Daniel's meditations/ Daniel Topalski's Bilingual Blog: ПРЕОСМИСЛЯНЕ НА СВ. ПРИЧАСТИЕ

Daniel's meditations/ Daniel Topalski's Bilingual Blog: ПРЕОСМИСЛЯНЕ НА СВ. ПРИЧАСТИЕ: I. Въведение: автентични и легитимни „пътеуказатели“ на изследването С настоящия текст предлагам кратко критично изследване на съвременнот...

Scripture and Tradition of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral as a possible starting point for Methodist-Orthodox dialogue

Seeking via media of the relationships between Methodism and Eastern Orthodoxy

From the beginning, the people of the Methodist movement in the Anglican church were predominantly practising the faith in Jesus Christ as they understood it. John Wesley from the same beginning of the Methodist revival insisted on priority of orthopraxy (right practice, putting beliefs into action) over orthodoxy (right belief, conformity to those doctrines, which are considered normative for the Christian tradition)¹. This right practising was initiated by compassion to the poor and oppressed, by deep desire for restoring the Primitive Church spirituality. First Methodists counted themselves obliged to dress their faith in proper acts. Although Methodism was predominantly practical, we can see it was not a theologically neutral movement. Wesley and his contemporary divines within Methodism were strongly defending certain theological positions, for example Arminian (also Eastern-Orthodox/EO/) cooperation of God's grace and human will or Anglican (also Roman-Catholic and EO) belief of the necessity for frequent communion as a means of grace.

For the Methodists living in mainly protestant countries Eastern Orthodoxy is usually something ancient and interesting, and it is. But if we talk about living and being a Methodist in a country in which Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC) is the official state church, it's a real challenge. In a short brochure entitled "Orthodox and Methodists" prepared by the Joint Preparatory Commission, which is expected to launch an International Orthodox-Methodist Dialogue, the characteristic mark of the Orthodox churches, given by the Orthodox representatives, is "their attachment to the uninterrupted Holy Tradition of the Apostles and the Fathers". When most of the Evangelicals living in Orthodox context encounter its Tradition², reactions are rather negative. It's due to the fact Tradition brings necessity to accept it as something whole and unchangeable, not to choose what you like from it. This makes every other tradition vulnerable of criticism for differing from the only real Tradition of the Church. This often leads to argument and rejection from the Evangelicals of either the whole Tradition (the whole body of writings and beliefs of the Holy Fathers throughout the centuries) or the EO way of life and worship as empty religion, far away from the Primitive Church's practice and doctrine. In the words of prof. Alexander Dvorkin, "the argument between Evangelicals and Orthodox christians is not argument between Scripture and Tradition, but an argument between Tradition and traditions. Every evangelic group has its own little tradition, which begins its existence under the most favourable circumstances from grandfather or father of the pastor or (most probably) from the pastor himself. The pastor interprets the Scriptures in the light of his own tradition and the congregation accept this interpretation. Whoever does not accept it goes to another pastor, who has his own tradition"³. Although radical, Dvorkin's statement has its strong logic and illustrates the orthodox way of seeing tradition. Having this sketch of orthodox' attitude toward Tradition and traditions on mind, we can quickly realise vanity of our efforts for seeking common ground. I'll rather try to find via media of relationships between the two traditions. The challenge for us is to find a ground for Orthodox-Wesleyan dialogue and to develop our local identity based not on opposition but on building theological bridges.

In this work I will compare how the EO and the Methodist Church (MC) understand Scriptures

and Tradition. I will try to find common ground for Methodist-Orthodox dialogue, looking at these elements of the Quadrilateral. My goal is neither seeking unity between the two churches based on our hermeneutical principles, nor total agreement in theological opinions (which is possible only if we accept the whole Tradition and begin to live and be a church according to it). I would like to reason what place can Methodist tradition have in a reality highly dominated by EO spirituality, and try to mark some theological intersection points which can facilitate dialogue between the two churches in a more personal level.

