Comments

391 responses to “The Final Destruction of Demons”

1. 

   drewster2000

   October 31, 2012

   I second John’s comment. Some people possess themselves of two mouths and no hears.

2. 

   drewster2000

   October 31, 2012

   and…no ears. (grin)

3. 

   Doug

   October 31, 2012

   John: ‘let the convo die’- and fewer scriptures to look up, anyway. Saves server space. 🙂

4. 

   dee

   October 31, 2012

   “the question of whether the Fall of Man story is or can be true in any sense” reminded me of Neo in the Matrix when he cannot yet believe he has been existing in a false reality.
   The fall is symbolically hidden in very simplistic terms there “All of what we see is not as we would like it” kind of thing. Irrespective of Man’s attempts to posit himself in the position of God though (a crucial aspect of his falleness), see it another way: the fact that Man is “created” alone would still mean that he needs the Uncreated source of Life and Creator. Man’s createdness is not the same as his falleness but your understanding of Christian doctrine seemed to ignore this.

5. 

   John Shores

   October 31, 2012

   …the fact that Man is “created”…

   Again, I think that the use of the word “fact” here is misplaced. The best one can honestly manage is “supposition”.

   Faith and fact do not (from what I am reading among the contributors here) go hand in hand.

6. 

   John Shores

   October 31, 2012

   Not according to the Bible…

   If we are discussing works of fiction then I propose we stop. There are far more interesting fictions than the Bible to discuss and this is not the place for it.

7. 

   dee

   October 31, 2012

   John Shores,

   What we understand as the Fall of Man has many interesting nuances in Orthodoxy. The main one is no other than the way all of us seem to function: ‘having ‘ME’ as the point of reference, that fact is proof enough to me. However, I do understand that one would want to also experience the “opposite mode” of being to this fallen one- that of the Holy Trinity: (as the theologian Metropolitan John Zizioulas put it) “Being as Communion”… We need that opposite in order for us to have fallen from something. It does bring us back to our other conversations regarding the knowledge of God though!
   Zizioulas more or less explains Fall thus:
   Man was created to become the God-Man that would bring the union of the created with the Uncreated. But, Man, upon receiving this calling from God, decided to exercise his freedom in a negative manner, saying “No, I will not unite the created to the Uncreated! I will unite the created to myself.” This was the deeper meaning of the Scriptural passage in which Adam succumbs to the temptation to become like god. He thus transferred the focal point of reference of that union, from the Uncreated God to his own, created self. He deified himself. In other words, he rejected God; he said “No” to the God he had been given: “No, You are not a God for me, so, I shall create my own god, i.e., my own self. Everything shall therefore have me as a point of reference, instead of You.” This is the way that we portray the Fall of Man.

8. 

   dinoship

   October 31, 2012

   John,
   the “supposition’s”

   “proof is not precisely “factual” in the literal/historical/cause-and-effect/what-you-see-is-all-there-is [lhcaewysiati for short] manner. “

   the “supposition” or “hypothesis” of Christ – the lamb slain from before time- is what the “opening of the scriptures” as described in the road to Emmaus in Luke is all about.
   Whether we call this faith or fact and the way we come to this knowledge or not was covered by Father Stehpen in one of his responses to you i thought.

9. 

   fatherstephen

   October 31, 2012

   Doug,
   I don’t belittle the Scripture. But you don’t seem to understand the work of translation. A word means something in its language and may have no exact equivalent in another. And so, a translator does his best but it won’t be enough if he only chooses one word. The word “logos” (and derivatives such as “logikos”) in Greek has no equivalent in English. I can think of at least a dozen possible words no one of which is sufficient for some things. Instead, to understand a passage in which “logos” or “logikos” is a key word, many words will have to be used. Instead, you seem to think that tools are sufficient (they are “secondary” because the “primary” is an actual knowledge of Greek – the translators you cite obviously knew Greek and had to choose one word – but that doesn’t mean it will be enough for you to understand what the verse says).

   Instead, you have continued to make snide remarks concerning the blog and myself. Because I know something? Because I was willing to tell you that you don’t know it?

   You also seem to have a need to “witness” to John Shores – who is visiting well on the blog, asking questions, making observations, being a useful part of the community discussion. He has, I might add, heard pretty much everything a conservative Protestant can tell him about “what the Bible says.” If he wants to know that there are thousands of blogs out there for it. This is an Orthodox Christian blog (with visitors and participants of all types).

   But you already know all about us. You know Catholics and attack their prayers (speaking of belittling) and you don’t have a clue about Catholic prayer other than the same “hearsay” that Protestants have offered for centuries. Frankly, it’s tiresome, boring, and rude.

   If you have legitimate questions – not just set up’s for an agenda – you’re welcome to remain in the conversation. Otherwise, you’re welcome to leave the conversation. It’s a blog, not a public forum.

   Thanks for dropping by.

   Fr. Stephen

10. 

    Rhonda

    October 31, 2012

    Thank you, Fr. Stephen! Tactful & eloquent as usual. I just wish that your comments had not been so necessary.

11. 

    John Shores

    November 1, 2012

    Man was created to become the God-Man that would bring the union of the created with the Uncreated…

    If I seem at all indelicate or obtuse or in any way insincere, I apologize in advance.

    Here’s my issue. For thousands of years people had a notion that man was created as separate from and in dominion of the other creatures on the Earth. The idea was that man was somehow separate from the rest of the created beings in some form or fashion.

    DNA sequencing and other scientific disciplines have demonstrated that we are in fact biologically related to the other great apes. It has also been demonstrated that we share a common ancestor with these other apes as well as Neanderthals.

    My difficulty is this – we are animals with large frontal lobes and a greater capacity to reason than other animals (although Bonobos are pretty darned smart too).

    Additionally, every human behavior is also present in the other great apes.

    The point is that we are not as distinct from the rest of the animals on this planet as we have believed in the past. It is this incorrect belief that has given us a sense of superiority which has led, as far as I can tell, to that most human of traits – the need for an explanation. Hence we have proposed that “god created us in his image” among other theories.

    To my mind, making such a claim is in and of itself extremely arrogant. To add to it that we somehow defied the omnipotent god and “fell” is, from my point of view, the height of arrogance. That we can defy the almighty makes us powerful in and of ourselves.

    Rejecting this notion and considering the possibility that we are simply the current leaders in the evolutionary chain has been profoundly humbling to me. With no god to defy, I have no sense of rebellion about me. Rather, the overpowering realization that we, in our current state, hold such a weighty responsibility toward the other species on the planet has been terrifying in a way that I could not comprehend before.

    Does this make any sense? It is not that I reject god in the same sense as in the fall of man story as though I am willfully rejecting or rebelling against a deity but rather that by simply accepting the premise that there is no god what is left is not self-indulgence but rather self-abnegation. I feel infinitely small, not puffed up.

    The Christianity that I knew was deeply rooted in arrogance. Even “acts of humility” were quite frequently pride in a costume.

    I do not want to ruin this sense of wonder and smallness by introducing a god into the mix. Add god and you add some version of the Fall. But this is in direct conflict with everything we know about our evolutionary history. It is impossible that there was ever a time when we were not animals with certain basic behaviors, desires and traits that some call the “sin nature.” There was no perfect state of being from which we could have fallen.

    I hope you understand my difficulty. From my perspective, accepting any religion or philosophy that denies who and what we are is the only “fall” that I can think of, if that religion or philosophy causes us to put on the mantle of pride that it surely must.

12. 

    John Shores

    November 1, 2012

    BTW – The costumes, icons, golden chalices, etc that are part of the liturgy are a difficulty to me. Even when I was in a semi-liturgical communion, the procession and garb etc. had an air of trying too hard. Then again, I think there is more glory and beauty in the face of an infant that is contained in the entire Louvre.

    I find more glory in the wild grasses, flowers, trees and boulders of the surrounding mountains than in all these manufactured items. If ever I find myself in a church again, I would be most comfortable in one that uses nature to demonstrate god’s glory.

13. 

    Rhonda

    November 1, 2012

    John Shores:

    If ever I find myself in a church again, I would be most comfortable in one that uses nature to demonstrate god’s glory.

    Ask & ye shall receive 😉 Check out this one!

    https://glory2godforallthings.com/2012/06/02/the-trees-of-pentecost/

14. 

    dinoship

    November 1, 2012

    John,

    “The Christianity that I knew was deeply rooted in arrogance. Even “acts of humility” were quite frequently pride in a costume.”

    It sounds to me though, that the agnosticism you now know is “man’s self-centredness clothed in his inevitable smallness”…

    “we have proposed that “god created us in his image” among other theories”.

    I do not see this as something “we proposed”, but as God’s direct revelation, (for reason’s have been explained here already before.)
    If we have proposed something it could well be this:

    “DNA sequencing and other scientific disciplines have demonstrated that we are in fact biologically related to the other great apes. It has also been demonstrated that we share a common ancestor”

    Why should man assume that our relation – no matter how close- to primates MUST be an indication of our ‘godless evolution’ from them..?
    There is a massive difference between science facts and science theory that tries to make some sense of those facts. The fact that a great deal of the scientists that you believe (possibly with a great deal less scepticism than the living witnesses of God), put theories together with the axiomatic presupposition that they must not have God in that equation, speaks volumes…
    p.s.: The chief scientist in those circles, Francis Collins, head of the Genome project, is however a firm believer in God, writer of the Language of God

15. 

    dinoship

    November 1, 2012

    John Shores,
    As far an “evolution-accepting” possibility of faith, Darwin himself stated that:

    “the extreme difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity for looking far backwards and far into the futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.”

    (C.R.Darwin, quoted in Kenneth R Miller, ‘Finding Darwin’s God’)
    However, I really would not want to follow this reasoning approach you here propose…
    Orthodoxy knows a God revealed in Christ and has a completely different – infinitely more “secure”- starting point than ‘reasoning’ to belief.
    Then again, we are back to the fact that: one must live like a saint first though, -at least to a small degree of becoming “like child”- including one’s ‘Ecclesi-isation” (even including costumes etc…) to have that undeniable experience of personal revelation I guess.

16. 

    Eleftheria

    November 1, 2012

    Another phenomenal article, Fr. Stephen!

    To John Shores,
    The questions you ask are deep indeed; but they have been answered by Fr. Seraphim Rose in “Genesis, Creation and Early Man”. Just like the gerondes in Greece and Cyprus explain Scripture verse by verse and use the Holy Fathers as well as Scripture itself, so does Fr. Seraphim Rose explain Genesis. Get your hands on it; it will explain much!

    In Christ,
    Eleftheria

17. 121101–George Hach’s Inner Disciplines Journal–Thursday |

    November 1, 2012

    […] The final destruction of demons reveals a truth about the Kingdom of God… (glory2godforallthings.com) […]

18. 

    PJ

    November 1, 2012

    John,

    “So, god became a man to throw himself on a grenade? I don’t see the similarities. If a grenade is thrown among soldiers, that is hardly the same thing as knowingly leading your soldiers into a grenade factory that you created.”

    It’s not a perfect analogy, but it proves that human sacrifice — the voluntary sort — is not categorically evil, as you suggested.

    That said, your own analogy is much more flawed than my own vis-a-vis . God did not lead us into death and sin. We created our own misery. Nonetheless, God in His great love chose to save us by destroying sin and death through humility, self-offering, and charity, thus proving that “love is stronger than death.”

