign that the God given role of the pastor in gaining the Kingdom of Heaven for such a soul has been very limited, that he has not hidden the truths of God for the sake of his human side. What remains is done with the repentant by the Lord Himself. Here the spiritual father has nothing to boast about.

In contrary circumstances, in order for the man-pleasing pastor to give the repentant the human part that he wants and nothing from God requires significantly great efforts. And for what purpose?

Categorizing priests into strict ones and condescending ones is a purely superficial division. In fact, different people qualify a given priest in opposite ways. The essence of the matter is more important. Does the pastor understand the narrow path of the Gospel, and does he try to direct the people along this path? What is it that we look for, that of God or of man? This is the essence of the matter. It is not strictness, or gentleness, not flouting of canons, not demanding exactness in fulfilling the rules of the Church that resolves this dilemma. Living pastoral activity is not built upon canons, as much as upon the general spiritual laws, which are reflected as much as possible in the Church canons.

Experience has proven that the very external form of pastoral activity, although tainted with human sinfulness cannot hide the essence of this matter from people. No matter what the circumstances, the main issue is about the most pressing spiritual questions for everyone. Sooner or later everyone will determine, whether he received that which he really wanted?

If both the pastor and spiritual child in the depths of their soul sought after God, then in spite of differences in character proceeding from human sinfulness, they will still be together. If both sought only the human side, they will somehow come to an agreement, although in principal it is diametrically opposed to the true foundation of pastoral love, an agreement not based on a striving for holiness, but on legalizing sin. If in the end, the one stubbornly seeks God, while the other, man, a rift is inevitable.

The movement of parishes from the Moscow Patriarchate to the Church Abroad has accentuated this question and made it a critical one. In place of one church in the village there are two. Everyone must choose to which parish to go according to the dictates of his heart. Almost no one among the simple people will decide this question exclusively by the canons, by the example of the Holy New Martyrs, or for purely political considerations. People must be informed about these contradictions on an idealistic level, though it is futile to expect that they will orientate themselves according to purely idealistic principles. In fact they will only accept some sort of measure of principle into their process of thinking when they see principles applied in religious life, for example when they see how ecumenical psychology is practiced in everyday parish life. Only after this experience will they stand for the truth until death, which before they did not understand.

In similar circumstances there are very few who in choosing their church path are guided by personal likes or dislikes towards a given pastor. Although this reason is cited as among those in their decision, more often than not it is pretense. Only those are offended by the strictness of the pastor to whom strictness has been applied in the bare minimum. Those who use the reason of epitimia and a ban from Communion for their desire to change jurisdiction are not the ones who have in fact received extensive and strict epitimias. Those who fasted until their heads spin are not the ones who speak of the harm of fasting and the length of the services, or the fact that they cannot stand through the services (for the week there is always the possibility of sitting.) The only ones who complain about the excessive demands for Baptism are those who were not prepared [for Baptism], who managed to be baptized without any particular difficulties.

Truly, if a person is seeking God he will gladly accept all the strictness and labors given by the Church. How could you not labor for God, Whom you want to learn to love! How could you not cast off sinful self-love for His sake. The Lord Himself expects from us such heartfelt actions and hastens to meet us on the path with His mercy.

 

By Priest Timothy Selsky

 

Translated from the Russian original in a collection of his essays,

“Spor o lubvi”, St. Petersburg, 1995, pp. 33-40.

 

ORTHODOX LIFE No. 3, 1996