Little-known secret: Many (if not most) intellectuals are not lovers of freedom, especially if they live off or otherwise benefit from government largess; so this, while interesting, is really no surprise. Those intellectuals who really are crazy about liberty are usually something else first, and intellectuals second...or third. Hans-Herman Hoppe suggests that the freedom-loving intellectual should really be called (I love this part) "an anti-intellectual intellectual".

And you haven't lived until you've read Hegel's transposition of the need for freedom of thought into a requirement that it be "protected" (I love it when they talk like that) by the state. (That's in his PHILOSOPHY OF LAW, section 270. Enjoy--or not.) I'm certain, it's one of those collective-action-to-protect-individual-liberty kind of things.

And it's a good thing, too!

The Nigerians have landed. They want the gospel reclaimed on US soil because, they argue, the Episcopal Church has abandoned the historic gospel and drunk the Kool-aid of pansexuality and interfaith alliances where no gospel needs to be proclaimed because all roads ultimately lead to heaven.

Actually, African Anglicans have been working here in the US for some time. My Anglican priest father,and other friends of mine who are Anglican clerics, have been working with the Africans here for years. It's a good thing.

Would Striking Clichés Make Christians More Tolerable?

George Will is among those conservatives driven to find victory in a stunning defeat.

By persuading the court to reject a Commerce Clause rationale for a president’s signature act, the conservative legal insurgency against Obamacare has won a huge victory for the long haul. This victory will help revive a venerable tradition of America’s political culture, that of viewing congressional actions with a skeptical constitutional squint, searching for congruence with the Constitution’s architecture of enumerated powers. By rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale, Thursday’s decision reaffirmed the Constitution’s foundational premise: Enumerated powers are necessarily limited because, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, “the enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.”

This desperation to find a victory rides rough-shod over the fact that, as the Chief Justice explained, we are still free to buy (government approved) healthcare or not buy healthcare insurance; we just aren't free to not buy healthcare insurance and not pay a penalty for not owning healthcare insurance. And the IRS is still invested with power it did not previous have; and it previously had a lot.

The IRS now gets to know about a small business's entire payroll, the level of their insurance coverage -- and it gets to know the income of not just the primary breadwinner in your house, but your entire family’s income, in order to assess/collect the mandated tax. Plus, it gets to share your personal info with all sorts of government agencies, insurance companies and employers. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. "We expect even more lien and levy powers," an IRS official says.

 In our mothers' house, there's lots and lots o' love. What was it Malcolm X said about a fool letting his enemy educate his children?

A tempest in a tea pot, so to speak.

CHRISTIAN PIATT: Seven Reasons Why Young Adults Quit Church

HOT AIR: Hugo Chaves puts the finishing touches on his plan to disarm his people.

Just getting a degree secures the American Dream, right? Not necessarily. And it probably never really did.

Dr. Bob Gonzales, of Reformed Baptist Seminary offers a fresh look at The Tower of Babel.

"The infamous 'Tower of Babel' episode (Gen 11:1-9) provides a concise yet poignant display of human pride on a societal scale."

Gluttony Desert Spirituality for Reformed People (13)


You greatly delude yourself...if you think that one thing is demanded from the layman and another from the monk.... Because all must rise to the same height.... ~ St. John Chrysostom

The United States are, arguably, in the midst of an obesity epidemic. Many Americans are either eating far too much (far more than is necessary for simple nourishment); or they are eating foods with little to no nutritional value whatsoever. In either case, the reason is probably the same: the food and drink being consumed are delightful to the palate. The truth is, the sort of diet which would prevent obesity is actually very boring, to look at, to smell and to taste. And that really is an important point.

The sin involved in gluttony is the worship of the senses in general, but of the taste in specific. In short, the senses--indeed the entire world of sensory assaults--become substitutes for God. We are, in various ways, lacking peace in our hearts. We are restless and bored, so, instead of turning to God we seek out sundry stimuli, one of the most popular, for some, being food. For such people, food, as a source of strength and inner peace, takes the place of God. For that reason, the sin entailed in gluttony is really a form of idolatry.

Most of us probably think that gluttony involves eating a lot of food. As a consequence, we may be inclined to think that we can easily spot the gluttonous because they are the obese and overweight. Frankly, for many of these the problem is not how much is eaten, but what is eaten, in tandem with how little exercise they may get. Many are gluttonous without realizing it because we don't eat a lot, but we have the same preoccupation with food nonetheless.

In The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis makes a distinction between gluttony of excess and gluttony of delicacy. In the persona of Screwtape, he describes a woman who has no idea the depth of her enslavement to sensuality because the quantities of food involved in her gluttony are so small:

[W]hat do quantities matter, provided we can use a human belly and palate to produce querulousness, impatience, uncharitableness, and self-concern?.... [This woman] is a positive terror to hostesses and servants. She is always turning from what has been offered her to say with a deumure little sigh and a smile, "Oh, please, please... all I want is a cup of tea, weak but not too weak, and the teeniest weeniest bit of really crisp toast." You see? Because what she wants is smaller and less costly than what has been set before her, she never recognizes as gluttony her determination to get what she wants, however troublesome it may be to others. At the very moment of induging her appetite she believes that she is practising temperance. In a crowded restaurant she gives a lttle scream at the plate which some overworked waitress has set before her and says: "Oh, that's far, far too much? Take it away and bring me about a quarter of it." If challenged, she would say she was doing this to avoid waste; in reality she does it because the particular shade of delicacy to which we have enslaved her is offended by the sight of more food than she happens to want.

In her novel, Death Comes for the Archbishop, Willa Cather narrates the legend of Fray Baltazar Montoya, priest at Ácoma, in Northern New Mexico in the early seventeen hundreds. Balatazar enjoyed living well and self-indulgently at the expense of his native American congregation, so much so that they were always on the verge of revolt. The only thing which held them in check was fear of what they perceived as his magic. "It was clear," as Cather puts it, "that the Friar at Ácoma lived more after the flesh than after the spirit." Overlooking his other sins, we can focus on his gluttony, both of excess and of delicacy. He decided to invite some of his fellow priests from other parishes to dine with him and "admire his fine garden, his ingenious kitchen, his airy loggia with its rugs and water jars, where he meditated and took his after-dinner siesta." Having been trained as a cook in a monastery in Spain, frequently visited by Spanish nobles, he prepared an excellent feast. A particular source of pride was his preparation of a sauce to accompany his hare jardinière. For the sake of brevity, one of the serving boys, carrying in the hare jardinière was distracted by one of Baltazar's guests and spilled some of the sauce on one of the other guests. Baltazar, who was quick-tempered, and slightly drunk with brandy, violently threw his empty pewter mug at the boy, striking him in the head and killing him.

Just like Screwtape said: Quantities don't matter. Food can still be used to produce "querulousness, impatience, uncharitableness, and self-concern." It can also produce death.

So, a more telling sign of gluttony may be nothing more complicated than simple preoccupation with food.

The question is how do we learn to engage in a "sober use of meat and drink" as the Larger Catechism puts it (Q. 135)? The desert fathers had so many practices in this regard that there are almost as many different practices as there are desert fathers to study! It's difficult to know what to make of it or how to imitate these practices exactly as they did, since there were so many diverse practices. But we can at least say this. There isn't any need for a lock-step uniformity in practice. The diversity of practice coupled with the success of these practices demonstrates this. In denomonations which observe the Lenten dietary rules, there are some pastors who tell their congregations that they must, in order properly to observe these rules, abstain even from any medications they may be taking. (There are, thankfully, many in those same denominations who give the opposite counsel.) This approach operates with the understanding that the people must observe Lent exactly in conformity with their liturgical texts. One can find churches which prescribe not just how much (or how little) one should eat, but even what one shall not eat (meat; poultry; fish; dairy products, including eggs; alcholic beverages; and oil, etc).

In and of themselves, and persuant to the goal of learning sobriety in the "use of meat and drink", there is nothing wrong at all with these sorts of strict observances. What is wrong is the absence of a rationale for these abstentions. Abstain from these things, because it's Lent. That's all. What is over-looked is the fact that one can easily abstain and still be lead by the stomach or palate into "querulousness, impatience, uncharitableness, and self-concern."

But these observances harken back to the monastics. What were they up to? Recall their goal: to increase love for God and for others. How do these abstentions facilitate the achievment of those goals? Rather than being preoccupied with meat, eggs and wine, we need to remember the goal. The purpose for these abstentions is to rid ourselves of a sort of devotion to an elaborate variety in our diet, an elaborate variety that can distract us, by means of a sensory assault, from devotion to God (specifically, devotion to prayer) and to others. The point is to have our body in its proper relationship to the Lord Jesus. (And freedom from enslavement to the demands of our taste buds is also physically healthy.)