Understanding and authority of the Scriptures in the Methodist and EO churches

In the preface to the Forty-four Sermons, Wesley describes himself as 'a man of one book' (homo unius libri)⁴. Actually he has never been that kind of person. He has read a lot of books throughout his life. What is true about Wesley is that he was a man of the Book, of the Bible. The authority of God's Word for him was the base for right theologizing, Christian living and ministry. Christian church has never been church of one book, as theologians in the History haven't been men of one book . The Scriptures have always been the common way of revelation of God, but not the only source of Christian testimony. Many scholars would agree that Wesley counted for most important sources of authority Scriptures and Experience. The important question for us is "Which are the rest of way-directing documents, the other sources of revelation, which are authoritative for us, when we have to adjudge something related to our faith?" Without any doubt we can say that in the mindset of John Wesley Scriptures had a fundamental place. The way he used the Bible, shows that he firmly believed it is the Word of God, through which by the illumination of the Holy Spirit God speaks to us today. For Wesley scripture is both the source and the norm for truth, and has the leading role in the system of authorities.⁵ Barrie Tabraham gives an interesting example about the operating of the four elements of Quadrilateral in Wesley's thinking. He illustrates it with the mobile hanging from a ceiling and rotating slowly in the moving air. In the centre is Scripture, and around it are Tradition, Reason, and Experience. Like the mobile, Wesley's theology is a dynamic thing which is always moving and developing⁶. Tabraham presents Scriptures as a constant, which is the axis the other three circulate around. They cannot move the centre. What they can is just affirm it. Ted Campbell shows that Reason and Experience are subordinate to Scriptures "Wesley valued experience especially as human contact with God, and he believed that our experience of the divine also illumined our own spiritual quest and (combined with reason) could clarify the meaning of the Bible. ... in every case he insisted that the use of reason and experience could not stand by themselves but had to be guided by Scripture". Both scholars insist on fundamental place of the Holy Scriptures. Daryl McCarthy in the article "Early Wesleyan Views of Scripture" proves that John Wesley believed in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. He supported Lutheran view of interpretation of obscure scriptural texts by those, which speak more plainly⁷. Adam Clarke, the great Wesleyan commentator, Richard Watson, the first systematic theologian of early Wesleyanism also affirm the inerrancy of Scripture⁸. For Watson the only standard of doctrine, and the source of all true moral knowledge and influence are the Scriptures. He also stated that the Christian response to Scriptural revelation is to be found in "full submission to its authority"⁹. The fifth Article of Religion of the Methodist Church speaks of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for salvation. It gives us also one hermeneutical key - we are not required to believe anything that is not found in Scripture, or proved by Scripture. It is too similar and close to the Reformation's principle Sola Scriptura. Wesley did not systematically develop a hermeneutical program, but we can easily find in his expositions echoes of the reformers' approach to Scriptures, for example Luther's exaltation of grammatical sense, Zwingli's exegetical methods and Calvin's historical emphasis.¹⁰ Wesley stood in concordance with the literal sense of every text. He did not wish to depart from the plain, literal sense unless it implied an absurdity.¹¹

In an official document of the General Board of Discipleship and General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns named "Report on the Consultation on Scriptural Authority and the Nature of God's Revelation /RCSA/"¹², group of Methodist scholars summed up the basic points of the contemporary Methodist understanding on authority of God's revelation in the Bible. Delwin Brown supposes that "the Bible does not have an authority, but many authorities as it speaks with many voices and sometimes offers a variety of answers to the same questions. ... Authority is that which authors, which gives being to, forms, calls to creativity ... To limit authority to rules of doctrines is to deny the power of Scripture to change lives, the power to author Christian lives."¹³ Brown seems to forget the basic truth that the authority of Scriptures comes from God, Who is the Author of the Bible, and Who speaks today to plural people in various situations with one voice - the voice of the Truth, Who is only one. The Bible has been written as a product of divine-human cooperation, which does not mean that human authors speak to us via its words, but the Holy Spirit illumines us to understand the Truth. There are not many truths for many people, but one Truth, Who affects differently the different people. It is not the Truth which is plural, but the ways people individually interpret it. Only Christ has the power to author our lives, not the dead letter.

