Contradiction and Paradox

The following quote is taken from a letter by Mother Thekla (sometime Abbess of the Monastery of the Assumption in Normanby, England) to a young man who was entering the Orthodox faith. Some of her comments drew my attention. I add this note: this article was written and published on the blog in January of 2013. I am struck by how it reflects many of the conversations that have taken place in the succeeding years. The contradiction and paradox within our lives remains – though only love abides.

+++

Are you prepared, in all humility, to understand that you will never, in this life, know beyond Faith; that Faith means accepting the Truth without proof? Faith and knowledge are the ultimate contradiction –and the ultimate absorption into each other. Living Orthodoxy is based on paradox, which is carried on into worship – private or public. We know because we believe and we believe because we know.

Above all, are you prepared to accept all things as from God?

These are tough questions for a young convert. It is as if someone preparing to enter the waters of Baptism were asked if they were ready to be martyred. But such tough questions are precisely the sort of things that Christ said to His disciples. And like many things He said, they are hard to hear.

I have often stumbled over the relationship between faith and knowledge. Over the years I’ve come to have less and less regard for “proof.” The knowledge that I can prove often seems no more valuable than the faith I cannot prove. A more searching question for me is: what knowledge (by proof or faith) are you willing to act on? The answer to this question, it seems to me, sets the parameters of my life’s spiritual struggle.

Abbess Thekla well describes the mystery between faith and knowledge – they stand in paradox and contradiction – but, she adds – they ultimately end with an “absorption” into each other.

The paradox and contradiction are never resolved on the level of thought, but on the level of a life lived. Our lives, regardless of how committed someone might be to rationality and consistency, are full of contradictions and paradox. To a large extent, I believe this to be part of the “irreducible” character of reality. Rationality and “provable” knowledge are mental constructs that have limits. Much (perhaps most) of the reality we experience stands beyond our ability to reason or prove. And yet it remains. We ultimately agree to live and allow the presence of contradiction and engage the unprovable, or we diminish our lives to the insanity of our own reason.

I once knew a man who suffered with a severe bi-polar disorder. He would engage religious questions with a violence of purpose that I’ve rarely seen anywhere else. But after a short engagement, he would inevitably come up against contradiction and paradox. These irreducible elements always defeated his need to comprehend. They were torments within his life.

The most frightful and irreducible paradox of faith is contained in the question: “Are you prepared to accept all things as from God?” No one has stated the objections to this question better than Dostoevsky. The character, Ivan Karamazov, examines the problem of the suffering of innocent children – and in the face of such a grave contradiction to the love of God, states, “I refuse the ticket.” He refuses the contradiction, regardless of the explanation offered.

Such a refusal must be respected, for it is an existential cliff that cannot be negotiated. Abbess Thekla is fearless in posing such a problem to a new convert. Old monks tremble in the face of such things.

I believe that the question of innocent suffering and the existence of God may be the most significant and essential question of our time. The explosion of knowledge in our world has made an awareness of innocent suffering more apparent than at any time in history. At the same time, people seem not to be crippled by this knowledge. Most live with the contradiction posed by their own happiness and the suffering of others quite comfortably. We change the channel, or wait for the news cycle to shift. The war and suffering that were daily front page stories three months ago, are now no more than a column inch on page four. The suffering has not changed – but our attention has shifted.

Elsewhere in her letter, Mother Thekla notes that the contradiction presented by the cross demands vigilance.

 Are you prepared, whatever happens, to believe that somewhere, somehow, it must make sense? That does not mean passive endurance, but it means constant vigilance, listening, for what is demanded…

This is the vigilance of living, for the suffering and contradiction make a demand. They cannot and must not be passively endured.

Belief in God, the crucified God, is not a proclamation that we have solved the paradox. Rightly lived and believed, it is the living of the paradox – a living that truly embraces the whole of life, without reduction. In the end, it turns out to be love. Just love.

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

69 responses to “Contradiction and Paradox”

  1. John Breslin Avatar
    John Breslin

    This is very direct, hard-hitting, and inspiring. Thank you, Father.

  2. David E. Rockett Avatar
    David E. Rockett

    wonderful…thank you father.

    “[Love]…does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things…
    And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”

  3. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Father,
    Indeed this is so. Thank you for these beautiful words.
    Paradox, contradiction, love, and beauty, even within the paradox.

  4. Paul Hughes Avatar

    Helpful wd be clearer distinctions between belief and knowledge, contradiction and paradox, and among the kinds of knowing. You speak to it some, but esp bec we make such a mistake with these, something more direct would help. There might also be a translation issue as regards the abbess’ comment.

    Belief is the willingness to act as if something were so, whether that is ‘this food is not poisoned’ or ‘this chair is sound’ or ‘God exists’. Contradiction is not paradox — the latter being the resolution of the former. We don’t have both at the same time; if a contradiction is resolved it’s not one anymore, exc in our present experience.

    Knowledge as intellectual apprehension might be opposed to faith but knowledge as interactive relationship is intimate with it; faith leads to it. Faith isn’t opposed to knowing [in that second sense] — it is opposed to sight.

    Cheers,
    Paul

  5. Margaret Avatar
    Margaret

    Dear Fr. Stephen, thanks so much for all of this blog post! This very much reminds me of the words contained in a little booklet I came across recently and was so comforting that I’ve purchased a copy for myself. It’s also available online and you may have heard of it: https://holycrossyakima.org/orthodoxPdfs/SAINT%20SERAPHIM%20OF%20VERITSA'S%20SPIRITUAL%20TESTAMENT.pdf

  6. Christian Hollums Avatar
    Christian Hollums

    Fr. Stephen, I appreciated your reflection on the paradoxes of faith, especially the lived tension between faith and knowledge. I wanted to ask about your use of the term “contradiction” in describing their relationship. In philosophical terms, a contradiction usually refers to asserting both A and not-A in the same respect, which is logically incoherent—whereas a paradox often signals a surface-level tension that points toward a deeper unity once lived or experienced.

    Do you see your use of “contradiction” here as pointing more toward that experiential or existential paradox—the kind that resists resolution on a propositional level but finds its meaning in lived participation? Or are you gesturing toward something deeper about the irreducibility of faith to reason itself? I ask because I’m trying to better understand how we can hold space for mystery without implying epistemic incoherence.

    Gratefully, and with respect for your insight.

  7. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Christian,
    In the article, I’m trying to follow the use of the terms that the Abbess used. I gather from her statements (the whole letter is included in the link), particularly the contradictions and paradox that a young convert might/will encounter as they make their journey into Orthodoxy. In the letter she notes that Orthodoxy is not a place to get away from the contradictions (such as the bad behavior, etc., that can be found anywhere among Christians), much less the paradox that even in the flawed human settings in which we encounter faith, the truth is still there to be known. Her counsel, particularly in the question concerning accepting all things as from God, is the resolution (the resolving) of these obstacles through faithfulness (love-in-action).