Meat, eggs, and wine may not be the things from which we should abstain occasionally in waging our war against gluttony. If all we do is compile a list of foods from which we abstain, as if those abstentions in and of themselves could do us spiritual good, then we have made the same error as the Pharisees, who argued over such things as whether to eat an egg laid on the Sabbath--as if man were made for the Sabbath and its rules (man-made or otherwise), rather than the Sabbath for man (see Mark 2.27). If we do that, we aren't resisting the passions, we're just abstaining from this or that item of food or drink. Our focus will be on the rules about food, what we're permitted to eat on certain occasions, rather than on resisting the passion of gluttony. If you think about it, this focus on what we may be permitted to eat is not too unlike the sort of woman Lewis was writing about, above. That woman, recall, was making work difficult for an already over-worked server.

One way we can resist the passion of gluttony is to demand, expect and be content with less when we go out to eat (or even when we dine at home), to tolerate not getting it our way all the time, or not getting our way at all. If what we get is food, then let's be content with it if by the time it gets to the table it's a little cooler than we might like. If there's water on the table for us to drink, we should be content with it if our servers don't do the best job of keeping our soda glass full. Too often we insist on getting we we've paid for, rather than on extending grace to people who do not cease to be humans just because they've punched a time-clock. It's nice for our food to be as piping hot as we like; it's also nice (though not very healthy) to have a bottomless glass of soda (or beer); it's nice to get what we've paid for. But we should be mindful of those around the world who would love to have the food we complain of; we should be mindful of the fact that those who have prepared our food and those who have served our food probably feel just as over-worked and under-appreciated in their work as we do in our own.

You can see that we can be abstemious about not eating this or that--or eating less than this or that other amount--and still mistreat people. This is not what it looks like to resist a passion. Resistance to passion should move us to treat people better, not worse.

We should also focus much less on pleasing the palate, or our taste buds. Often what, and how much, we eat is dependent upon its taste and how much that taste pleases us. The more intense the sensory assault, the more we are likely to enjoy it. Ask yourself if you would drive as far, and with as much anticipation, for a meal of plain rice and beans, seasoned only with a bit of salt and pepper, washed down only with water, as you would for a simple burger and fries, washed down with a soda--much less for large plate piled high with Mexican food. Most of us would probably prefer almost anything but a dish of rice and beans. Why not, especially when, in most cases, that dish of rice and beans will be healthier than the burger, fries and soda, or even the Mexican food? Because, employing a comparison of sensory assaults, a plate of beans and rice is black-and-white analog television, while the alternatives are color-loaded HDTV. It's not about nourishment; it's about distraction from the cares of life, distraction mediated by that assault of sensory delights upon the palate.

Our use of food for purposes other than nourishiment may often be an attempt at self-consolation. Many of us are stressed, worried, figety, bored, dis-satisfied with our lives or otherwise without inner peace. In the same way that those who struggle with lust may turn to sexual gratification rather than to God when attempting to turn from their stresses pains and cares, we turn to food, seeking relief by using food and drink to stimulate the pleasure centers in our brains. We are even encouraged to do so. We attempt, in short, to employ food (among other things) to provide what only God can provide. For that moment, we feel so much better. That is what gluttony really is. And that is why Christian thinkers have always maintained that gluttony is a form of idolatry. It denies what God has said of himself: In His presence is fullness of joy and at his right hand are pleasures forevermore (see Psalm 16.11).

So pernicious is gluttony that Christian thinkers have long claimed that termperance is something like the mother of all virtues. The nineteenth-century Russian Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov said: "Wise temperance of the stomach is a door to all the virtues. Restrain the stomach, and you will enter Paradise. But if you please and pamper your stomach, you will hurl yourself over the precipice of bodily impurity, into the fire of wrath and fury, you will coarsen and darken your mind, and in this way you will ruin your powers of attention and self-control, your sobriety and vigilance."

The Westminster divines, like the desert fathers before them, thought that restraining the passions, even the passion of food, was an important and necessary pre-condition for obedience to God. As I mentioned above, as one of the duties implied by the prohibition of murder, the Westminster divines, in the Larger Catechism (Question 135), included "sober use of meat and drink." The context of the answer makes clear that the divines were looking at internal states of affairs, habits and dispositions (especially of mind) which serve as the pre-conditions for obedience:

A."What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?"
Q. "The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent."

Neither the desert fathers nor the Westminster divines were the first to meditate upon the pre-conditions for obedience. The Lord Jesus, speaking of the suddenness of his return, gave this warning to his disciples (Luke 21.34):

Be on guard, so that your hearts will not be weighted down with dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of life, and that day will not come on you suddenly like a trap; for it will come upon all those who dwell on the face of all the earth. 36 But keep on the alert at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.

The Christian life is a life of prayerful, priestly devotion to God, a life of watchful expectation of his return. We cannot live that life preoccupied with our taste buds and palates any more than we can live it in preoccupation with our sexual organs, material possessions or status. If we can't resist the demands of our palates, we may have little hope of resisting even greater temptations. In fact, it may be, as I've already suggested, that some of our eating may in fact be substitues for yielding to some of our other temptations.

Wait! The military are fighting on whose behalf? POTUS seems to think it is his, not ours. Probably just a slip of the tongue.

Thomas Sowell on the crumbling of our moral infrastructure:

[W]hen did the 99% elect them as their representatives? If in fact 99% of the people in the country were like these "Occupy" mobs, we would not have a country. We would have anarchy. Democracy does not mean mob rule. It means majority rule. If the "Occupy" movement, or any other mob, actually represents a majority, then they already have the votes to accomplish legally whatever they are trying to accomplish by illegal means. Mob rule means imposing what the mob wants, regardless of what the majority of voters want. It is the antithesis of democracy.In San Francisco, when the mob smashed the plate-glass window of a small business shop, the owner put up some plywood to replace the glass, and the mob wrote graffiti on his plywood. The consequences? None for the mob, but a citation for the shop owner for not removing the graffiti.

Occupy is a term with military connotations. We should employ a term which more accurately describes them, something like Brownshirts. Maybe I exaggerate.

On the other hand, maybe I don't:

“The Obama administration and many of the un-elected ‘czars,’ either directly or indirectly, are engaged in covert activities with the occupy movement, various labor protests, and other subversive activities inside the U.S....”

POST SCRIPT: I neglected a tip-of-the-hat to Sarah Hoyt, guest-blogging for Glenn Reynolds.

Althouse: Obama's opinion on the issue of same-sex marriage ...: He's always been for it. He's just now admitting it.

It would be great if law schools did devote attention to The Federalist. But they should also devote an equal amount of attention The Antifederalist. The "antifederalists" had keen insights into some of the problems with the new Constitution (as well as the true intentions of its proponents). For the most part, the prescience of the antifederalists has been ably demonstrated.

By God's grace, "Desert Theology" will resume soon. The last several months have required much in the way of reading, leaving very little time for writing. Next topic: gluttony.

But it really does, for now, seem to be dying, while America is, arguably, making a come-back..

Who knows. Maybe at the end of all this, Europeans will discover their own culture buried under two centuries of socialist and Marxist garbage: the Europe of Adam Smith and Tocqueville, of von Mises and Hayek, of Aristotle and Aquinas. Maybe they’ll realize their birthright as the original home of liberty and freedom, at long last.

Or not.

UPDATE: It occurs to me I should have added I would like very much for Europe to rediscover itself. Among other reasons, I was stationed in Europe with the Army years ago, and loved it there. But I don't hold out much hope, unless there is a mass re-commitment to their Christian roots. I suspect most Europeans don't see it that way.

Despite our spending more and more on education fewer and fewer adults are able do what used to be easy for most high school graduates: "writing clear, well-thought-out sentences. They’ve never been taught to do that and with each passing year, there are fewer teachers who might teach them how." ~ George Leef, here.

That's the title of a fine essay by Hans Bader at Minding the Campus.

Ordinary people have been fired from their jobs in Massachusetts for falsely claiming to be minority. As law professor David Bernstein notes, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the firing of two brothers from their jobs as Boston firefighters for racial fraud, since they had red hair and looked white, although they cited the existence of a black great-grandmother. But they weren't law professors. Politically speaking, they were nobodies. It's just one more illustration of how this country is becoming an "America of Inequalities"....

David Boaz on the 'social Darwinism' nonsense, and why it's nonsense.

Matt Welch on the irony of a libertarian being called a social Darwinist.

Like many politicans, Romney likes free speech, as long as there's "quality control". What Bill Clinton used to call a "truth detector"?

Don Cheadle, friend of justice.

61% of voters think it’s likely Obamacare will be repealed. And 54% favor repeal. That’s if the Supreme Court doesn’t strike it down first. The bad news: “...20% of voters think Congress has the constitutional authority to force everyone to buy health insurance.”

Having read most of the "Obamacare" bill before it was passed, I'm thinking: Why should the SCOTUS both to read legislation that Congress didn't bother reading?

So argues Thaddeus Russell, here.

Desert Spirituality for Reformed People (12)

You greatly delude yourself...if you think that one thing is demanded from the layman and another from the monk.... Because all must rise to the same height.... ~ St. John Chrysostom

When the monks went into the desert, their efforts at detachment constituted only a start. Recall that their goal (whatever we might like to think of the means) was to transform the old creation into the new creation given to us in Jesus Christ. The old man died at baptism and the new man is born in our hearts. Nevertheless, the old man tries to hang on, hence that interior struggle to live a godly life.

How can we achieve the love God wants us to have for himself and for others? The desert fathers offered a one-word answer to that question: Humility. Humility is such an important virtue in the minds of Christian ascetics because it is counter-cultural and because is not a much sought-after virtue in most walks of life.

Humility is, for example, not really the chief characteristic most people seek in leaders, especially political leaders. In business, one never hears of corporations seeking executives assert that only the humble should apply. No one ever says that what makes this or that leader extraordinary is his humility--even if they may praise his (genuine!) humility. Humility may look good on a leader, but it really isn't thought to be the chief, necessary attribute.

In contrast, many monks possessed great power by virtue simply of their humility. Crowds flocked to them because of the reputations for humility. Emperors, military and political leaders, the wealthy--as well as the poor--sought out these monks, traveling many miles to get advice and counsel from these "Fathers".

One of the most famous was John the Dwarf. One of the fathers said of John: "Who is this John who by his humility has all of Scetes hanging from his little finger?" (Sayings of the Desert Fathers 36). An entire community of monks willingly suspended themselves from their abbot's little finger because of his humility. Contrast that with the numbers of people, particularly Christians, who are suspended by some Christian leaders' little fingers, not because of their humility, but because of some other type of power/ability, especially an ability to guilt or otherwise manipulate. One wonders how many CEOs get things done because their subordinates hang from their little fingers because of their humility.

Of course, John didn't start out humble. Like many, he had it forced upon him. The story is told that John told his elder brother, Daniel, that he no longer wanted to be concerned about clothing and food and wished to live like the angels in heaven. Removing his clothing, John removed his clothing and left his cell. After a week John became hungry and went back to the monastery and knocked on the door.

"Who is it?" Daniel asked.

"It is I, your brother, John."

Daniel replied, "John has become an angel, and is no longer among men."

John continued to knock, but Daniel didn't let him in until morning. Then he said, "You are a man, John, and must work if you want to eat."

After being brought to his senses St John went to St Pomen, known for his firm and steadfast will, asked guidance and promised obedience in all things. St Pomen tested John's patience and humility by assigning him an unusual task. For three years St John carried water and poured it on a dry stick, until it bore fruit. St Pomen took the fruit to the brethren saying, "Take and eat the fruit of obedience."

It was only after being taught, the hard way, that he was a man, not an angel, that John the Dwarf acquired the humility which made him famous, and valuable as a teacher and leader.

But we must note that there is a false humility. And it disguises itself in many ways. The desert monks were quite aware of this. One of the most common forms of false humility is poor self image. It's true that St Paul tells us we shouldn't think of ourselves more highly than we ought, but we should have sober judgment in accordance with the faith God has given us. A poor self image fails to account for whatever gifts God has given us. What's expected of us is a balanced self-assessment, not too high, not too low. Paul referred to himself as the chief of sinners, but we never find him down on himself in his epistles. He is still an apostle, and he expects, rightly, to be treated like one. At the same time he is humble, because he knows he will answer to Christ for his work. And his humility is demonstrated in the fact that, while he does talk about himself occasionally, he is always drawing our attention not to his accomplishments (which he dismisses as rubbish) but to what God has done in Jesus Christ. We also can possess true humility by remembering that, whatever our own accomplishments, they pale in significance compared to what God has done for us in Christ Jesus.

Another type of false humility is to run around with a dark cloud over our heads. In this state of mind, we run around telling ourselves and perhaps others how unworthy we are. This is paralysis. But real humility, accompanied by real repentance, doesn't need to live like this. We shouldn't live like this because we've been freed not to do. Once we've confessed our sins to God and have been forgiven, He wants us to let it go. Living as if he hasn't forgiven us is not true humility.

In The Sayings of the Desert Fathers, Abba Pomen gives us some well needed advice:

A brother said to Abba Pomen, "If I fall into a shameful sin my conscience devours and accuses me saying, 'Why have you fallen?'" The old man said to him, "At the moment when a man goes astray, if he says, "I have sinned”, immediately the sin ceases. (Saying No. 99)

Having been forgiven by God, we need not walk about with poor self image, moaning about how unworthy we are. On the other hand, the fact that God has forgiven us does not mean that any we have harmed have forgiven us, even if we have asked them to do. While that fact should not burden us with a sense of our unworthiness, it should help us with that sound judgment St Paul talks about in Romans 12.3.

For the sake of true humility we are not to worry about past sins. Once God has forgiven them, they are no longer an issue. Don't keep bring it up in false humility that says you're the worst sinner in the world for committing this terrible sin that you'll never forget. That is not the freedom God has given to us. In true humility we must admit that we committed a terrible sin for which we are very sorry. But we've confessed our sin to God, are forgiven by His grace and can move on. For the sake of humility we must focus on God, not ourselves--even when the focus on ourselves is specifically on our sins against Him and others. God's grace should fill us with both joy and humility--joy because we have been forgiven; humility because we have not deserved it or earned it, and could not have done, even if we wanted to.

But what is humility, and how do we acquire it?

In brief (and this would be my own definition) humility is simply the recognition and acceptance of one's limitations, in all areas of life. Consequently, it entails, among other things, submission to God and all other legitimate authorities in our lives; recognition of the virtues and talents possessed by others, particularly when they surpass our own; giving due honor and, when required, obedience; and recognizing the limits of our talents, abilities, or authority; and, not reaching for what is beyond our grasp.

One of the least humble men in Scripture, to me, is Haman. The sixth chapter of the book of Esther records that one night King Ahasuerus couldn't sleep. So he had his servants bring to him some of the records of the empire. In those records he learned that Esther's uncle, Mordecai, had discovered a plot by two of Ahasuerus's servants to kill him and reported it. Ahasuerus also learned that no honor had been bestowed upon Mordecai in gratitude for this service. So he called Haman and asked him, “What is to be done for the man whom the king desires to honor?” It didn't occur to Haman that the king would want to honor anyone but himself, so he proffered the following recommendation:

For the man whom the king desires to honor, let them bring a royal robe which the king has worn, and the horse on which the king has ridden, and on whose head a royal crown has been placed; and let the robe and the horse be handed over to one of the king’s most noble princes and let them array the man whom the king desires to honor and lead him on horseback through the city square, and proclaim before him, "Thus it shall be done to the man whom the king desires to honor." (Esther 6.11)

And the king did exactly that--to Haman's mortal enemy, Mordecai. And, to pour salt on the wound, Ahasuerus had Haman lead around the horse, proclaiming, “Thus it shall be done to the man whom the king desires to honor.”

After his humiliation, Haman ran home and cried on wife's shoulder. Had Haman just a bit of humility he would not have thought himself deserving of the king's honor for any reason whatsoever. Any service he might have rendered, or did in fact render, was simply his duty. When we do our duty, we are not owed anything, not even gratitude. As the Lord says in Luke 17.10, "So you...when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, 'We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.'"

Likewise with Mordecai. When he reported the plot, he did nothing but his duty, particularly his duty to his God. If, having knowledge of the plot, he had not reported it, he would have been guilty of Ahasuerus's blood and worthy of condemnation. As the Westminster Larger Catechism says, our duty, with regard to the sixth commandment, includes all lawful endeavors to preserve the lives of others. (See Question 135.) Mordecai did nothing deserving of honor.

Honor is a gift. It is always undeserved and bestowed at the pleasure of the one bestowing the honor. That's why it's called honor, not wages.

In contrast with Haman, when it comes to a lesson in humility, my favorite Bible character, the one with whom I most identify, someone who truly learned his limitations and to submit to God's authority, is King Manasseh. The Scriptures record that Manasseh rebuilt the high places which his father, Hezekiah, had razed, constructed altars for Baalim, and worshipped "all the host of heaven". As if that was not enough, he also built altars in the Temple. He sacrificed his children, used enchantments and witchcraft, dealt with familiar spirits and wizards. Still not satisfied, he set up an idol in the house of God. Finally, Manasseh, and the people ignored the prophets God sent to warn them. God, therefore, brought the Assyrians, who took Manasseh, bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon.

It was there, in Babylon, in affliction, that he turned to and humbled himself before God, and prayed to him. As the author of the Chronicles puts it: "Then Manasseh knew that the LORD he was God."

Restored to his throne, Manasseh removed the false gods and idols out of the house of the Temple. He took all the altars that he had built on the Temple mount and cast them out of the city. He repaired the altar of the LORD, sacrificed peace offerings and thank offerings, and commanded Judah to serve the God of Israel.