    “If the story is true, he set up the conditions of the whole human experiment and as the ultimate power has the ultimate responsibility for how it played out. All this mess is therefore according to his will, however you slice it. I’m just a conscientious objector to the whole notion.”

    We were created for love. Love is only possible if it is freely given, freely received. But freedom carries with it risks: It may be abused. Man abused — and continues to abuse — his precious freedom. This is not the will of God. He does everything short of robbing us of our freedom. That He will not do, for it would mean robbing us of the chance of love. There is no coercion in God, as Barnabas wrote in the 1st century.

    “Again, reconciliation by its very nature does not require a sacrifice. If two are at odds, it takes forgiveness on the part of one or both. Again, that is an act of the will that requires no prerequisites except a charitable intent.”

    I’d strongly disagree with you. I think reconciliation always require sacrifice. Even the most ordinary, everyday sort of reconciliation requires the “sacrifice” of one’s ego, one’s desire to be right or to hold something over another person’s head.

    Where there isn’t sacrifice, there isn’t peace, and there certainly is not love. I sacrifice for my wife everyday, as she sacrifices for me. Were we to stop this dynamic of mutual submission, our relationship would surely fall apart.

    “By that rationale, he ought to have lovingly submitted himself to be raped in order to end rape. That makes no sense to me.”

    It’s the same logic of non-violent disobedience. Consider the civil rights protestors who allowed themselves to be beaten in Selma. They didn’t raise so much as a fist in anger. Through this peaceful submission, they exposed and condemned the very system that did them violence. They triumphed through meekness and mildness. They conquered evil through goodness.

    Christ died on a cross, but His self-offering destroys and overcomes all violence and evil, including rape. He is eternally in solidarity with all who suffer, all who are violated, all who are coerced, all who are condemned, all who are tormented, all who are persecuted, all who are in pain. He has furthermore forever shamed the wicked by going unto His death — death on a cross — in perfect charity. He loved until the end, and so love defeated hatred.

    I know that you have learned to see the cross a certain way. But please try — you must try! — to get a new perspective.

    You have to understand that up until the advent of Christianity, sacrifice — both human and animal — was all pervasive. The world ran red with the blood of sacrifices. Part of the reason why the Christian gospel was so revolutionary and radical was because it proclaimed the end of sacrifices. God, proclaimed the Christians, is not sated with the fat of goats, nor the flesh of infants. He wants rather contrite and broken hearts; He wants faith, hope, and love; He wants thanksgiving and humility; He wants the perfect, charitable obedience that produces communion. The death of Christ on the cross was the ultimate rebuke to pagan bloodlust!

19. 

    PJ

    November 1, 2012

    “BTW – The costumes, icons, golden chalices, etc that are part of the liturgy are a difficulty to me. Even when I was in a semi-liturgical communion, the procession and garb etc. had an air of trying too hard.”

    It is all absurd pageantry apart from the Holy Spirit, which is often the case, sadly.

    However, you might have been uneasy because you — and/or your church — lack a robust understanding of the world as sacrament. The fact that you call priestly vestments “costumes” suggests as much. This is the reason why many Catholics have all but abandoned liturgy: The understanding of sacramental reality is utterly lacking. Thus the Mass becomes a play or game or some such triviality (“costumes”).

20. 

    Michael Bauman

    November 1, 2012

    Having spent a good number of years working in theatrical productions I’d like to make a comment on costumes. Even in ordinary theater costumes are used to set the actors apart from the audience and, more importantly, to help the actors adopt the character and communicate to the audience. Vestments do the same thing on a much higher plane and more besides.

    The priest does not just ‘throw on’ his vestments. There are prayers that are said as he does do. The act of vesting is a preparation for entering into the presence of God to receive the heavenly mysteries. Vestments, despite their origin the the Byzantine court are living symbols of the glory of God when they are a part of the sacramental reality.

    They are not, I suppose, not absolutely ‘necessary’ but neither are the 10-20 thousand species of spiders. God is not a God of the minimal and the necessary. That is why reason alone is insufficient to experience Him.

    Even many Protestant preachers have what they call their ‘preaching suit’. What is that but a vestment. It is in our hearts to vest as a form and symbol of putting on the glory of God.

21. 

    fatherstephen

    November 1, 2012

    John Shores,
    The treatment of Genesis varies a fair amount in the early fathers, from a fairly literalistic to a highly allegorical approach. Nothing makes one more Christian than the other. I do not think there need be any issues with science in the matter of “how” we came to be. The fact that I share a large portion of DNA with an earth worm, etc., does not trouble me. The account of “took dust of the earth and formed” in Genesis is highly poetical.

    What I take from early Genesis (not exhaustive list):
    1. God created all that exists out of nothing – i.e. created existence is contingent
    2. There is an order, the universe is not just random – or its randomness is ordered
    3. The ordering of creation has a Paschal shape (the meaning of the 7 days)
    4. Man is a microcosm of creation – the point at which creation and creator can and will unite (in His image).

    There’s much more – but that’s enough at the moment. When it comes to understanding “history” in all of this – it’s more or less a useless exercise. “History” (as in space-time “facts”) is very difficult to ever truly ascertain. I think that concerns about “history” are an artifact of a false world-view (that of modern secularity and its religious minions). I do not think it is correct to say that God “reveals” history. There is plenty of history in the Scriptures – that’s not the question. But to assert that God “reveals” historical facts that we would not otherwise know has many problems. Why would God do that? He would only do so if the knowledge of such historical facts was somehow necessary to our salvation – and I do not think this to be the case.

    Before anyone gets all nervous, I have no doubts about the historical nature of Christ’s resurrection. The witness to that are the eye-witness accounts of the disciples. I think its historical character is indeed necessary for our salvation.

    Another point worth noting: The patristic treatment of the relation between God and creation can have very subtle points, especially when reading the fathers who write from a strong “apophatic” approach. They would recognize that God’s role as “cause” in creation is largely if not completely hidden. He “causelessly causes.” This means that seeing God’s causation is itself something of a revelation, something revealed to the pure in heart, rather than a rational data point.

    I find it spiritually very disturbing that matters such as creation have become a point of easy debate in which Christians (even Orthodox Christians) take up positions that are “rationally” derived (actually they are generally only derived opinions rather than true rational ideas) based on various criteria (much of which is dubious). These are very deep matters and we argue about them with great ease. Most Christian conversation on the topic is deeply delusional. It is delusional in that these opinions are held in the mind and are simply points for debate, judging, etc. They get angry, defensive even schismatic.

    John, the approach of meditating with wonder on DNA is much closer to the fathers than the defensive assertions about Genesis that many Christians engage in. More wonder, less deciding or tying things up neatly with a bow, would be of more benefit to the soul.

    There is a marked nervousness among many Christians with regard to a “historical fall.” They want (or need) an account of the world in which we can point to the fall as an historical moment. I’ve been told before that if there is no such historical moment, then Christ’s death and resurrection need not have occurred. This puts the cart before the horse.

    I start with Christ’s death and resurrection. His death and resurrection is not the answer to a theological puzzle. It is the whole puzzle. We are fallen – that I can see. We die. There is an inner corruption that is marked by our alienation from God. But I would not have known the fall except for its cure. The OT never mentions Adam’s fall, outside of the early chapters of Genesis. For whatever reason, that story does not seem theologically compelling or even interesting to ancient Israel. It is Christ’s death and resurrection, and St. Paul’s treatment of it, that brings the fall back to the main stage. But we need to see that in the order in which it occurs. It’s is Christ’s death and resurrection that raises the question that makes the story of the fall interesting again. We should not get it backwards.

    Many people, getting it backwards, have created a historical narrative (not unlike the various narratives of the false self) in which Christ’s death and resurrection is simply one point among a lot of other data points to make up the logical chain of our salvation. It is these false narratives that drive a kind of fundamentalism and anxiety about historical things. Thus, I’ve heard a very prominent Orthodox theologian attacked as a “heretic” because he was heard to say that he didn’t think Adam and Eve were literal characters. He would not be alone among the fathers to think so. But some young Orthodox Christian, guarding the historical narrative as though it were the Orthodox deposit of faith, attacks an Archpriest as a heretic. Reading that vociferous attack made me duck my own head. But I’m getting too old to worry about such things. Even the young need to be taught good theology. I will add that many, many clergy as well, have this same backwards approach in which a created historical narrative is driving their theology rather than a true spiritual perception of the Scriptures and the fathers.

    Fr. John Behr’s book The Mystery of Christ, is deeply refreshing because it tackles some aspects of this problem and demonstrates the importance of not doing all of this in a “backwards” manner. I recommend it.

    Well, I’ve laid that out now and I hope that’s helpful. I also hope I have not scandalized too many of my readers.

22. 

    Rhonda

    November 1, 2012

    “…scandalized…”?? Not by a long shot! A mini-blog within a blog. Thank you for laying this out as I inevitably hit a wall when it comes to this mindset of salvation held by so many.

23. 

    dinoship

    November 1, 2012

    Father,

    I, too have heard of that very prominent Orthodox theologian attacked as a “heretic” because he was heard to say that he didn’t think Adam and Eve were literal characters…

    I am deeply gladdened by your clear exposition of this here (this and not the positions of the self-appointed ‘guardians of Orthodoxy’ attacking the said Archpriest, is true Orthodoxy):

    “I’ve been told before that if there is no such historical moment, then Christ’s death and resurrection need not have occurred. This puts the cart before the horse.

    I start with Christ’s death and resurrection. His death and resurrection is not the answer to a theological puzzle. It is the whole puzzle. We are fallen – that I can see. We die. There is an inner corruption that is marked by our alienation from God. But I would not have known the fall except for its cure. “

24. 

    fatherstephen

    November 1, 2012

    Marc, Would to God that I were of no earthly good.

    There is no fault in a truly intense study of natural and human history. I dare say that few who visit this site have read more history than I have – I love it. But we should love history and love nature and not come to them with false narratives that force things to be either what they are not, or insist, a priori, that they be something that fits with a narrative of history or science. It makes for bad history and bad science.

    But because I understand that Christ’s death and resurrection (in history) have also shattered history (and science), I have nothing to fear from any of it. Do please notice, that I have not attacked history or science. I have attacked a false historical (or scientific) narrative. It’s a very different thing. I may be suggesting far more earthly good than you see.

25. 

    PJ

    November 1, 2012

    Father,

    Which fathers deny that all men are descended from Adam and Eve? I’m not saying there aren’t any — I’ve just had difficulty finding them.

    It seems that even those who employ allegory do so *in addition* to a literal reading. It’s totally natural for the ancient fathers to have accepted the notion of two first parents without qualification. They had only the most rudimentary understanding of biology and no understanding whatsoever of evolution. You can’t fault them. Also, the genre of Genesis is not easy to discern.

26. 

    John Shores

    November 1, 2012

    Dinoship:

    Darwin himself stated that…

    This is a vast chasm between “intelligent design” and discerning the designer. If one begins with the Christian proposition, everything in the Christian doctrine that follows makes a kind of sense. This is aptly answered by Fr. Stephen’s comment

    seeing God’s causation is itself something of a revelation, something revealed to the pure in heart, rather than a rational data point.

    so I think we’re on the same page here.

    PJ:

    But please try — you must try! — to get a new perspective.

    It’s the red pill/blue pill choice. I don’t know how I can get a new perspective without taking the red pill.

    up until the advent of Christianity, sacrifice — both human and animal — was all pervasive.

    I’d have an easier time of accepting this except that the same god went into great detail with Moses as to what all the different sacrifices should be. It seems to me that he has no problem whatsoever with sacrifice, human or otherwise. Indeed, killing people off seems rather a favorite hobby of his all throughout the OT.

    Fr. Stephen:

    I find it spiritually very disturbing that matters such as creation have become a point of easy debate in which Christians take up positions

    As do I. To my mind, the creation story is all but irrelevant. Clearly the Earth was not created before the sun and stars as Genesis outlines. What does matter to me is this idea that humans fell from some perfect state. If there was some evidence that we were in fact separate from any other animal, I would find it easier to accept the premise (then again, someone would come along and suggest that we were not from this planet after all….). But the fact that we are related and that we exhibit the same behaviors, the fact that there is morality among other primates (and dogs, elephants and other animals) leaves even less distinction between us and them than we once supposed.

    I’ve been told before that if there is no such historical moment, then Christ’s death and resurrection need not have occurred.

    This was the conclusion that I drew after much agony and questioning.

    The OT never mentions Adam’s fall, outside of the early chapters of Genesis.

    True. And Judaism gives it very little importance even today (I grilled a Rabbi about this when I was going through my deconversion process). This is why I came to the conclusion that Christianity cannot stand without the Fall of Man story. Everything is predicated on it. Without the Fall story, none of Christianity makes sense.

    As I told Doug, I have try at every opportunity to filter issues down to their bare essentials. In my mind, the Fall and the Cross are the only two issues that need to be examined. Everything else is peripheral. To remove one or the other would be to have a Yang with no Yin.

    It’s is Christ’s death and resurrection that raises the question that makes the story of the fall interesting again.

    Exactly. So, it begs the question that I originally posed; is or can the Fall story be true? If not, is it possible that this “fallenness” that we feel is actually simply awareness that some of our base instincts are not compatible with the needs to build a human society? That is, is there a biological explanation for how we feel? I think this is a distinct possibility.

27. 

    dinoship

    November 1, 2012

    John,
    indeed there is a vast difference between intelligent design and theistic evolution.

    The pill analogy is very pertinent!

    My ‘Falls’, your ‘falls’, Adam’s ‘fall’ as well as “All of Universal Adam’s” “Fall” is when we choose, as only someone bestowed with this freedom of choice that we are given, “Me” instead of “Him”, “myself” instead of the “Other”. The reverse is what Christ does on the Cross and eternally. Total love vs total egotism is at the root of this. This is far more more than simply:
    “is or can the Fall story be true?”

28. 

    Michael Patrick

    November 1, 2012

    PJ, I hope this isn’t offensive; it’s not meant to be: Your arguments about scripture and sacrifice could be read as Protestant or RC. In their premises I can discern no difference.

29. 

    PJ

    November 1, 2012

    John,

    “I’d have an easier time of accepting this except that the same god went into great detail with Moses as to what all the different sacrifices should be.”

    Sacrifice is not in and of itself wrong. It can even be good, when done for the right motives. Indeed, as I said, there is no love apart from sacrifice.

    But the pagan world fundamentally misunderstood the meaning and nature and purpose of sacrifice. Yes, both the Jews and the pagans offered oblations to heaven, but the logic behind the two systems could not have been more different.

    Originally, the difference was not so clear, but it becomes increasingly evident as the coming of the Word grows near. Salvation history is a process of progressive revelation. Remember, God was dealing with violent, ignorant, self-centered little bags of flesh and bone. He revealed Himself slowly.

    The critiques of the sacrificial system found in the prophets and the psalms hints at what is to come. Similar critiques cropped up in other parts of the world around the same time, for there are seeds of truth everywhere. God was preparing all mankind for the arrival of His Word, albeit Israel in a special way.

    “It seems to me that he has no problem whatsoever with sacrifice, human or otherwise. Indeed, killing people off seems rather a favorite hobby of his all throughout the OT.”

    This sort of juvenile commentary is crude and beneath you. I expect it on dark corners of the internet, but not here. I won’t even dignify this with a response.

    I will say that I’ve never truly understood the beauty and charity of God’s old covenant, nor His salvific economy prior to the incarnation, until I read the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria. But there are many other competent expositions of and apologies for the “God in the OT,” many of which are on this site.

    If you aren’t convinced, fine, but why come among devout Christians and say that their God has a penchant for murder? That’s simply rude. You’re better than that.

30. 

    PJ

    November 1, 2012

    I don’t know what you mean by that, Michael.

31. 

    PJ

    November 1, 2012

    I’m certainly not an adherent of Sola Scriptura, and my interpretation is heavily influenced by the fathers, so I’m surprised to hear anyone say as much.

32. 

    PJ

    November 1, 2012

    Bleh … Don’t mean to be overly abrasive, John. Sort of rough day thus far. Nonetheless, I’m surprised of your choice of words!!

33. 

    John Shores

    November 1, 2012

    Sacrifice is not in and of itself wrong. It can even be good, when done for the right motives.

    This is where you and I differ. If you were my best friend and you had an affair with my wife and then came to me wanting to reconcile, if my wish was to reconcile as well I would not say, “I will forgive you if you kill your dog.” I wouldn’t expect you to kill anything. There is no motive for bloody sacrifice that I can accept as remotely reasonable for the forgiveness of sins.

    Salvation history is a process of progressive revelation.

    I think Fr. Stephen would disagree with you on this.

    God was dealing with violent, ignorant, self-centered little bags of flesh and bone.

    If you are suggesting that we are in any way different from the people of that time, I would beg to differ. With the exception that we have more data than they, I don’t think human nature has changed an ounce in the last 30,000 years.

    This sort of juvenile commentary is crude and beneath you…why come among devout Christians and say that their God has a penchant for murder?

    Wow, you are in a foul mood today. I doubt anyone here would deny that there are some very ugly things in the OT that are hard to reconcile. I am simply pointing out that god, for whatever reasons, does not seem to be bothered by causing death and destruction of humans or animals.

    Please don’t tell me that any Christian is shocked that someone who is seeking god is horrified by these things. Indeed, I think you would be hard-pressed to find any Christian who is not initially mortified by god’s reported actions in the OT. If any have taken offense, I apologize.

    But none of this really matters. As I have stated, the only two issues that matter at the outset are the Fall and the Cross. All the rest is immaterial until those are settled.

34. 

    fatherstephen

    November 1, 2012

    Marc,
    “Delusion” is perhaps too strong. I take your point. Thanks!

35. 

    PJ

    November 1, 2012

    “This is where you and I differ. If you were my best friend and you had an affair with my wife and then came to me wanting to reconcile, if my wish was to reconcile as well I would not say, “I will forgive you if you kill your dog.” I wouldn’t expect you to kill anything. There is no motive for bloody sacrifice that I can accept as remotely reasonable for the forgiveness of sins.”

    You would indeed need to offer up sacrifices, just spiritual ones. You would have to let go of your anger, your pain, your hurt. You’d have to put to death your wounded ego.

    “If you are suggesting that we are in any way different from the people of that time, I would beg to differ. With the exception that we have more data than they, I don’t think human nature has changed an ounce in the last 30,000 years.”

    Our behavior has changed, I think, and for the better. There’s still plenty of wickedness in the heart of man, but there has been progress in morals in certain important realms (though regression in others). This change is, sadly, pretty superficial, and can easily evaporate, as evidenced by, Dachau or Auschwitz.

    As for your distaste for blood sacrifice to a wrathful deity: I agree with you! But this is precisely why I embrace the cross. It is the greatest condemnation of that mentality and those practices to have ever existed.

    “I think Fr. Stephen would disagree with you on this.”

    I don’t know about this. Perhaps he can tell us.

    “Foul mood…”

    Oh, bah, I know I am … believe me. I apologize again for being abrasive. Nonetheless, you should consider that your words have power — for good and ill. We all know there are “dark passages” in the Bible that are difficult to understand, but to say sarcastically “God has a hobby for killing people” is rather needlessly provocative. This is the same God we love, mind you. There’s just no need to speak like that. I think that Allah is contemptible in many ways, but I wouldn’t go into a mosque and say as much.

36. 

    dinoship

    November 1, 2012

    John,

    “If you were my best friend and you had an affair with my wife and then came to me wanting to reconcile, if my wish was to reconcile as well I would not say, “I will forgive you if you kill your dog.” I wouldn’t expect you to kill anything. There is no motive for bloody sacrifice that I can accept as remotely reasonable for the forgiveness of sins.

    Shows to me a completely different angle of understanding, one that would not even occur to an Orthodox thinker, but maybe that is a Protestant understanding?
    The need for sacrifice is not in you -the offended one- it is in the one who loves you.
    In the case of Christ, as well as the Saints, they desire sacrifice – to be sacrificed out of love. Check out Saint Ignatius’s words before his martyrdom!

37. 

    fatherstephen

    November 1, 2012

    John Shores:

    I said:

    I’ve been told before that if there is no such historical moment, then Christ’s death and resurrection need not have occurred.
    

    And you said:
    This was the conclusion that I drew after much agony and questioning.

    Yes. And this drives my point. We’ve been “trained” in our cultural take on Christianity (given us by many teachers) to take the historical path, which, of course, always starts at the beginning. It creates a logic chain and a historical narrative that even feels “necessary.” But in Orthodoxy, as noted in the writings of Fr. Behr, we properly begin with Pascha. Adam is not important to the “narrative” of the OT. It is Christ’s resurrection that makes it interesting. But, I think, it doesn’t have to make it historical. St. Paul uses Adam in a very rabbinical manner – not that he didn’t see all this in a historical manner – but he sees it as “rabbinical” history – which is slightly different than the way we think at present. Thus he feels very free with typology and allegory and all the rabbinical tools he can muster to make his point.

    But by buying the historical narrative (as necessity) we make Pascha hold a place within something else. Pascha is greater than all things. St. Paul’s conversion is at the hand of the risen Lord. I suspect he’d never thought much about Adam until becoming a Christian – it wasn’t important in Judaism. But it becomes important. Just like he came to a new understanding of circumcision. And a new understanding of Hagar and Ishmael, for example. Christ changes the story that precedes Him, because He is the story. I know that many will not understand me when I say that Genesis is about Christ and His Pascha, and not secondarily. That is the Christian “narrative.”

    The greater consensus of the Eastern Fathers does not see the fall as a fall from perfect, but a deviation from a path. It is a very different thing.

38. 

    PJ

    November 1, 2012

    ” Indeed, I think you would be hard-pressed to find any Christian who is not initially mortified by god’s reported actions in the OT.”

    There are a few situations in the OT (and even a few in the NT!) that I find … difficult. Perhaps some of these events did not actually occur. But if they did, then I trust God acted out of mercy, for He is all good, all compassionate, as His most decisive self-manifestation (Christ) makes clear. What appears awful and tragic to creatures like us, trapped in the confines of time and space, may really be wonderful in context of eternity.

39. 

    PJ

    November 1, 2012

    Good point, Dino. It’s interesting that, in John’s scenario, he assumed that sacrifice would be necessary from the offender, rather than the offended. On the other hand, I assumed that the one who would have to offer up sacrifices would be the one who is “rightfully” offended.

40. 

    dinoship

    November 1, 2012

    John,

    BTW, The red pill/ blue pill analogy is very pertinent in your case methinks! Maybe in all of us!

    My ‘Falls’, your ‘falls’, Adam’s ‘fall’ as well as The “Universal Adam’s” “Fall” is when, in the simplest of terms, we choose, (as only someone bestowed with this freedom of choice that we are given can), “Me” instead of “Him”, “myself” instead of the “Other”. The reverse is what Christ does on the Cross and eternally… Total love vs total egotism is at the root of this. This is far more more than simply:

    “is or can the Fall story be true?”

