I believe that asceticism is essential, the process of collaboration with the Spirit by which we endeavor to transcend our death-giving egoism and disordered passions and begin to truly enter into eternal Life through communion with the Life-giving Trinity.

I also assume that all Truth is One. This means that life, in all of its facets will confirm or reveal elements of the truth. Thus, asceticism is revealed to be intrinsic to any form of successful effort – even in a shadow of its true meaning, even in the most worldly venture. I believe that it reflects how God made us and is a sign, as it were, of the real asceticism involved in true spiritual transformation. This is not meant to diminish asceticism to mere technique nor confuse it with its transcendent purpose. It is only to say that God shows us in even our fallen ways how vital discipline, training, sacrifice and directing our efforts are to ANY kind of success. Nor is it to equate spiritual asceticism with its more secular efforts. Indeed, because our egoism is SO very deeply rooted in us, spiritual asceticism is necessarily of an altogether different and higher order. That is, the complete restructuring of the fallen self requires an asceticism that is at once radical, demanding, subtle and absolute. It requires – and will cost – all that we are; but we only “lose” what has no true value in order to gain what is of eternal, infinite value: we gain God Himself.

I am also making a distinction between means and end, between the practice of asceticism and the object of the practice. This point was made by St. Seraphim of Sarov and St. Ignatius Brianchaninov: asceticism is never an end in itself, but an essential means. The proper end is, to quote St. Seraphim, the acquisition of the Spirit and communion with God.

Engaging in the ascetical process is essential for all the reasons both of your note – with which I fully agree. Thus, as your comments show, both of you clearly “get” WHY asceticism is vital (as I hope I do, too.).
The only point I have tried to make is that the Patriarch’s message seems to be offering the process of transformation to folks who, by definition, clearly don’t “get it.” (As I noted before, those who live by consumption are showing by their behavior that they do not “get it.”) Some may doubt this, but I have found that when people persist in any behavior, they generally do so for a reason. Thus, despite whatever they may claim to know, their practice indicates something very different: their belly (more generally: appetite or passions) is still their actual god, not the Living God. In my experience, people who live by consumption are essentially using creation to fill the God-shaped whole in their lives. If they haven’t turned from consumption, it is often because they do not yet really know that there is a better way of life or do not believe that it is truly worth it. To put it crassly: until that happens, talking about asceticism is like giving training techniques to someone who never goes to the gym and really doesn’t know why anyone would bother going.

Thus, while asceticism is indeed THE corrective to a consumption-driven life (a point I have made in numerous posts), there can be no effective ascetical effort unless it is built on a foundation of faith and love. Before we can talk to them about the absolute value and importance of asceticism (the means), we must first help them to come to know the goal that asceticism serves (the end). I suspect that this is what St. Paul is alluding to when he says that children must be fed milk before they can be give real meat.

In short, we must first show those enthralled by consumption the surpassing value of the love of God – or at least the idea of a God-filled life. Only after the conversion of the heart to the love of God can we then talk to them about the ascetical process which seeks to conform our lives to that love. They need to know that the answer to the whole in their hearts is not “buying more stuff,” but God Himself. They will not truly begin to take on the demands of asceticism – transformative thought it may be – until they get that first. Once they “get” the WHY, then . . . everything you said.

I can only give an AMEN! to the need for a spiritual partner like Elder Paisios or Elder Sophrony. In the end sanctity is personal, not programmatic. As I have often noted, a transformed heart can save thousands around (to paraphrase St. Seraphim). This is the gift beyond measure of a holy elder for us – and, if we are faithful, the gift we can be to others.

Prayer, fasting, almsgiving, repentance, worship.

This is where a monk has an advantage over married folk. Married folk are very much involved in the world all the time. That does not relieve us from the task of disciplining our passions, in fact, IMO, that task becomes even more essential. It’s no accident that many ascetics have not only a spiritual father, but a partner in their stuggle, e.g, St. Silaoun and Elder Sophrony.

I think you are quite correct Ben.

Personally (and I’m not an ascetic), I’m troubled when “being highly successful in any field”, which does imply rigor and training, etc., being equated with asceticism in the historic Christian traditional sense. Asceticism, does comes from the classic Greek “ascesis,” meaning rigorous training, self-discipline and self-restraint.” But in the spiritual tradition, doesn’t it take on and connote a spiritual dimension centered in fulfilling our potential in Christ? The trouble is that most of us limit our asceticism to bodily rigor and exercise–or business success, all at the expense of the spiritual dimension.

That is partly what I was getting at in raising the subject of mentoring in the spiritual tradition of the Early Church. Just like the physical ascesis, the spiritual ascesis requires work and effort and rigor and mentoring–i.e. a spiritual father.

Through asceticism each person works to transcend his fallen nature and its tendencies toward individualism and selfishness. Asceticism is an act of communion, not an act of deprivation. It is not scorn for the body and matter as much as it is, in the words of Christos Yannaras, a “..love for the beauty of personal fulfillment and restoration to the image of God. It is the struggle to renounce my egocentric tendency to see everything as neutral objects, subject to my needs and desires.”

Quite a contrast to Marx’s observation that the bureaucrat sees the world as the object of his activity-which feels a bit like “being highly successful in any field.”

Again, we may be more in agreement than disagreement, and just defining the terms differently!

Of course, once you understand how asceticism “works,” you see it in all of life. As I noted above, I know of NO ONE who is highly successful in ANY field who has not radically restructured their lives (their time, habits, efforts, etc.) in the service of their chosen endeavor. What is this but asceticism? In fact, this is what sets the best apart from the rest (excuse the unintended rhyme) — which takes me back to the point I raised before.

No one pays the price of stringent discipline unless they have a clear goal, a compelling vision that they feel is worth the cost. In fact, such people don’t even see their efforts as a “cost” at all; for them it is an investment that gets them closer to their goal. If, however, people do not have a clear vision and goal, they simply won’t pay anything more than the minimal cost. (And they WILL see it as a “cost,” which is why it isn’t productive.) As Scripture says, without a vision, the people perish. If they DO have a vision – if their hearts are aflame with the love of God – then they will yearn to make the investment. (And, for them, it will be an investment.)

It’s great to call for asceticism – from those already committed to the cause. If the goal, however, is to turn folks away from consumerism, it’s pointless. If the folks in the pews (if you have pews) are caught up in consumption, they are telling you by their behavior that they haven’t “got it”; their behavior shows that they do not yet know (or do not want) the love of God.

If, however, we really want to address those caught in the sin of a consumption-centered life (which, really, is the only option available to folks living apart from God since the fall), then we need to focus on the reason (God’s love) before we talk about the way to pursue it. Otherwise even if they give away everything they have and sacrifice their life to the most stringent discipline, yet have not love, they gain nothing.

The Catholic Church seems to be particularly afflicted with this notion of monasticism being a “higher calling”. It’s funny, because I know more than a few married people who’d consider joining a monastery a welcome flight from their marital and parental responsibilities.

This is why I have a tendency to look some of the Pauline epistles with a bit of suspicion in terms of what is God and how much is distinctly Paul. On the one hand, he did extol marriage, but on the other, he apparently considered it a lesser option for the “weak” and urged his followers to instead be as he was (single and celibate). Perhaps these attitudes are what have influenced the notion among some RCC and Orthodox that marriage is a sort of concession to the weakness of worldly people.

Unlike any other relationship, you have the privilege of being permanently bound to someone who knows all of your faults and limitations (and will usually tell you about them) yet has a vested interest in the success of the relationship. Of course, you must also learn compassion, forgiveness and surrender as you live with her faults and limitations. It succeeds only so far as you are willing to learn to love – which is possible only as long as you are willing to carry the cross.

(While Bishops face very difficult political challenges, I have often thought they would benefit from having such honest feedback. It would probably focus more than a few sermons and cut short a couple of bad ideas.)

One a personal note, it is marriage more than anything else that taught me how deeply cruciform love is. In fact, it was my experience of marriage that revealed me to myself and inspired our journey to the Orthodox faith.

WWII got America out of the Great Depression. But after the war politicians believed that consumerism, as distinct from pre-war American ethical capitalism, would continue the prosperity recovered during the war. Half a century latter Americans joke about their “patriotic duty” to go shopping.

Today, as John Couretas writes, in the economic crisis Americans are recovering an appreciation of thrift and saving. They are saving whatever extra money comes their way rather that buying things with it in order to “stimulate the economy.”

Some politicians don’t want people to save money because saving money does not “stimulate the economy.” As people save more and go into debt less they will acquire more entrepreneurship and personal ownership and thus independence. Banks and other social institutions that rely on government restriction of entrepreneurship and unchecked debt based consumption will go into financial decline. But local economies will thrive.

What should we do about politicians who believe that it is healthy for governments to go into debt, who don’t see it as a liability? How can our national debt be paid off?