The Final Destruction of Demons

Final is not a word you often hear in Christian teaching. Most Christians leave the final things until, well, the End. But this is not the language of the fathers nor of the Church. A good illustration can be found in the Orthodox service of Holy Baptism. During the blessing of the waters the priest prays:

And grant to [this water] the grace of redemption, the blessing of Jordan. Make it the fountain of incorruption, the gift of sanctification, the remission of sins, the remedy of infirmities; the final destruction of demons, unassailable by hostile powers, filled with angelic might. Let those who would ensnare Your creature flee far from it. For we have called upon Your Name, O Lord, and it is wonderful, and glorious, and awesome even to adversaries.

What can it possibly mean to ask that the waters be made “the final destruction of demons”?

The nature of the waters of Baptism reveals the Orthodox understanding of the world. These waters, now in a font, are none other than the waters of the Jordan. They are an incorruptible fountain and all the things we ask for. They are the final destruction of demons because they are nothing other than Christ’s Pascha. The waters of the font are Christ’s death on the Cross and His destruction of Hades. They are the resurrection of the dead.

For this reason St. Paul can say:

Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-4).

The realism of St. Paul’s teaching on Baptism is mystical realism (to coin a phrase). These waters become those waters. This event becomes that event. This time is now that time. Christ’s death now becomes my death. Christ’s resurrection now becomes my resurrection.

How utterly and uselessly weak is the thought that Baptism is merely an obedience to a command given by Christ! The idea that nothing happens in Baptism is both contrary to Scripture and a denial of the very nature of our salvation.

The anti-sacramentalism (and non-sacramentalism) of some Christian groups is among the most unwittingly pernicious of all modern errors. Thought to be an argument about a minor point of doctrine, it is, instead, the collapse of the world into the empty literalism of secularity. In the literalism of the modern world (where a thing is a thing is a thing), nothing is ever more than what is seen. Thus every spiritual reality, every mystery, must be referred elsewhere – generally to the mind of God and the believer. Christianity becomes an ideology and a fantasy. It turns religious believing into a two-storey universe.

The reality of in the Incarnate God was not obvious to those around Him: no surgery would have revealed His Godhood. The proclamation of the Gospel, from its most primitive beginnings (“the Kingdom of God is at hand”), announces the in-breaking of a mystical reality. Many modern theologians misunderstand Christ’s (and St. John the Baptist’s) preaching on the Kingdom to refer to an imminent end of the age. They hear, “The Kingdom of heaven is at hand,” to mean, “the End of the world is near.” Thus we have protestant theologians creating an “interim ethic” to cover Christian activity in the “in-between” period – between Christ’s first coming and His second. If the coming of the incarnate God into the world did not fundamentally alter something, then the preaching of Jesus was in vain and radically misunderstood by His disciples.

The Gospels presume and proclaim at every turn that in Christ, the Kingdom of God is present. Christ says, “But if I cast out demons with the finger of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Lk 11:20). There is a mystery at work in the presence of the Kingdom. Christ makes statements such as that just quoted, but also frequently says that the Kingdom of God has come near. The Kingdom is a reality and a presence that has both come near us, and come upon us. But in neither case does it simply refer to a later “someday.” The urgency of the proclamation of the Kingdom is not caused by the soon approach of an expected apocalypse. Its preaching is urgent because its coming has already begun!

The sacraments of the Church (indeed the Church itself) should never be reduced to “holy moments” or “instances of miracles” in the life of an otherwise spiritually inert world. If bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, then the Kingdom of God has come upon us! And nothing less.

The sacramental life of the Church is not an aspect of the Church’s life – it is a manifestation of the whole life of the Church. It is, indeed, the very character and nature of the Church’s life. The Church does not have sacraments – the Church is a sacrament. We do not eat sacraments or just participate in the sacraments – we are sacraments. The sacraments reveal the true character of our life in Christ. This is why St. Paul can say:

I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I but Christ liveth in me, etc. (Galatians 2:20)

I am…nevertheless I…yet not I…but Christ….  This is the language of the mystical reality birthed into the world in the Incarnation of Christ. Thus we can say: This is the Blood of Christ…nevertheless you see bread…but it is not bread…but Christ’s Body sacrificed for you. This is the Hades of Christ’s death and the Paradise of His resurrection…nevertheless it is the water of Baptism…but it is not water…but Christ’s death and resurrection into which you are baptized.

And so we see the whole world – for the “whole world is sacrament” – in the words of Patriarch Bartholomew. We struggle with language to find a way to say “is…nevertheless…yet not…but is.” This is always the difficulty in expressing the mystery. It is difficult, not because it is less than real, but because of the character and nature of its reality. Modern Christian thought and language that simply dismiss the mystery and postpone its coming, or  deny the character of its reality, change the most essential elements of the Christian faith and inadvertently create a new religion.

But we have been taught something different. We have been given the Final Destruction of Demons, the Mystical Supper, the Kingdom of God. Why should we look for something less?

 

About Fr. Stephen Freeman

Fr. Stephen is a retired Archpriest of the Orthodox Church in America. He is also author of Everywhere Present: Christianity in a One-Storey Universe, and Face to Face: Knowing God Beyond Our Shame, as well as the Glory to God podcast series on Ancient Faith Radio.



Posted

in

, ,

by

Comments

391 responses to “The Final Destruction of Demons”

  1. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Don’t leave until you find the water poisoned.

    Conclusions have to come from available information. To suppose that the NT references to Adam are not based on a literal interpretation is not intellectually honest, IMHO. To try to make the data fit your presupposition is always a mistake (see Creationism as an example).

    It is plain how the NT writers understood Adam (as a literal figure). To suggest otherwise is to engage in the same sort of activities that the postmodernists apparently do with history. It is to enter Wonderland where anything can mean anything.

    The very fact that any of the Fathers made any effort to explain it is a kind of evidence that other people, far more intelligent than I, read the same things and wondered “WTH?” (ΠΚ?). I have no position to defend. I’m just looking at the raw data and coming to a conclusion. Start messing with the data and the examination ends.

    Looking at the a forest of noble firs through red-tinted glasses does not mean the forest isn’t green, regardless of how cool it may appear.

    I’ll be around to read other posts but it is clear that we have no common ground in this matter. Sadly. Because this was the sole issue that obliterated my faith.

  2. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    I get that Christ is the beginning, explanation and fulfillment of everything – including the Genesis account. And I don’t insist that the Fall happened THEREFORE Christ had to come. I understand that the first, the cause, point of everything is Christ – and then it goes out from there. I realize He is outside of time and space and certainly not bound by its chronology.

    However I would still think that an event like the Garden of Eden happened once somewhere in history. I don’t have a clue concerning the details, but I believe that it happened. God isn’t one to simply make up bedtime stories. Or rather, when He creates story, His creations come alive. However you see it, He doesn’t lie. If He recounts the 6 days of creation and how He formed the world, then it happened in some shape or form.

    It’s not important to me just exactly how it happened, just that my God is true and not making up fairy tales, that He can be trusted.

  3. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    John,

    I accept your point of division, but I would also challenge you to list here what areas of common ground you do share with Fr. Stephen and the readership here.

  4. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    The sole issue? That’s really important. I’ll spend some time doing some research stuff that you might find of use. Thanks. God bless an honest man!

  5. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Drewster,
    I think it’s a false choice – “fairy tales” – or John’s “wonderland.” I think that what we have is a “poetic” version of the fall – given as solid for our theology – but not given as “history” or “science.” First, it would have been more or less impossible for that kind of revelation to be given (at least as I understand revelation). It also would not have made any sense to those writing it. Instead, what we have in Genesis is material from surrounding cultures (there are other creation stories that bear some resemblance to this – particularly certain linguistic issues). But this is clearly re-worked and made into proper Jewish material on the same topic – but now theologically sound. There is deep grace and inspiration for that to happen.

    And the pattern is repeated. God doesn’t just invent cultures out of whole cloth. There are many aspects of Jewish OT culture that had precursors in the cultures that preceded them. But those things (such as animal sacrifice) are taken up by God and redefined re-imaged in such a way that they bear His revelation.

    This is the character of the Incarnation. God doesn’t create something new, but takes up what He has already made (man) and redeems us. In the same manner, Orthodoxy does not come in and level a culture and replace it. It redeems a culture, transforming those things that can be transformed.

    When people go crazy discovering that something had pre-Christian (ie Pagan) roots and start wanting to throw the baby out with the bath. Thus some oppose Christmas trees, because our ancestors used to worship trees and the origin of Christmas trees are pre-Christian. Of course. So the Church took them and transformed them into a Christian symbol. Same is true with language. As much as I love Greek, we use English in my Church. It’s an Orthodox principle.

    The difficulty, again, is an assumption about the nature of Scripture. I would assume St. Paul thought of Adam and Eve as historical characters. I don’t know why he wouldn’t. However, I do know that he would not have required that they be historical. They were Biblical. How the text works, as inspired text, is much more fluid than we tend to think. Christ, when he cites the “jot” and “tittle” is quite Rabbinic. Even these are inspired. There’s a Jewish fascination with the very letters themselves that is often removed from the very story they spell out.

    But I quickly grant that St. Paul likely thought of the first man and first woman as historical. However, there is a variety of thought about this within the early fathers. Bouteneff’s work that I cited earlier is a good work on this very thing – a survery of how the early fathers treated the first 3 chapters of Genesis for about the first 6 centuries. I’ll dig through my library and turn it up and see what I can share.

  6. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    “Literal” Adam, sure. But istm, Fr. Stephen is making the case that biblical and patristic (and hence Orthodox) “literal” is not the quite the same thing as the modern “literal” of Protestant Fundamentalism. There are dozens of posts at this blog dealing with this issue from various angles.

    John Shores, I hope you will take a look at Alice Linsley’s work that I provided in a link earlier, too.

  7. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    Fr. Stephen,

    On one side:
    -I hear you…
    -I’m listening…
    -I’ve put Bouteneff’s book on my to-purchase list
    -I believe I’m on the same page as St. Paul the way you describe him.

    On the other side:
    -I still need God with skin on.
    -I’m a peasant in a western world and don’t understand mystical talk about things that are but also are not at the same time.

    Let me put it this way: If the literal Adam is neither here nor there for you, why can’t you let me keep him as literal? For the moment you keep him as a type and a symbol – I keep him as historical – and we both keep him as pointing to Christ and meaning nothing without Christ.

    If I have him as “historical and ___” in my mind, historical and then also learning the symbolic angle of him – and I don’t hinge my beliefs around his historicity – can I not keep my historical Adam without misleading anyone else or causing any harm?

  8. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    P.S. I would of course be interested in anything you can dig up on my behalf. (grin)

  9. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    “I’m just looking at the raw data and coming to a conclusion. Start messing with the data and the examination ends.”

    This notion of Biblical narratives as “data” to be studied like natural specimens so as to extract verifiable “conclusions” is perhaps not the best approach …

    John, I wonder: Do you think all those Christians — from the Pope to Father Stephen — who do not take Genesis literally are engaging in some sort of self-deception or intellectual dishonesty?

    I find it interesting that your faith was destroyed by your conclusion that Adam was not historical, if only because I give the historicity of Adam so little thought. It has occurred to me, sure, and I wrestle with it from time to time — but for it to threaten my faith would necessitate it being the foundation of my faith, and that is unimaginable. As many have said, there starting point is the resurrection. Paul does not say, “If Adam did not exist, our faith is in vain …” but rather, “If Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith is in vain …” If you can embrace the resurrection and all that it immediately entails, then everything else is just scenery to be fit around it in a sensible manner.

    Regardless, from an outsider’s point of view, you do not seem to have dismissed the old faith nearly as much as you might imagine. In my humble opinion, you seem to still be searching, still probing, still pondering … And where there these things remain, hope remains. Good luck, God bless.

  10. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Part Un

    I feel like we are in a political debate in which a question is raised and the answers are all over the place. Case in point:

    there are models of origins that reconcile the revelations of science with the revelations of Scripture…

    I have literally zero problem with the Creation story. I have no problem with the Flood story. The former is not incompatible with scientific discovery. The latter is too absurd to be taken seriously. But neither have any bearing on the Cross. They may be allegories that reveal some metaphysical truth but if you removed them, there would be zero impact on Christian doctrine.

    The question is the Fall. I’ll try to make this very simple:

    If you remove the story of the Fall, what else in the whole of the OT would be used as a foundation for understanding the Cross?

  11. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Said another way, how does the Cross make sense if man is not fallen?

  12. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    I’ll post Part Deux tomorrow (responding to the idea of epic poetry) after this question has been addressed.

  13. Rhonda Avatar

    John Shores:
    John, you do have common ground with us believe it or not. You seem to consider yourself as a recovering Protestant, so too is any Orthodox person that converted from Protestantism, myself included. Also, 10 years ago my priest talked on this topic as part of my catechumen training. Both myself & the Orthodox membership had the same issues & comments as you & many that have posted here. We all felt a need to have the STRICTLY literal & historical Fall narrative as an integral basis of our theological framework! After I made my posting here & read the resulting comments, I only then realized that my mindset had changed & by how much! So, John, please hang with us 🙂

    To Everyone: I know that I risk throwing a monkey wrench into the works thus far, but…

    I know that this will be hard for many to believe, but I do believe that a literal Adam & Eve existed & in the Genesis Fall narrative not to mention the Creation narrative. What I do not believe however is all of the modern/post-modern logical & philosophical trappings that currently fly about as theology (such as: the fall was a necessary event for the Cross therefore remove the fall & you remove the Cross, or the total depravity of mankind). I also am a lover of science (astronomy & astrophotography are my hobbies–physics, chemistry & higher mathematics all wrapped up into 1 package just makes me giddy), but I am not a lover of scientism (as Fr. Stephen put it).

    Here is why a literal Adam/Eve/Fall narrative is not necessary for my theological framework–

    I know that I am a child of God created in His image; I do not need the Creation narrative to tell me this because I know it already. I know that I am fallen; I do not need a literal Adam & Eve narrative to tell me this because I know it already. Finally I know that I need salvation through Christ; I do not need a Fall narrative to know this because I know it already. As Fr. Stephen put it some things are just “manifest”.

    Thank you all for a great discussion this round 🙂 Looking forward to Fr. Stephen’s next topic!

  14. Caitilin Avatar
    Caitilin

    @John Shores:

    “Christ is risen from the dead, *trampling down death by death*, and in those in the tombs bestowing life!”

    John, in my small corner of the universe, the above is the point of the cross: it saves us from our death’s being everlasting.

    While I don’t have trouble with the idea of the Fall, it seems to me that we could bracket it, if you will, and regard only the question of eternal life. It seems to me that it is possible to think in terms only of [insert Father’s long acronym here], and still wish to one day come to the mansion prepared for us in our Father’s house by striving daily to become ever more like Him.

    Even if we don’t accept the idea that humans are fallen, can we accept that we are not wholly like God,and but becoming more like Him is/should be our goal and ideal? Orthodoxy teaches that our lives should be oriented toward striving for theosis–acquiring a God-likeness–in this life, a life that also extends into the age to come.

    Christi’s Pschal sacrifice, istm, is not so much about expiation or satisfaction, but about *redemption* . He redeems our lives from the grave, he removes death, that final stumbling block to our communion with the Father.

    By His taking on death on the Cross, Christ connects our temporal selves to his eternality. It is this connection, it seems to me, which permits of an understanding of our human place in the natural observabe world in which the Fall is not central.

    Maybe this is mistaken, but I wanted to try. I have so truly enjoyed reading your conversations, with Father Stephen and PJ especially–I hope you stay around, in no small part due to the beauty of your exchanges. 🙂

    Peace be with you.

  15. Shane Avatar
    Shane

    John Shores said:
    If you remove the story of the Fall, what else in the whole of the OT would be used as a foundation for understanding the Cross?

    John, without directly answering your question, just wanted to point out that the Orthodox understanding of the Fall might be different than what you were accustomed to with the Protestant background.

    The fathers didn’t regard Adam as perfect, as in complete and finished; rather they viewed him as infant-like, with a dynamic capacity to grow and develop and mature (evolve?) in his task of uniting the creation to God.

    This leads to a difference in what for example Calvin would regard as the Fall – total depravity of man, versus the Orthodox view of the Fall.

    Maybe Fr Stephen could expand on this.

  16. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    John,

    “Said another way, how does the Cross make sense if man is not fallen?”

    please remember that Adam’s Fall is not even mentioned in the Gospels.
    Is that not your ‘data’ first and foremost? So, The Cross, then makes sense in the Gospels without the Fall…

    I cannot believe that people forget that the Cross has always been offered us as Life through Death. Is that not plain enough?

  17. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Drewster,
    Please understand that I’m not arguing against someone’s belief in historical Adam. Far from it. I am saying that to construct a theological understanding that necessitates it (as though it were a fixed point of Orthodox doctrine) is a mistake. I dare say my parents, good Orthodox Christians, peasants in a western world, would have taken your position til the day they died.

  18. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    …it seems to me that we could bracket it, if you will, and regard only the question of eternal life.

    I’ve known a lot of people who don’t like to be troubled with the OT and would be quite happy if the bible began with Matthew. But it doesn’t.

    First: My earliest recollection was at age 4 when, failing to recall the names of the patriarchs, my father placed chalk between my teeth, held me up by the ankles and bounced my head against the table making me repeat “Abraham” (bonk), “Isaac” (bonk), “Jacob” (bonk). Bible study was a nightly family activity throughout my childhood with most of our time spent in the OT. I had Proverbs drilled into me every morning from 6am-7am as early as 6 years old. We were at church every time the doors were open and when they weren’t we had people from church over at our house listening to my father teach the Bible.

    It is not possible for me to willy-nilly ignore the OT and begin with “how do I gain eternal life?”

    Second: If the death of Christ is about eternal life, I’m not interested at this point, even considering that “here and now” is encapsulated in eternity. I am solely interested in “is there a god?” and “what is this god like?”

    I think I am be extremely generous by simply sticking with the Fall and not including anything after it; god’s behaviour is outrageous in hundreds of passages in the OT and I cannot address them at all unless I first reconcile Fall and Cross. If I simply ignore the Fall, I may as well abandon the OT. If there is no “sin nature” (which may well be the case) then it’s time to put the Bible away and read something with a lighter story line and happier ending (anything by Stephen King would qualify).

    Adam’s Fall is not even mentioned in the Gospels

    So now we are not only ignoring the OT but the epistles as well?

    The apostles thought it was important. So do I.

    If they hadn’t, I think we would be free to ignore the whole first sixteen chapters of Genesis entirely and I would have started my trek with a teenage kid tied up and about to be stabbed to death by his dad (which, frankly, gives me far less trouble than the fall – I know what teenagers are like).

    When I got to the Fall, I encountered a calculationCommandWithErrors message and could not move forward.

    I know I know. Linear thinking… But it isn’t. Even beginning with the Cross, the variables regarding the Fall have to be included and the calculation is impossible with these variables. I’d have been far happier if Paul had just left off mentioning it. Indeed, I’d still be a (befuddled) Christian trying to believe that the god of the OT is the same god as the NT.

  19. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    I just ran across this quote and thought of some of the large-word dialogues here:

    “I cannot speak well enough to be unintelligible.”

    – Catherine Morland, in Jane Austen’s novel Northanger Abbey

  20. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    John Shores: I’d like to suggest that the difficulty with the OT passages has more to do with us than with either God or His actions described in the Old Testament.

    One of the great pitfalls of the historical approach is that it is seldom historical. It is, rather, a projection of the present back into the past. Our sensibiliies, bias, prejudice, hurts and joys are all involved in our historical interpretation. There are ways to minimize such difficulties, but they never go away entirely.

    One of the best ways is simply to trust the veracity of witnesses. Verify it, of course, as best we can but at some level, our historical knowledge is always based upon trusting previous witnesses. We cannot really ‘know’ history.

    In the case of The Fall, we have the Apostolic witness. We can approach that witness with a lot of different attitudes. However, if we are to be Christian, at some point we have to approach them with faith and use their witness to interpret the Fall rather than using our own environment to interpret them.

    In a world that is imdued with skepticism, cynacism, materialism, and all of the other “…isms” we have created, it is far easier to than not to write off the witness of the Apostles and the other saints about the reality of the Fall and the restoration which Jesus Christ brought through His Incarnation,i.e., the full panoply of His ministry and witness united with humanity including the Glorious second coming.

    With the penetration of God into his creation and the taking on of humanity–everything changes. We can no longer really know what happened ‘before’ without reference to that incredible occurence. The Cross and Resurrection are the center point of all that. It is a point that is multi-dimensional wrapping time, space, life and death altogether in a totally unimaginable way and opening a path to the experience of the ineffible and the eternal within our own being and together with one another.

    John, have you read C.S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia?

  21. John Avatar
    John

    John Shores,

    I don’t think it is fair to say anyone here is ignoring the OT, at least so far as I have read, though I may have missed something. If you spent time in the multitude of commentaries from the Fathers, it would be quite evident that such is not the case. There may just be some miscommunication or misunderstandings on the subject as presented here, but please understand that we, the Orhodox, do not ignore it, even if our treatment of it isn’t what you’d expect one to have given your desciption of your upbringing.

    John

  22. Andrew Avatar

    JS if I may,

    A quick thought on linear thinking. Thomas Aquinas thought everything he had previously written to be like “straw” after his encounter with the divine on the Via Appia. This is to say that before “Pasch”, mankind is subject to a certain futility – the straw man was in truth paper mâché.

    The entire linear argument fell long before Pascha, so to speak — with the appearance of Moses and Elijah on the temple mount. Thus are the arguments of the literalists (of all hues) brought to nada, or thereabouts. Pascha itself prefigures all of history and this includes Moses, Elijah and the temple mount.

  23. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    “John Shores: I’d like to suggest that the difficulty with the OT passages has more to do with us than with either God or His actions described in the Old Testament.”

    I fully agree.

    Reading through your childhood ‘christian upbringing’ horrified me!
    Anytime someone leaves out freedom and humility in his pedagogy, he goes off the rails. Orthodoxy is ALL about freedom. We do not even evangelise because it would somehow trespass on someone’s freedom. We must be almost ‘forced’ in order to evangelise to someone who is extremely ‘thirsty’ for it.
    I have encountered this type of Protestant influenced pedagogy before – in Orthodox circles unfortunately- it is catastrophic!
    I have also encountered -thank God- utterly noble, free, respectful, liberated, unshakeable-in-their-faith yet without-the-slightest-tendency-of-imposting-it-on-others Saints. It is very telling that their understanding of the OT passages that someone with a ‘forced’ upbringing might have, is completely different…
    May the Lord help us all!

  24. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    John,

    “Said another way, how does the Cross make sense if man is not fallen?”

    Of course man is fallen: that is, terribly at odds with himself, his neighbor, and his God. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. Many of us just don’t think this condition was caused in precisely the manner described in Genesis. Genesis is true — just not literally true.

    Man was created to have communion with God and neighbor. This communion was and is frustrated by man’s abuse of freedom from time immemorial. Whether the abuse began in Eden or on the African savannah — who cares? Whatever the origins of our predicament, the resolution is in the paschal mystery of Christ, in which we find peace and love and reconciliation.

    It’s really that simple. Yes, most Christians of the past seem to have taken Genesis at face value. They had no reason not to. However, the “how” of our fallenness is not ultimately important. The fact stands, regardless of the cause: We are selfish, finite, violent, passionate, cruel, greedy, and so on. God, in His love, wishes more for us: And He provides more in the mystical pascha, Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, in whom sons of man become sons of God, in whom we make the final leap from “animal” to “logical” beings, by virtue of the Logical having become animal.

  25. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    JS,
    The Cross indeed does not make sense if man is not fallen. That is profoundly true and I would in no way argue with that. And the fall clearly has a historical manifestation. We die. We kill, etc.

    How exactly we come to be fallen is a little more mysterious. The Genesis account gives us a story that depicts a fall (the fall). We have added to that (rightly I think) many layers of thought and reflection. St. Paul’s work in Romans is perhaps the most foundational for Christians. The story of the Garden is deeply rich and capable of producing thought and reflection. Everything from Eve taken out of Adam’s side (which the fathers see as a type of Christ and the Church birthed from His side (Blood and Water – Eucharist and Baptism), etc. And many, many other layers. The story is a rich source of theological reflection on man, on sin, and on the need for redemption. It has been used by those who constructed various atonement theories (some of them are troubling). But the story is deeply rich – particularly as it is written.

    The story (and I keep using that word intentionally) is far richer, I think, than anything we ever say in our science. Indeed, I need the story of Adam and Eve in order to usefully reflect on science. When I think about DNA, for instance, Adam is important in my thought.

    The fall clearly happens. How a “literal” account, a photograph or film, of that would look I have no idea. For that matter, how a film or photograph of the first days of creation would look I do not know. I accept Big Bang theory, or something like that, and find those early verses helpful in thinking about it. They relate it to me in a way that allows me to reflect, theologically on the truth of creation (and thus the Big Bang).

    The creation and fall of Adam function much the same way for me. I have no doubt of the fall – I’m living in it. The story makes sense to me of things I could never know otherwise.
    1. We were not created for death (which is not to say we were created immortal – St. Irenaeus)
    2. Our path has led us away from God and true union with Him and towards death – we sin.
    3. Christ has become the New Creation, the New Adam. He overcomes death and unites us to Life.
    4. In Christ we can truly fulfill our creation in the image and likeness of God.

    So, ask me what it looks like on the day of resurrection. Again, I cannot begin to picture it. “The graves will open and the sea will give up her dead?” Of course. Yes. Some of the fathers asked the question, what about those who were eaten by fish? or by lions (a real problem at the time). Again, we can’t exactly answer that – certainly not with photographic/historical accuracy. The statement “the graves will open…etc.” and others like it are enough. More than that, Christ’s resurrection, with the eyewitnesses makes it possible for those statements to be enough. In the same manner, His resurrection makes the story of Adam’s fall to be enough.

    Thoughts this morning…I’ve been reading Bouteneff as well today.

  26. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    John,

    I highly, highly suggest you read The Mystery of Christ by Fr. John Behr. I had some trouble with this book at first, and I still have a few criticisms, but it has slowly grown on me and opened up my mind. It’s a quick read and pretty cheap. You would do yourself a great disservice by not reading it.

  27. Michael Patrick Avatar
    Michael Patrick

    The best description of the fall I’ve seen is in the first chapter of Fr. Alexander Schmemann’s little book, “For the Life of the World”.

  28. Andrew Avatar

    JS once again if I may,

    The manner of our rising which is also truly to say Christ’s rising — is not simply more interesting than the manner of our falling but rather it utterly eclipses it. As Father Steve says, it is “unimaginable” because it lies completely outside the pre-Pasch lexicon, which cannot even contextualise the divine reversal, the “starting point” of Pascha.

  29. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    Father Stephen’s previous comment’s ending is deeper than one must first think:

    “Orthodoxy is not a journey back to where you came. It’s somewhere else.”

    It is not just for John Shores personally…

  30. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    The Cross indeed does not make sense if man is not fallen.

    Finally, someone who answered the question. Thank you for that!

    So the next question is whether what is referred to as fallen (that is, man being “terribly at odds with himself, his neighbor”) is biological or is it “spiritual”?

    What if it can be demonstrated that manipulation of the brain can alter a personality such that a formerly violent person can be made non-violent (or vice versa)?

    What if it discovered that genetic alterations can be made to give rise to people who are not at odds with themselves or their neighbors?

    The difficulty for me is that so much that was formerly attributed to devils and the spiritual have been found to have biological origins. So I find it difficult to jump to conclusions.

    If we can agree that God created a material and a spiritual universe with the intent of uniting them in some fashion

    Sorry but we can’t. Not at this juncture. I am still looking for evidence of the spiritual.

    I recently saw an interview between Pierce Morgan and Penn Jillett. Pierce was rather vehement in his being offended by the very existence of atheists. But when questioned, he described god as “beyond comprehension” and Penn replied, “you say that god cannot be comprehended and I say that I simply don’t know. What’s the difference?” I would submit that the difference is in the non sequitur “nature proves god” then implying a “personal god” and then presuming that we are part of something beyond nature.

    Pascha itself prefigures all of history and this includes…

    I don’t know why I am having such difficulty in getting this point across. It includes the Fall as well. All parts of the equation have to be accounted for, regardless of whether you put Christ first or in the middle. The problem is not timeline, it is that the formula does not compute.

    I don’t think it is fair to say anyone here is ignoring the OT

    Dismissing, ignoring, “bracketing”, excusing. It all amounts to the same thing. Failing to take something as important as the Fall into consideration will of course lead to different results.

    John, have you read C.S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia?

    Of course. Lewis was a staple of our upbringing. What kind of Protestant would I be if it were otherwise? I have also read (and cherished) everything by the man he called his mentor (George MacDonald).

    Fr. Stephen: I think you are the only person here who is comprehending what I am saying. I understand what you are saying about the story and I appreciate your viewpoint. When you say, “The story makes sense to me of things I could never know otherwise” I can fully understand why this is so. You have accepted a premise that I have failed to come to terms with an within the context of that belief, the fall elucidates what your are unable to see from a purely physical standpoint. I get that.

    But may I ask you this; when you say “we were created immortal” do you believe that your existence began at conception or do you believe that you are an eternal being who is sojourning here (e.g. that you existed “before” your physical birth)?

  31. Andrew Avatar

    Dino,

    “Orthodoxy is not a journey back to where you came. It’s somewhere else.”

    So true.

  32. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    “But may I ask you this; when you say “we were created immortal” do you believe that your existence began at conception or do you believe that you are an eternal being who is sojourning here (e.g. that you existed “before” your physical birth)?”

    The pre-existence of souls was, I believe, long ago condemned (save, of course, in the mind of God). Constantinople II, maybe?

    “What if it can be demonstrated that manipulation of the brain can alter a personality such that a formerly violent person can be made non-violent (or vice versa)?

    What if it discovered that genetic alterations can be made to give rise to people who are not at odds with themselves or their neighbors?”

    A sort of eugenics for the genetics age? This seems to me very naive. Not to mention dangerous. We’ve all seen the disasters that result from trying to engineer ideal human beings. (To begin with, it’s very difficult to agree on what is ideal…)

    Anyway, there’s no goodness except through freedom, because there’s no love through freedom.

    You’re thinking too rudimentary, John. Peace isn’t simply the lack of violence: it is the presence of love. And love cannot be ginned up through labs or social programs.

    I am beginning to suspect that one of the pieces of the puzzle that you’re missing is *personhood*. The modern age has an extremely impoverished understanding of what it means to be a person. Since we so blind to the true dimensions of personhood, we are blind to the true nature of love — and, of course, God. The depths of personhood must be plumbed in order to make sense of the genuine Gospel. This was a big contribution of Archimandrite Sophrony.

  33. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    JS
    You misread me on the immortal thing. We were not created immortal (acc. to Irenaeus and many of the fathers). There is the possibility of immortality through union with God but we never got there – but we do in Christ. I believe my existence began at conception, though my existence was always known by God. The other idea (pre-existence and eternal would be heretical and Origenist maybe even kindof Scientology 🙂 ).

    On the stuff about biology. Doesn’t matter what they can do with genetics, etc. Sin and death are fairly coterminous in Orthodoxy. If it isn’t resurrection, then it’s not what Christ came to do. Our fallenness, ultimately is our mortality, and that mortality is manifest throughout our existence here – “corruption” is St Paul’s word for it, i.e. “rot.” We are rotting. Our bodies are rotting in many ways. That rotting is manifest in our behavior as well. It’ll get our bodies in the grave, too.

  34. […] And grant to [this water] the grace of redemption, the blessing of Jordan. Make it the fountain of incorruption, the gift of sanctification, the remission of sins, the remedy of infirmities; the final destruction of demons, unassailable by hostile powers, filled with angelic might. Let those who would ensnare Your creature flee far from it. For we have called upon Your Name, O Lord, and it is wonderful, and glorious, and awesome even to adversaries…more […]

  35. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Our bodies are rotting in many ways. That rotting is manifest in our behavior as well. It’ll get our bodies in the grave, too.

    Isn’t that simply stating the obvious?

    What becomes of those who are not “in Christ” then after death, according to Orthodox teachings?

  36. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    And love cannot be ginned up through labs…

    I don’t know about that. Bonobos are extremely peaceful creatures by nature. If they had a larger frontal lobe, I don’t think that they would become less peaceful. Indeed, they may well simply find new ways to express their affections.

    I deny this whole notion that love is not possible without free choice. That’s nonsense. The same affection that we call love (whether eros or friendship etc) is exhibited all throughout the animal kingdom. Even reconciliation between offenders and the offended is common among primate – even when the offense involves the murder of another mother’s child. “Free will” doesn’t into it. It’s simply the nature of these animals.

  37. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    …“Free will” doesn’t enter into it…

  38. Andrew Avatar

    JS,

    What becomes of those who are not “in Christ” then after death, according to Orthodox teachings?

    Orthodoxy doesn’t see it that way at all. Each possesses within themselves the undistorted image of God — from this stems the (true) freedom to act and love another.

  39. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    John S,

    “And love cannot be ginned up through labs…”

    “I don’t know about that.”

    To someone who has experienced the “lab created love” which can be tasted even through chemical enhancement with high doses of Serotonin, (with the addition of Dopamin and Endorphin) right now and not in the future;
    and who has also tasted the Love that is imparted by the Grace of God, which inexplicably enlarges one’s heart to love the entire universe with a love that has no parallel in all of this world, and when it ‘goes’ you can only wonder how can God do THAT????? (especially since it is so completely natural -although reminds one of the primordial natural- while exceeding all of our imagination), – the drug induced or lab induced cheep copies of it seem like the most devious of all traps in the devils arsenal!
    In fact, you are left with the question of how could God even allow such cheap copies to deceive people, although you have your answer in his unbelievable respect for our freedom and respect even for our desire to experiment to the point of total hubris!
    God seems to be such an ‘aristocrat’ and so singularly respectful of the gift of freedom he bestows on His image, that He would rather we find out the hard way what the consequences of our disobedience is, rather than give us a smack beforehand. Is that not what all the psychologists claim to be the best method of “punishment” for extremely disobedient kids? – consequences?

  40. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    John,

    Who is your favorite bonobo dramatist? Have you a baboon philosopher who particularly offends your sensibilities? What was the name of that gorilla who discovered the God particle?

    Ah, the famed equality of man and beast …

    No, no … The beast is satisfied to eat and procreate. The man asks, “Is this all? There must be more!” That is all the difference in the world. In the space between man and beast lies freedom, love, humor, piety, and all that makes existence more than an endless cycle of mastication and fornication.

    Shame on your modern cynicism!

  41. Michael Patrick Avatar
    Michael Patrick

    Seriously, this conversation needs Schmemann! I wish he was here. Chapter 1 of his book says the fall was all about food at the top of the food chain.

  42. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    For some reason people of our age want to create automatic life, artificial intelligence; to interpret the modern evolutionary theory of life only so that a brutally godless origin of Man can be manifested; they ignore acclaimed scientific principles, such as the Anthropic Principle (that the values of global constants are such that of necessity lead to the appearance of Human life), which imply Man’s worth -similar to what is proclaimed by the Church. While at the same time they look for scientific proof of the existence of aliens – not to communicate with them, (this cannot be done), but in order to dispel the uniqueness of Man. They prefer proclaiming that the material universe is a result of chance and we are simply a re-jumbling of nothingness – beings that randomly appeared from nothingness, rather than confessing a Creator in Whose image and likeness we were fashioned.

    It all reminds me of the Psalm, “Man that is in honour, understandeth not, and became like the beasts that perish.”

    Actually, that is the Fall is it not?

  43. Andrew Avatar

    JS,

    Most species of the whale family certainly have bigger brains than homo sapiens, including I might add the relatively diminutive bottle-nosed dolphin. We have much to learn from the animal kingdom, as Christ himself said:

    Behold the fowl of the air for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not better than they?
    Matthew, vi. 26.

    I’m sure the bonobos are doing the best they can — well said.

  44. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Gosh, I go off for Vespers for a few hours – and the conversation continues!

    What happens when we die? Well, the best way, I think, to think and speak of these things is through the imagery of union with Christ. We are saved by being united to Christ (baptized into His death, raised in His resurrection). Communion, all the sacraments, are a union with Christ. Prayer is a union with Christ. He has united Himself with us and does all things for everyone that we might all be united with Him. The Church is union with Christ – it’s not the means to union with Christ – it is union with Christ.

    So, the question becomes, is there any means of union with Christ other than what we know in the Church, the general consensus of the Tradition is that yes, there is, but it is quite opaque to us. It’s not something we declare definitively with assurance.

    What we do declare is that Christ has united Himself to us (everyone) and desires that all be saved (be united with Him). St. Paul says this quite clearly in Eph. 1:10. God has purposed in the fullness of times to gather together in one all things in Christ Jesus.

    Are all things gathered willingly? Is this a universal salvation. Again, it is opaque. St. Isaac of Syria thought yes, it is a universal salvation (there are a handful of others among the fathers) but mostly we simply say, “We don’t know.” Our hope is in a good God who loves us and does not desire the death of a sinner (including the greater forms of death beyond this world).

    As for Baboons, etc. Animals are “subject to futility” as in Romans 8, but they are not “fallen” in the sense that we are culpably fallen. My beloved Archbishop Dmitri, of blessed memory, told me that Prof. Serge Verhovskoy (also of blessed memory), used to say that animals had no sin. They do what they do, they act in accordance with their nature. We can make them use that nature in wrong ways, but they do not sin. A dog is always a dog – never, God forbid, a cat. Humans, on the other hand, consistently fail to live as truly human. Our nature isn’t flawed – what is broken is our ability to live in accordance with our nature. See my article, All Dogs Go to Heaven.

    Most of the things we do – even many of the evil things we do – still manifest something rather human about them – only deeply distorted. Even our desire to be gods (which can become the most evil of perversions) has a root in a properly human desire. As the father of 4 (all now grown and married), I have reflected a lot over the years, marveling at their excellence and their failings and see in all of it the brilliance or the shadow of the glory of God. I would say the same of the many people I have pastored – though I know my own children far better.

    People should judge others only with great kindness, understanding first how deeply God and all creation groans for their salvation. I have sometimes thought of the entire trajectory of creation, from its bursting out of nothing to the present, as one very long creative act of a good God who has purposed, as in Ephesians, to bring it to that final glorious end known to St. Paul. The individual lives and actions of each of us and everything everywhere, being part of a wonder, a tragedy, a redemption, and a glory drawn towards union with Christ. It all has this freedom that we understand so poorly, freedom that alone allows for love, and yet in the wonder of God’s love, this same freedom lovingly (many, many times tragically) moves towards its unseen goal. And in all of this, grace, the life of God, moves and draws us. I think of this sometimes, especially in the face of so much tragedy and evil and the things that perplex. What I know is a good God. Him I know. The rest is often a great mystery.

  45. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    I’m often jealous of animals. They are, as Fr. Stephen says, always doing their “animal thing.” Man, on the hand, consistently fails to live up to his humanity.

  46. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    “freedom that alone allows for love,”

    This is an important affirmation, but John apparently does not accept it. Strangely, neither do many Christians of the Protestant variety.

  47. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    I hope Fr. Stephen replies because it seems everyone else tends to go off-subject far too quickly.

    Dinoship: I am not talking about drugs. I am talking about something entirely different. After all, we presently have a large number of people who perform mental exercises to change their neural pathways which alters the way they think and behave, all from self-will.

    What if we figured out how to create people with brains that were, by nature, altruistic, joyful and kind?

    When I mention bonobos and whatnot, I am pointing to their nature (not their inability to write sonnets, PJ). Could not our nature be genetically manipulated to be peaceful as they are?

    The point being, if it’s possible then does this not also tell us that the thing we call a “sin nature” is not a “spiritual” condition but rather a biological one?

    I am merely posing a question. I don’t know the answer.

    PJ: I don’t know why you insist on failing to understand me or why you are so eager to take offense.

    Who is your favorite bonobo dramatist?…

    Which chimpanzee created the iron maiden? What gorilla waged war? Which bonobo set out to destroy nature for his own gain?

    Your questions have no bearing on the subject matter we are discussing.

    The beast is satisfied to eat and procreate.

    Are they? Have you ever read anything by anyone who has observed them? Do you suggest that they don’t, for example, make tools or form social bonds that are beyond procreation or experience fairness, reciprocity, conflict and reconciliation? These are just a few things that lie in their purview. You fail to give appropriate credit where it is due.

    More to the point, I was not attacking creativity or reason in humans. I was asking if the things that drive us to do bad are simply our biological nature and if so do we have (with that creativity and reason) the ability to improve upon it?

    I am not advocating devolution. I am asking if there might be a biological remedy that would lead to the peace that we all say we want.

    Shame on your modern cynicism!

    ROTFLMAO! I’m crying from laughing so hard! Oh my goodness. You really are determined to twist my words, aren’t you?

    Cynicism?! Hardly! I want nothing more than a humanity that lives the beatitudes. (:::I’m still cracking up:::) If that can be achieved through biological means, what then? Would that really be so awful? Would it be so terrible to live in a world of beings that love naturally? Isn’t that what heaven is supposed to be like? Or do you suppose heaven will be Earth 2.0, filled with people who have free will and daily have to fight their nature in order to participate in perfection?

    Dear me! I’m sorry. You are just too funny. Thanks. I needed that.

    Dinoship:

    Man that is in honour, understandeth not, and became like the beasts that perish.

    I have a very different view. To me, to equate brutish man with “the beasts” is an affront to the beasts, not to man (just as calling a politician a “whore” is an insult to honest prostitutes everywhere). You will find no more cooperative and loyal beast than the wolf, for example, yet vile men are referred to as “wolves.” Seems rather unfair to the wolf, if you ask me.

    Andrew: I find it extremely humbling when I read studies or view lectures by people who study bonobos at how incredibly intelligent they are. Yet they are peaceful as well.

    By contrast, chimps have a nature closer to our own and are even capable of premeditated murder. But that is their nature. Yet we don’t think them immoral. It takes a highly evolved brain to create a gang, find a victim, and carry out a murder.

    My question was one of nature, not intelligence. If we had a nature like that of bonobos, that would not make us stupid. Nor, I think, would it devalue love. To say that love only has value when it is exercised in the face of horrible conditions is not fair, IMHO.

  48. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Humans, on the other hand, consistently fail to live as truly human.

    I wonder if an alien species observing human beings would agree with you. It seems to me that if dogs behave a certain way and we call that their nature that one ought not turn around and say that the way humans behave is not their nature. After all, isn’t our nature simply that which we do?

    We may wish that it wasn’t our nature and even dream up an ideal that we’d like to achieve (or return to) but that doesn’t change the fact that homo-sapiens act now as they always have. If 90+ thousand years of the same behavior doesn’t equal our nature, what does?

    Indeed, I find people far less vexing when I accept that they are the way they are. At least, I don’t look at them as in some way defective. It’s easier for me to be charitable with this view.

  49. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    freedom that alone allows for love,

    This is an important affirmation, but John apparently does not accept it. Strangely, neither do many Christians of the Protestant variety.

    Would you say that, before the fall, Adam did not love god?

    Are you suggesting that people who have passed into Heaven do not love god or each other?

  50. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    John S,

    I hope Fr. Stephen replies because it seems everyone else tends to go off-subject far too quickly.

    I agree. Seems I’ve lost the flow of the thread. Was my lost comment not a reply?

    On human nature. I’m describing human nature theologically. In that sense, Christ alone reveals human nature. If Christ is not who I believe him to be, then what you see is what you get.

    Essentially, this is the point for me…where my faith begins and ends. I believe that Christ was raised from the dead – in a new mode of existence we describe as the resurrection. From this everything else flows and follows. Because I believe in that singular event, everything else is allowed to fall into place however it will. I’m free to speculate, if need be, about the nature of the fall, the nature of creation. My speculation generally runs in this form: if Christ is risen from the dead, then what does that mean for ….. whatever I thinking about. Christ’s resurrection is the single thing that makes sense of everything else.

    The pertinent question is why do I believe that Christ is risen from the dead.

  51. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    John Shores, having read about your “Christian” childhood upbringing–aaacckkk! Horror is the only appropriate response for an Orthodox Christian (though Orthodox Christian parents can make the same mistake). I am so sorry for what you experienced. It also explains to me why you think the death penalty should be used more (which also deeply saddens me, though which in a certain context that feeling might be more understandable than the idea that what you experienced constituted appropriate discipline of a child).

    Several years ago now when I was Evangelical, I attended a workshop on the discipline of children at a Christian home schooling convention. Most of it was common sense stuff. That is until it got to the point about the place of punishment in the whole scheme. The teacher’s premise here was predicated on a very literal interpretation of Proverbs 13:24, teaching that *corporeal* punishment with a literal *rod* (switch/stick) was *commanded* by this Scripture (rather than seeing the Proverbs as elucidating general principles in the context of the culture of that time, i.e., accurately reading the literary genre of Proverbs). When asked during the Q & A session at the end of the workshop about how much was too much (in terms of the intensity of the beating with the rod), the teacher said *very cooly and casually* (it was how he said it as much as what he said that was horrifying to anyone who has the slightest experience of Christ’s love and its implications for parenting one’s children) that if you injure the child that is going too far and if you strike the face in his opinion that was inappropriate, but that if you didn’t leave a welt you weren’t doing enough to make your point. . . .

    I left that workshop really horrified and actually sick to my stomach. I wish I could have articulated what I was feeling and objected out loud as he expounded his answer at this point, but I was too completely stunned by the callous attitude even to open my mouth–all I wanted to do was get out of there fast! Since my brother was in a Fundamentalist cult for several years (mercifully only as a single adult–not a child or parent) and I have other loved ones who experienced severe spiritual abuse at the hands of Protestant Fundamentalist teachers, I will refrain from going on about Fundamentalist spiritual abuse (which it seems actually has some pseudo-Orthodox forms as well, sadly), because I will undoubtedly sin in much of what I would have to say in expressing my feelings about all of that. In any event, it certainly helps to explain the struggles you are having now. Lord, have mercy!

    Here are some words from some contemporary Greek Orthodox Elders (mature Christian monks known and respected in the Orthodox world for their wisdom) on parenting, which you might appreciate:

    “Speak more to God about your children than to your children about God . . .The soul of the teenager is in a state of an explosion of freedom. This is why it is hard for them to accept counsel. Rather than counseling them continuously and reproaching them again and agin, leave the situation to Christ, to the Panagia [a reference to Christ’s Mother), and to the Saints, asking that they bring them to reason.”

    “Deal with your children as colts, sometimes tightening and other times loosening the bit. When the colt kicks, without abandoning the bit, we loosen it, otherwise it will break. When however, it is peaceful, then we tighten the bit and take the colt where we like.”

    “Parents should love their children as their children and not as their idols. That is to say, they should love their children as they are and not how they would like them to be–to be like them.”

    “[To parents who asked what to do when their children don’t listen:] Pray with faith, counsel them as much as possible with love, in a gentle way. For, forgive me, nothing good comes of being strict. This is because they will up and leave . . . and today we live in Sodom and Gomorrah and worse.”

    Sorry to go a bit off topic here.

  52. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    John Shores, also with regard to your comment about animal love, I would also like to mention that from a Christian perspective the term “love” has a spiritual connotation and is much more than the instinct-driven emotional and relational bondedness that occurs between members of many animal species (and even on occasion between members of different animal species).

    In its deepest expression, it is the freewill choice to give of oneself sacrificially (even, if necessary making the ultimate sacrifice of giving one’s own life–like one Christian in a Nazi death camp I read about who voluntarily took the place of a Jew in line for the gas chamber) in order to provide for the well-being of another. This kind of love is given not merely out of stoic duty, not because one fears punishment if one does otherwise, not even because one is bonded to the other in the way of animal love, but in heartfelt conviction that other has this worth and even when the other is an enemy. That is the nature of the “love” that is inspired of God, that saves a human being, and that unites him with Christ and of which only a human being is capable, because even in those cases where animals apparently give their lives to save another animal because of the bond between them (many animal mothers do this instinctively), there is no evidence they do it with foresight of their own demise, nor out of a free-will choice (realizing they could do otherwise), and certainly *not* for an animal with which they have no such natural bond!

  53. Rhonda Avatar

    John Shores:

    I deny this whole notion that love is not possible without free choice…

    Then I very propose that you understand neither love nor free-will. That’s okay though, I do not believe that any of us mere mortals do fully. Regards the “love” found in animals I can only say that we humans are very prone to anthropomorphizing.

    Try reading:
    The Freedom of Morality by Christos Yannaras
    The Holy Trinity: In the beginning there was love by Dumitru Staniloae
    For The Life of The World by Fr. Alexander Schmemann

  54. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Karen:

    It also explains to me why you think the death penalty should be used more

    It’s not a vengeance thing with me. Quite the opposite. I cannot think of a more cruel fate than life in prison. If I was to take a spiritual view, I would say the sooner the offender got to god, the better. Years in prison serve to harden the heart.

    I attended a workshop on the discipline…

    Yeah. My dad was very proud that we were terrified of him. His motto was, and I quote, “A little violence goes a long way.” He was proud to announce that to anyone who would listen too.

    I received my last beating when I was fifteen. I wasn’t able to really get over it until I left the faith. It was at that time that I began speaking with his twin brother and learning about their childhood. I had it easy, compared to him. His father? Well, his father was abandoned by his dad and was raised by his aunt and uncle who beat him every day saying “I know you did something wrong today.” Once I got a context for my own life, I was able to (very easily) forgive my dad and even to come to a point that I admired him. If I had been dealt the same hand he had been given, I don’t know that I would have survived and if I did I’d probably be an alcoholic.

    Speak more to God about your children than to your children about God

    Amen! As I stated earlier in this very long thread, I think the Christian life was meant to be lived, not taught. What children should be taught is how to think, not what to think. I was indoctrinated just as surely as an Hitler Youth or child born into a communist family.

    This is the principle reason that I am drawn to Orthodox Christians. Y’all seem to me the only ones who call yourselves “Christian” and haven’t lost your sanity.

    from a Christian perspective the term “love” has a spiritual connotation…

    Be patient with me. I realize that once one accepts that there is a “spiritual” and then accepts the Christian doctrine, these things make sense in a different way than to an outsider.

    Again, my sole reason for posting here is not to discuss doctrine but as a means to try to find this god person. I appreciate your understanding that I cannot discuss step 25 on the same terms as you when I am still struggling with step 1.

    Rhonda:

    I very propose that you understand neither love nor free-will.

    It seems a simple question to me. Did Adam love Eve? Did they love god before the Fall? Isn’t the whole point of salvation to reach (via Christ) a state after this life in which everyone simply loves without having to contend with the sin nature? Does god had a choice to sin or not?

    That there is “free will” does not mean that there has to be “free will” in order to have love.

    Fr. stephen:

    I hope Fr. Stephen replies because it seems everyone else tends to go off-subject far too quickly.

    I was apparently writing at the same time as you because I didn’t see your reply until I submitted my post.

    Christ’s resurrection is the single thing that makes sense of everything else.

    Perhaps I am going about this all wrong. I cannot get past Christ’s death, which I must do before proceeding to the resurrection. I still fail to see a reason for the Cross even if I grant that man is “fallen.” I doubt that I can make heads or tails of it. So, the sooner god shows up, the better, IMHO.

    ————————–
    As an aside, I wrote this in 2008 when I was going through my struggle. It’s an absurd viewpoint of the Bible that arose from the assumption that God’s point of view isn’t like man’s and that God isn’t such a horrid person as the Protestants teach. It’s a view of the history of an imaginary first universe (ours being the second go around). Take it with a bag of salt, but some of it still makes me laugh.

  55. John Avatar
    John

    I have purchased Fr. John Behr’s book and will begin reading it as soon as I return from Spain in December and I second the recommendation of Schmemman’s For the Life of the World.

    John Shores, much of what is being spoken of here is better to be digested from one or two of the redommended books. Comboxes rarely illumine a conversation like a well written book can. Take your time, sit down and do some reading. I am sure some questions will be answered and other questions will arise, too. As it stands, it appears you need to begin understanding certain vocabulary from an Orthodox point of view. That is probably why it appears that there is much talking past one another. If we confuse vocabulary, then the explanations are meaningless and confused. I am a somewhat recent convert myself and have had to do some extensive adjustments in my Christian vocabulary as much of it has shifted from my Protestant days. Even subtle differences matter as the antisacramental worldview is incompatable with the sacramental worldview.

    You have enough folks talking at you at this point. I will exit the convo if only so it is less crowded here.

  56. davidp Avatar

    Hello…Quote: “The reality of the incarnate God was not obvious to those around him….(rest of paragraph).

    I been reading about St Ephrem the Syrian and how it has given me a new appreciation for types and symbols both nature and Scripture of the revealed Christ. Hidden to those whose “eye” is darken but luminous to those whose “eye” is clear. I am re-reading it after I bought it several years ago…and it did not make too much sense to me then, but now after it is clearer as the days go by contemplating it more and more.
    Blessings, david.

  57. Andrew Avatar

    Father S,

    My beloved Archbishop Dmitri, of blessed memory, told me that Prof. Serge Verhovskoy (also of blessed memory), used to say that animals had no sin. They do what they do, they act in accordance with their nature. We can make them use that nature in wrong ways, but they do not sin.

    Yes, I too reached at this conclusion and it was a watershed moment — truly. Thanks for posting this.

  58. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    John Shores,

    I did not understand your question “Would you say that, before the fall, Adam did not love god?”

    Nevertheless, I can see a bit of an issue of semantics Babel in all our comments here:
    What do you mean by nature, what do you mean by love? What are our respective experiences of these words? More importantly: what is our experience of these (“nature” and “love”) which comes, not from our current (fallen) nature, but through the experience of Grace, verified by a discerning spiritual Father. I know this last bit sounds “too Orthodox” to some; how many people will have had an experience of our primordial (eschatological to be more correct) nature (even a fleeting one) through Grace – as the Mother of God had when carrying Christ in the womb and ‘verified’ it at meeting Elizabeth- illuminating the deeper meaning of these words and many other words which we toss around with know deep understanding of them, sometimes with the understanding of a godless robot (freedom, love, nature, life)…
    Love, not animal or psychophysiological or human, (in the state we know it), but, Love that springs from God, is singularly aware of Him and returns to God, can only come from Grace! It is super-natural, and no animal from lowest to highest has the ability to experience this as it only acts according to nature. We do too, but, we can also, through God’s uncreated energies act above and beyond our (fallen) nature.
    That experience changes one’s understanding from a rational “thinking you understand this stuff” to realising you know and experience it first hand – yet cannot explain any of it!

    “What if we figured out how to create people with brains that were, by nature, altruistic, joyful and kind?”
    That would be ‘nature’, as in an automaton behaving this way… A grace filled Saint can sin and hate, yet he does not, the danger is that he is free, yet chooses to offer 100% of his free will to God and He provieds him with a grace which (although it totally possesses him) somehow allows his freedom too…

    “Man that is in honour, understandeth not, and became like the beasts that perish.” Is a description of the Fall because, although God gave us the possibility to live as persons “supernaturally”(there might be a better word here – the Greek is “υπέρ φύσιν”), we chose to fall back down to natura (κατα φυσιν). We, being free humans and not animals though, can, and did take this further down to perverted and unnatural (παρά φύσιν)!

  59. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    So, Christ has shown us the “υπέρ φύσιν”. But, now, after that, the “κατα φύσιν” and “παρά φύσιν” (the Fall) makes full sense. When the Prophet David wrote “Man that is in honour, understandeth not, and became like the beasts that perish” he was speaking of this. The true extent of the Fall is only experienced through Grace showing you the heights of the “υπέρ φύσιν”, not through history. If all Scripture was lost, that experience would make a saint re-write, more or less, the same story.

  60. Andrew Avatar

    Sorry, should read “reached this conclusion” – thanks.

  61. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    John,

    Sorry, I think you misinterpreted my tone. I was being playful, not sarcastic. I suppose I’m not a very funny person … That’s one of the difficulties of the Internet: tone never seems to get through.

    My only point was this: There is a normal set range of activities in which all animals save humans engage. We appear exceptional, and that has been the conclusion of most people in most ages. A man can act like a monkey, but a monkey can’t act like a man (beyond the most rudimentary imitation, and only then within special circumstances).

    Nonetheless, if I gave you a laugh, I’m glad: It’s good for the soul! ; – )

    I will say this on a very serious note, though: If man and beast are equal, if we are both the products of random evolution, then there is no substantial basis for morality or rights. There is no reason why we can kill a cow but not a person; no reason we can keep a horse to pull a cart and not a black person to reap a field; no reason why we genetically manipulate chickens and not children. The rejection of human exceptionalism — which is not the same thing as the denigration of animals — carries with it huge risks. Think about them.

  62. Andrew Avatar

    Karen,

    Some thoughts on your comment on the discipline of children. You write:

    “Several years ago now when I was Evangelical, I attended a workshop on the discipline of children at a Christian home schooling convention. Most of it was common sense stuff. That is until it got to the point about the place of punishment in the whole scheme. The teacher’s premise here was predicated on a very literal interpretation of Proverbs 13:24, teaching that *corporeal* punishment with a literal *rod* (switch/stick) was *commanded* by this Scripture (rather than seeing the Proverbs as elucidating general principles in the context of the culture of that time, i.e., accurately reading the literary genre of Proverbs). When asked during the Q & A session at the end of the workshop about how much was too much (in terms of the intensity of the beating with the rod), the teacher said *very cooly and casually* (it was how he said it as much as what he said that was horrifying to anyone who has the slightest experience of Christ’s love and its implications for parenting one’s children) that if you injure the child that is going too far and if you strike the face in his opinion that was inappropriate, but that if you didn’t leave a welt you weren’t doing enough to make your point. . . .

    Without direct experience of the benchmark used in Proverbs 13:24, mankind risks projecting internalised experiences onto the other — this naturally, has serious limitations with possible negative consequences. Note that Scripture speaks of a certain “rod of iron”, which the Church Fathers also occasionally refer to, though often in more oblique language. The preternatural discipline of Psalm 2:9, Revelation 2:26 & 19:15 can only be understood in the context of the incarnation. Nonetheless, JS is wrong to contend that the fault lies with the God of the “OT” — as if a thing associated with God can ever be deemed old.

    Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow says this of the Lord’s discipline — in part response to concerns that “Roman Catholic materials” were being aimed at the Orthodox in the early 19th Century:

    “You expect now that I should give judgment concerning the other half of the present Christianity, but I just simply look upon them; in part I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals many deep wounds of the old serpent in all the parts and limbs of his body, applying now gentle, now strong remedies, even fire and iron, in order to soften hardness, to draw out poison, to clean the wounds, to separate our malignant growths, to restore spirit and life in the half-dead and numbed structures. In such wise I attest my faith that in the end the power of God patently will triumph over human weakness, good over evil, unity over division, life over death.”

    As Kent R. Hill attests in a paper published as recently as 1997 — in citing Filaret’s well known quote above:

    “The spirit of these comments is ‘remarkably ecumenical’ and in recognition that ‘the full parameters of the Church of God are something for God alone to determine’.

    This then is Orthodoxy, but it cannot be understood from without.

  63. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    John,

    ““What if we figured out how to create people with brains that were, by nature, altruistic, joyful and kind?””

    First, this implies that our mind is one and the same as our brain. This has yet to be proven. In fact, even the likes of Thomas Nagel have come to doubt this over-simplistic and definitely materialistic identification.

    Second, I would say that without spiritual freedom, there is no altruism, no joy, no kindness. Let me be frank: I was a drug addict when I was young. I used to take, among other things, Ecstasy. The chemical compound, MDMA, compels you to be “happy.” You can’t help but smile and “love the world.” Yet it is utterly hollow. Your brain is flooded with serotonin and other happiness-making chemicals, but it’s all fake. The next day, you don’t understand why you kissed who you kissed, why you hugged who you hugged, why you said what you said. Your love was chemically compelled, not chosen by the spirit from a position of total freedom. It is thus false, even shameful.

    Or consider a computer. It does whatever is asked of it. It never — well, rarely — says, “No.” It will assist anyone who asks to the best of its ability. And yet it would be insane to call a computer “altruistic” or “kind” or even “helpful” in the true sense of that word. Why? Because not only is there no true choice, there is no self-awareness of what it would mean to be “altruistic” or “kind” or “helpful.”

  64. Brian Van Sickle Avatar
    Brian Van Sickle

    I appreciate the responses, most of which were very thoughtful. I got a bit of a chuckle out of portions of some of them, though. Some ascribed to me a reasoning that imprisons God within time. Some assumed a sense of concern about whether our Faith could be true if it didn’t, so to speak, pass the test of history, or that I begin with history that creates a necessity for God to redeem. Others had me locked in the false assumptions of a ‘creation science’ model. Still others thought I may be concerned over getting lost in post-modernism. None of these is true. Nor is any my point of reference.

    Only a few seemed to grasp what I was attempting to express. Perhaps it could best be summed up in the words of St. Paul. “We have this treasure in earthen vessels.” Our Faith and our actual experience share the ‘quality’ (for lack of a better word) of the Mystery of the Incarnation. They are fully within time and space, while also beyond it, completely visible while also invisible, and so on. The created is united to the Uncreated in a union without confusion. In the words of St. Maximos, “Grace irradiates nature with a supra-natural light, and by the transcendence of its glory raises nature above its natural limits” This Grace is given to human persons and all creation in a communion of love, the Church, that is organically united to Christ. It is given to humanity, yet ‘humanity’ has no existence apart from human persons. Even that which defines the category of ‘humanity’ as distinct from the rest of creation is a Person, the Man Christ Jesus. In other words, there is no such thing as ‘human nature’ apart from specific human persons (John, Paul, Mary, Sally…). Is this not the primary reason for our insistence that the Church is not invisible? Christ who “was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled” took flesh that He might unite Himself with us who can also be heard, seen, and touched. Inherent in this union is a transcendence of time, space, and every natural limitation, but it is by no means contrary to our created nature (which is “very good”). It is, as it were, natural to our nature.

    If there was any concern expressed, it wouldn’t be over what some read into my comment. It would be more related to Gnosticism, a heresy which St. John and many others took great pains to guard against.

    Having said this, and while not failing to grasp what Fr. Stephen and others have written here about the iconic nature of language, narratives, etc., I wonder why there is such concern on the part of some over accepting the story as told – in particular the creation and fall of man whose nature, as noted above, does not exist apart from a person. Whether “literal” or not in terms of how we would normally understand historical accounts, the Church affirms the essential truth of this story through her Scriptures, Liturgy, iconography, etc. In other words, she affirms that it “happened” (if I may be permitted to use a word that may imply time to some), albeit perhaps in a manner that surpasses our ability to comprehend fully; and she fearlessly makes liberal use of it in order to draw us into deeper communion with Christ who is our life and the meaning of the story itself.

    It is certainly true that we don’t necessarily need the story to tell us we are fallen. Death is permeates our fallen existence, and I speak here not only of the death of the body. I speak of the death we feel deeply and know experientially even though we may not be able to identify it as death because we have been immersed in it since the day of our birth It is the death that is at the root of all our fears, anxieties, tensions, our chronic sense of isolation from God, from others, and even from ourselves; the death that is manifest when we find that no matter how much we may try and wish it were not so, we are ultimately incapable of being who we want to be and of doing all the good we desire; the death in ourselves and in others that renders us incapable of living in peace with one another; the death that is a constant reminder to us that something is horribly wrong in us and in the world in which we live. Personally, I find it revelatory in itself that somehow we know all this intuitively in spite of the fact that we have never known any other state of existence.

    No, we don’t need the story – or do we? While it is true that we may not need to the story to know that we are sick, it is also true that the story is nonetheless given to us by the Church – most notably the story of man’s fall in the season of Lent, as well as the story of creation as the New Creation that Christ’s Pascha inaugurates is fulfilled (Orthodox Christians familiar with the richness and depth of our Lenten services, the Liturgy of St. Basil, and Holy Week will understand whereof I speak). I wouldn’t presume to know all the reasons the story is given. I only know that for me there is no small comfort in knowing that God in His love is good, that He created all things good, that He has honored me with His image, that He has never been anything but loving toward His creatures, that the sickness of death from which I suffer and the inclination to sin that it carries was not inflicted on me by God, that the same freedom my first parents abused unto death is transformed by the Grace of God into repentance unto a new creation and life eternal.

    Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory forever!

  65. John Avatar
    John

    A question, open for anyone.

    I have heard that Adam, the name, in Hebrew can also mean ‘human’ or ‘humanity’. Does that not also add another dimension to this, even the literal/historical view? Might this meaning shed a different light on how one views this story/account? Does it have a bearing also on what Father has been saying as well? I do not have any answers myself. After 275+ comments, I thought it necessary to throw another wrench into all this. My apologies but it seems to have not been touched on at all, or so istm.

    John

  66. Rhonda Avatar

    What is “istm” an acronym for? I’ve seen it used now several times & am just wondering. Thanks.

  67. John Avatar
    John

    “It seems to me.”

  68. Rhonda Avatar

    Thank you, John 🙂

  69. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    John Shores, the Fundamentalist that abused some of my loved ones had experienced something very close to what your dad did (including his dad’s dying when he was young and a relative taking over the “disciplinary role” and seeing it very like your dad’s aunt and uncle apparently did. I appreciate very much the terrible cycle of relational distortion and abuse that is passed on from generation to generation and which colors and distorts one’s understanding of the Scriptures, and indeed all of life. It is gut-wrenching to me when this distortion occurs in the name of “God” and “Christian” faith and is reinforced using certain texts of the OT and misreading and misapplying them out of the context of Christ, the Fathers and the apostolic faith of the Church (which I understand to be synonymous with Orthodox Tradition).

    It can be immensely difficult to untangle all this, but I’m heartened to see that process has begun in your own life–especially, with regard to being able to appreciate what is good about your dad and how he resisted the kind of evil he himself experienced. I am also sympathetic to your realization that long-term imprisonment in our system is often less compassionate than execution, and it is helpful context to properly understand your comment. That said, having read *Dead Man Walking* by Sister Helen Prejean, I should point out that it seems most of those on death row want to live despite the terrible conditions of our prisons, and folks like the warden (a Christian) who works in the prison in the account in this book and was instrumental in enlisting Sister Helen’s help, and also folks like Chuck Colson who pioneered “Prison Fellowship” show that with love, support and faith, even our prisons, terrible as they can be, can become places of redemption and even used for good by God, though not apart from God’s intervention through those who follow Him (either explicitly or implicitly).

  70. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Andrew, I’m not positive I’m following the sense of your comment to me, but I should perhaps clarify that I am not in any way intending to castigate or to judge the salvation of anyone in any group or person (Fundamentalist or otherwise) either inside or outside the Church. Determining a person’s salvation or culpability is God’s business, not mine. Rather my aim was to recognize the terrible results of a wrong understanding of the Christian Tradition and the sometimes dangerous dynamics of a fundamentalist-type of reading of the Tradition or Scripture. Here I’m intentionally correcting myself not to capitalize “fundamentalist,” because I’m intending to describe a particular kind of the misreading of the Tradition or Scripture (much as Fr. Stephen has used it in this blog)–a mistake anyone influenced by our modern ways of thinking can make (i.e., all of us), not to identify it with a particular sub-group of modern Christendom per se. Some variation of this can occur in any of those sub-groups, including that of Eastern Orthodox Christians.

    Sometimes such technically “incorrect” language about or readings of Scripture, especially for the more pure in heart wherever they may be found, are quite benign. Case in point might be Fr. Stephen’s Baptist father-in-law of blessed memory, who certainly hailed from a Fundamentalist-influenced tradition if his form of Baptist did not completely qualify for the term (don’t know the specifics of this), yet who apparently interpreted his own faith in the most important ways in harmony with the fullness of the Orthodox Tradition, and had a very saintly influence on Fr. Stephen. I quite agree with your statements about the God of the OT and the Tradition’s understanding of images like God’s rule with a “rod of iron.” I cringe at the Fundamentalist misreading of these types of images and passages in Scripture, whether it is exercised to affirm liberal apostasy and rejection of the Scriptures’ “truth” or fundamentalist error in accepting Scriptures as “true” in a literalist sense and application that is not genuinely led of the Holy Spirit.

    Anyway, thanks for your comment and the opportunity to make the context of my own clearer.

  71. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    John S,
    I hadn’t seen: ” I cannot get past Christ’s death, which I must do before proceeding to the resurrection.”…
    There is a great deal of confusing theology on the subject in the West, some of it infiltrated in the East lately too.
    Remember Christ has two natures. As God on the Cross he shows a God like the Father of the Prodigal son’s, a God that cannot possibly be responsible for anything we accuse Him of, a God that shatters our previous understandings of God.
    As man, as “Adam”, as a person/hypostasis free from all sin which led to death in the first place (first Adam), who “hypostasises” (takes on and represents) all of humanity in His Person (something we are all called to do, and the way God Himself ‘sees’ us, as unique aspects of all creation, although we do not live up to that honour) and manifests to all that exists who man should be. A Eucharistic relational Being that never looses connection with the source of Life. A being who is identified, more than any other description, with the description Son of God. He “justifies God in the eyes of men and Man in the eyes of God”.(Elder Sophrony)
    I would love for Father Stephen to talk on this mystery too…

  72. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    In addition to the previous we could point that God didn’t harbor any ‘hatred’ for mankind on account of their sins. It was mankind that perceived God as a judge, on account of their own, unclean conscience: “for, although we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son” (Romans 5: 10)
    He always loved us as the father of the Prodigal, and never demanded satisfaction for any supposedly “offended justice” of His.
    “In this, was God’s love for us made evident: that He sent forth His only Son into the world, so that we might live, through Him. In this, is Love: it is not because we loved God, but because He loved us and sent forth His Son for the atonement of our sins.”
    The Church teaches that Jesus Christ became a perfect human so that – as one of our kind – He would defeat all those things that defeated and brought about sickness to human nature.
    Therefore, in order for the Lord to rise from the dead and thus defeat death, He first had to die. But now, through faith in Jesus Christ, and in communion with His Body –the Church- every person can partake of this victory!

  73. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    John Shores,

    To be fair, you’ve put out a lot of different topics and tried to keep several going. If you really want to get one answered or have one discussed, do like you did on “the Fall” topic and let the others drop, continuing to ask about that one you really care about. It’s easy to get greedy with discussions but really you can only satisfy one thirst at a time.

  74. Andrew Avatar

    Karen, you’re very welcome.

  75. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    …do like you did on “the Fall” topic and let the others drop…

    I have tried repeatedly to refocus on the issue but respondents have a tendency to fail to answer the question and to introduce other issues. Fr. Stephen is the only one who has answered my questions directly.

    I’m done with this thread though.

  76. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    I hope to get this post completed that I’m working on. I leave on Tuesday morning for Santa Fe, NM and surrounding areas for a week. My computer time will be limited (I’m also spending time at a monastery for my soul’s sake) so the conversation may be slack this next week. I want to finish the present article, and probably post a few “greatest hits” later in the week. I’ve been taking time to prepare for next weekend when I’m leading a retreat – with 4 talks. If you have a mind to pray – prayers would be appreciated.

  77. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    I think many people have answered — or at least attempted to answer — your question, John. A number of commenters have spoken to the historicity and meaning of the fall, morality, mortality, human origins, and the cross’ relationship with these matters. It’s just that you’re looking for a relatively straightforward answer to a question that is most mysterious and complex. You want an answer inside a paradigm that others are not necessarily working within. I think that’s the source of difficulty. Do you know what I mean?

  78. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    PJ,

    If John’s on one side of the paradigm boundary and you’re on the other, is it likely that he would know what you mean? (wink)

  79. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Father, bless! May the Lord grant you travel mercies and fruitful/restful time on retreat–both your own and that which you will be leading.

  80. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    You want an answer inside a paradigm that others are not necessarily working within. I think that’s the source of difficulty.

    No. the difficulty is that when presented with a simple “Yes/No” question, Fr. Stephen is the only one who does not get tangential. Rather, he answers the direct question directly and then supports it.

    Conversely, others give all manner of data/reasoning without directly answering the question, though they believe that the data/reasoning is the answer. It is a common symptom among political and religious minded people.

  81. Andrew Avatar

    PJ,

    You want an answer inside a paradigm that others are not necessarily working within. I think that’s the source of difficulty.

    My thoughts entirely.

  82. Rhonda Avatar

    John Shores:

    Rhonda: I very propose that you understand neither love nor free-will…It seems a simple question to me. Did Adam love Eve? Did they love god before the Fall? Isn’t the whole point of salvation to reach (via Christ) a state after this life in which everyone simply loves without having to contend with the sin nature? Does god had a choice to sin or not? That there is “free will” does not mean that there has to be “free will” in order to have love.

    I will respond to this later this morning/early afternoon after I get some sleep, so please check back. It’s been a long day that started early despite our “extra hour” last night 😉

  83. John Avatar
    John

    “It is a common symptom among political and religious minded people.”

    Seems a tad over the top, don’t you think? Everyone has had quite a lot of patience with you, many having similar backgrounds as you, and this is hlw you paint them? If that is the case then why not just ignore everyone else and just ask Father specifically and only interact wih him. You do have that option.

    I agree with someone’s statement above (I forget who) that part of the problem is paradigm issues. As I mentioned before, a good run down of Orthodox definitions of certain words would alleviate much difficulty in talking past one another.

  84. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    John S, John, PJ, et al,
    I can see both sides of the argument here.
    I understand JS’s frustration, the nature of a blog is such that it can really confuse things and you need to filter out a great deal of tangential info…
    while I can also see that the “paradigm” issue is also valid. We see Christ Himself often ‘evading’ a question which comes with a particular context to it that tries to corner Him into a specific kind of answer that would miss the point that needs to be made. He instead provides the questioners with a parable followed by “those who have ears to hear let them hear”.
    There are, however, also some very clear answers on the original question comming out of all the comments (although you might want far more elucidation JohnS -and that’s where PJ’s ‘paradigm’ comes into it):

    ‘Yes’ to man’s fallenes
    ‘No’ to the need of a literal historical Adam
    ‘No’ to the existence of a supposed “threat” from scientific findings to faith

  85. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    “‘Yes’ to man’s fallenes
    ‘No’ to the need of a literal historical Adam
    ‘No’ to the existence of a supposed “threat” from scientific findings to faith”

    I typically find myself reaching similar conclusions.

    That said: John, you have to understand that these issues are equally mysterious to many — most — Christians. You’re frustrated that people won’t give you a Yes/No answer — but perhaps people are not so certain! They aren’t certain that it is as simple as Yes/No and even if it were, they aren’t certain they’d know which to pick.

    I, for one, feel unsure discussing Adam and Eve, the origins of the man, and the Fall. I doubt I’m alone. My only certainty is Christ, which is why I keep trying to bring the conversation back to Him.

    I’m really sorry if you feel as though your needs haven’t been addressed. I know that I did my best to give you some comfort and some answers. In my humble opinion, many others tried equally as hard, if not harder. I think that’s worth taking into consideration.

    God bless you, my friend.

  86. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    P.S. We’re about to hit a new record: 300 comments in one post! And it’s all for you, John! 😛

  87. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Everyone has had quite a lot of patience with you,

    I wasn’t aware that I was trying anyone’s patience. If that’s the case, I will simply refrain from participating.

    I am not “treating” anyone with contempt. I am simply observing. I repeated the same question at least three times and Fr. Stephen is the only one who answered it until PJ stated:

    these issues are equally mysterious to many — most — Christians… people won’t give you a Yes/No answer — but perhaps people are not so certain!

    which is an answer. And one I can accept.

    PJ: It’s not a matter of my needs being addressed. I settled the issue in my own mind long ago but like the good little agnostic that I am I have not turned it into dogma; I am open to being shown where my thinking is wrong. And you are the first community of rational Christians I have come across.

    I was trying to distill this to its simplest question so that we could take one step at a time. But I don’t want to go through 300 posts just to get past the first step.

    Pax.

  88. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    “I wasn’t aware that I was trying anyone’s patience. If that’s the case, I will simply refrain from participating. ”

    Oh, you’re not trying anyone’s patience. Don’t worry about that. I just hope you realize how hard everyone has been trying to answer your questions. (BTW, by “needs” I meant your queries re: the fall, the cross, etc.) It’s just that, as I said before, there are several different paradigms at work here, so effective communication is problematic.

    I, for one, am not interested in arguing with you. Rather, I wish to honestly answer your questions, and I’ve tried to do so, even if I haven’t been as direct as you’d like. I think the same is true for others. But it’s challenging, because we’re at the deep level of presuppositions. For instance, you presuppose that without a literal Adam and a “fall” as portrayed word for word in Genesis, then the Cross makes no sense. This presupposition is foreign to my faith — not only because a literal fall is not necessary, but because the cross is not dependent on or defined by anything else — it is the Primary Hypothesis, the First Principle.

    Don’t get frustrated. Keep asking and struggling. You’ve been in my prayers and will continue to be there!

  89. John Avatar
    John

    John shores

    I apologize about the way that sounded. I did not mean that you were rubbing anyone wrong. I meant that, as PJ noted, people were earnestly trying to answer your questions. My apologies for the confusion.

    John

  90. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    For instance, you presuppose that without a literal Adam and a “fall” as portrayed word for word in Genesis, then the Cross makes no sense.

    Say rather that if what is referred to as “fallen” or “sin nature” is simply “nature” (in the same way that it is applied to other species) and your statement would be correct.

    If it is simply a matter of biology, let’s find the reason.

    If it is beyond biology, that is the only way that the Cross makes any sense.

    Would you disagree with this assessment?

    (As you say, words are difficult. A “hypothesis” is a proposed answer that incorporates all the available data. I think that what you mean is more along the lines of “Christ is the starting point and the only true reality. Everything must be measured with him as the basis. If something doesn’t make sense, Christ is still the basis and it is the other things that you are measuring that may well prove immaterial by comparison.” Is that not what you mean?)

    I meant that people were earnestly trying to answer your questions.

    If god would simply show up, none of this would be necessary. 🙂

    I was not belly aching. I rather enjoy having these friends and I appreciate their comments. There is much food for thought here. I am still curious to hear Rhonda expound on free will being necessary for love to be known (or however one wishes to phrase it) even though it is a side-issue.

  91. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    JohnS,
    I was under the impression that I had answered these very questions earlier! Obviously not clearly enough…

    1) “If it is beyond biology, that is the only way that the Cross makes any sense.
    Would you disagree with this assessment?”

    The issue of “createdness” as expounded on in great depth in Saint Maximus the Confessor (in whatever way this createdness came about, evolution or not – it makes no difference) is the very key here.

    A creature cut off from its Creator is in a state of “Fall”. It is in a state of Fall because due to its “creaturlyness” it can only live up to its calling when unified to its Creator and Cause.

    Regarding the Cross: Biology or not, there had to be a creature (Christ as Man) who would live on this earth, as He did, completely in unison with the Father. As “Adam” never did. The Cross is the ultimate expression of that.

    2) “I am still curious to hear Rhonda expound on free will being necessary for love”

    There is an ancient monastic cannon that sheds light to this issue from a fresh angle, “God does not accept slaves (when slavery was still in existence) and debtors”. Orthodox Fathers have explained this in a mystical sense:
    This means that God does not want someone who has not got the freedom to sin, the freedom not to love (yet completely freely and of his own accord does the opposite) . This is what I meant earlier when I said that a Saint is one who is constantly able to sin yet he doesn’t. That ‘danger’ must be there. It was obviously there when Adam and Eve loved each other before the Fall story too…
    God wants someone who can sin, yet tries not too, someone who can hate, yet he loves. I hope that is clearer my friend…
    Even amongst the saints, it has been traditionally said that someone who’s nature was far more aggressive and prone to kill (wether due to hormonal imbalances, or terrible upbringing or for any other reason) yet loves his enemies is far more exalted than someone who’s ‘nature’ (for whatever reason again) was docile and meek and achieved the same measure of love towards enemies…

  92. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    John,

    “Say rather that if what is referred to as “fallen” or “sin nature” is simply “nature” (in the same way that it is applied to other species) and your statement would be correct.

    “If it is beyond biology, that is the only way that the Cross makes any sense.

    Would you disagree with this assessment?”

    Sorry, I don’t really understand what you’re asking. Can you clarify?

    I don’t know if this helps, but to my mind, even if man did evolve, and he is “naturally” selfish and vicious, then he can still be called “fallen,” for he is meant for perfection in Christ. Thus what is “natural” to the fleshly body is unnatural and “fallen” to the spiritual body. In this paradigm, our “fallenness” is not relative to the first man but the Last Man, Jesus Christ, Alpha and Omega, who is above and beyond time.

    This isn’t necessarily what I believe. But these are notions I’ve certainly pondered. As I said, I am rather agnostic on the issue. It is very mysterious. I am nourished simply by the richness of Genesis’ theology and its typology and its myriad spiritual meanings. For now, that’s enough for me.

  93. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    “I am still curious to hear Rhonda expound on free will being necessary for love to be known”

    The relationship between freedom and love is absolutely essential for understanding Christianity, I think. Really, it’s not even tangential to this discussion. But I know you’re trying to keep us focused like a laser. 😉

  94. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    John,

    Of course, no matter how much research you do, no matter how many questions you have answered — there will always be things that are mysterious, unknown … accessible only by trust and love. Faith requires trust and love, both of which demand making yourself vulnerable. Just felt moved to say this. I don’t know how much it applies to your situation.

  95. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    John S,
    I hope I have answered your question with my previous comment which will probably soon be followed by a multitude 🙂
    sory to go off for a bit:
    PJ,
    what you just said (“there will always be things that are mysterious, unknown … accessible only by trust and love”) really reminded me of Saint Silouan’s saying: “Love is always far higher than knowledge”

  96. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Dinoship – I love you dude. Still not Yes or No to the question. At any rate, I will respond to your words.

    Biology or not, there had to be a creature (Christ as Man) who would live on this earth, as He did, completely in unison with the Father. As “Adam” never did.

    I find this last sentence perplexing. Is it your contention that before the Fall Adam was not in unison with god? (Yes / No – Please circle one)

    God wants someone who can sin, yet tries not to…

    So then, are you saying that in heaven there is a potential for you to fall and that it is this potential (and your striving to not actually fall) that would be the evidence that you loved god? (Yes / No – Please circle one)

  97. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    The relationship between freedom and love is absolutely essential for understanding Christianity

    I would contend that within Protestant Christianity there is no such thing as “free will.” If the choices are “Love me or burn in hell” then there’s really no choice, is there (which makes me wonder why mob bosses tend toward catholicism when protestantism is more up their alley)?

    It seems to me that free will is only possible when there is no threat attached to it.

  98. Andrew Avatar

    John,

    I would contend that within Protestant Christianity there is no such thing as “free will.”

    Could it in fact be that strictly speaking there is no such thing as “Protestant Christianity” (or indeed “Roman Catholicism”) — only human beings yearning to be free?

    Could it in fact be?

  99. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    JS,
    Adam was indeed in unison with God before the Fall, YES, he was called to eventually become ‘immutable’ in that unison though… It might help if I say this: His unison was still the unison of the prodigal prior to his exit from his Father’s house, not the unison of the prodigal after his return.

    Freedom is indeed maintained (all the more so), we claim in Orthodoxy, once a Saint has become immutable/ unshakeable in unison with God after death…
    In fact we call that “true freedom” (deliberately having chosen to belong fully to God, not halfheartedly, is the taste of utter freedom.) This is only permanent after death
    So, NO potential of Falling in Heaven, yet there is definite deliberation in that unshakeability!

    A creature’s freedom prior to that state – on earth – is rather a freedom of choice within a constantly mutable framework.

    BTW, we also claim that the Enemy has made himself immutable in his choice towards evil – but we do not call that immutability freedom but utter slavery!
    See the point?
    🙂

  100. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Adam was indeed in unison with God before the Fall

    So, during that time he was in unison, do you contend that he did not love god?

    Said another way, of Adam and Eve had never been tempted, would you say that they had no love for god?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Subscribe to blog via email

Support the work

Your generous support for Glory to God for All Things will help maintain and expand the work of Fr. Stephen. This ministry continues to grow and your help is important. Thank you for your prayers and encouragement!


Latest Comments

  1. Fr. Stephen: What do you mean by physical worship?

  2. Nathan said: “Language in the Orthodox Church about body became for me “how I think of my body.”” How does…

  3. Dear Joan and Father, Thank you both for your beautiful comments–an inspiration for me also. I tend to read the…

  4. Joan, I once had a patient in my hospice chaplain years, who put a mark in the back of her…

  5. In my former work as a clinical research coordinator, I had an opportunity to speak to an elderly woman and…


Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast



Categories


Archives