The Theology of Mental Illness

                                                       

Jean-Claude Larchet's Mental Disorders and Spiritual Healing, takes a patristic look at mental illness. He is a patristics scholar, not a psychologist.

First of all the Fathers were quick to recognize that some forms of mental illness had organic causes. For these they recommended such appropriate medical therapy as was available in their days. Larchet maintains that there is a difference between the mental and the spiritual and if the question is whether a psychologist can heal spiritual maladies, then the answer is no.

There is danger, he says, in recalling our old passions in detail. The Church Fathers advise us to confess our passions, to recount before God the sins we have committed – not just be aware of them – and of course to be able to confess all of our difficulties, as well. But the Fathers advise us against and discourage living in detail whatever in our past didn’t end well, whatever bears a connection with our sins. Larchet says, "That’s precisely because confession is not a recollection with which the patient is subsequently stuck, but something that we confess before God in order to receive His forgiveness."

And forgiveness, he says, "means exactly the elimination of all pathological effects, even of the very source of the illness or disorders connected – when there is a connection – with sin; in other words, God’s forgiveness really offers a therapy that secular “psychotherapy” essentially doesn’t."

Secular psychology, he notes, will treat emotion and emotional energy as if they could be dealt with without reference to morality or the basic disposition of the will, and certainly without reference to the Spirit.

He says, mental illness is from three sources: the somatic (body), the psychic (soul), and the spiritual. The somatic level is related to our familiar idea of that mental illness is caused by imbalances in brain chemistry and physiology, if not by actual physical trauma. 

On the psychic level, mental illness is caused primarily by demonic influence, though it is pointed out that demons are attracted to pre-existing psychic dispositions. 

The deformation of our will disposes us toward non-being and the disintegration of our personhood.

Prayer and fasting forms us toward integration with God and life.

Mental illness resulting from the spiritual level is based on the perversion of human free will—sin, in other words—though he makes it clear that the misuse of free will affects the other two levels as well.

In addition to a reorientation of the will through prayer and fasting, which the Fathers recommend, Larchet speaks of the spiritual intervention of the saints as a powerful form of treatment

According to the early Fathers, some (but not all) mental illnesses actually derive from the spiritual level, though their effects nonetheless appear on the level of the psyche per se:

“Mental illnesses of spiritual origin should not be confused with the spiritual illnesses themselves. Spiritual illnesses are formed by a disorder or perversion of nature (more precisely of nature’s mode of existence) in the personal relationship of the individual to God.  

According to the Fathers, the passions take control of our will and force us to passively act according to their agendas instead of being true to ourselves.



Thus the cure is action in its truest sense. Pure act is to center in God —who is Himself “Pure Act.” 

The essence of pure action is prayer which reorients the will to the source of life, God.  

The body and soul are one for the Fathers, therefore what we do with our bodies will affect our soul. Each and every act of the human being is at one and the same time an act and movement of both the soul and the body, therefore the food we eat, ht memories we concentrate on, and our experiences all affect us.

The activities of the soul develop in correlation with the formation and perfection of the body which is its instrument.

Other than organic causes, the main cause of mental disorders is a deformation of the will, for which prayer is the best remedy, and the demonic, which can be healed with the help of the partaking of the mysteries. 

As concerns the demonic,  Larchet says, “the Fathers considered the possessed not to be accomplices of the devil, but rather victims, and as such entitled to special attention and solicitude.”

The third etiology for mental illness from spiritual problems, is “generally defined as one or another of the passions developed to an extreme.”

The Fathers had intimate knowledge of the passions, and dissected them in minute detail. We’ll look at two. Sadness is a direct and conscious feeling of loss, while acedia is more like a general deadening of all life; one has “lost the taste for life.” 

SADNESS

The treatment of sadness, more than of other passions, “presupposes the awareness that one is ill and that one wishes to be cured.”

The first possible cause of sadness “is the frustration of an existing or anticipated pleasure, and more to the point the loss of some sensible good, the frustration of some desire, or disappointment over some worldly hope”; a second case of sadness is anger, “whether it follows from it or is the consequence of some offense suffered, frequently taking in such a case the form of spite.” Treating acedia is even more difficult, as “it has the peculiarity of seizing all the faculties of the soul and inflaming nearly all the passions.”

Treatment, Larchet says, comes through through resistance, patience, hope, grief and tears, the remembrance of death, manual labor and, above all, prayer.

ACEDIA

Acedia has the peculiarity of seizing all the faculties of the soul and inflaming nearly all the passions. St John Climacus tells us that 'acedia is a kind of total death." 

Resistance to this passion never provides immediate results. Almost always victory over acedia supposes a long and diligent struggle.' Above all treatment demands that one give proof of patience and perseverance.

Hope is another fundamental remedy and it should be joined to patience." The hopeful man, as St John Climacus teaches, 'slays acedia, kills it with his sword."

A third essential remedy is repentance, sorrow and compunction. One of the ancients taught that if the individual 'keeps his sins in mind, God will be his help in everything and he will not suffer from acedia.

Manual labor is also among the remedies prescribed by the Fathers. It helps the individual avoid the boredom, instability, torpor, and sleepiness that together form one aspect of this passion. It can contribute to establishing and maintaining diligence, the continual presence of mind, effort, and attention implied by the spiritual life and which acedia seeks to disrupt. 

Finally, Larchet tells us:

“God, in effect, does not grant healing unless it is asked of him, for he has granted man free will and in all the cases respects his will and will not act against it. However, the will of the individual is not always fully at his disposal. . .Those who are disturbed in a significant way cannot even ask for their own healing or give evidence of their faith. . . And yet it is possible for such individuals to be delivered and healed thanks to the faith and the prayers of those around them or accompanying them, as well as to those of the saint to whom they are entrusted.”  

For my own opinion on mental illness see my blog post "Is God Enough? Probably Not" HERE and my post on Anguish HERE 


For more on Larchet, check out these podcasts:


Can Suffering Bring You Closer to Christ? w/Jean-Claude Larchet & Nicole Roccas (Hank Unplugged

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk-LgQHaA90 

Hank Hanegraaff interviews Professor Jean-Claude Larchet on his book book, The Theology of Illness. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grOTUt2skCk 

The human composite and spiritual healing - Jean-Claude Larchet 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wh6AtmPL7Q 

Readings: Therapy of Spiritual Illnesses (sadness) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W1kBOuONeo 

Illness, Mortality and Counsel in the Liturgy 

https://anglican.audio/2019/11/09/fh35-illness-mortality-and-counsel-in-the-liturgy/ 

Introduction to Origen

                                                      

There’s a book coming out in the next few weeks, a basic introduction to Origen's theology, with Jonathan McCormack as the author. That is I.

