When Taking Cover Is Not Enough

The following article by Fr. Meletios Webber was originally published on the Website, In Communion. It is an extremelygood discussion and illustration of the work of the true self (heart) versus the false self (ego) – as seen in the action and life of a parish. I share it here with gratitude for Fr. Meletios’ work.


Get out of the head and into the heart.

– St. Theophan the Recluse

A statement of the problem: When I was little, I went to church with my family each Sunday. There were services morning and evening, with Sunday school in the afternoon. Since we lived more than a mile from the church and had no car, this level of commitment was actually very high. However, since that was all I knew, I did not complain … at least not very much.

I remember having favorites among the people at the church, and there was one in particular, Mrs. Ward, who was in charge of my section of the Sunday school. Looking back I have no idea why I liked her so much more than the others; I simply felt drawn to her. In later life I have observed that children can often have very strong personal likes and dislikes for no apparent reason, and Mrs. Ward (I never knew her first name) was one of my likes.

This particular lady, together with her husband, was one of those people who fall into the “almost indispensable” category in a parish situation. Apart from the Sunday school, they were both involved in all sorts of other activities; my fondness for her had many opportunities for expression since she was at the church every time I was there, and I was there very often.

As I grew older, however, I slowly became aware that, from my parents’ point of view, this hard-working couple were not quite the ideal people that I had imagined them to be. I am not suggesting anything untoward here – far from it. They were upstanding members of the community, somewhat conservative in their views, and very much at home in their own particular religious tradition. However, what gradually became apparent to me (probably over ten or more years) was that while they were very good people under most normal circumstances, if they happened to be present in a meeting (of any kind) they always managed to be opposed to the majority view. Moreover, their m.o. consisted of stating their opposition repeatedly, loudly and (almost) obnoxiously, and their performance often culminated in the ultimate threat: to leave the church if their views were not accepted.

This pattern of behavior was as predictable as it was successful, and they almost always got their way. In our house, the phrase “the Wards are anti” was a common way of describing any situation where tenacity and closed-mindedness won the day.

In my later years as a pastor and parish priest, I have been successful in finding people just like the Wards in almost every parish I have worked in: good, well-meaning people, hard-working and admirable in every respect except that if you find them in a meeting where views are being expressed (which is almost all meetings), they turn into raving banshees, incapable of seeing that it is possible to have a point of view other than their own, and shouting down any and all opposition to their vision of reality.

Indeed, sometimes such behavior gets so bad that one wonders how the church manages to survive at all, since in many cases you will see and hear things at annual meetings, parish councils and similar gatherings which would have to be categorized by an observer as “un-Christian.” Not just in meetings either. I learned the hard way that if a parish community is going to misbehave and turn into warring factions of undiluted hatred and boundless egotism, it is likely to happen either just before Easter (or any time when there is large scale flower-arranging) or, in the case of the particular parishes I served, in connection with the annual Greek Festival. People are tired and restless at such times, and even small difficulties can become pretexts for all-out war.

What exactly is it that turns pleasant, supportive people into raging maniacs?

Raiding the treasures of secular psychology, I would hazard a guess that people behave like this when two things happen – when they lack a clear self-image of themselves (i.e. they are not quite sure who they are in a given situation) and when they are engulfed by, and identify entirely with, the needs of their own ego.

Everyone has an ego, and the ego can be considered and defined in a number of ways. Generally it sums up how we view ourselves. Unfortunately, since we live in a fallen world, this view of ourselves is often wildly inaccurate, and contains toxic levels of fear and desire. Even though it is not really a “thing” at all, the ego slowly develops from childhood on, and is expressed as a story-line, complete with expectations (the “how things ought to be” section of our ever-churning imaginations), paranoia (“they” are out to get me, even when I am not quite sure who “they” are) and simple everyday self-centeredness (“I and my needs and opinions have to be heard, venerated and accepted by everyone else, or I am in danger of disappearing without trace”). The ego is forever in need of support and encouragement, since it sees itself failing miserably in its own task of dominating the universe. The ego is always in need of a boost: hence, “ego-boosting.”

