ORTHODOXY
AND MODERN LIFE
AN
INTERVIEW WITH METROPOLITAN NICHOLAS OF MESOGAIA
METROPOLITAN
NICHOLAS OF MESOGAIA GREECE
Metropolitan
Nicholas is well prepared to offer profound insight into the spiritual disease
that is afflicting Greece and the great majority of the world. His parents are physicists and his main
interests in getting a higher education was physics. He received his B.S. in physics from the
Aristotelian University of Thessalonica, Greece; an M. A. in Astrophysics from
Harvard University, an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from MIT; and a PhD in
Biomedical Engineering and Hemodynamics from Harvard University. For four years, he worked as a researcher at
the Vascular Laboratory of New England Deaconess Hospital, at the Department of
Anesthesiology of the Massachusetts General Hospital, and at the ICU of the
Children’s Hospital in Boston. He also
served as a consultant for NASA and Arthur D. Little Co. in Space Medical
Technology.
He was
awarded a Master’s in Theological Studies and a Master of Theology by Holy
Cross School of Theology, Brookline, MA and a PhD in Theology from the
University of Thessalonica, Greece, on Orthodox Bioethics. In spite of his scientific pursuits, his
profound quest for God led him to Mount Athos, a monastic state on the
periphery of Greece, where he was tonsured a monk. There, in the persons of unknown ascetics, in
the life of the simple monks and the prayer of the Athonite desert, he
recognized the uniqueness of the Orthodox Faith and truth and experienced the
revelation of the “hidden man of the heart.” In 2004 he was elected
Metropolitan of Mesogaia and Lavreotiki by the Holy Synod of the Church of
Greece. Having lived the life of science
and technology, he discovered that the greatest treasure in life is Jesus
Christ and His Holy Orthodox Church.
Below is
an interview by Prof. Nikos Kokosalalkis with Fr. Nicholas Hatzinikolaou, who
is now Metropolitan Nicholas of Mesogaia and Lavriotiki, but who was then
living as a monk and teaching science.
The interview was published in Religione e Societa on March 15, 1996.
Orthodox Spirituality
N. K. I
am grateful to you, Fr. Nicholas that you kindly accepted to talk with me on
the theme “Orthodoxy and Modern Life.”
Your vocation as a monk, living and serving a spiritual ministry at this
outpost of Mount Athos, here in the middle of Athens, and your training in the
natural sciences makes an excellent combination for a view of Orthodoxy from a
deep personal experience and a scientific perspective. Your views, therefore, will be of great
interest to the readers of the journal Religioni e Societa. Let us start with the topic of the spiritual
dimension of Orthodoxy. More
specifically, could you elaborate on Orthodox spirituality as a way of life, as
an experience and its compatibility with contemporary everyday life and social
reality?
Fr. N.H.
As you were posing your question, I thought what other dimension could
Orthodoxy have but a spiritual one? I
realized, however, that the question is essential, especially when it is based
on purely scholastic or scientific grounds.
Orthodoxy can also have a social as well as a psychological dimension. That is, how Orthodoxy affects social
relations and human feelings. The
spiritual dimension is the dimension of its essence; the others are of its
consequences.
I should
start from two concepts: the way of life and experience. Orthodoxy is a way of life and is basically
neither an intellectual achievement nor a sentimental experience aiming at
making us feel good; but it is the inner sense of the mystical presence of God
and His Grace in one’s life. Everything that makes God remote, improbable,
questionable, vague or false is sin. On
the contrary, the Orthodox faith and way of thinking makes God real, clear and
true, easy to reach, not a fantasy but tangible, not an abstract idea but a
real person.
Therefore,
in the heart of Orthodox spirituality lays the growth of an authentic faith and
genuine Orthodox way of thinking, resulting in a true spiritual life. Orthodox spirituality constitutes life’s
journey towards our reconciliation with God, in such a way that God consciously
becomes the very center of every breath and action of ours. This journey starts with a pure yearning to
approach God and is gradually transformed into faith, which through humility,
leads to the experience of the Grace of God; and finally come the fruits of the
Holy Spirit, that is, a holy life; a holy life which is not a human achievement
aiming at making us good people and feeling good, but a holy life granted to us
as a gift from God, thus expressing more of His love to us than ours to
Him. His love is godly; ours is human. A holy life is more than an expression and
manifestation of God’s power than evidence of man’s ability.
N. K. It
seems that spiritual experience in the Orthodox Tradition has a purely God
centered dimension. In other works, the
idea that permeates Orthodox spirituality is the experience of reality and the transcendence
of God.
Fr. N.
H. Certainly, these are expressed in the
name of God: YAHWEH, that is, THE ONE WHO IS, BEING IS God. We are partakers of God’s BEING. Therefore,
everything, even our spiritual desire, is more a fulfillment of His longing to
commune with us than an expression of our need to commune with Him. This is only understood if one humbles
himself. And this is why Orthodoxy means
humility. Anything that hurts our sense
of humbleness inside us and before God is not Orthodox, even if it is included
in the ways or forms through which the Orthodox Church expresses itself and
functions.
Thus
humility and man’s sense of the presence of God is in absolute harmony with the
simultaneous longing for the revelation of His love for us. In this sense, someone who lives humbly and
truly longs for God and anticipates His love in his life may live in the 20th century
as well as in the 30th or the 15th century. In other words, it is the spiritual
dimension, and not the social or psychological one, that makes Orthodoxy
everlasting. However, since there is
also a social dimension, we can certainly comment on the functioning of
Orthodoxy within contemporary reality, as the forms, expressions and problems
change according to the times.
N. K. At
this point, Father Nicholas, I would like you to link the second part of my
question. How compatible is the
spiritual dimension of Orthodoxy with contemporary social reality? We live in a secular society where the
emphasis is on material and economic factors.
How one can be a good Christian, in a spiritually impoverished age in
the circumstances of today’s Athens or today’s Rome?
Fr. N. H.
From an ethical point of view, today’s Rome is the same as the old one. Undoubtedly, today’s Rome is characterized by
materialism and secularization, elements which were almost non-existent in the
past; however, there is something hidden behind these two elements which remains
intact through time; and this is sin. Its expressions and manifestations
constantly change, but its essence stays the same.
Despite
all of this, we could say that the spirit of our times is not compatible with
what we just said. There is an explicit
discord between the Spirit of God and the social climate of our era. And I don’t mean only the mentality of the
conflicts, the disagreements, the selfishness, the drugs or the sins of the
flesh, so widely spread in our days; but mainly the deterioration of the social
morals, the degeneration of institutions, the disorientation of principles, the
bad quality of the criteria, elements that in some instances have imbued even
the structure of the Church’s body and religious organizations. Of course, God and the Holy Spirit have
nothing to do with all this. This is the
world of apostasy which existed in the past under various forms, but today is
widely spread and unpredictably powerful. Can the word of the Cross and the
logic of the Resurrection be possibly related to the mentality of the temporary
and selfishness?
Although
the spirit of the world cannot be in accordance with the Spirit of God and the Spirit
of Orthodoxy, it is possible for someone
to experience the Grace of God in this world; certainly, not by extracting all
these elements of spiritual perversion.
One can participate in the social dimension of the world, meet the
demands of his profession and may conform to the prevailing social forms and shapes,
and at the same time have a different way of thinking and attitude altogether
towards life. To things material, he
does not respond with materialism, neither to logic with rationalism. To the mentality of the human ego, he
proposes in return the reality of the true God.
