www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology "spiritual but not religious"

Wow, Jason, many thanks for your words...your "opinion" seems to sound about right.

Perhaps the clergy here in this Forum could post something about that? (re: Many are called, few are chosen).

Thanks again.

This time of year, perhaps it should be "many are cold, but few are frozen".

Fr. Serge

Slava Isusu Khrestu

Ah! but here in Northern Canada "many are cold and many are frozen"

Z Bohom
Unworthy
Nycholaij

Jason,

You say, "If there are more good fish than bad fish, why bother with the work?" Because the "good fish" are unspeakably precious to the Fisherman! And so are the bad fish, but they reject Him, and He permits them the freedom to choose.

You say that if God is in Christ reconciling the world to himself, "He cannot fail to do so." Man's rejection of God's salvation is not an indication of failure on God's part: neither under the old covenant, nor under the new.

Are you saying that if we accept the straightforward statement of Jesus that the road is broad that leads to destruction (and therefore more often travelled), and the way is narrow that leads unto life, then "the promise is bigger than the reality"?

All of the scriptures you cite speak of God's unfathomable generosity and grace in throwing open the gates of heaven to all, but not one of them indicates that eternal life is a gift which most will be willing to embrace. Nor do they provide any support for the notion that we understand the gospel better than did Chrysostom, Augustine, or the other fathers, mothers, and saints.

As to the original point of the thread, I think that the whole "spiritual but not religious" label might be another way of describing what St. Paul referred to in 2 Timothy 3:7: "those ...who will listen to anybody but can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth." Or as another version puts it, "they are...always learning, but never able to acknowledge the truth."

I would say that this is a sign of the "Spirit of this Age" in which many are living lives of spiritual sloth. Which is what we pray to be purged of in the Prayer of St. Ephrem. We want a "spirituality" that fits us and doesn't demand more of us than the lowest common denominator. This is a deception and is extremely dangerous.

Case in point: The acupuncture class I took in California met one extended weekend per month for 8 months straight and then the final class met after a 3 month hiatus. The first day we introduced ourselves and a young lady told her name and that she used to be Catholic and "But now I gave that up and am spiritual now" in a condescending tone. Now my colleague who is a great Osteopathic Physician in Chicago and I were the only practicing Catholics at the class and we were in dismay at her attitude and knew that she was headed for destruction.

Well, after the 3 month break the class got together at the first hour to relate what happened with us during the hiatus. The young lady said that she went to a "prosperity seminar" run by a guy who was/is affiliated with Donald Trump. He "hypnotized" the group and then that's when the bad things started. She started having "visions" and heard sinister voices. She had a psychotic break and started worshiping the gods of Egypt. She finally ended up in a psych ward on suicide watch and is medicated to this day. Her live in boyfriend left her and she went bankrupt. She moved in with her mom (who left the Church to become a Christian of a Non-Denominational Denomination in the past) and now the young lady humors her mother by going to church with her even though she doesn't believe (she feigns interest and belief.)

I suspect that incidences like this happen in others who have this attitude but they don't tell people about it other than their therapists.

Jason has a lot of deep thought on this for sure. As I began reading the discussion, one of the talks that Fr. Maximous gave at our Church a few weeks ago was on Holiness. To me Jason brought that in, gave a confirmation for me. So I will try to share my notes(they really don't do his teaching justice- it was just awesome) and maybe...JUST MAYBE...if Fr. is reading he will fill it in a bit better. Also, I think it will help the answer a little bit.

HOLY means cut off, divided, set apart, claimed by God.
Scripture says to be holy as I am holy.

Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours.'(Luke 16:26) shows that a chasm was established between the condemeed and the redeemed. A gulf between those that belong to God and those who don't.

You must be able to distinguish between what is sacred and what is profane, between what is clean and what is unclean (Leviticus 10:10) We have to learn to distinguish between what is holy and unholy, God's and not God's.

Sanctify yourselves, then, and be holy; for I, the LORD, your God, am holy.(Leviticus 20:7) We have to consecrate ourselves to God to become holy.

We are commanded by God to become holy, to accept holiness, we are called to follow his laws and become holy. God's claims for us and on us are incomprehensible.

