Speaking of Reality


pigsheadThe idea that certain realities are “social constructs” is in the process of becoming mainstreamed with its popularization in the culture’s discussion of sex and gender-related issues. The argument is that various aspects of reality are only perceived in a certain manner because of a social agreement – a sort of collective prejudice. We see and we label because we have been taught to see and to label. And what can be taught can be un-taught. Thus the un-teaching and the re-teaching become a mode of social change.

These notions are rooted in a popular appropriation of Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida – both generally described as Post-Modernists. Certain aspects of their ideas have roots in Marxist theory and both owe a great deal to Post-Structuralist literary theory.

But the popular appropriation has not so much read Foucault and Derrida as simply borrowed a few ideas and techniques and pushed them into the mainstream conversation of the culture. I consider it the single most amazingly successful example of French philosophy, in that its ideas are currently being espoused by children in Middle School. Sartre never had it so good!

The most essential proposition within this philosophy is that reality itself is a “social construct,” that is, our experience of the world is formed, not by the world itself, but by the social interactions and agreements by which we agree to name and describe the world. The world is what we think it to be.

Secondly, and of major importance, there is a political theory attached to all of this. The reality we experience is not grounded in the world itself, but in social interactions and agreements, and those interactions and agreements are politically-driven. That is, all socially constructed reality exists to serve somebody’s desired result. Our perceptions are the result of the exercise of power, with politics being understood as the exercise of power. 

Taken together, this approach suggests that the perception of reality is a constant struggle between various power structures. Thus, the art of persuasion and rhetoric become the most important tools of reality. The tools of that persuasion are married to the use of power.

If a student from Middle America enrolls in today’s university, he or she may quickly discover that certain ideas on campus are not only unacceptable, they are considered dangerous or a form of hate. They may be quickly bullied or enticed into changing their speech, and learning to become part of the controlling mainstream of campus reality. This is the world of American Post-Modernism on the University Campus. It is not found everywhere, but it is found in many (perhaps most) places.

I was in a University setting in the late 80’s at Duke University, where Post-Modernism was becoming all the rage. It had not yet become the dominating force of campus life, but it was beginning. It felt like an echo of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. I had a fellow student (a woman) bring charges against me for calling her “dear” in the course of a doctoral seminar. If the circumstances had been slightly different, I would have been suspended. She is probably still suffering from the intolerable pain of the “insult.”

Of course a socially-based construct of reality requires a heavy dose of social interaction. The close quarters and isolation of a University’s culture provides a cocoon of sorts, an incubator for the practice of “political” theory. But the rise of social media (which, interestingly, had its beginning in the university setting) has broadened the playing field. Today, social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) is deeply integrated into the larger media experience (news outlets in all forms). With it, the world becomes a college campus, “reality” is socialized and shaped by media.

It is this role of social media and its prominent (even “all-consuming”) role in youth and Millennial culture that has enabled the sudden shift of public opinion on sexual politics over the past decade. If perceptions and labels are social constructs, then the way to change them is to overpower them. Our public perceptions and politics have not changed through a careful exchange of ideas and rational discourse. They have been “over-powered” through a Post-Modern-inspired social campaign that sometimes bullies, “flames,” and simply overwhelms. The response and participation of the larger media in this process has ratified a new “social construct” and marginalized discussion and dissent.

Of course, reality is not a social construct. Social media is a social construct. So long as the world of human interaction is generated in the context of social media, the techniques of Foucault and Derrida will seem like reality for many.

The Cultural Revolution in China came to an end. It collapsed for a variety of reasons. Reality has a way of persisting and social constructs have a way of dissipating. One is real, the other ephemeral. In such a contest, the ephemeral is at a disadvantage in the long run.

William Golding gave a classic treatment of social constructs in his book, Lord of the Flies. Children from a boys school survive a plane crash only to be marooned on an island. The book traces a very dark evolution of social reality as some boys become tribal and others become victims. The result is brutal murder and the triumph of darkness. But, more eerily, when they are rescued, the ephemeral mist of delusion disappears. The darkness of their deed is revealed.

At the time the book was written (1954), it was treated as a study in human nature and the common good versus the individual. But it is equally prescient as an example in the politics of social constructs. I believe that it will prove to be equally prescient in the eventual failure of the present reigning paradigm.

For reality (such as sex and gender) is not a construct. True gender is fertile, productive of human offspring. It is birthed and replicated time and again, written into the most fundamental level of our DNA. Doubtless, how it is manifested in a culture varies and it can certainly be distorted through disease and defect. But it does not vary to the degree of re-definition or social re-construction. A woman and a man in America will also be a woman and a man in New Guinea. They are primal, foundational realities.

There is a very interesting relationship between reality and our names for reality. It is not a hard and fast thing. For example, some languages value certain sounds, and their speakers can hear those sounds clearly. Other languages that do not value the same sounds have difficulty hearing them (or replicating them). This results in foreign accents. But the inability of a speaker/listener to hear the sounds of another language does not mean the sounds are not real. Sound is not a social construct – language is.

But the social construct that is language is not divorced and removed from reality. If it were, translation would be impossible. And though translation is sometimes very difficult (bearing witness to the power of social constructs), it is not impossible (bearing witness to the nature of reality itself).  The word for the color blue in Russian, will have an equivalent in Arabic. There may be a highly developed vocabulary for shades of blue, where such words are needed. But no words can turn the reality of blue into the reality of red or make the colors look the same (There are, of course, theorists who want to argue otherwise, but they are champions of social constructs, and need a science to validate their argument).

Modern scientific techniques are able to create alternate, even distorted, forms of reality. The dystopian future displayed in Huxley’s Brave New World (1931), in which procreation has been relegated to a purely laboratory production system, is replicated in small ways through various modern techniques. But the ability of two women to have their own child through a sperm donor (or technologies yet to be invented) does not create or redefine reality. It creates a distance between human beings and the givenness of reality. It is a dystopian attempt to re-create and re-define reality.

Christian theology, rightly done, is not a social construct. At its heart, it is a proclamation about reality. We believe that everything that exists reflects the Word by whom it was made. Christians should have no fear of reality or examining it carefully and soberly. There is a profound call to resist social distortions:

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. (Rom 12:2)

This faithful adherence to reality as the revelation of the Word is the heart of theoria, the contemplation of God. It is enjoined in these words:

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy– meditate on these things. (Phi 4:8)

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.



by

Comments

149 responses to “Speaking of Reality”

  1. Matt Avatar
    Matt

    “Rather, I am saying there are many on-ramps to the Way and that where you are born, your back-ground and circumstances, will have a lot to do with which on-ramp is best for you.”

    I can get on board with that. There are far too many good, loving, selfless people who have lived and died without exposure to the (true) Christian gospel to believe otherwise (i.e., that all who fail to be received into the Church are automatically damned) and still say with a straight face that God Is Love.

    The problem seems to be the question of how to know which way is The Way. The Orthodox insist on the visible, revealed, handed-down Church as the standard by which we know we’re anywhere close to the Way – given the ways that you could go horribly, horribly wrong without that standard (everything about Westboro; Bob Jones’ racism) requiring such a standard seems quite reasonable.

    There are, of course, other visible, revealed, handed-down traditions out there. The only way to tell them (and Orthodoxy) apart is to consider them and figure out which one is most likely to be true, which appears to be a derivative of another (and whether that derivation is a fulfillment or corruption of the source religion – or even a preservation, in case of a schism), and the fruits of following one versus following the other. (Saint Vladimir seems to have found Orthodoxy primarily based on that last criterion.)

    It may be better to think of it as having to navigate that narrow space between the Charybdis of being sucked mindlessly into whatever happens to be given to you, versus the Scylla of being split into pieces across everything and trying to duct-tape together your salvation based on nothing but your own individual inferences and guesswork about what your ship should have looked like and how it probably should have worked. Either is a setup for being convinced of something utterly distorted and wrong – better to have been riding in the ark that’s been ferrying people through that gap routinely in the first place.

  2. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Wayne,
    I don’t mean to be so contentious. In retrospect, seen from the point of view of salvation (union with God through Christ), everything will have been an on ramp. All things work together for good.

    Orthodoxy is careful first to speak of what it knows, and careful to refrain from speaking about what it doesn’t know. God has made known the path of salvation that is the life of the Church. And the life of the Church, even though we know much and can say much also encompasses a lot of mystery. For what is outside and how God might or does use things for good remains unknown. We are charged with preaching the gospel, not with commenting on the relative merits of on ramps.

    There are inherent dangers outside of the Church, and those errors are certainly spoken about. Orthodoxy has traditionally been very generous in its approach of mission. The story of the mission to Alaska is very illuminating. But Orthodoxy is very incarnational and it is the particulars through which we are saved, rather than generalities. It makes it almost impossible to extract generalizations from Orthodoxy and apply them outside the Church. People do it all the time, but it’s very hard to comment on whether it is of benefit or harm.

    In my years as an Anglican priest, I was very interested in Orthodoxy, it certainly influenced my thinking and practice. I do not know that it made me a better priest. I do know that it wasn’t until I converted that things fell into place. The problem, it seems, is that until that time, there was no “place” for them to fall into.

    Be well

  3. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    It is the particulars in a particular context. I get concerned when I see folks going around collecting spiritual techniques for their own private use. Like the Jesus Prayer for instance.

  4. Wayne Avatar

    Thank you Fr. Stephen. While I have, on balance, lived my life “on the boundary” (as Paul Tillich put it), I can, for that very reason, (at least begin to) appreciate what a blessing it must be to find yourself at home at last within an integral community that can plausibly claim to be a continuation of the living Tradition handed down from Jesus and the Apostles. I have no problem with that whatsoever. It is the tendency on the part of some to say “this isn’t simply God’s best for me (or for “us”), rather, it is what God intends for everyone.” This sentiment– along with the subtle or not so subtle suggestion that to think or feel otherwise is to be in rebellion –that gives me pause. Not only does it seems to me to reflect a kind of judgment is best avoided, it also seems to suggest (or foster) the kind of “group think” (via “social constructs”) that prevents people on “the inside” of whatever group from responding to people on the outside as human beings instead of as “ignorant” or “misguided” (at best) and “defiant” and “evil” (at worst). This is not to say that people may not be ignorant (or misguided, or defiant), but that “group think” is too crude a tool to recognize and respond appropriately (as, for example, Elder Paisios did in the story related by Dino, above). Thanks again…

  5. Wayne Avatar

    [Michael Bauman wrote: “It is the particulars in a particular context. I get concerned when I see folks going around collecting spiritual techniques for their own private use. Like the Jesus Prayer for instance.”]

    When I was approaching the midpoint of a long period of desert wandering– still in the thrall of Nietzsche and Biblical criticism –I was introduced to the Jesus Prayer and found it very helpful… Once again I think of “on-ramps” and how difficult it is to judge from the standpoint of (any kind) of “orthodoxy” what might illuminate someone else’s journey.

    https://jwayneferguson.wordpress.com/period-pieces/the-four-precepts/the-jesus-prayer/

  6. Wayne Avatar

    ^^^ when I say, “from the standpoint of (any kind of) ‘orthodoxy’ “, I am referring to any kind of merely conceptual orthodoxy. That is not to say that an adherent to Orthodoxy may not have real spiritual discernment (as evinced by Elder Paisios, for example).

  7. tess Avatar
    tess

    How could anyone possibly misuse the Jesus Prayer?

    *utterly baffled*

  8. Byron Avatar
    Byron

    Wayne, I think your concerns about “group think” turning poisonous are valid–we see that happen in the World as well as in the Church far too often. This is one reason it is so important to avoid the democratic idea prevalent in the world today and recognize the loving stability of the hierarchy in Orthodoxy. It is so important that the Priest leads us with compassion and patience so we can “work out salvation” within the Body of Christ. It is equally important that we learn to follow, not as slaves, but as humble servants that can show grace to all and avoid the “judgement” you mention. It is, perhaps, the most positive version of “group think” in that it is based in the humility and love of the Body of Christ. Just my thoughts.

  9. Wayne Avatar

    Thank you, Byron. What you say makes a lot of sense, as well.

  10. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    “…It is the tendency on the part of some to say “this isn’t simply God’s best for me (or for “us”), rather, it is what God intends for everyone.” This sentiment…”

    If you are talking about non-essentials (most things), then this is can be right. If you are talking about essentials, such as revelation, scriptures, etc. – which is mostly what we have been talking about – then it is not about mental constructs and feelings that are self created and self referenced, it is about what is Revealed. Thus, it is not a “sentiment” or a “tendency” or anything else that comes from the limited, sinful human mind and the “sentiments” of the flesh. On the contrary, it comes from “out there”, beyond the self…

    “How could anyone possibly misuse the Jesus Prayer?”

    Fr. Hopko in his “Abolition of Man” talk (recently discussed on some thread here) quipped that there seemed to be much interest in the “Jesus Prayer”, but not in either “Jesus” or “Prayer”. One can see the point. It can become another possession, grafted on to a philosophy of ones own making, and thus being rent from the Tradition can be “misused” – probably the harm being that one is deluding oneself about both Jesus and prayer…

  11. Dinod Avatar
    Dinod

    It is not that difficult to misuse the Jesus Prayer, you could catch yourself commanding Jesus to mercy you if you’re not careful for instance…

  12. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Wayne,
    I find that God’s grace is often more palpable and generous to those who are outside of the vows/covenant of a tradition (to attract them to the truth). Its pedagogical, greater trials (of its withdrawals) and recurrence in (far greater) strength would almost infringe on one’s freedom if they are still on the peripheries of the permanence of a consecrated path of ‘covenant’…
    And until a person lives the words at the end of all Orthodox prayers, ‘By the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us’ as, ‘By the prayers of my Father Confessor who has birthed me in Christ…’ they have a long way to go before setting foot on that path. May the Lord lead us all there – we really do need a visible type of Christ once we start ascending those dangerous heights…

  13. Wayne Avatar

    “Every being has a definite vocation, and his vocation is the light which illuminates his life. The man who disregards his vocation is a lamp unlit. He who sincerely seeks his real purpose in life is himself sought by that purpose. As he concentrates on that search a light begins to clear his confusion, call it revelation, call it inspiration, call it what you will. It is mistrust that misleads. Sincerity leads straight to the goal.” ~ Inayat Khan

  14. tess Avatar
    tess

    Christopher– it sounds like your interpretation of misuse of the Jesus Prayer is forgetting to pray it. 🙂 That, I can agree with.

    Dinod– LOL, cute.

  15. […] Fr. Stephen Freeman has written some powerful meditations recently on what I refer to on my own blog as “spiritual realism.”  First, he says […]

  16. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    Wayne,

    Reading this thread makes me reflect on the fact that every position has its pluses and minuses, its safeties and dangers. For those ensconced within the walls of an organization there are dangers like complacency and ignorance due to an over dependence upon the structure that encompasses them. These are real dangers and they are part of the cross those people have to bear.

    By the same token a life lived “on the boundary” will have dangers that are counterpoint to these. I would guess them to be things like waywardness and over-examination of everything leading to a lack of trust and even resentment in authority – along with the perpetual sense of drifting in the wind.

    These dangers don’t automatically condemn either group; they are simply the things which will always be perching on their respective crosses, kind of like the drink for an alcoholic. They must continually be guarded against and simultaneously the person in question must submit their failures of guarding them at God’s feet and simply ask for mercy and grace in these areas.

    There are always different positions in each group – and there always will be. The thing isn’t to insistent on uniformity of occupation, but rather to love the other and respect the place they have been called to stand.

  17. Byron Avatar
    Byron

    “Every being has a definite vocation, and his vocation is the light which illuminates his life. The man who disregards his vocation is a lamp unlit. He who sincerely seeks his real purpose in life is himself sought by that purpose. As he concentrates on that search a light begins to clear his confusion, call it revelation, call it inspiration, call it what you will. It is mistrust that misleads. Sincerity leads straight to the goal.” ~ Inayat Khan”

    This quote makes me wonder what “vocation” means to Mr. Khan. It is used in a seemingly objective sense and it is notable that God is not an object that we seek, but a person with which we have a relationship. I wonder how much a “vocation” can actually act as a “…light which illuminates his life”?

  18. Wayne Avatar

    [drewster2000 wrote: “There are always different positions in each group – and there always will be. The thing isn’t to insistent on uniformity of occupation, but rather to love the other and respect the place they have been called to stand.”]

    That seems right to me. I realize that there are certain goods that are intrinsic to any integral community (and integral system of thought and practice) that those on the outside are not in position to fully understand and appreciate. To my mind, that is part of the diversity of the body of Christ. My concern– as Fr. Stephen describes in a more recent post –is with those who jealously guard the boundary of their communion and imagine that the body of Christ does not extend beyond it. That kind of rhetoric is a huge turnoff and does not, on balance, inspire people to want “in”– and probably not to stay “in”, either –for the right reasons (IMO). Fr. Stephen’s approach in this more recent piece seems more Christlike and much more welcoming to me:

    https://glory2godforallthings.com/2015/06/15/a-cosmic-salvation/

  19. Wayne Avatar

    [Byron wrote: “This quote makes me wonder what “vocation” means to Mr. Khan. It is used in a seemingly objective sense and it is notable that God is not an object that we seek, but a person with which we have a relationship. I wonder how much a “vocation” can actually act as a “…light which illuminates his life”?]

    [Fr. Stephen wrote: “This is a form of the Romanticized American Dream. Our vocation is to be united with God, not “discover what my job is.”]

    In fact, Inayat Khan’s usage of the term is much closer to Fr. Stephen’s than it is to that of the American dream. The man of God, he suggests, “seeks God as his love, lover and beloved, his treasure, his possession, his honor, his joy, his peace; and his attainment in its perfection alone fulfills all demands of life both here and hereafter.”

    With regard to our life in this world, he writes:

    “Each one has his circle of influence, large or small; within his sphere so many souls and minds are involved; with his rise, they rise; with his fall, they fall. The size of a man’s sphere corresponds with the extent of his sympathy, or we may say, with the size of his heart. His sympathy holds his sphere together. As his heart grows, his sphere grows; as his sympathy is withdrawn or lessened, so his sphere breaks up and scatters. If he harms those who live and move within his sphere, those dependent upon him or upon his affection, he of necessity harms himself.”

    https://wahiduddin.net/mv2/I/I_I_2.htm

    Note that he does not say that the size of a person’s sphere is proportional to his annual income or the abundance of the things he possesses… Of course, he is not Orthodox and you need not look far to differentiate yourself from him, but he has much more in common with Orthodoxy (I suspect) than he does with the promoters of the American dream. The latter– at least as it came down to us in the late 20th century –is concerned with the bottom line… With “hustling” as described in this article at the Atlantic monthly:

    “How America’s ‘Culture of Hustling’ Is Dark and Empty: Results-obsessed perspectives overlook meaning — and leave little room for creativity, pleasure, or accepting the importance of sadness.” [google it]

  20. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Wayne,
    it has always been my opinion -after researching the matter- that the good stuff someone might wonder at when looking into Sufism – the real good stuff- is due to Suffism’s profound influence and amalgamation of Eastern Orthodox Hesychast notions (from Isaac the Syrian onwards).
    That it is so close to Orthodox Hesychasm (the heart of Orhtodoxy) does not mean that there isn’t a difference… Many differences occur even within Orthodoxy.
    A $10000 Wine bottle and a $10 one surely are very different, most especially to the conoiseur. And with great skill and experimentation, one could perhaps add some sugar, lemon, vinegar and various other elements to make something tasting almost like wine, perhaps even an exquisite one, it surely won’t be the same thing though.

  21. Byron Avatar
    Byron

    Many thanks for the explanations!

    Father, I agree that our vocation is to be united with God.

    Wayne, I think that Inayat Khan’s usage of the term is much more human-centered; his viewpoint would be well received among the secular in society. His definition of the man of God seems a simple way to show this:

    “seeks God as HIS love, lover and beloved, HIS treasure, HIS possession, HIS honor, HIS joy, HIS peace; and HIS attainment…” (emphasis mine)

    I have found this type of language to be very disingenuous in the past; the lives of most people employing it, after some digging/discussion, clearly revolve around themselves and God becomes something they possess, cast in their own image. Just my thoughts.

  22. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Wayne,
    I will not continue to permit links to Sufi or Esoteric articles. The purpose of the blog is not comparative mysticism. Part of maintaining a safe and reliable blog includes the exclusion of some material.

  23. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    “That kind of rhetoric is a huge turnoff and does not, on balance, inspire people to want “in””

    Quite the opposite. Such “rhetoric” is not rhetoric at all, but attempts (attempts that Fr. Stephen rightly points can sometimes fall short of its object) to discern and speak about something that falls outside the self and thus is larger than the self. What is a “turnoff” is the endless grey town of the modern man continually (like the eastern image of yin yang, forever circling and circling and circling) building up and tearing down (with the speed of thought) his own answers, his own cosmology, his own SELF.

    Pick and choose Christianity or worse, “spirituality”, that is a turnoff. Men without chests (see C.S. Lewis), that is a turnoff. Death, now that is a real “turnoff”….

  24. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    To be “in” requires not only the right direction, but will, inherently include understanding the nature of boundaries. Having understood the nature of the boundary, it doesn’t have to become the focal point of attention, but the boundary is essential.

    The most essential characteristic of the boundary is the requirement of repentance. I have to be able to say of God, “I am not you.” It is even essential to say, “I have been out of communion with you.” I do not want to deny any reality to my life before Orthodoxy. But I recall the day of my Chrismation thinking, “St. Seraphim and the saints through the ages, knew the precise smell and aroma of this unique oil with which I am being received…” If you will, it is an odor in Apostolic Succession. There were other things as well. But walking through the door doesn’t mean that I should spend all of my time as a doorkeeper. We are called into the altar of grace.

    The particularity of grace is worth noting. We never do anything in general. Generalities are the least saving things in our lives. The day of my reception into the Church, I had to do “this thing,” and not something else. But it also meant that I could do “this” thing. None of us can do anything in general. We cannot follow God in general. Only in particular. And life will become increasingly particularized until the moment of our death, when we do perhaps the most unique thing in our lives.

  25. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Wayne, I too encountered Nietzsche and was fascinated by him for a time many years ago. Probably the only reason I did not get enthralled was that I had begun to know Jesus Christ a little before I ran into Nietzsche.

    Here is the bottom line: Jesus Christ is the solution to all the riddles you pose for yourself.

    Not the Jesus Christ if the mind, but the person you meet and learn to love.

    The Orthodox Church despite her faults has the safest most proven way to meet Him as Lord, God, savior and the only lover of mankind.

    It took me 39 years wandering around looking at other options before I was brought to the Church. I am a stiff necked man.

    The next 28 half served to impress on me just how dangerous self-made spirituality is.

    There are many lovers of Christ outside the Orthodox Church. They are easy to recognise if one is himself a lover of Christ though still a sinner.

    The are far more charletons and soul stealers who have some semblance of the truth but only to nothingness.

    I experienced a few of those in that 39 years–Sufiism being one.

    The Church in her sacramental life is like an overflowing fountain that nurishes everyone to some degree. But if you want the fullness and the sweetness it can only be experienced safely within the community that is closest to and guardians of that fountain.

  26. Wayne Avatar

    The OP is concerned with whether or to what degree our categories give us our world–and whether or to what degree there is a REALITY which transcends our partisan and sectarian struggle to “frame the conversation” and define the terms of the debate.

    Clearly and undeniably, on one level, our categories DO give us our world. “History” looks different from different points of view. All we have to go on is a set of shared (intersubjective) constructs. “Morality” also looks very different from different points of view (though, in this case, our “vocation” serves as a corrective to the dominant culture). Not even “Science” is immune from such debates (e.g. as we struggle to come to terms with questions concerning evolution, global warming, mental illness, and cancer screening/treatments, everyone appeals to “science” and it is not at all clear which “facts” we should believe, much less which “hypothesis”).

    In my earlier comments, I was attempting to point out that for some of you, Orthodoxy appears to be a community that not only has given you an inside track to the truth– praise be to God –but one which you KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt offers the only full and complete access to the truth to anyone and everyone else (whoever they may be, wherever they may have been born, and under whatever circumstances they may be living). IMO, that has resulted in a kind of “group think” that keeps some of you from really hearing and interacting authentically and compassionately with those outside of Orthodoxy.

    The example of the Jesus Prayer is a case in point. It is dangerous, according to some of you, for people to pray the Jesus Prayer on their own without direction (from an Orthodox teacher, I presume). Those praying in this way may be deceiving themselves… They may be trying to dictate to Jesus (or some nonsense).

    Of course, there are 1000 ways to be deceived and only ONE WAY to God. But if the New Testament (and even the Old Testament prophets) teach anything, it is that the religious establishment is often deceived and often deceives others (giving people the false sense of security that is found in the safety of numbers). It was in that context that I shared the Inayat Khan quote (“it is mistrust that misleads… sincerity leads straight to the goal”). Realizing that this is not a group for the discussion of comparative religion, I left off his honorific title (Hazrat) and I did not provide a link to the quote. The point was to indicate that we are in some significant sense free and that the grace of is available to all. As such, we need not be afraid to pray the Jesus prayer. If we do so sincerely, it will be edifying. I would add, however, that even if we do so insincerely, the grace of God is sufficient–is it not? Just as it was for the prodigal son in the parable…

    To be honest, I found many of the comments in the wake the Jesus prayer discussion to be a “turn-off” for the reason indicated, but I felt that Fr. Stephen’s subsequent post on “A Cosmic Salvation” adequately addressed my concerns, so I decided it was best to forgo any further discussion of the matter. I only posted the additional quotes and the link when you guys were trying to turn Inayat Khan into a 21st century self-help, success guru. He is nothing of the kind. And Byron’s conclusion about the self-absorbed nature of “his vocation” and “his God” is totally off the mark.

    Back to the OP: As I see it, the way to transcend the partisan and sectarian power struggles is not to join another sect and start promoting its categories in an equally sectarian and exclusivistic manner, but to recognize and honor the living Christ. Walking in that light, we will indeed live very particular as well as very universal lives. And for some of us, that will mean embracing Orthodoxy in all its particularity. But if that is simply another ego-identity that makes “me” confident that I am right– and that gives me the right to make sweeping judgments about the vast majority of human beings who have lived and died outside of Orthodoxy –perhaps we can all agree that “I” have misunderstood what it means to be in Christ.

    I appreciate that many of you feel at home, at last, in Orthodoxy. That’s wonderful. But perhaps you should consider the possibility that others, too, may be exactly where the Lord want them, as well. Glory be to God for all things.

  27. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Wayne, the folks I was talking about, using the Jesus Prayer as an example, are the folks who are only concerned with themselves and go from one group to another like a spiritual buffet picking up goodies here and goodies there and trying to mix them exclusively for their own benefit. It is not the Jesus Prayer that is dangerous, it is the attitude with which one uses it–kinda like the vagabond Jews described in Acts 19.

    The Jesus Prayer has a meaning and a use within the Orthodox Church it cannot have outside the Church because the prayer is an integral part of the life of the Holy Spirit that is particular to the Orthodox Church. The prayer’s form and content presumes a certain way of life that includes participation in the sacraments of the Church. It is not meant to stand alone.

    There will always be boundaries and barriers: Good fences make good neighbors. It is a uniquely modern view that barriers are negative things. Egalitarianism is not a positive belief. It is immensely destructive.

    I have no knowledge of where God wants others in particular, I do know that he wants all of us with Him. The particular question I rarely consider. When I do, I am usually wrong. I do know that God wants me in the Orthodox Church and I am delighted to share my experience of that with others. That experience also includes being rescued from some dark places along the way; beliefs and practices that I have seen have horrendous consequences to those who are ruled by them. I am also bound to share those experiences with others when the opportunity arises. Sort of like telling folks not to run out into the busy street because you might get run over.

    I also know that the Orthodox Church has a 2000 year track record of producing holiness that has no equal. Only the Roman Catholic Church has a similar record of good fruit. I am far from that, yet I am continually drawn in that direction.

    One really good thing I got out of my Sufi exposure was the saying from a Sufi teacher I knew, Samuel Lewis: “You get more stinkin’ from thinkin’ than you do from drinkin’”

  28. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    Wayne,

    I appreciate your warnings against sectarianism and “group think”, but I want to stress again Fr. Stephen’s point about particularity. In a real and final sense we are all bound to “group think” even if that ends up being a group of one. I By definition of being a human being we in habit one space that shares one point of view only.

    There is no way to have it all. You will stand inside a recognizable group, being in the experience and working within those boundaries – and there will be much gained and internally understood deep within the soul by doing so.

    OR

    You will stand outside and play the observer. There is also much to be learned from this angle.

    But you can’t do both at the same time. And it would seem that God called most of us to be within a group, that we were born primarily as participants and secondarily as observers. I fully understand that being in one shouldn’t be “simply another ego-identity that makes “me” confident that I am right”.

    Ideally all those within would respect those without and vice versa. This is where that shy virtue called humility comes into play. A quick definition of humility is to acknowledge and accept reality as it is. So the humble member of the group following Christ will naturally be able to recognize a follower outside the group – and it would go both ways.

    But notice the example is about a particularity, one person recognizing the light of Christ in one other person. This is different than standing above it all and saying, “there are plenty of people finding their own way to God outside this group”. We are the people of the one thing. We can’t bless all Sufism, but we may find a Sufi in which the Light shines.

    There are always cautions. The Orthodox person has to guard against exclusivity and a person like yourself has to guard against a lack of boundaries, but generalities won’t do away with the need for those points of vigilance. Speaking of boundaries, this quote bears repeating:

    “Having understood the nature of the boundary, it doesn’t have to become the focal point of attention, but the boundary is essential.”

    This something worth heeding carefully for a person in your position. As I said above, one thing you need to guard against is scope creep, widening your boundaries until they are meaningless. A person doesn’t need to obsess over the line, but the line still needs to be there and needs to mean something. It should not be idly crossed.

  29. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    “The OP is concerned with whether or to what degree our categories give us our world…”

    Nope. The OP is giving a critique of cartesian, “deontological”, categorical thinking, starting from presuppositions that do not assume what he is critiquing.

    “…and whether or to what degree there is a REALITY… ”

    Nope. The OP is a Christian, there is no central critique (whether it exists, whether it can be accessed, thought of, revealed to us, etc.) of REALITY. Quite the opposite, said REALITY critiques us.

    The rest of your post is a winding road to the wrong place (with many wrong stops along the way) because you started at the wrong place. You have to figure out a way to examine your presuppositions. Hint: Christianity does not follow Kant

  30. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Excuse me guys, but what is OP? I’m lost

  31. Athanasios Avatar
    Athanasios

    Father, OP is an acronym in internet lingo for Original Poster. Usually the author of an article, so in this case I think it’s referring to you.

  32. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Thanks, Athanasios. I thought they were trying to bring Andy of Mayberry into the discussion. 🙂

  33. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    If only Andy were here – he was a better philosopher than any of us. 😉

  34. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Wayne,
    A caveat must be added concerning the Jesus prayer without a guide (and without a sacramental life):
    one enters into ‘spiritual realms’ through its regular practice… and as they advance further, they will encounter all sorts of stuff that they did not even suspect. Even extraordinarily deceitful stuff.

    If you wanted to drive to a dangerous and unfamiliar place, would you be as confident with just a map as you would be with a guide who actually lives there sitting next to your driver’s seat?

    If you wanted to learn gymnastics would you prefer to do it with books and experimentation to having expert guidance from a pro-gymnast?

  35. Wayne Avatar

    “OP” in my comments refer to the “original post” (in this case the article, “Speaking of Reality”). Perhaps Fr. Stephen will let me know whether (or to what degree) I have misrepresented the concerns of his article in my last comment.

    I am on the run today– heading out the door –more in the fullness of time . . .

  36. Byron Avatar
    Byron

    And Byron’s conclusion about the self-absorbed nature of “his vocation” and “his God” is totally off the mark.

    My apologies for so misrepresenting your intent (and the intent of the quote), Wayne.

    I am critical of the language used in the quote as I’ve seen it used so often in the possessive–as a defense of recasting God in a person’s own image so they receive constant reinforcement of themselves, not a humility and self-denial before God. (Another example of such a thing is, “My god loves Me just as I am”).

    I do think this is the type of language structure that is well received in our secular society today.

    Again, my apologies for misrepresenting your intent there.

  37. Wayne Avatar

    No problem, Byron–I can see why it would be tempting to read it that way in this context. You can visit the link indicated if you’d like to learn more about Hazrat Inayat Khan.

    [Dino wrote: “as they advance further, they will encounter all sorts of stuff that they did not even suspect. Even extraordinarily deceitful stuff. If you wanted to drive to a dangerous and unfamiliar place, would you be as confident with just a map as you would be with a guide who actually lives there sitting next to your driver’s seat? If you wanted to learn gymnastics would you prefer to do it with books and experimentation to having expert guidance from a pro-gymnast?]

    Of course, people do need guides and teachers along the way–and close contact with living, breathing human beings is preferable to books. But the student or seeker must have confidence that the teacher knows NOT only his (the teacher’s) own subject matter, but also something of his (the seeker’s) personal and emotional circumstances. I grew up in the Bible belt and attended fundamentalist and evangelical churches, for the most part. I found no one in my protestant circle of friends who had any real appreciation for my real questions/problems at the time (which arose in the context of my study of Nietzsche and Biblical criticism). There was simply no one who advocated for Christianity that I could trust until I was in graduate school and met a Nietzsche scholar who was also a devout Catholic. He was not really my spiritual guide, but he was a good friend who I trusted because I knew that he both knew and appreciated Nietzsche in a profound way. Long story short, his Catholic faith– and my exposure to the Jesus prayer –opened my heart to God again. While I began to have some contact with Orthodoxy in my late 20’s, I did not begin attending Orthodox service until I was in my early 30’s. Later someone shared a copy of Seraphim Rose’s book on Nihilism, but despite some elements of our experience which are similar, I did not find the general trajectory of his thought compelling. To be honest, however, I did not read the whole book and, so, can claim only a superficial knowledge of his work. I have read more about him, since then– and I recently read his letter to Thomas Merton –but I am no longer “seeking” in the way that I was in my 20s, 30s, and 40s (see below).

    Drewster2000: Thank you for your comments. Reality (in Christ) is very simple from where I stand. He is the light of life–the light in which we see light NOW. This is the light of the world which I recognize and honor. This is the living Christ. “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want…” I’m willing to participate in whatever groups that Lord leads me to… I attend Baptist church with my older brother who is disabled. I attend Orthodox services at Christmas and Easter and occasionally visit a monastery with a friend. I enjoy browsing through the monastery library and listening to the readings during lunch with the monks. When I have opportunity, I also enjoy teaching an intro to philosophy class my local university. My daily life is taken up with caregiving (for my older brother and for our brother-in-law with whom we live–both of them are disabled). I am also studying Traditionalism and various strains of esoteric philosophy in dialogue with a friend who is now Orthodox, but who is well read in many fields of thought. All of these are authentic relationships. I am open to other authentic relationship as the Lord wills. I also am content to die as I now live. I trust God unconditionally for the well being of my soul. Where he leads me I will follow… No need to try to “force” things…

    Mike Bauman: Thank you for your comments, as well. I appreciate the dangers and the dark places whereof you speak–have experienced my share… Enjoyed the Sufi Sam quote, too (also know about “stinkin’ thinkin’ from Al Anon). Your wrote:

    “The Orthodox Church despite her faults has the safest most proven way to meet [Jesus] as Lord, God, savior and the only lover of mankind” AND “the Orthodox Church has a 2000 year track record of producing holiness that has no equal.”

    Those are very beautiful sentiments– heartfelt, no doubt –but I see no way to test their truth. Why not say, instead– more cautiously and persuasively –that the Orthodox is a safe and proven way… That it has a long and venerable track record… Or why not say that those are your beliefs? Just something to think about…

    Finally, while I am not “seeking” in the way I was for several decades, I am interested in learning– interested in “growing in grace and knowledge of the truth” as we used to say –and in communicating more effectively. Thank again– everyone –for the opportunity to do so in this context. I almost always enjoy Fr. Stephen’s articles.

    Glory be to God for all things!

  38. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    For what it’s worth, Wayne, yours is the most inoculated approach to Orthodoxy. To respect and regard it, and keep it safely as a resource. Like other things, I suspect, you mine them all. Sort of an eclectic approach.

    You’ll probably encounter border patrols all the time. They may see you as a “thief.” Plundering the stuff and stories you like, and leaving the rest at a distance.

    Everybody can do what they like – we’re all free. But don’t be surprised when you encounter a reaction that you might have as much responsibility for as those you encounter.

  39. Wayne Avatar

    Quoting St. Augustine, “[Truth] welcomes all her lovers who are in no way envious for her, and is common to all and chaste to each one ( On Free Choice, book 2, chapter 14).”

  40. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Wayne,
    I have used the example of marriage before to describe why the Cup is only given to Orthodox persons. Most, probably all, Orthodox saints would trade anything they have for a single draft from that Cup (were it demanded). St. Mary of Egypt asked for nothing more after 47 years in the desert. The treasure of Orthodoxy is ultimately in the sacraments. It’s where the truth is eaten. But it requires “marriage.” A life-long commitment and faithfulness within the Church. No doubt “truth welcomes all her lovers,” but in today’s context and the present conversation, it’s a tragic turn of phrase on St. Augustine’s part.

    It’s also Neo-Platonic philosophic babble. Sometimes the dear Bishop of Hippo made mistakes.

  41. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Wayne, not everything is an opinion. Even in the realm of opinions, not all opinions are equally valid. It is quite easy to test my statement; it can even be done from outside the Church. The Orthodox path to sanctity is the longest running most documented and proven empirical experiment ever: From St. Stephen the protomartyr to Saint Pasius (sp) and millions of saints known only to God.

    To do the test one has to have an open mind or at least not so skeptical as to automatically rule out all evidence that supports the hypothesis. The first step is the read the lives of the saints searching for the core of why and how they achieved what they achieved. If you read with discernment, attention and faith you will see a great deal. WARNING: such a test might very well change your life.

    The holiness demonstrated in the lives of the saints has a continuity to it, historically, spiritually and humanly that is extraordinary. There are some in the Church who refer to that continuity as a golden thread.

    A small example of what I mean: on the back wall of the nave of my parish are two icons. One is of St. Ignatius of Antioch martyred in the early second century. The other is of St. Raphael of Brooklyn who died in the early 20th century. If you read what they wrote, examine the ways in which they acted in pastoring their flocks you will see two men separated by 1800 years in time who lived remarkably similar lives. They had the same faith, they gave their lives for their flocks (each in his own way), the sacraments were at the core of what they did–not just the formal celebration of specific sacraments but the incarnational reality of God with us.

    Get past the gray, entropic egalitarian ideas and you may begin to see a whole new world of beauty and life that you never suspected. Or as Teddy Roosevelt put it:

    It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

    The neat thing about the saints, in imitation of their Lord what seem to be their greatest defeats are often their greatest victories.

  42. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    Wayne,

    I understand you to some extent. I have a father in the same “occupation”. Fr. Stephen’s advice about this “inoculated approach” was quite pertinent and worthy of heeding. I know you probably won’t but it doesn’t trouble me. With God’s help you’ll find your way. Just 2 quick points:

    1. Your way is dangerous because you are alone. Yes that gives you many advantages, just as there are good things about being single, but neither are something that I would promote for widespread usage. Walk your path if you must but it would be best not to recommend it too lightly to others.

    2. You have indeed inoculated yourself. This is not something peculiar to those lurking on the borders. People of all walks fall into this trap. They’re too smart for their own good. They build up good defenses for all their positions and then go around testing them by seeing if anyone can knock them down. There is no one (or few) on the inside with whom you take weighty counsel. Two difficulties arise in this situation.

    a. The fortifications get taken for granted, assumed to be impenetrable – and thus are unprepared when something big comes along to blast a big hole in them.

    b. The fact that most people can’t knock them down isn’t an indication that those people are wrong. Bad ones are kept out but so are good ones, those who have good things, holy things to share with you but no powerful arguments to impart them with by which to get by your fortifications.

    These things you know but bear continual remembrance. Again I appreciate your comments here and I wish you all the best on your journey. May God’s grace and mercy go with you.

  43. Wayne Avatar

    Gentleman: I so sorry this has turned into a discussion of me. Perhaps I did bring it on myself — perhaps I was inconsiderate of one or more of you or of Fr. Stephen (since this is his space). I apologize.

  44. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    Michael,

    That Teddy quote is the last thing you read (well, if you take the time) before you step on the mats at my dojo…

  45. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    Wayne,

    A case in point: We were just dwelling on the particular for the moment – you. (grin) All this discussion is just blaring trumpets and clashing cymbals if in the end it doesn’t speak to the individual heart.

  46. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Wayne, not really about you, just the ideas and approach you demonstrate. Don’t know you at all. However, the fact that you felt it was about you and we were all addressing you as a person indicates the reality of the particular as opposed to the general.

    Even if an idea is common it does not mean much “in general” only if it is embodied in a particular person or circumstance. Facts, ideas and philosophies all change depending on the context. Only the particular of a person does not change. In large part that is because we are named and each given our identity by God. There really is no such thing as an observer or objectivity. That BTW speaks directly to the reality of the incarnation, the person of Jesus Christ and the sacramental gift He gives to each of us.

    The best part of what you have said is that their is clearly no malice on your part. That is a gift and makes engaging with the ideas in this particular context possible.

  47. Byron Avatar
    Byron

    I attend Baptist church with my older brother who is disabled. I attend Orthodox services at Christmas and Easter and occasionally visit a monastery with a friend. I enjoy browsing through the monastery library and listening to the readings during lunch with the monks. When I have opportunity, I also enjoy teaching an intro to philosophy class my local university. My daily life is taken up with caregiving (for my older brother and for our brother-in-law with whom we live–both of them are disabled). I am also studying Traditionalism and various strains of esoteric philosophy in dialogue with a friend who is now Orthodox, but who is well read in many fields of thought. All of these are authentic relationships.

    Blessings and Grace to you in caring for your family, Wayne.

  48. […] To briefly recap what I mean by postmodernity, I will let Father Freeman have a few words: […]

  49. Brandon Avatar
    Brandon

    Father – are you familiar with Eric Weinstein’s 4 quadrant model? (8 min read) https://medium.com/@rljunco/eric-weinsteins-four-quadrant-model-the-knife-media-6e642ff3f54b

    Thank you for your comments on reality!

Leave a Reply

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


Subscribe to blog via email

Support the work

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


Latest Comments

  1. Fr. Stephen, I hope there is nothing horribly erroneous about this comment. Byron, the “overthrow the tyranny of months” calendar?…

  2. I find it very hard to visualize life within the Church calendar. So it tends to pass by without a…

  3. Esmée, When my brain is not cooperating (with ADHD, my mind wandering all over the place is quite common) I…

  4. Thanks for the quote, Andrew. So true! I feel that I spend most of my time everywhere else but in…


Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast



Categories


Archives