Mortification of the flesh

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

The disagreement between Leandros' and Matthew's perspectives seems to tap right into my initial query about pain, namely, do we consider pain to be good or evil? Leandros quotes the burial service prayer, which implies that pain has no place in heaven; yet as Matthew pointed out earlier, there is still sorrow even in heaven over sin on earth. If pain is only evil, then should Christians try to avoid it in some way (as if that were possible, except through some form of psychological denial)? Is pain good then? I'm specifically trying to avoid talking about "categories" of pain, though I'm aware this is oversimplifying, because I want to emphasize pain as a general phenomenon, a fact which includes all discomfort, stress, sorrow and physical pain in the world. Is it a scandal to Christian consciousness, an awful result of the Fall, or should we embrace pain in some way, try to see something more in it, or pray to be granted insight in regard to it?

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Dcn Matthew (M.C. Steenberg)]

Dear Byron,

Your last post revealed two types of or broad approaches to pain: pain that is to be avoided, which does not exist in heaven; and pain which is embraced, which is echoed in the angels' lament in heaven for a sinner. It is in the balance of the two that an authentic understanding of this pathos emerges; for like so much else in human existence, it is a reality of created being, and as such, one that cannot be called evil or foreign 'by nature', yet which can be used in foreign ways to evil ends. The same is true of the feeling of joy, or of bodily comfort. Pain is not to be categorised on its own as a separate kind of reality. It is only when this is taken on board that such hymns as that of the memorial service, which speaks of a place where there is no pain, are appreciated for what they really mean, and not taken to imply that one aspect of created natural reality is in some sense absent.

INXC, Matthew

[[George] Blaisdell]

There is pain, and there is pain. The world under the rulership of demons is guided carefully unto death by the goads of both pleasure and pain. We seek pleasure, and we avoid pain. And when we give up pleasures, that is experienced as pain. [Ask any fat person on a diet!]

Yet to reverse the order is not enough. It is not enough to just substitute love of pain and hatred of pleasure so as to 'advance'... We are called to Godly lives, and that involves living spiritual lives of prayer in repentance from the world, obeying the commandments of Christ. We cannot merely renounce the world. We must embrace Christ.

Most strugglers so often forget Christ throughout the day and the night. I sure do. I get really hungry and in a hurry under the press of the day's scheduling, and grab a sandwich and get two bites into it in traffic only to remember that I have not thanked God for my food and blessed it and myself unto His service... And in hundreds of ways, each day, in the world, such things happen.

And one of the ways that real ascetics, unlike me, deal with this is to have some hidden thing give them a constant discomfort [pain], so as to be a constant reminder not to forget God ever.

I remember the story of the monk who was praying and a fly landed on his cheek and distracted him, and he slapped the fly and killed it. And he thought a moment, and realized that he had struck out in anger, and that he had been dealing with that problem for a lot of years, with only varying successes. And he got up, walked out of the monastery, and down to the slough nearby, and took off his clothes, and stayed there three days and nights in prayer, allowing himself to be feasted upon and stung by all manner of insects. When he returned from that vigil, all bitten and swollen, he returned to his duties, with not a word, and never struck out in anger again...

Such can be the mercy of God, in the perfecting of the saints...

May this response prove more beneficial than harmful...

Arsenios

[Father David Moser]

I've been gone for a while and not able to read or respond to these discussions so pardon me if I seem to come in a bit "late".

The idea of "self mortification" in the Western confessions comes from the legal perspective of the fall and sin (the fall/sin is "breaking a rule" of which we become guilty and must be "punished" and the guilt purged from us - if we do not punish ourselves sufficiently and purge the guilt, then God will consign us with hell based on the presence of unpurged guilt. IN this model sin and guilt are something external that are imposed from the outside. Protestantism takes this same model and uses "magic" - some vague power called "grace" that zaps the guilt away when the proper words - eg. the prayer of salvation - are said).

