100 “The Greek Orthodox Theological Reviews 3512, 1990 and theological learning asin the ancient Church, though by 0 means Should this be interpreted indifference or contempt for the im portance of theology. Orthodoxy, even asa technical erm characters: fag the Church in its enlieety,repretents something which is utery find proeminently theological in estence, in contrast tothe heterodox. Tivishonee agin to assure all of you who with love for God serve theological learning inthis sacred greenhouse of faith that in the {Church we do not take for grated the worth of any activity unless {tis manifestly rooted and justified thelogicaly. Moseover, a8 it has been aft and rightly emphasized, in the Church the terms Ortho- ddosia snd Orthopraxi re ttally ntertlated because inthe divinely Tnspieed. patristic language, “praxis” must always demonstrate “superiority over theo “Therefore, my brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught either by word of mouth or by Totter” @ Thes 215) ofthe Apostles, the Fathers and Teachers, the Gonfessorsand Asceies, the Martyrs und Saints who, being tortured, fell asleep in the Lord. ‘Tel, this faith established the universe.” Thankyou agen, together with my fellow hierarchs for dhe mow- ing honor tht has been paid today to the Ecumenical Throne, 10 the Mother Church, and to me personaly wish you abundantly the llumination of the Holy Spirit aay, to continue unimpeded your Sacred work under the skill guidance of my esteemed brother, your energetic and learned Archbishop Takovos. ® Love and Sexuality in the Image of Divine Love JOHN CHRYSSAVGIS SEXUAL LOVE HAS A GREAT MULTITUDE OF FACETS, IMPLYING MANY experiences, atitudes, relations I shall not analyze such know, inctive notions a9 affection (sarge, friendship (pil), charity (egope), and eras which tond to be taken as isolated, ready-made satin My pros fru on ve a pera ial fein ‘The Divine Origin of Love Christianity affirms that Jove constitutes man's ner being, The twnitarian God isa God of personal relations. When John says that “God ilove" (LJ 4,16) love is assumed 1o be an ontological reality inherent in both God and man, who isereated inthe likeness of God, ‘The beauty and freedom ofthe human person, Nichols Berdyacy bserves, is God himself Some nineteenth century poet, for instance Browning, speak of love as identical ith sunetification, God himsell ieour archetype of lve. It is he, “the creator of al... who out of ‘extreme ero love moves ouside hel... (and approaches human ty) burning with grest goodness and love and era.” I is he who is “the fllness of erotic love." And it is supreme love that moved God to ereate man jn his image and likeness‘ “As lover he "ora lucid anatomy of one, te. Levis The Four Lanes (en, 180, "Dien, Or the Divi Nome. 12 PC 3.7124 3C4 Dien, Id 41214, PC 37O9EC ad Maxine, Cmmentry ote isn Names #17 PG ax96D.» 102 The Greek Orthodox Theological Review: 35/2, 1990 vente; and as loved he tract all towards him. "As mad lover hhe desires his beloved human sou," says Nils “Herein is love, tot that we loved God but that he loved us (1 Jn 4.10, Human love, just at man hivwelf, s woman herself, can be a lorious image of divine love. Nothing less than that, but also not tore. The Christian way of lie is marked by a siking paradox: God "pproaches one when ove i eat lke God, Humility enables one to Tove. In recognizing one’s limitations one is able to transcend them. peceata,” says Augustin: through our sins, more precisely ‘through ou fy, we are led to perfection. We are cleansed through Fire (Ps 65.12, Weakness, infirmity, imperfection drive us to God, ho himself want “ll mankind wo be saved" (1 Tim 24), “The merey bof the Lord runneth after us all the days of our lives” (Ps 2.6), “for his mevey endureth fr ever” (Ps 135). Hence, very early in its exe tence the Church had t deide whether it was to be, hereon earth, ‘community for imperfect, yet complete, indivisible, religions. I Aid not choose the Tate. Unfortunately «great deal of our discourse on sexual love is tainted rot so much by wrong ideas (and practices) as by a dissociation of| Sensibility, a disection of ie, where physical activity is detached from the life ofthe sprit, or the life of the spirit is detached from bodily experience. Hence eros appears as a debased form of lve, if ot as its direct opposite. Yet loving desire isa latent spiritual energy, an inherent Godgiven force, rooted in divine life itself. To ome to terms with sexuality is largely @ matter of recognising that itis hound by God to the deepest and most erative aspects of human Love at Eros ros o sexuality today has become a mere diversion i if, deter