THE PERSON IN THE ORTHODOX TRADITION   o  ·   1  ·   2  ·   3  ·   4  ·   5     6   © Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos   THE MORALITY OF FREEDOM AND THE FREEDOM OF MORALITY The theology of freedom The relativity of human freedom The challenge of freedom Freedom and fall Natural will and will based on opinion The freedom of the saints Freedom from death Independence and death, according to St. John of Damaskos The entrance of death according to St. Gregory Palamas Sin and death Transcending death The freedom of the nous Freedom and nous Freedom of the nous, according to Abba Isaiah the solitary Foolishness for Christ as a life of freedom What are the fools for Christ The reason for their emergence The preconditions of foolishness in Christ The falling asleep of the fools for Christ Christian life and foolishness Conclusion   [ BACK ] The morality of freedom and the freedom of morality

In our time systems are often arising and appearing which express men's leanings towards freedom. The bitter taste of servitude has led many people to thirst for freedom. They seek it on all the levels of life, religious, political, social and national.

However, there are two great dangers in this seeking. The first danger is that people are looking for complete liberation, which ends in anarchy. This anarchy is ravaging contemporary societies. The second danger is that in the name of freedom a new form of slavery is appearing. Contemporary man can use all the ways and means to dominate. Thus anarchy and dictatorship are two dangers which are ravaging the people of today.

It is necessary, then, to have a true definition of freedom and to describe the conditions for it. This will be taken up in the present chapter. Of course I know clearly that this great subject will not be exhausted in what is to be said here. Just a few points will be underlined and a few hints will be made for further elaboration. We shall deal mostly with the theological aspect and interpretation of freedom. This is essential because, while a great deal is being said about the freedom of the senses, reason and morality, nothing is being said about the morality and quality of freedom.

We can confront the topic of freedom from many angles. The first angle is the moral one, from which man's freedom is to act without being hindered by various duties. The second angle is the psychological one, from which his freedom consists in being able to make decisions without being subjected to various influences. A third angle is the philosophical one, from which freedom is the inalienable right of man, as a rational being, to think and to act. It is also possible for all the other freedoms, social, personal, national, economic, and so forth, to be put into this framework.

Those aspects of freedom will not concern us, but we are going to examine freedom from one angle, that of theology. For we shall discover that it differs greatly from the other angles, in that it is more integrated.

It must be said from the start that independence, or freedom, is an essential constituent of man. When God created man, He gave him free will, which not even He Himself violates.

In Holy Scripture it says that man was created in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1,26). The holy Fathers have given various definitions as to just what this image is. Sometimes they refer it to man's sovereign dignity, to his superiority and his lordship over the terrestrial world, sometimes to his soul and body, sometimes to the whole man, sometimes to the ruling part of his soul, which is the nous, sometimes to his independence. All these definitions show that the holy Fathers avoid specifying one particular point which is the image, but they rather describe all the functions which express the image. In any case it is a fact that one interpretation of the image also refers to independence, which interests us here.

John of Damaskos' interpretation concerning the image is characteristic. He says that God formed the body from the earth and "by His own inbreathing gave him a rational and noetic soul, which last we say is the divine image". Extending this interpretation he says: "for 'in His image' means the nous and free will, while 'in His likeness' means such likeness in virtue as is possible". Thus 'in the image' refers chiefly to the noetic and independent. In what is to be said below we shall mostly interpret independence, freedom, because there are many misinterpretations on this subject. We shall emphasise some essential points.

Man as a creature, as created by God, has absolute freedom within its relativity. With his freedom he can even turn against his creator, but this freedom is relative. This is because man is not uncreated, but created, which means that he was created by God and therefore has a beginning.

Archimandrite Sophrony observes: "Absolute freedom means being able to determine one's being on all levels, independently, without constraint or limit in any form. This is the freedom of God - man does not have it", for he has not the authority to create "out of nought".

The ultimate temptation for the freedom of man (and in general of subsistent spirits) "is to fashion his own being, determine himself in all things, become a god himself, and not just take what is given, because that would entail a feeling of dependence".

Thus man does not have absolute freedom by his biological birth. But he can acquire absolute freedom by his rebirth and experiencing Christ's life, as we shall explain in the next section.

The preceding also leads us to another parallel conclusion, that what is given to man by his existence is a challenge for freedom. True freedom is not just the choice of an event, but the possibility of a self-determined existence.

It has been observed very correctly that: "The ultimate challenge to the freedom of the person is the 'necessity' of existence. The moral sense of freedom, to which Western philosophy has accustomed us, is satisfied with the simple power of choice: a man is free who is able to choose one of the possibilities set before him. But this 'freedom' is already bound by the 'necessity' of these possibilities, and the ultimate and most binding of these 'necessities' for man is his existence itself: How can a man be considered absolutely free when he cannot do other than accept his existence?" Therefore man "as a created being cannot escape the 'necessity' of his existence".

In this light we can interpret an agonising existential question of many contemporary young people: "Why did my parents give birth to me without asking me? Why should I come into existence without being asked?" To be sure, before someone came into existence there was no one to be asked, but in any case this is a question which shows that the greatest challenge for freedom is the fact of existence and the fact that therefore man has to do something in order to be given the possibility of determining a new birth for himself.

Incidentally it should be pointed out that in the opinion of some, the embryo in its mother's womb is asked if it wishes to come to life. And the miscarriage of many embryos is interpreted as their refusal to be born. Thus in a way their existential freedom is preserved. We cannot judge this view from the patristic point of view, because the holy Fathers have not expressed themselves on this matter, at least as far as I know.

The freedom of man before the fall somehow worked differently from that which works today. Freedom as we know it in the period after the fall, after the victory of sin and the passions, after the illness which came into the whole human race as a consequence of Adam's sin, after the decay of communities and institutions, is receiving dreadful effects and it requires great pains in order to express it in a positive way. In the life before the fall there was the possibility of positive or negative response to the will of God, but that was different from freedom as we live it today. In other words, today we suffer terrible pressures and effects, and therefore it is with great labour and struggle that we make decisions about doing something, while in man's original life this labour and struggle did not exist.

We should further point out that man's freedom even to sin and to withdraw from his Creator was a sign not of perfection but of imperfection. For his vacillation about what to do, instead of being stimulated by love and freedom towards the purpose of creation, the lack of impetus in man towards his archetype, shows a weakness and imperfection. Man should naturally be led towards the good. St. Maximos the e Confessor, interpreting the request of Christ's prayer "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" says that he who impels his rational power towards God and worships him mystically becomes a participant in the angels' worship of God. In this case the words of the Apostle Paul apply: "For our citizenship is in heaven". Among these men desire does not sap their powers through sensual pleasure, "but there is only the intelligence naturally leading intelligent beings towards the source of intelligence, the Logos Himself". The perfection of man's freedom lies in his turning naturally towards his archetype.

While speaking of man's independence, I think that something must also be said about Christ's independence. St. John of Damaskos speaks "about the wills and independence of our Lord Jesus Christ". It is the subject of a dogma which shows us true freedom, how the two wills in Christ work and also how the saints too, who are united with Christ, can experience true freedom.

There is a difference between 'willing' and 'how one wills'. To will is a work of nature, just as seeing is, since in all men there is willing. However, 'how one wills' is not of nature, "but of our opinion", just as how to see well or badly is also a matter of the particular opinion and freedom of each man. The "willing" is called will and "natural will", "how one wills" which is subject to the will, is called "will based on opinion".

Through His incarnation Christ assumed human nature, wholly without sin. Thus in His hypostasis the divine was united immutably, inseparably, indivisibly with human nature. Since Christ had two natures, therefore "we say that his natural wills and natural energies were two". But since the hypostasis is one, therefore "also we call one and the same both his willing and his doing". And Christ wills and acts not in a divided way but in unison; for He wills and "each form acts in communion with the other". It is one who acts, but in any case He has two natural energies and wills which do not act separately, but each single energy works in communion with the other. In any case "we call the wills and the actions natural and not hypostatic".

We have said that in each person there is the natural will and the will based on opinion. Christ had two natural wills, which worked "in communion with each other", but he did not have a will based on opinion. The will based on opinion is that of option, which is expressed after judgement, thought, dissent and decision. There was none of this in Christ. Therefore St. John of Damaskos says characteristically: "It is impossible to speak of opinion and option in Christ, if we want to speak literally". Opinion is a fruit and result of seeking and will and judgement about the unknown. After the opinion is formed, the option prefers one or the other. But Christ was not simply a man, but also God who knew everything, and therefore "he was unhesitating in thought and seeking and will and judgement, and naturally he was at home with the good, and evil was alien". Christ's will was naturally guided to doing good and to withdrawal from evil. This is why as God He never sinned, nor did He have any possibility to sin. What the human will desired did come about in the Person of Christ "not in contradiction of opinion but in identity of natures". This means that "He wished these things naturally, at the time when His divine will wished and allowed the flesh to suffer and do the same things". Thus in Christ there was not dissent, wavering, inner conflict when there was something to be done.

Christ, being God and man, naturally had "a will", but He did not have the will based on opinion, as we said before. His human will "yielded and submitted to His divine will without being moved by his own opinion, but willing those things which his divine will wanted it to will".

Each will of Christ, both the divine and the human, willed and moved independently. For in every intelligent nature there is independence. How was it possible to have intelligence and not to have independence? So Christ's soul "was independent in his willing and wanted to moved independently", "but wanted those things independently which His divine will wanted it to will". Thus the two wills in Christ differed not in opinion, but in natural power: the divine will was without beginning, accomplishing all things, therefore having power and dispassion; His human will began in time, suffered natural and blameless passions and, while naturally it was not all-powerful, still, since it had been assumed truly and naturally by God the Word, that is why He was all-powerful.

All these things indicate that since in Christ there were two natures there were also two wills. Likewise his independence, which is closely connected with his human nature, acted naturally towards the good, following the divine will.

What has been said is needed in order for us to understand the limits of human freedom and also to understand how freedom, independence functions in the saints. As we shall see in what follows, the saint's independent will, precisely because he is favoured with divine grace, always moves naturally towards the good. When I speak of a saint I mean the deified person who partakes of God's deifying energy.

The Apostle Paul offers this witness: "It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me" (Gal. 2,11). He has the certainty that Christ lives in him, and so elsewhere too he says: "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ" (1 Cor. 11,1). St. Gregory Palamas, bearer of the same Revelation, interpreting this teaching of the Apostle, says: "Do you see clearly that grace is uncreated? Not only is such grace uncreated, but also the result of this sort of energy of God is uncreated; and the great Paul, no longer living the temporal life but the divine and eternal life of the indwelling word, came to be without beginning and without end by grace". And a little further on: "Paul was a created being until he lived the life which had come about by God's command; then he no longer lived this life but a life which had become indwelt by God, become uncreated by grace: and wholly possessing only the living and acting word of God".

In the Apostle's words and in the interpretation by St. Gregory Palamas, champion of the theologians, it is clear that a man who has been united with Christ, who has attained illumination and deification, by grace becomes uncreated and without beginning, because he has the living Christ within him.

And St. Maximos the Confessor, interpreting the words of the Apostle Paul that Melchizedek, who is a type of Christ, was "without father, without mother, without genealogy" (Heb. 7,3), writes: "The person who has mortified the earthly aspects of himself, thoroughly extinguishing the will of the flesh within him and repudiating the attachment to it which splits asunder the love we owe to God alone; who has disowned all the modalities of the flesh and the world for the sake of divine grace... - such a person has become, like Melchizedek, 'without father, without mother, without descent'. For because of the union with the Spirit that has taken place within him he cannot now be dominated by flesh or by nature".

Every Christian, when he is united with Christ, is deified, sanctified, and his whole being, and somehow also his freedom, which is always subject to God's will, is shown favour. In this sense we say that by His incanartion He granted us freedom. He freed us from sin, death and the devil and we enjoy this freedom in our spiritual rebirth. Nicholas Kavasilas says characteristically: "It was when He mounted the cross and died and rose again that the freedom of mankind came about, that the form and the beauty were created and the new members were prepared".

We have already seen that the challenge for freedom is the given fact of existence, and this creates an existential problem. But by rebirth in Christ, which takes place within the Church, the people overcome this existential problem. Just as great as the difference between biological birth and spiritual birth is the difference between the struggle over the fact of existence and the possibility of self-determination of the new existence. Man is born spiritually by his own will. This spiritual birth has great meaning and importance. St. Gregory the Theologian speaks of three births. The first is the biological birth from the parents, the second is through the mysteries of holy Baptism, the father of which is God, and the third is through tears, and the father of this birth is the man himself. To express ourselves through St. Maximos the Confessor, by the first birth we come into being, by the second into "well being" and by the third, which is identical with resurrection, into "ever well being"

Thus man is called to this new life, and if he responds, he is born into "ever well being", overcoming the provocation and temptation given in his existence. And since the deified person becomes "uncreated", "without beginning" and "without genealogy" - by the grace of God - for this reason he acquires a freedom which is absolute within human limits and facts. Since his freedom has an impulse towards God through love, there is no ambivalence in him, his independence functions naturally and so he becomes perfect by grace, since he has abandoned the imperfection of his nature, which is indicated by the battle for single-mindedness.

St. Symeon the New Theologian says that our self-determination, our free will, is not removed by Baptism, "but it grants us freedom no longer to be held against our will in the devil's tyranny". Baptism grants man the freedom not to be tyrannised by his desire, by the devil. After Baptism it again depends on us whether we remain self-willed towards God's commandments or we depart from this way and go back to the devil through his cunning practices.

St. Diadochos of Photike, referring to the desire for self-determination, says that independence is a desire of the rational soul, which moves readily "towards whatever it desires". Therefore he urges us to persuade it to move only towards the good. When it is moving towards the good, it is fulfilling its purpose and moving naturally.

The same saint writes that all men are formed in the image of God. "But to be in His likeness is granted only to those who through great love have brought their own freedom into subjection to God". "Only when we do not belong to ourselves do we become like Him who through love has reconciled us to Himself". From these words of the saint it can be seen that the likeness belongs to the saints who have mortified their passions and subjected their freedom to God through love. He emphasises the subjection of freedom to God, but this comes about through love. For in fact it is only then that freedom moves and functions naturally.

It can be added that "the only exercise of freedom, in an ontological manner, is love". True freedom cannot be expressed without love; it loses its ontological content. And this means "that personhood creates the following dilemma for human existence: either freedom as love, or freedom as negation".

In the saints we encounter the co-existence of love and freedom. They love God really, I could say ecstatically, and therefore their freedom, having been released from different admixtures and ailments, is directed towards God, it moves naturally. And in this way the saints are true men, what we have usually called persons.

Since, however, I do not wish to take my stand on a philosophical and theological level, which may seem abstract - although I do not think it is, for the theological position is necessary - I shall go on to present some expressions of freedom, as it is experienced in the ascetic life of the Church. One is man's freedom from death, another is the freedom of the nous from logic and the senses, and the third is man's freedom from the environment. These topics will reveal clearly the great value of freedom, as the members of our Church experience it.

It can be seen clearly in the whole Biblico-patristic tradition that death is a fruit and result of man's withdrawal from God and that the life in Christ is a transcending of death. Death came about through man's freedom and self-will, and through life in the Church he can attain freedom from death. I should like to develop the subject of death in the light of two great Fathers of the Church, St. John of Damaskos and St. Gregory Palamas, who wrote down and systematised the whole teaching of the earlier saints.

According to St. John of Damascos, man's freedom, with which he was endowed by God, gave him the ability to commit sin or not. He writes that God made man "by nature sinless and endowed with freedom of will". When he says that God made man sinless, he does not mean that he was not open to sin, because only the divine is not open to sin, but that "it is not in his nature to sin, but rather in his power of choice". This means that man had the power to persevere and progress in the good, with the help of divine grace, as well as having the power to turn from virtue and fall into vice, "God permitting it because of man's free will".

Thus man's nature was sinless immediately after his creation, but his will was free, he had the power to remain good and the power to withdraw from God. This is why death came as a result of the misuse of freedom, because man disobeyed God's will. So man was created with the possibility of remaining immortal or of dying. And this depended on the right or wrong use of his freedom.

This freedom was related to reason. St. John of Damaskos, explaining why he was created with free will, says: "The freedom of the will is directly connected with the reason". And everything that is created is also changeable. Being brought from nonbeing to being is a change, and so is being made into something else from an existing material. Now, inanimate things and brute beasts are changed by corporeal alterations, whereas rational beings are changed by deliberate choice. Thus choice, will, selection, which is connected with reason, is necessarily a mark of the created being, which was created out of non-being. Everyone who thinks and elaborates his thought has the possibility of making a choice. Since free will is connected with reason, therefore "a being may be irrational or rational; but if it is rational, it will be the master of its actions and free". Irrational beings are not free, since, instead of leading nature, they are led by it. This is clear from the fact that they do not deny their natural appetite, but just as soon as they feel an appetite for something, they move to act. However, since man is rational, "he leads his nature rather than is led by it". And this is clear from the fact that he has freedom to resist the appetite or to obey it".

Thus man has free will, since he is created and changeable. and this free will is connected with reason. Man committed sin and died, first spiritually and later physically; he became mortal and passible. This is connected with his freedom. God did not create man to die, but man died because he misused his freedom.

I would like next to look at the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas about death and the way in which it came into the world.

Citing the scriptural passage: "God did not make death, nor does He take pleasure in destroying the living" (Wisdom 1,13), St. Gregory Palamas writes that God not only did not create death, but neither is He the cause of the terrible things which followed death: diseases, illnesses and all the other evils. All the terrible things from which man suffers came from the sin which he committed by his free choice. He says: "It was through sin that we were clothed in garments of skin, this sickly and mortal and distressed body, and we have been deported to this temporary and destructible world and condemned to live a life of much suffering, full of disasters". The garments of skin which we have been wearing, which are mortal and passible, are a result of sin, which came about through our own choice and freedom.

God not only did not create death, but he hindered its coming into the world. Since man had free will and God did not want to abolish his free will - this would mean a disaster - therefore as soon as He had created him and given him life, He gave him an immortalising piece of advice. The advice not to eat of the forbidden fruit is called a life-giving commandment, because it would lead man to life and would keep him from going towards death. He did not give this commandment imperatively, "but forewarned him of what would happen if it was not obeyed". And He gave the commandment that on the day when they should eat they would die, so that they might take care not to transgress and thus avoid "meeting with death".

In speaking about the death which man would meet if he transgressed His commandment, God meant both spiritual and physical death. But on the day of man's sin, spiritual death would come, and then physical death, because on the day when he tasted the forbidden fruit he did not die physically, but spiritually. Spiritual death is forsaking God, precisely as the absence of light creates darkness. When God is present, it is impossible for man to experience death. St. Gregory Palamas writes: "When God, Who is life itself and the life of all the living, especially of those living a godly life, is present to our soul, it is impossible for death to be there as well". Thus, death comes to our soul "not from God, but because of our abandonment of God, which is sin". It is clear from this teaching that the cause of death is sin and, naturally, sin is linked with free will, with man's ability to sin or to keep God's commandment, to remain in God or to abandon God, where the true enhypostatic life is.

From all that we have said so far we can see that death came from sin, but it has to be added that sin also reigns in death. That is to say, sin and death are mutually interdependent. The Apostle Paul writes: "so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 5, 21). And in another place the same Apostle advises: "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts" (Rom. 6, 12). And again the same Apostle says characteristically: "the sting of death is sin" (1 Cor. 15, 56).

In these apostolic passages sin is linked with death and it is said that sin is the sting of death, just as sin also reigns in death and in the mortal body. Thus the whole world of the senses, of mortality and the imagination is a prison which tyrannises man. Man cries out for freedom and for individual rights, but in reality he is a prisoner of decay and death. The Apostle Paul expresses this fact in all its tragic character: "I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my nous, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (Rom. 7, 23-24).

I think it would be interesting to look a little more broadly at how sin reigns in death, how sin and man's wretchedness come from mortality and corruptibility through his way of living death. For the sense of death and the certainty of it lead man to commit sins. And we can say with certainty that the way of living and the sense of death are a source of many troubles, both personal and social.

Because of death and the uncertainty of it, but also because of the variety of its consequences, which are illnesses and all the other sufferings, man is possessed of fear and anguish and in general of the instinct of self-preservation. The effort of self-preservation develops selfishness, whereby man breaks the bonds of love, in fact abandons unselfish love and takes on love of self. He does all these things in the climate of self-love and vanity. Thus many passions develop, such as self-protection, egoism, hatred, jealousy and so many other things.

Therefore riches, private property, injustices, the lack of true love, murder and so many other evils, which are also a source of many other troubles, come from the experience of death.