  8. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Paul,
    I have offered an excerpt from an elderly, holy Nun (now reposed). The terms are those she used. We can ponder them more easily than parse them.

  9. Lina Avatar
    Lina

    Faith is acquired.

    It is kind of like the story of the tightrope walker. He first asks the crowd if they
    believe that he can walk across the falls by himself. They answer, Yes. He does. Then he asks if they believe that he can cross the falls with a wheelbarrow. They answer , Yes. And he does so. Then he asks, Do you believe that I can cross over the falls with someone in the wheelbarrow. And the crowd yells. Yes, yet again. Then he asks, Who wants to go with me? The silence is deafening.

    Faith grows by getting into the wheelbarrow, time and time again.

  10. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    Lina,

    Haha. That’s a great analogy 🙂

  11. Christian Shaun Hollums Avatar
    Christian Shaun Hollums

    Father,

    It seems Paul also had a similar concern.

    My question wasn’t so much about the pastoral insight (which I found beautiful), but about the philosophical implications of using the term “contradiction” in this context.

    Specifically, I worry that for some seekers—or even faithful who are intellectually inclined—the use of that term without qualification can suggest that Orthodoxy embraces logical incoherence, rather than mystery, paradox, or lived tension.

    I know you’re following the Abbess’s language, but I’m wondering if your use of “contradiction” affirms that same loose definition, or if you’d agree that what we’re dealing with here is more accurately called paradox—i.e., a seeming contradiction that, when lived into faithfully, reveals a deeper harmony.

    I raise this not to nitpick semantics, but because I’ve seen how this kind of language can inadvertently become a barrier. There’s a big difference between saying “this is mysterious” and saying “this doesn’t make sense and that’s the point.” The first draws me in; the second often pushes me away.

    Your comments seem a bit dismissive and invalidating of the concern raised.

    Is faith also not believing what you know isn’t true?

    Is it living in fidelity to what is real, even when that reality exceeds your understanding.

  12. Margaret Sarah Avatar
    Margaret Sarah

    Thank you for the re-post, Father! I was actually just this afternoon re-reading some of your articles on contradiction and paradox, and was even considering emailing you for some clarification! Very timely.

    I’ve read from you before that you have come to question even the law of non-contradiction, which I’ve been puzzling over for a long while now. There are aspects of this that I can somewhat grasp – after all, the “thing in itself” is different (almost contradictory) from the “statement about the thing”. This is why the idea of a “truthmaker” is so strange to me – as if the thing in itself is not true, but the proposition instead.

    On the other hand, there are some sorts of circular, incoherent, or inconsistent reasoning that seem to deserve rejection. I doubt I would have looked beyond my Protestant upbringing – or my stint of agnostic atheism – had it not been for a desire for coherence and non-circular truth. There is an incredible ordering and coherence to the world, and it seems to speak to a coherent God. Or at least not a God of chaos.

    How do I embrace contradiction in a world that seems to not contradict itself?

    Side note: Have you thought about the etymology of “contradiction” (contra = against, diction = the word)? Perhaps Christ enters Hades – that which is deeply “against the Word” and the Word subsumes even that which “against the Word”: Contradiction swallowed by Diction.

  13. Gisele Avatar
    Gisele

    Thank you, Father Stephen! Your reminder of the paradox of existence in using the “Rebellion” chapter in the “The Brothers Karamazov” is indeed resonant (and a powerful preface to Ivan’s ‘Grand Inquisitor’ tale and its temptation of “certainty”). The first Orthodox confrontation I had with “the problem of evil” was St. Augustine’s analogy of the plenitude of God and fallen man heeding Satan’s half-truths. A sponge has both positive and negative space – the sponge-substance and the holes. It would not be a sponge without the holes, but the holes are nothing on their own. This was the introduction to the idea of “non-being” – or, as C.S. Lewis puts it, being “insubstantial and wraith-like”. As to half-truths, our fallen nature consists in persistently believing that “we will be like gods” in doing what God Himself prohibited for our own good. In Eden, we did not believe that this this would lead to “non-being” through our cultivation of the spirit of domination within us. No explanation of the origin of evil from our fallen nature will solve the heart-rending witness we bear to the perseverance of evil in the world. But as you say in reminding us of the preparation and need for accepting all things as being from God, we can choose to resist evil by following His Word (Truth and Path) instead of thinking we have a better way.

  14. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Christian,
    I appreciate the philosophical use of the term “contradiction” and that it might be problematic for some. However, I was not primarily concerned with “thought problems,” or syllogisms. Rather, I think I had in mind something of the use of contradiction in this passage from Fr. Maximus Constas’ The Art of Seeing:

    Paradox and contradiction seem like negative values, they make us uncomfortable. But this is precisely the point: only things that contradict the mind are real, there is no contradiction in what is imaginary. The exertion of human rationality to vitiate paradox, to suppress contradiction, is ultimately an exercise in self-delusion. It is the failure of true attention, the refusal to experience a change of mind. In the classical aesthetic tradition, harmony in music and symmetry in the visual arts were considered the primary characteristics of the beautiful. But this view did not go unchallenged, and later thinkers maintained that these qualities were attractive chiefly to souls mired in sensuality, who are disturbed by and so avoid dissonance and contradiction.

    An example of this kind of contradition can be something like the altar space in an Orthodox Church. You cannot go in there. It is a “contradiction” of our modern sense of democratic freedom. And if I told you that in order to know what (Who) is in there, you have to become comfortable with the fact that you cannot go there.

    In some sense, every human being we meet is a contradiction – they are not me. In order to see them, much less to know them, I have to embrace them as contradiction, to know them as “other.” Ultimately love alone does this. Our modern world is narcissistic. We want nothing to contradict us – we want to be able to consume everything. We are consumers (we even want to consume God).

    St. Maximus held that God has intentionally placed contradiction and paradox within the Scriptures in order that we might know Him. I think that if the Scriptures were perfectly consistent and rational, we’d blithely consume them, own them, and turn them into weapons for bludgeoning the world. Many people do just that, having “mastered” the Scriptures.

    Faith, I think, is not so much about what is true and what is not true. I think it’s closer to “faithful.” Holding to the beloved despite uncertainty or contradiction. I think this is very close to what the Abbess is getting at. When I say that “all things are sent from God,” there are a host of contradictions that immediately arise. “How can a good God allow that to happen?” I don’t know the answer to that perennial question. I do know, however, that He loves us – utterly and completely. I believe, for example, that the Father loves the Son, despite allowing His crucifixion (even willing it together with Him). Love can know this. Love can embrace this. But I’m not sure that love ever removes the contradiction within it.

    Is that helpful as an expansion of the article?

  15. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Margaret Sarah,
    See my reply to Christian. But there are certainly contradictions that should be rejected. I’m not trying to state a universal principle. But, I use the statement of Fr. Maximus Constas in which he says “only things that contradict the mind are real, there is no contradiction in what is imaginary.” It’s the seeing of the other as other, the seeing of the world as “not me,” in some way or fashion. It is, I think, love as a way of knowing.

  16. Kenneth Avatar
    Kenneth

    The article is beautiful. I will re-read and contemplate it.

    “Belief in God, the crucified God, is not a proclamation that we have solved the paradox… In the end, it turns out to be love. Just love.”

  17. Margaret Sarah Avatar
    Margaret Sarah

    Thank you for the reply, Father Stephen! I’ll think about it.

    Sometimes I try to parse out why I am afraid of ceding to contradiction and the non-provable. It often comes out to wanting to be able to prove that people who disagree with me are wrong. Best case, I am afraid of deceiving myself. But it’s usually pride and a need for control.

  18. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Margaret Sarah,
    I would tell anyone to pay attention to red flags. Contradiction can be one of those, for sure. Self-deception is also problematic (the entire topic of “prelest” in Orthodox writings is about delusion). In our present world, a bit of caution is important.

  19. Christian Shaun Hollums Avatar
    Christian Shaun Hollums

    Father,

    I really appreciate the reflection on how contradiction, or what feels like contradiction, can function as a boundary against consumption—and how modernity’s desire to master everything, including God, needs to be disrupted.

    I wonder if we might still distinguish between what we perceive as contradiction in our untransformed state and what, in the light of grace, is revealed to be a paradox that contains a deeper unity.

    Would you agree that St Maximus is not saying ‘you must embrace contradiction to know God.’ But that he’s saying, you must be transformed in love to perceive the unity within what looks like contradiction?

    It seems to me the “contradiction” is pedagogical, not ontological.

    For me the concern remains: calling something a “contradiction” when it’s actually a paradox or aporia—or better, a dialectical mystery—can be misleading. And more importantly, it can misrepresent what St. Maximus actually meant.

  20. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Christian,
    Of course, I’ve cited Fr. Maximus Constas for his use of “contradiction.” He is probably the pre-eminent Maximian scholar in the world today. So, it interests me that he does not seem to share your concern.

    However, I get the point you’re making and that “contradiction” holds a particularly troublesome meaning in certain settings. That someone is “other” than I am, might seem wrong to describe as a “contradiction,” but I think it’s within the bounds of the word.

    I’ll ponder your point.

  21. Christian Shaun Hollums Avatar
    Christian Shaun Hollums

    One final comment.

    The statement that “all things are sent from God,” even tragedy, and that we must somehow remain faithful amid “contradictions,” seems to me deeply problematic—not only intellectually, but spiritually and theologically.

    When my stepdad died of cancer and I watched my mom care for him for 16 agonizing months nothing in my heart can reconcile that experience with “that was sent to you from God”. Everything in my heart says this would be a horrible thing to ever say to my mother.

    I fear that statement becomes not a confrontation with mystery, but a quiet rationalization of what ought never to be rationalized. My heart attests to this.

    In The Doors of the Sea, David Bentley Hart rightly argues that the attempt to locate even the worst evils “within” the will of God—no matter how lovingly or reverently done—is a form of fatalism disguised as mystery. For Hart, the Christian claim is not that “all things are from God,” but that God is at war with much that happens in the world, and that His will is not always done “on earth as it is in heaven.” Hart writes:

    “To see the world in the light of the cross is to see it as a place where the will of God is not always done.”

    In this light, the crucifixion is not a divine contradiction. It is the point at which the love of God refuses to reconcile with evil—not the moment in which it mysteriously accepts or embraces it. To suggest otherwise, however gently, turns faith into a kind of ontological surrender rather than a hope rooted in the reality of coming victory.

    I appreciate the pastoral aim to help converts hold tension, I would argue that this kind of language—especially when it flirts with contradiction—does more harm than good. It can breed quiet despair, spiritual elitism, and confusion about the nature of God. Mystery does not require contradiction. Faith does not require intellectual incoherence. And love, I believe, does not ultimately embrace contradiction—it overcomes it.

    Thank you again for the dialogue.

  22. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Christian,
    Perhaps we are now getting to the heart of the matter. I would never say to a grieving widow, or to the cancer victim, “This is from God.” Indeed, evil, as a parasite, is not “from God.” What we say is that the goodness of God is at work in spite of the evil, that it encompasses it, that it tramples down death by death, and brings all things right. The bad thing happens, nevertheless, God is at work. I do not think we can say that the crucifixion is somehow contrary to God’s will. The Church emphasizes, particularly in its liturgies, that Christ’s death was voluntary: “Non one takes my life from me.”

    The confession, “All things are from God,” has a long history in the language and prayers of the saints. It has a unique meaning – something other than saying, “God meant for this terrible thing to happen to me.” It is a confession that “nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus.” My father-in-law, who was among the greatest Christians I’ve ever known, believed and practiced this particular understanding. Indeed, he died giving God thanks even for the cancer that was killing him.

    There is a time for every word – and some words are very untimely depending on the inner state and circumstances of the person involved. I’ve been pastorally involved with something on the order of 500 deaths through the years – in lots of different circumstances. I’ve seen circumstances where the confession, “This is from God – nothing separates me from Him,” was tremendously important and helpful. There were other times and places where such a thing would only have been misheard.

    I have difficulties with DBH at a number of places. He is not my cup of tea, forgive me.

  23. Robert Avatar
    Robert

    Thank you Father for this repost.

    What is a proof? Even in math what constitutes a proof is somewhat subjective; what one group accepts, another rejects.
    What axioms, and the definitions of terms, one starts from determine the boundaries of proof. Some things can not be proven nor can they be disproved. Godel showed this .

    This letter, to me seems perfectly reasonable. Perhaps I am a shallow pond.

  24. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

    The line, “Above all, are you prepared to accept all things as from God?” is indeed a gauntlet thrown down. I (as I suspect many) wrestle with what exactly this means. I don’t mean to argue against it or deny it, I only wish to know how to embrace it in my own life. How does this play out in the context of our own willful sin and free will? A man loses his wife in divorce because he was unfaithful, inattentive, selfish etc. A woman gets fired from her job because she got caught stealing. How do we understand “all things are from God” in these and similar situations that have a clear connection to our own failures and sins?

  25. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

    Father I see now your response to Christian (thought I had refreshed to see the most recent comments, but guess not!) and which also speaks to my own question. I’m reminded now of something I read from Fr. Lev Gillet in “The Burning Bush”, in which he’s taking about the line from Ps. 22/23, “I shall not want”:

    “Does it never happen that someone perishes because their most essential needs have been left unfulfilled? Here, more than ever, we must arm ourselves with the audacity of faith. We must dare to answer: “The moment has come when the divine affirmation is given. The moment of death is the moment of entry into the life of the blessed.’ Our faith is so feeble that here we can only realise in a vague and inconsistent way what exactly the cause of our joy should be. Too often we regard eternal life as something like the appendix of a book in which our earthly life is the main text. But no! Just the opposite! Our earthly life is no more than the preface to the book. Eternal life will be the book itself. Our earthly life is like a tunnel. We are in the darkness of the tunnel. But on leaving it we shall enter a landscape of light and beauty.
    There, on the other side, all our needs — our true needs — will be satisfied for ever, in all superabundance. The curve of our life will then be visible to us in the fullness of its meaning. Then we shall be able to say without hesitation ‘I shall not want’… Even in our earthly life, even in the grip of great dangers, great sorrows; if we cling to the shepherd – if we hold Him with the faith and love that are without reservations – already everything is given. Because all is in Him. If we have Him, His real self, we have all. Even at the very moment when life seems to be about to crush us we shall find – in our active acceptance, in our renunciation, in our gift of ourselves to the Shepherd – everything we truly need (and we did not know it!), ‘O death, where is thy sting?’”

  26. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Andrew,
    In this answer I simply speak of my own experience with “all things are sent from God.” I know there’s a distinction between God sent this directly and God permitted this to happen. It’s the distinction in which one means it to me for evil while God means everything for my good. I think that beneath all of it is the faith that God is good and that He loves me.

    I have buried a son. I have buried a granddaughter. On her gravestone, my son had carved, “Glory to God for all things.” It is the confession of His goodness.

    Again, I speak for myself: this is the God I know, the God made known in Jesus Christ. It seems as clear to me as my own self. I’ve endured contradictions galore over the years, but I see, particularly in hindsight, how God has used them for good rather than evil (despite the evil intents of others). I also see that this is not clear at all to many people.

    When I first encountered this with my father in law, I argued with him…vociferously! His manner of life and faith convinced me, over the years that he was right. One manner in which to practice this is to give thanks always for all things. But it can’t be argued, I think. I saw the truth of it in a man’s life.

  27. Randy L Evans Avatar

    Perhaps an article about Christ and the Saints use of “hyperbole” could be helpful – it’s often the only way I can “hear” some of the things, especially monastics, seem to teach us as to what they see as “the only way to salvation.” I know I take things too literally at times, and have tried to use the lens of hyperbole to help me shake off my toxic shame background . . . but an article about such would be helpful to me.

  28. Christian Shaun Hollums Avatar
    Christian Shaun Hollums

    Father,

    I’ve taken some time to sit with your response and let it soak in. I find myself in a strange space—deeply respecting your pastoral framing, yet still fundamentally unable to accept the theological implications of what you’ve said if I’m hearing you rightly (which may be incorrect). It’s not my place to question how you minister to others—that’s a sacred trust so I’m a bit hesitant to respond.

    What does ‘from God’ actually mean here?

    If that meaning isn’t causal, then why use causal language? Why not simply say:
    “God is with us in all things” or “God permits freedom but redeems all things in love”.

    Is it true that cancer, murder, or atrocity is “from God” in any meaningful theological sense?

    If not, why commend or allow the phrase at all?

    For me the phrase “all things are from God” walks too close to the metaphysical abyss of double predestination—the idea that God ordains both good and evil for His purposes (even though I know you condemn predestination).

    I do not see how the phrase “this is from God” can be safely deployed without reinforcing a quiet theodicy of consent—where evil is not opposed by God but repurposed into divine will.

    You say, “I don’t think we can say the crucifixion is contrary to God’s will,”
    and my immediate question is the murder of Christ willed by God as an end or is it willed only as something permitted and then transfigured?

    To confuse those two things is to make evil holy.

    You say, “Some words are untimely depending on the person’s state.”

    Sure—but what we refuse to say in one moment should not become what we’re willing to believe in another.

    You say, “The phrase ‘this is from God’ helped people in their grief.”

    That doesn’t mean the phrase is true—and if it isn’t true, its comfort is dangerous.

    You say, “Sometimes the saints gave thanks for their suffering.”

    Yes—but their surrender doesn’t redefine God’s will or make evil holy.

    I’m sure we agree Christ crucified—is not a justification of suffering but is a claim about the one who enters it to destroy it. Christ is the lens, the hermeneutic key, and the objective revelation of who God is. Any theology of tragedy or evil must be measured against Him.

    It’s because of this revealed truth that I cannot affirm all things are from God—not in any sense that preserves the goodness of God, the dignity of creatures, or the coherence of love.

    I know DBH isn’t your cup of tea, but I agree when he says

    “If one believes that all things are from God—even cancer, even genocide—then one believes that God is not good in any intelligible sense of the word.”

    Mystery does not mean contradiction or metaphysical confusion; it must protect the intelligibility of love.

    So, when it comes to my mother or even how I self-regulate my own feelings around the death of my bio father who died of AIDS I choose to comfort the grieving with silence, tears, and love—but never at the expense of the truth that evil is evil, and God is not its author.

    For me to speak otherwise, no matter how gently, is to fail the suffering in the very name of the one who came to end their suffering forever

  29. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Christian,
    I fully understand your reasoning and appreciate the honesty of your thoughts.

    When Joseph the patriarch says to his brothers (who sold him into slavery), “You meant it to me for evil, but the Lord meant it to me for good,” we see one of the first expressions of “all things are sent from God.” God is not the author of evil. He was not the author of Joseph’s brother’s evil thoughts and actions. But at the very time that they were thinking and acting, God was also acting, to a different end and purpose.

    When we see the statement, “All things are sent from God,” (which is frequent and common among Orthodox saints, and not a few prayers of the Church) we are affirming with St. Joseph the paradox that proclamation that evil is not our master and Lord, and that the good God is working good in all things, and despite any evil.

    I cannot and do not change the language that we have received in the life of the Church. I repeat it and ponder it. Of course God is not the author of evil. But we are certainly confronted with it. The language of the Church and her saints have frequently met that challenge with the confession, “All things are sent from God.” It is a rebuke of the devil, an assurance of God’s goodness. Indeed, it can be a battle-cry in opposition to the false boasting of the adversary.

    I prefer the tradition of the Church and its language to the refinements of DBH. I know that many find his reasoning to be helpful. Any layman is free to not use certain prayers of the Church – I would not ask anyone to crush their conscience. Nevertheless, I’m a priest and I pray what I we have received.

    Within the first couple of months on this blog, I reprinted the “Morning Prayer of the Last Elders of Optina.” It is similar to a prayer promulgated by St. Philaret of Moscow. It is of a piece with the prayers of the saints through the centuries. It was echoed in the words that the aged Abbess wrote to the young man.

    O Lord, grant that I may meet all that this coming day brings to me with spiritual tranquility.
    Grant that I may fully surrender myself to Thy holy Will.
    At every hour of this day, direct and support me in all things.
    Whatsoever news may reach me in the course of the day,
    teach me to accept it with a calm soul and the firm conviction that all is subject to Thy holy Will.

    Direct my thoughts and feelings in all my words and actions.
    In all unexpected occurrences, do not let me forget that all is sent down from Thee.

    Grant that I may deal straightforwardly and wisely with every member of my family,
    neither embarrassing nor saddening anyone.

    O Lord, grant me the strength to endure the fatigue of the coming day
    and all the events that take place during it.
    Direct my will and teach me to pray, to believe, to hope,
    to be patient, to forgive, and to love. Amen.

    There are two statements in that prayer. One is that “all is subject to Thy Holy Will.” The other is “all is sent down from Thee.”

    Depending on life’s circumstances, we all have to come to grips with this in one manner or another (or renounce God altogether in favor of something else). My family has experienced murders, diseases, accidents, etc. Christ gave us His crucifixion and resurrection, with only a few words that give an explanation. I find the Cross to be a hermeneutic for the problem of evil, but know that there are no words than can do justice to that event. Strangely, I find DBH’s treatment to be giving more power to evil than it deserves – but that’s just my “gut” reaction – not a theological pronouncement. It would be insufficient in my prayer life. I prefer the words the Church gives. But it’s not really about the words. What I have sought (I’ve been using the Optina Elders’ prayer since the 1980’s) is the pathway into the heart that those words make possible.

    Don’t ignore your conscience. Pray however you can.

  30. Christian Shaun Hollums Avatar
    Christian Shaun Hollums

    For me it’s not solely a matter of conscience, but also a matter of metaphysical coherence, trustworthiness of revelation, and moral epistemology.

    While I honor the devotional language of the Church, I also believe it must be interpreted in light of what has been revealed in Christ. Not every phrase we pray should be treated as a theological truth claim, especially when it risks implying something contrary to the gospel and desecrates the very love we claim to affirm.

    The liturgical life of the Church offers glimpses, not definitions; it sustains the theological imagination, but it does not always constrain it.

    From my view prayer / liturgy is a two-way relationship, not a one-directional rule. I’m sure we agree not every word of a prayer is dogma. Prayer reflects the heart of the Church, but theology must bring clarity to its meaning.

    Some prayers and phrases in Orthodox devotional life—especially those dealing with suffering and providence—may unintentionally say more than they ought if not interpreted carefully.

    For me if a prayer or hymn implies something that would make Christ’s revelation incoherent (e.g., God willing evil), then it must be theologically interpreted, not simply repeated as truth. This is equally true for scripture.

    Your interpretation of tradition may also be different than mine. In my view tradition not as a fixed repository of phrases to be obeyed, but a dynamic continuity of truth, whose criterion is Christ—not nostalgia or poetic habit or someone else’s piety.

    Christ—not devotional tradition—is the standard for me. Liturgical language must conform to the revelation of divine goodness in Christ. If a phrase like “all is sent down from Thee” is capable of suggesting that God wills evil, then the phrase must be theologically reinterpreted—or rejected.

    I also think you are characterizing DBH a bit. I would argue that his writing is not a refinement, but a reassertion of the central truth of Christian faith—that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5). He is arguing from revealed truth, moral clarity, and metaphysical coherence.

    I don’t think his view is a refinement but a restoration of what the Fathers knew: that evil is not a component of God’s providential design, and that the cross is the rejection, not the acceptance, of the tragic structure of the world.

    I am disappointed by your response “I prefer the tradition of the church and its language”. To me a priest is not merely a vessel of received speech, but a steward of the truth. If any form of prayer, even ancient, leads the soul to suspect that God intends evil, then the priest’s first duty is to speak rightly of God—not just traditionally.

    If the words we inherit suggest—even ambiguously—that God is the author of pain, then it is not refinement to question them—it is fidelity to Christ, who came to undo every such lie with His own blood.

  31. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Christian,
    Father doesn’t need my support for his perspective and presentation of Orthodox phronema. His words and presentation appear to be consistent with what I’ve been taught by two different priests in different jurisdictions between themselves and different from Father’s. This consistency suggests a usage that is common to Orthodoxy and its heritage which is not western in conceptual thinking.

  32. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Christian,
    I’ve been writing now for nearly 20 years with over 2500 articles. Never once have I suggested that God is the author of evil or that He is other than light in Whom there is no darkness at all. I readily acknowledge that the phrase “all things are sent down from God” as a contradiction and paradox (the very title of the article). I think I would fall into despair if I thought that God were the author of evil.

    Nevertheless, I prefer to wrestle with the language of the Church (and I have no where suggested that it be interpreted to mean that God causes evil).

    I wouldn’t be having this conversation if I didn’t think there was wrestling to be done. But I want to wrestle with it rather than dismiss it too easily.

    I think that DBH has done some good work and offered things that are of value. I have said, “He’s not my cup of tea,” inasmuch as he writes and thinks in a key that simply does not speak to me. I think that he occasionally crosses the line and tends to write in a very abrasive and dismissive style that is sometimes less helpful than it might have been. But, that’s just my personal take.

    I was not putting myself forward as a “vessel of received speech.” I think that dismisses a heck of a lot of work and dialog. There have been over 100,000 interactions on the blog. But, I prefer the language of the Church in my life, even when I have to wrestle with it. My article, The Erotic Language of Prayer, is a good example of that wrestling (and has appeared 4 times on the blog over the years). I understand your objections to the phrase, and concerns for misunderstanding. I’m simply saying that the poetry of that phrase, particularly in light of the lives who have used it and spoken it, speaks to me in a way that DBH (for example) never does.

    Christian, we are the inheritors of a tradition that frequently (taken on its surface) suggests very problematic things. I think there are two things needed (at least): (1) good commentary that allows us to honestly wrestle with what we’ve received in a variety of ways, and (2) a refusal to jettison or re-edit what we’ve received in order to avoid any misunderstanding.

    I think that (2) is important in that the paradox and contradiction, the hiddenness of the truth within the figure, seem to be crucial to the life and mind of Orthodoxy. I have been a champion, for example, of the allegorical treatment of problematic passages in Scripture, similar to that of St. Gregory of Nyssa. But he wasn’t interested in re-writing the book of Exodus.

    Have I spoken “un-rightly” of God? Have I suggested that He is the author of evil and pain?

  33. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Also, I’m speculating that underlying this conversation is the tensions connected with universalism.— just a hunch.

  34. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Dee,
    I think Christian and I are wrestling over language in manner that’s difficult in a comments section. Face-to-face would probably resolve any differences quite quickly.

  35. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Yes, agreed, Father!

