Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Why I Converted To Eastern Orthodoxy : Author Frank Schaeffer
Frank Schaeffer Author of "Dancing Alone" and his conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-CJhPlmznA
Friday, December 14, 2012
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Why Is There No Official Orthodox Position on the Issue of Evolution and Origins?
Good question here!
Q & A: Why Is There No Official Orthodox Position on the Issue of Evolution and Origins?
I received the following important question in an email recently for which I have been given permission to reprint, along with my answer, below:
Question:
I am having difficulties with a particular issue; the issue of understanding Evolution and its place in the Eastern Orthodox church today.
I am a "cradle" Orthodox and so my experience, through the Orthodox church, on this topic has been that "Christ is not a decendant of monkeys/apes". I have been taught to be loyal to these matters and I have always considered it disrespectful to even want to consider Christ as an ape. Infact, Elder Paisios has boldly stated that it is "blasphemous" to think in this way (this comment can be found in his Epistles). I place much trust in these Saints and Elders of our church, since I have also experienced their divine wisdom first hand and so this is the line of thinking I have comfortably adopted without questioning it using man's rational mind.
What I have come to understand is that our modern day Church is infact divided on this matter. There are two groups, those who are compatabilist or those who are incompatabilist (cf. OrthodoxWiki for an explanation of terms).
Not dwelling on Patristics (since I am not a theologian), I can think of a modern day example of Father Seraphim Rose who holds the position of an incompatablist (ie. he does not support the idea that Christ is a decendant of a monkey).
My dilemma is, and what is eating me I suppose, why does the administrative Orthodox church not hold a position on this matter when it is clear that many of our Saints do? Is there "room for everyone on this matter" (as a new convert boldly stated to me) when only one group can be right. In Orthodoxy (or even philosophy) there can only ever be One Truth so both groups can not be right and, like I mentioned I prefer to place my trust in divine revelation than man made proofs.
I understand from Scripture that, being challenged by the Pharisees as to whether he is from the devil or from God, that Christ announces that a house divided can not stand ... so then, why is our Orthodox church allowing itself to be divided on this topic please?
Further, for someone like myself, who places a huge trust and emphasis on the enlightened words of not just ordinary Orthodox but amazing saints like Elder Porfyrios ... am I sinning for standing up and defending Christ's image? I have been called an ideologist (which I am not).
I hope I make some sense, once upon a time the Church had no answers with regards to the Arian controversy and was divided. Then God revealed through miraculous means that their could only be "one truth" (on that matter) through miraculous means ... This topic for me IS a modern day controversy and though some people think - what does it have to do with salvation, I wonder how important it is to defend the "Tree of Life" from the "Tree of Death" (Darwinism and its variations).
Your thoughts are appreciated.
Answer:
I completely agree with your evaluation of this topic. It is true the Orthodox Church has no "official" position on this topic, but the reason for this is because the topic is within the realm of science and not theology. Scientific theories are adopted one day and dropped the next based on the evidence, and if the Church was to take a position on the topic it could lead to the same danger that condemned someone like Copernicus or Galileo in the West for disagreeing with an official position of the Church on a scientific matter. In the Orthodox Church, we have avoided such controversies and have always adapted with the scientific theories of the day. Both science and theology are in the business of teaching truth and its conclusions can never contradict one another. The former is based on the evidence while the second on revelation. The former deals with the creation while the latter deals with the Creator.
However, science is one thing and philosophy is another. The problem with modern science is that it has as its foundations not mere science but in fact a certain philosophical worldview. This is what Darwinism is precisely - it is a philosophical worldview through which scientific evidence is understood. The danger in using science like this is that it creates a story, or even myths if you will, that are not based on evidence but on mere conjecture and imagination. So if the Church were to take a position, I would encourage it to condemn the use of philosophical presuppositions when evaluating scientific evidence.
Unfortunately very few, if any, Orthodox theologians are studying this topic to be able to even write about it. The reason I make some posts on it in my weblog is because I do want Orthodox to be more aware of these issues. It is one of many topics I plan to tackle more formally, God willing. I feel very passionately about it because when I was in 9th grade I followed the logical conclusions of my High School Biology class and ended up being an atheist. When I finally came back to Faith I vowed that I would study the depths of this topic and unmask it, which I have been and will.
