In the August/September issue of First Things , Matthew Milliner gave a delightful account of his visit to the Eastern Orthodox Monastery of St Anthony in Arizona’s Sonora Desert. At least, I quite enjoyed it—though, truth be told, I would have enjoyed it considerably more had it not included a brief exchange Milliner had with the monastery’s abbot:
“Is holiness possible outside the Orthodox Church?” I inquired. [The abbot] responded with tired eyes: “A measure of virtue perhaps, but holiness is not possible.” The Orthodoxy on offer at St. Anthony’s does not mince words.
No, apparently not. Jesus, of course, rather mysteriously asserted that the Holy Spirit goes wherever he will, so it’s good of the abbot to provide a clarification on this point: the Holy Spirit may go wherever he likes, it seems, so long as he confines himself to the right neighborhoods.
This is not, incidentally, the official teaching of the Orthodox Church (so few things are), and most Orthodox Christians would tend to regard it as the embarrassingly silly twaddle it is; but it is something that certain hardliners like to say. And, to be fair, I’ve heard something similar from one or two Tridentinist Catholics I’ve tripped over in a dark alley now and again.
Most of us know the rules here, of course: When some hoary-headed old mammal in monastic garb starts spouting nonsense of this sort, no matter how offensive we find it, we’re supposed to shrug patiently and smile a gently ironic smile, reminding ourselves that a dash of curmudgeonly sectarian insularity is frequently the inevitable concomitant of deep piety. But I don’t want to play along.
The wonderful thing about holiness, when you really encounter it, is that it testifies to itself. This is not to say one can never be deceived; it’s easy to mistake personal charisma for genuine grace, or to be misled by plausible charlatans—until, that is, one comes across the real thing, at a moment when one is open to it. Then one knows it for what it is: a quality of such lucid and incandescent simplicity and of such moral beauty that one feels simultaneously deeply happy in its presence and ashamed of one’s own failure to have realized it within oneself.
At any rate, I’m quite convinced I’ve met a small number of truly holy persons in my life. Some were indeed Orthodox; some were even Orthodox monks. Others were Christians of other communions. And still others were not Christians at all. And, if I were to try to say who the first person was who made me aware of what genuine sanctity is, I think I would have to point to a woman who probably never even set foot in an Orthodox church.
Her name was Mrs. Estelle Hayes, though in my childhood I only ever knew her as Aunt Susie, which was how my brothers spoke of her. She was a black woman who helped make ends meet by cleaning the homes of middle-class white people; having been born a little before the turn of the last century into the rigid caste system of segregated Maryland, she grew up without any opportunity for a more rewarding occupation than that.
The name Susie had displaced her proper name when she was still a baby. She had been born at the southern end of Maryland’s Eastern Shore, where the whistles of the steam ships that sailed down the Chesapeake Bay from Havre de Grace and other ports were audible day and night. She had, it seems, a powerful set of lungs, and so her family started calling her after the ship with the loudest whistle of all, The Susie.
She entered my family’s life well before I was born, and by the time I came along she had largely departed from it, so my own contact with her was as fleeting as it was moving. She had helped my father’s mother keep house before my parents were married, and later began coming to help my mother once a week as well. She was still keeping things in order in the years when both my brothers were born, neither of whom ever had reason to suspect that she was not, in a strictly technical sense, one of their aunts.
I never met her husband, Al Hayes, who was a professional gardener among other things, but my father often described him to me as a fine gentleman with a great salt-and-pepper beard and impeccable sense in clothes (including a fondness for spats); and once I overheard my father remark that Mr. Hayes’s beard made him look a little like God. As I was about four at the time, I took this rather more literally than my father intended, no doubt, and for the next few years my mental picture of God was pretty firmly fixed as one of an older black man with a flowing white beard.
