Comments on: A Great Idea for Catholic-Orthodox Evangelization

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

" we (and the whole Universe) are 'screwed up'"

But that's not my perception. My perception is merely that there's a difference between what I want, what is acceptable within the society of other humans, and what is possible within the limits of the universe. Another way of putting it is the Buddhist way, "Life is suffering." That doesn't mean the same thing as "screwed up," as I see it. The "screwed up" thing is what Christianity introduces, I think. And, unfortunately, it plunges (baptizes, if you will) the whole of existence into value and emotion, because there is an active and negative connotation to "screwed up," by which I mean it's not just that life is suffering, but that it's suffering because there was some kind of mistake (the primal "screw up"?) and it was a mistake that was actively made by some one or some thing. That, I think, is why early Christianity drifted so easily into gnosticism, in which the universe really is the result of a "screw up" (the demiurge).

My own perspective (which I think aligns much better with the Buddhist one than the Christian one) is simply that human life is at a disadvantage in a fundamentally hostile universe. That is simply the way things are. It's part of the burden of being conscious (or of being, as Heidegger suggested, that being which seeks to understand its being, or Da-sein, I guess, in the German). Nor do I think there is any apocalypse of universal meaning in the offing.

So what does it mean to you to be "screwed up"? I'm curious. Since that phrase isn't actually in the Bible, and probably isn't in any official theological documents (just a wild guess ), you're clearly using it to summarize your position, which is fine—I'm just curious about what you're meaning when it comes to specifics. I don't see how that should implode or irretrievably reduce anything. If your faith is faith despite what may be known or revealed, if like Kierkegaard you always believe by an act of will, not because but despite, then engaging in a little reflection and reduction shouldn't destroy or implode your faith.

"Reason, when taken out of the Protective Nursery of Faith simply implodes on itself."

Huh? Could you give an example? That's a nice phrase, but what exactly do you mean?

"It gets at 'things', certainly, but no things worth believing in."

Or is that what you mean? But, see, you're assuming that we're all looking for things worth believing in, that it's a necessarily positive quest. Maybe you are, and so capital-R Reason (is it different from small-r reason?) doesn't work for you. But I'm not looking for things worth believing in. I'm looking to see if the things I believe in are worth continued belief. If they aren't, I'm not going to worry about it. I would rather not believe in things that aren't worth believing in, and if that means I don't believe in anything, I'm not worried about that. I feel no implosion or other negative effects. I would rather live by suspension of belief than by suspension of disbelief—that's what movies are for.

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"Most of Christianity's enemies are it's own bastard children (the argument could even be made that Islam is just such a child). Why is this hard to see?"

I don't think the problem is what's "hard to see" but that Christianity tries to take credit for everything, including its enemies, as you're trying to do right here. As well, I don't think that argument for Islam as a "bastard child" of Christianity comes so easily as you imply.

However, let's imagine, for instance, that secularism is a product of Christianity. What does that say about Christianity? Perhaps it means that Christianity was fatally faulty to begin with, leaving every age to spin off its own doubters, disbelievers, critics, and outright attackers. Had Christianity been the Ultra Big Super Happy Jumbo Sensible Ah-Now-I-Get-It Worldview™ it claims to be, why did it leave such a long line of disenchanted, disillusioned, disenfranchised disbelievers in its wake?

Your idea that Christianity has created its own enemies reminds me of the view proposed by an atheist friend of mine. He thinks atheists and secularists should just shut up and let religious zealots roll right over them, because any time we stand up for secularism we're only bolstering religion indirectly. (How exactly this process works is a pretty murky to me, but he's convinced, which is all he needs.)

If person A proclaims perspective X and that incites person B to counter with critical argument Y, does that mean that the perspective behind argument Y would not have existed without the proclamation of X? Does it mean that A and B would not be arguing if A had not spouted off about perspective X? Should A lament the existence of critical argument Y and simultaneously chide himself for foolishly giving birth to argument Y by expressing perspective X, thereby giving himself the comfort of believing that argument Y is simply one of his own mistakes instead of a viable perspective in its own right? Or does the whole situation simply come down to the banal conclusion that if A and B never said anything, they would never argue?

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"Rationalism, the innate dignity and equality of man, freedom, &c., hallmarks of the enlightenment liberalism (i.e., classical liberalism) are all things that Christianity has, by and large, (and I know you'll chuckle here) valued and promoted on earth."

Those are all things that some branches of Christianity have promoted at various times. Ultimately, however, none of them can be derived directly and consistently from the core, canonical scriptures that all branches of Christianity accept. That is, some parts of the Bible seem to say one thing, other parts seem to say another; determining which interpretation is correct has led to plenty of conflicts ensuring that none of these good things can flower. Only when rationalism, human dignity, freedom, etc., have been divorced from their allegedly divine origins (e.g., with phrases like, say, "We the people" and not "I am the Lord your God who has brought you out of Egypt"), have they been able to spread with he kind of wildfire spread that characterizes this age we call modern.

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"What 'Human Problems' does Christianity purport to solve? . . . mere immortality plays little part in the hearts of the devout. Being and ever-increasingly becoming 'like Christ', come what may, is surely the main focus . . ."

Let's make a whirlwind pass at kata Ioannes…

"And just as Moses Lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."
. . .
"Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, 'Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.'"
. . .
"Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes."
. . .
"Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself; and he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation."
. . .
"When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, 'Rabbi, when did you come here?' Jesus answered them, 'Very truly, I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For it is on him that God the Father has set his seal.' Then they said to him, 'What must we do to perform the works of God?' Jesus answered them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.'"
. . .
"Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty."
. . .
"Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh. . . . Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true blood and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever."
. . .
"Again he said to the Jews, 'I am going away, and you will search for me, but you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.' . . . He said to them, 'You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he.'"
. . .
"Very truly, I tell you, whoever keeps my word will never see death."
. . .
"My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand."
. . .
"Jesus said to Martha, 'I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.'"
. . .
"Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned."

And so on and so forth. Sounds pretty simple. Believe in the Son as sent by the Father, receive eternal life; reject the Son and prepare to wither, be tossed aside, and burned, i.e., have eternal life denied. That doesn't sound like salvation by works, either.

By: Tom Smith

Tom Smith — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

+Bishop Hilarion seems to be an interesting fellow — as Bishop of Vienna, he's worked closely with his Catholic counterpart Archbishop, the well-known Christoph Cardinal Schoenborn, who was one of the primary editors of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

It's interesting that this relatively liberal motion is coming from a Russian Orthodox bishop. The Moscow Patriarchate has always been the most anti-ecumenical Orthodox episcopal see. I doubt that +Patriarch Alexei has a particularly high opinion of this guy.

Regarding the extension of this movement to the United States, I don't think it's particularly necessary for interchurch ecumenism here. OCA, the Antiochian Archdiocese, and the Greek Archdiocese all enjoy good relations with the US Catholic bishops. I swear, half of the pictures of +Metropolitan Herman on the OCA website are of him hamming it up with Cardinals McCarrick and Keeler. Also, American Catholic and Orthodox laity don't seem to have much of a problem with one another; in my personal (anecdotal) experience, Catholics and Orthodox seem to be curious about one another, and enjoy a generally positive relationship.

That's not to say, however, that this movement wouldn't be useful in another arena. It would be nice if Catholic bishops could teach their Orthodox counterparts how to actually speak out on social issues. But then again, having just finished a paper on Orthodox ecclesiology, I maintain that the Orthodox hierarchy today is hamstrung by the Church's belief that bishops are empowered, through the Mystery of Ordination, only to teach by defending and interpreting Holy Tradition, whereas Catholic bishops are empowered with the charism of Magisterium. Basically, the Orthodox theology of episcopal authority is built to defend against heresy by appealing to Holy Tradition, which obviously doesn't provide a clear ground to cover things like bioethics, whereas Catholic bishops are empowered against heresy by virtue of Magisterium, which, so long as it is not opposed to it, is not limited by Tradition. But it would be nice if the Orthodox bishops would stand up for the social teachings of their Church anyway.

Regarding the division caused by ecumenical theological conferences, Jerry, I don't think that they inflame too many on each side. Look at the people who are angry at the Balamand Agreement, Jerry: in the West, people like the Society of St. Pius X and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary; in the East, folks like the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, the Bulgarian True Orthodox Church, and the Milan-Synod Old-Calendarists. In both East and West, the people who aren't happy are the ones accusing their respective mainstream hierarchies of heresy.

I kinda think the only place in which the two Churches aren't "play(ing) together nicely" is in Russia — the Russians accuse the Pope of poaching in traditionally Orthodox territories, then turn around and send missionaries to Poland, Italy, and Ireland. The only agitation on the Catholic side has come from just one person of any import — Marian Cardinal Jaworski, Roman-rite Archbishop of Lviv — whereas the entire Russian hierarchy continues to denigrate the Catholic moves toward ecumenism.

For hundreds of years, the Orthodox have been shouting about how Rome won't sit down and talk about reunion. Well, for the last forty years, Rome has been pushing for it in a big way. Not to pick on the Orthodox too much, but the ball is in the Oriental court, and they look to be in danger of dropping it.

By: Steve N

Steve N — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Calling Christianity a failure because it fails to solve "The Human Problem" is like calling water a failure for not being flammable. What "Human Problems" does Christianity purport to solve? The ones solved so spectacularly by rationalism? The ones that communism attempted (but failed) to solve? The only human problem solved by Christianity is the problem that we and the universe are screwed up, not as they should be, and the only way to even begin to hope that this will ever change is to follow Christ and trust in the grace of God. Period. Christianity will almost surely be smashing failure at doing anything else. And I begin to fear only when it fails to be smashing failure in the attempt.

Though you've cleverly prepared in advance for my "outright" denial, surely, Theo, you were a serious Christian long enough (and deep enough) to realize that mere immortality plays little part in the hearts of the devout. Being and ever-increasingly becoming "like Christ", come what may, is surely the main focus, and something that wouldn't be traded even if technology granted me immortality AND superman powers AND 42 nubile virgins AND $1 billion. Schopenhauer's comment stems from utter ignorance of what really is in the hearts of people who so dogmatically espouse immortality… and I'm shocked that you don't realize this.

Your comparison of (what often passes as) Christianity and the CW reenactors club is spot on. I wholeheartedly second these observations and note that such observations are quite common among serious Christians. But what has this to do with the alleged failure of Christianity? The obvious fact that the Christian faith has been found difficult and not tried by most who profess it doesn't cast any doubt on the Faith or in its efficacy.

if a Christian, a Jew, and an Atheist come upon a person needing medical attention, and each of them pitches in to help, it is not Christianity, nor Judaism, nor Atheism that does the work, but the Christian, the Jew, and the Atheist, whose differing motivations are all equal responses to the same situation; they are all human.

Thus you and I agree… salvation is by works after all!

All I have time for…

Cheers!

By: Steve N

Steve N — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

forever unsettled, that is, on this side of glory. Whew!

By: Jerry

Jerry — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Good questions (as usual), Theo. I'll try to cook up a response myself tonight . I think I should do the sort of work that I get paid for (and graded) on right now. In the meantime, I'll be curious to see how other people answer.

By: Steve Nicoloso

Steve Nicoloso — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I apologize in the delay in getting back to this, but I sensed the discussion had worked its way into something quite substantive, viz., comparison of religions/philosophies and their approach to "the human problem"–does it exist? If so, what is it, and how might it be solved? These are big, fat, juicy questions that deserve a thoughtful answer. Hopefully there's someone still paying attention other than me…

What I denote by saying that we (and the whole Universe) are "screwed up", I think does capture your perception of mere distance between what one desires and what is acceptable or possible. "Life is suffering" is, I think, really just a synonym for "life is screwed up." What is the Buddhist answer? Quench desire. We suffer because we desire. Fix that and the universe is fixed (i.e., no longer screwed up). So Buddhism too has a negative view of suffering and proposes a cure: Kill desire. But why should desire be killed? To desire is to be human. With Buddhism the problem is not with society, telling us what is acceptable, nor with the universe, mandating what is possible, but the problem is with us. I think this fixes the "human problem" by getting rid of what is truly human.

Christianity posits that we (and the Universe) were originally not screwed up, not destined for suffering. And in this past or even hypothetical state, human desire is/was alive and well. Zillions of pleasures are/were there for our taking… and all of them (save one) was perfectly good, and perfectly pleasing to the Creator. Unfortunately all humans, in addition to some other rational creatures, have managed to hit "that one" (eating from the Tree of the Knowlege of Good and Evil). Thus we live in the world that is as we perceive it, but is also not as it should (and can) be. We in all our desires were created to be perfectly good, but now we are deformed. Christianity provides the way back: to be fully human again, to experience desires more varied and more intense than we'd even dare imagine, and, what's more, enjoy their satisfaction.

Yes, belief is an act of the will. If it is not, then what we believe is purely a product of genetics, environment, and previous choices. While I don't deny that these three play a huge (if not sometimes exhaustive) role in determining what folks believe, I cannot accept (i.e., believe, ha!) that they completely determine belief, because it would mean that people are simply fated to believe their beliefs. If belief is not, at its most foundational level, an act of the will, then there would be no merit in believing what is "correct," and no fault in doing otherwise.

But let us move beyond the notion of belief as mere intellectual assent, for this this is not the type of belief that Christianity proposes, but rather more of that kind of which James notes: "even the demons believe, and shudder." The kind of belief I'm talking about is one that governs personal practice. Long ago, Theo, you argued that the atheist does not necessarily (positively) believe God does not exist, but rather that the atheist behaves as though he does not. Well it is this behaving as though that I'm really talking about, and yes, that (obviously) is an act of the will. There is no objective way to confirm that we love our mother's, but we can measure tears at her death. There's no objective way to confirm that we love our children, but it will be measured when we throw ourselves into the way of dangerous or deadly situation. This behaving as though is actually the true "belief" (and yes I know we need another word besides "belief" as it is commonly used), and intellectual assertions count for rather very little.

The bit about reason imploding on itself is stuff that we've dug through before at length. No statement (meaningful one that I can think of at any rate) about reason can be made without a preexisting assumption about its existence. Thus a radical rational reduction of virtually any topic will lead quickly and easily down to absurdity. Reason is only "useful" when there are supports underneath it, and these supports are inherently (as in by their very nature) axiomatic, beyond the reach of reason, and well inside the frontier of faith, aesthetics, and will. Sure, reason can be brought to bear against the supports, but it destroys itself in the resulting collapse.

Okay, I hope that covers it.

Cheers!

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I wouldn't call that "prooftexting." The author of John had a clear and unifying theme with "eternal life" (whatever that may be–and I don't think your version is necessarily the clearest or rightest one, either). Besides, how do you know I'm not going for irony points? The fact that just about anything can be proven from the Bible calls the whole enterprise into question, especially when you're trying to make concrete claims about the central meaning of Christianity. (If I'm reading you right, you're saying it's the imitation of Christ.) But when you have something like the Gospel of John which hammers and hammers and hammers at eternal life, whatever that may be, and anyone else has the ability to tease–er, I mean "prooftext"–whatever other meaning out of the text (which could be "virtually anything"), how is your particular adherence to what you see in the text any different from any other adherence to what may be seen in the text? In other words, it seems a little disingenuous to say that "virtually anything" can be read from the Bible, but that there is only one correct way. It's like the mythical Relativist going around claiming that only his perspective is correct.

Anyway, as for the motivations of believers, I still think you're ducking the real question. Let's say people are in it for the imitation of Christ. Sure, okay. That's reasonable, noble even, to reach for an ideal (and at this point we are talking about Jesus as an Ideal–he is "the Christ" and not just a Galilean rabbi named Jesus). But still you've only moved back the problem. You've basically said, "People are Christians because they want to be Christian." Okay, yes, that's true and unquestionable. But why do people want to be Christian? Why do they want to imitate Christ? What does imitating Christ give them that not imitating Christ would not? I think that the author of John is quite clear with the "eternal life" thing, whatever that may be. So what is that eternal life and why do people want it so badly? What does it mean for them on the ground, where the rubber meets the road, in their day-to-day lives? What about human existence gives people the sense that they need to find this "eternal life"?

You can throw out more abstract nouns like "sin," but then what does that mean? You can talk about separation from God, some existential condition, whatever, but what does that ultimately mean? Personally, I think all of those ideas are metaphors for a very real part of human existence, and I won't deny that there is something about human existence that makes us posit "sin" and "God" and "separation from God" and "eternal life" and all that, but what is it?

Second, once you've figured that out (if it can be figured out at all, and I'm doubtful about that), what makes the Christian metaphor worthwhile?

Third, are there other metaphors or ways of confronting the basic problems of human existence, and is it not possible that some of us prefer to confront those problems without the use of sacred text, ritual, narrative, or metaphor, but on our own, individual terms?

But then, once you've gotten into that territory, you're where my atheist discussion group hangs out, where we ask whether society is possible if people are confronting the basic problems of human existence on their own, individual terms, or if it all just falls apart for lack of a cohesive system that is common to everyone. We have one guy who thinks religion is necessary, simply because it keeps people on the same page, even if that page is sometimes the wrong one. Most of the rest of us think he's wrong, in one way or another.

Personally, I think it's very instructive to look outside of the West and outside of Christianity for how other peoples and cultures have dealt with this problem, not just so we can blindly imitate them (because that would be foolish, too), but so we can get a better perspective on what it means to be human in an inhuman world.

Anyway, getting back (sort of) on topic, while I think it is pretty easy to define what is a Christian (someone whose religious beliefs center on the person of Jesus as the Christ–whatever that means), it is much more difficult to nail down the practice of Christianity. The way you practice it ("the imitation of Christ"–please forgive me [and correct me] if I'm repeating that over and over and being wrong!) is certainly not the way plenty of other Christians practice, and I suspect your motivations are not identical, either. Just as you have decided that some forms of Christianity are not worth it, so have I, and I further question, as I said above, the form you have recently chosen.