Tuesday, August 27, 2024

“Search thou out the sea, but search not out the Lord of the sea!”


Pearl I

S

t. Ephrem wrote a series of very beautiful hymns about the faith, which he entitled The Pearl, which was the proximate reason why, for a number of years, I entitled my notes “Pearl” as well. When, as the pastor of our parish in Miami a decade and a half ago, I first started studying St. Ephrem on Sunday afternoons, I found I always had some valuable insight to take away from my weekly visits to this Father.  I always had some “pearl” of wisdom (as we sometimes say). At the beginning of the series of hymns that Ephrem titles The Pearl, Ephrem himself is depicted admiring a pearl in the palm of his hand.  The pearl is identified in this first hymn as the Son. The overall meaning of the hymn is expounded in the following verses.  The essential meaning of the hymn was, I must admit, at first a bit disappointing to me, because it seemed to be the same prosaic (dare I say) lesson that appears in so many other places in the saint’s corpus.  Basically, the point of the hymn is to extend the solemn warning to all not to pry into the mysteries of God, but to retain a reverent, worshipful and contemplative distance.  At one point, the Pearl speaks to Ephrem. It says:

The daughter of the sea am I, the illimitable sea! And from that sea whence I came up it is that there is a mighty treasury of mysteries in my bosom! Search thou out the sea, but search not out the Lord of the sea! 

Ephrem goes on to use the image of the sea as a means to convey the meaning of reverence itself.  He describes the divers going down into the waves, but they quickly return to the surface, when they become terrified and astonished by the depths. In a similar way, Ephrem shows by means of examples how the same sea can be death to one (the irreverent) and salvation to another (the God-fearing).  After all, in the time of the Exodus the sea became a source of salvation for the people of Israel, because they passed through it as if on dry land, but it became death to the Egyptians when it returned to its normal state, its waves crashing in on the chariots pursuing the People of God.

     Having thoughtfully re-read the hymn again, I quickly recovered from my initial disappointment, because I began to appreciate the author’s warning in a way that I never did before.  What Ephrem is saying can be easily misunderstood.  Ephrem is not discouraging us from meditating on the Mysteries of our salvation.  He is not launching a tirade against the Rosary and the other forms of meditative prayer, which we use in our spiritual lives. He is warning against trespassing on territory that belongs to God alone.  He warns us against acting as if we know God as well as God knows God.  He admonishes us to remain steadfastly within the bounds of what God has revealed.  God has revealed a great many things. But there are many things that He has not revealed as well.  Ephrem’s point is that it is wrong for us to speculate about things that He has not revealed.  Ephrem’s admonition is strictly confined to truths impinging upon the spiritual world.  He is famous for his frequent references to the two Scriptures, which our loving God has given us.  God has revealed Himself to us by means of two written texts; no, not the Old and New Testaments. Ephrem is actually considering them to be one.  The other Scripture is the natural world.  Just as the Bible teaches about God, if we know how to read it, so too does the natural world tell us about the Creator if we have the special ability to read it. Thus, Ephrem would consider the world of nature to be fully revealed. We are free to plumb the depths of the cosmos, and unlock its various “mysteries.” God wants us to ask questions, like: “How does a tree get water from its roots all the way up to its uppermost limbs and leaves?”

     But the spiritual world, including the inner life of God Himself, is not fully revealed to us.  We have no command from God to “fill and subdue” that world, as we do the natural world.  We are, therefore, to maintain a reverent silence concerning those things that God has kept for Himself.

     In every civilized society it is considered offensive and ill-mannered to enter your neighbor’s house without their knowledge and rifle through their private papers, perhaps making a detour to look in the medicine cabinet on the way out.  All the more so is it wrong, offensive and ill-mannered to trespass on the freedom of God, Who has revealed what He wished to reveal, but has remained silent about what He desires (for His own reasons) to keep for Himself.

     The primary reason why this warning, written by a saint from the fourth century, is so apropos for us is that we have become a civilization of priers. We pry into every aspect of the spiritual world, whether God has revealed it or not.  The examples are too many to be enumerated.  It has now become vogue to voice theological opinions, particularly about ethical issues, without even making reference to the biblical Scriptures.  I think, for example, of the cardinal at the Vatican (the head of the Pontifical Council on the Sciences) who declared that 1) it is very likely that extraterrestrial intelligent life does in fact exist, and 2) if it does exist, then those beings do not need the salvation that is wrought in Christ.  One has to ask “How would he know?” and “What is the basis of his “theological” opinion?” In the same way, we daily hear theological opinions of the most daring kinds voiced by people from all walks of life.  One very well-intentioned lady I once knew pronounced (in a rather ex cathedra way) that all infants go to Heaven.  The only problem with that is that God has not revealed it to be true. What He has revealed is that Baptism is necessary for salvation.  Maybe there are all kinds of other ways to be saved, but God has not revealed them.  We do not know. He has only revealed one. That one “way of salvation” is the only one that we can actually talk about, think about, and meditate upon.

     Nowadays, a lot of theological speculation is based on theodicy. You will frequently hear things, like “I just feel that a loving God would not condemn anyone to Hell.” Of course, the problem with that is that the statement is not really about God. It’s about me and human beings in general.  Here is the same statement put another way: “God owes me.” A dangerous line of reasoning on any account.

     In Ephrem’s time there were lots of people eager to pry into what God (for His own reasons) had not revealed.  The short list would certainly have to contain Origen, who lived a little earlier than St. Ephrem, who believed in all kinds of strange, exotic things: the preexistence of souls, and the universal salvation of everything that exists.  He hypothesized that the original shape of the human body before the Fall was spherical. Others, who fall into the same category, would be Valentinus and Basilides, founders of two burgeoning Gnostic sects, that taught various different brands of pseudo-Christian secret “knowledge,” that supposedly guaranteed salvation to those who learned them.

     In our own time, there are just as many people who are eager to pry, invade the privacy of God (as if they were able), and make startling theological pronouncements about every possible subject.  Several examples come immediately to mind.  First, there is the “personhood” debate.  It is strange and macabre that natural science feels competent to enter the arena where the definition of the human person is being decided. The problem is that natural science has no access to the true answer.  It has no ability to tell us why the severely retarded are just as much human persons as you and I. God has revealed that the human being is the image of God. He has not revealed how that is so.

     Second, there is the question of sexual orientation and “transgenderism.” At various different times in the past few years, we have heard theological arguments advanced concerning these peoples’ afflictions.  The most prominent of these opinions is that homosexual and transgender persons are created as such by God.  Again, the only problem with this argument is that it has not been revealed by God.  Those who advance this theory are denying to God the basic right that they themselves rely upon.  They give God no opportunity to confront His accusers (barring a bolt of lightning or some other explicit theophany).  The impulse is understandable. If we define our afflictions as, in some sense, “normal,” then we don’t have to deal with them.  There is a growing unwillingness in society to even consider homosexuality an affliction. But Ephrem has something very helpful to contribute to this debate. He and the other holy Fathers of the Church, particularly those of the Syrian Church, remind us that human life in this fallen world is an affliction.  There are a lot of manifestations of heterosexuality that are afflictions as well. Every aspect of human life that we can think of is damaged and broken.  This realization keeps us longing for Paradise, our true home.

     Everywhere in the world there is an increasingly strange neo-Gnosticism which is infecting all the facets of our lives.  Former U.S. president Barack Obama, for example, is reportedly obsessed with Gioacchino da Fiore, a twelfth century Christian heretic, who taught that the Church and world of the future would be one without dogmas or laws. Again, there is that basic problem.  That is not the Church or the world that God has revealed.  Quite the contrary, that revelation has its origin in the Father of Lies.

     In matters that impinge upon the truths of the spiritual world we have to stand pat with what has been revealed by God.  Ephrem is right; to do otherwise is to put ourselves in extreme peril, because what our minds invent cannot do justice to the Creator’s plan, and we end up contaminating our life of prayer and worship with these false ideas, false images and idolatrous delusions.  Ephrem describes our current state:

Searching is mingled with thanksgiving, and whether of the two will prevail? The incense of praise riseth along with the fume of disputation from the tongue, and unto which shall we hearken? Prayer and prying come from one mouth, and which shall we listen to?

No comments:

Post a Comment