A Particular Brilliance

“When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit him?
For You have made him a little lower than the angels,
And You have crowned him with glory and honor. (Psalm 8:3–9 NKJV)

This is a beautiful and familiar Psalm. I offer a snippet from another translation (NRSV) to consider as well:

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars that you have established;
what are human beings that you are mindful of them,
mortals that you care for them?

Of course, the second translation is a typical example of the “inclusive language” that marks many contemporary efforts. “What is man” becomes “what are human beings.” For some, such changes can be quite jarring. More jarring to me, however, is the fact that both translations presume the Psalmist to be speaking in generic terms – that “man” is treated as a collective noun. I will suggest a different translation (corrected from the NKJV):

When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
What is a man that You are mindful of him,
Or a son of man that You visit him?

In this suggestion, we move from a collective noun, to a singular noun. The difficulty is that neither Greek nor Hebrew, in their classical forms, have an equivalent of the indefinite article, “a.” There are ways to say such a thing, but it is difficult and highly unusual.

I have been playing with this translation recently, as I have been engaging in a conversation regarding our life and experience as “particular” rather than “general.” I believe that there is no “general” experience of humanity and the moon and stars. There is only ever a man or a woman looking up and out. Indeed, the point of the Psalm is made even more poignant when we translate using the indefinite article (“a”).

There is, of course, a common human nature, shared by all human beings. However, that nature is never encountered apart from a single human being. When we speak about “human nature,” we are describing something that is common to us all, but only ever encountered in its single form. We do not see “natures.”

St. Theodore the Studite wrote in some detail about this problem in his classic work, On the Holy Icons. The iconoclasts whom he opposed argued against the making of icons saying that “it is impossible to depict the divine nature.” St. Theodore readily agreed, but noted that it is impossible to depict any nature. Rather, what is depicted is the hypostasis, the single instance. Icons are hypostatic – what is depicted is the person (hypostasis). He famously said that we can make an icon of Christ not because He became man, but because He became a man.

It is not unusual in our modern culture to see artistic efforts to depict abstractions. Mostly, they don’t look like anything.  There is no such thing as “human suffering” – such that I could make a painting of it. There are persons who suffer – and the suffering is unique and personal. There is no cancer in general – some individual has cancer and that is also part of its tragedy.

We live in a culture of statistics – and they hide a lot. They obscure us in the reduction of our lives to generalities. None of us is a percent. None of us is an aggregate. Each of us is a priceless treasure of whom God is mindful. You cannot count the hairs on the heads of humanity in general. But the hairs on the head of each of us is numbered . Sparrows do not fall to the ground in general. It is the single sparrow that God notes, and infinitely notes each sparrow, fallen and otherwise. This is the wonder of it all.

One of the great challenges in “considering” the heavens – or just your backyard – is that everything is in motion. The world is constantly changing, acting, choosing, reacting, consuming. St. Dionysius wrote in great detail regarding what is termed “natural contemplation” (theoria physike). By and large, he did not treat it as an exercise in thinking about the nature of things, though that is fair game. Rather, he looked primarily at the work of providence, God’s good will at work in and through all things.

Christ directs us to “consider” the “lillies of the field.”

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

Christ’s example turns our attention to God’s providence as well: “…will He not much more clothe you?”

And so, as I consider the heavens, the birds, the flowers, and everything else that swirls in constant motion about me – in a movement that is simply beyond comprehension – I see the hand of God at work in all things (“the work of His fingers”). And in the midst of it all is a man – me – the looker, the considerer – and I wonder what I am that God should consider me.

And He says, “You are mine.”

 

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

102 responses to “A Particular Brilliance”

  1. David E. Rockett Avatar
    David E. Rockett

    Glory be to Thee O Christ our God, glory be to Thee!

  2. panagiota Avatar
    panagiota

    Thank you, Father. These words of personhood are exactly what the Publican understands as we approach the Triodion.

  3. Amy Nolan Avatar
    Amy Nolan

    Beautiful words Father and a wonderful thing to read as I greet the new day!

  4. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    After reading this post, I immediately was drawn to thinking about my mother-in-law who seemed to be near death over the weekend, but who now seems to be recovering. No one knows except God how things will progress with my mother-in-law. It was very strange for me over the weekend to be at her bedside watching her suffer so much. I have never accompanied anyone through what Saturday afternoon looked like death for Ingrid, who I call Ima.

    I am reminded through this article that although Ima and I share human suffering in common, Ima´s suffering is very much her own … and although God is love (which seems like something very general), I was being called in a very specific way this past weekend to love Ima personally as she lay there suffering.

    In an earlier post I mentioned “simply being”. I didn´t mean that nothing was happening on Saturday afternoon as I sat at her bedside simply looking at her. I just meant that we had reached a point where all debate had ceased, all theological discussion had ended, all medical explanations stopped. I had lit a candle, I had prayed for God´s will to be done. I could do no more.

    Should I have been particularly (rather than generally) thankful in that moment as well? Thankful for what I was both observing and experiencing?

  5. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    I think love is always quite particular (especially when we say “God is love”). Loving in general is mostly just sentimentality. Love, it seems to me in your case, has been specifically sitting and being present to your Mother-in-law in her suffering. I would find the “Hail Mary…pray for us sinners now and in the hour of our death…” to be very appropriate.

    Yes, I would be thankful in that moment as well – and thankful in particular. I remember my grandfather’s passing. He was certainly suffering, going in and out of consciousness. When he was conscious, he was mumbling out loud, “Lord, have mercy.” I would not have shortened nor taken away those hours of suffering and prayer for him. I believe God was doing a deep work in his soul at that moment.

    No one likes suffering – but it has its place in our lives. We cannot judge what we do not know. Modernity mostly just thinks all suffering is unnecessary and evil. Sadly, it is the cause of much needless suffering.

    But, my experience has been that giving thanks at all times and in all place for all things has allowed me to pierce the mystery of our existence better than anything else. God is with your Mother-in-law.

  6. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thank you Fr. Stephen very much.

    All things said and done, after I left Ima´s bedside on Saturday afternoon I think I was thankful for something very particular. This may sound strange, but I believe God gave me a vision, picture, whatever of the crucified Christ during my visit. As I watched Ima suffer, I saw in some way I cannot articulate with words Jesus Christ crucified. What such a vision means … I have no idea right now, but I think I was particularly thankful for it.

  7. Bud Graham Avatar
    Bud Graham

    Thank you, father Stephen, just the thoughts I needed today.

  8. Gisele S. Avatar
    Gisele S.

    Thank you for this beautiful and vital reminder about how we are seen in our entirety and individual, essential nature by God. It often seems that in our modern outlook, we spend a lot of time trying to prove the obvious – that we are unique (by which we actually mean we possess some quality that is more or less exclusive and has value as such). And we do this by highlighting a detail or an attribute of our “personality” (or “false self”) that we would like others to see as important as we do ourselves. This is looking through the wrong end of the telescope. We are indeed little within the vastness of Creation, yet we are unique and irreplaceable. As you say, Father, we are each His.

  9. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Fr. Stephen,
    A super helpful article to clarify things for me. Question: analogous to how there is a common, general human nature in which all particular human beings share, is there also a common, general Divine Nature in which all the particular persons of the Trinity share?

  10. Matthew Brown Avatar
    Matthew Brown

    Wonderfully written and true! That the sparrow and the hair on your head concerns our God!

  11. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    Father Stephen,

    If this is “off topic” for the main point of your post–with which I agree 100 percent–please feel free to keep any reply short, but within the past two or three days I was coincidentally thinking about “You have made him a little lower than the angels.”

    I have always understood that in the context of something like “power”–angels are more powerful than we–but when considered against the Incarnation, how should we think about it? Our pride already lends itself to viewing Creation as human-centric.

    Are we lower than angels in the hierarchy? (Of course much of Christianity is also paradoxical inversion.)

  12. Cynthia Ward Avatar
    Cynthia Ward

    Dear Father Stephen,
    I hear this often. You are mine! Amen

  13. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    That is the teaching of the Church. The “nature” is the one “ousia” (being) of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is also the teaching of the Church that we cannot know the Divine Nature – the Ousia of God. He makes Himself known in His energies (actions). Most particularly, He makes Himself known to us through the Son. Frankly, we should not try to “get behind” Christ to speak of God. We know God through Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit.

  14. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Mark,
    We are a little lower, if measured in the heavenly hierarchy, but infinitely above them by virtue of the Incarnation. Thus, the Theotokos is “more honorable than the cherubim, more gloriously beyond compare than the seraphim…” But this is not in ourselves – but because of Christ and in Christ.

  15. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    One of the thoughts that strike me in all of this is the kenotic nature of hypostatic particularity. There is kenosis within the persons of the Trinity, there is kenosis in creation, there is kenosis in the incarnation, there is kenosis in my own personal existence. It’s kenosis all the way down. The kenosis of God is necessary for the genuine Otherness of other hypostatic particularities.

    From this perspective the kenosis of God is the kernel of reality and it shifts the emphasis from particularity as merely an instance of a class to particularity as the teleology of the whole.

  16. Janine Avatar
    Janine

    Father, this may sound a little abstract (!) but recently I’ve found myself in discussions about what I might term “performative” mercies. I mean there is a list of a million things I could do to show myself a good person: give away money or possessions, feed people, adopt orphans, etc. But it seems to me important that pleasing God be related to prayer and even a sense of mission. If I’m going to choose what merciful action to do I want to be guided by something. (Or maybe i’m just a grouch.) Moreover, it seems that circumstances and opportunities arise that it’s not ours to engineer or foresee, but to seek God in such circumstances. But I think you put a finger in this beautiful essay on something important, just as you also mentioned in another recent article in the example of the Stylite (if I recall correctly). God guides us in particular ways, I think, and to me that is the thing to ask for and seek. As you indicated, the problem with WWJD is that I’m not Jesus, I’m not the Messiah. I don’t have Christ’s mission. And even if I became a saint it would only be by God’s transformative mercy and power for the specifics that God thinks I need to face and accept. Anyway this question is powerful for me in a place (Northern California right now) where I am surrounded by so much performative virtue signal as social dictat (or maybe I am really just a grouch today!). I wonder if you have any thoughts about this or guidance or insight. Thank you.

  17. A Reader Avatar
    A Reader

    Thank you so much, Fr. Stephen, for saying these things in this way. It is such a comfort to my heart and its lifelong struggles.

    I followed up on the verses you quote by looking them up in the four psalters I have at home. They all use “the son of man.” However, I see in notes which I scribbled in one of them once upon a time, “what is man that you are mindful” uses the Hebrew word enosh translated man, and “the son of man, that you [visit him]” uses the Hebrew word for adam translated as man. Does that original language seem to point to your point, that enosh/mortal man is a lump of man in general, but adam/the son of man is a particular man? and moreover, a man in Christ’s image, Christ calling himself the son of man…

    One of these psalters has comments from the Fathers on select verses, and in it a comment on the “lower than the angels” verse by St Leo Pope of Rome says, referring to Christ, “For I have united you to Myself; and become a Son of Man that you may be children of God.” “A Son of Man” is how it is written in this English translation of the comment. Comments from St Basil also tie “the son of man [adam]” to Christ, for a time lower than the angels…And after all, the psalm begins and ends in awesome wonder at the Name of the Lord in all the earth, even though his splendor is exalted far above the heavens. And man is earth, are we not, adamah gifted the breath of God, but we abused the gift and fell into enosh (weak mortal man), for which the Son of God became also a Son of Man and overcame death by death?

  18. Jeanie Murphy Avatar
    Jeanie Murphy

    If you’re going to insert a definite article for the Greek/Hebrew, you must note that the collective is always present as well. I think this goes both ways. My deeper problem, of course, is “man,” which is no longer a collective noun for humans as it was when I grew up and even when I taught English (and edited). Our reluctance to change this in Orthodoxy (often just to “us” –though I’d argue that “us” is bigger than humans) presents a barrier to modern readers, especially female ones.

  19. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Janine,
    Don’t worry about what others do. As to ourselves, there can be a temptation to “manage” our alms – to get effective results. My caution is beware of that temptation.

  20. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Reader,
    All of the Psalters you have are undoubtedly “correct” in their translations – because – rendering the Hebrew or Greek (or Latin for that matter) in the way it has most often been done is a possible way to translate it. And it’s not surprising to see traditional commentators treating “Son of Man” in a special, messianic manner – in that Christ used the term Himself.

    But there’s this ambiguous thing about these terms as they’re used in Psalm 8. Hebrew, Greek, and Latin do not have an “a” (the indefinite article in the way that English does – German has it, too). Thus “man” can mean “a man” or “generic mankind.” Both meanings.

    In this particular Psalm, the word for “the” does not occur at all with these words. It’s man (enosh) and son of man (ben-adam), neither with the definite article. It can be “implied” with “ben-adam.” But all of this is just the problems of translating from one language to another (and then you’re reading commentaries in English).

    My article does not intend to suggest a corrective translation or argue that my suggestion is the right way to translate it. It’s just another possible way to translate it because there are no articles involved (no “a” no “the”). And, my suggestion is for the point of an essay (or meditation) if you will.

  21. Janine Avatar
    Janine

    Thank you Father Stephen for your wise words. You’re right it is a temptation! Both in terms of “expediency,” and public praise. I am reminded, “They loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.”

  22. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Jeanie,
    I’m very sorry that politicized culture has damaged our language such that some modern readers have difficulties with its traditional forms and meanings. That the Church has resisted feminist-based translation demands in many places is simply a hesitancy to yield to every new cultural demand that comes down the pike. It has created a false consciousness that serves as a barrier in the heart. You make my point when you say “modern” readers. Modernity is the issue that should be examined and questioned.

    An interesting writer these days, is the British woman, Mary Harrington. She does a much better job than I can do discussing some of these things.

  23. A Reader Avatar
    A Reader

    Thank you, Fr. Stephen. I do understand that I am reading in English, that there is ambiguity in translation of one language to another, and besides that, I am a very small “modern” person…I never meant to suggest one correct translation or anything else.

    What caught my attention, at some previous point in my life and again today when I opened that psalter to that psalm, were the different original words for man, and I was working that out in my small way with your point about no article and both meanings in mind. It was silly to put it in comment form. Forgive me.

  24. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    A Reader,
    It was not silly at all. There’s so much in the Psalms and in the various languages as we encounter them. Please forgive me if I was a bit peevish in my response. I was distracted this afternoon.

    A question that I’ve often pondered in these things – for example – is, when you run into a language situation in which one language doesn’t have at all the same thing or construct as you find in another – it is likely the case that I reading something from someone who has a different “consciousness” of the world. We think with our language. It’s like Homer’s constant description of the Mediterranean as the “wine dark sea.” I’ve never thought of it as dark (much less wine dark). So, I ponder how he might have seen it.

    I wasn’t sure what to make of the two terms for man – whether a great distinction should be drawn or not. I’m still puzzling on that one.

    Be well!

  25. Fr. Paul Yerger Avatar
    Fr. Paul Yerger

    Yes!
    The first words of the Psalter are “blessed is the man…” A while back I picked up a Bible that translated it “blessed are those…” to avoid the dread “sexism.”
    But the “man” who hath not walked in the in the counsel of the ungodly is Our Lord.

  26. A Reader Avatar
    A Reader

    Well, whatever the two terms for man, and apparently there are four terms for man in the Hebrew writings, they obviously had nuances in the original language that a modern English reader would be completely unaware of.

    I once heard a Greek woman say to another Greek person that some years before she had told her non-Greek BIL that if he wanted to know what the Bible really said, which wasn’t what he thought it said, he should learn Greek. As the story went, he was greatly offended, but in the end he learned Greek and agreed with her.

  27. April Avatar
    April

    Praise be to Thee, O Christ!

  28. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Fr. Paul,
    Indeed. On some level, translation is always necessary from one language to another. However, the further away from “literal” or word-for-word the translator goes, the more we begin to read the translator’s ideas and the less we read the text. Modern Psalters, in many places (I think of the one in the 1979 BCP), went with plurals in order to make an “inclusive” translation, effectively translating Christ (as traditionally seen in the text) out of their work.

    But, this is the problem with modernity itself. It’s own ideologies are preferred to anything in the past.

  29. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    A Reader,
    When I finished my Hebrew studies in seminary, I came to the conclusion that it was a wonderful language for telling stories – especially stories about cows. 🙂

  30. Joanie Miller Avatar
    Joanie Miller

    John 10:3 Praise God

  31. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    This discussion of language reminds me of when I was in a Protestant (conservative Lutheran) seminary. I was so excited to have the opportunity to study Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek! I thought … YES … finally I will be able to know God´s truth once I know the original languages!! What a silly, naive man I was. It dawned on me one summer day while in Greek class that all the Protestant seminaries offered classes in Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek, yet there were still major interpretive differences between many, many denominations. One still has to interpret based on context even after one masters the biblical languages! Language mastery alone is not the silver bullet for God´s written truth I learned (and, incidently, I far from mastered either of the biblical languages 🙁 ).

    That leads me to my question Fr. Stephen:

    DBH has a translation of the NT out I think. N.T. Wright also. Would it be safe to say that all translations are biased in some way given the fact that they first have to be translated (in English for example) and such translation requires interpretation of sorts?

    When I read N.T. Wright´s Kingdom NT I get the feeling he is very much pushing a theological agenda. Maybe DBH heart is doing the same? I don´t know. I guess my confusion leads me to thank our Lord for the Church. I have an authority who can help me navigate the waters of even the most biased biblical translations.

  32. Matthew Robb Brown Avatar
    Matthew Robb Brown

    Matthew, I’m not sure but I surmise that you are now in the Eastern Orthodox Church. That being the case, I would suggest you stick to the Orthodox Fathers for interpretation, and some current Orthodox scholars like Jeannie Constantinou can also be helpful. Orthodox Scriptural translations such as the Orthodox Study Bible,The EOB New Testament, and the Lexham Septuagint would seem to be the best translations to read, considering that their translators (particularly the first two) will not have so much of an alien theological agenda. Since I left Protestantism, I still read literature by Protestant, Catholic, and other writers if I find them edifying, but for hard theology I stick mostly to Orthodox sources, and I agree that being faithful to the Churches services and life is most important in maintaining an Orthodox mindset. God bless your search of the Truth. –Matthew

  33. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Hello Matthew.

    I am Catholic, but I am also very Orthodox in spirit. I am not Orthodox for a variety of reasons I really don´t want to discuss anymore.

    This blog is such a breath of fresh air! I only wish more Catholics would regularly post here. The discussion might yield great fruit.

  34. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

    Father I hope this isn’t to much of a tangent, but your post touches on something I’ve been trying to make sense of with regards to human nature. As I understand it, you do not have one human nature and I another, but we share a common human nature. This is why both my sins and theosis impact all of mankind, correct? And it was this nature that was assumed by Christ and is, in a sense, how we participate in His salvation. If the incarnation, life, death, burial and Resurrection are all only aimed at some kind of particular human nature He possessed that’s some how different to mine, than I’m left unaffected, yes? Human nature has been redeemed. But what does this mean for those in hell? Are they in some way deprived of human nature after the final judgement? If not, I’m not sure how to make sense of their continued possession of it whilst being lost. Is the continued connection to human nature just expressed in their physical resurrection?

  35. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Andrew,
    Your observations are spot on. And so is your puzzlement about those in hell – There’s so much that can be said about those in hell – some things should be said, and some should not. But, Psalm 139 says, “Lo, if I descend into hell, Thou art there.” And I have little patience with those who would want to soften that translation and begin using words other than “hell” to make it easier to digest. The icon of Christ’s descent into hell makes it clear that He’s come for all of us – the question is whether all of us will go with Him. And the answer to that is – we may hope but we don’t know.

    What I do know is that “God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” It is our task to pray for them all – to pray in hope (because of the mercy and goodness of God and because we don’t know). And that’s sort of the present task of the Church – to pray – not to know the answers to all questions – but to pray.

  36. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

    “And that’s sort of the present task of the Church – to pray – not to know the answers to all questions – but to pray.”

    Thank you Father. I stand in constant need of this reminder. I have an analytically geared mind, always questioning, weighing, measuring, always seeking to understand. I live far to much in my head. Redirecting those energies toward silence, wonder and prayer often feels like something akin to herding cats hopped up on espresso.

  37. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Andrew,
    I’m very familiar with that sensation! Above all else, give thanks!

  38. Janine Avatar
    Janine

    Father, re your conversation with Andrew, Amen!
    I frequently think that two answers to commonly posed questions that make one Orthodox are 1) “I don’t know” and 2) “Both”

    I wish I could always remember to be grateful 🙂

  39. Janine Avatar
    Janine

    And Andrew, thank you for your comment regard how sins and theosis come into some kind of common pool that affects all else. Sometimes I get a notion in my head (and this is also a question to you, Father) that the angels wait on us to make some decision for theosis so that they can then act on it. Kind of breaks a barrier for others maybe, and brings good things into the world. (Sorry my own language here.)

  40. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Fr. Stephen said:

    “But, Psalm 139 says, “Lo, if I descend into hell, Thou art there.” And I have little patience with those who would want to soften that translation and begin using words other than “hell” to make it easier to digest.”

    Are you saying, then, that Sheol (the netherworld) is a poor translation in terms of the descending location (hell)?

  41. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Also Fr. Stephen, I just looked at the icon of Christ´s descent into hell. It appears that Christ has a firm grasp on the wrists of those he is rescuing, though I admit I may be interpreting the icon incorrectly. I love this icon very, very much.

  42. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    I’m not concerned with the translation of that particular text. The hymnological tradition of the Church makes no dogmatic distinction. Thus many, even most, of the Church’s texts simply speak of hell.

  43. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Matthew,

    Sheol is a transliteration of the Hebrew. It’s not a translation. It has basically been left unrendered.

  44. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Janine I loved your comment about Orthodox answers: 1) “I don’t know” and 2) “Both”. The comment made me smile and my heart sing. Thank you!

  45. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thanks for the correction Simon. My mistake. Still learning.

  46. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    I was reading about righteousness today from the OCA website. And it made several references to our “fallen nature.” Based on Andrew’s question I wondered, if Christ took on human nature, then did he assume our fallen nature? That doesn’t really make sense. Did he take on our fallen nature and then make it “unfallen”? If so, when did he do that? Or, is the expression “fallen nature” just a poorly worded phraseology, and if it is what is a better way of expressing the concept?

  47. Janine Avatar
    Janine

    Thanks Dee!! I’m glad to hear your heart is singing 🙂

    Father, I am in the midst of reading Fr. Stephen De Young’s “St. Paul the Pharisee.” I took a short course from him on this subject which I enjoyed. I find his insights very helpful. But what I wanted to ask you about was whether or not you have read his translation of St. Paul’s Epistles in that book, and what you thought of it. Of course, it might be a touchy subject to address a friend’s work (I am supposing he is a friend or at least a familiar acquaintance), so if you’d prefer not to comment that is find too. I personally think his translation is very clear, if in some ways simplified from St. Paul’s Greek (or at least that seems so in one particular passage I researched a bit).

  48. Janine Avatar
    Janine

    * that is fine, I meant to say

  49. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Simon,
    It’s badly worded, frankly. Technically, our nature isn’t “fallen.” Were our nature fallen, we would have a “sin nature” as in Calvinism. The problem, if we get technical, is that we are not able to live in accordance with our nature. We could say our nature is “impaired” – unable to be what it should be at present. However, the language of “fallen nature” is something that has crept into theological writings – but not from early Orthodox sources. Someone could say that we have a “mortal nature” (which is true – we die). In that sense, our nature is impeded from being what it should be (immortal by grace). So, depends on what someone is trying to say. I avoid “fallen nature,” more or less as a grammar mistake.

  50. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Janine,
    I have not read that book. We are familiar acquaintances. We tend to have different backgrounds, different questions. I do not see much in his work drawn from things and writers with which I’m familiar.

  51. Holly Holmstrom Avatar
    Holly Holmstrom

    Love this article! Thank you! We too can look at God and say to Him personally you are mine My Fathet!!

  52. Shannon Avatar
    Shannon

    Simon:
    Additionally, unless Fr. Stephen corrects me, “whatever” we do inherit from Adam’s fall , we derive through our fathers’ seed. Yet Christ was born without that, as the hymn(s) reiterate(s).

  53. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Father,
    The instruction I also received corresponds to what you have said to Simon. Our nature is not “fallen nature”. It might be an unfortunate left over from Western Christianity. BTW I have heard Orthodox say such things but I also hear catechists correct them.

  54. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Simon, Dee,
    Yes. There is only one human nature – not a sin nature. But Christ’s human nature is the same human nature as all human beings. “He became what we were that we might become what He is.”

  55. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    So does Christ now possess two nature’s? If he shed his human nature, then wouldn’t that impede theosis?

  56. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Simon,
    Yes, Christ has 2 natures: divine and human. The 5th Ecumenical Council declared this definitively. One Person (Hypostasis) Two Natures (ousia). And, within this mystery is our salvation – if He had no human nature, there would be no theosis.

    There’s a lot of hymnography (particularly around the Ascension) that notes that our human nature (in Christ) is now seated at the right hand of the Father, etc.

  57. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Hello Fr. Stephen.

    Have you written an article specifically about sin? The difference between the western and eastern understandings of sin?

  58. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Matthew,

    I think that’s a good question. Since Fr. Stephen has indicated that our nature as human beings is shared by Christ, then whatever sin is it isn’t in our nature. Sin is frequently associated with mortality. So, it seems to be that human nature is incorruptible, but the individuals sharing that nature are. This isn’t posited as an answer, but more thinking out loud.

  59. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    It’s certainly woven into lots of my articles. But, perhaps this one would be helpful.

    Christ takes on our common human nature – He would not be truly human, nor could we be saved, were it otherwise. Indeed, Christ is capable of dying – in His human nature, He is mortal. He dies. However, as God, He cannot die and tramples down death by death and is raised from the dead. His mortality is swallowed by immortality.

    This article on sin as an ontological issue (versus a juridical issue) is also useful.

  60. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thanks so much Fr. Stephen.

  61. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    And Simon … 😁

  62. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Hello Fr. Stephen and Simon.

    Simon´s latest comment about sin and nature immediately moved my evangelical compass to Romans 7. What is going on there Fr. Stephen from an Orthodox perspective?? Was Paul really dealing and struggling with two different human natures competing against one another?? That is how I always thought it to be for years. If there really is not a sin nature per se, then was Paul merely battling a figment of his theological imagination in Romans 7?

    I need to read the articles you linked to Fr. Stephen. They are on my to-do list. Thanks.

  63. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    First – the language of natures should not be read back into the text of the New Testament. It’s a terrible mistake, I think, that colors most of Protestant thought. They read St. Paul wrong – missed the boat pretty much entirely – and tended to read their mistakes back into the text. 500 years of preaching has drummed it into our culture.

    But, there’s not really any Scriptural discussion of human nature as such, certainly not in the manner of the mature Christological discussions of the Conciliar period.

    In St. Paul (who should be truly read in his very Jewish context) we have a pretty rabinnical treatment. Contemporary Jewish teaching held that there were two “impulses” in human beings: the Yetzer Ha Ra and the Yetzer Ha Tov – that is the “Bad impulse and the good impulse.” There’s no discussion of these as products of a nature – it simply wasn’t thought in those terms. But, it saw that there were these two impulses within human beings. St. Paul seems (in chapter 7 of Romans) to see “sin dwells in me” – sin as something extrinsic to us – “It is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.” (vs. 17)

    I might suggest a good read: Fr. Stephen De Young’s new book (I’ve just been looking it over) on St. Paul the Pharisee – that includes new translations of St. Paul with an eye to his contemporary Jewish context. He reads much more like Jesus of the gospels than the St. Paul of Luther.

    The Fathers, as they reflected theologically on the Scripture and Tradition of the Church, developed the vocabulary and thought necessary to support the teaching of the Church. Since we’re not “Sola Scriptura” – we don’t have to pretend that our thoughts or expressions are Biblical, per se, but simply that they’re consistent with Scripture (which they are).

    St. Paul was battling a figment of Calvin’s imagination. 🙂

  64. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thank you Fr. Stephen. It seems your answer really does settle the issue about nature(s). The St. Paul of Luther is all I have known for nearly 30 years. I never learned to see Jesus Christ in St. Paul´s writings and I also learned that the evangelical Gospel is very Pauline. I spent so long trying to reconcile St. Paul´s thoughts and Jesus´Gospel commands with little success. Thanks for so much help along the way.

    I will do my best to read Fr. Stephen De Young´s book, though my “to read” list seems never ending! 🙂

  65. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Fr. Stephen,

    How can human nature be corruptible? The scripture asks “How can that which is corruptible inherit that which is incorruptible?” the implication being that it can’t.

    Is the human nature of Christ corruptible? It seems odd that the immortal God in heaven would possess corruptibility. Has there ever been a council decide on that?

  66. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Simon,
    I’m not sure on this – particularly the Conciliar part. There’s a book by Fr. John Meyendorff, published in the 70’s or so, Jesus Christ in Eastern Byzantine Thought. It’s packed away just now getting ready for my move.

    But human nature is certainly mortal (in that sense, subject to corruption, which is not a moral statement but a death statement). But in St. Paul’s statement, our corruptible (mortal) human nature/body, etc. is raised incorruptible. So, Christ would be raising human nature (his/ours) in incorruptibility.
    One of the thoughts involved in this is that of the communicatio idiomatum – the “sharing of characteristics.” Thus, if Christ gets tired, God gets tired. If Christ thirsts, God thirsts. It isn’t saying that God thirsts by nature, but that He experiences/shares in the human experience in Christ. Interestingly, Lutherans and Calvinists split over this – Lutherans saying yes, and Calvinists saying no – the latter actually being something of a Nestorian position.

    So, my thought would be to say “yes” (through the communicatio idiomatum) God possesses corruptibility (and it is healed in Him).

    But when Christ identifies Himself with the sick, the hungry, the prisoner, etc., it would be sort of meaningless if those characteristics were not taken into Himself (and thus to God). It’s a very rich set of thoughts. The Fathers were keen, I know, to preserve both the full humanity and the full divinity of Christ and not to put a wall between them.

  67. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    What could it possibly mean for a metaphysical “nature” to be corruptible?

  68. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Simon,
    All that corruptible means is “subject to death” or “mortal.” “Phthora” is what a body does in the ground. When we say a “nature” – it’s not really quite clear what is being said (it’s not the soul, for example). It’s the “being” (ousia). Human beings have a “mortal being” – our ousia is not immortal in and of itself. If we have immortality, it is a gift.

    We are raised “incorruptible,” not just alive again, but not able to die – no longer corruptible.

  69. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    So, hasn’t that already happened? Hasn’t the corruptible been raised incorruptible?

  70. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    It seems to me that if human nature has been raised with Christ and is in heaven, doesn’t that mean that human nature has been defied? Also, if Christ has taken human nature into himself and healed it, then what is the condition to which it has been restored?

  71. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Simon,
    In Christ this has already happened: “Christ the firstfruits…then…” The condition to which human nature has been restored is to its original intention – to be deified and glorified. So, if you will, Christ is the “anchor” of this – there is a pulling of all humanity towards that proper and right end…It has happened, is happening, and shall happen.

  72. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    I think what I have learned is that I am as uncomfortable talking about natures as I am universals. Both are entirely abstract and hypothetical. That councils have slammed the gavel doesn’t make a hypothetical construct real.

  73. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Simon,
    It’s certainly not describing a material thing.

  74. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    By definition, then, it’s a hypothetical or theoretical construct. Just like universals are a theoretical construct. Saying it’s not material by definition pushes it into a real of where things cannot be contradicted. For example, I am unable to contradict an insistence that human nature exists in a form distinct from biology. That indefeasibilty (incapable of of contradiction) introduces the hypothetical quality.

  75. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Fr, Stephen,

    Ina a previous post you quoted St. Maximus the Confessor as having written, “Only things that contradict the mind are real, there is no contradiction in what is imaginary.” You referenced this in regard to Universals and implied that universals belong to the domain of the imagination because there is no means by which one might encounter a contradiction. Isn’t this true for speech about “natures” as well?

    Does every specie of creature have a “nature” and if so what happens to that nature if the species goes extinct? That may seem too speculative, but given the weight of the evidence in favor of evolution, then what does human nature refer to in the process of bringing human being into existence?

    Are there any sources that attempt to resolve or “make sense” of these things?

  76. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Simon,
    There is, indeed, a sort of hypothetical aspect to discussions of nature. If, on the other hand, we say that by “nature” we mean the “being” of something – and there is a character to that being (such that the being of a human being differs from that of the being of a dog) then it’s a bit less hypothetical. So, on the one hand, it’s a set of grammatical rules – how we talk about something when we’re speaking about a class of things.

    There’s definitely something (a class) to which everything we call “human” belongs. The grammatical rule for that is the language of “being” or “nature.”

    In the field of gender studies and transhumanism, they have argued against the language of nature, in that they want their language choices not to be bound by any such thing. That it flies in the face of what is perceived as normal is, if you will, an instinct that there is something about being a human that can’t suddenly become a cat or a dog.

    I have noted that I don’t think we ever encounter a “nature” as a thing-in-itself. It’s always embodied in a distinct manner. There are unique properties to each individual instance – such that this one is “Peter” and this one is “Paul,” etc. That’s not a difference of nature.

    But essentially, the grammatical rules being used are pretty much those that belong to Realism versus Nominalism (and pure Materialism). There are arguments for the reality plausibility and desirability of Realism, but it gets above my philosophical pay-grade. I understand what the Fathers are describing when they use such language – and appreciate the usefulness of the “grammatical rules” in the doctrines that use them.

    Not sure on sources. Nathan Jacobson (Orthodox) teaches philosophy and film at Vanderbilt. My eyes glass over after a few minutes of him. But he has a podcast on Realism/Nominalism that might be a source.

  77. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    I am listening to the podcast. He takes a long time to say anything. At the 18:30 mark he identifies the moment that his perspective shifted from nominalism to realism. I’m sure there’s more to the story than he has revealed. So far it seems like a typical conversion story: “And it was right then that I knew…” I’ll keep listening.

  78. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Hello Fr. Stephen and Simon.

    As a relative newcomer to the philosophical ideas of realism/nominalism I am wondering if you can shed some lay person light on how these ideas are germane to the subject of nature we are discussing?

    Are we saying that nature is too abstract to be real?

  79. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    Nominalism holds that there are no universals, that things like Beauty, Goodness, or Human Nature, etc., are only “names” (Latin: Nomen), not realities. Classical philosophy (both Aristotle and Plato, etc.) held that universals were real though they had different ways of speaking about them. Classical Christian doctrine could be described as “Realist.”

    However, Nominalism arose in the Middle Ages (William of Ockham being its most famous proponent).

    Simon is pushing on the question of whether “nature” is anything more than a hypothetical.

  80. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thank you Fr. Stephen.

    Being a novice at all this, I won´t say much … but …

    If things like Beauty, Goodness, Human Nature, etc. are only “names”, only hypotheticals, and not firm realities, then I feel like we don´t have any hope as a human race beyond what our minds can think up and what our language(s) can name. So materialistic. What a pity.

    Say it ain´t so.

  81. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    Our language (and most others – maybe all) is shot through with universals and common nouns. We could not speak without them, much less express ideas. Pure materialism has not worked in its cultural expressions (thus far, only Marxism has ever espoused a pure materialism). One danger is that when universals are uncoupled to any reality they then easily get redefined and we see the power games of the Deconstructionists come into play. Communism famously redefined words (and history) all the time. Recently, we’ve had academics saying that reason or math, even, are inherently racist. It’s just nonsense.

    But, I understand a real struggle that some have with universals. The leap from the “objectivity” of material reality, to assertions about things that we do not see or touch, etc. (the immaterial) is easily a world of doubt.

    I sympathize and understand the struggle. Conversations about noetic perception and such would be impossible without Realism. Nominalism, as far as I can see, fails to give an account of the fullnes of human experience. As hard as it is to explain or discuss universals – they are real. I believe that we do not see them apart from particulars – and yet their presence in the particular is necessary for the fullness of the particular.

    Gotta go to Church!

  82. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Father and Simon,
    I’ve listened to a few the podcasts mentioned above. Personally I think the logic of his arguments and the use of references involving science too flawed and unhelpful to recommend. I do appreciate the desire to develop philosophy based on realism however.

  83. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Also, Father,
    You’ve made such arguments of your own on this blog on the discussion about nominalism that were more cogent , more reflective, and full thinking.

  84. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Dee,
    I think I always feel a bit inadequate when questions cross over into philosophy. There’s certain some overlap in theology, but I tend to feel out of my depth in certain areas. I appreciate your encouragement.

  85. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    I had to chuckle when Jacobson says that empiricism is indefensible. Yet, many highly-regarded philosophers have offered arguments in it’s favor. Jacobson is a psychological creature like everyone else his conclusions in favor of realism are credible as those that have argued for nominalism. Where a person and what persuaded them to land there says more about the strength of their individual psychological tendencies than the strength of the arguments themselves.

    Beauty can be appreciated as an experience without the extra step of positing beauty as something existing apart from oneself with identifiable attributes.

    I think in previous times the degree to which humans naively projected their ideas onto the external world left them thinking their categories of thought actually corresponded to something existing “out there”.

  86. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Here is another thing that occurs to me. Reason and empiricism keep us grounded in reality. They are disciplines of the mind that prevent it from becoming a slave to its own imagination. Rather than limiting the horizon of human thought it broadens it. As an example, when someone believes the Earth is flat because “God said it was” it stifles the kind of humility before reality that would allows humanity to see that not only is it round, but belongs to a universe unbelievably large. On the blog, it seems like empiricism and nominalism get poopoo-ed. Perhaps another way to see it is this: It represents a rigor that prevents an objective person from confusing their imagination with reality. Isn’t that fair? What’s wrong with that? And if you want to believe in god or gods, that’s your existential prerogative. I can’t see what’s wrong with that.

  87. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Simon,
    Ockham’s Razor (the simplest explanation is always the best) pretty much says it all viz. Nominalism. Can we simply take the world as material with nothing more? There wouldn’t be Materialists if this weren’t possible. As you say, there is something of a preference involved in how we see/experience things (at least to some degree). If there were a slam/dunk argument for Realism, I’d give one. But, I’m not that great at rational argument.

    All I can say is that Nominalism/Materialis is inadequate as a means of explaining and describing the world as I know it and experience it (in so, so many ways).

    FWIW, I don’t think that you’re actually a Materialist either – but that you doubt claims that cannot be materially proven – and mistrust people making such claims. But I think you have transcendent things in your own life – things that are far beyond a question of just “wanting” or “willing.” Things that are simply transcendently important for you.

    If it were just you and I talking – I don’t think I’d push very hard on all of this. But you were pushing very hard against Realism. I agree that pur Realism (Idealism) would be very problematic – just pure imagination. My statement that we only encounter universals/transcendentals, etc. in particulars is something other than typical Platonism (which Christianity is not). But it says that the connections between the particulars in our lives have a reality that should not be ignored, even if it’s hard to pin down. There’s a whole category of experience (at least) that cannot be placed in a Nominalist/Materialist box. For me, one of those things is the experience of the sacramental world.

    But it’s always possible to doubt. A world in which doubt was not possible would be oppressive in the extreme.

  88. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Some people seem to be overly confident in the ways of the mind. I have no reason to cry out against reason. I know reason can keep me anchored in reality, but I refuse to place my hope in reason. I refuse to make reason my god.

    In terms of philosophy, I know I am a novice, but the whole philosophical enterprise seems like lots of words and ideas leading to no real answers and nothing of substance.

    Maybe I”m being too critical …

  89. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Simon,
    Another thought. I think the Church’s Councils, though using the language of “nature” and such, is not thereby declaring some sort of dogmatic demand that we must therefore believe in an abstraction called “a nature.” I think what we find in the Councils are “grammatical rules” – explanations for what it is the Church teaches – in which case it must use language to do so. Other terms could have been used – and, even, still could be used – if those explanations adhered to the same grammatical rules.

    For example, we say that God created the heavens and the earth. He is the author of our existence and the ground of all being. Grammatically, we are saying that everything apart from God is contingent – not self-existing. That, it seems to me, is what the grammatical rule is saying.

    The language of the Church (a tradition given to us) allows us to have certain conversations. Empiricism would rule many conversations as unintelligible or out of bounds. Nonetheless, if someone started running around saying the earth was flat, I’d find him out of bounds as well. So, there’s some amount of Empiricism that is at the table as well. 🙂

  90. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Fr. Stephen,

    I don’t there are any slam dunk philosophical arguments. When it comes to philosophy we land where we land for reasons known and unknown to us.

    You’re right. I am not a materialist. I am not a determinist. And I am not a reductionist. I think that I am an experientialist. I don’t necessarily trust my experience as ground truth, but its the closest thing that I have. I see human beings as experiences. That is to say each individual is an experience. Each individual is a perspective. We don’t have experiences, and we don’t have perspectives: we are a living experience and a living perspective. Furthermore, I don’t know anything about universals. If I am capable of experiencing beauty, it is because beauty as an experience is something that I am capable of becoming in that moment. Positing beauty outside oneself is an unnecessary dichotomy. It’s like color.

    To illustrate, by now everyone should know that the world and the universe is without color. There are no colors “out there.” The mind paints the world by frequency. Grass is not green. The sky is not blue. The mind paints the world by the interaction of light with opsin receptors at the ends of cells in the retina. I could go into detail here, but its beside the point. Now imagine there is someone who only sees the world in black-and-white. Trying to describe a world of color to that person is pointless. He could never appreciate it even though he might become so good at parroting what he has heard others say that you might not ever know the difference. This guy might give all the right arguments as to why the world appears as it does. Perhaps giving an elegant description of the beauty of the sunset. Fine. But, until he can see the sunset, then he isn’t being honest about who he is and what he sees. It would be better to be an honest blindman than a parrot.

    I don’t know whether I see a world of color or just black-and-white. But I would rather have the integrity of an honest man than have all the right answers. I had all the right answers before. It’s not what it’s cracked up to be.

    Isn’t that fair enough?

  91. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Simon,
    It’s cogent and fair enough. It’s possible to live faithfully with that understanding. Owen Barfield, one of the friends of Lewis and Tolkein, wrote very interestingly about perception/color/things, etc. Your comment made me think of his Saving the Appearances. A difficult read as I recall.

  92. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Matthew,

    In my private conversations with my priest I allow myself a freedom I typically do not allow myself to have when I talk to others. And I think that this blog is a quasi-public/quasi-private conversation. It is a conversation amongst the Orthodox and the Orthodox seeking. I often forget that. Sometimes I allow myself to get carried away and I will post speculative things, I almost always feel a degree of regret afterwards. I think that you’re right.

    There is an imaginary person I often think about. She is an old Russian woman living alone deep in the woods, maybe one of the Old Believers. She lives her quiet life in devotion, concerned only with the essentials. Perhaps when she has to cross the creek to gather morels she crosses herself and the water parts in front of her and she walks across on dry ground. I just think that whatever there is to be known it probably manifests itself to the simple. Simple as in uncomplicated. She is who I would like to be. I imagine that I would prefer her knowledge to mine. I also imagine that everything she would have to teach would be taught by the way she crosses herself.

    See there? Not a nominalist, at least not at heart.

  93. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Yes. I know you. You are loved.

  94. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Beautifully said Simon. Thank you.

    I think that probably God desires we all be more like that old Russian woman; more like the innocent and simple ones who once inhabited the garden.

    It really is amazing where the human mind can take us. Maybe often to places far away from that beautiful simplicity you describe.

  95. Nicole from VA Avatar
    Nicole from VA

    I am really glad to have seen these comments on human nature as not sin nature etc. I send my girls to a Lutheran school and have mixed feelings about it. Another mom recently emphasized their concept of depravity to me and also told me it is not Christian to believe that humans have goodness in them. I was able to gently hold my ground in that conversation and think she may have been speaking perhaps from her own childhood trauma but I did need to see these comments for more clarity. I am thankful to you all.

  96. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Also Simon…

    I agree with Fr. Stephen about love.

    Thanks so much again for you presence here.

  97. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Nicole,
    I think this is one of the most important witnesses of Orthodoxy. We are terrible fools for not seeing how permeated our lives (and our world) are permeated with grace (the Divine Energies that is the very Life of God). It’s true that there’s plenty of evil in the world, and a lot of it finds a place in our hearts from time to time. But despite the most terrible attrocities and cruelty, love abides, goodness does not disappear, kindness is renewed again and again. Human beings are in bondage – but we are not the enemy. We are cherished and loved of God and His image abides in us.

    The poor theology that invented the notion of total depravity is a sad chapter in Christian thought that has born terrible fruit. It is a lie. God give us grace to bear a faithful witness.

  98. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Fr. Stephen said:

    “It’s true that there’s plenty of evil in the world, and a lot of it finds a place in our hearts from time to time. But despite the most terrible attrocities and cruelty, love abides, goodness does not disappear, kindness is renewed again and again. Human beings are in bondage – but we are not the enemy.”

    I´m wondering how this view of the world and humanity differs from, say, one which claims humanity is actually getting better and improving … quality of life, work, health, etc. and that any call to a traditional way of life (that which was before) is simply misplaced.

    I ask this because there has been a book circulating around our family called in German “Im Grunde Gut” (Essentially Good … I think would be the translation) that posits that humanity is good (actually very good). I believe it is a reaction against the idea of human depravity that has been prominent in western thinking for centuries.

    I have a hard time believing what this secular author writes about basic human goodness mirrors that which Orthodoxy teaches regarding essential goodness. As I see it, we as humans are essentially good but there is still a problem that God has to address and has addressed through Jesus. I know my family here does not believe this. They think there is no problem at all … with themselves or with others — hence the love for the book I mention above.

    I want to understand the difference so that I can articulate it to the secular evangelists I have to live with almost daily! 🙂

  99. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    First off – the greatest difference would be my initial statement: “our lives are permeated with grace.” Secularism wants to explain the world without God. Germany, of all places, should remember what happens when we “forget God.” Solzhenitsyn described the horrors of the Soviet Union as the result of “forgetting God.”

    But God is continually at work within His creation. Were He not, creation would long ago have eaten itself. There are times, indeed, that we come close. The question becomes, “Then why don’t we simply eat ourselves?” I think the answer is grace. God preserves us – God preserves whatever goodness abides in us – at least at some measure.

    This by no means supports a myth of moral progress. Goodness is not cumulative. We are not getting better and better.

    Nonetheless, secularism “needs” a narrative to sustain itself and to resist God. One need no more than to pick up the daily paper (or websites) to see that Kafka’s observation: “Die Lüge wird zur Weltordnung gemacht” (The Lie has become the world order) is true on some level. I believe that secularist narratives are insufficient to sustain goodness – goodness is a work of grace.

    Pretty much always, secularist narratives are not “not true” – they are, at best, partly true. They are snippets of Christian narratives, shorn of their essentials. Equally problematic are Christian narratives driven by half-baked theology or false theologies. Frankly, there have been enough of the latter to make the going tough for all of us.

    Glory to God for all things.

  100. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thank you Fr. Srephen.

    It seems so many people in the west want the goodness of a redeemed Narnia without Aslan its king.

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