The Singular Goodness of God

It has long seemed to me that it is one thing to believe that God exists and quite another to believe that He is good. Indeed, to believe that God exists simply begs the question. That question is: Who is God, and what can be said of Him? Is He good? This goes to the heart of the proclamation of the Christian faith. We believe that God has revealed Himself definitively in the God/Man, Jesus Christ, and preeminently in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Years ago, a friend of mine was speaking with an Orthodox priest about certain matters of conscience. In the course of the conversation, my friend mentioned concerns with the judgment of God, expressing a certain dread. The priest responded by turning around a small icon of Christ that was on his desk so that my friend could see it. It was the icon of Christ, “Extreme Humility,” that pictures Him in the depth of His humiliation and suffering. “Which God are we talking about?” was the priest’s question. My friend’s concerns were answered in that moment. Whatever our concerns might be, the goodness of God is revealed in that icon without qualification.

It is possible to use the entire Jesus story as a way of proving the existence of God, only to then proceed to think of God in terms that are somehow removed from Christ Himself. I’m not sure whether we imagine this “God” to be the “Father” or something else. These conversations (and thoughts) are often expressed in terms of, “I believe that God…” and on from there. I think of this as the God of the blackboard. Jesus is used in order to prove the blackboard but then we begin to fill in that large, blank wall with our own imaginings (or various passages of Scripture that we might use as a counterweight to the story of Jesus).

Sometimes those imaginings are extrapolations from Scripture (this story or that). Sometimes they are the productions of opinion. Many times our imaginings were handed down to us or written in our minds long before we ever thought about the matter.

If the stories of Scripture “prior” to Christ were sufficient for the knowledge of God, Christ would not have spoken in correction of the conclusions falsely drawn from them. There is a Greek word for an interpretation of the Scriptures: exegesis. It is most informative to note that St. John (in the Greek) says:

The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has exegeted Him. (Joh 1:18)

Christ is how we “read” God. We cannot get behind Christ to speak about God as though we knew anything of God apart from Christ. We do not know God “prior” to Christ. When Christ declares that He is the “Way, the Truth, and the Life” and that “no one comes to the Father except by Me,” He is not merely describing the path of salvation, He is making it clear that it is through Him alone that we know God. This is also affirmed in St. Matthew’s gospel:

All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. (Matt. 11:27 NKJ)

Christ not only reveals God, but He reveals the goodness of God. He is what goodness looks like. Throughout His ministry, every word and action is a revelation of goodness. That goodness is supremely made manifest in His voluntary self-emptying on the Cross. This revelation is definitive and must be always borne in mind when we consider who God is and what kind of God He is. He is the kind of God who empties Himself for our sake, unites Himself to our shame and suffering, and endures all things that He might reconcile us to Himself and lead us into the fullness of life in Him.

This is the proper “exegesis” of the Scriptures. Anything that imagines God in a manner that is not consistent with this presentation is a deviant reading (for a Christian). This calls for an inner discipline. When reading even the most disturbing imprecatory passages within the Scriptures, we should search for the image of the Crucified Christ within them. There are frequent paradoxes in such an approach. This is particularly true in the language of hell (and its synonyms).

God has no need for punishment. He is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). He cannot will our destruction and punishment while at the same time not willing that we should perish. Even the language of the fires of hell as a self-inflicted reality can be misleading. We know by experience that we are capable of inflicting great suffering on ourselves and we can easily imagine that stretching into eternity. What is being described, however, are the inner dynamics of a relationship with Divine Love: compassionate, forgiving, gentle, self-emptying in the extreme. The language and imagery of Scripture can be graphic, at times repulsive, particularly in the confusion of modern literalism.

These matters must be read within the heart (for that is where they were written). The singular commitment of the heart must be grounded in the goodness of God. We are not asked to look at something that is repugnant or horrible and say that it is good. That would do damage to the soul. What we know in Christ tells us that God is good. It is this that we look for as we search the depths of our world for understanding.

An element of God’s goodness that is frequently overlooked is found in our freedom (even when we misuse it). Nothing else in all creation is given the freedom that marks human existence. Everything else around us expresses its nature. A dog always acts as a dog. Human beings have the capacity in our freedom to act contrary to our nature. Sometimes our own sanity is insane. Some of the Fathers describe this capacity as “godlike.” We have been given a freedom that transcends our nature. It is this freedom that, potentially, finds expression in the fullness of personal existence.

We are created with the capacity to see God “face-to-face,” to interact as an equal, regardless of how absurd that might seem. It is an existence that is not confined to nature or circumstance but finally is above both. It is an existence that is constituted solely by love. I have seen this freedom exercised as love, even within the depths of protracted, life-long suffering. The goodness manifested in such examples is staggering.

I do not think there is a calculus that can be brought into this reality. Is the freedom we are given worth the price? No calculus is possible because we cannot measure the things involved. I cannot measure the suffering of an innocent child (as did Ivan Karamazov) just as I cannot measure the full joy of the freedom of love. What we have in Christ, however, is an example of both.

Here, we profess, is the most Innocent of the innocent, who, “for the joy that was set before Him, endured the Cross, disregarding the shame” (Heb. 12:2). The “joy that was set before Him,” is not some sort of private bliss. It is the joy of love, in freeing those who are held in bondage so that they might see Him face-to-face (as an equal) in all of the fullness of a true personal existence.

I cannot imagine this, nor measure this. But I can say that I see this. I see One who is utterly good, compassionate and self-emptying, walking the path of the unimaginable because He is good and thinks we are worth it. My faith (trust, loyalty) says, “I want to walk that path – help me!” I take His death and resurrection as the revelation of God and of the world as well.

 

 

About Fr. Stephen Freeman

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



Posted

in

, , , , ,

by

Comments

251 responses to “The Singular Goodness of God”

  1. Paula AZ Avatar
    Paula AZ

    Yes, that’s helps Christopher. Seems like a very “individualistic” view of life. Plus mere thinking does not make a person. Anyway, do not want to get off topic here… thanks for making your explanation short and concise!

  2. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    “…or worry myself about what is or is not a trend in the Church…”

    After musing on this and moving past a “I wish circumstances were such that I could be worry free about this” (i.e. I have a duty of conscious to my children, to those I love in the Church and outside of her, heck even to myself) I have come to this thought: The doors! The doors! This Imperial Church of the East is a big tent, and it has been for a very long time – but not always, at least not in this way, which leads to

    “there will always be wolves…”

    Paradoxical is it not: not mere wolves but wolves of souls, not mere sinners but the Liar himself devouring us in the very place/ecclisia where we turn to salvation from the wolf of souls!

  3. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Christopher,
    This has always been true in the life of the Church. There is no substitute for living faithfully. However, as much as possible, I choose to wage the good fight by pouring more honey out for all, rather than trying to get rid of that which attracts flies. I like putting certain things in the hands of bishops. I expect them to do their job. If they do not do it – all the priests in the world cannot do it for them.

  4. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Christopher,

    Even though there is a lot of history under the bridge in the institutions of the Church, it seems to me wolves of souls and the Liar have been active even in our midst from the very beginning. I do not know how else to read the prophecy to the seven churches in Revelation, or, indeed many of the Epistles. Even St. Paul had to confront and rebuke St. Peter in the matters over which he wrote his epistle to the Galatians. Are you not, perhaps falling prey to a species of Puritanism in your mindset about this sort of thing?

  5. Dean Avatar
    Dean

    Father, Christopher,
    Christopher, you write”…dialogue is at the center of man’s relationship with God….” But how does this play out in the heart/nous where often/most often there is no dialog, only stillness?
    Communication occurs, but unspoken.

  6. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    The wheat and the tares grow together. Thus it has always been since we were created–often in the same human heart.

  7. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    Dean,

    Heysachasm and everything it entails comes from a different story, which is why it is not Cartesian. Just to be clear I was explicating what the Cartesian Self believes, not advocating it.

    Fr,

    I hear you, and as you well know the priesthood is a sacrificial life. The truth so well preserved in this Church of the East is that all our lives and all the world is a sacrifice. That said, we all have to work out our life as a good sacrifice and not a vain one.

    Karen,

    I don’t think so, but then I probably don’t have a very good grasp on what puritanism is. As Father Stephen always says Christianity is a paradoxical life. I think of it more in terms of double mindedness, and to what extent that double mindedness is enculturated (for the vast majority this is unconscious) and then institutionalized…

  8. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Christopher,

    Paradox (the nature of the gospel) and doublemindedness (which afflicts us all) are, I believe, very very different things, The first describes the way in which God works transforming death (in us, in the institutions of the Church, and in the world) into life. The second is a sin from which we need purification (which comes by the Holy Spirit working through what faith in Him we do have, and in spite of our attachment to sin).

    I’m using the term Puritanism rather loosely here, but I think of Puritanism as the urge to get rid of corruption, especially within established institutions of the Church by withdrawing from and condemning those institutions (in the case of the Puritans I believe it was Apostolic
    Succession as classically
    understood as being in the Bishops, Bishops, Icons/Church art, Liturgy, beauty, etc.), and trying to set up our own little idealized conceptions of biblical (churchly) society. The problem is trying as humans to do what is God’s job and not in the way He has given to the Church. The Puritans who came to this country tried their own little “Benedict option” in their day, only without the fullness of the Church to support that, and it ultimately failed.

    By contrast, istm God has told us how He works in this age in the Parable of the wheat and the weeds. He allows both the wheat of His Kingdom life and the weeds of death to grow to maturity together until the harvest (which is also not a human work, but that of “the angels”). When we prematurely try to cut out our own deadwood, whether within our own hearts, in our parishes, in our dioceses, or jurisdictions, we risk uprooting and damaging along with that what is good and growing. Rather, we need to keep nurturing life and keep sowing seeds of the Spirit, rather than the flesh, trusting God to do the reaping and threshing of the harvest when the fullness has come.

  9. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Whoops! I didn’t see Michael’s comment while I was forming my comment to Christopher. I didn’t mean to be redundant, but hopefully the expansion on the theme was helpful.

