Missions and Phronema

What does the Greek term “phronema” mean? According to the Wikipedia, “Phronema is a transliteration of [a] Greek word, . . . which has the meanings of ‘mind’, ‘spirit’, ‘thought’, ‘purpose’, ‘will’, and can have either a positive meaning (‘high spirit’, ‘resolution’, ‘pride’) or a bad sense (‘presumption’, ‘arrogance’). . . . The term phronema is used in Eastern Orthodox theology to one particular mindset or outlook’ – the Orthodox mind. The attaining of phronema in this sense is a matter of practicing the correct faith (orthodoxia) in the correct manner (orthopraxis). Attaining phronema is regarded as the first step toward theosis, the state of glorification.” It is very important that you note that phronema can have a negative meaning as well as a positive meaning. Why? Because in Scripture and in Holy Tradition and in Church history, one can see both the positive and the negative sides of “phronema”.

You see, phronema can be both a help and a problem in the mission field, and one can see that in the history of the Church. On the positive side, phronema is a facet of Holy Tradition, that is, the received wisdom of the Church as expressed both in her writings and in her practices. Thus, one can read Saint Paul telling the Corinthians, “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you. . . .” That is, phronema, at its best, forms the boundaries within which the Church functions. In this Scripture one can read that Saint Paul is clearly saying to the Corinthians that there are limits within which they must function.

But, phronema, in its negative sense, is also found in Scripture. The Judaizers were an example of those who were convinced that everything had to be done exactly in the same way in which it was done in the “old” country. In this case, the old country was Messianic Christianity, that is, a Christianity which continued to observe the Old Testament ceremonial law, even though it was no longer required. The diatribes of Saint Paul, found in places such as the Epistle to the Galatians, and the Epistle to the Colossians, etc., record the arguments that even the apostles engaged in as they struggled to discern what God’s will was for the mission areas of Samaria, Asia, Greece, and Rome. Saint Paul even says, “In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.” Finally, Saint Luke records that, finally, a Church Council had to be held in order to resolve the arguments.

That same process, found in Scripture, has been repeated over and over again in Church history. One can read of the concerns that were expressed during the work of Saints Cyril and Methodius. Saint Gregory the Dialoguist writes some advice to Saint Augustine of Canterbury, and sends it by mean of a fellow bishop:

Tell Augustine that he should by no means destroy the temples of the gods but rather the idols within those temples. Let him, after he purified them with holy water, place altars and relics of the saints in them. For, if those temples are well built, they should be converted from the worship of demons to the service of the true God. Thus, seeing that their places of worship are not destroyed, the people will banish error from their hearts and come to places familiar and dear to them in acknowledgement and worship of the true God. Further, since it has been their custom to slaughter oxen in sacrifice to the demons, they should receive some solemnity in exchange. Let them, therefore, on the day of the dedication of their churches, or on the feast of those martyrs whose relics are preserved in them build themselves huts around their one-time temples and celebrate the occasion with religious feasting. They will sacrifice and eat the animals not any more as an offering to the Devil, but for the glory of God, to whom, as the giver of all things, they will give thanks for having been satisfied. Thus, if they are not deprived of all the exterior joys, they will more easily taste the interior ones. For surely it is impossible to efface everything all at once from their… minds, just as, when someone wishes to reach the top of a mountain, he must climb by stages and step by step, not by leaps and bounds… Mention this then to our brother the bishop, that he may dispose of the matter as he sees fit according to the conditions of time and place.

In other words, the bottom line is that there is no one Orthodox phronema, but there are multiple phronemi. Each phronema is composed of those things that are unchangeable and must be passed on. Saint Paul’s insistence to the Corinthians was that they must keep what he passed on to them because it was what he had received. Or, as the Ecumenical Councils assert when they insist that what they have decided is in accord with what the Holy Fathers have taught us, this is the faith that we have received. But, each phronema is also composed of those adjustments that have been made in order for the faith to fit into the local context.

In Orthodox history, these local adjustments have led to the two great streams of Orthodoxy, Byzantine and Russian. But, what does this mean for American Orthodoxy?

===MORE TO COME===