The understanding of Scriptures and their authority in the EO church is similar to the Methodist’s, but the main difference is in the way EO Christians see the Bible. EOC believes the books of the holy scriptures are God-inspired and containing all truth, necessary for us to keep us in the life of God and to make us “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15) but there is something more. Father John Romanidis explains shortly what is the EO view of Sciptures: “…so described heritage of the Holy Tradition existed before the creation of the world. It is revealed to the Old Testament prophets, illumined through the Incarnation of the Word and is active in purification, enlightenment and deification (theosis) of believers, who live in the Church. All this makes clear, that Holy Tradition, i.e. the heritage, is not something differing from Holy Scriptures, because it is contained there. …there is no difference between heritage, which is in the Holy Writings and heritage, which is in the Church. Nevertheless the heritage – as it is described in the Holy Scriptures – does not exist in the Holy Writings so far as it goes, but only in the Church, because she is body and bride of the Bridegroom Christ…”¹⁴ In EO understanding as we just saw, the Church gives authority to the Scriptures. They do not have it in themselves but only in the Church (i.e. EO Church).

Tradition in the Methodist and EO churches

Daniel Berg makes clear the fact, that argument about authority of the Scriptures between American Wesleyan liberals (willing to subject the Scriptures to modern canons of human knowledge) and fundamentalists (convinced that such exegesis is the natural product of a naturalistic mindset) leads to a division in the ranks of American Wesleyanism. He concludes "What we will do with the Scriptures and what we will do with our increased awareness of institutional evil leaves us with no choice but to risk the tradition in the quest for relevant change"¹⁵. In fact we cannot risk the tradition, but the traditions, because the liquid, eclectic Weslean development of tradition is not subordinate to any strong historical theological system, but is refined mixture of conclusions and beliefs, which Wesley and the consequent Methodist theologians extracted from different traditions and experience (which tends to turn into tradition, as the case of American Holiness Movement¹⁶) and put into practice. Luther, the pietists of the Anglican tradition (Jeremy Taylor, William Law etc.), German Roman-Catholic mystic Toma à Kempis and many others deeply influenced Wesley's beliefs and life¹⁷.

Philip Schaff in his book "Creeds of Chistendom"¹⁸ describes correspondence which went off the years from 1573 to 1581, between the Patriarch of Constantinople at that time - Jeremiah II and two Lutheran professors of theology at Tübingen - Jacob Andrae, one of the authors of the Lutheran 'Form of Concord' and Martin Crusius, a rare Greek scholar. The two professors sent to Jeremiah II several copies of the Augsburg Confession in Greek, together with a translation of some sermons of Andrae and an official expression of views on the Lutheran doctrines which they thought were in harmony with those of the EOC. For their surprise, although the Patriarch went off the correspondence in a friendly manner, he subjected the Augsburg Confession to an unfavourable criticism, rejected nearly all of its distinctive doctrines¹⁹ and commended only its endorsement of the first four oecumenical Synods and its view on the marriage of priests. When later Andrae and Crusius sent him a defense of the Confession, Jeremiah reaffirmed his former position and when the Lutherans try to trouble him with new letters, he declined the correspondence and ceased to answer. The Patriarch expressed his hope that union between the two churches is possible if they reach mutual concordance on the whole teaching of the EOC i.e. if they adopt the whole Holy Tradition, not only the first five centuries. In 1672, the answers of Jeremiah were approved by the Synod of Jerusalem as truly expressing the mindset of the EOC towards Protestantism as a whole. This Synod rejects Calvinism and Lutheranism as dangerous heresies. Therefore the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone, accepted and emphasised by Wesley²⁰ is heretical by the EO point of view.

