What is Community? Coventry? Coventry is known as a place of religious exile. But here also is the possibility of a religious community that enables the exploration of spiritual ideas. What are the tenets? What are the intentions? Mission? What are the Principles? Why bother?
The Difference Between a Community and a Crowd
There is all the difference in the world between a community and a crowd. A community is an organism whose common life is pitched on a somewhat higher tone than the life of the individual member. A crowd is a mere aggregation in which the collective life is as low as the standards of the lowest units in the aggregation. In entering a community, the individual sets himself the task of living above his own ordinary level, and thus perfecting his own being, living more fully, by his efforts to live for the benefit of others besides himself. Descending into the crowd, the individual loses his personality and his character and perhaps even his moral dignity as a human being. Contempt for the “crowd” is by no means contempt for mankind. The crowd is below man. The crowd devours the human that is in us to make us the members of a many-headed beast.
Thomas Merton, Â The Silent LifeÂ
______________________________________________________________________
Sobornost: The Cup of Life **
** Sobornost (Russian Orthodox) The principle of Spiritual unity and religious Community.
“Greater love has no man than that he lay down his life for his friends.Â
“He who finds his life will lose it; and he who loses his life for my sake will find it. “
The Eros is that power of desire, or longing, by which we are drawn out of ourselves toward God and other persons. Eros both recognizes the beauty of personhood, and yearns for communion with that personhood as the only fulfillment of its deep hunger. St. Dionysus says that this power of love to draw man out of himself and into communion is its ecstatic quality. “Love . . . is ecstatic, making us go out of ourselves: it does not allow the lover to belong any more to himself, but he belongs only to the beloved.” Does this mean ecstasy is a losing of oneself? No, it means that one ceases to be complete without the other. Life ceases to exist in self-preserved wholeness. Ecstasy also means that what Eros seeks is not a mere release of energy, but a meeting with the other, through contact with their energy. Ecstasy, in short, is the final fulfillment of synergy.
Since God is the source of personhood, our deepest desire is for communion with Him. But through God it becomes possible to give the heart to all persons, creatures, and things. Because God is the source of that community of life where communion is its very center and where all persons, creatures, and things together find their hunger fed, the kingdom is the place where all are brought together by the life that feeds them. Giving the heart is not a romantic, lonely action of our own, but rather the entry into a community which exists prior to us, and so does not stand or fall by us. It lives. We stand by it, and fall when we refuse to stand upon it, depend upon it, be fed by it. We can rely upon it. It has ontological reality. It is not invented by any good will on our part, but our will is used to enter it.
What prevents men from entering this community, and sharing its life, is what the Desert Fathers call spiritual hedonism. From God, we want rewards, experiences, higher knowledge, deliverance from pain and infirmity and death, but not God Himself. From people, we want sex and food without any gratitude toward, and solidarity with, those who offer those gifts. This creates a world not of ecstatic communion, but of rape and pillage and plunder. It makes of Eros a devouring hunger which sucks everything down into its black hole, and yet is un-feedable; or a miser who measures out love meanly, fretting over fair shares and his rights, spending nothing of himself or his possessions for love. Christ has said, in the parable of the talents, that if we are generous with the finite, we will be replenished by the infinite; but if we are mean with the little we have, we will lose even this is the Final Judgment in Christianity. The church is the early embodiment of the divine kingdom: literally its body. Sobornost, or the togetherness of persons in the communion created by God, is the rationale of the church. Without it, the church is merely an association of isolated individuals. By practicing Sobornost, the church becomes the physical altar and the physical cup which is the earthly home of the Holy Trinity.
The outward, or political, dimension of Sobornost means putting into practice the mystical communion of the kingdom in a concrete way. It becomes very radical if we have faith in, or experience of, the depth of Sobornost. All of the extreme, and seemingly foolish, injunctions of Christ are enactments on the surface of this depth: forgive seventy-times-seven; if your neighbor wants your coat, give him your cloak also; if he asks you to walk a mile with him, walk two; if you do it to the least of these, you do it to me. If Sobornost has reality, then it can be practiced radically. Not only does it mean taking others’ sorrows and joys as one’s own, but also that togetherness must stand firm even if those others reject the gifts or abuse them. Anyone can love those who make him feel good, or who are attractive to him, but Sobornost means loving to the very end as Christ  did, even to His death on the cross.
