"Rejoice always" (1 Thessalonians 5:16) Archpriest from FOMA

I have great confidence in the publications in "Foma" and I hope that you will answer my question (it is far from idle for me). Maybe I'm wrong? How does Orthodoxy really relate to the human body and earthly joys? Is it possible to save the soul without neglecting them? Anna, Moscow Christianity believes that the body is the dungeon of the soul? Does Christianity forbid people any bodily pleasures? Does Christianity call to hate your body? These are myths about Christianity. But what about in reality? “ "Rejoice always" (1 Thessalonians 5:16) Archpriest Nikolai Yemelyanov There is an Orthodox dogma, but there are primitive stereotypes about Orthodoxy. Among these stereotypes is the opinion that in Orthodoxy all earthly joys are considered a sin. Before going directly to this question, it is necessary to say that the more serious the question, the more difficult it is to answer it in two words. Sometimes no words are enough, because a person should grow to the answer, feel it himself, suffer. Of course, this does not mean that the Church does not have an answer about the "attitude to the human body". There is a doctrine of the Church, which speaks about it quite definitely. In every textbook of Orthodox dogmatics there is a chapter on the meaning of the body in the life of man. However, reading the chapter from the textbook and even understanding the internal logic of the text - it does not mean to accept it. To understand how to apply the answers from the textbook to real life is a much more difficult task. Anyone who sincerely thinks about complex philosophical questions should, firstly, seek an answer not only in theory, but also in a positive life experience, and secondly, never trust the "generally accepted opinion." The author of the letter, Anna, puts the problem very clearly: "the soul is saved in the Church, therefore they neglect their body and various bodily pleasures." It can be seen from the letter that Anna is embarrassed by this circumstance. First, it is necessary to understand what exactly is meant by a "disparaging attitude" and in what this attitude is expressed. “ We all realize that there are values ​​in life for which it is worth neglecting any bodily pleasures, and sometimes your body. The donor gives his blood to a seriously ill person, the mother, bearing a child, limits herself in many ways, sometimes sacrifices her health for the sake of children's health, and finally, the soldier sacrifices his life to protect the Motherland. On the other hand, there are many such bodily pleasures, which are undoubtedly a sin. For example, any kind of drugs, gluttony, sexual promiscuity, etc. Such "pleasures" require not only a disdainful attitude, but a firm and uncompromising rejection. With this, everything is clear, but Anna has in mind something else. Trying to flesh out the question, she writes: "Is it not possible to dress beautifully and fashionably, make yourself a beautiful hairstyle or have the latest model of a cell phone?" It would seem that the question is very simple and the answer to it is self-evident: "Of course it can!" Common sense suggests that it's better to dress beautifully, and not ugly, it's better to have a nice haircut, and not to walk disheveled, and finally, the last model of a cell phone can be more convenient than the previous one. “ Christianity never goes against common sense when it comes to choosing the right one. The problem is different: how to choose? The question of a cell phone is probably the simplest example. Often it turns out that the latest phone model is far from the best, convenient and successful. Choosing it only because it is the last, that is, from some petty vanity, we can neglect more important things. But a cell phone is, of course, a trifle: a busy person will take the last model, just not to waste time searching. It is much more difficult to answer the question "can or can not" or "what is better" when it comes to buying really necessary things - or not very necessary, but desired. In this situation, the problem of choice can be much more complicated. I have known since the Soviet era an Orthodox family with many children, in which my father, a doctor of science, a professor, has always earned quite well enough for a large family to not need anything. One day, older children asked Mom why she would not buy a decent lampshade in the hall instead of a primitive plastic one? She replied that it would be better to buy a kilogram of oil and give the family to neighbors, who also had many children, but who were in great need. Children have grown up, they have their own happy families, their apartments. In the parents' house, and in the apartments of adult children hang expensive chandeliers for a long time, but I know that these children remember their children's words. The question arises: what kind of lamp shade in that particular situation was better: from Venetian glass or plastic? The question of clothing is much more complicated. Most often, choosing clothes, we first of all pay attention to how we will look in it, not on the quality of the material, tailoring or even on convenience. It turns out that this issue is directly related to the relationship between people. You can say that clothing is one of the ways of communication. It is significant that Anna started her question with beautiful and fashionable clothes, and not with a cell phone. There is an old joke connected with the fact that in Orthodox theology there are two competing traditions of understanding human nature: as a two-part (from the soul and body) or as a three-part (from the spirit, soul and body). So, they say that “ women's nature is unquestionably three-part, since it consists of soul, body and dress. In this joke there is some truth. Any girl knows perfectly well that depending on what she is wearing and how she looks, she will behave very differently, that is, in different ways to build her relationships with people. And deciding what to wear and what not to do, an Orthodox person should proceed from the way his clothes will influence these relations, in which direction they will be directed. Of course, no one will argue with the fact that clothes should be beautiful. The more beautiful the person tries to behave, the more beautiful will be his relationships with others. However, Anna says not only about beautiful clothes, but also about fashion. What does this mean? If you try to explain the concept of "fashion", you will have