Aesthetics

[Richard McBride]

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

I see no commentary on the list concerning Aesthetics.
Obviously, it is not an experience foreign to the OT; but the NT seems preoccupied with the new urgency of Salvation and other more serious matters.

Still, the subject is not entirely missing. In Acts 3, there is The Beautiful Gate at the temple. And when Stephen was brought before the council, even those who hated him, “saw his face as the face of an angel.” [Acts 6:15] And in speaking to the council, Stephen recounted of Moses, that he was, “asteios to Theos”; that is, Moses was judged handsome in the eyes of God, even as a babe.

While I think no one would say that Aesthetics had no part in the scripture of the New Covenant, still, I find very little made over it -- especially when one thinks of the tons of (often useless) exegetic commentary lavished on very nearly any other subject one may imagine.

So, to you, whose wisdom I have come to love, I ask if you can tell me where to look for good, solid commentary done in an intentionally aesthetic interpretation? I have seen the occasional piece which advertises something aesthetic, but these usually do little but jabber in an aesthetic sounding fashion. They do not even try to explain what they might mean by the term. So often the term is simply taken for granted: Everyone must know what it means?

I confess ignorance. I do not know what it means. Can someone direct me to an aesthetician who explains the nature of his/her aesthetic, backs it up with examples from scripture, and might even offer an aesthetic theory to boot?

richard

[M.C. Steenberg]

Richard, the category of 'theological aesthetics' is generally centred around the conceptions of logical and economic 'beauty' or harmony, often in concert with other theological concerns. Key terms to look for in aesthetic discussion are 'fitting', 'proper', 'appropriate', etc. Such terms are used in these discussions to show that the actions of God involve, among other considerations, some element of divine 'balance' and beauty (the term aesthetic, itself means relating to beauty or balance).

For example, 'It was impossible, therefore, that God should leave man to be carried off by corruption, because it would be unfitting and unworthy of Himself' (St Athanasius of Alexandria, De Incarnatione 6) is an aesthetic statement: it explains a given activity of God in terms of the divine 'beauty' of His will. God could have not saved man from his sin, but this would have been inharmonious with the is known of His personality.

Sometimes aesthetic statements are less blatantly obvious. As an example, 1 Corinthians 15.22 ('For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive') is an aesthetic statement due to its presentation of a certain truth in such a way as to emphasis the balance, or rather the oppositional balance, between two persons and events (Adam-Sin and Christ-Salvation).

Both Testaments of the Scriptures are filled with aesthetic notions and statements, and the writings of the Church Fathers are overflowing with them (in particular, St Irenaeus of Lyons, St Gregory of Nyssa, St John Chrysostom come to mind; but you are unlikely to find more than a handful of Fathers who don't employ the aesthetic at some time or another).

If you are interested in reading on theological aesthetic, a good text is:

Hans Urs von Balthasar. The glory of the Lord : a theological aesthetics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983-).

This is a seven-volume work that traces aesthetic themes through Scripture and the Fathers.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard McBride]

Thank you, Matthew,

for your ever-useful counsel. That should be a pleasant diversion, reading the Balthasar vol.s

richard

[Richard McBride]

In mentioning Giacometti, the great Swiss sculptor of the first half of the 20th Century, it doesn’t surprise me that Elisabeth also brought up the subject of “space”. It is true that Giacometti was well known for his interest in spatial exploration and containment, but what really makes this connection so predictable is that Elisabeth is, among other things, a visual person. Visual types have a natural kinship with matters of space, while their opposite number, verbal types, become preoccupied with textual concerns.

Please understand, it is not for having failed to resist this very stereotypical pigeon-holing that I come to such a conclusion. As a teacher of architectural design for 30 years, I can tell you it simply does not pay to ignore the reality of these two poles of vision and verbiage. Indeed, it seems that Anglo cultures may be worse than most in fitting to the stereotypes. We are trained away from visual and designerly interests at an early age, and what is made important is writing and reading. Of itself that would be OK, except that the formal pedagogics relentlessly impress the linear skills upon children and at the same time, in an equally ruthless fashion, purge that form of thinking which is more holistic and spatial -- that visual world which we were born with and which we delight in, until about the age of 6 or 8 years. By then, as I say, all that beautiful sense of pure design is purged from our eyes, to be replaced by the thin but handy stuff of textual thinking, word for word.

The point in mentioning as much is to impress that most people reading these messages are of a textual mode. Most see the world around them neither in terms of its designerly patterns nor as a matter of spatial configurations. Perhaps, it be well to recognize as much, but to simply admit that for some eyes, the street is not merely a functional strip which makes it easier for crazy people to bang into us. For some eyes, it, and everything else, is a collection of patterns, colours and spaces which work for better or worse. The function is something else. For these latter types, a painting is many things, but that something else is always something which textual types ignore. For the one, the verbal people, a painting is primarily its content. For the other, the visual people, it is also a collection of patterns and colours which make a clear and definite statement -- or not. It either presents a strong visual structure or a vapid one, and that goes a long way toward establishing its value. Narrative content may be recognized, but that is a different matter.

The representation of space in art has become one of its most delicious purposes, and it is a shame that our culture is so blind to it. At the same time, there is a rather intentional ignorance of physical, or actual space for most people. And the curious thing is that this blind spot has lodged in the conscious brain only (the left brain), while the right brain (the nous or site of intuitions) may hardly ignore the spatial event. Thus, we (everyone of us) tend to have a vast experience of spatial situations which, consciously, we scarcely know exist. This is unspeakably strange to me.

Before the Theotokos drew me into the Orthodox Church (Hail, Theotokos!), I thought that one’s reactions to certain spaces were purely physiological; that the gasping for breath, the force which strikes in the chest, for instance, upon entering Alberti’s fantastic space of S. Andrea in Montova -- I thought that was entirely a spatial experience. Now I see that often it is the presence of the Holy Spirit which is so striking. But still, it is a spatial experience as well.

So, even if the impact of the presence of God be inextricably bound up with certain spaces, even then, I cannot understand how anyone may prefer to consciously ignore the purely spatial aspect of certain buildings. After all, all icons are not equal. Some are more powerful than others. It is no different with the Church building, that which houses the body of Christ even as it contains the spaces. Some spaces are exceptional; and fully alive persons will be concerned to recognize as much. The Church too is an icon, and one of its aspects is the volumitry of spaces, perhaps not unlike responding to the colour of an icon.

In order to partake of this God given experience, study the great icons of Churches themselves. Don’t look only for “written” icons, but absorb the volumes of the cloister, the porch, the narthex, then the nave. As one sits/stands prior to Orthros praying, pause a moment thinking upon the experience of various spaces which one navigates in arriving at this place. Look about, at the Platytera to be sure, but also try to envision the very space into which one is placed. This will itself be a physical and fully perceptible space. Were it frozen in time and the walls pulled down, the space would survive in its own right. It is a distinct entity, and not just the face of the walls which contain it. It is the volume which the angels inhabit. Our little ones see them, and they feel the space. It too is God given, and part of the icon we call the Church.

richard

[Richard McBride]

On Matthew’s suggestion, I’ve been reading the first vol of Hans Urs von Balthasar’s seven volume aesthetic, “The Glory of the Lord, A theological Aesthetics”. Father Hans was ordained in the Society of Jesus, but left their pale to foster a secular organization dedicated, I believe, to inculcating his vision of a holistic theology upon the culture at large.

This book is quite a read! I’m still in the rather long introduction (which is complicated by a great deal of theology which is to be explained later), and considering the vast breadth of Father Hans’ intentions, my mind is racing in all directions. If I am weak in philosophical aesthetics, I am positively pulverized in such fast racing theology.

Actually, I have a suspicion that Balthasar’s “aesthetics” are very personal, but I cannot be certain without testing his theology farther. The great advantage I have found is that his style implies a solid grounding in the thinking of the Desert Fathers, and not just a cursory review of those items which Rome has redeployed in support of its curious visions over the past couple of centuries (Papal infallibility, etc.).

Indeed, I find considerable sympathy for much of what Father Hans is saying -- but again, I cannot see where the aesthetic issue is grounded. (I shall be patient.) But I say all this by way of introducing a different problem -- a large problem I have with hermeneutic method.

Father Hans uses the language of hermeneutics sparingly (thank the Lord), and I should like to find out what others think of this subject. Particularly, I am wondering if the LXX project is deep into the cult of hermeneutics, and since so many people are community members, there may be strong opinions contrary to mine.

By way of example, I mention the work of a young PhD from Syracuse who has studied Balthasar’s work, S.J. Garver (http://www.lasalle.edu/~garver/). His hermeneutic process is more that which I dislike. In a piece concerning Balthasar’s notions on Being (http://www.lasalle.edu/~garver/glory.htm), he has this to say:

“Balthasar outlines three basic approaches that non-Christian philosophies have taken
to the problem of being. First, there is pagan polytheism. Balthasar sees polytheism
as essentially mythical. Myth functions to bring the transcendent into contact with
our concrete world, [1] representing, therefore, the immanence of the divine within the world or of the general within the particular. But in doing this the transcendent is reduced to the finite and becomes subject to human manipulation through magic. Christ alone is the true myth, [2] affirming that God may indeed be known in and through the world (true immanence) and yet is also truly transcendent and utterly distinct from any created thing. The formulation of Chalcedon affirms this and furthermore that Christ is no mere particular but a unique totality expressed concretely.”

[1] “...into contact with our concrete world”? What an egotistical thing to say! This, unhappily, is the arrogant attitude I see in so much hermeneutic demythologizing. Myth is taken automatically to mean “fable”. And that notion not only robs one of the understanding which does reside in myth, it leaves the demythologizer in a position of never being able to translate the truths found therein. But in such arrogance, I suppose no truth is to be found. It must be like trying to describe the smell of rose, when one does not believe that roses exist.

[2] “Christ alone is the true myth...?” I’m not certain how one may say this after having damned myth as “magic”. Is this not contradictory? (I could go on in this vein, but I prefer a more positive point.)

For anyone who is caught up in the demythologizing game, believing that anti-myth is the only rational way, I point out that even the O.E.D. makes this small mention concerning myth:
“Properly distinguished from allegory and from legend (which implies a nucleus of fact) but often used vaguely to include any narrative having fictitous elements.”

The more useful definition, however, comes from Mircea Eliade, who is convinced (as am I) that myth is always a true story, while fable is a fictitous one. Considering the matter of mythic time, Eliade points to sacred time versus profane time. In sacred time one often relives, during annual festivals, the old time over again. One is actually taken up in that time. Thus, “...by means of rites religious man can pass without danger from ordinary temporal duration to sacred time...by its very nature sacred time is reversible in the sense that, properly speaking, it is a primordial mythical time made present.” It is real and redone yet again, here in this place. This is what made the world go ‘round, until God picked out Abram through whom to install a new form of myth.

Eliade has this to say about Christianity:
“Christianity radically changed the experience and the concept of liturgical time, and this is due to the fact that Christianity affirms the historicity of the person of Christ. The Christian liturgy unfolds in a historical time sanctified by the incarnation of the Son of God. The sacred time periodically reactualized in the pre-Christian religions (especially in the archaic religions) is a mystical time, that is, a primordial time, not to be found in the historical past, and original time, in the sense that it came into existence all at once, that it is was not preceded by another time, because no time could exist before the appearance of the reality narrated in the myth...”
[Taken from “Myths, Rites, Symbols”; vol.1; p.33-35]

To my mind, taking myth as a true story brings hermeneutic arrogance down to earth; taken in such a vein, it might prove useful -- hermeneutics might even be able to overcome so much exegetic blather (lets begin with BCE), producing the “truth” it has so long sought.

richard

[Richard McBride]

Christos Anesti!

The thrust of hermeneutic regimens, either secularly or religiously deployed, derives their current direction from the post war period of semantic development. Semiotics to postmodernism, they are all textually oriented and they all have some common base in structuralism, which itself has been founded upon an earlier positivism.

With such a lineage it ought not seem surprising that current hermeneutics takes such a unilateral position on scripture: It is extremely one sided by being so firmly set upon the scientific potential for textual analysis, disregarding both more romantic (if often fulgent) translations, and more phenomenally based interpretations. The result shows up often in a relentless demythologizing surgery which vivisects the patient until I imagine the Holy Spirit has difficulty in recognizing it any more as scripture. Certainly, I do.

It would be in keeping with such surgery that both Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians find themselves today atomizing Holy Scripture, trying to analyse themselves into a position of academic understanding, whereas an earlier and more backward time might assume that such understanding was had only by the gift of Grace from the Holy Spirit. Precisely in this vein, we find Father Hans von Balthasar (one-time SJ) disrupting the thrust of all this popular analytics.

Joel Garver (http://www.lasalle.edu/~garver/glory.htm) as recognized a portion of these qualities in Father Hans’ writing, when he discusses the Father’s use of metaphorical vision, or seeing as a property of faith. (This vision is revealed on p.30-31 of the Introduction to “The Glory of the Lord”, vol.1.) But I also find that Father Hans is using that vision as an introduction into a distinctly anti-hermeneutic regimen. I shall quote the first part of the paragraph on page 31 to illustrate this very non-modern theology:

“It was this image [of the apostles], seen with the eyes of faith and of faith’s insight, that the eye-witnesses rendered, first, an oral and then a written testimony. And, just as the Holy Spirit was in their eyes so that the image should spring into view, so, too, was he in their mouth and in their pen so that the likeness which they drew up of the original image should correspond to the vision which God’s Holy Spirit himself [sic] possesses of God’s self-representation in the flesh. We must then repeat that Scripture is not the Word itself [sic], but rather the Spirit’s testimony concerning the Word, which springs from an indissoluble bond and marriage between the Spirit and those eye-witnesses who were originally invited and admitted to the vision. With such an understanding of Scripture, we can say further that its testimony possesses and inner form which is canonical simply be being such a form, and for this reason we can ‘go behind’ this form only at the risk of losing both image and Spirit conjointly.”

I take this last sentence to be a censure upon the “going behind” tactics of hermeneutics. I hope others see it that way.

Alithos Anesti!

richard

[Richard McBride]

Christos Anesti!

#2 on hermeneutics

I hope someone may correct me on this, but I speculate that a prime reason why Pope John Paul II looked upon Father Hans Balthasar as his favourite theologian was the father’s stance against hermeneutic exegetics. This seems likely, for a great deal of hermeneutic practice has emerged in American Roman Catholicism, and much of the scholarly sympathy for Modernism and change in the RC church has been produced through hermeneutic writings. (Re. back to Pope Pius X’s encyclical “Pascendi”, Sep. 8, 1907, addressing Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies.”)

It may be due to political sympathies that Father Hans failed to attack Modernism in the RC Church itself, but he did go after it at its source in Protestant hermeneutics. And there, the fountain of modern change is found in Martin Luther. In fact, Luther may be cited for instigating the epoch of Modernism which John Locke so eagerly picked up on -- once Locke was able to publish after the Glorious Revolution (c.1698?) had cleared the English air of its Roman Catholic resistance to the Reformation.

Vater Hans spells out the problem with Protestant hermeneutics as being a general idea emerging from classical scholasticism, which acted to relativize biblical and Patristic Wisdom. It was a common cultural attitude of those times, he says, that Bible and theological history be purged of offensive elements by means of “de-mythologizing.”

Then, Vater Hans asks, In favour of what? Of “... a Bultmannian ‘understanding of existence’?” By which I assume he means the infamous demythologizing of Rudolph Bultmann (1884-1976), wherein the Gospel is reduced to the existential language of freedom and authenticity, in keeping with the contemporary language of our times.

Vater Hans says that, “To excise all this from Scriptural revelation would mean abandoning the historical setting of the Biblical revelation, and would leave only a certain moralism which was non-historical and, therefore, however existential, ultimately ineffective.

“And yet from the start the Protestant Reformation embarked on just such an operation which it has pursued ever since. Luther began making the doctrine of justification the very axis of Biblical revelation -- the doctrine of justification, that is, as portrayed in Galatians and Romans. He then continued by projecting the axis back into the Old Testament, the Old Testament as primarily conceived in these two letters, a view which is probably the most historically conditioned ...” late Jewish thinking of Paul.

There follows a nice argument on the ‘aesthetic theologizing’ of Luther and successive European theologians. (This is taken from “The Glory of the Lord”; vol 1; 1961; tr. 1982; p.44-5.)

Alithos Anesti!

richard

[Fr Averky]

Dear Richard,

I am now finishing my day, but I will answer yoiu fully tomorrow. In the mean time let us open this as a general thread.

Briefly, in regards to ascetism, my experience is only in my own monastery. Like many Russian monasteries, we are a "working" monastery, that is to say , as a publishing house we have a full round of services, but even that it limited in attendance. The requirement is Midnight office at 5:00 a.m., Divine Liturgy at 6:00 a.m. and Evening prayers for an hour at 7:15. p.m. We have daily Vespers and Matins, but that is seen to by a priest and two people on kleros. If people have time they will go for Vespers, or if there is a Polyeleos, they will go for that. Yet, apart, there are many of the monks who are men of prayer, quietly keeping their cell rules, and most of the monks eat relatively little. The fathers tell us that we should always eat to less than satisfaction. Theire is a rule: eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, and dinner like a pauper. Many of our monks only eat breakfast and lunch, and do not eat an evening meal. I myself eat once a day, sometimes twice. A good half of the year we have vigils or what is called "General Matins, which is very much like a vigil except that Vespers are served earlier in the day. Since we have a resident bishop, the services, especially Divine Liturgy are much longer than in a regular parish. We also have public molebens for various needs, and many panikhidas during the year for the repose of Bishops, monks and renowned layman such as Imperial generals, etc. The better part of our lives is connected with church services of some sort. Besides this, each of us has his own cell rule, comprised of prayers, prostrations, and the Jesus prayer. It is also expected that we spend no small amount of time reading the Holy Scriptures and other spiritual books. This is all done, not with the idea of being "ascetics." but lovingly fulfilling the spiritual rules of our monastic community. We have far less monks than we did in the past, so every one has many obediences.

The Archbishop himself is quite busy, and works long hours each day, often into the night despite his 76 years. He is an example for all of us, for he is unassuming, meek, humble, quiet, peaceful, loving, forgiving and patient. He never intimidates, but handles every situation calmly and lovingly. He is the first in Church, never missing services even if very ill. I have known him to fly into New York from the Holy Land, come the 5 hours from JFK by car, and then serve a four hour All-night Vigil. He eats no specail food, contenting himself to eat the same as we do, often much less.

We have a nearly 75 year tradition of monasticism here in America. We have produced Archbishops and bishops, great spiritual fathers and our small seminary has prouduced good and pious priests for churches around the world. We have our weakness and our problems, we have our peresonlity clashes and a few politics, but all in all, there is much love here. My spiritual father said to me when I became a novice nearly thirty years ago, "If God will merciful to we monks of the Last Days, it will be because we became monks at all, and we held on."

I am sorry that I cannot tell you impressive tales of great ascertic feats, but just living in a community is, as St. Theodore the Studite said, "a slow martyrdom." we are not, and we do not consider ourselves to be in any way special - we are group of sinful men living together in community, hoping for God's mercy.

Sorry if my answer dissapoints you. We do not sit around and consider "ascetism," we live our lives quietly, struggling every day to run the good race. Higher consideration and theological discussion are held withone's spiritual father. When monks get together, they relax and tell funny monastic stories, giving comfort and companiship to one another, but even this rare. We basically live our lives "alone" "Monos," the root word for :Monachos, one of the Greek words for monk.

Sincerely yours,

Father Averky

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Richard M.

I am not sure, but I think St. Theodoros is talking about perceiving with the enlightened nous (lately being translated "intellect," for want of a better term, e.g., in the English ed. of the Philokalia), as our First Parents did in the Garden before the fall, rather than with the mere senses which is what the soul reverts to when the nous is darkened. Asceticism is the process, I suppose you might say, of clarifying the nous even further. Thus, God (that is, in his energies, I think the fathers would say) can be perceved intuitively in His creations. Were you hoping that Father Averky could give us some insight from his experience of that?

About a couple of other things in one of your earlier posts: remember that Eliade is Orthodox, and Balthazar being RC (and Jesuit to boot) will have no general distinction between "essence" and "energies," so, there is a great likelihood of his misunderstanding the fathers on asceticism.

Just some thoughts,

Richard L.

[Rebecca]

Hi Richard,

Interesting that you mention nous being translated as "intellect." Just the other day I was reading that the word nous actually refers to the eye of the heart. "Intellect" seems a very poor substitute for "eye of the heart"....

[Richard Leigh]

Right on Rebecca!

I think this should alert us to caution when reading translations of the fathers into English. There is a glossary in the back of each of the five volumes of the Philokalia, giving us those translators' renderings of the Greek.

"Nous" is often translated "mind," especially from the New Testament. I have read that the fourth century fathers were using a "revived" classical use of the language. Thus, they probably eant something deeper than what the Bible talks about using the same word (but the whole concept is certainly "biblical" but we need the whole thing plus the grace of the Holy Spirit to get it from there!).

I think the desert fathers learned from their experience and sought for words to define it more accurately.

Richard

[Richard McBride]

Dear Richard L

I had not realized that Eliade was Orthodox. He was Romanian, of course, but since he as only 10 at the time of the Bolshevik revolution, I had assumed other things.

But I don't know why I should have guessed otherwise. Even more than the Russians, I understand that the Balkan people retained their Orthodox ties -- although quietly so. I was surprised to see how strongly Orthodox Serbia had remained (when Clinton tried to bomb them to pieces). Those people, as did the Greeks, held on amazingly to Orthodoxy through the terrible Ottoman times, through the Nazis, then the Communist. And in between, whenever they could, the German Catholics have always been there to stick it to them. I have never understood why the German and French Catholics have hated Orthodoxy so much. Most likely it was due to some arrogant (or worse) rebuff from one of the Orthodox Emperors. Either way, the devil had a hand in it.

But Eliade could not have been very steeped in Orthodoxy.

I have always been impressed with a certain fear of God in his work, and I felt grateful that he at least humanized myth, rather than tossing it into the ash bin as the demythifyers are wont to do.

Perhaps more than that, I have felt glad that he resisted postmodernism when so many others were swayed (not to mention how long he was in Chicago). Indeed, I was surprised when something new would come out of his work, and he stayed -- perhaps, just barely -- on my (anti-postmodern) side of the line.

As for my question to Father Averky, as usual I offered a confused facade. It wasn't asceticism so much as some path around it that I am pondering. The stringency of asceticism itself is plain enough in the Philokalia. But everyone leading their lives among the people wonders about a different set of rules. Orthodox cope with the problem by attending the Temple, and in between they get by with a variety of prayer regimens. And perhaps, that is all there is.

My own pottering, however, carries me toward a regimen for discovreing just a bit more about God -- that is, through the created nature, or pre-Fall nature. I imagine that there are a couple of ways of comprehending as much. The primary way, of course, is the Lord's decision to open up a path in despite of what we are thinking-doing at the time. But this other way, in which I hold up my aesthetic umbrella to encourage lightening to strike, is, I think, not quite what the Father's had in mind. Either way, there is no question that God does not initiate the strike, but being free willed (as you Lutherans fully understand) we also have a part to play.

Can't go into it here, but it occurs to me that either the Fathers knew that aesthetics would damn most people for playing with it -- and that's all there is to the matter; either that, or they were simply not concerned about a different sort of aesthetic response, one taken out of the gutter of sinful pleasure, cleaned up a bit, and given a new set of clothes. My thinking is that such an aesthetic may be the primary means for understanding Adam's nature before he committed slow suicide -- 930 years of dieing.

You can see how poorly I expressed the problem the first time -- by how poorly I continue to press it.

You mentioned another post, Richard; I don't recall it. I remember mentioning Balthasar somewhere, but I don't recall the problem of essences and energies. Could you point me to it?

Thanks for your comments, Richard.
CHRISTOS ANESTI

richard mcb

[Beryl Wells Hamilton]

Hello to all,

Which Amma was it about whom it was said that she lived by a beautiful lake for 40 years without ever looking up?

There was another saint I read about who used to walk around during the day thinking it was dark outside, because the light within him made daylight seem like nighttime.

Perhaps the more the dirt is rubbed off through struggle, and the cleaner we are made by grace, the more brightly the Sun of Righteousness shines within, until eventually His surpassing beauty makes everything else seem like it is in shadow. The outer, fleshly senses see outer things, but the inner senses, awakened by the waters of salvation and fed by the fountain of immortality, become ever more alive, leading us, body and soul, ever inward. Just as creation is an incomplete, fallen image of that for which we pine and wait, so the outer senses are a mere image of the inner senses. I think that, in part, the "image of God" in us means that He has given us "inner" senses of sight, smell, taste, touch and hearing that will help us to find Him if we are looking. As our heart becomes purer through love and longing, our inner senses mature, enabling us to "see God" ever more clearly, just as the Master taught us. In the face of this all-consuming fire, the earthly beauty we thought we knew so well is absorbed like a candle flame is absorbed by the sun.

What is the sight, smell and touch of a freshly opened red rose on a midsummer morning? What is the feel of the spring rain falling on your face, or the taste of water from a rushing Colorado mountain stream? What is the sound of a whip-poor-will at dusk?

I love all of these beauties. But they pale in comparison with the "sight" and "sound" of the cherubim and seraphim who soar aloft on their pinions before the throne of God during our Divine Liturgy, shouting, proclaiming and saying with us, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts! Heaven and earth are full of His glory!" Our outer senses hear the words, sing the praises in our languages, smell the incense, and see the priest offering up the gifts, but it is the inner senses that reach beyond and between. It's the invisible yet tangible reality of heaven and earth uniting that makes us never want to leave. Having partaken of fire without being consumed, we walk away in the embrace of eternity itself. How can anything else compare to this surpassing beauty, and how can anything else be called beautiful?

Richard (McBride), I've been thinking about all of your posts in this thread for a few days now. They are so well-thought out, and I really understood what you were saying, and have been wanting to reply. As an artist, I can relate to what you are saying. But it's hard to even begin to formulate replies, because as you know, experiencing Orthodoxy can't be bound by words, and we are so limited in our experience of God's beauty, because we are still so far away and sinful. We can only see heaven as if through a glass darkly. But I do know, even in my miserable, fallen state, that in the light of Christ's glory, everything else - no matter how "beautiful" our fallen sense perceive it to be - is dim; indeed, "ugly" in the light of Christ and His kingdom. And I dunno, maybe that's what the saints are talking about.

Yours in Christ,

Beryl

[Rebecca]

Richard L,


I think this should alert us to caution when reading translations of the fathers into English. There is a glossary in the back of each of the five volumes of the Philokalia, giving us those translators' renderings of the Greek.

Indeed. My dad, who translated some writings of the Fathers from Greek, pointed out that the challenge was to truthfully and faithfully render in English what the Saints actually said, rather than trying to impose one's own interpretation when doing the translation.

That is one reason why I find it especially irksom when reading some of the English versions of the Fathers when translators will insert their own commentary either inline, as paragraph/chapter synopses or as footnotes, thereby trying to cast their own interpretation on the Saint's writings. It seems arrogant of such translators to try to to stand in between the Saint and the reader to cast their own meaning on top of the Saint's words.

I think there is a beauty in the experience of reading what the Saints actually said that reaches into the heart. I think that's at least part of what we pray for when we ask God to

"Shine into our hearts, O loving Master, the pure light of Your divine knowledge and open the eyes of our minds to an understanding of things Your Gospel teaches..." quote from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

[John Kapetan]

Dear Rebecca, Richard L, group members;

Christ is Risen

I think that you have hit the proverbial nail right on the head regarding many of the translations. The original Greek truly is beautiful, but we should not mistake what we consider beautiful with what God had intended to be beautiful. He may have meant the message itself to be beautiful. Not so much the language. What Rebecca's father had said regarding translating, that the challenge was to truthfully and faithfully render in English what the Saints actually said, rather than trying to impose one's own interpretation when doing the translation.

Unfortunately, this is what can be experienced with many of the scriptual translations that are 'on the market'. Almost every translation of scripture seems to be filled with footnotes and annotations from the translator.

I think like you have said to proceed with caution. Not to stop reading Scripture, or the Fathers, God forbid, but to really try to ask God to make us understand the beauty of the message of what is being conveyed.

In Christ,

John K

[Richard Leigh]

Deaer Richard M.


You mentioned another post, Richard; I don't recall it. I remember mentioning Balthasar somewhere, but I don't recall the problem of essences and energies.

I was referring to your post #47. I brought up "essence and energies" because, at least according to some (with whom I agree, btw), it is the lack of the distinction of the two that is the heart of the western "phronema" which fails thereby to grasp the eastern.

Richard L.

[Tim Kerry]

After following bits and pieces of this thread, I too, have wondered whether or not any Orthodox writers have addressed the issue of aesthetics in any systematic way. I am a bit confused, however, on exactly how the notion "aesthetics" is being used. In the academic discipline of Philosophy, at least in ancient philosophy, aesthetics pertained to the "Being of the Beautiful" -- that is, as a self-subsisting form or essence independent of mind. Here, so it is seems, the Beaufiful was accorded an ontological status which truth and morality were thought to participate in. I cannot tell if this is what this thread is after -- that is, a more systemic discussion of the way in which the Beautiful, as a way of indicating or manifesting an aspect of God, energizes and assists our approach towards God. If not, I apologize and the rest of this note can be ignored. If, however, I am barking up the right tree, one might want to consider the way in which the Beautiful, the True, and the Good (I realize this sounds platonic) seem related. St. Theophan the Recluse in his book, "The Spiritual Life and How to Be Attuned to It," has a section on the way in which beauty reflects God's majesty and how it serves to transport our spiritual nature to the comptemplation of God. Unfortunately, since the rise of Anglo-American analytic philosophy, aesthetics has diminished as an area of study in academic Philosophy. This may or may not mirror what seems to be a cultural move since the 19th century away from the idea of there being anything like an "essence" of the Beautiful -- witness the rise of an "anti-aesthetic" and relativism of all sorts. In any case, if the Beautiful makes manifest an aspect of God and if there is an ontological dimension in which what is True and what is Good participate in it, then the modern world's move towards a more "constructionist" view would seem to be part of the story of Man's falling away from God.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Rebecca, John, Richard M., et al.,

I realize that the following doesn't have much to do with aesthetics per se, but I share it because I think it hilights the way the fathers use "sight" with regard to apprehending God, even in His creation, by means of the nous, as over against the physical senses.

I just found that "nous" is translated "mind" in the Orthodoox New Testament as well as others. But pursuant to our discusion, look at Luke 24, the story of the two men walking to Emaus, after the experience of the women, and then Peter, at the empty tomb.

(I am underscoring "hear" and "see" words to make a point, and I quote from TONT which, like the KJV italicizes words that are not in the text itself but are needed to give the proper sense of the words that are)

It says in vv.15 & 16 that Jesus himself came up to these men and that "their eyes were held so as not to recognize Him." In explaining to this seeming stranger what had been going on in Jerusalem those last few days, they tell him (in vv. 22 & 24) that they'd heard from some women who'd said they'd had a vision of angels who'd told them "He is risen." "but Him, they did not see"

So Jesus explains the Scriptures to them as they walk along and they invite him in to stay and eat when the day is passing (i.e., getting dark) so he can continue his exposition. Then, in vv. 30 & 31 it says He blessed and broke and gave the bread to them, and v.31 "...their eyes were opened, and they recognized Him, and then He disappeared..." Then it says in v.32 "And they said to one another, 'Our heart was burning in us as He was speaking to us in the way and as He was opening the Scriptures, was it not?'"

Then comes the part where they all gather together in the upper room again and Jesus appears, to show himself really resurrected, body and bone, and (the part I said all the above for: v. 45, "Then He thoroughly opened their mind [this is "nous"] to understand the Scriptures,"

Scholars will tell you that of all the Evangelists, Luke's is the best Greek. He was obviusly a Helenist and most probably at least a "God-fearer" if not a proselyte to Judaism. It may well be that he had a "classic" use of the Greek language, is my point. We know from other Scripture that it is what comes out of the mouth (speech) not what goes into it (food) that defiles someone, and that because one speaks what is from the heart. That being the case, it would seem to me clear that what is heard goes, not to the stomach, but to the heart. It seems to me that Luke here is telling us that the expectation was that upon hearing, the disciples would "see" with the heart. And it appears that the process began with, if not light, at least heat being noticebly present! ("did our hearts not burn?"!).

So, the ears were always open even while the eyes were closed; the heart began to burn at the hearing (from the Logos, Himself, after first from the women and then Peter), until finally the nous (the eye of the soul) is opened.

But it took knowing that "mind" translated "nous" and knowing the classical use of that word to get here from there.

Yours,

Richard L.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Tim,

A slight twist on your comment about classical philosophy (i.e. Plato) The Forms, while perhaps having an independent existence, nevertheless is that which a thing participates in that gives it its universality -- it's true definition as what it is. So there is not only a chair, but there is a form -- chairness -- that it participates in, that gives it its nature qua chair. It is defined, therefore, not just by its utility, but by the form in which it participates. That's the aesthetics of it.

Of course, Plato is not really interested in defining chairs. He is really interested in grappling with the question of what it is that defines being human. This is a pressing political problem because in the form of the polis, something has gone terribly wrong. The best and the brightests of Athens, who claim to be the spokesmen for the "form" of Athens if you will, have put to death the one wise and good man in their midst, the one man who could save Athens from its disorder. And so it is important for him (and us) to come to an understanding of the nature of the deformation at work (that is always the beginning of philosophizing -- some practical problem that we are faced with -- some sense that things have gone wrong and are not what the should be; not what they seem on the surface). Hence, the polis is the soul writ large.

And so the Form of the human type is developed throughout Plato's dialogues and they should all be seen in that light, and not in terms of discreet methodologies such as aesthetics or cosmology or epistemology. He is trying to get at the ideal Form of the type of being human in order to get directly at the problem of the nature of the disorder, or deformation, or inversion of the form, palpable in the political situation.

But the From is always something that we participate in, either in its proper iconic sense, or in some deformation of it.

This principle of participation means there is always an in-between realm. Not just us as subjects and the Froms as separate objects. This is the concept, the experience, if you will or key insight -- the idea of an in between reality -- that is lost in academic philosophy and theology.

This key Platonic insight is carried over into Christian thought, in particular, the idea of communion with God, of participation in the divine mind, of deification of man.

"Modern" man has reduced religion to its utilitarian aspects. Will it get you saved or not -- is really the only question. The best contemporary essay on this is by Allen Tate in the selection of essays by Southern Agrarians called "I'll Take My Satnd."

The form of the thing is completely ignored, for example, in Protestantism.

But the truth in theology, as well as in science in general, is determined not so much by the utility of the idea, but by its beauty. Einstein, while trusting that over the course of a decade during which astronomical verifications could be made, believed that his theory of relativity was true, not because it would be proven true by measurement, but because it was beautiful in its simplicity.

Likewise, it is the simplicity of the Gospel that makes it true. We say that the cross of Christ is a beautiful thing to behold. Why? Because it transforms suffering, particularly suffering for no good reason, into the most sublime of all realities of human existence.

[Tim Kerry]

You make an excellent point in regard to the “in-between” world and its imperfections in Plato. I agree wholeheartedly with your observations on Plato and how one should read him, especially in light of how he is read in many philosophy departments in today’s university. In fact, I think Werner Jaeger’s observations in his three volume set, “Paideia,” (along with Vogelin’s writings as you mentioned in another format) are the most historically informative way to approach Plato and Socrates. In separating the issues of aesthetics from the over-arching concerns that inform the dialogues, I had in mind the view of the Beautiful that seems to run throughout Plato (The Symposium, Republic, The Sophist) and Plotinus, namely the view that the Beautiful is ontologically “real” with a separate existence over and above anything that might be said to participate in it. I suppose the major difference here between Hellenistic philosophy and Orthodoxy is the fact that there are not Forms for Orthodoxy which exist or are contemplated in the mind of God. As such, the Beautiful for the Orthodox cannot be a platonic form existing over and above God. However, Orthodoxy seems closer to Plato than to Aristotle on the issue of what determines the True or the Good since for the Orthodox, it is our participation in some aspect of God’s Being (through the Energies) that affect salvation and – I hate to use this phrase – “existential hypostatic authenticity.” In other words, death is a consequence of a “distortion” (an excellent choice of words on your part) of Man’s ontological relationship to God: biological necessity introduces passions which adversely effect our “noetic” perception/reception of God. The West, on the other hand, would seem closer to Aristotle insofar as participation does not define the degree to which something is what it is; rather, the degree to which a thing exhibits or approximates rational principles constitutive of the kind of thing it is determines its being “as such.” In terms of an “Orthodox aesthetics,” I would guess, the degree to which an icon portrays the true or authentic nature/image of God in man in a transfigured state manifest (participates in?) the being of the Beautiful as an ontological extension of God’s Being. If this is plausible, then the same could be said of liturgical chant and anything else the Church uses to iconically manifest the Heavenly Realm. Perhaps a consequence of this would be to say that the “truly Beautiful” raises us out of our particularity and situatedeness in the world to a realm of abundant and full, participatory Being, allowing us to glimpse the degree to which Goodness is real and the degree to which we fall short of it. It would, then, ultimately have an existential dimension and not, strictly speaking, an epistemological (how do we know something is beautiful) dimension.

[Rebecca]

Richard L,

Another place where you see the phrase "eye of the soul" used is in the book "The Life in Christ" by Nicholas Cabasilas.

I must try to find where my copy of that book. As I recall it was written in fairly simple language but beautifully discussed topics that have been discussed on this forum in the last few weeks.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Tim,

The best comprehensive treatment of Plato (Voegelin is not comprehensive -- he is dealing with some core issues in Plato) is by J.D. Wild in "Plato's Theory of Man" and "Plato and His Modern Enemies."

As for the Forms, I don't think Plato suggests that the Forms are above God. I can't say for sure, but I think the analogy in Christianity would be the Logos.

[Rebecca]

Quote from Homily I of St Macarius the Great:

The blessed prophet Ezekiel relates a glorious and inspired vision or apparition which he saw, and his description is that of a vision full of mysteries unspeakable. He saw in the plain a chariot of Cherubim, four spiritual living creatures. Each living creature had four faces, one the face of a lion, another the face of an eagle, andother the face of a calf, and the fourth the face of a human being. To every face there were wings, so that there were no hinder parts to any of them. Their backs were full of eyes; their bellies likewise were thick set with eyes; there was no part about them that was not full of eyes. There were also wheels to every face, wheel within wheel. In the wheels there was a Spirit. And Ezekiel saw as it were the likeness of a man, and under his feet as it were a work of sapphire. The Cherubim-chariot and the living creatures bore the Master who rode upon them. Wheresoever He chose to go, it was with face forward. Beneath the Cherubim he saw as it were a man's hand supporting and carrying.

And this that the prophet saw was in substance true and certain, but it signified and foreshadowed something else, mysterious and divine--a mystery hidden verily from ages and generations, but in the last times made manifest at the appearing of Christ. The mystery which he beheld was that of the soul, that was to receive her Lord, and to become a throne of glory for Him. For the soul that is privileged to be in communion with the Spirit of His light, and is irradiated by the beauty of the unspeakable glory of Him who has prepared her to be a seat and a dwelling for Himself, becomes all light, all face, all eye; and there is no part of her that is not full of the spiritual eyes of light. That is to say, there is no part of her darkened, but she is all throughout wrought into light and spirit, and is full of eyes all over, and has no such thing as a back part, but in every direction is face forward, with the unspeakable beauty of the glory of the light of Christ mounted and riding upon her. As the sun is of one likeness glorified with light throughout, and is, indeed , all light, with no difference between the parts,--or as fire, the very light of fire, is alike all over, having in it no first or last, or greater or less,--so also the soul that is perfectly irradiated by the unspeakable beauty of the glory of the light of the face of Christ, and is perfectly in communion with the Holy Spirit, and is privileged to be the dwelling-place and throne of God, becomes all eye, all light, all face, all glory, all spirit, being made so by Christ, who drives, and guides, and carries, and bears her about, and graces and adorns her thus with spiritual beauty; for it says, the hand of a man was under the Cherubim, because He it is that is carried upon her and directs her.

[Richard Leigh]

Tim, Owen, and Rebecca,

Have any of you ever run accross a comparison of Epicurus' theory of "perceiving ideas" with the "mind" (possibly translating the Greek "nous" into its equivalent Latin term) with the Patristic ideas of apprehending God in His energies by the nous, or made it yourselves?

Also, have any of you ever run across the concept or teaching of "Sophiology" and/or the works of Sergius Bulgakov? I ask because what the gentlemen have been posting here stikes me as what surface I've scratched of Bulgakov.

Thanks,

Richard (L),

P.s., and yes, thank you Rebecca for reminding me of the beauty in simplicity.----R

[Fr Averky]

Dear Mr. MCBride,

St Symeon the New Theologian points out that before the Fall that everything was perfect, and that everything was beautiful, and that man clearly could see and understand this. After the Fall, his heart and his intellect was darkened, and nature too lost the beauty and order it had had in paradise.

In my very simple manner, let me say that when I became a novice, we were told that monasticsim is the possibility of the restoration of that Beauty which was lost; and as the angels who rebelled against God fell and were cast into darkness, and because of the sin of our First Ancestor, that original Beauty was no more in the world, the giving of the Angelic Habit was the reversal of all of this. Thus, it is the aim of the monk, by the giving up of the will, by true humility and obedience, by love for God and his neighbor to take the place of one of the demons who fell. It is the place of the monastic to attempt by his struggles and prayers for the world to restore beauty and order to a world gone awry. The richness and beauty and gandeur of the beautiful monastic services, served with love and humility, bring us just a "breeze," a bit of "fragrance" of the Paradise which has been lost to us. The soul of he who opens himself to God, "sees" that Beauty, for as Rebecca says, it is seen by the "eye of the soul," not in the mind of our fallen nature. This "sight" is not limited to monks, but the monastery is like a window into that world, that Beauty. Anyone who has spent any time in a monastery, especially those of you you have been to the Holy Mt. Athos will know of what I speak. Monasteries have a special Grace, a 'Light" possessed by those of the monks who sincerely struggle bear, of which they are not even conscious.

Once, many years ago, when only few monasteries were open in the former Soviet Union, a Pilgrim from Moscow visited us for a few weeks. As he was parting company with me, He said,"Father, I have been to all of the great monasteries in Russia, but this small place, this very Holy Monastery has a "Dyx"" ( hard to transliterate - Hard D, OO like "toot," and xh, a gutteral k), which means "Spirit" like no other I have seen. I pray that God will preserve this place as a light of Monastic Beauty to the world."

When I go to the early morning service here, suddenly, there is no Time, the World and all its ugliness is left behind, it is not even a memory. The soul, lifted by prayer and the awesome beauty of the soul saving words of the Divine Service, the candles and lamps before the Holy Icons, who, gazing out from their Heaven, grasp the heart of the one beholding them, transporting them to a place of loveliness beyond words. There is the quiet hush of the monastery, early in the morning, as the sun slowly rises - the air is pristine and cool, and the songs of many birds is heard. The liturgy unfolds, quietly, thoughtfully and peacefully. The majesty of the Byzantine liturgy, which appeals to all the senses, feeds the soul: the commanding words of the Epistle - the salvific words of the Holy Gospel. The litanies," for the sick the suffering the imprisoned , those who travel by land and see, for good crops, for our country..." As the moment for Holy Communion arrives, the Royal Gates open, and the God-Man, present for us out of Time and Forever comes, out for us to reverently and humbly receive Him, The King of All. The Sun, gloriously rising, floods through the windows of the altar, sending heavenly rays which diperse the darkness of the main body of the Church. The soul is refreshed, the heart is lightened, the New Day has begun, and once again, True Beauty, True life has been manifested to we poor sinful ones bound by our sins to this world, but now filled with surety and hope for the Next. Forgive my simple words, I have no other way to answer, but from my heart.

Father Averky

[Owen Jones]

Dear Richard,

Sorry, no. Sounds like you have a project ahead of you!

[Tim Kerry]

Dear Richard,

I don’t have a great deal of knowledge of Epicurus. Julia Annas and A.A. Long might be scholarly resources to consult, but I cannot say that I am familiar with the issue you raise in regard to his understanding of nous or mind.

As far as Bulgakov, I have only cursory knowledge of him. I understand, however, a book has been published in the last few years that provides an overview of him and others in the so-called “Paris School.” From what I know of sophiology, it is a heresy. I don’t know much about it, however, and I would imagine like anything else it has a number of variants. I recently started reading St. Ireneaus’ “Refutation of the Heretics.” I was struck by how contemporary many of the Gnostic ideas sound, as St. Ireneaus provides extensive descriptions of their beliefs. The “New Age” philosophy does not, after all, appear that “new.” In any case, the first part of the work describes the Gnostic view regarding the emanation of the Aeons and the Gnostic version of the fall. Interestingly enough, is was the female Aeon Sophia who, in trying to comprehend the essence of the One from which everything else emanated – I believe they refer to him as Bythris – fell into opposition with her own principle by trying to comprehend his totality. In her alienation and division, she fell when she tried to impart being to form in an attempt to overcome her division. As a female principle, she could only impart matter, however and not form. There then ensues a complicated tale of how another Aeonic principle was sent to rescue her but, in the process, separated her from her own principle, resulting in the “birth” of a second Sophia. The trials and tribulations of the second Sophia then involve what the Gnostics then refer to as the “Logos” and “Holy Spirit” and their heretical teachings regarding what the sayings of Christ mean in the Gospels. Not having much knowledge about Sophiology, I couldn’t help thinking while reading St. Ireneaus that there seems to be a connection between it and Gnosticism. As far as Plato and the like, I was only using Plato as a way of approaching certain philosophical issues regarding ontology the concept of the Beautiful. This may not have been particularly helpful but I didn’t know what other language to employ.

Regards,

Timothy

[Richard McBride]

Blessed of the Lord, Beryl:

Until you mentioned it in the precise way you did, it had not quite taken the position I now see -- especially, in the way you tuned up and turned on all the sensibilities through partaking of the Divine Liturgy. It recalls the lovely manner in which Schmemann spoke of it. There is indeed a very physical quality -- not just ineffable 'beauty' ['beauty' seems too weak on its own] -- but the whole person taken up in your division of outer and inner senses.

And I know what you mean concerning the impact upon the artist's raw nerves. We, who know that we are first visual types before letting an experience devolve into language, struggle to move from the one to the other. Ever since Plato -- no, he really didn't struggle all that much with the purely visual experience, except perhaps in the cave, where all of human life is reflected as flat shadows from the fire; no, I think Aristotle struggled more with verbalizing the visual experiece, and he was far less able to perceive the problem correctly than Plato. Curious, that it should have turned out that way.

Anyway, what you say is, as I see it, the very first step in the ladder of aesthetics. It is realizing that we do indeed think visually; the law is NOT, as the Positivists have said, "Everyone must act though every thought were verbal -- even if that were not true."

Suzanne K Langer spelled out the problem many years ago, and I have never found anyone else nearly so aware of it. Where Descartes spoke of the mind-body duality, Langer rephrased it in far more cogent terms. She called it the problem between Discursive thinking and Presentational thinking. But the first step in the ladder is realizing that there truly is such a thing as the Visual Thought.

Ah, but one despairs of convincing the dedicated linguist of such things.

Your experience in the Temple was nicely said, Beryl. Thanks for sharing it with us.

richard mcb

CHIRSTOS ANESTI !!

This being Tuesday evening, we offer this most beautiful of hymns to the Lord for the last time. Tomorrow is the Leave Taking of Pascha. How sorrowful, to think back upon this cosmic event -- that it is over.
However, He sends us the TRUTH soon. Glory to Thee, O Lord, Glory to Thee.

[Richard McBride]

monochos: RE: Aesthetics: #11 Tim Kerry 2

Blessed of the Lord, Timothy:

You explain my own perplexity better than I. Probably, everyone should be confused, "on exactly how the notion "aesthetics" is being used".

And I agree with you in part on the cause of the confusion, but I should go back a little more to get at the root. It is difficult not heaping the problem with aesthetics upon the plate of Positivism and its succeeding neo-isms, especially those which made the greatest pretenses at some sort of aesthetic agenda. The seriously anti-aesthetic rage seems to have come from the Frankfurt School and began to roll with the emergence of Semiotics. I recall the whole thing as a purge put on by Western Marxism, breaking with the Socialist Realism line [after all, no one but the Stalinists could defend Socialist Realism].

This concentrated European purge was really aimed at everything Metaphysical, and you will be able to recall better than I how successful was that campaign; in fact, it took the demise of the Soviet Union to make it safe for Metaphysics to again show itself in public. Unhappily, there has been too little effort to reclaim the Aesthetic which went out with it.

Then from the other side, this confusion in aesthetics may not be all that bad. Here, for instance, it offers us a chance to discuss it again -- without fear of being caught by the Epistemological Police.

But some American Analytical Philosophers have NOT been so aware of this purge as have I. Being for more attuned to the niceties of philosophy (wherein I am a dunce) they have not been influenced by the large popular picture in Europe, where philosophy is much more a popular pastime. Likewise, American philosophers have not been all that interested in the Marxist influences. But in a most general fashion, I am saying that out of the Vienna Circle came the popular philosophies of science, and since Marxism is nothing if not self-appointed shepherd to scientific philosophies, the Western Marxists could hardly ignore the Wittengsteinian splash. So, the Western Marxists took up the Positivist line, and due to the influence of Grunberg, Heirkeimer, Benjamin, Adorno, et al., the newly emerging Marxist Avant-Garde combined those old guys with de Saussure's Cour de linguistique and came up with a flourishing Semiotic by the end of WWII. In no time at all it became reconfigured as Post Structuralism.

In a rather half-baked fashion, I think of all of these neo-Structuralisms as being the perhaps not so legitimate child of Positivism, which has been reared by the nanny of postmodernism. But don't believe everything I say here, for I speak from ignorance.

One more thing, while the American Analytical Philosophers have in the past done little to further aesthetics, there is now a small push to reconvene aesthetic studies under their parental control. This would probably be good for academic aesthetics, for as both you and I said at the opening of our messages (re: the great confusion in aesthetics), the regimen of Analytical Philosophy is urgently needed to make clearer expressions of an aesthetic language. But philosphy is only a clarifying tool, not a theory generator.

Therefore, these academic efforts will not lead to a sufficient theory of aesthetics to help us. We seem to be on our own. My purpose is to try to regularize a Divine Aesthetic, in so far as we may speak of that study in human-God inspired terms. And while it has not been done before, what I think of is the way the Fathers took nascent Christian Theology, and with the guiding hand of the Paraclete they manufactured a theology. It too was a body of work which had not been done (up to that time). Still, there is the problem which Father Averky sees. It would be very easy to begin spouting some sort of super academic line with this stuff, and end up a great gnostic heresy of pseudo aesthetics. God Forbid!

The problem begins with beauty. Was everything of God's creation beautiful? If so, what is the point in using the term, if there are no distinctions, no colourings? As it is, beauty is not just ineffable. It either means all things, or it is meaningless. Perhaps, we may make of our human thinking better ways for expressing the creation.

richard mcb

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Richard M.

I think that if to God, all creation was (is) "Good," and Beauty is a good, it stands to reason that, to God at least, His creation is Beautiful. It remains for sinful humanity to see with the eyes of God.

Richard L.

[Richard McBride]

Dear Richard L.


It occurred to me, as I was mentioning this question earlier, that I had placed myself in an infinite loop (as the programmers say), or into circularity (as a philosopher might).

There are at least these two problems with saying:


"... if to God, all creation was (is) "Good," and Beauty is a good, it stands to reason that, to God at least, His creation is Beautiful. It remains for sinful humanity to see with the eyes of God."

First, there is the fallacy of the foregone conclusion in the syllogism. I believe it fits the 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' variety, wherein beauty, here, is assumed to be caused by the 'the good'. But it could possibly be more a problem of 'Argumentum ad Populum', where the evidence does not warrant the conclusion. Otherwise, I see it most clearly as a problem of 'Petitio Principii', where the premise assumes its own conclusion.

The second problem is this assumption of what God sees with His own eyes.

And while most people will consider this last problem (if not both of them) as mere carping on my part, the second one just barely falls into a great error which I see stemming from the Fathers themselves.

In using the same sort of logic as the fallacies above (taken over by the Romans, but still borrowed from the Greeks), the Fathers committed themselves to the metaphysical language of Essences and Being. And somehow, while everyone knows it is impossible and in error, it has slipped by the censors that God is supposed to possess some sort of perfect Being, and thus has an inaccessible infinite, etc., Essence.

It is phrased in many highflying ways, but all such thinking is false. There is no way to slip in Essence/Being stuff and attach it to God, no matter how one may dress it up in holy clothing.

Sorry for that, Richard. I myself slipped in this one on you when you weren't looking, and it really doesn't belong to what you said. But I have been chaffing under these Greek metaphysical conventions attached to God, and I used your post as the medium for transmission.

Forgive me Richard. Still, all this does not excuse, in my mind, the anthropomorphism of speaking of what God may do, act, see, etc. Plus, it does nothing to open up what 'beauty' may be, or mean. As it stands, such uses of the beauty term make it pointless. It is simply the all purpose snake oil word which cures every blindness. Contrarily, with your help, and Timothy's, and Seraphim's, and Byrl's, and others, focused upon the reasons why beauty has become a useless term, maybe there will be some real cure to our blindness.

richard mcb

[Owen Jones]

Dear Richard,

I didn't realize you were such a nihilist.

[Tim Kerry]

Dear Richard,

I wouldn’t be too hard on myself. Since converting to Orthodoxy, I have heard (and read) many Orthodox clergy warn of over-intellectualizing the Faith. I certainly agree that if one believes one can acquire an Orthodox heart through intellectual means, one is misguided and practicing, so it seems, a sort of Gnosticism. However, as I am by no means accomplished in the kind of prayer that mystically reveals certain aspects of God’s Truths and Mystery, I have to find some way of sorting out what it is that Orthodoxy confesses with regard to Man and his relationship to God. Philosophy, it seems to me, provides a language and way of approaching a basic level of understanding that can serve as a springboard for a deeper, more spiritual encounter with the Truths of Christ and His Church. For instance, for me, someone with a Protestant background, untangling certain aspects of the ontological dimension of the Cappadocian defense of the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity, helped me to better understand the cause and nature of sin and why the Church and Its Mysteries are so important for realizing one’s salvation. In other words, I had to sort out certain errors and misconceptions first before I could approach the Church, Her ecclesiology, and aspects of what She confesses. Also, in reading Pseudo-Dionysius, it seems to me it would be very difficult to dispense with or avoid philosophical ways of speaking. At times, it serves to make something a bit more tangible, the full reality of which needs comprehending through existential means through an active life in the Faith. But I doubt I will ever approach the sort of understanding had by the great saints of the Church and I wouldn’t ever suggest that philosophical language can capture what it is the great hesychasts have been blessed with after years of struggle in prayer. I am not at the level by a long shot. But, perhaps discussing things philosophically will provide a small glimpse of the possible?

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Richard M.

I am genuinely delighted with the philosophy exercise. I need all I can get. INMT, in Attic and Koine Gk both, kale (from whence the -kalia, in Philokalia) means both "good," and "beautiful."

And let me ask you this: when using active verbs, are we not describing "energies"? Isn't it then permissible to talk about what God does, in his energies? Simple questions those, only asking for yes or no (the student is ready, has the teacher appeared?)

Sincerely,

Richard L.

[Owen Jones]

When a priest says, beware of intellectualizing, it could mean several different things. It could mean that the priest is really not too bright and is incapable of carrying on a conversation on the intellectual foundation of Orthodoxy. He may feel intimidated talking to members of his flock who are more intelligent, more educated, more well read. ANd so it becomes a kind of slogan used as an excuse, which happens, also to make him sound like some kind of spiritual giant.

It could mean that his seminary education did seem to over-intellectualize, without making the link between the intellectual tradition and the catechetical basis for that tradition. Seminary professors love to intellectualize. That's why they are not parish priests.

It could mean a genuine concern about the real problem of intellectualizing, which is when we try to take control, and use intellectual talk as a substitute for true repentence. It is a source of great pride and the primary sin of the modern world. It turns hard-won experiential truth into a system of truth that is defended by arguments, not by living. So that we can err seriously by being correct in every respect theological, and at the same time, be an absolutely intolerably self-centered, immoral person. That, in fact, is the model of the modern intellectual. He is above the moral rules that govern you and me.

So we have to be careful when we hear someone admonish us against intellectualizing. We have to know what he means by that. And maybe he's just repeating what he's heard other folks say and doesn't have a clue what it means.

[Owen Jones]

Regarding some of the negative comments above about metaphysics, I think there is a problem with the term metaphysics. Aristotle never used the term metaphysics. One of his works is the meta ta physica. Beyond the physical. That's what it means. Searching for reality and truth beyond the obvious, physical data. It does not mean that there is a system of philosophical answers known as metaphysics. That is the opposite of the spirit of Plato and Aristotle. The truth of philosophy is in the manner and spirit in which the search is conducted. That is the purpose of the philosophical quest. Not to derive some perennial system. doltish intellectuals have turned philosophical inquiry into the opposite of its intended focus, and reduced it to a system. So anti-metaphysical systems, like deconstructionism, become the ultimate metphysical systems. I actually have some sympathy for some of these poor souls. Derrida supposedly has ended up turning to Dyonisios the Aereopagite.

The modern assault against metaphysics, is really an existential revolt against the hardening and systemizing that developed in Catholic thought begining with the Middle Ages which removes the mystical, erotic yearning from the equation.

Today, if you want to experience mysticism, the last thing you would want is to be a theologian, because of the hardening of experiential truths into a systematic "metaphysics." You become a political activist, or you take drugs.

The last opportunity in the West to hold onto mysticism occurred in France with Madame Guyon and her defenders in the Church, such as Archbishop Fenelon. She discovered, experientially, much of the practical wisdom of the Fathers, But the counter-Reformation in France, headed by Bossuet, put the permanent kaibosh on all that. She was sent to the Bastille.

This is the problem. Mysticism is generally suppressed in the Church because it cannot be institutionally controlled, and because the church prefers to preach metaphysical absolutes. Spiritually sensitive people can't put up with that, and, since the 18th Century, intelligent people have just opted out of the Church altogether. But the result is that all philosophy since then has had an underlying anti-church bias to it that has corrupted its ability to recover anything truly philosophical.

[Beryl Wells Hamilton]

Hello,

Christ is in our midst! Blessed Ascension Day to all!

Richard L., I would think it more Orthodox to talk about "who God is in His energies," not "what He does in His energies."

Also, about beauty. Thanks, Richard M., for your response.

I think that with Orthodox eyes, that is, with "being-deified" eyes, grace enables us to begin to see right through the earth-bound "beautiful" thing, which is an icon of what it *truly* is. Just like when we pray before a painted icon, which is a window into heaven, we can start to glimpse the realm of the heavenly beautiful thing beyond the earthly representation of that thing, whatever it may be.

We don't have to be in a Divine Liturgy to experience true beauty, of which fallen beauty is an icon. Christ walked all over the earth, changing creation to conform to the will of the Father. He ate fish and honey with His Resurrected Body. The Fathers say that the beautiful Tree from which Eve plucked her fruit, was the Cross. What was more "ugly" than the Cross, in all the universe? But Christ made it beautiful beyond description. (This is totally not what I want to say about the Cross, but I have no words...) "Working salvation in the midst of the earth"(Ps. 74:12)comes to mind.

All things were made beautiful, in the true sense of the word, when He sanctified the waters of baptism. We just can't see it with our "regular eyes."

We need to be retrained. This world is what's upside down. We live in a blip on the radar screen of what God has in mind for us. Our perspective is skewed by fallen, broken-down time. And yet, in this moment, all creation is being turned into God. Christ ascended, is ascending, and is returning, *right now.* As we follow Christ's deified Body to the Father, (which is what we are doing in this nanosecond we call human history, to the extent that we are trying to follow Him), we are becoming God (or gods). The Church is fulfilling the role Adam failed to accomplish, and we are bringing all creation up to the Father with us.

So, when I look at the freshly opened rose on a midsummer morning with "being-deified" eyes, I may be able to catch a glimpse, a smell, a feel, of the "real" rose. I can almost hear it groan as it waits for its redemption. And ours.

No idea whether any of this makes sense.

In Christ,

Beryl

[Richard Leigh]

Berl,

Yes indeed. It makes a great deal of sense. Thank you.

Richard L.

[Beryl Wells Hamilton]

On the other hand, staring at a rose and glimpsing what it will be, is so inferior to what St. John Maximovitch, and many others, experienced while praying all night long, in the dark, that it just fades away and become meaningless. Then again, pulling a little child into one's arms, looking in her eyes, and seeing Christ, is beholding pure joy. St. John Maximovitch did that a lot, too.

Had to add that about St. John Maximovitch.

Beryl

[Rebecca]

Owen writes:


When a priest says, beware of intellectualizing, it could mean several different things. It could mean that the priest is really not too bright and is incapable of carrying on a conversation on the intellectual foundation of Orthodoxy.

Owen, you seem to assert that the foundation of Orthodoxy is "intellectual". I find this to be a very strange assertion.

[Tim Kerry]

Dear Owen,

It is an interesting question as to where or how the “darkening of the Western Mind” came about. In general, it seems like four sources are usually blamed: Descartes, the rise of Nominalism, Augustine, or Aristotle. I don’t know the answer but I think your comments in regard to metaphysics raise an interesting issue. In the modern age, (starting with Descartes, perhaps?) metaphysical questions are often accompanied by a concern for defining or determining the grounds for scientific knowledge and/or method. I think Kant’s three Critiques demonstrate the endpoint of this enterprise: while Kant was a committed Newtonian and naturalist when it came to method and knowledge, he argued we have a reason to have “faith” in God, freedom, and morality – even if he considered these only “Ideas of Reason,” i.e., ideas for which no empirical data is provided but which Reason demands if we are to make sense out of the rest of our experience and knowledge. In this regard, Kant’s Third Critique, while it does not defend a platonic conception of the Beautiful, leaves enough room for it as a mystery with a real ontological status. After Kant, Hegel and Heidegger seem to be the only philosophers to take seriously the idea of the being of the aesthetic. I suppose one could throw in Nietzsche but it seems to me he offered a psychological analysis of aesthetic effect rather than an aesthetic theory itself. It is interesting that Derrida has turned to Pseudo-Dionysius. As I understand it, the later Foucault, influenced by Pierre Hadot (who has written extensively on Plotinus and some of the Fathers), developed an interest in spiritual exercises among ancient Christian mystics. I don’t know the later Foucault so this would have to be confirmed by someone more informed than I. For years, Nelson Goodman and Stanley Cavell seemed to be the only analytic philosophers talking about art. I think the direction metaphysics took after the rise of analytic philosophy and the influence of Frege et al., sealed its fate: radical physicalism/naturalism, coupled with an almost unhealthy obsession with quantificational logic, excluded certain kinds of philosophical issues and ways of talking from being considered. What is interesting to me is the extent to which, in my opinion, analytic philosophy is essentially nihilistic. Rorty has been charged with as much but I think one could accuse Quine and those of his kind of the same: when you deny the existence of any metaphysical “fact of the matter” how do you avoid relativism? This coincides with there being no “fact of the matter” concerning beauty and the Beautiful: there are no formal or essential principles which manifest the Beautiful because it is not a substance that exists to be participated in. There is something almost demonic about this way of thinking which has always troubled me in modern discussions of art.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Rebecca,

I didn't say that at all, nor should it seem as if I did. Someone above quoted a priest who told him not to intellectualize. I am merely pointing out that that could mean a variety of things. Tell me, after reading the entire corpus of Origen, Gregory the Theologian, Maximos the Confessor, Gregory Palamas, and the Ecumenical Councils, that there isn't a very high intellectual tradition in Christianity.

[Richard McBride]

Richard L mentioned the pleasure of a philosophical order, and Timothy voted that it might best be an Ontological regimen. I could not agree more.

Yet, we realize that these statements stand out glaringly when they appear in the average discussion group (only on specialized lists would philosophy be the norm). But placed amidst an Orthodox Christian discussion group, they are likely to appear in blazing banner headlines. Philosophical rationale is seen as an assualt against God, for as Seraphim said, "all philosophy since [the 18thC] has had an underlying anti-church bias to it that has corrupted its ability to recover anything truly philosophical." [#498]

Seraphim has also suggested [or I only read so much into it] a reason for this decline in the usefulness of philosophy, as springing from the attitude of Orthodox hierarchy itself; it is similar to the problem with Mysticism in the Church, that it "it cannot be institutionally controlled". [ibid.]

It would then appear that the theological reason for philosophy's poor defense inside the pale is that it (philosophical regimen) has either lost interest in theology, or, which is far more the truth, it (philosophical regimen) has been enthusiastically received most notably by apologists of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and curiously enough, by the new age of modernist theologians, those cast into anathema by Pius X in the First Decade of the last Century.

In other words, there are great big scary reasons for distrusting philosohy in a seriously Orthodox setting. By mid-Century past, discussion of religious issues outside of the normal church organs was kept alive only by German Protestantism. There was very nearly no other conversation on religion in American secular academe, beyond say, Karl Jaspers' 'Christian Existentialism' -- and even it failed to raise many academic eyebrows.

By the end of Mid-20thC, these issues pretty well sailed over my head. I recall the impact of Kierkegaard, and in my own mild surprise (that he should be discussed in religious circles at all) there lies the measure of my ignorance on religious matters. But I held even less concern for Barth, or for Heidegger (primarily because I could not read him in German). That my generation held so little curiosity over God's purpose for creation, is due in part to philsophical misconstructions of religion in the 19thC, and to the reduction by Protestant and Catholic philosophers in the 20thC of all religious interests to the humanism espoused in literally every so-called "Philosophy of Religion" course. The demons were doing a masterful job in destroying religion, especially amongst the infidel of America.

The great allure of Orthodoxy now lies in its freedom from all taint of German Protestantism then, and from the new age Existentialisms now. Not everyone on this list is too young to remember Transactional Analysis, I'm OK Your OK, the Me Generation, etc.. not to forget many more offspring of Existentialism, such as Nihilism and Phenomenology. To recall that all of these Isms have received some form of protective Christian argument is itself a clear warning of the dangers of philosophical notions let loose amongst the people. Orthodox should not disown all philosophical regimen, but they must be knowledgeable enough to be wary of the traps and snares which have caught up Protestantism and Catholicism.

The current versions of this old lineage of philosophical gnosticism may be found in Ecumenism and Diversity. It is not that these movements are evil. It IS that under the new age guise of these two seemingly sweet smelling movements, any number of snakes are being let loose amongst the Orthodox.

Recalling these Godless purposes for philosophy, will help to keep us from substituting sweet smelling pathogens for our own healthy Mysteries -- for we know full well that these Beauties cannot be explained by philosophy. Yet, realizing that philosophy is merely one more God given device for helping express in human terms that which is otherwise inexpressible -- that is, not a substitute for our Soul, but an amplification for our equally God given Nous -- realizing as much could help us gain an Aesthetic perspective which is a healthy product of Soul and Nous.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Richard,

At some point, philosophy ceased to be philosophizing and became systematizing. But the same thing happens in theology, only perhaps more so in the Latin Church. True philosophy, love of wisdom, is the erotic ascent of the soul. It is not notional. There is no philosophy as such, as, for example, some people might insist on there being "eternal verities." There is only the noetic ascent of the philosophizing mind in response to the erotic movement in the soul of the philosopher. There is an accurate technical language that describes the nature of that ascent and the fruits of that search, which is the basis of what we call Reason and Western Civilization. It's what builds the foundation of a philosophical anthropology with man participating at all levels of the heirarchy of being, including the rational and the noetic. Without a sound philosophical anthropology, the culture will always be at the mercy of those who would redefine the human in terms of some ideological system.

The epigones of the great classical philosophers reduced philosophy to schools of thought, that were easily demolished by "enlightenment rationalists" like Kant. Likewise, you have a tendency in the Church to overly clarify in dogmatic language the fruits of theoria, thus, essentially, marking the end of theology.

The Church can and will demolish nihilistic "philosophies" but can only do so by taking these systems seriously on their own terms, and by exposing the tricks that are played. Plato defined the sophist as an alchemist who does magical things with words in order to distort reality. This is essentially our problem today with the various intellectual systems that claim to refute, not only Christianity, but classical reason.

Classical philosophy provides the technical vocabulary on which our theologizing is based and on which a recovery of the science of theology can once again become the foundation, not only of our worship, but of culture and history as well.

A good place to begin would be for the Church to be more engaged in the slow demolition of all progressivist theories of nature and history, starting with Darwin. This can be done on a scientific/philosophical basis, meanwhile demonstrating the scientific soundness of our theologizing.

People can be converted by first undermining their precious intellectual foundations. But as we know, it is a more complex problem than false premises. There is a demonic pathology at work. But the Fathers understood that Reason is a fundamental aspect of the therapy needed to overcome demonic passions and fixations.

[Moses Anthony]

Owen;

It seems to me that it's not necessary to read such a large amount of the works of the Church Fathers to see, know and understand the level of intellect within Orthodoxy.

I think what Rebecca was getting at was, even with such worthies as the Apostle Paul, and numerous other theologians of Orthodoxy; the basis of Orthodox faith isn't intellect. She was probably thinking - and rightly so- that the basis of our faith is the person/life of our resurrected Lord Jesus Christ.

I usually pointed out to those who liked to quote, "...lean not on thine own understanding", what our Lord said as recorded in the Gospel of Mark: "... and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind...." However; it's still true that it has not enterd the heart of man all that God has prepared for those who love Him.

Each of us have our own fields of expertise, i.e; not everyone is the same member of the Body of Christ.

Forgive me, I've said a lot more than I intended.

an unworthy servant

[Rebecca]

The Church can and will demolish nihilistic "philosophies" but can only do so by taking these systems seriously on their own terms, and by exposing the tricks that are played.

I disagree with the portion of the quote above that I bolded.

I could, using formalized logical constructs, devise a lengthy formal proof that the moon does not exist. Owen could expend his total mental resources in using formalized logical constructs trying to refute my proof, to no avail. Owen could, in an act of desperation, resort to ridicule in an attempt to convince me of his position, but the formal logical proof would stand.

On the other hand, should someone provide me the opportunity to walk on the moon, hold moon dust in my hand, to experience the presence of the moon by walking in the reduced gravity, then I would immediately abandon logical fancy footwork as a means of "knowing" the moon exists or not, because of my own experience.

In fact, having had said experience, no words could ever convince me that the moon does not exist, because of my experience.

My analogy is with a physical object, but it holds with spiritual experience as well.

The real imperative rests upon us as individuals to strive so that, through God's mercy, the likeness of God within us may be recovered, each of us individually walking the narrow path seeking to see God's love for us. St. Macarius spoke of "the soul that is perfectly irradiated by the unspeakable beauty of the glory of the light of the face of Christ, and is perfectly in communion with the Holy Spirit, and is privileged to be the dwelling-place and throne of God, becomes all eye, all light, all face, all glory, all spirit, being made so by Christ, who drives, and guides, and carries, and bears her about, and graces and adorns her thus with spiritual beauty."

How can this not be our first and foremost goal as individuals, so that, obedient to His direction, we can do His will in all things, including our interactions with His other beloved creatures, and thereby avoid creating golden calves of our own devising to worship in the interest of being received back into slavery in Egypt?

Quote from Hymn of Entry by Archimandrite Vasileos [emphasis added by me]:

What the world needs is the trinitarian flock, regardless of whether it is small or large. Its greatness is to be found in its trinitarian nature. What man thirsts for is eternity, "even a tiny little part of eternity"; and this is what we have here. To have the character of the Trinity is to be eternal. "This is eternal life, that they know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent" (John 17:3). This is why the Lord, in His prayer as High Priest (John 17), keeps coming back to the same petition. He consecrates Himself that the twelve, the Church, may be consecrated in truth. He consecrates Himself so that the way of life which is beyond the world may be able to exist in the world, in history; so that the trinitarian "even as" may reign on earth, as it does in heaven: "That they may all be one, even as Thou, Father, art in Me and I in Thee...that they also may be one in us (John 17:21,22).

There is one center and principle of the world both visible and invisible. There is one way of true unity and existence: the way of life of the Holy Trinity. And this is what Jesus asks of the Father: that the faithful may be united "even as we are," that they may be united because we are united; and there is no other way of authentic and fruitful living.

The holy trinitarian "even as" is more precious than unity. It is the one thing which is needful.

[Tim Kerry]

The Church has had to, of necessity, express its Truths in a more rational, if not “systematic” way in order to combat various heresies. If one is to combat a heresy that claims Christ was not fully human, its terms must be analyzed, its concepts clarified, etc, if one is to demonstrate not only the ways in which it is in conflict with the Truths of the Church but the ways in which it negates central Truths of the Faith. Many of the Fathers of the Church were classically trained men and highly skilled in the art of Rhetoric. According to his biographers, St. John Chrysostom was highly educated – his teaching being the renowned pagan teacher Libanius, teacher of Julian the Apostate – and a master of every rhetorical tool inherited from antiquity. (In fact, here is an interesting way “aesthetics” play a role in Orthodoxy – the use of rhetoric and language, as I understand St. John Chrysostom’s Greek was second to almost no one’s). There is, then, an intellectual tradition, and a rich one at that, which is part of Orthodoxy. In defending the Faith against various heresies, philosophical notions have been called upon as well – terms like “hypostasis” and the like being perhaps the most notable examples. I think Owen is right in reclaiming the place of defining and determining the place of philosophical and “intellectual” discussions in Orthodoxy. Richard M. is also correct, it seems to me, in pointing out various dangers associated with philosophy but these need not necessarily be true of Orthodoxy. As a “Westerner” living in a country that is the product of Enlightenment ideals, both scientific and political, when co-workers or friends question Orthodoxy and ask me to defend what it confesses, I have to engage them “philosophically.” I cannot impart to them the depth of its Truths that are acquired through experience and the Holy Spirit. In fact, while still in academia, philosophical discussions pertaining to the faith were really the only first step. I wouldn’t claim this is a substitute for the actual Truth of living in Christ through the Mysteries of the Church but I don’t think anyone suggested this to be the case or, from what I have read, is anyone committed to thinking as much. It seems to me all the “isms” and “ologies” of the modern age have hit a dead end and Orthodox Christianity stands out as the very Truth so many have sought but for error and misconception.

[Owen Jones]

And it doesn't just apply to non-Christians, Tim. Christians are double minded. Many of us say we believe in Christ, but all of our philosophical presuppostions are anti-Christian, and that's typically where we end up in terms of what governs our thinking and actions. Protestantism, of course, derives from certain medieval philosophical errors, including nominalism and voluntarism. These underlying philosophical errors have lead to the vulgar sphere of culture in which we believe that we all can get what we deserve through protest, and through being avante garde and non-conventional, that's what gives us our "individuality" -- by expressing ourselves in unconventional ways. We have a focus on rights, rather than duties, and obligations and virtue.

So he typical church-goer has adopted all of the 18th century enlightenment biases, that man is a tabula rasa, that we can be all that we can be, that we are in charge of our destiny, that historical and social progress is inevitable, that democracy is the best form of government, that monarchy is evil, etc.etc.etc. All of these notions conflict with everything that our faith teaches us. So in our daily practical lives, we might be able to claim that we are slightly more decent people than non-Christians (arguable), but we live as citizens of a secular, progressivist, realm, not a Christian realm.

There are consequences to that. Ideas have consequnces.

Without engaging in the realm of ideas, the "traditional" believer has a tendency to withdraw into an apocalyptic world in which the only hope is an imminent end to history.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Rebecca,

I believe what you say is truly Orthodox!

There is no way of expressing how God can be truly empirically experienced in Western philosophical terms. God has already been factored out of the equation, if I may mix a metaphor.

I think it is good to know that.

Richard

[Owen Jones]

Richard,

But it depends on what you mean by western philosophical terms. Are you talking about Plato? Heidegger? Huge difference. A blanket condemnation of "philosophy" by Christians is not...theological.

The language of participation in Orthodoxy is more a legacy of Greek philosophical experience than Judaism. Jewish thought makes it difficult to even comprehend the idea of communion with God. (Protestantism is an attempt to create an Old Testament Christianity).

The New Testament anthropology -- the tripartite soul and somatic body -- is a Greek philosophical tradition. The theological virtues -- faith, hope, love -- are a legacy of pre-Socratic philosophy. Heraclitus, to be exact. Heraclitus' legacy is typical of the way in which people glom onto false characterizations of philosophy. He is accused of being a relativist ("you can't step into the same river twice"). But his great discovery, and he was the first, was that in a world of flux, the true ordering forces are faith, hope and love. This is the foundation of Western Civlization. But idiots who only know what they hear fourth hand, identify Heraclitus with only the first part of the idea: that the world is in a constant state of flux. So he is falsely condemned as a relativist when in truth he is just the opposite. The idea of the theological virtues of faith, hope and love, as the constants, did not exist before Heraclitus.

There isn't one among the desert fathers who would disagree with Heraclitus' discovery. That the world is in the state of flux, and that the true ordering forces, the only constants, are faith, hope and love. But Christians didn't discover that. It was already part of the civilizational tradition.

[Richard Leigh]

Hi Owen,

It sounds like you are taking "western" for "Greek." On the contary, by "Western" I meant "Latin." Greek is "Eastern" in the dichotomy I am using.

And, yes, that was my point, that the Hellenistic
philosophical approach makes a way to speak of empirical relationship with God.

Richard

[Owen Jones]

It's good to clarify, Richard, since most people use the term "Western" to refer to non-oriental, or Greco-Roman Civilization.

And not to carp, but it is probably more philosophical/theological to use the language of participation/communion with God than relationships. Protestantism (nominalism and voluntarism) having reject participation in the divine nature, must speak of psychologized "relationships."

[Rebecca]

In fact, while still in academia, philosophical discussions pertaining to the faith were really the only first step. I wouldn’t claim this is a substitute for the actual Truth of living in Christ through the Mysteries of the Church but I don’t think anyone suggested this to be the case or, from what I have read, is anyone committed to thinking as much.

Dear in the Lord Owen,

Nor was I, in my post, suggesting anyone was doing that. I was responding to the following:


The Church can and will demolish nihilistic "philosophies" but can only do so by taking these systems seriously on their own terms

Which prescribes an antidote to nihilistic "philosophies". I disagree with the assertion that taking these systems seriously on their own terms is the only way that The Church can and will demolish nihilistic "philosophies." I simply expressed some thoughts on what I believe the real antidote is. You don't have to agree with me.

by the way, you also wrote:


A blanket condemnation of "philosophy" by Christians is not...theological.

And I have to say that it depends on what you mean by "theology." You and I may mean different things when we use the word "theology?"

Anyway, this is, as usual, a lively discussion.

Hope you have a pleasant remainder of Friday...

[Richard Leigh]

Owen,

I would have thought making it empirical would have taken the mere "psychologizing" out of "relationship." One has them with one's fellow human beings in the real historical world.

And "theology," I'm told, is the real experience of God. Even Luther could (and did) say, to be a theologian one needed prayer (for the Holy Spirit), meditation (on Scripture), and affliction.

Richard

[Owen Jones]

Dear Richard,

Sorry to dump on your man Luther, but he was nuts.

[Owen Jones]

Rebecca,

You are too kind.

Regarding the Church's critique of nihilistic ideologies, it's really a pragmatic issue. Not an absolute principle. Seraphim Rose did a pretty good short critique of nihilism but I would argue that to do so he had to study it first, closely, with, in a sense, an open mind, taking their arguments seriously. Anything less would result in a very flimsy critique.

St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain read all of Kant, the German higher criticism, Schelling, Hegel, Marx, Darwin. He never wrote a critique, but he felt it important to understand what was arrayed against him. His message to the faithful was not to bother reading the stuff. But somebody has to! The problem is that you might be surprised at how much we think like Kant, Hegel, Marx, Comte, John Locke, Descarte, Freud, while claiming to be Orthodox Christians.

At the very least, most American Orthodox Christians think like either John Locke or Karl Marx (most Greeks have more faith in leftish-democratic ideas than in the Fathers), or Martin Luther. Because they are who they are as a result of the intellectual environment.

Christianity always have to be lived out in some cultural context. So if you are striving to be a Christian, but have absorbed the spirit of the age, where does that leave you?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Sorry to dump on your man Luther, but he was nuts.

Thank heavens that religious rift has been cleared up, then.

;-)

I can think of many an Orthodox patriarch that was also 'nuts'. Perhaps it's not the most helpful turn of phrase. But alas, there's something to be said for getting directly to one's point!

INXC, Matthew

[Rebecca]

Owen,


Christianity always have to be lived out in some cultural context. So if you are striving to be a Christian, but have absorbed the spirit of the age, where does that leave you?

I find it especially interesting that you use the phrase "absorb the spirit".

I think that is kind of what I was saying in my post above. The antidote to the poisonous 'philosophies' lies in the Holy Spirit acting within us to recover the likeness of God within us.

What spirit do we chose to absorb?

What Spirit do we allow to transform us, and being so transformed, create our culture by how we live, being guided by God who "who drives, and guides, and carries, and bears [us] about, and graces and adorns [us] thus with spiritual beauty"

I don't think I'm wrong to say that the preChristian Hellenic culture was transformed by the people in the villages who sought God in their daily lives, and made their daily choices of how they interacted with their fellow men and how they lived as Christians.

As for encountering the thoughts of those you list, I think that God gives us discernment to recognize that which is foreign to Him as we begin, even a just a tiny little bit, to know Him...

I really must turn off the computer now so that I don't become one of those internet addicts.

Hope everyone has a good evening!

[Moses Anthony]

Dear All,

If you turn on your radio or television you soon will hear a phrase akin to rugged individualism, as being the current 'cultural context' of America. To admit that I own my own, am weak and desperately in need of mercy just to survive, wouldn't get you a guest spot on any t.v. talk show. This is the cultural atmosphere we must live out our faith in.

To take these people seriously on their own terms, is nothing but certain defeat. However to take the spirit of the age seriously, on the terms of the Church, is to garner the victory in the spiritual arena. This after all is what it seems to me to come down to, whether you're talking about any form of philosophy, church unity or religious practice

[Owen Jones]

Dear James,

You miss my point -- which I assume you are referring to. What I mean by taking the other position seriously is to not dismiss it, but to attempt to understand its appeal. You really have to meet people where they are if you want to try to get through to them. We also need to understand this stuff in order to avoid being suckered into it ourselves. 99% of the Orthodox Christians in the U.S. would consider themselves on one side or other of either being rugged individualists or socialists. The wealthiest Greek Orthodox person in the U.S. is a devout person. I'm told he even has a chapel in his home. But he is primarily an advocate of the human potential movement. He is thoroughly Americanized in that respect. So what are we to do? We begin by understanding the appeal, not simply condemning it out of hand.

It's very easy to pontificate about such things that motivate people in the culture, but to truly understand is a different matter.

As for confidence that the Holy Spirit will give us discernment, I have full confidence in the Holy Spirit. I just don't see much to give me confidence in the ability or willingness of people to make the effort.

So, with respect to "rugged individualism" if we simply condemn it outright without any understand, what we say is that Americans cannot now or ever be Orthodox. We place ourselves in a position of moral and spiritual superiority over virtually every American. How Christian is that? How practical is that?

I think Seraphim Rose and his brotherhood have it right in this respect. Fr. Seraphim said that there are good qualities to American individualism and the pioneer spirit that we can and should appeal to. We are merely asking people to go deeper. And some of the monks now in the brotherhood have come from the nihilistic youth movement -- the Death to the World types. They don't go to their gatherings and condemn them. They challenge them to go deeper.

I see nothing in the Gospel or in the Fathers or especially in the desert fathers that suggest that we are superior to anyone. We are the worst of sinners because we know better and have no excuses. Yet we continue to be prideful and self-centered. We must throw all of that out and consider ourselves lower than those who are simply misguided or ignorant of the beauty of our faith and who are struggling to find themselves. Why can't we have compassion on people, rather than simply condemn them en masse?

Where I tend to be the most critical -- judgmental of people -- is 1) myself 2) Christians who are insolently holier than thou 3) so-called intellectuals in the culture who are practicing a kind of willful ignorance of reality and peddle nihilistic nostroms to people for money (sophists).

But I try not to be judgmental or condemn people who are lost. If we do that, we condemn ourselves and Orthodoxy to a small, meaningless cultish artifact of a long lost imperial glory.

[Rebecca]

Hi James,


This is the cultural atmosphere we must live out our faith in

Indeed.

Your post reminded me of the following Quote from St John Chrysostom's commentary on Psalm 110

Exercise dominion in the midst of your foes. See the inspired composition shining more brightly than the sun. Now,what is the meaning of Exercise dominion in the midst of your foes? In the midst of the Greeks, in the midst of the Jews. This is the way, you see, that the churches were planted in the midst of cities; this is the way they overcame and prevailed. This is proof of their famous victory, overturning the altars in the midst of enemies, being like sheep in the midst of wolves. In sending them, remember,he said this: "See, I am sending you out like sheep in the midst of wolves," something no less a marvel than the former one. After all, for those in the guise of sheep to prevail over wolves is no less remarkable than for those apprehended in the midst to overcome; but even more remarkable is for men twelve in number to win over the world.
Exercise dominion in the midst of your foes. He did not say, "Conquer in the midst of your foes," but Exercise dominion so as to indicate not the spoils coming from battle array but the lordship coming from command. After all, the apostles, having Christ within them, prevailed in the manner of people doing everything by command. Hence all doors were open to them, and the believers obeyed more compliantly than any slave, selling their possessions and laying the proceeds at the feet of the apostles, not presuming to take anything for their own needs. They held them in such high esteem that they did not even presume to join them. Such an impact they had not only on believers but also on non-believers. Tell me, after all, what is the mark of a slave? Is it not doing what his master commands? And what is the mark of a master? Is it not achieveing in his slaves what he personally wishes? So who are they who achieved what they wanted with the kings and rulers of the time? Is it not the apostles? Clearly it is: while the kings and rulers wanted to hold fast the world in godlessness and bade it worship the demons, the apostles wanted the opposite, and their will prevailed. But if you cite me the imprisonment and scourging and torture, you are telling me of a greater lordship. How so, and in what fashion? Because though these things happened, it was their wish that they should happen. It was not, you see, by the law of those numerous masters that they took upon themselves this lordship but by virtue, not required by any outside pressure but resplendent in the face of the wiles of everyone. It happened in many cases that slaves have plotted to overthrow those masters, since their lordship was imperfect and weak, whereas this lordship is strong and could not be cancelled, plotters only rendering it more resplendent.

Who, then, would be the more illustrious master: the one in need of countless helpers to dominate his servants, or the one who is independent of all those and who leads and carries his subjects by his authority? Clearly the latter. Masters of that other type, in fact, who exercise their lordship over great numbers, in many cases lose their lordship along with their life unless they have laws to support them and the advantage of living in cities. Paul, on the other hand, exercised his lordship everywhere, even in the deserts. Do you want to see him more illustrious even than kings? He introduced laws everywhere in the world, and people bypassed the laws of kings to obey what he had set in writing. Whereas those masters ruled over bodies, these ruled over souls. So who as a slave to a master or in thrall to a king obeyed him with such compliance as did the faithful to Paul's letters alone? How could anyone describe their desire, their enthusiasm for him, when they were even ready to tear out their eyes? Who ever had slaves like these under his command?

All this is what the inspired author had in mind, how they subjugated the believers, and on the other hand how they were fearsome to the non-believers, driving them off in virtue of their power, and how Christ was victorious through them. So the psalmist said not simply "Rule in the midst of your enemies," but have dominion, indicating the extent of the lordship. Seeing this, the enemies were powerless to do anything, despite having the laws on their side, and executioners and total authority. The apostles were more powerful, however, on account of the one dwelling in them. He had dominion through them; he did not simply rule but had dominion; his power was complete. At any rate, through the one within them they came to grips with fire and sword, with wild beasts and everything else. In the face of every trial, you see, Christ was with them; they were like people fighting in the bodies of others, free from all the troubles of this life, so joyful, so exultant, because subject to the lordship of Christ, with no concern for possessions, for their bodies, for the present life. Those who did this were once enemies and foes, but the invincible power of Christ not only rid them of their enmity but also drew them into such servitude and belonging.

[Tim Kerry]

Shortly before he published his book, “The Closing of the American Mind,” Allan Bloom taught a class on Nietzsche’s critique of modernity in which he explored the ways in which the popular culture had absorbed many of the philosophical and psychological assumptions of 19th century German philosophy. In order to illustrate what he meant, he said he was amazed one day when he was in a cab in NYC chatting with the taxi driver. When he found out Prof. Bloom was a teacher, they started talking ideas and one thing led to another. Eventually, the taxi driver told Bloom he was currently engaged in Gestalt therapy and began discussing his view of the world in these terms. What fascinated Prof. Bloom was not only the use of technical terms used by Gestalt therapy, but the presence of a philosophical view of the world attributable ultimately, I suppose, to Hegel that this man had unconsciously imbibed through his “therapy.” Bloom then offered other examples – the use or proto-Freudian principles in news commentary, movies, etc; Darwinian principles cropping up in peoples’ language; the use of Marxist terminology as commonplace vocabulary on the part of people who had never studied him formally; and, the extent to which a relativistic view of truth had seeped into the popular conscious. It seems to me, the phenomenon Bloom noted in class continues to this day. I would only footnote his observation and say that numerous “New Age” ideas seem to have also proliferated among “the masses.” Perhaps these trends express themselves in the almost universal acceptance of the branch theory on the part of many Christians; the apparent rise in religious syncretism practiced in some churches; polls that purport to show a large number of Christians who reject the existence of Satan, etc. Or, maybe these things are nothing new – perhaps the Church has always struggled with “worldly philosophies” – but to this degree? I don’t know.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Tim,

For a long time now, the Church has been more interested in holding onto what it has, institutionally, (not unlike the Pharisees of old) than confronting the culture. Or offering people an alternative culture that includes a "vision of the whole" if I may use a philosophical term to describe this need. And so personal piety -- i.e. prayer and church attendance -- is divorced completely from the cultural environment that is at odds with it. And so people, many of whom purport to be Christian, adopt the "world view" of the culture because they have never been provided with an alternative "vision." -- whilst attending church and saying their prayers. They are double-minded as Kiergegaard would say.

This leads to a cycle of defensiveness in the church, the leadership of the church particularly, usually manifested in attempts to dominate and control, combined with apocalyptic expectations as the only escape from the deteriorating cultural environment, or just plain fundamentalism, or the attitude dominant in the Latin Church, mainline protestantism, and in the Antiochian Archdiocese leadership, that we must purge the church of all of its irrelevant superstition in order to be acceptable to the modern age.

Interestingly, a group of Buddhist intellectuals in the 18th Century saw the dominance of Western science coming and so they redefined Buddhism to make it palatable to Western minds, by eliminating all of the mystical, traditional practices such as exhorcism of demons, etc., and just reduced Buddhism to centering mediation.

Humans are by nature cultural creatures. We also all of us philosophize and theologize. So the Church cannot stop this from happening in the world or among its own members and it fails when it refuses to recognize this and just assume that everyone in the "pews" takes home a Christian "world view" with them.

I also know a lot of people who count themselves very spritual and believe in the most odd, crank ideas that you cannot imagine, totally absurd, and yet they are so angry and prejudiced against what they perceive to be what the Church is that they are blinded by resentment toward it, never having objectively investigated.

This fundamental anti-Christian bias has gone on now for 500 years and is the dominant cultural fact in the West. Yet many Christians have unwittingly adopted these ideas.

One of the problem is that the Church today, Orthodoxy included, or even especially, offers little or no therapeutic advantage to the average Church member caught in a mental vice. We're just supposed to think that being a believer and attending Church once a week should somehow inoculate ourselves. I bet if you did a poll, fifty percent of the Greek Orthodox in this country -- at least -- have seen or are seeing some secular therapist.

But for a parish to offer its flock an alternative culture, there has to be a school, there have to be daily, well-attended services, there have to be multiple clergy on staff with various gifts, some of which is spiritual counsel, and so on. There has to be a comfort level for people to take their problems to their priest, or priests, and to allow others in the parish to help them, in prayer and in material ways in times of need, so that they do not feel isolated and alone. But I think all too often the Church takes the attitude that if you are Orthodox then you are just simply bullet proof. End of the issue.

I think the key ingredient lacking is our tradition on the meaning and purpose of suffering. A Christian should know that he is destined to suffer and for him, suffering should be an ecstatic experience. Not to be morbidly obssessed with it, but to accept it joyfully when it comes. That's the problem that the whole culture is organized to deny. All suffering is evil, the entire culture is organized to eliminate suffering, so if you are suffering, then there must be something really, really wrong with you. And so therefore there must be some therapeutic method that forces you to conform yourself to your situation.

But just consider the most preponderant ideological fixation that EVERYBODY believes in. Progress. Everything is supposed to be constantly getting better. If it isn't, it's cause to protest, or legitimizes a resentment. Because we are entitled to progress. this is the opposite of the Christian view, it is totally unscientific, illogical, and even unmathematical. Virtually the entire scientific community believes there is a beginning and an end to the cosmos -- time and space. At the end, it will be just like the beginning -- nothing. So where is the progress? Yet EVERYONE clings to this fiction. EVERYONE. It's a major cause of mental illness.

[cale]

Good post Owen. Your right about the progress thing being linked to mental illness. The purpose of life is not to be happy. But living according to our purpose will make us happy always, even when we are suffering. Sadly, people are taught not to seek their purpose, but to seek the happiness. Saint Maximus writes beautifully about the link between pleasure and pain. Its a cycle. Bodily pleasure brings the soul pain, so we seek more pleasure to ease our suffering, this leads to more pain. People are stuck in this cycle, even Orthodox people, not knowing that the solution to this lies in the Church's aceticism and the Commandments of Christ. Our Orhtopraxis has as its goal the trancendence of pleasure and pain, freedom from our environment and the hearts slavery to the logical mind. Faith, hope and Love free us from fear and the need to feel secure materially and gain other's approval to feel worthwhile and happy.

The happiness (which is actually freedom from the need for happiness, the neutrelizing and re-orientation of the passions) we seek does not exist except on the other side of the suffering endured for the sake of Christ and the pain of repentance and bodily affliction. That this happiness is unattainable by our own efforts has led even Christians to develop complex theories about progress and evolution, developement and growth that promises happiness and security through technological advances, political will or the observence of a moral law.

Social, political and religious philosophies, including Christian ones, are just various delusions of the fallen, decieved man. Orthodoxy is a science. A science of the soul, that cures the broken person and eliminates the delusions that are just symptoms of the disease. Thats why you dont need to go to university to learn how various philosophies apply to your life or the society. Thats why they seep into the culture so easily and effectively. Everybody shares the disease so the symptoms are already present in them, they just make sure they progress to the newest, most popular one. I am not saying philosophy is bad or useless, it led me right into the Church. Its just the way the enemy uses it to keep everyone milling round the doorway to life and admiring or discussing its dimensions and attributes, while time is ticking and we have no oil in our lamps.

We dont call a person who reads scientific journals a scientist. We dont call people who accept, debate, or reject certain scientific theories, scientists. We dont call the people who read, write or re-write the history of science, scientists. Although the people we call scientists may do all these things, the ones we call scientists are the ones who conduct scientific experiments. The ones who go through the door. Knowledge of the worlds various philosophies is extremely usefull and for those of us living in the world, almost essential. But we dont need to prove them wrong, they prove themselves wrong by thier fruits. We need to prove the Church and The Fathers scientific method right, and become examples of the fruits of the Truth. The Spirit of Truth seeks truth in our hearts, not our minds. In our deeds less than in our words. We need qualified scientists of the spirit leading our people. They need to teach us how to pray, not just tell us to pray. Then we will go home from Church not just with a better worldview, but walking in another world.

I have written so much and I now hesitate to post it. Im not sure Ive made sense, I hope you will overlook my style of writing.

I found a wonderfull quote in the footnotes of a John Romanides article:

"Being a theologian is first and foremost to be a specialist in the ways of the Devil. Illumination and especially glorification convey the charisma of the discernment of spirits for outwitting the Devil, especially when he resorts to teaching theology and spirituality to those slipping from his grip."

This will either clarify what I have written, or condemn me.

[Moses Anthony]

Owen,

In an entirely different thread -and some time ago- you mentioned several times that you could see the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese, going the way of the Episcopalians if they were granted autonomy/autocheplousy. You never explained what you meant about going the way of the Episcopalians! And now you say, that among other groups the Antiochian leadership want to "purge the church of all its irrelevant superstition in order to be palatable to the modern age." Again, please explain; i.e; give proof, of the claims you're making. There's a lesson to be learned from the Psalmist and prophet, "who am I to speak evil of the Lord's chosen(as a complete aside, what jurisdiction have you placed yourself under?)

In an earlier post I mentioned that the problems you mentioned in American Orthodoxy could be summed up under the banner of secularism. One such feature of that particular school of thought, is the facination with number of members, as a sign of a healthy, thriving worship community. I personally balk at the idea that to successfully do this or that, I "must have..."anything (think of your own examples). A school would seem to be necessary only if there's a large 'number' unaware of the truths of Orthodoxy. This too, would necessitate a larger clerical staff, with the appropriate giftings from the Holy Spirit. Please understand, I'm not saying any of the things you mentioned are wrong, or irrelevant in the affecting of culture. My point is, they're not a hard 'must have ' or failure is the result. If you care to visit any Protestant church wanting to "reach" their communities, you will invaribly hear them mention developing a program with which the people are comfortable. Obeying the Sacrament of Confession should never be a matter of comfort, to which we are not called.(As I said to Father Averky about my current priest being my spiritual father,"..comfort is negotiatable). We are commanded however to "...abide in the vine", to bear fruit to the Father's glory. And as you say this will only come about through suffering the wind, rain, heat, and the pruning knife.

The Early Church thought it right to enforce three years of catechesis, not because they believed it necessary to affect the Greco-Roman culture, but to prove the hearts of those wanting to join the Church, and this as a result of the holiness of life, being lived in obedience to the Lord's commands, which meant larger numbers.

Because humans are who they are, solutions to problems usually include several variants. Obey the Holy Traditions, acquire an Orthodox mindset. We are like those four-headed beasts in the visions of Isaiah and Ezekiel; they have only One Body, but saw how to get there differently!

an unworthy servant

[Owen Jones]

Dear James,

Forgive me for sounding critical but I guess our tradition has its share of critics as well, eh? Call it a lamentation. At any rate, I've had some dealings with some of the higher ups with the Antiochians, and while not proclaiming myself a saint in those dealings, nevertheless, I know whereof I speak. Anything more said about it/them and I could get sued.

The Episcopal Church is hardly anything I would remotely term as Christian. I can't imagine anyone recognizing anything remotely Christian about it. That's not to say there aren't many local parishes muddling through trying to be faithful, but they are so ignorant and stupid that they are utilizing liturgicial language and features that defy credulity. This is not a personal animus. It's simply factual. Yet believers keep writing articles about the Episcopal Church on the verge of some crack up if it doesn't get its house in order, when that crackup occurred decades ago. This is the most disturbing thing about our religious culture -- that the line in the sand is being continually crossed and extended further and further so that what were once legitimate religious traditions become unrecognizable as such. A parish simply soaks up the cultural ambience (which is why a strong revival of monasticism is key to a vibrant Orthodoxy and to the revival of Western Civilization)

[Tim Kerry]

It seems to me there are two ways of viewing the current state of the Church in America: on the one hand, there are churches that emphasize a more monastic ideal in terms of how one ought to live the Faith; on the other, there are churches that encourage the faithful to struggle within the means of the Church such as it is in its instantiation in the modern world. Churches in keeping with the former perspective find compromise on the part of the latter with “modernism” and ecumenism; critics among the latter churches find those in the former churches “pharisaical” or “fundamentalists.” Who is correct? The answer, so I have been told, is in how close a particular church approximates the teachings and traditions of the Fathers. Additionally, there is talk of “the Spirit of Orthodoxy” – though it isn’t always clear if those who use this phrase identify the Spirit of Orthodoxy with the Holy Spirit or some other “Spirit.” It seems reasonable that most people who consider the trials and tribulations of Orthodoxy in just the last 150 years will look at the current state of things and find much to lament. To deny any sort of standard by which to measure the “soundness” or “health” of a church seems as potentially dangerous as going to the extreme in the other direction. It seems reasonable, however, to think that, given the state of things in the modern world, there are those who if they found themselves in a more “monastic” church might be worse Orthodox than if they were in a church that did not make those sorts of demands of them. Will God only save those of the former or the latter? Very few would claim so. I remember reading in St. Ignaty’s “The Arena” a description of what monks would be like in the “Last Days.” St. Ignaty predicated they would be the worst of the worse. And, if memory serves me correctly, he also indicated that as the Last Days ripen in their anti-christian spirit, the Church will most likely exist like ship blown up at sea: only remnants will exist and believers will have to seize hold of whatever timbers may be near at hand. I have to wonder if this means that during these times, there will no longer be any “pure” jurisdictions, that eventually one will have to look at the parish level and then, in the final stages, to fellow believers within a parish to find the Spirit of the Church. I think Owen’s observations and one’s made in a similar vein by others, are simply describing what is occurring in one way or another throughout the body of the Church. I have noticed that we as Orthodox are often chastised for judging or condemning others – and I am not saying this is what Owen has or done or was doing; I think he was simply offering his observations of what has happened in some quarters. But I also think there is a tendency to “condemn the condemner” or “judge the judger” which oftentimes serves to silence discussion. While there is no need for acerbic, insulting language, this sort of discussion seems in order given the state of the Orthodox world and a certain amount of confusion that reigns among its faithful.

Respectfully,

Timothy

[Owen Jones]

Timothy,

Funny, but what you describe is not the Church that I am familiar with at all. Orthodoxy in America is typically conducted at the parish level on a very, very basic level where none of these kinds of issues are addressed. One attends Church. Brings the family if possible. Goes to coffee hour. Brings food to covered dish suppers or helps out in the kitchen. Maybe occasionally serves on a committee, helps out with the annual Greek festival. And in extreme circumstances will possibly seek personal counsel or confession with the priest. Maybe there will be an adult class that will discuss some topic. Maybe marriage. Maybe talk about saints. Preaching is not very inspirational but rarely anything heretical (a huge improvement over almost any other preaching from American pulpits).

Nothing terribly bad. Just basic religious stuff. The element of striving, of intense inner struggle, is probably downplayed, if evident at all in typical parish teaching and preaching. Intense political games are played behind the scene between parish counsels and priests, between priests and their bishops, etc.

Most people have a basic familiarity with the liturgy but don't pay too much attention to the words themselves, what they mean, or what they symbolize, or what they demand of us. Although we cannot know what is inside another's heart, and as you suggest, I don't intend this as a negative judgment on people.

Most religious life is defined by routine. Not altogether bad, since religious routine can be a settling factor in otherwise unsettled lives. But most people just really want things settled, clear cut, and that's pretty much what we have.

A priest who wants to talk too much about ascetisim, or use terminology like the "last days," is likely to be sent to some small mission somewhere where he won't disturb large contributors.

My current priest is the 6th priest in 12 years. He seems to be pretty much on the ball, so I will be interested to see how long he lasts. Maybe three or four years. He likes to publish lives of the saints in the newsletter, but nothing about how we in contemporary American society are to apply their wisdom. It's all very quaint.

[Tim Kerry]

Owen,

Actually, I hadn’t intended to offer a description of any church in particular, certainly not any one parish or anyone person’s experience of their parish. My comments, for what they are worth, were meant to be a general description of what seems to be a pattern when discussions arise regarding what is wrong, or perceived to be wrong, in Orthodoxy. If they don’t describe anything you are familiar with then that sounds as if it may be a good thing.

Regards,

Timothy

[Rebecca]

Owen wrote:


To deny any sort of standard by which to measure the “soundness” or “health” of a church seems as potentially dangerous as going to the extreme in the other direction

Not to change focus of your posts or anything, but I think the above sentence is interesting because you refer to a "standard by which to measure".

I think it would be an interesting exercise if folks posted what they thought the "standard" is. I expect there would be a variety of responses.

My answer will be the answer my dad gave me, because I believe it's the true answer.....

[Owen Jones]

Point taken, Timothy, although I guess my point, or part of my point, is that such discussions don't take place in a typical parish setting.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Rebecca,

I assume one obvious standard would be the tithe.

Others might include some evidence of alms giving, both individually and by the Church, to the poor; ministries to people who have an extreme need or in extreme circumstances such as prisoners, prostitutes, drug addicts. And not just by sending a check off to some far off charitable organization -- charity beginning at home, in the parish, when, perhaps a head of household becomes unemployed. Not leaning on the state exclusively to provide assistance.

Also, is the community producing religious vocations?

[Effie Ganatsios]

I was reading the The Truth of Orthodoxy by Nicholas Berdyaev yesterday and I found that parts of it might be relevant to this discussion. A couple of excerpts from the article :

“The Christian world doesn't know Orthodoxy too well. It only knows the external and for the most part, the negative features of the Orthodox Church and not the inner spiritual treasure. Orthodoxy was locked inside itself, it did not have the spirit of proselytism and did not reveal itself to the world.”

“Orthodoxy is first of all, an orthodoxy of life and not an orthodoxy of indoctrination. For it, heretics are not so much those who confess a false doctrine but those who have a false spiritual life and go along a false spiritual path. Orthodoxy is before all else, not a doctrine, not an external organization, not an external norm of behavior but a spiritual life, a spiritual experience and a spiritual path. It sees the substance of Christianity in internal spiritual activity. Orthodoxy is less the normative form of Christianity (in the sense of a normative-rational logic and moral law) but is rather its more spiritual form. And this spirituality and hiddenness of Orthodoxy were not infrequently the sources of its external weakness. The external weakness and the insufficient development, the insufficiency of external activity and realization affects everyone, but her spiritual life, her spiritual treasures remained hidden and invisible. This is characteristic for the spiritual nature of the East, in contrast to the spiritual world of the West, which is always active and always visible but then, it not infrequently spiritually exhausts itself because of all that activity.”

You can find the full article at the Orthodox Christian Information Center site. The page was originally created by monks at Decani Monastery in Kosovo, but decani.yunet.com went defunct following the Kosovo conflict. An interesting discussion in the future would be what has happened to Orthodoxy in Kosovo, following its “liberation”. I can still remember the cries for help over the Internet by this monastery.

[John Kapetan]

Effie:

That was truly an inspiring piece. I'm not sure if it's the same site that you are referring to, but was told that the decani site is:
http://www.kosovo.com/

In Christ,

John K

[Richard McBride]

Dear Sister in the Lord, Effie,
and Dear Brother in the Lord, John:

Thank you both: Effie for recalling those awful days of the NATO bombing of the glorious history of God in Serbia -- even in their arrogance to strike at God over Pascha -- I thank you for recalling these awful events because I had lost all of my Servian links in my last PC crash;

and thank you John for giving me the new address of the Diocese of Raska & Prizren, in which Dicani is situated.

Oh, yes Effie. The cries from the oldest Christians worshiping in Slavonic, still ring in my ears from those days. I dread recalling it at all. Still, it is good to go to these pages which John has given us and read of the Postwar Suffering. And it is better to walk through The Life of the Church and The Dicani Monastery pages. Look into the eyes of Abbot Teodosije. There are none of the frivolities of this world in that mind. Surely, he has been blessed with the fear of the Lord, and now with that which succeeds it.

Thanks again, Dear Sister and Brother.

richard mcb

[Effie Ganatsios]

Thanks for the link, John. It's good to know that the monastery is still there.

Northern Greece is filled with little churches in isolated locations on hills, in the middle of forests etc. Quite a lot of them have been broken into and desecrated by the Albanians during the last few years. It's heartbreaking - tiny churches that have been cherished by the Greek Orthodox are nothing more than places that are vulnerable to attack by these people and seen as nothing more than shelters for the night, which is OK, but also as something to vent their anger on. I can't understand why, even if they don't believe in Christ, they feel the need to destroy his houses.

[Richard Leigh]

"I can't understand why, even if they don't believe in Christ, they feel the need to destroy his houses."

Dear Effie,

It is because they believe the worship of Him as God is idolatrous, and as pure Monotheistic Moslems it is their call in life to destroy what desecrates their own view. Remember in the Old Testament that God commanded the children of Isael to destroy the Asherahs. The Moslems try to behave something like that.

Richard

[Effie Ganatsios]

Richard, I don't know much about the Islamic faith but I thought that Muslims considered Christians to be "People of the Book" and as such they are to be respected..

"People of the Book! Our apostle has come to reveal to you much of what you have hidden in the scriptures.....

And to you (Muslims) We have revealed the Book with the truth (The Koran, The Qur'an). It confirms the Scriptures which came before it and stands as a guardian over them."

The above is from the Koran or the Qur'an as it should be called.

[Tim Kerry]

The presence of NATO and western powers has not stopped the spread of this sort of destruction or strife. It almost seems, if one were more conspiratorial minded, that in some quarters there is a desire to let chaos and cultural destruction reign. I suspect, then, part of the reason -- perhaps the majority of it? -- has less to do with any faith the Albanians proclaim and more to do with political ambitions -- perhaps similar in kind to the reasons why Sherman burned the South: to subject and completely destroy one's opponent. At the time, it seemed ironic that when the Taliban blew up centuries old Buddhist statues that nothing was said of the destruction of centuries old Serbian churches. I still remember various leaders and organizations stepping forward to loudly condemn the bombing while the destruction of Orthodox churches was not mentioned at all.

Timothy

[cale]

Everything God made is beautiful. Evil lacks substance, therefore there is no such thing as something that is not, by nature, beautiful.

The nature of beauty is that it accords with nature, as God intended. So beauty does not really have a nature does it?

[cale.]

So a beautiful thing is something that has not become unatural, or has been restored.

[Tim Kerry]

Dear Richard,

I am afraid I am not too certain of where any sort of “Orthodox” aesthetic would – or should – go, so I apologize for a lack of clarity in the posts written earlier. Additionally, I cannot claim to be an expert in ancient philosophy so I may very well be misinterpreting Plato and Aristotle in regard to the issue of “the Beautiful.” In characterizing the Beautiful as having an mind-independent existence separate from any particular instantiation of beauty, I did not mean to suggest that this is (or would be) an Orthodox position; rather, I was using my understanding of how the issue is tracked in Plato – although it seems, at least in the Republic, as if the Beautiful is identical to the form of the Good which subsists above all other forms and from which all other forms derive their being. As I understand Orthodoxy, the Fathers rejected the existence of anything like forms, either existing separately from God or in His Essence. So, in a sense, perhaps this way of speaking leads more to confusion than to anything else. However, what I find interesting in Plato is the ontology that accompanies the doctrine of forms. And, by way of clarification, let me try and explain what I understand when using the word “ontology.” “Ontology,” to my mind, refers to what one believes has real being or exists: for Plato, the chair you are sitting on, the number five, the form of “cat”, or the sea can all be said to exist only in different ways. For Plato, the being of a form is more substantial or “real” than any particular that participates in it since whatever is unchanging is thought to be more real than what changes and passes away. Additionally, if we are talking about the form of “justice” or “courage,” since its essence exists as a mind-independent substantial reality over and above any particular instance of it, some knowledge claims in regard to them will be closer to the truth than others. In the context of a discussion regarding an Orthodox aesthetic, ignoring the actual specifics of Plato’s doctrine of the forms, we might ask in what manner the being of the Beautiful, as perhaps an Energy of God, manifests itself. The ontological issue is, in this sense, twofold: that Beauty exists and is participated in. If any of this is acceptable or tenable, in order for something to be beautiful it has to participate in Energy of Beauty rather than simply displaying certain characteristics that might be attributable to individual taste or cultural accidents of preference. I don’t know that this adds anything to the discussion but these were the lines along which I was thinking.

Regards,

Timothy

[Tim Kerry]

Richard,

A few more things I would mention in the hopes of clarifying what I think the issue of the Beautiful involves: if the Beautiful is an Energy of God and, like Grace in general, it is participated in, this may raise interesting ways in which to think about its connection with morality – though I wouldn’t claim this is an Orthodox issue at all; but, from a “philosophical” prospective offering a “critique” of certain trends in western thought, it would seem to introduce a few things that may be worth consideration. First, even in Plato there is a link between the being of the Beautiful and the Good: the forms, taken in totality, create – or perhaps “manifest” – an order that exists in such a state that anything added to or detracted from its elements would result in a less than perfect order (Plato experts feel free to clarify or correct this claim if it errors in any way). The Beautiful seems to flow from this ordered state not in an essential way but almost as a kind of “energy”: the existence of the Good manifests beauty. When talking in this way, it almost sounds as if “Beauty” is an epiphenomenon – something that arises out of the existence of another phenomenon and does not have, strictly speaking, an existence all its own. When reading the Cambridge Platonists and both Hume and Kant, regardless of the differences in their doctrines, it is hard not to think of beauty as something that arises out of other features of the world that give rise to its experience but not in any strict, causal way. In Kant, beauty is a result of what he terms the “cognitive harmonization of our faculties, “ which seems a fancy way of simply saying that it has a psychological reality underscored by concrete, real features of the world that when taken in conjunction, give rise to a sense of the beautiful. For this reason, Kant tended to talk in terms of a “faculty of Judgment” and less in terms of a substantial Idea of the Beautiful: Beauty, if it is anything, arises out of situations that produce or manifest the right circumstances necessary for our “cognitive” faculties to be harmonized in the right way. Perhaps for this reason, 17th and 18th century philosophers argued that the faculty necessary for moral judgment and the faculty of taste were different sides of the same coin: the same processes – both cognitive and intellectual – necessary for determining moral appropriateness were necessary for determining taste and beauty. In both cases, one has to educate and develop certain sensitivities to determine the right balance between extremity and deficiency, between propriety and necessity. This modern view, however, seems quite different from what one sees in the ancients. Assuming the above characterizations to be fairly accurate, in the modern age beauty is not something that is participated in; rather, it is a quality or attribute of the senses that is triggered or stimulated by certain arrangements in the world. Likewise, morality is more a manner of adopting the correct principles and training the sensibilities to hit the right mark. What I am calling the “ontological view” would, however, seem to suggest that manifesting beauty or the moral good is not a conceptual or rational exercise but an existential one: to be beautiful or moral means the ground for one’s person participates in and manifests a real, mind-independent reality that re-configures the being that participates in it. If the being of the Beautiful is ultimately found in an Energy of God, what is or is not beautiful would not, strictly speaking, be a matter of opinion and would not be an ancillary feature of the world; rather, it would seem to testify to God’s Majesty and Truth. What would this mean for an aesthetics? Well, just as sin can, like alcohol, distort one’s authentic personality to varying degrees of depravity or degradation, “the ugly” – while in some ontological way related to the Beautiful – would also indicate a distortion of the authentic manner in which we were meant to be. In practical terms, this might mean that some works of art nourish the soul in ways others do not: do Bach’s fugues, in some sense, move us to closer to some sense of God when we encounter their beauty? What about something that is not beautiful in the same way, say an atonal piece by Ligeti? To me, the latter questions are interesting because I think the Church has placed restrictions and limits on its art work and liturgical music for some of these reasons: even if he were Orthodox, I don’t think Schnittke’s choral music would ever be used in Orthodox services? Why? Is it because the Beautiful is distorted in them?

Just a few thoughts –

Regards,

Timothy

[Owen Jones]

I would argue, Timothy, that aesthetics is, indeed, the basis of Christian morality. As Matthew's excellent post points out, much earlier in this thread, the key assertions of Orthodox Christianity, Biblical and Patristic, are aesthetic ones. God became man so that men could become God.

The practical question is this -- why should we obey God's commandments? Out of fear of punishment? Expectation of reward? Or ulitmately for aesthetic reasons?

All theology is in response to some practical problem or question. Theological principles do not exist in and of themselves, showering down on us from above in the form of eternal verities. The Platonic and Christian concepts of beauty are the result of a struggle to first confront some very pragmatic problems, and then to transcend them. All of the other "solutions" fail in their lack of completeness, save for the aesthetic ones. The Philokalia is replete with admonitions to obey God's commandments. That is the consistent thread throughout. But it is the erotic force that moves the soul toward an aesthetic vision that is behind that admonition.

[George Hawkins]

In response to Owen's post 517, surely we should obey God's Commandments out of love for (and of) God.

George

[cale]

We are commanded to Love God because we do not yet love God. Otherwise we would not need to be commanded. I tend to agree with Owen, we attempt to follow the commandments and live in the Churches traditions partly out of fear but mainly out of the souls inate longing for its creator. Even if thier flesh and their minds drown it out, all people have this longing. God has created us with it. But God is beyond all beauty. And I am bored of Plato http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Owen Jones]

Dear George,

One might also ask, why love God? Which again leads us back to aesthetics.