Aunt Susie had a strong and somewhat conservative personality, and a deeply generous nature; she was, most importantly, a fervent Christian who spoke of her faith with a great and convincing clarity. She had worked to earn registration as a practical nurse, and in the time she had free after cleaning houses and doing laundry she devoted herself to the care of others, visiting elderly shut-ins, preparing meals for the hungry, and generally bringing food and basic medical assistance to those most in need.
She was a physically strong woman, and seemingly indefatigable at the chores by which she earned her pay; but she was even more tireless at the end of the working day in performing works of Christian love. In her church, she was regarded as something of a saint.
There was something about her, moreover, that convinced one that her prayers were of a more powerful variety than most. When my parents lived in a house on a hill above Ellicott City in Howard County, my father used to pick her up from and then take her back to the streetcar in Catonsville just over the line in Baltimore County; and one evening, during a winter storm, the car went into a violent skid towards the tree line, and then just as suddenly straightened itself back into its lane before my father really had control of the wheel.
Over the rapid beating of his heart, my father politely inquired of Aunt Susie whether she had just been praying, to which she calmly replied that she had indeed, and that the Lord had taken over from there. Coming from her, it seemed simply a plain statement of fact.
In any event, that was all a little before my time. During my childhood, I heard a great deal about Aunt Susie, but I did not meet her until she came to dinner when I was about ten. I was deeply impressed by the warmth and forthrightness of her character, and naturally addressed her—as I had always heard was correct—as Aunt Susie. But, thereafter, I saw little of her.
My last encounter with her—one of the more indelible memories of my life—came a few years later, when she was dying in a somewhat dilapidated wing of the Women’s Hospital in Baltimore. We went to visit her in her room, and found her in her bed, lying on one side, much frailer and much smaller than she had been in previous years.
While we were there, a group of her parishioners from her church dropped in—to show their respect, dressed as though for services—and she insisted that we all pray together and join in some songs of praise. Since the charismatic movement had wafted through the icy halls of the Episcopal Church a few years before, my family actually knew the Pentecostal hymns that she wanted to hear, so we all joined hands around her and did as she asked.
It would be quite impossible for me to explain what the hour we spent there was like, or what effect it had on me. I can only say that Aunt Susie spoke about her love of Christ in a very clear and confident way, with a power that the weakness of her voice did nothing to diminish. From that day to this I have never heard another profession of Christian faith that seized me with such irresistible force. I am not a very emotional person, as it happens, but I was almost overwhelmed by the unutterable beauty that emanated from her.
Just as we were about to leave, Aunt Susie said that the Lord was telling her she would not see us again. We assured her that this was not so, and that we would be back before long, but she was quite certain that she was right, and so her last words to us had something of the quality of a valedictory blessing. And, of course, she was right; she died before we could make another visit to her bedside.
Anyway, I don’t really imagine I can convey what I would like to about her in a short column of this sort. I only want to make clear why I cannot listen to remarks of the sort made by the abbot of St Anthony’s with quite the seemly equanimity I probably should, and why I see them as being a little blasphemous.
To put the matter very simply, I am absolutely sure that Aunt Susie was a great woman, who probably did more good on many days of her life than most of us ever will really accomplish over the courses of our lives. But, more than that, I am convinced that she was genuinely a woman of resplendent sanctity, and one from whom the good abbot—had he had the good fortune to have known her—might have learned a very great deal indeed about what true holiness is.
David B. Hart is a contributing writer of First Things. His most recent book is Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (Yale University Press). His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
Comments:
I have known a woman from Bolivia, Gregoria. She and I exchanged only a few words as I unfortunately do not speak Spanish. She and other members of her family were employed by my daughter to help at home. Her presence was more a quiet blessing, a grace. Her forebearance, her faithful courage and hope, were a source of strength to me. She had so much to give.
I think David should have used the word "piety" rather than "holiness"--only the former is compatible with doctrinal error and a lack of full of communion with the Church. Deep and sincere piety usually does manifest itself. It is an aspect of holiness, and a note of holiness, though not its entirety.
