The Space Between

Is there a God “out there”? God is “everywhere present and filling all things,” we say in our Orthodox prayers, but is He “out there?” For what it’s worth, I want to suggest for a moment that He is not. Largely, what I am describing is what takes place in our imagination – that is, what we picture when we pray and how we think of God as we seek Him.

There are, to my mind, two primary ways of thinking and speaking about God. One is “juridical,” the other “ontological.” Juridical relationships are largely how we imagine relationships in our modern culture. We think of ourselves as individuals with rights and obligations, with a series of demands made on us by others and on others by us. The rules and laws of our society govern these forces. For us – everybody and everything is “out there.” Thomas Hobbes, writing during the years of the English Civil War, described this as the “war of all against all.” He opined that only a strong government could manage such a state of nature.

“Ontological” means “having to do with being.” My relationship with myself is ontological. I am not “out there” from myself. In the modern imagination, that is where ontology stops. There is my existence (“in here”) and everything else and everyone else is “out there.” The war goes on.

This is a deeply inadequate view of life. Consider the relationship we have with our parents. We are, quite literally, “bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh.” We share a biological reality that is itself our existence. This can be extended towards other human beings. We never(!) exist alone. We can be “considered” alone for the purposes of study and the like, but we are no more alone than any of the cells within our bodies. We are social beings, but social in a manner that has to do with our very being and not merely with juridical arrangements.

The story of Joseph Stalin’s death is an interesting case in point. His exercise of brutal force on all those around him (including members of his own family) was a triumph of juridical ideology. As he lay dying (so the story goes), no one goes to his aid. There is too much fear. In the end, relationships that are shaped along purely juridical lines fail to give life. Indeed, they foster death.

St. Silouan said, “My brother is my life.” Nothing better states the ontological character of our existence. If my brother is my life, however, what is this space between us? An image that comes to mind is leaves on a tree. The life of every leaf depends on the life of every other leaf, just as all leaves depend on the life of the tree. The “space” between the leaves exists only in an imaginary manner. They are connected in a single life. The life of one is the life of all.

The space between is part of our modern imagination. The language of rights, for example, seeks to assert connectedness by juridical means, but only increases the emptiness of the space between. It is little wonder that this juridical imagery, when turned towards God, fails to nurture the soul. What we know of “out there” is always surrounded with uncertainty and anxiety. The juridical depends, ultimately, on violence. We can only “make” (“force”) things to bridge the empty space between us. And, of course, the space remains empty, regardless.

The modern paradigm, composed of juridical relationships, is the mother of loneliness, teaching our hearts that they exist in a fragmented world of temporary, negotiated cease-fires in an otherwise war-of-all-with-all. The language of rights, rooted primarily in older warrior cultures of Northern Europe, have given us our world of contracts, but never a world of true being.

God is not “out there” in the sense imagined by the juridical mind. At its very heart, “everywhere present and filling all things” means that there can be no “out there” with regard to God. God is only “here.” The Scriptures commonly describe God as dwelling “in us.” St. Paul describes our bodies as “temples of the Holy Spirit.” The language of Holy Baptism is not one of establishing a juridical relationship. It is the language of union, as is the language of the Holy Eucharist.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. Jn 6:56

All of this can easily remain little more than an intellectual distinction. My conversations over the years, however, tell me that our juridical imagination dominates how we see God. We long for a relationship with One who is “out there,” while remaining oblivious to the God who dwells in us. In a recent conversation with a young convert who was struggling with a sense of God’s absence, I said, “But you breathe Him!”

Life (and existence in all forms) has been reduced to science-facts, objects or properties of objects. In truth, all things have their existence in God (not in themselves). We live in a creation that was brought into being out of nothing – it has no being in and of itself. From an Orthodox perspective, the existence of anything is proof of the existence of God.

We recognize, however, an even greater union within human beings. Of us alone, it is said that God breathed into us and we became living souls. To know God is also to know oneself – and, we may say, we cannot know ourselves apart from God, for there is no such self.

Of all the writers in Scripture, the one who says the most about problems of being, existence, connectedness and such, is St. John. And, for St. John, the key within all of these things is love. Consider this classic statement:

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

“…if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.” This is the language of mutual indwelling that has no place within a juridical model of relationships. God is love. Indeed, in this passage there is a consistent blending of action and being. God not only does (He loves us) but He is what He does (God is love).

This manner of being is the image according to which we are created. Love constitutes our true being. “My brother is my life.” This is more than a moral statement: it is a reflection on the very nature of true existence. For this reason, the “space between,” must be seen as a delusional artifact of the juridical imagination. We are created to exist as love – love of God, love of the other, love of self. When we withdraw from the love of God and the love of other, then the love of self collapses into a solipsistic loneliness. Sadly, we have frequently structured the modern world to accommodate and promote the lonely self. Our neighborhoods, our cities, our mode of transportation, our world of entertainment and consumption thrive on the lonely self and seek to fill the space between. However, you cannot fill emptiness with emptiness.

“Out there” is “in here.”

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

8 responses to “The Space Between”

  1. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Is there anything “out there” that might suggest for even one minute that typical western atonement theories (like penal substitutionary atonement for example) can also promote and support union with God? What is all this talk, then, about sanctification in the Protestant world?

  2. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Matthew,
    I think the emptiness of PSA and such is their reliance on a metaphor for how everything works that sort of makes God an actor among actors…and ultimately ruling the universe through an imposition of violence. It’s just inadequate (to say the least). Perhaps every metaphor is inadequate – but some are more inadequate than others.

    I think the “sanctification” talk is simply because there’s all this material in the NT that simply won’t fit in the PSA model, so you add another layer (sanctification) to try and account for it.

  3. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    How does sanctification differ in the Orthodox world when compared to the Protestant world? Aren’t they both ontological/spiritual concepts?

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

    Father,
    Is it too harsh to say that PSA is destructive to the soul? It seemed that way to me even when I was a child. It initiated my path away from Christ even as a child because I was given the impression by various preaching that it was the exemplar of all Christianity. Obviously such preaching wasn’t correct but to those who have little exposure to other Christian theology, it appears to be heavily emphasized in American churches and culture.

    Your book is a healthy antidote.

  5. Kenneth Avatar
    Kenneth

    In my prior experience as an evangelical Protestant, “sanctification” never meant union with God as the Orthodox mean. It instead meant becoming more “Christ-like” in the sense of being more moral (behaving better). I think Fr. Stephen recently pointed out in a comment that understanding the Christian life in terms of imitating the morality of Christ instead of union with Christ is one aspect of secularism.

  6. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Dee,
    I think I would say that it is “potentially” harmful to the soul – in that it’s not true. I first “quit” Christianity (at age 13 as a nominal Baptist) rejecting the notion that God sends bad people to hell, etc. God as “Cosmic Enforcer” is simply bad theology. It was not a serious, well-thought-out rejection – just the rantings of a 13 year-old. Also, at that time in the South, my Baptist Church was preaching biological racism and some pretty nasty stuff (it was 1966). So, I was just quitting. It was a mess.

    I think it’s possible to read the Scriptures in a manner that yields PSA (people do it all the time). It says a lot about the nature of reading and interpretation. However, it ultimately means ignoring a lot of Scripture and certainly the bulk of Orthodox tradition.

    America is a secularized Protestant culture. Modernity itself is rooted in all of that. Its references are to various aspects of Christianity (individualism, for example, is a distorted version of the doctrine of personhood). Modernity, for example, is not an outgrowth of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. It’s not even an outgrowth of Roman Catholicism.

    But when we do a historical analysis – we’re only really helping ourselves see the world around us more clearly. It doesn’t fix it. The real question has to do with how we live in the world.

  7. Fr. Stephen Avatar

    Kenneth,
    Yes. Well said. I cite Hobbes in the article – the world as everyone against everyone – struggle. It’s a picture of people as radical individuals in which everyone has to exercise power (violence) against everyone else in order to have any place at all. Hobbes argues for the power of the state as the only thing that can keep order in all of this. There are lots of government consultant types who adhere to Hobbesian theory.

    There’s no place for communion in that model. You could fit PSA into that model – God just being the biggest power of all (but only one power among many). Morality is a sort of negotiated position that people assume in order to avoid total destruction…

    But, Hobbes is a theoretician or philosopher who is working from within 17th century English Protestant thought. It is one of the most revolutionary centuries in English history – arguably the most revolutionary.

    There’s a sort of child’s version of theology (some would say “Sunday School”) in which a sort of cartoonish way of thinking about God is employed in the place of true theology. Statements such as “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God” are simply not considered.

    My book, Everywhere Present: Christianity in a One-Storey Universe, was, in a way, an attempt to present classical Orthodox thought with some teachable images to introduce people to an ontological understanding.

    In our locale, a number of Evangelical schools require a “faith statement” of their employees. I’ve seen Orthodox people get turned down because they submitted the Nicene Creed as a faith statement. Instead, the Evangelical institution wanted a statement regarding Scripture and an acceptance of Penal Substitution Atonement theory. It’s not that they are “non-creedal” but that their “creed” is a different creed. It becomes a kind of unintentional heresy.

  8. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thank you Fr. Stephen, Kenneth and Dee.

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. Kenneth, Yes. Well said. I cite Hobbes in the article – the world as everyone against everyone – struggle. It’s…

  2. Dee, I think I would say that it is “potentially” harmful to the soul – in that it’s not true.…

  3. In my prior experience as an evangelical Protestant, “sanctification” never meant union with God as the Orthodox mean. It instead…

  4. Father, Is it too harsh to say that PSA is destructive to the soul? It seemed that way to me…


Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast



Categories


Archives