Bloodshed during councils

[Justin Farr]

"In the Council of Ephesus, which was held in 431 A.D., monks and bishops screamed: "Whoso speaks of two natures is a Nestorius, and let him be cut asunder". A bishop was kicked to death by another bishop in course of their arguments, and 137 corpses were left in a church to attest the convincing reasons by which the most ruffian side proved its orthodoxy. Such were the assemblies of saints who formed the pillars of the structure of Christianity."

There are more such cases in other councils/

And these are considered holy and guided by the Holy Spirit?!

Why did such things occur during these councils if they were guided by God?

[Justin Farr]

Well, the citation is somewhat a poor source. http://www.hinduism.co.za/jesus.htm

I have only taken it as truth because I have heard and read from more authentic sources in the past of great violence in some of the greater ecumenical councils. But maybe it is all just hearsay?

[Paul Cowan]

I have heard one Bishop slapped another who was in heresy. But not murder. Righteous anger.

Paul

[Andreas Moran]

I have heard one Bishop slapped another who was in heresy. But not murder. Righteous anger.

That was St Nicholas who slapped Arius. St Nicholas was temporarily deposed for his action. Naturally, in his Akathist, it only says, 'thou didst convict the foolish Arius'!

[Herman Blaydoe]

As we have seen even in this rather sedate forum (due mostly to the untiring efforts of Fr. Dcn Matthew) emotions can be strong. In many cultures the very concept of compromise is totally alien.

I would certainly like to see some more authoritative sources for this information. The very fact that St. Nicholas was strongly censured for his actions against Arius (however justified they may have been) seems contraindicative of said alledged ruffianism. It is useless to try to "justify" violence that may have never really happened.

Beyond that, "peoples is peoples" and sometimes do things that are regrettable, even Christians.

[Anthony Stokes]

I would certainly like to see some more authoritative sources for this information. The very fact that St. Nicholas was strongly censured for his actions against Arius (however justified they may have been) seems contraindicative of said alledged ruffianism.


Sources on this type of thing can be hard to find. I tried to do some research on the Catholic teachings about St. Nicholas, and found that the RCC doesn't necessarily believe that he was even at the Council in the first place. Although we know from the service texts and hagiography that St. Nicholas was present, the documents from the council do not mention him, at least that was what my first round of research found.

Subdeacon Anthony

[Michael Stickles]

Well, the citation is somewhat a poor source. http://www.hinduism.co.za/jesus.htm

I have only taken it as truth because I have heard and read from more authentic sources in the past of great violence in some of the greater ecumenical councils. But maybe it is all just hearsay?

Poor source is right. The "historical" notes are loaded with so many obvious errors I'd have a hard time picking one place to start; the misunderstanding of the observance of the Lord's Day alone leads me to wonder if they've even read the New Testament. And I have not personally read any accounts of major violence at the councils from a credible source (even if I lower "credible" to mean simply "gives a source for their claims").

I wonder if the some of the claims of violence at the councils were prompted by careless reading of accounts of the councils which included descriptions of the trials suffered by the bishops who had been tortured for their faith. As noted in the account of Marutha of Meparkat (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/marutha_nicaea_02_text.htm):


... Chairs were there made for all and the king entered and sat with them. He kissed the spots which were the marks of Christ in their bodies. Of the 318 fathers, only 11 were free from such marks, whose name were Absalom, Bishop of Edessa, and son of Mar Ephrem's sister, Jonah of Raikson, Mara of Dora, George of Shegar, Jacob of Nisibis, Marouta of Mepairkat, John of Goostia, Shimon of Diarbekir, Adai of Agal, Eusebius of Caesarea and Joseph of Nicomedia. But all the others were more or less maimed in their persecutions from heretics. Some had their eyes taken out; some had their ears cut off. Some had their teeth dug out by the roots. Some had the nails of their fingers and toes torn out; some were otherwise mutilated; in a word there was no one without marks of violence; save the above-named persons. But Thomas, Bishop of Marash was an object almost frightful to look upon; he had been mutilated by the removal of his eyes, nose and lips; his teeth had been dug out and both his legs and arms had been cut off. He had been kept in prison 22 years by the Armanites [Armenians] who used to cut off a member of his body or mutilate him in some way every year, to induce him to consent to their blasphemy, but he conquered in this fearful contest to the glory of believers and to the manifestation of the unmercifulness of the heretics. ...

Picture somebody just scanning along, barely reading every fourth or fifth sentence while waiting for something interesting to grab his eye, when suddenly he gets stopped by "... Some had their eyes taken out; some had their ears cut off. Some had their teeth dug out by the roots. ..." and thinks "Wow! They did that at the councils?!" And he starts telling everybody about it. Maybe there's a more substantive reason why some claim there was major violence at the councils, but until somebody produces it, I'll stick with my theory.

In Christ,
Mike

[Rick H.]

I think your theory holds water Mike!

Good job.

In Christ,
Rick

[Misha]

For our beloved saint Nicholas the wonderworker:

His relics have been stolen by navymen and transferred to Bari(Italy)
In our days orthodox clergy is allowed to do orthodoxy liturgy in the temple where the relics are.
Witnesses say that when an orthodox priest offers the liturgy holy myrrh flows from the relics' case ,which is metal and closed!

[Andreas Moran]

In our days orthodox clergy is allowed to do orthodoxy liturgy in the temple where the relics are.
Witnesses say that when an orthodox priest offers the liturgy holy myrrh flows from the relics' case ,which is metal and closed!

There are a Russian Orthodox clergy at Bari and they celebrate the liturgy at the tomb of St Nicholas - my wife and her parents were there last summer. I believe myrrh does flow. A few years ago, Bishop Eirenaios and some other bishops from Constantinople visited Myra. They celebrated the liturgy in the ruins of the church where St Nicholas' relics originally were and myrrh flowed from his former tomb then.

[Kosta]

The Alexandrian bishops (which tended to resort to violence) were over-represented at the Ephesian council, its probable that violence erupted. It was at the pseudo-Alexandrian council also held in Ephesus in 449 a.d. which resulted in the martyrdom of St Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople.

[Kosta]

"In the Council of Ephesus, which was held in 431 A.D., monks and bishops screamed: "Whoso speaks of two natures is a Nestorius, and let him be cut asunder". A bishop was kicked to death by another bishop in course of their arguments, and 137 corpses were left in a church to attest the convincing reasons by which the most ruffian side proved its orthodoxy. Such were the assemblies of saints who formed the pillars of the structure of Christianity."

There are more such cases in other councils/

And these are considered holy and guided by the Holy Spirit?!

Why did such things occur during these councils if they were guided by God?


The statement that 137 bodies were left in the church makes no sense. There were only 200 bishops in attendance at that Council of Ephesus to begin with. The Council was heated, and when the Antiochan bishops (who sympathized with their native son Nestorius) arrived late and saw the council was started without them, they began there own council. The population of Ephesus would await for hours outside- for the descision. The Ephesian population eventaully became split between the two camps and violence erupted between them. This also lead to a violent rivalry between the two schools.
The bitterness remained until John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria signed the formula of reunion in 433 a.d. which made the Council of Ephesus truly ecumenical.

[Sacha]

Poor source is right. The "historical" notes are loaded with so many obvious errors I'd have a hard time picking one place to start; the misunderstanding of the observance of the Lord's Day alone leads me to wonder if they've even read the New Testament. And I have not personally read any accounts of major violence at the councils from a credible source (even if I lower "credible" to mean simply "gives a source for their claims").
....

Maybe there's a more substantive reason why some claim there was major violence at the councils, but until somebody produces it, I'll stick with my theory.

In Christ,
Mike

Hi Michael,

Have you looked into these 2 books:
"There is no crime for those who have Christ, Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire" by Michael Gaddis

http://www.amazon.com/There-Crime-Those-Have-Christ/dp/0520241045/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322515382&sr=8-1

and "Voting about God in the Early Church Councils" by Prof Ramsay Macmullen

http://www.amazon.com/Voting-About-Early-Church-Councils/dp/0300115962/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322515456&sr=1-1

[Sacha]

Chrysostom says in the 32nd section of Homily 1 on the Statues: (bold underline my emphasis)

"32. But since our discourse has now turned to the subject of blasphemy, I desire to ask one favor of you all, in return for this my address, and speaking with you; which is, that you will correct on my behalf the blasphemers of this city. And should you hear any one in the public thoroughfare , or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God ; go up to him and rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so. Smite him on the face; strike his mouth; sanctify your hand with the blow, and if any should accuse you, and drag you to the place of justice, follow them there; and when the judge on the bench calls you to account, say boldly that the man blasphemed the King of angels!. For if it be necessary to punish those who blaspheme an earthly king, much more so those who insult God."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/190101.htm

What a contrast to Jesus' teaching in Matt 5:43-46

"43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?

Any thoughts?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Here are some little thoughts from a bear of little brain, if I may be permitted such folly.

Different time and different age than the one we live in first off. For another thing, St. John is not talking about enemies. In those days many societies thought nothing about killing one's enemies and their families. He is not talking about killing enemies but about disciplining the Church. You discipline those you love and violent means of discipline (well short of death obviously) were seen as acceptable back then. St. John was emphasizing to his flock the importance of not blaspheming. I doubt he would get away with that today, I doubt he would say such things today. He was speaking at a time and place where pretty much everyone was ASSUMED to be Christian, or to at least respect Christian beliefs. It definitely wasn't today.

Herman the "give me that REALLY Old Time Religion™" Pooh

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

We also see the same thing in the monastic tradition up until the last half or so of the 20thc. Growing up in a society in which this was part of daily life as a standard method of correction perhaps it can be said that what was standard then was equivalent to a sharp verbal rebuke now. In other words physical correction of a certain type wasn't seen as violence so it wasn't received even by children as such.

I recall one math teacher we had from Australia who had the habit of silently creeping up behind any of the boys who were engaged in mischief and cracking them on the top of their head with his knuckles. I myself once received this 'medical treatment' and soon mended my ways.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Sacha]

Here are some little thoughts from a bear of little brain, if I may be permitted such folly.

Different time and different age than the one we live in first off. For another thing, St. John is not talking about enemies. In those days many societies thought nothing about killing one's enemies and their families. He is not talking about killing enemies but about disciplining the Church. You discipline those you love and violent means of discipline (well short of death obviously) were seen as acceptable back then. St. John was emphasizing to his flock the importance of not blaspheming. I doubt he would get away with that today, I doubt he would say such things today. He was speaking at a time and place where pretty much everyone was ASSUMED to be Christian, or to at least respect Christian beliefs. It definitely wasn't today.

Herman the "give me that REALLY Old Time Religion™" Pooh

Don't you already have that old time religion?: today's leading Calvinists make the exact same argument you make above when confronted with the crime that Calvin committed in murdering Servetus by having him burned at the stake. They are still guffawing about it 500 years later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7-YQ9WZmw8

[Sacha]

We also see the same thing in the monastic tradition up until the last half or so of the 20thc. Growing up in a society in which this was part of daily life as a standard method of correction perhaps it can be said that what was standard then was equivalent to a sharp verbal rebuke now. In other words physical correction of a certain type wasn't seen as violence so it wasn't received even by children as such.

I recall one math teacher we had from Australia who had the habit of silently creeping up behind any of the boys who were engaged in mischief and cracking them on the top of their head with his knuckles. I myself once received this 'medical treatment' and soon mended my ways.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

Your analogy is flawed in many respects, in my view. It is one thing to discipline for a teacher or a parent to discipline a child, but to create some moral equivalence between that and the instruction to 'smite' grown men strikes me as strange. Hasn't history shown that unlike the case with children, doing such to adults will generate nothing but retailation and a worsening of conflict? Entire wars have been ignited over this principle of gratuitous violence.

Further, this type of a defense strikes me as incredibly inconsistent. How can one nod approvingly of such, and yet affirm with the saints that the passions are indeed to be conquered, or that humility and meekness is the path to theosis? I guess some passions are created more equal than others?

Did the Lord Jesus smite anyone who blasphemed him? And they were many. Aren't we called to be imitators of Christ?

[Michael Stickles]

Have you looked into these 2 books:
"There is no crime for those who have Christ, Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire" by Michael Gaddis
...
and "Voting about God in the Early Church Councils" by Prof Ramsay Macmullen

Never heard of them until I read your post. By all means, if there is a specific instance of violence at the councils mentioned in either of them, feel free to post it along with the reference. I'll only be able to look it up if it's from the first one; the second isn't in any of our local libraries.

[Michael Stickles]

What a contrast to Jesus' teaching in Matt 5:43-46

"43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?

Not a contrast at all. Read further down in St. John Chrysostom's homily (emphasis added; I also substituted "donkey" for the term that gets asterisked out):


If, perchance, we see a donkey fallen down, we all make haste to stretch out a hand to raise him up. Yet we neglect our perishing brethren! The blasphemer is a donkey; unable to bear the burden of his anger, he has fallen. Come forward and raise him up, both by words and by deeds; and both by meekness and by vehemence; let the medicine be various.

This, then, is also the answer to another point you raised:


Further, this type of a defense strikes me as incredibly inconsistent. How can one nod approvingly of such, and yet affirm with the saints that the passions are indeed to be conquered, or that humility and meekness is the path to theosis? I guess some passions are created more equal than others?

We are not here dealing with passions at all, but with discipline, soberly applied with a view to restoring the brother to a right standing with God. If this is not the aim - if the discipline is applied out of rage or vengeance or some other passionate impulse - then it is not even remotely what St. John is talking about.

Also, note that St. John's first recommendation is verbal chastisment, with physical chastisement the last resort: "And should you hear any one in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God; go up to him and rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so." I think it is clear that he is not, as you seem to think, advocating "gratuitous violence".

In Christ,
Michael

[Sacha]

That is precisely the problem Michael. Jesus never taught the use of such 'medicine' or 'discipline soberly applied'. Even if you show Chrysostom saying something about meekness, it only reinforces my point that the inconsistency looms large. To insist that there is no inconsistency is not rational and logical, in my view. Although I certainly understand the need to avoid any cognitive dissonance.

Michael Gaddis, author of There is no Crime for those who have Christ addresses your points in the following quote. Here he is answering the claim that Chrysostom never advocated violence:

"I don't wish to get heavily involved in this fascinating if slightly overheated debate -- as a historian, I do not feel I have to come down "for" or "against" John Chrysostom, in some absolute sense, as if we were putting him on some kind of trial. Nor do I wish to take a position regarding the various definitions of anti-semitism that are being debated. However, the statement "Chrysostom never advocated violence" needs to be corrected.

First, the one time when Chrysostom actually was put on trial, the Synod of the Oak in 403. Among the charges preferred by the deacon John:





(2) A monk had on Chrysostom's instructions been beaten, taken into custody, and put in chains along with possessed persons. (19) He had people who were in communion with the whole world shut up in prison by his own decision, and when they died there, he did not even think it fit to give due honor to their remains. (27) He gave a blow with his fist to Memnon in the Church of the Apostles, and while the blood was still flowing from his mouth made him take communion. (Acts of the Synod of the Oak, as preserved in Photius' Bibliotheca, quoted here from the translation appended to J. Kelly's 1995 biography of Chrysostom, "Golden Mouth".)







In all fairness it should be recognized that these were charges brought by John's political opponents, and undoubtedly contain much that is exaggerated or even invented. But according to Theodoret, a source much more sympathetic to John, Chrysostom as bishop got together "certain monks who were fired with divine zeal" and sent them to destroy pagan temples throughout Phoenicia (Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 5.29). John's own letters 21, 28, 53-55, 69, 123, 126, 175, 221 (written to encourage the same monks, all in PG 52) confirm this story, and also make it clear that this battle against paganism involved considerable physical violence by both sides. Finally let's hear Chrysostom's own words, which he addressed to his Antiochene congregation in 386:




"I desire to ask one favor of you all... which is, that you will correct on my behalf the blasphemers of this city. And should you hear anyone in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God; go up to him and rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so. Smite him on the face, strike his mouth, sanctify thy hand with the blow." [Homilies on the Statues 1.32, quoting from the translation in the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, first series, v.9, p.343]







One of the previous posters (I forget who) cited from Florovsky's book, and in supporting the assertion "Chrysostom never advocated violence" they adduced a quote from a different sermon in which Chrysostom expressed sentiments which would seem to completely contradict the words I quote above -- he speaks of "turning the other cheek", arguing by persuasion and not compulsion, etc. Although expressing opposite attitudes, both quotes are genuine Chrysostom: so which of the two should we consider to be more "authoritative" or "representative" of Christian tradition? That's not a question that can be easily answered."

[Olga]

Also, note that St. John's first recommendation is verbal chastisment, with physical chastisement the last resort: "And should you hear any one in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God; go up to him and rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so." I think it is clear that he is not, as you seem to think, advocating "gratuitous violence".

Which brings us back to acts of righteous indignation such as St Nicholas of Myra lashing out at Arius, and of Christ driving out the moneychangers from the temple.

[Sacha]

Which brings us back to acts of righteous indignation such as St Nicholas of Myra lashing out at Arius, and of Christ driving out the moneychangers from the temple.

Olga, Christ drove them out, He did not assault his enemies, unlike Chrysostom and many other Orthodox figures.

[Paul Cowan]

Matthew 10:34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’


Luke 22:36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’[d] For the things concerning Me have an end.” 38 So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”


Matthew 26:52 But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.


Romans 13:4 For he [governing authorities] is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.


1 John 4:8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

Yes, it is all very confusing. Even from our Lord's very mouth.

[Paul Cowan]

Olga, Christ drove them out, He did not assault his enemies, unlike Chrysostom and many other Orthodox figures.

John 2:14 And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. 15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables.

Yes He did.

[Sacha]

Paul,

The fact that He mad a whip of cords does not imply that He assaulted anyone. It is incumbent on whoever believes that He assaulted people physically with the whip to prove so from the text. But all the text says is that he made a whip of cords. The use for the whip was to scare the money changers and the animals away from their tables (imagine someone whipping the ground, that would be more than enough to get most, people or beasts to run), same with the overturning of the tables. But as far as physically attacking His enemies/the money changers, that never happened.

In fact, if you persist in believing that indeed took place, then yes, you have all the reason to be confused. Because then Christ would be a case of do what I say and not what I do. Yet we know that He upheld the two greatest commandments which are inseparable: the second of which being to love our neighbor as ourselves. Jesus loved His neighbors the money changers by driving them away from the temple for their own sake among other reasons. But never did He assault them. If you believe that, you will find yourself in the company of calvinists (see Westboro Baptist church and their views on the cleansing of the temple) and those who believe in penal substitution and a vengeful God.

[Sacha]

Yes, it is all very confusing. Even from our Lord's very mouth.

Those quotes I do not find confusing at all, and matter of fact I find them even less compelling in supporting a defense of Chrysostom and others who have engaged in violence. The first quote is a classic example of not understanding the Jewishness of Jesus. That is a Jewish idiom, much like "cut off your hand if it causes you to sin". He does not literally mean cut your hand off.. and neither did he literally mean that a son would take up a sword in His name against the father.

Luke 22:38 is a non sequitur again. Nowhere does Jesus saying "It is enough" necessarily imply that He condoned or endorsed violence. Matter of fact, your next quote makes that point incredibly clear. He clearly says put away the sword! What more do you need? What then, do you make of the fact that He healed Malchus after the latter had his ear cut off? Does that sound like a Savior that endorses violence in His name? I think not.

Again, no confusion here.

[Rob Bergen]

I am confused as to what the argument here is. Some are arguing that Orthodox are violent, some are saying that history is misrepresented, and still others are saying that bloodshed is a regrettable consequence of humanity.

I believe that that problem here goes beyond writing off violence as an Orthodox problem, and beyond violence as a consequence of humanity. The original question asked about violence at the Council of Ephesus, which condemned Nestorius. While there may have only been 200 bishops in attendance, there were sill many in attendance that could not speak, or that had no say in the decision (Athanasius was present, but not yet a Bishop, and had no say). It is highly probable that violence broke out among the many who were in attendance, and not necessarily only by the Bishops.

Have we forgotten the sad state of the Christian religion? The "Crusaders" sacked Constantinople and slaughtered its inhabitants during the Fourth Crusade. The Catholics and Protestants fought bloody battles during the Protestant Reformation in Europe, known as the 30 years war (early to mid 1600's). Also, can we forget the Protestant and Catholic tensions in Ireland, still very much alive to this date? Absolutely no one can claim that their "religion" is free of violence.

Christ sets the example for Christians as the first Adam, but are we capable of following His example? This is a loaded question, and perhaps the answer is yes, that we are capable, but we are unable to due to our tendency to sin rather than choose the right. I think that the theory of Christ physically using violence to drive out the moneychangers form the temple is not a good one. If we are to believe that Christ is the ultimate example of what man should be, it should not, and indeed shall not use violence. On the same token, one must understand the human tendency to err. No church Father is infallible, John Chrysostom was not God. All men make mistakes. "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." (1 John)

Violence is typical of human error, pride, anger, vengefulness, etc. There really is nothing to argue about once we realize that Christianity, like all human institutions, is not perfect. It is our best expression towards God through His Son Jesus Christ. It is the worship of Christ as king and messiah, and through Him, God and the Holy Spirit. What we come up with here on earth reflects the teachings of our Lord, but truly, it is not the Eternal Kingdom, but only points towards said Kingdom. There is capacity for human error in forming the liturgy and practice of the Church, though we have faith in trusting the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the teachings of the apostles and of Christ Himself. Perfection is only reached in unity with God.

Is it then practical to debate whether violence was or was not used? For the answer certainly is "yes," it was used. Then the question should ask whether the violence is justified. The answer should be "no." Violence is never justified by the actions of Jesus, or condoned by his words (see penultimate Sermon on the Mount). There is rich tradition of pacifism within the Orthodox church, and among the first Christians until the time of Constantine. Inevitably, we lose sight of what should be as time goes on and on, and this is the effect of history: it becomes reactionary.

Violence is therefore not called for and certainly avoidable. But the temptation to "whack" someone who is in deep disagreement (I use this word with its harshest of connotations) is sometimes easier than the alternative, though harmful in the long run.

In Peace,
Rob

[Paul Cowan]

I am very happy then you are secure in your lack of confusion. Thats the problem with any proof texting. it means one thing to one person and something else to another. Looking back with today's "lens" to discern what Chrysostom and others were doing 1700 years ago is problematic at best. What was written, what was done, what was intended are not necessarily as clear as we might want them to be today.

Jesus said put away the sword because he says in the next verse that His time had come and darkness has fallen. And He could call a legion of angels. So, why any comment at all about bringing swords? Whether something is literal or hyperbole or parable, doesn't change the fact that the church fathers we respect and take our liturgy from had a reason in their theology to do something, in today's lens, is totally unscriptural.

[Kosta]

Olga, Christ drove them out, He did not assault his enemies, unlike Chrysostom and many other Orthodox figures.


No Christ did assault those that werent fast enough to get out of the temple, including the animals. There were plenty of merchants who were too slow to react and recieved a few lashes before they got the point. If he just ran around with whips he simply would of been tackled down, beaten and escorted out.