Below is a rough draft is taken from the introduction.

About On First Principals

Most of Origen’s writings have not survived, and among those that did, On First Principals is both his most famous and most controversial. St Jerome, who venomously castigates the work, extols Origen’s commentary on Song of Songs, calling Origen the finest theologian since St Paul.

After the Bible, it is perhaps The Philokalia most beloved by Christians, which features large compilations of Origen’s works made by the Cappadocian Fathers St Basil and St Gregory Nazianzus. Origen’s commentaries are some of the sweetest things in all of Christian literature. However, On First Principals has been ripe with controversy for its theology.

Origen was beloved by many saints. St Athanasius and St Pamphilus, for example, both defended Origen in his lifetime. He converted St Ambrose from Gnostic Valentinianism. He was highly influential to St Basil and St Gregory of Nyssa. St Gregory Nazianzen calls Origen "the whetstone of us all” and the “prince of theologians”. Closer to our own time John Meyendorff calls Origen the “father of theology.” 

Indeed, Origen was the first to attempt a systematic theology of Christian beliefs. Being the first, he is tenuous. He lays out the Christian belief at the beginning of On First Principals, which very closely approximates what would be known as the Nicene Creed. That is all he teaches as dogmatically true.

For the rest, he is only giving his opinions. He submits his teachings to the Church and explicitly says that if anything he teaches is found to contradict either the Scriptures or the Church, or if anyone discovers a better interpretation, the reader ought to dismiss what he has here erroneously taught. The point is that Origen was one of the first systematic theologians, and much of Orthodox theology was still to be worked out. This work, however, is not one of Dogma, Origen explicitly states that what he says here is not doctrine. It has not been passed down by the apostles nor the rule of faith nor explicitly taught by Scripture. These are his speculations. Even so, they would influence Orthodox theology for centuries to come.

Origen speaks of discussing and investigating rather than laying down fixed and certain conclusions, and he invites his readers to be critical and discover the truth themselves.

ABOUT ORIGEN

Much of the rumors about Origen were just that. He almost certainly did not castrate himself. Origen was a rockstar in the Ancient world. When someone’s theology was in doubt, they sent for Origen to determine the orthodoxy of said doctrine. Origen taught the faith to the Empress herself.

According to Eusebius, his father was martyred for the faith when Origen was just a teenager, and during the pogroms against Christians launched by Decius (250-1), Origen himself, then in his sixties, would suffer extreme torture, being stretched on the rack. Eusebius says he spent his final days as a broken man, writing letters 'full of comfort to those in need' until his death a few years later.

Historians will agree he was persecuted towards the end of his life for his Christian faith, however they regard Eusebius’s account as rather dubious. Tzamalikos tells us Origen’s teacher was likely the Ammonius, who taught Plotinus himself. Eusebius says Ammonius himself was Christian, although deeply learned in pagan philosophy as well. It wasn’t unusual for Christians and Pagans to instruct one another within elite schools of philosophy. Origen converted to Christianity probably in his 50’s, which scandalized the Greeks. Although certainly influenced by Plato, Tzamalikos insists Origen is no Platonist, indeed much of his writings is explicitly arguing against Platonic teachings that denigrate matter and embodied existence. Origen is unique in that he was attacked by both Christians, for being too Platonic, and Pagans, for being Christian.


A note on the translation of On First Principals

Unfortunately, we do not have Origen’s original writings for On First Principals. Even more unfortunately his writings were hopelessly corrupted early on, with heretical writings being interposed into his work.

We only have the Latin translation from Rufinus, who readily admits he has omitted some parts of the work and developed others.

However, it gets even worse in the modern era in the edition produced by Paul Koetschau in 1913, and then by the translation into English of this edition by G. W Butterworth in 1936, which thereafter became the standard translation for English-speaking scholarship.

Koetschau was convinced that the accounts of Origen's teaching given by his opponents, and even the anathemas of 553, do in fact represent Origen's authentic teaching. So he set about interpolating these into Origen’s text, even making up passages by putting together sentences from various polemics against Origen!

Thankfully, Fr John Behr’s translation corrects many of these problems.


                                       

                                                    A sketch I did of Origen


CONTROVERSIES IN ORIGEN

Was Origen anathematized ?

This is complicated. First, the council that is supposed to have anathematized him came 300 yrs after his death. Even Arius was allowed to defend himself and clarify his teachings before being declared a heretic. Recall also, that Origen was teaching before the formulation of the Nicene Creed and before dogmas were officially laid down. Moreover, the 15 anathemas against Origenism, which don’t actually name Origen himself, that have traditionally been attributed to II Constantinople in 553 are today questioned by historians. 

At best, it may be the Emperor Justinian submitted the anathemas to the bishops after the council. Even if the Bishops approved, not being part of the council, it technically cannot be said to possess canonical authority. However, the council did mention Origen by name apart from the 15 anathemas and does state that those who teach his doctrines are to be anathema.

Today it has also become universally accepted that the anathemas of the sixth century and the reports of Justinian were directed primarily against Evagrius and sixth-century ‘Origenism" rather than Origen himself. For example, when church historian Norman P. Tanner edited his collection of the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils in 1990, he did not include the anti-Origenist denunciations at all, offering the following explanation: “Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council.”

The Origenism being taught at the time was heavily influenced by Gnosticism and had little to do with Origen’s actual teachings. In fact, Origen frequently defended the faith against the Gnostics. According to Tzamilikos, Justinian had no knowledge at all of Origen’s actual writings, and at the time the term “origenism” was a catch-all phrase for anything or anyone that threatened the ecclesiastical authorities. The Orthodox historian and theologian Fr John Anthony McGuckin explains how the anathemas became associated with the 553 council thus,

“…the anathemata are all taken from the works of Evagrius of Pontus. The anathemata did not get themselves attached to the official acts of the council of 553, but…were quietly added to the synodal acts at a later date …a sleight of hand made possible by those who held the key to the archives.”

- John Anthony McGuckin, The Path of Christianity, p. 615.

Met Kallistos Ware made a similar point in 1998:

"There is, however, considerable doubt whether these fifteen anathemas were in fact formally approved by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. They may have been endorsed by a lesser council, meeting in the early months of 553 shortly before the main council was convened, in which case they lack full ecumenical authority...."

- Kallistos Ware, “Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All,” The Inner Kingdom, pp. 199-200

Finally, one must point out that various other Saints have taught incorrect doctrine, such as Augustine, St Isaac the Syrian, and St Gregory of Nyssa, the latter two both teaching universalism, and yet were not anathematized.

Still, one shouldn’t gloss over that Origen was a controversial figure even in his own lifetime, running afoul of bishops and councils, attacked by other Christians for being too Platonic, and that future ecumenical councils would affirm the previous condemnations Origenism, regardless if they were aquatinted with his actual texts and teachings.

WHAT DID ORIGEN TEACH THAT WAS HERETICAL ?

It’s easy enough to interpret Origen in several heretical ways. However, if we are generous, and follow Fr John Behr’s interpretations, and read him not as a modern philosopher, but a theologian in the tradition of the Church, nor as a protestant or modern biblical scholar would, then his main heresy (even if he is incorrect in other regards) is for his promulgation of universalism. Origen still believes in hell but thinks it is temporary and purgative. Of course, Origen made mistakes, but so did many theologians. There are other things problematic in Origen, but these are mere speculations in which he admits he is unsure. These include the belief that the stars, moon, and sun are rational creatures and that Satan will be redeemed (though in a qualified sense).


Since there’s controversy over Origen let’s go over the big ones.

                           

                                                     Another sketch I did


PRE-EXISTENCE OF SOULS

The TLDR version is that Origen never taught this, but it’s easy to misread him. God always had the intention of a perfect creation, which always does exist outside of time in eternity, and the present imperfect world “falls” from that perfect intention.

We shouldn’t even use the word “fall”, in Origen’s conception. An infant is not “fallen” from the adult human being it will become; even if that adult will one day exist. It does, of course, “fall short” of being that adult human being.

We all fall short (sin) of being the perfect person God intends us to be.


In eternity, however, we already are that perfected person God intended, since eternity is “above” or “outside” of time, eternity always exists. There is no before or after eternity, those terms only apply to temporal existence.

The longer explanation is below.

As Harl points out, the terms that appear in Butterworth's edition, such as, 'the pre-existence of souls' or 'pre existent souls' or,'pre-existent intellects’ do not actually occur in the writings of Origen. Origen specifically argued against the Platonic conception of the fall; namely, the teaching that before this creation, due to some catastrophe in the plenorma, immaterial souls fell into bodies here on earth. As early as the third century St Pamphilus in his Apology for Origen attests that Origen was wrongly being accused of maintaining the preexistence of souls in their own bodies.

For Origen, as for most of the ancients, only God can be said to be without a body. Centuries later Aquinas would argue angles too were entirely without body, however even St John Damascene teaches that when we speak of the “bodiless powers” this is only a relative term and that angels indeed have a circumscribed body, though one much more subtle than our own.

So, there can be no such thing as just a bodiless soul. Yet, Origen does speak about a fall into fleshly existence.

For Origen, it was always God’s intention to have mankind deified and made perfect in loving communion with Him. God had this intention in eternity from the “beginning.” Now, “beginning” does not mean “before” when applied to eternity, it rather means something like the first principle, the foundation for what causes the next actions.

It’s hard to conceptualize because we want to think of eternity as the “end” of our life, what comes after.

So, God always had this intention. However, God knew how we would react to Christ in this life. This is the life of the cross, and we reject it every time we sin. We constantly refuse the cross, and instead do our own will.

This spiritual event, which is always happening as we are always sinning and falling short of perfection, is mired in the historical event of Christ’s passion. When Christ was crucified all the apostles scattered and fell from being His disciple. Except for Christ, risen on the cross. He alone did not fall away from God’s call but went to the cross.

However, we were never first, temporally, in a perfect state and then fell. Of course, in eternity, those that made it to Heaven are always there. We “fall” from that high calling every time we sin.

Hence St Maximos will say we fell at the moment of creation.

Let’s use an analogy.

Say five people decide they will all get into perfect shape. This is their intention. But they each fall away from that intention by various “sins”. One stops exercising, another stops eating healthy.

They all fell short of their intention. That is Origen’s notion of sin, to miss the mark. However, there was never a time when they had perfect bodies and then fell into unhealthy habits. No, they started with imperfect bodies, and only fell from their intended goal of perfection.

For Origen, our bodies reflect our souls, our spiritual states. So in heaven, we will need a body proper to that environment - a spiritual body. Those in eternity have this body, outside or above time. Not before our birth, nor after our death, since those terms only apply to things in time. From the perspective of time “down here”, we had to be born and then grow in the likeness of God, and after the end of life we go to heaven.

Remember though, there is no “before” in eternity, so in some sense, those who make it to heaven are always already there. That is why the Bible uses those odd phrases, that something “will be” AND “already is.”

So, what caused this fall? Well, it was/is our cool response to Christ’s passion. We do not respond with the fire of love. So in one sense, we are the reason for the fall. To put it another way, God foresaw that we would not accept Him in love, so He had to create a world and bodies suitable to our cool, indifferent souls. That is this world, and that is our present fleshly bodies. So, in a very real sense we caused the fall.

However, the ultimate cause of creation is the Lamb crucified before the beginning of the world. It is this event, Christ’s passion, that causes a personal response, and calls us into existence. What kind of existence? Well, it was all dependent upon how we would freely respond. God knew we would respond cooly to Christ’s crucifixion, so He had to make this world fit such a response. Only a person living in a perfect response of love can live in heaven.

Why do we say the lamb was crucified before the foundation (not beginning) of the world? Because it is in eternity where creation actually has its beginning, not at the Big Bang, but on the cross! That is the event that began the universe. Jesus Christ is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. He literally created the cosmos, and it has its end in Him as well.

To explain further, the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ is an actual revelation of God, of what the life of God looks like in eternity. In eternity the triune God is always loving, sacrificing, giving and receiving love, in a great economy of love. When this life of God is projected onto the world of time, with sin and rejection, it looks like Christ sacrificing Himself on a cross for us. So, Christ doesn’t become God on the cross, God is revealed on the cross. Think of a perfect loving scene in a film, projected on a movie screen that is twisted and torn. That movie screen is our lives on earth.

See, the Greeks always begin with the temporal beginning. Origen instead begins with the end - with Christ crucified on the cross. That is what the end looks like, “It is finished.” On the cross is the beginning. It is from that perspective that Origen starts his thinking, he begins with that fact.


                                        

So, summing that all up :

We fall short of God’s intentions for us as deified persons. It is God’s foreknowledge, His intentions, that exist in eternity (though not co-eternal with God).

However, there was never a *time when we were perfect/deified and then fell. We are only perfect in eternity.

The “movements” of our soul refer to our response to Christ’s crucifixion, which God foresaw atemporally prior to creation, some responding cooly, some responding hotly in love.

I may “fall” short of my intention to get a perfectly fit body when I “sin” against my healthy intentions, but I never first had a perfectly fit body from which I fell.

Of course, God’s intention for a perfected creation is realized in eternity, which is neither before nor after this imperfect creation, but exists and always has “above” the time-bound Cosmos.

The Lamb is crucified “before” (I.e. is the casual principle of) the foundation of the world in eternity, thus everything begins and ends on the cross.

Origen quotes Zechariah 12:1 

“. ..the Lord...formed the spirit of man within him."

So we are always already perfected in eternity. The “fall”, therefore, refers merely to the difference between ourselves in eternity and ourselves in time. There was never any earthly Eden, Origen says, that existed in time on our planet. It exists in eternity.

We presently fall short of that existence, but after death will see that we have always existed there in a perfected state. Of course, we think this will happen “after” our life. Or we think of this perfected state existed “before” our birth. However eternity, again, is not temporal, and is neither before nor after. From “before” it will look like a fall into earthly existence; from “after” it will look like a reality we are going towards at the end of our lives; but really it is “above” vertically, neither horizontally behind us or ahead of us.

The perfected soul is logically (but not temporally!) prior to our earthly existence because it is the principle that causes our earthly existence to be. We exist as fleshly beings be-cause we are intended by God to become perfected, to become that which, in eternity, we always are.

We exist imperfectly in time in order to become perfected in eternity, that is the cause, or reason, for our fleshly existence in time. Recall all that strange Biblical language - “will be, and even now is…” This is why the New Testament speaks of the New Age as in the future AND already realized.

There was always a prefiguration of the present world in an immaterial form present in the Wisdom of God, who is Christ. 

As opposed to Gnostic or Platonic schemes, the goal, then, is not escape, but transformation. All flesh must once again become fire.

Again, not all scholars will agree on this interpretation, but I believe it accords with several of the most respected Origen scholars. Fr John Behr for one. See also Mark Julian Edwards, Origen Against Plato, Ashgate Studies in Philosophy and Theology in Late Antiquity (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002).

Also Panayiotis Tzamalikos, Origen: Philosophy of History and Eschatology (Leiden, 2007)

It is this interpretation that is not heretical according to Orthodox tradition.

As David Bentley Hart has put it :

“Our ‘fall’ away from God was and has always been, nothing other than our actual turning away from the reality of the union of God and humanity on the cross of Christ. …Because we were all of us …in some sense created in our last end, before the foundations of the world, called into existence in the heavenly court; there, in the eternal intention and perfected creation of God, we are already—and in that sense eternally have ever been—joined to God, pervaded by his glory like iron thrust into the fire. [And our descent from that eternity is simply the difference between our eternal end and the temporal reality of creation, by which alone we can make our ascent to God in his Son.”

“….the end is always already accomplished, and our first beginning as actual creatures is in our last end as deified in the glory of God. In regard to the latter, we are “fallen” from that first estate, even though as a matter of diachronic history [temporal existence in our present cosmos] none of us has yet attained it. But that means that even in going astray, we are all already created as dwelling in God, and but for that reality could not exist; and so the end is certain.”

Harl, 'Preexistence des a.mes: p. 257, n.2.

                                    

JESUS CHRIST ALWAYS EXISTED AS FULLY HUMAN AND FULLY DIVINE.

This sounds strange, but this is Fr John Behr’s view, see his book on John. Jordan Daniel Wood’s book on Maximos the Confessor also takes this view. So does the Anglican Bishop Rowan Williams. The Catholic theologian Herbert McCabe argues this in his essay 'The Involvement of God.’ Namely, the idea is that there was never a time when Jesus Christ, as fully man and fully God, did not exist. Jesus Christ was always both fully human and fully divine. God does not become a human being but in some way already and is a human being, as well as divine of course.

After all, our creed says we believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ. It doesn’t say we believe in the second power of the trinity, or the second hypostasis.

Many today believe that there was a pre-incarnate Christ, kind of like a spirit or angel, and at a certain time in history, this being incarnated into the womb of Mary and was thereafter clothed in human nature. So, for years Christ existed without human nature. That would make Him pretty old when He was born!

But wait a minute, we believe there is no change in God. Isn’t this a change? And how could the nature of God graft itself onto human nature? And if Jesus Christ exists in eternity, outside of time, then he must always have existed like that, as Son of Man and Son of God. And how can we say the Lamb was crucified before the foundation of the world if it only happened at one point in time.

Now, theologians have given answers to all the above problems, some excellent, others burdened with paradoxes.

After all, if Christ wasn’t always human, it almost sounds as if God made creation, humans messed things up, and then Christ had to come down and become human as a kind of plan B to rescue us.

In Origen’s view, Christ’s incarnation was always the plan.

The idea of a “pre-existent Christ, says McCabe, was a 19th Entry invention. We never see terms like the “pre-incarnate Christ” in Patristic literature. Speaking of the Son of God 'becoming man' or 'coming down from heaven; McCabe writes, 'makes a perfectly good metaphor, but could not literally be true'.

The simple truth is that apart from incarnation the Son of God exists at no time at all, at no 'now', but in eternity, in which he acts upon all time but is not himself 'measured by it', as Aquinas would say. 'Before Abraham was, I am’."

- First printed in New Blackfriars (November 1985), reprinted in Herbert McCabe, God Matters (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1987; Continuum, 2012), 39-51.

As John Behr says,” …the subject of the second article of the Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople, the one who came down from heaven to be incarnate, is not a 'pre-incarnate Word' (the term 'Word' does not even appear in the Creeds), but rather the one subject, the one Lord Jesus Christ. The inter section between time and eternity….”

Indeed, the whole way of thinking in a narrative form of telling a story, can only be applied to temporal events in history. That is, of course, how we humans think, but God is in eternity, apart from any change, we can only tell the story of God as He appears in Christ.

                                                

                                            I drew a lot of Origens


SCRIPTURE

This is one of the greatest things we can learn from Origen.

Now, the ancients did not read scripture as Protestants might today. Of course, one can read these texts in any way - as a fairytale, as poetry, as documents of historical happenings. But scripture is something specific, it is a text that is inspired and with which we can commune with God. You can’t do that with a history book! That doesn’t deny the historical aspects at all, it just means these historical events carry a spiritual meaning, that God can communicate to us through that story, factual or not.

The great Jewish Biblical scholar James Kugel reminds us that ancients read scripture according to 4 principles. First, a text that is Holy Scripture must have its meaning revealed. The “plain meaning’ must be spiritually integrated. It must be “opened” as Christ opened the scriptures to the Apostles on the road to Emmaus.

Second, Scripture’s purpose is not to inform us about events in the past, but about the present: ‘these things happened to them as a type, but they were written down for our instruction upon whom the end of the ages has come’ (1 Cor. 10:11). That means the story about Jonah is about, among other things, what’s happening right now. It speaks to us here and now. Perhaps the Whale is a particular sin that is coming for you because you are running from it, for example.

Third, that Scripture is harmonious, nothing contradicts anything else in the Bible.

Fourth, if it meets all three of the previous criteria, then it is truly scripture, and that means it is inspired by the Holy Spirit, who in Christ speaks to us directly in the Scriptures.

So, how does Origen read what we now call the Old Testament? Well, through the cross. As I’ve said, Origen starts at the end, with Christ crucified. From there he works out his theology. Origen reads scripture through the cross. All the Fathers did. That is the “eschatological” reading. Eschatology is the end, it is the revealing. On the cross, Jesus is revealed as God. This is what Origen calls the “spiritual meaning” of scripture as opposed to the fleshly meaning.

For example, Christ on the cross to fleshly eyes would appear as just a man. But at His crucifixion, His true divine nature is revealed, and we finally see not just a man, but God Himself.

As Fr John Behr says, before his conversion Paul was very familiar with the Scriptures. He read them carefully. What did he surmise they were telling him to do? Well, to kill Christians!

Yes, without the revelation of Christ the old testament can tell us very little about anything. The Apostles knew the Scriptures, but could not recognize Christ as God until after His passion on the cross.

So, what does this mean? It means everything in the Old Testament must refer to Christ. It must point to Him. That is where every interpretation must end. The meaning must be Christ crucified.

It’s actually the same with all communication, and Christ is the Word. You don’t know what a sentence means until you’ve heard it to the end.

For example, if I begin a sentence, “The plant….”, and ask you what the word “plant” refers to, perhaps you’ll say leafy green vegetation.

I continue my sentence, “The plant was very busy today……”. Well, now you’ll probably say the word “plant” actually refers to a factory.

Now I finish my sentence, “The plant was very busy today secretly infiltrating the enemy's camp.” Ah ! The word “plant” referred to a spy.

Notice, you didn’t know until the end what the word “plant” meant. Only once you got to the end, could you then make sense of the word at the beginning, retroactively giving it meaning.

In the same way, you cannot know what the story of Moses in Egypt means until you get to the end of the story. Moses in Egypt is like the beginning of my sentence, equivalent to the word “plant”. What is the end of the “sentence” or story? Christ crucified! Yes, the story of Moses refers to Christ crucified.

We must begin knowing that whatever we read must refer to Christ on the Cross. Hence, the Israelites could not know the real meaning because only at the end do we retroactively confer meaning on the story. The meaning comes at the end.

So, the Fathers will say Moses is a type of Christ, and he goes into Egypt which represents death, and through the red sea which represents baptism, and is “resurrected” when he is led to the promised land which refers to heaven. The story really refers to Christ crucified and risen!

Now, even before I opened my mouth to tell you about the plant, I had the meaning already in my mind. The meaning was at the beginning for me, but you couldn’t know that. For you, the meaning only came at the end, in time.

Just so, the meaning, Christ crucified, is the end of the story in time but was the beginning in the sense that the story occurred for its sake. Hence Origen will say Christ’s passion is both the beginning and the end - of everything, of the Cosmos itself.

Hence, Origen will say without the cross the Old Testament is only myth, even if it happened. St Gregory of Nyssa will agree :

"Therefore the Apostle said, 'the letter kills, but the spirit gives life,' since often if we were to stand in the mere concrete reality of the history, scripture would offer us no patterns at all of the good life."

Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. in Cant., prologue

UNIVERSALISM

This one’s simple. Origen taught it. Not the exact version anathematized at the 5th council, but he believed everyone would be saved taking Paul’s word that one day Christ will be all in all. Most Orthodox, throughout history and today, would say this is heretical. Even in Origen’s time, this idea was startling, and there’s evidence later in life he tried to distance himself from it by leaving it as an open question. Although this strain of thought does exist in Orthodoxy. St Gregory of Nyssa was a universalist, and several saints, such as St Isaac the Syrian, also expound universalism.

What about the devil? Well, Origen would say “Satan” is a title, meaning the adversary. In the end, when God is all in all, there will be no adversary to God, so no Satan figure. However, the being that once was the adversary of God will be redeemed, Origen says. Everything devilish about this fallen angel will be burned away. He will not be saved as Satan, that aspect of his being will disappear.

It’s a bit like asking if “Postman Willy” exists after he retires. Well, Postman is just his title, his function, an accident, and not part of his nature. So he no longer exists as “Postman willy”, but he is still willy. Same with satan.

Later, after some controversy, Origen would distance himself from this assertion, and say it is merely possible the devil might be redeemed.

Most Orthodox would disagree with Origen. They would say the angles exist outside of time, so their decision to turn away from God can never be repented of. It is final. We exist in time, and sometimes we move toward God, sometimes we move away from Him. However, when we die that will be it. Death stamps our nature.

Now, Origen is surly correct in one aspect, that we cannot say it is impossible that God saves satan, even if it will never happen. This is because even satan was first made good, God does not make anything evil. Evil, for Origen as well, is good twisted, it has no ontological reality, it is the absence of goodness as darkness is the absence of light.

If God, even in theory, couldn’t redeem Satan, then Satan would exist as a Manichean principal forever opposing God.

Origen’s view of eternity is similar to St Gregory of Nyssa’s. It is not a Catholic static beatific vision, rather it is full of movement, we will forever stretch out and grow into God’s glory. This might include experiences where we must be educated, and some may stretch out further into God’s glory than others.

There may be different “worlds” after death. Everything will be transfigured, the earth will not pass away, it will change into something new. Even death will change from being a principal of destruction and instead will become an agent of change. See below.

As far as hell, it’s real but temporary. It is purgative to heal us, not punish us.

                                       

WORLDS, AEONS, ETERNAL CREATION, AND REINCARNATION

Origen does not believe in an eternal creation. In heaven, of course, we exist for all eternity, and it will not be static, but this cosmos had a beginning and one day it will perish.

Origen does speak of different worlds. Most likely, he means different historical periods, except for the afterlife. After death we may, as embodied persons, experience different “worlds” or realms, as we are educated or purged, until eventually everyone and everything ends in the “aeons of aeons” - eternity, which is completely atemporal, but not static, to forever stretch forth in God’s Glory.

So, for Origen God creates all things in their last end. However, it might also be true that he believed we all also began our true personal histories in some heavenly aeon. Both interpretations can be found in his writings.

He says he is not sure, and only speculating and he references various passages :

The scriptures say, There will be a new heaven and a new earth, which I will cause to remain in my sight, says the Lord. And Ecclesiastes shows that there were others even before this world, saying, What is that which came to be? The very thing that shall be. And what is that which has been created? The very thing that is to be created; and there is nothing new at all under the sun. If one should speak and say, 'See, this is new!'; it has already been in the worlds which were before us. By these testimonies it is established at the same time both that there were prior worlds and that there will be others hereafter.

Many interpret Origen to mean literal various worlds, as in different planets. However, Fr John Behr, for one, seems to interpret him using “world” and “age” as we do.

After all, we speak of the “iron age”, or of the “Roman world.” Indeed, a thousand years from now perhaps historians will read us and suppose we actually believed there were different worlds as in different earths, one with iron works, another composed only of Romans, still another “modern world’ full of modern people. They might speculate we believed each earth, or world, perished somehow and then God made a new one, a secular earth after a Christian one.

Origen may simply have meant “world” as in a period characterized by a certain way of life and understanding, just how we use that world.

The word “world” had many different meanings back then, and it is not possible to be certain what Origen meant. Likely when speaking of this cosmos, he meant simply different historical periods, and in eternity, since it is infinite, there will be an infinity of “ages” where we forever grow in love and likeness to God. T

For the ancients, a world wasn’t its physical matter, but a partial type of order, spiritual, political, natural, and human.

He does not believe in reincarnation. Due to the Scriptures speaking of multiple ages, or aeons, to come, he does hold open the possibility that in eternity, as we forever stretch toward the glory of God, we will do so in multiple ages. For Origen, our body is a reflection of our soul and is made fit for that particular age. In eternity, our bodies may well continuously transfigure into ever more spiritual bodies as we forever become closer to God, as God is ever more “in” our being. Some in eternity may have a grosser spiritual body, others a more refined one, depending on the state of our soul. This could mean different “environments” that are fit for that soul's dwelling.

Origen explicitly refutes all Egyptian, Greek, Pythagorean, and Platonic notions of reincarnation or transformation. Nobody is “born twice”, there is no disembodied soul that incarnates in different bodies, nor can a spiritual body exist in different aeons. Neither will a human soul ever “descend” into an animal body, or any other creature. A soul is always embodied.

For Origen, a system of aeons is a complex system of educational institutions and the world history is a long educational process directing the whole universe to salvation. Free will is of utmost importance for Origen, yet God through courtship will by his love and beauty persuade every person to accept His love and salvation.

The aeons can be thought of vertical spheres of a specific kind of space-time matrix, the “higher” up, the closer to God, the more spiritual the realm. Whereas the gnostics believed these realms were guarded by various hostile gods, some of whom influenced our fate, early Christians believed these principalities and powers were now defeated by Christ, and so nothing now separated us from what the scriptures call the “aeon of aeons” - the aeon which is eternal and has no beginning or end.

David Bentley Hart noted in the New Testament, “…the final events of history are portrayed as having already occurred in some mystical sense, or the Kingdom is portrayed as a spiritual reality already everywhere present in creation and already dwelling within the soul.”

….by which I mean not an epoch temporally consecutive to this age, but rather a wholly different frame of reality, the world of spiritual memory and hope. (Here it is best to imagine the aeons not as successive eras along a single “horizontal” causal trajectory, but rather as spheres of being rising “vertically” to the threshold of the divine realm “beyond all ages.”)

The word “aeon” was used in many ways in the ancient way. St John of Damascene, for example, also used “aeon” in distinction from time (chronos): the latter is measured by the course of the sun. Aion, he says is a

“kind of temporal movement and extension that embraces everlasting (aïdiois) beings; what time is for those subject to time, aion is for everlasting beings’ (Expos. 15. 11-13).

This was the ‘time’ before creation and also the ‘time’ after this age has passed away: it is ‘eschatological time’, the time without end that characterizes the age to come.

For Origen, causality is not just horizontal, things don’t just happen because of previous actions, but there is a causality between eternity and history. For example, a prophet makes a prophecy because of a future event, the prophecy of Christ’s crucifixion, for example, does not cause Christ’s crucifixion. It’s the opposite! Because Christ would be crucified at a certain time, this caused prophets in previous centuries to prophecies him.

Origen argues that creation must have a beginning and end because otherwise, prophecy couldn’t work, if the world were infinite, there would be no foreknowledge, and any notion of before (hence of fore-knowledge) is meaningless.

For Origen's view on Creation, I've blogged about that HERE.

Creation does not begin until it responds with an Amen

                                                    

Yes, it’s strange, but we have not yet been created. Nor has the Cosmos begun. First comes death - THEN life.

Let me explain, for Origen through St Maximus the Confessor, the term “creation” refers to what God creates from His being….what we call “creation” is really just a molding on already existing stuff.

What’s the difference ? One is grafted onto the life giving energies of God….the other decays, God is not “in” it.

When God is all in all, THEN creation will have begun.

One is born of the Word, the other is lifeless, irrational matter governed not by Logos but necessity.

One is persuaded by God’s beauty to “be”, it has said Amen, and Yes to its creator, wooed by His great love.

God's 'creation' requires a response, an 'Amen'.

                           

Oh, it’s Biblical, as John Behr writes,

“It is, moreover, as the reference to 'faithful and true martyr' indicates, something that comes about through death. As the verse from the Psalm puts it: 'You take away their breath, they die and return to the dust, you send forth your Spirit and they will be created (Ps. 103:29-30).

The movement of the work of God is always, in Scripture, from death to life: 'I kill and I make alive' (Deut. 32:39). The 'Amen' which completes the creative work of God, making it his creation, is that given by the martyr.”

                                          

Elsewhere Behr notes,

“…our primary or primordial existence: Gen 1:26 comes, literally, before Gen 2:7, when God takes dust from the earth and 'moulds' the human being. That which comes from the earth is neither simply 'created nor made: though, because resulting 'from a cause’”

In other words, it is an existence not directly gifted by the Zoe (spiritual life) of God.

Behr again,

“This is perhaps also connected to the fact that whereas everything else in Gen. 1 is simply spoken into existence by a divine 'fiat;'Let there be: the only thing said to be God's own work, that for which he takes counsel and is, as such, his own project, to make human beings in his image, is given in the subjunctive, 'Let us make' (Gen. 1:26-7).”

This 'project' is only completed on the cross, as described in the Gospel of John, with Christ's final word, 'it is finished' or 'it is perfected' (John 19:30), and before which Pilate says 'Behold the human being' (John 19:5), and then by the martyrs, such as Ignatius, who on his way to martyrdom asks that the Romans be silent about him so that he can follow Christ in martyrdom and so 'become human.’ 

                     

Finally Behr ends with this remarkable insight :

*Although the first account of Genesis comes first, literally, scripturally, and therefore theologically, yet for us, in our own experience of existence, the second account is first: we come into this world in Adam, until we too learn to give our 'amen' to God in Christ.

By starting with the end to speculate about the beginning, our 'election: which happens 'before the foundation of the world', is, in a very real sense, the call that brings us into being, prior to being 'fashioned' in 'the foundation of the world: and prior also to our being 'created', which only properly happens at the end.”

The Invisible Anguish of Young Men

Art  by Oswaldo Guayasamin

Young men in America really aren't suffering much these days. Not like the boys in WW II, or men in other countries torn by crushing poverty and/or machine gun fire. 

But they are in anguish.

It’s not just semantics, there are two different existential states.

What I’ve chosen to call ‘suffering’ is visible, and so comfort, and commiseration, might be sought.

Anguish is hard to articulate, hard to explain, hence one is locked alone in the dark with it, speech frozen, no way to communicate to another one’s wretched state. It hides in loneliness, rejection, and failure.

WHY is the suicide rate for partially paralyzed people so much greater than fully paralyzed ?

Because suicide rears its ugly head upon *unnecessary suffering.

A completely paralyzed patient can do nothing.

They are not tormented by hope -  the hope that one day, if they….try hard enough, exercise hard enough, *pray* hard enough….they might improve.

And if they do not, it is their own fault.

The difference is best illustrated with an example.

A friend of mine is a mechanic, new, lowly paid, living in NY. He has health, a job, and suffers few privations.

BUT, his girl, earning a masters, dated up, and left him. So, for the past few years he has desperately tried to start a business, raise his social status, and get a good women.
His dream is to have a family. 

He is lonely, his future shows little possibility for improvement, and yet he strives, and strives, in desperation - for love.

He see’s families all around, couples, some happy, some not, but right there, dangling in front of him, just out of reach, like a cruel tease. A man dying of thirst, and water all around, and he cannot manage to acquire a cup...

He is in anguish.

Anguish because his suffering is unnecessary, he OUGHT to be able to succeed. And he tries…and tries…and tries…and fails. And fails. And fails….

He went to India. He hired a rickshaw driver for a week. This man was always smiling. This man took him to meet his wife and children, living in utter poverty.

This man is suffering. BUT, he is not in anguish over it - it is necessary suffering. He can do nothing about it.

It is a caste system, he cannot strive for anything more. His wife doesn’t expect him to, nor society. He is not ashamed of himself, nor of his children living in such conditions.

This man’s hardships are great, his suffering tremendous, but, according to him, he does not regret it.

My mechanic friend however, is not the backbone of this nations economy…he is the loser.

Women see this. They are nature’s judge. Women, too, go by what men value, and if men do not reward a person with value, women see this.

Unconsciously it is a rejection from Mother Nature - something wrong with you, no reproduction.

Also a rejection from one’s tribe -  if a man cannot bring value to a tribe, the tribe starves, hence a man who cannot produce is tossed out into the wilderness, hence all the male anxiety about this.

Finally, it can feel like a rejection from God. If someone loves you, they give you gifts, approval, regard….If these are missing, does God love you?

And without the gaze of love - positive regard - one is scarcely a person, but only a deformed individual, ever struggling to achieve a place in the world.

Perhaps Gandhi was not so crazy to call India's Caste system much less cruel than America’s…

Two quotes :

It is readily understandable that to be denied a place is to suffer a serious moral trauma. It is a sort of denial of one’s humanity.”

― Paul Tournier

“Society puts pressure on us to conform to personas but we become neurotic if those personas don’t allow us to satisfy our desire to be our true Self. 

Fulfilling environments and relationships and roles are desired that are enjoyed by society and align with our Self. 

A suicidal person is someone who is so far from where they want to be in life ... no fulfilling relationships and roles and the persona society presents are in no way fulfilling with their Self. 

Shedding of one persona and development of a new healthier one closer to the Center of the Self I believe gets symbolized unconsciously in the archetype/ symbolism of death and rebirth. 

However if a suicidal person doesn’t see any way in which they can be “reborn” in society in a fulfilling life then they only see the death side of that symbolism in front of them and since that corresponds to a physical objective action it also seen not simply as some symbol but as a literal action that is able to consume their conscious mind.”

Can one adore evil? What Genet, saint of perversity, can teach us.

As a teenager I became aware of the cruelty of the world, a homeless man without legs or a cat starving in winter shattered me. Drugs and alcohol helped but I still couldn't make peace with evil. So I decided to try and love it.

Life is suffering said the Buddha. To adore the torments so generously gifted by life is an art. Genet worshipped degradation with a religious passion.

Sartre even named his study on him : Saint Genet. The book has stunning insights into evil, though Sartre, naive and bourgeois, swallowed every big fish tale Genet fed him.

Genet is worth studying because he IS the existential hero in the flesh. To those who called Sartre mad, he could point to Genet, the man who invented his own nature, creating his own (inverted) values.

To be betrayed by one’s lover - this was his highest ideal and greatest ecstasy for Genet. He lived what people like Bataille only wrote about.

It’s all he knew. If one must suffer these things, why not learn to will oneself to love one’s fate. This is precisely what Nietzsche preached.

A genius born to a prostitute unjustly tossed into an infamous orphanage that shocked all of France when it was discovered the staff were merrily raping the boys, and having the boys rape one another, for their entertainment and pleasure.

He drifted into petty crime and in prison wrote his first book, some 300 pgs, with a pencil on toilet paper. The guards found it and threw it away.

He wrote it again, it got published to great acclaim and fame claimed him. Now he could mingle with the rich - and steal from them, which he often did, getting arrested as well.

Jailed a 10th time for theft Genet faced a mandatory life sentence. To Frances credit, after being petitioned by the Literati, the courts exonerated him. Indeed a great artist ought to be forgiven all crimes.

After a few novels and plays he got hooked on barbiturates, a low and dirty drug, and for the next several decades, besides a suicide attempt, endeavored in nothing of value.

Late in life he wrote one last travel book, on revolution, mostly to bunk with the Black Panthers and indulge in sexual fantasies, also camping in the desert with Palestinian militants.

Stanley Hauerwas said modernity is when the only story we are permitted to believe is the one that tells us there is no story. We are the story we tell ourselves we are.

The lesson of Genet proves this a lie. We can not create ourselves, invent our story, or project meaning into the world. We are part of a bigger story - one given to us.

Givenness is at the heart of reality. The great struggle is learn to receive this world as gift. The only sane response to a gift : Thanks-giving. It takes heart-breaking work, terrible sacrifice, and often an entire community to shape us into the type of person who can receive this world as sacrament.

So, I learned that one cannot love evil without being destroyed by it.

The painting at the top is, for my money, the greatest portrait of the 20th Century. Giacometti reveals the true Genet - trapped, restless, being undone by death, and wasting away…

The Difference Between Modern and Ancient Belief

 

What is called "religion" today was non-existent for people in the ancient and medieval worlds. There was ritual.

It was in the 16th and 17th century that the concept of "religion" as we know it was invented.

Holy texts such as the Bible or the Quran never identified people by their private transcendental/supernatural beliefs.

Belief and religious knowledge was thought about in very different ways.

Are rituals practiced to shape a community to receive beliefs a certain way ? Do we participate in God, relate to Him as a person in song and praise to know Him ? Or can we simply affirm a creed ?

But then the demons also believe, and have perfect theology in terms of mere knowledge.

To what extent is belief propositional (subscribing to a set of claims) and to what extent is it relational (placing your faith in someone or something outside yourself)? Can it be one without the other?

Is knowledge transformative or informative ? Is it something done communally in ritual ? Right practice = right belief ?

As this article HERE says, Ethan Shagan in his book The Birth of Modern Belief: Faith and Judgment from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment says :

"..the biggest transformation in the history of religion in the West was not the rise of unbelief but the transformation of belief itself...

In this interview he says,

"Luther and his allies did indeed insist that their own beliefs were genuine, and that their own consciences were inviolable. But in the very act of making this claim for themselves, they insisted that all other beliefs were not simply false, they were not even beliefs at all.

When early modern Protestants claimed the right to believe as they would, they were creating a new and exclusive category of belief to which others did not have access.

Whereas Catholics disciplined people to believe, Protestants accepted that belief was rare, and instead disciplined unbelievers."

The Enlightenment asked upon what grounds should I believe?

There were many different answers in the Enlightenment—as there remain today—but the task of Enlightenment religion was to tear down the medieval architecture of the mind which had strictly separated belief, knowledge, and opinion, and had thus made the question itself virtually meaningless. Enlightenment Christianity established what the Reformation had not: the sovereignty of the believing subject."

His book delineates the process by which belief became synonymous with subjective and sovereign individual judgement.

Medieval belief was, as he says, “amphibious”: “a kind of knowledge-claim without implying knowledge”. We believe precisely because some truths are too immense to be known by human minds. In that sense, belief is both easy and hard. Like a dog watching its owner cook, we do not need to understand what is going on to have faith in it.

Then, along came the Reformation. Protestantism’s doctrine of salvation by faith alone made belief into a rarefied faculty — indeed, something humanly impossible, a gift that only God could give. “I believe”, Luther’s catechism stated, “that by my own understanding or strength I cannot believe.”

For Roman Catholics too now, the answer was to redefine belief as simple submission to the Church’s authority. So, belief became either unattainable or an act of the will disconnected from one’s own opinions.

This led to the emergence of the distinctively modern phenomenon that he calls “sovereign judgement”. We now say “I believe in . . .” (God, Brexit, human rights, a flat earth) as a way of ending a conversation. “I assert this; I will not be persuaded out of it; I do not really expect to persuade anyone else.” To say I believe is not to assert a fact about the world, but about yourself.

So belief and opinion were once opposites, and are now synonyms, eventually evolving into its contemporary meaning as we know it: “individual, propositional assent based upon whatever criteria the believer finds most convincing” - “sovereign judgement.”

In the wake of the Reformation, “the rival confessions of Christianity, unwilling to grant belief to their enemies or to dissidents and backsliders in their ranks, participated in a common project to make belief hard, denying belief-status to most putative Christians and their religious claims” .

Suddenly, faced with a profusion of Christianities—each of which implicitly threatened to undermine one’s own standing in the eyes of God—both Catholics and Protestants devised new theological means by which to demarcate “real Christians” from pretenders and heretics.

One common tactic in this theological boundary-maintenance was to articulate formulations of belief that made it difficult to achieve—so difficult, in fact, and so adamantly restricted to a select few—that only the members of one’s own sect could possibly be said to be “true believers.”

The consequence was the transformation of belief from a state of mind that most Christians had been able to take for granted into a practice that was challenging, exacting, hard.

This, Shagan argues, was as true for Catholics as for Protestants

‘The Reformation and Counter-Reformation participated in parallel projects of religious discipline: while Catholics disciplined populations to believe, Protestants disciplined populations of unbelievers.’

Belief in the modern sense of the word was bred of the resulting strain.
He suggests instead that the modern world has seen a transformation in the meaning of belief, which has “become a synonym for opinion or judgment: a space of autonomy rather than a prescription for its exercise.

In Shagan’s analysis, belief had little to do with “individual views of religion” but “was instead some form of participation in the collective and indubitable credenda of the Church”

The author argues that the Reformers and the Catholic authorities sought “to make belief hard' drawing increasingly delimited boundaries around what they considered to be true belief.

The Protestant doctrine of assurance and the Catholic commitment to obedience racked Christian souls with the ‘unbearable weight of believing’

For Catholics, any ecstasy of having one’s belief informed through spiritual experience was tempered by the agony of only being able to own beliefs that had been officially sanctioned by the Church: a most terrible predicament that was exemplified in the life and writing of St Teresa of Avila (1515–1582).

The Reformers stressed the importance of individuals understanding precisely what they believed, instituting the teaching of belief through catechisms and limiting “saving faith” to “the community of the elect”

This transformation meant that religious belief became “no different from any other truth-claim” , as both scientiffic hypotheses and theological assertions—both results of sovereign judgment—gained “parallel epistemological status”

As “boundaries between belief, knowledge, and opinion” collapsed , a new understanding of belief emerged. What Shagan calls “a common project of belief” involved “not agreement about what should be believed […] but rather a second-order commitment to the autonomous judgment of the believing subject”

I've written HERE how according to the great historian of religion, Peter Harrison, religion itself is a modern construction, “the expression ‘the true religion’ places the primary focus on the beliefs themselves, and religion thus becomes primarily an existing thing in the world, rather than an interior disposition” as it was for Aquinas.
During the seventeenth century, the definite article became much more common, with the unintended result of making “explicit belief and creedal knowledge” the content of religion . 

And “true religion” no longer means genuine piety or devotion, but is the answer to the question “which religion corresponds to the facts?”


For Orthodox Christianity, for theological knowledge, We practice rituals to know, not logic.

Knowing requires participation, and theological knowledge requires enacting the life of a servant of God.

Clinical distance neither improves knowledge through objectivity nor renders knowledge that can be known only in relationship.

Knowledge begins in embodied ritual practices and grows to skilled discernment through ritual repetition in a community.

Just so, religious sacraments have the same purpose: we practice rites to know.


I've written about that HERE

On religion being a modern concept HERE