Going to Hell with the Terrorists and Torturers

mikhail-nesterov-harrowing-of-hell-undatedIn 988, Prince Vladimir of Kiev was Baptized and embraced the Christian faith. Among his first acts as a Christian ruler were to tithe his wealth to the Church and the poor, and to outlaw capital punishment and torture. It is said that the Bishops advising him counseled him that he might need to keep the torture in order to rule effectively.

This anecdote has always brought a wry smile to my face, it seems so quaint. Of course torture is not quaint, nor is it medieval. It is quite common in the so-called modern world and has recently moved to the front pages as the US has pulled the veil of secrecy back from its interrogation techniques in its war against terror. I have been interested to watch the reaction to all of this on social media. Many friends have reacted with moral outrage. Others, particularly those whose politics are conservative, have posted supportive pictures and thoughts. Christians find themselves on both sides of the question.

But there isn’t really a question. Prince Vladimir was right and the bishops advising him were scandalously practical. Their fear is apparently a modern fear: what if the lack of torture doesn’t work? Our enemies are dangerous and the lives of the innocent are at stake.

The conversation surrounding all of this (it will disappear as soon as the news cycle moves on) reminds me of several classical problems in ethics. All of them pose the question, “What would you be willing to do to save the life of your loved ones?” It is a tragic question, for in the scenarios of danger that are always suggested, there is no choice that does not yield human suffering – even unimaginable human suffering.

But those nightmare scenarios are not always make-believe. The regular posting of atrocity videos have made us all too aware of the nature of the game.

I do not offer a moral debate in this posting. Torture is wrong. Justify it if you will, but it remains wrong. St. Vladimir was right and the bishops, however practical their advice, did him a great disservice.

But there is something of far greater value that is too easily missed in our current round of hand-wringing. It is the dark places of the human heart that we see and quickly cover in the wrangle of debate. It is a place where our thoughts should linger.

For the place of torture and the smashing angry insanity that drives a plane into towers dwell in the same dark heart – and the heart belongs to us all. Some will protest immediately that I am drawing some kind of moral equivalency. One act is done to save lives, the other to destroy them. But it is not any kind of moral anything that I wish to draw. Rather it is our attention to the true character of the human heart.

There is a morality that is practiced in our day-to-day life. It may include the simple rules of etiquette and a host of other expectations. And for many people, the observance of these rules are what constitute their notion of good and bad. But there is often an abstraction that occurs within such moral musings. Polite society shields itself from many of its immoral actions. The violence of poverty is often covered with economic theory and political discourse. For the child who suffers – these are just words. The general wealth of a healthy standard of living grants the luxury of oblivion – the ability to ignore the true cost of the luxury. This is true whether the cost is the exploitation of slave labor in a foreign land or the torture of the enemy well out of sight. And these are only egregious examples.

More hidden still are the dark recesses of our own hearts. For the torturers and the terrorists are just human beings. They were not spawned on an alien planet. Whatever they know, they learned from other human beings. And though the dark recesses of our hearts may often yield nothing more than thoughts and feelings, we should remind ourselves that their true character is the stuff of which torture is made.

I am even more interested in the cold assessment of those 10th century bishops who cooled St. Vladimir’s jets and offered their advice on statecraft. For theirs is the calm, pragmatic mind within us all. There is a chilly moral calculus that governs their advice. “The kingdom must go on, even if it requires a little torture from time to time. The gospel is good and the Baptism of the Rus is even better, so long as the Prince of the Rus doesn’t forget that he’s a prince and do his job.” I fear the cool utility of such reason far more than I do the uncontrolled passions within us.

But it is right and salutary that we should allow ourselves to look in the dark places of the heart. Orthodoxy insists on proclaiming that the resurrected Christ first descended into hades. There is no easy transition from the cool tomb to the bright Sunday morning. There is the intervening and inconvenient reality of true darkness.

C.S. Lewis portrays a fanciful story of a bus ride from hell to heaven. Those in hell (“the gray town”) are invited to remain in the bright, solid reality of heaven. The conversations that take place in that delightful work (my favorite Lewis) are very telling. They are the confrontation between morality and reality, between the forensic model and the ontological. Heaven is so real that its solid objects hurt the feet of the hellish ghosts. Their moralities appear silly in the face of plain, solid being. The ghost of a wayward bishop protests that he cannot stay in this new place, since he has a prior engagement in a theological discussion group, where he is to read a paper – swallowed by hell and his life is unchanged.

Our own moralities are equally banal and empty, and we shudder and make excuses rather than examine the true darkness of our hearts. Dostoevsky repeatedly unmasked the emptiness of society’s morality. In the Brothers Karamazov, there are four brothers, all sons of a father who is a drunkard and a thoroughly disgusting human being. He is the definition of a “Karamazov.” None of the brothers appear, at first, to be like their father. One is a greatly tormented romantic, his life filled with pleasures and excess. Another is a cold, hard-bitten cynic who no longer believes in God. A third is a very dark character, ultimately a patricide. And the fourth is an innocent, a virtual saint. But even he admits, “I am a Karamazov.” And his brother says to him, “We are all insects.”

Dostoevsky (and Lewis) do not write in such a manner in order to simply tear down the pretense of public morality. But they know that our salvation cannot be found within the little efforts of our moral strivings. They (Dostoevsky in particular) dare to go into the darkness where Christ has entered and suggest to us that we all have a share in that place. We are all Karamazovs.

Entering into that darkness and acknowledging its depths is not an effort to consign ourselves to perdition or to embrace a doctrine of total depravity. It is an effort to unite ourselves to Christ. The traditional name for this journey is repentance. Moralism has all but destroyed the Christian understanding of repentance, replacing it with good intentions and apologies. Our sin is a brokenness and is best seen in the darkest corners of the heart.

St. Paul found Christ in the dark corner of murder and burning hatred. The heights of his holiness are only rivaled by the depths of his sin. Tradition holds that St. Stephen was a kinsman of St. Paul. The anguish of such sin is indeed a “goad,” as Christ described it.

St. Peter did not truly find Christ until his own encounter with cowardice. Always the first and the loudest of the Apostles, probably easily recognized as a leader by others, he was not given the care of Christ’s sheep until he found Christ in the depths of his personal hades on the shore of Galilee. And the resurrected Lord says to him, “Do you love me?”

We must not ignore the public sins of our culture (torture) or the sins of enemies (terrorists) who seek to destroy us. But if we are to stand honestly before God, then we need to see the place that such things have in our heart. Do we dare to speak and acknowledge the Karamazov within ourselves or do we pretend that we are offended and shocked by the hearts of others.

If we do not find Christ in hades, we will not likely find Him anywhere else.

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

244 responses to “Going to Hell with the Terrorists and Torturers”

  1. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Hey John! Nice to hear from you. Merry Christmas to you and yours, too!

    Karen

    P.S. Suffering in all its forms (and some of the language and narratives in the Bible, especially pressed through unOrthodox filters) can indeed be a great obstacle to our knowing and seeing God as He is. It is one of those things that tends to cloud our hearts. Only through Christ and especially Christ on the Cross (as it is understood in a fully Orthodox sense) do we begin to see rightly. It’s hard to unlearn stuff that was literally beaten into a person during his impressionable years (to put it mildly). May God grant you abundant grace and mercy! Hang on to that thought that this old image of a tyrannical, “amoral” (immoral) god, cannot be the true God revealed in Christ. Recognizing such a “god” is unworthy of worship means you are on the right track, for sure!

  2. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Hi Dino and Karen: I really love you guys. More times that I can count, I have referred to you and this community as examples of true humans. My atheist and ex-Christian friends have a hard time believing that there is anything approaching a “rational Christian.” I am always happy to point them toward Orthodoxy. (My 2 best friends are also Orthodox which also helps me stay away from becoming bigoted toward all Christians.)

    I have also gotten in the face of many people who call themselves “Christian” for not being passionate enough about their faith to inquire into the thoughts of the Early Church Fathers (these are usually the same people who tell me that I just don’t understand the Christian faith and that I need to learn more). I don’t know how to sorta believe something. It baffles me every time I encounter someone who just takes whatever they have been told as “gospel” and fails to dig deeper for themselves.
    ————–

    …that God is perhaps also an individual -like we feel we are… He is nothing of the sort

    Yeah. That’s where I get completely lost. I see no point in god becoming a human if not to demonstrate that he is a person in the only sense that we can understand. I’d prefer that he just remain mystical and distant. But that’s just me.

    If God Himself did not want to transcend all torture, suffering, pain, and hell through encompassing it all within Himself…, what on Earth is He doing on a Cross then!??

    Darned if I know. To me, it’s like expecting a nuclear bomb to understand the mind of Einstein. If the created being cannot comprehend the creator, why make any attempt to help him to understand? Heck! I can’t understand most humans! By and large, homo sapiens completely mystify me.

    Only through Christ and especially Christ on the Cross (as it is understood in a fully Orthodox sense) do we begin to see rightly.

    I may be mistaken but it’s my understanding that it is the Resurrection, not the death, of Christ that stands at the center of Orthodox thinking. Without that, what remains is a sacrifice as a form of punishment which really falls in line with how most Protestants view the whole matter. But Orthodoxy is not really about punishment, atonement or “saving” people from their sins as much as it is about conquering death and living a true life in Christ. The physical resurrection is an icon of a spiritual resurrection, right? I think this is a beautiful idea.

  3. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    John, you’re right that the Orthodox understanding of the nature of the Cross isn’t complete without the Resurrection and would certainly be a distortion without that. No contradiction really. What I mean is, it is in the Cross we see demonstrated that we have a God, Who, far from remaining a distant Judge, or even choosing from His transcendent distance to wave a sort of “magic Holy Spirit power wand” like a fairy godmother to transform us and our circumstances (if we only jump through the right hoops first?), rather came all the way down to enter our Hades with us–to enter completely into our suffering and death–in order to lead us out of it and grant us the gift of life by restoring us to communion with Him. The Cross is the sinless God showing His complete solidarity with us even “while we were yet sinners” by “becoming sin for us” (i.e., accepting all the natural consequences and condition created by human sin upon Himself). This (His sinlessness) is precisely why death could not hold Him and will not be able to hold anyone who has faith in the God-Man Jesus Christ and His victory over sin and death and who, led and empowered by the presence and grace of God, chooses to walk the same path as Christ (the path of repentance Fr. Stephen is describing in this post).

  4. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    or even choosing from His transcendent distance to wave a sort of “magic Holy Spirit power wand” like a fairy godmother to transform us and our circumstances…came all the way down to enter our Hades with us–to enter completely into our suffering and death–in order to lead us out of it and grant us the gift of life by restoring us to communion with Him.

    If the end-results would be the same, I’d prefer the magic wand, personally. 🙂

    I’m not nearly smart enough (or determined enough) to go any other route.

  5. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    John,
    The vengeful, violent God depicted in many of the OT stories is not treated in a particularly literal manner by the Orthodox Tradition. I like the way St. Isaac of Syria states things:

    Just because (the terms) wrath, anger, hatred, and the rest are used of the Creator, we should not imagine that He (actually) does anything in anger or hatred or zeal. Many figurative terms are employed in the Scriptures of God, terms which are far removed from His (true) nature. And just as (our) rational nature has (already) become gradually more illuminated and wise in a holy understanding of the mysteries which are hidden in (Scripture’s) discourse about God – that we should not understand everything (literally) as it is written, but rather that we should see, (concealed) inside the bodily exterior of the narratives, the hidden providence and eternal knowledge which guides all – so too we shall in the future come to know and be aware of many things for which our present understanding will be seen as contrary to what it will be then; and the whole ordering of things yonder will undo any precise opinion we possess now in (our) supposition about Truth. For there are many, indeed endless, things which do not even enter our minds here, not even as promises of any kind.<

    /blockquote>

    The early Christian community was properly troubled by the contrast between the teaching of Christ and many of the stories of the OT. They simply seem to contradict. What was taught was that Christ Himself was the meaning and fulfillment of those stories – and that they needed to be read in a manner (often allegorically) that was consistent with Christ. This certainly troubles some Christians, including some Orthodox, who fear that this treatment of the Scriptures just throws everything away. But it is deeply at the heart of the Tradition, even within the NT itself.

    Thus, I don’t believe God ever ordered the murder of any children, etc. It doesn’t mean that this is not what the stories say, but that as a Christian, there is a reading of those stories that takes precedence over the literal.

    Reading “within the Tradition” is part of the life of Orthodoxy. It is our guide since the literal is not good enough on its own.

    Christ’s death on the Cross is not His Father’s sending Him to death – it is His own voluntary self-offering for our sake. Not to pay anything owed to the Father, but to fully unite Himself with our condition and get us out of death and Hades.

    Of course, if He had prevented us from ever suffering death and Hades, it would be more pleasant. But to create us in freedom includes the freedom for us to mess it up. But it also includes the freedom for Him to get us out. And He does so without interrupting our freedom (or His), by freely entering into the worst of it and bringing us back out.

    I would like to have waved a magic wand and seen that my children got all A’s on all of their tests, etc. But it’s really a perverted love that would take freedom away from their children just to guarantee that their children never suffer. But more perverted would be to see our children suffer and to do nothing to help them.

    Good to hear from you!

  6. Drewster2000 Avatar
    Drewster2000

    Fr. Stephen,

    To overly simplistic about this topic, I think you are saying that the important thing is to be made well, whereas all of your (mostly) North American readers are saying, “Yeah but it was always drilled into us that the important thing was to be made right!”

    It is a HUGE mental shift that will take years for some of us – but please keep trying! (grin)

    P.S. Hi John Shores, good to hear from you again! You have impeccable timing, always popping in on the juiciest bits! Good to see you nonetheless.

  7. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    John,

    I’ve also often begged for the ‘magic wand’ in my lack of understanding of what a great and honourable height we are called towards… no less than to become a god in the context of love (which presupposes freedom – wands are for automatons, perhaps even pumpkins and mice…).

    God became perfectly human in a way we can more than just understand, we can also become ourselves perfectly human like Him. This means not as disconnected, alienated ‘individuals’, closed in on ourselves, but as ‘persons’ -a somewhat specialist term in Orthodoxy meaning the (drum role…) ‘hypostasization’ of all others, all humanity in each person. In plain words, a person takes upon himself the whole, he becomes a ‘cosmic being’ in priestly unity with all – through God’s grace.
    This is utterly sublime, yet also utterly true.
    As the very recent Saint Porphyrios used to say, he need not even pray “have mercy on us all”, since by saying “have mercy on me”, this “me” contains the whole of ‘Adam’, all the 110 billion souls that have purportedly ever come into life in the history of mankind. It is cosmic rather than self-preoccupied.

    As for your other question, we do not separate the Resurrection from the Cross, in fact we see the Cross already as the exaltation of Christ and even characteristically depict Him in icons of the Crucifixion utterly serene, replacing the (historically literal) sign of “INRI” (“IESUS NAZARENUS, REX IUDAEORUM” / “Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews”) with the sign that reads: “THE KING OF GLORY”…

  8. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Totally understand the sentiments, John, about the “magic wand” bit. Don’t we all wish that sometimes? However, we would have to be something other than human (created in the image of God) and God would have to be something other than He is (personal as the Fathers define it, not our rather caricatured notions of what that means) for that to work, and then we wouldn’t be here having this conversation, nor able to recognize love, truth, goodness, beauty, etc., when we experience them. The freedom about which Father writes is key to a genuinely Christian understanding of personhood (as is our inherent connectedness with each other and mutual responsibility for sin on which this post touches).

  9. A.J. Avatar
    A.J.

    Christopher,

    Thanks for the post. Forgive the length of this reply but I wanted to touch on your points with the limited time I have available. I’ve read both of Father Webster’s books on the subject. I’m no radical pacifist…but I find his defense of a “justifiable war tradition” less than compelling…having read dozens of books related specifically to the subject. Just my opinion. I can’t change anyone else’s. I’ve spent 15 years in the military and 2 years as a private military contractor. I don’t theorize from an armchair about such realities, they’re very real and present in my life…to this day I have been unable to wrest myself from my uneasy embrace of a warrior’s life. It is often frustrating for me (and my warrior kin) to listen to people opine about these things with which they are likely to never enact in their own lives. We act on them…and therefore know them like a man knows his wife.

    In terms of morality, I understand your point and its well taken. I perhaps gave the impression that I don’t believe morality has a place, or that I thought Fr. Freeman was discounting morality. That was not my intent. Of course, I agree, morality – as you say- ‘has its proper place.’ But let me tell you how I see that place. It is increasingly secular and utilitarian and externally based – neither focused on the healing of the heart nor fellow man – but on external measures of value and judgement which are worldly and suspect from nose to toes.

    I understand your point and neither am I negating morality- simply pointing out that IMO our modern concepts have morphed so wildly from Christian spirituality as to be not properly recognizable as morality in an Orthodox sense. To my mind they are perhaps best characterized by Saint Paul…

    “When the gentiles do by nature things required by the law, they are the law to themselves.” (Romans 2:14) This is morality – doing by nature things of the law. The law/ and our moral constructs have a purpose, I grant you. But Paul characterized the law (and morality apart from the law) as a “guardian” / “tutor” until Christ came.(Galatians) given because of “hardness of heart.”

    Morality, just like the law is limited and external, susceptible to abstract notions and self delusion to justify oneself and others.The law (and morality) is good, but even when “I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,… I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members” (Romans 7:22) Neither the law, nor “morality” make a man righteous. In fact, a different law (the law of sin) wars against the law from God written on all men’s hearts and continues to make us prisoners of sin, so that even the “good I wish to do, I cannot do!” In this I see morality as completely capable of being twisted by the “law of sin” which is “waging war against the law of my mind.”

    But now of course, we have Christ, the fullness of grace delivered to us to change our “noetic faculty”…which neither the law nor morality could. This in no way negates the power (or goodness) of the law / morality, such as it is (Romans 8:3)… It simply shows us how weak it truly is…and how far the grace of God can take us BEYOND such childish “milk” from our “schoolmaster” if we would only allow Him to.

    Touching on your observation “You can be a righteous soldier and really do everything a soldier does (i.e. kill the enemy, etc.) and you can be a St. Seraphim of Sarov also. Turns out your heart is the key to your salvation and not your external morality and virtue.”

    Perhaps. But I see this as about as possible as a “camel passing through the eye of a needle.” In both cases – the affinity for riches – and even more so (I believe) in war, a man ends up negotiating with – then embracing the darkness inside of him. We might start with the abstract notion and intent of being a “righteous warrior.” But sooner or later…those of us who in actually have to put a bullet through a man shake hands with the darkness. Then we start conversations with the darkness. Soon we invite the darkness to be an intimate part of us…letting us hold us on cold, lonely confusing nights, only because to see and to do and to see done the things done in war requires becoming in some way comfortable with the darkness to not go completely mad. I can’t expect those who have not been on the front lines to understand what I’m saying. I can only say it. Knowing this reality – it is somewhat fanciful (IMO) and my experience to think that a person can engage in such darkness and not have their heart churned into butter by it…then hardened into stone. Therefore…the idea you suggest that outward virtue and morality are not directly linked to our inner heart seems to put up a false division between the two. Our outward lives are a reflection of our inward heart. The two do not bifurcate. (Matt 15:18) The outward comes from the inward.

    I am NO righteous warrior. Maybe I’m jaded… But… I don’t believe in such a thing as a ‘righteous warrior’ in the Christian sense…but possibly in the secular (moral) sense I do. I admire many warriors…but I don’t romanticize our function. Neither should Christianity. I love my fellow warriors. I’ve been willing to kill and to die for my fellow warriors. But if I don’t believe in such thing as a “righteous” monk, for such pride of self and one’s own works is surely a trap of the devil…(so says the Philokalia) I surely don’t believe in a righteous warrior. The former fights the darkness…the warrior is forced to be comfortable with that darkness and harness it. No monk is righteous. No warrior is righteous. Christ alone is righteous.

    The rest of us scurry through our existence – making self-serving choice out of fear… Because “though fear of death” we are “subject to slavery…” all our lives (Hebrews 2:15) and run around hiding our nakedness with fig leaves we clumsily cobble together. Sometimes we call these leaves “morality.” Sometimes these figs are “justifiable” or “just war.” Sometimes we go so far as to call them “Christianity.” Human beings are supremely good at “putting lipstick on a pig.”

    Mr. Coin was right…we do have to make choices; fear of death…or freedom from it. Fear leads us to self-centered desires for security and happiness. I take John Romanides stance on fear and its conjuring of human desires for security and happiness as malformed passions and the root of envy, anger, violence, etc. (which I’ve added below for reference)

    Freedom from fear of death allows us to follow Christ in self-giving love and suffering, because He has “Swallowed death in victory.” It frees us from the emptiness of self-preservation and anxiety if we allow Him to work within our lives. His victory over death is given to us in mercy and love. For the Christian, this leads to the conclusion that not only is death overcome, but so to is the “sting of death,” which is sin (1 Cor 15:56 , and we are under no necessity to fear the former (death), or perform the later (sin) – for we are free. Truly and utterly free. Amen.

    ~Fr. John Romanides —“If man was created for a life of complete selfless love, whereby his actions would always be directed outward, toward God and neighbor, and never toward himself – whereby he would be the perfect image and likeness of God – then it is obvious that the power of death and corruption has now made it impossible to live such a life of perfection. The power of death in the universe has brought with it the will for self-preservation, fear, and anxiety, (Heb 2:14-16) which in turn are the root cause of self-assertion, egoism, hatred, envy and the like. Because man is afraid of becoming meaningless, he is constantly endeavoring to prove, to himself and others that he is worth something. He either seeks security and happiness in wealth, glory and bodily pleasures, or imagines that His destiny is to be happy in the possession of the presence of God by an introverted individualism and is inclined to mistake his desires for self-satisfaction and happiness for his normal destiny. He can become zealous over vague ideological principles of love for humanity and yet hate his closest neighbors. These are the works of the flesh of which Saint Paul speaks. (Gal 5:19-21) Underlying every movement of what the world has come to regard as normal man, is the quest for security and happiness. But such desires are not normal. They are the consequences of perversion by death and corruption, through which the devil pervades all creation.”

  10. Peyton Avatar
    Peyton

    Thank you, Aaron, for all that you have written here.

    “It is exactly because we are unwilling to suffer righteously that we act in such a “moral” manner. Our spiritual laziness is what morality is; and not much more.”

    We Catholics call this Sloth, and it is a deadly sin.

    Peyton — ‘Nam — Project Phoenix — 1968

  11. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    AJ,
    Again, very well said with an authentic voice. I appreciate your honesty and witness. May God preserve you from the darkness! It is this very same voice that I have known pastorally for 34 years. We can recognize it in Dostoevsky’s works. Lewis, to whom I was more gracious than perhaps I should have been, actually opined about German and British warriors killing each other and then embracing in heaven. A bit too simplistic indeed.

    I believe in Christ. I also believe in the darkness, and have far more experience of the latter than the former, may God have mercy on me! And the darkness cannot be addressed through morality – it is insufficient. The darkness of a murderer cannot merely be “forgiven.” And victims and the family of victims (in their billions) need to know that this is so. The darkness can be trampled underfoot. The darkness can be vanquished. But only at great price. That price was and is, nothing other than the very life of God uniting Himself to our sin (He made Him to be sin who knew know sin) and bleeding the price. And the bleeding price is not something at a remove from us. For just as He required of Himself that He be united to our sin, and so He bleeds, so He requires of us that we be united to His atoning death, and so we must bleed.

    That “bleeding” is nothing other than the “purification” that so many cite too easily (purification/enlightenment/theosis). Purification is a frightful thing sometimes – a process so potent that even the darkness of the deepest murder can be purged. St. Gregory of Nyssa compared it to a ship’s rope being drawn through the ship’s hull opening – with its dried mud being scraped off in the process. I like Lewis’ claws of Aslan tearing the dragon-flesh off of Edmund even better. We Orthodox are too quick and glib in our dismissal of Catholic purgatory. There may be no such place – but there is such a process – or most could not be saved. Think of it any way you wish, but do not treat the darkness as if it were nothing.

    I chose to write as I did using the public issue of torture and terror. I could just have easily used the far more prevalent darkness of our deep sexual addictions and perversions – but our own shame would make it too hard to read. These, too, must be healed, the rotted flesh torn from the soul.

    Morality, for me, is simply too insipid a way to speak of these things. AJ, I understand the sort of things you have witnessed. And I appreciate your words. May God preserve us all and save us!

  12. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Yes.

  13. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Dino:

    we can also become ourselves perfectly human like Him.

    I don’t think I would like that very much. I’m actually quite content as I am. Whatever my foibles, there are only a very few with which I would be willing to part.

  14. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Fr. Stephen:

    The early Christian community was properly troubled by the contrast between the teaching of Christ and many of the stories of the OT.

    I see no contradiction whatsoever. Jesus was no Brother Sun, Sister Moon kind of person. I see zero inconsistencies between the Jesus described in the Gospels and the God of the OT.

    But it’s really a perverted love that would take freedom away from their children…

    And yet we child-proof our houses. Isn’t that taking freedom away from our children? We make our children eat vegetables for their own good. We don’t allow them to drink alcohol or drive without proper training and licensing. We don’t leave loaded guns laying about. There are so many things that we to that take away freedom from our children.

    There is a plant called synsepalum dulcificum. When someone eats the leaf of this plant, everything else they eat afterward tastes delicious. Whether that other thing is Tabasco sauce or chocolate, it will be tasty to him. In a world where there are things that are poisonous and taste horrible in any normal circumstances, such a plant poses a possible danger. In such a world, I would agree with you that it would be perverted love to give this to one’s child and then leaving them to their own devices.

    But if it was in your power to create a body that could easily absorb and excrete poisons, thus removing all potential harm from them, why wouldn’t you do that?

    I cannot see any virtue in allowing evil just to make the good that much better.

  15. A.J. Avatar
    A.J.

    Peyton,

    I am humbled by you.

    May the Lord continue to give you the peace of His righteousness for all that you have known.

    Yours in Christ,

    Aaron

  16. albert Avatar
    albert

    I am troubled by my own past failure to grapple with these issues. I am afraid of the dark, yet strangely enough tonight I am also happy. There is so much goodness in these writings, so much honesty. A light in the darkness–reflected, to be sure, but still real, still light. I am very grateful to have been directed here (as i believe). Thank you, Father, for working so hard to provide the conditions for a Spirit-filled place.

  17. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    John,

    I don’t think I would like that very much. I’m actually quite content as I am. Whatever my foibles, there are only a very few with which I would be willing to part.

    Is the most common human safety-net. I also function in the same way – providing a certain confidence. AJ authentically explained this defense mechanism here – albeit talking on a different topic:

    run around hiding our nakedness with fig leaves we clumsily cobble together. Sometimes we call these leaves “morality.” Sometimes these figs are “justifiable” or “just war.” Sometimes we go so far as to call them “Christianity.” Human beings are supremely good at “putting lipstick on a pig.”

    But this is the very reason why in the Fathers, the locus is ‘knowledge of one’s weakness’. It is painful, yet most ontologically true and healthy to know one’s weakness and God’s counterbalancing transforming strength. St Isaac of Syria affirmed,

    It is a spiritual gift of God to be able to perceive one’s own sins… The one who is conscious of his sins is greater than the one who profits the world by the sight of his countenance. The one who sighs over his soul for but one hour is greater than the one who raises the dead by his prayer while dwelling among human beings. The one who is deemed worthy to see himself is greater than the one who is deemed worthy to see the angels, for the latter has communion through his bodily eyes, but the former through the eyes of his soul.”

  18. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    AJ / Aaron,
    I deeply appreciate your genuine witness, the Lord Jesus Christ most certainly steers the wheel of your ship.

  19. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Being tortured potentially places one in a position of Christ – you can ask authentically for the forgiveness of another’s sin! The exceedingly more palpable darkness of the torturer is also utterly swllowed up by closer unification to Christ. The sound of the rooster might always – like Peter – make me cry, but God’s mercy sings the transforming song of healing in your heart. “For Christ God has brought us from death unto life”.

  20. Mule Chewing Briars Avatar
    Mule Chewing Briars

    Whatever my foibles, there are only a very few with which I would be willing to part.

    I can easily imagine a moral universe in which our “foibles”, as you call them – our superstitions, prejudices, irrational beliefs, fundamentalisms, and all those things about us that make others throw up their hands in despair – are part of our permanent nature as Christ bears His wounds, but our hard-won virtues melt away as a wax statue before the foundry.

    I can also imagine Christ as the Lord of this moral universe.

  21. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    John,

    “I see no contradiction whatsoever…”

    Your arguments are impregnable. I appreciate the kind words you have for the community here, but I really see no real reason for the conversation you offer. That so many, so quickly respond to you is, I think, because they care. But it becomes very quickly like a game. You toss away whatever is said with glib responses.

    All of this in the midst of some fairly serious conversation. I will be moderating the conversation. If you had real questions it would be quite different. As it is, you have all the answers. In truth, I don’t believe your answers. I think you come here because you don’t believe them either. But I think your own soul-wound is too precious to you and you cling to it. You need healing more than answers. I have doubts that the blog can do that. It needs more flesh and blood. I’m sorry. I will remember you in my prayers.

  22. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Fr Stephen – I was not being glib in the least. Indeed, I am somewhat baffled if you see a contradiction between God as he is described in the OT and the Jesus described in the Gospels. How are they different in your eyes?

  23. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    As albert says, the deeply honest exploration of the darkness has brought a level of hope and light to me as well especially in this season of the Nativity. It gives me a greater understanding of the famous saying: “Keep your mind in hell and despair not.” Hell is not a place it is the darkness in my own heart which I cannot ignore.

    I too like the picture of Aslan using his claws to scrape the dragon skin off Eustace. An example I like better though is the one Richard Pryor spoke of humorously and poignantly that of having one’s deeply burned skin debrided with an iron bristled brush–something he went through after he immolated himself free-basing cocaine. He used the experience as a way to inner healing for himself and offered the story of it as a metaphor for others.

    I am beginning to see my expression of conventional moral sentiment as part of the bargaining with my own darkness–not unlike Dorian Gray and his picture in the attic.

    Nevertheless, I can’t escape the feeling that there is a deeper truth that really embracing the moral dimension of my being can bring me too. Is that not part of the lesson of the Law and why Jesus Christ said that we must not go against it but fulfill in Him? Can it not be a path to a deeper expression of God-inspired and sustained virtue?

    As my priest said in his sermon: morality alone will not justify, only Jesus Christ justifies, but we are morally accountable.

    Is seems that only be encountering the darkness in my own heart (not using moral self-justification to ignore it or bargain with it) can I get to where Jesus is.

    Lord have mercy. AND HE DOES! Inexplicable to my fleshly reasoning. Glory to Him!

  24. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Hey Dino – I understand what you’re saying. Using the same metaphor of the leaves, what I am saying is that naked is better. I see no shame in being human. This was not always the case for me.

  25. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Michael – I like Neil Gaiman’s quote:

    I think hell is something you carry around with you, not somewhere you go.

    I think this is what you are saying.

    For me, I simply choose not to carry it around with me. There are far too many interesting things to explore and wonders to see. Introspection tends to be an addiction that robs us of happiness, IMO. I just know that I am happier in the now.

  26. Drewster2000 Avatar
    Drewster2000

    Michael Bauman,

    You see this conversation as asking you to give up your hold on morality. Morality provides structure within which there is comfort and security. I understand that, all too well. I’ll give you a mental picture which might help; it helped me once. Forgive me if you’ve already heard this one:

    Imagine a group of us standing inside a circle. Making the circle whatever size you wish. The line of the circle represents morality. If you step outside the circle, you are wrong/bad/sinful. (whatever term you prefer) Some people will huddle in the middle of the circle and others will see how close to the line they can get without crossing it.

    This is the picture of humanity of the Old Testament. It’s all about rules and law. What is the purpose of the circle? And where is the middle of it? No one really knows these answers, but they muddle on the best they can.

    Enter Christ. He stands at the middle of the circle. The answer to everything. More specifically the answer to our dilemma: walk towards Christ.

    –Walking toward Christ frees you from worrying about where the line is and whether or not you are going to cross it.
    –Walking toward Christ means you are automatically going towards the center of the circle.
    –Walking toward Christ shifts the focus from the external to the internal work and journey.
    –Walking toward Christ begins a healing process that we were only vaguely aware of our need for prior to this.

    Since this is the magic answer, why do other answers still exist? Well…I have found that using the moralistic measuring stick can be quite addictive. Not only are we able to determine our progress (that word again) but it gives us some measure of control. We feel compelled to do as the minutes tick away here on earth. We know God is working in our hearts but that doesn’t solve the “doing” problem. Yes there are the commandments and the gospels and the fathers, etc., but frankly these things are boring – and impossible – and depressing – and (fill in the blank).

    We are called each day to draw closer to Jesus Christ and ironically enough I find that I am more “successful” when I’m letting go of things: do my prayers no matter how pointless they are from my point of view, treat my neighbor well no matter how godless he seems, practice His presence no matter how hard it is, etc.

    Each time I live in this way my eyes are opened, the result of which being that I am simultaneously aware of how much He is God and how much I am not. Thus the reason I would rather refer to this improvement as “anti-progress” or a healthy “de-pression”. I must decrease and He must increase, that kind of thing.

    Hope this helps, drewster

  27. MichaelPatrick Avatar
    MichaelPatrick

    Drewster, thanks for that circle metaphor. Nice!

  28. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    I don’t see it at all as asking that I give up my morality. Just the opposite. I see it as asking me to go more deeply into it so that I can find its real source. What I am being asked by Jesus Christ is to seek Him and not settle for pious sentiment. This conversation is a reminder of that as was my priest’s sermon on moral accountability in a more oblique way.

    On an existential level, the darkness is real. Running from it is futile simply because it is in my own heart much more deeply imbedded than moral sentiment and cultural norms of behaving. The are simply used to mask my cherished sins most of the time.

    I have known for some time, long before I became Orthodox, that I was being called to acknowledge and engage the darkness in my own heart. One of the reasons I suspect I have always been fascinated and attracted to Joseph Conrad’s short story “Heart of Darkness”.

    AJ’s comments on his experience simply made that inescapably obvious once again.

    There is a difference between moral sentiment and real morality grounded on the Rock. Genuine morality is a reflection of grace given virtue and righteousness–part of the armor of God if St. Paul is correct. Moral sentiment is a tool of self-righteousness, self-justification and judgment of others. Such sentiment I see as a worship of the created thing that St. Paul rightly excoriates in Romans 1 and following.

    I agree with what you are saying.

    AJ and Peyton I thank you for your comments; your courage and sacrifice.

  29. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Drewster – It seems these discussions always circle back to “morality.” I don’t know that such a thing actually exists, tbh. I just know when I have hurt someone or someone has hurt me.

    Beyond that, I don’t think we really should use the term. All too often it has been used to define things that we don’t agree with rather than anything substantive.

    “Do unto others as you would have done to you” is really the lesson, isn’t it?

    I would also argue that there are so many opinions of who Christ is that it is dangerous to use this as a guidepost. I am sure that the members of Westboro Baptist also think they are walking toward Christ.

    Isn’t the simplest answer always the best? We all know when we are causing harm. Just don’t. And when you learn that you caused harm in ignorance, stop. Isn’t that the message of repentance?

  30. Drewster2000 Avatar
    Drewster2000

    John Shores,

    “It seems these discussions always circle back to “morality.” I don’t know that such a thing actually exists, tbh. I just know when I have hurt someone or someone has hurt me.”

    Be very careful! You are ALMOST starting to agree with the main idea of this post. Easy man! You’re losing your touch! Abandon ship!! (Aa-OO-Ga!! Aa-OO-Ga!!)

    In other news, I do agree that the answer is simple. When you say “We all know when we are causing harm. Just don’t. And when you learn that you caused harm in ignorance, stop.”

    When you say this I wistfully agree in my heart. The problem is the underlying assumption. You say that “we all know….” Well we are all slowly losing that knowledge, even the basic tenants of morality, but we need a perspective outside ourselves in order to understand this.

    And this John, is why you need other people to be able to speak into that tight little ship of yours. Our points of view and even what we consider our most rock-solid beliefs can be shaken. Reality itself may not change but ability to judge it is fallible, tenuous. By our very nature we are fragile and made to be part of a group. No matter what has happened or will happen, truths like this do not change. We need each other to remind us of what it is we are doing that we need to stop, among other things.

    As I said before, good to see you again. You are our brother, however unlikely that may seem.

  31. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    “Morality… It is increasingly secular and utilitarian and externally based – neither focused on the healing of the heart nor fellow man – but on external measures of value and judgement which are worldly and suspect from nose to toes.”

    A.J. I wanted to repeat what you said here – not only is it an important point but the ending made me smile 😉

    A note about “righteous”. The Church has recognized many as “righteous”. We have the Righteous Job, Holy Righteous Anna, Joseph the Righteous, etc. If I recall correctly we also have some “Righteous” warrior saints though none come to mind at the moment. Maybe others can speak to what this exactly means.

    Thanks for your post – much to think over. What is the source for the Fr. John Romanides quote? I ask because I intend to read something of his (which I have never done) in the near future…

  32. MichaelPatrick Avatar
    MichaelPatrick

    “… there are so many opinions of who Christ is that it is dangerous to use this as a guidepost.”

    John Shores,

    Christ is the only true guidepost and goal.

    Talking in circles about your preferences, whims, pathologies, and so on, has become wearisome. As precious as you are, this blog isn’t about you.

    I will hold you in prayer and will hope, too, that you’ll heal and get over it; Whatever IT is.

  33. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    John,

    Hey Dino – I understand what you’re saying. Using the same metaphor of the leaves, what I am saying is that naked is better. I see no shame in being human. This was not always the case for me.

    I recognize this, but as an impermanent lack of the mindful awareness of our dependance. Besides “the leaves” are not actually just that in Orthodox understanding; they are whatever we humans do, when we want to stand on our own two feet without a need for God. The obliviousness to the profoundness of our contingent existence -and the accompanying conceitedness of the many ‘leaf-like’ defense mechanisms – is made manifest in a myriad permutations in every one of us. We can self-affirm with defiant denial, with karmic acceptance, with glib distraction etc etc etc. It takes great humility (often accompanied with profound joy) for a person to even suspect the depth of this delusion when things are going ok. And when God allows sobering tribulations to befall us, hopeful orientation towards God is crucial.

  34. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    As far as warrior saints, most are recognized for their martyrdom or other service to Christ rather than for their skills on the battlefield. Although many early saints served in the Roman military and were skilled in Roman warfare. Their skill frequently brought them to the attention of the Emperor. Martyrdom ensued when they refused to honor the Emperor as god. St. George is arguably the most well known of these but the list is long.

    If you want a militant saint, St. Demetrios of Thessalonica comes to mind or his friend St. Nestorious. St. Demetrious has an icon in which he is depicted lancing from horseback a Persian soldier on the ground. Hard to turn that solely into a spiritual depiction of fighting evil. I don’t know what to make of it but it is there.

    St Nikita the demon slayer was, in earthly life, an Arian general who served an Arian king. When the kingdom was attacked by a pagan warlord intent on wiping out Christianity, even the Arian variety, St. Nikita was captured in battle and ultimately executed for his refusal to deny Christ (at least this is what my research on him led to)

    If we were a Christian land we might have a modern cognate of righteous soldiers fighting to defend us when attacked by enemies of Christianity. Hard to make that case these days even with the likes of ISIS.

  35. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Drewster – LOL. Thanks. I agree that in practice I am probably not very far removed from you.

    And I will admit that having been raised in a “Christian” herd, I am exceedingly wary of the idea that we “need each other to remind us of what it is we are doing that we need to stop, among other things.” While that may be true, it is equally true that nothing is more dangerous than a group that allows a select few to do its thinking for it. If I only listen to those who agree with me, what use is that?

    Michael – I am sorry to have become wearisome. Truly. This group has taught me so much, not the least of which was Fr. Stephen being willing to put up with my questions until I got the central and singular answer as to what the foundation of Orthodox thinking is. There is far too much noise in the myriad writings out there, so much so that it takes a determined effort to wade through it all to get to the essence.

    Fr. Stephen – Since I have become something of a blot on the landscape, can you go ahead and block me from your site? I’ll keep reading but I don’t know that I will be able to refrain from jumping in from time to time. Thanks.

    I really do love you guys and am very grateful for the part you have played in my life. I wish nothing by joy and peace, such as the season signifies.

  36. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    John, no one needs to block you from the site. Your questions are good for us. It keeps us stretching to express the truth we have experienced and find something to which it connects for you. Because we are talking about (or ultimately aiming to describe) spiritual reality as we’ve experienced it and not ideologies or arbitrary conceptual theologies and moralities, I’m convinced some things will connect for you at some point (and that they sometimes do, or you wouldn’t be reading).

    Besides, if it really gets too distracting from Fr. Stephen’s post, he’s a good moderator and can redirect the comments thread (or close it down) when necessary.

    Btw, I’m sure Drewster can answer, but I’m sure he didn’t mean we need others to do our thinking for us when he said we are connected and need others. Others (not just in our own camp, but all others and sometimes especially those we perceive as our “enemies”) help us by providing another vantage point when we’ve gotten too close to something sometimes to see what is going on (a pet bad habit, a wrong idea to which we are attached, a wound we are nursing–this is obviously not an exhaustive list). Nothing like a spouse or a teenage child, eh, to put us in our place when we think we’re something, and we’re not all that, after all! Am I right? I think we can’t go far wrong when we keep it as real as we can with ourselves and with one another (keep trying to take off the masks and avoid pretense). I would also offer the very biblical caveat that there are those with whom it is not safe to entrust oneself and one’s wounds (you know this as well and probably better than most reading here). I wouldn’t have wanted to be too vulnerable with one of those Pharisees who was constantly on the attack against Jesus in the Gospels, for instance. I tend to really distance myself from people who are intent on playing someone else’s conscience or taking the place of the Holy Spirit in others’ lives! True full-blown narcissists are very scary people to me.

  37. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    John,
    well, I am baffled myself if you think this observation you reiterated here stands to honest scrutiny:

    Indeed, I am somewhat baffled if you see a contradiction between God as he is described in the OT and the Jesus described in the Gospels.

    One hardly even needs “eyes to see” why -as Father Stephen, to whom you responded thus, wrote:

    The early Christian community was properly troubled by the contrast between the teaching of Christ and many of the stories of the OT. They simply seem to contradict.”

    , e.g.: “Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?[ . . . ] And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” (John 8)

    The demonstrations approaching this type of forgiveness in the OT (as in Hosea 3:1) are more rare and less blatant, or even equivocal in comparison.

  38. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    John, et al,
    One thing that simply doesn’t work in these conversations, is the Biblical discussion. John, forgive me, but you look at the Scriptures like a Protestant. You assume that what Christians think should somehow come from the Scriptures – i.e. be determined by the Scriptures. An Orthodox understanding is quite different. We think the Scriptures should be read in a way that agrees with the received Orthodox understanding.

    They are our Scriptures – our Holy writings – that we use in the manner that we have been taught to use them. It is not the place of anyone else, Christian or not, to tell us how we should use the Scriptures. Nor can they tell us what the Scriptures mean, because the Scriptures have no “meaning” outside the community of the One, Holy Church. Or better, they have many meanings.

    The Church existed before the New Testament. The Old Testament, as something given to the Church, was and always has been radically interpreted in a Christian manner that simply ignores the literal level in many places. The Scriptures are read much like an icon is read.

    It’s possible to have conversations with Protestant treatments of the Scriptures – but mostly very frustrating ones. The Scriptures are a very different thing in the life of Orthodoxy.

  39. John Shores Avatar
    John Shores

    Hi Karen, _ wasn’t accusing this group of one person doing the thinking for them. Sorry if it appeared as such. I like you guys. You’re all good thinkers. I have found this to be the rule, rather than the exception in Orthodox folks. I just have personal prejudices against groups in general. I dislike the Limbaugh faithful and the Maher faithful equally.

    Dino – I guess one’s perspective is important here. When I compare the OT God and Jesus, this is what I see:

    In the OT, God is patient and tries to get people to see that honoring him is for their benefit. He provides great things for them. He blessed Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, made Joseph the prime minister in Egypt, freed his people from slavery and gave them the Promised Land, and pretty much guaranteed their prosperity as long as they kept him at the center of the cultural mindset. (I realize this is a very generalized picture.)

    But when those people end up behaving as people do, they got 40 years tacked onto their travels away from Egypt and didn’t see the promised land or they got famine or they got sent into slavery.

    Jesus was no different. He went around doing good and trying to help people see God as a Father (a new concept for the Jews). Then in the middle of his “Blessed are the…” sermon he announces that people are no longer responsible just for what they actually do but now there are thought crimes (if you lust or are angry etc.) that are worthy of judgment, and by the way, instead of just killing you here and now, you are now eligible for eternal damnation.

    Jesus has no problem with telling people, “You think those people were bad because a tower fell on them? Unless you repent, you’re similarly at risk” or “…and these shall go away into everlasting fire, but the righteous…” etc.

    How are these attributes any different from the God of the OT?

    (I am not attaching any moral judgment on either OT God or Jesus, simply explaining how I see them and that by comparison I fail to see any real inconsistencies.)

    I was taken aback by Fr. Stephen’s accusation that I was being glib. I mean, if you know someone who is a really good and admirable man and you say that his son is “just like him,” would the natural reaction be to take offense? Of course not. If someone says, “He’s just like his old man” and an offense is taken, that offense can only be possible because the “old man” is not someone with a good reputation.

    Isn’t it Orthodox to say that The Father and The Son are one? As such, it seems strange to me that any Christian would ever balk at a comment in which someone like me says he sees no difference between the two. Indeed, I would say that one can only be improperly troubled by the contrast between the teaching of Christ and (pretty much all) of the stories of the OT.

    I have heard it said that the OT can only be understood through the lens of Christ. This, to me, implies that there is something distasteful about the OT God when seen without that lens. It also implies that there is nothing distasteful about Christ.

    But even Jesus knew that he was offensive to people. Not only was he offensive to the religious but even his own disciples had trouble with some of the things he said and did.

    I would think that both the Father and Son would be equally glorious throughout all Scriptures to those who see them thus and equally offensive to those who do not.

    If one sees them as equally glorious, what on Earth could possess them to be “troubled by the contrast” between them? To say that there is a contrast is to admit that one does not see them as equals.

    At least, that is how it appears to me.

  40. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    John,
    The “God of the OT” is not the same thing as the “Father,” for one. But there is not a “God of the OT.” There is God. Christ has made Him known and the Church knows Christ. How we read Christ, including the damnation stuff, is not at all how you are reading it. That’s why I’ve said you read Scripture like a Protestant.

    My “glib” comment is that everything already has an answer for you. And it pretty much doesn’t matter what anyone says.

  41. Peter Avatar
    Peter

    John,

    You said,

    “Jesus was no different. He went around doing good and trying to help people see God as a Father (a new concept for the Jews). Then in the middle of his “Blessed are the…” sermon he announces that people are no longer responsible just for what they actually do but now there are thought crimes (if you lust or are angry etc.) that are worthy of judgment, and by the way, instead of just killing you here and now, you are now eligible for eternal damnation.

    Isn’t it Orthodox to say that The Father and The Son are one? As such, it seems strange to me that any Christian would ever balk at a comment in which someone like me says he sees no difference between the two. Indeed, I would say that one can only be improperly troubled by the contrast between the teaching of Christ and (pretty much all) of the stories of the OT.

    I have heard it said that the OT can only be understood through the lens of Christ. This, to me, implies that there is something distasteful about the OT God when seen without that lens. It also implies that there is nothing distasteful about Christ.”

    We don’t understand the ontological gap that was filled by the God-man’s transfiguration in the tomb. Our understand is frail. This event fills all that is lacking, as the gospels before the passion does also more fully point to and express the ontological gaps (and reality of man’s crisis, which we don’t grasp, aren’t we all really OK?).
    Christ is not laying out further damnation as you suggest, but is putting a more accurate picture of our state in the gospels, thus pointing for the need of a radical remedy for our radical condition. We are sick – sick unto death. We are Lazarus. We stink (and that is only an outward expression of our inner condition)

    Orthodoxy (the truth of the God-man + the truth of the Church) and the resurrection event was a radical – radical paradigm shift. It is just that. The church saw this for what it was – an eschatological and ecclesiological event, because what constituted this event was the God-man. As such, he comprised all of creation (ecclesiological) and all of time (eschatological). It is the revelation which is Jesus Christ that the Church proclaimed. (What is ontologically true is what is ultimately true – And is “the meaning of it all”) Everything else is ontologically lacking, deficient and is crisis.

    Only from these lenses does the Old Testament begin to Make Sense. These two things are Not working at cross purposes. Christ revealed what was hidden in history because being the fullness of All things (what is eschatological and ecclesiological) How could That not have a revelatory component? That component was radical – it –was- radical. Given that, how could the Old Testament be viewed or understood any other ‘authentic’ way? The resurrection of Jesus Christ changed Everything – everything. In the gospels what was hidden gets further clarified. It simply wasn’t fully revealed in the Old Testament, but was revealed in all fullness with the reconstitution of all things, which was Christ on a “once and always” rescue mission.

    – but take the “Bible” out of The Church and we suffer ‘interpretations” and that is what you have: a God made in the image individual interpreters. You simply won’t have the God of The Church’s liturgy. You will know something else.

  42. A.J. Avatar

    Christopher & Michael B.,

    I am glad I could make you smile with the nose to toes quip Christopher! 🙂

    Michael, I very much appreciated your illustration of the circle of morality and Christ at its center. Very nice!

    The source for John Romanides quote is from his work “Original Sin According to Saint Paul. It’s short. I’d also highly recommend a series of youtube videos regarding his writings…on both original (ancestral sin) and his work “Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine.

    I posted a response to some of your points on my blog (so as not to completely inundate Fr. Freeman’s space with tangents on Sainthood, warrior saints and what “righteousness” means in relationship to them. It is here. http://theamericanorthodox.blogspot.com/

    In brief, my theses (backed up by data on my blog) are;

    1) All “warrior saints” are saints due to martyrdom and not an “angelic life.” This follows the early Tradition regarding martyrdom as Sainthood by default. I challenge people to find a “warrior saint” that is not a martyr, confessor, or Emperor…or a warrior saint that is specifically a saint because of his life as a warrior. In all cases that I can find…they are saints due to martyrdom…Fr. Pomazansky states;

    “NO SPECIAL ecclesiastical decree was required to authorize the prayerful veneration of this or that particular martyr. A martyr’s death ITSELF testified to the reception of a heavenly crown.”

    2) “The Orthodox Church does not follow any official procedure for the “recognition” of saints…” as with the Roman Catholic Church. “In the Orthodox Church…there is no legalistic weighing of evidence and examination of merits…” ( There is no dogmatism or doctrine associated with sainthood, simply conventions of local churches and their veneration of martyrs, ascestics, etc. Some Saints and theologians will represent outliers to the total scope of Christian witness, (either theologically or morally) even while specific circumstances and aspects of their lives simultaneously show holiness or an example to follow…esp. martyrs who are specifically recognized for the righteousness given to them by Christ to withstand torture and death. (as He Himself did.)

    3) The “holiness” and example of many early saint’s lives is based on martyrdom, much unlike ascestic monks after the 4th century. Their lives prior to martyrdom had no particular bearing on the sainthood of martyrs. Outside their “righteous” act of martyrdom graced to them by Christ, they would not have been considered saints in accordance with the traditions of the time. Additionally, the holiness displayed by ANY Saint is not always one of TOTAL righteousness, or holiness, but of a particular display of holiness and righteousness in a life of communion with God through the Church. Thus, the OCA website tells us;

    “The word “saint” means “holy,” thus “Saint John means, in fact, “Holy John.” This is not to say that he was always perfect…that his views on politics, social life, or economics were desirable and correct. It means only that, within the context of his age, he manifested the image of God IN SOME WAY —that he was an ikon, an original creation, a new creature in Christ.”

    4) The “righteousness” of any saint is in fact the “imputed / credited / reckoned / accounted” (Greek = ἐλογίσθη logizomai (Rom 4:22) righteousness of Christ to the Saint. Any saint’s “righteousness” is in fact not his own, but the righteousness of Christ.

    ~ GOARCH Web….”It must be stated at the beginning that the only true “saint” or holy one (Hagios) is God Himself. Man becomes holy or “sainted” by participation in the holiness of God. Holiness or sainthood (righteousness…my add) is a gift given by God to man through the Holy Spirit. Man’s effort to become a participant in the life of divine holiness is indispensable, but sanctification itself is the work of the Holy Trinity.

  43. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    John, I think you may have misunderstood my attempt to clarify Drewsters point about our interdependence on others. I wasn’t alluding to this group, Orthodox, Fundamentalists or particular groups like that. I was referring to our general human need for and condition of interconnectedness with other humans–the need to be vulnerable with others, etc., in order to be (relatively more) healthy specimens of the species. (From the perspective of faith, it is the way God designed us.) Does that make sense?

  44. Matth Avatar
    Matth

    I hope you will all forgive my comment, coming in media res, and somewhat off topic, though there is no doubt in my mind that it somehow connects back to the discussions which have preceded.

    During worst years in Iraq, before I began my own move towards Orthodoxy (which is rather nascent), I was deeply troubled by the questions that are posed in this discussion. I found myself drawn more and more to a strong pacifist conviction in my faith, but sensed that I could not really be a pacifist and love all men as Christ if I did not first know war personally. Consequently, I decided to join the military after graduation from college. This was June ’06, and I was scheduled to graduate in June ’07.

    Within two weeks of making the decision, my back had been permanently changed by a freak injury, which eventually made me medically ineligible for enlistment.

    I have not thought about these topics deeply since the spring and early summer of ’07, and now find myself not so much grappling with the questions of killing and pacifism, judgement and morality, as wondering quite painfully at those events leading up to and following my injury. I’m not sure, right now, what to make of it.

  45. Aaron I Avatar
    Aaron I

    Hi Matt,

    I have found that being conflicted about these things is natural and that we are all often caught between the two poles of the “law of our mind” and the “law of sin”. We are simultaneously repulsed and irresistibly drawn to war… I think because as Chris Hedges notes “War is a force that gives us meaning.”

    Beyond my life as an Orthodox Christian, nothing has had more meaning in my life than war.

    Speaking to your point. I once believed too that I needed to experience war personally or my rejection of it would be less meaningful or empty. Frankly, I’ve found this is rediculous.

  46. Aaron I Avatar
    Aaron I

    I cut off my post. Whoops. Experience with war is not necessary to reject it.

    In whatever way you can come to terms with your injury and what it may or may not have meant in relationship to your participation in war, please believe me when I tell you…

    You are better off having not gone.

  47. Matth Avatar
    Matth

    Thanks, Aaron.

    The issue isn’t whether or not I’m better off going to war. That’s, I mean, obviously I’m better off not having gone to war. Even with the injury. Perhaps the injury was itself providential. I don’t know. Really, there’s a lot I don’t know, and I’m not sure why I feel like I should have anything to say on those topics.

    The experience I did have allowed me to understand the darkness that lives in my own heart very well. The depths of anguish that I reached because of the pain of the injury, especially in those first few months, was about as far from feeling full of light as I imagine it’s possible to be.

  48. Drewster2000 Avatar
    Drewster2000

    Karen, well said. You caught my intentions perfectly.

    John: Glibness. This is going to be hard one for you to see. Though it is a poor analogy, think of it like this.

    Inside an Orthodox church a priest is up front giving a teaching. In this case he is referring to the chalice with the wine and the plate with the bread. At some points he very reverently lifts each one and discusses what we know about them (which isn’t much) and then in an awed manner begins to talk about the many things we don’t know and how wonderful our God is.

    Then you stroll in, curiously pick up the candles in the back and idly inspect them. You casually come down the aisle and climb the steps to join him on the altar. Everyone’s watching in shock as you go around the table, pick up the bread, consider tasting it, deciding you don’t like the smell, and then – as if just noticing the audience for the first time – you wave and ask how everyone is doing.

    In other words you don’t display or acknowledge this sense of Holy Mystery which is part of Classic Christianity. It’s as if everything is common to you. Some of the things we discuss here are talked about with an assumption that we can’t know the depths of it, but still talk about them with hopes of bringing joy and perhaps enlightenment to each other.

    But you stroll in and dismiss these ponderings with a mere wave of your hand many times. That is glibness. It sends a message that we’re wasting our time on these topics – when in fact it is a lot closer to the truth to say that there isn’t much else worthy of our time.

    At this point you have a choice: you can sit back and ponder what it is that causes everyone else to be in awe of these things – and revelation will come with time – or you can write us off and move on. Blocking you doesn’t fix the problem. You are still there and you are still our brother – and you are still bleeding.

    As Fr. Stephen so wisely said, “You need healing more than answers. I have doubts that the blog can do that. It needs more flesh and blood.” It is good for you to be here, but you need more. Find a hospital and learn to trust the doctors and nurses there.

  49. MichaelPatrick Avatar
    MichaelPatrick

    Drewster, I appreciate your advice and want a share in your expression of support for John. Well said.

  50. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    “In other words you don’t display or acknowledge this sense of Holy Mystery which is part of Classic Christianity. It’s as if everything is common to you.”

    “”As Fr. Stephen so wisely said, “You need healing more than answers. I have doubts that the blog can do that. It needs more flesh and blood.””

    This is right. Everything is common, including the deep questions and longing of the heart because as John describes himself, he is satisfied with his everyday foibles (to say nothing of things deep) and protects his own “happiness” – so anything that would break through (and breaking causes suffering) is avoided and “bad”. This is simply to say that John is a type very common among men throughout all the ages and of course our own. I am John myself so very much throughout each and everyday. Mere words/dialogue does not normally break through this – God usually uses some unavoidable suffering and/or crises it seems to me. One has to have ears first before one can hear…

  51. Drewster2000 Avatar
    Drewster2000

    Christopher: well said

  52. Aaron I Avatar
    Aaron I

    Matt h,

    I see. I’m sorry I misunderstood your point. I think you have every right to comment.

    Mental and physical Trauma causes the same kind of despondency (wallowing in the darkness) no matter what it’s source. War does not have the corner on trauma.

    I understand your post now. The darkness isn’t really different, it’s how it engages us individually that makes it so insidious. Yours was a trauma no less real than torture or war. In a sense these were /are your own war- you own spiritual war- if I’m understanding you correctly.

    I’ll pray for your continued healing in Christ.

    Thank you for sharing.

  53. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Drewster2000,
    I always enjoy your analogies and find them acurate 🙂

  54. Lou. Avatar
    Lou.

    Father Stephen:

    Let me come at some of your reflections and teachings from a different direction.

    I work as a lawyer. I experience — I clearly see — I daily live the difference between the “doctor” and the “lawyer” — between a right/wrong model and the health/disease one. lol serve as advocate for my clients, and I work to achieve for the best result for them as they define their goals and choose among their options.

    Like a priest, but to a much smaller extent, people come to lawyers and lay baresome of their soul. It is often manipulative — they just want me to hear what I need to know, as they see it. But in the process and over the years, I have learned one truth:

    NOBODY DOES ANYTHING ON ACCOUNT OF THE LAW.

    People just DO things. Law comes later, if ever.

    Of course, if someone wants to buy land they consult the statutes for the HOW. And companies run their plans through legal –and through public relations and through accounting, for that matter — to comply with regulations and to avoid pain or financial loss. But no one acts or desires to fulfill the law. No one.

    The heart we lawyers hear in private conference is full of greed and lust and pain and hurt. I recognize it as my own. The remedies I seek cannot cure the heart or touch the soul.

    One of the saddest matters I dealt with was breaking down barriers a father had placed to limit a son’s inheritance. The custodian was a “bad” man who had seriously mishandled funds. I was successful, and got a “good” result that put millions in the son’s hands. Within a short time the son’s addiction was unleashed and he was soon in prison.

    The law does not –can not — cure or even address the hole in our hearts. God have mercy on us all.

  55. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Lou,
    Good a poignant examples. I very much agree about people doing what they want. I have said before that we’re about as “moral” as we’re ever going to be. Those rules we internalized as a child are largely what will govern us through life. We might come to believe differently, but we will struggle to act differently. None of this is saying anything St. Paul did not bemoan in Romans 7. “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death!” And there is a way – we can become all flame. We can in fact be transfigured. I also think that this work may very well lie hidden, even from the struggling eyes of the person being transformed.

  56. Tom V Avatar
    Tom V

    I like your mention of Lewis’s story (“The Great Divorce” if I remember correctly). There is a scene where a man on the “excursion” from Hell says “I don’t need your bleeding charity.” And the response is, “Ask for it. Ask for the Bleeding Charity.”

  57. AR Avatar

    In the U.S. for whatever reason we often forget children in discussions like this. For some reason, people will look the other way if the victim of violence is a child being “disciplined” by its parent. Many Christians believe that such violence helps the child become a morally better person and may even prevent the child from going to Hell in some way or another.

    But this testimony of the darkness of even justifiable violence applies to the most righteous parent administering the most moderate and well-deliberated act of disciplinary violence. It creates a darkness in the child and the it creates a darkness in the parent.

    I grew up among people who had a highly developed theology of discipline and I saw the demons in their faces after they had practiced it for a time. People believed that if they spanked moderately, with expressions of love, and a prayer ritual, and a carefully explained connection between the sin of the child and the pain of the spanking, and if they always used an instrument and not their hand (or vice verse) that the Lord’s blessing would be on this practice and the outcome would be good. They got it from the Bible, after all. And yet in the end every one of those parents had to learn to switch off their compassion in order to carry through and every child learned something equally damaging. In the end, every home was haunted by darkness, no matter how “good” the children “turned out.” Whole churches festered with abuse.

    To bring a child up in the “nurture and admonition of the Lord” Jesus Christ is something entirely different. It takes courage to apply only goodness to a child’s upbringing. So many of us fear and believe that a dash of evil is necessary.

  58. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    AR,
    I agree though I am aware of the huge difficulty in applying what you correctly said (about discipline in a spirit of “only goodness”) in some special situations -that almost seem to be invented by the devil himself in order to not allow for such application.
    In fact, great reserves of stillness are the only dependable resource to make this application possible…

  59. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    AR,
    I generally oppose spanking – so few get it right. I vehemently oppose those who treat the Scriptures as if they command us to do this. I was raised in the 50’s and the culture of spanking (“whipping” actually). I took it in stride because I thought it was normal. But, as I’ve said before in lectures, all it taught me was how to lie. Since the punishment for lying was the same as the punishment for whatever I was lying about. Torture isn’t reliable. Neither is physical punishment.

    Pray for your children and truly model kindness, gentleness and truth-telling. Then pray a lot more. Stanley Hauerwas has said that the good news/bad news is that no matter what you do, your children are likely to turn out a lot like you.

    And so the sins of parents are visited on their children. But the repentance of children (especially as they become adults) can save their family for several generations.

  60. John Carter Avatar
    John Carter

    “Stand at the brink of the abyss of despair, and when you see that you cannot bear it anymore, draw back a little, and have a cup of tea.” -Elder Sophrony of Essex

  61. AR Avatar

    Fr. Stephen, what hopeful words about repentance. I agree about biblical interpretation. People may differ on inspiration, but no matter how you define it, it can’t turn a proverb into a commandment.

    I don’t think there is a way to “get it right” because no matter what the parent means by it or how he does it, there’s a second party to the transaction and that is the child who cooperates with what is happening to him. How the child takes it, how he psychologically constructs it, how he interiorizes it – none of this is up to the parent.

  62. AR Avatar

    Dino, I don’t think I understand what you are saying. If you took my words to mean that there is such a thing as discipline in a spirit of goodness, that is not what I meant to say. I don’t think that a Christian spirit of goodness will ever recommend violence and coercion for the benefit of someone’s moral character. No one ever became good through coercion. I believe the biblical proverbs recommending beating reflect a limited (pre-Christian) moral viewpoint, a brutal world full of necessity, and quite probably a primitive tribal juvenile justice system.

    The Christian virtues are enough for parenting in our time. If a Christian parent keeps the golden rule and the gospel, and does not lord it over his children or reproach them, if he does not demand respect and if he does not do anything self-serving with his children, they have the very best chance of receiving the goodness of the Lord. They may not behave perfectly all the time as children, but when they are old enough to govern themselves they will know how, and that is what matters.

    One of my parenting mantras is, “I am not raising my children for the temporary convenience of other adults.” Unfortunately many adults put pressure on parents to control their children so that they will not be any trouble. Our government and society also makes it hard not to parent out of fear.

  63. Amanda Avatar
    Amanda

    Father,

    So, to put this in Orthodox for Dummies language… are the following statements/questions true or am I severely misunderstanding?

    One can perform a “moral” action (no rule broken) that is sinful because it is damaging to the heart and therefore turning that person away rather than towards salvation.

    On the contrary, does performing “immoral” actions always result in damage to the heart? I think the answer to that one is yes..

    Is morality the square and sin the rectangle?

  64. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    AR, your statement that “No one ever became good through coercion.” is a bit too broad. Coercion is necessary and proper to stop behavior that is harmful to oneself or others. Stopping the behavior does not mean the person becomes good, you are right there, but there is simply no life that is or can be without coercion on some level–even if only be experiencing the natural consequences of ill conceived actions, immoral actions, etc.

    Sometimes people don’t do something they would otherwise do simply out of the threat of coercion. For instance, even grounding a child for improper behavior is coercive in nature. Taking you child to Church with you whether he/she wants to be there or not is coercive. All training involves at least some level of coercion. I don’t know about you, but I have to coerce my body and mind to actually pray. They don’t like it. It hurts sometimes. Often, even most of the time, I have to force them

    Violence is another story. Violence does not lead to good as much as the temptation is there to think that it can and does. Certainly in the raising of children it is not good.

  65. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Amanda,
    Gee. That got deep. It is certainly the case that a “moral” action can be sinful – for example – stoning the woman taken in adultery would have been sinful – it would seem. But it certainly would have been in keeping with the Law. The reason is that “moral” in that sense is merely on the surface. We could speak of a “morality of the heart” that would never be sinful.

    The answers to all of this are predicated on what we mean by a moral and immoral action.

    There is another interesting situation. There are actions that are what I would describe as inherently “tragic,” which moral and immoral really fail to address. For example, the classic case of lying to save a life. Or even killing someone in order to save an innocent life. The saving of a life is a good thing – but the situation presents something that is inherently “tragic.”

    I think we do not give enough room to the concept of tragedy (something the ancient Greeks certainly paid attention to). We live in a “tragic” world – one that is fallen and marked by sin. We are being saved by Christ’s “eucatastrope” as it is described – a “good catastrope.” “Good Friday” was “tragic” (it was an unjust execution) but becomes a saving event because of the goodness of God.

    There are many “tragedies” in our lives that also become saving events because of the goodness of God. I think the commandments concerning sexual continence, chastity, etc., sometimes puts someone in a “tragic” situation. The Church asks certain people to be chaste – even for their whole lives. And they may argue that it is unjust, unfair, etc. I would say that it is tragic – but that they are being asked to embrace a “eucatastrope” through Christ.

    The same is actually true of everyone. Love always will be tragic. The person we love will die (or we will). They will break our hearts (always). They will disappoint (or we will), etc. And if you refuse the tragedy of life then you will also refuse love.

    Far too many people in the modern world want a world without tragedy. That is often salutary – but taken to an extreme it actually produces even more suffering. Stanley Hauerwas notes that whenever ending suffering becomes a driving principle in ethics, it always leads to murder.

    One of the things I most like about Dostoevsky is the tragedy within his books and within his characters. It is why there is frequently a profound embracing of repentance. Repentance requires the acceptance of tragedy.

    I hope those are fruitful thoughts.

  66. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Michael, I agree. We are talking about proper boundaries around behavior here. Boundaries have their place–especially with younger children who need the safety of consistently enforced reasonable limits as well as plenty of warmth and empathy.

    What is true of coercion is that it can restrain behavior, but it cannot change the interior depths of the heart. The latter is the province of grace. If it is the transformation of the heart that is in view, coercion has no place.

  67. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    AR,
    sorry, your statement that it takes courage to bring up a child in a spirit of only goodness is what I was describing as requiring huge reserves of stillness.
    I used the word ‘discipline’ (only with goodness) meaning teaching right and wrong (and certainly not ‘punishing’ in any way). Of course punishing with only goodness (if that’s possible) would require no less than the spiritual discernment and clairvoyance of an Elder Joseph or a Saint Porphyrios…
    I have experienced that type of rebuke and it feels just as sweet (sweeter even) than being showered with kisses and hugs – but only a Saint of great spiritual discernment can walk such a tight rope without harming himself and others.
    Your parenting mantra “I am not raising my children for the temporary convenience of other adults” which I commend is what I was thinking of when saying that some special situations seem to be invented by the devil himself in order to not allow for such “only-goodness” application.
    For example: I can think of quite a few situations where we are not spared an amount of “tragedy” -as Father Stephen just described it- through a situation in which our children play the obvious part, and this tragedy is often shared between our children and others (eg adults, other children, etc).
    Without the discernment that comes from repentance and stillness will we not often err far more (towards one or more parties, including -or excluding- our children) whether we ‘do’, ‘overdo’ or ‘omit to do’ something about it…?

  68. AR Avatar

    Michael, as Fr. Stephen pointed out, all coercion IS violence behind a mask. There is no way to force someone to do something without a threat of violence. Whether that is fear of the police showing up, or your kid knowing that if he tries to leave his room after you grounded him you’re going to manhandle him back in there, this is categorically true.

    And yes, I keep my babies out of the street (and once I was willing to send my husband to war) but I carefully observe the damage done to when I have to exercise that necessity. It’s never good. It’s never the stuff of goodness.

    No, I do not force myself or my children to pray or go to Church. 7 out of 10 young people raised in Church leave as soon as they reach adulthood – in other words, when the coercion ceases. And many never come back.

    But hey, if I change my mind and decide that I want my kids to enjoy the same forced spirituality that you do, I’ll come back for more advice. Like Jesus said, “Force the little children to come unto me, for of such is the Sunday School populated – at least until high school is over.”

  69. AR Avatar

    Dino, I see what you are saying and I agree. Isn’t that gentle rebuke the opposite of coercive, though? Isn’t that its power?

    The word of God is lively and powerful and sharper than a two-edge sword, separating the soul and spirit, the joints and marrow.

    Without inspiration in our mouths – without true spirituality – we are a lot more blunt and bludgeony than that, aren’t we?

  70. Drewster2000 Avatar
    Drewster2000

    AR,

    Parenting is a bit more complicated than, “Don’t ever coerce them.” If this were not the case, robots or government daycare workers would have taken over our jobs by now. When one of your children starts beating the other one, how do you handle the situation without coercion of some form? Or perhaps there is a better word to describe what a parent must do to keep their kids safe, even from their untrained and uneducated selves?

  71. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    “A word in due season, how good it is.”

    AR, when I was in high school we had a local Catholic priest, an anti-war activist (it was the Vietnam era) visiting on campus and there was a class discussion/debate viz. the war, that included the principal of the school. I was fiercely anti-war. In the course of the discussion, I got pretty heated and said some pretty tough stuff. The Catholic priest later said to me, “Stephen, there’s more than one way to do violence to a person.”

    I am far more likely to use verbal wit or just “low blows” to do violence than anything else. I think your jab at Michael was mildly violent. “Forced spirituality” is just unkind. We’re all friends here – not antagonists. I think there’s an energy within this for you that is pushing the envelope. Dial it down. Forgive me.

  72. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    AR, forgive me, I was not commenting on anything you do personally. That is your business. Just in general.

    In fact, I have no doubt that what you have described of you parenting practices both here and on your on blog are far superior to what mine were.

  73. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Drewster,
    To have the Spirituality and discernment to know what to do in such tricky situations would certainly be ideal; and if one would err then, it would probably be on the humble and meek side rather than the coercive (even though that can prove more harmful to one of the parties involved too…). However, (AR) blanket statements are indeed of little practical help in some of the situations parenting sometimes throws at us.
    Metropolitan Anthony Bloom sometimes told the story of an encounter he had during a retreat for university students with a staunch pacifist. “After my first address one of them asked me for permission to leave it because I was not a pacifist.”
    “Are you one?” Metropolitan Anthony replied.
    “Yes.” “What would you do,” he asked, “if you came into this room and found a man about to rape your girl friend?”
    “I would try to get him to desist from his intention!” the man replied.
    “And if he proceeded, before your own eyes, to rape her?”
    “I would pray to God to prevent it.”
    “And if God did not intervene, and the man raped your girl friend and walked out contentedly, what would you do?”
    “I would ask God who has brought light out of darkness to bring good out of evil.”

    Metropolitan Anthony responded: “If I was your girl friend I would look for another boy friend.”

  74. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Dino,
    I had heard the story before but this morning it brought hearty laughter.

  75. Drewster2000 Avatar
    Drewster2000

    Dino,

    That’s a good story, thank you.

    I’m still thinking about this coercion thing. There is of course merit on both sides of the discussion. My experience thus far in reference to this area of parenting is that there are two keys that make me more successful (please forgive the use of this well-worn term):

    1. Everything must be done in love.

    I used to have a 6am wake-up time for my children. If they woke up and got out of bed before that time, they better be sick or bleeding, so help me God. After awhile I came to understand that this was more about my ego and my precious sleep than it was about them. Once this realization dawned I started changing my focus to them and their needs. If they got up early I turned my attention to what was going on with them – instead of my own desires in the situation. The wake-up time never changed and in fact they now usually get up around 7, but my heart did.

    2. It is about persuasion, not coercion.

    God didn’t coerce Jonah but he had a way of persuading him. I have no doubt it was for Jonah’s good as well as the message he carried and the people he carried it to.

    I didn’t make a rule one way or the other about spanking with my kids, but in practice we gave very few. It turned out to be much more about modeling and having a relationship with them than about controlling or coercing them.

    Example: I am very active in church and 3 years ago started acting as our parish youth catechism teacher. My 14 year-old son was in the first class with 3 other kids, by the end of which he declared that he was a staunch atheist. It became obvious that he hadn’t thought through the theology, but he did know that it would relieve him of having to stand up in front of the whole church (he’s a severe introvert) to profess his beliefs and possibly get him out of church altogether, which he finds boring and pointless.

    I could try to coerce him but his personality is such that the harder I’d push, the more he would resist. So I don’t. Because he’s a part of our family I require him to come to church with us until he’s 18. He doesn’t have to sing or follow along. He doesn’t partake. But he has to be there with us.

    We join hands and pray at meal time. I sometimes read scripture during supper. Sometimes he comments, sometimes he doesn’t. We’ve reached an understanding that no matter what he believes about God, etc., we still love him and he’s still part of the family. We discuss all kinds of things. If the topic turns to religion, he knows what I believe and we don’t try to persuade each other.

    He lives his life in a very Christian manner (but would balk at being told that), so I simply love him. There are house rules he has to follow, but it’s about being in this house and not about coercing him to be a certain kind of person.

    The world doesn’t hand love out. I suspect when the reality of adulthood hits him, he’ll be smart enough to go where there’s love. And love only comes from one source ultimately.

    I’ve learned a lot from this experience. In the past I would have argued that parents who “lose” their children probably did something wrong. Now I understand that they were never really mine in the first place. The parents’ job is to provide a good environment and encourage/persuade each one in the right direction. The rest is up to them and God. This realization brought angst, then sadness…..but in the end peace. And that is one of the things my children need most of all in this chaotic world.

    Coercion, no. Persuasion, yes when necessary – but all done in love.

  76. AR Avatar

    I’m perfectly happy to dial it down now that I’ve had my say. 🙂

  77. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    The Latin root from which the word coerce comes means: “to control, restrain, shut up together” even “to ward off” is part of the Latin understanding as part of the sub-root of the word.

    How one controls or restrains may involve violence, but need not. It could simply be a re-direction. Certainly, spiritual warfare requires a good bit of control, restraint and warding off does it not?

  78. AR Avatar

    It’s about male psychology, Fr. Stephen. When I disagree using kind words, I walk away with a spiritual beating and condescending words. When I put on my scary face, I get respectful disagreement.

    I don’t wish anyone ill, but after all, Michael is the one who said that he forces himself to engage in spiritual disciplines. If that is not forced spirituality, then what is? Presumably that’s not ALL there is, but that it’s there is something he said first, not me.

    I’m not in the least offended by you so speak freely, please, and don’t ask for forgiveness. There is nothing to forgive, as you have my love.

  79. AR Avatar

    Michael, there is nothing to forgive. My words were not written out of a feeling of being offended. Old friends, no?

    Drew, I can see you are thinking. With all due respect, and assuming you know what is best for your own son, here’s something more to consider.

    In the spiritual world as in the material, there is a law of reaction. Every action brings forth an equal and opposite reaction. You’ve associated your son’s apostasy with something he was forced to attend, something he probably experienced as stupid. Most thoughtful kids do experience kids’ programs at church as stupid. You’ve said, moreover, that his apostasy is not due to theological or philosophical reasons. All this leads me to wonder whether it is simply a reaction.

    If you have the guts, you may want to consider not giving him anything further to react to. After all, making church a house rule, like leaving the toilet seat down or hanging up your coat or not staying out after 11, is kind of the same thing as saying that church is arbitrary. You may be setting him up to leave church forever, like a bow that is pulled further and further back just sets the arrow up to fly further.

    You may also want to consider the possibility that your son is intellectually gifted and needs to have contact with serious and creative theology and theologians. I mention this simply because you emphasized his intense introversion. Stats show a high correlation between introversion and high intelligence.

    All the best, and this comes with a prayer for your son.

  80. Robert Bearer Avatar
    Robert Bearer

    Hi, Michael,

    Christ is in our midst.

    Like you, your ongoing discussion with our sister AR has made want to explore a bit more closely the difference between coercion and violence.

    For quick reference–since I have quite limited time–I find this on Wikipedia:

    Coercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force. It involves a set of various types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to induce a desired response, usually having a strict choice or option against a person in such a way a victim cannot escape, for example: a bully demanding lunch money to a student or the student gets beaten. These actions can include, but are not limited to, extortion, blackmail, torture, and threats to induce favors. In law, coercion is codified as a duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced.

    Like you, I see that coercion may involve force/violence, but not necessarily. Also, it appears to connote the use of duress in order to get another person to engage in unlawful conduct or some other wrong, or to do something that is against his own interest.

    Does careful, measured discipline administered with love for the good of the one disciplined by one with proper authority (which ultimately has its source, if it is authority, in God) truly constitute coercion? I wonder . . .

    Here’s hoping to see you at the upcoming Eighth Day Conference.

    rlb

  81. Lena Avatar
    Lena

    AR

    You are very courageous woman, so I hope for understanding:
    Sometimes, unwillingness to accept being asked for forgiveness is the other side of unwillingness to forgive others deep in the heart. In my limited experience love and forgiveness always go together (especially in the parenting). Maybe people who asked for forgiveness see something you don’t and it worth some pondering.
    Just a thought….

  82. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    AR and I have communicate quite a bit and I do consider her a friend. If she was not offended, then there is indeed nothing to forgive. I was not offended either. I do not mind boldness–especially toward me.

    As to forcing myself–if it were easy and required little effort, would it be a discipline? I don’t know about you, but saying no to the world and my passions requires a lot of effort most days and often I fail anyway.

    My late father frequently said the only real discipline is self-discipline which has its root in being a disciple.

    All I really know is that on the occasions when I do force myself against my gnomic will (is that right), I usually find myself in the presence of our Lord one way or another. Of course, He is there all along but I have been unaware.

    I remember a story told by Pastor Richard Wurmbrand about a Communist torturer who was tortured in return and came to the conclusion during his torture that such an act by a people who he had served faithfully was pure evil. If such evil exists there must be goodness beyond imagining (God) and he converted before he died.

    Just goes to show that “All things work toward good for those who love God”

    It is beginning to dawn on me after many self-created 2X4’s to the head (metaphorically speaking), that I have no control over anyone or anything but myself and precious little there.

  83. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Michael,

    Your last comment puts me in mind of the Fathers’ take on that verse that “the Kingdom of Heaven suffers violence and the violent take it by force” (Matthew 11:12). Coercion, without a doubt, has a negative connotation, as the dictionary definition Robert Bearer’s offers shows. This verse kind of turns that “violent” image on its head, because if I am recalling patristic commentary correctly, according to them this is talking about the intense movement of self-discipline/spiritual effort that is required to enter the Kingdom (I assume because our attempts are at every point opposed by the enemy of souls).

  84. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    The discussion, for me, bears much relationship to the morality discussion in the other recent articles. In Recovery circles they say: “Never say you’re going to try to do something. It only means you’re not going to do it.” Or, in the inimitable words of Elder Yoda: “Do or do not. There is no try.” 🙂

    I spent some time in a long conversation today with a therapist friend about goodness and moral effort. I shared with her my recent train of thought on “no moral progress.” She generally agreed. But we both noted the unaccountable flare-ups people have of goodness. Just plain goodness.

    Evil and moral failures are generally quite explainable. The cause and effect mechanisms that contribute to them are among the more obvious realities of our humanity. But goodness frequently seems to just appear “out of nowhere.” For example, my friend collects stories of unexpected heroes/heroines. Say, someone carrying someone else 12 flights of stairs in the 911 disaster and the like. The heroes of that day were often not trained. Of the “trained” heroes – not all trained were actually heroic. It’s not the training that necessarily explains it.

    Heroism occurs in very unexpected ways and places – surprising the heroes themselves.

    My own belief is that our “goodness” is a gift from God and is generally hidden and not made manifest in this life. It transcends what we think of as the moral process. Everybody in the world is “moral.” And everybody will struggle according to their “moral light.” But this goodness is something else. The person who struggles long and hard at their morality may simply fail completely in the heroic test – while someone we would judge as only marginally moral will utterly surprise in an act of complete sacrifice. The thief on the Cross is just such an example. Where did that come from?

    It is obviously a grace and gift from God.

    In raising children, we do our best according to what light we have. But more important than anything is prayer. My children are in their 20’s and 30’s now and their lives take twists and turns I/they could not have expected. It is clear to me as the years go by that the longer you live the more likely you are to be surprised. One way or the other. If things happen in their proper order, I will not live long enough in this world to see the end of my children’s salvation. It is also true that I have no idea what they each need in that daily struggle. God does.

    I would be terribly dismayed if one of them announced they were atheist. And it would surprise me. But strange things happen. Being an atheist is the path to salvation (at least a way station on the path) for some. And my prayers would reflect it. It’s hard enough when we disagree now (and it must be even harder for them when they disagree with me – I mean – I know everything). But we must take salvation (in its full Orthodox meaning) in hand as beyond our control – and the one thing most to be desired.

    How frightful it is to love someone and desire their salvation. It is such a helpless feeling. But, I think AR is on the right trajectory in her comments, viz. coercion. If coercion worked, God would use it – and though we speak about His “2×4” – in truth – he really doesn’t use one. But neither does He waste the ones that come our way. He is ever working all things for our good. The song of creation that He sings constantly corrects the false melody and weaves the fugue very finely. Perhaps St. Isaac is correct. And if so, there will have been no coercion in His song.

  85. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    It amazes me how there is no aspect of life where deep theology (the sort of easy-to-misunderstand terms we had been talking of Father…) has not got something to help us out with.
    As you, Father Stephen, reminded us, we need to concentrate on repentance -irrespective of our correctness or our errors. We cannot have such a discernment that avoids all errors (in child-rearing or any other situation); nevertheless our contact with repentant ‘stillness’ [the amount of time we spend in the exclusive presence of the Lord] is the closest thing we have to contact with that discernment. It allows us to glimpse not just our utter brokenness, but also our nature’s astonishing vocation. Our will is fallen (what we call ‘gnomic’ in theology) and so are our decisions, opinions and inclinations when we rationally deliberate in our everyday circumstances. But, like the fish that swim deep when a surface turmoil threatens them, we can use the depths of this stillness to evade many perils of everyday life. The meekness, the perspicacity, as well as the courage needed in these snags only come from such a place. And that place is ‘stillness’, the place of encountering Christ, the utter solution to every problem. The more we take not our eyes of Him, the more we walk on water.
    I think that the theological notions of gnomic and [the contrasting to that] natural willing are indeed key to making sense of the darkness that obscures our judgments as fallen individuals and makes us drown in a turbulent sea, and this inevitably includes this topic too.
    The notion of ‘gnomic willing’ (from the Greek gnome, meaning ‘inclination’, ‘opinion’ or ‘intention’) designates that form of willing in which a person, of necessity, engages in a certain process of deliberation – whether careful research or mere impulse is the palpable motive – resulting in a choice. Its experience is also an experience of our falleness.
    Natural willing, on the other hand, designates the [free from ‘fallen slavery’] movement of a creature towards the fulfillment (telos) of its being. This is in accordance with its existential vocation, its uncreated ‘logos’- the inner ‘raison d’être’ of its existence, connecting its nature’s ontology with its eschatological consummation. Glimpsing it inside of us is like glimpsing the unfalleness within our falleness. In the infinite variety of life’s occasions, access to ‘natural willing’ is not just hampered by our conceited delusion and self-centeredness, it is obscured by the simple fact that we are not omniscient. It is little wonder therefore that ‘spiritual discernment’ is often regarded as the highest of charismas in Orthodox tradition, without which even love itself (the true meaning of existence without which everything has no value) cannot be properly completed.
    According to St Maximus the Confessor, the incarnate Jesus Christ possessed no gnomic will. Maximus clarified that the process of gnomic willing presupposes that a person does not comprehend what they ultimately want, and so must deliberate and come to some choice between a range of alternatives. Christ, however, as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity was omniscient. Therefore, Christ was never in a state of ignorance regarding what He wanted, and so never engaged in gnomic willing.
    We sing in Church (during the iambic Pentecostal cannon)

    Thus spake the august and revered mouth,
    for you my friends there will be no parting

    and yet we forget that we need to work on that union first and foremost rather than to try to solve all other problems – to which problems that union itself is the only solution… If we really see Him, we shall see the solution transparently through Him; we will still make use of our reasoning powers, but in His Light.

  86. AR Avatar

    What unexpectedly wonderful words from all of you. Thank you for digging so deep and speaking so honestly.

  87. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    I think of the “2x4s” as being one of two things–the darts and stones the enemy throws at me (often through the “gnomic” willing of others) or me, in my gnomic ignorance, hurtling my frail and blind self against the unchanging Rock that is God Himself and against the boundaries, in His goodness, He has established for me “in pleasant places” (Psalm 16:5-6).

  88. AR Avatar

    When something difficult comes into my life, I’ve never found it easy to explain it or categorize it or take it as something meant to teach me. Things happened to me that should never happen to a child, long before I had done anything to “deserve” it. Nothing I do quite works out – I’m clumsy, or unlucky, or however you put it, so in a way bad things happen to me all the time, no matter what I do. If I attributed divine origin to any of this stuff, I would go mad. It’s one of my disciplines to only attribute good things to God. I guess that’s why I only want to do good to my children.

    On the other hand, if you can trace a cause-and-effect relationship between some evil and your own behavior, then that is a useful wake-up call. But for me that’s less about defining God’s morality and more about coming to see myself as capable of freedom and responsibility.

    I have had to think a lot about necessity and what to do, as Drew asked, when a child is endangering himself or others whether morally or physically. There is, indeed, such a thing as necessity and I’m not saying there isn’t. But necessity is born from evil, whether the morally neutral evil in the fallen material Universe or the wrong choices of others. So, I try to defy it as often as possible. I believe that a saint in the flesh would never encounter necessity, even if his kids were beating one another up or his girlfriend were being raped.

    I’m not a saint in the flesh but I try to move in that direction. Maybe a saint in the flesh would simply get between the two kids and let the blows fall on himself instead of the little kid. Maybe he would be so brimming with love that at a single touch the beaten would forget his woes and the beater his anger.

    So there is nearly always a way to do better than we thought we could, which to find it takes a lot of thought, trial and error, prayer, preparation, and commitment. Also courage, as I keep saying, because our whole culture is pressuring us to live in constant fear as parents – terror that our children will turn out to be criminals on the one hand, or be victimized on the other.

    Practically speaking, I’ve learned to defuse the situation first and deal with any moral dimension to what happened later, when everyone has cooled down and the child’s natural capacity for remorse has kicked in. Children’s emotional states vary a lot more than adult’s, but at their normal stable emotional level, they are tractable and want to please their parents – even the most willful. (It’s trickier after 11, though.)

    The main trick is to not cause a reaction. And the main trick in not causing a reaction is to avoid activating shame in them.

    This means giving respect instead of demanding it, not “sticking it to them” when they’ve done wrong, and addressing things conversationally instead of didactically. Believing all things, hoping all things.

    Other than that, getting to know your child when he is not misbehaving is important preparation for those difficult moments. Then, the cumulative effect of the trust you build within the difficult moments – when you respond to evil with good (Jesus’ most basic teaching but for some reason we think it doesn’t apply to our relationship with kids) – will help a little more each time.

    So if one of my kids was beating up another of my kids, I would be tempted, like anyone, to yank the kid’s arm and scream, “Knock it off, that’s your little brother, I shed my blood bringing both of you into this world and I didn’t do it so one of you could kill the other one early!” Less tempting, but more fallaciously spiritual, would be the groans of grief and the dire predictions as I fall on my knees in front of him, “Son, if you don’t mend your ways, I’m going to see you standing in juvenile court a few years from now and when the judge locks you up and throws away the key, it will break my heart and send me to an early grave but I won’t be able to say a word because you KILLED YOUR BROTHER and that’s the sin of Cain!”

    However, both of these options activate shame and both of them set your child up to flee from you and react to you (or else internalize the shame and become self loathing.)

    (By the way, if my child does run away from me when I am trying to correct him, I just let him go – that’s shame, and sticking it to him will simply cause him to internalize his own evil. Leaving him alone and letting his natural desire to have a good relationship with his parents kick in has the best effect.)

    Where one kid is beating up another, defusing first would mean simply getting between the two kids and holding them. Or if that’s not safe, restraining the offender, perhaps holding his arms from behind, and just getting the smaller kid to safety. That’s worst case scenario in my mind. Realistically, most situations with children get defused just because an adult walks into the room. If not, getting down on their level and getting their attention and paying attention to them usually works.

    Some people say that you should ignore kids who are misbehaving, because they are just seeking attention. However, parental attention is a good thing and addressing that need is a good thing, too. Instead of manipulating the outcome, simply being good to one’s child may work wonders.

    Then, as I hold them or sit with them, it’s about waiting it out – not listening to their ugly words, adding none of my own, and just letting things run down. When a child has done something wrong, they may experience it as trauma. Usually something clicks and they both end up sobbing their woes into my ears. Later, I make like Father in confession and spend some time with the offender and just listen and say anything that might be helpful – but only on the assumption that this child wants to be good and wants to do right and is standing before God in his heart, without me, as a Person. So it’s working with the Spirit instead of against him, and that’s an art and there’s no sure-fire thing you can do and no system that ensures a good outcome.

    Oddly enough, it seems to be a passion peculiar to our society to ensure things. We all seem to believe that if we simply figure out the right configuration of rules, we will “ensure” that nothing bad can happen anymore. In pursuit of this impossible dream the rules get harder and harder to live with. I think Fr. Stephen said somewhere that our society is one in which Law has gone mad, and I think that’s true in more ways than one.

    That’s why it takes courage to see our children as capable of handling moral freedom. Freedom is what they need, because only then can they defy the necessity of sinfulness working within them.
    But Freedom is dangerous, so we are in the process of rejecting it. Children’s understanding and their ability to control themselves may differ from adults, but their nature is the same and they need the same kind of help that adults struggling with sinfulness need. Except less tough, because they are more innocent. If we learn to see them as inexperienced rather than wicked, we make a lot more headway.

    I am sometimes surprised by the lack of empathy that many children have. Empathy seems to be learnable. Sometimes if I walk a child through the mental steps of empathetic reasoning, he will be in tears about behavior he was defending moments before. But it has to be in a way and a time when the child is receptive.

    I think what I am saying is that chivalry is a Christian virtue – the only virtue that Christians invented. Maybe, I’m also saying that an un-moral upbringing is better for children than a moral upbringing.

    (For those who had trouble with this excellent term “un-moral” (as opposed to immoral or amoral) I refer them to “undead” (a way of being dead) and “unknowing” (a type of knowing) and “unschooling” (a manner of schooling.)

  89. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    great words AR…

    Though I have seen (I believe) a saint (if I could say that) in the flesh, -in the capacity of spiritual Father- having to deal with two of his spiritual children complaining of each other and the Father certainly encountered necessity! It’s just that his sublime discernment on how exactly to deal with it was nothing less than astounding.

  90. AR Avatar

    I’m sure you’re right, Dino. Do you believe Christ encountered necessity or did he always act in freedom?

  91. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    My late wife, memory eternal, was a street minister for awhile in some tough places (The Tenderloin in SF, South Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit). During one of those excursions she encountered a gang beating up a young man. She just walked into the midst of them, got hold of the boy being beaten and pulled him out. She was not hurt and no retaliation by the others on her or the boy. They walked away.

    On another occasion, she was clerking in a liquor store alone at night when a man walked in in a ski mask, pulled out a big knife and asked for the money. She looked him in the eye, reached out and pushed the knife away and said, “You don’t want to do that.” He just turned and walked away. Then she called the police.

    My late wife was not a saint but she was someone who was able to walk in faith in some pretty amazing ways when it was absolutely called for.

  92. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    I wouldn’t want to have a belief that is not that of the Church I believe in. Moreover, there are many ways to approach this AR, and some pretty standardised theological answers, consistently indicating that Christ acted in freedom – as I am sure you know, (which is why you question surprises me.) Besides, the transcendence of suffering wrought by Christ, certainly manifests utter freedom as acceptance of the Father’s will -within our plane of contingent being (a plane of necessity). I am certainly in no position to ‘teach’ you on the subject though AR. It soon stretches out to the unkowables of who is saved…
    But a combination of acting in freedom without forcing it on anybody else’s is feasible. However, as we never find out if the elder brother of the prodigal accepts his Father’s counsel we also never find out of the final outcome we hope for in this life – as Father Stephen mentioned above.
    Besides we see the whole gamut of reactions to Christ from His children, don’t we…?
    I am trying to shift the issue slightly though, as your question – to which I am sure you must know the ‘official’ answer –is not the main point I was trying to make (on the topic of discernment I mean). And the fact that a clairvoyant/discerning Saint might –on occasion- have such astonishing and creative solutions to the interpersonal (and other tricky) situations they encounter does not mean that they do not suffer hugely. But their focus on Christ alone, which is their constant provider of discernment in a very real sense, is also the ‘safeguarder’ of their joy in, and transcendence of, suffering.

  93. AtP Avatar
    AtP

    AR! What wisdom. This is what I would try to do if I could do it over again!

  94. AR Avatar

    Dino, I don’t know a lot of formal theology, I just push around for insights. Christ in the flesh suffered other kinds of human limitations willingly, but the willing itself makes necessity a special category, I guess?

    However, I wasn’t so much looking for a Christology lesson as seeking to better understand the word ‘necessity’ from your point of view. If Christ didn’t suffer it then there must be a sort of huge territory left uncharted between the divine humanity of Christ and the furthest heights reached by a saint, in this matter of necessity. So that territory kind of helps me to clarify my ideas of the range of goodness.

    You pointed out that people sometimes suffer hugely when they act freely in the face of other peoples’ sins. As a parent, I think there has to be a willingness to suffer for one’s children, and at the same time one keeps in mind the reality that they need to have a healthy functioning parent around. The first part is the freedom, the second part the necessity. I think faith moderates the necessity as the freedom grows.

  95. AR Avatar

    Michael, what a wonderful story and it illustrates what my heart was trying to know beautifully. Maybe I’m hiding behind talk of saints, hedging my speech. Like Fr. Stephen said, goodness springs as a gift of God from ordinary people.

  96. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    AR,
    Indeed –as you put it – “faith moderates the necessity as the freedom grows”…!
    The more we trust in God’s providence against all adversity (faith), the more we breathe the air of freedom (in the midst of what the world would term tribulation, necessity or suffering).
    But the original question you posed “Do you believe Christ encountered necessity or did he always act in freedom?” creates a false dichotomy. Christ (and His Saints to the degree of their union with God), as all-loving, all-knowing, and omnipotent, acts in complete freedom as well as [paradoxically] complete respect of others’ freedom – even those who do not wish to be saved. [You see now why I said this subject can stretch out to the unknowable topic of ‘who is ultimately saved…?’] Man’s freedom is the Crucificial risk that God has given Himself (like the prodigal’s respectful Father) -He is slain from the foundation of time- however, we cannot say that the suffering that comes from that is not utterly accepted and free – He is Love.

  97. AR Avatar

    AtP, I am sure you did your best. I was blessed with a firstborn who was very articulate from almost infancy, who expressed to me the existential crisis that even a young child can experience around issues of shame.

    Dino, that seems like a good place to leave it.

  98. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    “Michael, as Fr. Stephen pointed out, all coercion IS violence behind a mask….And yes, I keep my babies out of the street (and once I was willing to send my husband to war) but I carefully observe the damage done to when I have to exercise that necessity. It’s never good. It’s never the stuff of goodness….I think AR is on the right trajectory in her comments, viz. coercion. If coercion worked, God would use it…”

    There seems to be some absolutes, some idealism creeping in here that does not seem real to me, perhaps because of the following assumption:

    “…I believe that a saint in the flesh would never encounter necessity, even if his kids were beating one another up or his girlfriend were being raped….Maybe he would be so brimming with love that at a single touch the beaten would forget his woes and the beater his anger.”

    I think it is safe to say that one could take any saint (say a current Elder/Saint or one of recent memory, like Saint Porphyrios) and put him in the squad car of his local policemen, and show him “necessity”. Indeed, one would quickly be able to prove to him the value of “coericion” – that is the real good that comes from it (sometimes) and the “lessor of two evils” that it can be an important part of. I would say that good even comes from “violence” – even if it has a tragic character and is part of a tragic world/reality. I wonder if we should not send some hard men to do violence on ISIS and send a good portion of them to Allah – good, real good, would come from it (even if it is not the ultimate solution, unintended consequences would ensue, etc. etc. etc.).

    I have nothing in principle against spanking, though I have a six year old daughter who has never been spanked. She is sensitive, and all I have to do is raise my voice to get her attention and correct her. My 7 month old, well, from what I can tell now it would not at all surprise me that she might be spanked one day. AR mentioned a “theology” around spanking, pain, and child rearing. I have heard of this but this extremism does not mean that all spanking, coercion, and “violent” in a negative way.

    I have a relative who has a little boy (age 5) who has a “hitting problem” – at school, at church, with other children, even with his parents. This child has never been spanked – instead a very intellectualized and “rational” program of discipline is being used. It is a complete failure. This child needs a spanking, and a sensible view of childhood and life that comes with it.

    I train police officers in Jui-Jitsu, which is to say I train them in the art of physical coercion and violence. It is a good thing, because it allows them to make arrests sometimes where they would otherwise have to use deadly force (i.e. their gun). Our government trains the army in deadly violence. It is a good thing because it keeps other violent peoples from doing violence on our people. Our government has even used physical and mental torture, and like it or not some good has come from it – it has “worked” in the past and it will “work” in the future (much to the lament of the political left). This is not to say that it is not been abused, is dark dark dark, and is not damaging on all those involved – it is not “salvific” but perhaps someone who is not senselessly killed in a terrorist attack was later found in Church working out his salvation…

    “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” George Orwell

    I say all this so as to not forget the place, the “necessity” of these rough men, the good that they do, and how they are as much a part of reality and God’s providence as the Saints who sleep safe in their cells and monasteries because of them…

  99. AR Avatar

    I knew a kid once who had “a hitting problem.” He had been born with a mental disconnect between his mind and pain. He didn’t even cry when he was born, he didn’t cry when he was pricked in his heel or left alone in his bed. Then he began hurting people experimentally before he was a year old and it quickly grew into a habit. The mom’s and dad’s families badgered them endlessly to “solve” the problem by spanking. They tried it once, and the little child became suicidal. He brought his mother a kitchen knife and begged his mother to kill him, because he couldn’t control himself and he felt that he was a mistake of nature and didn’t deserve to live.

    The mom told me later that when the child reached 7 years of age, he made a leap in maturity. Suddenly he became aware of himself as a real person, distinct from his parents, with responsibility. After that he was quickly able to stop hitting.

    However, the relationships with those family members that had been unable to love and accept the child unless he met their standards of behavior – were ended. The mother could not trust those family members anymore because they had caused such emotional damage with their judgment, and because they had wished so hard to see her child hurt, in retaliation and contempt for his problem. They did not see him as being like themselves or one of themselves. He was a problem to them, and embarrassed the family.

    People who don’t know the real story of a child’s experience do more damage than good, Christopher, by promoting violence against him. I hope you never say something like this to the 5-year-old child’s family, because you will cause a wound you can never imagine, among a group of people who are already confused and hurting.

    I’ve heard other stories like this, as well.

    Among women who were spanked there is talk on the internet, in certain cozy forums, of the sexual dysfunction that has often resulted from that experience. Sensitive girls experienced it as a form of sexual molestation. Some become lesbians, some lose their libido, some get addicted to s and m, some become nymphos, some are unable to trust, and the list goes on. And sensitive boys, too, have the same experience. In the book, “God’s Funeral,” there is a whole section on how widespread societal male homosexuality arose in Victorian times, largely as a result of boys at boarding school watching one another be spanked. You can write this level of spanking off as extreme, but I am telling you that it’s like a drug. No one starts off extreme – they start off concerned and sincere. But it takes more and more to get the same effect.

    I have tried to retreat from a position which is absolute or idealistic – in fact those are favorite words of mine so it seems as if you might have read my blog! I know there is such a thing as necessity – I have said so over and over. What I am trying to say is that even when necessity compels us to do something bad in order that good may come, that doesn’t make the bad thing good. It just makes it necessary. And I defy necessity for my children, even if I cannot do so anywhere else in life.

    I respect what you do with the police, and I respect what the police do. I don’t imagine that God will judge them, or you, for doing it. I also know that police, being fallible, too easily cross the line that must be held between them and the violent people they stand guard against. I know that police deal with higher rates of depression than others, that their marriages are more likely to fail, and that they often become such angry and traumatized people that their lives fall apart. My best friend’s life was ruined after she married a policeman who was injured in the line of duty. This is the price of what we need them to do for us. This is the price of our society’s problems, and of offloading them.

    I take issue with the idea that a five-year-old who hasn’t matured enough to stop hitting people is the same, in principle, as a grown-up who has matured into a rabid dog and who leaves the police no choice but to take him down.

    But most of all, I take issue with the idea that the religion of Jesus Christ can do nothing for even the most innocent among us, without the help of humiliation, pain, and terror. Because that is what spanking is, no matter how “lovingly” you do it. And if you are the one to inflict it, it will damage your spirit, no matter how “necessary” it was.

  100. AR Avatar

    Here’s another little example, and I don’t mean it to represent an absolute, just a possibility. My son started teaching himself to read when he was 2, but because of some sensory processing issues, he was unable to hear the difference between vowel sounds, so he became frustrated, stopped that process short, and resisted books and reading after that. When he was 5 and other kids his age were going to school, I panicked and became afraid he would never learn to read. I sat him down and forced him to learn the difference in the vowel sounds. I also did some less coercive things that helped. Soon he caught up and was reading well beyond grade level. The only problem was, he was a reluctant reader. His hatred of books grew and grew, to the point that this Christmas, when I gave him a very easy book on how to make comics, which is a current enthusiasm of his, he politely declined the book!

    This was just a few weeks ago, to emphasize the point.

    I decided to go with my gut and against my panic, and I made a deal with him. I told him that I would not require him to read a single word for the rest of the semester, as long as he would allow me to read to him. He agreed. I began reading The Wind in the Willows to him. I would read only a few pages at a time, and soon he was begging me to read more and I was regretfully refusing.

    Tonight as I write this, he is waiting for me in his room, reading Orson Scott Card’s “How To Write Science Fiction and Fantasy” under the covers with a flashlight.

    Ha! Take that, necessity! 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Subscribe to blog via email

Support the work

Your generous support for Glory to God for All Things will help maintain and expand the work of Fr. Stephen. This ministry continues to grow and your help is important. Thank you for your prayers and encouragement!


Latest Comments

  1. Matthew, in western art the painter is always present, the person in the picture is a creature of the painter.…

  2. Last, I should add that when I refer to Orthodox theology, I’m not referring to ideas we entertain in our…

  3. Matthew, I’m not sure what Father Stephen is going to say about your question of veneration of icons v.s. Renaissance…


Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast



Categories


Archives