Not everyone found St Jerome holy, true; that's because he wasn't. He was pious, though. I suppose you think holiness=canonization, but the official list of saints in the Catholic and Orthodox churches incldes a lot of persons who weren't that much holier than Genghis Khan (unless you thaink "St." Constantine was really a saint because he got canonized).
And which "Church" do you mean, incidentally? Catholic or Orthodox?
But let me see if I can make a judgment here: woman of fervent piety who also labors throughout her life in the Christlike service of others, whose life of prayer can reach out to move and change others, who is able to communicate her faith with transformative power, and who lives in close constant communion with her Lord... Hmmm, yes, I'd have to say that looks like real sanctity to me. Any doctrine or institution that wuld say otherwise is almost certainly a false doctrine or institution.
But maybe you're right--she would have been holy if she'd only been lucky enough to be born Irish.
Well, since Dr Hart (or, as DM calls him, David--have you ever been formally introduced?) is not a Roman Catholic, i doubt he would take anything you say very seriously.
But thank-you for reminding me why I can't stand the sort of piety your words represent. Arid dogmatism that blinds you to the testimony of living souls.
Oh, and as for the 'Vicar of Christ' business, mediaeval inventions of that sort oughtn't to be treated like serious religious concerns. Grow up and out of such nonsense. Then you might discover holiness.
Umm, exactly how do you get that ridiculous reading out of this piece? As I read it, it says that the grace of the Holy Spirit operates both inside and outside the visible boundaries of the church, creating sanctity everywhere. The Roman Catholic Catechism and the documents of Vatican II seem to agree with that, for anxious Catholics (not that I know what you are).
But which church exactly do you mean? The Orthodox Church? The Catholic? The "church of all believers"? I mean there are so many different accounts of what the church is. If you mean the RC communion, well I think the claim that it is the Church as such, and that the Bishop of Rome is the binding center of the true church, is indefensible as a historical proposition. At least the Orthodox version is compatible with the history we have in hand. But, really, almost all versions of the story of how the church was founded are historically dubious.
As a Catholic, I apologize for such nonsense and want to affirm that I agree with Pope John Paul II that real holiness is found outside the Catholic Church, just as real evil is often found within it. I'm sticking with the magisterium here: the true inhabitants of the church are not necessarily those who are visibly united to it in this world.
That's because some people think sanctity is the same thing as sanctimony, and that faith is the same thing as brutal dogmatism.
As someone who drifts back and forth, towards and away from Christian faith, I have to say it's the Aunt Susies I've met who make me able perhaps to believe, and the fellows like Kelso and Dan who make me think that maybe it's all a lot of rubbish after all. I suppose I should learn to look at the saints and not to listen to the others.
I also have to admit that although I've never met the Abbott, I have met and talked with someone who grew up with him in Canada and remains friends with him - from these conversations I have to say that the Abbott has done much good work and is a pious man. Ergo my thinking that the Abbott's thinking on the matter is probably much deeper than the quote in Hartman's article gives him credit for.
To which she might have replied, "Do you know Jesus?"
By the way, Mr. One-True-Church, the question stands.
Yes, the abbot provides a pat short answer to an involved question, but it's a stupid and graceless answer nonetheless. It's pretty clear what he means. And I think you haven't met enough Ultra-Orthodox in your time quite to appreciate his perspective. He would indeed tell you that Mother Teresa was not a holy person, and could not be, because she wasn't Orthodox. He would also tell you that the Orthodox Church is the only 'ark of salvation'.
But I'm sure you're right about the abbot: no doubt he has, in his time, achieved 'a measure of virtues perhaps'. But I still don't think you should cut him any slack. Evil thoughts expressed by good persons are often the most dangerous falsehoods of all.
St. Augustine would seem to have covered similar ground when he said, "Not all those whom the Church has, does God have; and not all those whom God has, does the Church have."
