When Your Ancestors Came to Church

Human beings carry within them a burden of time. We are not “fresh starts” as we come into existence. There is an inheritance that seems to carry even more than our genes. Some few years ago, I visited with my father’s oldest surviving cousin. She had known both of my parents across the years, and had known my father since childhood. In the course of our conversation she said, “Talking with you is just like talking with your mother!” I knew what she meant and blushed. My mother was the Queen of ADHD and could talk non-stop. Having gotten past that awkward recognition, we wrapped up the visit. As I was walking out to my car, she called to me from the door, “But you walk like your Daddy!” The burden of my inheritance was written into my being: “the body keeps the score.”

This is not normally a theme associated with Christmas – unless you are an Orthodox Christian.

In the Eastern Church, the two Sundays before Christmas are marked for the remembrance of the “ancestors of Christ.” One of the Sundays, for example, has as its gospel reading the chapter of the “begats” (Matthew 1). It’s a pretty bumpy list. There are notable figures: great kings and such. There are also references to sad tales: “…and David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah…” It is not an effort to clean-up a history or to white-wash it. Indeed, whatever critiques one might make regarding the Scriptures, it cannot be said that they seek to hide the bad stuff.

We teach that, in Christ, “God became man,” or “the Word became flesh.” Christ does not become a history-free version of humanity. In Him, the whole human story is gathered. “We know His people.” In Second Corinthians the matter is stated in a manner that troubles some: “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

I recall being grilled on this verse by a woman when I was in a speaking engagement. She had never heard the verse (not surprising). It was the phrase, “made Him to be sin…” that drew her reaction – as well it should. Thinking about this, I returned this morning to the Greek text to see precisely how St. Paul wrote the phrase. I think his hand must have trembled as he wrote. I will suggest a different translation to see how the Apostle took care with his words:

“the-One-who-knew-no-sin was made sin on our behalf, in order that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”  ( τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ.)

It states a mystery – that the one-who-knew-no-sin somehow became sin. This is a stronger statement than the better-known phrase in Hebrews: “For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” (4:15)

There are various “tensions” within Orthodox theology. The Trinity is stated in such terms: three, yet one; person vs. essence. Also with Christ: Fully God, fully man; one person, two natures. These speak not only of the holy grammar of theology, but also of tensions within the human experience, or even the experience of all creation.

St. Maximus once pondered certain “divisions”:

– the division of created nature from the uncreated God;
– within creation, the division between visible and invisible;
– within the visible creation, that between heaven and earth;
– within the earthly creation, that between paradise and the inhabited world;
– within the inhabited world, that between male and female.

Our lives are filled with tensions – dynamic oppositions that are reconciled in love (and likely only through love). These tensions are presented with full display in the Incarnation of Christ. The stories of His ancestry are marked with conflicts unresolved yet taken up into the greater story that is reconciliation.

This greater story dwells among us in the life of the Church – humanity gathered into Christ.

“Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:18–20)

A large part of our life is marked by tensions, both outside ourselves and within. On the Sundays of the Ancestors, we remember that generations of tension have been met in Christ in the single act of reconciliation. Forgive one another. Be reconciled.

 

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

65 responses to “When Your Ancestors Came to Church”

  1. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    It’s interesting that Maximus notes a division in the earthly creation, “between paradise and the inhabited world.” I wonder if the inhabited world symboliz s the mind. Paradise is that silent land beyond the mind found sometimes in prayer. I just think it would seem strange if he took “paradise” literally, as in literal garden somewhere in the Middle East.

  2. Deacon Nicholas Avatar
    Deacon Nicholas

    Thank you, Father.
    I heard from an Orthodox priest who is an OT scholar that the “sin” that St. Paul says Christ became can be translated as “sin offering.”

  3. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Owen,

    As a matter of personal understanding, I think of the heart as the garden and the outward turn of the psyche as “outside the garden.” We have have a constraint that makes exteriority something of a captivity. Human experience seems to be defaulted to one of fragmentation, alienation, and dis-integration. In my limited understanding, metanoia is turning the attention inwardly and returning to the garden time and time again. If we are not mindful of this returning of the attention to the heart we just default back into a state of forgetfully living in an outwardly attending manner. We become dominated by sensory experience and ego.

  4. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    How much of my father exists in me? My grandfather? My great grandfather?

  5. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Matthew,
    Imho, they exist in you fully and completely. They live on through you, within this worldly cycle of death and rebirth, until we awaken, as one, in the Resurrection. Somehow, you inherit their struggles and victories. It’s so much more than DNA, I think…

  6. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Deacon Nicholas,
    I can find no reason nor support to translate it in that manner. Indeed, it breaks up the flow of the sentence and introduces something that occurs nowhere else (as a usage) in the NT. I’ll add an observation. At the heart of this verse is the “great exchange,” that “God became what we are that we might become what He is.” This is at the heart of Orthodox teaching. The reduction of “harmatia” in that verse to “sin offering” destroys that entire sense, and risks introducing penal substitutionary thought (payment system) where none is implied. This approach has aspects of the sort of work found in Reform Bibilical studies, and may have played a role in influencing the suggestion that you noted.

