www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Face of God: Byz On-Line Book Study -- Week 1

Well, it's time to begin our Byzantine On-Line Book Study!

Our primary text will be:

THE FACE OF GOD, by Archbishop Joseph Raya.

This Saturday's topic will be the Preface and Introduction: "What is Byzantium?" So be prepared for some lively discussion!

If you haven't already ordered the text, you can have Light and Life send you a copy overnight. Their web address is: www.light-n-life.com [light-n-life.com]

or, try this link to Light and Life...it is a completed search for the text: http://206.10.143.5/cgi-bin-sol/nph-landl?Sel,FACE110;

The cost is around $10.00.

BYZ ON-LINE STUDY: PRELIMINARY AGREEMENTS

Some preliminary agreements that I'd like to recommend:

1. READ THE BOOK!

We invite anyone to participate in this study, so long as they are willing to read the chapters in the text. Remember: Discussion over texts no one has read is an exercise in shared ignorace!

2. READ IT PRAYERFULLY!

The whole goal of studying our text is to enter more deeply into the mystery communion with God. If we are reading only to generate ammo against our on-line neighbor, than our true purpose in having this study will be defeated. that is not to say (and need I even say it!) that we cannot have lively discussions. But just remember that love is our end - not the end of our neighbor!

3. ONE CHAPTER A WEEK!

IN ORDER TO BE FAITHFUL TO OUR DESIRE TO COVER THE ENTIRE TEXT IN THE SHORTEST AMOUNT OF TIME - which should take close to 11 weeks - WE WILL BEGIN A NEW CHAPTER EACH WEEK. Please restrict your comments as much as possible to the current topic and chapter.

4. CROSS REFERENCE IF HELFUL AND FOCUSED!

Feel free to reference authoritative sources throughout the discussion. However, any citations should be relevant to either the text or the topic.

5. SATURDAY IS THE DAY!

We will begin a new chapter each Saturday. That means after Friday night, we move on.

Christos Voskrese!
Christ is Risen!

Peace and all good things,

Gordo, sfo

The Face of God
Preface - Introduction

(Please begin all posts with the banner listed above...it may help when referring to previous posts.)

Well, to start off the discussion, I should mention two items which stood out to me as we begin our study.

The first has to do with Archbishop Joseph's observation in the preface. He says:

"I deeply believe that the Byzantine way is still the most suitable way for modern man to come to the realization of the sheer poetry and grace that are in the Gospels. I believe that Western man, and especially Americans, can easily live it, and that it can add to his enrichment without any intellectual capitulation."

I would only ask two questions:

1. What is it, do you suppose, about the Byzantine "way" or path that is most suitable for modern man?

One thought may be our contemporary culture's seeming addiction to a materialistic and utilitarian view of the human person and the meaning of existence. Such perspectives leave little room for mystery and beauty, since everything is reduced to what is both purely visible and merely functional. (This is probably why much of our culture, which is trapped by materialism, finds its source and outlet for "mysticism" through an addictive, pervasive and perverse strain of sexuality - which is an ecstatic and distorted image or "shadow" of true union/communion with God.)

The Byzantine spirit, on the contrary, seems to charge with reckless abandon into the beauty and mystery of communion with God. One cannot be Byzantine and be uncomfortable with color, life, celebration, and a little healthy spontaniety and apparent disorder. (This is the same type of attitude which is common in people who are "madly in love".) The liturgy, for all of it's texts and ritual, is essentially an experience which transcends form and structure and breathes the very life and fire of the Spirit. It's like...a fireplace, or a furnace. Yes, there is structure, but within, there is a raging all-consuming fire that cannot be controlled by anyone. Even the priests are only the servants of this Fire, not its masters. Our temples and altars become Mt. Sinai, burning with the Shekinah of the Almighty, but not consuming our New Moses and High Priest, who enters the cloud on our behalf. In fact, through Him, we can and do enter as well.

This type of approach to the mystery of the worship of God runs counter to much of the popular wisdom - which says, don't worship what you cannot fully understand. Modernity has made an idol of scientific analysis and rationalism. Despite the full truth which Byzantine Catholic orthodoxy proclaims, it never presumes to somehow "own the mystery", like a boat or an IRA...rather, it is the servant, son, vessel, and guardian of this universal covenant between God and man. Modern man needs to enter such a vessel for his own spiritual sanity!

2. What do you think is the best way for the Byzantine churches to communicate this type of vision to "modern man"?

Any thoughts? Anyone??? Bueller?

The second point that I thought was very interesting was how Archbishop Jospeh demonstrated that Byzantium is essentially a rich blend of many different cultures (Western and Eastern - Greek, Roman, and Syrian). Such an insight may prove helpful with other discussions on the need to recognize the equality of East and West.

Anyhoo, those are my initial thoughts.

Anyone?

Bueller?

Peace,

Gordo, sfo

[This message has been edited by Dozier (edited 05-06-2000).]

Hi Gordo,

Thanks for your insightful post. I would like to offer in part a response and in part my own initial reflections from the first chapter, for your (and everyone else�s) comments.

1. I agree that the statement at the outset is intriguing. I think there is a lot of truth to what you have written. In some ways, it appears that the Byzantine approach to spirituality is particulrly suitable to contemporary man (especially westerners and Americans, in Sayedna�s eyes) because it opens up ways of experiencing God that may be counterintuitive to us culturaly, thereby challenging us and making us grow.

Without minimizing the import of that approach, I think, though, that another way of looking at what the author is saying there is to read it in context of the first chapter itself, where the author makes a point that is not uncontroversial, at least in many Catholic circles: namely, that Byzantine spirituality is the product of a pluralistic culture and society that combined Latin, Greek and �Oriental� elements. I think a part of what Sayedna is saying in the preface is that Byantine spirituality is particularly well suited for �especially Americans� precisely because it is the product of a multicultural system itself � it is a synthesis of the best elements of many diverse cultures and their dynamic restatement. It is telling, in this regard, that the author compares the use of Greek in Byzantium with the use of English in America � to demonstrate that as America is not England, so Byzantium is not Greece, or �Greece-writ-large�. Fundamentally, then, for the author, the Byzantine approach is not �Eastern� or �Greek�, but a product of the intermingling of �Eastern� and �Greek� and �Latin/Roman� elements to produce a religious culture that was greater than the sum of its parts. In the first chapter, the author goes a long way ot demonstrate that the Byzantine system is not something to be considered �Greek� or �Eastern�, but is rather a universal system (or universally usable system) that developed from these various elements.

One point that follows from this, in my opinion, is that the Byzantine system is at least as universal as the Latin system is � perhaps even moreso given the influences that played a role in its formation, although probably that is an overstatement as contemporary Latin Christianity is likewise the product of various cultural interminglings. In other words, the Byzantine system is universal and usable everywhere as the Latin system is and is not (or, rather, ought not be seen to be) tied to specific ethnic groups. That each may take a certain expression in a particular cultural system goes without saying � but in the pluralistic West, and especially in a pluralistic/multicultural nation such as ours, the Byzantine approach, being not tied to any one culture but rather open to cultural adaptation, may be particularly suitable here. That, in my opinion, is a stunning introduction, and something that runs well counter to the attitudes of many Roman and Byzantine Catholics regarding the Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox Churches. In fact, I would think that there are many Roman and Byzantine Catholics who would disagree with that rather strongly (although, interestingly, relatively few Eastern Orthodox would disagree).

2. On the second point, I think the author would surmise that the best way to communicate the message is through liturgy. He hints at this in the preface (�what we need to do is celebrate our faith ane experience the wonder of it�). In my personal opinion, this is why the author has spent so much time translating liturgical texts � he wants to make the Byzantine liturgical life (all of it, not only the Divin Liturgy) approacable for users of American English so that its message can be communicated in the most effective means.

