Resolution of typology and history

[David Dietrich]

How should scriptural narratives be read? Should they be read as exact records of historic events or as allegorical renditions of spiritual concepts? Is it possible to reconcile them by saying that all the events were real and have allegorical meaning?

[Michael Stickles]

The simple answer, I think, would be "yes" to both questions. On a personal level, though, I would answer the first question as "no" since what God says to me through the scriptures rarely depends on the historicity or allegoricity of the narrative, but on how it connects to my own life and experience. Here are a few relevant thoughts from Bishop Kallistos Ware's excellent article "How to read the Bible" (http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/4.aspx):



When we come to the Bible, then, we come not simply out of curiosity, to gain information. We come to the Bible with a specific question, a personal question about ourselves: "How can I be saved?"
...
Reading the Bible, we are to model ourselves on the Blessed Virgin Mary ... We are to be like her as we hear the Word of God: pondering, keeping all these things in our hearts, doing whatever He tells us. We are to listen in obedience as God speaks.
...
We read the Bible personally, but not as isolated individuals. We read as the members of a family, the family of the Orthodox Catholic Church. When reading Scripture, we say not "I" but "We." We read in communion with all the other members of the Body of Christ, in all parts of the world and in all generations of time. The decisive test and criterion for our understanding of what the Scripture means is the mind of the Church.
...
Much modern critical study of Scripture in the West has adopted an analytical approach ... There is certainly value in this. But we need to see the unity as well as the diversity of Scripture, the all-embracing end as well as the scattered beginnings. Orthodoxy prefers on the whole a synthetic rather than an analytical approach, seeing Scripture as an integrated whole, with Christ everywhere as the bond of union.
...
As Orthodox Christians we are to look everywhere in Scripture for a personal application. We are to ask not just "What does it mean?" but "What does it mean to me?" Scripture is a personal dialogue between the Savior and myself - Christ speaking to me, and me answering. ... We are to say to ourselves, "All these places and events are not just far away and long ago, but are also part of my own personal encounter with Christ. The stories include me."


In Christ,
Mike

[David Dietrich]

Thank you, that was helpful, but I can't help asking whether or not, or how much, the absolute meaning of the Scriptures matter? Should I simply not concern myself with their objective meaning and restrict myself to the subjective, personal impact they have on me?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Thank you, that was helpful, but I can't help asking whether or not, or how much, the absolute meaning of the Scriptures matter? Should I simply not concern myself with their objective meaning and restrict myself to the subjective, personal impact they have on me?

I think you should heed the advice of the Holy Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:14-17.


But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

[Michael Stickles]

Thank you, that was helpful, but I can't help asking whether or not, or how much, the absolute meaning of the Scriptures matter? Should I simply not concern myself with their objective meaning and restrict myself to the subjective, personal impact they have on me?

Don't get overly caught up in the false dichotomy of objective versus subjective; I believe that there are many traps and pitfalls along that road. Objective truths have subjective impacts; subjective impacts create objective realities. It's not "either/or", but more often "both/and".

Maybe you should drop all the way back to the question "why am I reading the Scriptures?" Are you seeking to evaluate the truth or falsity of the stories? Trying to discern the way of salvation? Looking for "proof texts" to support or oppose certain doctrines? Browsing in curiosity? Seeking to allow the Holy Spirit to bring to your mind and heart what you most need in the moment? Or something else?

The "how" of your reading is determined by the "why". Bishop Kallistos started with a specific "why" for reading the Bible - 'We come to the Bible with a specific question, a personal question about ourselves: "How can I be saved?"' - and this led to the "how" which he presented. If he had started from a different "why", he would have likely come up with a "how" that was at least a little bit different.

If you aren't sure of your "why" for reading the Bible, then your situation is a lot like Alice's discussion with the Cheshire Cat:


'Cheshire Puss,' she began, ... 'Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?'

'That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,' said the Cat.

'I don't much care where--' said Alice.

'Then it doesn't matter which way you go,' said the Cat.

'--so long as I get SOMEWHERE,' Alice added as an explanation.

'Oh, you're sure to do that,' said the Cat, 'if you only walk long enough.'

In Christ,
Mike

[David Dietrich]

Let us assume that where I am trying to get to is the truth. Which way is that to be found?

[Michael Stickles]

Let us assume that where I am trying to get to is the truth. Which way is that to be found?

Hmmm ... "the truth". That's a broad kingdom, with many provinces - moral truth, spiritual truth, historical truth, relational truth, and so on.

Your best bet there is to start from the "center" of the kingdom and work your way out - the "center", of course, being God the Father, Jesus Christ ("the Truth"), and the Holy Spirit. And that is best approached not "objectively" (for God as "objective entity" is far beyond our understanding), but as relationship - our relationship with God, as it is and as it should be. Using that approach, I think Bishop Kallistos' article provides a very good guide for the journey.

In Christ,
Mike

[Father David Moser]

Pilate asked "What is truth?" and did not receive an answer. The reason that he got no answer is that he asked the wrong question. "What is truth" is not the right question - the right question is, "Who is truth?" and the answer to that question was right in front of Pilate's face. Had he asked the "right question" the answer would have been obvious.

If you are searching for the truth - you are not looking for a what, but a Who and that Who is Jesus Christ.

Fr David Moser

[David Dietrich]

Then how are we do understand this Truth in scripture? Are we to see Him allegorically or literally?

[Ian Leyda]

Then how are we do understand this Truth in scripture? Are we to see Him allegorically or literally?

David, I assume you are thinking more along the lines of allegorical or historical. Was Jesus a historical person or an archetype, etc.?

It is interesting that we do not ask the same question of other figures, such as George Washington or Babe Ruth. Does it matter whether they were real persons or just character typologies? It seems to me that Babe Ruth is both a historical figure and archetype, the very epitome of the great baseball player. And for Washington, his life is very much a mingling of history and legend, of crossing Potomacs and chopping cherry trees. Do you wrestle each night with the life, death, and wooden teeth of our first President?

If it is true that we should understand Jesus as an allegorical figure, then the meaning gleaned from his life is primarily pedagogical. We simply learn from his life, perhaps how to be better people or how God would act if he were among us. Salvation, then, is an intellectual process. It is enlightenment. I would say there is an element of this in Scripture, indeed.

But we believe that Jesus' life, death, and resurrection had remarkable implications for the world. God broke into human history and acted. If Jesus was not a historical person, then what do we do with atonement? Or Incarnation?

Is the death of Jesus on the cross an example of self-sacrifice for others or is it an atoning sacrifice for others?

I think it is both. But the historical element of Jesus is necessary for atonement.

I realize that I haven't addressed your beef with the question of "is it true?" But these are some of the theological consequences of reading the text either historically or allegorically.

Peace,
Ian

[RichardWorthington]

Then how are we do understand this Truth in scripture? Are we to see Him allegorically or literally?

Perhaps it would be helpful to note that the ancient Christians (and perhaps we have some catching up to do ...) did not consider the scriptures to be essential for us, as St John Chrysostom says:



It were indeed meet for us not at all to require the aid of the written Word, but to exhibit a life so pure, that the grace of the Spirit should be instead of books to our souls, and that as these are inscribed with ink, even so should our hearts be with the Spirit. But, since we have utterly put away from us this grace, come, let us at any rate embrace the second best course.


I suppose the scriptures are like a map - if you've never been taught how to interpret the symbols and lines on a map then it can look confusing. The best way to learn is to enter into the mind of the church little by little, by attending church services, listening to people in church (priests or others), etc. However, first and foremost should be to 'know thyself' - the Watchfulness (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4156) thread contains some beautiful words.

Richard

[Shawn Lazar]

The Scriptures are primarily a matter of history. That's what makes so much of the Bible so boring to read (think of all the genealogies and the legal minutae). But there's a refreshingly earthly character to even the most boring writings, which is also reassuring, because they tell us the Bible is rooted in this world, in creation. The Jews are a real people. They really escaped out of Egypt. They really were in captivity in Babylon. They really were under oppression under the Romans. The various prophets God sent to the people were real. And most importantly, Christ lived, walked, and breathed as John exclaimed in 1 John 1:1. If the gospel events (especially the resurrection) are not primarily historical events, then our faith is not only useless but false, as Paul says in 1 Cor 15:13-19. Yes, some parts of the Bible is meant to be something akin to a morality play (think Job, or Song of Songs), but most of it is history. And like all history, it has something to teach us.

Does allegory have a place in the church? Does typology? I suppose they do (especially the latter), but it might be informative for someone to see how the early church dealt with this kind of playing with words. As I understand it, the allegorical method was largely used by the Gnostics and strongly condemened by the earliest church fathers who preferred the normal grammatical-historical method. That's what makes Chrysostom such an enduring preacher. He actually tried to preach what was in the text.

By contrast, I was visiting a nearby Orthodox church (not my home church) this past Sunday and heard a sermon periphally related to the reading about the nativity, and how the shepherds and magi made the journey to the 'cave' where Christ could be found. The priest allegorized this story into an elaborate picture of a journey of faith that we all must understake until we come to find God's presence in the cave of our hearts.... In sum, the sermon was only incidently related to the passage of Scripture read. To be honest, I thought to myself, why even bother pretending that the message was related to the God's reading for that day? Why not just talk about your chosen subject rather than try to (torturously) make Scripture allegorically fit your message?

Or better yet, I thought, why not actually talk about the wonder of the incarnation and the nativity?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I don't think any Christian willing to bear that name would deny that Christ actually and really was present amidst us at His Incarnation and of course through His whole life and then passion & resurrection. This is actually a keystone of the Faith insisted upon from the times of the first dualist/gnostic heresies. And this same point of Christ really having been present is also central in the struggles of the Church with later heresies. The reality of Christ as theologically defined is a central point to the Faith proclaimed in Orthodoxy to this day.

We must be careful however of what we mean when we use this word 'historical'. History as an area of study can call on that which supports the above theological vision but it is never identical to theology. That is because history itself is actually a method of interpretation which discerns meaning in a given way.

Too many self-contradictory principles over the centuries have been used by history to go into all of them here. The point however is that history is intrinsically interpretive & in a restricted manner. When this limitation is acknowledged then much can be learned; but when it is not then great distortions in understanding occur. Used to describe Christ the danger is of no longer seeing him theologically but rather in a secular manner.

The Church sees Christ not in a historical but rather in a theological manner. By this is not meant that Christ's presence in itself- His birth, life, death & resurrection- is not real. But rather it means that the very understanding of what 'real' means is only seen theologically.

This is why indeed allegory & typography have been used by many Fathers over the centuries as representing part of the theological understanding of Christ. Quite a list could be drawn up but for now we can just mention St Ambrose of Milan, St Cyril of Alexandria or St Maximus the Confessor.

I would say that the sermon you heard is very much to the point of this larger theological understanding. Allegory does not deny the reality of Christ but rather interprets this in a specific personal way & focuses this onto our own lives. It does not deny Christ's birth and lying in a cave but rather draws on these in an unstated way so as to describe how the central reality of the Incarnation applies to our lives.

Thus the cave is a cave. But since nothing of Christ is without a greater significance as defined by the Incarnation then the cave becomes that place where Christ directly meets us- ie our soul or our lives.

In Christ- Fr Raphael





The Scriptures are primarily a matter of history. That's what makes so much of the Bible so boring to read (think of all the genealogies and the legal minutae). But there's a refreshingly earthly character to even the most boring writings, which is also reassuring, because they tell us the Bible is rooted in this world, in creation. The Jews are a real people. They really escaped out of Egypt. They really were in captivity in Babylon. They really were under oppression under the Romans. The various prophets God sent to the people were real. And most importantly, Christ lived, walked, and breathed as John exclaimed in 1 John 1:1. If the gospel events (especially the resurrection) are not primarily historical events, then our faith is not only useless but false, as Paul says in 1 Cor 15:13-19. Yes, some parts of the Bible is meant to be something akin to a morality play (think Job, or Song of Songs), but most of it is history. And like all history, it has something to teach us.

Does allegory have a place in the church? Does typology? I suppose they do (especially the latter), but it might be informative for someone to see how the early church dealt with this kind of playing with words. As I understand it, the allegorical method was largely used by the Gnostics and strongly condemened by the earliest church fathers who preferred the normal grammatical-historical method. That's what makes Chrysostom such an enduring preacher. He actually tried to preach what was in the text.

By contrast, I was visiting a nearby Orthodox church (not my home church) this past Sunday and heard a sermon periphally related to the reading about the nativity, and how the shepherds and magi made the journey to the 'cave' where Christ could be found. The priest allegorized this story into an elaborate picture of a journey of faith that we all must understake until we come to find God's presence in the cave of our hearts.... In sum, the sermon was only incidently related to the passage of Scripture read. To be honest, I thought to myself, why even bother pretending that the message was related to the God's reading for that day? Why not just talk about your chosen subject rather than try to (torturously) make Scripture allegorically fit your message?

Or better yet, I thought, why not actually talk about the wonder of the incarnation and the nativity?

[David Dietrich]

If then, as I seem to be reading, allegorical and historical interpretations of Scripture are not mutually exclusive, how are they to be reconciled? If the Church sees Christ first as a theological figure but does not deny His historicity, then how historical was He? Is every word transcribed in the Gospels historical fact? Or are only his general theological principles the only remaining historic vestiges of His life among us. I am asking the question of degrees: if both, then how much of each?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

If then, as I seem to be reading, allegorical and historical interpretations of Scripture are not mutually exclusive, how are they to be reconciled? If the Church sees Christ first as a theological figure but does not deny His historicity, then how historical was He? Is every word transcribed in the Gospels historical fact? Or are only his general theological principles the only remaining historic vestiges of His life among us. I am asking the question of degrees: if both, then how much of each?

This all comes down to knowledge of Christ. But for that I think the Church mainly gives us a way of life so as to gradually discover Who Christ is.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

The Church premises its theological knowledge on a transformation of the intellect and sense perception through ascetic discipline. This traditionally is known as the three-fold path of purification, illumination and union, with the latter leading, among a select few, to a prophetic knowledge. This was the great argument that St. Paul was having with the charismatics at Corinth. For most of us it is sufficient to rest on the traditional teachings and interpretation, but without some process of illumination, the true hidden meaning of Scripture remains opaque and we continue to ask misleading questions, such as, when does the literal/historical end and the mystical begin?

Clearly the disciples only recognized Jesus as the Christ at Pentacost. So to say that Jesus is the Christ historically is a bit misleading because without the illumination of Pentacost, there would be no recognition. So it is important to understand the Church's teaching on Pentacost. And it is important to remember that in the early Church, there was a strong separation between the catechumens and the faithful, who were permitted to receive communion. The catechumens were ushered out before the eucharist, not just because they were not prepared in the moral sense, but because they lacked illumination.

Today most people suffer from the influence of certain theological and philosophical errors that have creeped into the culture, i.e. the false dichotomy between facts and values.

[David Dietrich]

This sounds rather gnostic... are you saying that fact and typology are only reconciled in scripture when we are illumined with divine insight? If so, I'm game! :)

[Robert Hegwood]

If the Church sees Christ first as a theological figure but does not deny His historicity, then how historical was He? Is every word transcribed in the Gospels historical fact?

