Notes from a closed road

I finally got to the Recovery Dharma meeting that I have been trying to go to since early Summer when I was escorted out of a closed Recovery Dharma group. As I stated in a previous post, it was right after we meditated as a group, so it was also the most blissful walk out I have ever experienced. Far and away better than any of the times I was kicked out of a bar for being too drunk or, worse, not even allowed in by the bouncer who did not deserve my harsh words before finding a bar that did not have a bouncer to get a nightcap.

I went on a Tuesday night and drove to where the Recovery Dharma meeting was supposedly happening finding the road closed… I mean, the road was closed: torn up and I could not find any way to get to the building where the meeting was happening because it was dark and I had never been there before, it was just that block, too. It was so strange, but it worked out, providentially because I had the opportunity to talk with someone I love about some hard stuff going on with them.

The next day I went to a different Recovery Dharma meeting and this time it was perfect. There was a statue of the Buddha, literature, a “Welcome Sangha” sign hanging up and meditation cushions for the group to use. I came grappling with this issue of mine regarding θέωσις which has led me down a rabbit hole exploring Protestant justification theology and atonement theories, the latter of which was on my mind, because I could not make sense of the typical Protestant penal substitution theory and the more Orthodox recapitulation theory. The reason these issues were on my mind was due in no small part to their relation to θέωσις, because with some atonement theories God is more alien then in others, which would make mystical union sort of difficult.

The Protestant justification is, according to the Methodist minister Richard B. Hays, “a term that describes the event whereby persons are set or declared to be in right relation to God.” The Protestant orientation toward sola fide is implicitly illustrating passive receiving of an extrinsic righteousness via imputed justification. Imputed righteousness, in other words, is the righteousness of Christ is granted to believers by faith. The atonement theory of substitution, or propitiation, states that the guilt of our sins and therefore the punishment of such were imputed to Christ. Christ’s sacrifice was in substitution for us, satisfying a debt needed to be paid to God. All sin must be punished. In this way, Christ’s death liberates us from the penalty of living under the law.

Critics of this theory say that it overemphasizes the wrathful nature of God, to which the Orthodox are among those critics voicing this concern. wrath of God being a focus of this theory makes sense because it was developed by Calvin not so subtly inspired by the work of Dante, which far-Protestant ideas seem to emerge out of for some reason. Fire and brimstone being a primary example of Dante’s transparent political treatise influence on theological development in the Middle Ages, going on to be lionized by 16th-century Protestants.

The Orthodox focus their attention on the Resurrection more than the Cross, because to them, Christ is no longer on the Cross.

This is a healthy way of looking at things, to be sure, however Christianity is a faith built on paradox and we run the risk of heresy by overemphasizing one truth at the expense of the other. There is no resurrection without the crucifixion.

St. Gregory the Theologian, an Orthodox pillar, wrote regarding the Crucifixion:

“Is it not evident that the Father accepts the sacrifice not because He demanded it or had any need for it but by His dispensation? It was necessary that man should be sanctified by the humanity of God; it was necessary that He Himself should free us, triumphing over the tyrant by His own strength, and that He should recall us to Himself by His Son who is the Mediator, who does all for the honor of the Father, to whom he is obedient in all things …. Let the rest of the mystery be venerated silently” (Oration 45,22).

St. Gregory, and by extension a lot of Orthodox Christians, reject the idea of penal substitution for the theory of recapitulation, God recalls us back to Him. The substitution theory has Christ dying in substitution for humanity, dying for us to repay a debt owed to God due to humanity’s willful disobedience. Christ, taking on humanity by His hypostatic union, satisfies this debt to God in our place. This is also a form of satisfaction theory which was developed the monk Anselm of Canterbury in 12th century.

The Orthodox, ascribing to the recapitulation theory, state that we are restored in image and likeness by Christ’s fulfilling the work that was begun by God and Man in Adam. Christ—through His death—destroyed death, accomplished through the hypostatic union of Man and God through Christ, because our created life was enjoined with His uncreated Life and through death His uncreated Life imbued death with Life. His death opens the door to salvation through death. What this atonement theory does is illustrates God, taking on our humanity in order that we might become deified. This atonement theory was developed by St. Irenaeus in the 2nd century. This atonement theory is clearly inspired by St. Irenaeus’ apprehension of θέωσις, making mystical union a consequence of recapitulation.

St. Irenaeus developed the theory while also sharing in what some might call, Western views, “Therefore, by remitting sins, He did indeed heal man, while He also manifested Himself who He was. For if no one can forgive sins but God alone, while the Lord remitted them and healed men, it is plain that He was Himself the Word of God made the Son of man, receiving from the Father the power of remission of sins; since He was man, and since He was God He might have compassion on us, and forgive us our debts, in which we were made debtors to our Creator” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies). 

Furthermore, another figure who put forth θέωσις as the vocation of the Christian and the reason behind the Incarnation St. Athanasius, who is quoted quite often as saying, “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” This quote rules which is why it uttered by the Orthodox every ten seconds, but St. Athanasius, pillar of the Orthodox Church and perhaps one of the figures who was most involved in developing Orthodox theology also writes that,

Christ “took to Himself a body such as could die, that He might offer it as His own in the stead of all, and as suffering, through His union with it, and behalf of all, ‘Bring to nought Him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and he might deliver them who through the fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage’” (St. Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation).

So, which one is right? There’s this angle of imputed righteousness. How does the Wesleyan imparted righteousness fit in to justification? The language of the Patristics seems rather forensic for being Fathers of the Orthodox Church. How does penal substitution factor into θέωσις? Can mystical union exist with a propitiatory atonement theory? What about…

Then it dawns on me.

I’m sitting in a group full of addict because I’m a fucking addict. This is a fucking addiction.

I believe the mind of an addict is a problem-solver. Yes, every problem is solved with a substance in some way but if you ever talk to addicts you get a sense that their brains function in a different way, whether that’s what caused a reliance on a substance or a product of substance abuse it doesn’t matter so much, just that the minds labyrinth is like an ever-changing MC Escher drawing and it’s compelled to figure things out.

To its own detriment.

The addict lives in their mind which is what pulled me into alcoholism for so long because at least alcohol gave me the ability to not be in my head. I was faster, wittier, in my body (sort of, for a time) and that’s what I was after and what I’m still after now.

Which is why I’m sitting in this circle right now. I can’t fucking stop trying to work out everything.

I can’t fucking stop…

Si comprehendis, non est Deus