Prophecy and reason: 'Two scriptures'?

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

There are Two Scriptures; There are two pillars of truth.
What does this mean?

Anaxagoras of Clazomenae (c500-428 B.C.) observed that nature was full of order. Order presupposed intelligence and Anaxagoras discerned that it is Mind that produces order and is the cause of everything. (1) It is the ruling force in all things. Clinias the Cretan said “Why look on Creation, See Order, Know God.” (2)

If this Mind is so intelligent which it is, it would stand to reason that it would have communicated with us.

The Greek ancients were frustrated by this lack of communication. Plato wonders “are we a puppet made by the gods, possibly as a plaything, or possibly with some more serious purpose. That, indeed, is more than we can tell…”. (3) Human reasoning can only go so far. How can he answer fundamental questions? He couldn’t because this mind didn’t communicate to their society. The Greek and Roman ancients were frustrated in this regard. They knew that their own gods were made up and were not perfect omniscient beings.

But there is communication from this Mind. It is found within the Hebrew nation. This communication is called Divine Revelation; it is a revealing of the Mind of God to us. This Divine Revelation is Scripture, or in other word the Bible. Luke records the speech of St. Stephen, who was originally a Greek convert to Judiasm, who says Moses received from God, “living oracles to give to us.” (Acts 7:38) St. Paul in Romans (3.2) goes on to say “The Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God”. This divine revelation was specifically in God’s economy strictly reserved to a certain people, the Hebrew nation and more specifically a Hebrew tribe called the Jews. God revealed himself in time and in history to a specific people.

St. Peter says, “No prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” (II Peter 1.21)

This is not to say that the Holy Spirit has not spoken thru foreigners. The prophet Balaam was not a Hebrew, yet one of the most beautiful prayers and blessings comes from his mouth. God blesses his people thru Balaam. In II Chron. 35.22, the Holy Spirit speaks thru the Pharaoh Necho. The Hebrew king did not believe the words and perished by the hand of the Pharaoh Necho.

How do we know that the Scriptures themselves are the word of God? The Bible says “Whatsoever words that a prophet shall speak in the name of the Lord, and they shall not come true, and not come to pass, this is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; that prophet has spoken wickedly: ye shall not spare him.” (Deut. 18.22)

We know the Hebrew Scriptures are the word of God because Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies concerning the Messiah. We know that the Scriptures are the word of God. There are other prophecies also that have also come to pass.

Therefore, St. Paul says, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” (II Tim 3:16)

The Bible is one of the pillars of Truth. The Scriptures say, “The Word of God is true”. Psalm 118.138. “The law of the Lord is Perfect”. Psalm 19.7. “All his commandments are sure; established for ever and ever; done in truth and uprightness”. Psalm 110.7-8.

Jesus said, “Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out the mouth of God shall man live.”

One can not know truth, if one has not read the Bible. Because it comes from the fountain of truth, the Bible is the sure foundation of truth. It is a pillar of truth.

But there is a second Scripture, much older than the Bible. There is another pillar of truth. It is in reality the first Scripture that came before Divine Revelation.

The first Scripture is the Cosmos; the creation, nature. Thru creation or nature, God revealed himself in the first Scripture. Actually, creation is a divine revelation of God.

Through Nature we can come to the knowledge of God. Anaxagoras proved that. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle continue to improve and further the work of Anaxagoras. All four of these philosophers were, in a sense, monotheists. Plato by using a Cretan in the Laws points to the fact that this view of Anaxagoras was probably from the Doric Cretans.

St. Paul points to nature also as a source of knowledge. He says, “Does not nature itself teach…” (I Cor 11.14) Nature does teach. Nature teaches common sense. Nature teaches wisdom and imparts respect for her ways. Nature is full of principles and axioms of truth and they point to the nature of God himself.

All of Greek thought started in examining nature. Hellenistic philosophy is based on nature and her principles. Nature is wisdom, a wisdom of the one that created her.

Isaih prophesized of the Greeks:

“I became manifest to them that asked not for me; I was found of them that sought me not…” Isaiah 65:1

The Psalmist says, “a people who knew me not served me”. Psalm 17:43

The ancient Greeks served God. They developed a ‘natural’ wisdom. Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies are very much the backbone of Christianity. Scripture is not enough. Not every thing we need to know is in Scripture.

Jesus and St. Paul quoted and borrowed from the Greeks.

This is the importance of reading the Greek and Roman Classics.

But by reading nature, one can only go so far. Nature is not the complete revelation of God. It is only a portion of it. Nature does not tell all of the previous history of humans. The Greeks got a lot of things right but also some things wrong. Nature is not complete without divine revelation.

There are two Scriptures. There are two pillars of Truth. The Jews were the keepers of the revelation of God.
As the Jews were to Scripture, the spoken word, the Greeks are to Nature, the visible word.
The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God but it was left to the Greeks to be the apostles of the works of God.
Whereas, the Hebrew prophets were inspired by God to write, the Greeks through hard labor achieved great wisdom by studying the visible works of God.

Both Nature and Scripture propound the glory of God. Both point to God. Both reveal things of God. Both compliment each other and there is no contradiction between the two. Both were made through Jesus Christ, the Logos. The Old Testament is the revelation of the “reasoning” of God. Nature is the fruit of the “reasoning” of God. Both were created through Jesus Christ who is as St. John pointed out—The Logos.

In his book, Christianity and Classical Culture, Charles Cochrane documents the failure of Classicism because of its faulty conclusions based on faulty premises. Greek philosophy could not answer the why some men prosper, usually the evil, and the good suffer. This was a terrible mystery that Classicism could not answer. It could not answer the problem of evil or the satisfication of justice. Imperial Rome exhibited the failures of Classicism to rejuvenate man and protect him from evil. Emperors were looked upon as Messiahs, much like Hitler was for post WWI Germans, that could solve mankind’s problems. Their answer was more bureaucracy and laws. Classicism needed Christianity.

Christianity answers all the questions that Classicism couldn’t. Christianity has the knowledge of spiritual reality that filled in the gaps of Classical learning. Christianity provides the answer of fortune and luck, of the hows and whys that remained mysteries for the inquisitive Greeks. It answers the problem of evil and the expiation of sins. It solves the riddle of the rejuvenation (or the salvation) of man.

Reading nature can only go so far. It could not rise to the highest heights. Only by something coming down can the picture become complete. Divine Revelation completes the works of the Greeks.

But today, Christianity is failing. Why is Christianity failing? Because it is separated from its ‘politeuma’. Christianity needs Classicism. Christianity cannot survive outside Classicism. Classicism needed Christianity to solve its problems and hence correct it. Hellenism and Divine Revelation are the two pillars of Truth without which man cannot live. And to live requires truth to maintain it. Man needs the two Scriptures.


(1) Plato, The Collected Dialogues, edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, Bollingen Series, LXXI, Princeton University Press, l969. Phaedo, 97c; pg 79.

(2) Ibid, Laws 886a; Pg 1441

(3) Ibid, Laws 644d-e; Pg 1244

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Mr Wheeler,

The pillar and ground of the Truth is Christ which is found fully only within His Church. Of course many good things may lead to the Church and support us within the Church. Within the Church for instance one finds many members with many different gifts- teachers, prophets, those of solitary prayer, and many others. That which does not lead to the Church however and find its fulfillment in it always retains a certain emptiness mainly because it has not fulfilled its basic, fundamental and yes, human calling. In a word man outside of the Church is nothing except unfulfilled dream at best and broken tragedy at worst. For man's life is defined by the Life of Christ found within the Church.

To find our Life in Christ requires mainly following His commandments, humility & repentance. Our end point is to know Christ and to be remade in His image. Without the first (ie repentance & humility) the latter (ie to know Christ as Highest Truth) will never occur.

In fact there is a choice before us. On the one hand is humility, and repentance which bring us to the highest knowledge which is the Love of Christ & love for neighbour. On the other is self-sufficiency which can only fall into pride.

Whereas the knowledge arising from man's self-sufficiency will always be limited at best and false at worst, knowledge as love of Christ and love for man & creation gives a peace and joy which passes all understanding.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

I've made the same argument as Mr. Wheeler's above on the site for some time. However, I fail to see the connection between this and the polemics against Orthodoxy. There is no revival of "classicism" in the Roman Church, and what is typically meant by classicism in the Roman Church is late medieval scholasticism which is a midrash on Aristotle that tends toward a kind of metaphysical fundamentalism that was anathema to both Plato and Aristole. And please don't tell me that there is any interest in "pagan philosophy" among Protestants!

What do we really mean by a revival of "classicism?" I don't like the word because it has ideological connotations as a substitute for a true recovery of the classical noetic experience (i.e. REASON).

[Arsenios]

Owen writes:


"the classical noetic experience (i.e. REASON)."

I thought the classic noetic experience was mind [directing the reason] - eg contemplation - [Which is neither imagic nor deductive...]

Arsenios

[Owen Jones]

You may be thinking of Reason as a mental operation. That's the way most people think of reason today. It is an operation of the mind that we use to work out problems. It is utilitarian, and most people would object that God or God's mind has much if anything to do with that other than by extension, i.e., God created our minds like any other part of the body and then we put it to work.

But the classical understanding of Reason is quite different. And this classical understanding carries over, for the most part, into Christian thought, until you have a split beetween faith and reason among late medieval scholastics.

Classically, the distinction is made, or, more properly, a differentiation is seen, between levels of reason: logic and ratio, and the higher form of reason, that is, noesis, which is participation in the "divine noetic ground."

Reason is the great discovery of classical Greek philosophy, but it is first and foremost an experience of divine revelation. That's how Plato and Aristotle describe it, and unless we know better than they did what they experienced, and what they meant by the use of the words they employed, then we probably ought to let that stand.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The Patristic definition of nous is found in the glossary of the Philokalia under Intellect. In it we read, "the highest faculty in man, through which- provided it is purified- he knows God or the inner essences or principles of created things by means of direct apprehension or spiritual perception."

In other word for the noetic faculty to be properly functioning in man he must be following the way of Christ's commandments, humility and repentance; ie an Orthodox spiritual life. But even here we are talking about a a process of growth in Christ since (to use again the Patristic classification) the path to salvation consists in purification, illumination and then glorification (deification). In other words for the Church salvation, sanctification and noetic vision are all inherently connected since at no step can we separate any of this from Christ, the life in Christ and His Church.

The glossary continues, "Unlike the dianoia or reason, from which it must be carefully distinguished, the intellect does not function by formulating abstract concepts and then arguing on this basis to a conclusion reached through deductive reasoning, but it understands divine truth by means of immediate experience, intuition or 'simple cognition' (the term used by St Isaac the Syrian). The intellect dwells in the 'depths of the soul'; it constitutes the innermost aspect of the heart. The intellect is the organ of contemplation, the 'eye of the heart.'"

An important point to remember however is that the nous exists in man whether or not it is fully used, misused or almost forgotten. Of this the book In Peace Let us Pray to the Lord says, "in general, nous as an essence [ie what is constant in man- my addition] refers to the heart while as an energy, [ie how we make use of this-again my addition] it refers to a kind of refined attention."

It would seem quite clear from this that Plato or Aristotle could not have been experiencing noetic vision in its full Orthodox sense since by definition this requires Orthodox ascesis and the presence of the purifying, illuminating & glorifying Holy Spirit. However from work I did for my thesis on this topic which involved reading these philosophers (and others) from an Orthodox perspective (my thesis concerned whether it was a true assertion of the Apologist Frs that the philosophers' search was fulfilled in the Church- briefly I found the answer was yes) I would say that it is quite possible that they had a noetic vision of the Divine of a lesser sort that could only be fulfilled by the vision of Christ within the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Martin Grays Lambert]

Mr. Wheeler, your understanding of what "classicism" is is horribly distorted. Maybe it's because you don't actually know what classical thought is about, even if you have read and studied it, that you don't understand how patristic thought is different and the same.

