Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick: Greetings, giant-killers, dragon-slayers. You are listening to The Lord of Spirits podcast. My co-host, Fr. Stephen De Young, is with me from Lafayette, Louisiana, and I am Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick in Emmaus, Pennsylvania—and we're not live! We're not live, so there's no way you're listening to this live.

Fr. Stephen De Young: [Sad trombone]

Fr. Andrew: Yeah, you can hear Fr. Stephen making undead sounds in the background there. So you can't call…

Fr. Stephen: No, that was the sad horn.

Fr. Andrew: Oh! [Laughter] I mean, undead people—are they people?—can play sad horns, too. Yeah, this is a pre-recorded, all-Speakpipe-alooza episode where we're just going to be taking your pre-recorded messages and playing them and responding to them from the hip. Now, I've listened to all of these, but Fr. Stephen has not, so it'll be truly from the hip, so it'll almost be like taking live calls.

Fr. Stephen: I would never prepare like that.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah. [Laughter] But anyway, we will be back—

Fr. Stephen: I am, as you're listening to this, if you're listening to this quasi-live, during the first airing— I am currently probably off harassing a popular internet apologist.

Fr. Andrew: Yes! Live! In person, too, right? Like, not on the internet.

Fr. Stephen: Yes, yes. Oh, no! I do most of my trolling in person.

Fr. Andrew: Amen. And, I mean, you present the appearance of a troll, like an actual troll.

Fr. Stephen: Yep. Cave troll.

Fr. Andrew: Like under-the-bridge type troll.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah.

Fr. Andrew: Exactly. But we will be back live, God willing, in our next episode, which should air during Bright Week, so stay tuned for that. I don't really have anything to say in introduction because we just— It's just a bunch of different topics. So let's go to the videotape! So this first one comes—

Fr. Stephen: Audio, technically.

Fr. Andrew: Audiotape. I know, I know, but that's not the quote, right?

Fr. Stephen: You're going to have people searching YouTube now. They're going to be like: "Wait, do they have video now?"

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] Well, we are on YouTube but not— There's nothing to see.

Fr. Stephen: Move along. Nothing to see here.

Fr. Andrew: Exactly. All right. Our first one is from Erin, who has a question about the Tower of Babel.

Erin: So my question is about the third fall, the third angelic fall. Obviously, the first fall the devil fell through envy. That's pretty easy to kind of understand. And the second fall with the Watchers, that's also parseable; I can kind of draw a sort of clear narrative of what the Watchers were told to do and then what they did and how they fell into error. In the third fall, having to do with the angels that fell at the Tower of Babel, I find that really interesting, really curious, but the thing about it that I find hard to understand is how they fell into error. I guess I don't understand exactly what caused them to do the opposite of what their job was, as compared to the other two.

And then, sort of as a corollary to this, a second part is since they fell at that point in time, why don't angels fall in that way now? If it's simply that they were given a job and then they failed to do that job, what causes them to not fall now? Thank you very much! Love the show! Bye!

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] That almost sounded like, you know: "Please leave a message after the beep. Bye!" Yeah, so this is… I just realized probably most of my responses begin with "Yeah, so…" [Laughter] Anyway.

Fr. Stephen: It's all right. You could start a column with that title.

Fr. Andrew: That's an idea—or a YouTube channel!

Fr. Stephen: "Yeah, so…" with Fr. Andrew.

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] And then occasionally once out of the blue I'd have one called "Yeah, so what?"

Fr. Stephen: Yeah.

Fr. Andrew: I mean, this is a permutation on a couple of questions that we get pretty regularly. "How can angels fall? Why don't they fall any more?" Or occasionally we get people ask, "Could my guardian angel fall?" which is a horrifying thing to imagine; I mean, utterly horrifying.

Fr. Stephen: They've been watching Prophecy, the Christopher Walken movie.

Fr. Andrew: Oh, man. Christopher Walken.

Fr. Stephen: Deep cut.

Fr. Andrew: Is he consorting with something?

Fr. Stephen: Do not watch the sequels, people; do not watch the sequels.

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] That's usually true for most things.

Fr. Stephen: Especially horror movies, but every once in a while you get a gem.

Fr. Andrew: So, I mean, with regards to the second part, "Could angels still fall?" St. John of Damascus says, in his passages on angels, that they're prevented from falling any more by the grace of God, so that God is actively making sure that they don't. I don't know. I think that "Why did they fall?"… It's interesting to me because, on the one hand, you could just say, "Well, we don't know what it's like to be an angel," which is kind of the short answer, but on the other hand I don't know—and I wish we had Erin to further interrogate about this question—Why would the first two—?

Fr. Stephen: You don't need to be interrogating listeners. I mean, that...

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] That's true. Why would the first two falls make sense? Like, okay, I can see why they would do that, but not this one where they're being offered worship—which to me is an even greater temptation than, you know, how the other falls are depicted. I don't know. What do you think, Father?

Fr. Stephen: Well, yeah, in terms of that, that's what the devil wanted, as we've talked about.

Fr. Andrew: Right, this is the goal.

Fr. Stephen: As I've said before a few times, you're going to make God not be God any more, and you're going to be God. What's step one? Like… That's not a thing! [Laughter] That's not remotely possible. You're a creature just like the devil is. So when we talk about the devil trying to exalt himself above God and this kind of thing, we're talking about in the hearts of humans. That's his strategy for destroying humans. So what the devil wanted to do, we're saying these that are now demonic powers were essentially offered.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah, this was the goal from the beginning.

Fr. Stephen: They were offered that by humans, by simple humans. I mean, to me that "makes sense" in the same way that the other makes sense. In terms of falling any more, part of it, too, is that we have to get… Remember time. When we say that those three points are "when" those angels fell, what we really mean is that's when their fall entered into the realm of human experience. We're not saying that the devil, let alone God, experiences time the same way we do, and everything was perfectly fine until Genesis 3, and then all of a sudden, out of the blue… It's just that's when this fallen spiritual being presented itself to humanity for the first time.

Fr. Andrew: There's also… Written into the biblical text is this kind of temporal tension. I think about Job, for instance, where it says that the sons of God came before God and Satan was among them. Well, wait— Wasn't he cast out of heaven before? What's he doing there? So there's all kinds of not just time but also space questions going on there.

Fr. Stephen: Right, because all of these analogies: "presenting themselves before the Lord," as though God's in a physical place and they're all physically going there. So these are all ways of speaking that humans can understand in terms of space and time, but that doesn't— It's not absolute. It's not literal in that sense, like woodenly literal in that sense.

Fr. Andrew: All right, well, I hope that helps, Erin. We're going to go on and move to the next question, and this one comes from Simon.

Simon: Good evening, Fathers. My name is Simon from Washington state, and I had a question concerning the mind's ability to conceive of God. Since we know the human mind is incapable of conceiving of that which it has no connection to our lived reality, and yet every human is born with the ability to conceive of God in some way, does this mean that we are born with some sort of inherent seed of knowledge of God? Or are we just born with the right mental configuration to receive knowledge of God when it is given? Essentially what I am really wondering is if a baseline level of divine revelation is universal or if it is personal. Thank you for your answer.

Fr. Andrew: This is a good question. I mean, I think that the Scripture says, "¿Por qué no los dos?" that there's the heavens declaring the glory of God, but also the idea that the law of God is written even in the hearts of the nations, in individual people.

Fr. Stephen: But that's— The Holy Spirit does that, so you've got to get baptized first.

Fr. Andrew: Mm! So you would say that… But, I mean, when St. Paul talks about the Gentiles having the law written— you know, when they do according to the Law, even though they don't have the Law...

Fr. Stephen: He says they're a law unto themselves.

Fr. Andrew: A law unto themselves.

Fr. Stephen: They're a torah unto themselves. He doesn't say it's written in their hearts. They have a conscience, and that functions as their own torah—because "torah" of course means teaching. Basically, he's saying they're their own teacher of virtue.

Fr. Andrew: So is that a revelation from God?

Fr. Stephen: I wouldn't use the term "revelation," no. That's a certain kind of participation in what God is doing in the world. That's not the same. The caller is asking about the conception of God, so he's talking about knowledge of God, and so we need to separate that from— There's ways of knowing. It's like— My answer to that would be that you're born with a nous; you're born with the ability to perceive the spiritual realm and spiritual things. And the nous is intended to perceive God, but we're also born in a fallen, sinful state, meaning our nous is not clear, so we don't see those things clearly. I think that's what St. Paul's getting at in Romans 1 when he talks about how these qualities of God are apparent to those living in the world, but because of sin they misattribute them and end up worshiping creatures rather than the Creator.

Fr. Andrew: Which I would say probably also explains why people can have various kinds of spiritual experiences and not interpret them correctly.

Fr. Stephen: Right. And so part of what happens… Obviously, there's a Rubicon that's crossed—pun somewhat intended—at baptism, but part of sanctification, holiness, continuing to work out salvation is the clarity of the nous being able to perceive those things more and more rightly so that… You know, we have stories of the saints being able to perceive these things about other people and about the world, sort of instantaneously and without mediation, without having to ponder it a long time. [Laughter]

Fr. Andrew: Right, they don't have to sit there and work through it.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, whereas most of us are kind of scratching our heads and going, "I don't know… Should I take the money, or…?" [Laughter] Yeah, so that's where I would go with that, in terms of the knowledge of God. I don't think there's an innate knowledge of God that people are born with.

Fr. Andrew: Okay, but maybe the innate ability to know God.

Fr. Stephen: Right.

Fr. Andrew: Gotcha.

Fr. Stephen: But then a lot of the data they take in that way about God, they then misattribute, if not taught by someone.

Fr. Andrew: Right, and it wouldn't even just be what we might think of as spiritual experiences. It could also be the mundane experience of receiving the good things of the world—food, clothing, shelter, etc.—and not saying, "This is from God." That's one of our basic problems, is that we don't see that it's all from God.

Fr. Stephen: Right. And so there's sort of different forms that takes, like people are a lot less likely to attribute that to Zeus these days, but they're a lot more likely to attribute it to their own efforts or the economy or the nation-state that they live in.

Fr. Andrew: Or some other god.

Fr. Stephen: To give thanks and credit to those things rather than God.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah. All right. We'll go ahead and move on to our next one. This one comes from Christian who has a question about the saints.

Christian: May the peace of Christ be upon you, Fathers. My name is Christian, and I am a Roman Catholic friend from Utah with a question regarding the knowledge of the saints as persons. I have strong devotions to particular saints, and I have tried to make their spirits the guiding spirits in my family's life and my own, over and against demonic spirits, as you have encouraged. In learning about some saints' lives or reading their works, I sometimes think to myself, "I totally understand this fire and intensity that she has in her letters to these people." Other times I pick up personality traits from a saint's life that I don't readily understand. For example, one may quickly be drawn to the intensity of St. John Chrysostom's sermons but not the humor of St. Philip Neri, a 16th-century saint in the Catholic tradition.

Fr. Stephen examined the difference between the experience of an actual person and the concept of that person in earlier episodes. He also said many of the ills of today's world come from the lack of incarnational, real relationships. In light of this, can we truly come to know the saints as actual persons, or do we merely know them as concepts? I have affection for all saints, but some more than others, kind of like Fr. Andrew with his kids. Why is this? Is what I'm describing like a man getting to know a love interest over text messaging for six months and coming to find out she's nothing like what he believed her to be when he finally meets her? Or do the spirits of the saints work in a fundamentally different way than that? Do relics bridge these gaps, or do my questions about personality just come bearing too many modern presuppositions? Thank you, Fathers, and God bless you.

Fr. Andrew: All right. I thought this was a perceptive question.

Fr. Stephen: Are the saints catfishing us?

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] Wow.

Fr. Stephen: That's how I summarize that.

Fr. Andrew: Previously unsaid sentences in human history! So, the thing— I've listened to this question a couple times now as I was prepping for this episode, but the thing that actually just occurred to me, listening to it again, was: There is a concept— Now, this comes from psychology, but I think this is compatible with Orthodox anthropology. There is a concept called limerence—[l-i-m-e-r-e-n-c-e], limerence. Have you heard of this, Father?

Fr. Stephen: No.

Fr. Andrew: Oh.

Fr. Stephen: I've heard of limericks. [Laughter]

Fr. Andrew: Yeah, I don't think they're cognate… Now I want to create a limerick about limerence. We will not go there today.

Fr. Stephen: That checks out. Yeah, that's a thing you would do.

