www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West "God in a Box"

Brother John,

This is an intellectually challenging topic that I thought deserved its own thread. It certainly does seem a bit "un-orthodox," since both Rome and Constantinople have long looked to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol as a kind of cornerstone of the Faith. However, I will agree that we can place too much emphasis on a Creed or any other doctrinal formula.

Ultimately, our faith is a gift from God, and its object is God Himself: no creedal formula, no theological expression, not even the entire body of Revelation contained in Scripture and Tradition can ever encapsulate what God is, nor can our minds ever comprehend God.

However, God did choose to reveal Himself to us, and He did this in a particular way, which is both related in Scripture (i.e. the Scriptures tell about God's revelation of Himself in time and human events), and contained in the words of Scripture itself (i.e. the Scriptural texts are divinely inspired and their words express both what God wanted to reveal to us and how He wanted to reveal it).

It is no secret that the Latin Church had at one time put so much emphasis on her doctrinal formulations that the Scriptures seemed to be reduced to a source book for theologians, rather than a means for all to grow in the knowledge of God. I'm sure this was largely because they were tired of dealing with crackpots who insisted on deciding for themselves what the words of Scripture meant, but this attitude ultimately gave rise to both the Reformation and the Enlightenment.

However, I would contend that while the West has undoubtedly been guilty of this (dare we call it an error?), the East has not been entirely innocent, either. When Patriarch Photius wrote his famous condemnation of the Filioque, his motivation was clearly to counter the Pope's challenge to the legitimacy of his office. What he showed, it seems to me, was merely that one formula (Augustinian) was incompatible with another formula (Cappadocian)--but as long as the Cappadocian formula was regarded as dogmatic in all its particulars, he could level the charge of heresy against the Pope.

My contention, then, is that all of these have a place: Scripture, creeds, dogmas, theologumena, liturgical prayers, etc. However, all of them, being rendered in human language, fall short of the full expression of what our Faith--whose object is God Himself--really is. I furthermore contend that it is only by the Holy Spirit, who Our Lord promised would guide His Church into all truth, that these misconstruals can be avoided or overcome.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

You answer is very thought provoking and I shall give it some thought; I hope others will take it on!

Epiphanius,

First, most Christians would admit that human language has the power to convey truth and meaning about God without being able to do so exhaustively. The question is *why*? Is God incomprehensible because certain creatures just happen to presently lack epistemic access to or the right words to articulate what God is essentially? Or is God incomprehensible because God as Creator is beyond being and reason/language can only know/articulate the truth of being? I believe that historically (or generally speaking) the West (Medieval Catholicism & Reformed Protestantism) has gone with the first answer and the East with the second answer.

Secondly, as Christians who affirm the Trinitarian & Christological dogmas, we're committed to the principle that Persons are "above" and "more than" their natures and activities. "Who" is beyond the "what" through which the "who" expresses its reality, the divine activities/energies are what is subject to the inquiry of reason and can be expressed through language.

My question is what theological presuppositions/misconceptions *prompted* the Latin Church to "put so much emphasis on her doctrinal formulations that the Scriptures seemed to be reduced to a source book for theologians?" It was not the ascription of meaning-communicating and truth-bearing properties to language; it was the failure to recognize the proper distinction/relation between revelation/theology and natural reason. God for medieval theology is maximual being; God for Eastern theology is beyond being. With God as maximal being, we can pour conceptual/philosophical content into the generation of the Son and spiration of the Spirit and deduce the Filioque; this was the error uprooted by Patriarch Photios.

Here's an interesting interview with Jarislov Pelikan on 'The Need for Creeds'.

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/pelikan/index.shtml

But then again didnt God himself place himself in a "box"
Take for instance the blessed feast we just celebrated, God enfleshed himself so that we poor feeble human beings might be able to perceive what He was like.
And again, did not God place himself in a "box" in the tabernacle so that he might make his dwelling among us.
And cannot God since the incarnation be depicted in human form in icons and be received in the symbols of bread and wine?
The ineffable and transcendant God, the creator of the the universe has done this. Who are we to quibble with Him?
Stephanos I

Stephanos, you are begging the question with your answer. My question really comes down to whether sectarian differences between individual Christian churches or different religions leads to the potential violence or hatred between them. I.e., Christianity vs Islam.

Stephanos,

Very good points indeed, but in every case you're talking about God's own acts, when the real point of this thread is man's acts.

I guess my real contention here is that while the West never rightly understood the meaning of apophasis, the East IMHO has often undervalued it. Our division, from the standpoint of theology, is primarily about incompatible doctrinal formulas, which are the man-made "boxes" I am speaking of. The whole point of apophatic theology is to overcome such obstacles by getting beyond the limitations of human words when speaking of God and things related to God.

I mentioned in my previous post that it is only by the Holy Spirit that we can overcome the limitations of these "boxes," but I neglected to add that this will also involve the proper application of apophasis.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

The Church can and must speak authoritatively in matters concering God. If that is not the case then all theology is meaningless and everything is up for grabs and individual interpretation. That was my point, whether it appears we put God in a box or not.
Stephanos I

Epiphanius,



The theological basis of Eastern apophaticism is that God as Creator is beyond being and therefore (in essence) beyond reason and language, not merely that human language has limits or cannot exhaust the truth about God. Stephanos I had it right: "revelation" is about God making Himself known to creation *through* creation. To say that I place "God-in-a-box" when I affirm the Trinitarian & Christological dogmas (or the Nicene Creed) is to say that they are wholly "man-made" constructions about some underlying, unknowable God-in-general (also known as Allah, the Force, Brahman,etc.) The East has *not* "undervalued" apophasis by affirming that certain doctrinal formulas definitely or authoritatively express the truth whereas the others contradict or distort it.

Those interested in a detailed study of this topic may want to read Dr. Scot Douglass' dissertation entitled, "The Generation of a Diastemic Discourse in the Cappadocian Fathers: Embracing the Limitations of Language in the Production of Theology," which was later published with the title: "Theology of the Gap."

Let me turn the discussion back in its original intended course; let's put away the theoretical construct and talk reality. If we put God in a box (Stephanos, I was not asking if God put himself in a box because what you are saying is obvious, if one believes Jesus is the son of God)), can this turn Christian against Christian or Christian against any other faith or vice versa? This is what interests me. From our stand point, for example, can we say that putting God in the box from the Christian perspective caused the Crusades?

John,

I think this will depend on the parameters you place on the concept of to 'turn Christian against Christian or Christian against any other faith..'

Surely, it will create divisions of significance, I would say. But, no, I don't think that has to lead to senseless hatred or warfare either.

Best to all,
Robster

Why does everyone presume Christianity is a relgion of tolerance?
It is not, Christianity rejoices in the truth and is counter culteral, it cannot tolerate error or injustice or immorality.
That being said Christians are a very tolerant people because of divine mercy.
Stephanos I

Probably because of such concepts as "love thy neighbor" and "love thy enemy".

I don't think a Christian can truly be "against" anyone.

However, when injustice is done and Christians act against it; when we are acting to protect and to serve the needs of the least of God's people, the ones who can't defend themselves; those doing the injustice might say that "Christians are against us".

Christians must not be against anyone, but they must reject anything that is contrary to what has been divinely revealed.