Mortification of the flesh [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

nurse-aid

22-09-2005, 02:56 PM

Flesh is not physical body, but degree of fall...

We cannot killing flesh itself (body) it will be suduside...it will be agaist GOD's will for us to live...

Yet in order to lower degree of fall, and higher up soul in its original state...we must exspirinece pain when our fleshy fallen state will suffer...

and women gave birth in pain...and child came into this world in pain, and we will die in pain...if not physical, but in pain of separation soul from body....which is pain itself...becuse it is unnatural for us...it is result of the fall...

So the painfull injection give you cahnce to live...so we are choose this...
So the less fleshy (fallen) our nature become the more endure we have to that pain...(martyrs are example)

So not the body guilty of fall, but it is result of fall...so to killing body, means to put others fault on it...and this is not right...

To kill degree of fall, purifying is what make body clean...and not opposit...
becuse many peole destroying own body, by many things and yet it is not make them Saints....

But Saints those who worked hard on fleshy spirutuasl state of own soul...and by the Grace of God...cleanse their hearts...and sanstify their body along with it....

But everyone is different in bodily state...and that is why in nneds of diferent help in order to stive to the spirutual...so in this case it is depends of induviduals how they restain own body in order to help spirit prevaled...

Fr Raphael Vereshack

22-09-2005, 04:23 PM

Dear Byron,

Our faith is ascetic which means that to have a life in Christ we must always be denying ourselves. But of course what we should be denying in ourselves is what is selfish. Here discernment and spiritual guidance is crucial for it is very easy to step over the line from a struggle against selfishness to a masochistic and misplaced fight against oneself. We also must be aware that our struggle goes one step at a time according to God's judgement- to try to defeat selfishness in total in ourselves at one step is also to invite disaster and delusion. Indeed it is a form of pride. And selfishness!

So to answer your question- yes some saints have had a very severe form of asceticism- St Seraphim of Sarov wore a heavy chain of some sort. He also prayed on a rock for 1000 days. But he could also endure the severe beating of thieves who left him half-dead (the attack left him stooped over for the rest of his life) with forgiveness and love. In other words Orthodox asceticism is always measured according to the actual spiritual state and path of the person.

About the quote above- I'm not sure- it sounds off to me as if pain itself was the means of salvation. If this is what was meant it's definitely wrong.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

nurse-aid

22-09-2005, 04:39 PM

Ascetism Mother of God had nothing to do with killing own body and starving and on...outside things...it is MUCH higher state, deeper....were body alredy do not exist...as St.Ksenya...she didn't do to herself those things...she simply didn't not feel cold russian winter and luck of sleep, being in body yet, but beyong it...which of course impossible for us to understnad... but she didn't acuare this things, by killing body...she simply die ones in flesh...not in body..

Edward Henderson

23-09-2005, 05:55 AM

Dear Byron,

I think self-flagellation has never been encouraged in the Orthodox. Self-denial, or accepting sufferings and hardships certainly manifest themselves in the lives of the saints. Father Raphael provided a good example. I know that Elder Joseph the Hesychast used to hit himself with a cane when he felt himself tempted by passions, but the "rule" of regular self-flagellation is not part of the Orthodox Ascetic tradition.

Byron Jack Gaist

23-09-2005, 07:43 AM

Dear Fr Raphael and Edward,

Thank you for your responses. I also feel that some of the more severe ascetic practises are hard to comprehend, and may sometimes have unhelpful psychological motives. The acceptance of voluntary and involuntary suffering is another matter, and at a stretch of the imagination I can also see how it might be right for a person to discipline their flesh, even quite severely, at a specific and appropriate (Fr Raphael, thank you for clarifying that) stage in spiritual development, something practised in most religions. However, I have a big question mark regarding the right expiation for the right sin. If, for the sake of a hypothetical example, I only eat one meal a day and sleep for 4 hours per night, but then I'm proud and full of contempt for others, am I addressing the right sins through my ascetic labours? Will the fasting and the vigil work on my pride by themselves, if I don't challenge the actual proud thoughts and assumptions? There is an old lady living across the road from my house in Nicosia; she listens to hymns and religious programmes very frequently, so loud we can hear it across the road; and yet she has provoked everyone in the neighbourhood, including myself, into a rage because of her aggressive reproaches for parking outside her house (normal practice in Cyprus, we park according to the available space in the street; nevertheless, she actually put mud on my windscreen and down my car engine); I know its not my business as a Christian to judge her, or to fly into a rage when provoked, but I'm wondering: what is happening to all those hymns and religious programmes she is listening to? Do they ever enter her being in any way? If so, why aren't the fires of her own rage and resentments quenched? More experienced spiritual practitioners may be able to help here.

I've strayed from my original question perhaps. Fr Raphael wrote

About the quote above- I'm not sure- it sounds off to me as if pain itself was the means of salvation. If this is what was meant it's definitely wrong.

The original statement certainly spoke of the "redemptive value of pain". This is why I'm wondering: do we consider pain evil? If so, does evil have "redemptive value"? I suppose my big query behind this is: what is the role of evil in salvation? Does evil help us in any way?

Always back to the old chestnuts!

Thanks again for your responses.

In Christ
Byron

Byron Jack Gaist

23-09-2005, 07:51 AM

P.S. Oh, also, the question of physical (or emotional, or whatever) pleasure: presumably if it's not feeding our egotism, there's nothing inherently wrong with it? I can enjoy a good meal, glass of wine, listening to music, watching a good movie etc. without it necessarily being indulgence or sin? Fr Raphael's comment about "always denying ourselves" - isn't all pleasure selfish in a way? Should we ideally not be enjoying anything? Should we be always out trying to help or comfort others (instead of indoors, eating a burger and french fries?!)? And what does that say about matter and the world, or the human senses?

Still perplexed
Byron

Theopesta

23-09-2005, 09:07 AM

I learned from all of you but I find this text in ROM 8: 13

(AKJV) For if you live after the flesh, you shall die: but if you through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, you shall live.

the bible learn us to mortify the deeds of the body not the body itself and this mortification by the through spirit

but finall with what aim and to what aim we mortify the deeds of body and how??!! this is the most important questions to our self in each step

forgive me all for my simple words in between yours

in one christ
theopesta

Theopesta

23-09-2005, 10:04 AM

what are the deeds of body which should be mortify?
GAL v: 19- 20

Leandros Papadopoulos

23-09-2005, 12:37 PM

Dear Byron Jack Gaist,

You submitted a question/quotation, coming from the wikipedia article, which presents the distorted theology of the vatican.