41. 

    dinoship

    November 1, 2012

    John,
    BTW, The red pill/ blue pill analogy is very pertinent in your case methinks! Maybe in all of us!

42. 

    dinoship

    November 1, 2012

    John Shores,

    let me try re-posting a small part of this (as I cannot get it to work again):

    My ‘Falls’, your ‘falls’, Adam’s ‘fall’ as well as The “Universal Adam’s” “Fall” is when, in the simplest of terms, we choose, (as only someone bestowed with this freedom of choice that we are given can), “Me” instead of “Him”, “myself” instead of the “Other”. The reverse is what Christ does on the Cross and eternally… Total love vs total egotism is at the root of this. This is far more more than simply:

    “is or can the Fall story be true?”

43. 

    PJ

    November 1, 2012

    Many of the fathers, following the custom of Greek philosophy, labelled man a sort of animal. Gregory Nazianzen said “Man is an animal called to become a god.” Scripture itself says that we are made of clay. Every Ash Wednesday, the priest reminds us, “Remember that from dust you came, and to dust you shall return.”

    There is a definite strain within Christianity that is rather sober — even contemptuous — about the origins of man, although it seems that the prelapsarian state was increasingly glorified and idealized throughout modernity, perhaps as a sort of religious counterpart to Rousseau’s “noble savage.” Hmm…

44. 

    dinoship

    November 1, 2012

    PJ,
    an important point concerning the prelapsarian state especially in Maximus the confessor is that he always reiterates that Man fell “as soon as he was made” (“ἅμα τῷ γίγνεσθαι”)
    There is considerable variation on the subject though.

45. 

    John Shores

    November 1, 2012

    You would indeed need to offer up sacrifices, just spiritual ones. You would have to let go of your anger, your pain, your hurt. You’d have to put to death your wounded ego.

    You make my case. No blood involved.

    I think that Allah is contemptible in many ways, but I wouldn’t go into a mosque and say as much.

    Unless you had a death wish.

    Perhaps some of these events did not actually occur.

    Oh, please don’t say that to me! If we are going to revert to “some of this is fiction” then the whole of it crumbles.

    they desire sacrifice – to be sacrificed out of love

    Attaining to god, as many of the martyrs expressed this need for sacrifice, is not the same as the sacrifice of Christ.

46. 

    PJ

    November 1, 2012

    John,

    “You make my case. No blood involved.”

    Right. Agreed. But this is not the case with every sacrifice. As I said, St. Maximilian Kolbe’s sacrifice was “bloody.” He willingly took the place of Franciszek Gajowniczek at Auschwitz and, after having been starved for fourteen days, was killed by injection of carbolic acid.

    On Calvary, Christ “loved until the end.” He united Himself in mystical solidarity with all who suffer — even those who suffer unto death. The cross cries out: “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.”

    The cross — and the resurrection, for they cannot be separated — proclaims “love is stronger than death.” Having suffered on that torturous gibbet, Christ declares eternally, “I have overcome hatred with charity; wickedness with forgiveness; rage with humility.” And rising from the tomb, having proven the power of absolute self-giving love, agape, He announces, “Life has vanquished death.”

    I used to loathe the cross, too. I despised it, thought it wretched. This is natural. Paul himself admits as much: “The message of the cross is foolishness.” Yes, the foolishness of dying to self: the foolishness of pure love, which condemns the powerful and corrupt, the self-satisfied and self-absorbed. “God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.”

    I hope this gives you a different perspective on the tree of life. Christ’s is stretched out on the cross because that’s what love does: It tears us apart for the sake of the other.

    “Oh, please don’t say that to me! If we are going to revert to “some of this is fiction” then the whole of it crumbles.”

    That’s a point of view. Not a very sensible one to my mind, but certainly very common in America, this heartland of Protestant fundamentalism, this veritable breeding ground of heresy.

47. 

    Michael Patrick

    November 1, 2012

    Doug, I hope your heavy-handed trespass evangelism will end by some means. Best by you learning to dialog, but if not, I hope Fr. Stephen will filter your posts. Either way, may you be blessed.

48. 

    PJ

    November 1, 2012

    “But the same book- myth or not- shows that when he sees an offense he always (1) sets a suitable punishment”

    Really? This is what you take away from the Bible? That we suffer the suitable punishment for our sins? Seems to me that we receive precisely what we *do not* deserve: we have earned death yet we receive abundant life — indeed, participation in the divine nature.

49. 

    PJ

    November 1, 2012

    John,

    I just went on Netflix and, strangely enough, it suggested a film called “Sacrifice.” Heh…

50. 

    dinoship

    November 1, 2012

    Doug,
    just like me, you too seem to (hotly, like me) think that our “comments are meant to defend God’s word against adulterators and his kingdom against the traditions of men.”
    But, truth be told, God’s word doesn’t need our defence of it but our application of it; on us; not on others.
    Some of the most sublime theologians (e.g: Origen) went astray wanting to “defend the truth” (and that potentiality always scares me and it should at least make all of us more tempered and careful). The true disciples and saints did not want to defend the Truth… They wanted to live the Truth.

51. 

    PJ

    November 1, 2012

    Tell me a little more about your diagnosis of Origen, Dino.

52. 

    John Shores

    November 1, 2012

    Doug: My only problem with the death penalty is that it isn’t used enough. I apologize if I made you think otherwise.

53. 

    dinoship

    November 1, 2012

    PJ,
    I cannot call this my diagnosis, but I fully adhere to it, it is my spiritual ‘Grandfather’s’, Elder Aimilianos’ words (my quick translation):

    “How did Origen who had such a great wisdom and acted from a truly good heart and was motivated by love of the Church fall into grave mistakes?
    He lacked humility. He wanted to speak the truth. God’s servant does not want to speak the truth, he wants to live the truth, to live out humility. All who express “the truth”, their theological opinion, those who want to be ‘correct’, they are the ones who err, and one day they will hear from the Lord: “I know not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.” Origen was the first to make a ‘system of theology’, the first who thought of expressing, not himself, but the faith of the Holy Church. But the Fathers of the Church and the monastics lived the faith, they did not proclaim it. Living the faith they proclaimed and testified the faith…
    He, in the end, offered death to the Church, even though he was sublime and truly mystical. The great Fathers of the Church used his writings without usually stating they were his.”
    (from “Neptic life and Ascetic Canons” by Elder Aimilianos of Simonpetra)

54. 

    PJ

    November 1, 2012

    Interesting. For his various strange ideas, I’m loathe to speak poorly of Origen, if only because he ran the race until the end — the bloody end. Who am I, who can barely murmur the Gospel when need be, to speak badly of a martyr? Nonetheless, interesting stuff.

55. 

    PJ

    November 1, 2012

    ” It has been refreshing to me and like water to my soul. ”

    …the waters of the Jordan…?

56. 

    PJ

    November 1, 2012

    John,

    “Rather, the overpowering realization that we, in our current state, hold such a weighty responsibility toward the other species on the planet has been terrifying in a way that I could not comprehend before.”

    This sense of “obligation” toward other species actually runs throughout Christian thought. We are reasonable creatures and thus, as part of our priestly duty, we are called to “speak for” all creation; to offer up with the cries of our own heart the very groaning of creation. Thus the forth eucharistic prayer states, “We shall sing Your glory with every creature through Christ our Lord.”

57. 

    fatherstephen

    November 1, 2012

    A note to all. I’ve removed some of the last bits of conversation with Doug. His comments are a distraction and very far beside the point. Thank you for your patience. I have to “come and go” when moderating – doing my other work…

    I also apologize that some (Dinoship especially) have had trouble with the Akismet Spam filter. I’m checking it regularly. Supposedly, when I tell it that something is “not spam” it’s supposed to learn from the mistake.

    Thus, my suggestion is to post once, and if it gets caught in the Spam thingy, I’ll free it. If you re-post I still free it, but then I have to delete the repeated stuff, and maybe the filter isn’t “learning” as it should. I’ll try to be on top of things for a few days.

    On Tuesday of next week I will be traveling in the Western US, speaking at a couple of places and will be more sporadic for a week in posting and moderating. I beseech your patience.

58. 

    fatherstephen

    November 1, 2012

    BTW, does anyone know what the OP was that Doug was alluding to? Did he mean the “Orthodox Presbyterians”? If so, if was more clueless than I thought.

59. 

    PJ

    November 1, 2012

    “Orthodox Priest,” I think.

60. 

    Brian Van Sickle

    November 1, 2012

    Maybe I’m clueless (no surprise there), but it seems to me that John Shore’s essential question still stands unanswered whether the answer begins with Christ’s Pascha or with Adam.

    Is it a “necessity” (and I would appreciate hearing the thoughts of others) that the answer of the Orthodox to this question be framed in a manner that is either historical or allegorical? Can it not be both/and? While Orthodox Christians would agree that everything begins and ends with Christ and that even Biblical historical narratives are not to be understood quite as literally as we would understand the historical narratives of today, I’m not so sure we can take the liberty of dismissing the essential, actual history and reality of the lives of the persons in the narrative in our effort to give proper preeminence to the Truth that transcends history.

    Isn’t it possible that the narrative speaks of real people having real experiences that are prophetic of Christ, which is to say that their very lives prophesied of Christ and His enemies (whether they realized it or not) just as we do now (whether we realize it or not)? To say that Adam and Eve, for example, were types of something much larger than their individual lives may be to affirm the significance of their personhood rather than to deny the reality of their existence or to say that their existence as persons is insignificant to the narrative. The same may be said of the story of Joseph and his brothers, Moses, David, all the prophets, and indeed all the persons in Scripture. In like manner, the Theotokos is a person whose significance extends far beyond her individual historical existence. Do we not venerate as Saints those who also participated (and participate still) in the narrative (“By faith Abraham…by faith Moses”)? Was not Mary visited by the Gabriel “in the days of Herod, the king of Judea?” And was not our Lord born when “…a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered?” Was not our Lord “crucified under Pontius Pilot?”

    Perhaps I misunderstand (again, no surprise), but the either/or approach has always puzzled me for this reason:

    Isn’t what was said above also true of our very real lives, the significance of which extends far beyond our individual, historical existence (which no one denies)? Isn’t it true that our personhood matters, that we are not merely incidental to a larger, more important story? Isn’t it true that in Christ we are that story – a narrative that truly exists within history while also transcending history?

    I am unable to express fully my intuitive sense that all these thoughts have reference to the Incarnation and that they somehow relate to John Shore’s essential question.

    Thoughts anyone?

61. 

    Rhonda

    November 2, 2012

    Time is a pernicious & difficult concept even though we are so intricately linked with it. We are born on date A, we die on date Z & we quantify the amount of time in between. We forget that time too is linked to the creation of all that is. We forget that God is eternal…timeless…beyond time…even beyond all of our futile & vague concepts of time.

    Timelines are fine when they are understood correctly. When we “require” a timeline, or the “literal/historical/cause-and-effect/what-you-see-is-all-there-is [lhcaewysiati for short]” we quickly get into trouble theologically because we inevitably superimpose time onto God. The creation is contingent (subject to time); God & His divine economy of salvation is not (remember the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world). We need God because we also are contingent; God does not need us (or anything part of creation) because he is eternal.

