You are on page 1of 6

A Cruciform Providence

February 16, 2017 Fr. Stephen Freeman

The entire mystery of the economy of our salvation consists in the self-emptying and abasement of the Son of
God St. Cyril of Alexandria

Trust in the providence of God is much more than a general theory of how things are arranged in our lives
and in the world. We tend to discuss the notion in the abstract, wondering whether this action or event is to
be properly attributed to God. There is a much deeper matter, however, one that goes to the heart of the
Christian life and the nature of salvation itself. Providence is not a theory about how things are it is the
very nature of salvation.

A proper place to begin in thinking about this is with Christ Himself. Jesus says, I have come down from
heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. (Joh 6:38) This is a clear declaration of
His self-emptying and abasement, a kenotic action that is consummated on the Cross.

In a similar manner, trust in Divine providence is a form of self-emptying on the part of the believer. Such
trust has a very traditional expression: the giving of thanks. To give thanks always, everywhere and for all
things is the fullest form of self-emptying. The Elder Sophrony once said that if one were to practice
thanksgiving always and everywhere, he would fulfill the saying to St. Silouan, Keep your mind in hell and
despair not. Fr. Alexander Schmemann said, Anyone capable of thanksgiving is capable of salvation.

The common objection to trust in Gods providence is similar to the objections for thanksgiving. We fear
that such trust and thanks will result in non-action, an acquiescence to the reign of evil. If the Christian life
is rightly understood (and lived), this result is not an issue. This fear, understandably common, is intensified
within the mindset and narrative of modernity.

The modern narrative tends to claim that human problems were largely left unattended and uncorrected until
the advent of modern social science and political efforts. It fails to recognize that the very period of time that
is marked by modern, has also contained many of the most egregious human rights violations known to
history. Racial slavery, as practiced in America, for example, was maintained and justified almost
exclusively on the grounds of very modern reasons.

The fear of inaction is a charge that can easily be brought against the Cross itself. The weakness of Christ
Crucified appears (on the surface) to be the acquiescence of God to evil. This is certainly what the powers of
evil thought:

We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for
our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the
Lord of glory. (1Co 2:7-8)

To trust in providence is not the same as inaction. Rather, it is a description of the form and character of
action. The death of Christ on the Cross is in no wise involuntary it is not passive. A life lived in union
with the providence of God is in no way passive it is the action of the Cross within the world.

The Cross should not be relegated to an event that accomplishes our salvation as an isolated or unique
transaction. The Crucified Christ reveals the very nature and character of God and the nature and character
of the life of salvation. The Christian life is the process of increasing transformation into the image and
likeness of Christ. That image and likeness is specifically that of the Crucified (Phil. 2:5-11).
We are told to keep the commandments. Those commandments include care for the poor, the homeless,
those in prison, etc. Indeed, the Cross teaches us to radically identify with them, rather than simply to offer a
helping hand. There is, within the modern paradigm, a profound substitution of state action for personal
action. Voting to help the poor with other peoples money seems somehow amiss in terms of the gospel.

I was sick and you advocated for a single-payer health-care system. I was hungry and you gave me
foodstamps. I was in prison and you advocated for more just sentencing and additional social workers. I was
naked and you argued with people for judging my appearance.

These are more characteristic of popular justice in the modern setting. Our concern for justice rarely
seems to engage anyone face-to-face, or to leave us with substantially less money. We fail to understand the
true nature of violence, and refuse to acknowledge its necessary role in making the world a better place.
Modernity is married to violence and pleads that it is all in a good cause.

The justice of the Cross is a way of life one which makes no sense apart from the resurrection. I once
heard it said that a Christian should live their life in such a way that, if Christ had not been raised from the
dead, it would be absurd. That absurdity is nothing less than the foolishness of the Cross. In arguments with
modernity, the way of the Cross will always lose, will always seem to fall short of solving problems and
fixing things. Every human plan is better.

However, if the preaching of the Cross carries with it no foolishness, then something less than the Cross is
being preached. Those who have reduced the Cross to a pagan sacrifice, appeasing an angry god, have made
of it a wise investment and a safe bet. Such faith is beside the point.

Within our daily lives, if we confront the day with thanksgiving, the Cross will quickly reveal itself. The
first moment that the giving of thanks becomes difficult, we have reached the wood of the Cross itself. We
stand in the very gates of Hades. If in that moment of difficulty we persist in giving thanks, then Hades
trembles and the dead are raised. This is our personal kenosis, our self-emptying in the presence of the good
God. Nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done.

This same heart will indeed feed the poor and clothe the naked. It may very well give away everything that it
owns. It will not make the world a better place, for it is the place where a better world has already become
incarnate.