Martin

[M A Jackson-Roberts]

That's a Delphic statement, Martin. Would you care to elaborate on how something can be at once the same and different?

seeker

[Arsenios]

M A wrote:


That's a Delphic statement, Martin. Would you care to elaborate on how something can be at once the same and different?

Because of the fact that it is what it is, it is thereby not what it isn't, and it can't both be and not be what it is. The problem the Greek philosophes had with this, of course, was that they could not by it account for change, for in order that there be change, something has to both be what it is becoming, and not be what it is, and all manner of paradox arose, as the Greeks attempted to "wrap their minds around" reality.

It didn't work then, even in the material world, and it doesn't work now, not even in quantum physics, let alone in the Mystery of the Faith, where God unites and becomes one with mankind...

And it doesn't even work in the very Oracle's inscription: "Gnothi S'Auton" [Know Thee Thyself] Which is why Socrates was regarded as the wisest man in Athens, for his only claim of knowledge was that he knew nothing...

Of course, the fathers are wondrously and pithily enigmatic... But only if you can see their intent, and this only if you are in some measure within the same tradition of discipleship...

Arsenios

[Owen Jones]

There is a problem lumping all Greek thought and Greek philosophy together as monolithic, and claiming that nothing in Greek thought could account for change. This is the kind of thing that gets passed around by people studying secondary sources that gets repeated by others studying secondary sources. But from Heraclitus to Plato, the question of change (flux) is "handled" in a manner that is worth serious investigation by people today who tend to be lost in a morass of fundamentalisms.

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

Aristotle answered what change was and how it is that something inside remains the same while the outward changes.

To me and St. Thomas, Aristotle has the perfect answer for it. If you read Jacques Maritain, the French Catholic philosopher agrees.

Why is classicism and Christianity have to go together?

Christianity is like a bacterium that needs a medium. That medium is classicism. Christianity died out in the East. (except for small pockets like the Armenians and the Malabar church and Eithopia.) Christianity exploded and occupied all of Europe.

The greatness of the Christian cultures of Victorian England and Colonial America was because these two cultures combined classicism and Christianity. God Blessed the Victorian Culture with ruling the world as the saying goes, "The sun never set on the British Empire". It spread Christianity everywhere and its culture. In modern times, self-government only existed in England (Victorian England) and Colonial America. The greatness of these two cultures was because of the combination of these two great streams.

Today, in Orthodox? Greece, walk up to any Greek man, or here in America, and they say that Democracy is great and is a great type of government. The protestant preachers of America taught their people the truth and were not deceived. Colonial America set up a Republic. The supposedly Greeks are deceived and the Orthodox church knows no better and can not teach their people the truth. The orthodox are confused and deceived. Scripture has it--You are not wise if you are deceived.

American Protestants produced self-government because they were both schooled in the classics and in Christianity. Orthodoxy and Catholicism could never have produced an America.

It is the Doric/philosophical principle of Macrocosm/Microcosm; if you can't led people to liberty in this life, how can you led people to liberty in the next? You can't.

The proof is in the pudding.

[James H.]

"Orthodoxy and Catholicism could never have produced an America. "

I'm not sure whether that should be taken as a compliment or an insult.

James

[Martin Lambert]

Ahhhhh! Stop referring to Aristotle! It is obvious you don't understand him!

Martin

[Justin]

Mr. Wheeler, who it seems is not Orthodox (despite what his profile says), has been banned at at least two other Orthodox fora (OC.net and EuphrosynosCafe). He is a wolf in sheep's clothing, though he has a hard time keeping his costume convincing.

[matt]

Yes,we figured that out after a few posts, didn't we?

[Dorothy Zrowka Allen]

"... the intellect does not function by formulating abstract concepts and then arguing on this basis to a conclusion reached through deductive reasoning, but it understands divine truth by means of immediate experience, intuition or 'simple cognition' (the term used by St Isaac the Syrian)."

Please help me with that concept. I am an Orthodox Christian. The above statement seems, to me, to reflect the Gnostic view of how one attains the knowledge of God. My understanding has been that the post-Nicean Christian church eschews such "intuitive" approaches as heretical. Or is it that the view that pursuit of an inituitive knowledge of God is heresy is a view held only by the Western branch of Christianity, specifically the Roman Catholic church? Do the Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologies differ on this issue? I apologize for my ignorance about this, and I mean no disrespect to anyone by asking the question.

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

That Orthodoxy or Catholicism could never have produced an America is a statement of fact. America has not gone through tyranny yet in the face of America's two hundred year history, Orthodox Greece had two dictatorships, Spain with one, Catholic Italy has had 42 different governments in 50 years and Orthodox Russia fell to the biggest tyranny of all time-Communism. Protestant America has withstood Communism far better than Orthodox Russia. Orthodox Greece would have fallen to communism without the help of bad evil, Protestant America.

I can't help it if you don't like the truth. Truth bites.

[Olga]

Mr Wheeler

Regarding Greece's forays into dictatorship, you are perhaps unaware that the Greeks' predilection for internecine warfare goes back to ancient times, greatly pre-dating the advent of Christianity. Look at the Messinian Wars, the seemingly endless conflicts between the city-states of Athens and Sparta, etc etc. Political upheaval has been a fact of life in that country for generations, and I would regard this tendency as being as much a product of the times. The same could be said for many other nations and cultures, not just Greece. The seemingly endless changes of government in post-war Italy is a product of their particular system of proportional representation, which was an attempt to give EVERY political persuasion a say, as a bulwark against the possibility of a dictatorship (left OR right-wing) arising again. Some call it "democracy to excess". My point is that the nominal national religion, or lack of it, in these cases has had little, if anything to do with political instability.

[Theophan Yox]

I think it's important to remind ourselves that what has happened politically in the various parts of the world, either historically or in the present, is not simplistic enough to point at "communists" or "the orthodox" or "the protestants" as being the blame or the solution notwithstanding the role of God's will in these matters and in the lives of each person within these groups. We see but a small portion of the big picture. Would we say that Job's faith was insufficient to prevent the misfortunes he experienced?

[Owen Jones]

Oliver Cromwell, the first Protestant ruler, was a dictator. The Edict of Toleration was issued by a Catholic King -- lot of good it did him.

Hitler's Germany was home of the Reformation and by the 1930's largely PRotestantised.

Modern political liberty is essentially a secular movement, originating in British liberalism. Ironically, liberalism and totalitarianism share the same intellectual roots, which is why the liberal democracies today are notable for a kind of soft core totalitarianism.

It is really a myth that there was no such thing as liberty prior to the Enlightenment, and there has probably been less liberty since the Enlightenment than before.

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

My point is that the combination of Protestant Christianity and Classicism produced America.

The two greatest books read by early Americans and the Founding Fathers was the Bible and Cicero. These two literatures formed the American mindset. All Americans of all classes read and knew of the Bible and its teachings. Protestant culture demands literacy and fluency in the Bible unlike in Catholic or Orthodox cultures. Furthermore unlike specifically Orthodox culture, in Protestant culture the Old Testament is used many times and complete lessons are taken from the Old Testament unlike in Orthodoxy. Many practices and legal codes of America are taken from the Old Testament. The laws on flogging and sodomy are all taken from the Old Testament. Protestant culture did a good job in "Christianizing" its people and society. It punished evil doers and for the longest time prevented gambing which in Orthodox circles is promoted.

Cicero was widely read. His principles, philosophy imbued nascent America and formed her.

America is a product of Protestant culture. America is a product of classcism and Protestantism.

Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Marxist theorist, gave the biggest compliments to Protestant culture because it was this combination of classicism and Protestantism that prevented Marxism from taking root in England and Germany where Karl Marx first wanted them to take root.

Eversince then, deconstructionism of classicism and Protestantism is necessary for Marxist penetration and takeover of society.

When I see the Orthodox attacks upon Protestantism and classicism, it scares me. I see you as the enemy. I see Orthodoxy undermining this country and its people. When I complain on another Orthodox website of Orthodox bishops giving prayer services to Marxist universalists, I get banned. I hear much Marxist teaching, ideas and propaganda in the pulpits and on the websites of Orthodox and Catholic sites. When I counter that, I get banned.

Orthodox, from what I gather, heap nothing but scorn on anything classical. Their people are ignorant of Cicero, Plato, Aristotle. And to a greater extent the fullness of the Bible. Most of the Orthodox I have met in the PEW, vote socialistic. It is the Protestants that created the "Moral Majority" but when I look at the Orthodox communities they vote overwhelmingly for the democratic party that promotes abortion and homosexuality. They subscribe to the marxist idea that government is about human rights but if one read Cicero and the Founding Fathers of America, one finds out that government exists to protect private property.

The Orthodox hatred of Classicism, from my point of view, is really deceiving the people and making them quite ignorant of how to form a Christian society.

The proof is in the pudding. Reality is the testing field. That combination worked. It worked mightily!!!!

[Owen Jones]

Then why do you list yourself as "Greek Orthodox" on your bio on this site?

[Douglas Barber]

Let me grant for the sake of argument that Protestantism and Classicism lie at the root of what distinguishes the U.S.A. from, say, Spain and its former colonies (and I only grant it for the sake of argument). Whether or not "that combination worked" depends on who you ask. If you asked a native American or a black person in the U.S.A. in 1840 I doubt that you would get a simple affirmation of your proposition. It is just possible that the reason things went worse for those groups of people in the former English colonies than in the former Spanish colonies was the Protestant habit of reading the Old Testament without the mediation of the Tradition of the Church, Protestant colonists seeing themselves, for instance, as analagous to the biblical chosen people divinely ordained to slaughter the idolatrous inhabitants in the course of taking posession of the promised land.

I'm of one mind with Owen in this regard. If oversimplifications must be made, I would depict the Reformation as the womb of the "Englightenment", and the "Enlightenment" as the womb of the utterly value-free secularism you seem to decry when you express disapproval of abortion and homosexuality - a value-free secularism common to "liberal democracy" and Marx-Leninism. It's paradoxical to lay secular political demands like legal abortion and homosexuality at the feet of Orthodoxy when the mainstream U.S. Protestant denominations to a one advocate for legal abortion (or, more precisely, lobby against legal restriction of abortion) with monies collected at Sunday worship while every single Orthodox jurisdiction present in the U.S.A. opposes it. The Moscow Patriarchate speaks much more clearly against these demands than, say, the United Methodist Church, which I believe is the largest Protestant denomination in the United States - and I'm inclined to think that one reason it is possible for that Patriarchate to do so is that it is not immersed in the cultural and political legacy of Enlightenment thinkers like the atheist Thomas Paine and the agnostic David Hume.

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

I was a Catholic for forty years and finally converted to the Greek Orthodox church three years ago.

My experience within Orthodoxy is scandalous. I am scandalized. Pure and simple.

While attending a small college there was several Orthodox on staff and nine Greek Orthodox and 4 other orthodox students. I was catholic at the time. I attended Orthodox services. I couldn't get the nine Greeks to attend any religious service even Greek. It was the Protestants on campus fighting to retain the Christian heritage of the college. The Catholics and especially the Orthodox couldn't care less.

I walk up to the only Greek Orthodox person on staff complaining about the homosexual posters on campus buildings and he laughs in my face and says we have intellectual freedom on campus.

The Protestant man tares off the poster. The Greek Orthodox laughs in my face.

What does this tell me? What does this tell me? What was the proof?

I see. I see Protestants constantly trying to convert people to Christianity. Just two weeks ago, I got into a discussion in the Greek Orthodox Church with several ladies saying we need to grow the church, we need to evangelize. They didn't want to hear it.


Tell me, What am I supposed to think???

The Greek priest wonders why noone shows up, I can't say anything because I will be shut down. And this priest thinks that he can just order people to church and they will come. A couple of us are frustrated because our spiritual needs are not being met. My Aunt is Greek Orthodox has a 16 year old boy, and she is soooo filled with liberalism and marxism they no longer come to church. Here is an baptized 16 year old Orthodox Child, and he doesn't know the faith, prayers, or bible and when I seek to teach the child, the mother bans me and the husband is so weak he can't do anything anyway.

What am I to think?

And in this election a majority of Greek Orthodox Christians are going to be voting for John Kerry, abortion and homosexuality?

[Owen Jones]

Greeks in America are overwhelmingly on the left politically. Why? Because when they came to America, escaping poverty and political oppression in Greece, they were treated in the U.S. as Negroes by...Protestants! They came under all of the same Jim Crow laws as blacks. So that is why they tend to be on the political left. Also, they did not come here to spread their faith but to strike it rich and live free. Most of them attended the Episcopal Church in the U.S., before there were any Greek priests and bishops in the U.S., and so they absorbed a lot of liberal protestant ideas and practices. But the vast majority of Greeks in the U.S., like Jews in the U.S., are thoroughly secularized, which is what America does to traditional religion. It secularizes it and makes it notional. The political distinction between divine and secular realms is an Augustinian ideal, but the triumph of secularism is a Protestant ideal, and the chickens are coming home to roost.

Neither Rome nor Orthodoxy has formulated a response to secularism which Protestantism has promoted. It remains to be seen how history will sort all of this out.

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

I am terribly frustrated Christian.

The Greek Orthodox church which I attend has 150.000 in the bank.

It pays for much money in new carpeting.

It pays for the parking lot to be repaved.

I just listened to them at a board meeting talking about fixing the material structure of the church.

Yet what about the spiritual struture?

I ask them to send me to seminary. No, they enjoy this priest. The man is in his seventies and is already retired. He comes once a month.

The church is losing parishoners. We've got maybe fifteen people in church. Maybe, Three solid families, and the rest are all over fifty.

Yet, we are expending money into frivoulous things and the way it is going the church is going to close in ten years and yet won't spend the money to grow the church or grow the faith.

Why are they spending the money on these things when it makes no sense in the future?

They don't want to evangelize.

You tell me. Protestantism is evil and Orthodoxy is God's gift to mankind?

Please tell me what is going on? Help me figure this out why Protestants are fighting to evangelize; fighting to uphold the christian character of this country and so on and so forth?

What do I get out of Orthodoxy? What?

What do my eyes tell me I should do? Become Protestant thats what. But Protestantism is not the fullness of Christianity either.

Protestantism doesn't have it, Catholicism doesn't have it and Orthodoxy doesn't have it.

My eyes have been extremely opened since I have been on this site. And I am going nowhere because I keep on getting banned. Nothing gets solved and problems keep on getting worse not better.

I am at wits end.

[Owen Jones]

So what is Mr. Wheeler's point? That there is a social, religious crisis in America? That's not news. Mr. Wheeler should understand that Protestant activism is not a solution either. Tearing down homosexual posters is a Christian witness? Protestant evengelicals converting people: to what?

Orthodoxy in America has serious problems, but those problems are emblematic of problems in society as a whole which the Church has absorbed. Greeks in America tend to be culturally Greek, religiously American. They are losing their children to secularism, just as are all the mainline Protestant demoninations and Catholicism. And the huge growth of Protestant fundamentalism in America is not proof of the truth of Protestant theology, if you want to call it that. HEretical movements have, historically, dominated Church growth. Islam is the largest, most dynamic religion in the world today. Does that mean we should become Moslems, or mimic their methods?

True Orthodox witness is largely through monasticism, i.e. withdrawal from the world. There are small, hopeful signs in the American Church toward support for an indigenous monasticism. Perhaps Mr. Wheeler should visit some of the more thriving Greek monasteries in the U.S. This is the opposite of the political activism that Mr. Wheeler seems to believe is the necessary evidence of religious conviction.

[Theophan Yox]

There are people that go to work each morning and work hard. There are people that go to work each morning, sip coffee and do nothing. There are those that, given one talent bury it and those that, given one, use it for good and end up with two. There those whose faith inspire them further and who follow that inspiration. There are those that remain lukewarm.

The Orthodox are not immune from apathy, laziness; in short, weakness, shortcoming, and sin. Likewise, neither are the Protestants or Catholics or whichever group you wish to think about.

You have been going to an Orthodox Church. Something prompted that. Something inspired that. Follow that inspiration. What can *you*, as an Orthodox person, do to live your faith and work out your salvation, reaching out to others (Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike)?

If something spurred your commitment to the Orthodox faith, rekindle that- reaffirm your commitment and *then* review the options. If being Orthodox is a constant, a given, then it rules out a whole host of options that do nothing but add to the confusion.

In prayer,
Theophan

[Owen Jones]

Mr. Wheeler typifies the problem of zealous protestant American converts to Orthodoxy, who are basically know-it-alls. Now it becomes clear, in a burst of honesty, Mr. Wheeler is upset because his parish refuses to send him to seminary. It is all personal for him, everything is about him. Until we admit that our purpose is not to change others, but to change ourselves, we will all be at our wits end. Orthodoxy is about surrender to God, and not taking on Christ as a personal cause. It is the worst kind of Phariseeism to hammer other people because they are not doing what we want them to do. Mr. Wheeler does not want salvation for himself or others, he wants power and control. It is typical that people who are angry and frustrated over their parish experience immediately think that the solution is to go to seminary!!!! So that they can have more power and authority to tell others what to do!!!! Mr. Wheeler's parish is correct in not wanting him to go to seminary, let alone paying for it. Mr. Wheeler obviously sees himself as a latter day Jeremiah, while not willing to pay the price for it. He wants it both ways.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The enemy of mankind gets us to focus on the perceived sins of others so that we do not participate in the building up of the Body of Christ which is His Church. When we do this we lose our peace.

The Church suffers from many problems-this has been so since the first days when the disciples ran from Christ in fear, the Apostle Peter denied Him & Judas betrayed Him. But all of these problems stem from our sinful weakness- the same weakness we all share in. So any problem within the Church we recognise as being fundamentally our problem, a problem whose source is the same sin I share in.

The only solution to problems within the Church is active love towards others, a love based on humility & repentance.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Theophan Yox]

Owen,

It is sad for me to read your post. It seems you assume much and based on the number of exclamation points you've used, there seems to be some anger or exasperation in your response. It matters not to me whether your assumptions are correct; the tone of your post is disconcerting.

What ever is behind Mr. Wheeler's posts, his frustration is genuine. It doesn't matter what its source is, it is genuine. Would it not then be productive to acknowledge this and, moving forward, work together to peel off the layers that may distort this zeal of which you mention? God forbid it be destroyed!

Simply put, there are proper ways to channel this zeal, to kindle it rather than allow it to rage like a bonfire without control.

May we not, despite academic differences and through our debates, forget our love toward others and our responsibility to bear one another's burdens!

Theophan

(Message edited by theophanyox on 08 October, 2004)

[Suzanne Neeley]

Dear Mr. Lindsey,

I am so sorry to read of your frustration and your struggle. I will be praying for you that God will grant you peace.

Your anger is well taken, and I understand that you seek a utopia that does not exist except in Heaven. Our life here, with all its traps from the enemy, matters not one whit. To attempt to form an "orthodoxy" that is earthly and temporal, is to further become entrenched in this world. We are to remain faithful to the Faith that was "delivered once and for all to the Saints", and to squeeze ourselves, by purification into a mold that is heaven bound. To focus on the imperfections of the Church is to remain in what I call a form of "worldly spirituality". "Worldly spirituality" is that which seeks to conform in this life, to a worldly expectation of others, instead of a truly spiritual expectation of the Age to come. To hold up the Church's imperfections as "proof" that it is in error, is to simply ignore the attainment of Saints, who were human just like you and who have proven that what is expected can also be attained in this life. But it will never be attained as long as people focus on the imperfections of the Church as a whole, instead of focusing on their own sins and sinfulness.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Wise and true words from Suzanne. Let us pray that Mr. Wheeler gets beyond his anger and frustration so that he may seek and find the Peace that surpasses understanding, expecially if he desires to serve the Lord as priest. To offer the Holy Gifts at the Altar of God is a serious thing, and to do so with anger in his heart would not be spiritually beneficial to himself or those whom he would serve.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

It's nice to see this discussion so lively, and to witness a good spirit of 'self-chastisement' when language occasionally gets a bit out of hand on all sides in the face of frustration (which it always does, and always will).

Let me just take this opportunity to encourage that the conversation in this thread be kept within the focus of this forum: discussion from the perspective of the patristic, monastic, ecclesiastic and liturgical heritage of the Church. Too wide a field, and things exceed our purview here.

INXC, Matthew

[John Curtis Dunn]

I believe Ownen twisted Mr. Wheeler's mention of his request to his parish that they send him to seminary into a personal attack.

I will answer Owen's question: "Tearing down homosexual posters is a Christian witness?"

Yes, it is in the same vein aa that of St. John the Baptist's open rebuke of Herod and Herodias' adulterous marriage. Could that be called zealous, yes and it should, but zeal for holiness and righteousness is not a negative thing.

St. Timothy [spiritual son of St. Paul the Apostle] was martyred when he openly opposed a "gay pride" parade as Bishop in Ephesus.

St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Neither
fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. [1 Cor. 6:9] [NRSV]

The word malakoiin the above is translated as "male prostitutes." The word Sodomites is a translation of the word arsenokoitai; it is a compound word meaning males copulating with males.
This latter word seems to have been coined by St. Paul from the LXX as found in Leviticus 20:13.

This term appears again in St. Paul's epistle to his spiritual son Timothy when he wrote: "Knowing this, that the law was not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners,. . . for whoremongers [pornos], for them that defile themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai]..." [1 Timothy 1:9, 10]

St. Paul linked homosexuality to idolatry in Romans chapter 1; is it any wonder that St. Timothy was then martyred after preaching against the vile idolatrous and homosexual practices of the parade of Ephesians?

john dunn

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I have given a good deal of consideration to the topic of rebuke since reading this & related threads. In order not to arouse passions I have avoided dealing with this in the past in a public way. But now I see that John C. Dunn has also brought this matter up in his post. Hopefully the following is in line with what Matthew has reminded us about in his post.

As Matthew says:


"language occasionally gets a bit out of hand on all sides in the face of frustration (which it always does, and always will)."

I entirely agree. Not only are we prone to 'losing it' at times. A forum such as this calls for that which each of us mostly deeply holds to- how we see the Church, what we believe it teaches. In connection with this it is interesting to see how while the Church still operates even via internet, there is also a distinct difference from let's say a parish where the personal dynamics are so different. So a forum like this is much more intense by its very nature- it is a kind of 'hot-house' atmosphere at times.

In the normal run of things 'ad hominem' arguments are wrong and harmful. Practically speaking they push a discussion into fruitless side-tracks. They also get things mired down in passionate attacks on each other which are very harmful.

But my question is close to Mr Dunn's and I believe the point implicit in Owen's post. What are we called to do when behaviour passes over the line, when behaviour is not only so destructive that it is hurtful to others, it also in some fundamental sense is contemptuous of the holiness of Christ's Church? My spiritual father used to call this (with an awesome flash in his eye) "urinating on the floor of the Church".

I would submit the following. First of all at all times we must struggle against our own passionate reactions to others. But keeping this in mind & heart I would say that at times a rebuke is needed. Let's say that someone in the parish was defacing icons- finally & firmly you say, "stop that!" To not do this would somehow be betraying the holiness of the Church.

I also would offer the following. We often say "let's not get personal". But in fact all comments offered to each other, positive or negative, are personal. The main thing is to avoid the passionate misinterpretation of each other & the provocation that results from this. But again what about when something goes over the line and a rebuke is called for? At times when this occurs it may very well be called for to refer to or hint at some personal root cause behind the destructive behaviour.

Of course all of this is a struggle for us. Never do we want to be reacting from the desire to lash out or hurt others when we feel hurt by them. So even at the end of the day, after perhaps initial exasperation, we must struggle to be inspired by the hope & desire for the other person's improvement & not their harm.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

Oh, fine, now I am a defender of homosexuality!

Look, I totally identify with Mr. Wheeler's frustrations, if he is being candid. I think how he reationalises his frustrations with the Church are a little bit oddball. We each have to find our own accommodation with the world so that we are not "at our wits end." And that begins with admitting that we are not in control. God is. Going to seminary to change the Church is often seen by a young, frustrated parishioner as the answer. I think in Mr. Wheeler's case it will only compound his anger at the Church. If a person goes to seminary because he is angry and frustrated at the Church and wants to change it, the results are typically a disaster.

Now, Mr. Wheeler having rebuked all of us, basically called us all a bunch of liars, trashed Orthodoxy up and down, perhaps could use a little rebuke. I certainly won't advise a dose of humility, since that would by hypocritical of me, but I did suggest something positive, which is to try to find some good, well-centered monastic to pal around with, who probably shares all of the frustrations, but hopefully has found the proper balance between fruitless jeremiads and withdrawal from the world.

[Edward Henderson]

I would like to respond to some of the comments made in Mr. Wheeler’s various posts. First of all, to say that the Orthodox Church is doing nothing to bring more Americans to Christ and ‘save’ America from homosexuality, abortion, and other radical agendas is clearly false. The facts show that the Orthodox Church is the third fastest growing Church in America. Among those Churches that worship in a liturgical manner (i.e. the Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, and Lutherans), the Orthodox Church is growing the fastest. Mr. Wheeler has projected the problems of his local parish on the whole Church. The problems described are unfortunately, often the case in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. I believe, sadly, that their main focus is the preservation of Hellenism (Greek language and culture) among Greek-Americans. However, there are even exceptions there, especially in the case of Elder Ephraim’s Monasteries, which is spite of the fact that they only use Greek in their liturgical services, have brought many Americans to Orthodoxy and renewed the faith of many who were raised in the Church. I suggest that Mr. Wheeler visit some of the parishes the OCA, the Antiochian Archdiocese, or the Russian Church Abroad, where often the majority of parishioners are converts. Look at the missionary work done by the Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood over the past forty years.

As far as his claims concerning the failure on the Orthodox Church to reach society, one must have an Orthodox understanding of how to bring this about. It is true, you do not see Orthodox Christians going door to door, nor do you find us rallying outside of abortion clinics, nor actively confronting Gay rights activists. Let’s us consider the fruits of this approach. Have such activities really influenced American culture and brought more people to Christ? It seems to me that such actions often do more harm than good. When I was a university student, we used to have preachers come to our student union ever Wednesday, wearing sandwich board signs with lists of the various types of people who were Hell bound. They would go on for hours, but I never saw it change the behavior of my colleagues. Saint Seraphim of Sarov once said, “acquire the spirit of peace and thousands around you will be saved.” That is a profound statement.

Aggressively confronting abortionists, gay rights activists, or anyone we disagree with usually makes the people we are seeking to reach annoyed and angry. It will not bring people to the Orthodox Church, except those who have a passion for confrontation. The goal of the Church is to heal men’s souls from the sickness of sin and thereby united them with God through illumination and deification (theosis). Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos writes, “Where Orthodoxy is lived in the right way and in the Holy Spirit, it is a communion of God and men, of Heavenly and earthly, of the living and the dead. In this communion all the problems which present themselves in our life are truly solved.” So, we can work to transform the world by striving to be better Orthodox Christians. If we let the Church transform us into an image of God, others will see and want it too. Saint Augustine of Hippo once said that the human heart, being made by God, cannot find rest until it rests in Him. How was Russia converted to Orthodoxy? It is true there had been missionary work, begun by Saints Cyril and Methodius, but the event that sparked it was the visit of two emissaries to Constantinople. What they witnessed in the Church of Hagia Sophia, they related to Prince Vladimir saying, “we did not know whether we were on Heaven or on Earth.” Who in Constantinople would have thought that by building a Cathedral where one could witness the fullness of Orthodoxy, that it would play such a role in the conversion of Russia? Of course, it spread to Siberia and Central Asia and then into China, Korea, and Japan, and finally to North America. So what does that say for us today? Are we going to reach more people in the way that other Christians have chosen? Despite the growing number of Christian radio and television stations and their growing political influence, society is more secular now than ever. Perhaps the answer is, as was already said, letting the Church transform us by obeying Her. Second, building parish communities centred around the Liturgical services. The most successful missionary Orthodox parishes I have seen are those that strive to have Vespers, Matins, and Liturgy during the week. We all remember our first liturgy and the beauty, richness, and fullness of them played a major role in our conversions.

Heartfelt conversions will not come about through rhetoric, debates, or confrontations. One can argue that the Orthodox Church is the true church because she is the most historical and ancient. Yet, Hinduism, Buddhism, and many other religions are far more ancient that Orthodox Christianity. One can argue that the Orthodox Church is the true church because she has the most correct teachings. Yet, saying this and pursuing such an argument usually involves debasing Orthodox theology to the level of abstract rhetorical philosophy. I believe, first and foremost, that the Orthodox Church is the true church because it is the only institution that can transform man into an image of God. It is the only church whose theology (teachings, dogmas, and doctrines) and practices (liturgical and sacramental) seek to and can bring about such a transformation. I have seen in my own life the direction it has taken whenever I have failed to live up to what God has called me and all men to be. Likewise, I have seen what can happen to those who, through following the life prescribed by the Orthodox Church, are transformed and have acquired the spirit of peace. It is they, most of all, who make me want to be a better Orthodox Christian, not rational arguments or moral and theological treatises.

[Edward Henderson]

Just one more quote....

"The Sanctity of the Church is not darkened by the intrusion of the world into the Church, or by the sinfulness of men. Everything sinful and worldly which intrudes into the Church's sphere remains foreign to it and is destined to be sifted out and destroyed, like weeds at sowing time."

-Father Michael Pomazansky

[Owen Jones]

Great message. Thanks.

[Owen Jones]

I do think there is a difference between post Schism East and West on this, but the difference is not neat and tidy. A Western Catholic would say that knowing is not like seeing. An Eastern Catholic (Orthodox) would say that knowing is seeing -- with spiritual eyes -- things as they really are. On the other hand, Western Catholicism has always kept a special place for mystics and mystical experience of simple cognition, visionary experiences, etc. The problem as I see it is that this is compartmentalized and limited to a special class of people called mystics, whereas in the East, everyone is called to be a mystic and to acquire knowledge of divine things through spiritual vision. The intellectual problem with the West has to do with a desire to objectify God and man, so you begin with an objective definition of what something is, in itself. In the East, we cannot say what God is, in itself, because we cannot know the Essence of God, and the definition of man is fluid, based on polarities. There is no intermediate reality (metaxy) in Western thought any more, Catholic or Protestant, you are either damned or saved, nothing in between, and no movement in between. It's a lights on or lights of theology, whereas Orthodoxy is on a reastat.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Ms Dorothy Allen,

Thank you for your post, and welcome to the community. The quotation you offered from St Isaac is an important one. But do keep in mind that he is defining not how salvation functions as a coherent and comprehensive treatment, but quite explicitly how the intellect functions. The Gnostic problem is not in ascertaining the manner in which intellect functions (in some cases, and I use caution here, ancient texts of Gnostic origin in fact describe this well; though not always). The Gnostic problem, from a Christian perspective, is in the equation of such knowledge and such knowing with salvation. The knowledge is the salvation of the Gnostic.

Isaac, in the passage you quoted, attempts to describe the manner in which the human intellect, at its most basic and thus most profound level, functions. Deductive reasoning is a tool which the intellect can, does and should use in order to perceive the underlying realities of things exposed and explored in a certain intellectual climate. But the intellect, Isaac argues (here and elsewhere), is an 'organ' (in metaphor) which ultimately can perceive well beyond this level. The intellect perceives most profoundly not through its deductive reason, but through immediate and direct experience. Here the 'knowledge' received is of a more direct, profound sort.

A fine example is that of the love from parent to child. A mother who gazes upon her daughter knows that she loves her daughter. This is an experiential knowledge, of a sort, in that there is no deductive reasoning involved in the mother's part -- no reasoning out of what the daughter is and does that makes her worthy of love, etc. There is an immediate experience of love which makes that reality profoundly known.

Isaac argues that this is the deepest manner of knowing -- the ultimate way to knowledge that lies at the pinnacle, beyond (but not in place of) deductive reason. To know God in this way is to know him in a manner that allows the knowledge received to excel that which the deductive mind can ascertain, precisely because God is beyond deduction and reason. God becomes real to the knower, in this kind of knowledge, at a far deeper level than he is known by reason alone.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mr Edward Henderson,

I echo Owen's sentiments: your recent posts were wonderful to read.

INXC, Matthew

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

Thanks for all the comments.

What I am disturbed is that one should not complain but suck it up. That is not the mentality for perfection. We are not solving and correcting our problems.

We are commanded to be perfect by Jesus. How can one reach perfection if we tolerate incompetence, ignorance, and just plain laziness. We are to keep silent. St. Paul rebuked St. Peter to his face. But I am to keep silent while people around me stop coming and lose their faith.

I lived in the Tampa St. Petersburg area and visited Tarpon Springs. Observe what goes on in Tarpon Springs Greek Christian community. I observe and hear things. Are they corrected? But what I am told is that imperfections are perfectly acceptable in the Orthodox church.

It is allowable to propagate homosexuality on a college campus. We are to do nothing. We are not in the words of St. Paul to "Command and Teach". I thought one teaches by example. To destroy wickedness and evil. That is not the christian duty. The Scriptures say "Defend the widow and the orphan". According to Orthodoxy, we are not to do that. We are not to "physically" protect the unborn. Who are not orphans if not the unborn.

Does Human reasoning, trump the teaching of what the plain meaning of Scripture?

To get back on the original post of this thread is about the necessity of Classicism. That one needs both the Scriptures of Christianity and Classicism. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, all fought the same thing that is going on in today's world. As Scripture says, "There is nothing new under the Sun". Athens was undergoing secularization, the changing of words, nihilism. These three men fought against these things. They show the way. Plato laid the foundation for Christian philosophy and Theology. Many Christian terms come from ancient Greek thinking. Many terms in the New Testament such as "logos" is a Greek term. Classicism is just as necessary as Scripture is.

[Owen Jones]

The last post reminds me of myself, and the time that a bishop strongly recommended that I memorize Psalm 131.

[John Curtis Dunn]

Edward Henderson quieried:


"It is true, you do not see Orthodox Christians going door to door, nor do you find us rallying outside of abortion clinics, nor actively confronting Gay rights activists. Let’s us consider the fruits of this approach. Have such activities really influenced American culture and brought more people to Christ?"

Well, if Orthodox Christians are not doing these things, it seems only rhetorical to question their success in bringing people to Christ. Also, the negative opinion that these methods would not and cannot be successful seems to opine that they are out of accord with the work of the Holy Spirit; of whom our Lord said, "And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin. . ." [John 16:8]

Lest we forget, the first message preached by our Lord after coming out of the desert of temptation was: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." [Mt. 4:17] Indeed, some of our Lord's most harsh words were directed against whole cities of whom he compared to Tyre, Sidon and Sodom [Mt. 11:20-24] Tyre was known for its harlotry and fornication [Is. 23; Ez.30]; as was Sidon and both were full of idolatry.

I know for a fact that in Russia, some Russian Orthodox Christians are going door to door. Recently I attended a presentation by a Russian Priest in Siberia who reported this and their success; not that everyone responds, but that some respond. In my experience, knocking on doors works; I have sold vacumn cleaners door to door; I have sold candy door to door; I have sold photo development service door to door; I have solicited votes door to door; I have taken surveys door to door; I have taken survey's door to door; I have told people about the Church I am a member door to door; I have handed out flyers and tracts door to door; indeed, here in the United States we have a tradition of going door to door on October 31st.

To opine going door to door doesn't work for Orthodox Christianity when Orthodox Christians aren't doing it is simply a cop-out. There is nothing rude in knocking on someone's door; our Lord Himself spoke about the success of a woman who knocked on a door late at night and kept on knocking until the man of the house gave her what she wanted.

I have been against abortion since it first came to my attention; and I began being active against it while in the US Army. To suggest that standing in front of an abortion clinic to speak to people will not bring any to Christ is simple ignorance. I have spoken with men and women who were going into these abortion mills and know men, women and rescued children who responded to the message that abortion was a sin against God. There is one Orthodox Priest who is a member of this list who has frequently led his parish and other Orthodox from other parishes in molebons, akathist and other prayers in front of these death camps. I myself responded to Orthodoxy because I met and learned about his labor.

As to Gay rights, that is a political issue; but I know of two men who converted to Orthodoxy out of a homosexual life style because someone confronted them with the Orthodox Gospel.

It is our task to labor in the field; it is the Lord who opens the heart. Often, the only active evangelism some parishes in the US engage in, is when they are raising money from their community at their ethnic festivals.

Revivalism may be a turn of to some Orthodox Christians, but the fact is that the US has a long history of revivalism which works. Why can Satan successfully grow his temples going door to door, but Christ can't; well, based upon Mr. Edward Henderson's statement, because they are not doing it.

rdr. john dunn

[Irene]

Owen, that would be Psalm 131 like in the King James Bible and other English Bibles? 130 in the old Greek Septuagint Bible?

Refer Psalter as a book of needs http://www.stjohndc.org/prayers/9802z.htm

"130 (131) So that God gives repentance and comfort with hope to people so that they are saved. "


Irene

[Edward Henderson]

To respond to Reader John's criticism, I wrote it in response to Mr. Wheeler's complaints and doubts about the fullness of Orthodoxy. As I said before, I think he has been projecting the problems of his individual parish on the whole church in America.

Secondly, I suggested, if possible, finding a different parish in another jurisdiction such as the OCA, the Russian Church Abroad, or the Antiochians, because, sadly, the mission of the Greek Archdiocese seems to be more about preserving Hellenism among Greek-Americans than bringing people to Christ.

I do not want to turn our discussion into a debate, which I fear maybe happening. I was offering my thoughts on the issues raised.

As people may have guessed, I am very keen on the writings of Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos and Father John Romanides, whom I think are the best theologians of the later 20th century. Their writings helped me to understand that Orthodoxy is more than moral and canonical laws or liturgical practices to be adheared to, but a system for healing the human soul of sin and perfecting man into an image of Christ. Sin is a symptom of the soul's sickness. Theology, moral principles, ascetism, prayer, liturgical worship, etc. all exist for this purpose-healing and perfecting. If we ourselves are not engaged in healing and perfecting ourselves, we really cannot help others. If we do not have the spirit of peace, which are the fruits of this struggle, we will not save others. The problem today, is despite many of the wonderful things happening, many are unaware of this principle. You can make circular arguments like, "the Bible is the word of God." They will ask why, you can answer, "because Jesus is God incarnate and revealed it." They will say, "so what? what is your proof". You can answer, "because the Bible says so." Then they will ask, "so what if the Bible says so!" Then you can say, "well the Bible is the word of God." I have read Plato's dialogues, which logically try to proove his points, but I find myself much more inspired by the examples set forth in the novels of Dostoevsky or the Lives of the Saints. If more Orthodox parishes in America saw themselves as spiritual hospitals, rather than ethnic clubs on the one hand, and fortresses of correctness on the other, we really would make a stronger impact on society.

As far as rebuking people of their sins, I know from my own experience (especially coming from the south), being screamed at and told how evil I am because of my sins, only makes me angry. Yet, I meet pious Orthodox Christians, in America or Russia or Greece and see how they live and their kindness and love for me, I am rebuked in a much more powerful way. I want to repent, I want to imitate them, I want to be healed and perfected because I see the life I could have rather than the one I live now, because of my sins and their consequences.

So, rather than thinking about, how to fill our churches, I think it better to think how we can better make our parishes centers for spiritual healing and perfection, by offering more liturgical services in their full and correct form, by offering more of the mysteries, and by making the people that are their a loving familial community. If such a type of people are formed in such a type of parish, they will attract others, sick with sin and seeking their own healing and perfection.

All these things we complain about, secularism, homosexuality, abortions, etc. are all symptoms. Fighting the symptoms may temporarily solve things but in the long run, if people are now pursuing their own purification, illumination, and deification, the sickness will not be healed and will manifest themselves in another way. The same goes for the Church. Some feel by leaving the WCC, returning to the Julian Calendar, and imposing a more traditional typicon on communities, will solve the churches problems. Again, if we are not pursuing purification (healing), illumination, and deification, while we may temporarly solve the symptom, the sickness will manifest itself in some other way.

Again, I am not trying to proove anybody wrong or boost myself as some sort of theologian. Living in an Orthodox country, as I am now, has only helped me realize how far I am from this path of healing and perfection. If you think what I am writing is so horrible, feel free to request the administrator to ban me.

[Edward Henderson]

Here is a short text by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos from "Illness and Cure of the Soul" on the difference between Orthodox theology and philosophy.

Orthodox theology is, first and foremost, experience, Revelation. God reveals Himself to those worthy of this revelation. And those who have other gifts as well become theologians in the Church. St. Gregory the Theologian has said epigrammatically that the Fathers of the Church do not theologize in the manner of Aristotle but in that of the Apostles. This means that they do not theologize rationally, but in the manner the holy Apostles, who were fishermen, theologized. Yet, when they received the Holy Spirit they were proved to be the real theologians of the Church. Theology, therefore, is experience.

It is precisely this point which shows the difference existing between philosophy and theology. Philosophy is an offspring of man's intellect -that is, intellect and reasoning define the expression and formulation of concepts; conversely, theology is a fruit of God's Revelation to man's pure heart. First the heart receives the Revelation and then reason formulates it. This difference is characteristically seen in a passage of the Prophet Isaiah and in the interpretation which St.John Chrysostom offers. The Prophet Isaiah writes: "Behold the master Lord Savaoth shall take away from Judaea and from Jerusalem, him and her who is powerful...the judge and the prophet and the thinker" (Is. 3,1-2). Here a clear distinction is made between the prophet and the thinker. St.John Chrysostom says: "a thinker speculates on the future out of his great wisdom and personal experience". And he goes on to say that speculation is one thing and prophesy is another. The Prophet speaks in the Holy Spirit "contributing nothing of his own"; whereas the thinker employs his own understanding. Thus there is a great difference between the Prophet and the thinker, "as much difference there is between human wisdom and divine grace". In the language of the Holy Scripture the Prophet and the theologian are identified. It is obvious then that there is a huge difference between a theologian and a philosopher, and therefore, between theology and philosophy. Although they studied the philosophy of their age, the Fathers of the Church followed, nevertheless, a different method to acquire the knowledge of God. And this method has been the hesychastic one.

A characteristic distinction between the heretics and the Orthodox was and still is that the heretics used philosophy to expound on matters of faith, whereas the Holy Fathers used the Revelation, which is a result of hesychia with all its importance. If we diligently study ecclesiastical history, we shall clearly see that in the ecclesiastical domain there have always been these two traditions. One tradition was philosophical. It was based on the intellect and was expressed by all the heretics, who attempted to interpret God with their intellect. The other tradition was hesychastic and the holy Fathers are included in it.

Let us take a simple example. The heretics always attempted to solve the problem of how God, being one, is simultaneously three. This was incomprehensible for philosophy. Therefore, in his attempt to solve this question Sabellios speaks of one God with three modes of manifestation; that is the same God appears as the Father in the Old Testament, as the Son in the New Testament and as the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. In this way however he abolished the personal mode of existence of each Person of the Holy Trinity. The Holy Fathers had the revelation and the experience that God is one, but also trinity. And they expressed this experience employing the terms the heretics used, after first cleansing them and giving them another content. Moreover they used apophatic language to demonstrate the incapability of the mind to understand and express God. This apophatic theology is the "Golgotha" and the "cross" of human knowledge, but also of human reason.

In speaking of how God is one and Triune St.Maximos the Confessor says: "God is divided, but indivisibly...and He is united dividedly." And he concludes: "for this reason both division and union are a paradox". St.Thalassios also writes the same thing: "the monad moving up to a triad, remains a monad; and the triad brought again up to a monad, remains a triad; which is a paradox". How can such a revelation be formulated philosophically and be understood intellectually? Philosophical terms may be used for its formulation but, still, it cannot be understood intellectually. The Fathers once again have humiliated human reason and transcended philosophy by means of apophatic theology and apophatic expressions. St.Gregory the Theologian characteristically says: "it is impossible to express God and even more impossible to conceive Him". After such a statement how could it be possible for man to express and conceive God? There is no place here for any dialectical speculation. St.Gregory Palamas teaches that we cannot have dialectical speculations about God but only demonstrative principles, received by revelation. All the Holy Fathers criticize the philosophy of their time and reject it. St.Basil the Great denies philosophy and cries for the time he spent to acquire worldly wisdom.

What you previously mentioned about the term "person" is true. The Holy Fathers adopted it, gave it an ontology and identified it with the term "hypostasis", and naturally with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yet, by doing this they did not philosophise, nor did they encourage philosophy. Moreover, this example reveals the incapability of philosophy to interpret God. Another vantage point was necessary for this to be done. The Holy Fathers -it must again be clarified- did not work philosophically, thinking of themselves as philosophers, but had experience and subsequently expressed it in terms of their time, which they loaded with a new life. And they did this not because it was needed for faith, but because the heretics had appeared, who were trying to alter faith.

Early Christians knew well that in the Old Testament there is the revealed God (Yahweh), who is the pre-incarnate Word, and the hidden God (Elohim). They also experienced the presence of the All-Holy Spirit. There was no confusion. In his journey to Damascus, the Apostle Paul received the great revelation that the God of the Old Testament is Jesus, and thus, being in theoria, he identified Yahweh of the Old Testament with Christ, whom he was persecuting. Later though the Gnostics maintained that the manifested God of the Old Testament, Who created the world, is a lower God. In order to reject these heretical teachings, the Monarchians came to support that there is no superior and lower God; God is one, of one essence and one hypostasis. In that case, to respond to the heretics, who formulated such a teaching based on their reason, the Holy Fathers said that God is of one essence and three hypostases -three persons. They did not do so because they wanted to advance the philosophy of their age, or because they were philosophers, but because as theologians they wanted to avert the great temptation lurking in philosophy. In this way they responded to philosophy. They were not philosophers, just as they were not psychologists or sociologists or even ethicologists, etc. They were Fathers of the Church, true shepherds, who pastored theologically and theologized pastorally.

[Herman Blaydoe]

We are commanded to be perfect by Jesus. How can one reach perfection if we tolerate incompetence, ignorance, and just plain laziness.

Well we start by fixing ourselves before we go about fixing everybody else. Something about logs and motes? You will NOT EVER "reach perfection" by trying to create it anywhere but in YOURSELF.

Just a thought.

[Owen Jones]

Mr. Vlachos is right about the Church, wrong about philosophy. He is using philosophy as a straw man to knock down in order to raise up theology, which is an unnecessary defensiveness. as well as simply inaccurate. Also, the whole range of Greek philosophical traditions is wide and deep, and can hardly be lumped together any more than one can lump together Buddhism and Christianity because they both have theologies. Finally, it ignores the admitted influence of philosophy on theological reasoning, which, for the East, is largely Platonic. I think one could argue much more persuasively that the foundation of Eastern theology is Plato, and the foundation of Scholasticism in the West is Aristotle. That difference is probably more influential than anything.

[Owen Jones]

I think Irene has quoted from de profundus (psalm 130 in the KJV).

Regarding Mr. Dunn, I don't disagree with anything he has said, but the primary method of evangelism for an Orthodox Christian is asceticism and self-denial, historically represented for the most part through monasticism, and this can and should include peripatetic preaching and teaching but which is a special charism that most of us botch when we try to go out and proselytize. We think becoming Orthodox is like becoming a protestant, only with different intellectual content, e.g. where do you stand on the ever-virginity of Mary? But it's not like that.

St. BAsil is a great example of a person who responded to contemporary social issues, and there were Christians who passionately and coherently preached against the Roman Circus. But they were grounded in asceticism and had "earned" the right to speak, so to speak. The way to chnage the world is to withdraw from the world.

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Mr. Wheeler,

You wrote:


We are commanded by Jesus to be perfect. How can one reach perfection if we tolerate incompetence, ignorance, and just plain laziness."

I am a married man; my wife would be one of the first to tell you that I have problems, a I could testify about her. However, regardless of how much it may gall either of us , it's not either of our jobs as husband or wife, to "fix" the other. As St. Paul wrote to the Philippians, each of us must , "work out our own salvation, with fear and trembling." Who are we to condemn God's servant to God's face! The best sermon or rebuke any of us will ever utter is the life we live!!! Remember Lot in Sodom?

The things you observed in Tarpon Springs, did you observe them as a member of the Greek parish there, did you bring them to the attention of the parish priest, and if so was it with a spirit of anger or humility? Again, was it your place to make the correction? Although this will sound harsh, it comes to mind from my Protestant days: Who died, and appointed you junior holy spirit?

You also wrote: "I thought one teaches by example." Preciously, sir! I work in one of the most vile enviroments on the face of the earth; but, they did not hire me to preach about the wickedness of what goes on around me. By the mercy and grace of God, I live the best Orthodox christian life I can, and if someone asks me a reason for the hope within me, then I answer appropriately. Besides the obviously sinful things you mentioned (which you obviously know are in the pages of Holy Scripture), what about anger, wrath, malice, slander, jealousy, selfish ambition and abusive speech? Has your actions caused someone watching you to stumble? Can you honestly say that your anger is the righteous indignation of God, or is it a product from your own reasoning?

You wrote also: Does human reasoning trump the teaching of what(is)the plain meaning of Scripture." This one is obvious: No one interprets the Scriptures without them being in the context of the Church , or apart from Holy Tradition -the other half of the interpretation coin. It just isn't done!!!

As to the efficacy of your last paragraph, you might want to check the Monachos archives, for several here, and one reposed in the Lord, have debated that issue with Owen.

Not one of the Old Testament type prophets ever launched out in a diatribe of condemnation in the spirit of anger you seem to portray, not even St. John the Forerunner when he condemned Herod "to his face.

Many years ago I lay in a hospital bed recovering from a motorcycle wreck, which sent my lungs into shock. I was more than surprised to see a tin of chocolate chip cookies from a girl at the University I was attending. My only contact with her was, after watching her and her brother for some time, I approached her and spoke to her about how not unlike all the other students, God was watching her, and she needed to please Him. I never said anything else to her.

Righteous indignation is great, if it's righteous indignation!

the sinful and unworthy servant

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

To get back to Mr. Wheeler's questions about finding the perfection of Christ amidst an imperfect world. Very good answers have already been given to this in the different posts.

But there is a quote from Metropolitan Ierotheos Vlachos above which also gets to the heart of the matter. "Moreover they used apophatic language to demonstrate the incapability of the mind to understand and express God. This apophatic theology is the "Golgotha" and the "cross" of human knowledge, but also of human reason." Pride not only creeps into our minds but also into every aspect of what we are as humans. It tries to turn theology into an intellectual exercise, the struggle for holiness into moralism, asceticism into legalism. What can we say about this? Pride will try to make every talent given us by God into thinking and acting as if this is MY possession. Then we will launch into various 'crusades' to 'save the world' none of which will accomplish anything of a godly nature which gives peace to the hearts of men.

The only thing we have to offer to others and to build up the Body of the Church is what Christ already gives us. And as said above in the quote, this can only come to the extent that we die to ourselves and begin the struggle of crucifying that which is selfish within ourselves.

Anything else: all of the correct services, English parishes, proper adminstration,etc will be empty husks of wheat, & detached from the struggle in Christ they will seem good on the outside while being empty inside. In fact in this sense these things are very dangerous to attain as anyone who has gone through the experience of "a very successful parish" can tell you. Frequently, darker things never dealt with lurk below the surface, and then spring forth in a few years, almost destroying a parish community.

It is better then to see how profitable it is for us to meet with some degree of imperfection in the place that God puts us. There is the story of St Pachomios & the brethren who built a church- when finished it looked splendid & the brethren asked St Pachomios if it was suitable. To this St Pachomios told the brethren to attach a rope to one of the pillars & pull it out of alignment. It is indeed a subtle temptation, part of the spirit of our present culture, to see our task as being "let's fix everything." It is much better, if you see the church floor needs cleaning, to simply get a broom and humbly start sweeping, without letting one hand knowing what the other is doing. While doing this one could be silently praying for others or doing the Jesus Prayer.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

The reasons I joined the Orthodox Church was that through its patristic heritage it has stayed close to the unadulterated Christian Tradition. I don’t believe in Papal infaliblity, and I believe the Orthodox stand on the Filoque. But now since I have seen this site and actual practice within the Orthodox Church, it is making me question why I joined in the first place.

What I see is that you are promoting “Gnosticism” in a sense here. In the Catholic Encyclopedia, in the article of Gnosticism, pg 525, “The God of the Gnostics is often described as …unknown God…” Just like on this website you say God is unknowable. “…the nonexistent God…” Just like on this website you say that God is beyond existence. These and other statements on this website sound eerily like Gnosticism. Many times you emphasize the “the mysteries of God”. Well, Gnosticism also promoted this that God is mysterious. Your “Orthodox Theology” sounds a lot like Gnosticism. Gnosticism is an Eastern heresy.

Second, you say we must withdraw from the world, that is also Gnosticism. From the Catholic Encyclopedia, pg 526, “…the Gnostics considered themselves withdrawn from the domain of the world and its powers. Their true life was the divine life of the spark of Pneuma within them”. This sounds exactly what you are telling me!!

Third, one can see the difference between Catholic thinking and Orthodox thinking.

Metropolitan Vlachos writes:


"Orthodox theology is, first and foremost, experience, Revelation."

Sorry to say that I was trained in Western philosophy and grew up in a Western World. No Western man would say Theology is experience and Revelation because that is not the definition of Theology. Theology is the combination of two Greek Words "Theos" meaning God and Logos meaning “reasoning” or "study". The English word reasoning corresponds to the Greek word “Logismos”. Theology transliterated is “the study of God”. It is the application of reasoning and rationality of logismos to God and to Divine Revelation. Theology is not an experience.

To say that Theology is Experience and revelation is Gnosticism. Gnosticism was a personal experience of God. A personal knowledge delivered to them making them elitists and all the rest—uninitiated.

To say “a rational study of God and the Scriptures” is an experience and revelation is somehow comporting that this is some kind of female intuition. Females operate on feelings and emotion and intuition. This is not masculine thought patterns.

The other important point in the study of Classicism is that one sees the big picture. What does Herodutus write about?

He writes of the clash between East and West. There is a cosmic battle going on between the East and the West; between the feminine and the masculine; between the feelings/emotions and the reasoning. The Greeks were different from the rest of the World. They knew that. The Greeks were the founders of rational thought. It was Socrates that split philosophy from religion. It was Socrates that defined masculine thought patterns. Plato and Aristotle continued the work of Socrates.

If Xerxes won, the fledgling West would have been snuffed out. The Western World, the Western mind would have died right there. There would have been no Socrates, no Plato and no Aristotle. The devil had to destroy the West. The feminine had to destroy the masculine. The West is the enemy of the devil. It had to be destroyed at birth just like Jesus had to be destroyed at birth.

What you practice here is the destruction of Western culture and Western thinking. You promote mysticism which is an enemy of reasoning.

To see that definition of Theology is not Western but Eastern. That is not the definition of Theology. What the Metropolitan is doing is adding and syncretizing all sorts of incompatible predicates to a subject that doesn’t have those meanings. Socrates fought against the changing of words, that language is free from rules and we can make it up as we go along. What the Metropolitan is doing is changing the meaning of words and ideas and planting foreign eastern concepts. Knowingly or unknowingly this man is just mixing things together and making it up as he goes along not being precise; not following any standards. You can’t mix oil and water. You can’t mix different things together that have no essential similarity. Protestants talk of having a “personal relationship with God”. But this “Personal relationship” is not Theology. “Experience” is one thing but is not theology. Socrates said in order to speak the truth one must live the truth. But truth and living are different things. You are confusing acts and potentialities together. Truth is synonymous with goodness. One is good; one can do the truth but doesn’t necessarily mean that one can definitely think the truth. Your thought processes at arriving at conclusions is leading to fallacious conclusions.

This is what happens when you take up Eastern/Hebrew thought. God said, “My people will be called by a new name”. God went to a different culture; a different people, a different way of doing things; a new covenant. The Jewish temple was destroyed and everything with it. You can not mix Hebrew with Greek. By destroying the temple, God changed everything.

Jesus said, You can not pour new wine into old wine skins. The new wine of Christianity can not be poured into old wine skins of Judiasm!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Sometimes people are in the Church simply because they feel the peace and love of God there. This is so even though their words and behaviour seem to reject this very peace & love. It is like the tormented man in the graveyard-one part of him hungered for peace while the other rattled the chains of chaos. To heal people sometimes it is better to focus on their pain & to pray for them rather than be taken in by the chaos.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Martin]

Mr. Wheeler,

I pray that you will stop pretending that you understand the orthodox. You have yet to try. Your last post made totally clear, finally, that you condemnation of "orthodoxy" is a condemnation only of your misunderstanding of orthodoxy, and doesn't have anything to do with real orthodox thought.


"Theology is not an experience."

This cannot be said if you read the fathers. The idea that theology is experience is not Gnostic. You couldn't make this claim if you really understood Gnosticism. That God is "mysterious" is not Gnostic. If anything, Gnostic cults tried their hardest to make God less mysterious by developing complex mythologies that explained exactly how the Divine One exists. Don't take an uninformed understanding of orthodoxy and pit it with an uninformed understanding of Gnosticism and the insist to the whole world that they are the same thing.


"To say “a rational study of God and the Scriptures” is an experience and revelation is somehow comporting that this is some kind of female intuition. Females operate on feelings and emotion and intuition. This is not masculine thought patterns."

This sexist nonsense is again irrelevant, because you set out categories that just don't exist. You seem to think that your confused an incorrect definition of "rational" Western analysis must be totally different from your confused and incorrect definition of "mystical and mysterious" Eastern thought. To me, this only shows that you don't understand either of them, despite your continuous I-have-the-last-word-because-I-say-so posts. Your cut-and-dry perception of what "Western philosophy" and "Western man" would say is entirely off base. Western theologians have said that "Theology is experience and Revelation" (Leo... Tertullian... Augustine...).

You don't understand classicism, or the West, or Western thought. You continually batter us here with charges that "Eastern mysticism" runs counter to "Western thought". It has finally become obvious that you have absolutely no understanding of what Western thought is, because you spend all your breath yelling at us about how we bastardize a vision of "the West" and the way the West thinks that good scholars ahve spent the last 100 years trying to show is inaccurate. You don't understand classical philosophy, no matter how much exposure you may have had to it. Platonism, Stoicism, even Epicurianism have more appreciation for real mystery (not your pretend definitions of "mystery", which are just veiled versions of ignorance) than you ever give them credit for.


"This is what happens when you take up Eastern/Hebrew thought."

This is an ignorant remark. No one who actually understands Eastern thought would equate it to "Hebrew thought" like this. Ths remark only makes very clear that you don't understand either what Hebrew thought is about, or what "Eastern" thought is.

Mr. Wheeler, you come here and scold us for upholding categories that you invent and insist we all subscribe to. Not any single post you've made here has ever evidenced any actual understanding of orthodoxy, only your desire to berate and attack a very distorted fiction you think orthodoxy is. If you ever want to know what orthodox thought is, what the actual classical tradition is, what real Western thought is, you just have to ask or open a real discussion. God knows we'd all be happy to hear you on it. But if you're just here to burn a straw man you've built for yourself, and somehow make us all out to be part of it, please just leave us in peace.

--Martin

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

Just like you Martin who berate and attack Roman Catholicism.

It is alright for you to attack Western culture and Roman Catholicism but when your own medicine is turned upon Orthodoxy, you can't take it.

You can dish it out but you can't take it can you?

[Irene]

Dear Mr Wheeler,

Irene: (I have said) most of my favourite people in this world are not Orthodox (my family/friends), they are good and kind and honest. There was a period of my life that I wanted to go back to belonging to the Church of my ancestors or even the Church of my friends and I have been in those Churches for different reasons since then (I did not join in the worship) but the other Churches felt empty and I knew with all that is within me that I am Orthodox and can never go back. There are plenty of things that disturb me about the people of the Church, but we are all just human and subject to the irritating little demonic voices/thoughts in our heads that can disturb us and cause us to question and want to give up the true Church.

I had a horrendous few years and did stop coming to Church for a time, I have felt very alone and felt that everyone had turned their backs on me. I have since found out that many people never stopped praying for me.

I was very lucky to have a short time of talking with Father Averky before his repose who guessed or was divinely inspired to know the whole truth of what was disturbing me.

There was a period of time in my life I almost wished that I could tie up or handcuff an alcoholic person to stop them from their horrible self destructive behaviour. And practically wanted to shake others until they could see the truth - I have learnt that my feelings although I wanted the right things for others were coming from feelings of disturbance and where there is disturbance there is not God because God is peace.

One of the people I have wanted to shake or tie up goes out drinking and preaches Orthodoxy angrily in bars. Still does, so wrong, so sad.

With all my heart I believe that you will find the truth if you stop talking and instead be still, pray fervently and listen and wait for the answers to what disturbs you. I think your heart is good and you want to be active in helping people spiritually.

Always show love and kindness, bear the good fruit that will make others crave to learn the secrets of your peace. Show others by example....Irene

Quote from the Reposed Father Averky:


(see below)) ....I have been Orthodox many years, and was a Roman Catholic ......... Perhaps you might ask yourselves what it was that attracted you to Orthodoxy in the first place? Was it some sense of something lacking in your former Church? Did you have personal issues with its general structure and discipline, the theology, moral views, teaching authority, or world view and belief system? Did you have personal issues with your local pastor or congregation or did you feel simply uncomfortable?

W. Lindsay Wheeler:


"The reasons I joined the Orthodox Church was that through its patristic heritage it has stayed close to the unadulterated Christian Tradition. I don’t believe in Papal infaliblity, and I believe the Orthodox stand on the Filoque. But now since I have seen this site and actual practice within the Orthodox Church, it is making me question why I joined in the first place.

Father Averky:


Our Divine Services are all based on the truths of the Holy Scripture -the words of the Prophets, the Laws of God given to Moses, man's anguish as seen in the Psalms. The Holy Gospels and Epistles are read, and the verses of the Divines clearly articulate the teachings of the Church by men inspired by the Holy Spirit, ....

When you came into the Orthodox Church, you "put on Christ," dying to the "old man," desiring to be the new. Christ said that if we are to follow Him, we must take up our cross -we must struggle against sin and the passions, but we have the firm assurance of a loving and merciful God, who "desires not the death of a sinner, but that he be converted and live." if you wish to be a partaker of Christ's Divine nature, and be fed with the bread of the Life, if you want to counted with the Prophets and Martyrs, Fathers, Mothers and Saints and simple folk of Christ's Holy Church, then Orthodoxy is for you -the choice is yours, you are free

In Christ, Hieromonk Averky

Father Averky's msg from...Thread: Posted on Monday, 21 April, 2003 - 9:40 am: Convert with difficulty adjusting see also Thread "The Duty to Convert" Rev. Hieromonk A. Post No:74 16 April, 2003 - 9:27 am: For Father's conversion story.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Thank you Martin for putting my own thoughts to words, and thank you Mr. Wheeler, in your continuing efforts to teach us what you think we believe, for your lesson in PeeWee Herman theology.

[John Curtis Dunn]

Owen Jones wrote:


"Regarding Mr. Dunn, I don't disagree with anything he has said, but the primary method of evangelism for an Orthodox Christian is asceticism and self-denial, historically represented for the most part through monasticism, and this can and should include peripatetic preaching and teaching but which is a special charism that most of us botch when we try to go out and proselytize."

The Apostle Paul said, "How then sall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feat of them that preach the Gospel of Peace, and bring glad things of God thing!" Rom 10:13-17

What must be pointed out is that the Spirit of Christ blessed the feet of them that preach the Gospel to those who have not heard. Nowhere in any of his Epistles did the Apostle relegate this task to monastaries. Indeed, in his general Epistle to the Ephesians the Apostle describes how an Orthodox Christian is to be dressed and in keeping with his epistle to the Romans he writes: "And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace." Eph. 6:15

Asceticism and self-denial are not methods of evangelism. The primary necessity is being filled with the Holy Spirit and that does not belong to monastics alone. Practicing asceticism and self-denial can release us from the entanglements of the world even those which are not sinful in and of themselves.

Bishop Augoustinos (N. Kantiotes) of Florina, Greece has labored hard to train laymen to be evangelist. He has explained, "The Apostles are models of faith, virtue, and missionary activity for every century; they call on us to imitate them through the voice of Paul: "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ" (I Cor. 11:1)

Certainly it is true as St. John Chrysostom preached to his own flock, "Not one idolater would exist if we were Christians, as our mission imposes..." [Homily X on I Tim.] But he also berates them saying, "If we all imitated Paul, how many from the wole world would we be able to lead to Christ? But now, how do we lead them? Idolaters see us possessed of the same desires that possess them. We want to rule and have authority. We want to be honored and glorified. How do they marvel at Christianity? They see reprehensible lives, sinful examples, earthly souls. We are in awe of money like them, or much more. We fear death like them. We tremble at the mention of it. We also fear deprivation of material things. Likewise we wory about our own weaknesses. The desire for vainglory burns us as it does them. "

St John goes on pointing out further ways in which Christians were living like their neighbors. My, if he spoke to them in such a manner, what would he have to say to us today? Bishop Augoustinos noted that "fifty years ago, Christians comprised 35 percent of the earth's population. Today, the number has diminished, and within a little time will be 20 percent ~~ a terrible fact, worthy of lament." He also notes that "In the opinion of many, only those inept or "unlucky" in life resort to religious service. Clever and energetic youth are encouraed to pursue other professions to glorify the family name and make money! Missionaries! One young man in thousands of students who vibrantly declares his desire to study the holy science for missionary purposes [I]will get no support from friends or family."; and so it seems also from their own parish.

Bishop Augoustinos laments with St. John Chrysostom that many of the best gifted Christians are lured to the Mountains of monasticism under impious pretense. St. John said, "If one were to ask him the reason for his departure, he will start giving excuses. But his excuses contain pardon. For what does he say? "That I, too, not be destroyed, that I not be drawn into the wave of evil, that my spirituality and virtue not be diminished. I therefore abandon the world and flee to the mountains." However, would it not be better to lose something of your spirituality that others may gain some, instead of fleeing and seeing your brothers being lost from afar? So, when some are indifferent to virtue and others who are zealous and concerned for virtue flee far from the crowd, far from the holy war being waged in the world, I ask you how will we conquer the enemies of faith and virtue?"

Owen is quite learned in matters of related to philosophy, especially that of Plato, but if he had simply stopped his studies early on because he feared he would botch a lesson, how would he have ever learned?

I am not meaning to critique Owen or anyone else; but Orthodoxy is not in a healthy way when it comes to laboring in the harvest.

rdr. john dunn

[Martin]

Mr. Wheeler said:


"Just like you Martin who berate and attack Roman Catholicism. It is alright for you to attack Western culture and Roman Catholicism but when your own medicine is turned upon Orthodoxy, you can't take it. You can dish it out but you can't take it can you?"

Actually, sir, I've never said a single thing here, or anywhere, else, against Roman Catholicism or Western culture. I've only said that you don't understand either of them, which is true. But that's exactly your strategy in this an in other groups: tell us what you think we believe, misrepresent the groups we supposedly hate, then attack us for "attacking" them!

People here actually understand classicism. Many people here have written stirring messages showing its great value to orthodox thought and living. Many people here have written stirring words about the West, and these are words from people who understand what Western culture is.

As I and other people have already said: if you want to converse and perhaps even learn what orthodoxy, Western culture and classicism really are about, everyone here is open to that. But if you're just going to continue to arrogantly pontificate about why your misunderstanding of our faith is lax and sinister in the face of your misunderstanding of Western culture, please just leave us be.

--Martin

[Edward Henderson]

Dear Mr. Wheeler,

I think it is sad to say, you have classic convertitus. Your constant attacks on people who are here to share ideas rather than debate and boost their intellectual powers to each other, is simply hateful. As converts, we should come to the Church to be taught, not teach. To attack Metropolitan Hierotheos is simply impious. Perhaps if you read his works, you could see what this man has to offer the Church. He is the fruit of an Orthodox Christian upbringing, a well respected theologian, an experienced monastic, a pastoral shepherd to his flock in Nafpatkos, a confessing hierarch in the Church of Greece, and a good Christian. I know I cannot match that, can you? People like you, who find themselves to be too good for the Church, find themselves apostasizing or falling into schism.

As for your critique of the Metropolitan's writings. Yes, theology does mean study of God and no one is against reading the Bible and thinking. But what is the purpose of studying God, as to study any other subject? It is to understand God, to know God. What the Metropolitan is saying is that we come to know God through our experience of living the Christian life. The Prophets and Apostles did not go to seminary or university (if fact some were probably illiterate), their knowledge of God came from revelation and experience- that was their education. So, if indeed, we wish to study God, our curriculum should be repentance, prayer, fasting and struggling to purify ourselves and be healed. If we do this, God will reveal Himself to our hearts (Blessed are the pure in Heart, for they shall see God) and we will begin to know, to understand God, which ofcourse is theology- the knowledge of God.

I have read Plato, and there are great things there, but Socrates also said, 'the only thing I know is that I know nothing.' Secondly, it is ironic that while you condemn the Orthodox for not trying to ban homosexuality from college campuses, you exult a man who taught that the highest form of love was homosexual pedophilia!

[Moses Anthony]

Mr. Wheeler,

I am by no means a philosopher, or historian; however, i have studied enough of church history to know that due to the pressures of a split empire, education (spiritual or otherwise) developed along very different lines in the East and West. This is just part of what culminated in the schism of 1054, from which the Western Church became what is known today as Roman Catholicism. This is something which cannot be denied! Nor can it be denied that the Church greatly influenced the culture of both the East and West. Let me point out, there were heretics in both places. If in fact you joined -and if you will permit me to parse some frog hair; one does not join Orthodoxy, one is received into the church. To join insinuates that the action of communion is based upon some individual standard which has been met- the Orthodox church for the reason stated, what happened? You were obviously either mistaken then, or now.

You show by your statement that "you cannot mix Hebrew with Greek. By destroying the Temple God changed everything..." , you do not understand, or have mis-read Orthodox history. From the very beginning terminology and practices of the Liturgy were then, and is now , influenced by the worship of the Temple. Furthermore, it has been the S.O.P of Orthodoxy to take into itself those things of the surrounding culture, which were not against Orthodox teaching. If you do not believe this, then study the history of Orthodoxy in America, particularly Alaska.

If as you assert, Orthodoxy is promoting a form of Gnosticism by saying that God is beyond existence, I dare you, to explain beyond a reasonable doubt God, if in fact He's constrained by the constraints of time and space. Oh the height of the folly of man's foolish pride!!

As far as the Orthodox are concerned, you are wrong about the definition of theology. Granted not everything from the schools of the West is heresy, however it is in Eastern Orthodoxy that the correct understanding of theology is approached. Is not that the reason you stated in the very beginning, for your joining the Orthodox Church. Oh, I babble like a madman!

I remember once on the streets of Taichung, Taiwan I tossed the artifacts of my religion onto the street, before an airman and said, "You live your life as you say, and I'll live as I believe. Then when we both come before the judgement seat of God, we will see who is right."

If you are so disgusted by the conversation here, the interpretation of Classicism, the heretical teachings, why stay, why read the posts, why remain Orthodox, go and follow truth as you interpret it, in the guise of Western Classicism and not Eastern Orthodoxy! AAGGHHHHH!

We know that the Truth of the Word of God is a firery sword, it cuts going in and coming out. But being a flame, after it has excised the cancer, it closes the wound and heals the soul! may the Word of god Himself, satisfy and heal your soul!

the sinful and unworthy servant

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

When one reads the ancient Greeks especially starting with Homer, one sees the necessity of proving oneself. One does not stand up say &#34;I&#39;m the leader, everyone must now follow me&#34;. In the Greek stories and myths, <u>man must prove his worth</u>.

God proved to the Hebrew nations that he is worthy to be God. He parted the Sea; He drawed them from the hand of the Pharaoh. God proved his power.

Same thing in the New Testament, John the Baptist sent his friends to ask Jesus if he was the one. Jesus only replied with &#34;acts&#34;. The lame walk, the blind see. These &#34;acts&#34; were proof of Jesus&#39;s ministry. Even St. Paul said, we are not to believe in Jesus if he did not raise from the dead. The PROOF is in the resurrection. We follow Jesus is because HE PROVED THAT HE IS WORTHY OF SUCH OBEDIENCE AND WORSHIP.

In Greek society, on the football field, on the battlefield, in the test exam, one proves his worth. One proves his expertise. One proves. God proves his love. God proves his expertise to be followed.

Those standards are my standards. A previous poster says &#34;You are to come to the church to be taught, not teach&#34;. Well, my question to the church is PROVE your capablity to teach me.

What are the examples, What are the &#34;acts&#34; that say we are competent, qualified, knowledgeable, prudent, righteous in our preaching and evangelization?

I moved to the Orthodox church because of the intellectual proofs of its authority to conserving Christian tradition. But these were <u>proofs</u> of its ability to teach. But in other areas, I see no proofs of its competency. That is my problem. What I do see is a great amount of fallen away, lax Orthodox Christians. What does this tell me? Right now, in my situation, I can not give allegiance to someone, I can not give obedience to someone, I can not follow someone, who can not prove their capability, their competence in actual acts in reality. The Proof is in the Pudding.

So before I get banned from this website and I have been warned, Can someone out there point to another Orthodox website where I may air and post observations, my concerns, where there is possilibilities of airing problems and criticisms for the hope of solving them coming to resolution and hopeful correction of said problems. I will go there. Because I am noticing a trend where the two other Orthodox websites and this website and in general Orthodoxy doesn&#39;t and will not accept no and any criticism of its positions, actions, or modalities. It suffers none to critize her and as I see it the young will continue to leave the church in droves.

So can someone point to where I can go?

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

The proofs I seek, is that same as Jesus, &#34;The Lame walk the Blind see&#34;.

In this case, are non-Christians being evangelized--i.e. &#34;the Lame walking&#34;. How good does the Orthodox keep people in the church? How good does the Orthodox keep people informed and motivated to being Christians? How good does the Orthodox in that the children have scripture memorized? How the Orthodox vote is a good sign of how Christian values form their actions in the real world. How the Orthodox vote is a good sign of the impact of preaching from Scripture has on effect on the people and the choices they make!!

The proof is in the pudding. How one chooses is a SIGN of one&#39;s values. How good are the values is the TEST of how good one does in preaching of the word of God.

When One can see 95% attendance, that is pretty good proof.

When One can see that 95% Boys at the age of eighteen can quote the ten commandments, two verses from the Jesus, and two verses from St. Paul, and have a Psalm memorized, that is pretty good proof.

When one sees the Church growing every month, is that not pretty good proof of the grace of God?

When 95% twenty year Old Christian students on a college campus on a Friday and Saturday night at Bible study instead of partying, that is pretty good PROOF that one is competent and capable of forming a Christian.

The Proof is in the pudding.

All I ask is that there is harmony between what is said, and what is actually going on. I want a realization of a truthful analysis of what is going on and that what we are doing now has an effect and what NEEDS to be done. Or are we Emperors with no clothes on?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

My dear friend in Christ,
You wrote:


"So can someone point to where I can go?"

Go to the same place all of us are trying to go. Go to Christ & repent.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

The point of this thread was to point out the importance of philosophy and of reasoning.

The Roman Catholic Church is criticized for using "reasoning" that it is not Theology. It has been pointed out that the "-logos" in Theology does have it in its word.

IV Maccabees 5.31, "...But that my rational powers are youthful in defence of my religion". The word is "logismos". Theology

Here again is a definition of Reasoning.

IV Macc 1.15 "Reasoning (Logismos) is, then intellect accompanied by a life of rectitude, putting formost the consideration of wisdom (sofias logon) [16] And Wisdom (sofia) is a knowledge of divine and human things and their causes."

So Wisdom is defined and reasoning is defined. The word "Theology" doesn't imitate experience or revelation but in the very form of the word imitates reasoning.

Revelation is Revalation. Revelation is not theology. Christian theology studies the "divine revelation". Divine revelation, the Scriptures, is the material cause of Christian theology.

Christian Theology, what I believe the Metropolitan means, needs "inspiration" (revelation) and "Chrisian living" (experience). Inspiration is Inspiration. Inspiration is not Theology. It is a necessary TOOL for good Christian Theology but not Theology in its essence. Reasoning is the essence of Theology.

Same goes for experience. Experience is a TOOL for good Christian Theology. One has to be a good practising Christian to do good Theology.

I suggest that the Metropolitan has good points that are mixed.

Inspiration | | spiritual | | from the Holy Spirit
Theology | | metaphysical/reasoning | | man does
Experience | | physical | | man living the faith; guided by divine revelation

The whole man is engaged in doing theology. To be a good Theologian one must live the faith, one must have a prayer life to recieve inspiration so that one can see things clearly and corectly.

But Theology in the strict sense is rationality. It is reasoning. Good Theology relies on tools of inspiration and Christian living. But Christian living, ie. experience and inspiration ie. revelation is not Theology. And as the writer of Maccabees points out Wisdom is a type of "knowledge".

[Owen Jones]

The Greeks discovered Reason, and it is defined as a particular type of experience of Divine Presence.

This thread was not started for the purpose of a rational discussion of the role of Reason in theology, but to complain about one man&#39;s experience of the Orthodox Church today. If it were posed in the traditional form of a spiritual lament, one might find sympathy, but it seems to be posed more in the form of resentment.

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

I joined the Marine Corps because I wanted to be the best. I didn&#39;t join the Army. I wanted to be the best so I joined the best...and became the best.

If you understand anything about ancient Greek culture and Classicism, it is about being the best. The Greeks did not want seconds or thirds, they want the best, the excellent.

What I am surrounded with is incompetence and what galls me further is this is accompanied by a complacency with incompetence.

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

Jesus said, Mat 5.48, &#34;You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect&#34;.

What does this suggest to you?

[Douglas Barber]

Mat 5:48 suggests to me that to be &#34;perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect&#34;, you would do the human equivalent of making your &#34;sun rise on the evil and the good, and send[ing] rain upon the just and the unjust&#34; &#40;see Mat 5:46&#41;. I don&#39;t see a place for pride &#40;&#34;the few, the proud, the Marines,&#34; &#34;I am surrounded with...incompetence&#34;&#41; in carrying out that prescription.

To read this text in conformity with the Fathers and the mind of the Church, as well as with the plain sense of the text in its context, is to see in it a call to abide in a state of humility, contrition and readiness to offer simple service to others without prejudging their worthiness of receiving your service - no, more strongly, readiness to offer simple service to others convinced in your heart that not one of them could possibly be less worthy than yourself.

[Owen Jones]

To be perfect is to have nothing and to want nothing, to be weak, poor, defenseless, persecuted without complaining, free of all guile, and expectations of others, merciless toward self and merciful toward others, dead to the world and living in a state of inner peace and contemplation of God&#39;s goodness, regardless of circumstances or what is happening around you.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

As has been brought to my attention by multiple personal e-mails and private messages, this thread has become at least un- and probably counter-productive to the intentions and focus of this discussion community. After posting this message, I shall be closing the thread to further posts.

Please always bear in mind our focus as a very particular and specific forum. Acrimonious discussions of the sort which seek to express individual opinion above all else, do have their place; but that place is not here.

With fondness INXC, Matthew