mined by sensual appetite. When one is hungry one eats when one feels a sesual urge one acts as one pleases. But this leads merely to the trvialzaton of sex, and trivial sex serves tod ality. The exeteite of eerual powers involves ofr whale personality, Father than being a mere funetion ofthe biological organism, I also *Moximon, On Varios Quetins PG 91.125. CE ao Dino, On she Dine Nema P6464, % » J. Chryssongi: Love and Sesualty 103 inylvs the personaly of another human being, Love nplies ope nes to theater. We areal in need of others whether physically, tionally, of intellectually. We need them if we are to do fnything—erenin order tobe born. We ned them fw are to now ‘nything — even ourselves: No human beng tan lands or tis tet good for man tobe alone’ (Gon 2.18) I inthis which gives « fens of room in sexual experience, of divine spontanlty and delight inthe other, eventhough itmay abo contain possibilities of damage and destruction. "Theologians aften expres he fear that love of this kind lads toidolatry or elf indulgence or both. This ear may acount forthe tnorlsm and legliam of much theological dicourse om re, and indeed forthe exesvely solemn and nelucus tone of. The real danger however snot so much tht lovers might idolize exch obec bat tha they might idolize ve tslf eether than the love one, ad cect a slsuficient system ofits own fetishism. Tru, theve is ‘Ture Holz another person, oe tat oer person (spouse, 4 paret, a fend urn into subeitue of Go a slésufiient afTowe sto move beyond way beyond he p Dionysos the reopagie, wring in he Th century, employs the word “ers” to describe this movement, because it denotes the element of “eastasy,” of cleanses: estate? Dionysian evenly res Water lf ponible objections othe ida of eos among the morass of his own time. But he init oni. Later on, Marimioe the Con fesor depicts the whole universe as erotically responding 19 God, engaged in a ceaslesserti dalgve with him Tes siguicat thatthe sriptural understanding of sory iso 4 dynanie eazation of love tlaonship: the “chosen people” Of Godin the Old Testes was is ride whether thf or una fal trough time. Similry love, eos i am index of knowledge. To ‘nasi not merely to reir tem of infroaton, bul optiiale ino share personally to open up ovingly t,he objet of knowl. Tein this sone that Sunt Pal speaks of dvine knowlege as « “senna” gto 189 ihe Siesta tin by Ce (Gl 43) Seating shaman love one mun reroute ht i il Oe the Die Names 12 PG 3.1088104 The Greek Orthodos Theological Review: 95!2, 1990 a view of esse say uanonain, ‘as a Jove which is more Golgutha, involving losing ones lie in Fer to gain it. Love as mere ‘and woman and leayes one deeply alane. This “exploitative” tendency ee ee ag et J. Chrystorgi: Lave and Sosuaity 105 ominou foetoa n the Christin sacrament anovent imparting faving grace anda pledge of covenant ratonhip withthe sacred order Later Augustin theology which was dominant inthe Wet Mest ated original sin with human serualy, implying. as in "Neoplatonisn, that mans etn to God mast be though sap om the human body! The undeying indbody dichotomy, wich on the whole was quite alent the Eaxer pric ridin, bad a perclaly damaging effect on human relations wer cx wat con Cerne, ining atx ito «legate mechanism forthe continue tam ofthe human race, Rime, Aquinas and earer medieval thealogans, suc a Wiliam of Tier, acknowledge the significance of tiendship — in mariage or otherwise — a a piritualed form Ole, but there no recognition ofthe nas sacramental mature ‘snl elaonhi: ater — Tren of Avil ao fhe Crone tre eats in poi —~ here ina grat deal of exbliminate sex, but ities nea an exec a ties» ree exer, n intend Ainerbodiment. Inthe Reaieance, the “redncovery ofthe body paradoxically combined with acl of virginity, didnot fundamen tly change the trend tvard the demateriavaton af wx hile carnal desire became objected fo the pot of lonng all coniact ‘rth human realy. Novaya ther if core no lck osx. thy and age the amore et the lew pasion o,rather the more mpl ex fe the Tes there nb ns pomer Civen the sate of society, ome sich equation i perhaps trestle, The gods bave betn islted, lupayed,edvertied exasned acaleed,depoed. The od fer of theold wonders given vay to disbelio!