What does it mean to be an adult?

True adulthood is defined by independence in thinking, self-sufficiency, contributing to the community, marriage, and raising children to stand on their own feet.  If you read that carefully, then you realize adulthood is in a serious state of fragmentation today.

The Church, being the bride of Christ, and the one in whom the Spirit of God dwells, has a role to further the kingdom of Christ, which includes what our Lord Jesus said, “I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly” (John 10:10).

Christ came to redeem humanity, and He redeemed everything in it except for sin alone.  This means of necessity, there must be a Christian form of adulthood, and an initiation into this form of adulthood by the Church.

Independence in Thinking

With that said, when we consider adulthood, its main characteristic is having the ability to make correct judgments independently.  This requires an understanding of principles on which to base decisions and to make judgments about certain thoughts.  Our faith is immersed in stories from the Bible to the saints and martyrs to even our own congregations.  We are regularly immersed in these stories, BUT stories don’t comprise principles (they surely can lead us to comprehend principles when we reflect on them (and probably more than anything other form of writing or speaking), but such comprehension requires modeling.

This is where the Church comes in.  The pastoral ministry of the Church should model for us what it looks like to reflect upon the stories we receive in the Church whether from the Bible, or the saints and martyrs, or our own modern congregations, and thus the Church can lead us to grasp the principles on which our faith is built.

Sadly, the tendency is to continually go to others (read clergy) for ‘advice.’  But what often happens is that it really becomes going to the priests and having them make the decisions for us.  When the clergy do this regularly, it disables people from not having independence of thinking, and brings them to a state of perpetual childhood.  Such a state is spiritually harmful as I showed in the previous article “The Juvenilization of the Faith.”

Word cloud generated based on the words in this article.

The O-word: Obedience

Perpetual childhood leads the faith to be experienced as in the scheme of obedience/disobedience.  And thus, it will be unfulfilling.

A heavy emphasis on obedience is unhealthy because it puts people into a perpetual state of childishness. It is the characteristic of a child to respond to a command and to obey, but it is the characteristic of a mature person to do things out of principle and a conviction in order to live according to a specific way of life.  To your surprise, the word obedience is not mentioned that often in the Old and New Testaments compared to some other words such as “love” or “repent” or “turn.”  If you notice, those terms are about principle and conviction, not simple obedience.

Some will counter what I am saying by arguing that our Lord Jesus says, “become as little children” (Matthew 18:3).  Yes, indeed He said this, but it was referring to their innocence, their inquisitiveness especially to understand the world for the sake of the understanding itself, for seeking things for themselves versus what you can get out of them, in their gentleness, in their forgiveness, and in their fresh outlook on the world.

Certainly, He did not want us to be cripplingly dependent on others and overwhelm our clergy by not being able to make decisions on our own and going to them to make decisions for us, or not developing our discernment or judgment (as entire books of the Bible such as Proverbs and the Psalms exhort us to do), or to be self-centered like children.  He also said, “Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matthew 10:16).

When He said to “become as little children,” He said that to show that there is something redeemable in children which is also preferable to the toxic ways in which grown-ups think and act.

This is addressed to clergy and parents first, and to anyone else interested second.

This is the first of two articles.

At no other time in history has youth been so heavily emphasized in culture (both secular and Christian).  From the point of view of churches that still have a large number of children and teenagers, the emphasis on the youth guides every decision these churches make.  This ranges all the way from the age of the pastor who is chosen to shepherd the church to how the layout of the church is set up to what type of music is used in worship to how many activities are offered for the youth.  (At this point I want you to start thinking about what is missing from this picture).

From a spiritual point of view, such emphasis is bizarre, and it is more shaped by 20^th century youth culture than anything else.  It is nothing less than the idolization of people from their late teens through their early 20s.

What I have described above is the aerial view.

Now let’s go down to the street level view. Such an emphasis on youth can sometimes (although not all the time) compromise the principles that make us Orthodox Christians.  For example, I have often heard that “We need to keep the youth in the Church” when justifying a questionable decision such as having heavy metal music for “worship.”  The reality is such a decision only appeals to the fleeting tastes of the youth.  “It will keep them in the Church” they say.

Other times, content of the sermons is compromised become nothing more than self-help and self-improvement, which is a modern watered-down philosophy that is built on the desire to be productive in an increasingly fast-paced world, and it is otally centered on our selves rather than centered on Christ.  “But it will keep them in the Church,” they say.

The people who show such “concern” for the youth will use their positions in the church’s service to schedule a lot of meetings for the youth throughout the week (Bible Studies, Wednesday night youth meetings, hymnology classes, Sunday School, and outings), and as as true for anything to be meaningful, the frequency of such meetings will bring down their quality.  “But it will keep them in the Church,” they say.

Justifying decisions by saying, “It will keep youth in the Church” is nothing more than tribalism and busyness rather than the inculcation of a Christ-centered way of life in the young.   The Church will (and often has) failed at forming authentic Christian understanding.  Such lack of understanding in both those who serve and the young who are catered to brings in non-Christian ways of thinking into the Church.

But have you noticed what’s missing yet?

What’s missing is a preparation for adulthood as Christians.  It was missing when the “concern” for the youth drove all the decisions in the Church; it was also missing when all these meetings were created that kept the youth busy.  Such a way of doing things does not prepare anyone to be an adult who is a Christian. With such a system, once the youth reach adulthood, their spiritual lives will become stagnant at best.

Yet there is something interesting happening: The rise of attention to public intellectuals like Jordan Peterson has revealed a deep hunger for an adulthood that no longer exists in the West.  This hunger is also present in the Church and is often not adequately dealt with pastorally.

But why isn’t it?

This is for several reasons, but the common factor between all these reasons is youth-centeredness.

Youth-Centered Christianity is Not Authentic in Light of Christian History

What does that mean?  Didn’t the early Christians care about the youth?  For sure they did.  But care does not equal keeping the Church’s attention solely on them.  Going back to the history of the Church can inform us on how to carry out the service in a way that initiates the young in a way that forms them to be ready for adulthood as Christians, and at the same time allow for continual spiritual development as adult Christians. 

The Order of Readers

From the earliest sources we have on the Order of Readers in the 3^rd century, we can make the determination that they were children, specifically pre-pubescent.

But this was not a nice gesture to include the kids in the service.  Rather, it was a serious expression of theology meant to teach both children and adults.  Firstly, in the days of the early Church, reading was not as easy as it is today (even though if you’ve read my previous articles on the matter, it is clear that reading is anything but easy today).  Back then, there were no spaces between words, and a reader could not just go up and read monotonously without any understanding.  It would have been nearly incomprehensible to read out loud without understanding due to this.  Readers had to reflect upon the text beforehand to sound it out correctly and in addition to sounding it out, they had to have read it fluently.  So, it was a way to inculcate the gravitas of the Scriptures in the young by giving them this serious responsibility.  Bear in mind that for most of the adults in the early Church, this was their only way to access the Scriptures apart from the sermon.  This assigning of responsibility caused the children to authentically participate into the spiritual life of the Church; it was not just a gesture.  And it was certainly not just a way to keep them busy.

In comparison, today when our kids read the Scriptures in the church service, it is only a gesture: they stumble, they mumble, and monotonously read the text with zero understanding and for that reason they also can’t communicate understanding to the congregation who is listening.  This is not distinguishable from “noise.”  And this is one reason (but not the only reason) that it becomes difficult to focus on the readings in Church.  Of course, the main reason is choosing to pay attention, a skill that is becoming rarer each passing year.  But I know even when my attention is not 100% there, a clear and compelling reading demands my attention.  Such a reading was the type practiced in the Church.

Further, in the 3^rd century, Readers retired at puberty.  Thus, in those days only the high-pitched voices of young children were ever heard reading the Scriptures.  This was to signal that we must become like children to inherit the kingdom of God (Christopher Page, Lecture # 2: “Towards a Ministry of Singing”).

But what about youth groups?  Boy’s meetings.  Girl’s meetings.  Sunday School?  Bible Studies?

These meetings didn’t exist; all these are innovations in the past couple of centuries.  This shows that youth groups, meetings, and Sunday School are not as effective as you might think them to be.  It has even been noticed by modern Protestants that youth groups have had a detrimental impact on the faith of the youth.

Rather, it was the communal gathering, service, attention to the Scriptures and sermons in specific, and the contemplation upon these things once they left the church service that nurtured, sustained, and grew the children and the adults in the early Church.

In the ancient Greek world, the word commonly used for “love” was eros.  Eros, in our times, has wrongly been identified solely with sexual love, and recently a friend of mine referred to eros as “lust.”  But eros is much deeper than that.  Eros is the love that draws someone toward something or someone else.  It is better translated as “desire.”  But is it a specific type of desire? It can be a desire based on the body (that is the impulses of the body) or a desire of the soul.

Now the reason it is associated with sexual love is because sexual attraction is a manifestation of eros.  But whenever we pause when we behold a beautiful sunset and we stop and gaze at it, and whenever we read a beautiful poem and we smile and it keeps ringing in our head, or when we smile when we are around the person we love, this is eros.

Whenever we wonder at something like the expanse of the universe or the beauty of the heavens or the person we love, this is a manifestation of eros.  This wonder (which is intimately tied to eros) is the foundation of all exploration of knowledge and acquisition of understanding.

In the marvelous book The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius writes a short poem that alludes to this teaching saying,

“Love binds people too,

in matrimony’s sacred bonds

where chaste lovers are met,

and friends cement their trust and friendship.

How happy is mankind,

if the love that orders the stars above

rules, too, in your hearts.” (The Consolation of Philosophy translation by David R. Slavitt, 58)

The complex (and serious) character of eros is the subject of Plato’s Symposium where seven speakers each contemplate the nature of eros over a symposium (which was an after-dinner conversation accompanied by wine).  Socrates, when his turn comes to speak, recounts a conversation he had with a certain Diotima of Mantinea, a philosopher and priestess, who talks to him about the nature of eros.  Thus far in the symposium all the speakers described eros in terms of bodily attraction, but Diotima’s teaching is incredibly profound.  She says to Socrates,

“Those who are pregnant in the body only [in other words whose potential is only in the body], betake themselves to women and beget children—this is the character of their love; their offspring, as they hope, will preserve their memory and give them the blessedness and immortality which they desire in the future.  But souls which are pregnant—for there certainly are men who are more creative in their souls than in their bodies—conceive that which is proper for the soul to conceive or contain.  And what are these conceptions?—wisdom and virtue in general.  And such creators are poets and all artists who are deserving of the name inventor.  But the greatest and fairest sort of wisdom by far is that which is concerned with the ordering of states and families, and which is called temperance and justice.  And he who in youth has the seed of these implanted in him and is himself inspired, when he comes to maturity desires to beget and generate.  He wanders about seeking beauty that he may beget offspring—for in deformity he will beget nothing—and naturally embraces the beautiful rather than the deformed body; above all when he finds a fair and noble and well-nurtured soul, he embraces the two in one person, and to such a one he is full of speech about virtue and the nature and pursuits of a good man; and he tries to educate [the other]; and at the touch of the beautiful which is ever present to his memory, even when absent, he brings forth that which had conceived long before, and in company with [the other] tends that which he brings forth; and they are married by a far nearer tie and have a closer friendship than those who beget mortal children, for the children who are their common offspring are fairer and more immortal” (Symposium 209a-d, 100-101).

The Symposium is thus the origin of the idea of Platonic love, which is a love between souls only.

Body Language as Incarnational Speech (Dialogue)

That brings us to the one relationship in the cosmos that most concretely manifests eros. One of the most interesting things to see (and experience) is when a man and a woman are drawn to each other because of eros especially if that eros is one of the soul, and not only of the body.  It manifests itself in body language.

The Old, Old Story

by John William Godward, 1903

First begins the eye contact, then the exchange of smiles, then the unconscious imitation of one another.  You can see it in the way they are sitting next to each other or if they are sitting across each other, how their bodies are oriented toward each other.  Then they hug.  In psychology, this is known as the breaking of the touch barrier.  Then if the eros is sincere and more importantly real and not contrived, then the body language will naturally and gradually progress.  This touch barrier, if it is broken appropriately, meaningfully, and at the right time, then it is a sign that the relationship is progressing.

This is also interesting because this reality is seemingly opposed to early Christianity’s emphasis on the rational soul because when a man and woman are drawn to each other, the rational soul is almost secondary; the body language is primary.  But upon reflection, that’s not quite true; rather the body language is incarnational uniting the pattern of love (which is immaterial and universal) and it manifests in the body language.  This body language takes what you are, what you have said, and what you have thought, and acts them out.  The incarnate Christ did the same thing.  He came to act out what He had earlier spoken through the prophets in order to show His love for humanity.

The Dance of Love

If you noticed in the example of the man and woman, such an experience of eros must develop authentically, organically, and slowly.  Those who jump in are missing the point that this is a slow dance.  Many people today jump at the chance to enter into a relationship so they can immediately have romance and butterflies (and other things), but the rushing in means there will be a lack of substance and meaning.  It’s like a movie, but instead of watching it from the beginning all the way through the end, you fast forward to the end.  Such rushing in spoils the experience.  Such an approach to eros is doomed to destruction because it is self-serving.  That now brings us to agape.

The Fruitfulness of Eros

Agape fulfills eros in an analogous way to Christ fulfilling prophecy.  At the point when eros is being experienced and a relationship between the two is developing, one out of two things must happen: a reaction or response.  How are these different?  A reaction is impulsive and thoughtless and focuses on the moment, but a response is thoughtful and focuses on the moment and what will result from this moment.

This is where agape’s opportunity is.  Agape is the type of love that wills the good for the other.  This is why it is called unconditional love; it is not based on any condition, but it is a rational type of love purely oriented toward a goal rather driven by a feeling.  That goal is to seek the best for others and for them to grow in that goodness by the actions that we take.  Eros is conditional, but agape is not.

The ancient Greek world did not talk much about agape.  It was Christ who embodied the idea of agape and preached it to the world.  Indeed, the Apostle John said that “God is love” meaning the nature of God is willing the good for us as humanity.  Thus, we respond to such agape by becoming full of agape ourselves, since after all, we are imitators of Christ, who is agape incarnate.  It was Christianity that spread the idea of agape across the world.  And the idea of agape as sacrificial love is one that is rooted in Christ.

But eros, since it is conditional, can be ambiguous and it can lead to a destructive end, but agape loves the person regardless of what condition they are in.  This is the type of love that a mother has for her children whether they are well-behaved or ill-behaved, whether they are gifted or whether they have special needs.  It is the love that never stops working, and indeed, it is the love that works miracles in the lives of people.  It saves those who are hopelessly beyond saving, and it transforms people for the better so that we might not even recognize them after the transformation.  God uses the analogy of a mother’s love to describe His love for His people in the Book of Isaiah twice when he says,

“The man who is slow to grasp things but who really tries hard is rewarded; equally he who does not cultivate his God-given in­tellectual ability is condemned for despising his gifts and sin­ning by sloth.” — St. Isidore of Seville

There is a clear distinction between three types of people in the Church:

1. Those who are well read as a matter of habit
2. Those who read occasionally
3. Those who actively choose not to read (sometimes we call this third group illiterates).

Yet I feel this is unfair to people who are truly illiterate because ignorance and illiteracy are not the same thing.

Ignorant means “lacking knowledge,” “uninformed,” “unaware.”  Therefore, ignorance is something like a willed unawareness due to lack of care.

Illiterate means can mean one out of two things: first, “unable to read and write,” and second, “having very little or no education.”  I think the first definition is the best one.

The difference between ignorance and illiteracy is subtle but essential.  Ignorance has the added state of being uninformed and unaware.

The Sermon on the Mount (1896)

by Károly Ferenczy

The role of the laity in theology

So while we see a clear distinction between three types of people in the Church, the heritage of the Church has been passed down by both the illiterate and the intellectuals.

What?!

Yes, that’s true and I’ll go one step further: it is something we should celebrate.  Now, I should clarify, you probably have never dealt with illiterates in your churches, but only the ignorant.  I am not saying we should celebrate lack of awareness, but the illiterates are not unaware.  Why?  Because an illiterate allows himself to understand even though they can’t read.

The ignorant are unlike the illiterate because they are unaware about the purpose of our faith, our worship, and our way of being.  The illiterate are often aware of the purposes of these things.

To give an example of the ignorant, take the attitude of today’s laity who asks what the faith can offer them.  They have centered everything on their own desires (which hopefully all of us by now know are faulty).  The ignorant treat Christianity as if it is a business transaction or a certification program instead of understanding that it is the entering into the mystical family of God.  If someone approached a family with the mentality of “What’s in it for me?” that person would be labelled as a jerk because they center everything on themselves whereas a place in a family is self-sacrificial.  And in that self-sacrifice, we experience meaningful fellowship, friendship, and communion.

Now consider the literature that came out of the early Church.  If you have heard about some of the topics covered or even read some for yourself, then you will know that this literature is deep in a variety of ways whether it is philosophy, poetry, or piety.

I think of such instances like St. Gregory the Theologian and his spiritual daughter St. Olympia.  When St. Olympia was about to get married, St. Gregory was sick and knew he would not be able to travel to her wedding, so he wrote her a poem instead (which to my knowledge has unfortunately never been translated into English).

Also, when we look at the letters the early Christians wrote to one another, we see such depth and care.

Nobody does these things anymore: writing poetry or letters to one another.  We have become fragments of humans.  But it is this true membership in the mystical family of God centered on our Lord Jesus Christ that transforms us.  It makes us fully human.

We should thank God for the unnamed early Christian lay people (including the illiterates) in our prayers as much as we praise the Church Fathers because had it not been for the authentic Christian living of the laity and their true reaching out for Christ, we would not have received the rich spiritual and literary treasures of the early Church that we have.

How is this so?

It is because the regard for the audience shapes the author’s way of speaking and the topics the author discusses.

But more than all this, there have been many saints who were illiterate who have left a lasting impact on the Church.

Examples of the Illiterate in the Early Church

St. Anthony the First Monk

St. Anthony the Great was illiterate.  All the people who knew him, wrote about him, and praised him said so.  But he was not uniformed or unaware.  If you read the letters he dictated or his biography by St. Athanasius, it is clear that he had a strong grasp of theology and spirituality.  St. Athanasius (who is the greatest Church Father because of his unique talent in distilling the essentials of Christian doctrine and making them super clear in his writings without watering them down) wrote the biography of an illiterate monk.

This biography in turn had an impact on St. Augustine’s conversion to Christianity, and St. Augustine was a very highly educated man, and continued to be so.  He grew in his learning as he entered into the life of Christ and reflected upon all sorts of aspects of reality and being in the light of Christ.  But St. Augustine was deeply affected to the point of conversion by the life of this illiterate monk.

Here we see the synergy between the intellectuals and the illiterate in the journey of the life of the Church.  Our Lord Jesus Christ did not come to raise everyone to the same intellectual level, or to make Nobel Prize winners, but He came to redeem humanity.  We see how the redemption is worked out in a way that defies comprehension in such a synergy between the illiterates and the intellectuals.

I might also note that it was monks, who took up the example of St. Anthony, who overwhelmingly preserved the writings of the ancient world (both pagan and Christian).

Our Lord came to heal us, which means to make us fully human.  What makes people human is how we live in a family, in a community, and how we raise up the next generation.  We see such in the early Church.