I’ve yet to meet anyone in Orthodoxy who likes to “preach endlessly about the wrath of God”. If I ever do, I will pass on your comments to these unfortunate souls.

There is a wide gulf between “preach endlessly” and “attempt to rationalize away entirely”.

Scott, with regard to your comment at 27.1.2.1.3:

“This is not to say that the real possibility and the risk of incurring God’s righteous judgment is not also and at the same time everywhere in view in those prayers. The risk of being judged by partaking in the Eucharist (being consumed) as well as being healed is there.”

I think I was making the same point here.

It seems to me that generally – not always, but frequently – those who seem to like to preach endlessly about the wrath of God are themselves angry and wrathful people. Perhaps they are envious that others are engaging in things they secretly wish to do themselves.

You could say it is “righteous” anger, but I don’t think that any Christian with any self-awareness has cause to be angry with other people because they know their own darkness and need for redemption. (Luke 18:9-14).

As with all things, it’s a matter of perspective. Many have recommended the sermon known as “River of Fire“. You might check it out.

By the way, Karen, what do you think we pray to be delivered from in the ode below from the canon of preparation for communion?:

“ODE 9

Eirmos: God the Word, Who came forth from God, and Who by ineffable wisdom came to renew Adam after his grievous fail to corruption through eating, and Who ineffably took flesh from the holy Virgin for our sake, Him do we the faithful with one accord magnify with hymns.

O sweetest Jesus, save us.

I have surpassed, O my Jesus, Manasseh and the publican, the harlot and the prodigal, O compassionate Jesus, and the robber, O my Jesus, through all my shameful and unseemly deeds, O Jesus; but do Thou forestall me, O my Jesus, and save me.

O sweetest Jesus, save us.

By my passions, O my Jesus, have I, the wretched one, surpassed all those from Adam who have sinned both before the Law and in the Law, O Jesus, and after the Law and Grace, O my Jesus. but by Thy judgments save me, O my Jesus.

O sweetest Jesus, save us.

May I not be parted from Thine ineffable glory, my Jesus, nor may the portion on the left fall to me, O sweetest Jesus; but set me on the right hand with Thy sheep and give me rest, O Christ my Jesus, since Thou art compassionate.

O sweetest Jesus, save us.

O Theotokos, who didst carry Jesus, O only unwedded Virgin Mary who knewest not wedlock, O pure one invoke Him, thy Son and Creator, to be gracious unto us that we who have recourse to thee may be delivered from temptations and perils, and from the fire that is to come.”

Sounds like we’re praying to be delivered from sin and the consequent wrath of God, wouldn’t you say? Yes, I know, it’s just cutting and pasting and cutting and pasting . . .

“Though I’m sure it has been obvious for quite some time on this thread, using a cut and paste approach of citing biblical passages that use the language you seek to defend as part of the fullness of the Tradition to prove a point just doesn’t pass muster with me.”

That’s ok. I’ve never suggested that you have to be persuaded by anything I’ve written. Usually, people hear those things that reinforce their preconceived notions and dismiss the rest.

“It isn’t a given, in our modern age and culture, that even those raised Orthodox will readily properly understand that language in its own context, still less those coming into the Church with baggage from the western theological traditions that have in varying degrees removed the biblical language of salvation and judgment, etc., from their rightful context in the fullness of the Tradition.”

No one can quote Tradition in context. You would have to quote it all and that would take too long. When I list a chain of quotations, my purpose is not to prooftext this or that point. Usually my purpose is to show how something suggested cannot stand up to the biblical narrative. For example, when you only consider passages where Christ states things like, “Turn the other cheek” and “Love your enemies”, one could, on the basis of these passages only, project a pacifistic ethic upon Him. I don’t quote contrary passages to project a militant or violent ethic. I quote them to show that projecting a pacifistic ethic renders scripture repugnant to scripture. This is not prooftexting but rather drowning bad ideas in reality.

Scott, of course, we are completely agreed on the place of discipline as a necessary expression of real love. I think the issue here is not diminishment of the genuinely biblical meaning of God’s wrath and the fear of the Lord, but disentangling them from modern misconceptions and theologies that alienate the people Christ came to save from God. I believe it is in keeping with the Tradition and the Fathers to seek new ways to express the same biblical truths in view of present heresies, ways that rescue biblical language from being held hostage to human ideologies, conceptions and philosophical frameworks in which it does not rightfully belong. It is not outside the Tradition, to borrow terminology from pagan philosophy and culture and reframe it within the Tradition to more effectively communicate that Tradition. One modern approach that I think has done this fairly well at least in its application on the personal and relational plane is the language of biblical “boundaries” dealing with personal responsibility and self-control. Though the literature on this subject with which I am familiar is primarily put out by Evangelicals, it has a lot to commend it. There are doubtless other examples.

Though I’m sure it has been obvious for quite some time on this thread, using a cut and paste approach of citing biblical passages that use the language you seek to defend as part of the fullness of the Tradition to prove a point just doesn’t pass muster with me. It isn’t a given, in our modern age and culture, that even those raised Orthodox will readily properly understand that language in its own context, still less those coming into the Church with baggage from the western theological traditions that have in varying degrees removed the biblical language of salvation and judgment, etc., from their rightful context in the fullness of the Tradition. Even in just considering the prayers in my Orthodox prayer book and those in the Liturgy of the Church, this wrathful imagery and language of the fear of God isn’t very prominent. My morning prayer reads “I thank You, O most Holy Trinity, that in your goodness and long-suffering, You were *not* angry with me in my negligence and sinfulness, neither have you destroyed me in my transgressions. . . ” This is not to say that the real possibility and the risk of incurring God’s righteous judgment is not also and at the same time everywhere in view in those prayers. The risk of being judged by partaking in the Eucharist (being consumed) as well as being healed is there. Even so, that the difference between being healed and being consumed is clearly in *us*, not in the actual nature of that in which we partake (Christ’s Body and Blood) is very clear and fits in with the imagery and understanding of St. Isaac the Syrian about the origin of the suffering of the unrighteous. And still, the focus in those prayers is overwhelmingly on God’s unspeakable goodness, forgiveness, generosity, and mercy. I, for one, am tremendously grateful for that reality, and I’m sure you are as well. God is no doormat, no, but neither is He (passionately and capriciously) “angry,” nor does He dispense the kind of (“vengeful” in the human sense, and punitive for its own sake) “judgment” that most without a considerable amount of Orthodox formation would associate with that language today.

Eliot,

I have no idea what you meant by the above. If His words are so simple that a little child could understand them, then why all the Christological controversies of the first millenium? He Himself chided His own apostles for being thick and not taking His meaning.

I don’t know what “wasting yourself . . .” means either. I was merely distinguishing the proposition that Christ came so that all men might be saved from the proposition that Christ came and thus all men shall be saved. The first is Orthodox, the second is not.

Christ came (and died and resurrected) to teach mankind the way of salvation. His words were so plain that even a little child can understand them; they are accessible to all … unlike those fantastic theories understood by extremely few people.

Your birth, O Christ our God, dawned the light of knowledge upon the earth. For by Your birth those who adored stars, were taught by a star, to worship You, the Sun of Justice and to know You, Orient from on High. O Lord, glory to You.

“Christ died for the entire human race, not just those who believe.”

If by this you mean that Christ “opened the door”, so to speak, to salvation for all those who decide to pass through (working out their salvation “with fear and trembling”, so to speak), then I would agree with you. If you literally mean that Christ died for the sins of all, regardless of their reaction to this fact, such that all the sins are forgiven from the time of the Crucifixion/Resurrection and thus all will be admitted to paradise (such that not only rain, but salvation itself come upon the just and unjust alike), then I would suggest that it makes perfect sense considering your view (or myopia rather) reagarding God’s wrath, and it fits in with not only Marcion but Origen as well; however, that is not Orthodox Christianity.

“What a prevaricator of truth is such a god! What a dissembler with his own decision! Afraid to condemn what he really condemns, afraid to hate what he does not love, permitting that to be done which he does not allow, choosing to indicate what he dislikes rather than deeply examine it! This will turn out an imaginary goodness, a phantom of discipline, perfunctory in duty, careless in sin. Listen, ye sinners; and ye who have not yet come to this, hear, that you may attain to such a pass! A better god has been discovered, who never takes offense, is never angry, never inflicts punishment, who has prepared no fire in hell, no gnashing of teeth in the outer darkness! He is purely and simply good. He indeed forbids all delinquency, but only in word. He is in you, if you are willing to pay him homage, for the sake of appearances, that you may seem to honour God; for your fear he does not want. And so satisfied are the Marcionites with such pretences, that they have no fear of their god at all.” – Tertullian, “Against Marcion” 1.27

Also, we should not overplay the situation regarding the contrast between sin and death in the Old Testament as opposed to the New. The Israelites believed in an afterlife, whether we call that Sheol or Hades. You can see this in the story of Saul conjuring the ghost of Samuel from the dead (against God’s wishes). The Pharisees of Christ’s time already believed in a resurrection from the dead. The Saduccees did not however and Paul used this to raise contention between them at times. So the contrast between the Old and New Testament views on this subject are not black and white. In Christ’s time, there were already Jews who believed, based on Old Testament scripture, that they would be resurrected into the “world to come”.

Karen,

Here’s the thing though: As Orthodox Christians, we claim that Orthodoxy contains the fulness of Christian truth. The fact of God’s existence and that He gives us moral direction also means that there are consequences for bad behavior. If this were not so, He wouldn’t really love us. Is a parent really showing a child love by indulging their every impulse or by establishing clear (and sometimes severe) consequences for bad or atrocious behavior. Which type of parenting results in a well adjusted responsible adult?

The fear of the Lord and His wrath is a prominent theme of scripture. Neglecting it because we have some mental block against it is simply to diminish the “fulness” of Orthodoxy. By all means handle the subject with care, but do not misrepresent that fact that God is no doormat.

Yep,

What I meant to say is what I did say. It is true that Christ died for the sins of all humanity. It is also true that those who do not have faith in him still subjectively feel the sting of death and it affects everything they do.

Also, your remarks regarding some correspondence that you see between the Old Israel and the New necessarily implying that the New Israel is a political entity is unfounded. There are states where Christians are in the majority and some where, either de jure or defacto, Christianity is the established religion. In any of these states, politics, including the decision of when and how to go to war, would be informed by what Christians have done in the past snd what the Old Israel did as well. So this postulate of yours that what I’m saying would necessitate a supranational Christian political entity is perhaps what you would like me to mean, but nothing more.

“How else would your claim that violence under the rubric of the God of Abraham is justified but under the god of Mohammed it is not, make any real sense?”

Because, Fr. Johannes, I believe that this whole religion business has an objective reality behind it while you often write as though you do not.

There is this vicious circle in which the souls of many get tangled: the circle of confusion. For some “reasons”, these persons do not want to listen to the Priests of the Church. Hence, by not listening to the Orthodox teachings and their advice on how to lead a life in God, they damage their mind with their own thoughts. This causes them to get deeper and deeper into a sinful life, as a result of their disobedience. Hence, man’s mind grows darker before the Truth and takes his errancy for the right thing.

Some do wake up and realize that they have lived in error. The enemy – to whom they have listened by deception – does not want to lose his grasp on them and starts presenting them people’s faults and shortcomings, as well as those of the legal servants of the Church, whilst obscuring their gifts and grace. And this is how he leads them on, to build their own “faith”, which ignores the mystery of repentance – exclusively and validly administered by priests and bishops, regardless of their human shortcomings.

Scott, here is one last observation for what it’s worth (add about $2.00 to it and it will get you a cup of coffee–but not at Starbucks!). I am responding to your statement here:

“It may be necessary to handle the subject with care, especially in the pastoral setting. But this is not a pastoral setting. We are discussing theology at arms length, not in confession or counseling. I do not see the danger of exploring these ideas here and why the concept is so painful, in the abstract, to these priests. It is as if they do not want to be bothered by a reality that is not only mentioned quite often in the Old Testament but is dealt with prominently in places in the New Testament as well.”

Fr. Stephen and Fr. Johannes are pastors and likely come to every issue with the hearts of pastors and hours in the Confessional dealing with the hearts of their parishioners. They may very well have their finger on the pulse of something you as a layman are insensitive to.

I’m more familiar with Fr. Stephen’s blog and have followed it and his interactions in the comments with various people for a few years now. He does not purport to be offering any kind of systematic theology nor does he engage in debate for its own sake. He offers devotional reflections on the part of the Tradition that is within the reach of his own admittedly limited experience. They are aimed appropriately, istm, at encouraging certain others (those whom God directs his way, perhaps?) toward communion with God and to cultivate the virtues. Judging from the popularity of his blog, the number of people who become Orthodox and attribute that in no small part to his witness, and the rather diverse group of readers reflected in comments, istm, he has touched on a nerve in more than one religious subculture and is an agent of healing for many. For me, his reflections have been more effective at pointing me back to what is truly important and opening my heart to God in a way that is similar to the homilies where I worship. It is pastoral direction from afar, perhaps, but it is pastoral direction, not mere theological “discussion.” On the other hand, blog forums “discussing theologies at arm’s length” are often just a distraction from what is spiritually real. I think perhaps even this type of discussion (it has its place) is one more profitably engaged in, in one’s circle of Christian friends (where our heart and personal context can be known a little and our comments and questions thus hopefully better understood), in a seminary or adult religious ed. classroom, and with one’s pastor.

Quite possible I’m sure, but creating false substitutes is also a danger of overreacting to the abuse of the meaning of God’s love.