Regarding the theory of Evolution, I should mention that the great majority of Orthodox scholars believe in Theistic Evolution. In their fear of opposing the science of the day, they have in turn subjected our theology to the interpretations and conjectures of scientists by doing this. And as I mentioned earlier, what they are in fact doing is intermingling Orthodox theology with Darwinian philosophy - not science. This is very grievous to me, and as you mentioned, it is not the view supported by the Saints. St. Nektarios actually wrote a book on Darwinian Evolution and he is one of the first Christians to offer a critique on this topic in the early 20th century. I recommend also the booklet Biological Evolutionism by Dr Constantine Cavarnos, a former Harvard professor of Philosophy, who also evaluates Darwinian theory as a philosophy which contradicts Orthodoxy and lacks any scientific support.
Though I am sympathetic to Creationism, I would prefer not to be called a Creationist either. Creationism in some ways does also what Darwinism does, but instead of a philosphy, Creationism mixes theology with science. Thus this also limits both theology and science. It is also too literalistic when it comes to Scriptural interpretations and such exegetical methods are not adopted or endorsed by the Church Fathers in the strict sense. Creationism is basically a reaction against Darwinism and a product of Fundamentalist Protestantism.
If I were to put my support anywhere, though on a somewhat limited scale, it would be the Intelligent Design movement. Though very misunderstood by its critics and by Orthodox theologians like Metropolitan John Zizioulas who critiques it, it actually does not stray from Scriptural and Patristic interpretations of how we can evaluate our origins (it was actually the type of science adopted by the Church Fathers). It also does not take a theological position of any sort. What people don't realize is that before Darwinism, the scientific method was primarily one of Intelligent Design. It basically attributes the irreducible complexity of the universe to a designer, whoever that designer is. It does not make use of Scripture or any sort of revelation, since science should not draw upon any sources of revelation or even philosophy. Darwin actually set out to prove ID was wrong after the death of his daughter made him angry against God and caused him to become a skeptic. Darwinism thus became a critique of ID. Since the 1990's ID has been making a major comeback since the evidence in fact supports the theory of irreducible complexity, most notably at the cellular level. The Darwinist arguments these days are merely rhetorical.
So yes, when it comes to scientific issues, we are as fish swimming upstream as far as guidance from the Church comes these days. But if we separate science from both philosophy and theology, as well as separate theology from both science and philosophy, we can honestly evaluate where the evidence lies. What is most important is that the truths of Orthodoxy can never be compromised by true and honest science.
Hope this helps a bit.
Q & A: Why Is There No Official Orthodox Position on the Issue of Evolution and Origins?
I received the following important question in an email recently for which I have been given permission to reprint, along with my answer, below:
Question:
I am having difficulties with a particular issue; the issue of understanding Evolution and its place in the Eastern Orthodox church today.
I am a "cradle" Orthodox and so my experience, through the Orthodox church, on this topic has been that "Christ is not a decendant of monkeys/apes". I have been taught to be loyal to these matters and I have always considered it disrespectful to even want to consider Christ as an ape. Infact, Elder Paisios has boldly stated that it is "blasphemous" to think in this way (this comment can be found in his Epistles). I place much trust in these Saints and Elders of our church, since I have also experienced their divine wisdom first hand and so this is the line of thinking I have comfortably adopted without questioning it using man's rational mind.
What I have come to understand is that our modern day Church is infact divided on this matter. There are two groups, those who are compatabilist or those who are incompatabilist (cf. OrthodoxWiki for an explanation of terms).
Not dwelling on Patristics (since I am not a theologian), I can think of a modern day example of Father Seraphim Rose who holds the position of an incompatablist (ie. he does not support the idea that Christ is a decendant of a monkey).
My dilemma is, and what is eating me I suppose, why does the administrative Orthodox church not hold a position on this matter when it is clear that many of our Saints do? Is there "room for everyone on this matter" (as a new convert boldly stated to me) when only one group can be right. In Orthodoxy (or even philosophy) there can only ever be One Truth so both groups can not be right and, like I mentioned I prefer to place my trust in divine revelation than man made proofs.
I understand from Scripture that, being challenged by the Pharisees as to whether he is from the devil or from God, that Christ announces that a house divided can not stand ... so then, why is our Orthodox church allowing itself to be divided on this topic please?
Further, for someone like myself, who places a huge trust and emphasis on the enlightened words of not just ordinary Orthodox but amazing saints like Elder Porfyrios ... am I sinning for standing up and defending Christ's image? I have been called an ideologist (which I am not).
I hope I make some sense, once upon a time the Church had no answers with regards to the Arian controversy and was divided. Then God revealed through miraculous means that their could only be "one truth" (on that matter) through miraculous means ... This topic for me IS a modern day controversy and though some people think - what does it have to do with salvation, I wonder how important it is to defend the "Tree of Life" from the "Tree of Death" (Darwinism and its variations).
Your thoughts are appreciated.
Answer:
I completely agree with your evaluation of this topic. It is true the Orthodox Church has no "official" position on this topic, but the reason for this is because the topic is within the realm of science and not theology. Scientific theories are adopted one day and dropped the next based on the evidence, and if the Church was to take a position on the topic it could lead to the same danger that condemned someone like Copernicus or Galileo in the West for disagreeing with an official position of the Church on a scientific matter. In the Orthodox Church, we have avoided such controversies and have always adapted with the scientific theories of the day. Both science and theology are in the business of teaching truth and its conclusions can never contradict one another. The former is based on the evidence while the second on revelation. The former deals with the creation while the latter deals with the Creator.
However, science is one thing and philosophy is another. The problem with modern science is that it has as its foundations not mere science but in fact a certain philosophical worldview. This is what Darwinism is precisely - it is a philosophical worldview through which scientific evidence is understood. The danger in using science like this is that it creates a story, or even myths if you will, that are not based on evidence but on mere conjecture and imagination. So if the Church were to take a position, I would encourage it to condemn the use of philosophical presuppositions when evaluating scientific evidence.
Unfortunately very few, if any, Orthodox theologians are studying this topic to be able to even write about it. The reason I make some posts on it in my weblog is because I do want Orthodox to be more aware of these issues. It is one of many topics I plan to tackle more formally, God willing. I feel very passionately about it because when I was in 9th grade I followed the logical conclusions of my High School Biology class and ended up being an atheist. When I finally came back to Faith I vowed that I would study the depths of this topic and unmask it, which I have been and will.
Regarding the theory of Evolution, I should mention that the great majority of Orthodox scholars believe in Theistic Evolution. In their fear of opposing the science of the day, they have in turn subjected our theology to the interpretations and conjectures of scientists by doing this. And as I mentioned earlier, what they are in fact doing is intermingling Orthodox theology with Darwinian philosophy - not science. This is very grievous to me, and as you mentioned, it is not the view supported by the Saints. St. Nektarios actually wrote a book on Darwinian Evolution and he is one of the first Christians to offer a critique on this topic in the early 20th century. I recommend also the booklet Biological Evolutionism by Dr Constantine Cavarnos, a former Harvard professor of Philosophy, who also evaluates Darwinian theory as a philosophy which contradicts Orthodoxy and lacks any scientific support.
Though I am sympathetic to Creationism, I would prefer not to be called a Creationist either. Creationism in some ways does also what Darwinism does, but instead of a philosphy, Creationism mixes theology with science. Thus this also limits both theology and science. It is also too literalistic when it comes to Scriptural interpretations and such exegetical methods are not adopted or endorsed by the Church Fathers in the strict sense. Creationism is basically a reaction against Darwinism and a product of Fundamentalist Protestantism.
If I were to put my support anywhere, though on a somewhat limited scale, it would be the Intelligent Design movement. Though very misunderstood by its critics and by Orthodox theologians like Metropolitan John Zizioulas who critiques it, it actually does not stray from Scriptural and Patristic interpretations of how we can evaluate our origins (it was actually the type of science adopted by the Church Fathers). It also does not take a theological position of any sort. What people don't realize is that before Darwinism, the scientific method was primarily one of Intelligent Design. It basically attributes the irreducible complexity of the universe to a designer, whoever that designer is. It does not make use of Scripture or any sort of revelation, since science should not draw upon any sources of revelation or even philosophy. Darwin actually set out to prove ID was wrong after the death of his daughter made him angry against God and caused him to become a skeptic. Darwinism thus became a critique of ID. Since the 1990's ID has been making a major comeback since the evidence in fact supports the theory of irreducible complexity, most notably at the cellular level. The Darwinist arguments these days are merely rhetorical.
So yes, when it comes to scientific issues, we are as fish swimming upstream as far as guidance from the Church comes these days. But if we separate science from both philosophy and theology, as well as separate theology from both science and philosophy, we can honestly evaluate where the evidence lies. What is most important is that the truths of Orthodoxy can never be compromised by true and honest science.
Hope this helps a bit.
Thanks to John Sanidopoulos:
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Q & A: Young Earth or Old Earth Creationism: A Question of Origins
Q & A: Young Earth or Old Earth Creationism: A Question of Origins
Question:
John,
You have alluded to young earth ideas in your blog. So how do you respond to articles like this which claim the recent discovery that the Amazon River is 11 million years old?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/amazonriverdatedto11millionyearsold
I'm familiar with Ken Ham. But I tend to be a little embarrassed by the young earth Christians. Perhaps that is really a problem with me.
Answer:
Just to clarify, I never said I was a young earth creationist. I never said I was an old earth creationist either. I would venture to say that I am a supporter of the Intelligent Design movement, but the movement does not take a position on the age of anything (most personal opinions of ID supporters lean towards old earth).
My opinion on the matter of origins, from an objectively scientific view point, is that it lies in mystery. I don't think science has the means to tell us how old man is, how old life is, how old the earth is, or even how old the universe is. Estimations could be made based on certain data, but it is all conjecture. Even the age of the Amazon (see link above) is based on speculation according to data, but the data these scientists analyzed is set according to a model of how things should have been or might have been and not necessarily how they were. I'm not denying the Amazon is 11 million years old, but I'm pretty sure there is no objective proof that it is. I don't think we will ever know in fact, because in order for data like that to be objective we have to know every detail of what was going on in that specific area every single day over the past 11 million years. No technology can possibly provide that information except a time machine (which we yet do not have). You can recreate it on a computer, but how do you know your recreation is objective? How do you know you havn't missed some very important information in your analysis? In the end, it all is just very silly and pointless.
Even an honest scientist will tell you that there really is no such thing as absolutes with the scientific method, especially if it cannot be observed at the present moment (like a sunrise, or gravitation, or weather conditions). Even a scientific fact is fallible and is open to scrutiny. A scientific fact is merely assumed to be true, and can be refuted at any point. This quote from Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould illustrates the issue nicely:
"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. ...In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
Thus the great flaw of science is that it ultimately cannot provide absolute truth. Scientists who claim absolute truth on a matter, especially if it cannot be presently observed, are simply quacks. Their science has become a religion and their opinions are their god.
Religious people can be just as dogmatic on this subject. Faith, however, does not give us the right to be absolutists. Absolutes for people of faith can only come through direct revelation. And only direct revelation can truly answer the ultimate questions. As far as a direct revelation on the age of the universe, or the earth, or man, it has never been revealed. Scripture certainly does not provide an objective answer because Scripture is not a direct revelation of God. As Fr. John Romanides has stated:
"Is there a single Church Father who identifies Holy Scripture with the experience of theosis itself? No, there is not one, because God's revelation to mankind is the experience of theosis. In fact, since revelation is the experience of theosis, an experience that transcends all expressions and concepts, the identification of Holy Scripture with revelation is, in terms of dogmatic theology, pure heresy."Since no single person has had a direct revelation of the actual age of the universe and the exact method of its origins, maybe we can know something about the original condition of the universe from the revelations of the Prophets, Apostles and Saints.
In fact, Patristic consensus holds that the universe in the beginning was very different than what it is today to the point where origins cannot possibly be studied objectively from a materialistic scientific point of view. St. Symeon the New Theologian summarizes the Patristic teaching that "the whole world had been brought into being by God as one thing, as a kind of paradise, at once incorruptible yet material and perceptible". This observation of St. Symeon echoes Wisdom of Solomon (1:13, 14): "God did not make death, neither does He take delight in the destruction of living things. God created all things that they might have their being; and the generations of the world were for preservation, and there is no poison of destruction in them". St. Symeon goes on to explain that before the original creation was "changed over to corruption" it did not "bear perishable fruits and...sprout thorns and thistles" (cf. Gen. 3:18), but had a different "law of nature". Regarding the original state of creation, St. Symeon further illustrates how both man and all living things were in a state of incorruption. St. John the Damascene says that before the transgression of Adam and Eve "there was neither rain nor tempest on the earth". St. Gregory of Sinai says Paradise had been "made between corruption and incorruption". St. Theophilus teaches that animals were not venomous before the fall. He with many Fathers also taught that beasts did not evoke fear in man in the prelapsarian world, but rather submitted to him. And of course, carnivory did not exist in the original creation.
Ultimately, from what we can judge by Scriptural and Patristic testimony, because the prelapsarian world - its vegetation, animals, and climate - were incorrupt, then we can safely conclude that the world before the fall is unknowable in its corrupt state by our corrupt minds. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, a 19th century Church Father, gives remarkable detail concerning this matter:
"The earth - created, adorned, blessed by God - did not have any deficiencies. It was overflowing with refinement. 'God saw,' after the completion of the whole creation of the world, 'everything that He had made: and, behold, it was very good' (Gen. 1:31). Now the earth is presented to our eyes in a completely different look. We do not know her condition in holy virginity; we know her in the condition of corruption and accursedness, we know her already sentenced to burning; she was created for eternity. The God-inspired writer of Genesis says the earth in its original condition did not have need of tilling (Gen. 2:5): it brought forth by itself grains and other nourishing grasses, vegetables and fruits overabundantly and of superb worth. There were no harmful growths on it; plants were not subjected either to decay or to diseases; both decay and diseases, and the weeds themselves appeared after the alteration of the earth following the fall of man, as one ought to conclude from the words of God to Adam as he was being exiled from Paradise: 'Thorns and thistles shall it [the ground] bring forth to thee" (Gen. 3:18). According to its creation, there was on it only the splendid, only the wholesome, there was only that which was suitable for the immortal and blessed life of its inhabitants. Changes in the weather did not exist: it was continually the same - the most clear and favorable. There were no rains. A spring came forth from the earth and watered its face (Gen. 2:5,6). The beasts and other animals lived in perfect harmony among themselves, nourishing themselves on plant life (Gen. 1:30)."A similar observation is made by St. Barsanuphios of Optina Monastery in Russia. Once, when standing before a window at night, he pointed to the moon and said to his disciple (the future Elder Nikon):
"Look - what a picture!... This is left to us as a consolation. It's no wonder that the Prophet David said: 'Thou hast gladdened me, O Lord, by Thy works' (Ps. 91:3). 'Thou hast gladdened me,' he says, although this is only a hint of that wonderous beauty, incomprehensible to human thought, which was originally created. We don't know what kind of moon there was then, what kind of sun, what kind of light.... All of this changed after the fall."
If someone tells me they are a young earther, Im perfectly fine with it. If someone tells me they are an old earther, I feel the same exact way as if they are a young earther. No one truly knows the age and origins of these things, and I only weary of those who claim to know - whether they base their conclusions on Science or Scripture.
It sort of reminds me of something Dr. Norman Geisler once told me: "Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays Im a young earther; Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays Im an old earther. Sunday I just focus on the Lord." That has basically become my motto on this subject.
*Patristic quotes taken from The Orthodox Word, "Created in Incorruption: The Orthodox Patristic Understanding of Man and the Cosmos in Their Original, Fallen, and Redeemed States", by Hieromonk Damascene; Vol. 44, No. 1-2, Jan.-Apr. 2008.
thanks to John Sanidopoulos:
Quote by C.S. Lewis - Friendship
Source:
Tolkien and C.S. Lewis the Gift of Friendship
Colin Duriez, HiddenSpring 2003, Pg. 80
Monday, December 3, 2012
Quote by Friedrich Nietzsche
"Equality is a lie concocted by inferior people who arrange themselves in herds to overpower those who are naturally superior to them. The morality of 'equal rights' is a herd morality, and because it opposes the cultivation of superior individuals, it leads to the corruption of the human species"
Friedrich Nietzsche
1844 – 1900
Quote by Geroge MacDonald
“To love righteousness is to make it grow, not to avenge it. Throughout his life on earth, Jesus resisted every impulse to work more rapidly for a lower good.”
― George MacDonald
source
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/118388-to-love-righteousness-is-to-make-it-grow-not-to
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)