Creation and Evolution

18c_russiaThe crucifixion, death and resurrection of Christ is the proper beginning point for all Christian theology. Christ’s Pascha should be the source for all Christian reflection. It is clear that the disciples themselves did not understand the Scriptures nor Christ Himself until after the resurrection (Luke 24:45). We cannot approach Pascha as a midpoint in a historical narrative. It is the beginning. That which came before is only understood by reading backwards from Pascha (even though Pascha was before all things – Rev. 13:8). Everything subsequent to Christ’s resurrection is also understood only in the light of Pascha. Pascha is the meaning of all things. I offer this brief reminder of the true nature of theology as I continue my reflections on evolution and creation.

As I noted in the previous article, the age of the universe presses the question about the nature of the Biblical creation narrative in Genesis. Advocates for a 6,000 year-old earth based in a strict literalism find themselves having to resort to notions of a universe created in a manner to only “appear” old. A single, flawed reading of Scripture is preferred to the reliability of simple observation. With such caprice as dogma, Christianity would be embracing a literalist tyranny. Nothing in the world is reliable, only a narrow reading of the text. This narrow reading is a product of a false use of the notion of history

How did history come to triumph over all things? The answer is not far removed from Genesis and Adam.

The early chapters of Genesis were treated in a variety of ways by the early fathers. They by no means held universally to a literal interpretation. The Old Testament mentions Adam but once (other than a geneology) outside the book of Genesis. Adam as the progenitor of sin is nowhere an idea of importance (or even an idea) within the Old Testament. St. Paul raises Adam to a new level of consideration, recognizing in him a type of Christ, “the Second Adam.” But St. Paul’s Adam is arguably much like St. Paul’s Abraham (in Galatians), a story whose primary usefulness is the making of a theological point.

Nevertheless, St. Paul’s lead eventually becomes the pathway for history’s ascendancy. For while it is true that man’s breaking communion with God is the source of death, this is reduced to mere historical fact in the doctrine of Original Sin. For here Adam, as the first historical man, becomes infinitely guilty and deserving of punishment, and pays his juridical debt forward to all generations. This historical understanding of the fall, with inherited guilt, locks the Fall within historical necessity. It is among numerous reasons that Original Sin, as classically stated in the West, has not found a lasting place within Orthodox tradition.

Written into a diminished doctrine of the atonement, Adam as the historical source of the fall becomes a theological necessity. He also becomes an easy target for the enemies of the Christian faith. For even if the resurrection is beyond the reach of unbelief, a 6,000 year-old Adam is child’s play for those who would reduce the need for Christ’s redemption to the ridicule of a few ancient bones and Carbon-14 dating.

Some would reduce this historical danger by pushing Adam back in time. How long? And in what way? C.S. Lewis, wonderful Christian thinker, but still a man of his Western heritage, offers an account of an older Adam, merged with an evolutionary tale:

For long centuries, God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all of the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed in this state for ages before it became man: it may even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends. Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say “I” and “me,” which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past…. We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state. But sooner or later they fell. Someone or something whispered that they could become as gods…. They wanted some corner in this universe of which they could say to God, “This is our business, not yours.” But there is no such corner. They wanted to be nouns, but they were, and eternally must be, mere adjectives. We have no idea in what particular act, or series of acts, the self-contradictory, impossible wish found expression. For all I can see, it might have concerned the literal eating of a fruit, the question is of no consequence. (C.S. Lewis, Problem of Pain, 68-71)

This requirement to salvage some literal Adam somewhere, somehow, is not shared by the universal opinion of the fathers. Indeed, the treatment of the early chapters of Genesis is “all over the map,” sometimes even within the writings of a single father. The primary fathers of the East (if I may use such a term), Basil, the two Gregories, etc., are quite free with both historical and ahistorical treatments of Adam. Bouteneff, citing both Behr and Balthasar, notes that Gregory does not envisage a historic pre-fallen immortal state.

[Gregory] alludes twice in the Catechetical Oration to the fact that Moses is speaking through a story, or an allegory. The implication of this is that God’s addition of mortality is a part of his creation of humanity from the beginning, in foreknowledge of the ongoing fall. However, Gregory does not care to make this plain here. Nor does he ever develop a portraiture of an idealized pre-fallen Adam or Eve who would not have been subject to death and all that it entails for human life (Bouteneff, 164).

There is even an on-again-off-again treatment of paradise as a non-material existence. St. Basil uses the very interesting phrase: “In your righteous judgment, you, O God, sent him [man] forth from paradise into this world…”

St. Basil is far removed from the later Western account of Adam as the progenitor of sin. He wrote: “Evil has no other origin than our voluntary falls. . . . Each of us is the first author of his own vice; . . . you are the master of your actions” (In Hex. 2.5).

Bouteneff writes:

So strong was his sense of human free choice that Basil did not even consider an action sinful unless it was done consciously and voluntarily. He thus has no interest in blaming Adam for our sin, because freedom—a part of the divine image itself—trumps all determinism (138).

This does not deny humanity’s complicity in death. Rather, it is similar to Dostoevsky’s words: “Each man is guilty of the sins of the whole world.”

But does this mean that God created a world that has held death from the beginning? It would not be strange to say so, since Pascha was before the beginning. St. Paul states that creation was made “subject to futility” in view of man (but not with man as the cause). Creation is clearly “subject to futility” by God’s action.

What is damaged in such an account is the apparent integrity of a time line. But it has never been part of the Christian gospel that history is a closed system. That the faith redeems history is one thing, but it is not subject to it. Pascha triumphs over all things.

Adam’s breaking of communion with God brings death. Death as the “last enemy,” however, is not revealed until Christ’s resurrection. For though human beings have always died, death was by no means seen as the central point of the Old Testament faith. Indeed, death and life-after-death were handled in a variety of manners before Christ.