The Orthodox Christian is in the world but not of the world. He rejects anything that has to do with sin
and alienates him from God.
Orthodoxy
has been saying the same thing for the last 2,000 years: Humble yourself, see
God as real and then you will experience Him as true. In our days, our ego functions in a different
way. The higher education of people
leads to greater arrogance.
In the
old days, when people fell ill, they used to take oil from the oil lamp that
burns before the holy icons and applies it to their bodies while saying their
prayers; they were waiting to be cured.
Today, we first think of the doctor, the medicines, and the antibiotics.
In the
past, people’s homes were full of icons, holy water and other holy items. Now, even in the cells of monks you can find
medicines, prescriptions and doctors’ telephone numbers.
In the
old days, in periods of drought, people prayed to God or had a litany asking
for rain; and God always answered back.
Their lives were God-dependent.
Today, when it is not raining, we seek information through the weather
reports and the satellites. But
satellites do not respond with solutions, instead they disappoint us with
explanations. Our lives are man-dependent.
Our hope
is directed towards human achievement, which can be terribly impressive
regarding its influence on the quality of our material life, but is a total
failure when it comes to man’s happiness. Material prosperity and biological
health are accompanied by poverty of principles and spiritual stagnation. Blindly neglecting the causes, we try to
improve the outcome. As a result, less
and less people are happy. Life ends up
being like a chain around us, every link of which could be called success, but
its final name is failure. The
inheritance of anxiety and unprecedented illness of social relationships
consist of an indisputable characteristic of contemporary societies.
The
Church is saying: Let’s put God in our lives, let’s trust in the presence of
His love, let’s lean our expectations and hopes on Him, and He will respond to
everything: our deeper existential
quests, our family or health problems, our daily needs.
N. K. I
would like to say what that what this means is the mission of Orthodoxy is very
difficult today due to the circumstances you just described. Is it then a voice
crying in the wilderness?
Fr. N. H.
I believe it always has been and still is.
During the time of the Apostles, the word of God was also a voice in the
wilderness of atheism, and so was the voice of the martyrs in the wilderness of
paganism, and the voice of the ascetics in the wilderness of rationalism. However, the Grace of God abides in these
wildernesses. Where sin abounds, Grace
is in excess (1 Tim 1:14). The Grace of
God overflows the desert of sin, of history, of this perishable world. And
since in the center of this world and its events lies God, the criterion of
good and evil is not the human perception of things, but the Grace of God
itself. So, Divine Grace can also
function in the desert of our era.
Through our logic, we understand its difficulty, but through our faith,
we can understand how it functions. This
is what Orthodoxy is basically doing; it preserves the Grace of God in this
world. It makes all of us long for that;
more than the birth of our child, the accomplishments of our academic or
financial goals, we long for and enjoy the experience of God’s Grace in our
life.
N. K.
From your experience as a spiritual father, do you have any indications of the
functioning of God’s Grace in our days?
Fr. N.
H. Here in Athens, I experience a very
moving reality. Most of the people who
approach me are not practicing Christians.
However, when their lives at some point reach an impasse, they turn to
God. So, they come here, either for
advice, or discussion of their problems, or, something else, and they are
totally in a state of repentance.
I
believe, that here in Greece, the seed of faith is deeply rooted in the people.
Even an atheist Greek has faith deeply rooted in him. What I am trying to do every time someone
comes to me is to stimulate the growth of that seed, so he can gradually find God
on his own. I say a few words in the
beginning to give the initial stimulus. I am impressed that in our times it is
quite easy for someone to turn to
God, but it is very hard to follow Him.
That is to say, Christian life
has become very difficult, because society itself has imposed on people a
certain mentality and lifestyle which creates an atmosphere very different from
the one of the Church; an atmosphere that constantly disappoints
man and betrays itself. So, people become disillusioned and, having
nowhere else to turn to, they easily turn to God. They make the first step, but find it
difficult to proceed.
N. K. So,
there is an existential quest and desire for God, but its fulfillment is not so
easy due to the practical difficulties?
Fr. N. H. Difficulties do not really exist, but it
is the wrong attitude that makes the easy difficult, the self-evident hard to understand, because the criteria of good and evil have changed today. People understand the truth; this means that
the seed exists in them. But, when they
have lived for years in a different way, when their environment is set against
Christian life, it becomes absolute torture to end up wanting something they
believe they can’t achieve. The solution
is to humble ourselves and let God do what we are unable to do.
At this point, there is a difference
between the East and the West. Orthodoxy does
not make good people. Her goal is not ethical perfection, but to
reveal God’s revelation in our lives.
Ethical perfection is the fruit, the natural functioning of God’s Grace in our lives. The
aim of spiritual struggle is not
victory, but humility and death. The
acquisition of the Grace of God is neither an achievement nor an
accomplishment. If it were, then man
would be entitled to brag about it. It
is a gift; a gift that humbles the soul and is granted to us as an experience
of life. As the values of man decrease
and God increases, humanity as a whole acquires greater value.
ORTHODOX
WORSHIP
N.
K. Still within the theme of Orthodoxy
as practical life, could you tell us something about Orthodox worship and
contemporary social reality? Can
Orthodox liturgical life recapture the sense and the reality of community which
we seem to have lost? Can the Orthodox
Eucharist performed in the Church have a practical impact on the outside world?
Fr. N.
H. The Holy Eucharist is also called
Holy Communion. Communion means exodus
from the enslavement of our ego and we partake in the Energies of God, in the
works of God, and in the images of God.
We cannot encounter God in the mystery of Holy Communion unless we find
Him in His images; in our fellow men, in our brothers and sisters. It is very impressive that in the Greek language
as well as in the languages of all Orthodox countries, the term communion is used
to refer to our mystical and sacramental relationship with God. It is the same
as the one used for our relationship with people. So, in
English the terms communion and society are expressed with two different words,
whereas in Greek both are expressed
with one word, koinonia. This happens because, in the Orthodox
Christian world, communion is a social experience, whereas in the West
societies have become communion less.
This is becoming apparent in our country as well, as it has started
being permeated by the strong sense of anthropocentrism (man centered) and
anthropomonism (man alone) of Western mentality.
Let me now connect the previous question to
this one, since we are talking about society and worship. There is a difference between East and West
in both worship and ethos; a difference which is theological, spiritual and
practical. The West, in its effort to
bridge the gap between God and man, presents God excessively humanized. God appears like a human being. The point of reference is man. On the contrary, the Orthodox East believes
in theosis becoming god-like by Grace.
Man is transformed to become god by God.
The point of reference is God.
More
specifically, we notice in the West that the Renaissance art technique tries to
portray divinity in the best possible human way. We will never see such a technique in the
Orthodox Tradition. Instead, we see St.
John the Baptist depicted taller than the mountains, something which has
nothing to do with the real world, and the Virgin Mary having a
disproportionately small nose. Christ is
pictured on the Cross with the same expression on his face as he is pictured in
the icons of the Resurrection or Transfiguration. He does not have a sad look in one icon and a
happy face in another. There is no
apparent effort to bring God closer to us through human descriptions. God comes into our lives as He is, not as we
want Him to be; in a divine way, not in a human form. That is why the tradition of the Orthodox
Church aims at detaching man from his earthly concerns and transferring him to
heavenly realities. Through ways that
are not so human it reminds us of God and draws us to Him. This is what I meant by saying that in the
relationship of man with God, the center of gravity is God.
