'Personal God'

[Owen Jones]

In Orthodox understanding, God is both a personal and an impersonal force.

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dear Owen,

With all due respect this statement that 'God is both a personal and an impersonal force' needs clarification.

As it stands it is deeply heretical.

From Fr. Sophrony: '...There can be no doubt that for us, for the whole Christian world, one of the most important happenings recorded in the chronicles of time was God's manifestation on Mount Sinai where Moses received new knowledge of Divine Being: "I AM THAT I AM" (Exos. 3:14). From that moment vast horizons opened out before mankind, and history took a new turn. A people's spiritual condition is the real cause of historical events: it is not the visible that is of primary importance but the invisible, the spiritual...To Moses belongs the undying glory of having brought mankind nearer to Eternal Truth...Mighty is this Name in its strength and holiness-it is action proceeding from God. This name was the first ingress into the living eternity; the dayspring of knowledge of the unoriginate Absolute as I AM...According to the Old Testament all Israel lived in expectation of the coming of the Prophet of whom 'Moses wrote' (John 5:46), the Prophet par excellence, 'THAT prophet' (John 5:21). The Jewish people looked for the coming of the Messiah who when he was come would tell them 'all things' (John 4:25). Come and live among us, that we may know Thee, was the constant cry of the ancient Hebrews. Hence the name 'Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us' (Is. 7:14; Matt. I:23)...It was given to Moses to know that Absolute Primordial Being is not some general entity, some impersonal cosmic process or surpa-personal, all-transcending 'Non-Being'...In Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit God gave us the full and final revelation of Himself. His Being now for us is the First Reality, incomparably more evident than all the transient phenomena of this world...The revelation of God as I AM THAT I AM proclaims the personal character of the Absolute God which is the core of His Life. To interpret this revelation the Fathers adopted the philosophical term hypostasis, which first and foremost conveys actuality and can be applied to things, to man or to God. In many instances it was used as a synonym for essence. (Substance is the exact Latin translation.) In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (2 Cor. II:I7) hypostasis denotes sober reality and is translated into English as confidence or assurance. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the term describes the Person of the Father: 'Who being...the express image of his person' (Heb. I:3). Other renderings to be found in the same Epistle are substance - 'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for' (Heb. 2:I) and very being - 'the stamp of God's very being' (N.E.B. Heb. I:3). So, then, these three words, Person, substance, very being, taken together impart the content of the Greek theological expression hypostasis, to be understood as comprising, on the one hand, the notion of Countenance, Person, while on the other, stressing the cardinal importance of the personal dimension in Being." - Archmandrite Sophrony (Sakharov), His Life is Mine, pgs. 17-23.

[Owen Jones]

With respect to both Fr. Sophrony and Seraphim Black, this statement does not negate impersonal attributes of God, only affirms the personal attributes of God.

[Owen Jones]

I suppose that all experience of and knowledge of God is personal, in that we are persons, and these experiences happen to persons. On the other hand, I detect a kind of mindless defensiveness in much of contemporary theological belief and discussion, as if we cannot concede anything that might be misconstrued as agreeing with our enemies, even if there are sound theological, traditional, or logical/rational reasons for a particular position. But I will simply say that people have non-personal experiences of God all the time. We study mathematics, which is a purely abstract science, and in mathematics we experience God's ordered universe. In terms of common sense, surely this is not of the same order of personal experience that Moses had. And yet it is no less real.

For the Fathers, the study of mathematics and geometry were not only considered consistent with a theological/theocentric faith, but in some sense instrinsic. Because theological thought must be ordered and disciplined, and that abstract thought is a part of the structure of reality as God created it. Orthodox theology has always contained a dimension of abstraction and cannot simply be reduced to personalized belief. There is always a risk of going too far in anything, but it is a straw man argument to say that because someone has gone too far, that negates the starting point.

Further, St. Maximos probably represents the height of Christian abstraction, in terms of a supra-human, supra-personal understanding of God as Beyond Being. How do we have a personal experience of something at the level of Beyond Being? Or another way of looking at it is this: through abstraction, we can be personally transformed. But that does not mean we have to have a direct, personal experience a la Moses. Most Christians, in fact, have to rely on the witness of others, rather than expect a personal experience of God, except in an indirect sense, and be content to obey the commandments. In fact, the expectation of a personal experience of God has led to many illusions, delusions and heresies.

None of this has anything to do with the modern, romantic, and neo-pagan definition of God as the Absolute. Moreover, it is a fact that all religions have a faith in some kind of personal God and personal experience of God. So simply believing in a personal God is not what makes a Christian a Christian. It is a pretty thin apologetics to reduce Christianity to a personal experience in God, or belief in a personal God.

I will avoid personalizing the argument, but it strikes me that there are just as many heretical movements associated with the belief in a personal God. In fact, I would argue that Arianism is grounded in the fallacy of taking the belief in a personal God too far. Arias could not conceive of a Christ who is the eternal Logos. Certainly an abstraction if there ever was one, because, he argued, how do we have a personal experience of the Eternal Logos? He could not conceive of a Christ who was not a person.

By the way, I am not convinced that our term "person" has anything to do with what the Fathers meant by "person" or by hypostasis. It is really a psychologized version of it, which treats the person, whether divine or human, as a immanentized thing. That is not to say that Fr. Sophrony is wrong. Only that we ought not to theologize in reaction to either pagan romanticism or to certain trends in Roman Catholic dogma. We ought to simply do our own thing. Afterall, wasn't Origen's problem one of going too far in trying to respond to pagan critics?

The underlying fallacy of the argument was understood by Plato many hundred years prior to the Incarnation. If A is true, that does not necessarily mean that non-A is false.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Olympiada,

You wrote


Seraphim, I hope you are not going to your death. I will place you in my commemoratio n book this morning...I have never read someone's last testament. How chilling for a Sunday morning. Lord have mercy.

I realise you may mean well in what you've written here, but perhaps you ought to take greater care in your choice of phrases. Fr Seraphim is facing a serious and indeed possibly life-threatening operation, and the way you've written your post above sounds almost flippant. If I am mistaken, please forgive me for having misunderstood.

Regarding God and personal / impersonal, I don't think that Owen's reference to abstraction conflicts in any way with the understanding of a personal God. Mathematics, philosophy and theology may deal heavily in abstraction, but be part of Divine Truth, which in Christianity is understood to be fulfilled in the Persons of Christ, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. I confess I don't really understand what the term "person" means anyway, and would like to hear some definitions for clarification. There may be, as Owen suggests, a difference between the theological and the psychological understanding of this term. I personally (pardon the pun!) take it to suggest a quality of being face-to-face with another (Latin persona:mask, Greek prosopon:face), a suggestion of being in relationship which does indeed have a quality of immanence or immediacy. The Latin etymology I offer above, if it is correct,(but also the Greek pros-opon: the face which lies over against, that which is immediately apparent) suggests that behind persons there may be another order of reality. I think in Christianity this ultimate reality is not an impersonal Absolute, which as a concept may be a projection of human imagination into space, a kind of empty "catch-all" category, or just a figure of speech, rather than the Divine Essence of things. This is all speculative however, as I'm not a professional theologian, and my prayer life is too infantile to probe into any mysteries.

In Christ
Byron

[Father David Moser]

Owen remarked:
"In Orthodox understanding, God is both a personal and an impersonal force."

And Monk Seraphim replied:
"With all due respect this statement that 'God is both a personal and an impersonal force' needs clarification.

As it stands it is deeply heretical. "
And then added a quote from Fr Sophrony.

Owen responded:
"this statement does not negate impersonal attributes of God, only affirms the personal attributes of God."

And now my own comments:
In Orthodoxy God is by nature a person - never a force - and thus His actions are always "personal" in that they emanate from a person. Every action in regards to His creation begins in His personal love for that creation (us) and so could be said to be a "personal" act (when looking at its source).

OTOH, God can and does interact with His creation in both "personal" and "impersonal" ways - but this reflects not the origin of the action, but rather the recipient and/or effect. God can be said to act in a "personal" manner when there is "person to person" interaction and/or communication - when God interacts with one or more of us (whether directly or indirectly). OTOH, God can be said to act "impersonally" when His actions are not part of a personal interaction, but rather when they have an impact on creation as a whole (such as the creation of the cosmos or His maintenance of the same).

But this never changes the fact that God is a person - He is not, and can never be considered an "impersonal force". This I think is what Monk Seraphim was responding to.

Fr David Moser

[Owen Jones]

God is Beyond Being, God is Beyond all things, God is Beyond knowing. This is basic Orthodox doctrine. How are we to interpret this other than God is beyond anything that we can call Him, including the personal? Over-personalizing God is the source of just as many heresies as the other way around. It is the basic heresy of Protestantism -- that God is only personal. In so formulating, Protestants have removed entirely the idea of God as Mysterion.

[Father David Moser]

I think the problem that you describe ("overpersonalizing God") is the result of backwards thinking. Our personhood, our concept of what a person is, is based on God's personhood (we are made in His image and likeness). The problem comes when we try to define God's personhood using our own personhood as a standard - that does not work for it attempts use the image to define the original. We must instead use God's personhood to define our personhood. Therefore when we "overpersonalize God" we are in fact "underpersonalizing" man. We are trying to conform God to our own limits rather than allowing Him to expand our limits to conform to Him.

I do agree with you that we "bring God down" sometimes by trying to limit Him according to our own personhood but that does not mean that He is not always and only a person (not "personal" but a *person*). God is always and only a person - it is our own awareness and definition of what a person is that is at fault. Just because God is larger than what we call a person does not mean that those parts of Him outside our idea of a person are "not person" - rather that our definition of person is too small.

This whole paragraph begins to remind me a a little essay by JB Philips called, "Your God is Too Small" which also deals with the problem of defining God with human concepts and terms.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

God is Beyond Being, God is Beyond all things, God is (certainly!) beyond knowing (in His Essence). Basic Orthodox doctrine.

How are we to interpret this other than God is beyond anything that can we call call Him,

(still Orthodox until)

including the personal. (Herein, lays the heresy.)


"Before Abraham was I AM" - Jesus

"...But man disobeyed thee, his true God which created him, and was allured by the serpent, and slain by his own trespasses, and thou, O Lord, in righteous judgement didst turn him away from paradise into this world, into the ground from whence he was taken: establishing for him salvation by regeneration, which is in thy Christ himself. For thou, good Master, didst not wholly forsake thy creature which thou hadst made, neither did thou forget the works of thy hands (Ps. 138:8) but because of thy tender mercy in divers manners didst visit him. Prophets didst thou send, mighty works has thou performed through thy saints which have been wellpleasing to thee in every generation: thou has spoken unto us by the mouth of thy servants the prophets, foretelling unto us the salvation to come. Thou gavest the law for an help. Thou didst appoint angels over us to guard us.

And when the fulness of the time was come (Gal. 4:4) thou didst speak unto us by thy Son himself, by whom also thou madest the worlds. Who being the brightness of thy glory, and the express image of thy person, (Heb 1:3) and upholding all things by the word of his power, thought it not robbery to be equal with thee, God (Phil. 2:6) and Father. But being God pre-eternal did he yet show himself upon earth, and conversed with men: (Baruch 3:37) and being incarnate of the holy Virgin he emptied himself and took upon him the form of a servant, (Phil. 2:7) being made in the likeness of our vile body that he might fashion us like unto the image of his glory: (Phil. 3:21, Rom. 8:9)...
'Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, The Anaphora'

[Owen Jones]

I am familiar with these Biblical passages quoted above. I do not see how this convicts me of being a heretic. One should, I think, come up with some more substantive argument before hurling the heresy charge.

The term hypostasis was used to resolve the various Trinitarian controversies. It is an analogical term, as are all theological concepts, to denote a certain distinctness within the Trinity. This distinctness cannot be adequately expressed by our term person, which derives from the Greek term prosopon, which has philosophical roots. What must be avoided is the tendency to define terms such as hypostasis and prosopon in terms of things or objects, since God is not a thing or an object. God IS. At best, person refers to a certain manifestation of God as we experience God. If God revealed Himself to us in His Essence we would disintegrate. We couldn't handle it.

[Olympiada]

Priest David, Father Bless. At the risk of sounding redundant, so what then exactly is a person? What then exactly is hypostasis? Olympiada

[Antonios]

I haven't had a chance to read it, but I found the above referenced essay on this site (http://www.newchurches.com/public/resources/reading/docs/YourGodisTooSmall-Phillips.pdf).

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dear Owen,

I did not convict you of being a heretic.

I pointed specifically to the heresy where it is found in your reply post #1170.

As for being called a heretic, or any other negative appellation, and this has certainly been my situation. Why be defensive in a personal way?

If I had convicted Owen of being a heretic, I would follow my Spiritual Father's example and say to myself 'yet another opportunity for humility'.

As an example, Elder Joseph the Hesychast (+1959) never called Father Ephraim (now commonly known as Elder Ephraim, living in Arizonia) by his name, neither John when he was a novice, nor Father Ephraim, nor any other human name. Rather he (Elder Joseph) utilizied a method still common in Athonite monasticism: removal of pride (our worst passion) by giving no qualifying reason for pride.

This is why to this very day, true Spiritual Mothers and Fathers never praise their disciples nor their work.

I found this 'method' very, very hard to adapt to or at first to comprehend. When Father Sophrony gave me an obedience (a job to do), if I had (in my opinion) done well, I expected some sort of friendly word. After all, would this not encourage me to continue to do good work on tasks at hand?

It seemed to me, it was better for Father Sophrony from time to time to congratulate me. If all my obediences met with silence from him, or even more painful, what I perceived to be unjust criticism, then the point (as I saw it) was being missed.

Little did I know.

Years later Father Sophrony told me that he was especially gentle with me.

The further you crucify your self-understanding, the more the mysterion opens, like the most beautiful flower in Spring.

As the years have passed I can say I have not achieved much. But I know for a fact that for a monastic to seek approval or hope for recognition will bare that same monastic from the true way of Christ.

By the way, this holds true for the laity also. But there are few, sadly, who can take this 'light' cross upon their shoulders.

[Alec Lowly]

Father David writes:

"Just because God is larger than what we call a person does not mean that those parts of Him outside our idea of a person are "not person" - rather that our definition of person is too small."

Would it go too far to say, Father, that God is so supremely personal that it takes Three Persons to express the divine personhood?

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr Seraphim,

Thank you for your latest post on seeking approval and hoping for recognition. God scatters the proud in the imagination of their hearts. I am one of those "proud and scattered" people, and can only pray to our all-merciful Christ that I be somehow saved from myself. I will need the prayers of others, too.

I have the impression that true Christianity is a very difficult way to happiness, but that the happiness which ensues upon taking this path is that much more true and meaningful than that which any worldly wealth or honours can offer.

Once again, many thanks.

In Christ
Byron

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I've enjoyed reading the posts in this thread, though I've been unable to contribute myself of late. I've very much enjoyed the thoughts of so many.

It seems to me that one basic issue that's not been addressed is the question of experiencing, knowing, and describing God that lies behind this discussion. Orthodox theology teaches that a phrase such as 'God is personal' must first and foremost be a confession of experience and encounter, embraced by our own created being -- which means that it, like every confession about God, must be followed by the questions, 'How have I come to experience this?', and 'How shall I, as a rational being, understand it?' To ask the second question without the first is simply to intellectualise in the negative sense of examining hypotheticals. To ask the first without the second is to deny oneself as a reason-endowed being, or a 'rational sheep' as the anaphora of St Basil, referred to already in this thread, phrases it.

To come to the experience of God is to enter by God's power into the movements of divine grace; to 'receive illumination' by God coming to one's being and acting upon, within him or her. And we understand this act of God as 'personal' since the experience is not of a generic force or power, but of 'the only One who truly is' (to quote again St Basil) who comes directly to us as persons and interacts in that which we know as a 'personal manner' -- directly, concretely, to my being uniquely and not as an 'impersonal beacon' reaching out with no focus to all creation. I myself am called and met; God says, 'I know you by name'. The one whose image is borne in humanity interacts with his creation in a manner that we come to know, through our awareness of that image in us (i.e. how we relate and interrelate personally, as persons), that the one who we thus experience is 'personal'.

But this is precisely the point: we know God personally, as personal. This confession of God's being is, like all others, the rational assessment of our intellect in experience of God's being. Orthodox thought is absolutely clear that our confessions of God are never to be reified, made into 'things' or objective attributes of God's being, for God is beyond such particularised, accidentalised being -- he is being itself, 'the One Who Is'. We are created to know God directly through experience and relation, and that experience is met, in our reason-endowed beings, with our rational mind that approaches it. But even the most refined, most elevated, most divine proclamations and confessions of who God is, are always transcended by the reality of who God is, which goes beyond any claim that can be made of him.

The fathers of the Church have realised this from the very beginnings, and have as such demanded that confessions of God eventually be met with transcendence of the same. Scholars like to call this 'apophatic theology', 'negative theology', which expands on 'positive' (kataphatic) claims with what appear outwardly to be their opposites. So the 'positive' claim that 'God is love' is met with the 'negative' claim that 'God is not love, he is beyond love'. What seems to me to be commonly misunderstood is that 'positive' and 'negative' here are not value judgements, and no father suggests that one should only speak of and know God one way or the other (e.g. that one should start out kataphatically but eventually end up apophatically). The two manners of confession must work together, must be held in tandem, for the whole point is to show that God is ultimately beyond everything said of him. Everything. No exceptions. As Gregory of Nyssa makes very clear, all that we say of God, all that we call him, is ultimately an appellation. The only definitive, unqualified statement, is his own: 'I am the one who is'. When we speak of God, we describe the encountered mystery of the one beyond description.

The point of all this is that Orthodox theology does not allow us to reify God based on our confession of him. Our tendency is to be black-and-white about descriptions, polarising and dividing the realms of apophatic and kataphatic theology. Thus it is said that 'God is love', and this is right theology; but 'God is not love' is heresy. Within a very limited apologetic context this is a useful statement. As higher theology, it is simply wrong, since fundamentally it tries to confine God's being to what we say about it, rather than realise that our confessions relate truth to us of him who transcends those confessions.

To say God is a person, that he is personal, is correct. Within a limited apologetic context, to say that claims of God's impersonality are heretical may be correct and useful (e.g. when in dialogue with other theologies or philosophies that confess inherently non-personal divinity, etc.). But as true theology, both have to be held together. They are not opposites to be chosen between, one embraced and the other rejected. The moment we take 'God is personal' to be an absolute descriptor of who and what God is, we have committed idolatry -- we have reified our understanding above God himself. The apophatic 'God is not personal' is not the antithesis of the kataphatic claim that he is, it is not a denial, but a confession that God is beyond our claims and understandings of of personality and person.

Christian thought does not work along the positive-or-false dichotomies so popular today. The mystery of God cannot be contained by our everyday decisions between black and white.

INXC, Matthew

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Matthew,

Thank you for the whole of your post #914 above. It comes at the right time in my own thinking, which helps me to orient myself as rational sheep, no more. If I understand what you are saying correctly, it seems that philosophical truth in Christian theology is expressed through paradox and antinomical statements. You are saying that, while dogmatic formulations need to be adhered to in order to prevent collective heresy and private delusion, the reality of God experienced by the mystic, participated in by the saint, is ultimately inexpressible in rational linguistic terms - and therefore also sometimes outside the scope of the apologist or the "academic" theologian. Is that right? As such, for those blessed by His Grace, God is both a person and not a person, both love and not love. Can we go further? Can we say God is both good and evil? Beyond either and both? Another concern of mine in formulating things this way (or perhaps misunderstanding your actually quite different formulation in this way), is in introducing a non-Orthodox distiction between dogma and experience. I would like to hear your thoughts / clarifications on these two points.

Once again, thank you for pointing out the difference between the reality of God and our image of Him.

In Christ
Byron

[Owen Jones]

While I appreciate all of Matthew's points, I am not convinced that the only way we know God is through some kind of "personal experience" because we are all persons. I think there must be and are impersonal experiences.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Owen wrote:


I am not convinced that the only way we know God is through some kind of "personal experience" because we are all persons. I think there must be and are impersonal experiences.

Thanks for this comment. I agree with what I think you are asserting here; but I think it's expression depends on the perspective being looked at. The point I was trying to make with that comment in my previous post was that we, as persons, only experience things personally. There may indeed be impersonal realities (e.g. the order of mathematics, as you mentioned earlier), but when either you or I experience these, we ourselves experience them personally, simply by virtue of being persons. We cannot be impersonal without denying the most basic assertions about our own creatureliness.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Byron wrote:


As such, for those blessed by His Grace, God is both a person and not a person, both love and not love. Can we go further? Can we say God is both good and evil? Beyond either and both?

This is a good question. And yet the answer in Orthodox thought is clearly 'no', one cannot claim that God is evil, though one can claim that he is 'beyond good', for goodness is ultimately something we judge in respect to approaching in a created way what God is essentially -- so he will always be beyond what we mean or comprehend by the term and idea of 'good'.

The main point here is that 'evil' is not the apophatic qualifier of 'good'. One of the most critical points in understanding how apophatic theology is expressed in the fathers is that 'negative' statements are not the antitheses of positive statements, they are expansions on the truth revealed in positive claims, using terminologies of negation to express that which is beyond the limitations of the positive claims. The statements work together to indicate that which is ultimately beyond both; but the 'negative' statement is not to be understood as the antithetical negation of the positive. One of my favourite 'mundane examples' of this would be to state that 'The sun is round, but it is not a circle', a phrase that has a kataphatic/positive element ('the sun is round') together with an apophatic/negative element ('the sun is not a circle'). The negative statement does not invalidate the first; it is not its 'opposite'. Rather, it further defines through negation that which the limits of the positive affirmation cannot express. The sun is round: this remains true even after the negation that 'it is not a circle', for the sun is in fact a sphere.

This is an earthly analogy with plenty of limitations, but the point is these two kinds of statements are not antithetical but complementary, fostering a deeper understanding through both positive affirmations as well as negations.

The term 'evil' is, almost by definition, the antithesis of good. To claim that 'God is good, and God is also evil' is not in fact a pairing of kataphatic affirmation with apophatic negation: it is the assertion of two 'positive' (affirmative, kataphatic) claims about God, one antithetical to the other. It would be like stating, 'The sun is round, but no it isn't'; or 'the sun is round, and the sun is a square'.


Another concern of mine in formulating things this way (or perhaps misunderstanding your actually quite different formulation in this way), is in introducing a non-Orthodox distiction between dogma and experience. I would like to hear your thoughts / clarifications on these two points.

I think this is a noble concern. Perhaps a few initial thoughts. 'Dogma' is the articulation of experience: the Orthodox understanding that the two are inseparable is not the same thing as suggesting they are one and the same. What is essential is that the articulation be the fruit of experience and not simply the ruminations of a curious intellect dealing in hypothetical issues about God. I tried to speak of this briefly in my previous post. Indeed, it is in this realm that the whole understanding of articulating positively (kataphatically) as well as negatively (apophatically) is essential. Without experience, whole systems can be built of intricately woven positive statements in interrelation, which in turn lead to a whole host of convictions and understandings limited by their positive nature (e.g. the ongoing dilemma over 'how God can be both just and merciful', which is essentially an unsolvable dilemma in a purely kataphatic articulation of God). Articulating also by negation confirms that the experience of God transcends the limitations of articulative speech; confirms as well that the articulation of doctrinal statements (dogma) is not to be constricted by the intellectual problems imposed by only positive claims, but the authentic fruit of true experience which transcends such claims, even as it affirms them.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

A few added thoughts.

When Owen made his post a few days ago I also thought as Matthew that all experiences of God are personal. But I also get from Owen's post the important point that God often acts in a hidden way in our lives. This also reminded me of the book by Fr Alexander Elchaninov where he explains how our constant search for God and our pain at not finding Him plays a crucial role in teaching us about faith and indeed Who God is. As Fr Alexander then says- nothing of truth comes easily without suffering and searching. I thought this was a wonderful insight gained after much suffering himself undoubtedly. And it points to the positive reason why God reveals Himself in the hidden way He does & of how this even helps us to mature spiritually.

The fact is that God often or most times does work indirectly in our regard. This is one of the deepest questions we have about our Christian life for it seems on the face of it to challenge the whole basis of the Gospel promise- "God has revealed Himself to us." Our first impulse is one of frustration and even of betrayal and this will be one of the most crucial struggles- 'Jacob's struggle with God'- that we will ever face.

I am not sure that this was Owen's direct point. Perhaps he was just addressing the way in which God reveals Himself which is often indirect. As Matthew says however this is still the way in which the Personal God seeks us out.

The way in which God reveals Himself is inseparable from what He is as a Person. This in itself reveals to us, who are so much given to spreading ourselves thin and to being well known & acknowledged, much about Who God is.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

I think it's questionable as to whether anyone has ever had a direct experience of God. All such experiences, revelations, are mediated and indirect, it seems to me. If there were such a thing as a direct experience of God, then all of the disciplies would have clearly recognized Jesus as God. This, I think, is slightly different than the issue of personal/impersonal. I would argue that most, if not all people not only have an indirect experience of God, but that rarely do people have what is being termed a personal experience of God. I assume that to mean an experience of God's personhood, so to speak, rather than the obvious truism that all experiences by persons should be defined as personal experiences. I would argue that 99% of us have an experience of God only in terms of what our priest and the Bible tells us to do, i.e., be obedient to the commandments, live a moral life, etc. Some of us do so out of convention. Some out of a sense of duty. Very few out of a deep love of God. Even then, that love is mediated. It is expressed by how we love other people, and how we are loved by other people. All of us who have been to confession have experienced forgiveness, and the great peace that comes from that, unless we wilfully resist, however, that experience is mediated through people. Meanwhile, we are constantly being acted upon by impersonal forces. Not all of these being demonic. God moves us without our knowing it all the time. Further, we know that we are moved at times by things that seem evil or bad at the time, which in hindsight seem to be driven by God's hand to lead toward some greater good.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Matthew,

You wrote


One of the most critical points in understanding how apophatic theology is expressed in the fathers is that 'negative' statements are not the antitheses of positive statements, they are expansions on the truth revealed in positive claims, using terminologies of negation to express that which is beyond the limitations of the positive claims. The statements work together to indicate that which is ultimately beyond both; but the 'negative' statement is not to be understood as the antithetical negation of the positive. One of my favourite 'mundane examples' of this would be to state that 'The sun is round, but it is not a circle', a phrase that has a kataphatic/positive element ('the sun is round') together with an apophatic/negative element ('the sun is not a circle'). The negative statement does not invalidate the first; it is not its 'opposite'. Rather, it further defines through negation that which the limits of the positive affirmation cannot express. The sun is round: this remains true even after the negation that 'it is not a circle', for the sun is in fact a sphere.

What would be the apophatical counterpart of the kataphatic statement "God is good"? Would it be "God is good, and is beyond good"? Or "God is good, and not good"? Also, can you say a bit more about the apophatic way of expressing theological truth? If apophatic theology does not use antitheses, then am I at all correct in imagining that antithesis, paradox, antinomy are ways of expressing truth philosophically in Christianity?

Another issue which seems important specifically wrt "God is good" is the difference between saying He is good in the absolute sense, or qualifying the statement by saying He is characterised by what I as a limited being in my subjectivity know and / or imagine to be "good". If I understand correctly, we Orthodox believe God to be "good" in the first sense; his verdicts, however, may seem to us, who understand things in a limited way, to be incomprehensible, scandalous even. Something which we would consider totally evil may in this respect actually be good from God's perspective, but simply outside our range of understanding - like the story of the man who strangled a child, but then turned out to be an angel executing God's Will in order to prevent a great criminal from reaching adulthood and inheriting damnation for his deeds. This is a story which has always sent a chill down my spine, but I encountered it nevertheless in an Orthodox book. So God is both "good" and "not good" as seen from within our limited human understanding, but the Fathers assure us that He ultimately has humanity's best interests at heart, and those of us with limited experience of God just have to take that on trust. Correct?

Talking about experience of God, Owen makes an interesting point about impersonal experience, which is augmented by Fr Raphael's comments on God's hidden way of working in our lives. Both suggestions would seem to me to resonate with an understanding of the human soul as possessing both conscious and unconscious life. I'm not sure this is what Owen means by use of the term "impersonal" but it would seem to me that the appetitive and incensive aspects of the soul operate at both conscious and unconscious levels, and the unconscious level could be perceived as operating impersonally in our lives; thus we sometimes only come to consciously understand what we have experienced a posteriori. However, "unconscious" does not necessarily mean "impersonal" - especially since, as Orthodox, we do not limit our understanding of personhood to conscious rationality (to logikon), but include the body in our apreciation of the whole person.

Jung suggests that everything is mediated by the human psyche, including our experience of God; in this sense there is no such thing as impersonal experience. Owen calls this a "truism", but I'm not sure it is, because it actually raises very important points about the nature of truth and knowledge. Does mathematics, number for example, exist in an absolute sense, or is it a product / function of the human mind?

In Christ
Byron

[M.C. Steenberg]

Fr Raphael wrote:


When Owen made his post a few days ago I also thought as Matthew that all experiences of God are personal. But I also get from Owen's post the important point that God often acts in a hidden way in our lives. [...]
Thank you for the comments, Father; I enjoyed your message. However, I'd encourage you (and perhaps others) to re-read my messages. My comment on all experience being personal was made specifically in reference to our reception of experience, which is always the case, given that we are persons. This was my intended point when I wrote:


"There may indeed be impersonal realities (e.g. the order of mathematics [...]), but when either you or I experience these, we ourselves experience them personally, simply by virtue of being persons. We cannot be impersonal without denying the most basic assertions about our own creatureliness."

I wasn't there actually making a comment on the question of God acting personally/impersonally, but on the manner in which we, as human persons, experience and receive all acts, all realities, however instigated. Even if one were to argue hypothetically, as a mental exercise, that God were wholly impersonal and had no personal aspect whatsoever (which I of course am not suggesting), still our reception of all done by that impersonal god would be received by us personally, since we are persons.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Owen wrote:


I think it's questionable as to whether anyone has ever had a direct experience of God. All such experiences, revelations, are mediated and indirect, it seems to me. If there were such a thing as a direct experience of God, then all of the disciplies would have clearly recognized Jesus as God. This, I think, is slightly different than the issue of personal/impersonal. I would argue that most, if not all people not only have an indirect experience of God, but that rarely do people have what is being termed a personal experience of God. I assume that to mean an experience of God's personhood, so to speak, rather than the obvious truism that all experiences by persons should be defined as personal experiences.

It seems to me the issue here is one of 'calibre'. I can find no theological grounds to support the idea of the experience of God being indirect for most -- though of course much depends on what we mean by terms such as 'direct/indirect', 'mediated', etc. Orthodox theology is built on the confession that God is experienced directly by all -- this is the root of the sacramental mysteries and the whole of ascetic practice. The fact that in many cases such experience is not 'dramatic', e.g. is not Symeon's overwhelming vision of the divine light, does not mean it is not direct. Nor does mediation (which I realise you did not mention, but I think the ideas are connected so bring it up myself) negate directness in Orthodox thought. A mediated experience is not an indirect experience, but direct experience in mediatorial communion with another. The mediation of prayer with another does not make the prayer indirect; the mediation of God's grace in an icon does not make that grace indirect; etc. Similarly, the mediation of one's experience of God through the commandments, through a sermon, through instruction, does not make the experience indirect, but fashions one's direct experience through the mediation of another, designed to help break through the disunifying, individualising characteristics of our fallen nature as persons.

I appreciate your comment that 'all experiences by persons should be defined as personal experiences' is an 'obvious truism'; but I'm not certain I would agree with its placement in the larger comment, again:


I would argue that most, if not all people not only have an indirect experience of God, but that rarely do people have what is being termed a personal experience of God. I assume that to mean an experience of God's personhood, so to speak, rather than the obvious truism that all experiences by persons should be defined as personal experiences.

My experience is that most people do mean by this common phrase that 'I, personally, experience God directly'. The problem with this as a kind of phenomenon (e.g. something to which one can ask, 'Have you had a personal experience of God?'), is that the answer is always yes. That obvious truism is often forgotten: 'personal experience' of God is no more uncommon than are persons, for we believe God reveals himself to all. It is for this reason that, at the end of the divine Liturgy, whether one has seen visible illumination or not, all sing together 'We have seen the true light...'.

My experience with people using the phrase 'personal experience of God' is that it does in fact relate to the person speaking. But this is where I say that it is an issue of calibre. If one actually acknowledges that truism, then what is meant is the calibre or degree of experience, not the phenomenon of experience itself.

INXC, Matthew

[Eugene]

Owen Jones wrote:


"I think it's questionable as to whether anyone has ever had a direct experience of God. All such experiences, revelations, are mediated and indirect, it seems to me."

Hmm... this sounds very familiar - almost exactly what Barlaam of Calabria said.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Matthew,

Yes I interpreted your words as you describe above. I was just trying to tie the ends together as it were.

After all in my Canadian passport it clearly says: "All Canadians are obligated by law to find an accord between two potentially opposing views- even if those who hold to these views are the best of friends."

Well I couldn't very well disobey the law and be a bad Canadian could I- eh?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

PS: I see the monachos spell-checker still highlights as a mistake the word 'Canadian'. Ah we are the overlooked of the earth!

[Alec Lowly]

Father Raphael writes:


"PS: I see the monachos spell-checker still highlights as a mistake the word 'Canadian'. Ah we are the overlooked of the earth!"

As a Canadian friend of mine is wont to say: "Oh, Canada! So far from God! So close to the United States!"


Alec

[Ken McRae]

Forgive me for speaking, but it appears to me that (according to the illuminated Dionysius) the Divine Darkness is experienced "directly" by the nous; without the mediation of symbols or images of any kind. And that all knowledge of God below that level is experienced or obtained indirectly, or through some form of mediation. In the highest reaches of the Divine Stillness and Silence, God is experienced "directly". The smallest obstacle to this direct union with God is "thought". The mystic must transcend his highest "thoughts" about God before he can plunge himself into the Divine Mystery and become truly simple and One with the 'I AM'. Once again, please forgive me for speaking about something of which I have no 'true' knowledge.

CHAPTER I

"What is the Divine Darkness?

"Supernal Triad, Deity above all essence, knowledge and goodness; Guide of Christians to Divine Wisdom; direct our path to the ultimate summit of your mystical knowledge, most incomprehensible, most luminous and most exalted, where the pure, absolute and immutable mysteries of theology are veiled in the dazzling obscurity of the secret Silence, outshining all brilliance with the intensity of their Darkness, and surcharging our blinded intellects with the utterly impalpable and invisible fairness of glories surpassing all beauty."

" ... the divinest and highest things seen by the eyes or contemplated by the mind are but the symbolical expressions of those that are immediately beneath it that is above all. Through these, Its incomprehensible Presence is manifested upon those heights of Its Holy Places; that then It breaks forth, even from that which is seen and that which sees, and plunges the mystic into the Darkness of Unknowing, whence all perfection of understanding is excluded, and he is enwrapped in that which is altogether intangible, wholly absorbed in it that is beyond all, and in none else (whether himself or another); and through the inactivity of all his reasoning powers is united by his highest faculty to it that is wholly unknowable; thus by knowing nothing he knows That which is beyond his knowledge."

CHAPTER III

"For the higher we soar in contemplation the more limited become our expressions of that which is purely intelligible; even as now, when plunging into the Darkness that is above the intellect, we pass not merely into brevity of speech, but even into absolute silence of thoughts and of words."

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dear Alec,

With Fr. Raphael, lowly worm that I am, despite our proximity to the United States, we embrace our National Anthem..."our true North Country, strong and FREE.", certainly the FREE(dom) referred to here is our God-given right to stand frozen in the Canadian winter during the out door BLESSING of the HOLY WATER for the FEAST of THEOPHANY, and soar into the mystic, (though are feet are so cold we can not move them), nevertheless our spirit in true Orthodox fashion, contemplates the Divine Beauty.

My heart suffers for my poor American sisters and brothers who in January and February are relegated to the lower spheres (temperature-wise). Just think, plus 20 degrees Celsius in Atlanta. May God forbid!! Eh...!

[Owen Jones]

Thanks for the quote from Dionysius.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Fr Raphael wrote:


Yes I interpreted your words as you describe above. I was just trying to tie the ends together as it were.

That's good to know -- thank you for the clarification. This is a topic where it is very easy to 'hear' people saying things other than what they mean to say, since the terminologies involved have differing heritages of meaning to different people.


I see the monachos spell-checker still highlights as a mistake the word 'Canadian'. Ah we are the overlooked of the earth!

Alas, one day that shall be corrected. But rest assured that you are in good company: the spell checker seems also to lash out against 'St', thus attempting to defrock 'St John' to just 'John'. But as was noted some months ago, it also routinely highlights as 'possibly in error' the names of almost every heretic anathematised by the Church. One wonders if there's not some secret artificial intelligence at work somewhere on the server.

Back to the topic at hand: I do think further thought needs to be given to the relationship of terms like 'direct', 'indirect' and 'mediated', among others. In Orthodox thought, a 'mediated experience' is not the same thing as an 'indirect experience': it is direct in the context of mediation. So to say that 'experience is mediated' is not in fact to say that it is not direct. Nor is the shunning of all mediation to be desired. As rational creatures, the direct experience of our eyes, for example, are mediated through our intellect -- we look at a vision of a plant with a long, green stem and a cup-shaped red flower, and our intellect mediates that experience such that we say to ourselves, 'this is a tulip'. The intellect is not lessening the directness or immediacy of the experience through its mediation; it is in fact making that experience fuller in its receipt. As human creatures, we are not called to shun this mediatorial agency of our intellect -- only to learn how to use and attune it, realising and actualising both its strengths and its limitations.

We have to be careful with comparisons to Barlaam of Calabria. I would agree that the statement 'all experience of God is indirect' does echo the general point he was trying to make (his exact charge was the physical creatures cannot directly behold the non-physical God); but this is not so with the phrase 'all experience of God is mediated'. The hesychast tradition he was criticising did not posit that man beholds God in a wholly unmediated way: in fact, the whole controversy centred around the fact that they were claiming mediation -- the eyes. One sees God directly; a direct, mediated experience by definition.

INXC, Matthew

[Ken McRae]

M.C.S. wrote:


"We have to be careful with comparisons to Barlaam of Calabria. I would agree that the statement 'all experience of God is indirect' does echo the general point he was trying to make (his exact charge was the physical creatures cannot directly behold the non-physical God); but this is not so with the phrase 'all experience of God is mediated'. The hesychast tradition he was criticising did not posit that man beholds God in a wholly unmediated way: in fact, the whole controversy centred around the fact that they were claiming mediation -- the eyes. One sees God directly; a direct, mediated experience by definition."

It was'nt my intention to make any comparisons, least of all to Barlaam. I was merely thinking of that written in 'the Mystical Theology'. However, I would like very much to know how the Hesychasts interpreted the following words of Dionysius:-

" ... the divinest and highest things seen by the eyes or contemplated by the mind are but the symbolical expressions of those that are immediately beneath it that is above all. Through these, Its incomprehensible Presence is manifested upon those heights of Its Holy Places; that then It breaks forth, even from that which is seen and that which sees, and plunges the mystic into the Darkness of Unknowing ... "

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

It is wonderful to read Dionysious again. Thank you for this opportunity.

Sometimes, but more seldom than not, I look at a person's profile, if I am unfamiliar with them.

I have to confess that I was taken aback by your long quotation of Meister Eckhart and his statememt that God is 'superessential Nothingness.'

I feel a line must be taken and I will take it.

Meister Eckhart is the darling of every Sufi I know.

'Superessential Nothingness' is NOT the Christian God revealed to us in His utter Humility. It is heresy. It is the password into the metaphyics of the Eastern Religions.

I am being rather bold and outspoken I realize. But let us put our cards on the table.

Apophaticism is Orthodox, but Barlaam's critique was that the Athonite Fathers dared to say they beheld the Uncreated Light, the same Light that engulfed Jesus Christ on Mount Tabor. This Light was a direct result of Prayer, and in this case, the Jesus Prayer.

What is the Darkness of Unknowing? What does it mean to you?

Unless one practices the Jesus Prayer while partaking of the Sacramental Life of the Orthodox Church, this Darkness, will be forever just a word.

Why have endless discussions of metaphysics? Saint Silouan was fond of saying 'the more you pray, the more you pray.' Seems simple enough. But armchair theologians are just that, comfortable in their armchair.

To perceive and understand the paradox 'that the divinest and highest things seen by the eyes or contemplated by the mind are but the symbolical expressions of those that are immediately beneath it that is above all...that then It breaks forth, even from that which is seen and that which sees, and plunges the mystic into the Darkness of Unknowing.' This statement is completely comprehensible to Orthodox Hesychasts whom God has graced with His uncreated Energies.

The Apostles, Peter, James and John beheld Christ on Mt. Tabor. They beheld the Taborite Light. And they were simple fishermen.

If one does not engage oneself in the fierce ascetical battle with the logisimoi (thoughts) and the infernal Pride which is so subtle, the Devil will spin one around and around.

We can read the Fathers of the Church until we are blue in the face. Saint Silouan also said, as did many others, 'live each day as if it were your last.'

Christ's word are healing, comforting, but paradoxical. His commandments heal the soul. But the synergistic effort required demands the crucifixion of the mind, as we perceive it.

Do our eyes behold the Uncreated Light? We have a multitude of Orthodox Fathers and Mothers who beheld the Uncreated Light. Are we fooling ourselves?

Our has Christ given of Himself, emptied Himself in His kenotic Love and adopted us to be His sons and daughters, partakers of His uncreated Energies.

[Olga]

Spare a thought also, Fr Seraphim, for those of us in the southern hemisphere, where Christmas and Theophany are in the middle of summer, particularly in southern Australia! In the city where I live, the temperature reached 35C (37.8C = 100F) on the day of the Nativity, and Theophany was even hotter - 42C. We do have one advantage in this over our brethren in the northern hemisphere, however: a slap on the head with a horsehair brush soaked in holy water is MOST refreshing on a hot day! http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/lol.gif

[Owen Jones]

I guess the question is that when one perceives, directly, the Uncreated Light of God, is that an experience of God's personhood? If those who have had this experience define it in those terms, then fine. I'm just not aware that they felt they needed to insist on that particular terminology. It seems to me that the defense of the Christian God as personal, and defining salvation in terms of personal relationships, is more a modern phenomenon, in reaction to the various romantic religious movements. I think this discussion got prompted by someone quoting some Hindu on the impersonal as well as personal attributes of God. I don't see that as a particularly significant division between Christianity and Eastern religions. I think the uniqueness of Christianity lies elsewhere.

[Arsenios]

Owen writes:


I guess the question is that when one perceives, directly, the Uncreated Light of God, is that an experience of God's personhood? If those who have had this experience define it in those terms, then fine.

Perhaps no need -

For we have Christ's "definition" in Mark

[9:1] And he said unto them, "Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."

And indeed, what was seen was the Person of Christ transfigured, and the Kingdom of God come in Power...

And I have no idea how to describe what that was...

But the idea of the "Personhood of God" being revealed in that vision does seem to fall short, for we have beheld the personhood of God in the flesh of our Lord, in His holy words, and in His holy deeds and works...

What the Light of Tabor is about is the power of the kingdom of God, for that power is not normally perceived directly, but through day to day events, through services, through prayers... Indeed it was not even given then to all the disciples of Christ, but only to three...

Rdr. Arsenios

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

Dear Owen,

Your point is well made and well taken.

The uniqueness of Orthodox Christianity is that within the limitations of human language is expressed as closely as linguistically possible the Unexpressible.

I personally believe that the uniqueness of the Christian Revelation, extending from Mt. Sinai and God's declaration, 'I AM THAT I AM,' to the many I AM statements of Christ, especially in the Gospel of St. John, '...before Abraham was I AM,' etc, are absolute in the sense that Christ 'which is our hope, which is the image of thy goodness, equal mould of thy likeness, showing thee the Father in Himself, the living Word, true God, pre-eternal wisdom, life, sanctification, power, the true light through whom was manifest the Holy Spirit: the Spirit of truth' (Liturgy of St. Basil, the Anaphora) is the final REVELATION.

That six centuries later the same Archangel, Gabriel, would appear to Mohammed and declare a different revelation in which Christ is but one Prophet amongst others, that He was not crucified, etc...(I could go on, but will spare you) is to myself, and other Orthodox Christians a hard pill to swallow.

My mention of the statement of Meister Eckhart which was not actually even posted, is that, I see time and time again, this transgression/betrayal of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who, as we state in the Nicene Creed, is True Man and True God, by statements of Meister Eckhart to name only one.

Within Orthodox Christianity, fortunately so far, we do not witness the utter foolishness of Catholics being proclaimed Zen Roshis, and their Church allowing them to do so. It is in the very fallacy of the filioque and its dogmatic distortion of the Trinity that allows contemporary Catholicism to inspire itself with Sufism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Native American religions etc.

For me, speaking personally, there is only one Shepherd, the rest both before, Buddha, Krishna etc, and after, Mohammed, Guru Nanak and Sikhism etc, are false. And the proof or litmus test, if you will, hinges on the I AM THAT I AM.

When Christ was asked in his final hours 'what' therein lies the error, the question is 'who.'

[Owen Jones]

Perhaps we are getting closer to the mark, but I don't think we are there yet. Power seems to be the key term here. What, in my estimation, makes Christianity unique is how we view and experience suffering. Suffering is the thing that binds all creatures together. It is what we all have in common. And there is a sense in which everything that has ever been done or ever been written is in response to suffering. Christianity offers a unique view of suffering as revealed in Christ which is quite unlike anything else, and is what makes Christian faith so demanding. It is faith in God, or a particular understanding of God, to be sure, but that understanding is framed by our understanding of suffering, and how we are to suffer, and the power of transformation that comes from suffering. Suffering is an unnatural state, the result of sin. Where there is suffering, grace abounds. Does that mean that we should sin more, that grace should abound? Heaven forbid! But that is the paradox of suffering, and the vision of how we are to suffer is that of God suffering, for no good reason, since He is not guilty of sin. I can think of only one contemporary Orthodox writer who comes close to dealing with this adequately, and that is Mathew the Poor.

The Diaries of Etty Hillesum, reputedly a convert to Christianity, is very much on the mark. I would also add to that, Solzhenitsyn in Gulag II, and the author of Life and Death in Shanghai, and Christopher DeVink, who wrote The Power of the Powerless. Not coincidentally, the great spiritual works of the 20th century were not by theologians, but by people who underwent intense, irrational suffering, usually at the hands of political fanatics.

Any sermon that does not connect on the level of pathos has really fallen flat, in my opinion, which is the problem with the Church today. It resorts to either empty platitudes or historical explanations, while the true meaning of suffering is kept secret, and people suffer silently and agonize over it.

[Matthew Panchisin]

If I may add a few words, I remember about 25 years ago now when a good friend was reading quite a bit like Gurdjieff and the forth way. He was handed the Philokalia, two weeks latter he showed up at work and threw the pile of Gurdjieff type books in the garbage and said "you're right."

He quickly came to the conclusion that the resurrection was central and necessary for salvation. There could not be a resurrection if there was not suffering. What would our Orthodox Christian faith be without the resurrection of Christ. There is no other way there can't be. So when Christ said “I am the resurrection and the life" our powerful response should also be "Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.” Then you end up in a war which is harder with no wife or kids in college to help you understand things better.

In Christ,
Matthew Panchisin

[Ken McRae]

Years ago, I was briefly acquainted with an Orthodox Reader by the name of Alexander Teft, who seemed tireless in driving home to me how the Orthodox ethos had more in common with the Oriental Eastern philosophy, such as that of Buddhism, Taoism, and yes, even Sufism, than it did with Catholicism; so it is needless to say that I found your words about the Sufi's just a little amusing and somewhat nostalgic, for me. Not long after I lost contact with Reader Teft, an Orthodox commentary on Lao Tzu was published, entitled the Tao of Christ. Perhaps you know of it. It is a work first initiated by Fr Seraphim Rose, only to be completed latter by one of his disciples; if I'm not mistaken.

You are a wise man, no doubt, and therefore must surely realize that these same Sufi's you speak of read the Bible, too, and yes, even the Philokalia, and many other Orthodox mystical writings, in very much the same manner that they approach Eckhart. And, according to Reader Teft, that's to be perfectly expected, for the very reason stated above. And the Cult of the Fourth Way is'nt the only gnostic group pouring over the Philokalia and the writings of men like St. Seraphim of Sarov! If you have any doubts of this, you need only look here: The Spiritual Instructions of Saint Seraphim of Sarov (http://www.dabase.net/stsarovc.htm). Now, is the value of the Scriptures and the holy writings of the Philokalia in any way diminished by the fact that these Gnostics love to play with them? Then how so the writings of Meister Eckhart?

Of all the possible choices of Western mystical writings, that the Sufi's choose to read Eckhart over them all proves just one thing: that he is, in fact, the greatest Western exponent of the spirituality of the Pseudo-Dionysius and the apophatic way. Eckhart is no more to them than Plato is to the early Greek fathers, or Plotinus to the later ones. To draw anymore than this from that would be entirely disingenuous, I feel. Do the charges of heresy against Origen and Evagrios diminish their importance or place in the study of Orthodox spirituality? As far as I understand, Origen was the first to use the term 'philokalia' as the title for a collection of writings he complied; which name was latter adopted and applied to the later collection of the neptic fathers. And Evagrios, despite his heresies, has been given an honored place in the first volume of that priceless collection. Now, like Evagrios, Eckhart is a central, if not formative figure in the apophatic school of the West. Whatever you say, it is as impossible to ignore him in the study of Catholic spirituality as it is to ignore Evagrios in the study of Orthodox spirituality! And along with Eckhart, I must mention his greatest disciples as well: Tauler, Suso, Ruysbroeck, and A'Kempis.

With all due respect, Fr Seraphim, it is a pity that you cannot find it within yourself to accept Bishop Hilarion's very wise advice, on examining "another tradition from within with the desire to understand rather than to denounce or humiliate it." (http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/2.aspx) Forgive me, but I'm just a little curious to know about the way you personally practice the evangelical counsel to love your enemies: Is it to publicly denounce and humiliate them? The good Bishop Hilarion makes it clear that he believes "much may be obtained from a comparative analysis of the theology of the Greek Fathers and the teaching of Western authors who, although they lived after the schism, were familiar with at least some Byzantine patristic works, in particular Meister Eckhart, John Scotus Eriugena, Thomas Aquinas and Lancelot Andrewes." (http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/2.aspx) And to that end, Bishop Hilarion has recommended the following studies in a footnote: "[27] The following brilliant monographs should be mentioned: Alexander Brilliantov, The Influence of Eastern on Western theology in the Works of John Scotus Eriugena, Saint Petersburg, 1898 (in Russian); Vladimir Lossky, La théologie negative chez Maître Ekhart, Paris, 1959; Nicholas Lossky, Lancelot Andrewes le prédicateur (1555-1626), Paris, 1986." (http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/2.aspx) If you're able to speak any French, a small portion of Vladimir Lossky's work on Eckhart (http://www.ellopos.net/theology/eckhart_lossky.htm) can be accessed online. And since you have mentioned St Silouan, it may interest you to know that the works of Meister Eckhart found a place in Archimandrite Sophrony's personal library. You can verify that yourself, if you care, by reading the chapter on him in Bolshakoff's work, In Search of True Wisdom (http://www.biblio.com/books/25577655.html).

Now, regarding Eckhart's negation, or 'super-essential nothingness', it is my humble (unlearned) opinion such is squarely and firmly rooted in the symbolical theology of the Pseudo-Dionysius. Sadly, I feel it would be lost on you to labour the point, but I'll try to, briefly. Allow me, though, to first quote the entire sentence from Eckhart: "If I also say, God is a Being, it is not true; He is transcendent Being and superessential Nothingness." (http://www.ellopos.net/theology/eckhart_above-understanding.html) I have since edited the quote, and replaced it with a better translation, which reads thusly: "If I say: 'God is a being,' it is not true; He is a being transcending being and a transcending nothingness." So, in this one sentence, Eckhart, being true to the spirit and teaching of his beloved master, Dionysius, makes an affirmation followed by its negation. Now, it seems clear to me that when read in its proper context, what Eckhart means by the term "transcending nothingness" is that since God is transcending being, that is to say, since His being transcends all things, including being itself, then there is nothing, i.e. no thing, that can dwell in the presence of His transcending (super-essential) essence. Is that too hard? Thus, St. Dionysius says that "one is supremely united by a completely unknowing inactivity of all knowledge, and knows beyond the mind by knowing nothing." I repeat: "knowing nothing", as in the "transcending nothingness" that Eckhart points at in the above words.

St. Dionysius says: "What has actually to be said about the Cause of everything is this: Since it is the Cause of all beings, we should posit and ascribe to it all the affirmations we make in regard to beings, and, more appropriately, we should negate all these affirmations, since it surpasses all being." Now, what is this to say but that the Cause of all things is "transcending being", as Eckhart states above? And as Dionysius says, if we say that the First Cause is transcending (super-essential) being, then the negation of that is even a more appropriate or suitable description. And that is what Eckhart has done: made the affirmation and followed it with the appropriate negation. Dionysius continues: "Now we should not conclude that the negations are simply the opposites of the affirmations, but rather that the cause of all is considerably prior to this, beyond privations, beyond every denial, beyond every assertion." (COWS Edition (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0809128381/qid=1139096556/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-5513609-2744700?s=books&v=glance&n=283155), p. 136) Now, anyone familiar with Eckhart will know that he adheres strictly to the above counsel of Dionysius; holding or belieiving that the Cause of All infinitely transcends both the affirmation of "transcending being" and its negation: "transcending nothingness".

Well, it appears to me that I have said way too much, and that it is now time for me to withdraw from this thread. Please accept my apology for disrupting it. You are free to crucify me if you desire. I will not resist or reply, but leave you the final word, out of respect for your office. You seem like you know your Dionysius, so it's a pity you refused to engage the question; but I understand your reasoning, I think. But I tend to think way too much, admittedly. In reply, though, to my own question, I wish to close with the following words of St. Dionysius: "The visible is truly the plain image of the invisible." (COWS Edition (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0809128381/qid=1139096556/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-5513609-2744700?s=books&v=glance&n=283155), p. 289) With that, I now bid you all adieu! It's back to the quietness of the cyber shadows for me.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Theophilus,

It seems to me that there is a difference between lands that are dripping honey on people, seemingly flowing with milk and the Church of Christ that springs forth the fountain of immortality. In Christ and in the Church there is real reconciliation and life, it is there that Orthodox Christians receive the body and blood of Christ. Only the New Jerusalem can shine forever. I think that is an important distinction and that was the my point in mentioning my good friend throwing the pile of Gurdjieff type books in the garbage. I didn't mean to imply anything else.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Marie-Duquette]

Theophilous, beloved of God,

Thank you for all that you have written and shared with us on this "thread" ... sorry that you have cut your part of this "thread";for this weaving will certainly have something missing in it!

(I do spin and weave real fiber and real threads into various fabrics; and, I know how each thread, and that each part of the thread has "value" for the completeness of the fabric -- SHADOWS and LIGHT --)

Thank you for the quotes! God continue to bless you in your studies, meditations, and contemplations; and in your searching out of our transcendant and personal God in the "shadows of cyber-space"!

marie_duquette

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Theophilus,

Like Marie Duquette, I for one will miss your learned and intelligent contributions to this thread, and hope you will not withdraw from the forum altogether. Orthodoxy is true, and those who defend its truth are right to do so, especially if they do so from within the clergy, in which case they have an added responsibility to correct and caution against possible error. Nevertheless, even the staunchest defender of the faith knows there is value in every concerted human effort to make sense of life, God-inspired or not, "for there must also be heresies among you that they which are approved may be made manifest among you" (1 Cor 11:19). I can't begin to comment on the spiritual depths of a Dionysius or the profundity of Meister Eckhart's writings, but like a music lover, I can still appreciate a good symphony, even if I can't write or critique one! As a layman, I'm grateful to theologians and clergy for being there to clarify and instruct how we should understand such major thinkers.

Dear Owen,

I like what you write about the approach to suffering being Christianity's distinguishing feature. Buddhism and other religions also teach much that is useful on suffering, but there is certainly something in the Christian approach to it which defies attempts at systematization and refreshes the soul in a unique way:


Suffering is an unnatural state, the result of sin. Where there is suffering, grace abounds. Does that mean that we should sin more, that grace should abound? Heaven forbid! But that is the paradox of suffering, and the vision of how we are to suffer is that of God suffering, for no good reason, since He is not guilty of sin.

God, Who alone is perfect, permitted Himself to suffer. Yet a toothache is enough to shake my faith. The way we experience suffering is a true measure of the extent to which we participate in Grace.

Thank you brothers for your contributions!

In Christ
Byron

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

Regarding Meister Eckhardt, the Wikipedia article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meister_Eckhart) on him says


He distinguished, as did early Gnostics like Valentinus, between psyche and spiritual element in human being. Valentinian spiritual seed can be compared to Eckhart's fuenklein, scintilla animae, ground of the soul or soul-spark, which he identifies with "Imago Dei" from the Bible. This indestructible and divine element in the human being is for Eckhart (and for the major Christian mystical theology, including the concept of "synteresis" in the Eastern Orthodox tradition) only a potentiality, a latent function that needs to be nourished by vituous living and spiritual vigilance in order to grow and expand, unlike perfect Buddha nature from Mahayana Buddhism or Atman from Hindu Vedanta. The "Imago Dei" is sometimes compared to the fallen Adam, exiled from Paradise, and the new Adam, potentially the final destination of soul-spark if it, through classic Christian spiritual stages of purificative, contemplative and illuminative life, comes to the unitive life where soul-spark is self-transformed into Logos

I would appreciate some help in unpacking this paragraph; particularly the following:

1) What is the concept of "synteresis" in EO theology which the article refers to?
2)Why is the requirement in Eckhardt that the latent function of the Divine element in the human being be "nourished in order to grow and expand" by virtuous living and spiritual vigilance "unlike perfect Buddha nature from Mahayana Buddhism or Atman from Hindu Vedanta"?

At another point in the same article, it states that for Eckhardt, Dionysian negative theology is "clearly wrong", but again I do not understand why from the context. I know Wikipedia articles can be of varying quality, but they can perhaps be useful as starting points for discussion. I would be grateful if someone could clarify the above two points for me.

In Christ
Byron

[M.C. Steenberg]

Owen wrote:


Perhaps we are getting closer to the mark, but I don't think we are there yet. Power seems to be the key term here. What, in my estimation, makes Christianity unique is how we view and experience suffering. Suffering is the thing that binds all creatures together. It is what we all have in common. And there is a sense in which everything that has ever been done or ever been written is in response to suffering.

Interestingly, in connection to the discussion above, this realisation has been at least in part at play in the resurgence of 'does God suffer?' types of questions over the past 60 years (i.e. questions on God's impassibility), in no small degree prompted by the intense suffering of the second world war. I agree entirely with what Owen has said on this; but it is interesting also to note the phenomenon of 'transporting' theological realities felt in a heightened way in times of need / exigence, to modes of articulating theological reality as absolutes in all situations. Thus when the depersonalisation of humanity becomes social norm, the 'personalising of God' becomes less the confessional reality of the experience of God, and more a definitive principle of Godhead. Similarly, when human suffering at the hands of seemingly impassible, unfeeling world leaders or powers becomes widespread or even normative, the inverse is sought after in God. The need for compassion becomes a confession of passibility, and this not an articulation of experience, but a dogmatic insistence on a principle of the divine being.

So we have to be careful.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Matthew S. wrote:


Thus when the depersonalisation of humanity becomes social norm, the 'personalising of God' becomes less the confessional reality of the experience of God, and more a definitive principle of Godhead. Similarly, when human suffering at the hands of seemingly impassible, unfeeling world leaders or powers becomes widespread or even normative, the inverse is sought after in God.

I think these comments are a real insight about the possible relationship of our suffering to how we perceive God- or perhaps what we stress or look for from God. Which is in a way something good.

Where this becomes more ambiguous though I think is in the equal tendency we have to project our own selfishness onto how we portray God. Thus God is more personalised in the face of an unfeeling society- very good, there is a real point in this. But we do not yet see God in a repentant, purified or humble fashion. So inevitably we project our selfish desires & then demands onto what He is. He does not respond as we wish- and He is one more example of the 'unfeeling' so we turn away from Him also.

We have a natural tendency to turn to God in our suffering. This must however be very rapidly accompanied by humility. Otherwise we do not see that we are setting ourselves up as the very same type of 'authority figures' that can without compunction lord it over and cause suffering to others.

The question therefore for the Christian is not simply one of suffering and God. It is how do I stop causing this selfish suffering to others? Otherwise as is well shown in 20th century history- the greatest sufferers can also be the greatest tyrants.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Fr Raphael wrote:


Where this becomes more ambiguous though I think is in the equal tendency we have to project our own selfishness onto how we portray God. Thus God is more personalised in the face of an unfeeling society- very good, there is a real point in this. But we do not yet see God in a repentant, purified or humble fashion. So inevitably we project our selfish desires & then demands onto what He is. He does not respond as we wish- and He is one more example of the 'unfeeling' so we turn away from Him also.

We have a natural tendency to turn to God in our suffering. This must however be very rapidly accompanied by humility. Otherwise we do not see that we are setting ourselves up as the very same type of 'authority figures' that can without compunction lord it over and cause suffering to others.

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to reply to these comments, which I very much appreciated. I think, in fact, that this is something that stands behind the ancient confessions of God's impassibility (that is, the confession that God does not 'suffer'). Part of the widespread rejection of this confession in the modern era has been based on specific perceptions of what 'suffering' must be and entail, largely based on the experience of human suffering in and through several major catastrophes of the recent century. It seems to me that a real component of this has been the surface, outward 'impassibility' (in this usage, meaning emotionlessness, ruthlessness, etc.) of those who have caused and advanced the violence and pain. Ancient confessions of an 'impassible' God have seemed, at least to many in the twentieth century, as too reminiscent of insufferable men.

But the ancient confessions of God's impassibility aren't meant to void God of compassion -- far the opposite. There is something in it of your confession of humility: man seeks to see certain things in God, things that comfort and give support, especially in pain, suffering, trial. But humility must always remind that 'My ways are not as your ways'; that there is always a otherness to God, even his immediacy.

A good book recently on this: The suffering of the impassible God.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thanks Matthew for your comments. I had not previously thought of how God's impassibility expresses His love & compassion for us. Of course as you point out though it is crucial that we understand that God's impassibility is not what we so often mean when we use this word for how other people act. Then impassibility means behaviour that is cold and without compassion.

How this issue is so central to the most important issues we face pastorally and in the parish! Modern man cries out for active compassion to the extent that this almost defines who we are. The danger however is that the 'crying man' so rapidly nowadays becomes the 'dominating man'. This is because we do not recognise the sin that also festers in our wounds & because we do not recognise how equally with the pain is selfishness.

We hear very commonly nowadays that if you beat the man a tyrant results. What if it is more that to the exact extent that we do not follow the road of humility- to that exact extent our solution to our suffering will turn into tyranising others. Could this be an explanation of what is behind the escalating use of personal violence in our day? There seems to be some very important message in this for us especially as we approach Great Lent.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Fr Raphael,

I was just reading back over this thread today, and was struck by much of its contents as they now look, examined from the immediacy of the Paschal celebrations and texts. It has always seemed to me that questions of God as 'personal', especially as these relate to what personal means in terms of relation - and more exactly, suffering relation - are most fully confronted in the liturgical commemoration of the passia and resurrection. In some sense, this is when Christianity as a religion is at its 'most personal'; but paradoxically, it is also when it is at its most impassible. I never cease to be struck by the balance of the liturgical celebration of these events. They are so profound and moving precisely because they never allow the single-focus emotionalism by which we normally characterise profundity ('He was so perfectly sad...', 'It was pure bliss...') to reign. The hymns beside the tomb are sung in the midst of the joy of the Holy Saturday Liturgy, priests vested in white, and the theotokion after the anaphora has Christ comfort his mother with the words, 'Do not lament me... for I will arise'. Then, on the other side of the balance, the brightness of Pascha itself is capstoned with the 'Vespers of Love', at which the Gospel reading is one of doubt: 'Unless I put my fingers in his side...'.

This brought me back to your comments:


I had not previously thought of how God's impassibility expresses His love & compassion for us. [...] How this issue is so central to the most important issues we face pastorally and in the parish! Modern man cries out for active compassion to the extent that this almost defines who we are. The danger however is that the 'crying man' so rapidly nowadays becomes the 'dominating man'. This is because we do not recognise the sin that also festers in our wounds & because we do not recognise how equally with the pain is selfishness.

This is precisely where the balance of the Holy Week services seems so significant: the pain and anguish of the betrayal, the death, is not allowed to become wailing agony. Wailing agony quickly turns selfish. It can be righteous, but it is a dangerous righteousness - too prone to a centring on the self, to the arousal of anger. And so Christ's 'Do not lament...' to the one who had the most justifiable reason to do so. And so, similarly, the singing of 'Alleluia' on the days leading to Holy Wednesday; so the 'Glory to Thy longsuffering...' surrounding the reading of the twelve passion Gospels. 'Glory' surrounding the reading of the most terrible words of scripture.

This goes back to the discussion we were having at the beginning of this thread, namely on God being 'personal'. Many good points were raised. There are many still to raise. But Holy Week and Pascha seem to sum up the confessions made by the Church: that God is a person and personal, and that God is beyond person, beyond personal. This is the only way to make sense of the full scope of the week's events: that it is a person who is crucified, a person mourned in the tomb, yet all creation that is raised in Christ, all of death that is defeated.

XB, Matthew