Posted on 02/24/2004 12:46:27 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
Rebecca Hagelin asks, "Can you handle the Truth?" in today's, WorldNetDaily. "If you only go to the movies to be entertained, don't go see The Passion of the Christ," she said, adding "but if you want to experience an artistic achievement beyond any scale you could imagine, you must see The Passion of the Christ.
If the portrayal of death and suffering are now, "an artistic achievement beyond any scale you could imagine," Sadam Hussein and the Taliban have been greatly misjudge. They were only misunderstood artists. Instead of having our stomachs turned at the images of Taliban atrocities and Sadam's sadistic tortures we should be exulting in these images of such artistic importance.
The only real difference between glorying in the portrayal of suffering and death in Gibson's film, or the actual images of its modern day counterpart, is that Gibson's is a fake. That does not deter the superstitious masses who hold suffering, pain, and death as their highest ideals, however. It is what their God, whom they believe condemns the vast majority of mankind to eternal torment and suffering, teaches them. Of all the things one might place a value on, the thing their God values above all others is suffering and death.
Of all the things their God might have accepted as payment for man's salvation, it was not Jesus' healing the sick, or feeding the hungry, that was valued. Their God would settle for nothing less than the most excruciating pain, pointless suffering, and agonizing death possible as "payment." What kind of God places such a high premium on such evil?
Rebecca describing the experience of 5000 people who watched the film, said, "We were not entertained. We did not laugh. We did not leave relaxed." In other words, they did not enjoy the film, they suffered it. Rebecca regards suffering a virtue. She said about her discomfort watching the film, "the flogging scene didn't end quickly ... so why should it end quickly for me as a mere observer?"
Because, Rebecca, suffering is evil. Pain and death are not virtues, they are the opposite of all human life is about. The purpose of life is not to pain and anguish, the purpose of life is joy and happiness.
We have no doubt, Rebecca is correct to say, "The Passion is powerful – it is reality," because the world is full of suffering and brutality, made possible by the very kind of perverted psychology that not only accepts suffering, but positively worships it.
What of others, who are outside, in the secular culture?
"There is no outside. There is no place where God is not, even now. Even those who do not know the truth of Christ are also created, beloved, and known by Him. He is closer to them than their own breath, though they do not know Him. We work together with God so that every person can come to saving knowledge of Christ, and be healed and transformed alongside us.
What has the culture to do with this?
Christ has compassion on those who are harassed and helpless because they do not know their shepherd. The culture is the ever-changing weather conditions that these sheep must endure, which they try to respond to as best they can, though they are confused and wounded. Protection and rescue of individual sheep is our primary goal. It is less worthwhile to try to change the weather. We may occasionally have isolated success, but it appears that every weather pattern will have both good and bad elements, and weather itself is bound to be a perennial phenomenon.
How can we convert the culture?
A culture cannot be converted. Only individuals can be converted. God knows how to reach each individual; every conversion is an inside job. We cooperate by listening attentively for God’s directions and speaking the right word at the right moment, doing a kind deed, bearing Christ’s light and being His fragrance in the lives of people we know. This is the level where things change, one individual at a time, as one coal gives light to another. When enough people change, the culture follows--though, again, the hope of ever having a perfect culture is futile. Our effectiveness as witnesses is not tested on the public stage, but by our private daily conduct. If we are not being healed at those levels, all we do for public display will be garbage. But only acquire the Holy Spirit and you will save a thousand around you (St. Seraphim of Sarov, died 1833)."
Athanasius is an Eastern Father if ever there was one, and it is rather obvious from his text that he thought there were far more reasons for Christ to suffer than merely to offer an example of virtue, although to offer an example was certainly one reason.
In order to answer the question why did Jesus have to suffer, I cannot recommend too highly this work by St. Athanasius. It is not long, and very comprehensible to the eyes of faith. It is an absolute gem.
St. Athanasius On the Incarnation
BTW, I also think the text shows that there is something fishy about this line that "the East rejects Augustine, and in so doing developed a different theology of the Atonement" (a line favored by Frederica Matthews-Greene). After reading Athanasius, I was surprised (perhaps wrongly) at just how "Augustinian" it is -- even though it was written fully two generations before Augustine's conversion.
I think that Anselm and Aquinas should be read as continuators of the Athanasian train of Atonement theology. Although they use the WORD satisfaction in their explanations, their CONCEPT of it is the same as Athanasius'-- which is wildly different than the concept of satisfaction popularized after the concept of HUMAN NATURE was rejected in the west a century after Aquinas.
After the rejection of the conept of human nature, the concept of satisfaction mutated from meaning rehabilitation and medicine for human nature to mean the fulfillment of an entirely arbtirary divine command issued from God's will alone -- the divinely issued command that sin is to be punished extrinsically or from without. If that is what satisfaction is, then I could not possibly be a Christian. Where is the mercy is that theology of the atonement? And dont tell me it is because Jesus chose to suffer when he did not have to suffer for us, for God need not have issued the command in the first place. It was entirely arbitrary. Athanasius clears all this up by presenting the Atonement in terms long lost to the west -- in terms of human nature.
I am a Catholic, and I hold that until an Athanasian concept of the atonement is retrieved and popularized in the west, and until the Catholic saints and doctors are read more correctly as continuators of the pre-modern tradition of the atonement as medicine for a wounded nature as well as the source of divinizing elevation, Christianity will continue to evaporate in the west -- simply due to senselessnes concerning a central teaching.
I think the most convincing statement was this one -
"For if He came Himself to bear the curse laid upon us, how else could He have "become a curse," unless He received the death set for a curse? and that is the Cross. For this is exactly what is written: "Cursed is he that hangeth on a tree."
On Good Friday this is what we sing of in the Orthodox church..
I found your post to be most intriguing.
"Athanasius clears all this up by presenting the Atonement in terms long lost to the west -- in terms of human nature."
This is, of course, exactly how we see it as well.
I see that not much has changed in the last 2000 years.
LOL.
I can think of an example to share with you that might explain this.
A man from the local Russian church came to our vespers and afterward spoke with a group about beginning a Russian boy scout troop. Although we are OCA, we have our roots in Russia. He thought we would like the idea.
In reality my spiritual father does not like any form of nationalism attached to the church. Rather than confronting the man about the nationalism in starting a Russian troop, my spiritual father looked around and saw one of my boys who is (adopted) from Russia. He said to the man, "Well perhaps Sergei would be interested."
Just to be clear we have about 50 children in our churchschool and a lot of boys.
Christianity is not supposed to involve some sort of cultural gnosticism. I believe Orthodox still consider themselves catholic, a Greek word you fully understand. I shouldn't have to understand the "eastern mindset" to understand Christianity any more than you should have to understand the "western mindset". There is one reality in Christ not two.
Our Lent has begun. Peace to you and yours.
Here, clearly, is the language of "due" (Latin "ius", unsure of the Greek) and the paying of what is due. Thus, there is a component of satisfaction. However, anyone who has read the previous chapters knows that what is "due" is due not merely because God demands it with His will, nor even because divine Justice requires punishment for vengeance's sake, or even for Justice's sake. Rather, the reader knows that what is due is due because of the law written in our nature, namely, the gratuity of the divine image spoken of in the first chapter, the injunction to guard the gift of the image, and the subsequent refusal to do so. God owes it to his GOODNESS to heal us of the self-inflicted penalty of death that we are already paying, not to his JUSTICE to punish man further for sin. The whole purpose of the incarnation is to glorify the body and liberate it from the inevitable penalties that we already voluntarily impose given teh wounds of nature. That is what is DUE to God -- to glorify the human body and liberate from all penalties-- not FURTHER penalties over and above what is already coming to us.
Unfortunately, the concept of ius was transformed AFTER Aquinas so that the "due" is something owed to an impersonal JUSTICE, not something God owes to his own love and goodness and wisdom. Again, I submit that when Augustine and Aquinas are read correctly, their concept of satisfaction (and hence their satisfaction theology of the atonement) has much more in common with the Christus Victor approach than it has when read backwards through a Clavinist, Lutheran, Ockhamist lens.
In short, prior to Ockham and the Reformers, to pay what is due is nothing other than to give medicine, to heal, to rehabilitate human nature. That is what God owes to his goodness, love, and wisdom.
After Ockham and the Reformers, to pay what due is to give to God something that is his RIGHT, to satisfy His right to our pain and punishment. On this view, Christ's suffering pays what is due because God has a right to pain and punishment so great that humans cannot pay it off. The offense is infinite or something. Hence, God must become man to fulfill God's right to infinite pain and punishment for man. This is absurd in the extreme if pressed even a little, but it is the predominant way people think of it. Frankly, I think this absurd theory of the atonement is one large factor in the de-Christianizing of the West. The popular understanding of the atonement really is absurd.