Now as far as St John Chrysostom, he mellowed out as he got older. Most of the criticisms whether about antisemitism (he wasnt even a bishop at the time he wrote about the judaisers) and/or his advocating violence is during his earlier years mostly while in Antioch. It was the same case with Cyril of Alexandria, he was ordained young and was zealous, after Ephesus and possibly because of Ephesus he mellowed out and resorted to writing treatises and apologetic writings instead . His 433a.d. epistle where he reconciles with John is evidence that he no longer took a heavyhanded approach and was willing at compromising.

Secondly your advocacy of an absolute pacifism is new and unique in the affairs of human history, including that of christian history. This mindset is really just a few decades old. Orthodoxy is not a pacifist religion, no religion really is. Orthodox people may strongly disagree on what degree of discipline is appropriate in defending the faith under specific situations at different times and places, but certain kinds of violence depending on circumstance is on the table.

[Kais Alek]

Read this (http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00117).

[Sacha]

I am very happy then you are secure in your lack of confusion. Thats the problem with any proof texting. it means one thing to one person and something else to another. Looking back with today's "lens" to discern what Chrysostom and others were doing 1700 years ago is problematic at best. What was written, what was done, what was intended are not necessarily as clear as we might want them to be today.

Jesus said put away the sword because he says in the next verse that His time had come and darkness has fallen. And He could call a legion of angels. So, why any comment at all about bringing swords? Whether something is literal or hyperbole or parable, doesn't change the fact that the church fathers we respect and take our liturgy from had a reason in their theology to do something, in today's lens, is totally unscriptural.

As one who is outside the OC, I do not want things to be a certain way and only want the facts. The faith is grounded in the reality of historical facts and the Scriptures make those facts clear. Jesus' teaching on how we should treat our enemies did not contain any provisions or exceptions for cultural setting. This is why I am not a Protestant (like the Calvinists who let Calvin go scot free for murdering Servetus arguing, oh that was just what they did back then) and why I am not Orthodox nor Catholic.

Why the comment about swords? Simply because Peter asked him about it. Jesus had no interest in swords, your own quote from Matt 26:52 makes that very clear.

[Sacha]

I am confused as to what the argument here is. Some are arguing that Orthodox are violent, some are saying that history is misrepresented, and still others are saying that bloodshed is a regrettable consequence of humanity.

...

Is it then practical to debate whether violence was or was not used? For the answer certainly is "yes," it was used. Then the question should ask whether the violence is justified. The answer should be "no." Violence is never justified by the actions of Jesus, or condoned by his words (see penultimate Sermon on the Mount). There is rich tradition of pacifism within the Orthodox church, and among the first Christians until the time of Constantine. Inevitably, we lose sight of what should be as time goes on and on, and this is the effect of history: it becomes reactionary.

Violence is therefore not called for and certainly avoidable. But the temptation to "whack" someone who is in deep disagreement (I use this word with its harshest of connotations) is sometimes easier than the alternative, though harmful in the long run.

In Peace,
Rob

Thank you Rob, I am finding it quite strange to see this insistence on the idea that Jesus physically assaulted the money changers. As you have pointed out, holding such a belief opens a pandora's box of theological problems.

[Sacha]

No Christ did assault those that werent fast enough to get out of the temple, including the animals. There were plenty of merchants who were too slow to react and recieved a few lashes before they got the point. If he just ran around with whips he simply would of been tackled down, beaten and escorted out.

Now as far as St John Chrysostom, he mellowed out as he got older. Most of the criticisms whether about antisemitism (he wasnt even a bishop at the time he wrote about the judaisers) and/or his advocating violence is during his earlier years mostly while in Antioch. It was the same case with Cyril of Alexandria, he was ordained young and was zealous, after Ephesus and possibly because of Ephesus he mellowed out and resorted to writing treatises and apologetic writings instead . His 433a.d. epistle where he reconciles with John is evidence that he no longer took a heavyhanded approach and was willing at compromising.

Secondly your advocacy of an absolute pacifism is new and unique in the affairs of human history, including that of christian history. This mindset is really just a few decades old. Orthodoxy is not a pacifist religion, no religion really is. Orthodox people may strongly disagree on what degree of discipline is appropriate in defending the faith under specific situations at different times and places, but certain kinds of violence depending on circumstance is on the table.

What evidence do you have that Christ assaulted the money changers? Can you please share it? I am afraid that simply stating so does not constitute evidence for that belief. Your argument that if He only whipped the ground they would not have left does not make sense in the light of the fact that the Scripture says that they feared Him and feared the people who loved Him.

Re Chrysostom, the 'mellowing' out argument is somewhat of a red herring. Because the problem of violence is still there (see Michael Gaddis' book There is No Crime for those who have Christ and his quote I posted on pg 1 of this thread. I say this not to offend anyone, and hope you would construe the tone of my thoughts as peaceful: I simply cannot reconcile the teaching of Christ with the pass that is given to such violence as exhibited by the highest authority figures of the church, such as Chrysostom.

[Sacha]

I am confused as to what the argument here is. Some are arguing that Orthodox are violent, some are saying that history is misrepresented, and still others are saying that bloodshed is a regrettable consequence of humanity.

...

In Peace,
Rob

Rob, the OP on this thread pointed to the violence against the Nestorians in Ephesus and then said this:

"There are more such cases in other councils. And these are considered holy and guided by the Holy Spirit?!"

This is part of what I am discussing here. I also mention instances of violence in the life of Chrysostom and ask how this could be justified. Of course, I do not expect Orthodox to agree with me, but hopefully we can have a civil conversation about it.

[Rob Bergen]

Rob, the OP on this thread pointed to the violence against the Nestorians in Ephesus and then said this:

"There are more such cases in other councils. And these are considered holy and guided by the Holy Spirit?!"


Then I would venture to conclude that though all councils are guided by the Spirit of Truth, this does not necessitate that all the men involved adhered to a polite and "holy" demeanor. After all, we are humans, and we tend to succumb to human passions, whereas Christ overcame human passions through the subordination of the human will to his divine will. Surely we are all called to follow the example of Christ, who was the true man. To lay aside our passions is a difficult thing to do, ask any monastic or anchorite.

The question should not be whether or not the councils are legitimized through the human interactions therein, but rather, does the decision (i.e. what we read today as the decision of the councils) of the council "jive" with the work of the Holy Spirit? I would say that they certainly are legitimized on the grounds that their theological development was inspired and indeed became what we call today orthodox (correct) and catholic (universal) in the literal sense of those words.

In Peace,
Rob

[Jan Sunqvist]

Christ 'assaulted'?????

This seems highly inappropriate to me...

[Sacha]

Then I would venture to conclude that though all councils are guided by the Spirit of Truth, this does not necessitate that all the men involved adhered to a polite and "holy" demeanor. After all, we are humans, and we tend to succumb to human passions, whereas Christ overcame human passions through the subordination of the human will to his divine will. Surely we are all called to follow the example of Christ, who was the true man. To lay aside our passions is a difficult thing to do, ask any monastic or anchorite.

The question should not be whether or not the councils are legitimized through the human interactions therein, but rather, does the decision (i.e. what we read today as the decision of the councils) of the council "jive" with the work of the Holy Spirit? I would say that they certainly are legitimized on the grounds that their theological development was inspired and indeed became what we call today orthodox (correct) and catholic (universal) in the literal sense of those words.

In Peace,
Rob

I think you get to the heart of the issue: does the end justify the means? I respect your belief and conclusion and the beliefs expressed in this thread, even though I cannot accept and understand them. But thank you for sharing your thoughts, I appreciate it.

[Ryan]

Nowhere does Jesus saying "It is enough" necessarily imply that He condoned or endorsed violence.

In fact it proves that Jesus didn't literally intend his disciples to go buy swords- what would 2 swords be "enough" for?

[Sacha]

In fact it proves that Jesus didn't literally intend his disciples to go buy swords- what would 2 swords be "enough" for?

Exactly! Agreed. What use is 2 swords against a cohort.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Christ our Lord used a whip. Scripture does not explicitly say He actually struck anyone. It also does not explicitly say He did NOT strike anyone. What we see is people imposing their own interpretations on what actually happened. Those who abhor or do not understand violence prefer to believe that Christ did not actually use the whip He carried. But the implied use of force, according to law, is the legal definition of assault. If you make a person fear bodily harm, you have assaulted them. Chasing someone with a whip and looking seriously like you are going to use it fits the legal definition of assault. Therefore Christ did, indeed, by most legal standards, ASSAULT the moneychangers, according to the testimony of the Scriptures. If He actually struck anyone, that would constitute BATTERY, which is more serious than assault, and while there is no conclusive testimony either way, either conclusion seems equally valid and either position seems difficult to deny, given the evidence at hand.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Exactly! Agreed. What use is 2 swords against a cohort.

What use are horns against a walled city? Ask Joshua.

[Sacha]

What use are horns against a walled city? Ask Joshua.

Not sure I get your point. Are you saying that Jesus endorsed violence? Do you believe He physically assaulted the money changers themselves? Thanks for clarifying.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Did God ever endorse violence? Ask the Canaanites (if there were any left). Did Christ assault the moneychangers? Did I not make myself clear or are you simply looking for things to disagree with?

If there was bloodshed during the councils, was it God-pleasing? I don't believe it was, but I also don't believe that negates what the councils achieved. Remember I'm the one that does not need "infallible" councils or saints or churches or vicars of Christ. God accomplishes wondrous things through even fallible saints.

Herman the fallible Pooh

[Sacha]

Christ our Lord used a whip. Scripture does not explicitly say He actually struck anyone. It also does not explicitly say He did NOT strike anyone. What we see is people imposing their own interpretations on what actually happened. Those who abhor or do not understand violence prefer to believe that Christ did not actually use the whip He carried. But the implied use of force, according to law, is the legal definition of assault. If you make a person fear bodily harm, you have assaulted them. Chasing someone with a whip and looking seriously like you are going to use it fits the legal definition of assault. Therefore Christ did, indeed, by most legal standards, ASSAULT the moneychangers, according to the testimony of the Scriptures. If He actually struck anyone, that would constitute BATTERY, which is more serious than assault, and while there is no conclusive testimony either way, either conclusion seems equally valid and either position seems difficult to deny, given the evidence at hand.

There is a big difference between driving someone out of a temple and battery, so one cannot equate the two, or create equivalence between the two, they are distinct by definition. Also, you are implying that Jesus held the whip and used the whip in a way that implied that He would have hit the money changers had they not moved. But you just said that the Scriptures do not say explicitly that He hit anyone. Neither do they say that He intended to hit anyone. All they say is that He made a whip and drove them out. That's it. So you using your own logic, you cannot argue that He had the intent to hit the money changers either... :-) That's number one.

Secondly, if one believes that the Scriptures are neutral on whether or not Jesus physically hit the money changers, then using the temple incident as justification for the use of physical violence by Chrysostom and others is, in toto, a self defeating argument.

Thirdly, I believe the Scriptures do strongly support the belief that He did no physical harm to the money changers themselves. Isaiah 53:9 says:

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth


With that said, what is the consensus of the Orthodox church? Did Jesus physically hit the money changers or not? If the answer is that there is no consensus, then what is the point of using that incident to justify other incidents of violence in Orthodoxy?

[Sacha]

Did God ever endorse violence? Ask the Canaanites (if there were any left). Did Christ assault the moneychangers? Did I not make myself clear or are you simply looking for things to disagree with?

If there was bloodshed during the councils, was it God-pleasing? I don't believe it was, but I also don't believe that negates what the councils achieved. Remember I'm the one that does not need "infallible" councils or saints or churches or vicars of Christ. God accomplishes wondrous things through even fallible saints.

Herman the fallible Pooh

I think the moderators have made it clear that they do not want personal comments on this forum, so I will not answer your second question. Regarding your first question, I will point you to the words of Christ in response to His disciples' request to rain down fire on the Samaritans:


Luke 9:55-56

When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” 55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; 56 for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”

[Herman Blaydoe]

There is a big difference between driving someone out of a temple and battery, so one cannot equate the two, or create equivalence between the two, they are distinct by definition.

Yes, I know. That is what I said. I don't believe you are actually READING what you are railing against, you are simply looking for opportunities to rail.


Also, you are implying that Jesus held the whip and used the whip in a way that implied that He would have hit the money changers had they not moved.

No, I am not implying it. I am out-and-out SAYING it. Do I need to spell it out? Are you implying otherwise?


But you just said that the Scriptures do not say explicitly that He hit anyone. Neither do they say that He intended to hit anyone. All they say is that He made a whip and drove them out. That's it. So you using your own logic, you cannot argue that He had the intent to hit the money changers either... :-) That's number one.

Wow, I bow to your incredible ability to twist logic into amazing contortions. If I make a fist and act like I am going to hit you, are you not going to duck? If so, I have committed assault, even if I have not committed battery. Is that so hard to comprehend?


Secondly, if one believes that the Scriptures are neutral on whether or not Jesus physically hit the money changers, then using the temple incident as justification for the use of physical violence by Chrysostom and others is, in toto, a self defeating argument.

Well, I am not really trying to JUSTIFY anything. I don't know that it was justified. Unlike you I am simply trying to understand it.


Thirdly, I believe the Scriptures do strongly support the belief that He did no physical harm to the money changers themselves. Isaiah 53:9 says:

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth


With that said, what is the consensus of the Orthodox church? Did Jesus physically hit the money changers or not? If the answer is that there is no consensus, then what is the point of using that incident to justify other incidents of violence in Orthodoxy?

None whatsoever. Satisfied? Again, who said that anything about justifying what was done? I don't have to justify it, I don't have to defend it, but at least I can try to understand it, unlike some other people.

Herman

[Paul Cowan]

There you go again. Quoting scripture from a specific POV. We can do this all day long.

Proverbs 13:24 He who spares his rod hates his son,
But he who loves him disciplines him promptly.
The word rod is "shebet" in Hebrew. This word is defined as following in Strong's Hebrew Lexicon #7626: rod, staff, branch, offshoot, club, sceptre, tribe a. rod, staff b. shaft (of spear, dart) c. club (of shepherd's implement) d. truncheon, sceptre (mark of authority) e. clan, tribe

How does a loving father save his child from harm or even destruction if not through corrective measures? I am not a proponent of "time out" when you simply send a child to stand in the corner. Nor of senslessly beating a child into submission. spanking and other types of discipline are very much called for as the offense might dictate.

All things will be clear once we get there. Then we will have eternity to ask all the theological questions we want. I believe in a loving Jesus. I also believe in a strict stern Jesus. He can be both you know.

[Sacha]

There you go again. Quoting scripture from a specific POV. We can do this all day long.

The word rod is "shebet" in Hebrew. This word is defined as following in Strong's Hebrew Lexicon #7626: rod, staff, branch, offshoot, club, sceptre, tribe a. rod, staff b. shaft (of spear, dart) c. club (of shepherd's implement) d. truncheon, sceptre (mark of authority) e. clan, tribe

How does a loving father save his child from harm or even destruction if not through corrective measures? I am not a proponent of "time out" when you simply send a child to stand in the corner. Nor of senslessly beating a child into submission. spanking and other types of discipline are very much called for as the offense might dictate.

All things will be clear once we get there. Then we will have eternity to ask all the theological questions we want. I believe in a loving Jesus. I also believe in a strict stern Jesus. He can be both you know.

Paul, isn't there a difference between disciplining a child and smiting an adult in the face? Would you punch your grown son in the face to teach him a lesson if he blasphemed? Yes or no? If no, then why do you defend Chrysostom? He not only did this, he also taught others (and still teaches since he is revered as a saint) to do likewise.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Again, we really don't have to defend St. John, but we do well to try and understand St. John. We are allowed to keep what is good.

[Sacha]

Herman wrote:


Wow, I bow to your incredible ability to twist logic into amazing contortions. If I make a fist and act like I am going to hit you, are you not going to duck? If so, I have committed assault, even if I have not committed battery. Is that so hard to comprehend?



My point was that you have no basis to know and argue that Jesus used the whip directly against the money changers themselves. He very well could have used the whip to frighten the animals out of the temple. He did not have to threaten the money changers directly because they already feared Him and feared the people who loved Him. So your fist analogy holds no water. You are assuming that Jesus had that particular violent posture against the money changers but have nothing to justify that assumption.

[Sacha]

Again, we really don't have to defend St. John, but we do well to try and understand St. John. We are allowed to keep what is good.

I can respect that, even though I do not understand it.

Can you respect the view that a refusal to see Chrysostom's teaching on smiting others as outside of the teaching of Christ is one stumbling block among others to people outside the OC, who would otherwise be joining it?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Herman wrote:



My point was that you have no basis to know and argue that Jesus used the whip directly against the money changers themselves.
He very well could have used the whip to frighten the animals out of the temple. He did not have to threaten the money changers directly because they already feared Him and feared the people who loved Him.

And you have no basis for saying this. How do we know He didn't simply invite them all to tea? He very well could have. Scripture doesn't say He didn't! Can we at least impose a modicum of common sense to this process?


So your fist analogy holds no water. You are assuming that Jesus had that particular violent posture against the money changers but have nothing to justify that assumption.

And you have nothing against it other than trying to push the burden of proof on someone else, which is NOT an argument at all. THAT is my point. Your conclusions seem a bit leaky as well. At this point we are merely clanging pots and kettles. I will simply bow out and let you continue to refuse to try to understand. More's the pity.

[Sacha]

And you have no basis for saying this. How do we know He didn't simply invite them all to tea? He very well could have. Scripture doesn't say He didn't! Can we at least impose a modicum of common sense to this process?



And you have nothing against it other than trying to push the burden of proof on someone else, which is NOT an argument at all. THAT is my point. Your conclusions seem a bit leaky as well. At this point we are merely clanging pots and kettles. I will simply bow out and let you continue to refuse to try to understand. More's the pity.

I can think of two posters on this thread (you are not one of them) who used the temple incident to defend Chrysostom's teaching to smite blasphemers with blows. The burden of proof is upon them because they are the ones who bring up the temple incident, not me. For me, Jesus teaching the 2nd greatest commandment and the knowledge that He would not contradict Himself about not returning blow for blow and curse for curse is sufficient. I do not need to appeal to the temple incident at all. But someone who wants to justify the use of violence as advocated by Chrysostom can make the appeal to the temple incident and again, the burden of proof is on them. Yet, they have no basis to argue, as you have pointed out, that Jesus did directly physically hit the money changers.

[Michael Stickles]

First, the idea that any striking of a person constitutes "violence" is not at all a universal concept across time and cultures. Our current cultural view would be utterly incomprehensible to most cultures across history.

Second, I am not at all sure what the point is of the quotes from Gaddis' book. The first he admits are "charges brought by John's political opponents, and undoubtedly contain much that is exaggerated or even invented;" the second, while claiming that John's letters show the "battle against paganism involved considerable physical violence by both sides," does not say whether St. John actually endorsed the "physical violence", or if he did, to what degree; and the third is merely the same quote we have been repeatedly debating here. So it really says nothing new.

Third, we are talking about the same Jesus, correct? The one who says He will kill children for their parent's sin?


To the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These are the words of the Son of God, ... I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. ... I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead.
- Rev. 2:18-23 (emphasis added)

Yes, I was deliberately quite provocative in my wording. And no, I do not believe that this text justifies murder by His disciples. I am simply pointing out that the "pacifist Jesus" image is rather flawed, Scripturally.

Fourth, I would not put much stock in Isaiah 53:9 "proving" that Jesus could not have aimed the whip at the moneychangers. "No", "none", "all", "any", and similar terms in the OT cannot always be taken with logical literalness. A prime example is I Kings 15:5 - "For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite." Literally, this is false, as David also sinned when he ordered a census in violation of the commands regarding how it should be conducted (II Samuel 24). As one of my earliest Bible teachers said, "All Scripture is Truth, but not all Scripture is propositional truth." Many false doctrines arise from a failure to realize that point.

Next-to-last thought:


He not only did this, he also taught others (and still teaches since he is revered as a saint) to do likewise.

Blessed Augustine is a prime example of someone revered as a saint by the Orthodox Church, but whose teachings are not held to be correct in all matters. As Herman has said, we do not hold the saints to be infallible teachers; the testimony of their lives is the primary factor in their being considered saints. So the mere fact that St. John Chrysostom (or any other saint) advocated something does not by itself mean the Church endorses it today, or even at that time.

Last thought: Either you all write too fast or I'm too slow. I think a whole page of posts has been added since I started working on this one.

In Christ,
Michael

[Paul Cowan]

Like Herman said above, I am not defending. I am pushing back on using proof texting to get a point across. And yes, my father slapped me in the face when I was older. And YES, it got my attention and I never did that offense again. So, no. It would not bother me to do it also if the offense called for it. Just because it does not align with your personal sensibilities does not mean that it does not occur in "good" families elsewhere. I had a very loving home environment. I was just being very stupid that day.

I think St. Nicholas of Myra was a couple centuries before St. John and he also slapped Arius. He was criticized for it and later got the blessing of the other Bishops for his actions. Am I defending? no. Just using examples at hand. Did Jesus hit anyone? who knows. It is not written in the Gospels. Nor is it not written. History is written by the victor and often times twisted by persons later on to make something appear a certain way. There are 30 differnet translations on biblegateway.com. why is that?

[Sacha]

Like Herman said above, I am not defending. I am pushing back on using proof texting to get a point across. And yes, my father slapped me in the face when I was older. And YES, it got my attention and I never did that offense again. So, no. It would not bother me to do it also if the offense called for it. Just because it does not align with your personal sensibilities does not mean that it does not occur in "good" families elsewhere. I had a very loving home environment. I was just being very stupid that day.

I think St. Nicholas of Myra was a couple centuries before St. John and he also slapped Arius. He was criticized for it and later got the blessing of the other Bishops for his actions. Am I defending? no. Just using examples at hand. Did Jesus hit anyone? who knows. It is not written in the Gospels. Nor is it not written. History is written by the victor and often times twisted by persons later on to make something appear a certain way. There are 30 differnet translations on biblegateway.com. why is that?

Note, you didn't answer the question which was: would you hit your grown son? Now imagine that it wasn't your grown son who blasphemed Christ or the icons, imagine it was your neighbor's grown son? Would you smite him with a blow and cause him to bleed from the mouth? This is not about proof texting but putting Chrysostom's teaching to the test.

Now I understand that there are 2 camps here. One camp says Chrysostom said nothing wrong, it's a cultural issue etc. The other says we believe he was wrong but it's not a big deal. I believe one can quickly figure out what one believes by answering the question I posed you.

[Michael Stickles]

Would you smite him with a blow and cause him to bleed from the mouth? This is not about proof texting but putting to test Chrysostom's teaching.

And what is the evidence that Chrysostom actually did that? Is that not one of those "charges brought by John's political opponents, and undoubtedly contain much that is exaggerated or even invented"? The kicker for me is the very idea that St. John would consider someone so far into blasphemy, apostasy, or whatever as to warrant a blow that caused bleeding, but then would make that person take communion (with or without the bleeding mouth). Frankly, that just seems ridiculous on multiple levels.

[Sacha]

First, the idea that any striking of a person constitutes "violence" is not at all a universal concept across time and cultures. Our current cultural view would be utterly incomprehensible to most cultures across history.



This is the same argument that modern day apologists for Calvin make when dealing with his murder of Servetus. I'm sorry but that does not work for me. Jesus says:

"38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles."