The statement that:

"Theologians also explain that the redemptive value of pain makes pain itself lovable, even though by itself pain is a physical evil. Physical evil though is temporal (not eternal) and limited (not infinite). Thus to undergo pain is "nothing" compared to the eternal and infinite benefits it gains for the person undergoing the self-inflicted suffering. And for those with this supernatural viewpoint, pain is loved relative to the good it produces. Thus, one of the more contemporary saints like Josemaria Escriva said, while consoling a dying lady who was suffering in the hospital, "Blessed be pain! Glorified be pain! Sanctified be pain!"

is a distortion of Christian theology of colossal proportions.

The article comes even to suggest that there is a “Need for suffering” and that “to take up the cross” is to pain and that Christ had asked “follow me” like saying “Come! Take part through your suffering in this work of saving the world, a salvation achieved through my suffering! Through my Cross.” (!)

Brother Byron Jack Gaist, all these are fatal misunderstandings of the genuine Christian life.

Pain is unacceptable for Christian life. Pain has no place in Heaven and it does not have a proper place on earth, it is an intruder. To say that “Pain is an integral part of human nature united to the Person of Christ” in the context of the wikipedia article is blasphemy. Vatican theology, having lost the grace of God as experience of Life, reckons man with created measures. Salvation IS NOT achieved through Christ suffering. It is achieved through HIM.

Pain, as a natural dimension, is corruption, deterioration, offence, a disnatured value. There is no need for suffering and there is no call for suffering, in taking up the Cross to follow Christ. Acceptance of pain is one of the greatest sins.

Asceticism in Orthodoxy has nothing to do with pain. Asceticism is not a methodology, but it is participation to the glory of God, it is a life of love, it is a life in relation with the Father, through Christ, in Spirit. In this context, all virtues and all evils (one of which is pain) are being exceeded. In Orthodox asceticism everything is being linked to Holy Spirit. Only in commune with the Spirit was St Seraphim of Sarov - and every other saint – capable to sustain the ascetic acts with a logical attitude, because he was not insane. An Orthodox ascetic is an exercitant, the ascetic practices Love in communion with the Spirit. The Orthodox ascetic does not seek pain. The experience of Love in Spirit is the existential realization of relation with the Father through Christ. This experience is transforming pain, pleasure, happiness, sorrow and every natural or evil mode of existence into a personal presence in front of Glory of God.

The ascetic acts that are presented in the Ladder (Climax) of St John of Mount Sina, seem painful and repulsive, even irrational, but they are NOT presented as methods of achieving salvation. They are presented as desperate acts of people who have lost the commune with the Spirit. This experience of lost communion with the Spirit brings persons in the despair of realizing hell. The lost of Grace of Christ is a direct experience of hell. In this stage the person lives the absurd experience of being in nothingness and self denial is not an act of self punishment and self pain but it is an ontological realization of being “not in personal commune with God”. This is HELL. This behavior is not a “Christian practice”, but it is practiced by Christians who have in their hearts the LOVE FOR GOD, but they miss the personal relation with Him.

It is false to justify the means and not to take in account the person who performs an act and the relation in which this person is. It is wrong to justify the passions of Christ without taking in account Christ Himself and His relation with the Father in Spirit. Orthodox theology states that Christ was glorified by the Father in the specific passions that He wend through and in them we praise through Christ the Father in Spirit. The pain, the death, the mortification were performed in Christ for the Glorification of the Father in Spirit. For death, pain and mortification were all defeated in Christ.

The victory of Christ over death, pain, mortification is not their acceptance and their restoration but it is their ontological destruction. They may exist as evils but they do not have ontological substance. They can not exist in a relational mode; they vanish as long as personal communion between persons is restored. Love is above all.

May God bless us, all.

nurse-aid

23-09-2005, 02:01 PM

againg...St.Mary of Egypt spend 17 years of burned her passion in the dessert...then after her body become almost not exist and she do not eat anymore and walk on water...yet she restrain her body for it...yet it is happend AFTER soul previaled...

St.Nectarious wasn't sever asketic about his body and he sleeped on regular bed...
St.John of Shanhi...never sleep in bed and only sit a liitle...
St.Antony the Great was sever asketic in desret...
St.John of Kronshtad was wearin fine clothes and live with wife and was among peole alll the time...

so we are all different as Saints also different peole...and need diferent methods...

M.C. Steenberg

23-09-2005, 03:49 PM

Dear Byron and others,

My role here in the community varies and shifts routinely. At present it seems that I am primarily disagreeing with other views posted here, in various threads. This is not my modus operandi, but I do feel it at times must be done. So with this new thread as well. Speaking with too much emphatic insistence often mingles dangerous points with the proper. The conversation on 'pain' and 'mortification' brings up some of this. I am troubled by what is implied by some of the following:

Pain is unacceptable for Christian life. Pain has no place in Heaven and it does not have a proper place on earth, it is an intruder. To say that “Pain is an integral part of human nature united to the Person of Christ” in the context of the wikipedia article is blasphemy.

This is the kind of remark that mingles wheat and tares. The quoted comment from Wikipedia can be blasphemous or perfectly orthodox, depending on how one is reading the 'human nature' discussed (is it nature in the ontological sense of full and true human being? or in the existential sense of distorted human reality manifested in the fallenness of sin?). The phrase 'pain has no place in heaven' is perhaps correct (though perhaps not entirely; there is still sorrow and rejoicing in heaven over the state of a sinner); but that pain 'does not have a proper place on earth' is not. Pain, suffering, are part of the bodily nature of human reality created by God. In its distortion it is inimical to Christian life; but as with various passions (e.g. anger, joy, sorrow) it is ascetically purifiable, and can come to the good of holy and true life. A tortured soul or body should feel pain, it is right that it does; and the pain evokes response. A lethargy of false-comfort may find respite through the propulsion forward in repentance and purification offered by pain.

