An Ancient Man Speaking to a Modern Man

Tags

Christmas, Oration 38, Science, St. Gregory the Theologian

For me, there are two very interesting facets to the twelfth section of St. Gregory the Theologian’s Oration 38, particularly in our own context of modern secularism.

One of the most iconic depictions of Christianity within secular America is defined by the Scopes trial of 1925 and the popularization of this incident through the play and movie Inherit the Wind by Jerome Lawrence and Robert Edwin Lee. Dramatized is the (false) dichotomy between science and Christianity and the crux of this particular conflict is in the historic reading of the Book of Genesis.

Please note that St. Gregory, in the fourth century no less, feels free to interpret Genesis from a metaphoric perspective. He equates the tree of the knowledge of good and evil with contemplation, the sinful weakness of Adam with his own weakness and the skins used by Adam and Eve to cover their nakedness with the sinful flesh of fallen humanity.

In other words, Christianity historically did not limited itself to an historic reading of Genesis. Indeed, one of only three men in the entire history of the Orthodox Church primarily uses a metaphoric reading of Genesis in a homily on Christmas. Thus, the secular depiction of Christians adhering to a literal, historic reading of Genesis even in the face of a scientific reading of history is intellectually dishonest.

Another iconic depiction of Christianity is embodied in the fire and brimstone preacher who is exhorting his people to cower from the anger and punishment of God. St. Gregory also posits that God punishes; however, note what the punishment is and why:

[Adam] gained a certain advantage from [being banished from the tree of life and paradise]; death is also the cutting off of sin, that evil might not be immortal, so the punishment becomes love for humankind. For thus, I am persuaded, God punishes.

God is not an angry God who punishes with the fires of hell. Rather, He is a loving father who limits the amount of damage we can do to ourselves until such time that he can heal what damage has already been done.

Advertisements

Simplicity

Tags

heresy, Oration 38, Politics, Science, St. Gregory the Theologian

While Section 7 of St. Gregory the Theologian’s Oration 38 might seem like the most difficult to decipher of anything yet encountered in this homily on Christmas, it is something we ought to be paying attention to. St. Gregory is talking about the nature of God. Given that he is only one of three men in the entire history of the Orthodox Church to be given the title Theologian — one who knows God — what he has to say in Section 7 is extraordinarily important when it comes to understanding how the Orthodox Church approaches who God is.

There are two key elements to St. Gregory’s exploration of God’s nature in Section 7. Intriguingly, they say as much about ourselves as they do about God.

The first key is that “He is only sketched by the mind, and this in a very indistinct and mediocre way, not from things pertaining to himself but from things around him.” In other words, our minds cannot begin to grasp the nature of God. This flies in the face of modern man’s understanding of himself. We have deluded ourselves into thinking that, through our rational capacities, we can and should be able to understand and control everything around us. Our scientific world view, our dependence upon technology and our desire to save the world through various applications of science, technology and political theory speak to this self image.

In contrast, St. Gregory humbly declares that such an understanding of humanity is foolishness. Our rational powers cannot begin to comprehend the nature of God. Indeed, the only thing he is willing to concede that we truly know about God’s nature is that it is without limit. Thus, one cannot approach God with our modern self image. It severely limits not only who we are, but our ability to understand who God is.

God, the ungraspable, can only be grasped through a personal encounter. He draws us towards Himself so that we may catch glimpses of Him. It is through these encounters that He purifies us. It is through the personal relationship we have with God that we are able to learn how to become like God.

The second key comes from St. Gregory’s statement “Let us inquire further, for simplicity is clearly not the nature of this being.” St. Gregory lived at a time when the philosophy known as Neo-Platonism held a huge sway in the way people of the Roman Empire looked at the world. So much so that, at the very least, Christians had to frame their discussions about God in Neo-Platonic language. Some, however, let Neo-Platonism color and even determine their approach to an understanding of God.

Neo-Platonism holds that what is Good (aka Divine) is simple. The more complex something is, the further away from the Good it gets. Thus, for example, the flesh is further away from the Good than is the soul.

A mistake made by Christians throughout the ages is that we have a tendency to approach God with a philosophical presupposition. In other words, we have an idea of what we want God to be and then try to make God fit our idea of what we want. Since God is beyond the mind — a mediocre instrument for understanding God — approaching God in a philosophical way will necessarily lead to errors. Indeed, one can trace every heresy in the history of the Church to a philosophical presupposition.

At the time St. Gregory was preaching, the primary philosophical presupposition that was causing error and heresy was the Neo-Platonic concept of simplicity. Thus, he dismisses it by pointing out that not only is the mind too mediocre to begin to understand God, but that the concept of simplicity flies in the face of the Church’s experience of God. No philosophical concept can contain that personal relationship.

Thus, we cannot approach God with what we want Him to be. Rather, we must accept Him as He is. This is why God revealed His name to be “The One Who Is” (O ΩΝ, the Greek translation of God’s name revealed to Moses at the burning bush). He reminds us that no human concept can determine or contain the nature of God.

Change

Tags

death, Psalm 1, Science, Scientism, St. Hilary

St. Hilary now begins to meditate upon what awaits the ungodly:

The next point after the prophet had set forth the man’s perfect happiness was for him to declare what punishment remained for the ungodly. Thus there ensues: The ungodly are not so, but are like the dust which the wind driveth away from the face of the earth. The ungodly have no possible hope of having the image of the happy tree applied to them; the only lot that awaits them is one of wandering and winnowing, crushing, dispersion and unrest; shaken out of the solid framework of their bodily condition, they must be swept away to punishment in dust, a plaything of the wind. They shall not be dissolved into nothing, for punishment must find in them some stuff to work on, but ground into particles, imponderable, unsubstantial, dry, they shall be tossed to and fro, and make sport for the punishment that gives them never rest. Their punishment is recorded by the same Prophet in another place where he says: I will beat them small as the dust before the wind, like the mire of the streets I will destroy them (Ps 17[18]:42).

Both the Prophet and St. Hilary are playing with contrast. One of the characteristics of God is that He does not change — He has no beginning and no end. Humanity, on the other hand, is changeable — we have a beginning (conception) and an end (death).

This understanding of humanity comes to vivid life when we look at ourselves through the lens of science. At a molecular level we are in constant flux. The very chemistry of our blood can change day to day based upon what we have eaten. We are always shedding skin and hair and both will have a different make-up depending upon the environment we have been in while that hair and skin was being formed. If we look at ourselves right now, there is nothing left of the building materials that were initially used to bring us into this world. From top to bottom every protein, every cell, every chemical that is our present form has changed countless times over the course of our life.

This ability to change is both a strength and a weakness. It is a strength because we can change to become like the tree at the rills of the water — we can choose to allow God to share His eternity with us. The weakness is that we and the world world around us are always in flux — and we can allow this reality to overwhelm our faith in the unchangeability of God.

One of the terrifying consequences of the modern incarnation of the ungodly — those that embrace to one degree or another Scientism (the false belief that science can answer questions that can only be addressed by theology and philosophy) is its total embrace of change. They claim that science is the answer to everything. Proper science clearly demonstrates that the world is constantly changing (as I pointed out above). Thus, Scientism must necessarily embrace this constant flux.

Unfortunately, those who cling to Scientism are actually seeking a permanent answer to the consequences to the very change that they cling to. Thus, when the world changes in unexpected and uncontrollable ways (as it always does), the one answer that is most temping is to try to grasp at more control. As we saw in the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century, such grasping at control can end up embracing change in a disastrous way — embracing death on a massive scale.

The ungodly, in other words, are doomed to being in constant flux, always changing — being like the dust and chaff blown by the wind. Those who embrace change for the sake of change, instead of change for the sake of becoming like God, are actually embracing the ultimate outcome of change — death.

Cause

Tags

Atheists, Psalm 1, Science, Scientism, St. Hilary

St. Hilary continues his discussion of the ungodly:

Thus, all the counsel of these men is wavering, unsteady, and vague, and wanders about in the same familiar paths and over the same familiar ground, never finding a resting-place, for it fails to reach any definite decision. They have never in their system risen to the doctrine of a Creator of the world, for instead of answering our questions as to the cause, beginning, and duration of the world, whether the world is for man, or man for the world, the reason of death, its extent and nature, they press in ceaseless motion round the circle of this godless argument and find no rest in these imaginings.

One of the things the modern atheist hangs their hat on is science, because science appears to allow them to contradict the criticisms that St. Hilary lays against them in this paragraph. If one pays close attention, however, science still cannot satisfactorily answer these questions.

We can now guess that there was an event that began the universe (generally referred to as the Big Bang) and we can guess that the universe has been around billions of years; however, despite all of the theoretical physics, biology and math that we are now able to use, science has yet to come up with a satisfactory reason for the cause of the universe (save for the idea of intelligent design, which they dismiss out of hand). Humanity, if anything, is increasingly seen as a blight upon creation. They have no reason for death except that it is. These same basic arguments, though now dressed up in physics, biology and math, have basically been the same since St. Hilary.

Indeed, if one wishes to see the ridiculous lengths modern atheists go in order to maintain their world view, I would suggest watching Ben Stein’s documentary on intelligent design and academic freedom Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Stein sits down to interview one of the leading atheist advocates, Richard Dawkins, to talk about intelligent design. Dawkins not only states that the idea that aliens created life on earth is more credible than intelligent design, but he’d be willing to consider it.

In other words, despite all of the physics, biology and math we have at our disposal, science still cannot answer cause. Why do we exist? Why is there death? What is our purpose? Science cannot answer these questions. Thus, the ungodly dance around them today, just as they did in the fourth century.

What Does Particle Physics Say About a Good Marriage?

Tags

Science

I got an interesting email this morning:

Hi Fr.,

What scientific evidence supports the bible?

Regards,

(edited out)

Despite being signed by the person who sent the email, it was forwarded to my email. Unfortunately, in this day and age such a message gets trundled off to my trash folder because it is suspicious. However, such a question does deserve an answer, because it is very like one that so many do ask. 

My half-snarky/half-challenging answer is found in the title of this post:

What does particle physics say about a good marriage?

The point is that particle physics do not deal with the complicated social interactions associated with marriage. Therefore, I do not expect a particle physicist to help with my marriage.

In a similar vein, science cannot answer the question that the bible answers: Who is God?

The scientific method — the basis for all science — requires observable, measurable data that tests whether or not a hypothesis is correct. There is no scientific test that can definitely prove or disprove a hypothesis about God, who (according to the Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom) is:

ineffable, beyond comprehension, invisible, beyond understanding, existing forever and always the same.

The bible, though it has historic and scientific elements, is not a book primarily about history or science. Its main function is revelation — it answers the question Who is God?

The world we live in is inundated with technology — a byproduct of science. Therefore it is easy to conflate science with truth. Science, however, does not demonstrate truth, but rather whether or not a hypothesis is correct…until it isn’t. Even scientific laws are only hypotheses that have been observed to be correct so often that they can be assumed to be correct…until they aren’t — just ask a particle physicist about the Law of Gravity. 

This conflation is especially tempting when one does not like the answers one finds when asking theological questions. Since science cannot answer these questions, one can easily dismiss them as unscientific and therefore untrue.

However, to make such a leap is like asking a particle physicist on how to save a failing marriage.

Vastness

Tags

Christmas, Holy Spirit, Science, St. Ambrose, Trinity

In the eleventh chapter of the first book of his treatise On the Holy Spirit, St. Ambrose continues to compare the Holy Spirit to the Seraphim. He does so to demonstrate how each is sent. The Seraph is limited by space and time. The Spirit is limited by neither. For:

Neither the Father, Who is above all not only of corporeal nature, but also of the invisible creation, is circumscribed in any place; nor is the Son, Who, as the Worker of all creation, is above every creature, enclosed by the places or times of His own works; nor is the Spirit of Truth as being the Spirit of God, circumscribed by any corporeal limits, Who since He is incorporeal is far above the whole rational creation through the ineffable fulness of His Godhead, having over all things the power of breathing where He wills, and of inspiring as He wills (John 3:8).

This passage calls to mind an image found in Orthodox Christian hymnody. This particular instance is sung at the Vespers of the Nativity:

The Virgin is now more spacious than the Heavens; for light has shone upon those in darkness, and has exalted those of low degree who sing like the Angels: Glory to God in the highest.

One of the marvels of modern science is how it is able to bring to light how truly awesome God is. Take, for example this image:

It is a photograph of the Cosmic Microwave Background taken from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. Scientists have hypothesized that this represents the radiation given off by the Big Bang some 13.7 billion years ago. In other words, this is a picture of time — and beyond this veil we cannot see. Note the vastness with which we are now able to describe creation — 13.7 billion years. The heavens are so spacious that distances between stars are not measured by distance, but by time — light years.

The Theotokos is now more spacious than these.

Seen in this context, the Incarnation of our Lord, God and Savior becomes that much more staggering. Trying to describe the magnitude of the miracle is a task I leave to my betters. Here is one of the better attempts, from the Orthros of the Nativity:

He Whom nothing can contain, how is He held within a womb? And while in His Father’s arms, how in His Mother’s pure embrace? Such is His will and good pleasure, and as He Knows. For being without flesh, He took flesh willingly; for us He Who Is became what He was not. Without forsaking His own nature, He has partaken of what we are. For Christ is born now, twofold in nature, to fill Heaven with mankind.

He is beyond the veil of 13.7 billion years. He is beyond the farthest reaches that the Hubble Space Telescope can peer. He is beyond anything our mortal minds can comprehend, let alone imagine. And yet, He became a babe so that this vastness — 13.7 billion years of time and space — might be filled with mankind. What else can we say other than to cry out with the angels: Glory to God in the highest!

Science

Tags

Atheists, Holy Spirit, Science, Secularism, St. Ambrose

When one reads enough of the Fathers of the Church, there is one aspect of our modern world that begins to seem downright backwards. To the modern mind, there is a dichotomy between science and religion. This is, in part, due to the emergence of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Since his theory hypothesizes a mechanism for change that operates primarily by random chance, it intellectually challenges the role of a divine creator in the grand scheme of things. However (despite the protestations of atheists and secularists), the actual mechanism that Darwin proposes (natural selection) does not stand up to scientific analysis (how does it explain altruism?). If scientists are honest they will admit as such.

However, as characterized by the Scopes Trial, the modern world sees religion and science as adversaries. This dichotomy, in part, is perpetuated by people who are anti-religion because it allows them to remove religion (especially Christianity) from the public sphere and makes power over others easier to obtain and hold onto. Remember the words of St. Paul in the third chapter of Galatians (v. 28):

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

For anyone who seeks to have power over anyone else, Christianity is a major stumbling block.

Evolution, however, is not alien to religion — indeed the goal of Orthodox Christianity is the evolution of creation from its fallenness to the divine life of God. Indeed, I would argue that the current perception of religion vs. science is something that does not hold up to a close examination, especially if one reads the Fathers.

Take St. Ambrose, for example. Having established, in the ninth chapter of the first book of his treatise On the Holy Spirit, that the Holy Spirit is the oil of gladness, he states:

And well did he say oil of gladness, lest you should think Him a creature; for it is the nature of this sort of oil that it will by no means mingle with moisture of another kind. Gladness, too, does not anoint the body, but brightens the inmost heart, as the prophet said: ‘Thou hast put gladness in my heart’ (Ps. 4:7). So as he loses his pains who wishes to mix oil with moister matter, because since the nature of oil is lighter than others, when the others settle, it rises and is separated. How do those wretched pedlars think that the oil of gladness can by their tricks be mingled with other creatures, since of a truth corporeal things cannot be mingled with incorporeal, nor things created with uncreated?

Did you see it? Did you see how St. Ambrose used science to make a theological point? Oil and water do not mix. Oil is lighter than water and so when the two settle, the oil sits atop the water. This is science and the Fathers were never afraid to use science to illustrate a theological point. God is the creator of all. Therefore, our observations of His creation will inevitably reveal to us theology. We just have to be open to the possibility.

Sadly, the modern mind has convinced itself that science — the means by which we explore and explain creation — is incapable of seeing the Creator through His Creation. Who, in their right mind, says that we can know nothing about Pablo Picasso, Rembrandt or Claude Monet from their paintings? Certainly, we cannot know them in their entirety without having other sources of information, but we can intuit basic information about them. Seeing what they painted, in what style they painted in and by the technology used in their paint we can determine when and where they lived, for example. Thus, to say that God cannot be known by observing His creation is patently ridiculous.

In other words, science vs. religion (especially Christianity) is a false dichotomy.

A Star Shall Rise Out of Jacob

Tags

Christmas, Old Testament, Psalms, Science, St. Gregory Palamas, Worship

10. And look forthwith at the symbols of this ineffable union and the resulting benefit poured out even upon those far away. A star accompanies the magi (Matt. 2:2-10): coming to a halt when they do, and travelling with them when they move on, or rather, drawing them and inviting them to the road, as their leader escorting them on their journey. It offers itself as their guide when they are on the move, and when they rest awhile it permits them to do so, and itself stays in its place, lest deserting them it should grieve them by its absence, seeming to abandon its role as guide before journey’s end. For it caused them considerable distress by concealing itself from them when they approached Jerusalem. — St. Gregory Palamas, Homily Fifty-Eight on the Saving Nativity According to the Flesh of Our Lord and God and Savior.

As modern human beings, we are both blessed and cursed. We are blessed because, unlike those generation before us, we reap the benefit of scientific achievement. Our lives as we live them today were unthinkable even ten or fifteen years ago because of technology (take, for example, the fact that you are reading this blog right now).

We are cursed, because, with such a heavy reliance upon the fruits of science, we tend to narrow our understanding of creation to the scientific world-view. Thus, when St. Gregory starts to personify the star from the story of the Nativity — as something that stops and starts as it guides the three magi — our scientific world-view balks at the idea and is tempted to not only dismiss the idea, but to dismiss Palamas as someone who is inferior and unsophisticated for saying such a thing.

Not only is such a dismissal unfairly anachronistic (St. Gregory’s body of scientific knowledge is radically different from ours), but it fails to appreciate how poetic and Scriptural such a view actually is. Please note how Psalm 148 sees creation:

Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise him in the heights!
Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his host!
Praise him, sun and moon; praise him, all you shining stars!
Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!
Let them praise the name of the Lord, for he commanded and they were created.
He established them forever and ever; he fixed their bounds, which cannot be passed.
Praise the Lord from the earth, you sea monsters and all deeps, fire and hail, snow and frost, stormy wind fulfilling his command!
Mountains and all hills, fruit trees and all cedars!
Wild animals and all cattle, creeping things and flying birds!
Kings of the earth and all peoples, princes and all rulers of the earth!
Young men and women alike, old and young together!
Let them praise the name of the Lord, for his name alone is exalted; his glory is above earth and heaven.
He has raised up a horn for his people, praise for all his faithful, for the people of Israel who are close to him. Praise the Lord!

Note how the Psalmist personifies all of creation. This is something a purely scientific world-view would dismiss. Also note how the Church follows the pattern of Psalm 148 and personifies creation in its hymns:

What shall we offer You, O Christ? for You appeared on earth as a man for our sakes. Of all the creatures made by You, each offers You thanksgiving. The Angels offer You the hymn; the Heavens, the star, the Magi their gifts; the shepherds, their wonder; the earth, her cave; the wilderness, the manger; and we offer You a Virgin Mother. O God, Who was before the ages, have mercy on us. — Stichera from the Great Vespers of Christmas

This understanding of the participation of nature in the story of salvation allows us to see that God had chosen to use the star, not only to guide the three magi to the Christ child, but us as well:

A star shall rise out of Jacob — Numbers 24:17

“I have begotten you from the womb before the morning star” — Psalm 109:3

Amen.

On the Equality of Heaven and Earth

Tags

Christmas, prayer, Science, St. Gregory Palamas, St. John Chrysostom, Worship

When I first started to read St. Gregory Palamas’ homily on Christmas, the first sentence that really jumped out at me was the following:

today I see equality of honour between heaven and earth, and a way up for all those below to things above, matching the condescension of those on high.

There are two very striking things about this statement. Americans tend to be rather numb to the word ‘equality.’ We tend to take it for granted given those famous words from the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. This statement by Palamas is a good reminder of the power of the word: today earth is equal to heaven in honor — two radically different things are now equal. Not only that, but St. Gregory sees a means by which all of creation may rise to the condescension (superiority) of heaven. Note what Palamas says next in his homily:

However great the heaven of heavens may be, or the upper waters which form a roof over the celestial regions, or any heavenly place, state or order, they are no more marvellous or honourable than the cave, the manger, the water sprinkled on the infant and His swaddling clothes.

This lays bare as to how awesome (in the true sense of the word) the Nativity of Christ really is. God has not only taken on our humanity, but has willingly taken up the very stuff of all creation. This reality becomes even more clear if we look upon it from a scientific point of view. At a molecular level, the Incarnate Christ is made up of the very same stuff as all creation. Indeed, every time He ate or drank the molecules that make up creation (the food and water) became part of Him.

This is a very potent reminder that on the sixth day of creation God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good (Gen 1:31). Christ came not just for us, but for all of creation. This is also a reminder of our vital role in creation:

you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. — 1 Peter 2:9

As the Church it is our calling to be the means by which creation is lifted up to the condescension of heaven. Please note this prayer from the Anaphora of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom:

We also offer to You this spiritual worship for the whole world

All this has been made possible because God so loved the world that He sent His Son to be born in a manger and wrapped in swaddling clothes. Amen.

An Exercise in Critical Thinking

Tags

Abortion, Atheists, Bill Maher, Communism, Cross, equality, George Bernard Shaw, Martin Niemöller, Resurrection, Science, Secularism, Virginia Ironside

I have a confession to make. Bill Maher gets under my skin. I once was a big fan of his, and this is exactly why he reminds me of the person I used to be. At one time in my life I used the same arguments, the same logic and the same reasons Bill Maher uses in order to attack the faith I now hold dear. If not for God’s gift of reason, critical thinking and a good dose of humility, I would still be a pale imitation of Maher and miserable for it. So, when Bill Maher appeared on the O’Reilly Factor last week and made the facile observation that faith is the “purposeful suspension of critical thinking” (at about 19:00 in the this video) it really bothered me.

In response, I’d like to do a little exercise in critical thinking and see which does better — human secularism or a faith in Jesus Christ. First watch the following video:

Note the shocked expressions of both the host and the other guest (who I presume is an Anglican pastor). For a moment, let us imagine a world where Maher’s point of view holds sway. Christianity is deemed a relic of the past whose proper place is in the dust bid of history. What exactly is it that would justify the host telling Ironside that her willingness to suffocate a child is horrible? What argument does human secularism have? Indeed, by getting rid of God, does it not reduce morality to human will? And since human beings do not have wills of equal strength, does it not then fall to whoever has the strongest will? Do we not inevitably arrive at some variation of the following (courtesy of the playwright George Bernard Shaw and author of Pygmalion — later adapted into the musical My Fair Lady):

I am reminded of the quote attributed to Martin Niemöller:

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Without God — particularly a Christian God — by what standard would anyone be able to speak up? Indeed, It was Niemöller’s own Christianity that allowed him to speak out against the Nazis.

Ultimately, Maher’s views lead civilization down a road that ends in death on a massive scale. We have seen this pattern played out over and over again throughout history, most recently in the horror of the twentieth century when tens of millions of people paid the price for human arrogance.

Christian anthropology does not allow for the kind of rationalization of murder employed by Ironside and Shaw. Not only has God created each and every one of us in His image and likeness, but He, in the person of Jesus Christ, has taken on our humanity as His own. He shares our human nature. Thus, no matter how we might try to rationalize it, those few cells Ironside is so happy to do away with shares its human nature with God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ.

Get rid of God, and all we have left is a morality based on who is strongest. The result of that will always be death on a massive scale.