to admit that in essence it is close to two concepts: "like everything" and "modern". Note that fashion can be different, and modern fashion often relies on stressed ugliness, shocking. This, without a doubt, expresses disrespect, and even contempt for others, which neither Orthodoxy nor any normal person can approve. So in no case can not equate fashion and beauty. Secondly, let's try to understand what it means to be "fashionable" in terms of human relations. It would seem that the desire to be "like everyone", not only in clothes, but in general in life, helps to find a common language with any person. But in fact it leads to a terrible leveling. Everyone, regardless of his desire, requires compliance with some standard. This standard will always be very low, because it should be public. Moreover, if someone dares to rise a little higher, then he no longer "like everyone else" and "fashionable" society rejects it. For those who have at least thought about their souls, it is obvious that by this "like everyone" we are ready to justify any of our dirty feelings or actions. therefore “ Christianity in general is very wary of any form of calling to be "like everyone else." In particular, in relation to fashion. The desire to "be modern" in practice often means "to be without complexes" in the most vulgar sense of this expression. When fashionable clothes provoke an unclean and unchaste attitude toward a woman, Christianity can not approve of it. It values ​​women's dignity too much. In this case, the desire to "be fashionable", "to be modern" leads to a consumer, that is, the devil's attitude of people to each other, as opposed to the Christian sacrificial and careful. Proceeding from this principle - sacrificial and careful attitude towards man, -The Church always calls for modesty not only in clothes, but in general in life. Anna asks not only about clothes and phone. Her letter also mentions a hairdo. This is worth talking about separately, although this may seem strange to someone. Indeed, what is the question about the hairstyle different from the issue of clothing? It would seem that the same principle operates here: it is possible that what is beautiful and modest is not that which is either ugly or provocative. Nevertheless, there is a difference. The hairstyle is not any detail of clothes, it is a part of our body. And here it is already necessary to talk about how Christianity calls for treating your body. So how does Orthodoxy relate to the body? This question has a direct answer in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians speaks of the human body as "the temple of the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 6:19). With this understanding, there can be no question of neglecting the body! On the contrary, the Apostle Paul requires not only careful attitude to the body, but rather reverent, as to the shrine. Therefore, the last question from Anna's letter is whether it is possible to save the soul without neglecting the body. - receives an immediate response. You can not save the soul, neglecting and not caring about your body! In this matter, the Church has always been consistent. The attitude to the body in Christianity is determined by the fact that God became a man. He had the same body as all of us. And the Church from the first days of its existence rejected the doctrine of some "heavenly", "supernatural" origin of the body of Jesus Christ or that His incarnation was just an illusion. Christianity, unlike some eastern religions, claims that one soul without a body can not even be called a person. Death - the separation of the soul from the body is an unnatural and temporary state of people, and the day of the universal resurrection will come, when all people will receive their own, but transformed bodies. Why is the stereotype so stable that Christianity despises the body and abhors any manifestations of human corporeality? Here, truly devilish substitution of the concepts of "care" and "neglect." We impose a very characteristic understanding of this concern. First, to correct the body to your own taste, that is, paint, varnish, remade nepotravivshiysya parts or replace with artificial implants, etc. Secondly, save it only for yourself, that is, do not give birth to children, have more rest. Physically, you can exhaust your body only in sports simulators, but in no case on hard work or in the service of others. Finally, it is just necessary to cultivate all bodily desires. The Christian understanding of caring for one's body is exactly the opposite. First, we must strive not to alter, but maximally preserve and protect our body, which is given by God, as a precious gift. Secondly, we must protect it not only for ourselves, but for our loved ones, that is, to preserve health and physical purity for our children, for our husband or for our wife, for serving God and people. Finally, it is necessary to limit your bodily desires intelligently: in entertainment - to save enough energy and taste to work and care for others, in food - not to become like an animal, in sexual life - to abstain until marriage in order to acquire one unique, unique love, and in marriage - to learn to cherish and love your spouse. In the letter of Anna it is said that the Orthodox person is ashamed of earthly joys and therefore, from the psychological point of view, must suffer from neuroses. Paradoxically, the Church knew about this danger long before psychology became a science. In one very ancient monument of monastic literature there is a story about a hunter who came upon a convent known for the severity of his statute. He was very unhappy with the fact that the head of the monastery - hegumen joked and laughed with the monks. This did not prevent the abbot from observing the embarrassment of the guest and he asked the hunter to pull the bow of his bow as hard as possible. Then he asked: "What will happen if it is pulled even harder?" Hunter answered that the bowstring would break. Then the hegumen explained that the same thing would happen to monks if they lose simple and pure joys! In fact, earthly joys Orthodoxy is not ashamed and does not consider their sin and can not count, because the joy is created by God. But the Church teaches us that not every bodily pleasure is a joy, but only that which is associated with a responsible, careful and careful attitude towards neighbors and oneself. And, in the end, only those "earthly" joys are really valuable and eternal, which bear the reflection of the Joy of Heaven.