The same
also applies to music. Our music and, in
general, our worship are basically filled with a feeling of compunction; they
inspire us to turn inwards. In the West,
music is more outward and uplifting; it stimulates us to open up. God is met
through a direct movement. On the
contrary, in the Orthodox Church, the main movement through which our soul
meets God is in a cyclical movement as it is described in the texts of St.
Dionysius the Areopagite. St. Basil the Great depicts this character of
Orthodox Tradition by saying: “When the mind is not dispersed outwardly, it
returns to itself and through itself to God.”
So
worship does two things. First, it makes
man turn inwards; it unites him with himself, with his heart. And secondly, through the mystery of the Holy
Eucharist, it brings God to us and unites us with Him; thus He enters us,
dwells in us and lives within us. This
is the meaning of Eucharistic theology which nowadays has been put into
words. However, the Church was always
Eucharistic, both in its tradition and practical life. It is Eucharistic, not just in the sense of
our gratitude towards God, but more in the sense of the fulfillment of God’s
intense desire to commune with Him through the Sacrament of the Holy
Eucharist. “I have earnestly desired to
eat this Passover with you.” (Luke 22:15).
We commune the flesh and blood of Christ in Holy Communion because He
wishes to unite with us; this brings us close to Him. In this way man becomes more heavenly, more
divine, and acquires a godly face, a godly countenance.
We do not
achieve these things by our own efforts or struggles. The struggle and effort for ethical
perfection brings failure and disappointment.
We acquire them through our trust in the Grace of God which makes man
holy. We conscientiously and gratefully
do whatever we can in order to offer our own share of effort. However, the outcome is brought by the Grace
of God; it solely belongs to God.
I would
like to add one more thing. The Orthodox
Church does not try to transform people into earthly angels, because her target
is not man, and her hopes are not set on this earth. Orthodoxy projects a vision of a heavenly
man, who tries to live outside of his flesh naturally, but heavenly by grace
and faith; her place is heaven and her center is God.
What the
Eucharistic and liturgical life has to offer us today is to bring us closer to
God and elevate us to heaven and eternity; to remind us that all our righteous
deeds are like a polluted garment. (Is 64:6) Whatever we do is worthless. However, there is a danger in this. Since our era tends to emphasize the external
forms at the expense of the deep essence of everything, the spirit and truth of
the Holy Eucharist runs the risk of becoming a mere formality, a habit, a
happening.
N. K.
Still there is an aspect of my question which remains unanswered. Namely, how is the gap between this
theoretical dimension and contemporary reality bridged? You spoke earlier of
the difference between Eastern and Western Churches; but today modernity does
not make such distinctions. Societal and
technological communication is everywhere, including the historically Orthodox
countries. In what sense is then Athens
different today from London?
Fr. N.H.
All these things occur on a societal level where the technological, economic,
scientific and social terms are common.
However, on the level of person and religious traditions, the difference
is apparent. The man of the West is more
rational. Even his feelings tend to be
intellectualized. Instead, the man of
the East even thinks with his heart. The
concept of God in the East is definitely mystical. God is experienced as a
mystery, whereas in the West, He is approached through rational understanding;
this is related to the cultural background and historical tradition and
constitutes a basic difference between Orthodoxy and the Christian West.
Let me go
back to the subject of communion, to say how Eucharistic theology relates
communion with God and interpersonal communion.
When we go to Church and mystically partake of the Holy Eucharist, we
all unite with Christ; we become members of the same body. We feel like brothers and sisters, each one
as much as he or she can. This is not
only a sentimental feeling, but it is also a mystical experience coming to us
through the mystery of the Holy Eucharist.
It is a miracle to experience the feeling of brotherhood. The word brother, in Greek άδελφός, is a sacred word and comes from the word δέλφια which means womb in Greek. A brother is the one who comes out of the
same womb and this womb is the Holy Chalice, the Holy Altar, the baptismal font,
and God Himself. So, if I feel like a
brother or sister, I start behaving as such.
I do not love my brothers and sisters because they are good. I love them, along with their faults, because
they are my brothers and sisters. Love
precedes quality. Respectively, I begin
feeling like a brother towards the people to whom I am related through faith,
who partake of the same Chalice, who come out of the same baptismal font, the
same Womb.
So, when
I come out of my blood family and join my spiritual one, I take an extra step forward;
my love becomes universal and whole. I
can embrace and love all people, if not sacramentally at least spiritually; I
can embrace even those people who are not related to the Church, who have a
different religion, different traditions and habits, but who are also God’s
creatures. This universality broadens
and expands the soul. When man has a
broad and open heart and this is related to humility and does not revolve
around the axis our ego, we can automatically become social, polite,
overflowing with love, and not full of rage, anger, criticism and
intolerance. Thus, the mystical and
spiritual experience gradually produces an ethical and social outcome.
N.
K. I would like a little more
clarification in regards to the specificity of Orthodoxy on this. All major religions accept that all human
beings are children of God. At the same
time the concept of brotherhood in faith or partaking of the same chalice and
the same font creates boundaries between us and others.
How does
Orthodoxy transcend these boundaries especially now that the Orthodox Church and
the non-Orthodox peoples are mixed in the same societies? What is the meaning of the Orthodox liturgy
as a worldwide offering?
Fr. N. H.
Through the mystery of the Holy Eucharist, one crosses the boundaries of one’s
self and enters the world of God; since God is boundless, man lives in a world
without boundaries, in the state of son ship by Grace, in a state of the
glorious liberty of the children of God. (Roman 8:21)
N. K. I
would like you to elaborate a little bit more on the eschatological dimension
of the Holy Eucharist as a universal offering.
Fr. N.
H. I would like to note two things:
first, we should be careful not to give an ecumenistic interpretation to what
we are now discussing, but an ecumenical character. We do not feel that God’s gift to us, that is
Orthodoxy, is a gift that differentiates us from other people, but rather it is
a gift that brings us closer both to God and to other people. For this reason the
Orthodox Tradition, never being ecumenistic, was always ecumenical and
missionary in spirit. One, who
personally experiences the gift of God, wants to spread it and share it.
The
second one is that the best thing we can do is to transform what we presently
are: instead of arrogantly being correct, become humble and saintly; from being
a Christian club to being transformed into the Mystical Body of Christ by the
Grace of God. God gave us the blessing
of being born Orthodox Christians and He only knows why. If I were born in
Japan, I would have another religion. I
wouldn’t even know that Orthodoxy exists.
When I was in the U.S., at Harvard University, one of my professors
asked me if Greeks still believe in Zeus.
She didn’t know that in Greece we are Christians.
Therefore,
when someone experiences the mysteries of his faith as God’s gifts and Divine Grace,
he cannot but feel all people are God’s children. The best gift he has to offer
them is the witness of his faith. The
yearning for their salvation becomes the fruit of his love which gradually
acquires a missionary dimension directed towards others. The rest is left to God.
On the
other hand, this does not dispute the absolute character of our relationship
with the truth. We cannot doubt the
value of the gift of Orthodoxy granted to us by God, and compromise this truth in
order to get along with other people.
This is ecumenism; it downgrades and weakens the importance of truth and
alters its meaning. Truth is not relative; it is absolute. We love the truth as being a gift from God
and it humbly accepts all those who have another religious background, a
different way of thinking and do not belong to the Orthodox Church. Certainly, it is not their fault that they
are not members of the Orthodox Church, but rather it is a consequence of our
fallen world. The prayer and hope of the
Orthodox Church is that, when the time comes, everyone will enter the font,
which does not belong to us as Orthodox people, but to God; we found ourselves
in the Orthodox Church by Grace. The
Church initiates her own children into the mysteries of God, but it prays for
the whole world, for the whole creation.
This is the Church’s universality.
ORTHODOXY
AND NATIONALISM
N.
K. From this spiritual and ecumenical
dimension of Orthodoxy, I would like us to come to a different one, also real
and important. And I mean the connection
of Orthodoxy over the last 200 years to the development and establishment of
nationalism. I think this has been
especially obvious in the Balkans and some consider Orthodoxy as an important
factor in the recent conflicts in former Yugoslavia. I would be grateful for your comments.
Fr. N. H.
So far, we have talked about the theological and spiritual dimension of
Orthodoxy, but the Church has a human side as well. Just as Christ is perfect God and perfect
man, respectively man is both divine and human and the Church has a spiritual
and a human dimension. By human dimension, we mean her social, political and
cultural character; we mean the influence of tradition and history. Who can deny that in the schism of the
Churches there were no historical coincidences or political facts
involved? In this sense, there are no
problems with Orthodoxy; we believe that Orthodoxy is the optimum expression of
spirituality. If there are any problems
in the Orthodox Church these can be found in the administrations and officials
of the Orthodox Churches.
For
example, in the Balkans, the recent resetting of the borders due to the fact
that people have a different ethnic identity cause major problems in what we
call social and political freedom. The
Churches’ officials got involved in these changes and an unpleasant situation
was created. This is connected with the
fallen character of the world we live in.
The world has the seal of sin, distinctions, boundaries, limitations and
definitely not the seal of God.
We said
earlier that Eucharistic life and partaking in the mystery and Grace of God
abolishes all boundaries, and brings us closer even to people who do not share
the same faith. So, the Orthodox Faith
could very well unite people of various traditions, different ethnic identities,
diverse thinking and habits.
On the
other hand, in the Western world, more so in the USA and less in Europe and
Australia, there is a growing interest in Orthodoxy. More and more people of a non-Orthodox
background convert to Orthodoxy. The
nationalistic character, the divisions and discords we have on the human level,
do not restrain the yearning of these people to approach the Church. Instead, they listen to God’s calling and in
a sense they bear with us. Thus, through
the ethnic Churches of their countries, they enter the One, Holy, Catholic and
Apostolic Church. This demonstrates how
the Grace of God can always function; even in situations where serious human
errors are made or shortcomings and wrongdoings are prevailing.
N. K.
From this point, I would like to continue on to the embodiment of Orthodoxy in
nationalistic frames due to social and historical conditions.
Fr. N. H.
Orthodoxy has certain flexibility in the dialect it uses to spread her message
around. I do not only mean the linguistic dialect, but also the way her
language adapts to the distinctive peculiarities of each society. A different language is used for the
Africans, a different one for the Christians of the Far East, for the Russians
and for the Americans. Not only the
language is different, but also the method and the way it is expressed. We maintain the essence and adjust the
forms. This requires a freedom of ethos
and spirit, as well as the ability to discern what is essential and what is
formality. The absence of such a distinction
may lead to an outburst of passions and provoke tension in the relation of the
local Churches.
N. K. But
can the Orthodox Church as a religious and cultural factor disengage herself
from the nationalistic and ethnic dimension?
In my view, in Greece, there is a deep connection of Orthodoxy, not only
with the sense of Greek identity, but even with the interest of Greek society,
if you like. We distinguish ourselves
from the West, for instance, by saying we are Greek Orthodox.
Fr. N. H.
I thought you meant something different by the word nationalistic. I do not consider that the Greek Church has a
nationalistic character. She has
generously supported all the suffering Churches and selflessly offered her
assistance to the sister Churches of Russia, Albania, Georgia, Czech Republic,
Romania and especially Serbia. This is a
demonstration of the positive side of the Greek Church. Of course, there is a negative
side as well which has two dimensions.
The first one has to do with our feelings of superiority when we hear
others praising something Greek; we foolishly want a primacy of honor due to
our tradition and historical past. But
this is human, considering also that there is a strong Greek influence in the
Church’s tradition. On the other hand,
the Russians could also feel superior, because they have a larger
population. This is the human aspect,
human misery; to demand authority through the Church who constantly provokes us
to deny all our own rights.
The
second one is the identification of the Church with specific policies, either
for the benefit of nationalistic interests or interests of certain parties.
Thus, in our days, politicians present Orthodoxy as a connecting link among
Eastern European countries due to their common sense of tradition. However, Orthodoxy cannot be identified with
any human forms no matter how good these are.
The only
exception to this is when Orthodoxy is attacked. Then, it is our duty to unite
and defend ourselves, expecting at the same time the help and protection of
God. He knows how to help us. When Christ was sending out His disciples, He
told them not to think how they would defend themselves. He would take care of everything. “Settle it therefore in your minds, not to
meditate beforehand how to answer; for I will give you a mouth and wisdom.” (Luke.
21:14-15). The excessive human
interference in the defense methods and protection of religious interests and
goals drives God away, and this is set against the Orthodox ethos and way of
thinking.
Presently
in Greece, we have a problem with the Turks.
Of course, our politicians will follow a certain policy, and we
ourselves will react to a possible invasion of Islam in Europe, more
specifically in our country. But it is
unacceptable to regard the Turks as our personal enemies and start hating
them. They, too, are children of God. If we were born in Ankara, we would also be
Muslims today. In this sense, the Church
must very discreetly express her own views, only within the context of her
principles, values and acquisition of the Grace of God, and stay away from any
politics which serve specific worldly objectives.
CHURCH
AND STATE
N. K.
On this topic, Father Nicholas, there is a specific historical
connection between the Church as an institution and the state, which goes back
to Emperor Constantine. Despite periodic
tension, this connection is considered so strong, as far as Greece is
concerned, that it is almost impossible to differentiate the Church from the
state. However, some people believe that
it harms the ecumenicity of Orthodoxy.
What do you think?
Fr. N. H.
No, I do not believe it can harm the ecumenicity of the Orthodox Church. Let me explain it. I feel very happy and proud that I was born
in Greece. This allows me to feel
equally happy for the Russian identity of someone who was born in Russia, and
enjoy the warmth of his tradition, which is beautiful but different from
mine. Thus, we can feel deeply grateful
to God and that among His other gifts He also gave us the gift of our specific
nationality. The same thing applies for
the gratitude we feel towards God for the parents He gave us; this does not
prevent us from regarding the parental relationships in other families equally
sacred and strong.
In this respect, we wish that a
healthy relationship and cooperation exists between the state and the Church in
our country. The Church can feed the state with her principles and values and
in return, the state may fulfill the human and material needs of the Church, so
the latter can accomplish her spiritual mission. This is an ideal situation and does not
necessarily function in a nationalistic way.
Problems arise when the Church gets involved in matters of the state and
vice versa.
At the
same time, as we previously said, the Church feeds the state with
principles. However, when the state
offers a secularized religious education, when it uses the Church to accomplish
its own interests, or wants to apply the same system to elect bishops as it
uses to appoint directors of public firms, then the Church loses her autonomy
and freedom and their relationship becomes problematic. In case of a harmonious relationship, the Church
could very well interfere in legislative, social, even financial matters, when
basic principles and values are affected, without losing her spirituality and
ecumenicity.