Because death reigns in him and he sees his mortality in all its "majesty" and sees the sin that is bound up with this mortality and considers his life to be meaningless, therefore he tries in every way to persuade others that he is worthy. Many evils come from this. "He loves adulation and fears insults. He seeks his own and is jealous of others' successes. He loves those who love him and hates those who hate him. He looks for safety and prosperity in wealth, praise, and bodily pleasures, or perhaps he imagines that he is destined for a personally blessed and placid enjoyment of the presence of God, unrelated to any expression of genuine and active love for others. Because of his anguish and fear, man becomes an individualist. And when he also identifies himself with some ideology of common ownership (not monastic-ascetic) he is again moved by individualistic selfishness, because he mistakenly sees his desire for self-satisfaction and happiness as his true destination. It may even be that some general ideological principles about love for mankind fire him with enthusiasm in some undefined way, in spite of the fact that a deadly hatred for his neighbour is lurking in his heart. These are the works of the 'flesh' which is under the power of death and satan".

Interpreting the apostolic passage: "and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage" (Heb. 2,15), St. John Chrysostom says "he who fears death is a slave, and submits to all things rather than die". A man who is under the influence of death is a slave of sin, of the devil, and of death itself. He is also a slave of the passions and does everything in order to avoid dying, to prolong his life on earth. Referring to the people before Christ's resurrection, Chrysostom writes characteristically: "ever expecting that they should die, and being afraid of death, could have no sense of pleasure while this fear was present with them".

The life of the man who is under the threat of death and the law of sin becomes unbearable and tiresome, it becomes a life without meaning and purpose. Man was formed with the possibility of remaining immortal and of living eternally with God. But through sin he lost this calling, with the result that he suffered a terrible experience, that of being sheathed in mortality and corruptibility. Because he knows that the purpose of his creation was different, he becomes unbearable, unsatisfied, hard to manage. He is not satisfied with anything, not pleased by anything, not content with anything good whatsoever. He can enjoy all the material goods, yet without overcoming death he is a tragic man. This is the explanation of why he is constantly possessed by a grievance. The man who is a slave of death has no freedom at all, he is a tragic being, a continually unsatisfied man. The theatre, literature, philosophy and other such things are a small respite in the tragedy of his life. So education, psychology, philosophy, the human activities in general, cannot effectively help him or develop him fully.

In the tragedy of this situation man tries to forget death. This too is a way of escape from the reality and tragic nature of death. But it increases the problem and the tragedy. By repressing and forgetting death man is led to a sensual life, to consumption and a way of living which consists only of material enjoyment. "Autonomised consumption as a basic content of life, corresponds opportunely with man's need to possess, to have sensual pleasure and to forget his death". This way of life, which is called the culture of consumption, "this vague and illusory 'science' (which certainly has no connection with study and research) solves all the metaphysical problems of the average man, it answers all his questions, and presents death either as a physiological end to biological existence and a plunge into non-existence, or, finally, as the last obstacle to the advance of science, which also cannot but be conquered some day".

The dreadful results of death and its tragic nature are transcended by Christ's resurrection and the ecclesiastical life in general Church. As long as sin is the sting of death, it means that when sin is abolished, death too is abolished within the personal life, and so a man in this life enjoys immortality. For immortality is not simply the natural condition of the soul, it is not the life beyond the tomb, but the transcending of death through the life in Christ.

The Apostle Paul, who speaks of sin as the sting of death, writes: "when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory. 'O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory? The sting of death is sin' (1 Cor. 15, 54-56).

The interpretation given by St. John Chrysostom is characteristic. He says that not only has death been abolished by Christ's Resurrection, but the power of the devil has been destroyed. "Do you see that in casting out the tyranny of death, he also overthrew the strength of the devil?". After Christ's Resurrection death "is no longer terrible, but has been trodden under foot, has been utterly despised; it is vile and of no account". Therefore anyone who lives the life in Christ "fears no one, he is in terror of no one, he is higher than all, and more free than all". Therefore true freedom is the transcending of death, it is freedom from death and sin.

The person who lives in the Church by the sacramental and ascetic life is rejecting the sting of death, which is sin. If we think of how in the whole patristic tradition it seems that sin is darkening of the nous, and from this darkening the passions are created, then freedom from death and from sin is the illumination of the nous. This means that man first goes through the stage of purification, casts out of his heart all evil thoughts, rids himself of pleasure and pain, then experiences illumination of his nous. And then he lives a truly free life which transcends death. The Christian's whole ascetic effort consists in this, and this is the aim of the sacraments and asceticism.

The Christian in the Church first experiences mindfulness of death. Not only does he not seek to forget death and to thrust it into the unconscious, not only does he deny the reality and tragic character of death, but he has it constantly in his mind and in this way acquires a naturalness, because the sense of mortality and decay is truthfulness.

Mindfulness of death, which is the beginning of man's freedom from its tragic character, is meant in two senses.

The first is mindfulness of mortality and the certainty of the end of biological life. This mindfulness, combined with the existence of the soul after death, the partial crisis after the soul's departure, and the resurrection of the body at the Second Coming of Christ for the whole man to be judged, creates terror and fear. Man reflects upon the sin and passions which possess his soul, he recalls what Christ and the Apostles taught about the life of sinners, of the unrepentant, and he is possessed with fear and terror. It is the fear and terror of the entry into the spiritual life. This fear, increased by and connected with hope in the love of God and the sense of the Church as a Hospital leads him to a cure and to love, which "casts out fear" (1 John 4, 18). Thus there is the fear of the entry, aroused by the Judgement to come and the reality of Hell, and the fear of the perfect, which is connected with the sense of God's love. In this second category man fears sin because he realises that it leads him far from God and creates in him the sense of Hell.

A second interpretation of the recollection of death is the charismatic state of remembering death. Through the removal of divine grace, man falls into despair and godly hopelessness. Just as Adam's sin had consequences for the whole of creation, so also man's sin, that is to say the darkness of the nous, has cosmological consequences. He himself feels that he is dead to God and, indeed, he sees the whole world as dead, dying. Nothing offers him joy, peace and happiness. Everything is dead. In this way he understands existentially that he is a microcosm within the macrocosm, a summing up of the whole creation. Since the grace of God comes to the heart and is conveyed through it to the body and to the whole cosmos, and the loss of the grace of God has disastrous effects on the whole world, this means that man is the summing up of creation.

It can be said that the sin which we commit is worse than Adam's sin. St. Gregory Palamas says that many people blame Adam because by following the advice of the devil he disobeyed the advice of God "and thereby brought about our death". But, he says, it is not the same to want to taste a deadly plant before knowing its destructive effects, as it is to taste this deadly poison when we know its dreadful consequences from experience. It is the same with our own sin in relation to Adam's sin. Adam sinned without knowing through experience exactly what sin was and what were its dreadful results, whereas each of us commits sin, having this experience. Therefore St. Gregory Palamas says: "Each of us is more worthy of blame and criticism than Adam".

Mindfulness of death, either as an experience of mortality or as a sense of the loss of the divine life, is a spiritual gift, and therefore an experience of transcending death and of our freedom from its tyranny. For this experience even with the two forms is not independent of the grace of God. It is only through the inspiration of the grace of God that man can experience such states and only in this way that he can free himself from the tragedy of death. This is why ways of life which embrace mindfulness of death, lives which are "death-centred" are natural and true, they mark the natural boundaries of man's life. Through the sense of mortality a man becomes more social and transforms his personal relationships.

St. Philotheos of Sinai writes that mindfulness of death embraces many virtues. "Mindfulness of death begets grief; it promotes the exercise of self-control in all things; it is a reminder of hell; it is the mother of prayer and tears; it induces guarding of the heart and detachment from material things; it is a source of attentiveness and discretion. These in their turn produce the twofold fear of God. In addition, the purging of impassioned thoughts from the heart embraces many of the Lord's commandments".

Liberation from death is brought about by life in Christ, when the person feels an inalienable peace in his heart, a love for all men, and even for his enemies, release from every tyranny which created things wish to impose, uninterrupted mindfulness of God.

I should like for us to look next at some particular characteristic signs which manifest the transcendence of death, man's liberation from its dreadful tyranny.

The first is that the person is not afraid of death and the time of death. Not only is he not possessed by the fear of death, but he is also looking forward to it. Of course this anticipation is not from the point of view that he is waiting for his soul's release and freedom from his body, as the Platonic philosophers taught, but for the possibility of meeting Christ and being liberated from the change and deterioration which constitute the biological life. I may add that he rejoices as the hour approaches. This is expressed by the Apostle Paul: "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labour; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you" (Phil. 1,21-24).

The second is foreknowledge of death. There are many saints, old and new, who have been granted by God to see the hour of their death and to prepare themselves for it. They have seen it and waited for it in joy.

The third is the confronting of death when it comes. Athanasios the Great describes the blissful end of St. Antony the Great. After talking with those present, and kissing them, "he lifted up his feet; and with a look as though friends had come to him and he was overjoyed at the sight of them - for, as he lay there, his face had a cheerful look - he passed away and was gathered to his fathers".

The fourth is the glory of the man who has overcome sin and death by the time of his departure from this life. A characteristic example is that of Sisoes the Great. When he was at the point of death, while many fathers were with him, "his face shone like the sun". Then he said: "Look, Abba Anthony is coming". A little later he said, "Look, the choir of prophets is coming. "And again his face shone more brightly... A little later he said: "Look, the choir of apostles is coming", and the brightness in his face redoubled. Then those present, seeing that he was speaking with someone, asked him to tell them with whom he was speaking. He replied: "The angels have come to fetch me, and I am begging them to let me do a little penance". And when the fathers told him that he had no need for penance, he replied: "Truly, I do not think that I have even made a beginning yet". With that the Fathers understood "that he was perfect". Then at once his face became like the sun. And he said to those present: "Look, the Lord is coming and He is saying: "Bring me the vessel from the desert". And at once he gave up his spirit. "Then there was a flash of lightning and all the house was filled with a sweet odour".

The fifth characteristic sign of the gift of a blessed death is the martyrdom of a saint. Death through martyrdom is really a gift of grace, because it is not a matter of will power, but an experience of deification, which is a clear indication of the transcendence of death. In fact martyrdom is a fruit of seeing God, an indication that the Christian has been united with Christ and received a martyr's grace. This means that the experience of deification transforms the soul and body. But martyrdom is a gift of a blessed death and a sign of transcendence of death, according to a theological explanation given by St. Gregory Palamas.

Speaking of the Worthy Forerunner, and especially of his beheading, he writes that the Baptist of Christ "did not need to undergo natural death". It was not necessary to undergo a natural death, because death is a result of Adam's transgression. But the Worthy Forerunner is not a debtor, because he is a servant of the commandment and subject to God from his mother's womb. The saints generally give their lives for virtue and devotion "and for this reason a violent death is more suitable for them than a good death". That is why Christ died in this way. As long as the sting of death, which is sin, is set aside in the saints, the most natural way of departure from this life is through martyrdom, a violent death.