To treat of pain as an end in and of itself is a distortion, but this is true of all things. The concept of taking on excessive acts of pain-orientated mortification (e.g. flagellation, laceration) is to misunderstand pain and its purpose. Pain is not a sacred reality of its own: it is a tool of compunction, when known and embraced properly. We do not strive for pain qua pain, but for repentance, growth and union with God that at times is spurred on by the true pain of rebellion against him. This leads to two other comments that again seem to distort:

Salvation IS NOT achieved through Christ suffering. It is achieved through HIM.

There is no need for suffering and there is no call for suffering, in taking up the Cross to follow Christ. acceptance of pain is one of the greatest sins.

It is of course true that salvation comes through Christ and not through some specific aspect of an act of Christ's; but separation of Christ and his acts is impossible. It is 'through the Cross that joy comes into all the world' through the Son, and Orthodox depictions of the apatheia of the crucifixion are not meant to rid us of a picture of pain. Pain is intrinsic to crucifixion, to the cross, and to Christ's self-offering on the cross. The apatheia of the passion (a wonderful paradox of terms) is precisely that the 'pain', together with the other pathoi both bodily and spiritual of the crucifixion, are transcended in the Son's obedient act of love toward the Father. It is not that the pain is foreign, irrelevant or excluded. Pain is embraced and conquered, itself transfigured. Which leads to a further point:

Asceticism in Orthodoxy has nothing to do with pain. Asceticism is not a methodology, but it is participation to the glory of God, it is a life of love, it is a life in relation with the Father, through Christ, in Spirit. [...] This experience is transforming pain, pleasure, happiness, sorrow and every natural or evil mode of existence into a personal presence in front of Glory of God.

Asceticism is the life of participation in God, but it is also a methodology of entering into and advancing in that life. Asctical practice is part of ascetical life, and this practice is not void of nor dismissive of pain. It does not embrace it as such as a thing of unique merit or purpose; but it understands it as part of the arsenal of created reality that can be and is both used against man by Satan, and, in Christ, against Satan by man.

In a sense this harks back to an earlier conversation in another thread, on the question of 'blessedness' with respect to errors and faults in St Peter (and, by extrapolation, all others). To be blessed does not mean to be free from error, but in Christ to transcend one's shortcomings and faults so that even these faults become 'positive' tools for advancement in Christian life. So here, the life in Christ does not involve and absence of appreciation for pain, but an acknowledgement that, in Christ, pain is transfigured. Its force as acting against God and his creation is destroyed; the weapon turned against man is now turned against the devil.

INXC, Matthew

Fr Raphael Vereshack

23-09-2005, 03:55 PM

Byron wrote:

However, I have a big question mark regarding the right expiation for the right sin. If, for the sake of a hypothetical example, I only eat one meal a day and sleep for 4 hours per night, but then I'm proud and full of contempt for others, am I addressing the right sins through my ascetic labours?

Asceticism is part of our effort to die to ourselves. But its type & measure must be something that God has directed us to through the advice of our spiritual fathers. Otherwise the danger is that we will be selfishly fighting a battle of our own choosing- like the sins that frustrate us.

Even with specific sins that we are trying to struggle against the measure we use must not be the result of self-direction.

The main point is that we are trying to fight against the force of death and sin- not just change certain types of behaviour. In this sense it is crucial that we understand that our work is spiritual and not psychological. And in this way the measure of asceticism we have been led to by God is the measure needed to reconstruct the house from the foundation up- something which we can partly perhaps see. But it is also something we do not at all see fully. So just like Abraham leaving his own homeland to find the Land of Promise the ascetic tone of our our life is also very much an act of faith.

Along this path there will be many falls due to the fact that sin is still very much present. The danger for us is that every time we sense we have made a step forward we fall into pride. So the road to healing is one of standing and falling, and getting up again. In the midst of this we can also be like your neighbour who does embarrassing things. Sometimes it is only God Who knows whether we act from Pharasaic 'righteousness' or from a thorn in the flesh. At the end of the day it depends on whether the person feels compunction for what they do. But few know this except for God and perhaps a spiritual father. Perhaps these 'ladies' are ascetic blessings in disguise for us!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Leandros Papadopoulos

23-09-2005, 06:20 PM

Dear Dr M.C. Steenberg,

Would you clarify the following sentence for me: "Asctical practice is part of ascetical life, and this practice is not void of nor dismissive of pain".

If you present an example, it would be very helpful to me in order to understand the differences between our points of view.

I apologize for the request.

Leandros

Leandros Papadopoulos

23-09-2005, 06:35 PM

There is an old lady living across the road from my house in Nicosia; she listens to hymns and religious programmes very frequently, so loud we can hear it across the road; and yet she has provoked everyone in the neighbourhood, including myself, into a rage because of her aggressive reproaches for parking outside her house (normal practice in Cyprus, we park according to the available space in the street

Brother Byron, I have two neighbours just like yours. Each family has two cars and they fight, each other, at least once per month. They are very protective of their "private" park places, which are actually "virtual places" at the public road in front of their houses.

May be there is an epidemic for protecting non existed virtual parking places! http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/lol.gif

M.C. Steenberg

23-09-2005, 09:43 PM

Would you clarify the following sentence for me: "Asctical practice is part of ascetical life, and this practice is not void of nor dismissive of pain". If you present an example [...]

I'm not sure how to cite specific examples of this, apart from references to the actual praxis of asceticism in the lives of various saints and fathers. Of these there are a great many.

More important is to clarify the concept. The pain felt by the body, as well as the soul, is part of its created status and not foreign to it. It is not a stranger or an alien to the human condition. Pain which leads to death is that which is alien, that which is to be abhorred as foreign. But pain is itself part of the sensory reality of our body-soul construction. Even basic analogies such as the 'pin-prick of compunction' are grounded in the reality of this aspect of human being.

Asceticism is the life of this reality and no other. Some element of physical and mental pain is present in true ascetical warfare: the body is accustomed to certain ills, to certain tendencies, and the soul accustomed to its own fallen ways of existing. To turn from these is an act of pain. But in the ascetic life, in the life in Christ, the source of the pain changes: pain is not felt in departing from sin, but in the awareness of sin's binding of life to death. This is transfiguring pain, seen in aches of long vigil, the toils of direct labour, the hunger of the prolonged fast.

INXC, Matthew

Byron Jack Gaist

26-09-2005, 09:28 AM

Dear All,

Thank you for your many helpful comments.

Matthew wrote

Some element of physical and mental pain is present in true ascetical warfare: the body is accustomed to certain ills, to certain tendencies, and the soul accustomed to its own fallen ways of existing. To turn from these is an act of pain. But in the ascetic life, in the life in Christ, the source of the pain changes: pain is not felt in departing from sin, but in the awareness of sin's binding of life to death. This is transfiguring pain, seen in aches of long vigil, the toils of direct labour, the hunger of the prolonged fast.

This reminds me of St Paul's distiction between godly and ungodly sorrow; might one say that there exists godly and ungodly pain, or perhaps godly and ungodly ways of experiencing pain?

Fr Raphael wrote

Asceticism is part of our effort to die to ourselves. But its type & measure must be something that God has directed us to through the advice of our spiritual fathers. Otherwise the danger is that we will be selfishly fighting a battle of our own choosing- like the sins that frustrate us. Even with specific sins that we are trying to struggle against the measure we use must not be the result of self-direction. The main point is that we are trying to fight against the force of death and sin- not just change certain types of behaviour. In this sense it is crucial that we understand that our work is spiritual and not psychological. And in this way the measure of asceticism we have been led to by God is the measure needed to reconstruct the house from the foundation up- something which we can partly perhaps see. But it is also something we do not at all see fully. So just like Abraham leaving his own homeland to find the Land of Promise the ascetic tone of our our life is also very much an act of faith.

Fr Raphael, thank you for reminding me of the importance of the (long-term) spiritual perspective offered by the spiritual father. Certainly "symptom-oriented" approaches to changing behaviour are, in my own professional opinion, not ultimately successful in psychotherapy either. Mostly another symptom replaces the one that has been eliminated, since the underlying cause of the disorder has not been successfully addressed. It seems to me that this is one of the dangers of purely rationalistic approaches to the complexity of human being. Having faith in the process is also essential.

Nope, no substitute for doing the hard work I'm afraid! No pain, no gain. And may God forgive me for my idling about it - my faith is weak, and I will be needing prayers from my Christian brothers and sisters to make it stronger.

Once again, many thanks to all.

In Christ
Byron

M.C. Steenberg

26-09-2005, 09:57 AM

Dear Byron, you asked:

This reminds me of St Paul's distiction between godly and ungodly sorrow; might one say that there exists godly and ungodly pain, or perhaps godly and ungodly ways of experiencing pain?

I would think the answer is both. There is pain that is part of being a human creature, and as a natural part of that composition is 'godly' inasmuch as it is part of God's handiwork. But there is also inflicted pain, pain unnatural to created reality, wrought at the hands of others - whether spiritual or corporeal foes. This is certainly 'ungodly'.

But there are also godly and ungodly ways of receiving, experiencing and living pain, whether it comes to us naturally or unnaturally. Natural pain, the pain of authentic struggle against accustomisation to the wrong, the pain of body, etc., can be transformed into ungodly realities when taken up in the wrong manner. Conversely, unnatural pain, even demonic pain, can work for good in a person who unites all his experiences to Christ.

INXC, Matthew

Leandros Papadopoulos

27-09-2005, 05:46 PM

Dear Dr M.C. Steenberg,

Thank you for your remarks.

My previous message (no 285) in this thread was written in the same spirit with your messages (which still seems to me to be same in substance and different in formation, after having read them many times).

My heart in this matter is expressed in the prayer from the service burial: "...Please Lord repose your servant in a verdurous place, in a refreshing place, where there is no pain, no sorrow and no moan..."

Leandros

M.C. Steenberg

27-09-2005, 07:13 PM

Dear Leandros,

I'm not convinced that we are saying the same thing, though perhaps areas overlap (one would hope so). I do think that several points (those I raised above, in my post no. 763), vis-a-vis the suffering of Christ, the acceptance of pain, the place of pain in asceticism, etc., are not subtle questions of phrasing or perspective, but fundamental issues that are not in harmony with one another. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

INXC, Matthew

Byron Jack Gaist

28-09-2005, 08:42 AM

Dear all,

The disagreement between Leandros' and Matthew's perspectives seems to tap right into my initial query about pain, namely, do we consider pain to be good or evil? Leandros quotes the burial service prayer, which implies that pain has no place in heaven; yet as Matthew pointed out earlier, there is still sorrow even in heaven over sin on earth. If pain is only evil, then should Christians try to avoid it in some way (as if that were possible, except through some form of psychological denial)? Is pain good then? I'm specifically trying to avoid talking about "categories" of pain, though I'm aware this is oversimplifying, because I want to emphasize pain as a general phenomenon, a fact which includes all discomfort, stress, sorrow and physical pain in the world. Is it a scandal to Christian consciousness, an awful result of the Fall, or should we embrace pain in some way, try to see something more in it, or pray to be granted insight in regard to it?

In Christ
Byron

M.C. Steenberg

28-09-2005, 10:05 AM

Dear Byron,

Your last post revealed two types of or broad approaches to pain: pain that is to be avoided, which does not exist in heaven; and pain which is embraced, which is echoed in the angels' lament in heaven for a sinner. It is in the balance of the two that an authentic understanding of this pathos emerges; for like so much else in human existence, it is a reality of created being, and as such, one that cannot be called evil or foreign 'by nature', yet which can be used in foreign ways to evil ends. The same is true of the feeling of joy, or of bodily comfort. Pain is not to be categorised on its own as a separate kind of reality. It is only when this is taken on board that such hymns as that of the memorial service, which speaks of a place where there is no pain, are appreciated for what they really mean, and not taken to imply that one aspect of created natural reality is in some sense absent.

INXC, Matthew

[George] Blaisdell

28-09-2005, 05:12 PM

There is pain, and there is pain. The world under the rulership of demons is guided carefully unto death by the goads of both pleasure and pain. We seek pleasure, and we avoid pain. And when we give up pleasures, that is experienced as pain. [Ask any fat person on a diet!]

Yet to reverse the order is not enough. It is not enough to just substitute love of pain and hatred of pleasure so as to 'advance'... We are called to Godly lives, and that involves living spiritual lives of prayer in repentance from the world, obeying the commandments of Christ. We cannot merely renounce the world. We must embrace Christ.

Most strugglers so often forget Christ throughout the day and the night. I sure do. I get really hungry and in a hurry under the press of the day's scheduling, and grab a sandwich and get two bites into it in traffic only to remember that I have not thanked God for my food and blessed it and myself unto His service... And in hundreds of ways, each day, in the world, such things happen.

And one of the ways that real ascetics, unlike me, deal with this is to have some hidden thing give them a constant discomfort [pain], so as to be a constant reminder not to forget God ever.

I remember the story of the monk who was praying and a fly landed on his cheek and distracted him, and he slapped the fly and killed it. And he thought a moment, and realized that he had struck out in anger, and that he had been dealing with that problem for a lot of years, with only varying successes. And he got up, walked out of the monastery, and down to the slough nearby, and took off his clothes, and stayed there three days and nights in prayer, allowing himself to be feasted upon and stung by all manner of insects. When he returned from that vigil, all bitten and swollen, he returned to his duties, with not a word, and never struck out in anger again...

Such can be the mercy of God, in the perfecting of the saints...

May this response prove more beneficial than harmful...

Arsenios

Father David Moser

28-09-2005, 07:36 PM

I've been gone for a while and not able to read or respond to these discussions so pardon me if I seem to come in a bit "late".

The idea of "self mortification" in the Western confessions comes from the legal perspective of the fall and sin (the fall/sin is "breaking a rule" of which we become guilty and must be "punished" and the guilt purged from us - if we do not punish ourselves sufficiently and purge the guilt, then God will consign us with hell based on the presence of unpurged guilt. IN this model sin and guilt are something external that are imposed from the outside. Protestantism takes this same model and uses "magic" - some vague power called "grace" that zaps the guilt away when the proper words - eg. the prayer of salvation - are said).

This is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church. The Fall was a failure to grow and develop as we should (turning aside from/rebelling against the image and likeness of God) Sin is an internal condition, an illness that affects the whole being. Our salvation is not about "getting rid of the guilt" but rather about acquiring grace (that is the presence of the Holy Spirit). That grace is not some vague undefined force, but rather the actual and real presence of God and it does not work by "magic" but rather it works in syngery with our own will. (Do not mistake this for "salvation by works" but rather that we cannot just sit and wait for the magic to happen, rather we have to cooperate with God's work in our lives).

Thus, in the west, "mortification of the flesh" or self inflicted pain is reactive - it is necessitated in response to the guilt that has already consumed us as the means by which this guilt is "purged". OTOH in Orthodoxy the ascetic life is *proactive*. The ascetic life and the denial of self serves the purpose to *avoid* following the path of sin. We set aside our own will to align ourselves instead with the will of God. Sometimes temptation can be so difficult that we find that a "reminder" is helpful to keep us from turning aside into sin or that an artificial barrier is useful in propping us up in the path of salvation or in keeping us alert and attentive to repel the attacks of the enemy. There is no "guilt" (personal or ancestral) to "purge", rather there is the injury of sin that needs to be healed and the temptations to return to sin that need to be avoided and resisted.

Thus in the west, "mortification of the flesh" is actually salvific, an integral part of the process of salvation; whereas, in Orthodoxy, "mortification of the flesh" is not in integral part of salvation, but rather an artifical "aid" or a "crutch" that helps us in the path of salvaiton but which is not in and of itself efficacious.

Also on the question of whether pain is "good" and to be sought or "evil" and to be avoided - pain just is, it is neither good nor evil, but rather a condition of this fallen world. As long as we live in the world we cannot avoid pain. The importance is not how much pain we experience (or avoid), but rather how we respond to the pain that we do experience. If our response draws us nearer to God and brings us into closer communion with God, then it is a good response. If our response inflames the passions and sets a barrier between ourselves and God then it is not a good response.
But pain, in and of itself from the spiritual perspective is neither good/desireable nor evil/undesirable.

Archpriest David Moser

Owen Jones

28-09-2005, 08:36 PM

My understanding is that our definition of flesh is not a literal defintion, such as skin and bones, but rather an image that represents our existential condition -- our fleshly existence condition by and governed by the passions. So mortification of the flesh is valid in a truly Orthodox sense through the practice of the ascetical virtues that place the passions under the control of our noetic faculties.

The problems of objectification and literalization is a constant problem in religious consciousness, and one which the West has become particularly prone to. In Orthodoxy, we understand the validity of a symbol as both the reality itself and something that is representative. This is due to the God-given victory of Orthodoxy in the iconoclastic controversy.

Byron Jack Gaist

29-09-2005, 08:44 AM

Dear all,

Regarding pain, Matthew wrote:

like so much else in human existence, it is a reality of created being, and as such, one that cannot be called evil or foreign 'by nature', yet which can be used in foreign ways to evil ends. The same is true of the feeling of joy, or of bodily comfort. Pain is not to be categorised on its own as a separate kind of reality.

Then Antonios wrote:

The world under the rulership of demons is guided carefully unto death by the goads of both pleasure and pain.

Then Fr David Moser also wrote:

pain, in and of itself from the spiritual perspective is neither good/desireable nor evil/undesirable.

I think I'm beginning to see a consensus of opinion here. If I'm getting it right, the idea is that both pain and pleasure are simply aspects of created reality, which in and of themselves bear no ethical value. What makes either of these phenomena then "good" or "bad" is whether or not they are experienced or responded to in a way which brings us closer to, or draws us further away from, God.

This sounds correct to my limited understanding; however, I still have a question regarding the relation in this case between ontology and ethics: is anything - an apple, a table, a cheeseburger (I'm fond of using cheeseburgers in my examples!), pain, pleasure - anything in the created universe without some ultimate ethical value? If a thing exists as God ordained it (or in the case of cheeseburgers and tables, as made by man) then is it not in some sense good? And surely then it is the Lord Himself who instituted both pain and pleasure - or are they results of the Fall, as Fr David Moser suggests:

it is neither good nor evil, but rather a condition of this fallen world

This is part of what for me is currently a much bigger question: what relationship ought a Christian have to the created world in its fallen condition? How on earth do we go about continuing the Work that the Lord began in His Resurrection? (bold words from an armchair believer) This may sound crazy, but is an apple tree good? Should we love this apple tree, and tend it, or should it be just another thing in a world of things heading towards destruction anyway?

Antonios, thank you for the great story about the monk and the insects!

In Christ
Byron

Antonios

29-09-2005, 09:46 PM

Byron, your very welcome, though I cant take all the credit (in fact, none of the credit) since George Blaisdell wrote the post!

Byron Jack Gaist

30-09-2005, 07:10 AM

Oops, you're right there, Antonios, I should have thanked Arsenios!

[George] Blaisdell

30-09-2005, 07:37 AM

Byron writes:
"I still have a question regarding the relation in this case between ontology and ethics: is anything - an apple, a table, a cheeseburger (I'm fond of using cheeseburgers in my examples!), pain, pleasure - anything in the created universe without some ultimate ethical value?"

I am very sorry to have to be the one to inform you, Byron, but you are going to have to give up cheeseburgers...

Because you like them.

And you will have to take up eating cold beet soup, because you do not!

All of which, of course, is wrong.

The issue is, are you letting the world [of cheeseburgers, beet soup, and apple cobblers, among the bizillions of other things desirable or avoidable] dictate or determine your conduct, your actions, your thoughts. And in the process of the purification of the heart, the only motive that matters is God's will. So that the whole world is of ethical value, because it gives us choices [and some of us compulsions!]... We can choose to obey God, and fast, for instance, with the canons of the Church, or we can choose to obey our desire for that quarter pounder with cheese. The cheeseburger has normative value because it is a temptation.

The whole world has value, in that it is repentable by mankind. And in this, by God's grace, we can find salvation. In it, we can find both good and evil.

Food, on the other hand, is pretty much needed - Christ both ate and fasted, and we are to follow Him... But the value of the world is that it affords the penitant the opportunity to turn from self and unto God, in the face of temptations, and that is a lot of what repentance is about.

And Byron continues:
"If a thing exists as God ordained it (or in the case of cheeseburgers and tables, as made by man) then is it not in some sense good? And surely then it is the Lord Himself who instituted both pain and pleasure - or are they results of the Fall, as Fr David Moser suggests:

quote:

"it is neither good nor evil, but rather a condition of this fallen world"

Christ embraced the pain of the cross, and saved the world, turning upside-down the normative world that embraces pleasure and avoids pain. It is this that the demons rely upon, our desire for pleasure and our avoidance of pain. That will lead us to death. Life is only by obedience to Christ.

Quote:
"This is part of what for me is currently a much bigger question: what relationship ought a Christian have to the created world in its fallen condition? How on earth do we go about continuing the Work that the Lord began in His Resurrection? (bold words from an armchair believer) This may sound crazy, but is an apple tree good? Should we love this apple tree, and tend it, or should it be just another thing in a world of things heading towards destruction anyway?"

Compassion, I should think, is key, [for the whole world groans in the travail of pain, because of our sinfulness...] And love... And helpfulness... And prayer and weeping...

Quote:
"Arsenios, thank you for the great story about the monk and the insects!"

I ran that story by a very 'spiritual' Protestant Christian woman travelling with her family, and all she could say was that the guy [the monk] over-reacted, and that he was far too hard on himself for just swatting a fly - And that generally, the punishment simply did not fit the crime... And I was unable to tell her that it was NOT punishment for a crime...

Lord have mercy - The grand-daughter, at least, got it...

Arsenios

nurse-aid

30-09-2005, 02:38 PM

and i never can get WHY we still have the same Rule of Fast as centures ago...Back then was only meat, eggs and milk...all simle and basic food....and healthy one...it was like OT...

now we are sick and food is safisticated, as our own taste...even doctors know about our bodily condition that evryone is different...and need different diet...

so the spirutual fast...must be individually set...according to passion and condition...and it maybe only clue...only hint in order to find that sick spot, and then start to fast in that derection...

Becuse what's the profit for alhogolic do not eat anything but drink...he is alredy do not eat...what's the profit for vegetarian to fast that way...he is not fighting anything...and on...

M.C. Steenberg

03-10-2005, 02:17 AM

Byron wrote:

I still have a question regarding the relation in this case between ontology and ethics: is anything - an apple, a table, a cheeseburger (I'm fond of using cheeseburgers in my examples!), pain, pleasure - anything in the created universe without some ultimate ethical value? If a thing exists as God ordained it (or in the case of cheeseburgers and tables, as made by man) then is it not in some sense good? And surely then it is the Lord Himself who instituted both pain and pleasure - or are they results of the Fall, as Fr David Moser suggests

Possibly this needs to be refined just a touch, along the lines of asking whether pain is a 'thing', and as such a 'thing' created by God. Or is it an attribute of a thing? the way a thing reacts to given actions upon and within it?

The teaching of the Church is clear, as is scripture itself, that all things created by God are 'good, yea very good', and cannot be ascribed evil, or even ethical neutrality, on account of being the handiwork of God himself. But realities such as pain or pleasure, which to some degree are born out of God's creation (i.e. as an attribute of corporeality) are in fact neutral in and of themselves: they can be used to good or to vice.

INXC, Matthew

Byron Jack Gaist

03-10-2005, 07:29 AM

Arsenios wrote :

And I was unable to tell her that it was NOT punishment for a crime...

I'm aware of two ways of understanding sin: sin is the failure to follow one's calling to become as God intends. Hence it is either a violation of God's law (and therefore of our true nature), or a kind of illness. Is this what you mean, Arsenios, when you say that the monk was not seeking punishment for a crime? You see, I sometimes wonder if the need for all this repentance is not because the world is a very fragile place, easily bruised, and everything we break or consume or discard adds to the debt we must pay off in tears. Maybe this is too rationalistic though, and springs out of my difficulty in understanding what it is I have to repent of or to be saved from. Last night I read a brief saying of the desert fathers, in which a certain monk asks an abba what the world is; part of the abba's response is that the world is when man goes against his nature and satisfies his desires. I don't know if "going against one's nature" and "satisfying one's desires" is being equated there, but if it is, then is it naive of me to ask: if those are my most honest desires, how can they be unnatural? In other words, what is that true nature which one makes manifest by avoiding sin and pursuing virtue?

Matthew, I'm not sure I understand the distinction you draw between things created by God, which are "very good", and things born out of God's creation (like pleasure and pain), which are neutral in themselves. Why is an apple tree part of God's creation, but the pleasure I feel in eating an apple not part of God's creation?

I like your personalised approach to fasting, nurse-aid; it makes a lot of sense. I think a lot of protestants just give up something they like (alas, in my case I guess it would be cheeseburgers) for lent. But how Orthodox is this approach? Would our spiritual father personalise our fasting regimen, or just tell us to abstain from the traditional foods like eggs and cheese?

In Christ
Byron

M.C. Steenberg

03-10-2005, 10:13 AM

Dear Byron, you wrote:

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you draw between things created by God, which are "very good", and things born out of God's creation (like pleasure and pain), which are neutral in themselves. Why is an apple tree part of God's creation, but the pleasure I feel in eating an apple not part of God's creation?

The difference between an apple tree and the pleasure you take at eating an apple, to use your example, is that an apple tree and an apple are created things -- concrete realities with their own unique being and substance. The pleasure one feels at eating an apple, however, is a response to this thing and this act, and is occasioned by innumerable factors. We may feel pleasure at eating the apple at first, but later shame at not having offered it to our hungry neighbour; we may feel pleasure that comes partially from the taste of the fruit, partly from pride at having 'fended for ourselves' (to come up with just two examples). The 'passion' of pleasure in this instance is not a thing unto itself, but an embrace of and response to created reality -- ours and the world's. While the apple will always be an apple, good as a creation of the Lord no matter what is done with or to it, the passion of pleasure we feel in response to the apple can become a thing for good or for evil.

INXC, Matthew

Byron Jack Gaist

03-10-2005, 01:08 PM

Dear Matthew,

Thank you for your response. I guess it makes more sense now; perhaps I've been too concrete about this issue, identifying the experience of pleasure and pain with the passage of neurotransmitters along synapses in the brain (whereby the pleasure derived from eating an apple is the same thing as the amount of, f.e. serotonin this act releases into the synaptic vesicles in the brain cortex). You correctly reminded me that "pleasure" is not just a bodily response, but an event in the psyche or soul,with a phenomenology of its own, tinged with an ethical aspect one might say. The neurological event, as such, parallels but does not necessarily cause the experience anymore than electrons travelling at certain sppeds in the mind (oops, I mean brain) of Shakespeare "caused" the writing of Hamlet.

In Christ
Byron

Leandros Papadopoulos

03-10-2005, 10:18 PM

Dear friends,

The issues of "phenomenology" and of “iconic” reality are bringing to surface the question that brother Byron Jack Gaist originally asked: “Are bodily pleasures good or evil in Orthodox theology?” If we maintain a subjectively valued measure for “experiences” then we restrain the “truth” in our limited existential valuation. I think, this point deserves to be highlighted.

The “exercise” of a Christian is like the training of an athlete. When a marathon racer is on the track he is expected to experience physical pain. Therefore he is training with an experienced trainer in order to learn how to endure pain and at the same time to achieve his goal as he runs towards the finish line. The pain in itself is part of a certain “character”, that is, the marathon runner. But pain is not a valued experience in its own. What is coming from an athlete’s effort is not an experience of good or evil, but a persistence that is expressed by his invincible desire to me the people at the finish line. For the goal of finishing the race is to meet the people in the finish line; this was the goal of the original marathon’s race in the first place. According to the myth, in 490 bc, the runner Pheidippides run from ancient Marathon to ancient Athens, 26 miles/42 Km, in order to inform Athenians about the victory of Greeks over the Persians and then he died on the spot from exhaustion. And he would have not done this if the Persians would have not attacked Greece, letting Athenians in agony for their future.

In this context, pain has a specific origin; it is not a natural human characteristic, it is the characteristic of an acquired character: of a man who goes through “unnatural” circumstances in order to meet other persons. The others are the liberation from pain. They are the “finish line”.

Genesis(3:16-20)

To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, And to dust you shall return.”

And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

What is blessed is not the “pain”; blessed is not the “race”; blessed is the meeting with the persons at the finish line, even if we are to die with-for them (in the hope of this blessing, we tolerate the intolerable). The experience of running is subjective but the termination at the finish line is the most unexpected experienced existential reality beyond any running experience. And beyond the finish line, there is no stadium to run and to practise and to pain and to labour. Beyond the finish line is the reality of meeting with other persons.

Brother Byron, let me rephrase your question “Are bodily pleasures good or evil in Orthodox theology?” into “For whom am I pleased, or am I in pain?” If the person in question is a real person, then I will meet him at the finish line; if he is a virtual person then the finish line is also imaginary and there will be no meeting.

May God bless us, all.

Byron Jack Gaist

04-10-2005, 08:08 AM

Dear Leandros,

Thank you for your latest post, in which you highlight the importance of the Person or persons for whom pain or pleasure is experienced. I'm not sure if I've understood you correctly, nor am I a professional philosopher, but it seems we have a slightly different understanding of the term "phenomenological" : I do not use it as synonymous with the term "iconic". Phenomenology for me is merely the careful study of phenomena, and does not say anything about their essential reality, which belongs to the field of ontology. A phenomenon may or may not have an ontological foundation in Reality (whatever that is). Nevertheless, this may be a side issue: the important message seems to me to be that "for Whom" of the experience which you rightly point to.

There is, however, another point here, a more difficult one perhaps, related to the issue of Reality (I use the capital "R" to indicate the One Ultimate Reality which I assume underlies every phenomenon which is not in some way illusory). Patrick Walsh has recently posted on the use of the term "passion" in another thread; perhaps the issue of pain and pleasure may be linked to this, as what is being called into question is the Real nature of human being; for me, one way of defining this is by referring to Human Nature as God intended it in the first place, prior to the Fall and always increasing in its likeness to Him. For me as a psychologist, this a particularly interesting question (although I realise it cannot be answered empirically and sadly must remain in the realm of philosophical / theological speculation, "for now we see through a glass, darkly"). But I'll go ahead and ask it anyway:

What is our original nature? Were we sentient beings even in Paradise? Did we experience attraction and attachment to things? Did we experience pain or discomfort there? Did we have any impulses, drives, instincts?

In Christ
Byron

M.C. Steenberg

04-10-2005, 09:57 AM

Dear Leandros,

I very much enjoyed your recent post (your no. 309 in the present thread). The analogy of the race and the runner seems to me very apt to the task of describing the themes we've been discussing here (and you're in good stead employing it, as St Paul did as well http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif). There is just one point that I think should be qualified somewhat. You wrote:

The "exercise" of a Christian is like the training of an athlete. When a marathon racer is on the track he is expected to experience physical pain. Therefore he is training with an experienced trainer in order to learn how to endure pain and at the same time to achieve his goal as he runs towards the finish line. The pain in itself is part of a certain "character", that is, the marathon runner. But pain is not a valued experience in its own. What is coming from an athlete’s effort is not an experience of good or evil, but a persistence that is expressed by his invincible desire to me the people at the finish line.

This harks back to some of what has been said in earlier in this thread, namely on pain as part of the ascetic struggle, and a useful part at that (I would of course be remiss if I didn't nudge you and ask how it fits with your initial observation that pain isn't part of asceticism!). But it seems to me that there is some sense in which, in our bodily nature which 'physicalizes' struggles in our corporeality, the pain experienced at combatting that which hinders us becomes, in a limited and qualified right, a positive and sought-for sign of growth. The runner does want to feel pain, a strong burning in the legs, as this is sign of the muscle tissue dividing and growing; the pain is sought after since it is linked inextricably with the ultimate goal. This seems correlate to the Christian ascetical endeavour: pain is not the ultimate goal, for the only ultimate goal of Christian life is union with God -- but it is a necessary part of the struggle, embraced positively for what it is.

INXC, Matthew

M.C. Steenberg

04-10-2005, 10:17 AM

Dear Byron, you wrote:

What is our original nature? Were we sentient beings even in Paradise? Did we experience attraction and attachment to things? Did we experience pain or discomfort there? Did we have any impulses, drives, instincts?

I am going to move this post to the The Nature of Man thread in the Creation, Cosmos and Human Nature area. That thread never really got moving, but the present questions relate directly to it and we can carry them on there in an attempt to keep things a bit more organised. This thread can continue to focus on the specific issues of pain / mortification, etc.

INXC, Matthew

Leandros Papadopoulos

04-10-2005, 11:23 PM

Dear Matthew, (I will be used not to call you Dr Matthew in time...)

Let me clarify, my answer. My initial observation was an answer to the original question about “pain” asked by Byron Jack Gaist in the context of the respective wikipedia article. My answer begun: “You submitted a question/quotation, coming from the wikipedia article, which presents the distorted theology of the vatican….”

The wikipedia article, according to my reading, presents the vatican point of view: "Pain as means for a higher end… Pain is to be loved relative to the positive end…. Need for suffering… Joy in suffering: sharing in the redemption". This vatican theology/anthropology produced the theory of purgatory and the theoretical base on which the Inquisition found a solid stand, taking natural pain literally as a blessed part of the way to theosis/salvation.

Against this "vatican" interpretation of pain I wrote that: "Pain is unacceptable for Christian life ....Asceticism in Orthodoxy has nothing to do with pain...There is no need for suffering and there is no call for suffering, in taking up the Cross to follow Christ. Acceptance of pain is one of the greatest sins." And I have tried to present the contrast compared with the orthodox asceticism: “The experience of Love in Spirit is the existential realization of relation with the Father through Christ. This experience is transforming pain, pleasure, happiness, sorrow and every natural or evil mode of existence into a personal presence in front of Glory of God”.

According to my understanding, there is confusion between “pain” and “toil”. To work in “toil” praying and accepting sanctification under any circumstances is an ascetic gift. To accept “pain” is a passive behaviour - even when it serves a higher cause.

The Vatican theology fails to realize the teaching of St Paul: (Philippians 2:5-9) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202:5-11;&version=50;). According to Vatican theology, the pain of Christ, His passions and even His death are being realized according to passive acceptance of atonement, which was decided in advance.

I understand the Orthodox theology in realizing the pain of Christ, His passions and His death according to His words: (Luke 18:31-33) <font face="courier new,courier">Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will scourge Him and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again.”</font> This is a course that He walked through in order to reach at the end, not in using a course as a mean to accomplish a goal, but as living a reality that generated something that was never before actualized - not just as a result, but as whole process. This is not a course “seeking pain”, nor “His pain was means for a higher end”, nor “His Pain is to be loved relative to the positive end” nor was there “need for suffering”.

St Paul wrote to Galatians 3:1-14, so vividly: <font face="courier new,courier">O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? … For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.” Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith”.</font>

We should learn, along with the Galatians, that we are not “being made perfect by the flesh”, but “in Spirit”. Because the “curse of the law”, which is our condemnation of not “continuing in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them”, is not redeemed by our verity to the completeness of the law, but by our faith in Christ, Who destroyed the condition of the fulfilment of the law “in all things”, by His death, so that the promise to the people of Israel might also cover the non Israelites, through faith. He did that by becoming alienated from the completeness of the law as being cursed “hanging on a tree”, yet not losing what was given to Abraham as a promise for his seed, because Christ, as a seed of Abraham, inherited what was promised, not according to the validity of the law, but by the validity of God’s promise – which was originally given for His Son. In having faith to Christ we take part in the promised heritage, not by "being made perfect by the flesh", but "in Spirit".

In this context, “pain” is a companion that has nothing to offer in our faith; however “toil” has to offer much. St Paul wrote (2 Timothy 2:8-9): “Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my gospel, for which I suffer trouble as an evildoer, even to the point of chains; but the word of God is not chained. Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

Matthew, thank you for asking.

M.C. Steenberg

05-10-2005, 08:16 PM

Dear Leandros,

Thank you for the response, which I found interesting. I do, however, feel that it forces a rather academic distinction between 'pain' and 'toil', as you've articulated them; and perhaps leads to a number of unorthodox claims made in retaliation to perceptions of a deliberate 'Vatican theology' (e.g. that there was no need for Christ's suffering). The hymns for the feasts of the cross seem to present themselves most directly: the cross is not an instrument of 'toil', but an instrument of torture, and only in bearing up this reality fully can we proclaim 'through the cross, joy has come into all the world'. This is not to suggest that the point of the passion was for Christ to suffer, i.e. to reap salvation by his agony; but a reaction against that kind of reading should not lead us to go so far as to suggest that the pain inflicted and borne in Christ was extraneous to the redemption he worked there. It is part of the offering of the cross.

We all have the tendency to react to excess with another excess - to turn all-white into all-black. But misappropriations of the place of pain and suffering that made their way into certain strands of Western theology should not cause us to leap too far to the other extreme.

INXC, Matthew