www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Eastern Christian Moral Thought

I am in the process of reading a book about Eastern Christian Moral Thought for a Catechetical Program I am involved in. Are not morality and ethics so intermingled that their individual identities overlap making both of the same? Is it possible to truly achieve metanoia when it is truly impossible to be one with God? If we believe that we are only "in the absence of God" when we are born and without original sin, why did the West get so caught up on the notion of original sin? What do you feel are the greatest differences between the East and the West on the subject of Eastern Christian Moral Thought?

"Are not morality and ethics so intermingled that their individual identities overlap making both of the same?"

As I see it, ethics is an attempt to synthetically create norms of behavior apart from religious "sentiment" -- ie, reason-based norms of behavior that can apply to all people regardless of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Morality is a norm of behavior based on religious belief. It's a critical difference, because ethics, which are reason-based, can be the subject of much debate (ie, reasonable minds can differ as to the reasonable conclusion -- and both be "reasonable"), whereas moral rules (at least when they are not confused with ethics) are coming from God and are not considered by religious people to be subject to much debate (at least in theory). I think that ethics is a way of coping with the issue of setting generally accepted norms for behavior in a society which is either (1) post-Christian (ie, religion has no longer any substantial role in national life) and/or (2) multi-cultural, such that no one religious system is formative or shared by most of the population. Hence the current popularity of 'ethics' in Western Europe and North America.

"Is it possible to truly achieve metanoia when it is truly impossible to be one with God?"

In the "telos", yes. For all practical purposes for most of us, Metanoia is a process, not a result. We will be perfectly repentant when we enter into full communion with God, when we are completely divinized in the "final theosis" occuring after we die. The level of metanoia that we reach during our lives substantially determines our ability to enter into that eternal communion with God, and, in fact, is a series of steps, or gradual perfections, that we experience in life through God's grace (Easterns refer to that as the "uncreated divine energies of God").

It is not truly impossible to be one with God -- Christians call that "communion" -- a way of being that does not annihilate the personhood of either party, but in fact fulfills that personhood and makes it real. Metr. John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon has written quite a bit about this aspect of humanity and God.

"If we believe that we are only "in the absence of God" when we are born and without original sin, why did the West get so caught up on the notion of original sin?"

We believe that the effects of Adam's sin are the transmission of a mortal life to his offspring, and the tendency to sin which is implied by the very mortality of life. In other words, our mortalness (which is the sign of our separation from God) inclines us to sin because we perceive our lives as being limited by the here and now, making sin (really self-centeredness) much more attrractive to us -- in fact, almost irresistable.

The Latin Church's theology of Original Sin developed mostly from an unfortunate Latin translation of Romans to the effect that all men sinned in Adam. The original Greek text does not read that way, but reads that through Adam death and sin entered the world. Reading the Vulgate version of Romans (ie the version that was translated from the Greek original), it's pretty easy to see where the Latin understanding of Original Sin comes from ... but it's pretty unfortunate that this difference in viewpoint, which has had some cascading effect on a number of areas, has resulted basically from a mistranslation.

"What do you feel are the greatest differences between the East and the West on the subject of Eastern Christian Moral Thought?"

In essence, I think that things are rather similar. In the way we view things, things are rather different. Both East and (Catholic) West affirm the need for good works, cooperation with divine grace, avoidance of sin, etc. The East sees this as a process of divinization of the flesh -- of making the flesh like God so that we can enter into full, eternal communion with the Holy Trinity. The West has tended to use other analogues to conceive of the moral life, but this is one area where, at this point in time, I don't think that the differences are substantial any longer, and it's more like variations on a theme (although the Orthodox concept of "theosis" is still rather surprising to a good many Western Christians, even Catholic ones).

Brendan

Brendan,

On the whole I agree with you, but I think there is a basic flaw in one of your positions. As Christians we hold that there is an absolute morality. That is, morality does not derive from religious thought, but from God Himself! In fact, religion tends to be built around morality and theology. Thus, religious thought reflects a pre-existent morality, not the other way around.

If we build morality around religion then we have a subjective morality as found here in the United States. Protestant morality tends to be subjective rather than absolute. "God told me a divorce was okay so I could marry my girlfriend." is sort of the approach that many take. Yet, of course, divorce is not okay to marry one's girlfriend. Nor does God tell us to kill people, or any other form of subjective morality.

In fact, the ultimate in subjective morality is situational ethics in which an act may be morally god, morally evil, or morally neutral depending on the circumstances. Clearly this is not a Christian position, far less one held by Orthodoxy or Catholicism.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Fr. Dn. Ed --

Yes, of course, that is the more correct way of stating the matter. It does, however, presuppose a "religious" viewpoint from the beginning, insofar as one posits the existence of a deity of some type who is the source of that pre-existent morality (ie, morality is inherently of God).

Brendan

Dear Brendan and Bless, Fr. Deacon!

God the source of morality?

Are you guys out of step with modernity or what?

Good for you!

Alex

Dear nwappleseed,

The one point I wanted to draw attention to in terms of the Eastern Christian perspective is that our moral weakness due to Original Sin is a given, as it is in the West.

However, "sin" in the East is understood slightly differently.

When we pray "have mercy on me a sinner" we need not be aware of any personal sins that we have committed that we have yet to confess.

"Sinner" implies a state of our human nature that Theosis, through Grace, can transfigure in Christ by means of the Holy Spirit.

"Sin" in the West seems to imply an act, first and foremost.

Thus, the crisis with confession today.

If one doesn't have any sins, why confess?

Yet, in addition to our propensity to increasingly overlook our faults or else justify them to the point where we feel no guilt, our nature that inclines to sin is something that is always with us and needs the grace of the Mysteries/Sacraments and prayer at all times.

The idea of "sin as act" only implies that there can be a time (e.g. after confession or indulgences) that we can be "sinless."

I believe this led to the secular corruption involving the idea of the perfectibility of mankind by his own efforts.

Just as Augustine's Original Sin ultimately resulted in extreme Calvinist predestinationism, so too this view of sin as act only resulted in the Freudian/Marxian view that civilization/class are the only real "social sins" that keep man from achieving his potential. Remove them and our perfection will occur. Capitalist independence is the other side of this coin.

The Eastern view assumes our sinfulness and sinful inclinations that spring from within ourselves. This can be transfigured, but only in our constant dependence on God and the means of Grace.

Alex

Thank you,this is a great help!