What happens in meetings is that everyone present faces the temptation of using the occasion for a bit of ego-boosting. Of course, this does not occur on a conscious level, but it happens nevertheless. Ego-boosting is a very natural thing to want to do, even if it is not on the agenda of the meeting (which, of course, it is not… at least not in any obvious way).

So, when looking at the agenda of a meeting, everyone present who feels insecure about their role in the parish (almost everyone, including the clergy, office holders, and certainly everyone who expects to be influential) looks to find an item when they can project their ego, even if just a little bit.

Let me give some examples: Someone may want to remind the parish that they do the flowers every Tuesday – as if anyone would dare forget – so under “any other business” that person may ask a rather pointed question about the possibility of such-and-such a family having a memorial service on that day, “which is inconvenient for me since, as everybody knows, I am a very busy person and I do the flowers on Tuesday.” The point of the exercise has nothing to do with flowers, or Tuesdays, but is simply to elicit sympathy, a commodity greatly treasured by the ego, and to let everyone know how complicated and important the person’s life is.

Another example: Someone may have very strong views about Sunday schools. Everyone present at the meeting has heard this person talking on the subject many times before, but since his or her views have not been adopted as general policy, this person finds it necessary to talk at length about the subject once more. The unspoken title of the speech is actually “I am not being listened to” and not, as one may imagine, “Sunday schools.” So, in item seven there is something about the Sunday school wanting money to do something or other, and the possessor of the ego says, “Aha… this is my chance.” What results is yet another example of a lengthy list of the insecurities felt, rightly or wrongly, by the speaker, and expressed in terms of what the Sunday school needs to do. Of course, nobody points this out. They are too scared.

It belongs to the nature of the ego that it loves strong views, preferably the ones belonging to its owner. Strong views give people identity, make them feel important, give them an excuse to stand up and address the meeting, and above all they give one the satisfaction about being right about something. The ego loves to be right, more than anything else in the world.

As Orthodox, we have a particular relationship with the concept of “rightness.” It is actually written into the title by which we most often call our Church. I always thought “Orthodoxy” should be translated into something approximating to “right-glorifying” or “right-praising.” Indeed, I think I am right in saying that in Russian this is precisely what is meant by pravoslavni. Recently I have learned that the original Greek word also (or rather) contains the concept of “right teaching” (from dokeo, I teach, rather than doxa meaning glory).

Whichever interpretation is correct, we need to bear in mind that infallibility, in terms of Orthodoxy, lies at the heart of the experience of the whole Church, but not in any present-day decision, nor in the voice of any one person. The very idea that infallibility can be exercised in some active sense by one person (even a bishop, or a patriarch) is repugnant to Orthodoxy. Everything needs to be tried and tested against the experience of the Church of every age before it can be said to take on an infallible quality. However, to listen to some bishops speaking (let alone parish priests, parish council presidents and other local worthies) one would imagine that infallibility was a very common commodity indeed.

The faith of the Church is infallible. This means that I do not have to be – or to be more precise, it means that at no point does my ego have to feel that it is responsible for the truth of Christ expressed in the life of the Orthodox Church. Moreover, my internal experience of faith is usually expressed in terms of holding strong opinions about things, while, in reality, faith and strong opinions are quite different from each other. Indeed, holding strong opinions is not particularly useful in one who is a member of the Body of Christ. The louder we proclaim our opinions as a matter of faith, the more difficulty the Holy Spirit has of being heard.

“Being right” takes numerous forms. Sometimes simply stating how wrong everything is makes one feel right by comparison. Snatching the moral high ground (simply because no one else has) is another way.

Members of the clergy have a particularly difficult task in ensuring that the exercise of their ministry is not one of ego-boosting. Sitting in a meeting, it is very tempting for a priest to attempt to show all the skills of leadership that he may be required to display in the secular world, including being the figure-head, the source of authority and the person with the most influence in the parish. Some bishops may actually encourage this sort of leadership from their priests, since parishes run along these lines may appear to be the most successful, or at least require the least maintenance.