Unfortunately,
this is not happening in our days because the Church lacks power. It seems that modern man and contemporary
society have punished God; He is banished from our lives. Instead money, self-interests, large firms
and U.S. aircraft carriers have taken His place. However, the idea and principle of having
cooperation between the state and the Church will always be wishful thinking
for all societies. Perhaps that is how
it also started in Byzantium.
I believe
the Church will always make human mistakes that will remind us of our weaknesses
brought on through a fallen world. In a
world, which is dominated by natural weaknesses, passions, perversion, sin and
the devil, the Church will continue to preach about the Kingdom of God. And this is the eschatological meaning of the
Holy Eucharist: the expectation of and longing for perfection. It is a state which is reached through a
perfecting mentality and unceasing struggle for perfection.
In our
world, the religious people will continue making serious mistakes; the
so-called representatives of God will go on betraying the truth and
disappointing us. However, holiness will
always prevail, perhaps in some hermitages, within families or among the
Church’s officials, in order to clearly show that the Grace of God functions
under the worst circumstances. Man can
be deified in the fallen world, just as God was incarnated in the world of sin.
ORTHODOXY
AND THE NEW RELIGIOUS PHENOMENA
N. K.
Let’s close this subject and have a short comment on a topic which I think is
also important. World-wide and within traditionally Orthodox countries there
seems to be a proliferation of new religious phenomena. We observe also a growing cultural and
ideological syncretism. How does an
Orthodox eye see these phenomena and to what extent do you think Orthodoxy
becomes a part of this pluralistic and syncretistic world?
Fr. N. H.
There is a threat in just what you have mentioned; the threat of corrupting the
gift of God inside us and add to its absolute meaning a syncretistic
interpretation. This is very bad but
also inevitable in our country.
Personally, I cannot but be spiritually regretful for all these
phenomena. The emergence of cults and
syncretistic religion is a spiritual disease that undermines the sense of
health springing out of our tradition and heritage, which have given birth to
so many saints. Syncretism may harm our
nation, but not the Church. Although
truth gets more difficult to approach, it remains unaffected.
I believe
that this is the result of universal confusion, that lack of quality freedom,
human phoniness existing in these cults and people’s unhappiness that drives
them to these cults for comfort. It will
be a great consolation if the Church wakes up to these facts and the clergy
will prophetically offer the truth and clearly spread the witness of God to the
people. The Church is not trying to
prevent the evil—this will always exist.
She struggles to allow the presence of God in our lives. He will always be indispensable. The good that God can do for us is more than
the devil can cause us. “For he who is in you is greater than he who is in the
world.” (1 John 4:4).
There is
also another source of consolation. It
concerns people who have been involved in these cults, and after a while they
reject all these unhealthy beliefs and return to God. We could say they find God through the
devil. Their repentance adds a new
spirit to the spiritual body of our society.
N. K. The
subject of cults is a vast one, because it brings forth pluralism. Can Orthodoxy coexist with the increase in
pluralism and to what extent?
Fr. N. H.
Orthodoxy does not only exist in Orthodox countries, but is growing in other
countries as well. For example, there is
an Orthodox Church in America functioning despite existing pluralism. The fact that the Church can exist both in
pluralistic and nationalistic societies indicates that the emergence of cults
cannot affect faith. Therefore, we sense
the problem on the level of our ethnic identity as Greeks and not on the level
of our faith as Orthodox.
ORTHODOX
MONASTICISM
N. K.
Now, I would like to come to a theme closer to your own monastic experience and
discuss the role and significance of Orthodox monasticism which has always
occupied the central place in the history of Orthodoxy. How do you see the development of monasticism
today?
Fr. N. H.
Monasticism exists in order to show us the criterion of good and evil and
maintain it unaltered. St. John of the
Ladder writes in his book: “The guiding light of monastics is the angelic
state; and the guiding light of laymen is monastic life.” What constantly inspires the life of monks is
the heavenly and immaterial conduct of angels who unceasingly glorify God. Respectively, monastic life in its absolute character
rejects the ideals of the contemporary world: comfort, money, pleasure, glory,
and replaces them with monastic struggle (ascesis), poverty, temperance and
humility. Monasticism projects its message intact to the world.
Once, I
told a group of young men and women who visited me: “Forgive me for being a
little strict and absolute; maybe it would be better if I kept silent.” They
answered: “No, Father, it does not matter that we do not do what you tell us;
live the way you do and keep telling us about it. We need someone so much to remind us of the
things we ought to do, but deny doing them. Do not despair.” I believe this is the cry of contemporary
man. There is a desperate need for some,
who sound more like fools in the midst of this modern world, to preserve these
sacred truths and continuously declare them through their lives and voices. We need this blessed yeast of people with its
uncompromising spirit and high standards that we may never reach. However, they will constantly inspire us
towards a transfigured life.
The
Church does not call everybody to monasticism and isolation. These lifestyles constitute an exception to
the rule. The Church’s message is for
all people living in this turbulent and corrupted world. On the other hand, monasticism occupies a
central position in the life of the Church.
Some cannot bear to live in the world as it is and say to themselves:
“Either God is true and deserves everything, or that He does not exist and that
is the end of the story.” And since He
is true and alive, monks live in a godly manner, that is, with an absolute and
uncompromising spirit. Hence, the
primary task of monasticism is to preserve the criterion of good and evil,
godly and human, natural and spiritual, unchanged: to stress that eternity is truer
than historical reality, the soul is more alive than the body, God is closer than
our own selves.
The
second task of monasticism concerns the need to have people around us who can
transform their prayer into action and life; people whose only purpose is to
communicate with God and keep the channels open between earth and heaven. What a blessing! Then, we, in the world, can
collect the Grace of God left to us as truth and consolation. I am speaking more as a priest than as a
monk, since I live in the center of Athens, however as monastically as
possible. For instance, this interview I
am giving now is not something monastic, but rather something social; it is
good, but worldly. The monastic thing
would be for me to pray in a hermitage, and constantly keep those channels of
prayer free of worldly intrusion. My task here is different. I try to keep my mind and heart free of the
cares of people.
The
ministry of monks is twofold; it is to show us our destination in its absolute
form and to pray; in other words, to maintain the communication channels
between heaven and earth open. This is a
holy task! Many people come to me and
say: “Father, I cannot pray. It is your task to pray, please pray for me.” They
leave comforted and this is important.
It is the
humble and mystic monk who speaks to our hearts more than the people who are educated,
talented and active in the world. Firstly,
in monks we have God’s voice in human form; secondly human talent is presented
in a godlike manner. In Greece,
monasteries exercise a lot of influence to the outside world. The reason for this being so, is that people
search for absolute spirituality. Even
if they do not apply this to their own lives, they want to hear it. Although they are unable to reach the divine
truth, they thirst for it. They yearn for it.
They want to know it’s there, even if they avoid it or occasionally
oppose it.
N. K. Are
the channels of communication with God which constitute the monastic mission
increasing or decreasing today?
Fr. N.
H. I think they are decreasing. There is a revival of monasticism and an
increase in the number of monastic vocations because of the existing social
fatigue. However, this fatigue later on finds
an outlet. Unlike the former times, our
era does not easily generate saints.
Instead, it produces computers, machines and high technology. We, who become monks, are products of this
era and carry on us the dirt of humanity in its perverted form. It is hard to wipe it off. For instance, if you dust yourself off, you
can clean up with some water. If you
drop oil on you, you need soap. If you
have a stain of tar on you, you must rub it hard for days. The contemporary dirt of sin is indelible.
However,
divine truth is always present and people of God still exist. It seems that
monasticism is going through a spiritual crisis and so is our Church both in
her ethos and spiritual values. One
thing that is not declining is the Grace of God. It always remains intact. Despite the apparent difficulty in acquiring
Divine Grace, saints will always be present. Men of God will always exist and
God’s miracles, that is, the revelations of His Grace, will always occur in our
fallen world.
N.
K. Is this holiness, so hard to find in
our times, declining then? Is it possible for someone to become a saint in
today’s Athens or Patras?
Fr. N.
H. Holiness is never declining, because
it is not an ethical issue or quality.
Holiness is the Grace of God which is constantly expressed in the world
in various forms. It is not apparent,
but it exists. In the early centuries,
it was manifested as martyrdom. Later
on, it appeared in the form of outstanding ascetic achievements. The poor living conditions of the past
prevented the growth of the materialistic spirit which is so widespread in our
era, thus making spiritual life easier.
Today, holiness can be found in the practical aspects of life. To be able to live a life longing for God in
a world full of sinful temptations and evil enticements is holiness.
What is
declining today is not holiness but the saints, the partakers of holiness. Perhaps we can take a few steps only towards
this level, but these have great value.
One step in today’s world is of equal value as ten was in the past. Holiness is not the absolute measure, it is
the value of holiness. It is not the
magnitude of human achievement, but the way God reveals Himself to us. Saints are not people whom we admire for
their achievement. Instead, they are the
ones who glorify God with their love. Today, thank God, holiness has not
disappeared; sources of God’s consolation as well as reasons to glorify Him are
present; saints exist; God is alive.
N. K.
What are your views on monastic centers like Mount Athos, of which, of course,
you have personal experience? What about
the vast numbers of visitors, what do they get for themselves and how do they
affect the lives of the monks?
Fr. N. H.
Certainly, the best motive for someone to visit Mount Athos is not its treasure
or historical interest, the beauty of nature or a chance to get away from the
world. Although these are very good
reasons, these visits may have a negative influence on the life of the
monks. Instead of hosting 4-5 people
thirsty for the truth, they are obliged to offer hospitality to approximately
100 people daily, who may at times behave strangely. A good number of those visitors, however, is
deeply affected by what they experience and return to the world with a
completely different mind-set. Many people go to confession and change their lifestyle. I, too, experience this here in Athens, in
this outpost of Mount Athos.
From a
narrow point of view, visitors can harm the life of monks as they disturb the
stillness, tranquility and balance of the monastic routine. However, in a wider
sense, such visits may contribute to the salvation of souls. By offering hospitality, a monk expresses his
love and goes against his own will; he receives the Grace of God, not through
his achievements and efforts, but through his self-sacrifice. It is better for paradise to be full than for
monasteries to remain undisturbed. On
the other hand, the monks must be careful not to lose their monastic spirit and
remain monks; it is the visitors who ought to change, not the monks. They should not become like us. They come
from us, but they are not like us. In parallel to the hospitality that the
monks offer, they should be devoted to their spiritual work and their prayers.
A monk must have time to himself.
N. K.
From your experience of Mount Athos, would you say that the ethos has changed
at all over the last twenty years?
Fr. N.
H. I think the answer is both yes and
no. First, a period of twenty years is
too short for someone to notice any deep changes. These will show up later. Mount Athos is still under the vibrations of
a sudden revival caused by the arrival of young monks new to the monastic
experience. A weary, declined, yet
spiritually alive Mount Athos has been massively inhabited by men tired of the
world, inexperienced and not spiritually mature. This is on the human level. Their vocations, however, are from God, who
will reveal His will later on. I see all
this as a blessing from God to the life of the Church and to the whole
world. Human mistakes and shortcomings
cannot prevent the Grace of God, who constantly reveals Himself to us humbly.
ORTHODOXY
AND BIOMEDICAL ETHICS
N. K. Let
me now touch a topic which concerns your knowledge and experience as a natural
scientist. I would like your views on
Orthodoxy and contemporary scientific and technological developments in the
biomedical world. I think these developments
are staggering and generate a host of very important ethical and social
problems as well as high expectations. Has Orthodoxy anything to say about
these things?
Fr. N.
H. Each subject of bioethics constitutes
in itself a separate topic for discussion.
It would be a mistake for me to touch on this subject, since the
Orthodox Church has not yet expressed an official point of view. And I will not do so. However,
I will say a few general things, first on the subject of reproductive technologies
and secondly on euthanasia, which has already been legalized in countries such
as Australia and the Netherlands.
According
to Orthodoxy, biological life is a great gift from God, but not the
greatest. The greatest gift is spiritual
life. Whether a man lives 50 years or 70
years, it does not make any difference; he is a big nothing in the face of
history and a zero through the course of centuries. Since the center of life is God, biological
life being a gift from God is indeed valuable, but true life is the spiritual
one. Some Christians, by emphasizing life in this world, make life on this
earth disproportionately significant.
According to the Orthodox point
of view, the center of life is God
and the eternal future. We are more
than what we will become, gods by Grace.
We are more than what we now are, human beings. We have been called to become saints, more than
what we are now involved in, sins. What constitutes our life in the Kingdom of
God, the eternal future is more important than what determines our passing
through this world, which is passing.
Thus, biological life acquires a
priceless value due to the existence of spiritual life; and the present becomes
equally important due to the future.
In our days, strange things are happening in
regard to the subject of life. While we
extensively talk about the value of life, we systematically prevent births in
our civilized world. While we agonizingly
spend a lot of money on health and the prolongation of our life span, we
legalize euthanasia. Thus, a conflict is
created in the field of reproductive technologies. One group of technologies says no, where nature
says yes, such as abortion, contraceptive technologies, and sterilization. And
another group says yes, where nature says no, i.e. I.V.F., artificial
insemination, etc. It seems the struggle
of science is not a struggle for life, but a struggle against nature. How can we keep silent and not demand the
establishment of certain criteria which will determine the degree of human interference
in the beginning of life, in the birth of the soul? A similar contradiction
exists in the subject of the end of life, such as euthanasia, where pain fights
against time; pain, which is ours, which is a consequence of our original sin,
is a gift from God to us. Time is a
divine blessing, a lot more than pain is our enemy.
Death as an event, marking the beginning of
eternity, is much more important than the way it occurs in this life. The state of the soul in eternity is what
finally counts in death and not the state of our body during the last moments
in this transient life. This can
generate patience, tolerance and love for the people around us, care and trust
in God’s will, respect and humility in the acceptance of our trials as His
gifts. That is why; euthanasia is the worst spiritual death according to the
Orthodox Church.
Of course, there is an opposite side to
this. Do these supportive respiratory
technologies prolong life or prevent death?
And do we have the right to prevent death when it is on its way, and let
someone live an ambiguous life? These
are matters that need to be discussed.
As you are aware, the Church has a
different logic on these subjects; the logic of the salvation of the soul, the
logic of God. Hence, the salvation of
the souls of a sterile couple can emerge from the trial of their sterility.
