Questions in postmodernity

[Celinda Grace]

What I see, in general, is that in the tension between postmodernism and modernism a door is opening. We have been talking in the other thread about the fact that Spiritual encounter, spiritual truth, is all about an unchanging Spiritual reality experienced from a subjective viewpoint. The faith does not change but the individual Fathers express that faith differently through the lens of their own personality and culture.

Modern Rationalism is concerned about dwelling on unchanging mental realities, and postmodernism is about living only in cultural and subjective realities. In the tension between the two the mind is much more primed toward spiritual encounter.

C.S. Lewis says somewhere that he thinks modernists have to be converted to paganism before they can really be converted to Christainity. (I wish I could find the quote) Who can deny the growing interest in spiritual experience today? Outside the church this manifests as a growth toward new agey paganistic type thinking, but inside the church it leaves people open to spiritual encounter.

A caveat though, I don't expect culture to start improving. In fact I expect things to get worse. What is changing is that the conditions under which we are living are more condusive for God to manifest Himself more fully. However, these same conditions can be exploited by Satan to use also. What I see is simply that there is an openness and hunger for spiritual reality. We have come a far cry from the mechanistic deists and stict materialism of the 18th and early 19th centuries.

PS to actually trace the influence of western Christianity in getting us here would require a course in the history of western ideas and how Christainity has influenced western philosophy. It is a two way street, yes philosophy corrupted Christainity, but Christian ideas themselves have influenced the direction philosophy has taken.

PS If you are interested I have a set of three of blog posts that I copied to my computer (I don't think the blog is still up) that provide kind of an introduction to the whole move from premodern to modern to existential to postmodern thinking and how that has influenced the church.

[Antonios]

Dear Celinda,

I would like to thank you for your prompt response. I will first give my confession that I know little about what the term 'Protestant Church' means. Honestly, I have only done a brief study of the history of the Protestant movement, enough to know that it differs from the Orthodox Church, so please take my comments and questions as simply from someone who does not have much knowledge of it. So, before anything else, forgive me. Truthfully, I have read extremely little writings from Protestant thinkers. The problem is there's so much reading material from my own Church, innummerable amounts from the Patristic Fathers alone, that I haven't had the available time to devote to Protestant readings.


from post 196 in the HOS thread. This quote is by a well known and respected Protestant leader.

When you say a well known and respected Protestant leader, what do you mean by leader? How is his authority understood?


"If the church is going to experience a second reformation, this one dealing with sanctification as the first dealt with justification, then we’ll need to recover the doctrine of the Trinity and understand its implications for human community."

When this Protestant leader says a second reformation, will this then be the final reformation? Will the church have then reached a point where no other reformations will be needed? In other words, how many reformations are needed before the doctrine of the Trinity is recovered and its implications for human community is understood?


But the reason I included the quotes from Crabb and Houston is that when you have life in you, you grow whether you are aware of it or not. There are segments of the PC that are starting to grow up into the Spirit. In fact if you look at the history of the PC and study the moves of God within it, if you look at the different revivals and discern the essence of God's movement within them and the changes in church and culture that came as a result you will find that the PC itself, as a whole, is slowly growing up and traveling through the stages of spiritual growth.

To me, ignorant as I am (see the above disclaimer), I see the Protestant Church not simply growing up, but trying to catch up. Indeed, from some of the 'revivals' I have heard about in recent history, some would say it was less 'the essence of God's movement within them' and more so delusion. I, of course, am not claiming this as a generalization of the Protestant Church. They are likely fringe pockets. The problem is, what is their structure of authority? To whom do they claim obedience to. True, Jesus Christ. But if they are spiritually deluded, then to whom?


We have been talking in the other thread about the fact that Spiritual encounter, spiritual truth, is all about an unchanging Spiritual reality experienced from a subjective viewpoint. The faith does not change but the individual Fathers express that faith differently through the lens of their own personality and culture.

I think this is debatable. I can't agree that the faith of a saint of the Orthodox Church is the same faith as a well known and respected Protestant leader, just expressed differently through the lens of their own personality and culture. The mysteries (sacraments) of the Church would be one example.


Modern Rationalism is concerned about dwelling on unchanging mental realities, and postmodernism is about living only in cultural and subjective realities. In the tension between the two the mind is much more primed toward spiritual encounter.

Following this logic, post-postmodernism will bring about a situation where the mind will be even more primed toward spirtual encounter. I hope this is the case, but it may not be. And even if so, a mind more primed toward spiritual encounter does not necessarly translates to a more Christian one.



Outside the church this manifests as a growth toward new agey paganistic type thinking, but inside the church it leaves people open to spiritual encounter.


It also leads people inside the church to new agey paganistic type thinking.



What is changing is that the conditions under which we are living are more condusive for God to manifest Himself more fully. However, these same conditions can be exploited by Satan to use also. What I see is simply that there is an openness and hunger for spiritual reality. We have come a far cry from the mechanistic deists and stict materialism of the 18th and early 19th centuries.


When you say 'we', in the last sentence, who are you referring to?



PS If you are interested I have a set of three of blog posts that I copied to my computer (I don't think the blog is still up) that provide kind of an introduction to the whole move from premodern to modern to existential to postmodern thinking and how that has influenced the church.


If you have this, please send it to me. I would be interested in reading this.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Celinda,

You wrote:


PS If you are interested I have a set of three of blog posts that I copied to my computer (I don't think the blog is still up) that provide kind of an introduction to the whole move from premodern to modern to existential to postmodern thinking and how that has influenced the church.

Would you be able to post these here? Thanks.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Celinda Grace]

posted by Daniel Kearns on His blog http://danielkearns.blogspot.com/ June of 2005

Mapping Postmodernism: A Survey of Christian Options (Part 1)

Postmodernism is a topic that needs to be addressed by the church, as much of our culture is already thoroughly postmodern. Furthermore, I would argue that it needs to be addressed on a philosophical level. Within the church and parachurch organizations, postmodernism has become both a bragging right and an anathema. Unfortunately, it seems to me as though the term ‘postmodern’ typically means ‘contemporary’ or ‘progressive’ in these contexts, not truly ‘postmodern’ in a philosophical sense. Additionally, postmodernism now represents a broad spectrum of ideas, and to simply ‘be postmodern’ or ‘not be postmodern’ necessitates further clarification. Finally, we would do well to analyze the long-term ramifications of a postmodern rubric; while it may seem idyllic for the time being, could it not, like modernity in its Post-Enlightenment state, generate problems unforeseen by its founders?

Thus today’s post is the first of a series on a book I’ve recently read by Robert Greer. You can read a review of the book or purchase it by clicking on the title/link. I’ve read several books on postmodernism, by both Christians and non-Christians, by folks arguing for it and against it. Greer “warns that being merely for or against postmodernism is inadequate.” Can I get an amen? Over the next few weeks, I’ll essentially compress the chapters of his book into brief(ish) summaries for the non-philosophically literate (it’s like the Reader’s Digest version of the book, harkening back to the infamous ‘Peloponnesian War’ by Daniel Kearns… not Thucydides). Finally, I hope to throw up a bit of analysis myself, as I’m not 100% on board with Greer, but far closer than I’ve felt with any other contemporary philosopher/theologian up to this point. Hopefully we can also get some interesting dialog going on in the comments section of the posts. So without further ado, a quick look at four major philosophical paradigms: premodernism, modernism, existentialism, and postmodernism.

Premodernism:

In many ways, premodernism is the hardest paradigm to define, because it is an endeavor very similar to apophatic theology; it is far easier to say what it is not than what it is. A premodernist worldview perceives the world as an undifferentiated whole; life is a holistic blend into a singular perception of truth. Knowledge focuses on understanding individual agendas and the working out/results of those agendas. Rationale is derived from historical orientation, not an objective ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. The premodernists lived by a contractual quid pro quo, which we see in much of the Old Testament and New Testament: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery” (Ex. 20:2). The Israelites were obligated to God because of what He had done for them. Hence, a very clear, black and white dualism appears: you are either for x or against x. There is no gray line, no middle ground. ‘A man cannot serve two masters’. Rather than perceiving God or morality in an altruistic or ‘objective’ light, the Israelites simply perceived Him as God, their Lord and Master. Thus, incidents such as the genocide committed against other nations, Rahab’s lie, David’s deception of Abimelech, etc. find simple resolve: all were done in service of the Lord. ‘Abide in me, and I in you’. The focus here is on loyalty, allegiance, obligations, and blessings. And in all of these cases, the focus is on a person (or God), not ideals or objective truths. As far as we can tell, there is no development of a ‘scientific method’ at this point in time.

Note that the Hellenistic philosophers (primarily Plato and Aristotle) are better understood as proto*-modern than premodern. Rather than subscribing to a quid pro quo understanding of virtue, these Greek philosophers strove for an understanding of moral rectitude independent of premodern thought. Paul is probably referring to proto-modernist thought when he writes of the “hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ” (Col. 2:8). Likewise, John also seems to condemn this abstraction as the “spirit of antichrist” (1 John 4:1-4). Still, by the early patristic period, individuals such as Clement of Alexandria were integrating proto-modern thought into Christianity, even considering Plato and Aristotle as proto-Christians. A position of compromise, which condemned and anathematized some aspects of Hellenistic thought while embracing others, can be found in Augustine.

Modernism:

Two facets of modernism demonstrate a sharp move away from premodern thought. The first is the notion of distanciation, the second is the notion of radical doubt. The position of distanciation emphasizes the divide between subject and object. By detaching one’s self from surroundings, cultural influences, personal feelings, etc., one arrives at a truly objective viewpoint. Thus, definitive and absolute conclusions can be made by the ‘impartial spectator’. Additionally, cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) introduces the notion of radical doubt. By doubting everything, we create a blank slate from which we can proceed without the need to distrust our conclusions. These epistemological moves have essentially become the only way to think (rationally) in Western culture until recent decades. (makes the thinking, perceiving subject invisible and attempts to isolate the object)

In Post-Enlightenment history, both the conservative and liberal traditions of the Western church have essentially embraced the modernist agenda. Liberalism sought for a knowledge that is absolutely and universally felt to be true from an intuitive perspective. (psychology, internal state) Conservatism sought to determine absolute and universal truth from a cognitive orientation (external absolute truth). In both cases, distanciation and radical doubt were embraced, with the result of an elevation of the human mind/rationality and an incredible spirit of triumphalism. By the 20th century, however, absolute truth proved to be more elusive than we originally thought. As one can see by the splintering of church denominations and frustrated ecumenical efforts, a modernist perspective within the church has proven to be destructive. Within the academia, Nietzche, Hedigger, Barth, Wittgenstein, Sartre, Foucault, Derrida, etc. began a systematic criticism of modernism, giving birth to existentialism and postmodernism.

Existentialism:

Like modernism, existential thought rejects the influence of culture or history in the shaping of truth. But unlike modernism, the context for this truth search is one wherein universal/absolute truth is not thought to exist. Existentialism insists that a voyage beginning with the Cogito ends in an experience of the world ‘as it is’, not with an acquisition of universal/absolute truth. After all, a criterionless foundation of radical doubt should lead to criterionless random, pragmatic behavior; not universally valid criteria (absolute truth). Notions of right and wrong are absent in existential thought, as these notions are based upon the existence of universal truths. As a result, existentialism is a highly individualistic affair. Much of its momentum has been lost, however, due to (among other issues) a doubt about whether it is truly possible to think aculturally and ahistorically. Though existentialism may, in fact, be more consistent with the cogito¸ its conclusions are difficult to live by (or profess).

Postmodernism:

Postmodernism has emerged out of existentialism’s inadequacies. Both emerge moving in a post-Cogito direction, wherein universal/absolute truth is replaced by a localized understanding, but postmodernism is rooted in language and culture, where existentialism is grounded in the emptiness of one’s mind. For the postmodernist, the ‘blank slate’ of radical doubt is an absurdity. Within one’s mind exists language (words, syntax, and grammar) and this language is inherently rooted in a specific culture. As languages differ, so the identification and organization of thoughts generated by language also differ. Thus, postmodernism asserts that language is prior to knowledge. (is saying that what is in the mind is more substantial then reality) Since it is impossible to think apart from your language (and the context of that language), no single metanarrative can exist. Rather, a plethora of metanarratives serve as cultural lenses in an antirealist system (since the epistemological gap between the phenomena and noumena cannot be bridged). While this sounds a bit Kantian, postmodernism is content to settle for phenomenology alone, without grasping the noumena. This avoidance of reality leads to a strange conclusion: “any proposition is true – or true enough, or as true as anything gets – if it comports with one’s feeling about, or ‘perceptions’ of, something” (George F. Will). Where premodernism focused on quid pro quo and where modernism and existentialism focused on the subject, postmodernism focuses on language. As language changes and evolves, so must one’s own ‘language truth’. Interestingly enough, this does not force postmodernism to be an amoral system (like existentialism), but rather a non-universal and mutable system of morality.

Within postmodernism, two major subcategories exist: constructionism and deconstructionism. Wittgenstein championed the constructionist system, which “argues for the formation of systems of truth defined by the interaction of various cultures and language groups that make up our world” (Greer). Deconstructionism, on the other hand, assumes that even within an individual language system, the erratic state of flux deconstructs and reshapes definitions and understandings of truth on a constant and consistent basis. Thus, even to a specific culture, truth lacks a coherent definition. Derrida is typically credited as the premier deconstructionist philosopher.

Enjoy… in the next post of this series, I’ll begin talking about absolute truth and the ecumenical imperative.

[Antonios]

Thank you Celinda for the reply and for the article. I look forward to studying it.

[Celinda Grace]

Part two is called "The Dark Side of Absolute Truth and basically recaps what is already well known here, so I won't bother posting it. I have highlighted some things I want to go into later today.

Mapping Postmodernism: Absolute Truth Revisited (part 3)

After the early Protestant Reformation’s attempts at ecumenism failed, the new Protestant church quickly set about systematizing and subsequently institutionalizing their new religious tradition. By combining Augustine and Descartes, the Protestants unknowingly reintroduced a method (via moderna), the very object of Luther’s original dispute with the Catholic church. Protestant scholasticism produced both theological liberalism and conservatism, strange bedfellows described by George Lindbeck as “two foxes, snarling at each other and pulling in opposite directions, but tied together by their tails.” These ‘ties’ were a fundamental commitment to the Cogito (radical doubt and scientific methodology) and a God’s eye view, and a principle of distanciation. Both theological conservatives and liberals believed in an object/subject split allowing them to study from afar without cultural and historical baggage.
The violence between theological conservatism and liberalism centered on the question of objectivism and subjectivism. Greer puts forth two primary questions, leading to a third.

(1)“Is absolute truth located on an intuitive level (subjectivism) or on a cognitive level (objectivism)?

Is the Bible to be read intuitively, with little concern as to whether the historical episodes being recounted actually took place as presented, or is it to be read cognitively, demanding that historical precision is necessary before anything is believed and embraced?

Both traditions deemed intuition and cognition necessary. The difference between the two traditions therefore turned on a third question:

Which one – intuition or cognition – has the upper hand in one’s interpretation of the Bible?” (Greer, 35)

Liberalism, of course, chose intuition. Conservatism chose cognition.Within theological liberalism, the authenticity of the supernatural miracles, inspiration, etc. could not stand up to the rigor of the scientific method. Setting aside Luther’s theologia crucis and Calvin’s Deus dixit, liberalism (as embodied in Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher) asserted that “every true religion is a manifestation of an ‘intuition of the universe’, but the Christian religion is the highest and therefore most perfect expression of this intuition” (Greer, 35). Jesus is the Redeemer of all mankind, whether they acknowledge Him or not. Religious truth is not wholly personal (e.g. postmodernism), but rather religions mature in their ‘intuitive methodology’ as they more closely resemble the Christian faith. God endows us with a ‘prereflective feeling’, ensuring the same eventual conclusion of a Christian-like faith.

Flaws are obvious. If we are led by a prereflective feeling, how do we judge the Christian God to be the center of our ontological reality? Why not the God of Islam? There is no consensus in scholarship or between religious bodies. Furthermore, as more and more cultures interact, we discover religions which do not seem to be converging upon a single truth. The East and West conceive of God, existence, humanity, etc. in extremely different ways. In 1910, Albert Schweitzer pointed out another flaw with his The Quest of the Historical Jesus. According to Schweitzer, liberal scholarship simply backwashed its worldview onto the biblical texts. More recently, Paul Tillich has been a prominent theological liberal, grounding ‘religion’ in nontheological language and a universal truth more basic and fundamental than the biblical narrative.

Theological conservatism attempted to ground itself in cognitive objectivity, with Scottish Common Sense Realism appearing as one of its first realizations. Through inductive reasoning (and radical doubt, of course!), Scottish Common Sense Realism collected a number of irrefutable facts, systematizing them into an airtight system of thought. Theological conservatism claimed that the supernatural passed the rigor of scientific methodology based on inerrancy and prophecy: the Bible’s harmony and historical accuracy over hundreds of years, as well as its 100% fulfillment of prophecy must legitimize the supernatural occurrences. The only plausible and rational answer to all of this is an authorship by God Himself. Thus, prophecy and inerrancy become pillars of the theological conservative’s faith.

Scottish Common Sense Realism has had an enormous influence on North American Evangelical thought (see Mark Noll and George Marsden), most obviously through Princeton Theological Seminary during the 19th and early 20th centuries (see B. B. Warfield, Charles Hodge, etc.). Particularly dangerous among most Evangelicals is the ignorance of the philosophical connections to their theological systems. Rather than acknowledging a system derived from Descartes, Baconianism, etc., most Evangelicals act “as though the process of moving from the ancient biblical text to the contemporary affirmation of doctrine and theology was self-evident” (Mark Noll). The Cogito finds expression in at least four major categories: evidentialist apologetics, triumphalism, the depreciation of the historic creeds and confessions and the eclipse of the biblical narrative.

For examples of evidentialist apologetics, we can look to Charles Hodge, who claimed, “the Bible is to the theologian what nature is to the man of science. It is his storehouse of facts; and his method of ascertaining what the Bible teaches is the same as that which the natural philosopher adopts to ascertain what nature teaches.” From Charles Finney to Jerry Falwell, a clear and distinct cause/effect relationship has been adopted within not only the ‘scientific’ world, but the world of faith. Theology, faith, revival: all have become an exact science.

Within the Cogito, Christianity also becomes highly triumphalistic. We are not content with the mere label of ‘follower of Christ’. We are Reformed or Wesleyan, liturgical or non-liturgical, amillennial or dispensationalist. Even within fairly narrow bodies of belief, we find separation: the Reformed Presbyterian vs. the Orthodox Presbyterians, etc. Because absolute truth is knowable, we stake our claim and stick to our guns. (2)Says James K. A. Smith, “Everything is a matter of interpretation, including those interpretations described as core orthodoxy. We never have the crisp, unadorned voice of God because it is always heard and read through the lens of our finitude and situationality. Even when someone purports to deliver to us the unadorned voice of God, or “what God meant,” we always receive only someone’s interpretation which is [falsely] wearing the badge of divinity.”

The modernist notion of radical doubt applies to the historic creeds and confessions as well. While the early Reformers and most Catholics/Orthodox place(d) a large emphasis on the early ecumenical creeds, your average Protestant knows next to nothing about such creeds and would discredit their importance. Evangelicals have, for the most part, forsaken the doctrine of indefectibility. Sola scriptura hardly implies nuda scriptura, but it is to this end that the Evangelicals have arrived.

Finally, theology under the auspice of the Cogito eclipses the biblical narrative. A realistic narrative is understandable, yet exists on many paradoxical and seemingly contradictory levels. It is never wholly understood, but compels us nonetheless with its ring of authenticity. It mirrors our own perception of the world, effectively placing us within its story (or giving us a story of our own). (3) Within the method of the Cogito, however, the Bible is reduced to a “storehouse of data from which timeless and immutable principles are drawn … it seeks to qualify and quantify” (Greer).

We have now observed the way in which the Enlightenment ideal of ‘absolute truth’ has affected Christian thought and theology in the past several hundred years. The second ‘call to postmodernism,’ which we will examine next, is the ecumenical imperative. Note that I (Dan) do not necessarily believe we must wholly forsake modernism or embrace a different school of thought to think Biblically. To me, the thought of fully subscribing to a single school of philosophical thought is quite dangerous. Yet all the same, I can see the tentacles of modernity grasping at me as I conceive of distanciation myself: Can’t we think of Christianity from the outside, escaping the claws of modernism, postmodernism and post-postmodernism? Probably not. I’ll try to get the next post up by the end of the weekend.

[Celinda Grace]

Paul,

Instead of answering your post directly let me simply try to draw out what I was saying further. You're thinking is very much in the objectivist viewpoint, whereas the greatness of the Orthodox Fathers lies in the unification of the intuitive and cognitive, the subjectivist and objectivist (see 1) I haven't studied much of the Father's yet, but spending quite a bit of time among post-modern Christians has enabled me to approach more of an Orthodox understanding of things. They too reject this split. (more on this later) Failure to overcome this split leads to a failure to understand Christ in His Body.

One of the fundamental tenents of Orthodoxy is that Christ had to assume the complete human nature in order for that nature to be wholly redeemed and so He was incarnate from conception through death and lived the whole process of human growth.

Now if we step back and look not at the growth of an individual human but the growth of humanity as a whole from its conception to its final redemption, then Christ must also take on Himself the conditions under which this growth occurs. Thus, although, Christ's work is complete and cannot be added too, that work must be compeleted by the Church, His Body, in the conditions under which the humanity is currently existing.

At the Fall Adam (humanity) died and God had to essentially start over. We can in some ways look at the symbolism of being covered with coats of skins as being born again into the mortality that we now have.

From Invitation to Love, Thomas Keating

"The developmental model is actually a subset of an even more comprehensive model, the evolutionary. The infant experiences the same developmental pattern and value systems that the human family as a whole experienced. In other words, each human being is a microcosm of where the human race has been -and where it might be headed. For the evolutionary model I will follow the insightful arrangement of Ken Wilber, which he calls the Great Chain of Being.

(I haven't read Wilber's book only Keating's summary, and I don't necessarily agree with how Wilber has attempted to articulate this insight, nevertheless I think the insight is valid)

In the joining of the microcosm and the macrocosm is the understanding of Christ and His Church. What Christ did in the microcosm, the Church does in the macrocosm. Christ's life counters death and corruption at every level and we see that battle played out in the struggle between the 'Two Cities'.

Therefore we have to see the Church, not as this organism totally separated from the rest of humanity, but intimately involved in and and involving itself in the conditions under which humanity is existing. This is Christ interpenetrating and redeeming the human condition with His divinity.

[Paul Cowan]

I love reading what you folks write. But after I read and re-read it all for understanding, I keep coming back to this.


Matthew18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

Perhaps somewhere between milk and meat you will find me nibbling on a salad. (with bacon bits)


1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal.

Your humble little brother
Paul

[M.C. Steenberg]

I do not see postmodernism as a helpful 'way in' to an Orthodox mindset. It is a humanist philosophy that replaced a humanist philosophy. It tore down categories to replace them with new; but the new were largely framed in the same overarching perceptions. And then they, too, were seen as restrictive and forced - and postmodernism itself became 'post-'ed.

The 'way in' comes from the realisation of, not so much the connectedness of, but the identity between experience and intellect. Orthodoxy does not favour experience over intellect; this is itself a false category. It sees noetic activity as fundamentally experiential. The mind functions properly only when it rests in the heart, and the heart beats with interaction, engagement, and encounter.

INXC, Matthew

[Rick H.]

Dear Matthew, Dear All,

Thanks very much for this Matthew, as usual, you hit the nail right on the head in the following:




I do not see postmodernism as a helpful 'way in' to an Orthodox mindset.



This is 1000% correct, just as you have said it.

But, now I would like to flip this around and make a point that I have been making for some time now about the relationship of the one who subscribes to the postmodern myth and the one who would preach the Word to him.

For the Orthodox man or woman who can understand how the postmodern thinks and speaks, this same Orthodox has a most helpful 'way in' to a postmodern mindset.

And, at supersonic speed, this once again takes us to the fields of evangelism/missiology and not least apologetics!

So, I would like to assert as *simply* as possible that what you say IS a True Truth and it is absolutely imperative that we understand it; however, the opposite, as I have just said IS also a True Truth and it is absolutely imperative that we understand it--in order to avoid having only half of the story as it relates to the postmodern myth.

So, in this sense:

I see the Orthodox who understands the postmodern mindset as the one who has a very helpful 'way in' to speak to the postmodern about the crucified and risen Lord.

In Christ,
Rick

Acts 17:22-34

[Andrew]

The way into Orthodoxy, into Life in Christ, is through a broken and humbled heart. Postmodern culture does not aim at forming persons with broken and humbled hearts. It aims at group identity and empowerment. It aims at "tolerance of diversity" and "giving voice to marginalized groups." It's root is pride, I think. There is a heavy pride of mind and a haze of accidie in the pomo present of western culture, and it results in a dazed nihilism with an ironic smile.

The way into the Kingdom of Heaven, just like at all times in the past, is through repentance. It cuts to the heart, quiets the mind, and puts the sinner before the Presence of God. We should pray that Our Lord softens the hard hearted and gives them pain of heart so that they may enter into the Life of God.

There is no intellectual system that leads into the way of Christ. Intellectual systems are the result of the cognitive functioning of man, not of how things actually are. Christ is the I Am, the Logos, the basis of all existence. He Is. And he said, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" And the Kingdom of Heaven is within you, in the heart. So, let us turn to the heart and pray.

[Celinda Grace]

I do not see postmodernism as a helpful 'way in' to an Orthodox mindset. It is a humanist philosophy that replaced a humanist philosophy. It tore down categories to replace them with new; but the new were largely framed in the same overarching perceptions. And then they, too, were seen as restrictive and forced - and postmodernism itself became 'post-'ed.

INXC, Matthew

Matthew,

I think that you are not really seeing where I am coming from.

I see Postmodernism only as helpful in that it helps break down some of the particular self-denfense mechanisms of the modernist who is used to looking at the world through a certain interpretative framework. While postmodernism flunks in its solutions to the problems of modern culture, postmodernists such as Greer have done a good job at bringing to light the problems with modern thinking This can cause open minded modernists to reflect on their own way of thinking about the world. If you look at points 2 and 3 that I bolded in Mapping Postmodernism -part 3 you will see that this realization knocks down the underpinning of the Protestant approach to scripture. It forces a re-evaluation and a search for some other solution.

Once again please realize I am NOT offering postmodernism as any kind of solution. What I am saying is that confrontation with postmodernism, forces open previously closed doors causing people to start searching for solutions. Philosophy never offers solutions, but philsophers tend to be men who on a natural level are on a search for truth. As each particular philosophical paradigm is explored and brought to its logical conclusion (which is always a denial of Reality) then a new solution is sought.

The story of the West is the story of the battle for the mind. It is a battleground not of ruling political authorities but ruling ideas, ruling philosophical paradigms. The church in the west is as badly oppressed and persecuted by these ruling ideas as the Eastern church has been on the political front. Yet God is at work and for each door that has opened in the philsophical battle some part of the western church has taken advantage of the ground gained.

Note quotes and comments on philosophy come from some of my notes on 2 books by E. Gilson: Thomistic Realism: a Critique of Knowledge and Being and Some Philosophers[


"Every philosophical doctrine is ruled by the intrinsic necessity of its own position and by the consequences which flow from it in virtue of the universal laws of reason." ( Etienne Gilson, Thomistic Realism pg 150)

The following is the story of philosophy

"When we conceive a being as real, we do not think of it as merely possible, by excluding existence, nor yet do we think of it as existing, but we leave existence out of consideration." Gilson pg 106 quoting Kleutgen, La philosophic scolastique.)

"The rebellion of the human intellect against what of reality remains impervious to its abstract concepts has probably more to do with it than any single philosopher we might quote. For reason has only one means to account for what does not come from itself, and it is to reduce it to nothingness." E. Meyerson, La Deduction relativistic)


Modernism reached it's logical conclusion first with Kant, then Hegel nailed the lid on the coffin. Kant completely excluded existence from his philosophy and then Hegel completely explained it away.

Hegel concluded that f being is not perceived, nor represented, not intuited, and yet is known, being must be identical with thought. It is thought when thought takes itself for its own object.

"In the centuries old process of "essence vs existence" essence has at last won its case" (pg 142).

Here at last philosophy discovered that the unrenewed mind is completely self-absorbed.

Kirkegaard then arises as a reaction of existence against essence. Kirkegaard cannot resolve the crisis between the existenceless conception of being and actual existence, so in a complete repudiation of Hegel and an absolute idealism, he says that existence is the only thing that matters and rejects thought. This has its end ultimately in the rise of postmodernism as noted in Mapping Postmodernism part 1 The end of this line of philsophy instead of the mind taking its own thought for the only reality, is that the acting subject has become completely insulated from reality and in essence declares itself god. It is the self's ultimate declaration of 'I am' totally separated from any external influence.



The 'way in' comes from the realisation of, not so much the connectedness of, but the identity between experience and intellect. Orthodoxy does not favour experience over intellect; this is itself a false category. It sees noetic activity as fundamentally experiential. The mind functions properly only when it rests in the heart, and the heart beats with interaction, engagement, and encounter.

True and this is something that can only be done by the Spirit, the history of modern philosophy is the history of noticing and constantly failing to solve fundamental divide between our subjective experience of existence and our objective knowledge of essence.

You say this is a false category, I think what you are saying is that to look at these two things (experience and intellect) separately is a false way of looking at things. Ultimately yes, but this separation is the fundamental break that we experience as fallen creatures. As fallen creatures we live in this break and experience these two things separately, thus I think it not wrong to talk about them separately as a way of describing our problem.

PS I just realized that there is going to be linguistic difficulties here. If I am understanding how the OC tends to use these words-- Essence as used here is probably closer to God's energies and existence closer to the the classical OC use of essence.

[Celinda Grace]

How has the philosophical battle played out in the culture and how has it influenced the church?

Maximus divides the journey up this way (1st Century on theology 92)
Law –flesh -scripture “He who fulfills the Law in his private and public life only abstains from the actual commission of sin, sacrificing to God the outward fulfilment of his mindless passions. He is satisfied with this manner of seeking salvation because of his spiritual immaturity. This is the modern era with its emphasis on sola scriptura and its in-built legalism.

If one looks at the Reformation closely one will note that it is not really about doctrinal issues. It is about moral issues and is a rebellion against corruption. Doctrinal issues got involved, but only in as much as they had to do with the moral imperative. If you look at the PC early in its history during the time when modernism was the reigning influence in culture you will see a heavy emphasis on purity of life, although this tended to degenerate into legalism.

(1st Century on theology 95)
Prophets –senses “He who has been trained by the prophets words not only refrains from outward fulfillment of the passions but also renounces all assent to them in his soul. He is not content simply to appear to abstain from sin in the inferior part of himself, the flesh, while secretly allowing free rein in his superior part, the soul.

As existentialism started to become more powerful as a cultural force this has tended to mitigate the legalistic tendencies in the church. The contemporary church is more under the existential, subjective influence. There has been more self-reflection and a move towards individual purity of heart rather then an emphasis on exterior control of behavior. In it a much more relational emphasis has become evident in the church. People are stressing the distinction between knowing about God and knowing God (knowing as in an intimate relational encounter). Systematic theologies have been replaced by individual Bible study and prayer designed to nurture this relationship. One of the major problems has been that a very individualist conception of our relationship with God has developed as a result of the existential influence.

As noted in a prior post, Postmodernism started to become popular because of the inadequacies of existentialism. It has had the biggest influence in the Emerging arm of the church.

Just as we have differentiated the liberal and conservative churches it is useful to differentiate the Emergent from the Emerging church. The former tend to be more liberal, with less theology and are much more heavily influenced by philosophy. The latter being more theologically conservative are once more in the position of inheriting what has been gained by those who came before while benefiting from this new move of culture.

The Emerging church has much more of a community focus over an individual focus. As noted in my above post, many have rejected sola scriptura. Because of the awareness of how culture shapes us there is a growing interest in Christian tradition. Also scripture is being re-examined in light of its Jewish roots which is getting rid of many of the Greek corruptions that have been prevalent in the interpretation of Paul. Rather then a rational hermeneutic there is a move toward a much more Christ centered hermeneutic. Worship services are being designed to be more experiential and spiritual-mystical. There is an emphasis on a sacramental approach to worship. There is a focus on ministering holistically within the context of relationship rather then bringing people to some point of salvation. There is an emphasis on kingdom living and discipleship over simply learning Biblical truths. “Discipleship is the center of the mission of the church.” The Emerging Church, Dan Kimball. Eschatology is being re-examined in the light of the tension between the current and living reality of the kingdom and the future and coming kingdom. (In God’s Time, Craig Hill)

Theology is a huge area of debate. But the gain is that in moving away from systematic theologies, things are left open for the Spirit to renew the mind. (see Fr. Adrian's post)Another big question that is getting repeated in different ways is “What is the Church.?”

There are still many problems and unresolved issues. There is a lot of immaturity and insecurity of identity. The focus is horizontal with a lot of emphasis on human relationships, but there is little understanding of relationship with God. This is not life in the Spirit such as found in the Orthodox church, but it is regaining in the flesh what the OC is in the Spirit. When I look at it, it seems to me a reflection of what I find in the OC.

For the typical evangelical conservative there are a large number of barriers to overcome before one can really start to discern the heart of the OC. However, those who are growing up in the Emerging Church are going to find the transition much easier. God sends out His call in each generation and those who hear respond. Also in each generation new barriers are broken down such that the response can be fuller and more complete then previously.

Just one last note. I said at the beginning of this that it is God's work of redeeming humanity. The strength of the PC (and the Emerging Church really exemplifies this) is that it is flexible and deeply involved in culture. The Emerging Church identifies itself more then anything else as being missional and they are really much better equipped then Orthodoxy to prepare the ground for the seed that God is sowing.

[Antonios]

... there is no way to fully understand the Orthodox church without becoming part of that Church and experiencing it, so too there is no way for someone raised in Orthodoxy to fully understand the journey the PC is on. All they know of the PC is what they hear in the news, how then can they see the hidden life in it?

Dear Celinda,

This is such a an important and beautiful observation you make.

God makes everything beautiful. Everyone has a story. A journey. Everyone whose ever lived. And what will guide them, if they faithfuly seek and seek faithfuly, is the Holy Spirit Himself to the Body of Christ. It awes me and humbles me without measure when I hear of those individual stories of adult conversions, those who have found the Pearl of Great Price, the Living Church of God, the Orthodox Church. They, I feel, are the most blessed of all.

The journeys of the cradle Orthodox are filled with their own blessings and trials. And the faith of the catechumens are what often lifts their own faith. We should thank God for this.

What may make the Protestant approach so difficult to understand by someone brought up in the Orthodox faith is similar to what made Mary not understand why Martha felt so compelled to serve when the Lord Himself was filling them up entirely. "But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:38-42)

This says much about the Orthodox faith, but also says much about Martha, who later, just days after she buried her brother, confessed from her heart, "Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world". (John 11:27) And in time, both beheld the Ressurected Christ. And pray for us this very day.

God's Church is a Church of the Living. Glory to God for all things!

[Mary]

I await your next post about what you consider to be the stumbling block in the PC's spiritual immaturity if not western culture, and also what it is that keeps them from joining the Church we Christians believe is the One, True, and Holy Church, in all it's fullness.

Dear Antonios,

I loved your previous post, about Mary and Martha!

Celinda, I've been reading your posts, and I'm amazed. Amazed at all the stuff that you know, and amazed that by the time I come to the end of your post, I realize that all that information just doesn't fit inside my small brain! So, chances are, you already said everything that I'd like to say in this note.

Antonios, What keeps the PC's from joining the church? I can't answer that, because it seems every PC is different from the other. In just the past year since our conversion, I've had many opportunities to speak to my friends. I found it extremely interesting that I never had the same conversation twice! God is good - He knows were we're at, and He meets us there and leads us Home.

All this to say, I can only answer this question from my point of view... what kept me from joining the church as soon as I found out about it? First, I wasn't interested. I only needed to make sure it wasn't a cult. Once I was convinced of that, I assumed it was just another denomination and left it at that. The soil has to be prepared and the seeds need time to germinate... I suppose my whole protestant experience was the preperation bit. Our meeting with our friends who had become orthodox got the seed planted. For 3 years, it seemed the seed had died.

But, it must be, the soil, just needed to be prepared further. For me, personally, there was a lot of healing that needed to happen. God in His mercy, healed a lot of pain in my heart, so I'd be ready to look deeper for Him. I also needed to be healed, so I'd know that I wasn't leaving the PC because of discontent with the people there. There was absolutely, absolutely, NO reason for me to leave at all. God was healing me, and I was surrounded by people who were so easy to be friends with.

When I started asking questions about orthodoxy, it was more from curiousity than for a need for change. I didn't, even for a moment, think that there was anything in orthodoxy that could satisfy my intense thirst and hunger. The 'dead' seed in me sprouted really fast, and in three months, I was ready to drop everything and everyone, even my family, and go to an orthodox church. Ok. So I'm drastic. My greatest fear was that I'd join the OC only to find that it was 'just another denomination' with better logic than the PC and a ton of additional 'burdens' which they called Tradition...

What pushed me over the edge? Church-o-phobia. I'd have a great week, and I'd start to panic as Sunday approached. As we drove closer to church, the darkness would increase. Inside church, everything seemed to shred every bit of peace in my heart. The last sunday there, I started to feel that way as we pulled into the parking lot. I couldn't enter the church anymore.

I know - that's totally subjective. But I'd already worked through all the doctrinal reasons and there was nothing left except my fear. Or was it pride? Could've been lack of Faith, trust, and all those kind of things. I dunno. All I know is, I'd have gone insane if I hadn't left, and it wouldn't have been anyone else's fault - it would've been because of my own disobedience.

In Christ,

Mary.

[Ian Leyda]

What I see, in general, is that in the tension between postmodernism and modernism a door is opening. We have been talking in the other thread about the fact that Spiritual encounter, spiritual truth, is all about an unchanging Spiritual reality experienced from a subjective viewpoint. The faith does not change but the individual Fathers express that faith differently through the lens of their own personality and culture.


Dear Celinda,

As you have described above, whether from the modern or post-modern view, encountering the divine seems to be a question of us coming to "know" God. I'm not sure that encountering the divine is precisely an epistemological exercise, but I am sure that we cannot do so through reason. Thus, both modernity and post-modernity have failed us.

The Protestant theologian that best represents today's mindset is F. Schleiermacher, who agreed with Kant that we cannot know God through reason. Just as Kant debunked reason and then sought to offer an alternative (Morality), Schleiermacher's theology accepted the inadequacy of reason and offered his alternative.

Because we cannot know God through reason, Schleiermacher argued that we can know God through "feeling" that is essentially inward and experiential. He speaks of "God consciousness" that is defined by the "feeling of absolute dependence." This experience of God, however, is not individual but happens in relationship with the community of believers.

I believe that the Emerging Church that you have talked about, which I am familiar with, tends to hold Schleiermacher's view of religious experience. But honestly the true weakness with this view is that it has no real doctrine of Revelation. It has to set revelation aside in favor of a social/experiential knowledge of God. It experiences Christ primarily through the Body of Christ, that is by relating to those in the congregation.

My question for you then, Celinda, is how do you understand Revelation?
You seem to argue that the spiritual encounter is essentially an epistemological problem that the methods of modernity and post-modernity have not solved. Their synthesis will open a new door?

Revelation is the hidden and holy God showing himself to us. Epistemology, however, seems to be a process where we "discover" or come to know God from within our own capacities (reason, senses, etc).

How do you reconcile Revelation and Epistemology? Do we find God, or does God come and find us?

Peace,
Ian

[Celinda Grace]

Ian,

Thank you for your post. You bring up ideas that I have not explored fully.

"
But honestly the true weakness with this view is that it has no real doctrine of Revelation. It has to set revelation aside in favor of a social/experiential knowledge of God. It experiences Christ primarily through the Body of Christ, that is by relating to those in the congregation."
This I think clarifies what I was trying to say about the Emerging church being in the flesh not the spirit but in a much more definite way then I could have done.


Revelation is the hidden and holy God showing himself to us. Epistemology, however, seems to be a process where we "discover" or come to know God from within our own capacities (reason, senses, etc).

Again you touch on the difference between knowing God in the spirit vs knowing Him in the flesh (senses).

the only thing I traced in my posts is the natural interaction between the culture and the Church I have not really gotten into how the Spirit has worked or is at work within the PC.

I have not really done much research on this aspect. Maybe someone else would like to contribute but here is a quote from A. B. Simpson's, Present Truths or the Supernatural


"The present truth." (2 Peter 1:12.)

While all inspired truth is necessary and important yet there are certain truths which God emphasizes at certain times. He is ever speaking to the age and generation, and He never speaks at random but always to the point and to the times.

When the thought of the age was being drawn to the supremacy of one man and taught to recognize the Sovereign Pontiff as the viceroy of heaven and the direct representative of Christ on earth, God raised up John Calvin to emphasize the doctrine of God's sovereignty and to teach the age that He alone had a right to dominate the hearts of men.

When Formalism had spread its soporific influence over the heart of Christendom, God raised up the Wesleys, George Whitfield, Fletcher and the evangelical leaders of that generation to teach the necessity of the new birth and to emphasize the work of the Holy Ghost.

Later an evangelical movement brought into clear and bold relief the doctrine of justification by faith and the premillennial coming of Christ as against the nominal church teachings of the times.

A generation ago God used the ministry of Charles Finney and the testimony of his followers to bring into prominence the doctrine of a deeper Christian life as an antidote to the worldliness and compromising spirit of the times.

And so from age to age God speaks the special message most needed, so that there is always some portion of divine truth which might properly be called present truth, God's message to the times. God is always wanting messengers that understand Him and that preach the preaching He bids, and when He can find such instruments He will always use them and bless their ministry.

There is one line of truth which seems to be preeminently present truth and that is the truth about the supernatural.

Man has become so much in love with man that he is in danger of overlooking God. The boasted progress of our times has so dazzled us with its secondary light that we cannot see the glorious Sun that is shining in the firmament of God's heaven. The devil is trying to get the supernatural out of the Bible, out of the church, and out of our individual Christian lives, and to reduce religion to a human science, obliterating everything that cannot be explained on a rational principle and from natural causes, so that even our blessed Hope of the coming Kingdom is laughed down and man thinks himself all-sufficient to achieve his own destinies and bring about the highest development of the race.

Over against this stands God's revelation of the supernatural. Let us look at it until it shall dwarf our human pride into its true insignificance and give us adequate views of ourselves and our times in the light of the infinite God "for whom and by whom are all things."

Eventually I want to make a timeline of the different men in the PC who have had God's revelation in each generation and see what themes they were preaching. See how that revelation has changed and grown.

In addition to the above list I think the lives and writings of George MacDonald, Watchman Nee and Oswald Chambers ought to be examined.

[Celinda Grace]

How do you reconcile Revelation and Epistemology? Do we find God, or does God come and find us?


29"All achievements of the saints were clearly gifts of grace from God. None of the saints had the least thing other then the goodness granted him by the Lord God according to the measure of his gratitude and love. And what he aquired, he aquired only in so far as he surrendered himself to the Lord who bestowed it." Maximus the Confessor

God has to come and find us, an in fact has already found us, but we have to be open to the consequences of that finding. Orthodoxy sees our salvation as a living experience, not merely an eternal truth that we apply to ourselves. God is a holy God and sin cannot dwell in His presence. We have to be willing to endure the often painful cleaning up process that it takes to be saved and that salvation is only via the direct supernatural work of the Trinity.

The Protestant Church teaches that we are saved from our sins. Orthdoxy teaches the process by which we cooperate with the Trinity to actually come to live in deeper levels of freedom from sin and death. This happens through God cleansing us and breaking our ego so we can come to that place of total dependence on Him.


Because we cannot know God through reason, Schleiermacher argued that we can know God through "feeling" that is essentially inward and experiential. He speaks of "God consciousness" that is defined by the "feeling of absolute dependence." This experience of God, however, is not individual but happens in relationship with the community of believers.

This seems to me a partial truth, he has not gone far enough. There is a place where we connect to God through spiritual feeling, but Orthodoxy teaches that for a full encounter with Christ spiritual experience must be united with spiritual knowledge. The Bible talks about the necessity for the renewing of the mind. It is necessary to know The One who we are dependent on or one could end up becoming absolutely dependent on demons.

Seeking after spiritual experience outside of Christ is a recipe for disaster. It is ego-centered. Rather then chasing after sensual pleasures people seek to fill their deepest spiritual needs. I think in this people are just more aware of the true problem rather then the symptoms. That does not mean they are willing to take hold of the solution which can only be found in Christ. Any path that puts a priority on our own satisfaction rather then surrender to the will of God is ultimately not Christian. Sure Christainity teaches that we need to become totally dependent on God for our every need and that in the experience of this dependence one can find rest and peace, but our lives here on earth don't ultimately consist in rest and peace -we are involved in a spiritual war and there will be no final peace until the end.



Their synthesis will open a new door?

When I talk about opening doors, It is because I understand that although Christ is in us, there are all sorts of self-defense mechanisms and places of bondage both emotionally and mentally that keep us from cooperating with Him. He wants to fully live out His life in us. The goal is to become so compliant to His will, that He lives out that will in us without resistance. The conflict betwee postmodernism and modernism provides an oppertunity to knock down some of the mental defense mechanisms -the unconscious assumptions that we were brought up with that we have never questioned.

This of course is not the only way these assumptions can be knocked down. Exposure to Orthdoxy and its mystical tradition is probably a better path. :) But for me it was exposure to postmodern ideas that started me questioning a lot of previously unexamined assumptions in my life. Only more recently have I found that the answers to my questions and much that I had been seeking was already here in the Orthodox Tradition.

[Ian Leyda]

Eventually I want to make a timeline of the different men in the PC who have had God's revelation in each generation and see what themes they were preaching. See how that revelation has changed and grown.


Dear Celinda,

Just to clarify what I am getting at when I speak of Revelation, I do not exactly mean doctrine or doctrinal development. Because you had been talking about "experiencing God" and so forth and how we come to do so, I brought up the subject of Revelation in terms of God's self-revelation.

Good biblical examples are theophanic texts, such as Moses and the burning bush (Exodus 3), Elijah on Mount Horeb, the Transfiguration, etc. In these texts, the hidden God reveals himself. These are examples of "Divine Encounter."

These examples of revelation are theologically significant b/c they depict certain principles of divine/human encounter. One key principle is that God initiates the encounter (Grace) whereas humans themselves are unable to do so. You see this in that the humans in the story do not anticipate or seek out God but are instead sought out by God.

Another principle is God's divinity as seen in Holiness, which is God's "otherness" from the created world. This is addressed interestingly in philosophical circles as the subject/object gap, ie. that the object (God) is utterly unlike the subject seeking to know him (us). Kant would say, for example, that we completely lack the "categories" of the divine so as to be able to gain knowledge/relate. Thus, Kant said that we cannot know God.

Karl Barth, however, agrees that we cannot know God but argues that the gap is a one-way street abridged by God's grace. This gap or blindness to God, in Barth's view, is caused by sin/the fallen state of creation. It is not so much an epistemological problem but a soteriological one. We cannot go to God, but God comes to us. (See the "sending" of the Son, especially in John). God is hidden in holiness from creation until he reveals himself. And creation (we) cannot "discover" or "know" him apart from God's self-revelation or apart from God's coming to us. Thus, the key images of Jesus coming to the Blind man and opening his eyes. Salvation and God's self-revelation are linked.

The reason I point out the distinction between Revelation and Modern/Post-Modern Epistemology is that the latter attempt to encounter the divine upon human initiation and through the human capacities (reason, sensation, relation, etc.). We are essentially coming to the knowledge of God through the various teachings of religion(s). Thus we get the religion as "roads to heaven" analogy, as though we are trying to find the pathway to the Divine. This is, of course, backwards according to Christian theology.

Best depicted in Mark, it is God in Jesus Christ who travels the road and comes to us. This is because we cannot travel the road ourselves (see the paralytic, the blind men sitting alongside the road, etc.) Thus, Jesus' words, "I have come to...."

How, then, do you have a doctrine of Revelation/Salvation alongside the belief that seeking God is essentially an epistemological development?

Peace,

Ian

[Owen Jones]

I think a very simple point is being made: post-modernism or deconstructionism calls everything into question as a social construct. And in a sense, that makes everything possible, including discovering God. Because it says that our vaunted progressivism and secularism are social constructs. I don't believe that God is a social construct, but if it takes widespread deconstruction to get us there, so be it. I saw an interesting comment about the growth of Christianity in China. The argument was that Mao made it possible by requiring people to worship him. That made it possible for people to consider the worship of a personal God for the first time in China, when he was exposed as being mortal and flawed. So God takes what we intend for evil and uses it for good.

[Celinda Grace]

Dear Celinda,

Just to clarify what I am getting at when I speak of Revelation, I do not exactly mean doctrine or doctrinal development. Because you had been talking about "experiencing God" and so forth and how we come to do so, I brought up the subject of Revelation in terms of God's self-revelation.

Good biblical examples are theophanic texts, such as Moses and the burning bush (Exodus 3), Elijah on Mount Horeb, the Transfiguration, etc. In these texts, the hidden God reveals himself. These are examples of "Divine Encounter."

This brings up a point I was wrestling with but hadn't really defined. Notice in Simpson's quote he says inspired truths this is different from a full revelation of God, nevertheless I believe it is the result of God's action, not man's study.


These examples of revelation are theologically significant b/c they depict certain principles of divine/human encounter. One key principle is that God initiates the encounter (Grace) whereas humans themselves are unable to do so. You see this in that the humans in the story do not anticipate or seek out God but are instead sought out by God.

Nowhere do I propose that man has initiated the encounter. See 'inspired truths' above. And yet to say that God initiates is only one side of the story. We must respond. Also I would say that God is always initiating. I am not sure I believe in any kind of special grace. The grace is always available, Christ's work is complete and is available to be taken hold of by anyone. It is our own impurity and enslavement to sin that keep us from receiving it. I beg correction from some of the fathers here if I am wrong.


God is hidden in holiness from creation until he reveals himself. And creation (we) cannot "discover" or "know" him apart from God's self-revelation or apart from God's coming to us. Thus, the key images of Jesus coming to the Blind man and opening his eyes. Salvation and God's self-revelation are linked.

To limit the self-revelation of God to such a dramatic revelation as the burning bush or the Mt. of Transfiguration is to fail to see the fullness of what God does. There are levels of God's revelation all the way from the first steps of blind inspired faith to the fullness of the vision of the uncreated light.


"First St. Maxmus emphasises that perfect faith is man's unity and communion with God. Faith is "a relational power or relationship which brings about the immediate, perfect and supernatural union of the believer with the God in whom he believes."...Therefore St. Maximus teaches that the end of faith is the salvation of souls. Salvation, that is to say, succeeds when a man is led from simple faith to perfect faith. Therefore he maintains that "the true revelation of that which was believed is the end of faith". Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Hierotheos, Mind of the Orthodox Church.


Here I believe is a good example of simple blind inspired faith.
"How do you know your sins are forgiven? Is it because your pastor told you? No, You just know it. If I ask you how you know , you simply answer, "I know it!" Such knowledge comes by divine revelation. ... So there comes a time, in regard to any new apprehension of Christ, when you know in your own heart; you "see" it in your spirit. A light has shined into your inner being and you are wholly persuaded of the fact." Watchman Nee


The reason I point out the distinction between Revelation and Modern/Post-Modern Epistemology is that the latter attempt to encounter the divine upon human initiation and through the human capacities (reason, sensation, relation, etc.). We are essentially coming to the knowledge of God through the various teachings of religion(s). Thus we get the religion as "roads to heaven" analogy, as though we are trying to find the pathway to the Divine. This is, of course, backwards according to Christian theology.

Once simple faith is initiated in the heart, then it must be clothed and purified, for simple faith is blind and impure. Part of 'clothing' one's faith is to study using our reason. Also part of coming to God is to seek him. "Those who seek me shall find me if the seek me with all their heart." It is in the process of seeking that our desire grows. It is as our desire grows that we consecrate ourselves more completely to God. This gives one the strength to endure the trials of faith that purify us. It is through reason and the senses that God first ignites that desire. What after all is the point of iconography?


“We define the rule with all accuracy and diligence, in a manner not unlike that befitting the shape of the precious and vivifying Cross, that the venerable and holy icons, painted or mosaic, or made of any other suitable material, be placed in the holy churches of God upon sacred vessels and vestments, walls and panels, houses and streets, both of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, and of our intemerate Lady the holy Theotoke, and also of the precious Angels,[262] and of all Saints. For the more frequently and oftener they are continually seen in pictorial representation, the more those beholding are reminded and led to visualize anew the memory of the originals which they represent and for whom moreover they also beget a yearning in the soul of the persons beholding the icons."

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

Just to summarize. You are saying that God must come to us. I am saying that there is a cooperative effort. God initiates, we respond and God completes.