Just as Christ’s resurrection reveals life to the world, so His life also reveals death as the enemy. It is only in light of Christ’s death and resurrection that the story of Adam becomes interesting and universal in its meaning. Christ’s resurrection liberates the early chapters of Genesis from possible obscurity as Jewish creation myth into the most profound account of the crisis of human existence.

Death is a fact of our existence, thus the Fall is a fact of that existence. But the significance of our death is only made known to us in Christ. I personally remain skeptical of the efforts to describe the historical character of the Fall, even as I remain utterly aware of its reality in my life. Biological death, well known throughout our existence, is not yet the “fullness” of death revealed in Christ/Adam. We do not know death until Christ.

Science

There is a conflict between Christian believing and certain versions of evolutionary theory. Biology itself holds no contradictions for the Christian faith. However, meta-theories of biology are often grounded in ideologies that have no place within science. As theories of meaning, they are more “religious” than scientific in nature.

Biology can describe change, but the meaning of change, the purpose of change remains beyond its scope. Creation as the unfolding of “random chance” is the best that can be offered without reference to God (even if some chances are more likely than others). But this brings us to the same question that is confronted daily by believers (and others). God’s work remains opaque, we cannot see behind its results and watch the process of divine action. But the results are often so startling that randomness would seem absurd. And this applies profoundly to the unfolding of our universe.

Believers need not argue about the absurdity of a universe that some think to be random. For the resurrection is that one moment that shatters the silence of God and the opacity of His work. It is the voice of God explaining Himself (John 1:18).

We rightly hear in the language of “survival of the fittest” nothing more than the 19th century Christian heresy of Progress. Progress is a mere ideology, a secularized version of Christian eschatology. The 20th century endured the catastrophe of various brave new worlds. Progress, as an idea, belongs in the dustbin of history. History and evolution do not carry within them their own meaning. If a comet takes out human existence tomorrow, then all of the “progress” of the human race will have been a moot point. “Progress” begs the question: “progressing towards what?”

But there is a movement (kinesis) within creation and it is revealed in Christ/Adam. The created Adam, the significance of whose story is made known in Christ, is created as image and likeness of God. The fathers note that this creation is only fulfilled in Christ Himself, the Second Adam. For the first Adam does not become what he was made to be. Only the Second Adam is able to say on the Cross, “It is finished,” for man in the likeness of God is only revealed in the suffering and self-emptying of the Cross – the death-that-becomes-life.

Just as Christ’s resurrection reveals the meaning of Adam, so the resurrection reveals the meaning and purpose of creation itself. The resurrection alone offers transcendence and eternity to a universe of seeming chance and randomness. The movement of Creation is towards Christ’s Pascha, though we do not call that movement “evolution” nor imagine it unfolding through biology. But we do not imagine that the unfolding of the universe has nothing to do with the resurrection, for Creation shares a destiny with man:

…the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (Rom 8:19-21 NKJ)

This is indeed the glory of God!

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.


Comments

349 responses to “Creation and Evolution”

  1. TLO Avatar
    TLO

    :::deep breath:::

    Fr. Stephen:

    But as historical evidence goes it is astounding – in fact, almost no other ancient event comes even close to this for evidence. It’s incredibly reasonable. What is not reasonable is your unwillingness to consider it.

    I think your assessment has some merit. Perhaps it is unreasonable that I expect the alpha and omega, the creator of all things and the king of heaven to be held to a higher standard than mere men. Whether that be in moral behavior or the manner in which something of such profound importance is communicated, I’d like God to be better than us. We are, after all, not to be trusted… 🙂

    TBH, if there was such a thing as a god that is a person and relates with humans, there would be no need for creeds, traditions, or religion at all. Isn’t it part of your creed that in heaven there will be no one telling anyone else what God is like because everyone will know him and see him? Is it too much to ask for that to be a reality here and now? It would certainly end a whole lot of suffering and chaos.

    LBTL:

    TLO are you an atheist or agnostic?

    I find that answering that question brings no illumination and only serves to obfuscate. I am a homo-sapiens-sapiens. That is the only group that I claim any affiliation with.

    MichaelPatrick:

    One must accept the premise and (if they even bother with history) they must interpret history based on that premise (and traditions).

    Yes.

    Zackly. It is a premise I am unable to accept on pure faith.

    Dino:

    you mention Khalid al-Mihdhar as a martyr compared to the disciples. How can I suspect you have not decided beforehand that you will not accept the evidence for Christ’s resurrection, seeing that you brush over the key point again?

    Perhaps I am not understanding the argument. Fr. Stephen essentially said that Paul’s claim that he had been handed something is reliable because of when the document was written and because he gave his life for what he believed. Fr. Stephen furthered this by stating that it is not reasonable to think that a bunch of fisherguys could come up with this story…

    My point is that martyrdom is not evidence or proof of any kind. I asked for something simple, I wanted to know what sources other than the Bible lend any credence to the claim that the gospels are accurate. You can’t use the Silmarillion to prove that the Two Towers records actual events.

    Am I impressed by martyrdom? Sometimes. Ignatius was a complete stud. That dude who recently went to Iran and got arrested for proselytizing and then cried to the US State Department about it? Not so much.

    That level of passion is impressive. Doesn’t make it right though. Keith Green was extremely passionate – and completely heretical to the Orthodox viewpoint. The Church Fathers would have had no trouble excommunicating him, and he wouldn’t have cared because he thought you guys all have it wrong.

    You see what I’m driving at?

    I don’t know how to “sorta believe” something. It’s simply in my nature to go full throttle or complete idle.

    Brian McDonald

    his kind of wholesale scapegoating of an entire group is unworthy of someone whose posts have generally seemed those of a serious thinker.

