Of Whom I Am First

In the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, it is customary for a prayer to be offered by all who are coming to receive communion. I quote a portion:

I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who camest into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first.

Of course the prayer is a reference to St. Paul’s self-definition as the “chief of sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15). It is a confession made by all the faithful, gathered before the Holy Cup, everyone confessing to be the first among sinners. It would be easy to take such a statement as an example of pious excess – overstating the case of our sinfulness. Were that so it would be a travesty within the Liturgy – which exists to lead us into all Truth and to give us the gift of True Life. Such life is not grasped by uttering pious nonsense. Thus, we must accept the confession as actually what it says. How is it that I am the first of sinners?  We could assume that the language is a claim to be worse than all other sinners. But how is a comparison to be made between sin and sin? Some will say that murder is by far worse than stealing or lying – and perhaps take comfort by saying, “At least I’m not a murderer.” But this is only an echo of the prayer of the Pharisee who thanked God that he was “not like other men” particularly the Publican standing nearby (Luke 18:11).

The confession, “of whom I am first,” is not an exercise in comparative morality – but an exercise in humility and true contrition before God. Dostoevsky’s famous character, the Elder Zosima, speaks of “each man being guilty of everything and for all.” The mystery of inquity, spoken of in Scripture, is just that – a mystery. Our involvement in sin is itself mysterious. Our culture has made of sin either a moral failing, and thus a legal category, or a psychological problem to be treated as guilt. Both are sad caricatures of the reality and neither image allows us to say, “Of sinners I am first.” Morality would reassure us that we have not done as much as others and would leave us as unjustified Pharisees. Some would assuage our guilt by warning us that such feelings are bad for us.

But the Church insists that we stand together with St. Paul and join in his unique confession.

I prefer to understand the prayer in the terms used by the Elder Zosima, whose thoughts are largely derived from St. Tikhon of Zadonsk. My solidarity with every sinner is such that I cannot separate myself as better or in no way responsible for the sins of another. Again words of Elder Zosima:

Remember especially that you cannot be the judge of anyone. For there can be no judge of a criminal on earth until the judge knows that he, too, is a criminal, exactly the same as the one who stands before him, and that he is perhaps most guilty of all for the crime of the one standing before him. When he understands this, then he will be able to be a judge. However mad that may seem, it is true. For if I myself were righteous, perhaps there would be no criminal standing before me now.

Of course, we live in societies where we frequently make distinctions between the good and the bad, the moral and the immoral. And there are truly people who behave in an evil manner that stuns our ability to understand. And yet we share a common life as human beings and every effort to deny its reality pushes us ever further down the road of pride, envy, blame, and every form of hatred.

Thus there is no way forward other than that of forgiveness – and a forgiveness which is in the image of Christ. Christ took upon Himself the sins of the world – indeed, in the raw language of St. Paul:

[God] made Him to be sin who knew no sin, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21).

If we refuse our commonality with the Christ who Himself was “made sin,” then how can we claim our commonality with Him in the righteousness of God? And if we accept that commonality – then with St. Paul we can also confess ourselves “of sinners to be the first.” The forgiveness of God that is given to us is not a forgiveness which made itself aloof or estranged from us, even though He was without sin. How can we who are sinners then set ourselves above other sinners? The way of forgiveness is inherently a way of solidarity.

“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” is certainly the word of a gracious God. It is also the cry of a Man who yielded Himself to utter solidarity with us all.

About Fr. Stephen Freeman

Fr. Stephen is a retired Archpriest of the Orthodox Church in America, Pastor Emeritus of St. Anne Orthodox Church in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 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

107 responses to “Of Whom I Am First”

  1. Paul Hughes Avatar

    I always want to spell Zosima with two ‘s’ – es, as well.

  2. John Mark Lamb Avatar
    John Mark Lamb

    Father Stephen, I think I understand that we stand in solidarity with everyone as “sinners to be the first” so there is no ground for moral superiority. But, what of the category of a behavior that is considered a crime and not just a sin, of which we are all guilty? What does forgiveness of a crime look like when one must face its consequences?

  3. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    John Mark,
    To my mind, it looks like reconciliation with God. The thief on the Cross received forgiveness, “in a single moment,” though his crucifixion continued to the end. And so it is with us in many circumstances – even some outside of “criminal.”

  4. Fr David Gilchrist Avatar
    Fr David Gilchrist

    Wow, Father!
    That is powerful.
    Thank you so much!

  5. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Fixing it…thanks for the head’s up

  6. Michelle Avatar
    Michelle

    Beautiful. Thank you so much <3

    If I'm not mistaken, to forgive means to approach in a spirit of self-sacrifice. To "give" yourself be-"fore" it's even asked. So my response to John's question is that we must all bear the punishment for the crimes of all. In this way, we become the body of Christ.

    I'm not saying that this has been possible for me to do, or that I can behave in a good example for others to follow, thus making my moral/ethical positions known.

  7. Matthew Robb Brown Avatar
    Matthew Robb Brown

    My priest, Father Andrew Jarmus of St. Nicholas Cathedral in Fort Wayne, preached a homily in which he said that to call ourselves “first of sinners” is to give all others the benefit of the doubt, and to refuse to judge them. Thanks for your message!

    Christ is in our midst!

  8. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    That sounds quite solid – very much in keeping with the Fathers.

  9. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Father,
    Does not my sin keep me from communing with God and living faithfully in community dedicated to the worship of the Holy Trinity?

    Thus my sins are the greatest and I must always do my best to live a life of repentance to enter into that Communion–within and without?

    When I hold on to my sins, a darkness is created in my heart that interferes with Love.

  10. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Michael,
    Sin certainly interferes with our communion – however, as I noted in the article, 1Cor. 5 tells us that “God made Him [Christ] to be sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God.” So, that even in a sinful state, Christ is coming to us and in us. It is His extreme condescension that “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Our communion with Him is not waiting for us to get free of sin – but begins even before that such that “Christ in us” is the power that frees us and heals us. He does not abandon us.

  11. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Despite the darkness in me, His Mercy opens the way?
    My repentance, as sparse as it is, helps me perceive His Mercy in prayer and the Sacraments of the Church?

  12. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Michael,
    Yes, indeed.

  13. Michael Avatar
    Michael

    This feels on point in a time of widespread indignation. Thank you.

  14. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    It seems like there are several categorical mistakes that can be made with respect to sin. The legal, the moral, and the psychological. I think of the psychological in terms of the way we speak about communion as a toggle-switch. If I sin, I am out of communion; If I repent, I am back in communion. Back-and-forth, in-and-out. In my estimation everything has to come back to the ontological. At the very least it isn’t a category mistake. Are we ever ontologically out of communion with God? I don’t see how that is possible. Was Jesus ever out of communion with God? Again, how would that be possible? Jesus was always in full communion with God yet he was made to be sin. So, is it really sin that is breaking communion with God?

    Certainly we have the psychological experience of toggled communion, but that is just something we feel about a lot of different things. We are on/off about everything. What is repentance then if it isn’t the restoration of a broken communion? And this is where I get fuzzy, but I think repentance is for the healing of the soul. The soul is wounded, the soul is grieved, the soul is diseased. Repentance heals the soul and I think that it might remove internal barriers that keep us dis-integrated.