In the Church, however, the dynamic of authority and leadership is quite different from that which is deemed to be successful in boardrooms, union meetings or political parties. Coercion, manipulation and power-ploys are not the required tools. Members of the clergy, in particular, need to turn back time and time again to the Gospel sayings in which leadership is genuinely and obviously viewed as a mode of service – not in any metaphorical sense, but in a straight-forward “down on your hands and knees washing feet” sort of way. Whether regarded as the seat of passions or merely as a piece of fiction, the ego has to be placed aside before any such leadership-as-service can be exercised. The most powerful weapon in the repertoire of the clergyman is to bring his people back time and time again to the words of the Gospel… even during Church meetings.

The really bad stuff happens when a person at a meeting, priest or parishioner, identifies totally and completely with the needs of his or her own ego. This state is akin to being completely unconscious – a form of being absent. What is actually required is a state of very profound presence.

In times of peace, the ego sits around doing not very much, being just a small part of who a person is. Always on the look out for attack (such as someone pushing ahead of you in a line, or someone forgetting to use your correct title), it meanders through existence adding color, but very little else, to a person’s particular version of reality. However, when an ego gets challenged, it swells out to enormous proportions and can take over the operation of the entire person. Anyone standing nearby needs to take care and watch out, since the ego is vicious when threatened and there is very little anyone else can do except wait for it to subside to its more normal dimensions. From one point of view, an ego actually consists of pain and draws strength by feeding on the pain of others. It is entirely natural, then, that egos should provoke others, hoping to cause a painful reaction in those around them (in this case, the other people present at the meeting) so that they can have a good feed. Sharks feeding on a fresh carcass are tame by comparison.

The trouble is, when one person starts doing a little ego-boosting in a meeting, he (or she) is likely to be a threat to … every other ego in the room. This is how the ego sees the world: “I can only be absolutely sure of who I am if I know that I (and my entire world-view and everything about me) is safe from attack by you … and your world-view and everything about you.” Moreover, the ego long since discovered that the easiest way to defend is to attack, followed by a quick retreat behind an emotional wall which (as should be obvious to everyone) if you dare to breach, will result in me being well and truly “upset” … and you know you don’t want to do that.

I once worked for a bishop who used to run the diocese in a very idiosyncratic way and whose main tactic was to present things in such a manner that no one could challenge his actions for fear of upsetting him. As systems go, it worked very well, and may have been very productive if he had been the chairman of a company. The Church is not a company, at least not in the commercial sense.

At meetings, one of the favorite moves of the ego-booster in us all is to restate the problem being discussed, which everyone already knows, but in such a way to make the speaker feel better about him or herself – guilt-free, self-righteous or simply condemnatory. From the ego’s point of view, condemnation, whether justified or not, stems from a sense of superiority, so even if nobody present notices or cares, it still feels as if it has won a point by speaking out against something.

The result of a great deal of ego-boosting breaking out in several parts of the meeting room is the chairman’s (or the priest’s) worst nightmare (unless that person is also busy ego-boosting, in which case he will be too unconscious, too lacking in presence, to do anything about it). The meeting is no longer about whatever was up for discussion… it is now to do with power: manipulation, brinkmanship, drawing lines in imaginary sand, who can make whom do what and, ultimately, who has the strongest ego. Each person is equally (and indelibly) convinced that he or she is defending a point of view which is right, which thus justifies what is going on. Sometimes, in fact, everyone is in their head… no one is really present at all. This is a far cry indeed from the virtues listed in the Beatitudes.

Ego-boosting may be an entirely appropriate way of spending your time, unless (of course) you are committed to walking the spiritual path. Members of a parish are, by definition, on a spiritual path (even if we need to be reminded of this fact rather often). Ego-boosting is not something we need in the Kingdom.

A solution: The Fathers give a number of clues as to how to learn from this sort of experience, and what to do about it. While fully aware of the necessity to use the God-given ability to think, they point out that there is a dimension of thinking which, far from being helpful, actually hinders our spiritual progress. They called these thoughts the logismoi, and I think it is fairly safe to identify this word with the stream of thoughts which constantly and often very obtrusively courses through our minds almost twenty-four hours a day.

