Contradiction and Paradox

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

+++

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Fr. Stephen Freeman

Fr. Stephen is a retired Archpriest of the Orthodox Church in America. He is also author of Everywhere Present: Christianity in a One-Storey Universe, and Face to Face: Knowing God Beyond Our Shame, as well as the Glory to God podcast series on Ancient Faith Radio.



Posted

in

,

by

Comments

26 responses to “Contradiction and Paradox”

  1. John Breslin Avatar
    John Breslin

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

  2. David E. Rockett Avatar
    David E. Rockett

    wonderful…thank you father.

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

  3. Dee of St Herman Avatar
    Dee of St Herman

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

  4. Paul Hughes Avatar

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

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

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

    Cheers,
    Paul

  5. Margaret Avatar
    Margaret

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

  6. Christian Hollums Avatar
    Christian Hollums

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

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

    Gratefully, and with respect for your insight.

  7. Fr. Stephen Avatar

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

  8. Fr. Stephen Avatar

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

  9. Lina Avatar
    Lina

    Faith is acquired.

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

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

  10. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    Lina,

    Haha. That’s a great analogy 🙂

  11. Christian Shaun Hollums Avatar
    Christian Shaun Hollums

    Father,

    It seems Paul also had a similar concern.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  12. Margaret Sarah Avatar
    Margaret Sarah

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

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

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

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

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

  13. Gisele Avatar
    Gisele

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

  14. Fr. Stephen Avatar

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Is that helpful as an expansion of the article?

  15. Fr. Stephen Avatar

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

  16. Kenneth Avatar
    Kenneth

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

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

  17. Margaret Sarah Avatar
    Margaret Sarah

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

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

  18. Fr. Stephen Avatar

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

  19. Christian Shaun Hollums Avatar
    Christian Shaun Hollums

    Father,

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

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

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

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

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

  20. Fr. Stephen Avatar

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

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

    I’ll ponder your point.

  21. Christian Shaun Hollums Avatar
    Christian Shaun Hollums

    One final comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you again for the dialogue.

  22. Fr. Stephen Avatar

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

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

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

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

  23. Robert Avatar
    Robert

    Thank you Father for this repost.

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

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

  24. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

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

  25. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

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

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

  26. Fr. Stephen Avatar

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

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

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

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

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. Father I see now your response to Christian (thought I had refreshed to see the most recent comments, but guess…

  2. The line, “Above all, are you prepared to accept all things as from God?” is indeed a gauntlet thrown down.…

  3. Thank you Father for this repost. What is a proof? Even in math what constitutes a proof is somewhat subjective;…


Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast



Categories


Archives