    I think we have to be very careful with how we interpret the prodigal son. But, one of the things I like is that the Father doesn’t really listen to the spiel the prodigal son had rehearsed. The very fact that he anticipated his Father’s anger and sought to dissuade it with some spiel he had rehearsed showed that he still didn’t know his own dad. Not that the spiel was without value, but his Father certainly seemed less interested in it than the son.

    I am not suggesting that I understand anything. But, if it is true that communion with God is toggled by human error–or even evil–then I think there is a mistake being made. Somehow I think that mistake is corrected by an ontological consideration.

  15. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Well said, Simon.

    “Are we ever ontologically out of communion with God? I don’t see how that is possible. Was Jesus ever out of communion with God? Again, how would that be possible? Jesus was always in full communion with God yet he was made to be sin. So, is it really sin that is breaking communion with God?”

    I agree.

  16. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Simon,
    The word ontological is a wonderful word. It even feels good in my mouth. Your words gave me a completeness my understanding.

    Thank you.

  17. anna sen Avatar
    anna sen

    Love this and everyone’s comments !
    You guys make me feel it’s ok to be myself before God.
    anna

  18. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Anna,
    I think that’s one of the reasons we call it the “good news!”

  19. Helen Avatar
    Helen

    Toxic shame whispers I am the first (worst) of sinners. Grace tells me I’m the first to admit I am a sinner, and in need of salvation.

  20. Ook Avatar
    Ook

    @Matthew’s explanation from Father Andrew Jarmus of St. Nicholas Cathedral in Fort Wayne certainly makes sense but indeed this is the kind of thing that has to be explained.

    I recall even as a 5-year-old being disturbed by “sinners of whom I am first.” How it could be that every parishioner in every church is simultaneously “first”? Later I attributed it to overwrought emotionalism among those who wrote these prayers, or something that just doesn’t translate well.

  21. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    One definition of sin I find helpful is anything that intensifies our sense of separateness. We are not really (ontologically) separate from God. Nothing can separate us, says the Apostle. Rather, sin destroys the unity of Life at an epistemic level. We are ignorant of our fundamental rootedness in divine being. We thus act out of this deception with pride, lust, and anger which only exacerbate the delusion that says, “I’m over here and you’re over there, and we have no part in each other.” I guess this is why Jesus says, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Because they actually are yourself.

  22. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    I also like St. Silouan’s saying, “My brother is my life.”

  23. Shannon Avatar
    Shannon

    Fr. Stephen:
    I love the sentiment of the first half of your post and Elder Zosima’s ideas. But how does that jive with Christ’s own words in the parable of the wheat and tares, from this very day’s gospel reading, no less? To my reading, it seems Christ paints a different picture – not lumping us all together as corporately responsible for, or authors of, one anothers’ sins.

  24. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Shannon,
    It would seem in that parable, that the wicked one is the “sower” of the tares (as we could call him the author of our sins). It is a promise of a judgment to come. It reminds me of the passage in 1 Cor. 3:5ff.

    “For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is.If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.”(1 Corinthians 3:11–15 NKJV)

    There is a judgment by fire – where our “sinful” works – (hay, wood, and stubble) are consumed, but we are saved.

    But, not every parable is suitable for every point. No one parable carries the weight of the whole gospel. The passage from Dostoevsky in which the character the Elder Zosima speaks about our solidarity with one another – is drawn from very solid patristic teachings. None of us lives unaffected by the lives around us. From Adam to now, we carry within us some amount of mutual brokenness. St. Silouan of Mt. Athos described this as the “Whole Adam,” meaning “all of us.”

    If this were no so, then Christ could not have taken upon Himself the sins of the world, destroyed them, and saved us. Sin is not a legal problem, with the question being, “Whose fault is it.” It’s just more complicated than that. Of course, it’s also true that the imagery cited by the Elder Zosima is not the summary of the entire gospel. There are other aspects – including a measure of our own personal responsibiility.

    But the connectedness of all – each in all and all in each – is a fundamental tenet of the Orthodox faith. There is only one human nature in which we all partake. What happens to one happens to all, etc. We cannot wash our hands of one another.

    Another example, Christ describes the poor, the sick, the prisoner, the hungry, the naked, etc. the “least of these” in terms in which He Himself is “them.” “Inasmuch as you do it unto the least of these my brethren, you do it unto me.” That is from yet a different parable.

    I think it’s best if we try to hold all of the parables together at the same time – none of them stands alone. At least that’s how I approach this. I hope that is useful. Thanks for the question!

  25. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Don’t mean to bail on the conversation but I’m heading to bed.

  26. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

    “Was Jesus ever out of communion with God? Again, how would that be possible?”

    I, unfortunately, passed through some strains of Protestantism on my way to Orthodoxy that would say ‘yes’. I heard a teacher at the Bible school I attended say “God abandoned a piece of Himself on the cross when Christ was being crucified”. Then there’s the famous hymn “How deep the Father’s love” which opines,

    ‘How great the pain of searing loss –
    The Father turns His face away,
    As wounds which mar the Chosen One
    Bring many sons to glory.’

  27. anna sen Avatar
    anna sen

    Wow !
    You all amaze me . What beautiful hearts and minds you have . I’m lost for words!
    Thank you Father for your Presence in this world within these beautiful souls.
    Fr. Stephen …. thank you !

  28. Byron Avatar
    Byron

    Andrew, one thing that came to my mind in thinking about this is Christ’s cry of abandonment on the Cross. I’m not sure how to think about that, to be honest.

  29. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Andrew,
    Yes – that “abandonment” motif is part of the Substitutionary Atonement Theory. Calvin has a passage on it that is the most terrible and horrific thing I’ve ever read. As Trinitarian theology goes, it would seem heretical.

  30. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Byron,
    I hear it as the cry of our humanity in its suffering. But I do not hear it as a reflection of what’s going on in the Godhead.

  31. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    This comment was posted on my Facebook stream. It’s quite apropos:

    “For all the history of mankind from Adam to me, a sinner, I repent; for all history is in my blood. For I am in Adam and Adam is in me.” From the prayer of St. Nicholai of Zicha. St. Nicholai was a Serbian bishop who died in the 1950’s in America. He suffered under both the Nazis and the Communists and saw the raging of 2 world wars.

    The entire prayer can be read here.

  32. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Shannon,
    To add to what Father said above, Origen of Alexandria comments on the parable as well, noting that the “sons of the kingdom” are sound thoughts sown in the human soul by the Logos of God. But the devil also sows “weeds” when we grow “sleepy.” These weeds are worthless thoughts and opinions.

    At the end of the age, Origen writes, the angels of God will “gather up the worthless opinions which have grown up in the soul and deliver them to destruction, refuting them by the fire that is said to burn. So the angels and servants of the Logos will gather from the entire kingdom of Christ everything in souls which make them stumble along with the thoughts which produce lawlessness. They will destroy whatever they are by casting them into the flaming fiery furnace. There too those who are aware that it was thanks to their own being asleep that they receive the seeds of the wicked one will, as it were, be angry at themselves. This is what the gnashing of teeth refers to.” And then, at last, “all will shine as one sun in the kingdom of their Father.”

