Double-Minded

picture_kafka_drawingA double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. James 1:8

The debate between an ontological atonement and a forensic atonement will doubtless continue – they represent two very different world-views and understandings of our relationship with God. The details of that debate will likely be tedious for most people and seem like much ado about nothing. But since they are world-views, even people who have no position in the debate will have an inner sympathy with one or the other. They are part of the cultural air we breathe.

Is salvation a matter of choices, attitudes, relationships and debts? Is God extrinsic to us? Is our salvation about being considered righteous by God?

Or is our salvation a matter of our very being? Are we verging on non-existence? Is sin the result of a process of death and decay at work in us? Is righteousness an actual state of  being?

I could press this distinction further – but I hope posing the questions in this manner frames things sufficiently.

I think that regardless of where you come down in this discussion, your default position will likely be forensic. Modern culture itself is forensic in nature. We think of ourselves and other people as utterly distinct individuals. Their actions may involve me if I react (psychological) or if they physically attack me, but we are essentially distinct. I might care about someone else, even love them, but my caring is an emotional state, able to motivate me to loving action, but is not itself an action. Relationships are social contracts. There are obligations to family, Church, state, etc., but these obligations are always a matter for negotiation. Traditions are simply old social contracts. These contracts are serious – we put a great deal of emotion and value on the contracts that “bind” us to other people. But the bond is legal.

The evolution of marriage in our present culture is only possible in a forensic culture (it may indeed have been inevitable). If relationships are essentially contractual (and not ontological), then relationships are only definitions. There is nothing inherent to a relationship that cannot be negotiated (if everyone involved agrees). Forensic Christians have been at a deep loss to explain why marriage cannot be extended beyond traditional gender bounds. The appeal to Divine Law (the trump card of forensic thought) simply holds no sway in an increasingly secular culture. Why should other people’s relationships have to conform to my religious beliefs, since my religious beliefs only represent a contract between myself and God?

That many people have a deep instinct that there is something wrong in all this carries no weight in the argument. “Feeling something is wrong” can be accounted for by appeals to prejudice and bias. As the culture’s forensic understanding evolves, it will easily (and soon) judge those who refuse to accept the new norm as evil people – much as we currently feel about racists. Forensically-based Christians will soon discover that the culture they helped create has changed and that they themselves will soon be accounted as evil. That many Protestant Christians have already made the evolutionary leap and accepted new contractual arrangements as acceptable is not surprising. Their numbers will be growing very quickly.

This cultural weakness of the forensic world-view is an illustration of but one of its many failures. Relationships are not contracts. That which unites human beings one to another is not choice, but being. We are ontologically related. What someone else does, and what I do, effects others whether I want it to or not – and on a level deeper than the events my actions set in motion.

St. Paul invokes something other than a forensic world-view when he cautions the Corinthians against sexual immorality:

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him (1Co 6:15-17 NKJ).

A forensic approach would simply have made an appeal to the Law and said that fornication is contrary to the commandments. But Paul’s understanding is not forensic – he views human relationships as ontological – rooted in our being. Thus sex is not simply an action which it right or wrong, measured against an objective standard. Sex is physical union. There is a mystical and physical aspect to sexual relations that utterly transcends any notion of a contract. To engage sexually with a “harlot,” is to become “one flesh.” It violates marriage, not just because an agreement has been broken, but because the man is already united to his wife. More than this, since we have been united to Christ (and are thus one flesh with Christ), even an unmarried man is uniting himself to a harlot – and any Christian man is uniting Christ to the harlot.

This mechanism of union belongs to an ontological world-view. The forensic approach, which grounds human (and human/divine) relationships in psychology, law and contract, has something of a disembodied view of human beings. Bodies are things that we use – but we are essentially minds. It is therefore not surprising that the Christian sacraments are somewhat problematic for the forensic world-view. Strangely, Christ instituted these very material means by which Christians are called to relate to Him. Thus, even in systems that have a “high” view of the sacraments, their materiality is an “outward expression” of an “inner, spiritual” reality. The material cannot be seen as spiritual – not without great trouble.

But Christ does not shy away from the very materiality of the world (having Himself become material!). “Take! Eat! This is my Body! Take! Eat! This is my Blood!” And yet more graphically, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you.” Material imagery applied to grace, holiness, righteousness, mercy, etc., are far closer representations of the true meaning of these spiritual terms than the relational images generated by the forensic model.

Thus, in Baptism we are clothed: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal 3:27 NKJ). St. Paul frequently tells his readers to “put on” something (breastplate of righteousness, the whole armor, love, etc.). The word literally means to “get dressed.” St. Paul can find no better language to describe the resurrection itself than “being clothed” (1Cor. 15). The Eastern Fathers saw in Adam and Eve’s being clothed in “tunics of skins” (Gen. 3:21) a provisional allowance of God for a humanity that had lost its true garment: light.

Material language for spiritual things has often been viewed as “primitive” or “magical” by those who hold to a forensic view. The non-materiality of forensic relations somehow seems more mature and insightful. But for all of its “sophistication,” it fails to accurately portray the truth of our existence. We are not utterly discrete individuals only relating through words and ideas. We are material beings. The Word of God did not become an idea – He became flesh. As flesh, He did not give us ideas – He gave us His flesh.

The Scripture abounds with very physical, material descriptions of divine things. The glory of God fills Solomon’s Temple so that the priests are pressed to the ground (1 Kings 8:11); the face of Moses shines with the light of God; the light of God is seen by the Apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration; the priests of God “clothe themselves in righteousness” (Psalm 132:9); the Holy Spirit appears as flame above the heads of the disciples in the upper room (Acts 2:3), etc. Such imagery can be dismissed as efforts to speak the ineffable (and this has some truth to it). But we too easily accept forensic language without question.

I recall some years ago meeting a Bulgarian scientist who had recently immigrated to America. He was Orthodox, but his former materialism still flavored his thought. He was convinced that icons emitted rays. His wife believed in the power of crystals. I was rather confounded by them. In time I have realized that they came from a very non-forensic world. The Church had been displaced by Communism and a material philosophy. But their materialism was, perhaps, closer to the language of Scripture than the forensic imagination. Their thoughts needed correction, but perhaps much less than those of the Western Christian who thinks of the world in terms of contracts and relationships.

In the meantime, most of us live in a state of double-mindedness. We struggle to think one thing but are still mired in another. For some, this discussion of imagery, comparing models of the atonement, will seem to be just a discussion about words. But that is itself a forensic thought. It’s only words…what does it matter? But it matters. It matters.

 

 

 

About Fr. Stephen Freeman

Fr. Stephen is a priest of the Orthodox Church in America, Pastor Emeritus of St. Anne Orthodox Church in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. He is also author of Everywhere Present and the Glory to God podcast series.



by

Comments

227 responses to “Double-Minded”

  1. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Dino, thank you very much for reminding me of a truth I do know. It is an awesome life monastics live and I am greatful that they do. I am too hard hearted and rebellious to attempt it. My soul longs for much that you describe yet knowing that I would defile it with my rebellious laziness.

    You do strengthen my other point though which is there is no need to attempt to exalt monastic life at the expense of lay married life. Such attempts reveal to me a lack of understanding of both.

    Would you agree?

  2. Byron Gaist Avatar
    Byron Gaist

    Dear all, it’s Holy Friday so I’ll refrain from writing anything much. I’d just like to thank everyone now, coming up to Easter.

  3. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Michael,
    Your point that there is no need to attempt to exalt monastic life at the expense of lay married life is of course valid. It is a balancing act to “compare without comparing” as St John Chrysostom does in his celebrated homily “On celibacy and virginity”. He does not denigrate marriage by exalting monasticism.

    My point was not so much the usual point of intensity of struggle from which spring quite valid notions such as these for instance:
    that married people become better when imitating monastics while monastics become worse when imitating laity (as in elite SAS soldiers imitating common back-line soldiers and vice versa). It was more a point about the difference in kind.
    That is what was meant by “layty mainly struggle in a titanic effort NOT TO FALL while monastics in an effort akin to Jacob’s effort when he wrestled with the Lord, an effort to get to know the depths of God deeper and deeper and deeper…
    As this also entails a deeper understanding of ourselves and human nature you can see the merit of Saint Isaac the Syrian’s celebrated (yet potentially scandalous to the inexperienced) words:

    Do not compare those who work signs and wonders and mighty acts in the world with those who practice stillness and knowledge. Love the idleness of stillness above providing for the world’s starving and the conversion of a multitude of heathen to the worship of God…

    …It is better for you to free yourself from the shackle of sin than to free slaves from their slavery. It is better for you to make peace with your soul, causing concord to reign over the trinity within you (I mean, the body, the soul, and spirit), than by your teaching to bring peace among men at variance.

  4. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    Michael and Dino,

    I think we’re struggling with here is “Are saying God loves you better than me!?!” In our Western world self-esteem seems to be at an all-time low. So when one person is touted as better than another, there is an immediate need to qualify the statement.

    Monks may be Special Forces while the laity are Infantrymen, but they are both essential parts of the Beloved Commander’s army and they both desperately need the other.

    God’s stance isn’t “I would really like you to all be monastics, but if the best you can do is marry and raise children, I won’t hold that against you.” In fact both groups will be neither married nor monastic in the life to come.

  5. Mary Lanser Avatar

    Dear Byron,

    Thank you as well for becoming more transparent in your inquiry. Faith is a strange thing. First you choose it. Then you come to understand. Faith is the one thing where an argument from authority is the best argument. “Our Father…”…and then going from there.

    Seems to me from your last note here to which I am responding, you have a far better sense of things than your first note indicated. I am happy to see that in truth.

    Mary

  6. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    drewster2000,

    In Orthodoxy we would never say that “both groups will be neither married nor monastic in the life to come”, we would probably, in fact, say something along the lines of monasticism is an icon of our complete engrossment in God in the life to come (which surpasses our natural state), also we could say that marriage is an icon too, (one that is commensurate with our natural state). This, I think, is more or less the only line I can take without breaking away from tradition.
    Otherwise St Isaac’s above quotes (“Love the idleness of stillness above providing for the world’s starving and the conversion of a multitude of heathen to the worship of God…) would not stand.

    I think there is absolutely no need for comparisons though, comparisons breed “logismoi” and whether a monastic or laity, we need to first be purified from all “logismoi” in order to see God.
    Otherwise we might, as we read last night, “cometh thither…with a band of men… and with lanterns and torches” and still cannot recognise our Lord, even when His presence throws us to our feet (John 18:3).