It's hard to prove EO fathers did directly form the theology of Wesley or some aspects of his practice. Prof. Richard Heitzenrater proves that although many scholars for many years have followed Albert Outler in his stressing Wesley's reliance upon the early church writers their direct influence is not so significant²¹. John Wesley read few works or parts of them of only fourteen Fathers or church writers throughout his life - Augustine, Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Ephrem Syrus, Tertullian, John Chrysostom, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Origen, Basil of Caesarea, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna and Macarius. Having in mind the big number of books and writings of the EO Fathers John Wesley read, Heitzenrater found out that during the Oxford period Wesley read six of these authors, which represented less than one percent of his reading list. Prof. Heitzanrater marks that "there are both absolutely and relatively very few references in Wesley's published writings to his having read the Fathers. There are a few additional references to these readings, however, in his private diaries"²². Having this statement in mind, statistically Wesley formed his views more through reading other books than reading EO Fathers. Although very similar to EO, the theology of Wesley seems to have been formed through indirect impact of Anglican and puritan authors more than direct adoption of teachings of the Fathers, as argues Kenneth Collins. The same conclusion makes Heitzanrater: "It is my suspicion that many of the early church ideas and practices passed through several filters before reaching Wesley from a number of sources"²³. We can just give an account of the fact, that some of the very typical EO views found place in Wesley and early Methodists doctrine and practice - Gregory Palamas' teaching of 'uncreated light' (compared to Wesley's teaching of prevenient, jusifying and sanctifying grace), deeply sacramental theology with emphasizing the main role of Holy Eucharist in the church life and worship, and the goal of perfection or holiness of life as in the Hesychasm, which parallel to Methodism emphasize that religion depends on spiritual experience of the Divine²⁴.

Something very typical of the EO understanding of Scriptures is they never split Holy Tradition and Holy Scriptures. Georges Florovsky put it in a very clear way: "The Scriptures "belong" to the church, are committed to her and not to individual believers. A faithful guide is required for true exegesis. The church catholic is that guide. Or in other words, Scripture is given and preserved in tradition. Tradition and Scripture are inseparable."²⁵ EOC does not believe the Holy Tradition can ever be changed, nor grow, because actually It is "the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3). It is given in and for the Church. It is kept by the Church. This view of Tradition is principally different from the Methodist's, which is flexible and depends on the way we interpret history, Scriptures and Fathers. The Methodist tradition is something growing and developing, something born in praxis. The truth of our tradition and the truth of the Scriptures are not united and unseparable. The Orthodox Tradition is something that have to be kept and delivered wholly without any change, something lived in the Church. It's unchangeable in the same its nature, and has always been believed in the Church. Tradition is not "an independent instance, nor a complementary source of doctrine. It is no more than Scripture being interpreted according to the catholic mind of the church, which is the guardian of the apostolic "rule of faith." ... Scripture is an adequate source. But only in so far as it is read and interpreted in the church which is the guardian both of the Holy Writ and of the total apostolic 'paradosis' of faith, order and life. Tradition alone allows the church to go beyond the "letter" to the very Word of Life."²⁶

Seeking intersection points for dialogue between MC and EOC

In the RCSA Scott Jones reminded the most important standard for biblical interpretation for Wesley is the analogy of faith (including the three doctrines of Original Sin, Justification by Faith and Sanctification). It is the message that is consistent throughout the text of the Bible. Wesley understood the Bible predominantly as message. It's very close to the EO understanding of Tradition: the Truth kept and delivered throughout the centuries of the history. The Report brings us back in the time to the First Oecumenical Synod, when the EO fathers won a victory over the Arians. The Fathers based their arguments not on the Scriptural texts (as the Arians wanted), but on the rule of faith (which is the earliest confessions about Jesus, or the Tradition kept in the Church)²⁷. The same is said by Florovsky: "The Arians and their supporters had produced an impressive array of scriptural texts in defense of their doctrinal position. They wanted to restrict theological discussion to the biblical ground alone. ... It was imperative for the orthodox to appeal to the mind of the church, to that "faith" which had been once delivered and then faithfully kept. This was the chief concern and the usual method of the great Athanasius. In his arguments he persistently invoked the "rule of faith," much in the same manner as it had been done by the fathers of the second century. ... In contrast, the Arians had "no fathers" to support their doctrinal claims. Their blasphemy was a sheer innovation totally alien to apostolic tradition and to the overarching message of the Bible. ... In the whole discussion with the Arians there is no single reference to any "traditions" in the plural. The only appeal is to Tradition."²⁸

The 'analogy of faith' is something Wesley defined. He emphasized three doctrines he counted most important for the life and development of the church. Every single Methodist in the time of Wesley had to take them seriously if he wanted to remain in the ranks of the movement. John Wesley is often criticized about his tendency to put his authority and opinions over all of the Methodists. Till the time he was ill and old, and was forced to leave the rule, he dominated the movement as its 'father'. Wesley succeeded to put the Sermons and Minutes as a theological standard for the movement. But this is John Wesley's standard. We cannot run away from the question: "To what degree Methodism can be built on theological thinking of Wesley?" The Methodists accept the Sermons and Minutes as sources of authority. But they are just one of the possible interpretations of the Scriptures, so can they be authoritative for us today if they are built on Wesley's thinking? Does the father of Methodism gives us the truth of Christ's apostles and prophets? For many important questions the Sermons do not give us direct answer, for example what exactly means that babies has been made children of God in baptism. Does the baptism save? Are the babies lost without baptism, because that's the logical question consequent on the sacramental understanding. Institutional movement needs deep roots of tradition. Where are the borders of our tradition? It is hard to be defined.

The role of the "fifth" element of the Quadrilateral - the Community

Community is a base point for understanding and practising Scripture and Tradition. Wesley Ariarajah suggests that United Methodists in non-Western parts of the world would add to the Quadrilateral as a fifth element the Christian community. In his opinion "The Scripture has no authority apart from the community, and the community has no common point of reference other than what they have decided would be their Scripture."²⁹ If we accept his idea there appears a question: Do we have right to decide what should be our Scripture? Isn't all Scripture a norm for every Christian's life? Actually, historically, the Church adjudged in different Councils which books would be included in her New Testament Canon. But these were the books already in use for centuries in the churches. The Councils said 'yes' to these books, the Church had already said 'yes'. From that moment on the NT canon became normative for the whole Church of all times. As we see, the authority of Scriptures origins from the Holy Spirit, Who inspired human co-authors of the Bible to communicate the pure will of God for humanity, and parallel to it illumines people to rightly understand this objective truth. The Holy Spirit has cooperated with the Body of believers in the centuries in teaching them all truth. The council principle is essential for a church to remain biblical in her doctrine and practice. As Methodists we do not accept the whole EO Tradition, so the basis for our beliefs remains only the Scripture, as we interpret it. In a democratic church as ours there always exists the risk the General Conference to accept non biblical beliefs as normative for the Methodist Church. We have to believe God that His leading in the process of taking decision will not permit it.

Conclusion and practical suggestions

We have to go much deeper than Wesley to find our roots. We need strong unchangeable tradition which can guard our identity as Scriptural Christians. In a time of endless arguments for opinions based on the Bible we can see that Sola Scriptura is not enough to calm down and reconcile, or adjudge between different theological opinions. Today plurality of voices does not direct, but rather distract us. The voice of John Wesley is not authoritative and loud enough to unite us. Many of the works of the scholars nowadays are just repeating and citing opinions of other scholars. That leads us nowhere. We have to go back to the Fathers again. When we fight today against contemporary Arians we can go to ask for help St. Athanasius. When we fight against Nestorians we can go and read the arguments of St. Cyril of Alexandria. There is nothing new under the sun. And the Fathers can answer our questions better than contemporary scholars. Actually the saints of the early Christian history have works, more relevant to our life than the books of majority of nowadays scholars. Of course we cannot deny that efforts of our contemporary theologians to find Scriptural solution of many nowadays problems are not senseless or useless. But the Fathers have written for and found solution of the problems which are not just problems of their time, but of Christian church of any time.

What we can do in our intercourse with the Eastern-Orthodoxy is firstly try to find common theological language. Many of our views are similar, but we express it in a different way, with a different terminology. If we try to listen more carefully we will surely have more fruitful dialogue. It's obvious in our dialogue with the orthodox Christians we don't have to seek intersection points in our scriptural understanding, because they also see God's Word as a message and God-inspired truth, but rather in the Tradition. We have to acknowledge better the Tradition, which will help us to understand EO spirituality better and will naturally lead us to a more friendly and mutually advantageous communication.

Endnotes:

(1) See Theodore Runyon, The New Creation: John Wesley's Theology Today, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1998, pp.147-148.

(2) In this work I use Tradition with capital t, for the Eastern-Orthodox Tradition.

(3) Translation from Russion is mine, from А. Л. Дворкин, “Сектоведение. Тоталитарные секты. Опыт систематического исследования”, Издательство братства во имя св. князя Александра Невского, Нижний Новгород, 2002, chapter 16:3 http://pravbeseda.ru/library/index.php?page=book&id=924

(4) John Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasion, EPWORTH, 1944, p. vi.

(5) Tamara Grdzelidze, The Authority of Scriptural Interpretation: An Orthodox Perspective on the Positions of John Wesley and Modern Methodism, "Orthodox and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and Practice", ST VLADIMIR'S SEMINARY PRESS, Crestwood, New York 10707, 2005, p. 131.

(6) Barrie W. Tabraham, The Making of Methodism (second revised and updated edition), EPWORTH, 2010, p. 27.

(7) Daryl McCarthy, "Early Wesleyan Views of Scripture", WTJ, vol. 16, 2, 1981, p. 98.

(8) Ibid, pp. 100, 101.

(9) Ibid, p. 103.

(10) Larry Shelton, John Wesley's Approach to Scripture in Historical Perspective, WTJ, 1981, 16-1, p. 26.

(11) Ibid, p. 42.

(12) See it on http://www.gbod.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=nhLRJ2PMKsG&b=5819089&ct=8163021

(13) See the Report, pp.18-19.

(14) Translation from Bulgarian is mine from the Bulgarian edition of Protopresbyter John Romanidis’ book “An Outline of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics, in Greek and English”, Translated and Edited with an Introduction, Orthodox Research Institute, Rollinsford, New Hampshire, 2004, pp. 93-94.

(15) Daniel Berg, The Theological Context of American Wesleyanism, WTJ, vol. 20, 1, Spring, 1985, ps. 54, 57.

(16) See Leon Hynson, The Wesleyan Quadrilateral in the American Holiness Tradition, WTJ, vol.20, 1, 1985, p. 26.

(17) See Kenneth J. Collins, John Wesley's Critical Appropriation of Tradition in his Practical Theology, WTJ, vol. 35, 2, 2000, p. 71.

(18) Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume I. The History of Creeds.   http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.v.iii.html

(19) It would have been especially frustrating for the Lutherans, Jeremiah rejects their doctrine of justification by faith alone and the view in 18-th article of the Confession that a man cannot be saved if he leads a good life out of his free will, unless God gives him grace. See the outline of the correspondence by Stephen Runciman on

http://www.pravoslavieto.com/inoverie/protestantism/luther/luther_had_his_chance.htm

(20) Articles of Religion - Art. IX "....Wherefore, that we are justified by faith, only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort."

