They tend to replace the spiritual struggle of repentance and forgiveness with a set of moralistic principals through which they see the world and everything in it. It is easier to say, “this is the way things SHOULD be, than to examine one’s own life and see the filth, dirt and darkness that lies within. The true ascetic lays no burdens on anyone, least of all himself expect the burden to repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. For those who practice moralism, heaven, and therefore the person of Jesus Christ, is always somewhere else and is only to come.

Eliot,

I’m not sure that I disagree with you on anything. I have stated:

“Not only am I not talking about monasticism, but I would further observe that even monasticism (which is an eminently holy endeavor . . .”

If you are actually taking issue with the substance of anything I’ve said, it would be nice to know exactly what that is. As far as being a theoretician, I’m not sure what you mean. My observations were concerning those who tend to misconstrue “mercy” or “love” into a kind of masochism or quest for “social justice”. That has nothing to do with monasticism or true asceticism.

It is well known that monasticism is not for everyone and not all who are in the world will perish; nor will everyone in a monastery be saved! You seem to be a great theoretician but that is not enough.Sometimes great theoreticians are people who know what to ignore. Forgive me if I am wrong.
Elder Paisios:

The goal of reading is the application, in our lives, of what we read. Not to learn it by heart, but to take it to heart. Not to practice using our tongues, but to be able to receive the tongues of fire and to live the mysteries of God. If one studies a great deal in order to acquire knowledge and to teach others, without living the things he teaches, he does no more than fill his head with hot air. At most he will manage to ascend to the moon using machines. The goal of the Christian is to rise to God without machines.

Eliot,

I am not talking about true asceticism – – combating the passions in order to clean house to receive the Holy Spirit. I am talking about an obsession with guilt and resulting efforts to be perfect and “holier than thou” based on a false understanding of the Church’s teaching that drive many modern Orthodox and which have, at times, adversely affected the Church.

Not only am I not talking about monasticism, but I would further observe that even monasticism (which is an eminently holy endeavor) is not for everyone. It would end the human race if embraced by all and the ending would not be pretty since infrastructure, production, healthcare, etc. would quickly shink and vanish. That would yield immense suffering for the “last generations”.

My point above can be concisely stated as follows: If the only type of Christianity that I encountered were of the Franky Schaefer, Jim Forest/OPF variety, I would probably not think too highly of Christianity and reject it out of hand as being misanthropic.

The connection between “sensitive Christians” and Parsees is that they let a particular emotion lead them by the nose out of Egypt, right through the Promised Land and up into Turkey. They go too far and thus end up in as bad a place as they might have been without Christianity at all. While it may be true that one can never be too loving and too merciful, one can certainly follow the emotional impulses of toward love and mercy uncritically into spiritual and physical ruin.

Scott:

Sometimes I get the feeling that many of our more sensitive Christian brethren would be happier as Jains. They follow the same muse.

I see no connection whatsoever between sensitive Christians and the so called “Parsees”.
Elder Paisios:

Holy asceticism, together with its great self-denial, which is born from great faith in a burst of love for God, brings man to true joy. He is happy to live, for his heart flutters, glorifying his God of benefactions. He is also happy to die, for he thus goes close to God again, and will continue there his doxology.

The thing that makes me equivocate somewhat regarding her is that what she was really doing, IMHO, was overreacting to real flaws in the way Christianity has been practiced or understood – – especially in the twentieth century.

There is a masochistic as well as a collectivist strain that runs through Christianity. It is not Christian teaching in the sense of being Holy Tradition; however, it is there. Sometimes it manifests itself in the cliches regarding Orthodox or Catholic sense of guilt. Sometimes it comes out as pacifism or economic egalitarianism. Nietzsche had a similar take, that Christianity is what weakens man rather than strengthening him. “In truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on a cross.”

For a certain vein of Christianity, Rand and Nietzshce have a point. There were times and places in early Christian history where Christians actively sought out martyrdom for its own sake. You also see this in the Church’s occasional appropriation of the term “social justice”. Search in vain for this term in the Fathers. It’s not that they did not write upon economic concerns. It’s that the notion of social engineering inherent in the term was foreign to them. Attaching moral imperatives to things like exactly how much largesse the government redistributes, opposition to the death penalty, uncritical support for unions, reflexive opposition to all war – – these are things that do weaken both the individual and society. It is a tendency to hear the call of unthinking “mercy”. But this is not real mercy. Real mercy maintains strength to protect the weak. Real mercy doesn’t bankrupt itself so that it becomes a burden rather than a source of charity. Real mercy does not flinch from discipline in order to discourage unmerciful, cruel or murderous behavior. “Mercy” in the sense that some Christians hear the term is no more than one of the passions that leads to perdition. I see Ayn Rand’s musings as an overreaction to that.

There is a religion that sprang out of Persia about the same time as Buddhism arose in India called Jainism. It’s founder is called “Mahavira” which means “great soul”. Most of its adherents now live in India and are called “Parsees”. They often work as bankers. Jains are strict pacifists and vegetarians. They refuse to light fires because it might kill bugs. They refuse to plow because it might kill or harm earthworms, etc. Starving onesself to death is considered a holy way to end ones life.

Sometimes I get the feeling that many of our more sensitive Christian brethren would be happier as Jains. They follow the same muse.

However, she also goes out of her way to assert that love should only go to those who deserve it. Setting aside the Christian notion that our good deeds are like filthy rags before God, it does not seem that she accounts for intrinsic disabilities or limitations which hamper virtue, nor for confusion or misunderstanding. Not that the society or even the Church take these into account sufficiently, but she seems to make it a point of denying all but earned love.

In a sense, this is inhuman – – certainly unchristian. However, we should not be surprised at the trajectory of her thought. Marxism, Naziism, Libertarianism (in it’s non-theistic varieties), Objectivism, etc. all are materialistic in theory, but depend on the caprice of the emotional proclivities of their founders and luminaries for their spiritual direction and moral choices.

It is comical to hear from someone that there can be something like a rational, reasoned, materialistic morality that is somehow objective. It may be true that Mengele betrayed the rules of scientific inquiry because of the twisted ideology that animated the Nazis, however, science is no more inherently merciful than nature itself. Morality is no more than a set of subjective preferences without some supernatural foundation.

That is also the folly of depending on the subjective (but allegedly objective) powers of the individual intellect to find truth or interpret what has been written. There is an objective reality; however, there is no such thing as an objective perspective, objective opinion or objective interpretation. There were many heterodox Christians in the Church’s history who challenged Orthodoxy not because of malice, foolishness or other bad faith, but because they simply followed a different line of reasoning. It is one thing to write a book asserting scriptural support for, for example, iconodulia. It is another matter entirely to say that any line of reasoning that ends in some type of iconoclasm is flawed to the point of malice and inherently, objectively false. That is one reason why important matters in the Church are given to consensus, even consensus over the ages. It is quite important who decides, every bit as much as whether the decision is right. After all, who is to say whether the decision is true to the criteria?