St. John tells there was a lot Christ did and said that was not recorded because there was just too much to put down on paper as it were. But the Church has always believed that whatever the Scriptures says Christ said and did He said and did. That much is historical. That said the entire record of the Scriptures has been molded within the history of the Church both NT and its OT antecedents. Each text we have is not likely solely the work of one man though it may be largely so. This is why we don't put such emphasis on whatever the supposed autographs of a particular book might say. My first priest told me the Scriptures were written not just by the individuals who are named as authors of its books, it was written by the Church or rather by the Holy Spirit through the Church.

For example, some say the current end of the Gospel of Mark was not the original end and the last chapter more or less was a later addition. Was it or was it not? If so was it a later change by St. Mark to his original text or something added by one of his disciples or perhaps an other apostle or disciple of the apostles or one of the seventy who felt it right to fix a missing bit of the story. We well never know this side of the grave, but what we do know is that the text that we have is the text accepted as canonical by the Church. That canonizing of the text then represents the will of the Holy Spirit. What we have was canonized when it read like the Spirit wanted it read, even if that process took three or four hundred years to polish.

As for your other concern about fact and typology being reconciled when illumined by Divine insight as being gnostic...I don't follow your reasoning. It is as simple as "let him who has ears to hear" and "let him who has eyes to see". The larger point is that the in the Church history, especially sacred history is not just a delineation of historical facts but rather that the history recounted is theological. When God enters history He theologizes it. That history takes on depths and has the power to reveal God to us in it. But to see, to hear, to understand what the history means, not just intellectually but noetically, requires the illumining of the Holy Spirit.

Consider the crucifixion. It occurred at a particular point in history as did the entombment and Christ's Resurrection, but within the Church through the action of the Holy Spirit we are made participants in and partakers of those Holy things. And yet we read in Scripture that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. Love not just was wounded but is and has always been and ever will be wounded. History was enabled to reveal that and because it was revealed to us in us in our history we can by the same grace of God which historicized it enter into it and become part of it and what it means. History then is shown to have theological content. History has become God-knowing because it has been made to participate in God in a manner of speaking. We enter the Divine History with a Divinely illumined heart and become witness and partakers of Divine things.

As we are transformed by that love into the image and likeness of Love then that eternal wounding lives and is communicated by us as well. But without a heart quickened to these things by grace we will pass through and over them blindly...as unaffected by that beauty as if we sat in a gallery of great paintings in the dark.

[Matthew Namee]

The concept of "historical fact" is rather fuzzy. What we know of as "historical facts" are actually conclusions about the past, made in the present, based on evidence which exists in the present. If by some fluke no physical evidence of an event survives, that does not mean that the event did not truly occur; it just means that the event will probably not be accepted as "factual," since there is no evidence to support it. History, then, is not a search for "truth" or "fact." History, I would argue, is rather an interpretation of the past based on evidence. This is how we get so many "historical Jesuses." Everyone is dealing with roughly the same evidence, but they're coming to different conclusions based on their different interpretations.

The Orthodox Church has given us boundaries for our interpretation of the past. It asserts that Jesus Christ was indeed a human, was born of a virgin without seed, lived on this earth, was crucified, was buried, rose on the third day, and ascended into heaven. These things we accept to be both true and accurate statements about Jesus Christ. But are they "factual"? Well, only insofar as there might be evidence to support them. I suppose as evidence you could cite what writings have survived (the New Testament, Josephus, etc.) and perhaps the Shroud of Turin or some such relic. Our assertions about Christ can be partially corroborated by other evidence (e.g. archaeology in the Holy Land which confirms statements from the Gospels, or evidence of other crucifixions around the same time period). But our belief in Christ should not be based on any of this historical evidence. It should be based, ultimately, on indemonstrable faith. This doesn't make him any less real; it just makes him independent of the vagaries of scholarship.

[David Dietrich]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Churches has always supported the full literal reality of every action recounted in the historical scriptures. To this you seem to be adding that deeper, theological meaning is read into these historical acts as we are given the ears to hear, that is, enlightenment (which is why I flippantly referred to this idea as "gnostic"). If all this is basically correct, I can move on to the questions I have...

[Herman Blaydoe]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Churches has always supported the full literal reality of every action recounted in the historical scriptures.

I think that is an overstatement. We don't know that the story of Job is literally true. There are serious inconsistencies about the same incidents in the Book of Joshua and the Books of Kings. In one, all the non-Israelites are killed, in the other, some are allowed to live. As I understand it, one represents a historical record, the other is an "idealized" history, that is, history as it "should have been".

You also have to understand literary conventions. The Old Testament was never meant to be a literal history text. That was not the primary motiviation of its authors. Historical facts are certainly mentioned, but so are a lot of other things, because what was being described was NOT "history" per se, but an explanation of the relationship of God and man. Holy Scripture did not fall out of the sky on golden pages as the Mormons believe, nor was it dictated by an angel. It was written by men who were inspired by God. God did not move their hands over the paper, they did not become Holy HP Printers. They expressed God's Truth as best they knew how, not knowing the bigger picture.

We know from the Gospels that our Lord is very fond of parables. There was probably no real "good samaritan". There was no owner of a vineyard whose son was killed by the tenders of the vineyard. There was probably no poor Lazarus and the Rich Man. Does that make these stories worthless because they are not literal?

I don't know if everything recorded in Holy Scripture actually happened exactly as it is recorded, if it happened at all, and it makes absolutely no difference to my Faith. How do we know what is "fact" and what is "fiction"? Does it matter? We know that Christ exists, not because the Bible says so, but because the Church says so. That is why, in the Creed, we say "...under Pontius Pilate..." Have you ever wondered why that is in there? Because it is a verifiable historical matter of record. The birth, death, and resurrection of Christ is important, it is a fact. We have verifiable proof that He exists. It is mentioned in the Creed. We have four different accounts of His Life and testimonies from those who knew Him personally. So, if there never was actually a Job, does it have to follow that there was no Christ? Does it fundamentally change your faith?

This whole idea that every single word of the Bible has to be absolutely incontrovertably literally true is simply an unfortunate byproduct of the bad idea of "Sola Scriptura". If Holy Scripture is all we have, then, by God, it had better be right! This is merely one of the many cards in the flimsy house of cards that is the Protestant Faith. Remove "literal truth" for any part of Holy Scripture and the Protestant Faith comes crashing down. But Holy Orthodoxy is built on sturdier stuff. If you want to believe that God moved the hands of the scribes that is your business. I don't and my Faith is none the weaker for it. Every word of Holy Scripture is Truth, even if some of it never actually happened.

But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:14-17 )

Funny, nothing in there about history or literalness...guess it wasn't all that important for the Holy Apostle.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Not to preempt what Matthew Namee would reply to your post, but- all historical presentation is an interpretation as is every presentation of what we take to be reality.

The purpose of our life in Christ is so that over time we may increasingly see reality and live in it. So our version of reality, the 'reality' we live in, is often deeply distorted. This indeed is a spiritual law of Orthodox life if you want to put it this way.

History's great weakness in its modern form is that it skirts around this spiritual reality of human perspective and presents itself as an objective vision based on material reality only. But there is no reason why history has to proceed on these principles: there are plenty of examples from the past of history as the fine art of moral depiction. As long as it keeps in mind its own limitations and purpose history can have a place.

In Christ- Fr Raphael






If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Churches has always supported the full literal reality of every action recounted in the historical scriptures. To this you seem to be adding that deeper, theological meaning is read into these historical acts as we are given the ears to hear, that is, enlightenment (which is why I flippantly referred to this idea as "gnostic"). If all this is basically correct, I can move on to the questions I have...

[Matthew Namee]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Churches has always supported the full literal reality of every action recounted in the historical scriptures. To this you seem to be adding that deeper, theological meaning is read into these historical acts as we are given the ears to hear, that is, enlightenment (which is why I flippantly referred to this idea as "gnostic"). If all this is basically correct, I can move on to the questions I have...

I'm not saying that at all. You are drawing a dichotomy between "full literal reality" and "theological meaning." I am saying that a true "full literal reality" would include theological truth. Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God, but that statement cannot be verified as if it were an "historical fact." No document or relic will convince anyone of it. It must be accepted on faith. Here is an example: Luke and Cleopas, on the road to Emmaus, had already witnessed the life and death of Christ. They were also acquainted with the Scriptures. But until their hearts were opened, they did not understand the meaning of Scripture. Likewise, they were truly talking with Jesus, but they did not recognize him until the breaking of the bread. This doesn't mean that it wasn't really Jesus until they recognized him; the reality was not based upon their perception of it.

You speculate that this perception is based upon enlightenment, which you called "gnostic." I suppose this depends on what you mean. Faith in Christ is not something which can be learned as if it were mathematics; in that sense it is not intellectual knowledge at all. But a true understanding of Christ presupposes the action of the Holy Spirit (at least, this is my understanding of it).

There's a lot more to say, but I'm afraid my post might be missing the point you're trying to make.

[Matthew Namee]

By the way, an absolutely superb book which deals with this sort of subject as it pertains to Christ is The Mystery of Christ by Fr. John Behr (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press).

[M. Partyka]

You also have to understand literary conventions. The Old Testament was never meant to be a literal history text. That was not the primary motivation of its authors. Historical facts are certainly mentioned, but so are a lot of other things, because what was being described was NOT "history" per se, but an explanation of the relationship of God and man. Holy Scripture...written by men who were inspired by God....They expressed God's Truth as best they knew how, not knowing the bigger picture....I don't know if everything recorded in Holy Scripture actually happened exactly as it is recorded, if it happened at all, and it makes absolutely no difference to my Faith....Every word of Holy Scripture is Truth, even if some of it never actually happened.What concerns me about this explanation -- a very good explanation, by the way -- is that the average person who asks, "Is the Bible true?" is basically asking, "Can I believe what it says?" or perhaps more appropriately, "Is what it says the way it really is?" To answer, "Yes, from a spiritual perspective," sounds more like a dodge than an honest reply. After all, if you handed me a written account of, for example, a history of your relationship with your father, the very least I would expect is that any important events you recount as having happened actually did happen.

Now, it's been said to me on more than one occasion, "The ancients didn't think about history the same way we do today," and I think that statement is true to a large degree. In my opinion, chronological accuracy was not at the forefront of St. Matthew's mind when he ordered the events of Jesus' ministry in his Gospel, and other secular historians from that era similarly took liberties with chronology if it made certain themes about the subject stand out better. Today we would think of such a practice as deceptive or misleading, but this is now, and that was then.

However, it has also been said to me repeatedly, "You have to look at the Bible through the mind of the Church," and here's where I think your position perhaps gets a bit dicey. When I read the New Testament, and especially when I read the works of the Fathers, statements asserting the truthfulness of the Old Testament abound in such variety and intensity that I find it difficult to selectively exclude historicity from the Church's definition of true in its contemplation of the Scriptures.

For example, when St. Jude refers in his letter to the First Book of Enoch, he calls the author "Enoch, the seventh from Adam." (Likewise, in the genealogy of St. Luke, Enoch appears as the seventh from Adam.) St. Jude also makes reference to Genesis 6 in describing the angels ("sons of God") who came to earth and mated with human women to create the Nephilim -- a tale also found in 1 Enoch. One must ask, then, was it in the mind of the Church then that these events may not have happened?

For another example, consider the testimony of the faithful in Hebrews 11. The author refers to "the elders" who "obtained a good report": Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, etc., etc., and says concerning them all: "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." One must ask, was it in the mind of the Church then, when the ink on the parchment of the NT had yet to dry, that certain of these elders may have been the stuff of legend rather than historical figures?

I have heard that to test one's beliefs against the mind of the Church is to ask the question, "What has always, everywhere been believed?" The truth of a belief is essentially rated according to its longevity and its universality in the Church. But what seems to me, judging from the wealth of materials on the subject, is that the Church today is of a divided mind concerning the historicity of the Old Testament, whereas the Church of the first few centuries A.D. was not. This leads me to wonder, "Is it possible for the Church to change its mind over time?" and what would the overall consequences for the faith be were this answered in the affirmative?

[Paul Cowan]

The beauty of the Orthodox church is that I don't have to wonder or figure anything out. My whisp of a life is nothing compared to the centuries of wisdom and indepth study of the Church fathers.

I dare say some people today are like myself. (so sad for them)
I am 41 and expect to live God willing to 80? or so says the IRS. I was Baptised 6 years ago. So for 85% of my life I cared not about my salvation let alone learn about it. I now have another 39 years or the second half of my life to be concerned about it. Realistically, I can probably truly devote about 1/10 of my remaining time on this as my accidie is very high. So, in my 80 years, only about 6 of them are devoted to REALLY looking into this God thing.

So when it comes to the Church Fathers doing the work for me, you can bet your boots, I will believe whatever they tell me to. I am not about to second guess them. I may question why they said something, but when it comes down to it, their combined knowledge far surpasses my measley 8% of my lifespan.

Paul

[M. Partyka]

The beauty of the Orthodox church is that I don't have to wonder or figure anything out. My whisp of a life is nothing compared to the centuries of wisdom and indepth study of the Church fathers....when it comes to the Church Fathers doing the work for me, you can bet your boots, I will believe whatever they tell me to. I am not about to second guess them.Unfortunately for us, the Fathers never had to deal with questions about dinosaurs, human evolution, and the antiquity of the earth. We can only wonder what they would have said or how they would have reacted to new discoveries.

[Mary]

Unfortunately for us, the Fathers never had to deal with questions about dinosaurs, human evolution, and the antiquity of the earth. We can only wonder what they would have said or how they would have reacted to new discoveries.

How essential is such information, for the salvation of my soul? In other words, if I know everything about dinosaurs, human 'evolution', the age of the earth, etc, how will it help me to cut off my sins and be more obedient?

In Christ,
Mary.

[Nina]

Unfortunately for us, the Fathers never had to deal with questions about dinosaurs, human evolution, and the antiquity of the earth. We can only wonder what they would have said or how they would have reacted to new discoveries.


Yes, we should not worry about the past. In fact (ideally) we should not worry at all about anything in the present, or future and let everything in God's hands - only thus, says St. Cabasilas, we will eradicate anxiety/stress from our lives.

We should be grateful that Holy Fathers advised us about the future, since that is what happens every minute. Here is an interesting news about where we are headed:


Microsoft applied for a patent to help companies remotely monitor employees' bodies. Wireless sensors could measure (http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%252220070300174%2522.PGNR.&OS=DN/20070300174&RS=DN/20070300174) "heart rate, galvanic skin response, EMG, brain signals, respiration rate, body temperature, movement facial movements, facial expressions and blood pressure." Objections (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3193480.ece): 1) It's "office spy software." 2) Employers will use it to assess and fire workers. Microsoft's rebuttals (http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/01/18/microsoft-seeks-patent-to-know-how-you-feel/): 1) The system "does not relate to any of Microsoft's current product plans." 2) Its purpose is just "to detect when users need assistance" (through "frustration or stress") and "offer assistance by putting them in touch with other users." 3) Most of the application doesn't involve physical monitoring. Employers' reactions (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,23104065-8362,00.html): 1) We love this idea! 2) But, of course, "it should be voluntary." Human Nature's view: The system would discover that the top office stress factor is itself. (Related: A similar system in soldiers through networked helmets (http://www.slate.com/id/2177821/).)

Link to the above news (http://www.slate.com/id/2182930/?GT1=10837).

[M. Partyka]

How essential is such information, for the salvation of my soul? In other words, if I know everything about dinosaurs, human 'evolution', the age of the earth, etc, how will it help me to cut off my sins and be more obedient?I'm not saying it's necessary to understand how to reconcile Genesis with the historical and geological record for the sake of the soul's salvation, and if all one cares about is the salvation of his/her soul and has no interest in anything else, I would never insist upon that person's participation in any discussion like this.

However, what about the souls of others who can't see beyond the apparent discrepancies between Genesis and history and geology? "Don't worry, just trust," is not a reasonable answer to their doubts. I think Christians concerned with evangelism ought to have answers for these questions, don't you?

[Herman Blaydoe]

I think Christians concerned with evangelism ought to have answers for these questions, don't you?

Our clever answers and debate points is not what convinces people. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. The way we LIVE is more powerful than the answers we give.

Even Christ our Lord did not convince everyone, and His answers were often quite challenging.

[Mary]

I'm not saying it's necessary to understand how to reconcile Genesis with the historical and geological record for the sake of the soul's salvation, and if all one cares about is the salvation of his/her soul and has no interest in anything else, I would never insist upon that person's participation in any discussion like this.

However, what about the souls of others who can't see beyond the apparent discrepancies between Genesis and history and geology? "Don't worry, just trust," is not a reasonable answer to their doubts. I think Christians concerned with evangelism ought to have answers for these questions, don't you?

Well... yes and no. I don't think it's necessary for Every single Christian to have an answer to Every possible question and concern. I'm best equipped to answer questions that I myself have had to work through. About the things that I have no interest in, or no answers to, I can always admit I do not know, and point them in the direction of my priest. If they are truly seeking God and the Truth, they will go to my priest. If they are only seeking an argument, they'll tell me I'm deluded and laugh at my 'blind' faith, and they'll be gone.

Also - even if it were a question I could answer and defend with really great words and accurate arguments, unless they are truly seeking the Truth, no words can convince them. On the other hand, if I'm in a situation where I absolutely need to speak, and there's no one to send anyone to, I can rely on God to tell me what to say, for He has promised:


But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. (Matt 10:19-20)

No one has ever said to me: "Don't worry. Just trust." Jacob wrestled with God, and so can I. I know that when I have doubts and start questioning things, it's God I'm struggling with, not people. They just happen to be the means through which I can reach God's heart. So I ask questions, and I don't settle for any answer, until I'm completely satisfied. I do not rely on any individual to enlighten me. When I ask questions, I'm praying that God will lead me to the answer and give me peace. To this day, He hasnt' let me down. When things settle down in my heart, I get to the point where I can Just Trust, and not worry.


In Christ,
Mary.

[Nina]

Jacob wrestled with God, and so can I.

In Christ,
Mary.

No thanks! :) I should struggle with sin and not with God. Plus I can't even be compared to the guy that an entire nation was named after.

P.S I know what you mean, but it is amusing for me to hear that and I think I have heard it somewhere else. Did any Father speak about this wrestling? And that we have an emulation of it in miniature? I am honestly asking because I have no idea and would like to know - since this wrestling thing is scaring me :).

[Owen Jones]

"This doesn't mean that it wasn't really Jesus until they recognized him; the reality was not based upon their perception of it."

My response to this is both a yes and a no. In a sense there is no Christ apart from perception of Him as the Christ. The two cannot be separated. We can argue that Christ exists eternally, quite apart from any human perception, but of course that is a non-sequiter, because without any human perception, we wouldn't be, couldn't be talking about it!

[Mary]

No thanks! :) I should struggle with sin and not with God. Plus I can't even be compared to the guy that an entire nation was named after.

P.S I know what you mean, but it is amusing for me to hear that and I think I have heard it somewhere else. Did any Father speak about this wrestling? And that we have an emulation of it in miniature? I am honestly asking because I have no idea and would like to know - since this wrestling thing is scaring me :).


Oh, I dunno, Nina. I've always likened my struggles to wrestling, because I'm so rebellious, and I'm never willing to accept what God is teaching me without an argument. I try to wheedle, I try to feign ignorance, I try to run away, and anything else I can think of. But He always corners me and I have to face Him. I think of Jacob because I always lose! But in losing I get blessed. =)

I don't see why it should be scary. He's a merciful God. I argue with Him because I like the interaction. Ok. So maybe that's dumb. I didn't really think about it.

Mary.

[Nina]

Oh, I dunno, Nina. I've always likened my struggles to wrestling, because I'm so rebellious, and I'm never willing to accept what God is teaching me without an argument.
Mary.

I have a different impression :).

[M. Partyka]

I don't think it's necessary for Every single Christian to have an answer to Every possible question and concern.You're right, and neither do I. I myself, upon becoming a Christian, didn't look into the issues of creation and evolution because it wasn't where my personal focus lay. I was more concerned with the moral sphere than the scientific sphere. However, the occasional challenges eventually arose in this area, and all I could say at the time was, "There are, I presume, honest people on both sides of the debate, and they are much more qualified to argue about it than I am." But the time inevitably came that I was no longer satisfied to pass the buck, as it were, and so I began a personal study into the subject. I have come to believe that the issues facing Christians concerning creation and evolution are important ones worth discussing, but I can certainly see how not everybody might come to that same conclusion.


About the things that I have no interest in, or no answers to, I can always admit I do not know, and point them in the direction of my priest. If they are truly seeking God and the Truth, they will go to my priest.Well, here's the problem (for me, at least): I went to two different priests. The first said he didn't know and didn't care. The second said it didn't matter. So, in both instances of seeking priestly guidance, I instead met with an attitude of dismissal -- not toward me, mind you, but toward the topic of my studies. Additionally, in both cases I was advised to focus my attention elsewhere. I can't help but think that I ran into a brick wall inscribed, "Don't ask; don't seek; don't knock," and isn't that the exact opposite of what Jesus taught his disciples?


...I ask questions, and I don't settle for any answer, until I'm completely satisfied. I do not rely on any individual to enlighten me. When I ask questions, I'm praying that God will lead me to the answer and give me peace. To this day, He hasnt' let me down. When things settle down in my heart, I get to the point where I can Just Trust, and not worry.It's funny, but there are times I think I've been subjected to the opposite process: I finally get settled enough to just trust, not worry, and right around then something from out of the blue comes and upsets my apple cart. It's as though my heart isn't allowed to settle. There's always another stone to upturn. This issue of creation and evolution just happens to be the latest one.

[Owen Jones]

There is a good meaning to pious and a not so good meaning to pious. The good meaning is obvious. And for most people it's good enough. I think of all of the simple pious women in Russia who kept the faith alive during communism. I attended one parish in Moscow in '93 and it was the older women, babushkas is it?, who obviously had kept things going. The unsophisticated from whom we can learn much.

But piousness can also be self-centered. As a former Episcopalian, I can't tell you how many laymen I ran across who were proud about the fact that they knew nothing about theology or theological controversies, didn't want to know, said they didn't need to know why they believed what they believed, they just believed it. And we can all see the results of that in the Episcopal Church today.

[Nina]

But piousness can also be self-centered. As a former Episcopalian, I can't tell you how many laymen I ran across who were proud about the fact that they knew nothing about theology or theological controversies, didn't want to know, said they didn't need to know why they believed what they believed, they just believed it.

Yes, I agree with you. However, we also should recognize and accept our limits. This has nothing to do with piousness. It is being realistic and objective. For instance, we will never understand the fullness of the essence of God, even when we are in Heaven, since we are created by Him. That is a limit we will have forever.

Even Saints for instance did not claim to know everything, to grasp everything. And it is a fact that in our Church, very few have the title 'theologian' -Saint Symeon the New Theologian and the Three Hierarchs (and we celebrate them tomorrow, yay, Many years!)

Sometime there is much strength when an Orthodox says 'I do not know, but I rely on what Fathers have said'. This I read in orthodox.net and I do not remember who from the Fathers said it, however I remember that he brought as an example the martyrs who did not know everything about theology (remember many martyrs were simple soldiers), but in their simplicity and humility they said that they follow the tradition and the Fathers.

P.S Dear Owen :) I have been replying to your posts a lot lately. Just to let you know that they are very good and stimulating (as always) for me and they challenge me to think more.

[Mary]

Well, here's the problem (for me, at least): I went to two different priests. The first said he didn't know and didn't care. The second said it didn't matter. So, in both instances of seeking priestly guidance, I instead met with an attitude of dismissal -- not toward me, mind you, but toward the topic of my studies. Additionally, in both cases I was advised to focus my attention elsewhere. I can't help but think that I ran into a brick wall inscribed, "Don't ask; don't seek; don't knock," and isn't that the exact opposite of what Jesus taught his disciples?

I was impressed when I read something about Thomas Alva Edison. He was the one who finally found the right filament to use in a lightbulb. But he didn't find it after two tries, not three, not ten, not even a hundred. He tested a thousand... and the thousandth one worked. I wondered, did he have nothing better to do? After 900, I certainly would've given up! (Actually, I would've given up after 10.)

How desparately do you want to know? You found two priests who couldn't answer your questions to your satisfaction. Does that mean the third one can't? Or the fourth? Or the fifteenth?


It's funny, but there are times I think I've been subjected to the opposite process: I finally get settled enough to just trust, not worry, and right around then something from out of the blue comes and upsets my apple cart. It's as though my heart isn't allowed to settle. There's always another stone to upturn. This issue of creation and evolution just happens to be the latest one.

And you'll find that there's going to be another stone to upturn for the rest of your life. You should start getting worried if nothing upsets your apple cart again!

As for creation/evolution... the answer that satisfied me - time isn't important, because God is outside of time, and because a day is like a thousand years to Him, and a thousand years is like a day. So, whether the earth came into being in 6 days or 6 thousand years, it doesn't matter. What's important, is that fact that God created it. Without Him, nothing came into being. Before He spoke the word, nothing existed. And since He is the Creator of all things, all things are His.

We can ask endless questions, but the most important one is, whether God had anything to do with it or not. That's the basic difference between Creation and Evolution. At least, that's the way I see it, and therefore, it was enough for me to settle in my mind, that God Created. How he did it... doesnt' matter. I'll never understand even if He patiently explained it to me for all eternity.

If that doesn't satisfy you, you'll have to go look for bigger minds =) Happy digging!

In Christ,
mary.

[Paul Cowan]

Well, here's the problem (for me, at least): I went to two different priests. The first said he didn't know and didn't care. The second said it didn't matter. So, in both instances of seeking priestly guidance, I instead met with an attitude of dismissal -- not toward me, mind you, but toward the topic of my studies. Additionally, in both cases I was advised to focus my attention elsewhere. I can't help but think that I ran into a brick wall inscribed, "Don't ask; don't seek; don't knock," and isn't that the exact opposite of what Jesus taught his disciples?


I think you are stumbling on something you are not seeing. People on this forum are telling you basically, it really does not matter. As you say, so did these priests. Perhaps the objective of your studies don't matter (in a spiritual sense) and that is what all these people are telling you. Just because you have fascination for something does not make it important "spiritually" and this is the venue you have chosen to ask your questions.

Also Christ did say these words but not for the context for nonspiritual questions.

James 4:1 Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? 2 You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet[a] you do not have because you do not ask. 3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. 4 Adulterers and[b] adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. 5 Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, “The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously”?

As an aside, yes, I too am interested in dinosaurs. I see their bones, I understand they are very old. I still try to reconcile what I was taught in school with God. SOmetimes I can't. So what? I know the truth even if I can't explain it. That's where faith comes in. It does not mean I don't believe in dinosaurs. Just I don't know where they fall in the timeline. It really matters not other than nonspiritual curiosity.
Paul

[M. Partyka]

How desparately do you want to know? You found two priests who couldn't answer your questions to your satisfaction. Does that mean the third one can't? Or the fourth? Or the fifteenth?Well, I've seen at least three priests post on this forum, so I hope that will be a start. :)


As for creation/evolution... the answer that satisfied me - time isn't important, because God is outside of time, and because a day is like a thousand years to Him, and a thousand years is like a day. So, whether the earth came into being in 6 days or 6 thousand years, it doesn't matter.Can I assume you'd be just as comfortable with an actual timescale of 6 billion years?

[Paul Cowan]

I think Mary has already gone to bed for the night. That's the great thing about time zones, we can all jump in. As noted earlier, how does knowing how old the earth is matter to my salvation? I can't change it regardless how old it is. Except for MY sins in MY past, nothing from then can harm me now. My future can't hurt me either if MY sins are under God's control. If they are under MY control, they will hurt me in the future. Today is all I am given to get my life straight. Today I need to focus on God and repenting of MY sins so they don't catch up to me.

So is the earth 6 billion or 6 thousand years old? Who cares? I know it is older than I am.

[M. Partyka]

People on this forum are telling you basically, it really does not matter. As you say, so did these priests. Perhaps the objective of your studies don't matter (in a spiritual sense) and that is what all these people are telling you. Just because you have fascination for something does not make it important "spiritually" and this is the venue you have chosen to ask your questions.What does "spiritually" mean? How can a question of objective truth not matter on a "spiritual" level? For example, if you were to ask a person whether he/she believed Jesus rose from the dead, and he/she replied, "Yes, in a spiritual sense," or, "Yes, in a religious sense," would that satisfy you? Or would you ask, as I would, "What do you mean, 'in such-and-such sense?' Did he or didn't he?"

[Mary]

Can I assume you'd be just as comfortable with an actual timescale of 6 billion years?

Dear Mr Partyka,

I've already told you everything I know. Time is irrelevant. What matters is, if everything happened spontaneously or if God planned it and created it. I believe God created the heavens and the earth, everything visible and invisible. What more is there to say? Obviously, you need something more, but I have nothing more. I can only give you what I have. Sorry.

Just as an aside, the only reason I use a clock nowadays, is to make sure the kids don't miss the school bus, and to make sure they get to bed on time, and we get to church on time. I really don't measure any event in my life in time. Things happen as they do. If no one reminds me, I'll probably forget how old I am too! ;) Yup, in my family, I'm the one who forgets birthdays and anniversaries.

My only relationship with time is, to look back, and make sure I do better today than I did yesterday, then I have to let go and live my life today, or else I'll miss out on it.

And besides, time isn't a constant thing either. Have you noticed how when you're with people you love, time flies and when you're on the phone with someone you'd rather not be on the phone with, it feels like you're ageing a thousand years? And when you're on Monachos, time ceases to exist??? ;)

In Christ,
Mary.

[Michael Stickles]

I think you are stumbling on something you are not seeing. People on this forum are telling you basically, it really does not matter. As you say, so did these priests. Perhaps the objective of your studies don't matter (in a spiritual sense) and that is what all these people are telling you. Just because you have fascination for something does not make it important "spiritually" and this is the venue you have chosen to ask your questions.

What does "spiritually" mean? How can a question of objective truth not matter on a "spiritual" level? For example, if you were to ask a person whether he/she believed Jesus rose from the dead, and he/she replied, "Yes, in a spiritual sense," or, "Yes, in a religious sense," would that satisfy you? Or would you ask, as I would, "What do you mean, 'in such-and-such sense?' Did he or didn't he?"

I think you're not getting what Paul is saying. Go back to your example. I ask Mr. Z if he believes Jesus rose from the dead. His answer - whatever it happens to be - matters in a spiritual sense, because it impacts directly on his salvation.

Go to another question of objective truth - did the Apostle Paul have brown hair? He did or he didn't, yet I am hard-pressed to find any sense in which this matters, spiritual or otherwise.

The sense in which a given issue matters is the sense in which the answer has some effect or implication. Whether Jesus rose from the dead has serious implications for the eternal destiny of mankind. Whether a given person believes that Jesus rose from the dead has serious implications for their salvation. Whether that person believes Paul had brown hair probably has no implications whatsoever.

So, as to the various questions of creation, evolution, and the age of the Earth - what are the implications of the various answers under consideration? Does a 6 billion-year-old Earth have different implications than a 6 thousand-year-old Earth? What, in any real sense, are the implications of Special Creation versus Theistic Evolution? The areas where the answers have implications will show you the sense(s) in which they are important. If there is no spiritual issue (your salvation, their salvation) where there is any implication, then it is not important in a spiritual sense.

Mike

[Michael Stickles]

And when you're on Monachos, time ceases to exist??? ;)

I've noticed that effect personally - unfortunately, time only ceases to exist for me; it continues to run for whatever's cooking on the stove :P

That's why our house rule is that whoever is cooking is not permitted to access the Internet until after the stove/oven is turned off. Violators are responsible for eating all damaged leftovers themselves.

Hmmm... I guess that means that in our house, this relativistic effect is important in a culinary sense?

Mike

[Owen Jones]

In my experience, parish priests are not very good at fielding why questions. Only what questions. They can tell you what you are supposed to believe. But they are generally quite poor at telling you why you should believe it. Parish priests are, for the most part, functionaries. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It's just the way it is. This stems in large part from the structure of seminary education, which stresses content knowledge. Process knowledge, i.e. the process of struggling spiritually, and progressing spiritually is not, and cannot be a part of an academic curriculum.

The other night I attended a Church lecture. The priest is quite educated and brilliant but not in a pedantic way. He got a question about the gnostic gospels, so called, about which there is much fascination these days. And he dismissed it as nonsense. But he went on to explain why it was nonsense. But it was still dismissive, and the problem that he failed to address was the motivation. Why was this obviously sincere Greek Orthodox woman interested in this in the first place? What dissatisfaction is underlying her looking into this in the first place? Something is going on there, which, in a sense, he completely dismissed.

This is a problem with the Church, when it says, don't worry your pretty little head about this issue or this problem. It's not in the Fathers. We don't need to be thinking about this. This is why most of the Orthodox in America think and believe and behave like protestants. There are all kinds of cultural assumptions that have been absorbed.

[Father David Moser]

Well, here's the problem (for me, at least): I went to two different priests. The first said he didn't know and didn't care. The second said it didn't matter. So, in both instances of seeking priestly guidance, I instead met with an attitude of dismissal -- not toward me, mind you, but toward the topic of my studies. Additionally, in both cases I was advised to focus my attention elsewhere. I can't help but think that I ran into a brick wall inscribed, "Don't ask; don't seek; don't knock," and isn't that the exact opposite of what Jesus taught his disciples?

You have embarked upon what is essentially a scientific quest for knowledge. You have gone to a priest (actually two) and asked them about this question. They have each told you what would be obvious and expected - that in regards to working out your salvation, scientific knowledge is of little value -there are more "high value" pursuits that would benefit your soul. This is exactly what I would expect a priest to tell you (or anyone for that matter).

Now if you want to find an "Orthodox perspective" on this particular scientific approach, then ask an Orthodox scientist - and here I make the note that the person must be Orthodox in his life and manner and purpose, and a scientist by training and vocation. This person will be more apt to be able to give you scientific advice.

The priests told you how to focus your energies for the salvation of your soul - the scientist will advise you how to focus your energies for the pursuit of worldly knowledge. The first pursuit is (well should be) the primary pursuit of all Orthodox Christians subordinating and supplanting all others - the second pursuit is a worthy secondary pursuit, but should never take first place in your life. Make sure that the first pursuit is well established first, and then embark upon the second. Perhaps this is the wisdom that you received from the priests you asked - that at this point in your Christian life, the pursuit of scientific knowledge is simply a distraction from your primary purpose, that is the pursuit of the salvation of your soul.

Fr David Moser

[Father David Moser]

In my experience, parish priests are not very good at fielding why questions. Only what questions. They can tell you what you are supposed to believe. But they are generally quite poor at telling you why you should believe it. Parish priests are, for the most part, functionaries. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It's just the way it is.

I am really sorry that this has been your experience with parish priests. The parish priest is not a "functionary" but rather a shepherd of a flock, a father of a family, etc. He is not necessarily a scholar or a theologian or a mystic elder (although he could be any of these things). His primary function is to guide the flock to their salvation, not be a walking encyclopedia of theological and secular knowledge.


This stems in large part from the structure of seminary education, which stresses content knowledge. Process knowledge, i.e. the process of struggling spiritually, and progressing spiritually is not, and cannot be a part of an academic curriculum.

What you say is true - such "process knowledge" as you say is not part of an academic curriculum. This is why seminaries are not just academic schools but can and should be functioning spiritual entities. Along with "academic" training, a seminary can and should place as much emphasis, if not more, on the experiential knowledge that comes with attending and participating in the full cycle of Church services; actively participating in all the sacraments; following a rule of prayer and spiritual discipline that is almost monastic (if not outright monastic) in its nature. This is the integration of the "process knowledge" at is necessary for parish priests. (My graduate education in psychology also did this kind of training - there was the "academic" training, but then we all also worked on our own issues in individual and group therapy so that we would "know" in our own experience the process of therapy and how it worked out). A seminary which focuses only on the "academic" would be, as you say deficient. Seminary education must involve active participation in the spiritual life under the guidance and direction of experienced spiritual fathers.


The other night I attended a Church lecture. The priest is quite educated and brilliant but not in a pedantic way. He got a question about the gnostic gospels, so called, about which there is much fascination these days. And he dismissed it as nonsense. But he went on to explain why it was nonsense. But it was still dismissive, and the problem that he failed to address was the motivation....
This is a problem with the Church, when it says, don't worry your pretty little head about this issue or this problem.

I think you are trying to mix two distinct issues here. One is an academic issue which it sounds as though the speaker dealt with - he explained why it was nonsense. The other issue, however, is more pastoral and not appropriate for a public forum, that is the issue of motivation. This is something that the woman needs to work through with her spiritual father on a personal level. Just because a lecturer doesn't launch into a personal examination of motivations in a public forum is not evidence that he doesn't care (actually if he did go into such personal issues in public it would tell me that he may not care about or have compassion towards the welfare of the person who is so exposed). This is a matter for "process" of spiritual struggle, not something to be done in an academic lecture about a certain topic.

Fr David Moser

[M. Partyka]

So, as to the various questions of creation, evolution, and the age of the Earth - what are the implications of the various answers under consideration? Does a 6 billion-year-old Earth have different implications than a 6 thousand-year-old Earth? What, in any real sense, are the implications of Special Creation versus Theistic Evolution? The areas where the answers have implications will show you the sense(s) in which they are important. If there is no spiritual issue (your salvation, their salvation) where there is any implication, then it is not important in a spiritual sense.Fair enough. It's probably the case, then, that the priests I asked were putting the issue of creation & evolution in the same category as Paul's hair color. But are they -- is anyone, rather -- justified in making such a snap evaluation? It seems to me that the origin of mankind would have important consequences for the salvation of mankind.

[Mary]

It seems to me that the origin of mankind would have important consequences for the salvation of mankind.

It most certainly does. God created Man. In fact, there's a great deal of detail about how God created Man, whereas, there's not as many details of the other creation. God fashioned Man out of the dust of the earth. He breathed life into Him. He made Woman from Man's rib. He made them both in His own image. And all that is in Genesis 2.

In Christ,
Mary

[Nina]

I am really sorry that this has been your experience with parish priests. The parish priest is not a "functionary" but rather a shepherd of a flock, a father of a family, etc. He is not necessarily a scholar or a theologian or a mystic elder (although he could be any of these things). His primary function is to guide the flock to their salvation, not be a walking encyclopedia of theological and secular knowledge.
Fr David Moser

So very true.

Also dear Owen you mentioned in another thread the grandmothers in Russia conveying the faith, however who taught them? Of course 1. it is in their blood, 2. their mothers and grandmothers and families taught them, but a very important figure who teaches people about faith, in Europe and Russia is the parish priest. They did not have libraries and monachos back then. :)

[Owen Jones]

I wasn't intending to use the term functionary in a perjorative sense. I think the fact remains that, for the most part, it is the duty of a priest to perform certain prescribed functions, both liturgically, and administratively, and to perform them in an orderly fashion for the proper functioning of the parish. The demands on the priests these days are totally unrealistic, and the demands of being a functionary as well as a shepherd of his spiritual flock are daunting. Unfortunately, we seem to have divided functions into discreet realms. Part of that division is in what I see as an arbitrary distinction that assumes that pastoral care is an individual and private function between the priest and a person who comes to him in confession or for some spiritual counsel, but not something that is relates to people in a group, either in a sermon or in a parish hall lecture.

I just do not see the validity of this distinction. Sorry. It could be there is a history between the priest and this person, of course, which would somewhat explain the dismissiveness. (it was that issue that was raised in an earlier post that I was attempting to respond to). So the problem arises when a person says, I'm reading this or that, or I want your opinion on this or that author or this or that book, and the response is dismissive, apparently, and I stress apparently, not taking into account the motivation. Something is percolating underneath that has led to some dissatisfaction. But this is going on all the time with most of us. Most of us find an enormous conflict within between worldly demands, cultural influences, and the relatively brief time we spend at Church that is supposed to send us off in a different direction. It's my opinion, for what it's worth, and I could be wrong, that that stuff going on underneath is papered over like flaws on the wall.

But of course this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread...Except that we all live by typologies. Narratives if you will. And I find that most parish priests are not very good at connecting Biblical typologies, saints lives, etc., with our own present circumstances, as if we are left to draw our own inferences. I mean, let's face it. This website is pretty popular, but it's because it is providing something that is not available elsewhere. A place where theological questions can be discussed and shared without a dismissive response. And it is in part because our priests are overburdened with functional duties, and there just flat aren't enough priests, and also because there is a limit to how much time a priest can spend with each individual, and, also, to some degree, because of this problem with just being dismissed when you have an odd-ball question.

And now I have become a whiner and complainer about parish life, which I do not wish to be. I am grateful that there is even an Orthodox Church within 100 miles of where I live.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

There's something special about the relationship of women to the Russian Church which at first appears counter intuitive. After all by any standards the Russian church has always been on the more traditional side of the spectrum.

Amidst all of this however is the active role women constantly play in the Church. The question for example often comes up of who and how to read in the church. But in the Russian church the women often step in to read as soon as this is needed.

Similarly women in the Russian church also do a tremendous amount for the upkeep of the church. Much of this is spontaneous; it reflects Russian cultural standards where women are not shy of cleaning up the frayed ends left behind by the frequently dissipated men folk.

The old babas in church then are an expression of this larger reality of the Church in Russia. Besides being some sort of inherent aspect of Russian culture it also shows how the Church manifests itself in an acceptable way not only through the clergy or hierarchy.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M. Partyka]

It most certainly does. God created Man. In fact, there's a great deal of detail about how God created Man, whereas, there's not as many details of the other creation. God fashioned Man out of the dust of the earth. He breathed life into Him. He made Woman from Man's rib. He made them both in His own image. And all that is in Genesis 2.I'm glad you've taken things in this direction, because that's really where it needs to go: back to Genesis. You made two statements based on Genesis 2:

1) God fashioned Man out of the dust of the earth.
2) He made Woman from Man's rib.

Now, I need to ask you this, because this will give me an idea of how you view Genesis: How do you interpret these two statements?

(I'd elaborate, but I gotta leave the office now.)

[Andrew]

I'm glad you've taken things in this direction, because that's really where it needs to go: back to Genesis. You made two statements based on Genesis 2:

1) God fashioned Man out of the dust of the earth.
2) He made Woman from Man's rib.

Now, I need to ask you this, because this will give me an idea of how you view Genesis: How do you interpret these two statements?

(I'd elaborate, but I gotta leave the office now.)

God took dust from the earth and formed man out of it. Man is nothing of his own, wholly created by the Uncreated, but given life by the Creator. And not just given life, but made to scale the heights of divinity to be true sons of God, partakers of the Divine Nature, gods by Grace. Man is nothing on his own, but in cooperation with God he can become deified.

He then took a rib out of Adam and made Eve from his flesh and bones. The making of woman from the flesh of man is spiritually significant in that it places Eve as the culmination of creation, the high point of humanity; with her fall came the corruption of the Cosmos, but she stood as a foretype of the Theotokos, who was offered up from the flesh of mankind to have God formed within her.



What is so difficult about that? :) There is spiritual significance to all aspects of life. We cannot split the spiritual from the material.

[Mary]

I'm glad you've taken things in this direction, because that's really where it needs to go: back to Genesis. You made two statements based on Genesis 2:

1) God fashioned Man out of the dust of the earth.
2) He made Woman from Man's rib.

Now, I need to ask you this, because this will give me an idea of how you view Genesis: How do you interpret these two statements?

(I'd elaborate, but I gotta leave the office now.)

Interpret?? Whatever do you mean by that? It's not in Greek, it's in English! It needs no interpretation, it is as it says:

1) God fashioned Man out of the dust of the earth.
2) He made Woman from Man's rib.

Because God made Man and Woman from Man, we're all related and have to learn to live together. Otherwise we're incomplete. We have to learn to love God and love each other instead of ourselves. That's it. If I talk more, I'll confuse myself, because, honestly, that's all I know.

For any deeper meanings than that, you'll have to dig deeper minds, like Andrew's. (see above post). Personally, that's all I needed to know. And to this day, I'm not sure what else there is to know. Although, I admit, at times, I wonder why God didn't just make both Adam and Eve either men or women. But that's only when I'm having a major problem understanding men. At other times, I'm perfectly fine with the way things are. =)

In Christ,
mary.

[Owen Jones]

When a young person is raised on a purely literal/historical interpretation of Scripture, and later finds out that men and women have the same number of ribs, it frequently leads to confusion and doubt.

The modernist interpretation, of course, is that Genesis was written by a bunch of troglodyte males who constructed a narrative in order to defend a tyrannical patriarchy.

[M. Partyka]

When a young person is raised on a purely literal/historical interpretation of Scripture, and later finds out that men and women have the same number of ribs, it frequently leads to confusion and doubt.No offense, but that's kinda silly. Nobody with any understanding of genetics is going to think that a man's having his rib surgically removed is going to pass "being short a rib" to his children.


The modernist interpretation, of course, is that Genesis was written by a bunch of troglodyte males who constructed a narrative in order to defend a tyrannical patriarchy.Not all modernists take such a male-chauvinist view.

[Father David Moser]

moderation notice:

The posts regarding the discussion of evolutionary theory have been moved over to the "Animal death before the fall (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4519)" thread where this discussion is already in full swing - please confine the evolutionary discussion to that area. Also consider that this forum is specifically focused on the patristic, monastic, and liturgical expression of the Orthodox Faith. Please keep the discussion within those bounds. Debates about scientific evidence have other fora where they can be discussed.

Fr David Moser