If you don't believe that there is a true church (or more importantly a true faith), then how do you keep your faith was becoming corrupted? For one person the concept of faith in Jesus Christ is drastically and often incompatibly different from another. Are both correct? If you believe in Truth, they can't both be correct. Who is right? The person that most matches your own understanding?
Orthodoxy teaches that there is no salvation outside the Orthodox Church. If there was, why bother having the Orthodox Church? With this idea, we also have the seemingly conflicting position that we are not to judge anyone else, it is the Master's responsibility to judge. Can there be salvation even when we do not understand it, yes. But the tools to actively seek salvation are only complete in the Orthodox Church. Just as the thief on the cross did not spend his time being righteous, and did not attend a yet-to-exist church, but believed in his heart in Jesus Christ, so too can others and be saved. The tools that the Orthodox Church gives believers is not some magic guarantee, but if you wander around trying to pick the right pieces to find salvation, you are far less likely to find the narrow path.
For all of the beauty that Aunt Susie manifested in the world due to her faith, does this equal holiness, that is, does it equal the same term that the Abbot was discussing? Only the abbot can truly answer, and to deride him for his answer is to keep yourself blind to your surroundings. You are asking an Orthodox Christian if there is salvation outside of Orthodoxy. If that person thought there was, then the best they could be considered is a "cultural" Orthodox Christian. To adhere to the teachings and regulations prescribed for Orthodox Christians, even moderately, is at great cost to us, our bodies and our desires.
If the question about holiness was to sincerely find the way to holiness, then this answer would not be offensive (the abbot said nothing offensive about the questioner or any other person). The offense taken shows there was no desire to learn, but to condemn. If you are happy and fulfilled and know you are on the path to holiness and sanctity, why ask another who is clearly on another path? It is usually apparent when someone desires to ask a loaded question, or a question for which the answer will not matter. It is a common method to answer in blunt and general answers. The questioner is then free to ask more questions, probe or debate. The answerer can then gauge the level of desire to really know. If you believed the question was "pat" why not probe deeper if you really desired to understand?
One final point, beware of holiness and your judgment of it. I knew a priest, and he was very holy. Not just externally, but I knew him for quite a long time and he always exhibited the traits that Aunt Susie exhibited. It turned out badly. He had many, many "demons" lurking under the surface. He crashed out (in ways that are too ghastly to describe) of his faith to which he, himself brought many people. I can't discount his pious deeds, and by all accounts he exhibited holiness before his collapse, but if we are making a final judgment, would you consider him holy? Will G-d consider him holy? Holiness is not about the deeds we see, but the thoroughly enveloping change in a person towards being like G-d. If this man had died before his collapse, I would think differently about him?
No one was harshly vilified, though there was a perfectly just rebuke of a foolish remark.
I hope you're rescued from your wicked foolishness someday too, just as I hope for a similar rescue of the Catholic One-True-Churchers here.
Actually, there are many very deeply devout Orthodox, not merely culturally Orthodox, who would reject your remarks absolutely. Among them would be Abba Silouan and his disciple Archimandrite Sophrony, for instance, not to mention Metropolitan Anthony and Patriarch Teoctist. But I don't want to give you too long a list. I'm sure you have your daily readings from the Pedalion and John Romanides to do.
Enough of that. This is a wonderful essay, filled with hope and joy and an appropriate meditation for Advent. Christ comes in His Church organically, and in His saints charismatically. Grace perfected nature in this holy woman, which is a sign that all of us who have salvation to "work out with fear and trembling" can have a reasonable hope. This lady had little in life, but had everything, and at the end was surrounded by the love of family and friends.
Aunt Suzie evangelized David Hart's family; he has evangelized me with this story of grace in one soul that gives me hope for my poor soul. Jesus saves!
But one quibble: what makes anyone think that any job is more rewarding than cleaning houses? If that's where God has put you, of course. :-)
Reading the story of Aunt Susie has inspired me to reflect on how I might live my life better and to think about my relationship with God.