  7. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    Dino,

    Orthodox or not, the goal for all of us in the next life does not include abstinence and the exclusion of “the world” around us. There will be nothing to abstain from and no world to painfully separate ourselves from. We were created to be in communion, made in the image of the Trinity. Monastics may be the Special Forces in the army here on earth, but monasticism AND marriage are both but poor icons of what will one day be our heavenly reality.

    And I agree: there is no need for comparisons.

  8. TLO Avatar
    TLO

    Drewster – If that’s the case, why the heck wasn’t this reality created in the same way? I thought that you could not have love without free will. Yet in this heaven you speak of it sounds as if there are no choices (nothing to abstain from etc).

  9. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    TLO, our ability to choose will be sanctified and as St. Gregory of Nyssa put it–we will move from Glory to Glory growing closer to God each time we exercise our choice the love of God and of each other amplified and communion deepened. The Kingdom of Heaven is not a static-state existence.

  10. Brian Avatar
    Brian

    TLO,

    “In the present life the things we have relations with are numerous, for instance: time, air, locality, food and drink, clothing, sunlight, lamplight, and other necessities of life, none of which, many though they be, are God. That blessed state which we hope for is in need of none of these things, but the Divine Being will become all, and in the stead of all to us, distributing Himself proportionately to every need of that existence. It is plain, too, from the Holy Scriptures that God becomes to those made worthy of it, locality and home and clothing and food and drink and light and riches and kingdom, and everything that can be thought of and named that goes to make our life happy” -Saint Gregory of Nyssa

    We are no longer naïve children. Having tasted the bitter fruit of our own foolishness and now basking in the fullness of the love of God, why would we ever choose to return to necessity and death? Even now, while still of the body of this death, subject to endless temptations and having barely tasted of the sheer goodness of God, I could not turn away. How much less when His fullness envelops me in love, when He is all in all, the Uncreated fulfillment of every desire that I am now foolishly tempted to try and satisfy with mere created things?

    “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you, and I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired servants…’ But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him…‘Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry; for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”

    I believe it was C.S. Lewis who wrote, “Shall we complain that we are starving if we refuse to eat the only food in the universe?” Thus one could complain that in a sense there is no other ‘choice.’ Such is the reasoning of the elder brother who chose to refuse the joy of the feast. But thoughts like his melt into oblivion in the face of the inexpressible joy and sheer foolishness of God’s boundless love.

    O namesake of the beloved, I have no reasoning to match the sharpness of your wit, but you are loved beyond measure! Taste and see that the Lord is GOOD!

    Today, Christ our Pascha is sacrificed; therefore, let us keep the feast!

  11. TLO Avatar
    TLO

    Brian said:

    We are no longer naïve children. Having tasted the bitter fruit of our own foolishness and now basking in the fullness of the love of God, why would we ever choose to return to necessity and death?

    This whole line of thinking really angers me. Not that I am angry at you but at the ideas.

    The Christian view, if I understand it correctly, is that at some point there were humans who were innocent or naïve and who “fell” thus condemning all of humanity.

    The entire story of the “fall of man” is fraught with injustice and a heavy-handed overreaction of a supposedly benevolent god. God set this whole thing up, gave an order to ignorant children and when they disobeyed everyone and everything in nature was subject to the curse of the fall.

    I fail to see the difference between the state of people in a supposed perfect heaven and what mankind allegedly was before the fall. I constantly hear the “free will” argument but your reply implies that there will not really be an alternative but to be pure or that if there is one it will be simple for people to choose the right thing.

    But why should anyone think so? If god would do to humanity what he did in Genesis, who’s to say that in the sweet bye-and-bye he might not set up an entirely different set of circumstances where people will make a wrong choice without fully understanding the consequences and then send them through an eternity of a new kind of torment and agony?

    To my mind, the Christian god cannot be trusted. The story of the fall makes him out to be either incompetent or nefarious. How anyone can read “goodness” or any positive qualities into god by reading about him throughout the OT is beyond me.

  12. Lasseter Avatar

    If god would do to humanity what he did in Genesis, ….

    But what did He do, TLO? The text is plain that He created the universe and man in it, and He gave man a set of instructions, but did He punish man for man’s transgression? There was some old writer somewhere or other (perhaps Augustine) who wrote something to the effect, (speaking as God) “On that day [the day you eat from the tree] I will kill you,” but this is not what Genesis says, of course. In Genesis He said “You shall die,” as in death will be the consequence. This is not necessarily a pronouncement of judicial sentence. There is no unified view in Orthodoxy about how “literally” to take the Creation story, and there is no “scientific consensus” about how sin has been transmitted throughout the world. The notion that all of Creation is being punished for the transgressions of two ancient human beings, though, is nonetheless a rather harshly retributive and vengeful reading, and it does not sit well with my own Orthodox mind.

    I tend to be a bit displeased with these kinds of comment threads, and there are plenty of them, where various Orthodox Christians (often converts, which helps to account for their zeal, but there are plenty of Orthodox from infancy who do this too, and we’re all on the Internet, and that right there is reason enough for a certain kind of nebulous zeal) answer the painful questions of life’s cares and suffering and injustice with a few quotes from the Church Fathers or the words of some ascetic who spent years in the desert or what-have-you and then say something about inner stillness or divine energies or a whole lot of other stuff that for most of us here on planet Earth is eschatological. And by eschatological of course I mean something we’ve barely experienced in this life, if at all, and expect to be granted more of later–in the Age to Come, no doubt. And it seems tacitly assumed that such words are a sufficient answer. Of course they’re not.

    “Well, Frank, you see, God brings peace to the heart of the believer, and, now that I’m basking in the divine energies, gosh, there ain’t no way I’m turning back. How come you don’t feel the same way, broheim?”

    Anyway, I think that if you try to analyze the first chapters of Genesis in some way comparable to earthly justice or to imagine the Heavenly Father in some way comprehensible as an earthly father would be, you set up the inevitable realization that the inscrutable God doesn’t come across as especially fair or just. The best I can say on this Pascha morning (which is not a happy one in my own affairs–imagine that! shouldn’t the divine hocus-pocus have me all celebratory and overcome with kenosis and théosis and a whole lotta other [stuff] you ain’t never heard of! A tip of the hat to I’m gonna git you sucka! there for film buffs.) Where was I? Ah, yes.

    The best I can say is that a child will inevitably find some of his parents’ acts incomprehensible and hurtful, and yet in many such instances the acts are in fact proper. One should not expect, say, to relate to the Creator as an adult offspring can relate to his adult parent, engaging in well-informed discourse and fully understanding the elder’s motives and ways. We’re more like infants to our Heavenly Father, only infinitely less possessed of understanding even than human infants are in looking upon their human parents.

    Trying to imagine what Heaven or Paradise or the Age to Come is like with any specificity is likewise a fool’s errand.

    I’ve been Orthodox myself since infancy, and I would be very happy if you were part of the Orthodox Church, TLO, but I don’t think there is any level of argumentation or Patristic quotation or analysis that would accomplish that here. Although you’ve been a bit contrarian in a good many of your comments, I’ve been left with the impression that your questions are sincere, and I actually sympathize with a good many of them. So why do I myself believe in God and all of our Orthodox hocus pocus? Let me get back to you on that one, maybe at some time when you and I have a couple of hours or years to talk it over. Putting an adequate answer in an Internet comment box is not something I feel confident in doing. But then, I’m not a Church father or an ascetic. No doubt some desert-dweller who’s been praying constantly for the last forty years will hop on his laptop with his wireless connection and give you a better reply than I can.

  13. Lasseter Avatar

    Jiminy Christmas, I just wrote a fairly lengthy reply to TLO’s last comment, and it did not post. Funny, when I was clicking the “Submit Comment” button, I thought, if this thing get’s lost by some technical this-or-that (as seems to happen from time to time ’round these parts), it’s a sign. A message, “Lasseter, my boy, you stayed out of this now rather long comment thread thus far; why would you want to do a silly thing like start commenting now?” An Orthodox Easter miracle, no less, that sign, emblazoned on the sunny glare of my laptop this glorious morn.

  14. Lasseter Avatar

    Το σχὀλιὀ μου ανέστη! I guess it was an Easter miracle, after all.

  15. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Lasseter,
    I too have been touched by evil that took my beloved and threatened my son and me as well.

    It is a bit like being frozen to the bone. It takes a long time for warmth to return and even then the memory of the horrible cold remains.

    Evil isolates. That is its nature. It trys to cut us from the herd and take us down. Even as it did to Jesus. Unlike predator animals however, evil strikes at the strong among us hoping to take down many as a result.

    In the midst of that evil the gift of one woman moved me a woman with whom I had hardly ever spoken before or since. She came up to me and graciously revealed her own pain took my hands and simply told me to keep coming to Church.

    That was it.

    It is the primary human reason I’m still here. It is why I can sing
    Lord God of Hosts be with us for we have none other help, none other help but thee in times of sorrow. O Lord of Hosts, have mercy on us, one minute in tears and the next cry out in joy that Christ is risen.

    Of course we are not truly alone.

    I will at least keep you in my unworthy prayers. Christ IS Risen in the midst of our existential suffering.

  16. Rhonda Avatar

    Lasseter,
    Longer comments get caught in Fr. Stephen’s spam filter. He usually finds them pretty quickly & gets them through 🙂

    I whole-heartedly agree with the advice given to & by Michael. Keep going to Church & working out your salvation…all else will pass in time & eventually God’s purpose will be revealed. In my experience, both with myself & what I have witnessed with others is that things seem to boil up in our everyday lives just as we are on the verge of some sort of spiritual advancement in our relationship with God.

    For whatever reason many want &/or need a cruel, angry & vindictive God (which is truly not any sort of God-god). I have my own opinions as to why, but to extrapolate them here would be out of line. Sometimes when dealing one-on-one (IRL) with someone I will put that question to them, but it is very rare.

    Anyway, my unworthy prayers too will be with you.

    Christ Is Risen! Indeed He Is Risen!

  17. Brian Avatar
    Brian

    TLO (John),

    Don’t think for a moment that many (and that certainly includes me) haven’t reasoned within ourselves in similar ways at times. I, too, have wondered why God “set it up” the way He did. And without going into all the misconceptions that exist about what some call ‘original sin,’ I have wondered why (apparently) one man’s choice should be allowed to cause the suffering of so many.

