Holy Trinity Publications discussion
This topic is about
The Struggle for Virtue
The Struggle for Virtue
>
Week 7 (Oct. 19-Oct. 25): Chapter 6 - The Christian Understanding of Freedom
date
newest »
newest »
1) In contrasting the thoughts between Romans and Galatians, it appears to bear witness to the progression of man as he struggles with his own freedom (if he actually wants to!), trying to find his correct place. While remaining ignorant, and succumbing to freedom of/for sin (living according to our own will), the former statement is correct, and we have become a servant to sin and the devil. Thus, this is what dwells and rules within our hearts, and becomes our master.The latter statement is the ideal, and from it we get the often confusing concept of subjecting ourselves to Christ, which on the surface appears as slavery, but is in fact the restoration of our true freedom. It involves a purging of our will toward any and all things which do not have as their focus Christ, and a life in Him.
If we use the concept of man’s corrupted image after the first disobedience, and our struggle to restore ourselves to the image and likeness of Christ, then the above statements make more sense – because our true freedom, the freedom we had as we were created, is not fully experienced until we return ourselves to full union with God (theosis). This cannot happen unless, as the Apostle says, “Christ lives in me”. Only when this occurs will we truly know freedom within God’s love. This is our struggle during this life, to strive toward this goal.
This concept actually is confusing to me at times because the means to achieve our goal could be viewed as the goal itself; I make the differentiation (hopefully not incorrectly), that uniting ourselves to Christ in this life is only a taste of the blessedness to come in the eternal, which is true theosis.
2) I indeed was initially shocked to read that the freedoms (speaking strictly American ideals, at the moment) we espouse at every turn are in fact slavery. We’ve spent a good amount of our formative years as children being filled with the concepts of life, liberty and happiness, the philosophies of the enlightened (Locke, Rousseau, etc), that this has become our norm, our life, our ideal.
And, as vl. Averky says, we have deceived ourselves into viewing this slavery as true freedom. We wrap ourselves in these “freedoms” when all they do in fact is inflame animosity and enmity between people, each clamoring to convince the world how right they truly are.
In the writings of the early American founders there are hints of obedience to God, but now that is all but gone. The freedom they preach now is to place ourselves as new gods on a pedestal and demand that we be worshiped. Everything is available to us, and nothing is forbidden.
I had never viewed American liberty in the light of the Church before. It is somewhat disturbing, but comforting (if we actually want to distance ourselves from things which impede our salvation). Our ‘liberty’ is actually our slavery.
Once again, I will write my comments before reading Gregory's.1. The two quotes from St. Paul reminded me (delightfully) of St. Porphyrios' discussion of them in "Wounded by Love". But that, of course, is a different book. Though I wasn't as deeply inspired by our current author, I felt he made a made his point well: we think we are acting on our own, freely making choices, but are often oblivious to how we are enslaved by evil (devil). Sin dwells in us and afflicts our minds (to paraphrase the author), so that our "freedom" makes us less free.
Before we had the capacity to understand good vs. evil, we were naturally good. But, without the understanding, we could not truly love - for love must be an active choice. It seems the act of choosing is either to choose ourselves (self-asserting pride) or God (self-emptying humility). In the former, evil dwells in us (evil = "false self") and we become unable to do good. We may say we want to do good, but the only "good" we see is what the self wants. In the latter, Christ comes to dwell in us and we become unable to do evil when Christ's presence is fully realized in us, because the false self has been surrendered and Christ's life,(aka the "Gospel love") is all we know. St. Paul was transformed from being a persecutor of Christ (not knowing that he was full of himself) to becoming emptied of self and totally filled with Christ - a glorious example for us and all of the people of the early Church to whom he preached.
2. I found Vl. Averky's remarks about the "freedoms" intriguing. While, on the one hand, I could not help but agree with some of his observations on the evils that come out of these freedoms, on the other hand, I felt like something was missing in his reasoning (or my understanding). Freedom of the press is perhaps the clearest example. This freedom does not mean that people are free to write whatever evil they wish about each other. They are not. Its meaning centers on the press being independent of government control. This is vital, unless, of course, you have a leadership that can be trusted to govern wisely, honestly and fairly. Experience through the ages suggests that this sort of government is sadly rare.
