Orthodoxy, Systematic Theology, and Music

I have heard it said, numerous times, that Orthodox Christianity “does not do” systematic theology. Having done my graduate studies in systematic theology, I occasionally bristle at the comment, particularly when those making it have never actually studied the subject. It is true that Orthodoxy does not do “systematic” theology, as such, but the statement can be quite misleading, implying that there’s no place for systematics in Orthodoxy and that studying it is a waste of time (and un-Orthodox). So, here is a small tutorial in the topic.

The assumption behind systematic theology is that the universe is actually a “uni-verse” – that is, it has a unity throughout. The laws of physics that apply in this corner of the universe are the same laws that apply everywhere else. This also means that if you find laws elsewhere that contradict the laws you understand to apply where you are, then you need to re-examine your understanding. You do not have the complete story on your present circumstance.

In science, if you come across a new species of tree, you can study it to see what makes it unique. However, you will also assume that, since it is a tree, it will share most of the characteristics of other trees. If it doesn’t, either it isn’t a tree, or our understanding of trees needs to be revised.

This consistency and stability across creation is what is meant by “system” in “systematic theology.” If, for example, I say that “God is good,” and then something comes along that would seem to contradict that, then something about the statement “God is good” needs to be revised. Or, perhaps, I am misunderstanding the contradiction. What is “systematic” in such an approach is a reasonable expectation that a statement made in one place will not be contradicted in another. So, when reading a “systematic theology,” consistency and cogency are important measurements.

When I was studying systematics, one of our seminars required us to read about a dozen different, so-called, systematic theologies, from across a very broad spectrum. I recall someone presenting a paper on the doctrine of God in the writings of the radical feminist Catholic, Rosemary Radford Ruether. When the student finished reading the paper, there was a dead, stunned silence in the room. Finally, a sheepish voice piped up, “Isn’t that the Force in Star Wars?” We broke out in laughter because it was precisely what she had articulated. It might make for interesting reading, but it certainly could not be called “Christian.”

Orthodox theology is not studied or written in the manner of Protestant systematics. Orthodox thought is largely what has been traditioned and is drawn from the Fathers and our liturgical life. Protestant theology is often more ideologically driven, departing from and dismissing major portions of tradition. They are simply not the same thing. But, having said that, Orthodox thought is not devoid of system. Thinking carefully about that is, I think, worthwhile.

The first eight centuries in the life of the Church were a time when doctrine and theology were being expressed and argued in a manner that has not been repeated since. I do not think it is correct to describe the process as a “development of doctrine.” However, there was a very careful development of vocabulary. And, in that vocabulary, we can see something of a “system” being articulated.

When the First Council of Nicaea met, the greater debate centered on the use of the word “homoousios” (“one essence” or “one being”). The word did not meet with instant acceptance because it had once been a term favored by the heretic Paul of Samosata who used it to teach a form of “modalism.” The debate raged through the remainder of the century with councils and counter-councils and imperial interference and endless rangling. The work of the Cappadocians (St. Basil the Great, his brother, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and his friend, St. Gregory the Theologian) succeeded in defining and refining terminology such that a consensus prevailed in the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople I). It gave us the Creed in its present form. What they gave us, more importantly, was a growing consensus on vocabulary.

Slowly, as the centuries moved along, the common vocabulary of dogma found expression in the public teaching of the Church. This meant that words such as, “being,” “person,” “nature,” “energy,” “will,” etc., meant the same thing whenever they were used. Thus, when speaking of “person,” or “hypostasis,” the word came to mean the same thing whether it was referring to the persons of the Holy Trinity or human persons. All of that might seem easy now, or even obvious, but it was not so when all of those conversations began.

It is surprising for some to realize that St. Athanasius, who first introduced the term “homoousios,” might have had a slightly different understanding of the term than it came to have later in the century when it was reaffirmed at the Second Council. To see that requires a much deeper and more careful study of Patristic thought than is commonly done. The development of vocabulary, for example, is the reason why St. Cyril of Alexandria is given a pass for using the term “nature” (“physis”) in a manner that would later be described by the term “person” (“hypostasis”). The refusal to accept a developing and changing vocabulary in this instance resulted in the schism with the so-called “Monophysites,” who probably would be more accurately described as “Cyril-ites.” The “system” that was found in working out common meaning for technical terms required an agreement that clearly failed in the case of that early schism. Language matters.

All of this came to my mind recently during a social media conversation regarding atonement theory. The doctrine of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (that Jesus was punished for our sins to appease the wrath of the Father) was the topic. I have been quite critical of the theory and was being taken to task with examples of the use of “punishment” and “substitution” found, on occasion, in the writings of the Fathers. Perhaps I overstate the case when I say that I do not find it to be “Orthodox.” I will clarify.

What I find is that it is a theory expressed in terms, images, and language that seem to fall outside the vocabulary that I have generally seen to be normative in Orthodox writings (including those of the Fathers). When reading St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, it is quite common to hear the problem of sin described in terms of “being” and “non-being,” rendered as “life” and “death.” Something of the same can be seen in St. Athanasius’ De Incarnatione. This pattern and vocabulary can be found throughout the Cappadocians, perhaps because they seem to be particularly attentive to language and consistency.

I have found a consistent vocabulary and use of imagery in the theme of life/death, being/non-being, communion/disintegration, etc., in thinking about how it is and what it means when we sin, and how it is and what it means that we are saved. It is possible to describe and think about these things in a consistent manner, such that when we speak of Christ’s incarnation, of our bondage in sin and death, His death on the Cross and His resurrection, as well as the sacraments of Baptism into His death and resurrection, and the Eucharist as communion in His Body and Blood, and so forth, a common vocabulary and understanding unite them all. For myself, this consistency has been common to my treatment of the atonement across the board.

Though it is possible to find isolated uses of penal imagery in the early Fathers, it nowhere seems to rise to the level of a common vocabulary extending throughout their work, much less becoming the basis for how we speak about asceticism, spirituality, or, the doctrine of God. Thus, when I describe it as being “not Orthodox,” I mean that it sounds “out of tune.”

The imagery of music, of a symphony, is quite apt when thinking about the whole of theology. There are many instruments in a symphony, each with varying shades of tonality and range of pitch. First, all instruments have to be “in tune,” so that what is “A-440” for one is the same for all. Second, comes the music itself. It is written in a single key (I’m sure that somebody has written a modern symphony with instruments playing in different keys – though, if it is taken far enough, we pass from music to pure noise). If you’re playing Beethoven’s 5th (which is written in C minor), and, fifteen measures into the performance the brass sections begin to play in E flat major, the result could be quite interesting, but less pleasant, and perhaps disastrous.

This, for me, is something of the effect of hearing an Orthodox priest teaching the atonement in the key of penal substitution. I feel as though Calvinists have stormed the auditorium and taken over some section of the orchestra. It can be defended by citing some place or other where such imagery was used on occasion. But the overall result is quite jarring, often creates confusion, and risks becoming a disaster. It can be done – but should you want to?

Orthodoxy has a two-thousand year history. It’s history does not begin in the mind of a systematic theologian. As such, we cannot describe it as “systematic theology.” But, if you listen carefully to the music of theology over those many centuries, certain themes sound clearly, while others seem to appear, and, just as suddenly, disappear. Music is not engineering. For me, it makes music a better analogy for theology.

I suspect that among my failings (if it be such) is a love for a symphony in a single key (with proper modulations and relative key changes). If it is possible to write and teach theology with a consistency that allows the whole thing to be seen for its unity, then I think it produces a better result. This same tendency, I think, was present in the Cappadocians, and has recurred in other major figures such as St. Maximus. It is why they sound so much alike, in general, and while none of them sound like Calvin.

But this is music, and I well appreciate that others might see this (hear this) in a different manner.

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

133 responses to “Orthodoxy, Systematic Theology, and Music”

  1. Byron Avatar
    Byron

    Owen,

    There is also the viewpoint that God made room within Himself for Creation and that He is Life that exists in all things, drawing them to fullness in Himself.

    I must admit that I have a difficult time with your use of “external” (as much as your use of “punishment”). We are not self-existing; we cannot be separated from God, even though in some manner we may be termed “independent” (paradoxes abound in Orthodoxy!). In this way, I tend to think of us as a child within his mother’s womb.

    I understand that the limitation of terminology is part of the problem (All that is not God, although existing “in Him,” still exists (in some sense) external to Him, for it is not Him.), but you seem to hold heavily to the idea of separation, which I find difficult. Forgive me if I have misunderstood you.

  2. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Owen,
    The language of the Church is that creation is “created.” It does not say “outside.” Indeed, there is no such thing as “outside God,” by definition. I think that “external” is unhelpful as a concept – in that implies “without.”

    We were not created to be apart from God, to be “external.” We were (and are) created in order to have union with Him. We are to become, by grace, all that He is by nature. “By grace,” means “by the Divine Energies.” In St. Maximus, the antinomy of created and uncreated is among those things that are overcome. This is the work of grace.

    This grace is also revealed in the work of Christ. Death is no longer a movement “away” from God, in that He has entered death and filled it with Himself. Thus, as the Psalmist says, “Lo, if I descend into hell, Thou art there.” There is nowhere that we can “flee” from His presence.

    There is that fearful freedom that we have, no doubt. But that freedom is not given so that we might be separate (apart from). It is given as a “mode” of existence that allows us to enter freely into union with Him. The mystery of our freedom is something that I leave in what I do not know and yet hope. The hints within many of the Fathers about that hope are actually quite abundant. I find the meditating on the triumph of hell to be very damaging for the heart. Again, I think predicating hell as the necessary thing so that we can be free to be flawed theologically. Neither do I predicate universalism as a necessity. It’s absurd to discuss “necessity” in the context of discussing freedom. If it’s freedom, then nothing is precluded.

    But, living with a bit of ignorance is, I think, quite salutary.

    I think that positing an ontological law of being that movement away from God brings “punishment” is not helpful, though “punishment” is certainly well within the patristic vocabulary. But, since we live in the world of post-Calvin, I think it is wise to find other ways to write and speak about it, to “translate” the intention of the Fathers in a manner that makes it clear that Calvin’s take is wrong (regardless of how loudly his followers protest).

    But, it is deeply important when we consider the Cross to know that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. The Cross is not a reaction to sin, it is a revelation of the true God. The mystery of our freedom is found, I think, only within the Cross. To be a “partaker of the Divine Nature,” or to “become god by grace,” requires that we enter fully into the Cross. There are mysteries within that – that I can only whisper, and, even then, only to myself.

    Whatever it is that God has intended for His creation – it was intended before ever we were created – and it was cruciform. I suspect that this cannot be stated openly – without stating it wrongly. Even Maximos speaks quite circumspectly on the topic.

    It is important, I think, when all is said and done, that all of our theologizing must end in silence, or we have ended in error.

  3. Dee of St Hermans Avatar
    Dee of St Hermans

    I wonder how is it that saying and entering the Trisagion prayers daily doesn’t help provide a least a small amount of light in this matter?

    What do we mean when we say, “oh Heavenly King , o Comforter, the Spirit of Truth who art everywhere present and fillest all things…”?

    Does this prayer apply only to certain things? Or only to certain places?

    I was never taught in my catechism to build contingencies, nor boundaries or bright lines into this prayer.

  4. Dee of St Hermans Avatar
    Dee of St Hermans

    St Paul calls this life, the “seed” of the life to come.

    Does a seed die? If so, did it sin?

    Does a seed bring forth new life without dying into the soil first? What is this life that makes it grow into a plant? Did this life happen without a seed or soil or water? Does any of this happen without God’s life infused into this creation?

    Did the Theotokos die? Did she sin?

  5. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    From an earlier comment by Fr. Stephen re: the hope for the salvation of all.

    Indeed, the longer I am in the Church the more that seems to be not unreasonable hope for with God all things are possible.

  6. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    https://glory2godforallthings.com/2020/06/05/words-for-a-wounded-heart/
    Another post that nears on this discussion IMO

  7. Dee of St Hermans Avatar
    Dee of St Hermans

    Thank you Byron and Michael for the links back to earlier articles in this blog. Unfortunately I didn’t look at the link, Byron, until way after the fact of submitting my comment. The very redundancy in my comment relative to Father’s article makes me cringe for my comment’s uselessness.

    And indeed, Michael what you point to does indeed get to the heart of the matter, doesn’t it?

    Thank you both, and Father Stephen, these are lessons for us all.

  8. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Thank you, friends, for the kind critiques. I believe they express valid concerns which I share. I appreciate the chance to grow. Allow me to respond in the order of the comments.

    Michael, I too have known a person in my family—a salty, stubborn unbeliever—who converted literally on her deathbed because of the prayers and service of another family member. There’s just no other way to understand it, and I glorify God. Perhaps I missed the connection you were making between such an experience and “no room for punishment.” I hold onto the word “punishment” mainly because of its biblical derivation. Our Lord’s mercy is sweet indeed! He is long-suffering, patient, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance. But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief. I understand this to mean that, yes, Christ has trampled down death, but all are called, before that dread Day, to die with Him. “We must die before we die, so that when we die, we won’t die.” I receive the biblical threat of Final Judgment as God’s mercy to me, helping me to relativize every moment and live in light of my death.

    Byron, thanks for bringing up the idea of separation. Yes, you misunderstood me, but it was because of my lack of clarity, I’m sure. 😊 I think it better to say that nothing in the world is external to God, but God is in some sense external to the world. I am speaking here of God’s transcendence. God and the world are not coextensive; there is always a beyond-ness to God, even though, in creation, He is “everywhere present and filling all things.” As someone has said, creation is “suspended” in God through the gift of participatory relation in Being. Ontological separation is thus out of the question. Rather, a variety of Orthodox panentheism may serve well to describe the world’s relation to God. God’s energies permeate the world but are not limited to the world. And His essence is… [?] In this sense, God is infinitely external to the world, while remaining fully present at its very foundation. I hope that helps.

    Fr. Stephen, I do agree with you. I had not read your comment when I wrote above to Byron, so I hope that comment relays my view more clearly. I also hope you don’t read me as “meditating on the triumph of hell.” Christ lamenting over Jerusalem is, I believe, a good model of how to think about human freedom gone awry, the mystery of iniquity: “How often would I have gathered thy children…and ye would not.” The consequence of Jerusalem’s rejection of Christ: should we call this punishment? I refuse to let Calvin direct that conversation. However, your counsel gives me reverent pause, because I too want to “translate” the Tradition, without losing anything. Yet I simply cannot read Isaiah 53 without a sense that the Servant—personally and vicariously—experiences the punishment for the people’s sins. Whatever its deepest meaning, I love that passage because, as you said, the Cross is “a revelation of the true God.” Your words about the cruciform nature of creation remind me of my favorite modern interpreter of the St. Maximus, Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae. He gives a beautiful, and I believe balanced, reading of the Cross in the 3rd volume of his Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. He doesn’t shy away from discussing God’s anger over sin, while giving emphasis to the deifying power of the Tree.

    Dee, you make great points. I was fascinated by your mediation on the “seed.” Beautiful thoughts indeed!

  9. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Owen,
    I think we’re on the same page. Context is so important. If I’m reading Staniloae, I hear his use of punishment and anger in a very different context than in our American conversations. Our cultural baggage is so strong that pushing back is quite difficult. Sometimes I feel that if I open the door a crack, some Calvinist-laden soul will drive a Mack Truck through and run us all down!

    Be blessed. This has been such a peaceful, fruitful conversation – largely because of your own good-hearted responses. May God enlarge your heart in everything!

  10. Owen Kelly Avatar
    Owen Kelly

    Likewise Father! Thank you so much.

  11. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Owen,
    For what it’s worth, I’ve pastored Romanians over the past 20 years, among others. There is a sort of harsh streak within their understanding that can be almost Calvinistic. It’s not just Protestants who labor under this stuff. I would ask myself, in fear and trembling, how much this enters into Staniloae as well.

  12. Mark Northey Avatar
    Mark Northey

    Dino, Owen, Fr Stephen;
    Christ is in our midst!

    I’m coming late to this conversation, but wanted to offer a reflection on human freedom and the eschaton (will all be redeemed in the fullness of God’s purpose for His creation?).
    Of course there is so much to say about this, and it’s a conversation best had privately with loving care for each other. I wont cover much ground, but would have us to remember that every good thing that we ourselves freely choose- including our repentance which is the bedrock of personal salvation- we could not have freely chosen if God did not first choose us. Even my free act of repentance then required *first* that God gave me the grace to so move. Our freedom is indeed very mysterious. May this always fuel our thoughts on the unrepentant in hell.

    Dino, you explicate the mystery of freedom thus: ” So, there is “no evil nature”, but there is also eternal free will in (certain) beings, allowing them an ‘evil’ self-determination towards nature and their Creator, predicated upon the wrong use of the key element of the image of God in them called eternal freedom. This does not remove the hope of universal salvation, but removes its necessity.”

    I have come to believe that all will ultimately be redeemed and voluntarily united to God in Christ. I am indebted to David Hart’s book for making this clear to me.
    I dont think of this in terms of ‘necessity’, but in terms of the most beautiful, and in terms of God’s love which knows no boundaries (He is truly free).

    One problem I see with the way Dino has conceived of “eternal freedom” to remove the necessity of universal salvation, is that this has also removed the certainty of a New Age- a Kingdom where there can never be another fall.
    there must be something mistaken in this way of conceiving of freedom, as somehow, our freedom cannot ultimately be incompatible with the most beautiful promise of Christ being All and in All, with no more threat of sorrow, death, and sin. Thus Heaven is populated by totally free beings, who can never Fall again. This is the promise, so there must be something about freedom that your conception of it is missing.

    One way of thinking about it is, whatever perverse passion someone clings to in hell, will ultimately fail to satisfy for evil has no substance, and nothing is “eternal” except God himself. The hell-addict, given a potentially endless Age to taste his mad drug, will find in the end that he has grasped nothing at all (truly there will be bitterness and gnashing of teeth).
    This distorted human soul can only distort but never lose the free gift that God gives: His Holy Image. Thus the poor hellbound creature will always have something Good within him (or he would cease to exist entirely).
    To get out of the abstract it is helpful to remember he will be someone’s earthly child- so that his mother at least will surely wait with hope in Heaven for the day when her son- who is eternally free- has run the full course of his freely chosen distorted desire. At the end of that long day she will come to him again in the Age-long depths of his spent desire with her love and prayers that he turn to the Only Desire that can out-live every passion and distortion. Then, with his mother’s help, he will turn to Christ and for *real* freedom he will be at last set free.
    The qualitative difference of a freedom-ever-growing in the light of God, and a mad man’s preference for the hell of his passions, is what secures a Heaven without any chance of a Fall again.

    I hold the ‘shape’ of these thoughts lightly. But I hold their source- my trust in God’s will for the Most Beautiful restoration of all, and His love and mercy for everything He has created beyond the limits of our wildest imaginings- with total certainty.
    I want to want what God wants.
    -Mark Basil

  13. Dee of St Hermans Avatar
    Dee of St Hermans

    I had wanted to stay out of the discussion about what “freedom” we have, but since Mark has come into this discussion, I’ll add this comment.

    I did not see a fault with Fr Stephen’s description of the will before Dino’s comment. And after Dino’s comment, I did not see a problem with Fr Stephen’s description of the will. I appreciate his elaboration using the term tropos, in his response to Dino’s comment, however, in my understanding of the topic, his (Fr Stephen’s) description did not require ‘correction’. But this is just MHO. And what do I know?

    This now brings me back to Mark’s contribution to the discussion. I appreciate the inclusion of David Hart’s writing that pertains to the subject. I’ll admit have my own take which follows close to that of David Hart’s. Nevertheless I’m very circumspect about broadcasting my prayer and hope. I fear entanglement in discussions that might not be fruitful for our salvation. As far as I know, as a general rule we (Orthodox) don’t say that we *know* what shall come. To the best of my understanding generally we show humility to say that we don’t know, while being certain of God’s love and that we hope in His salvation.

    I remember Fr Thomas Hopko of blessed memory say that he had a conversation with a Bishop (if I remember correctly) about Fr Thomas’ grandson who was agnostic at the time. And the Bishop said something to this effect: perhaps he (the grandson) will be welcomed into the Kingdom to come, but not you (Fr Thomas) or I (the Bishop). This isn’t a show of humility, but reflects the humble heart that says at each communion:

    I believe, O Lord and confess that You are truly the Crist, the Son of the Living God, Who came into the world of sinners, of whom I am first.

    And also:
    “It is good for me to cling to God, and to place in the Lord the hope of my salvation.

    To be honest, I do not include these last words in my heart without saying the words, ‘the hope of our salvation’.

  14. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Dee,
    I think you are putting your finger on the true point in this matter. It is the heart that matters with regard to this – not that we know it, much less have an opinion about it. I think it is profoundly important that we do not know – Christ rebuffs the disciples when they start getting pushy about the Last Things. There is, I think, a reticence that rightly belongs to the topic, and a heart that nurtures that reticence. It is something surrounded in silence that God could whisper to us if our hearts were right. I deeply wish that DBH had not written his book. To me, it would be like someone discussing their sex life in public. He simply goes further than the Tradition takes us, and dismisses that reticence as of no importance. He is brilliant – but, I think – there is something lacking in that.

    God is utterly wrapped in mystery, and hides Himself. We will never come to know Him if we keep pressing forward to form opinions about things we do not know. We may hope – and even that should be whispered.

  15. Mark Northey Avatar
    Mark Northey

    Thank you for your last comment here, Father. I have not been able to identify what it is that bothers me about the explicit form of Hart’s argument, and your analogy to speaking of one’s sex life out loud I think points to this.

    I am still working to understand this reticence to speak. I would rest completely in this silence, except for the ghastly distortions of eternal hell that already clutter our thoughts about last things. Granted this is not the place to find such ghastly errors- certainly not in yourself, Dino, or Owen- so it may not have helped for me to add to the noise with my own thoughts.
    God grant me a heart of knowledge, not a head full of opinions.
    thank you again;
    -MB

  16. Dee of St Hermans Avatar
    Dee of St Hermans

    Dear Father, I’m grateful you made sense of what I was trying to say. It was a bit convoluted, and you clarified beautifully.

  17. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Father, Dee, Mark et al,
    I suppose the original point has been somewhat lost, and we once more are back to the poignant ‘universalism’ conversation and its speculative offshoots. We also swiftly reach the conclusions we always do with this conversation: one side initially desires to see others concede a definite pro-universalism position and the other side desires to see that others do not grant such unequivocal certainty and either respect the mystery’s unspokeness or freedom’s sovereignity. [Both sides claiming theological robustness.]

    However, the original issue was not that, it was more detailed: the Maximian understanding of that function of the person called the ‘gnomic-will’, and what exactly is its relation to that most fundamental part of the image-of-God in a person: “free hypostatic self-determination”.
    This is the freedom to voluntarily go along with our nature, “positively instantiating our nature’s logos”, as well as the ‘freedom’ to go against it. It is the “god-likeness” that cannot be compelled without being eliminated: that part of the Divine Image in man that ever remains, whether one is ‘damned’ or whether one is offered immutability in Heaven –like the angels were granted after the Lord’s Ascension, offered the paradox of “free immutable” .
    As stated earlier, this does not remove the hope of universal salvation, but it certainly impedes the certitude of some philosophical speculations on it, mainly by utterly removing –in principle– universalim’s ‘necessity’.

 Of course this does not mean that there isn’t still space for “speculations” based on numerous factors, (whether related to St. Maximos’ anthropology or not).
    E.g.: I could go off on the particular ‘factor’ of ‘time after the eschata’ (for instance) and its relation to the will, only to admit, of course, in the end, that it is but a rabbit hole…

    D.B. Hart’s speculations come to mind here, because sometimes, despite their utter brilliance, they can indeed give off an certain aroma to the reader or listener, that is not 100% reminiscent of the aroma of the “Grace of Holy Relics’ but is also, ever-so-slightly, redolent of something like “Chanel No. 5″… (sorry for this metaphor)
    This reminds me of the legendary saying of the fathers regarding another matter (the interpretation of the book of Revelations) that goes: “time and experience will reveal all to the *spiritually vigilant* “. [St Andrew of Caesaria actually uses the word *νήφουσι*, (for ‘spiritually vigilant’) –a sort of present-continuous adverbial-adjective of “neptic’ (that word from the Philokalia again).]
    This could be translated as, both those who are “practising sobriety” as well as those “practicing purification”. (It also insinuates that many will be deceived, because the word “νήφουσι” describes a quality that, although all are called towards it, few authentically practice). It describes the “approaching” – i.e.: one is not necessarily ‘there’ yet- of ‘charismatic spiritual discernment’ (something indeed rare). But we all ought to continuously strive towards this quality in how we allow ourselves to speculate – if we do.
    A person might have the mind of an unschooled peasant (like St Porphyrios whom we celebrate tomorrow) and yet, be at the very forefront of such spiritual clarity of vision.
    Another might have an exceptional erudition (like D.B. Hart) yet still be some way away from such a mode of clarity as the simple Saint of Greece.
    What I see is how (even our imperceptible) involvement in the things of this world is the number one “clouding factor” here (OK, it is pride that is the first factor, but, genuine humility, as Saint Isaac the Syrian proclaims again and again, would disentangle one from this world like nothing else does).

    So I would fear speaking with such unequivocal boldness of opinion on such mysteries, as we see Hart sometimes likes doing using his brilliant mind.
    It is intriguing that St Porphyrios, whose personal/gnomic characteristic (according to those who knew him very intimately) was a matchlessly intense drive towards knowledge of mysteries (whether of long-gone history, of scripture, of the creation, of the eschata etc.) was given to know far more (through a very different route) and yet would not talk about them much at all, even though he was more open to making revelations to others than many of the other recent saints in comparison.

    Back to the original issue, what is the relation between eternal hypostatic freedom of self-determination towards our nature and our Creator, and gnomic-will (a post lapsarian addition apparently) ?

  18. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    My own answer could only go as far as: we have a healthy expression of this freedom (which directs our very being) and an (post-lapsarian) unhealthy one

  19. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Dino,
    I think of this healthy expression of freedom as an “orientation” – a turning to God with a radical openness to His will/working in us. It is that phrase in one of the morning prayers, “O Lord, save me whether I want it or not!” It is deeper than our choices – though our choices could be accumstomed to it.

    I think that “freedom” is perhaps its fullest expression – not the freedom of the secular man (I can do anything I want). But the freedom that is a fundamental thrust with the whole of our being – towards God Himself. It is ecstasy and eros and abandonment to Him. The rest is inexpressible.

  20. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    There’s an interesting take on it in St Isaac when he is asked about what is ‘natural’ for the soul and what for the body. He seems to claim that natural and healthy are synonyms in his answer, yet he explains that for the soul this is a yearning for it’s natural sustenance -namely God and heavenly things-, and for the body, a yearning for its own natural sustenance, earthly things. He pits them against each other while answering, as in Paul’s ‘Roman’s 7’. However, he seems to claim that after the fall the body dominated the soul (in humans) while it is natural (in the interrelationship of soul&body) for the reverse to be occurring, he thus transports the entire issue towards yet another issue.

  21. Dee of St Hermans Avatar
    Dee of St Hermans

    Dino,
    I appreciate your earlier comments addressed to others and me. And I appreciate Father’s elaboration which helped to support the fundamental truth in them.

    But I don’t know about this last one though. It doesn’t ring quite right (for me) and I think it might go a bit too far. And dear Dino, we’ve had this conversation before, so I will say no more.

  22. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Dee
    I must be clear that I am never stating an opinion of mine when relating the interesting take on the issue in St Isaac, nor do I agree or disagree with what the saint says, but I have to bow down and respect his authority. I will generally double check and triple check, which is why I also appreciate Father’s take on it, but I ask we please understand that subtle distinction to avoid confusion.

  23. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    I think that it is quite plausible that Dino’s take on St. Isaac is correct. Both in and after the Fall there is a clear desire for things that pass away. Not just knowledge. These things are certainly “of the body”. Even the desire to hide from one another in shame is “of the body”. The disciplines of the Fasts in the Church is designed to allow our soul’s natural desire for union with God to come to the fore.

    There is no irreversible dichotomy here as in some heresies but as Father says a question of orientation. Thus, for the most part, the fasts are not severe. The most severe fast recorded that I am aware of is that of St. Mary of Egypt and kes that was due to the severe dominance of the her body over her soul before her conversion.

    The fact that so many moderns struggle with the fast, including me, is an indication of how much I have fallen into my body and its desires. It seems sometimes as if I have two wills clearly at odds with each other. The expostulation “Save me whether I will or not” makes absolute sense to both wills interestingly enough.

    As does the prayer od St. Seraphim Father referenced in June: https://glory2godforallthings.com/2020/06/05/words-for-a-wounded-heart/

  24. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Dino and Dee,
    For what it’s worth, I prefer to avoid St. Isaac’s speaking of this in terms of body/soul split. He stands at a point of history that predates some of our own disastrous misunderstandings (such as Descartes). I prefer, instead, to think of this in terms of “inward” and “outward.” There is an “inward” way to see the body, and the whole of the material world, that belongs to what St. Isaac is describing under the heading of the soul, while there is an “outward” way to view even the mind that makes it seem alien to us.

    I find those sort of terms less bothersome.

  25. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Father,
    yes that does makes sense.

  26. Joseph Barabbas Theophorus Avatar

    Dino,

    While we’re on the subject, where did you find the phrase “free hypostatic self-determination”? I’m working at some tangential questions (including from readings of St Cyril Of Alexandria) but have only ever seen hypostasis refer to the personhood from the divine nature, at least patristically. Thanks.

    Fr,

    Agreed on body/soul in this kind of instance. It is too easy to take the language of higher/lower and attach all sorts of meaning to it that is inappropriate. “Ontological up/down” is a totally different axis than the immeasurable created/uncreated divide and mixing the two up can quickly lead to error, though it is used *by analogy* in many Fathers and even Scripture, as you note. In any case, we are not created in the image of an abstract mind, but of Christ crucified—and risen!: soul *and* body!

  27. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Joseph
    The use of hypostatic (instead of personal) or of ‘hypostasising nature’ (instead of personalising) as used in that earlier exchange with Father by both of us has probably become a little more widespread since St Sophrony’s “We Shall See Him as He Is”. Different living theologisers have run with it since, especially Greek speaking (like Zizioulas or Loudovikos) as it is less arcane sounding in Greek.

  28. Mark Northey Avatar
    Mark Northey

    Dear Fr Stephen;

    Just because it is still weighing heavily on my heart, I wanted to say that I do not see David Hart’s book as unfortunate. I am so grateful for it, as it seems to me he has expressed a truth, or I would say uncovered a truth that is very much a healing balm to our understandings of the extent of God’s love.
    Certainly he could have expressed it differently. I wish it had been so! But he is who he is and I dont need to make too much ad homonem, against the weight of the theology he puts forward. It seems we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    What harm comes from his thesis? That there is a hell, that it is pedagogical and therapeutic, not retributive, and so will accomplish the goal of all of God’s punishments: the healing and setting right of the creature punished?
    He has demonstrated our mistaken understandings of freedom (a Modern error), and turned us back to a patristic way of understanding our freedom in terms of our telos as God-image-bearers. He has spelled out the logical implications for this vis. God’s punishments- all of them including hell- as expressions of his efficacious love.

    I dont think it helps at all to argue over these things. If someone is not able to see the beauty of apokatastasis ( a biblical and patristic “restoration of all things” not a more vague, modern concept of “universalism”), then it does no good to argue over something like this. It can easily become just noise and armchair opinionism.
    But for sensitive and thoughtful people like myself, we are spared a great deal of inner suffering trying to reconcile our conscience with an eternal hell. It simply does not make sense to me.

    So what’s the harm in this being said out loud, when properly expressed? What is the harm? I can accept God’s providence holding the clarity of this back for one or another reason. But I cannot accept that it means God’s providence is not also bringing this theological challenge to us now, in this age. For me, Orthodoxy is not simply a traditionalism. Just as we Orthodox have to choose our language in light of the last 2000 years of Western Church history, perhaps the tremendous damage done by mainstream understandings of a retributive eternal hell for vast swaths of God’s creatures has called out for the timely remedy of apokatastasis? It will take goodwill to receive humbly the insights David brings despite his unpleasant foibles and prickly, sometimes rude ways of expressing himself. He doesn’t own his insight though. 🙂
    It seems there is a salutary way that we in the Church can explicitly hold the teaching of apokatastasis. I have encountered so many sensitive people who have been repulsed by the notion of eternal hell, that carefully showing the error of this teaching could bring much spiritual healing.
    Carefully and gently I wish to emphasize, as we must do with all nuanced understandings.

    I do not have regular access to internet so I will not see a reply for some time.
    I have great trust in your judgement and if it’s best to delete this and respond privately please kindly do so.
    In the irresistible love of Jesus Christ;
    -Mark Basil

  29. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Mark,
    Undoubtedly, God’s providence is at work in all things. However, I do not believe in a providential “development of doctrine” as is common in certain Western quarters. I have difficulties with DBH’s work because, frankly, it’s an intellectual product – driving its force from its own inner logic – producing a sort of necessity of the apokatastasis. I think when it does treat of matters concerning the doctrine of hell, he attacks straw men. He has, if anything, produced a strong reaction – “provoked” is more accurate, and to have sort of relished the matter. This, I think, does more harm than good.
    He has, I think, made the conversation more difficult. He has crossed boundaries that truly great Orthodox souls have respected – and dismissed their reticence with little concern at all. What I believe is that good and true doctrine is produced from a good soul – not merely as an intellectual feat. Why, I wonder, is there so little of the irresistable love of God in the force of the words?

    I have stated as clearly as I can where I stand, and how I hope. I think that such hope is the proper place to dwell. I ran across these words of Olivier Clement yesterday:

    In the battle of ascesis and the offering of creatures to God in the cosmic liturgy, our will must cooperate with divine grace. But the ultimate knowledge, the love-knowledge of the Trinity, takes hold of us by grace alone. We prepare for it by a stripping away of our being until we become nothing but expectation.

    There is, I think, a proper silence to such expectation. I look for God and His redeeming love. I do not look for a theological point to be proven correct. I’m simply weary of people arguing about things. It is a vexation of the soul.

  30. Dee of St Hermans Avatar
    Dee of St Hermans

    Dear Mark,
    I am empathetic to the trauma that some people might have experienced from the harsh application of PSA. And for that reason, rather than go through a discussion of theology, it seems best to simply start with God’s love, and to be emphatic about that, while being hopeful for His salvation. Rather than look to an argument, perhaps the person suffering from PSA exposure might simply come to Orthodox worship and experience Christ in that light. Encourage the person to let the Holy Spirit begin to speak to their broken heart.

    It seems to me, part of the disease created by PSA is an entrenched reliance on scholasticism and argumentation. (As someone trained in academia and science, I’m well acquainted with these tools.) Mind and logic is emphasized. And while there is nothing wrong with mind and logic and the processes at work within them, such emphasis is applied toward the wrong ends, in PSA. And the effects of the means toward an end matters, as does the ‘end’. Perhaps it is better that one so abused in their personal history by PSA, should focus on their experience of Christ in Orthodox worship instead, rather than become entangled in further theological argument.

    That said, I know that I explore the writings of the Fathers at this time, aware of my own tendency to fall into logical analysis and argument, as I study. Eventually I may write about what I have learned. And yet the question I put to myself is, will such an endeavor of writing work toward anyone’s salvation? Otherwise, it may well be just my ego in writing, and what good is that?

    If an inquirer or the convert has difficulties in their heart, scars from the former theology they have held, they might consider discussing these personal issues with their priest. (Or read this blog for starters! : ) )

    I’ll end by thanking you for your contributions, questions and participation here. May God help us, reveal Himself to us as we need, and grant us all, His Bride and Body, a loving humble heart.

  31. Anonymo Avatar
    Anonymo

    Dear Mark and others,
    I am one of those who was ‘traumatised’ by the theory as expressed in a Calvinist framework (which I might add is significantly more poisonous, I have not come across a theological theory that I would deem more dangerous to a ‘sensitive and thoughtful’ person as Mark put it). I very much agree with Father Freeman, and Dee last comments. I think it would be quite foolish for me at least at this time to engage with the mentioned Hart’s work. Through my extensive time spent in apologetics which in some ways I regret I realise that one does not approach certainty in a position or argument apart from deluding oneself. Instead I pursue humility and the certainty found in the pursuit of the virtues listed in 1 Corinthians 13:13: “And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”

    The Orthodox do not idolise the intellect but instead recognise it’s place which is truly refreshing. I heard a Protestant minister identify the nous as the mind as in cognitive thinking which was depressing to me. How is it that so many Protestants are so untied from the shores of ancient tradition that they are lost at sea in a storm that can hardly see? Poetry makes me smile; did anyone find my previous sentence to be waxed poetically?

  32. Mark Northey Avatar
    Mark Northey

    Thank you to the thoughtful responses to my further comment, all. And for those holding me and this topic in prayerful hearts.

    Father Stephen, your last comment was so helpful for me.
    When I read Hart’s book, I find myself saying “yes!”. It really is what I believe.
    However I so agree with your criticisms of the ‘way’ this is playing out. I so agree with your Orthodox vision of truth that communicates through your comment.
    This is what has always kept me within Orthodoxy: that God really does heal us, transfigure our hearts and make us whole, toward a perfect union in love and the gift of his radiant eternal life in exchange for the shabby dust of my own.

    Thank you for staying on-point in this, and bearing with me.
    Thank you also Dee, Anonymo, Owen-Maximus, Dino, and others I am sure who are prayerfully working through all of these matters.

    in Christ’s peace;
    -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. To all: We begin Lent im the Orthodox Church with a marvelous service called Forgiveness Vespers. At the end each…

  2. Matthew, Yes, the Orthodox do have a different calendar for Easter or Pascha. The feast and fast seasons and practices…

  3. Hello again Dee. Thanks so much for the invitation. I have been eating no sweets with the exception of honey…


Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast



Categories


Archives