The 'god' of reason [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Prof Richard McBride

24-01-2002, 11:38 PM

A Problem of Discernment

If the reasonableness of Dawkins' position (shown in the lead quotation for this string) is fairly easily recognized for what it is: The replacement of Holy Knowledge and teachings of the Gospel by an epistemology of man -- if such agnosticism, which demands reason as a path to God, is fairly transparent, it should be because the Bible and the writings of the Fathers of the Church illustrate that none of this is new, but that these "reason" heresies have long existed.

One of the many many lessons against raising reason to the status of idol is taken from Wisdom, wherein the writer speaks of ungodly men who summon death by their words:
"For they reasoned unsoundly..." Wis: 2.1
"Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray,
for their wickedness [in Daawkins' case, unbelief] blinded them,
and they did not know the secret purposes of God,
nor hope for the wages of holiness,
nor discern the prize for blameless souls,
for God created man for incorruption,
and made him in the image of his own eternity,
but through the devil's envy death entered the world,
and those who belong to his party experience it. Wis: 2.21-24 RSV

More recent heresies of the Gnosticism of the New Age are much more difficult to discern. They come out hidden under the peaceful nature of Christ and His Beatitudes of kindness. An example of this sort comes from the Winter issue of Antioch Review, in this case from a quotation by Stephen Jay Gould, speaking to the awful events of 9-11, and to the sentimental response of the people whose hard shell of skepticism had been cracked [my own interpretation] :

"We have a duty, almost a holy responsibility, to record and
honor the victorious weight of these innumerable little
kindnesses ... from an entire planet -- the acts that must be
recorded to reaffirm the overwhelming weight of human decency."

This type of thinking is much more difficult to discern to be one of the idols.

M.C. Steenberg

25-01-2002, 01:22 AM

I have actually read that quotation before, though it had been without attribution and I therefore didn't know it was by Dawkins. It's not terribly surprising.

My favourite response to secular demands for 'reasons' or 'proof' for a belief in God comes in the form of an anecdote about a monk and a scholastic that I've always found both amusing and insightful:

A scholastic one walked up to an elderly monk.

'Monk', said the scholar, 'tell me why I should believe in God. Give me a reason, just one reason.'

The monk stroked his beard, thought long and hard, then turned to the scholastic with his answer.

'No'.

http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif Sometimes the demands are misguided and the requests irrelevant. The best response is simplicity.

INXC, Matthew

John Curtis Dunn

25-01-2002, 05:34 AM

Reason is not evidence, it is persuasion, and to be more precise it is the art of persuasion. Dawkins knows that there can be no axiomatic evidence that proves or disproves the existence of the Divine. Simply stated, Dawkins lacks evidence to substantiate necessity within the human "gene pool" for man's belief in a Creator and more pertinently, he lacks evidence that proves the non-existence of God. Therefore he must resort to the Ad Hominem logic of Ridicule.

Dawkins quite cleverly attempts to obfuscate his motivation through the art of persuasive speech, rhetoric. The opening sentence of the quote read: "I think that the Bible as literature should be a compulsory part of the national curriculum". Upon reading these words the critical reader questions, "To whom where these words addressed?" I would suggest they were and are those who attempt to remain aloof and unbiased towards the debate over introducing a Science of design into the School curriculum. What is at stake for Dawkins is the future and therefore he is willing to make compromises with the present? He proposes to grant to Christianity a kind of honorary status, a Tenured position, by saying “[that] you can’t understand English literature and culture without it.” Once tenured it is now timed to move forward towards retirement. Dawkins is in fact appealing to a future society via the social planners of that future.

Dawkins schemes to advance his theories by slight of hand. Dawkins does not state that Religion must show evidence for the existence of the Divine, rather he demands only that “smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine.” Not evidence but reason is required, for reason resides in the realm of the abstract construction of thought, and it is a realm in which eclecticism is prevalent.

Through what kind of reasoning then does Dawkins lead us to conclude "...we should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious
unicorns."? Is it just the reasoning of a skeptic, or is an agenda being aimed towards?

As an Orthodox Christian I assert that there is within all of us a "small smidgen of reason for the existence of the Divine" it is called Freewill. It is precisely our freewill that elevates man from among the environment of his earthly nature.

John Curtis

Percy James

25-01-2002, 11:08 PM

Richard, I'm confused about your last posting, when you talked at the end about the remembrance of "little acts of human decency" as one of the idols. Can you elaborate?

Prof Richard McBride

26-01-2002, 07:29 AM

"Richard, I'm confused about your last posting, when you talked at the end about
the remembrance of "little acts of human decency" as one of the idols. Can you
elaborate?"

The second half of that post read:
"More recent heresies of the Gnosticism of the New Age are
much more difficult to discern. They come out hidden under
the peaceful nature of Christ and His Beatitudes of
kindness. An example of this sort comes from the Winter
issue of Antioch Review, in this case from a quotation by
Stephen Jay Gould, speaking to the awful events of 9-11, and
to the sentimental response of the people whose hard shell
of skepticism had been cracked [my own interpretation] :

"We have a duty, almost a holy responsibility, to record and
honor the victorious weight of these innumerable little
kindnesses ... from an entire planet -- the acts that must
be recorded to reaffirm the overwhelming weight of human
decency."

This type of thinking is much more difficult to discern to
be one of the idols."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Percy's confusion over the second half of my "reason" post (referring to Gould's
quote on human decency) is, I see on second reading, quite justified. And further
attempts at explanation will doubtlessly bog down in what academics refer to as,
my anecdotal style. Yet, I owe some hope for extraction to anyone who has
struggled with it.

Sometime in the 70's, a different class of students began popping up in American
universities, and by the mid 80's they were becoming identifiable at every level.
They were a "nicer and gentler" sort of student -- less determinedly rebellious
(esp. compared to those of the 60's) and not so individualistic and drug prone. In
their seriousness they were truly good and earnest students, but for purposes of
the architectural studio, they lacked experience, and they were not able to
"reason" out a situation so well; that is, they were not very good at problem
solving nor at discovering design solutions.

Today, those students have merged with the Postmodern generation of attitudes
which now populate the ebb and flow of public ideas. At the top they have become
entrenched Postmodern thinkers, likely to be conversant in Structuralism. At the
bottom (where most of us live) the folks all about us are more concerned with
Diversity (as expression of their intellect) and jogging (as expression of their
aesthetic: the body beautiful). Some such spread represents the difference
between top and bottom, but something else represents a huge similitude. This
common quality is that their system of values is unfailingly New Age.

Now, if this were an essay I should be obliged to define New Age at about this
point; but since we are admittedly anecdotal (without the prerequisite humor,
unhappily), the point may devolve upon a descriptive device. For indeed, we all
know what New Age is -- the problem being that you do not know what I mean by
it. For starters, cf. Dogpile's list of "new age" entries:

1. Subliminal Tapes From InnerGear

2. New Age Church
Universal Life Church offers free, legal ordination online.

3. New Age Software Creates Harmony
You can control your inner thoughts to create your dream life. Visual subliminal
software solves ...

4. Capricrons Lair Offering New Age Items
Capricorns Lair online store offers the best in New Age, metaphysical and wicca
and pagan items...

5. eBay - Golden Age Romance Comic Books

6. New Age Cards! Feng Shui, Chakras, plus
Your source for bright rainbow-coded new age and alt. health charts, cards, &
more- FengShui, aromas, color therapy, massage/ reflexology, crystals,
affirmatns, etc. Self-help/ prof. +Whsl.

7. Horoscopes, Spellcasting, Amulets, Etc
Purchase world-class horoscopes, powerful spells, mystical amulets, and much
more.

8. New Age Music
Inspiring, soul-filling, seriously euphoric new age CDs produced by some of our
most compelling new age musicians.

9. Future World
New age and alternative lifestyle books and subliminal tapes.

...and so much more. Check it out if you are in a quandary. More importantly,
this list is a description of how all ages, young and old, today worship the world. It
is the pop message of consumption. It is the engine for a New World Order. And it
is so vast, that almost any materialistic comment I might make is likely to fit
within its imprecise borders. But focus on only two issues: Kindness and
Spirituality.

Those kids of the early 80's were becoming so sweet and kind, I had to stop
throwing erasers at them; I had to quit tearing up totally unprepared work in front
of the class. The change helped me, softened me, but it failed to bring them up to
the toughness which earlier had been the hallmark for architectural design
students. For the past couple of decades they have been sweeter and nicer, but
they cannot solve the problems of urban design and building sites as earlier
graduates had done.

They are kind to a fault. They are so well intended, in a nice sort of way, that they
entirely fail to see the great hypocrisy in marching one day to save the whales,
and turning out the next day for Pro Choice rallies (this was Bishop Basil's great
line). Save the Whales and Kill the Babies! They cannot understand the insanity of
it. But then, they are no longer able to solve problems so well.

Also, it would surprise many cloistered types to realize just how spiritual these
sweet new agers are. Years ago I blasted a couple of them with the idea that they
should cooperate with their guardian angels. I thought that notion would set their
ears back. But they just smiled. They were perfectly at home with the likes of
spirits; so angles meant no more to them. I suppose if one took a pole they
should find that the majority of new agers believe in spirits. But this is the
problem, is it not? There are two types of spirits. They only know of one.

To illustrate the point, I will mention a pair of sweet (older) ladies who recently
became incensed at my castigation of the Harry Potter heresy. Why, they said,
those stories illustrate the triumph of good over evil. Good prevails, much as did
the fairy tales of our youth. I asked where God came into either type of story
making? "God may not have been present," they said, "but good was." They could
just as well have said that Harry Potter was a good witch, or a good demon (they
didn't, but I think they were on the point of it).

A GOOD WITCH? That perfectly characterizes the "kindness" mentality today.
White witches are OK because they say they are good. In an earlier day, such a
question would not have come up because no one believed in witches at all --
neither in spirits nor angels. This is the position Dawkins and Gould hold, I think.
Now, at least, people (new agers) believe in good witches and kind demons.

I end with this: THERE ARE ONLY TWO TYPES OF SPIRITS; THERE IS THE
HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD, along with His angels, with Michael at the their head; and
there is the other type, the fallen spirits of satan. There are no others. Father
Seraphim Rose warned, as did more than one of the Desert Fathers: If you should
meet a well pleasing spirit, have no qualms! Ask forthrightly, Who are you? Who
sent you? Where are you from? If he is demonic, he will melt away. If He is of
God, He will explain Himself.

Forgive my failure to enlighten; but don't fail to ask again.
subdeacon richard

Prof Richard McBride

26-01-2002, 08:30 AM

FREEWILL

"As an Orthodox Christian I assert that there is within all
of us a "small smidgen of reason for the existence of the
Divine" it is called Freewill. It is precisely our freewill
that elevates man from among the environment of his earthly
nature."

John Curtis Dunn equates reason with free will, and that with
the cause of seeking God -- if I be not wrong in interpreting his
meaning.

If there is a stickier wicket than reason, it must be freewill. But
John has done beautifully in explaining reason (cf his message
of Thu, 24 Jan 2002 23:34:03 re The "god" of reason). So,
perhaps he might flesh out this notion as well.

It is opportune that this subject comes up at this time, for I
have only recently started reading "The City of God", due a
great deal to comments in these postings (cf the Augustin
thread), and to comments (I believe I read here) concerning
Augustin's use of freewill, perhaps in a non Orthodox way?

My understanding is that Predestination (one of freewill's
bug-a-boos) is strictly rejected in Orthodoxy. But that in its
place, Synergism is quite OK. Indeed, I have heard many
speak of synergism (Fathers Hopko and Guilquest come
immediately to mind) but I have never had a chance to study it
either.

I had thought Synergism was a Protestant invention; from
Philipp (Schwarzerd) Melanchton of Wittenberg; d.1560.

But in saying that, I note that Aristotle used the term: synergia,
meaning "co-operate". And I am aware that used in Orthodoxy,
the term encapsulates much that was written in The Shepherd
of Hermas, as well as in Origen's work. But neither of these
sources, while interesting to me, seem to have become
backbone theses in Orthodoxy.

So, I am naive about this path; for surely if one supports
freewill, via the route of reason, one must arrive at Synergia?

perplexed subdeacon richard

M.C. Steenberg

27-01-2002, 02:54 AM

Richard wrote:

So, I am naive about this path; for surely if one supports freewill, via the route of reason, one must arrive at Synergia?

It's probably worth pointing out that synergeia is a technical term that means different things in different contexts; and as a philosophical concept, it takes on different readings depending on whom one is asking for a definition. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

But the basic concept of synergy is that of common activity or shared movement (the two Greek roots being syn/'together' and ergeia/'work' or 'action'), and this is certainly an idea that, when discussed in regard to salvation, has the backing of the Church and the Fathers.

The heart of the conception is the important reality of free will, and the attached concept of God's presentation of salvation to the sinner. God does not force salvation upon a person (predestination), nor does a person save himself or herself (self-righteousness); God saves us, but not apart from us (hence 'synergy'). There is always a sense in which the human, free will must willingly submit in obedience, if the salvation offered by God is to become a reality in an individual's life. God grants salvation, and the individual must participate in what has been offered (through faith, sacraments, worship, etc) as well as conform his or her life to the new life that is continually received (through prayer, ascesis, and so forth). Salvation is thus a dynamic process in which God is the artisan and craftsman, but in which we also have our part to play.

The one major weakness I see in the term 'synergy' is that in modern English it tends to suggest a certain level of equality (though the term technically does not imply this): 'working together' has a flavour of 'working as equals'. This is certainly not acceptible in Orthodox thought: it is always God who saves, never humanity; yet God saves us through our participation in His salvation. There is, indeed, 'synergy' -- but it is synergy without the slightest sense of equality. Though we may act ('Work out your salvation in fear and trembling...'), it is never us, but God who saves.

INXC, Matthew

John Curtis Dunn

27-01-2002, 07:49 AM

Posted on Sunday, January 27, 2002 - 1:54 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard wrote: <snip> "If there is a stickier wicket than reason, it must be freewill. But
John . . . might flesh out this notion as well."

Mark Twain once wrote: Where there are two desires in a man's heart he has no choice between the two but must obey the strongest, there being no such thing as free will in the composition of any human being that ever lived."

Without a doubt his musings were those of a Calvinist; for to whatever degree, Mark Twain by any other name was raised within the worldview of Calvinistic Presbyterianism.

But what if he was correct and there is no such thing as freewill? What if it were only after all a myth to which we ought to "devote as much time to studying serious [ly] . . . as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious
unicorns." A waste of perspiration towards an impossible aspiration which is the only the offspring of futile cogitation.

If such a depressing thought were to darken our mental facilities would we not find ourselves at war with a god of our own imaginations? Such that, even if such men were to reject the very notion of a god's existence, he might yet retain the probability of the existence of demons. What sinister design would have introduced such a nefarious notion as that of freewill into the human gene pool? Might it be that the mire which bogs us humans down into the sea of despondency is none other than our own choice to not struggle against the slough of our own passions? It would be easier to choose to follow the strongest desire as if it were the one destined to insure our survival.

To war against ones own passions with the same virility, as that possessed by the Saints, is to enter into the sphere of freewill. It is to choose something to be higher and of more esteemed value than the empirical reality of our own physiology. This is so, even when the microscopic nature of our interest leads us to become nothing more than a Darwinian physiologist, albeit, a highly decorated one.
As it is in the case with Dawkins who has also become somewhat of a guru within the sphere of metaphysical naturalism.

Nothing runs so counter to the postulated theory of the 'selfish gene' as that of willful Virginity or chastity. When one reads of the choice made by St. Benedict to throw himself in to the briars and prick his own flesh in order to distract his thoughts from the passions of sexual lust we encounter freewill. If we reread the quote from Mark Twain we are forced to face the reality that all desire does not originate within the sensory perception of man's physiology.

I believe it was Fr. Seraphim of Platina [Rose] who suggested that Blessed [St.?] Augustine's greatest contribution to Orthodox literature was his "Confessions". In which we find the often quoted [though more often paraphrased]: "And man, being a part of Thy creation, desires to praise Thee, man, who bears about with him his mortality, the witness of his sin, even the witness that Thou "resistest the proud," 2 -- yet man, this part of Thy creation, desires to praise Thee. Thou movest us to delight in praising Thee; for Thou hast formed us for Thyself, -->and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee?<- Does it really matter that Dawkins, or others like him, ‘poo’ at our Faith in God? For they, try as they might, aspire to find that which is higher than they, to which they might attribute some, causation and order for their existential experience of diminutiveness.

If there is no known gene for writing [as Dawkins has elsewhere stated] then neither is there a gene for altruism.
Furthermore, if man postulates that his own history is worth preserving beyond that of the gene pool he has began to exercise freewill. He has begun to tell a story about himself and/or others. Dawkins has commented concerning the possibility that Religion offers a health benefit, "... it depends whether you value health or truth better, more." Yet Pilate's question might then be asked, "What is truth?" Can we really attribute to theory, even the slow, methodical evolutionary process of Darwinian Evolution, the title of “Truth”? By any reasonable definition evolution is but a modern myth, albeit a powerful one, but really no more powerful than the Sun being the center of the Universe.

I believe I heard a few years back about a Chinese paleontologist who criticized the evolutionary theory arguing that the evidence shows an abrupt appearance of animals rather than a long evolution of species as Darwin proposed. The Darwinian Scientists were put out by his lectures, to which he is supposed to have replied, “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."

Concerning Dawkins Darwinianism I think Mark
Twain's thought might still apply:

"In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
- Life on the Mississippi

Now concerning Freewill, it is less a thing to be talked about and more a thing to be practiced.” For if any man desires to follow after Jesus Christ, he must "deny himself and take up his cross daily." Which is also to say that, ” If the Son has made you free, you are free indeed.” Even from the selfish gene.

Sincerely,
John Curtis

PS. Perhaps I shall add more to this later? That is if my musings have not altogether fallen into the sphere of evidence known as the anecdotal.

Prof Richard McBride

28-01-2002, 06:22 AM

From Reason to Synergia

Bless you, Matthew, for offering the Synergy clarification, and doing it in such a (seemingly) easy fashion.

Picking out one small phrase to speak for his whole comment, Matthew said:
"...God saves us through our participation in His salvation." It was this meaning, in its more complex context, which awakened in me a level of understanding I had not enjoyed before, and which suddenly made so much sense while reading one of Dynamis' recent offerings.

Dynamis * for last Saturday January 26, spoke, in part, to the point of Matthew's phrase, "self-righteousness", but Dynamis used the phrase, "self-reliance." A typical statement from Dynamis was, "The Lord reminds us of our part in of (sic) salvation in His remark that follows: 'many ... will seek to enter and will not be able' (vs. 24 [Luke 13]). That is to say, many will start with the false premise that their [own] efforts... are primary. What is worse is that as long as they cleave to the delusion of the primacy of self-reliance, they 'will not be able' to enter the kingdom, that is, to draw near to God."

It is interesting to contemplate the subtle differences between "self-reliance" and "self-righteousness" in this context, and how both senses aim at the same target. More importantly, two different verbs used in their two statements also focus the attention similarly. The two important verbs were Matthew's use of "must participate" versus Dynamis' use of Saint Luke's words, "will seek" [zitisouisin]. Both uses focus the attention upon our own individual responsibilities in this shared event of Synergia, the common purpose being Salvation.

But I cannot content myself wiith the wisdom of letting the matter drop at this point. For an even more cogent comment was made to this same matter of Synergy in another reading. Indeed, the Holy Spirit seemed to flood me with answers for my lack of understanding. In Father Alexis' book, "In Peace Let Us Pray to the Lord", I crossed the same issue the very evening of Matthew's explanation. Father Alexis says, "It is significant that the Fathers maintain that the Apostles were on the one hand "instruments of the Divine Spirit acting and being moved according to His will," and on the other hand, responsible persons acting according to their own sanctifieid volition."

This is, of course, the same two sided equation of which Matthew spoke. Then Father Alexis' next sentence so very succinctly restates the same message: "The Spirit inspires them; but does not force them." [p.74]

It truly inspires awe and fear: Awe at the unfathomable Love showered upon us; and fear that even then, we might sleep unto death in sin.

unworthy subdeacon richard

(*) The DYNAMIS url is: http://dynamis.cjb.net/
To enroll send emil to: orthodoxdynamis-subscription@onelist.com

M.C. Steenberg

31-01-2002, 05:52 PM

"The Spirit inspires them; but does not force them."

This is, very succintly I think, the heart of the matter. Synergeia, or any other term/concept which describes the interaction of divine grace with human activity in the process of salvation, is ultimately a reflection upon this point. God offers salvation, but does not require it. He brings it freely and equally to each individual human person, but forces not a single one of them to accept what is offered. This latter act, the process of acceptance and transformation/deification, must be the freely chosen path of the human person, instigated by his or her free and rational will and enabled by the presence and grace of Christ. For part of the function of salvation itself is the purification and restoration of the will, which cannot be attained if the will is 'forced' -- by God or anyone else.

INXC, Matthew

John Curtis Dunn

04-02-2002, 06:08 AM

January 26, 2002 Post by Prof Richard McBride:

"I had thought Synergism was a Protestant invention; from
Philipp (Schwarzerd) Melanchton of Wittenberg; d.1560.

But in saying that, I note that Aristotle used the term: synergia,
meaning "co-operate". And I am aware that used in Orthodoxy,
the term encapsulates much that was written in The Shepherd
of Hermas, as well as in Origen's work. But neither of these
sources, while interesting to me, seem to have become
backbone theses in Orthodoxy."

(my responsehttp://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif
The use of the word Synergy [Gr. sunergos] may be found translated as "laborers together" in the KJV in I COR. 3:19. The meaning, which the word communicates, is adequately found in the English prefix 'co-'. The word bespeaks of union and in the context the union is with God: “For we are God’s co-laborers”.

The reality is that true free will only resides in union with Christ, outside of Christ free-will has been made subjugate to sin, that is made a slave to sin. But this slavery is a voluntary slavery, though the longer a person will fully commits sin the easier it is to live with it and excuse it. Likewise, the harder it is to free oneself from its tirade claims to our lives. And to begin to war against the tyranny of sin in our lives is an act of free will.

Notice how the Apostle Paul describes the relationship of the unbelieving Jews to Christ in Rom. 11:23 "And they also, if they continue not in unbelief, shall be grafted in:" The KJV translates the Gr. word epimeno as 'abide' which presents a somewhat passive relationship to unbelief. The NKJV uses the word ‘continue’, which suggest more strongly an active relationship to unbelief. The later expresses [IMO] more strongly the meaning of synergy, showing that the unbelief of the Jews was a 'co-'operative choice with unbelief. Free will is very present in the choice against Christ and His Church however; it is an act of free will, which leads away from freedom into the slavery of sin and unbelief. This slavery harnesses the free will and yokes it with unbelief.

So the question might be “which leads in this yoke, the individual or the sin of unbelief? It appears to me, that it depends upon what the situation dictates. Which is to say ‘when the individual’s free will become weak the unbelief carries the load of pulling the soul into hell.’ However, when the Free will is strong, unbelief happily gives the lead to free will so long as it is pulling the soul downward into hell.

The struggle becomes when the soul seeing the Angel of death in front of itself begins to attempt to reign in the free will so as to turn it around. At this point the sin of unbelief begins to tug on the yoke in order to turn the will away from true freedom [which is to be unyoked from sin and unbelief. All this causes quite a stressful and depressing experience in the individual. If the will is strong enough the sin of unbelief will attempt to direct the soul towards detours.

Actually, we must co-labor with our conscience early on in life to keep us from becoming yoked to certain kinds of sins. We must co-labor with our minds to keep it from certain paradigms of knowing, and we must co-labor with our hearts to keep them open to Christ.

True free will can only be experienced in union to Christ and His Church. For what good has possessing free will done for any of us if we chose to go to hell? Yet, these very thoughts are expressed everyday by men with whom I work, they claim to be choosing hell, preferring the corrupting fruits of sin to the cultivation of holiness and righteousness. And what of those who attempt to labor by themselves, they may not follow the same course of sin [often found among the younger men whose physical virility drives them], yet they choose not to follow Christ, trusting in their own strength to be found righteous before God [saying, ‘I don’t do those things...’].

Yes, there is a gnosis of spirituality called Gnosticism being widely propagated in the name of free will all around us. One need not join any cult or pseudo-religious group to participate in this gnosis. It is my impression that one of the most active propagators of this Gnostic spirituality is AA. Its philosophy seems to have been widely adapted into programs for 'spiritual health' under many names.

All the above really does not address the lofty diatribe of free will versus election or predestination, at least not immediately. But as I have stated somewhat differently in a previous post, free will is in the doing not in the thinking. To my knowledge nobody has ever thought his or her way to salvation, no, not even Mary Baker Eddy.

Perhaps I will address the abstract topic of freewill versus Calvinism's doctrine of election, but it really is boring.

Peace be to all,

John Curtis

Richard McBride

06-06-2002, 09:14 AM

An Interesting Diatribe

Posted on Wednesday, 05 June, 2002 - 12:44 am: What we need Vlad are not people to re-write theology but to confront the world intellectual crisis. The Church has surrendered its intellect to the "modern" secular world, and resorted to simple piety as its only justification. Simple piety -- or sobriety -- is a pre-requisite, one might say, to salvation. But some must be called upon to also deal with the intellectual confusion in the world. That's part of the Great Commission.

This is a point which, I think should stand or fall on its own, regardless of my personal piety or whether or not I have wrong theological opinions.

The reason I say that the Church could use another Origen today, which bears repeating, is that the Church has not adequately responded to the intellectual challenges of "modernity." The Church has no integrated scientific, philosophical, theological, social theories on a par with that of the early Church that was able to challenge Greco-Roman culture, regardless of whether or not there were some doctrinal controversies involved. And, frankly, I don't fear some doctrinal controversies. If they arise, and if we have confidence in the Holy Spirit, then they will be resolved rightly. What is the fear?

OK, here's my theologoumena on historical events for the past 500 years. God is putting His Church to the test. So far, it doesn't look so good. The Church is utterly incapable of winning minds. It can win simple hearts. But it's not very good at winning minds. I think it is a case of false humility not to recognize that and admit it. That's half the battle.
..........................

Richard McBride says:
I admit to being sucked into this message, wondering how much of it is a mere vortex of gnostic winds, while also pondering its (to me) legitimate issues. Immediately, I am impelled to recall Father Justin’s words: “In every heresy there is always a kernel of truth.”

Seraphim says:
(1) “What we need Vlad are not people to re-write theology but to confront the world intellectual crisis.”
McB: Crisis theology is eminently Marxist (literally so, since dialectical materialism was meant to take the place of any God based religion); by the invention of crisis after crisis, their constant infusion insured politocrats (during the Soviet reign) of both a continuous broil and an illusion of progress as (often fanciful) problems were solved. BUt solving them was always second in importance to presenting them.This is not to say Origen may not have been a crisis theologian too, but such are general observations and what we may wonder here, is, what are the more particular meanings Seraphim has in mind.

Seraphim: (1.1) “The Church has surrendered its intellect to the "modern" secular world...” and “...the Church has not adequately responded to the intellectual challenges of "modernity."“
(1.2) Which is to say, “The Church has no integrated scientific, philosophical, theological, social theories on a par with that of the early Church that was able to challenge Greco-Roman culture...”

McB: The intellect of which Seraphim speaks is indeed “modern”. That particular sort of mentality, I am convinced, did not exist in “Greco-Roman” times. The closest thing to it was the lapse into Neoplatonism, especially after Plotinus in the the Third Century AD, but also going back to Hellenistic theories emerging especially from the influence of cultures merged by Alexander the Great’s conquests.
During that time “science” and “philosophy” were interchangeable concepts, two sides of the same coin. It is true that today one may find any sort of nugget by rummaging in the kitchenmiddens of the past, depending upon one’s preferences (today). But our notion of “social theories”, as well as “science”, depend upon modern thinking rather than upon the intellection of that time. So, I suggest that what Seraphim seeks did NOT exist then.

In Christian writings the Intellect has always been very important; but most emphatically, this Christian intellect is entirely contrary to the intellect of Seraphim’s admiration. To cite just one example, note a bit of what Saint Peter of Damaskos has said:
““Thus spiritual knowledge proper stands as though at the centre ... It is the knowledge taught by those earthly angels who have made themselves dead to the world, so that their intellect has grown dispassionate and hence sees things as it should. In this way, the intellect does not go above its true goal out of pride or self-esteem, thinking it understands things merely through its own power of thought; nor does it fall below its true goal, prevented by ignorance from attaining perfection. etc.” [The Philokalia; Vol. 3; pp.134-135]

This is nothing if not condemnation of modernist intellection. In that vein, let me remind again, that the breadth of thinking on Church “intellection” was set by Scripture and the writings/revelations of the Fathers; this was done, once and for all. These same writings were clarified through the Seven Ecumenical Synaxes, whereby the rubrics were set (see the “The Rudder”). Since then has been an extraordinary period of explaining those previous writings and bringing them again and again before the people of each age. In these writings, the Intellect, the nous, is an intellect of the heart. (I take this to mean something like the way the Right Brain mediates the wild ratiocinations of the Left. But I could be in error in saying as much.)

Now, I know that Seraphim knows as well as I (very likely better), just how Christian dogma has been set. His discomfort seems to devolve about the interesting concept of “winning minds” as opposed to “simple hearts”. He seems to want the Left Brain to take over and kick the Right out of the ring. The curious thing is that this has been the arrogant nature of our Left Brains all along. Indeed, until the mid Sixties, our Left (rational) Brains had no idea of the existence of its partner. Even today, it still doesn’t know it; the LB seems to know only that it has been told as much, but judging by Seraphim, the LB doesn’t actually believe it.

Seraphim’s infatuation with Modernism (for indeed, his whole argument to seek a more intellectual approach to Christian thinking resides at the heart of modernist argumentation) seems to be summed up in his statement: “This is a point which, I think should stand or fall on its own, regardless of my personal piety or whether or not I have wrong theological opinions.” It seems to me that he is separating himself from correct dogma on purpose. He already knows full well the little arguments I put forth here, but his urge seems to be to separate himself from the Nous of Christian Teaching, preferring to attack the “simple heart” which is truly required of us -- were we ever to gain any degree of dispassion and perfection.

I pray to Saint Gregory the Theologian, to pray to God for me, that He grant me the simple heart which Seraphim despises. (And if Seraphim prays for it back, then I shall not keep it.)

Owen Jones

09-08-2002, 12:49 AM

Regarding the above discussion, which I just ran across, I think Euclid is very helpful, and, of course, geometry was an essential ingredient to Patristic theology. Regarding proofs, Euclid has barely if ever been surpassed.

The problem today is two-fold. Christianity has lost its foundations in philosopphy (has been corrupted by either a loss of philosophical insight or been corrupted by certain trends in Western theology) This produces a quandry which forces believers to resort to a kind of simplistic version of Old Testament logic.

the second problem is secularism, which is a unique problem historically, but not unrelated to the corruption of philosophy. While there have always been skeptics, even atheists, no society ever existed prior to the 18th century organized around the idea that it could exist without God. That is a problem that Christians have yet to deal with effectively. We tend to fall back on personal piety and pietistic sloganeering which has no impact on secularism, in fact confirms the axioms of secularism, which is that faith is purely a private and personal free choice. While it may be good for you that doesn't mean it's good for me, and don't impose your beliefs on me. That's where we are today, even within the Church. The flip side in the Church is among the super-correct faction which believes that the spiritual crisis is simply a lack of obedience to religious authority figures.

One of the key philsophical insights that was passed on to patristic theology is the in-between or metaxy reality, which is the primordial experience of man in the cosmos. That is the "ground" of philosophy and theology, experientially. This experience of the metaxy has been lost to both believers and non-believers alike. So the two become warring sectarian movements, trading slogans and counter-slogans. Traditionally, Christianity is not a slogan but a unique experience that is transforming (not in kind but unique in degree).

The transforming element in Christianity, having been reduced to sloganeering statements, means that most people seeking transformation do so by joining some immanentist movement, in political or religious sectarianism, or in entreprenuership, or in drugs and other diversions. To enter the experience of the metaxy is to live in faith, which is too hard for most of us who want certitude. We confuse certitude with truth, whereas the Patristic formulation of truth is that it is a realm -- it is a condition of existence in the metaxy.

Richard McBride

09-08-2002, 09:04 PM

Seraphim

While my plodding mind tries to absorb your quick-silver thinking, please tell us something more of "metaxy".

Is there an online resource on it?

Its not a Greek word which makes sense to me: Does it have something to do with transference / transforming / etc ? Or do you tell us all this, and I simply passed over it in your message?

richard

Owen Jones

10-08-2002, 12:18 AM

Richard,

Metaxy, or metaxu, depending on how you transliterate, means between or in-between. It is a strong theme of Plato carried over to many of the Greek Fathers and is found frequently referred to in the Philokalia's more esoteric passages by, for example, St. Maximos. There it is typically translated as intermediate.

It refers to the realm of existence in between mortality and immortality. There is a movement of the tripartite soul and the somatic body as we grow in the image and likeness of God. This does not wait for the death of the body but begins and progresses in this life as we follow the path from purification to illumination and perfection.

If we suffer, if the Church suffers a loss of this experience, which is a real experience of a substantive reality, then all the Church has to offer is some reward in heaven for right belief or right behavior. This leads to sectarian warfare, because one group argues that it has the truth and therefore can offer the guarantee of salvation, while that group over there cannot.

Orthodoxy's claims of truth rest not simply on right doctrine but on the reality that something substantially changes as we move from a state of mortality to immortality (deification). This is the full meaning of the term truth in the Orthodox tradition. It is existence in Truth. It is existence in the inbetween reality, between mortality and immortality, between immanent reality and transcendent reality.

Reason is the tension of existence in the metaxy. It is the noetic dimension of existence in this in between realm.

That's why it is so frustrating when one encounters the false dichotomy between faith and reason. This split is due to a loss of the experience of existence in the metaxy, of truth as a realm.

To be sure, we all want to do God's will even so. But we should not limit this to a desire to be rewarded by heavenly riches after we die. In Orthodoxy, there is no absolute distinction between this world and the next, between mortality and immortality. There is always a dynamic tension in between, movement back and forth, and a progression.

All progressivists ideologies that preach some earthly fulfillment are heresies of the Orthodox doctrine of the progress of the soul in the metaxy reality. The tension becomes too great for most people to bear since it rests entirely on faith. So we seek out immanent objects in space and time to fulfill this pull that we feel when God draws us to Him.

This desire is called eros by the Fathers. This is the intense longing placed in us by the Holy Spirit that moves us not just to do His will but to constantly seek Him.

My view is that until the Church rediscovers this key point of Patristic theology, we are condemned to live in reaction to our environment, instead of becoming free to transcend it. We are anxious and worried that we are not doing enough, all the while not realizing that we simply lack the conscious awareness of what we are or where we are.

Because everything about the Christian life is dynamic, it is possible, as St. Maximos said, to relapse into a state of non-existence. I.E. to return to a state of existence that is completely focused on mortal things.

Sorry, but it's impossible to talk about this without using the classical terminology. Otherwise, we lapse into all kinds of modern pyschological gobbledegook.

I found Seraphim Rose's book "Nihilism" to be the one contemporary work of Orthodox theology/philosophy that addresses this issue. While he does not specifically use the term intermediate or metaxy, he quite accurately defines the Orthodox definition of truth as a realm. This is the metaxy.

OAJ

Theron Mathis

10-08-2002, 05:28 AM

Owen,

This idea of metaxy is extremely fascinating. Any other resources on the subject. I would love for this discussion to continue; hopefully someone else has some comments they can make.

Theron Mark

Theron Mathis

10-08-2002, 05:48 AM

Owen and all,

Another thought about metaxy. You had mentioned Fr. Seraphim Rose as a resource. Without digressing into a discussion of his theology, Fr. Seraphim has been critized for being heavily neo-platonic in his theology. Would this idea of metaxy fall under this criticism or is his toll-house ideas sufficient?

Theron Mark

M.C. Steenberg

10-08-2002, 05:59 AM

Philosophical background on metaxy

Owen mentioned that metaxy is a theme strongly taken up by Plato. For those interested in background to the present discussion, a handful of web resources might prove to be of some interest.

(Note: these websites are not Orthodox and thus do not present the Church's understanding of this concept. But given that the theme has philosophical history, they are of interest in understanding that history.)

An article on Plato's use of this concept is available here (http://info.bethany.wvnet.edu/wsimmons/Metaxy.html).

A lengthy article on Machiavelli (http://www.artsci.lsu.edu/voegelin/EVS/PANEL2.html) has an interesting section on metaxy in Plato that is insightful in interpreting the philosopher's views in this regard.

In the context on a study of Eric Voegelin comes a posting to a message board (http://pkuthinker.51.net/index6/wdb/wdbread.php?forumid=1&filename=f_156) which includes a useful section on his classic interpretation of Plato's theme.

A brief reflection upon the work of the incarnate Christ as taking place in metaxy is available here (http://www.qn.net/%7Efwagner/ev/divine_sonship.html).

INXC, Matthew

Richard Domina

10-08-2002, 04:01 PM

This idea , or I should say reality, of metaxy is ,I believe central to the new dispensation. I think this is the point of Christianity and it is summed up by St.Paul in Galations 5 where he says that just following the works of the law alone can't save us but Faith in the Grace of Jesus (paraphrase). I think this is to say that just following another religious code and decorum is not going to do it- What is called for is living in the immediacy of this now moment by the fruits of Christ which we have as our own by faith. It is living,by an act of our own recognition and will in a state of constant acknowlegment of the grace of God. It is reciprocation of his love. It can only be done CONSCIOUSLY moment by moment other wise we fall out of this place I think you mean by metaxy and resort to talking 'about' God instead of participating in this vivifying Relationship of which Jesus both modeled and quickened in all who want it. Once we participate in this state it becomes clear that every page of the Gospels has been written from this place and is aimed at escorting us into it. Once again I have rambled on. God bless you. Rick

Owen Jones

10-08-2002, 04:44 PM

Dear Theron,

Criticising Seraphim Rose as being too neo-Platonic is an example of the kind of sloganeering that I was talking about earlier. Virtually all classical theologians considered Dionysious the Areopogite to be the standard -- there is no one more Platonic. You might as well describe the entire Greek Patristic tradition to this day as too neo-Platonic.

The toll houses seem to me to be another issue, while not unrelated, since it speaks to the dynamic nature of all things spiritual.

As for the above post on the eschaton: metaxy reality is always eschatological, but it holds the eschaton in its proper tension. Without an appreciation for an in between realm of being, the eschaton is forced either into something far off and distant in consciousness, or as something that can be immanentized through activism.

Finally, the most difficult thing for contemporary Christians to grasp -- due to the fact that we live in an age typified by an eclipse of reason -- is that the Incarnation is not an event in history. It is an event in the metaxy.

Owen Jones

10-08-2002, 04:58 PM

Here are some thoughts about the practical implication of the Christian concept of metaxy reality.

I have worked with alcoholics and drug addicts for sixteen years. The biggest obstacle to long term sobriety is the lack of consciousness of the in between or intermediate nature of reality. The addict/alcoholic wants to force reality into an object to be grasped, controlled, manipulated, rather than something that he participates in, something which is not a thing at all, and which cannot be observed from a perspective that is extrinsic to it.

The addict/alcoholic is always in between a drunken past and a sober future, not only in time, but in his immediate consciousness. But he refuses to accept this. He wants its absolutely one way or the other. This typically leads to his relapse.

This predicament is a kind of typology of the spiritual life in general, and the Church has placed this spiritual dynamic into its proper transcendent framework, i.e., the Holy Trinity.

Owen Jones

Richard McBride

11-08-2002, 12:15 AM

Re: Owen Jones post of Thursday, 08 August 2002

In typical style, Seraphim has offered some intriguing peeks under the covers of several issues, and while such quick little views are as dependably superficial as they are correct, I suppose this medium of the short message allows little more. Still, if the traffic warrants, more explanative material may be forthcoming as the various subjects are drawn out. There is much in what he says that deserves discussion.

Lately, I too have been struggling with the religious philosophy problem. Not long ago I sent a retort to a philosophy board (http://www.philosophers.co.uk/discussion) declaring something to the effect that philosophers should keep their comments on religion to themselves, and that “philosophy and religion” are an oxymoronic combination. Generally, I still hold to this. But more specifically, almost any reading of Hans von Balthasar’s Religious Aesthetic forces one toward more accurate distinctions. As in so many matters, when one’s feet are held to the fire, quick and easy retorts may seem a bit foolish.

In that sense, Seraphim’s call to raise the philosophical phoenix from its ashes in, of all places, the very nave which philosophy, in general, has treated so badly, sounds a bit like inviting Sadam Hussain to push the button at Nasa’s next shuttle blast off. There is much the same sort of risk involved in trying to wed philosophy and religion. But Seraphim’s point is well taken: Religious studies have not done all that well in their denial of any and all philosophical influences.

The interesting point is, I think, that one is entirely justified in spanking any philosophical hands which reach for the religious cooky jar; yet, it is also very true that theological studies in the West have suffered greatly for lack of (or distrust of) a philosophical method, while theological studies in the East (that is Byzantine studies) have a millennial gap in their continuity -- nothing happened between the the Great Schism (1054) and the 20thC.

The evidence of need seems to call for some sort of reunion, at least from the standpoint of Christian theology (I have no notion that philosophical studies may ever benefit from such a wedding; it would be entirely one sided). But Christian theology has shown quite clearly that without Byzantine influence, it produces only dead ends -- especially dominated as Protestant theology has been by German angst. And my poor knowledge of the subject suggests no better performance from Catholic theology -- with its testing of French existentialisms.

This lack of a sufficient and rational platform in European terms -- that is, a platform from which a vibrant theology might expand, as opposed to the moribund product of German “God is dead” movement combined with French Modernism -- lacking some sufficient and reasonable platform for growth, there has been little audience in the West to receive the other half of that coin, the great dogma offered by the (Desert and City) Fathers of Byzantium.

In such a scenario what would be called for is the candid recourse to philosophical method as a means for distributing and modifying the concepts of a theology as it affects the people, the street and the world. It is that area which has always been denied by the great monastic thinkers. It is precisely that realm from which they long to escape. So naturally, they never offered such a philosophy. Without it, their beautiful Dogma works primarily in the monastery, away from the stink and fumes of the city street.

Thus, there are two levels, two layers to consider: (A) The theology of life in the streets, which everyone from the Apostle Paul to Saint Maximos the Confessor, cannot wait to be shed of, for they have no interest in this first life. They all call it “death”. Still, that is where we all come from, even as did they. Everyone must survive this “death” long enough to choose, (B) “life” in the terms of the great Dogmas, the true school for survival.

As for the notoriety of (A), philosophy has gotten a bad rap not only because 9 out of 10 philosophers (perhaps, 99 out of 100) are decidedly humanistic in their attempts to rationalize an existence without God, and thus the very tools of philosophy have been tossed out in the dirty bath water of the unbelievers. It were as though philosophy as a regimen had no value except for its adherents; that there were no value in the method of philosophy itself. This error in popular thinking has for too long put a stigma on philosophical method when the truth is, like any other tool, its value lies in its use.

Modern philosophy has produced a remarkably useful tool in the form of Analytical Philosophy. This tool possesses no bias. It has no built-in agenda. It is simply a remarkably useful tool for organizing one’s complex thoughts. The unhappy and silly reality is that this tool, which may be used for or against religion (depending upon the user’s agenda), has been assumed to be tainted. Indeed, such a tool may be exampled in the clarity of Mathew Steenberg’s thinking. Thus, we may say that contrary to so much bad press given to philosophical method, this board is at least in part, example to the benefit of using more refined meaning, as opposed to relying upon the “pietistic sloganeering” mentioned earlier.

richard

PS
Now that I am sending this message, I see the message on “metaxy”. The first few lines are suggesting to me the reason Neo Platonism became anathema to the Fathers, and thus, one of the reasons why philosophy became so unpopular in later Eastern thinking.
But I must read the whole message to see if the “between” world can save itself from the Platonic demiurge and reincarnation -- God Forbid!

Owen Jones

11-08-2002, 04:28 AM

Easy does it, Richard. Try not to objectify philosophy into a body of axioms and propositions, or reduce it to method. Simply try and see philosophy for what it is -- the love of wisdom, a man desiring incarnate wisdom. As St. Maximos said (and Plato), wisdom has no separate existence of its own.

oaj

sinjin smithe

11-08-2002, 05:30 AM

I think I will jump in here because Owen stated something very interesting.

I have worked with alcoholics and drug addicts for sixteen years. The biggest obstacle to long term sobriety is the lack of consciousness of the in between or intermediate nature of reality. The addict/alcoholic wants to force reality into an object to be grasped, controlled, manipulated, rather than something that he participates in, something which is not a thing at all, and which cannot be observed from a perspective that is extrinsic to it.

The addict/alcoholic is always in between a drunken past and a sober future, not only in time, but in his immediate consciousness. But he refuses to accept this. He wants its absolutely one way or the other. This typically leads to his relapse.

How does the addict then overcome addiction? Does he overcome it by realizing he is the metaxy of drunkenness and sobriety?

Owen Jones

11-08-2002, 06:54 AM

No, he overcomes addiction by keeping it simple and following directions, to change everything about his living and thinking, but not all at once. There is no recipe or formula. And you never arrive at some static state called sobriety. The literature states that the alcoholic receives a daily reprive, contingent on his spiritual condition.

He thwarts that by wanting to be cured, by denying the need to make slow, steady progress and adjustments, by insisting that life is all about absolutes rather than midway points in between where he have been and where he wants to end up (i.e. by trying to eclipse the essential metaxy nature of reality).

And I think that serves as a good typology for the spiritual life in general. The apostolic witness is that sobriety is a prerequisite to salvation. Sobriety is a process, a progression, and a lot of ups and downs and continuous struggles against temptations and down blind alleys. There is no guarantee. One can relapse, according to Maximos, into a state of non-existence.

sinjin smithe

11-08-2002, 07:16 AM

In other words, you are saying that an addict will fail by wanting to be cured totally as fast as possible, instead of making steps or progression, the latter here being the metaxy. You could say that learning to pray is a metaxy. This concept of metaxy is radically different from many evangelicals who claim things happen in an instant such as salvation.

sinjin smithe

11-08-2002, 07:21 AM

One more thing that I forget to mention in my previous post was that with this notion of metaxy it is impossible to say that one is cured from there addiction but instead the overcome it on a daily basis.

Owen Jones

11-08-2002, 05:34 PM

Yes, to your two comments, Sinjin. There is no intermediate realm in Protestantism. You are either damned or saved, no in between. Alas, this is true with all sectarian sloganeering, whether religious or secular. The loss of the experience of the intermediate reality is the most characteristic element of "modern" life. Yet we do experience life this way all the time. Life is always experienced in between poles of birth and death, mortality and immortality, existence and non-existence. But isn't it funny (sad) that the psychologists and politicians and the pastors are promising us "closure?"

So we are ill equipped to understand what we are experiencing and this is a cause for not only great misunderstanding philosophically and theologically, but also leads to mental breakdown and mania. The example of the addict serves, I think, as a kind of typology of modern mental breakdown.

Sadly, all too often in the Church this experiencial dimension has fallen away as well, so we pray as Orthodox Christians but think and feel like the drunken narcissists in Plato's Symposium.

M.C. Steenberg

11-08-2002, 06:42 PM

Owen writes:

Life is always experienced in between poles of birth and death, mortality and immortality, existence and non-existence.

It is within such a context that I believe most people will find themselves at least partially familiar with the concept of metaxy, even if they are unfamiliar with the term itself. Thank you, Owen, for this paraphrase.

If one considers, for a moment, the central idea that lies behind the foreign term, metaxy, one realises that the Orthodox life is actually shot through all around with images of the 'in between'. The holy mystery of the Divine Liturgy is the strange entrance of humankind into a realm between this earthly world and the Kingdom - where the two are joined together in a manner that mysically anticipates the latter while sanctifying the former. The whole present-day life of the Church is a life in between the first advent of Christ and the second coming of the Saviour: it is the great Sabbath, the transformed 'eighth day' that is both the beginning and the end, in which the world rests in God and struggles toward its ultimate fulfilment.

The life of the individual Christian is, in its entirety, a life in between the illuminating new birth of baptism and the perfection of the divine likeness that is the promise of the Kingdom. This larger motion is found in microcosm throughout the smaller scale of one's life: every day is one spent between the last moment that a person received the divine Mysteries and the next. Our many periods of fasting, and most especially the Great Fast of Lent, are tangible reminders of the fact that the present moment stands in between our birth and our death, at which point we shall be judged; and therefore we must rise up and take the present life in hand, lest we be found wanting when that judgement comes (Fr Alexander Schmemann has written eloquently on the character of the Lenten fast as a 'journey' (http://www.monachos.net/great_lent/schmemann_intro.shtml)).

Through the power of Christ, even death has become, for the Christian, a part of the experience of the great 'in between'; for it is not the end of one's existence, but rather another phase of an individual's movement towards eternity in God. This is the great message of Pascha, of Christ 'trampling down death by death': not even death marks the 'end'. Its obliterating power has been destroyed. Thanks to the Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection of the Son, everything is part of the life 'in between' creation (birth) and eternal life.

Perhaps the truly Christian appropriation of the term metaxy finds its first expression in no less a man than the divine St Paul, who wrote of his own life: 'Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me' (Php 3.12 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=PHIL%2B3&language=english&version=NKJV&showfn=on&showxref=on)). Christian life is not the life of having attained perfection, but of being engaged in the process of attaining perfection. Perfection is the eternal reward, the ultimate promise of God. Everything between now and the final Judgement is precisely that: a time between, a time for action, a time for change and growth. Christian life is a life of motion towards God, from whom, in our sin, we have wandered terribly far.

It was the same St Paul who also wrote: 'Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus' (Php 3.13, 14 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=PHIL%2B3&language=english&version=NKJV&showfn=on&showxref=on)).

INXC, Matthew

sinjin smithe

11-08-2002, 11:38 PM

Owen stated:

Sadly, all too often in the Church this experiencial dimension has fallen away as well, so we pray as Orthodox Christians but think and feel like the drunken narcissists in Plato's Symposium.

What are you saying here? Are you referring to the fact that there are too many fair weather christians in the church who don't fast and participate in the sacrament of confession and communion?

Owen Jones

12-08-2002, 12:24 AM

No, I'm saying that we often go through the motions as traditional Orthodox Christians while thinking like secular liberals or protestants. We go through the external motions without experiencing an inner turning around.

And the spirit of the apostles tends to be lost on the current flock of priests and bishops. But this has been going on for a long, long time and I'm certainly not in a position to criticize. It's just an observation.

Richard Domina

14-08-2002, 06:22 PM

If I take a line,(past to future linear exprience of events) and pry it open so that now it's a triangle,(I,if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me), then the meaningless flat line becomes a new form that now can actually hold something. This is what Christ does(not did). This new shape is only meaningful as long as it's pried into shape. We're so accustomed to looking to the future,(to complete,to know for sure, to reach orgasm,etc...)from and because of the past that we don't see that the Gospels are about an entirely different direction than the everyday mind knows. The window to eternity is only through this now moment. It does'nt happen till we do. My acknowleging and abiding is the missing link. I think metaxy is this realm that is perpendicular to ordinary life. The way to abide there is to willingly straddle opposites of all kinds. Peace.

Gregory Myron

03-09-2002, 01:06 AM

A question has come to me after a long time reading this very interesting thread:

Do people here believe philosophy and religion can coexist?

If not: why not?

If so: why does this always get attacked as "western?"

--Gregory

Michel Depiesse

04-09-2002, 09:30 AM

Dear Gregory,

A complex question

a. Many theologians and most priesters say : "Philosophy causes pride then philosophy is bad"

b. The goal of philosophy is knowledge. The goal of christianity is love.

c. Philosophy is mundane and gospel is supramundane.

d. For some orthodox, the works of Solovyev, Bulgakov, Florensky, Berdiaev are ugly. Then philosophy is bad for faith.

But a. Saint maxime the confessor, Saint Gregory Palamas had an in-depth knowledge of philosophy then it is possible to philosophize and to be humble.

b. Knowledge and love are identic.

c. Philosophy can develop our contemplative faculties and gospel teach us how to live our lives in this world.

d. Those writers were gnostics. There are other things in philosophy than gnosis.

In my opinion, to read Plato, John Scot Erigena, Nicolas of Cusa or Alfred North Whitehaed cannot be bad for a christian only if it helps him to understand the bible and fathers.

Faithfully yours Michel

PS. Please excuse me for my ugly english but I am a french speaking creature .... :-)

Richard McBride

04-09-2002, 09:30 PM

(1) "Do people here believe philosophy and religion can coexist?"

I should guess that most people (on the list) don't think about it; but that would also be as much a quiet quality of Orthodoxy as it may reflect simple unconcern.

One of the qualities which Orthodox enjoy is what we Westerners might see as Third World lack of modern sophistication.To the Orthodox mind set, it is a lack of emphasis upon certain detailed and technical reliances which in the West are taken for granted: chicken, like bread, is naturally a bleached white product and tomatoes are made (not grown) to be shipped (not eaten); or more to the point at hand, Catholic theology, of European/American style rationalization, is more inclined to seek its product linearly (linguistically) and thus stress deduction more than induction; this is definitely a product of European thinking developed during the Modern Era.

Orthodox theology, on the contrary, had a period at its start of reliance upon Hellenistic reasoning, but the worst of that got washed out of the sacred linen during great arguments of the First Millennium; and while at one time it was quite sophisticated, such a form of thinking was never Modern. It was Greek. That Orthodox thought was codified in the Seven Ecumenical Synaxes, and this is primarily the way things were left and how they now stand -- with certain exceptions, of course.

In short, Orthodoxy (among other things) is a way of thinking which lies at the base of the philosophical question above; it is a way which the Western mind presumes to understand, but which it thoughtfully and correctly (in its way of thinking) rejects -- as it does all matters contrary to Modernism (in everything that term might mean).

The actual demonstration to the Orthodox view, however, is that Western mentality rejects Orthodox mentality without understanding it. This is because Orthodox mentality cannot be argued, reasoned and read into being. It simply is an existence which must be experienced in its "multi-dimensionality" (a better Orthodox meaning would be, its pleroma).

My personal view of these issues is a bit different, but I'll not labour the point here.

richard mcb

Richard McBride

05-09-2002, 07:27 AM

(1)"Do people here believe philosophy and religion can coexist"

My sound-bite answer has usually been, No! Philosophers make no room for religion. But like all sound-bites, the proportion of truth-to-falsity varies. And now we are faced with a question which demands greater consideration.

Still, it remains true in the realm of philosophers that very few, very few indeed, own any religious allegiances; and university classes which support something called, Philosophy and Religion, are long in the former and inexperienced in the latter. In fact, experience of these classes will reveal only that portion of religion which manages to strain itself through the sieve of philosophico-scientific objectification. It is religion subjected to the highest and best regimen which academe has to offer.

So, from that standpoint, one's sound-bite answer of No, would be a good fit. But if we shifted the question to a more ethical bias and asked, 'should' they coexist, then I should say, Certainly! Philosophy, properly speaking, is unbiased in such matters. The correct position for philosophy is merely to examine by providing a clear language for the examination. Philosophy, properly speaking, carries no prejudice toward that which it may discover, so it should be by far the best regimen for examining religion. But such "unbias" is not only difficult for philosophers to enjoy, it would hardly suit the preferences of theologians. After all, faith is what it is due to its bias toward a certain, objectively unsubstantiated, system of beliefs. Nevertheless, given good intentions on both parts, the regimen of philosophy should be a great help in clearing up so much saccharine turned out in the name of religion.

I vote yes. richard mcb

PS After looking this message over, I see that many exceptions may taken with it; ah well.