  36. Leah Avatar
    Leah

    Christian and Fr. Stephen,

    Thank you for engaging in this conversation. I struggle greatly with these issues but often lack the energy and ability to articulate my concerns. It’s so very helpful to read your responses to each other.

    I sometimes feel there should be two different strains of prayer language: the traditional language of the Saints seems best for those whose faith comes from the heart, who have “become as little children,” but those of us who aren’t there yet need something that is said more plainly. I agree with Christian that “all things are sent from God” sounds *very* different from “nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus.” Perhaps when I become a Saint I’ll be able to see that they are the same…

  37. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Leah,
    I’ve also learned across the decades that different cultures have a different feel about these things. Our Anglo-based modern culture is acutally pretty literalistic – we’re not given much to poetry. On the other hand, many other cultures (think Greece, Balkans, Middle East, etc.) are much more expressive and effusive in their language. Anglo’s and other similar Northern European types (I’m not including the French in this) tend to think of Southern Europeans as being too emotional, etc. Or, in America, watch Mexican soap operas (if you have those channels). Orthodoxy was not forged in Northern Europe or Britain, but in the Middle East and Greece as well as in cultures shaped by that experience.

    Of course, we’re used to the world speaking our language and our culture dominating so many things. I have reminded myself that I’m a convert to Orthodoxy, part of a minority from a foreign culture. So, I’ve also worked to “hear” and listen to the expressions that did not come from my native language or culture. I think it’s good for us.

    It was St. Porphyrios, a Greek, who said, “In order to be a Christian, one must first become a poet.” I would also point to Russian culture where poets are deeply revered. We have poets, of course, but we do not think much about them at all. We’re a prosaic culture, in more ways than one.

  38. Margaret Sarah Avatar
    Margaret Sarah

    I’ve much appreciated reading this discussion, as well. It’s been one that Father and I have discussed before, and I’m still wrestling with.

    “All things are sent by God”; sometimes I can grasp it better when I consider that God is in/has made all things, and some situations are crushingly painful, distorted misuse of those things. And Christ is there even in those situations – He doesn’t abandon the goodness of the things.

    The conditions of this world make suffering inevitable. It seems ridiculous to proclaim a good God. Perhaps more ridiculous would be a tidy theodicy that dismisses the pain. But despite that, if we want to proclaim a good God, we are proclaiming one that has clearly allowed pain. And that’s a painful contradiction in itself.

  39. Leah Avatar
    Leah

    Father, yes, that makes sense about the cultural differences within languages. I speak a second language and have spent some time immersed in a different culture, so I’ve experienced first hand how many things just cannot be translated or understood properly across languages and cultures. Thank you.

  40. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Margaret Sarah,
    A great paradigm example in the Scriptures is Joseph of Egypt. To his brothers he says, “You meant it to me for evil, but the Lord meant it to me for good.” But on the surface, as all those evil things are taking place, God is working for good – not just Joseph’s but for generations to come. That is a model to me, that the good that God does is frequently hidden. So, to confess that “all things are sent by God” is to confess something that is quite likely hidden and not obvious. It is not meant to explain the evil. Indeed, some have said that evil can have no explanation – it is absurd.

    There’s another story that I treasure. That is the 3 young men in the fiery furnace. They are threatened with evil if they do not bow down and worship evil. They say, “Our God is able to deliver us. But if He doesn’t, nevertheless, we will not bow down and worship your image.” They see what is hidden and bow down to the hidden God, the One true God. Even if they are being burned alive.

    The terrible tortures of the martyrs are similar stories. They refuse to bow down to Caesar and endure his evil. Caesars always seem to think that their use of evil means are the way to run the world. The faith of the martyrs proclaims the hidden work of God. When all is said and done – only the good will of God will be manifest. Every evil will come to nothing.

    There’s always so much more to say about this than time permits.

  41. Margaret Sarah Avatar
    Margaret Sarah

    Yes, I find the absurdity of evil to be a more bearable approach than any other theorizing. But I find many things absurd.

    I’ve found an interesting paradox in looking on Christ Crucified as filling all things: the Image doesn’t diminish or dismiss pain or suffering, or pacify with blithe assertions of “everything will be alright”. Neither does it make pain the purpose or foundation of all things. I’m not sure the image “does” anything. It just is. And it seems to confer a much greater and deeper knowledge of evil than any assertion that evil exists.

    “There is an ignorance of evil that comes from being young. There is a darker ignorance that comes from doing it, as men by sleeping lose the knowledge of sleep” – CS Lewis

    Also, a Lewis quote that I have struggled with more: “We need not suppose that […] eternal life will not also be eternal dying.”

    I don’t know what to do with that last quote.

  42. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Margaret Sarah,
    I have no idea what to make of that last quote!

  43. Bonnie Avatar
    Bonnie

    Fr. Stephen, and Margaret Sarah,
    Thinking of Lewis’ book “The Great Divorce” : The narrator of this story tells of witnessing exchanges between people who arrive on a bus from hell, on a day trip to heaven. There are those who are still bent on having their own will e.g. the mother who wants to control her son forever; versus the people who “die to self” in order to love and support others; who are freed of their vices.
    Those who insist on their own way go back to hell in disgust. The selfless are transformed in joy and beauty.
    Would that fit the last quote?

  44. Dirk Avatar
    Dirk

    I just looked it up – the quote is from “The Problem of Pain”.

    As I understand it, it refers to the constant act of self-giving with which a blessed soul will empty itself in order to be constantly refilled by God. Lewis supposes that this is a pattern which will continue into eternity.
    The next sentence after this quote goes:
    It is in this sense that, as there may be pleasures in hell (God shield us from them), there may be something not all unlike pains in heaven (God grant us soon to taste them).

    But I am out of my depth here, just putting this up for reference.

  45. Margaret Sarah Avatar
    Margaret Sarah

    Dirk and Bonnie,

    Thank you for the additions! I’m agreed – I think he was referencing something like kenosis. It’s perhaps not the first thing that comes to mind when considering something like “eternal life”. Often, “eternal life” makes me think of something horribly unnatural and fake, like a McDonald’s cheese burger that never rots. In this sense, Lewis’s quote gives me some comfort.

    Didn’t he describe heaven as being “for the most part an acquired taste”?

  46. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Dirk,
    For the win!

  47. Helen Avatar
    Helen

    I read this post yesterday and started reading the comments. I returned today to continue with the comments and decided to re-read the post first. It struck me today that the last sentence of the Abbess says to accept all things AS from God. That one word , “as” , changed it for me. Hard to put into words. But yesterday i was thinking i needed to accept all things because they came from God. Suffering coming from God seems so against what I hope Love is. Suffering coming AS from God maintains love and builds trust in Him.

  48. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Helen,
    That’s a very good observation. Quite helpful. I think it would be wrong for me to say that God is the author and cause of everything that happens in our lives. Having said that, we can still say that, rather than turning over part of our lives to the power of other forces, that receiving all things “as” from God, says, “I trust that He is with me even in this situation and will do me good (despite this situation). Or something to that effect. It is taking the approach to evil things that Jacob took to his brothers actions. They meant evil, but God meant good.

    In the end, all roads will have led to Pascha.

  49. Helen Avatar
    Helen

    Yes! Thank you Father for articulating what I hoped I was expressing adequately. It was a very huge shift within me!

  50. R9bert Avatar
    R9bert

    “God turns all things to good, for those called according to his purpose”

  51. Nicole from VA Avatar
    Nicole from VA

    Hi Father and everyone, these are some reflections I have wanted to share for a long time. I hope to share them but am also seeking correction and/or supporting evidence

    I struggled with for many years, and think many people struggle with the question

    ‘If someone hurts me, is God the one hurting me?’

    and I think the answer to this is no

    I do not think God ever wishes anyone to sin, or directs anyone to sin, though He does allow us to sin because without freedom there can be no true love

    So when we speak of God ‘allowing’ all things and all things ‘coming from God’ I think it is so important that we distinguish

    God’s passive will (in allowing things)

    and

    God’s active will (in redeeming us)

    When we encounter the phrase ‘The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world’ I think that is God’s passive will at work in the utmost surprise of reality: that He has chosen not to prevent our injury by the sins of others, rather that He enters all such injuries before we experience them, concurrently with us when we experience them, and throughout time. This is how the suffering of Christ is ‘filled up’ I think as Paul uses the phrase. For my Math friends it is like the limit as x approaches infinity. This allows the point of our injury to become a profound contact point with Him when experienced with faith and also as revealed to us over time hopefully even if we do not have faith in that moment of harm.

    God’s active will is very much seen in His response to the sinner, going to the Cross to break the trap of death apart from the inside, our Warrior King who does battle with death and invites us still to His table of Victory. Who does not shame us for sinning but seeks us.

    To the person injured by someone else’s sin saying it was God’s will without saying He endured it first, He endures it with you, your life is worth more than the pain it has causes you and yes the pain is real, is potentially so dangerous. It suggests alone a disinterested God at a distance, a God who by allowing sin somehow willls the sin, a horror and contradiction, totally opposed to the Suffering Servant King who truly loves us.

  52. Helen Avatar
    Helen

    Nicole, the Lamb slain from before all time…. it’s amazing in light if these conversations how alive that is, how it is another example of God with us…
    Also, the math reference…wonderful, got me thinking about infinity and even that we are aware of the concept of infinity, and our asymptotic approach to the Infinite through time without end.

  53. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Nicole,
    Thank you!

  54. Jenny Avatar
    Jenny

    Nicole,

    Your whole comment was so beautiful, but this in particular is such a gift to read:

    “When we encounter the phrase ‘The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world’ I think that is God’s passive will at work in the utmost surprise of reality: that He has chosen not to prevent our injury by the sins of others, rather that He enters all such injuries before we experience them, concurrently with us when we experience them, and throughout time.“

    Thank you for sharing your reflections. It has filled my heart with worship for our long Suffering Servant King all over again.

  55. Mallory Avatar
    Mallory

    Nicole,

    Thank you for this beautiful comment, I’ve been thinking about this post and conversation for days now. And what you say rings true to me, that He is outside time and knows all things and enters into the suffering of our lives with us, alongside us. I feel that in my heart sometimes. But He did not “send” us these challenges, traumas, heartbreaks, loses. My question then is: who did? Of course there are circumstances that come clearly from our own sins, but there are others that seem to come from “nowhere”—the whole idea of so much suffering dealt to (sometimes) the kindest, gentlest among us.

    sometimes these tragedies feel predestined. But I am aware that is “just” a feeling, and I can’t know.

    Fr. Stephen, do you think we will know all the answers to the many mysteries we grapple with when we die? Do you think it becomes clear to us, our soul? I’ve been very troubled recently, caretaking someone with cancer, going through the health care system, the ugliness of hospitals, the harshness of the treatments without any certainty of outcome or efficacy, with how very little we know about where we are, who put us here and what we’re doing. I used to think we could create our own little paradise, and of course now such a notion seems absurd. This life is exhausting.

    Blessing to all, I am so grateful for all of your comments, your open hearts.

  56. Stephen Avatar
    Stephen

    Thank you for writing this.

    The no-man’s land of “Passively enduring [contradictions]” is where I’ve lived for years. Actually facing these and the paradoxes of the faith shakes my convictions to their core. It feels like coming to the end of myself; just standing on the edge wondering if the “next step” is really true or just off the ledge. Is it true and godly to believe this and that or am I just deluding myself.

    —It’s not a place I like going in prayer, but I know that’s holding me back in some way.

    In those moments I wish I could say that I understood what “Blessed are those who believe without seeing.” actually meant.

    There’s the likeness of spouses trusting one another’s fidelity, which is clearly better than a marriage of fear and doubt. On the other hand many religions demand this kind of intellectual adherence to an unprovable faith and we’d say they are led astray; that they shouldn’t believe what they do without seeing. For instance, the Roman Catholic, the Muslim, and the Buddhist all bind themselves to things that are heretical in Orthodoxy. And, it’s not hard to imagine there are writings similar to Mother Thekla’s on the matter in those traditions.

    So, the extension beyond oneself will always be required for any vivacious faith. Orthodoxy and broader Christianity make exclusivity claims on being the Way though.

    In your priesthood what have you seen gives a man confidence that this is the Way?

  57. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Stephen,
    I could not point to a particular thing that gives a man confidence – it varies. For some, their confidence is not a virtue. For others it is.

    I do not think of Orthodoxy as an argument. The central question for me has always centered on Christ Himself. In that matter, I have always found the evidence for Christ’s death and resurrection to be compelling (that’s on an intellectual level) and His teaching to be compelling on the level human living.

    As for Orthodoxy, I embraced it as the faithful community founded by Christ. That’s not to say that I’m not painfully aware of our shortcomings and sins. As I’ve written before, “salvation is messy.”

    Generally, I avoid arguments and argumentative writings. When I write and say, “Do the next good thing,” it’s a rule that I try to practice myself.

    God give us grace.

  58. Hélène d. Avatar
    Hélène d.

    Father Stephen, don’t you think that a certain salutary “crucifixion” of our reason, of our intellect, which seeks to understand and grasp everything, “to be satisfied”, can be beneficial and thus leave space to receive, deep within ourselves, what can only be “revealed” from the divine Word ? With unexpected joy, this happens…
    As we celebrate all the saints in this period after Pentecost, I would like to share this refreshing story with Saint Nicholas Planas.

    “Once Saint Nicholas Planas was using his censer during the ninth ode, when the chanters sang “more venerable than the Cherubim…” and he passed a lady
    standing in the chair and didn’t use his censer on her. He just walked past her.
    After two chairs, there was an empty one. He stood there, used his censer five or six times and moved on. When the Liturgy was over, this lady went up to him and said:
    – “Father Nicholas, on the ninth you didn’t use your censer on me, but you did so on an empty chair !
    – Um, dear Georgia, he said, you weren’t there ! But the empty chair is the chair of Maria, who is ill. She is sick at home, but her heart and mind are here.
    You are here in body, but in mind you are ith your goats !”

  59. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Stephen,
    I believe you ask good questions. And as far as I have been taught and learned through my experience in Orthodox life, looking for a good argument (as surprising as it may seem) is not the easiest or best way to enter Orthodoxy.

    Sometimes I think that my entry into Orthodoxy might have benefited from the fact that I wasn’t leaving a church to enter another. Instead I had witnessed something, that by secular thinking, lied outside religion and beyond the current theories of science. Then I looked for an explanation in various theological understandings and I found such explanations in Orthodox theology, in particular, the Orthodox theology of the Orthodox icons.

    Over the past few years I’ve seen more writings and presentations by Catholic and Anglican theologians who are picking up (or attempting to return to) patristics. However these recent developments in ideas and discourse doesn’t replace the 1000 years of lives and practices and prayers lived within Orthodoxy or the resulting richness in teachings and theology developed and is expressed through the Orthodox Way in Liturgical, lay and monastic life.

  60. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    I’ll also mention that after Father Stephen mentioned Fr Maximos Constas book , “The Art of Seeing: Paradox and Perception in Orhodox Iconography”, I started reading (again) the copy I have in my library. I don’t know if it will be helpful for you, but if you appreciate Father Stephen’s article, you may also find Fr Maximos book edifying. And I also recommend Father Stephen’s books as well as helping to understand Orthodoxy and Orthodox understandings.

  61. Paul Kuritz Avatar

    Father:
    My priest asked me to teach the catechumen class today in his stead. The topic was The Trinity. I used your essay on Contradictions. The students found it helpful
    A former Anglican clergy asked “ If we were created in God’s image does that mean we are made trinitarian?
    I sputtered on about us needing relationships to become fully human and that a loving community is what we need to flourish as God would want.
    He said he would give me till next week to form my final answer
    How would you answer that question?
    I use and share your ideas shamelessly.
    Your fan, Paul

    your writings and thinkings shameless

  62. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Paul,
    I think I would say that we are specifically made “in the image of Christ” – and, indeed, in the image of the Crucified Christ. Adam’s side is wounded, from which is taken his bride, Eve. Christ’s side is wounded, from which flow blood and water, and from which is taken His bride, the Church.

    But, in the image of the Trinity, we can say, “Yes,” in that “it is not good for the man to be alone,” we exist as One Nature (one and the same human nature), and a mulitplicity of persons. It is not exactly the same as the Trinity, but the Trinity is a pattern for us.

    None of us exists alone. We are not self-contained, self-created, self-defined. We exist in a community (a communion) and this is necessary for our right and good existence, “love.”

    The names revealed to us regarding the Trinity are illustrative. The name, “Father,” has no meaning in and of itself, but as it begets. The “Son,” implies that He has a source, One from whom He is begotten. The Spirit (in Hebrew and Greek the term means “breath”) is always the “Spirit of.” So, the very names are relational in character and point towards the Trinity.

    Another way I would say that is that we only know the Father as He is made known in the Son, and it is by the Holy Spirit that we see and know the Son (though we do not “see” the Holy Spirit directly). There is a humility in the persons of the Holy Trinity. The Father delights in the Son. The Son “only does those things which He sees the Father doing,” and the Holy Spirit “does not speak of the things concerning Himself but only of the Son.”

    Good luck with all that!

  63. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Stephen, Dee, et al,
    When we are in the mode of argument or of comparing, we are engaging the mind in a certain way. I think of it as “picking berries.” “Is this berry ripe?” etc. It’s useful. But it’s not the part of the mind that we engage when looking at a piece of art. It’s not the part of the mind that we engage when listening to music. It’s one of the reasons I avoid argumentation and the sort of comparison that we tend to do – sort of religion shopping, or comparative religions.

    Most human activities have some truth in them. I can’t think of a religion that has no truth in it. In certain circumstances, anyone can benefit from those “truths.”

    I tend to use the language of marriage when thinking of “faith.” It’s not “is this the best woman I can find?” It’s more like, “Do I love her, will I commit to her for the rest of my life?” I made a commitment to Christ when I was young. I have not considered doing anything else. I did make a decision to become Orthodox at a certain point in my life when it was clear that I could no longer be where I was (Anglican). I made some historical and practical decisions in that process – accepting that Orthodoxy is what it claims to be – the Church founded by Christ.

    Having said that, there’s plenty of good things elsewhere (nothing is without value).

    I can say, having been married for 49 years, that there are things that I know now that I could not have known 49 years ago. It takes years of a life to know someone. The same has been true of Christ. I knew and saw enough to say “yes” to the gospel. But what I know now is not something I saw then.

    I particularly appreciate the Abbess’ words that pointed to the difficulties (paradox, contradiction) that inevitably come up in the Orthodox life. I think she was pretty rough on the young man. It’s a reason that we have catechesis and do not receive people too swiftly. It’s like a marriage.

    At the end of the matter – there is love. Scripture says, “faith works by love.” Do you love Christ? Do you love Him enough to give Him your life?

  64. Dee of Sts. Herman and Olga Avatar
    Dee of Sts. Herman and Olga

    Father I believe the language of love in marriage works very well.

    All: I’ve decided on adopting and adding St Olga of Kwethluk in my name identification on this blog.

  65. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Dee,
    I’m glad you’re bringing her to our conversations!

  66. Leah Avatar
    Leah

    Father, when you say that “there’s plenty of good things elsewhere” and that people can benefit from the truths of the various religions, are you saying that Christianity is only one path, not the only path, to theosis?

  67. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Leah,
    No. Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. But there are echoes of Him in every sound. Shadows of Him in every thing we see. If anyone is saved, it will have been Christ Who saves them. But I leave the details up to Him. I only know Orthodox Christianity – it is what He Himself gave us.

    St. Paul said to the Athenians:

    “for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you:God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.And He 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;” (Acts 17:23–27)

    Salvation is union with God in Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit (theosis). But, the mystery of salvation is sometimes hidden. What we proclaim is what has been made known (Orthodoxy). But there are some who want to go beyond that and say what we have not been told. I’m not one of them.

  68. Leah Avatar
    Leah

    Thank you for clarifying!

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. Ditto on not receiving the email. I’ll see how long it takes for this post to show!

  2. Likewise, Father Stephen, I did not receive an email when you posted this entry. The notice may have been erroneously…


Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast



Categories


Archives