Is This All There Is?

A comment deleted earlier today contained a short rant on the topic: “There is no such thing as sin.” I have no idea what the writer thought the word “sin” meant – and if I knew I might even agree. I certainly do not think of sin as a legal category. But when I think carefully about the statement, “There is no such thing as sin,” I begin to wonder how someone who makes such a statement sees the world. My conclusion was to think, “Such a person must think that this is all there is.”

It is a significant thought – not something to be ignored.

Is the world that we think we see all there is? I say “the world we think we see,” because cross-cultural conversations quickly reveal that what I think I see and what someone else thinks they see are not always the same thing. I do not argue for relative truth – only for humility in the face of reality. There is more to reality than meets the eye and our eyes often refuse to meet with many aspects of reality.

It is with some thought in this regard that I wrote the previous post on the “opacity of sin.” There is something about us that darkens our perception of reality and which obscures the truth. That darkness and obscurity are the “opaqueness” that I have described. I am suggesting, at least for the purpose of these posts, and thus for just a few minutes of any reader’s time, that we think about “sin” in a manner that is not common.

It is common in our culture to conceive of sin as a legal debt, or a guilty stain, or even a propensity for doing wrong things. These have their uses. But the Scriptures, on occasion, use the imagery of light and darkness, of translucence and opacity, to speak about the nature and character of sin. It is a Scriptural image – but one that is too often ignored.

In the terms of these images, to say, “All that I see is all that there is,”  is to utter a “sinful” statement. It is a reduction of the world to the crudest, material existence.  To say that there is more than I see is also to recognize (in terms of these Scriptural images) that there is something “sinful” about how we see the world. We (sinners) are all reductionists. We hide and obscure, darken and contaminate.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ says, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” We do not see God, the statement implies, because our hearts are impure. It is sin that hides God from us.

We are living through another week in which natural disaster provokes many to say, “Where is God?” Of course, many who will now ask, “Where is God?” said nothing the week before when Haitian children were dying of a hosts of curable and treatable illnesses and circumstances. The Christian answer to the question, “Where is God?” is “He is everywhere present and filling all things.” God is in Haiti: in some cases crushed beneath stones and in other cases removing the stones from those who are crushed. But it is doubtless true that there is more there than meets the eye. What we think we see is not all there is.

I do not offer these thoughts as an answer to the so-called “problem of evil.” These are simply some thoughts on the “problem of blindness.”

Tags: ,

53 Responses to “Is This All There Is?”

  1. Infinite Recursion Says:

    […] From Fr. Stephen Freeman. […]

  2. davdp Says:

    I think it is the christian scientists who believe all this around us, including sin, is an illusion. Hints of gnosticism is still around.

  3. jennyjuliana Says:

    It is the Christian Scientists. My father has been a Christian Scientist his whole life (my grandparents were Christian Scientists, as well). My father went to their church on Sundays and a Christian Science school during the week (The Principia), all the way through college (their college is also called The Principia). The problem of evil is a difficult one. But seeing the effects of my father’s beliefs leads me to conclude that to not believe in sin makes life much more difficult to lead.

  4. Michael Z Says:

    Jenny,

    As such, the great problem of sin as you put it, (and if I might add, death in the fullness of it’s ontological meaning) is largely confined to the heterodox world –not because the Orthodox do not sin but because of the total actuality of Christ’s two natures present in the Eucharist.

    The Orthodox by definition, are able to rightly divide between hyperdulia and latria.

    Keep in mind that the authority of the Father is extant in the ones whom the Lord willingly chooses to reveal Himself to (see John 17:11).

  5. Mariamna Says:

    Hyperdulia? Latria? What are they?

  6. fatherstephen Says:

    Hyperdulia and Latria are Greek words, used in the technical definitions of the 7th Ecumenical Council, to differentiate between the worship (latria) due to God alone, and the veneration (hyperdulia) that is given to saints (such as the Mother of God). Sometimes in modern English the simple word “honor” is used in place of “veneration”. English has not always been very clear on how to translate these words, so that in some older texts, “worship” was used to translate “hyperdulia” which wound up talking about “worship” of the saints, something very confusing and confounding to Protestants trying to understand what the Orthodox were saying.

    Today, I prefer to say “honor” for hyperdulia and “worship” for latria.