Natural sterility can lead to spiritual fertility. Couples who do not conceive children can
conceive God. The Church accepts medical
intervention within the spirit of the expectation of God’s will, rather than of
having a child to whom we will offer the inheritance of our selfish love. Usually, we want a child, and not children,
for ourselves in this world and not for God in eternity. The heart of the matter is not that a couple
wants to have children, but it is why they want to have them. The Church sees children as spiritual
extensions of God and not as our own physical products. The beginning of life brings the beginning of
the soul. Every single soul is the
breath of God. The beginning of life is
as sacred as the form of life itself.
And this brings me to the topic of genetic
engineering. Today, genetic engineering
extensively discusses, but also plays games with the beginning as well as the form
of life. The creation of new forms of
life occupies a central position among its interests. The subject of the human
genome project as well as of gene therapy has been widely publicized. Scientists hoped that, by 1995, a complete
mapping of the human genome would have been accomplished, that is the specific
determination of the genes’ position inside DNA, as well as the therapy and
prevention of diseases through the replacement of the problematic genes.
However, things are not so easy.
Suppose science manages to achieve its
goals in the field of genetic engineering.
Why should a man change the form of life? What is the point of predetermining the color
of our child’s hair, when we haven’t experienced God at all? As I have already said, our life is more than
what we will become than what we now are.
So, we will have spent all our life in this world without the
perspective of eternity. The Church does
not agree with this, as she believes in the respect of life as a gift from God,
not as the source of good. The utmost good
is the manifestation of God in our lives.
N. K. If
technology and science allow a couple to diagnose a life-long handicap at the
embryonic state, what do you think would be best for the couple to do, to
prevent the child from being born or proceed to treatment if possible?
Fr. N. H.
The possibility of treatment is a good solution, as it would assist the
quality of life along with its production. But as you very will know, in all
cases of prenatal examination, the question is whether to prevent birth or not,
whether to allow a handicapped child to be born or not. Why can’t our civilized society bear to bring
up a handicapped child, to take care of it, to support the parents and
spiritually edify the family and friends?
I know a
family with a tetraplegic young boy. He is now ten years old and has become
very heavy to carry and move around.
When you see him, you cannot but feel sorry for him. However, this child
has awakened in the hearts of his parents feelings, not only of pain, but of
humility, love, self-sacrifice; feelings related to their spiritual
growth. The parents do not even want to
think that their little boy might soon die.
Even if they suffer, they adore him.
This is a common experience. I
don’t know if there are any parents who wish that their handicapped children should
die. However, if these parents knew of
their child’s effect upon them through a prenatal examination, most probably
they would have prevented this birth, and thus make our world poorer in love
and richer in selfishness. We would have
one angel less to remind us that we live in a fallen world anticipating the
everlasting and divine world to come.
Death whether we want it or not, will
exist. The only definite inheritance we
all carry and pass on to our children is the stigma of death. Which illness or impairment can be worse than
death? The Church suggests another kind
of prenatal examination. The one that
makes couples realize that they do not give birth to a life in this world, but
to a soul in the world of eternity. In
this sense, a child is a soul, a little angel, a breath of God, which although
carries the stigma of sin, yet it generates humility, not despair. We will not prevent pregnancy, because the
abortion of an embryo from its mother’s womb is the abortion of its soul from
God’s embrace and of our own soul from His will.
N. K. I
discern in what you say that Orthodoxy does not hold an antiscientific position
and is not set against research in these fields, but research must know its
limits.
Fr. N. H.
Who would say the opposite? These
limits must be well defined and not negotiable. For instance, the Church cannot
accept the fact that in order for a child to be born, we must kill a dozen
other fertilized eggs, which are embryos.
And it is not only the Orthodox Church that is set against this, but
also anyone who believes in any god cannot accept it either.
N. J. But
even a completely secular view on these issues, which is not based on any
metaphysical considerations, faces severe ethical dilemmas in this area.
Fr. N. H. Certainly; and for this reason
most of the existing centers for bioethics are not religious, but academic,
secular. People are afraid of these delicate issues. Unfortunately, we realize the consequences of
our actions, only when we reach the result.
We can neither prevent nor predict.
And we play games. What do we need these games for?
N. K. Is this progress according to the
Orthodox tradition?
Fr. N. H. What, playing games with life?
N. K. Research
is always dangerous since the result is unknown as you yourself know.
Fr. N. H.
The problem is not research. The
problem is the application of research on man and life. I read in a newspaper clipping that a sperm
donor has more than 200 living children and God knows how many dead ones. He gave his sperm through which thousands of
eggs were fertilized. This man now has
200 children with various women and thousands of dead embryos. What is the use of all this, to get paid for
giving out his sperm, to play with nature and life? The sperm is sacred. It has another purpose, which we should
respect. There is a lot to be said on
this subject.
N.
K. First, I would like to ask you if the
Orthodox Church has any solutions to suggest. And secondly, you, as an Orthodox
monk, as a priest who has knowledge on the subject, can you detect the ethical
consequences of the recent biomedical achievements?
Fr. N.
H. The Orthodox Church and tradition do
not aim at giving preset solutions to problems, but rather at creating a
certain mindset, a way of thinking out of which the solutions will clearly
emerge. On the contrary, the Western
world codifies its ethics. The Orthodox
tradition is not preoccupied with what we will do, but with how and what we
will become, without inner change. Our specific ethical actions do not
necessarily lead to our inner spiritual transformation, but rather they result
from it.
Moreover,
there is a growing interest on the side of the Church on these matters. The national committees always invite
representatives of the Church who are involved in the subject of
bioethics. Here in this outpost of Mount
Athos, we have established the first center for Biomedical Ethics in Greece. Its intention is to collect related
bibliography and create the grounds for academic discussions and understanding
of these subjects; hence, an Orthodox point of view may gradually emerge
leading the Church to specific positions, if necessary, and assisting society
to proceed to relevant legislative regulations.
This indicates a particular respect for the seriousness of the existing
problems, but also the tremendous possibility for the dogmatic theological
truths to be expressed through the channel of this contemporary questioning and
language.
Certainly,
these are the channels through which we can say few things; speak about the
respect for life, about the soul and life as a breath of God; present ethics as
a result of spiritual freedom and not as a recipe. By analyzing the beginning of life, we have a
better understanding of its end! There has never been such a conscientious and
detailed preoccupation with the phenomenon of life and death so far. Our era gives us the opportunity to spread
the everlasting message of God by using a new language. After a few years, we can repeat the same
message through a different language so God can pass through the variety of subjects
we spoke of earlier.
ORTHODOXY
AND MODERN COSMOLOGY
N. K.
There is another topic within this language of scientific developments and it
concerns a possible connection between the Orthodox view of Cosmology and
contemporary Physics. Would you like to say something?
Fr. N. H. This topic is less complicated,
despite the fact that there is some tension between scientists and Christians
regarding the beginning of the world. To
start with, the Holy Bible, the Book of Genesis, contains in only one chapter
simple truths; its purpose is to proclaim that the world was created by God,
and not to describe how it was created.
It is not a book of Physics, as many Western Christians present it to
be. However, there are discoveries that
tell us the way the world was created which is confirmed by science. For example, the fact that light was created
first and then matter. Physics accepts
this which is also in accordance with the modern cosmological theories; they
all agree that space began as an electromagnetic radiation, light that passed on
to the stage of matter through the well-known phenomenon of pair
production. There is no objection
regarding the how of creation; perhaps there is some question regarding the Who
of the beginning of the world. However the Who is not for science to tell.