    Origen accounts for all the elements of the parable in his reading. I believe Elder Zosima would approve. 🙂

  33. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

    Byron,

    I’ve heard Fr. Stephen De Young say that back in that time the Psalms weren’t numbered as we have them today. To reference a Psalm, they would cite the first line. So when Christ says “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”, he’s calling to attention the entirety of Psalm 22, of which that is the first line. Fr. Stephen’s position, as I understand it, is that even on the cross, in the midst of the Lord’s suffering, He continues to proclaim the Gospel, trying to show to those watching what’s really going on at that moment. It’s worth revisiting Psalm 22 if you haven’t read it in a while. While it starts out in a low place, it ends in a crescendo!

  34. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Andrew, I have heard the same about Psalm 22. It does seem to be quite the description of crucifixion.

  35. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    Origen’s interpretation illustrates the wide latitude that can be seen in reading the parables. They can be described as “multi-valent” – being capable of a variety of interpretations. Origen does have a tendency (not-uncommon) to read things in what can be described as an “intellectualized” fashion. Our thoughts, however, are more than just artifacts of the soul. They also have a physical component. Those of us (I include myself) with some kind of brain impairment (mine is ADHD over the course of my entire life) know that our bodies have a profound impact on the nature and life of our thoughts.

    St. Maximus calls us a “microcosm” – a “little universe.” This lends to any parable the possibility of a “cosmic” interpretation, incompassing the whole universe.

  36. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Andrew,
    Fr. Stephen De Young is spot-on in this. It’s very much my first and primary understanding of those words on the Cross.

  37. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Father,
    Would you elaborate on the distinction of epistemic or epistemology and ontology with regard to Orthodox prayer (hypostatic prayer)?

    For background on my training, I first obtained a degree in philosophy in my early twenties. Ironically (perhaps Providentially) the major within it was epistemology and the “Ancient Greeks”. I was drawn to this sphere because of the experience of “Abraham’s God”, that I had in a terrible accident. It was only a sliver, a taste, but it was enough to confirm that all I had witnessed of Christianity at that point was falsehood.

    In college I persued philosophy because I thought it would give me a better handle on the falsehoods of Christianity. In retrospect, it didn’t really do that. Without having a solid understanding of the development of modernity (the courses were actually taught from the perspective of Modernity), I couldn’t put my finger on what I found fallacious within the epistemological stance I had been taught in my philosophy courses. Therefore, it seemed that I was only most comfortable going deeper into the “ancient” Greek philosophers (Plato and Socrates). Then, I attempted to go into graduate school in philosophy. I took a couple of courses on rationality, and Kant was featured. For whatever it’s worth mentioning here, his philosophy seemed too artificial (for want of better words). Simultaneously, I took a couple of courses in psychology and felt more comfortable with the scientific perspective (however, these were also taught from the perspective of Modernity).

    Then I realized that I was drawn to science for the practical applications it has. I’m not referring to technology but applications to test theory. Physical tests. Finally I was leaning more to the physical sciences and chemistry was were the proverbial buck stopped. The very aspects of ‘hands’ on the materials that had their way of speaking, in which the chemist learned their language, was a different approach. (I was taught by a Chinese-Canadian). Within the lab-group I worked in (most were Chinese-born, immigrants into Canada) there was a very different feel of what I was doing. I believe there was more of an ontological approach but again if one asked me for particulars I wouldn’t necessarily be able to put my finger on it. But it was a sense that when we ‘physically worked chemistry’ there was an development of understanding or revelation of events and structures at a universal level. We posed questions that only ‘nature’ could answer (in a beaker, if you will) if nature should choose to respond at all (i.e., we had a complete misunderstanding and the stuff in the beaker was a bust of some sort).

    Now, back to St Isaac the Syrian: I’m reading the area in the book (the Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian) where he discusses prayer and the high importance of the physicality of prayer, such as prostrations, reciting psalms, standing while praying, kneeling while praying. What struck me is how much and how long the passage is on this emphasis. Nevertheless, he also stresses that such physical motions without the heart lost their potency. “Instead, our aim should be to find a way our heart can draw near to God in the Office and prayer…”.

    A way our heart can draw near to God: When I was a catechumen, I ruminated on the passage that is the focus of your article, “…of whom I am first”. I struggled with it because I wasn’t a murderer like Hitler (this is how I had expressed it to myself). But then I had a nightmare in my sleep in which my behavior was so reprehensible in the dream that I woke up from it. And the poison that caused the bad behavior in my dream, I realized was still in my heart. I went straight to my prayer corner to pray. And then I realized in my prayer that I could indeed now say…of whom I am first.

    Now, turning back to my original question, how do we distinguish an epistemological approach from an ontological approach in prayer life? Isn’t our life supposed to be lived in prayer? I hope I’m not off track in such thoughts.

  38. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    I need to rephrase what I had said in my previous comment. The words I said were, “all I had witnessed of Christianity at that point was falsehood”. Indeed, I had met a Catholic priest in a hospital where I was convalescing who revealed what Christianity could have been about revealed in his behavior of prayer for me. But the previous long years (long for a teenager) suggested that he was an exception that proved the rule in my young way of thinking at the time. It seemed to me in his humility and love he had managed to find ‘the God of Abraham’ where others usually did not. Please keep in mind I had already rejected Christianity at the time. However, not God or rather not the God of Abraham. These may sound like strange thoughts to most Christians. I continued to read the Bible, but mainly if not only, the Psalms, not the New Testament. I read the Psalms on almost a daily basis. I can’t explain why. No one suggested such to me. It was my only way to keep close to what I knew was real.

  39. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Dee,
    What meaty topics! Owen has taken us down an interesting path!

    The primary distinction between epistemic and ontological (for non-Greek-readers – “epistemic” means “having to do with knowledge”, while “ontological” means “having to do with being”), is that “being” encompasses everything, whereas “knowledge” only treats a fraction. There is a strain when reading a number of the spiritual fathers of the Church (St. Maximus can do this) where you get the impression that what matters is largely knowledge/experience. It was certainly true of the Neo-Platonists, whose language influenced a great deal of Eastern patristic thought.

    But, as you note in St. Isaac (and it’s elsewhere as well), there’s actually a deep grounding in the physical. Indeed, when you read about “prayer of the heart” it’s rather shocking to discover that the writer is frequently referring to the actual physical organ in your chest!

    There is an “epistemic” problem. Sometimes you’ll see “sin” equated to “ignorance.” And we equate “knowledge of God” with “salvation.” As in “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” (Jn 17:3).

    I think I would stress, in the face of such quotes, that “knowledge,” at is deepest and best, encompasses the whole of our being. And when that is said, then there’s not much difference between epistemic issues and ontological issues.

    I’m sort of cautious about the epistemic approach, however, in that is too often limited to the merely mental (I didn’t see Owen doing that, btw). When we say, “Adam knew Eve and she conceived…” we clearly are not limiting knowledge to the merely mental. But many in the modern protestant world (and elsewhere) equate “spiritual” with “mental or emotional” but exclude the physical. And then there are the various heresies that use a “mental only” approach – such as Christian Science, the Gnostics, and a lot of New Age stuff.

  40. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    My teen thoughts were very confused about everything, I think.

  41. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Dear Father, thank you so much for your helpful answer!

  42. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Dee, Due to the influence of my parents, being has always proceeded knowing. Even God says He is “The I Am”. He speaks the Word from His I Am.

    Indeed all of creation flows from Him who is.

    The intra-relationships that make up creation have to posit Being first to make all the connections possible.

    Part of my over reaction to Owen is that I have run into folks who so badly misused epistemology as to define humanity in a soulless an worldly manner chips that other humans need to arrange.

    I long ago reversed DesCartes’ dictum to be, “I am, therefore I think.”

    Sin is a distortion of who I am. Jesus, through the Sacrament and His personal care restores me to wholeness by His Mercy.

  43. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Michael,
    I completely agree about Descartes’ dictum. He was of course talking about discursive thought. But there are other forms of mentation. Indeed, some are formless. For instance, the pure awareness of mental hesychia in which concepts are absent. This pre-conceptual state approaches the convertibility of being and knowing that Father hinted at above. In this state of stillness, we can simply say, I am. Our “thinking” often gets in the way of us realizing our deepest ontological reality. We forget we are rooted in the Divine Life. But this is just my point: ours is an epistemic predicament.

  44. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    How we read the parables may say more about “who” we are than an actual understanding of the parable, and that is worthwhile to acknowledge and probably worth discussing with a confessor. I imagine that one’s understanding of the parables changes with time. I can also imagine one’s psychological state being deeply reflected in how the parables are read. When we ask about how the parables are to be interpreted it is almost the wrong question to ask. More productive questions might be, “What does my reading say to me about my own heart and mind? Does my reading reflect moral, legal, or psychological concerns? What does my reading highlight about hypostatic existence?” It is very likely that we will not be able to see the answers very clearly, but a confessor might. Many times I get stressed out about imagery in the text and then I remember that it isn’t necessary that I struggle to understand anything at all. There’s something important about how psychological attention is directed, but I don’t understand what it is. It’s all really fuzzy for me.

  45. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    Perhaps I’ll underline why I hold to ontology over epistemology. In the lives of the saints (including some now living among us), the consistent stories point not just to some sort of glorified state of consciousness (an “epistemic salvation”). Rather, the stories point towards quite physical transformations: incorrupt bodies after death; transfiguration with the divine light visible to others (St. Seraphim of Sarov is a good example); walking on water (St. Mary of Egypt); and on and on the stories go. The ultimate example, of course, is the bodily resurrection of Christ, who, though both God and Man, nevertheless had a resurrected existence that still manifested elements of the physical, all of which are emphasized in the gospels.

    As for ourselves, we are told “by their fruit you shall know them.” So it’s not what is taking place inside, but what is manifest outwardly. I’m not a saint, and I don’t know much. As such, I have to keep pointing myself towards those things I can “do.” This, by and large, is the witness of the Church. What you are describing is the sort of thing that I would direct towards the monastic life where there might be competent spiritual fathers for its direction. There’s so much potential delusion in an epistemic approach. I don’t recommend it.

  46. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Roger that, Father. You have been a gracious host to explain your position so thoroughly, here and on the other thread, and to allow me to explain mine. As always, thank you kindly.

  47. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen, forgive if I came on too strong. You have great insight and I benefit from your thoughts. I think knowledge itself is ontological at its roots – particularly as communion. To know, even as we are known, doubtlessly transcends all of the words we seek to express it.

  48. Shannon Avatar
    Shannon

    Andrew:
    You wrote:
    “ So when Christ says “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”, he’s calling to attention the entirety of Psalm 22, of which that is the first line. ”
    I have heard that too. But, with all due respect, I am forced to disagree. I cannot believe Christ was recapitulating David and “giving a lesson”. Rather, His words were exactly like those in Ps 22 because David prophesied Christ’s utterance. Christ wasn’t quoting David, but vice versa. Christ was in agony. His great work was being accomplished. He was not reciting the psalms to teach anything. He had been “Rabboni” for three years. At that moment He was Lamb of God.
    He meant exactly what He said. I believe the Father did have to “look away”, remove Himself , even “forsake” (shall anyone accuse Christ of hyperbole??) The person of Christ was the chosen person of the Trinity to bear the sins of the world. Not all three. Yet “They” remained one in essence throughout. I desist to even add more words, as it is so far above anything my or any mind can comprehend. Yet it has seemed to me, re: “the abandonment”, that Orthodoxy just “doesn’t want to go there”. I’ve even heard my priest attempt to explain the ‘forsaken’ words by saying it was “just Jesus’s human nature crying out”, that the Father really wasn’t “absent”. But splitting Christ’s human away from His divine nature is just another heresy, isn’t it?
    Although I am an Orthodox convert from Protestantism, I refuse to believe they have been completely bereft of illumination by the Spirit.
    Forgive me, brothers and sisters!

  49. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    You did not, Father, but thanks for saying that. I try to be careful and discern when it’s time for me to quiet down. But no, you make me feel quite welcome here.

  50. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    “To be or not to be, that is the question.”

    “The native hue of resolution is sicklied over with the pale cast of thought.”

  51. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Shannon,
    There are many questions regarding Christ’s words from the Cross. The mystery of how we are to understand the human nature and divine nature of Christ is quite prominent within them. That controversy surrounded certain aspects of that reality for more than a century (perhaps it still does) underscores the difficulties involved.

    I personally have difficulty with the idea that being a sinner somehow requires divine abandonment – that God cannot look at us in such a setting. I think that pressing the cry of Psalm 22 into that conclusion requires (beforehand) the acceptance of a theory that God cannot look at sin. Indeed, it even necessitates a certain theory of sin itself that I find troubling.

    It is sufficient, I think, to attribute to the cry of abandonment the depths of human suffering and death. There is, in the conciliar teaching of the Church, the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, an understanding that what is experienced in one nature is shared with the other – that the sufferings of Christ humanity is shared with Christ’s divinity. Thus, St. Ignatius of Antioch (who was the first to anticipate such an understanding), will write, “God was crucified, truly died.” Just as he describes the Eucharist as the “blood of God.”

    I have written at length on the topic of shame. Shame includes within it a sense of abandonment. If Christ bore our shame (which He surely did), then He bore our sense of abandonment as well. Whether that “sense” of abandonment should be read as a “fact” of abandonment is unclear. Adam and Eve hide in their shame – but God sought them out and clothed them.

    On the Protestant question – it is worth noting that, classically, Lutherans and Calvinists disagreed about certain aspects of this very question. There is no single “Protestant” opinion in the matter.

    And we all – stand before the same mystery.

  52. Shannon Avatar
    Shannon

    Father
    Thank you for your considered thoughts. And thanks for the earlier reply about the parables – how none of them wholly relate the Gospel. That was really helpful.

    If you allow, i will reply to this later response of yours later, when i have a laptop and keyboard instead of this tiny iPhone SE!
    Shannon

  53. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Shannon,
    I can’t do theology on a smart phone…eager to hear your thoughts!

  54. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Father, am I wrong or does not the Orthodox Church teach in the revelation of all things as a whole and to each person, as required, in the midst of our prayers and participation in the Sacraments?
    If I am close to correct then the ontological approach Being to being. Original “I am” to image.

    I have seen so much difficulty caused by the epistemological approach over the 53 years since I began calling on Jesus, I can give it little credit. But, I was raised as a mystic too.

    The Jesus Prayer is deeply ontological as is the mercy for which it entreats.

    Forgive me if I overstep.

  55. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Michael,
    I think that worship is our primary means of teaching.

  56. shannon Avatar
    shannon

    Father Stephen:
    (My best thinking is early in the morning before I exit my bed. And here it is 8:20 PM. But I will try anyway.)
    I peremptorily ask your pardon, but overall your reply seems to reaffirm my impression that Orthodoxy skirts the issue (“abandonment”, or the Fourth Last Word), assigning it to “mystery”, and yet not averse to saying interpretations by other Christian branches are erroneous.
    Now I’m not suggesting anyone try to pin down exactly what each Last Word meant, or pin down any theological construct too precisely. The Scholastics did that, both Protestant and Roman. (I once skimmed an RC tome which included an attempt to trace what happens to the Eucharistic elements as they pass through the human digestive tract! “Reason” run amok.) But if the Orthodox know enough about the Fourth Word to contradict non-Orthodox interpretations, then they at least ought to elaborate their own.
    Hence the following:
    Re: the second paragraph in your reply to me four posts up, I would only repeat what the West has quoted before. Isaiah 53:6 reads “… and the LORD (YHWH) hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” And St. Paul wrote that God “hath made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin.” The Father did not bear the sin of the world, neither did He “become sin” (by that I still – conversion or not – take St. Paul to mean “become guilty of sin” – in our place). I tell others in debate, “in that awful moment, someone had to stay on the throne and hold heaven and the universe together!” When Christ asked the Father why He had forsaken Him, His human nature was not speaking apart from His divine. Neither was He indulging in exaggeration or hyperbole. He is the Word, and no less. How can His own word be anything but perfect? So regardless of what the patristic fathers say, or you say, or my priest, I will take the actual words of Christ just as they are. “Let God be true and every man a liar.”
    Now if you can grant me the above point ‘for the sake of argument’ (and ignoring my atonement presuppositions), that the Father indeed forsook the Son in that awful moment, then we can examine how that is possible.
    It is possible because They are distinct persons, as the fathers hold. Personhood in general implies distinct personality, purpose, and (sometimes) place. (Re: the latter, see John 16:7) If the Persons of the Trinity (or any trinity) can never be separate, never have diverse roles, and never exhibit distinction, then the “Jesus Only” Pentecostals or the Unitarians have correct theology!
    Separation is possible without division. This is a very imperfect analogy, but a husband can leave his wife to take the kids camping for a weekend, but they remain a couple, remain married.
    I can repeat without mental reservation in the Liturgy “…the Trinity, one in essence, and undivided” because in the abandonment, the Trinity did not cease to be One. But for a moment in time, Their fellowship was broken (and Their purposes distinct). A fellowship extending backwards and forwards from that awful moment in both directions eternally. And here the prior analogy gains a bit: For that weekend of camping, the husband surrendered the consolation of his wife – her voice, her caresses, her care – all out of love for his children. If the Abandonment occurred, it only reiterates and magnifies how much Father, Son and Spirit love us.
    And yet…though the words of Christ must be true, and therefore the Father must have, in some incomprehensible way, forsaken Christ on the Cross (or He wouldn’t have asked “why?”), the very fact of His asking means the Father could still hear Him.
    “If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, Thou art there.”
    Forgive me!

  57. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    …and worship, it seems to me, is communion with our Lord in often ineffable but deeply real ways that in my life always seems to lead to a state of contrition and thanksgiving. Neither of those have a real ‘epistemological’ corollary in my experience — but I am biased.

  58. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Michael,
    When Fr. Alexander Schmemann said that in a sacrament, we’re not making something to be what it is not, but revealing it to be what it truly is, it seems he was proposing an epistemic activity takes place: true knowledge (episteme) is being revealed.

    In Communion, we come to know in faith that this is the true Body and Blood of Christ. Fr. Alexander says, I think rightly, that the bread and wine are not made to be something they were not already. Rather, we are illumined to know what they truly always have been.

    (Transubstantiation, on the other hand, posits an ontological change.)

    I believe the same thing happens to us human beings by the Holy Spirit when we come to faith and Baptism. We are illumined to see and know what we truly always have been, but did not realize before.

    As I’ve thought more about this, I agree with Fr. Stephen that, at the level of Christ’s person, our salvation is an ontological reality in the union of the natures. However, in our reception and realization of Christ in us, our cure and healing are, indeed, epistemic: a matter of knowledge – a change of mind, a metanoia.

    The ontological reality is always already there, just waiting for us in Christ; the Kingdom of God is inside you. Our path of return is one of *knowing* this Truth… which will in turn change the way we live.

  59. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    Shannon,

    In reading your example of the couple, for me it works better to think–not of the pair–but either the man or woman alone. That is, the man is both father and husband, of a dual function but of singular physicality, regardless of which relationship to his family he is operating through. Fully to grasp his place in the family requires understanding him as both, which means a Unitarian or Pentecostal view would be insufficient in that it says (using the analogy), “I understand fully what a man’s role in the family is by understanding fatherhood.” (Or being a husband.) Likewise for the woman, if we tried to say it is sufficient to understand her role by observing her only interacting with her children. We would not understand that she is also a wife.

    Another analogy might be when someone like Quentin Tarantino writes, directs, and acts in a film. He has three relationships to the film, and he even has a relationship to himself in that, for example, when he is directing he is thinking about all the components of a scene, whereas when acting he must not break character to be effective. Tarantino as director sees from a more omniscient point of view, whereas the character played by Tarantino must act from a limited point of view. (The writer of the screenplay is a past version of Tarantino.)

    To go back to your comment about skirting the issue, I don’t understand all the implications of the Last Word(s). But I do believe that in such crude ways humans evidence how even simple persons can be both unitary and distinct.

  60. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Owen, do you hold that the self revelation of Christ in Sacrament, worship and prayer is knowledge?

    In my experience, it is the revealing of who Jesus, et. al. Is in and with me. It is a matter of a revealing of who I already am and the reality of the pre-existing intra relationship with the Holy Trinity and each and all of us.

    I think and I have seen a grave danger of a dualism as the Gnostics fell into by giving “knowledge” too much separate emphasis.

    Through the Incarnation and the Cross who I am and my intra connections are revealed not learned.

    By Grace, Jesus and I (and you) are one. That is a fact.

    You may see realizing that as an epistemic process, I do not. It is the result of the Incarnation of the I Am in Jesus Christ.

  61. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Shannon,
    You said, “in that awful moment, someone had to stay on the throne and hold heaven and the universe together!”

    Perhaps I’m wrong about this, but I believe that while on the cross, the Lord Jesus Christ, God and Man, held heaven and the universe together. All things in the universe and in all of creation, heaven and earth, was, is, will be transformed through Christ on the Cross and His Resurrection including pain and death. Christ fully emptied Himself, while being God and Man.

    Interestingly, the Orthodox Creed never says Christ died. It is said that he suffered and was buried. In my best understanding, Christ transformed death as He entered death. “Trampling down death by death”.

    I beg Father Stephen for his correction as needed.

  62. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Owen,
    You raise an interesting question, which I will think about for a while. At this moment, I believe I would use the word ‘knowing’ in life in Christ, to have a meaning that is different from “epistemic: a matter of knowledge – a change of mind”.

    But I also believe that I have an understanding of what you describe. For example, at one time in my life, I realized that there had to be a Christ. Such knowledge, if you will, was indeed very potent, such that it initiated in me a change of mind or thought about Christ, not only as someone real but who had a significant role and impact on the universe. And yet, there was something very physical in my Baptism, and since my Baptism that I can only describe as living in Him and He in me (physically, even with all my sins). There is some sort of body knowledge that I believe is best described as being in Him, which must entail both heart and body and mind. And I don’t think this should be translated as sensing and mind or emotions and rationality. For want of better words there’s more to it.

    Another example is that a child who has no rationalization of God or Christ is Baptized in Orthodoxy. A human being who has lost all mental capacity or who never had such capacity may be Baptized and live in Christ.

    I appreciate your willingness to discuss this. I think this is an important discussion and find it helpful for my own learning. And once again I ask Father Stephen for his correction if I’m off base.

  63. Shannon Avatar
    Shannon

    Dee
    I inserted that phrase as almost tongue-in-cheek. Of course the Triune God continuously wills the universe to exist… and so it does.
    Re: the remainder of your post – nevertheless Christ Jesus really died. The spear in his side convinced the centurions. Joseph of A took his “body”. His spirit was visiting the souls in Sheol. And everything He did together was accomplishing His work and the Father’s will.

  64. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Dee,
    Christ died, and in doing so trampled down death.

  65. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Shannon,
    I’m not very good at arguing. Much earlier, you made the point that in repeating the words of Psalm 22, Christ was speaking them (as if for the first time, with King David repeating what he was told – more or less). The traditional treatment of these last words is that Christ is, in brief form, reciting the entire Psalm, with its very poignant opening line.

    That He has been literally “forsaken” by the Father because of the sin that is laid upon Him is where I am puzzled and cannot agree. It seems to me to presuppose that this is what sin does to us – places us in the position of forsakenness. The notion that God cannot look on evil, has historically been argued from Habbakuk 1:13 “”Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing.” But, the verse seems ripped out of its context in order to support a particular atonement theory. Habbakuk goes on to contradict what is actually a question he is asking.

    No single atonement theory ever came to dominate Orthodox writing. Holy Week and Pascha – the texts of those services – use a variety of images. In my reading and experience, the single theory that is lacking is the Substitutionary Penal Atonement, which does not appear in the West until around the year 1000. Doubtless, elements of it surely appeared here and there before that. But it found no assent in the East, by and large.

    However, it’s never been condemned in the Eastern Church, which leaves someone free to believe it. I grew up with it (here in the Protestant South) and have heard it expounded through the years. It carries a lot of other baggage with it – (it’s not just about the meaning of Psalm 22’s opening verse). I have found the Orthodox approach (including its variety) to be more satisfying.

    What I do not see is the “necessity” that it be read as you are suggesting – and that the Orthodox are avoiding that necessity. Given the various sufferings and such that have been borne by various Orthodox teachers – I find it hard to imagine that they were somehow perverse when it came to the notion of abandonment – if the text had such a necessity within it.

    I have always found it quite problematic to have theories of God that included statements about what God cannot do, or what God must do.

    One of the earliest “Creeds” is found in 1 Cor. 15: “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures”.

    “Christ died for our sins.” Yes. Yes. Yes.

    Forgive me for being unhelpful.

    I did a bit of a scan this morning on how the Fathers (generally East and West) treated these words on the Cross. None of them suggest that the Father abandoned the Son. Most have some discussion about the nature of Christ’s human suffering and His union with us in our sense of abandonment. But, none of them have these words tied up with the mechanism of the forgiveness of sins. Most are careful to make the point that the Son is not abandoned. It was an interesting study for me.

  66. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    It’s good to quote Schmemann, but his statement also has a larger context. He does not teach that the sacrament reveals what something “already” is – but what it shall be. It’s eschatological. You seem to have a static definition of ontology. A thing is what it is. But our being is not static. It is in motion – moving towards what it shall be. In some way, the sacrament reveals what we shall be – which is both present (in some sense) and yet-to-come (in another sense).

    You’ve probably read For the Life of the World. I’ve been re-reading parts of it during this discussion. It’s worth dipping into repeatedly.

  67. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Father, et al.,
    Fascinating dialogue! Thanks for continuing the conversation. Concerning a “static” notion of being, I attempt to model my ontology on the Transfiguration. From my understanding, it wasn’t that Christ’s being changed on Mt. Tabor, but rather the disciples’ understanding was changed to receive new experiential knowledge.

    If we could only see things the way they actually are, our response would be similar to theirs, I believe. I’m happy to call this eschatological knowing. But I do not think the Fall affects anything at the level of being. Our problem, rather, is “blurry vision.” And, even worse, we do not know what we do not know. The Kingdom “breaks in” when the scales fall away from our understanding, and we experience peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

    Several have mentioned the physical aspects of life in Christ to demonstrate an ontological change apart from our knowledge (episteme). My claim, however, is that we have access to nothing in existence – absolutely nothing – apart from our knowing it. Our consciousness of the world just is the world we inhabit.

    One only “has” a bodily sensation in their experience, which is a form of knowledge. Indeed, all physical sensations are actually mental phenomena. Not to mention that these bodily sensations must be interpreted by the mind to be the work of grace. I’m not discounting such bodily experiences in Christ, but they must be experienced within an awakened consciousness or else they have no Christian meaning.

    The examples Dee gave of a pre-rational child and the mentally handicapped seem to support my view. Nothing changes for these dear ones in Baptism. God’s love for them certainly does not change. They remain as they are, temples of the Holy Spirit, whether they know it or not. Who knows what their experience is? But if they do know the truth of their being in God, they are enlightened by Truth.

    I freely admit that the scope of ontology does encompass and subsume the epistemic – i.e., the mental life does exist. This, however, does not make knowledge fragmentary and being all-encompassing, per se. Since from the perspective of a living subject, nothing in existence is encountered apart from knowing it in some shape, form, or fashion. Our knowledge of the world *is* our world, full stop. There really is no exception to this rule. Mediate or immediate knowledge is our only access to reality. This is another reason why I believe the human predicament is an epistemic one.

  68. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    My view, cast on an even wider canvas, is that all we ever experience are mental phenomena. The deepest reason for this is that all of creation, the entire world, is contained in the mind of God.

    In this view, the world only exists because God knows and loves it. We only exist – “live and move and have our being” – within the scope of God’s consciousness. The world is God’s mentation, the divine dream of Love. Thus, we only ever encounter (divine) mental phenomena.

    To me, this view in no way denigrates, but rather glorifies, the physical aspect of creation. But it certainly does take a wrecking ball to the supposition of a two-story universe, and leaves philosophical materialism without a leg to stand on.

  69. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    What you say is interesting – but, after a fashion, it’s idiosyncratic. Grounding things ontologically, for me, was not just that it seemed good to me, but that I found it repeatedly in the Fathers – in the Conciliar decisions and language – etc. It is part of the “grammar” of Orthodoxy. And, of course, knowledge is not absent in the Church’s writings, but is simply not given the central role that you seem to want to give it.

    “Our knowledge of the world is our world, full stop.” I disagree. It seems too reductionist. The problem with developing something in an idiosyncratic fashion (from an Orthodox perspective), is this: “Who can correct you?” I don’t want a private Orthodoxy – been there, done that, got lost.

  70. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    It just doesn’t work for me. Again, I don’t want to walk where none others have gone before. I’m just not that creative.

    I don’t mean to just dismiss your thoughts. But just to state that it’s not a position I find consistent with Orthodox teaching. I’m a priest and work at writing and thinking within the confines of Orthodox grammar. That’s probably not helpful for the conversation. Sorry.

  71. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Father thank you for stressing the point that Christ died. And in His life and death brought our salvation.

  72. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Dee,
    One of the prayers in the Liturgy says: “In the tomb with the body, in Hades with the soul yet as God, in paradise with the thief, on the Throne with the Father and the Holy Spirit, wast Thou, O Christ, filling all things…” This is said quietly by the priest or deacon as they cense around the altar before beginning the Liturgy.

    Death, of course, is not “nothingness.” Death for human beings is the separation of soul and body.

  73. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Owen,
    When I reflect on ‘mind’ I refer to what is in creation. And indeed God is in creation in His energies. But His essence is a different topic. I’ve been taught that we don’t know His essence. Do you disagree?

  74. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    When I was in the doctoral program at Duke, doing systematic theology, we ranged all over the place in thinking out loud with one another. I was Episcopalian at the time, but already serious exploring Orthodoxy. But our seminars had a very large range of folks. We’d trot out our ideas as we presented seminar papers, and we’d slowly tear each other’s work apart (politely, but thoroughly). A lot of creativity took place. It drove me ever deeper into the roots of Orthodoxy.

    A lasting effect was the memory of just how “creative” theological systems can be. Everyone sought for cogency and consistency. You’ve already noted how useful your train of thought might be in answering certain materialist questions. But, what I don’t see and can’t see is: “How does this path of thought actually do – does it bring forth the fruit of theosis/repentance/transformation? It’s why I stick by the paths that someone else has walked before. I’m just looking for salvation.

  75. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Dee,
    A question I would add to that is the phrase “the mind of God” is sort of meaningless, as in, we have no idea what the statement means. It’s anthropomorphic and useful in certain settings, but it’s not how we speak of God in the Tradition. And then there’s the problem when we’re under anesthesia, or in a coma, or even in a vegetative state. We have examples in which nothing “mental” is taking place, and yet we are fully human.

    We do not know God in His essence – much less do we know His “mind.”

  76. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Dee,
    I agree that we do not know God’s essence. But, as several of the Fathers point out, we do not know the essence of created things either. Essentially, a grain of sand is an unfathomable mystery.

  77. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Father,
    I agree that “mind of God” is anthropomorphic. God does not have being, He is Being; God does not have consciousness, He is Consciousness. Etcetera. To a certain extent, we cannot escape anthropomorphic ways of speaking. Several of the Fathers considered the Logos to be, in some sense, the “mind of God.” And if God created all things in the Logos…

    Philosophical cogency is important to me. So is alignment to scientific findings, in this case, in the realm of consciousness studies. Also, the beauty of a theory matters greatly, as well as its resonance with my personal experience across my entire life. I assume Orthodoxy has room for all these things in my intellectual journey, perhaps especially since I am not ordained to preach and teach.

    “Our knowledge of the world is our world, full stop.” I suppose the challenge for someone who disagrees would be to give just one example to the contrary. That would certainly “correct” me and disprove the theory. But I am not issuing that challenge, other than to say each person can grapple with these things themselves. I guess some people are not inclined to think about them, or worse, choose not to out of fear.

    Concerning people under anesthesia, or in a coma, or in a vegetative state – and I would add in a state of deep, dreamless sleep: the answer from my perspective is that consciousness does not require content. I believe one experienced in contemplative or hesychastic practice, the “silence of the heart,” could vouch for this. Not to mention that brain scans show that something is “going on” in these states. Such folks are conscious in a way that we do not understand, and they, perhaps, do not remember. Physical death is pronounced when these scans are void of all activity.

    These are just a few more thoughts… perhaps too idiosyncratic for most in the Orthodox world.

  78. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Dear Father,
    I appreciate the prayer you quote in your response to me. I’m going to include it in my daily prayers.

    Also I appreciate your bringing up your history and experiences in non-Orthodox seminaries. The description of the typical discussion is very helpful for me.

  79. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Btw, I did not intend that last statement as a barb. I honestly believe it may be the truth.

  80. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Owen,
    Indeed I wouldn’t be in science anymore if I thought I knew all the answers. There would be no discovery, no revelation, no mystery, and interestingly, no love.

  81. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    I do not mean to say that there are no merits in what you’re saying. What I’m suggesting is that the “grammar” of Orthodoxy speaks differently. What I’m saying of myself is that I tend not to want to engage in too much speculative theology or speculative constructs – possibly because I’m a priest, possibly because I’m an old priest.

    Also, I’m not the measure of Orthodoxy. Just an old priest.

  82. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Owen,
    There are Orthodox thinkers who are far more speculative than me. Christos Yannaras comes to mind. Perhaps you are in that number – for which I wish you well.

  83. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Owen, forgive me, I seem unable to adequately communicate. I will say one more thing: I had a mild stroke a couple of years ago. One that definitely impairs my ability to process thought or even remember current knowledge and perhaps some TIAs since creating other difficulties.

    But, Our Lord has been generous at the same time strengthening who I am in Him and Him in me–Being. Overcoming the deficits and more.

    The babies Dee mentioned earlier are, I suspect, deeply aware in their hearts of Jesus and how He changes them. Their brains are simply unable to process as we prefer.

    There is no epistemic reality except through the revealed being of Jesus. God forbid any dualism.

    What passes for it in the fallen world is simply fakery of the evil one. (A sub-theme of our priest’s sermon today)

    I pray that you may be well and guided into all truth.

  84. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Personally in my readings of Orthodox writings, a writer’s status as a priest or having ordination is not sufficient reason to read someone’s writing or to accept their theory or theology. I have a similar approach when reading science articles. Something ‘peer reviewed’ is not sufficient to tell if it’s good science, unfortunately.

    The criteria for evaluation is received. In terms of acceptable evaluative criteria, it matters also what company you keep, or who was your mentor — although that too is rarely stated, in peer reviews.

  85. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Thank you, Michael!

  86. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Fr. Stephen,
    Thank you again for patiently hearing me out. To be heard is to be loved. I ask your blessing and pray God would continue to bless you.

  87. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Dee, well said about continuous discovery. And I agree about ordination not automatically making someone a good theologian. What I meant to say was that because I’m not ordained, I’m not held to quite as rigorous a standard as those who preach or teach. In my estimation, a priest or bishop is one who willingly relinquishes their own opinions so that they might, in turn, become a steward of God’s mysteries within the “grammar” given by the Church. It’s a high calling, and admittedly it is not mine.

  88. juliania Avatar
    juliania

    Please forgive me if I take the two concepts, ‘of whom I am first’ and ‘my God, why have you forsaken me?’ a bit idosyncratically.
    I don’t mean to sound flippant; it’s just that this discussion relates to Scriptural verses that have stayed with me lately — the beginning of Saint Matthew’s Gospel: ” The book of the geneology of Jesus Christ …” where Matthew begins by saying, “… the son of David, the son of Abraham.” Without my in any way limiting what is understood about this verse, don’t these two fathers fit with those two concepts? (At least, for Saint Matthew.)
    If my thought isn’t helpful, please discard it. I think the conversation here has been extremely helpful for me, so thank you very much, Father Freeman.

  89. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Owen,
    In reference to your last comment about priests and bishops who teach. I honor their office and their importance in ecclesiastical life. But I listen to or read only a few for edification. Most of these if not all were recommended by my catechism-priest, confessor, or spiritual father. When I have gone off of these recommendations, and read the writings of a priest on some topic of my interest, more often than not I find something lacking or unsettling. Even worse, a few have on occasion wrote something harmful (nearly heretical). Therefore I ask (my confessor or spiritual father) about such readings if they seem to be noticeably different from what I have read elsewhere. Such conversations undertaken with humility ( ie without need of persuasion or attachment one way or another) have been fruitful, for me, for it it’s worth.

  90. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Dee,
    That sounds like a wise reading practice. Mine differs a great deal, but I suppose we each have a little different relationship with our parish priests, as well as a little different relationship to reading. I have a somewhat wolfish habit. My genres are theology, religious philosophy, and some fiction. I don’t mean to be a maverick in this area, but, I admit, I am a critical kind of person who questions authority (sometimes) and must know for myself. I don’t necessarily consider these virtues. But if any passion can be purified, may God use mine somehow for his glory. May God continue to direct your steps.

  91. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Owen,
    It sounds like you have an inquiring mind. I think that is healthy. Whatever we do in our endeavors even with Christ our intended target, there is opportunity for error or fruitfulness in Christ. May God bless you in your endeavors!

  92. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    If, as Father Stephen says, Christ is reciting the Psalm (which is what I’ve always understood to be the case), then within the Psalm’s text we can resolve the question of abandonment.

    Christ says on the Cross, “Why hast Thou forsaken me?” The Psalmist, too, says, “Why hast Thou forsaken me?”

    In both cases, these words are uttered in the context of mocking disbelievers. Compare Matthew 27:42 to the eighth verse of the Psalm. (Both also have their garments divided by the mockers.) Indeed, then, it appears to *nonbelievers* that God has abandoned both–much as Job’s friends believe that Job cannot be good or God would not have visited so much calamity on him.

    In the conclusion of the Psalm, however, we read:

    [quote]
    He hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard….All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee….All they that go down to the dust shall bow before him….They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this.
    [end quote]

    God, in the end, does not hide His face, and God always hear the cry. When Christ utters, “It is finished,” the prophecy of the Psalm’s second part is fulfilled. Moreover, it becomes a message for all believers: “The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied; those who seek him shall praise the LORD!”

    Regardless of earthly appearance and the perception of those who take God’s silence in the face of suffering, we–like Christ–are not abandoned. When we cry unto Him, we are heard. Christ’s example affirms that and answers the question of the “problem of evil” finally and forever.

    (That is, “If there is an almighty and good God, why do the good suffer?” is of the same tenor as, “If you are almighty God, why can’t you save yourself from your suffering?” The answer is that suffering is the inescapable consequence of sin, and suffering is not always a direct consequence of the person who is suffering’s sin. In the end, however, Pascha.)

    Also, like Father Stephen, in the last couple of years–so maybe it is something that comes with age–I have reined myself in whenever I find myself looking for a novel personal “discovery” about God. I’m much more embracing of thoughts that someone else has had, rather than those that seem only mine.

  93. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Owen also perhaps I should mention that the catechism-priest, confessor, and spiritual father I mentioned previously are three different men. They each have quite different personalities and belong to different jurisdictions. When I should happen to ask each the same or similar question and they each respond similarly, I usually take that as an indication the answer is representative of the Orthodox faith. It is a rare situation when they differ. But when they do , that also is illuminating and helpful. All three recommended the writings of St Silouan, St Sophrony and Archimandrite Zacharias, independently, for relatively modern writers in Orthodoxy. Of course there are more. But these for various reasons are important.— just my 2 cents.

  94. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Mark, thank you for your comment. I keep coming back to it trying to comprehend more.

  95. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Dee, I have regularly found that your 2 cents are worth a great deal more. Thank you.

  96. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Shannon, and everyone,
    A friend wrote me today to scold me for downplaying, or eliminating the “existential cry of Christ on the Cross” (“My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?). I think he had a point – regardless of what is happening viz. Psalm 22 – that cry echoes in the anguish of our own hearts at any number of times in our lives. To suggest that Christ is a stranger to that anguish, that His words are only a recitation of the Psalm, ignores what we see before us.

    I have written elsewhere about Christ’s suffering and passion and the bearing of our shame. One of the most profound aspects of shame is the experience of abandonment and exile. The Holy Week services concentrate on the “mocking and scourging” of Christ (rather than the physical pain) in the public shaming of crucifixion. St. Paul alludes to this in Philippians 2:5-11 where he speaks of Christ enduring “even death on a Cross.”

    I agree that Christ’s knows and experienced fully the entire extent of human suffering and anguish. We hear that in His words. Some commentators have heard it in His statement, “I thirst,” seeing it as describe His thirst for the whole human race – and not just His physical exhaustion.

    Where I have difficulty is with the notion that there is/was a necessity in the Father turning His face from the Son. That’s a theological claim that, for me, carries a lot of questionable baggage. But, I’ll grant that the same baggage might not be a problem for someone else.

    Christ said to His disciples, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” I assume that even in my own experience of abandonment – He is there – with me, in me, beside me, beneath me.

    I hope this clarifies. I appreciate having this pointed out to me.

  97. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Father,
    I’ve never seen you downplaying Christ’s cry.

    Let us remember that Christ spoke these words aloud for those nearby who mourn the terrible sight of his last breaths to hear. If he told them to God alone, he could have said them in his heart. In some circumstances where I have been (please forgive me for the discretion of not saying where), the first words of a Psalm were used to indicate the Palm of reference, not the numbering system we use. And St Athanasius says this about the Psalter: “Moreover, whatever your particular need or trouble, from this same book you can select a form of words to fit it, so that you do not merely hear and pass on, but learn the way to remedy your ill.” In His last breaths of life, His eyes and heart were turned to those who love Him, reminding them of what was to come in all of the agony and anguish they were experiencing together in that moment. He was and is saying He is present with and in us and sharing with us our darkest hour. We are not alone, and we are loved.

  98. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Dee,
    The poignancy of St. John and the Theotokos at the Cross – indeed, particularly the anguish of the Mother of God, pierce my soul anytime I think of it. When it comes up in the hymnody of Holy Week, I can’t hold back the tears. The depths of the scene never fail to move me. Christ is with us.

  99. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

    Dear Father,
    Earlier this summer, I experienced deep shame and feelings of desolation. Walking through my parish bookstore, I saw a new icon of St Olga of Alaska. In it, she is holding a scroll that says, “God can create great beauty from complete desolation.” I too know this to be true. I bought this icon and it sits now where I do most of my work.

    May our St Olga bless you with her prayers to Our Savior in all that you do. I know she has special meaning for you.

  100. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Dee,
    Such good words! May St. Olga pray for us!

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 Michael. The opportunity to learn from one another is a valuable one. Peace to you.

  2. Matthew, I ask your forgiveness: I led you into a common mistake concerning bias, at least from the time I…

  3. Every one has a bias, Matthew, even me. It is endemic to the human condition. May be Fr. Stephen had…

  4. How can you prove he had a bias Michael? You seem to be implying just because the method didn’t cause…

  5. Father Stephen, thank you, that’s good to know (that you liked the Markides book).


Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast



Categories


Archives