Finally, it's one thing to talk about the need for humility, but how does one actually go about acquiring this virtue? I think the one man in the history of Christianity who truly provided a guide for this was a St Benedict of Nursia. In his Rule he published twelve practices to guide his monks in the acquisition of this important virtue. I'll let St Benedict conclude this post:

The first degree of humility...is that a man always have the fear of God before his eyes (cf Ps 35[36]:2), shunning all forgetfulness and that he be ever mindful of all that God hath commanded, that he always considereth in his mind how those who despise God will burn in hell for their sins, and that life everlasting is prepared for those who fear God. And whilst he guardeth himself evermore against sin and vices of thought, word, deed, and self-will, let him also hasten to cut off the desires of the flesh.

[***]

The second degree of humility is, when a man loveth not his own will, nor is pleased to fulfill his own desires but by his deeds carrieth out that word of the Lord which saith: "I came not to do My own will but the will of Him that sent Me" (Jn 6:38). It is likewise said: "Self-will hath its punishment, but necessity winneth the crown."

The third degree of humility is, that for the love of God a man subject himself to a Superior in all obedience, imitating the Lord, of whom the Apostle saith: "He became obedient unto death" (Phil 2:8).

The fourth degree of humility is, that, if hard and distasteful things are commanded, nay, even though injuries are inflicted, he accept them with patience and even temper, and not grow weary or give up, but hold out, as the Scripture saith: "He that shall persevere unto the end shall be saved" (Mt 10:22). And again: "Let thy heart take courage, and wait thou for the Lord" (Ps 26[27]:14). And showing that a faithful man ought even to bear every disagreeable thing for the Lord, it saith in the person of the suffering: "For Thy sake we suffer death all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter" (Rom 8:36; Ps 43[44]:22). And secure in the hope of the divine reward, they go on joyfully, saying: "But in all these things we overcome because of Him that hath loved us" (Rom 8:37). And likewise in another place the Scripture saith: "Thou, O God, hast proved us; Thou hast tried us by fire as silver is tried; Thou hast brought us into a net, Thou hast laid afflictions on our back" (Ps 65[66]:10-11). And to show us that we ought to be under a Superior, it continueth, saying: "Thou hast set men over our heads" (Ps 65[66]:12). And fulfilling the command of the Lord by patience also in adversities and injuries, when struck on the one cheek they turn also the other; the despoiler of their coat they give their cloak also; and when forced to go one mile they go two (cf Mt 5:39-41); with the Apostle Paul they bear with false brethren and "bless those who curse them" (2 Cor 11:26; 1 Cor 4:12).

The fifth degree of humility is, when one hideth from his Abbot none of the evil thoughts which rise in his heart or the evils committed by him in secret, but humbly confesseth them. Concerning this the Scripture exhorts us, saying: "Reveal thy way to the Lord and trust in Him" (Ps 36[37]:5). And it saith further: "Confess to the Lord, for He is good, for His mercy endureth forever" (Ps 105[106]:1; Ps 117[118]:1). And the Prophet likewise saith: "I have acknowledged my sin to Thee and my injustice I have not concealed. I said I will confess against myself my injustice to the Lord; and Thou hast forgiven the wickedness of my sins" (Ps 31[32]:5).

The sixth degree of humility is, when a monk is content with the meanest and worst of everything, and in all that is enjoined him holdeth himself as a bad and worthless workman, saying with the Prophet: "I am brought to nothing and I knew it not; I am become as a beast before Thee, and I am always with Thee" (Ps 72[73]:22-23).

The seventh degree of humility is, when, not only with his tongue he declareth, but also in his inmost soul believeth, that he is the lowest and vilest of men, humbling himself and saying with the Prophet: "But I am a worm and no man, the reproach of men and the outcast of the people" (Ps 21[22]:7). "I have been exalted and humbled and confounded" (Ps 87[88]:16). And also: "It is good for me that Thou hast humbled me, that I may learn Thy commandments" (Ps 118[119]:71,73).

The eighth degree of humility is, when a monk doeth nothing but what is sanctioned by the common rule of the monastery and the example of his elders.

The ninth degree of humility is, when a monk withholdeth his tongue from speaking, and keeping silence doth not speak until he is asked; for the Scripture showeth that "in a multitude of words there shall not want sin" (Prov 10:19); and that "a man full of tongue is not established in the earth" (Ps 139[140]:12).

The tenth degree of humility is, when a monk is not easily moved and quick for laughter, for it is written: "The fool exalteth his voice in laughter" (Sir 21:23).

The eleventh degree of humility is, that, when a monk speaketh, he speak gently and without laughter, humbly and with gravity, with few and sensible words, and that he be not loud of voice, as it is written: "The wise man is known by the fewness of his words."

The twelfth degree of humility is, when a monk is not only humble of heart, but always letteth it appear also in his whole exterior to all that see him; namely, at the Work of God, in the garden, on a journey, in the field, or wherever he may be, sitting, walking, or standing, let him always have his head bowed down, his eyes fixed on the ground, ever holding himself guilty of his sins, thinking that he is already standing before the dread judgment seat of God, and always saying to himself in his heart what the publican in the Gospel said, with his eyes fixed on the ground: "Lord, I am a sinner and not worthy to lift up mine eyes to heaven" (Lk 18:13); and again with the Prophet: "I am bowed down and humbled exceedingly" (Ps 37[38]:7-9; Ps 118[119]:107).

Part 1, Legitimacy of Monastic Life

Part 2, Rise of the Monastic Movement

Part 3, Theology of the Desert

Part 4, St. Pachomius

Part 5, St. Anthony

Part 6, The Goal of the Monastic Life

Part 7, The Walk

Part 8, What's Hindering Us? Understanding the Passions

Part 9, Spiritual Warfare: Battling the Passions

Part 10, Spiritual Warfare: Three Tactical Errors

Part 11, Detachment: Letting Go

Desert Spirituality for Reformed People (11)

You greatly delude yourself...if you think that one thing is demanded from the layman and another from the monk.... Because all must rise to the same height.... ~ St. John Chrysostom

An acquaintance of mine is going through all the things her deceased parents left behind in their house. It's been a trying time for her, deciding what to keep and what not to keep, of the things not to keep whether to throw them away or give them away (and to whom), of the things to keep, where to put them. My wife and I have determined to do our best not to keep everything, every photo, every souvenir, every knick-knack, memento, every birthday, Chistmas, or other card. Our possessions can weigh us down. They can be oppressive for our heirs. A certain amount of detachment would be quite liberating.

For the desert monks, detachment was the first step in their new life. Matthew 10.21 was a key text for them: "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come; follow me." In response to this the monks left behind their goods. Of course, most of them didn't have much to leave behind to begin with. But even so, whatever they had, as is the case with most of us, meant a lot to them, especially any of those things which had more in the way of sentimental than monetary value. Even the poor can become attached to their possessions, making detachment a struggle even for them.

Whether we are rich or poor, we can still be too attached to our possessions. It may be the case that the more one has the more one has to lose. But anyone who has something has something to lose. And any loss can be uncomfortable, even painful--so painful we might wish we'd never had anything in the first place.

But even in the desert there is no less of a need for detachment. It was still possible to accumulate goods even in the confines of one's cell, a sufficient number of goods to yield a pleasant life even in the desert. The desert fathers were quite aware of this. So even those little things one might collect in his cell had to be surrendered. If I had become a monk as I once thought to do, and assuming I'd been allowed to keep writing materials in my cell, I might have come to a point of being so attached to them that my abbot would have made me give them up. That's a painful thought.

To the desert monks the more of God one wishes to possess the fewer of this world's goods one should possess. We might better put it this way: The more we desire to be possessed by God, the less we should be possessed by our goods. The issue is not our ownership of goods, as much as it is our attitude to the goods, specifically, how attached we are to them. It is possible (however unlikely we may think) to own many goods, to be very wealthy, and at the same time totally detached from those goods, thoroughly unimpressed with the extent of our property.

In the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, it is recorded that Abba Euprepius was held up, he helped the robbers carry things out of his own cell. After the robbers left, he noticed that they had left something behind, so he sent someone after them to return it to them. The Sayings contain several similar stories the point of which is that we can own things without those things owning us. We can easily let them go, even if under coercion.

Perhaps a greater lesson, on the subject of detachment, concerns our reputations. In the battle against the passions, we need also a certain detachment from care about what others think of us. Fear of what others may think of us can lead us into sins no less than our love of our possessions can lead us to sin in order to acquire more of them. The sad fact is, that too often we really care more what other people think of us than we do what God thinks of us. On one hand it's easy to understand: God is more forgiving than humans. As David observed, it's better to fall into the hand of God than into the hands of men. But God would have it the other way round, being more concerned with his opinion than with that of other humans.

Another story in The Sayings of the Desert Fathers illustrates what this sort of detachment looks like, and requires:

A brother came to see Abba Macarius the Egyptian and said to him, 'Abba, give me a word, that I may be saved.' So the old man said, 'Go to the cemetery and abuse the dead.' The brother went there, abused them and threw stones at them; then he returned and told the old man about it. The latter said to him, 'Didn't they say anything to you?' He replied, 'No.' The old man said, 'Go back tomorrow and praise them.' So the brother went away and praised them, calling them, 'Apostles, saints and righteous men.' He returned to the old man and said to him, 'I have complimented them’. And the old man said to him, 'Did they not answer you?' The brother said, 'No.' The old man said to him, 'You know how you insulted them and they did not reply, and how you praised them and they did not speak? So you too if you wish to be saved must do the same and become a dead man. Like the dead, take no account of either the scorn of men or their praises, and you can be saved.' The Sayings of the Desert Fathers, Macarius of Egypt, No. 23.

The point is clear enough. Those who have taken up their cross to follow Jesus, who have died to themselves, just really shouldn't care what others think of them. We do too many things to win praise and avoid scorn. The desire to possess a certain reputation, like the desire to possess goods, is something from which we need detachment.

Part 1, Legitimacy of Monastic Life

Part 2, Rise of the Monastic Movement

Part 3, Theology of the Desert

Part 4, St. Pachomius

Part 5, St. Anthony

Part 6, The Goal of the Monastic Life

Part 7, The Walk

Part 8, What's Hindering Us? Understanding the Passions

Part 9, Spiritual Warfare: Battling the Passions

Part 10, Spiritual Warfare: Three Tactical Errors

Desert Spirituality for Reformed People (10)

You greatly delude yourself...if you think that one thing is demanded from the layman and another from the monk.... Because all must rise to the same height.... ~ St. John Chrysostom

In the battle against the passions (i.e., spiritual warfare) there are three tactical errors we can make, three approaches to Christian living that should tell us we have gone wrong. A knowledge of these wrong ways will keep us from injuring ourselves.

The first tactical error involves the body and the belief that a purely mental approach to the spiritual life can and will bring the growth we seek. we need to bring the body into our spiritual life. The fact is, we really have no spiritual duties which do not require us to employ our bodies. Even if a purely mental approach to spiritual living were acceptable, that approach would still involve the use of our brains, a physical organ.

Nevertheless some of the desert monks went wrong by deciding that the body is evil. Many of the monks who believed this were Syrians and were influenced by Manichaeism (e.g., Augustine). The Manicheans, like many Greek philosophers, thought of the soul as being a prisoner in the body, needing to be set free. Monks of this persuasion engaged in all sorts of activities intended to deny the body's urges: living in trees, eating grass, binding themselves hand and foot, preaching that marriage is evil and the sexual intercourse (even with one's spouse) was sinful. These monks counseled Christians not to accept communion from married priests because, being married, he engaged in sexual intercourse.

This teaching, thankfully, was condemned at the Council of Gangra, in the fourth century. Naturally, that hasn't stopped anyone continuing to teach these things. Nevertheless, they commit a tactical error in their warfare against the passions, going about achieving growth in the wrong way.

The fact is, the body, while capable of being employed in the commission of evil, is not itself evil. And Christian theology does not know a soul trapped in a body. In Christian theology, the human is a conditional unity of material (the body) and immaterial (the soul, or spirit), both given by God.

Now, we may not engage in the same body-denying practices as those monks influenced by Manichaeism. But we may nonetheless think we can control our bodies' sinful impulses by various other means, such as, for example, the well-known practice of self-flagellation, performed by some Roman Catholic monks. We might attempt fasting to the extent of starvation, as if starving ourselves is a successful means of doing away with gluttony, pride, or lust.

The fact is, while all our spiritual duties may involve the body, when it comes to sin, sin starts, not with the body, but in the human heart. It is the heart of man that is desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17.9), not the body of man. So our efforts in resisting the passions are not to be against the body, as if that is the problem (i.e., that which hinders our growth in love for God and others), but for the body. Since we have no spiritual duties which do not employ the body, we want our bodies to conform to godliness. Abusing our bodies, regardless our intentions, will not move us so much as a millimeter in the direction of holiness.

The second tactical error is the practice of any rule for the rule's sake. We cannot practice disciplines as if the disciplines are ends in themselves. Fasting is good spiritual discipline, but undertaken for its own sake, it's just refraining from eating, and nothing more.

There were those desert monks who thought they would be saved by practicing the Church's rules. And while Protestants don't necessarily believe they can be saved by their rule-keeping (though some do seem to come very close), they do often live as if they can lose salvation by failure at rule-keeping. Then there are those who would say that while justification is by faith, sanctification is by obedience; that is, sanctification is God's reward for obedience. But since sanctification, like justification and glorification, is part of our salvation, the implication of this approach is that salvation is at least somewhat the result of works. Don't get me wrong, like all Reformed theologians I too believe that obedience and good works are essential to salvation, but not as cause is to effect. They are essential, according to the, Confession in that they are "the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life" (emphasis mine).

In the denomination to which I belong, the rules we live by are the Ten Commandments as explicated in the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms. One perennial debate concerns what it means to keep the Christian Sabbath. Of the Sabbath, the Confession, Chapter XXI, section 8, says:

[The] Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.

Is eating out in restaurants after Church consistent with keeping the Sabbath "holy unto the Lord"? This is very contentious. On one hand are "strict sabbatarians" who would say that the Confession does not say the Sabbath is "kept holy unto the Lord" and leave it undefined. Keeping the Sabbath "holy unto the Lord", according to this section, is defined as being "taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy." In what way, they ask, is visiting a restaurant consistent with that? Is it a public or private exercise of worship? A duty of necessity? Mercy?

On the other hand are those who say that the strict sabbatarians need to be freed from their legalistic ways. Eating out is really something akin to "plundering the Egyptians" (see Exodus 12.36). (I would point out that, while eating at a restaurant on the Sabbath may not violate the Sabbath, when the Israelites plundered the Egyptians, they didn't pay the Egyptians for the goods they received. The Egyptians today aren't giving their goods away.)

Some are just about rule-keeping even if it means being a jerk. I try to imagine how Jesus would respond to an invitation to eat at a restaurant on Sunday. Some people think they know he would because he ate with publicans and sinners. But this begs the question. If true observance of the Sabbath means not eating at restaurants, then Jesus wouldn't accept an invitation to dine out, just because he ate with publicans and sinners any more than he'd hire a prostitute just because he ate with publicans and sinners.

Whatever we do on the Sabbath, much depends upon how we go about it. What is our attitude about it? What is our motivation? Is the most important thing that there is (arguably) a rule which is just to be followed? Or is something about our practice motivated by the desire to grow in love for God and others? As I observe arguments back and forth between the two camps, I notice a great deal of vitriol; and I don't know which side is worse, or correct.

Whichever side is correct, being correct, rather than growing in love for God and others, seems to be sole motivation, even if it means destroying opponents in the process of arguing the case. And the bottom line is this: if our sabbath-keeping doesn't somehow increase our love for God and others, there isn't much to argue about either way.

Fortunately, one's position on the Sabbath is not grounds for excommunication. I do, however, have some scruples about eating out and shopping on Sundays. I acquired these scruples listening to an interview with D. James Kennedy. He was asked about his own Sabbath observance and answered that it was not his practice to do any eating out or shopping on Sunday. In explicating his position, he told a story of being in a restaurant with his wife. During the course of their meal, Dr. Kennedy struck up a conversation with one of the employees. At a certain point, Dr. Kennedy asked the gentlemen he was talking to about his church attendance and the man said he didn't attend church. Curious, but not argumentative, Dr. Kennedy asked why. The man replied, "Because of people like you." The man's point was that, apart from a large demand, he wouldn't have needed to work on Sunday. In other words, "Don't pretend to care about where I am on Sunday morning when your presence in the afternoon for lunch requires my presence in the morning to being preparing for your lunch." This may be something to consider when thinking about our Sabbath observance as something which should increase our love for God and for others.

The desert monks thought love mattered much more than when and where food was eaten. The story is told of two old monks, nearing the time of their departures and wanting to visit with each other a last time.

One day, Saint Epiphanius sent someone to Abba Hilarion with this request, "Come let us see one another before we depart from the body." When he came they rejoiced in each other's company. During their meal they were brought a fowl. Epiphanius took it and gave it to Hilarion. The old man said to him, "Forgive me. But since I received the habit and became a monk, I have not eaten meat that has been killed." Then the bishop answered, "Since I took the habit, I have not allowed anyone to go to sleep with a complaint against me. And I have not gone to rest with a complaint against anyone." The old man replied, "Forgive me. Your way of life is better than mine." ~ From the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, "Epiphanius No. 4."

The point is obvious. Abba Hilarion made a big deal out of food. He said he couldn't eat meat because he vowed never to eat meat when he became a monk. For Epiphanius, forgiveness was more important. Members of various schools of thought give the appearance of being more concerned with having the higher ground in their arguments, than with the practice of Christian charity. Our sabbath-keeping cannot become an end in itself.

The third tactical error is probably the most dangerous. It is the belief that, since good works do not make one righteous, we need not bother about them. In the history of the Church the relation between faith and works has been highly contentious, particular in the West, where it resulted in the “Great Western Schism” (i.e., the Reformation). Historically, however, the contention has usually involved the assertion that works do, in fact, make us righteous.

The desert monks were not immune to this, and had their own skirmishes, most notably in the fourth century. The chief defender of the orthodox position was St. Mark the Ascetic. In his book, On Those Who Think They Are Made Righteous by Works, he says that no one can be made righteous before God by doing good works. It was precisely because some of the monks had made this error in their battle against the passions that he wrote. The people who moved him to write, believed that they could merit God's favor, even their salvation, by praying, fasting, attending worship, engaging in vigils, and so forth--things we should be doing. Those who make this error have made the mistake of believing God owes them something in return for their labors. They believe that when they leave this world, God is going to weigh up their good deeds on a scale against their bad deeds. If the good outweigh the bad, then he owes them.

Here is what St. Mark (Text 22) had to say about this error:

When scripture says he will reward every man according to his works, do not imagine that works in themselves merit either hell or the kingdom. On the contrary, Christ rewards each man according to whether his works are done with faith or without faith in himself. And God is not a dealer bound by contract, but God our creator and redeemer.

Our good works are essential to our salvation, but they don't save us; they are expressions of our faith in Jesus Christ. Works are meaningless without faith. Words worthy of any Calvinist writing on the subject.

In general, Reformed Christians don't have much difficulty believing that works won't make us righteous. If anything, we're so successfully convinced of this that it's difficult to get us very far at all in scrupulous obedience to the moral law. After all, if works won't make me righteous, the lack thereof won't make me unrighteous. One could easily believe that Reformed Christians believe that since works of obedience don't make us righteous, then disobedience won't make us unrighteous. Consequently, it's easy for one who asserts the necessity of obedience to be labeled a legalist. And the issue isn't so much gross, and obvious, disobedience, but of subtle acts of disobedience.

For example, the Larger Catechism asserts (Question 138) that among the duties required by the 7th Commandment is the preservation of chastity in ourselves and others and that (Question 139) among the sins forbidden by the 7th Commandment are "lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others."

Interesting things begin to happen if and when one attempts to talk to Reformed people about the clothes they wear (or don't wear), the songs they not only listen to but enjoy, the movies they watch and encourage each other to see. Many Christians who object to pornography, don't object to the near- or virtual pornography they watch. We are supposed to be promoting our own chastity and the chastity of others. Is one with a "crush", or worse, on an actor or actress really doing that? If one cheerfully sings, "Save a horse, ride a cowboy instead" is one really promoting chastity?

It would be beyond my scope to pursue this further. I need only say that, while the Reformed may have little to fear when it comes to thinking works can make them righteous, their spiritual state is hardly better, for that reason alone, than the state of those who do.

The fact is, according to the Confession, Chapter XIX , in the battle against the flesh, obedience, while not justifying, is indispensable:

Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them...in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, shew them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and not under grace.

The kingdom of God is a gift of God's grace. So while, we cannot count on acts of obedience to earn our way to heaven, when done in faith, we can count on deriving great spiritual benefits from them.

So, there are three tactical errors in the battle against the passions: (1) believing that the body is evil; (2) confusing the means of battle with the ends, living by strict observance of rule and disciplines; (3) misunderstanding the relation of obedience to salvation.

Desert Spirituality for Reformed People (9)

You greatly delude yourself...if you think that one thing is demanded from the layman and another from the monk.... Because all must rise to the same height.... ~ St. John Chrysostom

Last time, I provided a brief resumé of the passions, with a view to discussing the battle against them. Now I want to discuss entering the arena of spiritual warfare. As I said last time, most people in evangelicalism, or at least the most visible stream, are inclined to think of spiritual warfare as taking on the devil, and his minions, personally. In point of fact, however, for the longest time, and certainly for the desert fathers, spiritual warfare meant taking on one's self, taking on one's passions.

Battling the passions is a matter of fundamentals. In terms of what we must do, it's very simple. But in terms of the strength required even to do the simple, it's quite difficult. But it is still about basics.

When I played basketball, the bulk of our practice consisted in dribbling the ball up and down the court, running back and forth, stopping and turning, passing, lay-ups. No fancy stuff. One of our drills was to practice dribbling the ball up and down the court, passing, and doing layups with our non-dominant hand.

As a musician, most of my practice sessions consisted of playing scales and arpeggios, over and over and over again.

Most of our success at the difficult depends very much on mastery and maintenance of basics.

A focus on the basics is, likewise, essential if we are serious about the spiritual life. Without hard work, we simply cannot get very far in our relationship with God and others. This is the hard work of holiness, or sanctification, in which, according to, the Confession of Faith, Chapter 13 the "several lusts...are more and more weakened and mortified." Contrary to those who think they are resisting "legalism", God calls us out of our comfort zone of casual obedience to his explicit commandments and into the work of radical obedience to all those other duties which are implicit in those commandments.

The term employed by the monks in referring to this work is asceticism, which comes from a Greek word meaning "to train." The ascetic life is a life of training for warfare. The monks believed it was impossible to get closer to God without some form of asceticism; one cannot grow in grace without it because even in our sanctification the flesh struggles against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh. The Confession (chapter 13, again) refers to this mutual struggle as "a continual and irreconcilable war...in which...although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." The ascetic life is all about preparing and keeping fit for this war. The ascetic life is all about death to self.

And this is where we as Reformed people have to agree with the monks about the relation between asceticism and a closer walk with God. "If any man," says the Lord Jesus Christ, "would follow me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me" (Matthew 16.24). St. Paul "beat" his body, making it his servant (I Corinthians 9.27). The ascetic life is all about death--death to self. This is an important fact; if we don't understand it, then we won't understand much about desert theology. If we don't understand asceticism as death to self, as beating one's body to make it one's servant, then we won't understand, for example, what St. Anthony was doing up on top of a pole. It looks like nonsense, but it isn't. It is an extreme denial of creature comforts. It is a radical demonstration of death to self, radical because the problems which concerned them were radical.

Many of the ascetics earned the title "Soldier for Christ". This isn't too difficult to explain: soldiers must die to their comforts. "Soldiers for Christ" train and discipline themselves in order to reach a goal, specifically, love for God and others. When (with "the continual supply of strength" from Christ) we fight against our sins -- fasting, praying, meditating, engaging in works of mercy and so forth -- these practices clear the ground in our souls so that God's grace can take root and grow. These spiritual practices clear away the stone and rubble in the soil of our hearts so that God's grace can water them and we can grow closer to him. This is the goal of asceticism: to clear the ground so we can grow in grace and in knowledge of the Lord (see 2 Peter 3.18).

The question arises, is there a right way and a wrong way to engage in these spiritual practices? The simple answer is that there is indeed a right way and a wrong way to engage in these practices which have been handed down to us. I'll treat the wrong way in my next post.

The right way involves acknowledgment of two very important truths regarding our attitude toward discomfort and our understanding of Christian perfection. The first thing we must do is to make friends with discomfort. In fact, we should actively seek it out; if we don't we'll really be running from it. All the important things we do, even getting a university degree, involve discomfort. For that matter, holding a job isn't exactly a day at an amusement park. But if we are serious about growing in love for God and others, then the discomfort we experience in acquiring education or holding jobs, is nothing compared to that in acquiring greater love for God and others. Many people have acquired Ph.D. degrees and hold lucrative jobs, despite the discomfort involved in both; and they also have little love for anyone but themselves.

Instead of running from the disciplines of praying, fasting or meditating (dismissing them as Romish and legalistic), we should embrace them. It is not as easy to cultivate devotion to prayer as it may seem. Fasting and meditating don't come much easier. The fact is, there is no way to grow without discomfort. We could not have become adults without going through the difficult, uncomfortable adolescent years. We should, therefore, learn to expect discomfort, even physical discomfort, in spiritual growth. Asceticism teaches us not only to expect it, but how to handle it when it comes. And it will come, especially if, motivated by a desire to grow, we seek it out.

The monks were not unaware of the difficulties associated with spiritual growth. They spoke or wrote often of the struggles that life with God demands. Life in the desert is a continual combat requiring constant effort. Mother Syncletica said: "Those who go to God have many struggles and hardships, but afterward the joy is unspeakable. Just as those who wish to light a fire are first bothered by the smoke and have to cry, but in this way reach their desired goal...so we too must kindle the divine fire in us with tears and troubles."

Clearly, the monks believed that with hard work, empowered by God's grace (it is, after all, by grace that we are saved) human nature can be changed. Let me emphasize: only by the working of God's grace can human nature be changed. God must change us; we cannot change ourselves, only some of our behaviors, which isn't good enough. For those of us who need great changes, that it good news indeed.

The second thing to take note of in discussing spiritual practices is the precise nature of Christian perfection. Jesus said, "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5.48). This isn't to say, as we now understand the word perfect, that the Lord demands that we be flawless. We should not look forward to a time, in this life, when we have achieved such spiritual growth that we have no room for more. That is how the Greek philosophers understood perfection, and is the sort of perfection Plato thought worthy and possible. Perfection, for the Greeks, implied the absence of any need or room for growth, a state of flawlessness. But if we were seriously to pursue this sort of perfection, we'd end up as Pharisees. This understanding of perfection will lead to obsession with rules.

St. Gregory of Nissa understood Christian perfection as dynamic, not static. To live in the temporal--to be human--is to experience change and to be changed. Just getting old will put us through changes; and we must grow and mature spiritually as these changes take place. Spiritually, we are always in motion, moving towards God or, possibly, away from God.

Therefore when we talk about the disciplines; when we talk about engaging in prayer, meditation, silence, fasting; when we talk about perfection--we should understand that we are on a journey. We should understand ourselves as being in motion. At this very moment you are moving towards God or away from Him. The disciplines do not get you to a place at which you have arrived. They keep you toward a goal.

What does this mean for the way we practice spiritual disciplines? Isn't asceticism legalism? In a word, no. Legalism is an attempt to earn something from God. We aren't trying to earn anything. We are trying to grow in love, for each other and for God. The key to this growth is obedience. And the key to obedience is discipline, or death to self. The question isn't so much whether Reformed people are to engage in asceticism. The question is: What does Reformed asceticism look like? The Larger Catechism informs us that God has given us the Scriptures to tell us how we may glorify him. In an age when Christians are reluctant to talk about obedience to the law and to exercise church discipline, as a radical solution to a radical problem Reformed asceticism is radical obedience to the moral law.

The desert fathers have something profound to teach us: No matter how long and hard we try, we never "arrive" in our spiritual life in this world. This is an important truth. I think one (but only one) reason many Christians fall into sin is because they achieve a level of spiritual growth and mistake that level for having "arrived". Obviously, when we reach a destination we stop moving. But we overlook an important fact: we are still temporal creatures.

If we come to believe we have arrived, we'll have a certain satisfaction. But this sense of satisfaction, because we are temporal creatures, will wear off. In response we will seek new sources of satisfaction, more stimuli. It is highly likely that these stimuli will be sinful ones.

So, what frame of mind should we be in as we practice the disciplines? The same frame of mind we are in when we practice our physical disciplines. We eat, knowing we shall have to eat again. We bathe, knowing we shall have to bathe again. We sleep, knowing we shall have to sleep again. We do these things, and many others, knowing we shall have to do them again, because we simply must. We must do these things just to live, even to live healthier than we might otherwise. If we do not do these things, we deteriorate. It is the same with the spiritual disciplines, we do them in order to live healthy spiritual lives rather than subsistence level spiritual lives.

Desert Spirituality for Reformed People (8)

You greatly delude yourself...if you think that one thing is demanded from the layman and another from the monk.... Because all must rise to the same height.... ~ St. John Chrysostom

Love is the goal of the Christian life. God calls us to enter into the love life of the Holy Trinity. But, for most of us, despite all that God has done for us something always gets in the way of love. We find ourselves not loving as we should. Why is that?

This is the heart of the struggle in desert theology: confronting the darkness which lingers in us. The monastics were led into the desert to seek radical solutions to radical problems. The worldiness at the core of those problems was a failure of love, a failure to love God and others more than ourselves, substituting a love for the world and the things in the world for that love which we should have. This love for the world and the things in the world is the "darkside" of the Christian life.

We live our lives in a tension between the "spirit" and the "flesh". The life of the Christian is a daily confrontation with the "flesh" by the power of the Spirit. The desert monks were aware of this battle and conceived of this struggle as a battle for their very souls, at least insofar as those souls live in this, the temporal world. To put it into Calvinist terms, the issue was sanctification, not justification. The battle is sanctification.

The Westminster Confess of Faith, Chapter thirteen, says that our sanctification, although throughout our whole persons, is in this life "imperfect...there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh" (section two) and it is in the course of our battle that we "grow in grace, perfecting [our] holiness in the fear of God" (section three). Our holiness cannot be static; we must grow and, in this growing, make our holiness more complete. This spiritual battle is best summarized perhaps by I John 2.15, to which I've already alluded:

Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.

There it is: the whole struggle is against the world, the flesh and the devil.

How do the sacraments relate to this? Has God given us any weapons to employ in our struggles against the flesh? In a word, yes. In order to engage in this struggle we must go back to the beginning of our Christian experience, our baptism. Our baptism shows us how to fight the world, the flesh and the devil. The baptismal texts demonstrate that baptism is the beginning of our Christian life. Through faith, God forgives our sins, takes us as his children, conquers the powers of darkness by the cross and breaks the power of sin. As St. Paul puts it, we are no longer slaves to sin (Romans 6.6). The flesh no longer dominates our hearts. We may sin; but sin has no dominion over us, unless we give in to it!

Nevertheless, even without dominion, sin remains in us until we leave this world. But we no longer need to yield to its power. Through the Holy Spirit, we have a renewed nature, able to obey God or to obey the world, the flesh and the devil. As St. Augustine said, we are able to sin and able, by God's grace, not to sin. In heaven we will be able not to sin and unable to sin. In the meantime, the battle continues apace.

One of the names given by the monks to these battles is The Passions, which amounts to just another name for the flesh. In Galatians, Chapter Five, St. Paul says, "Live by the Spirit and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. The flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other so that you do not do what you want."

Whether we call them the passions or the flesh, we are talking about the same thing: a life controlled by sin. These are the things which get in the way of the Spirit, who produces God's love in our hearts.

The monk who explained the passions most clearly, I think, was Evagrius of Pontus, in his Praktikos. He came up with a list of the passions (or tempting thoughts, or logismoi): gluttony, avarice, impurity, depression, anger, restless boredom, vain-glory, and pride (sections 6 through 14 of the Praktikos).

Gluttony

Gluttony is not simply over-eating; it also includes desires for unnecessary variety in food, or simply a preoccupation with food over and above the need for nourishment. Gluttony involves any preoccupation with food such that we live to eat, rather than eat to live. In C. S. Lewis's Screwtape Letters, (Letter XVII) Screwtape discusses an element of gluttony that often goes unnoticed: gluttony of delicacy, as opposed to gluttony of excess:

[Some] would be astonished...to learn that [their lives are] enslaved to this kind of sensuality, which is quite concealed...by the fact that the quantities involved are small. But what do quantities matter, provided...a human belly and palate...produce querulousness, impatience, uncharitableness, and self-concern?

At the very moment of indulging our appetites -- however slight -- we are certain that we are practicing moderation in food. At the very moment of believing we are being so spiritual, we are in fact being some of our most sensual.

For some of us, food is the major cause of the poverty of our spiritual lives, the root of all our disobedience. The reason many of us are not the sort of people we want to be is that we are out of control; we just have no discipline. If we were able to better control our diet, we might likely be better able to control our wills. If we would better control our wills we might likely live closer to God.

As Calvinists, we might be tempted to dismiss this sort of concern as legalism and fear it more than gluttony (whether of delicacy or excess). But the Larger Catechism says that among the duties required by the Sixth Commandment ("Thou shalt not kill") is "a sober use of meat [and] drink" (see question 135). More than likely, excess in food and drink are in view. But the more general issue is sensuality. And sensuality is indulged just as much in delicacy as it is in excess. The battle in sanctification is a battle against all forms of sensuality. (On my view, no one today is better at excusing sensuality, in the name of avoiding legalism, than Protestants and Calvinists.)

Avarice

According to Evagrius, avarice, or greed, is unwillingness to shares one's goods with others. We look for our security in earthly possessions. We give in to thoughts such as that if only we had well-paying job, or some other material advantage we would then be secure. We have a tendency to covet what others have, not content with what God has already given us -- even if He has given us much less than what others possess. But it isn't just possessions. Sometimes avarice manifests itself as a refusal to receive help from others, or shame when one must receive such help. If we loathe receiving help from others we are not truly free from avarice. According to Evagrius, this love of money is rooted in fear of a difficult future:

Love of money suggests: a long old age; hands powerless to work; hunger and disease yet to come; the bitterness of poverty; and the disgrace of receiving the necessities [of life] from others. (Praktikos, section 9.)

So perhaps we are content with our material goods at present; but when we contemplate the future and see ourselves old and alive way past our ability to earn our own living and stricken with the ailments which come with old age, it is then that we can be susceptible to greed. (I'll say it: this explains why a great many people not only attempt to accumulate all they can and not share, but also why they vote the way they do.)

We must acknowledge that God has some people in this world precisely to be cared for. Being cared for by others is God's provision for their security. Conversely, those who are not the ones cared for by others should be the ones caring for the others. On this subject, it is interesting to note that the Larger Catechism also includes as duties required by the Sixth Commandment, "comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent." Moreover some of the duties included in the Eighth Commandment are "giving and lending freely, according to our abilities, and the necessities of others...and [endeavoring] by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own" (emphasis added).

Impurity

Impurity is a focus on sexual lust. For monks, it was (and still is) included in the temptation to leave the celibate life for marriage. But for Calvinists there is, even if we accept some form of monasticism, no such thing as a "temptation" to leave the celibate life for marriage. And a desire for marriage, in and of itself, is not evidence of sexual lust. There can be no contemplation of marriage without, on some level, the contemplation of sexual relations with whomever one wishes to marry, especially if one wishes to have children with one's intended. (This is one of the reasons I believe in the shortest possible engagement periods.)

However it goes without saying that those who don't live in monasteries experience impurity, in the sense of a passion that focuses on sexual lust. We non-monastics probably have more ways of indulging those passions than we might like to think. The fact is most of what many people wear is intended neither to cover nor to make attractive, but rather to make them alluring. (Ladies, men know why shirts are designed -- and worn -- to reveal the maximum amount of cleavage, and to draw attention to the fact. We may be a bit dense at times, but we easily get that much. Trust me.)

Most of our efforts at physical fitness also have the same purpose, not just physically fit bodies, but "hot" bodies. We desire, to be blunt, to be the objects of sexual desire, more bluntly, the objects of illegitimate sexual desire. (Spare me the hate email. Just deal with it.) Again, the Larger Catechism knows about lust, as a passion against which we must battle daily. Among the duties required by the Seventh Commandment are "chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior; and the preservation of it in ourselves and others", as well as "modesty in apparel" (question 138). Among those things forbidden by the Seventh Commandment are "unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, [and] immodest apparel" (question 139). And, as if that isn't enough: "all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others" (emphasis added). Ouch.

Sadness

Sadness, or gloominess, as Evagrius called it, has its roots in unfulfilled desires. At some point in the monastic life, monks might somehow be reminded of home and family, and the life they had with their families. Monks might then experience a sorrow over those things given up for the monastic life. Adding to this sorrow is the fact that this life is gone forever. He could leave the monastery and return home but, depending upon how long he has been in the monastery, there is nothing of that former life for him to return to.

Additionally, it might be understandable, for example, for a monk to experience sadness at times over the fact that he'll never marry or have children. He might also experience sadness associated with the fact that he will live and die in the obscurity of a monastery, never leaving his mark on the world, or making a name for himself. As non-monastics we can experience this when contemplating what we've given up to follow Christ. It may even strike us when we come to realize that our lives are not going to be what we thought they'd be when we were young. We are not doing the work we thought we'd do. We are not going to have, or do not have, the spouse we'd hoped for. We have an illness we never counted on. Any number of disappointments can bring on gloominess.

Anger

Anger, according to Evagrius, is the worst of all because of its destructive power. He described is as "a boiling up...against a wrongdoer or a presumed wrongdoer." It's destructive force is most keenly felt in prayer, when it seizes our minds causing us to see the face of the wrongdoer while we attempt to pray. Then, at night, it can rob us of necessary sleep. We might well understand how anger can be the root cause of all acts of violence, especially murder. But it is also anger, not lust, which is the passion behind most, if not all, acts of adultery.

Acedia

Acedia, or restless boredom (also sometimes called the noonday demon) was, to Evagrius, the most burdensome of the passions. Imagine a monk, in the desert, taking a break from his labors. There he stands, or sits, the noon time sun beating down on him. Additionally, depending upon his labors and how long he has been a monk, his joints may ache, his back also. He stands there, thinking, "What in the world am I doing here? This is nonsense. I miss my family. I should never have left them. I should have married that girl. I am so miserable. I made a mistake becoming a monk. I was a dumb ass for coming out here!"

It is easy to see how such thoughts can tempt a monk to forsake his vows. And it's no use pointing out that this wouldn't have happened if he hadn't become a monk. This sort of thing happens in business when we sign contracts. It happens in many marriages. ("This is not the man [or woman] I thought I was marrying.")

It happens (or can happen), in short, any time we make promises and then set to work keeping them. It happens to students in university. They begin their studies with enthusiasm which over the years turns into a restless eagerness to finish up and get out of school as soon as possible. It happens in our work, and not just when we've had a bad day. At some point we may think, "This is a dead end. I wish I could quit this job and do something else, like...horticulture." There's nothing wrong with quitting university, or a job. This is just to say that "restless boredom" is not experienced by monks because they are monks.

Vainglory

Vainglory is the need for praise and recognition. Not that there is anything wrong, in and of themselves, with being praised and recognized. But at times the desires for these things can lead us into sins, especially if we do not receive the praise and recognition which we believe are rightfully ours. For example (and church choirs are always good for examples of this sort of thing, sadly) a member of a church choir may be accustomed to having a microphone near him, or even in front of him, during Sunday morning worship. Let's say there was no particular reason for the microphone to be where it was; it was just there. One Sunday morning, he enters with the other members of the choir to find that the microphone has been moved. He is offended, or his feelings are hurt. Why was it moved? Did someone in the congregation ask that it be moved because they don't like his voice? Was it moved simply because the person who moved it didn't like him? The real question is this: Why does it matter where the microphone is? For whom do the choir sing? The congregation? Or for God? If for God, then no matter: God hears very well without your microphone. But if the placement of a microphone really matters, then God is not the choir-member's intended audience. Vain glory, not worship, is the motivation here. And that, to put it gently, is not good.

Pride

Pride is, of course, the opposite of humility. This is the holding of too low an opinion of others, and too high an opinion of ourselves. The antidote, obviously, is humility, seeing no one as unimportant, or less important than one's self. Perhaps Evagrius puts it better:

The demon of pride conducts the soul to its worst fall. It urges it: (1) not to admit God’s help; (2) and to believe that the soul is responsible for its own achievements; (3) and to disdain the brethren as fools because they do not all see this about it. This demon is followed by: (1) anger; (2) sadness and the final evil, (3) utter insanity and madness, including visions of mobs of demons in the air.

Pride is a pernicious passion and, like gluttony, can be indulged while seeming to be humility. Take, for example, what Evagrius says about admitting God's help. Actually, take any help at all. Sometimes, we don't want help not because, in our humility, we don't want to put people out, though that's what we'll say, but rather because to accept help is to say, "In this matter, I'm incapable." It may even be that there are things we won't attempt because we do not want to be seen attempting, but failing to succeed. Often we'll hear someone say of another, "He fears failure, so he doesn't try." More than likely, the truth of the matter is he doesn't fear failure itself because failure is something to fear. He fears failure as the demonstration that he was incapable. He fears failure as a wound to his pride. This, I believe is why many Christians are not eager to employ their spiritual gifts, to put themselves "out there".

Pernicious as pride is, it may affect our attitude in receiving help. Rather than accept help as something done out of the kindness of another's heart, we may tell ourselves, and others, that, in fact, the help received was our due. The one who helped us did nothing deserving our gratitude; he only did what he was obligated to do.

I believe that pride best explains the shift in attitude on the part of welfare recipients. When I was a child, welfare recipients received their assistance with a bit of shame. When I saw people at the supermarket pay for their purchases with food stamps they did so in haste, handing over the stamps collecting up the bags and making a hasty exit. Most often, though there were exceptions, the people I observed purchasing groceries with food stamps did so only to purchase necessities -- not candy bars, soft drinks and so forth. Times have changed. To say there is a sense of entitlement is to assert what is now a truism. The recipients of assistance have nothing for which to be grateful; they receive only what others are obligated to provide them. And, in fact, to listen to some of them, those others are not providing as much as they are truly obligated to provide.

It should be easy to see why these passions, or tempting thoughts, hinder our walk with God and each other, why they hinder us from growing in love for God and others. There has for decades been talk of "spiritual warfare". I noticed it first as an adolescent, long before I embraced Christ. Always (or perhaps merely frequently) talk of "spiritual warfare" is talk of warfare against personal demons (I mean "personal demons" as opposed to "tempting thoughts".) I recall walking through a mall about twenty years ago, passing a group of women "binding" Satan, who was, I supposed, also visiting the mall that day. Who knows? Maybe he was.

But for most of us, the passions, not personal demons, are the true objects of our warfare. God calls us to fight the passions with all the spiritual resources he provides. The Orthodox Church's liturgy provides her congregants a special prayer, of Saint Ephraim the Syrian, during Lent when, in her calendar, the fight is at its height:

O Lord and Master of my life, take from me the spirit of sloth, faint-heartedness, lust of power, and idle talk. But give rather the spirit of chastity, humility, patience, and love to thy servant. Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see my own errors and not to judge my brother; for thou art blessed unto ages of ages. Amen.

The most famous, or well-known, resource employed by the Eastern Orthodox is of course, the "Jesus Prayer": Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the (or a) sinner. The most practiced are reputed to be able to recite the prayer non-stop, even in their sleep.

What resources have the Reformed? According to the Confession, even though we have been accepted by God "in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, and can neither "totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere...to the end, and be eternally saved" we may, nevertheless, "through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in [us], and the neglect of the means of [our] preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby [we] incur God's displeasure, and grieve His Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have [our] hearts hardened, and [our] consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon [ourselves]" (Chapter 17.1, 3).

In mentioning "means of preservation" the Confession indicates that we, too, have resources by which to resist the passions. In fact, as I'll explain in a subsequent post, they are not very different at all from those employed by the desert fathers.