No provisions for cultural idiosyncrasies in the above.


Second, I am not at all sure what the point is of the quotes from Gaddis' book. The first he admits are "charges brought by John's political opponents, and undoubtedly contain much that is exaggerated or even invented;" the second, while claiming that John's letters show the "battle against paganism involved considerable physical violence by both sides," does not say whether St. John actually endorsed the "physical violence", or if he did, to what degree; and the third is merely the same quote we have been repeatedly debating here. So it really says nothing new.




Would suggest you read him closely again, you are missing a lot. He is a careful and first rate historian and provided much evidence that shows the violent nature of Chrysostom's dealings with his enemies.


Third, we are talking about the same Jesus, correct? The one who says He will kill children for their parent's sin?


To the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These are the words of the Son of God, ... I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. ... I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead.
- Rev. 2:18-23 (emphasis added



Yes, I was deliberately quite provocative in my wording. And no, I do not believe that this text justifies murder by His disciples. I am simply pointing out that the "pacifist Jesus" image is rather flawed, Scripturally.



Not all scripture is propositional truth. That is correct. And your quote fits that bill quite well. Rev 2:23 is not didactic teaching but instead descriptive. Matt 5:38-41 on the other hand is didactic as Jesus teaches us how to relate to one another, even our enemies. Furthermore, if we follow your thinking to its logical conclusion, we enter very dangerous territory. The kind of territory that has inspired horrific unjustified violence against people and on which muslim jihadists and violent anarchists tread. So I reject your thinking completely here.



Fourth, I would not put much stock in Isaiah 53:9 "proving" that Jesus could not have aimed the whip at the moneychangers. "No", "none", "all", "any", and similar terms in the OT cannot always be taken with logical literalness. A prime example is I Kings 15:5 - "For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite." Literally, this is false, as David also sinned when he ordered a census in violation of the commands regarding how it should be conducted (II Samuel 24). As one of my earliest Bible teachers said, "All Scripture is Truth, but not all Scripture is propositional truth." Many false doctrines arise from a failure to realize that point.



As I have shown above in my prior posts, the burden of proof is on the one who wants to prove that Jesus aimed at the money changers themselves. And no proof is available. That fact remains, regardless of whether you disagree with my quoting Isaiah 53:9. The important thing to note about Isaiah 53:9 is that it speaks of the life of the Messiah on earth as the suffering servant. That life, in which He shared our humanity, was meant to instruct us on how we are to live. It is perfectly consistent to believe that Jesus both taught what he did in the great Sermon on the Mount and that He did not hit the money changers directly.


Blessed Augustine is a prime example of someone revered as a saint by the Orthodox Church, but whose teachings are not held to be correct in all matters. As Herman has said, we do not hold the saints to be infallible teachers; the testimony of their lives is the primary factor in their being considered saints. So the mere fact that St. John Chrysostom (or any other saint) advocated something does not by itself mean the Church endorses it today, or even at that time.



That's a very interesting statement. I have been getting different feedback from others on this thread regarding whether the Church endorses it today or not. There certainly appears to be a mixed reaction on this thread.

[Sacha]

And what is the evidence that Chrysostom actually did that? Is that not one of those "charges brought by John's political opponents, and undoubtedly contain much that is exaggerated or even invented"? The kicker for me is the very idea that St. John would consider someone so far into blasphemy, apostasy, or whatever as to warrant a blow that caused bleeding, but then would make that person take communion (with or without the bleeding mouth). Frankly, that just seems ridiculous on multiple levels.

Read Gaddis' book and look up the quote I shared very carefully, he provides the references. He is the historian. Feel free to prove him wrong, if you believe he is mistaken.

[Michael Stickles]

This is the same argument that modern day apologists for Calvin make when dealing with his murder of Servetus. I'm sorry but that does not work for me.

I can't imagine their argument would work for me either. A slap in the face is not murder; that should not be a difficult concept.


Read Gaddis' book and look up the quote I shared very carefully, he provides the references. He is the historian. Feel free to prove him wrong, if you believe he is mistaken.

If I read correctly, Gaddis is the one who said, regarding the Synod of the Oak (where that charge was levied), "In all fairness it should be recognized that these were charges brought by John's political opponents, and undoubtedly contain much that is exaggerated or even invented." I'm agreeing with that, and believe it's clear that the particular charge you highlighted falls into the "exaggerated or even invented" category.

[Sacha]

I can't imagine their argument would work for me either. A slap in the face is not murder; that should not be a difficult concept.




Does not Jesus say:
21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment."





If I read correctly, Gaddis is the one who said, regarding the Synod of the Oak (where that charge was levied), "In all fairness it should be recognized that these were charges brought by John's political opponents, and undoubtedly contain much that is exaggerated or even invented." I'm agreeing with that, and believe it's clear that the particular charge you highlighted falls into the "exaggerated or even invented" category.

I don't understand why that would be so hard to believe given that

1. No one disputes that Chrysostom is the author of sanctify thy hand with thy holy blow etc.
2. Gaddis points out this:


But according to Theodoret, a source much more sympathetic to John, Chrysostom as bishop got together "certain monks who were fired with divine zeal" and sent them to destroy pagan temples throughout Phoenicia (Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 5.29). John's own letters 21, 28, 53-55, 69, 123, 126, 175, 221 (written to encourage the same monks, all in PG 52) confirm this story, and also make it clear that this battle against paganism involved considerable physical violence by both sides.

[Michael Stickles]

Does not Jesus say:
21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment."

Certainly. And anger has nothing to do with John's statement. The full context of the homily makes that clear.


I don't understand why that would be so hard to believe ...

That's because you apparently don't understand the Orthodox view of the Eucharist. If St. John believed someone were that much of a blasphemer/apostate/whatever, he wouldn't let the man take communion, let alone make him take it.

[Sacha]

Certainly. And anger has nothing to do with John's statement. The full context of the homily makes that clear.



That is precisely the problem. Regardless of the theoretical statement, would you like to be punched in the face by someone who says he is not angry at you? Imagine that a protestant considering you to be a blasphemer, took Chrysostom's words to heart and delivered a blow to your face or body. How would that make you feel. You cannot disassociate violence from anger. That is precisely the crux of Jesus' teaching. In effect, He was putting fences around the law so to speak, fulfilling the law by raising its standard. It is precisely because He did not want us to hit our neighbor that He recommended being careful about anger.


That's because you apparently don't understand the Orthodox view of the Eucharist. If St. John believed someone were that much of a blasphemer/apostate/whatever, he wouldn't let the man take communion, let alone make him take it.

Regardless of what happened with communion, I have no trouble believing that he hit the man given his own teaching to hit blasphemers, nothing unreasonable about that.

[Paul Cowan]

Note, you didn't answer the question which was: would you hit your grown son? Now imagine that it wasn't your grown son who blasphemed Christ or the icons, imagine it was your neighbor's grown son? Would you smite him with a blow and cause him to bleed from the mouth? This is not about proof texting but putting Chrysostom's teaching to the test.

Now I understand that there are 2 camps here. One camp says Chrysostom said nothing wrong, it's a cultural issue etc. The other says we believe he was wrong but it's not a big deal. I believe one can quickly figure out what one believes by answering the question I posed you.

You should re-read my post 56. I did answer this question in the affirmative. I would not have a problem with slapping my own son. And though I have not brought blood, I have bopped on the head with a notepad, slugged in the arm and phsyically pushed off balance people I know and work with when they blasphme. It is not done in anger but righteous perterbness. They know I am serious and they change their language and actions around me. Would I draw blood? no, We don't live in that world anymore. As much as I fear God, I also fear losing my job and being sued. I don't have to be "violent" and "angry" to get my point across in our "enlightened" age of political correctness.

I have co-workers that will apologize to me when I turn the corner in the office and they know I heard them cussing God or cussing in general. DO DON'T PRESUME TO TELL ME I WOULD NOT DO WHAT ST. NICHOLAS OR ST. JOHN DID IN THEIR DAY AND AGE. ITS ARROGANT IN THE EXTREME! We live in a different time and can get similar results with modified "blows".

I can't help come to the conclusion you will not hear what Michael says about the political adversaries or youthful zeal of the preacher. Have you as an individual never changed your stance on anything in your life from your youth up? I bet you have. I bet St. John has as well. I know I have. Perhaps if you had the passion these holy men had from antiquity and not a lovy dovy attitude about this faith, you might come to understand

12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.

This is not a game.
12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age,[c] against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

We do not "fight" our fellow man, but when they are over come by the wiles of the devil, we must correct each other in all Truth or else we run the risk of being held accountable as our brother's keeper and his potential condemnation. Was St. John right in that day and age? perhaps, perhaps not. It's not for me to judge. OR YOU.

I won't post here anymore.

Paul

[Sacha]

You should re-read my post 56. I did answer this question in the affirmative. I would not have a problem with slapping my own son. And though I have not brought blood, I have bopped on the head with a notepad, slugged in the arm and phsyically pushed off balance people I know and work with when they blasphme. It is not done in anger but righteous perterbness. They know I am serious and they change their language and actions around me. Would I draw blood? no, We don't live in that world anymore. As much as I fear God, I also fear losing my job and being sued. I don't have to be "violent" and "angry" to get my point across in our "enlightened" age of political correctness.

I have co-workers that will apologize to me when I turn the corner in the office and they know I heard them cussing God or cussing in general.

The answer is no, you would not hit any grown man or woman in the manner described by Chrysostom. That tells me all I need to know. And again, Jesus makes no provisions for cultural idiosyncrasies in the Sermon on the Mount.

[Kais Alek]

Exactly! Agreed. What use is 2 swords against a cohort.

As for the swords, here is the true reason:


For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. (Luke 22.37)


Must yet be accomplished, then. Seeing today's and past centuries' Christians' deeds, one cannot but agree with the above. Fellow Christians, we are Antichrists, and demonstrably out of Scriptures so.

[Sacha]

DO DON'T PRESUME TO TELL ME I WOULD NOT DO WHAT ST. NICHOLAS OR ST. JOHN DID IN THEIR DAY AND AGE. ITS ARROGANT IN THE EXTREME! We live in a different time and can get similar results with modified "blows".


Never presumed the above. All I said was that you would not hit any grown man or woman in the manner described by Chrysostom today to correct them of their blasphemy. Am I wrong? Would you smite an adult with blows, slap them or punch them in the face or body? Is that what Christ tells us to do?

Polycarp 2:2

"Now He that raised Him from the dead will raise us also; if we
do His will and walk in His commandments and love the things which He
loved, abstaining from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of
money, evil speaking, false witness; not rendering evil for evil or
railing for railing or blow for blow or cursing for cursing;"

[Kosta]

If we took Polycarp literally, then christians would have been extinct by the 9th century. I see no virtue in being a pushover. Polycarp lived when christianity was in its infancy a tiny minority. If christianity once again becomes an obscure minority sect theres no choice but to become timid and not bring to much attention to ourselves. The whole point of Revelation is christians were tired of being the pagans whipping boy. They were sick and tired of being told to turn the other cheek, thus the Apocalypse reassures them that vengeance is near and there will be sweet revenge. The church of Alexandria had monks which exhibited violence in the 3rd thru 6th centuries, today the Copts are treated like the wicked stepchildren of muslim Egypt, with all their non-violent protest their numbers continue to dwindle.
Religions which are absolute pushovers cannot survive. One is a whipping boy because the bully knows he can get away with it, which is why Christianity is not passive.

[Michael Stickles]

That is precisely the problem. Regardless of the theoretical statement, would you like to be punched in the face by someone who says he is not angry at you?

Where does it say "punch"? A slap is not a punch, the actions and their connotations are quite different. This is a concept that seems to be constantly missed.


Imagine that a protestant considering you to be a blasphemer, took Chrysostom's words to heart and delivered a blow to your face or body. How would that make you feel.

How I would feel about it is irrelevant to our discussion. Physical chastisement is not supposed to feel "good". The only relevant point would be whether it was, or could be, justified.


You cannot disassociate violence from anger.

You certainly can, although whether that would be a psychopathology is another matter. But we are not talking about "violence".


It is precisely because He did not want us to hit our neighbor that He recommended being careful about anger.

False. It is because of the effects of sinful anger itself. He wanted us to know that anger can poison our soul even if it is not "acted out" on.


Regardless of what happened with communion, I have no trouble believing that he hit the man given his own teaching to hit blasphemers, nothing unreasonable about that.

And I have no trouble believing the story is a complete fabrication, given that the communion part is ludicrous. Once one part of a story is shown to be fabricated, the rest becomes doubtful.

[Sacha]

Where does it say "punch"? A slap is not a punch, the actions and their connotations are quite different. This is a concept that seems to be constantly missed.



Where does it say a blow is not a punch? While blow can include a slap, there's no reason why one could not interpret blow as punch or worse. At Ephesus in the 5th century, Bishop Flavian of Constantinople was so badly attacked by Dioscorus and Eutyches' people that he died a few days later. This is the type of violence that in my mind at least, is absolutely incompatible with Christ's teaching.


How I would feel about it is irrelevant to our discussion. Physical chastisement is not supposed to feel "good". The only relevant point would be whether it was, or could be, justified.


Why is it irrelevant? It is absolutely relevant in the light of Jesus' Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. How can one justify the negation of this principle? Are you telling me that you would punch someone in the face for blasphemy?


You certainly can, although whether that would be a psychopathology is another matter. But we are not talking about "violence".


Of course it is violence Michael. Aren't there countless wives that are slapped in the face routinely at home, some of whom eventually report the abuse to the authorities? It's called domestic violence in that case isn't it.


False. It is because of the effects of sinful anger itself. He wanted us to know that anger can poison our soul even if it is not "acted out" on.



Not false, you probably meant to say, that's not the only thing. I agree with you above, but what I said remains true. Jesus was indeed teaching us not to give in to anger because the step between that and actual murder is not so great.



And I have no trouble believing the story is a complete fabrication, given that the communion part is ludicrous. Once one part of a story is shown to be fabricated, the rest becomes doubtful.

Historian Michael Gaddis has provided copious evidence to suggest that the church councils were indeed filled with violence and that violence was indeed justified by church leaders. Highly recommend that you read the book.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I think that the comments made previously on this theme should be kept in mind. Physical rebuke is clearly attested to in Orthodox practice up until about the mid 20thc. It was very rarely used, and must be firmly differentiated from physical abuse ( physical anger clearly from passion). But it was used even by abbots and spiritual fathers as part of Orthodox practice for severe rebuke.

What then should be our understanding of such a practice? First off that precisely it not be confused with abuse which is sinful. And then context also is very important. For in a society where physical measures were a common form of rebuke, (which recall existed up until recently so several of us can speak from direct experience), this form of rebuke was basically equivalent to what a serious or severe measure of verbal rebuke would be now.

Again context is very important here. For in society where such measures were regularly employed, different levels of rebuke were employed which all understood as conveying a message as to the seriousness of the sin involved. Here as with verbal rebuke, the different levels could be quite subtle, and each was understood for the message it tried to convey.

In any case we are only here following the logic of rebuke itself, which can be true fatherly rebuke or just giving in to anger & passion. The fact that the latter is a temptation and that it occurs does not mean that rebuke- even firm rebuke- is equivalent to it. It just means that as with everything else we have to aim for the proper and godly measure in all things.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Kais Alek]

Kosta,

Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. (Luke 12.32)

Who said that we should be numerous?

[John Bundstein]

I have, with some interest, attempted to follow this thread. However, I do feel the need to raise a couple of points.

On behave of dear old Saint John (whose name I receive at my baptism mainly on my part because he was such a disturber of the peace) he too lived in the fallen world and as a human was subject to all its faults, limits and wonderful moments of getting it nearly as is humanly possible right. He was fully human and only by hard work, prayer and grace able to come to a level of salvation.

IMHO I have to say that I don’t see Jesus acting like a Pharisee (as has been suggested) making fences around the Law. But rather like King Josiah cleaning the Temple and reestablishing the Law. In fact the entire story can be seen as being foreshadowed in King Josiah.

It hard if not impossible to tell what exactly happened in this story by what it straight out says and does not say. We don’t know. Jesus was fully human so He most likely was more than a bit angry with what he saw going on. After all in a some what trite and maybe even more than a bit disrespectful example isnowhere in scripture does it tell if as a fully human being He ever took a break by the side of road. Or if He ever spat out an insect that He may have caught in His mouth while talking with the twelve while out of doors on the road. We just don’t know.

A few points need to be considered about the story as it is told as to whether it is to be seen as an account of a violent act or not. The synoptic accounts and John agree (at least in translation that He “drove” them and the cattle and sheep out. To “drive out” is a violent act it is not nicely asking them to pretty please leave. In fact we are told that the money changers and sellers when in fear. He does not appear to be working and playing well with others at this point King Josiah when he cleared out the Temple had the “trash” (which expression is believe to be not just the junk that may have accumulated, but the idols, writings and bones of the foreign priests taken out and taken to the valley of Kidron to be burned, could the changers and sellers have been thinking of that? And just on the other side of Kidron from the Temple is the Mount of Olives to which Jesus went directly after His clearing of the Temple. Speaking that trip what happened on the way there “the blasting of the fig tree” not a particularly peaceful story.

Now the story of the whip is only recorded in John. And most of the translations talk of a whip or scourge of cords even small cords. So maybe it wasn’t something to beat them with but a symbol. Who it that world carried a stick with small cords hanging down? It is most famously associated with Pharaoh as one of the symbols of his power and might. One version or another of this symbol was carried by most of the rulers in the region to show their authority. So here was someone appearing to claim that authority coming after them; destroying or running of their goods and livelihood. I think that would be a very violent experience. After all just days before Jesus had been popularly proclaim King of the Jews.

Well anyway those are my ignorant thoughts.

[Michael Stickles]

Where does it say a blow is not a punch? While blow can include a slap, there's no reason why one could not interpret blow as punch or worse.

Where does it say it is? We can go round and round on this, but since you are interpreting it consistently in the "worse" way, as I see it the burden of proof is on you here.


Why is it irrelevant? It is absolutely relevant in the light of Jesus' Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. How can one justify the negation of this principle? Are you telling me that you would punch someone in the face for blasphemy?

For part A, no, the Golden Rule has nothing to do with "feelings". It has to do with a sober evaluation of what is best. If I interpreted the Golden Rule as "do unto others what would make you feel good if they did it to you" and applied it that way, I would irritate and upset quite a lot of people, even among my own family (I know this from actual attempts to apply it that way). And even in some cases where I didn't upset them, I would still not be doing right by them. The question is not "would I like having someone slap/punch me?" Rather, it's "If I fell so far as to begin blaspheming God, would I want someone to do whatever it took to try and snap me out of that hell-ward path and restore me to fellowship with God?" I would hope the answer to that is "yes".

For part B, I refer you back to my previous comments regarding "punch" versus "slap", and cultural differences. Also, I am saying, so far, nothing about what I personally would or wouldn't do, because that is also irrelevant. There are many actions, perfectly acceptable in theory, which I won't do (whether from personal hang-ups or because I can't separate them in my own mind from sinful thoughts), and (unfortunately) some unacceptable and sinful actions which I would do given certain situations. My willingness to do something or my "comfort level" with it is not a sound or reliable judge of "rightness" versus "wrongness", and so has no place in this discussion.


Of course it is violence Michael. Aren't there countless wives that are slapped in the face routinely at home, some of whom eventually report the abuse to the authorities? It's called domestic violence in that case isn't it.

I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of "context". In order to (hopefully) avoid continual wheel-spinning and talking past each other on this, allow me to put forward a couple of scenarios.

Scenario A: I am walking past someone on the street. He says something which I find offensive, and in a burst of anger I tackle him and bring him down hard to the ground.

Scenario B: I am walking past someone on the street. Suddenly one of the supporting lines for a sign above his head snaps, and the heavy sign swings down towards his head. Since there is no time to warn him verbally, I immediately tackle him and bring him down hard to the ground, but barely fast enough as the sign barely misses us.

Outwardly, the same physical action. One is "violence", one is not. Hopefully you see the point.

I can apply that personally as well. You see, I have been slapped in the face or hard in the back of the head a few times in my life (and not just as a youth, or as parental discipline). Some I would consider "violence", though rather minor; others were not. That is the context from which I say that "how it would make me feel" is irrelevant (they all made me feel angry, upset, or some other negative emption at the time), only whether it was justified - because that's how I treat my own such experiences.

And, yes, this applies to "smiting blasphemers" as well. Were someone to hear someone else blaspheme in public, and, enraged with unholy anger at the "filthy blasphemer", deck him, we would be talking about violence. If, however, it was more along the lines of what Henry Jones Sr. did to Indy in the movie Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, I see no way anyone could legitimately interpret that as violence. Based on the sense I have of St. John Chrysostom from the writings I have read, I see his statement in the Homily on the Statues as advocating something closer to the latter (though he probably would be fine with a bit more force than Henry used).


Not false, you probably meant to say, that's not the only thing. I agree with you above, but what I said remains true. Jesus was indeed teaching us not to give in to anger because the step between that and actual murder is not so great.

No, I meant exactly what I said - "false". He was teaching us that if we abstain from murder, but still harbor unrighteous anger in our heart, we have not truly fulfilled the point of the law. The interpretation you put forth runs backwards against the whole way Jesus was speaking in this part of the Sermon on the Mount.

[Sacha]

Where does it say it is? We can go round and round on this, but since you are interpreting it consistently in the "worse" way, as I see it the burden of proof is on you here.




Chrysostom's own words, which he addressed to his Antiochene congregation in 386:

"I desire to ask one favor of you all... which is, that you will correct on my behalf the blasphemers of this city. And should you hear anyone in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God; go up to him and rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so. Smite him on the face, strike his mouth, sanctify thy hand with the blow." [Homilies on the Statues 1.32, quoting from the translation in the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, first series, v.9, p.343]

From the dictionary: To smite:

a. To inflict a heavy blow on, with or as if with the hand, a tool, or a weapon.
b. To drive or strike (a weapon, for example) forcefully onto or into something else


No need for interpretation, it is what it is.



For part A, no, the Golden Rule has nothing to do with "feelings". It has to do with a sober evaluation of what is best. If I interpreted the Golden Rule as "do unto others what would make you feel good if they did it to you" and applied it that way, I would irritate and upset quite a lot of people, even among my own family (I know this from actual attempts to apply it that way). And even in some cases where I didn't upset them, I would still not be doing right by them. The question is not "would I like having someone slap/punch me?" Rather, it's "If I fell so far as to begin blaspheming God, would I want someone to do whatever it took to try and snap me out of that hell-ward path and restore me to fellowship with God?" I would hope the answer to that is "yes".

For part B, I refer you back to my previous comments regarding "punch" versus "slap", and cultural differences. Also, I am saying, so far, nothing about what I personally would or wouldn't do, because that is also irrelevant. There are many actions, perfectly acceptable in theory, which I won't do (whether from personal hang-ups or because I can't separate them in my own mind from sinful thoughts), and (unfortunately) some unacceptable and sinful actions which I would do given certain situations. My willingness to do something or my "comfort level" with it is not a sound or reliable judge of "rightness" versus "wrongness", and so has no place in this discussion.




My question in the prior post had nothing to do with feelings. Your answer is entirely a red herring and once again skirts the issue. I will pose it you again: Would you smite someone in the face to correct them of their blasphemy, yes or no please. Why can't you give me a straight answer?


I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of "context". In order to (hopefully) avoid continual wheel-spinning and talking past each other on this, allow me to put forward a couple of scenarios.

Scenario A: I am walking past someone on the street. He says something which I find offensive, and in a burst of anger I tackle him and bring him down hard to the ground.

Scenario B: I am walking past someone on the street. Suddenly one of the supporting lines for a sign above his head snaps, and the heavy sign swings down towards his head. Since there is no time to warn him verbally, I immediately tackle him and bring him down hard to the ground, but barely fast enough as the sign barely misses us.

Outwardly, the same physical action. One is "violence", one is not. Hopefully you see the point.



Your analogy is flawed. While the man in scenario B would be happy to have been saved from the sign, the blasphemer believes that he is correct, so he has no reason to thank you for your blow, only scorn for you having the chutzpah to hit him. The only context needed is that of Chrysostom's quote.


I can apply that personally as well. You see, I have been slapped in the face or hard in the back of the head a few times in my life (and not just as a youth, or as parental discipline). Some I would consider "violence", though rather minor; others were not. That is the context from which I say that "how it would make me feel" is irrelevant (they all made me feel angry, upset, or some other negative emption at the time), only whether it was justified - because that's how I treat my own such experiences.



Once again, feelings are a red herring here and the context is provided by Chrysostom, not personal histories.


And, yes, this applies to "smiting blasphemers" as well. Were someone to hear someone else blaspheme in public, and, enraged with unholy anger at the "filthy blasphemer", deck him, we would be talking about violence. If, however, it was more along the lines of what Henry Jones Sr. did to Indy in the movie Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, I see no way anyone could legitimately interpret that as violence. Based on the sense I have of St. John Chrysostom from the writings I have read, I see his statement in the Homily on the Statues as advocating something closer to the latter (though he probably would be fine with a bit more force than Henry used).



'A bit more' force Michael? Have you read the dictionary definition of smite? Sorry, your Indiana Jones analogy is very unconvincing.



No, I meant exactly what I said - "false". He was teaching us that if we abstain from murder, but still harbor unrighteous anger in our heart, we have not truly fulfilled the point of the law. The interpretation you put forth runs backwards against the whole way Jesus was speaking in this part of the Sermon on the Mount.

Well, we'll have to disagree on that on your last sentence there. I agree with the other comment regarding unrighteous anger, but do not believe that was the only implication of his teaching.

[Sacha]

When the Lord Jesus Christ was blasphemed during the passion and at the cross, and taunted, how did He react? Did He call on angels to smite His blasphemers? Or did He ask His Father to forgive them? How much more then, ought we to imitate Him? To me, there is a clear and undeniable contradiction between Jesus and Chrysostom.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Chrysostom's own words, which he addressed to his Antiochene congregation in 386:
"I desire to ask one favor of you all... which is, that you will correct on my behalf the blasphemers of this city. And should you hear anyone in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God; go up to him and rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so. Smite him on the face, strike his mouth, sanctify thy hand with the blow." [Homilies on the Statues 1.32, quoting from the translation in the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, first series, v.9, p.343]

From the dictionary: To smite:

a. To inflict a heavy blow on, with or as if with the hand, a tool, or a weapon.
b. To drive or strike (a weapon, for example) forcefully onto or into something else



When the Lord Jesus Christ was blasphemed during the passion and at the cross, and taunted, how did He react? Did He call on angels to smite His blasphemers? Or did He ask His Father to forgive them? How much more then, ought we to imitate Him? To me, there is a clear and undeniable contradiction between Jesus and Chrysostom.

If I could step in here for a moment. Again context is very important. Whatever the actual dictionary definitions of 'smiting' and blows' are, the fact is that these methods were standardly used as methods of rebuke. So were various other methods like washing a child's mouth out if they swore. This would now be seen and perceived as violence so they are not used nowadays. But when they were used they were not perceived (as I can attest myself from firsthand experience) by the person on the other end of the stick as it were, as violence. They were seen for what they were intended as- which is various forms of rebuke.

Now as to Christ- I don't want to go into some sort of a sociological study of context and try to relate this to His own methods of rebuke. Instead let me just say that the Lord's rebuke, and which occurred often enough was more severe in impact than any blow or smiting could be. After all what is more severe than a rebuke that threatens eternal loss of ones' soul unless one amends ones' ways?

The Lord then did not need anything beyond the verbal rebuke because the effect of His word as God, arbiter of everything, was far more severe for the unrepentant, than any physical & human measure could be.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Sacha]

That will be it for me, for now. Thank you to all who have contributed so far.

[Michael Stickles]

I will bow out as well, after pointing out:


My question in the prior post had nothing to do with feelings. Your answer is entirely a red herring and once again skirts the issue.

Well, no, that particular back-and-forth trail started with:


Regardless of the theoretical statement, would you like to be punched in the face by someone who says he is not angry at you? Imagine that a protestant considering you to be a blasphemer, took Chrysostom's words to heart and delivered a blow to your face or body. How would that make you feel.

I had assumed those questions were still part of what we were discussing. I'm afraid I do that to my wife in conversation all the time, she's moved on three levels from the original topic while I'm still trying to address it "back there". If this discussion re-starts in the future, I'll try to make sure I'm more clear as to what specifically I'm addressing.

[Brian McDonald]

Can you respect the view that a refusal to see Chrysostom's teaching on smiting others as outside of the teaching of Christ is one stumbling block among others to people outside the OC, who would otherwise be joining it?

Those who join the Orthodox church are unlikely to be deterred by discovering that the treasure of the faith has been preserved and handed down by fallible human beings, including the great but not perfect Saint, Chrysostom. Indeed, as St. Paul tells us, this very fact is to show that its extraordinary power comes from God and not from us.


And again, Jesus makes no provisions for cultural idiosyncrasies in the Sermon on the Mount. ?

No he didn’t. Foundational mountaintop teachings must be declared in all their full power and simplicity. But those of us who come later have to live out our lives in the valleys, where matters get complicated by “idiosyncrasies,” cultural and otherwise. If all we needed was just to read the Sermon on the Mount and apply it simply and directly without further ado, then the only role for the Holy Spirit would be to strengthen us in doing so. We wouldn’t have needed the additional role our Lord assigned to Him of “guiding us in the ways of all truth.” No need for Church councils, the promulgation of canons, etc. Why would those be necessary if all we had to do was consult the Sermon, point to texts, shut the book and say, “That’s it!”?

Part of the Church’s need for the Spirit’s guidance is that people and cultures are so different and this makes it necessary that Christian truth be worked out and applied to “fit” different peoples. As Gregory of Nyssa pointed out in his “Great Catechetical Oration,” Jews think one way, Greeks another, and “Barbarian” peoples still differently. You have to get the gospel into each different cultural “house” through the lowhanging doors of different cultural idiosyncrasies (including one’s own. )

One of those “idiosyncrasies” is precisely that not all cultures make the same equation of violence with physical chastisement that you do. The admirable desire for rigorous loyalty to Jesus’s teachings on your part ought not be accompanied by an uncharitable refusal to recognize that others in other times and places have seen this loyalty differently. Perhaps Chrysostom was wrong, but at least attempt to see him in his own setting. Is it really Jesus who “makes no provision for . . . idiosyncrasies” or is it Sacha? The application of an intense and unreflective perfectionism to others, a refusal to “cut them slack,” to let them belong to their time and place is common in our politically “correct” age. It is not, I humbly submit, a spiritually healthy thing to do.


Historian Michael Gaddis has provided copious evidence to suggest that the church councils were indeed filled with violence and that violence was indeed justified by church leaders. Highly recommend that you read the book. ?

In getting a view of Church history, I would avoid “advocacy” and “axe-grinding” books as I suspect this one is, and look for those that present a balanced, unbiased, “no dog in this fight” presentation. Such a book is Justo Gonzalez’s 3 Volume work A History of Christian Thought, which was the text for the Church History course I took years ago and is I believe often used in such courses. It is incredibly clear and readable, and Volume One is excellent on the development of the early church and councils one through four. Gonzalez by the way acknowledge Cyril’s heavy-handed approach to the organizing and running of the 3rd Ecumenical council, and acknowledges the intolerant zeal of the monks who supported him. But Gonzalez also gives a fair-minded and whole picture of what was going on, and explains clearly why the Nestorianism Cyril was battling would have been harmful to the Church had it prevailed.

[Sacha]

No he didn’t. Foundational mountaintop teachings must be declared in all their full power and simplicity. But those of us who come later have to live out our lives in the valleys, where matters get complicated by “idiosyncrasies,” cultural and otherwise. If all we needed was just to read the Sermon on the Mount and apply it simply and directly without further ado, then the only role for the Holy Spirit would be to strengthen us in doing so. We wouldn’t have needed the additional role our Lord assigned to Him of “guiding us in the ways of all truth.” No need for Church councils, the promulgation of canons, etc. Why would those be necessary if all we had to do was consult the Sermon, point to texts, shut the book and say, “That’s it!”?


Brian, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You either believe that the Sermon on the Mount is to be adhered to or your don't. If you want to make provisions for cultural idiosyncrasies where Jesus made none, that is your prerogative. You seem to take a surprisingly diminutive view of the Holy Spirit's work in empowering a believer to live out the Sermon of the Mount. What you call the 'only role' is actually a critical role without which the spiritual struggle is impossible. Further, the 1st century church at Smyrna and Philadelphia were commended by the Lord, long before any of the major councils had taken place. They took the Sermon on the Mount as one should, and received their reward for it. Polycarp is a good example in this regard.



...One of those “idiosyncrasies” is precisely that not all cultures make the same equation of violence with physical chastisement that you do. The admirable desire for rigorous loyalty to Jesus’s teachings on your part ought not be accompanied by an uncharitable refusal to recognize that others in other times and places have seen this loyalty differently. Perhaps Chrysostom was wrong, but at least attempt to see him in his own setting. Is it really Jesus who “makes no provision for . . . idiosyncrasies” or is it Sacha? The application of an intense and unreflective perfectionism to others, a refusal to “cut them slack,” to let them belong to their time and place is common in our politically “correct” age. It is not, I humbly submit, a spiritually healthy thing to do.

One of the things I have learned from the Orthodox is this: watch who you get your theology from. And yet I see an inconsistency in the way Orthodox apply the principle to their own. I certainly have no trouble cutting Chrysostom slack for what he did and the violence he incited to. Afterall we are all sinners yes? But I nevertheless reserve the right to reject him as a teacher on the basis of his antisemitism (no need to engage me on this, you will not change my mind and I will not change yours) and his inciting to violence. I was hoping to not have to say this, but your post has forced me to... but the pass given to the violence that is part and parcel of Orthodox history also causes me to reassess the claims of the Orthodox church as the one apostolic true church. Had the church repudiated such, this would be one less hurdle for me. Likewise, I reject John Calvin and Luther completely on the same basis. I believe that Scripture tells us to hold our teachers to a higher standard (1 Tim 3), and many take that standard for what it is, uncompromising. I also believe that what is spiritually unhealthy is to lower that standard, because doing so opens up the possibility of great harm.


In getting a view of Church history, I would avoid “advocacy” and “axe-grinding” books as I suspect this one is, and look for those that present a balanced, unbiased, “no dog in this fight” presentation. Such a book is Justo Gonzalez’s 3 Volume work A History of Christian Thought, which was the text for the Church History course I took years ago and is I believe often used in such courses. It is incredibly clear and readable, and Volume One is excellent on the development of the early church and councils one through four. Gonzalez by the way acknowledge Cyril’s heavy-handed approach to the organizing and running of the 3rd Ecumenical council, and acknowledges the intolerant zeal of the monks who supported him. But Gonzalez also gives a fair-minded and whole picture of what was going on, and explains clearly why the Nestorianism Cyril was battling would have been harmful to the Church had it prevailed.

What do you know of the book? You have not even read it. Gaddis himself said that he had no interest in defending or not defending Chrysostom, yet his conclusion as a historian is that the latter did incite violence. I'm sorry if you dislike his conclusion, but it is what it is. Now re Gonzalez, he writes not as a believer, but again as a historian. And yes he does give a good assessment of why what took place took place, but again, I don't take my cues as to who I ought to listen to on the basis of historical criticism (an unwelcome scholasticism) but rather on the words of Christ and the apostles. Gonzalez for example in his two tome book relates the death of Bishop Flavian of Constantinople after being assaulted by Dioscorus and Eutyches and others at Ephesus in AD 431. This is typical of what took place back then and a far cry from the church of the 1st century, where believers were killed and martyred by pagans, not fellow christians!

[Rob Bergen]

Perhaps one of the largest problems surrounding the discussion of this issue is that some people tend to treat it as black and white rather than gray. First off, to speak to what I have mentioned previously, there is no such thing as a perfect Church. Secondly, history itself can only be read through our very modern eyes. That is to say, how can we even begin to understand the circumstances and disposition of the world 1,500 years ago? Third, there is no reason to take modern scholarship as God's living truth the same way we do not take ancient scholarship as such; to wit, the argument surrounding the historiography of Gaddis. Ergo, we are left with a tradition that is as hard to understand and as prone to fault as the next, but we use the tools given by our ancestors, mothers and fathers, to "exegete" if you will, from the past what we have as our tradition. This process in itself should be guided by our Lord, and sometimes it is not and used for selfish benefit. Such is the state of humankind, and the nature of issues that are neither black nor white. While it certainly is very tempting to hold fast to the claims of some modern scholars over and above others, these men still need to stand the test of time, and to be put up against tradition and dissected (Bl. Augustine was famous for his "retractions"). This is not to say that there is no room for novelty within the Orthodox tradition, but rather, is there room for new revelation of truth? I do not think it is up to me, you, or anybody at this time to say whether or not Gaddis, or any other recent scholarship is true to the reality of the past, but rather, it is something to deeply consider as the tradition moves forward into the future. This is how the Orthodox Church progresses, VERY slowly and with GREAT care, and how can you blame them, after so many controversies and schisms in the past?

The question then remains as a historiographical one, not something that we can answer blindly, or by using our singular minds. Consensus at the councils (bloody or no) was not reached by singular individuals, but by all present. For example, the fifth Ecumenical council called against the Monophysites ruled that the human nature was subordinate to the divine nature in order to appease those who had Monophysite tendencies. This was a middle ground for both parties, but left out the extremeties. This is how the Orthodox arrive at the conclusion of truth, we use our God-given intellects to realize what the extremes are, and to avoid planting ourselves in the "black" or "white" areas, realizing that in fact the world is a lot more gray than we ever thought.

Peace to You,

Rob

[Kosta]

OK, lets bback up a second. We can use scripture to justify absolute pacifism. Perhaps the Hutterites have it right. They live a communal life just like the original Jerusalem church, if violence erupts they simply pack up and move, just like the Jerusalem Church when they fled to Pella in 66a.d. Christ teaches when that day come hope that its not in winter or the sabbath etc, because fleeing during those circumstances are treacherous.

Are christians meant to be semi-nomadic, packing up and taking flight everytime violence is imminent?
Should we not engage in self defense since martyrdom is preferable?

Should discipline never involve spanking a child or raising the hand?

Should christians refuse military service?

What role should a man play if an assailant attacks his wife and family?

Is a 'true' christian immune from anger?

Are christians supposed to tolerate everything against them and remain pushovers abnd punching bags?

Is a particular culture which (hippocritically) speaks of pacifism more superior to an Iraqi christian who throws his shoes and hits someone, as this is culturally a method of showing disgust at an individual in the middleeast?


Presenting scriptural verses demonstrating that all violence is banned for a christian opens up a can of worms. Its a modern day western phenomenon.

[Herman Blaydoe]

To back up what has been posted, and perhaps just to back up as Kosta advises, one last little thought from a bear of little brain.

Orthodoxy does not require "infallibility", and certainly not from our saints. Some saints may have become "idealized" while the fallen humanness of others is clearly obvious. St. John the "Golden-mouthed" is a much beloved saint. The Divine Liturgy called by his name is central to the historic Church. Several people have mentioned that he was less-than-perfect and perhaps a bit overzealous in his younger "salad" days, but obviously "mellowed out" in his older years, as do most of us (hopefully, perhaps some more than others). An important fact that is being overlooked is that slapping people around and denigrating "Jews" are not practices that are advocated by any current bishops, even if St. John encouraged such things at one time in his. Therefore, this seems to be proof that the Church can survive less-than-perfect saints. Discernment plays a role in the continuing good governance of God's Church. We can admire and keep that which is good from St. John and dscard what is not. But this is not OUR decision so much, it comes to us through the bishops whose task is to guide the flock and maintain good order in the Church appropriate to the times and situation the Church finds itself in.

Sacha, if you are looking for some sort of disavowal or well-after-the-fact apology, then good luck with that. Orthodoxy is not nearly so "centralized" as say, the Catholic Church, there is no single point of reference. Are you going to make each and every patriarch atone for the "sins" of their predecessors? Each and every bishop? If I personally apologize on behalf of St. John to any (obviously now long-deceased) individuals actually knocked about on account of St. John's perhaps ill-advised advocacy, will that suffice?

If you are actually serious about Orthodoxy, the real point of contact would be the nearest priest who is the direct representative of the loca bishop. I really suggest you work things out to your satisfaction with them , or not, as you see fit.

Herman the Pooh

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Brian McDonald wrote:


Part of the Church’s need for the Spirit’s guidance is that people and cultures are so different and this makes it necessary that Christian truth be worked out and applied to “fit” different peoples. As Gregory of Nyssa pointed out in his “Great Catechetical Oration,” Jews think one way, Greeks another, and “Barbarian” peoples still differently. You have to get the gospel into each different cultural “house” through the lowhanging doors of different cultural idiosyncrasies (including one’s own. )

One of those “idiosyncrasies” is precisely that not all cultures make the same equation of violence with physical chastisement that you do. The admirable desire for rigorous loyalty to Jesus’s teachings on your part ought not be accompanied by an uncharitable refusal to recognize that others in other times and places have seen this loyalty differently. Perhaps Chrysostom was wrong, but at least attempt to see him in his own setting. Is it really Jesus who “makes no provision for . . . idiosyncrasies” or is it Sacha? The application of an intense and unreflective perfectionism to others, a refusal to “cut them slack,” to let them belong to their time and place is common in our politically “correct” age. It is not, I humbly submit, a spiritually healthy thing to do.

After I posted yesterday on the topic of this thread I recalled the common reaction of those who were disciplined in past times through physical rebuke. This was before the 1970s after which society took a radical jump forward to the society we all know nowadays. Previous to this there were still many social practices employed that probably were as old as western culture itself. One of these practices was certainly physical rebuke. And as I mentioned yesterday its purpose was to provide a tangible social indication of what was acceptable & unacceptable behaviour.

A physical rebuke then meant that what was being rebuked was basically in the 'completely unacceptable' range. It's purpose wasn't to be violent but rather to denote the responsible effort needed in ones daily life. The connection between physical rebuke and taking up ones' personal responsibility can seem obscure or an argument precisely for violence- unless it is known that the social values of the time included a stoic bearing of all sorts of physical trials from the time that one was an infant & youth. In other words in the typical scenario of the day as I recall it, the physical rebuke was handed out to impress a given message about the need to 'meet the mark'; and then the one who received the rebuke took it in good measure. To not take it in such a way marked one as a 'cry baby', and that was about the last thing one wanted to be seen as in those days.

Thus I recall from that time little boys who had been spanked, laughing afterwards about their bravery in enduring the punishment. Some even bragged. And when you got to be a youth, punishments of various sorts could even be held up as badges of honour, especially if it was felt the perpetrators represented a bad cause. On the other hand (literally) it was accepted behaviour especially in a certain social setting for a woman to slap a man across the face if he got too cheeky; this also frequently happened with children who swore or 'talked back' (which was seen as the cardinal sin for a child in those days). Not that anyone jumped for joy upon receiving such rebukes. But basically if rebuked in such a manner you tried your best to take it in stride, as an encouragement to correct your behaviour, or you even took it with good humour. In other words what was important about physical rebuke was the manner in which you received it; and the accepted manner of receiving a rebuke meant that it led towards self discipline; not a personal melt down as it would nowadays.

One very important point here is that in those days society was expected at various given times to step into your personal life, in a way that today would be thought of as a gross violation of ones' personal space. From grandma to your auntie everyone would step in if things were getting out of hand, and advice to shape up was never far away. This was expected and accepted by all involved. To not have this would leave one feeling lost and abandoned. Which means that it comes as no surprise that the worst thing that could happen wasn't a physical rebuke (which meant that one was still part of the community if accepted in the right manner) but rather social shunning, which was commonly practiced at the time in regards to true misfits and ne'er do wells.

Now the important thing here then is context. Nowadays what with the social changes from the 1970s on, such measures are perceived as violence, and so (at least I think so) should have either no or much less place (here I'm thinking of parents disciplining their children) than in previous times. Nowadays a verbal rebuke serves almost equal purpose and as in the days of physical rebuke, can be made more or less severe according to what problem that one is addressing. Indeed it is very much so that due to the changed social condition of recent times a verbal rebuke nowadays is often more difficult for someone to bear, than a physical rebuke was for someone in the 1950s. So one needs to keep this in mind when thinking of the past & present.

Similarly then one also needs keep this in mind when speaking of the Holy Fathers, who lived not just in an older form of western society, but rather in a classically formed society, which to an even greater degree saw physical rebuke as a measure for social and moral discipline. Not as a form of violence or excuse for passion. But precisely as a measured & conscious response to unacceptable behaviour, along a kind of sliding scale of possible forms of rebuke, which ranged all of the way from a simple word, to an exhortation to do better, or finally to physical rebuke, which itself also followed a kind of sliding scale according to the nature of the rebuke.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Sacha]

OK, lets bback up a second. We can use scripture to justify absolute pacifism. Perhaps the Hutterites have it right. They live a communal life just like the original Jerusalem church, if violence erupts they simply pack up and move, just like the Jerusalem Church when they fled to Pella in 66a.d. Christ teaches when that day come hope that its not in winter or the sabbath etc, because fleeing during those circumstances are treacherous.

Are christians meant to be semi-nomadic, packing up and taking flight everytime violence is imminent?
Should we not engage in self defense since martyrdom is preferable?

Should discipline never involve spanking a child or raising the hand?

Should christians refuse military service?

What role should a man play if an assailant attacks his wife and family?

Is a 'true' christian immune from anger?

Are christians supposed to tolerate everything against them and remain pushovers abnd punching bags?

Is a particular culture which (hippocritically) speaks of pacifism more superior to an Iraqi christian who throws his shoes and hits someone, as this is culturally a method of showing disgust at an individual in the middleeast?


Presenting scriptural verses demonstrating that all violence is banned for a christian opens up a can of worms. Its a modern day western phenomenon.

Kosta, you raise important questions indeed. Unfortunately, they are outside the scope of this thread. What the OP of this thread wanted to bring attention to, Justin Farr, was not the question of pacifism generally, but rather how can we claim that the Holy Spirit is present in a process where violence is tolerated and sometimes encouraged in dealing with people whom we disagree with. Hence the title of the thread, bloodshed during councils. I moved a bit outward from that by looking at Chrysostom, but think this would be ok, since he had great influence as a preacher at the time of Chalcedon.

So that's really the focus of my comments: how should christians react to others who disagree with them or even those who are considered to be blaspheming.

Now you mention the hutterites, who are a branch of the radical reformers, the anabaptists. Putting aside their views on pacifism as it relates to war and so on aside for a moment, I think we can indeed learn something valuable from them. If they have a member who blasphemes, they deal with the situation according to community rules which approximate the teaching of Christ regarding bring forth witnesses and then in the worst of cases, ignoring the individual, if I'm not mistaken. I can appreciate how this is consistent with the belief that the fruit of the Spirit is self control and gentleness. We can be firm in dealing with the problem, without quenching the Spirit. But the minute we start yelling at the other, and worse, hitting the other, we quench the Spirit, in my view.

[Herman Blaydoe]

The Apostles were not always gentle in handling situations. Didn't a couple drop down dead in front of the Apostles (see Acts 5:1-11)? And how about this rather cryptic comment by the Holy Apostle Paul: "of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme." (1 Timothy 1:20 (http://www.monachos.net/passage/?search=1 Timothy+1:20&version=NIV))?

Herman the questioning Pooh

[Jan Sunqvist]

I personally fail to see what time frame and cultural norms have to do with whether this is acceptable from a Christian point of view or not. Using physical rebuke to discipline one's own child, is to my mind certainly not an ideal way of educating even if that ends up being the last resort to the parent. The point is, we are humans and not animals, and in raising children I think we are called to be a bit more wise then using whips or smacking someone on the head, which no matter how light is still a symbol of inflicting physical pain to get our point accross. I have never witnessed physical rebuke where this was not an expression of the parent's/persons frustration and anger, no matter how small. And that's no ideal way of teaching. I suppose that it's still better for a parent to use physical rebuke then not rebuking them at all, but then again, this as a necessary evil, when a parent has exhausted other means of appealing to the child's 'good' nature.

So I have issues with words like 'anger' and 'assault' when it comes to connecting them with Jesus Christ. There are certainly many moments of stern rebuke, but in reading the Gospels I have never felt an inkling of 'negativity' and I cannot say the same about St. John Goldenmouthed, or of St. Paul for that matter either.

Whether Christianity is a 'pacifist' religion or not, I don't know, I don't really know what that would mean. But we have seen even in the most recent wars in the Balkans, that when Church leaders don't fully know what is going on on the 'battle-field' yet see their duty as supporting the current politicians and military leaders and where the circumstances bring those power hungry warlords to the point of being essentially conscience-less criminals, well... I just strongly believe in separation of Church and State.

[Sacha]

The Apostles were not always gentle in handling situations. Didn't a couple drop down dead in front of the Apostles (see Acts 5:1-11)? And how about this rather cryptic comment by the Holy Apostle Paul: "of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme." (1 Timothy 1:20 (http://www.monachos.net/passage/?search=1 Timothy+1:20&version=NIV))?

Herman the questioning Pooh

I would see both these incidents as reinforcing my belief. Ananias and Saphira lied to Peter and were given a stern verbal rebuke which was well deserved. But Peter did not raise a hand on them. Likewise, Paul delivering Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan does not involve any physical violence on the part of Paul towards them, but a trust in God that allowing them to experience the darkness of Satan for a while with all of its trouble would awaken them to their senses and bring them back into the fold through repentance.

[Sacha]

Rob Bergen wrote:


Perhaps one of the largest problems surrounding the discussion of this issue is that some people tend to treat it as black and white rather than gray. First off, to speak to what I have mentioned previously, there is no such thing as a perfect Church. Secondly, history itself can only be read through our very modern eyes. That is to say, how can we even begin to understand the circumstances and disposition of the world 1,500 years ago? Third, there is no reason to take modern scholarship as God's living truth the same way we do not take ancient scholarship as such; to wit, the argument surrounding the historiography of Gaddis. Ergo, we are left with a tradition that is as hard to understand and as prone to fault as the next, but we use the tools given by our ancestors, mothers and fathers, to "exegete" if you will, from the past what we have as our tradition. This process in itself should be guided by our Lord, and sometimes it is not and used for selfish benefit. Such is the state of humankind, and the nature of issues that are neither black nor white. While it certainly is very tempting to hold fast to the claims of some modern scholars over and above others, these men still need to stand the test of time, and to be put up against tradition and dissected (Bl. Augustine was famous for his "retractions"). This is not to say that there is no room for novelty within the Orthodox tradition, but rather, is there room for new revelation of truth? I do not think it is up to me, you, or anybody at this time to say whether or not Gaddis, or any other recent scholarship is true to the reality of the past, but rather, it is something to deeply consider as the tradition moves forward into the future. This is how the Orthodox Church progresses, VERY slowly and with GREAT care, and how can you blame them, after so many controversies and schisms in the past?



Rob, thank you for the peaceful conservation. Much of your argument above is used identically by Protestants wishing to excuse John Calvin of his brutality and cruelty to the heretic Servetus. I see this as theological relativism, a variant on today's post modernist mood tersely expressed as 'true for you, not for me'. True that the Sermon on the Mount applies to us, but not to them. This posture is dangerous, in my view, because once it is assumed there is no end to how anyone might want to justify their behavior. Just look at the Episcopalian church and its struggle with homosexuality. Isn't one of the arguments exactly identical to yours: namely that no church is perfect and how can we begin to understand the mores of those 1500 years removed from us? That's a slippery slope we really don't want to go down on. Look, there were many who refused to engage in this violence at the time, and throughout history. There was nothing that necessitated or compelled people to be violent in coming to a theological consensus. Historian Justo Gonzalez speaks of Gregory of Nazianzus who I believe himself grew tired of that atmosphere and simply refused to engage towards the end of his life. Augustine's retractions were good, and I wish others had followed in His footsteps. Gaddis has simply presented evidence to suggest that violence was part and parcel of the conciliar development and also part of Chrysostom's teaching. I think that it's a fair question to ask, as Justin Farr the OP of this thread, well ok, the church was not perfect and the councils still sealed the deal, but was the Holy Spirit present there? I'm sure Nestorians and Monophysites ask themselves the same question and also have dark spots in their own history as well.


The question then remains as a historiographical one, not something that we can answer blindly, or by using our singular minds. Consensus at the councils (bloody or no) was not reached by singular individuals, but by all present. For example, the fifth Ecumenical council called against the Monophysites ruled that the human nature was subordinate to the divine nature in order to appease those who had Monophysite tendencies. This was a middle ground for both parties, but left out the extremeties. This is how the Orthodox arrive at the conclusion of truth, we use our God-given intellects to realize what the extremes are, and to avoid planting ourselves in the "black" or "white" areas, realizing that in fact the world is a lot more gray than we ever thought.



I understand. However, the issue for me, and I suspect for the OP on this thread, is this: I can see how the process worked, and that it involved the middle ground through the extremities. That's understandable of course. The question is however is did the end justify the means of violence and if not then how can we say these were guided by the Holy Spirit.

[Michael Stickles]

The question is however is did the end justify the means of violence and if not then how can we say these were guided by the Holy Spirit.

Ignoring the problems we've been having with the application of the word "violence" (since actual bloodshed, if it occurred, would likely fit the bill regardless of who was defining the word and in what time period), let's try looking at the question from the other side. Instead of "how can a gathering marked by violence be guided by the Holy Spirit?", maybe we should be asking "what preconditions - if any - are necessary for the Holy Spirit to guide a group of people?". I'm not sure how we can answer the former if we don't have at least some idea of the answer to the latter.

[Sacha]

Ignoring the problems we've been having with the application of the word "violence" (since actual bloodshed, if it occurred, would likely fit the bill regardless of who was defining the word and in what time period), let's try looking at the question from the other side. Instead of "how can a gathering marked by violence be guided by the Holy Spirit?", maybe we should be asking "what preconditions - if any - are necessary for the Holy Spirit to guide a group of people?". I'm not sure how we can answer the former if we don't have at least some idea of the answer to the latter.

Agreed. Are there preconditions? To that we could add, how does the Holy Spirit make His presence known? In the times of the apostles, did He operate in the apostles through any violent acts of theirs? The book of Acts and the epistles do address this I believe.

[Michael Stickles]

It sounds - correct me if I'm wrong - like you're equating the Holy Spirit's "guidance" with His "operation in", so that to say the Holy Spirit guided a council is equivalent to saying He operated in them through all their acts. I'm not assuming that, which could be one source of difference (different premises normally lead to different conclusions even if the rest of the facts are agreed upon).

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I don't know if anyone really followed my argument or not. What I was saying from personal experience of having grown up during a period when physical rebuke was commonly used at home and at school, is that it equated in effect to some degree with present methods of verbal rebuke.

In other words I am implying that by questioning the place of physical rebuke in the past in the manner being done here you also end up questioning the place of verbal rebuke in the present. Put bluntly -is it Orthodox to rebuke someone? Is this permissible when we get so easily offended and end up in even more serious states due to this?

Another last point also from personal experience. Physical rebuke in the past did not at all equate with violence. Violence was clearly distinguished from rebuke and socially frowned upon as implicitly wrong. That is why rebuke was so clearly patterned by certain norms. It was a kind of social language understand by all and that obliged following this pattern so that it was a real message and not just arbitrary outburst. And this also tended to anchor in verbal rebukes, since it was part of one overall pattern of response ranging from the subtly verbal all of the way to the physical.

To the contrary of what we tend to think nowadays, the total disengagement from a common pattern of rebuke, has led to more arbitrary and passionate reactions nowadays, and perhaps also to more outbursts of violence, not less. This is because the social patterns of the past which served as strong models of emulation, have now to a great degree collapsed.

I know it sounds unbelievable- but more regard to the self has led to more violence and abuse of the person nowadays, not less. That is because once free reign is given to oneself 'to be anything one can be' then the door to the passions is fully opened, and social convention as barrier and control factor on behaviour, is lost.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Archimandrite Irenei]

Dear friends,

It has been interesting for me to read through the five pages of this thread today, as I have not had time to read it before, as a ‘work-in-progress’, which provides the somewhat helpful opportunity to see the whole discussion thus far as a whole, and reflect on it in that way.

The question over whether the guidance and authority over the councils by the Holy Spirit is somehow to be called into question by the behaviour of the individuals who took part in them, is interesting both in that it is a question posed from an essentially Donatist position (which the Church rejected as heretical quite early on), and in that it grounds its objections in a wholly modern-day, contextualised interpretation of ‘pacifism’ and ‘violence’ that is completely divorced from Church history and an authentic reading of the Scriptures—which are read in and through that history. Taking the sole context of one modern-day conception of social norms as the guiding authority for reading a history that clearly has nothing whatsoever in common with it (a fact that really ought to cause one to question the modern-day vision, rather than the thousands of years of human history across multiple cultures that have never subscribed to anything like it), this position then forces the words of others (e.g. Jesus Christ, St John Chrysostom) into a mould that is totally foreign to them.

If the thought of physical blows and corporal correction strikes one as a kind of ‘violence’ foreign to God’s will and the Christian life, then one clearly has not much experience in Christian history or teaching. The chastisement of erring man has often been corporal: so Christ caused labour and suffering to come upon Adam and Eve as He cast them out of the Garden; so He chastised mankind with death; so He corrected Jonas with the violence of the whale; so acted many times—not as acts of ‘violence’ against His creatures, but as love that is manifest in a way that might yield correction.

Modern sensibilities have little place in assessing the rightness of actions—most of our sensibilities today are politically forged, socially willed, largely humanist interpretations of reality, which we are then daring enough to impose upon God by forcing them back into the Scriptures, etc.

Was St John exercising ‘violence’ when he struck another? This is hard to imagine, considering the intensity of his asceticism, his obvious and continual exhortations to correction and sanctity, etc. St John also knew of the power of error to produce great evil if left unchecked—and we should not forget that the Synod of Oak was called largely by the Empress Eudoxia, whose principal gripe against St John was that he had publicly attacked her excessive mode of dress: something for which she developed a life-long hatred of him, fostering the same in others. The Synod of Oak was not a synod of doctrinal discussion: it was the attempt of a disgruntled Empress to utilise a Church forum to make pride, resentment and suspicion the true markings of ecclesiastical authority—and to that St John knew that a certain correction would be more pastoral than others. One does not sweet-talk a child away from a precipice: this is not loving. One grabs, shoves, pulls, pushes—whatever is required to keep him from falling, whether or not that experience is ‘pleasant’ for the child. Similarly, St Nicholas had known what would get through to Arius, and St John knew what was required here: both for the people in the synod (whether they accepted it or not), as well as for the Church as a whole. And let us note what the response was to the Synod of Oak: the people revolted, seeing clearly that the Empress and her associates were in the wrong, threatening the Church with wrong; and a great earthquake shook the imperial city on the very night of St John’s arrest—which even Eudoxia took as a sign that God Himself was with St John and against her, and so she quickly recalled the saint from his exile.

Was St John ‘violent’ in his act? Clearly, no one at the time thought he had been—so his enemies had to resort to propaganda to make it sound as if he was. Note that delivering a blow struck no one as violent or odd: it was the invented (and nonsensical) charges of enforced sacrilege (of consuming the Holy Gifts while bleeding) that were designed to cause uproar. And they did not: for the people knew they were false.

To make St John into a ‘violent’ actor in this instance is something that is only the fruit of imposing a modern-day concept of pacifism upon him, the Church, and history. But pacifism defined in this way is wholly un-Scriptural, un-Christian, and un-historical. And until the mid-20th century (as Fr Raphael has pointed out more than once already in this thread), no one would have known what such a position was about. It is a novelty that, unfortunately, causes far more violence than it purports to get rid of.

INXC, Fr Irenei

[Anna Stickles]

I personally fail to see what time frame and cultural norms have to do with whether this is acceptable from a Christian point of view or not. Using physical rebuke to discipline one's own child, is to my mind certainly not an ideal way of educating even if that ends up being the last resort to the parent. The point is, we are humans and not animals, and in raising children I think we are called to be a bit more wise then using whips or smacking someone on the head, which no matter how light is still a symbol of inflicting physical pain to get our point accross. I have never witnessed physical rebuke where this was not an expression of the parent's/persons frustration and anger, no matter how small. And that's no ideal way of teaching. I suppose that it's still better for a parent to use physical rebuke then not rebuking them at all, but then again, this as a necessary evil, when a parent has exhausted other means of appealing to the child's 'good' nature.

So I have issues with words like 'anger' and 'assault' when it comes to connecting them with Jesus Christ. There are certainly many moments of stern rebuke, but in reading the Gospels I have never felt an inkling of 'negativity' and I cannot say the same about St. John Goldenmouthed, or of St. Paul for that matter either.

Whether Christianity is a 'pacifist' religion or not, I don't know, I don't really know what that would mean. But we have seen even in the most recent wars in the Balkans, that when Church leaders don't fully know what is going on on the 'battle-field' yet see their duty as supporting the current politicians and military leaders and where the circumstances bring those power hungry warlords to the point of being essentially conscience-less criminals, well... I just strongly believe in separation of Church and State.

Jan, this is an example of exactly the kind of drift from reality that has been talked about above. " I have never witnessed physical rebuke where this was not an expression of the parent's/persons frustration and anger, no matter how small." I am sorry that this is the case for you. Maybe you have no children yourself, and/or no close friends who use coporal punishment and so the only exposure you have is parents who do indeed get frustrated and hit their children as a last resort in frustration and anger. This is often the position of parents of small children who refuse to use corporal punishment in a discerning way, and before getting angry. The situation gets to the point where the child is so bound up in their own passions as to be beyond the point where a verbal rebuke can be responded to, the parent, after numerous ineffectual tries to calm things down starts to feel helpless and gradually more frustrated and then things explode. Most parents I know who do use discerning corporal punishment, don't reach this point. A small amount of properly timed physical pain can free the toddler from emotional passions and restore calm. These children in general grow up more obedient and less prone to needing a lot of discipline.

Notice to that the idea is not to "inflict pain to get the point across" nor is it inflicting pain to force the child to obey the will of the parent -obviously this does not reflect godly parenting. Rather it is pain inflicted to help free the child from their own passions before they are old enough to have the emotional control or intellectual strength to do this themselves. But toddlers raised like this quickly develop more emotional control at a younger age and have a more peaceful spirit then those left to run amuck through attempts at verbal rebuke alone. As St Peter says, "He who has suffered in the body is done with sin"

[Brian McDonald]

I don't know if anyone really followed my argument or not. What I was saying from personal experience of having grown up during a period when physical rebuke was commonly used at home and at school, is that it equated in effect to some degree with present methods of verbal rebuke.


I was following you on this, Fr. Raphael, and growing up, I experienced both—and found physical punishment the easier of the two. I remember as a college student in the 60’s, getting back a blue book exam in which I’d made a number of rather “puppyish” and adolescent criticisms of the great poet, Dylan Thomas. The professor’s astringent comments on my juvenile discussion make me blush to this day when I recall them. I would have preferred a physical blow. In fact, the words were a blow. But the shock of naked truth delivered by a man I respected and who was well-disposed towards me did me a lot of good.

The odd thing is that years later, as a university lecturer, I would not dream of using the kind of “shaming” language my professor back then. My criticisms as I grade are delivered in the politest of terms. And yet I sometimes feel—especially when dealing with promising students who turn in lazy and casual work—that a hard verbal blow might be just what the doctor ordered.

It seems to me that the discussion of “violence” and Christianity in this forum has sorted itself out into three interrelated but distinct issues, which should probably should be separated for the sake of clarity:

1) The appropriateness or non appropriateness of “chastisement,” physical and/or verbal (Chrysostom).
2) The resort to violence in establishing Orthodox truth. (St. Cyril’s monks in the 3rd Ecumenical council; Augustine’s use of the Lord’s words, “compel them to come in” to endorse the power of the state to suppress Donatism). This was the original focus of this “bloodshed in the councils” forum.
3) The problematic use of violence for self or national defense in view of a “straight” and literal reading of the Sermon on the Mount.

Most of what we’ve discussed would seem to fall into one of those three areas. Don’t know if there’s much more to be said on each one, but for what it’s worth here are some more thoughts:
1) It seems to me that charity, common sense, and the kind of historical perspective Fr. Raphael suggests ought to show that this is an area where good people can disagree. A number of very saintly people have believed that physical and/or verbal chastisement may serve as a “wakeup” call to those who are sleepwalking away from God. Jesus’s use of stern words and (in the case of the whip of cords) stern action would seem to confirm this possibility so to rule out harsh actions or words in the service of truth seems to have Dominical support as well as a good deal of Scripture and tradition.

3) The problem with the idea that we can simply literally and “straightforwardly follow Christ’s teachings on always turning the other cheeks is the fact that the portions of the Sermon on the Mount exist in tensions with some other teachings of the Lord. This was pointed out by Sts. Cyril and Methodius in response to some Saracens (Islamic invaders) who were arguing that the kind of Christian perfectionism being urged by Sacha, required Christians should to lay down their arms:
In the encampment of the Saracens they asked St. Cyril: "How could Christians wage war and at the same time keep the commandment of Christ about praying to God for their enemies?" To that, St. Cyril replied: "If two commandments were written in one law and given to men for fulfilling, which man will be a better follower of the law: the one who fulfills one commandment or the one who fulfills both?" To that, the Saracens replied: "Undoubtedly, he who fulfills both commandments." St. Cyril continued: "Christ our God commands us to pray to God for those who persecute us and even to do good to them; but, He also said to us: greater love cannot be shown in this world than if one lay down his life for his friends." "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (St. John 15:13). That is why we bear the insults which our enemies do to us individually and we pray to God for them; and, as a society, we defend one another and give up our lives, that you would not somehow enslave our brethren, would not enslave their souls with their bodies and would not kill them in body and soul.

2) This, the original focus of the forum seems to me in one sense to be the thorniest of the three. How is it that in many circumstances, those who followed a Lord who either rejected violence altogether or who severely restricted its use, could resort to it without apparent qualms: and this is especially true since people of the times (such as Gregory of Nazianzus who exhorted his members of the Church of the Resurrection to turn the other cheeks to their Arian tormentors) recognized the inappropriateness of coercive violence in the service of “truth”? This post is already too long, so I’ll stop at this unsatisfactory point.

[Jan Sunqvist]

I don't see how physical rebuke 'equals' verbal rebuke. To me what's essential is the intent. And yes the intent of a parent chastising their child is almost always good, but when the intent gets mixed with the parents frustration (which it almost always does), that is a passion in itself, there is a moment of slight loss of control and this sends the wrong message to the child. I stand by that. Similarly verbal rebuke can also easily miss the mark, too when the intent gets clouded by anger and the words become hurtful in a non constructive way...

On the other hand, I am not adamant about it either, sometimes physical rebuke may be necessary.

But the image of Jesus Christ physically hitting the slow moving moneychangers with a whip seems so wrong to me. God's Old Testament ways of discipline vs the Gospels and the good news I guess

Also, if I may be provocative, why is it that on Orthodox Forums, old sensibilities are always considered superior? I have seen many kids whose parents never used physical rebuke, turn out just fine. Perhaps our attitudes may, gasp, be evolving for the better in some small ways? Is this impossible? This is off topic, but so often on this forum I get a slight impression that old equals good and new bad, east good, west bad etc. I find this frustrating to be honest, because despite the many lacks of modernist wolrdviews, maybe there is something good in our modern attitudes too, no?

[Anna Stickles]

Jan,

Try visiting an Amish community where "the old" is still the norm and observe how well behaved the children are, and compare this to kids raised on modern methods who are bouncing off the walls bringing grief to parents, teachers and themselves alike.

[Herman Blaydoe]

It is not about what is "old" and what is "modern". It is about that which is eternal.

[Jan Sunqvist]

Kids bouncing off of the walls are primarily a result of kids' lack of respect for their parents, teachers etc, although there is other physiological causes that have other social and biological (such as food) causes, like ADD etc But Physical rebuke in itself is not something that will instill in a child a sense of deep respect for their parent or teacher...

And I am personally somewhat glad I don't live in a community such as the Amish... Nothing against that way of life, but I view our modern ways superior in many respects

[Jan Sunqvist]

It is not about what is "old" and what is "modern". It is about that which is eternal.

Very well said. If only that which is eternal easily lent itself to our understanding, so that each of us subscribing to it were able to find a common ground when disagreement occurs...

[Sacha]

Due to the wide nature of this topic, can we restrict ourselves to the discussion of conciliar violence/Chrysostom's teaching/actions among others (sanctify thy hand with thy holy blow) and the question of the presence/guidance of the Holy Spirit in the latter. This is at the core, an ecclesiological debate, the way I see it. Since the thread is becoming quite large, I also wanted to point out that one can probably see the gist of my argument in posts 87 and 91. Will try to get back to recent posts later tonight.

On the other hand, while they are interesting topics (perhaps worthy of another new thread), I'm not interested in discussing the effectiveness of physical punishment as a parenting technique to raise children and/or the soundness of pacifism for christians in time of war.

[Father David Moser]

Kalthough there is other physiological causes that have other social and biological (such as food) causes, like ADD etc But Physical rebuke in itself is not something that will instill in a child a sense of deep respect for their parent or teacher...

2 points
1: "Physiological causes"? Puh-leeeease! ADD is the most overdiagnosed "illness" in the modern world. It has become an excuse for any kind of behavior that is not "under control" When kids act like kids rather than little adults we call them ADD. Is ADD a valid physiological condition - certainly But its actual frequency is nowhere even close to the actual incidence (which is truly infrequent). Most of the time, "ADD" is simply an attempt by the profession educational and medical community (and parents who don't want to parent) to somehow control behavior without using the proven behavioral tools that will indeed change behavior (that includes both negative and positive reinforcement.

2."Physical rebuke, in itself, " True, physical rebuke in itself can only extinguish behavior, it cannot teach new behavior. However, in order to teach a new, replacement behavior, the old unacceptable but functional behavior must be extinguished. The most effective and best way to extinguish an undesirable behavior is by punishment (physical discomfort - ie pain - is the most effective negative reinforcer). Then one must teach and instill a new desireable replacement behavior in order to fill the vacuum left by the extinguished behavior. This is basic basic basic behavioral psychology. Try reading "Walden II" by BF Skinner to see how it works. I am not a fan of Skinner in theory (all behavior is learned -we are the sum total of our learning) - but he does offer a great deal of insight into how to change and shape behavior. Punishment coupled with positive reinforcers can train pigeons and rats how to behave in a certain way - certainly it will work with children who are much more intelligent and who learn much more quickly.


Fr David Moser

[Jan Sunqvist]

Apologies to Sacha for not keeping on topic...

I simply meant there are also other reasons for children's unruliness other then lack of respect for their parents... Many reasons, some physiological and some as silly as large quantities of refined sugars... But that's really off topic

The question to me is really what does the parent/teacher/person attempting to rebuke carry in their heart at the moment they are rebuking. I think in some ways this is more crucial whether the rebuke is verbal or physical, because their inner state at the time colours the outcome. Which is why I think, there are issues with St. John Chrysostom's words on Jews/Judaism... It's one thing to rebuke and disagree another to carry a negative non-compassionate attitude.

So I suppose it may be possible for someone to inflict physical pain as a measure of correction, but the question is are they and can they do it with Love in their heart AT the moment of rebuking?....

[Sacha]

Archimandrite Irenei wrote:


The question over whether the guidance and authority over the councils by the Holy Spirit is somehow to be called into question by the behaviour of the individuals who took part in them, is interesting both in that it is a question posed from an essentially Donatist position (which the Church rejected as heretical quite early on), and in that it grounds its objections in a wholly modern-day, contextualised interpretation of ‘pacifism’ and ‘violence’ that is completely divorced from Church history and an authentic reading of the Scriptures—which are read in and through that history. Taking the sole context of one modern-day conception of social norms as the guiding authority for reading a history that clearly has nothing whatsoever in common with it (a fact that really ought to cause one to question the modern-day vision, rather than the thousands of years of human history across multiple cultures that have never subscribed to anything like it), this position then forces the words of others (e.g. Jesus Christ, St John Chrysostom) into a mould that is totally foreign to them.



I find the premise that this is a modern day objection divorced from church history quite weak. We have the clear record of the early 1st century church, where violence by the apostles and the earliest church fathers is nowhere to be seen. Instead, in its place, we see a deliberate rejection of violence as a means to enforce doctrine. There were no brawls at the 1st council in Jerusalem, and we do not see any punches thrown by the apostles. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.





If the thought of physical blows and corporal correction strikes one as a kind of ‘violence’ foreign to God’s will and the Christian life, then one clearly has not much experience in Christian history or teaching. The chastisement of erring man has often been corporal: so Christ caused labour and suffering to come upon Adam and Eve as He cast them out of the Garden; so He chastised mankind with death; so He corrected Jonas with the violence of the whale; so acted many times—not as acts of ‘violence’ against His creatures, but as love that is manifest in a way that might yield correction.

We are discussing here the legitimacy of employing violence in dealing with others who may disagree with us on doctrine, at the most general level. More specifically in relation to the councils, whether such violence in the 4th and 5th centuries calls into question the presence of the Holy Spirit at these convenings. Therefore, we are dealing with how we ought to relate to one another as believers and considering how what we believe about that might influence our ecclesiology. It follows then, that pointing to the chastisement of man by God should not be our point of reference, but rather how God wants us to live with one another. This He has made known to us in the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ who shows us how to deal with the other in the Sermon on the Mount and most importantly by His own life. Nowhere can it be shown that He physically hit another. It is His life on earth that is our guiding light, is that not part of the heart of the reason for His incarnation, to show us what being a human is truly all about. I'm afraid that by allowing Chrysostom's teaching to hit and destroy to stand, we are regressing, not progressing in Christ-likeness.


Modern sensibilities have little place in assessing the rightness of actions—most of our sensibilities today are politically forged, socially willed, largely humanist interpretations of reality, which we are then daring enough to impose upon God by forcing them back into the Scriptures, etc.



See first paragraph above.


Was St John exercising ‘violence’ when he struck another? This is hard to imagine, considering the intensity of his asceticism, his obvious and continual exhortations to correction and sanctity, etc. St John also knew of the power of error to produce great evil if left unchecked—and we should not forget that the Synod of Oak was called largely by the Empress Eudoxia, whose principal gripe against St John was that he had publicly attacked her excessive mode of dress: something for which she developed a life-long hatred of him, fostering the same in others. The Synod of Oak was not a synod of doctrinal discussion: it was the attempt of a disgruntled Empress to utilise a Church forum to make pride, resentment and suspicion the true markings of ecclesiastical authority—and to that St John knew that a certain correction would be more pastoral than others. One does not sweet-talk a child away from a precipice: this is not loving. One grabs, shoves, pulls, pushes—whatever is required to keep him from falling, whether or not that experience is ‘pleasant’ for the child. Similarly, St Nicholas had known what would get through to Arius, and St John knew what was required here: both for the people in the synod (whether they accepted it or not), as well as for the Church as a whole. And let us note what the response was to the Synod of Oak: the people revolted, seeing clearly that the Empress and her associates were in the wrong, threatening the Church with wrong; and a great earthquake shook the imperial city on the very night of St John’s arrest—which even Eudoxia took as a sign that God Himself was with St John and against her, and so she quickly recalled the saint from his exile.



I think that your point about the Empress is fair and accurate. You seem to agree that Chrysostom did indeed strike but disbelieve the account of communion. As far as my argument goes, nothing changes. Rationalizing the behavior by either pointing to cultural idiosyncrasies or otherwise good behavior introduces a theological relativism that I am not prepared to accept. As pointed out to Rob Bergen in post 97, once one begins down that slippery slope, there is no end to the post modern mood of 'true for you, but not true for me'. Or 'valid for those in the 4-5th centuries, but not valid for us today". Further, in conflating God's chastisement of man, with the supposedly Holy Spirit inspired man's physical aggression of the other, you open the door to a dangerous form of justification for great violence which muslim jihadists and other violent groups (circumcellions for instance) are well known for.

[Sacha]

Brian Macdonald wrote:



It seems to me that the discussion of “violence” and Christianity in this forum has sorted itself out into three interrelated but distinct issues, which should probably should be separated for the sake of clarity:

1) The appropriateness or non appropriateness of “chastisement,” physical and/or verbal (Chrysostom).
2) The resort to violence in establishing Orthodox truth. (St. Cyril’s monks in the 3rd Ecumenical council; Augustine’s use of the Lord’s words, “compel them to come in” to endorse the power of the state to suppress Donatism). This was the original focus of this “bloodshed in the councils” forum.
3) The problematic use of violence for self or national defense in view of a “straight” and literal reading of the Sermon on the Mount.

Most of what we’ve discussed would seem to fall into one of those three areas. Don’t know if there’s much more to be said on each one, but for what it’s worth here are some more thoughts:



The issues as I have raised them are:

1. The legitimacy of physical aggression towards believers over matters of doctrine. (Chrysostom for example).

2. Same as your 2nd point above.

I have no interest in discussing the 3rd point, since to me, it is unrelated to the issues I raise.



1) It seems to me that charity, common sense, and the kind of historical perspective Fr. Raphael suggests ought to show that this is an area where good people can disagree. A number of very saintly people have believed that physical and/or verbal chastisement may serve as a “wakeup” call to those who are sleepwalking away from God. Jesus’s use of stern words and (in the case of the whip of cords) stern action would seem to confirm this possibility so to rule out harsh actions or words in the service of truth seems to have Dominical support as well as a good deal of Scripture and tradition.




I see a few flaws in your reasoning and train of thought. In no particular order: there is no evidence to suggest that Christ physically hit another human being. Secondly, reality is such that while some may receive the blows and accept them, others may find such unwarranted and unnecessary since a verbal rebuke would have sufficed, if they live after the blow, that is. What do you do with those who have been attacked in the name of doctrinal purity? To whom does the blood of Bishop Flavian of Constantinople who perished at the hands of Dioscorus cry out? Thirdly, if Jesus painstakingly warned us of the danger of anger in the heart, how much more should be refrain from allowing it to shape our fists into bruising machines.


3) The problem with the idea that we can simply literally and “straightforwardly follow Christ’s teachings on always turning the other cheeks is the fact that the portions of the Sermon on the Mount exist in tensions with some other teachings of the Lord. This was pointed out by Sts. Cyril and Methodius in response to some Saracens (Islamic invaders) who were arguing that the kind of Christian perfectionism being urged by Sacha, required Christians should to lay down their arms:
In the encampment of the Saracens they asked St. Cyril: "How could Christians wage war and at the same time keep the commandment of Christ about praying to God for their enemies?" To that, St. Cyril replied: "If two commandments were written in one law and given to men for fulfilling, which man will be a better follower of the law: the one who fulfills one commandment or the one who fulfills both?" To that, the Saracens replied: "Undoubtedly, he who fulfills both commandments." St. Cyril continued: "Christ our God commands us to pray to God for those who persecute us and even to do good to them; but, He also said to us: greater love cannot be shown in this world than if one lay down his life for his friends." "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (St. John 15:13). That is why we bear the insults which our enemies do to us individually and we pray to God for them; and, as a society, we defend one another and give up our lives, that you would not somehow enslave our brethren, would not enslave their souls with their bodies and would not kill them in body and soul.



Although I have said that I have no interest in discussing the issue of pacifism and war as it relates to Christian, I can say that I agree entirely with the above. Let's imagine that Arians were to make a comeback and threaten us with death or conversion. I would have no qualms in defending my loved ones. But I see that issue and the one we are discussing as entirely distinct. One deals with enemies who desire to kill us and our loved ones, the other with believers who disagree with us on doctrine but do not want to harm us.


2) This, the original focus of the forum seems to me in one sense to be the thorniest of the three. How is it that in many circumstances, those who followed a Lord who either rejected violence altogether or who severely restricted its use, could resort to it without apparent qualms: and this is especially true since people of the times (such as Gregory of Nazianzus who exhorted his members of the Church of the Resurrection to turn the other cheeks to their Arian tormentors) recognized the inappropriateness of coercive violence in the service of “truth”? This post is already too long, so I’ll stop at this unsatisfactory point.

Thank you for acknowledging that this is a bigger problem for Orthodox, catholics and calvin sympathizers than they think. It is indeed, very thorny and is not so easily dismissed with an a priori appeal to the authority of the church, or by assuming that the councils self referentially defined their own legitimacy, or by theological relativism (ok for Chrysostom and those people, but not for us today), or flawed analogy to parent child discipline. I think the closest we've come so far is Michael Stickles narrowing it down to the question of how does the Holy Spirit guide the church and its leaders? Would it ever guide them to use physical aggression in dealing with another believer who wishes us no harm but simply disagrees? I say no, I do not recognize the fruit of the Spirit in that (Galatians 5:22).

[Sacha]

Rdr Brian, I'd be interested in your thoughts on Girard's comments here and how they might apply to the topic of this thread:


You have advocated what is seen as a “non-sacrificial” reading of the death of Christ that is significantly at odds with the usual understanding of that death as a “hilasterion” that satisfies the wrath and justice of God. Could you describe that view and how your study of the formation and maintenance of human cultures has led you to it?

RG: Oh, this is a question that will require a long answer! It is not quite true that I take what you have called a “non-sacrificial reading of the death of Christ.” We must establish first of all that there are two kinds of sacrifice.

Both forms are shown together (and I am not sure anywhere else) in the story of Solomon’s judgment in the third chapter of 1 Kings (http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-040-i#)​. Two prostitutes bring a baby. They are doubles engaging in a rivalry over what is apparently a surviving child. When Solomon offers to split the child, the one woman says “yes,” because she wishes to triumph over her rival. The other woman then says, “No, she may have the child,” because she seeks only its life. On the basis of this love, the king declares that “she is the mother.”

Note that it does not matter who is the biological mother. The one who was willing to sacrifice herself for the child’s life is in fact the mother. The first woman is willing to sacrifice a child to the needs of rivalry. Sacrifice is the solution to mimetic rivalry and the foundation of it. The second woman is willing to sacrifice everything she wants for the sake of the child’s life. This is sacrifice in the sense of the gospel. It is in this sense that Christ is a sacrifice since he gave himself “for the life of the world.”

What I have called “bad sacrifice” is the kind of sacrificial religion that prevailed before Christ. It originates because mimetic rivalry threatens the very survival of a community. But through a spontaneous process that also involves mimesis, the community unites against a victim in an act of spontaneous killing. This act unites rivals and restores peace and leaves a powerful impression that results in the establishment of sacrificial religion.

But in this kind of religion, the community is regarded as innocent and the victim is guilty. Even after the victim has been “deified,” he is still a criminal in the eyes of the community (note the criminal nature of the gods in pagan mythology). But something happens that begins in the Old Testament (http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-040-i#)​. There are many stories that reverse this scapegoat process. In the story of Cain and Abel, the story of Joseph, the book of Job, and many of the psalms, the persecuting community is pictured as guilty and the victim is innocent. But Christ, the son of God, is the ultimate “scapegoat”—precisely because he is the son of God, and since he is innocent, he exposes all the myths of scapegoating and shows that the victims were innocent and the communities guilty.


http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-040-i

[Johannes Martin]

Greetings to all,
all these questions, thoughts here on this thread are very difficult because in essence they deal with the church and the holy spirit, fallen man, church history and the holy fathers (can they be teacher of church if they teach wrongly and so on...I am very tempted to write a very, very lenghty essay here as I feel many things said here were misunderstandable or unprecise or they did not depict the whole picture.
There are some reasons why I do not write a long essay. First of all my english is not good enough to write precisly on such an important matter theological and that is very important here to be precisly. Secondly because my lack of theological understanding and knowledge. Furthermore because I fear I would try to write and speak to Sasha (thank you for your many contrubations here It is really inspiring for me to watch your big thirst and engagement for truth as you wrote so much and with effort and put all this difficult questions) to defend Saint Chrysostomos which is not the point of this thread and lastly and most important because I lack the spiritual insight or to be more precisly the spiritual enlightment of the holy spirit to talk about the the holy spirit and how he guides the church, the holy fathers and teachers and the councils.

But please let me allow to try to add some thoughts ( a short essay it became though in the course of writing ) as I think this subject is very important and the question in the post is good.

1. I think we all believe here on this thread that God is love and that christianity is the religion of love, as what Jesus taught and lived was love, there exists no deeper love than his and of cource we believe that he loved his enemys and we should as christians too. At least this is what the orthodox christians believe (and I think all here on this thread).

2. What the holy scriptures, the bible, the prophets, the apostles, the holy teachers teach and should teach is to love God and man and and to hate only sin and not the sinner - as long as they are guided by the holy spirit.

3. The whole bible and the history of the bible, and the history of the church shows an interesting relationship between God and man, about the salvation of fallen man and how God uses sinful man to save mankind.
For example the holy teachers, prophet father Moses, who wrote some books of the bible and gave us the ten commandments, because of his sin he was not allowed to see the promised land (and I am not talking about the his former years when he killed an agyptian). Or the holy king David, what would Christianity and the prayers and and just every aspect of the church be without the psalms and what grave sins did he commit. We believe that in the bible the prophets and apostles enlightend by the holy spirit taught the truth and no heresys. But it is interesting how God chose people who were not perfect and sinned and erred.
And even more important how the new testament (you could say bible, OT too, but this another subject) that most people (to a more and less bigger part) use today was given us not by Jesus Christ (I mean of course somehow as God and the head of spiritual body of the church, but you know what I mean...) or by Petrus or by anythe twelve apostles BUT by
the church in the fourth century. If you believe in the bible you have to believe in the church. At least in the early church of the first centurys.
Of course you can claim this part/book/evangeliums/saying and so on is true and belongs to the bible and this not and is later added by some cleric or bishop or apostle. But it is very difficult to stick to this claim because there existed many versions and books and writings in the old testament (the jews had different traditions according to the ruling high priest) and of the new testament. Here played Saint Athanasios (and others) and certain church councils a very deceisive and important role.
Orthododox, catholic, and yes the protestant christians would never have the bible they use today without the early church. And even in the early church important holy fathers and teachers were imperfect, sinned sometimes, and erred sometimes. When it happened that they were wrong it were mostly minor issues, or they were not precise but sometimes some of the holy fathers and and mothers and saints said or wrote even wrong things (I mean according to the believe of the orthodox church) on mayor issues. The most things we have recorded today of Saint Chrysostomos is what he said in his sermons, what someone stenographed while he preached in churches. But I come later to that.

4. We all agree I think while the christians should hate sin and heresy, the sinner as a person should be loved, the pagan, the atheist, the false teacher too... but as a person. Paganism, atheism, false teachings, heresys should be disliked or even hated becaused of their consequences, harm and destruction they cause and bring to man.
When it comes to false teachings and heresys in the bible the saints and apostles and even the savoir himself speak very harsly and unfriendly to the false teachers. Jesus Christ warns about the false teachers as wolves in sheeps cloth. The teachers in the bible emphasize the importance to save the true faith to keep the faith pure, to beware of anyone who is not a true shepherd and misguides the flock.
Well what was the role of the seven ecomenical church councils?
First at all It was to safeguard the living faith (which is life in the holy spirit) of the christians and to unity the flock again in one holy faith. They did not proclaim or event new things or a new faith but when questions of differnt natures, if Jesus Christ is God and man and so on arised the councils were important to safe the faith of the church from false teachers or wolves as Arius.

5. Why did the bishops and priests on these councils sometimes debate so long, or even debate heated or even passionatly?
Why did so many saints, bearer of Christ, holy fathers in the bible and of the early church speak about and to false teachers, hereticts (I could give many examples) so unfriendly. so harsh, so unpolite. Why did they treat these persons often so rude and cold? Where was there love?
The orthodox church teaches at least as far as I know that: even when they corrected these persons (as did Jesus with the parisees, or when he drove of mercenaries from the temple), when they spoke harsh or avoided these persons or taught to avoid these heretics t, when they warned or gave these person with differnt believes bad names (there are much worse names besides wolves) IT WAS DONE BECAUSE OF LOVE.
Love to save the soul of wrong teachers, by corrections or actions from there false teachings. And most of all because of there love and care for there flock that it s not seduced and scattered and destroyed.
Like when the psalmist wishes that all sinners vanish from the face of the earth he wishes that all poor sinful man are destroyed but that sin ceases, the church wishes that heresy vanishes.
The big teachers of the orthodox church believed that all schism were caused by the cooling of love, And heresys are believed to by lies . Lies by the father of lies which destroys the unity of the believers and eventualy there relationship and faith to God to.
Of course there are a thousand and thousand examples where orthodox bishops and teachers and holy fathers treat false teachers, the believers of a differnt faith, unbelievers etc VERY KINDLY and LOVINGLY AND SPOKE DECENDLY AMD MODEST.
Where the orthodox christians behaved humility and kept silent to all accusations from them even when they were attaced (to death). So many missionaries like Saint Innocent of Alasca or Saint Sabbah the first hierarch of the serbian church and blessed orthodox kings did not babtise or missionarise by force and did not fight the heretics with their. sword or by violence but peacefully, they defended the by their good christian example of live, by their orthopraxy.

6. But there were circumstances in the past when the christians, the priest, the bishops, the teachers of the church feeled urged to defend the faith with all there strength. Of course it is even under very difficult cicumstances indeed very hard to believe that a christian would be guided and urged by the holy spirit to kill a person. But there were times and circumstances were very good christian and lovingly leaders did debate long and sometimes heated and deed not be silent as buddhist figures as it happened in the first ecomenical council of Niceae.
Times were very difficult, the struggle between the arian christians (who followed arius) and the christian priests and bishops threatend the whole church and even the empire (even emperor Constantine yielded to Arianism, which would be another good threat as he summened the council).

Unfurtunately there where killings between christians. I mean not during the council but in the decades during the ariasm thread. Mostly the aggressions and killings were started and caused and conducted by the Arians ( as far as I know) but there were some violent actions were orthodox christians were responsible too.
To come back to the first ecomenical council.
The debates were long and sometimes heated and nobody could defeat in this discussions Arius, as he spoke very eloquent and convincingly (and maybe polite too, I don`t know) until Saint Sprydon the bishop of Trymithous stand up and wanted to speak (other bishops want to stop him as he was unlearnd )
He reportedly convincend the attendans of the council by using a potsherd (or brixk stone) to illustrate how one single entity (a piece of pottery) could be composed of three unique entities (fire, water and clay); a metaper for the holy trinity.
As soon as Spyridon finished speaking, the shard is said to have miraculously burst into flame, water dripped on the ground, and only dust remained in his hand. It is told that Arius still did not believe and and was not convinced by the miracle (work of the holy spirit) and still told his heresy and that is why Saint Nicolas slapped him in the face. What we do know that even when it s possible that the holy churchfathers or a saint errs at time we do know that these holy father led a holy live, and became to a
varing degree buy their works of love (and not by their intelectual cabilities) and of course the grace vessels of the holy spirit. Wheter because of this deed holy Bishop Nicolas was not a saint anymore (which I do not believe) and lost for all or if it was a sin at all is not for me to judge.

7. But now we come to the subject if it can be love to slap somebody in the face (well of course there is this famous incident when the prophet in the old testaments asks to be slapped in the face but I assume Arius did not ask for it).

As we all agree that the holy fathers taught or should have taught only to love your neighbor, the only permitance for slapping in the face is when the slapping in the face is an action of love. As for example if it could -maybe- be an act of discipline as is mentioned already in the post. When Saint Chrysostomos speaks about upbringing of children he for example he says that slapping childen is the ultima ratio (you should before speak with children, or look sternly and only very seldom use it and never out of passion, while you are angry) contradary to the customs of these times.
I personally never heard of saints and holy church fathers who (I mean of course when the became holy, like saul who became paul) slapped heretics besides Saint Nicolas.

And besides this one quote of St Chrysostomos I do not know other church fathers who proposed or suggested slapping or punching heretics. But I am not so well read in the holy fathers and/or maybe I overread it (as I did not focus on it).
But I know many passages of the holy fathers or from accounts of the livefor example the desert fathers where they seemingly do not show love to the heretics. So as I am no expert on the holy father and saints on slapping heretics I would like to broaden this question.
8. There is not only physical punishment as slapping, but there is psychological punishment too and sometimes it hurts even more as I experienced as a school teacher and student. Is it an action of love, a discipline, a punishment for the good, when as the bible says we should stay away from heretics? We assume so for neither the apostles nor Jesus Christ himself taught us cold behaving.
When the holy desert fathers, these man so full of love and humility and silence and devoid of anger did not warmhartly accept heretic pilgrims but were cold or did not speak to heretics at all or accused them of beeing heretics in the face (and there were certainly good people with sensitive souls among the- you could say thatSaint Basil the great theologican was first a heretic too after all- that were seriously offended).

9. If the orthodox church claims to be the one and only church why could it happen that orthodox christians and kings sinned and were violate and killed people in certain times of history? This is a whole new thread

10. Why do in our times, especially in the western world, the orthodox teachers do counsel at times differnt as in past times. In our days, where most orthodox people live scattered among nonorthodox people, or even heretics, for example most protestant christian in Germany who I know, do not believe in the devine nature of Jesus Christ ( not God and man but a somehow holy prophet or sth like that) and maybe you could call them for that New Arians or sth. like that. But never did a orthodox priest or a bishop advice me to stay away from this protestants or to correct them or to accuse them of beeing false teachers- If ever this subject rised at all they adviced me win them buy may good example (which mostly failed unfortunately).
I think there is a reason which explains why attitudes to heretics changed through the centuries... but I have to go to work now to school...
Please allow me to add two more points which deal with Saint Chrysostomos and than the later councils later.

I doubt that I succeded in answering the question thoroughly or very useful until know (or will supposly later with adding of the two lacking points too) but it is such a complex subject, maybe in order that the discussions in this thread are being more fruitful, we should concentrate on one point and one small question and open up a new thread with what you said in your last post: "But the minute we start yelling at each other, and worse, hitting the other, we quench the Spirit" because this is more easily.
But the subject is important to me as when I wrote the holy fathers they all spoke of love to me and I never connected the teaching of the holy fathers with promoting hate or brutality...or starting yelling at each other ... oh I see there are already new post while I wrote this slowl while I worked with the dictionary but I have to catch ma train now...

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Jan Sunqvist wrote:


I don't see how physical rebuke 'equals' verbal rebuke. To me what's essential is the intent. And yes the intent of a parent chastising their child is almost always good, but when the intent gets mixed with the parents frustration (which it almost always does), that is a passion in itself, there is a moment of slight loss of control and this sends the wrong message to the child. I stand by that. Similarly verbal rebuke can also easily miss the mark, too when the intent gets clouded by anger and the words become hurtful in a non constructive way...

What I meant is that the effect of physical rebuke was not felt by those who endured it to be a form of violence. This is because it fit into a whole structure of patterned behaviour that was the contrary to arbitrary outbursts (which was socially frowned upon). It is because this sense of what is acceptable has been lost, along with the social/moral structure that supported it, that parents have so much more difficult time nowadays, disciplining their children. There simply is no social moral model to turn to that incorporates the Orthodox understanding of responsibility manifested with due measure.

Once the self comes into the picture as the main focus and ideal, both for those who seek to guide others and for those being guided, then there is little that is stable to aim for anymore. That is because responsibility itself is actually contradicted when the self becomes what is mainly catered to in regards to the child. That indeed is why nowadays the incidence of violence against children is actually much higher than previously. Ironically in terms of modern society's message, it is due to catering to the self in all things, that confusion (since the self unregistered with something higher is fundamentally unstable) and passion have actually become the main guiding factors in regards to others. I know that this is not society's message to itself. But it is the actual effect of placing the self in terms of who one guides, on a pedestal that one must cater to at all costs. As we are continually told, if we do not cater to each other in such a fashion untold psychological damage results. I would say though that the evidence quite clearly shows that the incidence of psychological and moral damage we see nowadays in so many is precisely from the opposite; from allowing no stability anymore to the person through an understood structure of guidance and rebuke. The results of this may seem at first sight pleasing to oneself; it allows us and our children free reign to express ourselves and do as we wish; but this ends up completely uprooting the person and giving them no solid ground in which to grow.


But the image of Jesus Christ physically hitting the slow moving moneychangers with a whip seems so wrong to me. God's Old Testament ways of discipline vs the Gospels and the good news I guess

As Fr Irenei mentioned, this is to impose modern standards on Christ. What after all is more fearsome and chastising than the threat of eternal punishment or the loss of one's soul? As pointed out there is a physical aspect to this which should be borne in mind. Both body & soul will be chastised- ie rebuked by God's judgement.


Also, if I may be provocative, why is it that on Orthodox Forums, old sensibilities are always considered superior? I have seen many kids whose parents never used physical rebuke, turn out just fine. Perhaps our attitudes may, gasp, be evolving for the better in some small ways? Is this impossible? This is off topic, but so often on this forum I get a slight impression that old equals good and new bad, east good, west bad etc. I find this frustrating to be honest, because despite the many lacks of modernist wolrdviews, maybe there is something good in our modern attitudes too, no?

It isn't the old in itself Jan that we are interested in. Rather it is the guidance of tradition but as applied to the present. Which means that in what the Orthodox aim for there is always the element of something new & old at once.

Also it is simple fact that as you go back in time then society is more consciously infused with the principles of the Church. And as we go forward this is very consciously less so. This serves little purpose if it is only for reasons of nostalgia, ie to dream of the good old days, since in western society the good old days were also a step down from something that preceded it. But if there is a way that we can recover something valuable that was lost, then this is a good thing, like recovering the lost coin of the Gospel.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Archimandrite Irenei]

Dear Sacha,

I'm afraid there is little discussion to be had with your point of view, since you are quite firmly rooted in your own personal understanding and quite willing to use it to dismiss evidence here, re-interpret it there, and so forth to make it fit a paradigm of pacifism that you have chosen as the correct criterion for behaviour.

Your usage of 'violence' is, as I suggested before, flawed; and though you dismiss outright the criticism that such modern-day conceptions ought not to be read back into the past (yourself returning very quickly to doing so: 'violence by the apostles and the earliest church fathers is nowhere to be seen'), the simple fact of the matter is that your view on these matters completely shades and shapes how you see the past and read its details.

Similarly, your dismissal of God's behaviour towards man, and His chastisement of him, rather misses the Christian point. You write: 'pointing to the chastisement of man by God should not be our point of reference, but rather how God wants us to live with one another'; but Christ explicitly shows that how He relates to man is how we are to relate to one another. His actions are the focal points for determining our own.

Similarly, and in a most connected way, your apparent divorce of Christ incarnate in Galilee and Christ the pre-eternal God, as a tremendous theological problem in its own right, and radically distorts your reading of God's love. Christ who spoke of love in Jerusalem is the same Christ who smote the first-born of Egypt. Christ who gave the sermon on the mount is the same Christ who commanded pain and toil after Eden; who destroyed the Amalekites, and so on. You cannot base your views on Christ's behaviour and teachings solely on one dimension of His eternity, as you seem entirely willing to do.

The teaching given by Christ on the right correction of error -- including that which is physical and abrupt -- has been consistently revealed by Him since the foundation of the world, and has been maintained by Christians from the first. When it is appropriate, when it is necessary, it is carried out; when it is not, it is not. One does not engage in a specific manner of correction simply because one can; one does this when it is needed -- and so if the apostles in the testimony of their work that survives, did not face this need, obviously they would not have employed it. But when the followers of Christ have required it, they have used it -- just as God Himself is at times tender, soft, quiet; at others strong, forceful, commanding; at times He consoles, at times He chastises; at times He heals, at times He smites (and your dislike of the term 'smite' seems quite strange in light of the fact that this term is used to describe God's means of chastising man on numerous occasions) -- and it is God Himself, incarnate in the Son, who is the Christian's example for right behaviour and love towards our neighbour.

INXC, Fr Irenei

[Jan Sunqvist]

At the moment I am confused as to what the difference is between 'violence' and 'righteous anger' from which one could administer physical rebuke such that for the person being chastised it is not felt to be an 'outburst'.

Again to me it seems that what really transmits is dependent on the state of the person aiming to rebuke... And since I wasn't there I have no place really accusing anybody of violence, but I am still confused as to how did those at this council feel about being hit? A heretic or a blasphemer can be equally convinced he is 'right' and can hit the chastiser back and where does this lead? In some way I suppose that the personal relationship ie hierarchy comes into play. If you subscribe to someone being an authority figure for you and they physically hit you, then yes this could be a wake up call for you if you sense that they do not hit you out of hateful feelings (not even a momentary clouding of the nous). And how few can really do this??? Again, I really think the question is about what it means to be righteously angry in a 'non passionate' way...
But in any case, if you do not see them as an authority figure over you, or a teacher for you etc, you have absolutely no place physically rebuking them whatsoever because this is tempting both yourself and them and an inviting them to a fight...

[Rob Bergen]

Fr. Irenei really gets to the issue at hand. In a sense, we are all stubbornly adhered to our own opinions surrounding this topic. As he mentioned in a previous posting, we still need to remember that the heresy of the Donatists was rejected by orthodox theologians. If we proceed down that path again, then our Church and indeed, our whole religion becomes meaningless. Without the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the presence of God in the mysteries of the Church, we are therefore subscribing to the idea of Total Depravity, which is an awful teaching. It has been established that despite the goodness or badness of certain individuals (St. John and many others) the work of the Holy Spirit is NEVER "quenched." If we say that the Spirit does not work in those who sin, then we preclude the whole human race from ever reaching that divine union through the grace (Spirit of Truth) of God. Likewise, if we say that the "violent" behavior of those in the past precludes the "correctness" of the decisions of the councils, we subscribe ourselves to the rejection of God's love and grace for the sinner.

We must remember, that for the Orthodox there is a hierarchy of what is considered to be most true. First we look at the life of Christ itself. Then we look to the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition of the Saints. When I say that we look at the life of Christ, I do not mean that we must rely on solely scriptural evidence, but also the evidence left by all other members of the Christian faith of old. Some here may not agree with this, but I think this is how Christians are to understand history, first through Christ (and like Fr. Irenei stated, this is God Himself - so we cannot exclude the actions of God in the past, for God does act outside of time), and then through our scriptural evidence and holy tradition.

There is a parable that mentions something about taking the log out of one's eye before removing the speck from another's. I think this is highly appropriate in the context of this particular forum, as we all tend to walk around with these logs. The purpose of Orthodoxy is to look at tradition and scripture outside of time, much like God acts outside of time. When we divorce our tradition and hold it up with scripture and compare it to the life of Christ we look to see if it fits together, like jello in a jello mould (The mould being Christ and the Jello being scripture and tradition). In order for this to even happen, we must believe, unlike the Donatists, that God actively works through humanity, and speaks through his grace given in the sacraments and life in his Church, knowing fully that we are indeed all sinners, and prone to using the tools given to us (what may be called violence or rebuke or whatever) inappropriately.

If this makes me a theological relativist, then so be it, that is the log in my eye.

Lord have mercy on me, a sinner

Rob

[Anna Stickles]

I am confused as to what the difference is between 'violence' and 'righteous anger' from which one could administer physical rebuke such that for the person being chastised it is not felt to be an 'outburst'.

One thing to be considered here is that our society teaches us that any use of physical rebuke is abuse, is violence, therefore you and I are already pretrained to see and react in a certain way to this.

You read literature, from the beginning of this century and you see that boys would get into fist fights just for the fun of it, as a competition, and afterward would shake hands and walk away congratulating each other on various "good points" of the fight - and the mothers would clean up the black-eyes and bloody noses at home without a fuss. Now mothers would freak out and want to sue the person who "beat up my baby". The winner of the fight would get chastised for abuse and suspended from school. The loser would be offered psychological counseling just to make sure they don't get depressed and try to commit suicide. I mean of course a boy brought up with this latter kind of feedback is going to grow up thinking any kind of physical "violence" is an offense and a sin and feel it as an unfair outburst. But this boy is in a far different position from the boy growing up 100 yrs ago. Even those boys a 100 yrs ago who were experiencing real physical bullying were not coddled and trained to be offended victims, but were trained to handle themselves in such a way as to shake it off, developing the internal strength to deal with this.

What is needed for a person not to feel a physical rebuke as an outburst is being brought up in a different culture with a different viewpoint, or they have to completely retrain the emotional and mental perceptions that have been trained into them from this modern society.

Someone brought up in modern society can't simply project their own perception of an action nor emotional reactions in a given situation onto other people in other cultures and expect this to reflect what is really going on in another person's interpretation of a given experience.

I have not been following most of this thread, but is there historical evidence that whatever physical rebuke was done at the councils, that it was indeed done in an outburst of anger and not simply as a rationally discerned appropriate action?

I really do not think, especially as we go back in time, that this type of thing is so rare as you suppose, or having to come from some super-spiritual state. Could it be that the view of history we have is colored by our own society's interpretation of any kind of physical rebuke being intrinsically violent?

Many in our own society would view a considered and thought out action of physical rebuke to be more sinful then an uncontrolled outburst - since at that point the person is purposely and in full control of themselves "being violent". Re discussions of Jesus cleaning out the temple above and how this is being reinterpreted to fit a view formed entirely by our modern sensibilities.

Basically the modern prejudice we are dealing with is that any type of physical or psychological pain inflicted on a person is intrinsically violent. This comes in a context of a materialistic culture that is in the business of teaching everyone that the highest moral value is to preserve our personal space or happiness. It used to be considered a virtue to ignore other people's passions in a self-controlled manner. Taking offense and being provoked to unconsidered action at personal insult was considered a weakness. Now society considers it a virtue to take someone to court for sexual inuendos at work or to otherwise "protect one's personal rights", where this is nothing more then a cover-up for taking offense at some kind of insult. We don't even call it insult anymore, we call it mistreatment.

[Michael Stickles]

Fr Irenei's comment:


Christ who spoke of love in Jerusalem is the same Christ who smote the first-born of Egypt. Christ who gave the sermon on the mount is the same Christ who commanded pain and toil after Eden; who destroyed the Amalekites, and so on. You cannot base your views on Christ's behaviour and teachings solely on one dimension of His eternity,

got me to thinking of the Holy Spirit along the same lines. We had asked, how does the Holy Spirit manifest himself? In the New Testament we see his action explicitly mentioned in the conception of Christ, numerous cases of prophesying, the tongues of fire and speaking in new tongues on Pentecost, boldness in preaching, etc. What examples do we see in the Old Testament of the manifestation of the Spirit of the Lord? Some, primarily in Judges, were rather "violent", as these examples show:


But when they cried out to the LORD, he raised up for them a deliverer, Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother, who saved them. The Spirit of the LORD came on him, so that he became Israel’s judge and went to war. The LORD gave Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aram into the hands of Othniel, who overpowered him.
- Judges 3:9-10

Now all the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples joined forces and crossed over the Jordan and camped in the Valley of Jezreel. Then the Spirit of the LORD came on Gideon, and he blew a trumpet, summoning the Abiezrites to follow him. He sent messengers throughout Manasseh, calling them to arms, and also into Asher, Zebulun and Naphtali, so that they too went up to meet them.
- Judges 6:33-35

Samson went down to Timnah together with his father and mother. As they approached the vineyards of Timnah, suddenly a young lion came roaring toward him. The Spirit of the LORD came powerfully upon him so that he tore the lion apart with his bare hands as he might have torn a young goat. But he told neither his father nor his mother what he had done.
- Judges 14:5-6

As he approached Lehi, the Philistines came toward him shouting. The Spirit of the LORD came powerfully upon him. The ropes on his arms became like charred flax, and the bindings dropped from his hands. Finding a fresh jawbone of a donkey, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men.
- Judges 15:14-15

As for the Spirit of God working through men who are not only flawed, but outwardly manifesting those flaws - the case of Samson, especially the story of his riddle to the men of Timnah in the latter half of Judges 14, seems to say that he can and has.

[Sacha]

Fr. Irenei really gets to the issue at hand. In a sense, we are all stubbornly adhered to our own opinions surrounding this topic. As he mentioned in a previous posting, we still need to remember that the heresy of the Donatists was rejected by orthodox theologians. If we proceed down that path again, then our Church and indeed, our whole religion becomes meaningless. Without the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the presence of God in the mysteries of the Church, we are therefore subscribing to the idea of Total Depravity, which is an awful teaching. It has been established that despite the goodness or badness of certain individuals (St. John and many others) the work of the Holy Spirit is NEVER "quenched." If we say that the Spirit does not work in those who sin, then we preclude the whole human race from ever reaching that divine union through the grace (Spirit of Truth) of God. Likewise, if we say that the "violent" behavior of those in the past precludes the "correctness" of the decisions of the councils, we subscribe ourselves to the rejection of God's love and grace for the sinner.



I am nearing the end of my contribution to this thread. Rob, you're basically using a circular argument which goes like this: we rejected heretics therefore we must be approved. Note that there is no thought in that argument given to the possibility that the manner in which heretics were rejected was displeasing to God. It's an unfalsifiable posture from the onset and so we've come to an impasse. Also, I believe those 2 propositions you make above are non sequiturs. No, it doesn't necessarily imply that your 'whole religion becomes meaningless'. It could simply imply that there is a real need for repentance, without which indeed, the proper outward religion would become meaningless in God's eyes. It wouldn't be meaningless if true repentance was embraced. The other non sequitur is that recognizing the mistakes in the councils necessarily means that one would have to espouse total depravity. Again, not at all, such a recognition would instead prove that the grace of the Holy Spirit is at work in cleansing the church. But of course, as I've been told in this thread, don't expect such to happen.


We must remember, that for the Orthodox there is a hierarchy of what is considered to be most true. First we look at the life of Christ itself. Then we look to the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition of the Saints. When I say that we look at the life of Christ, I do not mean that we must rely on solely scriptural evidence, but also the evidence left by all other members of the Christian faith of old. Some here may not agree with this, but I think this is how Christians are to understand history, first through Christ (and like Fr. Irenei stated, this is God Himself - so we cannot exclude the actions of God in the past, for God does act outside of time), and then through our scriptural evidence and holy tradition.



But that's precisely the circularity Rob. What if there are elements in the tradition that aren't holy?


There is a parable that mentions something about taking the log out of one's eye before removing the speck from another's. I think this is highly appropriate in the context of this particular forum, as we all tend to walk around with these logs. The purpose of Orthodoxy is to look at tradition and scripture outside of time, much like God acts outside of time. When we divorce our tradition and hold it up with scripture and compare it to the life of Christ we look to see if it fits together, like jello in a jello mould (The mould being Christ and the Jello being scripture and tradition). In order for this to even happen, we must believe, unlike the Donatists, that God actively works through humanity, and speaks through his grace given in the sacraments and life in his Church, knowing fully that we are indeed all sinners, and prone to using the tools given to us (what may be called violence or rebuke or whatever) inappropriately.

If this makes me a theological relativist, then so be it, that is the log in my eye.



I think we need to make a distinction between judging and discerning. There is vast gap between the two. Christ did not say you shall judge them by their fruit, but rather, you shall know them by their fruit. It is the fruit of the councils that I call into question, and by so doing, I am merely asking an ecclesiological question: Do these councils reflect the working of the Holy Spirit or that of the flesh? Unlike the Donatists, I would never look down on a traditore who has repented of his weakness and is ready to start afresh on the road to holiness and theosis. In all likelihood, I would exhibit the same weakness myself. But there needs to be a genuine sense of repentance, a recognition that something did go wrong. I too, believe that God works through and despite our humanity, and that the Spirit forgives, but always within the framework of repentance and humility. The stance of 'we have done no wrong because we are the church' is a circular one which does not allow the grace of God to penetrate, by definition.

[Sacha]

Fr Irenei's comment:



got me to thinking of the Holy Spirit along the same lines. We had asked, how does the Holy Spirit manifest himself? In the New Testament we see his action explicitly mentioned in the conception of Christ, numerous cases of prophesying, the tongues of fire and speaking in new tongues on Pentecost, boldness in preaching, etc. What examples do we see in the Old Testament of the manifestation of the Spirit of the Lord? Some, primarily in Judges, were rather "violent", as these examples show:



As for the Spirit of God working through men who are not only flawed, but outwardly manifesting those flaws - the case of Samson, especially the story of his riddle to the men of Timnah in the latter half of Judges 14, seems to say that he can and has.

I believe that we are called to read the old in light of the new. The Son of Man came to save and not destroy. We are called to imitate Him in His incarnation. That involves turning the cheek when someone wants to blaspheme, not assaulting them with a donkey's jawbone.

[Rob Bergen]

It is the fruit of the councils that I call into question, and by so doing, I am merely asking an ecclesiological question: Do these councils reflect the working of the Holy Spirit or that of the flesh?

Note that there is no thought in that argument given to the possibility that the manner in which heretics were rejected was displeasing to God.

Why ask question to which you have already made a decision about? It is clear your standpoint on this issue is one, and mine is another. The logs in our eyes are literally clashing against one another, preventing any movement in either direction.

I think the manner in which earthly business (that of councils) does not reflect or even touch whether or not the the Spirit is effective. It is a moot point to say that God is displeased with how this or that is conducted. I would say that more often than not He may be displeased with our sinful ways, but pleased when we repent.

With Love,

Rob

[Sacha]

I would say that more often than not He may be displeased with our sinful ways, but pleased when we repent.

With Love,

Rob

I'll leave on a point on which we can agree and give you all the last word.

Special thanks to you Rob, for your Christ-likeness in this debate. I can learn a lot from you.

Peace,
Sacha

[Rob Bergen]

What computerized debate lacks is the use of vocal expression, and perhaps a clarity of thoughtful argument. It could well be that often we talk past each-other without really getting to the essence of what is actually being said. More often then not, I get into debates like this one, only to realize much later that what was being debated was two sides of the same coin.

Be not discouraged!

[Brian McDonald]

Sacha says:


I would have no qualms in defending my loved ones. But I see that issue and the one we are discussing as entirely distinct. One deals with enemies who desire to kill us and our loved ones, the other with believers who disagree with us on doctrine but do not want to harm us.

Sacha, I see that we’re agreed that pacifism is neither fully germane to the limited focus of this forum topic nor something either of us would endorse in its strict form. Let me note in passing, however, that I’m a bit surprised at your views here since your insistence on a strict and “straightforward” reading of the Sermon on the Mount would seem to require the kind of total pacifism of the Anabaptists. I know that most of my Mennonite friends won’t allow that violent self-defense is acceptable in any circumstances.

To segue to another topic that’s been stirring the waters here: from what I know of the Amish kids I went to school with, their pacifist parents clearly did not view physical rebuke of their children as an act of violence. Of course as several posts have noted, no one in the l950’s, when I was growing up, equated physical discipline with violence. (Still, if my parents and friends’ parents were typical, a clear distinction was drawn between a couple of hard swats on the rump and abusive beating.)

As for the “believer on believer” violence that has sometimes occurred in Church councils and throughout history, who could support that? We read with sinking hearts the following from the great and impartial l9th century historian of the Church, Phillip Schaff:


At the third general council, at Ephesus, 431, all accounts agree that shameful intrigue, uncharitable lust of condemnation, and coarse violence of conduct were almost as prevalent as in the notorious robber-council of Ephesus in 449; though with the important difference, that the former synod was contending for truth, the latter for error.

Note that we need to read both parts of what Schaff says: on the one hand, “coarse violence” in battling for truth. On the other, there was a real truth to be battled for: Schaff goes on to write:


In all these outbreaks of human passion, however, we must not forget that the Lord was sitting in the ship of the church, directing her safely through the billows and storms. The Spirit of truth, who was not to depart from her, always triumphed over error at last, and even glorified himself through the weaknesses of his instruments. Upon this unmistakable guidance from above, only set out by the contrast of human imperfections, our reverence for the councils must be based. (History of the Christian Church. Vol III: Nicene and Post Nicene Christianity. 5th Edition. 1910. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1985. 348.)

Does the Lord spurn to fill the earthen and sinful vessels of His Church with the treasure of his truth? If so, as St. Paul says in another context: “we of all men are most miserable” because the only kind of humans the Lord could reveal himself to are sinners. As Rob Bergen puts it so well.


If we say that the Spirit does not work in those who sin, then we preclude the whole human race from ever reaching that divine union through the grace (Spirit of Truth) of God. Likewise, if we say that the "violent" behavior of those in the past precludes the "correctness" of the decisions of the councils, we subscribe ourselves to the rejection of God's love and grace for the sinner.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Rdr Brian McDonald wrote:


Note that we need to read both parts of what Schaff says: on the one hand, “coarse violence” in battling for truth. On the other, there was a real truth to be battled for: Schaff goes on to write:

In all these outbreaks of human passion, however, we must not forget that the Lord was sitting in the ship of the church, directing her safely through the billows and storms. The Spirit of truth, who was not to depart from her, always triumphed over error at last, and even glorified himself through the weaknesses of his instruments. Upon this unmistakable guidance from above, only set out by the contrast of human imperfections, our reverence for the councils must be based. (History of the Christian Church. Vol III: Nicene and Post Nicene Christianity. 5th Edition. 1910. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1985. 348.)

Philip Schaff's ecclesiology from what I can see is not Orthodox (which is no surprise since he was Protestant). That Christ directs the Church even though its members are weak is true. However from the first testimony of the Apostles meeting in council as given by Acts, we can see that Christ guides the Church, precisely through the active participation & guidance of its human members in the Holy Spirit. This is what makes it a true council in the first place.

In other words for Orthodox ecclesiology the below quote from Schaff is a contradiction in terms since a passion dominated gathering can never lead to a true council as guided by the Holy Spirit. This doesn't mean that controversy wouldn't take place and argument, or even tempers rise. But it does mean that at the end of the day that the fact it was accepted as a true council for the guidance of the wider Church, means that its human members came to their basic resolutions as the result of actively seeking Christ's truth in a manner worthy of Him. Otherwise in Orthodox terms there is no reason to accept such a council as being of and for the Church.


At the third general council, at Ephesus, 431, all accounts agree that shameful intrigue, uncharitable lust of condemnation, and coarse violence of conduct were almost as prevalent as in the notorious robber-council of Ephesus in 449

Apart from the fact that all accounts do not agree that the 3rd Council was an event of 'shameful intrigue...' (the accounts found in the Lives of the Saints for example would portray it in quite a different fashion) it could be said again that the Church when it resolves matters, whether through active rebuke (and what council didn't actively rebuke some sort of doctrinal or disciplinary matter?) or active urging, achieves this not as the result of intrigue & passion, but through the godly life of Her members.

Otherwise again we end up with a clear contradiction in terms, ie the Church being guided by Christ despite the life of Her own members.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Brian McDonald]

Father Raphael wrote


Philip Schaff's ecclesiology from what I can see is not Orthodox (which is no surprise since he was Protestant). That Christ directs the Church even though its members are weak is true. However from the first testimony of the Apostles meeting in council as given by Acts, we can see that Christ guides the Church, precisely through the active participation & guidance of its human members in the Holy Spirit.

Phillip Schaff was a Protestant (and the implication that the adjective “Protestant” is in itself sufficient to disqualify a statement troubles me a bit), but he was also sympathetic to Orthodoxy: so much so that it hurt him professionally. Before I go on to respond, I’d like to bring up something Rob said:


What computerized debate lacks is the use of vocal expression, and perhaps a clarity of thoughtful argument. It could well be that often we talk past each-other without really getting to the essence of what is actually being said. More often then not, I get into debates like this one, only to realize much later that what was being debated was two sides of the same coin.

Boy is that true! Forum debates vs. face-to-face conversation are like the difference between gross and fine motor movement. Getting things straightened out and clarified between apparently competing points of view is such a laborious and clumsy process!

With that in mind, let me make clear that I agree completely that “Christ guides the Church, precisely through the active participation & guidance of its human members in the Holy Spirit.” I no longer accept (if I ever did) the crypto-Calvinist view that human beings are simply passive lumps of clay whom God kneads this way or that, let along the fathers of the Ecumenical Councils. I was emphasizing—perhaps over-emphasizing—the personal and individual fallibility of the council fathers in order to make a point to Sacha that the presence of elements of coercion, rivalry, and even violence in some of the councils does not automatically invalidate the truth of their dogmatic decrees. I thought that on this point I was in disagreement only with him. Am I also I disagreement with you, Father? Do you believe that some of events and tactics of, say, the third ecumenical council arose to no more than heated debates or justifiably forceful actions? If so, I think most church historians would not agree with you, and that not on the grounds of their Protestantism, Catholicism or secularism, but simply on the grounds of their thorough scholarship. The two historians I’ve referred to in my post are both such scholars and are as fair-minded as it is possible to be.

So back to my question: do you agree with Sacha that if history should show that some members of the great Ecumenical councils were sometimes overcome by their passions (whatever their virtues) that this would be a prima facie argument against their truth? If so, then I think I must (and very respectfully) demur. Or do you believe that quite a good deal of human failure in a council is not incompatible with God’s guiding men to the truth? If so, I think we’re in agreement.

Along these lines, is it relevant that Gregory of Nazianzus—who was forced out of the presidency of the 2nd Ecumenical Council wrote later:


To tell the truth, I am inclined to shun every collection of bishops, because I have never yet seen that a synod came to a good end, or abated evils instead of increasing them. For in those assemblies (and I do not think I express myself too strongly here) indescribable contentiousness and ambition prevail, and it is easier for one to incur the reproach of wishing to set himself up as judge of the wickedness of others, than to attain any success in putting the wickedness away. Therefore I have withdrawn myself, and have found rest to my soul only in solitude.

There is of course a note of personal bitterness here (Gregory was very capable of that); but that’s sort of my point.

[Sacha]

Rdr Brian wrote:


I no longer accept (if I ever did) the crypto-Calvinist view that human beings are simply passive lumps of clay whom God kneads this way or that, let along the fathers of the Ecumenical Councils. I was emphasizing—perhaps over-emphasizing—the personal and individual fallibility of the council fathers in order to make a point to Sacha that the presence of elements of coercion, rivalry, and even violence in some of the councils does not automatically invalidate the truth of their dogmatic decrees. I thought that on this point I was in disagreement only with him.

Just to clarify: I do not dispute the final outcome of Chalcedon and the 3 preceding councils. What I dispute is whether the Holy Spirit was truly present in the proceedings, because I fail to see the fruit of the Spirit in those councils.

Let me use Calvin as an example, whom I also reject as a teacher (pls understand the distinction between discerning who we ought to listen on the basis of their fruit/Jesus' warning and judging, I believe it is our prerogative to do the former but not the latter) completely for his violence and cruelty to others. Calvin rightfully pointed out the abuse of penance and other works by the catholic church in his day. He came to the right conclusion there. But was such necessarily inspired by the Spirit? Not necessarily so, it could have been the result of the flesh. Even the Greeks, without the aid of the Spirit arrived at certain truths that advanced them closer to the Truth without knowing Christ. But it was done in the flesh.

So to me, while certain councils may have reached a conclusion satisfactory to most, it's not necessarily true therefore that the process by which that conclusion was reached is one that God approved of. To argue otherwise is necessarily a circular and infalsifiable proposition. I call that process (not the outcome) into question, and I am not alone in pointing to some serious issues there, see Gregory of Nazianzus' own words on the matter (above).

[Anna Stickles]

Rdr Brian,


I was emphasizing—perhaps over-emphasizing—the personal and individual fallibility of the council fathers in order to make a point to Sacha that the presence of elements of coercion, rivalry, and even violence in some of the councils does not automatically invalidate the truth of their dogmatic decrees.
...
do you agree with Sacha that if history should show that some members of the great Ecumenical councils were sometimes overcome by their passions (whatever their virtues) that this would be a prima facie argument against their truth?


The bigger question that has to be come to terms with is how individual passion is understood in relation to the Church at large. One thing that we have to do if we are to understand Orthodox ecclesiology correctly is make the effort to put the individual into a place of less importance and understand things on the larger level of the Body of Christ.

Both ecclesiologies would say that the individual and individual sin is not automatically going to invalidate the working of God in the Church. However, and this is a big however, the way in which this is perceived to be working is very different. In one God is working despite the individual, in the other God is working through the Body of Christ as a whole, within which different individual's may be playing various parts. The individual is not given the place of primacy such that God has to work either through or despite them. Rather the sacramental reality of the Body of Christ - this Mystery- is given the primacy as that which all the individuals are participating in and which God is working through.

I have not nearly done this justice and Father Raphael will no doubt answer for himself, but still with this in mind please read again what Father has written above. He says a passion dominated gathering can never lead to a true council as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Whereas you are interpreting him as saying that a gathering of individuals who are something less then wholly dispassionate can never lead to a true council as guided by the Holy Spirit.

hopefully you can see the difference. Maybe some of the answers given by various Church Fathers during the Donatist debates would be helpful here.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Rdr Brian,

I didn't mean that being a Protestant disqualified Philip Schaff's statement. I meant rather that I didn't find his ecclesiology to be Orthodox but that this is understandable given that he is Protestant.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Rob Bergen]

I have not nearly done this justice and Father Raphael will no doubt answer for himself, but still with this in mind please read again what Father has written above. He says a passion dominated gathering can never lead to a true council as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Whereas you are interpreting him as saying that a gathering of individuals who are something less then wholly dispassionate can never lead to a true council as guided by the Holy Spirit.

hopefully you can see the difference. Maybe some of the answers given by various Church Fathers during the Donatist debates would be helpful here.

Thank you Anna! This makes much more sense in the scope of everything that we have been talking about! You really have a gift for clarifying things on this online forum.

Peace,

Rob

[Brian McDonald]

Anna Stickles writes:

Both ecclesiologies would say that the individual and individual sin is not automatically going to invalidate the working of God in the Church. However, and this is a big however, the way in which this is perceived to be working is very different. In one God is working despite the individual, in the other God is working through the Body of Christ as a whole, within which different individuals may be playing various parts. The individual is not given the place of primacy such that God has to work either through or despite them. Rather the sacramental reality of the Body of Christ - this Mystery- is given the primacy as that which all the individuals are participating in and which God is working through.


I have not nearly done this justice and Father Raphael will no doubt answer for himself, but still with this in mind please read again what Father has written above. He says a passion dominated gathering can never lead to a true council as guided by the Holy Spirit.

I must offer a heartfelt thanks to Anna who seems to have a gift of hitting the nail on the head. I suspect that Fr. Raphael would agree with her but will let him answer for himself. As for myself, I’ll simply say that this is how I would have put it if I were as clear and articulate as Anna.

That means, Sacha, that while I am glad to see you and I are not as far apart as I had initially supposed, we’re probably still on different sides on this particular issue.

[Fabio Lins]

Thomas Aquinas wrote the Cathena Aurea, where he put side by side the verses of the NT and Patristic comments he had available. Concerning St. John 2:14, this is what he collected:


BEDE; Those however, who came from a distance, being unable to bring with them the animals required for sacrifice, brought the money instead. For their convenience the Scribes and Pharisees ordered animals to be sold in the temple, in order that, when the people had bought and offered them afterwards, they might sell them again, and thus make great profits. And changers of money sitting; changers of money sat at the table to supply change to buyers and sellers. But our Lord disapproving of any worldly business in His house, especially one of so questionable a kind, drove out all engaged in it.

AUG. He who was to be scourged by them, was first of all the scourger; and when He had made a scourge of small cords, He drove them all out of the temple.

THEOPEHYL. Nor did He cast out only those who bought and sold, but their goods also: The sheep, and the oxen and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables, i.e. of the money changers, which were coffers of pence.

ORIGEN; Should it appear something out of the order of things, that the Son of God should make a scourge of small cords, to drive them out of the temple? We have one answer in which some take refuge, viz. the divine power of Jesus, Who, when He pleased, could extinguish the wrath of His enemies however innumerable, and quiet the tumult of their minds: The Lord brings the counsel of the heathen to nought. This act indeed exhibits no less power, than His more positive miracles; nay rather, more than the miracle by which water was converted into wine: in that there the subject-matter was inanimate, here, the minds of so many thousands of men are overcome.

AUG. It is evident that this was done on two several occasions; the first mentioned by John, the last by the other three.

ORIGEN; John says here that He drove out the sellers from the temple; Matthew, the sellers and buyers. The number of buyers was much greater than of the sellers: and therefore to drive them out was beyond the power of the carpenter's Son, as He was supposed to be, had He not by His divine power put all things under Him, as it is said.

Of St. Luke 19:45-46


GREG. When He had related the evils that were to come upon the city, He straightway entered the temple, that He might cast out them that bought and sold in it. Showing that the destruction of the people arose chiefly from the guilt of the priests.

AMBROSE; For God wishes not His temple to be a house of traffic, but the dwelling-place of holiness, nor does He fix the priestly service in a salable performance of religion, but in a free and willing obedience

CYRIL; Now there were in the temple a number of sellers who sold animals, by the custom of the law, for the sacrificial victims, but the time was now come for the shadows to pass away, and the truth of Christ to shine forth. Therefore Christ, who together with the Father was worshipped in the temple, commanded the customs of the law to be reformed, but the temple to become a house of prayer; as it is added, My house, &c.

GREG. For they who sat in the temple to receive money would doubtless sometimes make exaction to the injury of those who gave them none.

THEOPHYL. The same thing our Lord did also at the beginning of His preaching, as John relates; and now He did it a second time, because the crime of the Jews was much increased by their not having been chastened by the former warning.

AUG. Now mystically, you must understand by the temple; Christ Himself, as man in His human nature, or with His body united to Him, that is, the Church. Put inasmuch as He is the Head of the Church, it was said, Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days. Inasmuch as the Church is joined to Him, is the temple understood, of which He seems to have spoken in the same place, Take these away from hence; signifying that there would be those in the Church who would rather be pursuing their own interest, or find a shelter therein to conceal their wickedness, than follow after the love of Christ, and by confession of their sills receiving pardon be restored.

Of St. Mark 11:15-18


BEDE; What the Lord had done in figure, when He cursed the barren fig tree, He now shows more openly, by casting out the wicked from the temple. For the fig tree was not at fault, in not having fruit before its time, but the priests were blamable; wherefore it is said, And they count to Jerusalem; and Jesus went in to the temple, and began to cast out them, that sold and bought in the temple. Nevertheless, it is probable that He found them buying and selling in the temple things which were necessary for its ministry. In them the Lord forbids men to carry on in the temple worldly matters, which they might freely do any where else, how much more do they deserve a greater portion of the anger of Heaven, who carry on in the temple consecrated to Him those things, which are unlawful wherever they may be done. It goes on: and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers.

THEOPHYL. He calls moneychangers, changers of a particular sort of money, for the word means a small brass coin. There follows, and the seats of them that sold doves.

BEDE; Because the Holy Spirit appeared over the Lord in the shape of a dove, the gifts of the Holy Spirit are fitly pointed out under the name of doves. The Dove therefore is sold, when the laying on of hands by which the Holy Spirit is received is sold for a price. Again, He overturns the seats of them who sell doves, because they who sell spiritual grace, are derived of their priesthood, either before men, or in the eyes of God.

THEOPHYL. But if a man by sinning gives up to the devil the grace and purity of baptism, he has sold his Dove, and for this reason is cast out of the temple. There follows, And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.

BEDE; He speaks of those vessels which were carried there for the purpose of merchandise. But God forbid that it should be taken to mean, that the Lord cast out of the temple, or forbade men to bring into it the vessels consecrated to God; for here He shows a type of the judgment to come, for He thrusts away the wicked from the Church, and restrains them by His everlasting word from ever again coming in to trouble the Church. Furthermore, sorrow, sent into time heart from above, takes away from the souls of the faithful those sins which were in them, and Divine grace assists them so that they should never again commit them. It goes on: And he taught, saying to them, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer.

PSEUDO-JEROME; According to Isaiah: But you have made it a den of thieves, according to Jeremiah.

BEDE; He says, to all nations, not to the Jewish nation alone, nor in the city of Jerusalem alone, but over the whole world; and he does not say a house of bulls, goats, and rams, but of prayer.

THEOPHYL. Further, He calls the temple, a den of thieves, on account of the money gained there; for thieves always troop together for gain. Since them they sold those animals which were offered in sacrifice for the sake of gain, He called them thieves.

BEDE; For they were in the temple for this purpose, either that they might persecute with corporal pains those who did not bring gifts, or spiritually kill those who did. The mind and conscience of the faithful is also the temple and the house of God, hut if it puts forth perverse thoughts, to the hurt of any one, it may be said that thieves haunt it as a den; therefore the mind of the faithful becomes the den of a thief, when leaving the simplicity of holiness, it plans that which may hurt others.

AUG. John, however, relates this in a very different order, wherefore it is manifest that not ounce only, but twice, this was done by the Lord, and that the first time was related by John, this last, by all the other three.

THEOPHYL. Which also turns to the greater condemnation of the Jews, because though the Lord did this so many times, nevertheless they did not correct their conduct.

AUG. In this again Mark does not keep the same order as Matthew, because how ever Matthew connects the facts together by this sentence And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany, returning from whence in the morning, according to his relation, Christ cursed the tree, therefore it is supposed with greater probability that he rather has kept to the order of time, as to the ejection from the temple of the buyers and sellers. Mark therefore passed over what was done the first day when He entered into the temple, and on remembering it inserted it, when he had said that He found nothing on the fig tree but leaves, which was done on the second day, as both testify.

GLOSS. But the Evangelist sinews what effect the correction of the Lord had on the ministers of the temple, when He adds: And the Scribes and Chief Priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him; according to that saying of Amos: They hate him that rebukes in the gate, and they abhor him that speaks uprightly. From this wicked design, however, they were kept back for a time solely by fear. Wherefore it is added, For they feared him, because all the people were astonished at his doctrine. For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the Scribes and Pharisees, as is said elsewhere.

Finally of St. Mathew 21:12-13

JEROME; And he cast out all them that sold and bought. It should be known that in obedience to the Law, in the Temple of the Lord venerated throughout the whole world, and resorted to by Jews out of every quarter, innumerable victims were sacrificed, especially on festival days, bulls, rams, goats; the poor offering young pigeons and turtle-doves, that they might not omit all sacrifice. But it would happen that those who came from a distance would have no victim. The Priests therefore contrived a plan for making a gain out of the people, selling to such as had no victim the animals which they had need of for sacrifice, and themselves receiving them back again as soon as sold.

But this fraudulent practice was often defeated by the poverty of the visitors, who lacking means had neither victims, nor whence to purchase them. They therefore appointed bankers who might lend to them under a bond. But because the Law forbade usury, and money lent without interest was profitless, besides sometimes a loss of the principal, they bethought themselves of another scheme; instead of bankers they appointed collybistæ, a word for which the Latin has no equivalent. Sweetmeats and other trifling presents they called 'collyba,' such, for example, as parched pulse, raisins, and apples of divers sorts. As then they could not take usury, they accepted the value in kind, taking things that are bought with money, as if this was not what Ezekiel preached of, saying, You shall not receive usury nor increase. This kind of traffic, or cheating rather, the Lord seeing in is His Father's house, and moved thereat with spiritual zeal, cast out of the Temple this great multitude of men.

ORIGEN; For in that they ought neither to sell nor to buy, but to give their time to prayer, being assembled in a house of prayer, whence it follows, And he said to them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer.

AUG; Let no one therefore do ought in the oratory, but that for which it was made and whence it got its name. It follows, But you have made it a den of thieves.

JEROME; For he is indeed a thief, and turns the temple of God into a den of thieves, who makes a gain of his religion. Among all the miracles wrought by our Lord, this seems to me the most wonderful, that one man, and He at that time mean to such a degree that He was afterwards crucified, and while the Scribes and Pharisees were exasperated against Him seeing their gains thus cut off, was able by the blows of one scourge to cast out so great a multitude. Surely a flame and starry ray darted from his eyes, and the majesty of the Godhead was radiant in his countenance.

AUG; It is manifest that the Lord did this thing not once but twice; the first time is told by John, this second occasion by the other three.

CHRYS; Which aggravates the fault of the Jews, who after He had done the same thing twice, yet persisted in their hardness.

ORIGEN; Mystically; The Temple of God is the Church of Christ, wherein are many, who live not, as they ought, spiritually, but after the flesh; and that house of prayer which is built of living stones they make by their actions to be a den of thieves. But if we must express more closely the three kinds of men cast out of the Temple, we may say thus. Whoever among a Christian people spend their time in nothing else but buying and selling, continuing but little in prayers or in other right actions, these are the buyers and sellers in the Temple of God.

Deacons who do not lay out well the funds of their Churches, but grow rich out of the poor man's portion, these are the money-changers whose tables Christ overturns. But that the deacons preside over the tables of Church money, we learn from the Acts of the Apostles. Bishops who commit Churches to those they ought not, are they that sell the doves, that is, the grace of the Holy Spirit, whose seats Christ overturns.

JEROME; But, according to the plain sense, the doves were not in seats, but in cages; unless indeed the sellers of the doves were sitting in seats; but that were absurd, for the seat denotes the dignity of the teacher, which is brought down to nothing when it is mixed with covetousness. Mark also, that through the avarice of the Priests, the altars of God are called tables of money-changers. What we have spoken of Churches let each man understand of himself, for the Apostle says, You are the temple of God. Let there not be therefore in the abode of your breast the spirit of bargaining, nor the desire of gifts, lest Jesus, entering in anger and sternness, should purify His temple not without scourging, that from a den of thieves He should make it a house of prayers.

ORIGEN; Or, in His second coming He shall cast forth and overturn those whom He shall find unworthy in God's temple.

PSEUDO-CHRYS; For this reason also He overturns the tables of the money-changers, to signify that in the temple of God ought to be no coin save spiritual, such as bears the image of God, not an earthly image. He overturns the seats of those that sold doves, saying by that deed, What make in My temple so many doves for sale, since that one Dove descended of free gift upon the temple of My Body? What the multitude had proclaimed by their shouts, the Lord shows in deeds; whence it follows, And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them.

ORIGEN; For in the temple of God, that is in the Church, all have not eyesight, nor do all walk uprightly, but only they who understand that there is need of Christ and of none other to heal them; they coming to the Word of God are healed.

REMIG; That they are healed in the Temple signifies, that men cannot be healed but in the Church, to which is given the power of binding and loosing.

JEROME; For had He not overthrown the tables of the money-changers and the seats of them that sold doves, the blind and the lame would not have deserved that their wonted sight and power of motion should be restored to them in the temple.

http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php