Two views of heaven and hell [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

M. Partyka

21-03-2008, 09:56 PM

It seems to me that there are two views of heaven and hell, and I'm not sure what it is that causes people to prefer one view over the other.

Having come to faith under the umbrella of the Southern Baptist Convention, the simplistic view of heaven and hell I was taught could be defined as follows:

Heaven = Eternal communion and fellowship with God.
Hell = Eternal separation from God.

(Naturally, the ideas of divine bliss and fiery torment are also associated with heaven and hell, respectively.)

When reading "The River of Fire" by Dr. Alexander Kalomiros, however, I was exposed for the first time to a different view of heaven and hell:

The Light of Truth, God's Energy, God's grace which will fall on men unhindered by corrupt conditions in the Day of Judgment, will be the same to all men. There will be no distinction whatever. All the difference lies in those who receive, not in Him Who gives. The sun shines on healthy and diseased eyes alike, without any distinction. Healthy eyes enjoy light and because of it see clearly the beauty which surrounds them. Diseased eyes feel pain, they hurt, suffer, and want to hide from this same light which brings such great happiness to those who have healthy eyes.

But alas, there is no longer any possibility of escaping God's light. During this life there was. In the New Creation of the Resurrection, God will be everywhere and in everything. His light and love will embrace all. There will be no place hidden from God, as was the case during our corrupt life in the kingdom of the prince of this world. The devil's kingdom will be despoiled by the Common Resurrection and God will take possession again of His creation. Love will enrobe everything with its sacred Fire which will flow like a river from the throne of God and will irrigate paradise. But this same river of Love — for those who have hate in their hearts — will suffocate and burn.

"For our God is a consuming fire", (Heb. 12:29). The very fire which purifies gold, also consumes wood. Precious metals shine in it like the sun, rubbish burns with black smoke. All are in the same fire of Love. Some shine and others become black and dark. In the same furnace steel shines like the sun, whereas clay turns dark and is hardened like stone. The difference is in man, not in God.

...God is Love, so God is Fire. And fire consumes all those who are not fire themselves, and renders bright and shining all those who are fire themselves (Heb. 12:29).Were I to ask, "Which one of these views is Orthodox?" I have the sneaking suspicion that the answer would be, "Both," so instead I'd like to focus on a different question -- "How do each of these two views of heaven and hell make you feel about and/or toward God? Do you prefer one view over the other, and if so, why?"

Misha

22-03-2008, 12:03 AM

When we say that God is both light and fire, Protestants often ask us: “Where did you find that in the Bible?” Even though they know that it’s irrational to believe that God tortures people, they need quotes from the Bible to be convinced. Of course we Christians don’t need to see something written in the Bible in order to believe it. But we are going to present a few biblical passages that support our opinion. Thus, the Protestants will be able to abandon the western, blasphemous notion of a sadistic God, and they will see that the teachings of the Lord’s Orthodox Church are always true.
Let’s start with Isaiah:

“The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? Who among us shall dwell with the everlasting burnings? He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil. He shall dwell on high: his place of defence shall be the munitions of rocks: bread shall be given him; his waters shall be sure.” (Isaiah 33:14-16)

Notice who will dwell with the everlasting burnings!!! Not only the unjust, but the righteous as well! Do you see that they are the same? What is feared by sinners is considered “high” by the righteous.

And what is the “devouring fire”?

“For our God is a consuming fire.” (Hebrews 12:29)

This “fiery” God is “light” for other people. According to Isaiah:

“For brass I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver, and for wood brass, and for stones iron: I will also make thy officers peace, and thine exactors righteousness. Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise. The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory. Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the LORD shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.”(Isaiah 60:17-20)

The word “glory” (Greek: doxa) means “brightness”. Paul writes:

“There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.” (1 Corinthians 15:41)

But the passage from Isaiah mentions materials. It is obvious that God will replace the lesser materials with materials that are more valuable and more able to endure fire. What does this mean? The apostle Paul explains:

“Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” (1 Corinthians 3:12-15)

It is important that in this passage various materials symbolise each person’s actions. Good actions are like valuable materials that can’t be harmed by fire. On the other hand, evil actions are mentioned as materials that can be burned. Then, the fire of God’s grace will burn the unworthy deeds and he who committed them shall be damaged because he won’t have anything valuable to show. Both good and evil actions, both righteous and unjust men will go through this fire…

The prophet Zechariah says that the fire purifies valuable metals. The fire doesn’t burn them, but it cleans them and it illuminates them. When a metal stays in the fire, it too becomes bright as fire. But the fire also makes wood black and burns it:

“And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.”(Zechariah 13:9)

The next passage also shows us that the righteous and the unjust will go through the same flame. Although the sinners will feel burned by the fire, the just shall rest in the fire of the presence and the glory (brightness) of the Lord:

“And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.”(2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)

In the Revelation to John, we read about the river of the Grace of God that springs from His throne. This river is the river of life for the righteous:

“And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.”(Revelation 22:1-2)

But this river is also described as “fire”:

“A fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him…”(Daniel 7:10)

We see the difference between how the righteous and how the unjust perceive the Grace of God.

This is because, according to the author of the Psalms, the fire of the Lord is divided by Him into illuminating and burning energy:

“The voice of the LORD divideth the flames of fire.”(Psalm 29:7, Massoretic Text)

When that day comes, are we going to feel God’s grace as “fire” or as “light”? The decision is ours…

taken from:

http://www.oodegr.com/english/theos/pyr_fws1.htm

also useful a lecture by fr John Romanides:
http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogma/diafores1.htm

M. Partyka

22-03-2008, 12:26 AM

Antonios

22-03-2008, 05:34 AM

How does this view of heaven and hell, compared to or contrasted with the other "Latinized" view, make you feel about God? Which view do you prefer, and why?

Dear M. Partyka,

Perhaps you could start the discussion by telling us how you feel?

In Christ,
Antonios

Nina

22-03-2008, 03:08 PM

Hell = Eternal separation from God.

According to what I have read, there is no separation.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

22-03-2008, 04:16 PM

I used to think that Kalomiros' view was basically echoing Fathers such as St Symeon the New Theologian who said something along the lines of it being blasphemous to think there is some place apart from God. I think it is also Patristic to represent hell as our personal state within God's light.

However I now think that Kalomiros depersonalizes the Patristic vision of God's energies too much at least from the quote above.

Our 'state' including in some way our state after death, comes from the correspondence between God's all encompassing and life creating energies & our free acceptance or rejection of this.

However the balance between these two must be maintained so that we do not think of God's energies in a depersonalized way, robbed of God's providential aspect.

In other words the analogy of standing before a light; of having the power to accept or reject this; and of this corresponding to our state- this way of putting it contains an important message about what salvation means.

But this still is only a partial image that must be balanced by the fundamental understanding that this Light is divinely Personal. As such God's active will and & love are actively involved even in our experience of rejecting Him. And this is indicated in the experience we undergo of separation.

After all we may freely reject God, but no one in doing so hopes for the consequent suffering which results from this. Indeed the very hope of misused free will is that the pleasure of self centredness results- but which indeed it never will. For as St Maximus explains, God has put within pleasure, (which is one of the fruits of sin), pain & suffering to providentially urge us back towards Him.

"' My sin, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; For whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives.' If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten?" (Heb 12:5-7).

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Father David Moser

22-03-2008, 04:51 PM

Misha,

Thanks for the links. However, you didn't really answer my question.

According to the Orthodox, since all men will see God, no religion can claim for itself the power to send people either to heaven or to hell. This means that true spiritual fathers prepare their spiritual charges so that vision of God’s glory will be heaven, and not hell, reward, and not punishment. The primary purpose of Orthodox Christianity then, is to prepare its members for an experience which every human being will sooner or later have.

How does this view of heaven and hell, compared to or contrasted with the other "Latinized" view, make you feel about God? Which view do you prefer, and why?

I couldn't find the original quote anywhere - so reproduced it here. The idea of heaven and hell as a "just reward" has been so warped by the legalistic interpretation of the Western Church that they have lost sight of the fact that this life is only the beginning and that there is a qualitative difference. Eternal life is not just an unending version of this life, but a whole new and different experience - as different for us as the flight of a butterfly might be unimaginable to a caterpillar. But God, in his infinite mercy and love for us, has given us a means by which we can prepare for that life even without fully knowing anything about it. Our sinfulness will cause us, in that life, to experience what we interpret in this life to be torment - at the very least it will be unpleasant (about as unpleasant as falling through the air and landing on the ground would be for a caterpillar). However, when we shed our sinfulness, and when we obtain God, we are ready to live in that "unknown" environment and the experience will not only be tolerable but it will be ecstatically joyful.

The images we have of heaven and hell - whether it is the city with pearly gates and streets paved of gold opposed to the fiery wasteland with devils with pitchforks or whether it is standing before the heavenly throne of God in perpetual praise opposed to the River of Fire - or whatever your image may be - these images are not the reality, they are attempts to describe the indescribable, attempts to express what is beyond expression, to know what cannot be known. So all these images have their validity - some are more useful than others and they all teach different lessons. Arguing about which image is "more accurate" is foolishness or arguing about which is more valid without the context of what is being taught is likewise foolish. They are all "accurate" and are all "inaccurate" each in its own way.

You ask, "which do you prefer" and my answer is, "it depends on what I am trying to express about heaven and hell". Each image has its uses (and its abuses).

Fr David Moser

Anna

23-03-2008, 02:04 AM

"How do each of these two views of heaven and hell make you feel about and/or toward God? Do you prefer one view over the other, and if so, why?"

I can tell you most assuredly that neither of the two have much affect on how I feel about or toward God. It's not a matter of avoiding your question...it's rather an expression of the difference between Western thought and Orthodoxy. The kingdom of heaven is a present reality--as is hell. We live in one or the other--maybe in the lukewarm water between--by virtue of the choices we make each day in the process of working out our salvation; that is acting on the grace we have been given. There is an eternal experience of that yet to come, but it is a translation of our present into something truly unimaginable. I have little concern for that and much more for the degree to which I am actively acquiring the Holy Spirit in the present.

As Father David has said so aptly, the words of mortal man cannot begin to describe the heavenly mystery of the Triune God. Nor can we adequately express the savage brutality of a life that cannot accept divine grace. If we use a specific illustration in any given situation, it is with the understanding that there is always that left unsaid and unknown.

M. Partyka

26-03-2008, 05:28 AM

Perhaps you could start the discussion by telling us how you feel?I asked you first! :)

M. Partyka

26-03-2008, 06:09 AM

Okay, here goes:

From the Baptist perspective, "separation from God" doesn't really mean separation in the physical sense. It's actually more relational. For example, I can be standing right next to you, but if you don't acknowledge my existence, then I may as well be a million miles away. So, from the Baptist perspective, hell is like knowing that the greatest person you'll ever know is right there in front of you, talking to all his friends, but it's like he doesn't see you, and he never will. You could ask him a question, and he'd never answer. It's like you don't exist to him. And it's not that he's being mean to you. Rather, he's just respecting your wishes, as evidenced by your continual refusal to let him into your life while you were on earth. It's only now, however, that you realize that having him in your life was all you ever really needed -- and now you can't have it, ever, and it's all your fault.

So, it occurred to me while contemplating heaven and hell several years ago that heaven and hell could be exactly the same but for one difference: You have fellowship with God in heaven, but in hell you don't, and whichever one you end up in is where you're going to stay for all eternity.

To me, the "eternal fellowship/eternal separation" paradigm puts the emphasis totally on the goodness of God. God is someone you don't want to be without. Life with God has meaning, whereas life without God is meaningless.

In contrast, the "river of fire" paradigm, to me, makes God as much of a threat as it makes him a blessing. The message it sends me is, "This hand grenade is about to blow up in your face, so you'd better start liking the taste of shrapnel!" God's goodness doesn't appear in this paradigm. God is simply an eternal and unavoidable inevitability to which you are obligated to accustom yourself, like it or not. It makes me wonder, "Who wants that kind of God?"

On the other hand, it does shed some light on a question I had during my Protestant years, which was, "If I got to heaven, would I even enjoy it?" I'm reminded of a period in my life of about a month in which I forced myself to listen to contemporary Christian music. After a month I gave up. Most all the music had the same themes -- praise and worship, thanksgiving, tales of mercy and redemption -- and revolved around the same subject: God, 24/7. The music bored me. I went back to listening to hip-hop, pop music, and alternative rock, and I have no inclination to give contemporary Christian music another try. So I'm thinking, "Wait a minute. In heaven, we're all going to be praising God 24/7, right? So heaven is, in some sense, like having all your senses eternally tuned in to contemporary Christian music. How exactly is that supposed to be heavenly bliss?" I just assumed that when I died, God would change me however was necessary so that I was fit for heaven. Now that I've been exposed to the "river of fire" paradigm, though, I wonder if this kind of "tuning" process is what's meant by theosis. It's how one gets oneself ready for the life to come...because one day, ready or not, you're going to be in the choir.

But on the other hand, I often also think, "Why is it that because I don't like listening to this music, I'm supposed to assume there's something wrong with me? I like songs with variety, songs which sometimes have discordant melodies or tragic subject material. That's simply what I like. Yet every Sunday I would find myself in church, doomed to listen to chants and tones that just make me want to rip my ears off because it doesn't even remotely sound good. Please do not tell me this is what heaven sounds like!"

So, I don't know...the "river of fire" paradigm triggers all the wrong feelings it me. On one hand, it makes me think, "Boy, I'd better shape up!" On the other hand, it makes me think, "Shape up for what? What exactly am I renouncing the world for, anyway?" After all, you'd think a foretaste of heaven wouldn't sound like fingernails on the chalkboard, right? And if it does, how on earth can our hope be joyful?

So, overall, I prefer the "eternal fellowship/eternal separation" paradigm, though I'm entirely up in the air so far as which is the more accurate of the two. I prefer it over the "river of fire" paradigm because it lets God be good regardless of how I may feel now toward the aesthetic outer trappings of the Church, like its music, iconography, apparel, inconvenient facial hair, etc. The focus is upon God Himself, not upon what He will be like to me.

Herman Blaydoe

26-03-2008, 01:55 PM

I can understand why being ignored might certainly be preferable to being pursued. But hell is not about what is preferable, quite the contrary I should think....

What would having continual fellowship with someone you don't want to fellowship with be like? Someone you can't get away from no matter what you do?

Not very "polite" I suppose, but yes, we should try and learn to accept God on His terms rather than demand that He accept us on ours. Or so it seems to this bear of very little brain.

Herman the Pooh

Nina

26-03-2008, 06:00 PM

Hi M. Partyka.

We are to have our mind 24/7 to God from here also. This is what our Fathers teach. We should be in love with God so much that at the moment of our departure our souls should go like eagles straight forward without hindrance to God. This is of course achieved when we have cleansed our selves from passions and have achieved theosis which is something we need to achieve while we are here.

M. Partyka

26-03-2008, 06:19 PM

What would having continual fellowship with someone you don't want to fellowship with be like? Someone you can't get away from no matter what you do?That's a very good way of summing up the "river of fire" paradigm such that I can totally relate to it. I tend to be hypersensitive to people around me, no matter how unobtrusive they try to make their presence. Consequently, the only time that I can truly relax is when I'm totally alone. Since my mother lives with me, I don't get much "alone time" at all. So, the idea of God being this constant, demanding presence who never leaves and gives me time to recharge is really not my idea of "eternal bliss". But then, neither is being utterly alone forever. As I am now, I'd want to find a happy medium of being with God when I wanted to be, and being alone when I wanted to be.

Under the "eternal fellowship or eternal separation" paradigm, what's communicated to me is that God is so good that you'll never want to be away from his presence. That would be my idea of things "which no eye has seen nor ear has heard," given I've yet to find anybody I've ever felt that way about, nor do I realistically expect to find anybody on earth like that. (I'm not married, but I get the impression from all I've learned about married like that even the most devoted and loving spouses need their time apart.) The idea that, "You'll have constant fellowship with God, and what's more, you'll want it," is therefore very appealing to me.

Under the "river of fire" paradigm, however, I only get part of the package I get under the other paradigm: "You'll have constant fellowship with God, but whether you like it or not depends on how ready for it you become during your life on earth." At least, that's the impression I get of the paradigm, and if that's the case, what does it say about me that I'm the kind of person who, more often than not, prefers to be alone? Sure, I go and socialize when I'm feeling social, but at my own pace and based upon my own feelings. Now I'm told that if I don't change, God's going to end up to me like the irritating houseguest who never leaves? How on earth is this paradigm supposed to make God appealing to the unbeliever who doesn't realize that he/she needs God in his/her life? For that matter, how on earth is this paradigm supposed to make God appealing to believers, for whom the constant message is, "You'd better change, because you're not ready to meet God as you are." Change into what? Somebody I'm simply not? Somebody who's comfortable around all kinds of people for no matter how long? "With God all things are possible" -- yeah, I get that, but my question isn't really about whether it's possible. Rather, it's about whether who I am as an individual even matters to God, given that under this paradigm He appears so ready and eager to change me into something I'm not.

I guess what it all boils down to for me is this. I don't have a problem with God's changing me to suit him. What I have a problem with is my having to want those changes before He does anything to me, because (1) I don't really know what it is that I'm supposed to want, and (2) if the outward things pertaining to God -- the music, the iconography, the apparel, those incredibly long beards, etc. -- are any indication of what I ought to want...well, me no likey so far!

Father David Moser

26-03-2008, 07:13 PM

What I have a problem with is my having to want those changes before He does anything to me, because (1) I don't really know what it is that I'm supposed to want,

One of the Optina elders (I forget at the moment which one) said that the "secret" to happiness is to "want what God gives". I realize that doesn't necessarily answer your question, but it does provide a place to start - look at what God gives and then work towards adjusting your wants to that.