    I hope that helps. It was a bit much of Greek to confront early in the morning.

  7. Dn Charles Says:

    Well said!

  8. Michael Z Says:

    If I might add just one thing to that, something that Protestantism by definition, has historically not understood.

    Ousia is the undivided substance of God that we experience in the hypostasis of Christ’s two natures.

  9. Jamie White Says:

    Very well said!

  10. fatherstephen Says:

    Michael,
    Using the language of the councils to speak about our experience can be slightly problematic – or at least not entirely helpful. For instance, it is said in the later councils of the Palamite controversy, that we know (which is what experience ultimately means) God in His energies (energeia) rather than in His ousia (essence). This distinction is important theologically, but not a distinction that I discuss much (if at all) on the blog, for it simply takes us into territory where most have at best a reading knowledge, but little experiential knowledge. For this reason, this blog is intentionally less sophisticated than many, which can be a disappointment.

    Having said that – it is certainly the case that classical Protestantism has not thought about knowledge of God in patristic terms (ousia or energeia) primarily because classical Protestantism, as a matter of its own commitments, has largely confined itself to the language of Scripture (in which ousia and energeia are not found).

    Sometimes this is a weakness in Protestantism, it is often a weakness in modern Orthodoxy, when we read these things and grasp them with the intellect, but do not grasp them with the heart. If you read the sayings of modern elders such as Paisios or Porphyrios, etc., they occasionally speak about the nous and the heart, but rarely get more technical. One should know and confess the faith – but as much as possible – confess it with simplicity.

    Forgive my boldness in offering a correction. Instead, understand it as a reason for how I write as I do. Orthodoxy can be taught and discussed without a great deal of reference to its technical expression (so long as the technical expression is known and we are not contradicting the doctrines of the faith).

  11. Greg Says:

    Forgive me Father, but don’t the Pauline epistles speak explicitly of the energia of God?

  12. Abob Says:

    Thank you for this reflection, father. I have always thought of sin primarily as a turning away from God – but that actually fits in quite well with the Scriptural image of sin as darkness. To be in the dark is to miss out and be unable to see that fullness of reality around us, and to turn away from something is likewise a refusal to look on and see it.

  13. NW Nikolai Says:

    “One should know and confess the faith – but as much as possible – confess it with simplicity.”

    Father, thank-you for this emphasis, it is of great help to those of us learning to walk in the fullness of the faith.

    Nikolai

  14. Karen Says:

    Dear Father, bless! A wonderful and very helpful post.

    The Lord is indeed in Haiti. (May the Lord haver mercy on all–those who suffer and those who give aid.) My husband was describing an account he heard on the radio that while major U.S. TV network reporters were on site in Haiti reporting on the disaster (Katie Couric was one of the reporters in the broadcast, I believe,) in the background Haitian children were gathered in a park singing praises to God! As my husband related the account, apparently the reporters did not directly comment on the children who could be heard distinctly behind them, but had bemused expressions on their faces like they couldn’t quite comprehend how children could sing praises to God in the face of such tragic circumstances.

    Lord, in what satan intended for evil, instead may You be lifted up and glorified!

  15. Michael Z Says:

    Thank you for your reflections Father, which I find both helpful and thoughtful.

    Met Kallistos speaks of prayer as the communal experience of the visible and invisible Church (a “network of relationships” that bypass various dividing identities).

    The consubstantiality of the Son is the reality that can (indeed must) be experienced in prayer as well as in study.

  16. Paula Says:

    Thank you Father for your simple approach. I am a convert from the protestant world and grew up taking communion in a simple way after I had made a confession of faith and was immersed in waters of baptism at around 12 years old.I have had a genuine love for the Lord Jesus Christ since as far back as I can remember the stories of Jesus and seeing the pictures the teacher showed us in class. Finding Orthodoxy has been the fulfillment of my faith and I must say that sometimes I have a have a problem with discussions are theological.I think of my relationship to Christ very much like that of a marriage. When one loves another human with eros love they do not analyze and disect the aspects of that love. I know God loves me and sacrificed Christ because of that love. What else is there to do but to love Him in return. For me recognizing the Theotokos has been a wonderful enlightenment. I can’t believe the lack of honor that I had for the Mother of God. Perhaps my comments lack sophistication but I don’t think God cares.

