Nielsen’s Nook

Nielsen’s Nook
Nielsen’s Nook
Contemplative, reflective, and irenic we pray.
Print Print

Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins

Will Nielsen
July 17th, 2006
Tags:
No Comments

I found this article to be a stimulating reflection in lieu of the current schism that seems to be brewing strong in the Episcopal church. I hope we non-Anglicans can grieve with these who are experiencing schism and pray that God would give the faithful wisdom how to persevere in the midst of such faithlessness.

HT: Patrick Lafferty

Print Print

The Law of God (Romans 8:3-4)

Will Nielsen
July 16th, 2006
Tags: •
No Comments

Romans 8:3-4 (English Standard Version)
For God has done what the Law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

If the Law of God is merely the prescription of what we should do in order to be righteous, then we do well to take these verses to mean 1) that the Law was powerless to change our behavior, 2) that Christ came to behave well in our place, and 3) that He came to condemn our misbehavior. There are certainly parallels and trajectories familiar to us all who live in the present time which compel us to receive such interpretation. This is a common strain of thought.

However, let me suggest what I believe is a more biblically consistent understanding. If the Law is taken as the marvelous indicative description of God’s character then we as His image are implicated in an imperative that is captured in Matthew 5:48:

48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

It is not all of creation that has its purpose or goal (τελειος) of existence as the reflection of the likeness of the Almighty. This is a unique calling bestowed upon humanity, not merely in the abstract but in the warp and woof of everyday life. So what we find is that Christ came as a sin offering (i.e., for sin) not simply that we might behave better but that the dignity of humanity might be restored to the New Humanity that was formed out of Christ, the New Adam.

Christ came as one of us, being exactly like us in everyway excepting sin. He alone was the one man, being the image of God (c.f., Heb 1:1-4) who was perfectly like God. In this way, we see a picture of not only who God is, but also we see a beautiful portrait of the Truly Human. The righteous requirment of the Law is not primarily the keeping of rules but the emmulation of the righteousness of the Archetype. That is the photograph is only truly beautiful when it corresponds most clearly to the thing photographed. If we were to take a picture of a placid mountain landscape and then look at the photo only to see black streaks all through it, we would think something was wrong. We could tell that the image had connection to the landscape, but it was not much like it now that it contained all the black streaks or pixelations.

Christ is the pristine picture of the Father, which is perfectly what a human being was created to be. It is the restoration of a greater dignity to humanity generally and a perfect dignity returned to His progeny. It is this principle of dignity restored of which we see the effects in those who live according to Spirit. Certainly behavior is changed. Certainly our affections have a very different object. But the primary focus is the restoration of Humanity to be the image that is also like the God who created them. This restoration is certainly not finished; however, one day when God punctuates His redemptive sentence we will see a humanity being finally restored of which one may ask, “Is it real or is it memorex?”

Print Print

Deuteronomy 6:4-5 > Hear O Israel

Will Nielsen
July 6th, 2006
Tags: •
No Comments

4 שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה׀ אֶחָֽד׃

5 וְאָ֣הַבְתָּ֔ אֵ֖ת יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ֥ וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁךָ֖ וּבְכָל־מְאֹדֶֽךָ׃

Writer’s Translation
4 Hear O Israel, YHWH your [pl] God, YHWH is one. 5 You [sg] will love YHWH, your [sg] God, with all of your [sg] heart, with all of your [sg] lifea, and with exceedingly all of you.

_____
a nephesh has a broader semantic field that can range from “life” to “soul” and generally refers to the immaterial component of the composite whole of a creature.

Continuing to explore the idea of 1) the Decalogue as descriptive of God in his essence as righteousness in contradistinction from some kind of prescriptive imperative, telling us what to to in order to be righteous (see previous post); I wanted to chase this idea curiously through this chapter to consider its merits.

In this light, chapter 6 the last half of the literary unit that contains the Decalogue in Deuteronomy 5 would seem to be a redemptive historical address of YHWH to his people. The commands to hear in verses 3 and 4 are clues to this. In otherwords, “Listen to me, let me tell you who you are as I created you, and to whom I am restoring you as a people out of the grasp of sin and death!” YHWH declares himself to be one, that is, undivided perfect unity. Humanity as God’s image has been fractured and is no longer one but a living contradiction of principles. We see the divine element in us, and yet at the same time we see the anti-divine element that can so forcibly compel us.

YHWH is bursting onto the scene, speaking light into this dark contradiction. He described himself, humanity’s archetype and now describes himself as undivided. As He is undivided so shall his people be. That is one day they will not be rent and ruined by this living contradiction. This is explained in the statement that follows in verse 5: You - the People of God - who know this contradiction all to well, will be those who will love YHWH from the heart, from the inside, with your life, in fact with exceedingly all of you. Notice that the words which describe the faculties of love by which a person is described as loving YHWH are all intrinsic. The kind of love to which God is redeeming his people is not behavior modification, but dissolution of contradiction, a radical resolution of the dissonant into marvelous redemptive historical harmony. It is in this symphony that we live and move and participate.

Lord have mercy, that we might today, this day, adore more fully Christ to whom we are as his people bound, that in us the perfect image of the Father, Christ Himself, would be more deeply evident in us, His people. Amen.

Print Print

Logical Positivists, Religious Moral Imperatives and CompUSA

Will Nielsen
July 4th, 2006
Tags: •
1 Comment »

In trying to make light of just realizing that CompUSA (aka CompUseless) has effectively stolen $350 from me, let me share with you out of my deontological burden how not to get suckered yourself. My wife teaches Philosophy at a local community college where she often gets a rise out of students when she tries to illustrate the Logical Positivists disposition towards religious moral imperatives. My usually soft spoken wife, with over dramatized urgency exclaims, “Stealing!! Don’t do it.” With respect to CompUSA, it might be contextualized to sound something like, “CompUSA!!! Don’t shop there!!!”

In light of my experience with CompUSA today, I have existential evidence that the Logical Positivists’ disposition towards morality is as impractical as the so-called “Laptop Replacement Policy” a slick salesman sold me last September. I asked the fellow as I always do when they push the fear button to get you to buy their policy, “Are you telling me that the laptops you sell here are that poorly made?” He replied, “No, no! You said this was a business laptop and I know that you do not have a lot of time to wait on Toshiba to fix it if something goes wrong. What this policy does for you is if the machine breaks you bring it in and if we cannot fix it on the spot we’ll replace it so that you won’t have to lose any more time.”

Normally, I don’t purchase these things because the manufacturer’s warranty is usually more than enough. Given the pace of my web development and graphic design business, I thought the $350 to bail me out of a temporal bind when the computer failed would be worth it. So it fails this morning. I have a major deadline on July 6. I was expecting to work all day (yes I know it’s a holiday, but salaried aristocrats, not business owners make holidays).

After trying to revive my computer all morning (many of you call me when your computers act up), I decided perhaps I should go ahead and use this “Replacement Plan”. When I get there I get a flat denial of any notion of replacement plan. They don’t have parts in so it should be back to me in a little over a week. #*&@#! I’m dead. I explained to the manager what I was told. He referred me to the documentation. I reminded him that the documentation is all sealed up in a package that I cannot open until I purchase it and that if I had known I was just paying them to broker my own warranty work, I would never have purchased the product (exceedingly over priced at this point). Further, when I purchased one of these replacement plans from Fry’s Electronics for my HP iPaq, I had the unit replaced in 30 minutes no questions asked. That’s is what was promised to me when I purchased this “replacement policy” from CompUSA.

So if you are wise, you won’t shop at CompUSA. I recommend Best Buy or Fry’s. They have always stood behind the many products I have bought from them for business or pleasure. If your still wiser, you won’t purchase these so called warranties or replacement plans. The manufacturer will stand behind their products if they are reputable.

Well there. My first blog rant ever. I feel much better now. Thanks.

Print Print

Deuteronomy 6:1-3 > Bearing the Decalogue

Will Nielsen
July 2nd, 2006
Tags: •
No Comments

1 וְזֹ֣את הַמִּצְוָ֗ה הַֽחֻקִּים֙ וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוָּ֛ה יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶ֖ם לְלַמֵּ֣ד אֶתְכֶ֑ם לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת בָּאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אַתֶּ֛ם עֹבְרִ֥ים שָׁ֖מָּה לְרִשְׁתָּֽהּ׃

2 לְמַ֨עַן תִּירָ֜א אֶת־יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֗יךָ לִ שְׁמֹר אֶת־כָּל־חֻקֹּתָ֣יו וּמִצְוֹתָיו֮ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָ ֹכִ֣י מְצַוֶּךָ֒ אַתָּה֙ וּבִ ְךָ֣ וּבֶן־בִּ ְךָ֔ כֹּ֖ל יְמֵ֣י חַיֶּ֑יךָ וּלְמַ֖עַן יַאֲרִכֻ֥ן יָמֶֽיךָ׃

3 וְשָׁמַעְתָּ֤ יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ וְשָׁמַרְתָּ֣ לַעֲשׂ֔וֹת אֲשֶׁר֙ יִיטַ֣ב לְךָ֔ וַאֲשֶׁ֥ר תִּרְבּ֖וּן מְאֹ֑ד כַּאֲשֶׁר֩ דִּבֶּ֨ר יְהוָ֜ה אֱלֹהֵ֤י אֲבֹתֶ֙יךָ֙ לָ֔ךְ אֶ֛רֶץ זָבַ֥ת חָלָ֖ב וּדְבָֽשׁ׃ פ

Author’s Translation
(1) Now this is the commandmentְ the statues and the specification which YHWH, your [pl] God, commanded me to teach you [pl] with the purpose that you would do them in the land which you [pl] are crossing over there to possess; (2) that you [sg] would fear YHWH, your [sg] God, that you would keep all of his statutes and commandments which I command you [sg], your [sg] children and your [sg] children’s children all the days of your [sg] life so that your [sg] days may be lengthened. (3) Hear, therefore, Israel and you [sg] keep them in order to do them which are good for you [sg] and which will multiply you [sg] exceedingly as YHWH, the God of your [sg] fathers, promised to you [sg]: a land flowing with milk and honey.
Reflection
This passage follows the Decalogue (so called Ten Commandments), being a description of God’s holy and righteous nature. That description implicates all of humanity because every individual person is created in the image of the one the Decalogue describes. Therefore, it is no wonder that Deuteronomy 5 and 6 are one literary unit. In other words, chapter 5 describes to us who God is. Chapter 6 then describes for us how those created in his image will live in light of the fact that human beings are the image of God.

So the imperative of the Decalogue is that it describes for us the archetype whom we are to reflect as image, to be like. God does not steal and therefore we seek to be like him in integrity. God does not tolerate spiritual rebellion (idolatry) nor should we with a view to ourselves.

Thus we see that the heinousness of sin is not primarily seen in the fact that the Law of God is broken, but that we who were created as image, to be like God, do what is precisely and explicitly unlike Him. In fearing God we dare not view ourselves as autonomous. We seek after Him, longing that He would receive His due. He promises abundant rest that he has been faithful to provide to His people. The dirt of Palestine has always prefigured the Lord Jesus who would come and demonstrate himself to be the water and bread of life, the land flowing with milk and honey.

Print Print

6. The Spiritual Writers: Salvation, Asceticism, and Deification (2 of 2)

Will Nielsen
July 1st, 2006
Tags: • • • • • • •
1 Comment »

Humanity’s Relationship to God
The Image of God that every human being is represents the basic building block in understanding our relationship to God even after the Fall. The redemption of fallen humans required that Christ take on the same ’stuff’ as they were and are. St. Athanasius writes, “The death of all was being accomplished in the body of the Lord, and on the other hand, death and corruption were destroyed by the Word which dwelt in that body.” (p 118)

This dynamic of dying and purification lead us to the spiritual relationship of humanity to God in Christ. Major aspects of this Spirituality can be summarized as such:

  • Original participation
  • Analogous Freedom of the Image of God
  • Sin as a consequence of servitude to the demonic
  • Redemption as a recapitulation of the human nature in the risen Christ

Meyendorff, again, warns his Western readers that Anselm or the Augustinian vs. Pelagian controversy are alien paradigms to these Eastern concepts. Reading these alien paradigms into the Eastern will inevitably result in skewing our understanding of what the East is actually saying on their own terms.1

During the time of the great controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries, the monks focused on the incarnation of the church in its heavenly aspect as opposed to the institutional structures rooted in this world [Dualism?]. They were preoccupied with realizing the participation in the divine life, from which Adam was deprived and which became accessible again in Christ.

As mentioned in previous chapters, Evagrius employed Platonic thought (viz. Metaphysics) explaining the Fall of the νους from its original dignity being now consigned to a bodily state. His system and terminology are based first of all on a distinction between praxis (πρακτική μέθοδος) and theoria (or γνωσις). The praxis was double edged. First there was the fight against the passions and second the practice of the evangelical commands. “The passions” (τά πάθη) were not simply a state of the soul but a means of the devil to enslave humanity. (p 119)

In speaking of this fight against the passions, Evagrius intimates that humans are most vulnerable when they are idle. Temptation is external to the human being who is the victim of the passions. All can be vanquished by faith which leads to continence and ultimately to apatheia (απάθεια), the supreme aim of the praxis. It is this arrival at impassibility in which a human being would find herself free to develop in herself the divine agape, consecrating herself entirely to theoria, “of which ‘intellectual’ and perpetual prayer is the most adequate expression.” (p 120)

While for Evagrius the state of prayer is an impassible state, as a state of liberation it also implies dematerialization [neo-Platonic metaphysic]. Thus prayer for Evagrius is the ‘prelude to the immaterial gnosis’ (προοίμιον της αϋλου γνώσεως). “…[A]s for Origen,” writes Vladimir Lossky, “the ψυχή (soul) would be for Evagrius a distortion of the νους (intellect), which moves away from God by becoming material.” (p 121) Once liberated, the intellect can engage in theoria without being distorted by the passions which once held the intellect captive. Now the intellect contemplates in light of the Logos.

Ultimately the liberated can contemplate and know God himself, being predicated on the Origenist metaphysic that drew a “natural kinship” between the divine and intellectual. (p 121). In great (and this writer would say problematic) divergence from the Cappadocians and Pseudo-Dionysius, Evagrius blurs the distinction between Creator and creature when he writes, “God does not transcend the intellect; once purified, detached from matter and ’simple’ in its contemplation, the intellect sees God as he is, in his essence.” (p 122) The result being an extreme form of Pelagianism, being seen most extremely in the Isochrist monks, “who claimed that they became ‘equal to Christ’ by the restoration of their minds in contemplation of God…” (p 122)

Alternately, a tendency that excluded Platonic dualism enjoyed great influence, seeing humanity’s way towards deification in a Christ-centered sacramental spirituality. The so called St. Macarius of Egypt (some think him to be Symeon of Mesopotamia).

The asceticism of Evagrius and Macarius must be understood in a more full orbed context, incorporating the assumptions about the nature of sin, the original destiny of humanity and salvation in terms of deification. For example, Evagrius taught that the passions were manifestations of the corruption of human nature. In other words, sin as an external action only manifests our “passionate” state. (p 123) This way of viewing sin gave way to the role of the “spiritual father”, being a guide for the journey through this world.

Many aspects of the ascetical tradition of the Christian East can present to the Western observer a Pelagian aspect…. [If] one remembers the conception of the image of God as it prevails in the Greek Fathers, the problem of the relationship between grace and human freedom is on a different level from that which opposed Augustine to Pelagius in the West. Nature, and therefore true freedom, presuppose communion with God in grace…. It is not the blasphemous juxtaposition of divine grace and human effort but the concrete realization in Jesus Christ of man’s primitive image. (p 124)

Or as Gregory of Nyssa writes, “What has been made in all aspects in the image of the divinity must undoubtedly possess in its nature a free and independent will, in order that participation in the divine advantages should be the prize of virtue.” This doctrine of synergism (συνεργεία) is developed further in Marcarius:

The more one loves, the more one gives oneself to the fight, in one’s body and in one’s soul, in order to accomplish the commandments, the greater the communion one achieves with the Spirit into the spiritual growth of the renewing of the mind; acquiring salvation by grace and divine gift, but receiving by faith, by love, and by the effort of free choice, progress and increase in the measure of this spiritual age….Thus, eternal life will be inherited by grace, but also in all righteousness, since it is not only through the divine grace and power without human collaboration (συνεργεία) and effort that progress is made… (p 125)

A passage like the one from Macarius above will sound Pelagian or semi-Pelagian unless Eastern notions of participation and communion accepted. Human freedom and effort are to be understood as entailing participation in the divine life. This in turn assumes real communion with the Archetype of whom humanity is image. This is what the Christian East calls deification. This is for Athanasius and Cyril the very basis of the Gospel.

Deification implies then that the soul becomes one with God. Humanity is called to participate in God, without there ever being any confusion between God’s nature and that of the person, without any diminution of human freedom. In this a person fulfills the destiny for which humanity was created.

Byzantine monastics sought to fill their minds with God pressing forward towards the goal of deification. One significant manifestation of this thought is seen in the Jesus Prayer an essential element of Byzantine hesychasm (’ησυχία rest or contemplation). Thus constant prayer is the mark of a mind truly freed from the passions. Isaac of Nineveh writes:

When the Spirit establishes his dwelling in man, the latter can no longer stop praying, for the Spirit never ceases praying in him. Whether he sleeps or stays awake, prayer is not separated from his soul. (p 127)

It is in Christ that humanity recovers his original destiny, rediscovers true freedom which perished in its slavery to Satan. In Christ humanity makes use of this regained freedom, working with the Holy Spirit, that a person may love and know God. It is deification (θέωσις) that gives the mystical character to Byzantine spirituality. ‘Mystical’ here is referring not to the subjective experience but the objective reality of union with Christ. As a person is the image of God, deification is the free and conscious participation in the divine life, which is proper only to humanity. As St. Athanasius gives in his great patristic principle: “If God did not become man, man cannot become God.” (p 129)

__________
1 I might add here how much I have enjoyed the interaction with Acolyte4236. While Meyendorff’s point is well taken here, I - as a Westerner - do not know how to gain this understanding with out extended dialogue with those who do have these categories already in place.