Greater and lesser evils

[Justin]

...It is better both to attain the good and to keep the purification. But if it be impossible to do both it is surely better to be a little stained with your public affairs than to fall altogether short of grace; just as I think it better to undergo a slight punishment from father or master than to be put out of doors; and to be a little beamed upon than to be left in total darkness. And it is the part of wise men to choose, as in good things the greater and more perfect, so in evils the lesser and lighter. Wherefore do not overmuch dread the purification. For our success is always judged by comparison with our place in life by our just and merciful Judge; and often one who is in public life and has had small success has had a greater reward than one who in the enjoyment of liberty has not completely succeeded; as I think it more marvellous for a man to advance a little in fetters, than for one to run who is not carrying any weight; or to be only a little spattered in walking through mud, than to be perfectly clean when the road is clean. To give you a proof of what I have said: Rahab the harlot was justified by one thing alone, her hospitality, though she receives no praise for the rest of her conduct; and the Publican was exalted by one thing, his humility, though he received no testimony for anything else; so that you may learn not easily to despair concerning yourself. - Gregory the Theologian, Oration 40, 19 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-07/Npnf2-07-52.htm#P5093_1680093)

Does anyone know of any writings from the early Church that goes into the issue of "choosing the lesser evil" on a more practical level?

[M. Trifa]

"Rahab the harlot was justified by one thing alone, her hospitality, though she receives no praise for the rest of her conduct; and the Publican was exalted by one thing, his humility, though he received no testimony for anything else; so that you may learn not easily to despair concerning yourself."

I am greatly encouraged by this sentence in the quote. I have abandoned the Orthodox church out of a sense of desperation; nothing that I could do seemed right; I had to constantly second-guess myself and assume rather that the devil was guiding me than God. I am still confused--intellectually, spiritually; prayer and fasting seem to me nearly irrational solutions to the situation I find myself in.

I know I have taken the discussion in a different direction than the one intented by Justin; but the problem of the "greater and lesser evils" feels so relevant--I had no concept of this distinction; from reading the Pateric and other Orthodox writings (I have a small library of these writings and it depresses me sometimes to think of its contents) I felt compelled always to think, in order to be "safe" with God and to prove my humility, that I was doing only wrong things, allways the "greater" kind of evil, which seemed to be the only one that existed.

I saw clearly the distinction between great and small evils in the non-religious aspects of my life; but when it came to sin and worship of God the distinction always seemed to me irrelevant. I thought that Jesus' promise to the thief on the cross taught that God makes no distinction between great and small sins.

Have I really been wrong? Is what Gregory the Theologian says ultimately true? Aren't his words merely in the "pep-talk" spirit? I don't want, with these questions, to trivialize anything he says; I know my questions are somewhat naive; but I am simply confused.

MT

[Owen Jones]

You may have analysed your situation perfectly, MT. Who knows? But could it be that your problem is that you simply take yourself too seriously?

[M. Trifa]

Yes, very likely... But isn't this exactly what one is supposed to do? After all, this is a matter of life and death, eternal life and death.

[Justin]

M. Trifa


I am greatly encouraged by this sentence in the quote. I have abandoned the Orthodox church out of a sense of desperation; nothing that I could do seemed right; I had to constantly second-guess myself and assume rather that the devil was guiding me than God.

Well, I think part of it you got right, but the part the Devil was leading you into was the despair part. What I mean is, I think you were right to doubt your ability to do right (e.g., low self-esteem is not a bad thing). Having said that, we can't let ourselves fall into despair because of our seeming inability to do right. A monk once said that "despair at one's spiritual fall is a sign of pride". In other words, we should realise that we're gonna fall, and if it bothers you, you are probably--as Owen said--putting too much confidence in yourself or take yourself too seriously.

I think that choices/actions in our lives are usually a choice among many options, and not an either/or choice. We musn't despair when it seems like we have made a bad choice! (exclamation point is directed towards myself) If I could offer any advice at all--and I'm the last person you should probably take advice from--I'd say to just do, and not second guess. Do what you can, then move on. If you do well, thank God as all good gifts come from God. If you seem to have chosen wrong, thank God for the opportunity to put a dent in the prideful self and learn from the mistake. Even saints make mistakes, and we are but saints to a lesser extent (ie. we are becoming saints, but for now make many more mistakes than they do). I apologize if my babbling is not helping, I am just trying to share my thoughts in the hope that it will be of some benefit. That's what I use to do as a Protestant and perhaps I shouldn't do so now, but at least this time I will. Perhaps a better (=more reliable) source would be some of the pre-communion prayers said by many:

"I stand before the gates of thy Temple, and yet I refrain not from my evil thoughts. But do thou, O Christ my God, who didst justify the publican, and hadst mercy on the Canaanite woman, and opened the gates of Paradise to the thief; open unto me the compassion of thy love toward mankind..." - Prayer of Saint John of Damascus (Pocket Prayerbook, Antiochian Archdiocese, p. 51)

"Wherefore I, although unworthy both of heaven and of earth and of this temporary life, even I, a wretched sinner who had given myself over to every evil desire, despair not of salvation, though I have been wholly subject to sin, a slave to passion, and have defiled thine image within me..." - Prayer of Saint Basil the Great (Pocket Prayerbook, Antiochian Archdiocese, p. 51)


I am still confused--intellectually, spiritually; prayer and fasting seem to me nearly irrational solutions to the situation I find myself in.

I certainly know that feeling, I constantly want to make the man's plea in Mk. 9:24 my own: "Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief". What helps me personally is just remembering that God works in seemingly really strange ways. Why did God wait until someone touched a hankerchief that Paul had used to heal someone? (Acts 19:11-12) Why couldn't they just pray and be healed? What were people thinking, trying to stand in Peter's shadow? (Acts 5:15) Jesus spit on people's eyes to heal them, why didn't he just ask them if they wanted healed? You wanna see some even stranger stuff read Tobit! (no disrespect to the book intended, it's my favorite OT book). The point is, God works in really strange ways sometimes, and though it might not seem like it should make a difference, if God or his Church says that is helps, we should try to believe that it will.


I saw clearly the distinction between great and small evils in the non-religious aspects of my life; but when it came to sin and worship of God the distinction always seemed to me irrelevant. I thought that Jesus' promise to the thief on the cross taught that God makes no distinction between great and small sins.

I would agree that all sin should be avoided if possible, but I don't think that's very possible for most of us living in this world. Sooner or later a "lesser evil" will be a "necessary evil". Whether it be war, politics, or something else, living in a fallen world can lead us into sin of necessity. That doesn't make it "acceptable," but we need to realise that attacking Hitler is closer to a righteous action than dropping a 3rd bomb on Japan would have been. I don't think God accepts any sins as "ok," but as Saint Gregory implied, God will be more understanding regarding some sins than he would be regarding others. Sorry if this hasn't helped, but by no means be sorry for posting what you did; I have the rest of my life to find the answer to my question, if you're having problems now (aren't we all!) then this forum should be about helping with those problems now.

Justin

[Moses Anthony]

I had a big arguement with my wife once on a Saturday night. Being at church the next day, participating in the Divine Liturgy wasn't on my emotional agenda. And, knowing that the rest of our community would have no knowledge of the emotional state of my wife and I, lent itself to the feeling of hypocrisy. After the services, I knew my priest had been right, being in the Church, hearing the words of the Psalter, the prayers ot the Liturgy and partaking of the Divine Body and Blood of the Lord was the exact place I needed to be!
It doesn't matter if its marriage discord, the agonizing hell of lonliness and rejection, or disillusionment, we often tend to push back from whatever it is that has us in an emotional and intellectual quagmire. In the case of our spiritual welfare the situation takes on an even more serious tone.

One of the problems with this is that more often than not, the right answers are those much trotted out "religious cliches", of which everyone has an abundant supply.
I participate in the martial arts, and have come to understand that, much like my relationship with Jesus, my art, is not isolated to the time spent in the training academy, but is woven throughout all areas of my life. If I happen to train sloppy it will cost me dearly at a much more crucial time . Therefore, nothing is of little consequence!
Each of us is on this journey at various points, and much like the Disciples on Mt. Tabor, the light of Christ is revealed to us in proportion as we can bear it. If our hearts are overwhelmed, our souls in anguish, our minds confused or our spirit wounded by sin, the Psalmist said two things; "...lead me to the Rock that is higher than I", and "...pour out your heart to God, for He is a refuge for us".

I see sin as being disobedient to whatever it is that God has said to us. Should I be directed to give $1.00, and I give $10.00, it is as wrong as failing to "...be exhilerated always with the wife of my youth, whom I have by divine covenant from God". But oh the mercy and grace of God! "..how unsearchable are His judgements, and unfathomable His ways.

As great as God is , and as low as we esteem ourselves, God is merciful and loving and WILL, talk with us, so that we may be able to see things from God's perspective, which is how they really are. That may take a day, it could happen in just a moment, or, it could be a lifetime. We are written on the palms of God's hands; He neither forgets, nor forsakes those who cry out to Him!

an unworthy servant

[Owen Jones]

Your comments demonstrate one of the fundamental problems when we try to reduce our faith to a convenental theology. While the Mosaic Law is never reversed, overcome or cancelled, its true spirit can only blossom mystigically.

When we undergo a transformation of our sense perception, according to the fathers, we find our ups and downs to be necessary parts of the spiritual path.

If we try to get back to an overly simplified convenental theology, that's just not reality. It has no way of accounting for ups and downs.

[M. Trifa]

What I mean is, I think you were right to doubt your ability to do right (e.g., low self-esteem is not a bad thing).

Are you suggesting, then, that surrendering to God is absolutely necessary, that one cannot approach God without distrusting one's rationality and emotional reactions? That one needs to do (that is, obey the fathers of the church and follow their advice) rather than to think too much about what one is doing?


...though it might not seem like it should make a difference, if God or his Church says that is helps, we should try to believe that it will.

Again, believe without thinking too much about it, since we are unable yet to judge properly what needs to be done? Honestly, this is a little disturbing to me; this attitude makes one dependent not on his judgment but on the judgment of others, and I think this could be dangerous.

From what I can tell, both Owen and James are suggesting in their last messages that ultimately the way faith and God work in the self is a mystery: God works both with the self and apart from it. It seems that I have to accept this without trying to figure it out; I have accepted it for many years, but eventually the fact that I didn't understand it got me; the paradox and the mystery ceased to have any emotional or intellectual significance. Is trying to understand really a dead end? The mind--reason--doesn't have room in faith then?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear M Trifa,


From what I can tell, both Owen and James are suggesting in their last messages that ultimately the way faith and God work in the self is a mystery: God works both with the self and apart from it. It seems that I have to accept this without trying to figure it out; I have accepted it for many years, but eventually the fact that I didn't understand it got me; the paradox and the mystery ceased to have any emotional or intellectual significance. Is trying to understand really a dead end? The mind--reason--doesn't have room in faith then?

Perhaps this question should be approached from less of an 'either/or' standpoint. In my experience, people rarely come to any religious conviction entirely by reason; nor do people come to any genuine, lasting conviction entirely by experience. Were a living faith merely a sensory response to a given set of stimuli, then even the animals could possess it in full; but the liturgical texts and the Scriptures clearly distinguish between the 'dumb beasts' and God's 'rational creatures' (i.e. human persons) for precisely this reason. Yet if faith were wholly an intellectual or rational endeavour, then the entire emphasis on asceticism and bodily 'training' would be of little point or value -- despite the fact that the Church proclaims these as essential.

Perhaps it is that the Devil makes good use of the prevalent human tendency to tend toward extremes, pushing people to a belief in the exclusivism of 'reason' or 'experience', of 'thought' or of 'action'; and when we find ourselves forced into a choice between the two extremes, we find that neither is complete and thus are driven to frustration and despair. How many people do we all know, who have 'given up' on their religious conviction because the rational analysis by which it was fostered eventually could not support their enquiry? Or how many others who, after the passage of time, felt the sensory 'experience' of God to leave their minds and hearts wanting for lack of understanding?

It is important to remember that God has given humankind all things in order that it may come to the full knowledge of Him. Among the 'things' that God has given are rational thought for the reasoned understanding (to a degree) of the nature of God; and the physical bodies with which the divine vision of God may become our own. These two things together form the collection of means by which humanity is given to know the truth. We are not simply to do: we are to think/believe and do. The 'proportion' between our thought and action, with respect to our need for development and maturation, must be based on our own spiritual state, our own needs. Thus one will see some new monastics who are told to read many books, for this is what they need; while others may be told to read no books, but to wash more dishes. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

INXC, Matthew

[Justin]

M. Trifa


Are you suggesting, then, that surrendering to God is absolutely necessary, that one cannot approach God without distrusting one's rationality and emotional reactions?

Well, no, not exactly. I mean, anyone who has converted to Orthodoxy and is honest with themselves has to admit that they are playing a part in their own movement and trusting their perceptions (even if they will only allow that it is a reactionary movement in response to God's tugging). What I'm suggesting is that we shouldn't think ourselves capable of understanding complex issues when we are yet children. Now there's nothing wrong with children, but children can only take the milk (and not the weightier, meaty, stuff). We wouldn't let a fifteen years old choose at that age what he will do with the rest of his life. It's not that he can't have likes or dislikes, and he may indeed know even at that age what he wants to do, but it's also likely that there's a great deal he doesn't understand. Likewise, you wouldn't want him to move out on his own, and there is certainly a great deal that he wouldn't realise he would have to deal with; he can only see part of what living on his own would mean in terms of lifestyle and responsibility. The Christian life is much like this, in that we can look at something and have a simple (and correct) understanding about a certain aspect of it, but then we don't necessarily understand all of it.

That's where what I was saying before comes in. We like to think that we know about prayer, fasting, and so forth. However, when our own perceptions clash with the Church, it is a sign that we aren't seeing the whole picture, either because we aren't mature enough to see the whole picture, or because we refuse to see it. If the Church is a "truth telling thing" (to borrow from G.K. Chesterton), then we need to trust it. If the Holy Spirit is leading the Church, then we should follow it. This is not abandoning reason, this is trusting in faith even when we cannot, ourselves, fully understand. The Fathers teach that as you live the Christocentric life your sense organs (and intellect) is cleansed and better able to perceive the truth. In this way, Orthodoxy does not ask you to abandon intellect, but offers the medicine which heals one's body and soul from the illness that is harming it.

Until one receives the medicine for a time, however, one must be wary of their perceptions and thoughts. (One reason people should not be allowed to convert to Orthodoxy from other faiths in a short amount of time). One final comment though, just so I'm not too confusing with my previous thought about self-esteem. Part of what is meant is that when people criticize, we should not become defensive; we should use the criticism (and even self persecution, according to Tito Colliander) to our advantage. We should use it to better ourselves. But whatever happens, we musn't despair, because this presupposes that our own deeds and efforts are where our redemption and healing lays.


That one needs to do (that is, obey the fathers of the church and follow their advice) rather than to think too much about what one is doing?

At first, I would say yes. Obedience and servanthood seem to me to be central aspects of the Gospel. Jesus himself gave us an example, I think (e.g., John 13). Understanding why we do what we do is helpful, but someone need not understand totally for something to positively effect them. Think of the infant being baptized, chrismated, and receiving communion. Does it understand what is happening? Can it respond intellectually? Though it can't intellectually respond, it's body can respond. Likewise, while understanding is important, it is not necessary. Luckily, usually with obedient doing we will eventually learn the answer to our "why do I do this?".

[Moses Anthony]

Dear M. Trifa

One of the big problems I had with some of those in the "Jesus Movement", was how they seemed to have as their mantra "..Lean not unto thine own underastanding...", forgetting that our Lord himself said "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind and with all thy strength...." It was a seeming paradox.

The bottom line of the matter however, is not ignorance or intelligence, but it is TRUST/FAITH (the coinage of the kingdom) in Almighty God. "Those who come to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him, For my righteous one shall live by faith , and if he shrinks back my soul has no pleasure in him", "For without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb.11.6, 10:36-38) There is a balance between the intellect and faith, for it's obvious that some brilliant people were Christians, but about the matter of submission.

Resistance to the hand/will of God is never a good idea. An even casual reading of Scripture reveals, that not submitting to God renders unfavorable consequences, either immediately or over a long period of time.

Pride is such a pervasive sin!

the unworhty servant

[Owen Jones]

In the classical Christian tradition, James, when we speak of the intellectual life, we are really referring to the contemplative life. Theologia is the fruit of meditation, which has a specific, technical meaning with certain specific practical guideliness. Intellectus is the fruit of a contemplative life toward God and His creation.

The ideal of contemplation and meditation is now lost and must be recovered before we can speak intelligently on theological matters.

So-called modernity is really the pathology of activism. It is the spirit of activism, the desire to dominate and control and change things, that motivates most people these days, including most people who seek religious vocations. This kills the spirit. Surrendering to God is not so much an act of the will in submitting to a higher authority, but rather taking on the spirit of contemplation and meditation on the things God has made -- listening to what Creation tells us. This is natural and unforced, whereas surrender to God and obedience in the strict moral sense is impossible, unnatural. It is something to strive for, certainly, but not apart from taking on a meditative posture toward all people and things.

REducing obedience to an act of the will, which always fails us, leads us to anger and despair. True obedience simply means listening to God, by meditating on the things He has made. This is how He communicates with us. This is how we arrive at an understanding of our true nature, and come into harmony with Him and His Creation.

The Fathers tell us we cannot know God in His essence. We can only know God by meditating on the things He has made. Find me one person these days who truly practices this in the right spirit!

There is a good book, by the way, that demonstrates the nature of the contemporary problem: More Die of Heartbreak, by Saul Bellow. The hero is a natural contemplative and everyone and everything around him works to deny him this.

[John Wehling]

Owen wrote:
"The Fathers tell us we cannot know God in His essence. We can only know God by meditating on the things He has made."

I don't want to be nitpicky, but this is not technically correct, Owen. The Fathers say that we cannot know God in the Divine essence, but that we can come to a true knowledge of God in His energies or activities. This would certainly include knowledge gained through natural contemplation, but it is not limited to that. There is, above this, knowledge of God via the vision of Christ in glory: theoria.

Peace,
John

[Owen Jones]

Theoria is the fruit of meditation on the things that God has made. It is not abstract theorizing. Theoria is not a beginning point. The beginning point is to meditate on things. Fair enough?

My purpose in trying to make the point is that none of us are really competent to theologize in the classical sense. Sure, we can talk about dogma and the meanings of dogmatic formulations, but that's not theologizing. That's not the meaning of theology. Theology is the fruit of meditation, and it follows a transformation of our sense perception, so that we begin to see things as they really are, and therefore God in things.

People I know these days tend to think of theology as an are of study. It really is more of a verb. It's something that happens to you when you meditate.

oaj

[Richard Domina]

Greater or lesser evils? It's like saying one is only a little pregnant or if I want to go south and am mistakenly going north and I only go one mile instead of ten in the wrong direction does that correct the direction? Light has no darkness. If we SINCERELY follow what we know to be true we will be heading in the right direction. If we are open and attending He will lead us. The thief was saved because he approached the Truth and turned from his own way. Every moment of our lives not turned toward the Truth is lived in darkness. One cannot live in the Light and still be in the dark.

[Justin]

What do you make of Saint Gregory's words then, Richard?

[Richard Domina]

I'm not sure what ST.Gregory means by 'a little stained in your public affairs'. If I am holding on to the Vine (acknowledging and reciprocating the love of God)in any moment than whatever I do in my 'public affairs' will not be stained. If I am not aware of my relationship to God in any moment than it doesn't matter what I'm doing it's all stained. If we are not aware of this Relationship than any sincere gesture or effort in His direction is the best I can do. It's like being tossed in the ocean. My ONLY concern is to cling to the life-jacket -if that means not being totally polite to a passing boater I wouldn't call that a lesser evil, I would call that irrelevant. Christianity is not about nice - it's about Truth. The Light doesn't contend with Itself. When you're in It you know it- when you're not you don't. (and if you say that you're not and know it then I'm saying that little bit of light in you is the very same Light that you are seeking and the darkness not as real as it seems.)

[Justin]

What do you make of his statement that "it is the part of wise men to choose...in evils the lesser and lighter"? Further, what do you make of this, said by Saint Gregory: "I think it more marvellous for a man to advance a little in fetters, than for one to run who is not carrying any weight; or to be only a little spattered in walking through mud, than to be perfectly clean when the road is clean"? I would say that, as nice as your thoughts are about how relationship with God makes action right, they are not totally biblical. Certainly right relationship gives "room," but that's what I think Saint Gregory was talking about; not that such relationship magically transforms "sin" into "righteous action," but rather, God is more willing to forgive sin. Saint Gregory says that if you're walking on a muddy [sinful] path, God will be more ready to forgive you being muddy [sinful], than if you had always since birth been on the clean [righteous] path. God doesn't ignore that mud is indeed mud [sin], he just deals with it differently depending on who it is who is muddy [sinful].

[Richard Domina]

"I think it more marvelous for a man to advance in fetters, than for one who is not carrying any weight." This is to say - it is much better to go against one's self (praxis) and make little progress (although sincerely trying) than to think one is religious or holy while never making any inner efforts toward repentance. The road is clear as long as I don't see the truth about my real situation. I'm sorry you don't see that relationship with God being right action is biblical. It is what the entire bible is about. I would love to give specific texts if you are still doubting. I think we should look at what you are saying here-"...if you are walking on a muddy path, God will be more ready to forgive you being muddy than if you had always been on the clean path..." Sin is sin. We are not punished for our sins- we are punished BY our sins.

[Justin]

I think you are misunderstanding my position on right relationship with God; I am not saying that you are incorrect in your assertion, but only that the extent to which you take it is incorrect (like I said, right relationship plays a part, it just doesn't turn what would be sin for a non-Christian into non-sin for the Christian). I also do believe that we are punished for our sins, both here and in the next life, as the Bible says, we will be judged by what we did here on earth, and that those who do nothing with their talents will have even what little they have taken away from them (ie. we are punished for sins of omission). Perhaps we are just talking past each other though, friend. Could you explain to me what you think of the first part of what Saint Gregory said that I quoted in my last post; namely: "it is the part of wise men to choose...in evils the lesser and lighter". This seems to be the center of the controversy, it would seem that Saint Gregory is here presupposing that there are indeed lesser and greater evils, for how else could he say that the wise man would choose the lesser one? What do you think about this, do you think saint Gregory was wrong on this point?

[Richard Domina]

Justin, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding but I never meant to say what would be sin for a non-Christian is non-sin for a Christian. No. First of all the word 'Christian' is part of the problem. It means different things to different people. I mean to one who is in the Light. If we are in the Light we will not sin- not that we sin and don't call it that anymore. I know this is hard to understand because I,too, did not understand. Also- I am saying we will be punished in this life and the next for our sins, only it is we, ourselves who are punishing us. If I keep making deposits of money into a fraudulent real estate scam in Arizona, despite all the warnings not to, and finally retire and go out there to live, finding nothing there- who punished me? God? My own ignorance and obtusness. Now, if I heeded the warning and stopped investing in the scam and redirected my efforts to legitimate ends, then my 'sins' would be forgiven in the sense that now that I have KNOWLEDGE I wouldn't even think of investing in a scam. When there is light or knowing than we wont sin. The truth is that we don't really know so we sin out of ignorance. As far as St. Gregory is concerned, I've read most of the work cited and am not finished but either we are reading the wrong emphasis in his word 'evil' or he is mistaken completely.

[Owen Jones]

Richard,

Yours is a bit of a gnostic reading of the Tradition, I should think.

[Justin]

Richard,

Some other passages from the Fathers to consider:


Ver. 3. "But fornication, and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as becometh saints." He has spoken of the bitter passion, of wrath; he now comes to the lesser evil: for that lust is the lesser evil, hear how Moses also in the law says, first, "Thou shalt do no murder" (Ex. 20:13), which is the work of wrath, and then, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex. 20:14), which is of lust. For as "bitterness," and "clamor," and "all malice," and "railing," and the like, are the works of the passionate man, so likewise are "fornication, uncleanness, covetousness," those of the lustful; since avarice and sensuality spring from the same passion. But just as in the former case he took away "clamor" as being the vehicle of "anger," so now does he "filthy talking" and "jesting" as being the vehicle of lust; for he proceeds, Ver. 4. "Nor filthiness, nor foolish talking, or jesting, which are not befitting; but rather giving of thanks." - John Chrysostom, Homily 17 on Ephesians (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-13/npnf1-13-24.htm#P1271_659432)


Moreover, when he blames dissensions and schisms, which undoubtedly are evils, he immediately adds heresies likewise. Now, that which he subjoins to evil things, he of course confesses to be itself an evil; and all the greater, indeed, because he tells us that his belief of their schisms and dissensions was grounded on his knowledge that "there must be heresies also." For he shows us that it was owing to the prospect of the greater evil that he readily believed the existence of the lighter ones; - Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heresies, 5 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-24.htm#P3182_1144467)[/URL]


Some members we can dispense with and yet live: without others life is an impossibility. Some offences are light, some heavy. It is one thing to owe ten thousand talents, another to owe a farthing. We shall have to give account of the idle word no less than of adultery; but it is not the same thing to be put to the blush, and to be put upon the rack, to grow red in the face and to ensure lasting torment. Do you think I am merely expressing my own views?Hear what the Apostle John says: "He who knows that his brother sinneth a sin not unto death, let him ask, and he shall give him life, even to him that sinneth not unto death. But he that hath sinned unto death, who shall pray for him?" You observe that if we entreat for smaller offences, we obtain pardon: if for greater ones, it is difficult to obtain our request: and that there is a great difference between sins. - [URL="http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-11.htm#P6582_2060348"] Jerome, Against Jovinianus, 2, 30 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-24.htm#P3182_1144467)

[Richard Domina]

Justin, Thanks for the examples of 'lesser evil'. I've read them and it always seems to be a relative term. (Aren't most?) We are too attached to ourselves. If I am truly following Jesus (and all that means) than if there is mud on me it will easily fall off. If I'm attached to the mud it will have to be scrubbed off somehow. 'Your treasure is where your heart is'. I think we have to read spiritual writings with a sense of discrimination and discernment as regards to the gist of the message. Underneath all of our clinging to being 'correct' is you-know-who. self. My lunch is up. I hope to say a little more soon. God bless you.

[Richard Domina]

Owen, you stated,'yours is a bit of a gnostic reading of the tradition...'. If you mean by gnostic the heresy that Iraneas (spelling)condemned- no,not at all! But if you mean spiritual knowledge that is relative to the knower and is what it points to- yes. St.Mark in vol.1 philokalia writes from this knowledge. As does St.Antony (vol.1 Philo.) and St.Maximus (vol.2 Philo.). It is the fruition of our religion. What is the difference between a young curious adolescent observing how males and females relate and wondering about the origin of babies- and a sixteen year old whose hormones have kicked in? The first has the seed of knowledge and the second has the fruit.

[Owen Jones]

In all of the most lofty statements of the Philokalia, they are measured and conditioned by the fact that we still live in a physical body subject to corruption, so we can become perfect only to the extent that is possible while still in the material world and in a physical body. Your statement above seemed to indicate that we can overcome this limitation by being "in the light." The is classic language from gnostic heresies. One must live paradoxically as a Christian, i.e. "be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect," and "all men are liars," and "no man is good, no not one."

[Richard Domina]

Owen, One doesn't overcome the limitation of our corruptable material body- no- I'm suggesting that another faculty comes into play that was previously dormant. Also -if "in the light" is classic gnostic language than the entire Gospel of John is gnostic as are the letters of Paul (only he uses the word'justified' for the same idea.) You are absolutely correct when you say one must live paradoxically as a Christian. This is the Knowledge I speak of. As for gnostic heresies I don't know anything other than the one Iraneas refuted. (I read through that yesterday so as to be aware of what you meant and it was torture- so dry I had to give my eyes a drink after I finished.) This missing quality or dimension is the difference between a pile of lumber and a house. Thanks for feeding me. God bless you.

[Andonis Saridopoulos]

vanities,

i find this a particularly disturbing element of our modern world. it seems as if so much of human endeavour stems from vanities. whether it be a job promotion in the corporate sector, a new sports car, holidaying around the carribean...we continue to indulge ourselves and gratify our vanity, which cannot be quenched, for it is a sinful passion. the world carries on, people striving in their own individual persuits to fatten their bank accounts, " improving their lifestyle", and appear to be making progress in the eyes of the world, yet fail to reflect internally, search and yearn for God's guidance and approval. today's measure of progress is utterly a wordly standard, having nothing to do with your spiritual evolution. Elite athletes, hollywood moviestars, corporate tycoons, casino's, how can our saints and faith possibly expect to get a mention? people are too busy idolising and trying to emulate a look and lifestyle alien to God, feeding the passions and not the spirit. Ironically at the same time calling into the psychiatrist, feng shui, tarrot card reader for spiritual healing and guidance. has evil really got such a strangle hold on the world, that it has come to completely dominate the lives of so many?

God forbid that you step away, and attest to being happy and satisfied, with little money, little wordly success, never holidayed, never worn a versache suit...you will be looked upon as crazy. i find the vanities particularly painful, because i don't know if there is anything uglier than seeing a person bask in their own vainglory, in complete disregard for their creator. people failing to live their lives in accordance to giving glory to God...

[Gavin Loukas]

Hi to everybody,

I'm new to this area, but I was wondering if the people here would like to talk a little bit more about "greater and lesser evils." I'm interested, because I was recently at a talk where the speaker spoke about some evils as being worse than others, and I wasn't sure if this was proper or not.

Are there resources, texts, comments about this? I would be interested to discuss it with people here.

Gavin

[Justin]

Gavin,

It is indeed proper to speak of some evils being worse than others. Our Lord Jesus spoke of lesser and greater sins(Jn. 19:11), as did the Apostle Paul according to Tertullian (1 Cor. 11:18-19; cf Tertullian, Against Heresies, 5). Also, in addition to the quotes I provided earlier in the thread (by Gregory the Theologian, Jerome, etc.), you might also check out John Chrysostom's 17th Homily on Matthew, where Saint John said that God "allowed the less [evil], to remove the greater evil." The best resource I've found so far, though, is the passage by Gregory the Theologian that I (partially) quoted in the first post (ie Oration 40:19). You can go to http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ and check these and other texts by the Church Fathers out.

I'd like to add though that a "lesser evil" is still an evil. It is sometimes a "necessary evil," but it is an evil nonetheless, and should never be taken lightly (prayers of sincere repentance should hopefully follow each "transgression"), The concept of "lesser evils" could never be abused so that people chose them instead of an available righteous choice. The most righteous choice must always be chosen first; Saint Gregory makes that totally clear in his afore-mentioned Oration.

[Richard Domina]

Having read the quote by Tertulian it seems to me he is describing the flirting with one level of evil which will in fact lead to a 'greater evil'. This is true. But if he were heading toward God, in the present moment, he would not be in any evil. John 19 does in fact mention 'greater sin'and this is in referance to Pilate and him who handed Him over to him. These are not Christians. They are not aiming for the Truth so all of their actions are relative. This is the world. For a follower of Jesus whos faith is operative (only when faith is operative), it's not a question of greater or lesser evil but who am I serving by this action. I think Luke11:34-36,James1:8,Romans 14:23 and many more point to this. It's not a slogan- rather it's a moment by moment re-orienting of our will to the "better part" which won't be taken (we relinquish it through inattention). Peace of Christ be with you, Rick

[Justin]

I don't understand why you are so afraid of the term "lesser evil" Richard. Is there some association with this term that makes it repulsive to you? The Fathers clearly taught the concept of greater and lesser evils being chosen in the Christian life; the Fathers I've quoted in this thread are only the tip of the iceburg (unlike when I was a Protestant, I no longer jot down every passage/text I think I might want to use later as a "proof text").

I'll give you a real life example. Contraception is wrong. My wife can't get pregnant because of a heart condition (she would have a high risk of dying should she become pregnant). So what to do? Use birth control, an evil; or allow the lesser evil to be used to avoid a larger one (ie. falling into lust and eventually--and most likely--leading to fornication). I find Saint Gregory's words DIRECTLY applicable to me as a Christian concerning lesser evils and greater ones. You're language is fine, it fits me too, but I'll prefer to stay with Saint Gregory's terminology and not stigmatise it (by ardently avoiding it and insisting that we shouldn't use it).

[Justin]

PS. Part of Saint Gregory's message was that we do indeed choose lesser evil's sometimes. Don't be afraid of this, he says. This is exactly his message, that sometimes we have to choose sin, sometimes we have to be muddied, sometimes ("of necessity," because of unavoidable circumstances) we will have chains around us. We both agree that we must always choose the best choice, and this is what you're getting at, I understand: but it's also important to SAY that the best choice is sometimes a sin. Otherwise they may fall into severe despair, thinking themselves trapped between two sins when sin isn't allowed. It's important for people to know that, should they be forced to choose, it's OK to choose a "lesser evil" (though it must be repented of, you shouldn't despair because you had to choose it).

[Richard Domina]

Dear Justin, Thank you for your very clear example. Forgive my two cents but 'natural family planning' sympto-thermal and another kind of measuring of fertile periods are very effective for avoiding pregnancy.(I'm sure you probably know all this already). Back to my point is that if you 'had to choose it' then it's not really a choice and can not be evil. I'm sorry I'm so stuck on this- maybe I will see it differently in time. Please pray for me. I will be praying for you. Peace to you, Rick

[Justin]

Thank you for your prayers, and the suggestions http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif (I will be praying that God continues to guide you)

[Justin]

Maybe I could just come here and post whenever I find a new passage on this subject, hehe. I seem to run into one quite often; here's one from what I was reading in Saint John Chrysostom this morning:


For we are not more perfect than David, who by a little carelessness was hurled into the very gulf of sin. Yet he arose again quickly. Look not then to his having sinned only, but also to his having washed away his sin. For to this end He wrote that history, not that thou shouldest behold him fallen, but admire him risen; to teach thee, when thou art fallen, how thou shouldest arise. Thus, as physicians choose out the most grievous diseases, and write them in their books, and teach their method of cure in similar cases; if so be men having practised on the greater, may easily master the less; even so God likewise hath brought forward the greatest of sins, that they also who offend in small things may find the cure of these easy, by means of the other: since if those admitted of healing, much more the less.

...in the case of Cain, what was done was not a murder only, but worse than even many murders; for it was not a stranger, but a brother, whom he slew; and a brother who had not done but suffered wrong; not after many murderers, but having first originated the horrid crime: so here too that which was perpetrated was not murder only. For it was no ordinary man that did it, but a prophet: and he slays not him that had done wrong, but him that had suffered wrong; for indeed he had been mortally wronged, by the forcing away his wife: nevertheless after that he added this also. - Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 26 on Matthew (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-10/npnf1-10-32.htm#P2625_873666)

[Elizabeth Riggs]

Richard posted on 1-15:
"Posted on Wednesday, 15 January, 2003 - 12:19 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Justin, Thank you for your very clear example. Forgive my two cents but 'natural family planning' sympto-thermal and another kind of measuring of fertile periods are very effective for avoiding pregnancy.(I'm sure you probably know all this already). Back to my point is that if you 'had to choose it' then it's not really a choice and can not be evil. I'm sorry I'm so stuck on this- maybe I will see it differently in time. Please pray for me. I will be praying for you. Peace to you, Rick"

Pardon, but as a certified nurse-midwife who has worked intensively in family planning and has taught natural family planning, while I agree that these methods can be very effective, they are fallible. In the case of a person with heart problems, the absolutely least fallible method is needed. Aside from living "as brother and sister," or a total removal of the reproductive organs (including the ovaries, thereby causing sudden, surgical menopause with all the hormonal problems associated), there is no totally infallible method of birth control. However, the birth control pills are the least fallible of the methods available.

Both from a medical and a theological standpoint, then, there is a choice to be made. All choices (except living as brother and sister) involve sin. Living as brother and sister, however, is not what most couples are called to. Eliminating that choice, then, the lesser of the evils is the use of birth control pills.

And public fora such as this are not the place to chide people for the choices they have to make because of circumstances beyond their immediate control. I strongly urge all to re-read their posts before hitting the "send" button, and to delete those which are too personal or beyond the appropriate range of public fora.

In Christ,
Elizabeth, the sinner
and Perennial Student

[Richard Domina]

Dear Elizabeth the sinner, I am sorry for the offence to both you and Justin. I had no intention of 'chiding' anyone only discussing a philosophical standpoint. I disagree with you in saying what is too personal for this forum- I did not bring up the example - I only responded to it (very poorly), but I do think it was very edifying for me to hear of Justin's plight and the fact that he shared it with me is no small thing either. I truly value the vulnerability and sincerity I find in this forum and the last thing I want to do is abuse it or chide anyone. I hope you can forgive me. Rick

[Richard Domina]

p.s. After turning over in my mind both Justin's and Elizabeth's prescription to go with the 'lesser evil' I can't help but point out that both of you seem to be leaving God out of the equation. To use contraception to avoid fornication or other evils is not a valid response for a Christian. The only Christian response would be abstinance and heaps of prayer. God is with us and there will be a way if we obey the commands. This sounds like a trial of faith for a much greater good than is apparent. Contraception is wrong and entertaining the idea of 'lesser evils' is very dangerous. What you are faced with is a kind of martyrdom. When we get 'professional' opinions about very personal spiritual choices we need to be vigilant and discriminating. If I have a good bottle of wine and add just a tiny bit of vinegar to it the entire bottle is ruined. God is with us. You have my prayers. Peace, Rick

[Justin]

I hope you don't mind me asking, but are you a convert, Richard?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

As an aside to the current tangent in this discussion: 'birth-control' and its perception among Orthodox and others was the topic of a very lively and involved discussion in this community a short time ago. You can read through those messages in the thread itself: 'Birth Control' Among Various Orthodox Groups.

Those who are interested in continuing on with that theme are warmly invited to do so; but please may I ask that such conversation be kept to that thread, leaving this for the more focused discussion of 'greater and lesser evils'.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Domina]

No I don't mind you asking, Justin. I'm a cradle Catholic trying to keep the pacifier out of my mouth.(instead I put my foot in it).

[Justin]

Sorry for going off course, Matthew. I'd like to withdraw my last question asked as well (asked on January 17th, 7:14PM) as it really isn't any of my business.

I guess I find the idea of there not being "lesser evils" hard to accept. When I was a Protestant fundamentalist I believed in "righteous lies," "righteous judgmentalism," and so forth. "They weren't sins cause they were the best thing, they were good things" we reasoned. As I read the Bible more though, and read the Church Fathers, and especially as I read the lives of the saints, I began to realise that these things weren't "righteous," but transgressions that were done to bring about a greater good (usually by avoiding a weightier transgression), or at least were transgressions allowed for human weakness.

In the book of Tobit, for example, Tobit said that "a good angle will go with him [ie. Tobiah]," (5:22) showing the obvious receptivity of Tobit and his family to such help. Yet, the Angel Raphael chose to hide his identity, and even "fib," (5:11-13) only revealing at the end his true identity (12:11-15). This is something I see quite often in the lives of the saints: deception is oft-times used for the benefit of both the deceiver and the deceived.

Or in Saint Augustine: "For although, as far as a man's own conscience is concerned, it is a greater evil to deceive than to be deceived, nevertheless it is a far less evil to tell a lie in regard to matters that do not relate to religion, than to be led into error in regard to matters the knowledge and belief of which are essential to the right worship of God. To illustrate this by example: suppose that one man should say of some one who is dead that he is still alive, knowing this to be untrue; and that another man should, being deceived, believe that Christ shall at the end of some time (make the time as long as you please) die; would it not be incomparably better to lie like the former, than to be deceived like the latter? and would it not be a much less evil to lead some man into the former error, than to be led by any man into the latter?" - Saint Augustine, The Enchiridion, 18

None of this, of course, means that we can go about committing "lesser sins" willy nilly. There should always be sorrow in committing such a thing, confession of the sin, and hopefully some additional prayers (e.g., the canon of repentance) added to the person's prayer rule. Yet, the object of our lives is our salvation, and sometime we get muddy while trudging through this mud-filled world.

[Justin]

Doh! Never mind part of that first statement... I was researching some stuff for my post and my question which I had wanted to withdraw was answered in the meantime. :-)

[Richard Domina]

Part,if not all, of the problem in understanding each other in this discussion is that we are discussing two different realms where relativity is at play in one realm and Wholeness or Unity is at play in the Other realm. I forget the term the Fathers use (stillness or union) but you are either there or you aren't. We aren't and greater or lesser evil has some meaning on this side of the fence- but to cross the fence is an all or nothing gesture(we don't do it- by Grace it is done to us,through us). When one is in a place of oneness than whatever impinges on the intellect(seduction,distraction,temptation)and is taken by is evil. It has taken us from God and so is an idol. (St John and St James make this the climax of their epistles.) If I lose my Communion through breaking an egg or shooting my noisy neighbor it is all the same from the perspective of UNION. On this side of the fence it makes a difference. My point is that the Gospels are talking about the Other side of the fence exclusively. Some of the slimiest souls on the planet have become great saints because on the Other side of the fence It's All One and the Same- no greater or lesser. This is what the parable of the hired workers getting the same wage is all about. This is why in the parable of the talents each received a 100% return on whatever size was invested. When all of our attention and intention is on Thee than anything ELSE is 'evil'. This is all over the Gospels but we read it with the eyes of multiplicity. I hope I have not added more confusion and if so please forgive me. Peace, Rick

[Owen Jones]

This is why the desert fathers elevate what we would normally think of us trivial things to great sins.

[Justin]

Richard,

You're making some good points, and have throughout the thread. I hope I've not been too confrontational. :-) ... hope to post more later, will "chew" on this stuff for a while now though...