Subscribe by Email
Athanisian reflections on evil and freedom
By James Kelley | August 24, 2008
In Contra Gentes, St. Athanasius proclaims “That evil is not from God, nor is it in God, nor has it existed from the beginning, nor is it of any substantive existence; but men, in departing from the theoria of the good, began to devise and imagine that which is not, according to their desires” (7.3).
The great Alexandrian saint becomes quite emphatic throughout Contra Gentes (a writing which was intended to serve as a basic outline of Christian teachings, basics which are non-negotiable and not the opinions of man, but teachings based upon St. Athanasius’ experience of God) about the issue that no evil comes from God, “for evil does not come from good, not through good, or the result of good” (6.2).
In fact, St. Athanasius links the notion of a God who does evil to idolatry. Idolatry occurs when man’s vision of God (St. Gregory of Nyssa later follows St. Athanasius point by point, using the term “energein” to describe what man communes with in his nous), seen in the purity of his nous, is interrupted. When man’s remembrance of God in his nous is interrupted, the inevitable result is that his memory is tied to fantasia, illusions which are influenced by demonic energy. Only through illumination of the mirror of the soul (the nous) can man realistically and literally know that “there are no other Gods beside the Lord God.” Under the influence of fantasia, we fashion Gods who hate and who commit adultery, and whose wrath must be placated by “meritorious works.”
All of the above presupposes that man is free to accept the freely-given gift of salvation. Athanasius distinguishes between the “general capacity” according to which creation is “in the image” because it is sustained and connected to the Creater, and the “free capacity” given to man which includes the “general” but which allows man to freely respond to God’s knock at the door of the heart. As the greatest living scholar of St. Athanasius, Fr. George Dion. Dragas, put it, “God’s ultimately free act and man’s relatively free act may be said to constitute the fundamental presupposition in Athanasius’ theology” (Athanasiana 147).
Thanks be to God that our Orthodox theology, based upon real vision and participation in God, cures our souls from fantasia if we cooperate and react to God’s call. What we are cured from is the illusion of a God who can be reduced to mere human psychology.
May God bless you all, and pray for me and my family,
the unworthy James
Topics: Athanasius, Determinism, Freedom, Heresy, Patristics, Theology | No Comments »
Is Fr. John Romanides a semi-Pelagian?
By James Kelley | August 13, 2008
In a positive, loving spirit, I wanted to offer some explanation for what may seem to be a denial of God’s “total sovereignty” in Orthodox theology. Please, anyone, correct my errors, since I have never written on this before. Also, this post is hopefully not seen as a “refutation” of Mr. Jay Dyer’s comment, for he never intended his comment to be anything more than a doubt or a question about theology. I do not think that I have all of the answers, but I would like to try to explain the Orthodox position, which I think is the position of Fr. John Romanides. Here is Jay’s comment:
4. Romanides says that human free will is outside God’s jurisdiction (pg. 33). But the Holy Spirit says otherwise in Prov. 21:1. How can anything be outside God’s sovereignty? Romanides says God willed it to be so. Now I’m reminded of my former Orthodox priest’s statement in agreement with his former Bishop: “God has chosen not to know all things.” Supposedly this is a paradox. No, this is a contradiction. Scripture says that God knows the number of the hairs on our head. Androutsos proposes this same silly idea of God knowing all things only in a general sense. All of this to get away from sovereignty!
Here is what Fr. John says on p. 32-33 of Ancestral Sin:
“Man’s withdrawl from God unto his own death, like the freedom of human will, is outside of God’s jurisdiction. And it is outside of His jurisdiction by His own will. (-) God saves only through love and freedom. This point is exactly what theologians under the influence of Augustine have never comprehended. Thinking that the divine essence, energy, and will are identical, they were not in a positition to even suspect that free beings outside of God are capable of acting against the divine will. (-) As a result, it is impossible for them to seriously accept that death exists in the world as a kind of parasite apart from the will of God, and that the divine will and the salvific divine energy are not one and the same thing. God does not will death. Nevertheless, He does not act to destroy it until He has prepared men to accept life.”
Here Fr. John is not saying that God is limited in any way, but he is saying that by his total sovereignty he decides to allow creatures to freely choose to follow His will or to disobey. This protects God from being the author of evil. Surely no one believes that God wills evil, yet evil exists in the world. How is this so? Because it is God’s will that a space of freedom exists wherein man can exercise his love for God (or his love for the world). Love is not worth the word if it is not free and truly active in the lover.
Let us listen to St. John of Damascus:
“Providence is God’s will. (-) We ought to wonder at and accept the works of Providence…even if they appear to many to be unjust, because God’s Providence is unknowable and incomprehensible, and because our thoughts and acts and what is to come are known only to him. I speak, of course, about the things which are not up to us; for what is up to us does not belong to the Providence but to our own self-determination.”
[PG 94, 96A-968A]
Books could be (and have been) filled with similar passages.
May God grant us strength!
James
Topics: Determinism, Freedom, Heresy, Patristics, Prayer, Romanides, Theology, Truth | 4 Comments »
My initial comments on the subject of Orthodox sainthood
By James Kelley | August 9, 2008
My previous post about Augustine, sainthood, and “Azkul and the Gang,” never got off the ground, mainly because I needed time to pray and reflect upon the issue. This is what I have so far. Do not be shy about correcting my errors, especially in subjects like this, where there is no guide book. –jk
Wow, here’s a burning question if I ever heard one: “What is a saint?” Let me just start things out with a few observations that I think cannot be gainsaid:
Sainthood is holiness. Holiness is the communion of man with the Logos via the uncreated energies of the Holy Trinity. Holiness is “from the nous out,” meaning it results from the restoration (as God’s absolute free act of grace and man’s relatively free act of “agreement” with this divine love) of the nous to its normal function, which is to commune with God directly, “from glory to glory.” Because the whole man communes with the whole God by energy, holiness results in the immortalization and incorruptability of the flesh. If St. Maximos the Confessor were standing here today, he would doubtless shush me and proclaim: “It suffices to say that sainthood is love. But not just any love, rather the unceasing love of God which can be shaken my nothing!”
If we talk about how Orthodox saints are “made,” it must be in the above terms, and not in any other.
Remember in junior high, the comeback “It takes one to know one.” Circlularity is an element which cannot be suppressed in “mystical” matters. I hope we all understand what I mean by “mystical,” not Eckhart, but “mystike,” things that are secret because they are noetic. True mysticism is both a knowing and an unknowing, and thus we see saints only when we start our own course from glory to glory.
My own usual triumphalistic rhetoric is sickening from a truly spiritual perspective. What is a saint? I don’t know, because “I am a worm,” as St. Makarios of Corinth was known to say.
Topics: Prayer, Theology, Theosis, Truth | 4 Comments »
Jay Dyer and James Kelley begin the “real blog”, a friendship against the odds
By James Kelley | August 9, 2008
Dear readers,
Even though I aggresively attacked his ideas in my last two posts, Mr. Jay Dyer has since shown himself to be an icon of manliness and aplomb. Even though I insisted on pressing issues on my blog that Mr. Dyer pleaded with me to confine to one-on-one discussion with him, this fine gentleman has still given me a chance to become his friend. I emailed him my number, thinking he would never call, but he did.
Suffice it to say that if I get nothing else out of this website, I have made a friend, a man of character and refinement. Remember Polonius’ admonition to his son Laertes?:
“Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel”
Mr. Jay Dyer has shown himself to be a better man than I have been, which means he fulfills my first (and only) prerequisite for friendship. I don’t want to surround myself with men who are less than me, for what have I to learn from them? Let us press ahead with courage and manliness in our common quest for truth, and let lesser men scurry aside and marvel at our resolve.
In Christ,
James L. Kelley
Topics: General | 1 Comment »
Jay Dyer accuses the Orthodox Fathers of analogia fidae
By James Kelley | August 8, 2008
Jay posted this on his site:
Do you think the Eastern Fathers agree that Scripture is not the proper source of knowldedge of God?
Do you find the Eastern Fathers to be a source of knowledge about God? Where do you think the Cappadocians learned about the Trinity, if not Scripture?
To these I responded,
Jay,
You asked if I believe that the Eastern Fathers think that Holy Scripture is the scource for knowledge about God.
No. The Holy Scriptures are not, per se, a source of anything outside the liturgical/ascetical context of Orthodoxy. You missed my point, but my Orthodox readers will not. If you are going to have a dialogue with Orthodox Christians, you have to leave your analogia fidae presuppositions at the door, because Eastern Fathers (many are alive today) do not simply approach the Bible with unclean hands in order to “discover” the truth about God. The Bible does not contain concepts about God which can be extracted in a scholastic manner. It is a sacred text which is quite dangerous when wrenched from its Orthodox liturgical/ascetical context.
Your epistemology begins with Bible quotes, but that method is out-of-bounds for the Orthodox, who know that in order to be deified, one must experience the same inspiration which led the Fathers to write the Bible and the patristic texts. The Eastern Orthodox Fathers quote the Scripture because they are in a position to interpret it, since they are also glorified prophets. Words are not glorification, but can only lead one to glorification in the context of corporate liturgical ascesis and spiritual fathering. How many spiritual lives have been stunted and stymied through your method of “proof texting” unOrthodox presuppositions about God and spirituality?
So, you would do well to question whether or not your ransacking the Bible and the Fathers for quotes to back up your foregone conclusions is the proper methodology for reaching any kind of truth. You should do your Roman Catholic spiritual guides a favor and plainly state, point by point, your epistemological presuppositions, and then I’ll state mine, and we will see whose approach makes sense in terms of sacred texts and deification.
You are too smart and conscientious a guy to follow the schoolmen in their foolish “proto-sola scriptura” methods.
James
Oh , by the way,
The Cappadocians did not learn about God from Scripture, but through glorification, which is preceded by purification and illumination of the heart. Do you really think that the prophets of the Old Testament or the Apostles (especially St. Stephen, whose face glowed with uncreated glory) sat on their hands waiting for a book to tell us about God when their pure hearts already reflected the resplendence of God Himself?
In the context of a Church which knows what glorification is, the Bible is indeed sacred, but you would have to humble yourself and accept an Orthodox spiritual guide and live in our liturgical life to even begin to make assertions about what the Bible means.
Remember, I want to know about your epistemological presuppositions. Let your priests help you if you have trouble.
James
Topics: General | No Comments »
Jay Dyer at www.nicenetruth.com, tries to refute Fr. John Romanides
By James Kelley | August 2, 2008
Hey, gang, respond to any of these points, and cite sources, esp. if you quote Ancestral Sin. I’ll handle this soon. Jay, the author of this critique of Fr. John, is at www.nicenetruth.com
Oh, yeah. The formalities:
Hello Jay, if you’re reading this. My name is James Kelley. We have nothing but time to discuss your conclusions. It should be a fruitful exchange.
Heeeeeerre’s Jay:
For that matter, what is “Ancestral Sin”? I just don’t get it. I know what original sin is. And, I know what Fr. Romanides says, and his book has been one of the major hang ups for me in not becoming Orthodox. While I agree with some of his criticisms of overly-Latin thinking, some of my problems with his ‘seminal’ The Ancestral Sin are as follows:
1. Augustine is not a saint (pg. 11).
2. Romanides says many times that the parasite of death is the cause of our sins. What is more correct is that there is a sense in which we sin because of death and that death is also the result of sin.
3. Romanides accuses all the west of teaching that man is by nature “immortal,” yet this is not true. The Catechism of the Church states that “man is by nature mortal,” Par. 1008.
4. Romanides says that human free will is outside God’s jurisdiction (pg. 33). But the Holy Spirit says otherwise in Prov. 21:1. How can anything be outside God’s sovereignty? Romanides says God willed it to be so. Now I’m reminded of my former Orthodox priest’s statement in agreement with his former Bishop: “God has chosen not to know all things.” Supposedly this is a paradox. No, this is a contradiction. Scripture says that God knows the number of the hairs on our head. Androutsos proposes this same silly idea of God knowing all things only in a general sense. All of this to get away from sovereignty!
5. Romanides claims that the westerns fail in explaining evil as “lack of being,” yet this same idea is frequent in Eastern Fathers (pg. 34, fn. 65)!
6. Romanides follows the Synodikon of Orthodoxy in reference to condemning the analogia entis and the analogia fide, since “there is no similarity between the created and the Uncreated” in reference to God and Scripture. Then we have no true knowledge of God and Scripture does not truly reveal Him. If there is no true union or connection, then we fail to know Christ as truly divine. Romanides even says sarcastically that it is “supposed that God is revealed there [in Scripture].” How can we then have any knowledge of the ontological Trinity, since this comes only through Scripture? It follows that we do not. The energies that reveal God must then also be disconnected from the “hidden energies,” and even negative knowledge fails to obtain. For example, that I know that the Son is eternally generated from the Father comes to me through the words and images of Scripture. If there is no similarity, then I do not know that fact to be true of God, in terms of theology. How does economy teach anything about God, theologically?
7. Romanides claims that evil is not non-being and that this is nonsense, yet this is what St. Athanasius teaches very clearly in “Contra Gentes,” along with using many juridical concepts in “On the Incarnation of the Logos,” which Romanides hates so much.
8. Romanides says that God can never remove the “freedom of evil” (pg. 75),
and that Satan’s will is completely free and outside God’s jurisdiction (pg. 74)! If this is true, then it follows that Satan and Redeemed men in the eternal state can be saved and fall again, ad infinitum. This is pure Origenism.
9. Romanides derides the idea that angels govern men and nations and that fallen angels desired women as mates. If he were merely rejecting the idea of angels mating, it would be one thing, but Romanides implies that this is an error in Old Testament Scripture, quoting the liberal Abingdon Bible Commentary.
Romanides comes close to open theism in his chapter on the war between God and the Devil, since Satan’s fall really did mess up God’s plans in a sense, and as we said, God cannot touch the wills of men and angels (pg. 86). In this he sounds like “open theist” Greg Boyd.
10. Romanides engages in a zealous attempt to eradicate the idea that death is a punishment from God, and he says this ad nauseam. Romanides should have read more St. John Chrysostom, or been more honest with him. But worse, he quotes Romans 8:20 , arguing that God didn’t subject the creation to death and futility, when St. Paul ’s text itself says the very opposite! Using the flood or Sodom as examples of God’s punishment don’t work, since Romanides probably believed it never happened.
11. Romanides seriously tries to argue that God doesn’t curse Adam and Eve, but only the ground and the serpent (pg. 95), quoting St. Irenaeus. This is because, he imagines, God has no wrath or desire for vengeance or need for propitiation. All of these concepts are western heresies. Yet they are undoubtedly Pauline! This just goes to show that the Orthodox writers can’t deal with St. Paul . The one’s who do, like those summarized in Gavin’s Greek Orthodox Thought must apparently be castigated as “Latinized” Greeks, since so much in their writings is “western” and juridical!
12. He claims that the fall was “not at all juridical” for the New Testament writers (pg. 112). Can he be serious?
13. Romanides argues that we should not be motivated by pleasures to be saved or by fear of hell, but rather that we should obtain apatheia. How stoic. Scripture says that in God’s hands and pleasures evermore (Ps.16). He admits on pg. 123 that he wants to return to Jewish conceptions as opposed to Augustinian ones, since “Jews didn’t believe in God’s retributive justice.” The prophets certainly did, and they were true Jews. Who does he think brought about AD 70?
14. Romanides claims that monasticism declined in the west when Augustinianism prevailed (pg. 174). Is this for real? Is he not aware that monasticism prevailed in the medieval Augustinian West?
What is the point of all this railing against St. Augustine and the western errors? It’s that Romanides hates the idea of a God who punishes sin: the God revealed in Scripture. So he was forced to run to the post-Apostolic fathers as a supposedly more faithful presentation of the Apostolic Faith. These facts are all related to the strands in all the Orthodox: there is no predestination or unconditional election, God is not fully sovereign—maybe not even omniscient, and doesn’t eternally damn people as a punishment. And of course, this goes hand in hand with the numerous Orthodox writers and priests I’ve met who refuse to take Scripture seriously on these points, and often impute errors to it, rather than impute errors to their own intellect! In this regard, I feel just like St. Augustine combating the very same errors of his day (not that I am a great saint). Why the zeal for errors in Scripture? Because, if Scripture has manifest errors, one need not take its threats of damnation seriously, of course. This stuff clearly borders on Origenism and in some cases is Origenism (think Kalomiros’ awful River of Fire article), and I just can’t confess this semi-pelagian nonsense, which appears to be the “mind of Orthodoxy,” since most all of them hold this, or tend in this direction.
Topics: Augustino-Platonic Phantasmal Theophanies, Heresy, Intellectual honesty, Patristics, Romanides | 6 Comments »
Fr. Michael Azkoul, Photius Jones and the gang ask the difficult questions about Augustine
By James Kelley | July 26, 2008
I just posted this comment to energeticprocession.wordpress.com (my favorite site, hands down). I wish I could see the look on P. Robinson’s and Photius’ faces when Fr. Michael first popped in. Exiting for all of us, especially me, a long-standing admirer of Fr. Michael’s writings. Anyway, you all should also check the comments on my earlier post about “Anti-Romanides comments on OrthodoxWiki.” Could be a conversation-starter.
Here’s my energeticprocession post:
Wow! This is a great exchange. I’ve read it a few times, and I have to say, this is what I envisioned when I started my own website, which has much to say about Augustine.
Photius Jones, Perry Robinson, Fr. Michael (Yes, I’ve read your works very carefully, even the book on St. Gregory of Nyssa. I even interlibrary loaned your dissertation from Michigan on microfilm. Your early stuff is very dear to me, but so is the latest book on the ordination of women), and all the others, feel free to re-open this very informed discussion of Augustine either here or at my site, www.orthodoxpatristics.com.
Original blog, which I have dubbed “The Great Exchange,” found [here].
God bless you all, and pray for me and my family,
James
Topics: General, Heresy, Patristics, Theology | 3 Comments »
Anti-Romanides Sentiments On OrthodoxWiki Will Not Go Unanswered
By James Kelley | July 23, 2008
I posted an ‘edit’ to the Romanides entry in Wiki. In case they do no accept it (quite possible), you can comment here, of course. Maybe you will see it [here].
You obviously have no idea what Fr. John Romanides means when he says “Franks.” He means exactly what Greeks and Ottoman Turks and other Arabs meant througout the Middle Ages and up to the present day by “Franks”: Those from Europe who propogate and further Frankish Civilization and Frankish Christianity. The Arabs still call anyone who is a non-Orthodox Christian “Frankji,” as Fr. John Romanides points out. In Western sources we find a false distinction between Western Romans and Eastern Greek heretics; Eastern sources (Roman Orthodox as well as Moslem) invariably distinguish between Romans (Orthodox) and Franks (non-Orthodox Christians from Europe). As a matter of fact, I recently listened to a lecture on cd by Fr. Michael Azkoul in which he noted that the icons of the Theotokos produced in the West are indiscriminately called “Francopanagia” by Greek-speakers. The point is, since the Fourth Crusade at least, Eastern Christians (along with Moslem Easterners) refer to those who follow Charlemagne and his Frankish successors’ schemes, both geopolitical and “religious,” as “Franks,” since they follow their father Charlemange.
The foremost scholar of the history of the Normans, R. Allen Brown, once retorted that the Scandinavian Normans, in a generation, became “more Frankish than the Franks,” simply by adopting the customs and war-techniques of the Franks. That the Normans became Franks in no time at all is shown by their ability to replicate Frankish civilization (feudalism) and Frankish religion (”Roman” Catholicism) in England and elsewhere, by force, of course. Would any of you Romanides critics like to make the idiotic statement that the Normans did not become Franks? What about this quotation from Liutprand, Frankish advisor to the Frank Otto I: “We…Lombards, Saxons, Franks, Lotharingians, Bajoarians, Sueni, Burgundians, have so much contempt [for Romans and their emperors] that when we become enraged with our enemies, we pronounce no other insult except Roman (nisi Romane), this alone, i.e., the name of the Romans (hoc solo, id est Romanorum nomine) meaning: whatever is ignoble, avaricious, licentious, deceitful, and, indeed whatever is evil.” Hmmm. Seems that all these Teutons stick together like glue (at least in their self-conceptions) when it comes to anti-Roman (meaning anti-Greek and anti-Orthodox)sentiments and schemes. The sources don’t lie: If anything, it is disingenuous to suppress the obvious notion of “Franks” used by BOTH EASTERN AND WESTERN SOURCES, THOUGH THE LATTER EQUATE FRANK WITH ROMAN AND THE FORMER EQUATE FRANK WITH ANTI-ROMAN HERETIC.
Also, I put forth for your consideration, that the term “Frank” was also used by Germans themselves to refer (at various times in the Middle Ages) to anyone who was a warrior in the Kingdom of the Franks, a kingdom which comprised most of the German-speaking world for quite a while. Case in point: In one of Charlemagne’s capitularies, the Great Frank castigated the poor warrior-farmers in his Frankish army who were suffering under his policies and who could no longer afford to arm themselves. “Gird yourselves like men; arm yourselves and be Franks,” Charlemagne tells them. Now, Romanides-critics, are you telling me that Charlemagne’s audience here is comprised only of those who can trace their bloodlines back to a Frank? This would be anachronistic and just plain stupid. Obviously, Charlemage would accept any warrior who could raise a sword and who was a German barbarian. Do me a favor and read all of the works of John Romanides before you generalize about his supposed historical errors.
–James Kelley, www.orthodoxpatristics.com
Topics: Heresy, Historiography, History, Patristics, Romanides, Theology | 9 Comments »
westernorthodox.blogspot.com not a dia-blog, but rather a mono-blog
By James Kelley | July 16, 2008
Why is westernorthodox.blogspot.com such a popular spot when it refuses to publish comments which ask the difficult questions? Because it is not a real blog. It is a mono-blog. I can’t think of anything more disingenuous or sad. It’s like a talk-show where all the “callers” are really the producers and their buddies “calling in” from backstage. What on earth does this accomplish? Oh yeah, I forgot. You have a specific agenda that you are pushing. By refusing comments you evince its card-castle fragility.
WORD TO THE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST: DO NOT GO TO WESTERNORTHODOX.BLOGSPOT.COM, AND SPREAD THE WORD TO OTHERS.
My site will publish anything that is not profane, because I have nothing to fear. If someone sends me a foolish comment, I’ll call it by its name, give ample time for anyone on earth to defend it, and only then will I remove it.
If I ever find out that I am wrong about something, I simply change my mind and thank the wiser person who instructed me. Perhaps the WO folks or a zealous supporter would like to some onto my turf and fire off a few rounds. Don’t bother unless you are willing to have a conversation.
Topics: Blog etiquette, General, Intellectual honesty | 18 Comments »
James has officially entered the “westernorthodox.blogspot.com” fray
By James Kelley | July 13, 2008
Here’s my recent comment to a post on: http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/02/most-unique-orthodoxy-ever.html
I think you guys should chime in, because I think the westernorth. crowd needs to see that I am not a lone nut, preachin’ sola barbe. 
Hey “Ille,” just though you would like to know that any first-year seminarian in any Orthodox seminary knows that we Orthodox reject “original sin” as it was set down by Augustine. J.S. Romanides’ Ancestral Sin put the nail in the coffin. I don’t mean to be presumptuous, but you should read Ancestral Sin and write a post about it. Fr. John’s book actually eradicated, in one fell swoop, much of the scholastic Orhtodox theology which was, in the first half of the last century, part and parcel of Greek university life. For background, read Christos Yannaras, Orthodoxy and the West (Brookline, MA 2006)p. 275-278, and G.D. Dragas, “Introduction, Protopresbyter John Savas Romanides (1927-2001),” p. xi-xv in John Romanides, An Outline of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics trans. G.D. Dragas (Rollinsford NH 2004).
As for beards, I have to say, we as Orthodox should be inspired by the thousands of icons of saints who have beards, as well as by by “mountain men.” I understand your point, Seth! I also like my beard, for aesthetic as well as spiritual reasons!
It is embarrasing, though, that I have to explain why men should have beards to people who should know better than to disrespect so pious a practice. We should emulate those who are piously struggling to embody, physically and noetically, the Aaronic icon of the “deified priest of creation.” The holy libation which dripped upon the “beard of Aaron” in the Psalter is the Chrism of deification. This does not mean that a beard bestows holiness on a man, but it does mean that a holy man has a beard (exceptions prove the rule). Have you seen or heard of an Athonite elder who owned a razor? It is an ascetic practice to allow our hair to grow, being concerned to allow ourselves to begin to resemble an icon, though doubless a beard alone (sola barbe? ha, ha) does not save us, but rather obedience to the will of God saves us. Impiously questioning the pious practices of saints is very bad behaviour. Shame on you! I don’t know where you all live, but let’s get together for a weekend retreat to an Orthodox monastery sometime. We’ll ask these questions and maybe gain some insight. Maybe you all (and especially me, for I know I need to learn a little humility :]) will see the bigger picture.
I like the Eastern parable (it might be Persian) about the prince who went to the West for his education, and came back clean-shaven. How did his father reply? “Why have you HARMED your beard?” The point is, the king believed that the beard was as much a part of a man’s body as his fingers or limbs. Indeed, why harm your beard? Does it clash with your ‘highlights’ or your ‘perm’? If so, this is also a shame. Put away such effete practices, and let’s get on with purifying our hearts! We need each other, for we cannot be saved alone! I need the prayers of each of you, sinner that I am.
It’s like the story I read in Newsweek wherein this smark-aleck reporter went around Eastern Europe trying to figure out why icons of St. Constantine the Great show him with a beard when statuary and Roman custom showed that he had no beard. The reporter asked a simple Russian passer-by “Why does Constantine have a beard in your church pictures when we know he did not have one in real life?”
The Russian serenely replied: “It is his heavenly beard.”
If the Holy Icons invariably show deified men with beards, why should we not humbly follow their lead?
Topics: Beards, General, Heresy, Patristics, Romanides, Theology | 16 Comments »
« Previous Entries