    In literally hundreds of conversations in the past four years, I have come across one and only one evangelical who did not fit this description. I encourage you to go on any forum where you are likely to find them and post as though you are an atheist. You will see what I mean in very short order.

    I am as polite on those sites (and in person) as you have known me to be here.

    I have been threatened with hell, called a fool, condemned as amoral, called a tool of the devil/deceived by satan/a spawn of evil, castigated as a “liberal democrat” (which I am not), literally been asked “what, did you suddenly become gay and had to find a philosophy that allows you to continue in your sin?” and on and on.

    I have received more blatant personal abuse at the hands of Christians than you might believe. It’s not bias. It’s simply observation. Usually it’s also hilarious. I laugh a lot during such discussions.

    ============================
    Mule Chewing Briars:

    This is getting way off topic but…

    When I was a young man, I had a friend who was married to a promiscuous woman…

    When I first traveled abroad I saw the world with fresh eyes. I listened to people of other cultures and learned how they view the world and America in particular. Those who never step outside their culture never question anything about it. I think that this is unfortunate because there is so much to be gained by knowing and understanding people who are not like me and do not have a similar worldview.

    Two cases in point of your comments:

    The Mosuo of Southwestern China have a society in which everyone, men and women, are completely sexually autonomous. there’s no shame associated with sexual behavior. Women have hundreds of partners. It doesn’t matter. Nobody cares. When she has a child, that child is cared for by her, her sisters and her brothers. The biological father is a non-issue.

    In the Amazon are many tribe that practice “partable paternity.” These people believe that a fetus is literally made of accumulated sperm and so if a woman wants her child to be a good hunter and have a great sense of humor, she’ll mate with men who have those traits.

    I think you are immersed in a cultural view that is not universally accepted, even among Europeans. It is fascinating to learn what actually exists around the world that does not fit into our own worldview. I’d encourage you to read up on anthropology to see what I mean.

    :::releases breath:::

  2. albert Avatar
    albert

    This is a most enlightening exchange! I feel blessed to be part of it,even if only as a follower. My faith,as well as my experience of a community of faith,has been strengthened,enriched.

  3. Lou. Avatar
    Lou.

    Years ago I was learning from the rabbi of a Messianic Jewish congregation. (Let’s not go down that rabbit trail). He, being a wonderful expert in the OT and its language, was asked about someone who had “discovered” a correspondence between the numerical values of Hebrew letters and the dimensions of the pyramids. The rabbi looked up, smiled, shook his head and remarked that G-d just might have embedded such things in the universe to bring home one lost sheep.

    I often think of him when reading some of the more outré stories of the saints.

    Those of us who studied at the academy but left for other fields are regularly shocked by its latest fashions. St. Mark’s Gospel is cited for its complex nuance. I couldn’t understand how anyone who tried reading Greek could come up with that one (the Transfiguration being much brighter than any soap could make it &c.). A scholar came to my aid and explained that the Gospel text is now seen as having remarkable narrative complexity.

    In fifteen years the neo-regionalists will have won and newer opinions will be the rage.

  4. LTBL Avatar
    LTBL

    TLO

    I didn’t inquire about your association, I asked what you believe.

    And, yes, it is very relevant to the discussion as it would be very enlightening to discover upon what evidence you base your position.

  5. MichaelPatrick Avatar
    MichaelPatrick

    TLO, so why this merry-go-round? It seems you’ve been at this for decades and, since Al Gore invented the Internet, in other online forums as well as this one. So, it’s a habit to “seek” in this manner. When do you think it might register that you’ll simply not get what your seeking, or not at least in the way you are seeking it?

    Perhaps the God who is there refuses to be “found” by persons who aren’t seeking Him as He wishes. Christians find God in a personal, demanding relationship. There is no way to keep Him at bay and still “find” Him.

  6. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    TLO,

    Perhaps I am not understanding the argument

    Yes…
    It seems to me you missed the point again…

    The ‘other’ martyrs you have in mind died for their ‘ideology’. They didn’t die for real events. In an ideology, it is very easy for deception to seep through; and because it is a characteristic of the human soul to sacrifice itself for something it believes in, this explains why so many have died for an ideology. But –as you rightly say TLO- that doesn’t compel us to accept this ideology as something true.
    However, this is the point, it is one thing to die for ideas, and another to die for events. The Apostles didn’t die for any ideas. Not even for the “Love one another”, or any of the other moral teachings of Christianity. The Apostles died for their testimony of supernatural events. And when we say ‘event’, we mean that which is captured by our physical senses, and is comprehended through them. And the event at the center is obviously Christ’s resurrection.
    The Apostles suffered martyrdom for “that which they heard”, “that which they saw with their own eyes”, “that which they observed and their hands touched” (John I, 1)
    Just like the clever speculation by Pascal, we say that one of the three following things happened to the Apostles: either they were deceived, or, they deceived us, or, they told us the truth.
    Let’s take the first case. It is not possible for the Apostles to have been deceived, because everything that they reported, was not reported to them by others. They themselves were eye and ear witnesses of all those things. Besides, none of them were imaginative characters, nor did they have any psychological inclination that made them accept the event of the Resurrection. Quite the contrary – they were terribly distrustful. The Gospels are extremely revealing, in their narrations of their spiritual dispositions: they even disbelieved the reassurances that some people had actually seen Him, resurrected.
    And one other thing. What were the Apostles, before Christ’s calling? Were they perhaps ambitious politicians or visionaries of philosophical and social systems, who were longing to conquer mankind and be teachers of the universe? Not at all. They were illiterate fishermen. The only thing that interested them was to catch a few fish to feed their families. That is why, even after the Lord’s Crucifixion, and despite everything that they had heard and seen, they returned to their fishing boats and their nets…
    The second case: Did they deceive us? Did they lie to us? But then, why would they deceive us? What would they gain by lying? Was it money? Was it status? Was it glory? For someone to tell a lie, he must be expecting some sort of gain. The Apostles though, by preaching Christ – and in fact Christ crucified and resurrected – the only things that they secured for themselves were: hardships, labours, lashings, stonings, shipwrecks, hunger, thirst, nakedness, attacks from robbers, beatings, incarcerations and finally, death. And all this, for a lie? It would be undoubtedly foolish for anyone to even consider it.
    Consequently, the Apostles were neither deceived, nor did they deceive us. This leaves us with the third choice: that they told us the truth.
    I should also stress something else here: The Evangelists are the only ones who recorded true historical events. They describe the events, and only the events. They do not resort to any personal judgments. They praise no-one, and they criticize no-one. They make no attempt to exaggerate an event, nor eliminate or underestimate another. They let the events speak for themselves.

  7. Dino Avatar
  8. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    TLO,

    Perhaps I am not understanding the argument

    Yes…
    It seems to me you missed the point again…
    The ‘other’ martyrs you have in mind died for their ‘ideology’. They didn’t die for real events. In an ideology, it is very easy for deception to seep through; and because it is a characteristic of the human soul to sacrifice itself for something it believes in, this explains why so many have died for an ideology. But –as you rightly say TLO- that doesn’t compel us to accept this ideology as something true.
    However, this is the point, it is one thing to die for ideas, and another to die for events. The Apostles didn’t die for any ideas. Not even for the “Love one another”, or any of the other moral teachings of Christianity. The Apostles died for their testimony of supernatural events. And when we say ‘event’, we mean that which is captured by our physical senses, and is comprehended through them. And the event at the center is obviously Christ’s resurrection.
    The Apostles suffered martyrdom for “that which they heard”, “that which they saw with their own eyes”, “that which they observed and their hands touched” (John I, 1)

  9. Brian McDonald Avatar
    Brian McDonald

    TLO
    Re: “In literally hundreds of conversations in the past four years, I have come across one and only one evangelical who did not fit this description. I encourage you to go on any forum where you are likely to find them and post as though you are an atheist”

    O I agree that there are lots of people who [perhaps obligingly for one’s prejudices] fit that description Once a pamphlet-bearing and fulminating fundamentalist vented all over my wife and told her she was going to hell because we Orthodox weren’t born-again. He made a nicely matched bookend to the young atheist who wrote me a rage-filled screed blasting me for teaching works with religious content in my Literary Masterpieces class. (That they were classics was apparently beside the point!). You know as well as I do that a Christian can go to certain atheist forums and get mirror-image treatment of that which you describe.

    We could play a round of combat-by-anecdote, but the exercise would be pointless. If I want a rational discussion with unbelievers OR believers, I know where I can find them and as you look to be an intelligent human being I’m sure you can too. The Internet with its possibilities for anonymous venting is not perhaps the happy hunting ground for rational and charitable debate, but I’m pretty sure this blog isn’t the only place where you can find decent and thoughtful Christians.

    It’s unjust to judge any group by the worst and the loudest of them, and the fact is when absolutely fundamental convictions are at stake, people lose their cool, their tempers, and their charity. There’s also a lamentable human tendency to say, “Your views are wrong-headed so you must be evil. “Evil”-izing an entire community (as opposed to attacking IDEAS that seem wrong) is a very scary tendency that needs to be fought tooth-and-nail, no matter how many members of the group seem to do their best to justify the caricatures.

  10. TLO Avatar
    TLO

    LTBL:

    I didn’t inquire about your association, I asked what you believe.

    Since the beginning of recorded history, historians have cataloged over 3,700 supernatural beings, of which 2,870 can be considered deities. By definition, you are atheist with regards to 2,869 of those proposed deities. It is my understanding that the first Christians were persecuted for being atheists. Honestly, I don’t understand why disbelieving in all 2,870 of them is really that significant.

    Until I am presented with a God who is better than men, I’m afraid I’m going to have to be atheist in practice yet I am open the the possibility that such a being may exist which would put me in the agnostic camp in theory.

    MichaelPatrick:

    why this merry-go-round?

    Because that is how any religion seems to function. Always moving, impossible to pin down. You can’t really see anything clearly until you jump on the ride. And if you pick the wrong ride, you’re screwed. It seems to you like I’m moving, but that’s because you are on the ride. I am standing still beside it.

    Perhaps the God who is there refuses to be “found” by persons who aren’t seeking Him as He wishes.

    I cannot tell you how arrogant and condescending that statement is.

    Christians find God in a personal, demanding relationship.

    You are using the terms “personal” and “relationship” in ways that are at odds with how humans actually have personal relationships. Humans rely on being able to understand facial expressions, voice inflection, body language and all manner of nuances when they are getting to know another person.

    There is no way to keep Him at bay and still “find” Him.

    No! I am shouting out to the universe for this god person to present himself… not in a letter, not in a sermon, not in writings of men who had next to no understanding of the universe in which they lived, not through some ambassador who has never seen him in person, but in a way that human beings recognize persons.

    As I stated:

    Isn’t it part of your creed that in heaven there will be no one telling anyone else what God is like because everyone will know him and see him? Is it too much to ask for that to be a reality here and now?

    You cannot tell me that God created this physical universe, that he fashioned every creature, and he can’t figure out how to make himself known to us in a way that everyone would agree is him and cannot be denied by anyone?

    It simply makes no sense to me. So long as you continue to use terms like “personal” to describe God, the only measure I have of that word is the human measure and to my ears it cannot mean something other than what it means when you tell me that you are a personal friend of Usher (for example).

  11. LTBL Avatar
    LTBL

    TLO

    Honestly, I don’t understand why disbelieving in all 2,870 of them is really that significant.

    Well it seems significant to me as we all use premises for which we may not have evidence at all, but we still accept as if we do.

  12. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    TLO,
    since you mentioned God’s unknowability (well sort off) again in your last comment to LTBL, I would bring up the centrality of Christ’s words in the parable of poor Lazarus and the Rich man. (on the matter)

    I cannot tell you how arrogant and condescending that statement is.

    God’s hiddeness this side of death is a great mystery which depends on man’s internal disposition to a degree. It was spoken of in the comments above before. His manifestation in humility this side of death makes some believe Him personally and others to discard Him “objectively”…, his manifestation in His glory – as “more than being itself” – would be Heaven for the first and Hell for the latter.
    What is He to do other than what he does?
    Do you not see that if we research Him as an object of out inquiry He has to hide for our sake, while when we accept that He is the Person that is the substratum of existence Whom we must p r e p a r e to meet, He can safely fulfil His and our desire to encounter Him in a heavenly encounter?
    The correct spectacles to see Him now are often provided by some of the words Father says and through humility.

  13. MichaelPatrick Avatar
    MichaelPatrick

    Dino, your words are appreciated as an apt response for my comment which apparently offended.

    We know that God responds to seeking as Christ said: “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.” Matthew 7

    God loves us all. If He isn’t found by seeking I can’t say why, only that He is true and does not lie.

  14. Brian Avatar
    Brian

    TLO,

    You seem to be an intelligent, reasonably content, well-rounded, loving person. Please don’t take offense, but is it a reasonable question to ask why you bother shouting out to the universe for this god person to present himself?

    Again, I hope this doesn’t come across as snarky. I just know that I don’t invest any energy concerning myself with things that I am already fully convinced are mythical (in the Greek god or Santa Claus sense of the word). From my own point of view – that of being a believer – I can understand how this question would be of ultimate significance. But why it should matter in the least to a convinced unbeliever puzzles me. You seem to want to be convinced even though the evidence is sorely lacking in the substance you seek. Is it reasonable to ask why?

  15. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    Hi TLO,

    My sense is that you want to KNOW, rather than believe. That is understandable.

    But a God who “shows up” because you demand that of Him, who makes Himself known in just the manner you want, sounds to me like a God you can control. And if you can control Him, He is no better than most people you know.

    You want Him to reveal Himself in a way that people can understand. Many people feel He has done so quite lovingly and generously. (Our understanding is limited, of course, but He would not be much of a God if we could understand Him totally, limited creatures that we are.)

    You would like to know Him as we will know Him when brought into the fullness of His life – before getting there. I cannot know the mind of God, but it seems to me that the process of learning to come to Him in love is much more beautiful than if He had created me so that it was so obvious that I had no choice but to acknowledge His reality. There is no real love when there is no choice.

    But we’ve covered this ground before. May you find peace…

  16. Dean Avatar
    Dean

    TLO
    A psalm that most Orthodox Christians pray daily is Psalm 50(51). Verse 19 reads: “A sacrifice to God is a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart God will not despise.” If I may I’ll share just a bit on how I was found by Christ (I realize everyone’s story is unique). I had grown up in a Christian family but lacked any real teaching on what it means to know Christ. At 18 I read a double issue of Life magazine devoted to Christianity and the Bible edited with a very liberal slant. Summarized it basically said that Christianity is fine for little old ladies and for those who lack any intellectual savvy. Being immature I bought the line. The next four years I considered myself agnostic. I stopped attending church. At 22 I was now married. My wife was a believer. She had been reading a book written by Billy Graham but had retired early to bed as she was feeling ill. I saw the book on the coffee table and picked it up. I remember as I read how my heart burned. I wanted so to believe that Christ was whom He said he was but couldn’t make that leap of faith. Finally in my quiet desperation I cried out (to the ceiling for all I knew), “God , if you’re there, if you’re real please let me know.” Shortly thereafter, I went to bed. I don’t remember dreaming. However, during the night Christ had worked a change within . I now knew in my heart of hearts that He was real and that He was God. He had condescended to answer my honest plea made in desperation.It then took many more years of searching and at times stumbling before coming to fulness of faith in the Orthodox Church. But God has been so faithful to me in all these intervening years in spite of my sin and faithlessness to Him.

  17. TLO Avatar
    TLO

    Brian:

    is it a reasonable question to ask why you bother shouting out to the universe for this god person to present himself?

    The shout to the universe is really a shout to you. I never actually shout out as if there was a god who could hear me. But I am very vocal to Christians.

    So of much my life was wasted in pursuit of something that doesn’t exist. I cannot begin to list all the ways in which that pursuit cost me,and for what? that used to anger me. Now it’s just a fact of life. I can’t undo the past.

    Mary:

    My sense is that you want to KNOW, rather than believe. sounds to me like a God you can control.

    Do you know how many people I currently control other than myself? Zero.

    I have no desire to.

    And this is a step forward that was part of leaving Christianity. Control is a central issue for Christians. Not for me. Once I accepted that people are the way they are because, well, that’s the way they are, I stopped desiring that they be something that they aren’t. (In very broad terms, of course. I don’t just accept that some people are murderers and that’s OK. That’s another discussion.)

    Case in point; I held my Dad to an extremely high standard (this is also a very Christian trait) which he never could meet. After leaving Christianity, I set out to get to understand him as a person. After chats with his siblings and childhood friends, I got an understanding of the context of his life, after which everything he did in my life made perfect sense. Had I been a Christian, I would have said, “Well, that still doesn’t excuse…”. Outside of that worldview, though, I was able to accept him as a normal human being.

    Consequently, we have become great friends. After Mom died last year, he quickly started looking for a new mate. And I totally understood it because I understood him and Mom. He did right by her and even she told him that he should remarry because he’s useless without a mate. And I encouraged him and cheered him on.

    Not a single one of his Christian friends or his Christian daughter did anything but talk down to him. They gave him grief and my sister gave him hell, literally spending a half hour at his house dressing him down (on the eve of my dad moving out of his house so that her son/family would have a place to live).

    The point is, I was only able to stop being a judgmental person after I left the faith. And I am glad of this. Dad deserves to be honored, respected and encouraged.

    And he’s marrying a wonderful woman in May. Guess who he asked to be the best man…

    Many people feel He has done so

    I conjured up feelings too back then. But the thing is that the promises that I would be a new creation were simply false. I could front to everyone else but I could not lie to myself. I never heard God. I never got guidance from God. His so-called “prophets” had lots of guidance, much of which led to disaster.

    Feelings are a very poor replacement for evidence.

    You would like to know Him as we will know Him when brought into the fullness of His life

    “Come let us reason together” – Yes. Let’s. That’s not the sort of thing that one says to someone who is not mature enough to reason, is it?

    My experience in Christianity was like binding one’s feet. Small feet may be an ideal but if you’re born with big feet, what are you gonna do?

    It wasn’t until I let go of theology of any sort and began to study anthropology and evolutionary biology that I was ever comfortable with myself. Who we are at a biological level is in may cases in direct conflict with many aspects of the modern world. It is certainly in direct conflict with Christian dogma. And this causes a lot of unnecessary suffering.

  18. TLO Avatar
    TLO

    Dean – Thanks for sharing.

  19. LTBL Avatar
    LTBL

    Control is a central issue for Christians.

    I see very little control in God, in fact, the ‘charge’ could be made God is too distant (who is in control here?)!

    Christians I admire are those who exert zero control.

    What I admire about Orthodox Christian theology (and practice, for the most part) is zero tolerance for manipulation, and a high view of human freedom and will.

  20. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    TLO,
    you hold to views of Christianity which are not Orthodox – they are distortions of Christianity. It won’t help if you carry on undiscriminately considering Christianity in that way after all your experiences. Any conflicts you see, are mistaken based on this premise. It is like discarding your true friend because an impostor who looked like him turned out to be your enemy.

    However, the real issue I believe is that of the particular methods of ‘shouting out to Him’ (or ‘his people’). It reminds me of a famous controversial Greek writer who wrote about God more than anyone, but is considered a blasphemer or an atheist by many – go figure… He has written some seriously suspect stuff though.
    Anyway, the point is that he searched all his life for God with his mind, with discussions, often with demands, or a sense of self-importance, entitelment and presumptous expectation. He really searched though! Intellectually.
    But he never gave up on that method to open up to Orthodoxy’s ‘method’: the opening up to God’s grace directly, what we call ‘repentance’ (but means something v. different than what is understood by that word in English).
    The first step is certainly an exclusive one between man and God – even the unkown God – of the ancient Greeks. Exclusive though. Few people bare to give such a time to such a pursuit to start off with though. In fact I think this is a good reason why God allows certain tribulations that bring man to such an exclusive place – it works as the only possible blessing in diguise for some.
    I am in no position to advise. I felt sorry for Kazantzakis (the greek writer) who seemed to combine a Sartrian defence mechanism no matter who advised him, even though he was steeped in an Orthodox environment (well, with only “one leg” might I add, the other was in different waters), and I pray that a time comes when we are all freed from our ignorance of God.

    The proofs/winesses on Christ’s resurrection though -to get back on topic- are certainly there as I explained above…

  21. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    proofs/witnesses – sorry

    Brian McDonald

    TLO taught me the quoting thingy himself – way back – (Thank you my friend John…)

    for quotein you type (without spaces) at the start and
    at the end…

  22. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    ooops lets try again : the word “blockquote” inside these and again a then the word “/blockquote” inside of these

  23. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    what a mess… one more try: this symbol “” need to be at the start and end of the word “blockquote” then your quote and “/blockquote” If this doesn’t work maybe the master can repeat the trick 🙂

  24. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    It is shift and the two keys next on the right of letter m. They are obviously invisible

  25. TLO Avatar
    TLO

    What I admire about Orthodox Christian theology (and practice, for the most part) is zero tolerance for manipulation

    Can you expound on this please? Isn’t the entire liturgy designed to manipulate you into behaving and thinking in certain ways? Liken it to training for sports, certainly, but that too is manipulation. I am not making a moral assessment, just clarifying what you mean by the word.

    The God of the Bible is highly manipulative.

    – People are behaving badly so wipe them out
    – People are getting along too well so let’s confuse the language
    – You’re complaining too much so I’m opening the the ground, sending snakes and plagues and whatnot…
    – You aren’t paying attention to me so I’m chucking you off into exile
    – You didn’t wait for me so I’m deposing you as king
    – You committed adultery and murder to I’m going to kill you and take your kingdom from you kill the innocent child
    – You and your husband lied about your income so it’s the death penalty for you

    I’m not complaining here because to me it’s all a fable, but it takes a very special way of thinking not to recognize that the person described in the Bible is manipulative.

  26. LTBL Avatar
    LTBL

    TLO,

    Manipulation involves “underhanded, deceptive, or even abusive tactics”

    Liturgy does not involve any of that.

  27. TLO Avatar
    TLO

    If you use the definition “to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one’s own advantage” then you are correct.

    If you use the definition “to manage or utilize skillfully” then the liturgy fits the bill.

    Again, I am not saying it is a bad thing. Manipulation is often needed.

  28. LTBL Avatar
    LTBL

    Yes I welcome it

  29. MichaelPatrick Avatar
    MichaelPatrick

    Saying that Christ or His church are manipulative is unhelpful at best or a lie at the worst. What kind of rhetoric is this and what purpose does it serve?

  30. LTBL Avatar
    LTBL

    TLO uses a definition of manipulation that would seem OK. It’s getting down to semantics over here 😀

  31. MichaelPatrick Avatar
    MichaelPatrick

    LTBL, it seems then that the discussion has digressed into definitions and stipulations needed just to keep it going. How wearisome. I wish we could all have tea instead.

  32. LTBL Avatar
    LTBL

    true that brotha

  33. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    TLO,
    This is very important: NB (nota bene) The Orthodox do not believe in “the God of the Bible.” We believe in God as revealed through Christ. Thus when we read the Scriptures, it is Christ that we seek, not the God of the text. If something in the OT contradicts that revelation (“wipe them out”) – then we read it metaphorically or allegorically, giving it a different import. If the “God of the Bible” had been sufficient revelation, then He would not have become man.

    Please note this.

  34. Brian Avatar
    Brian

    TLO,

    Okay, so you shout to Christians as opposed to the universe. Makes sense. Perhaps more so than you may realize. And you are far better off since rejecting the sort of ‘Christianity’ you have known. That makes even more sense.

    It still doesn’t answer the essential question. Why do you bother? I cannot imagine my doing the same, and you are obviously far more intelligent – an observation intended neither as flattery nor jab – than I.

  35. LTBL Avatar
    LTBL

    Fr Stephen:

    If the “God of the Bible” had been sufficient revelation, then He would not have become man.

    Yes and amen!

    it is Christ that we seek, not the God of the text.

    Yes and double amen!

    Perhaps it was simply my own experience as a Protestant, perhaps it is a more common experience, but be it as it may, this is exactly what I found myself doing, ‘worshipping the God of the text’.

    Thank God for the Eastern Orthodox faith!

  36. TLO Avatar
    TLO

    Brian:

    Why do you bother?

    I think I answered this earlier on but this conversation has gone somewhat sideways.

    Most conversations with Protestants begin in the social arena (e.g. “Are the people of Arizona right to legislate whether a business has the right to refuse gays?”) or as a result of some debate about Creation v Evolution. Nine times out of nine they get very personal and result in the condemnations I mentioned earlier. And those folks hardly know who Calvin was, let alone Athanasius. They are the same people who use the Bible to say “God hates gays” but then ignore the texts from the same book about selling your daughter off to be married by her rapist.

    I originally came here because I wanted to get to the central issue of Christianity so that I could keep the conversation on track when talking with evangelicals about their faith.

    Then it devolved into “you have to accept the premise” and “nevermind what the people who wrote the OT meant by what they said and how rabbis have interpreted the texts over the religion’s 4,000 year history, we know better”, neither position being one I am willing to adopt.

    There is nothing to back up the resurrection claim except a story that was told to Paul who ran with it. That’s all the evidence you require. Not I. Especially for an alleged event of such magnitude. Even if there had been some reference somewhere in other writings of the time that mention that a bunch of dead people rose again at that time, I’d believe the rest of the story. But all these astonishing things allegedly took place and no one seemed to notice. You must understand my chagrin.

    I have no position to defend. Whether it is the claims of the resurrection or claims that homo sapiens sapiens are genetically more closely related to bonobos and chimps than the African elephant is to the Indian elephant, show me why I should believe you. If your answer is not satisfactory, I won’t believe it until you provide some supporting data.

    Convince me. Not with feelings or fables. Convince me.

    Apparently, that can’t be done, more’s the pity.

    I came into this thread an agnostic and have been given a huge shove toward complete atheism.

  37. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    TLO –

    (sigh) Let me restate in Narnian:

    He is not a tame Lion.

    Lucy wasn’t crazy.

    Therefore, if he doesn’t come when you call, if others see him and you don’t, does that mean he doesn’t exist?

    It saddens me that you keep challenging people here to convince you and then want to blame them that you feel shoved “toward complete atheism” when you are being treated with love and respect. If you are feeling a “shove”, I fear it may be from another source.

    The dwarves are for the dwarfs, indeed. I do hope you are not one of them. (“They will not let us help them. They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their own minds, yet they are in that prison; and so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out.” – Aslan.)

  38. MichaelPatrick Avatar
    MichaelPatrick

    I came into this thread an agnostic and have been given a huge shove toward complete atheism.

    TLO,

    The guilt card won’t play.

    This is at least the second time you’ve come to this blog asking others to convince you of God, saying how badly the world has treated you only to conclude that we, too, are failing you or making your lot worse. You admit doing likewise on other blogs too and have been at it for years.

    Take responsibility for your condition and ask God for mercy. This is wisdom and the path of life.

    Kind regards,
    Michael

  39. Brian Avatar
    Brian

    TLO,

    “That’s all the evidence you require. Not I.”

    Respectfully, you vastly overestimate the degree of my gullibility as well as that of most others who comment here.

    “…except a story that was told to Paul who ran with it.”

    You have investigated this thoroughly, read the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles and then write THIS? Come on, John. You know better even if you do find the testimony unbelievable.

    I sincerely hope you find the evidence you require. It is hard to kick against the goads.

    Forgive me for everything. I forgive. God forgives all

  40. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    “blockquote” It is shift and the two keys next on the right of letter m. They are obviously invisible “/blockquote”

    (Just trying to follow your directions, Dino!)

  41. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    Guess I still have a lot to learn 🙂

  42. MichaelPatrick Avatar
    MichaelPatrick

    mary benton, the symbols you need are lesser-than, greater-than, and slash this way:

    lesser-than symbol followed immediately by blockquote (the word verbatim) followed immediately by greater-than symbol

    text you want to quote without quotemarks

    lesser-than symbol followed immediately by slash symbol followed immediately by blockquote (the word verbatim) followed immediately by greater-than symbol

  43. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    Forgive me for everything. I forgive. God forgives all.

    Thanks, MichaelPatrick, I am trying it. I am quoting Brian in honor of “Forgiveness Sunday” (even though we RC don’t observe it, it sounds like a beautiful service).

  44. LTBL Avatar
    LTBL

    I came into this thread an agnostic and have been given a huge shove toward complete atheism.

    Atheism is a position hard to defend considering the overwhelming amount evidence that points to design, intelligence and meaning. Both in our own personal experience, and in the universe on a micro and macro level. Is it absolute, irrefutable proof that God (must) exist? No. But it neither absolutely disproves it.

    I recently read a book review about multi-verses and the possible implications for theology. The author suggested we ought to not fixate on the question about the existence of God. All good an well, but the bottomline, one or multiple universes, it really doesn’t matter. All good and well, but the question still remains, where did it all come from and what does it mean? You can’t side step that. Unless of course one stops asking pertinent questions.

  45. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    That someone might possibly come to faith through reading and communicating on a blog simply proves that God can do anything. In many ways, I consider it among the worst forms of communication. It’s slow. Almost anyone can hijack the conversation. There’s an almost complete lack of depth that normal conversation carries (because there’s emotions within the words, etc.).

    But it’s why it is far more profitable to look for God among real people in real places. And, even there, there will be difficulties. If God (the Ultimate by anyone’s definition) is worth the bother (and if there is a God it would seem that He is worth all the possible bother involved), then why wouldn’t someone curious or “seeking” not pursue Him in a manner beyond a blog.

    So, sorry if the experience here has been other than you hoped (I hear it in the tone of your typing). But it’s just a blog. And I’m just a priest who writes. I’m not God’s keeper, or even His explainer. I believe in Him.

    I see Him everywhere, all the time. He is obvious to me – even when He isn’t. When He’s not obvious, then He is “obviously” hidden. Everything speaks of Him – because everything is contingent – and He alone is necessary. He is the One Thing Necessary. Thus the presence of everything bears witness to His presence – the One Thing Necessary for their contingent existence.

    And Jesus is the One Thing Necessary, become Man. And has taught me that the One Thing Necessary loves everything and everyone – which explains why everything exists.

    Blessings.

  46. […] It is worth noting here that the Catechism sees a twofold problem vis-à-vis creation.  Part of the problem is that creation has become “alien and hostile” to us, but this appears to be-at least in part-a matter of perception, caused the “darkening of the nous” (see Bishop Ware’s commentary on the contemplation of nature in The Orthodox Way).  Then there is the quotation of Romans 8:21.  On this point, Father Freeman has helpfully suggested: […]

  47. Cidalia Martins Avatar
    Cidalia Martins

    I enjoyed the article.

    One of your comments stood out to me: “…the treatment of Genesis that I’ve suggested is not at all uncommon in the fathers. It begins to be “historicized” or seen as important as history only with the development of the Western notion of Original Sin.”

    I’m a Roman Catholic going through a faith crisis and have looked into Orthodoxy — much more of which I agree with theologically than what I was taught as a Catholic — and I came across this article after days of near-obsessive searching for answers to my doubts about the historicity of biblical Adam and Eve, which the Catholic Church has “infallibly” declared to be our literal first parents who transmitted the “infallibly” defined original sin. I already didn’t believe in original sin, and everything I studied came back to the likely fact that Adam and Eve were not our only first parents (the biblical timeline doesn’t add up), and if we did have only two first parents from a much earlier time, they can’t have been the Adam and Eve of the Bible. I can forgive an oversight by the early church fathers or by St. Paul because they had no reason to believe otherwise. But to be told that something that cannot be true and literal is infallibly true under penalty of anathema…well, I just can’t pretend anymore. In any regard, I’ve got so many Catholic anathemas on me at this point, that my only option is to head East.

  48. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    Cidalia,

    There is definitely no anathema that I know of regarding not believing in Adam and Eve in the Catholic Church. For an in-depth discussion of this, see here. https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-a-literal-adam-necessary-for-catholics/2613

    I’m Orthodox, and believe that there was probably no historical Adam. Pete Enns +Bouteneff+Behr freed from that. But nevertheless, maybe you should make sure you’re not an official heretic in the Catholic Church before running East. There are good reasons to be Orthodox, I converted. And yes, I do find solace in the fact that I don’t have to have a slavish adherence to the literal meaning of OT passages that strike me and other scholars as myth, legend, or morally outrageous, etc. But I’ve run TO something in Orthodoxy. I’ve run to Christ, and found Him here.

  49. James Avatar
    James

    Fr Freeman thank you for your thoughts on this topic. How the Creation story jives with the physical world that we observe and that our children are taught about in the lower grades through College is not something that is spoken of often within the Christian Faith in this country. For whatever reason, of all the Orthodox acquaintances I have, from lay persons through clergy, most have not been taught in the hard sciences and really do not have a lot of background in things like paleontology, geology, biology, and genetics past what they learned in childhood. Perhaps this manifests itself as more general interest in why we are here (the most important question) over how we got here, and that’s fine, but our kids are being raised in a world that is not friendly to Christianity and will use whatever it has at its means to drive a wedge. I think there is a great danger in teaching a strictly literal interpretation of the Genesis story to the exclusion of how scientists explain their understanding of “how we got here,” so long as we teach them to think critically and know when they are being deliberately deceived to damage their Faith.

    Please continue to discuss this topic. I think there are many Christians who study science and have great internal discord over what they see and what they feel they are required to believe that in their perception is contradictory. We should not leave them to be filled with doubt by atheists with ulterior motives. We need more Orthodox voices with your perspective!

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