On Christian and Pagan Literature: Caution?

[Justin Kissel]

As I was reading Saint Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography by John McGuckin last night I came across a very interesting statement:

The whole work [ie. Oration 30] is based upon exegetical premises rather than on logical syllogisms. He gives an extensive answer to the central Arian proof text of Proverbs 8:22, "The Lord made me (Wisdom) as the beginning of his works." Gregory raises an interesting range of exegetical questions. Should not the reader wonder about the thological value of any theological wisdom in Solomon because of his later lapse into idolatry, something which demonstrates he was not fully a man of God? Gregory decides to give him the benefit of the doubt, but by this strategic question he has moved the prooftext away from commanding any central position in Christian theological tradition. - John McGuckin, Saint Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography, (Saint Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2001), p. 298

The actual words of Saint Gregory are:

Shall we bring an accusation against Solomon, or reject his former words because of his fall later in life? Shall we say that the words are those of Wisdom herself, as it were of Knowledge and the Creator-word, in accordance with which all things were made? For Scripture often personifies many even lifeless objects; as for instance, "The Sea said" so and so; and, "The Depth saith, It is not in me;" and "The Heavens declare the glory of God;" and again a command is given to the Sword; and the Mountains and Hills are asked the reason of their skipping. We do not allege any of these, though some of our predecessors used them as powerful arguments.

This quote brings to mind a number of interesting subjects, most of which are very relevant to us in our daily lives (assuming that we are reading spiritual books, the fathers, the scriptures, etc.). First, what do we make of those who have taught, but then fallen later in life? What of the Tertullian's of the world? Some things in Tertullian (even before his fall) have been approached with caution, but should we look upon everything of his, even that which was from before his fall, with caution?

And regarding Solomon, who were these predecessors who said that solomon was to be used with caution because he failed later in life? I had often though, as I read through all of the OT wisdom literature (e.g., Proverbs, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon) that discernment was needed to pick out the good from the bad. Just like with the Mosaic law, not everything that was applicable then is applicable now. There was a decidedly more earthy tone to the advice and wisdom as seen in the Wisdom Literature in the OT. Certainly the wisdom always had God in mind, and especially those written later (Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon) had a more "spiritual" tone to them (e.g., less worried about business transactions and raising children, more worried about eternal life and immortality), but all of it was written before Christ--all of it was written before the ultimate revelation of wisdom given to the Apostles. Of course, in the Greek tradition we see even those OT saints as having understood God (insofar as they could, or any human could), but nonetheless, we can't just take most of what is written in the OT and interpret it literally as we might with what we find in the epistles of Paul.

Another point is, how does this mesh with Saint Basil's teaching that Greek literature could be a stepping stone for intellectual pursuits? What should be our position in the modern age? Should we be conservative and only allow our children to read "safe" works? Or should we allow them to read whatever they happen to come across that is of literary value, explaining to them and teaching them how to seperate the good from the bad. People slam Harry Potter today, but Saint Basil commended reading Greek Myth in his own day (and the pagans certainly considered Greek myth more "real" than anyone does Harry Potter today).

So what say all of you?

[Clifton]

To me, the answer seems clear, if not necessarily clear enough.

Solomon did indeed fall away, per the canonical revelation. Yet his works have been included in the Scriptures.

Origen (jokingly referred to in my Protestant Bible college days as the Origin of all heresies) and his writings are accepted discriminately: some are rejected, but not everything as a whole.

The Church Fathers, especially in the fourth century, utilized important terminolgy from pagan philosophers (homoousias, anyone?) to fight heresy. Indeed, Plato's Timaeus was often used as an apologetic device--to the great consternation, I'm sure of Plato.

So it does not seem to me that the writings of the lapsed or the pagan need be rejected per se. It takes discernment.

But that is where, at least in terms of specific application, it becomes less clear. Each of us has his or her own weaknesses and inclinations, and these various writings we may encounter may very well incite us to sin and doubt. I would think one should not read material that does not have the clear endorsement of the Church without close consultation with one's spiritual father. Indeed, as I understand, even some of the Church's most glorious writings are not to be read by everyone without counsel.

Anywho, that's my tuppence (from a not-yet-Orthodox/Orthodox wannabe).

[Justin Kissel]

CDHealy

I think I would agree with much, if not all, of what you said.

Solomon did indeed fall away, per the canonical revelation. Yet his works have been included in the Scriptures.

I guess one point that needs to be raised, then, is that not even scripture can be taken in a woodenly literal way, or uncritically applied "just 'cause Scripture says it". After all, Job's friends are included in Scripture, as are the mockings of unbelievers (cf Wis. 2), but we certainly wouldn't want to base our theology on their opinions!

Origen (jokingly referred to in my Protestant Bible college days as the Origin of all heresies) and his writings are accepted discriminately: some are rejected, but not everything as a whole. The Church Fathers, especially in the fourth century, utilized important terminolgy from pagan philosophers (homoousias, anyone?) to fight heresy. Indeed, Plato's Timaeus was often used as an apologetic device--to the great consternation, I'm sure of Plato.

The latter, I think, is especially important (or perhaps especially relevant). I sometimes wonder if some people actually have read the fathers, because they go off condemning the reading of all "non-Orthodox" books. "We have the fullness of tradition!" they say, "why would we need non-Orthodox books?" Of course, the truth is, from Saint Paul forward, almost everyone used sources from outside of the revelation to the Jews and Christians. Indeed, in starting this thread, one patristic document I had in mind was the Address to Young Men on the Right Use of Greek Literature by Saint Basil the Great, in which he says things like: "Into the life eternal the Holy Scriptures lead us, which teach us through divine words. But so long as our immaturity forbids our understanding their deep thought, we exercise our spiritual perceptions upon profane writings, which are not altogether different, and in which we perceive the truth as it were in shadows and in mirrors."

But that is where, at least in terms of specific application, it becomes less clear. Each of us has his or her own weaknesses and inclinations, and these various writings we may encounter may very well incite us to sin and doubt. I would think one should not read material that does not have the clear endorsement of the Church without close consultation with one's spiritual father. Indeed, as I understand, even some of the Church's most glorious writings are not to be read by everyone without counsel.

This is true, though it's somewhat of a hard saying for we here in America, who are use to doing what we want and thinking of ourselves ready to handle anything. It's perhaps on of the west's crosses--learning that it doesn't know as much as it thinks it does, and learning that it's not quite as mature as it fancies itself, and that we need help with some tasks.

Justin

[rebecca]

I have very little time to read, especially during the school year. I figure that I should use the limited time I have to read Orthodox books.

I'd have nothing against reading mythology, modern or historical literature, etc. (provided it's not morally offensive) I wouldn't want to read too much heavy philosophy, although one should have at least a basic understanding of some of the ideologies we're up against in society (especially in academic circles).

Concerning passionate, worldly, atheistic literature: even if one reads it with a grain of salt, all the ideas still kind of have a way of sinking into the mind, and one could become more accustomed (or even a little receptive) to them, which could begin to eat away at the Orthodox mindset.

Rebecca

[Justin Kissel]

Wise words, physicsgirl Or maybe I just think they're wise because I agree with them

[rebecca]

Thanks! You also have to be careful what "scientific" stuff you read. Did anyone read that Reader's Digest article about near death experiences? Biologists are willing to come up with the stupidest, least scientific, medieval explanations for NDE's, in a desparate attempt to deny the existence of God and the soul.

They cited examples of people whose brains temporarily completely ceased to function. These people left their bodies and were able to observe the O.R. What did the scientists theorize? They said, "Hey, maybe consciousness resides not just in the brain, but in the body as a whole." In other words, if your brain is dead, but cells in other body parts are still alive, they can send visual and audio signals once the brain wakes up...Come on!

Rebecca

[Logos]

Thanks! You also have to be careful what "scientific" stuff you read. Did anyone read that Reader's Digest article about near death experiences? Biologists are willing to come up with the stupidest, least scientific, medieval explanations for NDE's, in a desparate attempt to deny the existence of God and the soul.

They cited examples of people whose brains temporarily completely ceased to function. These people left their bodies and were able to observe the O.R. What did the scientists theorize? They said, "Hey, maybe consciousness resides not just in the brain, but in the body as a whole." In other words, if your brain is dead, but cells in other body parts are still alive, they can send visual and audio signals once the brain wakes up...Come on!

Rebecca

I agree with you Rebecca, that is a stupid explanantion. It is not just biologists who bend over in a desperate attempt to deny the existence of God, but other scientists as well such as physicists and astronomers like Carl Sagan.