  7. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    I take St Maximus to be positing a paradise somewhere – that it need not be “in this world.” But I don’t think there’s a need to render it with a symbolic meaning. St. Basil has us falling “out of paradise into this world.” But, also, all of this has an inner meaning as well, I think.

  8. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    The whole of them.

  9. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen, Simon, et al
    I would draw our attention to the larger context of St. Maximus’ thought (lest we get distracted by the details). That context is neo-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. The hallmark of that (and of Orthodoxy to this day), is holding these “tensions” without trying to overcome one or the other. I think the temptation, even in the spiritual life, is to seek to swallow up and silence one or the other.

    For example, on inner and outer concerns, we must pay attention to the heart, but we still have to be able to walk down the street. But if our attention is given only to the outer, then we lose even the reason to walk anywhere.

    It is this “tension” that I had in mind in invoking St. Maximus’ distinctions.

  10. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Father,
    Forgive me, but I bristle at the thought of a final duality. (I don’t think that’s what you’re saying, though.) When God becomes “all in all,” would you agree that the result will be a marriage, a union in which the two become one flesh and one spirit?

  11. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    The teaching is never a unity in which there is no distinction. That is a clear fundamental in the doctrine of the Trinity. A union without distinction would be demonic as in one absorbing or devouring the other. That’s not love.

    Our unity is like that of the Son and the Father…”that they may be one even as We are one.”

  12. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    You use the word duality which presupposes an opposition. There is no duality in God, but there is a unity that is not a disappearance.

  13. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thanks Owen and Fr. Stephen.

  14. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Thank you, Father Stephen.

  15. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Fr. Stephen,

    I think that the idea of tension is deeply underappreciated. Tension is where growth happens. Branches grow toward sunlight but roots grow toward the earth. I had a friend with whom I used to go tarp camping on rivers in Missouri and he used to say that the strength of his tarps came from the tension of opposing forces. Velocity balances gravitational attraction in planetary motion and electromagnetic attraction in atoms.

    Might there be something like kenotic tension: tension created through kenosis but not involving dualistic opposition?

    Regarding your thought about the inner/outer and walking down the street. I had two verses in mind:

    John 10:9,10: “I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.” I see in this a kenotic tension between inwardness and outwardness in the spiritual life.

    Luke 11:33: “No one, when he has lit a lamp, puts it in a secret place or under a basket, but on a lampstand, that those who enter may see the light.” This places ‘seeing the light’ with the inwardness of entering into the house.

  16. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Simon,
    I like this. It made me think of St. Sophrony’s, “The way up is the way down.”

    The language of Chalcedon has this about the two natures in Christ: Jesus is “one and the same Christ…acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation.” I’m not sure I’m correct in using the term “tension” – but there is in this doctrinal statement a refusal to obliterate the distinction into something else.

    I think also about love and marriage. They are a dance (a favorite image for me). When I imagine a dance I think of a circle. Both are necessary in such a movement. Their clinging to one another overcomes the centrifugal force of their spinning. Alone, we simply spin and fall down.

    Thanks again.

  17. Ook Avatar
    Ook

    Father,
    Linking this to your previous essay about the soul, would it be wrong to say that we are nothing but the sum total of our “tensions” (the spiritual inheritance of our direct ancestors, and ancestral communities?). And then “you” or “I” are verbs, patterns of habit energy to be resolved through prayer, etc?

  18. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Ook,
    By no means. I think we are more than that. We are human persons – and a person is more than patterns of habit energy.

  19. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Ook,

    Brother, I appreciate what you said, and I want to be clear at the outset: Fr. Stephen is correct. I’m not challenging his point.

    What I find compelling in your comment is that it highlights the dynamic nature of being human. It echoes Ryan’s observation about the Cree language—at least as I understood it—which seems to emphasize life not as a fixed state but as something continually in motion, something enacted rather than possessed.

    From a neuroscience perspective, this makes deep sense. Neural patterns in the brain are not static structures; they are sustained through ongoing cycles of excitation and inhibition. Stability emerges precisely from this tension. The brain remains coherent not by eliminating instability, but by managing it through dynamic plasticity.

    This strikes me as a very old insight. Daoism articulates it clearly: the tension between Yin and Yang is not a dualistic opposition where one must defeat the other. Rather, their interplay is the necessary condition for life itself. Remove the tension, and you don’t get harmony—you get collapse. The Greeks expressed something similar through the four elements, whose balance was never static but always contingent and responsive.

    That’s why I find Fr. Stephen’s emphasis on tension so intriguing. It suggests that human flourishing is not about resolving tension once and for all, but about inhabiting it rightly. There is wisdom here, both ancient and contemporary, that deserves to be taken seriously.

  20. Margaret Sarah Avatar
    Margaret Sarah

    Father,

    What is a person? In a previous article you referenced personhood as a “organizing principle”. I recently read the Freedom of Morality. Yannaras’s insistence of the priority of person (before nature) was challenging and thought provoking. But I’m still not sure what a person is. My mind is much to caught up in assuming that personhood is tied to “will” and “control” and “decision” – things that imply mutability.

  21. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Margaret Sarah,
    Yannaras is an interesting thinker, but relies a fair amount on Western existentialist notions rather than classical Orthodox thought (at least that’s my take on him). That’s not necessarily a disqualifier – but I thought it brought certain problems with it.

    It’s worth noting that it’s not at all obvious what is meant by the term “person.” It’s more than “unique individual.” Indeed, the term doesn’t come into much usage at all until Christian theology began to wrestle with Trinitarian and Christological understanding. It has contributed profoundly to the notions that underpin modern thoughts on human dignity.

    A number of the Fathers made the distinction between “human being” (man) and “Peter or Paul”) that is “person” (prosopon), It is an all-emcompassing term rather than an aspect (will, intellect, etc.). It is an answer to the question, “Who are you?”

    I’ve thought we could call it our “who-ness” but we’d all laugh too much.

    St. Sophrony sees “person” as a sort of psychological movement in which we are “not yet what we shall be.” He reserves the term “hypostasis” (a Patristic term used for “person”) for the “who” that we are becoming. It is a fullness that is very difficult to describe.

    CS Lewis once said that if we saw a saint in heaven, our first instinct would be to fall down and worship them. Hypostatic life is a fullness that seems godlike.

  22. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Are there “persons” other than divine and human ones?

  23. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    I think “tensions” do have their (relative) place. But the nature of things seems always to gravitate toward integration. On this point, I believe Hegel was correct.

  24. Ook Avatar
    Ook

    Father,
    If a person is not just inherited tension (and not just “energy habits”), but rather, the one who bears it, and is responsible for it; then the soul, which is that place beyond me to stand and wonder, is the ground of responsible freedom.
    But still, all this is honestly beyond me.

    Simon,
    I believe that your neuroscience analogy describes the “burden” well, as a stable pattern of managed tensions.

  25. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Owen said:

    “I think “tensions” do have their (relative) place. But the nature of things seems always to gravitate toward integration. On this point, I believe Hegel was correct.”

    I know someone who talks a lot about the inner tension(s) they suffer from. They describe these tensions as different manifestations of their personhood; as different inner voices competing for their attention.

    I would like to hear more about integration, because on the surface it appears that integration of these tensions might mean healing for this person since they view these inner tensions as painful for them.

  26. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    I do not know of any – I don’t know how to think about angels in that regard. I do believe, however, that there are creatures that “verge” on being persons. Animals, like dogs, particularly as pets, seem to take on some characteristics that I think are more than just projections. There is some thought I’ve encountered that sees our relationships with them as participating in “raising” them towards personhood. But, just speculation.

  27. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew, Ook, et al

    On “tensions” and such. I do not think we resolve these things by understanding them (I even doubt that it’s possible – as Ook notes – it’s beyond me as well).

    Rather, I believe that the “tensions” are resolved in and through love. This is the gospel in its purest and most simple form. “God is love and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God…etc.”

    And so, we rightly seek to extend ourselves, in some measure, to others in love. That is “doing the next good thing.”

  28. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Thanks for that response, Fr. Stephen. I’ve heard some Orthodox define “person,” divine or human, as an individual center of consciousness. Dumitru Staniloae does this, and I find it unfortunate. From what I know, this is merely a modern understanding. I would define “person” in terms of the ancient, more ambiguous usage, which gives it a wider application. I would love to hear your thoughts.

    In my understanding, a person is the essential way that a nature achieves its full existence. Every nature is always and already personal and hypostatic by its intrinsic orientation. Indeed, a nature is capable of actuality only in and as personhood.

    The person (hypostasis) is not something additional to the nature but is, instead, nothing other than the actualization of that nature. Thus, because the divine and human natures have the same intrinsic orientation toward personhood, they can become fully actual in and as the same person, Jesus Christ.

    A modern analogy that may help to explain this is the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics. This implies that a “person” is the event or reality that collapses a set of potentials (the nature) into a concrete, actual existence (the person).

    Does any of that conflict with Orthodox dogmatics? Thanks again.

  29. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    I think it is not contrary to Orthodox dogmatics…but, is perhaps too easily able to be collapsed. My one critique is that it speaks too easily about divine nature. Divine Nature is opaque to us. We cannot know God in His ousia. So, I would rephrase the language regarding that with some sort of qualifier – as in “perhaps it is the case that…

    St. Dumitru, I think, was simply being a bit practical in his definition of person.

    Again, the point of any of this is to love – nothing less. There can be no “actualization” other than through love.

  30. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    How can I become a truly human person?

  31. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    It is straightforward:
    “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

    Our “becoming fully human” is no different than our transfiguration into the image of Christ.

  32. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thanks Fr. Stephen.

  33. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    There is a real sense in which the concepts of “nature” and “person” were far more fully articulated in Greek philosophy than in other ancient cultures, and these categories decisively shaped how the Church Fathers formulated Trinitarian and Christological doctrine. I sometimes wonder how those doctrines might have been articulated had the surrounding culture been Daoist or Buddhist, since the substance-based metaphysical framework inherited from Greek philosophy, later refined by Neoplatonism, would not have been available in the same form. That does not mean other cultures lacked ways of thinking about unity and plurality, but that different conceptual tools would have raised different questions in the effort to confess how Jesus is both fully God and fully man.

    Daoism famously resists dogmatic definition. The opening of the Dao De Jing warns that whatever can be said about the Dao must not be confused with the Dao as it is in itself, grounding Daoist thought in a radical humility before ultimate reality. In a different key, this resonates with the Orthodox insistence on the unknowability of God’s essence. Yet in Christianity, the pressures of heresy and the concrete claims of the Incarnation compelled the Fathers to make distinctions they might otherwise have left implicit—not to exhaust the mystery, but to safeguard it.

    So what’s the point? In ordinary Christian life, most of us are not called to hunt heretics or police metaphysical precision. Dogmatic definitions arose because they had to, not because the Church prefers abstraction. Outside of those moments of crisis, it is often better to leave the mystery intact. The faith is meant to be prayed, lived, and received, not constantly analyzed. Definition safeguards the truth when it is threatened; it is not the normal posture of belief.

  34. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Simon,
    It’s worth noting that the Fathers borrowed terms from earlier Greek philosophers, but refined them to their own use… And as discussion and debate followed in the wake of the Councils themselves, continued to refine them. Thus, we had seven councils that we consider “ecumenical,” and lots of discussion as well, all of which has to be considered when we ponder the terms as the Church uses them.

    Best of all, I think, is that we sing the dogmas in the services. My six months, late last year and early this year, serving in a Greek parish where the full text of Matins was sung each Sunday (in Greek, mostly) with a parallel column in English (crib sheet for Anglo’s like me) were a theological feast. It’s stern reminder that to comprehend (relatively) the use of the terms – they must be sung in poetic style with incense floating in the air, as the visage of the Pantocrator looks down from the dome and the Theotokos, with the Child in her womb, extends her arms to heaven leading our praises – together with the angels and all the saints.

    Sing, ye heavens, for the Lord hath done it!

  35. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Matthew,
    Concerning inner tensions: I’ve heard it said that the integration begins to occur when we realize that the opposing inner voices – e.g. pleasure and pain, sin and sanctification, etc. – are actually upheld (and made relative) by a more spacious interior ground.

    In this “silent land,” we learn not to identify with the passing voices, but instead find our true identity in union with God’s silent Word. Such detachment is a balm of peace…even though the ephemeral “voices” still come and go. I hope that helps.

  36. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Simon said:

    “Outside of those moments of crisis, it is often better to leave the mystery intact. The faith is meant to be prayed, lived, and received, not constantly analyzed. Definition safeguards the truth when it is threatened; it is not the normal posture of belief.”

    Man did I need to hear this. Thanks Simon.

  37. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    What do you mean by spacious interior ground, Owen?

  38. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    I don´t understand why a lot of people have problems that the Fathers used Greek ideas to formulate key Christian doctrines. What else could they have done?

  39. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    Indeed. They could have failed.

    I believe that the timing of the Incarnation was precise: “in the fullness of times” as St. Luke has it. It was a time when the Mediterranean world, especially on it streets, spoke Greek. It was a time when a language of genius and possibility was at hand, with its own “fullness” of preparation ready for the gospel. If anyone reads the Neo-Platonists and the Stoics, it’s quite clear that they hungered for the gospel (without yet knowing it). It is not uncommon to see icons of the Greek philosophers depicted alongside the OT prophets in certain Orthodox settings. They are not honored as saints in the Church, but they are rightly held in honor.

    What there is, however, was a Protestant (particularly German Protestant academics) diatribe against Rome (and the Orthodox) in which the use of Greek terms was seen as corrupting the purity of some make-believe early Jewish Christianity that, strangely, was quite protestant. That’s a myth and a lie. But like anti-semitism, it’s a myth and a lie that has persisted in various ways.

    St. Paul quotes both Greek philosophers and Greek poets in his preaching of the gospel.

  40. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Matthew,
    It’s a metaphor for the true self, somehow beyond the mind’s capacity for self-identification (ego).

  41. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Owen,

    I’ve been turning over the idea of a “true self” understood as hypostasis for some time now. My hope has been that, if I were to pose this question to the Chalcedonian Fathers, and that my intuitions would recognizable within their framework. Frankly, I don’t know what a “true self” amounts to apart from something like this. When people speak freely about who they “really are on the inside,” the language often strikes me as too vague to carry much weight. At best, it seems to gesture toward the heart and the mystery of the human person that resides there. Poetic and symbolically rich, certainly, but still too vague for my taste.

    Why appeal specifically to the Chalcedonian Fathers and their understanding of hypostasis? Why not some other metaphysical account? Because, as I see it, the way that the Chalcedonians framed the idea of the hypostasis provides the clearest lens through which the scriptural witness to theosis can be seen in its full depth. Christ’s prayer in John 17 is hard to ignore here: that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You…I in them, and You in Me. This is not loose metaphor or devotional excess. It is a precise claim about unity.

    The real question is how such unity is to be understood without collapse or confusion. This is precisely where the Chalcedonian Fathers prove indispensable. The same conceptual grammar used to speak coherently about the hypostases of the Trinity is what allows us to speak meaningfully about human participation in the divine life. Without that grammar, talk of the “self” tends to drift either into sentimentality or abstraction. With it, the self becomes something far more concrete, demanding, and worth taking seriously.

  42. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Simon,
    Precisely. And well put. That “development” (refinement) in language allowed Orthodoxy to continue to speak ever more deeply about the spiritual life without admixture or confusion. Many “mystical” systems speak of union – but do so with a loss of self. A real danger where such boundaries are not respected, even at the most fundamental level, violate the most fundamental dignity of the human person.

    In St. Andrew of Crete’s Great Canon, he prays (we pray) not to become the “food of demons.” In our own lives, nothing is more demonic than the violation of the psychic boundaries (and physical) of another human being. It is what love never does. It is what anti-love always does. “He was a murderer from the beginning.”

    Sorry to jump into the conversation.

  43. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Simon,
    Thank you kindly for the dialogue. You raise important issues, and I would like to respond with my own reading of the matter. Thanks to Fr. Stephen as well for generously providing the space to discuss these things, even when we disagree.

    My understanding of the “Chalcedonian Definition” is that it created both solutions and concerns. While Chalcedon was correct, it seems to me, in its intent, the metaphysical dualism used since then to explain it has led to contradictions. For instance, the traditional post-Chalcedonian view often treats the divine and human natures as two separate “things,” distinct substances in tension with one another that are somehow united in one person. This creates a mechanistic Christology that makes it difficult to understand how Christ is truly one. If God and humanity are seen as two different kinds of being that occupy the same space, Christ becomes a metaphysical hybrid rather than a single living reality.

    However, perhaps human nature is not a separate thing from divine nature, but rather a finite expression, or “idiom,” of the divine.

    When St Paul quotes the Greek poet Aratus, saying, “For we are indeed his offspring” (Greek: tou gar kai genos esmen), this isn’t a mere metaphor for “belonging” to God, but a statement about our ontological identity. The word “genos” (offspring/kind/race) implies that humanity is not a “separate thing” existing independently of God. Rather, humanity is “of the same kind” as God, but in a specific sense: we are the “finite expression” of the divine life. If we are God’s genos, there is a deep, inherent continuity between the human and the divine. We do not have a life of our own that is added to God through creation; rather, our life just is a participation in His. To be “offspring” is to be a direct “out-flowing” or “radiation” of the divine source.

    Instead of leaving the union of natures as an impenetrable paradox (as many do), perhaps the human and divine should be conceived of as fundamentally of the same ontological fabric. In this way, humanity is seen as the “natural” capacity for God to express Himself. Thus, the more human Christ becomes, the more He reveals God; and the more of God He reveals, the more perfectly human He is. This means that human nature is not “foreign” to God. Our very existence is already an expression of the divine Logos. Therefore, when the Logos becomes human, He isn’t “entering” something outside Himself; He is becoming the perfection of His own created expression.

    In sum, We are not a separate species from the divine life, but a finite mode of its eternal expression. And this forms the ground of the Incarnation: God becoming man is only possible because we are already God’s offspring, His genus. If there were no antecedent “kinship” between the divine and human, the two could never truly become one in Christ.

  44. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    Oh my, we do disagree! I would say that what you’ve expressed is a treatment that was available to the Fathers – but clearly is not their teaching. I do not think that the Chalcedonian definition, and its developments creates a “mechanistic Christology.” Christ is one in that He is One Person. But I’m not going to belabor all of this – I think it would be fairly futile.

    This explanation of yours, however, clarifies somewhat your tendency to be driven towards a kind of unity that I find problematic. It is not Orthodoxy.

    A difficulty in such a discussion comes in that all of us would be standing on the slippery ground of speculative metaphysics. Your assertion of “mechanistic” is just an assertion, not a point, not an argument. It’s why I work with an understanding of the “grammar” of Orthodoxy – a manner of speaking of dogmatic matters. It might well lead to points of an “impenetrable paradox” but that, it seems to me, to be far better than creating systems of self-satisfaction.

    Orthodoxy has a lived history that presents the track-record of its teaching. I’ll live with paradox.

  45. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen and Simon,
    Owen says, “Thanks to Fr. Stephen…for generously providing space to discuss these things…”

    It is inevitably the case that the space I provide is not only “on the blog” but “in my head,” in that I must read and do whatever moderation is necessary for the essential work of the blog. I apologize in that I do not think I can continue to provide space for this discussion. It takes me into speculative spaces that I do not wish to inhabit – it’s exhausting for me.

    Let’s just let this drop. Again, I’ll be glad to provide whatever emails are requested (with permission) to allow the conversation to take place “off blog,” but I simply cannot do it here.

    This conversation is beyond my gifts. And I’ll leave it at that, with my apologies.

  46. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    No apology needed, Father, at least on my account. Thanks again. I’d be glad to discuss this further with anyone off blog.

  47. Margaret Sarah Avatar
    Margaret Sarah

    Father,

    I know I’m jumping in here, and feel free to delete this comment if it’s taking the conversation in a wrong direction. These thoughts on unity and love strike to the core of a great fear – that knowledge is not really possible. I often seem to like quibbling over abstract theories, but they don’t seem abstract to me. Either unity and love are real possibilities, or they are not. This has immediate, material significance.

    Owen said: “Humanity is not a ‘separate thing’ existing independently of God.” Is that, at least, correct? I recently reread your article on Pentecost, how the Church is eternal. Is there a sense that the Church is “bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh”? Something about the unity that Owen describes doesn’t harmonize with what I understand of Christ, but I’m very ignorant and can’t point exactly to where it differs. I am not versed in the grammar of Chalcedon to articulate it.

    Owen,

    Do you think something could be “other” and yet not “foreign, alien, un-natural”? It seems to me that a finite expression/mode of the Eternal, however perfectly iconic of the prototype, would still in some sense exist differently. A personal union of the Eternal with Finitude is, indeed, an impenetrable mystery (intellectually). I’m not sure if there is any way to approach such a mystery other than personally, within our own finitude.

  48. Margaret Sarah Avatar
    Margaret Sarah

    Father,

    I posted that last post before I saw your last post come through. Let’s do drop it. I think I have Owen’s email if we want to continue the discussion off-blog.

  49. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Margaret Sarah,
    Aspects of the conversation remind me of 2 people lying in a field wondering out loud, “Wouldn’t it be interesting if…” and those sorts of conversations have their place and their value. One of the reasons I am an Orthodox Christian is that I wanted something more than my own speculation (or somebody else’s). St. Maximus, for example, lost a hand and his tongue for confessing and defending the Orthodox faith as expressed in the Council of Chalcedon (4th Ecumenical). He was obviously later vindicated and honored among our greatest saints. His spiritual children are the many teachers of Orthodoxy.

    I take it to be axiomatic that I am not God. That St. Paul can quote “we are all His offspring” has never in the life of the Church (in its official teachings) been taken to mean “I have the same ontological essence as God.” Indeed, St. Sophrony in our own time roundly condemned such an idea…it’s sort of Eastern mysticism rather than Christian Orthodoxy. The Incarnation which we celebrate in the Feast of the Nativity would be just another case of one more finite little bit of the essence of God coming among us: we are all little Christs (by essence were this the case). Whatever that is – it’s not the Orthodox faith. Were I lying in a field and it were proposed the me, I might reply, “hmmm.” But, St. Maximus, and the teachers of the faith took such things more seriously…even to the point of dying.

    I don’t live on the level of Chalcedon, let alone St. Maximus. It’s probably one reason why I cannot manage the blog space to shepherd such a conversation. I try to live on the level of incarnate Christianity – the Eucharist – the needs of an injured or broken brother or sister – the honest questions of those seeking salvation.

    I spent 20 years of my life as an Anglican priest. There were, effectively, no guardrails, no theological grammar. Everything was speculation, toleration, etc. It was sort of a Burger King Christianity: “Have it your way.” It’s errors multiplied over and over. It’s Churches are emptying everywhere. It is the dying Church of a dead empire (Britain). I cannot express the emptiness of my soul as all of that became ever more clear for me.

    Orthodoxy in the modern world is something else. I gladly stand and speak and write within its grammar – and try to keep my sentences simple enough that I can still parse them.

    A fundamental part of that grammar is “We are not God.” As one old AA member said, “The only thing you need to know about God is that you’re not Him.” We say, “He became what we are that we might become what He is…” a sentence rendered meaningless if we’re already of His essence. Or, no doubt, the sentence could be interpreted in such a way to give it a new meaning congruent with that new language. One of the things I learned among the Anglicans is that old words can be made to say anything. Theology is fungible.

    As an Orthodox priest, I want my words to mean what the words of the Fathers have meant – no more, no less. That is the brief I was given in submitting to ordination.

    Thanks for everyone’s patience.

  50. Margaret Sarah Avatar
    Margaret Sarah

    “I try to live on the level of incarnate Christianity – the Eucharist – the needs of an injured or broken brother or sister – the honest questions of those seeking salvation.”

    Thank you, Father. I suspect you do precisely that – as far as can be perceived through the blog. It’s what I see replicated in the practice of the Church. If the Incarnation is truth, it is truth that “abides” in the life of the Church. Not as applied theory, but as reality.

  51. Al Avatar
    Al

    Father,
    In your reply to Margaret Sarah you said you thought of calling our person “our who-ness”.
    My first thought was of the Grinch who stole Christmas. Everyone in the village was a “Who from Who-ville”. Perhaps Dr Seuss was really saying something in naming them that. The Who’s were giving thanks and singing while the grinch was miserable and not his true self.
    I like “Who-ness”.

  52. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Fr. Stephen, Owen,

    For me the question regarding identity, selfhood, and hypostasis has never been intellectual. It has always been existential.

    Because of trauma I have suffered I have found myself with dramatic alterations in my states of consciousness–not DID. Sometimes the changes happen fiercely over the course of moments and frequently over the course of a day. They are extremely disorienting. I have had audible and visual hallucinations that were deeply disturbing. Dreams at night that were violent and felt like their own kind of trauma. Then in liturgy I would have these beautiful experiences. There were times where the smoke from the incense glowed–it was glowing and I could see the light shining on the surfaces and people around it. I so bad wanted to ask if anyone else was seeing this, but I was afraid. And the peace that come to me, the feeling of being clean, would bring me to tears. AND then I would wonder “Is this just one more type of hallucination that my mind is capable of subjecting me too?” I just would collapse under the possibility that all I was doing was just choosing which hallucination to live with. I felt betrayed by it all because it was so confusing.

    At the heart of it all was the question “Who am I really?” Which of the altered and confused states of consciousness is closest to who I really am? Maybe consciousness itself is the illusion. Maybe it is the problem. But, if I agree to that, then what am I saying about my life?

    For me the idea of the hypostasis as the consummation of theosis appealed to me. St. Sophrony’s ideas about psychological creatures as proto-hypostatic resonated with my fragmented experience. Apart from theosis and fullness of hypostasis the psychological dimension is easily scattered–it is an unmoored boat at sea. Like when the disciples were at sea in the storm. The psychological experience was never meant to be unmoored from hypostatic fullness.

    When my son came along the answers that I was seeking for myself were no longer for my own existential concern, but were now seen through the lens of fatherhood. What am I going to say to my son about identity, selfhood, and hypostasis? In fact, all my theological concerns now pass through the lens of being a father. If it doesn’t make enough sense to pass on to my son, then I let it go. Even the discussion on tensions in earlier threads are thoughts that I have with respect to my son and what to say to him about life.

    Through it all 36-72 hour fasts have brought me more sanity, stability, and integration than medication ever did. I am not poopooing medication at all, but there’s a relationship between the body and the mind that deserves exploring that the ascetics figured out thousands of years ago.

  53. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Father,
    You wrote:
    That St. Paul can quote “we are all His offspring” has never in the life of the Church (in its official teachings) been taken to mean “I have the same ontological essence as God.”

    With respect, I did not say that. There are, perhaps, some incorrect assumptions being made here about the view I articulated. In short, it is not pantheistic.

  54. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    It seems to me to be a nuanced pantheism. But, if not, that’s the problem when the conversation moves outside the boundaries established within the grammar of Orthodox theology (on an Orthodox blog).

    But, forgive me for misunderstanding or for misconstruing.

  55. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Father,
    I understand what you’re saying about Orthodox grammar; please forgive me in that regard.

    I see it as a form of panentheism, fwiw.

  56. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    It would seem to me that you are suggesting, in some manner, that we are homoousios (of one essence) with God. Again, what you have stated, particularly in its refusal of Chalcedonian grammar, has its own problems – such that panentheism becomes pantheism – we are some form of extension of the being of God. What Chalcedon struggled to maintain was a language that properly treats the distinction of human and divine. Without it, things tend to collapse.

    FWIW, Chalcedon is not a minor point in Orthodoxy. It is at its very heart.

  57. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Father,
    I do believe in the distinction of the human and divine. The “otherness” is real, but it just isn’t “outside” of God. It is a distinction within the infinite fullness of God’s own life.

    God is Infinite being, while we are participated being (“In Him we live… and have our being”). Using the analogy of the Sun and its light: we are the light (the offspring), and God is the Sun (the source). We are one with the light, yet the Source remains transcendently “above” and “beyond” us. The Incarnation is the unique event where the “Source” (the Logos) and the “Reflection” (humanity) become perfectly identical in a single Person.

    I hope this help to dissolve the spectre of pantheism, which I consider an error. Either way, Father, from now on I will give more attention to Orthodox grammar when commenting. Thank you for your patience with me.

  58. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Fr. Stephen said:

    “I try to live on the level of incarnate Christianity – the Eucharist – the needs of an injured or broken brother or sister – the honest questions of those seeking salvation.”

    The honest questions of those seeking salvation …..

    At work today, an older co-worker began sharing with a young co-worker his thoughts about what happens after death. He muttered something about we will all see one another on the other side, on another planet, in the form of some sort of galactic substance. Part of me thinks because this older co-worker knows I am a Christian (and he is not) he likes to start these kinds of conversations when I am around to attempt to get under my skin. I sat there quietly though I really wanted to say something.

    What could I say really? He doesn´t have honest questions in my opinion. I don´t think he is seeking salvation. He is not seeking the Eucharist. His dialogue seemed to have the quality of a “lying in the field wondering” kind of vibe. I am glad that I didn´t open my mouth for a change.

  59. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Hello Simon.

    I have been attempting to explain to someone close to me who suffers from trauma and mental illness what you often share about the psychological dimension as it relates to the hypostatic.

    My question is:

    Does addressing the psychological dimension play any kind of role in a person´s healing? I suppose on some level it does, but one must go deeper. No?

  60. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Matthew,

    Please, do not share what you hear from me here with anyone in order to help them.

    What I share here is embedded in an Orthodox space moderated by Fr. Stephen. Outside of this space there what I share can be easily misunderstood. Anyone reading the blog can speak to Fr. Stephen and he is free to delete my comments or let them stand. I only share my story—to this blog—in order to underscore how tricky these things can be in real life, and at extremes.

    As far as what to do? Go deeper? I honestly don’t have a clue. I mean that sincerely.

  61. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    I’ll offer a brief thought on your question: the psychological dimension is pretty much where all of us live. St. Sophrony said that this is where most people will dwell all their lives. What he described as the hypostatic is far more rare – a result of grace and the ascetic life. I think that we have glimpses of it, nonetheless. So, addressing the psychological dimension is very important – it’s paying attention to what’s in front of us.

    For myself, I can say that over the course of better than 50 years, I’ve seen a lot of healing in the psychological dimension of my life – but not that I would proclaim myself to be healed. I’m still a bit neurotic about some things – I still battle with shame at certain times, etc. It is said in the Desert Fathers that prayer is a struggle to a man’s dying breath.

    I have great peace about all of this, however. Whatever I endure, I endure in Christ. The work of Christ within us is far greater and deeper than we can know. “For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory,”
    (2 Corinthians 4:17). I believe that work is frequently opaque, hidden from sight. And so I give thanks.

  62. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Dear Simon,

    I am so sorry if I in any way upset you. Understood. I find much of what you say very valuable and helpful, but in the future I´ll simply direct people to this blog space for further information.

    Thanks so much Fr. Stephen. I wish you both sincerely a very pleasant and healthy Christmas season.

  63. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Matthew,

    No worries, and I am not upset at all. Not in the least. But, I also wanted to be clear. If something I say about my experience helps you or challenges you. Good! You are operating within an Orthodox framework which means you are very likely to receive it in the manner in which it was intended. Keep asking good questions!

  64. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thanks so much Simon.

  65. Brigid / Kathleen Keating Avatar
    Brigid / Kathleen Keating

    Thank you, Fr. Stephen, for your beautiful pieces. I’ve been receiving them for over a year now but have never really read them until this week. Now I’m binging on them. The one that really touched my heart was “I’ll be small for Christmas.” I intend to send that to my family and friends. Some of what you say is a little hard for me to understand but I’m working through it and trying my best. It’s just my human mind that doesn’t grasp it all. I’m at a time in my life where those I love are dying. It has brought me closer to Our Lord and my God. I am grateful for that and for your writings. May your Christmas be blessed and filled with peace and love for one another.
    Yours in Christ,
    Brigid

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 Dee. I appreciate your words.

  2. Great article, congratulations. I am an iconographer, and I appreciate your words; you have described the icon wonderfully.

  3. …the audio on this one is better: https://youtu.be/VjWxkUEJkqs?si=wPCo7-4JFT2eutwv

  4. Matthew, beloved brother, I should add that while we might not argue to proselytise, we’re notorious for arguing amongst ourselves!

  5. If you’re interested, here’s a link to the poem “the Monk and the Rose” on YouTube from which those lines…


Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast



Categories


Archives