Seeing is Believing (and Vice-Versa?)

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

Authentic Christianity does not begin with syllogisms seeking to prove the existence of some sort of Divine Being (Whom subsequent chapters will "prove" is the Christian God). Neither does it begin with arguments, inescapably circular, for why Holy Scripture is the ultimate authority, the font, definition, and norm of Truth. (Don't people who think Holy Scripture is this ever wonder why, if this is so, Jesus never wrote a single chapter of Scripture to leave behind when He ascended into Heaven?) Real Christianity is not a philosophy, a science, or a concept.

No, Christianity begins with, And we beheld His glory! It begins with that which we have seen, and heard, and handled - culminating with the Resurrection, but starting on the first Christmas. The Infinite One takes on finite flesh (and makes it infinite); the Formless One takes the form of an infant; the Eternal One manifests Himself in time. And we beheld His glory.

But to behold His glory, to see what is before us, requires that our eyes be open, our inner as well as our outer eyes. That's what Fr. Stephen writes about in this blog post, entitled, "What We Do Not See":

One of the most striking features of the Gospels is the frequent response of the Disciples after the resurrection of Christ: doubt. I have always been sympathetic to the doubts and hesitations that afflicted their lives during the ministry of Christ. The disciples are almost endearing in their inability to grasp what Christ is all about. However, the same inability to grasp things after the resurrection seems to carry with it all kinds of difficulties. What was it about the resurrection that the disciples could not or did not believe? A man dies and is buried. Then he is not buried and is not a walking corpse but manifests an entirely new form of existence. Call it resurrection or what have you - but apparently Christ had mentioned this coming reality more than once before it happened. What was the problem?

The problem seems to go to the very heart of things both then and now. Had the resurrection belonged to the classification of events that everyone can see, measure, study, and reach “scientific” agreement, there would surely have been no trouble. But the resurrection does not belong to some general classification. It is sui generis, its own classification.

There are many who want to speak about the resurrection as if it were a car wreck down at the corner drugstore. Whatever it was (is), it is very much more, even, indeed, something completely different - not like anything else.

And it is here, that the continuing problem of vision is made manifest. Orthodox Christian writers are wont to utter things like, “God will save the world through beauty” (Dostoevsky), or “Icons will save the world” (recently in First Things) all of which makes some people want to run out and complain. But at their heart, such statements are trying to say something about the nature of the resurrection and its action in our world.

The resurrection of Christ is something completely new. It is a manifestation of God unlike anything we have ever known. It is Truth made manifest in the flesh - not the truth to be found in an average living man. I am 55 and I look very unlike what I did at 10. I look decidedly unlike what I will in another 100 years (you probably wouldn’t like to see that). Thus we never see anything in an eternal state. But the resurrection is just that. It does not belong exactly to the classification of “things created,” for it is the “uncreated” before our eyes.

And thus the Church paints the things that pertain to the resurrection (including the saints) in an iconic fashion - not like portraiture or the “truth” that generally lies before our eyes. Icons paint the Truth as it appears to eyes that behold the resurrection. By the same token, the Church does not write about the resurrection in the way we write about other things, for the resurrection is not one of the other things but a thing that is unlike anything else. Thus the Fathers of the Church said that “icons do with color what Scripture does with words.”

And both have something to do with vision. The Gospel tells us: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” I am not pure in heart but I think I may have encountered such a person. At the least I have read stories about such persons and I know that such persons see what I cannot and they see in a manner that as yet I do not.

But this goes to the point of salvation. Salvation is not how to get people like me (or like you) into some place safe from the fires of hell. That is a transportation problem at best, or a legal problem, at worst. The point of salvation is how to change people like me (and you). It is about changing us such that seeing the resurrection becomes possible. In order to see the resurrection and those things that pertain to it - one must somehow participate in the resurrection. The vision that is birthed in our hearts at Holy Baptism is the vision born of the resurrection of Christ. He is the “true light” whom we behold in the Holy Eucharist.

In this sense, God will indeed save the world through Beauty. The problem is that so few if any of us have ever seen Beauty. Had you truly seen Beauty, then you would not disagree with the statement. It’s obvious character would be, well, obvious. That people want to argue with it (or with icons) only means that they do not or cannot see. And neither do I, most of the time.

If I could see as I am meant to see then my eyes would not see enemies nor the like. Not that others might not intend to be my enemies or want evil for me - but there are eyes that see beyond all of that and see the Truth of a person. Had I the eyes to see, love would not be an insurmountable problem but as tangible as the Resurrection itself.

And so we have celebrated the Feast of the Lord’s Nativity. Every heart must prepare Him room. More than that, every heart should beg to see the Beauty, to read the Icon of the Gospel of the Nativity, to see what daily escapes our vision and leaves us blind - leading the blind.

Kyrie, eleison!

Sloth, Depression, and Christmas

Many a day lately, I think I'd rather just forget everything and go back to bed and stay there all day.

Not wanting to get up is a classic sign of depression. So I make myself get up and do things. But I wonder, does this mean I'm depressed?

Maybe. But here’s the thing: Christmas is so much bigger than I and my so-called problems! He Who created time is now born into time. The Uncontainable One is contained in the Virgin’s womb. The all-good God takes on fallen human nature, and sanctifies it. He visits our planet in person, and it’s the only planet we know of He ever did so visit. And, as Anne says in her beautiful post (Do read the whole thing!), He gives meaning to being human, meaning death had stolen from us; and not just meaning, but beautiful, glorious, new, undreamt-of meaning. "Christ is born; glorify Him!"

(Oh, and I suspect depressed people go to bed and cry and moan and wish they were dead, which is not what I have in mind. I'd turn on my electric blanket and add an extra pillow and sit up and read. I'd let the cats come up to snuggle with me. I'd sip hot chocolate. I might knit, or at least look over pattern books in preparation for knitting. I'd play on my laptop computer. In short, I'd have a wonderful time! It's sloth, not depression, tugging at my skirts. As usual. Kyrie, eleison!)

So, no matter what your external circumstances, a very merry Christmas to you!

Please Don't Just Lie There Sleeping in Heavenly Peace!

It strikes me how many Christmas carols emphasize the theme of Baby Jesus Sleeping. We have "What child is this, who, laid to rest/ On Mary's lap is sleeping?" and "The Little Lord Jesus, asleep in the hay" and "Still, still, still, Weil's Kindlein schlafen will", which translates to, "Still, still, still, for the infant wants to sleep". And of course, there's "Sleep in heavenly peace". But what is this?

Tell me: as long as you are imagining yourself going to see the Baby Jesus (which is what happens in these carols), don't you hope, in fact rather desperately hope, that He will wake up while you are there? And smile at you, or reach out to be held by you, or even just see you and let you look into His eyes? Instead of "Sleep, sleep, sleep, my dear baby, sleep!" (the second verse of Still, Still, Still), wouldn't you really rather sing, "Wake, wake, wake, my dearest baby, wake!"?

So I think these carols should be rewritten, something along the lines of this example, the second verse of "Away in a Manger":

The cattle are lowing
The dear Baby wakes
And smiling upon us
A blessing He makes.
I thank Thee, Lord Jesus
For opening Thine eyes
And seeing my face
And hearing my sighs.