'Development' of doctrine & preserving Orthodoxy [Archive]

M.C. Steenberg

12-06-2005, 02:58 PM

Dear Mr Young and others,

This message is in response to a post by Mr Elias Young originally in another thread (‘Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians’), moved to this new thread, see post immediately above this.

I had written (in a prior post in that thread), that claims of speaking in language of ‘never having changed or diverged’ from an early period are often indicative of misinformation. To recapitulate my comments here in this new thread:

It assumes that ‘Orthodoxy’ as the living embodiment of Christian truth is ‘unchanging’, this latter term defined as static or unbending. But this has never been the tradition of Orthodoxy which, especially in the patristic era, is an engaged, creative life of active approach to the mysteries of the Trinity. It is inherently consistent, in that it is the living exploration of a truth that is Truth, Christ, an unchanging personal reality; but is inherently and always dynamic, inasmuch as it is the living exploration and coming-into-union with Christ who is infinite and always transcends our approach. Orthodoxy is not stagnant in its professions: they are refined over time as articulation of the Church’s mysteries grows through the fruit of continued experience and reflection. They are expressions of the same realities, explored always from the lens of living experience. There is ‘change’, inasmuch as change is part-and-parcel of growth.

To this Mr Young replied:

There may perhaps then be the need to explain […] in what sense we (Chalcedonians) still cling to the notion that we "should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

The question that must be asked is what is meant by ‘preserve’ and ‘the faith once delivered’. What is ‘the faith’ that was delivered to the apostles by Christ, and by the apostles to their communities? Part of the problem with much modern-day assertion of the character of Orthodoxy, stems from an implicit belief that ‘the faith’ thus delivered was a collected set of dogmas, a concrete body of doctrinal assertions—but this it certainly was not.

The ‘faith once delivered’ was and is the singular reality of God, the incarnate Christ, and the life in Christ initiated by he himself as incarnate, passed along to future generations by those called to be his disciples and apostles. Orthodox theology is the theology of experience of this divine reality, of communion with the one who is personally the fullness of truth. This truth was ‘once delivered’ because Christ was once incarnate: truth and life can come no more fully, no more potently, than in his full becoming human. What is guarded and protected, ‘earnestly contested for’ and preserved, is the proper and right experience of this great truth that is the incarnate Son. It is for this reason that Orthodox theology is paramountly ‘practical’, ascetical, for its inner character is that of experience and relation, not dogmatic assertion.

The course of Orthodox history shows that the doctrinal articulation of this mystery develops and changes as the Church grows and matures. That which is experienced, which must be articulated, is unchanging; and the fight of Orthodoxy is precisely never to let attempts at right articulation detract ultimately from the right and proper experience of God as God has revealed himself. And this is a creative, dynamic project. The Trinitarian explanations at the time of the council of Constantinople (381) were articulations of novel character: they differed from those of Athanasius immediately after Nicaea, and certainly differed immensely from earlier fathers such as Irenaeus, Just, Ignatius, etc. The Christological articulations of Cyril differed notably from those of Gregory of Nazianzus, as also from his own predecessor at Alexandria, Athanasius.

[… We may also need to explain] that we have a history of abstaining from some notions pertaining to 'the development of Christian doctrine', to the extent that there are certain boundaries over which we have not and cannot pass, having been bound by living Orthodox tradition, without lapsing into un-orthodoxy.

Indeed so, but this is precisely because in Orthodoxy, the articulation of the mystery of the life in Christ is not creative of that life, but the explorative means of communicating that mystery as it is. In other words, Orthodox doctrine is not understood to define the theological realities of the faith—these exist in the personal reality of the Son. Doctrine articulates the experienced mystery of God.

INXC, Matthew

Owen Jones

12-06-2005, 03:33 PM

Faith has to relearned afresh in every generation. Just adhering to established dogma does not mean that the faith has been learned. It would simply mean that we have a dry, abstract, cold-hearted knowledge, not an active knowledge. The real change that has to take place is within, in every heart. Without the transformation of each and every heart, which is an ongoing revolution if you will, the dogma becomes a burden and a curse, because it means that we are being told to do things that we cannot possibly do, and believe things that we cannot possibly believe.

leandros

12-06-2005, 07:34 PM

Dear friends, I submit the following Orthodox views on the issues of Truth of faith and of "development of Christian doctrine".

St. Maximus, "On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ":

"...The scriptural Word knows of two kinds of knowledge of divine things. On the one hand, there is relative knowledge, rooted only in reason and ideas, and lacking in the kind of experiential perception of what one knows through active engagement; such relative knowledge is what we use to order our affairs in our present life. On the other hand, there is that truly authentic knowledge, gained only by actual experience, apart from reason and ideas, which provides a total perception of the known object through a participation (ìÝèåîéò ) by grace. By this latter knowledge, we attain, in the future state, the supernatural deification (èÝùóéò ) that remains unceasingly in effect. They say that the relative knowledge based on reason and ideas can motivate our desire for the participative knowledge acquired by active engagement. They say, moreover, that this active, experiential knowledge, which by participation, furnishes the direct perception of the object known, can supplant the relative knowledge based on reason and ideas. For the sages say that it is impossible for rational knowledge (ëoãïò ) of God to coexist with the direct experience (ðåßñá) of God, or for conceptual knowledge (íoçóéò ) of God to coexist with immediate perception (áßóèçóéò ) of God.

By "rational knowledge of God" I mean the use of the analogy of created beings in the intellectual contemplation of God; by "perception" I mean the experience, through participation, of the supernatural goods; by "conceptual knowledge" I mean the simple and unitary knowledge of God drawn from created beings. This kind of distinction may be recognized with every other kind of knowledge as well, since the direct "experience" of a thing suspends rational knowledge of it and direct "perception" of a thing renders the "conceptual knowledge" of it useless. By "experience" (ðåßñá ) I mean that knowledge, based on active engagement, which surpasses all reason. By "perception" (áßóèçóéò ) I mean that participation in the known object which manifests itself beyond all conceptualization. This may very well be what the great Apostle is secretly teaching when he says, As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will disappear (1 Cor. 13:8 ). Clearly he is referring here to that knowledge which is found in reason and ideas.

Also St Maximos in his essay on Knowledge presents the teaching of the Orthodox Church that:

"37. In the active person the Word grows fat by the practice of virtue and becomes flesh. In the contemplative it grows lean by spiritual understanding and becomes as it was in the beginning, God the Word.

38. The one who is involved in the moral teaching of the Word through rather earthly examples and words out of consideration for his hearers is making the Word flesh. On the other hand, the one who expounds mystical theology using the sublimest contemplative experiences is making the Word spirit.

39. The one who speaks of God in positive affirmations is making the Word flesh. Making use only of what can be seen and felt he knows God as their cause. But the one who speaks of God negatively through negations is making the Word spirit, as in the beginning He was God and with God. Using absolutely nothing which can be known, he knows in a better way the utterly Unknowable."

Let me say that the non-logical phrase "Using absolutely nothing which can be known, he knows in a better way the utterly Unknowable" is the 'key' to understand that there is nothing that it was "delivered unto unto the saints" as a knoweledge. This same 'key' phrase is meaning that there is no "unchanging Faith accompanied by the constant need to make this Faith explicit to a world constantly arriving at imperfect understandings which arise from a deceptive sense of the pseudo-autonomy of the created, thus imperfect, human intellect".

St Gregory of Nyssa says: "In case of Great Moses, God started to disclose Himself by illumination (through a burning shrub), afterwards God converse with him through a cloud. Then in a higher and more perfect way, by going into darkness Moses saw God.” The mystic theology of St Gregory declares that the spiritual life is a movement from light towards darkness, in the context that we have to acquire “healthy vision” in order to experientially know that God is not seen-able.

In Orthodox Patristic theology, the only knowledge of Devine Truth is “in seeing that we are not seeing God”. The presence of God is a non-experiential presence. This controversial knowledge, as existential experience of the absence of otherness that God is, expressed by dogmas and doctrines through affirmative and negative propositions, is not a self-determined intellectual knowledge, but it is a personal testimony of having a healthy “seeing” experience of His absence in opposition to having a “sinful” blind experience of His absence.

M.C. Steenberg

12-06-2005, 08:17 PM

Dear Leandros,

I fail to see what you are actually trying to say in your most recent post. What do your quotations from Sts Maximus, Gregory and others say, to your mind, as to what you are calling the "development of Christian doctrine"? I can't determine whether you feel such a concept is or is not concordant with the quotations you've presented.

INXC, Matthew

Fr Raphael Vereshack

12-06-2005, 08:41 PM

Matthew Steenberg wrote:

The course of Orthodox history shows that the doctrinal articulation of this mystery develops and changes as the Church grows and matures. That which is experienced, which must be articulated, is unchanging; and the fight of Orthodoxy is precisely never to let attempts at right articulation detract ultimately from the right and proper experience of God as God has revealed himself. And this is a creative, dynamic project.

In what way does the Church "grow & mature"? Certainly individual members of the Church are called to grow and mature but how has the Church grown and matured compared to Apostolic times?

The usual context of dogmatic statements is in reaction to heretical challenge. The dogmatic expression of the Church is 'creative' in the sense that it responds in evangelical freedom to the challenges which face it. But this response is also deeply Traditional in that it must accord with the Orthodox experience of the Church's life in Christ.

More to the point the Church is guided to this Orthodox understanding by the Holy Spirit through Her members. Today was commemorated the Holy God-bearing Fathers of Nicea. Some of what resulted from the Council arose from new dogmatic formulation. But the new dogmatic formulations were accepted insofar as it could be shown that these truly adhered to the actual Tradition of the Church. In any case Nicea was accepted by the Church because it was seen to be a true expression of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Holy God-bearing Fathers assembled there. What the Holy Fathers said accorded with the True life of the Church as it was already known even if outwardly the vocabulary they used may have been new.

Within the Church as She is guided by the Holy Spirit each has their own talent. Some stress this while others stress that. Perhaps some arrive at theological insights of great splendour while others keep faithfully to a simple life. Each of these is an equal gift to the Church and in each potentially we can see the Holy Spirit at work giving life to the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Owen Jones

12-06-2005, 09:40 PM

This gap in understanding I think begs the need for an Orthodox philosophy of history, if you will. The Church presumably is progressing toward a transcendent goal. This sense of making progress toward some eschatological fulfilment is the cornerstone of the Church's teaching. But the progress made is like a game of chutes and ladders. What is true for the individual person is also true for the Church as a whole. So as there are periods of growth, there are periods of decay. As the are periodic bursts of spiritual energy, there are dry periods. I cannot conceive of a dynamic soul and a static Church with a static history. The Church may not grow in the contemporary psycho-babblish sense of the term. But without a sense of dynamic progress what we are left with is little more than an instruction manual.

Historically, Christianity is clearly in the throws of a long-term spiritual dry spell that has been around for about 500 years. Are we in the middle or at the tail end or just the beginning? It doesn't matter. We will always be in that dynamic, in-between state which is asymptotic in its structure.

St. Maximos seems to be quoted a lot recently. One could perhaps look at his analogical use of the 8th day for some insight here.

leandros

12-06-2005, 10:13 PM

I fail to see what you are actually trying to say in your most recent post. What do your quotations from Sts Maximus, Gregory and others say, to your mind, as to what you are calling the "development of Christian doctrine"? I can't determine whether you feel such a concept is or is not concordant with the quotations you've presented.

Dear Matthew,

I think that quotations from St Maximus are showing that the idea of "development of Christian doctrine" is alien to Orthodox theology. I have sumbitted the quotations, so that each one of us may comprehend St Maximus according to his/her own experiences.

I refer to the "development of Christian doctrine" as it is presented in question No 2, in the original post of this thread.

Personally, I believe that St Maximus and all Patristic theology declare that 'Christian doctrine' is not developing at all. 'Christian doctrine is the way of saying "God is not here, but His absent is the most substantial existensial reality that could ever be witnessed by humans". So, in this context there can be no 'development of Christian doctrine'.

Development can be present only in developing a doctrine of vision of a presence, not of vision of an absence.

Anthony

12-06-2005, 10:30 PM

Dear Fr Raphael,

Could one perhaps say that the abolition of slavery, and the present reaction against anti-Semitism (if the latter is real and lasting) are ways in which Christianity has matured, without being exactly developments of doctrine?

Anthony

Fr Raphael Vereshack

12-06-2005, 10:35 PM

Owen wrote:

The Church presumably is progressing toward a transcendent goal. This sense of making progress toward some eschatological fulfilment is the cornerstone of the Church's teaching.

That the Church is getting closer in time to the Eschaton seems clear. But I do not see how this is related to any 'progress' in the Church. What exactly do we mean by 'progress'? In any case Matthew seemed to be talking about the dogmatic formulation of the Church not the moral or spiritual state of its members at any given time.

So my original point is still relevant about questioning how the Church's dogmatic formulations have grown or matured over the centuries.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Owen Jones

12-06-2005, 11:03 PM

Spiritual progress takes place in the metaxy reality, not in literal time.

Dear Father, I would argue that we cannot know for sure if all of the dogmatic issues have been resolved since we still live in the in-between time. The Church still does not have an adequate response to the heresies of modernism, for example. What we might call the secular heresies. On the other hand, I can understand and appreciate the aversion to any simplistic notion that ancient dogma could be better formulated, or newly formulated or supplanted. More likely, we are never going to be able to approximate the kind of noetic illumination present in the early Fathers. But we do not control the Holy Spirit and I don't think we can absolutely say with assurance that some new insight will not be forthcoming, or some new formulation leading to greater Church unity might not be in our future. Or that some new, as yet unthought of heresy might develop. And the hesychast controversy wasn't all that long ago.

Owen Jones

12-06-2005, 11:06 PM

The developmental theory of Christian dogma really goes back to Cardinal Newman.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

12-06-2005, 11:29 PM

Anthony asked

Could one perhaps say that the abolition of slavery, and the present reaction against anti-Semitism (if the latter is real and lasting) are ways in which Christianity has matured, without being exactly developments of doctrine?

Within the Church there were always different views on slavery & the Jews. In any case I don't think the Church ever condoned anything that was brutal or racist.

So in what way has there been progress? From what to what? In terms of the Church progress would mean more virtuous & more understanding. Most Holy Fathers say that we are less so. More to the point however- does Christ give to the Church that later generations are more virtuous? I do not think so. According to the teachings of the Fathers now- from Christ's Incarnation to His Second Coming- is 'one time' of the Church. This is one specific time of struggle accompanied by instability.

Virtue- love & charity are always present within the Church even in hidden ways. That attitudes may change in some general way could very well be. But the same essential Church is always present reacting to different situations in different ways.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Matthew Panchisin

13-06-2005, 01:28 AM

I was just thinking of Tertullian who initially embraced the Orthodox faith and then went from being a Priest at the Church of Carthage to some sort of a montanist. He even went on further to his own thing, the Tertullianist sect. I think that the responses of the Church to heresy are often built in so to speak, it is recognized and rejected in one way or another.

Even the current bishop of Rome mentioned while being Cardinal Ratzinger and reflecting on the East, concluded that while "the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity" (Principles of Catholic Theology, Ignatius, 1987, 196).

It seems to me that the Church's dogmatic formulations have "grown or matured" by means of the continuity woven with Orthodox ascetical theology as Matthew had mentioned.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

leandros

13-06-2005, 10:49 AM

Could one perhaps say that the abolition of slavery, and the present reaction against anti-Semitism (if the latter is real and lasting) are ways in which Christianity has matured, without being exactly developments of doctrine?

Dear friends,

"the abolition of slavery", "the present reaction against anti-Semitism" and all of human society's behaviour are NOT parts of "Christian doctrine".

Christian doctrine is the reference to Divine Life, to Life of Trinity.

If we attach the restoration of human natural proper functionality of "social behaviour" with Trinity Life, then we are also making the false assumptiont that roman-catholics do, in believing that (without making the distinction between "society of creatures" and "society of Trinity") we participate in the essence of Godhead. By doing this, we end up believing in a secular deity.

Orthodox theology declares that we participate only in the Life of Trinity Persons. What the "slavery" or "anti-semitism" or any other human created expression have to do with the uncreated Life of Trinity Persons?

Slavery, antisimitism, and every human performance are important and have significance in the frame of restoration of natural "functionality" of human nature. This is not about Christian doctrine, because the ability of such a restoration is a "built in" ability of human nature, and as such was achieved by Theotokos (Mary, mother of God) even before the incarnation of Christ. Such a restoration of human nature is a secular doctrine. Such a sinless human life has no need of Christ; it is the perfection of humanity that God has placed within man’s natural power.

“Christian doctrine” goes beyond this achievement of sinless created life by witnessing the "penetration" of such sinless human persons into the sphere of Divine Trinity Presence.

After the second coming of Christ, "Christian doctrine" will stand as it is today, but the human secular created life, both rightful and evil, will be restored "beyond restoration" in bringing everyone up to the experience of being in a non expressible fashion, as Christ has said "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself" John 12:32)

In Orthodox burial service the priest says: "before you, God, there is no place for neither the rightful nor for the evil"

M.C. Steenberg

13-06-2005, 11:33 AM

Dear Fr Raphael, Leandros, Owen, Antony and others,

In what way does the Church "grow & mature"? Certainly individual members of the Church are called to grow and mature but how has the Church grown and matured compared to Apostolic times?

Vocabulary is a difficult friend.

There is an instinctive reaction in Orthodox people to any mention of the words ‘grow’, ‘mature’, ‘develop’, ‘change’. They are heretical; the Church does not reflect such historical concepts. The verse from scripture almost always immediately brought to bear on any discussion hear employing such terms in relation to the Church is that which we’ve already discussed here: that the faithful are earnestly to contend and defend the faith once delivered for all. It is anathema to propose that the one Church, the body of Christ guided by the Father’s Spirit, could both maintain this ‘faith once delivered’ and also be described as ‘growing’ or ‘maturing’.

Why? Whence arises this kind of reaction to such concepts? The answer seems clearly bound up in the fact that we hear such words as ‘grow’, ‘mature’, ‘develop’ and ‘change’ through the framework of theological contexts that have used them inappropriately, and we colour the terms by our reaction to that usage. We hear such modernist statements as ‘the Church once was young, but has now matured to a point where she can abandon her notions of “trinity”’, and our reaction is to assert that ‘the Church does not mature’. We hear ‘the Church’s doctrines developed over time to the invention of new ideas about God, such as “two wills”’, and in abhorrence immediately react with ‘the Church’s doctrine does not develop’. But in our zeal we thoughtlessly reject these ideas of ‘maturation’, of ‘development’, when our real focus ought to be on their misuse in such discussions. What ought to be said in response to these two proclamations is ‘Maturity in the Church does not advance in this way’, and ‘the Church’s thought does not develop in that manner’. The statements indicate a misunderstanding of what the terms mean in an Orthodox context. But to reject them outright on grounds of examples of misuse is a flaw in ourselves. It is akin reacting to the statement ‘Children always grow up to be degenerate’ with ‘Untrue: children do not grow’; when what we mean is ‘“growth” does not mean what you think it means. Children do grow, but not like that’.

We are too ready to dismiss developmental language on account of our healthy, God-inspired reaction against those who have used it, and continue to use it, in an un-Orthodox way. But it is our own fathers, no one else’s, who from the very earliest era of the Church’s history, define for us healthy understandings of these terms. Growth and dynamism are no more indicative of mutation and deformation in the largest sense of the Church’s economy than they are in the first work of all human economy, the fashioning of Adam and Eve from the dust—creatures which such a father as Irenaeus clearly indicates were from the very first meant for growth, for change, for increase. Too many people react against this reading precisely because they equate ‘growth’ and ‘development’ as indicating either that (a) growth has to be out of something deficient into something better, or that (b) ‘growth’ is out of something perfect into some divergence of the perfect—a ‘pseudo-growth’. But this is not the patristic mind. In the fathers of our Church, we learn that lack of deficiency, of ‘perfection’ in this sense, is wholly to be paired with dynamic growth into that ‘perfection’ that is the eschatological hope of the eternal kingdom of God.

If we are able to shed the reactionary lens through which we understand the concepts of ‘growth’ and ‘development’ as anathema to truth and fullness (which they are only when they are misunderstood, by reading them in the very manner of those who misuse them), we begin to see the beauty of the Church’s history: that it, like all realities in God’s economy for humankind, is always changing and maturing—but it’s maturation is realised in the immediate presence of the Holy Spirit, in direct union with the God who guides it. Its development is not creative of new truths, or even in the ‘understanding’ of truths (that is, development doesn’t mean ‘inventing new things’), but lies in its advancing articulation of the mystery which it lives in history.

INXC, Matthew

M.C. Steenberg

13-06-2005, 11:37 AM

Christian doctrine is the reference to Divine Life, to Life of Trinity.

Christian doctrine is the articulation of the divine life and economy. It is articulated experience, which itself fosters experience.

Matthew

leandros

13-06-2005, 12:14 PM

Christian doctrine is the articulation of the divine life and economy. It is articulated experience, which itself fosters experience.

Thank you for the correction.

I used the word "reference" implying the same context, but your formulation is an actual literall expression of my intention.

After all, phrasing is all that matters in a forum.

Thanks, again.

Anthony

13-06-2005, 01:22 PM

"the abolition of slavery", "the present reaction against anti-Semitism" and all of human society's behaviour are NOT parts of "Christian doctrine".

I know. That's why I was careful to say that they do not comprise a "development of doctrine". I agree with Fr Raphael's clarification on this point. Nonetheless at another level they do represent important lessons learnt (or hopefully learnt) from experience, which is also part of maturity. I don't see why this point should lead to belief in a "secular deity" - this is several logical leaps too fast for me.

Anthony

Fr Raphael Vereshack

13-06-2005, 04:52 PM

Dear Matthew S,

I agree with the basic point you make about change within the Church. After all some at the First Ecumencial Council of Nicea were leery of using the word homoousios because apparently it was not a word which had been used in the past in the sense that the Council now intended it. But yet this word is now a hall-mark of the Faith.

I think that the basis of Orthodox change is well defined by what you have written here:

In the fathers of our Church, we learn that lack of deficiency, of ‘perfection’ in this sense, is wholly to be paired with dynamic growth into that ‘perfection’ that is the eschatological hope of the eternal kingdom of God.

The responses we make within the Church are guided by our constant seeking of the One True Kingdom and in a sense also occur due to the instability of the world and also of our own spiritual state.

One comment here though may be in order. I don't think we should identify personal spiritual growth within the Church (which St Irenaeus refers to) with the economia of the Church throughout human history. As individuals we are called to grow in Christ but I do not think we can say the process is identical for the Church's history. In other words I do not consider the Church now is wiser or more virtuous or more discerning than the Apostolic Church. The reason for the disjunct is because we each are called to live over in a sense the Mystery of Christ's death & resurrection- of the triumph of life over death & sin. We call upon the experience and prayers of our forefathers but we are not qualitatively of a higher rank. This reflects the fact that the Church is presently in 'the time' between Christ's Incarnation & His Second Coming. We live by anticipation the Eschaton- but it has still not been completed.

It is for these reasons that I think words such as 'respond' or 'develop' convey an Orthodox sense of change within the Church. But- to me at least- 'maturation' conveys the sense of a child becoming an adult. Again in a personal sense of spiritual growth within one's life this is a suitable word. But in terms of the total history of the Church it does not seem proper to imply that our theological or spiritual vision is more mature than that of previous times. Or that our present Holy Fathers have more insight than Sts Peter & Paul. And this is a reflection of the nature of the Church's constant catholicity.

A thoughtless rejection of "these ideas of ‘maturation’, of ‘development" is of course wrong.

Guided precisely by: "our real focus ought to be on their misuse in such discussions" we should come to a suitable Orthodox use of such terms and especially the sort of change which is proper within the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

leandros

13-06-2005, 10:18 PM

Nonetheless at another level they do represent important lessons learnt (or hopefully learnt) from experience, which is also part of maturity. I don't see why this point should lead to belief in a "secular deity" - this is several logical leaps too fast for me.

Dear Anthony,

Let me use an example.

(Suppose that) when I was young, as a baby, my parents walked me into a small forest. There, it was a big horse marble statue. At first, I thought that this was a super creature. Then I believed that it was a live horse. Then I realize that it was a live-less statue having the form of a horse. Of course this path of “perfection” by approximate realization of reality is called maturity.

All the time, the statue was unchanged and I was experiencing the same reality, but my experience was somehow changing gradually until I had obtain the right self-determined definition of my subjective reality that was identified with the existential objective reality of the object.

If we transfer this analogy to much our experience of “vision of God”, then we transform God as an object of visualization – experience- that is determined by us as a maturing experience. By that, we “force” God to become one of our human realities. In this context, He may be of infinite quantities and qualities, and for that, we may never reach perfection in maturing, but we nevertheless associate ourselves with a “secular deity”, a god that is experienced as a being like all others, just having infinite natural characteristics (or else how can we experience Him in an approximated fashion?).

Elias Young

14-06-2005, 01:29 AM

To Leandros:

Your illustration seems a good one in re: to the Church "growing up into the fullness ("pleroma") of understanding about Christ". It shows the immutability (changelessness) of Christ but at the same time leaves plenty of room for change in human participants. Any "change" or "growth" or "development" happens in US rather than in the Object of our Faith. The ways in which we grow into His image are numberless.

This seems consistent with the idea that there has been delivered to the Church "a deposit of faith" (a term most often used by the Latins)which was once for all delivered to the saints by means of the Incarnation, the work of Christ, and the active entry into the world of men by the Holy Spirit. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to reveal to men all that the Lord taught when He walked the earth.

This is the Incarnational & Pneumatological reality that we seek to access by God's continual self-revelation which "changes" us in multitudes of cultures and in the myriads of individual persons.

The basic paradigm seems to be set in the Gospels where the Lord addresses His Holy Apostles:

"Jesus...asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." St. Matthew 16

And

"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight." St. Matthew 11

As fallen human beings we have a multitude of opinions about the Son of Man: Is He a reincarnation of someone else? Is he only a prophet? A great teacher? The deathless prophet who is to return at the end of time?

The clearest answer to that question is revealed to rather than "discovered" by those who are closest to Him. "But whom say YE (plural) that I am?" This was the question which was "fleshed out" in the plurality and collegiality of the Orthodox Church Councils as they sought to protect the truth of the Incarnation from Greek philosophical principles and inquiries.

The Incarnate Son of God Himself IS The Deposit of the Faith. We are always vacillating and see Him at best only through a mirror dimly. Only at the end, by God's Grace, shall we see Him clearly and face-to-face. And this vision fully will change us into His image.

imo...

elias

Anthony

14-06-2005, 08:32 AM

Dear Leandros,

Thank you for replying. I think we are a bit at cross-purposes here. Maybe this is my fault for not putting a "health warning" on my rather oblique answer to Fr Raphael's question about growth and maturity. I agree with him and you in being suspicious of any Newmanesque doctrine of development, and I also reject (as he says) any suggestion that our contemporary theologians are wiser than the Fathers. I meant that it was possible to speak of maturity in a (deliberately) more secular and straightforward sense - of history rubbing in some painful lessons, reminding us of paths we have been down and don't want to go down again. And to an extent this history and its associated images are then there for future generations, so it is not just about individuals learning from their experiences. Just to guard against further misunderstanding, however, I am not trying to put forward any idea of (inevitable) progress here.

On perception of God I think I now understand your train of thought, and thank you for explaining it.

Anthony

M.C. Steenberg

14-06-2005, 10:42 AM

Dear Fr Raphael, you wrote:

One comment here though may be in order. I don't think we should identify personal spiritual growth within the Church (which St Irenaeus refers to) with the economia of the Church throughout human history. As individuals we are called to grow in Christ but I do not think we can say the process is identical for the Church's history. In other words I do not consider the Church now is wiser or more virtuous or more discerning than the Apostolic Church.

I am not certain that St Irenaeus would agree with you on your assessment of his doctrine. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif Whilst he sees an immense dynamic in the personal growth and maturation of each person, he also sees the same across the larger race of humankind throughout the economy. It is for this reason that, in Adversus haereses 4.38, 39, that the human race needed time to grow before being able to receive the incarnation—this the very reason that the incarnation took place historically when it did. Irenaeus also clearly writes that the sending of the Holy Spirit into the Church initiates an ‘accustomisation’ to the Spirit that continues to progress and grow over time—and again, across the whole race of the human family in receipt of the Spirit’s presence.

Some clarity might come from reflecting on the words of Antony, in an above post:

I agree with him and you in being suspicious of any Newmanesque doctrine of development, and I also reject (as he says) any suggestion that our contemporary theologians are wiser than the Fathers.

It is precisely this equation of ‘having grown’ with ‘having become wiser than before’, in a qualitative sense of ‘being wiser’ or ‘more virtuous’ or ‘more discerning’, that is part of the problem.

The life in Christ is a mystery—the mystery of God himself sharing his life with his creature; the life by which we, that creature, are united to God. We must first of all call to mind that the Orthodox measure of wisdom, virtue and discernment is never ultimately one of dogmatic affirmation, but one of experienced union with God. The one who is truly wise, who shows genuine virtue and discernment, is the one who has grown close to God and whom God has illumined with his own life. Some of our most wise, most virtuous and most discerning saints have been among the most uneducated; and this lack of education has not been simply of ‘worldly knowledge’: they have often too been uneducated as to the precisely-formulated doctrines and dogmas of the faith.

The mystery that is the truth of the Orthodox faith is an unchanging mystery, an eternal mystery, precisely because the mystery is God, is the Son himself, known and experienced in the embrace of his Father through the Spirit guiding and leading the Church. This mystery the Church articulates in her doctrine: He who is known as Trinity is articulated as Trinity through the Church’s dogmatic definitions—and these change. It is a terrifying blindness to think they do not. Articulating, or explaining in words, the mystery that is the Trinity, is a work of expression, not a question of knowledge. How do we express the transcendent mystery of God’s Trinitarian being? For Justin the Philosopher, this was to be articulated primarily in terms of a being with his word (logos), that the distinction between Father and Son was likened to a thinker and his thought. By and large, such a model would be explicitly rejected by the fathers of the fourth century. Irenaeus of Lyons envisaged a man with two hands, all united together as one—which is a marvellous articulation; but in terms of articulation, Irenaeus would likely have been quite nervous with assertions of consubstantiality, for he is insistent on the Father’s unique being as ‘the man’ whose two hands the Son and Spirit are. When Athanasius in the later-middle fourth century begins to articulate the Trinity more and more strongly with reference to the Nicene homoousion, he begins to articulate this mystery in ways that have not been employed before.

None of this suggests that the various fathers mentioned have become ‘more virtuous’ or ‘more wise’, for they are all experiencing God, and that experience is wisdom and the source of all virtue. But the Church’s articulation of the mystery experienced in the life in Christ is a distinct matter.

INXC, Matthew

Andrew Williams

14-06-2005, 11:25 AM

That's very nicely put, Matthew. I hope you're always on such good form with your students. Should we hope for an outbreak of Orthodoxy among Oxford undergraduates?

(By the way, your spell checker doesn't know the word Oxford... this must be considered to be a great oversight.)

leandros

14-06-2005, 02:24 PM

Father George Metallinos, in his paper "Faith And Science In Orthodox Gnosiology and Methodology" says: (http://www.romanity.org/mir/me01en.htm#or3)

"C. The two types of knowledge

It is the Orthodox Tradition that puts and end to this theoretical collision within the field of gnosiology. It does so by differentiating the two types of knowledge and of wisdom:

divine or that which "from above" and secular (thyrathen) or lower.

The first knowledge is supernatural and the second is natural. This corresponds to the clear distinction between the Uncreated and the created, between God and creation. These two types of learning require two methods of learning. The method of divine wisdom-knowledge is the communion of man with the Uncreated through the heart. It is accomplished through the presence of the Uncreated energy of God in man's heart. The method of secular wisdom-knowledge is science, it is accomplished by exercising the intellectual/ logical power of man. Orthodoxy establishes a clear hierarchy in the two types of knowledge and their methods.

The method of supernatural gnosiology, in the Orthodox Tradition, is called hesychasm and is identified with watchfulness and purification (nepsis and katharsis) of the heart. Hesychasm is identified with Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy, patristically speaking, is inconceivable outside its hesychastic practice. Hesychasm in its essence, is the ascetic-curative practice of cleansing the heart of passions to rekindle the noetic faculty within the heart. It must be noted at this point, that the method of hesychasm as a curative practice is also scientific and practical. Therefore, theology, under proper conditions, belongs to the practical sciences. Theology's academic classification among the theoretical sciences or arts began in the 12th century in the west and is due to the shift of theology into metaphysics. Therefore, those in the East who condemn our own theology, demonstrate their Westernization, since they, essentially, condemn and reject a disfigured caricature of what they regard as theology. But what is the noetic function? In the Holy Scriptures there is, already, the distinction between the spirit of man (his nous) and the intellect (the logos or mind). The spirit of man in patristics is called nous to distinguish it from the Holy Spirit. The spirit, the nous, is the eye of the soul (see Matt. 6:226).

The noetic faculty is called the function of the nous within the heart and is the spiritual function of the heart, its parallel function is the heart as the organ that pumps the blood throughout our bodies. This noetic faculty is a mnemonic system that exists with the brain cells. These two are known and are detectab1e from human science, which science cannot, however, conceive of the nous. When man attains illumination by the Holy Spirit and becomes the temple of God, self-love changes to unconditional love and it then becomes possible to buiId real social relations supported upon this unconditional reciprocity (a willingness to sacrifice for our fellow man) rather than a self- interested claim of individual rights according to the spirit of western European society.

Thus some important consequences are understood: First, that Christianity in its authenticity is the transcendence of religion and a conception of the Church as merely an institution of rules and duties. Furthermore, Orthodoxy cannot be conceived as an adoption of some principles or truths, imposed upon from above. This is the non-Orthodox version of doctrines (absolute principles, imposed truths). Conceptions and meanings in Orthodoxy are examined through their empirical verification. The dialectical-intellectual style of thinking about theology, as well as dogmatizing, are alien to authentic Orthodox Tradition.

The scientist and professor of the knowledge of the Uncreated, in the Orthodox Tradition, is the Geron/Starets (the Elder or Spiritual Father), the guide or "teacher of the desert". The recording of both types of know1edge presupposes empirica1 knowledge of the phenomenon.

The same holds true in the field of science, where only the specialist understands the research of other scientists of the same field. The adoption of conclusions or findings of a scientific branch by non-specialists (i.e. those who are unable to experimentally examine the research of the specialists) is based on the trust of the specialists credibility. Otherwise, there would be no scientific progress.

The same holds true for the science of faith. The empirical knowledge of the Saints, Prophets, Apostles, Fathers and Mothers of all ages is adopted and founded upon the same trust. The patristic tradition and the Church's Councils function on this provable experience. There is no Ecumenical Council without the presence of the glorified/deified (theoumenoi), those who see the divine (this is the problem of the councils of today!) Orthodox doctrine results from this relationship."

Kosmas Damianides

14-06-2005, 05:55 PM

Preserving Orthodoxy: living and learning in the Spirit of God.

(Orthodoxy i.e. the correct faith/worship/doctrine/tradition etc. ).

Hundreds perhaps even thousands of years from now, in the distant future, our descendants will probably reflect on how we conducted ourselves and thought about our Orthodox faith. They would firstly ask themselves, why did our ancestors place so much of their faith in doctrines in the written word and in rules? Why didn’t they realise beforehand that in order to truly understand God they must firstly experience Him, beseach His presence and live in His Spirit?” And the Church authorities would stand before them with a blank face, speechless and dumb-founded thinking about their mistakes, and thinking about where they went wrong. But did they realy go wrong?

I hope to explain this further.

St John Chrysostom (as if speaking from the future) remarks about the Holy Bible,

“Indeed it would have been better for us not to require the aid of the written Word at all, but to exhibit a life so pure, that the grace of the Spirit would be present in our souls instead of books. Moreover just as these are inscribed with ink, even so ought our hearts to be with the Spirit. Nevertheless, since we have utterly rejected this grace from us, consequently let us at least approach and embrace the second best course.” (Prologue to the Gospel of Matthew)

St Paul tells us: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by Grace..." (Hebrews 13:8-9).

Jesus Once prayed to His Father at the Mount of Olives: "I have revealed You to those whom You gave Me out of the world. They were Yours; You gave them to Me and they have obeyed Your word. Now they know that everything You have given Me comes from You. For I gave them the words You gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from You, and they believed that You sent me. I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those You have given Me, for they are Yours. All I have is Yours, and all You have is mine. And glory has come to Me through them." ( John 17:6-10)

The Orthodox faithful should not philosophise about faith, as the Protestant faiths often do; we ought not use human reasoning and human justification. The Orthodox Church is accused of being anti-scholastic, just as the Catholic and Protestant Churches are accused of being the opposite – (ie a tad too Scholastic). There are many doctrines which have in time become clarified and refined throughout the ages by the Church Councils. Even during the Jerusalem council with the Holy Apostles, there was a transition which was not due to philosophising but due to using what the Holy Spirit had taught and revealed to them, the Apostles. The Church is and needs to be constantly strengthened by the Grace of God as St. Paul instructs above. This is because the Church is filled with grace and is empowered by this gift, to give it freely to whoever requires it.

If we truly believe the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, then we ought to put away our human reasoning and stand with fear and awe at the realisation that we are members of this living, breathing, and life-giving Organism, we are one with the Church of Christ, we share the same body and blood with Him though our “hypostasis” in other words our personality is preserved, there is a unity in diversity but that which unites us most is the Spirit, the Grace and Mindset or Phronema of God.

Preserving Orthodoxy is not governed by human endeavour, Orthodoxy is determined by the Holy Spirit, that is why the Church will never fail, it will never be overcome, even by the wrath of Lucifer, and the gates of hell. The human element (us) will always be less than perfect fallible and at times completely wrong.

Jesus talks about the faith that Simon-Peter professes when guided by the Holy Spirit:

"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this [confession] was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock [this confession] I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” (Matthew 16:17-18) The confession was this: "You [Jesus] are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matthew 16:16)

Anything that comes from or is revealed by the Holy Spirit can never be overcome, it will stand for ever till then end of time and this Peterine confession is the solid foundation (ie Rock) of our Orthodox faith revealed, not by the lips of man neither by the writings nor the traditions of them, but purely by the Holy Spirit of God.

Notice, when Peter tried to dissuade Jesus from going to Jerusalem, and therefore from doing the will of God, Jesus turned to him and responded sharply:

"Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." (Matthew 16:23).

See how easy it is to betray Orthodoxy? By using human reasoning and logic, allowing Jesus to go to Jerusalem to be imprisoned to suffer and to be crucified would have been considered insane. Peter therefore would have been justified in not allowing Jesus to go, if we were to use human logic that is. However, Peter soon realised that this mindset which overcame him was against the will of God, even Satanic.

We see here that once our base or our ultimate foundation is set, then there is nothing that will ever overcome our Orthodox Faith.

The Fathers of the Church are called fathers not because they themselves created Her (the Church), since the Church was made by God. God is the true Father and the co-founders are those who acted as holy messengers of the Holy Spirit and therefore have earned the title “Fathers”.

Protestants would naturally reject this because they feel that the Fathers have corrupted the Word, that we have introduced our own doctrines and principles and rules and regulations and traditions and have used our own reasoning and logic. Most of them who believe in Sola Scriptura in fact believe both Catholics firstly and Orthodox secondly live a lie. Little do they realise that the Church has tried from the very beginning to fight against the human traditions the human reasoning and logic, that our “craziness”, our “insanity” called the Orthodox Faith is in fact driven, guided, and even chastised and corrected at times by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Scripture, doctrine, the dogma and canons of the Church when taken in themselves are understandably at times ambiguous, harsh and severe. But with proper guidance, they all make sense to the “insane” and the “illogical” “foolish” soul (nb. “We are fools for Christ…” says St Paul, 1 Cor 4:10), because the Holy Spirit lifts the veil and all suddenly becomes clear.

The Ethiopian Eunuch on his pilgrimage did not have proper guidance, as he read the book of Isaiah the prophet on his chariot (Acts 8:27ff.). But St Philip one of the Apostles, revealed the truth to him and lifted the veil which clouded his mind and soul. Isaiah was talking about Jesus the Suffering Servant of God.

So preserving the infallible Truth of the Holy Spirit and the Orthodox Faith can only be done so by the Holy Spirit. The Church is infallible because of the Holy Spirit not because of any human endevour. Not even the Saints of the Church are completely without error. Believing they are is the biggest mistake one could make.

We are all guided by the Holy Spirit of God (for some more, for others less) according to our willingness. For God "who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." knows that we are weak and understands our needs. Our Faith is therefore secure since we believe in these "fools for Christ" these "theoumeni" who have constantly before them the Vision of God. Preserving Orthodoxy means preserving even that which could be considered partly or wholely incorrect or erroneous such as the writings of Origen, Tertullian, St Justin Martyr, St SAugustine, along with the writings which are considered true and correct. Since it is through learning our errors that we become beter.

Please excuse me for my own errors.

INXC Kosmas

Owen Jones

14-06-2005, 06:24 PM

St. John Chrysostom is being philosophic, in the above quoted passage, because he is making rational distinctions between the presence of the Holy Spirit and the written word, pointing out that there is a necessary distance between experience and language. The desire for a pure experience of God, completely detached from language and reflective distance, completely unmediated by bodily and rational existence, has a tinge of gnosticism to it. It is an attempt to oversimplify or overcome the complex reality in between God and man. We are, afterall, rational beings. It is the way we are made. This is both our downfall and our salvation.

There is a practical problem today in our Churches, the all too frequent inability of our clergy to connect with us regarding what we might call the pathos of existence, and to focus almost exclusively on what we are supposed to believe. That is a serious spiritual problem, but let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater. If we turn to patristic sermons, we find that they form an impressive intellectual edifice, but in each sermon our pathos is addressed, we are moved to desire repentance, and to descend and ascend with Christ. There is no contradiction.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

14-06-2005, 09:59 PM

Dear Matthew,

You make what is a good point about the passage from St Irenaeus. But it is surely important to see that in his Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching what is essentially the same point about the infancy of Adam comes at the beginning of a larger passage on God's economia- of the Fall of man from Paradise & his need for final restoration in Christ. (On the Apostolic Preaching SVS Press, p.47 on).

Yes as St Ireneaus explains man needed to grow and mature in order that "He [the Word of God] would dwell with him & speak with him." But then there was the Fall from Paradise & as St Irenaeus says, man "apostatised from God by his own disposition." So from this the dynamic of personal growth within the Church is now one of struggle. That is why the true theologian is ascetic and prays. And surely this dynamic of struggle affects the theological vision of the Church.

I am not sure that the theological vision of the Church progresses or matures in time so much as it constantly responds to the urging of the Holy Spirit within each person. This is precisely why the Church in reality operates not only from one dynamic vision that could claim the monopoly on wisdom. Often the expression of dogmatic faith is the result of the Holy Spirit working through many within the Church first. The final dogmatic witness of a Council then is not one progressive dynamic at work which all open their ears to- but rather the result of the Holy Spirit working through the many and then they speaking with one concordant voice. Some may indeed speak of change but others may point out caution without either being ignored to the exclusion of the other. In this sense then the dogmatic expression of the Church is not the result of a progression in theological vision as it is the result of the sobernost of the Church. As the Holy Apostles said, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit & us."

In Christ- Fr Raphael

PS: And if you ever met me face to face you would probably feel the urge to develop a theory of regression in the Church.http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

leandros

14-06-2005, 10:59 PM

Often the expression of dogmatic faith is the result of the Holy Spirit working through many within the Church first

Fr Raphael Vereshack, bless us.

What do mean by that.

Can you provide, please, an historical example for us, to understand you.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

14-06-2005, 11:53 PM

What I mean is that at a Council where such things are resolved many voices are heard and not just one. Some are prophetic, some of penetrating intellect, & others silently pray. It is not as if all arrive at a Council speaking with one voice or that there is one 'side' vs another with the majority winning out. And yet through the Holy Spirit the Council finally speaks with a concordant voice.

This also applies to the rest of the Church even on the parish level. When a parish council meets to resolve important parish matters there is input from many. Often the resolution is unexpected & even the manner in which this is achieved is a bit mysterious. Above all it takes patient listening to each other. This is a fascinating & instructive aspect of Church life.

I can perhaps find some actual examples of what I am talking about from an actual Council(Ecumenical or otherwise) but this will take time. I think though anyone actively involved with the functioning of the Church will understand this process which has no real comparison in the world.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Elias Young

15-06-2005, 12:38 AM

"Our fallen world is full of constrictions and limitations. We are limited by distance, by space, by our bodies and by time. But the world of worship surmounts all these barriers. In worship we unite with God, Who has no limitations. Through prayer we overcome distance, space and time. Through prayer we instantly enter into communion with a holy desert dweller of the eighth century, or with a deceased ancestor of ours. The Orthodox Church also teaches us that in worship, past and future are regarded as directly present. In other words, in worship time ceases to exist in the form of past, present and future and is changed into a mystical life experience in which both the past and future are experienced mystically, as something living and present before our eyes. In view of this, the events of history, are to be understood not as historical occurrences of the past, but as happening mystically and as events even today. This means that during our Orthodox services, we, the worshippers, not only historically remember the life of our Saviour, of the Mother of God and of the saints, but we actually partake of those lives and the events surrounding them. This is amazing! If we realize this, our whole perception of worship begins to change, and instead of being passive observers during our services, we become, in a very real way, actual participants and partakers of the most holy, most important events of Christ's life, of the life of the Theotokos and of the saints."

+Archpriest Peter Perekrestov

And the ideas of Constantine Kalokyris who said:

"The three modalities of time - past, present and future - become a mystical life-experience in which, while eternity is lived in the present, the things of the past and of the future and even eschatalogical things, that is, prehistory and the main stations of the redemptive work of Christ, and all the salutory gifts extending to the last days which flowed from Him, are condensed and lived mystically as alive and present before us."

***

Perhaps these two writers are speaking indirectly about the Faith once delivered to the saints, which Faith we are to contend for and protect with our lives...or with as much of God as resides within us. From this perspective there was no "development" in ideas or words about God. There was a deposit of Faith given by the Holy Trinity in His Economy which becomes revealed to us and perhaps lived by us. Such things, it seems, cannot be "developed" or even "discovered" by the created human intellect

"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." I Corinthians 2

Perhaps this is how both space and time are transcended within the Church. From this perspective any idea of theological development over time, as shaped by the modern notion of history as the passing of observable events, becomes a non-issue. Or so it seems to me...

elias

leandros

15-06-2005, 01:53 AM

I think that, we may be talking about different issues, aren’t we?

Let me present some quotations:

From the original post:

(Elias Young)

…for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints…

…we have a history of abstaining from some notions pertaining to 'the development of Christian doctrine', to the extent that there are certain boundaries over which we have not and cannot pass…

…the Chalcedonians have yet to 'discover' over time such notions as…

….it is reasonable to assert that we (Chalcedonians) have an unchanging Faith accompanied by the constant need to make this Faith explicit to a world constantly arriving at imperfect understandings which arise from a deceptive sense of the pseudo-autonomy of the created, thus imperfect, human intellect…

And from replies:

(Kosmas Damianides)
"…The Holy Scripture, doctrine, the dogma and canons of the Church when taken in themselves are understandably at times ambiguous, harsh and severe. But with proper guidance, they all make sense to the “insane” and the “illogical” “foolish” soul (nb. “We are fools for Christ…” says St Paul, 1 Cor 4:10), because the Holy Spirit lifts the veil and all suddenly becomes clear. …

…The Ethiopian Eunuch on his pilgrimage did not have proper guidance, as he read the book of Isaiah the prophet on his chariot (Acts 8:27ff.). But St Philip one of the Apostles, revealed the truth to him and lifted the veil which clouded his mind and soul…

…Preserving Orthodoxy means preserving even that which could be considered partly or wholely incorrect or erroneous such as the writings of Origen, Tertullian, St Justin Martyr, St SAugustine, along with the writings which are considered true and correct. Since it is through learning our errors that we become beter… "

(Fr Raphael Vereshack)
"…So from this the dynamic of personal growth within the Church is now one of struggle. That is why the true theologian is ascetic and prays…

…Some are prophetic, some of penetrating intellect, & others silently pray…

…And yet through the Holy Spirit the Council finally speaks with a concordant voice…

…When a parish council meets to resolve important parish matters there is input from many....

…Above all it takes patient listening to each other…"

I know that, by isolating phrases I certainly miss the context and I also know that, one response may be isolated itself from the original post on purpose, as it may answer to a side-issue, but I have the feeling that we are talking about different issues.

As I understand the original post, the issue was “whether there is a (developing) procedure going on, over time, regarding Faith” and either we isolate the “procedure” issue, or we isolate the “Faith” issue and we are not addressing the “procedure of Faith” issue.

St Paul says (Hebrews 11:1-3) “Now, faith is the substance of what we hope for and the examination of things that we do not see. In such a faith, and none other, the elders have been witnessed. By faith we understand that the ages were formed at God's command, in the context that, the visible was created from non-visible.”

In this context, I can not see how faith can become a dialectic reality. If we have faith in a non-natural experiential reality, then the dialectic procedure has nothing to do with our Faith. I also think that, exactly on this issue was the point made by M.C. Steenberg correcting me in saying that: “Christian doctrine is the articulation…"

Of course, I could have misunderstood everything from the start of the thread, so can someone please guide me in again.

Thank you.

Owen Jones

15-06-2005, 02:06 AM

Everything we need to know about God is already present within us. In our experience of the created order and in the manner in which our hearts and minds work. But the philosopher Eric Voegelin uses the terminology of a process from compactness to differentiation to explain the growth in luminosity of noetic and pneumatic consciousness, from pre-philosophic myth, to philosophy, to the Christian response to the Incarnation. While noting that the Christian heresies of the early centuries explored all of the possible variants of how we might think about Christ and the Holy Trinity, and that Trinitarian doctrine expresses the highest form of spiritual differentiation, he does not discount the possibility of another differentiation of consciousness, since we are not in control of the process. One of his principles is that a revelation that leads to a higher noetic or pneumatic differentiation of consciousness does not negate the early compact revelation. This is simply a philosophic way of expressing what our Lord tells us -- that He does not change anything in the Scriptures, not one jot or tittle. However, gnostic thinkers and supposed holy men throughout the centuries have often claimed to have had some new revelation, but typically they are simply an attempt to return to a more compact form of existence, such as we see in Islam or Mormonism.

The great question mark for the Church it seems to me has nothing to do with Christology or Trinitarian doctrine per se, but the meaning of the Church in the flow of pragmatic history. Central to Christian eschatology is that our liturgy hastens in some way the end times and is redeeming the entire cosmos. In a period of great intensity and fervor and spiritual strength in the Church, this is a prominent doctrine. But what if the Church is going through a stale period, as it has been now for about 500 years?

Augustine developed a philosophy of history about the growth and maturation of the Church along side the senility of secular history, if I am putting that right, which dominated Christian thought in the West until the 18th Century idea of historical progress took over.

The great challenge to Orthodoxy it seems to me is to formulate a doctrine of history in response to the secular heresy of a progressive historical process, in the same manner that it responded to the Christological heresies of the early centuries. Would that be a new revelation? A sign of growth and maturation of the Church?

Matthew Panchisin

15-06-2005, 04:07 AM

Dear Leandros,

I appreciated your post. We have talked about the heart mind relationship in the past quite a bit. It seems to me that thoughts that proceed from thought are different than knowledge that comes from the heart. From what I can tell it is precisely the movement of praying without thought even for a moment that reveals the difference, namely the superficial nature of even profound intellectual thought. We all know well that even holy writ can be terribly misinterpreted by the minds of men and produce all manners of heresy and create disturbances. It seems to me that the realization by the fathers that our "thoughts" can't always be trusted is the very reasoning which is used to compel us to pray, specifically to pray without distractions. We even have recourse when we fail in so much insofar as a prayer to teach us to pray can be expressed. We can even pray “Lord grant me good thoughts.” After all who wants to even think if our thoughts are not pleasing to God? It also seems to me that the Saints are not “thinkers” they are prayerful men and women. Owen once mentioned quite sometime ago the monk who didn't move or do anything because he didn't want to do anything that was not in accordance with God’s will. Sooner or latter he had to come to the realization that necessary and correct physical movement as well as thinking are not in opposition to God’s will. That is our struggle to do everything that is pleasing to God and reject the things that are not pleasing to God, in thought or deed. The good news is that even in our human weakness a great gulf has not been fixed. In Christ and through the real intercessions of the Saint’s we are not bound and cast into darkness or blinded by pernicious heresies by trusting the Orthodox Church. Even in modern psychology the balanced view of humility and love, man being dust and made in the image and likeness of God is often dismissed and the scientific and intellectual approach is pursued in spite of the evidence displaying the flaws of such trampolining. Even after a brief encounter with the writings of many of the fathers it is clear that it is humility and our participation in the mysteries received in the Orthodox Church that facilitates the coordination of a balanced heart and mind relationship. It is within the liturgical rhythm of the Orthodox Church and our attentive participation that so much is often revealed. To those that have done good works in the Church, the Church continues to pray continuously for the living and departed for a few thousand years now. It is the Church that prays without ceasing just as the Theotokas and Saints do. (The blessed founders of this holy church and for all our Orthodox fathers, brethren, and sisters departed from this life before us…) It is in the same way that the Church speaks out of love for the Orthodox faith and faithful whether in full ecumenical council or local councils. So when we do good works and pursue what is pleasing to God a truly righteous endeavor will effectuate and preserve right worship and right faith. I’m not sure if looking at things in terms of history or maturing is necessary. Matthew Steenberg has been quick to point out in the past an observation that Demetrios Constantelos in like manner expresses; “The Greek Church never made a clear distinction between sacraments (mysteria) and sacramentalia (hieraiakolouthiae). All were intended to consecrate some aspect of life and, indeed, the totality of the cosmos.” I mention this because I’m not sure that the Church should or is supposed to address Owen’s request to “formulate a doctrine of history in response to the secular heresy of a progressive historical process.” Maybe I’m misunderstanding Owen’s comment and much in that regard and my notions of maturity are limited, but I think that maybe the response has already been articulated. I could be wrong I hope others will comment.

Here is a link with Demetrios Constantelos comments in context. http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/constantelos_4_asp_5.html

Kosmas Damianides

15-06-2005, 08:04 AM

Dear Owen

Please forgive me if I have offended you in any way but please allow me to humbly correct you.

St John Chrysostom is not Gnostic. He is not philosophising, he is in fact only expressing the truth. Did Adam and Eve have a Bible? Did anyone require the written Word before the fall? Did we need Ecumenical councils before mankind rejected the grace of God? Do the angels and saints in heaven have bibles and liturgical books?

St John is not claiming to have this special knowledge. He is simply expressing the need to gap this distance which exists between all (himself included) and God. Prayer is essential in understanding the will of God. How did St Paul know so much about Jesus? How was he able to describe to us about Christianity when he was not one of Jesus' original disciples? Why do we have the Apostles and Saints of the Church as higher authorities from ourselves pertaining to Holy Scripture and our faith? Not because of Gnosis but because they are living a Spirit filled life.

"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is Spirit, and his worshipers must worship in Spirit and in truth." (John 4:23-24).

Is St John the Theologian and Evangelist being Gnostic? Obviously not, he is expressing the truth as spoken by Jesus Christ himself.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

15-06-2005, 05:15 PM

Dear Leandros,

You asked yesterday for an example of the point I was trying to make about:

Often the expression of dogmatic faith is the result of the Holy Spirit working through many within the Church first

The following comes from Socrates Scholasticus' Ecclesiastical History at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.ii.iv.i.html
(Sorry- I tried to format this but it wouldn't work for some reason).

The whole of the following Chap. 8 is a wonderful read but I will edit it to the passages which illustrate the dynamic which operates in the Church. To read the whole chapter follow the link above. Otherwise I will let the examples below speak for themselves.

Chapter VIII.—Of the Synod which was held at Nicæa in Bithynia, and the Creed there put forth.

Such admirable and wise counsel did the emperor’s letter contain. But the evil had become too strong both for the exhortations of the emperor, and the authority of him who was the bearer of his letter: for neither was Alexander nor Arius softened by this appeal; and moreover there was incessant strife and tumult among the people...
When, therefore, the emperor beheld the Church agitated on account of both of these causes, he convoked a General Council,155 summoning all the bishops by letter to meet him at Nicæa in Bithynia. Accordingly the bishops assembled out of the various provinces and cities; respecting whom Eusebius Pamphilus thus writes, word for word, in his third book of the life of Constantine:156

‘Wherefore the most eminent of the ministers of God in all the churches which have filled Europe, Africa, and Asia, were convened. And one sacred edifice, dilated as it were by God, contained within it on the same occasion both Syrians and Cilicians, Phœnicians, Arabs and Palestinians, and in addition to these, Egyptians, Thebans, Libyans, and those who came from Mesopotamia. At this synod a Persian bishop was also present, neither was the Scythian absent from this assemblage. Pontus also and Galatia, Pamphylia, Cappadocia, Asia and Phrygia, supplied those who were most distinguished among them. Besides, there met there Thracians and Macedonians, Achaians and Epirots, and even those who dwelt still further away than these, and the most celebrated of the Spaniards himself157 took his seat among the rest. The prelate158 of the imperial city was absent on account of age; but some of his presbyters were present and filled his place. Such a crown, composed as a bond of peace, the emperor Constantine alone has ever dedicated to Christ his Saviour, as a thank-offering worthy of God for victory over his enemies, having appointed this convocation among us in imitation of the Apostolic Assembly.159 For among them it is said were convened “devout men of every nation under heaven; Parthians, Medes and Elamites, and those who dwelt in Mesopotamia, Judæa and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the part of Libya which is toward Cyrene, strangers from Rome also, both Jews and proselytes with Cretans and Arabs.” That congregation, however, was inferior in this respect, that all present were not ministers of God: whereas in this assembly the number of bishops exceeded three hundred;160 while the number of the presbyters, deacons, and acolyths161 and others who attended them was almost incalculable. Some of these ministers of God were eminent for their wisdom, some for the strictness of their life, and patient endurance [of persecution], and others united in themselves all these distinguished characteristics: some were venerable from their advanced age, others were conspicuous for their youth and vigor of mind, and others had but recently entered on their ministerial career.162 For all these the emperor appointed an abundant supply of daily food to be provided.’

Such is Eusebius’ account of those who met on this occasion. The emperor having completed the festal solemnization of this triumph over Licinius, came also in person to Nice.

There were among the bishops two of extraordinary celebrity, Paphnutius, bishop of Upper Thebes, and Spyridon, bishop of Cyprus: why I have so particular referred to these two individuals, I shall state hereafter. Many of the laity were also present, who were practiced in the art of reasoning,163 and each eager to advocate the cause of his own party. Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, as was before said, sup9ported the opinion of Arius, together with Theognis and Maris; of these the former was bishop of Nicæa, and Maris of Chalcedon in Bithynia. These were powerfully opposed by Athanasius, a deacon of the Alexandrian church, who was highly esteemed by Alexander his bishop, and on that account was much envied, as will be seen hereafter. Now a short time previous to the general assembling of the bishops, the disputants engaged in preparatory logical contests before the multitudes; and when many were attracted by the interest of their discourse, one of the laity, a confessor164 , who was a man of unsophisticated understanding, reproved these reasoners, telling them that Christ and his apostles did not teach us dialectics, art, nor vain subtilties, but simple-mindedness, which is preserved by faith and good works. As he said this, all present admired the speaker and assented to the justice of his remarks; and the disputants themselves, after hearing his plain statement of the truth, exercised a greater degree of moderation: thus then was the disturbance caused by these logical debates suppressed at this time.

As relates to the above my point is that this Council through its participants did not all speak with one unaninimous voice at its deliberations. Notice too how after debating the issues before them "one of the laity, a confessor, who was a man of unsophisticated understanding," changed the tone & course of the meeting by his admonition.

On the following day all the bishops were assembled together in one place; the emperor arrived soon after and on his entrance stood in their midst, and would not take his place, until the bishops by bowing intimated their desire that he should be seated: such was the respect and reverence which the emperor entertained for these men. When a silence suitable to the occasion had been observed, the emperor from his seat began to address them words of exhortation to harmony and unity, and entreated each to lay aside all private pique. For several of them had brought accusations against one another and many had even presented petitions to the emperor the day before. But he, directing their attention to the matter before them, and on account of which they were assembled, ordered these petitions to be burnt; merely observing that ‘Christ enjoins him who is anxious to obtain forgiveness, to forgive his brother.’ When therefore he had strongly insisted on the maintenance of harmony and peace, he sanctioned again their purpose of more closely investigating the questions at issue. But it may be well to hear what Eusebius says on this subject, in his third book of the Life of Constantine.165 His words are these:

‘A variety of topics having been introduced by each party and much controversy being excited from the very commencement, the emperor listened to all with patient attention, deliberately and impartially considering whatever was advanced. He in part supported the statements which were made on either side, and gradually softened the asperity of those who contentiously opposed each other, conciliating each by his mildness and affability. And as he addressed them in the Greek language, for he was not unacquainted with it, he was at once interesting and persuasive, and wrought conviction on the minds of some, and prevailed on others by entreaty, those who spoke well he applauded. And inciting all to unanimity at length he succeeded in bringing them into similarity of judgment, and conformity of opinion on all the controverted points: so that there was not only unity in the confession of faith, but also a general agreement as to the time for the celebration of the feast of Salvation.166 Moreover the doctrines which had thus the common consent, were confirmed by the signature of each individual.’

Notice that the unanimity the Council eventually managed to achieve was not due to a 'progressive agenda' simply having been brought before the Council. Its primary aim as expressed through the Emperor Constantine was to quell the discord of the Church and to find a godly way forward to unity. Guided by this and kept on track by the Emperor the Council then arrived at a dogmatic expression of the Faith that all except for a small minority assented to.

What is so striking here is that the way in which the Council came to its final witness is so familiar to us. Not referring to the theological deliberations of the Council but rather to the dynamic through which it achieved this we can see that this dynamic is still at work to this day in the assemblies of the Church- be they Ecumenical, local, parish, or monastic.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

leandros

16-06-2005, 05:33 PM

Fr Raphael Vereshack bless,

As I have asked for an analytical explanation, likewise I am the one to thank you for your response.

leandros

16-06-2005, 06:09 PM

For several of them had brought accusations against one another and many had even presented petitions to the emperor the day before. But he, directing their attention to the matter before them, and on account of which they were assembled, ordered these petitions to be burnt; merely observing that ‘Christ enjoins him who is anxious to obtain forgiveness, to forgive his brother.’

Fr Raphael Vereshack bless,

Now, that I can "see" more clearly "into your life (thoughts)", I believe that we are talking about the same thing.

Let me say that, I think that we are both talking of a (non-)dialectic (non-)procedure. The difference is that, I insist on putting those (non-) prefixes, while you are implying them as a "dynamic through", which you do not find necessary to express in a negative manner.

I think that as a priest, you are more familiar in detecting the presence of persons and to speak of their immobile-movement in an affirmative way by presenting testimonies of “non-” that “are”, as they are expressions of real people – “acting” among themselves and between each other in order “to find a godly way forward to unity.”

Now, I guess this is a strange way for two people to agree on the same subject, one having said that there “is not” what the other one is saying that there “is”. But this is just another Orthodox paradox: to live the life of another which is not the life of self.

Owen Jones

16-06-2005, 07:11 PM

There seem to be two unfocused questions lurking behind this thread. One is the question of whether or not there is a Christian doctrine of historical progress. The second relates to the very nature of theology. The modern progressive movement asserts that there is an immanent progression in history, removing the transcendent telos. This is irrational because we know that history is not infinite. It will come to an end some day. That is a basic scientific premise, not just a theological premise. At the end it will be just as at the beginning: nothing. So where is the progress? On the other hand, modernist progressivism borrows from the underlying theme in Christianity that the world, cosmos, and history ARE progressing toward something. This may occur in cycles or fits and starts, but it is an essential ingredient to consciousness since the Incarnation, without which the idea of an immanentized belief in historical progress would be inconceivable. To be sure, there are pre-Christian symbols of historical progress, such as the Sumerien King List, which asserts that all previous history culminates in the present King. So there seems to be something fundamentally human in the concept of progress in history. Christianity brings this idea to its breaking point, because the fulfilment only takes place in a transcendent Beyond, and we are left with a period of waiting, and the bond between our immanent existence and a beyond of history is Faith, which will all know is the hardest way to live.

On the other hand, there is a large body of Christian tradition which asserts that any doctrine of growth and progress would somehow undermine the "objective truth" of Christian doctrine by somehow implying that it can be refined. Unfortunately, this view reduces faith to belief in theological propositions, rather than a living, breathing way of life. The result is that faith declines, and is substituted by an easier way of life of self-assurance that we are right because our beliefs are objectively true.

But theology is not objectively true. God and godly things are not objects that we can observe and measure. It is objectively true that the moon orbits the earth, regardless of what people in prior generations may have believed. We know have the ability to observe and the mathematical knowledge to prove objectively that the moon orbits the earth, and everyone with a modicum of education and awareness knows this to be true.

Theology does not work that way because it is not concerned with objects, but rather experiences. That does not mean that theological truth is "subjective." What it does mean, which most of the Fathers understood, is that theology is analogical and idiomatic. The reason why it is analogical is that there is a structure to consciousness that is analogical to the structure of God as Trinity, and analogical to the intelligible structure of the created realm. Which is why one man's experience can by typologically representative of all, without all of us necessarily having the same experience by degree, or necessarily having the same beliefs regarding such experiences.

The Fathers also understood idiom. It is foolish to think that God would reveal himself to man in an alien language that we could not understand. God reveals himself, for example, through geometry and mathematics, which is a universal language. But also through written and spoken language that is only understood culturally. Thus revelation has an idiomatic quality to it.

So in conclusion, if the Church thinks that it can accomplish its mission as required by God by simply asserting that its beliefs are objectively true, and by ignoring the idiomatic quality of theology, then we deserve to be the laughing stock that we mostly are.

For Biblical support, all we need to do is refer to St. Paul's sermon at the Aereopogus.

One need not dilute or change our fundamental belief in order to adapt our idiom. What we offer is universal, but must be declared in an idiom that people can understand and respond to. We should be focusing on the "objective truth" of pathos, which all humanity shares. What is the common suffering of modern man? Meaninglessness.

Antonios

16-06-2005, 10:50 PM

My limited understanding is that there is no 'developing' doctrine. There is only one truth. What the early councils established was the consorted expression of that truth as guided by the Holy Spirit. The mystery of God, is exactly that- mystery. Everything that a person needs to know about the nature of the Trinity, the Person of Jesus Christ, etc., has been expressed by the seven Ecumenical Councils. What is left is to 'find' God within ourselves, within the heart. Logic and science are wonderful tools to make philosophical points and build bridges, but to think that you can define the Undefinable, or calculate the Eternal, or measure the Infinite, seems like an excercise in academic futility. This was the problem with the Scholastic period, when everything needed to be defined and proven through theorems and equations. Sometimes it seems to me that humans are so interested in defining God, that they miss the whole point. The beauty of the Gospel and the words of our Savior is that they are simple enough for everyone to understand. Love God, love your neighbor. Why do we need to prove this is true?

The Christian doctrine has and always been the same since the Incarnation and the Resurrection. The councils expressed the truth to the masses. Now, it is up to us individual Christians to apply that to our own lives and form our relationship with God.

in humility and love,
Antonios

Owen Jones

16-06-2005, 11:46 PM

Well, Christian doctrine has not been the same since the Incarnation and Resurrection. And there is still the challenge of making theological truth known to each and every generation. If it were simply an issue of piety and nothing more, then there never would have been any Christological controversies. The church built an intellectual edifice that challenged the basis of Roman society, culture, and belief, that was just as important as Christian piety. It is just as much a part of the Church's sacrificial witness to convey the truth intelligibly to each and every culture and historical period, in an idiom they can understand, as it is to witness to Christ through prayer, fasting, charity, and self-denial.

We live today in a totally illiterate society regarding religion and spiritual things. To simply tell someone that they have to believe in the truth of the Council of Chalcedon is to elicit laughs. And to simply offer an example of piety, well, many religions have good, pious people in them. Why not just become a Buddhist?

Antonios

17-06-2005, 07:29 AM

Dear Owen,

You make very good points. When I said that the Christian doctrine has been the same, I meant to say that the Christian Truth has always been the same. It is the process of expressing this so that the masses can understand which has changed. Please excuse my error.

Though we are in a historically different time now than before, humankind still faces the same pathos as before: pain, suffering, loss, hopelessness, death, and meaninglessness (as you stated). Do we feel more pain than those in the past? Do we have more greed or envy or hatred? How can we quantify that? The human condition may have changed technologically, with different dangers and threats, but the fudamental condition of living in a fallen world has not. Each generation, though they may dress, speak, 'live' a different life, has the same fundamental problems to deal with, whether you live in Persia 3000 years BC, Rome circa 100 AD or present day Iraq.

You bring up an excellent point: How can we declare to the contemporary society what our belief is in a way they can understand and respond to? Well, in one sentence, that would mean living a sacramental life, seeking spiritual guidance, and developing a relationship with God.

You stated:" It is just as much a part of the Church's sacrificial witness to convey the truth intelligibly to each and every culture and historical period, in an idiom they can understand, as it is to witness to Christ through prayer, fasting, charity, and self-denial." I disagree. I think that is one of the problems with the Western tradition. Though this is my opinion, I would guess that more people have been strengthened in their faith or have converted to Christianity because of witnessing other Christians in their pursuits of prayer, fasting, charity, and self-denial than through any idiom describing the procession of the Holy Spirit or what the angelic heirarchy is. It is exactly through the lives we lead which people can understand and relate to. We must be like the 'salt' and like the 'lamp'. That is how Orthodoxy has survived (and flourished) for 2,000 years. Sort of a passive prosyletism.

In regards to your question "Why not become a Buddhist?" Well, personally, for me, I have a tought time crossing my legs in a sitting position and would look very unflattering with my head shaven!

in humility and love,
Antonios

dimitri marinis

17-06-2005, 09:55 AM

Dear Antonios,

I totally agree with your posting congratulations I always wanted to = say exactly what you have just posted I agree that "Sometimes it seems = to me that humans are so interested in defining God, that they miss the = whole point."

God be with you

Dimitri

Owen Jones

17-06-2005, 03:45 PM

leandros

17-06-2005, 11:35 PM

The Patristic tradition fuses the moral, spiritual and intellectual life into one. They took pagan culture and religion head on, in their piety, their moral force, and their intellectual refutation of paganism. How could it have been different? Let's not throw up a red herring like "scholasticism." Today, one sees little evidence of this fusion of the moral, spiritual and intellectual. I am in no position to judge, of course, but as an observation, the intellectual elites always govern society, and for the Church to cede that realm to secularists and to retreat into an insular piety is a grave sin.

Dear Owen Jones,

How do you put together your postings with the following verses from the Bible ?
who is "the ruler of this world" and how is he to be overthrown ?

(John 12:27-32) Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify Your name " Then a voice came out of heaven: "I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." So the crowd of people who stood by and heard it were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, "An angel has spoken to Him." Jesus answered and said, "This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

(John 16:5-15) "But now I am going to Him who sent Me; and none of you asks Me, 'Where are You going?' "But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you."

(John 14:25-31 25"These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you."But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful. You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you ' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe. I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me; but so that the world may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me Get up, let us go from here.}

Owen Jones

18-06-2005, 12:22 AM

I can only speculate as to the meaning of the above question since it is not made explicit. I am assuming that, by saying that the Church has a mission to make its theological truth intelligible to the idiom and the culture, and in that sense always making it new, that somehow I am blaspheming the Holy Spirit who is, perhaps, supposed to be doing that job for us. If I have misinterpreted the point of the message, please forgive me.

Antonios

18-06-2005, 08:39 AM

Dear brother-in-Christ Owen,

Let me express to you my take on the matter as I understand it, though I may very easily be in error.

After the Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit illuminated the apostles and sent them forth teaching about the Kingdom of God, the Church was born.

It was born, however, in a hostile environment (the fallen state of mankind) where the Prince of the World (Satan) was the self-proclaimer ruler (I think that is the point Leandros is making). From the beginning, Christianity had the 'world' against it. What the apostles, and later, the early Fathers of the Church proclaimed was a message unlike any other known to man. In an age when Greek philosophy was the standard by which self-knowledge was based, the Church had much to defend and explain. Plato's major distinction of the separation between the soul and the temporal body was at complete odds with the message of the Incarnation and the Ressurection. These philosophies crept into the Jewish belief system as well. The Jews, the chosen people of God, were awaiting a king to free them from Roman oppression, not a carpenter who spoke of forgiveness and repentance.

This growth of the Church which took pagan culture and religion head on as you mentioned, which "fused the moral, spiritual and intellectual life into one" were the critical formative years. The Church was in its infancy. Along the way, there have been growing pains (heresies, schisms), however, it has survived and matured.

You made a previous post stating that the history of the Church has become stagnant for several hundred years, and it may appear that way when you are comparing it to its formative years. A child grows tremendously from an infant to a young person, both physically and mentally, more so than at any other time in life. An infant's mind is developing so quickly, he needs to sleep for 18 hours of the day just to process the multitude of new information the few awake hours had provided him. As he ages, the rate of growth may decrease, but he is in essense still the same individual. This does not diminish who he is later in life. Likewise, though the Christian apology may not seem as contemporary, the Christain message is still the same as when it was first spoken by the Word of God Himself. Love God and love your neighbor. This message is applicable in any era, in any culture.

We also cannot forget we live in a corrupted and fallen world. It is par with the course to expect the "intellectual {secular} elites to always govern society". I believe Jesus prepared us for that when He said "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." We should expect that in a fallen world (with it's "ruler" being Satan) would also have as its human rulers those blinded by him. I expect the Christian life to be at odds with mainstream thought. That is why it is the narrow and straight path. If the fullness of the Church was possible for humans alone to achieve in this world, there would be no reason for a Second Coming.

In conclusion, as individual Christians, we can explain our beliefs to others and as individual members of the Church, help others apply the message of Christ to their own lives and for their own salvation. However, we cannot do that unless we first work on our own salvation. Through the example we make to others by the Christian lives we live, the Church fullfils its mission. Each individual becomes a beacon of light, and a source of inspiration. That is why one of the Holy Fathers stated "when you save your own soul, thousands around you are saved".

in humility and love,
Antonios

leandros

18-06-2005, 01:13 PM

Dear Owen Jones,

In my message No 98, I just post a question so that you could clarify your "position", so that I could understand it without misinterpretations.

I originally understood that you said: "the intellectual elites always govern society" from which (ruling elite) the Church should not abstain.

My post was not a direct or indirect statement against your point, it was (and it is still) just a question over the issue of "who is 'the ruler of this world' and how is he to be overthrown?" according to your explanation.

Let me say that I do not have, and I never had, the intension to "accuse" you that "you are blaspheming the Holy Spirit".

On the contrary, I expect to learn from your answer an experience of the Grace of the Holy Spirit, which you have and I don't.

I expect our communication through this forum to be expressed through the power of unity of different experiences that respect "otherness" and not through overpowering "otherness”. In this spirit I post my messages, always.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

18-06-2005, 03:28 PM

The following came through one of our church lists this morning. It deals more with Pentecost than with the questions raised on this thread. It does however address how to 'preserve Orthodoxy' in a very direct & personal way.

© 2005 OCA All rights reserved.
June 2005, Article # 2

"By Thy Holy Spirit"
Written by the Very Rev. John Breck

In his reflections on the Knowledge of God, Saint Silouan of Mount Athos (+ 1938) speaks in a very simple and beautiful way of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the faithful. They are words that seem especially significant in this time of Pentecost, when we celebrate and relive the coming of the Spirit in power, to renew us and all of creation.

The Spirit, Silouan declares, brought him through torments of doubt to the firm conviction that "Jesus Christ is God." This Spirit, who bestows the gift of faith, fills every aspect of our life and leads us progressively towards the twin goals of Knowledge of God and Love of Enemies. This is no ordinary knowledge, as he declares; nor is that love the result of human effort, of bending our will and feelings until we no longer react with fear and hostility toward those who threaten us. Knowledge and love, rather, are closely linked gifts of divine grace. If we can know anything at all of God, and even enter into the most intimate communion with Him, it is only because God grants us this mystical knowledge by His Spirit, who dwells within the temple of the heart. If we can love even our enemy, it is only with the compassion and mercy of God Himself, who infuses our heart with the transforming grace of the Spirit. This is a grace that lifts us above our passions - corrupted feelings of victimization and shame, of anxiety and defensive rage - to enable us, in the power of the Spirit, to embrace with love even those who hate us, who threaten us, and who, on a purely human level, inspire our contempt and loathing.

But just who is this enemy? We live in an age that inspires a certain paranoia, and with it an all too easy identification of those who deserve this label. After 9/11, it is tempting to think of the enemy as the incarnation of evil, a person or group that threatens our way of life or even life itself. From Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, we have moved on to Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and jihadists in general. We have become (understandably) so obsessed with "the enemy out there" that we tend to overlook the truth famously uttered by Walt Kelly through his cartoon character Pogo: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

One of the greatest and most illuminating gifts of the Spirit is recognition and acceptance of the fact that we are often our own worst enemy. It is that burdensome fact that can lead us to make enemies even of those who are closest to us, people whom we know intimately and love dearly. Passions of jealousy, fear or frustration can easily turn us against a spouse, a child or a parent. Little irritations can transform an insignificant incident into a household drama that creates tension, alienation and rejection. The child doesn't have to steal or do drugs to bring down our wrath. Coming home after curfew or leaving his room in a mess is often enough to provoke anger and demeaning criticism. A spouse doesn't have to commit adultery or empty the bank account to attain the status of "enemy." It's often enough that she make fun of us in the company of our friends, or lose the car keys, or criticize us for some mistake or failure we committed out of carelessness.

The ascetic life is made up of struggles against just these kinds of temptations, which turn loved ones into candidates for our revenge, or siblings in Christ into outright enemies. These inner struggles are as necessary in monastic life as they are in the home, at the office or on the work site. Wherever people live, work and play in close proximity to one another, where the opportunity exists to share, to serve and to love another person to our mutual benefit and mutual salvation, there exists, too, the possibility to corrupt that relationship. Then affection easily turns to loathing and respect to ridicule. The old song title, "You always hurt the one you love," has become hackneyed, but it expresses an enduring truth.

Whether the enemy is distant or close - the anonymous face of a suicide-bomber or the destructive kid who lives next door or upstairs - the passions we experience in their regard cannot be overcome by will power or reason. There needs to be a change of heart that only God can accomplish. "The Lord's love," Silouan declares, "is made known in no other wise than through the Holy Spirit." Through that Spirit we receive knowledge of God and His compassionate mercy, and at the same time we acquire knowledge of and about ourselves. The Spirit holds up before our eyes a mirror, one that reveals the often unpleasant truth about ourselves. This includes the sad truth of our own failings and our constant temptation to identify the other, rather than ourselves, as the ultimate enemy. Yet that mirror also has the capacity to reveal within us the divine image in which we were created, and into which the Spirit constantly recreates us. And that ongoing work of re-creation, accomplished by the indwelling Holy Spirit, enables us in turn to behold beauty and goodness in the face of others, and particularly of our closest friends and loved ones who have become the objects of our hostility.

This Pentecostal season could be for each of us, as it should be, a time of re-creation and renewal. It could lead to an illumining of the heart and mind that enables us to see ourselves as we truly are, and to love our enemy as he or she truly is, created in the image of God, renewed by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit, and called to eternal communion with the Lord of love. St Silouan, once again, indicates how we might attain this elusive yet precious goal:

"The man who cries out against evil men but does not pray for them will never know the grace of God.
"If you would know of the Lord's love for us, hate sin and evil thoughts, and day and night pray fervently. The Lord will then give you His grace, and you will know Him through the Holy Spirit, and after death, when you enter into paradise, there too, you will know the Lord through the Holy Spirit, as you knew Him on earth."

1. Archim. Sophrony, St Silouan the Athonite (Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1999), pp. 353ff.

"Further Texts" 1, in The Philokalia vol. IV, ed. by G.E.H. Palmer, Ph. Sherrard and Kallistos Ware (London: Faber & Faber, 1995), p. 253.

With the Feast of Pentecost- Fr Raphael

Owen Jones

18-06-2005, 03:44 PM

I would not have thought I would have to explain the difference between Divine Rule and the pragmatic political/social/cultural rule of elites. It's very difficult to have any rational discussion about anything, if that obvious distinction is not recognized. If there is an underlying premise that there is no such thing as human rule, only divine rule, then what we have is a kind of fundamentalism that precludes not only rational discussion, but also precludes the need for any spiritual progress.

My point is this. The Church abides, neither in this world absolutely, or in heaven, absolutely, but somewhere in between. It must therefore deal with issues such as the power of mind to seek to understand, to explain and to communicate. WE have an obligation as a whole to participate in the pragmatic realm of ideas and power. And this is the realm in which God reveals himself to man. God reveals himself to us in a language and in and through a culture that we can understand. The Church should appreciate this. To reduce all of theology to personal piety is a grave error. I know that some people believe that the Church is or should be so pure and other-worldly that it ought not to engage the world on its level, but that is a heresy.

So to bring the discussion back to the thread, theology must always be renewed, not in the sense of improving our doctrine, but by making it known fresh to every generation, and in this generation, that is not going to happen just by telling people they have to believe in homoousion. Nor would the Fathers have said that in any case. Unfortunately, I think all too often those of us who believe in traditional doctrine, take the position that everything that needs to be said or written has been already said or written and it's just a question of quoting it to other people. That says to me that the Church's theology is a dead theology for such people.

Owen Jones

18-06-2005, 03:51 PM

With all due respect to John Breck, someone I have met personally and admire, I fear he is committing the error of psychologizing the Holy Spirit and its role in salvation, and applying current political events with a bad analogy to Pentacost. In so doing he has minimized the pragmatic threat to our existence by our external enemies, and trivialized the problem of evil-doers. Yes, there is a human family, but with some members of the human family, sometimes the only recourse is to kill them. This is far different from a brief outburst against one's child for not cleaning his room. Father seems to be imposing his understanding of certain psychological manifestations of projection and transference onto Christian theology, which often leads to an unfortunate reductionaism.

nurse-aid

18-06-2005, 04:49 PM

My soul and mind, my heart and life: in You,
by You, still breathing, praising You!
My hand and body also serving you,
it is my prayer rope, my counts, of my life in You!
Together one accord, they play that hymn of Love,
Support each other and connect, those dots of time,
events and wills of what You want…
The life itself, that breathing time, it is one prayer,
endless crying time…Crying with joy, without words,
it is the living blood in us, that source of life, Eternal Joy!
And my hands move, that rope of deeds,
and heart is count rhythm of Mighty Feast…
The process endless as Himself as us…
Its never end if HE is Who forever live in us!

leandros

18-06-2005, 07:05 PM

Dear Friends,

First , I thank Fr Raphael Vereshack for the submission of Fr. John Breck’s homily.

I think that the phrase "Whether the enemy is distant or close - the anonymous face of a suicide-bomber or the destructive kid who lives next door or upstairs - the passions we experience in their regard cannot be overcome by will power or reason." is a 'mysterious/mystic' proposition that is the definition of spirituality as it is experienced by Orthodox clergymen, in their ministry of paramedical service in the clinic of Church.

In my knowledge, this is a declaration that has been made from every Orthodox Father that had such an experience, maybe in a different formulation but nevertheless in the same Spirit.

Of course for us, being patients waiting in the lobby (or even in the surgery) of Church-clinic for treatment, there is a distinction of severity of cases, as we compare ourselves with others (persons or groups). But according to the ascetic therapeutic tradition of the Church, that has the experience of treatment both in practising major self-denial acts as well as minor self-denial acts, and by having the experience of recurrence of “illness” in both major self-determination acts as well as in minor self-determination acts, there is not such a distinction. Actually the distinction of major/minor/neutral importance of behaviour and the distinction of spiritual/psychological/natural behaviour are the subject of treatment, as they are restored united from passions into virtues.

As I personally understand Fr. Breck’s homily, the issue is not to behave in a proper “normal” manner by becoming better, healthy personalities, but “to behold beauty and goodness in the face of others”; “beauty” and “goodness” being not the result of self-awareness of self-beauty and self-goodness but the “re-creation and renewal” that provides the Holy Spirit as a mirror “that reveals the often unpleasant truth about us. This includes the sad truth of our own failings and our constant temptation to identify the other, rather than ourselves, as the ultimate enemy. Yet that mirror also has the capacity to reveal within us the divine image in which we were created, and into which the Spirit constantly recreates us.” The “re-creation” and “renewal” is not changing our nature or our personality.

The “beauty” and “goodness” that we hold “in the face of others” is our genuine authentic self. In this context Saints of the Church are perfect “saints” and simultaneously they retain their human natural/psychological imperfections. In my opinion, Fr. Breck’s homily is in line with Orthodox anthropology and it does slip in accepting a secular spirituality and at the same time holds the whole human natural/personal entity safe.

Owen Jones

18-06-2005, 08:04 PM

External threats to our survival are real and should not be minimized. It is not paranoia to recognize them as such. Christianity has always taught that the internal threat is that which we a) have some control over and b) what we should be most on guard against. But his examples and analogies are terrible. Besides, by briefly losing one's temper with a child does not mean that we have turned our child into an "enemy," that we have somehow become paranoid, as in the implication that we are paranoid about the terrorist threat. Just a bubble-headed mish mosh all around. It sounds like a typical Episcopalian sermon.

leandros

18-06-2005, 09:24 PM

Brothers,

As I think the issue of external and internal threats is a side-issue regarding the issue of "development of Christian doctrine'", let me sumbit the "Treatise to Prove that No One Can Harm the Man Who Does Not Injure Himself" (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-09/npnf1-09-38.htm) of St. John Chrysostom (http://www.chrysostom.org/life.html) (I strongly advise everyone to read the whole homily, which is a superb piece of St John's wisdom):

"...Thus in no case will any one be able to injure a man who does not choose to injure himself: but if a man is not willing to be temperate, and to aid himself from his own resources no one will ever be able to profit him. Therefore also that wonderful history of the Holy Scriptures, as in some lofty, large, and broad picture, has portrayed the lives of the men of old time, extending the narrative from Adam to the coming of Christ: and it exhibits to you both those who are upset, and those who are crowned with victory in the contest, in order that it may instruct you by means of all examples that no one will be able to injure one who is not injured by himself, even if all the world were to kindle a fierce war against him. For it is not stress of circumstances, nor variation of seasons, nor insults of men in power, nor intrigues besetting thee like snow storms, nor a crowd of calamities, nor a promiscuous collection of all the ills to which mankind is subject, which can disturb even slightly the man who is brave, and temperate, and watchful; just as on the contrary the indolent and supine man who is his own betrayer cannot be made better, even with the aid of innumerable ministrations. This at least was made manifest to us by the parable of the two men, of whom the one built his house upon the rock, the other upon the sand: not that we are to think of sand and rock, or of a building of stone, and a roof, or of rivers, and rain, and wild winds, beating against the buildings, but we are to extract virtue and vice as the meaning of these things, and to perceive from them that no one injures a man who does not injure himself. Therefore neither the rain although driven furiously along, nor the streams dashing against it with much vehemence, nor the wild winds beating against it with a mighty rush, shook the one house in any degree: but it remained undisturbed, unmoved: that thou mightest understand that no trial can agitate the man who does not betray himself. But the house of the other man was easily swept away, not on account of the force of the trials (for in that case the other would have experienced the same fate), but on account of his own folly; for it did not fall because the wind blew upon it, but because it was built upon the sand, that is to say upon indolence and iniquity. For before that tempest beat upon it, it was weak and ready to fall. For buildings of that kind, even if no one puts any pressure on them, fall to pieces of themselves, the foundation sinking and giving way in every direction. And just as cobwebs part asunder, although no strain is put upon them, but adamant remains unshaken even when it is struck: even so also they who do not injure themselves become stronger, even if they receive innumerable blows; but they who betray themselves, even if there is no one to harass them, fall of themselves, and collapse and perish. For even thus did Judas perish, not only having been unassailed by any trial of this kind, but having actually enjoyed the benefit of much assistance.
...
Thus then when a man does not injure himself, he cannot possibly be hurt by another: for I will not cease harping constantly upon this saying. For if captivity, and bondage, and loneliness and loss of country and all kindred and death, and burning, and a great army and a savage tyrant could not do any damage to the innate virtue of the three children captives, bondmen, strangers though they were in a foreign land, but the enemy's assault became to them rather the occasion of greater confidence: what shall be able to harm the temperate man? There is nothing, even should he have the whole world in arms against him. But, some one may say, in their case God stood beside them, and plucked them out of the flame. Certainly He did; and if thou wilt play thy part to the best of thy power, the help which God supplies will assuredly follow...."

Elias Young

18-06-2005, 10:24 PM

Owen wrote:
...If there is an underlying premise that there is no such thing as human rule, only divine rule, then what we have is a kind of fundamentalism that precludes not only rational discussion, but also precludes the need for any spiritual progress.

"divine" vs. "human"
"sacred" vs. "secular"
"spiritual" vs. "material", etc.

There are those of us who engage in (or are
"enmeshed in"?) those ubiquitous philosophical dichotomies which proliferate in the "Western mindset". One might ask, "Are there any who do NOT venerate these dichotomies? To read the sayings of the desert fathers, in whom the claims of heaven became absolute, there is only the rule of God over all the world. I personally though would guard against labeling such thinking as "fundamentalist". This also plays into secular thought by implying a "liberal" rejoinder. Another dichotomy which is outside of the ancient Mind of the Orthodox Church.

...The Church abides, neither in this world absolutely, or in heaven, absolutely, but somewhere in between. It must therefore deal with issues such as the power of mind to seek to understand, to explain and to communicate. WE have an obligation as a whole to participate in the pragmatic realm of ideas and power. And this is the realm in which God reveals himself to man. God reveals himself to us in a language and in and through a culture that we can understand. The Church should appreciate this. To reduce all of theology to personal piety is a grave error. I know that some people believe that the Church is or should be so pure and other-worldly that it ought not to engage the world on its level, but that is a heresy.

At the risk of sounding like a teacher who knows of what he speaks I believe that this schematic regarding the "position" of the Church borders on erroneous. The teaching of the Fathers insofar as I have been able to discern is that the Church dwells fully both in this world and in the "other" or the "next" world. You appear to have placed the Church in some sort of limbo that floats between heaven and earth. Surely this is not our teaching of the Incarnation of the Son of God, Whose Incarnation is organically linked to Orthodox ecclesiology.

So to bring the discussion back to the thread, theology must always be renewed, not in the sense of improving our doctrine, but by making it known fresh to every generation, and in this generation, that is not going to happen just by telling people they have to believe in homoousion. Nor would the Fathers have said that in any case. Unfortunately, I think all too often those of us who believe in traditional doctrine, take the position that everything that needs to be said or written has been already said or written and it's just a question of quoting it to other people. That says to me that the Church's theology is a dead theology for such people.

One might use the same or a similar reasoning in respect to the Holy Scriptures. "These writings were produced 2000 years ago. They have no validity for us today." I suppose this could be then also a rationale for those who advocate for an endless number of translations into the vernacular. One also wonders about the watering down process involved in such endeavors. What does this say about the opposite end of the rush to "modern translation" or transliteration? A fundamentalist return to the "original Hebrew and Greek" languages either...in the Scholastic/Protestant fashion of the times?

It seems that at the end of the day, "the spirit quickens". The "letter of the law" does not. The Spirit can make alive the words of the Gospel (or the Church fathers) from 2000 years ago in any language. The power of the autonomous human reason can also generate meaning from either ancient forms or from a reforming and reshaping of the Christian message applicable to modern culture. This begs the question...do we now have legitimate teachers in our midst who have breathed in and live in the spirit of the Fathers - and then can pass onto us in this generation what has always been the tradition of the original Gospel massage? Or are we fated to be edged along our contemporary path by enthusiastic, well-meaning...wanna'- bees?

elias, groping along in the USA

leandros

19-06-2005, 01:17 AM

But his examples and analogies are terrible. Besides, by briefly losing one's temper with a child does not mean that we have turned our child into an "enemy," that we have somehow become paranoid, as in the implication that we are paranoid about the terrorist threat.

During the Iraq war I read in the newspapers that some pilots of stealth planes used to took off from USA airfields and fly over to Baghdad by night, while having their planes refueled on air without stop. Then they used to drop the bombs, that carried all the way, there and to return home next morning, where they mowed the grass of their home’s yards, living a normal citizen's life.

I do not know if this was a true story, but nevertheless it has been published in the news.

Paranoia is not a catholic holistic disease.

I think that Patristic anthropology is about removing the roots of “evil”. The “evil” plant can become a small offspring, or a mighty tree. But the “roots” are the same “evil”. If we measure “evil” by its size, then “small evil” might look exactly the same as “small good”. The appearance of “evil” most of the times is unnoticed.

If I need to express my “evil” self, most of the times I find a “good” excuse.

Nobody is perfect, and we are allowed to make mistakes.

Of course, brother Owen is right that there is a difference in loosing temper over a child’s mischief and in becoming obsessed about the “terrorist threat”. Neither the “penalty” nor the treatment are the same in these cases.

Strangely Fr Breck is also right, by relating these two “different” situations. I think that Fr Beck is making diagnose as a physician/therapist of the Church/clinic: “fever” is a symptom of spiritual illness no matter how small or how big it is. “Fever” is to live by “our passions”. Of course the “spiritual” treatment is different and it is actually personalized in each case separately. Nobody supports the idea of one treatment for all. But diagnose is the same in every case: “There needs to be a change of heart that only God can accomplish”

Owen Jones

19-06-2005, 01:52 AM

Here's how I would have preached the sermon:

America was attacked on 9/11 and this was a terrible evil concocted by evil men driven by their passions. We are right to be on our guard and to defend ourselves aggressively, lest such attacks are allowed to intensify. If we forget, if we let down our guard, the enemy will likely take advantage and next time wreak further damage. But the greater concern for all of us, as our spiritual fathers have taught us, is the inner threat from the evil demons that engage our imaginations and cause us to surrender our faith and our reason to our passions, causing us to forget God's commandments, leading us into a state of confusion and despair. In such a state, we will react angrily, even violently, to the slightest external provocation, because the demons have already created such inner disturbance that we are no longer even capable of the slightest degree of discernment.

But he didn't do that. He said that we were over-reacting to terrorism, and have actually created enemies in our minds, the same way we turn our own families into enemies. Just gobbledegook. There may be a grain of truth in each, but not very helpful, or theological. More a politicized version of contemporary psychology. There is no message here of salvation. The implied message is that anger and violence is simply the result of a psychological disturbance, born of prejudice and narrow mindedness. OF course, the whole theory of modern psychology is gnostic -- that if we could just become well-adjusted, then there would be no more anger or violence in the world. This is the view that relativises evil, and reduces the cause of evil to prejudice based on fear of people's "otherness."

Owen Jones

19-06-2005, 01:58 AM

The desert fathers always temper their absolutism with caveats, such as, as long as we inhabit physical bodies. They are always mindful of their own sins and limitations. It is up to humans to govern their own passions, and in situations in which a man has authority over others, to govern their passions as well, and to enforce discipline and punishments where necessary.

In the OT, God had sent judges to govern the Hebrews with wise counsel, but made allowances for the need for the people to have a King. The absolute rule of God over all His creation does not negate the practical necessity of human rule over human things. This is not a false philosophical category born of Post-Scholastic Western thought. It is reality as it is given to us. If God's absolute rule were so obvious, and so easy to understand and obey, we obviously would not need governments, or police, or military forces, or bosses over other people. Everyone would just naturally do the right thing. But then who would need a savior?

leandros

19-06-2005, 03:58 PM

It is up to humans ... to enforce discipline and punishments where necessary"

Dear brother Owen Jones,

Why then, Christ, as a God-man, has not done exactly that?
Why did He accept to be crucified?
Why did he not restore “law and order” on earth?

And why Christ responded in such a fashion in this incident: (Luke 12:13-14) Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me." Jesus replied, "Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?"

How do you line up human necessity of law and order, with Christ’s reluctance to respond to it?

Owen Jones

19-06-2005, 05:01 PM

Thank you for the quote, LEandros, which makes my point for me.

We want Christ to be an all too human savior, and solve all of our worldly problems for us. He was even tempted by Satan to assume that very same role. But salvation is not of this world. In the meantime, we have to take responsibility. God does not absolve us of our responsibility by assuming authority over each and every detail of our worldly affairs. We have to struggle to learn from Him how to live with self-restraint and moral responsibility. This requires laws and governments and police forces and, yes, even armies. Why? Ask Him.

Antonios

19-06-2005, 06:45 PM

This seems like a good time to discuss the meaning behind the parable of the unjust steward:

Luke 16:1-9 (KJV)
1And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.

2And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.

3Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.

4I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.

5So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?

6And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.

7Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore.

8And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

9And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.

I think maybe we can come up with some good dialogue and insight into this thread if we take a moment to reflect on this parable by Christ (which, admittingly for me is one of the most confusing ones to understand, though thanks to others, it makes a brilliant point).

Have a blessed Pentecost!

in humility and love,
Antonios

leandros

20-06-2005, 11:43 AM

Dear brother Owen Jones,

Let me respond to your posts by saying that we both share the same faith, as long as faith is the experience of living the reality of personal relation with Christ.(I apologize for this arbitrary equation of our faiths).

Having said that, I must refer to Orthodox Church Fathers theology that, there are three steps in spiritual life, as it is growing in Christ: purification, illumination and deification. Respectively there are three categories of Christians(as Gregory of Nyssa says): those who have faith originated from the fear of punishment, those who have faith originated from the promise of paradise, and those who have faith originated from their love for God.

Let me say that “our” faith is the experience of the first category, as we are in the stage of purification. Then, our theology being a valid Orthodox Christian theology, it is not a “perfect” theology. It is susceptible of perfection by “illumination” and “deification”.

I understand that in most Christian forums, like monachos.net, the discussions about faith are referring to patristic theology of Fathers, which were at the stage of illumination, or even at the stage of deification, and their theology is “adopted” by forum members as “our” theology. The problem is that this genuine Orthodox perfect theology is not really “ours”, as we do not participate in the experience of illumination and deification of the Saints.

In this context, when I read your posts I initially reacted in comparing them with the theologies of Great Church Fathers and I have found that they miss their transcendental mystic “spirit”. But at the same time I realized that I also miss this “spirit” as a personal experience of faith.

Of course this does not make “us” less faithful; it only shows that Church includes several ranks of purified persons - others are less purified and others are more purified, but everyone is experiencing the same Grace of the Spirit. For us, Grace has a “pragmatic” function to purify our hearts, and for saints, Grace works the mystic illumination and deification.

Christian spirituality is presented by St John Climacus of Sinai in his work Scala(climax) as a ladder that is lifting us up into heaven. The persons that are in the first steps are experiencing the same “elevation” as those who are in the final steps, although they have a long way to go.

Elder Sofronios Zacharoph of Mount Athos have said: “most laymen want to achieve the spiritual performance of hermits, whose spirituality is a lifetime’s achievement of decades of hard ascetic exercise under mourning, just by the instant intellectual acceptance of their “faith”. This can not be achieved like that.

So, one can say that "our" faith is a simplistic faith of God being just a legislator, and us humans being a lawful society. Yes, this is a confession of a not-“spiritual” lifestyle, but as long as it guides us to work the Christian virtues and to practice piety in an honest personal loving way, we are on our way up on the true ladder of faith - our aim is not to reach the sky at once, but to firmly step up starting for the first step upwards.

My final comment on your posts, brother Owen Jones is that, I share with you the same "immature" faith. I do not say this in order to decrease the significance of your confession of faith, on the contrary, I say it for assign you the honor of authenticity. For, I think, it is more important to carry an authentic faith as a true live experience, rather than to carry someone else’s faith as an “adopted” non experiential faith.

Now, back on the issue of the thread, I think that we must take in account that there is a distinction between "the spiritual growth of personal faith from purification through illumination into deification" and "the stabilization of perfection of the experience of the glorified members of the Church, that we call Saints of Church".

Once again, we come to the conclusion that we must keep in our hearts that human life is generated and God’s life is non-generated.

So, as long as we miss the experience of perfect non-generated God's Life, there is room for development of our generated imperfect personal life.

In this context "Christian doctrine" is the expression of a (stabilized) experience of Divine perfection beyond human perfection from deifined persons, that is adopted as a "common" knowledge by persons lacking the actual experience. While the "adoption" is a time developed proccess, the "Christian doctrine", as the object of adoption, is by itself beyond both development and time.

The "Christian doctrine" is realized in two fashions: as information and as experience. It is a personal question that has to be answered in the first place, on the issue of which of the two realizations is valid for us, so that to set our answer over the question of its development afterwards.

May the Holy Spirit, the King of Heavens, the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth come to us and cleanse us from every spot and save our souls. Amen.

Leandros

07-07-2005, 07:23 PM

This seems like a good time to discuss the meaning behind the parable of the unjust steward

Dear Antonios,

Could you explain the parable for us, please.

Antonios

07-07-2005, 11:55 PM

Truthfully, Leandros, I don't understand the parable very well. I have read some comments about it, notably from this site (http://www.stjohndc.org/stjohndc/english.htm). I was hoping someone could explain it to me. My suspicion is that you may have something to say about it! http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/wink.gif

If so, could you (or anyone else) please explain it or provide writings that may better explain it.

in humility and love,
Antonios

Theopesta

08-07-2005, 03:20 AM

Poole-Mathew: Pool's Commentary of the Bible on:

#Lu 16:1-13 The parable of the unjust steward.
#Lu 16:14-18 Christ reproveth the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who
were covetous, and derided him.
#Lu 16:19-31 The parable of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar.

Ver. 1-8. Hierom of old thought this parable was very obscure; and Julian and other apostates, together with some of the heathen philosophers, took occasion from it to reproach the doctrine of Christ, as teaching and commanding acts of unrighteousness. But there will appear no such difficulty in it, nor cause of reproach to Christ and his doctrine from it, if we consider what I have before hinted, that it is no more necessary to a parable that all the actions in it supposed be just and honest, than that all the parts of it be true in matter of fact, whether past or possible to be; for a parable is not designed to inform us in a matter of fact, but to describe to us our duty, under a fictitious representation: nor doth every part of a parable point at some correspondent duty to be done by us; but the main scope for which it is brought is principally to be attended to by us, and other pieces of duty which may be hinted to us, are to be judged of and proved not from the parable, but from other texts of holy writ where they are inculcated. The main things in which our Saviour seemeth desirous by this parable to instruct us, are,

1. That we are but stewards of the good things God lends us, and must give an account to our Master of them.

2. That being no more than stewards intrusted with some of our Master's goods for a time, it is our highest prudence, while we have them in our trust, to make such a use of them as may be for our advantage when we give up our account.

Thus we shall hear our Lord in the following verses expounding his own meaning. To this purpose he supposed a rich man to have a steward, and to have received some accusation against him, as if he embezzled his master's goods committed to his trust. Upon which he calleth him to account, and tells him that he should be his steward no longer. He supposes this steward to be one who had no other means of livelihood and subsistence than what his place afforded him, a than not used to labour, and too proud to beg. At length he fixed his resolution, to send for his master's debtors, and to abate their obligations, making them debtors to his master for much less than indeed they were; by this means he probably hoped, that when he was turned off from his master he should be received by them. He supposes his master to have heard of it, and to have commended him, not for his honesty, but for his wit in providing for the time to come. What was knavery in this steward, is honest enough in those who are the stewards of our heavenly Lord's goods, suppose riches, honours, parts, health, life, or any outward accommodation, viz. to use our Lord's goods for the best profit and advantage to ourselves, during such time as we are intrusted with them. For though an earthly lord and his steward have particular divided interests, and he that maketh use of his lord's goods for his own best advantage cannot at the same time make use of them for the best advantage of his master, yet the case is different betwixt our heavenly Lord and us. It hath pleased God so to twist the interest of his glory with our highest good, that no man can better use his Master's goods for the advantage of his glory, than he who best useth them for the highest good, profit, and advantage to himself; nor doth any man better use them for his own interest, than he who best useth them for God's glory. So as here the parable halteth, by reason of the disparity betwixt the things that are compared. And though the unjust steward could not be commended for the honesty, but only for the policy, of his action, yet we who are stewards of the gifts of God, in doing the like, that is, making use of our Master's goods for our own best profit and advantage, may act not only wisely, but also honestly; and indeed Christ in this parable blames men for not doing so:

The children of this world (saith he) are wiser in their generation than the children of light. By the children of this world, he meaneth such as this steward was, men who regard not eternity or the concerns of their immortal souls, but only regard the things of this life, what they shall eat, or drink, or put on. By

the children of light, he meaneth such as live under the light of the gospel, and receive the common illumination of the gospel; though if we yet understand it more strictly, of those who are

translated out of darkness into marvellous light, it is too true, they are not so wise, and politic, and industrious for heaven, as worldly men are to obtain their ends in getting the world. He saith,

the men of this world are wiser in their generation, that is, in their kind, as to those things about which they exercise their wit and policy, than the children of God.}

Theopesta

08-07-2005, 03:24 AM

http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/triangle_down.gifAnthology of commentaries Electric Notes

"he said also unto his disciples" The Lord here addresses His disciples. The last chapter consisted of parables spoken to the publicans and sinners that drew near to hear Him in the presence of the murmuring Pharisees and scribes. They had for their object to show how the sovereign grace of God makes the lost to be saved, and in this the mind and temper of heaven in contrast with the self-righteous of the earth. Now we have a weighty instruction for disciples. It is no longer sinners shown the way to God, but disciples taught the ways which become them before God, and this in view of the judgment of the world, more particularly of the elect nation. The Jews were now losing their special place. The peculiar privileges of Israel had wrought no deliverance for themselves or for the earth. Contrariwise they had caused the name of God to be blasphemed among the nations. They had been untrue to God; they had been ungracious and even unrighteous to man. The Lord accordingly sets forth in a parable the only wisdom which suits and adorns those who understand the present critical condition of the world.

WK E 264

"he said also unto his disciples" This leads on however to the next parable, in which, not the outside multitudes but disciples are taught how they may use even earthly things (even the mammon of unrighteousness) in such a way as that, when this fails, the "friends" they have made by it, may receive them into the eternal tabernacles. But here, notice, there is no parade of the righteousness of the one who acts after this manner. No, it is the very opposite: we have an unjust steward accused of wasting his master's goods, a thing which recalls to us the younger son of the parable before given, rather than the elder. And here is where we all begin naturally although the Lord has something else to say of this before He closes.

FWG NB 5.426

"a certain rich man, which had a steward" "There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him, that he had wasted his goods." Man, generally, is God's steward: and in another sense and in another way, Israel was God's steward, put into God's vineyard, and entrusted with law, promises, covenants, worship, etc. But in all, Israel was found to have wasted His goods. Man, looked at as a steward, has been found to be entirely unfaithful. Now, what is to be done? God appears, and in the sovereignty of His grace, turns that which man has abused on the earth, into a means of heavenly fruit. The things of this world being in the hands of man he is not to be using them for the present enjoyment of this world, which is altogether apart from God, but with a view to the future. We are not to seek to possess the things now, but, by the right use of these things, to make a provision for other times. "Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness," etc. It is better to turn all into a friend for another day than to have money now.

JND CW 25.146

"a certain rich man, which had a steward" This parable addresses itself to the Lord's disciples. In the former, the Lord spoke to the Pharisees and Scribes. There, the reception of the sinner or Gentile in contrast with the Jew or self-righteous is stated, as dependent on the character and blessedness of God, for the gospel rests on and always puts forward God. It is the great principle of it, whether as to character or dispensation. Here, the Lord explains to His disciples the position of man, and consequently Israel, man entrusted before God as such, or who held, in responsibility laid on him, this place. Man who really had ceased entirely to be the steward of God, and who wasted rather the substance once entrusted to him so blessedly and confidentially, below all put in his hands as lord, as if it was his own, was again as on trial, and specifically for the manifestation of these things, set in this place in the Jews, the earthly blessings and privileges freely and fully conferred upon him on the responsibility of being faithful. And now it was reported of them (and oh, how true the report! Jesus would not willingly have borne it against beloved Jerusalem) that they had been unfaithful, that they had wasted the Lord's goods, and after the fullest trial man must be treated after the kindest and now repeated, repeated with the utmost care to instruct him in his duty, as a steward through proved unfaithfulness out of place. The goods of nature are in his hand, but he has lost his title really to distribute them. But they are in his hand, and the Lord instructs, the Christian may use them so as to turn them to real account. The steward made friends of his Lord's debtors with the goods, and authority de facto that he possessed. We also, the goods being thus left, though our authority is gone, have to use them to make friends that we may be received into everlasting habitations. It is the lowest transition point of service; the things are of the old man; the principle of using them of the new, and of the Lord. The men of this world are wise in their generation. The Lord gives us-it is a great grace-permission to turn this mammon of unrighteousness to good service according to His will -this, which has the stamp of evil and of the world upon it, to a purpose in which His favour is manifested, those He loves even consoled, excellent affections exercised, and thus His name honoured, and acceptable service done, and we make gain through that which is acceptable to Him, friends according to Him with this evil thing. It is indeed a great grace to introduce such a thing into His kingdom, and turn the evil, or what represented it, round to good; but so the Lord has ordered it.

JND N&C 6.373f

"that he had wasted his goods." "There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and he was accused unto him as wasting his possessions." This had been done by man, of course, in general, but by the Jew especially, as being the most favoured and therefore under a more stringent responsibility. He was not only a man, but a steward. There was a trust reposed in the Jew beyond all others; and most justly was he accused of wasting his master's goods. What had he done for God? He ought to have been a light in the earth; he ought to have been a guide of the blind; he ought to have been a witness of the true God. But he fell into idolatry when God was displaying Himself in the temple in the Shekinah; and now he was about to reject God Himself in the person of the Messiah His Son-still more profound and gracious display of God. Thus he had altogether lost his opportunities, and wasted the goods of his Master. He had brought shame on the law of God, and the living oracles into contempt through his own vanity and pride.

WK E 264f

"that he had wasted his goods." The Lord begins by the parable of the unjust steward; and before we go further let me call your mind to the word "wasted," in the case of the prodigal. It was just what he had done, and it is the business of this parable to show that the elder brother may do just what the younger did. He may be a very respectable waster; there are hundreds of thousands of such in the world, and high in the credit of the world they stand; but, weighed in God's balances, they are just as much wasters as this dissolute prodigal. If we do not carry ourselves as stewards of God, we are wasters. If I am using myself and what I have as if they were my own, in the divine reckoning I am a waster. This lays the axe deep at the root of every tree. The elder brother thought he was not a waster; but let me ask you, if you are living for this world, and using what you have as if it were your own, are you not an unfaithful steward and, if so, are you not a waster? Here is a steward. We are not told how he spent his money, but it is enough to know that he was not faithful to his master. Then we see how the Lord goes on to draw out the reasoning of a man like that. He lived for this world-laid plans about his history in this world and not in the next. The moral is beautifully laid to you and to me. As that man laid out his plans for this world, so you should lay up your plans for Christ's future world. If you live to yourself, do you not deny your stewardship to the Lord?

JGB 60

Chapter 16 Then He shews the responsibility of those who are dealt with (in the grace shown in Chapter 15). The earth was given to the children of men, and God looked for fruit. He first dealt with man as to what he ought to have been on the earth, but there was entire failure. Now there comes out another thing, entire grace, which is irrespective of all that man was, and takes an absolutely heavenly character. Divine love is its source, and its character is heavenly. Revealing heaven, it puts man into connection with it; and the people so put must be a heavenly people. Why so? Because this world is all gone wrong; it has fallen from God, and is become the "far country." Hence, its riches are of no value, but a great hindrance, unless used in a heavenly way; and chapter 16 shews how they should be used.

JND CW 25.141

Chapter 16 The question of responsibility is not raised in chapter 15-what God has lost is recovered, what is dead comes to life, and God's own joy in grace dominates the chapter from beginning to end. To the Pharisees and scribes the Lord vindicates the exceeding blessedness of divine grace, for the thought of God is to have sons in nearness and suitability to Himself. But then the Lord turns to His disciples and directly raises the question of responsibility. Sonship and stewardship have to be linked together; we are tested when it comes to stewardship. As we have remarked before, in Luke's gospel we see the most precious unfoldings of divine grace, and immediately after something comes in of the nature of a test.

CAC 207

Chapter 16 We have now reached chapter 16, and it is a serious chapter. We have been, in one sense, on very happy chapters in the last two, and have seen how the Lord visited our world, and how we are to visit His world -how nothing in our world pleased Him, but everything in His own. It should be so with us. If we are right-minded we cannot find a home here. Man's apostate condition has built this world, and it is a painful thing to build a house and not be happy in it; yet it should be so with us. You have built a house here, and Christ has built a house in the heavens. Do you cultivate the mind of a stranger in this world, and of a citizen in the heavens? Having gone through this wonderful moral scenery, we enter on chapter 16-a continuation of the same scene. If there is a serious chapter in this Gospel, it is this one.

JGB 59f

Chapter 16 Chapter (xvi.) opens out distinct and weighty instruction for the disciples, and this in reference to earthly things. First of all, our Lord explains here that the tenure of earthly things is now gone. It was no longer a question of holding a stewardship, but of giving it up. The steward was judged. Such was the truth manifest in Israel. Continuance in his old earthly position was now closed for the unjust steward; and for him it was simply a question of his prudence in present opportunities, with a view to the future. The unjust steward is made the vehicle of divine teaching to us how to make the future our aim. He, being, a prudent man, thinks of what is to become of him when he loses his stewardship; he looks before him; he thinks of the future; he is not engrossed in the present; he weighs and considers how he is to get on when he is no longer steward. So he makes a wise use of his master's goods. With people indebted to his master, he strikes off a great deal from this bill and a great deal from that, in order to make friends for himself. The Lord says this is the way we are to treat earthly things. Instead of tenaciously clutching at what you have not yet got, and keeping what you have, 0u the contrary, regard them as your master's goods, and treat them as the unjust steward in the parable. Rise above the unbelief which looks at money, or other present possessions, as if they were your own things. It is not so. What you have after an earthly sort now belongs to God. Show that you are above a Jewish, earthly, or human feeling about it. Act on the around that all belongs to God, and thus secure the future. This is the grand point of our Gospel, from the transfiguration more particularly, but indeed all through. It is the slight of present treasure on earth, because we look on to the unseen, eternal, and heavenly things. It is the faith of disciples acting on the prudence of the far-seeing steward, though of course hating his injustice. The principle to act on is this, that what nature calls my own is not my own, but God's. The best use to make of it is, treating it as His, to be as generous as may be, looking out against the future. It is easy to be generous with another's goods. This is the way of faith with what flesh counts its own things. Do not count them your own, but look at and treat them as God's. Be as generous as you please: He will not take it amiss. This is evidently what our Lord insists on; and here is the application to the disciples: "Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye fail [or, it fails], they may receive you into everlasting habitations." You are not going to be on the earth long other habitations are for ever. Sacrifice what nature calls its own, and would always hold fast if it could. Faith counts these things God's; freely sacrifice them, in view of what shall never pass away.

WK L 345f

Theopesta

08-07-2005, 03:32 AM

Barnes new testament notes http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/triangle_down.gif

Verse 1. His disciples. The word disciples, here, is not to be restricted to the twelve apostles or to the seventy. The parable appears to have been addressed to all the professed followers of the Saviour who were present when it was delivered. It is connected with that in the preceding chapter. Jesus had there been discoursing with the scribes and Pharisees, and vindicating his conduct in receiving kindly publicans and sinners. These publicans and sinners are here particularly referred to by the word disciples. It was with reference to them that the whole discourse had arisen. After Jesus had shown the Pharisees, in the preceding chapter, the propriety of his conduct, it was natural that he should turn and address his disciples. Among them there might have been some who were wealthy. The publicans were engaged in receiving taxes, in collecting money, and their chief danger arose from that quarter--from covetousness or dishonesty. Jesus always adapted his instructions to the circumstances of his hearers, and it was proper, therefore, that he should give these disciples instructions about their peculiar duties and dangers. He related this parable, therefore, to show them the danger of the love of money; the guilt it would lead to (#Lu 16:1); the perplexities and shifts to which it would drive a man when once he had been dishonest (#Lu 16:3-7); the necessity of using money aright, since it was their chief business (#Lu 16:9); and the fact that if they would serve God aright they must give up supreme attachment to money (#Lu 16:13); and that the first duty of religion demanded that they should resolve to serve God, and be honest in the use of the wealth intrusted to them. This parable has given great perplexity, and many ways have been devised to explain it. The above solution is the most simple of any; and if these plain principles are kept in view, it will not be difficult to give a consistent explanation of its particular parts. It should be borne in mind, however, that in this, as well as in other parables, we are not to endeavour to spiritualize every circumstance or allusion. We are to keep in view the great moral truth taught in it, that we cannot serve God and mammon, and that all attempts to do this will involve us in difficulty and sin.

A steward. One who has charge of the affairs of a family or household; whose duty it is to provide for the family, to purchase provisions, &c. This is, of course, an office of trust and confidence. It affords great opportunity for dishonesty and waste, and for embezzling property. The master's eye cannot always be on the steward, and he may therefore squander the property, or hoard it up for his own use. It was an office commonly conferred on a slave as a reward for fidelity, and of course was given to him that, in long service, had shown himself most trustworthy. By the rich man, here, is doubtless represented God. By the steward, those who are his professed followers, particularly the publicans who were with the Saviour, and whose chief danger arose from the temptations to the improper use of the money intrusted to them.

Was accused. Complaint was made.

Had wasted. Had squandered or scattered it; had not been prudent and saving.