These logismoi are the source of most (if not all) of the turmoil in our lives. They are at the root of every sin, and provide an environment for the ego to develop. In fact, outside the context of these thoughts, these “logismoi,” the ego does not actually exist, since it needs the atmosphere of fear and desire which the logismoi create in order to be real. Since fear and desire have no obvious place in the Kingdom of Heaven, it is part of our spiritual walk to brush these thoughts aside… put them behind us, and to start to approach God in another way.

This other way is summed up in what the Fathers called the “nous” and which we (without getting into too much trouble) can perhaps call the “heart.” This definition stands in contra-distinction to the more general Western notion that the nous is to be identified with the mind. In patristic Greek thought, this is often not the case. There certainly exists a problem of terminology here, which naturally accompanies any attempt to define spiritual body-parts like “soul,” “spirit,” “mind” and “nous,” but finding a model by which we can make adjustments to our behavior is a pre-requisite, so that we might have a pattern to work with. Thus, “nous” here is used in this particular Greek and patristic way, meaning “the center of our God-given spiritual intelligence.”

The mind (or the head) is the playground of thoughts, and thus also of emotions or feelings which are the means by which the body reacts to these thoughts. (Here, feelings and emotions are linked to the mind, and not to the heart, as some would expect).Thoughts and feelings have no subtlety about them… they are unmistakable, even when they are difficult to interpret. For example, when someone is angry, it is usually obvious to everyone present that that is the case. Quite why the person is angry might be a little more difficult to understand.

The “nous” – or heart – is, by contrast, little disturbed by thinking (in this compulsive, involuntary and continuous sense) or by emotion. It simply “is” – but in a very profound way. The presence that results from this “being” is enormously powerful and yet very subtle. This subtlety is best appreciated in deep, inner silence. This “sound of silence” is the nous’s equivalent of thought. It constitutes very profound awareness, most often expressed quite wordlessly. In some respects it actually is the “place of the heart” of which the Fathers speak, the part of the human personality which is forever listening to God.

Having said this, it is now possible to return to the words of St. Theophan the Recluse and understand what he means when he says: “Get out of the head and into the heart.”

This is good advice from a saintly man, but never so practical as when applied to a parish, or a diocese, when it is meeting not at the Divine Liturgy (when the icon of the Church is most easily visible and where ego-boosting should be entirely lacking as being quite inappropriate to the task at hand) but as a quasi-democratic body, carrying out its work according to Robert’s Rules, or parliamentary or committee procedure.

Once everybody in a parish has found out what ego-boosting is all about, it is possible to start eliminating it from meetings. Of course, to do this, each person has to find a way of staying “present.” If this is done by using the Jesus Prayer, such a task is best developed in the context of Confession, since while there are many ways of achieving this state of presence, there is no “one size fits all” method. Any person who acts in the role of spiritual father, mother or friend has had to learn the art of prayerful presence if they are to be of any use to anyone else.

For those who do not have access to spiritual direction, please allow me to attempt to describe such an exercise in staying present (and avoiding the pitfalls of ego-boosting) in spiritually neutral terms. It goes something like this:

Stop listening to your thoughts – not the thoughts you have, but the thoughts that have you. They have nothing beneficial to offer you, and besides you have heard them all before. Brush them aside, and gently continue to brush them aside. Beyond their clamor and din there is available to you a level of greater awareness – a place of love, joy, peace and compassion. At first, it is difficult to “hear” it (since it is expressed in silence) but with practice you will start to recognize its voice, and a deeper state of presence will be yours.

In practical terms, it may be appropriate to invite people to be present at the beginning of the meeting, and to maintain their presence throughout, each monitoring his or her own level. If things start to get un-present it may helpful for someone to call for the equivalent of a spiritual “time-out.” Indeed, this can be done at any time by anyone present enough to use those words. Those who are busy ego-boosting are not going to be present enough to seek such a solution, so it may occasionally fall to somewhat unlikely people to take that particular role.

Gradually, people will learn to watch the process of ego-boosting developing in themselves. This is always more difficult than seeing it develop in others. A real breakthrough occurs in a parish the first time someone says something like: “Oh, I’m sorry… I realize I was about to indulge in a little ego-boosting.” Conversely, everyone needs to guard against using this statement as an accusation against someone else. That doesn’t work. Like all truly spiritual techniques, this one involves changing the world one person at a time, and that person is “me”!

In spiritually developed parishes where the Jesus Prayer is a regular part of parish life (even though normally a private affair), it may be entirely appropriate to break off a meeting for intensive use of the Jesus Prayer, even communally, until everyone at the meeting returns to presence. The words of the Jesus Prayer (and other similar short prayers) lead us to that place of presence… not in a perfect way (at least not for most of us) but so much more perfect than defending one’s beastly little ego that it makes all the difference in the world.

Another exercise which can be very instructive is to ask the members of the meeting to “become present” and then remain in silence until someone finds a solution to the problem at hand emerging from the silence. When someone has such a solution they state it quietly and without justification or commentary. The meeting then returns to silence, stilling all thought (which is likely to be nothing but reaction), and becoming more aware, until another person can do the same thing. Allowing everyone to speak if they want to, but restricting comments to positive suggestions, rather than a re-statement of the problem, allows the meeting to come to a consensus about what is being discussed. In spiritual decision-making, consensus is a victory. Compromise, by contrast, is the way of this world, and is rarely an acceptable solution.

I think it needs to be said that, even in spiritually ideal conditions, ego-boosting is very difficult to uproot, since it has been a dominant form of behavior for thousands of years. Nevertheless, since Orthodoxy is all about transformation and transfiguration (not about “thinking” about transformation and transfiguration) we need to encourage ourselves to believe that change, both positive and permanent, is within our reach.

In Scripture, we are commanded, “Be still and know that I am God.” Church meetings are a good, though not obvious, time to do just that.

No matter what our thoughts encourage us to believe, Jesus never once asked His disciples to be right. He asked them to be good. In His actions and words, Jesus displayed no ego, at least not in the sense being used here, and He did not praise His disciples when they were busy boosting theirs either. Consider James and John, the “Sons of Thunder.”

Yet it is that same John, the Beloved, who later leans upon the breast of Christ and listens to His heartbeat. The opportunity to be present like that in the Presence of God is the ultimate vocation of every single member of the Church; this is as true in church meetings of all sorts as it is in those precious “present moments” when we meet God in the Holy Mysteries. In order to be present, we need to get out of our heads, away from the anguish and relentless demands of our thoughts and feelings, and seek the warm, loving silence of the voice of God in our own hearts. Once present, the needs of the mind-contrived ego look petty, irrelevant and counter-productive to the work of the Church as a whole and that of each of its members… and the real work of bringing the Kingdom of Heaven a little bit closer begins.


About Fr. Stephen Freeman

Fr. Stephen is a priest of the Orthodox Church in America, Pastor Emeritus of St. Anne Orthodox Church in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. He is also author of Everywhere Present and the Glory to God podcast series.





21 responses to “When Taking Cover Is Not Enough”

  1. In My Anguish Avatar

    That was beautifully written, Father.

  2. […] Pick it up!☦Nothing But Orthodoxy☦ var pulltime = 'Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:20:11 +0000';1) When Taking Cover Is Not Enoughhttps://glory2godforallthings.com/2012/06/22/when-taking-cover-is-not-enough/By fatherstephen on […]

  3. Karen Avatar

    I’m writing this as LOUDLY as I can because I want my words to be NOTICED! . . . To this post I give a resounding AMEN!!! (Kindly imagine booming voice and thunderous applause from every side.)

    Okay, that’s just my clumsy humorous sort of way of saying this is wonderful, Father! Thank you so much for sharing Fr. Meletios’ profoundly wise (and very witty) observations. Regarding the wit, “a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down . . .” every time.

  4. fatherstephen Avatar

    My thoughts exactly. I am particularly pleased to see his treatment on the “ego” driven needs within the parish. These ego needs are frequently created by problems of unaddressed toxic shame. They can be quite strong, uncompromising, and even frightening to others. Thus these sorts of things frequently paralyze parishes and priests (sometimes even bishops). Thus we can see parishes and people held hostage by someone else’s shame. These are the sort of situations that I describe as making a parish a “colony of hell.”
    If a reader out there is someone whose deeply held opinions and principles are holding others at bay, read this carefully and consider getting help. These things hold you in bondage as much as they do others.

    Some will ask, “But what about the Orthodox faith? Should we not hold that in an uncompromised fashion?” Of course. But when it is being held against your priest and fellow parishioners, perhaps it’s not actually the same thing as the faith. Fr. Meletios’ observations on the “need to be right” or “be heard,” are frequently the symptoms of shame-based behavior. What we need – is to be saved.

  5. Rebecca Avatar

    So very helpful, and so widely applicable. It seems this is a large part of the reason that discussions of theology can so quickly become heated- even beyond the ego’s need to be right, for those who take their theology seriously, it makes up a major part of their self-understanding. Might I ask your thoughts on how to approach evangelism with all this in mind?

  6. Marie Avatar

    Dear Father Stephen,


    A most helpful explanation. How might we help those in need who do not see the ravages of their own ego-driven behavior? Not just stepping aside, but lovingly presenting them with truths? Those who are in this category but don’t see it. “If a reader out there is someone whose deeply held opinions and principles are holding others at bay, read this carefully and consider getting help. These things hold you in bondage as much as they do others.” I ask this question as one being held at bay. And struggling with my own ego-driven self to be sure.

  7. Drewster2000 Avatar

    Fr. Stephen,

    This is an excellent piece by Fr. Meletios, an astoundingly clear and simple, yet illuminating guide to church meetings. I will tell you candidly that really the only valid barrier to me becoming Orthodox (besides church particulars) is not the overdone vestments or the iconostatis that reminds me of the Holy of Holies with the curtain put back in place. Instead it is the numerous times I have heard triumphalism from the lips of Orthodox themselves. I have listened closely at this site and am still here because I haven’t heard it.

    I don’t really doubt that the Orthodox have preserved the faith handed down, but when I hear those words come out, too often the speaker’s emphasis is on what “we” did and therefore how wonderful “we” are, how perfect and unscathed. Too many times I find myself listening to their ego instead of them.

    You are missional-minded. You have no idea how much peace you’ve brought to my heart and others like me. If the Orthodox are going to reach those around them, they’ll need to follow suit. It isn’t wrong teaching or theology they’ll have to conquer; it’s the ego.

  8. markbasil Avatar

    Drewster, keen observations and in my opinion your solution is spot on.
    Forgive me, and all of us!
    -Mark Basil

  9. Anonymous Avatar

    It was soul-saving for me that I had the opportunity early in my Orthodox journey to get out of such a toxic parish situation that was at a bit of an extreme with regard to this sort of behavior (on the part of both a new Priest and a few members, or former members, of the parish) and join a much healthier parish. I shudder to think of where I and my family would be right now had that not been the case, and I thank God from the deepest part of my heart I found a refuge in which to truly begin the healing journey that is the Orthodox way of life. My heart goes out to all for whom that is not an option.

  10. […] Glory to God for All Things Orthodox Christianity, Culture and Religion, Making the Journey of Faith « When Taking Cover Is Not Enough […]

  11. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    I think perhaps not enough attention is given to this topic. As Andrew suggests it can get so far out of hand that it imperils people’s salvation (not only the folks doing it). Priests can definately be the victims of such actions as well as the prepetrators. Unaddressed it can destroy lives and parishes. Of course, we all have at least a bit of the disease. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

  12. Maria Gutiérrez Avatar
    Maria Gutiérrez

    Dear father,
    please i need to understand better the difference between the ego and the plain sin of pride. I guess the ego is unconscious and pride is a willfull action?

  13. Margaret Avatar

    Thank you, Fr. Stephen, for posting this!

  14. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    I was just reading an article linked at Touchstone about why Muslims come to faith in Christ. The article listed 3 things:

    1. Reading the Bible; 2. A friendship with a dedicated Christian who neither attempted to explain away the Bible or other Christian truths, yet treated them with love, respect and kindness; 3. What the author described as ‘supernatural’ dreams and visions.

    I wonder how and it what way such incidents apply to us as we attempt to ‘evangelize the neurotic’(everybody).

    I’ve been thinking lately about that a lot. My wife’s family is, at best, lukewarm to Christianity and highly secularized, quite intelligent and due to the circumstances of my marriage and my own clumsiness somewhat closed to me as well. So, it seems, I must take the tact that is the least comfortable and hardest for me to do: engage them in love and friendship with no ulterior motive.

  15. fatherstephen Avatar

    When I was in seminary my wife and I became good friends with a young radically Marxist couple. We loved them. He was a lapsed Catholic, she a lapsed Episcopalian. Towards the end of 3 years he said to me, “The God I don’t believe in now is a lot different than the God I used to not believe in.” I asked him how. He said, “The God you’ve been telling me about is light, joy, love. If I died tonight and came face to face with Him, I wouldn’t want to run in the other direction.” I told him, “He wouldn’t run either.”
    I don’t know that he ever became a Christian (that was almost 40 years ago). But I took it as a profession of faith. It was certainly a statement of the heart.

  16. Anonymous Avatar

    Father and Michael,

    This can be so much harder in some ways when those to whom you are trying to be a true example of faith think of themselves as genuine and good Christians and think that all their ego bluster is defending the cause of “right” and of Christ. I’m still reeling after a relative who was visiting recently came into my house listening to a podcast of Rush Limbaugh on his IPod. I asked him to please turn it off and when he found out how I felt about Rush’s m.o., it was one of those notorious collisions of two massively inflated egos that you wish would never happen. I was so upset by his arrogant certainty I was just brainwashed by the Liberal media portrayal, and that I wouldn’t feel the way I did if I would just listen to Rush for a couple of weeks, that I literally had trouble breathing to talk.

    Several members of the family are into this type of inflammatory rhetoric around these cultural political issues (Ann Coulter is another “darling” of that set), and family gatherings have occasionally erupted because we also have an Obama supporter and a State level Planned Parenthood board member (same person) in the family! These occasional eruptions fueled by the culture wars are classic examples of the complete and utter “lack of presence” in the “conversations” of so many in our culture and parishes. My husband and I are in the middle of this tinder box doing our best to drop the dew of the the grace and truth of Christ where we can. We love our family, but sometimes it is really overwhelming because it is almost impossible to find the real person underneath the endlessly needy egos.

  17. Drewster2000 Avatar


    I hear you. Sometimes being Christ in those insanely difficult ego-battle situations only means using all your strength to politely say “I don’t want to discuss this anymore” and walking away instead of ripping their arm off to stuff it down their throat.

    There is a story from the desert fathers where they’re asking the oldest one in their midst about miracles and the future. They asked, “What kind of miracles will those do who come after us?” and then “What about the ones after that?” and so on. Each time the wise elder replied, “They will do even less.”

    Finally they asked about those at the end of the age. He said, “They won’t do any miracles and yet they will be greater than all the rest of us.” From this I take it that all our strength will be required simply to retain our own salvation, let alone strive to turn the tide in someone else’s life.

    I guess we could add here the well-worn adage: “Acquire inner peace and the thousands around you will find their salvation.”

  18. Anonymous Avatar

    Drewster, very true! I am also reminded of a line from Fr. Stephen’s post, “It is But a Small Thing,” where he writes: “No harsh word not spoken is a minor act of restraint.” Indeed, I think for me to commit the entire small paragraph to memory from which that line is taken would be a very helpful tool in my spiritual arsenal. It is so very comforting in this battle that surrounds us.

  19. Drewster2000 Avatar

    Anonymous, yes. And to draw strength from communities like this who still know what things like love, beauty and truth are and can confirm them in you.

  20. […] discussed recently on his blog concerning the distinction between the True and the False Self  (this post would be a great place to start).  The True Self is who were are in Christ, and the Church defines […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to blog via email

Support the work

Your generous support for Glory to God for All Things will help maintain and expand the work of Fr. Stephen. This ministry continues to grow and your help is important. Thank you for your prayers and encouragement!

Latest Comments

  1. Father, you said, “I can enter the Church, remain in silence and yet see (and hear!) something other than the…

  2. The icon, More Spacious than the Heavens, spoke to me the first time I entered an Orthodox Church in 1986…

Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast