The Useless God

The statement, “God is useless,” is, undoubtedly, sure to strike someone as an insult, not a statement of a faithful believing Christian (much less, a priest). That reaction tells me much about how we feel about the word, “useless,” rather than how we feel about God. In current American parlance, “useless,” is mostly a term of abuse. Who wants to be seen as useless?

Consider this excerpt from a letter of the author and playwriter, Oscar Wilde:

A work of art is useless as a flower is useless. A flower blossoms for its own joy. We gain a moment of joy by looking at it. That is all that is to be said about our relations to flowers. Of course man may sell the flower, and so make it useful to him, but this has nothing to do with the flower. It is not part of its essence. It is accidental. It is a misuse. All this is I fear very obscure. But the subject is a long one.

That the absence of utility is a term of abuse is a profound comment on our time. Stressed, anxious, and sick from the fatigue of life, we find ourselves required to give justification for our leisure. I am “charging my batteries,” we say, giving work the ultimate priority. We only rest in order to work harder.

There are many useless things that mark our lives: beauty, rest, joy. Indeed, it would seem that many of the things that we value most are, for the greater part, quite useless. What is it, to be useful?

The useful thing (or person) gains its value from something other than itself. It is a tool. I value the tool because it allows me to do something else. In many cases, when the usefulness of the tool is expired, it is simply thrown away. In a throw-away society we slowly drown in a sea of obsolescence, surrounded by things for which we no longer have any use.

From a National Geographic article:

Imagine 15 grocery bags filled with plastic trash piled up on every single yard of shoreline in the world. That’s how much land-based plastic trash ended up in the world’s oceans in just one year. The world generates at least 3.5 million tons of plastic and other solid waste a day…. The U.S. is the king of trash, producing a world-leading 250 million tons a year—roughly 4.4 pounds of trash per person per day.

Our sea of trash is a testament to the ethic of utility.

“You only want to use me.” This statement, on the lips of a lover or a friend, is a fearful indictment. We want to be loved for ourselves, not for what we can do, much less as an end to something else. We want to be loved as useless beings.

It is worth noting that among God’s first commandments is one of uselessness:

Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore, the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

The one day out of the seven that is described as “holy” is the day on which we are commanded to be useless. It is, in Christian terms, part of God’s work within us to make us like Himself – forming and shaping us into the image of Christ.

Utility – usefulness – is a strong value within the world of modernity – that philosophical, cultural agglomeration that came about a little over 200 years ago. Inventing better ploughs and threshing machines, figuring out ways to make everything faster, cheaper, and “better,” indeed, making things that no one had ever dreamed of, is an outstanding way to grow an economy. If you couple it with global trade, the standard of living increases, and some people get quite rich.

An aside: the genius of modernity was not its love for technology, or even for what technology can do. Modernity has become super-proficient in technology simply because it learned how to make it profitable. We do not make better phones because we need better phones: we make them so we can sell them. A large amount of medical research goes into finding ways to extend patents rather than curing diseases. Modernity is not the age of technology: it is the age of profit.

If you do this sort of thing for a good number of decades, and couple it with newly-coined ideas of human individuality and freedom, you can, before long, begin to think that you’re building better humans along with better ploughs, threshing machines and iPhones. Of course, many of the humans endure difficult times as they experience a nagging sense of uselessness that will not seem to go away.

The uselessness bound up with the Sabbath Day had a much deeper meaning as well as a more far-reaching application. The Sabbath Day itself was but a token of an entire way of life. Strangely, uselessness was deeply bound up with the question of justice, and, in a manner of speaking, becomes the foundation for understanding the Kingdom of God itself.

The Sabbath Day of ancient Israel was only a small part of a larger understanding of time and the stewardship of creation. One day in the week was set aside and no work was to be done. One year out of each seven was also to be set aside, and no work in the fields was to be done for the entire year – the land was to lie fallow – unplowed. After seven seven-year cycles, a fiftieth year was to be set aside.

Each seventh year, not only did the land lie fallow, but all debts (except those of foreigners) were to be cancelled. In the fiftieth year, these same things apply, but the land reverted to its original ownership. This fiftieth year began on the Day of Atonement and was known as the “Jubilee Year.”

In the preaching of the prophets, particularly Isaiah, this image of the management of debts and the land is given a cosmic interpretation in addition to its place in the annual cycle of Israel. The Jubilee Year becomes the “Acceptable Year of the Lord,” a coming day when the whole of creation will be set free – a coming Jubilee for everyone and everything.

When Jesus stands to read the Scriptures in the synagogue in Nazareth, he reads from the scroll of Isaiah. It is the passage which speaks of this coming cosmic act of remittance and freedom:

“And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4:16–21)

This passage from Isaiah is chosen by Christ to describe what He is about to do. He will preach saying, “The Kingdom of God is at hand.” This Scripture describes what that looks like. The poor hear good news, captives are set free; the blind receive their sight; the oppressed are given liberty – there is a cosmic loosing that happens day by day in His ministry. Indeed, it is not for nothing that He seems to prefer the Sabbath Day above all others for doing this work. He is revealing the true meaning and purpose of the Sabbath.

And this will bring me back to uselessness.

Today, we would look at land lying fallow for a year as a primitive substitute for “crop rotation,” a useful way of promoting responsible agriculture. This is not its actual purpose. It is a deliberate interruption of the cycle of productivity, and the maximizing of profit. It says, “No. There’s something more important.”

The Law within ancient Israel was not an entirely unknown Mideastern practice. Other kingdoms in the area practiced an occasional forgiveness of debt, primarily to secure the position of a ruler. Israel seems to be the first instance in which the forgiveness of debt and the practice of Sabbatarian rest – for people, land, and animals, came to be written into the very fabric of life and given divine sanction. And, even in the non-Sabbath years, there was a prohibition against harvesting an entire field. A portion had to be left standing so that the poor could “glean” the fields for their needs. Maximum efficiency was forbidden. This way of life was not an effort to solidify earthly power, but to undermine it with a radical understanding of the purpose of human existence.

There was nothing new in Christ’s attitude towards the poor and the oppressed. What was new was His willingness to practice it without pulling a punch and His extension of its principles towards everything and everyone.

He drew the imagery of debt and its abolition (with extreme examples) into His teaching on the Kingdom of God itself. What we learn is that this Law of uselessness – the refusal to maximize our own power and efficiency – goes to the very heart of what it means to exist in the image and likeness of God.

That we are loved in our uselessness points to the fact that we are loved for ourselves. We have value and worth in and of ourselves regardless of what we might do. The proclamation of the Kingdom of God is the declaration of what God Himself values.

“…Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin;and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?(Matt 6:28–30)

The lilies are useless, doing no work, neither toiling nor spinning. And yet, they are clothed. Our work ethic has become a cultural ethic. We take vacations so that we can return as better workers. Few things are done for their own sake. Why would God set aside so much time for uselessness? Apparently, when life becomes driven by utility, we neglect and ignore the things that have the most value and are all too easily deemed useless.

The Prophet Amos made this observation:

“Hear this, you who trample on the needy and bring the poor of the land to an end, saying, “When will the new moon be over, that we may sell grain? And the Sabbath, that we may offer wheat for sale, that we may make the ephah small and the shekel great and deal deceitfully with false balances, that we may buy the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of shoes and sell the chaff of the wheat?” Amos 8:4-6

Very little has changed, it seems. We fail to honor the useless God, and in doing so, have forgotten how and why we live.

_______________

Revised from an earlier version. The photo is of the author in a state of jubilant uselessness.

 

About Fr. Stephen Freeman

Fr. Stephen is a priest of the Orthodox Church in America, Pastor Emeritus of St. Anne Orthodox Church in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. He is also author of Everywhere Present and the Glory to God podcast series.



Posted

in

, ,

by

Comments

283 responses to “The Useless God”

  1. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Hello Simon. It is clear that you think things through and are able to articulate your thoughts in an intelligent and deep manner. Thanks for being you and being here in this space.

  2. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Father,
    I especially appreciate your mentioning that some Orthodox priests express a Protestant take on the scripture. I believe this is an important admission of humility and awareness needed to be expressed openly. Many of our priests are converts from Protestantism and haven’t had as much immersion into Orthodoxy as you have had. And I note also that some who are born into Orthodoxy may have had such influences also, depending on their life contexts. I’ve experienced temporary crises of sorts when I’ve been confronted by Protestantism-influenced priests or writing by such priests.

    I don’t know whether this is an influence of Protestantism or not: On one occasion a priest described the words that Jesus spoke to the Theotokos when she mentioned “they have no wine”, as a disparaging flippant remark to her forwardness and put her in her place. I was stunned by such a take in that conversation. In the moment I had wondered what was going on. And I had wondered whether the priest was attempting to put me in my place as I had asked him a theological question that he didn’t want to respond to. In confusion, I didn’t carry the conversation further. I thanked him and moved on. Gratefully he was a visiting priest.

    I’m also grateful for the grace of the Lord to hang on and remain in the Church.

    Such experiences were nearly damaging at first (as I began to enter the Orthodox Church), pushing me to ask myself, “What am I getting myself into?!!” It helped to listen to the hymns and words spoken in the services (or by other priests and saints) to discover interpretations that were so different from Western Christianity and seemingly new. And yet had been written hundreds of years ago. Such were “ah-ha” moments suggesting a deeper spring of water to drink and not to get caught up in the idiosyncracies of an ill-taught (or ill-tempered–don’t know which) priest.

  3. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    I should have said “…as if I had asked a theological question he didn’t want to answer…”

    I add this comment here because there was nothing in the context of the conversation to suggest why he had this interpretation or used the scripture in such a way in those moments other than that it seemed this was indeed his interpretation.

    I was duly confused. But better taught by another priest.

  4. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    Simon,

    “And, if I am being honest, if my kid were to ever die from some tragic illness, I would almost certainly feel like the failed prophets of Baal. I would almost certainly hear Elijah’s words echoing in my ears, ‘there is no voice, no one answers and no one pays attention’ the awareness of which makes me wonder to what extent I was ever in the faith.”

    If I am being honest, it is difficult for me to believe those who endure something like what you describe…and then say that their faith carried them through. Perhaps it does happen, but it has not always for me. In the last few days I read of a mother who had surgery for a kidney stone and learned that, to save her life, doctors would have to remove her arms and legs. The mother gave thanks to God that she was alive to be with her husband and children. She said that, if what happened to her caused one person to turn to God, it would be worth it.

    When we speak of the “fear of God,” I think we ought fear being visited by some of the miracles and signs that others have experienced. Yet it is also believable in such a testimony that the person who has endured what seems to be unendurable loss also has nothing to gain by deception.

    Thirteen years ago, the daughter of the minister at the church I attended was martyred in Afghanistan. He was able to say immediately afterward that he gave thanks to God for her, and I believe that was what was in his heart. I find it inconceivable that, at that moment of supreme anguish, he would have wanted to express any falseness about what he was feeling.

    You may not have that faith, and I know I have fallen short of it in the past…and wondered whether all my prayers had been as insignificant as vapor. Father Stephen and Byron, however, have both mentioned Hosea and his unfaithful wife–that God has no deal breakers.

    St. Isaac the Syrian:

    “Do not fall into despair because of stumbling. I do not mean that you should not feel contrition for [sins], but that you should not think them incurable. For it is more expedient to be bruised than dead. There is, indeed, a Healer for the man who has stumbled, even He Who on the Cross asked that mercy be shown to His crucifiers, He Who pardoned His murders while He hung on the Cross. ‘All manner of sin,’ He said, ‘and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men,’ that is, through repentance.”

    If you have not read Father Schmemann, I again recommend him as an aid for regaining the joy of Christianity.

  5. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Dee,
    Most people would find it interesting that Scripture was (maybe is) not as big a deal in traditional Orthodox studies as is the case in Protestantism. First off, Orthodoxy is somewhat late to the party in modern scholarshop – and prior to those modern times – it was not a really big thing. Most of our scholarship, such as it was, centered in the Fathers and in Liturgical texts.

    Protestantism, with its doctrine of Sola Scriptura (which was a decidedly anti-Roman Catholic thing), obviously pushed Scripture studies, eventually developing modern historical-critical studies, etc. There’s many things that they’re still clueless about – as in the example from John’s gospel and the Wedding at Canaan.

    There are an increasing number of Orthodox scholars who are paying attention to Scripture, but the field is dominated by Catholics and Protestants. There are lots of priests whom I meet who haven’t really ever thought about what is or should be unique about an Orthodox approach to the Scriptures. My answer to the question is to read, read, and re-read Liturgical texts. Those are easily the most authoritative things in our lives.

    I should add, that if what you’re hearing from a priest doesn’t seem very reflective of liturgical texts (of one sort or another), it doesn’t mean they’re “wrong” but perhaps that they’ve gone off on a tangent that would be best described a “private opinion” rather than “Orthodox teaching.” Nothing wrong with that as long as they know the difference.

  6. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Father, the word ‘use’ has a number of meaning depending on context and even pronunciation…

    It can be work and utility related or mean simply partake of, consume or manipulate.

    Of which meaning were you thinking when you wrote?

  7. CJM Avatar
    CJM

    Newer poster here. Really appreciate the discussion this far. I have two questions reference loving someone/ something for existing vs. loving because they are useful.

    There are some things I encounter that I delight in. Flowers’ color, sunlight at the “golden hour,” chicks’ curiosity, how my dog moves when it gets excited, etc. On one hand, I could be loving those things for existing–for themselves. On the other hand, I could be loving them for a utilitarian purpose in that I derive joy from them and they make me grateful.

    Is there a “consumptive” element even in loving someone/something for existing, just this “consumption” is that of encountering creation as sacrament?

    And if so, any thoughts on what loving for existing v. loving for usefulness means in the context of loving enemies? What does it look like to love enemies for existing and not for their utility (am thinking here of St. Nikolai of Ochrid’s prayer thanking God for his enemies’ impact on him: “Truly, enemies have cut me loose from the world and have stretched out my hands to the hem of Thy garment…”).

  8. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    CJM,
    I think it’s possible to make too fine a point viz. the consumptive impulse. I suspect that we have become so used to the consuming impulse that we often dull our ability to simply love or enjoy something for itself. It is probably best to simply work a doing a better job of it – loving, attending, giving space and time for awe and wonder. Giving thanks for all things.

  9. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Michael,
    Parts of both, probably

  10. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Hello Fr. Stephen and Dee.

    As a Protestant who is moving toward Orthodoxy, I have found the Orthodox Study Bible to be immensely helpful. I´m wondering if either of you has any experience with this resource and if so what you may think of it.

    Fr. Stephen … isn´t there a fine line between biblical immersion (even fundamentalism) and biblical illiteracy? As a former Roman Catholic, I can confidently report that when I became and evangelical Christian in the 90´s I was so thankful that I was being saved from biblical illiteracy. I knew nearly nothing about the Bible at that time.

    I now know that the Bible needs to be understood within the Tradition of the Church, but I still think my evangelical “sola scriptura” education will serve me well in some way once I enter the Orthodox Church at some point. Is it merely a caricature to say that many Orthodox Christians don´t really know much about the Bible or what it says? I ask this because you, as a priest, seem to emphasize liturgical texts over the Bible.

    Forgive me, Dee, if my Protestantism is too much for you, but that is still who I am currently.

  11. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    CJM,

    A distinction I would make is how much changing the essence of the thing is necessary for you to enjoy it. That’s not the only factor, of course, but I find it a helpful guideline (especially regarding “using” other people). Another would be a feeling of covetousness. For all the examples you give, it’s easy to enjoy them without modification or depriving others at all.

    We do have to eat (consume). Something is always dying that we may live, but–as Father Stephen notes–the attitude of attention and gratitude in this necessary consumption is preferable to one of the many sinful attitudes (greed, gluttony, envy, etc.).

    Matthew,

    My children gave me the Orthodox Study Bible as a present, and I like it just fine. It’s a beautiful book and naturally I treasure the gift. I tend to read more on my phone/Kindle, however, and I gravitate toward the CS Lewis Bible. Someone went through and annotated the Bible wherever something Lewis wrote is applicable to the text, and I simply enjoy reading it that way. His comments are like being able to have a good friend bring something out in the passage I might otherwise have missed.

    Even if he was a Protestant 🙂

  12. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Oh thanks so much Mark! C.S. Lewis Bible? Never heard of it, but sounds wonderful. I read somewhere recently that there has not been much study done about the theology and spirituality of C.S. Lewis and how they are (or aren´t) in conversation with the Fathers, but some Orthodox scholars believe C.S. Lewis was truly Orthodox at heart even if he never left Anglicanism.

    More than the Orthodox Study Bible itself (I have read a lot of different Bibles as a Protestant), I have found the additional articles therein to be incredibly enriching. Bishop Kallistos Ware´s article about how the Orthodox understand Holy Scripture is especially wonderful. I must say, also, that the Orthodox Study Bible is what I use most often, especially during morning prayer time. It has been a wonderful edition to my spiritual life and to my continued spiritual journey.

  13. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    I agree about the articles in the OSB, Matthew.

    Father Stephen would likely know of points of divergence between Lewis’s theology and that of the Orthodox faith, but I’ve seen many favorable references to both him and Chesterton (a Catholic) here.

    When my daughter and I discuss disagreements among believers, we often talk about how they are frequently based on semantics (such as how to translate a word), emphasis (for example, the tension between faith and works or between God’s justice and God’s mercy or between Christ as God and Christ as man), and…at the moment, I can’t remember the third thing haha. Maybe what is essential versus what is preferable? Anyway, unfortunately (it seems to me) we will focus on differences rather than the commonality.

    On the subject of consumption, I know a Protestant woman who lives the practices we are discussing. She would (I think) not be happy if I called her faith practice Orthodox so I will leave her completely anonymous, but the question then is whether she (as you ascribe to Lewis) is more Orthodox than someone who accepts the label willingly?

    In my discussions with Protestants as to why I have converted, I say it is because of the “fullness” of Orthodoxy. I find more in it than I found being a Protestant.

  14. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    I should have said “accepts the label willingly, but then does not live Orthodoxy.”

  15. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Mark beautifully said:

    “In my discussions with Protestants as to why I have converted, I say it is because of the “fullness” of Orthodoxy. I find more in it than I found being a Protestant.”

    I think this is the main reason (among many, many others that would take pages and pages to articulate) I am so very much drawn to Orthodoxy.

  16. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    May I ask, Mark, is your daughter Orthodox? No problem if this is too personal a question.

  17. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    Matthew: She is a (long-term) catachumen.

  18. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Sounds like me Mark!, though I am not even a catechumen yet! 🙂 I have been on the road to Orthodoxy for more than 10 years now!!

  19. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    The comparison I heard when I was a catachumen is that attending is dating, catachumen is being engaged, and baptism/chrismation is marriage. Not sure whether that means it’s better to date for a long time or to have a long-term engagement 🙂

    You would probably receive more education and guidance from your priest as a catachumen. And, at least at St. Anne, you would be included by name in the prayers.

  20. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Father, would the word “need” be a better approach to God and each other? In wondering about that, I looked up the etymology of the word. Amazingly complex word.

    I was going to write something but the complex roots of the word left me, without further contemplation, with just the question.

  21. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Matthew,
    I bought a used OSB almost at the same time as the first two books by Met. Kalistos Ware that you and I both enjoyed reading at the beginning of our respective journeys. It was a very important resource for me and I found his article at the back very helpful as well as the prayers. I still read it regularly almost daily. I also have a Catholic RSV that I read, now, as a way to gain interpretation and understanding.

  22. Nikolaos Avatar
    Nikolaos

    Michael, Fr Stephen

    Regarding the multiple meanings of “use”, I noted in this morning’s Anavthmoi, the second verse of the first Antiphon.

    Have mercy on us who are the object of contempt, O Logos, and make us Your useful vessels.

  23. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    I think the OSB is a good piece of work…and excellent start.

  24. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    Lewis is well-thought of within the English-speaking Orthodox world – as he should be. Converting to Orthodoxy at that time (he died in 1963), was not common nor even welcome by many of the Orthodox (long-story, that). But Lewis can be called an “o”rthodox Anglican. He had no intention to deviate in any way from the tradition of the Fathers or the Scripture. There were not (at that time) things that could be called “Anglican distinctives.” As such, he was generally comformed to much of the Orthodox faith – though perhaps a bit Western (though not as much as would be the case for many other Protestants). Anglicanism was not unfamiliar with Orthodoxy and there were, once upon a time, some very fruitful conversations.

  25. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Michael,
    I’m hesitant to just say yes to “need” as the better approach – though it’s often true. But what we perceive as “needs” can sometimes just be our neuroses – which don’t make for a healthy relationship. But, as a neurotic, I recognize that about myself and ask God to take care of me in my brokenness. Of course I need him, and I need others in my life. But I also want to just love them for themselves and not for something I need from them.

    Think of Christ’s definition of love: “To lay down your life for your friends.” That is a gift and an offering…it doesn’t even imagine itself as surviving such a thing.

  26. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Nikolaos,
    Indeed, we pray to be “useful” to God – even as we confess that we are “useless” servants. That “usefulness,” however, is not the basis of His love for us, nor our value to Him. When we are “useful” to God, it is because His life is being made manifest in us.

  27. Kenneth Avatar
    Kenneth

    If Orthodoxy is the “fullness” of Christianity, how should CS Lewis’s concept of “Mere” Christianity be understood? I realize he may have had a completely different goal in mind (i.e., than a lowest common denominator, reduced form of Christianity), and it has been a long time since I read Mere Christianity so it’s not quite as clear in my mind.

  28. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    Kenneth,

    I remembered that Lewis said it was more important to “choose a door” than which door (to Christ) one chose, but I also went back and looked at the book’s preface to find Lewis’s own words:

    [quote]
    Ever since I became a Christian I have thought that the best, perhaps the only, service I could do for my unbelieving neighbours was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times. I had more than one reason for thinking this. In the first place, the questions which divide Christians from one another often involve points of high Theology or even of ecclesiastical history which ought never to be treated except by real experts.

    I should have been out of my depth in such waters: more in need of help
    myself than able to help others. and secondly, I think we must admit that the
    discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider
    into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much
    more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to
    draw him into our own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the
    presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and
    that Jesus Christ is His only Son.
    [End quote]

  29. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Father, one of the archaic definitions for ‘need’ was death. My mind went to the Cross but it could also encompass laying down one’s life in general. It is certainly an aspect of mercy IME…

    Forgive me if it seems I am arguing, I am not

  30. Bonnie Avatar
    Bonnie

    Kenneth,
    Mark Spurlock found those very good points in the prologue to “Mere Christianity”. I’d like to add that those born just after World War II, and afterward, have witnessed a parade of what Lewis called “Christianity And…” Add your own ending: “Christianity and The New Order, Christianity and The New Psychology…”
    “All our notions of modernity and progress,” continues the prologue, “and all our technical expertise have not brought an end to war. Our declaring the notion of Sin obsolete has not diminished human suffering.”
    Another helpful Lewis book is “The Screwtape Letters”. A senior devil, Screwtape, writes letters to his nephew Wormwood, advising him how to corrupt his “patient”, a young man living during the war when German pilots were bombarding England. Screwtape advises that the patient should be encouraged to move from church to church, not settling into one congregation. “We want to turn him into a Critic, rather than a Pupil.”

    Speaking as himself in another place, Lewis says one’s questions, when participating in worship, “should never be, ‘Do I like that kind of service?’ but ‘Are these doctrines true? Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me toward this?’ ”

    Thank you Fr. Freeman, and all whose whose comments enrich the readers.

  31. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Fr. Stephen sid:

    “Converting to Orthodoxy at that time (he died in 1963), was not common nor even welcome by many of the Orthodox (long-story, that)”

    Could this be, still, an issue in Europe? I get the feeling the priest/bishop at my Greek Orthodox Church has little interest in seeing me become a catechumen. It might be, though, that I need to be more consistent in attending Divine Liturgy rather than attempting to contact him with WhatsApp or email which he never responds to. We did have one meeting nearly two years ago in which I presented him with a paper I composed stating the reasons I wanted to become Orthodox. In retrospect it was probably not the right thing to do. I think he thinks I am crazy or something.

  32. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thanks Dee!

  33. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Kenneth,
    Mere Christianity was originally a series of radio talks that Lewis did for soldiers in WW2. It could just have easily been entitled, “Basic Christianity.” It was covering certain essential concepts for men who were likely facing death but had little religious training or background. It’s clear explanations made it popular after the war as well. It’s a bit Western in places, but is still of interest.

    But, compared to the “fullness,” it’s still somewhat “mere.”

  34. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    “Crazy or something…” presenting him with a paper might have put him off. Settled down, be normal, attend services, and approach him again in time. I know some priests who ask people to attend services for six weeks or so (consistently), before making an appointment with the priest. Many of them are so inundated with requests of various sorts that (along with regular responsibilities) they are hard-put to find time. Be patient.

  35. Byron Avatar
    Byron

    I now know that the Bible needs to be understood within the Tradition of the Church, but I still think my evangelical “sola scriptura” education will serve me well in some way once I enter the Orthodox Church at some point.

    Matthew, you may find it of interest that one of the first things I did upon becoming Orthodox was to try and forget all of my Protestant scriptural training (I studied at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville and had been Baptist all my life)! I found that it interfered with my learning in the Divine Liturgy and my learning to “think like an Orthodox Christian” (which I am sure I will be working on for the rest of my life).

    However, I think I am coming to a place (after 7+ years) where I need to focus more on studying the Scriptures (again). Not in the same manner as when I was a Protestant, but in a more holistic manner that embraces the authority of the Tradition and the Church. I’m not currently sure how to structure that and would welcome any direction from the group here.

  36. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    “I ask this because you, as a priest, seem to emphasize liturgical texts over the Bible.”

    Your observation is a bit like saying that I emphasize cooked vegetables over raw vegetables. The Liturgical texts of the Church are primarily quotes drawn from Scripture. In our monasteries, the entirety of the Psalter is used each week. It’s not unusual for a major feast day to have as many as 13 readings from Scripture just for its Vespers, not including for the other services in the cycle.

    But what is found in the Liturgical texts is the Scriptures, drawn out, “cooked,” “seasoned with salt,” and arranged in a manner that they can be digested with understanding and benefit.

    The Scriptures are the Church’s book. Essentially, those ancient writings that we call “Scriptures,” are those books that the Church approved for reading in the services, or as authoritative for use. That definitive list was not declared until the 4th century – and it was based, primarily, on the question, “What books are the Churches using in their services, etc.?”

    A problem with the Protestant movements has been its persistent attempts to remove the Scriptures from the context of the Church – and privatize them for individuals. Read this article. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the Scriptures are themselves Liturgical Texts and should be read in that manner instead of the manner that has become common in modern thought. I think their removal from the liturgical context distorts their meaning.

  37. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Fr. Stephen said:

    “I think their [Scriptures] removal from the liturgical context distorts their meaning.”

    I think you may very well be correct Fr. Stephen. Thanks so much. I will read the article.

    Byron: It´s hard for me to believe someone who was trained at SBTS needed to forget everything! Was it difficult for you to let go of your Baptist tradition, heritage, and education?

  38. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Matthew,
    I’ll confirm what Father said. I’ve seen Protestants get very excited about their first experiences then ‘flame out’, as they realise that each Sunday service appears superficially the same. — no entertainment value. No guitars, etc.

    Just be consistently present. If your wife accompanies you that will indicate stability. (My husband didn’t come with me but he wasn’t against my going either.) I think I attended services every week for about three months before I became a catechumen.

    It’s good to ask questions here in this blog and to check your interpretations here, to get you started. And in the actual service, just being there worshipping in the Church. When you’re ready go up to kiss the Bible if that is something you want to do.(this happens in matins before Divine Liturgy if that service is offered.) Light candles before service there if you’re inclined. Such behaviour over time shows respect and love of the Orthodox Way. It is also acceptable to receive the antidoron at the end of service if it’s offered.

    Last but not least don’t presume *how* you will be entering the Church. Protestants are put off when they expect their verbal acceptance is sufficient not realising that in appearance their expectations seem hubristic and not respectful of the Orthodox traditions. Some Protestants refuse to be baptised assuming they know better than the priest or bishop how they enter the Church. When I heard a catechumen complain about this I mentioned to them that after baptism I’ve never heard anyone regretting their baptism. I think this might have opened their eyes a bit.

    Hang in there! You have our prayers! Please forgive my forwardness. I so enjoy your conversation here.

  39. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Matthew,
    For what it’s worth, Byron’s approach sounds healthy, emptying what had been put in his mind.

    On the other hand I started to read the OSB right off the bat because I didn’t have any prior instruction.

    Just like Father Stephen, I was taught to treat the Bible as the Liturgical scripture that they are.

    Last, but not least, my priest encouraged me to read Fr Stephen’s blog, for learning. Fr Stephen’s blog is a ministry blessed by his bishop. Not all Orthodox bloggers have such distinction.

  40. Kenneth Avatar
    Kenneth

    When I first approached the Orthodox Church as a Protestant inquirer, I had already heard of Bishop Kallistos Ware’s story of being turned away the first time he inquired, and that the Orthodox for various reasons are not always accustomed to inquirers. But I was fully prepared to be like the Syrophoenician woman (“Even dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs”), and to keep hanging around until I could no longer be turned away. It turned out to be not nearly so difficult (I attended services for around one and a half or maybe two years before becoming Orthodox, which I think might be fairly normal), but I was fully determined to persist as long as it took.

  41. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thanks Dee. Noted.

  42. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thanks Kenneth.

  43. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    The article was excellent Fr. Stephen. Would it be more correct to say Christian are people of the Liturgy of which the Book is a part of?

  44. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    Something like that. I’ve heard it well said that it’s a mistake to ask the Orthodox, “What do you believe?” and more correct to ask, “Whom do you worship?”

    The very word “Orthodox,” if understood in its more primitive meaning, is “Right worship,” or “Right Glory.” When missionaries translated Orthodoxia into Slavonic, they rendered it “pravoslavnie,” meaning, “right glory.” That’s how they heard it in their understanding. (Thank you, Sts. Cyril and Methodias).

    Worship is the most active form of our communion with God, the most fundamental aspect of our existence. In modernity, it has been relegated to a sort of voluntary, occasional activity – and then we think that “ideas” (doctrines) are the real thing.

    It’s more correct to say that the purpose of “doctrine” in Orthodoxy is to direct and inform our worship of the One God. It is of note that in antiquity, books were not read silently (in your head). They were read out loud – even sung out loud. I remember a chance remark in a letter by Pliny the Younger (1st century) that he had not been able to read the day before because he had a sore throat! St. Augustine was known to read silently in his head and was thought to be quite strange because of it.

    St. Paul presumes in his letters that his letters will be read out loud in the assembly.

  45. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thank you Fr. Stephen.

  46. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    BTW, since a majority of Bibilical scholars are Protestant, it is safe to say that most of them have no “feel” for the Scriptures as liturgical texts. I’m not sure that most Orthodox (even priests) have thought about this very much. Such is the cultural legacy of times.

  47. Byron Avatar
    Byron

    It´s hard for me to believe someone who was trained at SBTS needed to forget everything! Was it difficult for you to let go of your Baptist tradition, heritage, and education?

    Matthew, I found that I had to change my way of thinking and living. The focus at SBTS was simply wrong and didn’t help. As an example, the emphasis on humility (and God as humble) is very hard to absorb into one’s life and something Baptists don’t emphasize. Another example: during the Divine Liturgy I had a hard time really processing why the Priest would ask forgiveness of everyone during the service. That impacted me greatly, when I first saw it. I could understand the action, but it took some time to “see” what was actually happening with my heart. There are many, seemingly small, things like that that I needed (and need) to absorb into my life, not just understand with my head. I had to discard the Baptist models that I had learned in order to begin.

    I didn’t have too much trouble moving on from Baptist tradition (there is very little of which to speak, IMHO. Baptists, more accurately, have a “history”, as opposed to a “tradition”). I had found my Baptist education severely lacking so I realized I could move away from it without feeling endangered in any way. It still took some time though.

    I would emphasize that I don’t see my time spent as a Baptist as “bad” (Father has pointed out elsewhere that we should not hate where we first came to recognize Christ). It’s more a realization that it was poorly focused and “lacked fullness” that led me away from it. To make a long story short, I came to the realization that no matter how many answers I scripturally came up with, they left me on my own “island” in the middle of a vast ocean (theologically speaking). And everyone else was on their own “island” with their own answers and theology. And that is not the Church. So I began to look for the Church and found it, after some searching.

    I hope this helps. I would say take the advice of your Priest in these matters and go slowly. We don’t all move at the same pace.

  48. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    So much to learn Fr. Stephen. It seems to me fair to ask what were our brothers and sisters doing for the first 3 centuries or so without a Bible? I suppose the answer is celebrating the Divine Liturgy. Why did the Reformers think they had the right to change that?

    I now see the Reformation as a movement that attempted to correct some much needed things within Roman Catholicism, but actually only exacerbated the whole problem … which is of course also a Roman Catholic problem.

  49. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thanks so much Byron.

  50. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    We forget how expensive books were. The printing press doesn’t come along until the 1400’s, but, even then, books were expensive. When Bibles were first translated in England and made available for public use – one was kept chained to the lectern in the parish church where people could go and read it. Of course, literacy was another issue – not many people could read.

    I won’t get into debates between Orthodox and Catholics – but some of the Catholic reaction to the Protestant use of the Scriptures was to restrict their use, which gave rise to the Protestant charge of Catholics trying to keep the Bible from the people.

    Orthodoxy did not develop that dynamic for a variety of reasons – many of which had to do with the fact that large portions of the Orthodox world were under Turkish domination. Constantinople didn’t fall until 1453, but the Turks had conquered everything around it long before. That Orthodox even survived is a tale of courage and suffering. In Russia, it was the Turks, but the Tartars.

    But we are certainly guilty in modern times of speaking about the Bible in purely modern terms – in a manner that would have been impossible for most of the Church’s history.

  51. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thanks so much again Fr. Stephen.

  52. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    FWIW, this understanding reveals how bogus the critical claims of scholars such as Bart Ehrman are. He imagines the gospels be assembled by a sort of “Chinese Whispers Game,” in which tales are told, then written down, etc., becoming very unreliable. It’s very much on the individual-to-individual model that is purely imaginary and anachronistic.

    Instead, the gospels (including any early oral versions) are read or recited in the community of the Church – in a culture in which oral accounts are highly valued and well-remembered. An easy test case can be seen in St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. In that letter, written around 50 A.D. or so, he gives an account of the Lord’s Supper, with a recitation of “what was delivered to me” (that is, he specifically calls it tradition). That oral tradition is found, virtually word for word in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

    Ehrman, of course, overlooks his own nonsense “tradition” by assuming that the gospels are all written after 70 a.d., a notion that is simply repeating an idea put forward by German liberal scholars who assume that Jerusalem had to have already been destroyed before the gospels are written. There is no proof for this – merely a theory based on liberal suppositions. Every one of those suppositions fits a pre-determined narrative created to undermine the veracity or trustworthiness of the gospels.

    I could cite more examples. But, what we actually have as historical fact – are church communities – governed by bishops – appointed by the Apostles – in which these gospels are recited as well as some of the Apostolic letters read. Those communities share these in common, such that by the end of the 1st century, a mere 70 years, there is a very fixed agreement with very few exceptions about what will or won’t be read in the community.

    I could be-labor all of this at great length…but, I’m in the process of taking down our Christmas tree…

  53. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    We took ours down earlier this afternoon. We have a tradition of tossing it out of our large second floor window onto the garden grass below! Thanks so much for the time.

  54. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Bart Ehrman may be a nice enough man, and he of course is one of God´s created beings, and as such in need of salvation, but from what I know of his work he is an enemy (whom we are commanded to love) of the Church.

  55. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    May God bless him do do good to him! He’s simply a popularizer of stuff that’s been around for many, many decades. He is not contributing anything significant as a scholar – but he has a great Youtube presence. Sadly, because he has a prestigious teaching post at UNC, he’s taken as an authority. Some years back, there was a debate between him an Fr. John Behr on some of these topics, but the video seems to have disappeared. Liberal Protestant Biblical studies as been an echo chamber for a very long time. For years their only resistance came from conservative and fundamentalist scholars (some of the conservative stuff is pretty good – such as that by Gary Habermas). But for many years, all of them were ignoring the many examples of embedded bits of tradition within the Scriptures. Habermas is among those who have bothered to look more seriously at this and its implications.

    May God bless them all. Even those who attack the gospels.

  56. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    What do you mean … embedded bits of tradition with the Scriptures? Forgive me if you already explained this in an earlier response Fr. Stephen.

  57. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Matthew,
    I think your OSB corroborates within the notes in places (I’d have to find where) within the Epistle that some of the Orthodox Tradition had already begun in that period. The mention of the clergy as one example showing the structure of the Church had already begun. St. Paul goes to Jerusalem to check his understanding, implying that there was a recognized structure within the Church. The liturgical practice had begun (as Father already mentions), I believe there are indications of the foundations of a Creed recited, among other things.

    Father Stephen undoubtedly will point to more than this.

  58. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Father,
    While I’ve been critical of Protestant thinking on this blog, I’ve always appreciated your mentioning Habermas. I’ve read some of his work and thought (at least of the essays I’ve read) that it’s surprisingly Orthodox in tone. Edifying reading.

    Erhman’s perspectives/arguments had always seemed too thin and contrived to me, even before I came into the Orthodox Church. I know of Jewish scholars of Late Antiquity who would dismiss his ‘scholarship’ of that era.

  59. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Matthew,
    One more item you might find helpful is Fr John Behr’s talk on YouTube (the Aletheia Channel):
    The talk is called:
    Scripture, Tradition, and the Canon – Fr John Behr

  60. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    1Cor 15 has an imbedded tradition. St. Paul introduces it with a technical phrase: that which was “delivered” (literally “traditioned” to me), I traditioned to you…and then goes on to recite a short Creed of sorts, and then a list of the witnesses of the resurrection. It’s form is not just free-flowing prose. It is an embedded bit of tradition. You see it also in various hymns, such as Phil 2:5-11. There’s been a lot more interest in this stuff over the past couple of decades. It’s paying attention to the “community” aspect of St. Paul’s life and the fact that he, like others, is working with an oral tradition.

    Note, in Acts 20:35, St. Paul has a quote from Jesus that’s not found in the canonical gospels. It’s likely that all of the apostles (including the 70), would have known some sort of version of the gospel along the line of St. Mark (it’s quite short). In that sense, the theory of Markan priority makes sense (though it could have had several close forms). Matthew and Luke both have other material, drawn from additional sources. John, of course, is unique. I personally think John is an eyewitness gospel and I believe it to have been written by John himself – with a profound insight way beyond anything else we see around at the time. There’s nothing to compare him to. It’s why we call him, John the Theologian.

    But, bits of tradition, fragments of hymns, embedded Creeds, etc. All of these are witnesses to the fact that this is taking place in the life of a community – or a community of communities – that share a common life. That common life is what we now call the Orthodox Church.

  61. Kenneth Avatar
    Kenneth

    At the risk of leading the discussion afield, I’ve wondered if there is any common Orthodox interpretation of why the Gospel according to St. John does not include an account of the Transfiguration, even though St. John was reportedly an eyewitness? E.g., is there some other aspect of his Gospel that might (theologically) take the place of the Transfiguration?

  62. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Kenneth,
    I think we make the mistake of approaching the gospels as something like newspaper accounts – as in – including something simply because it happened. The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) build a theologically shaped account on the framework of the oral tradition (with sayings, etc.). For example, Matthew assembles important sayings as the Sermon on the Mount. Luke says a similar series of saying as the “Sermon on the Plain,” and it has a different theological purpose.

    St. John’s gospel is an amazingly shaped theological account with interesting structures. There’s no way to know why he doesn’t include the Transfiguration account – perhaps because it figures so well in the other gospels. It would take a much longer answer to go into the structure St. John uses – it seems to have a pattern that makes it an ideal series of readings for what is called “mystagogical catechesis” (the teaching of the newly baptized). Indeed, the Church reads it beginning at Pascha and continues through Pentecost each year – precisely the period in which the newly baptized would have been instructed in the “mysteries” (Baptism and Eucharist).

    In this manner, we can say that St. John’s gospel is the most “ecclesiological” of all the gospels.

  63. Kenneth Avatar
    Kenneth

    Fascinating — I should have expected that St. John’s gospel should be understood ecclesiologically, and of course mystagogically.

    You mentioned earlier the ancient practice of reading texts aloud, and the reaction to St. Augustine. I’m now wondering if reading aloud might still be a helpful practice for one’s personal reading of scripture, particularly when it has inadvertently drifted into a “going through the motions”, or simply as a means of slowing down. I’m sure experiences vary, but it seems worth trying.

  64. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    Father Stephen and Ken,

    “perhaps because it figures so well in the other gospels”

    That is the best supported (and surely oldest) explanation I’ve been able to find of events that John included and left out, apparently originating in Eusebius’ “Ecclesiastical History,” Book 3, Chapter 24: “John in the course of his gospel relates what Christ did before John the Baptist had been thrown into prison, but the other three evangelists narrate the events after the imprisonment of the Baptist.” (I’m condensing Eusebius, whereas his explanation for the differences between John and the synoptic Gospels is much more thorough.)

    Some also are of the opinion that “We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” in John 1:14 is an oblique reference to the Transfiguration: “His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light….[A] voice from the cloud said, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.’”

  65. Kenneth Avatar
    Kenneth

    Thank you, Mark! I had never heard of Eusebius’ comparison of St. John and the Synoptic Gospels. I also love that interpretation of John 1:14.

  66. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    Glad to be of help, Kenneth.

    I also wanted to mention that, when I was younger, I listened to many hours, of the “Great Courses” that Bart Ehrman did for The Teaching Company. He still considered himself a Bible-believing Christian (I think) then, though he may have released “revisions” of all his courses since.

    Later, when he became more and more of a critic, it was particularly unsettling to me because of knowing most of my early Christian history through his lectures. In retrospect that was a weakness of coming at the Bible from a Protestant background: I didn’t know enough outside the Bible to refute what he was saying and, as a Protestant, I was expected simply to take the Bible on faith and summarily reject any criticism of it.

    Not every Protestant knows so little of Christianity outside the Bible as I did, but Sola Scriptura and skipping from Paul to Luther (or even later) can leave a lot of Protestants with few means to refute someone like Ehrman–who can certainly sounds authoritative.

    Father Stephen, have you read any of Hilarion Alfeyev’s works, and, if so, what do you think of their scholarly reliability?

  67. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    This is a fascinating discussion. Thanks so much! That said … I am still a little confused.

    What is the correlation between realizing that tradition already existed in the Gospels and Paul´s letters when they were written and liberal biblical scholarship`s accusations against the reliability of these writings?

    Mark said:

    “Later, when he became more and more of a critic, it was particularly unsettling to me because of knowing most of my early Christian history through his lectures. In retrospect that was a weakness of coming at the Bible from a Protestant background: I didn’t know enough outside the Bible to refute what he was saying and, as a Protestant, I was expected simply to take the Bible on faith and summarily reject any criticism of it.

    Not every Protestant knows so little of Christianity outside the Bible as I did, but Sola Scriptura and skipping from Paul to Luther (or even later) can leave a lot of Protestants with few means to refute someone like Ehrman–who can certainly sounds authoritative.”

    What are you saying here Mark? It sounds very good, but it is still unclear to me.

  68. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    What I’m hearing Mark saying is that much of liberal scholarship has (among many problematic things) made false assumptions about the context and situation of the New Testament writings – many of which are born of their own anti-ecclesiological ideas about Christianity.

    It used to drive me crazy when a pseudo-scholar Episcopal bishop would announce, “Scholars now think…” and tell his audiences that there had been no resurrection of Christ. The average guy in the pew was totally unarmed and unable to reply to what sounded like an authoritative pronouncement. It was, in fact, balderdash, both because much of New Testament “scholarship” was pure make-believe (assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions and no accountability) and because the man making the pronouncements was himself a fraud, pretending a level of scholarship that he did not possess.

  69. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    No worries, Matthew.

    If you go back to the article Father Stephen linked for you, when I was younger I was very much of the opinions he says are misconceptions there. I don’t wish to imply that all Protestants (even Southern Baptists) believe similarly, but I understood the Bible to be inerrant and that the Holy Spirit had ensured every word had been preserved and translated perfectly down through history so that, “Sola Scriptura,” if one read the Bible correctly, that’s all a Christian should rely on for understanding the what it meant to be a Christian.

    Questioning that was the path to error (hell) and everything between Paul/Revelation and the Reformation had been (mostly false) additions to the true and perfect Gospel.

    When I first encountered Ehrman, then, little he expounded seemed to conflict with that view. He seemed a more scholarly and erudite version of what my great aunt, for example, had passed to me, reinforcing what I already largely believed. When he began to change, therefore, I think you can see why this would cause me problems. (During this time the Internet was not yet as robust so as to make examining all views possible with a few clicks of the mouse, or to ask questions and have them answered such as on this blog.)

    As an example, suppose a person you greatly respected and relied on as a biblical historian and a scholar of the early church wrote that, because John’s gospel did not contain any reference to the Transfiguration and John was supposed to have witnessed it, clearly the Transfiguration never happened. If you were ignorant of Eusebius and had been taught that people like Eusebius were to be disregarded, then you would find the scholar’s accusation more troubling.

    Hope this clarifies my meaning!

  70. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    I cross-posted with Father Stephen, but yes, he understood my meaning 🙂

  71. Byron Avatar
    Byron

    What may be an interesting aside for some:

    When I had graduated from the SBTS and was looking for a job, I had an interview in Hawaii. The pastor and I talked quite a bit and he showed me the new training materials that had been purchased by the church for viewing the Bible as “inerrant” (this was just after the big “take-over” of the Convention by the “Fundamentalists”, in the early 90s).

    On one summary page of the materials was a list of “inerrancy” definitions–roughly a dozen or more(!)–that the Convention had produced for training. They included titles like “Plebian Inerrancy”, “Nominal Inerrancy”, etc. All of them were defined somewhat differently from one another, so together they encompassed pretty much any view that a person might possess–but they all (now) fell under the ideologically pure title of “inerrancy”. I pointed out that they all matched up well with the more “liberal” teaching definitions of belief that had preceded them and the pastor agreed with me. We pretty much left it at that.

  72. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thanks so much Fr. Stephen, Mark, and Byron.

    Fr. Stephen and Mark: What I am gleaning from your responses is that we really cannot rightly understand the Bible once it is divorced from the Church. Once that separation is made, the Bible falls victim to both fundamentalist and liberal interpretations/theologies. Also, it appears that the context of the NT writings (given to the Church via Apostolic tradition) IS the Church community(s), not some scholastic vacuum. I know our more liberal brother and sisters would argue with what I am about to say, but it seems to me that if the context of the writings is the Church community, then it´s the Church that has the last word about the authority and reliability of those writings — not Ehrman and his cronies for example.

    Byron: Did you end up moving to Hawaii anyway?? 🙂

  73. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    Matthew,

    Speaking only personally, Orthodoxy helped me realize and understand what should have been obvious in retrospect: the Bible (as we have it) was decided upon by people who also wrote analysis and interpretation of it. That is, if the early Church fathers can be trusted to define the Bible that Protestants follow, why would I then distrust the Church fathers generally?

    It does not seem defensible to me to say only in this one canonizing act the Spirit guided the Church. Everything else of the Tradition should be dismissed, unless it is explicit in the Scriptures.

    That’s my evolution in a nutshell.

    Otherwise, I do think it is harder (but not impossible) to develop crazy ideas when you have centuries of accumulated practice and standards, versus relying on interpreting everything for oneself. Someone like Jim Jones, for example, finds more fertile ground with a congregation that looks only to his guidance as to what the scriptures mean.

  74. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Mark said:

    “That is, if the early Church fathers can be trusted to define the Bible that Protestants follow, why would I then distrust the Church fathers generally?”

    Now THAT is the 64,000 Dollar/Euro question!!!

  75. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Mark said:

    “Otherwise, I do think it is harder (but not impossible) to develop crazy ideas when you have centuries of accumulated practice and standards, versus relying on interpreting everything for oneself.”

    Well … in the west even with 1500 years of practice and standards behind them the Roman Catholic Church, in the eyes of Luther specifically, still went off the rails “biblically” speaking. It is comforting to me that none of this happened in the East.

  76. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    You said, “but it seems to me that if the context of the writings is the Church community, then it´s the Church that has the last word about the authority and reliability of those writings — not Ehrman and his cronies for example.”

    The divorce of the Scriptures from the Church was one of the first errors of Protestantism. The movement was simply “anti-Church” from the very beginning and making the Scriptures an independent source was part of that ideology. In time, the inherent problems of interpretation were “overcome” by the pretense of various “common sense” approaches. One version is the “plain sense reading.” Another are the many so-called “historical” approaches which argue that if we read it and treat it like any other historical book, we’ll come up with its meaning. Oddly, most historical approaches would not imagine that you could read Homer’s Iliad without referring the Bronze Age Greece, etc.

    But (and this is important), if we read the Scriptures as “Scripture,” then it must be “somebody’s Scripture.” In point of fact, the “Scriptures” as we know them, are those writings held to be Scripture by, in, and for the Orthodox Church. It is their context. The Scriptures cannot stand over and against the Church, just as the Church doesn’t stand over and against itself.

    It is not the Scriptures as infallible historical record that make them “Scriptures.” In the early Church, we can see a range of opinion about a number of things. There are debates, even then, over who wrote the book of Hebrews, for example. Some of the Fathers, particularly in the East, are troubled by depictions of God’s actions in the OT that would seem “immoral” (St. Gregory of Nyssa has some noteworthy comments on this in his The Life of Moses). These were “permitted” opinions – certainly in the sense that they raised no objections from others. None of those opinions suggested in the least that the text was not authoritative Scripture. Thus, the question becomes, “How are they used?”

    That’s where I tend to point people towards the Liturgical texts, the exact place where the Scriptures are most used in the life of the Church. A good example is the book of Jonah. It is read (in its entirety) as part of the service of Holy Saturday. It is not read in order to make a point about historical Ninevah, much less about a great fish or whale, etc. It’s read because Jonah’s sojourn in the fish is a type of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (referenced by Christ Himself). Frankly, if, during that service, your mind wanders to the question of the historical Jonah, or the biology of being swallowed by a fish, etc., then you have lost the point and left the Liturgy. The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ are not important because they reflect the story of Jonah – it’s the other way around. Jonah is of value because it reflects Christ. I would say the same of the all of the OT Scriptures.

    But, if a reader of Jonah has never been through the services of Holy Week in an Orthodox service (having fasted for 40 days in preparation), and come to Holy Saturday and heard Jonah read in that context – then – the truth is that he has never actually heard the Book of Jonah. Read it all he likes, he will not hear it until he hears it in that context…and as a believer.

    The same can be said of all of Scripture. They are written for us, but it is necessary to be of us in order to hear them. Someone can imaginatively put themselves in that position, and gain some benefit by it, but it remains that the life in the Church is not an accessory – it is essential. Orthodoxy, at its kindest, tries not to state this in a manner that seems confrontative or exclusive – but, it is the teaching of the Church and a consistent witness of the Fathers.

  77. Michelle Avatar
    Michelle

    Dear Simon,

    Your being is revealed through relationship. How I wish I could impart a sense of the impact your comments have had on me during this lunch hour of mine! Thank you for the beauty <3. The honesty, the pain — for a moment I glimpsed that I am not alone.

    with love,

    Michelle

  78. Leah Avatar
    Leah

    Fr. Stephen, if the book of Jonah (and other OT texts) can only be heard in the context of the Church, then what value did it have as Scripture for ancient Israel?

  79. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Hello Leah. Not trying to leap frog over Fr. Stephen here, but from my vantage point you probably need to ask a Jewish person this question.

    I no longer expect that Jewish people who read Tanach to interpret it the way I do as someone who is in Christ.

  80. Leah Avatar
    Leah

    Matthew, I’m not meaning to ask how a modern Jew would see these texts, I’m wanting to know of what value they were *as Scripture* for God’s chosen people, the Israelites.

  81. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Leah,
    Ancient Israel read it as “their Scriptures,” and, it was doubtlessly read with a very different eye than we see in Christ and the early Church. The Saduccees, for example, only read the 5 books of Moses as authoritative, while the Pharisees accepted a wider canon (of sorts). Christ rebukes the Saduccees of “knowing neither the Scriptures nor the power of God,” and says to the Pharisees that the Scriptures “bear witness of Me,” meaning that they are to be interpreted as pointing entirely to Him.

    If there is a discontinuity between the early Church and Judaism, it is in the very different way they handled the Scriptures.

  82. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Leah,
    I hope my answer is of help. The Jewish community as a whole, at the time of Christ, was far more diverse than we tend to imagine. The Scriptures played a variety of roles. Indeed, what we think of as OT Scripture was not likely assembled much before the Captivity in Babylon in the 6th century B.C. The picture prior to that is quite cloudly and we have little historical evidence that points to it. The Scriptures come to have a large place in Judaism only after the return from Babylon and the development of synagogues.

    It continued to develop after the rupture with Christianity and, to some extent, continues to develop to this day.

  83. Leah Avatar
    Leah

    Father, yes, I take the point that there was a problem with the way they handled the Scriptures. I guess what I’m meaning to ask is how *should* they have seen the Scriptures, if they had been seeing them rightly, say, 500 years before the Incarnation? How would the *righteous* Israelite, in obedience to God, have been understanding these OT texts? Surely the texts were not meant to have no value to the people of that time during the thousands of years before the Church?

  84. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Leah,
    That’s a very good question – and it clarifies.

    First, they could not have seen the Scriptures as they are opened to us through Christ – St. Paul says that “there was a veil” that covered their eyes and prevented them from seeing that hidden meaning. “But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.” 2Cor. 3:14

    What they could see was the plain sense of the Law…and, I think, have been able to see certain principles that remains: mercy is to be preferred to sacrifice…love of God and love of neighbor are the great commandments…etc. That there was a messianic hope seems to have been common – but the lack of clarity could not have been cleared up until He came.

    Some have said that there is nothing particularly unique in Christ’s teaching – that most of it could be found in various rabbinical writings. What is unique to Him would be His identification of Himself with the inauguration of the Kingdom of God and the inbreaking of a cosmic Jubilee Year which explains His teaching on debt, radical forgiveness, etc. Along with that is His institution of the Church as the Eucharistic Community of the New Covenant in His blood…which sweeps away the sacrificial system of the OT. Christ “is our passover.”

  85. Byron Avatar
    Byron

    Byron: Did you end up moving to Hawaii anyway??

    I did not. To be honest, I didn’t like it there much. The weather doesn’t agree with me….

    Leah, the first thing that jumped to my mind with your question was Herod inquiring where the Messiah would be born. The Jews knew this–the answer was quickly provided to him. But there was little anticipation of it; little realization of what it actually meant (they expected a political/military leader of some sort). In a sense, they were bound by the Law and could see very little past what it provided. Perhaps, some might recognize where the “legal idea” of the Jubilee (to use one of Father’s examples) was pointing, but only a few, at best.

    As something of a counter-weight, we might consider Paul’s statement that we see now, darkly, what we shall see in full when all is done. Revelation(s) must be revealed, it seems. Our lives are not yet what they will be, but they are also not without merit. They are enough for us and, I would posit, what was revealed to the Jews was enough for them, by God’s grace.

  86. Eliza Avatar
    Eliza

    Mark, Matthew, Fr Stephen, Byron, Simon, etc

    Interesting conversation you all have going.

    Mark, I also listened to Ehrman lectures back in the day and those were a help to me in my antagonistic agnostic days. He was somewhat moderate and that helped pull me away from agnosticism.

    It felt like a betrayal when he came out as a full fledged atheist- or that is what is seemed. After that I read a lot of Luke Timothy Johnson only to find that he adapted some very progressive views. Then came N. T. Wright…

    All these disappointments served to keep pointing me on down the road to the church fathers and searching for the thing that is closest to the New Testament church.

    So, I really appreciate this conversation and don’t want to impose too much chattiness on it.

    As to Protestants accepting the Bible, why do they not accept the Apocrypha? I was excited to learn of those books and resentful that none of our “accepted”Bibles had that. I now try to avoid buying Bibles without those books.

    Leah, thanks for asking your great question.

    Father Stephen, what is the best source for learning Koine Greek? Is it necessary in order to really understand the New Testament? I have again started my effort, I have a lot of interruptions due to travel. It really takes all my focus and traveling disrupts that. I don’t want to speak, only read.

    Simon, I hope you find the hope-giving answers that you need. Surely your family (son, wife) does not think you are zero. Listen to Fr. Stephen, he can help you better than anyone. I would only ask, why are you using calculus to assess something that you have recently said is illogical anyway? Prob a dumb question.

  87. Shawn Avatar
    Shawn

    Would it be accurate to say that the orthodox church has a consistent and uniform interpretation of the scriptures? Honestly, that is hard for me to imagine, especially over a 2,000 year period. If so, how did they do it and how do they maintain it?

    In the protestant world, it seems like scriptural interpretation is the wild west in many ways. Find your scholar, find your Greek expert, pick a reformer, add in your favorite authors and youtubers and you have your own tailor-made interpretation of the scriptures. Then go read the bible by yourself and pray that the spirit reveals its true meaning to you although that may be at odds with another. It is maddening to hear highly educated people state, “the bible clearly teaches” and then go on to give views that diametrically oppose one another. In my current Baptist tradition, you can have Armenian-based churches and Calvinist-based churches. Both claim that their view is clearly taught in the bible. However, those two branches are vastly different with wholly different views of God and the gospel.

    Does anything of this sort occur in orthodox circles?

  88. Eliza Avatar
    Eliza

    Shawn, that is a question that I have as well and I am glad you asked.

  89. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Eliza,
    I’m not sure about sources for studying Koine Greek. I learned it the old-fashioned way by majoring in it in college, etc.

    I appreciated your description of the frustrating trail of Bible scholars. There is much that is simply going to fail in that field. Most Biblical scholars are under the delusion that they’re “following the text.” A result is that they labor under a lot of unexamined theological notions that are often not at all transparent to the readers or to themselves.

    One Dominican scholar of note described the Scriptures as a “doctrinally ruled text.” He was correct. Particularly in the NT, the doctrine is not derived from the text but is already there before the text. The Church was teaching from the very beginning (doctrine=teaching). The text reveals the teaching. That teaching is what will come to be described as Orthodox theology – but that theology was there already from the beginning.

    St. John, for example, in writing the prologue of his gospel, doesn’t say, “What do you guys thinking about the pre-existence of Christ? Can He be called the Logos?” No. He teaches it. And, no doubt, he had been teaching it for the bulk of his ministry. It is not a “late development,” etc. It is the faith of the Church.

    I would recommend a book worth reading: Fr. John Behr’s The Mystery of Christ.

  90. Michelle Avatar
    Michelle

    Forgive me, Fr Stephen, if my reply to Shawn’s comment takes us beyond the scope of your article.

    Shawn, I’ve been pondering the same thing recently.

    For context, I’m of Carpatho – Orthodox descent on my father’s side and a Daughter of the American Revolution of my mother’s side, and converted to the ROCOR about 7 years ago.
    The Orthodox Church is the church of the preliterate and hardworking; those who, like me, want to pray as much as possible but do not have the time (or ability) to read. For us, the Church exists as monastic centers where we can go before work and on our way home, and maybe after dinner, and always on Saturdays and Sundays, to relax into our hearts and communities as the monks lead and carry our prayer. The most important thing to remember about Orthodoxy is that it’s lived, it’s the way of life — it’s available to anyone, including babies who cannot speak, people who cannot hear, and the many, many people who cannot read. I don’t think there’s arguing in the Church. There’s just praying.

    I’m not sure what happened to the Catholics, except that maybe the Pope said that he can decide with finality the answers to the arguments, and the Orthodox said that Truth is mostly Mystery.

    After the proliferation of movable type, we have Protestantism. People stopped going to monasteries and began arguing.

    Orthodoxy in America is probably still learning to walk — it’s mostly Protestantism. We have so much to figure out. The Paschal light still burns brightly in our Church despite its historical accommodations that maybe make it different than it was before it married the State (the Roman Byzantine Empire). In the early years, the Bishops married and we recognized Deaconesses and everyone was both fully immersed and fully anointed with oil when baptized and the women fled to the deserts to found monasteries when the Empire mandated that people marry rather than remain virgins and Christians would not eat anything with blood. Many of those things have changed, but I think, for good historical reasons.
    We argue about things now because we’re mostly all literate, but I think it’s in the agreement that we’ll find the Church.
    Myself, wondering what this Protestant-American-Orthodoxy will become, and having a very small child and being far too busy to lead the prayer of our household like I want to, and being the only adult in the house — I think we just need lots of channels of prayer going, maybe streaming online, or written in a blog like this. Not old sessions pre-recorded, but instead, those operating in real time, with life, so we can all reach out to each other with genuine, respectful love.
    Please pray for me!

  91. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Mark,
    I like his work on Christ the Conqueror of Hell, as well as his early work on St. Isaac of Syria. Most of his later stuff is generally pretty pedestrian, which is to say it’s reliable but not brilliant.

  92. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    Thank you, Father Stephen.

  93. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Shawn,
    You certainly find some variety in Orthodox treatment of the Scriptures (nothing like the Wild West). It’s the place of Liturgical texts – that is to say the worship life of the Church – that brings about a certain conformity on the whole. We believe what we pray and we pray what we believe. St. Irenaeus of Lyon (2nd century) said: “Our doctrine agrees with the Eucharist and the Eucharist agrees with our doctrine.”

    The Orthodox are not always asking, “What do we believe?” nor are they searching the Scriptures asking, “What should we believe?” We know the answers to those questions. Ideally, we read the Scriptures in order to have communion with Christ.

  94. Eliza Avatar
    Eliza

    Father Stephen,
    “ I would recommend a book worth reading: Fr. John Behr’s The Mystery of Christ.”

    Thank you for your answer and the recommendation that I will find asap.

  95. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Michelle,
    Generally, well said. The Orthodox life is one of prayer and union with Christ. We don’t spend time arguing about doctrine (when we’re behaving ourselves). We don’t need to. We are engaged, by the providence of God, in a large missionary effort in the Western world and it necessarily involves lots of people from Protestant backgrounds finding their way to Orthodoxy (myself included). It takes time to assimilate and to be assimilated. I did not write at all for the first 8 years of my Orthodox life, despite having written a lot as an Anglican. I was hesitant as I began to write again, and only with my Bishop’s blessing did I take up the task that has become this present ministry.

  96. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    Eliza,

    Since you said that you’ve used the Great Courses before, their course on Ancient Greek is currently on sale for $65 (“Greek 101: Learning an Ancient Language”).

    I also found several free resources by searching “online ancient greek.”

  97. Leah Avatar
    Leah

    Thank you, Father (and Byron), for your response; very helpful for my understanding.

  98. Shawn Avatar
    Shawn

    Thank you Father Stephen and Michelle for the response.

    I hearAmericans in general aren’t to keen on history, and I admittedly am probably on the bottom rung of that ladder. I forget that many people couldn’t read, nor did they have time to in the early church. Stopping by the church multiple times a day and on the weekends to have your heart rest sounds truly wonderful. Apparently, they didn’t understand the church per-se, but they trusted it.

    Not continually asking what do I believe or what should I believe, but communing with God in fellowship with other believers. How refreshing! If I do convert to orthodoxy, I can only imagine how long it will take for me to quiet my hyper-rational/protestant tendencies! Thank you both for sharing and for the insights!

  99. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Father,
    Your answers here are those that I have been taught by my priest-catechist and priest confessors. Nevertheless, just reading them here warms my heart in gratitude and love for my teachers (including you!) and parish homes.

    Dear Father thank you for your ministry!

  100. Lynne Avatar
    Lynne

    Mark,
    Thanks for the tip about ancient Greek!

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


Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast



Categories


Archives