Wrestling with God

One of the most interesting stories in the Old Testament is found in Genesis 32. There we hear the story of Jacob wrestling with God. Or is it the story of Jacob wrestling with an angel? Jacob had to face his brother Esau the next day. His anxiety comes through even in that ancient account. The text says that Jacob wrestled “with a Man.” But this is not the end of the matter. They wrestle throughout the night. Jacob has a grip on the Man and refuses to release him.

“I will not let you go until you bless me!” he says.

The Man injures Jacob, “knocking his hip out of joint” (possibly withering it). But Jacob does not release him. The Man asks, “What is your name?” Jacob answers. And then he is told, “Your name will be ‘Israel,’ for you have wrestled with God and with man and prevailed.”

Jacob asks for the Man’s name. “Why do you ask my name?” comes the reply.

And the story concludes by telling us that Jacob named the place, “Peniel,” (“Face of God”), “because,” he said, “I have seen God face-to-face and my life is preserved.”

It is an amazing story. It is not the first time in Genesis that a story shifts between the identity of a man (or angel) and God himself. The same dynamic occurs in Genesis 18 (the hospitality of Abraham). The story, as told, allows for the plausible denial that Jacob wrestled with God. But Jacob himself is under no illusion. “I have seen God face-to-face,” he says and the story only makes sense if we allow that meaning.

And that brings us to the first problem: how can a man wrestle with God?How can the text suggest that Jacob sees God face-to-face, much less holds him in an unbreakable grip throughout the night? I don’t know, but it does.

And this is the striking character of the Biblical witness. What some would dismiss as primitive nonsense, the Bible presents as an unvarnished account. The God of the Christians can not only enter into a wrestling match, He can lose!

Passages such as this should not be taken as some extreme anthropomorphism. They should be taken at face value and allowed to speak the mystery with which they were written. This story was told, and no editor’s hand throughout the centuries has ever sought to fix it or make it more palatable.

Of course, the God of Jacob is also the Incarnate God/Man Jesus Christ. He is not only susceptible to wrestling, He is capable of being nailed to a Cross and suspended above the earth.

And this is so much the point. As one who has spent plenty of time in the middle of the night pondering my life, God, and everything else – I can say that those things worth considering are never just vague generalities. I have never wondered how I might love mankind, but I have agonized more than once over how I might love a single person. We never wrestle in general – real wrestling is quite personal, particular and face-to-face.

The spiritual life, rightly lived, is a constant movement towards the particular. It becomes more specific with every moment. Modern religious thought is rife with vague words. It tempts us with generalized associations and abstract loyalties. At its worst, it marries itself to utility and seeks to “do good” and “help” people – and measures its goodness and help with the yardstick of some vague and noble goal. Utility is the measuring stick of the infernal regions. The generalities of Utilitarianism breed pride. The arrogance of modern man is found in the absurdity of his broad designs: “The War on Poverty.” “Take Democracy to the World.” “Equality, Fraternity, Liberty.” But it is the intricacy and intractability of very specific human persons and their struggles that humble us.

This pattern of action is seen in God Himself. For God, not even a single sparrow falls but He knows it. The hairs of our head are numbered, and He calls us each by name. God cannot be avoided by hiding in the crowd, for He seeks us out and challenges us to wrestle. He waits for us to seize Him and hold Him and demand His blessing. He longs for us to grip Him in such a manner that He can wither a thigh and change our name.

It is specifics that leave us sleepless. Generic Christianity has very few wrestling matches beyond the demands of civility. I recall that my own struggle in becoming Orthodox was deeply driven by its specific demands. “Is this really necessary? Is it not enough to just agree with it and maybe hang a few icons?” But Church is never, properly, a vague generality, a loose associational preference. It is a terrible demand, crushing in its refusal to compromise. Our modern tendency towards generalities, including within the topic of Church, is born of a false set of practices that rob the soul of every edge and boundary. Carried far enough, even God cannot get a good grip on us. Our souls become slippery, able to slip out of every contradiction and inconvenience.

But it is the true God who lies awake at night and troubles the sleep of the anxious and sets the conscience on fire. God is ready to wrestle with us, and even delights Himself in losing.

For the LORD has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel for His special treasure. (Ps 135:4)

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

98 responses to “Wrestling with God”

  1. Maria Avatar
    Maria

    Hello Father,

    Did God lose? Could it not be seen as a tie broken by a withered thigh?

  2. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Maria,
    The notion of God “losing” is clearly a paradox. But the name “Israel” that was given to Jacob, indicates that he “prevailed.” Remember, this is the same God who says to us, “He who loses his life for my sake we save it.”

  3. Helen Avatar
    Helen

    Thank you for this post, Father.
    The more I think about it, the more it seems that in our time (maybe not just in our time), it might be necessary to enter this arena and wrestle with God. We may be wounded, we may have a new name (how we see ourselves), but we never lose.

  4. Christa Avatar
    Christa

    ” I have never wondered how I might love mankind, but I have agonized more than once over how I might love a single person. We never wrestle in general – real wrestling is quite personal, particular and face-to-face.”

    “But it is the true God who lies awake at night and troubles the sleep of the anxious and sets the conscience on fire.”

    Wrestling with God…It reframes my struggle and tears. Thank you.

  5. Justin Avatar
    Justin

    But it is the true God who lies awake at night and troubles the sleep of the anxious and sets the conscience on fire.

    Ummm, thanks(?).
    I was always under the impression it was my own fault.
    This is a hard saying.

  6. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Justin,
    We are not alone in these struggles of ours.

  7. Margaret Sarah Avatar
    Margaret Sarah

    Thank you for these reflections, Father! One question about the following:

    “Passages such as this should not be taken as some extreme anthropomorphism. They should be taken at face value and allowed to speak the mystery with which they were written. This story was told, and no editor’s hand throughout the centuries has ever sought to fix it or make it more palatable.”

    I’m curious about how we can take some passages (such as this one) and read into its depth, while at the same time regarding other more difficult Old Testament passages (regarding violence) with perhaps less “face-value”. I’m particularly wrestling with the “agential” passages, where God seems to command, cause, etc.

    Any thoughts?

  8. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Margaret,
    St. Gregory of Nyssa once wrote and suggested that certain passages in the Scriptures offer an “immoral” picture of God. He suggests that in such instances we should look to an allegorical reading rather than a literal. Cf. The Song of Moses.

    I’m not suggesting that this be the pattern for reading all the time (but it’s closer to what I myself do), but as an illustration of how one of the great giants of the Church handled certain difficulties in Scripture.

    That’s where simply “residing” in the bosom of the Church helps. It allows us to rest in the consensus of the faith even in “troubled waters.” Another way that I understand this is to always look for Christ within any reading. St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Ambrose of Milan described the Old Testament as “shadow,” the New Testament as “icon,” and the age to come as the “thing itself.”

  9. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Margaret,
    Here’s a quote from St. Gregory:

    [O]ne ought not in every instance to remain with the letter (since the obvious sense of the words often does us harm when it comes to the virtuous life), but one ought to shift to an understanding that concerns the immaterial and intelligible, so that corporeal ideas may be transposed into intellect and thought when the fleshly sense of the words has been shaken off like dust.

  10. Ook Avatar
    Ook

    This passage has been particularly challenging for me from a cultural viewpoint, with the specific choice of wrestling as form of struggle. Wrestling brings up images of Hulk Hogan and other comedic figures from childhood TV programs, I had childhood friends who were wont to say things like “I’ll wrassle you fer it”, generally followed by unpleasantness, and there was that unfortunate high school wrestling team. So I have to consciously remind myself to ignore this cultural overlay when reading Genesis.

  11. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Ook,
    I grew up watching the occasional wrestling match on tv. But, my homelife was dysfunctional enough that I’ve seen the real thing…and was occasionally the object of a bully’s wrestling moves. All quite unpleasant. To wrestle all night is a serious thing.

  12. Tom F Avatar

    How do we continue the wrestling match when we are weary over a particular issue? I myself have been wrestling over a particular issue for years and I am finding it increasingly difficult to continue the struggle to be honest. Every time I want to leave the fight I hear the words, “Where will you go?” But when I return to the ring it feels like I am fighting the immovable object. It’s frustrating to say the least.

  13. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    I have always been highly skeptical at allegorizing offensive depictions of God in order to save myself from confronting the possibility that the OT was written by a tribal society that worshipped a tribal god. I am not saying to toss the OT. No one would even consider the possibility. Even if “great giants of the church” did that, that isn’t very helpful. I believe that when we hear that because the great giants did that we must, too. It anesthetizes a person from feeling the conflict. If you really want to wrestle with God, leave the text as it is and allow yourself to experience the feelings it elicits when you read it. It will tell you who you are.

    I was in a discussion one time with a friend and I referred to my life as one long wrestling event with God. I was rebuffed to the point of silence. I was told that only the Saints are the ones who wrestle with God because they are the only ones that really know him. God wrestles with those whom he calls friends. I am never going to be any saint, but I had always desired friendship with God. It was like learning that I would never be someone that God could be friends with.

    Water under the bridge I suppose.

  14. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    This complements the article on the scriptures and the church.

    My general impression is that the church has told me repeatedly that it is everything and I am nothing. I think that is a fair message. It has everything to offer and I come as a pauper, a beggar, in poverty skinned and thrown about, a sinner laden with shame from having put my sin before God. How could someone as broken as I ever be friends with or wrestle with God? Do I really have so little to offer? The Church and the Saints that we praise so highly…what separates me from them? Am I really so different? I don’t know know…as I digest this it is difficult for me to accept. I certainly would never teach my children to see themselves this way. What kind of father would I be if I did that?

  15. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Tom,
    Without knowing the particulars of your situation, I’m not sure how to respond. I once heard Fr. Thomas Hopko say that “prayer is a struggle to a man’s last breath.” I do not know your issue – but I pray God gives you grace to bear it.

  16. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Simon,
    I think that all of us wrestle with God – and God calls us friends (it’s good to remember that the primary image given to us is Christ – He specifically calls us “friends”).

    I think that St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, when He criticizes the account of Moses in the OT, is recognizing a “tribal society that worshipped a tribal god.” His use of allegory doesn’t deny it – it simply instructs us on how we read. I don’t need to become a historian to read the Scriptures – I need Christ – I need to see Jesus. St. Gregory (as in his Life of Moses) is looking for Christ.

  17. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Simon,
    Nothing separates you from the saints. You did not break yourself. You’ve mentioned before in comments that you experienced terrible trauma as a child. The trauma echoes in us as “pauper, beggar, skinned and thrown about…laden with shame.” Those are not messages from God or from the Church – but from a child who was wounded. I believe that Christ says to us – “You will be with me in paradise.” May the Lord God remember you in His kingdom, now and ever and unto the ages of ages.

  18. Edward D Cleland Avatar
    Edward D Cleland

    Thanks Father for this message. At the age of 73, I’ve been Orthodox for only three years. And, it seems to be very hard for me (in my lazy, sinful nature, I want it to be easy). It seems that every day is a wrestling match, with God and with my new Orthodox faith. Based on some very hard things going on with loved ones; I cry out to God as to why He allows them to go on and on. Yet I love Him in my weakness; Praise Him!

  19. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Edward,
    My parents were 79 when they were received into the Church. (I’m now 71 so I sympathize with any age struggles). I had a couple enter the Church in the 80’s. As a priest, I worked with them to adjust the fast to fit their abilities. At a certain point in our lives, our health will often impose “fasts” on us that are much harder than those of the Church. I no longer eat dairy at any time of the year, related to controlling my blood sugar, etc.

    A key, for what it’s worth, is to give thanks in all things. That, of course, is not easy – but it is powerful.

  20. Ayyeliki Avatar
    Ayyeliki

    I’ve both loved and been confused by this story in Genesis, so thanks for elaborating on it! Isn’t it “ok”, perhaps, even good that we wrestle with God ? It means we’re engaged, have a relationship, and WANT to be close and harmonious with Him. I imagine very few Humans – maybe the Saints- actually stop wrestling and are in complete peace and harmony ( for lack of better words), I don’t know. Just my simple thoughts…

  21. Justin Avatar
    Justin

    Tom, Simon, and everyone,
    Like Fr Stephen says, You all are not alone in the struggle. You are actually speaking my language. After a lifetime of believing the lie that God could never love me–never even like or have affections toward me–unless I completed the Sisyphean task of making myself holy, somehow I have, like St Paul, as one untimely born, been given the gift to glimpse the truth–that God does love me and does forgive me, and even has a place for me in the Kingdom. Not that I don’t struggle to believe it, even now, from moment to moment. But, as St John said, “The light shines in the darkness…”

  22. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Much to ponder here, Father. Thank you for these thoughts.

    It seems the tendency towards generalities is rather ancient. I think of Socrates and his constant questioning: What is justice? What is love? What is beauty? People in that culture answered him with specific, embodied examples of justice, love, etc. Socrates pressed, however, for the general sense of the terms. He wanted knowledge of beauty itself, its meaning abstracted from particular instances of beauty. For him, this abstract meaning was the only true knowledge. Created things, as mere shadows of the timeless, bodiless, unchanging ideas, give no true knowledge of reality.

    Western philosophical thought basically begins here. The New Testament takes up the Platonic concept of shadow/reality also – clearly seen in St Paul and in Hebrews – as do the Church Fathers. Patristic biblical interpretation was approached this way (with slight variations): the Old Testament was shadow, like the earth, while the New Testament in Christ was reality, like the immutable heavenly realm. We are to ascend from the lesser to the greater, from earth to heaven, from OT to NT, from letter to spirit. Such a metaphysical structure is endemic to patristic thought, it seems to me.

    My question is this: do we not also ascend from the particular to the general? For instance, there is the historical Jesus of the synoptic Gospels, and then there is the universal Christ of which Saint Paul speaks in his letters, the One who fills all things through the Resurrection and Ascension. The first is particular, bound to a specific moment in space and time; the second is not. Indeed, “Christ is all and in all,” writes Paul. His presence is ubiquitous. Now, perhaps we only encounter the universal in and through the particular. That is, maybe we only access the infinite through the finite – through my neighbor, for instance. Yet, is it fair to say that “Christ” is the name of that general, universal, infinite Mystery, sometimes called by the Greeks, “the unknown God”?

    Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. (2 Corinthians 5:16)

    Thank you!

  23. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    I’ve thought a lot about this over the years. I think that the Platonism of the fathers is not the one that champions abstractions (the general). The great mystery of the Incarnation turns all of that on its head. We do not know anything in general – we can perceive “universals” – but we only perceive them as they are made manifest to us in the particular. We do not love humanity in general (that is a great error). We can only love in particular. And that is where it is always put to the test. I think people (philosophers included) love to flee to the general and the universal because, in its abstraction, it makes no demands.

    In Orthodoxy, for example, “communion” is never an abstraction – it is also quite specific and describes the boundary of the Cup.

    God is “transcendently particular.” There is not a general God – only Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – and even then – we know the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit.

    This is an earlier article on the topic.

    I will add that we should be careful about the “general.” We easily mistake it for the “mystical” and “true” and the “transcendent.” We only find those things in the particular. There is no “universal Christ” of St. Paul. That Christ is the same as the Christ in the gospels. Modern Protestant thought has toyed with these things – but fails. I would avoid that path.

  24. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    The “unknown God” is, in St. Paul’s preaching, quickly revealed to be Jesus, crucified and risen. There would have been no scandal, no laughter, from the Athenians had he kept speaking about a “generality.”

    Also, “not regarding Christ according to the flesh” is not a reference to a “Christ as Universal.” The principle and reality of the Incarnation never disappears.

  25. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Amen Justin!

  26. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Fr. Stephen said:

    “I don’t need to become a historian to read the Scriptures – I need Christ – I need to see Jesus. St. Gregory (as in his Life of Moses) is looking for Christ.”

    Fr. Stephen … where do we see Jesus in the most hideous and violent portions of the Old Testament? My feeling is that on the road to Emmaus Jesus didn´t even go to those places in Scripture.

  27. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Fr. Stephen,
    I found this definition: general (adj.) c. 1200, “of wide application, generic, affecting or involving all” (as opposed to special or specific). This is how I understand the term.

    Your response (thank you, by the way) raised several questions for me. First, if God is not merely loving but Love itself – in general – then shouldn’t we think of God in general, universal terms?

    In response to this question, if we say that God is only known in Christ, and Christ is particular and not universal, then aren’t we saying that those who do not know Christ, do not know God either?

  28. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Owen said:

    “In response to this question, if we say that God is only known in Christ, and Christ is particular and not universal, then aren’t we saying that those who do not know Christ, do not know God either?”

    I think Fr. Richard Rohr who writes extensively about the Universal Christ would say that it is possible to have communion/union with God through Christ even if one does not acknowledge Christ as we do in the Church. I think he would support the notion that since Christ is the ultimate Universal, it would be impossible to have an experience of the Divine without it being Christ-centered.

    Not saying I agree with everything Fr. Richard espouses nor am I advocating anyone embrace his teachings. I just wanted to share something I have learned from him as a Catholic, Owen.

  29. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Thanks, Matthew. Yes, but that would envision Christ in a universal sense, which I agree with. I believe Fr Stephen understands Christ a particular sense, not a general one. So, in this case, I would agree with Rohr.

  30. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Matthew,
    I should have said, I tend to agree with Rohr on this. It’s a complicated issue. I seek Christ as the ground and substance of all things. Whether we should classify this fundamental reality as general or specific may not even be knowable.

  31. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    I think I”m with you on this one Owen, though I would like to hear more of Fr. Srephen’s thoughts.

  32. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    If we say God is love – we are not speaking of two things, but one. God is not a universal or an abstraction. Love is not an abstraction. We are not told “to love,” but to “love one another,” “love your neighbor,” “love God with all your heart, your soul, your mind.” We never just “love.”

    I believe it is proper theology to say that there is only One God who has revealed Himself to us in Christ. However, Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of the Father, is the Logos. He is present in all things, through all things, etc. But He is present as Christ the Logos. He can be “known” in the sense of “felt after,” or seen in some manner, but there is no “God” that is not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I am not saying that non-Christians have no knowledge of God – but that all knowledge of God is and can be of the “only truly existing God” made known to us in Jesus Christ. There is no other.

    Universals are very problematic. Platonic universals are not what we see in the early Christian fathers, or not what we come to see in their works. There is no “love” that is somehow existent, sort of free-floating or something. That which we refer to as universals (beauty, truth, love, etc.) exist in God, or, as some say, “in the mind of God.” Whatever existence they have must be referred in that manner.

    All universals are notoriously poorly defined and have a long history of being abused in language. They come to mean almost anything. As Stanley Hauerwas famously said, “Who doesn’t believe in love?” As a Christian, I live within limits, the definitions revealed in the work and person of Christ. The use of universals, particularly in theology, have a long history of abuse and, in my experience, lead to sloppy definitions.

    I see this as a very important matter.

  33. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen, Matthew,
    I have no trust in a “universal Christ.” It’s a way that a theologian has of advancing an opinion in place of revelation. It is very pleasing to us in the modern world. I reject it. Again, I hold this to be very important.

  34. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen, Michael,
    Please forgive me if I seem intransigent in this (universals and the particular). But, I am intransigent – in that I believe it to be an inherent part of Orthodox theological work. It is a place where I frequently find myself parting company with thinkers like Rohr and others. It is not a denial of universals, only an understanding that they are never encountered in a “naked” state. When we start thinking of them apart from particulars, we have launched out into what is easily delusion acts of the imagination.

    On the other hand, a deep dive into the particular is a gateway into a universal – but with an anchor. Again, I recommend this article.

    Thank you for your patience!

    Dogmatically – the Seventh Council was quite specific about the fact that icons portray the particular (not the ideal or general). Christ, they said, can be portrayed in an icon not because He became man, but because He became “a” man (that’s actually hard to say in Greek, but they managed).

    This aspect of icons is brought out quite clearly in the work of St. Theodore the Studite, who is perhaps the most precise and careful writer on and during that controversy. The tendency in the West to paint “abstracts” – such as any number of depictions of a sort of “Christ figure” could never be done in Orthodoxy. It is to be resisted.

  35. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Fr. Stephen,
    Because of its importance, I will offer a few additional thoughts on this topic… Maybe a better way to understand these things is within a theology of participation. God is the universal One in whom all particulars participate. For example, I understand, “God is love,” to mean that all particular acts of love represent a share in Love itself. Likewise, God is the Life of all living things, the Being of all beings. Life, Being, and Love are names for the Divine Nature itself. None of these names, however, are particular instances. They are the general, universal reality in which all particular instances participate.

    Several synonyms of “universal” help, I think, to convey what I mean: general, comprehensive, common, omnipresent, all-embracing, all-inclusive, inescapable, pervasive, permeating. On the other hand, synonyms of “particular” include: specific, certain, distinct, separate, isolated, restricted, discreet, definite, precise.

    Thank you for the link to your article. I re-read it today and, with respect, found the connection between modern consumerism and the understanding of God as generic to be tenuous. It’s more intuitive to me to recognize a casual connection between globalization/multiculturalism and understanding the divine in universal, general terms. The wide exposure to other cultures and religions has, I believe, opened people’s eyes to question if perhaps their own view of God has been too narrow. Folks of open-minded demeanor are realizing, sometimes with deep dismay, that other religious traditions contain not only doctrinal profundity but also persons of genuine holiness. How is one to answer this formidable challenge to theological particularly and its exclusive claims? This question has been a major theme of my own “wrestling match” with God.

    Mindful of your intransigence, this will be my last word on the issue. 😊 Thanks again for having the conversation.

  36. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    I think I need to side with Fr. Stephen on this one. I have been reading an older book by Gordon Kaufman called God the Problem which is relevant to the discussion at hand. It spells out the problems of the particular versus the universal with respect to the questions “What do we mean by ‘God’?” And “what could we ever say about ‘God’ that doesn’t seem meaningless in a scientific age?” I think the particularity of Christ is the proper answer. In other words, what I have chosen to conclude as something I can honestly say to my son is this: What can be known about God is made known in Christ. I haven’t slammed the gavel on that, but it seems right. I understand that my psychological sense of certainty on that adds no value whatsoever,

    I think at bottom all reality is hypostatic. In other words, “higher realities” are increasingly particular. God, as absolute reality, is revealed in particularity. The perception we have of reality as non-hypostatic (secular materialism) may be due to the granularity of our senses or to the limitations of reason or a philosophical persuasion…an unawakened noetic sense. But, if I were to rephrase what you said previously I would say that acts of love are not instantiations or instances of a universal love that each act participates in. I would say that the love that we express as proto-particular beings is by participation by an ever greater fully particular, fully hypostatic being who is Love.

    I don’t think that the concept of the Universal has any existence or meaning except as a category or taxonomy of ideas.

    Owen, you wrote, “Folks of open-minded demeanor are realizing, sometimes with deep dismay, that other religious traditions contain not only doctrinal profundity but also persons of genuine holiness. How is one to answer this formidable challenge to theological particularly and its exclusive claims?” First, are you saying that persons that don’t think that way are not open-minded? Open-mindedness increasingly leaves one without the ability to make distinctions. So, does rigid-mindedness. Second, I don’t see the profundity of other traditions as a formidable challenge mainly because I don’t think that particularity entails exclusivity. I don’t see that particularity entails exclusivity. There may be a dozen different ways to properly understand the profundity and holiness of particular persons in other traditions. For me that isn’t a problem. I think it is fine that a Hindu practices Hinduism devoutly and cultivates holiness his or her entire life within the Hindu tradition. I just accept that as a given. What the particularity of Christ challenges is the postmodern sense of total democratization. It is so ingrained in us that we take it as a given that if God were fair everyone would have had an equal opportunity to be an Apostle or to follow Christ or whatever. Right now America is caught in a culture war over forcing equality of opportunities and equality of outcomes. It is a very American assumption, “Let’s blur the lines of gender so that no distinctions can be made and so then opportunities with be equally available to all and if not we will legislate otherwise!” But, maybe I am not very open-minded.

    Did cavemen have an opportunity to know Christ? Let’s just say no. Okay, what does that mean? Does that they won’t have an opportunity? Does that mean that God dealt with them unfairly? I don’t know what to tell my cave dwelling brothers and sisters. However, what I can’t do is deny the particularity of Christ as the revelation of a Trinitarian God out of sympathy for those who have come and gone without a confessional knowledge of God.

    I apologize for the length of the comment.

  37. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thanks so much Owen and Fr. Stephen.

    No problem Fr. Stephen. I think I understand your point of view. You said:

    “I am not saying that non-Christians have no knowledge of God – but that all knowledge of God is and can be of the “only truly existing God” made known to us in Jesus Christ. There is no other.”

    I completely agree and I think Rohr would agree with your statement as well. My understanding of universal and particular seems to be a both/and situation. Kind of like the apophatic and cataphatic descriptions for God that I learned about through my engagement with Orthodoxy.

    If we believe God to be both universal and particular in the person of Jesus Christ, then how could any religious experience be described as anything less than an experience of Christ — even for people who completely reject such a notion?

    Anyway … no need to attempt to answer my last question if you simply want to end the discussion here. I understand.

  38. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    I need to amend/qualify my last comment Fr. Stephen:

    Any religious experience that can be termed good, beautiful and true is what I mean. Not all experience (religious or otherwise) fits this description of course.

  39. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    Thank you for your reply. You said, “It’s more intuitive to me to recognize a casual connection between globalization/multiculturalism and understanding the divine in universal, general terms.”

    Yes. globalization is modernity’s truest economic expression. McCarraher (The Enchantment of Mammon) says that money is the ontology of modernity. The advantage for modernity of stressing “universals” is to lower all barriers to trade (and exploitation).

    None of us knows anything in general. We only know particular things. Beyond that, we infer. I’m not a Nominalist. However, universals, as such, exist within the “mind of God,” not as “things.” They are names for the Divine Energies. That is Orthodoxy.

    But in our modern world, the efforts to have an “open-minded demeanor” have also provided opportunities of exploitation – to refuse to see the otherness of a different religion. The proper Christian attitude to other religions and peoples is to not kill them. Modernity not only kills them, but absorbs them into the Borg (modernity’s universals). It not only absorbs them (and us) but kills the soul as well.

    The crisis of our lives isn’t the challenge of opposing truth claims. The challenge is always and ever to actually live by the truth as it has been revealed to us in Christ. To actually love…not to “like love” or “be in favor of love” or talk about “love in general.” All of St. Paul’s descriptions of love in 1 Cor. 13 are quite particular, painful, and relentlessly demanding (all in the sense of refusing to be generalized).

    God is good in all things. Be well.

  40. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Simon,
    Thank you for this.

  41. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Simon,
    You wrote, “What can be known about God is made known in Christ.” I agree 💯

    You also asked a question: “are you saying that persons that don’t think that way are not open-minded?” No. I am only saying that one must at least have an open-mind to see evidence in other religious traditions of that which their own religious tradition has exclusively claimed. As a side note, I don’t think every Christian thinker has claimed this kind of exclusivity. But, from my reading, it certainly has been the trend to discount all non-Christian religions as “of the devil.” It takes a certain openness to new ideas for a Christian of almost any tradition to see otherwise. That’s all I meant.

  42. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen, et al
    Where do we stand when we speak? One of the problems of universals (“things in general”) is that it presumes some place outside of everything where we see things and make statements about things. It’s a sort of universal observation post. We do this all the time without thinking about it. News organizations, for example, do not reveal their actual position in space and time (and politics), but, instead, speak as if they saw things as uninterested observers just relating the facts. That used to work in the days of 3 networks and 30 minutes-a-day news cycles. It “worked” because we all believed it and failed to ask proper questions. The abuse of that non-questioning, however, has made the news into something of a farce. They speak “universally” when, in fact, a large part of the world sees them for what they are.

    In speaking of God, religion, etc., we frequently get into conversations as though we were persons standing on some general, universal platform, opining about how things “really are.” It fails to “wrestle” with the fact that we speak from ignorance, from a place of not-knowing. We do not know things “in general.” We only know particulars. That’s because we are particular persons and not universal beings.

    As a Christian, I do not “know” God. I can know Jesus Christ, who, according to the Scriptures, is the only-begotten Son of the Father, the only one who has seen God, and the only one who can make God known. We know God, because Jesus Christ makes Him known. What I know of God, I know because of Jesus. When I say “God,” I am not predicating some universal, abstract Being, about Whom I can have opinions. When I say “God,” I mean “the One made known to us in and through Jesus Christ” and nothing more.

    As truth claims go, I have to wrestle with that. If I meet someone who is a Buddhist, for example, I can listen to them, hear what they are saying, and appreciate it for what it is. We are told, in Acts, that “[God] has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;for in Him we live and move and have our being,” (Acts 17:26-28). All of the various “religions” of the world represent this “groping for God” that is inherent in our very being. That is their “truth claim.”

    As such, Christianity (Orthodoxy), is not a religion among religions, one “groping” among all the “groping.” It is a very particular claim made by one man: Jesus Christ. If He is who He said He was, if He has been crucified and raised from the dead, then everything else has been made relative – relative to Him – and He alone can judge.

    For myself, as an Orthodox Christian, I can ultimately only speak with confidence with regard to Christ and what He has made known. He is the Particular claim that I have to wrestle with. As soon as I pretend that I can stand somewhere else and weigh His claim against some other claim, I have relativized Him and aggrandized myself. I become the judge. As soon as He ceases to be particular, there is nothing to wrestle with, nothing that you can get a handle on.

    And this is the desire of modernity. Modernity wishes to make all things relative – for modernity to be the standing place from which we speak. But, what we do not see, is that modernity is simply commodifying all things. Christ becomes one claim among claims and I can shop for my religion – probably adopting the modern “cafeteria-style” that so marks modern believers – “a little of this, a little of that.”

    The claim of Jesus Christ sweeps all other claims away. He is Lord. Learning to live as a particular being, who could not know God unless God Himself came down into my particularity and made Himself known, that is the heart of my Christianity.

    And keeping the commandments given to us – I do not kill others in the name of Christ. I bear witness to what I know. That is the commandment. It is God alone who persuades. I can only bear witness.

    There is a sense of peace that comes when we generalize things. The peace comes because we are no longer struggling against modernity (the present spirit of the age). We find that we can fit in and no longer be troubled.

    But, in fact, we must be troubled and live a troubled life. We live a crucified life, according to the promise of Christ. And that is trouble. I could say much more, but that would require more time than I (or you) have today.

    Thank you for your patience.

  43. Louise Avatar
    Louise

    I have been thinking about this since I read it yesterday–wrestling with it, you could say.

    For me, you illuminated something I’ve been struggling with for as long as Christ/faith/God has come into my life only a few short years ago, which is that I no longer relate to my secular friends any longer. It pains me, but what you pointed out in the specifics of the spiritual life is exactly why. No matter what tragedy befalls my friends or the great, specific suffering in each person’s life, the response is always incredibly general, almost stubbornly so. I speak to them personally, and they speak back in The Message. It is unnerving and destabilizing, perhaps this is part of this new journey I’m on, I don’t know. But I can no longer hear them, so I turn to God and unburden my heart to him, and it’s all the details of how to love particular people in my life, and how to love a world that causes me and millions of others suffering every day. I realize this comment in itself could be seen as “general” but it’s only because this is a public forum, I hope you understand what I’m trying to express. Thank you so much for your writing, it helps me make sense of things I don’t understand.

  44. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    Yes. Note that I would see (as in Acts 17) all religions as “groping after God” – and that this groping is itself a gift of God, inherent in human beings. This would preclude thinking of them as “of the devil.”

    Reflecting – as I think about some bits of your story that you’ve shared – though I was born and raised in a Baptist setting – I was never raised in a fundamentalist home. My parents would both have assumed that evolution (for example) was a scientific fact and not had any trouble squaring it with the Bible. We were not pious and we didn’t read the Bible or pray much. I converted to Anglicanism as a teenager (15) and had some other experiences. But my adult formation (seminary) was in a liberal Anglican seminary (“High Church” sort of).

    But in becoming Orthodox – my “adversary” (in my head) was probably liberal Protestantism. That was the adversary with which I argued (in my head-talk). That was the place I was leaving and Orthodoxy was that which was calling me. Thus, I’m probably reactive about things that (for me) seem to have elements of liberal Protestantism about them. In philosophical terms, I would reject the disguised “foundationalism” of liberal protestantism – as being little more than modernity speaking through it’s unwitting puppets.

    I think an awakening occurred for me when studying under Stanley Hauerwas at Duke – who was decidedly Anti-Foundationalist, but with a deep grounding in the particularity of Christ. Though he wasn’t Orthodox, those conversations helped clarify a lot of things for me. He certainly was the first person whose work helped me see modernity for what it is – and to begin acquiring and understanding of a Christian critique.

    I draw from a lot of sources in that conversation (note my use of McCarraher who is a critic of modernity but, something of a Marxist Catholic, I suspect). The conversation out there – both religiously and philosophically – is extremely diverse. It’s a delight to read the Fathers and take a break from all of the noise.

    But, I write in a mode that tries to clarify an Orthodox understanding of our present place and time (as well as the timeless things within the faith itself). It makes me “intransigent” on certain things (as any of us would be). I suspect I’m as intransigent about the particularity of knowledge, etc., versus generalities because liberal protestantism is nothing but generalities. It’s why you can’t find any difference between liberal protestant denominations other than “style.” There’s no substance.

    But, again, I appreciate your patience and willingness to engage – even if I push back very strongly from time to time.

  45. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thanks so much Fr. Stephen, Owen and Simon. I know how much effort it takes to formulate such comprehensive responses. I appreciate them. Be blessed.

  46. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    As I read and write dear friends, I sit at the bedside of my dying mother-in-law. She is suffering a lot. Please pray for Ingrid. Somehow my faith makes sense in this space, but at her bedside all argument ceases. We can simply be. This blog has been such a blessing. Thank you all.

  47. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Fr. Stephen,
    I find it to be a natural law that living things need resistance to grow. So, I welcome your pushback. Debate helps me to clarify my own shortcomings. I just appreciate this space you’ve created in which we can “wrestle” together as brothers and sisters. Lord willing, I will respond to your gracious comments this evening.

  48. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Owen,

    This idea that other religions is of the devil seems like something a fundamentalist would think. Frankly there is no conversing with fundamentalists anyway. Their mind is closed. The same can be said of open-mindedness. If everything is true as in true-for-me, then again the conversation stalls. I don’t want an open-mind and I don’t want a closed-mind. I want a discerning mind. A mind too open permits everything. A mind too closed allows nothing. The “balance” between the two is discernment. So, what do we discern in Christ? Jesus says “The one who has seen me has seen the Father.” One might ask, what does it mean to “see” Christ? If a person were to truly see Christ as who he is with eyes of discernment, then as compelled as we might be by the profundity of other traditions or egalitarian sympathies that shouldn’t distract from what is discerned in Christ. At least, that’s how it seems to me.

  49. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    Have a good day. My week has, thus far, been highlighted with the practical efforts (at present) of down-sizing, packing, and preparing to sell our home (we’re moving to S.C.), and unpleasant medical procedures (growing old is not for sissies, they say). But the tough stuff is behind me, so I’m settling in for the conversations. Our exchange has also made me go back and think about when certain things became central and important for me and why. It’s useful.

  50. juliania Avatar
    juliania

    Thank you, Father Stephen. This is a timely subject for me – two days ago a humbling personal struggle was sent, physically daunting, a task unexpectedly upon me as I seemingly was doing well in all relationships going confidently forward — my body suddely and embarrassingly let me down! Fortunately nobody was about; I had a task to complete, and I managed it, not at all on my own. I was very thankful!!

    Genesis is such an amazing writing, expecially if one imagines how that was being conveyed to Moses in the cloud on the mountaintop, the way it begins, then goes back on the telling to convey it from another ‘handhold’. As you say, face to face with God — and sometimes it’s a real struggle!

  51. juliania Avatar
    juliania

    “… I think that the Platonism of the fathers is not the one that champions abstractions (the general).”

    Forgive me for agreeing with you and with the fathers, Father Stephen! This is the Platonism of Plato as well! He is masterly in using the dialogue form to seek his truths, always through other persons! Too many have supposed there to be higher abstractions in doing this, as Aristotle is good at demonstrating. I am very happy with your (and the fathers’) understanding of Plato. He’s dear to my heart as well.

  52. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    And thus my preference for an experienial approach

  53. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Michael.

    You are exactly right.

  54. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Fr. Stephen, et al.,
    Thank you all for engaging with me on this. Thanks especially for the kind-hearted critiques. I could be wrong and probably am on many points. My views on these things evolve like the natural world we inhabit, which we are. As my patron Saint says, “A man whose mind cleaves to God with love holds as nought all visible things, even his own body.” I believe St. Maximus would include here mental objects as well. So, I try not to cling to (lean on, trust in) my own understandings. They are just signposts, anyway.

    The reality is found in Christ. This isn’t always apparent. Peel away the appearances, though, and transcendence remains. I think that’s what Christ does. The Cross cuts away the surface layer – like circumcision – to reveal an inner mystery. There’s a passage in St. Paul I’ve been wrestling with: “The Anointed is all things, and in all” (Colossians 3:11). We can breeze past this amazing saying without experiencing its depth. Are nature mysticism and Christ mysticism somehow interchangeable? Paul’s statement confirms, I think, the very thing Fr. Alexander Schmemann said about the Eucharist.

    This is what I mean by the universal Christ. The life of God lives in and as the natural world as the image of his glory. And we are that. All the death and new life of 13.8 billion years of cosmic unfolding manifests the Divine Nature. And we are that. So yes, Simon, cavemen did receive the word of Christ. The animistic impulse of native peoples gives powerful testimony to the Anointed One, who is “the same yesterday, today, and forever.”

    The seeds of the Word are in all existing things. This is what St. Maximus meant when he wrote, “the Logos is the logoi and the logoi are the Logos.” This bold identity statement sums up the metaphysics of cosmic Christianity. To my mind, however, the poets say it best.
    “…For Christ plays in ten thousand places,
    Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his
    To the Father through the features of men’s faces.”
    Whatever God is, he shares it all with us in Christ and is well pleased with what he sees.

    The Divine Liturgy sums things up for me. When we come to the chalice, we find the whole cosmos in the Cup, concentrated in the form of bread and wine. And it is revealed that we are what we eat, the crucified and risen Body of Christ, “in whom all things hold together.” Blessed is the Kingdom!

  55. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    I don’t know if you’re familiar with Perennialism – the teaching that, basically, all religions are true when rightly understood, and much else. It is not Orthodox, though some have tried to pass it off as such. There are elements in what you’re suggesting that remind me somewhat of that approach. In particular, it is the danger of generalizing Christ (and I think your translation of Col. 3:11 is erroneous and misleading for just that reason). The “Anointed One” has a way of abstracting from the person, Jesus Christ. We can never abandon or lose touch with Jesus as He is revealed to us in the gospels. There’s a reason we have the gospels and read them in an exalted position within the Liturgy. 2Cor. 5:16 should not be used to set that aside nor as an invitation to generalize or abstract. This is not the Tradition (not even in Maximus). One reason for this (among many) is that we lose our boundaries and open ourselves up to imaginative delusion. The gospels are quite specific and particular – as are the commandments we have received.

    It is of note that in the Jesus Prayer – what is central is the name of Jesus. It is the sine qua non of the prayer. And this is illustrative of the direction of Orthodox piety. Orthodox mystical tradition is not mysticism of the abstract sort. It is found in the depth of Jesus Christ and we need to guard that.

    There may be no particular dangers in what you’re saying, and I might be over-reacting. But I’ve been around a long time and seen lots of pieties out there (including a variety of mystical pieties). So, what I’m saying is that there is something in what you’re saying that doesn’t “feel” right. Forgive me. But that’s for you and your confessor. Not for me.

    However, my reason for pointing something out here on the blog in our conversations is that I know that our conversations are read by many. And, if I feel the need to flag something, I do.

    Nonetheless – the whole cosmos is in the Cup. But it is good to concentrate on the Name by which it is given to us: The Body and Blood of Our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ. Be careful with the abstractions is my advice.

    May God give us grace.

    Added note on Col. 3:11 (ἀλλὰ πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν Χριστός). The point of the statement is to say that “the important thing is Christ.” Literally, “But all things, and in everyone Christ.” It’s the passage about neither slave nor free, etc. I think that isolating that statement and riding it off as the Cosmic Christ doesn’t do the passage justice. There’s a caution re: pantheism. Christ is not “all things.” That is not quite the sacramental understanding. Everywhere present and filling all things – yes – but not everywhere present because He is all things. There’s a difference. There’s the danger of swallowing everything up whole (ourselves as well). As Simon said earlier – everything is hypostatic – which means that the boundaries of all things matter.

    The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, nor is the Holy Spirit the Father nor the Son. (As the old formula has it). And it matters.

  56. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Father,
    Yes, I am familiar with Perennialism. I did not intentionally imply anything about that teaching in my comment. I am a bit surprised you saw it there.

    Concerning Χριστός – “anointed one” is the meaning of the term. As I believe you know, it connects Jesus with the Davidic line of kings as well as the OT order of priests who were both literally anointed with oil. There were numerous “messiahs” or “anointed ones” in the OT, making “Christ” a general term. I don’t see this as at all controversial. Of course, Jesus assumes the title and fulfills it a new way: He is “anointed” by the Holy Spirit. The translation I gave is meant to evoke the rich web of biblical allusions to the term (not to abstract the person) and to highlight the fact that “Christ” was not Jesus’ last name.

    I humbly and respectfully disagree with your reading of Colossians 3:11. The translation I offered is quite literal. Forgive me, but should we not allow Paul a pantheistic moment? For he clearly says, “Christ is all things.” I don’t know, maybe his insight was incorrect. Either way, I cannot dismiss what he clearly writes as an Apostle of Christ for the sake of maintaining a certain dogmatic theology.

    Thank you again, Father, for permitting what seems to me to be a very important conversation.

  57. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    Again, I understand the point of “Anointed One.” However, I think that your translation does not accurately render the sense of its context. And, no, I do not think St. Paul is having a pantheistic moment. What St. Paul clearly writes as an Apostle, includes the context and intent of the passage – and not to be used out of context.

    The sense is “Christ all and in all.” There is no verb to be in the statement – it is sometimes implied. However, in your rendering the verb becomes all important. Rather, Christ all and in all has the sense of “what is important is Christ.”

    Lastly, “Christ” is indeed used like a “last name” by St. Paul – a sort of shorthand for Jesus Christ. You rendered it “the Anointed one” – when there is no definite article present (the). Instead, without the article, it has the force of a name, specifically Jesus Christ.

    I can’t tell you how to read the Scriptures. I can only say that I think this is a wrong reading and to note possible dangers in such abstractions.

    That’s all.

  58. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Father Stephen,
    I realize my last comment was rather forthright. Forgive me, my wife has been sick for 3 days with the flu, and I’ve been on duty with my five and seven year old. I certainly meant no disrespect, and I ask your blessing.

  59. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    God give us both grace. I’m recovering from a medical procedure a couple of days back and am not myself as well. May Christ heal us all!

    I would note: If St. Paul wanted to say, “Christ is all things,” this is not the construction that would be used.

    I would render this literally: “All things and in all things – Christ!”

    That you can make a translation doesn’t make it a correct translation. But, be fair to Paul. You cannot say that he said, “Christ is all things.” He didn’t.

    May Christ speedily heal your wife! In my experience, nothing is harder in a home than when a mother is sick.

  60. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Father,
    I like your translation. It retains the Greek word order. Meaning, of course, is everything. Your point about context interests me most. I am going to read and think more deeply about that. Thank you.

  61. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    In my understanding pantheism is a reduction. In a sense it subtracts away the transcendent affirmation. It is certainly easier on modern ears. The Stoics, of course, had a pantheistic understanding of the Logos. I think that it’s easy to map the pantheism of the Stoic Logos to Paul’s words. However, the Church insists on God’s transcendence. So, in what sense is Christ all things and in all? I don’t know. When the Eucharist is declared to be the body and blood of Christ, I just accept it. I don’t attempt to rationalize it. Part of my response is along those lines. Paul made a radical affirmation of Christ as all things and in all things. I accept it as something that requires a noetic rather than a philosophical sense. My sense of it would be something like parousia. Christ is all things and in all things in the sense that his being is present to and in all things, but the radical distinction between his particularity and the particularity of all things remains.

  62. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    There is a sense of peace that comes when we generalize things. The peace comes because we are no longer struggling against modernity (the present spirit of the age). We find that we can fit in and no longer be troubled.

    Father, I appreciate these words and your article about the struggle we sometimes (perhaps often have) with Christ. I find it reassuring because in most circumstances, I’m in, I don’t fit in and admittedly want to–that is, to feel more comfortable–to feel as though I have some control over my circumstances.

    Specifically, it seems that, at times, I want to make my ‘stance,’ (-avoiding the words an Orthodox person would describe as the life of Christ in me) as it might be called, appear to be a viable construct acceptable for the academic sphere that I’m in. When, in these circumstances, where these thoughts unfurl, it becomes apparent that I want to create a general or universal construct about myself–a form of self-justification placed within a secularized milieu.

    I appreciate the importance of not making such a self-construct because, as you say, it is a kind of deconstruction: “One reason for this (among many) is that we lose our boundaries and open ourselves up to imaginative delusion.”

    Under these circumstances, were it not for the grace of God, the very substance of my soul might have melted away. Glory to God for His mercy. The Lord hung on tight to me as we struggled, and at the same time, I held tight to him for dear life. He is indeed particular and personal to me, speaking to me, calling my name, cutting through all the noise that I throw up in an effort to hide my naked self.

    Thank you so much for this article and this discourse, dear Father.

  63. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    I am in an odd place right now. I find myself not wanting to read the Scriptures. Most of the OT seems bizarre to me. I was reading in Joel and there was a place there where God was expressing his anger at those who had conquered Israel. That the children were captured and then being used to buy wine and harlots. If God knew about it and was upset by it, then why didn’t he do something? Much of it seems grounded in a world so foreign to me that it is difficult to relate to. I prefer to read something that nourishes what little faith I have left. I say all that to say that I don’t have much fight left in me to wrestle with God. Just thinking about this issue of pantheism has been a little disheartening. Not because the topic is hard or the Greek is difficult. They aren’t. But, I just want to relax and read things that catalyze my growth. Of course, I am sure I’ll come back around to it.

    Recently a cousin of mine committed suicide. It’s such a tragedy. My uncle found him hanging. I have been pondering the role theology should have in nurturing the soul so that someone has the wisdom to exhibit endurance with long-suffering in the face difficulty. Is there a role for theology in the development of wisdom? I have always thought of theology as a principally academic pursuit. Theoria I would imagine is different. Reading about how angry God was with the returning exiles because they used the wrong mortar to build the city walls isn’t really very interesting or helpful. You know what I mean?

    However, I do appreciate Owen’s questions and the opportunity to add my two cents to the discussion.

  64. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Here is an example of something that seems inspiring and full of promise. It is from the ending of the Letter to Diognetus: “Let your heart be your wisdom; and let your life be true knowledge inwardly received.” I would really like to understand this passage.

  65. hélène d. Avatar
    hélène d.

    Could we say that theology is the Light of Christ in the world ? and the theologian is the one who loves God, who accepts to love before understanding… the theological light is the Light of the Word of God ; is it possible to arrive at thinking with the Thought of God ?…

  66. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Simon,
    I appreciate your questions as well. For what it’s worth, I am no die-hard pantheist. The perspective I find most consonant with (most of) the New Testament revelation is panentheism. “All things are in God.” Kallistos Ware of blessed memory and Fr. Andrew Louth have both written positively, and quite beautifully, on this position.

    I am very sorry to hear about your cousin.

  67. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    hélène,
    I think we can indeed say that true theology is the Light of Christ in the world. And we can say that a theologian is one who loves God and for whom love is pre-eminent – prior to understanding. I think all this is possible.

  68. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    I recently read an article on the GOARCH website titled, “An Orthodox Christian View of Non-Christian Religions.” It is relevant to our discussion above and gives some helpful quotations from the Church Fathers. They state, “The majority of Orthodox scholars would accept inclusivism.” This view upholds the centrality of Christ when considering the salvation of persons who practice non-Christian religions: they can indeed be saved, but Christ is the only Savior.

    Personally, when I engage with other traditions, I am looking for indications of Christ, His death and Resurrection, and how He fulfills whatever is taught and practiced there. It is an analogous approach to how Christians read the Old Testament with Christ as its main subject. There is an excellent book which takes this perspective in regards to Taoism. It is called Christ the Eternal Tao by Hieromonk Damascene. He sees Christ as the fulfillment of what Lao Tzu wrote in the Tao Teh Ching. That book models well, I think, an Orthodox Christian approach to non-Christian religions.

  69. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Owen,
    I begin my comment by saying first that I appreciate your engagement with Father Stephen. You bring out of him needful corrections, not only for yourself but also for others, such as myself.

    When I was a catechumen, the catechist priest was a young father with several young children. All of them seemed to be not only well-behaved but joyous. I have no doubt that this was due not only to their exceptional mother but also to their father, to whom it was apparent they loved. These relationships within his family allowed me to be accepting of some of his advice that was specifically for me. I add this emphasis of the word ‘specifically’ because this is part of the art and vocation of being a confessor, priest, and catechist.

    He expressively insisted that I drop all of my yoga practice and/or readings because he was concerned about the theological influence that would not be helpful for my spiritual development in Orthodoxy. To another person who also practiced yoga in the parish but, to the best of my knowledge, had been a long-time Orthodox person (perhaps even cradle Orthodox) for various reasons, he did not broach the subject. I trusted his advice, not just because he was a catechist/priest, but as far as I could tell, he was a very good father.

    There have been times when, long after (years) this advice, I questioned this advice, delved a bit, and for various reasons having to do with just wanting to get fit and strong, it just didn’t seem to suit me. And for the strength and depth that I do have in my faith, I attribute to him and his initial guidance in my Orthodox babyhood.

    I learned within the Orthodox ethos that what is not harmful to one person can be poisonous for another. So much depends on the context of their lives and well-being physically, mentally and spiritually. Therefore, a healthy, trustful relationship with one’s priest-confessor is essential. But if that does not exist, then there are other ways that Father Stephen might elaborate to discuss one’s thoughts and understandings for guidance. However, under these conditions, it is best to have an open mind about what one needs to learn in Orthodoxy rather than already having one’s mind made up on ‘what is what.’

    In appearance, and I definitely do not mean any other than appearances–with all that implies in limitations. While you say it is best to have an open mind, it seems you began your conversation in this stream with a fixed outlook. For example, in your last comment about openness to others and their confessions, I was taught that ‘types’ can indeed be seen in other religions. I don’t think there is any controversy here about that.

    I think there is an issue (not that I’m saying this is where you’re at–I leave this to Father Stephen), however, with embracing ‘outside’ Orthodox theological constructs and reimagining Orthodoxy through those constructs. This would especially be the case while one is still learning how to live and embrace Orthodoxy. And in the latter case, here in the USA where we think we know what Christianity is all about, there is a particular ‘American’ way of adopting Orthodoxy to suit our tastes.

    Speaking now as a person who had a different culture within my home life growing up and living in an ‘external’ world with different values and outlook, I learned early on that the ‘external’ world (American culture) had a lot of difficulty with paradox. Paradox had to be remedied. Whatever strand within it had to be teased apart made simple and understandable and then a new construct would be built that exemplified (American) logic.

    Now of all things I’m smack-dab in the middle of such a milieu in Chemistry. It’s ironic and sometimes funny, how these things turn out. But one thing I do appreciate, and this is probably why I gravitated to physical chemistry, is the acceptance of paradox, particularly in the field of quantum mechanics and how to translate such relationships into our ‘macro’ world (this is the training physical chemists used to get). Sure, there always seems to be a scramble to disentangle a paradox when one pops up. But I like the fact very much that they keep popping up.

    There is a paradox in the very foundation of Christianity: the Trinity, three persons, one God. Each of the persons is unique, distinct, yet somehow (the phrase that is used is) coinhere. To the best of my knowledge, I’m not sure that this perspective/paradox describes an understanding that is common among those who profess that they are Christian in the USA. Yes, perhaps most reference a Trinity in some fashion, but the understanding and appreciation of the paradox within Orthodoxy seems different. And in appearances, it seems this has captured your attention, interest, and perhaps devotion.

    As paradox, I’m comfortable with it as it is given to me in the tradition within Orthodoxy. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t read widely in principle just because I am Orthodox. I do read widely, but to the utmost of my ability with the lens of Orthodoxy, not to disparage others, not to borrow from others, but to refine my understanding of the tradition that has been given to me. Therefore it is indeed good, as I see what you’re doing, to check in with other concerning your readings. But keeping one’s mind open to the guidance of a learned priest (keeping in mind that Father Stephen’s theological training and has the blessing of his Bishop to do this work where others do not), is an important feature of such learning.

    Please forgive me for my interlocution in the conversation between Father Stephen and you and if my words are unhelpful. I have benefited from your conversation with Father Stephen. And I’m grateful for your engaging Father in the way that you have (you are gracious, and it is very appreciated).

    Father I ask for your forgiveness also and if I’ve been off track, please correct.

  70. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Please forgive me for saying one more thing to clarify my words. I mentioned that I was comfortable with the paradox of the Trinity. But such words belie the truth of the tension (of a struggle that Father Stephen mentioned) that my love for the Trinity, and specifically Jesus Christ and Him Crucified, entails. It seems to me, just as Father Stephen describes, that it is within the struggle that I have the chance meetings that His grace provides, where I might glimpse His very particular face.

  71. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Fr. Maximos Constas (pretty much the best source on St. Maximus the Confessor as well as a number of other patristic subjects) wrote once: makes: “Only things that contradict the mind are real, there is no contradiction in what is imaginary.” It’s an amazingly rich statement. It’s in his book, The Art of Seeing: Paradox and Perception in Orthodox Iconography It’s a favorite.

    If all we saw was a blank white wall – we’d see nothing at all. It’s the “contradiction” of, say, a line drawn on the wall that we can see. It even makes the wall visible. An iconscreen in the Church “contradicts” the space of the nave, allowing us to see the space of the altar. It’s a delightful read if anyone has the time.

  72. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Beautiful words and understanding, Father! Indeed you see a white wall when you see a mark on it. Nice allegory.

    I have Father Constance book, his works are so helpful!. I need to reread it!

    On the side: Similarly in chemistry pedagogy we often set up a student’s learning by taking them through steps where they experience cognitive dissonance. It’s how best to dissuade them from using constructions that don’t work or impede their understanding.

  73. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Sorry weird autocorrect— I meant Fr Constas.

  74. Liz Avatar
    Liz

    It is complex to be human and we live in difficult times. As I am reading the comments in this great conversation, my thoughts go to Love as universal truth, a principle that also tells us what it means to be human. As a Christian, I understand love to be the ground of our being in Christ, including kindness, compassion and care to those who cross our path and to try our best to Be love and peace to those around us. Just a few thoughts coming to my mind. Thank you Fr. Stephen, everyone, God bless.

  75. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Father, you wrote: “If all we saw was a blank white wall – we’d see nothing at all. It’s the “contradiction” of, say, a line drawn on the wall that we can see. It even makes the wall visible.”

    It’s interesting. In Daoism there is an idea that it is the emptiness of a thing that makes the thing what it is. For example, it is the emptiness of the window that makes the window that is the virtue of the window. It is the emptiness of the cup that is the virtue of the cup. This seems simplistic. Yet, in a manner of speaking, it is what the cup is not that makes the cup what it is. Similarly, I am who/what I am by virtue of what I am not. Something like this is happening with the line.

    In another sense, the wall is revealed by the boundedness of the contradicting line. I’m wondering if there isn’t a path to knowing God in this. That perhaps God is revealed by what we are not. I am aware of the so-called via negativa. However, it seems that perhaps something nuanced is implied in this

  76. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Dee,
    I am honored you took the time to write out such a fulsome response. Thank you.

    Concerning a fixed outlook: I believe your observations are spot on. As one of my professors liked to say, “Of course I think that what I believe is true. Otherwise, I wouldn’t believe it!” It’s a healthy position to take, I think, to have a tentative confidence in our beliefs. But we’ve all met people who cannot be reasoned with at all, and then again those who can. The former want to be right; the latter want the truth, even at the cost of losing face and admitting they are wrong. The perfect scenario is when two reasonable people come together to work something out, giving and taking as the evidence requires. As the prophet Isaiah wrote, “Come, let us reason together.”

    I mentioned to Father Stephen above that debate helps me to clarify my position and realize my own shortcomings. Often, I only realize those shortcomings after the fact, when the heat of the moment has passed, when I experience a moment of sobriety! Being “in the right” is a pernicious temptation to which I am not immune. Brutal honesty with oneself helps. It’s a painful process to admit I am wrong, sometimes even with the small stuff. It takes dispassion to reasonably discuss – not to mention let go of – our attachment to viewpoints which we tend to deeply identify with. Knowing all this is a good start. But the proof is in the practice.

    You mentioned the paradox of the Trinity. I did not mean to imply anywhere in my comments that I do not believe in the Trinity. I do. You emphasized the distinction between the Persons, and I would agree. My emphasis within this thread has been the universal aspect of the Divine Nature, especially the Son, who assumes a human nature and in whom all things are created. I believe we agree on these things. Indeed, one of my favorite theological texts is St. Augustine’s work, de Trinitate. He grapples at some length with this profound paradox at the heart of Orthodoxy, bringing the doctrine down into our lived experience.

    Thank you again for your gracious words, Dee.

  77. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Owen,
    I apologize if it seems I was saying that you do not believe in the Trinity. That wasn’t my intention. I believe indeed that you do. However, and again, I’m not certain, it is an extrapolation within the concept of coinherence, broadening it to include non-Orthodox implications (universal aspect is your word choice) that I believe I see a divergence, again in appearances, in your word choices, and in your presented stance. Indeed I may be wrong. I realize I’m not a pastor with long experience with various understandings. As such please know I’m saying this very tentatively.

  78. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Simon,
    It’s been a while since I read Fr. Maximus fine little book. The quote came from the introduction (written by someone else who was quoting him). But, you make me want to go back and check out that chapter. The inside of our head (our imagination) contains little to no contradiction. Isolated, it would be like a form of hell. In CS Lewis’ brilliant book The Great Divorce, those in hell imagine their world. It just goes on and on. But there’s never a surprise. A small group take a bus ride from hell to heaven. There, heaven is everywhere wonder and contradiction – surprise after surprise – because it’s real.

    It’s why I do not want to imagine God – or worship the “God of my understanding.” I want a God I can wrestle with (and Who can wither my thigh). I became Orthodox because I saw it as true (not because I liked it – had I “liked” it in that way – I would have not trusted it). I like it in another way – for its reality. It wrestles with me and I wrestle with it – and it keeps saving me.

  79. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Fr. Stephen.

    I resonate with your vigilance regarding the “God of your understanding.” I worshipped such a god before. It created a tremendous degree of psychological certainty. I also agree with you that if Orthodoxy was something I liked I would torture myself over my bias–unable to walk away, yet forever unable to commit, which is a bit where I am I suppose. You said something one time that I have grown to appreciate. It was something like ‘the question of Truth is too big for us to decide. What we have to choose are our commitments.’ Does that ring any bells? Perhaps it is in our commitments that we not only experience our particularity, but wrestle with God? Perhaps even finding God dwelling in the all the things that we are not?

  80. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    When does debate end and simply being begin?

  81. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    One of the Desert Fathers said that “prayer is a struggle to one’s dying breath.” Apart from that – I think the “debate” stops when we begin to give thanks always and for all things. It’s never just quiet.

  82. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Dee,
    Ah, now I understand what you mean. No problem at all. Let me try a different way to explain what I mean by saying God is universal. I found a quote from St John Chrysostom that may be helpful.

    He tells us that God is “not particular but He is the Father of all,” and His providence brings the “nations” to salvation. To the Jews God gave the “written law” but to the nations He gave the “natural law,” the law innate in human conscience and reason. (Interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans, Homily 7.4)

    I take this to mean that God’s activity is all-inclusive, His presence is pervasive, and knowledge of Him is not restricted to any nation or group of people. By following their conscience and the innate natural law written on the heart, even those outside the scope of explicit revelation can be saved by becoming “doers of the law” (Romans 2). God’s glory permeates the entire world. I hope that helps to clarify.

  83. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    You put that very well.

  84. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thanks so much Fr. Stephen.

  85. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Owen,

    I am wondering what Chrysostom meant by ‘God is not particular. I loathe wrangling over details when it comes to questions about God, especially a God that we say is utterly transcendent. However, I still wonder what Chrysostom meant by ‘particular.’ Is the English a close rendering of the Greek? Is it consistent to speak of hypostatic beings as particular? Particular, not in the sense of being a part that composes a greater whole, but having a particularity that allows for genuine otherness. As Fr. Stephen alluded to earlier the Father is not the Son, etc. Without a particularity that allows for radical distinction then that opens the door for a potential confusion that the Church confesses doesn’t exist.

  86. Mallory Avatar
    Mallory

    What a wonderful discussion in the comments, thank you all.

    I’m particularly troubled at the moment because of something that may seem small, but is a big deal in my life and for my well-being. I am new to this faith, and just started attending a local Orthodox church. I am a single mother to a young child and was called to Christ shortly after her birth. I suffered terribly with postpartum depression, and instead of taking medication I started practicing yoga every day and it healed me, not only physically (I had a traumatic emergency C-section) but also in many ways mentally. I am now (for the most part 🙂 a patient, loving parent in a way I never could be before I started my yoga practice. I have energy, patience and compassion with parenting a toddler which is extremely challenging work. So here comes my new dilemma: my daughter is a little over 3 years old now that I have just started going to church, and I have been told by several (not just one!) people that yoga is prohibited and one woman even told me I was unknowingly “summoning demons and worshipping Hindu gods”–I’m deeply troubled by this. The yoga I do is physically rigorous, makes no mention of demons, makes me healthy and happy, an hour a day, I view it as any another exercise except that it also causes nervous system regulation rather than exercise that adds stress. I see the people around me are sicker than ever, and I want to be healthy a I can be for my daughter. Can you please explain to me if it is really the case that I have to stop doing yoga in order to worship? That Jesus would frown on me for this? I am very confused and demoralized. Thank you for your help. I love your writing–yours and Paul Kingsnorth’s writing is what made me seek out the Orthodox church.

    Blessing to everyone.

  87. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Owen,
    Your last comment was beautifully said. Thank you for your clarification!

  88. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Mallory,
    There is no prohibition against yoga as exercise. There can be aspects of yoga as meditation that are Hindu – but the exercise need not be. What you describe sounds quite innocent and safe. As exercise, it’s just a form of stretching that’s been well thought out. Discuss it with your priest/confessor.

  89. Mallory Avatar
    Mallory

    Thank you for this answer! I used to meditate but now I pray which feels very similar. Thank you again.

  90. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Simon,
    I apologize for just responding to your comment. I have not looked at the Greek for that quote. I got it from the Greek Orthodox website, though, so I’m assuming it’s correct. The particularity which St John refers to, I think, means that God is not particular to any people group. Rather, he is available – universally – to the farthest reaches of his creation. All shall be saved in as much as they obey the gospel, explicitly through the written law (the spirit, not the letter) or implicitly through conscience and the innate natural law. Interestingly, the term “particular” has the same root as “partial.” I believe Chrysostom is saying, God is neither.

    The second part of your comment interests me me very much. I understand God to be the fullness of all being, Being itself, and therefore not a being among beings, not a thing among other things. In my view, God is not an object that can be conceived as “radically distinct” (as you said) from other objects. Because the infinite and transcendent God can express Himself in what is intrinsically a manifestation of God, there is a sense in which can speak of created objects as God: i.e., the world is that manifestation. And yet, as finite beings, we fall *infinitely* short of God who exists as the fullness of being. And yet again, God is not another thing over and against you or I or the world.

    Neither you nor I as finite psychological individuals are God. But the ground of our existence, our original source and our ultimate end, are not our own. We are living participants in the life of God. I believe this is why Christ stressed “death to self” for us to follow Him and become like Him, so that we might realize our share in the Divine Nature (2 Pet 1:4).

  91. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Chrysostom’s use of “not particular” is, as you note, a statement that He does not belong to any particular group.

    However, His transcendence does not make Him not particular – as in being so general that He transcends it. That would just be a disappearance into meaninglessness. Rather, I think we may say that He is transcendently particular. The He is so utterly so, that no word or thought would suffice.

    Again, I caution against a transcendence that lacks substance – a transcendence that is mere abstraction.

    Words are difficult in this. I think Simon has written well in this.

  92. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Fr. Stephen,
    Thank you for the response. I am seeking to follow your logic here. Should we not understand Being as a common, general category in which all particular beings participate? (We see the same root word in “particular” and “participate.”) We have already agreed that there is a common, general human nature in which all particular human beings share; and analogously, there is a common, general Divine Nature in which all the particular Persons of the Trinity share. Second Peter says that we human beings participate in the Divine Nature as well. This is a reference to God in his oneness.

    If the Persons of the Trinity all share in the one Divine Nature, and human beings share in the one Divine Nature also, how is it not the case the Divine Nature is general and common to all human beings and to all the particulars of the world?

  93. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    This is a difficult area – one in which we tread carefully. First, 2Peter 1:4’s reference to human beings as “partakers of the divine nature,” should be read in its historical context – which is a use of the term “nature” some 250 years or so prior to its careful defining in the dogmatic language of the Church. The passage reads:

    “Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord,as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue,by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.”
    (2 Peter 1:2–4 NKJV)

    He is not using the word “physis” (“nature”) in the manner or meaning that the word will acquire in the debates with the Arians (and later). Rather, its import here would be similar to “by grace,” or some such thing. It’s also not a reference to “all human beings,” but clearly to some Christians who have escaped the corruption (sin) brought on by lust (corrupt desires). More than that would be anachronistic.

    In the dogmatic teaching of the Church – it is held that we can know nothing of the Divine ousia (being, nature). It is beyond all knowing. Neither do we participate in the Divine Being (Ousia). Rather, we know God and participate in God through the Divine Energies. And, even then, there’s much that is simply ineffable. For example, essence (ousia) and energies are one (not two), but distinct. Much of this comes up here and there in the Fathers, but is refined and becomes dogmatic in its expression in the Palamite Councils of the 14th century.

    But, coming down to human beings: It’s a mistake to think too much about “human nature” in a manner that is separate from any single hypostasis (person). We infer its existence by observation (and revelation), but we never ever see it apart from a single hypostasis.

    As to hypostasis (person) itself, the best modern reading on that is probably the writings of St. Sophrony (or possibly the work of Father Zacharias of Essex, a key interpreter of St. Sophrony). It’s a mistake to conflate “hypostatic” with “individual” because it’s far more profound than that.

    Forgive me, but what you’ve suggested in your description of common nature/particular persons is reductionist (unintentionally). Using the terms in that manner and reasoning based on that usage will lead to problems.

    We must draw a curtain on the Divine Nature (ousia). Also, it’s problematic to let our reasoning run too far ahead of our actual experience. It is a reason I consistently try to draw our attention to Christ and His commandments. God makes Himself known to us in Jesus Christ – not in the language of nature and person. We must lean into Christ through repentance, obedience, and, above all, love. And then, go slowly.

  94. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    “We must lean into Christ through repentance, obedience, and, above all, love. And then, go slowly.”

    Thank you for the wise words, Father.

  95. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    When I was back in seminary and began to read and think and “feel” my way forward, many of the things you’re saying came to my mind as well. It’s been a lifetime since then, constantly correcting and slowly working at how do we move forward with this in a manner that is consistent with Orthodox teaching.

    I had this project which my wife lovingly called “the Book.” Because I not only thought about these things but wrote. I wrote and revised (writing helped me think), threw stuff away, again and again. Eight years after seminary, I entered the doctoral program at Duke under Geoffrey Wainwright and started reading in much greater depth (and with some good directions given). I threw “the Book” away for the last time.

    When I finished Duke, my thesis was on the theology of icons. The morning after I defended my thesis, I knelt by my bed and prayed, “O God, may me Orthodox!” That was the ultimate conclusion of my studies – that I couldn’t really go forward until I was actually in the Church. It was another 7 years before that actually happened. After I was received into the Church, I didn’t write for another 8 years.

    I’m still learning. As time has passed, I think less about the lofty things of the faith, and more about the mess inside myself (and others) and how to obtain the grace necessary for transformation.

    I once told Fr. Thomas Hopko that “the more I write, the less I know.” He said, “Good! Keep writing. Some day you’ll know nothing! Then you’ll be holy!”

  96. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    In my humble opinion I offe the following. This discussion has been very helpful for me. It has uprooted the material reductionism that has loomed over my mental landscape for so long. In science and modernity we conceive of everything in terms of universals. Universals are treated as the democritization of perspective. But, there really is no view from nowhere. Seeing Universal categories and abstractions as mental constructs, where “there can be co contradictions”, particulars are no longer just instantiations or instances of something generic. From this place it seems to me that, rather than being mere instances of a taxonomy or mere accidents of blind physiological forces, particularity is the teleological force of Divine Energies. God doesn’t create nor deal in universals. God creates and deals in particulars.

    All of it is hypostatic through and through.

  97. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    “As time has passed, I think less about the lofty things of the faith, and more about the mess inside myself (and others) and how to obtain the grace necessary for transformation.”

    I thought those were the lofty things. 🙂 Thanks for sharing your story. Much there for a young buck such as myself to reflect on.

  98. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    I think you’re right – those are the “lofty” things – a day at a time.

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. Thanks Fr. Stephen. I don´t think most of us really understand just how “un-free” we really are. Rush released a…

  2. These kinds of articles and discussions always bring me back to similar questions: How free am I really? How much…


Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast



Categories


Archives