An example is 2 Samuel 6:5-8
5
while David and all the Israelites made merry before the LORD with all their strength, with singing and with citharas, harps, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals.
6
When they came to the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God and steadied it, for the oxen were making it tip.
7
But the LORD was angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there before God.
8
David was disturbed because the LORD had vented his anger on Uzzah. (The place has been called Perez-uzzah down to the present day.)


Fr. pointed out that Uzzah really was only tring to assist King David, but only a Levite of the Tribe of Judah could approach the Ark of the Covenant. Mary was the only person who touched the Ark of the Covenant because she bore Christ. But, because Christ became man, we can become holy.

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore, glorify God in your body.(1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

So (I hope I am telling this all right) Uzzah's touching of the Ark was an action of 'involuntary sin', sin of the body, the unholy actions/things that separate us from God. We do not approach the Holy of Holies, the place where God is most present. However, we approach the Holy Place - the outside so that the closer we strive to become holy, the more we become God-like.

So the free will that takes us forward or away from God becomes 'dis-ease', we accept or reject God. The only way for use to become holy is to be crucified - Christ has the power to set us free from everything even involuntary sin of the body. In him is freedom, but it costs us everything.

Therefore, we must attend all the more to what we have heard, so that we may not be carried away. For if the word announced through angels proved firm, and every transgression and disobedience received its just recompense, how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? Announced originally through the Lord, it was confirmed for us by those who had heard. God added his testimony by signs, wonders, various acts of power, and distribution of the gifts of the holy Spirit according to his will.(Hebrews 2:1-4)

God gives us all the grace necessary to become humble...
True Humility - to God be the glory
False Humility - I/me cannot have this glory.

In the Syrian usage of the Divine Liturgy the deacon prays forgivness of sins both voluntary and involuntary.

What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate.(Romans 7:15) This is the involuntary sin (original sin). One of the ECF referred to it as - not depravity, but tragedy. If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins (Hebrews 10:26) Baptism is the cure for the original sin. This is why God gave us Baptism, Chrismation, Eucharist. (Hebrews 6:5)

See the Theology of the Church has not changed but the Anthroplogy has developed (our understanding of humanity). The Apostles and ECF through experience realized there is a persistance of sin dwelling within us. The experience of human nature is the 'habit' of sin that dwells within the flesh. The soul is joined to the flesh which brings it into the stream of salvation.

The body is hard to win over to Christ, it imposes it's will upon us as in hunger, sleep, all the demands of the body. It co-ordinates the will, bringing the soul and mind under the control of the body. The body gains the upper hand, it wars against the soul. (Gnostic(sp) Herasy - the body was bad, so they burned the body to free the soul at death - i guess that was reincarnation) The body wins involuntary sin.

The Eastern Church does not justify ignorance. But what happens is the person does not know what to do to remove the sin, so the person persists because they do not know what else to do.

Sin and guilt are different. Do not feel guilt for involuntary sin. An example is in the Euffolage(sp) of the Byzantine Church, the same prayer is used for a miscariage as an abortion. However, the reality of the abortion is a sin. So if a woman miscarries she is entitled to the feeling of guilt, but she did not commit a sin - she is not responcible for the loss of self.

con't

An example would be (and I forgot to write the chpt and verse) but 'for my sin the eath is punished'. An earthquake is involuntary, but is caused by our sin upon the earth.

There is more, but I am tired and think I am rambling some.

So when we understand involuntry sin, it is then brought into the scope of salvation to the love of God. Then we flourish and receive the grace that is given continuosly and through Baptism, Chrismation, Repentance, and Eucharist - we enter into 'theosis'. We can then train our minds and bodies to want to know it is all about our Baptism. St Paul said it it by our life that we are living, that we live as Christ's Body, that we receive Holy things for the Holy.

I will not deny this is true. However, I think what we make of this has much to do with our perspective over all concerning the nature of man. What is our starting point with man? Is man born into the world damned? Are we to consider man, in the first place, as damned, and then redeemed secondarily? You are quite right in stating that the "good fish" are unspeakably precious to Him and, your unspoken corollary that Jesus would have come to save only a handfull or even just one man (or woman). But I think if we take the perspective that there are indeed few who will be saved we necessarily hold as presuppositions, very negative views of the nature of man. I think that man is disposed to sin though confusion and being deceived. I do not believe that man is iniquity incarnate. Rather, every man wants and naturally desires that which is good. But he is blinded by sin and cannot see how to make right choices. I think those who are self consciously wicked are in the extreme minority. That is why the Catholic Church refuses to state absolutely that anyone at all, besides Satan and his Angels, are in hell.



