I refer to St. Ephraim when it is largely no longer customary to refer to Patristic writers as saints. The reason for this, as it was once told to me, was that “they were all saints” and “they all referred to each other this way.” I suspect there may be a little Catholic vs. Protestant in stripping these saints of their former titles. I believe restoring the title in the case of St. Ephraim is warranted for two reasons: 1) he simply deserves it, reasons why stated below 2) there were so many people and places named Ephraim in antiquity, especially Semitic antiquity, that it is a useful way of distinguishing among them. 3) I happen to like the overdetermined nature of term and signifier and the uneasiness it causes. That having been said, I may on occasion slip and call him simply Ephraim because it is easier.
Ephraim the Syrian (another of his appellations) wrote over five hundred hymns and theological treatises in the middle of the fourth century. One way of celebrating his importance, and there are several, is by turning to the relationships between theology and "interfaith" practice seen in his writings. It is said that Ephraim did not turn to hymn writing until he saw the importance of it in the Manichean church under the influence of Bardaisan in the region in which both he and Ephraim lived. Edessa was the capitol of once Byzantine controlled Syria which had recently come under the control of Persia. Stanley Hauerwas says that "one reason why we Christians argue so much about which hymn to sing, which liturgy to follow, which way to worship is that the commandments teach us to believe that bad liturgy eventually leads to bad ethics. You begin by singing some sappy, sentimental hymn, then you pray some pointless prayer, and the next thing you know you have murdered your best friend." In Ephraim’s Edessa, where Persian and Byzatine political influence interacted with religious ideas stemming from the followers of Nicean orthodoxy, Manichean schools of thought and practice and various shades of Gnostic influence and all of these competed with on another, Haeurwas’ observation was as true then as it is today.
In the First Discourse Against The False Teachers, a theological treatise in the form of a letter, which Ephraim wrote to a follower of Bardaisan named Hypatius, we find ideas that speak to the present day. In my view, the most important ecumenical question of our day is not how Christian denominations can find common groud, indeed an important question, but how religions can find common ground to talk to one another. A subset of this is how to maintain and celebrate differences while still entering into dialog. The “clash of civilzations,” in Samuel Huntington’s phraeology, which did not exist in any way before 9/11 like it did after it, is something which has broght Christian denominations closer to one another at the same that it has pushed Christians and Muslims apart. This has nullified old needs but created new ones.
In this text St. Ephraim is urging accord between followers of Nicean orthodoxy and Manichean teacher Bardaisan. He is also attacking the doctrine of determinism that stems from Bardaisan and arguing instead for an understanding of Free Will. I could not help but see connections between President George W. Bush’s War on Terror, his references to “evil doers,” and current conflicts between the at least nominaly Christian world (which extends arguably from California eastward through the U.S. Europe and on to South Korea) and the Muslim world (which covers at least swaths of almost everthing else minus China and India). Bush’s worldview has more than once been called “Manichaean.”
Ephraim’s advice to the Manicheans of his day and those in ours is the following. Speaking of an ontological mixture of good and evil in the world and in our own souls is not only a denial of free will, it is blasphemous, he says. Doing so denies our ability to change and redirect our lives, as well as our ability to see this in others. “Whoever denies that there is Freewill utters a great blasphemy in that he hastens to ascribe his vices to God”(sec 24). “How was He who was unable to give Freewill able to give a Law when there was no Freewill? But if He gave the Law, the righteousness which is in His Law censures our Freewill, for he rewards it according to its works.” (sec 27)
While one may suggest that the decidely Christian character of Ephraim’s First Discourse would be offensive to Muslims, I would aruge that Ephraim’s world-view is sufficiently Abrhamaic and stemming from the ancient Semitic Patrarchs to allow it to speak to Muslims. The notion that God’s law interacts with and is impossible without human freewill is found in Islam and Judaism. St. Ephraim says God’s multivariate body (an ecumenical image if there ever was one) is like Mt. Sinai with Moses standing at its top. “All those who are like Moses are near to his holiness like Moses, and form one body ..and by means of that body, too,which our Lord was raised, all bodies have received a pledge that they will be raised in like manner.” (sec 5). There are a number of other helpful ecumencial images in this work of Ephraim, but none are as helpful as the idea that our souls and bodies are basically pure. While evil exists along with those who do evil, it is the will of these individuals which is the cause of this rather than the structure of the cosmos or the human psyche. This is a useful thing to keep in mind as Pakistan attempts to deal with political unrest and a new Prime Minister, and we realize it was not “the surge” alone that caused a drop in violence in Iraq recently, but rather individuals assocaited with the Awakening Councils along with Muqtadar AlSadr’s militians who decided to stop the violence they chose to engage in rather than ontological violence stemming from their non-Christian souls.
