I can see professional and scholarly theologians scratching their heads. Whoever said an irrelevant person could discuss issues concerned with theologians' area of expertise? But really, they should have faith in freedom, and realise that faith is a precious personal experience, the "pearl"3.1 too precious to be left only in the hands of the experts, even if their opinion is sometimes needed.
Faith is too serious to be entrusted to those who "before you think, they think on behalf of you"3.1a. It does not presuppose ingenuity, wisdom, long and laborious study, and exclusive occupation to have faith. It is not the result of study and the analysis of books, sacred texts or the written ideas of saintly people.
Saint Paul understood this issue from the very beginning. The new teaching was not (or at least not exclusively) directed to the intellectuals and the elite of that century: "For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise"3.2. Jesus' teaching is ecumenical and is not directed at the "favoured few", but to everyone. (The biggest sin of "existing" Christianity was that it tried to imprison the spirit of the new teaching in barriers of ethnic, local or other variant expediencies).
If the simple, the humble, the poor in spirit can understand the Word of God, take it up and live it, then of course, the wise wouldn't have a problem, with the condition of accepting "that no flesh should glory in his presence"3.3. In theory, faith as an affirmation of one of the two opposing and self-exclusive answers to the existential question of being (and even atheism is a belief), is a worldwide human tendency but it is also completely personal. In this context and for the purposes of this discussion, mainly to avoid platitudes, sailing into rough waters, and references to other religions which are much respected but not familiar to me, we will accept as dogma the "strictum senso" of Christian teaching.
This admission is a little difficult and depends on the ability you might have to enumerate Christian attitudes and ideas and put them in order. It is immediately perceptible that this conception includes the "Lucifer's pride"3.4 (the satanic core of egoism): for the Christian, a materialistic person is "faithless", while for the Moslem, a Christian is faithless, regardless of the fact that these expressions are different in quality.
It is a fact that our faith, Christianity, becomes a starting point for rivalries, factiousness, and sometimes hate towards every perception that is not identical to this particular belief. Maybe the leaders of present day Christianity should ask themselves when these ideas first grew up, flourished, and yielded bitter fruit.
Let us get these ideas back to their original path. Of course, there are numerous perceptions and boundaries concerning the meaning of faith. In this context we could place an unrefined, spontaneous and imperfect idea: faith is a personal relationship with Jesus in conditions of love and freedom that inspire us with a proposition of life, whose substance is the living experience of these values. This relationship is kept alive in a daily struggle, which gives meaning to existence and to death and simultaneously it is the fulfillment of joy and hope.
The way in which each person can have this relationship is a completely distinct story. Daring to give my personal point of view, I would say that the ways leading to this relationship are as numerous as the unique and unrepeatable personalities existing or who have ever existed on this planet. Let us have a look at some examples.
First of all, there are those who were "brought up on" holy Scriptures and lived a quiet and peaceful life, untroubled by doubts and questions which if they ever dared to surface, were automatically silenced.
Their surroundings, all warmth and comfort, protected them from such dangerous temptations, excluding any contact with them. These people never needed to come to the crossroads which Hercules came to, as it was ensured they were let off any difficult decisions. They were the princes and princesses who never had to work for their daily bread, and never exercise, even a little, their precious freedom. It would be unthinkable to ask for "the portion of goods that falleth"3.5, but it would also be unthinkable and a great mistake on their father's part to give them their freedom without conditions.
Of course when these privileged people, who are more and more being held up as an example to young people by the majority of those in the Church, actually got onto life's race-track and fought on equal terms with their underprivileged fellow humans, their precious "freedom" was really tested.
Some went on with the struggle to final victory under their own steam, while others curled up in some refuge, or encircled themselves in the walls of their fanaticism, trying to persuade themselves that they were enjoying peace and joy in their miserable lives, deprived of the exultation of creation and giving.
There are others who did not have the "luck" of the former as they were born in unfortunate and unfavourable circumstances, but when they grew up and took life into their own hands, they came face-to-face with the question "Who am I and where am I going?" and having heard the opinions and experiences of their fellow men (those they had met and studied) they made, some at a particular moment and some over a period of time, the decision that came from the mind and heart; and they followed a difficult road, falling, bleeding, but continuing to the end.
Others, born at the wrong time and place, did not know Jesus' teaching in its complete and traditional form, but led by the star of Bethlehem which shone on their souls, followed an uphill and difficult road, listening to an inner voice which urged them on with unutterable exultation every time when against their own interest they "opened" themselves to their "neighbour".
All this may sound strange to those who are "addicted" to the idea that the Church, the Kingdom of God on earth, has earthly barriers, boundaries and restrictions and who ignore that God "dwelleth not in temples made with hands"3.6.
For those who are attached to the "the oldness of the letter"3.7 there is an anomaly that they fail to deal with: What, in the final analysis, does real, unadulterated Christian faith consist of? Is it the unconditional acceptance of whatever (clad with the "carnal" human language) is included in the New Testament? And if some people could not or would not read the Scriptures from beginning to end and accept them in full awareness, are not they Christians? If you read "Revelation" and you do not understand much, even if you ask the experts who are accepted interpreters for the State Church, do you have to stay outside the "bridal chamber"?
If you did not read the entire Old Testament, because as you proceeded you realised that a lot of what you were reading clashed with what you read in the New Testament, are you censurable? Of course in the Gospels, there are parts where Jesus emphasised a totally different teaching ("Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time[…]But I say unto you"3.8), but is all the rest accepted or rejected? And even if some of these old sayings are against Christ's Teaching, how will the simple Christian know that? Maybe he should acquire his own personal theologian? Or maybe it is his own responsibility to abandon his work on earth and give himself up to studying theology? And let us say that he does go for solutions like that. Is he certain that this solution is perfect and final? Can he read all the Patristic texts and remember what they all say about every situation or every Synodic Resolution included in the fat "Book of Holy Canons"? Will we end up there? Must every simple believer be a well-read "lawyer", who will have to be informed about every last order and scholastic interpretation of the law? Did none of those enclosed in their towers of authority, noble hierophants of the Hierarchy, remind the people that "for ye are not under the law, but under grace" 3.9?
What then does it mean for the Church when someone is a believer? Does it mean someone who knows and accepts everything written in the holy books and in holy tradition? Or does it mean the person who does not know it but unprotestingly and without examination accepts it all? It seems that the present Church focuses its attention on the latter. To the curse of the law, which is concentrated on the anxiety from the double-edged sword which falls inexorably on every moral infringement, is added the fear that maybe someone will think or say something that is not considered a genuine expression of faith coinciding with accepted ideas, and so automatically and without the chance of defending himself, he is considered an heretic.
Do you think a "Mrs. Smith-Jones" really knows about the "filioque" and should she proclaim it aloud, lest she be excommunicated? Cultivated here is distaste, fanaticism, and sometimes even hate for the heterodox (they even sometimes say "Curse the Papists" on Mount Athos). Unfortunately, some people go along with this. They are not obstinate like the Mrs Smith-Jones of this world, who knows she should "avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law"3.10, leaving it all up to the intellectuals and follows her own road uninterrupted by anyone. Since she is not a threat to "authority", nobody really cares about her after all.
We have already referred to the faith of the simple, poor and humble. However, in this world there are also the educated, the learned, the cultivated, the wise and pioneering, who created Education, Science and Culture and who probably meet the same sort of difficulties that the rich young man with all his possessions had - and Jesus said "go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor"3.11. Nobody needs to sell their spiritual treasure. But they must empty their souls of the "knowledge [that] puffeth up"3.12, they must be humbled and have a simple heart in order for grace to descend on them.
It is a mistake to think that faith demands the abandonment of rationalism and the neglect of scientific knowledge and positions. Real Science, as much now as long ago, is not an obstacle in your progress towards faith. The firm axiom: "every house is built by some one" 3.13, which is the basis of Faith, fits perfectly within the frame of rationalistic thought. At least modern scientific theories (excepting the theory of Evolution) do not forbid the idea of a Creator. But regarding the theory of Evolution the clashes which were cultivated for years would probably never have happened if many mistakes and misunderstandings had not arisen on both sides. The scientist who comprehends (at every step of probing into the mysteries of the universe and the more accessible miracle of life), the amazingly wise and ingenious plan of Creation, enjoys it as much as the inner innate pulse of his creative thought has the ability to be tuned to the infinite Pulse of Creation. This is the reason why many scientists have no difficulty (unless there are other opposing conditions or experiences) in accepting the existence of a God-Creator.
The problems start when it comes to the acceptance of the Creative First Cause as a personal God, who cares for and loves everyone personally and completely. Things get difficult here, because the wise researcher or intellectual, whose wisdom is based on the solid pedestal of logic, can not accept things which are presented in flagrant antithesis to this way of thought.
In my own experience, clergymen, theologians, and "refined" Christians often try in much perplexity to find words to "excuse" difficult circumstances which test the complacency of their autarky to have ready easy solutions to all the existential problems which come up for them. When they are asked to comment on tragic events, such as earthquakes with hundreds of innocent victims, including small children, they vainly try to articulate words of consolation or excuse. Sometimes they get drawn into the thorny paths of "divine justice" or "human wickedness" in excuse for all that is impossible to fit into their narrow and old-fashioned brains. In these circumstances the only thing anyone can do is lay down their love, in actions and not only words, and to avoid the temptation of getting into unsuitable and untimely excuses at all costs. Sometimes it is a greater relief to offer silence than too many words. You could just whisper to yourself, without letting your groan of contrition be heard: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"3.14 God has given us some of His logic and wisdom, and this helps us to have a tiny inkling of His great wisdom. This happens "unconditionally" and the only requirement is good "intentions" or feelings. The intellectuals of this world want to have the same participation in the reasons for God's Providence. But this presupposes (apart from a good disposition), the most wonderful gift God gave to mankind: the hope of Resurrection. Only the faith that we will exist in an afterlife can shed light on some things that torture us in this life, things that our logical minds cannot comprehend - which seem obscure and difficult to discern. On the other hand, the intellectuals of this century, if the "meaning" is impossible to be understood in terms of their earthly wisdom, are released from its painful presence by throwing it to the "Chaos" of non-existence.
Sometimes, when the earth seems to tremble in front of our bodies, it would not be strange to be heard words like those uttered by Jesus (in a moment) of his earthly hypostasis3.15: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"3.16 The issue of Time ("in a moment") has not been referred to by chance. For those of us who do not have the ability to understand Time as it has been "embodied" in the equations of the Theory of Relativity as the fourth dimension of matter, we can somehow comprehend that relation. When time is passing by (undergoing a kind of "expansion"), when we place ourselves a little farther away from the moment of events, when we distance ourselves from the most "heated" moment, then we can, if not explain some things, at least start up again our thought process and move along paths that are not so despairingly dead-end.
When a sufficient amount of time has passed from moments of deepest despondency, for the mother who has lost her only child at the start of its life, perhaps Time, the great healer, can broaden the horizon, allow the connotation of other "perspectives" and give a glimpse of other spiritual realities. Maybe then the temporarily lost belief in the Love and Providence of God can return to a heaven of hope where stars are just coming out again.
The limpidity of this spiritual horizon is possibly very difficult, if not impossible for the wise scholar, whose discerning ability of his "restricted" vision collides with the boundaries of logic, the capability of human understanding, the sticking to the idea that only something which is felt can be identified with the real.
For the wise scholar, a difficulty in accepting a "personal" God who does not fit in the context of this material view of things, is to be expected. However for someone who, with the synergy3.17 of personal goodwill and "the gift of God"3.18, attained a three-dimensional way of looking at things, which comes from faith and logic together, things are totally different.
Having continually in mind that, apart from the very "wise", I am mainly directing this book at common, plain, straightforward people, I can not resist the temptation to refer to a simple, maybe irrelevant and not very successful example: A spaceship from another planet arrived on Earth once to collect information about our lives. They arrived one evening, and started observing right away. As they chanced to land near a maternity clinic in a modern provincial city, they could hear the piercing cries of the newborns, the cries of pain of the women in labour, and see the anxiety of the husbands and relatives. It was quite natural that the observers thought of all this as unhappiness and disaster. In case the visitors from outer space did not have time to wait for daybreak and see the beauty of nature, the stormy but sweet everyday life, it would be difficult for them to imagine that shortly afterwards the women who were groaning would be happily bringing up their children, who would rarely cry and usually play happily.
I agree that things are not so simple, that you can not equate the certainty of a sure reality with the possibility of an uncertain hope. But maybe this meager hope will be the key to open the soul's window of faith: black despair will fly away and some pale rays of heavenly calm will enter.
I realise that these thoughts of mine are rather "tiny details" for an intellectual, but I try to persuade myself that an intellectual's unquiet mind will make an attempt to approach this alternative yet simple proposal of life: a life full of meaning, creative, overflowing with sweet hope and expectation. The Church of the Betrayed Christ has a lot to offer to this attempt by its lively example. Because its Founder always responds eagerly and generously and "gives good things to them that ask him"3.19.
[3.1] Mat. 13, 46
[3.1a] Commercial slogan of a known Greek Firm.
[3.2] 1 Cor. 1, 26-27
[3.3] 1 Cor. 1, 29
[3.4] Greek Phosphorus , or Eosphoros in classical
mythology, the morning star (i.e., the
planet Venus at dawn); personified as a male figure bearing a torch, Lucifer had almost no legend, but in poetry he was often herald of the dawn. In Christian times Lucifer came to be regarded as the name of Satan before his fall. It was thus used by John Milton (1608–74) in Paradise Lost, and the idea underlies the proverbial phrase "as proud as Lucifer".
[3.5] Luc. 15, 12
[3.6] Act. 7, 48
[3.7] Rom. 7, 6
[3.8] Mat. 5, 21-22
[3.9] Rom. 6, 14
[3.10] Tit. 3, 9
[3.11] Mat. 19, 21
[3.12] 1, Cor. 8, 1-2
[3.13] Hebr. 3, 4
[3.14] Rom. 11, 33
[3.15] the substance or essential nature of an individual
[3.16] Mat. 27, 46
[3.17] synergism; broadly: combined action or operation
[3.18] Joh. 4, 10
[3.19] Mat. 7, 11
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment