Morality as a Heresy in light of Science and Faith

[Canuckster1127]

This is worth a listen I think.

This is an interview on a Canadian Talk Show in Vancouver with an Eastern Orthodox Archbishop. If nothing else it highlights some difference between Western Latin Church tradition (Aristitoliean Rationalism when viewed through the dialectic of Roman Law or "scholasticism") contrasted to some of the traditions preserved in Eastern Orthodoxy which ties to the same sources of the Western Church but followed a somewhat different path influenced by different Patristic Fathers.

I'm not championing Eastern Orthodoxy but at the same time, I think this man nails some things that are important to understand as we examine the background and framework of our own thinking, traditions and epistemology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaDTWZIX ... re=related

[jlay]

Bart, I have an EO in my men's group, and it has definately brought some new perspective.

We have RCC, EO, Pentacostal, Nazerene, Baptist, Methodist, Pres, Non-Denom,

[Canuckster1127]

Bart, I have an EO in my men's group, and it has definately brought some new perspective.

We have RCC, EO, Pentacostal, Nazerene, Baptist, Methodist, Pres, Non-Denom,

That must be a very interesting group Jlay. I envy (in a completely christian and loving way .... ) you for that.

[RickD]

Bart, that interview spoke to me pretty strongly. He hit on some things that I see as the conservative right, in US politics. And he also hit on the same compassion I felt when listening to an atheist podcast, that was posted on a different thread. I was vilified, because I felt compassion for certain atheists, that only knew of a "western" image of God, and that God's followers, who feel it's their duty to "hate" and judge unbelievers. A lot of what that man said, is the exact same stuff, that God seems to be showing me, especially lately.

Oh, and as interested as I was, listening to the speaker, I was distracted by the background in the interview. Is that Vancouver? That has to be the most beautiful city I have ever seen in a picture.

[Byblos]

I like the old chap. I can identify with a lot of what he says, considering I come from an Eastern church that was founded in the apostolic age and pretty much grew virtually autonomously, especially from the western church, until fairly recently.

[Canuckster1127]

Bart, that interview spoke to me pretty strongly. He hit on some things that I see as the conservative right, in US politics. And he also hit on the same compassion I felt when listening to an atheist podcast, that was posted on a different thread. I was vilified, because I felt compassion for certain atheists, that only knew of a "western" image of God, and that God's followers, who feel it's their duty to "hate" and judge unbelievers. A lot of what that man said, is the exact same stuff, that God seems to be showing me, especially lately.

Oh, and as interested as I was, listening to the speaker, I was distracted by the background in the interview. Is that Vancouver? That has to be the most beautiful city I have ever seen in a picture.

Yes, the background is Vancouver. The show is based there and the Archbishop is from a monestary in British Columbia.

[PaulSacramento]

While he makes some valid points, I think he is a tad harsh on Augustine.
In his video about the fall he mentions that Augustine's view on original sin is about total depravity and guilt, but that came later.
From what I understood from reading Augustine, his view is that we are born with sin ( as an illness much like what this orthodox bishop also says) and this sin is what makes us want to be apart from God, that drive us to believe we can do it apart from God, that we don't "need" God and that the only hope is, because we are "fallen", is God's grace.
He seems to agree with that view ( though he puts it HIS way) and yet criticises Augustine.
I agree that the western church is in need of some fixing but Idon't agree that it was because of the likes of Augustine ( though he certainly wasn't perfect or right about everything).
The whole "modes of reality" that the he speaks of is very similar to Augustines view on taking the bible literally.
Oh and by the way, Galileo wasn't "almost burnt at the stake", that wasn't even an option ( he was under "house arrest"), and he it wasn't so much because of his views but HOW he expressed them and his redicule of the new pope when he published his works ( Pope with donkey ears if I recall).

[B. W.]