The saints inspired by the grace of God were freed from the reign of death. This is not an imaginary thing, but a reality, for it is related to man's freedom from sin and the liberation of the nous from reasoning, the senses and the imagination.

Freedom from death and from sin is very closely connected with the freedom of the nous from sin. Freedom is used in this sense in the New Testament, especially in the epistles of the Apostle Paul. Let us look at two characteristic passages.

The first passage is: "And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end, everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 6,18-22).

Here for the Apostle Paul slavery is linked with slavery to the passions and to the deeds of the flesh, the end of which is death, while freedom is linked with man's purity from the passions, with holiness, and the end of this freedom is eternal life. In the teaching of the Apostle Paul freedom is in reality the freedom of the nous from attack by the passions, and this brings about illumination of the nous.

St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, interpreting this passage, says: "There are three freedoms according to Koresios: Freedom of nature, the freedom of grace and the freedom of glory and beatitude. Freedom of nature is contrary to force and to the tendency toward a single good and makes one independent. Freedom of grace is opposed to sin and the passions and makes one righteous and holy. And the freedom of glory is opposed to death and to the temptations of the present life and makes one blessed; this is the Apostle's word concerning freedom and grace". So it concerns freedom of the nous.

The second passage of the Apostle Paul is: "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death" (Rom. 8,2). If one links this passage with all the other passages in the same chapter, one will discover that it is a question of the liberation of the nous from the passions and reason, and of illumination of the nous. Thus the same chapter speaks about the carnal mind, which is death, and the mind of the Spirit, which is life and peace (Rom. 8,6); about the Spirit of God, which dwells in man and makes him a son of God (Rom. 8,14-16); about noetic prayer which takes place by the Holy Spirit in the heart, "by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father" (Rom. 8,15); about the fact that the Holy Spirit prays within us: "but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered" (Rom. 8,26). Therefore in reality freedom is the freedom of the nous from the passions, and this is what constitutes illumination of the nous.

This is the framework in which the holy Fathers too interpret the relative passages of the Apostle Paul. According to St. Gregory of Sinai, just as the law of the letter is that which acts in the flesh, so the law of the Spirit is the law of life, "working and speaking in the heart". And while the law of the letter "imperceptibly turns a man into a pharisee", the law of the spirit "frees the nous from the law of sin and death". And Niketas Stethatos says that he who cures the passions by the opposite virtues converts the mundane will into "the law of the spirit of life" and makes it free.

So freedom of the nous is illumination of the nous, which is the second stage of the spiritual life and follows the stage of purification. A man first purifies his heart and then his nous is freed and illuminated, after having previously been identified with reason, passions and the environment and in bondage to them.

Here I shall not go into precisely what the nous is according to the Orthodox tradition and the teaching of the holy Fathers of the Church. I did this in another of my books. It should be emphasised here that the nous is the eye of the soul, the purest part of the soul, the energy of the soul which acquires experience of the life of God. It is distinguished from reason in that reason investigates created things and acquires knowledge of created truth, while the nous acquires experience of God and acquires knowledge of uncreated things. The experience of the nous is given expression by reason.

I should like only to point out the teaching of St. John of Damaskos on this subject. When he says that the nous is the purest part of the soul, and that "as the eye is to the body, so is the nous to the soul", he is making a distinction between the nous and reason. Man is rational. There are three powers which make up man's soul: those of reason, desire and anger. He writes characteristically: those of reason are the theoretikon and the praktikon, the theoretikon being the understanding, as it has the things that are, and the praktikon is the desiring, which defines the right word for actions. And they call the theoretikon nous and the praktikon word, and the theoretikon wisdom and the praktikon prudence". Thus the nous is the theoretikon of the rational part of the soul, which understands beings and possesses wisdom, while reason is the practical part of the soul which elaborates thoughts and defines the right reason in practical things.

Therefore a natural man is one whose nous and reason move in parallel according to their predestination. When the nous is identified with reason, a number of problems are created. Therefore the primary work of orthodox life and orthodox asceticism lies in the effort of the nous to be freed from its slavery to all the created things and to be left free to attain the wisdom of God. In what follows we shall speak of the liberation of the nous, which I think is one of the most fundamental tasks of orthodox theology, in the teaching of Isaiah the Solitary. The account in the works of the so-called neptic Fathers on this subject is very significant. For the saints, through long experience and years of struggle over these matters, gained knowledge of themselves and consequently acquired a very deep knowledge of man. They know what man is, what are his depths, how he is enslaved and how he is freed from this slavery. What we shall hear from Isaiah the solitary is not conjecture and philosophy, but experiential theology.

1) The title of the chapters which we are going to examine is very characteristic: "On guarding the nous". These chapters speak of the nous, the heart and the conscience. While it seems that these three concepts are different from one another, there is unity among them as well. The nous which is diffused through the senses into the surroundings should return to the heart. The nous is united with the heart by the power and energy of the Holy Spirit. When the nous returns to the heart from its diffusion, it dwells within it and sheds grace on the heart. Then the heart becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit and the nous becomes king and world-ruler of the passions. It is then that the conscience is functioning normally. It has a pure word and its voice is the voice of God. For in the Orthodox Tradition when we speak of conscience we do not mean an abstract voice, we do not mean it in the philosophical and ethical sense of the term, but as the voice of God which is heard in the pure heart. And the purer the heart, the more purely the voice of God is heard. Therefore the keeping of the nous, the keeping of the heart and the keeping of the conscience are one. So in what follows, what is said about the heart relates to the conscience as well, what is said about the conscience relates to the heart as well, and what is said about the nous relates to the heart and the conscience.

2) In his chapters Abba Isaiah the Solitary speaks of the darkening of the nous. When the nous is withdrawn from God and loses God's grace, it is darkened and blinded. The passions darken man's nous. When a person does not struggle to free himself from the action of the passions, he cannot make progress with God. "As a result the nous is always shrouded in darkness and cannot advance in holiness, because it does not make the effort to uproot these thoughts by means of spiritual knowledge".

The nous is disturbed by thoughts. Thoughts create great agitation in the inner world of man, but particularly in the nous, "troubling it with distractions and making it lazy". When the nous is distracted and lazy it becomes predisposed to being captured and darkened. In the patristic tradition the nous should always be alert and ready.

The nous is the nourisher of the heart, just as the eye is the nourisher of reason. If the nous is healthy, then the heart is also healthy, but if the nous is ill, then the heart too is ill. The heart of man is nourished well or badly by the nous. The darkened nous which is distracted and lazy corrupts the heart. "If some shameful thought is sown in your heart as you are sitting in your cell, watch out. Resist the evil...".

Impurity of the heart, all the passions which are sown by the nous, have dreadful consequences for man. The conscience disturbs, reproaches and accuses. In so far as a man is reproached by his conscience, he is not free. Freedom is experienced chiefly in the core of man's being. Abba Isaiah is expressive: "So long as your conscience reproves you for anything that you have done contrary to nature, you are not yet free: the reproof means that you are still under trial and have not yet been acquitted". We all have experience of these reproaches and accusations of our conscience, which deprive us of freedom. It is not unrelated to the darkening of the nous and impurity of the heart.

3) This is just why freedom of the nous is demanded. If all the evils originate from darkening and enslavement of the nous, this means that effort must be directed to liberating the nous from the influence of reason, the passions, the senses and the surroundings. Abba Isaiah uses three statements to show the effects of liberating the nous. The first statement is that if the nous is freed "from all hope in things visible, this is a sign that sin has died in you". If the nous is not freed from its slavery to things visible, then sin cannot die in us. Thus we understand that purity of heart and mortification of sin in us is not unrelated to the freeing of the nous. The second statement of Abba Isaiah is that "if your nous is freed, the breach between it and God is eliminated". The darkening of the nous creates a great chasm between God and man. The freeing of the nous annihilates this chasm and the person acquires union with God. Man cannot acquire union with God in any other way than by the liberation of his nous. And the third statement is: "If your nous is freed from all its enemies and attains the Sabbath rest, it lives in another age, a new age in which it contemplates things new and undecaying". Liberation of the nous is related to the Sabbath rest, inner repose and peace. This results in the nous being caught up into the divine and, of course, the revelation of the mysteries of God. Thus, according to the degree of freedom of the nous, there is experience of the mortification of sin, communion with God and the revelation of the mysteries connected with the vision of God.

Furthermore, freedom of the nous from every visual image and every thought is what is called pure prayer and true worship of God. Then the person prays undistractedly and worships God truly. "What then is meant by the worship of God? It means that we have nothing extraneous in our nous when we are praying to Him...". This is what we call unceasing, inner, noetic prayer of the heart, which takes place without our having any thought in our heart. The nous, which is the most refined attention, returns to the heart and prays to God unceasingly.

4) The entire ascetic effort of the Church lies in liberating the nous from reasoning and the passions. But we realise that this is not an easy matter, and the struggle is bloody and difficult. The holy Fathers are not content to speak of the liberation of the nous, but they go on to emphasise the methods which must be used to achieve this goal. In what follows we shall look at some of these ascetic methods, as Abba Isaiah the Solitary describes and analyses them.

In its effort to return to the heart after its dispersion the nous is helped by the anger which is connected with it. "There is among the passions an anger of the nous, and this anger is in accordance with nature". Anger, in other words, is the nerves of the soul, but also of the nous, by which it is kept pure. Therefore without anger "a man cannot attain purity". Of course preparation is necessary in order for the anger according to nature to be activated. It is preceded by detachment, that is, death in relation to every person or thing, and this produces the desire for God. Then the desire for God gives rise to the anger that is in accordance with nature, and that flares up against all the tricks of the enemy". This anger in accordance with nature is followed by the fear of God, through which love is made manifest.

The nous is very easily taken prisoner by the passions and the senses. For thoughts are provoked by the devil. They stir up pleasure in a thing, with the ulterior aim that the nous should be taken prisoner. Thus, when the nous is captured, the way opens for committing sin. Therefore sobriety and attention are required in order for the nous not to be captured by thoughts, images and fantasies. For this purpose we must cultivate practical virtue. "Let us stand firm in the fear of God, rigorously practising the virtues and not giving our conscience cause to stumble. In the fear of God let us keep our attention fixed within ourselves". When we speak of practising the virtues we mean obedience, undistractedness, renunciation, reasonable service, etc. The demons cunningly send various thoughts in order that "we will cease to guard our hearts, thinking that we have now attained peace". Then they make a sudden attack on our soul and master it. Therefore Abba Isaiah recommends: "Let us stand with fear of God and keep guard over our hearts, practising the virtues which check the wickedness of our enemies". Today young people are usually careless about the practice of the practical virtues, thinking that they are second-rate, and they busy themselves with the theoretical ones, like noetic prayer. We should realise that without action it is impossible for us to advance to the vision of God. If we disregard the practical virtues, especially obedience, repentance, fasting, charity, our nous cannot become free.

Connected with this is the submission of the will of the monk and in general of the Christian to the will of God. "If a monk submits his will to the law of God, then his intellect will govern in accordance with this law all that is subordinate to itself". As long as we remain under our own will and do not submit to the will of God, the nous cannot govern the inner world of man. Submission of the nous to God and His will has great consequences. Then God helps and strengthens him. If God sees that the nous has entirely submitted to Him and puts its hope in Him alone, He strengthens it, saying: 'Have no fear, Jacob my son, my little Israel'". Only by the power of God can the nous become pure and return to its natural place, which is the heart. But God cannot help the person as long as he does not rely exclusively on Him. If the person keeps hopes in other directions as well and does not rest all his hope on God, He does not help him in his effort to gain his inner freedom.

When the nous grows strong through the grace of God and increasing love for God, "it struggles against what is contrary to nature, separates this from what is in accordance with nature". How can the nous make this struggle without being strengthened and helped by God? We know that man is not an autonomous being, but made in an image, which means that Christ is his archetype and it is through Christ that he can fulfill the purpose of his creation. With boldness the nous can fight the enemy. This boldness, man's relationship with God, is very significant: "When the nous hears these words of reassurance, it says boldly to its enemies: 'Who would fight with me? Let him stand against me. And who would accuse me? Let him draw near to me. Behold, the Lord is my helper; who will harm me?. If a man receives no help when at war, he can feel no confidence when at peace.

By the power of the anger which is united with the nous, a person must expel from his heart every provocation of a thought. It is a teaching of the holy Fathers that whereas at first we need to watch the thoughts which are working in our mind, the main effort is not to allow the thoughts to enter our heart. Or if they have already entered the heart, we should make every effort to expel them from it. It is in this way that purity of heart is achieved. Abba Isaiah says: "At the time of prayer, we should expel from our heart the provocation of each evil thought, rebutting it in a spirit of devotion".

The heart is being guarded when the nous stands at the gate of the heart and does not permit thoughts to enter it. In the orthodox asceticism of the Church this is called watchfulness. Abba Isaiah advises: "Stand guard, then, over your heart and keep a watch on your senses". Both the heart and the senses need to be guarded. The nous must keep unharmed and pure not only the senses of the body, but also the senses of the soul. For just as there are bodily senses, the soul too has senses. Thus when the nous keeps the senses free of carnal desires and acquires dispassion, then too, in the possible attack of the devil and the passions, if the nous "continually calls upon God in secret", God sends His help. This means that in order for God to help man in this struggle, man's free assent is required, and this cooperation is expressed by the effort of the nous to keep the heart and senses pure. Therefore "the monk should shut all the gates of his soul, that is, the senses, so that he is not lured astray by them".

A person needs to watch his heart every day. Furthermore, as we have said before, this constitutes what is called 'nepsis', watchfulness. The saint says: "Examine yourself daily in the sight of God, and discover which of the passions is in your heart. Cast it out and so escape His judgement". So it is essential to be watchful of your heart.

Through this ascetic effort a person acquires the great virtue of discretion, which all the holy Fathers respect and consider to be closely connected with illumination of the nous. Through watchfulness and guarding of the nous the ascetics acquire discrimination of the virtues and vices, they know which virtue to practise alone and which to practise when their brothers are present, which virtue comes first, and which second or third; they know which passion attacks the soul and which the body, which virtues concern the soul and which the body, and which evils beget other evils. In this way the person attains dispassion. For so long as there is war, a person is under the power of fear and trembling, wondering whether he will be defeated or will win, but "dispassion is invincible". By the grace of God the prize has been won. And this dispassion is the union of the three: body, soul and spirit. Of course the spirit is the grace of God. "When the three become one through the energy of the Holy Spirit, they cannot again be separated".

A result of the liberation of the nous is that prayer becomes undistracted. This means that the person's nous is illuminated by the grace of God. Then he communes with God in stillness, "guarding his thoughts from distraction and his nous from curiosity".

This ascetic effort is the foundation of the spiritual life. Through this the person is released from the dominion of death, the passions and sin. Through this effort the nous is liberated from the passions and reasoning and is prepared for the vision of God. We cannot speak of the spiritual life apart from this reality.

What has been said has helped us to understand the moral standards of true freedom. The freedom in Christianity is not philosophical and moral, not simply a choice between two states, but it is purely theological. It is closely connected with overcoming death and liberating the nous from the domination of reasoning, the passions and the environment. It is only in an ascetic life in Christ that we can become truly free. The rebirth of man makes it possible for us to experience freedom.

Thus we cannot speak of the freedom of morality without first examining the morality of freedom. In fact when man is reborn, when he experiences the uncreated, purifying, illuminating and deifying energy of God, he becomes free and then he acquires what is called freedom of morality, that is to say, he is released from political, social and religious expediencies of a conventional human morality.

We can see this very thing in the life of the fools for Christ. Therefore in this section we shall attempt a small introduction into the phenomenon of the fools for Christ in order to look at the preconditions for experiencing true freedom.

Of course this will not be a specialised investigation into the whole spectrum of foolishness for Christ. That would presuppose a detailed study of the lives of the fools for Christ. For practical reasons we shall limit ourselves chiefly to one of them, St. Symeon, who lived in Syria in the sixth century and whose biography was written by Bishop Leontios of Neapolis in Cyprus. We shall also refer several times to St. Andrew the Fool for Christ, who lived in the fifth century according to some and in the ninth century according to others.

The life of St. Symeon, the fool for Christ and for Christ’s sake is very interesting and significant. On reading the details as described by Leontios, one will be deeply moved and will see what the Christian life is. Indeed Christians cannot all experience in its full depth what St. Symeon lived through, but all Christians can attune themselves in that direction. I regret that this analysis may at some points do an injustice both to the life of the saint and to St. Symeon himself. But I shall try to have us look at his life in terms of what we have said before about freedom for Christ.

I must begin by making it clear that it is not easy to study such lives. We are liable to misinterpret them. We may focus on certain external as pects of their life and do them an injustice. It requires much grace from God to be able to see spiritual freedom within outward trials, to see saintliness within outwardly “immoral” deeds. In the life of St. Symeon it seems that a certain devout deacon in Emesa in Syria was able to understand this whole way of life loved by God “through the divine grace granted to him”74. Only those “favoured with grace” can understand the activity of the saints, especially of those who attempt the fool for reasons which we shall explain.

The fools for Christ belong to a category of men who decided to follow a difficult path. Living in cities, they pretended to be mad. They did things which a madman would do, but these deeds had substantial content. These fools had noetic energy in the highest degree; they still had sound minds, but they chose a hard road and way of life. In Orthodox theology we say that there are some men who have noetic energy developed to a high degree without having comparable brain power at their disposal; others have rational energy developed to a high degree, but their nous is darkened; others have a high degree of noetic energy and a high degree of rational energy, while there are others who have neither rational power nor an illuminated nous. This fits in the framework of the Orthodox Tradition, according to which the energy of the nous is different from that of reason. The fools for Christ had their minds intact but they also had a high degree of noetic energy. But in their actions they did preposterous things in order to appear mad.

It is said of St. Symeon that “everything that he did he concealed with mad and odd behaviour”75. In another place it says “Abba Symeon was playing the fool”76. The word” playing” is very characteristic. He was not a fool, but he appeared the fool. He did things to persuade men “that he acted like this because he was not in his right mind”77. It is said of St. Andrew that all day he not only did various things, but he also spoke false words “as if being out of his mind”78.

Men’s opinions were divided about St. Symeon. Most people thought that he really was a fool, but there were also some who were illuminated by the Holy Spirit and understood the depth of his actions. Most people said: “The man is mad”79. They gave such information to the other people who wanted to find out about it. For a society which based even moral worth on the rational alone, the expressions of the fools in Christ were madness. St. Symeon was mocking them all, “the monks in particular”80. And of course there was a serious reason for coming to such action.

But for others, things were different. They saw that a depth was concealed beneath every act and word. Therefore they said of St. Symeon: “See the words of a fool, or rather a wise saint”81. The moment when his words and deeds seemed foolish was the moment when there were openings and chinks for someone who had the grace of God within him to understand that these were words of a saint.

When Symeon and his friend John went to the Monastery in order to become monks, the Abbot, whose name was Nikon, received a communication from God: “Rise and open the gate of the sheepfold so that my sheep may come in”. Thus the fools are characterised as “Christ’s sheep”82.  In another place they are called “Christ’s sealed sheep”83. The word “sealed” indicates that they have received the grace of God and their hearts have been sealed by Christ. These sheep of Christ are also called “pure brides of Christ”84. St. Symeon was mostly called a fool and insane, but sometimes, not being able to attribute all his actions to madness, they called him a saint. At all events these were Christ’s true sheep.

His biographer ornaments him with many epithets. He is called “a luminary” and “all-wise”, “a pearl”, who “passed through mire unstained”, and his way of life is characterised as “angelic”85. St. Symeon appeared to someone in a dream with a crown of palm branches on his head: “Once a monk with a crown of palm branches on his head told me these things”86. The greatness and glory of St. Symeon are presented in the troparia of the service for him. I would like to quote two of them. In the first it says: “You became an all-bright star guiding towards life those in the mire of passions”. Another troparion says: “Moderate in thought, compassionate, loving God and filled with love, divinely inspired, you appeared humble, meek, like an angel, walking on earth in a heavenly way”87.

The same epithets are also used of St. Andrew the Fool for Christ. Among other things he is called and characterised as a “chosen instrument, a saint, and loved in the Spirit”88. This characterisation is also given by St. John the Theologian. When, towards the end, the biographer is describing St Andrew’s godly way of life and his falling asleep in glory, he concludes: “The hidden sun and sky-high pillar of fire, blessed Andrew, who for the Lord’s sake was poor and a stranger, scorned and overpowered by all, has finished... having hiddenly competed in the contest, but discerned by God as having competed well”89.

These, then, were the fools for Christ. Men full of the Holy Spirit, who depicted and played the fool for many reasons and were the opposite of the men of their time. For most they were fools, for some they were saints and wise men, God-inspired and very bright suns. They were truly a scandal in the shocking society of their time. They lived above reason in a society devoid of reason. They had divested themselves of the “wealth” of the mind and of reason in a society which rested excessively on that wealth of the mind and of conventional morals.

In studying the lives of the fools in Christ one cannot overlook the fact that they were called directly by God to this work. They did not play the fool out of their own desire and their own will, but because God called them to this arduous and difficult life. Just as in the Old Testament God called the Prophets to lead a stiff-necked and difficult people, it is the same in the case of the fools. God called them to this mission.

The conversation between St. Symeon and his fellow ascetic John, when the former announced his intention to take up this difficult mission, is very characteristic. Symeon says to him: “Believe me, I am not going to stay, but by the power of God I will go to delude the world”. John tells him that he himself cannot follow him into this mission: “For I have not yet reached the stature to delude the world”. Then he tries by different arguments to dissuade him from following this martyr’s life. Among other things he tells him that great care is needed, because the world will probably scatter what he has gathered in the stillness and the desert, and that by sleeping he will lose what the vigil was offering, that association with women will deprive him of what he has gained through self-control and prudence, and laughter will scatter his nous, and in general there is danger that his soul will be influenced by what he does outwardly. This was really a serious danger. St. Symeon replies: “I am not doing this of my own choice, but because God commands me”90.

From this conversation it seems that the call to this life is purely God’s call and not a human will. He is to walk the earth in order to deceive it “in the power of Christ”. He has the conviction that it is not his own will, but God has called him to this work. Likewise he makes this decision with a knowledge of the dangers which this way of life entails. But John too knows very well that the choice of this way of life is a matter of spiritual progress and he knows clearly that he himself has not reached that spiritual level. All these things show that the choice of being a fool for Christ is not a random anthropocentric choice, but a calling from God.

We also find the same thing in the life of St Andrew the fool for Christ. He receives information and a command from God: “Be a fool for my sake, and you will be a master of many good things in the day of my kingdom”91. It is not the man who chooses, but God Himself who sends him. It is an apostolic and prophetic service. The fool for Christ is a Prophet, Apostle, Martyr and Saint.

It is an imitation of Christ at great depth. The biographer of St. Symeon points out this fact, showing the theological interpretation of foolishness for Christ. Just as Christ took the form of a man and came into the world to save the world, so too St. Symeon takes the form of the world of that time in order to lead it to salvation. Just as Christ, “for the salvation of his servant, did not consider it unworthy, without change, to take on the form of a servant”, so also the saint imitates his Lord, offering his soul and body in order to offer salvation”92. This theological interpretation is the greatest honour for the fools in Christ.

St. Symeon accomplished a great work. His biographer describes it analytically. But there are also statements giving the general purpose for which he played the fool. At one point it says: “For the righteous man did some of his deeds out of love for the salvation of men and other things to conceal his achievements”93. He employed many methods for saving men’s souls. Sometimes he punished in a comical and laughable way, at other times he performed miracles, behaving in a silly way, and at other times he gave messages “by doing something stupid”94. He did these things, on the one hand, for men’s salvation, and on the other hand, to conceal his virtue and the spiritual heights which he had attained. In what follows we shall look more analytically at the great work which he accomplished by these foolish acts, which will also show us the purpose for which he took up this martyr’s service to the people.

In all these ways he was pursuing the salvation of whores of people. He decided to abandon the desert, where he was living the ascetic life, with the thought: “Rise, let us go, let us save others as well”95. He was aiming at the indolent, who out of indolence did not do good work. Because the indolent had decided that salvation was impossible, St. Symeon demonstrated that by the power of God everything could be achieved96. For this purpose he many times reproached men, put a stop to sins, sent trials to certain people to correct them, foretold the future, “and did whatever he wanted”97.

He ascribed especially great importance to the salvation of those women who lived a dissipated life. According to the witness of his biographer, many times by playful actions he brought some indecent or whoring women to lawful marriage, and attracting others with money, he brought them to reason, while by the purity which distinguished him he brought others to compunction so that they followed the monastic life98. And in this way he saved these women who were despised by the people of their time.

He also used several methods for achieving the salvation of these women. He asked them: “Do you want me to kiss you? and I’ll give you a hundred coins. They were persuaded and after he gave them the money, which God had invisibly granted him for the purpose, he made them promise not to sin. When one of the whores broke her promise, the saint shouted: “You transgressed! Holy, holy make her pay for it!” And through illnesses or other difficulties he made them come to reason and not break their oath99.

In general, he aimed to save people, to guide them to repentance and to their senses, that they should live rightly all their life. A characteristic case has survived, in which a young man became possessed because he had prostituted a married woman. Then the saint wanted “both to bring him to his senses and to cure him”. Employing various methods he approached the demonised man and struck him on the chin, saying: “Stop committing adultery, base fellow, and the demon will not come near you”. And the man was actually freed from the demon100. The saint also accomplished many miracles in order to free people from the devil’s domination. On seeing a conjurer doing “unlawful things” and wanting to stop such an evil, the righteous man” took a small stone, made the sign of the cross, and threw it in the direction of the conjurer. It hit him in the right hand and “withered it”. Later the saint appeared to him in his sleep and explained why this happened to him. The conjurer swore by the Panagia that he would not do such things in the future and at once his hand was healed. The saint appeared in the sleep of a certain lord, the ruler of the city of Emesa, who had fallen into the sin of adultery and therefore was being led towards death, and said to him: “But give me your word that you will no longer defile your wife’s bed, and I will crush him for you and he will not defeat you”101.

St. Symeon in his own way taught people to do the will of God in their daily lives. When John the deacon had been terribly slandered and they were leading him to his death, the saint prayed for him and he was released through his prayers. But then he showed him the reason for this slander. He told him: “This tribulation came upon you because yesterday those two poor people came to you and you, who were well-off, declined to give them anything”102. Illuminated by the Holy Spirit and guided by Him, he shamed the thieves, the fornicators, those who did not frequently partake of Holy Communion, those who committed perjory, “so that in this way he contrived to prevent almost the whole city from committing sins”103. And the miracles which he performed were intended for the cure of people’s souls, correction of their evil deeds, and their salvation. He did not perform miracles simply for show, but to cure men’s souls104. Thus in all these ways he was aiming at men’s salvation.

The work of St. Symeon and of all the fools for Christ was aimed at mocking society, a society which had stayed only on the surface and did not know the depth. It is always so, that surface morality, artificial politeness, and pharisaism know nothing of the depth of the spiritual life. We are not against morality, but against moralising, when we remain on the surface and are not interested in the nous and the heart. Making a religion of Christianity, changing Christianity from a Church to a religion or an ideology, is the greatest problem, the greatest “crime” against the Church. What St. Symeon said to his fellow ascetic, St. John is characteristic: “Believe me, I am not staying, but I am going in the power of Christ to delude the world”105. And in fact by the power of Christ he mocked a hypocritical society which kept Christ’s commandments only outwardly and disregarded the depth of the heart.

Reading the life of St. Symeon, we see that all his mad actions were aimed at demolishing artificial behaviour. The fact that he associated with the prostitutes, whom people of the time frowned on as pollutions, the fact that he did things which were not considered rational just because society relied on the rational and the proper, shows that St. Symeon was play-acting and bringing shame on a false and conventional society. But I should like at this point to cite two occasions which are expressive.

John the deacon, seeing the hardness of his life and that he had been exhausted and worn out by asceticism, felt sorry for him and asked him whether he would like to build up his strength by bathing in the public baths. The saint took off his garment at once and put it on his head as a kerchief. The pious deacon John said to him: “Put it on, brother, because if you walk naked, I will not come with you”. The saint did not listen to John’s advice and went on. When he approached the public baths, naked as he was, he went into the women’s bath. Then all the women rushed at him, thrashed him and threw him out. It was not a habitual act. The saint wanted to show the value of the dispassion which Adam had before his disobedience and which man can attain. Therefore, as his biographer says, he went to the women’s bath “as in the glory of the Lord”. And later the saint confessed that he felt “just like a block of wood”106.

The other incident is one of the first things he did, when he went to Emesa to mock the world. On the first Sunday after he came to Emesa he went to the Church and was throwing walnuts and extinguishing the candles at the beginning of the divine Liturgy. While they chased him to throw him out the saint went up on an ambo “and from there pelted the women with nuts”. The result was that they were beating him to death107. The saint proceeded to do this, because, among other reasons, he was seeing hypocritical worship. People of his time abandoned inner noetic worship, they did not cultivate the inner world, but rather cultivated the passions in their hearts and were occupied only with superficial liturgical acts. This was real hypocrisy. St. Symeon’s act resembled what Christ said: “This people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honour Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me” (Matt. 15,8).

In any case the fact is that by his various acts and words the saint wanted to show the height of virtue to which man can and should attain. And when a society is based only on conventional morality, especially when it is made absolute and self suffiency appears, then it must be swatted. The fools, rich in the grace of God, did this great work. In this way St. Symeon directed men’s attention to the inner life. And this apparently was the aim of his foolish, deeds. People’s attention should be turned towards the heart, because the core of our being is there. This does not mean that we disregard the outer wrapping, but neither can we make it an absolute. One act which he often did is characteristic. Having spent the whole night in prayer and tears, the next morning he would wear a wreath of olive or other leaves on his head, and holding a branch in his hands, would cry out: “Victory for the kingdom and the city”108. He called man’s soul the city, and the kingdom was the thinking which must be the absolute ruler of the passions. In this way he pointed toward turning inward, cultivation of the inner world.

He also tried to act as if possessed of a demon in order to enrage the evil spirits. His biographer cites this case, which is very characteristic. The saint felt such deep sympathy with those who were possessed that he pretended to be possessed, and living with them he cured them through prayer. Indeed some of the demonised said: “Oh bad luck, fool, you ridicule the whole world, and have you also come near us to annoy us? Go away from here, you are not one of us. Why do you torment us all night and burn us?”109. As we shall explain later, none of these things can be done by men who have not been freed from the domination of the devil and do not have in them an abundance of the energy of divine grace. At all events this incident too shows the great boldness which the saint had. It is not an easy thing to live with the possessed, to love them excessively, to sympathise with them, and to free them from the domination of the evil spirits.

Thus, apart from other things, he did these things in order to mock the devil as well, not only to annoy him, but also to make fun of him. This craft of St. Symeon is seen in the service to him. In one troparion it says: “Blest through evil, with your pretences you maddened the inventor of evil, performing absurdities”. And another troparion says: “Symeon wisely feigns stupidity, driving mad the inventor of evil, through actions invented by the all-wise Spirit”110. That is to say that by apparent foolishness, but with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit he drove mad the inventor of evil, the devil.

Within the whole healing nature of his mission St. Symeon, by his seemingly illogical actions, but also through miraculous interventions, tried to save the heretics as well, by bringing them back to the Orthodox Church. Once the saint took live coals from the fire with his hands and began to burn incense. This was seen by the wife of a seller of wine, i.e., a producer of a concoction of that time, and she was astonished. She cried: “You are God”. The monk did this because that couple belonged to the heresy of the Akephaloi, monophysites who had separated from their bishop and therefore were and are called Headless111. The same thing happened another time as well. Because of various events a few Akephaloi heretics “became orthodox, having Symeon as their cure”112. The same thing is described by a Jewish glass- ware merchant. By making the sign of the Cross, the saint broke the glasses of the glass-maker. And then he said: “Really, bastard, until you make the sign of the cross on your forehead, everything will break to pieces... and in the end he went and became a Christian”113. Thus even the miracles which he accomplished had a deep purpose: they were aimed at the salvation of men.

St. Symeon and all the fools for Christ took upon themselves other people’s guilt as their own. They did not seek to justify their deeds. And what is more, they accepted slander from others and behaved as the greatest of sinners. His biographer offers an expressive example.

The saint had the habit of entering the homes of the rich and indeed “many times even pretending to cover their servants with kisses. Once a servant was pregnant by someone, and because she was afraid to reveal the father, she attributed the act to St. Symeon. She said: “Symeon the fool raped me”. One day when the saint visited that home, the servant’s mistress said: “Well, Abba Symeon, so you corrupted my servant and made her pregnant”. The saint did not remonstrate, indeed he found it a unique opportunity, so he laughed, bowed his head and said: “Come, come, now, poor dear, she will give birth for you, and you will have a little Symeon”. And as it says in the biography, as long as the woman was pregnant, the saint carried various foods to her, saying: “Eat, my wife”. But when the time came for the birth, she could not give birth. And then the saint said that the child would not be born if she did not reveal who was its father, which the woman did, and straightaway she gave birth”114.

This instance shows that the saint accepted men’s slander as well, when God wanted to manifest something different. And this was a terrible whip against a society which rested on dignity and outward purity, a society which always wanted to justify acts and to ascribe falling and sin to other elements.

Finally, the saint did these mad acts in order to conceal his virtue. This is an art which all the athletes of the spirit use in order to advance in their spiritual life with humility and without men’s praises. What Archimandrite Sophrony writes about the attempt of monks to conceal their ascetic achievements is characteristic.

“Concealing one’s inner self from others is very important in the life of every ascetic. There are many reasons that make this a necessity. On Mt. Athos, besides the motives common to everyone there are others dictated by local conditions. The Athonite monasteries and deserts contain many men who have forsworn the world and gone through the flames of renunciation. With the rare exception all of them in their elan towards God have offered a sacrifice by which the world was crucified unto them, and they unto the world (cf. Gal. 6,14). Each one has performed this sacrifice to the utmost of his strength, and so practically every one of them believes that he has realised it completely. After this ascetic effort, after this sacrifice, realising that he has not attained to what he sought, a monk may suffer an especial temptation - spiritual jealousy. Like Cain when he saw that his brother Abel’s sacrifice was pleasing to the Lord, while his, Cain’s, was rejected, from envy rose up against his brother and slew him (cf. Gen. 4:4-8), so monks, even if they do not go so far as to kill their brother physically, often create extremely difficult conditions for him spiritually. But, aside from these attempts to put obstacles in the way of the religious life of anyone seen to be making progress in prayer and other spiritual disciplines, the private torment endured by the ascetic conscious of his own failures is enough to keep him silent about his inner life.

“There are many people in the world who would like to see a saint, to offer him their tribute, and this exposes the ascetic to the danger of pride. But there are also spiteful people who cannot tolerate saintliness and become even more spiteful than ever. However, the overwhelming majority lack experience and do not understand the spiritual man, which makes it easy for them to stay private. It is more difficult to conceal oneself from monks, who live their lives in spiritual striving and can tell by numerous, hardly perceptible signs what their fellow brothers are going through. So the brethren on Mt. Athos must learn so to comport themselves outwardly that nothing transpires of their inner life. The ascetics on Mt. Athos would seem to achieve this to a high degree”115.

In the life of St. Symeon this side of his foolishness appears as well. Apart from the other things, these fools acted “in such a way as to conceal their occupations”116. He begged God not to allow the hair of his head or his beard to grow long lest by cutting it he should betray the fact that he was playing the fool”117. If sometimes after the performance of a miracle, those present confessed that he was a saint, then the saint “left that neighbourhood until what he did should have been forgotten”118. And his various deeds were done with the single purpose of deceiving the eyes of men in order that they should not honour his ascetic achievements. All week he did not touch bread, but many times he publicly ate meat, “and no one was aware of his fasting, but he ate meat in front of them, in order to deceive them”119. It is in this framework that we must look at the following incident as well. Because as a result of a miraculous event, a certain inn-keeper “considered him holy”, St. Symeon planned a trick to make him discard the good idea which he had of him. When the man’s wife was sleeping alone, “Abba Symeon approached her and made as if he was undressing”, with the intention of committing sin with her. The woman woke up and shouted and threw him out in the cold, hitting him. From then on the inn-keeper regarded him not only as insane, but also as possessed of a demon. He said: “He is truly possessed. I saw him with my own eyes, and no one can persuade me that he did not want to commit adultery with my wife if he could have managed”120. Thus the saint succeeded in concealing the miracle which he had performed.

In the lives of the fools for Christ there were always people who knew that the man was pretending to be a fool while he had a great many spiritual virtues. This was true also in the case of St. Symeon. A certain godly deacon named John knew the fact, and the saint often spoke with him. Therefore when the two were alone together, “he did not play the fool at all”. He behaved with harmony and devoutness “so that often a fragrance came from his mouth”121. In this way God manifested the grace which existed within the soul of St. Symeon. The saint made spiritual conversation and company with John the deacon, but at the same time “threatened that if he revealed to anyone his true purpose, he would suffer great torment in the next life”122.

Consequently, the purpose of the appearing of the fools for Christ was multifarious. As we said before, the fools for Christ were aiming at the salvation of their brethren, at ridiculing the superficial and hypocritical society, at promoting the inner life and showing this way, at ridiculing the devil, at the return of the heretics to Orthodoxy, at taking on the guilt of others, after the pattern of Christ, at hinting that one should conceal one’s virtues and all one’s ascetic achievements. If we pay attention to all these things, we shall discover that this way of life is an imitation of the life of Christ and, applied in reasonable proportion and adjustment, it is the genuine way of living the Christian life.

When studying the life of the fools in Christ, one finds oneself faced with a danger. This danger consists in autonomising and making absolute certain incidents in their lives. That is to say, one may look at some events in their lives at the expense of the whole spirit and atmosphere surrounding them. It is possible to look at them from the angle that they ridiculed the world and made dust of men’s outer pursuits, and be unaware that the fools for Christ were aiming at the salvation of men and the concealment of their own virtues.

One of the most fundamental aspects of foolishness in Christ is the analysis of its preconditions. We must examine carefully what the conditions are for anyone choosing this hazardous and great work. This is one of the most fundamental points.

In studying the life of St. Symeon the fool for Christ, we easily discover that he did not pursue this way of life through his own wish, but through a calling from God Himself. And he practised this work by the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. The fools had reached a high degree of spiritual life, they had experienced enlightenment of the nous and the vision of God. We shall see precisely these points, the presuppositions of anyone’s appointment to this way of life, in what follows in the life and conduct of St. Symeon.

The Apostle Paul writes to his disciple Timothy: “if anyone competes in athletics, he is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules” (2 Tim. 2, 5). Only after competing according to the rules can one be crowned. This was also the case with St. Symeon. His biographer says: “for he did not return to the world unprepared and still in need of spiritual guidance”. When he saw himself girded with the power of the Holy Spirit, when he received the power to tread upon snakes and scorpions, when he had extinguished the burning of the flesh with the dew of the holy Spirit, when he had acquired dispassion of body and soul and had been granted divine sonship, “then he too stepped out upon the world, called from the desert by God as into single combat against the devil”123. He was trained beforehand, and afterwards by the power of the Holy Spirit he went into single combat with the devil. For in fact the life of St. Symeon was a continuous struggle against the evil spirits.

St. Symeon had gone with John to a Monastery, for the longing for holy stillness had developed in them. God had revealed to a wonderful man named Nikon, who had the gift of prophecy, that the two young men were coming. Thus after a revelation of Christ he greeted them, saying: “Christ’s sheep are welcome”. Turning to Symeon, he had said to him: “Welcome, fool. For the ten are waiting for you”. He foresaw that Symeon would become a fool for Christ and that he would reach a great height of virtue and perfection, greater than John124. St. Nikon catechised them with the whole orthodox teaching about monasticism. Thus these two brothers not only were called by God to the monastic way of life, but they were also granted experienced teaching about divine things. After the teaching “the wise doctor and teacher” asked them whether they would like to become monks or to remain laymen for a time. Then, “by a single thought, or rather by the one holy Spirit, they both fell at the feet of the abbot, asking him without fail to tonsure them at once”125. It is clear that they followed the monastic life by the inspiration and illumination of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, St. Symeon wanted the tonsuring so badly that he said that if he did not wish to keep him, he would go to another Monastery. Thus, by the illumination of the Holy Spirit and through the wise guidance and experience of the holy abbot, he received the monastic schema.

It is significant and should be noted that Nikon foresaw by divine inspiration that they would not remain very long at the Monastery, but would pursue another life. “For he knew that God had arranged things so that they would not remain with him for a long time”126.

After receiving the holy schema they also both had an experience of divine grace. They saw their faces during the night, just as they saw them in the daytime: their faces were illuminated, and each one saw a crown on the head of the other. And as St. Symeon told the tale: “Our souls were so joyous that it was not easy to take food or drink”127. This is a matter of spiritual states, indicating the presence of the Holy Spirit. As St. Symeon said to John: “In this schema I see another life and strange things”. On the day when he became a monk he said: “My insides are burning, I do not know from what, and my soul wants not to see or speak or hear anything”128.

Two days after the service in which they received the great and angelic schema they made the decision to go into the desert in order to preserve the grace of God which they had received. Of course they did this with the blessing of the holy abbot, because he had received assurance from God: “Go out, sheep sealed by Christ, into your pasture”129. Amazed and surprised at “those who two days before were worldly had so suddenly been made wise by being clothed in the holy schema”, Nikon gave them his blessing to go out into the desert130. And after giving them guidance for this journey which they had chosen through being illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and “after making the sign of the cross on their foreheads and chests and their whole bodies, he let them go”131.

They remained in the desert for twenty-nine years, fighting the devil and being fought by him132. And not only did they fight the devil, but they conquered him on all levels. After so many years of asceticism, St. Symeon was enlightened by God to go into the world and delude it, with the single aim of saving the people’s souls. Here we see clearly that this was preceded by a legitimate struggle. He did not go out into the world of his own will, but was informed by God. The saint himself said to John: “Of myself I do not want to do this, but I am commanded by God”133. Although St. John pointed out the difficulty of the work he was undertaking, still in the end he was persuaded to let him go, because he knew “that he had been informed by God that he was to do this”134.

Thus his departure from the desert and his entrance into the world to carry out his work took place after a legitimate struggle, after a blessing by God, and also after a blessing from his spiritual fathers and brothers. It was not the work of men, but God’s calling. I think that anyone studying the life of the fools for Christ must very seriously consider this point.

But let us look more analytically at how much training the saint had as he prepared to enter the world.

He was turned loose into the desert by the war of the flesh and by all the rebellions of the flesh. As the saint relates, in the desert at the beginning of his monastic life he suffered terrible carnal temptation. In his tribulation he called upon God and St. Nikon to redeem him from this temptation. Then Nikon came and “took water from the Jordan and threw it over his navel, making the sign of the cross, and said to him: ‘There, you are well’”. After this event the saint himself asserted: “Neither in sleep nor waking have I felt a bodily burning”135. So in the desert all the capers of the flesh withered and even rose to the height of dispassion and purity. “He attained such a height of purity and dispassion”, that while afterwards he went through many temptations and many dangers, he remained most pure, like a pearl in the mud136. His body had received the grace of the Holy Spirit after and by the prayer of St. Nikon: “May their bodies and souls and spirits be illuminated by the Light of the knowledge of Thee...”137. That is why he seemed as if bodiless. “It was as if he was entirely bodiless”138. Thus by the power and energy of the Holy Spirit St. Symeon “also had the gift of self-control beyond many of the saints”139.

Control of the body is not independent of its transformation. In fact, in the Orthodox Tradition we know very well that the body too is changed by the energy of the Holy Spirit. Man’s rebirth is not a rebirth of the soul alone, but of the soul and body. In the desert the saint lived noetic hesychia in all its intensity. He lived “inner hesychia”. In the words of St. John, his nous remained “motionless and undisturbed” in the desert140. Here is the whole traditional training which our Church has. The endeavour is for the nous to remain motionless and transparent within the heart and to be speaking the name of God.

He had attained the noetic prayer which is unceasing within the heart. When the two were living in the desert, they lived by the whole content of hesychia, of body as well as nous, and throughout the day and night they were living in “carefree care”, the unceasing noetic prayer. In this way the tireless workers made quick progress, so that in a few years they were granted divine visions and assurances and wonders”141. During the stillness and prayer St. Symeon attained ecstasy142.

Thus through the right asceticism, especially noetic stillness and unceasing prayer, St. Symeon attained great measures of perfection and acquired dispassion of body and soul. This is called ecstasy in the language of the Fathers. Ecstasy is not the loss of a person’s wits, but the entry of his nous into his heart, so that he is no longer possessed by a worldly and carnal spirit. As his biographer indicates, “through the power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him, he felt that he feared neither passion nor cold nor hunger nor heat, but had almost surpassed the limits of human nature”143. In the language of the Fathers this is called vision of God, during which all the bodily energies are suspended and the person experiences true dispassion in the orthodox, not the stoic, sense of the word.

Since he had the Holy Spirit perceptibly within him, he was not contaminated at all, although he was in places of sin. He had become a light and as a result he lightened the darkness of his surroundings. As a light he was not darkened by the darkness of his surroundings, but he lightened it, and in this way he led the people to repentance and salvation. It is only within this theological atmosphere that we must look at the “follies” of St. Symeon; otherwise we will do an injustice to him as well as to foolishness for Christ.

He attained such measures of perfection that many times he was dancing between two actors, but the old man, like pure gold, was not at all polluted by them”144. When he entered the women’s bath naked, he was entering “as upon the glory of the Lord”. And later he himself said: “I was like a block of wood among blocks of wood then. I did not feel that I had a body, nor that I was among bodies. But my whole nous was in God’s work and did not fall away from it”145. Even in this difficult situation his nous was fastened upon God. This is a sample of highest purity. He was always protected by the power of the Holy Spirit dwelling within him, and so he existed above the devil’s fire without being injured by it at all146. Divine grace always accompanied him in his life, because God saw the purpose which had to be fulfilled. “In the final analysis it was God who was concealing the purpose of Abba Symeon”147. The purity of his body is seen from the witness given by someone who confessed that “he had once seen him bathing, and two angels talking with him”148.

St. Symeon had received many gifts of grace from the Holy Spirit. In the first place, he had the gift of distinguishing spirits. St. John sent various fathers to St. Symeon saying: “Fathers, I have not yet received the gift of discerning God’s counsels, but go to Symeon the fool”149. Many incidents have been preserved which show that St. Symeon had acquired the gift of foresight150.

Furthermore, what he did, he did by the divine grace dwelling within him. Once, in the face of a deadly plague, in a school he kissed each pupil who was going to die. And his biographer says: “Not all were kissed, but whoever was indicated to him by the grace of God”151.

St. Symeon had a hidden place in which he prayed unseen by the eyes of men. It is written very characteristically: “He withdrew to a secret place where he always prayed, which no one knew, except his God-loving friend John, and bowing his knees, he begged God to save his servant from such a great danger”152. He had a hut in which he lay at night, “rather for keeping vigil through the nights”. There was nothing else in it excepting some vine branches. Many times he spent the whole night praying “and watering the ground with his tears”153.

According to these presuppositions St. Symeon was very pure, dispassionate in soul and body, and indeed “he had no evil or cunning”154. This innocence and guilelessness is not a natural quality, but a result and fruit of the vision of God. Purity of heart, illumination of the nous and the vision of God constitute the innocent and guileless man.

Some of the saint’s actions seem hard. When he performed a miracle, asking God to punish a man by withering his hand, etc., he did it for his salvation. When one reads such actions, one can come to the point of maintaining that the saint was very hard. And yet he had tremendous sensitivity. This moreover is the characteristic sign of holiness, and the most characteristic mark of the saints. The saint loved his mother very much. He had a very great struggle over leaving her in order to pursue the monastic life. And finally this son’s love could not conquer him and keep him from becoming a disciple of Christ. God assured him two years after his departure that his mother was “free from sorrow” and that He took care every night to comfort her155.

The events connected with the falling asleep of his mother are very characteristic. The saint fell into ecstasy and saw his mother ill. He asked her how she was and to her reply that she was well, he said to her: “Go towards the King, do not be afraid, because I have asked him and He has prepared a fine place for you, and when He wishes I will come there”. The saint understood that his mother had fallen asleep, and then he wakened John for them to pray. This prayer is wonderful and shows the saint’s love for his mother. He asks God to receive his mother’s soul, to remember the labours which she spent for him, and also to remember the sighs and tears which she poured forth when he departed to become a monk, to remember her breasts which fed him without gratification, because at a young age he left for the desert. He prays to God not to forget that while his mother could not do without him even for a little time, yet he deprived her of all the years, deprived her for His Name’s sake. He asks Him not to forget her heartache at the time when he decided to become a monk, her sleepless nights thinking of him, the pain which swept over her on seeing his clothes, that she could not have the comfort of serving God. Then he asks God to give her angels to protect her soul from the evil spirits156.

This prayer is astonishing. If one reads it carefully, one will discover its tenderness towards his mother, his spiritual sensitivity. He loved his mother very much and yet he left her for the love of God. It is not a question of pitilessness, but of entrusting his whole life to God.

St. Andrew, the fool for Christ, was also doing this work by the power and energy of the Holy Spirit. He remained in prayer at night, while in the daytime he did “the false things”, “as if he were insane”. With the idea of beginning the work of foolishness for Christ he prayed to God “and wept at night and asked Christ’s witness to inform him whether the effort which he was undertaking was pleasing to God”157. He did not wish to go into such actions unless he had God’s help and approval. St. John the Theologian appeared and told him that God had sent him to protect him in his life. “For the Lord appointed me to look after you at all times, to see to your salvation, and recompense you”158. Indeed we have information from his biography that while in the daytime he carried on the usual activity, towards midnight he offered to God and to the martyr Anastasia “secret supplications and entreaties in the hidden inner chamber of his heart”159.

Foolishness in Christ is not a human choice, but God sends the person to do this work. It is a fruit of experience, of purity and of noetic prayer. This is why the fools for Christ reached the point of seeing revealing things invisible to most people. They saw what was in a man, and his future. What is said of Ammonas is characteristic. Some people came to see him and “the old man feigned madness”. To the remark of a woman that he was a fool, he replied: “How much labour have I given myself in the desert to acquire this folly and through you I have lost it today!”160.

So it is essential to interpret the fools for Christ with the orthodox presuppositions. If we examine their lives apart from purification of the heart and illumination of the nous, if we deny these depths of spiritual perfection, we shall fail to see them in their true proportions and will do them an injustice. The fools for Christ were burning with the fire of the Holy Spirit, they were blazing mountains. And therefore they had also acquired the freedom of morality, their life moved on another plane. Actually, apart from purity of heart and an illumined nous, we cannot live in true freedom.

I shall not mention all the things that St. Symeon did and which manifested their deepest purposes and deepest meaning. The reader can find and read about them in the books which are available. But I would like to mention the falling asleep of these saints, because it shows the high value of their freedom in Christ and of their whole life.

The fools for Christ did this work with the blessing of God and their spiritual fathers and with the energy of the Holy Spirit. These are the real preconditions for foolishness in Christ, and this is why the fools for Christ have their place within the Body of the Church. Their actions were pre-eminently ecclesiastical. In fact each personal act must be referred to the general experience of the Church, otherwise it is fated to be an individual act, which does not lead to salvation, nor does it save the others.

But also the manner in which the fools fled from this world shows their part in the Church, as does their overcoming of death in this life, and this is why they were living in true freedom. We shall take a look at the glorious death of the two fools for Christ, St. Symeon and St. Andrew. What is more, the way in which each finished his life shows his way of life. Man’s entire life is aimed at transcending death.

God granted to St. Symeon foreknowledge of his death. Two days before he died he had a conversation about it with the deacon John with whom he was in close touch. He told him that he had visited his brother John with whom he had lived in the desert, and he had seen him wearing a crown on his head that was inscribed: “Crown of endurance of the desert”. But deacon John had said to him: “Well now, fool, you should be wearing not one crown, but the crowns of the souls which you brought to me”. In telling these things, St. Symeon said that the blessed John was just paying him a compliment, because, fool that he was, he could not have such crowns. Here we see St. Syme