(21) Richard P. Heitzenrater, John Wesley's Reading of and References to the Early Church Fathers, "Orthodox and Wesleyan Spirituality", ST VLADIMIR'S SEMINARY PRESS, Crestwood, New York, 2002.

(22) Ibid, pp. 25, 26.

(23) Ibid, p. 31.

(24) James H. Charlesworth, Two Similar Spiritual Paths: Methodism and Greek Orthodoxy, "Orthodox and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and Practice", ST VLADIMIR'S SEMINARY PRESS, Crestwood, New York 10707, 2005, p. 119.

(25) Georges Florovsky, Scripture and Tradition: An Orthodox Point of View, I.

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sipture_tradition_florovsky.htm

(26) Ibid, V.

(27) RCSA, op. cit., p.10.

(28) Florovsky, IV.

(29) RCSA, op. cit., p. 19.

"Млъкнете и знайте, че Аз съм Бог"

 

Първият учебен ден. Новата учителка върви към своето работно място. Ударите на токовете ѝ по твърдия под отекват в празния коридор. Всички други учители вече са започнали занятия. Тя отлага до последно момента на срещата с класа. Очите ѝ неспокойно се взират към края на коридора, където е стаята. Осми „Б“ клас. Най-проблемният. „Как ли ще се справя? - мисли си младата учителка. - Ще успея ли да ги обуздая?“ Остават само няколко последни метра до тринадесета стая. „Фаталното число! Дано не е знаменателна за началото на края на учителската ми практика!“ Шумът от ученическата глъчка в стаята вече достига до слуха ѝ. Прави още няколко крачки и ... вратата с трясък се отваря метър преди да застане пред нея. Отвътре изхвърчат разчорлено момиче и ухилен пъпчив тийнейджър, който я преследва. Забелязват учителката пред тях. Следва миг неудобство, в който измънкват нещо към нея, само за да може след това момичето да заблъска хлапака обратно в стаята с викове: „Ар’ влизай вътре-е, памперс, почва чъсъ, ни виждъш ли?“. Невъобразимият шум вътре се редуцира с няколко децибела. Учителката влиза след тях и се насочва към катедрата. Пред носа ѝ прехвърча смачкан лист хартия, следван от оглушителен пристъп на смях, ръмжене, оригване и отново смях. Изправя се на катедрата. За части от секундата се опитва да си спомни няколко педагогически похвата за справяне в подобни ситуации, но притеснението парализира мозъка ѝ. „Здравейте! Аз съм ...“ „Пикла!“ - се чува женски глас от последните чинове. Веднага едно от момичетата се нахвърля върху друго с вик: „Ти на кого викаш пикла, бе!“ Отново смях и шеги ... „Престанете веднага! - престрашава се да извика учителката. - Ще повикам охраната ...“ „Повикай Господ, ако щеш“ - контрира я една от двете хулиганки, заета да скубе другата. Боят и крясъците им продължават. Одобрителните възгласи и подкани на останалите ученици стават все по-силни. Целият шум и абсурдността на ситуацията се забива като свредел в главата на младата учителка. Накрая в безпомощността си тя извиква „Млъкнете!“, но поради емоциите и възбудата от устата ѝ се изстрелва само едно пискливо „ ... нете“, което предизвиква нова вълна от смях. Това прелива чашата и тя излиза с бързи крачки от стаята, едва сдържайки сълзите си.

Този въображаем провал на младата учителка илюстрира една важна истина: Без да замълчим, без да се заслушаме, не можем да разберем, нито да узнаем какъв е Бог. Никой от учениците в класа не се заслуша, не попита: „Какво имаше да ни каже учителката?“. Всичко, което чуха, бе смехът, глупостите и шумотевицата в стаята. Те чуваха, но не слушаха. И учителката си тръгна. Също толкова тихо, колкото и влезе.

В нашето забързано, динамично ежедневие често се налага да избягаме, за да замълчим. Понякога най-трудното нещо е да спрем да говорим. Ние говорим, когато се храним, говорим, когато работим, говорим дори когато спим. Освен това, сме свикнали на шум. Пристрастени сме към шума. Не можем да живеем без шум. Когато отидем за ден-два на почивка в някое тихо планинско селце, ние си вземаме MP3 плейъра, а ако сме направили тежък планински преход, вечерта, за да си починем, сядаме... пред телевизора. Такава „неестествена“ тишина ни изнервя.

В Псалм 46 Бог се обръща към читателите с думите: „Млъкнете и знайте, че Аз съм Бог!“. Господ добре знае колко ни е трудно да замълчим, да притихнем пред Него, за да Го чуем. Не е лесно. Не защото Той не ни говори, а защото ние не искаме да Го чуем.

И днес гласът на Богочовека Христос все още ни говори „Който има уши да слуша, нека слуша" (Лк. 8:8). Той трябваше да извика това, сякаш за да ни каже: „Как искам всички да имате уши да Ме чуете!“.

Но дори и за тези от нас, които имат способността, желанието и стремежа да Го слушат, Той е определил специално място за това - вътрешната ни стаичка. Защо пък е необходима такава особена стая? Не е ли достатъчно просто да спрем да говорим и да избягаме някъде далеч от хората, да останем „насаме“? Не може ли просто да изхвърлим MP3 плейъра, да изключим телефона, да потърсим някоя девствена полянка, да отидем там в хубав слънчев ден, за да останем поне за малко далеч от шума на колите, празните разговори, бърборенето на телевизора, напева на поредния клип от YouTube. Това сигурно ще е достатъчно. Тогава ще сме млъкнали и ще разберем. Нищо няма да разберем! Ще сме заглушили всички физически дразнители, но какво да направим с... мислите?! Как да избягаме от тях? Те постоянно ни напомнят за шума на колите, за празните разговори... В тях постоянно се срещаме и говорим с приятелите, с колегите, с половинките си.

Да-а, както изглежда, да сме „насаме“ не е достатъчно тихо. Наистина вътрешната стаичка се превръща в доста желана дестинация. „Когато се молиш, влез във вътрешната си стаичка и като затвориш вратата, се помоли на своя Отец, Който е в тайно"(Мт.6:6). Трябва да затворя вратата? Ами да, когато не искаме да чуваме виковете на пияните или пък жалното мяукане на разгонените котки, слагаме качествена PVC дограма с троен стъклопакет и край - „не спира влака, спира шума“, както се казва в една реклама. Значи тази вътрешна стаичка ни изолира от външните въздействия. Там можем спокойно и без да се разсейваме да обърнем духовния си взор единствено към Бога. Единствено там можем да замълчим... Тишина. Единствено аз и Той. Не съм важен аз, а Той. Аз мълча, нека Той да говори.

„Но чакай малко, нали трябваше да се молиш във вътрешната стаичка, как така мълчиш?“ Хм, добър въпрос. Почти ме хвана, но виж, аз съм само с Него. Умът ми е само в Него, сърцето ми е само в Него. Дори молитвата ми е тишина. Тя не заглушава Неговия глас, а го прави по-ясен. Глас от много води. Защо аз Го чувам, а пияните от другата страна на стъклопакета не? Защото аз съм вътре. Във вътрешната стаичка. И Той ми дава слушащо ухо. Всичко външно е навън. Всичко, което Му пречи да ми каже, да ми покаже, за да разбера. Всичко, което Го заглушава. Всичко, което ме разсейва. Аз и Той. И знаеш ли - Той ми разкрива Себе Си. Показва ми какъв е. Тихо, нежно: „Аз съм Бог“. И аз го знам. Не знам как, но го знам - Той е Бог. Напълно Бог, напълно човек. Исус Христос. Господ мой и Бог мой!