— a sort of erotic theism, ‘atonal, invulaerable and mre than a ie smug. The sugestion that sex could matter steses; that i could enchant, eplbind, ‘ound sar, perhaps een destoy ~ appl Lve communion, co {imation sou for Cd's sake? What lamentable naivete about human mstiatio! Mann, sex, logetber wi al other bomen relations becomes empl Toil he vcs so resrer he al, “eaeramenal” ground of love in all-in, as Chit gave himsell. ‘The oposite of ing in exling expt ist witb So far 36 B.S Ran, The Ma oan ii Cisne oo 1959 ad Shere rasan nd es dos 1970) pti sd ay a far ott ae oman was cated sly fr pores 9 rc106 Dnt ado Toil Rs 398, 190 Freud was right, when be claimed that evil consist in refusing to ive through fear masquerading as morality or other respectable ‘linguise: Many Christians use thee Christianity for this purpose. What hhowever eluded Freud (r for that matter Nietche in a similar con text) was the bass of Christ's quarrel with the Pharisees, The Pharisee isa pious fraud, upright perhape, conscientious and God-fearing, but making himeelf good hy using God and using other people a allies for the sll which maintains and inereases a division of personality ‘and genecates the illusion that he is whole and has no need of the piysieian. Christ prcked the bubble of this pretension. ‘The Approach of the Church Fathers ose ogut ene anon ose Lint Re cat sin oapns eke ae eh wa tence bly Be Baer Tee at Leet afhomas ay an ped Seen a teas minute: edo pase ceed lc nasil gt owen ane i etn snd Sn Tl ews MOE E Sage tena Tonto honing eo ‘Patho ee mara sce Gd te pot asa istethe ah Te dec ple ode atthe Wher athe pret ter retro Goleta “ond nd Cad ose ee oad ws We a ep ny aan Sh a proms red i etna sees ich nab el hen isonet See et Capra nse meta oe Sera hack iw of tee ae crest etal one pond om ut ie On the Resection ofthe Fk by Teralion » J. Chryssengis: Love and Sexuality or itis not concerned principally wth nogative prohibitions. It doesnot impose chains and fetters. I seeks to protect human freedom, This is why the Christian East never made celibacy obligatory forthe priesthood: it eschewed a eunuchized priesthood, Significantly the Scriptures, in representing the love between God and man, almost entirely ignore angelic imagery and go straight for the mages of ral, tangible love, speaking of bride and bridegroom, of marrage, of union and communion. The same symbolism is stamped on participants in the Eucharist, in which divine etvty is communicated tothe Body of Christ in Christian worship, as they idetiythemlver afresh with Christ: “Thou hast smitten me with yearning, O Christ and with thy divine love hast thou changed me; but do thou burn away with thy spiritual fire my sins For the Fathers ofthe Church, leis inherently, intrinsically, and nly communal, interpersonal, eucharistic "Prom our neighbor is life and from our neighbor is death” states Antony of Egypt (215.356)" For some the “other” is » real or « potential threat “enfer c'est Vautre” Sartre). For the Christian “Tautre™ is a “neighbor,” and alter ego, a beloved. Loving means caring, loving means trust and dependence, mecting and encounter, respect aad knowledge. Loving means humility which puts the lover beneath al creetures Geo Rom 93), in eoateaditinetion to the superior “pilosophieal” love which loks down condolently anothers, of even to the “humanitarian” altruistic love which regards athers as equals, The Sacrament of Marriage Marriage must surely be more than social or even an edesastical institution concerned with the welfare of «family and with its sur ‘vival and continuation na divided world. Lave can never be exclusive; itis by its very aatare all ncusive The bourgeois conception af the family a6 a tight-knit, self-contained unit hardly differs fromm sek absorbed individualism, except tha it broadens the range. ‘And the Church does not idelise the family. It tends 1 use it "Th Saji ofthe Ds Fate Np Cle) iy 9. Lor eagle Bl the rest ange ler or sang chase Saran nema hee satiny eo tod108 The Greet Orthodox Theological Review: 3512, 1990 ‘a an image, type, Through it the Church Fathers peresived a ynamie element in the family, leading to freedom, to love, 10 ‘cherie communion, For the Church, what i important is not tihether this or that couple ae quarreling or no, or aren each other's {ions but whether they are capable of living an eucharistic elation ‘hip, which provides the protelype for marriage asa sacrament. Thus eats love is dealt with on a level different from that normally considered, “This does not imply the dualistic notion thatthe essence of m riage isa quasimetaphysieal entity constituted by the sacrament, tihich endures quite independently of the acual quality of the per onal relationship, or any indication that it may forall practical pur poses he nonexistent. The reality i affected by the existential fel hhariage isnot indelible eguedles, But in giving marriage the sats tf a mystery a sacrament, the Church shows it as a way of life and Tove, aba Gedgiven reality, mediating the meeting between the eteraal tnd the temporal, What concerns the Church is nothing less than Salvation, the stnctifetion of every person, every relationship, ‘everything — tthe lat speck af dust. Tiss why even our food and Arik is transmuted into the body and blood of Christin the s tment of the Eucharist. tie questionable how many today really understand this kind of ngage about mariage or believe that asthe saying goes, “mar ‘ages are mae in heaven.” In a consomer society it is natural for ‘artinge to become a matter of mutual consumption, In fact, it is geal exercises ao much fascination, despite yremattal sex,” despite trial marriages, despite marriages of| wholesale and retail convenience, Bul marrage can and must be Alefended on other grounds — situationally, not presripsively” (in the words ofan American moras) in terms ofthe fat that persons fatter, thet love matter, that the despest welfare of partieular pe: ‘ans inthe particular situation of marriage matters, ather than aay Tegal codes, conveniences, and appetites. This isthe reality under ing the comparison ofthe union in marriage tothe communion be- tween Chris and the Church (Eph 5.32) and providing marriage with the quality of a mystery, « sacrament, surprising that ‘The Sacrament of Monasticism edit can only be Fulfled. This fultiment Love is never » » isto be found inthe act of giving, notin covetousness In this sense ‘monasticism can be seen as correlative to marriage: it 00, sa wa) of faliment i love, even if monastic chastity may have contributed to the devaluation of marriage in expectation ofthe parousia or the Second Coming of Christ. According to Gregory of Nyse, divine love cannot be achieved without chastity.” What is at ieue however is ‘ot just abstention from aex, not extinction of what, afterall, isthe ‘most vital response to if, but a redirection tite origin, tits divine sources. This may not be easily grayped, excopt by = diminishing religious remnant; but al least it ean be approached witha degree of respect as unique and chosen way of ie, jst as one would expect, the sacred and intimate relations between lovers to be respected, Personal love pervades the experience of true monasticism: "a true monk,” says John of the Ladder (seventh century, weeps for the sins of each of his brethren, and rejoices aver the progress of each." Haman beings are seen at essentially members of one another. Created in the image of the Holy Trinity, the human pee son becomes truly personal in relation to others. This perception is as tue of the monk or nun as itis of « married person. The element of withdrawal in monasiciam, antensibly negative, is no abdication (of social responsibility. A a matter of historieal fact, monks have ‘even acquired, at different times and in various places, predomi nant even privileged rol inthe exercise of temporal aswel as sprit power. Basically however, monasticim, jst ar marriage, isa eacra ‘ment of love, dzceted towards te falflment of the Gospel command ment to love God and one’s neighbor.” Love is greater than any ascetic fea; itis even greater than prayer A single vivid exper fence of ere would advance one further in spiritual life, would be more effective, than the most arduous struggle agains the passions snd the most severe ascetic methods Indeed the purpose af all ascetic endeavor is sid to be love A single flame of lve buraing in the world is sufficient to spark off «cosmic fire. One person burning J. Chryssangs: Love and Sexuality 109 Cregory of Nyse compe an tetine On Vino th fet tp in OSA. Ck Pachmio, Ft Crt Life #3. ual he Crest, Lte 07, 2 John Klin, Ladder 2648, "Dados, Gueste Ceti $0 0 Abana, Lf of Antony110 DR uct ond Tega Rei 82, 150 witht oh wold an ring shot the essa ith Gad Gon iy ° It is not surprising that so much struggle, even suffering, goes: torte cans angratn of a's ea hn ot png te ony vie en een thal compute et sf hen nate aed any edit 8 trtns, When ae Gon np I Sere seal bing pin twas psn tonal, ted nal pn Bln Ts went pe” bt ha dhe linge overs mnt Soni turion to papal Ta ln sng om pe aed tues pense, pani, Tong ee eed hey on nage of eee ve Tay ae of Mecano ie of Gale geter than thn af moder fer ci hero sb" There on tn wat ie Shp of Hern ese pnts oe aid bey oer pone" nthe ed errr oo be mo Tages meroinage esl sl nergy, «pote erase asin Sch ith ete ohn Raton rho peta cies ad be ‘As an example af he fear of the Lord ta take the far that we fea inthe presence of rulers and wld east: and ata example lypedeigna of desi or God et carnal lve serve as a mode (P08) for you There ie nothing aginst taking (poche! ma) examples of he vets fom what is contrary nanton)® ‘The. words "gaa dg” show that carmllave ot god in el bat st te ood; the word “evaviov” thaws cealy that for Klimakon there ie bath contrast and analogy between ctrl and vine love, With this qualification, Kimakos Ladder uses the vivid "Sig of te De ars 8 6168 "hue re Tsar 1 PE 90 62490 ee en ne S09 Pe en 1, Se Hn 98 wih pa wien Nel in, Mi tae er 3051580) nt 1 157A, Dot, Say ing al Sc ew gn a “Scent & Oh _ otha sb Br Ye os tease ely teiietane ed pil nd an y ’ J. Chryssangi: Love and Sexuality Mm language of lovers: “Blessed ihe who ha bana such love and searing for God a maul lover ha for bis beloved = Eros, passionate in its desire ef. Dan 93 and Wis of Sol 82), ‘throws lights on aberrant (Is S.4; Jer 221) or harmful passions they are nt to be supressed or silenced but transposed, moulded, iluminated, pu on their right and natural course. In the monastic context, passions are dal with different: they are tobe transcended by the conquest of greatey and divine passions. The monk makes 3 leap, turn ll his passion towards the Deity (ef, Prov 427) and lays all his effort of love a the feet ofthe Lod: “I have seen hesychast, ‘no insatiably nourished their faming desire for God through prayer (aillnes, generating fie by fire, eros by eros, desire by desire.” In this ertie course dspasson itself becomes a pasion. Perhaps a world reduced to “lesh’ sa small and narrow work by comparison with the world of such passion, With reference to such moral issues, i s not possible to offer ‘simple solutions answers inthe form of objective recipes. Otherwise, ‘one is doing avay with the fundamental principle of himan freedom. ‘The Chureh, 190, kiows of no auch recipes. Instead, it recognizes tho signifiance of «spiritual guide who doesnot so much give orders as remind one ofthe wuth that lifes personal For the Chul respects ‘the dignity ofthe human person even when he fil. Isaak the Syrian persistently ask from God that he beable to recognize and accept ‘the humility (or humiliation) of his nature with pleasure. Only in the Church is ou failure, eur in aoepted. One eatnat re to sn in a polieal party. Yet the Church sare precisely fom the reality of sin — the only offering one is rally able to make. It is in Christ that death is conquered, that one's individual hell ‘transformed into heaven, into Church, Fr hell is ablished in Christ, and in love. Whether we enter heaven or hell no longer depends ou four merits but on our Frith end love2” Hell isthe absense of per sonal love: it i, in Dostoyevsiy’s description, being bound up hack torback with a person and never being thle to encounter bis fac, ‘imately, the failure to place sexuality in its fll steramentalenntext 305 02680, GL. Dinysog, Later 8 PG 105,112 The Greek Orthodox Theological Review: 3512, 1990 leas either to its iealisation oF to its abuse Since love is characteristic of human nature as created by God and since man iin fallen state, love is at once something already ranted by God and yot something fr which one must strive, Its both s startingpoint and an end-point. Whether & monk or & mat Fed person, one must continually sruggle to become what one already > ‘The Boundaries of the Church: An Orthodox Debate EMMANUEL CLAPSIS JESUS PRAYED THAT ALL IS DISCIPLES MAY RE ONE AS HE AND 1S Father are one (Jn 17.21). He wished them tobe one flock under one shepherd (Jn 1721, guided into all the trath hy the Holy Spirit Jn 16.13), Through their patieipaion inthe ie of Jesus, the Christine have been reconciled to God and have became one in Christ (Eph 2.18.18) This unity isso intense that there isin them neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor freeman, neither male nor female (Gal 328) For Sint Pel, the followers of Christ, conelituting his body, cannot be divided since iti impossible for Christ to be dived (cl 1 Cor 1.13 Faithful wo the biblical and patritie raiton, Orthodoxy strongly believes that there can only be one Chureh of God since we only know one Lord, one faith, and one baptiom (Eph 4.5}. ‘While the unity ofthe Church leaves room for diversity among local churches, it excludes a plurality of rival churches and conflict. ing denominations that reject one another's doctrine, ministries and sacraments’ Yet Christendom is divided and thie calls for theological explanation, What, then tthe eocesal realty of those Christian communions and churches that are net in communion with "ues D.G. Den, Unty and Diet nthe New Tete da Inui nto {he Character of Eat Chianity(Paldelphin, 19, Regma Bren The ‘aly and Dri inthe New TonamentEoiasingy® Ne Teton Bsr (New York 18 pene Kanan “Unity ad May nthe ow Testament Doce ‘fhe Charch™ New Teeat, Quon of Toy {Pad 1, yp 2999, ie Manan Opec oe nro, eon rt onsale, ‘on us