Fr David Moser

Nina

26-03-2008, 07:17 PM

Uh oh (should I call you M.?)! Commitment problems. ;) We all have them in a way, or another. Do not worry, God always helps us overcome those. Just pray to Him and try not to over-think it at the moment in earthly/human terms. Try not to be inquisitive of what God will do up there for some time. Distance yourself from that and go inwards, look what your soul needs. Also dismiss me. :P

Matthew Namee

26-03-2008, 07:19 PM

M. Partyka, I don't see a real conflict between the River of Fire paradigm (i.e. the idea that God's love is everywhere and will burn those in hell but illumine those in heaven) and your fellowship/separation paradigm. This discussion reminds me of the final scene in the final book of C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia, The Last Battle. The righteous and the unrighteous, as it were, are in the same place. But the unrighteous, focused only upon themselves, are blind to the grace which abounds in their very midst. The righteous, meanwhile, with joy join Aslan (the Christ figure) as they leap from "glory to glory." It is the hard hearts of the unrighteous which make them unable to see and participate in the joy of heaven.

That image seems to correlate well with your fellowship/separation paradigm, and I do think that it is one possible illustration of the Orthodox view on the afterlife. However, I might offer another. If I may be so bold as to elaborate upon Christ's parable of the prodigal son... The prodigal fled far from his father. He was alone, distant from the father's house (the kingdom). Yet what tormented him? Not only the squalid conditions in which he found himself. He was tormented by the love of his father, in this case the very thought of his father. In the end, it is this love which is the prodigal's salvation: remembering his father, he comes to himself and returns to the father's house. But what if the prodigal's heart was hard? He still could not escape the awareness of his father; however much he might try, he could not totally suppress the memory of his father's house. Instead of repentance, perhaps the hardhearted prodigal would be inspired to anger, hatred, or resentment. The same thought of the father and his love which inspired repentance in the good prodigal would inspire torment in this hypothetical hardhearted prodigal.

As we humans have been created to share in love with God, we cannot, by our very nature, escape the awareness of God. We may try to suppress it or ignore it, but the most that that will produce is not, in the end, amnesia so much as it is resentment. Pascal it was, I believe, who said that in every human heart is a God-shaped hole. It is not that God is imposing himself upon us; it is that our very selves, who we are, is bound up with desire for God. Without that God-shaped hole, we would be worse than animals. We would certainly not be human. To be human is to need God.

I don't think the River of Fire image is of God saying, "Eat this whether you like it or not," or, "I'm going to engage you in fellowship, and if you like me, great, but if you don't, tough luck." It's more God offering his love to all, freely, and without exception. Those whose hearts are hard will be inspired by this offer to resentment; their very rejection of the love and simultaneous inner awareness of their need for it will be their torment. I also have a suspicion that very, very few people will actually reject God's offer of love. Freed from the context of this world, I suspect that most humans will take refuge in the presence of God, even if they blasphemed against him and rejected him (or who they thought he was) on earth.

Herman Blaydoe

26-03-2008, 07:34 PM

Under the "eternal fellowship or eternal separation" paradigm, what's communicated to me is that God is so good that you'll never want to be away from his presence.

There is no difference in the "River of Fire" paradigm, except for the acknowledgement that some people will freely choose to not want to be in God's presence. Sin hates exposure as sin, and in God nothing is hidden. Adam and Eve tried to hide from God when they sinned. It didn't work, He found them, but in their sin, they didn't want to be in His Presence.

As I am now, I'd want to find a happy medium of being with God when I wanted to be, and being alone when I wanted to be.

Good luck with that, I hope you and God can come to some sort of arrangement...

Under the "river of fire" paradigm, however, I only get part of the package I get under the other paradigm: "You'll have constant fellowship with God, but whether you like it or not depends on how ready for it you become during your life on earth." At least, that's the impression I get of the paradigm, and if that's the case, what does it say about me that I'm the kind of person who, more often than not, prefers to be alone?

Well I suspect that is between you and God.

Rather, it's about whether who I am as an individual even matters to God, given that under this paradigm He appears so ready and eager to change me into something I'm not.

I have to suspect it is less about who we "are" in this fallen world, but who we are meant to be in God's perfect Creation. All that talk about dying to the "old man" and becoming new, metanoia and metamorphosis and all that. A catepillar is not a butterfly...yet. God wants us to come to Him as we are, but that does not mean He intends for us to stay that way. Change is a constant theme in the Gospels is it not? So yes, I have to say SOMETHING is going to change when we encounter God, and it won't be God who will be changing...

What I have a problem with is my having to want those changes before He does anything to me, because (1) I don't really know what it is that I'm supposed to want, and (2) if the outward things pertaining to God -- the music, the iconography, the apparel, those incredibly long beards, etc. -- are any indication of what I ought to want...well, me no likey so far!

Very true, we mostly don't know what we really want, the Apostle Paul writes extensively about this.
The outward things are only meant to be a reflection of the inward things which are most important. But we are holistic beings, the two are (should be) related.

So, what exactly is the problem? The music? Which music? You don't like Tchaikovsky? Greek chant? Maybe plain chant is more to your liking?

Apparel? Well, I think it is generally agreed that clothing is a good thing. Is my apparel so different from yours?

Long beards? Well, mine is rather short, merely a goatee actually, and my Metropolitan assures me that beards are not necessary, but I do have a personal preference. If you don't like beards, you will not be denied entry into Heaven for shaving, as far as I know. In fact some of our bishops were clean-shaven.

The war going on in your heart is more apparent than you may be aware. The externals are merely excuses at this point.

M. Partyka

26-03-2008, 08:37 PM

The outward things are only meant to be a reflection of the inward things which are most important. But we are holistic beings, the two are (should be) related. So, what exactly is the problem? The music? Which music? You don't like Tchaikovsky? Greek chant? Maybe plain chant is more to your liking? Apparel? Well, I think it is generally agreed that clothing is a good thing. Is my apparel so different from yours? Long beards?...some of our bishops were clean-shaven....The war going on in your heart is more apparent than you may be aware. The externals are merely excuses at this point.I don't know that it's true that, "The externals are merely excuses at this point." Granted, it might well be that I would find it easier to overlook the externals were it not for the internal difficulties I'm having, but on the other hand, externals are the first impressions we get, and they do play a part in how we evaluate things given a paucity of data about the internals.

While exposure to the liturgy has affected my standards of what constitutes a proper worship service, I have to say that the services that have impacted me the most with their externals are not the liturgical services with the robes, gold embroidery, stoles, etc., with everybody wearing their Sunday best. I tend to prefer the more "come as you are" services that one sees in nondenominational or Pentecostal-leaning churches. I've seen people come in t-shirts & shorts, and the pastors themselves were never dressed any classier than "business casual". Why do these casual services impress me more than Orthodox liturgical services? Mainly because there are no externals present to get in the way of the internals, so it's all about the internals. An outsider coming in doesn't feel the slightest bit out of place, because the utter lack of external flair says to them, "The only thing we care about is here is what's inside. You could be dressed up as a punk rocker for all we care. What's in your soul? If you love God or are simply looking for God, you're welcome here." Which is not to say that anybody at an Orthodox church I've attended has ever gone out of their way to make me feel unwelcome. But, my point is that they don't need to. The externals already do that. I hear the music, and I think, "That's not the kind of music I listen to." I see the icons, and I think, "That's not what I call good artwork." I see the modes of dress, and I think, "I don't dress like that." The internals may all be well and good there, but the externals are stacked against me from the word go. Even after I get to know the people in the church, I still think every Sunday, "Man, I wish things wouldn't look like this, sound like this, feel like this." So what's external does have an effect on my internals, is what I'm trying to say.

Herman Blaydoe

26-03-2008, 09:01 PM

That may well be, but if you study Holy Scripture at all, I think you will begin to see that externals mean something as well, particularly if you read Exodus (particularly chapter 28). The whole idea is to convey the idea that we are called to be "set apart", to be "Holy". So we try to offer our best to God. In these less respectful, more informal times, such ideas are lost on many people, I get that. But Orthodoxy is older than these times, and will be here when these times pass. The Pentacostals will come and go, but Christ's Church will be here when He comes again in Glory in His proper time.

The outside does reflect what is inside, what is outside can and does affect what is inside, they are inextricably linked. This has been re-proven in modern psychology as well as known from the beginning by the Fathers. What we do effects what we think just like what we think affects what we do. Hopefully you will come to see this even as I did. I once thought a lot like you. I thought icons were "funny" looking, I thought the musc "wierd". But there came a time when the veil was lifted just the tiniest bit. I was able to see icons in a totally different "light", not as pictures but as windows into Heaven, showing us not what IS but what OUGHT TO BE. They have never looked the same to me since. Music is and always has been an acquired taste. Perhaps you simply need to broaden your horizons a bit...

Sometimes when you look at something, it looks TOTALLY different from another angle. You might want to shift your point of view a little, that's all I'm saying.

Nina

26-03-2008, 09:02 PM

Matthew Namee

26-03-2008, 09:26 PM

Why do these casual services impress me more than Orthodox liturgical services? Mainly because there are no externals present to get in the way of the internals, so it's all about the internals.
This reminds me of the famous story of St. Ephraim and St. Basil. I'm going from memory here, but as I recall St. Ephraim had heard all these great things about St. Basil, so he went to Caesarea to see him for himself. When he walked into the church, a service was taking place, and Ephraim heard the beautiful music and saw the icons and the glittering vestments and so forth, and he turned to his translator and said, "I must have heard wrong; there couldn't be holiness here." And then, as he was about to leave, he turned and saw St. Basil preaching, and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove was flying in and out of St. Basil's mouth. So St. Ephraim realized that he was wrong and that, despite the externals which put him off, it was indeed possible for holiness to exist amidst apparent opulence.

Of course, St. Basil was known for his austerity and poverty, so it's not like he was living in the lap of luxury.

Michael Stickles

26-03-2008, 11:44 PM

Why do these casual services impress me more than Orthodox liturgical services? Mainly because there are no externals present to get in the way of the internals, so it's all about the internals.

Why do you attend church services?

I'm not trying to be rude or sarcastic, nor is this a "trick question", and you don't need to answer it to me. But there is an old saying that "form follows function", and this usually holds true in church services as well - the form of the services will follow from the intended function of the services.

Perhaps part of the problem you are running into is that the "why" of the services you prefer - in other words, the purpose you see (consciously or subconsciously) for going to church services - is not quite the same as the "why" of Orthodox services.

If a service is designed to get us to look inward, it will minimize external distractions; those externals that there are will be connected to the "how" or "what" of our inward focus. If the service is designed to get us to look outward, the externals will be chosen to represent who or what we are to look outward at. Even services designed for what seems to be the same purpose - say, connecting people with God - can still look extremely different depending on how we are trying to accomplish that (Bring as many as possible in to "hear the Gospel"? Or, depict the nature of God as accurately as possible to those who come? Is the depiction rational or symbolic? Etc.)

The next time you attend an Orthodox service, try looking at the externals that have been bothering you and see if you can get some sense of the "why" of them. Be sure to "check your answers" (i.e., ask a priest or post questions here) - I was mistaken a lot when I first tried this.

In Christ,
Mike

M. Partyka

27-03-2008, 12:31 AM

Ah, M! But this is double standards. From one side you want Orthodoxy to tell you 'come as you are' (which it actually does say. It always embraced me although I am the worst in all aspects). But on the other hand you do not wish to say to Orthodoxy 'come as You are'.This is a good point (though the anthropomorphizing of Orthodoxy throws me a bit), and maybe my point of view is colored by the fact that my primary emphasis as a Christian has always been on evangelism and outreach. Like the Apostle Paul, I'm willing to "become all things to all people that by all means I might save some." Contrasted with this attitude, everything about the Orthodox liturgical life appears horribly inflexible. And the aspects of the Liturgy I find unappealing become exponentially more unappealing when I realize that in all likelihood they're never going to go away. Then there's the matter of inviting people to Liturgy. Honestly, I'd be embarrassed to invite the majority of my friends to Liturgy, given the chasm between Liturgy and the type of services my friends are used to attending. What would I say to those of them who felt uncomfortable with it? "Yeah, it bugs me, too"? I can hear them reply, "Then why don't you go somewhere else?" That's when I hear myself reply, "I wish I could." What it comes down to is, I guess, if I'm not comfortable with the service, how am I supposed to invite anybody else to service?

I remember one of the last Liturgies I went to -- it's been months since I've attended -- and after several months of attending nearly every Sunday service (and more than a few Saturday Vespers), trying to acclimate myself to the Liturgy and really appreciate it, I asked myself, "Honestly, without holding back, how do you feel about all this?" and the answer practically lept out of my gut: "I HATE this! I hate the way it looks. I hate the way it sounds. I hate that I have to say things over and over again that most of the time I'd never say in normal daily life. I hate having to cross myself every time the Trinity is mentioned -- which is only about 50 times -- as if I were making the sign language equivalent of 'bless you' after hearing somebody sneeze. I hate that I can't partake of the Eucharist even if I've 'been a good boy' all week, and no, getting a blessing is not the same thing. I hate the ultra-slow refrain we sing repeatedly after the priest's sermon just to give him time to prepare the Eucharist -- honestly, I'd rather sit patiently in dead silence than sing that song. I hate not being able to hear everything the priest is saying when he's censing the icons. I hate not knowing what the icons mean or what the basics of iconography are. I hate feeling like I'm not really a part of just whatever it is that's going on -- that I'm on the outside looking in, and always will be because it's going to take another year for the priest to finish the catechism curriculum, and I don't feel comfortable getting chrismated if I don't know what it is I'm supposed to believe."

Honestly, I hate a lot of things about Orthodoxy. But you know what's funny? I think I'd feel a lot better about all of it if I were right there in it instead of just peering in through the window every Sunday. I hate feeling kept at a distance. Would biting the bullet and becoming Orthodox make it all better?

Nina

27-03-2008, 01:36 AM

Honestly, I hate a lot of things about Orthodoxy.

This is truly very honest and I was actually giggling because it is like the answer of a child and that's good. It shows you have purity and that's what Orthodoxy needs at this moment from you in addition to an open mind and heart.

But you know what's funny? I think I'd feel a lot better about all of it if I were right there in it instead of just peering in through the window every Sunday. I hate feeling kept at a distance. Would biting the bullet and becoming Orthodox make it all better?Do you know to whom you should talk besides the Fathers here? Listen to Mike, to Paul. They have been Baptists in the past (if I am not confusing what you are and what they were... sorry if I am) and they can reply to you empirically and help you. Mike already posted his reply above. They are very precious to me as brothers in Christ and they put my Orthodoxy to shame. There might be others who were Baptists, however I do not know. All will help you through do not worry. And actually some days ago Owen asked you in the other thread about Orthodoxy and I am so surprised he anticipated it - such a mind!

Anna

27-03-2008, 04:45 AM

Honestly, I hate a lot of things about Orthodoxy. But you know what's funny? I think I'd feel a lot better about all of it if I were right there in it instead of just peering in through the window every Sunday. I hate feeling kept at a distance. Would biting the bullet and becoming Orthodox make it all better?

I have to ask...why do you continue to show interest in that which you say you hate? Beyond just the Liturgy, something must be bringing you back. I'm not faulting or judging you--I, too, appreciate that you can be open enough to reveal this--just wondering if the answer would help to clarify things for you.

Anna (former Southern Baptist, including four years of seminary--Orthodox 17 years)

Michael Stickles

27-03-2008, 05:27 AM

I hate feeling like I'm not really a part of just whatever it is that's going on -- that I'm on the outside looking in ...

... But you know what's funny? I think I'd feel a lot better about all of it if I were right there in it instead of just peering in through the window every Sunday. I hate feeling kept at a distance.

That seems like the primary issue you're dealing with. From my own experience, I think you're right - the other things will probably fall into place once you feel like a part of what's going on. As long as you feel like you're stuck "outside", explanations about vestments and chanting and iconography and the like probably won't mean much of anything.

Would biting the bullet and becoming Orthodox make it all better?

It did in my case, although I should say that for me "becoming Orthodox" wasn't a matter of being baptized or chrismated (which hasn't happened yet), or even of becoming a catechumen. Rather, it was a matter of entering into the life of the Church - by which I mean not just getting involved in the local parish (though that's part of it), but beginning to practice in my own life the practices of Orthodox Christianity, especially those things which were different from my Protestant background.

The things which have been of greatest benefit in this have been fasting and my prayer rule. Trying to follow the Wednesday and Friday fasts as well as the longer fasting seasons has reinforced in a practical way that it's not about me or my preferences. And doing the morning and evening prayers from the HTM prayer book has helped acclimate me to the liturgical language and the Orthodox style of prayer and worship, as well as providing a kind of instruction in Orthodox theology. I know that some people have problems with saying "canned" prayers, but to me they're very similar to the forms (hyung or kata) in martial arts, set patterns of movements which are practiced over and over to train one's body and reflexes in combat movements until they become ingrained. The prayers of the Fathers are like forms for the soul.

But beyond those explicitly stated benefits, there's something else which I'm having trouble putting into words. The best I can do is say that, by consciously trying to enter into the life of the Church through engaging in those practices of the Church which are open to me, that sense of being on the "inside", of "belonging", is continually formed in me. To be honest, I think that if I was diligent for a full month in fasting and daily prayer but could not attend a single service, at the end of that month I would have more of a sense of "belonging" to the Church than if I had attended every service but neglected fasting and prayer. It is possible to come to services with only my body, but in fasting and prayer my will enters the Church.

In Christ,
Mike

Misha

27-03-2008, 03:00 PM

Honestly, I hate a lot of things about Orthodoxy.

From the service of st Silouan:

"Assembled in faith we honor thee Silouan, as an ascetic of Christ; and we believe that in truth He appeared to thee as thou wast standing before His holy Icon, smitten by despondency which drove thee to say: “God is inexorable!” But He showed thee in the Holy Spirit His mercy and an assurance of thy salvation. Pray, O blessed one, Him Whom thou didst recognize then as thy Savior and Lord, to grant salvation to those who sing thy name. "

M. Partyka

27-03-2008, 05:49 PM

I have to ask...why do you continue to show interest in that which you say you hate? Beyond just the Liturgy, something must be bringing you back.Where else can I go, knowing all that I know now from reading the Church Fathers? It took me a while, but I finally understood from reading them how important it is to belong not to just any church, but to the one Church. It just doesn't make any sense for me to look elsewhere. That doesn't mean I like it, but I'm more interested in following what is true than what comforts me, so....

Hey, it just struck me that the whole "river of fire" paradigm applies to my view of the Church, too. I've been to Liturgy, and I know what it's like, and I know how many things there are I don't like about it, but I'm nevertheless pulled back there, not because I like it so much, but because there's no avoiding it; there's nowhere else to go.

Rick H.

27-03-2008, 06:02 PM

. . . there's nowhere else to go.

I hear you M.

Truer words were never spoken.

In Christ,
Rick

Fr Raphael Vereshack

27-03-2008, 06:20 PM

Mike Stickles wrote:

I know that some people have problems with saying "canned" prayers, but to me they're very similar to the forms (hyung or kata) in martial arts, set patterns of movements which are practiced over and over to train one's body and reflexes in combat movements until they become ingrained. The prayers of the Fathers are like forms for the soul.

I like this very much. Such forms also make up the services from which much of the daily morning & evening prayers are taken.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Matthew Namee

27-03-2008, 07:59 PM

I would just like to say that I am impressed and moved by the self-awareness and honesty which M. Partyka has displayed. You are remarkably sincere, and I have no doubt that God will reward you for your struggle.

Misha

27-03-2008, 08:53 PM

Anna

28-03-2008, 01:13 AM

Where else can I go, knowing all that I know now from reading the Church Fathers? It took me a while, but I finally understood from reading them how important it is to belong not to just any church, but to the one Church. It just doesn't make any sense for me to look elsewhere. That doesn't mean I like it, but I'm more interested in following what is true than what comforts me, so....

Hey, it just struck me that the whole "river of fire" paradigm applies to my view of the Church, too. I've been to Liturgy, and I know what it's like, and I know how many things there are I don't like about it, but I'm nevertheless pulled back there, not because I like it so much, but because there's no avoiding it; there's nowhere else to go.

That's honest, true, and highly recognizable! When I came to that point, I went to the priest who had been overseeing my catacumenate and told him I was ready to convert. He asked me how I felt about all the things I'd been finding hard to swallow. I told him that I honestly believed I'd found the True Faith and I trusted God would help me work through all that remained of my reluctance. I needed to be in the Church as much as I needed food or drink.

It is highly doubtful that all your dislikes will disappear suddenly, but over time God through His mercy and grace will change you. (And it takes most of us a long, long time to get used to "Lord, have mercy" dozens and dozens of times...then someday you find yourself repeating it in the car...)

Prayers going up.

Anna

Demetrios

28-03-2008, 03:51 PM

One of the Optina elders (I forget at the moment which one) said that the "secret" to happiness is to "want what God gives". I realize that doesn't necessarily answer your question, but it does provide a place to start - look at what God gives and then work towards adjusting your wants to that.

Fr David Moser

Why doesn't everybody see this, father?

Patrick

09-04-2009, 09:41 AM

Here is a wonderful article that explains the Orthodox view of Heaven and Hell.

Heaven and Hell in the Afterlife (http://aggreen.net/beliefs/heaven_hell.html)

M.C. Steenberg

10-04-2009, 10:35 AM

Dear Patrick, you wrote:

Here is a wonderful article that explains the Orthodox view of Heaven and Hell.

Heaven and Hell in the Afterlife (http://aggreen.net/beliefs/heaven_hell.html)

It is perhaps worth noting that this text describes a conception of hell that is heavily disputed amongst Orthodox clerics and scholars.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Owen Jones

12-04-2009, 04:19 AM

I wish you had just a little bit more to say about this, Dcn Matthew. AT any rate, I did not read the whole thing closely. But I was intrigued by the fact that the term energy is used many times in the NT but never translated properly. Is that true? Regarding the Divine Energies, it is my personal opinion and nothing more, that it is the glue that holds everything together and is necessary for the proper functioning of every created thing. Like radio waves, it penetrates everything, but due to our hard heartedness, it is attenuated as it enters the body, which is why we are so messed up.

Daniel Smith

16-04-2009, 06:34 AM

mr. Partyka,

I used to have the same problem as you: will heaven be boring? Idont like ccm either, so is that it?! No. With a little bit of philosophy I realized: I reject ccm not for it's message but because it is less aesthetically pleasing to me than secular artists. But why do I make this judgement? What is it I am looking for? I then realized that this rejection of ccm was in fact the pursuit of perfection! Beauty! Excellence! Now those things are attributes of God! in distancing myself from what I saw as imperfect and moving toward what I saw as more perfect, I suddenly realized I could never be bored with heaven! If God transcends earthly beautiful perfect things, and I am seeking after transcendent beauty, then I accept that all my bumbling about down here in search of divine beauty will be fulfilled in the presence of Christ... But not attaining perfection then stoping, but endlessly participating in his energies, his beauty, his perfection! In other words, he IS all you are looking for!!

Christopher Dombrowski

16-04-2009, 08:02 AM

Were I to ask, "Which one of these views is Orthodox?" I have the sneaking suspicion that the answer would be, "Both,"

I don't know about that. While I admit that the second depiction appears to be perfectly faithful to traditional Eastern Christian eschatology, the phrasing of the former strikes me as somewhat off. While it is safe to say that the eternally damned are completely severed from (proper) communion with God, I do not think that it would be proper to say that they are at all separated from Him. Separation implies to me a disconnection of dwelling. But God will be no less dwelling in the presence of the damned than He will the presence of the saved. Rather, the disconnect to my understanding is on the level of sharing of each others' lives and in communication of attributes.

Paul Cowan

17-04-2009, 05:22 AM

FYI, Mr. Partyka has not been here for some time. He may not reply. Not that others won't pick up the conversation.

Matthew

08-09-2009, 08:03 PM

I couldn't find the original quote anywhere - so reproduced it here. The idea of heaven and hell as a "just reward" has been so warped by the legalistic interpretation of the Western Church that they have lost sight of the fact that this life is only the beginning and that there is a qualitative difference...

Father David, this is well said, and is part of why I'm bringing this thread back up.

When I was young Roman Catholic child, Heaven and Hell were explained to me in those legalistic terms. Never was the general resurrection explained to me. It was more of a balancing act: if you did more good deeds than bad, you could be assured you were headed for Heaven. I need to shake off my old misconceptions.

So I ask, when we as Orthodox refer to Heaven and Hell, are we talking about life after the second coming of Jesus and after He judges the living and the dead? And, if so, don't we still also talk about saints who are currently in Heaven? (I remember a bishop I respect talking about his own mother, and pointing skywards, refered to her as being in Heaven.)

So it's not quite clear to me. Are Heaven and Hell things after death, and we receive a particular judgement and foretaste of the life to come; or are Heaven and Hell things that come after a general resurrection and judgement of all?

Herman Blaydoe

09-09-2009, 12:55 AM

Father David, this is well said, and is part of why I'm bringing this thread back up.

When I was young Roman Catholic child, Heaven and Hell were explained to me in those legalistic terms. Never was the general resurrection explained to me. It was more of a balancing act: if you did more good deeds than bad, you could be assured you were headed for Heaven. I need to shake off my old misconceptions.

So I ask, when we as Orthodox refer to Heaven and Hell, are we talking about life after the second coming of Jesus and after He judges the living and the dead? And, if so, don't we still also talk about saints who are currently in Heaven? (I remember a bishop I respect talking about his own mother, and pointing skywards, refered to her as being in Heaven.)

So it's not quite clear to me. Are Heaven and Hell things after death, and we receive a particular judgement and foretaste of the life to come; or are Heaven and Hell things that come after a general resurrection and judgement of all?

I may be talking over my own head here, but there is a difference between kairos (God's time, which may not be linear) and chronos (time in a linear manner as we currently experience it).

In the Divine Liturgy we have a rather interesting "quiet" prayer by the priest over the Gifts: "Remembering, therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that came to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father, and the second, glorious coming,"

The priest is referring to the Second Coming as if it has already happened! I concede that it does get rather confusing rather quickly, but I suspect that the saints, and you, and I, and everybody else, have already experienced the final judgement outside of time (kairos), we just aren't there yet in chronos. Therefore we can talk about things that haven't happened yet (for us) in a past tense. Beyond that I don' pretend to know exactly what is going on, except that "Heaven" comes down to "Earth" at every Divine Liturgy, or perhaps we are raised from Earth to Heaven? Or both?

If we think of Heaven as simply Christ's Kingdom, then we cannot think of the Kingdom as something we are either "in" or "out" of. Through baptism and a life of repentance, we participate in the Life of Christ, and therefore we participate in Heaven. The Kingdom is a dynamic state, wherein we grow in perfection through God's grace. Our journey is not to the Kingdom, our journey is in the Kingdom.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain who eagerly awaits correction by better minds than mine.

Herman the Pooh

Alexander Zhdanov

09-09-2009, 03:40 PM

St Just Popovich writes in his Eschatology that we cannot say exactly what will be the nature of eternal tortures but he says that their reason will be loving of evil.
St Theophan the Cluser says that passions are the nature of Gehenna fire.

Not so long ago we chatted with a girl who had a theological education about the nature of hell. And we concluded from the meaning of the word that its a place deprived from light, Eternal Light. Further she established that hell is an inner state of the heart. But I didn't calm down and asked about the place, the certain place of hell. Where it is?

Bye,

Alexander

Father David Moser

09-09-2009, 04:22 PM

So I ask, when we as Orthodox refer to Heaven and Hell, are we talking about life after the second coming of Jesus and after He judges the living and the dead? And, if so, don't we still also talk about saints who are currently in Heaven? (I remember a bishop I respect talking about his own mother, and pointing skywards, refered to her as being in Heaven.)

So it's not quite clear to me. Are Heaven and Hell things after death, and we receive a particular judgement and foretaste of the life to come; or are Heaven and Hell things that come after a general resurrection and judgement of all?

I think that we Orthodox are probably just sloppy when speaking of heaven an hell. We use the words interchangeably to refer either to the period after death and before the resurrection or to the time after the resurrection and great judgment.

Within our tradition we speak more exactly of paradise and torment during the period between physical death and the general resurrection and during that time we experience the full spiritual consequences of our lives here in this world. Our sins, if they remain unconfessed are like gaping and infected wounds of the soul (this is a metphor!) and when the spiritual sensitivities are no longer protected from that reality by the flesh, then the pain and suffering of those huge gaping wounds is felt in its reality. On the other side, the grace of the Holy Spirit that we acquire in this life (see St Seraphim's conversation with Motovilov) is like a healing balm and a warm and fragrant aura which surrounds us (another metaphor!). When the flesh no longer hinders the sensitivities of the soul we experience the beauty and warmth and light of that aura of grace in its fullness. This is the state of which we speak when discussing our existence immediately following our physical death. At the resurrection, the soul is reunited with the body - but not a body clothed in the skins of animals (such as we have now which blunts the spiritual senses) but rather a body which is like that with which we were created, as Adam and Eve had before the fall or as our Lord had after His Resurrection. This body does not dull or prevent the spiritual senses but enables them and incorporates them fully. Thus we will then be able to fully encounter God (see Him face to face as the Apostle says) and that full encounter of God, Who is an all consuming fire, will be either for us the ultimate bliss (heaven) or the greatest torment (hell). Now as I said in my original post to which you refer, all this is a reality that is beyond our ability to describe while in this life. Thus what I have just written is a rather poor and inadequate description (possibly even wrong in some ways because of my own sinfulness and warped perception) - so take it for what little it is actually worth.

As for the saints being in heaven, we have only to refer to the epistle of the Hebrews and the portion that we read for the feast of All Saints where it says that the saints have not yet entered into their reward, but await us as well so that we may all enter in to our reward together (as one). So if we can believe the Scripture on this, then the saints themselves have not yet entered heaven, but are waiting for the Body of Christ to be complete that we might all enter in together.

Fr David Moser