Is Hell Real?

Because sometimes the people of God need a basic lesson in the nature of existence…

Picture-of-HellOn one of the roads leading into my small city a billboard has recently appeared. It is part of a larger campaign by a nationally known evangelist who is to have a revival in Knoxville. The sign is simple. In very large bright yellow letters (all caps), the sign says: HELL IS REAL. In small letters beneath it, in white, that can be read as your car nears the sign is the statement: so is heaven. Like the small bulletin boards outside of many Southern churches, this sign belongs to a part of our culture that has been with us a long time. But everytime I see this sign, my mind turns to the subject of ontology (the study of the nature of being). Thus I offer today some very basic thoughts on the subject of being – a classical part of Christian theology.

The first thing I will note is that you cannot say Hell is real and Heaven is real and the word real mean the same thing in both sentences. Whatever the reality of Heaven, Hell does not have such reality. Whatever the reality of Hell, Heaven is far beyond such reality.

St. Athanasius in his De Incarnatione, sees sin (and thus hell) as a movement towards “non-being.” The created universe was made out of nothing – thus as it moves away from God it is moving away from the gift of existence and towards its original state – non-existence. God is good, and does not begrudge existence to anything, thus the most creation can do is move towards non-being.

I’m certain that the intent of the billboard was to suggest that hell is not imaginary or just a folk-tale. It is certainly neither of those things. But in Orthodox spiritual terms I would say that hell is a massive state of delusion, maybe the ultimate state of delusion. It is delusional in the sense that (in Orthodox understanding) the “fire” of hell is not a material fire, but itself nothing other than the fire of the Living God (Hebrews 12:29). For those who love God, His fire is light and life, purification and all good things. For those who hate God, His fire is torment, though it be love.

And these are not simply picky issues about the afterlife – they are very germane issues for the present life. Christ Himself gave this “definition” of hell: “And this is condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19).

It is of critical importance for us to understand that being, reality, life, goodness, beauty, happiness, truth are all synonymous with reality as it is gifted to us by God. Many things that we experience in our currently damaged condition (I speak of our fallen state) which we describe with words such as “being, reality, life, goodness, beauty, happiness, truth, etc.”, are, in fact, only relatively so and are only so inasmuch as they have a participation or a relationship with the fullness of being, reality, life, etc.

Tragically in our world, many live in some state of delusion (even most of us live in some state of delusion). Christ said, “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.” We are not pure in heart, and thus we do not see God, nor do we see anything in the fullness of its truth. Our delusion makes many mistakes about reality. The most serious delusion is that described by Christ, when we prefer darkness to light because our deeds are evil.

I have in my own life known what moments in such darkness are like – and I have seen such darkness in the hearts and lives of others many times. The whole of our ministry and life as Christians is to move from such darkness and into the light of Christ. “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship (communion) one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1John 1:7)

Is hell real? Only for those who prefer to see the Light of God as darkness.

Is heaven real? Yes, indeed, and everything else is only real as it relates to that reality. God give us grace to walk in the Light.

End of the ontology lesson.

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

181 responses to “Is Hell Real?”

  1. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Connie,
    I suspect that Dino, like myself, is simply being circumspect in his speech for reasons similar to my own. I do not and could never argue against the hope held out by the likes of St. Silouan. Indeed, I find it among the most endearing things of Orthodoxy. But we cannot speak where the Church has remained silent. I can’t because I’m an ordained priest and blog as an extension of that ministry (thus I may occasionally express opinions – but largely I seek to do the same thing here that I do in my parish ministry – which is teach and engage people with the teaching of the Church.) I’m sure Dino has his reasons for reservation as well.

    Actually, I rarely, if ever, have encountered an Orthodox Christian who “wanted” hell to be eternal. It would trouble me if that were the case. And that’s a world of difference from thinking that, given certain things within the Tradition as well as certain Scriptures, thinking that it might, nevertheless, be eternal. To want it to be would be perverse. And in that sense, I think I could say that there is a deep universalist hope in the heart of Orthodoxy. I hear it in many of the ancient Paschal homilies. It’s why this discussion is not really unusual for an Orthodox blog where it would be highly unlikely in many other Christian locations.

  2. Connie Avatar
    Connie

    Thank you for these words, Fr. Stephen. It is true that I have a very uncomfortable distrust of the Fathers who defend the eternality of hell and have considered it providential that the Divine Liturgy and the prayers that accompany it can all very easily be taken in a universalist light — this in spite of the fact that St. John Chrysostom himself would not have meant it to be. (But I believe now he would. 🙂 )

    If it weren’t for St. Isaac who gives credence to my own beliefs and others such as you and Father Aidan, who from our eternal Source of Love have voiced that life-giving hope for the final healing of all Creation, I would be teetering on the very edge of the Orthodox Church. This is sufficient for me, praise be to God.

  3. leonard nugent Avatar
    leonard nugent

    My greatest joy will be to be able to praise God with Arius and Nestorius in the great banquet of the Kingdom! My whole being revolts against the liturgical dancing on their graves we find in the canons!

  4. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Wow. Not everybody makes it Leonard. While there will certainly be surprises your approach seems to indicate that belief does not matter.

    If they are there it will be because they genuinely and deeply repented.

    We can hope for that but we cannot assume it even for ourselves.

  5. leonard nugent Avatar
    leonard nugent

    I pray for both of them Michael and I explain to my friends that I don’t especially enjoy the liturgical dancing on their graves in the canons. It can get a little venomous. Listen to them sometimes

  6. leonard nugent Avatar
    leonard nugent

    I suppose it’s easy to talk about universal salvation as long as you don’t dig any actual bodies up!

  7. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    The real question is whether Jesus’ work of salvation goes on after bodily death or if we get only this brief and transient time united with our bodies?

    Perhaps Father can address that.

    Is the venom directed at them personally or have they become archetypes? Perhaps both?

  8. leonard nugent Avatar
    leonard nugent

    They are archetypes I suppose of people who have tried to harm us and whom we are permitted to hate. I think what happened with St Nicholas at the council has been misunderstood. That incident has become heroic. Actually the punching of Arius was shameful and will remain so for all time. Nicholas was reinstated not because what he did was meritorious but for other reasons. But I repeat there was nothing heroic about punching Arius in the face. He was lucky it wasn’t George Zimmerman he was punching!

  9. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Leonard,
    We are no where permitted to hate our enemies. The canons of the Church at no point sing of hate or encourage it. They do poetically describe various heretics and their heresies but do not teach us to hate. That would be contrary to the commands of Christ.

  10. Dinos Avatar
    Dinos

    Connie,
    indeed: “at the heart of every person is a divine spark that wants only to love and be loved.”
    However, this very thing that leads us to Love Himself is what becomes perverted and leads us astray.
    To use an extreme example -as St Silouan does somewhere -, take a selfish man who is never content with his lot -St Silouan talks of this man as being like Lucifer. This ‘man’ is not like those who suffer in the desperate darkness of hades but are eventually saved due to a combination of the Church’s prayers for the departed and other things. This ‘man’ is never content due to a deep perversion that pride has cemented in his heart. Call it ‘extra-selfish’. It is not that he is “cast into hell”, no. It is that he is placed in heaven and wants a little higher, and a little higher, and when he is placed next to God’s throne he still isn’t content – like Lucifer!
    It’s all a little reminiscent of that ugly joke:
    God promises two poor farmers a wish, one of them is selfish the other is ‘extra-selfish’. The first thinks hard -the sky is the limit- and asks for a fine cow…! The second however, asks for his neighbour’s cow to die!

    In this scenario, if a third, saintly person was to ask for a cow for each of the others -ignoring himself- it would have a benign effect -at least of gratitude- on the first one, however, the ‘extra selfish’ one would become hardened further even by this!
    I hope that all are saved! Indeed, but our Fathers knew better than we did when they said what they said… There is great doubt even now in some circles in Greece on the authenticity of the newfound Homilies assigned to St Isaac that are far more universalist (the ones that talk of Satan’s eventual salvation). I do not know what to make of those claims – i had a discussion with F Aidan on that a while ago. The fact remains that, as much as I want it I must be obedient to the Church.
    A very holy clairvoyant Elder, the constantly smiling Elder Evmenios Saridakis who fought physically and won the devil like saint Anthony once said to Metropolitan Neophytus of Morphos, Cyprus:

    Once I prayed:
    “Lord Jesus Christ, I want You to save all people”.
    “And God was pleased”, he would tell me.
    “And then I said: ‘Lord Jesus Christ, I want You to save all the Catholics. And all the Protestants, my Christ, I want You to save them”. And God was pleased.
    “I also want You to save the Muslims and all those who belong to all the religions; I want You to save even the atheists”. And God was very pleased.
    And I told him: “My Christ, I want you to save all those who have fallen asleep, from the time of Adam until now”. And God was exceedingly pleased.
    And I told him: ‘My God, I want you to save Judas also’. And finally I added: ‘I want you to save the devil also’. And God was saddened”.
    I told him: “Why was God sad?”
    “Because God wants to, but they don’t (want to be saved)”, he replied; “there is not a trace of good will for salvation in the devil”.