Fr. Andrew: Limerence is when you interact and focus on your concept of a person far more than or sometimes often to the exclusion of the actual person. So a great example— Christian gave the example of a guy getting into a relationship with a girl over text messages and then meeting her. This is a classic kind of example, although text messaging is still an actual interaction, but it leaves so much space to fill in that someone creates a limerent image of somebody, a sort of simulacrum in their minds. This happens a lot in personal relationships, particularly close ones, particularly romantic relationships or friendships. "You're not the person I thought you were." Often a lot of friction in relationships comes when a person does not behave according to the limerent image that we have of them in our heads.

I think that this is another way of describing what a number of the neptic fathers of the monastic tradition mean when they say not to have images of God in our heads when we're praying, because it means then that you're just interacting with who you think God is and not with God. In all these cases, like when you interact with a limerent image, you are trying to limit the freedom of the other person. "This is who I think you are."

Now, on some level we can't escape that. When you have an encounter with someone you already know, you come in with a concept of that person based on your previous experience with them. But it's not all based on your previous experience. A lot of it is based on what you think about them, and what you want them to be. It's kind of a strawmanning of the person. You can't completely escape it; you're going to come in with some of that. The question is how much of that is actual knowledge based on real experience and how much of it is this image you've created in your head.

I think that this does apply to the way that we interact with saints. I don't think that the fact that we have concepts of saints is bad in and of itself, but I think that if we don't interact with them in the way that the Church gives then we're allowing that concept to be— to get in the way. It could be bad. You could— For instance, some people "use" saints for certain purposes, like: "This saint is the patron of this. This saint is the patron of that, and so therefore that's my interaction with them. I'll pull this lever that does this thing," never mind actually venerating them as persons or getting to know their life or anything like that. "They're the saint that's for this." Like: "There's an app for that; there's a saint for that." That is definitely a kind of limerent approach to the saints, absolutely.

Now maybe someone is introduced to saints through that kind of thing: okay, but let's get beyond that. Just like you have a limerent image of your spouse or friends or whatever: okay, but get beyond that. Have some humility. Be ready for them to surprise you, and be okay with that. God certainly acts in surprising ways sometimes, and so do his saints. All humans do. That's my way of parsing through that question.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, I think it's important to remember that the saints whom you come to know in actual experience are the resurrected saints, meaning part of what happens in the resurrection is our purification and our transformation and transfiguration. So when you're dealing with a saint from late antiquity like St. John Chrysostom, the image of St. John Chrysostom—and by that I mean both literally, like the literal icon of St. John Chrysostom, and the image from the writings that are preserved by the Church, which is not all of them—is pretty close to St. John Chrysostom in the resurrection, because the guidance of the Holy Spirit over time through history has been kind of a filter, revealing to us St. John Chrysostom in the resurrection.

But with more recent saints, human history has preserved a lot more of their life, and so is a less reliable guide, meaning modern saints we tend to have somewhat unfiltered. We have in some cases a huge volume of things that they said, not all of which corresponds to their eternal memory, to their resurrected state, some of which— a lot of which, because they're a saint, is gold, but the fact that there's gold there does not mean that there's not also some wood-hay-stubble that needs to get burned away.

Fr. Andrew: Right. I was going to say, and a lot of it gets published, too… [Laughter]

Fr. Stephen: Right, and so there is what is at least not the Orthodox view of authority, which is the idea that because this person is a saint everything they ever said, everything they ever wrote, everything they ever did is directly inspired by God and equally valuable. From an Orthodox perspective, of course, we can't believe that, because that would require every saint to be infallible and perfect, which we don't believe is the case. Those saints, if you went back in time and talked to them, would have been the first ones to tell you they weren't infallible or perfect. So that's not how that works, even with saints. They're saints because there's a lot more gold than the other, but there's still the other.

I've said, talking about St. Paul— Because people ask about St. Paul and say, "Well, hey, if we found, like, the letter to the Laodiceans or something, would we add it to the Bible," and I'm like: No. St. Paul's shopping list was not inspired once he wrote it down. [Laughter] This isn't something that affixes to the person; this is something that remains with the Holy Spirit.

In a certain way, it's— because we have more information about more modern saints, it can be harder to form a relationship with them because the "them," the saint who actually exists now, is the resurrected saint, and there's continuities and discontinuities between them now in the resurrection and them at any given stage during their earthly life, because they're not Christ. With Christ there's 100% continuity, but with us we're purified and exalted, whereas some of that work is done for us over history by the Holy Spirit in our Tradition.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah, and you can— Someone might ask, "Well, how can you sift some of this modern data in an appropriate way?" Number one, it's best just to leave it aside if any of it is a problem. Just leave it aside. You don't have to follow it. It's okay to say, "You know what? I'm just going to go with the rest." But I would just say, the way is to ask, "How does this compare with what has come before, what has been sifted over the centuries by the Church?" And if it seems inconsistent or new or whatever, you can just say, "Ah, I don't know about that," and go on and live your life, because it's not like you need some recently canonized saint for your salvation. You don't. You don't. Now, they're given for our salvation, but none of them is critical, and certainly not sufficient.

Fr. Stephen: And if you read anything about spinal fluid and/or the bodily humors, you can just set that aside.

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] Fr. Stephen is not making that up! There are— We're not naming any names—

Fr. Stephen: Let the listener understand!

Fr. Andrew: —but there are actual modern Orthodox writers who talk about spinal fluid. It's… I… Anyway. Moving on.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, there's a Spinal Tap joke there somewhere, but we won't— We don't have time.

Fr. Andrew: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yes, such writings go to eleven. I don't know, that's the first thing that comes to my mind.

Fr. Stephen: Too obvious. We need a deeper cut.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah. All right. Well, later in the episode, if you come up with something… Okay, well, this one comes from Dn. Edward, who obviously was listening very attentively to our two Torah episodes.

Dn. Edward: Bless, Fathers. Thank you for your podcast. Over the last few months I listened to every episode, and it has had a profound positive effect on me. And, yes, I am reading something that I wrote out. I am having questions about Fr. Stephen's vision of 21st-century Jews converting en masse and then creating Torah-keeping Orthodox Christian communities which, if I understand Fr. Stephen correctly, would have been the most appropriate things for Jewish Christians to have done in the first century and indeed maintained. One of the first things that drew me to Orthodoxy 35 years ago was the seamless integration of Old and New Testament in our lives. I've always seen Orthodoxy as a single, unbroken religion that began with Adam and Eve.

Leaving aside the issue of Fr. Stephen convincingly making the case that the conversion of the Gentiles is the gathering up of the lost ten tribes of Israel who were certainly commanded to keep the Torah, I have seen studies showing that ancient Christian communities in Palestine appear to be descendants of the first Jewish converts to Christianity, kept socially and genetically isolated, and yet the liturgic and ascetical lives of those ancient Christian families do not appear to differ from those of other ancient Christian communities. Did their Jewish Christian forebears get it wrong somewhere along the way? I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Fr. Andrew: All right. I think this is a good way of winnowing out some of these. It's fascinating to me how interested people have been in this question of: If there were modern Jewish converts to Orthodox Christianity, how would they understand the Torah? There's all kinds of ways in which people have asked this question, but I like this one the best, I think. I have some thoughts, but I want to hear what you have to say first.

Fr. Stephen: Well, so, again, this isn't an issue of genetics. This is not an issue of genetics. There's no concept of genetics in the Bible. Let's say my whole parish went and did 23andMe, and it came back that every single one of us was, like, 51% Ashkenazi Jew. I wouldn't say, "Okay, guys, we've got to start keeping Torah." That's not what we're talking about. And we're not even talking about an individual Orthodox Jewish person shows up at my parish and has accepted that Jesus is the Messiah and wants to become part of our community, because I'm not going to tell that person, for example, that they have to keep kosher, because then they can't eat with the rest of us.

The question is: If we had whole communities of Orthodox Jewish people come into the Church, would you tell them to stop circumcising their sons? Would you tell them to stop keeping kosher? Would you tell them to stop keeping the other commandments that were directed toward Israel, if they had been keeping them all their lives? And if your answer is yes, then I have to ask you: On what basis, in Scripture or Tradition, would you do that? Because I can show you a lot of Scripture that says the opposite, like Christ saying, "Whoever teaches someone to disobey the least of these commandments will be least in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever lightens the least of these…"

I realize in certain circles that that statement I made—which admittedly is a hypothetical; it's a hypothetical that I think would be wonderful and beautiful if it came to pass, but it's a hypothetical—I realize it's been kind of controversial with some folks, but I kind of don't understand why, because that's the perspective from which I'm approaching it. Now ultimately it wouldn't be my call. Nobody would ask me. [Laughter] I mean, if the chief rabbinate of Israel that decides to en masse convert to Christianity, that's going to be something that's going to be handled by bishops, patriarchs, well above my pay-grade. I'm not going to be consulted, so they're going to make that call, but from my perspective I don't see anything in Scripture or in our Tradition that says that we would tell those people to stop doing those things, because that's something very clearly St. Paul and the other apostles did not tell Jewish Christians. They did not tell them to stop doing those things.

That's what St. Paul was accused of over and over again, but he vehemently, over and over and over again, denied it, so unless you want to call St. Paul a liar… which, when I have discussions about this with Jewish people, they do, by the way. They say, "No, St. Paul was a liar. St. Paul was telling Jews not to do those things any more, and then when he got called on the carpet about it, he lied." That's not my perspective of St. Paul. I don't think that's what the Scriptures actually present; they present it as a false accusation. So I honor that and assume St. Paul was telling the truth and being honest, that he was very much not doing that. Since they were not doing that at that time—since the apostles didn't do that, and this is the apostolic Church, I don't see why we would do that now, if a similar situation presented itself.

But this is not about anyone having a genetic obligation to those commandments or an ethnic obligation to those commandments. If somebody from a Reformed Jewish background, who's not even observant, becomes a Christian, there's no question on this. They walk in my door of my parish, I'm not going to tell them they have to start: because they're ethnically Jewish they have to start keeping kosher or any of these things, wearing tzitzit, or any of this. This is a question of: What warrant would you have to tell someone Jewish who had kept these things their whole life to stop because now they've accepted Jesus as the Messiah?

Fr. Andrew: Yeah. I think the question of who would decide this to me is the primary one. Well, it's interesting to talk about, but, as you said, it's a hypothetical. It would be up to Jewish community to determine exactly what they're going to do with all of that.

Fr. Stephen: And the bishops receiving them.

Fr. Andrew: Right, exactly. Because, who knows? Maybe, en masse, they would say, "We're ready to eat pork on Pascha." [Laughter] I don't know! I mean, I always am, but I don't know what it's like to be a kosher-keeping Jew. And it's interesting, this issue of Palestinian genetics. I know that's been brought up by a lot of people, and it has a lot of political implications for the modern moment, but the reality is that it's not like Jews and Palestinians, whether they are Christians or Muslims, living in Israel, have some concept that "okay, we're actually all really the same thing." They definitely see each other as different communities. It's interesting how much that demonstrates what you talked about, like genetically— There is no concept of genetics in the Scriptures, in the ancient world, even though genetically the populations that live in Israel are apparently pretty similar to each other, but they clearly have different religious communities that don't just define whether they go to a church, temple, synagogue, or mosque, but really are their community: the people that they're with, the people that they marry, the languages that they speak, all of that stuff. It's all together. —the way they dress. It's all together, kind of in one ball. So I think it's actually a great example of how that really works. Good question.

All right, well, we've got one from Jillian who wonders about, frankly, different translations she's heard of the Nicene Creed.

Jillian: Good evening. My name is Jillian, and I'm phoning from Romania. I used to be a Catholic, and when I was a Catholic I was in the UK, and we used to say the Creed. And the priest added a word to the Creed—no, not that one. He added another word to the Creed so that the Creed said, "And was crucified under Pontius Pilate, suffered, died, and was buried." Now, I can't unhear that, so whenever I hear the Creed in English now, I hear the word "died." Luckily, I don't get that in Romania because I hear it in Romanian and it's fine. But it got me thinking: Why is the death of Christ left out of the Creed? There must be some very good reasons for it, but I can't think of any. So if you could enlighten me about that, I'd be very grateful. Thank you.

Fr. Andrew: All right. Just so we can be precise about this, I actually looked this up, because I kind of wondered: Is this a difference between the Latin and the Greek? And it's not, actually. The passage in Latin and the passage in Greek are exactly parallel: "suffered and was buried." Now, there are translations of the Latin version that get translated as "suffered death and was buried," but literally what it says in the Latin is simply "suffered, passus et sepultus est," just as in the Greek it is "kai pathonta kai taphenta, suffered and was buried."

I think that I don't think of it as an omission. I think it's simply referencing the story as it's told in the Scriptures, that the whole event of his suffering and death is called his passion, his suffering. What do you think? I mean, is— Obviously, Jillian is just noticing that there are these translations out there, but they're not literal, Jillian. They're not literally at least of what they're translating from, most likely. I don't know. Do you know, Father, of a variant that actually includes "died" in the Creed?

Fr. Stephen: Well, I think he's just importing that from the Apostles' Creed, because the Apostles' Creed has "died": "He was crucified, died, and was buried."

Fr. Andrew: Yeah, it doesn't have "suffered"; it has "crucified, died, and buried."

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, so I think he kind of smooshed probably those together. The importance is that the pathe in Greek— When we hear the word "suffering," we think pain and suffering, garmonbozia. We think in that term. But "to suffer," that's not the original meaning of that word, and it's not the original meaning of "pathe." "Pathe" is related to "passive," "passions." We talk about the Passion of Christ. And so the idea is Christ suffered a whole series of things. He suffered exclusion, alienation; he suffered false accusations; he suffered beatings and scourgings; he suffered crucifixion; and then he suffered death. These are all things that were inflicted upon him, which he voluntarily accepted.

So his death is included in "suffered." That is the culmination of the things that he suffered, and it's just the meaning of "suffering" has shifted a little bit over time, just like the meaning of "passion" has shifted in the way it's commonly used in English now to refer to desire, often sexual desire, whereas, like in the movie title, The Passion of the Christ, it very clearly is not referring to that! It's referring to his suffering. Some of these words have shifted, and "suffering" has just grown more precise. But think about older turns of phrase in English, like that person doesn't "suffer fools gladly."

Fr. Andrew: Yeah, just enduring.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah. So his death is sort of included there, and I think that other priest was basically smooshing something in from the Apostles' Creed, probably.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah. I mean, it's not wrong. It's not incorrect to say.

Fr. Stephen: He did die, yes. [Laughter]

Fr. Andrew: It's not wrong; it's just not a good translation. I don't know, you would have to be a special— Maybe, I'm not sure, there's plenty of them out there— You'd have to be a special kind of heretic to read the Nicene Creed to say, "Well, this doesn't say he died…" You'd be like: "Well, it does say that he was buried, so..."

Fr. Stephen: Oh, you don't know about Swoon—? Apparently someone doesn't know about Swoon Theory.

Fr. Andrew: Oh. Oh, yeah. I know. Yeah, I do know about that. [Laughter] I do know about that, yeah. Is that a Jehovah's Witness thing? I'm trying to remember.

Fr. Stephen: I don't… No, I don't think it is.

Fr. Andrew: No, no, no, no. Yeah, there was a swoo— Yeah, yeah, no. I remember they believe he died on a torture stake and not on a cross.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, not on a cross for some reason. Well, I actually— There are reasons, but they're goofy. [Laughter] Yeah, no, but the whole swoon thing. Swoon Theory is actually an 18th-century thing, where it's like: "For some reason we want to believe that all this stuff in the Bible is historical, but we have to explain that there aren't any miracles."

Fr. Andrew: Yeah. "He rose from the swoon," apparently.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, so he just kind of passed out and didn't wake up when he was stabbed in the side, and didn't bleed out, and was buried and then just sort of woke up in the tomb and was like: "Oh. What happened?"

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] After three days.

Fr. Stephen: It's more absurd than just believing in the resurrection.

Fr. Andrew: And after going through all that was somehow able to move the stone himself. I don't know.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah. Adrenaline? I don't know.

Fr. Andrew: All right, next we have one from Joachim who has a question about the bones of the Prophet Elisha.

Joachim: Hello, podfathers. My name is Joachim. I live in Utah, and I just wanted to thank you for truly opening our eyes to see the unseen world, to recognize that there is no veil or separation between the physical and spiritual world, that we can see God and live, and that we don't need things like Species 8472 or wormhole aliens to experience a fuller world—

Fr. Andrew: Yes!

Joachim: —but that the world truly is filled with spirits, angels, demons, and saints. My question to both of you is in regards to 4 Kingdoms 13:21, when a dead man falls on the bones of the Prophet Elisha and then is resurrected. Are Elisha's relics performing miracles because Elisha himself is experiencing the resurrection at that point? If so, does that mean and does that really prove what you've been saying all along, that time and space isn't really a thing, since Elisha experienced the resurrection spiritually, even though the events of the New Testament don't happen until hundreds of years later? Thank you so much for all that you do.

Fr. Andrew: All right. I like this question, although, Joachim, you started out with a Voyager reference, and then you went to DS9, so at least you ended well, but… [Laughter]

Fr. Stephen: What, you're anti-Voyager now?

Fr. Andrew: I mean...

Fr. Stephen: The CGI on Species 8472 doesn't hold up, I will admit.

Fr. Andrew: No, no. [Laughter]

Fr. Stephen: But I have an affection for them, being that they're three-legged.

Fr. Andrew: Yes, that is fun.

Fr. Stephen: How many three-legged alien species do you get?

Fr. Andrew: Right. I don't know. I mean, I felt like Voyager had its moments for sure. I've watched it through on more than one occasion. But I feel like also, of the '90s Treks, that it's kind of the weakest link. That's my opinion.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, I don't know. I mean, Deep Space 9 is definitely better.

Fr. Andrew: Yes. In my opinion, the best of the '90s Star Treks.

Fr. Stephen: But on what other Star Trek show have the captain and the navigator had a salamander baby?

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] You've got me there!

Fr. Stephen: The kind of logic you just can't argue with.

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] That's true! Previously unsaid sentences in human history—twice in this episode! That's good.

Okay, all right. Well, to his question. I mean, what is the deal with the bones of Elisha bringing someone back from the dead? Is this related to Elisha experiencing the resurrection? I mean, short answer: yes. That's why relics—I don't want to use this word, but it's the only word I can come up with—work, is they are the resurrection… You know, people who have experienced the resurrection of the soul, that that is having an effect on their bodies, their material bodies, that still remain, although it's just partial from our point of view. I think, for instance, the most vivid experience of that I've ever had is venerating the hand of St. Mary Magdalene, which is not only incorrupt such that it's even flexible, but is actually still warm, which is a little unnerving to experience, but there you are. That is a thing. Yeah, at that— From our point of view right at that point in human history, Elisha is still in Hades and yet God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who are very much alive. And so therefore they have already, in some way, experienced the harrowing of Hades.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, because time and space don't exist.

Fr. Andrew: There you go. [Laughter]

Fr. Stephen: Yeah. And it's… God worked wonders through Elisha while he was alive, and just because his soul was separated from his body, God didn't stop working miracles and wonders through him. And this is— Lots of the hymns related to other saints, other wonder-working saints, say that exact thing in the Orthodox Church, that God worked wonders through them while they were alive and did not cease when they fell asleep, but God has continued to work healings, work through those same saints, because they're still alive.

Fr. Andrew: Yep. All right. We're going to take one more before we go to our first break. This one comes from Symeon.

Symeon: Okay, can we do a season two intro theme? The modern world acknowledges and is haunted by spirits, angels, demons— [Crackling] Augh! Now times, many broke free from the prison of the contemporary, secular, flat materialism. Welcome the Diamond Dogs! "Doo-doo-doo-doo. Doo, doo, doo-doo-de-doo! As they pulled you out of the oxygen tent, they asked for the latest body!" Okay, that was Dead Bowie's opening track for 1984, people! And I'm going to let you know… [Crackling]

Fr. Andrew: Well. I don't know about you, but I think that the Voice of Steve might be out of a job.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah. And the answer to that question is Yes.

Fr. Andrew: And we will take our first break. We'll be right back!

***

Fr. Andrew: Welcome back. It is now the second half of this pre-recorded episode of The Lord of Spirits podcast, where we're doing a Speakpipe-palooza, all recorded messages from you people. We're happy to hear from you. All right! Well, next we have someone with the best possible name, which is Andrew.

Andrew: Hello, Fathers! How are you? My name is Andrew. I'm currently listening to your idolatry and iconography pair of episodes. Great stuff! And I couldn't help but think about— There was a time I was at a relative's home—I'm Lebanese, in the Antiochian Archdiocese—and there was a figurine of Ba'al on the mantelpiece that didn't sit right with me, even before I started listening to you guys, because this is a demon! This is a pagan god: why do we have him on the mantel? So I took him down. They said, "Well, you know, it's our culture; it's our heritage." And it got me thinking. We're putting these figurines on the mantelpiece, or there's the little Phoenician statues of El, or in the Greek Archdiocese I know people who's mom's name is Athena. This is pagan context that is still part of our culture, and it seems like it's no longer affiliated with worship, but it still doesn't sit too well with me.

I really wanted to know what you guys thought about it, and, while we're at it, same thing with the evil eye, the mati, these things that we're elevating to… We're incorporating them into the faith, and I don't think the Fathers really talk about that. So I'd like to know what you guys think, and I hope you have a wonderful day. Thank you so much, and I'll catch you later!

Fr. Andrew: Okay. I think he's talking about, at least in my mind, a couple of different things here. One, of course, is a question of names, which I think is the easiest one to address. I mean, there's a bunch of names of pagan gods that are now saints' names. I don't know if there's a St. Athena off the top of my head. Do you know, Father?

Fr. Stephen: Not off the top of my head, but I bet there is. There's a St. Plato… [Laughter]

Fr. Andrew: There's a St. Apollo. There's not a St. Zeus as far as I'm aware, but, yeah, there's plenty of saints that have the names of pagan gods. I mean...

Fr. Stephen: Dionysios the Areopagite.

Fr. Andrew: I mean, Melchizedek, right? That's… For whatever reason, the Church has basically said: You can redeem these names; they're fine.

And then the question—this is the fuzzier one to me… Let's say a figure of Ba'al, a figurine of Ba'al, like a sculpture or a statue or something like that, that people put on their shelf as a kind of decoration, which I think is what Andrew's talking about. That, to me, seems more questionable than— Although, I don't know, maybe it's not. We could talk about this. Like, what if someone has a vase that reproduces ancient Greek art which most of the time is going to be stuff from pagan mythology. I mean, there's some of it, frankly, that is obscene and you should not have it. [Laughter] Like, they were not remotely Victorian in their morals about what could be presented. Or, you know, someone might have a painting or something on the wall that depicts something out of Greek mythology. I mean, this is all kind of classicist stuff.

Now, I've seen what he's talking about, these sort of Lebanese tchotchkes. "Oh, Baal is part of our heritage." It is true. If you're of Phoenician, Lebanese ancestry, then that is back there...

Fr. Stephen: [Rumbles]

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] In their self-concept it is, I'll just put it that way.

Fr. Stephen: Yes, yes, we'll put it that way.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah. [Laughter] We're not getting into all of that. To me, a lot of it is the question of what is the setting, what is the context, how is this being presented. I think that statues are more problematic than paintings or illustrations in books, because a statue at least, even if it's not being used for idolatry, it suggests idolatry in a certain way. That's my take on it.

Fr. Stephen: So my take is a little less kind.

Fr. Andrew: Oh! Good, I'm always glad to be the good cop of the good cop-bad cop.

Fr. Stephen: [Laughter] You get to do that an awful lot, I think.

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] That's true! Once in a while, there's some things that never made it onto the podcast where I'm definitely the bad cop!

Fr. Stephen: We have to look at where this comes from, because Lebanese Christians in the 15th or 16th century never would have had something like that in their home.

Fr. Andrew: Hm. Like in the Ottoman period.

Fr. Stephen: And where this idea comes from is modern ethnonationalism. That's directly where it comes from.

Fr. Andrew: I think the mati is maybe a separate issue, and we can talk about that.

Fr. Stephen: That's a separate issue, yeah, but talking about the statues, whether we're talking about the Zeus art or the Baal statue, whatever. This is modern ethnonationalism, which is a deliberate modern attempt to relocate the sense of people's identity from religion to ethnicity and the nation-state, very deliberately. In the Middle East, that took the form of Arab nationalism, because when the colonial powers drew all the lines—re-drew all the lines—all these places included a lot of different religions, often that had a history of not liking each other. [Laughter] So a new identity had to be formed.

We'll just take Iraq, because it's maybe less charged with our listeners. Iraq: you've got Shiites, you've got Sunni Muslims, you had Christians before the US invaded.

Fr. Andrew: Yazidis...

Fr. Stephen: All living there and all not getting along very well historically. So how are you going to make this into a nation? Well, you have to relocate identity and try and create an Iraqi identity. So you get Saddam Hussein rebuilding the Ishtar Gate at the site of Babylon. So you try to use Babylon, Assyria. You try to use this ancient heritage stuff to try and unite everybody.

This happened in Lebanon, this idea of your identity is not whatever Christian group you belong to or Druze or Muslim, whatever Muslim sect you belong to—your identity: "Oh, we're all Phoenicians. This is our ethnic heritage that we all share, regardless of what religion we practice." And the pagan stuff crept in the back door with that. Same thing with Greece. You actually go back and read back about classical Greece, there is no "Greece."

Fr. Andrew: Right, there's city-states.

Fr. Stephen: [Laughter] Right? That went to war with each other, often. But we were going to forge this new Greek identity now for the independent Greece: "We're all Greeks." And the pagan stuff creeps in the back door.

But that pagan stuff is not innocuous. Look what it did in Germany. That's not just of no account. A lot of countries—we'll use Russia as an example—get criticized because they try to use Orthodox Christianity in that case, or use some form of Christianity, as sort of the target point of identity. And there are problems with—look at Russia—turning Orthodox Christianity into a source of national identity, but it's a lot better than if they went back to their pagan past to form that identity.

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] Perun-worshipers.

Fr. Stephen: And there are a lot of problems in Greece right now. This is really going to get people upset at me. But in Greece right now there are a lot of problems that are resulting from this: the fact that Greek identity was forged around Greek identity and Hellenism and the pagan Greek past and not around Orthodox Christianity. There are major problems in Greece right now because of this, major rifts opening up between the Church and the civil government. And that's those chickens coming home to roost.

Fr. Andrew: Yes, I was going to say, just to re-emphasize: that is not to say that state instrumentalization of the Orthodox Church is a good thing. It's definitely not.

Fr. Stephen: No. No, but there's worse. There's worse!

Fr. Andrew: Yeah.

Fr. Stephen: And of course you can't do that in a lot of places, because they're not Orthodox-majority countries anyway. But there is great danger in this re-association with the pagan past out of ethnonationalism. And so even though at the level of your grandma having a tchotchke, it's relatively harmless, but that's a relatively harmless symptom of a serious disease of this modernist approach to "my identity is based on my skin color or the country I'm from." As much as I make jokes and stuff about being Dutch, I'm not even a member of the Dutch Church. [Laughter]

Fr. Andrew: You're a bad Dutchman.

Fr. Stephen: Yes. Let alone trying to associate myself with the pagan past of the Netherlands. I'm just cheap! [Laughter] And tall. But anyway...

Fr. Andrew: Okay, so what about the mati? I mean, my understanding— Now, honestly, I have never deeply researched this, but my understanding is that this definitely is a survival from pre-Christian amulet, talismanic stuff that's supposed to go to— We've talked about the evil eye before in general, but within this context it's kind of a magical thing, the idea that this is like a magical talisman that protects you against this particular evil thing.

Fr. Stephen: Right. I don't think that's totally unrelated in the sense that you're looking to something other than Christ to sort of protect you from it, which is a problem.

Fr. Andrew: And you can see— I've noticed in the Greek world— But it's not just among Greeks! But you can see it—

Fr. Stephen: In the Balkans, all over the place.

Fr. Andrew: Right, exactly. There's all kinds of versions of this, and it's not just among Christian populations either. Muslim populations have this for sure. What's interesting to me is that it seems like some of the Middle Eastern people, they have these little blue stones rather than the eye-looking thing, but it's basically understood to be basically the same thing. There have been times when I was about to do a baptism for a Middle Eastern family, and they were bringing the cross that was going to be used for the baptism, and there was a little blue bead on the chain alongside the cross. I was like: "Yeah… You need to take that off." [Laughter] And then I would always ask them, "Are you saying that there's something that the cross isn't doing for this child, that you need that also?" I mean, it's hard to get people out of those habits, but I feel like I've made a little headway with some of them. But yeah… I don't think, especially the ones that are, frankly, a little more Americanized—I don't think they take it too seriously. I think some of them are more willing to say, "Yeah, we don't, I don't need that." But a handful of people from the old country, they can be like: "No, no, my grandmother always had it." I'm like: "Ah, not in church. At the very least, not in church. Get that out." No talismans, people. [Laughter]

All right. We have a question from Radu about the numbers in Numbers.

Radu: Hi, Fathers. This is Radu from St. John, New Brunswick, Canada. I have a question about how to interpret the numbers at the start of Numbers, which is to say the census of Israel at the start of the book of Numbers. You've mentioned before that one shouldn't take a modernist approach of numbers in Scriptures; at the same time, one shouldn't say they're merely symbolic or try to rationalize them away somehow. So I'm curious how the Fathers and how the Church have interpreted, applied, and what they've learned and taken from the census at the start of Numbers, which is weirdly specific in many points. I mean, the numbers are quite exact, and I also don't know of all those numbers matching to something else in Church history, like the number of Fathers at a certain ecumenical council just matched 18,000 or something like that. Any insight you have on this would be appreciated. I myself work for the census of Canada, so this is pretty close to home stuff. Thank you very much. God give the blessing.

Fr. Andrew: All right. So is there any meaning behind the numbers in Numbers, the census numbers? It's funny, we don't usually get a question about that, but he's a census worker, so obviously that's on his mind.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah. So the answer is probably yes, but exactly what, we don't know. Of course, if you're reading the Greek or the Hebrew, the numbers don't match up, as is typical; they don't match up exactly. There is probably… The reason we think there are is that there are places and Ancient Near Eastern texts that are similar—we've talked about this before on the show—where we've figured it out, where we've sort of cracked mathematically what they're doing. I have not seen, at least, any super winning argument for the ones in Numbers. I'm assuming he's talking about the military census in chapter one. I haven't seen any super convincing version of that where it all works. I've seen a bunch of suggestions about individual ones, which is not the same thing. I am convinced that, yes, there is probably something encoded there, but I— it's not something I have spent the time to figure out or that I've found anybody who has convincingly figured it out.

It takes a very special type of person, because you have to have a person who's both a Semiticist and a mathematician—

Fr. Andrew: So there is a Bible code! [Laughter]

Fr. Stephen: —to kind of work these things out. Maybe I can team up. I have a parishioner who's a PhD in math. Maybe he and I could tag team it or something and try and figure it out. [Laughter] We'd have to figure out which set of numbers to use, though, whether to use the Hebrew or the Greek numbers to even start with. So that's always an issue.

But also, on the "literal" side, because in his recounting he was a little ambiguous, so hopefully to clarify, even if he doesn't need clarification, to clarify for other people… We said not to take them woodenly literally in the sense that "this is the precise number," but also that not to just dismiss them, meaning that in the ancient world they dealt with a lot of round numbers. You get, like, so many thousands or so many hundreds, and when you have X-number of thousands or X-number of hundreds, not all of those hundreds had exactly 100. [Laughter] You're getting a number of units, and that unit is being estimated at being around a hundred. We're talking about centurions: 80 people. So yeah. That's what we were saying.

So we're saying that this is not— There are people— And the reason we said that is there are people who take the numbers in the Bible as these points of faith, like: "If you're saying that number isn't correct then you're saying the Bible lies!"

Fr. Andrew: And the easiest argument against that is the fact that there are textual variations in the numbers.

Fr. Stephen: And they're using it as a shibboleth, and we're saying, "No, that's not how that works." That's the point we're trying to make with that. So we definitely shouldn't be confused with no relevance. But, you know, the tl;dr for my answer here is: Yes, there is some significance to those numbers; no, I don't know exactly what it is. Like I said, I haven't seen it. There may be something out there. I haven't done a complete—because I'm not writing a dissertation about it— I haven't done a complete literature review of the first chapter of the book of Numbers! [Laughter] So there may be someone who has cracked it, and I'm just completely unaware of it; that's possible, too. But I'm not aware of anybody who has sort of broken down all those numbers and exactly what is represented.

Fr. Andrew: And also: not necessary for your salvation. [Laughter]

Fr. Stephen: Right, but...

Fr. Andrew: Like, maybe it's interesting and there's some sign there, but not...

Fr. Stephen: Come on, man! I'm doing a second PhD!

Fr. Andrew: You can do a third!

Fr. Stephen: I probably will, but— [Laughter] Things are just interesting—I'm not going to do it on this—but it's okay to just be interested in something.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah, not everything has to be of utmost importance. Okay, now we've got one from Brandon, who has a question about the book of Enoch.

Fr. LeTourneau: Hi, Fathers! My name is Brandon LeTourneau. I'm an Anglican priest in Sacramento. I had a quick question for you regarding the Similitudes of Enoch, specifically chapter 71, verse 14, wherein God informs Enoch that he is the son of man. To me this seems in conflict with the Christian tradition. And if I recall, Lawrence Wills, in his book on the apocrypha, points out that it may be a tradition attempting to rival Christianity's claim that Jesus is in fact the son of man.

So my question is: What do we do with this? Is this a part of the Enochic tradition that we Christians should just dismiss? If I recall, the Similitudes is in the Ethiopian canon—it's a part of 1 Enoch—so they seem to have no issue reading it. What should we do with it? Do we chew the meat and spit out the bones, or is there a way that perhaps the Ethiopians have taught us to square this with the broader Christian tradition and our conviction that Christ himself is the son of man? Or is it a both/and situation? I don't know.

Again, thank you for all that you do. I think it's really interesting how you've been able to introduce the Enochic tradition to a broader Christian audience and for engaging with this question. God bless.

Fr. Andrew: All right. My first thought is I kind of wondered why he didn't mention Ezekiel, because Ezekiel is called son of man in that book, by God.

Fr. Stephen: Over and over and over again.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah. So, I mean, should we take it in that context, that it's— I mean, I'm not super versed in Enoch, so I don't know what kind of significance is being placed on that title in what he's talking about.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, so it's a little ambiguous in the Similitudes of Enoch as to the title, whether it's being used qua Ezekiel or whether it's being used qua Daniel 7. Later Rabbinic Judaism, as reflected in what we now call 3 Enoch, took it to be— took it in the Daniel way, took it to mean: No, Enoch is the son of man figure—deliberately not Jesus. Now, that interpretation was also rejected ultimately by Rabbinic Judaism, so it's not like that's the Rabbinic Jewish view. [Laughter] That was sort of the last-gasp attempt to preserve some of the Enochic tradition within Rabbinic Judaism, but Rabbinic Judaism ultimately rejected the whole Enochic tradition.

But, I mean, the larger issue is, of course, that the book of Enoch is apocrypha, from our perspective as Orthodox Christians.

Fr. Andrew: Lesser. Lesser text.

Fr. Stephen: Well...

Fr. Andrew: As compared to—

Fr. Stephen: To be read privately, and part of the reason it's read privately is that there are things that can, at minimum, be misconstrued; if they're not outright wrong, they can easily be misconstrued. And so this is at least that: could be easily misconstrued.

And we're not in communion with the Ethiopians, but also we have to remember we make these statements, "Blank is part of the Ethiopian canon…" I've talked to some Ethiopian Orthodox people who have never read most of those books, because the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, like any Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian Orthodox church, isn't sola scriptura. So the fact that something is in the canon, meaning some part of it is read publicly in some scenario, doesn't mean what it means for something to be canonical in a Protestant church.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah, where you have to accept all of the text, deal with all of it, come up with an explanation for all of it.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, incorporate it into your system of doctrine. That's not how the text functions in the— I'm not an expert on the Ethiopian Orthodox Church by any means, but I know enough to know that's not how the text functions in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, where they feel the need to square it into a system of doctrine. And I'm mentioning that because he asked if there was something from them that would help us do that, incorporate it, and I'm like: They're not really about doing that. [Laughter]

Yeah, it's ambiguous as to what was being said in the first case. Whoever compiled— We can say at the very least whoever compiled the book of Enoch into the book of Enoch—because of course it was separate documents before that—were deliberately trying to— This is pre-Christian, so it's not trying to set up something as a rival to Christianity, but was trying to set up Enoch as a rival to Moses, as a central figure within Judaism, very clearly. It becomes very clear in the Animal Apocalypse, for example. It's sort of a different mode of Judaism that has Enoch as a mediatorial figure, so it's very possible that the original intent was to present Enoch as the son of man figure in the book of Daniel. That is very possible because of the overall tenor of the whole book and the way it was used in the Qumran community and other Enochic Jewish communities.

But 4Q Melchizedek presents Melchizedek as the messiah, that the value of it is not that it got everything about Jesus right, before Jesus was born. There is no Second Temple Jewish literature that did that. But we see the ideas… And then what happens in the New Testament, even when they're quoting—there's places in the New Testament that reference and quote the book of Enoch—they're not saying, "See, this book prophesied everything exactly, dah-dah-dah-dah-dah"; they're picking up those ideas and showing— and then sort of nuancing them and then showing how Christ fulfills them, how Christ is the reality behind them, not trying to subject the Person of Jesus Christ to the book of Enoch, but trying to subject the book of Enoch to the Person of Jesus Christ.

Fr. Andrew: There you go. Okay, we'll take another one. This one comes from Socrates who has a question about theodicy.

Fr. Stephen: Old man So-crates!

Socrates: Hi, Fr. Andrew and Fr. Stephen! I'm Socrates from California, and I just had a question about the goodness of God. When we talk about the goodness of God and that he's all-loving, and yet we see evil in the world and suffering in the world, and we don't see him take immediate action on it though we know there will be a final judgment, are we looking at God through a perspective of "the end justifies the means," that because he will do something about it eventually, that's what makes him "good," even though evil and suffering take place now, and it seems like sometimes he's not actively working on it? Or is there a deeper way to kind of look at this? Thank you!

Fr. Andrew: I love that saying that—now, they don't mean by it what I'm about to mean by it. [Laughter] I love that Protestant saying you sometimes hear: "God is good all the time." But it's true! I mean, it's literally true that God is always working for the salvation of every single person, all that time; that everyone— He's doing what it takes for everyone to be a saint, for the best possible outcome for everyone. I think that a lot of the times when it doesn't seem like that's the case is because we simply do not see what's going on, and sometimes patience is what's needed to be able to see it. Sometimes we're just not going to— The patience is just going to have to last into the next life, because that's what we've got. I don't know. What do you think, Father? Is there something that—?

Fr. Stephen: I feel like Socrates had some kind of hidden purpose to which he was trying to guide us with his question.

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] Socrates of California. I feel like that could be the name of a movie or something like that.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah. So, again, mercy is good. Part of God being good is that he's merciful.

Fr. Andrew: This reminds me of the conversation you had with the Reformed guy on our live episode.

Fr. Stephen: The Gnostic guy, you mean?

Fr. Andrew: Ooh! [Laughter]

Fr. Stephen: Well, no, he turned out to be.

Fr. Andrew: I know! Shots fired.

Fr. Stephen: That's just a description! It's not a pejorative! That's the position he presented.

So mercy is good. Part of God being good is that he's merciful. And, you know, maybe we can learn something from our Reformed friends here. When people stand and point to the evil in the world and say, "Why isn't God punishing it?" Like, look at yourself, man!

Fr. Andrew: Yeah, do you want him to punish you?

Fr. Stephen: Look at what you're getting away with! Yeah, I want God to punish some of those people over there; I don't want him to punish me immediately. I want him to have mercy on me; I want him to give me time to repent—just none of those crumb-bums out there, right?

Fr. Andrew: Crumb—! Wow, I haven't heard that expression in a long time! [Laughter]

Fr. Stephen: There you go. I'm self-censoring. [Laughter] That's a big part of it. The opposite extreme of that is the universalist, who I still think is primarily motivated by a certain neurosis, that they're aware of their own guilt and so saying, "Well, just everyone goes to heaven. God has infinite mercy. That takes care of my problem, because that means he's going to have infinite mercy on me." This is sort of the flip-side of that. This is sort of ignorance of our own evil and the way we've hurt people and the things we've done such that we want God to— "I want God to punish all sin," because we've somehow imagined that that wouldn't include us.

And I think part of that is the product of a certain kind of rhetoric that especially American Christianity has used for a long time, which is that sinners are all those people out there who aren't Christians, and all the horrible things they do; and we stand around denouncing those and maybe not denouncing the things that we ourselves are doing.

Let me just be controversial again. I wish I had seen a statement about the evil of divorce for every statement I've seen about the evil of gay marriage. Not that I don't want to see statements against gay marriage—we should have those, absolutely. We should also have a lot of statements about divorce. But here's the thing: When you make a statement against same-sex marriage, most of the folks in the Orthodox Church, almost all of them are going to be on your side and cheer you on. You start talking about divorce, your rich donors who are divorced are going to get really upset—so let's not talk about that one. Okay. End of controversial stuff. [Laughter] Probably not, but at least that controversial thing.

But that way of— That rhetoric sort of breeds this in people. So: "Outside the Church there are these evil gays getting married; God should do something about it. Divorce? Oh, sometimes these things don't work out…" So we have to always remember that the first person who needs God's mercy is me, and if I want and need desperately God to be merciful in the way he deals with me and my sins and the things I've done, then I have to hope he extends that to everybody else, too—at least as much as he gives me.

Fr. Andrew: Amen. All right. Now we've got one from Dylan, who has a question about Psalm 82.

Dylan: Hey, happy day! It's Dylan from Michigan. I'm calling to try to straighten out some tension I've got with the knowledge I get from your show and your work and patristic knowledge and my embodied experience of studying Scripture within the Church and all that. So really specific: Psalm 81. Fr. Stephen assures us, beyond a doubt, we could only interpret Psalm 81 (82 in the Hebrew, 81 in the Greek) as gods of the nations being judged. But then you'll read in John of Damascus, Gregory the Theologian, Augustine a different interpretation: it's humans, it's saints. So my reason tells me, through your reasoning, that it's got to be gods of the nations, because it reads that way; the context makes total sense. But then I see an application in the saints that seems virtuous enough, helpful; they used it to make a virtuous point that they were making. So how do I reconcile these sorts of knowledge? Thanks!

Fr. Andrew: Is it true that you said the only interpretation, the only possible interpretation of Psalm 82/81 is that it is about the gods of the nations?

Fr. Stephen: No, just the only correct one. [Laughter] You can interpret anything a thousand different ways, right? Obviously.

Fr. Andrew: I mean, are you saying that you think that these Fathers just got it wrong?

Fr. Stephen: No, I'm saying I don't think they say that.

Fr. Andrew: Oh, okay.

Fr. Stephen: [Laughter] Here's the thing. Now, you can send me more expansive quotes, but every time someone has brought this up to me in the past and I've checked out what it says, it is just a Church Father saying—quoting the "Ye are gods" line and then talking about theosis. And then, see, because you have to interpret the Church Fathers, too… So the question is: How is the Church Father connecting this psalm to theosis? That's the question. And people assume that that's a one for one. They assume that what the Church Father is saying… "Well, see, look, this psalm is calling those people gods, and, see: theosis, you become gods." But have you read the whole psalm? Did the saints die like men because they practice injustice? That doesn't make any sense.

So why would you accuse the Fathers of taking an interpretation of the psalm that doesn't make any sense? I know why. [Laughter] I know why: because there's a bad way of reading the New Testament that spilled over into a bad way of reading the Fathers. There are a number of—amongst our Protestant friends; this is not all Protestants; this is not all Protestant views, but amongst our Protestant friends, there are certain views—sorry, Calvinists—that, in order to defend them, you have to assume that for all intents and purposes the New Testament writers are misquoting the Old Testament, because the way they say St. Paul's quotation in Romans is interpreted in these Protestant circles makes no sense in terms of what that text was saying in the Old Testament. That is defended by saying some version of: "Well, St. Paul has apostolic authority to reinterpret or reimagine or sort of redo the Old Testament because he's writing Scripture, too, and so he can take it and make it mean something totally different." I've often criticized this as St. Paul having the authority to read the Old Testament badly. [Laughter]

There's a problem with that argument, but that's been carried over to the Church Fathers to the point that— And no one comes out and says this; I'm not saying that anyone comes out and says this. But this is the presupposition underlying the way that a lot of Orthodox people, I've found—laypeople, not scholars: laypeople—read the Church Fathers. And that's that they assume that the Bible is just sort of this weird, magical riddle-box that's unintelligible and we can't possibly understand it. It's kind of an overreaction against sola scriptura. So in sola scriptura you have this related idea of the perspicuity of Scripture, where the average person can pick it up and understand it completely, at least in its main thrusts.

So people coming out of that background especially react against that and say, "No, you can't under— No one can understand it. The only way to understand it is to see what the Church Fathers said about it, because the Church Fathers are the only ones who can understand it." And so even if the way you think the Church Father is interpreting the Bible makes no sense, that's considered a feature, not a bug. Like: "Yeah, that makes no sense, but, see, that's why I can't just read the Scriptures by myself, because I never would have gotten that out of it." So the Church Father has this sort of magical power to understand what it really means, even though that's completely not apparent from reading it.

Again, I say that's a bad way of reading the Church Fathers. I think the Church Fathers— When a Church Father says a passage is connected to an idea, he's inviting us to come in and understand how he's understanding the passage to get there. So obviously the saints, those who have experienced theosis, do not practice injustice and wickedness, and do not die like men. That's sort of the whole point of theosis, is that eternal life, they share in the life of God. So it can't be talking about them; the psalm can't be talking about them. But think a little deeper into this idea. The gods of the nations are judged; the gods of the nations are slain. We have the death of the gods narrated in Psalm 81 (82). And then what happens? The saints—those who undergo theosis, those who become gods—take their place.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah. It's interesting—

Fr. Stephen: Last verse of the psalm: "God inherits from all the nations."

Fr. Andrew: All the nations, yeah. It's interesting, because I decided to look up… There's the one commentary that's immediately available as I just looked this stuff up about this, there's St. Augustine. Obviously, we're out of step with him on some things. He's still a saint of the Orthodox Church. And if you look at what he says about this— I don't know which text this is from. Anyway, this is on the Catena website, which is useful for some things. He definitely says you should not understand this to be the gods of the nations; these are not the idols, or whatever this is. But he kind of skips over a lot of the bits in the middle about the things, the bad things that they've done wrong. And he says, "God stands in the congregation of men, invisibly; he fills heaven and earth," and so forth.

So it's interesting that even though he is saying, "You should not understand it in this way, but in this other way," the target that he's aiming at the whole time is the relationship of God to human beings, and that it's not saints and it's not— He doesn't even say that it's the judges of Israel. At one point he says— Yeah, at the end he says, "Therefore God stood in the congregation of gods, that is, he who said of himself, 'I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,' the cause too is mentioned but in the midst to judge of the gods." So he puts in the point of view of this soteriological kind of thing and doesn't quote— Now, I don't know if there's some ellipses in there, so maybe he does reference it in some of these ellipses—who knows?—but he doesn't sort of deal with the whole of the psalm all at once.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah. I think from what you just read his concern there is to identify the "God who stands amidst the gods" with Christ, because he's reading John 10 the way I do. [Laughter] So I think it sounds like from what you just said that that's his concern. His concern is that he's trying to explain John 10.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah, and there's one point—

Fr. Stephen: And Christ's quotation of the psalm there.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah, it's interesting. He says, "The next question is whether we should understand the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit or the Trinity to have stood among the congregation of gods, and in the midst to distinguish the gods, because each one is God and the Trinity itself is one God." And then he says, "It is not indeed easy to make this clear because it cannot be denied that not a bodily but a spiritual presence of God, agreeable to his nature, exists with created things in a wonderful manner, and one which but a few do understand and that imperfectly; as to God it is said, 'If I shall ascend into heaven…' " and [goes] on. So, yeah, he kind of says, "I'm not sure exactly how to understand this…" But he kind of goes on to try to work it out a little bit.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, but when he said, "I came only to the lost sheep of the tribe of Israel," that's Jesus talking in that verse. So that's why I say I think he's talking about it more in relation to John 10 rather than the original context.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah. What exactly does this psalm mean in its original context? And I think that that's really an important thing. The way that stuff gets applied is not always exactly the way the thing was meant in its original context, and that's okay.

Fr. Stephen: Oh, no, I think it is. No, that's what I'm disagreeing with.

Fr. Andrew: Okay.

Fr. Stephen: [Laughter] I think if what it says in the original context doesn't make sense in terms of your application, either you're wrong in how you're reading the father, or we don't believe every single Church Father, like you pointed out with St. Augustine, is correct about every single thing all the time. Now, like I said, I think he's talking about John 10, and I think St. Augustine is right about John 10 in reading it that way, but yeah. So the point being the usual— When I get asked this question usually, it's: "Well, the Fathers say it's about theosis," and it's like: "Well, it is, but you're skipping steps, man." Yes, part of theosis is that we are taking the place of— And St. John Chrysostom's clear on this; the Fathers are pretty clear on this. We're taking the place of the fallen angelic beings, the fallen small-g gods, and we become gods. We take their place; the saints take their place. So yes, but the saints are not practitioners of wickedness who get judged and slain by Christ. [Laughter] And I don't think anyone would argue they are!

Fr. Andrew: Yeah, and I think— The last thing I'll say about this is this: that even if, like let's say you disagree with everything that we both just said, and you say, "No, this psalm is not about fallen angels at all." Fine, but what we are saying about what it means is perfectly mainstream Orthodox teaching, even if you don't think that that comes from this psalm or is being represented in this psalm. The idea that the— Literally we sing hymns that say this kind of thing.

Fr. Stephen: And you have to explain, then, how the psalm is working on Holy Saturday.

Fr. Andrew: Right. What is it doing there?

Fr. Stephen: Where it immediately— Where it is the hymn— We sing it to lead into reading Matthew 28: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me, so go make disciples of all nations."

Fr. Andrew: Yeah, how are those things related?

Fr. Stephen: So the way our liturgy interprets it is pretty important, too.

Fr. Andrew: Yep. Okay. Last one we're going to do for this half is from Colin, who has a question about Theophany and whether it's related to the harrowing of Hell.

Colin: Good evening, Fathers. My name is Colin, and I'm in the Shenandoah Valley. My question for tonight is whether it could be said that just as Christ's defeat of death upon entering Hades was a natural consequence of his divine presence therein, whether it could be said that Christ's sanctification of the nature of water was precisely the same kind of thing. That's it. Thank you. Good night!

Fr. Andrew: All right. Is there a co-inherence, to use a good, old-fashioned 20th-century German word, a co-inherence between the harrowing of Hell and Theophany?

Fr. Stephen: To some degree, yes. I can't give you a straight— I was trying to figure out if I could give you a straight yes or no on that, and you can't.

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] To some degree.

Fr. Stephen: So in the sense of the defeat of death, the destruction of Hades and the devil, Christ's presence there—

Fr. Andrew: The abyss.

Fr. Stephen: Right. —does sort of bring that about. But the harrowing of Hades also encompasses the idea of the righteous dead then being taken to paradise, which is Exodus language rather than just sort of the presence of God bringing about judgment.

Fr. Andrew: Yes, it's kind of two points in the story I think is the—

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, so there is an overlap there, but there's this other element with the harrowing of Hades.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah. All right. Cool question. We're going to go ahead and take our second break, and we'll be right back with the third half of The Lord of Spirits podcast.

***

Fr. Andrew: And we're back! This is the third half of this all-pre-recorded episode of Lord of Spirits podcast, the Speakpipe-palooza, thus proving that when we ask you to send us those voice recordings through Speakpipe, we're not just having you talk into the void. [Laughter] We do select many of them and once in a while respond to them, so this is one of those times.

Fr. Stephen: So some of you are speaking into the void.

Fr. Andrew: That's unfortunately true. What can I say? I can't do them all.

Fr. Stephen: There are a few elect individuals who are actually are hurt by someone.

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] I do hear you, but I may also delete your message. So these are the ones that we didn't delete!

Fr. Stephen: Yes. The key is sing David Bowie, I guess.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah, I mean… [Laughter]

Fr. Stephen: You're in.

Fr. Andrew: If you entertain us, there's a higher likelihood that your message will get included. Okay, so...

Fr. Stephen: Oh, we've opened a can of worms now!

Fr. Andrew: I know, I know! Well, I mean, I'm always ready to be entertained, so… Okay, this first one comes from Fr. James, and he has another question about Theophany.

Fr. James: Hello, Fathers! This is Fr. James in British Columbia, Canada, and I have a question about monsters at Theophany. In the gospel of Luke and the gospel of Mark, John the Baptist calls people "a brood of vipers," and this term is in Matthew as well, but I've noticed that the word he uses for "vipers" is echidna, which, other than once in Acts, doesn't show up anywhere else in the Bible, Old Testament or New Testament. But "Echidna" is the name of a famous Greek monster who is the mother of, like, all the monsters, including Cerberus and Scylla and some even say the harpies. So I'm wondering if John is calling his audience monsters, if he's calling them the children, the offspring of Echidna, of this Greek monster; or if he's just saying, "You guys are like snakes." I'm very interested to hear your response. Thank you.

Fr. Andrew: Or if he's just saying, "You are like spiny ant-eaters." [Laughter] Which is, you know, how that word is used in English—

Fr. Stephen: Nothing to do with Knuckles.

Fr. Andrew: Oh. Yeah. I don't know about this! Yeah, I mean, that is definitely a creature from Greek mythology, half-woman, half-snake, which is probably why it gets used at this point. There's a snaky sense of it. I don't know. What do you think, Father? I've never looked into this. This is fun dragon-stuff, though.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, no, I think that is correct. I think he's deliberately— It's deliberately like Leviathan, chaos-monster language. He's not just comparing them to snakes.

Fr. Andrew: Wow. Yeah, because— Just snakes, because, yeah, snakes is bad, but, like, why do we have this sort of mythic sense of snakes being bad? It's this, right? It's that there's this monstrous connection.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, and of course the serpent and demons, because it's deliberately—

Fr. Andrew: Because it's not like snakebite is a constant problem everywhere, all the time. Yeah. So: yes. [Laughter] All right. Okay, so our next one comes—

Fr. Stephen: Now, of course, we don't know the actual words that St. John used, because he was probably speaking in Aramaic, but I think the Greek word choice is deliberate. It's an interpretation of what St. John was saying, and that interpretation is that he's not just calling them snakes, like referring to Herod as "that old fox." [Laughter] But that it's— The idea here is of this kind of evil, demonic evil.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah, and not, to my disappointment, spiny ant-eaters.

Fr. Stephen: No.

Fr. Andrew: Okay. Now we do have one from Jordan. Despite his name, he does not have a Theophany question. [Laughter]

Jordan: Fathers, bless! I'm reading E. Isaac's translation of 1 Enoch, and in chapter 54, I've run across something that's a little puzzling to me. It says:

n those days the punishment of the Lord of the spirits shall be carried out, and they shall open all the storerooms of water in the heavens above in addition to the fountains of water which are on the earth. And all the water shall be united with all other waters. That which is from the heavens above is masculine water, whereas that which is underneath the earth is feminine. And they shall obliterate all those who dwell upon the earth, as well as those that dwell underneath the ultimate ends of heaven.

What's the deal with masculine and feminine water?

Fr. Andrew: All right. Here's my attempt to Pageau it. [Laughter]

Fr. Stephen: Masculine water is Chuck Norris's brand of vitamin water.

Fr. Andrew: There you go! May your first vitamin water be a masculine water. I mean, here's how I would understand it: that there's a kind of male-female symbolism going on with, frankly, penetration and that which is penetrated.

Fr. Stephen: Oh, wow. You took it there.

Fr. Andrew: I know, I know. Just like, you know, a lot of the cables here in my studio, they have male and female ends. We call it that because that's what we mean by it. I mean, that's the sense that I would have of it. I'm sure there's probably more that you could say, but the idea of rain falling from the sky, it does have that sense of coming down and being infused into the earth, and of course the earth being associated with the feminine is a deeply mythic association, whether it's the waters of the earth or of the ground itself. There's always been that sense of feminine. And I suspect that that connection of sort of the sky with the masculine and the earth with the feminine is exactly this basic sort of reproductive sense. That's kind of where that comes from. I don't know. Am I way— You said, "You went there," so… [Laughter]

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, and I'm not sure why. [Laughter] Paging Dr. Freud…

Fr. Andrew: It's because I've read a lot of mythology. That's why.

Fr. Stephen: I guess so. So what's going on in 1 Enoch, that of course is a prophecy of the flood. I would say that has the opposite of reproductive symbolism. This is God uncreating the world.

Fr. Andrew: So why male and female, then? because usually when you get male and female, it's about something related to reproduction.

Fr. Stephen: Right. Because obviously—well, maybe not obviously; not obviously to Tertullian. [Laughter] But obviously to most people now, book of Enoch was not actually written before the flood. And so the passages there that you're reading from that are dealing with— where Enoch is prophesying that the flood is coming are actually pointed at the day of the Lord from the perspective of the authors and original readers of the Enochic literature.

Fr. Andrew: So he's using language about the flood to actually point to something that's still in the distant future.

Fr. Stephen: Right. Well, maybe not distant. They didn't think it was that distant, but—

Fr. Andrew: In the future, at any event.

Fr. Stephen: Right. And so the parallels we see all the time in the New Testament, where when Christ is talking about his return and it's compared to "the days of Noah," that has a long pedigree in Second Temple Jewish literature that includes the Enochic literature. And… Well, I won't go too far down that rabbit-hole. I'll stick to the question. [Laughter]

Specifically in that section, that's also the part of the book of Enoch that talks about Behemoth and Leviathan.

Fr. Andrew: Hm, which is male and female...

Fr. Stephen: And Behemoth and Leviathan are playing with the masculine and feminine, because Lotan, Leviathan, is a feminine creature but is masculine grammatically, the name, and Behemoth, the name is grammatically feminine but it's a masculine creature. The way the book of Enoch presents it, God creates Behemoth and Leviathan and then separates them. Leviathan gets put in the depths of the sea, like in the abyss; and Behemoth he tosses out into the desert of [Dudael]. But the idea is that when those two, the beast in the sea and the beast on the earth, come together, when the masculine and feminine come together, that's going to signal the end of the world; that's end of days, when the two of them get together, the masculine and feminine of Behemoth and Leviathan. And this is very much being picked up in the beast from the earth and the beast from the sea in Revelation, these ideas.

So that's sort of been set up as this is what's going to happen at the end of days. The flood is sort of like the sign that comes beforehand of what the ultimate end is going to be like, and so the portrayal of masculine water and feminine water coming together is to parallel to this idea of Behemoth and Leviathan coming together at the ultimate end.

Fr. Andrew: Okay. [Laughter] No, yeah.

Fr. Stephen: But if you want to talk more about your aux cords, go ahead.

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] It's a thing, man. [Laughter] Okay, this one comes from Moses. These are some great names here, biblical names.

Moses: Hello, Fathers. My name is Rhys Pasimio, baptized Moses. I'm an Orthodox Christian in Portland, Oregon. In church I am laity; in the outside world I'm a licensed professional counselor working in a very clinical context; and I have a question about exorcism. As I'm working with people in their addition and their trauma and working in their inner lives, as I get to know the parts of their system, sometimes we come upon parts that are very recognized by both me and the client as not from their system and having a lot of malevolent intent in just tormenting the person. Clinicians call these unattached burdens; I think they're demons. They seem to have the features of dark spirits.

My question is: As laity in a non-sacramental context, what do we do with this? I know what Protestants would do with this, but I never really felt comfortable with that, and I still don't feel overjoyed at the idea of interacting with these spirits, but I also know these things are… I don't know what to think. But these people need help, and their only access to the Church is me. But again, I am not clergy; I'm not in a sacramental context. So what do I do? Thank you very much for your thoughts and your insight and for the podcast. It's been lots of fun. Peace!

Fr. Andrew: All right. So, yeah, what—?

Fr. Stephen: We've talked to Socrates and Moses in one show.

Fr. Andrew: I know! It's amazing. So what can someone who's not like a clerical exorcist, a priest or bishop or whatever, what can they do to act in an exorcistic way? I think the basic stuff you can do, of course, is to pray for those people that you're working with, even if you're not "performing" an exorcism, actually saying exorcism prayers or whatever. I like to say that all the Christian life is exorcistic, because it's all about driving out the works of the devil and bringing in the works of God in their place. I don't— Even though, Moses, you don't have— It's so funny to say this: "Moses, you don't have this authority." I'm like: "Wait! Moses did have that authority." Although you don't see exorcisms exactly too much in the Old Testament, Moses does have that authority now. It doesn't mean that you can't do something to fight against the demonic presence in these people's lives. So that's what I think.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, you're in a hard space, doing what you're doing as a Christian but doing it in a secular environment, because, the truth is, even if you did have the authority, it probably wouldn't be the right thing to do, because remember what Christ says: You cast a demon out of someone, they don't get their house in order, he comes back and brings more. So it's not— Exorcisms aren't sort of magic in the sense that you cast the demons away from this person and then they'll just be fine, and then they can go back to living a secular life and be fine. That's not the case at all. The reality is that there are— For someone to truly be spiritually healthy, they have to be in the Church. There's just no way around that. You can't have— And even if you were a priest, even if you were a bishop, you couldn't mediate the benefits received by being part of the Church community to someone outside the Church. It's not really just a question of authority.

I realize in that secular environment [if] you try and convert that person, you're going to lose your job. That's why I say you're in a tough space. There's a limit to what you can do. Just like a medical doctor: there's a limit to what they can do. They can treat physical things, but if a person is engaging in just reckless behavior and showing up in the hospital, they can treat the injuries resulting from the reckless behavior, they can treat the illnesses resulting from the reckless behavior, but if the cause of the reckless behavior is a spiritual one, there's nothing a physician can really do about that. I imagine for physicians who are seeing people do that, that is very frustrating and difficult.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah. I mean, it's difficult for parents, trying to help your kids and they keep harming themselves and each other.

Fr. Stephen: And the same is true, I think, for mental health professionals, although maybe with mental health professionals it's even more acute in that it's much harder to separate— At least in terms of treatment, it's much harder to separate mental illness and spiritual illness than it is physical, in the sense that somebody breaks their leg, you can put a cast on the leg. Someone's inability to form healthy relationships is going to have a variety of mental and spiritual causes, and you're only allowed to deal with one of those, one set of those causes. And only dealing with one set of the causes isn't actually going to produce health. They may be better off than they were, but not totally healthy until and unless they get the other.

I know that's a totally unsatisfying answer, which is just like: Man, you're in a rough spot. But it's kind of the state of things in our modern, secular society.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah. I mean, and the one thing that we can always do— And we should not say, "Well, at least I can do this." No, no, no. The one thing you can always do, which is so important, and that no one can stop you, is to pray for the people that are involved, and pray that God would work in them for their salvation. Yeah. All right. This next one comes from Nikos who has a question about Castor and Pollux!

Nikos: Hello, Fathers. Your blessings. My name is Nikos. I'm from Greece, and I'm recording now from Poland. I've been following your podcast from the very beginning. First of all, I would like to thank you for the work that you are doing online and also I have a lot of gratitude for you because you played a role in me coming back to the Orthodox Church. My question is about Castor and Pollux. I was listening to your episode about the thunder-gods. Castor and Pollux are mentioned also in Acts in the last chapter, where it is said that the boat that took St. Paul from Malta to Rome had Castor and Pollux as its signs. So I'm wondering if there is some deeper meaning in this. Thanks a lot and God bless.

Fr. Andrew: All right! This is fun, because this is something that I never even really noticed before until we got this question, because it always just struck me as… It didn't strike me at all, I should say! I just read, and it has this, you know, bit. So what it says, for everybody who doesn't know what he's talking about, like, "Wait a minute. Where's Castor and Pollux in—"

Fr. Stephen: Here comes Goose-Zeus again! [Laughter]

Fr. Andrew: "—in Acts?" So Acts 28:11, it says this: "After three months, we set sail in a ship that had wintered in the island, a ship of Alexandria, with the twin gods as a figurehead." So that's what it says, "The twin gods as a figurehead." So, yes, that is Castor and Pollux. Is there—? What do you think, Father? Is there some significance to that, or is it just a detail that it was that boat that we took?

Fr. Stephen: Yes, Pollux is the son of Zeus-Goose; that's why he comes into it. [Laughter] He is the child conceived from goose turning into a swan and raping his mother.

Fr. Andrew: Well, who was already pregnant, as we should point out. So they're twin half-brothers. It doesn't work out biologically, everybody, but there it is. Any significance? What do you think?

Fr. Stephen: So Castor and Pollux were gods of seamanship and sailors, and they're related to Zeus. So if you're going to sea on the Mediterranean, you're concerned about storms. And a storm ends up hitting the sea while St. Paul is on the boat. What this is saying, slightly sub rosa to modern people—not so much to ancient people—and the way St. Paul understands it—and you can see this in the way he talks about certain things in Philippians— St. Paul understands this and St. Luke is presenting it as: St. Paul, by going and preaching the Gospel to all these nations is calling these people away from idolatry to worship the true God, and this makes the Roman gods mad. So the storm at sea—and this thing of Castor and Pollux—is giving us a symbol, that the storm and the shipwreck is actually supposed to be presented as Zeus trying to take out St. Paul, in retribution for what St. Paul is doing, and failing to take him out. [Laughter]

Fr. Andrew: All right. Yeah. So there is something there, Nikos!

Fr. Stephen: Yes. So spiritual warfare taken in a very literal kind of level. Then there's the whole thing with the snake on Malta and all that. But, yeah, if you're wondering, that's not just an interesting story that gets thrown in there about a shipwreck. Oh, I'm trying to remember— Oh, what's his name? Uhhh…. You can edit that out, too. [Laughter] English poet, very gay... [Laughter] Help me here.

Fr. Andrew: I don't know where you're going with this!

Fr. Stephen: Oh, come on.

Fr. Andrew: I can pause while you think about it.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, pause while I… So there is a story that Oscar Wilde— When he was taking his Greek exam, they had him reading and translating that story in the book of Acts about the shipwreck. After he had done a certain amount of it, they told him, "Okay, that's enough. We get it. You can read the Greek." And his reply was: "Oh really? Because I'd like to see what happens." So apparently his Greek was so good, he'd never read it before and was just sight translating.

Fr. Andrew: Wow! [Laughter]

Fr. Stephen: There's your random Brit lit anecdote for today.

Fr. Andrew: Fun. Nice. See, that's too modern for me. My official cut-off is Alexander Pope, but obviously I make big exceptions for people like Tolkien.

Fr. Stephen: But, yeah, that is a spiritual warfare thing. That's why that's included, that it's not just certain Jewish communities, certain pagans who are trying to stop St. Paul. The pagan gods are trying to stop St. Paul, but nobody can stop St. Paul.

Fr. Andrew: That's right. He's a juggernaut among men! [Laughter] Okay. All right. We've got a few more that we're going to do. This next one comes from Rob.

Rob: Hello! My name's Rob Welty. I'm calling from Fort McMurry, Alberta. The question I have is regarding election. I am an Orthodox Christian, but my journey in faith began when I was a teenager growing up Baptist. I used to be a big fan—and I still am kind of a fan—of John Piper, but I'm just wondering what— There was a knowledge of Christ. I was raised as a Christian, but when I came to faith I actually believe there was a moment where I did not believe and then I did. It wasn't because I read a book, it wasn't because I— It was an event that happened. I felt a little bit like C.S. Lewis when he said he got on the bus and when he walked off the bus he was a Christian. And there was nothing there, like an intellectual assent. I didn't believe and then I did. And from that point on, my life was changed.

I'm wondering in Orthodoxy is there an explanation of that, because it does seem when it comes to free will and that— I'm not struggling with it so much, but I am wondering: Is there something in Orthodoxy that kind of explains this? Maybe you could help me out with this. I would love to have a longer discussion, but it's only 90 seconds. Thank you for your answer in advance, hopefully. Lord be with you, and thank you for your ministry.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah.

Fr. Stephen: That Piper, leading all the kids out of town just because we didn't pay him for the rats.

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] I mean, people do have experiences like this, where at one moment or one day they don't believe, they don't acknowledge that Jesus is Christ, and they don't want to follow him, and then at another moment, another day, they do. Whereas a lot of people, their whole life they're— Like, their parents raised them to be faithful to Christ and there was never a point where they didn't want to do that, where they weren't set on that. Other people, it's kind of a gradual, a much more gradual thing, where it's not like there's a before and after. So Rob is asking: Is this—? I don't know if he means that this is something that everyone has to have or whatever. If that's the question, Rob, I don't think that everyone has to have that.

Is it a thing that some people have? Absolutely, clearly, but I don't think it's required that there be this sudden before and after, that there be a "conversion experience" that people have. I think that that comes from, frankly, Protestant revivalism, that there's this emphasis on having had this conscious experience, a before and after. And I've always— I mean, even before I was Orthodox, I had a problem with that idea, because I was raised to be a Christian. I was raised, so even though— I remember a point when I was seven years old, and I did the thing that all Evangelical kids eventually do, which is you ask Jesus into your heart. It's not as though— Now, mind you, it's hard for me to remember this, because this is now over 40 years later—but it's not as though I had any sense before that that "Oh, I reject all that," and now suddenly I embrace all of that. No, I mean, I was raised to go to church. I always did that. I never had a sense of "Oh, I shouldn't be doing this." So, yeah, my take is that it's a thing for some people and it's great, but it's not a thing for everybody. It doesn't need to be. What do you think?

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, I think he might've been getting at something different.

Fr. Andrew: Oh, okay.

Fr. Stephen: Because he invoked the specter, the hideous specter of John Calvin. [Laughter]

Fr. Andrew: Is John Calvin one of the prophets?

Fr. Stephen: And that's that the idea that conversion is an act that God does to you rather than it being a choice that you make. Those are the two paradigms within sort of Evangelical Protestantism: either it's a choice, it's a decision you make; or God regenerates you and causes— in Calvinism, God regenerates you and causes you, then, to make that choice. And I think he was— I think that's what he was asking, and he was implying for him, phenomenologically, like his experience of it, was that something changed. It wasn't just that one day he made a different decision, but something changed that almost sort of compelled him now to accept or to believe. And isn't that more like that Calvinist version, where something was changed in him without his sort of direct—

But so… I mean, the reason people are Calvinists— The reason there are any Calvinists out there—because, obviously, no secret, I don't believe Calvinism is correct—but the reason why people believe it—and there's a variety of them, but I think the major one is that in some way, something about it corresponds to their own experience of the world. Probably it's different parts of it for different people. Some people have a real experience of their own sin, and so the idea of total depravity clicks with their own experience, and their need for salvation and for— And they say, "Well, look. I'm such a mess, I need God to do this for me or it's not going to happen." [Laughter] Like: "I can't do this." They have a profound experience of that, and so they accept Calvinism. And there's probably other things, but what you're presenting could be one of them. Someone has the experience of coming to Christ where they feel like: "It's not like I looked at all the available options and made this sort of informed choice, but I felt kind of compelled by something."

But let me suggest that we have a similar phenomenological experience in other areas that we don't chalk up to "God did this to me." We don't chalk this up to "This must have been sort of divine initiative," because when we talk about having free will and a person being free, that doesn't mean they're conscious of all the factors that go into the decisions they make. My experience of falling in love with my wife—there's some point in time where it went from "This is a person I know; this is a person I like" to falling in love with her. And I don't know that I can pin down the exact moment when that clicked, but it wasn't an experience with me, phenomenologically, like: "I think I'm going to— I've done the pros and cons, and I think I'm going to fall in love with this person."

Fr. Andrew: Yeah. [Laughter]

Fr. Stephen: A much more trivial version of this: when I go and order food off a menu most of the time, I just see something on the menu, and it's like: "Oh! That's what I want." [Laughter] There's an inner movement of: "That's the thing I need to order." Or I go into a store and see something, and I'm like: "Ooh. I need to buy that. That's amazing." That's not that I'm not choosing. I am choosing in all of those cases at some level. It's just I'm not fully aware of all the dynamics that go into that choice, because I don't fully know myself. I don't fully know everything that's going on in my mind. Why I like one color shirt over another color shirt—there probably are reasons: all kinds of associations from my past and nostalgia and things with my parents and growing up that caused me to be attracted to some things and not others, but I'm not always aware of them all when I'm making the choice.

Certainly, God is involved and is acting in all of our lives—before, during, after, as any given point we want to talk about in our spiritual lives, whether we want to talk about baptism, whether we want to talk about the decision to join the Church, the decision— any of those decisions: God is involved. God is acting before, during, after. And that is inseparable from us making the choice. We don't do any of these things independently of God. But also, none of these things happened independent of us and our own thoughts and actions and decisions. So it's a both/and, not an either/or. It's not: "Either God compelled me to do this or I freely decided this with no involvement from God whatsoever." It is both/and.

Fr. Andrew: We're not Monergists either way. [Laughter]

Fr. Stephen: Yeah. So hopefully one of us got your question right. [Laughter]

Fr. Andrew: And maybe we both did, in different ways.

Fr. Stephen: Maybe we both got different parts of it, yeah.

Fr. Andrew: All right. A couple more. Here's one about— from Patrick, about prayers against blacksmiths.

Fr. Stephen: Oh, blacksmiths!

Patrick: In St. Patrick of Ireland's Breastplate, he prays "against the spells of witches, smiths, and druids." What do blacksmiths have to do with sorcery? Why are they placed in the same class as witches and wizards? I've heard that the Celtic peoples considered smiths to be magicians, but is there any basis for this connection in the Church? Does this have anything to do with the first mention of a metal-worker in Genesis being a descendant of Cain? Or Demetrios and Alexander, who were opponents of St. Paul's ministry, being blacksmiths?

Fr. Andrew: All right. I love these kinds of questions!

Fr. Stephen: We should call Fr. Patrick Cardine on this one.

Fr. Andrew: Oh, man! Who is a blacksmith!

Fr. Stephen: And St. Patrick, patron saint of him and his parish.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah, he really needs to answer for this.

Fr. Stephen: Yes. This is— This could provoke a whole crisis in ministry for him if it remains unanswered.

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] So we know— I'm certain that we have some listeners out there that belong to Fr. Patrick's parish. I'm not saying bug your priest about this or—

Fr. Stephen: Call him on the carpet! Call a congregational meeting without warning him. Invite him to the church under false pretenses and demand answers.

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] I— Here's my sense— That's the best laugh I've had today. Here's my sense of this. I mean, it's this ancient sense that technology and magic are kind of one thing, that there's not a sort of "just blacksmiths." Why is it that any time, for instance, in Germanic poetry—Christian or— well, we don't have any pagan, actually, that I'm aware of; it's all written by Christians, although occasionally about pagans… When really great weapons show up, almost always there's some reference to them being made by Wayland, the sort of demi-divine smith-figure. Of course in Greek mythology, if there's a really great weapon or piece of armor: "Oh, yeah, Hephaestus made that for my uncle" or whatever. There's always that sense, and it doesn't just mean that they're really good at the forge. There's this magical sense going on. These are divine figures.

So a prayer against blacksmiths is not a prayer against people who happen to work iron or whatever. It's really about this, that this— And we've talked about technology and metallurgy particularly on the show before. So if you've been listening for a while, Patrick, then you know what we're talking about. I don't know. Anything to add or subtract, multiply or divine?

Fr. Stephen: Well, I think it does all go back to Tubal-Cain—

Fr. Andrew: Yeah!

Fr. Stephen: —as he suggests, that idea, that these are in the same way as sorcery or something, these are secrets revealed by demonic powers that can be destructive. And then it goes forward to Weyland-Yutani Corp.

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] I mean… It's no coincidence that's one of the names. Just putting that out there. And also, by the way, is one of the names in my personal heritage. All right. For our final question for this pre-recorded episode of The Lord of Spirits podcast, our Speakpipe-alooza—

Fr. Stephen: This question will be our final boss fight.

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] Exactly. This comes from Rachel.

Rachel: Hi, this is Rachel calling from Lafayette, California. My question is about nationalism in the Orthodox Church. It seems like there's a lot of emphasis put on the different ethnicities with regards to the various churches. It seems kind of strange to me as an American what one's ethnicity would have to do with being a part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. But it seems like for converts or people coming to the Church, you kind of have to adopt either Greek or Russian or Arab, some sort of other identity which you might not already have, in order to become a part of the Church. So I'm just wondering your thoughts on that, if you think it's a good thing, there's something to be gained from it. Yeah. Thanks.

Fr. Andrew: All right. You know, when she first mentioned nationalism, I was happy to learn she didn't mean nationalism as she continued talking. I was like: Ah… She means ethnocentrism. [Laughter] Thank God. That's a little easier to deal with.

Fr. Stephen: I dealt with the other earlier in the show, somewhat unprovoked.

Fr. Andrew: Indeed, as is your wont. Okay, so first I'll say, Rachel, that not every parish is like that. My parish is not. We have a little plurality of Syrian Americans, but no one would go to our parish and say, "Oh, I need to become Syrian in order to be part of this parish." No, because everyone in our parish speaks English, our services are all in English. You would hardly know, unless you started really looking around at people and started asking questions and checking their last names—you'd hardly know that we had this plurality of Syrian Americans in our parish. So not every parish is like that, and there's plenty of other parishes that are similarly situated.

And you're right. You shouldn't have to become some other culture in order to be an Orthodox Christian. That said, I will say that different parishes, usually because of an immigrant experience here in America, have these cultural connections in the parish. In some cases, the parish is completely that, and the services might be in another language, and even the language used at coffee hour is another language than one that you speak. These communities come out of a real experience of people immigrating and wanting to do church together. And it's completely understandable that it would arise that way.

So then the question is: As an American who does not identify as that culture, what do I do with that? In some cases, the easiest thing to do might be to find another parish that you can connect with. Now, in some places that's not possible. They might be too far away or whatever it might be. Of course, parishes can have other problems that they do not want to be part of it, too.

But let's say you have the case of one community in your area, or only one that's convenient to you, maybe, and you can't move somewhere else. Then what do you do with that? Well, these are these people and this is who they are. Do I want to become part of their community, and what is the best way for me to become part of their community? This would be true no matter what kind of church community you were joining.

There have been people, for instance, who— And this may not be as extreme of an example, but it's still an example, because it can feel weird and foreign to people who join an Evangelical church and they heard people saying things like: "God laid this on my heart." Well, if you're not used to that language, you have no idea what that means, and it sounds like some weird, foreign way of speaking. I know people who— that was their experience in encountering Evangelicalism. They'll hear people say things like: "I felt the Spirit move." Like: "What? You felt what? How did that feel? How did you know that that was the Spirit? What?"

So no matter what kind of community you join, there's going to be some kind of adaptation required, no matter what it is, even if it's just— let's say it's an Orthodox church that's full of American converts who only speak English and everything is in English. If you're not used to Orthodoxy, there's still going to be some adaptations that you're going to have to do, no matter what. It might still feel weird and foreign.

I have known of people who have come into all-English parishes in the United States and said, "This is way too foreign. I don't fit in with this culture." And some people will say things like: "I'm Western, and this is Eastern," which I don't understand exactly what that means, but in any event, people do have that experience and they will say things like that. So no matter what, there's going to be some adaptation required.

Now, if you are part of the parish and you're asking the question of: "How do we welcome in visitors?" that's a different conversation. From that point of view, you have to ask yourself, "Okay, number one, are we the only Orthodox option in town?" If the answer is yes, then you do have a duty to be welcoming to visitors. Now, if there are other options and you can talk with the people at those other parishes and they feel like: "No, we got this," fine. I don't have a problem— I don't personally have a problem with parishes that exist as immigrant pockets. I don't have a problem with that, especially if there are other options for converts in the area. But if a parish is ready to open up and welcome other people, then they probably need to think about using the language that is the normal language throughout the whole country.

It's interesting to me. Let's say you lived in Greece. Now, I do happen to know that there are parishes in Greece that do not use Greek. I know of an Arabic parish, actually, near Athens. I don't know if there's any that use English; I don't know. But if you're living in Greece, would you ask yourself the question: "Do I have to become Greek to become part of the Orthodox Church?" And the answer obviously in that case would be no, but you do have to deal with Greeks! [Laughter] They're the people there. So, yeah, to me the question is: Okay, I want to join this community. What do I need to do to join this community. While some people might say things like: "Well, you need to become Russian or Serbian or Ukrainian or Syrian or Lebanese," or whatever it might be, that's not true. You can't become that if you're not that, but you can find ways of getting along with and living with those people. So that's, to me, what it comes down to. Fr. Stephen, since this is the final boss of this episode, what do you have to say?

Fr. Stephen: Well, I mean, this is… There is no American Orthodox Church—sorry, OCA; you're still Russian.

Fr. Andrew: Oh! Wow.

Fr. Stephen: Deal with it.

Fr. Andrew: Throwing out some hot ones tonight!

Fr. Stephen: It's reality.

Fr. Andrew: Not so much Russian as Carpatho-Rusyn with a sort of Russian veneer. [Laughter]

Fr. Stephen: Well, you know. The Russian lands, as we could say.

Fr. Andrew: And we love you.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, that's not an insult! I don't know why… There is no American Orthodox Church. It's going to take centuries for there to be an American Orthodox Church. It took centuries for there to be a Russian Orthodox Church. There was a metropolitan of Kiev, back when it was the capital of Russia. Now I'm really… [Laughter] —who was appointed by the patriarch of Constantinople, who was a Greek for a long time, the metropolitan of Kiev. Because Russian Orthodoxy didn't exist yet. It took centuries for it to come into existence.

Gentile Christianity took a long time to come into existence. The core of every church St. Paul founded was Jewish Christians, and he argued vehemently that that did not mean the Gentiles did not need to become Jews to become part of the community. So the fact that we have— Well, there have been attempts, but the fact that the Orthodox Church has not tried to boot-strap an American Orthodoxy is a very good thing, because the thing that would be produced by that would be a nightmare. It would be American in all the worst ways. There are forms of Christianity in the United States that are very, very American in all the worst ways: consumerism, obsession with entertainment culture and celebrity, this men's conference this week that was like: "Saturday, Saturday, Saturday, monster trucks! UFC fights…" [Laughter] Like, it's pathetic. It's a distortion of Christianity in favor of Americanism.

Let me be really controversial again and disagree with Fr. Andrew. I think, frankly, this "We need to do everything in English" is, again, being American in the worst possible way.

Fr. Andrew: Oh!

Fr. Stephen: Monolingualism is embarrassing.

Fr. Andrew: I don't disagree with that!

Fr. Stephen: Okay. [Laughter]

Fr. Andrew: No, I don't disagree with that at all.

Fr. Stephen: The United States is the only place in the world where someone can be considered educated and only speak one language.

Fr. Andrew: No, I believe— With regards to language, I believe that every community needs to figure out how to serve the people they have.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah. So this— "You're in Amurica! Talk Amurican!" That's not a respectable position for anyone to take. [Laughter] I frankly wish we used more French in the liturgy here instead of just Arabic, Greek, English, and a little bit of French.

Fr. Andrew: Oh, in Louisiana, yeah.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah. [Laughter] So monolingualism: nothing to be proud of. The idea is— And I think it's a bad instinct, frankly— See, I see— Seeker sensitivity was stupid in the '90s when Evangelicals were after it. [Laughter] The idea that someone, that just any random person should walk off the street and walk into one of our churches and feel totally comfortable is, again, stupid.

Fr. Andrew: I mean, I'll say, the whole seeker sensitive thing was not even about any random person. They did market research and determined who the people they were trying to reach were, which thus excluded a bunch of people.

Fr. Stephen: Well, yeah, but this idea that just anybody should be able to walk in and be totally comfortable—of course they shouldn't be comfortable! The Church demands that every single one of us repent and change and be transformed. The only way to craft a church such that anyone walking in would be comfortable would be to make zero demands of them whatsoever, accept them exactly the way they are, and tell them they're perfectly fine.

Fr. Andrew: Nice coffee in the narthex...

Fr. Stephen: And guess what? Once you make that church, no one's going to come, because why would they?

Fr. Andrew: Right? They're already comfortable at home!

Fr. Stephen: They are the way they are!

Fr. Andrew: I was going to say, there's a bunch of churches that are doing that and are dying because of it. Congratulations, you guys.

Fr. Stephen: Right? So the Orthodox Church is still very close to its immigrant roots. That's a good thing. That's one of the things that's protected Orthodox Christianity in this country from the way that American culture colonizes everything and corrupts it, frankly, with consumerism and these other traits, these other negative traits. It's not just consumerism either. It's pornification; it's all kinds of things in American culture. I'm not a fan of American culture, if you haven't noticed. [Laughter] But those immigrant ties have protected the Orthodox Church from that, and those immigrant ties are not going to last forever. My concern is less with how do we make the Orthodox Church more American; my concern is how do we stop it from becoming too American too fast and becoming some weird chimera.

Our goal has to be preserving what's been handed down to us, preserving it intact, preserving it free from corruption, and then presenting it to people because it will bring about their salvation. But it's going to challenge them. It's going to be difficult. It's difficult and it takes time to understand how the Divine Liturgy is structured, because it's structured very counter-intuitively to the average non-Orthodox person, let alone Great Compline, which is like The Return of the King of Orthodox services: it ends, like, three times.

Fr. Andrew: [Laughter] It's just bedtime prayers—for an hour or so.

Fr. Stephen: The structures of our worship, the structures of our prayer life: these are all things that don't feel natural to people outside the Orthodox Church, and that's a feature, not a bug. Church doesn't conform itself to the people it comes to; it conforms those people to the Church. Americans being conformed to the Church is what will eventually produce an identifiable American Orthodoxy. And, who knows? Someday, 500 years from now, the American Orthodox Church may be sending missionaries somewhere to establish churches, say, in China or Mongolia or something, and the Chinese people and the Mongolians will be like: "Well, how do I enter into this church without becoming American?" the way the Greeks, who had to adapt to what was fundamentally a Jewish religion now have people asking, "Well, how do I join this church without becoming Greek?"

Fr. Andrew: Yep. All right. That's probably a little bit more than you were asking for there, Rachel, but you are the final boss, so what can we say? [Laughter]

Fr. Stephen: Yes. I am prone to diatribe, as these people may have noticed, listening to the show.

Fr. Andrew: It's true. Well, that's our show for today. Thank you very much, everyone, for listening. If your question didn't get selected this time, we'd still like to hear from you. You can email us at lordofspirits@ancientfaith.com; you can message us on our Facebook page; and of course you can leave us a voicemail, as you just heard many people did, at speakpipe.com/lordofspirits. And if you have basic questions about Orthodox Christianity or especially you need need help finding a parish, head on over to OrthodoxIntro.org.

Fr. Stephen: And join us for our live broadcasts on the second and fourth Thursdays of the month at 7:00 p.m. Eastern, 4:00 p.m. Pacific. "And if you take your time, rifle through; find a very nice one."

Fr. Andrew: And if you are on Facebook, you can follow our page, join our discussion group, leave reviews and ratings everywhere, but, most importantly, share this show with a friend who you know is going to love it. And, hey, check out our books while you're at it.

Fr. Stephen: And finally, be sure to go to ancientfaith.com/support and help make sure we and lots of other AFR podcasters stay on the air. "If there's a crease in my face over time, there's plenty more where that came from."

Fr. Andrew: Thank you, good night, and God bless you all.