In Christ,

Brendan

You fellas have made a good start. I struggle to put words down on "paper", so my remarks will be shorter than yours.

I laughed when I read. "I believe that Western man, and especially Americans, can easily live it,..." How many posts have we read concerning the enormous length of time it takes to become Byzantinized?

Why is the Byzantine path suitable for modern people?

For one thing, in its prayer the Byzantine way tells the truth about the human condition and appeals to the heart to accept remedy of God's mercy. I give as example a few of the verses from Saturday vespers of the Sunday before Lent.

"The Lord my Creator took me as dust from the earth and formed me into a living creature, breathing into me the breath of life and giving me a soul; He honoured me, setting me as ruler upon earth over all things visible, and making me companion of the angels. But Satan the deciever, using the serpent as his instrument, enticed me by food; he parted me from the glory of God and gve me over to the earth and to the lowest depths of death, but, Master, in compassion call me back again." First sticheron at "Lord, I have cried"

"Adam was cast out of Paradise through eating from the tree. Seated before the gates he wept, lamenting with a pitiful voice and saying: "Woe is me, what have I suffered in my misery! I trangressed one commandment of the Master, and now I am deprived of every blessing." Fourth sticheron at "Lord, I have cried"

As I listen to the services, I find myself saying, "Yes, that is exactly how it is with me. I have fallen, and it isn't God's fault; I did it to myself.


2. What do you think is the best way for the Byzantine churches to communicate this type of vision to "modern man"?

I believe that this vision is communicated through the symbols and prayers of the services. Anything else is almost reinventing the wheel.

Vicki Williams

>>>1. I agree that the statement at the outset is intriguing. I think there is a lot of truth to what
you have written. In some ways, it appears that the Byzantine approach to spirituality is
particulrly suitable to contemporary man (especially westerners and Americans, in Sayedna�s
eyes) because it opens up ways of experiencing God that may be counterintuitive to us
culturaly, thereby challenging us and making us grow. <<<

Another point, not made as explicitly by Kyr Joseph, but one also reiterated by Protpresbyter Alexander Schmemmann of blessed memory, is that to a very large extent Western Christianity has been secularized, by which they mean that the Western Church has chosen to address the world on its own terms, and thus has come to view its own role in the world by worldly criteria. This lamentable development began in the Middle Ages with the emergence of a scholastic form of theology that alienated theology from its liturgical roots. Treating theology as a "scientific" discipline, it essentially sought to understand God by deconstructing Him, postulating a set of abstract propositions regarding Him, and then "proving" these propositions through a logical, syllogistically-based dialectic. Just read Summa Theologica to see what I mean.

As time passed, the gap between the lex orandi and the lex credendi in the West grew very wide indeed. At the same time, the inexorable logic of the scholastic approach elevated human reason to a position it had never held in the patristic Church. Out of that glorification of human reason sprang the social/intellectual movements we call the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment. From the Enlightenment comes both the Romantic movement and that phenomenon we call "modernism".

Our secular culture today is a bastard child of Western Christianity. In its conflicts with the secular culture, Western Christianity is hopelessly compromised, because it shares so many of the fundamental assumptions and has conceded so much methodologically to secularism.

The Eastern Churches, on the other hand, were not affected by any of these intellectual developments, and instead maintained a much more holistic understanding of theology as prayerful contemplation of divine mystery rooted in the liturgical worship of the People of God. The alienation of the Western Church from the East allowed the West to go off on its rationalist tangent, leading to the predicament of Western Christianity today. The Churches of the East possess the mindset and the tools to undo the conundrum. We represent "outside the box" thinking, a fresh approach, one which just happens to be more than 1000 years old, but fresh within Western terms of reference. By bearing witness to the Truth in accordance with the Byzantine Tradition, we can help Western Christianity resolve many of its own internal contradictions, and thus to heal itself by bringing it back in touch with its patristic roots. And a reinvigorated Western Church will be much better able to deal with the challenges of a resurgent paganism that disguises itself as post-modern humanism.

To all,

A very interesting discussion thus far. Here are my comments.

The text says: I deeply believe that the Byzantine way is still the most suitable way for modern man to come to a realization of the sheer poetry and grace that are in the Gospels.

Archbishop Raya correctly identifies the great need for modern man to experience poetry and grace. Dorothy Day, who saw the most destitute of men on a daily basis, was fond of quoting Dostoevski that "the world will be saved by beauty".

I think the Byzantine way can be particularly helpful by teaching us a better way to "experience". For modern man, experience is tied up with the subjective, with mere sensation (how do I feel?). The focus is on himself and his reactions. The Byzantine way, via the liturgy and a rich prayer life, also puts a premium on experience, but one which draws a person out of himself and upward toward God. Very powerful, and very liberating.

The text says: I believe that Western man, and especially Americans, can easily live it, and that it can add to his enrichment without any intellectual capitulation.

This is a very provocative claim! My experience as a Roman Catholic who has tried over the last 2 years to live more fully the Byzantine way is that it is most emphatically not "easily lived". Or, more precisely, the transition to the Byzantine way is not easy. I will leave it to full-fledged Byzantines to comment on the "easy living". Archbishop Raya does seem to imply that the obstacles are hardly insurmountable, though. This does contradict some posters on this forum who insist that the spiritual gulf between East and West is enormous, and that one who moves from West to East must jettison much of the Western mindset. I think the Archbishop is much closer to the truth.

No one thus far has commented on "without intellectual capitulation" phrase. In saying this, I think the Archbishop recognizes the serious danger in over-emphasizing "experience" relative to "understanding". Somewhere in his writings Father Schmemann wrote that it would harm Orthodoxy f it were to become the "mystical" selection in the Christianity smorgasbord. The Byzantine way does have an intellectual component; it's just not as fully fleshed out as the Roman way. (Please note that the Archbishop does not throw stones at the West for being excessively "legalistic" or "intellectualized" as others on the forum are wont to do!).

Finally, Gordo asked: What do you think is the best way for the Byzantine churches to communicate this type of vision to "modern man"?

Brendan suggested the possibility of cultural adaptation in our multicultural/diverse society. Good luck!! Our society is not multicultural, but abundantly and fractiously sub-cultural. Frankly, it has no "culture". What do the following have in common:

• A post-modern generation X-er
• An utterly utilitarian research scientist
• A stay-at-home mother
• A biblical fundamentalist

This titanic disparity in outlooks makes it exceptionally hard for a liturgy to appeal to the whole man in all the above cases. It's one big reason why the Roman Catholic liturgical developments of the past 30 years have been something short of a ringing success. There is no underlying culture to provide the "hooks". I'd suggest that the Byzantine way just "be" for the time being. In more propitious times, it might consider cultural adaptation.

In Christ,
Steven

Christos anesti!

1. What is it, do you suppose, about the Byzantine "way" or path that is most suitable for modern man?

My first reaction to this question is a personal one, reflecting on what first drew me along a Byzantine path. Its suitability starts with the mode of worship, i.e., the fact that it is worship. So many things compete for the attention of "modern" -- should we say "western" here? -- man. It's one crucial step to seek after our salvation but so easy to be passive about it nonetheless, at least if we judge from much of Western Christian worship.

We don't come to divine liturgy to just hear about God or to take our seats and be entertained. We are physically drawn into worship with all our senses. We lay aside our preoccupations to assume here on earth the role of the heavenly hosts in glorifying God - the life-creating Trinity. We truly encounter Christ, the King of all, receiving him among us and in us at every level in the profound mystery of the Eucharist.

It's not a matter that one can't reach the same level of worship in a western mode, because one certainly can. But the Byzantine mode resonates with a worshipful purpose that is quicker to stimulate.

2. What do you think is the best way for the Byzantine churches to communicate this type of vision to "modern man"?

Is liturgy the manifestation of the "vision" or the means to communicate it? Both, I would venture to say, but the theology it contains is not a simple thing to grasp. The words the Archbishop uses are "a realization of the sheer poetry and grace that are in the Gospels." Realization implies a process which often violaties the western desire for quick gratification or notion of quick conversion. The challenge for our churches is how to make the struggle of the Byzantine way attractive when simpler fixes are offered elswhere, in other Christian churches. Of course, the believer's efforts will always be a small contribution to make in return for the tremendous gift God has bestowed upon us all in the nativity and resurrection of his Son.

I look forward to the rest of the book.

Peter

Christos Voskrese!

Thought I'd officially log in as a participant of the online book study. As a cradle Byzantine who left the church for awhile (during my "rebel" period) and had the good sense to come back, I was struck by this passage in Chapter 2:

"The Christian can only witness to and communicate that which he himself actually believes in and possesses."

I find that as I have begun to teach my children their faith, I need to deepen my own understanding. (Those last couple years of CCD classes are a dim memory). I'm excited to be re-connecting with Eastern spirituality from a more mature perspective and feel blessed to have found this forum.

It's rather late, so no deep thoughts tonight. Unless Gordo can spare some Folger's!

Barbara

There haven't been any posts yet for Chapter 2, so let me pose a question. Under the section "The Essence of Love" on page 34, Archbishop Raya says:

The author is writing this in context of the relationship among the 3 persons of the Trinity. But does it apply to our relationship to the Trinity as well?

In my limited experience with Byzantine spirituality, it seems that not enough attention is paid to man's personal relationship to God. The emphasis is on God the glorified, on the Resurrected Christ. Man adores God and seeks assistance from him in a very deferential way. It is as though God is too awesome for us to approach Him in a personal way.

Of course, a personal approach to God can be much overdone (the "Jesus my buddy" syndrome), but I think the warmness of some personal relationship is important.

Any comments?

In Christ,
Steven

Steven,

Christos anesti!

You raise an interesting point. I would offer two observations. The first stems from the Incarnation. With God having become man, He can identify with our human experiences in the most intimate and personal way. While we glorify Him, that does not necessarily create a wedge preventing a personal relationship unless we put distance between Him and ourselves. Of course, that's pretty easy to do in moments of sin and despair, when we think that God doesn't see or doesn't care. My second obervation, especially in the latter case, is the example of Jesus as the Incarnate Son calling the Father "Abba." The intimacy with God that he possessed as a human here on earth is should be our goal on the road to holiness.

While I think I've made here a relatively "Orthodox" statement, does this type of personal contact with God recieve the same emphasis in the East as in the West? I don't know. My first reaction is that the Trinitarian emphasis in the East of "God as He has revealed Himself to us" does reduce a bit the "Jesus as our personal Savior" focus of at least the Protestant West.

Rightly, we Christians should appreciate both elements on balance. I think the Archbishop gives us the threads in Chapter 2. We should be cautioned to know the limits of our understanding concerning God. Given the legacy of the ancient Greeks, this points gets extra emphasis in the East. But He has revealed Himself to us, and we are able to know him in these ways. What we know as the Church we profess through the Creed. What we know personally, we know by "participating in the divine life of God," i.e., through the many ways we receive grace.

Peter

It seems that Papal Supremacy/Primacy/Infallibility wars are bursting out all over the forum! Can this thread be an oasis of shared Catholic/Orthodox reflection?

I think we are supposed to be discussing Chapter 3 this week. A few observations:

1. Role of the Holy Spirit

The role of the Holy Spirit is more pronounced in the East compared to the West. In the Roman theology, there is greater emphasis on the man Jesus, a more intimate connection with his humanity. Both perspectives are fruitful, complement each other nicely, and can lead to distortions if pushed too exclusively.

It is the Holy Spirit which Archbishop Raya identifies with the grace and poetry of the Gospels (a theme of Chapter 1). He says, in fact "We can say a great deal of good and bad things about the Church. The greatest evil was not the Inquisition or the attempt, at times, to build the kingdom of God on earth. In preaching the Gospel, the Church did not always bring to the fore the paradise of life and poetry which is the true life of the Holy Spirit. A truth that does not sing is a truth betrayed."

2. Freedom / Beauty / Security

In his discussion of the Father, Archbishop Raya says: "The Father is the source of beatitude in the Trinity, and he creates man for beauty and perfect security". Later, in his writing about the Son, he says: "Christ was clothing us, not with fetters but with freedom and life�. In Christ the whole spiritual heritage of Judaism bursts upon Jews and Gentiles alike, and it breaks open the limits of man in order to bring him to security in love."

In the world, freedom and security are in tension. The conventional wisdom has it that if you want security, you must be prepared to give up some freedoms (witness Sparta, the Soviet experiment, etc.). How does security in God lead to freedom, not suppress it? Perhaps it's because security "in love" gives us a rootedness as to what we humans are about and what we should strive for. We are free to ignore the blandishments of the world and thereby avoid the suffering that falls upon those who distort human nature. We are free to pursue the kingdom of God.

3. Meaningful Work

In speaking of the Holiness of God, Archbishop Raya says: "Poets, artists, singers, writers, dancers and actors are holy also because they are set apart by the Holy Spirit to seek and produce a perfection of God for the service of his people. So also every worker 'dedicated' to his vocation in life is holy and inspired by the Holy Spirit who lives in him and leads him to perfection."

These are fine sentiments for those of an artistic bent, but what about us poor computer programmers? :>} What kind of glorification of God results if I should strive to make my programs efficient, readable and robust -- especially since they will only be used by cable TV companies to bring the latest Pay-Per-View schlock to your TV set? It is a fact that more and more jobs are becoming abstract, detached from direct public good. There are tremendous challenges to making one's work spiritually rich and meaningful (a couple of icons hung in a cubicle doesn't cut it). For this we need vast outpourings of the Holy Spirit.

In Christ,
Steven

>>>In speaking of the Holiness of God, Archbishop Raya says: "Poets, artists, singers, writers, dancers and actors are
holy also because they are set apart by the Holy Spirit to seek and produce a perfection of God for the service of his
people. So also every worker 'dedicated' to his vocation in life is holy and inspired by the Holy Spirit who lives in him
and leads him to perfection."<<<

Here, surprisingly, you will find your answer in two Western writers, both Anglican. The first is Dorothy L. Sayers, in her essay, "The Mind of the Maker", in which she assesses the Trinity in light of the creative process. God is the Creator. Man being made in the image of God is also a creator, but while he cannot create ab initio like God, he can take that which God has created and remake it in new and wonderful ways (compare this with J.R.R. Tolkien's concept of "man as sub-creator". She likens the nature of the Trinity to the creative process in man: the Father is the artists as conceptualizer, who sees the whole image from beginning to end, in the way that the writer sees the plot of the book, or the artist the finished painting, in his mind's eye. The Son, the Divine Logos, is the one who converts the conception into reality--as He is begotten, so he begets the creation. The Spirit, which proceeds from the Father, is sent out through the Son to animate creation and fill it with meaning, therehy inspiring further creation. Thus, says Sayers, all mankind has a vocation to create, to imitate their creator. This is a sacred vocation, which requires us to give our best as an offering to the God who created us. As she puts it, "You can be sure that no crooked doors or wobbly tables came out of the carpenter's shop in Nazareth".

The other writer is N.T. Wright, canon theologian at Westminster Abbey. In his recent book, "The Challenge of Jesus", he recapitulates and summarizes his work on the historical Jesus, whom he sees as being an apocalyptic prophet of Israel (as well as the Messiah of God) who didn't merely "teach" so much as engage in a series of symbolic actions which challenged contemporary assumptions about God, Israel, and the eschaton. Through these actions, he provided his followers with a new way of being Israel, a new way to be the Light of the World and the Salt of the Earth, a new way of bein human. Wright asks your question, at the end: "What does this mean to us living in a post-modern world". He answers as follows:

Modernity posited a story of mankind, a "metanarrative" based on the assumption that man was living in darkness until rationalism and materialism delivered him from religion and superstition. Modernism gave us Marx, Nietsche, Freud and all that they stood for. At the end of the 20th century, that metanarrative is revealed as a fraud--nothing more than a cover for the exploitation of mankind by a self-appointed elite.

Post-modernism uses the debunking of modernism (with which, he notes, most of Western Christianity had made its peace), to discredit the very notion of metanarrative and objective truth. All of these, say post-modernism, are subjective, relativistic constructs meant to empower one group against another. Therefore, choose whatever metanarrative best suits you, for all meaning is meaningless. It is philosophical and spiritually nihilistic.

Against this, Wright says Christians must put forward a different metanarrative, one which is based on the Gospel--not the Gospel as we conventionally mean it (i.e., as the moral precepts of the New Testament), but as St. Paul meant it when he used the word--a joyful proclamation that Christ is Lord, and the Kingdom is HERE!. Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom not so much in words, as in his actions. St. Paul proclaimed the Kingdom not so much in words (though he had those in abundance), as in the way he lived. He "put on Christ", "lived in Christ", and thus proclaimed Christ's lordship over all the world. The implications are staggering: if Christ is Lord, then Mammon is not. If Christ is Lord, then Aphrodite and Eros are not. If Christ is Lord, then Caesar is not. It is a message that challenges the very foundations of the world. Wright says that we must proclaim the Gospel in that way, and do so by following the way of Christ, by living in Christ and allowing Him to transform us in all that we are and that we do. Thus, he specifically challenges the computer programmer: does what you are doing actually better mankind, or does it enslave him? Is it merely technology for its own sake, or does it give meaning to something greater than itself. He calls on us to proclaim the Kingdom in small symbolic actions that say Christ is Lord. You can do that in your work, in your personal relationships, in your casual contacts with the world.

He notes that man alone of all God's creation is endowed with both a spritual and a material nature, for man was meant to be a steward over the material universe. Both Wright and Sayers emphasize man's role as steward of creation, and they call on us to act in accordance with that vocation.

Interestingly, this is very much an Eastern Christian approach to the matter. I know that Sayers was very deeply impressed with Orthodoxy even though, given her time an place an outright adoption of it was probably impossible. Wright also, in his most recent work, is starting to sound very Orthodox, in much the same way as Jaroslav Pelikan began to sound very Orthodox in his later works. In the case of all three, I suspect that their intellectual integrity and dedication to the truth of Scripture led them towards the East as a repository of the Apostolic faith uncorrupted by Western acquiesence to secularism (in the sense that Schmemman uses that word).

Stuart,

Thanks for the response. I am in sympathy with Dorothy Sayers' ideas. My point, however, was that the modern workplace is not conducive to that God-imitative creativity and craftsmanship to which Sayers alludes.

Another Westerner, Romano Guardini, lays out the dilemma in his book "The End of the Modern World":
You posed the following set of questions in your response:

1. "Thus, he specifically challenges the computer programmer: does what you are doing actually better mankind, or does it enslave him?" ANSWER: Since the end user for my software is the cable TV industry, which to my mind caters largely to crude entertainment and mindless frivolity, I would have to answer that it helps enslave man.
2. Is it merely technology for its own sake, or does it give meaning to something greater than itself? ANSWER: Neither. The computer technology is genuinely needed to deliver the goods. It's just that the goods are of such dubious merit. Consider this analogy. Suppose the Holy Family was not engaged in carpentry, but rather in metal working, and that their primary client was the occupying Roman troops. How motivated would Jesus and Joseph have been to turn out carefully crafted work?

As for metanarratives, the old ones have indeed lost their power, including the traditional Christian one. I don't think we have a clue as to what a new Christian metanarrative should be. The current climate is dubious about anything smacking of overarching narratives. But individual people in their hearts still have a hunger for truth, perhaps only vaguely aware that the old "ologies" -- psychology, sociology, anthropology -- have badly shortchanged man. There is a calling to proclaim the Truth, less in the form of stories than in statements of What Is.

In Christ,
Steven

>>>As for metanarratives, the old ones have indeed lost their power, including the traditional Christian one.<<<

Here I disagree. The problem is not that the Christian metanarrative has lost its power, but that it has been so occluded with the detritus of centuries of theological and philosophical speculation, challenge and compromised, that the story is not being told. You yourself recognize this when you say:

>>>I don't think we have
a clue as to what a new Christian metanarrative should be.<<<

There is no "new" Christian metanarrative, there is only the one Gospel of Jesus Christ. But we have to strip from it all of the comfortable assumptions and false piety which we have attached to it over the centuries. Familiarity breeds contempt, and we are so familiar with the story that it has lost its meaning for us. If we can open our eyes to see just what Jesus was doing 2000 years ago, how radical was his message of redemption and renewal, how it challenged all of the old symbols, both in Judaism and Paganism, and how it offered us an entirely new way of being the true Israel and truly human beings, then we can begin to appreciate how transformative the story can be for us today. This means going back to the beginning, to look at the Gospels in the context of their cultural milieu, to look at the Acts of the Apostles and the Apostolic writings, and really trying to understand what they are saying, instead of assuming that they say what we have always been told they say. This can be a very painful process, for it ends up challenging a lot of our pat assumptions as well.

>>>But individual people in their hearts still have a hunger for truth, perhaps only vaguely aware that the
old "ologies" -- psychology, sociology, anthropology -- have badly shortchanged man. There is a calling to proclaim the Truth,
less in the form of stories than in statements of What Is.<<<

And that is what we must do. When Paul proclaimed the Gospel, he did not mean the moral teachings of Christ--he meant a proclamation, that Christ is Lord of the World, and calling on others to recognize this and declare their allegience. The allegience given, the transfigurative power of the spirit works within them, and then brings them to faith. But Paul, like Christ, made this proclamation not so much in words as in deeds-by setting an example, and by engaging in symbolic acts that make the proclamation. Just how you can do that in your own particular discipline I cannot say--I just don't know enough. Recognize that I face the same dilemma you do--how to bear witness to Christ, how to live liturgically and sacramentally, in a society that recognizes neither liturgy nor sacrament. As a writer and analyst, I can sometimes find ways to insert the proclamation into my work--in subtle ways--and at other times, I have to do it through my behavior, as when, e.g., I follow the fasts, or take time out from my day to go to liturgy, or just by trying to behave like a Christian in the face of the usual kinds of office tyranny one experiences today. It isn't easy, but on the other hand, it isn't nearly as hard as what Paul faced, is it?

Chapter 4 was the section for discussion this week. The whole tone of this chapter was literally uplifting -- "Christ by his Transfiguration glorified the cosmos; by his Ascension he sustains it with his living presence". It is extremely important that those of us with tendencies to the cynical meditate deeply on these reflections.

I have observed, however, that this theosis plays a decidedly minor key in Byzantine spirituality. Many of the Eastern prayers emphasize the unbridgeable gulf between man and God, man's weakness before the the Trinity. In a Byzantine morning prayer we say: "Neither did you destroy me in my transgressions". A number of posters to this forum sign themselves "sinner" or even "archsinner". If taken out of context, such sentiments might even appear Calvinist!

How do you resolve this tension between being united to God on one hand and our decidedly weak natures on the other? In you own life, do you "experience" theosis? Doesn't this imply that you sin less?

In Christ,
Steven