Will she meet criteria for salvation within the guidlines of this or that organization's creed? Members of each organization can decide. But only God, the Creator, knows for sure. Not the abbot, not I. (But I do have a strong suspicion that she rests in the comfort of Jesus, smiling down on us as we think about her life's example.)
"Oh, and as for the 'Vicar of Christ' business, mediaeval inventions of that sort oughtn't to be treated like serious religious concerns. Grow up and out of such nonsense. Then you might discover holiness. "
Or at least punkiness.
I was moved by this beautiful story. I reminds me of a passage in C S Lewis's "The Great Divorce" in which the souls which are transported from the edges of Hell to the foothills of Heaven, are met by the just who have come to encourage them on the last stage to Beatitude. At one stage a glorious procession advances, with a woman surrounded by the glorious light and singing angels, and our hero is speechless with awe, stuttering: "Is that... is that....?" and receives the answer:" No, it is Mrs Green who all her life made the lives of others lighter and happier for meeting her."
I quote from failing memory, but the idea is so similar to Aunt Susie's life that I thought it worth mentioning in this context.
Thank you again for telling us about Aunt Susie, and showing how an ordinary, even disadvantaged, person, can be extraordinary and, humbly regaining the image and likeness of God by their faithfulness, have heroic sanctity.
Aunt Susie, pray for us!
You're thinking of a somewhat different cultural reality. Mrs. Hayes was not a "domestic" working in a great manorial house. She was an independent woman with her own family whose day job was helping to keep houses in middle class families. That was a common situation in those days, just as many Hispanic women today make ends meet by cleaning houses. She is buried in the graveyard of her church, where many old folks who knew her well still visit her grave (including me). She was (and is) a saint.
I shared a table with him and his brothers a few time at Taize and he emanated a sense of love and holiness. It is a wonderful and consoling thing to behold.
Thank God.
Sonora is a state in the republic of Mexico.
To me, the life of Janusz Korczak is one of the prime examples of heroic virtue, ultimate sacrifice, and true holiness. He truly deserves to be better known, because both his life and his death were full of grace. My mind always associates Janusz Korczak with St. Maximilian Kolbe.
As an aside note, someone once said of Janusz Korczak:
"In Israel he should be spoken of as being a Pole, in Poland he should be spoken of as being Jewish".
Is it inherently unrewarding to clean people's homes? Is it not honorable work? Would it have been better if the homes were upper-class, or if the home-owners were of a different pigmentation?
One thing about cleaning people's homes: You leave that bit of the world much better and more beautiful than you found it.
I don't think anyone was talking about shame. The point is that a black woman born in MD or anywhere in the US in the 1890s had no chance of going to college and becoming, say, a fully certified nurse at a large hospital or a fully trained physician. So Mrs. Hates was destined almost from birth, by the inequities of her society, for one sort of occupation.
@ Billy Bean
I wouldn't make assumptions about Ben's (that's DBH, for those who aren't family or very old friends) view of the church. You may be right, but you may not be.
Later, we were finally "tracked down" and I was sent back to live with my mother, who was a Baptist Christian (with the pedophile husband). Once I was "reunited" with my mother, I was treated like trash, because they assumed that's what I was raised in. Or maybe they thought that way to feel like they had permission to abuse me.
But altho Magnolia Deese was a farmers wife (who's husband made moonshine to supplement the income - and before you get too judgmental - the Kennedy's fortune came from bootlegging), had more class in her little toe than my mother and her family who sat in the first pew at Church every time the doors opened, and then went home and hurt their children.
If it had not been for the love I had known as a child from Magnolia Deese, I might have had no chance at all.
The Holy Spirit goes where it will. You can identify yourself with whatever religious affiliation you like and call yourself whatver you want, but it doesn't ensure your salvation. Your actions and your heart speak louder than whatever religious affiliation you claim to be. Ms. Nole regularly fed and hugged children who were not her own, but came into her sphere in one way or another.
And Ms. Nole was a Christian. If anyone is in heaven, she is. And she was not a member of the Catholic Church. She was a member of God's Church.
Billy Bean - that is the point I was trying to make. Thank you.
Dr. Hart juxtapositions Aunt Susie against the monastery abbot to make his point. His point is his working out and putting to words, part of his definition of what "true religion" is. What the "heart of the matter" is. What the heart of the Father truly is.
Perhaps a bit stale, but I have no reason to believe that the abbot too, is not a true seeker of the Lord.
I too have been blessed to know Aunt Susie, not Dr. Hart's Aunt Susie, but Aunt Susie as a type. In a way, Aunt Susie "shows us God." She shows us "what it is all about."
But think about that statement for a minute. Explore this a bit with me. Can an exuberance for love, charity, and self-sacrifice exist outside of Jesus Christ? I think it can. I've not investigated this yet, but my guess is that Aunt Susie lives in China too. By China, I mean a culture that is mostly void of Christianity.
I hope I'm not just adding "another twisted question" that only serves to cloud the clarity this article brings. The article, in and of it self, makes a great point. I'm simply exploring "beyond."
I can say this: As a Christian myself, when I encounter Aunt Susie as my sister in Christ, my heart leaps inside me, without hesitation. My heart says, "Bless you sister. You got it right."
On the other hand, if and when I encounter Aunt Susie, and she does not know Jesus Christ, I'm sure I would still be thankful to have encountered a loving, caring, safe, human being. Why would I not be?
Perhaps this Aunt Susie knows Jesus Christ, and just does not know that she knows him.
Perhaps certain acts of charity are present, and the motivation comes from a completely different spot. Perhaps it's more culturally derived, and not an act of worship.
Who knows. I just know that I love Aunt Susie, especially when she loves Jesus.
Gets me thinking about "what part" of Jesus Christ does the Lord desire for us to know? (a) The part that will "lay down our own lives for a friend?" Or (b), the part that knows every detail captured in the Holy Scriptures, and/or the traditions, doctrines, and teachings of the church?
Does not (b) lead to (a)? It is certainly intended to do so. I think it does, but we are a stubborn (read sinful) lot.
I don't know what I'm thinking, but for some reason I think (a) alone is severely handicapped.
(a) + (b) is the best.
All I wrote was that Jesus wants us, as His disciples, to believe in everything He taught, including, most eminently, His teaching on the Holy Eucharist. I wrote that we should invite those Christians outside the Church to become Catholic and receive Him" Where the Body is there will the eagles gather." I am saying that one cannot be a Christian and snub the Blessed Virgin as irrelevant or "a sinner." If that is "dry" dogmatism then sweet Jesus make me a desert.
Of course it might be helpful to evaluate his remarks in the context of either Orthodox ecclesiology or how the Orthodox view the Spirit’s work in the OT in contrast to the New. If memory serves, St. Maximus, among other Fathers give helpful elucidations on this point, but it is nowhere to be found here.
If something is not the “official” teaching of the Orthodox Church, it would be nice to see some reason to think that it is not, rather than DBH’s assertion. My money is on the Abbot since we are talking about the contrary opinion of an individual layman. After all, if there is no salvation outside the church, can there be holiness in the sacramental sense? Perhaps DBH thinks that the Church is something wider than the Orthodox Church, in which case, I’d suggest persons who think such a thing find some other tradition.
As for what most Orthodox think, I’ll chalk that up to what most of any group think, which is often quite ignorant or misinformed, which often enough includes academics claiming to be spokespersons. Jesus didn’t found the academy mind you. Of course, as noted the polite thing to do is to smile when someone says something that might offend you. Somehow though I don’t think it includes doing a blog post about it, at least not to the benefit of one’s soul, let alone anyone else’s.
The rest is fairly typical of the convert who really feels bad about drawing the lines of the church so that it excludes others. The appeal is to anecdotal evidence, but unless someone is seeing the uncreated light beam off such people as “Auntie”, I can’t see that this really moves the ball down the field in Hart’s favor. After all, we need not deny that such persons have a measure of virtue. Augustine is clear for example on the real acquisition of virtues by pagans, and Hart says as much. Why draw the line at professing schismatics and heretics? Truth be told in my own experience some of the most noble people I have ever known were an OPC Calvinist family who exemplified biblical parents beyond anything I had seen or seen since. Can heterodox Calvinists have “holiness” in terms of that conveyed through the Sacraments of the Apostolic Ministry? I don’t think DBH would say yes given his hatred of Calvinism.
But here is the problem with Hart’s view. He seems to think that Christian holiness can be had by non-Christians, which is a controversial view across Christian traditions, not the least of which is that he claims as his own. Dominus Iesus anyone? Or how about Pelagius instead?
Here the framework of “holiness” seem to be drawn too large as to include the virtues of the pagans, something strictly speaking, East and West would exclude.
In any case, the piece turns on the worst kind of leveling irony-the unholy Abbot and the holy heretic. As Kierkegaard noted, such a thing is a mark of a soul sick in despair.
I am afraid the citation from Augustine won't help you and here is why. Augustine is speaking of those who are currently outside the church, prior to baptism whom he takes to be predestined to salvation. He is not making a claim in such wise to supprt a kind of wider ecclesiastical view.
However, reality is not theologically logical as the Good Lord pointed out.
The parables of Matthew 25 should make anyone given to theological logic some pause, especially vs 31 and on regarding the sheeps and goats.
One will notice no reference to "church", "orthododoxy", "creedal belief" etc;.
One will notice, however, some reference to actual "concrete" human acts of caring for others, not sentimentally but in actual physical acts of caring as being the criterion for entry into the Kingdom. One will notice that the criterion seems to apply to all human beings, not just some.
Of course, theologically logical proponents such as Mr. Robinson, will always find ways to refute such "simple" parables.
Anyway, the quality of his venom-spewing soul is obvious from his suggestion that DBH must be sick in despair in order to praise the holiness of his Aunt Susie in this way. Perry Robinson is a whole spiritual pathology in himself.
Since I know DBH, I can state confidently that he does indeed believe there are holy persons in the Calvinist tradition and Calvinist world, even though he believes Calvinism to be a defective theology. As a professional hater with a withered soul, Robinson does not seem to understand that one can disagree with another person's beliefs without despising that other person.
Anyway, as Evagrius points out, Jesus gives clear criteria for what constitutes citizenship in the kingdom in Matthew 25, and by those criteria it seems Aunt Susie was an excellent example of what the New Testament tells us about holiness.
I would not presume to answer for Prof Hart, but I can honestly say that reading Perry Robinson's remarks makes *me* sick in despair.
I don't have any standing, because I'm not a practicing Christian. I'm a fellow-traveler looking to believe, but simultaneously convinced and unconvinced. But I've been to Mt Athos, I've talked to lots of spiritual teachers in the Orthodox world, I've sought spiritual counsel from Orthodox monks and nuns in Britain, America, Greece, and Romania. I have also studied the Eastern Church Fathers, mediaeval Orthodox history and theology, and modern Orthodox theology. All I can say is that chaps like Mr Robinson speak for the sort of Orthodoxy they converted to, but not for the tradition and not for the community of Orthodox throughout the world. For those interested in the views of saner, more spiritually informed, and more historically conscious Orthodox thinkers, the joint Orthodox-RC Balamand Statement is a good beginning:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html
Two things:
1) There is nothing in the least Pelagian here; no one suggested that the holiness in Aunt Susie was not the work of the Holy Spirit in her rather than something she created in herself.
2) The accusation of Pelagianism is notoriously ineffective when hurled at the Orthodox, since they tend to regard Pelagius and Augustine as equally in error, and so don't find the word very frightening. Dr Hart is Orthodox.