This is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church. The Fall was a failure to grow and develop as we should (turning aside from/rebelling against the image and likeness of God) Sin is an internal condition, an illness that affects the whole being. Our salvation is not about "getting rid of the guilt" but rather about acquiring grace (that is the presence of the Holy Spirit). That grace is not some vague undefined force, but rather the actual and real presence of God and it does not work by "magic" but rather it works in syngery with our own will. (Do not mistake this for "salvation by works" but rather that we cannot just sit and wait for the magic to happen, rather we have to cooperate with God's work in our lives).

Thus, in the west, "mortification of the flesh" or self inflicted pain is reactive - it is necessitated in response to the guilt that has already consumed us as the means by which this guilt is "purged". OTOH in Orthodoxy the ascetic life is *proactive*. The ascetic life and the denial of self serves the purpose to *avoid* following the path of sin. We set aside our own will to align ourselves instead with the will of God. Sometimes temptation can be so difficult that we find that a "reminder" is helpful to keep us from turning aside into sin or that an artificial barrier is useful in propping us up in the path of salvation or in keeping us alert and attentive to repel the attacks of the enemy. There is no "guilt" (personal or ancestral) to "purge", rather there is the injury of sin that needs to be healed and the temptations to return to sin that need to be avoided and resisted.

Thus in the west, "mortification of the flesh" is actually salvific, an integral part of the process of salvation; whereas, in Orthodoxy, "mortification of the flesh" is not in integral part of salvation, but rather an artifical "aid" or a "crutch" that helps us in the path of salvaiton but which is not in and of itself efficacious.

Also on the question of whether pain is "good" and to be sought or "evil" and to be avoided - pain just is, it is neither good nor evil, but rather a condition of this fallen world. As long as we live in the world we cannot avoid pain. The importance is not how much pain we experience (or avoid), but rather how we respond to the pain that we do experience. If our response draws us nearer to God and brings us into closer communion with God, then it is a good response. If our response inflames the passions and sets a barrier between ourselves and God then it is not a good response.
But pain, in and of itself from the spiritual perspective is neither good/desireable nor evil/undesirable.

Archpriest David Moser

[Owen Jones]

My understanding is that our definition of flesh is not a literal defintion, such as skin and bones, but rather an image that represents our existential condition -- our fleshly existence condition by and governed by the passions. So mortification of the flesh is valid in a truly Orthodox sense through the practice of the ascetical virtues that place the passions under the control of our noetic faculties.

The problems of objectification and literalization is a constant problem in religious consciousness, and one which the West has become particularly prone to. In Orthodoxy, we understand the validity of a symbol as both the reality itself and something that is representative. This is due to the God-given victory of Orthodoxy in the iconoclastic controversy.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

Regarding pain, Matthew wrote:

like so much else in human existence, it is a reality of created being, and as such, one that cannot be called evil or foreign 'by nature', yet which can be used in foreign ways to evil ends. The same is true of the feeling of joy, or of bodily comfort. Pain is not to be categorised on its own as a separate kind of reality.

Then Antonios wrote:

The world under the rulership of demons is guided carefully unto death by the goads of both pleasure and pain.

Then Fr David Moser also wrote:

pain, in and of itself from the spiritual perspective is neither good/desireable nor evil/undesirable.

I think I'm beginning to see a consensus of opinion here. If I'm getting it right, the idea is that both pain and pleasure are simply aspects of created reality, which in and of themselves bear no ethical value. What makes either of these phenomena then "good" or "bad" is whether or not they are experienced or responded to in a way which brings us closer to, or draws us further away from, God.

This sounds correct to my limited understanding; however, I still have a question regarding the relation in this case between ontology and ethics: is anything - an apple, a table, a cheeseburger (I'm fond of using cheeseburgers in my examples!), pain, pleasure - anything in the created universe without some ultimate ethical value? If a thing exists as God ordained it (or in the case of cheeseburgers and tables, as made by man) then is it not in some sense good? And surely then it is the Lord Himself who instituted both pain and pleasure - or are they results of the Fall, as Fr David Moser suggests:

it is neither good nor evil, but rather a condition of this fallen world

This is part of what for me is currently a much bigger question: what relationship ought a Christian have to the created world in its fallen condition? How on earth do we go about continuing the Work that the Lord began in His Resurrection? (bold words from an armchair believer) This may sound crazy, but is an apple tree good? Should we love this apple tree, and tend it, or should it be just another thing in a world of things heading towards destruction anyway?

Antonios, thank you for the great story about the monk and the insects!

In Christ
Byron

[Antonios]

Byron, your very welcome, though I cant take all the credit (in fact, none of the credit) since George Blaisdell wrote the post!

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Oops, you're right there, Antonios, I should have thanked Arsenios!

[[George] Blaisdell]

Byron writes:
"I still have a question regarding the relation in this case between ontology and ethics: is anything - an apple, a table, a cheeseburger (I'm fond of using cheeseburgers in my examples!), pain, pleasure - anything in the created universe without some ultimate ethical value?"

I am very sorry to have to be the one to inform you, Byron, but you are going to have to give up cheeseburgers...

Because you like them.

And you will have to take up eating cold beet soup, because you do not!

All of which, of course, is wrong.

The issue is, are you letting the world [of cheeseburgers, beet soup, and apple cobblers, among the bizillions of other things desirable or avoidable] dictate or determine your conduct, your actions, your thoughts. And in the process of the purification of the heart, the only motive that matters is God's will. So that the whole world is of ethical value, because it gives us choices [and some of us compulsions!]... We can choose to obey God, and fast, for instance, with the canons of the Church, or we can choose to obey our desire for that quarter pounder with cheese. The cheeseburger has normative value because it is a temptation.

The whole world has value, in that it is repentable by mankind. And in this, by God's grace, we can find salvation. In it, we can find both good and evil.

Food, on the other hand, is pretty much needed - Christ both ate and fasted, and we are to follow Him... But the value of the world is that it affords the penitant the opportunity to turn from self and unto God, in the face of temptations, and that is a lot of what repentance is about.

And Byron continues:
"If a thing exists as God ordained it (or in the case of cheeseburgers and tables, as made by man) then is it not in some sense good? And surely then it is the Lord Himself who instituted both pain and pleasure - or are they results of the Fall, as Fr David Moser suggests:

quote:

"it is neither good nor evil, but rather a condition of this fallen world"

Christ embraced the pain of the cross, and saved the world, turning upside-down the normative world that embraces pleasure and avoids pain. It is this that the demons rely upon, our desire for pleasure and our avoidance of pain. That will lead us to death. Life is only by obedience to Christ.

Quote:
"This is part of what for me is currently a much bigger question: what relationship ought a Christian have to the created world in its fallen condition? How on earth do we go about continuing the Work that the Lord began in His Resurrection? (bold words from an armchair believer) This may sound crazy, but is an apple tree good? Should we love this apple tree, and tend it, or should it be just another thing in a world of things heading towards destruction anyway?"

Compassion, I should think, is key, [for the whole world groans in the travail of pain, because of our sinfulness...] And love... And helpfulness... And prayer and weeping...

Quote:
"Arsenios, thank you for the great story about the monk and the insects!"

I ran that story by a very 'spiritual' Protestant Christian woman travelling with her family, and all she could say was that the guy [the monk] over-reacted, and that he was far too hard on himself for just swatting a fly - And that generally, the punishment simply did not fit the crime... And I was unable to tell her that it was NOT punishment for a crime...

Lord have mercy - The grand-daughter, at least, got it...



Arsenios

[nurse-aid]

and i never can get WHY we still have the same Rule of Fast as centures ago...Back then was only meat, eggs and milk...all simle and basic food....and healthy one...it was like OT...

now we are sick and food is safisticated, as our own taste...even doctors know about our bodily condition that evryone is different...and need different diet...

so the spirutual fast...must be individually set...according to passion and condition...and it maybe only clue...only hint in order to find that sick spot, and then start to fast in that derection...

Becuse what's the profit for alhogolic do not eat anything but drink...he is alredy do not eat...what's the profit for vegetarian to fast that way...he is not fighting anything...and on...

[Fr Dcn Matthew (M.C. Steenberg)]

Byron wrote:

I still have a question regarding the relation in this case between ontology and ethics: is anything - an apple, a table, a cheeseburger (I'm fond of using cheeseburgers in my examples!), pain, pleasure - anything in the created universe without some ultimate ethical value? If a thing exists as God ordained it (or in the case of cheeseburgers and tables, as made by man) then is it not in some sense good? And surely then it is the Lord Himself who instituted both pain and pleasure - or are they results of the Fall, as Fr David Moser suggests

Possibly this needs to be refined just a touch, along the lines of asking whether pain is a 'thing', and as such a 'thing' created by God. Or is it an attribute of a thing? the way a thing reacts to given actions upon and within it?

The teaching of the Church is clear, as is scripture itself, that all things created by God are 'good, yea very good', and cannot be ascribed evil, or even ethical neutrality, on account of being the handiwork of God himself. But realities such as pain or pleasure, which to some degree are born out of God's creation (i.e. as an attribute of corporeality) are in fact neutral in and of themselves: they can be used to good or to vice.

INXC, Matthew

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Arsenios wrote :

And I was unable to tell her that it was NOT punishment for a crime...

I'm aware of two ways of understanding sin: sin is the failure to follow one's calling to become as God intends. Hence it is either a violation of God's law (and therefore of our true nature), or a kind of illness. Is this what you mean, Arsenios, when you say that the monk was not seeking punishment for a crime? You see, I sometimes wonder if the need for all this repentance is not because the world is a very fragile place, easily bruised, and everything we break or consume or discard adds to the debt we must pay off in tears. Maybe this is too rationalistic though, and springs out of my difficulty in understanding what it is I have to repent of or to be saved from. Last night I read a brief saying of the desert fathers, in which a certain monk asks an abba what the world is; part of the abba's response is that the world is when man goes against his nature and satisfies his desires. I don't know if "going against one's nature" and "satisfying one's desires" is being equated there, but if it is, then is it naive of me to ask: if those are my most honest desires, how can they be unnatural? In other words, what is that true nature which one makes manifest by avoiding sin and pursuing virtue?

Matthew, I'm not sure I understand the distinction you draw between things created by God, which are "very good", and things born out of God's creation (like pleasure and pain), which are neutral in themselves. Why is an apple tree part of God's creation, but the pleasure I feel in eating an apple not part of God's creation?

I like your personalised approach to fasting, nurse-aid; it makes a lot of sense. I think a lot of protestants just give up something they like (alas, in my case I guess it would be cheeseburgers) for lent. But how Orthodox is this approach? Would our spiritual father personalise our fasting regimen, or just tell us to abstain from the traditional foods like eggs and cheese?

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Dcn Matthew (M.C. Steenberg)]

Dear Byron, you wrote:

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you draw between things created by God, which are "very good", and things born out of God's creation (like pleasure and pain), which are neutral in themselves. Why is an apple tree part of God's creation, but the pleasure I feel in eating an apple not part of God's creation?

The difference between an apple tree and the pleasure you take at eating an apple, to use your example, is that an apple tree and an apple are created things -- concrete realities with their own unique being and substance. The pleasure one feels at eating an apple, however, is a response to this thing and this act, and is occasioned by innumerable factors. We may feel pleasure at eating the apple at first, but later shame at not having offered it to our hungry neighbour; we may feel pleasure that comes partially from the taste of the fruit, partly from pride at having 'fended for ourselves' (to come up with just two examples). The 'passion' of pleasure in this instance is not a thing unto itself, but an embrace of and response to created reality -- ours and the world's. While the apple will always be an apple, good as a creation of the Lord no matter what is done with or to it, the passion of pleasure we feel in response to the apple can become a thing for good or for evil.

INXC, Matthew

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Matthew,

Thank you for your response. I guess it makes more sense now; perhaps I've been too concrete about this issue, identifying the experience of pleasure and pain with the passage of neurotransmitters along synapses in the brain (whereby the pleasure derived from eating an apple is the same thing as the amount of, f.e. serotonin this act releases into the synaptic vesicles in the brain cortex). You correctly reminded me that "pleasure" is not just a bodily response, but an event in the psyche or soul,with a phenomenology of its own, tinged with an ethical aspect one might say. The neurological event, as such, parallels but does not necessarily cause the experience anymore than electrons travelling at certain sppeds in the mind (oops, I mean brain) of Shakespeare "caused" the writing of Hamlet.

In Christ
Byron

[Mr Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear friends,

The issues of "phenomenology" and of “iconic” reality are bringing to surface the question that brother Byron Jack Gaist originally asked: “Are bodily pleasures good or evil in Orthodox theology?” If we maintain a subjectively valued measure for “experiences” then we restrain the “truth” in our limited existential valuation. I think, this point deserves to be highlighted.

The “exercise” of a Christian is like the training of an athlete. When a marathon racer is on the track he is expected to experience physical pain. Therefore he is training with an experienced trainer in order to learn how to endure pain and at the same time to achieve his goal as he runs towards the finish line. The pain in itself is part of a certain “character”, that is, the marathon runner. But pain is not a valued experience in its own. What is coming from an athlete’s effort is not an experience of good or evil, but a persistence that is expressed by his invincible desire to me the people at the finish line. For the goal of finishing the race is to meet the people in the finish line; this was the goal of the original marathon’s race in the first place. According to the myth, in 490 bc, the runner Pheidippides run from ancient Marathon to ancient Athens, 26 miles/42 Km, in order to inform Athenians about the victory of Greeks over the Persians and then he died on the spot from exhaustion. And he would have not done this if the Persians would have not attacked Greece, letting Athenians in agony for their future.

In this context, pain has a specific origin; it is not a natural human characteristic, it is the characteristic of an acquired character: of a man who goes through “unnatural” circumstances in order to meet other persons. The others are the liberation from pain. They are the “finish line”.

Genesis(3:16-20)

To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, And to dust you shall return.”

And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

What is blessed is not the “pain”; blessed is not the “race”; blessed is the meeting with the persons at the finish line, even if we are to die with-for them (in the hope of this blessing, we tolerate the intolerable). The experience of running is subjective but the termination at the finish line is the most unexpected experienced existential reality beyond any running experience. And beyond the finish line, there is no stadium to run and to practise and to pain and to labour. Beyond the finish line is the reality of meeting with other persons.

Brother Byron, let me rephrase your question “Are bodily pleasures good or evil in Orthodox theology?” into “For whom am I pleased, or am I in pain?” If the person in question is a real person, then I will meet him at the finish line; if he is a virtual person then the finish line is also imaginary and there will be no meeting.

May God bless us, all.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Leandros,

Thank you for your latest post, in which you highlight the importance of the Person or persons for whom pain or pleasure is experienced. I'm not sure if I've understood you correctly, nor am I a professional philosopher, but it seems we have a slightly different understanding of the term "phenomenological" : I do not use it as synonymous with the term "iconic". Phenomenology for me is merely the careful study of phenomena, and does not say anything about their essential reality, which belongs to the field of ontology. A phenomenon may or may not have an ontological foundation in Reality (whatever that is). Nevertheless, this may be a side issue: the important message seems to me to be that "for Whom" of the experience which you rightly point to.

There is, however, another point here, a more difficult one perhaps, related to the issue of Reality (I use the capital "R" to indicate the One Ultimate Reality which I assume underlies every phenomenon which is not in some way illusory). Patrick Walsh has recently posted on the use of the term "passion" in another thread; perhaps the issue of pain and pleasure may be linked to this, as what is being called into question is the Real nature of human being; for me, one way of defining this is by referring to Human Nature as God intended it in the first place, prior to the Fall and always increasing in its likeness to Him. For me as a psychologist, this a particularly interesting question (although I realise it cannot be answered empirically and sadly must remain in the realm of philosophical / theological speculation, "for now we see through a glass, darkly"). But I'll go ahead and ask it anyway:

What is our original nature? Were we sentient beings even in Paradise? Did we experience attraction and attachment to things? Did we experience pain or discomfort there? Did we have any impulses, drives, instincts?

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Dcn Matthew (M.C. Steenberg)]

Dear Leandros,

I very much enjoyed your recent post (your no. 309 in the present thread). The analogy of the race and the runner seems to me very apt to the task of describing the themes we've been discussing here (and you're in good stead employing it, as St Paul did as well ). There is just one point that I think should be qualified somewhat. You wrote:

The "exercise" of a Christian is like the training of an athlete. When a marathon racer is on the track he is expected to experience physical pain. Therefore he is training with an experienced trainer in order to learn how to endure pain and at the same time to achieve his goal as he runs towards the finish line. The pain in itself is part of a certain "character", that is, the marathon runner. But pain is not a valued experience in its own. What is coming from an athlete’s effort is not an experience of good or evil, but a persistence that is expressed by his invincible desire to me the people at the finish line.

This harks back to some of what has been said in earlier in this thread, namely on pain as part of the ascetic struggle, and a useful part at that (I would of course be remiss if I didn't nudge you and ask how it fits with your initial observation that pain isn't part of asceticism!). But it seems to me that there is some sense in which, in our bodily nature which 'physicalizes' struggles in our corporeality, the pain experienced at combatting that which hinders us becomes, in a limited and qualified right, a positive and sought-for sign of growth. The runner does want to feel pain, a strong burning in the legs, as this is sign of the muscle tissue dividing and growing; the pain is sought after since it is linked inextricably with the ultimate goal. This seems correlate to the Christian ascetical endeavour: pain is not the ultimate goal, for the only ultimate goal of Christian life is union with God -- but it is a necessary part of the struggle, embraced positively for what it is.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Dcn Matthew (M.C. Steenberg)]

Dear Byron, you wrote:

What is our original nature? Were we sentient beings even in Paradise? Did we experience attraction and attachment to things? Did we experience pain or discomfort there? Did we have any impulses, drives, instincts?

I am going to move this post to the The Nature of Man thread in the Creation, Cosmos and Human Nature area. That thread never really got moving, but the present questions relate directly to it and we can carry them on there in an attempt to keep things a bit more organised. This thread can continue to focus on the specific issues of pain / mortification, etc.

INXC, Matthew

[Mr Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear Matthew, (I will be used not to call you Dr Matthew in time...)

Let me clarify, my answer. My initial observation was an answer to the original question about “pain” asked by Byron Jack Gaist in the context of the respective wikipedia article. My answer begun: “You submitted a question/quotation, coming from the wikipedia article, which presents the distorted theology of the vatican….”

The wikipedia article, according to my reading, presents the vatican point of view: "Pain as means for a higher end… Pain is to be loved relative to the positive end…. Need for suffering… Joy in suffering: sharing in the redemption". This vatican theology/anthropology produced the theory of purgatory and the theoretical base on which the Inquisition found a solid stand, taking natural pain literally as a blessed part of the way to theosis/salvation.

Against this "vatican" interpretation of pain I wrote that: "Pain is unacceptable for Christian life ....Asceticism in Orthodoxy has nothing to do with pain...There is no need for suffering and there is no call for suffering, in taking up the Cross to follow Christ. Acceptance of pain is one of the greatest sins." And I have tried to present the contrast compared with the orthodox asceticism: “The experience of Love in Spirit is the existential realization of relation with the Father through Christ. This experience is transforming pain, pleasure, happiness, sorrow and every natural or evil mode of existence into a personal presence in front of Glory of God”.

According to my understanding, there is confusion between “pain” and “toil”. To work in “toil” praying and accepting sanctification under any circumstances is an ascetic gift. To accept “pain” is a passive behaviour - even when it serves a higher cause.

The Vatican theology fails to realize the teaching of St Paul: (Philippians 2:5-9). According to Vatican theology, the pain of Christ, His passions and even His death are being realized according to passive acceptance of atonement, which was decided in advance.

I understand the Orthodox theology in realizing the pain of Christ, His passions and His death according to His words: &#40;Luke 18:31-33&#41; <font face="courier new&#44;courier">Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will scourge Him and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again.”</font> This is a course that He walked through in order to reach at the end, not in using a course as a mean to accomplish a goal, but as living a reality that generated something that was never before actualized - not just as a result, but as whole process. This is not a course “seeking pain”, nor “His pain was means for a higher end”, nor “His Pain is to be loved relative to the positive end” nor was there “need for suffering”.

St Paul wrote to Galatians 3:1-14, so vividly: <font face="courier new&#44;courier">O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? … For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.” Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us &#40;for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”&#41;, that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith”.</font>

We should learn, along with the Galatians, that we are not “being made perfect by the flesh”, but “in Spirit”. Because the “curse of the law”, which is our condemnation of not “continuing in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them”, is not redeemed by our verity to the completeness of the law, but by our faith in Christ, Who destroyed the condition of the fulfilment of the law “in all things”, by His death, so that the promise to the people of Israel might also cover the non Israelites, through faith. He did that by becoming alienated from the completeness of the law as being cursed “hanging on a tree”, yet not losing what was given to Abraham as a promise for his seed, because Christ, as a seed of Abraham, inherited what was promised, not according to the validity of the law, but by the validity of God’s promise – which was originally given for His Son. In having faith to Christ we take part in the promised heritage, not by &#34;being made perfect by the flesh&#34;, but &#34;in Spirit&#34;.

In this context, “pain” is a companion that has nothing to offer in our faith; however “toil” has to offer much. St Paul wrote &#40;2 Timothy 2:8-9&#41;: “Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my gospel, for which I suffer trouble as an evildoer, even to the point of chains; but the word of God is not chained. Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

Matthew, thank you for asking.

[Fr Dcn Matthew (M.C. Steenberg)]

Dear Leandros,

Thank you for the response, which I found interesting. I do, however, feel that it forces a rather academic distinction between &#39;pain&#39; and &#39;toil&#39;, as you&#39;ve articulated them; and perhaps leads to a number of unorthodox claims made in retaliation to perceptions of a deliberate &#39;Vatican theology&#39; &#40;e.g. that there was no need for Christ&#39;s suffering&#41;. The hymns for the feasts of the cross seem to present themselves most directly: the cross is not an instrument of &#39;toil&#39;, but an instrument of torture, and only in bearing up this reality fully can we proclaim &#39;through the cross, joy has come into all the world&#39;. This is not to suggest that the point of the passion was for Christ to suffer, i.e. to reap salvation by his agony; but a reaction against that kind of reading should not lead us to go so far as to suggest that the pain inflicted and borne in Christ was extraneous to the redemption he worked there. It is part of the offering of the cross.

We all have the tendency to react to excess with another excess - to turn all-white into all-black. But misappropriations of the place of pain and suffering that made their way into certain strands of Western theology should not cause us to leap too far to the other extreme.

INXC, Matthew