  17. fatherstephen Says:

    Greg,
    Yes. You’re right (forgive my first impression – now edited out of existence). Frontier has a good suggestion worth looking at on energies in the NT by David Bradshaw.

  18. fatherstephen Says:

    Michael,
    Indeed.

  19. frontierorthodoxy Says:

    Fr. Stephen, Greg,

    For a discussion of the use of “energies” in the NT, see David Bradshaw, “The Divine Energies in the New Testament,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly (2006): 189-223.

    It’s worth the read.

  20. fatherstephen Says:

    frontier,
    I’ve met David and like his work. I’ll track down the article. Heaven knows I could learn a thing or two on the subject.

    Greg, I need to stand corrected, I’m glad to admit it. I don’t know everything and sometimes don’t know what I think I know.

    A good article of Dr. Bradshaw’s (who teaches at the Univ. of Kentucky) on the Divine Energies can be found here.

  21. epiphanist Says:

    Thank you Father Stephen,
    I saw Richard Dawkins interviewed by Andrew Denton before Christmas. One of the things he said ‘My moral code is definitely nothing to do with the sort of busy-bodyish religious moral code that cares about what people do in private. What they do with their sex organs and things like that, seems to me to be an utterly private matter, nothing to do with morals. I despise that kind of alleged morality, deeply despise it.’ – might help with understanding some peoples attitude to sin. Evolutionists have the morals of alley cats – the survival of the fittest. The philosopher who thoroughly responded to Darwin’s theory was Nietzsche, and the philosophy created the fascists and ultimately the Nazis. Humanism with vague references to innate goodness and basic human decency has failed to provide comfort to billions living in poverty and seems very unlikely to be adequate for the times ahead. I am grateful for your persistent message of another reality. The Dawkins/Denton interview is at http://www.abc.net.au/tv/elders/transcripts/s2757522.htm

  22. fatherstephen Says:

    It would seem to me that if someone is going to advocate an atheist position – they would do well to think carefully about the moral question. Dostoevsky is purported to have said, “If there is no God, all is permitted.”

    Modern sexual immorality is dangerous simply on the biological scale (and dangerous for the human race as well). I understand a non-believer’s reaction to the puritanical ravings of some – but just for the sake of the human race – you’d think they would admit that there remains a need for reasonable rules.

    But I think Dostoevsky is right. Some terrible things have been done in the name of God – but most of the terrible things done on a daily basis are done in the name of something far less (our own perverse desires). And that’s counting the big terrible things done by powerful 20th century atheism.

    I have a deep respect for serious atheism (I think it’s wrong – but I respect the serious stuff). But Dawkins, etc., are not serious atheists. It’s like thinking that a TV preacher is a serious Christian.

    I respect serious atheism for the simple reason that the existence of God is pretty much the great question. If someone takes the question seriously enough to truly ponder it (and be pondered by it in return) then there is a real possibility of a conversation worth having.

    If someone has not pondered the question (in some form or fashion of pondering) then even his professed “faith” may not be worth discussing. Dawkins, it seems to me, speaks too glibly about the whole matter to be a serious man.

    Nietzsche was likely a serious man. Seriously wrong and eventually seriously crazy.

  23. Simeon Says:

    Yeah, yesterday I was working in the production side of my company. Very dusty, mundane and physically demanding work. Yet during a moment, while doing the Jesus Prayer, I for the first time experienced the presence of God in a place where we would not experience God. The place was very much holy, then it occurred to me how those around me seemed to darkened eyes and were oblivious to it. I would say it was one of the more mystical moments I had experienced in my life.

  24. frontierorthodoxy Says:

    Epiphanist,

    Thank you for that link. I agree with your concern, but would caution you go too far when you make Nietzsche’s philosophy the creative cause of Nazi Germany. There were many factors in play. We need to be careful not to overstate our cases or atheists and agnostics won’t take us seriously. They’ll dismiss us the way many have dismissed Pat Robertson and Christians more generally recently.

  25. Michael Z Says:

    Epiphanist,

    It is generally agreed that the Second World War (1939-1945) was the unfinished business of the First World War (1914-1918).