While faith talks about the Creator of the
world and gives a few indications only about the way and the procedure of
creation, the most science can do is insinuate who the Creator is, while it
basically struggles for the study of the world.
Faith is primarily concerned with God as a Person, and thus encounters
Him everywhere as energies; while science, which studies natural energy, has
great difficulty in leading us to the Divine Personhood of the creation, that
is God. However, if we combine the two, science and faith, we will inevitably
see through the natural beauty of science, the spiritual magnificence of God’s
presence everywhere and in everything.
N. K. So,
in other words, there is no basic conflict between the Orthodox theological
view on the creation of the world and the scientific explanation of
contemporary cosmology.
Fr. N. H.
Within the spirit of Orthodox cosmology, there is no conflict regarding the
creation of the world. Things are quite
simple. Steven Hawkings expressed
certain views on the eternity of time in his book A Brief History of Time,
which he himself revoked in his next book Black Hole and Baby Universes.
Science
is constantly refuting itself. This is not a negative characteristic, since it helps
knowledge to expand. However, when one regards theories as laws and man’s
limitations as perfection, he will never be able to conceive eternity through
time, or comprehend time through eternity.
Science will always choke faith; human achievement will constantly push God
aside.
ORTHODOXY
AND THE ENVIRONMENT
N. K. Another
contemporary issue of great concern is the ecological problem. I believe that
the Orthodox Church holds a certain position on the subject. Would you like to
comment on it?
Fr. N. H.
Certainly it does. Orthodox theology and
the Church have energetically been involved in the study of the ecological
problem and expressed their concern in many ways: through the repeated messages
of the Ecumenical Patriarch, articles and academic studies carried out by
distinguished professors and hierarchs, as for instance, Metropolitan of
Pergamon John Zizioulas, participating in various conferences etc. From an ideological and philosophical point
of view, the ecological issues are less complicated compared to the previous
ones, as the serious threat of an ecological disaster is obvious to
everybody. While we all agree with the
theory of its confrontation, unfortunately we contribute to its expansion.
N. K. We
know that deep respect for nature as God’s creation and the emphasis on
spiritual and ascetic life by the Orthodox tradition could be a good solution
to the problem of environmental pollution.
Can these Orthodox viewpoints change our lifestyle and how realistic are
they in a wider social context, in view of the magnitude of the problem?
Fr. N. H.
I am not sure I understand the relationship between ascesis (spiritual
struggle) and the environmental problem.
Ascetic life is entirely natural and instead of spoiling the
environment, it purifies it; it shows respect and does not do any harm to
it. An ascetic never cooks, his food is
vegetarian and limited to the extreme, his body is pure, and he depends
entirely on God. Although he uses a
small amount of water to cultivate his garden, he completely entrusts the
growth of his vegetables to God, and thus invokes God’s manifestation which
transforms nature. This is ascesis: to limit the material
dimension of ourselves and long more for the rebirth of our spiritual lives.
The presence of God makes man to be gentle
with nature to the point where he cannot bend a flower, kill an ant, chase a
fly away or harm the environment; instead he respects a broken branch, the
trees, the animals, even the insects.
Gradually, he begins to love nature and nature begins to love him in
return. If you come across a beast or a snake and you love it, it will not hurt
you, for it loves you too. This is
verified in a series of incidents in the lives of saints. Isn’t this remarkable
asectic ecology? This is not protecting the
environment but rather a transformation of nature into a living temple. Finally, through the environment, we can
experience the omnipresence of the Creator.
N. K.
Here again is the great problem we come across all along in this interview.
That is, in order to materialize the theoretic dimension of Orthodoxy, one has
to radically transform his life. Some people say that the radical
transformation of the environment results in a radical transformation of our
way of living.
Fr. N. H.
It is not only a change of lifestyle but rather a reorientation of our mind-set
on life. This brings us to the term Orthodoxy. In our days, we hear very often the term
Orthopraxia (the right action) instead of Orthodoxy, as if this latter one was
insufficient. Orthodoxy, however, is the
correct term. Orthodpraxia has a lot to
do with what man does, whereas Orthodoxy deals with what he believes, thinks or
stands for. Orthodoxy means exact, the correct
mind-set, attitude, approach, and ethos. Therefore, the transformation of all these
will bring about the transformation of our daily life. It is not just a change of habits, ways or
styles, but rather a deeper inner change, our repentance.
CONCLUSION
N. K. To
conclude our discussion, I would like to ask you to become a little bit of a
futurist. Despite secularization and atheism, there is evidence of the revival
of religion and a return to religious and metaphysical concerns. How do you see the role of Orthodoxy in the
21st century, in context with the revival of other major religions
and Islam in particular? Can we foresee
any significant religious conflicts?
Fr. N.
H. I would like to maintain the
spirituality of our discussion and avoid giving any specific solutions, or
making sociological predictions in regards to the co-existence and relationship
of the various religions today.
As far as
the future is concerned, the Church has its own perspective; it is the
perspective of the past, the revival of the old beauty inside us. Its eschatology, which sounds a little
paradoxical, lies in the return to the past; she has the perspective of the
past and the nostalgia for the future.
That is, we gradually develop inside of us the belief that we have lost
what we are, what we have been, what we were created for. What we must do then
is revive the old beauty, the beauty before the original sin. The return to what we were and truly are is
the repentance we just mentioned earlier.
Religions
are just human forms and inventions. After
the fall of the Byzantine Empire, there was fear among The Byzantines for
serious trouble of an eschatological dimension due to the dominance of
Islam. We can clearly detect this
intense worry in the texts of Gennadios Scholarios, especially in the year 1492,
which was believed to be the year 7000 since the world’s creation and marked
the beginning of the 8th millennium.
In our days, 500 years later, there is a similar worry. Where are we heading, what will happen? Once again, Islam appears to be a serious
threat. Islam, as well as all other
religions is a product of man, trying to give answers to man’s metaphysical
quests. Orthodoxy is not only a religion as it appears to be. It is the bridge
that connects us with God.
Orthodoxy should become missionary and pass
on its message as a message of life. It
should be a message of life, yes. It should not be a message of intolerance and
argumentative debates. She proclaims
love to the Muslims and to all people.
If our politicians have decided the dominance of Islam should prevail,
we cannot revoke their mistakes or perverted decisions, just as Christ did,
when He was being led to the Cross, He did not revoke what the political and
religious leaders had decided to do.
Through His crucifixion came forth the message of the resurrection and
through His death came eternal life.
Even if God allows us to be enslaved under the dominance of Islam for
thousands of years, then let it be so; but truth cannot be enslaved. The
message of the Church is to maintain the truth and pass it on to our children,
our friends, our environment, as an authentic revelation of God.
From then on, I cannot predict the future.
But I do worry on a human level. I worry
because the Orthodox countries are in discord. The Christian countries are
disoriented. The West has lost God. The East has Him but cannot see Him. Islam
fights against Him and the religious cults are once again used by the devil to
destroy the world. That is what I
see. I look at the world and despair. I turn to God and eternity and am fascinated.
I hope that God always wins.
METROPOLITAN
NICHOLAS THE PHYSICIST WHO
BECAME
A CHIEF SHEPHERD OF CHRIST’S HOLY CHURCH
Edited
by:
+Fr. Constantine (Charles) J.
Simones, October 9, 2014, Waterford, CT, USA,cjsimones300@gmail.com
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου