Nature and gender - St John of Damascus

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Monachos community,

Finally I have found a forum where I can ask a question that has been puzzling me for ages and which I can find no direct answer to in the Holy Fathers.

My question concerns the Patristic view of what man is: Patristic anthropology. In St John of Damascus' Fount of Knowledge and Orthodox Faith which is a synthesis of Patristic theology, we find the saint's defintion of person & nature in man: i)person: "Thus, man is divided into Peter and Paul and John and all other individual men...they are individuals, that is to say, hypostases." (p39 Phil Chaps). ii)nature:"...it assures the existence of the species; when absent, the species is destroyed. Also, it is impossible for it and its opposite to be in the same species. Thus, for example, the rational cannot not be in man , because that which is irrational is not man. When it is present, it constitutes the nature of man. Now, one must know that this is called essential, natural, constituent, and distinguishing, and specific difference, essential quality, and natural property of a nature. It is very properly said by the philosophers to be a difference which is presentative of the nature possessing it and most proper to this nature itself."(p.19 Phil Chaps). We now see the difference between person & nature in man; that there could be no true human person without the shared human nature; conversely human nature cannot exist in the abstract; nature is always found within person.

These great theological truths concerning humanity we probably notice are in the image of Trinitarian theology and Christology.

Now for my question: where does gender (male & female) exist in this scheme of nature & person?

First we must answer:1)is gender a result of the Fall or is it intrinsic to God's original creation? "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male & female he created them." (Gen:27) Thus gender is an original aspect of God's creation of man; it is not a result of the Fall (this does not address the issue of physical sexual relations which the Holy Fathers did clearly interpret and which is hotly contested today). So gender is a 'given', it is 'good' as God created it. But question 2) Is gender then an aspect of person or nature? Since persons are each individual how could gender which is common to female & male be an aspect of person? But since gender is two (male & female) how could it be an aspect of that nature common to ALL humanity? (ie humans are not created as hermaphrodites). Any answer suggested I would ask to be given using theological language as already outlined above: ie nature& person- also the Fathers use concepts such as aspect, energy, etc. Also references to writings of the Holy Fathers would be helpful ( I have never been able to find any reference to such a question in St John of Damascus' Orthodox Faith).

In Christ- Fr R

[Rev. Fr. George Morell]

Father, Glory to Jesus Christ! I usually do not post to any groups, I prefer to answer individually so as not to instigate dissension. However I have no other way of answering except through this group. I would like to clarify one of your definitions, with the sole purpose of being of help to you. There is a difference between sex and gender. Sex is the biological aspect of the individual. Gender is the perception the individual has (identification) of the sex that they are. These are two separate things. Gender has psychological and social dimensions. For example,what may be the role of male or female in one society or culture may be different than another. This distinction is important especially considering the issueof sex-gender roles of woman in the Church (& society) today. I believe therefore your question deals with sex. The Church Fathers to my knowledge do not consider the issue of human nature and sex per se. If I may humbly offer you my understanding as a priest and psychologist: A person is an individual, part of the individuality of a person is they human as male or human as female. I believe the Church has alway accepted by implication that human nature has two forms male and female. While not patristic this is nicely summed up:


"The same essentially identical human nature appears in the male and
female sex in two-fold personal form; there are, consequently, male and
female persons. On the other hand, there is no neutral human person
without distinction of sex. Hence follows in the first place, woman's
claim to the possession of full and complete human nature, and thus, to
complete equality in moral value and position as compared with man
before the Creator. It is, therefore, not permissible to take one sex as
the one absolutely perfect and as the standard of value for the other."
(New Advent).

If I find any other information I will be happy to pass it on to you ...In Christ...FrGeorge Morelli

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Fr George,

Thank you very much. No I did not know about the distinction between gender and sexuality as you put it. I was trying somehow to espress the difference between the physical expression and the God created category, but you have certainly given me something to think about. Do you mean that gender is only cultural, maybe 'subjective'?

You also write: "woman's claim to the possession of full and complete human nature, and thus to complete equality in moral value and position as compared with man before the Creator." Very nice! I had not considered before this implication from this starting point.

In Christ- Fr R

[Rebecca]

as a point of clarification and fact, it is only fairly recently that the word "gender" has been used to introduce a distinction between one's physical attributes and one's perception about one's physical attributes. Historically, the word gender referred to grammar.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Rebecca,

Yes, that's correct. When I look in my old Oxford dictionary the primary definition is grammatical. In Orthodox theology it is important to express oneself correctly; so perhaps the question should then go something like: 'does the distinction in human sexuality refer to person or nature?'

I believe that Fr George (and his quote) are saying that sexuality refers to nature "human nature has two forms male & female." Then from the quote: "The same essentially identical human nature appears in two-fold personal form." This would seem to be what the Holy Frs (St John of Damascus) refers to as enhypostaton; ie nature never exists in the abstract; it only truly is in personal form.

Alright; but that brings me back to the first problem. How could one identical human nature be 'two fold'? I am still confused.

Fr R

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Father Raphael,

Father bless.

Forgive me for not having the exact sources here but regarding your original question, one or another of the Capadocians, I believe it was Basil the Great in his Hexaemeron, but I might be wrong on this detail, taught that humans were created in two sexes in foreknowledge of the fall, that God could have, or originally intended to have, I don't remember exactly, but it was that without the fall human's could have procreated as the angels do. The particular Church Father whose teaching this is believed that the angels procreate by myosis (again, I am hazy, it might be that he believed that they did in the begining and no longer do, I am not sure).

So, to reiterate, sex was created so that because man was going to fall to the level of the animal, part of the discipline or punishment would be that they (we) procreate like animals.

Yours in Peace,

Richard H. Leigh

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Richard,

Yes this idea of compensating for the Fall is definitely in the Holy Frs: whether St Basil I also do not remember. Now if God did this it points to his love. Fr George Morell in a private message has pointed out that for St Maximos the Confessor the difference between male & female is a "complementarity of love in the human nature." Perhaps this is a more fruitful tack than person & nature.

Lars Thunberg in Man & the Cosmos describes how St Maximos explains that God created the cosmos with five basic distinctions. These are: 1)between the Uncreated (God) & created 2)between the intelligible (noetic) & sensible 3)between heaven & earth 4)between paradise & the world of men 5)between man & woman. What is crucial to understand is that God created these distinctions as good. Due to sin however these distinctions have become divisions. Salvation thru Christ heals this division (and the other four); Thunberg says; "The masculine and feminine elements are not destined to disappear, only to be subsumed effectively under the principle (logos) of the common human nature."(p. 82)

Looked at from this perspective God's creation of humanity as male & female does not fall strictly into the category of person & nature. The analogy often drawn between the Holy Trinity & humanity solely referring to nature & person 'does not work' in this case. Instead the analogy is rather that of the love between the Persons of the Holy Trinity. This of course has great implications for us and can be applied spiritually & pastorally.

Any comments from others would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps there is still some mistake here or oversight.

In the love of Christ- Fr R

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

I understood the original question to be whether the distinction between human individuals of gender (male or female) is an aspect or characteristic of nature or person.

To use the theological categories as found in the church fathers, nature is what is shared, in a general sense, by all members of a species (not the modern biological meaning of species, but the theological sense). So in terms of the Trinity, because the three Person fully share one nature, they share the one mind and will. That's why in the later heresies that arose in the church over how many wills and minds the Incarnate Son had, the answer was two - since he had two natures, being fully human and fully divine, and since will and mind are aspects of nature, our Lord had both a human will & a divine will, a human mind & a divine mind. Therefore, will and mind are two examples of characteristics or aspects of what constitutes "nature" as such.

"Person" is understood then to indicate that which differentiates one individual in a species from another. So for the Trinity, the Father is one Person and His distinctive characteristic (that has been revealed to us) is that He is unbegotten; the Son is another different Person and He is eternally begotten; the Holy Spirit is the third Person and He proceeds eternally from the Father. Beyond that we have not had revealed to us any characteristics that are unique to these Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. One in essence, undivided, but distinct in three Persons.

Our Lord in His incarnation retained the unity of being one Person, so there was no real conflict between his two wills - the human will was directed by His Person to do all things in perfect harmony with the Divine Will. Did the human will struggle? Certainly, the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, and our Lord's prayer in the garden of Gethsemane, are very clear. It was thru suffering that His human will learned obedience. So again, will and mind are two aspects of nature.

What of gender? I have never seen any discussion or reference in the Fathers regarding whether male/female is an aspect of nature or person. But I would venture to guess that it would fall on the side of nature. It is secondary, in my opinion, WHICH gender an individual is. What is in question is whether gender, as a category, is an aspect of nature or person. There are other general categories that apply to nature, that are similar - other physical characteristics of humans would be whether we are bald, or chubby, or our racial heritage, etc. To use a non-human distinction, it is of the nature of a frog to have the color of green or brown, it is of the nature of a bird to have feathers & wings, etc. These are characteristics of the nature of a bird or frog that for example distinguish them from other created beings.

I do not adhere to the Thomistic/Scholastic analysis of nature and the distinction between essential & accidental characteristics, but I think that thought process can be helpful here.

Don't know if this adds to the discussion, but it is an interesting question, and has helped me sharpen up my thinking about person and nature.

One other point, I have seen in many (way too many!) writers a real confusion with what I believe is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of person, linking it with a modern psychological approach that makes it too much identified with our modern concept of "Personality". I would appreciate if someone can help me get a better handle on what "Person" means, in such a way that it avoids this confusion with psych. "Personality".

Wouldn't it be great if we all knew Greek?! English can be so weak when it comes to theological terminology!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Gilbert,

Thank you for your posting & helpful comments. Yes I am now inclined to see the male/female distinction as an aspect of nature. But referring to St Maximos the Confessor and the 'five distinctions' (previous postings) perhaps it is proper to say that for humanity this distinction of nature plays a unique and special role in terms of love. As man grows in godly love he heals the cosmos thru himself in Christ; thus the distinction of male/female is an aspect of God's overall economia.

I agree about the word 'person' which like so many other words have gradually lost their Orthodox meaning. Theology sometimes has to begin with 'conversion of thought'! A very good book on the subject of person is : The Person in the Orthodox Tradition by Met Hierotheos Vlachos.

In Christ- Fr R

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

I appreciate the quote & info re St. Maximos; it impresses me though as a different way of looking at reality than the first question.

Also I believe that similar to the gender/sex distinction noted earlier by Rev. Father Morrell, there are many issues with the male/female distinction that get "entangled" if you will with the issue(s) of sexuality and marriage etc. Personally I believe that God created the human race or humanity as a species to be seen in its fullest sense by the diversity we see in individuals, including the issues mentioned such as physical characteristics, race, and gender/sex. Humanity in this sense is being viewed in a corporate manner. That is to me one of the meanings in the Genesis story of God providing Adam with a help-mate - Adam had an inherent understanding that he alone was not complete, not just as a person but as humanity. This is of course my personal opinion, and not in any way in my mind creedal etc.

BTW, I just ordered the book you recommended, Light & Life. Looking forward to getting it.

Many thanks!

[Maria McDowell]

Dear Fr. R-V:

Just a note on Maximus the Confessor. Maximus argues that there are five distinction, which he also calls divisions. This is in concert with the argument he put forward. However, Maximus also argues quite clearly that a part of our journey in becoming fully human (deification) is a journey back through the five disctinctions, which restores each one to unity. The distinctions are not necessarily bad, as Thunberg points out, but for Maximus, they do disappear.

Maximus says, "Thus it is shown to be be and becomes simply a human personan in accordance with the divine purspose, no longer divided by being called male or female" (Diff 41, Louth).

He goes on to argue that Christ became "the perfect human being," and despite his male body, "has done aways with the difference and division of nature into male and female...."

Maximus believes that human increase, if there were no fall, would have happened in some manner other than intercourse, thus obviating the need for two sexes. Maximus falls in line with particular readings of Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory the Theologian, both of whom seem to argue at points that in eternity, we will have no sex. While this certainly raises other questions, it implies that sex (and therefore gender) is not an ontological category, it is not a part of my or your nature in the same way our common humanity is, a humanity taken on by Christ in the incarnation. This does not settle the complicated issue of how human nature is always particular, it is always in a body. Nor does it settle how we are formed by our bodies, and how in eternity we maintain the uniqueness of our personalities AND persons, which appear to continue into eternity. But it does, at the very least, question the priority we give to sex (and gender) in the establishing of roles, duties and callings.

Blessings,
Maria

Note: The quote is from Maximos the Confessor, ed. Andrew Louth, Routledge: NY, 1996.

[Maximos Darnley]

On Sunday our reading from Galatians in Commemoration of Righteous Women, in this case St Mary of Egypt, is plain enough. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Maria & Maximos,

Thank you both for your well-thought-out responses to an issue I had almost forgotten about!

In terms of, "there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ" and "restores each one to unity" (reference to Thunberg) I do not believe this means that in Christ the distinction between male & female disappear so much as the sinful opposition. Think of it more simply (a Lenten mind?); we can see that Christ after His ascension is still male, also that the Theotokos is still female and so on with the other saints- indeed this aspect of them seems an intrinsic part of their transfigured being. I would thus see the quote from St Maximos, "no longer divided by being called male or female", as being intended in the same sense of the resolution of antagonisms not distinctions. I am quite sure this is also Thunberg's argument.

The second point about male/female & sexual relationship is also interesting. That sexual intercourse is a kind of compensation for the Fall is a Patristic teaching. But I do not believe that they said that there would have been no gender difference if there had been no Fall. Thus there is a distinction between distinction of gender & sexual relations after the Fall; the former does not neccesitate the latter. Again to say it more simply God created Adam & Eve, "male & female He created them." (Gen 5:2) That which compensates for the Fall I believe is not the creating them male & female but the specific sexual means of reproduction. "The first man was fittingly condemned to a bodily generation that is without choice, material, and subject to death...to bear the dishonourable affinity with the irrational beasts, instead of the divine, utterable honour of being with God." (St Maximos the Confessor- 'On Various Perplexing Topics')

So I would say gender is an aspect of ontological category but not the physically sexual aspect of this. And in an important sense this would point to the teaching of the ascetic fathers as to what virginity & chastity really mean- not a self-destructive 'exercise' but rather the transfiguration of the human personality attaining now in some measure the state of Paradise.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Maria McDowell]

Fr. R - Thanks for your response. Always happy to bring up old issues!

Actually, regarding both of the points, there is no real consensus among the Church Fathers on anthropology. Maximus himself is very clear that the sex of Jesus is irrelevant. the incarnated Jesus is human. He does not talk about the malenes of the resurrected Jesus, perhaps because he really does believe that there is no sex (by which I mean biology) in eternity. Maximus may not make a distinction between antagonisms and simple distinctions. He appears to mean it quite biologically, not simply the antogonisms we attach to our biology. Part of the "honor of being with God" according to Maximus is to be without division.

Maximus also claims no distinction of sex before the fall, as does Gregory of Nyssa. For both of them, sex (biology) is only necessary for procreation, which would have happened in another manner before the fall. Of course, in other spots, Gregory says different things. The Fathers, while not achieving a consensus on anthropology, never make a distinction between sex and gender. This is entirely modern (though not therefore a bad) distinction. Sorting out the Fathers on sex and gender, and incorporating the insights gained in the intervening centuries, is one of the challenges of Orthodox theology today.

The difficulty with arguing that sex is an ontological category is that Jesus, in the incarnation, had to assume our nature in order to be saved. He had to assume all of our nature. Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and other make this point. Yet Jesus was clearly male. If maleness is an ontological reality, we run the difficulty of saying that Jesus did not assume femaleness, and thus ontological femaleness is not saved. While the Theotokos is important, she is NOT the co-redemptrix. Humanity is saved through Jesus, who assumed our common humanity. His maleness is only as relevant as his jewishness, his being from Galilee, or the fact that in all liklihood his hair was black. The situate him in his time, but are not factors in the restoration of humanity to God. Note that Verna (Nonna) Harrison as well as Francine Cardman, both Patristics scholars (one Orthodox, the other Catholic) have interesting articles on this, I just don't recall the titles.

Whether Gender (as opposed to sex) is ontological is unclear. Are our personalities ontological? I would like to think that I will still be 'me' in eternity, but I am not sure that makes gender, an aspect of our personality (including societal influence, etc.) ontological.

However, that all being said, I rather like your emphasis on the transfiguration of the human personality.

Blessings,
Maria

[Melissa]

Dear Maria,

I'm curious about your understanding of the importance of consensus among the Church fathers, and the weight of Church tradition? I don't know the answer to this, and I'm wondering if over the course of history, the Holy Spirit grants the Church ever greater understanding through tradition? What the Church leaders/saints/theologians think/do that is faithful remains and is accepted by the Church, and what isn't falls away? Or is that not an Orthodox understanding? I've never heard the perspective you presented in your post #2, but as I think about this question, it seems to me that God made Adam first, and Eve from his rib, so Christ's coming in the body of a man makes sense to me.

I'm just putting out a few thoughts here, and pray for correction and guidance from those who know more than I do.

In Christ,
Melissa

[Fr. George Morelli]

To all interested in this issue: Glory to Jesus Christ. If I may so humbly add some information to this problem ... I am a both an Orthodox Priest and a Clinical Psychologist. I have studied & researched ( and clinically treated sex disorders) the issues of sex and gender. Medically, sex and gender are not equilivant. Sex is what you are biologically. Gender is the perception of your sex and the social psychological interpretations given by your society and culture the individual has incorporated into their perceptions of themselves (and others in terms of what constitutes masculinity and femininity [gender]). Any theological issue is one of sex not gender. In a previous post I mentioned the Church Fathers have considered human nature has having two forms or modes. As I am not a theologian but it appears to me that ontologically there is one human nature common to all in two forms or modes... may I speculate the forms or modes have some important theological meaning as the male mode is related to the Fatherhood of God, Christ's incarnation, and His Priesthood, the female mode reflective of the receptivity of Trinitarian Love in some mutual complementarity with the male mode. The holy priests here on monachos can surely correct me on my theological outreach .... I only offer the medical-psychological definitions and distinctions to clarify the issue at least on this level, so meaningful theological understanding and spiritual growth can follow ....humbly .. in Christ ...Fr George

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Maria,

Christ is male after His Resurrection and the Theotokos is female after her Dormition (and in like manner with the saints after they repose). Christ as Divine/human Logos (Theanthropos) assumes humanity. What is distinct in Him- maleness,hair-colour,etc) does not preclude the union with us because He is the Theanthropos, & the Beginning and End of all things. So both unity and distinction remain, a sign of His love.

That Adam & Eve were created "male & female" is clear (Gen.5:2); but as the Holy Fathers explain (and as you say)the biological (or physical) procreation is a result of the Fall.

You can be assured that once that unique Maria was created she will always be that unique Maria with her more than unique personality! I know that after you repose Maria you will not turn into a cosmic soap bubble. We don't do panichidas (memorial services) for soap bubbles!

In Christ- Fr R

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Fr George,

Thank you so much for your post; the insight about a common human nature in two forms or modes I take to be an excellent theological description. It also helps us to get past the possible contradictions Maria was referring to.

Thinking about this beginning with Christ: within Christ as Divine/human Logos all humanity is saved; any distinctions (eg His maleness, our humanity etc) between Him & us are not divisions (a cause of seperation). There is a kind of ontology of love in His regard towards us.

And then us created in His image also in ourselves have this ability; to include all of creation in ourselves despite any apparent divisions. Again difference is distinction (eg male-female) not division. To say it the other way around, salvation does not mean that which is distinct disappears.

I also take your point about sex and gender; partly this is a struggle to find the exact words to describe our point. Also I suspect a desire to remain modest. My only point is that the maleness and femaleness of each of us remains eternally but not in a fallen sense (eg physical sexual relations or anything passionate). I believe one can get the point by visiting an Orthodox monastery- the differences between male & female monasteries are quite well-known. The monastics are preparing for the Kingdom and already may by grace partake of it; their male-femaleness does not disappear but rather is evident often as an aspect of their personal spirituality & growth in Christ.

Finally this is a point we were taught at seminary which I find extremely valuable. Christ and the Holy Trinity are not bound by any philosophical neccesity; that is at no point are they in submission to a rational schema of reality. Apart from the obvious message here for us (anti-Origenist) I wonder if there is not a more subtle theological message: when we talk of person & nature etc, theologically there can be a subtle temptation to fall into thinking that Christ Himself follows the 'logic' of these terms. Christ however is first hypostatic Divine Love; all other terms we use in theology are in submission to this 'fact'.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Maria McDowell]

Dear Melissa:

I think consensus is quite important, but I don't think consensus actually exists on many issues. It is hard to read the Fathers and not acknowledge that they differ. Sometimes, they differ over minor points, sometimes their differences are due to circumstances, audience, philosophical categores, etc. The Tradition of the Church, according to Lossky, is the ongoing response of the Church to the work of the Holy Spirit. Tradition is never static, it is a living Tradition, constantly seeking to apply the good news to varying situations and contexts. Within Orthodoxy, we tend to view our Tradition as monolithic and homogenous. Yet this has never been true. What has been true is that we are always responding to the work of the Spirit, the same Spirit. At points in our history, we have been pressed to articulate our Tradition in a more doctrinal manner, such as the Ecumenical councils, at which point consensus is clear. So, we have agreement on how we experience God, as Trinity. We agree that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. We do not however, have consensus on what we think about sex, gender, and the implications for our lives.

And yes, I would argue that the Holy Spirit grants us greater understanding, or, that we understand the implications of the work of the Spirit in greater depth and in new ways given a constantly changing world. We are constantly struggling with what of our Tradition/traditions should remain, and what should, as you say, "fall away." Discerning what is faithful takes time, discussion, disagreement, prayer, love. So, I think what you said is an Orthodox understanding. But not all Orthodox think so. It is one of the areas where we lack consensus.

As for Jesus coming as a man, I suppose I would say that it makes sense becuase that is how it happened. What I think we need to be careful of is ascribing too much to his maleness rather than his humanity, his sex (and gender) rather than the reality that in Jesus, God became human, took on our humanity, and thus made possible the deification of all humanity. The emphasis on maleness tends to lead down roads that are problematic.

So, that was long-winded, sorry. I would love to hear what you think!

Maria

[Maria McDowell]

Dear Fr. George,

I like your affirmation of the distinction between gender and sex. Do you think, in your experience as a psychologist, that a particular sex is limited to its corresponding gender? Doesn't Jung argue that males and females both experience the masculine and feminine? The question is important because the potential theological implications. Exactly what we mean by the male or female 'mode,' its extent and limit, is theologically significant. For instance, I would never want to say that because the feminine is the 'receptive' men cannot receive the Trinitarian love in the same way as women. I realize this is an oversimplification, but I am curious as to your thoughts.

Thanks,
Maria

[Richard Leigh]

Hello everyone,

I'd like to put in a few words more to this topic.

Because God the Logos of God incarnated fully human in a particular time, place, culture, and so forth, it is vastly important what his sex and gender are, if only because to be human is to be of one sex or the other.

The Holy Trinity does nothing without meaning (if "does" is an apropriate term to use of God).

Given the truth of all the orthodox statements that have been given so far on this thread, it should be clear, I think, that either in God's mind or ours, I don't know which, femaleness is contained in maleness while maleness is not in femaleness.

Biological evidence to support this would be chromosomal: artificially induced parthenogenesis
(ungerminated conception and birth) can only produce female offspring.

Scriptural evidence is the "construction" (from the Hebrew term) of the woman from the rib bone of Adam, our first father.

Yours,

Richard

[Fr. George Morelli]

> Maria, Glory to Jesus Christ! I am not sure I can answer your > question exactly as you posed it. In as much as gender in part has > social and cultural aspects, gender-role (both appropriate and > inappropriate) would differ between different societies and > cultures. In as much as gender involves perceptual aspects, > individual cognitive processes are involved as well. When an an > individuals perception of their gender does not correspond to their > biological sex a clinical diagnosis of gender-identity disorder would > be considered. Your reference to Jung requires an entirely different > response from me. Psychoanalysis and Jung in particular are the > antithesis of good science. Reifications, circular reasoning, > inability to theorize in way's that can be refuted are among the > serious scientific problems with psychoanalysis in general. In > particular Jung's theory proposes the inheritance of acquired > characteristics (Lamarck) which has been thorougly scientifically > discredited. As a psychologist and as a Christian in my view it is > unethical and sinful to teach or treat anyone with a theory with such > severe problems. Part of our being created in God's image is our > intelligence (and free will). It behooves us learn about the world > God created, how it works and use healing techniques that are based on > the "highest" intelligence we can bring to this process. [The > unmercenary physicians would have used the best and "intelligent" > techniques known to them at their day and age..etc.] Of course as > Christians we also have the superabundance of God's grace, the holy > mysteries and prayer which should be the foundation on which we do all > things, and in this case our scientific reasoning and application. > Also in the case of Jung he is preaching a pantheistic religion > disguised as "psychology" He is the darling of "New Age" religionists > and unfortunate individuals with no formal psychological training who > assume all who are called psychologists are really psychologists. > His 'religion-psychology' is actually a form of sycretistic > gnosticism. One quote from him: "Like every other being I am a > splinter of the infinite deity ..." For further treatment on his > esoteric ideas and practices see Noll, Richard, (1997) /The Aryan > Christ: The Secret Life of Carl Gustav Jung/, New York: Macmillan/. > /For a sense of theory and practice, based on solid science and I > humbly pray, 'orthodox' Orthodox Spirituality check out two articles I > have written on the e journal at the Orthodox Christian Association of > Medicine, Psychology and Religion web site: www.ocampr.org (http://www.ocampr.org). I think > your question regaring 'mode' is a theological one. I am struggling > to come up with a word that describes the important male-female > distinction (Jesus prays "Abba", Father. He was incarnate as a male, > We say Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is the faith of the church it > is no accident. Somehow human nature is one but with two facets or > modes the "oneness" of human nature is important as in all 'Can put on > Christ, be baptized, share in the royal priesthood, be saved, overcome > death', the differences between 'modes" are important: 'God is Father, > not Mother, Christ became incarnate as a male, only a male can be > ordained to the ministarial priesthood' ... I accept it as a mystery > as is the Holy Trinity itself...if God wills a holy person to > experience a glimpse of an answer, and can pass this on to us, God be > praised. If the Church should have a pan-orthodox council and under > the guidance of the Holy Spirit consider this question and give an > answer, then God be praised. Humbly in Christ's name ...FrGeorge

[Melissa]

Dear Maria,
I don't know very much about these things, so appreciate your response (and the other responses). I'm interested in the perpetuation of tradition, inside the church and in other arenas of life, and consensus isn't required, of course, for that perpetuation - although some "x" degree of common usage is, or the tradition wouldn't be perpetuated.

I'm also interested in your statement What I think we need to be careful of is ascribing too much to his maleness rather than his humanity, his sex (and gender) rather than the reality that in Jesus, God became human, took on our humanity, and thus made possible the deification of all humanity. The emphasis on maleness tends to lead down roads that are problematic. The first part resonated with me - to remember that God took on human form, and why He did, is crucial. But what could get problematic? I'm not a post-modernist, so perhaps that means I'm taking a simplified look at this - but it seems to me that the fact that Jesus took on the flesh of a male human has been theologically satisfying to me so far. I like what Father Raphael said, Christ and the Holy Trinity are not bound by any philosophical neccesity; that is at no point are they in submission to a rational schema of reality. So I find I don't even think about other implications anymore.

On the Jung question - he did talk about the male and female aspects of both sexes, but I don't believe he was using the words in the same way we are here - I don't think he was talking about gender indentity, but rather about psychological qualities. Men can and do experience what we culturally (and some would say, biologically) consider feminine qualities, and women experience more culturally masculine qualities - without necessarily experiencing any disturbance in their awareness of their sex or gender. Some believe this sense of both sex and gender is on a continuum which allows the conceptualization of varying degrees of masculinity and femininity (Father George, I wonder if you could comment on that?). Certainly men and women both receive, and both give. I wonder if an interpretation of Father Raphael's statement applies here, also - that logic will fail us in understanding these things at some point, and faith that our logic won't apply - and doesn't need to - must then take over. It seems that everything comes back to the need for faith. It was such a relief to me to find that Orthodoxy emphasizes the need for faith!
Now I've gone on long - thank you, Maria, for helping me to learn.
In Christ,
Melissa

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

An interesting discussion in all aspects!

In discussions like these, I tend to get frustrated/disappointed by the limits of my brain and our human languages, trying to make different disciplines such as theology and psychology and in this case psychiatry all get their terminology and categorical analyses to "line up". After reading these all thru from stem to stern makes my head hurt!

Specifically to address the orthodox view of tradition and concensus among the Fathers in the history of the church: There is an excellent work written early in the Church's history that has been considered the "gold standard" by both East & West for how to think about tradition; it is called the Commonitory by St. Vincent of Lerins. It is in Volume 11 of the Nicene & post-Nicene Fathers. Relatively short, very accessible. Here's a link to this treatise on the internet: http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/lerins.html

My understanding of Holy Tradition in the life of the Church is that the Holy Spirit lives within the Church and continues to lead us together into all truth. The emphasis has consistently been that He leads us within the context of the Church, not individualistically in isolation from the living community of the people of God. And this living community includes those who have gone the their rest in faith. So we stand in the midst of the choir of the Church, and hear the living voice of the Church testifying to the love, grace, and leading of God in our midst.

That being the case, the Church has said that Holy Scripture is the touchstone, if you will, of the voice of God. All our understanding of the Word of God (and please realize that unlike the tendency of the Protestant denominations, the Word of God for us is the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, not Scripture) will be consistent with Scripture, because God speaks one Word, one Voice, and not confusion.

The Church's understanding of the Word of God is most precisely and succinctly stated in the Nicene Creed. This would be the second level of tradition, after Scripture.

The next level of tradition is the Seven Ecumenical Councils where they expressed the faith. (Please note: the various canons or rules of life for the Church, as declared by these Councils, are not generally considered to have the same weight of the theological issues settled in Council. The canons are more in the line of practice that have cultural and historical implications that do not make them consistently considered to have "universal" application and importance). One of the differences between the Eastern Orthodox communions and the Roman Catholic church hits right here, on the issue of councils that have been held since the Great Schism. The Eastern church has held that all councils since can only by definition be considered "local" councils, and cannot carry the same weight of the Ecumenical Councils prior to the split. The Roman Catholic church has held that the councils they have held since can be considered Ecumenical. Protestant churches that recognize the role and importance of the Seven Ecumenical Councils tend to align with the Eastern churches in opposition to the Roman Catholic view.

After the Ecumenical councils, how tradition is viewed becomes much more fluid. There have been councils, both before and after the Schism, where issues have been debated and resolved; there are many great Fathers of the Church whose writings and homilies we still can read and be blessed by; we have the living voice of brothers and sisters we live with every day. All have the Holy Spirit, all love our Lord, all are working and struggling to express that which is far above all human words! We have seen the True Light, but boy to express it with clarity is far beyond us!

The Church has recognized that there are many issues beyond the Creedal that the Church and its members will meditate on, and that there will be differences of opinion about these. We do not want to EVER cause grief over these for any brother or sister, nor any divisions or rancor. And we must be careful not to argue over words in such a way that we can cause confusion and fear among younger Christians. Nor do we try to resolve all of these concerns and opinions.

The Church has been careful to define what is unacceptable, so that we do not fall into the sin of idolatry (worshipping a God who does not exist, i.e. heresy).

But with the Blessed St. Dionysius and St. Gregory of Palamas, we must confess that we are always trying to describe the undescribable, and confess with joy that this work is eternally beyond us, and find joy in that great truth!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Fr George,

Yes I feel these are very good insights which do reflect the faith of the Church. The word 'mode' does have a Patristic history but I can't remember its precise usage. There was a book by a Fr Dmitru Staniloae (sp?) on the Trinity as love which did discuss human love as a reflection of Trinitarian love; this may yield some good results.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

Specifically on the use of mode, the one place I know of it was used was not good, was used by Sabellians for describing how God presents Himself to us in three modes that we experience as Father, Son, Holy Spirit as a heretical view of the unity of the Godhead and the Three Persons. The modes were NOT distinct Persons for Sabellius, but three "faces" of God, such as an actor in a Greek play using three masks.

I do not think that is how it is used in this discussion at all, just a point of information.

[matt]

I know this is getting a little off-track, but Gilbert's point is important for at least two reasons. Many mormons and JWs explain the Xpian idea of the trinity in Sabellian terms which leads to the "three headed monster" analogy that I have heard before. ALos, many Christians themselves think about the Trinity in Sabellian terms. WHile we are not saved by passing a theology test, it is crucial that we understand and teach the importance of the proper expression of God's self-revelation as expressed in scriptures, the fathers and the liturgy since, among other reasons, the implications for what it means to be created in the image of the Trinity as persons finding our personhood in relation to one another. It has been said that many Christians are functionally radical monitheists along the lines of islam but it may also be accurate to say that many of us are also functional Seballians. Just a few thoughts.

MAtt

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Gilbert,

Point well taken. We must be careful that our language & way of looking at these modern & pressing issues is achieved in humble obedience to Christ, Traditon & our God-bearing Fathers. In this manner slowly and with the help of other faithful Orthodox Christians we can arrive at a proper manner of expressing ourselves.

Since the word mode in itself I believe carries no negative 'baggage' (ie. the word in itself is not heretical but rather the manner in which Sabellius used it was heretical) I would be inclined to go along with Fr George that this best expresses what is being said: :'the common human nature expresses itself in the two modes of male-female.'

In Christ- Fr R

PS: I put on my thinking cap about where I had heard this word in the Holy Frs before: it is in St Maximos the Confessor where he speaks of 'mode of existence', 'mode of willing' etc. This is from the Disputation with Pyrrhus which concerns the dispute over Monothelitism. This warrents further reading I think.

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

As I recall the original issue in this string, the question that began all this was whether, in Patristic theology, male/female in the basic biological sense is an aspect of nature or person. I think the consensus was that it is neither, no more than hair color, left-handed vs right-handed etc.

We have gone on to cover some more contemporary aspects of male/female, and implications for that, and I feel these issues do not directly relate to the original question. And that's fine, no problem to cover other issues and concerns, but somewhat tangential to what began this all. Just to illustrate, I think the Patristic sense of person is significantly different than how we understand it today, we usually using a more psychological approach think in terms of a specific individual and their personality when we say "person", rather than a philosophical category that is "depersonalized" in a modern sense. But I ramble . . . !

I had not realized that St. Maximos used the term "mode", and in the context you note, Fr. Raphael, has no tie to the Sabellian heresy. As you state, "mode" itself is not heretical, but can be used to describe a heresy, such as Sab.

My concern, expressed earlier in this latest set of posts, is I think different people from different disciplines are trying to get their terminology to tie directly to other people/disciplines using the same "words". I'm afraid though that even when they use the same "words" they really are trying to describe different concepts. Again, reading all these posts in a row makes my noggin hurt!

May you all be blessed this Easter with the joy of the reality of our Lord's resurrection, and the hope that gives us! May we never look at our daily lives the same way! Come Lord Jesus!

[Daniel Jeandet]

Since man is the image of the incomprehensible God, does this make the true nature of what a person is incomprehensible?

Im thinking (at least I think I am) that the only way I can really understand the person is by understanding myself by purifying my heart and returning attention to my own state. But if I were to acheive this state of purity through watchfulness and prayer, am I then contemplating God Himself within my being as in a mirror?

Is there any such thing as a person apart from the archetype? If not, then we will never understand what we are in an objective way, because the only truly valid viewpoint in an absolute sense is God's viewpoint and that is aquired only through going within, to the Kingdom inside us.

Are my thoughts crazy? I think Owen, you would know how to set me straight on this.

[Richard Leigh]

I think the asnwer is that you can only be perceiving God in His energies, not His essence, but not to worry since He is truly present in them. Your purification is precisely the purification of the nous (the eye of the heart) which is otherwise occluded in our unnatural fallen condition. Perception through the purified nous is true information from God about whatever it is one is beholding.

At least, that's what I think the Fathers are saying.

Richard

[matt]

Daniel,
regarding post 122, you would find Bishop John Zizioulas' study on personhood very useful. It is entitled Being As Communion. It deals in depth with the issues of personhood and the image of the Trinity in humanity. It is one of the best theology books I have ever read. Chapter one deals with personhood and and being (the nature of mode is discussed). The rest of the book draws out the implications of the scriptural, Greek patristic understanding of God, freedom and personhood in a manner that is VERY detailed and insightful in regards to what consitutes the Church. He has also republished via Holy Cross his doctoral dissertation about the eucharist and church orders- also very useful. Please check them out. They will certinaly be of much use!

MAtt

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

Yes, we are incomprehensible; St. Cyril of Jerusalem says even a chair is incomprehensible!

St. Gregory Palamas would agree heartily that we see and contemplate God as we meditate on the work of God in our hearts.

I believe also that the holy Fathers would say we see God even more clearly in the Church, in the faces of the brothers & sisters God has placed in our lives. Our Lord's words that the Kingdom of God is in our midst, means I believe both in us as individuals, but even more so within us as the body of Christ, His Church. As we grow up together in maturity in Christ in the Church, His reality becomes ever more visible; in this way the Church itself is a living icon of our Lord, showing His glory in our daily lives. Our contemplation, meditation on Christ has to go beyond us as individuals, or it is just an "Eastern" version of Western personal pietism. It must reach out to the wholeness of Christ in His Church thru the ages before it becomes whole & healthy, again in my personal opinion.

The more I read such Fathers as St. Gregory Palamas and St. Dionysius, the less I understand and can relate to the terms "objective" and "subjective"! They both seem to miss the point, as you allude to the reality, seeing life thru the eyes of God. The best expression I've found of this was by Karl Barth in his book "The Word of God & the Word of Man" the essay titled "The Strange New World Within the Bible".

[matt]

I forgot to metion that if anyone is interested, there is a very useful book entitled Energies of the Spirit which examens almost ad nauseum Florovsky and Lossky's wrigtings (and thus patristics) on the issue of knowledge and participation in the life of the Trinity via GOd's energies. It's a great study. It also interacts with the west, mostly Barth and Rahner. Another book aboutthis that you may find useful is The Ground Of Union- a comaprison of St Palamas to St Thomas Aquinas. Both are not easy reads, but worth the struggle.

MAtt

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

In looking for references on the question of thought & word I came upon this from the Introduction to The Disputation with Pyrrhus of our Father Among the Saints Maximus the Confessor; (Intro & trans by Joseph P Farrell). This is written by J. Farrell in his Intro & relates to the question of male/female distinctions "Thus there are five basic distinctions in St. Maximus' cosmology, each of which in turn forms the basis for his understanding of Christ's work of recapitulation. These are 1)the distinction between Uncreate & created being; 2)the distinction between intelligble & sensible...;3)the distinction within the sensible creation between heaven & earth; 4)the distinction on earth between paradise & the world of men; and finally 5)the distinction in humanity between man & woman, the masculine & feminine. These distinctions are in and of themselves good, but become dialectically opposed by man's fall.

Since he is created in the image & likeness of God, a proper understanding of man requires two terms of reference: nature & person. Man by nature has soul, reason, activity (or energy), and the faculty of will & free choice. But the individual hypostasis particularizes or enhypostasizes each of these things in an irreducibly unique personal manner. THIS UNIQUE MODE OF EXISTENCE BECOMES PERSONALLY OPPOSED TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURE AT THE FALL, [my emphasis] and the five distinctions mentioned above are rendered by man as oppostions, which begin to tear apart from each other and to introduce death, beginning with the first and most crucial distinction between Uncreate & the created." (Intro ps xvii-xviii).

This strongly points to Fr George's basic point being correct "the common human nature expresses itself in the two modes of male-female." The cosmological framework and explanation of how this collapses into sinful antagonism is described within the context provided by St Maximus which is really a synthesis of the previous Holy Fathers.

In Christ- Fr R

[Richard Leigh]

Thank you Father Raphael for this excellent information!

Richard