    There is no end to such questions. Why was I born? Why was I born a man and not a woman? Why do I have to work so hard to make a living? Why was I born poor instead of rich – or rich instead of poor? Why do good people suffer? Why do the wicked prosper? Why…? Some of the answers as to why the world is as it is have been revealed to us. Most have not. The Psalms are filled with questions of the human heart that remain largely unanswered. If you have the answers, please tell me. I certainly do not.

    Nevertheless, I have told you the truth – however unacceptable it is to your mind at this moment. God loves you immeasurably; and He loves us all…the good and the evil, the believer and the unbeliever, those who trust Him as well as those who slander Him.

    The order of the creation He has made with all its possibilities for suffering and death is not something from which He Himself remains aloof. Integral to His creation is not only His Mother by whom He unites Himself to us, but also Judas, Caiaphas, Pilot, the wood and the nails of His Cross… Of all the questions we may ask as to ‘why,’ this is far and away the greatest mystery of all; yet this is the God of the Christians, the one who has revealed Himself to us in the Pascha of Christ.

    On a much lighter note, I went to the source of Fr. Stephen’s video of Archbishop Job singing the 15th Antiphon and discovered this among his many talents.

    Christ is risen! Have a good laugh.

  18. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    unless Man decides to open up his eyes to his sin, there is alwayssomeone else to blame, and ultimately that Someone else ends up being God.
    I might even be the one who brings death into the world for the first time (as did Cain – let’s not forget it was a human who did this) yet it will be Abel’s, Adam’s or ultimately the Creator’s fault in my mind and in the most “natural and reasonable” way I remain blind to the Truth that there is no better way than the way things are endlessly arguing my self-justification.
    It is amazing that when Man crucifies his God, God still resurrects his creature yet, that very creature still blames Him in his blindness.
    TLO
    you say “The Christian view, if I understand it correctly, is that at some point there were humans who were innocent or naïve and who “fell” thus condemning all of humanity.”
    No. It is that man constantly justifies himself and blames the other (especially that ultimate Other – God). “The woman you gave me”, or “the serpent” simply means the same as “the character you have given me”, or “the predicament you have placed me in”, instead of what transforms man into a noble, authentic, relational being that sees clearly his Joy, his God: “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified”

    We can easily find out at every moment in our lives whether our internal state will acknowledge bliss or discontent, Paradise or Hell on whether we side or not with these words of David

  19. Shane Avatar
    Shane

    TLO said “The entire story of the “fall of man” is fraught with injustice and a heavy-handed overreaction of a supposedly benevolent god.”

    TLO – if this is who god is, then I too would be an atheist. In this sense, I believe that atheists are closer to the truth than someone who believes in the false image of an angry malevolent god.

    This is not the Orthodox understanding of the fall. When God said “in that day you will die”, it was not punishment or a reaction, it was a statement of cause and effect.

    If you unplug a lamp from the electric outlet, the light goes out. If we turn our backs to the source of Life, we die.

  20. Lasseter Avatar

    Thank you, Michael and Rhonda, for the prayers.

  21. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    “Benevolent” doesn’t mean “nice.” It means, literally, well-intentioned. The Exsultet, which is sung by many traditional western Christians at the Easter Vigil, speaks of the fall not only as a “happy fault,” but also — amazingly — as a “necessary sin.” Did man need to suffer? We know that St. Paul said that even Christ was “perfected” through suffering. This is a great mystery. No wonder that St. Paul called the wisdom of God “inscrutable.” There is no other word for it. Both love and evil are mysteries, wherein the benevolent providence of God and the ambiguous will of man meet in the person of Jesus Christ. We must handle such weighty matters carefully, John.

  22. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    PJ & TLO,
    it is far safer and more error-free to talk of us humans than of God in these matters.

    The spiritual law that states that: only self-condemnation (the healthy type), as being completely unworthy of the Love of Christ -strange though this may seem at first-, frees one deeply, through the Grace of the Holy Spirit, of even the most subtle forms of Pride – our biggest enemy.The subtlety of this temptation and its offsping is truly beyond words – especially in its more advanced stages. This type of self-condemnation’s diminution therefore, inevitably leads to the condemnation of others – especially of God. Harsh though this may sound it is a type of unfailing spiritual law: That I either crucify myself or I crucify others…
    This is strongly seen in Christ’s word to Saint Silouan: “Keep thy mind in hell, and despair not.”
    This word of Christ was given to St. Silouan after long years of struggle against the demons, the visible demons, a struggle whose very existence most people hardly believe due to their ignorance, as this normally occurs only after all instrusive thoughts and imaginations have been set aside! (A feat whose attainableness many people might even doubt).
    It is also true that what we see in others and the way we interpret what we read in Scripture or what befalls us is closely connected to where we stand on our willingness to be crucified (like God) or to crucify (like fallen angels and humans)…

  23. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    In the light of the previous comment one can see why the sons and daughters of the first Adam constantly repeat his God-blaming and self-justifying interpretation of the world; and the offspring of the Second Adam always repeat His sacrificial and eucharistic way of life.

  24. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    TLO,
    although you have opened a very interesting different subject here, I will return to our previous subject on the differences between marriage and monasticism with
    Michael Bauman and drewster2000,
    I would like to return and clarify my earlier statement somewhat further, concerning monasticism’s particular and unique affinity with Jacob’s wrestling with the Lord, an effort to get to know the depths of God deeper and clearer -using Elder Sophrony’s words on the matter (they are less “scandalous” than someone like the great Elder Aimilianos’ who has also talked at length on the subject)…
    “Monasticism above all means the purity of the mind, [which is unattainable without obedience. That is why there can be no monasticism without obedience]. It is possible to receive great gifts of God – even the perfection of martyrdom – outside the monastic condition; but purity of mind is a special gift of monasticism, unknown on other paths, and the monk can only reach this state through obedience.” (Birth into the Kingdom Which Cannot Be Moved, in Russian, edited by Fr. Nicholas Sakharov, Essex, 1999)

  25. TLO Avatar
    TLO

    Lasseter (and others):

    If god would do to humanity what he did in Genesis, …

    But what did He do, TLO? The text is plain that He created the universe and man in it, and He gave man a set of instructions, but did He punish man for man’s transgression?

    Look, if it was just A&E who were punished for failing to follow instructions, fine. They erred, they pay. But the whole of humanity was screwed because of the sins of two? That’s like telling a two-year-old “don’t touch” and as soon as it does touch whatever you told it not to touch, a nuclear bomb goes off killing 60,000 people. Why? Because that’s how you rigged it.

    What I’m saying is that if god would punish the whole of humanity for the sins of two, he is unjust and cannot be trusted. Eternal bliss? Right, just like the Garden was perfect. Who’s to say that he won’t rig something far worse in the next life?

    Please understand, I don’t believe a word of it. To my mind, you cannot call god “good” and come up with this sort of nonsense. It makes far more sense to think that, if there is a designer, mankind is exactly as it was designed to be.

  26. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    TLO,
    I am afraid you continue to fail to see humanity’s immense gamut.
    A&E are but icons of you, me and everyone. They erred, we also err – completely afresh. Mankind is exactly as it was designed to be in Christ and His saints while retaining its potential for individuals to become no better than devils incarnate…
    The remarkable thing I have been struggling to put across, is that without one’s humble recognition (as Father Sophrony Sackarov puts it) “that we are indeed devils incarnate in our fall, we shall never arrive at fulness of repentance. Through total repentance we break loose from the deadly embrace of selfish individualism and begin to contemplate the divine univeraslity of Christ.”
    In simple terms, NOT blaming oneself (and therefore blaming God or A&E) is the refreshment of the fall…

  27. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    The reason Elder Sophrony uses such particularly strong words is none other than that he knew the real essence of our constantly renewed fall, (what we even see in 3 year olds -an inability to truly say sorry- believing I could possibly be in the wrong and others in the right)

  28. Rhonda Avatar

    TLO,

    What I’m saying is that if god would punish the whole of humanity for the sins of two, he is unjust and cannot be trusted.

    You have been here long enough to know how the EO regard this matter. The Orthodox do not believe that God holds children guilty & punishable for their parents sins any more than a human judge incarcerates a child because the child’s parent(s) committed a crime.

    A more appropriate example of EO understanding would be that of a handicapped child born with some condition because the child’s mother used drugs while the child was in the womb. The child is born with a condition & thus will suffer accordingly through diminished capacity & ability, but at no time is the child of less/no value. At no time is the child deemed guilty & subject to punishment because of what the parent’s illicit drug use.

    The “condition” we inherit from Adam & Eve is that of a sinful nature with a diminished capacity for relationship with each other, with God & with all of creation. We ceased being other-centered persons & became self-centered individuals.

  29. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    TLO,
    There are so many reasons that the Tradition reads the Scriptures in fairly non-literal ways. Your summary of the Creation narrative is a good example.

    The narrative, for example, gives no account for the origin of evil. The narrative seems to start in the middle of that story. Later references to the fall of Lucifer are themselves rather obscure. The Tradition makes some use of it, but not nearly as definitively as you’d think based on later use.

    Rather, Genesis gives us profound insight into the nature of our existence and what that has to do with God. Of course, it can be trivialized if that suits the purpose. “that He is unjust and cannot be trusted.” Brilliant. The absurdity of some versions of Christian theology is obvious. But those versions of Christianity have only a tangential relationship with Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is not ultimately about someone’s attempt at a cogent systematic theology. It’s about knowledge of the true and living God. Nothing less.

  30. TLO Avatar
    TLO

    The “condition” we inherit from Adam & Eve is that of a sinful nature with a diminished capacity for relationship with each other,

    It amounts to the same thing.

    The child of such a mother has no chance or choice. IMHO, if this story is true, neither do we. There is no “free will” in the matter. If there was, who would choose to be born deformed? The deformed child cannot become un-deformed by making right choices. Neither can we be anything other than what we are.

    Apparently Dino represents a set who think that we are “devils incarnate.” To my mind, this is silly.

    In simple terms, NOT blaming oneself (and therefore blaming God or A&E) is the refreshment of the fall.

    I have no problem accepting responsibilities when I screw up. But trying to tell me a story about god where he bears no responsibility for the results of his actions? That’s just too weak to me. The manufacturer is responsible for the defects in the product.

  31. Lasseter Avatar

    TLO, I’m not totally sure why you took my comment where I questioned whether it was indeed a punishment that God inflicted on primordial man and just kept rolling with your focus on a punishing God: I surely wasn’t describing the Fall as a punishment inflicted on Creation for the deeds of two persons. I also think, again, you just set yourself up for a view of a God who is not the Orthodox Creator (and who comes across as kind of a bad dude) by taking this exclusively punitive line and then going further by evaluating a being transcendent of this world by standards limited to this world–indeed limited to your perception or imagination within this world. If it’s so hard for you to accept that there is a god, then there’s no point in arguing about it, especially when we argue from such different bases. Perhaps getting a satisfactory sense of there being a God is simply not the thing for you at this time. I surely don’t think you’re getting much of it here, or at least this discussion is not the best way for you to find it, if indeed you should ever find it.

    I believe it was the Saint Quasi-Sophronios the Mystical Elder and Son of a the Blessed Kaseem the Cypriot who, while sojourning on Mount Olympus and carefully studying Saint Kilgore the Younger’s exegesis of the seventh letter of the third word of the fourth verse of the first chapter of the book of Ecclesiastes (LXX) amidst his ascetical labors, said, “Keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the stars.”

    Or, as Lloyd Bridges said in the movie Hot Shots!, “What I wouldn’t give to be twenty years younger … and a woman.”

  32. Rhonda Avatar

    TLO,

    The child of such a mother has no chance or choice.

    I don’t really understand your comment here…no chance or choice for what? True, the child had “no choice” in the condition it was born with; & neither do we descendents of Adam & Eve. But the child does have a choice (free will), just as we descendents of Adam & Eve do. We can choose to love or not love God, i.e. we can choose to accept or reject union with God with that free-will.

    Apparently Dino represents a set who think that we are “devils incarnate.”

    Sigh 🙁 Dino did not say that…he said:

    Mankind is exactly as it was designed to be in Christ and His saints while retaining its potential for individuals to become no better than devils incarnate…

    Dino is very Orthodox & there is nothing to argue with here in his analogy of our potential & our penchant to commit evil. Also, he did clarify the quote from Elder Sophrony. We do have 2 potentials, one for personhood in Christ by doing good vs. one for individualism in self by doing evil. Our history is rife with these evil acts as you well know. I do seem to recall some of your postings which virtually equated mankind with evil scum & bonobos with sainthood!

    I have no problem accepting responsibilities when I screw up. But trying to tell me a story about god where he bears no responsibility for the results of his actions? That’s just too weak to me. The manufacturer is responsible for the defects in the product.

    God the Father is the Creator of beings, not a manufacturer of products. We are not poorly designed nor shoddily built things. We are created beings who were given & still have free-will to choose. It is not God’s fault that we choose poorly most of the time anymore than it is your fault, Dad, when one of your daughters chooses poorly despite the upbringing you have given her.

    Frankly, we have told you about the God who is love personified in contrast to your insistent view that God is cruel, angry & vindictive. We have explained alternative views to the Scriptures to such a punitive being & substantiated them from other sources spanning 2,000 years of Church Hisory. We have referred you to resources to guide you further in support of “God is Love”. For whatever reason, you want &/or need a cruel, angry & vindictive God rather than God who is love personified. That is your choice…your God-given free-will.

  33. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    As the play writes Lawrence and Lee wrote:
    “God created man in His own image. Man, being a gentleman, returned the compliment”

  34. Rhonda Avatar

    Fr. Stephen,
    My last comment posted is stuck in your spam filter…Thanks.

  35. Anna Avatar
    Anna

    TLO,

    I empathize with your comment about how “the manufacturer is responsible for the defects in his products.” It seems that He must have known the story to come for mankind, and I think that the cross of Christ and His resurrection was sewn into the creation of the world from the beginning.

    I wonder at how accidental the fall in the garden was, Fr. Stephen. Was the way of suffering an essential part of the story all along? Was it possible to mature as humankind apart from this road? It seems that in the life of the saints it is their very suffering that creates the beauty and virtue and the capacity for them to see and know the good God who loves mankind.

  36. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    TLO,
    I was hoping that you have been around here long enough that you I needn’t meticulously clarify every statement that has potential for misunderstanding…
    Of course your misunderstanding: “Apparently Dino represents a set who think that we are “devils incarnate.” To my mind, this is silly.” needs some clarification.
    But, Orthodox asceticism is full of language that has a unique pedagogical power when used correctly and can be completely abused when read from the ‘outside’, Scripture is one such example, but ascetical writings such as Elder Sophrony’s or something even more unconcerned with its potential for misunderstanding for misunderstanding (eg The Ladder of Divine ascent) are obviously even easier to misunderstand. Please don’t! I was hoping it would be obvious what is the right and wrong unerstanding of such statements by now… 🙂

  37. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Here’s some clarification from F. Sophrony on his poetical expression ‘devils incarnate’:

    ‘Fervent prayer of repentance ignores extraneous impressions and rational concepts. Other ascetic cultures likewise practise this detaching of the mind from visual and intellectual forms. But in the darkness of divestiture the soul does not encounter the Living God if prayer lacks due recognition of sin, and genuine repentance. It is possible, however, to experience a certain sense of release from the kaleidoscopic process of everyday life.

    ‘In profound grief at having lost God the soul naturally strips herself of material and mental images, and the mind-spirit approaches the border beyond which Light can appear.

    ‘But this border, too, can remain impassable if the mind turns in on itself. Where the mind is so fixated, it can even see itself as light. It is important to know that this light is natural to our mind since the mind was created in the likeness of God, revealed to us as Light, in which there is “no darkness at all” [I John I:5].

    ‘Thus the transition is effected to another mode of thinking, to another and superior kind of understanding compared with scientific knowledge. Divested in a surge of repentance of all that is transient, our spirit, as from a high peak, sees the relativity and conditional character of all empiric cognition. And again and again I repeat, God is truly experienced either as purifying fire or as the Light that illumines.

    “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” [Ps. 111:10]. This fear descends on us from on High. It is a spiritual feeling, firstly of God and then of ourselves. We live in a state of awe by virtue of the presence of the Living God together with awareness of our own impurity.

    ‘This fear places us before the Face of God to be judged by Him. We have fallen so low that our distress over ourselves turns into profound suffering, more painful than the torment of seeing ourselves in the darkness of ignorance, in the paralysis of non-feeling, in slavery to the passions.

    ‘The dread is our awakening from the age-old sleep in sin. It brings us the light of perception – on the one hand, of our fatal condition and, on the other, of the holiness of God. [We Shall See Him As He Is, pgs. 20-22]

  38. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Of course the poetic experiences of the saints and even we regular folk are impossible without a firm belief that our God is a good God. Only then is it possible to renounce Satan and all his works and unite ourselves to Christ.

  39. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    “‘In profound grief at having lost God the soul naturally strips herself of material and mental images, and the mind-spirit approaches the border beyond which Light can appear.”

    I know I’m a spiritual amateur, but this is somehow off-putting. Isn’t the light of God manifested supremely in the Holy Face of Christ? The Crucified Word seems the perfect object of contemplation. “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”

  40. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    John,

    Haven’t we had this debate a half-dozen times? Of course the “story” of Adam and Eve doesn’t make any sense to you. St. Paul says that even pious Jews can’t really comprehend its meaning. “For to this day, when [Jews] read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.” Furthermore, the letter kills apart from the Spirit. Scripture is the Word of God. IOnly those with “ears to hear” can understand what it says. The heart must be tilled by the Spirit so that the seed of the Word can take root and flourish.

    You visit the earth and water it;
    you greatly enrich it;
    the river of God is full of water;
    you provide their grain,
    for so you have prepared it.
    You water its furrows abundantly,
    settling its ridges,
    softening it with showers,
    and blessing its growth.
    –Psalm 65:9-10

    If you just want to debate, fine. But if you’re really seeking to understand — then get on your knees and begin to pray. But you must sacrifice your sense of almighty reason, which cannot begin to pierce the divine mysteries. The only way forward is through total self-emptying, humility, and childlike abandon to providence.

  41. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    By the way, don’t think I speak harshly. I’ve been in your exact position. I’ve entertained the same questions. Heck, sometimes I still entertain them! I speak, as best I can, truth in charity.

  42. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Anna, I’m sure Fr. Stephen can elaborate, but the Orthodox regard the understanding of the Fall in the Garden as a “happy necessity” as heresy. There is longer explanation (which David Bentley Hart touches on in his book, Doors of the Sea), but basically the problem with this heresy is that it makes God the Author of evil. No, the Fall was not necessary at all to God’s plan to unite the creation to Himself in humanity through Christ. The Greek Fathers taught that Christ’s Incarnation would have occurred and been necessary for this union even had mankind never fallen. But God has, nevertheless, also made provision for the complete healing of mankind’s Fall in Christ by Christ’s entry into, and triumphal destruction of, our death and hell. The consummation of that destruction will be made fully manifest at Christ’s Second Advent. It is manifest at present in the lives of the Saints in their overcoming the normal limitations of sin, such that miracles akin to those manifest in the Son of God are also manifest through their lives (e.g., abounding compassion/complete absence of egotism, prophetic insight/wisdom, healing through their intercession, a great level of transcendence of normal human bodily needs, etc.). The Saints are signs that point to the fullness of the Kingdom that is, from our perspective in space and time, yet to come.

  43. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    Karen,

    I think you misunderstand the notion of “felix culpa.” When we say that the fall was a “necessary sin” or a “happy fault,” we do not mean that it was caused by God, but rather that God created man knowing full well that he would sin. The fall was a part of the economy of salvation. It did not take God by surprise. This idea is found throughout the fathers, both eastern and western, and I’ve seen it embraced by many modern Orthodox teachers, including Fr. John Behr and Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon.

  44. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    Also, you write: “The Greek Fathers taught that Christ’s Incarnation would have occurred and been necessary for this union even had mankind never fallen.”

    Do you have any references? I’ve not often seen the fathers postulate such an alternative reality. There was debate among the medieval scholastics, but the early church … ? I’m not saying you’re wrong, necessarily, I’m just surprised that there was much specific discussion of this topic prior to the middle ages, with a few exceptions (Irenaeus, I believe, says something about this).

  45. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    PJ,
    I will answer your question:
    “I know I’m a spiritual amateur, but this is somehow off-putting. Isn’t the light of God manifested supremely in the Holy Face of Christ?”

    (on F. Sophrony’s words with his words):
    ‘The grace of repentance is given to him who in full faith accepts Christ’s dictum that if we do not believe in His Divinity and the absolute truth of all that He commanded of us, the mystery of sin will not be unmasked to us in its ontological profundity, and we shall “die in our sins” [cf. John 8:21, 24].

    ‘The very conception of sin obtains only where the relation between Absolute God and created man assumes a purely personal character. (We Shall See Him As He Is, Archimandrite Sophrony, On the Fear of God, pgs. 19-20)
    So, comprehending His Face prerequires this…

  46. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    Hmm. I guess that sort of helps. Sometimes I have trouble understanding what he’s saying. Probably over my head.

  47. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    PJ,
    Fr. Sophrony’s one theme that ran like a pure stream through all his words was the reference to Luke 14:26.
    For instance talking on his beloved Elder -St Silouan:

    “The Staretz’ message is a gentle, often affectionate one, healing the soul, but to heed it requires great and ardent resolution – to the point of self-hatred” (Luke 14:26)

    We see this in other words in other experienced ascetics such as Elder Ephraim of Katounakia :

    “Man’s greatest struggle is to disbelieve his own thoughts. When your elder is absent, you ought to ask your brother and listen to whatever he tells you. Is is no minor struggle to put your egoism aside; it is no small achievement. But there is no other way, there simply isn’t. If you want to follow monastic law, you must take this path.”

    What I mean to say is that they all agree that it is not any contemplation, not even of, “The Crucified Word” that brings the Light, it is the purity of heart that is only ever imparted through total humility that makes us see – purity from “me“, since it is “me” that defiles my immersion in “Him“-; hence, the ‘description’ of the first commandment of total love towards “Him” as “self-hatred”…

  48. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Saint Silouan’s words also mean the same thing as the above mentioned Fathers:

    “Why did the Holy Fathers set obedience above fasting and prayer?”…
    “The truly obedient man detests his own will and loves his spiritual father, and for this he receives freedom to pray to God with an undistracted mind, and his soul is free without let or hindrance to contempate God and rest in Him.”

  49. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    That’s more helpful. Thanks.

  50. TLO Avatar
    TLO

    PJ:

    Haven’t we had this debate a half-dozen times?

    Yes, my friend, we have had this discussion. It is important to me because it is the story of the Fall, all by its onesie, that led me away from Christianity. Indeed, it seems plain that Christianity relies rather heavily on this story.

    Lasseter:

    Pardon the length of this post.

    I also think, again, you just set yourself up for a view of a God who is not the Orthodox Creator (and who comes across as kind of a bad dude) by taking this exclusively punitive line and then going further by evaluating a being transcendent of this world by standards limited to this world–indeed limited to your perception or imagination within this world.

    Here’s the thing. Humanity is a mess. I think we can all agree on that. It is the Christian’s answer to “why” that flummoxes me. No matter how one looks at it, the Christian answer to that question involves:

    1. An omnipotent, omniscient being
    2. Human beings who were naive and/or innocent
    3. A choice
    4. All humanity paying the price for that choice

    The nearest equivalent that I can think of on a human scale is, “You’re Jewish (or insert any ethnicity you choose)? Therefore….”

    Rather than creating each human in the same condition in which A&E were created and giving each a choice, all are born under the yoke of sin (“For if the many died by the trespass of the one man…”). Who is to say that every human would make the fatal choice? Statistically speaking, it’s nearly impossible that all would. So why not give each of us a fair shot at getting it right?

    What set this conversation off was a comment that in the next life there won’t be this sin/human nature mess to deal with (paraphrased). If things can be that way in the next life, why not this one?

    The answer is always “free will.” But how can there be free will in the next life if there isn’t a chance to fall? And who’s to say that god won’t set up another test there that is equally subtle and has equally dire consequences?

    If it’s so hard for you to accept that there is a god, then there’s no point in arguing about it…

    I have no problem with the idea that there is a god. I simply cannot believe in one that would miss something so obvious.

    Indeed, I think Anna’s question speaks to the core of the issue:

    I wonder at how accidental the fall in the garden was, Fr. Stephen.

    If it was the case that god intended for all this mess to happen, well, that’s an entirely different story. Indeed, I see no point in any explanation other than “God created us as the messes that we are” and leave off this original glory/original sin business. As it stands, mankind is blamed for the mess (even though you and I were never given an opportunity to get it right the first time). If we simply said, “God made it that way” then at least he would be taking responsibility for the mess that we’re in. If god had said something like:

    OK, y’all, here’s how I designed things. I’ve set you at a disadvantage and given you a challenge. Have a go at it. But when you fail, don’t worry because I’m here to help you along.

    Something like this would make far more sense to me than the story that is presented.

    I could even bend so far as to say that in light of such a statement the cross could make sense. However, juxtaposing the Cross against the Fall is far too inventive and really makes no sense. No matter how I look at it, god comes off looking like anything but a loving or decent person.

    I think the first apostles made a huge mistake in putting any stock into the Fall story. They should have left it completely out of the equation.

    But here’s the crux of the matter: could they have? And if they had, would Christianity be what it is today? Can one remove the Fall and still have Christian doctrine?

    If the answer is “no” then it is the Fall, and not the Cross, that is the foundation of the faith. God could have offered any number of remedies but the fundamental issue would still be the Fall.

    If the answer is “yes” then why bother speaking of the Fall at all?

    It just seems to me that the Fall is either paramount or irrelevant. There’s no middle ground.

  51. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    John,

    You’ll drive yourself mad trying to understand this in such a rational manner. Seems to me that only he who is in Christ can make sense of the mystery of salvation, the fall included. “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” If you love Christ and do have faith in Him, then bring this question before His feet. Let HIm answer it for you. We are jut men. He calls forth the Spirit of Truth from the Father. There are many things about the faith that trouble me from time to time. Sometimes men can help. But ultimately I must trust God to give me wisdom — or I must have the courage to accept my ignorance. Just because you don’t understand the fall doesn’t mean it’s not true. What about the Christian faith really, really makes sense? It’s all mind-bending! We believe that God became an obscure laborer and was crucified between thieves at age 33. Madness! Indeed, yes, it is madness to the carnal mind. But to he who has faith — power and wisdom, as Paul says. Come back on your knees, my friend! Perhaps your first cross to bear is accepting your ignorance of this matter.

  52. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    TLO,
    I’ll give my somewhat shortest answer to the problem as you state it, viz. creation and the fall, according to my understanding and reading of the fathers (throwing in St. Isaac of Syria for good measure):

    Freedom (which is not quite as simple as “choice”) involves the possibility of a “fall,” i.e. a movement away from union with God. It also offers the only way towards true union with God in the fullness of life for which we were created. God creates us with a freedom which we misuse(d), and which we still misuse. In Christ, that misuse is healed and turned towards its proper use.

    Another way of saying this is that the freedom required for true union with God, also requires the risk of its abuse (the fall). To get the first, you risk the second. But the first is the purpose of our creation, and the end of our creation. If you will, everything, including the fall (the Cross and Resurrection, etc.) is “creation,” the whole story. It is the story of a creation that God made for union with Himself, but which takes a “dangerous” turn, which is nevertheless redeemed.

    St. Isaac says that in the end, everything reaches the end for which it was created, union with God.

    Why not just create everything like that to start with and skip the process? The answer, indeed, is freedom – true freedom. There can be no love nor personhood with true freedom.

    To the question about “free choice” in heaven – the answer given was too trite, forgive me. The answer is that “choice” and “freedom” in heaven will have been freely healed and matured and freely become that which always freely chooses in accordance with its proper end. But this is not the same thing as “freedom” and “choice” which we now know. Our freedom is deeply broken and compromised and is itself in need of healing.

    As it is, you will note that I do not ever speak of “justice” in these matters because I think it is something we cannot know – a non-starter as a category. Is it just or unjust for God to have created us with such freedom? Because I believe He is a good God, I believe that our creation and existence is good and was created for goodness itself. Is there another way to do this? How would I or anyone know a thing like that? It is what it is.

    If this deviates too much from the troubling version of creation that stands between you and acceptance of Christ, then I’m sorry to disappoint. I cannot make sense of another version, particularly if it’s a version I don’t believe in.

  53. Victor Avatar
    Victor

    PJ,
    Here’s an article by Panagiotes Nellas that deals with the question of whether Christ would have become incarnate regardless of the fall from an Orthodox perspective.

    https://glory2godforallthings.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2012/02/why-did-god-become-man-by-nellas.pdf

    His thesis is that only beginning with Anselm did anyone really believe that the Incarnation was solely a response to sin. The debate around this question in the west was shaped by various heresies and Nellas presents the Orthodox response through such Saints as Cabasilas and Maximos the Confessor.

  54. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Victor, thanks for pointing this article out.

  55. Rhonda Avatar

    Fr. Stephen,
    You wrote:
    “There can be no love nor personhood with true freedom.”

    Pardon my asking…but did you mean “There can be no love nor personhood without true freedom”? Or did I miss something?

    Sterling answer BTW 🙂

  56. Mary Lanser Avatar

    Here is an alternate viewpoint to the Nellas article. One of the things missing in the article below that is not missing in St. Thomas’ work on this question is the idea that God, prior to the fall, could have revealed the Incarnation to the ancestors, and in that way brought man further into participation in the image and likeness. So the deification of mankind is NOT dependent upon the knowledge of good and evil or the presence and consequences of sin in man or creation.

    That to me seems to be the real question here and in the Nellas article. Are the knowledge of good and evil and the presence and consequence of sin necessary for man’s participation in the divine life? Seems not.

    I tend to prefer this view:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godandthemachine/2012/08/st-thomas-on-the-fitness-of-the-incarnation/

  57. Mary Lanser Avatar

    Part of the section from St. Thomas that I reference above:

    “I answer that, To each things, that is befitting which belongs to it by reason of its very nature; thus, to reason befits man, since this belongs to him because he is of a rational nature. But the very nature of God is goodness, as is clear from Dionysius (Div. Nom. i). Hence, what belongs to the essence of goodness befits God. But it belongs to the essence of goodness to communicate itself to others, as is plain from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). Hence it belongs to the essence of the highest good to communicate itself in the highest manner to the creature, and this is brought about chiefly by “His so joining created nature to Himself that one Person is made up of these three–the Word, a soul and flesh,” as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii). Hence it is manifest that it was fitting that God should become incarnate. ”

    and also…

    “I answer that, There are different opinions about this question. For some say that even if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would have become incarnate. Others assert the contrary, and seemingly our assent ought rather to be given to this opinion.

    For such things as spring from God’s will, and beyond the creature’s due, can be made known to us only through being revealed in the Sacred Scripture, in which the Divine Will is made known to us. Hence, since everywhere in the Sacred Scripture the sin of the first man is assigned as the reason of Incarnation, it is more in accordance with this to say that the work of Incarnation was ordained by God as a remedy for sin; so that, had sin not existed, Incarnation would not have been. And yet the power of God is not limited to this; even had sin not existed, God could have become incarnate. ”

    http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4001.htm

  58. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Weighing in on a correct reading of Aquinas is above my pay-scale. However, my regard for Nellas is quite great. He is one of the better Orthodox theologians of the 20th century. In this matter I would defer to his judgment – particularly as he reads Aquinas in relationship to what Palamas or Cabasilas have said.

  59. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Mary,
    Again, I cannot begin to treat Aquinas with the proper knowledge. Thus, I can only cite those scholars (Orthodox) who have offered critique of his work. In the matter of created versus uncreated grace, as I understand it, there is a great difference. But it is not a point I am competent to weigh in on.

  60. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    TLO –

    I am going to offer my own response to your dilemma (and I’m asking everyone else to refrain from arguing with me because I realize that it may differ from the majority view here; I’m just sharing these ideas in hopes that it helps TLO a bit).

    Suppose we were to read Genesis a bit more allegorically. Rather than viewing it as a historical account of two people, think of it as a summation of the human dilemma. If God created human beings in a gradual fashion from the earth (yes, I’m implying evolution, with no judgment specifically about Darwinism), there came a time when those early humans were able to “eat the apple” so to speak, to have knowledge of good and evil – and to know the difference between them. This development of humanity could be viewed as analogous to the development of the individual – who begins life without the maturity to know but grows into knowing.

    If this was bound to happen by natural development, one might wonder why scripture has God telling people that they will die if they “eat this apple”, if this knowledge is an inevitable part of their development. Perhaps once we know the difference between good and evil we begin to NOT WANT to die. (Plants and animals instinctively try to survive, but do not have the capacity to resist death with full consciousness.)

    Then the temptation: rather than imagine a snake actually speaking, consider that the primary temptation, once humanity had this level of understanding (i.e. true soul with freedom), is to say “I want to be god,” (i.e. I don’t want to die). Rather than following the Way which God established for all created things (see “Christ, the Eternal Tao”), we humans want to follow our own way (resisting death) – which brings us out of unity with God. This is original sin – not because it was the first sin, but because it is the sin upon which all sin is based. My way, not God’s.

    So, if this desire to be gods (sound like ego?)is our temptation, why would God create us with such a flaw? It seems to me that the flaw comes with the awareness of good and evil which is freedom. He could have made us all daisies and we would live in harmony with the Way (accepting our death and finite nature), but we would not be able to love. If we are good only out of the necessity of nature, we are not loving. We were made for love.

    (Could God have made us gods? To create us makes us “created” and so He could not make us “uncreated”, i.e. gods, could He? But He did make us “little less than a god”)

    The question may arise though as to whether our evil tendency arises from the necessity of nature – could humanity do anything other than fall prey to this temptation to try to be gods? This is a tough question – if tackled without any faith perspective. I believe that Jesus was fully human. The temptations we are told He experienced were precisely ours. You might say His temptation to be god wasn’t the same as ours if He really was God – but the temptation was to make it all about Himself (there’s ego again) and He did not. He made it about us. He did not sin. He did not resist death – but accepted it (thereby conquering it and becoming the Way for us). He did not accept it easily – he agonized – but He accepted it.

    I realize this latter part is accepted on the basis of Scripture/faith, not proof, but it is what I believe. Has any other human lived without sinning? I believe that Mary did. When she was faced with making it about her or making it about God, she said yes to God. Again, no proof. There may be others who have not sinned – but how would I know? Only God can know – for such souls would be so without ego that we would not know of their full virtue.

    Sorry this is so long. I am no theologian, just sharing my personal perspective in hopes that it is helpful.

  61. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    PJ, I trust the responses of Victor and Fr. Stephen answered your question. Actually, making the statements that I do about “what Orthodoxy teaches” is above my pay grade most of the time, too. I’m just parroting what I have learned and made some sense of–mostly not first-hand from reading the Fathers, but rather second-hand from others (like Fr. Stephen) who have read them and passed along their wisdom in terms I can grasp. 🙂 Just so happens I sometimes have a good memory for pertinent facts from this “second-hand reading” of the Fathers, but I can’t point you to first-hand sources without doing some research first. Happily, others are more conversant with the source material or with those who have synthesized it well in print somewhere.

  62. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    TLO,
    “the troubling version of creation that stands between you and acceptance of Christ” is lacking, in that it lacks the personal first-hand knowledge that the more ascetical, ‘neptic’ Patristic writings presume.
    In Orthodoxy the profound significance we place on first-hand, direct experience also involves, (as well as the direct experience of God) that experience of my “fall”. THAT is in fact one of the reasons why St Isaac the Syrian dared to say such things as: “The man who is deemed worthy to see himself [his Luciferean self-obsession]/ his freely self-inflicted sinfulness] is greater than he who is deemed worthy to see angels”.
    The parable of the Prodigal Son, does not speak of someone, somewhere. It is speaking of the Fall and the Crucifixion which exists from the very first moment of creating free wills outside of God, whether angelic or human.
    God hasn’t “set us at a disadvantage and given us a challenge” (as you say), he has risked ‘the risk of love’ by saying: “you are you and I respect you and your freedom to even kill me, as the Prodigal more-or-less did, when he asked for his inheritance although his Father was still alive”. We all “repeat” our Fall, most especially when we do not accept it as our own. The One who reversed it accepted it fully, even when it was not his own…

  63. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    Karen,

    Sure, any resources would be appreciated. Let me say that I too believe that Christ would have become incarnate either way. However, I don’t really think it’s worthwhile to speculate about an alternative. The fact is, man abused his free will and separated himself from God — as God knew would happen. Yet God ensured that this sorrowful tragedy would yield an incomprehensible and glorious wonder: the incarnation of the Word. Thus it is a “happy fault.” If you want to read an Orthodox rendering of the felix culpa idea, read John Behr. He certainly makes good use of it.

  64. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Obedience. That Dino is what, more than anything else, separates life in the world from the monastic life. The root of the word in English comes from ‘to hear’.

    For monastics, obedience is the key virtue. Frankly, it is dangerous in the world to try to be obedient in the moanstic way because of the number of charlatans and the lack of sufficient personal contact. Also there is a greater variety of people who call on your obedience: spouses, children, your confessor, your employer and/or customers, the government. Some of these calls to obey are righteous, some are not. One does not have the problem with a trusted spiritual father/mother.

    Add to the mix the American training NOT to be obedient to anybody, in fact rebellion is considered a virtue, and it can be a real mess.

    The quote from Elder Sophrony about ego is especially valuable. I have a picture on my computer of the Elder taken not long before his repose and he is full of such joy and peace it radiates. (I think I got it here). Just looking at that picture is a blessing.

    I mention the picture because without it one might be tempted to think he was a morose and ‘serious’ man all the time (given the quotes about ‘hating’ oneself). Spiritual sobriety and intense spiritual warfare yield joyful peace and true freedom. That’s what the picture conveys to me.

  65. dino Avatar
    dino

    Indeed Michael, it is through obedience more than anything else that the blessed purity of prayer and uninterrupted eucharistic experience of every single moment is possible in that life. It is such a blessing to be able to experience such a thing so ‘easily’ in monasticism, it is the “most comfortable pillow in the universe” as Elder Aimilianos used to say.
    Something of the sort is virtually impossible in the world, unless, perhaps, if one achieves it through total ‘joyous’ acceptance of a very serious illness that also “allows” (“forces” in worldly terms) a complete detachment from the world…
    Having no direct personal experience of this, I say this only because I have seen how my grandmother became holier and humbler and more spiritually thankful through an extremely severe and completely debilitating stroke which essentially allowed her to do nothing other than pray for 7 years (as she withered away in bed). I was one of the very few people who could understand the 5 or 6 words that she could try to communicate to us.

  66. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    Fr. Stephen

    I attempted to post something last night that didn’t take. Could you see if you have it in a spam filter? If you decided to nix it as too heretical, I will accept your judgment, but if it is simply lost I might like to re-post it. Thanks.

  67. Mary Lanser Avatar

    Father Stephen said:

    “Mary,
    Again, I cannot begin to treat Aquinas with the proper knowledge. Thus, I can only cite those scholars (Orthodox) who have offered critique of his work. In the matter of created versus uncreated grace, as I understand it, there is a great difference. But it is not a point I am competent to weigh in on.”

    Dear Father,

    I appreciate the quandary in which this leaves us so know that I say this with gentleness. There is a grave mis-reading of what is called “created” grace on the part of eastern writers. I don’t know when it began precisely but it is well entrenched and will be difficult to root out without a great deal more cross-reading of texts and patient teaching, and willing ears to learn.

    I do have some formal training in reading Aquinas so I would not have posted what I did without some assurance that I am not just blowing smoke. The text that I posted is pretty clear. Sin is not required for God to have prepared the ancestors for theosis by revealing the Incarnation to them. That is spoken in plain Latin and reproduced literally in English. There is no specialized or technical lexicon to deal with in those passages.

    But until Orthodox writers stop understanding created grace literally, then we are at something at an impasse. I do find that Orthodox believers who have studied Aquinas, and who do have the experience to understand created grace differently, are less inclined to push back too hard in these kinds of discussions. That fact alone gives me hope for the future. Also Marcus Plested has a book out on the history of the reception of Aquinas in Byzantine Orthodoxy that I think may begin the work of changing perceptions in the future.

    In the Risen Christ,

    Mary

  68. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Mary,
    You might be interested in Father Nicholaos Loudovikos (although he seems to have more in Greek than in English) who has studied Aquinas and Palamas as few others have and seems to agree with you in that their differences are not as marked as they have been shown to be in the past at all. He argues that Aquinas is far more Orthodox than what we might think at first, especially his later understanding.

  69. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    Aquinas’ explanation seems reasonable to me.

  70. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    Aquinas cannot be rightly understood unless it is recognized that he was first and foremost a man of prayers. He celebrated Mass at dawn and then assisted at another Mass immediately afterwards. He regularly wept during the consecration of the Eucharist. His favorite past time was not writing theology, but rather psalm-singing. And he spent many hours in contemplation of the Eucharist. When Christ appeared to Him and asked what in the wide world he wanted, Thomas responded: “Only you, Lord.” Apart from this mystical dimension, Aquinas is reduced to a caricature of himself: a walking dogmatics textbook. But no, he was above all else a lover of Christ, a rare sort — a mystical academic. It is fitting that he died while commenting on the Song of Songs.

  71. Mary Lanser Avatar

    If you permit, Father: The practical meaning of created grace is that God delivers his essential graces to us in such a way that there is an ontological change in us that allows his graces to act in us without burning us to bits. The very same example of the sun and the rays of the sun is used…or iron in the fire becoming stronger without being consumed.

    It is no more or less than than the transfiguration in man that is understood as theosis in Byzantine and Oriental Orthodoxy. We do not become something other but we are transfigured as creatures so that we may participate in the divine life.

    The virtues that we exhibit from that kind of interaction or union between God and his creatures are not just the product of our great effort, but are indeed freely given gifts of the Holy Spirit.

    There is a language that short-cuts what I’ve written above and that is where the difficulty lies I am sure but the meaning as I offer it here is real and old in the Catholic west.

    I have not been exhaustive in what I wrote above but the basic principles above apply to any other expansion on my comments. Time and the kind of work that is being done in the Catholic east and west today will demonstrate that this is far more than Mary Lanser’s ideology.

    In the Risen Christ,

    Mary

  72. Victor Avatar
    Victor

    Mary,

    While Aquinas’ conclusions might agree with Orthodoxy on this matter, I’m more than a little concerned by this:

    “For such things as spring from God’s will, and beyond the creature’s due, can be made known to us only through being revealed in the Sacred Scripture, in which the Divine Will is made known to us.”

    It appears, at least to me, to be a statement about the nature of Divine Revelation that is not in accordance with the mind of the Church at all. Unless “and beyond the creature’s due” is somehow a qualification, he appears to be saying that we can only experince Divine Revelation through the scriptures…

  73. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    It is worth noting, however, that many Latins reacted coolly to Thomas’ work during his life. And even after he died, his corpus was resisted and critiqued. Some of these criticisms are not unlike those currently maintained by Orthodox: namely, the importation of profane philosophy into the heart of the Christian mystery. Though some are unique to the age and are more concerned with physics and philosophy than theology. As late as Trent, Aquinas took second place to Duns Scotus.

  74. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    Victor,

    Yes. Aquinas had a very “high” view of Scripture. But you can find comparable statements in many of the Church fathers, east and west.

    For instance, Cyril of Jerusalem wrote, “For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures” (Catechetical Lecture IV, 7).

    And Gregory of Nyssa: “[T]he ground of their complaint is that their custom does not admit this, and Scripture does not support it. What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words” (On the Holy Trinity).

    In fact, Aquinas’ is almost quoting St. John Damascene verbatim: “It is not within our capacity, therefore, to say anything about God or even to think of Him, beyond the things which have been divinely revealed to us, whether by word or by manifestation, by the divine oracles at once of the Old Testament and of the New” (On the Orthodox Faith I, 2). This is unsurprising, given that the Damascene was one of his primary influences.

  75. Mary Lanser Avatar

    Victor: Is there revelation outside of Scripture and Tradition for Orthodoxy?

    One of the counsels of the Catholic west is that Tradition may not contra-dict Scripture. That does NOT mean that Tradition cannot expand our understanding of what is there in Scripture but it cannot contradict Scripture. Of course the only mechanism for determining what is or is not contradictory is the mind of the Church.

    The divine authorial nature/authority of Scripture holds the fulness of Revelation…and the Church has been divinely granted the privileges and responsibilities of that authority through Apostolic Succession, which determines the authenticity and orthodoxy of Tradition.

    This is pretty didactic and I may have missed a chunk of something important, so I reserve the right to revise……

    M.

  76. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Mary, my point with regard to Aquinas is this:

    Since I am not competent in Aquinas, neither can I judge someone else’s competence. I am thus only able to rely on authorities whom I know and trust – in this case – Orthodox authorities. I’ve only read a very little bit of Ludovicius, some of which I find interesting – some of which I find unnecessarily complex (even compared to Zizioulas, Dino). Therefore, a discussion of Aquinas and his thought on created grace, or even the Roman position on created grace, is simply beyond the bounds of the blog. I can’t moderate what I don’t know, and though willing to learn, it’s not the purpose of the blog.

    As to a correct Orthodox understanding of the RC position on created grace – I’ll leave that to the occasional formal discussions between those appointed for such. I read their work with great interest. Again, this is not that place. I’ll trust the discussion to move on.

    Christ is risen!

  77. Mary Lanser Avatar

    Sometimes it takes a wide board, Father!

    In the Risen Christ,

    M…that stands for Mule!

  78. Victor Avatar
    Victor

    Mary and PJ,

    It seems to me that Aquinas is saying something very different from the Fathers in identifying Scripture as the only means by which we may receive revelation. This is patently untrue on the face of it so perphaps he means something else? How did St. Paul encounter the Revelation on the road to Damascus? How did the thief on the cross encounter it/Him?
    The Patristic materials you both mention are not saying that there is no experience of God outside of Scripture. They refer, rather, to Scripture as the canon for verifying the authenticity of a revelatory claim. The apparent conflation of these two ideas is my concern. I am happy to be wrong about Aquinas’ intended meaning!

  79. Mary Lanser Avatar

    Victor: We need to move on. I will be happy to talk with you further at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/…publicly or privately, of course. But it is easy to find me there.

    M.

  80. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    Victor,

    Don’t worry: It is somewhat confusing, especially since it’s a rather passing and off-hand comment in a paragraph taken out of context. I assure you that Aquinas didn’t believe that man’s experience of God is limited to the words of Holy Scripture. Nor even man’s knowledge of God, for he followed St. John Damascene in affirming that man can, for instance, grasp God’s existence by natural reason.

    I agree that his phraseology is a bit ambiguous, but he’s really just asserting that Holy Scripture is the normative means of coming to knowledge of the mysteries of God. In context, he’s saying (layman’s terms), “Let’s just stick to Scripture, which is the reliable Word of God, rather than speculating about alternative universes…”

  81. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    PJ, you are probably right I misread the “felix culpa” reference. I forgot to address this in my earlier comment. I was likely thinking more of the ways in which Calvin developed these sorts of ideas such that the Fall became necessary in order to better show forth the glory of God or some such notions. That also is what Hart debunks in his book.

  82. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Victor,
    thank you very much for the Nelas article – it was fabulous.
    I especially liked his demonstration of how on the axis of (western) “Fall-Redemption”, justice and law are become dominant, while on the axis of “Creation-Deification”, sin consists in making oneself autonomous from Him Who is the Alpha and Omega -Christ.
    His explanation of Westerners’ “truncation of the axis of Divine Economy from Creation-Deification to just Sin-Redemption”. (—”how, indeed, could Christ be the result of the Devil’s wickedness?”—) based on Cabasilas was a great answer to some of TLO’s (John’s issues with the “Fall”…

    Especially his explanation on how The Divine Logos

    did not change place, nor did He breach or pass over a wall; but showing what stood between Him and us

    , what the barrier between the Creator and the creature was, what the natural cause of the immeasurable distance between the Uncreated and the created was (irrespective even of the Fall), assumed createdness. He took up human nature, He became what the barrier was, leaving no barrier. Having always been the ultimate will of God’s love, the ontological meaning of created being/Man, Christ the New Adam, (the paradigm according which the Old Adam was created), would have incarnated regardless of the Fall.

    Thanks again!

  83. Victor Avatar
    Victor

    Yes,

    Marvelous, isn’t it? And where did I find it? Right here on Fr. Stephen’s blog!
    Glory to God

  84. TLO Avatar
    TLO

    Fr. Stephen:

    Is it just or unjust for God to have created us with such freedom? Because I believe He is a good God,

    To be honest, I don’t have any problem with accepting that man is a mess. My issue has more to do with blame than anything. Why should I assume the guilt of my parent’s offense? If a child is conceived and born to a woman in prison, must that child be raised a prisoner? Of course not.

    If I was to accept the story in Genesis, I could not even blame A&E. They were innocent. They had no context of what “you will surely die” would mean. What possible concept of punishment could they have known? But God knew all along that, just as surely as when you tell your toddler not to do something, they were gonna do it. But what the toddler learns is that when daddy says “don’t touch” it’s so the toddler won’t get hurt. Then he learns to trust. If the parent went on to place the kid in a orphanage because he didn’t listen, what kind of father would he be?

    I mean, seriously, could he have been a little less over the top? “Don’t eat this fruit or you’ll get wicked diarrhea” would make sense to me. “Eat it and you’ll experience a spiritual death (you and all your descendants), I’ll kick you out of the Garden, the man’s gonna have to work for a living, and the childbirth is gonna hurt like you wouldn’t believe…” Say what?

    Tell me instead, “I’ve created you to be imperfect but your challenge is to give it your best shot. Here’s what I want you to learn (compassion, mercy, goodness, gentleness…). Most of all, I want you to trust me and to love me. I’ll help you along the way and I’ll even become a human myself to get you over the hurtle of death.” That’s something I could believe. Because we do like a challenge and we love an underdog. If we were the underdog, we would certainly be driven to strive for something better. But no matter how I read it, the Gospel story makes us the dog, not the underdog.

    My favorite movies are those where people are propelled to think better of themselves. The Freedom Writers or Remember the Titans. Tell me I’m better than I think I am and that I can do whatever I strive to do and I’m all over it. Push me to try harder. But don’t tell me that my ancestors screwed me over and I can’t do anything on my own. If I believe that, what will I become? In the first case, it is you (or god) who is pushing me on to greatness. And so god would get all the glory for anything I accomplish. I have no problem with that whatsoever. But all this “Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy” stuff only serves to tell me that I am already defeated and I cannot succeed unless I prostrate myself before the HHIC.

    Basic human psychology. You think god couldn’t employ some of that?

    I would far rather hear, “You can do it” than “God loves you so much that he gave his son…”. That makes me feel like a worthless schmuck who is so far gone that only a horrific torture and sacrifice could possibly save me. Blech!

  85. Victor Avatar
    Victor

    PJ,

    I am happy to have misunderstood Aquinas on the point of revelation/canon.
    I do think that referring to the possibility of the Incarnation without the fall as an unimportant but interesting alternative universe is NOT what is meant by theologoumenon in the mind of the Church.

    Further, I would venture that the intentional anteriority of the Incarnation was a commonplace in the Church like the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Not fully articulated but fully embraced until such time as those who opposed such were manifest.

  86. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    The ancestor’s guilt thing is not part of my thought. I do not believe it. That the story of A&E says that to live apart from God, apart from communion with God, is death (not diarrhea) makes complete sense. It’s a story that gives theological understanding, not an account of the historical sin of two people because of whom we’re now suffering holocausts and the like. I have no idea what the “history” of the matter was (no one does, no one wrote it down, etc.). What we have is the story in Genesis that works when rightly understood.

    The be “created in His image” is actually pretty profound – indeed – it’s the basis for all modern “human rights” (though not acknowledged as such). How much greatness do you need – image of God – “I made you like God” is pretty awesome.

    I have a lot of friends in the recovery movement (I volunteer one day a week in a local alcohol and treatment program). They’ll tell you just how useless “will power” is…completely. There is the irony (there’s that word) that they do not get sober until they can admit that they can’t get sober. And there’s a lot more after that.

    But I have seen profoundly!!!!! changed lives all around me, all the time. All because there is a willingness to trust a “Higher Power” who, when examined, seems to be the God of the gospels. I find that most non-addict Christians are not “sick enough” to get well. But for those who are, it’s amazing. One who is forgiven much loves much, or something like that.

    It is also ironic, that the men I work with often have to be healed of the “substitutionary atonement” at least Luther’s “snow-covered dung hill” version. They believe that they are nothing more than crap and don’t know why God or anyone would want to do anything for them. They’re stuck (when they’re stuck) because they believe that schmuck’s like them have only themselves to thank for it, and only themselves to help themselves. And so they stay stuck.

    They actually have to believe that they’re not dung hills in order to get well. They have to rightly understand “Lord, have mercy.” And, they do. I see profound change in men and women who had no reason to live and were rushing headlong towards death, and now have a reason to live and are rushing headlong towards life. I love them!

    They’re not at all like the Christians you’ve described. I find them to be wonderfully “Orthodox,” even when they often don’t know it.

  87. Victor Avatar
    Victor

    Fr. Stephen,

    My Priest’s words often echo in my head “encourage and recognize Orthodoxy where you see it”. Your words in the above post do not so much echo that sentiment as resonate from the same Source. Thanks be to God!

  88. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    Fr. Stephen – sorry to be a pest – I posted a short note to you above this morning about a post I tried to post last night. Since you didn’t respond and the post didn’t appear, I am left not knowing if you didn’t want it posted or if it got lost. I would appreciate knowing one way or the other. (I had wanted to share some thoughts with TLO about the fall.)

  89. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Mary,
    Thanks for the head’s up on the spam problem. It’s the best thing to do – let me know about a problem on a comment. This week, though I am past Pascha, I’m still hanging fire in my schedule. I have post-Pascha visits, 2 family graduations, leading a clergy retreat and going out of town for one of the graduations. Pray for a priest who’s too busy at the moment. Next week…he said…

  90. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    John, I don’t what else to say. I only know that I am quite a different person than I was when I first became Christian and it is not because I willed it. I have cooperated with God sufficiently to allow some change. It is not against my will, but it sure ain’t my will alone. The more I try to make things happen, the more messed up things become.

  91. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    Of course. You make yourself so available to us that it is easy to forget how busy (and tired) you must be. Many blessings to you…

  92. Rhonda Avatar

    Fr. Stephen;
    “It is also ironic, that the men I work with often have to be healed of the “substitutionary atonement”…They believe that they are nothing more than crap and don’t know why God or anyone would want to do anything for them. They’re stuck (when they’re stuck) because they believe that schmuck’s like them have only themselves to thank for it, and only themselves to help themselves. And so they stay stuck…They actually have to believe that they’re not dung hills in order to get well. ”

    I work security in an adult male prison for 18 years now. I too have seen this “mindset”. Frequently the violence they committed & contine to commit is merely “hitting back first”; they hurt before they get hurt. Ironically, most were raised in some sort of religious tradition that involved substitionary atonement as well as the total depravity of mankind. You are right in that many or most feel that they are worthless & unlovable, even by God. And yes, those that escape this mindset are some of the most thankful & gracious Christians you will ever meet. They may not be the most educated nor well-spoken, but they love God with an unrivaled intensity. The process of their change is very exciting & heart warming to witness.

    Another irony I have noticed is that most Christians actually aggravate this situation either through Bible as billy club tactics or approaching them as if they (inmates) are crap that they (Christians)are there to clean up. Seldom are they told that they & everyone around them is the image of God & therefore they cannot be dung.

    Thanks for the comment!

  93. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    they do not get sober until they can admit that they can’t get sober

    That is the irony of how we can actually reverse the Fall!

    another one is,

    “they do not transform their surroundings (both ‘things’ and ‘persons’) from evil to holy until they admit that it is not the surroundings problem, but their own”…

  94. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Bad theology has consequences. What one believes matters. The renewing of the heart/ mind (nous) that the Scripture begins with right belief for most people. At least in my experience. Then, with metanoia, the healing goes deeper. The belief is the good ground in which the seed can grow and produce fruit, inwardly and outwardly. We fertlize and weed as we acquire virtues and fend off the passions.

    The field of our own will is, at best, fallow

    Is it too much of a stretch to see the seed as from the tree of life renewed in earth by the tree of the Cross?

    I am not talking about “the power of positive thinking” BTW.

  95. mary benton Avatar
    mary benton

    Rhonda

    I too encounter people like those you describe – not in prison but walking the streets, looking “normal” on the outside. Inside, they feel that they are so horrible that God wants nothing to do with them. Often the trust issues run so deep that, even with a longing for the healing Love, they are afraid to place any trust in it.

  96. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    Hmm. According to Florovsky:

    “he question about the ultimate motive of the Incarnation was never formally discussed in the Patristic Age. The problem of the relation between the mystery of the Incarnation and the original purpose of Creation was not touched upon by the Fathers; they never elaborated this point systematically. “It may perhaps be truly said that the thought of an Incarnation independent of the Fall harmonizes with the general tenor of Greek theology. Some patristic phrases seem to imply that the thought was distinctly realized here and there, and perhaps discussed.”

    These ‘patristic phrases’ were not collected and examined. In fact, the same Fathers could be quoted in favor of opposite opinions. It is not enough to accumulate quotations, taking them out of their context and ignoring the purpose, very often polemical, for which particular writings were composed. Many of these ‘patristic phrases’
    were just ‘occasional’ statements, and they can be used only with utter care and caution. Their proper meaning can be, ascertained only when they are read in the context, i.e. in the perspective of the thought of each particular writer.”

    Interestingly, according to Florovsky, the first theologians to systematically consider the ultimate motive of the Incarnation were actually post-Schism Latins, and they answered in the affirmative: Yes, God would have become man regardless of the fall.

    For instance, Honorius of Autun, sounding rather “easter”: “therefore the first man’s sin was not the cause of Christ’s Incarnation; rather, it was the cause of death and
    damnation. The cause of Christ’s Incarnation was the predestinati on of human deification. It was indeed
    predestined by God from all eternity that man would be deified, for the Lord said, ‘Father, Thou hast loved them* before the creation of the world,’ [cf. John 17:24] those, that is, who are deified through Me… It was necessary, therefore, for Him to become incarnate, so that man could be deified, and thus it does not follow that sin was the cause of His Incarnation, but it follows all the more logically that sin could not alter God’s plan for deifying man; since in fact bot h the authority of Sacred Scripture and clear reason declare that God would have assumed man even had man never sinned.”

  97. PJ Avatar
    PJ

    Intriguingly, unless I’m seriously misreading this, Duns Scotus goes so far as to claim that the Word would have become flesh even if neither man nor angel was ever created!

    “I say, nevertheless, that the Fall is not the cause of Christ’s predestination. Indeed, even if one angel had not fallen, or one man, Christ would still have been predestined
    thus— even if others had not been created, but only Christ.”

  98. Mary Lanser Avatar

    PJ: I am very happy that you found an Orthodox source. I’ve read Father Georges for many years but did not recall what you’ve posted above, or I would have grabbed for it instantly. Where did you find these quotes from Father?…and also from Honorius?

    M.

  99. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    @Michael: “For monastics, obedience is the key virtue. Frankly, it is dangerous in the world to try to be obedient in the moanstic way because of the number of charlatans and the lack of sufficient personal contact. Also there is a greater variety of people who call on your obedience: spouses, children, your confessor, your employer and/or customers, the government. Some of these calls to obey are righteous, some are not. One does not have the problem with a trusted spiritual father/mother.”

    Hmmm….I understand where you’re coming from but I’m not sure about this. I suggest that the monastic practice of doing everything the abbot asks is only a way of learning to obey God unconditionally and not meant to be a permanent condition. A human being by definition is given the power of decision-making and is therefore responsible to exercise discernment. Since fallen creatures are involved I would think that this applies within or without a monastery.

    I’m sure someone will tell me how naive and unfamiliar I am concerning the monastic life – and they may have a very good point – but human beings don’t become angels or something other than what they are just because they enter a monastery. Truly blind obedience is never advisable no matter where you are. While I understand the value of it in certain circumstances, often the time period is limited and for a specific purpose – and not a life habit. God never asks us to check our brains at the door.

    I say none of this in offense against the practice of obedience, but we must obey as an intelligent being and not as an animal or machine. And therefore with this in mind, I don’t suffer a huge difference between monastic and married (or those in the world) when it comes to the matter of obedience.

    Perhaps this trail has gone cold but I add my 2 cents nonetheless.

  100. […] satisfaction to be revolting. The Eastern Orthodox blogger Fr. Stephen Freeman has written a series of posts recently that are critical of what he calls “forensic models” of the atonement. In his […]

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


Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast



Categories


Archives