Thank you. It is the job of Christians to, in some way, show the light of the Kingdom, so that others might seek. When we become the reason that others would not care to seek it is a frightfully sad commentary. Indeed.

Schmemann, like Velimirovich, is one of the amazing reads of the 20th century. I have only scratched the surface of the things that are really good.

You wrote:

“One of the great tragedies of the modern world is that, as it seeks to define itself apart from God, it is defined as so much less than God would have it be. It is at this point that atheism or secularism are the least humanistic of philosophies.”

And then you went on to talk about something different from where I thought you might go. I would like to pick up on the idea that the modern world seeks. Yes, atheists and secularists fall far, far short of what God would have us be, because they seek to define themselves apart from God. But at least they seek (or many of them do). Modern seeking is, according to Fr. Schmemann, a result of a deep “shaping of the mind” by authentic *Christianity*. That atheists and secularists seek apart from God may also be of Christian origin. What is sad is that many modern “Christians” are no longer Christian in this most essential way. Having found “the truth,” they no longer seek. They fall even farther short. In the words of Fr. S, something changed, and the “Christian world” became “absolutized” — reducing the Gospel to a caricature of what it should be. It’s no wonder the atheists and secularists — who have kept a seeking mentality — reject Christianity (and God thereby). Absolutized, made static, a false Christianity no longer satisfies the seeker’s desire. So, have a heart for the atheists and secularists. They are more Christian perhaps than most of us realize. I would not call them the “least humanistic.” Worldly values and idols fail. Yes, they do. They become “bread for worms.” But at least among the modern anti-Christians there is continual seeking for *something*. How many Christians can say as much?

I offer a passage from Fr. Schmemann’s “The World in Orthodox Thought and Experience” (in Church, World, Mission p. 81):

“The results of that change [the progressive abandonment of the "Christian world" of its own eschatological vision] constitute without any exaggeration the greatest tragedy of Christian history. What it provoked was a progressive emancipation of the human mind — and of the “thirst” and “hunger” injected into it by Christianity — from the “Christian world,” and therefore their growing secularization, their rebellion against Christianity itself. Prevented from developing within the framework — religious, cultural, psychological — of the “Christian world,” blocked by the latter’s static self-absolutization, the human mind, shaped and inspired by Christian eschatological maximalism, began to see in the “Christian world” the main obstacle to that maximalism, a structure of oppression and not of freedom. The sad history of the divorce between man and his “search” on the one hand and the “Christian world” on the other hand, has been told many times. What is important for us is, of course, the indelibly “Christian” mark on the “modern world,” the one which grew out of this divorce, and this in spite of the world’s rebellion and, sometimes, apostasy. This is truly a post-Christian world because, in the last analysis, even the most secular, the most anti-religious and anti-Christian ideas and ideologies by which it is moved, are in one way or another — “des verites chretiennes devenues folles” (Christian truths gone mad) — the fruit of a secularized eschatology. It is the Christian faith which, by injecting into man’s mind and heart the dream — the vision — of the Kingdom of God, made possible the fundamental utopianism of the “modern mind,” its worship of history, its almost paranoic belief in a forthcoming kingdom of freedom and justice.”

The idea of creating meaning, objectively, is a tricky one. It’s one of those neat statements that can engender a sense of personal empowerment but in practice might not say much, especially to the underprivileged, as Fr. Stephen pointed out above, but also to the more or less privileged one who finds himself all but obligated to live a certain way in order to maintain his privilege.

I’m inclined to think this the idea of creating one’s own meaning usually means to the person saying it something along the lines of “we get to live for what we want to live for and believe what we want to believe” or that we get to ascribe our own value to things and people in the world as we see fit. In this enterprise, we may live for and value relatively worthy things and we may believe many things that are true. However, by adhering to what is worthy or unworthy (by whatever standard) or true or false (knowingly or not), we have not actually created any meaning beyond the private meaning of our thoughts, which can be true or deluded, and the “public” meaning of our words and actions, which meaning is not entirely under our control, even if the words and actions themselves are.

What I’m getting at is that none of this is the exclusive domain of the atheist. The theist does the exact thing with his faith that the atheist does with his unbelief. Christians are just as free as atheists in whatever, if anything, is substantial in this business of “creating meaning.” The Christian is living for what he wants to live for and valuing what he understands to be valuable. The Christian has come to a certain conclusion about Christ Jesus, however, and that conclusion leads him to live accordingly, to the best or worst of his knowledge.

This conclusion about Christ is no more limiting to the Christian than the conclusion of an atheist that he needs air to breathe or food and water to stay alive. Certainly, it might appear to the atheist that the Christian, who believes things that ostensibly limit his moral range of acceptable action or appear to run contrary to empiricism (miracles), must be somehow less free and must be locked into a vision of meaning that is somehow more restricted than that of the atheist. But in fact, both the atheist and the theist remain on the same equal footing in these regards as on the day each was born and on the day each will die.

The non-theistic spiritual traditions of Asia require the abnegation of self and personhood as they are deemed illusions. The theistic and secular philosophies of the west emphasize the individuality of the human mind ultimately to the exclusion of God in many cases. Islam demands humans be slaves to the will of Allah.

The longer I am in the Church the more amazed I am that the essence of the Christian faith—communion with a loving God, has been so obscured and distorted by many professing faith in Christ in favor of an enslaving legalism. It is no wonder that many flee from such a God. Those that flee the oppression and the distortion perpetrated in the name of Christ might actually find Him in so doing. I am continually saddened that they are driven to such a choice however because it is a harder road and one fraught with danger.

I had hoped that, by asking the above questions, we could understand where you are coming from. Unfortunately, many of our shared terms do not have shared definitions–thus, much confusion. Second, we do not all share the same paradigms, so we have to start a conversation on a more basic level. My desire is to foster meaningful discussion through better understanding.

-Lucas

* Engram (neuropsychology), a hypothetical means by which memory traces are stored
* Engram (Dianetics), a term used in Scientology and Dianetics for a “recording” of a past painful event not normally accessible to the conscious mind
* “engram” is an international trademark of engram GmbH, Bremen, Germany

Onlymoments:
If I hurt your feelings, I apologize too, we tried to engage early on, perhaps in a way that was unfair. I did read one post that was thoughtful and tried to understand where you were coming from, I think you rejected it, and that is too bad. We are all free to take our ball and go home at anytime but then we only get to play alone. Never much fun.
We are not saved alone, I pray you understand this one day.
St Nikolai pray unto God for us!
Fr. Stephen, incredible post.

We’re not really a bad lot here, and we do listen to one another. I hold myself responsible for a bad example today. I started out the day sort of despressed and it has snuck out on me all day. I’m feeling better, but it’s probably better to stay away from posting on such days. I guess we all have them. A good day to you, though.

I tracked back and read some of your story. You’ve obviously been through difficult moments and stretches, to say the least. The lessons learned in such times are worth listening to even if they’re in a language that is different than I know.

You take us to task correctly. Please note the apologies posted above. I acted wrongly and set a bad example for everyone else. I apologize.

I ask a sensual man, “Who are you?” and he replies, “I am I,” and he thinks of his body.

I ask a thinking man, “Who are you?” and he replies, “I see two sides in myself and I make my way between them, associating first with one and then the other,” and he is thinking of his instinctive and conscious soul.

I ask a spiritual man, “Who are you?” and he replies, “There is someone in the depths of my soul. I stretch out my hand to grasp him but see that to do that I would need arms longer than the universe. Ask him who I am.”

I am a thinking and spiritual man but yet you do injustice to me still. I understand enough to know that I do not understand the great dimensions of what is Divine, yet you still do persecute because you do not understand the language that I speak. I am not full of pride, I do not see the “self” as the key; I see my Eternal Life because I have been there. I have been clinically dead and come back to the understanding of the Light of God, call it what you may, and you and the others can mock me and my words for as long as it makes one feel better, but I am secure in my faith, I have been allowed to come back and allow each day to be a miracle unto itself. I had no intention of hijacking this blog, I was merely answering your question “Who Am I.” Father you begin your first response with “It is interesting and your are creative” and then next respond with “but it was frankly just full of random run-on things that are common cultural stuff.”
It is not my intent to make anyone uncomfortable and the swift retorts from those whose didn’t really understand comes from a defensiveness that shows a lack of faith in your own beliefs. I cannot be a threat to you, my words are not avatars to penetrate what you percieve as laws or notions of truth. I merely live my life loving my fellow man and knowing that God is within me. For this I am taken to task by holy men. Yes I could go blow by blow to answer questions 1-7 for Rdr. Lucas but for what end? I wasn’t attempting a word by word analysis of what it is that I believe and live each day. I am truly sorry for disturbing your text and will move on and not taunt (which is what it seems) anyone any further. I at least respect your personal beliefs but there is no room at the inn I see for my humble soul.
By the way, an engram is an human electrical neurological current that makes marks in the brain that allows us to have memories, it is literally a scar on the brain, it is not of Scientology (that’s not a religion it is a brainwashing) and it is not a word used to intimidate anyone.