1. Justin says: Spot on!


Its a grand sound to say in everything give thanks or Glory to God for all things (its what youre
supposed to say, after all), but note how folks recoil when you unpack the generality and get specific.
If you want to test this, walk up to a Christian mental health type professional and make a statement
to the effect that youre thankful to God that youve suffered abuse.
2. sbdn andrew says: My failure and utter shame has never been so great as when trying to emulate the
piety of a Fool for Christ without the pain of actually being foolish. I have rarely re-ventured to such
dismal failure on the abandoned ship of selfless-willed ambition: it is mostly, dare I say, blessed upon
me lovingly and in Christs esteemed portionsdaubing each broken fragment to my puzzled self bit by
bit. And I am every bit still modern no matter how byzantine I try to be. (I confess writing this on a
computer, but quite possibly, as a jested docetist, I am the point to a kenosist I have not fully seen)
3. Rick says: Fr. Stephen, I have been following your recent articles with great interest; they are
liberating. But I need help understanding what I am giving thanks for in, say, sexual abuse as a child (as
Justin has alluded to). When a woman is raped or when a child is murdered, for what is she to give
thanks? I do not ask these questions in a combative way but in seeking to learn and live in Christ.
4. Nicholas Stephen Griswold says: I have been thinking about modernitys concepts of progress and the
Enlightenment. I remembered a fellow from Germany that lived in the 17th and 18th Century and was
probably one of the most influential in shaping the concept of Human Progress. As a Philosopher Georg
Hegel developed his theory of the Dialectic which spoke of the progress of humankind. Many bought
into his thoughts and process even though his theory was totally disproved in the events following
August 1914.
All of the alleged progress of humanity in civility collapsed into the utter savagery of WW I. What
amazes me that despite one of the most savage centuries in recorded history our friends, who are
pushing the New World Order, with all of its claims to progression towards Utopia, so easily slides
around the truth of the real savagery of mankind and all the evidence that progress is a myth. I wonder
what cataclysmic event it will take to open our eyes and minds to the truths expounded in this line of
articles in this blog, Father. Perhaps only at the Eschaton will the bulk of humanity see. I pray we will
awaken before then.
5. Dimitar Koparov says: Dear Father Stephen, I really love your words and your message. Today is
probably the first time I find a disagreement with anything you say (sometimes I might have not fully
understood, but that is different). In terms of these words of yours Voting to help the poor with other
peoples money seems somehow amiss in terms of the gospel. and the following quote, which isnt
attributed, I cannot respond with eloquence, so I will just refer you to a speech by Ecumenical Patriarch
Bartholomew:
http://www.aoiusa.org/ecumenical-patriarch-bartholomew-at-georgetown/ Dont get me wrong, I think
your message about the Cruciform Providence is very inspiring as a guide to my personal life, especially
in advance of Lent, but once you foray into political advocacy, things are different, and mixing those
two things is dangerous and more typical of Protestantism, not Orthodoxy, in my personal experience.
6. Michael Bauman says: Dimitar, one can not be faithful in this day and age without standing
forthrightly in the face of political ideology. Certainly Pat. Bartholomew is not free of such
entanglements. He could not be. The Gospel norm seems to be devoid of any expectation that the state,
any state, has anything to do with our alms giving. If my brother is hungry I am duty bound to do what
I can, plus more, to feed him. Economically and socially, taxes create a certain sense of quid pro quo
that does not fit well with Christian almsgiving. Even if the state were actually benevolent and did what
was expected, it would not touch my own response to those in need. If the state does well, that is good
but we must do better.
7. Dimitar Koparov says: Michael, I agree, but why advocate for a state that does poorly for its people?
8. Alan says: Dimitar, Id like to understand your point a bit better, if you dont mind. You wrote: but
once you foray into political advocacy, things are different, and mixing those two things is dangerous
and more typical of Protestantism, not Orthodoxy, in my personal experience. Not that it matters, but I
fully agree with this statement you made. But Im confused because the statement (avoiding foray into
politics) contradicts what the EP was doing in his address. His address was very political IMO, yet you
seem to like his address. Again, Im just trying to understand your position. Foray into politics, or dont
do that?
9. Paula says: sbdn andrew, Your comment it is mostly, dare I say, blessed upon me lovingly and in
Christs esteemed portionsdaubing each broken fragment to my puzzled self bit by bit resonates with
me. Thats what He doesHe knows our frame, that broken vessel.
Your other comment about how byzantine you try to beI just read Fr. Farleys newest post
regarding this very subjecthttps://blogs.ancientfaith.com/nootherfoundation/the-doors-the-doors/. Its
interesting. (maybe you read it already)
10. Dimitar Koparov says: Alan, I do think that mixing deep truths and political messages is wrong. I
quoted His All Holiness Bartholomew just as a counter example really. As in, one can very much argue
the other way.
11. Alan says: Alright, thank you for the clarification. Blessings to you.
12. Fr. Stephen Freeman says: Dimitar, I am writing and speaking to the heart. My caution is to Christians
who mistake their political action (for example, voting what to do with other peoples money) as the
same thing Christ is describing in our serving Him in the poor. No change of heart need occur to be
generous with taxes. Personally, Id be glad of much greater support of the poor single-payer medical
care, etc.. But I dare not substitute that for the commands of the gospel. The cost is too small. Please do
not mistake my examples (voting for this or that) as examples of things I do not favor politically. I
simply mean to say that they are not the same thing and are not substitutes.
13. Fr. Stephen Freeman says: Dimitar, Again, please understand, my statement was not meant to argue
either way only to note that the gospel asks something else of us regardless of how we may think or
vote.
14. Alan says: Father, Lately, Ive been thinking about completely abandoning the political arena. Not
voting, not watching any news, etc. Im not suggesting others should do that, just thinking that I
should. Yet I often hear Christians tell me that I must vote, I must advocate for this, that, or the other, I
must get involved. I used to agree with those folks. But lately, in no small part based on your writings,
Ive come to see the fallacy of modernity. Do you think its wrong for a person to just totally bow out of
the political arena?
15. Fr. Stephen Freeman says: Alan, I do not. The statement that a Christian must is simply not true. For
example (just to give one of many), if a democratic system does not offer a suitable candidate or
solution, etc., we certainly have no duty to just choose the best or lesser of two evils. Its like
someone holding a gun on your children and telling you to choose, and at the same time telling you that
if you dont, its your fault one of them will die. Modernity offers false choices, and seeks to co-opt us
into a false responsibility. We have a duty (before God) to obey just laws and honor leaders we are not
under a duty to be a dutiful part of a democracy or to agree with every claim put forward by the state.
Those who make the laws are directly responsible for the laws they make (they cannot argue that they
were just obeying the dictates of an opinion poll). Those who carry out the laws cannot argue that they
were just following orders. No one can say, They are doing evil because you failed to stop them. They
are part of a devils bargain in which you never win.
16. Michael Bauman says: Dimitar, IMO, all modern states have very little claim to our allegenice. They
are all nihilist idols. I advocate for no state, if a state does poorly, it does poorly. That is only to be
expected. Ultimately, all states become enemies of Christ and His people as they seek to rule in place of
God rather than being faithful stewards. There is only one King.
17. Dimitar S Koparov says: Thank you, Father Stephen, for the clarification. I think I understand better
now. Michael, trust me as an Eastern European I share some of you pessimism. But nihilism is also
something resident in our regional psyche and it never brings good.
18. Janine says: Thank you Fr. Stephen. There are many things/experiences I am not grateful for. However,
walking through them, working them out together with the teachings of Christ/prayer/communion has
given me PLENTY to be enormously grateful for! Yes, more than I had before the loss. This to me is
another aspect of the Cross. God bless.
19. sbdn andrew says: Paula,
Thank you for linking me to Fr. Farleys comments. I will leave a reply under your post there as it
pertains to his article. However, in regards to this discussion, a worthless analogy is that of thinking
myself a sailor without the sea legs to trust my crafts sea-worthiness. Retching over the rail from the
first wallowing swell before weathering a few gales is hardly a gold leaf on the ole cap. It is quite telling
that to have lasting serveignty in this world, I must have a baseline in a nootherfoundation which I
submit to. Its the shame of considering abandoning my tossing vessel to whats the point? that I am
crossed to possibly trying a bit more faitha dash more beauty? From whence shall creativity come?
What I want to see in myself or in my christ (as a foolish apparition) and what God sees in me is not
the synthesis I am decieved to believe. The faith that I think Fr. Steven is getting at is a premise. The
Cross is not antithetical to anything prior, but Is and ever Has Been. It is to this point as even beyond
thesis that I, an antinomic creation is perfectly blended to be in this world from a base not of this world.
I will always be a catechumen. I will always struggle to depart and not remain dead to this reality
until my modern project is made living (Psalms 103:29-30; see Fr John Behrs commentary on the
appropriate sequence of events in this passage) while living.
It only becomes an opposition, a dialectic, when the pill for my sea-sickness is assuming I am the
Publican or even (not even) the Pharisee. The Cross for me, a modern in-betweener, is the s(i)nthesis of
somehow beingoff the charts. May the Lord forgive me for thinking I am worthless of being as chief
sinner: captain of My ship.
20. Todd (Isaac) says: Thank you Fr Stephen and everyone, I have so many thoughts on this topic that I
hardly know where to begin. I am working on a paper on Divine Providence in Maximos the Confessor
and attempting to compare his ideas to the Syriac tradition. I am overwhelmed, but so grateful that Sr F
is talking about this, and has been for the past few posts. In order to avoid looking confused and not
having anything of relevance to say on the topic at hand, let me just quickly note that there is a term in
Pauls letters, oikonom (), a term often translated into English as divine dispensation, or
divine economy. The Syriac translation for this is the term mdabranoutha ( ), as seen in the
Peshitta for the translation of Pauls letters. The term has an extremely rich history, and trying to work
back and forth across the Greek and Syriac usages of the term is even richer. It really all begins, as I say,
in Paul. The term occurs at 1 Timothy 1:4; Ephesians 1:10; 3:2; 3:9; 1 Corinthians 9:17; Cf.
Ephesians 1:10 ,
: . NASB: with a view to an administration
(divine economy) suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ,
things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him. My gut feeling is that the next best place to go to
delve into this is Pauls referring to Christs resurrection as the first fruits of the raising of all the holy
ones, appearing in 1 Cor. This takes the subject towards what Fr S is talking about.
But in order to see just a tiny taste of how this works in Maximos, and in conjunction with the term
pronoia (providence but more like foreknowing) and the word skopos (cosmic movement?) let
me quote a passage from Maximos One Hundred Maxims on Theology (or Theological Centuries)
(1.66):
The mystery of the Words embodying (ensomatosis) has the power (dynamis) of all enigmas and types
in the scriptures, and the understanding (episteme) of creatures, whether visible or invisible or perceived
with the mind. And he that knows the mystery of the Cross and the grave also knows the defining
reasons (logoi) of these things. But he that is initiated (myetheis) into the unspeakable power of the
Resurrection knows the goal (skopos) God established even as He brought forth all things.
So what might this have this to with our discussion of modernity and its interest in making us think we
have the choice to change the world and make the world a better place? Well really I have not said
anything by quoting this and talking about Paul and the terms economia and pronoia (and logoi) that has
not already been said by Fr Stephen and by others. But Maximos seems to show us, and simply remind
us, of what is in Paul, that we can step outside of modernity by looking to the scriptures and the logoi
(principles) that reside there in the same way that they reside in the world around us, and which help us
understand how to move outside of modern temporality and its messages. Maximos seems to say that, as
we already know, Christ the alpha and omega, beginning and the end, but seems to have given us a
practical program for living this out and moving back into the biblical language and being part of the
First Fruits. And what an appropriate message here on the threshold of Lent that is.
Note also how Maximos talks about how this is unspeakable, something I can certainly concur with, and
that we can only be initiated into this. But I do feel that talking about it even in the face of the inability
to talk about it, has value, just as long as we recognize that one has to be initiated into thisperhaps
another weapon against modern temporality and its messages.

21. Paula says: sbdn andrew, Thank you for your response. Trying to sort out your words, are you saying:
It is worthless to think of ones self as one of Christs without sincere trust in Him the baseline is The
Cross, not us, nor the synthesis we imagine And the Cross, Father Stephen speaks of as a premise (a
fact? a thing eternal) that as God created us in human form, yet in His image, the answer to this
seeming contradiction (of flesh and spirit) is and has always been in The Cross
and finally, our time here is, like you say, to depart and not remain it is ongoing, beyond the
thought of whether we are a publican or pharisee, the chiefest of sinners or not.
(you have no idea how long it has taken me to sort this out! But I appreciate it! Please fill in the blanks
if you will. Im not clear on the premise thing.) Also, where can I find Fr. John Behrs commentary you
mentioned?
22. sbdn andrew says: Paula, I think you have done well to sort through my varied abstractions. Like
(Todd) Isaac said above, it is a real struggle to put into words something that really is unspoken and
often incomprehensible. But we should at least try at any rateit is how we sort out our struggles
artistically? The particulars often come to each person as Christ leads. I am often reminded that it is not
My faith, but Christs faith where I find sincere trust. I definately do not have it. Perhaps you have
wondered how those who cry Lord, Lord! could be told by their supposed Sovereign, I dont know
you. That is a terrible outcome which I greatly fear, but sung when I have invested in any framework
that has as its content an illusory vanishing point.
If a fact is continually revised, updated, added to and subtracted from, compromised, modernized and
essentially under a constant flux of what we want it to be, then I would venture that it is a mere theory
undergoing oppositional interventions to stay current and flowing. If the starting point from which
that supposed fact is not changeless, then it is worthless as something to base ones salvation on. And
to identify ones self by that fact without being able to have (or asking for) complete trust in its
changelessticity then how can I say Lord, Lordits me!? And maybe this is why we might try
instead, Jesus Christ, have mercyremember me?
A modified and updated baseline is not the healing economy of the Cross. Maybe a good question to
ask is: Who said the first statement as fact from which all subsequent statements are made? I think it
was Fr. Steven who said he had trouble with those bumper stickers that claim Orthodoxy as 2000 years
ancient while the Church is in fact before timewe are talking Christ as Son of God timeless and
forever. For me, that is a fact as an unchanging Sameness that without I am nothing and my distinction
utterly worthless. (Fr. Steven forgive me if I misunderstood or if this was not you) For Fr. John Behr, see
any of his lectures on Youtube, start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaZmvyzOj04 Also, any
and all his books: The Mystery of Christ: Life in Death Becoming Human: Meditations on Christian
Anthropology in Word and Image
23. Paula says: subdn andrew, I so appreciate your input. Thank you.
As Im reading and rereading your response, I am hearing Fr. P.H. Reardon on a podcast asking, do you
pray, Lord Jesus Christ, I put my trust in you?! So yes, it must be in Christs faith I put my trust. I
often think about the Lord, Lord verse. Now this might sound crazy, but I can not imagine Him
answering me I dont know you, when I know He knows I realize my nothingness and look to Him as
my only hope. Why would He forsake me? Didnt He say He wouldnt? If I had even an inkling that He
might just forsake me, well, then I would say, whats the use? Im sunk! So my hope is only in His
mercy! Look, I dont know much. And most of the time I miss the point, especially when talking in
abstracts (as you mention). So I go by the fact the He is the same yesterday, today and foreverthat is
the changlessness I cling to. We change in our inconsistencies, He doesnt. In regard to our healing
through The Cross, you suggest a good question would be Who said the first statement as fact from
which all subsequent statements are made? Is it not the same One Moses spoke about when he said In
the beginning, Godsaid Let there be the One who has no beginning?! His economy, or plan for the
ages, featuring His Son Jesus Christ as the Savior of the worldthis is what everything else hangs on!
Im rambling on here, and probably a little (a lot!) off basebut I thank you for taking the time to
respond and also for the links and info on Fr. Behr. God bless, subdeacon.
24. Michael Bauman says: Paula, these subjects are difficult to approach without seeming to ramble
because of the interconnectedness all things. I am half convinced that our personal salvation is at once
much simpler and far more complex than we usually consider. When Jesus says, Fear not, I have
overcome the world. It is appended to be relied on. More than a promise actually. It is reality. That is
the simple part. The complex part, for me, lies in realizing how much I fear, how often and to what
devastating effect. God is merciful.
25. Paula says: Michael, Thanksfirst for your concise statements. It does help to know a reason for the
rambling. The rabbit trail, or better yet, the maze we so often create when speaking actually is all
connected. Understanding this relieves some of my frustration when sometimes I just dont get it.
Second, that our salvation is at once simple and complexat the same time, and both more than we
realize. That must be why I say to myself quite often I knowwww Im missing something here!
As for your fear, I think I understand. Its like, Christ tells us to come to Him as little children. I say to
myself, now how does a 62 year old woman with a semi-truck load of baggage do that?! (sounds like
Nicodemus, can a man be born when he is old?! Jesus, and only Jesus, can say Yes to a question like
that!) I dont know Michaellike you said, God is merciful. Such a journey! Amen, brother.
26. Michael Bauman says: Is the wood of the Cross also the wood in the Ladder of Divine Ascent?
27. Fr. Stephen Freeman says: Michael, I would assume so.
28. Michael Bauman says: The reason I ask is because the more I am able to give thanks, the more I find I
have to give thanks for and the more I see things I dont yet give thanks forusually justified in my
mind and most not easy.
29. Thomas says: The first moment that the giving of thanks becomes difficult, we have reached the wood
of the Cross itself. We stand in the very gates of Hades. If in that moment of difficulty we persist in
giving thanks, then Hades trembles and the dead are raised. This is our personal kenosis, our self-
emptying in the presence of the good God. Nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done. I thought I
should repost this in case someone else too feels today that it is all too relevant. Reaching the wood of
the Cross when thanksgiving becomes difficult! Beautiful truth at the end of a long day. Thank you,
Father Stephen.

You might also like