The Singular Goodness of God

It has long seemed to me that it is one thing to believe that God exists and quite another to believe that He is good. Indeed, to believe that God exists simply begs the question. That question is: Who is God, and what can be said of Him? Is He good? This goes to the heart of the proclamation of the Christian faith. We believe that God has revealed Himself definitively in the God/Man, Jesus Christ, and preeminently in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Years ago, a friend of mine was speaking with an Orthodox priest about certain matters of conscience. In the course of the conversation, my friend mentioned concerns with the judgment of God, expressing a certain dread. The priest responded by turning around a small icon of Christ that was on his desk so that my friend could see it. It was the icon of Christ, “Extreme Humility,” that pictures Him in the depth of His humiliation and suffering. “Which God are we talking about?” was the priest’s question. My friend’s concerns were answered in that moment. Whatever our concerns might be, the goodness of God is revealed in that icon without qualification.

It is possible to use the entire Jesus story as a way of proving the existence of God, only to then proceed to think of God in terms that are somehow removed from Christ Himself. I’m not sure whether we imagine this “God” to be the “Father” or something else. These conversations (and thoughts) are often expressed in terms of, “I believe that God…” and on from there. I think of this as the God of the blackboard. Jesus is used in order to prove the blackboard but then we begin to fill in that large, blank wall with our own imaginings (or various passages of Scripture that we might use as a counterweight to the story of Jesus).

Sometimes those imaginings are extrapolations from Scripture (this story or that). Sometimes they are the productions of opinion. Many times our imaginings were handed down to us or written in our minds long before we ever thought about the matter.

If the stories of Scripture “prior” to Christ were sufficient for the knowledge of God, Christ would not have spoken in correction of the conclusions falsely drawn from them. There is a Greek word for an interpretation of the Scriptures: exegesis. It is most informative to note that St. John (in the Greek) says:

The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has exegeted Him. (Joh 1:18)

Christ is how we “read” God. We cannot get behind Christ to speak about God as though we knew anything of God apart from Christ. We do not know God “prior” to Christ. When Christ declares that He is the “Way, the Truth, and the Life” and that “no one comes to the Father except by Me,” He is not merely describing the path of salvation, He is making it clear that it is through Him alone that we know God. This is also affirmed in St. Matthew’s gospel:

All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. (Matt. 11:27 NKJ)

Christ not only reveals God, but He reveals the goodness of God. He is what goodness looks like. Throughout His ministry, every word and action is a revelation of goodness. That goodness is supremely made manifest in His voluntary self-emptying on the Cross. This revelation is definitive and must be always borne in mind when we consider who God is and what kind of God He is. He is the kind of God who empties Himself for our sake, unites Himself to our shame and suffering, and endures all things that He might reconcile us to Himself and lead us into the fullness of life in Him.

This is the proper “exegesis” of the Scriptures. Anything that imagines God in a manner that is not consistent with this presentation is a deviant reading (for a Christian). This calls for an inner discipline. When reading even the most disturbing imprecatory passages within the Scriptures, we should search for the image of the Crucified Christ within them. There are frequent paradoxes in such an approach. This is particularly true in the language of hell (and its synonyms).

God has no need for punishment. He is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). He cannot will our destruction and punishment while at the same time not willing that we should perish. Even the language of the fires of hell as a self-inflicted reality can be misleading. We know by experience that we are capable of inflicting great suffering on ourselves and we can easily imagine that stretching into eternity. What is being described, however, are the inner dynamics of a relationship with Divine Love: compassionate, forgiving, gentle, self-emptying in the extreme. The language and imagery of Scripture can be graphic, at times repulsive, particularly in the confusion of modern literalism.

These matters must be read within the heart (for that is where they were written). The singular commitment of the heart must be grounded in the goodness of God. We are not asked to look at something that is repugnant or horrible and say that it is good. That would do damage to the soul. What we know in Christ tells us that God is good. It is this that we look for as we search the depths of our world for understanding.

An element of God’s goodness that is frequently overlooked is found in our freedom (even when we misuse it). Nothing else in all creation is given the freedom that marks human existence. Everything else around us expresses its nature. A dog always acts as a dog. Human beings have the capacity in our freedom to act contrary to our nature. Sometimes our own sanity is insane. Some of the Fathers describe this capacity as “godlike.” We have been given a freedom that transcends our nature. It is this freedom that, potentially, finds expression in the fullness of personal existence.

We are created with the capacity to see God “face-to-face,” to interact as an equal, regardless of how absurd that might seem. It is an existence that is not confined to nature or circumstance but finally is above both. It is an existence that is constituted solely by love. I have seen this freedom exercised as love, even within the depths of protracted, life-long suffering. The goodness manifested in such examples is staggering.

I do not think there is a calculus that can be brought into this reality. Is the freedom we are given worth the price? No calculus is possible because we cannot measure the things involved. I cannot measure the suffering of an innocent child (as did Ivan Karamazov) just as I cannot measure the full joy of the freedom of love. What we have in Christ, however, is an example of both.

Here, we profess, is the most Innocent of the innocent, who, “for the joy that was set before Him, endured the Cross, disregarding the shame” (Heb. 12:2). The “joy that was set before Him,” is not some sort of private bliss. It is the joy of love, in freeing those who are held in bondage so that they might see Him face-to-face (as an equal) in all of the fullness of a true personal existence.

I cannot imagine this, nor measure this. But I can say that I see this. I see One who is utterly good, compassionate and self-emptying, walking the path of the unimaginable because He is good and thinks we are worth it. My faith (trust, loyalty) says, “I want to walk that path – help me!” I take His death and resurrection as the revelation of God and of the world as well.

 

 

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.



Posted

in

, , , , ,

by

Comments

251 responses to “The Singular Goodness of God”

  1. Matthew Lyon Avatar
    Matthew Lyon

    I want to plug an author who did more to lead me to Orthodoxy than any Orthodox theologian – Dr. Michael Heiser. His book Unseen Realm and his Podcast, The Naked Bible – have done more to explain the OT view of the world, the view the 1st century Christians and the Fathers would have embraced – which is a one story universe. I would love it if more Orthodox would get a hold of his material – He is not Orthodox but he gives OT justification for a multitude of Orthodox beliefs that you do not find in Orthodox explanations. I would be overwhelmingly surprised if he did not convert at some time in his life. I email him almost every time he confirms Orthodoxy. Regardless, when you get into the “trickiness” of the OT, his material is very, very helpful

  2. Matthew Lyon Avatar
    Matthew Lyon

    Here’s a link to an article on the rationale behind the some of the conquests
    http://drmsh.com/the-giant-clans-and-the-conquest/

    It’s weirder that any explanation you’ve probably ever heard of, but truer to the 1st and 2nd century by far – especially Irenaeus.

  3. Alan Avatar
    Alan

    Simon,
    On Aug 4 @ 4:39, you commented: “Our religion is perfectly and profoundly conceived. What is simple is also what is most precious. Accordingly, in your spiritual life engage in your daily contest simply, easily, and without force. The soul is sanctified and purified through the study of the Fathers, through the memorization of the psalms and of portions of Scripture, through the signing of hymns and through the repetition of the Jesus Prayer. Devote your efforts, therefore, to these spiritual things and ignore all the other things.”

    Where is that quote from?

  4. Dee of St Hermans Avatar
    Dee of St Hermans

    Simon,
    I thought the paper would be helpful but your response was surprisingly dismissive, given the work that I’ve seen that would support it. If you have on hand something that treats the subject directly and refutes it to warrant your dismissive response, I’d like to see it. Arguing about topics in science without reference to the science for support for it is rather pointless, and does more to give others the impression that anyones attitude or opinion is acceptable.

    The western european world (the culture) didn’t invent science and it will not be the final arbiter of what defines it. Perhaps you are familiar with some of the archeological findings of the mathematical concepts of the Mayans. One in particular that I have found fascinating is their understanding of zero and infinity which relates them in such a way that looks very similar to the current support developed for the Riemann hypothesis. Perhaps, given your response above, this will not interest you either and I will not press this further.

    My point was to say what Fr Stephen says at 8:57am. And I particularly like the last paragraph. Science is the path in which I was found by God. I don’t expect this would be the case for everyone, however this experience suggests the reality of what Fr Stephen describes.

  5. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Actually Dee I wasnt dismissive at all. I am asking a question about scale and quantum collapse, which if we’re being honest you didnt respond to. Quantum phenomena collapses and a Newtonian world emerges and when it does time moves invariantly in one direction. I will take a second look at the article, but it is extremely theoretical and I am not sure how one would even go about falsifying the results. Take the work of David Bohm. Its a very coherent system. The math works. But how would you ever test it?

  6. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    “Science is a discipline – not a worldview.”

    At the risk of offending, Simon is more correct with his line of thinking that there is an inherent link (causal, not a mere correlation) between modernity as a set of ideas (a worldview) and science. Science is a discipline, an investigative *and* interpretive methodology: methodological materialism. Science IS methodological materialism, despite some interesting diversions in history (see what Miahi was discussing upstream).

    Methodological materialism IS an epistemology – an answer to the question “how do we know what we know”. This epistemology assumes a nominalistic metaphysics – and metaphysics is an assertion as to *what is*. The Christian, when he “does science”, is doing methodological materialism. He is bracketing off “meaning” to calculate and measure. He then asks “what does this mean”, and such a question (to the extant that he is a Christian) originates from a different epistemology and metaphysic.

    When a modern “does science” his answer to the question “what do these measurements mean?” can only come from the nominalistic foundation of his world view – a duality that is the story of the conflict and intermingling of the Cartesian self and nominalist/materialistic metaphysics. This meaning has the characteristic of “linerality” and dialectical reasoning, as when Simon says “… once quantum collapse occurs then linear time predominates….”. Linerality is always restored because this is how methodological materialism understands reality including obviously other epistemological assertions such as Christianity and the God of time and history that creates time and history *from outside of it* – which is to say, methodological materialism collapses Christianity back into its own world view.

    So when Simon says “Modernity proceeds from science” I argue that he is essentially correct. Father your idea that you can separate science from modernity is to be frank, a fideism. It is not inherently consistent with the *story* of modernity and science itself. All stories (epistemology and metaphysics are just technical parts/reflections of those stories) contain their own *meaning*, their own Alpha and Omega. It takes faith to cobble them together into a third thing, yet another story.

  7. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    “… that is all events in history including those that ‘have occurred’ down to the very ‘nuts and bolts’ of nature have ‘no orientation’ in spacetime. Another way of expressing ‘no orientation’ is to say that the deeper one goes into nature, what we might call a ‘timeline’ becomes ever more difficult point in a particular direction to label as an ‘historical event’. ”

    “This helps (me at least) to understand how all events whether on the macro level or the deep down level of the subatomic, can be oriented to Christ’s Pascha.”

    Dee of St. Hermans,

    I would be interested in how you link the two quotes above. The first seems to be a logical (in theoretical mathematics, the interpretation, the *meaning* of assumptions and the math applied to those assumptions) statement of nominalism (i.e. the idea that nothing contains within itself a realistic logoi). “no orientation” indeed is a succinct way to say “Reality is nominalistic”.

  8. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    “….to be a logical (in theoretical mathematics, the interpretation, the *meaning* ….”

    Oops, I meant to say “In theoretical physics, the interpretation, the *meaning*…

  9. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Dee, I am more than happy to think more deeply about the paper, for me the pivotal statement of interest is this: Topological models of elementary particles [quanta] within the equations and framework of general relativity require a breakdown of the causal structure to allow topology changing interactions. At the level of quanta this maybe makes sense in terms of accounting for quanta phenomena, but how we jump from there to casting doubt over the idea of history is an impossible leap for me to make. I am willing to be wrong, but how would this scale to do more than

  10. Dee of St Hermans Avatar
    Dee of St Hermans

    Simon,
    Your last comment got cut off I think but I think you’re pointing to the problem of scale from quanta to ‘jumping into history’. I appreciate this concern and there are papers out there such as the “more is different” paper (I’m sorry I’m really pressed for time at the moment, and I don’t remember the citation of the top of my head), that would discourage this kind extrapolation. Fair enough about making such extrapolation. However, I do it (I make the extrapolation) because of my faith regarding what I ‘see’ at that level (I’m making hypotheses of my own). Fr Stephen is careful about understanding and taking care about the ‘intersection’ of theology and science in our discourse and I appreciate this also.

    Christopher, I’m not a nominalist, but I am a scientist. This might seem a severe contradiction to you but I ‘do’ science, so I have done experiments and have reported the results in the typical manner. I’ve also come across results that defy current theories, which if I had time would have required a heavy emphasis on inductive reasoning and seeming disparate data from disparate sources. For me this is how and when science becomes really interesting. To publish such a paper is another thing. That actually requires a few beers with one’s colleagues around a coffee table… sorry out of time!!!

    Fr Stephen, please forgive me if this is taking us off track. And delete if needed.

    Christopher

  11. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Christopher,
    What you call “science” is actually “modern science.” That science done in a modern mode adhere’s to the assumptions of modernity is, well, tautological. Of course it does. But, science was not invented in the 17th-18th century – it is much older. Everything older, of course, is largely dismissed as “primitive,” etc. But, in modernity, everything that took place before the modern period is primitive, and preliminary, at best.

    I am saying, there can be a science that is not modern. It would ask different questions. It might use a different methodology. I suspect that, in time, something of the sort might well come about simply because of the limitations of a nominalist view of the world. But, who knows.

  12. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    We’re at 210+ comments on the thread – maybe even a record. The article is nice, but much of the conversation is somewhat off the point. I’ll note that one commenter has over 40 comments of his own, with at least an equal number in reply – meaning that the 210 comment mark is not a example of a wide-ranging conversation – but a tendency for the comments to turn into a chat room.

    I have to moderate everything (you wouldn’t believe some of the stuff that doesn’t see the light of day). The first comment made by anyone is automatically moderated. After that, they go through without trouble, unless there is more than one hypertext link. As the moderator, I have to read everything and make some decisions along and along. I like to do that with a light hand.

    I’m also aware of those who “tune in” late and start making their way through more than a hundred comments. It’s possible for that to be great, or to be an exercise that convinces them that they never want to do it again. Sometimes, I wonder if the comments are read by more than a handful. I don’t have a mechanism to tell me that.

    Almost all of the blogs hosted by Ancient Faith have a different moderation setting – all comments are always held in moderation until they are cleared. I begged out of that when I moved to the Ancient Faith Platform so that the freedom we’ve enjoyed in the past would not be interrupted. However, I cannot sustain moderating the blog at a 200+ level of comments – It is too time-consuming.

    The upshot of this is a suggestion that comments try to stay somewhat close to the main topic of the blog – avoid personal entanglements where possible and please understand if I moderate a little more closely and remove comments that seem to be heading in a direction that I would prefer to avoid. The limits of my humanity are poking away at me.

    Thanks!

  13. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Simon, what I said was that to make an identity between science and modernity is foolish. Some folks do that. We are all inter-connected with modernity even if we do not wish to be. That is the struggle is it not, or at least part of it.

  14. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Dude…I’m a narcissist…I take over conversations and make them about me…that’s what narcissists do.

    And I’m not joking either.

  15. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Simon,
    You’re not a narcissist. I’ve know some and you don’t quite fit the bill. Everybody has a bit of narcissism in them – depending on the circumstances.

  16. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    A possibly off topic post from me: Thanks Karen for your last reply to me (Aug 3rd)!

  17. Paula AZ Avatar
    Paula AZ

    Thank you for your patience and countless hours put into this blog ministry, Father! May we be mindful of your small request. Many thanks….

  18. Jeff Avatar
    Jeff

    It has been quite exhilarating to read this thread. The reason I say that is because I have been reading “The Unintended Reformation.” Its treatment of the multi-faceted causes of modernity seems to be echoed in these comments. I have just started Ch. 6 “Secularizing Knowledge.” Given the content of most of this thread, I know that I am hugely out of my depth, but the following quote seems appropriate. Forgive me, it is somewhat long (and maybe too much too late).

    “As we shall see in filling out this story, the secularization of knowledge in the West was not inevitable. It was not a matter of obvious inferences based on scientific findings or of indubitable insights gleaned from neutral textual interpretation or historical research. Rather, it was a thoroughly contingent process derived from human interactions that involved assumptions, institutions, metaphysical beliefs, the exercise of power, and human desires besides the desire to discover and to learn. The dominant narrative of modern Western intellectual history, of course, suggests otherwise. This is not surprising, since this narrative is itself a latter-day descendant of the story told by early modern Enlightened protagonists about their progress in triumphing over the prescientific, superstitious credulity and the precritical, dogmatic ignorance of peoples in the superseded past. The transition from premodern religious belief to modern secular knowledge is the virtual heart of the story, nearly synonymous with the Enlightenment that ushered in modernity. Seeing matters differently requires a willingness to question some fundamental assumptions that are commonly taken for granted, and to see the secularization of knowledge as embedded in historical processes whose reach extends beyond matters of inquiry, perception, evidence, reason, inference, and epistemology considered in themselves. It also requires a conceptual framework capacious enough to accommodate the different types and subjects of knowledge as they were regarded on the eve of the Reformation, and a chronological perspective sufficient to encompass their historical formation— one that stretches back through the Middle Ages to the ancient world and the texts, authorities, experiences, and alleged events at the heart of the medieval Christian worldview.”
    Gregory, Brad S.. The Unintended Reformation (Kindle Locations 6689-6701). Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.

    I’m especially interested in this statement: “It also requires a conceptual framework capacious enough to accommodate the different types and subjects of knowledge….” One of these types of knowledge that Gregory mentions earlier in the chapter, is that of participatory knowledge, a type of knowledge I have not been taught to take seriously, but I am finding is just as important as other types of knowledge. But probably even more enlightening to me has been to think more deeply about the fact that there *is* more than one type of knowledge (sorry, at the moment, I couldn’t track down the other types) and that in fact we seem to dismember ourselves when we only trust, engage, or do only one type, because they all actually contribute to knowledge as such, or what might be called the full complement of knowledge (at least to the limits of our inquiry and our finiteness).

  19. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    It’s an extremely good book that I recommend whenever I get the chance. Glad you’re finding it so rich. I greatly appreciate the quote.

    I have to say, as an aside, I’m not making this stuff up about modernity. It’s not my private hobby horse – but simply an example of a critique that has been around for a while with some very serious-minded people sharing it.

  20. Jeff Avatar
    Jeff

    I’m glad you referenced it in an earlier post. It’s been quite helpful. Thank you, again, Fr. for your efforts on our behalf and for submitting yourself to our Lord Jesus.

  21. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    Jeff & Father,

    I spent a year of my graduate studies at St John’s (New Mexico), one of handful of “Great Books”/Classics programs left in the USA (this was the early 1990’s). Going in I expected that here would be a place where there would be:

    ” ….a willingness to question some fundamental assumptions that are commonly taken for granted, and to see the secularization of knowledge as embedded in historical processes whose reach extends beyond matters of inquiry, perception, evidence, reason, inference, and epistemology considered in themselves….one that stretches back through the Middle Ages to the ancient world and the texts, authorities, experiences, and alleged events at the heart of the medieval Christian worldview…..”

    It turned out the only students who were actually doing this were the small group of orthodox RC’s and Orthodox students/professors (I was the token “Anglican” at the time). Modernism is very very efficient at doing exactly what Jeff points to: convincing that its conceptual “frame” of history, epistemology, metaphysics (everything) is “true”. As a worldview and religion, it is very very successful.

    On the other hand it must be said that questioning the zeitgeist, doing philosophy and history, truly seeing and questioning “fundamental assumptions” is HARD. It is much rarer than most want to admit…

  22. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Christopher,
    Sometimes I have taken a page from Einstein and engaged in “thought experiments.” It consists in an act of imagination: “What if xyz were true?” Then I sort of walk around in it. How would I see the world differently if this were the case? etc.

    When I was in my senior year of seminary – when I had some Orthodox information – but much, much less than is available today – I engaged in such an experiment that lasted for about 8 or 9 years. It was this: What would moral theology look like if it was based in the Christus Victor model of the atonement rather than in the Penal Substitutionary Theory? It began with an intuition. I started writing “a book” with that idea. I think best by writing. So I wrote, read, re-wrote, read, re-wrote, etc., over a period of eight or nine years. It was sort of a running thing in our house, “Papa is working on the book.”

    I only stopped that project when I got to Duke and the doctoral program. There, I began to get enough information that I realize what I was doing: I was reinventing Orthodoxy! So, I quit and my reading really broadened. It resulted in the work I did there, which ultimately resulted (along with some other stuff) in my conversion. But the essential thought that led to all of that was an experiment, rooted in an intuition.

    I have done many, many more – the fruit of which continues to fuel the blog. Oddly, it is sometimes nothing more than, “What if Orthodoxy were actually true? What would that mean about xyz?”

    It was studying with Hauerwas at Duke (among others) where I first encountered the critique of modernity. And the question became, “What would an Orthodox take on that topic look like?” etc.

  23. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    It is interesting is it not Father, how essential a kind of primal “intuition” and creative “imagination” (i.e. a kind of creative imagination that is more/different than the ever present river of logismoi) is at the center of thinking that is above and beyond mere discursive “A simply is, then B, then C”.

    As I get older I am appreciating more how it takes real courage (I won’t say “emotional detachment”) to do this. To question the ground you are standing on is frightening, and to “walk around” a fundamental premise is to leave your “self” for a bit.

    I had a professor of metaphysics (Aquinas) who said on the first day of class that at best, one or two of the present students would actually “get” or do metaphysics/ontology and that the rest would not even begin. I asked him later why he thought this was so and most of his answer was the usual tripe about “intelligence” but he did say he thought there was an emotional aspect as well. I have come to the belief that this aspect is best described by fear and what you talk about, shame. That term captures the soulful component that “existential dread” and like descriptors leave behind in their technical, anesthetic way.

    There is more such as the social aspect. You have to have the willingness and courage to flow upstream against your peers, because the vast majority of them are doing “A simply is, then B, then C” and they do not approve of your walk about because the first emotion upon doing/seeing this is anxiety. We are all guilty of this of course 😉

  24. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Father and Christopher,

    I can say my conversion to Orthodoxy was propelled by a singular thought experiment from intuition, “what if the God revealed in Jesus Christ really and truly IS, in all His essential motivation and Being, fully unconditional Love (eg, like the image of the Father we have in the Parable of the Prodigal Son)? One of the questions that arose as a corollary of that premise about 16 years ago was, “What exactly is Gehenna (hell-fire, hell’s torment)?” The answer to that question came like a bolt of lightening the very moment the question had been fully formulated by my aching heart and offered silently (in a kind of agony and desperation) to God. The “answer” was a single sentence, and it shook the very foundations of my being: “Gehenna is the experience of My Presence for those who do not have faith in Me, for ‘our God is a consuming fire’ and ‘in Him we live, and move, and have our being.’” Totally. Blew. My. Mind. It was as if the Lord (or my guardian angel) had been waiting all my life for me to ask that very question, so that He could answer it. And, the rest, as they say, is history! 🙂

  25. Jeff Avatar
    Jeff

    Father, Christopher, & Karen,
    I read your comments and realize, I’ve always wanted Jesus to be real. Which apparently meant that He had to be what the apostles wrote about him. Looking back, I realize I often got looks (if not looks, an intuition) that said, “Oh, that’s not real. Don’t be such a child.” And I guess, I never was “smart” enough to stop believing it. Just when things seemed to be turning stale, something/someone would reignite me. I’ve never been able to stop seeking.

    And now, in this next phase, I’m beginning to learn that seeking doesn’t mean grasping. I’m learning to keep my hand open, and, as I’ve said before, to “not store the manna.”

    This way of being has no center that I’m familiar with, and yet deep down it feels rock solid. As you said, Christopher, “To question the ground you are standing on is frightening, and to “walk around” a fundamental premise is to leave your “self” for a bit.” And I might I say, to allow your “self” to be crushed one time, stretched on another occasion, squashed for a day, atomized for a minute, or whatever else God might be doing in the crucible at the moment…and every time, emerging, still you, but more you than you ever dreamed you’d be.

    How good is God? He’s all good, all the time. Glory to his name.

  26. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    I was once convinced that I had the “truth”, time passed and then I realized that I was wrong. Now loop that sequence over the course of my and that is pretty much who I am. Knowing the truth isn’t something I have been very fortunate at…but I have become quite proficient at burning whatever house of cards I’m living in. Psychological certainty is such a powerful experience because it feels like reality, but it is inevitably a cognitive bias. Karen’s statement about how she understands hell/Gehenna is interesting to me. For her the words “Gehenna is the experience of My Presence for those who do not have faith in Me” was evidently her big “Aha!” moment. Yet I would never knowingly worship the god she describes. For me there is NO justification for torturing and tormenting people. I say this dispassionately and as a matter of fact: I could not care less that the Bible says it, that the saints say it, or that the tradition teaches it–I don’t care. There is NO justification for torturing and tormenting people. For me this is what is scary about religious experience: It can take the most objectionable idea and make it acceptable. And really what this speaks to is the vulnerability and susceptibility of the human mind. When the human mind wants to believe, when the human mind wants to justify it will find a way to do it. No idea is so horrible that people can’t find a way to justify it. I know this as a matter of my own experience. So, I have become quite skeptical of any psychological certainties that I feel. I understand that some bias is most probably at work when I say that I believe something. We need to be humble about what we think we know. In all likelihood we probably don’t know what we think we know…but we are quite certain that we do.

  27. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Simon, it’s interesting that my “aha”’moment meant the opposite to me of what it means to you. It meant God torments (ie. actively punishes, excludes or tortures) nobody. It means that all of us (even the unrepentant) have our being and existence in God Who is love. For those who are in the state of being unwilling to internalize that love (a willingness which would require a trust in its truth/reality), unmediated experience of that love is (as long as we persist in this state) torment. As Fr. Stephen has pointed out, to be confronted with the full light of God all at once would be instant death for the unprepared—thus we are transformed in small increments of increasingly seeing more of the depth of God’s love and repenting in ever deeper ways as we seek to be united with Christ. This involves “bearing a little shame.” There are those who for whatever reasons refuse to bear their shame. These nevertheless will have to confront that reality upon physical death because there is no alternate reality outside of God, and our capacity for denial of this through the distractions of this world and of the flesh will have passed. Because I understood through this flash of insight that Gehenna is a state of the soul, not the deprivation of the love of God, it opened the door for a hope for the salvation of all. As Fr. Sophrony said, “As long as even one soul remains in hell, we may be sure Christ will be there with him.” To me this insight was not confirmation of God’s torment of the unrepentant (as what I had understood by that up to that point), but a reason never to give up hope for the repentance and salvation of all.

  28. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Karen
    very well said to Simon. The observation of human effort, willingness to believe and disposition to interpret {what is God’s unconditional eternal Love -albeit, often veiled in this temporal plane} this way {Heaven} or that way {Hell} –both on the temporal as well as, alas, on the eternal plane– is always evident. May we all escape our self-absorbed stubbornness and hopelessness and become entirely centred upon the Only One Who truly loves us…!

  29. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Karen,
    What you are saying will leave billions of people with no other fate than to experience God simply because they have no idea God exists or their faith is in some other god they fear and worship or they just dont care about religion. Why should those people be tortured and tormented?? Im sorry, Karen, but youre idea of God is in my understanding just as horrible as the Protestant God. Again, we can out of fear and bias comvince ourselves of anything we want to be true.

  30. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    *experience God as hell*

  31. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Simon,
    You are reading into Karen’s statement something she is not saying. I’m not sure in this short space how to explain it.

    Why would God be so gentle in making Himself known now – not forcing us, etc. – only to turn that into some forceful torture later? You seem to race to a kind of literalism in this that distorts what is being said.

    To see God face to face is not some granted in its fullness until we are ready, prepared, cleansed, or whatever. But that preparation is not torture. The language of burning, shaking, etc. is used – partly because those are images of purification. Perhaps even primarily. God does not change. He does not go from the goodness of Pascha to some sort of torture. That makes no sense.

    There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love. (1 Jn. 4:18 NKJ)

    I would suggest that a way to phrase our experience of God is that God is removing the torment. We have plenty of torment in this life already, none of which is caused by God.

  32. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Fr., Karen’s question was ” “What exactly is Gehenna (hell-fire, hell’s torment)?” So, my understanding from this question is that at that time Karen could not reconcile the image of hell as torments with her image of God as love. These two images to her were contradictory. Thats what I heard her say. Her reconciliation of these two images came in the form of this synthesis: ‘Well, it isn’t thatGod torments anyone. Nothing juridical is occurring. No, no, no that’s horrible. BUT naturally…like the law of gravity…if a person has not prepared themselves through a life of faith and repentance…then of necessity the only way this soul can experience God upon death is as torments. Why? Because is a consuming fire.’

    Karen, have I misunderstood you in any way?

  33. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Simon,
    On the face of it – you nailed it. It’s just that, knowing Karen, I understood it in the manner I described. Although, I thought about suggesting to Karen that it could be clarified.

    God is not tormenting us – He is healing our torment.

  34. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    So, at the very least, is it fair to say that the god I have described above is as objectionable as the Protestant god…IF that is as far as the story goes? Isnt that a sensible conclusion?

  35. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Even from your reply, Fr., I get the impression that what I surmized about Karen’s understanding is deeply inadequate. On the one hand, it is exactly what she thinks. On the other hand, it is missing an important component, namely healing. Without that component the picture is incomplete. So, is it fair to say that this incomplete picture is quite objectionable?

  36. Jeff Avatar
    Jeff

    Fr., et al of this current line of thought,

    If has probably been alluded to or said explicitly, but is some of this conundrum due to the fact that when we speak, think, or try to understand God, we are largely working with only our own experience. We say we are speaking of God, but aren’t we actually speaking of our own perception of an experience? Even if that experience has happened only a nanosecond ago, it is still only our perception from which we can speak. We then have to come up with words to describe our perception of an experience that we have had in order to communicate it (or some semblance of it) to another person who also has perceptions of experiences that they have had, all of which can be construed to be about God. I guess I’m suggesting that allow for “lost in translation,” even of our own lives…

    Is it possible that the waiting on God we experience is so intense that images and words that are intense are all that we think we have to use? When we travel, as it were with Dante, should we remember our finiteness and God’s infiniteness and possibly make use of an apophatic approach more often, e.g., silence and meditation…and even then holding anything rationally gleaned from that experience lightly? The patience required for this kind of approach (and life) is incredible; and I have certainly not even begun to practice this patience very effectively.

    Just some thoughts…

  37. Jeff Avatar
    Jeff

    Maybe this area reveals the absolute necessity of “participatory knowledge,” i.e., when we actually are with one another in the flesh, speaking, seeing each other’s expressions, learning each other (ontologically?).

  38. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Simon,
    Yes, I agree. That healing component is essential. I can’t speak for her, but I would think that Karen would readily agree.

  39. Dean Avatar
    Dean

    Fr. Stephen,
    I believe that God does not change. I see Him as the father scanning the horizon waiting for his son’s return. If He is merciful now, having rain fall on the unjust the same as the just, and won’t later turn into a torturer, as you rightfully say. And Karen quotes elder Sophony as saying that Christ will remain even with the last unrepentant sinner in hell. Now, all this being true, does not it dull our sense of evangelism, of reaching out to others? Sure, it would be wonderful if all knew Christ and His love for them now. But if they don’t, no worry. He will eventually reach them, if not in this life then in the next. And in the back of my head I hear St. Paul say
    “Woe to me if I preach not the gospel!”

  40. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Dean, Simon et all
    That God’s love (and healing according to St Isaac the Syrian and Gregory the Theologian) endures forever means that, at one and the same time, there will be those who will be healed *even if the healing entails (unbearable for some according to St Isaac) pain*, and those who would rather desire to remain in the suffering that God in his love would remove from them *although Isaac claims that eventually even those (he means Satan) will be saved through the very torture of Gehenna . It’s speculation on unknown realities
    ..while God’s love and our own resistance to it and demand that it works another way is a known reality…

  41. Paula AZ Avatar
    Paula AZ

    “Now, all this being true, does not it dull our sense of evangelism, of reaching out to others? Sure, it would be wonderful if all knew Christ and His love for them now. But if they don’t, no worry. He will eventually reach them, if not in this life then in the next. ”
    Dean,
    No doubt that some think this way…but I wonder if those who do always had reservations about “evangelizing”, My experience in this area began with the American Evangelicals we’re familiar with. I never was comfortable with that approach…and when I forced myself to, as I was told it was our calling, it was most awkward…fake to say the least. I believe our witness to Christ is much more effective when we live out our lives in Christ naturally, not with a false piety, but openly, with love, not hiding our imperfections. For one, nothing has to be rehearsed, therefore you come across as genuine, thus, more believable. Second, I believe this speaks more loudly to our friends and neighbors out there than any amount of preaching. It is then that they begin to ask questions. In all this, there can be a rich discussions about the Gospel of Christ, about life after death, and equally important, how we live our lives here and now!

  42. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Dino,
    I can accept that the movement from whatever this is to whatever that is entails suffering–even agony. That isnt what I would object to at all.

    Questions about what happens before and after are showing up less frequently on my radar and after today’s discussion they have all the texture of a rear view mirror.

  43. Byron Avatar
    Byron

    I have read that the rejection of God’s love is akin to love lost. The nature of such pain, in this light, is in the heart–that rejection that cuts so painfully deep. How much worse is this in light of His love that is freely given? The oddity here is that we hold onto this pain instead of accepting Him. Perhaps “torture” is not the correct word to describe this rejection we hold on to? Just thinking out loud.

    I believe our witness to Christ is much more effective when we live out our lives in Christ naturally, not with a false piety, but openly, with love, not hiding our imperfections.

    Paula, I think this is very true. However, the fragmentation of our society makes it very difficult. It is no doubt the work of the Evil One to destroy Life’s witness, which is always best done in communion.

  44. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Dean,
    I do not think we preach the gospel for fear of people going to hell. In the “Woe to me” passage – Paul says nothing about people perishing as a reason for preaching. There is an inner necessity placed within him. Frankly, there’s so much Americanism (read modernity) in Evangelical thinking that has bled over into all thinking about evangelism. We preach. Because we were told to. We make disciples and Baptize. Because we were told to. If it is not for love of the gospel and of Christ, then it’ll be hollow.

    There are these “we must get the word out in this generation!” or notions of how to be more effective in our preaching – all of which feeds into “technique” and marketing. In the end, it distorts.

    Preaching the gospel is foolishness according to St. Paul. We engage in fooishness. Its effectiveness belongs to God. The outcome in people’s lives is beyond our control. We do good because we were commanded.

  45. Dean Avatar
    Dean

    Thank you Father. All you have said is good and true. Years ago I was taught “technique” in supposed outreach. Never worked. There is a softness in Orthodoxy I never experienced in the evangelical world. This includes reaching out to others. No brow-beating, but love for another in humility.
    I forgot what elder said this, but it is very pertinent and true. “First, look to your own salvation. And if you can, help 5 or 6 others.”

  46. Agata Avatar
    Agata

    Dean,
    I think Dino quoted this once, I have saved it as one of my favorites sayings:
    “I am reminded of a saying (by Bullgakov I think, repeated by Elder Raphael Noika): “True Orthodoxy does not convince, it charms””
    🙂

  47. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Simon,
    I do believe that God’s Presence is always cleansing/healing. Many times because of our wounds, that process can be painful. It requires we confront our shame. Using the model of maintaining our physical health would be a good analogy to how we approach the Presence of God and what form that healing takes. If through good habits we maintain our physical health well (through the minor discomforts of self-denial, getting proper exercise and using healthy foods, etc.), we may avoid many of the later greater discomforts brought on by having neglected our health and indulged our disordered appetites. We better avoid the discomforts of advanced disease states and more radical medical interventions like surgery. The torments of Gehenna would be like having to endure the more radical intervention later. Part of what was so mind blowing about my aha moment was to realize the direct continuity between our spiritual state in this life (dynamic) and the next and that God never somehow turns off the spigot of His Self-outpouring in love for anyone—even those in Gehenna. It was very comforting to me to know He never abandons anyone, not even those in Gehenna. Where there is God there is love and life—there is hope, even in the depths of Death itself. This is the message of Christ’s Pascha.

  48. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Karen,
    Aha moments are important. I could use a few myself.

  49. Dee of St Hermans Avatar
    Dee of St Hermans

    Fr Stephen,
    Thank you for your comment at 2:44 pm.. Indeed it was evangelicalism that you describe that pushed me away from Christ for the majority of my life. And it still irks me. It continues to push my husband away— he gets this brunt most often when I’m not present to deflect it.

  50. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    This comment makes this thread an even 250 comments.

  51. Mark Basil Avatar
    Mark Basil

    comment 251 (I’m always a latecomer 🙂

    When I want to understand where violence comes from, how to be healed from it, I turn to Holy Tradition (what to *do* to become less violent is our praxis; where violence comes from is our tradition on passion- esp. St Isaac the Syrian on desire). When I want to understand the *meaning* of violence more fully- how to understand it (biblically, in history, in culture, etc.),-I look elsewhere than Orthodox authorship.
    Why?
    Because Orthodox thought has been crippled by an ancient custom (empire-sanctioned violence) as if it were holy simply because it is old. It is not holy nor does it come out of earliest Tradition, and it leads to confusion among the Orthodox ever since.

    Here is a simple introductory article on the genocide and scorched earth of Joshua (Protestant source): https://peteenns.com/the-best-way-of-getting-out-of-the-whole-canaanite-genocide-thing-and-it-comes-right-from-the-bible-but-you-may-not-like-it/

    And a simple introductory book on the biblically transparent non-violence of our God, “A Farewell to Mars”[included in the article link] (Protestant source):
    https://brianzahnd.com/2014/07/hitler-invaded-house/

    And a deeply advanced treatment of violence from the beginning (Cain and Able, that is), it’s meaning in culture and religion ever since; the works of Rene Girard (Catholic source):
    https://violenceandreligion.com/mimetic-theory/

    We need to read with an Orthodox mind those authors who bring correction to our own antiquated error. As Fr Seraphim Aldea says, listen to your heart- be troubled by violence for God implants this discomfort and know that it is not in Christ or Christianity. We must GO BACK to our genuine Tradition. http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/monkseyes/forgiveness_and_reflection

    Where is the stavrology of the Orthodox today on this issue (national violence)? Where the fidelity to scripture and consonance with early church teaching and praxis among our contemporary catechists and writers, in contrast with these far bolder and more beautiful ‘heterodox’ voices?
    God forgive us and lead us back home.
    -Mark Basil

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, When you think about what our brains are doing when we judge – it’s of note. There can be…

  2. Thanks so much Fr. Stephen. The Roman Catholic priest in the church near our home said to us that although…

  3. Kenneth, “Judgment,” particularly in the Old Testament, generally describes someone acting to “put things right.” We should think in terms…

  4. Nathan, Fr. Georges Florovsky wrote: “The mystery of the Cross begins in eternity, in the sanctuary of the Holy Trinity,…


Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast



Categories


Archives