Note Regarding Eastern Orthodox

Eastern Orthodox has a rich history. There are also several factions within EO that do not agree with each other, just like in the western church over issues such as sin, heaven, hell, atonement, justification, etc... I am not sure what branch – he is from, if Slavic then Russian or somewhere within the Eastern European orthodox sphere. What I am trying to say, not all EO believe the same in all areas, just as in the West. So be aware of this. You still need the Holy Spirit to discern truth...

The idea of healing sin is correct. The bible teaches this. By his stripes we are healed from Isaiah 53 contains more than most in the west realize. For example during the 24 hours before the cross and on cross: Who was shouting Hosanna to whom? Who was betraying whom, who put whom on trial, who falsely accused whom, who beat and spat on whom?

Who shouted crucify and give us… to whom? Who whipped whom? Who made whom carry a heavy splintery beam? Who drove spikes into whom? Who divided who’s processions? Who mocked whom? Who stabbed whom? And lastly and most importantly, whom said, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do…”?

I think, from my own investigation that most of the EO would say we, humanity, are the who – who did this to God and each other. We need healed of this, for we continue to do the same to others (and God as well) too within our hearts in various figurative ways – and we need to be healed of this.

Most of the western tradition views the cross only in terms of judicial decree and places the ‘who’ on God but is that correct? Who did what to whom – now read these verses in Isaiah from the CJB and NASB. In the NASB I quoted, I took the liberty to add the Hebrew word definitions following certain key words for clarity…

CBJ

Isa 53:3 People despised and avoided him, a man of pains, well acquainted with illness. Like someone from whom people turn their faces, he was despised; we did not value him.

Isa 53:4 In fact, it was our diseases he bore, our pains from which he suffered; yet we regarded him as punished, stricken and afflicted by God.

Isa 53:5 But he was wounded because of our crimes, crushed because of our sins; the disciplining that makes us whole fell on him, and by his bruises [Or: and in fellowship with him] we are healed.

Isa 53:6 We all, like sheep, went astray; we turned, each one, to his own way; yet Adonai laid on him the guilt of all of us. CJB

NASB

Isa 53:3 He was despised (held in contempt/despised) and forsaken (rejected) of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem (consider, invent) Him.

Isa 53:4 Surely our griefs (serious illness) He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed (considered, reckoned, devised, invent) Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted.

Isa 53:5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions (rebellion), He was crushed for our iniquities (twisting / perverting deliberately) ; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging (injuries) we are healed (restored to health).

Isa 53:6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity (twisting / perverting deliberately) of us all To fall on Him. NASB

Last comment:

According to the Mosaic law, in order for the sins of the people to be transferred to the sacrifice required the laying on of hands by the High Preist for the transfer of sin to happen for himself as well as the people’s sin. In Jesus’ case you have that literally occurring and more amazingly the people themselves, both Jew and gentile lain their hands upon him.

There are two sides of Jesus that day – he was both 100% man and %100 God. Much of the western tradition only focuses on manward side of Christ during that 24 hour period and fails to note the Godward side and so little is healed today…

Sin is our most serious illness and thru and by the Cross this illness is exposed so it can be healed as Jesus said in John 3:15-21 quoted below

Verse 14, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.

20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God." ESV

The apostle John then recorded these word later in the text: John 3:36, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey (Not to allow oneself to be persuaded or believe, so remain disobedient) the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him". ESV
-
-
-

[Canuckster1127]

Good points B.W.

Of course, Eastern Otrthodoxy has a very broad number of traditions and not all of them agree, just as that is true in Western Christendom too (probably more broad in the west than the east though.)

I think what this gentleman had to say was worth listening to on it's own merits apart from the heritage. I noted it because his appearance is such that many might see it as a barrier to hearing what he had to say.

It's a short interview (relatively, although I dare say it would be hard to get almost 15 minutes on US TV for something like this (something that I very much miss from Canada now that I am in the US), and his statements are in some regards broad generalizations, which they almost have to be as the scope of what is being discussed is so broad.

Stepping back from that the overall focus of what he's saying is I think a very important thing. It reminds me of something I've seen and thought in a few other contexts when discussing things in this area and intellectual concepts come to be thrown around and epistemology is examined and appealed to and that something is this: Scripturally I think a case can be made that believing the "right things" without love for God or for one another is a heresy. That, in and of itself is an indictment of that Western Aristotilian approach with a Roman Law dialectic (I've often used the term Greek Philosophy and Roman Law when addressing similar things) when we separate truth into intellectual components and disregard the wholistic themes of scripture and christ-like living. It's one of the reasons why many areas of Christendom have histories of wars, executions, inquisitions and tortures all in the name of "truth" where the living of truth is secondary to the intellectual analysis of it.

[PaulSacramento]

One can't "disconnect" man from religion.
The atrocites committed by Man in the name of God are horrific but have very little to do with God or religion or doctrine even, they have to do with man being a fallen creature and believeing that HE can "be God", that is why we get man judging, trying to save, trying to redeem and trying to convert ( even by force), all things that ONLY GOD can do.
We have things like the inquisition and the index, the "auto de fe", wars and persecutions of "heretics" because MAN is trying to "BE GOD" instead of allowing God to do the judging and the condeming (or saving).
For every person in the "western church" that took part in those atrocites there were 1000's that didn't, even those that tried to stop it.
Anyways...
Back to the video:
I do agree that we do NOT view sin as the illness that it is and that yes, religious people in general ( all religions) tend to focus on THIER view of moral correctness and try to force others to that view and in that regard, morality can be a heresy for it becomes a stumbling block against God and Christ.

[Canuckster1127]

One can't "disconnect" man from religion.
The atrocites committed by Man in the name of God are horrific but have very little to do with God or religion or doctrine even, they have to do with man being a fallen creature and believeing that HE can "be God", that is why we get man judging, trying to save, trying to redeem and trying to convert ( even by force), all things that ONLY GOD can do.
We have things like the inquisition and the index, the "auto de fe", wars and persecutions of "heretics" because MAN is trying to "BE GOD" instead of allowing God to do the judging and the condeming (or saving).
For every person in the "western church" that took part in those atrocites there were 1000's that didn't, even those that tried to stop it.
Anyways...
Back to the video:
I do agree that we do NOT view sin as the illness that it is and that yes, religious people in general ( all religions) tend to focus on THIER view of moral correctness and try to force others to that view and in that regard, morality can be a heresy for it becomes a stumbling block against God and Christ.

I agree. I'm not attempting to use the argument as it is commonly used by some as an indictment against all religion or spirituality. It is telling to some extent however that when religious and secular power are merged and the later is used to police the former (speaking of the broad theme here of morality in the form of legalism) that we get completely turned around and focused upon behavior modification first foremost rather than heart change and moving toward a walk that reflects a change in values, rather than just a fear of punishment or consequences.

There are traditions and strains of Christianity that have been less prone to this and to some extent, on a personal level it's one of the reasons (not the only one) that I' think I've been drawn more toward anabaptism in a modified form as opposed to much of the broad traditional movements that have been in the midst of these types of histories that demonstrate a lack of that emphasis of love in the midst of knowledge. Anabaptists though too, have to a lesser extent some strong reaction in places to the persecution they experienced.

[PaulSacramento]

I think that almost every Christian denomination has been persecuted in some form and to some degree.
I think that the martyr complex is alive and well in many christians.
One of the worse things any christian can say is that "we are right and you are wrong" because as humans, we do NOT know if we are right.
God is right, Christ is right and they are the only judges of right and wrong at THAT level.
At best any christian denomination should say this and only this:
These are OUR views (doctrines) and this is why we have them, if you agree, join us in worshiping Our Lord in this way.
If you don't agree, peace to you and the Lord be with you.

[B. W.]

Good points B.W.

Of course, Eastern Otrthodoxy has a very broad number of traditions and not all of them agree, just as that is true in Western Christendom too (probably more broad in the west than the east though.)

I think what this gentleman had to say was worth listening to on it's own merits apart from the heritage. I noted it because his appearance is such that many might see it as a barrier to hearing what he had to say.

It's a short interview (relatively, although I dare say it would be hard to get almost 15 minutes on US TV for something like this (something that I very much miss from Canada now that I am in the US), and his statements are in some regards broad generalizations, which they almost have to be as the scope of what is being discussed is so broad.

Stepping back from that the overall focus of what he's saying is I think a very important thing. It reminds me of something I've seen and thought in a few other contexts when discussing things in this area and intellectual concepts come to be thrown around and epistemology is examined and appealed to and that something is this: Scripturally I think a case can be made that believing the "right things" without love for God or for one another is a heresy. That, in and of itself is an indictment of that Western Aristotilian approach with a Roman Law dialectic (I've often used the term Greek Philosophy and Roman Law when addressing similar things) when we separate truth into intellectual components and disregard the wholistic themes of scripture and christ-like living. It's one of the reasons why many areas of Christendom have histories of wars, executions, inquisitions and tortures all in the name of "truth" where the living of truth is secondary to the intellectual analysis of it.

It is a good video and from that saw some other big hitters from the EO too... near his on Ytube...

I guess we have the left brain - right brain thing going on - The western – scientifically scholastic, methodical, book smart, and legal minded

The eastern – more artsy (heart smart), imaginative, relational, community centered, and experiential

You think Bart?

[Canuckster1127]

Very much B.W. That whole static dialectic western view vs. the eastern wholistic dynamic view of things is very much at work in the midst of these types of issues. I guess I tend personally to respond to the challenges from the east more as a balance or counterbalance to what I perceive earlier in my life as an imbalance that needed correction. That's probably why it leapt out at me when a friend shared it with me.

FWIW, I had a discussion on this on my FB page and put these thoughts down. Just sharing it here even though it may be more than you and others need to know about my thinking ....

I know that there are some challenging things in that video to the way that we're accustomed to undestanding different issues, such as sin and the atonement. Up front, I didn't link to it as an endorsement of every detail of the in...terview nor as an endorsement of Eastern Orthodoxy. Some of what he said, however, is a very appropriate challenge however, in my opinion.

I don't expect you or anyone else to take my word for it, so I hope that you will follow-up and check on and think on some of these things that I'm about to say, and if you disagree with me, that's fine too.

What this man said about the atonement in a nutshell is that the "traditional" way that protestants in the west look at the atonement, and I don't think he used the word, but it's what he was referring to is Penal Substitutionary Atonement. When most evangelicals think of a gospel presentation it follows along the lines of what is sometimes called the 4 spiritual laws.

Here's a link to campus crusade's site where they're laid out.

http://www.campuscrusade.com/fourlawseng.htm

This man is Eastern Orthodox. What he's saying is that the early church and since then the Eastern Branch of the Church hasn't looked at the atonement in quite this manner. The early view of atonement picked up on several different themes or metaphors to explain what the atonement was like and primarily the view taken is Christ championing us to obtain victory over sin and the evil one in order to give us freedom and standing with God. Some today refer to that as a Christus Victor understanding of the atonement. It's easy to google if you want to learn more about it. It's more than I can convey in a FB post.

About the 11th century, over 1000 years after Christ rose from the dead, a man known as Anselem of Canterbury promoted a different view of atonement which came to be known as Substitutionary Atonement. This is close to what then about the time of the reformation became known as Penal Substitutionary Atonement and that's what we're most familiar with today in the west, so much so that it wouldn't occur to most of us to even look at or think about whether that's what Scripture is primarily conveying.

I personally believe that PSA is a legitimate and viable view of the atonement. I believe that it is in scripture and not just read into it, but that being said, I think that the western view that focuses upon PSA is out of balance and one of the results of that is that we view God, salvation and to a great extent our continued walk with Christ through the lens of Greek Philosophy (something this archbishop mentioned) and Roman Law. John Calvin was a key to this in the reformation and not surprisingly before he wrote his Institutes of Christianity he was a law student and a philosopher. With the institutes, Calvin also introduced a new way of understanding scripture that wasn't in place for the previous 15 centuries that we call Systematic Theology. When we prooftext concepts with multiple verses to try to establish a fact from Scripture we're using that tool as it was given to us by Calvin (even those who aren't necessarily Calvinists.)

There are several different metaphors used in Scripture to explain what the atonement is like. Roman law is one of them and Paul uses some imagery from that in some of his epistles. A metaphor, as you know, is a helpful way of showing what something else is like by appealing to something that is already known. Where we get confused I think, is when we mistake the metaphor for the thing itself and begin to act as if God is simply a judge, we are the accused and in order to save us from this angry, vengeful, wrathful God, Jesus throws himself in front of the judgement rightly owed to us and then takes the punishment or execution that we deserved. If that's all we see however then we're missing a great deal and if that's the primary way that we view the nature and character of God (Holy and so He must punish sin) then we're very much out of balance.

That's what this archbishop is saying about the Western Church as he sees it. We've traded in a loving God and exchanged the good news for a gospel that elevates law and morality to the point where it seems that at times the primary message of the protestant churches isn't about knowing, loving and being known and loved by a merciful and benevolant father, but rather we've entered into the metaphor of Roman law to where we live as if we're lawyers and our lives and service to God is all about staying on the good side of the judge.

That ties into the view of sin that the archbishop mentions as well and it is, as you discern different than how we view sin and I'm not going to try to enter into that discussion or defend his view because that gets even deeper into the weeds in this and I accept that there is a difference there and it's arguable as to whether the west or the east is comprehensively correct.

A lot of this is very much at the core of a lot of discussion and controversy in different areas of the church. The Shack for example challenges the traditional PSA view in it's touches on theology and that is part of the reason why it is reacted against so strongly by some. Rob Bell has tapped into some of this in his writings and not surprisingly that has garnered strong reaction from the same quarters mostly.

Anyway, sorry for the long post, but for what it is worth that is some of what I see and am thinking. If anyone is interested in more of this, I can recommend some good reading (in addition to reading the Scriptures on your own and being more aware of how our culture and traditions affect the way we read and accept how passages are interpretted.

[B. W.]

Bart,

I would recommend this book Common Ground by Jordan Bajis

For a good balance between the to. It is one of the best written.

Also be cautious about EO as well too. Lust like the West there are many errors within it too that need discernment. Need to know whom believes what. The Emergent Church movement borrows from EO as well as other Far Eastern Religions and mixes all into biblical interpretation. Origen was a great defender of the faith but then moved off into some bad doctrine which many cults use like JW, Christadelphians, etc. Even the most brilliant minds, like Rob Bell, of the EC movement can stray into error. No one is immune.

The Book Common Ground is the most balanced and help the reader understand the EO. From it a reader can gain great insight and gel the Eastern and Western Churches together.

As for the Lawyer approach of Calvin, etc, on the atonement – that effect has made it so difficult to witness to youth and people as they do not understand it. Also, please understand some error of some froms of EO – in human beings, due to the fall, there is nothing noble worth saving in us. Lost souls are not loved because there is something noble in humanity. God saved humanity because, he can’t help but love, can’t help but prove it, and demonstrate it so as to reconcile things back to the way he originally intended and eradicate sin//rebellion in the process in the far most just manner beyond our mortal comprehension.

My view of sin is a disease – a serious illness or better spiritual insanity. This came from my own studies and my own experience, and not the EO. This is what the bible teaches and why we call Jesus the great physician and one of the points Isaiah 53 mentions. It is easier for people to understand this than the lawyerease Roman’s Road uses. More effective IMO in saving souls too.