  10. Mihai Avatar
    Mihai

    @Christopher (and Father):

    I agree with you that the term ‘post-modernism’ is more like an umbrella term to describe a certain tendency prevalent, however, not just in “academic” circles, but more and more penetrating to the level of the common man as well. It is not easy to define, but that is because it is more and more ubiquitous. It is, properly speaking, the spirit of the age as we experience it today.
    Let’s not forget that many things are difficult to define and to describe in proper words, but that does not diminish their reality.

    And I most certainly agree that “carthesianism” is the still the nexus of it all- this is why I said that the premises at the dawn of modernity remain firmly in place, while the mask is wearing off ever more each day.
    Wolfgang Smith attributes to this residual carthesianism the chaos which has visited physics in the 20th century, which is going through a philosophical post-modernism of its own, without this invalidating in any way the reality of its discoveries on the quantum level.

    As for Met. Zizioulas, no I haven’t read him, though I have read a book by JC Larchet which is critical of his (and a few others’) personalist philosophy.

  11. Byron Avatar
    Byron

    The truth so well preserved in this Church of the East is that all our lives and all the world is a sacrifice. That said, we all have to work out our life as a good sacrifice and not a vain one.

    Nicely stated.

  12. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    Karen,

    I will contemplate more your perspective on the parable. When some well meaning modern “deadwood” tried to vest our two young daughters (“sub” alter girls describes this stillborn reform best) my wife and I did not wait for the Eschaton to say “no” (my wife said “over my dead body” or something similar 😉 ). My conscious tells me that any interpretation of the parable that would have required me to do so is wrong as well. More than a year later we congregate and are in communion with these folks just as we were before, but theirs is that particular modern and sacred quest for Justice and Equality that still dominates their heart and mind just as it has since they were teenagers. I love them, I really do and did my best to head off those who wanted to put them in the dock before our bishop, etc. The paradox is that we worship the same Jesus, follow the same Tradition, assent to the same anthropology and symbology and soteriology…or do we?

    No offense intended at all, but I wonder if it is too easy to throw out “wolves” and “puritanism” and “tares” and the like when the wolf has his teeth around your neck. It *might* be that this is your significant sacrifice, perhaps even your last and final, but then it might not be and to do so might be the very definition of vanity. What are we willing to sacrifice for our brother? The truth itself? Is this even possible?

  13. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    Mihai,

    Thanks for the reference to Wolfgang Smith, I will have to spend some time with him. I have wondered to what extent modern physicists themselves are aware of the Cartesian/methodological materialism duality that is at the heart of modernity an to what extent it affects their theoretical project!

    You might prefer to approach Met. Hierotheos and his dialogue with Heidegger and modern existentialism. I myself prefer Met. Hierotheos Christological emphasis over Met. Zizioulas’s “Trinitarian” one. Met. Zizioulas is quite speculative, but then he is at the same time the more incisive philosopher. Similar to N.T. Wright vs. D.B. Hart, or Superman vs. Batman…. 😉

  14. Matthew Lyon Avatar
    Matthew Lyon

    1 Cor 10:6- 11 “Now these things took place

    as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written. “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer.

    Now these things happened

    to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on who the end of the ages has come.”

    Where’s the allegory? Took place, did, did, did, did, happened. The thurst of the argument is lost if it is pure allegory or any other reconstruction that denies the historicity of what took place.

    Same goes with Romans 15:4 For Whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

    In what, allegory? I don’t deny the deeper meaning of Scripture beyond the historical. But the failure of those who do not know how to read the Old Testament does not leave us with only allegory – otherwise Jesus is wrong about the Old Testament, Paul is wrong, the Apostles are wrong. So I’m quite comfortable with labeling someone Marcionite who approaches the Old Testament – the Scriptures that Paul tells Timothy (or whoever wrote Timothy) are able to save him..

    If we denounce anthropomorphism yet ascribe it to the entire Old Testament, even if by means of progressive revelation- how can we believe the Old Testament to be inspired and avoid ascribing error to the entirety of the New Testament. I know writers like Pete Enns and Gregy boyd etc., try and do this, but I am not convinced.

  15. Byron Avatar
    Byron

    For Whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction

    “Instruction” does not require literalism–only that there is a point, a deeper Truth. This Truth was manifest in Jesus, specifically at the Cross, and it defines everything.

    It seems you are beginning with the OT and then proceeding to Christ. Begin with Christ and then understand the OT in Him. It is not that the OT is “pure allegory” (there is certainly history, poetry, etc. within it) but that the meaning of it is not found in its historicity, only in Christ.

  16. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Matthew,
    I would like to offer a patient answer. There are many assertions in your comment that seem to me to be based in logical fallacies.

    1. “did, did, did…happened…” does not entail the necessity that what is being referred to is a literal, historical event. If I were reading a 2nd grade class the story of Peter and the Wolf. At its conclusion I could ask any number of questions that say, “What happened?” or “Did the wolf eat Peter?” etc. Any kid who responded by saying that nothing happened since the story is fictional, would be seen by me to be a smart ass or simply thick-headed.

    Now, I am not at all saying that St. Paul thought that the events to which he referred did not actually happen. I am saying that your assertion that he must have thought so is incorrect. You’re saying similar things about other uses of the OT in the New. I would assume that Jesus’ referencing the Noah story (“the days of Noah”) would mean that Jesus must have believed that Noah lived to be hundreds of years old, etc. Again, simply citing a story in no way asserts anything about its historical nature. The question is a modern problem. For it is modernity that thinks only the self-existent events of history are real and true. Anything less or otherwise is thought to be false. It assumes that the OT is only true inasmuch as it represents literal, historical accounts of particular events. I am not arguing that this or that did or did not happen – only that what is true of the OT, as far as Christians are concerned, is determined solely by their being literal, historical accounts. This is simply not true – and not an Orthodox hermeneutic.

    Again, I am not arguing about what Jesus or Paul or this father or that might have thought about the literal, historical character of any particular event. I’m arguing that it is a modern conversation that is out of place. By being “out of place,” I do not mean that it has no interest to me, or that there aren’t things to think or say about it, only that it is not a question that is/was of particular interest in the period of the NT and early fathers. For one, no one speaking about the NT world should do so without having some thorough familiarity with the Jewish treatment of the OT in the centuries just prior to the NT, and what was common to actual rabbinical thought. For example, those who read St. Paul’s statements regarding Adam, when all they are familiar with is the first three chapters of Genesis, without having read the book of Jubilees, much less the abundance of Jewish material on the topic, are simply writing in a vacuum, with an imaginary understanding of the world of the NT.

    I do not think you understand what I have meant in saying “allegory.” But I don’t have the time to go into here.

    I have never read Peter Enns or Greg Boyd (and had never heard of them until you mentioned them). I’m generally not terribly interested in Protestant writers and thinkers – most of whom are in a conversation that is alien to Orthodoxy. Who here has mentioned “anthropomorphism?” You seem to have everything already figured out and are ready to label people as Marcionite who do not agree with you.

    BTW, are you suggesting that St. Paul is saying that those who do evil like the examples he gives will be killed by Christ, or that Christ will send serpents to bite them? If not, then why not? What has changed according to your view? Something has changed – and it behooves us to think long and hard about what and why that is.

    I am an Orthodox priest. We are a hierarchical Church. We do not label as heretics quite so easily. I am making an effort to explain something (which is not easy) regarding the understanding and use of Scripture. What I’m writing is perfectly representative of the hierarchy of the Church and easily and comfortably within the realm of Orthodox practice (not that there are no critics).

    But the argument you have put forward regarding how certain statements in the NT necessitate a certain understanding of the OT are both logically false and contrary to Orthodox understanding. St. Irenaeus treats the “literal” reading of the OT by the Jews as “myth,” strangely enough. There is ever so much to say about this, to think and consider. Protestant concerns are, frankly, beside the point. Ireanaeus says:

    If anyone, therefore, reads the Scriptures this way, he will find in them the Word concerning Christ, and a foreshadowing of the new calling. For Christ[1] is the ‘treasure which was hidden in the field’ [Matt. 13:44], that is, in this world – for ‘the field is the world’ [Matt. 13:38] – [a treasure] hidden in the Scriptures, for he was indicated by means of types and parables, which could not be understood by human beings prior to the consummation of those things which had been predicted, that is, the advent of the Lord. And therefore it was said to Daniel the prophet, ‘Shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the consummation, until many learn and knowledge abounds. For, when the dispersion shall be accomplished, they shall know all these things’ [Dan. 12:4, 7]. And Jeremiah also says, ‘In the last days they shall understand these things’ [Jer. 23:20]. For every prophecy, before its fulfilment, is nothing but an enigma and ambiguity to human beings; but when the time has arrived, and the prediction has come to pass, then it has an exact exposition [ἐξήγησις]. And for this reason, when at this present time the Law is read by the Jews, it is like a myth [mythos], for they do not possess the explanation [ἐξήγησις] of all things which pertain to the human advent of the Son of God; but when it is read by Christians, it is a treasure, hid in a field, but brought to light by the Cross of Christ, and explained, both enriching the understanding of human beings, and showing forth the wisdom of God, and making known his economies with regard to the human being, and prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, and preaching in anticipation the good news of the inheritance of the holy Jerusalem, and proclaiming beforehand that the human being who loves God shall advance so far as even to see God, and hear his Word, and be glorified, from hearing his speech, to such an extent, that others will not be able to behold his glorious countenance [cf. 2 Cor. 3:7], as was said by Daniel, ‘Those who understand shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and many of the righteous as the stars for ever and ever’ [Dan. 12:3]. In this manner, then, I have shown it to be, if anyone read the Scriptures. (haer. 4.26.1)

  17. Dean Avatar
    Dean

    Father,
    Wonderful comment!
    Those who believe that if one part of the OT can be factually disproved, then all becomes suspect, remind me of this.Remember the “domino theory”
    as applied to SE. Asia? If Vietnam fell to the communists then all of the surrounding countries would as well. And so we ravaged Vietnam losing over 50,000 Americans (some personal friends) and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese…other friends have died or are suffering from agent orange. Well, think of the ravages as a result of a “literal” interpretation of the Bible. Here I recall Harold Lindsell’s book, Battle for the Bible. And those who continue preaching the wrathful God of Jonathan Edwards, God wanting and willing to squash all sinners like bugs. This teaching has produced untold numbers of atheists worldwide. So, domino theory, literalist dogma, both have done great damage to untold numbers of innocents. I am sorry for both. I joined the A.F. by fluke on the day of the Tonkin Gulf incident, starting the war in Vietnam. I easily could have been a casualty there. And had I not met the loving and merciful Christ in His Church, I may have succumbed to atheism.

  18. juliania Avatar
    juliania

    Lovely post, Father. Thank you very much.

  19. juliania Avatar
    juliania

    This has been such a tremendous conversation, flowing from Father Stephen’s original post; thank you all very much. It’s a joyful discussion, even in probing the darkest elements of the Old Testament. And we are still on the other side of Easter, but approaching what some would call ‘little Easter’, the Dormition of the Holy Theotokos. (That has special meaning for me, having been born in the antipodes where springtime is approaching now.)

    And I was thinking reading down this thread, how exciting it must have been for Saint Paul, blinded and then able to see, with all his knowledge of ‘Ta Biblia’, the little books, revisiting those in the light of Christ! Just imagine! There he was burdened with the most heinous sins of persecution, with the death of Stephen, (and Stephen’s words) most of all imprinted upon his soul, still in mad pursuit of victims – ah!

    And it is in the Acts of the Apostles that we see, as they encountered souls on their first journeys, how the disciples adapted (very freely) to the states in which they found recipients of the Word – some already touched by the Spirit; well, baptize them! Some baptized by John; bring them the Holy Spirit to complete the transformation. And (which recently surprised me), don’t overwhelm them with all of the Law if they are gentiles – teach them Christ first and foremost!

  20. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    If Josephus tells us anything at all, it is that the Jews of the first century absolutely read and understood the OT as literal history and understood those accounts as containing the facts of the matter. However, if Philo of Alexandria tells us anything it is that the Jewish community was comfortable with interpreting the OT allegorically. The two arent mutually exclusive. Even today a Rabbi may move fluidly between the realm of fact and the realm of allegory with respect to the OT. The Hindus do something similar with the Mahabharata. I get the impression that the Orthodox arent concerned with protecting facts or even ideas as they are a “grammar” (Fr’s word not mine). There is a grammar or pattern to Orthodox thinking and that pattern of thinking is important in spiritual growth: It opens up the heart to prayerful contemplation, makes it sensitive. I think this is one reason why Orthodoxy was so amenable to Daoism. When the missionaries arrived there they evidently saw no need to completely replace the existing religious vocabulary and grammar. Where the grammar and vocabulary of Christianity mapped to Daoism the missionaries retained the Daoist forms. To me it makes sense that as human beings seek God and grope for him that a grammar for speaking about God would emerge that would find its fulfillment in Orthodox thought about Pascha….or NOT…Im sure Im completely off base, but there’s my two sense.

  21. Paula AZ Avatar
    Paula AZ

    Father…. your comment was indeed wonderful! You were very patient, thorough and spoke the Orthodox Way. Yes, it is hard to teach these things…and I thank you deeply for taking the time to do this for your us.

    I was taken back for a moment, reading St. Ireanaeus’ quote where you inserted his reference to 2 Cor 3:7. This morning I read the same reference in an article by Bishop Golitzin, about the mystical experiences Christian sages in Persia and the almost identical experiences of the Egyptian holy men (our first monastics), despite being separated by 1000’s of miles, differing cultures and language. The Bishop said the commonality between those two groups was literature of Second Temple Judaism, of Wisdom, and apocalyptic themes, and that both groups, across all those miles, etc., assimilated that literature into the Risen Christ. Here is how the Bishop described “how” those identical experiences between the sages and the holy men just happened to occur despite never having contact with each other:
    ” the Christian Gospel acted on these currents like a kind of theological “singularity”, a center of overwhelming gravitional force that acted to attract to itself the several themes I have mentioned in this essay — together, certainly, with many others from the Old Testament that I have not mentioned — and to bend them into a new configuration around the figure of the Risen Christ. If the Latter is the “place” of God par excellence, Himself transfigured and acting to transfigure humanity (cf. 2 Cor. 3:7-4:6), theophany in short, and Giver of saving life and knowledge, then those who come after Him clothed in His likeness are likewise theophanic, temples of God and “places” of divine revelation and salus. We see this already emerging in the New Testament itself, in St. Paul’s letters, in the portraits of the Apostles given in Acts, in Stephen the first martyr, or in the seer of Patmos. ”
    Although an indirect example of how the Orthodox interprets scripture, I think the way the Bishop explains this particular part of Orthodox history and gives a glimpse of Her roots shows She is eons away from a literal view of anything in this world, nonetheless Scripture.

    (Father, if I remember correctly, you had mentioned in the past that Bishop Golitzin was your Bishop…or maybe you recommended his work…)

  22. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Paula that is an amazing quote.

  23. Paula AZ Avatar
    Paula AZ

    Simon…I’m glad you said that! Here’s a link to the article:
    http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/aimilianos.html

    Matter of fact…here’s a link to the main site…it has a whole slew of articles….a lot to sort through, but I found some of them extremely interesting.
    http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/

  24. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Christopher,
    Judging from what you seem to be inferring from my comment to you, it seems to me you have perhaps misread me a little. I have known those whose consciences have required them to leave a parish and the leadership of its Priest and/or Bishop recognizing their salvation and that of their children was at stake in the matter. Assuming a properly informed conscience (I have seen instances of neurotic scruples and the other kind, too), this actually would be an example of the Spirit’s working, not human manipulation. I certainly see freedom in the Tradition to do this. Priests and Bishops who consistently disobey the Holy Spirit will eventually be cut off in this way or another, though we may not see it happen in particular places in our lifetime. It is a dynamic of spiritual reality that churches that fail to really and truly nourish the spiritual life of their members and reach out in the vernacular with the gospel to their youth and surrounding communities by consistently putting the message of Christ ahead of externals and (small t) traditions (not talking true virtue, Liturgy or Dogma here), will simply lose the future generations to other churches or the world and die. These processes take time, though, and don’t often happen on the schedule we in our impatience (and perhaps myopia) would wish. “How long, O Lord?!” has been the refrain of many saints.

    OTOH, I have known converts who were “more Orthodox than the Orthodox” and ended up doing things like leaving a canonical parish to join the parish of a “True Orthodox” cult or joining a tiny, insular canonical parish populated by people who seemed mostly obsessed with their own and everyone else’s performance of the proper Orthodox forms, but didn’t seem to have much of a clue about the nature of gospel love for one another. A friend in my parish who had a close friend in the form-fixated parish worried he might be stranded after church when he was having car problems one week and she might have to give him a lift, because although he had been going to that parish for over a decade, he had no fellow members there with whom he was intimate enough to rely on for assistance or a ride home! Mind you, this is a tiny parish we are talking about. It seems to me something is desperately wrong with that picture, but I suspect it is not all that uncommon. We’re a hot mess, but if we each keep proper charge of that for which the Lord has given us responsibility (our own consciences, our own families), sowing to the Spirit (laying out the honey, being the bee not the fly) the Lord of the harvest will take care of the rest.

    I find I fall into worry and despondency about the state of the Church when I lose track of what are truly my responsibilities and instead take up the burden of those that belong to another and ultimately only to God. I’m not equal to the burden of the latter and with the former I am equal only with the ever-present help and guidance of God.

  25. Paula AZ Avatar
    Paula AZ

    Simon…my comment to you about the quote is in moderation, probably because I posted two links. Here is the link to the main site of that article:
    http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/

    The article is listed under Theme 2:
    The Place of the Presence of God: Aphrahat of Persia’s Portrait of the Christian Holy Man (Alexander Golitzin).

    There’s a slew of articles on that site…a lot to sort through, but I found some of them very interesting and helpful. Thought you (or others here) may want to check them out.

  26. Paula AZ Avatar
    Paula AZ

    Sorry for my lack of patience Father…should’ve asked you to delete the comment that “was” in moderation! Or should’ve just waited….

  27. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Josephus was not a rabbi. Rather, he was a historian who was far more Romanized than Jewish. Philo was not a rabbi but a very Hellenized philosopher. In saying that, I mean that they are not good examples of what I’m describing. I would point rather to some of the sources referenced by Paula from the Marquette website. It represents the work or project that Abp. Alexander (my bishop) has been involved in for most of his academic life (and the present). The landscape of Judaism at the time of the NT was much “weirder” than the average Protestant thinker assumes. Indeed, for some hundreds of years, there has been a make-believe Judaism used and cited by Protestant interpreters that bears very little resemblance to the evidence that actually exists.

    It’s like Protestant thinkers who imagined a Judaism without images (when the excavations of their synagogues prove otherwise) and with nothing that might be a fertile ground for early Christian thought. That imaginary Judaism was supposed to have given rise to an imaginary Christianity, free from the things that we find in Orthodoxy or early Catholicism. Those things were imagined to be influences from Roman pagans that corrupted Christianity. All of that is a false narrative – largely invented after the Reformation – but sticking around doggedly into the present.

    Jesus did not read the Old Testament like some Reform guy from America. He did not read it like Martin Luther. He did very interesting things. Indeed, He rebuked Moses and announced that some of the Levitical law represented Moses’ own work and not the work of God, and He didn’t go on to give much of an explanation. He actually contradicted the literal text of Leviticus. Of course, Jesus doesn’t have a hermeneutic – He is a hermeneutic. He can say, “Moses said, but I say…”

    The drive towards literalism gained steam during and after the Reformation in order to free the text of Scripture from the so-called “tyranny” of the Church’s interpretation. The Reformers wanted a Bible that could stand independent of the Church. That is real heresy.

    There is not a dismissal of the historical from the text – but it plays a much different role than the simplistic flatland account of modernity.

    As Orthodox Christians, we should have no fear in asking any question that occurs to us – whether within Scripture, science, etc. The teaching of the Church is not at stake. Those who would seek to alter the faith that we have received are themselves deceived by modernism. But it is very important, I think, to understand the true nature of Scripture. It is not a book among books – nor should it be compared to any other book. It is read uniquely. Its reading requires the grace of the Holy Spirit as fully as was required in its writing. Certain forms of historical literalism are arguments against grace – as though the Scriptures were to be read in an “objective” manner (not needing God).

    There is a depth and a richness that is too easily ignored – particularly when Orthodoxy is turned into a merely conservative version of modern Christianity (complete with pretty services). I have no truck with modernity. But I do not want to replace it with a de-mystified, flat Orthodoxy that is as stuck in arguing about history and science as are the American fundamentalists (yes, the real ones). It’s a dead-end street.

  28. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Evidently I said something about Jonah that was out of bounds…

  29. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    I know who Josephus was and my point was that he took the OT as history. I get the impression that you think that the Jews didnt take the OT literally. And they did. Theres no evidence that they didnt. Which implies that there are goid reasons for thinking the early Christians did as well regardless of whether or not they restricted themselves to that way of reading.

  30. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Simon,
    I just thought it would possibly provoke more blowback than would be helpful.

  31. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Simon,
    I’m not saying they didn’t take it literally – I’m saying that it was not an issue – it’s our issue and we read it back into them. They thought some things about their texts that were far more than literal which says that to describe it as merely historical would be inadequate.

    I can imagine that we could go among a group of first-century Jews and ask questions about history and Scripture. I think that it would be one of the first times they ever thought about the problem. They certainly thought their writings were far superior than the fanciful stuff of the Greeks and Romans. But when you get into Jewish mystical writings – which are far more dominant in the centuries before Christ than most people know – you are looking at texts in a very different way. That way is by no means the way used in the NT, but the NT is clearly familiar with it and not immune to it.

    Again – and I will pound the point yet again – the historical question (as we understand it) is a modern question and not theirs. It is a modern discussion and not theirs. It is anachronistic to read our concerns back into the worldview.

    I would even suggest that what they would have meant by “historical” is not at all the same thing we mean. I could elaborate, but it’s getting late. Blessings!

  32. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Sure.
    I would have thought that the overall point would have been squarely within bounds of Orthodox thought and really not much of a stretch.

  33. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    No doubt. It’s just that no one but me sees some of the blasts that come rolling in from out there. I just thought I’d turn down the conversation a notch or two.

  34. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Again – and I will pound the point yet again – the historical question (as we understand it) is a modern question and not theirs. It is a modern discussion and not theirs. It is anachronistic to read our concerns back into the worldview.

    I have never read anything in anyone’s comments on the blog that suggested that “the historical question” was the question of Jews or Christians in the first century. Maybe I missed something, but I didn’t see it. I would have assumed that the last thing that any Jew or Christian of the first-century would have ever done was question the history of the people of God as recounted in the OT. I would have assumed that for them that was had all the texture of a concrete reality for them. The questions of history are powerful questions. They force us to look at the implications that mythos has on our self-understanding, and what that means if mythos is determined to be mere myth. If, for example, Abraham was not a real person, then what does that mean for someone’s understanding of the Jews as the chosen people of God? Does it matter at all that Abraham might be mere legend? And if it doesn’t matter, then what does that mean? Telling us ‘that isn’t how the fathers read the scriptures’ doesn’t really help. For better or for worse, the answer to the problem isn’t to ridicule these questions as part of the diseased mind of modernity. On a practical level there is the problem of how do you then teach people to read the scriptures? We can ridicule modernity and Protestants for asking questions that we aren’t interested in, but that just doesn’t help. To be frank, I find it somewhat alienating.

  35. Paz Avatar
    Paz

    Thank you Fr Stephen for an insightful post. In seeking to understand the goodness of God, it is important to discern what is about God and what isn’t. What we know in Christ, reveals to us that God is indeed goodness and Love.

  36. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    I’m deeply sympathetic to modernity. It’s all billiard balls, cinders, and scorched earth–which seems pretty inhospitable–but if that is the way the world really is, then we can’t reject it simply because we don’t like it or its implications. The person who sits alone on a pile ashes who asks the pestering question “How do you know?” isn’t just making a nuisance of him/herself, just using reason as a solvent for everything that comes its way so that they can get back to doing whatever the hell they want. Given that every human illusion born on the wings of despair created to escape that despair goes up in smoke, the question “How do you know?” isn’t rebellion it is a search for what is real. That which is not destroyed in the crucible of reason holds the potential to reveal that which is genuinely Real. In fact, I would argue that it takes courage and soulful honesty to hold such a position. Sure. In modernity, everyone wears a crown and gets a participation award. In other words, everyone must decide for themselves what is right and wrong, whether to do or to do not and gets applauded for doing nothing. But who isn’t doing that anyway?. We are only lying to ourselves if we think that we aren’t deciding for ourselves whether or not to pursue obedience. Right? Even in Orthodoxy God waits on our “Amen.” Given the emphasis on free will that speaks to me about the importance of our continual decision to yield our autonomy (authority/rule over self) to God. A person decides for themselves whether or not to obey God. That is their autonomy at work.

    For me the larger question is “How do we bridge the gap?” How do we reach the cinder people? The answer I am hearing is we don’t. We answer phones. We attend liturgy. We pray, fast, read, raise our families. We criticize…but we don’t reach out. And that to me seems alienating mainly because for all of my efforts to be Orthodox…I am still very much a person of the cinders. As a cinder person the questions that I share with others or modernity seem dismissed.

  37. Paula AZ Avatar
    Paula AZ

    $64,000.00 question: “how do you then teach people to read the scriptures? ”

    Was wondering the same thing. Good suggestions earlier in the comments. I think it takes time. I wanted it in a concise book form! Don’t think it works that way.

    And Simon, Father isn’t ridiculing anyone…he is teaching us things about modernity and Protestantism that are in opposition to Orthodoxy, so the subject matter is sensitive. It’s hard…and I think he handles this with great care and consideration. Surely Father does not endure these “blasts” because he is deriding anyone. These difficult truths are hard for all of us to hear…

  38. Matthew Lyon Avatar
    Matthew Lyon

    Fr. Freeman,

    I never disagreed with you as much as your suggest. But…
    1) To compare Peter and the Wolf and Old Testament conquest narratives / Noah / a literal Adam / etc. – leaves me with a lot of questions. I believe the Old Testament should be read in the way (to the best of our ability) that it’s original audience would have read/heard it – so I disagree with the accusation – the Old or New Testament, any writing, should be true or beneficial to the extent that it is understood within the intention of the communicator. I know that much of the OT is polemical in nature and repurposes ancient near Eastern worldview to show the superiority of Yahweh. But even then, the stories that were repurposed – were believed to be historical. For example, say the flood narratives are corrections to other well known flood narratives and the long life spans correspond to deities in the ancient near-East – they still believed they were historical. But I also believe that it’s impossible to make the suggestion, the warning for example that we should avoid sexual immorality based on a story that is quite possibly only a fable with real truth behind it. When Jesus told about the Tower of Siloam he was referring to a real event – unless you repent…
    2) I’m in full agreement that Adam was not the full reason for the Jewish understanding of the Fall – The Enochian material was more important and took much more precedence over Genesis in explaining human depravity – this much is true in Irenaeus who attributes more to Satan than Adam. That’s no big deal to me. But they, including Irenaeus, took the Enochian material to be real history. Irenaeus and other contemporaries had to deal firsthand with the apologetical issues presented by Jews – so it makes sense for him to believe their methodology flawed – especially since they denied their own Messiah.
    3) I don’t go around labeling people Marciontie – I didn’t officially label you that way. To make the history of Israel as recorded in Scripture, if it is history, a depiction of an evil god – how is that not consistent with Marcion? If we have to de-historicize Scripture to uphold a good God, how would Marcion not approve? Did not Jesus say that it would be better for Sodom and Gomorrah than Capernaum on the day of Judgment? Was Sodom and Gomorrah a fictional yet true myth? Same with Noah, Adam, etc. True myths? Talk about Divine condescension. If so, how should we be sure that Jesus is not a truer myth? This idea destroys anything like knowledge. I don’t believe this is a modern problem, it is a problem anytime anyone has to provide an apologetic for the goodness of God. Remove one problem and you get another. God is an embarrassment for many for what He is said to have done, so, He really didn’t do it, it’s not history. I’m not accusing you of this, it’s just very popular to do.
    4) I believe fully that Christ is the hermeneutical rule for interpreting the O.T. But that doesn’t need to come at the expense of de-historicizing Scripture. Would you criticize an Orthodox Christian who believes Noah was hundreds of years old? Or that Simeon lived far beyond his years to see the coming of the Christ? Or that Mary appeared decisively during battles? Did a child really see into heaven and see “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal”? Or is that all pointing to a deeper reality. If you don’t begin with some sort of concrete experience of reality then there is no real correlation to a deeper reality is there? To have a real analogy don’t we need something real to start with? My guess is you’d disagree.
    5) I’ll stick with what I said, “These things happened” – not figuratively, not allegorically, not a myth with a deeper meaning – I really believe Paul is saying, warning, if this is what happened, don’t repeat the same mistakes. Or he could have been wrong. Or they were not ready for the real meat of the deeper meaning to Scripture. Or twenty-three thousand people died and something similar or worse may happen to them. Can you imagine saying to your children, “Don’t touch the stove. When my great-grandpa touched the stove he caught his clothes on fire and died.” They ask, “Did that really happen?” “Well, yes chlildren, not historically, that’s a modern concern. He really …. he really, uh, became less close to true life.” “Oh, okay daddy.”
    It’s an infinite regress.
    6) I’m not reading our concerns back into their worldview. If there was no Passover there is no Pascha. Pretty soon you don’t even need a real resurrection.
    7) I don’t deny that Scripture, to interpret it properly, happens in the context of the Church and in people to whom the Spirit has gifted to discern it. I understand Origen’s understanding of layers/levels of meaning.
    8) Do I care if Jonah was literal, no. Do I really care if Adam was completely literal, no. I am no fundamentalist. I do care if Moses crossed the Red Sea. I do care if Jesus really rose from the dead literally.
    9) If when we pray and sing the Psalms that God scatter His enemies, that they vanish as wax melts before fire, that they perish at the presence of God – as in Agape Vespers – and we say, the deeper meaning of that goes beyond David and his misunderstood, underdevoloped understanding – how are we not engaging in anthropomorphism? We are insinuating that his words were anthropomorphic and our understanding post-resurrection supercedes David’s to the extent that his original words are… what are they? Rants? Yet we quote David and the Psalmists all of the time in various services. I’ve been accused of wanting to believe in a vengeful God – but I’m more scared of refusing to love a God who has revealed Himself as a Judge.
    10) Last. The quote from Irenaues says nothing I do not agree with. It mentions nothing to do with historicity. Again, I’m not hard pressed to believe everything in the OT is historical in the modern sense – but when NT writers use OT historical events to impress the gravity of consequences for making the same mistakes that have already been seriously dealt with – I’m inclined to think they really happened.

    Fr. Freeman,
    I do appreciate your writings, so I apologize for jumping the gun throwing out Marcion – but I am still confused – since it seems like he would have been content to deny the history of several OT events if there had been only a spiritual meaning behind the accounts. That’s not a back-handed compliment/apology.

    Matt

  39. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Paula, I never meant to imply that Fr. is deriding anyone. That is not who he is at all. But, modernity doesn’t exist as a thing outside of human minds. Therefore, there is a real sense that when we speak harshly of any way of thinking that we are speaking harshly of the people that think that way.

  40. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    I’m more scared of refusing to love a God who has revealed Himself as a Judge.

    Whether you realize it or not, brother, you are a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists are motivated by fear and judgment–and that is you. I’m not attacking you. I’m just saying that is how you come across to me. You don’t want to be a fundamentalist, you just don’t know how to escape it.

  41. Paula AZ Avatar
    Paula AZ

    Simon…I see a difference between speaking hard truths and being harsh. That these truths are unbearable to some does not mean that they should remain unspoken. There can be, and lots of time there is, fruitful dialogue. I see that a lot here. The same can, and does, happen in the world. A little love and kindness goes a long way. But I think you know as well as I that these ‘human’ difficulties are, in this age, here to say. Hard truth.

  42. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    I see there’s a fascinating and very informative conversation which I wish I had time to read properly… The interpretational key of Holy Scripture (as of everything actually) can only ever be the Divine Logos of God. He is the meaning of it all and He comes and ‘opens our hearts to understand’ (Luke 24:45). But this means that God’s Uncreated Grace is what enters into the Church’s sons and daughters and illumines and ‘opens the hearts’ of the Church’s children to comprehend the ‘one thing needful’ – the divine revelation concealed behind written words (or hidden within any other ‘icon’). To the measure we are without God’s Uncreated Light we are like a man without eyes, or, quite often: with extreme shortsightetndess and armed with nothing but a microscope (one who would therefore do well to trust the guidance of those who have eyes that see far and wide). We might be able to ‘see’ and even argue with rational perspicuity on details of cells, nerves, atoms and electrons but miss the human being these form right in front of us. There is a great breadth and depth in what we can cogently analyse and study regarding cells, nerves, atoms and electrons (like stories, personalities, facts and dates) but to ‘see’ the ‘Crucified and Exalted God’s’ work in everything, requires the Light that emanates from Him to enter the heart and mind.
    Whether there’s cells or atoms forming them, or quantum mechanics forming them, etc is not “beside the point” but it can easily become the reason for missing the point/meaning.

  43. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    I’ll give this one more try. I am not saying that the historical character of an OT writing/event is of no importance. However, the writings of the OT are rarely written in a manner in which the “what happened” of things is primary. The way the story is told is primary. It is the meaning of the story that is shaping it, not a careful rehearsal of facts. There are things in the Scripture, such as 1Cor. 15 on the resurrection, that is a careful rehearsal of facts, citing eyewitnesses. That is done for a very careful reason and a particular concern for the literal/historical character of the event.

    I readily assume that most people of the time of the NT would have thought about events in the OT as historically true. What I am saying is that was not the dominant or primary thing in their mind. We are conditioned to think in extremely historical terms and pretty much think that the “truth” of things is found in their history. If they were not primarily historically minded, then what were they?

    They were primarily textually minded. There was an attitude towards the text that was almost magical compared to how we think – at least in the mainstream of rabbinical thought. It is one of the reasons for the incredibly accurate transmission of the texts across generations (particularly when compared to other ancient writings). The text itself triumphs over the historical questions. It doesn’t destroy them or make them of no interest – I’m simply saying that it was not the primary thing in the manner that it is in modern thought where the “truth” is seen as historical.

    I will use an example (thinking of Matt’s comment). In point of fact, we cannot know about the historical character of the first Passover. We have a highly stylized, theological account that even has many things in common with a fictional account (written in an omniscient viewpoint – for example). That doesn’t make it fictional – and I’m not saying that. I am saying that the historical details of the event are lost to us because the telling of the story in its theological form supercedes it. The event is clearly important to Israel and is the center of its cycle of feasts. However, we get it backwards when we think, “If the details of the historical account of Passover cannot be trusted, then it undermines everything about Christ.” That is backwards. It is the death and resurrection of Jesus that gives truth and meaning to the account of the Passover regardless of its accuracy.

    The backwards approach, in which we imagine ourselves to start at the beginning and work our way, billiard ball to billiard ball, until we reach the present is simply a non-starter. First, we cannot (in a historical/literal way) get back to the first billiard ball, or accurately to each billiard ball in the sequence. We imagine that we can – but that is the modern imagination.

    This same flaw within the billiard-ball approach is frequently used by various moderns to undermine the entire notion of the Scriptures. They question this billiard ball or that one, and then argue that everything fails.

    For myself, in preaching the gospel to moderns (which, I will note, is the only thing I have done ceaselessly for the last four decades of my life), I try to address their historical uncertainty – their anxiety that “maybe all this stuff didn’t happen.” I try to address it because, if they insist on a billiard ball approach to truth and reality, they will fail and their faith will fail – unless they suspend their disbelief and enter a form of fideism – “it must be true because the Bible says it.” If that works for you fine. But it will probably fail your grandchildren.

    Instead – I turn to the death and resurrection of Christ as the single, essential point in all of history. Christ’s Pascha is true in every possible sense of the word. Everything is relative to it. We cannot know all of the historical details of OT writings – we simply cannot. We can “infer” it – which is what Matt is doing. “If Paul said it, it must be true because he believed it and Paul can’t be wrong because then the whole NT would be wrong.” Can you see the weakness in this? You are arguing for the historical character of things based only on your fideistic assumptions about the NT. That will convince only those who want to be convinced. It is useless with an atheist or a doubter. If you want to argue on historical grounds – then look to the death and resurrection of Christ. Start there.

    I do not want to argue against the historical – but I want to suggest that it’s the wrong way to approach our questions most of the time. In the quote from Irenaeus, we see the text, and the mystery hidden within the text, triumphing. He’s not arguing about history with the Jews or the Gnostics – he’s arguing about how the text is to be read. It doesn’t dismiss the historical – but it’s a different way of thinking.

    We do not say that the God in the OT is “evil.” We say that the God of the OT is Jesus Christ and that the OT is a “shadow” (to quote St Maximus the Confessor and St. Ambrose). We have to read beneath the shadow of the OT to see Jesus Christ. They both say that the NT is “icon,” and the age to come is the Truth itself. You do not call something a “shadow” if you’re primarily thinking in historical terms. I find their approach to be not only helpful, but extremely useful in speaking to a modern world of unbelievers. I do not argue history with them. I argue Christ and His Pascha. We start there.

    To Simon: I think I care more about moderns, as moderns, than most people. I write about the problems of modernity because those problems are eating up modern people and leaving them empty. I think, based on the correspondence that I have, that many people have found great help through the work. Simon, you say (quoting me, I think), “we attend liturgy, etc., and answer the phone,” and assume that nothing else is happening. I have about a half-million views a year on the blog (that I know of). Since the internet is where people get their information – that’s where I am. I have no idea of how to go out an “reach” people in some other manner. Not door to door – that would require a cult.

    Based on the correspondence I’ve had with people for the more than ten years of the blog – it has played a role in the salvation of a very large number of people – certainly more than 10 times the number of my parish. And that represents only those who have stopped to send me a note and say thanks. But the Orthodox faith has to be absorbed and lived. That happens by patiently praying, fasting, attending liturgy, repenting, etc. If it were an ideology, then we could quickly equip people to spread the ideas. But it’s not. It’s a way of life. I didn’t write a line for the first 8 years of my Orthodox life – and then, only because I was asked. It takes time.

    “We criticize but we don’t reach out” – it’s simply not true. It also ignores the endless hours of counseling, listening, confessing, etc., all among “the cinder people.”

  44. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Dino, in principle I understand what youre saying and in principle I reject it out of hand. Is that fair enough to say?

  45. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Fr. I do not question your sincerity, your integrity, or the value of your work. I find your criticism modernity puts me in a state of cognitive dissonance. Am I the only one that feels that way? Maybe. Or maybe not. That dissonance hasnt been resolved by either grace or good sense. I hear about all the dangers of modernity, but that doesnt map to my experience. Does that make sense?

  46. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Simon,
    Indeed it makes sense. I once heard someone say that it was not good to answer questions that are not being asked. I think that in many ways, what I’m saying about modernity is not an answer to the questions that matter to you. There’s nothing wrong with that.

    On the other hand, I’m working with answers to things that are questions for me (since that’s sort of true for all of us). And, it seems, those are questions for many others – but not for all.

    The most one can expect in that sort of setting is to listen to the other and hear what their questions are and seek to understand. But I’m not saying that these questions should be everybody’s questions.

    The assumptions of modernity (as I’ve carefully described them – noting that the term has nothing to do with science, technology, etc.) – I believe to be false and that they lead to false conclusions and a false construction of the world. But, it’s important in the conversation is to actually respond to what I’ve said about modernity and not about some other take on modernity. Several times in the course of comments, you’ve gone back to saying how you like science, etc. And I have said nothing against science nor do I think it to be part of “modernity.” When that happens, we talk past each other.

    But I do not expect everyone to be interested in the questions that interest me.

  47. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    “Based on the correspondence I’ve had with people for the more than ten years of the blog – it has played a role in the salvation of a very large number of people.”

    I’d left the Church for a number of years to my great detriment. I’ve returned by grace, the prayers of my Godfather and friends, a very good priest and this Blog. I’m blessed to bring with me my wife and young daughter – who will be Chrismated next week. My deep thanks to you Father for all you do and for everyone here for the community you provide.

  48. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Michael,
    Thanks. I have to say that I never began thinking, “What do people need to hear, what will work, etc.” I have simply written and continue to do that. The miracle (to me) is that it seems to be helpful for many. May God give you and your family great grace in the coming weeks!

  49. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Fr. Good points. I often fail to think about the fact that you have questions that interest you and that you write about those questions. And there is a reasonable expectation that your audience is interested as well.

    I think there is a large intersection between science and the philosophical content of modernity. A question might be whether or not that intersection is inevitable?

  50. Matthew Lyon Avatar
    Matthew Lyon

    Fr. Freeman/Simon,

    Last comment. I appreciate that you have an apologetical/pastoral concern for those who question the historicity of the Bible. The only real apologetic that satisfies me for taking seriously the content of the OT is that Jesus believed it, and then only because of the Resurrection – if that is fideism, so be it – but I’m sure I’m among millions of Christians, Orthodox included who think this way. And I’m familiar with the archaeology issues surrouding the Exodus and the conquest narratives. I do not care whether or not theologizing the accounts was in play – the entirety of the Jewish life was built around Passover.

    The reaction from me, is probably more sensitive, due to the fact that it resembles liberal Protestantism. I understand that their concerns were to protect inerrancy and therefore Sola Scriptura and the authority of Scripture.

  51. Paula AZ Avatar
    Paula AZ

    Dino,
    Thank you much for your comment. I assume you are in the midst of dealing with the aftermath of the fires. I pray God’s continued strength for you and all.

    I can’t help but see in your words the very things that St. Maximus said were revealed in The Transfiguration. He says that the rays of the Uncreated Light “overwhelmed the strength of the eyes…so also there God transcends all the power and strength of the mind…”. He goes on to teach that Christ’s shining garments point to the light of truth revealed in 1) Holy Scripture and 2) the presence of The Word in all of creation (logoi). And…that this knowledge of God is given to each in proportion as to what each person can comprehend.
    So Dino…I have no doubt whatsoever in these teachings that are not only here on Father’s blog but are taught by the Fathers/Church on down the line throughout the history and even pre-history of the Church. I am quickly coming to the conclusion, especially based on your comment here that this Uncreated Light for us laypeople comes in increments…each increment totally fulfulling, lacking nothing, and only to plant a desire to want to know God even more. I think one of the reasons I want to know “everything…and everything now” is because of my age (63) and the concern about the possibility of “missing” something. It is a vague feeling, and probably pretty silly. In truth, most of us, the learned and the just-beginning-to learn, haven’t even come close to knowing true Reality. I don’t know any way else to describe it, only that these Truths are the source of Life that keeps me going. Oh, there is so much more to the literal! I think, even after death, we will ever be moving toward God in knowing Him. It’s a wonderful thing!
    Blessed Feast of Transfiguration, Dino…and to all!

  52. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Simon,
    I would think you’re right about the intersection. After all, the philosophical world/culture we live in is grounded in the ideas of modernity. An interesting question might be, “How would science be different if it was grounded in something other than modernity – say, a classical world-view?” For one, I think it would be less geared towards supporting a consumerist view of the world. It might have a deeper ethical content (there are fewer and fewer ethical questions being asked). It might turn its attention to questions that would never occur to a modernist. Interesting line of thought…

    On my writing. I have a rule of thumb: only write about what you know. That sometimes means writing about the questions that I know – the ones that kick around all the time in my head/heart. The few times I’ve ever tried to violate this, the result is terrible. Thus, what I write is very much a part of who I am and really can’t be otherwise. To write in a different manner just feels inauthentic. I might add that it’s how I preach as well. I think of St. Anne’s and how the congregation has had to endure my stories for 20 years…makes me feel very much like a grandfather.

  53. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    You got miles on the tires, brother.

  54. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Paula,
    A quick comfort on the Uncreated Light. That rather rare experience is a seeing of the Divine Energies. It helps me to remember that the primary revelation of the Divine Energies is found in Providence. Many of the saints (St. Dionysius, for example) say that Providence is nothing other than the Divine Energies. So, as we look around us at the unfolding work of the good God, we behold His Divine Energies everywhere and in all things.

  55. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Matthew,
    I completely understand. And I know for a fact that what you’re describing is shared by millions. My path to Orthodoxy was between the claims of liberal Protestantism (in which I was trained) and the demands of Evangelical Fundamentalism (in which I was born, more or less). Both seemed to be failures, ultimately. You are clearly not a fundamentalist, by the way. 🙂

    I found Orthodoxy, and many of the patristic writings, to be describing a different path that I found helpful and saving. As I replied to Simon, I write from within my own questions. It is helpful to some. If I have a problem, it is with being occasionally accused of doing something other than Orthodoxy (I do not hear that in your comments at all). There are voices that would drag the Church into a dead end. I’m also aware that there are some, embracing an essentially Liberal Protestant approach, would drag the Church off a cliff. Avoiding either of those options is tricky. I think it is the times we live in.

  56. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    I apologize for labelling Matt. That was just an idiotic thing to.

    Any time I hear about fear and judgment in the same sentence that seems very fundamentalist. I havent met a fundamentalist that doesnt fear the judgment God. But I have no business characterizing someone’s experience for them. That was just ridiculous.

  57. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    “Fear and judgment”
    I was thinking about this the other night. I do “fear judgment” and I was wondering what that meant for me. I believe that to behold the Face of Christ is also to behold the truth of our selves. And I think it is that truth that makes us cower in shame. I believe that Christ is a good God and that I have nothing to fear from Him. My fear is of my own sin. Every time we go to confession (for example), we stand before the judgment seat of Christ. The Elder Sophrony said, “God never judges us twice.” When I bear my soul and its sins before Him, I am settling that matter for all time. But (thinking in ontological terms), I know the depth of things is so far greater, perhaps infinite, than anything I attempt in confession. Shame and fear go hand in hand. The course of the spiritual life, it seems to me, is to go deeper and ever deeper into that place we would fear to go so that we might find in it the love of Christ, in whose bright presence there can be no darkness. But that’s a strange, scary journey.

  58. Paula AZ Avatar
    Paula AZ

    “It helps me to remember that the primary revelation of the Divine Energies is found in Providence…So, as we look around us at the unfolding work of the good God, we behold His Divine Energies everywhere and in all things.”

    Thank you Father! By His Providence, through His Divine Energies, in everything and all around He is revealing. A blessed thing to remember!

  59. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    My understanding is this to the extent we fear judgment then to that extent we do not know God. And by that I mean the judgment of a person sitting across the desk with a stern face reviewing your performance record and while you wait for him to decide what your fate is. I know that isnt what youve described, but a person who fears God this way doesnt know God. Or at least this person doesnt know God well. In Jesus parable of the talents fear of a demanding master led to treatment consistent with that fear.

    For me God is so much like the Good Samaritan that judgment doesnt enter my mind. How could you ever fear such a person?

  60. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Simon,
    Yes. What you’ve described is not my image of judgment at all. It is anthropomorphic in the worst sense. A bit of theology is very helpful in such matters. In Orthodox hymnography, the Judgment Seat of Christ is synonymous with the Cross.

  61. Dean Avatar
    Dean

    Father Stephen,
    As to biblical interpretation, a godly hermeneutic… How does belief in the one storey universe affect our interpretation of Scripture? As you just mentioned again, God is everywhere present. I’ve been surprised in looking at Navajo traditions/mythology. Of course for a traditionalist in that culture, the spirit world surrounds them, as they seek beauty and harmony in everyday life. Their’s is also a very one storey world.
    Anyway, how is our interpretation of the Word influenced by a one-storey, non-modernist seeing of the world?

  62. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Dean,
    It’s a very good question. The easiest way to approach that question is realizing that the “one-storey universe” is another way of say, “the world is a sacrament.” For the Scriptures, it is right to say they are sacrament and icon. When I take communion, I am not terribly concerned with the bread. I’ve had various qualities of prosphora to work with over the years – but it all became the Body of Christ. If we were laboring as much over the relationship between bread and Body (like a Medieval Scholastic), as we are presently laboring over the relationship between history and meaning, we would soon get lost. The bread is important, but it is subsumed the reality of the Body of Christ. Whatever we might say, one way or the other about OT Scriptures, they are subsumed in the sacrament of Christ’s Pascha. I don’t spend much time worrying or thinking about historical problems/questions. I’m looking for Christ’s Pascha and seeking to be united with it.

  63. Dean Avatar
    Dean

    Thank you Father.
    At one time I was one who believed that if one thing could be disproven in the OT, then it all collapsed like a stacked deck of cards. This very much worried me as did God’s wrath. Through the many years, in the Church, Christ has freed me from these worries. I look to Him, His forgiveness, His grace, His kindness and goodness to me. I do try to live in His wonder, in the moment, attempting to anchor my thoughts and actions in this one-storey. Thank you so much for your teaching on reading the OT through the Pascha of Christ and for reiterating that we only see the Father through Christ. Glory to God for all things!

  64. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    As far I am concerned the idea that the entire OT is fictional doesnt take anything away from it or diminish its capacity for revelation and truth. I read Dostoevsky with as much authority as scripture. Unknowingly Dostoevsky was my introduction to Orthodoxy. If you had no OT, you could read Dostoevsky find yourself one night at Orthodox church and get baptized and six months later still: Dostoevsky is a much better intro to Orthodoxy than the OT–and it is totally a work of fiction. But there is real truth in that fiction.

  65. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Simon,
    I would never want to make such a disconnect. Pure fiction would by Isaac Asimov. Jesus was a Jew. To be a Jew includes a Jewish history. Regardless of how the stories might be told, they are told of a real people in a real place at a real time (for the most part). And, even if a story is largely fictional, it is the fiction of a real people at a real place in a real time – and that is also revelatory.

  66. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Fr., I see that. I can understand that as a difference that actually makes a difference.

  67. Dean Avatar
    Dean

    I don’t want to take up too much space….however.
    This is one vignette of how unreliable history is or “eyewitness” testimony. When I was 24 I went through the CA. Highway Patrol Academy. We were all out in the race track. Unknown to us 58 cadets, the officers were readying a staged accident. So, we were standing there listening to an officer speak. Then, right behind him the “accident” between 2 vehicles occurred. We were very surprised at what we had just witnessed. At that point we were all given a pen and pad and were told to write what we had witnessed. Later, we read aloud what we had seen. At some of the responses, we almost rolled in the aisle! They were so at odds with “our” own observations of what we had seen. Why the differences? Well, we were at different vantage points, some were more alert than others, we may have been suffering from the affects of an Academy breakfast! Yet, to a man we would have testified in court as to the truthfulness of what we had seen.
    Before modern technology, eyewitness accounts, physical evidence, written statements, oral history, etc., was what we based our history upon. Even today with cameras, evidence can be photo-shopped so as to be unreliable. Same is true with other technologies.
    I have not studied history as has Michael B. who writes on the blog. Anyway, I do know that written histories are “massaged,” that none are written without bias of some sorts. And we have the theological “bias” as it were, of the OT, only understood through the lens of the Holy Spirit working through the Church’s Holy Tradition. Without Christ’s Pascha the interpretive lens will remain clouded.

  68. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Simon
    I don’t quite understand what “understanding in principle and rejecting in principle” means.
    That we only truly understand Scripture (even scripture we had previously deeply studied and analysed) to the measure that the divine energies open it (as on the road to Emaus) to us is pretty foundational and I would assume not “rejectable” much…?

  69. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Simon one thing history does, particularly oral history, is to serve as a people’s memory of what is valuable, what creates cohesion, what gives them identity as a people and as persons. With the advent of “empirical”, “objective” history in the 19th century along with an industrial economy much of that has been lost. Such history no matter how factually correct has a void at it’s center.

    However the reality of God’s Providence is still extant in the Biblical narrative and the Tradition of the Church as revealed through time — God with us. That is the real lie of Marcionism that there was a time when God did not reveal Himself to His people.

    It is akin to the mistake of certain Protestants that the Church, after the Apostles, fell away and had to be restored. The realization of the continuity of God’s revelation of Himself to us is critical to a full faith. The Old Testament is an important part of that fullness

  70. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Dean, you are quite correct. The Biblical narrative is largely a particular type of oral history designed and guarded by the priesthood as a treasure to be passed down with a certain mythos always intact. Some “facts” may be in error but it is not a legal testimony. It is there for us to be opened for us as Dino explains. An Ark if you will.

  71. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    How does the Orthodox church interpret the conquest of Canaan? What is the allegorical meaning? How does it fit in with Pasha? Regardless of whether or not it is literal history, there’s a story there that is a shadow of a greater reality? What greater realities are shadowed by the stories in Joshua?

  72. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Simon,
    Frequently, the Land of Israel is treated as synonymous with the Kingdom of God – the fullness of our life in Christ. Who inhabits the land that we must fight. There are the passions and distractions, temptations and the demons. There are commentaries that stress the need to be thorough (kill them all) taking those passages into a spiritual allegory. I have rarely seen any other treatment.

  73. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Simon,
    Let’s see how the OT story of the Israelite conquest of Canaan functions as a “shadow” of Christ within the Church. I notice the conquering Israelites also pass through the Jordan (by a miracle of God through faith) in order to launch their conquest of the Promised Land (a picture, as is the Red Sea in the Passover account, of baptism, death and resurrection in Christ). Their fight is with their enemies the Canaanites and they are told to destroy these all from warrior to infant. The Canaanites, if you will, are a symbol of our passions (in all stages of maturity) that need to be destroyed lest they remain and destroy the new life we have through Christ. The Promised Land is an image of the Kingdom in its consummation. The whole narrative (in this deeper level of meaning as type, shadow and symbol of life in Christ) is a picture of salvation from beginning to end.

    I also see a parallel between the Israelites’ first baptism of Passover followed by their second baptism of the Jordan with our first (Liturgical) Baptism (rebirth) in the Church followed by ascetic struggle supported the prayers of the Church and Grace of the Holy Spirit to work out our own salvation in the “wilderness” of this world which is culminated in our actual rebirth (Baptism into Christ) through physical death and struggle in the particular judgment to defeat whatever sin remains in us through the grace of that judgment (also accomplished by the prayers of the Church and the grace of the Holy Spirit working through
    our faith) to take our own proper place within Christ’s Kingdom in its consummation. That is my summation of an Orthodox reading and application of those texts. Does that help?

  74. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    In talking of baptism, I should add that we will have the joy of witnessing my daughter’s Holy Baptism tomorrow during the Divine Liturgy in my parish, and I invite everyone’s prayers for her (Katie) on this blessed occasion. She is very excited.

  75. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    “Our religion is perfectly and profoundly conceived. What is simple is also what is most precious. Accordingly, in your spiritual life engage in your daily contest simply, easily, and without force. The soul is sanctified and purified through the study of the Fathers, through the memorization of the psalms and of portions of Scripture, through the signing of hymns and through the repetition of the Jesus Prayer. Devote your efforts, therefore, to these spiritual things and ignore all the other things.”

    This is just the way it is going to have to be for me. I’m not capable of engaging all this other crap without getting provoked. Yet, there is a presence that has me by the back of the neck and despite all my efforts to the contrary will not let me leave. I have concluded this before and every time without fail that I get away from this I end up with my britches in a bunch. I don’t like it. So, this is me.

  76. Paula AZ Avatar
    Paula AZ

    Karen and Michael,
    Delighted to hear of your daughter’s Baptism, Karen. And Michael, your daughter’s Chrismation. God is good!
    My prayers….

  77. Paula AZ Avatar
    Paula AZ

    Karen,
    I like your reading of Joshua. Thanks!
    I have a question about your use of the word judgement here:
    “… our actual rebirth (Baptism into Christ) through physical death and struggle in the particular judgment to defeat whatever sin remains in us through the grace of that judgment …”
    You are saying that the actual judgement of our sin, is Christ’s judgment of the wage of our sin, that being death…which Christ conquered by His death, reading Christ’s Pascha into this…and “by the grace of that judgment” (I am enamored by that phrase), is that it is not punishment but, as we said before, grace as a Divine Energy that carries us in our cleansing and healing right up to the end of the age. Is this how you are using that word?

  78. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Simon,
    Fr. Lawrence’s take is not uncommon. It is pretty much what St. Augustine did with the question. Here’s another link: https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2016/07/violence-in-old-testament-patristic.html

    What you see, I think, is a variety of treatments. It’s simply one of those things that are never defined. I’m not terribly satisfied with Fr. Lawrence’s answer (and thus Augustine’s). There are weaknesses in it – but it is one of several different approaches. I prefer to deal with these things typologically or ascetically. Jesus’ Pascha is definitive for me (and for the faith). One problem that crops up in Augustine (one of the founders of Just War theory) is that you begin to do a theology of God that is not controlled by Christ’s Pascha – but just a sort of moral reasoning.

    There are things in Orthodoxy that are left unanswered, half-unanswered, or multi-answered. We should draw certain conclusions from that – and the conclusion should be – “Don’t be dogmatic about this.”

  79. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    It isn’t that I thought the conclusion was worthwhile, but it seemed to be something that would pass for an “official” view.

  80. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    It’s a common view. But there’s not really an official view. Some things are sort of messy. Since Orthodoxy is not an ideology this sort of thing comes up from time to time. I think of this when I’m reading in the Fathers – they are in conversation many times – not in a dogmatic mode.

  81. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Simon,
    I think something to consider is the fact that nowhere in the tradition is there a real ease about the violence of God in the OT writings. It is seen as problematic. That much is agreed. What is not agreed is how to explain and talk about it. It is there that we see variety.

  82. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    As you say Orthodox thinking is messy, incomplete, and multiple and that can be difficult to adjust to. To be frank, that is difficult for me to adjust to because my sense of it is to see it as a warning sign. There is a voice that says “If their noetic understanding is such hot stuff, then why aren’t these things better understood?” At times this voice is quite insistent. So, I retreat to ground where I know there is surer footing and I recover. Sometimes I just want to know what are the Orthodox 101 basics and then just stick to those things for a period of years. I mean really lay a solid foundation. At the end of the day I have a sense for why I am here as opposed to anywhere else. And to be honest there is a hold that Orthodoxy has on me that makes me feel very uncomfortable.

  83. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Paula, thanks for your prayers!

    With regard to the particular judgment pictured as the last purgation of our sins (a kind of trial, like the trials in the wilderness for the Passover) wherein we see ourselves for what we truly are in the full Light of Christ’s Presence, I am drawing upon Fr. Stephen’s mention that the Cross and the Throne of Judgment are the same thing within Orthodoxy. In fact, where Holy Communion is placed on the Altar Table in the Altar/Sanctuary in an Orthodox Temple is also called the Throne. Where we go to receive our forgiveness and life from Christ in the form of His Body and Blood is also the seat of His judgment of us (again as a showing forth of who we really are in the light of His love). This is why we pray (from the prayer of St. Simeon the New Theologian) when we approach the Chalice (having prepared through repentance and fasting), “Behold, I draw near to the Divine Communion. Burn me not as I partake, O Creator, for You are fire which burns the unworthy. Rather cleanse me of all defilement. Of your Mystical Supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant,…”

  84. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Paula, also from the imagery of the Communion prayers:

    “…With love have you drawn me, O Christ, and with your divine love have you changed me. Burn away my sins with a spiritual fire and satisfy me with joy in you, that I may joyful magnify your two comings, O Good One….”

    When we read about the Saints in their approach to God there is always the tension in their prayers of their great and deeply sensitive consciousness of their unworthiness in falling short (as we always will) of Christ’s glory, as well as the humbled awareness of His unremitting welcome and the unspeakable depth of His love and forgiveness that emboldens them to keep going forth into His presence where our sins are burned away in His love and only what is of Him remains within us.

  85. Paula AZ Avatar
    Paula AZ

    Oh Karen, thank you. That explanation touches me deeply. Fool that I am, it brings me to tears when I take in words such as this….The Cross and the Throne of Judgment the same…and the alter is also called The Throne where we receive His Body and Blood…and that too is the seat of His judgment. Merciful Lord!
    I recall Father writing on this, but I tell you every time I hear this it is like hearing it for the first time. I understand both the unworthiness of approaching the chalice and also His great love and forgiveness and it is there, in knowing this, where I weep. It is a healing…hard to explain…
    Yes, the communion prayers…I read them in the little pamphlet…now I will remember this conversation as I read them in the future…like tomorrow!
    Thank you again, Karen. Such a Wonder!

  86. Paula AZ Avatar
    Paula AZ

    “And to be honest there is a hold that Orthodoxy has on me that makes me feel very uncomfortable.”
    Simon, my brother…it’s that heavy cross your carrying…right toward that mountain…

  87. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Simon,
    I suspect that the discomfort is not to be found within the ideas/teachings of Orthodoxy – but within your self – emotions/heart, etc. The purpose of true noetic understanding isn’t to explain everything or to figure everything out in a clean manner – it is union with God. The messiness of Orthodoxy is, for me, a statement about its truth. In one sense, it is the least messy Christianity that I know – the whole of it is a seamless garment in its path to union with Christ. In another sense, it’s quite messy because it is not the neat system invented by human beings (much less a single human being as is true in many denominational Christianities). Like history itself, it’s too large to get your head around. It lacks the tidiness of post-Enlightenment projects because it really is 2,000 years old and encompasses vast cultures.

    Noetic understanding is not terribly interested in the questions that dog the rational mind. Think about this: Is Orthodoxy trying to convince you to be a bad person? Is it drawing you closer to the love of God and life that is on behalf of all and for all?

    There are many reasons to be uncomfortable with that…but none of them are further than the heart itself.

  88. Paula AZ Avatar
    Paula AZ

    Father and Simon…pardon my interjection…
    Emotion…the heart…as an “emotional” person, I believe that God never stops bidding us to follow His lead, as you’ve said, He woos us, and keeps on “chasing after us” even in our resistance, and can heal the hurt, the damage, the toxic shame, that come forth in our emotions. But it is not that He would have us to be emotionless, but He heals and redirects the emotion for the good…toward virtue, if you will. I think of St. Peter going from boldly slicing the soldiers’ ear off with a sword, to boldly proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as in the beginning chapters of Acts.
    There is always hope for us “emotional” ones who just can’t seem to hide them and tend to the extremes. I just wanted to add that thought, Father, because I can relate to Simon in regard to the emotions. It is a burden we carry…

  89. Dean Avatar
    Dean

    Some of the recent comments have reminded me of what C.S. Lewis wrote of his conversion.
    “…I was drug into the kingdom, kicking, struggling, resentful…..” Surprised by Joy.
    And of Francis Thompson’s poem, “The Hound of Heaven.” Worth a read, if for nothing else, his wondrous use of the English language.

  90. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Simon you ask good questions. Thank you.

  91. Paula AZ Avatar
    Paula AZ

    Dean…yeah…the Hounds of Heaven…I had that in mind too. Great poem.

  92. David Brent Avatar
    David Brent

    Father, this post (along with the comments) is one of your best. It is up there with “all things are in motion” . . . I know, it’s been a while . . . that’s not the title, but you probably know which one I’m referring to. I think I will add this to the list of required reading for my adult children. The “angry” god of the OT is something that perplexes them. I can’t wait for our family discussion at our next family getaway!!
    You have blessed me in many ways with this post. Now I know which icon to add to our icon space. And when someone professes the wrong kind of fear of God, I know which icon to point to. Thank you for giving me some tangible take a-ways.

  93. Dee of St Hermans Avatar
    Dee of St Hermans

    I’ve been away and have attempted to read all comments in one sitting–a difficult task if one desires to imbibe deeply.

    Fr Stephen’s work in this blog (not just this particular comment stream) is the first place I have encountered such a well presented explanation of how modernity as a philosophical filter, alters our perceptions. Personally as an Orthodox Christian and a scientist, I do not at all equate modernity with science, and the explorations of science into the deeper structures of nature. In fact, if one takes such path (through science) into nature while living in the world humbly and sacramentally (and more so in Christ), God’s icon is witnessed in nature through the applications of science. God’s grace in science illuminates His icon and cannot obstruct it. The obstruction that prevents us from viewing the icon of Christ in nature, is not a function of science itself, but of modernity that has been purposefully overlaid upon it. Cells, atoms, electromagnetic forces (to speak of just a few ‘things’ found in nature) all point to Christ and Christ’s Pascha. Modernity is a philosophy that attempts to obscure the arrow. And I’m grateful for Fr Stephen’s writings in how he demonstrates how modernity does the same with scripture.

    I’ve debated whether or not to share the following link as I want to write helpfully when I comment. The link is to a paper that presents somewhat current discussions in quantum mechanics on the topic of spacetime and it’s ‘orientation’. It will seem abstract or indecipherable to some readers, but in it I read one important point, and that is all events in history including those that ‘have occurred’ down to the very ‘nuts and bolts’ of nature have ‘no orientation’ in spacetime. Another way of expressing ‘no orientation’ is to say that the deeper one goes into nature, what we might call a ‘timeline’ becomes ever more difficult point in a particular direction to label as an ‘historical event’. This helps (me at least) to understand how all events whether on the macro level or the deep down level of the subatomic, can be oriented to Christ’s Pascha.

    For those who want to explore this idea, here is the citation: The orientability of spacetime
    Mark J Hadley Published 16 August 2002 • Classical and Quantum Gravity, Volume 19, Number 17.

    And here is a link to the full article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0202031.pdf

    BTW there is no mention of Christ’s Pascha in the paper. Christ’s Pascha is what underlies this work. I hope the link works and it is helpful. But I realize it might not be much use to others. I wish to finish by saying that I agree fully with Fr Stephen, and if what I’ve written doesn’t seem to support his work in the way I wish, I ask for your patience and prayers.

  94. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Dee, fascinating as I have come to much the same conclusion about “historical events” as the science you present, but through my own avocation of history. Indeed as I look at it, that is the way I was taught to approach history.

    I long ago came to the realization that any human discipline pursued with humility, love and the desire for the truth ends up in the same place.

    Science is not the cause or root of the modern project. It too has been hijacked but it is not to be identified with what is wrong. That is foolish.
    Thank you.

  95. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Dee, that paper deals with quantum phenomena and posits a hypothetical in order to make sense of the more ‘spooky’ phenomena that are observed at that scale. Even if the authors are correct, once quantum collapse occurs then linear time predominates. This article doesnt really adress questions of history.

  96. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Dee, I find it odd that with the assumptions of strict material reductionism, mechanism, and hard determinism that you find such a sharp distinction between modernity and science. The more I read on modernity the more I am coming to the idea that modernity is almost an inevitable result whenever the assumptions about how to do science move from methodology to ontology. Modernity procedes from science.

  97. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Michael, you seem very convinced about the foolishness of someone who thinks modernity follows from science. And on the one hand I would have to say youre right. I used the word inevitable earlier and that was too strong of a word. So, let me ask you, why do you think that the relationship between modernity and science is foolishness? Are there any other sources that argue that there is a strong mapping between the two? I know Fr. has a specific intention and focus when adressing modernity. But he didnt invent the word ‘modernity’ and there are researchers (sociologists and philosophers) who have spent their careers studying these things. Their input is valuable too and so are their definitions.

  98. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Simon, Michael

    Some thoughts:
    I have a particular critique of modernity – but the term, as I use it, is its most common meaning in philosophical/theological material. In those writings (which I’ve been studying at a graduate level since the later 80’s) it represents not a period of time, per se, but a set of ideas. Those ideas dominate in our time. But, again, they have nothing to do with science or technology. They have to do with things like the myth of progress (it’s only a narrative), human beings viewed as individualistic (when we actually only exist as social creatures), the primacy of the will and choice (when what is largely meant is little more than consumerism).

    It is true that most doing science are not critical of modernity (the ideas), but neither is a 2nd grade school teacher, because they do not bother to ask critical questions about the underpinnings of their culture. They assume that their work is somehow about progress, even though the bulk of science is done to further the consumer economy (it’s who pays the bills). Even in our beloved Oak Ridge, the push has been steady and constant since the mid 90’s to find ways to turn our science discoveries into marketable things.

    If you go to Amazon – and search “modernity” – pretty much eight of the first dozen books will be speaking about modernity with the same hallmarks that I have described. Critiquing modernity is as much about critiquing our ourselves and our unexamined assumptions as it is anything. In that manner, it is a critique of blindness.

    An immediate connection between science and modernity is that science is being done by people who (mostly) uncritically assume that the ideas of modernity are just “what is.” It’s like talking about the connection between being French and doing science. There is no inherent connection, simply the accidents of people of a certain philosophical bent working with others of the same bent. If anything, it might create a certain kind of bias.

    An interesting example is the drive to find “life” elsewhere. I certainly support the research and have no theological problems if such a thing were found. But the drive itself is fueled as much by philosophical assumptions as by science. Some folks “need” there to be life elsewhere so that their own narrative assumptions will be proved true. There are justs as many valid scientific reasons to think that we’re the only planet in the universe with life (the so-called “Anthropic Principle”).

    Science does not posit a godless world – though many think that is true. Science isn’t theology and shouldn’t be confused with it. I think that there are ways in which science and theology intersect – but not in a manner that can be described objectively, etc. Science is a discipline – not a worldview. So soon as we step back from the discipline to draw conclusions about the nature of things, we have begun to do philosophy/theology and not science.

  99. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    I would imagine that there is little point to wrangling over this topic. But I feel that it is more than fair to say that science is connected to modernity through the unfolding of historical events in the 17th and 18th centuries.

    The drive to find life elsewhere has nothing to do with justifying it is an effort to understand the emergence of life in our universe and what that looks like.

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

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

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

  4. Drewster, I think love requires a certain foolishness of us. St. Paul’s words come to mind: “If anyone among you…


Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast



Categories


Archives