Next: The Three Temptations, the Up: Monasticism Interiorized Previous: The Transmission of Witness Contents
Father Florovsky recalls that “too often one forgets the provisory character of monasticism. St. John Chrysostom declared that monasteries are necessary because the world is not Christian. Let it be converted, and the need of a monastic separation will disappear”.14.5 History has not justified St. John's optimism. Monasticism will surely keep its unique testimony to the end of the world.
However, the baptized world is sufficiently Christian to hear the monastic message and to assimilate it in its own way. This is the whole problem. As formerly, martyrdom was transmitted to the monastic institution, so likewise today, it seems, monasticism creates a certain receptivity in the universal priesthood of the laity. The testimony of the Christian faith in the framework of the modern world postulates the universal vocation of interiorized monasticism.
Past history gives us two solutions. The first, that of monasticism, preaches a complete separation from a society that lives according to “the elements of this world”, and from its economic, political and sociological problems. This is “the flight to the desert”, and later the autonomous existence of communities that care for all the needs of their members. The “monastic republic” of Mount Athos is a striking example of social autarchic life, separated from the world and even opposed to it. It is perfectly clear that since everybody cannot share this vocation, the monastic solution remains limited; it is not the solution for the world in its totality.
The second solution tried to Christianize the world without leaving it in order to build the Christian city. The theocracies, in the East as well as in the West, manifest this effort under the ambiguous forms of empires and Christian States. The resounding failure of this attempt proves that one can never impose the Gospel from above, nor prescribe grace as a law.
Is there a third solution? Without prejudging, one can at least say that this third ought to appropriate the two others in making them interior, that is, in applying their principles to something beyond their precise forms. “You are not of this world, you are in the world.” These words of the Lord recommend a very special ministry, that of being a sign, a reference to “the wholly other”. Formerly it was realized differently. At present it seems to show itself above the “desert” and the “city”, for it is called to surpass every form in order to express itself everywhere and in all circumstances.
The West has regarded monasticism and the lay state as two forms of life; one responding to the counsels, the other, to the precepts of the Gospel. The unique absolute is then broken. On one side, the perfect advance; on the other, the weak stand, living by half measures. Certain ascetics justified conjugal life only because it brings forth virgins and peoples convents.
The fundamentally homogeneous character of Eastern spirituality ignores the difference between “the precepts” and “the evangelical counsels”. It is in its total requirement that the Gospel addresses itself to all and everyone.
“When Christ,” says St. John Chrysostom, “orders us to follow the narrow path, he addresses himself to all men. The monk and the lay person must attain the same heights.”14.6 We can see indeed that there exists only one spirituality for all without distinction as to its exigency, whether for bishop, monk, or lay person, and this is the monastic spirituality.14.7 Now this has been formed by lay-monks, which gives to the term “lay” an extremely spiritual and ecclesial meaning.
In fact, according to the great teachers, the monks were only those who wished “to be saved”, those who “led a life according to the Gospel”, “sought the one thing necessary”, and “did violence to themselves in all things”.14.8 It is quite evident that these words define exactly the state of every believing lay person. St. Nil thought all monastic practices were required of people of the world.14.9 As St. John Chrysostom said: “Those who live in the world, even though married, ought to resemble the monks in everything else. You are entirely mistaken if you think that there are some things required of seculars, and others for monks... they will have the same account to render.”14.10 Prayer, fasting, the reading of Scripture and ascetic discipline are imposed on all by the same prescription. St. Theodore of Studium in his letter to a Byzantine dignitary drew up the program of monastic life and specified: “Do not believe that this list is of value only for a monk and not entirely and equally for a lay person.”14.11
When the Fathers spoke, they addressed themselves to all the members of the mystical body, without any distinction between clergy and laity; they spoke to the universal priesthood. The actual pluralism of the theologies of the episcopate, the clergy, religious and the laity, being unknown at the time of the Fathers, would be even incomprehensible to them. The Gospel in its entirety is applicable to every particular problem in any environment.
On the other hand, certain great figures among the monks show clearly that they went beyond their own state, as well as beyond every formula or definite form. Such, for example, was the luminous figure of St. Seraphim of Sarov. He did not form disciples nor was he master of any school; however, he is the master of all, for his testimony to the Orthodox Church surpasses all that is a type, category, style, definition or limit. His paschal joy did not come from his temperament, but is the echo of Orthodoxy itself. With ordinary language he said extraordinary things that he had received from the Holy Spirit. After a fearful struggle, shadowed by a silence that hid a life that no monk could endure, St. Seraphim left the extreme practices of the hermits and stylites and went into the world. “An earthly angel and a heavenly man”, he transcended even monasticism. In a certain measure, he was no longer a monk retired from the world nor a man living among men; he was both, and in surpassing both, he was essentially a witness to the Holy Spirit. He said this in his famous conversation with Nicolas Motovilov: “It is not to you alone that it has been given to understand these things, but by you to the whole world, in order that you may be strengthened in the work of God for the utility of many others. As to the fact that you are a lay person and that I am a monk, there is no need to think of that... The Lord seeks hearts filled with love for God and their neighbor. This is the throne on which he loves to sit and on which he will appear in the fullness of his heavenly glory. `My child, give me your heart, and all the rest I shall likewise give you', because it is in the heart of man that the kingdom of God exists... The Lord hears the prayers of the monk as well as those of a simple lay person, provided that both have a faith without error, are truly believers and love God from the depths of their hearts, for even if their faith is only a grain of mustard seed, both of them will move mountains.”14.12 Both, the monk and the lay person, are a sign and a reference to “the wholly other”. St. Tikhon of Zadonsk wrote in the same vein to ecclesiastical authorities: “Do not be in a hurry to multiply the monks. The black habit does not save. The one who wears a white habit and has the spirit of obedience, humility, and purity, he is a true monk of interiorized monasticism.”14.13
The monasticism that was entirely centered on the last things formerly changed the face of the world. Today it makes an appeal to all, to the laity as well as to the monks, and it points out a universal vocation. For each one, it is a question of adaptation, of a personal equivalent of the monastic vows.