    To quote the historian Ian Kershaw: “In 1900, Germany was generally viewed as one of the world’s most progressive, dynamic and impressive nations. Ceaselessly inventive, in many ways at the cutting edge of social and welfare reform, Germany was the one country in Europe to rival the United States as a beacon for future growth and change. It’s political culture was not noticeably more rooted in the past than that of rivals such as Britain or Russia. Antisemitism was no more widespread than in many other countries, representative institutions were thriving, political parties and elections an accepted part of constitutional practice.”

    If you are interested in this topical, if rather controversial subject, you might want to read The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard J. Evans or the perennial classic The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer. Alternatively, Telling Lies about Hitler: The Holocaust, History, and the David Irving Trial also by Evans, might also be of interest.

    Herr Hitler and Prof. Richard Dawkins do (or did, in the case of Hitler) share a common belief in practical atheism.

  26. frontierorthodoxy Says:

    Yes, Michael, I think that sums it up well. The appeals to Nietzsche and Luther and others was in order to help justify the direction the nation was already headed. The biology/anthropology of the day played a role, too.

  27. Troon Rose Says:

    Dear Fr Stephen,
    I am one year old in Orthodoxy (lots in earth age!) Would you please clarify how God filling all things is different from pantheism? A very intelligent Orthodox convert has used this term I believe interchangeably. I wish I had more time to research this myself but often am not sure which of my search results to believe, so hope you don’t mind me trusting your answers more than my research.
    Thank you for your blog. There is a man named Daniel Carlat MD who does for psychiatry what you do for Orthodoxy. Thank you for synthesizing, explaining, and catalyzing.
    God bless!

  28. Michael Z Says:

    Frontier,

    You raise an interesting point here. I confess that I know next to nothing about Nietzsche, but poor old Luther. His intentions were good but he lacked wisdom, perhaps?

    Fighting on too many fronts is never a good idea (there was much spiritual and material poverty in Germany in the 1500s).

  29. Karen Says:

    Troon Rose, I’m sure Fr. Stephen would have a far more complete answer for you, but as I understand it, Orthodoxy espouses an understanding of panentheism (God filling all things), not pantheism (all things are “God,” i.e., “God” and Creation are one and the same in essence). What a difference a couple of letters make! Panentheism means that God is present in His Creation (He is omnipresent), and that, indeed, all of Creation at every moment is sustained by His Will, Power, and Presence. It does not imply that God’s Being is contingent somehow on Creation, but rather the reverse. Still less does it imply that God’s Being is identical with the Creation.

  30. Michael Z Says:

    Well put Karen.

  31. frontierorthodoxy Says:

    Michael, Luther was used at times because of his anti-Jewish writings. Earlier in his reformation efforts, he was very kind and open to the Jews, believing that once the true Gospel was proclaimed, and Roman “errors” removed, they’d convert en masse. Never happened. He resented it, and wrote scathing writings against Jews. I’m sure a google search would turn up a fair amount.

    Karen, you are correct, but just as a warning, be careful with panentheism, too, because some people hear it and run away thinking you mean “process theology.” The term is fine, but has to be coaxed with the right explanations to go with it. Even then, I’ve had one fundamentalist Lutheran insist that I must mean process theology no matter what else I said. Ugh!😦 Anyhow, just a warning from experience. It gets linked to process thought in philosophical books I’ve read, too. Ok, gotta run so as to prepare for vespers!

  32. Michael Z Says:

    Thank you Frontier.

    There’s an excellent historical account of Martin Luther’s theological development in the Jewish Encyclopedia.

    Regarding his attitude toward the Jews, two periods can be distinguished.

    “The Jews,” he once said “are of the best blood on earth”; “they are the children and we are the guests and the strangers; indeed, like the Canaanitish woman, we should be satisfied to be the dogs that eat the crumbs which fall from their master’s table.”

    As you rightly point out, this attitude changed. I am guessing here, but it might have been his intense frustration with an unsympathetic Church hierarchy, that prompted the mood change.

  33. frontierorthodoxy Says:

    With regard to the Jews, it was their refusal to convert. He thought he found the “pure” Gospel to which the Jews would convert. He honestly believed that once they “realized” that he had removed all the human error, they’d convert. You’d think a reading of Acts would remove such delusional hopes but, alas, it seems not to have registered.

  34. fatherstephen Says:

    Troon,
    In the simplest terms:
    God everywhere present and filling all things is not God is all things (pantheism). Just as St. Paul’s statement that “in Him we live and have our being” does not mean that we are all therefore God.

    But it means there is no existence that has life in itself except God. All of creation is contingent and all of creation is capable of revealing God (except for our sin which “makes us opaque”).

    But only God is God.

  35. Michael Z Says:

    Indeed. Truth is there for all who would dare to look. “He continues living in all those who want to be true Jews”. Thus wrote Rabbi Samuel Hirsch in 1842. The early Fathers recognized the necessity of understanding mother Synagogue.

  36. John Hudson Says:

    Father, you wrote: ‘My conclusion was to think, “Such a person must think that this is all there is.”’

    Probably so, but even if one does think that ‘this’, i.e. the world, is all that there is — no God, no immortal soul, no life eternal –, it is possible to admit of sin. I have a philosopher friend who is an arch-materialist and atheist, but he gives a strong account of the reality of sin.

  37. Troonrose Says:

    Thank you Fr Stephen, Karen, and frontierorthodoxy, I am grateful. God bless.

  38. Karen Says:

    Frontierorthodoxy, thanks much for the heads up. Being the most amateur of theologians (even in the academic sense), I appreciate it! In any event, it would seem wise to stick the biblical language that Fr. Stephen has quoted, “in Him we live and move and have our being” and the language of the Liturgy that “He is everywhere present and filling all things.”

  39. Mike Says:

    I think the problem of sin is that we look too much at the sin of others and not at our own. Maybe if we sinned less and lived more like Jesus, maybe then we could help lead others away from sin because of our example rather than our attempts to make laws and rules that outlaw a particular sin (such as sexual sin, abortion or anything else). I don’t recall ever reading passages in the Bible where Jesus attempted to change the government and make rules to instill morality on society. It seems to me that if, like Jesus, we loved more and judged less maybe then we could change the world. Let him who is without sin throw the first stone. Let me strive to love others as I would want others to love me – irregardless of my sin. I think we get too caught up with trying to get our government to legislate morality and we forget that if we spent more time worrying about our own sins maybe then we could change the world by first changing ourselves.

    Forgive me!

  40. Scott Morizot Says:

    Karen, I think we can also safely use the song of the seraphim in Isaiah 6.

    “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!”

    Holy, of course, means apart, distinct, other. God is other than and greater than creation. And yet, at the same time the whole earth if full of His glory, is infused and contingent upon God. God is other, but he is not distant. Which, of course, this Psalm of David confirms:

    Where can I go from Your Spirit?
    Or where can I flee from Your presence?
    If I ascend into heaven, You are there;
    If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.
    If I take the wings of the morning,
    And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
    Even there Your hand shall lead me,
    And Your right hand shall hold me.
    If I say, “Surely the darkness shall fall[a] on me,”
    Even the night shall be light about me;
    Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You,
    But the night shines as the day;
    The darkness and the light are both alike to You.

  41. Carolina Says:

    C.S. Lewis writes:
    Men are reluctant to pass over from the notion of an abstract and negative deity to the living God. I do not wonder. Here lies the deepest tap-root of Pantheism and of the objection to traditional imagery. It was hated not, at bottom, because it pictured Him as man but because it pictured Him as king, or even as warrior. The Pantheist’s God does nothing, demands nothing. He is there if you wish for Him, like a book on a shelf. He will not pursue you. There is no danger that at any time heaven and earth should flee away at His glance. … And therefore this is the very point at which so many draw back — I would have done so myself if I could — and proceed no further with Christianity. An “impersonal God” — well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads — better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap — best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling at the other end of the cord, perhaps approaching at an infinite speed, the hunter, king, husband — that is quite another matter. – C.S. Lewis

    I saw this on another blog. I do not know the origin

  42. Michael Bauman Says:

    Nietzche was a serious man who asked serious questions. His answers were malformed by the tepid, legalistic Christianity of his father.

    However, it was in reading his answers that I first realized the personal transcendence inherent in Christianity. I bit on some really wrong “Christian’ efforts that were based more in syncretism than genuine faith, but I was after the truth, i.e. Jesus. He pulled me through and led me to the Church in spite of myself.

    C.S. Lewis’ words ring true for me. The spiritual counterfeit is always more attractive initially than the truth. Truth requires change and the peronsal confrontation with our own iniquity.

    To paraphrase Isiah: All we like sheep have gone astray eveyone to his own way and our iniquity has been laid on Him.

  43. Jonathon Says:

    Father, I admire and meditate on the fact that you have pointed out. That God is everywhere. The Light provides sight for all that look to see. That God is both with and in the people that are crushed and the people that are saveing the victims of this catastrophe. That He continues to be both victim and savior simutaneously. Or maybe it is not right to think of Him as a victim in this circumstance, or is He with and in and is experienceing the agony right along with these people?

  44. fatherstephen Says:

    Carolina,
    I utterly agree with Lewis. The Pantheist whom he describes is simply one of the many forms of religion, even Christianity, in which God is abstracted. I find the second-storey God (about Whom I’ve written) to be equally abstract, even if frequently described in anthropomorphic imagery. He is distant and removed.

    The mystery of the Christian faith is that God, Who is indeed “everywhere present and filling all things” (as the prayer says), is indeed incarnate as the God/Man Christ Jesus – and even now makes Himself manifest in most particular ways (indeed we can only Him, or anything or anyone, by particular). There is no knowledge of things in general or persons in general.

    Lewis puts his finger on it quite well (as always).

  45. fatherstephen Says:

    Jonathon,
    I think He continues to take our suffering upon Himself.

  46. uberVU - social comments Says:

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by veronica_dB: Is This All There Is? – A comment deleted earlier today contained a short rant on the topic: “There is no such thin… http://ow.ly/16liEz

  47. Carolina Says:

    I am heading out to Jimani on the Dominican Republic-Haitian border to spend the next few days working in Good Samaritan Baptist hospital. All I know is that they are doing lots and lots of amputations. Please pray for the over loaded doctors, nurses and everyone. They are exhausted and no end in sight. I am glad that God is present.

  48. Karen Says:

    Carolina, may the Lord grant you and all those you work with His grace and strength! (Also, great quote from C.S.!)

    Scott, good references–thanks. “God is other, but he is not distant.” Well put.

  49. frontierorthodoxy Says:

    Karen,
    I would encourage you to stick with biblical phrasing and liturgical phrasing. For most people that is appropriate. I would actually prioritize the latter. Why? Because “sola scriptura” is dangerous. The bible has meaning only when in relation to the interpretive tradition of the Church.

    That said, make sure not to think we must only restrict ourselves to the Bible and liturgical texts. The Arian crisis of the fourth century has taught us that is not doable. There is a place for articulating the faith further when the need arises and I honestly think theology, or philosophical theology, if you will, has a place in our faith.

  50. fatherstephen Says:

    frontier and karen,
    Indeed, I’m always looking for other ways to say what the faith says – if only to make it more understood. Many people use many of the words of the faith, whether Scriptural, liturgical or philosophical/theological and yet only use them as words, not having appropriated the reality that underlies them. Of course, then people even engage in argument about the words, still not having appropriated the reality. It is the reality of God in Christ that we must appropriate. So, sometimes, I look for words that are helpful in working with that action of grace. It’s why I think of things like a one-storey universe – not to say something that we don’t already know – but to say something that we have forgotten that we know. It’s why speaking of the opacity of sin, or just thinking about dark and light in terms of the faith is useful – not definitive – but useful.

  51. Carolina Says:

    I returned today from the clinic in Jimani following three intensive 12-14 hour days. The clinic is located in a place that is pretty close to paradise. The views are breathtaking as we looked out upon the mountains and a gorgeous lake. This contrasted with the agony of the 400 or so patients who had been brought to this place for healing: Broken bones, terrible wounds, loss of leg, arm, or finger not to mention loss of family members and homes. This contrasted with the general spirit of the Haitians who seemed to be able to suffer with a fortitude increible. They helped one another, they sang hymns, they prayed. And then there was the international conglomeration of people who had descended upon this out of the way place to lend their talents in all kinds of ministries, often working themselves to exhaustion. This whole clinic went from zero patients to 400 in less than a week as it had not opened for business yet. My constant prayer was “Lord have mercy” as I wondered around. So much pain and so much good all concentrated in one spot. Glory to God in all things.

  52. fatherstephen Says:

    May God bless your work and have mercy on the people of Haiti!

  53. Mystical Theology « Glory to God for All Things Says:

    […] we see is not what we get – what we see is not all there is. The mystical quality of theology is rooted in the belief that the ground of reality is to be found […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: