Subscribe by Email
« Response to Jay Dyer’s recent messages | Main | Fr. Michael Azkoul comments on man’s free will »
The Real Issue in the Kelley/Dyer Debate: Epistemology and Revelation
By James Kelley | August 31, 2008
I’m glad that you mention the infallibility of the Apostles, for you have unwittingly underscored what the real issue is: you and I have two divergent epistemologies.
You believe that the Pope, the Apostles and the Bible are somehow “infallible.”
I believe that the prophets, Apostles, and saints of all ages, up until this exact minute, have experienced revelation, which is glorification. Glorification is not part of any “two source” Roman Catholic theory of Church authority; Glorification is the basis and inspiration which inspires biblical and patristic writers to write books and liturgies. The Church is comprised of “doers,” who have experienced glorification or at least illumination, and “hearers,” who follow the former and are ascetically trained to also become doers. This experience of glorification is suprarational. It is light and darkness; it is a knowing and an unknowing. As St. Gregory Palamas tried to explain to the heretic Barlaam the Calabrian, the uncreated glory of God cannot be seen by the senses until man himself BECOMES the divine light, not that man is merged with God’s essence, but that man, since he is made in God’s image, was created to grow more and more like the Godman, and this is done not as one zapping us from the outside with created grace, but from the inside, since our nous is the site of divine/human synergy.
I follow the Orthodox Church, whose authority is based not upon Scripture or Liturgy per se, but upon real revelation, which is direct, noetic experience of the divine. Before the Bible was written (and while it was written and after it was written, up to today), man communed directly with God, via glorification. That’s why I believe that God is only love and not “love and wrath.” All of the lives of the Orthodox saints and all of the writings of the Orthodox Church Fathers teach this, and the elders on Athos and elsewhere who are alive today teach this.
Without glorification, Christianity becomes a “religion.” A set of rules and maxims which are dictated to man by mere men. For anyone who does not follow Orthodox epistemology to give me proof-texts from Holy Scripture and the writings of the Holy Fathers is quite pointless. It is as if I requesed someone to turn the station on the television and that person instead jumped up and danced the Beguine, all the while thinking that they were “channel surfing.” To quote the Bible and Fathers to an Orthodox to prove non-glorification theology and for me to respond with Orthodox teaching is to engage in “cross talk,” for any book which says God is wrathful (in the sense we have been discussing) lies, and the Bible does not lie, not because the book is a stand-alone authority, but because the Bible is written by those who are inspired by their experiences of glorification to write words that lead (in the context of the Church and individual spiritual fatherhood) others to the selfsame experience of God. Is there anything else to say on this subject? Not really, but I’m sure I will anyway 
Topics: General |
August 31st, 2008 at 11:02 pm
I think you have perhaps overstated your case and are tending toward guruism and some strange form of progressive revelation. Please remember that even Christ rose again “according to the Scriptures” and that “this was delivered once for all the saints.” Please be careful in your polemic not to distort the Orthodox faith as did Justin Martyr in his apologetics.
September 1st, 2008 at 1:55 am
Guruism ? Progressive revelation ? Nathaniel, “Come and see”.
September 1st, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Mr Kelly, I fear to enter into the discussion, but a friend has encouraged me to share with you my questions, misgivings, and criticisms of your piece. I will be brief.
First, while it may indeed be the case that you and Mr Dyer have two different epistemologies, I imagine the same might also be said about Mr Dyer and his fellow Catholics or you and your fellow Orthodox. I very seriously doubt that a single epistemology may be said to characterize either the Western or Eastern traditions over the past two thousand years. I wonder, for example, how your article might be have been received by Greek theologians only just a hundred years ago. And I wonder how your article might be received by a contemporary Orthodox theologian such as Metropolitan John Zizioulas, Stylianos Harkianakis, or David B. Hart. I do not question that you represent one strand within historic Orthodoxy–it may in fact be the most popular within contemporary Orthodoxy, particularly in the Orthodox diaspora–but I am not at all certain that your views may be said to represent *the* Orthodox understanding. I know just enough about Orthodoxy to know that it is more diverse than is sometimes presented in internet discussions.
Second, your argument appears to minimize, if not eliminate, the decisive significance between God’s historic self-revelation in Jesus Christ, as received and communicated to us by the Apostles and the Church’s subsequent experience and articulation of this revelation. I note, for example, the absence in your article of “memory.” Memory appears to be replaced by “glorification” and immediate revelation. “I believe that the prophets, Apostles, and saints of all ages, up until this exact minute,” you write, “have experienced revelation, which is glorification.” This sounds all peachy and keen until one asks, “Is _____ truly apostolic?” Who has the authority to answer this question? How different your “epistemology” appears to be from that of St Irenaeus, who did not appeal to glorification or superior illumination against his gnostic opponents but rather to the historic fidelity of bishops, and particularly of bishops of apostolic sees, to the deposit of revelation once given to the Apostles.
In his book on ecclesial infallibility Archbishop Stylianos asserts a decisive difference between revelation and the inspiring work of the Spirit in the post-apostolic Church:
“The main factor differentiating revelation and divine inspiration from the infallibility of the Church is the fact that through Jesus Christ, divine revelation was accomplished and sealed. That is to say, if divine revelation, according to the Orthodox and Roman Catholic understanding is accomplished in Christ, becoming an objectively integrated reality for the Church, then it is altogether impossible to talk about revelation and divine inspiration after Christ, in its literal and classic meaning. After Christ, there exists only the auxiliary presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church, but no longer, strictly speaking, divine inspiration or revelation.”
How different this sounds to what you have advanced in your article.
Third, you apparently believe that Catholics have no understanding or experience of God. Hence your dismissal of the infallibility of Pope, Apostles and Bible. But the Catholic understanding of infallibility is predicated upon a profound union between Church and the Holy Spirit. She dares to believe that the Church may, in her dogmatic decisions, commit the Church irreversibly to a specific interpretation or construal of the apostolic revelation precisely because of the Holy Spirit who indwells and guides her. The infallibility of the Church is grounded upon the Church’s participation in the life of the Holy Trinity. She speaks truly because she shares in the the Creator’s self-knowledge. Thus Henry Cardinal Manning:
“The Church is not an individual, but a mystical person, and all its endowments are derived from the Divine Person of its head, and the Divine Person who is its life. As in the Incarnation there is a communication of the divine perfections to the humanity, so in the Church the perfections of the Holy Spirit become the endowments of the body. it is imperishable, because He is God; indivisibly one, because He is numerically one; holy, because He is the fountain of holiness; infallible both in believing and teaching, because His illumination and His voice are immutable, and therefore, being not an individual depending upon the fidelity of a human will, but a body depending only on the Divine will, it is not on trial or probation, but is itself the instrument of probation to mankind. … What the Church was in the beginning it is now, and ever shall be in all the plenitude of its divine endowments, because the union between the body and the Spirit is indissoluble, and all the operations of the Spirit are perpetual and absolute.”
Now whatever one might say about Manning’s views, one at least has to admit that he has a very high view of the dynamic union of the Church and the Holy Trinity.
I hope this contributes constructively to the discussion.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:10 am
I like this article.
Indeed: How could we Orthodox base our authority on the scriptures, when we wrote the scriptures? Rather, the reverse is true. The scriptures derive such authority as they have from us. Indeed, were it not so, the Ecumenical Councils would have no meaning, for in them we articulated the canons of the scriptures. But in reality, the scriptures are the icon of Christ, and so we’re not concerned so much with ‘authority’ in some quasi-Roman-Catholic sense, but with the Incarnation, with the Scriptures as revelation of the Incarnate One. For us, the Scriptures are in this sense an interactive call to theosis, to deification, to union with God. This is their purpose and their significance to us, as indeed are all things in Holy Orthodoxy, but a means to that one end. For us the question is not “what is true?” as much as “how may I be deified?”, because Orthodoxy is not a belief system - it’s an asceticism.
I’m curious about your comments on deification. You quite rightly state that we may not in any way interact with the essence of God, except as it were by the energies of God. How can we speak, however cautiously, of the uncreated Energies and the Persons in theosis? May we say that the union of man and god is union of the persons in the energies? How do the fathers speak of this?
And in the man, it seems to me the union is a union of persons that remain forever distinct since, for one person to obliterate the other would in fact be genocide. The Incarnation demonstrates for us that no part of man is to be lost or destroyed or replaced or nullified or deactivated, since the very truth of the Incarnation is the fullness of Christ’s union as one person, two sets of operations, and two natures, tells us that both God and man are fully preserved in the one Person. What is not assumed is not redeemed. And so what is assumed is redeemed, and so preserved. One doesn’t want to be impious in delving into these questions - the fathers warn about asking how such things occur that are beyond our capabilities to know. But what have we said, however cautiously, about deification: do we speak of it as the union of two energies?
I’m curious, also, why you speak of God as not wrath but freely speak of God as love? What is the quality of the one statement that it differs from the other, except in the particular attribution? I’m not challenging you, but I’m curious: if any attribute we speak of cannot be said to “be” God, as I think we agree, how does “Love” differ from all other attributions? I know you’d have to be speaking only of the energies of God, not presuming to create a fourth person or speak of the essence as anything but simple. So how do the fathers treat this attribution differently than those we hear from the heterodox who make lists such that “God is just, God is good, etc.” from St. Augustine to J.I. Packer?
On your last point, concerning those who do not follow Orthodox epistemology nonetheless trying to cobble together proof texts from our writings to refute that very epistemology, it is indeed parasitical. Pure invention would be better suited to their underlying assumptions - why don’t they write their own books like the Mormons? The question is a historical one, as much as an ecclesiological and epistemological one. Fundamentally, they consider themselves the heirs of the apostles and so of holy writ, and attribute therefore to their own tribe and mentality those holy men who had no such notions as they hold, and then position them to try to reconcile them or admit confusion. We are debating with people who first begin with the notion that the Church is something general and non-specific, and then proceed to claim historical continuity with it’s fathers and texts. Their history, and indeed historiographical method is bunko. If that falls through their fingers, nothing they say now about doctrine or theory matters at all. So that’s where, personally, I prefer to hit them, when they’re asking for it.
Theirs is, at it’s heart, the error of the literary deconstructionist. It’s as if one of us wrote an epic poem, and they think they know better than the author what it means.
We write books, and they take those texts and presume to tell us what we mean. And when we say, “no, we also have the original author’s letters, and his disciple’s letters, and the continuity of discussion (e.g. liturgy) in which they lived and breathed, the very tradition into which they were writing and language of metaphors and references and history they were speaking - the grammar of their faith, and we have their prayers, and their lives, and their disciples prayers and lives, and their mentors’ prayers and lives and letters and books, and we have the decisions of the councils in which they participated, and the succession in which they participated, and even the languages in which they wrote and spoke and prayed, and indeed the very physical churches in which they served and prayed and did works, and their childrens’ childrens’ children unto ages that they sired in the faith, and the testimonies of holy men to the meaning and significance of their teachings in their lives, and miracles, appearances, visions, visitations, healings, and answered prayers following the veneration of these men, which follow upon and proceeds because of this understanding of their thinking, and our homes are filled with their icons, and their names upon our calendars and our lips - indeed our children are given their names and keep their name days as the days of their new birth, and indeed Bishops are tonsured in their names, and Churches consecrated in their names, and indeed monastic brotherhoods proceed in their names and go ahead before us into glorification and return to us with answered prayers and signs and wonders bidding us follow still, so that we see the line of our people stretching back to Him who made us and ahead to those who live in his pure light. But here they offer, “yes, but we know what the writings really mean, which is nothing else that what the gnostics of old offered up against the Orthodox, that they were wiser than the apostles, and possessed the higher intuition, the illumined insight, the greater connection to the spiritual thread of God, and had no need of the Incarnate Christ in whom all these fathers subsist, since the secrets of their minds are superior. This is the character of those who offer us the ulterior wisdom of their own minds, and bid us look away from the path of light to their own ‘enlightenment’.
But we are the elder brother. They cannot speak of Christ or Christianity or fathers or Church or scripture except by us. Ours is the language and history of heaven come to earth, and so it’s nonsense for us to reverse this order - or rather it’s Babel, the attempt of earth to attain heaven, as if to own it and possess it and situate it within our own religious framework and assumptions and culture. God forbid. And God save us by the prayers of the fathers who led and lead us still, who are not dead, and not silent, and not impotent, but continue to save us, and speak to us, and teach us, as we listen to their voices and receive grace through them, drowning out the distortions of their false followers who presume to tear them away from this unbroken tradition - what you call our epistemology, which is really much more.
How can we listen to the heterodox prattle about writings and teachings when, regardless of all else, they are not of us, not of those whose writings they handle so roughly.
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Elder Sophrony of Essex writes: ‘Suppose that for some reason the Church were to be bereft of all her books, of the Old and New Testaments, the works of the holy Fathers, of all service books–what would happen? Sacred Tradition would restore the Scriptures, not word for word, perhaps–the verbal form might be different–but in essence the new Scriptures would be the expression of that same “faith which was once delivered unto the saints”. They would be the expression of the one and only Holy Spirit continuously active in the Church, her foundation and her very substance. [...] If the Apostle Paul had the “mind of Christ”, how much more does this apply to the whole body of the Church of which St Paul is one member! And if the writings of St Paul and the other Apostles are Holy Scripture, then new Scriptures of the Church, written supposedly after the loss of the old books, would in their turn become Holy Scripture, for according to the Lord’s promise God, the Holy Trinity, will be in the Church even unto the end of the world.’ (’St Silouan the Athonite’, pp. 87-8) Elder Sophrony, like James, is not speaking of ‘guruism’ or ‘progressive revelation’, he is speaking of the nature of revelation itself–the experience of God–which is open to all of us and not just to the writers of Scripture. I see no ‘distortion of the Orthodox faith’ here. And perhaps Nathaniel could explain to all of us precisely how St Justin the Martyr distorted that faith. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard this before.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Welcome, Fr. Alvin, and thanks for your thoughtful critique.
You said: “your argument appears to minimize, if not eliminate, the decisive significance between God’s historic self-revelation in Jesus Christ, as received and communicated to us by the Apostles and the Church’s subsequent experience and articulation of this revelation. I note, for example, the absence in your article of “memory.” Memory appears to be replaced by “glorification” and immediate revelation. “I believe that the prophets, Apostles, and saints of all ages, up until this exact minute,” you write, “have experienced revelation, which is glorification.” This sounds all peachy and keen until one asks, “Is _____ truly apostolic?” Who has the authority to answer this question? How different your “epistemology” appears to be from that of St Irenaeus, who did not appeal to glorification or superior illumination against his gnostic opponents but rather to the historic fidelity of bishops, and particularly of bishops of apostolic sees, to the deposit of revelation once given to the Apostles.
I’ll try to answer your objections:
1) The fact that the Old Testament prophets and the prophets of today experience the Lord of Glory directly in their hearts does not minimize the historical significance of the Incarnation. St. Gregory Palamas, remember, can’t writes incessantly about deification IN CHRIST of St. Melchesidek, St. Moses, etc.
2) “memory” is not ignored in my theology. Another word for memory is “noetic attention or energy” and is the basis for the Philokalial term “unceasing memory of God.” The latter term also means “illumination of the nous.”
3) St. Irenaeus constantly refers to glorification and also to bishops. So does St. Ignatius of Antioch.
Thanks,
James
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Obviously, the sentence reading “St. Gregory Palamas, remember, can’t writes incessantly about deification IN CHRIST of St. Melchesidek, St. Moses, etc.” should be read minus the “can’t.”
Thanks again, all, for your comments. Keep in mind, I’m not anyone at all, and if I ever come across as a knowitall, just overlook my pride, as you already have. I hope you will all consider me a friend.
James
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:10 am
Also, Fr. Alvin, I should say a few words about your idea of “Orthodox epistemological pluralism.” Hopefully, what I am about to say is apropos of your comments and not a mere tangent of my own.
Yes, there are many areas of emphasis in Orthodox theology, since Harakas writes about bioethics and Hart writes about postmodern (and Modern) philosophy. However, inasmuch as any of them are Orthodox, they agree with the One Truth and the One Way, which is deification, or glorification. I am following the Bible (OT and NT) as well as the Fathers (esp. of the Councils and the Philokalia) in using “glorification” terminology.
However, Orthodoxy is opposed to terminological fundamentalism, as we have shown at Nicea (both), the 433 Formulary Council, and the recent dialogues with the Oriental Orthodox. Not every Father or theologian speaks with my exact words, but I belive that the Orthodox Church Fathers and ascetics are those with experience of God’s very life, and this reality is Orthodoxy, of which I am an unworthy and pathetic part.
Father Alvin, we probably both ended up in our respective traditions not by finding a suitable ascetic guide, but rather by looking into books of history and trying to decide which church made the most sense. That’s why I agree with you about “Apostolic” not being merely an “epistemological” thing, at least in a certain sense. The Church is a visible body, but also an invisible body. However, we Orthodox do not follow books, canons, and clerics merely (nor do you, of course). We follow the friends of God and those who uphold the traditional practices which are known to lead one to direct illumination of the inner man (St. Paul calls the nous the “eso anthropon”). I’m not saying that this contradicts your life or your beliefs, Fr. Alvin. Actually, I hope this description fits your notion of what a Church is, at least in some respects.
As for Met. John (Zizioulas), his approach to Orthodox theology is woefully inadequate (as A. Sopko, J. Romanides, Met. Heirotheos (Vlachos), Nonna Verna Harrison, and many others have noted). However, I do not believe that Met. John is intentionally undermining the Orthodox Faith. I only believe that his many theological errors show that he cannot be looked to (as a writer) as any kind of representative figure in Orthodox theology, despite his many non-Orthodox admirers.
As for “Greek theology a century ago,” you must be referring to theology coming out of the universities in Greece at that time. As Yannaras, Fr. John Romanides, and others have illustrated, this Greek academic scholasticism was seriously flawed, though not completely worthless. At any rate, real Orthodox theology is based upon noetic asceticism, sometimes called “the prayer of the heart,” though the latter phrase must be taken as a kind of metonymy, since sacraments, liturgy, spiritual fatherhood, and even the worship of the angels are included in the “prayer of the heart.” Needless to say, Zizioulas and Androutsos/Trembelas are, if not steps backward, at least lateral steps away from the central Orthodox approach, for they do not speak in a patristic manner about noetic prayer or the nous, nor about unity with God’s uncreated energies (mind you, Androutsos does hit the high points, but Trembelas, or what I’ve read of him, is basically anti-Orthodox in his views).
The Orthodox Fathers of the Church teach the same thing yesterday and today. I don’t care what some seminarian writes about (Hart), or even a clergyman, if he is ashamed to speak like an Orthodox (Met. John). The ascetics and the Elders (most of whom are clergy, but many of whom are not) all teach the same thing, and they understand the Fathers the same way, because they are all leading the same angelic life (some more perfectly than others). don’t think I am being tiumphalistic (at least in my heart I am looking at myself as the opposite of these holy men). I am just trying to express how we Orthodox (I can’t speak for others, but I will anyway) view the Church and knowledge. No pluralism of teaching, just a pluralism of terminology (and a number of views which veer from the “Ortho”).
Please keep up the dialogue
James
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:28 am
[...] Key excerpts from the [Original Comment Source]: [...]
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:59 am
Empirical Theology IS what James speaks of. A living experience, unbroken, from the Prophets’, Apostles’, and Saints’ from all ages … from the beginning of the age to the end of this age [aeon] … the Most-Holy Spirit dwelling in hearts that ‘hold’ the Mystery of Christ’s Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, and sitting at the ‘right’ of Power on ‘High’. The Ruling Power [vasileia] of God, transcends philosophical ‘categories’ …
[...] The ruling power [vasileia] of God is none other than this glory or Light of God, a reign [vasileia] that is uncreated and everywhere present. Although everyone is found within this reign [vasileia], everyone does not participate in it. Only those who experience illumination or theosis partake of this reign during those experiences, So when someone meets the preconditions required for a pure heart, he has this glory or reign revealed to him. During an experience of illumination, the Light of the glory of God is an internal light, while during an experience of theosis the bodily eyes also take part in its vision. The coming of the reign [vasileia] of God is none other than this revelation of God’s glory to man.
So during an experience of theosis, you can see what is already present surrounding you and within you. This Light is simply revealed to you so that you might know it. In this way, you know what you believe, because you have seen it. You now know that the uncreated glory of God can mingle with God’s creation.
[...]
Perhaps the key to unwinding the mass of questions awaiting examination by the specialists in dialogue would be to adopt methods used in the positive sciences, and to relegate the methods already in use from the social sciences to a dependent level. Of course, one could not readily apply such methods to an examination of God and the life after death, but one could certainly do so for this life, with regard to spiritual experiences in the various religions.
In the Orthodox partisan tradition, genuine spiritual experience is the foundation of dogmatic formulations which, in turn, are necessary guides for leading to glorification. Translated into the language of science, this would mean that verification by observation is expressed in descriptive symbols which, in turn, act as guides for others to repeat this same verification by observation. Thus, the observations of prior astronomers, biologists, chemists, physicists, and doctors become the observations of their successors.
In exactly the same manner, the experience of glorification of the prophets, apostles, and saints are expressed in linguistic forms, whose purpose is to act as a guide to the same experience of glorification by their successors.
The tradition of empirical observation and verification is the cornerstone of sifting factual reality from hypotheses in all of the positive sciences. The very same is true of the Orthodox patristic theological method also.
A basic characteristic of the Frankish scholastic method, mislead by Augustinian Platonism and Thomistic Aristotelianism, had been its naive confidence in the objective existence of things rationally speculated about. By following Augustine, the Franks substituted the patristic concern for spiritual observation, (which they had found firmly established in Gaul when they first conquered the area) with a fascination for metaphysics. They did not suspect that such speculations had foundations neither in created nor in spiritual reality.
No one would today accept as true what is not empirically observable, or at least verifiable by inference, from an attested effect. so it is with patristic theology. Dialectical speculation about God and the Incarnation as such are rejected. Only those things which can be tested by the experience of the grace of God in the heart are to be accepted. “Be not carried about by divers and strange teachings. For it is good that the heart by confirmed by grace,” a passage from Hebrews 13.9, quoted by the Fathers to this effect.
Source: http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.02.htm
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I’m preparing a more extensive a pointed response to all this stuff…I’ll probably post it on nicenetruth and here.
jay
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Just for the sake of clarification, when I started writing my above comment, there were as yet only two comments on this post: Nathaniel’s and that of our friend, ‘Discernment of Thoughts’. I intended to reply to Nathaniel’s post, but now, in light of Fr Alvin’s lengthy post, it may be unclear to the other blog readers what I’d hoped to accomplish. Just pretend my comment is #3!
September 4th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Actually, it’s been disastrous when the methods of the social sciences have been applied to theology. That’s really the point of works like God, History, and Dialectic. The reason this debate can proceed at all is because of that mistake.
James, the technique of inserting a wedge is the classic fencing posture taken by the heterodox. The appropriate foil is to stand still, because they haven’t really entered the ‘arena’ - they’re standing on their own ground, and trying to get you to declare it the ground of reality, at which point they might as well, like Bobbie Fischer (”12 moves. You’ve lost, you just don’t know it yet”), extend the hand.
They presume, as you’ve rightly identified, that a) Orthodoxy can consist in conflicting ideas or b) it’s a search for clarification of those ideas (this is the dialectical method of Hegel - thesis/antithesis is the search for synthesis), because c) - there’s a kind of general religion-ness (overall synthesis and process) in which Orthodoxy inheres, so that we’re all talking about the same thing.
This is the reason many of us respond with silence. Not because we’re powerless to knock the epee out of the hand, but because we don’t accept the offered ground as real, nor declare our opponents’ ground the basis of argument, nor consider them even to be opposing us truly, since what they are doing is posturing on their own territory with their own assumptions, demanding that they be accepted a priori by Holy Orthodoxy and by the Orthodox as unaccountable absolutes. They don’t wish to argue, they wish to triumph in their own views de facto, by presuming them at the outset and persuading us to do likewise. The entire enterprise is an exercise in begging the question.
Blog after blog we have witnessed the heterodox in the comment sections saying “Some or other of your people disagrees with what you’re calling tradition, so the whole thing is up for grabs.” They presume that Orthodoxy is in a dialectical *process* of self-definition. In other words the doctrine of Development of Doctrine is offered as the first premise of any discussion. It is there that we must draw the line unless we’re just toying with them or humouring them.
I like to play with my food as much as the next person but, sooner or later, you have to quit pushing it around on the plate and eat it. These folk are committing an intellectual dishonesty (whether they realize it or not) that must be called out for their own salvation and for the dignity of the conversation in the first place.
From various blog comments: “The discussion is much more enlightened over here” (discussion implies ongoing process of self-definition), “Some Orthodox writers are much more opened minded” (again, implies such a dialectical *process*), “You don’t even agree amongst yourselves” (implies conflict, which, in the dialectical model indicates a process as part of a philosophically universal operation of synthesis).
For that matter, the initial assumption that religion is religious philosophy, that theology and philosophy are handmaidens, has been quietly slipped in under the table. And the errors on the Orthodox side (and the fact that there is an Orthodox side) are the result of men (perhaps otherwise good men) who have unwittingly accepted the assumption. In other words, again the argument has begun on heterodox and heretical ground and the Orthodox who have erred have gone over and declared that ground a shared reality, a consensual reality, the ‘arena’ of discussion, the platform on which we proceed. It’s as if they’d signed a personal ecumenist “Agreed Statement”, declaring the ground ecumenical, and so fallen into the hapless condition of any of our Bishops or academics or administrators who presume to do so - Orthodoxy has not changed, they have. They have signed without reality. When such people add their names to heterodox assumptions, the Church has continually, and does at this very hour, waive this away as of no matter and no account.
We listen to Anglicans prattle on about how the enlightened among us sign something that has real force and reflects our real belief, but don’t have the integrity to sell it to the “peasants” at home, so we go back and immediately pull a Florence and repudiate the ground. They cannot see the abject pride and foolishness and indeed narcissism in what such commentary says about their own thought processes. The reality is something different. Those among us who are idolatrous, to the pride in their own minds and to the world system and to false priests and false gods, go whoring after their idolatry, and presume to take the tribe with them, but the tribe has more integrity in the little pink of the average babushka and dedushka than exists in all the jewels and splendor and academic honors and administrative pomp of anyone signing off on such things. The lack of integrity is sitting at the table with the Anglicans who, if they had any, wouldn’t be seducing our people away from home in the first place.
I mean such things as example and illustrative only - because the issue at hand is that, often times in the blogosphere, we presume to do the same thing. We, if we are not cautious and circumspect and humble about our own frailty and likelihood to fail, can just as easily sign away our birthright for pottage.
You’ve identified the wedge that was used. I would add that ours is not defense, when our borders are intruded and seduction and intellectual robbery and bribery attempted. As C.S. Lewis has said, Christianity is attack, not defense. And in this case, these people owe apology. Not seeing that, it’s hard to blame them, but when someone tries to use an illicit weapon (speaking again in duelling metaphors), it needs to be called out and thoroughly castigated, and the matter examined for other such dishonesties. If not, it’s that much easier for them to put it over on the next batch of Orthodox intrigued and tantalized by discussion.
And incidentally, yes I know I’ve broken several social rules in the way I’ve put these things and in what I’ve said as well. You can assume I’m not aware of it, or perhaps I’m aware and doing it intentionally. Either way, I’m not trying to be friendly about it. However much anyone may find that offensive, I believe friendliness and gentility can only proceed on the shared platform of honor, honesty, and clarity. Lacking that, it’s just patronizing you, and I for one find that distasteful.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:46 am
[...]
This is the Patristic tradition either you attain to illumination or you attain to theosis once you have already passed through illumination. Orthodox tradition is nothing other than this curative course of treatment through which the nous is purified, illumined, and eventually glorified together with the entire man, if God so wills. Therefore, is there such a thing as an illumined liberal or an illumined conservative in this context? Of course not. You are either illumined or you are not. You have either reached theosis or you have not. You have either undergone this treatment, or you have not. Apart from these distinctions, there are no others. - +Fr. Romanides
September 4th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
The Fear of God is born of Faith . . . this can be better understood here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3292286290652254660
+
September 4th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
… and James, I hold to the same ‘epistemological’ curative course of Orthodoxy …
September 4th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
my curative course, that is … for without Orthodoxy I will never become a ‘hypostasis’ in the Image, of the Image of God - Christ.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:30 am
These ais essentially the “theme” of Fr. Romanides PATRISTIC THEOLOGY, and he very clearly speaks thus:
[...]“The Church proves the existence of God on the basis of experience. For the Church Fathers, perhaps the only argument that can demonstrate the existence of God is a fact, and not a proof governed by dialectics and logic. And what is fact? There exists a group of human beings called prophets, Apostles, and saints who have seen God. ”
(Patristic Theology, p. 260) . . . have seen Him [Christ] in THIS Lifetime . . . Lord have mercy!
Saint Symeon the New Theologian warns!:
[...] “Do not say that it is impossible to receive the Spirit of God. Do not say that it is possible to be made whole without Him. Do not say that one can possess Him without knowing it. Do not say that God does not manifest Himself to man. Do not say that men cannot perceive the divine light, or that it is impossible in this age! Never is it found to be impossible, my friends. On the contrary, it is entirely possible when one desires it” (Hymn 27, 125-132).
also:
[...] ON THOSE WHO SAY THAT THEY POSSESS THE HOLY SPIRIT UNCONSCIOUSLY
Here I am again [says, St. Symeon], writing against those who say they have the Spirit of God unconsciously, who think that they have Him in themselves as a result of divine Baptism and who, while they believe they have this treasure, yet recognize themselves as wholly deaf to Him. I am writing against those who, even while confessing they felt nothing whatever in their baptism, still imagine that the gift of God has indwelt and existed within their soul, unconsciously and insensibly, from that moment up to the present time. Nor are they the only ones, but I am also against those who say they have never had any perception of that gift in contemplation or in revelation, but that they still receive it by faith and thought alone, not by experience, and, hold it within themselves as a result of hearing the scriptures.[end quote]
+
September 6th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Fr. Romanides on Speculation: [...]
in Orthodox theology, speculation is also present in precisely the same way that it is present in the exact sciences. In the exact sciences, every researcher who makes advances in his field continually forms hypotheses, but he does not presume to adopt these hypotheses and to turn them into laws before their validity has been tested by experimentation or empirical knowledge gathered through scientific methods.
In the exact sciences, there could be no progress without speculation on accumulated knowledge. On the basis of this speculation, scientists create theories and form hypotheses that they later test by observation and experimentation to determine whether or not they are sound.
But with Orthodox theology, as you advance in the knowledge of God, you also speculate less frequently, because your speculation is constantly being tested and circumscribed by the light of the revelation of God’s glory. Speculations and hypotheses are replaced by knowledge. As you proceed from purification to illumination, you spend less time in speculation, completely setting it aside when you experience theosis. During theosis, a person looks directly at Truth itself, and the Truth that reveals itself to that person is none other than God.
The tradition of the Church remains unaltered throughout the ages in terms of God’s revelation to man. And it remains unaltered because God’s revelation to man is the same in every age. It was and always is the same for everyone who experienced theosis from the time of Adam until the present day. Everyone who reaches theosis (including prophets, Apostles, and saints) has the same experience during theosis. They all experience Christ Who reveals Himself to them in the Holy Spirit. The only difference in this experience is that, in the Old Testament, Christ revealed Himself without flesh as the Angel of Great Counsel, whereas in the New Testament, after the Word had become flesh in the person of Christ. Christ revealed Himself with His glorified human nature as He did to the three Apostles on Mount Tabor.
All of this means that, in Orthodox theology, knowledge about God is simply verified as it is revealed again in every age to those who experience theosis. Although this knowledge is always of the same nature, there are different rungs on the scale of God’s revelation to man. Each person in a state of theosis experiences the fullness of God’s revelation to a different degree. When God reveals Himself to man, He does so to the extent that He wills to reveal Himself and to the extent that this particular person is able to receive or take in God’s revelation. The highest degree of God’s revelation to man took place at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit guided the Apostles “into all truth.”
_
September 10th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Man was created with free will. Its power was compromised by the fall. It is further dimished by delusion and the passions. We escape them through true faith, worship and fasting. Our freedom increases as these negative forces decrease.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Aaron, I never claimed to disagree with James, just that his case is overstated. I certainly don’t disagree with Elder Sophrony. Justin Martyr is a well-known subordinationist. As the first to substantially use philosophy in proclaiming the kerygma, he posits the Logos as a sub-God dwelling within creation, but only incarnate in these latter days. This was of course quickly corrected by Irenaeus’ “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching.” No lasting subordinationist movement was an offspring of his error and thus he (rightly) maintains an important role within the Church. For that to be his only real error is tribute to his greatness in Christ. My point remains however, that in both apologetics and polemics, there remains a great danger in phrasing the faith in a way that, while true, may distort the thrust of our faith.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Nathaniel, the one thing you have shown is that you have no idea what the “main thrust” of Orthodoxy is. You are offended at “glorification” theology, which is another name for Orthodox theology. I’m sorry you are squeamish when presented with the doctrine of the Fathers.
Good day to you, sir,
James
September 16th, 2008 at 11:58 am
James, I’m not offended at theosis or squeamish of the doctrine of the Fathers. I have not even once said that I disagree with what you say, only that its presentation is “a bit overstated.” Part of my objection is largely your acerbic tone, which you have now turned upon me. Please forgive me if I have wronged you.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Nathaniel> I’m glad to hear you’re not disagreeing with James and particularly with Elder Sophrony, and you’re right that apologetics and polemics do pose the danger you mention (which is why I usually avoid them). You’re also quite right that James’s tone is often acerbic (such that I, his friend, am sometimes a little uncomfortable!). But to speak casually (I notice you avoid using the title ‘Saint’) of one of the Fathers of the Church as ‘a well-known subordinationist’ is just not Orthodox. Is he well-known as a ’subordinationist’ to Church Tradition (the Prologue makes no mention of it), or just to the academic patristics-types? In the words of Fr Seraphim (Rose), a ‘true Patristic scholar’ is ‘one who lives in the tradition of the Fathers and therefore can understand the Patristic texts from within, not as an outward academic exercise’. While I’m sure you have good intentions (as does Fr Behr, to whom you refer on another post and whom I respect immensely) I find it hard to believe such a scholar would make the statement you make above.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Analogy of Being and Analogy of Faith - By Protopresbyter John S. Romanides (+) University Professor
source: http://www.oodegr.com/english/filosofia/analog1.htm
_