    We do not need a literal historical “fall” story to know that mankind is fallen (i.e. sick with a disease called sin that results in death). We do not need a “creation” story to know that God created everything & that mankind is in essence (by nature) above the animals & the rest of the created order. Our experiences, reason & even the sciences tell us this. Perhaps the stories were written in order to narrate what we already knew, perhaps the stories were literal historical events, it really does not matter where God & salvation is concerned.

    Perhaps an example from our own worldview that those who have raised children will fully understand: Remember the “terrible two’s”? When our children are 2-3 year olds & throwing their temper tantrums when they don’t get their way, we do not call it sin nor do we declare them to be guilty of sin. They are acting according to their fallen nature. We call them immature children & strive to raise them up to be mature adults. For children raised in the Orthodox Church where the mystery of Confession is practiced, children are not required to participate in Confession until they mature enough to understand their good/bad conduct at least on a rudimentary level, usually around age 7. Some children are ready at this age, some are not, & some are ready before this age. There is no “instant” (historical data point in time) to which this “culpability/understanding” can be absolutely & definitively determined, nor does there need to be in order for this to be “determinable”.

    Just as loving & wise parents know when their children are culpable for their actions & ready for Confession, so too (in my opinion) did God know when mankind was ready to be held accountable for actions. The story of creation is in essence that of the absolutely loving & absolutely wise parent creating & rearing children to the age of accountability. The story of the fall was in essence the story of mankind’s first chance for Confession upon reaching that age of accountability—a Confession he (Adam) did not make then & as a whole mankind still does not make today.

    With this view one does not have to worry about neither the “sciences” nor “history” substantiating or undermining one’s theological framework. It becomes useless & even counter-productive to argue either for/against evolutionary theory, a 6,000 year old literal creation story based on the Bible, a 13.8 billion year old big bang theory based on science, historical facts, statistical data or on anything else for that matter.

    In many ways religious apologists are merely on the flip-side of the coin from secularists. Both are intent on substantiating their theological framework, or their lack thereof, using the same logical/philosophical arguments, scientific data & historic facts to “prove” their point. When they do not win, then the opposing side is branded ignorant, uneducated, irrational, illogical, radical, liberal, conservative, fundamentalist, heretical, schismatic, superstitious, or (insert-derogative-of-your-choice). “Fundamentalism” is abusive & ugly, whether committed by the religious or non-religious.

    I think that this is Fr. Stephen’s message (& I sincerely hope he will correct me if I err)… Orthodoxy does not deny the historicity of past events, yet neither is Orthodoxy enslaved by it as is the lhcaewysiati perspective. The Incarnation, Crucifixion & Resurrection of Christ were not God’s fall-back position—His plan B since plan A failed. Orthodoxy starts first with Christ (Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection). Only then does Orthodoxy look either back to evaluate (more properly understand) the past (including the Fall & Creation) or look forward to understand the present. All events (whether pre-Christ or post-Christ) are understood through the lens of Christ. The lhcaewysiati in contrast reverses this & understands Christ (Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection) through the lens of history. In this worldview Christ for all intents & purposes ceases to be the focal point of salvation; this is just plain wrong…(IMO anyway).

62. 

    Rhonda

    November 2, 2012

    John Shores & Brian:

    For the Orthodox the question is NOT:

    is or can the Fall story be true?

    strictly speaking in the lhcaewysiat sense. For us the question is “Does the Fall story (as well as the Creation story) reveal spiritual truth?” Or perhaps more properly, “What is the spiritual truth behind the stories?”

    Many icons in Orthodoxy depicting historical events are not depicted according to historical fact. Take a look at the the icon of Pentecost, for example (www.goarch.org/special/listen_learn_share/pentecost/pentecost09.jpg). St. Paul is depicted on the top right in the icon as one of the twelve apostles on whom the Holy Spirit descended. In the strict historic factual sense of the Scriptures, St. Paul at that time in history was not yet a Christian & would soon to be persecuting Christians even holding the garments of those stoning St. Stephen, the first Christian martyr just one or two years later. Historically speaking, St. Paul was not present & did not experience the descent of the cloven tongues of fire (the Holy Spirit) at the same time as the other apostles. Spiritually speaking though, St. Paul did receive the Holy Spirit, just as the others, only he received the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. Due to his most excellent service to the Church, he is depicted with the other apostles in the icon of Pentecost even though historically at that point in time he was not yet a follower of Christ. The Pentecost icon portrays spiritual truth rather than historical fact in its depiction of an historical event. I believe that this is the intent of the Creation & Fall stories found in Genesis, to reveal the spiritual truth rather than historical fact.

63. 

    dinoship

    November 2, 2012

    Very Well said Rhonda 🙂

64. 

    Rhonda

    November 2, 2012

    Dino,

    That’s to be “high praise” coming from you! Thanks.
    🙂

65. 

    fatherstephen

    November 2, 2012

    Rhonda, et al
    Indeed, well said!
    The icons were a very pivotal moment for me in Orthodox thought. I did my thesis at Duke on the theology of icons and the time spent within that helped focus many thoughts and changed how I looked at things. Your example of how icons handle “historical” moments is spot on.

    The 7th Council said: “Icons do with color what Scripture does with words.” My entire thesis came together when I was thinking about this statement. The way I posed the matter was to turn things about. For the Church had very little material, or not material gathered together in a single place, such as surrounding a Council, on “what Scripture does with words.” On the other hand it had a great deal of material on “what icons do with colors” in the works that accompanied the 7th Council. In turning things about I asked, “How does the Scripture do with words what icons do with colors?”

    I wrote first about the “iconicity of language.” Icons certainly have a historical basis. But even when they do, their treatment of history is decidedly different than say a photograph or Western-style realism. An iconic portrayal of a historical event takes the historical into a deeper meaning, revealing both the event, its meaning, its connections, etc. It is a “theological portrait” of an event. I think the gospels do this in a very striking manner. St. John’s “These things were written that you might believe,” is not simply saying, “I wrote down this historical stuff so that you could read about it, think about it, and come to a decision for Christ.” Instead, there is an iconic shaping of the material so that it will reveal Christ. A flat, “Just the facts, Ma’am,” does not and usually will not do this revelatory work.

    I spent a lot of time with this – about two years – in which I read, worked, prayed, thought, wrote, etc. The work has never been published, though I’ve recently thought of “re-working” it for publication. It’s now 20 years since it was written.

    But seeing how the Church used its icons was a revelation about the nature of theology, history, etc. in the hands of the fathers, and particularly the liturgical/worship life of the Church. To be in an Orthodox service is to stand in a living, singing, smelling, visual, tactile, heart-revealing icon of the gospel of Christ. And you become part of that icon. Liturgy does with worship what the Scripture does with words.

    I have thought a lot about this over the last 20 years. Much of what I write is rooted in that understanding and experience. It solved a lot of “intellectual” puzzles – many of them surrounding the problems created by juxtaposing a Westernized, secularized view of history and an iconized Scriptural account. There is certainly history in Scripture and its not unimportant – icons have a relationship with history. But the Westernized dominance (which will say, “Yeah, but what REALLY happened?) doesn’t like icons. It will paint over them and try to “correct” them, yielding boring, flat pictures that reveal little. The meaning is extracted from the pictures and made to reside in a rationalized theology.

    Iconic portrayal and understanding is a different manner of seeing, knowing and communicating and is and has been the primary means of Orthodox thought. It is often incomprehensible to our modern ears and eyes and we want to make it come clean and speak “clearly.”

    I would argue that the iconic view of things is not just an Eastern cultural artifact – but is itself shaped by how God treats the world, makes Himself known, and even, how the world is shaped in its very reality. The work I did in Everywhere Present speaks some about this “iconic” character of the world and how to see it. It’s related to what I’m trying to do in writing about the “mystical” or “allegorical.” I am not trying to devalue the historical/literal but to suggest that iconic is more accurate, Biblical and Orthodox and to push us towards being able to understand that. It is work towards the conversion of our perception.

    That’s a lot for a Friday morning. I’m working on a post on ritual that I hope to post later today.

66. 

    PJ

    November 2, 2012

    From my own reading, which isn’t insignificant, it appears that many Orthodox *do* believe in a “literal” fall, a “literal” Adam and Eve, a “literal” Eden, etc. The great spiritual athlete Seraphim Rose certainly did. Surely, this is a legitimate view, is it not, Father?

    It seems to me important to admit that most ancient Christians embraced the historicity of Adam and Eve in a manner not altogether different from Protestant fundamentalists of today. That is, Adam and Eve walked this planet, breathing air and drinking water and eating meat; they sinned by transgressing the law of God; they were cast into the cold world and populated the earth; all people are descended from them. I would be happy to be proved wrong on this point …

    That said, the fathers valued the use of reason, and often used the “science” and philosophy of their day. St. Augustine wrote in his Literal Interpretation of Genesis:

    “With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.”

    If — if — reason makes the interpretations of Basil or Ephrem impossible, then I don’t see why we can’t say, “They did their best, but we need to sit down and figure this out again.” So long as the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ is our guiding star, we can’t go wrong.

67. 

    PJ

    November 2, 2012

    ““These things were written that you might believe,” is not simply saying, “I wrote down this historical stuff so that you could read about it, think about it, and come to a decision for Christ.” Instead, there is an iconic shaping of the material so that it will reveal Christ. A flat, “Just the facts, Ma’am,” does not and usually will not do this revelatory work. ”

    No, Saint John did not say that — but that mindset is not altogether absent in Saint Luke.

    “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4).

    You’ve taught me a lot, Father, and your meditations have deepened my faith and brocaded my heart. For that I am greatly thankful. However, I sometimes think that, in reaction to the theological cliches of the west, you occasionally go too far in the opposite direction.

    For instance, the reality of Adam and Eve were taken for granted for almost two thousand years. East or west, if you asked any devout Christian about the origins of mankind, they would almost surely say: “One man — Adam; one woman — Eve.” It is thus pretty radical — at least to most ears — to downplay or even dismiss the question of their historicity. It’s almost like … These old questions/ideas must be answered — put to bed — truly dealt with one way or another — before any other paradigm can be established. Do you know what I mean??

    Please don’t take these words the wrong way. As I said, I have nothing but the highest regard for you. But I thought it might be worthwhile to voice this misgiving, which I’ve pondered for some time now. With much brotherly love in Christ …

68. 

    fatherstephen

    November 2, 2012

    PJ,
    Yes, I don’t disagree. Like others, when talking about the Garden, I use the “literal” voice (to coin a new grammar construct). But Augustine is spot on about this.

    What is lacking in the modern mind, however, is the ability to use the “allegorical” voice or better “iconic” voice without tremendous mental gymnastics and crises of conscience. This is where we fail and where we do damage to theology that was often written in an iconic key.

69. 

    Rhonda

    November 2, 2012

    Fr. Stephen,

    iconicity of language

    theological portrait

    How does the Scripture do with words what icons do with colors?

    I like & shall remember these comments.

    To be in an Orthodox service is to stand in a living, singing, smelling, visual, tactile, heart-revealing icon of the gospel of Christ. And you become part of that icon. Liturgy does with worship what the Scripture does with words.

    I never thought of this! Superb!

    Looking forward to the posting about ritual 🙂

    Again, thanks for the “high praise”!

70. 

    fatherstephen

    November 2, 2012

    PJ,
    As for St. Luke – you read him like a Westerner 🙂 missing a key statement. First he says, in a very odd and important statement, “Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us”…

    First he says, “have been fulfilled among us.” This is not a normal phrase in Greek. It would be normal to say, “happened.” “Fulfilled” is heavily theological and immediately puts things in a more “iconic” framework than the merely historical. And he next adds “just as though the eyewitnesses, etc., delivered [traditioned] them to us. St. Luke does not at all claim to record a “just the facts Ma’am” gospel. He instead flatly states that he is recording the traditioned account of the gospel. That is the literal statement of the text. It is the traditioned narrative that is accurately the narrative as traditioned by the eyewitnesses (the 12) and ministers of the word (their successors – i.e. those trained in the transmission of the oral tradition) that St. Luke is relating.

    A friend said to me yesterday, “It is only on conservative Evangelical sites and some Orthodox sites that you’ll find any discussion about literal Adam and Eve.” It is extremely problematic – in the sense which St. Augustine described – in a culture that generally accepts a 15 billion year old universe. I understand that some will maintain that this is a battle that must be fought. I don’t think it ever was – and that Orthodoxy needs to use its wonderful arsenal of theological understanding to deal with this.

    Fr. Seraphim Rose was a good monk and a good translator. With fear and trembling I will say that he was not a good theologian (may the Orthodox blogosphere forgive me). I know people who knew him personally and I have very deep respect for him. But there are growing problems associated with taking his work as an Orthodox touchstone. It is not. His translations of many works is extremely important. His life as a monk and repentance is truly exemplary. But his theological perception is weak. It tends towards a cursory use of the fathers – a sort of surface consensus – and does not pierce through to the thought and heart of what lies behind them. He took up the cudgel of “Parisians” when faced with some fairly serious work by Russian Emigres (such as Schmemann) that is sadly repeated by some today who all too often lack understanding and appreciation of the whole situation.

    Much of this is being ironed out and allowed to mature since the healing of the rupture between the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR. Both Churches are benefitting from each other. But it will take a generation or two to restore the depth of theology that was crushed and scattered by the Bolsheviks. I am putting a link here to a recent article by a Russian Deacon Andrew Kuraev on the evolution thing.

    He is more than just a Deacon. I’m told he is the author of the text book now used in Russian schools for religious education. It replaced the pre-revolutionary Law of God that some will be familiar with. But it is his reference to other contemporary theologians that I found of interest. His work is not an official pronouncement from Moscow, but it is certainly representative of a lot of Orthodox thought.

    That many have spoken in a literal manner about our first parents through the centuries doesn’t remove some of the obvious problems. That some of offered a theological handling of our first parents in a manner not dependent on a literal take is, on the other hand, helpful. The gospel of Christ does not and should not rise or fall on a historical Adam. It has not done so in the sum total of Orthodox work and need not do so now. If it is required to do so, then our faith will be offered up on the wrong altar and will perish.

    There are two ways of approaching all of this for refugees of the West (like myself). We run from the crush of falling timbers as liberalism collapses Christianity. Some want a shelter that offers new ways to uphold the faith. Thus: “This is the first Church. Here we can argue from Scripture and from Tradition. Not only does the Bible say it but so do the Fathers, I will take my stand here.”

    Just as the liberals have crushed the Scriptures, they will crush the fathers. They don’t care how many sources you cite. Infallible Bible, infallible Pope, infallible fathers – it’s all the same trap and it will all collapse in the same manner. Such “paper popes” are insignificant when it comes to addressing the needs and arguments and crises of the present.

    The second way is to see that the fathers and the Orthodox Church, has not been trapped in the historical/literal arguments of the West. Science is not a threat nor does it set the battleground for the faith. It is not afraid of dealing with history – but neither is it so married to a literal account of pre-history that the faith collapses at the turn of an archaeologist’s spade. The question becomes not just “What did the fathers say?” But “Did the fathers say anything that is helpful to us in our present crisis?” To that, the answer is “Yes.” This is Fr. Georges Florovsky’s sense of a “Neo-Patristic Synthesis.” It is a reading of the fathers with an ear for their voice addressed to our present questions and an appropriation of the fullness of the Tradition to be lived in the present time. It’s what guides my work.

    Just some thoughts…

71. 

    Michael Bauman

    November 2, 2012

    If we interpret the Scripture iconically then we cannot stand outside it and critique it, historically or otherwise. Icons are written to include the person(s) viewing the icon (reverse perspective). I have seen very little written directly on this aspect of Scripture but maybe I’ve just missed it. It is certainly implied in much of what Fr. Stephen writes. However, I think it points up a big difference between Orthodox approach to Scripture and other ways.

    Orthodox Christianity is a traditional faith which means that it is passed down rather more than taught, lived/experienced more than explained. Thus the understanding of symbol, icon, sacrament and our inter-connection with Jesus Christ and one another as living realities rather than stuff we do or think or even believe.

    It is in this living reality that the demons simply do not exist because they cannot exist where people are actively submitting to the love of Christ in mercy and repentance for that is the Kingdom of God.

    Demons only exist in the land of idols.

72. 

    PJ

    November 2, 2012

    Thanks for the thorough response. Lots to chew on. The last paragraph is very helpful in particular.

    I sometimes feel uneasy about those who try to manipulate the writings of the fathers to make them more in accordance with, say, modern understandings of cosmology or evolution. I’ve come to feel that we must simply admit that they were wrong about some things. Meanwhile, we must, as you say, “read … [them] with an ear for their voice addressed to our present questions and an appropriation of the fullness of the Tradition to be lived in the present time.” This seems to me to be the method of Pope Benedict, too.

73. 

    PJ

    November 2, 2012

    “It is in this living reality that the demons simply do not exist because they cannot exist where people are actively submitting to the love of Christ in mercy and repentance for that is the Kingdom of God.”

    This seems a bit too bold and categorical. There are myriad tales of holy men and women enduring varying degrees of demonic assault. We don’t seem to know a whole lot about the wicked intelligences … I therefore wonder if such sweeping statements really hold water.

74. 

    Michael Bauman

    November 2, 2012

    On science: the question to me is are we using rationalistic modern scientism much of it based on philosphical naturalism (with an inherent antipathy to Christ) to interpret Holy Tradition (totally unaceptable), or are we using the wisdom and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to refine truth from the dross around it: the historical method of the Church.

    A big problem with Deacon Kureav’s work is his acceptance of de Chardin as authoritative. He was a heretic and a liar who did violence to both the Christian faith and the supposed science he championed creating a pseudo-mystic miasma in the process.

    We do not need to lean over backwards or at all to accomodate modern belief which I’m afraid Deacon Kureav tends to do. We need to reopen the mind of science to the iconic nature of nature and of man himself.

75. 

    Michael Bauman

    November 2, 2012

    P.J. That is because we are in between. I was referring to the title of this post (largely forgotten it seems). As in all things, it is both realized and to be realized. Present and to come.

76. 

    dinoship

    November 2, 2012

    Without any of this being incompatible with Orthodoxy, I have heard of a very large range of notions concerning this subject…
    Eg: (more recent) Elders who accepted (strongly) only a literal, historical Adam and no evolution, others who accepted a combination of both (a theistic evolution rather than intelligent design – completely compatible with modern biology theories) with a (exceptional) miraculous sign in the direct creation of Adam and his placement in an earthly paradise, as well as others who take the whole thing completely allegorically, but, having had direct, personal experience of what a “prelapsarian state” feels like (through Grace), will talk of Adam, and picture him just like we talk and picture the Prodigal.
    Some never talk much on the subject, yet stipulate clearly that, since Scripture -and not science- is concerned with the “Who” and “Why” of creation, the “How” and “When” is to be found through science – and not scripture.
    I must admit that, to me, it seems like people in the West have an extremely strong urge to elevate science to a religious status – it is not a new thing- but, we easterners are sometimes like the old man who takes their grandsons story with a pinch of salt.
    However, a broadening of our understanding of science (in the west) seems to also be running parallel to this lately.
    I, personally think that there does exist a certain healthy reservation, concerning the wholehearted acceptance of scientific theories. There is a huge deal of (increasing) delusion everywhere and discernment is something that Grace and experience teaches man in way which is completely nothing like “fundamentalist” …

    The best scientist are also often sceptical of what they present to others as ‘conclusive evidence’, especially after what science itself has showed us lately in the areas of quantum physics.
    Heisenberg’s principle of indeterminacy/uncertainty is one popular example of how modern findings in science has forcibly broadened our understanding of science’s findings.

77. 

    Rhonda

    November 2, 2012

    Fr. Stephen,

    Where’s the link you mentioned?

    Agreed about Fr. Seraphim Rose. When I first became Orthodox & as a catechumen, I heard much praise of his books from the other parish members. Both of my priests were not so effusive in their praise & somewhat cautionary in their comments. The mother of a friend/co-worker was one of his very close friends in college so I got to hear a few first-hand accounts.

    Then I bought several of his works & read them. As you stated, good translator for many new texts we did not have access to in English & I too appreciate that contribution. Theologically though, I seldom pull his texts off my bookshelf. Some of what he proposes as Orthodox theology is flatly un-Orthodox. Where his thought is in line with the Orthodo theological Tradition, I have found that there are many other & much better theological texts out there to reference & cite.

78. 

    PJ

    November 2, 2012

    “Some of what he proposes as Orthodox theology is flatly un-Orthodox.”

    Who decides what is Orthodox versus what is un-Orthodox? As a Catholic, I have great trouble discerning who represents “true” Orthodoxy. Not that there aren’t plenty of Catholic dissenters — but you know that they speak against Rome, the mouth of the Church, that “first see and symbol of unity,” as Vladimir Lossky calls it. I know many dislike the papacy’s magisterial charism, but my confusion as to who teaches Orthodoxy definitively has proven a major obstacle in my path toward the east.

79. 

    John Shores

    November 2, 2012

    I hope I am not being tiresome but I don’t think I have communicated very clearly.

    Brian: You are not clueless at all! Thank you for recognizing that the question remains unanswered and for aptly restating it.

    To my mind, there is no possibility that there was an actual “Adam and Eve” simply because there was not a time when there were just two homo-sapiens (hence the puzzle; from where did the other people that Cain and Able found outside the family arise?). This is the literal viewpoint and I hope you will not dismiss it too quickly because…

    We see that the writers of Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Timothy 2, took the story literally.

    Jesus’ lineage in Luke ends with “…the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” Clearly Luke believed Adam was in fact the very first person. If Adam was allegorical, the rest of the lineage is meaningless (where does it stop being fiction and begin being factual?). If he was actually “recording the traditioned account of the gospel” then I would submit that that tradition included an understanding that Adam was a literal person.

    Even Jesus’ own brother understood the Adam & Eve story literally as is represented when he states that “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied…”. I cannot accept that he would use a prophesy by someone believed to be fictitious to support his theological statements.

    Since it seems plain that these men diverged from Jewish tradition and placed emphasis on the First Adam as a literal person, we must ask why. What if they had left the story alone and never mentioned it? Would Christianity be the same faith? I think not.

    “It is only on conservative Evangelical sites and some Orthodox sites that you’ll find any discussion about literal Adam and Eve.” It is extremely problematic…

    As do I, but for a very simple reason; I find it difficult to trivialize the Fall story by denying its factuality and turning it into a metaphysical exercise:

    For us the question is “Does the Fall story (as well as the Creation story) reveal spiritual truth?”

    The reason I have such difficulty is not only because the writers of the NT clearly took pains to use the literal story in order to show a distinction between Judaism and Christianity but also because it begs the question “How much of the ancient writings are also non-literal?” It opens Pandora’s box: Where does the actual (literal) story begin? If Adam was not literal, was Noah? Abraham? Do we ignore everything before Moses? Or is he allegorical as well? Do we simply say that the OT was merely an exercise in a metaphysical revelation of the “spiritual truth” that we are proclaiming?

    I hope that you can understand that Rhonda’s statement (and the many “amens” that it received) troubles me deeply.

    No matter how you slice it, to say that the Fall was not a literal event changes everything. I would argue that it contradicts the viewpoints of the first apostles. I find this to be a very dangerous thing to do as it disrupts the integrity of their message.

    Again, they didn’t have to bring up Adam at all. If they had not, Rhonda’s statement would make perfect sense just as it does in Judaism. But they did, and they clearly did not understand it as an allegory.

    They don’t care how many sources you cite.

    I hope you do not see me in this light. One cannot examine economics until it is established that “supply and demand” are foundational to understanding everything that follows. A plethora of data does not elucidate the essentials.

    So, as I have stated several times now, Christianity depends on the Fall in order to understand the Cross. If the Fall is not literal, there is no need for a literal Cross (in which case Arius was right and you are all a bunch of heretics 🙂 (I kid! I kid!)).

    You see my dilemma?

    I hope you can understand why the following statement troubles me:

    With this view one does not have to worry about neither the “sciences” nor “history” substantiating or undermining one’s theological framework.

80. 

    PJ

    November 2, 2012

    “To my mind, there is no possibility that there was an actual “Adam and Eve” simply because there was not a time when there were just two homo-sapiens (hence the puzzle; from where did the other people that Cain and Able found outside the family arise?)”

    Okay, I’ve always wondered about this:

    Mustn’t there have been a first homo sapien, whether through spontaneous creation or through gradual evolution? Surely an entire generation of mothers’ couldn’t have given birth to an entire generation which belonged to a different species.

    Wow, evolution is crazy. Not necessarily false, but definitely crazy.

    John, I truly sympathize with your many difficulties. I even share a few of your criticisms and more than a few of your questions. But I don’t think you’re going to get the answers you want.

    As for me, I’m not a Christian because I believe in Adam. I’m a Christian because I believe in Christ. God in Christ has “proven” Himself to me. I have decided, after much struggle and turmoil, that I can put my trust in Him. I have made Him the center of my life, the rock of my existence.

    This being the case, I accept all those things to which Christ and His Church testify — including the primordial mystery we call the “fall.” I am fine not understanding this primeval event 100%. To me, it speaks to the fact that man has, since the dawn of time, been at odds and in need of God — and that nothing short of God will satisfy and complete man. Is there more to it than this? Maybe. Maybe not. I can accept not knowing because, frankly, I don’t need to.

    I hope that helps in some way, shape, or form. Take care, friend.

81. 

    dinoship

    November 2, 2012

    John Shores,

    “To my mind, there is no possibility that there was an actual “Adam and Eve” simply because there was not a time when there were just two homo-sapiens (hence the puzzle; from where did the other people that Cain and Able found outside the family arise?). This is the literal viewpoint and I hope you will not dismiss it too quickly because…

    We see that the writers of Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Timothy 2, took the story literally.”

    I know of Orhtodox who very strongly believe in a literal Adam as well as a theistic evolution of multiple Homo-sapiens. They believe in a ‘special creation’ as far as the “exceptionally created from God primordial couple” within a theistic evolution paradigm, with humanity even existent before Adam himself (outsid of Paradise), as is implied by the two seperate human creation stories in genesis. Their position is stands very well, and seems to be similar to that of Francis Collins’ (head of the Human Genome programme). I do not take a particular side personally, just like our Church never rushes to take a position.
    There is absolutely no ‘danger’ to our Faith, either way.

82. 

    dinoship

    November 2, 2012

    On a side note, all this talk about the westernised literal understanding of Genesis and the Fall is similar to the westernised understanding of the Revelations. (Just like there are always deep parallels between those two books, so in this respect too…) We want to impatiently solve it now!
    This means we miss the deep meaning that Man’s unique gift of freedom. We also miss the meaning that Man’s selfish confinement within himself presuming to become his own lord, (his own slave really) is and always will be our fall. As Father Dimitru Staniloae said: “The human person is free only if he is free also from himself for the sake of others, in love, and if he is free for God who is the source of freedom because he is the source of love.
    And of course this means we also miss other deeper meanings such as that one and the same world, can lead us to or away from God (when grasped selfishly by means of the senses or grasped in its real eucharistic God orientated significance.)
    And our energies are spent missing this mark…

83. 

    drewster2000

    November 2, 2012

    Brian,

    I very much understand where you’re coming from. We are from Protestant stock that says people and everything else can fail you – but not the Bible! So when others like Rhonda come by and say:

    “We do not need a literal historical “fall” story to know that mankind is fallen (i.e. sick with a disease called sin that results in death). We do not need a “creation” story to know that God created everything & that mankind is in essence (by nature) above the animals & the rest of the created order.”

    This is extremely troubling! Take my Bible away from me and you leave me trying to cling to thin air! Yes give me Tradition, the saints, the Eucharist, etc but don’t take away my Bible!!! Don’t tell me it’s all a bunch of Aesop’s Fables!!

    While I think (as PJ said) that most Orthodox do believe in the historical authenticity for the most part, there is a lot of mystical talk. Unfortunately to our ears it starts to sound like Postmodernism. It begins to sound like the Green Lady telling Lucy and Edmund and Puddleglum that “there never WAS a sun or an Aslan or a land called Narnia”.

    I do believe you are correct when you ask whether or not there is a both/and to this. I believe there was a historical Adam and Eve – and Adam named the animals, and that they fell, and all that.

    BUT…..here is the key.

    I can only believe it as a child believes her mother when she asks why the sky is blue and the mother says because God made it that way. I can’t explain how there could only be one 2 human beings at one point or when that all happened or how long in earth days/years it took for creation to happen or whether or not we’re really related to apes or anything else.

    But that’s OK. As in the original Fall, we are still tripping ourselves up because of the same old mistake: trying to play God. It’s not my job to know how it all happened, but to believe what God tells me to the best of my ability.

    Having said that, I need to hold my beliefs lightly (for lack of a better term). I was once in a class where a man handed out dollars bills, talked to us, and then went around and took the dollar bills back from some and not from others. When asked, he told us that he took them away from the people who were gripping them tightly and left them if people held them in an open palm. We must hold Adam and Eve in the same fashion.

    I say this because though the Fall itself is a very important part of our salvation, the details are not as vital. Again, it’s enough for me to accept that the sky is blue because God made it that way without me having to know and prove why, how often, and so on.

    But of course there are two sides to the coin. If we say both/and, then we have to sustain the winds of those who say that Adam & Eve “doesn’t matter” – no matter where they’re coming from. In fact we need to listen to the Rhonda’s and Fr. Stephen’s of our world and see what we can learn from them – listen without prejudice and without worrying about the fragile beliefs we hold in our uplifted palms being crushed or blown away.

    We will be able to do this only if we trust God with all that we have. After all it is He that gives and takes away. And of course Fr. Stephen is right in proclaiming Christ to be the explanation and fulfillment of all things.

    You and I still love and have grown up with the historical. As stated here several times, there is nothing wrong with the literal, linear, historical, but that isn’t the end of all things. We’re called to go further up and deeper in. With fear and trembling, that is what we must do.

84. 

    fatherstephen

    November 2, 2012

    The article by Dn. Andrew Kuraev can be found at this location. More thoughts on the article are found below.

    Michael, et al
    I think you make very good points and add some useful caveats with regard to Dn. Kuraev. I wholeheartedly agree that:

    We need to reopen the mind of science to the iconic nature of nature and of man himself.

    Exactly what that looks like is not yet obvious. I would add, that we believers need to struggle more to acquire a mind that understand the “iconic” nature of reality. It’s why I balk at “literal” and “historic.” It’s like someone coming into my parish, and suggesting that we correct all the icons on the iconostasis with the notion, “Yes, but what they Really looked like,” as if that is in fact what is wanted. It is sometimes what we want, but it is not what God has given us. We want it because Modernity embraced a model that said the locus of truth is in the thing. Christian theology would say that the locus of truth is in Christ. It is the “Christ” of a thing (to use an outrageous phrase) that we need to know. This is what the fathers refer to as knowing the “logoi” of creation.

    It sounds wonderful when people are reading the Philokalia and the lives of the saints – but they get very nervous when someone like me starts suggesting that we must see the “logoi” of creation or of the Scripture – to make the same application. For that is what I’m doing. The but…but…but is another way of saying, “but the truth is in the thing!” There is truth in the thing – but the truth is Christ and not an independent fact.

    John Shores: You assume too much. Viz. Luke and the genealogy, by your reasoning, every time anyone mentions Adam without some sort of a disclaimer, it must mean that they are being quite literal about the whole thing. Unlike many of my readers, my academic life began in the Classics, reading the Pagan Greeks and Romans. Their literary work, as well as Jewish literary work contemporary with the NT, were unbelievably comfortable with non-literal readings. Indeed, it was a commonplace among the educated (both Christian and Pagan) to see a flat-footed literalism as perhaps useful to the people, but not quite true. In the wrong hands, that bifurcation could lead to an elitist gnosticism. Origen ran into that danger to a degree. I’m not suggesting anything that radical. But I know that what I’m saying is within the mainstream of the Tradition and only feels uncomfortable because readers have been formed and shaped culturally and intellectually by the modernist assumptions regarding history and the like.

    On the early chapters of Genesis, I recommend Peter Bouteneff’s Beginnings: Early Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives. This will give a much more sound understanding of the fathers on this matter than simply chasing down quotes yourself. It’s the kind of study that’s been needed and is now available. It’s more or less irresponsible to say, “The fathers say…” about the creation narratives if you haven’t read it.

    Michael:
    On Kuraev,
    Yes, in that article there could be more nuance. I agree about De Chardin. He is heretical – but he is worth reading. He wanted to say something and said it wrong. Had he been Orthodox, he might have found that to say it right. Hard to know. There is a hardened “scientism” out there, but I live in a city that makes its living on science (most nuclear and particle physics – but other stuff as well). Many even most of the scientists I know are believers. They’re not theologians. But religion and science are not at each others’ throats here either.

    Oak Ridge is less than 100 miles from Dayton TN (home of the famous so-called “Monkey Trials”). Sometimes they seem to be light years apart. I find guys like Dawkins to be lousy scientists when they talk about religion (most of the scientists I know would heartily agree with that) and it makes him do lousy science. On the other hand, we’ve had some noted scientists who are believers speak with a very warm welcome in our fair city. I cannot now remember the speaker, but a decade or so back, we had someone speak on religion and science at the Lab and had the largest attendance ever noted at a National Lab presentation. It matters a lot. Science and scientism are quite distinct.

85. 

    fatherstephen

    November 2, 2012

    Looking over comments it seems that for some, the Christian faith rises or falls with a historical Adam and thus historical fall (generally without nuance).

    It may seem that this is the case – but it has not been seen to be the case in the life and teaching of the Church. Can you be a faithful Orthodox believer, in the fullest sense, without such a belief in its literal/historical character – apparently so.

    But insisting that people first embrace a particular account of the creation and fall of man in a historical/literal sense before than can be a real Christian is simply wrong. For some, my treatment of this creates a great discomfort. I know that discomfort – I’ve been there from a variety of angles. Orthodoxy’s treatment of this is among the reasons I am Orthodox.

    It is a discomfort worth visiting and thinking long and hard about. Stay in the conversation.

86. 

    John Shores

    November 2, 2012

    I can accept not knowing because, frankly, I don’t need to.

    I think Drewster stated my thoughts rather well:

    This is extremely troubling! Take my Bible away from me and you leave me trying to cling to thin air! Yes give me Tradition, the saints, the Eucharist, etc but don’t take away my Bible!!! Don’t tell me it’s all a bunch of Aesop’s Fables!!…It begins to sound like the Green Lady telling Lucy and Edmund and Puddleglum that “there never WAS a sun or an Aslan or a land called Narnia”.

    When he states:

    because though the Fall itself is a very important part of our salvation, the details are not as vital.

    I think he misses what I am saying. I struggle not with the details but whether it exists at all. Nuance has nothing to do with it.

    If we are simply the most highly evolved animals and the only ones who are capable of self-contemplation and a need to explain why we act/feel the way we do and the answer is that we are simply highly evolved animals who are capable of self-contemplation, that is one thing. In that case, let us dive into genetics and whatnot and figure out how to make hominids that are not plagued with vice.

    If we have “fallen” and can through metaphysical means return to the state of original glory (or however you want to phrase it), then we must be clear on the cause so that the proposed remedy is clear. As it stands, a “remedy” has been proposed without any convincing evidence that the “disease” even exists.

    This is why the Fall is of paramount importance.

    On a side note, all this talk about the westernised literal understanding of Genesis and the Fall is similar to the westernised understanding of the Revelations.

    Respectfully, it is not. Remove Revelation and the Cross still makes sense. Remove the Fall, and it does not.

87. 

    John Shores

    November 2, 2012

    You assume too much. Viz. Luke and the genealogy, by your reasoning, every time anyone mentions Adam without some sort of a disclaimer, it must mean that they are being quite literal about the whole thing.

    If the answer is that Luke (a scientist and physician) and Paul and Jude et al were simply borrowing from a fable or that they were merely adopting a particular writing style, I respectfully bow out. I am just not at home in Wonderland.

    I wish you all the best and again thank you for allowing me to sojourn with you for a time.

88. 

    dinoship

    November 2, 2012

    John,
    The key to what I meant by: “On a side note, all this talk about the westernised literal understanding of Genesis and the Fall is similar to the westernised understanding of the Revelations.”

    is:

    “We want to impatiently solve it now!

    when science or other influences demand quick explanations to various issues, the Orthodox Church has a tendency to wait for a very long time until the waters have calmed down, without feeling like the earth they stood on has been taken from under their feet…

89. 

    fatherstephen

    November 2, 2012

    As it stands, a “remedy” has been proposed without any convincing evidence that the “disease” even exists.

    Remove Revelation and the Cross still makes sense. Remove the Fall, and it does not.

    Respectfully John, nonsense.

    Reasons why this is nonsense. You got it right at first. Yes, a remedy has been proposed without convincing evidence that the disease even exists. Absolutely. The “fall” wasn’t even part of Jewish conversation prior to Christ or during his ministry. The disciples don’t get it – they don’t understand his crucifixion, death and resurrection because it is indeed an answer to a question they were not asking. They’re still wondering about the “restoration of the Kingdom to Israel.”

    St. Paul’s theology on Adam and Christ is absolutely post-resurrection. Adam’s fall doesn’t become clear until the “remedy” is given.

    Christ’s death and resurrection rewrites all previous theology into the category of death and life. Thus Adam’s fall becomes the entry to death. The “on the day you eat of it you will surely die,” now means more than it had. Before it had been quaint, a story about how we lost paradise about like how many languages came into existence with Babel. But with the resurrection, Adam’s story becomes the universal human problem – death is not just physical death – but moral death – existential death – etc. Adam’s name in Hebrew (“man”) is quite apt in light of the resurrection of Christ. We do not find Christ’s resurrection to be the answer to the question. We didn’t even know the question until He was raised from the dead.

    A way for you to approach this (instead of approaching like a conservative protestant – approach it like a good agnostic!). Ask, If Christ is truly crucified dead and risen, what does that possibly mean to me? If there’s a possibility that you accept that it happened (regardless of Adam, etc.), then everything else sort of finds its place. Christ’s Pascha is where we start and everything proceeds from there. That alone is true Orthodoxy. It’s also true to how the Christian faith actually started. The 12 became followers of Christ without ever having given a thought to Adam. St. Paul probably had to point it out to them. To which they all said, “That’s really neat! Christ is the Second Adam, etc.”

    Reformers and evangelicals created this “Roman Road” thing that predicates the telling of the gospel totally on the Adam account – they shrank the Gospel. St. John gives a very credible account of salvation without making mention of Adam. It’s not wrong – Paul is spot on – but to require a literal account of Adam and the Fall to make the Cross make sense is just wrong. You’re reading Calvin’s Bible.

    You made an incredible journey to get to where you are now. Orthodoxy is not a journey back to where you came. It’s somewhere else.

90. 

    fatherstephen

    November 2, 2012

    The option is not between a literalistic account and wonderland. That’s really an unfair choice.

91. 

    PJ

    November 2, 2012

    “Remove the Fall, and it does not.”

    Nobody proposes removing the fall. Some people do, however, propose understanding the fall — and the rest of Genesis — in a non-literal manner. Somehow, they remain perfectly devout Christians. Having read Pope Benedict’s meditations on Genesis, I’d count him among this group. Bonhoeffer wrote a volume on Gen 1 – 3 called “Creation and Fall,” and he certainly didn’t embrace the text literally. Yet he lived a profoundly Christian existence — indeed, he “loved until the end” and died a martyr’s death, his naked body hanged from a makeshift gallows, having just finished reading Isaiah 53:5: “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”

    (Sorry if this is a duplicate, Father. My internet is acting weird, I can’t tell if my last post just didn’t go through or if the spam filter caught it.)

92. 

    PJ

    November 2, 2012

    Is Adam’s fall even mentioned in the Gospels (two of which were written by close companions of St. Paul!)?

93. 

    dinoship

    November 2, 2012

    Father,
    I am so glad you explained this here…
    It is like all of F. John Behr’s book in a nutshell!

    It makes me realise also that I have never come across a single Father who doesn’t contextualise the Fall story within a narrative which is first and foremost about the restoration and redemption of Man.

94. 

    PJ

    November 2, 2012

    What’s this “Roman Road”?

95. 

    drewster2000

    November 2, 2012

    Fr. Stephen,

    I get where you’re going, talking about this iconic road. I come from the literal and historic but I can see from a distance the one you’re talking about. I’m not there yet but I’m stepping forward. Please be patient with me. As you said to us, I say to you as well: please stay in the conversation.

96. 

    drewster2000

    November 2, 2012

    John Shores,

    My reply was to Brian, so you were reading someone else’s mail . I realize that your struggle is different. You want so badly to believe in this God – as long as you can grasp Him with your rational mind.

    What you said way back there somewhere was that the whole thing sounded stupid, that we’re pretentious primates who’ve made up a fairy tale to allow ourselves to justify lording it over the rest of the animals. And you’re completely right….if there is no God, the kind we’ve been talking about. If it all real is just one big fairy tale, then like Paul said about there being no resurrection, then we really are the biggest, most pompous, laughable fools that ever were.

    But if it’s actually true…..

    That is your struggle I believe, and unfortunately it’s one which you won’t find solace for in reasoning. Take the example of your wife. It would be impossible for me to give you a solid list of reasons that would convince you to love her – nay, that would basically force you to love her. In fact, you yourself could not come up with such a list. And I submit to you that your love for her is not based on logic. Living with her, maybe. Loving her, no.

    You see, we don’t make the really important decisions in life based on logic and reason. Another example: You struggle with a lot of the things you read here. Much of it goes against what you currently believe – and yet something still draws you. Why is this?

    I believe it is because here you have seen people show you respect, love, honor, patience, kindness, and you have been listened to – really listened to. These are good things that everyone needs, that everyone recognizes as good be they christian, muslim, agnostic, pagan, or wiccan. If you freely receive good things here, why would you not stay?

    Like you I’m put off by the vestments and trappings and the canonical examples I’ve seen of clergy with egos larger than their pointy hats. However, if I found good hearts and humble souls that fed me good things – and they did all those bells and whistles, I wouldn’t let that keep me away.

    I understand that your current disagreement is about the need for the Fall to be real – or not. Keep your belief until you’ve replaced it with something else, but at the same time I encourage you to do the hard work of staying in the conversation. Don’t pretend to agree with what you can’t or to understand what you don’t, but don’t leave either.

    If you can find another well to drink from that can give you life, you should be blessed to do so. But I’ve found them to be few and far between. Good people – or rather, people who are willing to do the good work – or hard to find. Don’t leave until you find the water poisoned.

97. 

    drewster2000

    November 2, 2012

    Thanks Marc. You too.

98. 

    dinoship

    November 2, 2012

    Thank you for pointing out “Orthodoxy and Creationism: by Deacon Andrew Kuraev” Father!
    It answers John Shores’ questions well when combined with your own last comments.

99. 

    fatherstephen

    November 2, 2012

    No. It’s not there. One of the key aspects of the importance of Adam in St. Paul is the theology of the image, and Christ as the Image of God. This is taken up profoundly by the fathers. I know that how I treat this particular item viz. history is difficult for some, very well aware, but even if it were taken to be literal history, I would be arguing that things start with Pascha. An example would be the Passover. I certainly take this as literal, though the account has been given a shape that is “theological” to a certain extent. But that Passover, regardless of its historical role, is given new shape and meaning by Christ’s Pascha.

    Space-Time (history) is the arena of our salvation, though it is not the whole arena. There is much more that “does not appear” that is the arena as well. Some of these things are spoken about in ways that cannot be easily placed in space-time. The “fall” is one of those things. That we are fallen is manifest. That Christ redeems us is manifest as well – including in the occasional foretastes of that resurrection which is made manifest in the lives and miracles of the saints. We are very far from alone in this world.

    Origen placed the fall completely outside of space-time and this is serious error. But its exact relationship is not clear. Creation, we are told in Romans, is not “fallen.” It is instead described as “made subject to futility – which is something else. And St. Paul says this has been done for our sake. However, as for history, we are not told if this “futility” is sequential (we fall then it’s made subject) or not (its proleptically made subject). The language of St. Basil would indicate the latter, and even the Scripture hints at this. “Paradise” is not the same thing as “this world.” If you will, there is something outside of Paradise. St. Basil describes the first man has having been “expelled out of Paradise into this world.” Interesting choice of words. The text of Genesis doesn’t describe a fall of the world – though there is the language of “cursed is the ground for your sake.” Some fathers speculated that Adam would have otherwise been tasked with spreading Paradise everywhere.

    But we’re talking about something that is impossible to locate within space-time. We have no clues (unless you go with Bishop Usher). It’s very fruitful – but not in using it to figure out a time-line.

100. 

     Karen

     November 2, 2012

     Very interesting conversation with lots of good comments. Thank you, Father, Michael Bauman, and Rhonda for starters (and others, too).

     Orthodox anthropologist, Alice Linsley, has some interesting material on interpretation of Genesis and the question of Adam and Eve. She makes a very interesting argument (based on her biblical anthropological and linguistic research–she’s something of a pioneer in this field) about what the text really means to convey here:

     http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/02/in-what-sense-are-adam-and-eve-real.html

     John Shores might find it interesting (and even plausible?).