Orthodoxy and creativity

[Robert Hegwood]

I would be grateful for whatever insights could be gleaned from this on-line community.

One of the things I've never quite settled since being recieved in the Church is the issue of creative arts outside the venue of liturgical or pragmatic life. For example we have icons, special music, special architecture, etc. that are tied very closely to our colelctive spiritual life. In the world we have need of architects, illustrators, and various kinds of communication specialists. But what of things like writing fiction or poetry, painting imaginary landscapes, or more abstract works just because you like to paint.

This area confuses me. On one hand I'v seen writers like Dostoevsky and Gogol or in the Anglophile world, Lewis praised and honored for their creative contributions. But like some of the postings I've seen here, I've come across plenty that discourages "vain imaginings" and "entertainments".

Would Orthodoxy endure an Orthodox Lewis or Tolkein's fantasy creations, or allegorical stories. What about an Orthodox John Grishom...or even an Orthodox Issac Asimov....I know better than to ask about Danille Steel.

Well you see what I'm getting at. What principle, spiritual consideration guides the expression of Orthodox creativity in the world? How can we both celebrate some writers, yet all but anathemize the reading of novels or going to movies as a catagory? And that is not a trivial consideration. If entertainments on the whole is bad, then what shall be said of the one from whom those entertainments come. What do we say to the young Orthodox graphic designer working for a computer gaming comany.

And of course I have selfish reasons for asking these questions. I like to write fiction but am wary of trying to persue it seriously because I'm not sure its right, or just an endulgence of passions...or something more hindrance than help in our age....or any of a half dozen reasons why it may not be a wise course to persue. But as soon as I get snuggled into that position, the pea under my pillow is Dostoevsky. His Spiritual father was later glorified as a Saint. Yet he apparently wasn't told writing your fiction is not sufficiently spiritual, stop it.

So what are we to do? How is one to think about the use and develoment of creative talents in a non liturgical or non pragmatic context.

Wish I knew...hope someone else out there does.

[Tim Grass]

This is a great question. --tim

[Olga]

Perhaps this might help: If the art created cannot be confused with any of the liturgical or ecclesiastical arts (hymnody, church music, iconography, etc), and is of a benign nature, then I can't see how this should be a problem. History is full of artists who were Orthodox, and who openly produced secular art. St Cassiane the Hymnographer, an 8th C abbess, who is the only woman whose works have found their way into church canon (most impressive, considering that in her day, the association of music with women was considered close to immoral), had great musical, literary and poetic talents, and wrote many secular poems and songs which survive to this day. One can also look at the Russian classical composers who wrote sacred as well as secular music, or any number of painters (Greek, Russian or whatever) who were Orthodox, who produced secular works without apparent hindrance by church authorities. What would be completely wrong, for instance, is to produce a painting which has the stylised look of an icon, but whose content does not conform with iconographic canon, like those notorious "icons" of Gandhi, Martin Luther King or Mother of God of September 11 which are doing the rounds.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

There is a thread on this forum where the whole issue of creativity has been discussed, Theological Conception(s) and Mystical Experience (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1658). Here focus is on the purified use of the human imagination.

in Christ
Byron

[Olga]

I might add that religious content could be permitted in some form, such as the one (whose title escapes me) of the procession of the Epitaphios, with an entire village in tow by the 19th C Russian master Ilya Repin. It is a beautifully lit, evocative and exuberant work, as are most of his paintings.

[Patrick Walsh]

I would like to add a couple of things.

When I first asked the Archimandrite about becoming a monk, we had a short discussion about some concerns I had. One of the things I did not want to give up, but thought would be beneficial in my spiritual life is the study of languages, especially Greek, Latin, and Russian, but also Hebrew, Syriac/Aramaic, and so on.

The Archimandrite said, "I do not see a problem with this, as long as it does not separate you from God, or interfere with your work toward salvation." So I think there is room for creativity in our Orthodox lifestyle. St. Gregory the Theologian was an accomplished poet, as well as some other Church Fathers whose names escape me at the moment.

I beleive that most of the exhortations against secular achievements should not limit one's creativity in the world. It should, however, encourage us to guard ourselves against problems that may arise from engaging in worldly activity, including the arts and literature. So as long as your activity does not separate you from God, nor separates anyone else to the best of your ability, then there should not be a problem with it.

If there are still some issues on this, I suggest you speak to your priest about it, and get hisfeedback.

Patrick

[Father David Moser]

I do not think there is any conflict between the "creative arts" as such and the Orthodox faith. In fact the creative arts can be used as a means by which a person's faith is expressed. There are many extant pieces of poetry by saints (Gregory the Theologian & Ephrem the Syrian for example in ancient times. In more modern times St Barsanouphios of Optina was a poet) that express their experience of God. Some of these are "dogmatic" in nature and some aren't. There are Orthodox playwrights, composers, novelists, painters (I know a monastic who paints landscapes and still lifes). There are Orthodox musicians and performers and on and on.

Certainly there are limits which define the direction of creativity (simple morality for example) but creativity itself and creative expression through the arts are not alien from Orthodoxy.

Archpr. David Moser

[Robert Hegwood]

I looked at the other thread and while someone did bring up Dostoevsky and some of the concerns I mentioned here the converstaion quickly turned to things regarding the Jesus Prayer with the creative aspect being really addressed.

Also it doesn't help to say that there are x y and z other Orthodox writers or painters, etc. They are all from the same pea pod of discomfiture so to speak. I know that they exist and some of them are of honored memory in the Church but that doesn't answer the question of "why?".

In reading the other thread I did seem to gather the idea that "imagination" is thought of mostly in terms of that faculty we have to carry on imaginary conversations with the school bully or certain of our inlaws and work ourselves up into a snit over something they never said...though they would have, we just know, given the right setting. It also seems to apply to attempts at visualization.

Having had such conversations with myself over the years it seems to me that such "imaginings" arise from a somewhat different place in the human psyche. The creative faculty seems, from my experience, more guarded, more purposeful, more structured. It depends upon finding and articulating that precise verbal or visual construct that conveys/communicates the intended emotive/informational content intended, with generous margins to allow for happy accidents. One may work from an inner linear or global model...but always something is directing and structuring the final product...and there is a product to a particular end.

If something like this is not the case then I don't quite know what to make of our Lord's parables. Some seem to be short recountings of an actual event, others observations drawn generally from the time and culture, and yet others that seem to be a fictional construct to illustrate the point Christ was trying to make. For example, the parable of the unjust steward whose king rewarded him for falsifing the books strikes me as an imaginative contrivance told to make a particular spiritual point. It may not be, but it doesn't have the same sense of maybe this really happened like the parable of Dives and Lazarus the begger.

So if some of our Lord's parables were made up to make a point, then what human faculty was at work in their creation if imagination as a whole is a tainted category? Of course if they were all actual events He knew about then the above question is moot.

But all that said, we are back now to honored writers and artists on one hand and this strong distrust of one's creative faculties ourside some clearly defined theological or pragmatic niche.

A novel, a painting, a movie may have strong didactic underpinnings...a pragmatic use/purpose, but still the whole cloth of an artistic work is how it works to entertain or delight...or nowadays trouble in some way. Dostoevsky raised several important spiritual questions and points during the course of his novels...but in the end they were novels, an entertainment.

But at the same time he was not censured by his spiritual father for writing fiction, nor were his other brother artisans who were also devout in the faith.

So what principle or spiritual insight resolves or at least cogently addesses this antimony. Or to borrow from Francis Schaeffer, "How should a writer, musician, or artist then live?" As a faithful Orthodox Christian how should those talents be developed and exercised...if at all

[Robert Hegwood]

Father bless. I posted before I had read your post.

You say there are limits in the direction of creativity such as moralty, but what about when that direction bumps the artist into some obscure niche of theology..or maybe a not so obscure one.

For example, I think the Last Temptation of Christ serves well to illustrate places we should not go, but what about something less obvious. Let's say Jules Verne were Orthodox, His Island of Dr. Moreau raises a host of questions about the nature of man and his relationship to the world. What must be true about man or creation or God if man by his tinkering can raise an animal to sentience and to some more or less sophisticated, if legalistic understanding of morality? Would Mr. Verne be censured or exommunicated by the Church...how far would he have to push the implications of his premise before it transgressed acceptable theological bounds. Could he have had his beast men being baptised, becoming members of the Church, receiving the Holy Eucharist, singing in the choir, being ordained as clergy?

What is man? Since man partakes of and is reciprocal to this world, can he communicate himself to some portion of it so that it shares to some degree in his humanity so that in some sense they are "men" too. And if men then how answerable to God...and how would He deign to encounter and make Himself known to them if the means open to natural men are closed to them?

There's a whole nest of questions anthropological and theological concerning the nature of man that are raised by Verne's writings...but could an Orthodox writer of similar inspiration persue his premise and not travel in a direction Orthodox should not explore?

Or what about excatology. Could an Orthodox writer write of a far far future where man is as he is now morally and spiritually speaking? A novel or a movie set 30,000 years in the future presents at least a little difficulty in the anticipation of a soon return of Christ.

Or to return to a more mundane and timely consideration...what about an Orthodox graphic designer for computer game studio. All day long he is designing imaginary creatures and settings that will be part of a game devoted mostly to entertaining 15 year old boys who like to drive fast and blow things up....things many would construe as essentially wasting time. Yet because of this work, this Orthodox man feeds and shelters his family, tithes to his parish, and provides for the education of his children. Yet what he does is to help create "worthless" entertainments for teens. What do we say to that?

What guides our thinking?

[Elisabeth]

> I am currently reading a book on Art by the Anglican Archbishop Rowan > Williams. He looks at things not so much from the perspective of art as a > product of the imagination with the purpose to delight and entertain, but= as > an image that offers a deeper perspective than much of our attempt to cla= ssify > and represent, which he suggests is generally based on function. He sugge= sts > that art can provide a glimpse of essence rather than function. > He also points out that for many artists it is not an activity of self- > expression =8Cbut grounded in what we ought to call a kind of obedience. Th= e > artist struggles to let the logic of what is there display itself in the > particular concrete matter being worked with.=B9 He mentions how often the > artist doesn=B9t know what they are going to do at the start of a work, or = how > it will look at the end. > This =8Cobedience=B9 or personal dispassion can be similar to that of an icon > painter, but an icon painter is opening a door to Heaven, while the artis= t=B9s > vision always remains rooted in creation. > This type of art making is totally different from popular art that is mad= e > purely to entertain, these days often with an element of shock or horror = for > its own sake. >=20 > Rowan Williams book is called =8CGrace and Necessity =AD Reflections on Art a= nd > Love=B9 published 2005 by Continuum Books, London. >=20 > Apologies Robert for not beginning to attempt to answer you question =8CWha= t > guides our thinking?=B9 ! >=20 > Elisabeth >=20

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Nikos Engonopoulos (http://www.engonopoulos.gr/_homeEN) (1907-1985) was a Greek painter. He was a student of the famous Greek iconographer Photis Kontoglou. Engonopoulos was a surrealist, and he is famous for his surrealistic paintings (http://www.engonopoulos.gr/_images/Lad-01-big.jpg). He was also a poet and he dedicated the following poem to Lorca soon after he learned the news of his death. (Translation by: Demetris A. Tsimperis)

"NEWS ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE SPANISH POET FEDERICO GARCIA LORCA ON THE 19th AUGUST 1936 IN THE DITCH OF CAMINO DE LA FUENTE"

Art and poetry do not help us to live
Art and poetry help us
To die

Absolute contempt
Is appropriate
For all this fuss
Searches
Comments upon comments
That once in a while
All those dawdler and conceited quill drivers make
About the mysterious and shameful conditions
Of poor Lorca's execution
By the fascists

After all, everybody knows
That
Since long time ago
And principally in our crippled times
They use to
Kill
The poets.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Thank you for the excellent posting on Eggonopoulos, Leandros. It appears that you are perfectly capable of being both brief and very much to the point! I didn't realise Eggonopoulos was a student of Kontoglou. It seems pertinent to this discussion to ask what his traditionally-minded teacher thought then of his pupil's work, and of such artistic movements as surrealism in general...

One important question for me is: how can we allow our imagination and creativity the freedom and liberty that it needs in order to flourish, without at the same time betraying our religious beliefs or leading others astray? This is a real problem for me, as I feel drawn both to the exciting world of the free artistic imagination, and to the moral and spiritual values that our faith holds.

In Christ
Byron

[ChristopherK]

Dear Robert,

as St Seraphim says, the aim of the Christian life is to acquire the Holy Spirit. He reminds us to "trade well" like a merchant does; that is when we are faced with an opportunity and a trade off we should chose that which will bring spiritual profit and thus closer to God and our aim in life. If art brings you closer to God, then pursue it, if it takes you away from God, then it may be better to look for a better “trade”.

Living in the latter days we are faced with extreme difficulties in pursuing this:
1) we are used to being ruled by our passions and are having to fight a multitude of character shortcomings which are deeply ingraned in our soul
2) the world around lives as if Christ did not exist and constantly pressures us to conform to the world, not Christ
3) we have to take care of our children (and family) who are under even greater pressure to conform with the apostate world around us

This gives rise to the impossible scenario of trying to serve two masters, God and mammon.

So how to live with this existential dichotomy? The answer is "the royal way", the middle way of Orthodoxy. Try to avoid going into extremes, take little steps, discuss every important decision with those who are more experienced (spiritually) and get a blessing from a priest or your spiritual father. If you rush you are likely to fall or lose strength because you are not trained to run (spiritually). If you walk at a constant pace you will not get tired and fall, but make progress towards the heavenly kingdom. Like me you will probably find that even taking small steps forward is a blessing, as we are constantyl tempted to idle along the way or even return back to a path that seemed easier to tread!

Why do I write this in response to your question on Orthodoxy and artistic expression? Art, like work, like human love, like social enjoyment, is an essential characteristic of what makes us human. Some have more of it, some less, but it is undeniably an essential characteristic of mankind.

God created us and the world around us and even though it may be defaced and perverted by our sins, it is in essence good. Art is good, work is good, social enjoyment is good. But as with anything in life, the devil wants us to use it for evil. This evil does not have to be obvious (e.g. like killing somebody), but it can be as subtle and not "hurt" anybody by leading us in the wrong direction (away from God) and lead us into sin (for example pride, vainglory, judging others).

So art (work, enjoyment) is not in itself a sin, but how we use it. Everybody should work to keep us from idleness, everybody needs some "entertainment" (even St Anthony the Great permitted his monks some social enjoyment, so that they would not "break") and people need art. But if work or art (or anything else) becomes an idol or is a hindrance to coming closer to God, then it is clearly bad for that person and action should be taken in consultation with a spiritual father.

My personal feeling is that much of contemporary art is leading us away from God. For an artist there is probably a constant temptation to think one has done something great (vainglory), rather than give glory to God. In the classic religious artistic work of icon painting, prayer is vital in the creation of the icon and the icon painter sees himself only as an instrument of God and not the author of the icon itself. That in my view is the ideal case of art – not the work of man, but the work of God through man. But I stress this is a personal reflection, not dogma and I in no way would condemn anybody who is a professional artist. I think it is possible even for an unbelieving artist to produce something that brings a person closer to God (at least as an initial step) – after all we are all icons of Christ, even though we may be very dirty and disfigured icons, we are icons nonetheless.

I am sorry this is probably not the intellectual or patristic answer you may have been looking for, but I hope there is a practical answer that will help you. I find one can read endless books on spiritual matters and have long intellectual discussions, but at the end of the day it is the practice, not the theory, which brings us closer to Christ. He will ask us: what have you done, not what have you read…

I wish you God's blessing on your way. Glory to God for all the beautiful art there is in the world and all the joy even in this fallen world and even moreso in His Kingdom to come.

With love in Christ,

Christopher

[Kosmas Damianides]

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 10:31)

[Robert Hegwood]

Thank you all for your considerate and thoughtful posts. They are much appreciated.

Several comments register and do touch upon what seems to be the core considerations, can it be done to the glory of God, and does it help or hinder your own walk with God...this latter point though in some cases might be hard to tell...but the principle is sound.

So that is helpful.

[Father David Moser]

Robert,

I've been thinking about this for a while. If I read your concerns correctly there are a couple of primary issues. One is essentially, "how do you know what the limits are" and the other is "what about the secondary/tertiary impact" (not my own sin, but rather contributing to the sin of others). What has already been said about doing things to the glory of God are excellent guidelines so please take whatever I say in that context.

How do you know what the limits are. One of the undercurrents I seem to sense there is the idea that creativity is "unruly" and may take you unintended and unavoidably into a place you don't want to go. We are given free will by God and our creativity is subject to that will. You can choose to follow or not any creative impulse. Just because it's "creative" doesn't mean that it is good or profitable or worth pursuing. An artist often "judges" an idea or an impulse based on its "artistic value". A Christian artist also must judge an idea or impulse on its spiritual value and reject those that are of no value or which are of negative value. Your creativity is subject to you - not you to it. It is not "uncreative" to reject an idea that is not good. The "spiritual value" judgement is based upon your own spiritual development. In the beginning you will need help, advice, direction (just as a beginning artist needs help from someone more experienced to form and shape their art). This direction comes from the Tradition of the Church and is expressed in the persons of your spiritual fathers mothers and elders. It is not a bad idea to involve your spiritual father and those older than you in the faith in your creative process (for example, I have contributed to a number of screenplays, playscripts written on Orthodox themes - but not doctrinal - by one of my parishioners).

What about "secondary" effects of your art. Well, in the end each person is responsible for his own actions. We can help or hinder, but we do not decide that some other person is going to sin. So, it is a consideration in choosing your employment/career or in making changes in your career, and sometimes the pressure to make that change is more intense than others. However, you are primarily responsible for your own salvation. Again, do whatever you do to the glory of God - and if you can't then it is time to change. Do whatever you do in a way that encourages others in their struggle for salvation - and if you can't then consider what changes you should/can make. Phil 4:8

Archpr. David Moser

[Robert Hegwood]

Dear Fr. David,

Bless. Your council sounds like excellent advice.

As you say there is caution about drifting into questionable places...the unruly aspect of creativity that you mentioned.

Sometimes one is unaware that one is straying out of bounds...a concept in some ways that bothers me too. I don't like asking questions about "where are the boundaries" even though at times its needful, because it seems to betray a fence sniffing mentality...how close can I get to breaking a rule without "actually" breaking it. All the which strikes me as having already trampled the boundary in one's heart but restraining one's action for convention's sake...like vainity saving you from pride as St. John of the Ladder might say.

Part of my specific trouble is the kinds of things I like to write, which wobble between Sci-Fi/Fantasy and Southernalia with touches of Magical Realism (Narnia meets Yoknapatolka County meets Dogpatch). To discuss any of the ideas that may cause trouble...or to try to find the right patristic "excuse"/"premise" from which to pursue an idea comes out like crazy talk. Revisit my earlier post comments about Jules Verne...what if that was your parishoner, "Father I want to write a story that involve genetically tinkering with animals so that they become sentient beings, what points of theology and patristic insights do I have to consider or stear clear of to make this work? How many pastoral flags would go off if he presented you with a manuscript that had sentient beasts behaving like Christians and participating in the sacramental life of the Church. There are slipperly slopes there in those woods. And unless you have someone who is both versed in the conventions of the genre one writes in, has a fair knowledge of Orthodox theology, and some wisdom to boot...trying to hold such a conversation is just begging to get "Nutjob" tattooed in glowing red letters on one's forehead.

Let me give you an illustration from one of my own examples many years ago, long before I was an Orthodox Christian. From my perspective today I can see some of its more precient dangers, not the least of which was risking blasphemey and sacrilige...but at the time I was oblivious to what the Orthodox sensibility might be.

So here is the scenario. I was raised Baptist and much of its salvic imagary involves being "washed" "saved" in the blood of Jesus (our Lord). We were taught God made provision for man's salvation in Christ's blood.

That was the point my imagination went to work on it. So long before the days of Anne Rice I began to wonder...if vampires were real what provision could be made for them. How could Christ's blood save them? It occured to me that though Baptists did not believe in real presence, other faiths did...and there might be a story in the narrative of how an unwilling (culturally Baptist)vampire finding salvation in the Holy Eucharist given to him at a monastic haven for convert vampires somewhere in Eastern Europe. I knew Eastern Europe was Orthodox territory, but I knew nothing about the Orthodox faith beyond the bare fact that it existed and looked a lot like catholocism without a pope. I did have one Orthodox friend, not terribly religous from my perspective, and so I asked her if she had a copy of the Orthodox liturgy. She asked why, I told her why. Her eyebrow raised a bit and she said no, I asked why and she said that it would be blasphemous. Well that floored me... and it also gave me a new respect for her as well.

I still think its an intriguing story idea, but I see now why it is probably not a good idea to pursue. At the very least the treating of the Holy Eucharist as a special effects prop in such a story is highly questionable...indeed maybe even blasphemous. Certainly it is territory I have no further desire to explore.

Yet the existance of that example in my own life makes me cautious now, knowing what I know, and knowing there is so much more I don't know. But who to talk to about such things? My Priest...I suppose, if he has the time, and has any interest in veting speculative fiction ideas or proofing drafts for poor theology.

All in all I have to say, if you do that for your parishoners, they are blessed indeed in their priest.

[Father David Moser]

Robert,

Thanks for reminding me about your comments about Jules Verne and about the Isle of Dr Moreau (a novel by H.G. Wells). Yes, it would indeed be a fascinating dilemmna, however not necessarily insurmountable. I personally enjoy reading science fiction quite a lot and one of the authors I quite enjoy is C.J. Cherryh. Her forte is in creating a completely non-human species/society and then looking at the impact of the introduction of a human to that society. Now since it is clearly fiction, I can easily suspend "reality testing" to enjoy the story. However, science fiction as well as most fantasy and fiction is not about aliens, advanced science, fantastic technology or magic. It is in fact about people. Even the most "alien" story is a means by which a particular characteristic of a person or society is isolated and dealt with in an "out of context" context (if you know what I mean). But in the end it is about humans. I honestly don't know how I would react to your proposal in theory, because it isn't so much the idea of non-humans or half man/half beast people acting as fully human, but rather how it was carried off, what the "point" of the story is and how it was communicated. I think that a clearly fictional story with a "fantastic" setting or premise can be a very powerful tool for looking at human behavior in the here and now, so I would want to see the whole thing and then rather than say "nope, it won't do, get rid of it" I'd rather offer suggestions about how to make it work.

I recall seeing a John Wayne movie where JW is a self made California gold baron who falls for a Russian princess visiting from Alaska. The romantic climax of the movie is where she is being brought into the convent church to be married to some Russian nobleman and JW crashes through a window, swings down on a chandelier and saves her. The point of this is that the movie got everything wrong, the convent, the society, the marriage service, the Church itself - everything was done as though it were the nightmarish imaginings of a wild eyed McCarthyite baptist preacher. I really disliked it and I think that rather than being "blasphemous", some accuracy in depicting Orthodox society and rituals would have been more respectful than the mockery that was presented.

There is a lot of room for "speculation" in fiction that still lives within the Orthodox ethos. BTW, the more I think about it the more I find your "vampire and the Eucharist" concept interesting.

Archpr. David

[Robert Hegwood]

Dear Fr. David,

Bless. Thank you very much for your reply. It too was very helpful and encouraging.

You said, "Even the most "alien" story is a means by which a particular characteristic of a person or society is isolated and dealt with in an "out of context" context (if you know what I mean). But in the end it is about humans"

Yes. And this out of context idea is part of what intrigues me about the Dr. Moreaux question. Whatever other questions it explores one of the primary ones is the question of "What is man?" and conversely "What is not-man...in human"? The theological aspect about this regarding tinkered up animals that provides one particular avenue of exporation on the question of man...is whether or not an animal can be tinkered up to humanlikeness. It if this were done by chemicals, radiation, and tweaking the animals genome by retroviruses or so yet undiscovered technology, then sentience is postulated as an emergent characteristic of the material universe. Put together the right kind of chemical soup and it thinks.

But this seems contrary to an Orthodox anthropology which believes man became what he is in his rational and moral being as the consequence of God's inbreathing. If rational and moral being then require an event of Divine Inspiration, then all genetic tinkering will ever produce is very clever animals.

But by the same token morality, while highly developed in man does not seem in all respects exclusive to man. I've seen dogs that act ashamed for being caught in disobedience, and read accounts of great apes that showed a rudimentary moral compass understanding some actions as good, even altruistic, and others bad. Maybe this is all residue of the fall and a former now broken relationship between man and its creatures.

Still when I read accounts of angelic visitations or discussions of that realm of life among the Fathers and Saints...morality and rationality are somehow uniquely identified with being capable of/being called into relationship with God, like angels and men. So if that final threshold can only be reached by an act of inspiration by God, to posit sentient beasts is also to posit their relationship to God...even to deification...which seems in some sense to be the lot of creation anyway in the escaton. But is this relationship more like that of men or of angels. This has to be asked because if that relationship with God exists then like angels they have a place in the whole economy of God and thus in His Church. But then again since they have bodies like men and not like angels...are they then more like men and therefore must relate to God in the same or similar way that men do...sacramentally?

But back to the basic question of achieving sentience. If it is theologically precluded as an emergent property of matter, and therefore requires an inspiration event, what qualifies? Must it be an Eden like visitation upon some newly tinkered with creature, or since it has happened once in the world, is it communicable. If straitforward tinkering with a creatures DNA will not produce the desired effect...what about encorporation some aspect of man's genetic treasurehouse. This too skirts very close to materialism, but still something of man is passed into another creature, can that something serve as a kind of spiritual leaven producing a hybrid creature Mostly animal, but "raised" by a participation in humanity at a physical/genetic level to transcend their animalness and become moral rational beings who stand shoulder to shoulder with man in the world?...by extrapolation a kind of helpmeet to the race of Men.

If this is inadmissible then what kind of preconditions in an animal would feasibly be open to an inspiration event. I mention this because I seem to recall St. Gregory of Nysaa...if not him one of his peers, said that man was created enmasse like all the other animals, but one, Adam was called apart, breathed upon, and changed thereby. In the fall man reverted back to much more beastial level of perception and awareness. This may be a trick of my memory...but even so, its interesting as a point of departure whoever it was who said it.

So you see where my brain spins. But the big thing, the big point that such considerations may be explored "out of context" in a story whose core theme is the question, who and what is man? And that is a question that cannot be explored without asking also who is God, what is His relationship to man and what does that relationship mean and entail.

There are many questions beside those that can be asked and pondered in fiction whether speculative or naturalistic. And its seems that some of those questions can be pondered more fully, in more relief, within the context of a "foolish" genre that is so often equated not with serious thought, but just juvenile escapism.

Perhaps a literary "holy fool" can make a point better than the standard sactimonious varity.

The whole thing reminds me of Anshelm and St. Caedmon. In Anshelms day some less strict monasteries had fallen into the practice of passing the harp after supper and reciting old germanic mythic lays...like Beowulf (all of which but Beowulf are lost now). The Bishop Anshelm was not happy with this and chastized those monks in a letter that in one place said, "What hath Christ to do with Ing (The god the Eng-lish were named after). It was a very good religious question that seemed to have no good answer but to stop singing the old lays in or out of the monastery. But then there was the old cowherd and novice monk, Caedmon of Whitby, who feld in shame every time the harp was passed because he could neither sing nor play. One night someone woke him. It was an angel (or perhaps the Lord). He said, "Sing mec hwathwegu" Sing me something. Caedmon of course answered that he didn't know how to sing. The angel told him to buck up trust the Lord and once again asked Caedmon to sing. Caedmon asked, "What shall I sing." The angel said, "Sing Frumschaft (creation)" whereupon Cademon sung a short but metrically pristine, theologically correct verse about creation in the old german heroic meter. In the morning he was afraid and told the abbess (it was a double monastery) who was dubious but decided to test him. She called the monastery's best theologicans and they proposed to him a theological theme. The next morning he returned with that theology artfully presented in the ancient meters. And so it passed that whatever theme was given him, thereafter he could return on the morrow with masterful hymn. A whole school of liturgical hymnography grew up around him and that school saved the old germanic poetic meters from oblivion and turned them into a powerful tool of spiritual poetry and hymnography that passed away only with the Norman invasion. It seemed St. Caedmon was God's answer to Anshelm's question.

And so I must wonder if there is a Caedmon prepared out there somewhere to take up the more or less "pagan or atheistic" genres of Fantasy and Science Fiction and Sing Hwathwegu.

Now let us praise the Guardian of the Kingdom of Heaven
the might of the Creator and the thought of his mind,
the work of the glorious Father, how He, the eternal Lord
established the beginning of every wonder.
For the sons of men, He, the Holy Creator
first made heaven as a roof, then the
Keeper of mankind, the eternal Lord
God Almighty afterwards made the middle world
the earth, for men.
--(Caedmon, Hymn, )

[Father David Moser]

But back to the basic question of achieving sentience. If it is theologically precluded as an emergent property of matter, and therefore requires an inspiration event, what qualifies? Must it be an Eden like visitation upon some newly tinkered with creature, or since it has happened once in the world, is it communicable.

The writings of the Holy Fathers do not support the idea that God "visited" an already existing animal and raised it to the level of humanity. The general flow of the writings of St Basil the Great (Hexameron) and of St John of Damascus (The Orthodox Faith) indicate that are basically three orders of life - plant, animal, man - and that each of those orders is associated with a separate creational event (not a reshaping of a pre-existing creation). I guess the best way to describe this is that plants have bodily life, but no soul. Animals were a separate and unique creation (out of nothing) and consist of a body and a soul - but the soul is mortal and has no spiritual nature. Man is yet another separate and unique creation (out of nothing) and consists of a body and an immortal soul - that is a soul in which is incorporated the spirit. Theologically it is not possible to "raise an animal" to the level of man because we cannot imbue the animal with a spirit (since that is an act of Divine Creation).

Now from a creative writing pov, I think that a lot could be done with the contrast between an animal "raised to the highest level of its sentient potential" and a man. One could also deal with the inherent "innocence" of animals, since they are not granted the knowledge of good and evil (only the knowledge of acceptable and desireable behavior vs that which is undesirable and unacceptable).

>> If straitforward tinkering with a creatures DNA will not produce the desired effect...what about encorporation some aspect of man's genetic treasurehouse. This too skirts very close to materialism, but still something of man is passed into another creature, can that something serve as a kind of spiritual leaven producing a hybrid creature Mostly animal, but "raised" by a participation in humanity at a physical/genetic level to transcend their animalness and become moral rational beings who stand shoulder to shoulder with man in the world?...by extrapolation a kind of helpmeet to the race of Men. <<

Yeah, that's the kind of thinking that I had in mind. BTW have you read some of David Brin's stuff? He has a series dealing with a culture in which galactic species are "raised" by a parent species to sentience and are in turn expected to raise other species. He mostly focuses on the politics created by such a society, but also some of the different inherent pov issues of the different species. Interesting ideas, but pretty far out.

I probably could dialogue on a lot of these things a lot, however, at the moment "offline life" also known as "real life" calls.

Archpr. David Moser

[Father David Moser]

Another thought. I do not doubt that you have read CS Lewis&#39; Narnia books and his space trilogy. Both of these are, I think, good examples of &#34;Christian&#34; sf&f.

Archpr. David Moser

[Robert Hegwood]

Dear Father David,

Bless. Once again, you&#39;ve made a very thoughtful and helpful reply that has been hard to come by elsewhere.

Yes, I have read the Narnia books as well as some of David Brin&#39;s works in his &#34;uplift&#34; series, both of which were very thought provoking in their own way.

As for how man was created single or en masse and one &#34;uplifted&#34;, I know what you said is the general tenor of what the Fathers say, but I have encountered one Father who offered a different idea &#40;not dogmatically but as a speculation&#41;...the one I mentioned, which is why it stuck in my head as an interesting possibiltity to ponder.

You said, &#34;Theologically it is not possible to &#34;raise an animal&#34; to the level of man because we cannot imbue the animal with a spirit &#40;since that is an act of Divine Creation&#34;

This is pretty much what I thought. Of course one wonders if man did tinker up a really smart animal might not that added brain power be able to contemplate its own mortality, and perhaps mourn that knowledge and seek consolation in God...or at least try to. Could such a creature move God to a new &#34;inspiration event&#34;?

Well I know you have real world issues to attend to. Thank you again for this conversation. It has been a blessing.

[Father David Moser]

Speaking of the "real world", let me add a little "real science" to this science fiction. I just finished reading an article about a Harvard embryologist, Dr Doug Melton (Discover, Vol. 26, No.6, June 2005, pp. 53-57). Some of his thinking is pretty "cutting edge" that could easily lead to some of the things about which we have been talking. For example, a quote from the interview about a hypothetical (but possible) experiment:

"We take a human embryonic stem cell, and we inject it into a monkey blastocyst ...We're purposefully trying to make a chimera - 100 chimeras. Now we're going to look through their bodies and we're going to see what parts of the body the human embryonic stem cell makes...What part of the monkey has to be human in order to have speech?" He goes on to discuss the (unlikely) possibility that this monkey could become as intelligent as a human. He says that although such an experiement were possible, he would not do it - but if it's possible, you can sure be that someone somewhere will try it. Now all of a sudden we are out of the realm of science fiction and into the realm of scienctific possiblity. Scary stuff.

The kind of fiction that you are proposing would give the serious reader the chance to begin thinking about this possiblity long before it appeared as an issue in mainstream society. As an Orthodox Christian, how do we respond to such proposals?; what is its moral load?; what are the theological, spiritual, pastoral implications? By writing about it, the idea is now put into a form in which it can be discussed, thought about, considered even before it becomes reality. Properly done, we are prepared for the eventuality.

Archpr. David Moser

[Robert Hegwood]

Dear Father David,

Bless. Yes it is both scarey and weighty stuff. If one of those chimeras were to be brought to term...was intellegent, was capable of speech, etc., I can imagine the legal questions about rights and personhood would be juridical and forensic gordian knot. But what happens if one of these chimeras gets to grow up. What would the Church say to such a creature? What would the aged bishop do who finds this chimera in waiting his office making inquiry into the faith. Take a chance or send him to the Anglicans because its more than what he knows how to deal with, and they are more flexible in these kind of potentially uncanonical situations?

Hmmm now maybe that&#39;s a book a priest could write.

the unworthy seraphim

[Father David Moser]

I hope you don&#39;t mean me...cause writing speculative fiction is not my bag. However, I will say that these are indeed the kind of questions that need to be &#40;and if I have any input will be&#41; raised in the Church. The Moscow Patriarchate published a very comprehensive document on social doctrine a few years ago and it is indeed a wonderful work - but of course it is in some places already outdated. This kind of work needs to be taken up on a continuing basis, not only by one national church, but by all Orthodox Churches. We need a continuing &#34;social document&#34; or series of documents ongoing on the &#34;problems of modern life&#34; Anybody out there up for founding and editing a journal of Orthodox opinion?

Archpr. David

[Robert Hegwood]

Dear Fr. David

Bless. The only published Orthodox fantasy writer I know is Matushka Donna Farely &#40;OCA&#41;.

As for a journal of Orthodox opinion, if its like most things one will begin with a cathedral full of people who want to start it and a hermitage full of people who want to work to keep it going.

Here&#39;s another creativity question. Someone said earlier, I think you, that &#34;icons&#34; of contemporary social/political leaders like Dr. ML King and Ghandi were beyond the pale.

What if someone wrote a book about the future or perhaps another world like Narnia and the publishers wanted to illustrate it and one of the things they wanted to &#34;illustrate&#34; was a reference to an imaginary/future fictional saint. Is using traditional icon form and technique to create such an illustration a violation of propriety or still within the scope of the acceptable use of a painterly technique because it was never meant to show a &#34;real&#34; saint and is hence just a picture done in a style remanisant of traditional icons?

[Robert Hegwood]

Just an additional thought in this vein that doesn&#39;t have to wait for a future story. What if someone wanted to paint &#34;Aslan&#34; from the Narnia stories in an icongraphic style?

On the one hand tempera and and the byzantine style are just a medium and a stylization technique that has had other purely secular expression...like Grant Wood&#39;s American Gothic &#40;well it gets close&#41;. What would distinguish an iconesque painting from a false icon?

[Vasilis Kirikos]

I don't know much about this subject, even though I am a microbiologist; I have not studied much about stem cells. I do know about "hybrid vigor"; but such a subject is way beneath the advanced range of stem cell "research “.

I recently saw a TV program about a chimp named Oliver who was said to be part human and part chimp. It was said that he had features unlike other chimps and even walked like a man in that he could walk uprightly and had no bowing of the legs as do most chimps.

Moreover, it was touted that Oliver understood commands. One could tell Oliver to take a wheel barrel to one spot, pick up some object, put it in the wheel barrel and drive that wheel barrol to the original spot.

But some biologist who examined Oliver determined that he was nothing more than a chimp.

Hmmm…come to think of it I have seen bears ride motor cycles!! I guess bears must be more advanced than Oliver who can only drive a wheel barrel ! ".

If I am convinced of one thing in my limited studies in the biological sciences it is this...if man can do it nature has already beatem him to it. I was "wowed" beyond belief in my younger days while attending graduate school when I learned that flies and other insects have developed an immunity to DDT when there is NO naturally occurring substance known to man that is similar to DDT.

So how did that happen? I don’t think genetics can explain it. At what point did some allele cross over to produce the necessary gene that would manufacture the necessary antibody or chemical to ward off the effects of DDT?

To my knowledge geneticists seem to always argue that nature is very stingy with its energy; and to manufacture a needless gene to ward off some crazy compound that occurs nowhere in nature is repugnant to what nature always does; i.e., economize. So how is it that some ruminants have cells in their nasal passages that can neutralize certain man made chemicals such as benzene and other known carcinogenic compounds? It is certain that no one genetically engineered these animals; I think that it was a guy named “Clive” who discovered these nasal cells in cattle back in the 1980es. This was all done by nature.

And what about wheat and or clover ? You bodybuilder guys who insist on only consuming the natural stuff had better think twice before you drink nature made wheat germ oil rather than the synthetic stuff.

Why?

Because wheat produces diethylstilbestrol (also known as estrogen; the female sex hormone !). As a matter of fact, so does clover!! Ask the sheep farmers who raised Trifolium subterraneum , common name is "clover" to feed their sheep! They fed this home grown clover to their sheep and guess what happened , or rather what DID NOT HAPPEN IN THE SPRING?? NO OR FEWER BABIES OR SPRING LAMBS!!

So it turns out that nature produced birth control chemicals to limit the number of sheep grazing at the expense of the clover; and likewise wheat produces the same compound to slow the numbers of insects, and sheep...and people too being produced??? YEP! Ummm…I wonder what the pope has to say about this? Isn’t there a papal sanction against birth control?? Do ya think the pope may excommunicate Mother Nature for practicing birth control????

Vasilis

[William Thompson]

Robert,

Thank you for starting this thread. As a poet, I have struggled with these questions for a long time. I would recommend reading, if you're up for a challenge, The Beauty Of The Infinite: The Aesthetics Of Christian Truth, by David Bentley Hart.

Creativity is too important to human life merely to be "allowed" as long as it doesn't interfere with one's "spiritual" life--there's a false dichotomy there. Plus, we live in a time when many think art has to be justified by its function.

Here's a poem a Christian friend of mine wrote, that gets at the heart of the matter, I believe:

Beside the Point

The sky has never won a prize.
The clouds have no careers.
The rainbow doesn't say my work,
thank goodness.

The rock in the creek's not so productive.
The mud on the bank's not too pragmatic.
There's nothing useful in the noise
the wind makes in the leaves.

Buck up now, my fellow superfluity,
and let's both be of that worthless ilk,
self-indulgent as shooting stars,
self-absorbed as sunsets.

Who cares if we're inconsequential?
At least we can revel, two good-for-nothings,
in our irrelevance; at least come and make
no difference with me.

Notice that the poem does not talk about love and kindness and humility, but it does embody them.

Bill

[Moses Anthony]

I would be grateful for whatever insights could be gleaned from this on-line community.

One of the things I've never quite settled since being recieved in the Church is the issue of creative arts outside the venue of liturgical or pragmatic life. For example we have icons, special music, special architecture, etc. that are tied very closely to our colelctive spiritual life. In the world we have need of architects, illustrators, and various kinds of communication specialists. But what of things like writing fiction or poetry, painting imaginary landscapes, or more abstract works just because you like to paint.

This area confuses me. On one hand I'v seen writers like Dostoevsky and Gogol or in the Anglophile world, Lewis praised and honored for their creative contributions. But like some of the postings I've seen here, I've come across plenty that discourages "vain imaginings" and "entertainments".

Would Orthodoxy endure an Orthodox Lewis or Tolkein's fantasy creations, or allegorical stories. What about an Orthodox John Grishom...or even an Orthodox Issac Asimov....

And of course I have selfish reasons for asking these questions. I like to write fiction but am wary of trying to persue it seriously because I'm not sure its right, or just an endulgence of passions...or something more hindrance than help in our age....or any of a half dozen reasons why it may not be a wise course to persue...."

So what are we to do? How is one to think about the use and develoment of creative talents in a non liturgical or non pragmatic context.

Wish I knew...hope someone else out there does.

A long time ago while sitting in a Protestant Sunday School class, paying no attnetion to the teacher as I rummaged through my Bible, I happened upon what God said to Moses, in His instructions on building the Tabernacle. God said to Moses, "...In the hearts of all who are skillful, I have put skill,; that they may make all that I have commanded you." There is a reason for God having me graduate from university with a BFA (Bachelor of Fine Arts) degree> I do not know what it is at this point, since I very rarely practice my talents. I know; however, that as my namesake,Moses, prophet and Godseer, learned in all the learning of the Egyptians, God wasted none of his abilities.

Peace to you from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ

BONDSERVANT OF THE lORD