Total Pageviews

Search This Blog

Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Genesis means what it says ~ Saint Basil The Great

 

Genesis means what it says: Basil (AD 329–379)

Some accuse creationists of taking an excessively literal view of Scripture, particularly Genesis, and that this view is something of recent origin, that Christians in the early Church took a more allegorical view of things. The writings of Basil show this not to be true.1

Basil of Caesarea (AD 329-379)

Basil was bishop of Caesarea Mazaca, Cappadocia, from AD 370–379. He argued strongly against various heresies of that day. In particular, he defended the vital biblical doctrine of the Trinity against the Arian Heresy which denied the deity of Christ, and later against the Sabellian (modalist) Heresy which denied the distinctness of the three Persons. Basil’s classic Trinitarian formula, that God is three Persons (hypostases) in one substance (ousia), is still one of the best summaries of the Biblical doctrine, and is accepted by all branches of orthodox Christianity. [See also the Q&A: God and Q&A: Jesus Christ for biblical defences of the Trinity and deity of Christ.]

Basil was also a monk, pastor, and church leader. He established charitable institutions, hospitals and schools, and organised famine relief in 368. He greatly improved the lot of lepers in Cappadocia. Basil was greatly admired and respected, and was called ‘Basil the Great’. Soon after his death he was declared a Saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Some of his sermon collections have been preserved, including the Hexaëmeron (= ‘Six Days’), nine Lenten sermons on the days of creation in Genesis 1. Some quotations from this show that Basil believed:

In an instantaneous and recent creation.

‘Thus then, if it is said, “In the beginning God created”, it is to teach us that at the will of God the world arose in less than an instant, and it is to convey this meaning more clearly that other interpreters have said: “God made summarily” that is to say all at once and in a moment.’ (Homily I:6)

Speaking of Day 3: ‘“Let the earth”, the Creator adds, “bring forth the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself.” At this command every copse was thickly planted; all the trees, fir, cedar, cypress, pine, rose to their greatest height, the shrubs were straightway clothed with thick foliage.’ (Homily V:6)

‘“Let the earth bring forth.” This short command was in a moment a vast nature, an elaborate system. Swifter than thought it produced the countless qualities of plants.’ (Homily V:10)

Speaking of Day 5: ‘“And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life” after their kind, “and fowl that may fly above the earth” after their kind. The command was given, and immediately the rivers and lakes becoming fruitful brought forth their natural broods; the sea travailed with all kinds of swimming creatures; not even in mud and marshes did the water remain idle; it took its part in creation. Everywhere from its ebullition frogs, gnats and flies came forth. For that which we see to-day is the sign of the past. Thus everywhere the water hastened to obey the Creator’s command.’ (Homily VII:1)

The days of Genesis Chapter 1 were 24-hour days.

‘“And there was evening and there was morning: one day.” Why does Scripture say “one day the first day”? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says “one day”, it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day—we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day.’ (Homily II:8)

The order of events in Genesis Chapter 1, days one to six are as it happened. For example, plants were created before the sun.

‘“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to divide the day from the night”. Heaven and earth were the first; after them was created light; the day had been distinguished from the night, then had appeared the firmament and the dry element. The water had been gathered into the reservoir assigned to it, the earth displayed its productions, it had caused many kinds of herbs to germinate and it was adorned with all kinds of plants. However, the sun and the moon did not yet exist, in order that those who live in ignorance of God may not consider the sun as the origin and the father of light, or as the maker of all that grows out of the earth. That is why there was a fourth day, and then God said: “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven.”’ (Homily VI:2)

Evolutionary ideas are contrary to Scripture.

‘Avoid the nonsense of those arrogant philosophers who do not blush to liken their soul to that of a dog; who say that they have been formerly themselves women, shrubs, fish. Have they ever been fish? I do not know; but I do not fear to affirm that in their writings they show less sense than fish.’ (Homily VIII:2)

The Creation was originally ‘very good’ and completely lacking in evil.

‘“And God saw that it was good.” God does not judge of the beauty of His work by the charm of the eyes, and He does not form the same idea of beauty that we do. What He esteems beautiful is that which presents in its perfection all the fitness of art, and that which tends to the usefulness of its end. He, then, who proposed to Himself a manifest design in His works, approved each one of them, as fulfilling its end in accordance with His creative purpose.’ (Homily III:10)

‘“In the beginning God created”. He did not make the thing itself the cause of its existence. Being good, He made it an useful work. Being wise, He made it everything that was most beautiful. Being powerful He made it very great. Moses almost shows us the finger of the supreme artisan taking possession of the substance of the universe, forming the different parts in one perfect accord, and making a harmonious symphony result from the whole.’ (Homily I:7)

Speaking of Day 3: ‘But then the rose was without thorns; since then the thorn has been added to its beauty, to make us feel that sorrow is very near to pleasure, and to remind us of our sin, which condemned the earth to produce thorns and caltrops.’ (Homily III:6)

Animals and humans were created vegetarian

In another work,2 Basil affirmed that animals were not eaten in the original creation:

‘Let the Church neglect nothing; everything is a law. God did not say: “I have given you the fishes for food, I have given you the cattle, the reptiles, the quadrupeds.” It is not for this that He created, says the Scripture. In fact, the first legislation allowed the use of fruits, for we were still judged worthy of Paradise.

‘What is the mystery which is concealed for you under this?

‘To you, to the wild animals and the birds, says the Scripture, fruits, vegetation and herbs (are given) … We see, however, many wild animals which do not eat fruits. what fruit does the panther accept to nourish itself? What fruit can the lion satisfy himself with?

‘Nevertheless, these beings, submitting to the law of natures, were nourished by fruits. But when man changed his way of life and departed from the limit which had been assigned him, the Lord, after the Flood, knowing that men were wasteful, allowed them the use of all foods; “eat all that in the same was as edible plants” (Gen. 9:3). By this allowance, the other animals also received the liberty to eat them [CMI would say the animals began to eat meat after the Fall, which is the big discontinuity, as Basil himself says].

‘Since then the lion is a carnivore, since then also vultures watch for carrion. For the vultures were not yet looking over the earth at the very moment when the animals were born; in fact, nothing of what had received designation or existence had yet died so that the vultures might eat them. Nature had not yet divided, for it was all in its freshness: hunters did not capture, for such was not yet the practice of men; the beasts, for their part, did not yet tear their prey, for they were not carnivores … But all followed the way of the swans, and all grazed on the grass of the meadow …

‘Such was the first creation, and such will be the restoration after this. Man will return to his ancient constitution in rejecting malice, a life weighed down with cares, the slavery of the soul with regard to daily worries. When he has renounced all this, he will return to that paradisal life which was not enslaved to the passions of the flesh, which is free, the life of closeness to God, a partaker of the life of the angels.’ (On the origin of Man 2:6–7)

The words are to be understood by their plain meaning, not allegorized.

‘I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel” [Rom. 1:16].’ (Homily IX:1)

To interpret Scripture otherwise is to put ourselves above God, the Holy Spirit, who inspired its writing.

‘It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.’ (Homily IX:1)

Basil countered various heresies in his writings and it is clear that, as today, there was a strong link between allegorizing Genesis and all manner of strange interpretations of the rest of Scripture.


Thanks to:

https://creation.com/genesis-means-what-it-says-basil-ad-329-379

Wednesday, September 16, 2020

Sexuality and Gender: Response to “Orthodoxy in Dialogue” Open Letter ~ Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick

 


On September 24, 2018, the “Orthodoxy in Dialogue” website published an open letter to the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America, calling upon them to make a radical revision of the sexual ethical teachings of the Orthodox Church. The following is a point-for-point response, arranged roughly according to topic, with relevant quotes from the OiD piece.

Abortion

1). Cease issuing condemnations of abortion, participating in the March for Life, and advocating for the elimination of legal, accessible abortion.

Instead, create a committee of clergy, laypersons, and especially women to explore options for a pan-Orthodox initiative to offer financial, material, emotional, spiritual, and social support to pregnant women in need and to their children after birth.

Abortion is the murder of the most innocent and vulnerable among us. Orthodox Christians must unequivocally condemn such an act in the strongest possible terms. It is among the most heinous acts of mankind in our day. To cease condemnation of murder is to become complicit in murder. We encourage our hierarchs to continue to lead us in public opposition to legalized abortion and thank them for their heroic and loving witness in this regard.

That said, there is absolutely nothing inconsistent with that condemnation and also offering “financial, material, emotional, spiritual, and social support to pregnant women in need and to their children after birth.” Indeed, numerous Orthodox parishes all over America do this by supporting local crisis pregnancy centers and/or the Orthodox ministry Zoe for Life.

There is no contradiction between opposing the killing of the unborn and also providing as much support as possible for those who may find themselves drawn to that horrifying “solution” to whatever pressures or crises they may face. They are often driven in that direction by situations most of us hope we never find ourselves in. So we do not condemn, but rather give love and authentic support, while seeking to rescue that most precious gift of life from God.

Same-Sex Attraction

2). Cease issuing condemnations of same-sex orientation.

These condemnations inflict lasting emotional and spiritual harm on Orthodox children, teens, and adults who regard their orientation as a good and natural part of their personal identity. They seek from their Church, not a cover for sexual permissiveness, but a profound and affirmative theological articulation of how their orientation reflects the divine image and participates in the acquisition of the divine likeness through the collaboration of human ascesis with uncreated grace.

The teaching of the Orthodox Church is not about condemning an “orientation,” however one defines that (feelings, very deep feelings, psychological tendencies, attraction, etc.). So this is disingenuous on its face. The sin is not an “orientation” toward homosexuality but rather in acting upon it. The exact same thing is true for any sexual sins, whether homosexual, heterosexual, adulterous, or whatever else.

It is also not ascetical to give in to sin, so listening to the thoughts and feelings that are oriented toward sin is not an ascetical act.

It is true that individual Orthodox Christians or even clergy may treat someone badly because they express having same-sex attraction (SSA), but it is not the teaching of the Church to condemn an “orientation.” It is also wrong to treat people badly. And even then, condemnation is not the Church’s approach when it comes to sin, but rather an invitation to be healed of it. What is worthy of condemnation is teaching against the path of healing. The anathema is reserved for those who lead others astray, not for those so led.

Even if someone cannot remember a time feeling anything other than SSA, it is not the way God made anyone. Rather, such feelings are a result of the Fall as are every other inclination toward sin. An inclination toward sin is not sin, but it is also not what we were created to be.

Instead, create a committee of clergy, theologians, psychologists, therapists, laypersons, and especially Orthodox individuals who identify as same-sex oriented to study questions of sexual orientation in all their complexity.

Would such a committee include those who identify themselves as experiencing SSA and yet remain chaste according to the teaching of Christ? Would that study include scientific studies which don’t support the asked-for revision of the Church’s sexual ethics? Would that study include the Biblical and patristic teaching on sexuality?

I’m guessing probably not.

The committee should be open to examining possibilities for blessing Orthodox same-sex couples who wish to make a monogamous, lifelong commitment to each other.

The committee definitely should not. Marriage is between one man and one woman, not any other combination. To bless such a union would be to bless a plan to sin. The Church does not bless plans to sin. The Church calls for us to repent of our sins. It does not matter how many times we sin. We repent as many times. We can’t say, in effect, “It is okay to sin in this way so long as you commit to sin with only this one other person.”

The blanket excommunication of Orthodox Christians who present as same-sex oriented must cease.

Citation, please. Where is there a “blanket excommunication of Orthodox Christians who present as same-sex oriented”? Again, the problem here is not how one “presents” or is “oriented” but rather what one does with one’s body. Those who sin in certain ways sexually are excommunicated of their own accord. But they are also invited to repentance and restoration. There is always a path for wholeness.

This is not to say that someone who experiences SSA can be “cured” of that attraction. There are of course some who say that that has happened for them (and if we are to believe those who say that it cannot happen for them, we also have to believe those who say it can — both are their lived experience), but I can’t claim to know whether it can happen for everyone. But we do know that we do not have to obey our attractions. We are not our thoughts and feelings.

3). Remove from the websites of the Assembly, its member jurisdictions, and each jurisdiction’s individual dioceses all past condemnations of same-sex orientation.

In other words, simply capitulate to this radical revision of the Church’s sexual teachings. But, again, there are no “condemnations of same-sex orientation.” Rather, there is the teaching that homosexual acts are sin. All sexual acts outside of God’s design for marriage are sin.

And what is the Church’s approach to sin? It is to “open the doors of repentance,” which is a positive, vivifying, healing, loving way of return to the Father, to become like our Lord Jesus Christ and stand with Him as sons of the Most High.

Transgenderism

4). Instruct the clergy to cease issuing condemnations of transgender identities.

Arguably these condemnations inflict even greater emotional and spiritual harm on those targeted than condemnations of same-sex orientation. It has been demonstrated statistically that transgender persons comprise one of society’s most vulnerable demographics.

We as Church have not even begun to examine—let alone understand—the complex interplay of emotional, spiritual, psychological, social, and even biological factors that lead a person to identify as transgender and then to commence his or her transition to the gender opposite the one assigned at birth. Indeed some persons experience themselves as having both genders or neither gender.

One’s sex is not “assigned at birth.” Rather, it is written into the very fabric of one’s DNA, which is a creation of God and a normal function of human life.

What is condemnable is the teaching that people can change their sex just by thinking it so. Those who think this way ought to be loved and shepherded to accepting the reality of who they are, not into denying the plain evidence that stares at them nakedly in the mirror. To reject the reality of one’s body is essentially a gnostic sensibility. Human beings are not putty that may be remade into whatever we feel — even if we feel it very deeply.

Human beings are both body and soul. Neither is plastic in the sense that their very nature can be rewritten. Both body and soul need to be reoriented toward God because of the Fall, and so we cannot merely trust in our thoughts and feelings to guide us correctly. Our thoughts and feelings are broken. That does not make us worthless, but it does mean that we need to be healed, and that we are indeed worthy of being healed because we are created according to the image of God.

Because our thoughts and feelings are so untrustworthy (Jer. 17:9), we trust in Christ, in His apostles and prophets, in the Holy Fathers, in the successors to the apostles and our own father-confessors. We do not have to make this spiritual life up for ourselves, and we actually should not — because Christianity is a revealed faith, not one that has to be discovered through committees.

Others are born intersex, which means that their biological bodies possess some configuration of both male and female organs, whether externally, internally, or both.

This is extremely rare and actually has almost no bearing on the current movement toward transgenderism. In such difficult cases, one must do the best one can, but these cases do not set the rule for anyone else.

The blanket excommunication of Orthodox Christians who present as transgender or intersex must cease.

Again: Citation, please.

Ministry to Orthodox Christians related to the above

5). Authorize, endorse, and sponsor—as an official, permanent ministry of the Assembly—an international support organization for Orthodox Christians who identify anywhere along the LGBTQI spectrum.

This is actually not a bad idea, but it ought to be an organization about the healing of all who find that their internal inclinations are toward sexual sin, not toward one that encourages obeying those inclinations. There is no shame in this, by the way. We are all inclined toward sin.

Final Thoughts

To be quite frank, I don’t think that the website in question is generally worth responding to or even reading, not just because their articles so often contradict the teachings of Christ and His Church but because they make a pretense at academic integrity which they rarely have. But this seemed like an opportune moment to reiterate a few of these things.

I know that reiterating the Church’s teachings on these things will be received by some as hateful, insensitive, etc. But it is not. It is love to speak reality and to embrace someone however he presents himself.

And let me state unequivocally that I absolutely reject mistreating anyone on account of their personal identification with any of the issues mentioned above — no one should be condemned, bullied, harmed, ridiculed, rejected, etc. Every person who comes to the Church must be treated with love, care, understanding, an orientation toward listening, support and blessing. All this is toward the goal given by Christ Himself, in the words of the apostle:

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. (Romans 12:1-2)

This is the true ascetical struggle — not to believe our thoughts and feelings on their face, but to present ourselves as living sacrifices to the Lord and to be healed of our addictions and sinful inclinations, aware that while they may never fully disappear in this life, there is nevertheless the possibility to be conformed to Christ, to be transformed in the renewing of our minds and to be made holy by His love.



About Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick

The Very Rev. Archpriest Andrew Stephen Damick is Chief Content Officer of Ancient Faith Ministries, former pastor (2009-2020) of St. Paul Antiochian Orthodox Church of Emmaus, Pennsylvania, and author of Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, Bearing God and An Introduction to God. He is also host of the Amon Sûl, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy and Roads from Emmaus podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio, co-host with Fr. Stephen De Young of The Lord of Spirits podcast, co-host with Michael Landsman of The Areopagus podcast, and he is a frequent speaker at lectures and retreats both in parishes and in other settings. You can follow him on Facebook and Twitter.Thanks to:

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2018/09/25/sexuality-and-gender-response-to-orthodoxy-in-dialogue-open-letter/