On the traditional view, both East and West, to pay what is due is to PERFECT A THING ACCORDING TO ITS NATURE. God in Christ pays what is owed to HIS GOODNESS, LOVE, AND WISDOM, and what God owes to God is that man be healed in his nature, and to conquer death, to liberate us from incessant self-infliction of the wounds, to elevate us beyond human nature, to divinize and deify man, and to glorify the BODY. Christ fulfills what is due on the cross AND in the resurrection.
The God of Ockham and the Reformers is a sadistic monster, exacting vengeance for vengeance's sake, in the name of Justice. If that is what God is, I am an atheist. The God of the Patristics and early Scholastics is merciful in the technical sense -- mercy is the action proceeding from love to relieve the afflictions of others.
Inasmuch as "catholic" implies that all EO Churches practice and preach the same theology, as they have since the Church was established. In that aspect "still" is meaningless, because EO Churches never stopped being catholic.
I shouldn't have to understand the "eastern mindset" to understand Christianity
To understand Eastern version of Christianity, definitely!
There is one reality in Christ not two
No, there are two realities to Christ -- human and divine. There is also no such thing as "Christianity" as a homogeneous religion. The only thing Christians agree on are the three persons of the Holy Trinity; everything else is subject to schismatic fallout, which started in the East, was checked, but resurfaced in the West and continues to this day.
Our Lent has begun. Peace to you and yours.
For someone who doesn't think there is a difference, maybe you can explain what you mean by our versus your Lent? [hint: there isn't]
That's interesting.
I'm going to guess (and correct me if I'm wrong) that when you refer to "the concept of HUMAN NATURE was rejected in the west a century after Aquinas", you're referring (at least tangentially) to the supra-Augustinian development of the Lutheran and Calvinist Protestant doctrines of the "Bondage of the Will" and the "Total Inability" of Man.
Well, I actually agree -- in a sense. The notions of "The Bondage of the Will" and "Total Inability" do not do proper justice to HUMAN NATURE, after the Fall.
The notions of "Bondage of the Will" and "Total Inability" do not in any way properly describe the Spiritual Condition of Fallen Man according to the Orthodox Calvinist understanding of the case.... because they don't go far enough.
The idea that, after the Fall, Man has become a spiritually-dull, spiritually-incompetent, totally-unable, inactive, unwilling Prisoner of Sin is simply a pitiable Condition. Bad enough, I suppose, if that were the case; but that's not really the Orthodox Calvinist view of the matter. There's a reason that the Orthodox Calvinist, in describing the condition of Fallen Man, will prefer the term "Total Depravity" to the term "Total Inability" every time.
The Calvinist teaching on the condition of Fallen Man is not merely pitiable.
It is horrifying.
NOW, you may begin to understand the Calvinist teaching on HUMAN NATURE. To the Calvinist, the Fallen Man is not a "wounded nature" which needs "medicine". It is not even, as the Lutherans might say, a "Will under Bondage" which suffers from "Total Inability".
To the Calvinists, the condition of Fallen Man is one of Total Depravity. The Bible teaches that the condition of Spiritual Death into which the Race of Man has fallen is not a merely condition of "spiritual wounding", not even a condition of "spiritual inactivity" -- but rather, Spiritual Death is a condition of abject spiritual hatred against God. So the Apostle declares:
Just as the Eastern Orthodox rightfully teach that the Mind and Heart and Will of the Christian should be fervently devoted to Deification, a life-long foretaste of and preparation unto the Heavenly Estate (the Eastern term "deification" is sometimes preferable to the Western term "sanctification", because it properly implies our identification with Christ in this life and our progression towards Eternity)... so Calvinists understand that the native condition of Fallen Man is one of Satanification, the fervent devotion of the Mind and Heart and Will of Fallen Man to Rebellion against his Creator.
From Nimrod's arrogant Tower of Babel to the Homosexual-Rapes of Sodom to Israel's murdering of the Prophets to Aztec human sacrifices and Pagan ritual cannibalism to every sacrilegious work of Self-Righteousness which Man attempts through False Religions to justify himself, the Imago Dei is there, and it is not silent. It is active, operative, and will-fully blasphemous. Mankind, the Icon of God, has declared active and bitter Warfare against God Himself... defiling ourselves with murders, idolatries, and fornications in an active attempt to spit upon the face of God, and impugn His Majesty by profaning His Image -- Man Himself. And when given the chance, when given the opportunity -- we committed the crime of Deicide itself. God walked among us, and for all our transgressions against Him, He subjected us to no harm -- teaching only Love.
And for this... we murdered Him.
You want to cry me a river that "the Concept of Human Nature has been lost in the West"? Well, not among Calvinists. We Calvinists have not forgotten HUMAN NATURE. Re-read what I have written above... THAT is "Human Nature". Take a long, hard look at our vaunted "Human Nature". Because by Nature, after the Fall, that is what we ARE.
But I think it's missing something.
It's missing the fact that when Jesus braved the Walls of Death, it was us who were defending the ramparts for Our Lord Satan, firing Nail-guns into His hands and feet and throwing spears into His side. To the Calvinist, the better analogy would be that Jesus was a Jew who invaded the "Kingdom of Hitler", to save We who are by nature NAZIS.
All of which, incidentally, has more than a little to do (IMHO) with the Suffering of Christ.
We do not truly understand the Holiness of God, until we come to terms with the fact that God HATES Sin. He doesn't consider Sin a minor inconvenience. It's not merely a thorn in His side. He's not fretting away in Heaven because He's disappointed about it. God HATES Sin, furiously.
And Man... is a SINNER. Or, just to put a fine point on it, the very Imago Dei himself is WILL-FULLY SINFUL against God. Deliberately Sinful against God.
Think about that.
Now, I like to write Skits. I generally do not include the Persons of the Trinity in my Skits, because... well, shoot -- will a mere Man speak for God? BUT, as I have mentioned before, I am not a very "Iconoclastic" Protestant -- so long as they are not "worshipped", I personally have no objection to Icons for their use in education and illustration and meditation, which is an ancient and venerable practice of the Church particularly in pre-literate societies.
So, if Erasmus could include the Holy Spirit as one of the characters in his own Skit condemning the Excesses of the Popes, I pray that I will (in reverence) be able to do the same -- in an Iconic fashion, not attempting to speak for God, but only to present an Idea for meditation (subject as always, of course, to the Scriptures: "Has some good thought come to you? Have you felt some good impulse or inclination in your heart? Stop! Check it with the Gospel." ~~ Blessed Vladyka Ignatij Brianchaninov)
And THAT is why the Son suffered as He did. If we have to ask -- realize that GOD HATES SIN with a vengeance, and Jesus BECAME SIN for Us... and look within ourselves.
But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes, we are healed.
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He hath put Him to grief: when thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see his seed, He shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
(Isaiah 53:5,10. This concludes OP's morality play in one act)
Best, OP
You have put into most beautiful words, in a nutshell, one of the most profound realizations I came to when I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.
How truly powerful God is and how loving, that he would be willing to show us sinful creatures how he conquered death!
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, And on those in the tombs bestowing life
Gosh. (blushing, a little bit humbled and convicted)
That's really a far better compliment than I in any way deserve, considering that I was only trying to offer a fair statement of Eastern Orthodox beliefs, while contrasting it with my own Calvinist beliefs.
I guess I'll just hafta take it as a re-affirmation of my belief in God's Providence. If I have said, in a Spirit of Argumentation (which I did mean well, "as iron sharpens iron"), something which an Eastern Orthodox finds useful for their own Edification... Well, I guess that God must have Predestined it for the Good.
Maranatha, OP
I also confess a certain liking for the Calvinistic recognition of our human lowliness and inadequacy.
Blessed are the poor in spirit.
But it's missing something! Perhaps. :-)
"In spite of our sinfulness, in spite of the darkness surrounding our souls, the Grace of the Holy Spirit, conferred by baptism in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, still shines in our hearts with the inextinguishable light of Christ ... and when the sinner turns to the way of repentance the light smooths away every trace of the sins committed, clothing the former sinner in the garments of incorruption, spun of the Grace of the Holy Spirit." (Saint Seraphim)
The natural condition of man is to be united to God. In the EO church, we share a more optimistic, less sacrificial, understanding of Christ’s "rescue mission". We view the incarnation of Christ as a cosmic event. By taking on a body, God united all material reality to himself. By entering into human existence, God opened the way for us to participate in His existence, to partake of His divinity, by means of a communion of life-giving love.
OP, what do you do with Scripture like "Be ye perfect"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.