'Not I, but Christ...' [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

View Full Version : 'Not I, but Christ...'

Rick H.

13-04-2007, 05:24 AM

Living Out the Virtues and Commandments "the Orthodox Way"

Dear All,

I would like to ask a question today about the individual member of the Body of Christ which includes a consideration of Christian living. I am hoping that we can draw our answers from the Tradition of the Church, the Church Fathers, the Holy Scriptures. Any contributions from the "treasury of the Apostolic Witness," as Herman has said in the past, would be greatly appreciated, as we consider the question:

"Who is the one that lives in Christ, and has Christ living in him or her?"

Can we draw a picture of this one, or can we describe this one? Is there a list of things that must be checked off that we do in order to measure up, and to have any chance of being counted as among these ones? What does the Apostle Paul indicate to us about such things as "laying it all aside," or "death to self" in his letters? The one that comes to mind first for me is from his letter to the Galatians, in Gal 2:20 Paul says:

"'I' have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer 'I' who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which 'I' now live in the flesh 'I' live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."

Much like when Paul writes in Rom 12:1-2 that we are to put our whole being on the alter, and to present ourselves as "a living sacrifice," all of our physical faculties and mental faculties, Paul is saying to the Galatians what St Isaac the Syrian was able to say. And, this can be illustrated with a recent quote from Father Raphael in another thread from yesterday, when Father said:

So St Isaac certainly knew of St Paul and that in an extremely immediate way. And these two actually are similar in a way to the point at hand. Which is death to oneself to the point where each could truly say that only Christ lived within themselves.

So, is this it--is this new thread over now? Is there anything else that needs to be added to this answer? Is the one who is a member of the Body of Christ, simply the one who lives in Christ, and Christ in him, and the one who has experienced death to oneself to the point where he or she could truly say that only Christ lives in them? Is there anything else that we need to add on to this? Or, is this it?

We are talking about such things as surrender and faith now. But, simply put:

"Who is the one that lives in Christ, and has Christ living in him or her?"

Can we draw a picture of this one, or can we describe this one?

In Christ,
Rick

Trudy

13-04-2007, 03:47 PM

Rick H.

13-04-2007, 04:34 PM

Since I'm already late for my class...what's a few more minutes?

Rick,

In the initial post, I would suggest that the wrong words are colorfully bolded. As self-centered Westerners, it seems natural to bold I. However, as we are to fight against the I soapbox, may I suggest the following:

"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."

Thus changing the focus to where it belongs...on the Risen Christ.

Humbly yours in Christ,
Athanasia

Dear Athanasia,

Thank you very much for your post. What you have shared *is* well received. And, who could 'quibble' with your words about our focus on the risen Christ? However, the topic of this thread is the "I."

And, there is a real mystery here which if we were not taking a *simple* approach in this thread (Herman! 'nudge-nudge' ;) I would head out to sea with this right now and possibly even use/string some big words together, but we will not do this here. The new A.O. thread yes! (meet you there if you want Athanasia :), but here we are going to keep it *simple,* and I will do my best to keep this thread *focused* as well on the intended topic, believe it or not :)

So, anyway . . . the topic of the "I" especially as presented by Paul, is a great mystery, it is hard to understand at all. And, now I am thinking of Paul's Letter to the Romans, where we can see possibly a little bit more clearly what is being said in Galatians 2:20, as quoted above. In this Letter of Paul's, specifically in Romans 7, we get a better picture of the two "I's" of Paul. I wonder if you have ever considered this before. I am willing to bet your husband, has ;) If I remember correctly you shared he was an evangelical or fundamentalist pastor, possibly a Baptist? You have to watch out for those guys, once they get their Bibles open, they will take you down if your not careful ;) In Romans 7:15 for example, Paul writes:

"For what I am doing, I do not understand: for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate."

Who is the "I" in Christ? What in the world is Paul talking about here as he speaks of the two "I's"? This doesn't even make sense really, does it? But, it is as the Apostle Peter has said in Second Peter 3:

15 . . . just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand . . .

this is hard to understand, and the "I" or the two "I's" of Paul is a mystery, but *this* is our topic and this is the focus of our topic here in this thread. And, even though we are employing a 'simple' approach here, this is all meat that is being served up--no sippy cups here, just knives and forks (insert repeated 'Tim the Tool man grunts').

So who could 'quibble' with the statement "the focus belongs on the Risen Christ?" I don't think Owen would dare do such a thing ;) But, this is not the topic of this thread.

Who is the "I"? Who are these two "I's" that Paul is speaking of here?

In Christ,
Rick

Herman Blaydoe

13-04-2007, 04:49 PM

Rick H.

13-04-2007, 05:27 PM

I approach Christ with a lot of baggage and preconceived notions. I must set those notions aside and leave the baggage at the door. These things define the "I" that keeps me from becoming the "I" that is Christ.

I must clear and correct my distorted "I" before I can see the Risen Lord clearly.

Or so it seems to this simple mind.

DISCLAIMER The ideas expressed here may or may not reflect the opinion of the poster. Text may contain material some readers may find objectionable, spiritual guidance is advised. The drinking of beverages while reading these posts is strongly discouraged; not responsible for damage, discomfort, or staining caused by spit-takes or "nosers." Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, use of satire, or failure to suit your particular sense of humor (or lack thereof). Some shifting of context may have occurred during shipment. For external use only. Void where prohibited. Not legal in all spiritual states. Consult a licensed and reputable spiritual advisor before applying. For recreational use only. May exceed the maximum recommended daily dose of irony. If a rash, redness, irritation, or swelling develops, discontinue use. If condition persists, consult your spiritual physician. This notice applies to all posts by this poster whether or not it is included in the post and supercedes all previous disclaimers.

Dear Herman and All:

Who's the man? . . . thank you very much Herman. Yes!

Simply put, this is "IT." And, not to say that "I" have obtained it, because "I" have not; but clearly if we lay down all of our baggage, then we can fully embrace and apprehend that for which we have been apprehended, and we may lay hold of that for which also we were laid hold of by Christ Jesus, as we see in the letter to the Philippians:

Not that I have already obtained it, or have already become perfect, but I press on in order that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.

This speaks directly to a very clearly defined relationship/experience that we see repeated over and over in the Treasury. Laying it 'all' aside, being passively renewed in the spirit of the mind, and then continuing on in this fashion/way. Father Raphael has spoken of this in another thread, in the context of a personal spiritual practice, where he has said:

As it says in the Cherubic Hymn: "Lay aside All Earthly cares." I wonder if we pay enough attention to those words we sing so frequently. All cares; all earthly endeavors, all plans, all methods, and it doesn't even matter that they are good. Lay it all aside to find Christ.

What a treasure.

Who noticed what Herman said about the things that define the "I" or the "self," and how these things that define us, that define the "self" can prevent us from becoming the "I" in Christ?/! Who sees what he is saying here?

Just beautiful Herman. Now, I owe you two cups of coffee. And, you better put a lock on that disclaimer of yours somehow, because I have heard some talk that it may be a target of theft :)

In Christ,
Rick

Trudy

13-04-2007, 06:03 PM

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!
My dear Brother Rick,

I wonder if you have ever considered this before. I am willing to bet your husband, has ;) If I remember correctly you shared he was an evangelical or fundamentalist pastor, possibly a Baptist? You have to watch out for those guys, once they get their Bibles open, they will take you down if your not careful ;)

With all humility and no anger, may I please ask that you leave my husband out of this. He is American Baptist. Therre are as many different different "definitions" of evangelical and fundamental as there are people on the earth. I would say he is neither, yet both, of those words as I understand them to mean. Having been married to him for nearly 23 years, all of which I too was American Baptist, I could match him, nay probably win (he would say), with regard to finding Biblical passages to support an argument. This despite the fact that he has his Ph.D. and I am 12 months shy of my B.A. Yet as I write this, I also know, though I am in the Orthodox Church, he is more faithfully Orthodox if that is measureable! :-) Now with that out of the way...

Who is the "I" in Christ? What in the world is Paul talking about here as he speaks of the two "I's"? This doesn't even make sense really, does it?

Yes, I think it makes perfect sense actually. The first one is the person without Christ. The second one is the person with Christ, who has taken upon himself the Cross of Christ through faith and baptism. The first wars with the second. The first enjoys and strains for dominance, for the soapbox, and for attention. But it is the second person that must and will gain dominance for in Christ is the victory over all things including the passion-filled self.

So who could 'quibble' with the statement "the focus belongs on the Risen Christ?" But, this is not the topic of this thread.?

Glory to God that there would and will be no quibbling that the focus belongs on the Risen Christ. Where I would quibble is that the Risen Christ is and should be the topic of the thread for the exact reason that you (I believe) are driving at. The second I that Paul mentions is the one who has put on the Risen Christ, thus having died (and continuing to die) to self. Therefore the Risen Christ is pre-eminent and dominant because we can do nothing apart from Him once we put Him on.

Excuse me while I go put the baby bottle on to warm. I feel the need for sustinance! LOL! LOL!

With sisterly affection in Christ,
Athanasia

Peter Farrington

13-04-2007, 06:52 PM

Dear Athanasia

I am not sure that I entirely buy into that interpretation, and it is one I know well from my own Evangelical background.

It seems to me that it either diminishes the conflict within us, (as some have used this interpretation) such that the bad guy is Saul and the good guy is Paul afterwards.

Or it makes us multi-personal, and suggests that there are two people living inside me. I don't see from a wider Christian or a more narrowly Orthodox anthropology how we would be able to substantiate the idea that there are two persons warring.

Rather I have always understood that we are one person but we have contradictory impulses at work in the faculties that make up our humanity. As an e.g. I do not have a bad will and a good will, I have one will, as a faculty, which is liable to be misdirected and misapplied, and sometimes I do what my spirit knows is right, and sometimes (many times) I allow my animal passions to break out of their proper place and invert the order which God created in me such that I allow my passions to direct me.

But it is still ME.

I read the passage rather like an athlete might rail against an injured leg that prevents him entering and winning a race. He might well curse his leg and blame it for preventing his succeeding, and he might say 'I'd be better off without you' but his injured leg is still part of him, even while that which is himself stands in the way of his achievement.

I can't see that there is scope in the Fathers for the idea that there are two persons within us (and I am not suggesting that you are baldly asserting this), but it tends towards that sort of a view.

The me that wants to stand on the soap box is the same me that wants to sit at Christ's feet. I guess the issue is that we are much more complex than the simple words person and will suggest. My will, as a faculty, is influenced by instinct, by habit, by intellectual activity and by spiritual activity. All of these are good as created by God but we allow them to be inverted and our instincts rule us, set up bad habits and pervert our thoughts and blind our spiritual eyes.

I am not a thin guy stuck inside a slightly overweight guy, I AM the slightly overweight guy and I need to face up to that if I want to become the thin guy. I won't find a magic treatment that will save me any work.

Likewise, I am not a good guy stuck inside a bad guy, or a good guy with an invisible bad guy constantly beating up on him. I am the mediocre guy who could become the good guy he sometimes wants to be, but it will take a lot of work and prayer and faith, and the answer to my problem is not God making me holy all in one go.

Indeed this is the wonder. The guy who keeps doing what the best part of him doesn't want to do, is ALSO the guy whose life is Christ. But for now it is both, and life is a constant choice, and we have many bad habits to ask God to help us change. And we have to live by the spirit not by our animal instincts and passions, asking for grace to put our inner life in order.

That's how I read the passages I guess. A tremendous opportunity for life moment by moment in and with Christ, which makes our daily choices of sin all the more pointless and stupid.

Lord have mercy on me. Life in and with Christ. There is something worth choosing.

I'd like to know what the Fathers who commented on these passages said, and I'm always willing to be corrected.

Peter

Rick H.

13-04-2007, 06:57 PM

Dear Athanasia,

American Baptist you say! :) That's way too much information--I really get you now :) And, your husband has a PhD you say? Wow! I wonder if we can lure him into signing up with monachos.net, and gain from his knowledge? But, the point you make about "different definitions" speaks directly to much of what I write about in other threads, in fact, I will most likely refer again to your writing below in the future. And, finishing up your B. A., that's great! I remember my undergraduate years with much fondness. And, I will share with *you* that I also remember that I have never been as smart in my entire life, as I was during both my first and my last year of my undergraduate program. :) Actually, I hope to never be that smart again ;)

Thanks also for your contribution of one of the classic views of Romans 7. There are others that may come out as well as we move forward here.

And, concerning your insistence about what "should" be the topic of this thread, I think if you are patient long enough, you will be well satisfied with the focus of this thread. For that matter, you could go into each thread here on monachos and say the same thing :) couldn't you? I hear what you are saying as it relates to this thread in particular, but we are just getting going here. In fact, I am reminded of my very first week on monachos, I started the American Orthodoxy thread, and after just ONE WEEK, Alex was expressing his unhappiness that the thread was not moving faster towards it's intended purpose :) . . . Oh, man, all things considered (especially the events of today), I can only LOL or whatever the one is for rolling around on the floor laughing--possibly RAOTFL?

So, anyway . . . ahem . . .this has been kind of a crazy few days for me here lately . . . but, seriously, I do mean it when I say thank you very much for your post, the view that you have expressed will come back into play as we keep moving forward, and hopefully we will have interaction with some of the other classic views of just exactly what Paul is talking about in this passage (Romans 7), But, hopefully we won't get too bogged-down here on this specific text, because there are so many other documents in the treasury to draw from and harmonize. But, I hope you keep posting here Athanasia (why is it so hard for me to spell your name? each time I try to spell your name, I end up with something like Anastasia, and then I get thoroughly confused and I have to go look it up from your post--and then my spell checker wants to change it to Euthanasia, I'm thinking about going back to Trudy if this continues ;) . . . but, I hope you continue to post here, because you have so much to offer, but again dear "A" the focus, for at least the first week of this thread will need to be on the "I."

You did so well with the view of the two "I's" of Paul in Romans 7, I wonder if you would consider sharing with us about the "I" in Paul's Letter to the Galatians (Gal 2:20) where he talks about the one who has been crucified and no longer lives but now lives (paying careful attention to the tenses in this verse)?

In Christ,
Rick

Mary

13-04-2007, 08:31 PM

When my son was about 41/2 years old and very curious about how his body works, we were driving someplace when he suddenly went silent. (yes, he has inherited my garrulousness). I turned to see what the matter was, and there he was examining his left side and his right side, with a puzzled look on his face. I asked him what he was trying to figure out, and he said:

"I'm trying to figure out which side is bad and which side is good."
"What do you mean?"
"Sometimes I want to do what is good, and sometimes I want to do what is bad. Sometimes I do what is bad, even if I want to do what is good. I'm trying to figure out which side makes me do bad things."

No - we hadn't been reading Pauline epistles to him. =)

I agree with Peter. There's only one 'I'. I used to think I can do good things and bad things. But I'm seeing how, even the good things that I do are rooted in selfishness and pride, therefore they are 'tainted' with my sinfulness. Without God, I can do nothing good.

In Christ,
Mary.

M.C. Steenberg

13-04-2007, 08:39 PM

Two comments from the above struck me:

As self-centered Westerners, it seems natural to bold I. However, as we are to fight against the I soapbox, may I suggest the following:

"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."

Thank you very much for your post. What you have shared *is* well received. And, who could 'quibble' with your words about our focus on the risen Christ? However, the topic of this thread is the "I."

Perhaps the very dichotomy is something that needs be addressed.

Human persons are called by the Church to live 'life in Christ', that is, a live drawn up into God, but not obliterated by him. Even at his most humble the apostle notes, 'It is not I who live, but Christ who lives in me', and that 'in me' is essential. I as person still exist. Christianity is not about the obliteration of the person, but human transfiguration - so that I remain me, but who I am is taken up and transformed into a life of union with the incarnate Son through the Spirit, such that what only he can say by nature, so too I can say through that communion; namely, 'Our Father...', 'my Father'. One can no longer say 'I live' - as with the apostle - in isolation, because 'I' is defined only in and with Christ.

I believe Athanasia is correct. Without beginning in the incarnation, in the Son, there is little 'Christian' about any approach. But precisely because the Son is incarnate, to begin with him is also to begin with me, with each of us - for we know Christ in the humanity we each of us share.

INXC, Matthew

Father David Moser

13-04-2007, 09:05 PM

Human persons are called by the Church to live 'life in Christ', that is, a live drawn up into God, but not obliterated by him. Even at his most humble the apostle notes, 'It is not I who live, but Christ who lives in me', and that 'in me' is essential. I as person still exist. Christianity is not about the obliteration of the person, but human transfiguration - so that I remain me, but who I am is taken up and transformed

and again:

"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."

The Apostle also says: "Now we see in a glass darkly but then we shall see Him face to face" The person that I am is destined by God to become "like Christ". As I see it, we become transparent, filled with the light of Christ so that when God looks at me, He sees not me, but Himself. Currently, that image is tarnished - and thus seen only with difficulty. So we "reflect" the light of Christ "as in a glass darkly" but the closer we approach Him, the more that I am transformed, the more of the sinful fallen self that is cleaned away, the clearer that reflection becomes so that not only do we see Him face to face, but He also sees Himself clearly in us.

Fr David

Rick H.

13-04-2007, 09:14 PM

Two comments from the above struck me:

Perhaps the very dichotomy is something that needs be addressed.

Human persons are called by the Church to live 'life in Christ', that is, a live drawn up into God, but not obliterated by him. Even at his most humble the apostle notes, 'It is not I who live, but Christ who lives in me', and that 'in me' is essential. I as person still exist. Christianity is not about the obliteration of the person, but human transfiguration - so that I remain me, but who I am is taken up and transformed into a life of union with the incarnate Son through the Spirit, such that what only he can say by nature, so too I can say through that communion; namely, 'Our Father...', 'my Father'. One can no longer say 'I live' - as with the apostle - in isolation, because 'I' is defined only in and with Christ.

I believe Athanasia is correct. Without beginning in the incarnation, in the Son, there is little 'Christian' about any approach. But precisely because the Son is incarnate, to begin with him is also to begin with me, with each of us - for we know Christ in the humanity we each of us share.

INXC, Matthew

Dear Matthew,

I am attempting to put the cookies on the bottom shelf where they can be reached; however, now it looks like we need a ladder. Of course Athanasia is correct, that is why I asked her to be patient for at least a week. And, as you say the incarnation is the real starting place; however, the intended 'approach' here is to bring a renewal theology, just as you have shared it, into view progressively, one step at a time. This is not the same thing, as I'm sure you are aware, as the debate about doing theology from above vs. doing theology from below (or Christology from above vs. Christology from below), but, I would like to submit that a conversation heading for the area in which you have described is best developed slowly when it is not pursued in the seminary/universtiy environment. And, just as working from 'above' is not a more Christian approach than working from or finding our starting place 'below,' I don't think Fr. Jack Sparks work (which will come out here soon) and will parallel what is going on so far, is any less of a Christian approach than Bishop John Zizioulas who would start right with you, just as you have today in your comments on personhood and a relational ontology. So for what it's worth I will share at the present that this is more of a Sparks Thursday night study, than it is a Monday morning class with Zizioulas as the primary text.

In Christ,
Rick

Paul Cowan

14-04-2007, 02:43 AM

Dear Rick:

Okay Paul, since you asked so politely there are now two spin-offs up: 1.) "Not I, but Christ;" 2.) "Divided without division." So, get over there and start typing, or am I going to have make a trip to Houston?? :) But, then again, George Dubya did say, "Don't mess with Texas!" . . . so I take it all back ;)

You make a trip to Houston and I will BBQ for you the way it was meant to be done. No body beats Texas BBQ! or mine. But first let me know what is your favorite meat. Squirrel, Possum or Armadillo? The first is tough, the second is chewy the third is road kill so it is well tenderized. My personal favorite but you have to act fast cause the buzzards don't favor to kindly to having their dinner taken.

Now to the topic...

Peter said:

Rather I have always understood that we are one person but we have contradictory impulses at work in the faculties that make up our humanity. As an e.g. I do not have a bad will and a good will, I have one will, as a faculty, which is liable to be misdirected and misapplied, and sometimes I do what my spirit knows is right, and sometimes (many times) I allow my animal passions to break out of their proper place and invert the order which God created in me such that I allow my passions to direct me.

Kinda like the Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde theory. Though one of these actually took over the other, do not our passions also take over us especially within addictions? Not such that we lose our identity, but if Christ is light and the devil is darkness, then our reflection in Fr. David's mirror must at times always seem very dim.

St. Paul's do-do speach comes to mind. Romans 7:13-25

13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

It seems he knows right from wrong even while he is doing it. Verse 25 is our answer. Thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord! Interesting He used the word (through) rather than (for).

Fr. David wrote:

As I see it, we become transparent, filled with the light of Christ so that when God looks at me, He sees not me, but Himself. Currently, that image is tarnished - and thus seen only with difficulty. So we "reflect" the light of Christ "as in a glass darkly" but the closer we approach Him, the more that I am transformed, the more of the sinful fallen self that is cleaned away, the clearer that reflection becomes so that not only do we see Him face to face, but He also sees Himself clearly in us.

I would like to add on to this idea of becoming a more clear reflection. Consider we also are a Temple of the Holy Spirit. My body was purchased with a price. I do not own it. I inhabit it temporarily. However, I have a landlord who is also residing in the property, The Holy Spirit.

So as I move closer to God my reflection is more Christ like from the outside as my actions are more intuned with the will of God. AND since my actions are holy (presumably) on the inside as well, that not only is my reflection externally more Christ like but my innerds are more Christ like as well.

Conversly as St. Paul says above if he sins it is not he sinning but evil dwelling within him. So we do or do not have a choice of landlords? Or is there a revolving door for the two of them?

So I am NOT losing my self identity in this life, but as I grow in Christ, I look more like Him within and without to the point that my "skin" is so transparent that God should not know I am not His Son. Kinda like filling a water balloon to the point of bursting then putting it in a pool full of water. Water within, water without and my "skin" is transparent but not gone. Does any of this make sense?

And thanks for the new threads too.

Paul

Rick H.

15-04-2007, 05:24 AM

On Simplicity, Cosmic Irony, and BBQ (the way it was meant to be made)

Dear Paul,

Man[!], you are hilarious! Okay, let's see here . . . out of the three choices, I am actually very familiar with squirrel, so if this is going to be on tap then make mine a double! I've had a few black-mouth curs out of Lumberton, MS who have helped me put more than a few of these tree dwelling "whitetails" in the pot, in a past life. I wonder if any of our Orthodox Mississippi brothers and sisters, or, speaking of past lives :), I even wonder if that community member from the land of cotton (a.k.a. Die Vereinigten Staaten), Dr. Jetavan, would be familiar with Ladner's Curs in Lumberton? I really miss those dogs, they we great. I will admit that for most people, you would not have wanted to pet them, unless the dogs wanted to be petted ;), but they were super partners in the woods (and you don't need to worry about anyone stealing your truck if you want to make a run into the Quick-sac for some supplies. I know you guys use them to put hogs at bay, but in my neck of the woods we must be content with our tree dogs. Now, after this crazy week that I have had, and typing this out to you I am getting more in the mood for plugging in my old George Jones 8-Track. Maybe "The Corvette Song?" Or, possibly since it is getting on in the evening, a little bit of the red headed stranger would be more in order. I once won a $100.00 bet when he played a free concert in Lima, Ohio in 1981 . . . from off stage Waylon started strumming his well known chords, and my friend next to me on the fairgrounds started screaming, "NOOOOOO!," because this meant that if it wasn't good enough as it was, Waylon showed up for free too[!] but also because he just lost a huge bet that he thought was a lock. Bet, you didn't know I speak the "language of the people" in this way, or did you Paul? I wonder if you can tell that in a past life, I had the reddest of necks? But, let's not become too easy to read here, I may be sitting across from you at the card table someday :)

So, I guess when it comes to cultures, whether one "can skin a buck and run a trot line" like Bocephus, or not. Or, whether one can even understand what is being said because of a linguistical deficiency, *this* is really what we are trying to transcend and move beyond when it comes to the subject at hand. Because, while it may seem like a more well balanced and wise approach to focus on the culture of our jigs the origin of our different bands, and to stand next to the 'particular' Coke Machine Gang which will bring affirmations like "I heard that!," and "That ain't no lie!," in the end of that kind of thing, there is only a state of stupor, or a staring at the ground at best, or a true flat-lining at worst. But, what I do remember with the most fond of memories from the days of white sox and PBR was a high degree of sincerity, openness, and simplicity. A true simplicity. One that may seem intimidating at first, but when it is recognized for what it is, it is seen as a most pleasing and wholesome simplicity.

And, this is what I hope we can understand as we work further here in our present thread. But, here again we are faced with a cosmic irony, because this is neither hard to understand nor unnatural. We are all born with this simplicity. The simplicity of a child. And, this simplicity is all around us, sometimes it is even right in front of our eyes on a computer screen, but we read right over it with our cynical heads full of thoughts and sometimes our hearts beating quickly . . . and somewhat like when we were younger, unfortunately we lose sight of it before we have any chance to actually use it. Poof! It is gone.

But, I am most definitely preaching to choir here Paul! And, I wish I could say that I am "the pot calling the kettle black" in this case, but I cannot, because I have lost much somehow, somewhere along the way. But, on the other hand, possibly, there is no need to talk about, or attempt to point to a transcending of what we have now--as we are attempting to do here in this thread.

Because, a true simplicity does not imply a forceful intellect, but, instead, a love and trust. In your writing Paul, you model this love and trust perfectly, even if it is not recognized for what it is. You characteristically contribute and you do not expect to be derided and rejected, anymore than you expect to be admired and praised. You simply hope to be accepted on your own terms. And, on a level playing field, this would normally promote an atmosphere of confidence and friendliness.

So, what does this post have to do with the question at hand, "Who is the 'I'?" In some ways, this contribution is a cross between the "Dukes of Hazzard," and the works of another famous Kentuckian who lived in a monastery a little north and west of Hazzard. Or, possibly now Paul, you are saying I don't know what the blank you are drinking here tonight Rick, but 'make mine a double' :). Actually, I'm still on cherry flavor NyQuil believe it or not :( . . . but for those who can understand the nature of the language that is being spoken, it has everything to do with our question.

So, we will see Paul. Even though I didn't interact with your last post here, which is probably the best one so far, we will just have to see. It occurs to me now that this topic possibly cannot be separated from the other two aspects of what has been considered in the past. So, if this is true, then it is futile to speak of it in isolation from what constitutes "IT." And, it occurs to me now, that possibly, as we consider what some may refer to as the contemplative life, in reality, the transcending of the present divisions that do in fact divide "US" can only be accomplished through such things as BBQ 'the way it was meant to be made' as well as gathering around the 'crocuses,' with cake I hope :) Yes, Paul, it appears once again that all the markers are lining up in such a way as to point to a laying it 'all' aside as has been said. Maybe, I am just tired tonight, or maybe I am spot on. "I don't know," as the Newsboys sing, where all this is going; but, I guess we will see.

If it appears that it is time wrap this one up too, then I would like to leave off with what I feel is most appropriate at this stage which is the 'true simplicity' of the Old Keswick Convention motto:

"All One in Christ Jesus"

In Christ,
Rick

PS I have it on good authority that the purple crocuses are now blooming in Marie's backyard :)

RICK'S DISCLAIMER The ideas expressed here may or may not reflect the opinion of the poster. Text may contain material some readers may find objectionable, spiritual guidance is advised. The drinking of beverages while reading these posts is strongly discouraged; not responsible for damage, discomfort, or staining caused by spit-takes or "nosers." Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, use of satire, or failure to suit your particular sense of humor (or lack thereof). Some shifting of context may have occurred during shipment. For external use only. Void where prohibited. Not legal in all spiritual states. Consult a licensed and reputable spiritual advisor before applying. For recreational use only. May exceed the maximum recommended daily dose of irony. If a rash, redness, irritation, or swelling develops, discontinue use. If condition persists, consult your spiritual physician. This notice applies to all posts by this poster whether or not it is included in the post and supercedes all previous disclaimers.

Disclaimer Copyright 2007 all rights reserved

Paul Cowan

15-04-2007, 06:22 AM

I thought of you today Rick. I was driving to a campout and lo and behold, right there on the side of the road...you guessed it, fresh armadillo. I was in a hurry, so I couldn't stop. But you were the first one on my mind.

Squirrel, huh? With all your sophistication, I was kinda hoping you had more refined taste than squirrel. Don't get me wrong, it's good and all, especialy older red-tails but nothing beats Texas black walnut fed armadillo on the half shell.

ok enough of the post lent recipes.

I agree with Peter. There's only one 'I'. I used to think I can do good things and bad things. But I'm seeing how, even the good things that I do are rooted in selfishness and pride, therefore they are 'tainted' with my sinfulness. Without God, I can do nothing good.

In Christ,
Mary.

It seems everyone is saying close to the same thing.

I in the will of God = Christ in me + Holy Spirit in me.

I not in the will of God = Christ in me+ Holy Spirit in me+ Satan knocking at my door real hard.

10 Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me away from Your presence,
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.

I take the Holy Mysteries and Christ is in me. I am a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in me. My guardian Angel is with me. As long as I don't continually peek through the key hole to see who is doing the really hard knocking on the door of my heart or open the door too many times to him, God is not supposed to take His Holy Spirit from me.

I have the choice to sin or not. I have the ability to push away the Holy Spirit. I have the ability to beg God to reconcile me to Him through Holy Confession and again receive Christ in me. I heard a Homily from Fr. Pat in Chicago who said the Holy Spirit leaves a little at a time (paraphrased). He does not leave all at once but by many small infractions. Diligence, perseverence, keeping your eye on the rabbit, as he put it, Take your eye off your goal and you lose the race.

"Who is the one that lives in Christ, and has Christ living in him or her?"

Easy answer: Me. THE worst of all sinners!

Paul

M.C. Steenberg

15-04-2007, 04:40 PM

Dear friends,

I have been contemplating for a few days the conversation at the front of this thread, together with some of what has followed since. Having this afternoon read through the contents again, a few things have come together in my mind. In particular, an exchange about approach at the beginning has been something to consider:

In the initial post, I would suggest that the wrong words are colorfully bolded. As self-centered Westerners, it seems natural to bold I. However, as we are to fight against the I soapbox, may I suggest the following: [...] "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."

What you have shared *is* well received. And, who could 'quibble' with your words about our focus on the risen Christ? However, the topic of this thread is the "I."

Perhaps the very dichotomy is something that needs be addressed.

Human persons are called by the Church to live 'life in Christ', that is, a live drawn up into God, but not obliterated by him. Even at his most humble the apostle notes, 'It is not I who live, but Christ who lives in me', and that 'in me' is essential. I as person still exist. Christianity is not about the obliteration of the person, but human transfiguration - so that I remain me, but who I am is taken up and transformed into a life of union with the incarnate Son through the Spirit, such that what only he can say by nature, so too I can say through that communion; namely, 'Our Father...', 'my Father'. One can no longer say 'I live' - as with the apostle - in isolation, because 'I' is defined only in and with Christ.

I am attempting to put the cookies on the bottom shelf where they can be reached; however, now it looks like we need a ladder. Of course Athanasia is correct, that is why I asked her to be patient for at least a week. And, as you say the incarnation is the real starting place; however, the intended 'approach' here is to bring a renewal theology, just as you have shared it, into view progressively, one step at a time. [...] I would like to submit that a conversation heading for the area in which you have described is best developed slowly when it is not pursued in the seminary/universtiy environment.

This interchange of thoughts has been what has stuck in my mind more than much of what has since followed. I agree very much with Rick's assertion that approaches should and must be different to theological questions when considered in different environments (he mentions seminary vs. out-of-seminary; the same is true in many other dichotomies). But one thing that worries me is a changing of centering or grounding of theological perceptions when approached differently in these various environments -- and this is where particular discernment is necessary. It is possible to 'start simply' in many ways; some are helpful, some diminish the content of what is considered.

Returning to the topic at hand: If one is to consider the question, 'What is the "I" of my own self?', or to use Rick's initial question in this thread, 'Who is the one that lives in Christ, and has Christ living in him or her?', one of the ways we must reclaim an Orthodox approach to noetic life in the modern world is to insist, right from the very beginning, that we cannot start from either a 'let's talk about me first' or a 'let's talk about Christ first' approach, even for the sake of accessibility. This may in one sense seem simpler, more approachable; but if this is the foundation, that which is built on it will always suffer.

The starting-point is in encounter. The Church teaches that to think in divided terms of an exclusive 'I' or 'Thou' is already a broken, fallen perception. The starting-point for understanding must be in the realm of encounter and relation. Accessible analogies are love, marriage, friendships - elements of 'every day' human relationships that indicate a unitive bond formed by the communal presence of two -- things that are one only because they are multiple.

This ought to be starting point for our considerations -- even our every day, down to earth considerations -- of the 'I' in Christianity. If we succumb to the modern categories that seem simpler to us only because they are modern social categories which we are used to, we risk always being trapped by them in our later thoughts.

The apostles' understanding of human nature, of 'self', of being, stemmed fist of all from their immersion in the encounter with Christ. It was not simply him they came to know; they came to know themselves in him, and in that relation gain an understanding of both. The question 'Who am I?' could only be answered for someone like St Paul through experience.

I suppose my concern is that in our attempt to make certain concepts accessible, we reduce them into frameworks that ultimately go directly against the deep truths of these realities -- often out of the noble and generous desire to be open and accessible to wider understanding. But perception of truth in Christ is a reality that requires a conversion of our understanding, of our approach to understanding; that demands a spinning about on the heels of our normal way of approaching 'complex issues', starting from different walks altogether, and realising that what is being encountered is not in fact complex, but simple, if the mind is properly converted to it. And that conversion comes often through dramatic change in ways of thinking.

INXC, Matthew

Rick H.

15-04-2007, 08:12 PM

"Thinking and Knowing"

Dear Matthew,

If I may say so, as plainly as I am able, and hopefully, you will receive this with all the true simplicity with which it is framed, you are such a champ! I think it is very possible that you have said in these few beautiful and irenic paragraphs here, what was not said in twenty-one pages on the old A.O. thread! You have articulated with such precision everything I have been attempting to spur conversation about for the past 120 days or so, in this one snap-shot. Yes, ontology modeling epistemology! In some ways, I wish you would have come onboard sooner; however, ultimately, this ground is found both in ways each as is appropriate for oneself, and in God's good timing and Grace. But, to be very transparent, right now, I am so excited at this development, I have no interest in considering starting points or pedagogy, and what is helpful for some or what is diminishing at all. And, possibly, I should prune my excitement somewhat all things considered. But, again, as your post relates to our topic here, we can no longer even see our starting point, or much of anything else :) . . . the light is much too blinding at the present! . . .you have just started the conversation that I have been trying to start for the past four months. And, now we see the One definition of the expression "In the End, the Beginning." Debates about starting points are an ignorant thing now, in the true sense of the word, for the one who can understand/'relate' to what you have said today, about 'centering' or 'grounding,' and as this relates to what you have shared in the following:

The starting-point is in encounter! [exclamation point mine :) ]

a high place is created where there must necessarily be a parting, but a most heavenly watershed. Whereby, now there can necessarily only be the "Language of Love" spoken here. Because, regardless of the song and dance of the non-systematic mocker, it is in God's timing, for each of our lives in such a way that 'either' one understands the true simplicity of what is being shared, 'or' one does not. And, this is not to say anything other than what has already been said in the past about the fact that sometimes the truth 'appears' too complex and this is frightening for some, to the point that there is a willful desire to be deceived. So, we are all not at the same place in our individual journeys, are we? In some cases it is true, Mundus vult dedipi (the world wants to be deceived). But, in this work, you make this a very hard thing for the ones who want to be deceived to continue on their present course, because of the blinding light that you have shined into this thread today.

Between, Andrew's post the other day to the "Divided without division" thread, and what you have said here today, again, the twenty-one page "retrieval effort" that has just been locked up, is consolidated and summed up in a most pleasing way. When you say:

. . . we must reclaim an Orthodox approach to noetic life in the modern world . . . [my emphasis]

yes, the imperative language is spot on, because anything other than this approach and this starting point or 'common grounding' will yield only suffering and grief for all involved. But, possibly the restatement and repeated illustrations that have been provided in the previous retrieval effort may come into play for some others in the future via the archives, when there may be more than a quick read of what was said. It is not lost on me here when you mention that you have been 'contemplating' some of this for the past few days, and it has come together for you this afternoon. Even more so, I feel strongly, that it is either an intuitive linguistic gift on your part, and a kind of unction/anointing, even here, manifesting itself, or you are not speaking unlike the Hasidic mystic Buber in your post. The Neo-Orthodox butchered what he has shared, and it is perfect that you clarify in the following:

. . .The Church teaches that to think in divided terms of an exclusive 'I' or 'Thou' is already a broken, fallen perception. The starting-point for understanding must be in the realm of encounter and relation. Accessible analogies are love, marriage, friendships - elements of 'every day' human relationships that indicate a unitive bond formed by the communal presence of two -- things that are one only because they are multiple.

because, where in the world have we possibly heard this before! THERE CAN BE NO DUALISTIC THINKING OR KNOWING, involved in this unitive bond, but this twofold attitude is all that most have to work with at the present, they absolutely have no other starting place. And, herein lies the maddness of it all as it relates to Christian Education. Because "How" we know intellectually will be manifest by how we know experientially. But, let me take a breath here before we leave our high place :) Or, maybe we should kick this down a few notches, all things considered, as you also say:

. . . even our every day, down to earth considerations -- of the 'I' in Christianity. If we succumb to the modern categories that seem simpler to us only because they are modern social categories which we are used to, we risk always being trapped by them in our later thoughts.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! This end is the end, bondage, a state of stupor at best, church-without-community looking for direction from a consensus of different 'Coke machine gangs' at worst. And, what you write in the following is so pregnant with meaning, I can only hope that there is even the slightest inclination for a camping out on this ground by a wider audience:

The apostles' understanding of human nature, of 'self', of being, stemmed first of all from their immersion in the encounter with Christ. It was not simply him they came to know; they came to know themselves in him, and in that relation gain an understanding of both. The question 'Who am I?' could only be answered for someone like St Paul through experience.

When you tie together the 'self' with the question 'Who am I?' there can be no room for a question of either the existence or the validity of an Orthodox Apologetics!! This is pure gold as it speaks to a wider audience. And, your conclusion puts the icing on the cake when you say:

But perception of truth in Christ is a reality that requires a conversion of our understanding, of our approach to understanding; that demands a spinning about on the heels of our normal way of approaching 'complex issues', starting from different walks altogether, and realizing that what is being encountered is not in fact complex, but simple, if the mind is properly converted to it. And that conversion comes often through a dramatic change in ways of thinking.

INXC, Matthew

and your conclusion is my conclusion. And, this is the watershed for the 'monachoi without monasteries,' isn't it? . . . a dramatic change in ways of thinking/knowing.

In Christ,
Rick

Celinda Grace

20-04-2007, 12:53 AM

I think what Peter says about the injured leg makes a lot of sense. There are many times in the Psalms as well as here in Romans where the soul is talked about as if it were not part of us.

I find this common thread among many of the men of God I have read - In the Patristic Fathers sinful thoughts and impulses are often attributed to demons. In Paul here he attributes it to sin working in him. Thomas Merton attributes these things to the 'false self'. It seems to me that if we are going to win the battle against sin we must cease to identify ourselves with these impulses and see them as something separate from us. When in our mind we fully switch from identifying ourselves with the sinful nature within us to identifying with Christ then we can say "Therefore there is no more condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." The conscience is clear and guilt finds no more hold.

If God is condemning sin in us in order to free us from sin, then can He destroy the sin in us that we are still identified with it without taking us with it?

Another thing I notice in this passage in Romans is that Paul talks about 'in his inner being' he agrees with God's law. It has always seemed to me that the New Life is like a seed planted in us that must then grow and gradually take over our whole life.

I often picture our state as the Body of Christ as being epileptic limbs. We are full of our own will and our own impulses and jerk around totally unable to receive direction from our Head. The person who is in Christ is the one who has calmed their own impulses and has their 'nervous system' fully healed.

"Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?" Genesis 18:17
This chapter brings out the delight of real friendship with God as compared with occasional feelings of His presence in prayer. To be so much in contact with God that you never need to ask Him to show you His will, is to be nearing the final stage of your discipline in the life of faith. When you are rightly related to God, it is a life of freedom and liberty and delight, you are God's will, and all your common-sense decisions are His will for you unless He checks. You decide things in perfect delightful friendship with God, knowing that if your decisions are wrong He will always check; when He checks, stop at once." Oswald Chamber, My Utmost...March 20.

"Sanctification means being made one with Jesus so that the disposition that ruled Him will rule us. It will cost everything that is not of God in us. " Oswald Chambers

Rick H.

20-04-2007, 02:20 AM

Dear Celinda,

After reading some of your other posts, I had hoped you might be attracted by this thread. Actually, after reading a couple of your contributions in particular, I found myself, repeating under my breath, the line shouted by the dwarf Mordecai in the Eastwood movie, "High Plains Drifter," . . . "Who are you?"

And, before anyone has the chance to say that I need to get out more, I will acknowledge this myself :) and go on to ask, Oswald Chambers? I haven't heard that name mentioned in a few years, it is very good to hear his name brought up by another. And, Merton too? all linked with the teaching of the apostle Paul? Just when you think it can't get any better, it does! I am just tempted now to bring in John Calvin's writing on self-denial, from his 'Institutes' now to this mix in order to possibly really add some seasoning. But, you are correct with what you have said about Peter's post (actually Paul, I forgot about his post when I said yours was possibly the best one here . . . sorry man, you have been bumped ;)

So, I am packing for a weekend trip now and am really just in here now expressing some enthusiasm for your post Celinda as you, reference Peter's post, and bring these Christian thinkers in to the picture, if nothing else than as an ignition source. You and Peter both make some points which I suspect are not in line with the majority view, but at the same time no one is engaging directly so far. Is this the definition of coat trailing John? ;) Or possibly, I just need to jam my tart here just a tad (guess who found a London Slang encyclopedic article today :) But, all else aside for a moment, you have brought up as I did somewhat, the question, what is Paul saying as it relates to this topic? It will be interesting to watch, as I continue to pack, and see if any others would care to join this conversation.

In Christ,
Rick

"Truth leading reason"

Celinda Grace

20-04-2007, 03:19 AM

Rick,

"Who am I." I hardly know, maybe someday I will find out when it is not important to me anymore.

I have been around the block as far as teachers of the spiritual life go. Oswald Chambers, George Macdonald and Maximus the Confessor are probably my current favorites, along with the Christian musician Michael Card. I have 'grown up' on MacDonald, Card and also Andrew Murray, the other two I have only been introduced to recently. I haven't read Calvin's institutes but I am allergic :) to much of the reformed teaching I have heard.

I know very little of the Patristic fathers. I am currently slowly working my way through the Philokalia but outside of this I have read almost nothing. The body of literature is huge and a bit daunting. It would be nice if there were some topical index instead of having to randomly pick an author.

Just as an addendum in defense of Athanasia's husband, and so that I can totally ruin my reputation, :) I go to a Baptist church of the contemporary, evangelical flavor. I am blessed to have a wonderful godly pastor and elders. After God's grace and my husband's loving support, my pastor's encouragement and advice has been a mainstay for me in the trials and storms of this journey with Christ.

I was thinking about this whole thing of identifying the sinful nature as something separate from oneself and I wonder if it is not a recognition of our own will as something separate from the outside factors which influence it. In Romans 7 Paul idnentifies the sinful nature as one influence and God's Law as the other and himself in between. It reminds me of Frodo on Amon Hen when the Eye was searching for him, and Galdalf's voice was telling him to take off the ring.

The two powers strove in him. For a moment, perfectly balanced between their piercing points, he writhed, tormented. Suddenly he was aware of himself again. Frodo, neither the Voice nor the Eye: free to choose, and with one remaining instant in which to do so.

I think the ring is a wonderful picture of the sinful nature, and of course Paul's point. "Oh what a wretched man am I, who will rescue me from this body of death?!" is that although we may occasionally be able to 'take off' the full effects of sin through self-control , we cannot ourselves destroy it nor get rid of it any more then Frodo could with the ring.

M.C. Steenberg

24-04-2007, 10:46 AM

Above, Celinda wrote:

I was thinking about this whole thing of identifying the sinful nature as something separate from oneself and I wonder if it is not a recognition of our own will as something separate from the outside factors which influence it.

[...] I think the ring is a wonderful picture of the sinful nature, and of course Paul's point. "Oh what a wretched man am I, who will rescue me from this body of death?!" is that although we may occasionally be able to 'take off' the full effects of sin through self-control , we cannot ourselves destroy it nor get rid of it any more then Frodo could with the ring.

There is something important in what you've written here, and this strikes me as the fundamental conviction of sin as a thing foreign to human nature. It is always an accretion, something 'forced upon' the fundamentally sacred nature of the human person; and as such, it always 'feels' - when one is discerning enough to look at such things - foreign. This surely lies behind the very fabric of the ascetical nature of Christianity.

Thank you for the reminder.

INXC, Matthew

Celinda Grace

24-04-2007, 01:50 PM

Mr. Steenburg said,

"Without beginning in the incarnation, in the Son, there is little 'Christian' about any approach."

As I have been thinking over this thread and the "River of Fire" discussion a number of stray strands of thoughts have congealed. It's one of those things when God decides to hit you over the head with a two by four.

I have been blessed enough over the years never to have encountered any of the 'angry God' preaching that tends to go around the more traditional Protestant churches, but it struck me this weekend that there is a deeper problem with the whole substitutionary atonement paradigm. It is the very fact that it is substitutionary rather then Incarnational. The two modes of thought are not compatible.

When Christianity becomes about what Christ has done FOR ME I lose the whole focus of LIVING CHRIST, BEING CHRIST. Over and over I have fallen into the trap of pursuing something: virtue, perfection, some mystical union. I would try to compensate by pursuing Christ Himself -but even this is irredeemable because if I am pursuing Christ I cannot simultaneously be living Him. In this mindset, pursuing Christ invariably becomes pursuing some Christ likeness apart from Christ Himself.

The Church teaches that to think in divided terms of an exclusive 'I' or 'Thou' is already a broken, fallen perception. The starting-point for understanding must be in the realm of encounter and relation.

Substitutionary thinking strips out the relational component and leaves one to live the Christian life on one's own. It makes suffering meaningless unless it is some chosen sacrifice accepted to accomplish some greater good and no matter how one tries to compensate, Christianity becomes about what 'I' am doing.

Lord have mercy, What a mess.

Rick H.

24-04-2007, 04:48 PM

Ich und Du: "Toward the Difference between Truth and the HDC"

Dear Celinda,

I have refrained from entering an area here on monachos intentionally, because to speak in this dialect could easily confuse other things that I have said in the past (especially as I have made use of personal pronouns). However, you are the third person, in just over a week here on monchos, to walk on this Ground:

On 4/15, M.C. Steenberg said in this thread:

The Church teaches that to think in divided terms of an exclusive 'I' or 'Thou' is already a broken, fallen perception. The starting-point for understanding must be in the realm of encounter and relation.

On 4/19, Antony Solomon said in the Mystery of the Eucharist thread:

I hae just been reading Evdokimov, The Struggle with God. He mentions that we should not distinguish between the spiritual experience of God, and God himself, as if there is subject and object, but that God is the Spiritual experience. Does this apply here, in relaiton to essense/energies, and thus the eucharist? As a newbie to EO, I am trying, OTOH to get my head around things like this, while OTOH to navigate around what I have been told RCC teaching is, since I don't know if the two are the same thing

Today, you, Celinda, have said here:

The two modes of thought are not compatible.

and, based on your last post, I think it is possible that you have just begun a new journey. So, if this is the case, then I would like to share with you something that I wish would have been accessible to me at a similar 'starting point' a few years ago. Even though I would not have understood very much of what was being said in these two thought units, I still wish I would have had these planted as seeds of contemplation during this time. But, all things in due time/season :) The first piece (which is to be read in tandem with the second) is by a German philosopher named Walter Kaufmann who ultimately found a home with the Princeton faculty:

"Man's world is manifold, and his attitudes are manifold. What is manifold is often frightening because it is not neat and simple. Men prefer to forget how many possibilities are open to them.

They like to be told that there are two worlds and two ways. This is comforting because it is so tidy. Almost always one way turns out to be common and the other one is celebrated as superior.

Those who tell of two ways and praise one are recognized as prophets or great teachers. They save men from confusion and hard choices. They offer a single choice that is easy to make because those who do not take the path that is commended to them live a wretched life.

To walk far on this path may be difficult, but the choice is easy, and to hear the celebration of this path is pleasant. Wisdom offers simple schemes, but truth is not so simple.

Not all simplicity is wise. But a wealth of possibilities breeds dread. Hence those who speak of many possibilities speak only to the few and are help to even fewer. The wise offer two ways, of which one is good, and thus help to many."

The second piece is by Martin Buber who taught his dialogical, or "I-Thou" philosophy at Hebrew University of Jerusalem (the spaces between lines are indicative of new paragraphs as Buber has it in his writing):

"The world is twofold for man in accordance with his twofold attitude.

The attitude of man is twofold in accordance with the two basic words he can speak.

The basic words are not single words but word pairs.

One basic word is the word pair I-You.

The other basic word is the word pair I-It; but this basic word is not changed when He or She takes the place of It.

Thus the I of man is also twofold.

For the I of the basic word I-You is different from that in the basic word I-It"

So Celinda, for what it may or may not be worth here it is. And, now based on what I have read in the past week or so here on monachos, I feel like my obligation(s) has been fulfilled (as well as a pacification of a possible OCD--so this is actually a bonus pack! :) Yes, as we see here and elsewhere, it is as you say, "the two modes are not compatible!" (lest we invoke the dreaded HDC [the Humpty Dumpty Clause @ J. Charmley] which here too shall pass unmentioned ;)

In Christ,
Rick

PS And, as a follow up to your LOTR quote, I would like to add one of my favorites that I think is not too far off the mark here. This is from the movie dialogue between Frodo and Gandalf (while Gollum is seen on camera, lurking in the shadows, for the first time):

Frodo says:

"I wish the ring had never come to me, I wish none of this had ever happened."

Gandalf responds:

"So do all who live to see such times. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us, there are other forces at work in this world Frodo . . . other than that of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the ring which means you were also meant to have it and that is an encouraging thought."

Our resident expert, my youngest daughter, tells me the "other forces at work" refer to Iluvatar. This is a comforting thought; but, I must admit that that Gollum really creeps me out.

Nina

24-04-2007, 05:15 PM

Ich und Du:

19

Rick, you reminded me of a children's rhyme in German "Ich und Du, Müeller's Kuh..." Do you know it?

Rick H.

24-04-2007, 06:05 PM

Rick, you reminded me of a children's rhyme in German "Ich und Du, Müeller's Kuh..." Do you know it?

Dear Guardian Angel Nina,

Would you believe it? Out of all the German nursery rhymes that I have memorized over the years, this is one that I don't know! :o) However, possibly, after my last post, you can stay true to 'character,' and lighten things up a bit here and share it with us?

In Christ,
Rick

Nina

24-04-2007, 06:18 PM

Dear Guardian Angel Nina,

Would you believe it? Out of all the German nursery rhymes that I have memorized over the years, this is one that I don't know! :o) However, possibly, after my last post, you can stay true to 'character,' and lighten things up a bit here and share it with us?

In Christ,
Rick

Ooops... sorry for intruding! Did not mean to turn your thread in a nursery (although I must admit that the guy who says 'my precious' is scary). Forgive me, please. I was just so amused from your use of ich und du and my brain instantly searched and served me the most uncomplicated thing that I knew: the rhyme (I assumed you knew it also). Please google it - it is funny.

Mary

24-04-2007, 06:46 PM

Ooops... sorry for intruding! Did not mean to turn your thread in a nursery (although I must admit that the guy who says 'my precious' is scary). Forgive me, please. I was just so amused from your use of ich und du and my brain instantly searched and served me the most uncomplicated thing that I knew: the rhyme (I assumed you knew it also). Please google it - it is funny.

Enlighten me, please, Nina! I got lost in Google, in all those German websites, and it was quite distressing!

Mary

Nina

24-04-2007, 06:48 PM

Enlighten me, please, Nina! I got lost in Google, in all those German websites, and it was quite distressing!

Mary

Sorry, that's classified knowledge! 20

Rick H.

03-05-2007, 03:55 PM