The Christology of Essential Orthodox Christian Beliefs: A Critique

A very brief foreword.

I was once told by a professional editor that a foreword is a word you say before you get started and it does not necessarily need to relate directly to the text. So before I get started I have a word to say: when a critique is written the purpose should not be to criticize or strike out at an organization or person but rather to protect the faithful. And so, this is my motivation.

When I caught sight of the article introducing “Essential Orthodox Christian Beliefs” I rejoiced and thought it was something I could make use of. The website states an aim was, “to bring together interested pastors, teachers, and scholars from across the Orthodox Church in America and produce a presentation of the Orthodox Faith that would emphasize developing an Orthodox Christian worldview.” I admire their zeal and the immense work they produced but, unfortunately, it appears that in some places they may have flawed in always presenting the Orthodox understanding to the world. I believe what happens at times in modern catechetical works is an attempt to present the truths of the faith in a way that is interesting or appealing to contemporary man. Often this results in a diluted or misrepresentation of “These Truths We Hold”.1

Let us move on to the critique. It is the section “Jesus” in Chapter 3 God, Jesus, and the Christian Life that we will now reflect on. This will be in two parts. First a reply will be made to the comment “an angry God indeed!” (Essential Orthodox Christian Beliefs, p. 41) This was the concluding remark in a paragraph which begins with the words, “Christ’s anger”. I will introduce the second part, which will come in the next post, by quoting a letter I received in response to a Christological question: We do not know of the “man Jesus”, only the God-man Christ.

Now to the “anger of God”. How do we explain this? We go to the saints. Among the writings of St. John Cassian his Book VIII within the Institutes of the Cenobia is called “Of the Spirit of Anger”. The heading in the second chapter reads: “Of those who say that anger is not injurious, if we are angry with those who do wrong, since God Himself is said to be angry”. So he explains:

We have heard some people trying to excuse this most pernicious disease of the soul, in such a way as to endeavour to extenuate it by a rather shocking way of interpreting Scripture: as they say that it is not injurious if we are angry with the brethren who do wrong, since, say they, God Himself is said to rage and to be angry with those who either will not know Him, or, knowing Him, spurn Him, as here “And the anger of the Lord was kindled against His people;”(Psa. 105:38) or where the prophet prays and says, “O Lord, rebuke me not in thine anger, neither chasten me in thy displeasure;”(Psa.6:1) not understanding that, while they want to open to men an excuse for a most pestilent sin, they are ascribing to the Divine Infinity and Fountain of all purity a taint of human passion….For if when these things are said of God they are to be understood literally in a material gross signification, then also He sleeps, as it is said, “Arise, wherefore sleepest thou, O Lord?” (Psa. 33.23) though it is elsewhere said of Him: “Behold he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.” (Psa. 120:4) And He stands and sits, since He says, “Heaven is my seat, and earth the footstool for my feet” (Isa. 66:1). (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Volumes 11, p.258)

And so as without horrible profanity these things cannot be understood literally of Him who is declared by the authority of Holy Scripture to be invisible, ineffable, incomprehensible, inestimable, simple, and uncompounded, so neither can the passion of anger and wrath be attributed to that unchangeable nature without fearful blasphemy…. when we read of the anger or fury of the Lord, we should take it not anthropopathos; i.e., according to an unworthy meaning of human passion, but in a sense worthy of God, who is free from all passion; so that by this we should understand that He is the judge and avenger of all the unjust things which are done in this world; and by reason of these terms and their meaning we should dread Him as the terrible rewarder of our deeds, and fear to do anything against His will. (ibid. pp. 258-9)

In a concluding remark on this subject St. John affirms that such expressions should be seen as metaphors:
It would be tedious and outside the scope of the present work were we to explain all the things which are spoken metaphorically of God in the Holy Scripture, with human figures. (ibid. 259)

Based upon the ascetic tradition of our Church I would like to offer some additional comments:
How should we understand the supposed “angry” actions of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Who is both God and man? In becoming man our Lord Jesus Christ assumed not only our flesh but also a human soul. This is mentioned a number of times in the Hymnology of the Church. For instance, in the Vespers service this past Saturday evening (Tone 8) we sang: “We glorify Christ Who rose from the dead; for having assumed a soul and body, He cut the passions off from both.” (The Octoechos Volume IV, trans. Reader Isaac E. Lamberstein, p. 77) In The Philokalia the three aspects or powers of the soul are defined as the intellectual, the appetitive or desiring, and the incensive aspects. The incensive aspect “often manifests itself as wrath or anger, but [which] can more generally be defined as the force provoking vehement feelings”. (The Philokalia Volume One, p.358) However, if Christ God, Who cut off the passions of soul and body, uses this incensive force, does this mean that He was angry as we experience and understand it? That the answer is no, should be obvious to us. Let us take the example of the cleansing of the Temple. The first three evangelists describe the account without commenting on this action. It is only St. John who gives an explanation of this event in which we see Christ using physical force. St. John writes: “And his disciples remembered that it was written, ‘The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up’”[Ps. 68:9]. (John 2:17)

To further illustrate my point I shall turn to an event in the life of St. Paisius Velichkovsky:

Once, one of the brethren said to the starets, “Father, my thoughts tell me that you bear hatred toward me since you often rebuke me angrily in the brethren’s presence.” The starets answered, “My beloved brother, to become angry and irritated is alien to the life of the Gospel. If the divine Gospel commands us both to love our enemies and do good to them, then how can I possibly hate my spiritual children? [No, it is impossible!] (1) And if I rebuke you angrily, then let God give you such anger as well. I force myself to appear angered, although through God’s grace I never have anger or hate.” The brother fell to the starets’ feet with tears, asking for forgiveness. The starets would often tell the brethren, “I do not wish for anyone of you to fear me as a stern ruler, but for all of you to love me as a father, just as I love you as my spiritual children.” (Starets Paisii Velichkovskii, Sergii Chetverikov, trans. Vasily Lickwar and Alexander J. Lisenko, Nordland Publishing Company 1980, pp.154-5)

If this was so with a saint, then how much more is it true for our Lord Jesus Christ? Therefore, let us hold fast to what has been handed down and “contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1:3)
1. I specifically used these words as it is the title of a very excellent catechism book for us in America which was done by a monk of St. Tikhon’s Monastery and is published there.