To See the Heavenly Country

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them (Hebrews 11:13-16).

On the Orthodox Calendar, the two Sundays before the feast of the Nativity are set aside for the commemoration of the “forefathers.” The first of these Sundays remembers the righteous ones of the Old Testament, the second, the ancestors of Christ according to the flesh. The Eastern Church differs from the West in its treatment of the saints of the Old Testament. They are given feast days, Churches are dedicated to them. In every way they are given honor equal to that of the New Testament saints.

It seems to me that there is something of a “historical temptation” for those of us in the modern world. For the modern mind is largely responsible for the creation of history. Not that stories of the past have not always been told. But the temptation of history is the temptation to value the past only as historical artifact. Things of the past are seen as having value only for what they have caused in the present – or worse – as having value only if you are interested in that sort of thing.

America was one of the first truly modern nations. The story of its founding is the story of the triumph of ideas. America is a decision and not an inheritance or an ethnicity. History is a very tenuous thing in America. The knowledge of the young about the past is often non-existent. As a modern nation, America looks to the present and believes that it can create the future (or one of our controlling myths certainly believes this). An increasing number of modern nations are coming to see the world in this same modern way. Europe is daily re-inventing itself with little view to its past. The temptation of history is becoming ubiquitous.

I describe history as a temptation, for history does not properly have a place within the Christian faith. That may seem a strange statement coming from an Orthodox priest. No Church is more firmly grounded in Tradition than the Orthodox. But to be grounded in Tradition is not the same thing as being grounded in history (as Moderns think of history). Tradition is not the tyranny of the past over the present: Tradition is the adherence to the same eternal reality throughout all time.

That eternal reality for Christians (and for all creation) is the end of things – Christ the coming Lord. Our faith proclaims that He who was born of the Virgin is also the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End (Rev. 1:8). It is this same Christ unto whom all things are being gathered together into one (Ephesians 1:10). It is this End of history that is the meaning of all history – the meaning of all things.

It is also this Christ (the End of all things) that is the focus and center of the faithful through the ages. The Letter to the Hebrews, quoted at the beginning of this post, makes clear that it is this vision of Christ that grants the single purpose of all the righteous (including the Old Testament righteous cited by St. Paul).

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.

The homeland they seek is none other than Christ Himself. And it is this same seeking that unites the people of God through all time in one single Tradition. The seeking of Christ is the Tradition of the Church (or so it can be said).

The temptation of history is to reverse Tradition as though it were a seeking of the past. But what unites us with the historical past is the same faith, the same purpose, the same vision, the same Lord. If the saints who have come before us directed their gaze to Christ, then it is to Christ that our own gaze should be fixed.

The preaching of the Kingdom of God is not a proclamation of the past, but the proclamation of Him “who was, and is, and is to come.” The same Christ who died and rose again is the same Christ who is coming. It is the same Christ who is given to us in the mysteries of the Church.

It is a theological irony that modernity, whose self-definition was an opposition to Tradition, is itself the creator of a history devoid of a future. Modernity denies Christ as the End of all things, and in so doing relegates itself to a place in history, but not to a place at the End.

For the faithful, we should desire a better, a heavenly country. And so God will not be ashamed to be called our God. He has already prepared such a city for us.

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

177 responses to “To See the Heavenly Country”

  1. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    drewster2000. Many of the comments you make on working together to reflect the unity of Christ are quite right. However, I would caution you agianst the step of assuming that there is then an eguality in the sense that the very real theological differences no longer make any difference. Unfortunately, they do.

    Just as the OT is cannot be understood aside from Christ, neither can the Church. Ecclesiological statements and beliefs are Christological statements and beliefs. So are anthropological assumptions and understanding.

    How far one can go before disappearing into beliefs that endanger salvation is not mine to say, but there is a point where that is so.

    What one believes has consequences.

  2. John Shores (TLO) Avatar
    John Shores (TLO)

    Just as the OT is cannot be understood aside from Christ…

    I would very much like to understand what this actually means.

    I don’t know set of people who agree on much of anything. Heck! I bet there are people who know you who also don’t necessarily agree with “who” you are. Certainly your wife has a far different view of you than your children do and their view is far different from your friends, acquaintances, etc.

    Gandhi’s view of Christ was vastly different from Mother Teresa’s and her’s was worlds apart from Martin Luther King Jr’s view and all of them (I suspect) had views that differ greatly from yours or Origen’s or Cyprian’s.

    I am still trying to figure out the essence of this whole concept and failing miserably (largely because of the myriad of teachings floating about out there).

  3. John Shores (TLO) Avatar
    John Shores (TLO)

    the text of the OT is considered inspired and authoritative, inasmuch as “these are they which testify of Me (Christ).” That’s a very different statement than “these are authoritative because they are all literally true and happened just the way they say.”

    This being the case, the OT can be reduced to Aesop’s Fables. I hardly see the point of going on about Nathan calling on David to point out how naughty he has been and concluding with “Lucky for you God’s not gonna kill you but just your kid. And, by the way, The woman that you stole from that dude that you murdered is gonna become the mother of the wisest ruler of all time. So, all in all, it works out pretty well, yeah?” if such an event never actually took place.

    The original writers could not have had Christ in mind when they wrote what they did. So their intent had to have been either to relate actual events OR to scare kids with Grimm-style fairy tales.If it was the latter, then it is quite easy to simply dismiss the entire Bible as narrative fiction and having little to no importance except as a set of Parables such as we find in the gospels.

    I would actually prefer if this was the case because then not only would none of it makes any difference whatsoever but I am then free to think of a far more decent deity than the Bible portrays. As an added bonus, I have would no real reason to take anything in the NT seriously either. That would be most convenient.

    I know this sounds flippant but I honestly see no alternatives.

  4. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    John S,
    you seemed to have brushed over Father’s key sentence completely:

    The OT is not a revelation of God. Christ is the revelation of God and only through Him and in Him can the OT Scriptures be read rightly.

    Those who treat the Scriptures as revelatory of God are wrong. Christ reveals God, and He opens our understanding so that we can read the Scriptures. To read them like a Protestant does not require any opening of understanding. Any rational man can do the same.

    Or else, I cannot see how you could say:

    This being the case, the OT can be reduced to Aesop’s Fables. I hardly see the point of going on about Nathan calling on David to point out how naughty he has been and concluding with “Lucky for you God’s not gonna kill you but just your kid. And, by the way, The woman that you stole from that dude that you murdered is gonna become the mother of the wisest ruler of all time. So, all in all, it works out pretty well, yeah?” if such an event never actually took place.

    The original writers could not have had Christ in mind when they wrote what they did.

    Besides, it is not that the writers were consciously portraying Christ, or that the events of the OT that show Christ through God’s hidden providence were not also completely naturally occurring due to people’s free wills…
    It is paramount that we remember that God works through us, He wouldn’t have waited to be enfleshed that long, awaiting the ‘natural’ occurence of the “Theotokos” otherwise!

  5. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    “reduced to Aesop’s Fables.”

    No. Aesop’s fables have a very different context and are not historical in any sense, nor does Christ say, “Aesop’s fables testify of me.”

    But you are insisting that only a conservative Protestant historical reading is actually acceptable.

    The text of the OT has been “chosen” by God, if you will, to bear witness to Christ. On the one hand, this affirms that Christ is the hope of Israel, the fulness of the revelation of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses, etc.

    But there are many things within the OT that are read and interpreted in a very different way from a Christocentric reading. For instance, the idea that God is going to kill your child to punish you, etc. Even worse, God is going to kill that guy’s child to punish him, etc. How do I know to read this differently? Because it clearly disagrees with God as He reveals Himself to us in Christ.

    So how do we read it. It clearly has some history – and David himself draws the lesson of the consequences of his sin. Sin brings forth death and destruction – not because God punishes us with it – but because sin is alienation from God Who alone is Life. But it would be a mistake to draw conclusions about the character of God from the story.

    This you find upsetting and confusing. So did many of the early Christians. So much so that there were early heresies that said the OT God wasn’t God at all but the devil. It was a heresy, not because the Church defended the actions often described within the OT. But the Church has “re-read” the OT from the beginning.

    Can you imagine a more decent deity than Christ?

  6. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    John,

    While I don’t think you’re quite grasping what Father is saying, I do sympathize with your frustration. I, for one, take a more “literal” view of the Old Testament, but then I’m willing to grant God a … shall we say, latitude of action … what some here find impossible to accept. And so it goes.

  7. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    Michael,

    I didn’t make judgements on the equality of the different groups or characters that made up the Church. I didn’t rank them. I wouldn’t even begin to know where to start in that process.

    I understand your reaction; you’d like to see how this played out. You’d like to look over maps and see it all come together. So would I. But this is the folly of our fallen race: to play God’s role.

    It is better to approach the issue as the children (of God) that we are. Could my church hold a soup supper with your church and invite all the neighboring poor – even once a year? No master plan. No set of contingencies or signed agreements. We need to start in such a simple way.

    Continuing in the vein of the child’s approach where it concerns our theology, here is a maxim: in all things, walk toward Christ the Light, be Christ, reflect Christ. If you encounter darkness, check yourself and get back to the light. Otherwise press out the faith daily “with fear and trembling”. Knowing how easy it is us to stray when we try to find our own way, keep your hand in His and “lean not unto your own understanding.”

    I’m well aware that my words above can sound very Protestant, all the more so because many of us here have been there. But all the Protestant abuse of God, His word, His world, His church does not negate the truth. It’s still true that we “must be as one of these (children) if we are to enter the Kingdom.”

    I’ve spoken too much but I hope at least to make clear that I did not make judgements on who was more right or closer to God and so on. It is this kind of thinking that helped divide us in the first place. I only suggested that there was room for all of God’s children in His Kingdom and that He didn’t make them to all look the same. In this instance I’m not talking about right and wrong; I’m talking about differences that purification won’t wash away.

  8. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    John S. writes:

    The original writers could not have had Christ in mind when they wrote what they did. So their intent had to have been either to relate actual events OR to scare kids with Grimm-style fairy tales.If it was the latter, then it is quite easy to simply dismiss the entire Bible as narrative fiction and having little to no importance except as a set of Parables such as we find in the gospels.

    This either/or premise you propose seems very flawed to me. Why not rather think outside the box a bit and entertain the possibility that the OT biblical writers did not yet have the full revelation of Christ, so their understanding of God was partial. They told about events as they understood them (being creatures of the culture of their times), treating the natural consequences of sin as the deliberate punitive act of God. They used a lot of such anthropomorphisms that should not be understood as a literal revelation of what God is like, as Fr. Stephen has explained. Christ is the revelation of God, and He alone can explain (and did to His disciples on the road to Emmaus, etc.) how it is that the OT speaks of Him. I’ll be interested in your response to Fr. Stephen’s last question to you, John.

    Joyous Christmas to all!

  9. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Drewster,
    I think that we cannot begin in such a simple way – because in our culture(s), the message would be something that we don’t mean to say. The culture is on the side of Protestants (in terms of self-understanding) – who have no ecclesiology and pretty much no boundaries. When you deal with a person who has no boundaries, you have to be more clear about your own than otherwise. The Churchless Christianity of modern Protestantism (I don’t mean that there aren’t Protestant organizations, but they have no ecclesiology, no understanding of the Church in a manner recognizable from an Orthodox perspective. As such, Protestantism is dangerous as an organization – not as individuals – nor as Christians, per se. But their organizations are actually destructive of the very concept of Church. Orthodoxy is and will be swimming upstream on ecclesiology as far as I can see into the future. It will be a struggle to help our own people understand, accept and believe in “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

  10. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    Well said, Karen.

    John S. – There may be a “far more decent deity” than the one that emerges from a literal interpretation of the OT. But taking the leap to know Him, to leave the literal for relationship, may feel very risky – understandably for you and others who have been hurt by misguided teachings. Along with Karen, I encourage you to ponder Father Stephen’s question. It is a good one for all of us to ponder…

  11. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Drewster2000. Unfortunately, the rejection of such seemingly simple cooperation in my experience been from certain protestants who don’t think we are Christians.

  12. Rhonda Avatar

    Fr. Stephen,

    It will be a struggle to help our own people understand, accept and believe in “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

    Oh, how true! This “struggle” is on the agenda for our next Council meeting. I would be interested in hearing some ideas for us to consider on this matter.

    In the past month we have lost 2 long-time members of our very small parish; 1 a cradle Orthodox who returned to her spouse’s mainline Protestant church & 1 a 17-year convert from RC who returned to the RCC. While there is debate about whether the elderly person’s judgement was truly sound at the time or not & the Protestant group is suspected to have taken advantage of a mental incapacity, the other individual was very much aware of his choice, adamant that the RC & EO believed the same doctrines being 2 lungs of the same Church. Ironically, this individual is one of the founders of our mission. This individual was also 1 of 2 that helped me decide to become Orthodox over the RC of my husband 10+ years ago.

    We were recently visited by the father of one of our parishoners who is a retired Episcopal priest. He too was adamant that we all believe the same things & were part of the same church. During fellowship he sat with 3 devout Orthodo women; a middle-aged woman preparing for seminary & the Matushka (both Protestant converts) & a cradle Orthodox woman (former seminarian). This amounted to a veritable “cross-fire of Orthodox theology” delivered as only 3 very devout Orthodox grandmothers can 😉

    I find it ironic that the heterodox always seem to claim that we all believe the same thing or that our differences are irrelevant/minor, but inevitably tell the Orthodox that we’re wrong!

  13. Rhonda Avatar

    Michael;
    <blockquote.What one believes has consequences.
    Well said!

  14. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    drewster wrote:

    “It is better to approach the issue as the children (of God) that we are. Could my church hold a soup supper with your church and invite all the neighboring poor – even once a year? No master plan. No set of contingencies or signed agreements. We need to start in such a simple way.”

    Father Stephen wrote:

    “I think that we cannot begin in such a simple way – because in our culture(s), the message would be something that we don’t mean to say.”

    Forgive me if I am misunderstanding or taking remarks out of context – but this is how I read it. While I certainly agree that there is great danger in watering things down to the point of implying that we all really believe the same thing, I believe there is also harm in being too insular.

    I say this as a lifetime RC who grew up believing that mine was the only “one true church” – to the point of never learning anything about anyone else’s believes, fearing some sort of excommunication if I did so. Ecumenism has enriched my spiritual life greatly. I do not need to hold all beliefs in common with someone to serve the poor at their side. Yes, we need boundaries – but I do not think they need to be brick walls.

    I’m sure you don’t mean that either, Fr. Stephen, or you wouldn’t be allowing me to be part of this conversation. It seems to me that the dilemma is how and where to draw the lines. When I began following this blog some time ago, I commented on how little most RC’s know of the Orthodox. Perhaps if we “served soup together” in our communities we could know each other and heal some unnecessary rifts.

  15. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    mary benton ,
    This might seem very self-assured I guess, but, I remember many years ago coming away from a talk with Pere Placid (Deseille) an Orthodox (convert) Abbot who was a well known RC equivalent before, thinking that, indeed, there is much to be had by the many denominations that come into contact with the Orthodox Church, while, there is far less to enrich an Orthodox that looks elsewhere, looking deeper inside would yield far more. Sorry!

  16. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Mary,
    I do not think the problems within Orthodoxy are to be found in too much insularity – but being too insular from Christ Himself. I do not think there is some portion of Orthodoxy that has been lost to this group or that group, or that anyone is maintaining a witness that Orthodoxy lacks. If the Church is the Church, then it is the fullness. That said, it is easy to mistake something minor and relative for something major and the fullness. There is certainly a need for people to know one another, and for love to increase. But, as noted before, the ecumenical onslaught is alive and well and desperately wants Orthodoxy to abandon its self-understanding, which is the understanding given us by Christ. If that understanding were diminished or sacrificed, the Church would cease to be. It’s not something to be modified, but something to be understood and lived.

    I make no comment on the present state of the Roman Catholic Church, but the Church that once insisted on its self-understanding now sees its attendance to be similar to Protestantism and its boundaries to be increasingly porous. It’s doctrine has largely become of the “cafeteria” style, with members picking and choosing as they like.

    The same culture forces impact Orthodoxy – thus my observation that we will do well even to keep our own.

  17. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    OK, lots of good comments. Let me make this suggestion: Let’s take the emphasis off any unification efforts. Let’s simply stop looking at any joint ventures and the lens of who is better, who could become more like whom and so on.

    If an Orthodox parish were to put on a soup supper with a Protestant church….isn’t that OK? No expectation that they will start having monthly Bible studies, no pressure for one church to ever darken the doors of the other, no judgements on each other’s faith. Can we do that?

    The story of the good Samaritan comes to mind. Nowadays that title evokes feelings of saintliness but back then they were the scum of the earth. If they can do it…

    I think this fits into the category of “pray as you can, not as you can’t”. Instead of looking at all the ways we cannot coexist with other groups, what about all the way we can?

    In fact we should work hard to drop the labels. When we look at a crowd, instead of seeing Orthodox….Jew…Muslim…Protestant…..instead we should be seeing children of God that are at one and the same time beautiful, broken, containing goodness, containing evil, God having plans for them.

    We need to drop the ecumenism, the anti-ecumenism, the “church” glasses – and be willing to do the things Christ called us to: care of widows, orphans, homeless, our families, our neighbor.

    The group identities remain and have their importance but they should not dominate everything we do and affect our vision of everything we look at such that Muslims and atheists are welcome to our home & table than our Protestant relatives.

  18. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Drewster,
    My parish has done Habitat for Humanity with Protestants. No problem. However, you don’t understand Orthodoxy when you suggest that we “drop the Church glasses.” We don’t think there is a relationship with Christ apart from the Church.

  19. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    drewster2000, we don’t need to drop anything but we need to pick up tending to the poor, etc. In fact there is alot of that going on. For instance, my parish maintains a rotating schedule of voluteers for a local Episcopal ministry called the Lord’s Diner which serves meals to the homeless and others. We donate 10% of the proceeds of our annual Big Dinner to various charities in the city.

    Two years ago we fixed up the parsonage of the Unitied Methodist American Indian Misson.

    The ability to do those missions and many, many others comes from our self-understanding as the Church, the Body of Christ, the pillar and ground of the truth. We are able to see truth where it is.

    Dropping any of that makes our ability to see the truth much more problematic and the much more likely that we will succumb (at least in part) to the secular/nihlist tide that wants to destroy us.

    Having spent more than half of my life wandering in the wilderness of kumbaya faith, I won’t go there again.

    I respect and honor those that serve God no matter where I find them but I will not soft-pedal or apologize for the Orthodox Church. I firmly believe that whatever truth other traditions believe and live comes through the Church and they are sharing the overflow and the crumbs of what is in the Church.

    We have done an exerable job of authentic witness (Fr. Stephan is a notable exception). That I will apologize for. I will not defend obvious sin just because it is committed by a fellow Orthodox, but the Church is the Church.

  20. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    We don’t think there is a relationship with Christ apart from the Church.

    Indeed!
    There is a hidden meaning in tomorrow’s reading from Matthew (the Genealogy of Jesus) concerning the Church.
    Every Father begets a son (e.g Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob etc…), yet no one begets Christ, He is born (His action) of the Virgin, (“Mary, of whom was born Jesus”). Something lost in some translations but not the KJV.
    It is only in the Virgin – the symbol of the Church par excellence – from whom Jesus is born into a person’s heart. I cannot give birth to Him outside of Her, but He is born in me when I am in Her.

  21. John Shores (TLO) Avatar
    John Shores (TLO)

    Can you imagine a more decent deity than Christ?

    Yep. With very little difficulty. But then, I have a rather fertile imagination.

  22. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    Fr. Stephen & Michael,

    I want to commend you for the efforts you have done on behalf of others. If it wasn’t obvious, I was intending to speak from the 30,000ft level and forgot that I am more or less just speaking to the choir. I don’t really mean to shame anyone in this online community.

    And yet sometimes the conversation goes such that a reminder seems in order. When I talk about dropping our church glasses, I’m not at all talking about being the Church. I’m referring to the mindset that we easily slip into when we start talking about “us” and “them”, when we start getting into who is Church and who is not.

    Yes lines must be drawn and no we’re not one big happy family and no we don’t all believe the same thing, but sometimes we get so focused on who is or is not in the circle – and how much – instead of turning our attention to Christ who is at the center of it, that we start to fall into the same ruts and rituals that the Pharisees did.

    When we turn to help people outside the circle, the point is that we turn to help them – not that we are inside and they are out. Reality remains (we are in, they are out, the line is somewhere in between) but once again where does our motivation lie? Are we busy measuring who is who and how much? Or are we busy loving, reflecting Christ, trying to fulfill the example and the 2 primary commandments that He gave us?

    Two people can do the exact same things, but where is the heart of each of them? That’s what I’m referring to.

  23. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    Fr. Stephen,

    Thank you for taking the time to address my comment. I wasn’t intending to criticize the Orthodox – or you – as too insular but simply to point out that I believe there is danger in such an extreme. (I do not claim to know how much insularity is too much…)

    With respect, is not Christ to be found in the hearts of all genuine believers (even if doctrinally misguided)? If one isolates from them, is there not an isolating from Christ Himself? When I shared about my own learning, it wasn’t that I learned good doctrine from my ecumenical experiences. Rather I encountered different expressions of Christ-among-us in some very beautiful people.

    dinoship – What you wrote concerns me because it sounds like you are saying, “You can benefit from knowing me, but I cannot benefit from knowing you.” To speak of Church as fullness, I understand. It can be a slipperly slope to thinking of it as MY fullness. But perhaps I misunderstand you…

  24. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    John Shores,
    if Christ-God appeared to you in the ‘Burning Bush’, in a similar fashion to Moses’, his name would most surely be “I AM NOT THE GOD OF ALL YOUR PREVIOUS UNDERSTANDINGS”
    🙂

  25. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    Hi John (TLO)

    I’m curious. How about Alsan? (assuming you could get to Narnia)

  26. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    Mary,
    of course it is not MY fulness. Nothing that can be called MINE would ever be. It is the Church’s fullness. Everyone is called by the Lord, irrespective of baptism etc… And it is Christ that is the utmost desire as well as the fulfillment of that desire of all, baptized or not, conscious of that or not… And we can encounter all possible combinations of these categories in humanity.
    But the “total fulness” to which we are called can only be found (“most safely” one could perhaps add) through the New Eve (meaning the true Church in this context) eternally springing forth from the side of the New Adam slain from before the foundation of the world.

  27. easton Avatar
    easton

    mary, your comments speak to the heart…thank you.

  28. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    dinoship-

    Thanks for the clarification. From your previous posts, I suspected that I had taken your meaning incorrectly.

    Perhaps my observations come from knowing that a good many churches or sects consider themselves “the one true Church” (including my own RC, at least at some points in history). I am often uncomfortable with such assertions as I know how easily we humans fall prey to error and then attempt to defend it with such claims. On a large scale, wars have been fought; on a small scale, people can feel judged.

    HOWEVER, I am not saying that Orthodoxy is not the one true Church. Perhaps it is. I am certainly impressed with the depth of thought and sharing that takes place here. Yet my focus remains on Christ and sharing in Church as community of genuine believers striving to know and understand the truth revealed to us in Him.

  29. Micah Avatar
    Micah

    Dinoship, very well said, thanks.

  30. John Shores (TLO) Avatar
    John Shores (TLO)

    if Christ-God appeared to you in the ‘Burning Bush’…

    That’s an awfully big “if.” If something like that ever happened, all bets are off. Not holding my breath though.

    I’m curious. How about Alsan?

    That’s definitely a step in the right direction (although I am allergic to cats). However, that too is fiction.

  31. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    Mary said:

    “HOWEVER, I am not saying that Orthodoxy is not the one true Church. Perhaps it is. I am certainly impressed with the depth of thought and sharing that takes place here. Yet my focus remains on Christ and sharing in Church as community of genuine believers striving to know and understand the truth revealed to us in Him.”

    Very well put. I would stand behind that statement.

  32. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    John (TLO) – kind of you not to point out my typo (of course, I meant Aslan).

    What do you think would happen if you let go of the literal? If you allowed your spirit to seek – and perhaps find, without having to know precise fact?

    If someone came up with definitive evidence that Jesus never really existed – yes, that would disturb my faith greatly. But if someone came up with proof that He had slept in a bed rather than a manger those first nights, it would make little difference.

    To know with the mind is a powerful thing. Yet it is little compared to knowing with the heart. (You see, I cannot dismiss Aslan as fiction…)Silly me.

  33. Micah Avatar
    Micah

    Dinoship says:

    It is only in the Virgin – the symbol of the Church par excellence – from whom Jesus is born into a person’s heart.

    Yes, you are very right Dinoship. To paraphrase Fr. Stephen, a symbol in the archaic, makes present that to which it points.

  34. John Shores (TLO) Avatar
    John Shores (TLO)

    To know with the mind is a powerful thing. Yet it is little compared to knowing with the heart.

    The heart is deceitful above all else.

  35. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    John Shores,

    Yes, the heart IS deceitful above all else. And yet that is the playing field of life. People are deceitful above all other creatures. And yet it is these who He has made most in His image and likeness.

    God is not safe – but He is good.

  36. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    John (TLO)

    I understand what you mean – the fear of trusting some sort of knowing that isn’t based on reason. (My questioning mind has been active lately.)

    Yet when I wrote of knowing with the heart, I am not talking about the passing human emotions. I am talking about learning to “know” from the core of my being. I do not know how to explain this well.

    It is relationship – and therefore feels as certain as the most certain love I could imagine. But it is also leap of faith, which feels as uncertain as that trust exercise where you close your eyes and allow yourself to fall backward hoping that the person standing behind you really will catch you.

    This sort of knowing is, I believe, a Gift. Many blessings as you await the Gift meant for you, in your own time and space.

  37. Brian Avatar
    Brian

    Mary’

    Your words are well seasoned, dripping with grace.

  38. John Shores (TLO) Avatar
    John Shores (TLO)

    I am talking about learning to “know” from the core of my being.

    To be perfectly honest, I am completely flummoxed by the ethereal. Some people I know are very much in to the “Seth Speaks” (Jane Roberts) belief system. Others are very much into “Conversations with God” (Neale Donald Walsch) which is also an interesting read. I have Mormon friends as well as Muslim friends. Each one finds solace in their belief system and none are willing to give much credence to anything outside of their particular faith. Why? Because they “know from the core of their being” that they are right.

    So who’s to say that any of them are either right or wrong? Certainly not I!

  39. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    John,

    What is solace without truth? It is delusion, and so often delusion is dangerous. If you think a person is wrong, and that his error poses a risk to his health — be it emotional, psychological, spiritual, physical, whatever — then you do have a duty to try and enlighten him — albeit gently, with great charity and patience. This is why Penn Jillette actually appreciates Christians, Muslims, etc. who try to “save his soul”: If you think that someone is in eternal danger, and do nothing, you are wicked. “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!”

    Even as an agnostic, I thought that certain religions were more plausible than others. Even in the realm of faith, there is data to be logically examined, though at the end of the day logic is not enough. Still, it can take you a certain distance — and that distance is enough to discount most religions. Or so I’ve always thought.

  40. John Shores (TLO) Avatar
    John Shores (TLO)

    Even in the realm of faith, there is data to be logically examined, though at the end of the day logic is not enough.

    Would you agree that the reliability of the data is of paramount importance?

  41. John Shores (TLO) Avatar
    John Shores (TLO)

    I’m on the same page with Penn J.

  42. Brian Avatar
    Brian

    To be honest, John (Shores), I wouldn’t use the word solace to describe the Faith of Jesus Christ – at least not in the sense that solace implies rest. There is a brutal honestly about myself inherent to this faith that doesn’t seem to allow for solace as long as I am in this body of death. There is grief that gives birth to ever increasing joy, pain that gives birth to ever deeper love, and struggle that gives birth to ever greater inner peace. But what I would describe as solace is given only in fleeting foretastes to those of us like me who remain hesitant to die to ourselves.

    I would be the first to admit that there are times when I wish it were not so, but this is the Way of Christ “Who for the joy set before Him…” and the path to the Kingdom of God within. I THINK I want it to be easier and more enjoyable, but when I try to avoid His Cross I inevitably fail to share in His Resurrection.

  43. Micah Avatar
    Micah

    John Shores says:

    Would you agree that the reliability of the data is of paramount importance?

    John, if I may. Yes of course you are right. Data integrity is central to closed loop predictive type experiments involving the natural laws. CERN’s attempt to unravel the secrets of the elusive Higgs Boson (the so called “God particle” – a misnomer of the highest order) is a good example of this. Almost certainly next March, CERN will confirm the discovery of the Higgs.

    Don’t hold your breath. When it comes to dogmatic consciousness, a different set of rules apply. Scrubbing latrines at a Crèche for example, is the ontological equivalent of a coveted seat at the Great Banquet (and without putting too fine a point on it, is a good example of Fr. Stephen’s post on the Divine Reversal, to boot).

    Too easy, I hear you say!

  44. John Shores (TLO) Avatar
    John Shores (TLO)

    Brian – I was thinking more in terms of general acceptance that “this (and not some other) is the true faith.” Regardless of how uncomfortable you may think such a doctrine makes you (and certainly the daily demands of Islam are far more restrictive than in Christianity), there is a measure of comfort that you experience by saying that it is the true path, is there not?

    Micah – I was thinking not so much of closed-loop predictive experiments but more in terms of evaluating “eyewitness testimony.”

  45. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    The difference between Christianity and you all other faiths is the person of Jesus. If one accepts Him as Lord, God and Savior–fully man and fully God, one of the undivided Holy Trinity (the bare minimum). Then other faiths are not and cannot be true. If one does not confess Christ, then take your pick.

    Proper Christian praxis is far more demanding than Islam because Christian praxis is all about kenotic love in all aspects of one’s life at all times. We are to pray constantly, not just 5 times a day. Most don’t meet the standard but that does not make the standard any less real–holiness/theosis, i.e. realizing God’s life fully in your particular uniqueness. Christianity is about experiencing God. Islam just requires submission in behavior.

    Once a commitment has been made, in love, to Jesus the question becomes where do I find Him? Hands down the Orthodox Church.

  46. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    John (TLO)-

    I agree with much of your comment about people who embrace different religions:

    “Each one finds solace in their belief system and none are willing to give much credence to anything outside of their particular faith. Why? Because they “know from the core of their being” that they are right.” (I commented elsewhere about some of my reservations about churches declaring themselves the “one true church”.)

    When I wrote about a knowing from the heart (i.e. core of my being, not emotions), I was referring to a knowing that is not primarily cognitive or about being right. Even more important, it does not originate from ME or from my intellect. While my intellect cooperates with this knowing, it can actually get in the way of it at times.

    I referred to it as “Gift” because it is, I believe, something given by God – or rather, is God giving Himself to dwell within me (and you). My heart, my inmost being, needs to be open to receive, to be empty enough of my messed up self to allow this, to experience this, to KNOW Him dwelling within.

    The prayer offered for you was that, in your own time and space, you might experience this gift of knowing and being known. (I believe it is already given to you – and given to all – but how/when we come to know it is part of our unique life paths.)

  47. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    Mary,
    I fully agree with you here…
    You reminded me of:

    “We may study as much as we will but we shall still not come to know the Lord unless we live according to His commandments, for the Lord is not made known through learning but by the Holy Spirit. Many philosophers and scholars have arrived at a belief in the existence of God, but they have not come to know God. To believe in a God is one thing, to know God another.” (St. Silouan)

  48. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    A few more pertinent quotes from Saint Silouan on the knowledge of God:
    “The Lord is made known in the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit pervades the entire man – soul, mind and body.

    After this wise is God known in heaven and on earth.
    …the holy Apostles and a multitude of people beheld the Lord in the flesh, but not all knew Him as the Lord; …the Apostles, and after them the martyrs and holy men who wrestled against evil, went forward with joy to meet pain and suffering. For the Holy Spirit, sweet and gracious, draws the soul to love the Lord, and in the sweetness of the Holy Spirit the soul loses her fear of suffering.
    The man who has known the Lord through the Holy Spirit becomes like unto the Lord, as St John the Divine said: ‘We shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.’ And we shall behold his glory.

    Many numbers of people, you say, are suffering every kind of adversity and from evil men. But I entreat you: Humble yourself beneath the strong hand of God, and grace will be your teacher and you yourself will long to suffer for the sake of the love of the Lord. That is what the Holy Spirit, whom we have come to know in the Church, will teach you.

    But the man who cries out against evil men, who does not pray for them will never know the grace of God.
    To believe in a God is one thing, to know God another.

    Both in heaven and on earth the Lord is made known only by the Holy Spirit, and not through ordinary learning. Even children, who have no learning at all, come to know the Lord by the Holy Spirit. St John the Baptist felt the presence of the Lord while still In his mother’s womb. St Simeon Stylites was a seven-year-old boy when the Lord appeared to him and he knew Him; St Seraphim a grown man of twenty-seven when the Lord showed Himself to him during the Liturgy; and another Simeon was stricken with years when he received the Lord in his arms in the temple, and knew Him.

    Some there are who spend their whole lives in trying to find out about the sun, or the moon, or in seeking like knowledge; yet this is of no profit to the soul. But if we take pains to explore the human heart this is what we shall see: the kingdom of heaven in the soul of the saint, but in the soul of the sinner are darkness and torment.
    O Lord grant to all nations to know Thee by Thy Holy Spirit. As Thou didst give the Holy Spirit to the Apostles and they knew Thee, so grant to all men to know Thee by Thy Holy Spirit.”

  49. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    Thank you, dinoship, for sharing this… it has helped me with a recent inner struggle.

    Comment on “solace”: true believers are not free from doubt and struggle. At any point we need to be ready to be knocked off our horses (in the manner of St. Paul), for we may be in error in some aspect of our belief, even when we think we are giving ourselves completely to God.

    This is another reason for recognizing that the gift of knowing does not originate in me – for, of myself, I am far too easily led astray and prone to error.

  50. John Shores (TLO) Avatar
    John Shores (TLO)

    PJ (and any former agnostics here): I wonder if you can lend me your thoughts.

    I have, for many years, been fascinated with discoveries in neuroscience. For example, it has been well documented that there are areas of the brain that are more active in those who are religious than in those who are not.

    It has also been well documented that people suffering from seizures often experience the same kinds of “visions” as reported among people like Saul of Tarsus (hearing a voice, seeing a bright light, temporary blindness, etc}.

    We all know that Peyote and other narcotics can induce a deeply religious experience.

    Finally, there are specific areas of the brain which, when stimulated with electrodes, cause a person to have an “out of body experience.”

    These have come up recently as I was reading up on the possible neuroscientific bases for morals in human beings (a most intriguing topic).

    It would be quite simple to look at the brain, see that it simply functions in certain ways among certain people, and say,”Ah, well that about covers it” then dismiss the notion of the supernatural entirely. But I am not the sort to simply accept “the answer” and leave it at that.

    Have any of you considered these factors? If so, how did you overcome them or deal with them in light of your faith?

    I mention this here because part of what I have been reading deals with how memory works and essentially gives proof that eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable, particularly as more time passes. Unless something is written within hours of an event, the brain continually reinterprets the story, alters it based on new perceptions or hearing others report on it or simply as the brain ages. I didn’t want to get into a discussion about the gospels in this regard but I am curious about these other matters.

  51. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    John Shores,

    Interesting thought. This would actually go quite well with what Fr. Stephen was saying about the OT. Example:
    –David steals Bethsheba
    –Prophet delivers some kind of message
    –Firstborn son dies

    And then the story gets recorded as God allowing the baby to die – due to how the collective memory of those around David.

    Is this not entirely possible?

  52. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    John, the answer to your question depends on the nature of one’s belief.

  53. Micah Avatar
    Micah

    John,

    You might want to narrow it down a bit. Elsevier have published over 7,200 academic papers on the suject; though, A primate model for the study of hallucinogens by R. Francis Schlemmer Jr, John M. Davis (1986) seems as good a place to start as any. Alternatively, if you are serious about the subject you might want to peruse Bishop Hilarion’s excellent lecture on the divine descent. A little closer to the heart of the matter. Probably.

  54. Brian Avatar
    Brian

    Excellent comments, Michael and Mary.

    John (what does TLO mean, by the way? I must have missed it),

    “There is a measure of comfort that you experience by saying that it is the true path, is there not?” In my experience the answer to this question is both yes and no. Yes, there is great comfort in knowing (by which I mean experiencing) the love of Christ. And no, “saying that it is the true path” brings no comfort to me at all. I cannot speak for others, but when conversations turn to questions about “the true church” – even the Orthodox Church of which I am a member – my eyes glaze over because it is most often an attempt to prove that someone is ‘right’ in their belief. Not to say that such questions don’t matter (they do), but truth to me is ultimately not something that is ‘authoritative,’ external to the Person of Christ, or proven by strictly rational means. It would be like arguing about the quality of a marriage by pointing to the validity of a marriage license…so what? Besides, being ‘right’ is an empty victory that only tightens the vice of pride and proves how ‘wrong’ I actually am.

    I empathize with you more than you may suspect. Statements such as “we believe” or “the Church teaches” mean very little to me in and of themselves. What someone happens to believe has no bearing on what is actually true. Nor would I believe what the Church teaches if I didn’t find it to be trustworthy in my own experience over many years. My experience, however, has led me to an ever increasing trust in what the Church teaches even though it may initially elude my own reason, not to mention my willingness to submit to it.

    Christ’s insightful statement along these lines is worthy of meditation.

    “If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know [experientially] concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.”

  55. Brian Avatar
    Brian

    “Excellent comments, Michael and Mary.”

    Sorry Dinoship. I meant to include you as well. I have never found such beautiful simplicity as is found in our father among the Saints, Silouan.

  56. Micah Avatar
    Micah

    John,

    Another one for you: On the specificity of a cat behavior model for the study of hallucinogens by James L. Marini, Michael H. Sheard (1981). For what it’s worth, cat and primate response to hallucinogenic stimuli seems to be broadly similar, viz, “limb flicks” and “grooming” for cats versus “limb jerks” and “social withdrawal” for primates. No evidence of “religious” experiences, in either cats or primates — in these experiments at least.

  57. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    Brian,

    Well put concerning “the true church”.

  58. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    John (TLO)

    I cannot really count myself as a “former agnostic” – for I am more of a momentary one (ever questioning and doubting but coming back to faith). However, I will share a couple of thoughts with you regarding neuroscience from my personal and psychology background.

    There is some good scientific evidence that people can change the activity and structure of their brains through certain practices such as mindfulness meditation practice. Thus, the increased activity in some part of the brains of religious people may be because of how they use that part of their brain – not because they were born that way. (Mindfulness meditation has much in common with contemplative prayer, though theistic content is not specified since it has Buddhist origins.)

    Another interesting report is by Dr. Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon, who was in a coma after contracting a rare meningitis that shut down his cortex. He experienced things that he himself admitted could not be explained by brain function, since his cortex wasn’t working. His brain activity was being closely monitored while he was in the coma. (I haven’t read the book so I’m not vouching for it, though I have heard other reports that defied logical explanation as well.)

    I personally believe that we cannot draw too sharp of a boundary between the biological and the spiritual, as though they were completely independent of each other. For example, dreams are a biological experience but I have had some deep spiritual experiences while dreaming.

    (I won’t go into more detail here because I don’t know if what I am relating is what you are seeking and I don’t want to go too far off topic. I also know that none of these things are “proofs” but I find they have helped my intellect get past some hurdles at times.)

  59. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    John Shores,
    I’ve thought about this – I have an interest in neuroscience myself. Watched a vid recently on the substance dimethyltryptamine, a natural halucinogen that seems to be produced within the brain. Interesting.

    It seems to me, in the religious question, that just as we notice that the brain responds in certain ways to light, is only an example of the brain responding to light, not an explanation of “Ah Hah, there really isn’t any such thing as light.” Thus the fact that our brain may respond or be describable in religious experience is by no means evidence that it is the “cause” of religious experience. Quite the opposite, I might think.

    Orthodoxy – when rightly – I emphasize when rightly – understood – would insist on this. The bifurcation of spiritual/material is ultimately heretical from an Orthodox understanding (particularly hesychastic understanding which should be definitive for Orthodox believers). We decided this most emphatically in the Hesychast Councils of the 14th century. Spiritual experiences are not to be understood as standing apart from physical experiences. Human beings are a somato/psychic/pneumatic reality – Body, Soul and Spirit. To say that a spiritual experience has no accompanying physical element would be to raise some doubt about it in a proper Orthodox understanding. This bifurcation is rampant throughout most Christian understanding and is not without its victims within Orthodoxy. It is among the points that I try to drive home in my work on the One-Storey Universe.

    Very good question.

    C.S.Lewis, in an apologetic point, argued that the fact that human beings actually have a spiritual hunger is evidence that there actually is something spiritual for which we are hungry. “Why would we be hungry for bread if there were no such thing as bread?”

    I would insist, in a related manner, that we should understand that all material things are spiritual in nature. The division in Orthodox understanding is not between material and spiritual but between created and uncreated. We have far more in common with an angel (creature) than we do with God (uncreated).

  60. John Shores (TLO) Avatar
    John Shores (TLO)

    Drewster:

    …due to how the collective memory of those around David. Is this not entirely possible?

    Certainly. What does this do to the validity of that text? Would it be reasonable to ask whether the entire story was fabricated? Perhaps her husband died in battle without David’s intervention at all. Perhaps Bathsheba seduced David? Is there enough “reasonable doubt” to discard the entire story?

    Michael:

    the answer to your question depends on the nature of one’s belief.

    I don’t understand what you mean. Can you give me examples please?

    Micah:

    I am confused by the documents that you cited. The Schlemmer/Davis study does not specifically address the idea of religious experience in the summary and the articles that it references cannot be viewed without a purchase.

    Bishop Hilarion’s essay does not address the biological functions of the brain that lead to “religious” experiences. Rather, it discusses the Literal and Metaphorical views of the descent of Christ into Hell.

    My question might be better phrased: If religious experiences can be induced through physical manipulation of the brain, does this not demonstrate that the experiences are biological rather than “spiritual”?

    Brian:

    (what does TLO mean, by the way? I must have missed it)

    PJ dubbed me “The Loyal Opposition” some time ago. I kinda like the title.

    What someone happens to believe has no bearing on what is actually true…

    No argument here! One of my favorite passages is:

    Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things that a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love, true love never dies.

    You remember that, boy. You remember that.

    Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in.

    That’s the kind of belief that I can grasp. I struggle with the idea of eternity and whatnot though.

    If anyone wills to do His will…

    Are you talking about living according to the sermon on the Mount or are you talking about doctrine as it is expressed in ideas such as Christ’s descent into Hell? If the former, how would someone who behaves well and yet does not believe in god “know” that it is from god? Moral behavior does not bring a revelation of something outside of human beings, does it?

    Mary:

    I don’t know if what I am relating is what you are seeking

    You have an uncanny ability to always understand what I am saying and to respond intelligently. I appreciate that about you.

    I agree that there is far more that we don’t know about the brain than that we do know. And I think there is a distinction between the “brain” and the “mind.”

    I am only speaking to things that we do know. The temporal lobes are active during the perception of a religious experience and during auditory hallucinations. Stimulation of the right angular gyrus reliably produces out-of-body experiences. The frontal lobes become active during meditation. The left brain interpreter makes up stories and beliefs (of various kinds). One neuroscientist put it this way:

    Humans are belief machines. We form beliefs fast and firmly, and then deepen them. We quickly lose insight into their origins or their frequent strangeness and hold them to be meaningful, guiding presences in our lives. We become beholden to them and will adhere to them even in the face of information to the contrary. It seems to be what our human brains do.

    This is true of scientific, personal, or religious beliefs.

    My journey seems to be a search for origins upon which the beliefs of so many rest. My difficulty is in the fact that religious experiences can be artificially fabricated. This brings into question their veracity. That is the hurtle that I am trying to get over.

    Mary:

    It seems to me, in the religious question, that just as we notice that the brain responds in certain ways to light, is only an example of the brain responding to light, not an explanation of “Ah Ha, there really isn’t any such thing as light.”

    Agreed. Moreover, the brain does not respond to all forms of light (ultraviolet, radio, microwave, etc) but only certain frequencies of the light spectrum that help us survive.

    I also agree that what is termed a “religious experience” has some value in changing the structure of someone’s brain patterns and these can result in positive behaviors.

    But it is clear that an out-of-body experience is not real although it may alter the structure of a brain in profound ways and alter behavior. (I cannot say things like this to my wife. Her fascination with out-of-body experiences is so firmly fixed that proof of it being a biological event simply upsets her and ends in us arguing. I have found this same sort of reaction among other religious people as well.)

    Why should other “religious experiences” be anything more than an activity in the brain that serves a similar function? It does not have to be real or true to have such an impact on the brain, does it?

    human beings actually have a spiritual hunger is evidence that there actually is something spiritual for which we are hungry.

    I don’t know that I would go straight to “spiritual hunger” but rather say that we are constantly making stories (even about ourselves and our own personal histories) and that this is as essential to human activity as is breathing. The presence of so much inventive fiction is evidence to me that we like to be creative in our story telling but does not correlate to a “spiritual hunger.” Indeed, the whole idea of the “spiritual” seems to me to be an extension of our egos; we cannot imagine a future in which we do not exist and yet we know that all humans die. What is more natural than to make a story in which we don’t really die?

  61. John Shores (TLO) Avatar
    John Shores (TLO)

    Sorry. That last entry was for Fr. Stephen.

  62. Micah Avatar
    Micah

    John Shores says:

    My question might be better phrased: If religious experiences can be induced through physical manipulation of the brain, does this not demonstrate that the experiences are biological rather than “spiritual”?

    John, thanks for narrowing down the hypothetical question.

    The etymology of psychedelia — a term coined in the 50s and synonymous with hallucinogen is a good starting point (“Psyche” = mind or soul and “delos” = manifest or reveal in Ancient Greek we are told).

    Shamanistic use of psychedelic substances is well documented from Paleolithic to modern times.

    In keeping with academic guidelines of data integrity, here’s a link to an Abstract outlining how Buddhist monks in the 2nd- and 9th-centuries used fly agaric to achieve inner enlightenment.

    Aldous Huxley apparently used it to enhance his creative powers as did his psychiatrist Humphry Osmond, according to an article published by the BMJ:

    Huxley:

    To make this mundane world sublime,
    Take half a gram of phanerothyme

    Osmond’s response:

    To fathom Hell or soar angelic,
    Just take a pinch of psychedelic

    It stands to reason that since cats and non-human primates are not fashioned in the image of God (or “a god” in your motif), psychedelic stimuli will not produce enlightenment in these types. Thus in the abstract examples provided, we see only behaviourisms conforming to specific mind types. The cat becomes obsessed with grooming and the primate becomes withdrawn.

    A exception to the rule is documented in Numbers 22:28; viz, God sends an angel to speak audibly to Balaam, through the mouth of an animal. Of course, if one does not give much credence to such holy scribblings, it would be pointless to pursue this particular avenue further.

    Actually the condition you describe viz, a shift in the brain’s language centre is a medical condition called aphasia, a form of brain damage normally associated with traumatic brain injuries such as strokes or gunshot wounds. This recent case should be of interest.

    Simply put, a psychedelic (or pyschotropic) stimulus or traumatic event may manifest hidden but very real aspects of the mind. Eastern Orthodox teaching on the matter, particularly as articulated by Cyril of Alexandria & Athenasius the Great here, is quite something else. It is the articulation of the entire range of human ontological experience, from heaven to hell. This is fact, is what is implied in the word Orthodoxy (= “the right glory”).

  63. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    John TLO,

    If religious experiences can be induced through physical manipulation of the brain, does this not demonstrate that the experiences are biological rather than “spiritual”?

    Saint Silouan indirectly addresses this by saying:
    “The Saints speak of that which they have actually seen, of that which they know. They do not speak of something they have not seen. (They do not tell us, for instance, that they have seen a horse a mile long or a steamer ten miles long, which do not exist.)”
    Their experience of the Uncreated light is astoundingly consistent for thousands of years, while the experiences of those who have hallucinogenic and psychotropic drug induced visions are a different legion.
    The closest person/friend to me (of my youth) has had both. I do not see him as often as I used to now as he has become a monk in the Holy Mountain but he is a man of considerable experiences. Experiences of God’s Grace as a child, the most extreme and extensive hallucinogenic visions during his “prodigal son phase” and experiences of God’s Grace again after his repentance. The difference is one of taste and authenticity beyond any argumentation that cannot be adequately described in words.
    It is also validated by other, discerning spiritual elders.
    He did indeed wonder for many years how a delusional (demonic in a sense) drug induced experience can be ever ‘allowed’ such intensity that rivaled the real thing! At the same time though he could clearly recognize the profound difference in the authenticity of the real thing.

    He likens it to comparing the real relationship of, say, Ella Fitzgerald who came to sing in your living room for your birthday because you were all alone, vs. the cheap replica: a robot that has been created with a virtually identical to Ella’s voice and has been sent you for company at your birthday… Only infinitely more pronounced.

  64. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    Far more important however, in the discernment of the Holy Spirit induced experience from the non-Holy Spirit one (whether natural, delusional, demonic, dimethyltryptamine, hallucinogen or other induced experience) is the criterion provided us by Christ Himself:
    “you shall know them by their fruit”

  65. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    All this does not preclude the symbiosis of Holy Spirit induced experience and biological consequent changes of course.
    One’s triglycerides level, for instance are favourably altered after an encounter with God’s Grace as Elder Porphyrios used to say, but, proportionately, that is the least of our concerns.
    🙂

  66. Lynne Avatar
    Lynne

    I work in stroke rehab. We used to say that if a blockage or a bleed in the brain occurred in a certain place, then there would be certain deficits. Like right-brain damage results in left-sided weakness or sensory deficits.
    Now, however, the research is showing that damage in one area can produce a wide variety of deficits in many kinds of brain functions.
    So those brain imaging studies of “locations” of religious experience don’t capture the complexity of the brain and sensory systems.

  67. Micah Avatar
    Micah

    Well said Dinoship. We can safely assume that the Great Banquet will involve real butter & silverware too!

  68. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    John, facts don’t speak for themselves they have to be selected, prioritized, arranged and interpreted in order to mean anything. Even in carefully controlled, double blind research studies experimenter bias can have a satistically significant effect on the results.

    So, if one believes in God and Jesus Christ, how one deals with facts, even seemingly incontrovertible empirical facts is going to be quite different than if one does not. If one does not believe in God at all, but believes only in the material with the concomitant philosophical naturalism that accompanies such belief (particularly in science) all of the assumptions that go into identifying, selecting, prioritizing arranging and interpreting will be fundamentally different from one who knows Jesus Christ. Thus not only the ‘meaning’ of the neuroscience will be different, but the very nature of the exploration of man’s body in the first place.

    We are never removed from what we study. The state of our heart and soul will always be integral to the study. There literally is no such thing as objectivity.

    Even in classical physics the repeatability of certain things can never be proven, it is always assumed. In modern quantum physics well…. suffice it to say it is a bit of mystical experience on many levels.

  69. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    John Shores,

    Be careful. You’re trying to spin too many plates again. Including 50 people in one reply comment would seem to be efficient. You can successfully pass thousands of people on the street, but you can only successfully have one wife. Each of these conversations represent a relationship that is somewhere in between those two extremes.

    So take your time. Enjoy them. Appreciate them. Care for them.

  70. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    John Shores said:

    “Certainly. What does this do to the validity of that text? Would it be reasonable to ask whether the entire story was fabricated? Perhaps her husband died in battle without David’s intervention at all. Perhaps Bathsheba seduced David? Is there enough “reasonable doubt” to discard the entire story?”

    Excellent point. And it is at this exact point that I turn to a God and ask Him to show me the truth. I know that the OT account could be skewed somewhat by the recorder of it, but I accept that God allowed/caused the story to be in there for a reason and turn to Him for understanding.

    As they say in AA, there is a God; I’m not Him; I will not be anything or go anywhere without Him.

  71. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    John Shores, to put it more simply: faith preceeds knowing. Rational thought and exegesis is always a product of faith. Identify the faith and it goes a long way toward identifying the outcome.

    A person is always free to change his faith, to allow his faith to deepen, or to leave it largely unexamined.

    My own faith began with the teaching and example of my parents. Each in their own way proclaimed by word and deed, “There is a god”. My mother, when I was about 15, sat me down, gave me a copy of Huston Smith’s “Faiths Men Live By”. She told me specifically that there is a god, and somewhere in that book he was described. My job was to find him.

    Both my brother and I ended up in the Orthodox Church. He is a priest. My parents, memory eternal, never understood why we made the choice we made, but given all that they taught us, it was the only rational decision to be made. A great deal of experience and evidence has flowed from that.

  72. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    John (TLO)

    You wrote: “My difficulty is in the fact that religious experiences can be artificially fabricated. This brings into question their veracity. That is the hurtle that I am trying to get over.”

    This is, indeed, a significant hurdle to get over. Allow me to create a metaphor. Suppose we think of the human brain as a piece of equipment that has the capacity to give and receive signals. A piece of equipment can function properly, it can malfunction because of defect or damage, or it can purposely be made to malfunction (think of testing your smoke alarm battery – you push a button making the noise, sending a signal that there is smoke when in reality there is none).

    If we think of brain experiences, one can have sensory experiences that are “true”, i.e. ears/brain are accurately detecting sound waves. One can also have “false” sensory experiences that result from illness or injury, such as the hallucinations that go with schizophrenia or seizures when there are no sound waves. (I have hallucinated, by the way, likely due to a mild neurological issue, and it can be quite convincing – though my reason tells me that what I “heard” was not possible.) Furthermore, one may also have an intentionally induced false sensory experience, such as drug induced or experimentally induced with electrodes, etc.

    I’m sure you can see my point. The fact that a religious or out-of-body experience can be intentionally induced on a biological level does not provide any information about whether there are “true” experiences of this type. It only tells us that false ones are possible with this particular piece of equipment.

    Our brains are amazing organs. If there is a God, it would seem that a developed nervous system would be a prerequisite to having a cognizant relationship with Him. (Plants and animals do not have the cognizant part because of their limited or nonexistent capacity for self/other awareness. They cannot choose to follow or not follow the path for which they were created – unlike us.) Hence, we have this marvelous “piece of equipment” in our heads that may give us the capacity for conscious relating to God – but it also may be used (or misused) in a variety of other ways. I suspect that most of us are seriously under-utilizing our equipment.

    Having already gone on too long, I will relate one account of a near-death experience that has stuck with me for 35+ years. I heard Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, M.D. speak in the mid-1970’s and she told of a relatively young person who had a near death experience. Afterwards, he was relating to his family how odd it was because he encountered someone who said he was his brother but “I don’t have a brother”. It turned out that the parents had had a son who died prior to this child’s birth and they had never spoken of him. Lack of oxygen to the brain cannot explain this one…

    Anyway, thanks for the thought-provoking questions and blessings to you as you try to sort things out. I continue to stand by my knowing from the heart – but I know that our intellects can get stuck on certain questions. I hope this helps a bit.

  73. Brian Avatar
    Brian

    JS (LTO),
    Second Hand Lions is a favorite of mine. Wonderful quote! Absolutely wonderful!

    No, beliefs of this nature cannot be proven by strictly rational means. They cannot be objectively verified by scientific methods. “It doesn’t matter whether they are true or not” in that sense because they can nevertheless be known/experienced and thereby ‘proven’ true to the nature of our humanity for those who believe and practice them.
    Your question about how “moral” behavior could reveal God to a person is a good one, but it reflects perhaps a very different understanding of morality than Orthodox Christians would accept. The Orthodox Christian understanding of morality is quite different than most people, even many Christian people, think. Moreover, when morality is viewed in the way most people think, Orthodox Christians would largely agree with those who say non-believers can be just as moral, if not often more so, than a believer. I’ve sometimes heard nominal agnostics say things like, “I’m a good person. I keep the moral code. Why can’t God just leave me alone? Why do I need all this Jesus stuff?” Contrary to what some might say (“But all have sinned/broken the moral code.”), an Orthodox Christian would not reference the moral code at all because our problem is not that we don’t live up to a moral standard; our problem is death. While not denying that ‘the rules’ are good for us and for society and that they were given by God, we emphatically affirm what should be obvious (but rarely is): none of them is capable of uniting us with God who alone is eternal so we can share His eternal ‘kind’ of life – not a quantity or duration of life, but rather a quality, the kind of life shares by the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

    For Orthodox Christians what is ‘moral’ is that which unites us to God. What is immoral is that which severs us from Him. Christian morality may – or may not – correspond to the ‘moral code’ (even the one God Himself revealed through Moses). What God and His Church have in view is not the improvement of behavior for our own sake or even for the sake of society. Such improvement is unquestionably a good thing in terms of improving our common social condition in this life, but it fails to transfigure the human person. It is not by itself a participation in eternal life. Our salvation is not a matter of adherence to the best utilitarian ethics available, however good and ‘useful’ they may be to our health and the good order of the world in which we live. This is clearly demonstrated by the thief on the cross, the woman taken in adultery, Zacchaeus, the woman who anointed Christ with ointment, the paralytic carried by his friends, the blind man who cried, “Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me!”, Lazarus, the Gadarene demoniac, Mary Magdalene… All were bound by death, passions, sins, blindness, and sickness of soul and body yet liberated and brought to life through a personal encounter with the living God while the ‘moral,’ secure in the virtue of their utilitarian ethics and bent on maintaining the good order of society, murdered the incarnate God who made both them and their laws.

    The things that a man should believe because they are worth believing in go to the heart of who we ARE as human beings, created by design to share in the eternal life of God.

  74. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Paul Evdokimov wrote in his book “Orthodoxy” that salvation is ontological, not legal.

    As Brian points out it is LIFE that we long for and that Jesus gives in abundance.

  75. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    Excellent words Brian. Well said.

  76. dinoship Avatar
    dinoship

    Well said Brian!

  77. […] But does that fully suffice? Does that not put too much weight on history, rather than principle, as we have been in error since the Fall? Thoughts and quotes are welcome. Below are my favorite two so far. From Fr. Stephen: […]

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. Byron, Love that is not rooted in the Cross is just a sophisticated form of narcissism.

  2. I have to confess, since my stroke, I do not read much BUT, icons have become more scriptural for me.…

  3. Matthew, I think the world prefers love to be generic–much like they prefer the Church to be the same. When…

  4. I don” t think the world necessarily has a problem when we love. There are many loving people the globe…


Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast



Categories


Archives