Salvation is a mystery. It does not depend entirely on man or on God. It depends on both mans free choice and God's free grace. Grace, as you point out, may be rejected. But what does this rejection entail? I would argue that to reject God is something more than simply not believing, because there are many many reasons why a man may disbelieve and yet be excused. To reject God finally and ultimately is something that is not quite so easy as it appears. Do unbelievers do good works? IF they do, then it can only be because of some measure of Grace in their lives. I fully expect to see some athiests in heaven. They may have rejected what they *believed* to be God in this life, but in their hearts, they embraced that which was really true and good. No, God is never to be blamed for man's choices.


I'm not sure I understand this question. I do not believe this statement by Jesus is as straightforward as you think it is. The underlying assumption is that, as I said above, men are by nature inclined to evil and not to good. If we do not take that as our starting point then it is not so evident that Jesus is making a statement about the number of the saved. From a different vantage point, when Jesus tells the parables and talks about the abundance of the harvest, I don't believe he is simply stating what he *hopes* will happen, or what *could* happen if only men were not so evil. He is speaking prophetically about what *will* come to pass.


Again, your assumption is that men by nature are UNWILLING to believe or seek after the True and the Good. As for not understanding the Gospel better than the Fathers, I'm not sure I made that claim. Yet I will point this out: Both fathers mentioned held notions that are recognized today as being incompatible with our understanding of the Gospel. St John Chrysostom advocated most vociferously hatred for the Jews. Today we understand this not to be in keeping with Christian charity. St Augustine taught that sex in and of itself is by nature sinful. We dont belive that anymore. Nor do Catholics accept his teaching on the massa damnata. The Fathers are great and holy men, but individually, they are not infallible and are subject to correction. I dont believe it is wrong to question them.

I will sum this up by saying that I think this is a fundamental difference between East and West. The West has characteristically taken a very negative view of man, while the East is more generous and does not see man in such negative terms. It is true that the Orthodox are very rigid about who is and who is not in the Church. However, they are very generous when asked who will be in heaven. I understand that my perspective is hard on Western ears. But it has taken me a long time to terms with this issue and I call it as I see it.

I hope I answered your questions.

Jason

Jason, your points are well taken. I didn't mean to oversimplify Jesus' statement about the broad and narrow roads. Like most of the scriptures, this one no doubt carries several layers of meanings. And as for calculating "saved - to - damned" ratios, I don't think we can possibly make any projections.

Whether people are unwilling, or unable, or too blinded to live by the truth, we generally seem to take the path of least resistance. Christ alone knows to whom and why He will say, "Depart from me, I never knew you," and to whom and why He will say, "Well done, good and faithful servant."

Actually, your perspective isn't hard on Western ears at all. On the contrary, I would say more Western Christians than ever embrace the notion that the road to eternal life is much broader than previously thought, and that only a few "really bad people" will go to hell, if there is such a thing at all.

Regarding the fathers, I agree completely: no one opinion is to be taken in isolation. Is there any patristic writing that you have in mind to support your views in this regard?

Robert

Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts and opinions. Here is my opinion.

I think "spiritual but not religious" is the religion of secularism.

Fr. Alexander Schmemann (in "For the Life of the World" and the first appendix) correctly observed that secularism does not necessarily mean atheism. There are plenty of secularists who believe in God. (There are certainly plenty who belong to the Church!) They just don't think God matters very much. And that's because secularists find life's context, meaning, purpose and principles in terms of the world. In other words, secularists believe that the world is the ultimate referent for human life. Secularism is the attitude which understands life in terms of the world in itself.

Furthermore, he cogently observed that secularism is a Christian heresy. Historically, secularism emerged from within Christian civilization. Secularism takes the Christian concept of the world as the vehicle of communion, but it does so without any meaningful reference to Christ. And it is Christ through whom the world was made and reconciled and perfected unto God. Christianity says that the world is the vehicle for communion: with God, and each other, in Christ. Secularism says that the world itself is communion.

In brief, it is a question of how this world is perceived and understood. Secularism places the world at the center of meaning. Religion places God at the center of meaning.

And thus, "spiritual but not religious" is the religion of secularism. On the one hand, it does perceive the spiritual. It does perceive the sense of transcendence, immanence and interconnectedness in the world. However, it does so without much meaningful reference to God. Instead, it focuses on how we live in the world: what we experience, how we deal with each other, and ecology. In other words, it understands and expresses the spiritual primarily in terms of the world. Hence, "spiritual but not religious" is the religion of secularism.

-- John

'Spiritual but not religious' means 'I know the supernatural exists and like it but it's not in charge; I am'.

As humorist P.J. O'Rourke wrote, when times get tough 'spirituality' is out and religion (something more powerful than me is in charge) back in.

Sad, but true. Look at 9/11. The Churches were packed, standing room only. Where are they now?

That's it in a nutshell.

-- John

Robert,

You say: "I dont think we can possibly make any projections(about the number of the saved)".

I agree with this 100% and really that is what I was getting at. Many western theologians have taken Jesus' words as though it is a clear cut statement that only a few will be saved. I know of entire Protestant denominations built around this notion (such as the Primative Baptists). Only God knows for sure. Yet, we may either be optimistic or pessimistic in our opinions and this will to a large degree determin how we approach such issues as evangelism, ecuminism, and our general view of the masses of unchurched humanity. It should be clear from what I have written that I take an optimistic view and that I think such a vantage point has clear grounds in Holy Scripture. On the other hand, I cannot deny there are passages that speak desparingly about the human race. But I would understand such passages to be in reference to man as man...man as he is in himself rather than as he is in regards to Jesus.

Another thing I didn't mention is the idea that hell is a place of punishment. I really don't know what to do with this as it seems to have basis in the Scriptures and in Holy Tradition (not to juxtapose the two). Yet we believe that no one goes to hell but those who choose to. My opinion is that those will reside in hell for eternity, are already experiencing hell in this life. That does not mean they are apparently wretched people. It means that they love their sin and practice it as often as possible. I am convinced that the experience of "hell" is to be a slave to ones passions forever. I hesitate to mention this because it is intensly personal but I believe it would be helpful to explain what I am saying. A number of months ago, maybe even a year, I had a dream/vision of hell. I dreamed I went there. It was so intense and vivid that in my dream I slapped myself and pinched myself to make sure I was not dreaming. I did not wake up. There were plenty of people there. But you know what? They would not leave for heaven if they were given the chance. They actually liked it. Were they miserable? By contrast with all that is good they were certainly the most miserable wretches I had ever seen, but they practiced their sins day in and day out with no respite. They were slaves. In my vision/dream I was surprised that I was in hell and not heaven. Yet for some reason I was not terribly afraid. I began to pray the Our Father and all of hell grew quiet for a moment as the damned listened to me pray. I heard them whispering "Doesnt he know that doesnt work here?" or similar things. But when I got to "Thy will be done" I was taken out of hell. I ascended through a pool of water and when I reached the surface to breathe, I awoke. Now, I do not place much stock in this dream. Yet it does describe my thoughts on the matter. I think there will not only be really bad people in hell, but really GOOD people too. That is to say, people who to all appearances were good men. But in the end, they will choose passion over Christ. And thus they will "depart into everlasting torment prepared for the devil and his angels."

Unfortunately, I have not had access to the majority of my books for a number of years for various reasons. So I can't point to any patristic writing on the topic.

Jason

I like Bishop Kallistos Ware's response to Kyriacos Markides question about who is truly saved. (And this is not to justify any and every spiritual practice out there)Bisho Ware said that Christ will judge all, but we cannot know where anyone is in there journey to God. He felt it was possible that Christ may rach someone through a path other than Christianity. Bishop Anastatios of Cyprus (formerly Father Maximos) also stated the same idea. Christ may reach some people through their conscience and if they follow that it will lead them to God. We can not say for sure if 'spiritual' people are not or will not be lead by Christ through a different route. It is also possible that they will come to the Church in their own time and right now they are not ready or capable of truly meeting Christ in Church. I'm just now coming into the Church after searching in many places and I don't regret the journey. If I had come in earlier I wouldn't have been ready. I had to work out some things in my heart and mind first and as soon as that happened I was ready.

Let us give these people the benefit of the doubt even if they do sound ridiculous to us. Try to see their point of view and reason from where they are. If someone had done that with me earlier maybe, just maybe, my working things out would have happened sooner.Being told I was wrong,blasphemous, etc. just turned me off and put more distance between me and the Church.

Peace,
Indigo