Thus, it seems a challenge as to how to maintain our commitment to the true "freedom" of living according to God's will, but not turn a blind eye to the evils that may pervade unchecked governmental power.
I am anxious to read Gregory's comments, feeling I've not expressed myself particularly well. However, it is late and I will need to wait to comment further.
Gregory -I appreciate your comments, especially your very first line, "In contrasting the thoughts between Romans and Galatians, it appears to bear witness to the progression of man as he struggles with his own freedom..."
I had not thought of it from this particular perspective. Of course, as Christians we must struggle with our freedom. If we simply accept the understanding of freedom that we inherit through our culture (American culture and, more broadly, the human culture since the fall), we will be preoccupied with self and therefore with sin.
The sort of freedom we have learned, especially in America, is one of "rights". While never denying that all people should be treated with dignity and respect, this focus bears a disturbing resemblance to self-asserting pride, e.g. "I have the right to..."
When we look at this in light of Vl. Averky's discussion of the "freedoms", I wonder if this is what he most objects to. It would seem odd that he would argue against people being permitted to associate with one another, practice their religion without interference from the state, have a press that is not controlled by the government, etc. What I suspect he is saying is that it is the attitude, the focus on self, on my right to do what I want, that leads us away from God.
There is nothing inherent in these experiences that makes them sinful - if we have Christ living within us. To be permitted to express opinion without government censorship (freedom of speech), for example, does not incline a fully Christian person to evil - for, once filled with Christ, there is little room or reason for "opinion" anyway.
The problem is that we are so enslaved that we do not see that these "freedoms", as presented to us, are most often self-asserting pride in disguise. Thus, we approach the experiences wrongly. We become full of our opinions (at least I do - though working not to!) and feel free to argue them at another's expense because "I have the right to" freedom of speech. On so on, with the other "freedoms".
Hence, I do not think the author is arguing in favor of government censorship - nor is he even suggesting that we should be indifferent to it. Rather, I think he is saying we must be alert to what we call "freedom" lest we be tricked into further enslavement. Even freedom of religion, wrongly approached, can (ironically) further enslave us to the enemy. Sadly, we can see a hint of this in the many wars fought through history in the name of religion.
When we look at this in light of Vl. Averky's discussion of the "freedoms", I wonder if this is what he most objects to. It would seem odd that he would argue against people being permitted to associate with one another, practice their religion without interference from the state, have a press that is not controlled by the government, etc. What I suspect he is saying is that it is the attitude, the focus on self, on my right to do what I want, that leads us away from God.Mary - I think this is a good summary of what I was probably trying to say but said badly! :) The freedoms in and of themselves are not bad, but when they are exercised with self-will and pride and ego, they become shackles.
Great response. Lots to think about.
Thank you for your first response to this post Gregory, it really speaks to me. Yes, it seems much of the christianity in America deifies not only the ego but America itself. Seems a loop with little escape. I just hope for my own possible Noetic work that I can see it as a warning of secularizing within christianity. Taking it as a warning and discerning it without judgement. Because before there is secularizing of the church there is secularizing of individuals; and I can be completely vulnerable to that. So, as I think you said, hesychastic prayer is for Theosis and protection. Thank you again.
I am sorry, I should say that I understood what you said about our Prayer lives as being for both spiritual protection and Theosis.
Dan,Thank you for the comments, and welcome to the discussion. Your observation of deified ego and America together is insightful; we are struggling on a personal and a cultural level, and both likely feed off of each other to our greater detriment.
Your point on discernment without judgement is good, and something I doubt I have a shred of in my person. Ideally, we would recognize and avoid these pitfalls, hopefully lifting ourselves and those around us out of the mire we live in. But the moment we begin to judge, the discernment bears little fruit it would seem.
Also, you commented on "secularization of individuals" - very interesting. I heard a talk once on how we seem to gravitate to sin as though it were part of our normal human nature (we often say a bad vice or habit is like a 'second nature'). In doing so, we devalue our true humanity and its rightful place with God, and accept our fallen, disfigured present reality as the norm.
Thank you, GregoryThis gives me more to chew on yet intermingles nicely with current contemplations. The part about normalizing human nature , folly , habits , charming idiosyncrasies rings true. It seems on a personal level that was inevitable , the nature of the fall and free will, before right now and I was not even aware of it then. In becoming more aware of it through discernment ( diakrisis?) it means something else. I have no illusions that I can shoot these passions out of the waters of my psyche directly, but just being aware of them and how they affect my spiritual life may make a difference. I am hoping it will make me want to pray more and for the prayer to , God willing, infuse the heart.
Thanks again
Dan - good to have you as part of the discussion and I appreciate your contributions.Gregory - it is interesting that you talk about sin as seeming normal to us. Our author makes that very point toward the end of the book. (I started reading before the discussion began and therefore had a head start.) I'm glad you're making the point now as I will reflect on it more as we approach that chapter.
Fr. Peter (or anyone else) - do we know any more about the author beyond what is printed on the book? Anyone who knows him or his spiritual children? I was thinking that it might help me understand his writing more if I felt like I understood him as a person. As you know, I have sometimes struggled with how he expresses himself.
Mary, you wrote:"it is interesting that you talk about sin as seeming normal to us. Our author makes that very point toward the end of the book. (I started reading before the discussion began and therefore had a head start.) I'm glad you're making the point now as I will reflect on it more as we approach that chapter."
I was only able to bring this point up because I heard it brought up in a podcast by Archimandrite Irenei (ROCOR Western Diocese). One thing that I often take for granted is the fact that concepts and teachings we discuss have likely been said before. This a beautiful testimony to Holy Tradition, which maintains the truth of the faith and hands it on to each generation.
I'm excited to hear Vl.Averky makes this point later, and look forward to seeing it!
Fr. Peter will likely be able to give you a better biography of Vladyka, but for starters you could review his page on OrthodoxWiki.
Mary wrote: "Dan - good to have you as part of the discussion and I appreciate your contributions.Thank you for the warm welcome Mary and all here:)
Gregory - it is interesting that you talk about sin as seeming normal to us. Our author makes that very point ..."
Dan wrote: "Thank you, Gregory
This gives me more to chew on yet intermingles nicely with current contemplations. The part about normalizing human nature , folly , habits , charming idiosyncrasies rings true. ..."
I have not read this book but I am stimulated by this discussion and relevant excerpts so I hope you don't mind my piping in:)I particularly was moved by Mary's comment-
"There is nothing inherent in these experiences that makes them sinful - if we have Christ living within us. To be permitted to express opinion without government censorship (freedom of speech), for example, does not incline a fully Christian person to evil - for, once filled with Christ, there is little room or reason for "opinion" anyway. "
Because have thought about that too.
That , amidst other things , inspired me to think about it and this was the best I could come up with right now:
Orthodox Christianity is not a way of syncretism because it acknowledges what is of value in historical and wisdom traditions , and has borrowed from them , particularly in the Old Testament traditions and the philosophers of the Hellenic empire. But it does recognize that a shift in human history occurred and still unfolds with the fulfillment of Christ. The old gives way to the new... And this is still being fulfilled. It seems that it is said that Orthodoxy does not have a scholastic tradition. Yet it certainly seems to have a tradition of contemplation and meditative reasoning.. a tradition of transcending thought with the mind. It would seem alien if we curse all sinners and take a legalistic position on everything since we recognize that we can be the greatest sinners of all. Maybe this can give rise to and meld with the Therapeutic tradition of healing the Soul. It is beautiful because it has the potential to unify rather than divide. I don't know. Apatheia and compassion seems desireable but I have no idea how it is reached in the world.
And I think I have heard that the Monastic tradition, particularly Mt. Athos, is the Heartbeat and Soul of the Eastern Church. I cannot help but feel that those who reach a place of Theosis help to heal the world. A real bugger of a question may be how to live a Hesychast? Life while still loving in the world?
Sorry, I meant living in the world:)
Discuss these passages in light of the current and preceding chapters.
2) With midterm elections approaching here in the USA, vl. Averky's comments on civil freedoms (freedom of the press, freedom of speech, etc) are particularly topical and, if I may, jarring. What was your reaction to this section?