A series of meditations entitled the Good Samaritans? is open at
http://newsamaritans.blogspot.com/

And above all other things, in this matter of conversing with thy neighbour, keep silence as much as thou canst, and then shalt thou see that by so doing thou shalt in short time be troubled with little press or company that would come to hinder thy devotions. This is my opinion herein; do thou better if thou canst. (John Climacus)

In listening to our neighbor we continue our devotions.

With you truly hearing, they are more likely to be healed.

In health they will give more time to their own devotions...

Until you are in need of their listening,

When in devotion to God and each other, we join in the sacrament of listening for the word of God.

If it be another man that cometh to give thee his alms, or else for to hear thee speak, or to be taught by thee, speak gently and humbly to them all, reprove no man for his faults, for that belongeth not to thee, unless he be the more homely or familiar with thee, that thou knowest that he will take it well from thee. And to be short in this matter of thy telling of another of his faults, I say, that when thou conceivest that it will do him good (namely, in his soul) thou mayest tell him thy mind, if thou hast opportunity, and if he is likely to take it well. (John Climacus)

"Reprove no man for his faults."

Fault-finding is not the purpose of our relationship.

Teaching - and especially spiritual teaching - can too often focus on what is deficient.

It is almost always more productive to attend to and enhance what is already strong.

Praise God, praise your neighbor, even find cause to honestly praise yourself. The abundance that God has given will, if allowed, fill any deficit.

If it be another man that cometh to teach thee, as some Churchman, etc., hear him humbly, and with reverence to his order; and if his speeches comfort thee, ask of him more what thou needest, and take not upon thee to teach him, for it falleth not to thy share to teach a priest, but in case of necessity. If his speech comfort thee or profit thee not, answer little, and he will soon take his leave. (John Climacus)

If I was observing this rule, many of these morning meditations would have even less to them.

Climacus does not always comfort me. But with questions and engagement his writings do profit me.

The issue, I expect, is to discern teaching from self-assertion.

Teaching can be an ego-inflating task. It is easy for a teacher to divert from teaching into bloviating.

Any question or even feigned interest will further inflate the bloviator... and distract us from more fruitful tasks.

If thou canst love thy neighbour well, to speak with thy neighbour with discretion shall be no hindrance to thee. Discretion shalt thou have on this manner as me thinketh; Whoso cometh to thee, ask him meekly what he would have; and if he come to tell thee his disease or trouble and to be comforted by thy speech, hear him gladly, and suffer him to say what he will, for ease of his own heart; and when he hath done, comfort him if thou canst, gladly, gently and charitably, and soon break off. And then, after that, if he will fall into idle tales, or vanities of the world, or of other men’s actions, answer him but little, and feed not his speech, and he will soon be weary, and quickly take his leave. (John Climacus)

A bartender or barber could also benefit from this advice.

Often we just need someone to listen.

To be heard, whatever else, may ease our own heart.

No further comfort may be possible but the listening.

But in being heard - without judgment or impatience - we may also be healed.

And though thou be at prayer, or at thy devotions, that thou thinkest loth to break off, for that thou thinkest that thou oughtest not leave God for to speak with anyone, I think not so in this case, for if thou be wise thou shalt not leave God, but thou shalt find Him, and have Him, and see Him, in thy neighbour, as well as in prayer, only in another manner. (John Climacus)

If we would find ourselves, we will engage others.

If we would know God, we will open ourselves to others.

If we would ask for God's blessing, we will ask our neighbors what they need.

Prayer is listening for God, we can begin by listening to our neighbor.

Worship is serving God, we can begin by serving our neighbor.

"I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." (Matthew 25:40)

And since it is so that thou oughtest not to go out of thy house to seek occasion how thou mightest profit thy neighbour by deeds of charity, because thou art enclosed; nevertheless thou art bound to love all men in thy heart, and to show some tokens of true love to them that come to thee. And therefore, whoso will speak with thee, whatsoever he be, or of what degree soever, though thou knowest not what he is, nor why he cometh, yet be thou soon ready with a good will to ask what his will is, be not dainty, nor suffer him long to wait for thee, but look how ready and how glad thou wouldst be if an angel of heaven should come and speak with thee, so ready and so buxom be thou in will for to speak with thy neighbour when he cometh to thee, for thou knowest not what he is, nor why he cometh, nor what need he hath of thee, or thou of him, till thou hast tried. (John Climacus)

There is a person who lives far away who makes a considerable effort to visit at least once a year.

The prospect of this visit -- only a few days -- causes some consternation in our house.

I have never determined if the visitor lacks self-awareness or, instead, is so self-centered s/he has no skill is perceiving others. In any case it is almost always an awkward and difficult few days.

Yet the visit is always rich in experiencing the mystery of relationship with one another and with God.

We are not glad to have the visitor, but in scripture angels usually arrive when trouble is afoot and give us insights difficult to fully discern.

But thou wilt say again, that thou canst not keep from hearing of vanities, for divers, both those that live in the world and others, come oft to speak with thee, and tell thee some tales of vanity. As unto this I say thus, that thy communing with thy neighbour is not much hurt to thee, but helpeth thee sometimes, if thou order thy business wisely; for that thou mayest try and find out thereby the measure of thy charity to thy neighbour, whether it be much or little. Thou art bounden (as all other men and women are) to love thy neighbour principally in thy heart, and also in deeds to show him tokens of charity, as reason asketh, according to thy might and knowledge. (John Climacus)

Climacus is not writing for me, he is writing for monastics of the late classical era.

These men had freely chosen a particularly disciplined path for spiritual growth. Yet even they had trouble avoiding vain, superficial, and spiritually stunted talk.

We are drowning in it.

Somehow our culture has developed a growing fascination with the Lindsay Lohan's, Paris Hilton's, Ashton Kutcher's, and others who - in their defense - have never claimed to be more than pretty projections of fantasy.

Such celebrities are also our neighbors. But love is not a matter of indulging fantasies. Fantasy is an impediment to love. True love is engaging the reality of each other and working with one another to allow our fundamental realities to emerge.

Nevertheless, if thou through frailty delight thee in thy senses, and in such vanities, but yet keepest thyself in charity and the grace of God as to other things, and choosest not this delight for a full rest of thy soul, but always settest up God above all things in thy desire, this sin in thee is venial; and that more or less according to its circumstances; nor shalt thou for these venial sins be put from the supper in the bliss of heaven, but thou shalt want the tasting and the assaying of that delicate supper, whilst thou livest here on earth, unless thou be busy with all thy might to withstand and conquer such venial sins, for though it be so that venial sins break not charity, yet soothly they let the fervour and the ghostly feeling of charity. (John Climacus)

If I were in conversation with the fleshly Climacus I would not argue with him here, and merely murmur consent.

But more honestly - though only God knows the truth - I am inclined to see what he calls venial sins as potential spiritual aids.

There is a way to share supper with others that brings us into fuller relationship with God.

In truly tasting what we eat, noticing the fragrance of the meal, feeling the textures of evening, seeing what is really before us, and - especially - in listening carefully to one another and to God, in all these ways, we experience the charity and Grace of God.

We are created in the image of God, senses and all.

Right so say I to thee; for to have thy senses, and to use them in need, it is no sin, but if thou go voluntarily to try them by vain delights in creatures, then it is sin. And if thou choose that delight as a final rest of thy soul, and as a full liking, that thou carest not to have any other bliss but such worldly vanities, then is it deadly, for thou choosest it as thy God, and so shalt thou be put from thy supper; for St Paul forbids us to use our senses in that manner when he said thus: Thou shalt not go after thy lusts, nor voluntarily try thy likings. A man or a woman that is encumbered with deadly sin shall hardly escape deadly sin in this business, though he perceiveth it not; but I hope this toucheth not thee. (John Climacus)

I would benefit from leaning in the direction advocated by Climacus.

In too many cases I satisfy my senses - or even overwhelm my senses - with mediocrity.

I listen to noise on the news, and canned muzac, and a hundred advertisements, and long disorganized teleconferences. These are spiritual subtractions.

Do I need to hear Bach, or the birds morning song, or the wind rushing through the trees? I am not sure of need, but I do perceive spiritual benefit.

Dear God, make me mindful of my choices and help me choose that which will deepen my relationship with you and my neighbor.

I will show thee furthermore (for thy desire draweth more out of my heart than I thought to have said in the beginning) when the use of thy senses be deadly sin, and when venial. Thus, therefore, our Lord saith in the Gospel: A man made a great supper, and called many thereto, and sent his servant at supper-time, after them that were bidden. The first excused himself, and said on this wise, that he could not come, for he had bought a farm. The other also excused himself, that he could not come, for he had bought five yoke of oxen, and went to try them. The third, for that he had married a wife. I forbear to speak of the first and of the last, and will tell ye of the middlemost of them, that had bought the oxen, for he is to our purpose. Five yoke of oxen betoken the five senses, which are beastly as an ox. Now this man that was called to the supper was not rejected because he bought the oxen, but because he went to try them, and so he would not come. (John Climacus)

In each of the three cases the value of the invitation is not understood.

The farm, the spouse, and the yoke of oxen are all potential distractions, and in this instance they cause those invited to neglect an opportunity of much higher value.

I agree with Climacus that the case of the oxen demonstrates the most egregious dearth of perception and the analogy with the five senses is meaningful.

Jesus does not explain the prior relationship of any of those invited with the host. The implication is that whatever the prior relationship, what matters is our readiness to accept the invitation.

We have been invited - today - will we accept, or do we have other commitments that have claimed us?

Thus a chosen soul, joying in our Lord, saith of Him in holy Writ: The King brought me into His wine cellar. That is to say: Inasmuch as I forsook the drunkenness of fleshly lusts and worldly likings, which are bitter as wormwood, therefore the King of bliss, the Lord Jesus, led me in; that is, first into myself for to behold and know myself, and after He led me into His cellar; that is to say, above myself by ascending and passing into Him alone, and gave me a taste of His wine; that is for to taste a certainty of spiritual sweetness and heavenly joy. These are not the words of me, a wretched caitiff, living in sin, but they are the words of the spouse of our Lord in holy Writ; and these words I say to thee, to the end that thou mightest draw in thy soul from without, and follow on further as well as thou canst. (John Climacus)

We are creatures who hear, see, feel, smell, and taste. Each of these senses may be cultivated or neglected or over-indulged.

If cultivated with care, each can draw us closer to God and neighbor. Otherwise, the senses can also play a role in separating us from God and neighbor.

The senses are how we engage reality. Our neighbors are part of that reality. God is in that reality.

Spiritual sweetness and heavenly joy are open to us, but we are often too busy or troubled to notice.

Fig trees grow tall and dense with leaves. The figs are easy to miss. But even when you spy dark purple you should feel the fig. If it is still firm, wait for tomorrow.

If tomorrow the skin of the fig has softened, then gently pluck it. Take at least two bites. Consider the luscious red interior, divided yet whole. With each bite let the taste linger on the tongue, notice the juicy mix of flesh and seed subtly complementary in their distinct textures.

I have not yet learned to hear a ripe fig and neither do I notice their fragrance. I am sure there are others who do both. I still have much to learn.

And, therefore, turn home again into thyself and hold thee within, and beg no more without, namely, swines’ meat. For if thou wilt needs be a beggar, ask and crave within of thy Lord Jesus, for He is rich enough, and gladlier would give thee than thou canst ask, and run no more out as a beast of the flock, that is a worldly man or woman, that hath no delight but in his bodily senses. And if thou do thus, thy Lord Jesus will give thee all that thou needest, for He will lead thee into His wine cellar, and make thee to taste and try His wines, which liketh thee best for he hath many tuns. (John Climacus)

The more we know God, the more we understand ourselves.

The more we seek Jesus, the more we find ourselves.

Unlike Climacus, I perceive the bodily senses can help us know God and seek Jesus.

I nonetheless agree with Climacus that the senses can also be distracted and confused.

But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. (Matthew 6:33)

Thus saith our Lord in a threatening way to a chosen soul in holy Writ: Thou fairest among women, if thou knowest not thyself, go out, and walk after the steps of the flock of thy fellows, and feed thy kids. And it is as much as to say: Thou soul, fair by nature, made after the likeness of God, frail in thy body as a woman, by reason of the first sin, that thou knowest not thyself, nor how that angels’ food should be thy delights within, therefore goest thou out by thy bodily senses, and seekest thy meat and thy liking as a beast of the flock, that is as one outcast and rejected, and therewith thou feedest thy thoughts and thine affections, which are unclean as goats. It is a shame for thee to do so. (John Climacus)

Because we do not know our origns and purpose, because we do not know ourselves, we mistake what we need and want what is bad for us.

Unlike Climacus I am not sure that delighting the senses is bad for us. But I am sure the senses are attracted to what is both good and bad for us.

Through self-knowledge we can distinguish between what is good for us and what is bad. This may, in some cases, be different for you and for me.

For each of us what is good begins with our fundamental nature as a creature of God and the grace that God has extended to all.

In this beginning with the nature of God, I expect Climacus and I agree.

And this would be little mastery or difficulty for thee to do, if thou didst once see thy own soul by clear understanding what it is, and how fair it is in its own nature, and so is still, were it not so overlaid with a black mantle of this foul image. But because thou knowest it not, therefore leavest thou the inward sight of thyself, and seekest thy food without, abroad, like a brute beast. (John Climacus)

Our task is to clean and cultivate our essential nature.

We have been distracted from this task by misunderstanding our nature and our needs.

Knowing what I really need depends on knowing who and what I am.

Knowing who I am points me to my origins and purpose.

Knowing my origins and purpose should help me know my destination, which would allow distinguishing want from need, surfeit from sufficient.

Lift up thy lanthorn, and thou shalt see in this image five windows, by which sin cometh into thy soul, as the Prophet saith: Death cometh in by our windows. These are the five senses by which thy soul goeth out of herself, and fetcheth her delight, and seeketh her feeding in earthly things, contrary to the nobility of her own nature. As by the eye to see curious and fair things, and so of the other senses. By the unskilful using of these senses willingly to vanities, thy soul is much letted from the sweetness of the spiritual senses within; and therefore it behoveth thee to stop these windows, and shut them, but only when need requireth to open them. (John Climacus)

I would simply agree, if Climacus advocated cleaning the windows, oiling their hinges, and restoring the wood.

I would probably defer if Climacus commended new insulated windows with double-pane, gas-infused glass.

To shut up the windows, to stop using them, strikes me as starving - rather than saving - the soul.

Unskilful using - leaving wide open in winter or shutting tight in summer - is a problem.

God gave us the senses, they are much of who we are, to open them to God and neighbor cannot in itself be wrong.

By this that I have said, thou mayest in some measure see into this image of sin, and perceive how much it hinders thee. The Gospel saith, how that Abraham spake to the rich man that was buried in hell, on this wise: There is betwixt us and you a great chaos; that is to say, a thick darkness betwixt thee and us, that we cannot come to thee, nor thou to us. This dark image in thy soul and mine may be in like manner called a chaos, that is, a great darkness, for it letteth us that we cannot come to Abraham, which is Jesus, and it letteth Him, that He will not come to us. (John Climacus)

Most modern translations refer to a "great chasm" rather than a great chaos. Climacus almost certainly mis-read his Greek text. Chasm is χάσμα. Chaos is χάος.

Climacus might also have considered chasm and chaos as near synonyms. Each include the sense of there being an absense. For the Greeks chaos is - among other meanings - unorganized potential.

Abraham, the poor man Lazarus, the rich man, and the rich man's brothers each had the same potential for God's grace.

Abraham and Lazarus chose to organize their potential around God's intent. The rich man and his brothers chose to organize their potential around wealth and fine living. Chaos was organized, but with very different results.

The image is of the Valles Marinaris on Mars. This is the largest chasm in the earth's solar system.

Set thyself, therefore, about Humility and Charity, and using all thy diligence and industry to come by them, yet shalt thou have enough to do in getting of them. And if thou canst get them, they will direct thee, and measure thee privily and secretly, how thou shalt eat, and how thou shalt drink, and succour all thy bodily needs, that there shall no man know of it, unless thou thyself do tell it him, and that thou shalt not be in perplexity, scruples, vexation, anguishment, or heaviness, nor with any lust or adhering to the delights and likings of sensuality, but shalt do all in peace of a glad conscience with all quietness and satisfaction. I have spoken more than I thought to have done in this matter, but nevertheless do (as far as thou canst) as I say, and I hope God shall make all well. (John Climacus)

While Climacus is suspicious of sensuality, I perceive in our sensual nature sacramental potential.

Neither of us, however, are entirely confident we have fully understood God's intent regarding human sensuality.

Where Climacus and I agree, we can be more confident: If we will give all we can to humility and love, then - whatever else - we will experience the grace of God.

In humility I will listen to God and neighbor. In humility we listen to one another. In humility we celebrate each others gifts.

With love we recognize God alive in the world. In love we come to know our neighbors needs and receive their love. We respond to the needs of our neighbor and are fulfilled in love.

For wot thou well, that he that hath in his desire and in his endeavours no other respect to no other thing but Humility and Charity, always crying after them, how he may have them, he shall through such desire and manner of working profit and increase, not only in those two virtues, but also in all other virtues together with them, as in chastity, abstinence and such other (though he have but a little regard to them in comparison of the other, namely, Humility and Charity) more in one year than he should, without the said desire and manner of working, profit in seven years, though he strive against gluttony, lechery and such other continually, and beat himself with scourges each day from morning to even-song time.(John Climacus)

Humility is being grounded, attentive to what is real, and cognizant of our relationships and dependence on one another.

Charity is to love one another. The Latin caritas means to esteem, cherish, and to actively demonstrate one's love.

Humility and love are very dense spiritual elements. Even small amounts will anchor us and give us the stability we need.

Gluttony and lechery neglect our relationships and indulge in what is un-real. But they are ephemeral and will not un-do what humility and love can do.

In humility and love we know God, our neighbor, and cultivate our best self -- even when we are not always our best self.

Do as I say, take thy meat as it cometh, or provide it according to reason, and take it gladly, as a thing that thou needest; but be well aware of lusts that cometh with need, eschew too much as well as too little. And having done, if after it there arise in thee a remorse or biting of conscience, that thou hast eaten too much, and thereupon thou becomest sad and heavy with overmuch bitterness against thyself, lift up the desire of thy heart to thy good Lord Jesus, and acknowledge thyself a wretch, and a beast, and ask Him forgiveness, and say that thou wilt amend it, and pray that he will forgive thee. Leave off then, and think no further of it, nor strive so much with the vice, as if thou wouldst destroy it utterly, for it is not worth the doing so, neither shalt thou be ever able to bring it about that way; but set thyself about some other business bodily or ghostly, according as thou findest thyself best disposed, that thereby thou mayest profit more in other virtues, as in humility and charity. (John Climacus)

Leave off then and think no further of it... but set thyself about some other business.

There is a tendency among religious people to make more of our sins than the sins deserve. This is a form of pride.

This is especially the case with sins that have their origin in natural need. The temptation will recur.

We should recognize the sin and ask forgiveness, confident of God's grace.

Then -rather than obsess over the temptation - we ought give our attention to how we serve God and neighbor. There is a great need for our attention.

Therefore, thou shalt behave thyself discreetly about thy body, yielding it necessaries reasonably, and then let God send thee what He pleaseth, either health or sickness; take it gladly, and grudge not willingly against Him.(John Climacus)

We are to be reasonable, discreet, and then depend on God.

We are to be reasonable: use our intelligence, be logical, reocognizing - and if needed adjusting for - our motivations.

We are to be discreet: careful, prudent, judicious, we are discern what is needed and distinguish it from what is not needed.

We are to depend on the grace and love of God. Originally the Latin - pendere - suggested motivation or origin. Which returns us to being reasonable: Our motivation is to experience the grace and love of God.

Whatever else, we need the grace and love of God.

For know thou well, that what man or woman that shall be occupied spiritually in thoughts, great pain or hunger wilfully undertaken or bodily sickness or pain in the stomach, or in the head, or in other parts of the body for want of good ruling of themselves in too much fasting, or in any other way, will much let the spirit, and much hinder him from the knowing and beholding of spiritual things, unless he have much grace, and be arrived to great abilities in the Contemplative life. For though it be true, that bodily pain either of penance, or of sickness, or of bodily occupation, sometime letteth not the fervour of love to God in devotion, but oft increaseth it, yet I believe that they let the fervour of love in Contemplation, the which may not be had nor felt fully, but in rest and freedom of body and soul from all the aforesaid corporal pains, wants, employments and solicitudes. (John Climacus)

When our basic need for food has been filled, Climacus perceives we are more likely to experience the fervour of spiritual love.

Give us this day our daily bread.

Does the same principle apply to other basic needs or only food and drink?

Above Climacus seems to suggest it depends on whether the absence of the basic need will distract us from contemplation.

But we also know that fulfilling our "basic" needs can be distracting. What are our basic needs and what is reasonable in filling them?

Lead us not into temptation.

And, therefore, if thou wilt come to cleanness of heart, thou must strive against the unreasonable stirrings of fleshly desires, but against the ground of them thou shalt not rise; for the ground of it is Need, as natural hunger, which thou must necessarily feel, and must attend thereto, and satisfy it in fitting time and manner, and help thyself against it by medicine of meat, as thou wouldst help thyself in a reasonable manner against a bodily sickness, that thou mayest more freely serve God both bodily and spiritually. (John Climacus)

I wonder if Climacus would allow that we can enjoy what we need?

Since we need to eat, in attending reasonably thereto can we take care to choose or make a meal that enlivens our senses?

In determining what is reasonable, I understand we should not over-consume. Neither should we consume in a manner that is motivated by envy or reinforces pride.

One of the meals I remember most was a wonderful asparagus risotto with a glass of prosecco taken just after mass at St. Marks on a beautiful Sunday in Venice. I ate nearly alone on the Danielli terrace.

The setting was extraordinarily beautiful and the meal was flavorful, steaming hot, and practically perfect. Was this sinful or a continuation of the worship I had begun in St. Marks?

For know thou well, that fleshly desires and unreasonable likings in meat and drink, or any likings that belong to the body, exceeding reasonable needs, though they be not always great sins to him that is in charity. Nevertheless, to a soul that desireth cleanness and purity of heart, and a spiritual feeling of God, they are full heavy, painful and bitter, and greatly to be eschewed; for the spirit cannot feel his kindly savour within, till the flesh hath lost his beastly savour without. (John Climacus)

By grace and with discipline we ought not exceed reasonable needs.

We are better in every way when our body is rested and clean, our appetites are modestly filled, and we use our senses and strength in good work.

Our bodies are our principal temple. Here we can meet God each day and every minute. Our temple ought to be a place of peace and inspiration focused on our relationship with God.

I will not excuse them that fall in the likings and delights of gluttony and lechery, as if they sinned not; for I wot well that all the kinds of them are sins more or less, according to the measure of the lust and misbehaviour in the sin, and other likings, with consideration of how far voluntary it was with other circumstances. But my desire is, that thou mightest know and esteem all sins according as they are, indeed, the greater to be the greater, as are spiritual sins; and the less to be the less, as are fleshly or sensual sins; and yet nevertheless would I have thee to hate and fly all, both bodily and spiritual, with all thy might.(John Climacus)

Which comes first, to hate sin with all thy might or to seek the grace of God with all thy being?

Perhaps it depends on the person. Depending on our own experience - and especially on our state of pride - embracing our own flaws and failures may be a pre-requisite to grace.

But in one way or another, at some time or another, our attention must shift to seeking and accepting the grace of God.

And therefore he that riseth against the feeling of fleshly liking in meat and drink, more fully and more sharply than against those of pride, or covetousness, or lechery, or envy (the which because they be more spiritual and less perceivable, seem perhaps less evil, and are less reprehended). I say that he is half-blind, for he seeth not his spiritual uncleannesses (as of pride and envy), how foul they are in God’s sight, for, I believe that if a man could see with his spiritual eye how foul pride and covetousness are in God’s sight, and how contrary they are to Him, he would more loathe a stirring of pride, and the vain liking of it; and also he would more abhor and rise against that evil will of envy, or anger to his neighbour than many a stirring or liking either of gluttony or of lechery. Nevertheless, all men do not think so, for commonly men are more shy or troubled to feel a stirring of fleshly sin, and have for it more sorrow and heaviness than for great likings in vain-glory or in other ghostly sins. But they are not wise; for if they would understand the holy Scriptures and sayings of doctors they should find it as I say, which I neither may nor will rehearse now.(John Climacus)

The Pharisees began by seeking spiritual wisdom through physical discipline. But many (not all) ended up proud of their discipline and further separated from spiritual wisdom.

The fleshly sins - gluttony, lechery, and lust - separate us from God and neighbor. But precisely because they are fleshly we are less likely to pretend to be pure.

How do we cultivate the same level of self-awareness for the more insidious sins of pride and envy? If we could choose, we ought welcome gluttony if we could trade it for pride.

The same may be said of pride and of covetousness, and of such other, for thou mayest live though thou wert not proud at all, nor covetous, nor luxurious, and therefore thou shalt labour to destroy the very feelings of them as much as thou canst, and so seek to cleanse and take away the very ground of those sins. But in gluttony it is otherwise, because the ground thereof, which is natural appetite and need, must remain as long as thou livest, therefore must thou only arise and fight against the unreasonable desires of thy natural appetite therein, the which do creep in under pretense, and by occasion of the said just and reasonable need; smite these unreasonable stirrings, and keep the ground whole. (John Climacus)

It may be lack of humility, but I see the whole range of Maslow's hierarchy as dealing with natural appetite.

We need food and drink, so we can be tempted to gluttony. We need self-esteem and self-actualization, so we can be tempted to pride.

For each and every need we must fight against the unreasonable desires of our natural appetites.

To recognize these unreasonable desires we must cultivate our reason. To keep the ground whole we must be honest, especially with ourselves, regarding our motivation and purpose.

To avoid temptation and achieve wholeness we must receive the grace of God.

But this travail and labour against the ground of lechery must be spiritual, by prayers and spiritual virtues, and not by bodily penance only; for wot thou well, that if thou fast and watch and scourge thyself, and do all that thou canst, thou shalt never have cleanness and chastity without the gift of God, and without the grace or virtue of humility. Thou shalt sooner kill thyself, than kill fleshly stirrings and feelings of lust and lechery, either in thy heart or in thy flesh, by any bodily penances; but by the grace of Jesus, in an humble soul, the ground may be much stopped and destroyed, and the spring may be much dried, the which will cause true chastity in body and in soul. (John Climacus)

To suppress lust and lechery Climacus counsels prayer,humility, and grace much more than personal penance and discipline.

Again I wonder if as with food and drink -- and perhaps with self-esteem -- the spiritual challenge is less suppression than proper engagement.

What Climacus calls lust and lechery is an expression of being male and female, separate in the universe, and a hunger that emerges as naturally as that of the stomach.

As we ought cultivate a mindfulness of eating and drinking, surely our sexuality would benefit from such care.

What is healthy or unhealthy? What enhances our relationship with neighbor and God? What attitudes and behavior separate us from neighbor or God? What is true, what is good, what is beautiful?

That is to say, slay unreasonable lust and sensual voluntary liking, and spare and keep natural liking and corporal ability, and they do not so. But against all other sins thou shalt arise to destroy, not only deadly sins and the greater venials, but also against the ground of them by suppressing the stirrings and motions of them, and also avoiding the occasions and motives and incentives to them as much as thou canst; but this thou canst not do here with all thy skill, for thou canst not live without meat and drink, but thou mayest live without lechery or carnal pleasure if thou wilt, and never better than when without it. And therefore thou shalt not fly only the deeds of it (namely, the doing of any external thing against chastity) but also thou shalt suppress and destroy within thee all mere inward and mental desires against the virtue of chastity (the which mental desires or thoughts are sometimes only venial sins, and sometimes mortal); but also thou shalt labour against the ground of the said sin, and seek to destroy the feeling and the rising of fleshly stirrings.(John Climacus)

Meat and drink (which for monastics included wine and beer) are needed to survive. As a result, Climacus allows for a natural liking. While he does not say so, I expect he would discourage any great attention to or variation in taste. Even here there is a chance to suppress sensuality. He would certainly encourage modest quantitites.

But we can live without sex, "never better than when without it." And even refraining from sexual activity is insufficient. Climacus urges us to entirely separate ourselves from any inclination to lechery or carnality. Originally these were terms for sexual excess. But for the monastic even a little was too much.

Chaste is derived from ancient words that mean to separate. Sacred means to separate the holy from the non-holy. I want to honor the impulse. But I am mindful of how Jesus consistently broke down the divisions that were understood to have religious meaning. I will keep listening to Climacus, but I hope my ear will listen even more to Jesus.

The image is a poster for the 1971 film Carnal Knowledge.

And these stirrings and likings of gluttony, among all other sins, are most excusable and least perilous. And therefore thou shalt not rise against the ground of this sin as thou shalt against the ground of all other sin, for the ground of this sin is only natural need and necessity, the which thou canst not eschew, unless thou shouldst do worse, namely, slay this need (as many unwise persons do, by destroying their bodies or healths), whereas they should only slay the thief and spare the true man. (John Climacus)

The foundation of this sin is true need.

Of other sins we are enjoined to root out the fundamental cause of sinning. But with gluttony - broadly understood - we are dealing with the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy. We cannot - should not - seek to deny that on which life depends.

This begs the question: what do we need? Maslow begins with physiological needs, which gluttony most traditionally involves. The hierarchy then moves to safety, love/belonging, esteem, and self-actualization.

Gluttony and lust are often considered together, as Climacus has done. Does this mean that both safety and love/belonging are encompassed by gluttony?

Are pride and envy separate from gluttony? Or are pride and envy how we describe a gluttony of self-esteem?

For our Lord is good and merciful, and forgiveth right soon these venial sins and miscarriages, or excesses about meat and drink (by reason that the occasions of them are hardest to eschew, because of the necessity there is of seeking and taking of them for the upholding of our corporal lives and healths) unto an humble soul.(John Climacus)

A venial sin is a forgiveable error, accessible to grace, pardon, and indulgence.

I understand that our sins are not only forgiveable, but already forgiven. This was the Good News of Jesus.

Sin still separates us from God, still complicates our living, and has a range of other consequences. But is any sin beyond forgiving, beyond God's grace?

I can imagine forgiveness being effectively rejected. God will not force stubborn pride to submit, even to love and grace.

But with the help of true humility every sin is venial.

But another man or woman, who being in grace or charity, hath alway a good general will to God in his soul, whether he sleep or wake, eat or drink, or whatsoever good deed he doth, so that it be not evil in itself; by the which will and desire he chooseth God above all things, and had rather forbear all things in the world, than anger his God for love of Him. This will, though it be but general, is of so great virtue through the grace of our Lord Jesus, that if he fall by frailty in lust and in liking of meat and of drink, or of such other infirmity, either by exercise, in eating too much, or too often, or too greedily, or too lusty and delicately, or too often before the set times of eating, it saveth and keepeth him from deadly sin. And this is truth, as long as he is in charity in his other works, and keepeth his general will in all that he doth; and especially if anon after such his miscarriage he acknowledge his own wretchedness and cry for mercy, and be in purpose specially to withstand such fleshly lusts for the time to come. (John Climacus)

If we over-consume or "too lusty and delicately" consume, but we do so as an aberration - within a broader context of grace and charity - then Climacus is confident the grace and charity will preserve us from the worst of gluttony.

I advocate a mindful and thankful engagement of our sensuality. In what we eat, drink, wear, where we live, and what we do. I see our sensual choices as potential sacraments.

But where is the line between culitivating beauty and worshiping beauty? Where does appreciation end and self-indulgence take over? Climacus wants us to be especially mindful of these distinctions.

But he that lieth in deadly sin of pride or envy, or such other, he is so blinded by the devil, that for the time he hath no power of his free will, and therefore he cannot well withstand fleshly likings when they come, but falleth down willingly to them, as a beast doth to carrion; and inasmuch as he hath no general will before to God principally, because that he is in deadly sin, therefore the lust of gluttony into which he falleth easily, is to him deadly sin, for he maketh no resistance either general or special. (John Climacus)

I have argued that if our consumption is mindful - appreciating those who make what we consume and thanking God - it can be sacramental.

Climacus argues if our consumption is combined with pride or envy it can never be mindful. I agree. Pride and envy will distract us from true thanksgiving.

I especially agree if our consumption is motivated by pride and envy. When these are our motivation we do not so much see, hear, taste, smell, or feel as use consumption as a prop. In pride and envy we value what we consume only for how it flatters our self-image.

Nevertheless, sith it is so, that need is the ground of this, and that need is no sin; for be a man never so holy, it behoveth him to eat, and drink and sleep; therefore the lust and liking that cometh under the colour of this need, and often exceedeth this need, is the less sin. For it is true that he who chooseth lust and the liking of his flesh, and delight in welfare of meat or drink, as the full rest of his heart that he would never have any other life nor other bliss, but live ever in such lust of his flesh, if he might, it is no doubt but he sinneth deadly; for he loveth his flesh more than God. (John Climacus)

While Climacus would find my attitude toward food sinful, it is less sinful because it is based in need.

But I perceive this neglects a spiritual opportunity. In consuming food or anything else there is the chance to appreciate the care and skill of the maker and cause to thank God for the senses given us to enjoy such care and skill.

Mindful consumption, appropriate to our fundamental needs and fulfilling our God-given senses, can be a sacrament that deepens our relationship with God and neighbor.

Therefore here lieth all the mastery and skill to be able to distinguish wisely need from lust and voluntary liking, being so knit together that the one cometh with the other. So that it is hard to take the one (which is the meat or drink) as need requireth, and to reject or not to admit the other, namely, the voluntary and willingly admitted lust and liking, which often cometh under the colour of need.(John Climacus)

How should I distinguish need from voluntary liking? I have not read ahead.

The implication is that if I enjoy something I need - such as food, drink, or clothing - I am edging toward sin.

The Latin word from which glutton is derived means to gulp, to swallow without tasting. The glutton does not enjoy. The glutton is obsessed, which is entirely different.

I am reacting so strongly that I will need to give particular care to the advice Climacus offers.

I do not doubt the problem of gluttony and other aspects of over-consumption, but I tend to see the source as insatiability rather than sensuality.

The image is from an allegory of gluttony by Hieronymus Bosch.

Soothly and without doubt I am full far from knowing how to do better in this point, and further from doing of it, for to eat I have by kind or nature, but to skill how to eat, I cannot but by the grace of God. St Paul had this cunning by the grace of God, as he saith himself thus: I am cunning in all things, through Him that strengtheneth me; for I can hunger, and I can eat, I can with plenty, and I can with poverty, I can do all things. St. Austin saith thus to our Lord: Lord, thou hast taught me that I should take meat as a medicine: hunger is a sickness of my nature, and meat is a medicine thereof. Therefore the liking and delight that cometh therewith, and accompanieth eating, inasmuch as it is natural, and followeth of necessity, it is no sin; but when it passeth into lust, and into a voluntary and sought or intended pleasure, then it is sin. (John Climacus)

Consumption beyond need is a physical, spiritual, and economic problem. We have evolved into a society that in many ways depends on unnatural, unhealthy and unsustainable levels of consumption.

But I don't perceive this is the result of lusty sensuality. Most of our food is not eaten for pleasure. We over-eat more as a matter of convenience and cost. Food that fulfills the senses takes time and care. We seldom give either.

A deep yearning for the pleasure of well-conceived and carefully prepared meals would help us more than the most rigorous diet. Sensual and spiritual discernment for what we consume need not degenerate into lustful self-indulgence.

As unto this I say: That if in eating, drinking and other takings of necessaries for thy body, thou observe and keep measure; which is that thou do but what is needful for nature, and thou receivest or admittest no further pleasure or delight in the taking, than the nature of the thing doth needs bring with it; and all this thou dost not of purpose to please thy sensuality, but for ghostly delight which thou feelest in thy soul, and the upholding of thy body in the service of God, I grant that for a truth thou then sinnest right nought therein, but mayest well eat and sleep in that manner as thou hast mentioned. (John Climacus)

God created me with sight, scent, hearing, taste, and touch. I give thanks for each of these gifts.

To fully receive and honor these gifts requires some care and cultivation. Do I need taste less than I need calories? As a complex carbohydtrate is healthier for me than any fat or sugar, is not a carefully seasoned, beautifully presented meal better for me?

Physically and spiritually excess is unhelpful and sometimes harmful. But sensual pleasure is not, ipso facto, excess.

Still mayest thou see more in this image, though it be dark, namely, sensual love to thyself, in gluttony, sloth and lechery. These fleshly likings make a man full beastly, and far from the inward savour of the love of God and from the clear sight of spiritual things. But thou wilt say that thou must needs eat and drink and sleep, which thou canst not do without liking, therefore thou thinkest this liking is no sin. (John Climacus)

As Climacus continues consideration of the deadly sins we move from pride and envy to three closely related behaviors.

Gluttony: Excessive or voracious consumption.

Sloth: Constant disinclination to exertion; indolence, laziness, slowness.

Lechery: Carnality, lust, sexual promiscuity.

These are each a form of extreme self-indulgence, where a natural good is transformed into an unnatural craving.

The tatoo by David Sena depicts the seven deadly sins.

But see, now then, since covetousness, in the naked ground of it, letteth a man or woman so much from the spiritual feeling of the love of God, how much more, then, doth it let and cumber worldly men and women, who by all their wits and bodily business night and day, study and travail how they may get riches and plenty of worldly goods? They can have no other delight but in worldly things; nay, they will not, for they seek it not. I say no more of them at this time; for in this writing I spake not to them. But this I say, that if they would see, or could see what they do, they would not do so. (John Climacus)

To covet is to deeply and eagerly desire what belongs to another.

The desiring, alone, is not typically a problem.

The problem arises from a wrongful, inordinate desiring that disregards the rights and needs of others.

But even a simpler, less passionate covetousness is a fantasizing that distracts us from the present.

To engage the blessings and relationships we have would leave little time or energy for wanting what we do not have.

For who so could understand the spiritual reward, how good, how precious and how worthy it is (for it is everlasting), he would not for the love of all earthly joy, or having all earthly things (though he might have them without sin) hinder, no, nor lessen the least reward of the bliss of heaven, which he might have if that he would; but God knows I speak more than I do myself. But I pray thee do thus as I say, by the grace of God, if thou canst, or any other man that will, for it would be a comfort to my heart (though I have it not in myself that which I say) that I might have it in thee, or in any other creature, which hath received more plenty of His grace than I. (John Climacus)

We are all sinners. We have all received God's grace.

We will covet. We will envy. We will respond in pride.

We can also love. We can also create. We can also forgive.

Without discounting our sinfulness, we might give particular attention to forgiving our own sin.

Climacus sought perfection, but God is pleased with progress.

Climbing the ladder one step at a time, one day at time, thrilled to be a bit closer to the source of love.

For St Austin said to our Lord thus: Lord, he loveth Thee but little, that loveth anything with Thee, which he loveth not for Thee. For the more love and covetousness of any earthly thing is with thee, the less is the love of God in thy heart. For though it be so, that this love of earthly things putteth them not out of charity; but if it be so much that it strangleth the love of God and of their neighbour, verily it hindereth and letteth them from the fervour of charity, and also from that special reward which they should have in the bliss of heaven for perfect poverty, and that is a great loss if thou couldst see it. (John Climacus)

This supposed conflict between heaven and earth, between love of God and love of others has been imposed on biblical interpretation by neo-Platonism.

Jesus taught us, "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." This is God's earth, we are God's creatures, and it is very good.

Covetousness, avarice, envy, pride and other such are not expressions of love. We never own anything that we love. Love honors the integrity and separateness of the other.

The bliss of heaven does not compete with the bliss of our present condition. It was the purpose of Jesus to show us how to live here and now within God's reign.

There is beauty and abundance, here and now. There is goodness and joy, here and now. There is truth, as much as we can know, to be encountered today.

The image is of the marriage feast at Cana by Veronese. A larger image will open by clicking above.

Soothly in this point I fear that many who have taken upon them the state and likeness of poverty are much letted and hindered in their pursuit of the love of God; I accuse no man, nor reprove any state, for in each state there be some good, and some otherwise; but one thing I say to every man or woman that hath taken the state of voluntary poverty, whether he be religious or secular, or what degree he be in, as long as his love and his affection is bounden and fastened, and as it were glued with the love of any earthly thing, which he hath, or would have, he cannot have nor feel soothfastly the clean love, and the clear sight of spiritual things. (John Climacus)

Love of neighbor is - along with love of God - the foundation of faith.

Love of nature, as manifestation of God, is often a pathway to closer relations with God.

Music may be the most God-like of human creations, it can be both an expression of our love for God and a bridge to God.

Perhaps the issue is not so much one of rejecting love, but of understanding that true love does not envy nor boast, it is not proud nor self-seeking (1 Corinthians 13)

Anything worth loving is beyond owning. We cannot possess what we love. We can praise and give thanks for what we love, but it is never ours alone.

For to love and have more than thou reasonably needest, only for lust and liking, is a great fault. Also, to fix thy love upon the thing which thou needest, for the thing itself, is a fault also, but not so great. But to have and use that thing that thou needest without love of it, more than and need requireth, without which the thing cannot be used, is no fault. (John Climacus)

I have accumulated much more land than I need. I don't know about lust, but I like having the land. The selfish justification for purchasing the land has been to keep it from being purchased by others. I don't so much use the land as hold it in-trust. I like the wildness of the land and the wild things that very much need the land.

But now sayest thou, that it behoveth thee to have thy necessaries of such things as belong unto thee, as well as a worldly man. I grant well thereto; but thou shouldst not love it for itself, nor have liking in the holding nor in the keeping, nor feel sorrow and heaviness in the losing, or in the withdrawing of it. For as St Gregory saith: As much sorrow as thou hast in losing of a thing, so much love hast thou in the keeping of it. And therefore if so be thy heart made whole, and thou hadst truly felt a desire of spiritual things, and therewith hadst a true sight of the least spiritual thing that is, thou wouldst set at nought all the love and liking of any earthly thing, it would not cleave to thee. (John Climacus)

The prospect -- even the surety of loss and separation -- should not dissuade us from recognizing the value of what we encounter.

Beautiful and wondrous worldly things come into our lives. Some we may own, many we may sense for mere moments. The beauty and wonder are worthy to embrace. It is appropriate to regret their loss.

I understand and respect the dangers of attachment, but detachment is seldom the best response. Instead we are called to mindful attention and thanksgiving.

If thou have love and delight in the having and holding of anything that thou hast, how mean soever it may be, with the which love thou feedest thy heart for a time, or if thou have a desire and yearning for to have something that thou hast not, with the which desire thy heart is disquieted and stumbled through unreasonable thinking of the thing, that the pure desire of virtue and of God cannot rest therein; this is a sign that there is covetousness in this image. And if thou wilt put thyself further to the trial, look if anything that thou hast be taken away from thee by violence, or by borrowing, or any other way, so that thou canst not get it again, and for this thou art disquieted, angered, and troubled in thine heart, both for the loss of that thing which thou wouldst have again, and canst not; and also art stirred against him that hath it, to strive and chide with him that may restore it, and will not, this is a token that thou lovest worldly goods. For thus do worldly men when their goods and riches are taken from them; they are heavy, sorry and angry, chiding and striving with them that have them, openly, both by word and deed. But thou dost all this in thy heart privily, where God seeth, and therein thou art in more default than a worldly man; for thou hast forsaken in appearance the love of worldly things, but a worldly man hath not so, and therefore he is excused, though he strive and pursue for his goods by lawful means, for to have them again. (John Climacus)

Because I am worldly I am excused, according to Climacus.

But why would my open covetousness, acquisitiveness, and striving be less of an impediment than the hidden disquiet of the monastic?

Other than God all is ephemeral. Attachment to any ephemeral thing will be a source of regret.

Regret can be - often has been a - motivation for further opening to God.

I am, and most of us are, paradoxical, contradictory, and inconsistent. But if in this mix there is authentic love of God and neighbor, even chiding and striving can, eventually, lead to a deeper relationship with what is good, true, and beautiful.

Heave up this image, and look well about it, and into it, and then shalt thou see covetousness and love of earthly things possess a great part of this image, though it seem little of it. Thou hast forsaken riches and the having much of this world, and art shut up in a cell, but hast thou cleanly forsaken the love of all this? I fear not yet, for it is less mastery to forsake worldly goods than to forsake the love of them. Peradventure thou hast not forsaken thy covetousness, but only hast changed it from great things unto small; from a pound unto a penny, and from a silver dish unto a dish of a halfpenny. This is but a simple change; thou art no good merchant. These examples are childish, nevertheless they signify much more. If thou believe not what I say, put thyself upon the trial. (John Climacus)

Unlike the monastics to whom Climacus is writing, I have not forsaken the world.

Moreover, I am inclined to cultivate and celebrate earthly beauty, worldly wisdom, and the material potential of God's gifts. If I am to put myself on trial, I plead guilty.

Still, I understand the potential distraction of beauty and the corruption of acquisitiveness. There is an enormous difference between celebrating and coveting. So I will listen carefully as Climacus unfolds his indictment.

Right so shalt thou love thy neighbour. If he be good and righteous thou shalt love him by charity in God only; in that he is good and righteous; for then lovest thou God (who is goodness and righteousness) in him, and so thou lovest him more than if he were bad or in deadly sin. As, for example, thy enemies who hate thee, or any other of whom thou hast full evidence they are not in grace; yet notwithstanding shalt thou love them, not as they are, nor as good and righteous men (for they are bad and unrighteous), but thou shalt love them for God, that they may be good and righteous. And so shalt thou hate nothing in them, but that thing which is contrary to righteousness, and that is sin. This is as I understand the doctrine of St Augustine, for to distinguish the love of the man from the hatred of his sin, and the love of thy neighbour. He that is humble, or desires truly to be humble, can thus love his neighbour, and none but he. (John Climacus)

To be humble is to be grounded, to be rooted, to draw strength from the source of creation.

There are limitations, but also an experience of depth. Challenges continue and loss, but there is innate resilience.

From such roots comes forth shade for all and fruit for any who pass by.

The image is of the Trinity Root, a sycamore tree sheltered St. Paul's Chapel from the blast created by the falling World Trade Towers. The tree itself was ripped out of the ground. The artist, Steve Tobin, made a mold of the stump from the tree to form a large sculpture called Trinity Root.

But now thou wilt say: How shall I love him that is bad as well and truly as him that is good? To this I say thus: That thou shalt love both good and bad in charity, but not for the same cause as I shall tell how. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Now, thou shalt love thyself only in God, or else for God. In God thou lovest thyself, when thou art righteous and virtuous through grace, and lovest not thyself but only for that righteousness and virtues that God giveth thee, then lovest thou thyself in God, for thou lovest not thyself, but God. Also, thou lovest thyself for God, when being in deadly sin thou desirest to be made righteous and virtuous, for then thou lovest not thyself as thou art (for thou art unrighteous), but as thou wouldst be. (John Climacus)

I honor myself; understand, justify, and forgive myself, whether or not I am in God.

At times when being in deadly sin, I am proud of myself and self-love overflows.

I am learning a great deal from Climacus, but here I perceive he is attempting to define and limit our love of self in order to do likewise for neighbor.

Jesus taught I am to love the Lord my God with all my heart, and mind, and soul, and my neighbor as myself.

Love for neighbor is poised between these two poles: the love we have for our most worthy God and our least worthy selves. Precisely because we are unworthy, we are to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.

Whoso thinkest himself to be in his life a perfect lover and follower of Christ’s teaching (as some men perhaps esteem themselves to be, because they preach and teach, and are poor in worldly goods, as Christ was) and cannot follow Christ in this love and charity, to love their neighbours, even every man, both good and bad, friend and foe, without feigning or flattery, or despising him in his heart, without angriness or malicious reproving, soothly he beguileth himself. The nearer he thinketh himself to be to Christ’s example, the further is he off; for Christ said to them that would be His disciples, thus: This is My bidding, that you should love one another as I have loved you. For if ye love as I have loved, then are ye My disciples. (John Climacus)

I will not at once love my neighbors as Jesus has taught.

Climacus has argued that humility is the essential precondition for such love, authentic humility will not be cultivated in one day.

But I can begin and endeavor to persist. One aspect of humility is attention: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling what is real.

Today I can attend carefully to reality - both inner and outer reality - and engage this reality as honestly and openly as I can.

In this attention I may better apprehend the grace of God on which achieving both humility and love will finally depend.

Look and bethink thee how Christ loved Judas, who was both His deadly enemy and a sinful caitiff; how goodly Christ was to him, how benign, how courteous, and how lowly to him whom He knew to be damnable. And nevertheless He chose him to be His apostle, and sent him to preach with His other apostles. He gave him power to work miracles; He showed the same good cheer to him in word and deed as He did to other apostles. He washed his feet, and fed him with His precious Blood, and preached to him as He did to His other apostles. He bewrayed him not openly (for He did it privily); He miscalled him not, despised him not, never spake evil of him; notwithstanding if He had done all these things, He had said nothing but truth. Moreover, when Judas took Him, He kissed him, and called him His friend. All this charity showed Christ unto Judas, whom He knew to be damnable; and this He did in no way of counterfeiting or flattering, but in reality and truth of good love and clean charity. (John Climacus)

I have very few enemies. But I have a few.

I have given myself too much credit for avoiding enemies. With those few I have, I miscall them, despise them, and delight in speaking evil of them.

Such is unhelpful to both my enemy and myself.

The image is of Judas greeting Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemene by Caravaggio.

This charity had St Stephen perfectly when he prayed for them that stoned him to death. This charity counselled Christ to those that would be His perfect followers when He said thus: Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, pray for them that persecute you. And, therefore, if thou wilt be one of Christ’s followers, be like Him in this craft. Learn to love thine enemies and sinful men, for all these are thy neighbours. (John Climacus)

All these are our neighbors.

We are to love them. We are to honor, respect, and engage them.

We are to love them as we love ourselves, which is often to recognize good intent even in the midst of serious error.

We are to love our neighbors as Jesus loved us, with patience, generosity, and even self sacrifice.

This is how we are to love our enemies and sinful men.

For though it be so that thou feelest no evil against thy neighbour for a time, yet art thou not secure that the ground of anger is quenched in thee; neither yet art thou lord and master of the virtue of charity. For let him but touch thee a little angrily, or by a shrewd word, and thou shalt see presently whether thy heart be yet made whole by perfect charity. The more thou art stirred and evil-willed against his person, the further art thou from charity. And if thou be nothing stirred against his person, neither by any angry carriage or gesture outwardly, nor by any privy hate in thy heart, either to despise or judge him, or undervalue, or set him at nought; but the more shame or villainy he doth to thee by word or deed, the more pity and compassion thou hast of him, as thou wouldst have of a man that were out of his wits, and thinkest that thou canst not find in thy heart to hate him (because love is so good in itself) but pray for him and help him and desire his amendment, not only with thy mouth, as hypocrites can do, but with affection of love in thy heart; then hast thou perfect charity to thy neighbour. (John Climacus)

This is a difficult lesson.

It is easy to feel love from a distance. Most of what we mistake as love is merely sentimental imaginings.

But Climacus argues we are to actively love the real people who are present, even when they are hurling at us "shame and villainy".

When I encounter such real people I am very much inclined to set them at nought, in other words to withdraw.

I have felt some pride in my ability to withdraw without rancor and while claiming to honor the other person. This is, Climacus insists, the pride of a hypocrite.

Now turn we again to this image. If thou wilt, try how much anger and envy is hid in thy heart, which thou feelest and perceivest not. Look well and behold thyself wisely when such stirrings of anger and envy against thy neighbour spring out of thy heart. The more that thou art stirred by melancholy or wicked will against him, the more is this image in thee. For the more thou grudgest by impatience, either against God for any tribulation or sickness, or other bodily disease sent by Him, or against thy neighbour, for aught that he doth against thee, the less is the image of Jesus reformed in thee. I say not that such grudgings or fleshly angriness are deadly sins; but I say that they hinder the cleanness of heart and peace of conscience, that thou canst not have perfect charity, by the which thou shouldst come to life Contemplative. For that end is the purpose of all my saying, that thou shouldst not only cleanse thy heart from deadly sins, but also from venial as much as thou canst; and that the ground of sin might by grace of Jesus Christ be somewhat shaked in thee. (John Climacus)

Yesterday I was angry for being misheard, mis-perceived, and, perhaps, dismissed. I have not yet responded. I did not want to respond in anger.

But I am impatient with the situation. I continue angry with a neighbor, though less today than yesterday.

My principal inclination is to withdraw. I am uncertain if this inclination is passive-aggressive or deferential. Am I being realistic about the context or unrealistic about the difficulties of communication and mutual understanding?

Should I forgive and continue to engage or should I forgive and move on?

I am not a contemplative and I live far outside the monastery, but I sometimes expect my contemporaries to behave more as monastics than any of us are and with more grace than any community of real monks has probably ever achieved.

The image shows St. Benedict delivering his Rule to the monks of his order.

How shalt thou, then, have it, sayest thou? Be meek and lowly in spirit and thou shalt have it; and what is lighter to be done than to be humble? Soothingly nothing. Then it followeth that there is nothing so lightly to be had as charity, and, therefore, thou need not be much afraid; be humble, and have it. Thus saith St James: Our Lord resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble. Which grace is properly charity; for according to the measure of thy humility, so shalt thou have charity. If thou have humility imperfectly only in will, not in affection, then hast thou imperfect charity, which indeed is good, for it sufficeth for salvation, as David saith: Lord, with the eyes of mercy thou seest my imperfection.But if thou have humility perfectly, then shalt thou have perfect charity, and this is best. The other we must necessarily have if we will be saved. This we should ever desire and labour for. If thou ask me now who is perfectly humble, I shall tell thee no more concerning humility at this time but this: He is humble that truly knoweth himself as he is. (John Climacus)

Humility begins by embracing the reality of our context.

Humility deepens by recognizing the reality of how we are related to our context.

Through this deepening experience of our relationships we encounter the ultimate reality of God.

In our relationship with God and others we are able to truly know ourselves.

But now peradventure thou beginnest to be afraid for that which I have said, that charity cannot be gotten by any work that thou canst do; how shalt thou then do. To this I answer, that there is nothing so hard to get as charity; this is truth, as to the getting of it by our own travail and labour. And, on the contrary, I say that there is no gift of God that may so lightly or easily be had as charity, for our Lord giveth no gift so freely, nor so gladly, nor so commonly, as He doth give it. (John Climacus)

I have not read ahead, but I expect Climacus will say that the love of God is available to all who will receive it.

To receive is less a matter of action than being sufficiently present with God to recognize the gift.

But to be present, attentive, and receptive -- rather than working and worried -- is something few of us have mastered.

Also, if a man had the knowledge of all books and divinity, and be not withal truly humble, he shall lightly stumble and err in this point, and take the one for the other. But humility is worthy to receive a gift from God, which cannot be gotten or learned by cunning of man, and therefore he that is humble can hate the sin and truly love the man. (John Climacus)

Intellect alone is cold. This does not mean it is cruel or necessarily aloof. And even though the intellect is inclined to careful discrimination, it can be as careful to avoid judgment.

But no matter how finely woven, the intellect by itself lacks the warmth of God's grace. Moreover, if left alone for many years the intellect tends toward pride. It has much of which to be proud.

When intellect is combined with humility - when head and heart are each grounded in God - then knowing and loving is the same stance and gesture.

The image is of the tree of knowledge. The Genesis tale of Eve and the Tree is an allegory of how humility was lost in pursuit of knowledge.

Thus humble was St Paul, and therefore said he thus of himself: Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or anguish, or distress,etc.? And he answereth himself, and saith: I am persuaded that no creature shall be able to separate me from the charity of God in Christ Jesus. Many men do deeds of charity, and have no charity, as I have said. To reprove a sinner for his sin to his amendment, in a convenient time, is a deed of charity; but to hate the sinner instead of the sin, is against charity. He that is verily humble can part the one from the other, and none but he. For though a man had all moral virtues of all the philosophers, he could not do this; he could be able to hate sin in other men (for he hateth it in himself), but he could not be able to love the man in charity, with all his philosophy. (John Climacus)

Humility does not replace judgment, humility informs judgment.

Humility allows us to distinguish sin from sinner and to love the sinner in a manner that gives us insight into the sin.

To know how and when to engage the sinner to separate from he sin is a skill allowed by humility.

Even as if the sinner were ourselves, as will often be the case.

Here it seemeth by St Paul’s words that a man may do all good deeds bodily without charity, and that charity is nought else but to love God and his neighbour as himself. How should, then, any wretched caitiff upon earth, whatever he be, have any delight or trust or security in himself for anything he doth or is able to do with all his bodily powers or natural wit, sith all this is nought worth without love and charity to his neighbour? And this charity cannot be gotten by his own working, for it is the free gift of God, sent only into an humble soul, as St Paul saith. Who then dare be so bold as to say: I have Christ, or I am charity? Verily no man can say it securely,or of a certainty, but he that is perfectly and truly humble; other men may trow of themselves, and hope that they be in charity by tokens; but he that is perfectly humble feeleth it, and therefore may say it securely. (John Climacus)

Humility, then, is the precondition for experiencing agape?

Climacus seems to say that agape is a gift of God that can only be received by the well-prepared heart.

In cultivating humility we prepare ourselves for seeds of love. If the seeds can be received, they will be bountiful.

But without humility - without choosing what seems to be self-sacrifice - we cannot know agape.

Break open the hard and stony ground of ego. Overturn the rich soil beneath.

Secondly, that it is a great mastery for a man to know how and to be able to love his neighbour in charity; all which may be plainly proved by St Paul’s words, thus: If I speak with the tongues of men and angels, if I have not charity, I am right nought; and if I have so great faith that I can overturn hills and bear them away, and have not charity, I am right nought. And also, though I had all manner of knowledge of all mysteries, and if I give all that I have to the poor, and my body to be burnt, and have not charity, it profiteth me right nought.(John Climacus)

Caritas is the Latin, from which we derive charity.

Agape (αγάπη) is the original Greek used in the reference to First Corinthians that Climacus offers above.

This is a love of other at least equal to love of self; it can be a self-sacrificing love, from which emerged the typical secular meaning of charity.

But this love goes well beyond cash - of whatever amount - given.

Through agape we identify with the other, recognizing we are of one body with the other, and through relationship with the other we will come to know our true self.

From this, therefore, we are to learn these two lessons. First, that we should love and worship all men in our hearts, and approve and think well of and receive all their deeds that have the likeness of goodness, though the doers be bad in the sight of God, except they be the deeds of known and open heretics, or of open cursed (or excommunicated) men; for of these two we are specially to fly and eschew their company and coming amongst them. And we are also to reprove and refuse their deeds, seem they never so good, as long as they are rebels to God and holy Church. And if a worldly, cursed (or excommunicated) man build a church, or feed poor men, thou mayest safely hold and judge such his doings to be noughts and deem them as they are. Also if an open heretic, who is a rebel to holy Church, preach and teach, though he convert a hundred thousand souls, thou mayest hold the deed, as to himself, right nought; for these men are openly out of charity, without which all is nought that a man doth. (John Climacus)

Intention matters. But intention can be beyond our knowing, often for ourselves and usually for others.

So if the deeds of others are superficially good, we should give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of their intention.

This is, I think, one of the wisest aspects of loving our neighbor as ourself. We can almost always find good intention to explain our own deeds, good or bad. In like manner we are to honor the deeds and intentions of our neighbors.

And, therefore, for the learning of this hard lesson, thou must understand and consider that a good man for the love of God fasteth, watcheth, goeth on pilgrimage and forsaketh all the pleasures of the world sincerely in his heart, without feigning, and he hath his reward in heaven; and an hypocrite doth the same deeds out of vain-glory and for love of himself, and receiveth his reward here. Also, a true preacher of God’s Word, filled with charity and humility, sent of God and received and approved by the Church, if he preach and teach God’s Word, shall have a special reward of God; that is the aureola for his preaching. And an hypocrite or an heretic that hath no humility or charity, nor is sent of God nor yet of holy Church, if they preach, they have their reward here. Also a good man living in the world for the love of God buildeth many churches, chapels, abbeys, hospitals and doth other many good deeds of mercy, and he shall have his reward in the bliss of heaven, not for the deed in itself, but for the good will and the charity that he hath in him by the gift of God for to do these good deeds. Another man out of vanity of himself and worship and pleasing of the world and for his own name doth the same good deeds, and hath his reward here. The cause in all these is that the one hath charity and the other none; but which is the one and which is the other, our Lord knoweth, and none but He. (John Climacus)

I wonder if we, ourselves, can ever be sure of our motivations. If even the hypocrite and saint are included in the none that know.

I also wonder if in whatever we do, and however mixed our motivation, we may be susceptible to God's help. The first sphere of Dante's paradise is for those who contributed to God's purpose even though they were unable to keep their vows.

Vanity can be a step on the ladder to higher purpose. Hypocrisy involves at least a faint knowledge of the truth. God finds us where we are and, if we are listening, helps us make our way to a better place.

For though it be true that all those deeds before said be good in themselves, yet are they common to good men and to bad, for every man may do them if that he would and have wherewith. And for thee to do that which every man may do, I hold it no mastery; but to love thy neighbour in charity and hate his sin can no man do, save only good men, who have it by the gift of God and not by their own travail, as St Paul saith: Love and charity is shed abroad in your hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given to you. And, therefore, it is more precious and more dainty to come by. All other good deeds without this make not a man good nor worthy of the bliss of heaven, but this alone, and only this, maketh a man good and all his good deeds to be medeful. All other gifts of God and works of man are common to good and bad, to the chosen and the reprobate; but this gift of charity is proper only to good and chosen souls. (John Climacus)

The gospel lesson on Sunday in many churches was the story of the Good Samaritan, told by Jesus in answer to the question, "Who is my neighbor?"

Over the weekend and on Monday I was in New York. I passed many panhandlers. I edged away from them, did not look at them, did not give them cash.

I did not love them. I certainly did not act with charity, in any meaning of the word. This is how I respond to the clearest need. I do even less for those in Haiti, Sudan, or down the road.

The image is of the Good Samaritan by Ferdinand Hodler.

It is no mastery to watch and fast till thy head ache; nor to run to Rome or Jerusalem on pilgrimage upon thy bare feet; nor for to stir about and preach, as if thou wouldst turn all men by thy preaching. Nor is it any mastery to build churches or chapels, or to feed poor men and build hospitals. But it is a mastery for a man to love his neighbour in charity, and wisely hate his sin, and love the man. (John Climacus)

Neither Deuteronomy nor Jesus diectly reference hating our neighbors sin.

Instead we are to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind and our neighbor as ourselves. All the rest is commentary.

More than any specific deed, it is the relationship with our neighbor that establishes our relationship with God.