    “Hold on”, I told him, “how did you know when God was pleased and when He was sad?”
    And he said to me: “If your heart becomes one with Christ’s heart, you feel what He feels”.
    So, can you perceive the breadth of this man’s heart? This was one of the most powerful things I have ever heard; and I have never heard something like it by anyone else. And he perceived those things from the intensity of Grace. Depending on the degree of Grace, he was able to perceive His sadness or His pleasure, to whatever he said or did”.

  11. leonard nugent Avatar
    leonard nugent

    Dino the elders prayer lacked one thing. You indeed didn’t forget to pray that God save all Catholics but it seems he forgot pray for God tom to save all Orthodox.

  12. Mark Basil Avatar

    Leonard-
    We are Orthodox Christians. Catholics are, sadly, divided from us. Do you understand then why the Elder would pray for those who are not in Communion with us? There is something lacking in the Catholic Church- the hope and desire of this Elder is for Christ’s overwhelming love would make up for what is lacking.

    Love;
    -Mark Basil

  13. leonard nugent Avatar
    leonard nugent

    There is something lacking in the Catholic Church- the hope and desire of this Elder is for Christ’s overwhelming love would make up for what is lacking……huh?

  14. leonard nugent Avatar
    leonard nugent

    Although It wasn’t wrong for him to ask God to save Muslims, the devil, and Catholics

  15. leonard nugent Avatar
    leonard nugent

    Mark Basil there is so much about the Orthodox church that compels me to join it and so much about the Catholic church that compels me to leave it. It’s the constant mis-characterization of Catholics that eventually sobers me up and reminds me that I may not be any happier there

  16. Dinos Avatar
    Dinos

    leonard,
    I cannot tell an eskimo he needs to realise that people lying on beaches is far more normal…

    please realise that this is an Elder that was brought up in Crete, unlettered, very simple and without the ‘globalist’ mindset that is now part of every westerner’s knowledge. As a very traditional unlettered Greek he would have only even found out about the existence of non Orthodox at a later age than kids find out about the existence of suicide, homosexuality and even porn in a western city. His words -especially the original Greek recording which is saved- are grossly misunderstood by such a critical lens/angle.

  17. […] Stephen has posted two excellent posts. The first poses the question, “Is Hell Real?” I’ve made some effort to address that question in my own series on the topic which you […]

  18. Fr Aidan Kimel Avatar

    I have only had a chance now to read Fr Stephen’s fine article and read through the many comments. What an interesting discussion.

    Given all that I have already written on my own blog, I do not have much to add. I simply want to strongly reiterate what others have said: it’s all about the absolute, infinite, impassible love and mercy of God, sealed in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Those of us who confidently hope in the salvation of all do so not because we have embraced some form of secular ideology or philosophy, but because we have been persuaded by the gospel that divine love will ultimately triumph over all sin and evil.

    Is hell real? Of course it is. I have experienced hell in the depths of my soul. Is it possible for me to take my hell with me into the afterlife? Of course it is. This possibility terrifies me. It terrifies me that family and friends and neighbors and strangers might realize this possibility in their historical lives.

    But I refuse to concede that this possibility will ultimately and eternally prevail. Why? Because: “Christ is risen from the dead, Trampling down death by death, And upon those in the tombs Bestowing life!” As Fr Stephen likes to say, Pascha is our hermeneutic. The resurrection is precisely good news, good and wondrous news for all. It is not good news for some, namely, the saints, and terrible news for the rest of us who know hell all too well. I do not need to know precisely how God will realize his universal salvific will. All I need to do is to trust in his omnipotent Love. God will triumph over my sin, over my attachments to the world, over my hatred and bitterness and disillusionment. He will do so, not through physical coercion or brainwashing, but through the ravishment of his suffering Love.

    The Lutheran theologian Gerhard Forde was once asked, “Do you believe that the love of God is irresistible?” His reply: “I certainly hope so. Don’t you?”

    Don’t you?

  19. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Fr. Aidan. My own experience is that the divine love is not irresistible, just relentless, never ending, a bit like the Chinese water torture when I am holding hard to my sins. He is always there, waiting with unutterable patience and mercy. When my will fatigues, there He is to remind me to come back, the door is open, the table set and He would love to have me.

    I think it entirely possible that someone could be so determined in a Satanic way, that they would not respond to His entreaty. My hope however is that those people are rare indeed.

    Having been through a hell similar to yours, I take great comfort in that hope and do not believe my hope is without foundation or in vain.

    Our God is not just as we perceive justice for “in the course of (human) justice none of us should see salvation…”.

    Nevertheless I reject universalism as normally conceived because repentance is always required and my understanding that our Lord will never force us.

    I also reject the belief that only a select few will really be included in His Kingdom. Hell is prepared for satan and his angels, not us. That has been so from the beginning.

    By your prayers Father.

  20. Isaac Avatar
    Isaac

    Michael,

    All of the universalists I have come across have insisted that all must freely repent to be saved. Can you explain what you mean by “as normally conceived?” Maybe there are universalists that are like Calvinists in positing an irresistible grace for all people (instead of only a few people) but I have not personally come across them.

  21. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Isaac the universalism in the common mind outside the Church is that God forgives everyone since the idea of the need to repent and the idea of sin is so watered down as to be nonexistent.

    A variant of it is prevalent in the “once saved, always saved” folk that is being extended to include everyone. Kinda the Disney version of salvation.

    Universalism that includes the necessity of repentance really isn’t universal is it?

    Since many Christians live in a time bound universe. That question does not occur to them.

    In any case, we are better served in this world to make repentance the main point as did Jesus when He began His ministry.

    The only real question then becomes is there a time limit to the offer?

  22. Fr Aidan Kimel Avatar

    “Nevertheless I reject universalism as normally conceived because repentance is always required and my understanding that our Lord will never force us.”

    But no one has suggested otherwise, Michael. Of course we must turn to the Lord in repentance, humility, and faith. How could there be a relationship of mutual love otherwise? And of course God does not “force” us against our will. How could there be a a relationship of mutual love if he violently imposed himself us and violated our personal integrity and freedom?

    But might we not entertain the possibility of transcending the alternatives as posed? We are not talking about coercion but a Love that can knock us off our horses and persuade us of its truth, a Love that can conquer our willful resistance and bring us to faith, a Love that can quietly seduce our hearts and inflame them to love. Was the Apostle Paul coerced? Was St Augustine coerced? Was C. S. Lewis coerced? I know that our logic cannot take us beyond the impasse posed by philosophy and commonsense–Hell is so damn logical!–but St Gregory Nyssen and St Isaac of Ninevah saw beyond the impasse. The Song of Songs is a better guide at this point than the hard, uncompromising logic of the philosophers. Love always comes to us as grace and surprise. Lovers know this.

    Olivier Clement once asked Elder Sophronius what would happen if a person does not agree to open his or her heart and accept the love of God. Sophronius replied, “You may be certain that as long as someone is in hell, Christ will remain there with him.”

    And if Christ is eternally with the damned, then there must always be hope, confident hope. The only alternative is despair.

  23. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    I cannot answer on Michael’s behalf, but I do agree with him… I think that ‘freely’ repenting implies there must be something in man and in angel that always retains the capacity to say no. Remove that and you have not got a human. As Elder Aimilianos says in his commentary on Saint Nilus from Calabria, the scary thing is that a Saint is someone who constantly has the ability to fall and yet doesn’t. He is completely free when he makes his self a ‘slave’ to God. He has no psychological complexes of self-oppression (because of his up-bringing or his fear of hell, or his desire for heaven – he must ascend much further than this pitiful state). A Saint is a “Son/Daughter”! He too, like God, will refrain from ‘seducing’ with love for the sake of an infinite respect of another’s freedom first and foremost. In fact he inspires others to respect their selves through this…
    God’s love is ‘irresistible’ precisely because He chooses to allow such an omnipotent force to be ‘resistible’!
    This inconceivable respect of God for his creatures who have been granted freedom is the aspect of His love that man struggles to understand because it means that creation of free creatures entails -from the beginning – the Cross! This is why the Church cannot as a whole proclaim what she prays for (salvation of all)….

  24. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    “You may be certain that as long as someone is in hell, Christ will remain there with him.” certainly agrees with the river of fire notion too does it not? (For some very few like Satan perhaps)

  25. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    And here’s the wrinkle in a universal salvation that has not been noted – which is – in fact – the most common Orthodox wrinkle. Many of the fathers and elders teach that there can be no repentance beyond death – and this thought is based on certain considerations viz. the soul apart from the body, etc. (which I’ve never quite comprehended thus I can’t replicate it here). In this understanding, the hope beyond death lies in the prayers of the Church and God’s mercy – in that sense we’re all in this together. Considering the sorry shape of my soul, I want all of you to know that I’m counting on you.

    There are many thoughts that are possible within this model. I particularly like it on account of it’s emphasis on communion, and salvation as communion, whereas the other could be treated as the ultimate individualistic account.

  26. Sophia Avatar
    Sophia

    Thank you for this wonderful post, Fr. Stephen.

  27. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Father, no one here has suggested salvation without repentance, but many not here do. I believe it was Bonhoeffer who coined the term “cheap grace”, i.e. grace without the cross or without repentance among other things. Many in the world, even if they haven’t abandoned God, long for the easy way out. Dino did reflect my point quite well in his post.

    Unfortunately, there are probably some within the Church who want the cheap stuff too. That is why I think the necessity for repentance needs to be emphasized as my reply to Isaac said.

    Although reductionistic, it could be said that a great deal of Western Christian thought has been squandered on “easy” ways to salvation from indulgences, to predestination, to “once saved, always saved”, to absolute universalism.

    I have a question: does the approach we are discussing lend itself to limited acceptance of some sort of purgatory like state?

  28. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    The parable of the Prodigal Son, right from the beginning of the narrative, reveals the Father’s answer to His younger son’s demands: the Crucifixion! This is because it has the same kenotic (self-emptying) character…

    This is because the Father of the parable accepts to be behaved towards -by His son- exactly as if He was dead. Although Alive, the deeper aspect of the son’s side of the relationship implies this very concept of death. And what does this mean for the son? It means that he has been given an aspect of perfect and absolute freedom: freedom to act as if there he no longer had a Father; freedom to behave towards Him as if He was deceased, nothing.

    This freedom is the freedom God gave to man at his creation. He has allowed him to treat Him as if He did not exist. As if He, the Creator, were dead. And further still, He has bestowed such freedom, that man can even kill Him if he so wants.

    In this respect the creation of man contains within it the Cross. The creation of man by God, as an act of emptying and self-offering, included the death of God on the Cross. The glorious Resurrection and the glorious Cross, are one and the same in Orthodoxy. My understanding is that this is not unrelated to the notion of God’s Love being both Light and Fire at the same time. Where one interprets the Cross as shameful and the Love as Fire, another interprets them as glorious and as light… The younger brother eventually repents and sees the light of love (no matter how suspect his motives – God accepts everything in His immeasurable love), however, the elder son sees the fire of love. He does this not so much because God’s / the Father’s love towards him scorches him. No! He does this because God’s love towards all others scorches him.

  29. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Father Stephen salvation as communion. We are urged and at times required to go to confession before partaking of the Eucharist yet within the Divine Liturgy, the priest says that the Eucharist is for the forgiveness of sins.

    So how does the wrinkle you bring up, which was lurking in the back of my mind too, fit in with the rest of our discussion?

    Anyone?

  30. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Well,
    It could be said that some are in hell only because the prayers of the Church are not yet complete…

  31. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Concerning the aspect of Communion with all others being a stumbling block (as we see in the elder brother of the prodigal) in their interpretation of heaven as heaven, Elder Paisios’ metaphor I have repeatedly recounted comes to mind:

    In Hell there is a gigantic table at the centre of which lies a huge Chalice containing the most desirable ever drink, the most desirable ever Light (etc etc…) All who sit around this table have a gigantic ladle attached to their hand. It’s a part of them… But they are unbelievably miserable and utterly desperate: No matter how hard they try, they know the ladle is too long to ever reach their own mouth and they are in the most unbearable darkness, alone and tormented by dryness.

    In Heaven the situation looks similar. People around the same enormous table, the same immeasurably long ladles attached, but with a key difference: They are not enclosed inside of the Self; through thinking of the Other first, they enjoy the ‘First Commandment’ (they enjoy the Light and Love and that quenching of their thirst from that “Chalice”) through the ‘Second Commandment’: by lovingly feeding each other…

  32. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Another famous description of the reason why someone ‘remains’ in hell is communion with others, the lack of it, is the parable of the Onion (From The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky). Although, to start off with, it describes a classic folk-style legalistic understanding of hell, widespread after the middle-ages in Europe, (I plead we don’t go off on that criticism and actually ignore that here) it then goes on to the “real, deep matter at hand” –lack of communion with our neighbour:

    “Once upon a time there was a woman, and she was wicked as wicked could be, and she died. And not one good deed was left behind her. The devils took her and threw her into the lake of fire. And her guardian angel stood thinking: what good deed of hers can I remember to tell God? Then he remembered and said to God: once she pulled up an onion and gave it to a beggar woman. And God answered: take now that same onion, hold it out to her in the lake, let her take hold of it and pull, and if you pull her out of the lake, she can go to paradise. The angel ran to the woman and held out the onion to her: here, woman, he said, take hold of it and I’ll pull. And he began pulling carefully, and had almost pulled her all of the way out, when other sinners in the lake saw her being pulled out and all began holding on to her so as to be pulled out with her. But the woman was wicked as wicked could be, and she began to kick them with her feet: ‘It’s me who’s getting pulled out, not you; it’s my onion, not yours.’ No sooner did she say it than the onion broke. And the woman fell back into the lake and is burning there to this day. And the angel wept and went away.”

  33. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Here is an embellished version I found and absolutely loved:

    I like to tell people about “The Parable of the Onion” in Dostoyevsky’s, “The Brothers Karamazov.” Though my recounting of the parable is somewhat embellished, its heart remains the same: We can only help ourselves by helping each other. The story goes like this:

    Once upon a time there was an old woman who had died and found herself in hell. She complained to Satan that her assignment to the netherworld was a mistake.

    Satan told her, “You’ve been a greedy, selfish woman all your life. Surely, this is where you belong.”

    The woman thought a long time, trying to recollect some shred of altruism in her life. After several minutes she exclaimed, “Aha! I did a good deed once! I gave an onion to a beggar.”

    Satan replied, “Oh, yes. That is right. You pulled an onion out of the ground in your yard and handed it (bulb, stalk, and all) to a beggar at the fence.”

    At that very moment, God’s hand descended into hell, holding the onion out for the woman to grasp. Holding onto the onion with both hands, the woman found herself miraculously being pulled up and out of hell.

    As she rose, to the woman’s horror, dozens of people began to grasp at her legs and ankles, and as they were pulled up along with her, yet more people grasped onto the lower-most people’s own legs and ankles, until it seemed that the bowels of hell clung like an endless chain from a single woman’s body and the onion to which she clung.

    Though there was great weight tethered to the onion, the connection remained secure and God’s hand continued to lift eveyone up out of hell. Remarkably, the onion held; it did not fray.

    More and more people who had previously been doomed for eternity found themselves slowly — miraculously — being raised from hell by way of the woman’s firm grasp on the onion. There were soon thousands, and after several minutes millions of people hanging from the onion.

    Yet the onion held fast.

    Halfway to heaven, which is a long distance up from hell, the woman looked down at the vast human chain following her.

    She was angry and resentful that these people — who may have done even less good in their lives than herself — should be so easily redeemed by virtue of simply clinging to her spindly old legs. She was also afraid, and so excaimed in a great shout, “If all of you grab on to me like this, the onion will surely break and I will not get to heaven!”

    So, resolving not to allow anyone to harm her chances for redemption, the woman began to kick and smash the people hanging from her legs and ankles and toes. One by one as she struck them they fell, with each loss of a handhold causing tens of thousands of people to plunge back into hell.

    But with each kick — though the physical load grew lighter — the onion began to fray. And as the onion frayed, the woman, in her anger and haste, began to kick more ferociously still, thinking that it was the weight of hell’s denizens — and not her anger and selfishness — that tore at the onion.

    She kicked until but one person remained clinging to her left big toe, with yet another endless chain of people dangling from him. Millions of people hung from that precious, single toe. Still, the onion held though it was severely frayed. But the woman couldn’t bear the risk of losing her only chance to join God in heaven, so she kicked at the last remaining person; and as the person lost his grip, the onion snapped, and the selfish old woman — from a great height, having made it almost all the way to heaven — fell back into hell.

  34. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    “And the angel wept”. And I can’t often find tears for my own sins because I love them too much. How can I weep for the sins of others and not condemn them?

  35. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    this very weeping of the angel, the weeping of the Saints for the others is what proves their union with God. It is as if that blessed union which is paradise, (union with Christ -the enhypostasised Paradise), births effortless oneness with all others (His body), and all separation is healed.
    And to look at it another way:
    Just like a demonic soul “feels hell even in heaven” (because hell is born of separation, non-communion- the main characteristic of his ego), a holy one, “feels heaven even in hell”(since heaven is the communion that has become the main characteristic of his person)…!

  36. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    I believe the answers to these things are only revealed to the pure in heart. They are utterly opaque to reason. It is their knowledge of true communion that causes many of the fathers and elders to speak as they do. We hear them as if they were visitors from another world.

  37. Connie Avatar
    Connie

    Father Stephen,

    “There are many thoughts that are possible within this [no repentance after death] model. I particularly like it on account of it’s emphasis on communion, and salvation as communion, whereas the other could be treated as the ultimate individualistic account.”

    The emphasis on communion and salvation as communion in this model sounds appealing and makes me think of Ezekial 22 where God was dependent on finding someone to “stand in the gap” (i.e. pray?) so that He would not have to destroy the land (Ezekiel 22). Definitely a communal effort implied here. But if this “model” is true, the question can’t help but be raised: What would we be praying for when we pray for those who died unrepentant other than that they turn to God? How could God’s mercy save them if they did not repent and turn toward Him?

    I have heard it taught among the Orthodox that the unforgivable sin is simply that sin which is not repented of. So apparently it is unforgivable only as long as it stays unrepented. If this is true and we keep in mind Jesus’ words that the unforgivable sin will not be forgiven in this life or the next, it seems Jesus is saying that even in the world to come a sin cannot be forgiven without being repented. It would seem that to be forgiven after death requires repentance every bit as much as it does in this current life.

    There are many people who claim that the teaching that there can be no repentance after death is a dogma (or the Consensus?) of the Church. Is it?

  38. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Connie, I’ve not seen the “no repentance after death” as a dogma. But I’m open to correction on it. St. Gregory of Nyssa would be a dissenter from such a teaching. But I just don’t know.

    Try this one on for size: “What would we be praying for?” We would be repenting for them. There is far more in the nature of true communion than most people have dreamed. It’s no harder to grasp that than to understand that Christ took our sins upon Him (particularly if you’re not thinking of that act of communion as a propitiation for God’s wrath).

  39. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    I know that the linkg to Fr. Aiden’s blog discussion on hell has already been provided.

    However, I would like to link to a particular comment there that stuck in my mind and is relevant to this discussion. (see the final line of the second comment – interesting idea presented by “sorqaqtani”)

    http://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/hell-and-the-torturous-vision-of-christ/#comments

  40. Isaac Avatar
    Isaac

    Again, I just haven’t seen this cheap grace model from the universalists I have read. Thomas Talbott is a big name among evangelical universalists and he emphasizes repentance and the idea that many may suffer long ages in Gehenna before they finally relent. George MacDonald certainly doesn’t have a cheap grace model in his sermons and stories.

    If anything waters down the nature of repentance I think it would be the fundamentalists and evangelicals who preach the gospel in the “if you died tonight do you know where you would go?” mode which is followed by having the unsaved say a simple prayer to get out of hell. I’ve seen so many people “saved” that way that exhibited not even a hint of change or repentance after it. It is like salvation is reduced to saying the secret password rather than being transformed into a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven such that it would actually be paradise and not hell for them to live in it. But these are the same people who would reject even the hope of universalism out of hand because they believe in a God that won’t forgive and won’t permit people out of hell unless they say the right things and take advantage of free gift of salvation. This is miles away from the universalist picture of the Father who waits on his prodigals to come home or the good shepherd who goes out searching for a single lost sheep in the dark and danger of night.

    I have thought for a long time that the question of universalism does not revolve around God, but only revolves around whether particular persons will not open the door and will not bow the knee. It really doesn’t even occur to me that it could happen any other way, either by force from God or by simply looking the other way and letting many in on a technicality.

  41. leonard nugent Avatar
    leonard nugent

    I always have a response ready to those who would ask me if I died tonight do I know where I would go. I’d say that I was absolutely certain it would not be heaven.

  42. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Connie,
    we’ve certainly seen a solid faith, solid beyond all doubt, in those Elders on mount Athos of late, that “the Law of communicating vessels” is at work – even with those departed. First and foremost in the Divine Liturgy, then in all prayer, as well as absolutely everything else, down to minute thoughts. Even these apparently small details can (and do) have cosmic repercussions…
    A common example would be the advise to “go and take Holy Communion ‘in place’ of your dying relative” (who is perhaps too ill to even swallow on their death bed), as well as countless other such counsels.

  43. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Dino,
    While reading in one of Markides’ small books, the monastic character uses the word anadoche as a sort of spiritual principle – clearly in a manner much deeper than the sense of “sponsorship” that it would have for the use of a godparent’s role. I’ve found no discussion of the term anywhere else. Markides loves to use Greek words (perhaps allowing the reader to be freed from English presumptions). But I have wanted to know more. Can you say anything about this? Is it related to the “law of communicating vessels”?

  44. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    leonard – you wrote:

    “I always have a response ready to those who would ask me if I died tonight do I know where I would go. I’d say that I was absolutely certain it would not be heaven.”

    I would rather say, “I would throw myself upon the infinite mercy of God” (to hope for heaven does not mean that I am good but that God is). Let us keep our eyes on mercy and heaven, rather than on sin and hell.

  45. lx crow Avatar
    lx crow

    Father Stephen, I have been a quiet reader of your blog for years and always very interested and delighted with your writing. You have reached a very sensitive topic in one of your comments which sadly only now have noticed: the Personhood and its mystery, our false self and inner resistance.
    Please, Father Stephen, if you would care at some point to write extensively on this precise topic, because I find this inner resistance to be the ultimate doom of us (well, myself) and something of paramount importance in our relationship to God and salvation.
    I want to believe I am not the only one orthodox who DESPITE the gifts of holy baptism, communion, some modest ascesis and prayer, finds herself in a hole of inner self-confusion when it gets to “Thy will be done”. I know I am flawed in ways that sometimes feel almost unfixable but I also cannot begin to imagine what would be left of me if God indeed all of a sudden “healed” me. Where would I be if I indeed were to (with Grace from God) lived in Christ.
    This subject is smth that brings forth a host of anxiwties (in the face of an imagined self-destruction and annihilation of my identity) and also major guilt when I realize that I cant understand this process yet in my current state I cannot be saved.
    Please do not ignore this comment because this thing creeps in almost my every prayer and confession, tainting it with falsehood somehow and by clinging to “myself” (because what else is here inside?) I feel I am constantly lieing to God and hiding behind bushes trying to preserve this self.
    Thank you.
    Sogned, a 30 yo orthodox by name from Romania.

  46. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    I have no certainty and can only offer my logismos on the subject father… My suspicion is that the term ‘anadoche’ -in monastic circles- does indeed have added nuance. The standard synonym in Greek -for ‘anadochos’ and ‘nonos’ (Godparent)- is funnily enough, ‘spiritual father’ -obviously a different understanding to the more commonly referred definition for ‘confessor’ etc.
    The thing is that ‘pneymatiki anadoche’ would easily be understood as referring to that particular Spiritual Father who has birthed you (once – “or the most”) into Christ. It is often the case that a novice who goes through that most beautiful period of extremely frequent confession and a permissible ‘attachment’ to his geronda/confessor, like an open vessel, is emptied of his previous content and filled with his spiritual father’s tradition, who has also been through the same process before with his staretz etc. The ‘New Man’ emerges, consciously having been birthed into Christ by that Spiritual Father, who has left an indelible mark on his disciple. This as we know (less commonly) could be someone else. The obvious examples being St Silouan and F Sophrony or Joseph the Hesychast and Elder Ephraim of Katounakia who had other confessors initially, as well as subsequently. However, the spiritual ‘anadoche’ seems to me to be something that stays for ever. No matter how many confessors Elder Ephraim of Katounakia had after and before Joseph the Hesychast, his “by the prayers of our holy fathers’ will always mean for him -mainly- Joseph the hesychast, until the end of time. The same with F Sophrony and St Silouan, the same with all the monks and nuns who were birthed in Christ and tonsured by Elder Aimilianos. The father’s ‘phronema’, his spirit – as they say in Greek- is profoundly evident. Moreover, one who has had that experience clearly feels that they are constantly ‘swimming’ in that spirit – especially in their coenobium or their skete. They see compunctionate dreams of their long deceased Father giving them sweet consolation decades later when they are totally ‘standing on their own two feet’.
    The Father too, knows that he is to enter the Heavenly Kingdom with those particular children of his, and like Moses, would have them enter first.
    The “law of communicating vessels” seems to come into it (me thinks) when we see aspects such as this:
    I become a novice and go through this ‘process’, indelibly connecting myself to a particular Father whom I delight in wanting to obey in everything more than I want to breath, I see it clear as day that this is the fastest of all roads to Christ! – he is like a direct vessel through which God flows towards me.
    Now. The strange thing is that my father’s father, whom I have never ever met, becomes someone I know unbelievably intimately – the “vessel communication” extends further and further back, I read about his geronda/father in Christ and realise I know him too!
    There is great breadth in this understanding of course. Eg: St Mary of Egypt would probably consider the Theotokos her spiritual anadochos, I am pretty certain of that. Sorry for the benighted rambling… I ask for your prayers Father!

  47. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Dinos,
    This is quite helpful – and what I had already thought was the case – I needed confirmation.

    I do not know whether God will permit me to travel in the manner that my heart desires. I long to visit Greece and the Holy Mountain, and long as well for certain places in Russia. It has been interesting to me of late, that some of my writing has been translated and posted on sites related to the Holy Mountain, as well, recently, on sites related to Moscow. It’s obvious to me that there is a spiritual kinship there, and I would love to have the freedom to engage in that face-to-face. Orthodox America is extremely isolating (when it comes to faces).

  48. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    I have seen these (excellent) translations too, and it made me very glad. There is undeniable kinship Father, indeed!
    But the long pilgrimages and excursions are inevitable for those not living in such blessed settings. However, I lately suspect that the cosmic aspect of that hesychastic spirit one finds in those places is starting to have its benign repercussions in America, irrespective of the multiplication of secularism. Your words often inflate this impression I get. 🙂

  49. Sophia Avatar
    Sophia

    Like lx crow, I would also be glad of any thoughts on ‘true self’ and ‘false self’. I had been wondering ( as a student of psychoanalysis) about correlations (though not conflations) with Hell and being ‘stuck’ in a false self. I read your post some time back on Fr. Thermos’ book on this topic and have found that book hugely helpful.

    Within the large spectrum of psychoanalytic theory, it seems true across the board that healing comes through being able to truly relate to an other (communion). From every foray I’ve made in any psychoanalytic direction, I see no evidence that speaks against an ontological claim that we are made for communion and to live from a ‘true self’. It’s also interesting that empathy is considered a powerful agent of change…I think of that and the phrase ‘that which is not assumed is not healed’ as the ontological basis of all empathy.

    lx crow, you will be in my prayers. I think I understand some of what you are saying. I certainly understand existential anxiety. But, I do believe that God works through transformation and growth, not annihilation. Of course, I don’t speak with any ‘authority’ on that, but that has been my experience over and over again.

  50. Connie Avatar
    Connie

    Father Stephen,

    “Try this one on for size: “What would we be praying for?” We would be repenting for them. There is far more in the nature of true communion than most people have dreamed. It’s no harder to grasp that than to understand that Christ took our sins upon Him (particularly if you’re not thinking of that act of communion as a propitiation for God’s wrath).”

    I can almost grasp this in light of the interconnectedness of all of Adam. And I’m open to this possibility as long as it does not contradict my belief in the God whose love does not (ultimately) fail. 🙂 If I became convinced that the teaching that there is no repentance after death was definitively a dogma of the Church I would have to seriously look into what repenting FOR someone else might mean. But for now it makes my brain feel like jello. lol

    Father Aidan,

    Thank you for again expressing so beautifully what I so fervently believe to be true.

    Dino,

    I have not heard of “the Law of communicating vessels” — an interesting phrase. I think for many Christians, Orthodox and non Orthodox, when they pray in the context of “Thy will be done,” they are truly aligning themselves with Christ, and the love and forgiveness they desire for others might be “in the air” so to speak and somehow reach and change them. And I do find Charles Williams’ concept of coinherence appealing as I find C.S. Lewis’ assertion that we can paddle everybody’s canoe but our own to be true and life-giving.

  51. leonard nugent Avatar
    leonard nugent

    The interconnectedness of all of Adam…..This is an amazing and interesting idea. I wonder what some of the consequences would be.

  52. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Connie,
    I wouldn’t be 100% comfortable with the description of God’s love as ‘failing’, universalism or not.
    If His respect of His creatures’ freedom endures forever, His love also never fails, but those who talk of an eternal rejection of God, clearly imply that the rejecting ones are tormented by that very love that never fails. This is what the River of Fire view describes: those locking themselves in their hell/ego do not want God’s love to win them over, they would want it to fail, but it never does!
    I am clearly describing what the Fathers say about Satan here of course, but we must be careful not to shift the argument towards the direction Satan would want… This direction is one that can enable man to blame God… Discernment and vigilance is needed here!

  53. Connie Avatar
    Connie

    Dino, I do not have quite the confidence you do in any of the Fathers or saints. They have said some very odd things that leave us still to have to sort out and determine for ourselves (by the grace of God) what is true.

    So here is a wild conjecture: Maybe if the Church Fathers had ever had children of their own, some of their conclusions would be very different! I cannot imagine St. John Chrysostom looking into the eyes of a child, one given him by God to love and nurture from the very beginning of his life on earth, and seeing the child’s trust and love for him, and then being able to say the (to me, repugnant) things he said about hell, retribution, and punishment. Pain is needful, certainly. As Lewis says, it is God’s megaphone. But apparently according to Chrysostom, the vast majority of humanity will end up consciously in torturous pain, not as God’s megaphone, but for sheer retribution and for all eternity.

    Chrysostom was a very holy man, apparently, yet every honest bone in my body has to say he is dead wrong here. The saints are not infallible, and I personally can only trust “teaching” that is consistent with the God whose Love does not fail. You say you can only trust to the teaching of the Church. But the question is, which saints, what teaching, what consensus? It is my personal belief that man is not capable by his very makeup to resist the love of God eternally. And that if he could, it would be a major failing of the Love of God to maintain someone in (self-inflicted) torture for eternity. I don’t see this belief as going against any official dogma of the Church. I am under the impression that in Orthodoxy, between all the Church Fathers, the saints and elders, we are given a pretty wide berth on issues that are not dogmatized.

  54. Isaac Avatar
    Isaac

    How would we be able to determine the differences between Fathers that saw Gehenna as temporary and those who saw it as a forever thing? The Greek is more confusing than helpful in these situations. I think it would make a huge difference to know that a person describing the pains of hell took it for granted that they would not continue forever.

    What does it mean that Christ will put everything under foot before turning over the Kingdom to the Father? How could every knee bend unless this was willingly? How can God be “all in all” and why does the process of getting to this seem to imply a distance between the Last Judgment and Christ turning rule over to the Father? What about the interpretation that the gates of the Heavenly Jerusalem are always open? Reading St. Paul assuming he was a universalist and then reading him assuming he believes in the forever separation of a portion of humanity makes a huge difference in how he is interpreted. So on top of wondering which Fathers to follow we have to ask if we have truly understood them. Chrysostom’s words seem all out of character of his life and charity.

  55. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    lx crow,
    I will give some thought to your question and try to write more extensively on the matter. But in the meantime, try not to give it thought or let it trouble you. We will not fail in the kingdom of God because of our lack of understanding. Seek God, trust in His mercy.

    Though, in a manner, if you or I were “healed” of an instant, and were suddenly our “true selves,” it would not be a shock or a pain of loss. I believe it would be a wonder of true recognition. We have moments – short glimpses of this true self – and such moments are marked with great peace and even with great joy. There is no second-guessing in such moments. I think it would be a tremendous relief to find ourselves suddenly unburdened in such a way – not a loss of identity – but the discovery of true identity.

    When Christ named Simon to be “Peter,” in truth he seemed so unlike a rock. He was a braggart. He boasted. He trusted in his own strength. He felt so self-confident (in the false self) that it did not trouble him to rebuke Christ Himself. He was carrying a sword in the Garden of Gethsemane, and immediately drew it and tried to kill a man (he missed and cut his ear off). And then he fled and denied Christ. He is not recorded as having been at the scene of the Cross (unlike the Beloved Disciple John).

    But he was becoming the rock. In the full story of the life of St. Peter, it seems clear that becoming his true self “the rock,” took his entire life. He was even doctrinally shaky according to St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Paul had to “withstand” Peter to his face in Antioch to bring him back to his doctrinal senses (and Peter had been the first disciple to have a revelation about the Gentiles being acceptable to God).

    We are in the hands of the “Great Physician,” a God who is the doctor of souls – He knows how to heal us. And He knows His patients so well, He’s even aware of how silly (and so many other things) we can be as patients and takes it into account in the course of our healing.

    Basically, we should trust that God so wants to save us and to heal us, that it will takes us resisting Him with all of our might, relentlessly and without wavering in order to be lost. To be lost is contrary to the will of God. Which is very difficult to resist.

    I’ll write more. May God grant you peace!

  56. Isaac Avatar
    Isaac

    Part of the drift into delusion and towards un-existence would seem to include losing a sense of identity and concocting all kinds of fictions about ourselves that had nothing to do with our true selves. There is a great talk by Peter Kreeft related to the Lord of the Rings in which he discusses the loss of identity (through the lens of Gollum) as one of the signs or conditions of damnation. The great horde of demons were only “legion” because they no longer remembered their names. It has been my observation that as people go deeper into sin the lies they tell about themselves become manifold. And the scary thing is not that they tell lies to cover their shame and hope that others will see them in a better light (we all do this or have the temptation to do this)but when they are saying things about themselves that are clearly lies yet they believe them.

    The movement towards theosis would then mean the movement towards life and light and also a true identity based not on the accumulated collection of stories we tell about ourselves to form the ego, but based precisely on how God sees us. So it is an identity based in reality. It is the white stone (Revelations 2:17) upon which our true name is written.

    Walker Percy was brilliant at pointing out the malaise of modern people, who know more about the outside world than any generation before, but seemingly far less about the nature of who we are. If a general movement of history leads to people having an increasing sense of losing identity then existentially it has to be a movement towards un-existence.

  57. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Connie,
    forget Chrysostom and contemplate Elder Sophrony for a bit. You never experienced such love from your parents or your children, such respect that made you respect yourself in his presence, and yet you saw his words quoted above on the matter!

  58. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Dino,
    Did you ever meet the Elder Sophrony? I’ve been to his monastery, and met the community there. The sense of “presence” was so strong whenever I was with any of the community. There was a “largeness” that I cannot describe – but it seemed that each person in the community was wholly there for you – in a manner I’ve never encountered before. It was so palpable. I prayed at the Elder’s tomb and blessed a hand cross there (with an icon of St. Silouan carved on its obverse).

  59. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    It’s a case of what I just described above Father, “The strange thing is that my father’s father, whom I have never ever met, becomes someone I know unbelievably intimately – the “vessel communication” extends further back”

  60. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Connie (et al.),
    I have come to realise after intense adventures on the subject, that the key issue, the real crux of the problem, far more often than not, is this:
    Our trouble with universal salvation or not is not the same as that of Saints such as St Silouan. What I say is admittedly mainly based on Elder Aimilianos of Simonopetra (who notably happens to have been Elder Sophrony’s and Elder Ephraim’s –of Katounakia- last confessor as far as I know).
    Our love or our pity towards those who might never be able to be captivated by God’s inexorable Love contains within it a measure of unconscious attachment . That is the issue!
    The ‘harsh’ (and very monastic sounding) renunciation of all my ‘loves’ is (scandalously for secular understanding) the sine qua non of ever hoping to arrive at true Love… If I love another person, or even all of humanity “directly”, I am in great danger of separation from God. (I call it ‘tower of Babel love’ – which is almost callously severe a description of course, especially if I think of my love towards my children)
    Nevertheless, true love of others escapes delusion only if it is through God’s love. If I love those I love because God loves them, NOT because my heart warms towards them, then I am in the ‘land of safety’ – safety from accusing God of something… (Our adversary will never tire of trying to make God-accusers of us using the subtlest of ways.)
    In fact, I would then not be able to love any one person more than any other person, since 100% of the motivation to love my neighbour (which is of course the “2nd commandment”) would come from the “1st commandment”!
    100% of my heart would be given over to God then – given to nothing or nobody else whatsoever- and it would then be His Grace that would overflow as effortless oneness with all…

  61. Connie Avatar
    Connie

    Dino, there may be some (or many) out there who have those attachment issues and who also may subscribe to the cheap grace version of universalism. But I can adamantly say that from my experience, and I assume from the experience of others here on this blog, you are wrong as to “attachment” being an issue. It is BECAUSE we have experienced God’s love for others and can enter into that love for them that we know He could not maintain someone in torturous misery eternally when there is no hope for redemption. It could not be in His nature, His love, to do so.

    George MacDonald has said (as I also strongly felt as a child): “I well remember feeling as a child that I did not care for God to love me if He did not love everybody: the kind of love I needed was the love that all men needed, the love that belonged to their nature as the children of the Father, a love He could not give me except He gave it to all men.” A Christian universalist knows that God loves all men, that He does not pick and choose whom He will love, that every person is precious beyond measure in His sight. Is it so hard to see other people, the vilest, most sinful people, in this light? St. Silouan implied it was quite easy. Well, I concur. When we love seemingly hopeless people are we not participating in the love that God has for them? Is that love going to be futile? For me, if I can accept its futility, then that love becomes both shallow and unreal — and not from God. From the depths of my being, I believe that God’s love does not fail. Nobody can take that away from me without taking meaning itself away.

    I know there are many saintly people who say yes, sometimes our love for others is futile. I can deeply respect them and be in awe of many things about them, but on this particular point I will disagree to my dying day.

  62. leonard nugent Avatar
    leonard nugent

    If we want universal salvation it implies we want communion with everyone. I’m not sure we really want that. To paraphrase Augustine: Lord give me communion with Everyone! Just not right now.

  63. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Leonard, I know people who cannot tough out the unpleasantness of being “out of sorts” with fellow parishioners. I daresay they’re not ready for communion with those in hell. It’s important that no one be too abstract about all of this – and I think many are. It makes more sense to begin to practice communion with the enemy that is closest at hand. Thus, in your case, it would be more important to be in true communion with other Roman Catholics who annoy you than with the Orthodox whom you might visit. Indeed, we can be drawn to certain issues, people, etc. and miss the communion that is most demanded of us. Communion, particularly the communion in the Blood of Christ, is not mine to give, not even as a priest. At my ordination I was told to “guard” the gifts (as are all Orthodox priests). I guard them from every effort of false communion – for a false communion is not life and light, but death and darkness. There are many forms of communion extended by some that are just such death (though this is truly, I think, unintentional). All the more reason to guard it.

  64. Mark Avatar

    Dear to God Connie;

    speaking as one who agrees strongly that in the end Love Wins, I have followed your comments and agree with all the reasoning you have provided.
    What seems to give me more pause in this, is the same that holds me back from following Perry’s reasoning to its cogent end: I am still passion-ridden.
    My holy spiritual father also holds to the hope for the salvation of all- indeed he has said it is the only thing that “makes sense” to him. Unlike myself, he speaks as a hermit and ascetic the likes of which I have never met. In his presence I feel the Spirit of this love and peace. Until I myself and communicating such love and peace by my very presence, I will struggle to hold my own reasoning lightly.
    Perry has his own emotional, psychological, historical makeup. I have mine and you have yours– all very different.
    Perry is a deeply committed, faithful, studious, perhaps brilliant Orthodox Christian. For him, universalism is unreasonable and even dangerous. He will “prove” this to you and me. But we are unmoved, because of our different “makeup”; some things more weighty to him are less for us, whereas we feel other things more firmly than Perry. But I do not think any one of us three would claim to have acquired the Spirit of Peace- the whole goal of the Orthodox spiritual life. This purity, illumination, and deification is won through the most arduous and enduring struggle. It does indeed purify our hearts and make us capable of true vision. Until that time I think it is imprudent to *insist* on universalism.
    Do we trust in God? Do we believe His love is sufficient to overcome all? Yes.
    Well then let us trust that his Holy Spirit is indeed at work in all of this, and let us focus on the “one thing needful”- establishing the Kingdom of Heaven in the soil of our own hearts.

    Like you, I was disturbed (deeply) by some of St John’s words on Hell. It even brought me some cynicism about the Fathers- something I sense in your words too. But I dont think this sort of cynicism is from the Spirit of Peace, all gentleness, humility, and meekness.
    As I wept away some of my cynicism, I was grateful to see more and more how St John’s words could have a place- it was a different time, culture, and audience. They knew him and his love in ways we do not. I think I do more damage to my own spiritual life to write him off, than to say, “Lord have mercy, I dont know,” and to recognize there is more to holiness than I can yet dream.

    As St Siloun teaches, only humility and love of enemies are the markings of truly Christian life.

    In peace, friendship, and the irresistible love of Jesus our Christ;
    -Mark Basil

  65. leonard nugent Avatar
    leonard nugent

    Father your advice is excellent and that is where all true communion begins, with the people closest to you and then it moves out from there! Thanks!

  66. Connie Avatar
    Connie

    Dear Mark,

    Am I being “imprudent” to defend my personal belief in universalism? It is a valid question and I don’t know the answer. But iron sharpens iron and I see only goodwill on all sides. I trust God that no harm is done.

    Peace to you, Mark, and Amen to St. Silouan’s teaching on the mark of a truly Christian life.

  67. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Connie,
    I would never say that ‘our love is futile’! I am not sure what it is you are disagreeing with as I cannot see it here. All that has been said is what you reiterate: God’s love is unfailing. God and his saints of course love all – Satan is loved as much as the Teotokos! (as Saint Nikodemus says)! It is NOTHING to do with the way it gets presented, God is love and love is paradise but – to simplify it again : the prodigal’s edldest brother INTERPRETS paradise as something less than what it is.
    This power of personal interpretation cannot be taken away from a human or a demon or an angel. The fact that it can be cemented in good (as the Church says happened with the Angel’s after the ascension ) is a different matter.

    So let us not even use these expressions if possible : “we know He could not maintain someone in torturous misery eternally when there is no hope for redemption”

    It is not His working, as CS Lewis says, if there is a hell, it is always locked from inside. God forever knocks on that door and the old brother always refuses is annoyed at this very love.

    My concern is to not present this in the way secularism presents it – to blame God…
    I sometimes think that -in a hopeful way – those truly, eternally in hell, might not experience that hellish misery we experience here, or they would be changed and saved. If they remain, it must be a ‘different’ type of luciferean pride that keeps them there – they would have to want it …

  68. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    An additional advice I had been given time and again, many years ago on Athos (having struggled with the ‘psychological need’ for universalism – which is worlds apart from the Holy Spirit-moved desire of St Silouan or St Isaac) on this very topic, rather than its other many applications (because this subject always contains a certain element the adversary would exploit for dis-union from God) is the Liturgical (and it really is a “monastic style” struggle to carry this out sometimes…) :

    “Let us entrust ourselves and one another… unto Christ our Lord”

  69. Connie Avatar
    Connie

    Dino,

    You are right. I see I have only reiterated what has already been said. We are in complete agreement on God’s eternal love. Where we differ is whether it is in man’s make-up to be capable of resisting God for all eternity. And I can’t defend that beyond what I have already said.

    You know what is funny, Dino? I think we are both trying to protect the reputation of God. You are saying: If on the off chance that it is really true that some will end up eternally in hell, the door would be locked on the inside, so that no matter how it may revolt our senses, God remains good and loving, since it would be man’s choice, not God’s.

    I, on the other hand, am saying that there is a reason our senses revolt at the thought of God creating a human being capable of resisting him forever and suffering for all eternity. I am saying our senses revolt because it really IS revolting and thus it cannot be true. To suggest otherwise, I believe, slanders the character of a Loving Creator. Ironically it is this very slander of God that has prompted me to start this whole conversation in the first place, but I cannot for the life of me explain verbally why I do see it as a slander, because it derives from what I have experienced of the Love of God and Love of neighbor. (You are fond of talking about the experience of the saints, but I cannot deny my own experiences either.)

    So, two different perspectives. I am assuming my “take” is not categorically out of bounds for Orthodoxy (given that wide berth we have on non-dogmatic issues). I think maybe we have both said all we can on the subject. But thank you for making me think this through to the end.

  70. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Connie,
    If I added an observation in your conversation it would be that opinions (what we may or may not think about something) are, pretty much useless. They say something about us – perhaps only about the false self. There is a way of holding to dogma, to official dogma of the Church, that frees us from opinion. I “accept” dogma and allow myself to be shaped by it. It is a yielding to God. However, in the opinions I hold, I am trying, actively, to make something be true or whatever. And this, of course, is beyond our power. If something is true, as in a dogma, we can accept it like we accept the truth about anything (“the dog is dead” – I feel bad about it – but there’s nothing for it – “the dog is dead”). But “I think the dog is dead,” is something entirely different (“He hasn’t moved for the last half our…I don’t think I can see him breathing…I sure hope he’s dead because he hates me and always tries to bite me”…etc). Opinions can even be fascinating and our culture thrives on marketing and creating them – but they’re useless.

    I can recall in my Anglican days, it was typical to be at a cocktail party during Christmastide. Someone would spy my collar, and come up and say, “I think that God”….(and off they’d go into their opinion). After studying with Stanley Hauerwas at Duke, at came to have no regard for opinions. And the cocktail party would happen, and the conversation would begin the same way and I would say, “I don’t care what you think about God.” Which made for a much more interesting conversation! If it didn’t come to a complete stop.

    It is this utter uselessness of opinion (and opinions are very bad spiritually – they are fantasies that we place value on) that makes it important to say only that we “hope” for all to be saved. Since the Church does not officially say this, we can, at most say that we hope. You might have an opinion in the matter, but your opinion is worthless – just as my opinion is worthless. But your hope, my hope, is of very great value, spiritually and in every manner.

  71. Mark Avatar

    Connie and Dino;

    your last two comments to each other warm my heart. Connie I share your ‘angle’ on this question, but as you have commented I think we are all in agreement as far as the things we know to be true about God’s love. Things we do not know are contained in the mystery of personhood- Fr Stephen wisely identified this earlier.
    Whether God’s love is so great that He could not create a being that would resist Him in a self harming way eternally, or whether God’s love is so great that He has created beings so capable of self-determination that they can freely resist His Love eternally, is the thing we have not been given to see.
    But either way we agree, God’s love cannot fail.
    In His love;
    -Mark Basil

  72. Sophia Avatar
    Sophia

    Father Stephen, your last comment made me laugh out loud. Before I became Orthodox, I had a lot of theological opinions. I studied it professionally, too, and so thought that entitled me to a great many opinions. In the last year, since being baptized, I have come to the exact realization of what you articulated–opinions are useless. They are also, when in excess e.g on TV, draining and distracting and as you point out, something our culture markets and thrives on. I still have plenty of them, at times, but it really was a shock to me to realize that none of my opinions mattered to the Church…until it became a very great relief. And even more so when you underscore that while my opinions do not matter, my hope and love, and even my sorrow and grief, very much do. It seems I matter. Not everything I think does. What a shift from thinking that I don’t matter unless I think the right thing. And what beauty to go from having to have the ‘right’ opinion on everything to being able to just dwell with what is….in faith and hope and love. I’m very grateful for this blog!

  73. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Father Stephen,
    it is fummy that the other day my brother read this conversation and I exclaimed, “what! the whole thing?”, He said to me: “Yep! but I wish someone would step in -Father Stephen ideally- and say something about obedience” And went on to mention Elder Ephraim of Katounakia, and his famous “obedience is life, disobedinece is death” moto.
    I enquired, “what exactly do you mean?”. And he explained that he basically meant what you just explained about opinion…
    May we be freed of opinion (too) and behold Christ the Tuth through your prayers…!

  74. dino Avatar
    dino

    A little off topic here but concerning St John Chrysostom whom Connie brought up earlier, I have heard many times that this ‘classic’ (for many great Fathers) discrepancy (a lovely discrepancy I might add) is at work.
    This is it: although his ‘general speech’ can be somewhat ‘harsh’, (this is also true of most Abbot Saints speaking to their monastery as a whole), his ‘personal speech’ is honey sweet accommodating and forgiving.
    Where Saint Basil for instance would have seemed a little more austere St John was so soft that once, when a sinner asked for Holy Communion he said to him: Yes, I will give you Holy Communion if you promise me not to sin again…

  75. Connie Avatar
    Connie

    Father Stephen,

    Your words on opinions baffle me. I hear people voicing strong opinions that border on or are indistinguishable from actual belief all the time in Orthodoxy, you and Fr. Thomas Hopko among them (and I’m so glad they do!). In Orthodoxy, to say that it is okay to hope for the salvation of all is only an opinion. There are many who say it is not okay to even hope. Neither position, apparently, has been dogmatized. But there are many on both sides who hold to their opinion as a firm belief.

    The “door is locked from the inside” model of hell is also only an opinion — certainly not dogmatized. Yet you most people (I included) must believe this because of what it says about God. Is that just a worthless opinion because it is not a dogma? I know, Fr Stephen, you are not really saying this, but I’m trying to figure out what are saying. Orthodoxy is incredibly full of opinions, from the Church Fathers on up to the present day. It would be very nice to be just told which opinions to believe, to follow this elder or that, this Father or that, but in the end we are left to have to navigate on our own, to throw our trust onto God alone even as we participate in the life of the Church.

    On a technical point, would the Church consider it a sin to offer a defense of my belief in universal salvation to others (children, grandchildren, friends, etc) if I made it clear it was not the teaching of the Church?

    Just one last comment: If it is being disobedient to the Church to believe with all my heart what St. Isaac teaches and to say so publicly, then I am catapulted right out of the Church. I find it unspeakably sad that the Church might try to take away my pure and simple confidence that there will be a final healing of all Creation and a reconciliation of all people.

  76. Brian Avatar
    Brian

    Connie,

    Perhaps it is safest to say – and I believe this is all Fr. Stephen is saying – is that the idea of “All will be saved” has not been revealed to us. We dare not teach it, although we certainly are free to hope for it, knowing that God desires all to be saved.

    There are many things about which “It is not for you [us] to know the times or the epochs…” Both those things which have been revealed to us and those that have NOT been revealed to us are for our salvation. Knowing that God desires the salvation of all, it is a safe assumption that His refusal to reveal some things to us would neither further our own salvation nor the salvation of the world.

    Having said this, I nevertheless appreciate your heart and share your hope.

  77. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Connie,
    I do not mean to baffle – and certainly not to rebuke. I think that in general we use the word “opinion” in a much broader manner than I am using it here.

    For example, by “opinion,” I do not mean a “considered judgment.” There are, and must be, plenty of considered judgments. Fr. Hopko, for example, tends to be very careful to distinguish whenever he is offer “dogma.” For instance, he will always say something like, “It is the teaching of the Church that…” he also has considered judgments, and not a few opinions.

    I’ve got plenty of both as well, and don’t always make a good distinction.

    But by an opinion, I would mean “something that I think is true, because I like it more than not…I want it to be true…it makes me feel better if it were true…” but not actually being able to root it somehow.

    I would say, for example, that I like St. Isaac’s thoughts on salvation…and I genuinely do. I like his thoughts better than anyone else’s and I want them to be true. And I can muster arguments that increase the likelihood of his being correct – the love and mercy of God for example. But having done that, I still have nothing more to stand on than myself (and St. Isaac). And in matters that are doctrinal – we ultimately stand on the revealed truth.

    I was a Protestant (Anglican) for many years and there opinion was everything (more or less). It made for wonderful variety and lively conversations, but not unity of faith, no knowledge of God, only the collective pool of our opinions.

    We will have opinions, no doubt. But, my caution (considered judgment), is that it is spiritually bad for any of us to begin down the track of no longer distinguishing between our opinions (however good they may be) and the rock of the revealed truth taught authoritatively in the Church.

    Such opinions are the stuff of heresy and schism, no matter how well intentioned. You dance dangerously on that edge in the course of your conversation on this when you suggest things as “being catapulted out of the Church.” I don’t think that believing that St. Isaac is right with all your heart is wrong – or catapults you anywhere. But it’s a spiritually dangerous thing to have such “opinions.” It says that in the end, it is just me. And that really isn’t sufficient.

    The salvation of all is a very serious matter – important – I think that it’s not a coincidence that we hear things about it from a contemporary saint like St. Silouan. But, it is nonetheless the case that the Church is relatively silent in the matter. I do not take that silence to be an invitation – it is a silence that I should take into my heart – and there contemplate the mystery of the matter.

    St. Paul was caught up to the “third level of heaven,” and heard things “unlawful to be uttered.” I have no idea what such things would be…though I would not be surprised if the present matter was one of them. It wouldn’t make it untrue, but would make it better considered in a place of holy silence.

    I find that there are a number of such mysteries. I fear that I may occasionally bring mysteries into the realm of “discussion,” here on the blog when they would be better left unspoken. An example of such things (of which I rarely speak) are the experiences of priests as they celebrate the Divine Mysteries. Interestingly, we almost never have such conversations among ourselves – almost never! The few times I have had such (on less than the fingers of one hand), they have left me staggered and overwhelmed, but also understanding why they are often considered only in silence.

    There are examples of the intimate things between a man and a woman – things which should generally never be discussed with other human beings (and all too often are in our present shameless society). I would shudder to hear anyone offer an opinion (or even a wonderful insight) about such matters in my life. It’s too sacred.

    We live in a culture in which everybody has opinions about everything – no matter their level of ignorance. Theology, economics, social policy, morality, etc., everybody has an opinion about everything – and the internet drowns in our sharing. It is a massive outpouring of ego!

    The tragedy is that in this outpouring, no one is edified. Nothing is learned. I hear someone’s opinion, but it means nothing to me…it just means that someone else thinks something. There’s not even informational value in that.

    When Fr. Hopko offers a considered judgment on something, I listen. Heck, I’d probably be interested in his “opinions,” though some opinions of his that I’ve heard, I found no more interesting or useful than anyone else’s. I can probably guess who he’s voted for in the past four elections, though I’ve never heard him say – it’s just a judgment I would be making based on some opinions that I’ve heard.

    In the conversation on the blog, it’s very easy for us to sink into just sharing our opinions. It’s momentarily interesting, but mostly interesting to the person who is writing about their own opinion. What I notice is that the conversation does not move forward. Nothing is actually changed or even shared.

    Oddly, it’s far more productive when people share their doubts than when they share their opinions. There’s not much to say to an opinion other than to agree or disagree – which ultimately falls into “who cares?” But there is much to say to a doubt, or even to listen to in a doubt. That’s why I think that the non-Orthodox on the blog, even the non-Christians who bravely share their doubts, questions, problems, etc. give far more to the conversation than one would at first think.

    I hope that is helpful viz. my thoughts on opinions, or at least what I mean by opinions.

    I think it can be very helpful to share your thoughts with family members and close friends. They know you and can consider such thoughts in the context of your life. When my kids ask me what I think about something (two of them are married to Orthodox priests), I assume they really want to know what I think and why (including my doubts and uncertainties). Now that they’re adults (and over 30), we are learning each other anew. I am not always the man they thought I was when they were young…

    God’s blessings!

  78. Connie Avatar
    Connie

    Thank you, Father Stephen, for this careful and gracious response. I want to address just two points you have made before I leave this conversation. (I’ve run it to the ground, I know.)

    “I don’t think that believing that St. Isaac is right with all your heart is wrong.” Thank you for saying this. There are actually many that concur with this, including my own Church community. But I think that the general response here online has been that the “with all your heart” part is a failure in humility and/or a failure to acquiesce to the teaching of the Church. I could not have joined the Orthodox Church if I were told beforehand that I would have to give up my universalism, because it would have put the Church in such a negative light for me that I wouldn’t be able to even have considered looking into it. And it pains me that others who share my conviction might be misled here and turned away.

    “But it’s a spiritually dangerous thing to have such ‘opinions.’ It says that in the end, it is just me.” I concur completely. All opinions (and beliefs and considered judgments) having to do with matters outside of the clear dogma of the Church have to be held loosely. If I am wrong I certainly trust God to reveal it to me, but the Church cannot tell me so. (As you say, it has not spoken on this.) I can only leave it to God. He alone knows that when I hear St. Silouan say, “Love could not bear that,” it resonates so deeply within that I don’t even have the choice not to believe.

    It is clearly time for me to drop this and move on. I appreciate your patience with me.

  79. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Connie,
    Do not ignore your heart, ever. Even when we embrace and accept the dogma of the Church, it is rightly done from the heart and never simply as an act of the will or intellect. It is in the lives of the saints, the embodiment of the Church, that the truth of dogma is made known. We can love St. Silouan in a manner that we can never love an idea. And, somehow, if I can say it rightly, this is the dogma that we love. It is not in reading St. Isaac abstractly, as though there were some words I stumbled on but whose author remains unknown, but in reading St. Isaac as St. Isaac that I know the truth of what he says.

    May God ever fill your heart with His love.

  80. Sophia Avatar
    Sophia

    Dear Connie,

    Please forgive me for entering into your conversation with Fr. Stephen, but in light of it I just wanted to clarify my own earlier comment where I said that Fr. Stephen’s comment about opinions being useless made me laugh out loud. The reason was because, when I think of the word ‘opinion’, and especially when applied to myself, I think of a kind of ‘autonomous thinking’ process that goes on inside me all day, judging and deciding about all kinds of things about which I actually know very little. It has nothing to do with an encounter of the heart. I’ve been told that I was a real pain the in, well you know, with all the opinions I had about the world, people, theology, God. etc etc. And allegiance to some of those, without grounding in the lived life of faith, also cost me some really stupid arguments with people I love. So I laughed in a kind of self-chagrinned way because I recognized myself.

    I absolutely was not laughing at anybody’s heartfelt conviction. The encounter you describe with the teaching of a saint (I haven’t read it so I don’t know it, but it sounds beautiful) is precious for me to learn from, as are Fr. Stephen’s remarks about it above. Thank you both. And please forgive me if my comment came across as insensitive in the middle of something meaningful–I was only reflecting on my own chagrin, but also joy, at having been shown the difference between mind and heart.

  81. Connie Avatar
    Connie

    Father Stephen,

    “May God ever fill your heart with His love.” Thank you.

    It’s funny that I keep on wanting to have clarifications on things you say, even on this last comment, but I fear I am hogging this thread.

    Dear Sophia,

    It is sweet of you to be concerned. There truly is nothing to forgive. Topics are always quickly moving and separating from preceding comments and the topic of opinions is definitely a valuable one in and of itself.

    I appreciate the good will from which all comments directed to me on this post have been made.

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. Hello A Reader. Beauty First Films looks so interesting. I have bookmarked their website. Thanks. I am amazed at what…

  2. A definition of “time” I got from my study of history: “The creation of a past that allows for a…

  3. Margaret, I suppose that context has much to do with how we approach mind/body. There’s the theory of spirit guides…

  4. Father Stephen, Thank you for the article! I’m curious what you mean in your comment to Esmeé: “We tend to…


Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast



Categories


Archives