Primitive frisson (or, more nut and gristle)

Just a small appendix to dangle from the end of the last post -- something on the order of what is called, amusingly, a "thought experiment":

Take down all your textbooks on ethics, Orthodox or otherwise.

Review each one. If your author was nice, he provided you with an index for your ease.

Look specifically for references to the following Scripture texts. See if there are any (probably not).

Here are some odd Scripture texts that describe a neglected dimension to our thoughts on ethics in general, and Christian morality in particular:

1 Corinthians 11.10: That is why a woman ought to have a veil [of authority] on her head, because of the angels. 

1 Timothy 5.21: In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without favor, doing nothing from partiality.

Hebrews 1.14: Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?

1 Peter 5.8: Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour.

James 4.7: Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.

These are a few Apostolic references that are part of what I like to call the "metaphysical predicate of Orthodox ethics." In this predicate -- call it "worldview" if you must -- our thoughts, passions and actions are freely chosen and powerfully influenced within a culture that is much higher, wider and deeper than our immediate physical experience.

Many have attempted to soften the insult of these Apostolic references. In the name of politeness, these references are usually allegorized: they are fixed in a Platonic schematic through some Origenistic literary apparatus. More likely today, they are processed through the mill of John Howard Yoder and Walter Wink: they are rendered into sociological structures. 

The other extreme is even less feasible. On one hand you have pentecostalists finding and blaming demons for anything. On another hand, you have hyper-earnest priests (even) warning their Sunday School children about demons swinging on the chandelier in the nave.

No. Man is always a free moral agent, no matter how weak he would like to make himself to be. I think, without getting too far off the subject, that all forms of anthropological determinism stem from shyness, and a craven avoidance of chores.

So I don't see dark furry creatures like some of the spiritual writers did, and I do not expect to. 

Neither do I try to amputate hypostasis from the angel or the demon, as I'm pretty sure Yoder and Wink have set out to do (in the name of politeness). For it is rude and messy to have a world where spiritual creatures are bigger and independent of the mind of man. It would be much better philosophically if there were only God and physical creation -- but that is certainly not the case with the Apostles and all Holy Tradition.

My point is this: ever since we have isolated Orthodox Ethics as a field of study, we have neglected the wider context of the bodiless realm -- especially as the powers impinge upon our coherence with God's Will. Setting aside the problem of Paul's view of women: look at his rationale, by itself: because of the angels (1 Corinthians 11.10).

Here is another example: in the Gospels and in some of the epistles (especially James), there is a seemingly disproportionate concern about "verbal sin," especially swearing (and even vulgarity). Why so much interest in mere speech? Especially when compared to egregious actions like adultery and swindling?

I suggest that this concern about language makes sense, ethically, only when ethics is re-contextualized in a wider, bodiless world.

It goes without saying that the existentialist argot of some contemporary modern Orthodox ethicists is not up to the task in this new context.

Perhaps they are afraid, or spooked. After all, what do you do with this line from the Lord Himself?

Luke 11.24-26: When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places seeking rest; and finding none he says, 'I will return to my house from which I came.' And when he comes he finds it swept and put in order. Then he goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first.

Comments

[FrGregACCA]

This whole question, of course, begs attention. "Hostage to the Devil", for example, should be required seminary reading.

That said, I Corinthians 11:10 has been the subject of all kinds of more-or-less contemporary speculation. Are you aware of any patristic commentary on this passage?

[Fr. Jonathan]

Only this so far, Fr. Greg. And though I'm ashamed to admit it, I think this patristic commentary is unsatisfactory. It is from St. John Chrysostom's rather frequent use of the rhetorical dialogue, in his Homilies on 1 Corinthians:

"For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head.”
“For this cause:” what cause, tell me? “For all these which have been mentioned,” says he; or rather not for these only, but also “because of the angels.” “For although thou despise your husband,” says he, “yet reverence the angels.”
It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. For it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of the governed is to abide in his obedience.
Again: the man is not compelled to do this; for he is the image of his Lord: but the woman is; and that reasonably. Consider then the excess of the transgression when being honored with so high a prerogative, you put yourself to shame, seizing the woman's dress. And you do the same as if having received a diadem, you should cast the diadem from your head, and instead of it take a slave's garment.

[David]

Tertullian wrote a whole treatise on it, though his position might not be helpful. In the same work he is fairly Montanist. :)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0403.htm

[Fr. Jonathan]

Thank you David. Am I correct here in reading Tertullian that the veil is to prevent demonic lust?

If I read this rightly, I'd still prefer the idea, to which I think St. Paul refers, of angels as "executives of providence" that we see in Romans 8, and perhaps in the Apocalypse.

[David]

Yep. He's very direct and repetitive about it. He goes so far as to say the heathen/pagan women will actually sit in judgment over the Christian woman/virgin because even they (out of what you might call practical sense) realize they should cover themselves up for the sake of being able to fall in love with a man first and then allow the man of their choice to be the only one who falls in love with them.

I suppose this would be in today's terms saying that the evolutionary biologists will sit in condemnation of Christians because even they know what selective controls benefit female reproductive goals. Nature knows enough to hide females, but human females in discord with nature mis-use their power for the end of their own indulgence, at the expense of their progeny. It is biologically disordered.

Women have the power to make men (and women) look at them. They can use that power for it's purpose (and receive glory due them for their virtue) or they can short-cut it an indulge themselves to the ruin of themselves and all.

[David]

My apologies for my typos.

[Anna]

If Christian women are to become subjugated to men, then it follows that Orthodox Christian men must strive to become worthy of that kind of subjugation.

[Fr. Jonathan Tobias]

Subjugation was not at all the point. No one deserves subjugation. No man is worthy of the subjugation of anyone else to him.

Heavens, I thought if anything was clear in what I have written it would be that.

Am I worthy? At all? Can I even subject myself to myself?

Now there is a question more pertinent to anyone who really cares about liberation.

Sent from my iPhone

[David]

My wife and I are unfortunately subjected mostly to our passions, but we are working on it.

[Anna]

Father,

I am still a bit unclear on the relationship between women being under authority and the larger context of angels and demons being able to influence us.

[Fr. Jonathan]

Anna, the issue is whether we should all be under authority, not only women. The veil in St. Paul's intriguing passage is a sign of accepting authority, I think -- but everyone is under (or should be under) certain signs. At least this is my limited understanding.

Now as to its relationship: my main point in these two articles was about the neglect of this very relationship between our ethical decisions and the larger context -- not only of angels and demons and their influences, but of the much larger and more terrible bodiless world.

Apparently, there needs to be a profound sense of caution about these powers -- a caution that is, I daresay, completely missing in the conversation today.

I do not want to be mistaken for a fundamentalist zealot who is almost comically paranoid about demons, or their caricatures. I defend these fundamentalists against their more sophisticated catcallers -- but I am not one of them. That is why I reacted to the word "subjugation" -- a word that has no place in home or church, ever, simply because the Holy Trinity gives no meaning to any such term: "Now I call you friends," our Lord said.

That is a lot of sentences for a non-answer, Anna. Most of what I said here is longhand for "je ne sais pas."

[David]

That sounds like a punt, Father. Unusual for you.

[Abbas Clement]

"...there is a seemingly disproportionate concern about "verbal sin," especially swearing (and even vulgarity). Why so much interest in mere speech? Especially when compared to egregious actions like adultery and swindling?

I suggest that this concern about language makes sense, ethically, only when ethics is re-contextualized in a wider, bodiless world."

Father, Thank You.
I have often been troubled by the apparent lack of concern over the usage of common profanity by some Christians. I have heard some of them go so far as to say that God does not care whether or not we use such profanity.

I am most certainly not a "fundie" but I do believe the words we use matter. If we truly believe that not ony our actions but our thoughts have consequences (as the Scriptures and the Fathers teach), how can we claim our use of common expletives has no impact on those who hear us? And not just other people, but the heavenly powers and God Himself? Our witness and testimony is utterly slandered when blessing and cursing roll off the same tongue.

[Opimemup]

I'm sure the best for you china designer for more detail