The Desert Fathers took Sobornost so far as to say that one must  “vindicate” one’s brother. By this they meant, first of all, that since love is something that wins people, rather than compels them, we can redeem each other by bearing with and suffering for each other. We redeem others, and they us, by radical bearing one of another: “What is forgiven on earth is forgiven in Heaven.” Secondly, the Fathers mean that we should repent when someone offends us as if the offense had been our own against them. No matter what our brother’s offense against us might be, we must say to him and to God that the offense is not cause for his absence at the communion feast. For the final sanctity of Eros is shown in our inability to take joy in that feast if even one person is absent from it.
St. Isaac the Syrian describes this final Sobornost of Eros as the tenderness by which we weep for every person and creature, unable to bear their pain. These tears are the final fruit of Christian holiness, for they signify that love is “all in all” and has won us, totally. We live by love, no strings attached, no rewards, no stipulations, no reserves, no fears. We love and that love gives us life. It burns in us and is our ground, our wealth, our joy.
James and Myfanwy Moran, The Battle for Person in the Heart, Inner Journey, Christian
_______________________________________________________________________
Ken: “What did you expect? I mean no sarcasm, but what was your vision for Community? What were you looking for?
ED: See what Gurdjieff says of his Institute as partial answer:
The program of the Institute, the power of the Institute, the aim of the Institute, the possibilities of the Institute can be expressed in few words: the Institute can help one to be able to be a Christian. Simple! That is all! It can do so only if a man has this desire, and a man will have this desire only if he has a place where constant desire is present. Before being able, one must wish. Thus there are three periods: to wish, to be able, and to be. The Institute is the means. Outside the Institute it is possible to wish and to be; but here, to be able. The majority of those present here call themselves Christians. Practically all are Christians in quotation marks. Let us examine this question like grown-up men. âDr. X., are you a Christian? What do you think, should one love oneâs neighbor or hate him? Who can love like a Christian? It follows that to be a Christian is impossible. Christianity includes many things; we have taken only one of them, to serve as an example. Can you love or hate someone to order? Yet Christianity says precisely this, to love all men. But this is impossible. At the same time it is quite true that it is necessary to love. First one must be able, only then can one love. Unfortunately, with time, modern Christians have adopted the second half, to love, and lost view of the first, the religion which should have preceded it. It would be very silly for God to demand from man what he cannot give. Half of the world is Christian, the other half has other religions. For me, a sensible man, this makes no difference; they are the same as the Christians. Therefore it is possible to say that the whole world is Christian, the difference is only in name. And it has been Christian not only for one year but for thousands of years. There were Christians long before the advent of Christianity. So common sense says to me: âFor so many years men have been Christiansâhow can they be so foolish as to demand the impossible?â But it is not like that. Things have not always been as they are now. Only recently have people forgotten the first half, and because of that have lost the capacity for being able. And so it became indeed impossible. Let every one ask himself, simply and openly, whether he can love all men. If he has had a cup of coffee, he loves; if not, he does not love. How can that be called Christianity? In the past not all men were called Christians. Some members of the same family were called Christians, others pre-Christians, still others were called non-Christians. So in one and the same family there could be the first the second and the third. But now all call themselves Christians. It is naive, dishonest, unwise and despicable to wear this name without justification. A Christian is a man who is able to fulfill the Commandments. A man who is able to do all that is demanded of a Christian, both with his mind and his essence, is called a Christian without quotation marks. A man who, in his mind, wishes to do all that is demanded of a Christian, but can do so only with his mind and not with his essence, is called pre-Christian. And a man who can do nothing, even with his mind, is called a non-Christian. Try to understand what I wish to convey by all this. Let your understanding be deeper and broader.
Jacob Needleman, Lost Christianity
Quoting Gurdjieff:Â Gurdjieff, Views From The Real World
__________________________________________________________________
Ken: About the Tenets, the Principles, what was your expectation? ED:Â Hear Ouspensky quoting Gurdjieff on Groups:
“On another occasion, speaking of groups, G. said:
“Do not think that we can begin straight away by forming a group. A group is a big thing. A group is begun for definite concerted work, for a definite aim. I should have to trust you in this work and you would have to trust me end one another. Then it would be a group. Until there is general work it will only be a preparatory group. We shall prepare ourselves so as in the course of time to become a group. And it is only possible to prepare ourselves to become a group by trying to imitate a group such as it ought to be, imitating it inwardly of course, not outwardly.
”What is necessary for this? First of all you must understand that in a group all are responsible for one another. A mistake on the part of one is considered as a mistake on the part of all. This is a law. And this law is well founded for, as you will see later, what one acquires is acquired also by all. The rule of common responsibility must be borne well in mind. It has another side also. Members of a group are responsible not: only for the mistakes of others, but also for their failures. The success of one is the success of all. The failure of one is the failure of all. A grave mistake on the part of one, such as for instance the breaking of a fundamental rule, inevitably leads to the dissolution of the whole group.
”A group must work as one machine. The parts of the machine must know one another and help one another. In a group there can be no personal interests opposed to the interests of others, or opposed to the interests of the work, there can be no personal sympathies or antipathies which hinder the work. All the members of a group are friends and brothers, but if one of them leaves, and especially if he is sent away by the teacher, he ceases to be a friend and a brother and at once becomes a stranger, as one who is cut off. It often becomes a very hard rule, but nevertheless it is necessary. People may be lifelong friends and may enter a group together. Afterwards one of them leaves. The other then has no right to speak to him about the work of the group [ED]. The man who has left feels hurt, he does not understand this, and they quarrel. In order to avoid this where relations, such as husband and wife, mother and daughter, and so on, are concerned, we count them as one, that is, husband and wife are counted as one member of the group. if one of them cannot  go on with the work and leaves, the other is considered guilty and must also leave.”
P.D. Ouspensky, In Search Of The Miraculous
_________________________________________________________________
Ken: What about members?
ED: Here is Maurice Nicoll on membership in Work group:
All this means that the level of being of a man is of the greatest importance. As you know, it is necessary to think about a person’s level of being before you bring him into this Work. Something very serious is meant here and by now you will begin to understand what it is. The tendency today to make criminals heroes is entirely wrong. There are two signs of being in regard to people that you might wish to bring into the Work. They must be responsible people and they must have some magnetic center. Other things have been said in the past on this question and I will try to recall some of them now. Apart from the idea of Good Householder and magnetic center, a person entering the Work should have a natural sense of shame. You know that many so-called “moral defectives” have no sense of shame, and this is a very bad sign. And notice here that by being hard and never feeling shame, you arrest the development of your own being. Again, people entering the Work should have some sense of religion, some trace in their lives of a religious impulseâthat is, of course, connected with magnetic center, and with past influences and education. Then they should feel something of mortality, have some awareness of their own mortality. All these factors and several others form starting-points in their being from which ideas and teachings of the Work can develop.
Maurice Nicoll, Psychological Commentaries on the Teaching of Gurdjieff & Ouspensky
___________________________________________________________________
Ken:Â You have answered with quotes that hint around the core matter. Was there not some allure of monastic sanctuary?
Ed:Â Yes, Ken, my heart went there first; the intellect with philosophy, and theology confirmed and followed. See my excerpts from the Anglican Breviary and Pope Benedict XVI following:
Not by drink-offerings of the blood of bulls and of goats are we being many made one, * but by the Cup of Blessing which is the Communion of the blood of Christ.  — Third Antiphon, First Nocturn, Matins, The Feast of Corpus Christi.
_______________________________________________________________
HIGH-PRIESTLY PRAYER
Another major theme of the high-priestly prayer is the future unity of Jesus’ disciples. Uniquely in the Gospels, Jesus’ gaze now moves beyond the current community of disciples and is directed toward all those who “believe in me through their word” (Jn 17:20). The vast horizon of the community of believers in times to come opens up across the generations: The Church of the future is included in Jesus’ prayer. He pleads for unity for his future disciples. The Lord repeats this plea four times. Twice the purpose of this unity is indicated as being that the world may believe, that it may “recognize” that Jesus has been sent by the Father: “Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one” (Jn 17:11). “That they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (Jn 17:21). “That they may be one even as we are one . . . that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you have sent me” (Jn 17:22â23). No discourse on ecumenism ever lacks a reference to this “testament” of Jesusâto the fact that before he went to the Cross, he pleaded with the Father for the unity of his future disciples, for the Church of all times. And so, it should be. Yet we have to ask with all the more urgency: For what unity was Jesus praying? What is his prayer for the community of believers throughout history?
It is instructive to hear Rudolf Bultmann once again on this question. He says first of allâas we read in the Gospelâthat this unity is grounded in the unity of Father and Son, and then he continues: “That means it is not founded on natural or purely historical data, nor can it be manufactured by organization, institutions or dogma; these can at best only bear witness to the real unity, as on the other hand they can also give a false impression of unity. And even if the proclamation of the word in the world requires institutions and dogmas, these cannot guarantee the unity of true proclamation. On the other hand the actual disunion of the Church, which is, in passing, precisely the result of its institutions and dogmas, does not necessarily frustrate the unity of the proclamation. The word can resound authentically, wherever the tradition is maintained. Because the authenticity of the proclamation cannot be controlled by institutions or dogmas, and because the faith that answers the word is invisible, it is also true that the authentic unity of the community is invisible it is invisible because it is not a worldly phenomenon at all” (The Gospel of John, pp. 513â14). These sentences are astonishing. Much of what they say might be called into question, the concept of “institutions” and “dogmas” to begin with, but even more so the concept of “proclamation”, which is said to create unity by itself. Is it true that the Revealer in his unity with the Father is present in the proclamation? Is he not often astonishingly absent? Now Bultmann gives us a certain criterion for establishing where the word resounds “authentically”: “wherever the tradition is maintained. â Which tradition? one might ask. Where does it come. from; what is its content? Since not every proclamation is authentic, how are we to recognize it? The âauthentic proclamation” is said to create unity by itself. The âactual disunion” of the Church cannot hinder the unity that comes from the Lord, so Bultmann claims.
Does this mean that ecumenism is rendered superfluous since unity is created in proclamation and is not hindered through the schisms of history? Perhaps it is also significant that Bultmann uses the word “Church” when he speaks of disunion, whereas he uses the word “community” when considering unity. The unity of proclamation is not verifiable, he tells us. Therefore, the unity of the community is invisible, just as faith is invisible. Unity is invisible, because “it is not a worldly phenomenon at all.â
Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, Holy Week
Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John
The Principle of Redemption from Evil
To be unconscious of the battle is, usually, to sit on the fence and allow the outcome to go by default, for in the fallen state and fallen world the heart of stone tends to suffocate the heart of flesh. Does this mean man should be fighting to get rid of the heart of stone (the idealistic and puritanical solution)? Or to rise above it (the romantic and esoteric solution)? Or suppress and contain it (the humanistic and rational solution)? These ways do not work: none of them in the least affects the power of the heart of stone to inhibit love, and all of them in different ways dangerously diminish the power of the heart of flesh to love. For they are all ways in which the heart of flesh hardens itself by dealing unlovingly with the refusal of the heart of stone. Thus, by following them, the heart of flesh actually grows harder and more akin to the heart of stone. This the great danger of the spiritual life.
Orthodoxy teaches that whole-heartedness, or healing of the heart, cannot be achieved by imagining that we can triumph over the heart of stone. It is fundamental Christian belief that the devil cannot create anything, that evil in us is actually a distortion of something originally good, and cannot be thrown away but must be redeemed: the good must be reclaimed from evil. If we throw away the deepest evil, we also throw out the deepest good, and live by a “good” of our own invention which is only a sublimated or inverted evil.
Hence the real heart of all our efforts in synergetic cooperation with God’s redemption is actually our repentance: the acknowledgment that evil has distorted good, and the willingness to change, and to suffer for that change, so that the good will be freed from evil
James and Myfanwy Moran, The Battle for Person in the Heart, Inner Journey, Christian
Recent Comments