Friday, November 8, 2024

Barsanuphius on the sanctified imagination

In the following letters to a deacon, 6th century spiritual director Barsanuphius of Gaza uses a sanctified imagination to show how to visualize God's presence and repent while serving communion.

Letter 241

Question from the same person [a brother monk] to the same Great Old Man [Barsanuphius]: "Father, since your holiness ordered me to serve at liturgy, declare to me, I implore you, what I should be pondering or meditating as I stand before the altar with the priest, or when I am cutting up the holy bread or offering people to drink of the holy blood, or again when I am carrying Communion and taking it to someone. And should I have a special vestment for liturgical use or a covering for my legs?"

Response by Barsanuphius.

Brother, all of this is a spiritual allegory, but you understand it literally. The deacon serves like the Cherubim, and ought to be all eye, all intellect, with his intellect and thought looking upward, with fear, trembling, and doxology. For he bears the body and blood of the immortal King. He even assumes the face of the Seraphim in proclaiming the doxology and in fanning the hidden mysteries as with their holy wings, recalling through these wings the levitation from this earth and from things material, while crying out ceaselessly with his intellect in the temple of the inner self the victory hymn of the magnificent glory of our God: "Holy, holy, holy, Lord of Sabaoth; heaven and earth are full of your glory." And from the dreadful and fearful voice of this proclamation, the devil falls away trembling from the captive soul, and the demons are made to flee in confusion and shame, leaving it free from their slavery.

So now the soul recognizes that the true light has dawned upon it; and, focusing its attention, it sees the beauty of the immortal Lamb and seeks to be filled with his body and blood. Then, it hears the loud voice of David crying out and saying: "Taste and see that the Lord is good." And approaching with fear, it becomes a partaker of his body and blood, and this taste becomes indelible in the soul, protecting it from every passion. "Devote yourself to these things," whether you are standing before the holy mysteries, or else dividing or distributing the drink, or while carrying Communion to someone or gathering up the holy things, and generally in every service that you perform at the altar.

As for your vestment, acquire a spiritual cloak in which God is well pleased. The covering for your legs signifies mortification of the members. Tell me, brother, if a person wears a purple, fully silken robe and yet is a fornicator, does the clothing purify that person from fornication or from the other passions? What then shall they do who are worthy of the holy mysteries but who lack garments? The Lord ordered us to have one garment, and that is the garment of virtues, of which may God make all of us worthy to the ages. Amen.


Letter 242

Question by the same person to the same Great Old Man: "Master, forgive me, and pray for me for the sake of the Lord, that my senses may be sanctified. And although your holiness said that the deacon ought to be like the Cherubim and the Seraphim, yet I am polluted in the senses. What, then, shall I do in order that my ministry as a deacon may not be to my condemnation? For I am wretched and cannot control myself. For God's sake, help me so that I may not lose my soul in every way." 

Response.

Do your best always to remember this image of how the deacon ought to be and of how you actually are, remembering death and how you are going to encounter God. And in continually condemning yourself, your heart feels compunction in order to receive repentance. For he who said by the prophet: "First confess your sins, so that you may be justified," this same one justifies you and renders you innocent of every condemnation. Indeed, it is said: "It is God who justifies; who is it then that will condemn you?" So, as I have on other occasions stated to you, acquire humility, obedience, and submission, and you shall be saved. And do not argue at all, saying: "Why this, or why that?" but become obedient, especially to your abbot, who, after God, cares for you and has been entrusted with your soul. And if you have the zeal to keep these things, then I shall do abundantly more than I possibly can, so that God may grant you the strength to make this possible. The Lord shall keep you and protect you from the evil one. Amen.

(Source: John Chryssavgis (tr.), Barsanuphius and John Letters, Volume I, pp.247-249. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006.)

Monday, August 12, 2024

Poems on the Trinity by Gregory of Nazianzus

Three poems on the Holy Trinity 

by Gregory of Nazianzus

Translated by Peter Gilbert, in On God and Man: The Theological Poetry of St Gregory of Nazianzus (Popular Patristics Series #21), pages 37-47. Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press.


On the Father

I know we are as though making a great voyage on a raft,
or hastening towards the starry sky upon small wings,
when, with such poems, mind has moved to exhibit the Godhead
(which transcends the power of heavenly beings to worship as is due),
or the great Godhead's statutes, and the universe's helm.

Nevertheless, since God is often not as pleased by the gift
of the worse majority, as by that of the beloved few,
for this reason I take courage to break forth into speech. But flee
from afar, whoever is a sinner; my speech is directed
either to the pure, or to them that are being purified. But
infidels, like wild beasts, when on the high-peaked mountain
Christ shone forth and wrote the law for Moses upon tables,
were immediately overcome beneath the broken crags.

So much for the likes of these; thus also the Word expelled
the worst ones of our company, who had a heart opposed to God.

But as for me, I will set down this preface on sundry leaves, a voice
instilling an uncouth people with fear, uttered of old
by witnesses of words, men of godly minds,
Moses and Isaiah (I'll speak to those who have knowledge),
who gave the law, the one new-formed, the other when it was broken.

"Let the heavens give ear, and let the earth receive my words."

O Spirit of God, may you then waken my mind and tongue
as a loud-shouting clarion of truth, so that all
may rejoice, who are united in spirit to the entire Godhead.

There is one God, without beginning or cause, not limited
by anything existing before, or afterward to be,
encompassing the aeons, and infinite; the noble,
great, only-begotten Son's great Father; who had, in the 
Son, no suffering of anything fleshly, since he is mind. One other
is God, not other in Godhead, God's Word, who is
his living paternal seal, the sole
Son of him who has no origin, and most Unique from the Unique, equal
in might, so that, while the one remains the whole parent, the Son
is world-maker, lawgiver, the Father's strength and intellect.

There is one Spirit, God from God who is good. Be gone all of you
whom the Spirit has not sealed so as to show forth his Godhead,
but are either rotten to the core, or have a vile tongue:
half-shining, invidious, clever self-taught people,
a covered-up fountain, a lamp in a murky crevice.

On the Son

First of all we shall sing the Son, honoring that blood
that is our passions' cleansing. For we must come to the 
mortal's aid with those of heaven, due to
that tongue that wars against the divine: foul-minded, suicidal.

Before the great Father, nothing was. For he holds within himself
everything, and nothing higher than the Father exists. He who has sprung
from the Father is the great God's Word: eternal Son, 
the archetype's image, a nature equal to his parent.

For the Son so great is the Father's glory, and from him he shone forth,
as only the Father and he that shone forth from the Father understand.

For no one has come close to the Godhead; but this much 
is clear to everyone, just as it is to me:
I have no right to foist on the Godhead a birthday,
an emission, or some loathsome cutting. For though I do not reproduce
dispassionately, since I'm composite, not at all subject to passion 
is he who is wholly incomposite, unbodied. When things'
natures are remote, what wonder if their beginnings differ, too?

If time came before me, time is not before
the Word, whose begetter is atemporal. When the beginningless
Father was there, leaving nothing superior to his divinity,
then also was there the Fathers' Son, having in the Father a timeless beginning,
like the sun's great circle of overwhelming clear light.

And, while all ideas fall short of the great God,
so that nothing interposes between Father and Son,
eternally existing, we should distinguish the Lord the
Son from the Lord the Father. If something came prior to God,
whether time, or will, that would divide the Godhead, I think.

To be God, to be begetter, he must be the great begetter. And if the greatest
thing concerning the Father is that his treasured divinity has no origin,
it's no less a thing for the honored offspring of the great Father
to have such a root. So don't exclude God from God.

For you've not known the Child distanced from the Father. The terms
"unbegotten" and "begotten of the Father" do not make
two kinds of Godhead. Someone has alleged about this that
each is foreign to the other, but the nature is inseparable, if you ask me.

Then, though the Word is begotten, he is not fleshly,
since his Father, it will be admitted, is fleshless (and no man's mind
is ever so corrupt as to think otherwise).

And so you have God the Son, his parent's worthy pride and joy.

But if, rendering offerings to the great Father's Godhead
worthlessly, and gravening in your heart a hollow fear,
you'd deny this thing, and would hurl Christ out amongst creatures,
you insult, O nitwit, the divinity of them both:
you filch the Son's, who's not God if created.

For all that once was not is but a creature, even if a thing
perdures, and stands as fixed, through God's great reasons.

And why, bold sir, when your starting point was this,
that, through Christ's sufferings, you may become god hereafter,
do you then make him go in chains, and call him your co-slave,
honoring him with gifts for slavery, instead of for being God?

If the great God formed him later, as a fine tool
(as a smith forges a hammer for the sake of a cart),
so that, by his Firstborn's hand, God might make me,
then far worthier than the celestial Christ would be
the creature, if for its sake the Word exists,
not it for Christ. Who would maintain such a thing?

But if it's that, to rescue you from your passions, he took on a body,
would you therefore set a yardstick on his great-famed Godhead?

Has he sinned, in pitying you? To me, rather, he's the more amazing.

For he didn't shave off any bit of Godhead, and still he saved me,
stooping as a doctor over my foul-smelling passions.

He was a man, but God. David's offspring, but Adam's
Maker. A bearer of flesh, but, even so, beyond all body.

From a mother, but she a virgin. Comprehensible, but immeasurable.

And a manger received him, while a star led
the Magi, who so came bearing gifts, and fell on bended knee.

As a man he entered the arena, but he prevailed, as indomitable,
over the tempter in three bouts. Food was set before him,
but he fed thousands, and changed the water into wine.

He got baptized, but he washed sins clean, but he was proclaimed
by the Spirit, in a voice of thunder, to be the Son of the One Uncaused.

As a man he took rest, and as God he put to rest the sea.

His knees were wearied, but he bolstered the strength and knees of the lame.

He prayed, but who was it who heard the petitions of the feeble?

He was the sacrifice, but the high priest: making an offering, but himself God.

He dedicated his blood to God, and cleansed the entire world.

A cross carried him up, while the bolts nailed fast sin.

But what's it for me to say these things? He had company with the dead,
but he rose with the dead, and the dead, the bygone, he raised up:
there a mortal's poverty, here the incorporeal's wealth.

Don't you dishonor, then, his divinity on account of his human things,
but, for the divine's sake, hold in renown the earthly form
into which, thoughtful towards you, he formed himself, the incorruptible Son.

On the Holy Spirit

Soul, why delay? Sing also the Spirit's glory,
and don't separate in speech what the nature did not leave out.

Let us quake before the great Spirit, who is my God, who's made me know God,
who is God there above, and who forms God here:
almighty, imparting manifold gifts, him whom the holy choir hymns,
who brings life to those in heaven and on earth, and is enthroned on high,
coming from the Father, the divine force, self-commandeered;
he is not a Child (for there is one worthy Child of the One who's best),
nor is he outside the unseen Godhead, but of identical honor.

Now, if someone seeks to understand the heavenly Spirit's divinity
through the pages of divinely-inspired Law,
he shall see many ways, close-packed, collected into one,
if he has yearned, and gathered something of the
Holy Ghost with his heart, and if his piercing mind has perceived.

But if he seeks a plain assertion of his beloved divinity,
let him know this, he seeks unsensibly. For it wouldn't have been right,
when Christ's own hadn't yet appeared to most of humankind,
to lay on feeble hearts a weight of doubt.

For, with beginners, it's not the time
for more consummate language. Who shows a fire's whole glow
to still-dim eyes, or gorges them with light insatiable?

It's better if, bit by bit, you bring on the fiery glowings,
lest you even hurt some way the springs of a sweeter light.

For, as of old the Scriptures displayed the whole deity
of the royal Father, and Christ's great fame began to dawn,
disclosed to men of little understanding,
so also, later when the Son's shone more distinctly,
the brightness of the Spirit's deity glowed.

Now to them he gave a small illumination, while most he left to us,
even distributing himself to us later in tongues of fire
betokening divinity, after the Savior had gone up from the earth.

For I, too, have known God to be as fire to the wicked, and as light to the good.

There, I have gathered up the Godhead for you. But if you're left speechless,
hearing how a Son and one who's not Son share one Godhead,
as though being swayed two ways, by two good arguments,
God himself, I trust, shall come forth next to give a reason.

From the one first father sprang a wife and Seth,
she a half-slice, he a second child by marriage bonds,
one not by birth, the other by birth, but both being equally human.

Remembering these, don't you belittle any within the Godhead,
putting this one above, this one below. One is the nature, immeasurable,
uncreated, a-temporal, excellent, free, and co-venerable,
one God in three refulgences, making the world go round.

By these I am awakened, another new young man, when in the font
death gets buried, and I come back racing to the light.

For the threefold Godhead made me rise out a light-bearer.

No, beloved cleansing, I won't falsify you. If, having been washed
in the divinity, I should divide the bright divinity,
it would have been better if ... but I shudder to complete an evil sentence,
by my hope in the divine gift, and in the baths.

If he has fully cleansed the whole of me, the whole God then is 
venerable, so I feel. But whatever man's a sinner can assert the inequality,
cutting himself asunder from God's gift, his own divinity.

And if we hear some words about either the Child or the good
Spirit, in divine words and from God-bearing
men, as, that they hold a second place to God the Father,
I charge you so to understand this, by words of wisdom's untold depths:
that it refers to the unoriginated root, it doesn't split
the Godhead, so that you've got one sole power, not worshipped severally.

From unity is the Trinity, and from Trinity again the unity
not as a source, a spring, a mighty river, sharing a single current,
in three separate manners traverse the earth;
nor as a torch, taken from a pyre, converges again into one;
nor like a word, both going out from the mind and remaining in it;
nor like some shimmering of dancing sunbeams off the waters,
a restless gleaming, wavering on the walls,
approaching, then fleeing, then drawing near.

For God's nature is not restless, nor flowing,
nor again coalescing; but what is God's is steadfast.

But you might make a pure offering privately, thinking thus.

In threefold lights the one nature is established,
not a numberless unity, since it subsists in three excellencies,
nor a Threesome worshipped severally, since the nature is inseparable.

In the Godhead is the unity, but they whose Godhead it is are three in number.

Each is the one God, if you should talk of them singly.

Again, there is one God, without beginning, whence comes the wealth of Godhead
whenever the word refers to all three, so that, on the
one hand, it might reverently proclaim to men the threefold lights, and
on the other hand, that by it we might extol the strong-shining Monarchy,
and not content ourselves with a pluralist marketplace of gods.

For, by me, polyarchy and an utter brawling anarchy are
one and the same. Division is strife, and hastens to
dissolution. For this reason, polyarchy is far from the Godhead, as I take it.

Some might call them "three gods" if he had divided them
by times, intellect, power, or will,
where none, without brawling, would be identical even with 
itself.

But one is the might of my Trinity, one the knowledge,
one the glory, one the power. So, again, the unity cannot dissolve,
being greatly honored in the one harmony of divinity.

So much radiance has the Trinity revealed to my eyes,
from the wings and the veil within the divine temple,
beneath which God's royal nature lies hid. And if something extra is
for the angelic choirs, let the Trinity know what this extra is.

Sunday, August 11, 2024

Do what you can

Didache 6:1-2
See that no one leads you astray from this way of the teaching, for such a person teaches you without regard for God. For if you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect. But if you are not able, then do what you can. 

What can I do today? 

Saturday, August 10, 2024

Another talk for Rvwang youth on heritage language maintenance

 This summer I was privileged to speak again for a Rvwang American youth audience on how and why to value and use their heritage language. I built on the 2023 talk with some content and analogies from Kim Potowski and M. Paul Lewis and Gary Simons. In an unexpected turn of events, my flight back to Portland was cancelled and so I got an extra day in Fort Worth, and was asked to speak two more times for kids at the Rvwang church VBS. (Unfortunately, those were not recorded.) So I got more practice in refining the message and incorporating it in my own story. If you would like to listen, see the video at the link below, and also the embedded PDF.

"Dvci karu / Language benefits", at the Rvwang Youth Conference 2024 in Fort Worth, TX, 7/4/2024




Quiz questions for afterwards:

1. Can you name the 4 sustainable levels of the language mountain hike? 

(history, identity, orality, literacy)

2. What is the app for typing Rvwang on your phone? 

(Keyman)

3. If you can use many languages, what are you? 

(multilingual)

4. What is one image for someone between two cultures? 

(a bat or a bridge)

5. Name two ideas for a family language plan. 

(decide who, where, and when to use what language; if your parent or sibling speaks English, pretend not to understand, or give a guess in the home language; try to keep using the home language; put up signs at home; plan family language activities; ask about your family history; take quiet time alone to practice; listen to stories of other heritage language learners)




Poetry in Job

I wanted to share with you something I read this morning about the poetry in Job. Scholar Robert Alter says there are three levels of poetry in Job -- the three friends have one level, with some high points but ultimately repetitive and uninspiring. Job has another level, more passionate and creative with its attention to the details of nature. And finally, you have the poetry of the Lord's response, which surpasses them both. 

See below: 

The third—and, ultimately, decisive—level of poetry in the book is manifested when the LORD addresses Job out of the whirlwind.
Here, too, the Job poet’s keen interest in nature is evident, but in an altogether spectacular way that, one might say, trumps Job in the game of vision. 
The poet, having given Job such vividly powerful language for the articulation of his outrage and his anguish, now fashions still greater poetry for God. 
The wide-ranging panorama of creation in the Voice from the Whirlwind shows a sublimity of expression, a plasticity of description, an ability to evoke the complex and dynamic interplay of beauty and violence in the natural world, and even an originality of metaphoric inventiveness that surpasses all the poetry, great as it is, that Job has spoken. 
Many readers over the centuries have felt that God’s speech to Job is no real answer to the problem of undeserved suffering, and some have complained that it amounts to a kind of cosmic bullying of puny man by an overpowering deity. 
One must concede that it is not exactly an answer to the problem because for those who believe that life should not be arbitrary there can be no real answer concerning the good person who loses a child (not to speak of ten children) or the blameless dear one who dies in an accident or is stricken with a terrible wasting disease. 
But God’s thundering challenge to Job is not bullying. 
Rather, it rousingly introduces a comprehensive overview of the nature of reality that exposes the limits of Job’s human perspective, anchored as it is in the restricted compass of human knowledge and the inevitable egoism of suffering. 
The vehicle of that overview is an order of poetry created to match the grandeur—or perhaps the omniscience—of God. 
The visionary experience that this poetry enables for Job is of a vast creation shot through with unfathomable paradoxes, such as the conjoining of the nurturing instinct with cruelty, where in place of the sufferer’s longing for absolute darkness the morning stars sing together and there is a rhythmic interplay between light and darkness. 

Source: Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary: Three-Volume Set (pp. 5889-5890). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition. 

I thought that was really cool how, even through the levels and styles of poetry and dramatic-descriptive vision, the Holy Spirit working with the writer of Job can let us pour out our complaint, and then when we've exhausted our ability to speak, He shows us something wider and more mysterious than we knew to look for, lifting our eyes off ourselves to see the Creator's vision of the whole creation. 

 Hope this encourages you today.

Saturday, June 22, 2024

A gentler Lewis

Even CS Lewis got tired of the fighting words and culture wars of his day. He wrote The Abolition of Man in 1943, lambasting secularists as "men without chests"; he followed with the dystopian novel That Hideous Strength in 1945; but by 1953, as Peter Brown recalls, Lewis looked uncomfortable in his own debating club because of the "directness of argument that bordered on rudeness--even browbeating" that was popular among young men at Oxford at the time. Brown saw Lewis as "a subdued figure, sitting low and long in an armchair, by no means the center of attention" and "ill at ease". Brown sensed that Lewis "was caught in his own reputation." Much happier was his glimpse of Lewis exuberantly expounding Milton in a majestic lecture room. He had a peace and confidence about him as a Christian apologist that was nourished by late-night talks with old friends and visits to the countryside. See Peter Brown's memoir Journeys of the Mind chapter 26.

Monday, June 17, 2024

Thoughts on family

 Here's the latest in my reading on cross-cultural psychology in an attempt to complexify the pop-psychology understanding of boundaries and separation-individuation:


According to Turkish psychologist Cigdem Kagitcibasi, it is possible for a family to be close and interdependent and still give their children autonomy and individual responsibility. It's also possible for parents to exercise both a high level of control and a high level of warmth (closeness), as long as the control has a positive meaning in the understanding of the child, and especially if this fits with the surrounding culture. American culture in the 20th century emphasized individualism (high autonomy, low connectedness), and psychology mistakenly took this as normative and healthy; many cultures in the Majority World were traditionally low autonomy, high connectedness. With families from these traditional cultures moving to the cities now, they are becoming more high autonomy, high connectedness, which Kagitcibasi says is a healthy target.

All this reminds me very much of grid-group analysis in Doug Fraser's cultural anthropology class.

I want to hold onto Kagitcibasi's idea that autonomy and closeness are both in-born human needs. Kagitcibasi does us a service in framing these as two different axes on the same plane rather than as two opposite points on the same axis. That we can have both if we do it right.

I also want to complexify the developmental perspective. Henry Cloud and John Townsend say in their book Boundaries that certain aspects of the soul may have been damaged or underdeveloped in childhood, and that they can be developed later in life in safe community. I would add to this a perspective championed by Laurie and Matt Krieg that lists a number of core needs (e.g. to be seen, to be known, to matter to someone) which we are created with, which are sometimes unmet in childhood, and crucially, which are designed for God to fill primarily, and thence indirectly to be filled by others in community. So it's not quite a matter of needing to develop boundaries to keep God and others at arms-length until one feels safe, but rather getting close to God (including through lament) and then becoming safe enough to let others come close too.

Finally, I think social and cultural change has affected not only the Majority World but also the US. Thus, in a family like mine that continued my grandparents' generation's parenting methods in some ways, and in other ways followed certain psychologically- and historically-informed neotraditional reactionary movements (e.g. literature by Mennonites, Bill Gothard, James Dobson, and the patriarchal homeschooling and home-business movement etc.), what we got was moderate to high closeness, high control, and also opportunities for high autonomy and personal responsibility. And yet as the surrounding culture shifted and called for less control, and my parents had less energy, I think there developed more tensions that were difficult to resolve because there was less energy and flexibility to maintain the family system and because certain existing practices took on different meanings when compared with the changing cultural context.

This makes me want to look more tolerantly on my parents' choices, as examples of burdened agency imperfectly working toward an ideal.

I also would like to add some sort of goal of maturity to this discussion of family systems. It's not enough to want your children to grow up to be autonomous, interdependent agents. This has to be a mediate goal on the way toward virtue. I don't mean Gothard's list of 49 character qualities; I feel that's too complicated and focused more on numerology than coherence. To be honest, I don't have a list yet. But I'd like go back in history and look more toward the mystical moral development program of Evagrius Ponticus and John Cassian (and earlier the Apostle Paul), with their idea of shedding the old self with its troublesome passions, proceeding toward singleness of heart and charity, and putting on a new self with new practices that lead to patience, a moderate selflessness, and clearer and more personal knowledge of God and others.

Another group of psychologists who would agree with Kagitcibasi are Ashley Barrrera, Markie Blumer, and Shayna Soenksen. In a 2011 article, they stress the importance of careful listening on the part of the counselor to find out the cultural background, family context and specific story of each individual they counsel, so they don't make hasty generalizations based on binary values like enmeshed vs individuated families. Even kids from enmeshed families can turn out well, depending on the meaning they place on their relationships and how they grow from them.

Last week I watched the film Ragamuffin (2014), depicting the life of musician Rich Mullins, especially in his tense relationship with his dad. A motif was a swinging lighbulb in the dark, from a memory of how as a young boy helping his dad fix a tractor, he hadn't held the light still and his dad had berated him. It was only after a retreat with a mentor, Brennan Manning, where he got alone and poured out his heart in lament to God, and then wrote a letter as from his then-deceased father to him, that he was able to reconcile the memories and remember how his father apologized afterward for his outburst and reaffirmed his affection for him. Somehow the processing of the overwhelming feelings unlocked the more complex memories and enabled him to re-evaluate his dad in a more balanced way, regain God as his true father, and recapture his love for his earthly father, leaving aside the unmet expectations on both sides. I have hopes to, slowly, over time, continue to do the same.

Recommended reading:
William Harmless. 2004. Desert Christians: an introduction to the literature of early monasticism. Oxford Univ. Press.
Cigdem Kagitcibasi. 2005. Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Vol. 36, No. 4, July 2005, pp.403-422. https://local.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessinger/c_c/rsrcs/rdgs/peers_social_general/Kagitcibasi_2005.pdf
Grid-group cultural theory. https://changingminds.org/explanations/culture/grid-group_culture.htm
Ashley Barrerra, Markie Blumer, and Shayna Soenksen. 2011. Revisiting adolescent Separation-Individuation in the contexts of enmeshment and allocentrism. The New School Psychology Bulletin 2011, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.70-82.

Calvin's prayers before and after sermons

The prayer which Master John Calvin made ordinarily before the beginning of his sermons. Let us call upon our good God and Father, praying h...