Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
The Holy Spirit -- A wild goose?
Maybe some of you have come across the book: Wild Goose Chase. I have not read it but from what I understand the author adopts the idea started by the Celtic Christians who referred to the Holy Spirit as a "wild goose" rather than a dove. Although the author claims he does not mean to be sacrilegious - is he indeed being sacrilegious?
The major premise is that the Holy Spirit cannot be tamed and is unpredictable. The Spirit takes us on an adventure, etc. The argument is that we have become too boring and have tamed this wild spirit within us by sticking to the same routines.
The interesting thing is that there was a spiritual retreat in my diocese in which the priest preached this very message after reading this book. He told the people there that they were living boring spiritual lives and the Christian life full of the Spirit was never meant to be that way.
Is calling the Holy Spirit anything beside a dove wrong?
The Biblical references to fire descending on the apostles and stories of the Spirit leading the apostles on adventures does lend some weight to the argument that the Spirit is a "disturber" (as the author says) as well as a comforter.
What are the implications of adopting this view? Can the two pictures, that of the Spirit as a dove and wild goose, be reconciled, or are they opposing?
If you have made it to the end of this long post - thank you. I would appreciate your input.
The major premise is that the Holy Spirit cannot be tamed and is unpredictable. The Spirit takes us on an adventure, etc. The argument is that we have become too boring and have tamed this wild spirit within us by sticking to the same routines.
The interesting thing is that there was a spiritual retreat in my diocese in which the priest preached this very message after reading this book. He told the people there that they were living boring spiritual lives and the Christian life full of the Spirit was never meant to be that way.
Is calling the Holy Spirit anything beside a dove wrong?
The Biblical references to fire descending on the apostles and stories of the Spirit leading the apostles on adventures does lend some weight to the argument that the Spirit is a "disturber" (as the author says) as well as a comforter.
What are the implications of adopting this view? Can the two pictures, that of the Spirit as a dove and wild goose, be reconciled, or are they opposing?
If you have made it to the end of this long post - thank you. I would appreciate your input.
Comments
These depictions of Him/It as a dove or a goose are like showing a kindergarten child that if you put two and two marbles together, you get four marbles - its a massive simplification which allows us to grasp a tiny piece of the reality of the Holy Spirit's awesome being. The symbol of a wild goose is apt for that sense of mystery and wonder I think, so long as you clearly pointed out what aspects of the symbol you were getting at.
That's my 2c.
Therefore to use it, and especially to pick up on its use as a means of describing the Holy Spirit, is also to unwittingly pick up aspects of that same Protestant way of thinking. There is nothing in itself wrong with considering that the Holy Spirit is 'untamed', or 'leads us on a journey', but usually such a way of thinking leads to a desire to undermine the Tradition of the Church, which is seen as static, and to form new structures, theologies and spiritualities which are all 'untamed' and 'part of a journey'.
I would never use this term because I know where it comes from. I am sure that it was and is never meant frivoulously, that is not the issue.
It is interesting that many of the greatest of the Irish saints were called 'dove'. St Columba of Iona is the most famous, but St Columbanus is hardly less famous, and many other hermit saints bore the same name. So I would suggest that the idea of the 'dove' remained a constant in the early Irish Church. I know of no saint called after a goose.
Father Peter
I think that when we try to describe any of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, we should stick with the terms/allegories/examples used by the Church Fathers. We are then certain of their Orthodoxy, and their spirituality, and we do not err by attributing such (as someone pointed out) "frivolous" terms to God himself. We need to be very careful of allegorical descriptions.
As Fr. Tadros Malaty wrote in his book The Gift of The Holy Spirit:
"Allegorism or the spiritual understanding of the Scripture is a grace of the Holy Spirit, granted to perfect believers to enter the chamber of eternal marriage between Christ and their soul to enjoy the divine wisdom and its mysteries. He is the Giver of knowledge and Wisdom."
If you want to read a useful commentary on the Holy Spirit, His roles and how the Church Fathers described Him, I would urge you to get a copy of The Gift of The Holy Spirit by Fr. Tadros (It is part of his series The Coptic Orthodox Church and The Dogmas, number 7). It is wonderful compilation of Patristic quotes on The Holy Spirit.
I understand that the ideas behind the term are those that tend to undermine the Tradition of the Church, which is was I was uneasy about its use. But is calling the Holy Spirit a wild goose, without those protestant ideas, wrong? What if I was using the term consistent with Orthodox doctrine?
I mean, just because I find a certain attribute of the Holy Spirit in an animal, shouldn't mean I can refer to the HS by that name.
Could I call the Holy Spirit an ostrich because ostriches are known to have really good eyesight and hearing, and can sense predators from a very far off and flee?! I could make up something like: "The spirit is like an ostrich, He knows where the enemy is and when he is coming, it doesn't wait for him but departs immediately. Similarly we should do the same in our spiritual lives. Flee from sin and not wait for it to devour us..."
I hope you understood my point; I don't mean to sound facetious.
I don't believe we should create our own titles for the Holy Spirit, or any member of the Trinity for that matter, that is not biblical. Just because I think a certain animal/word/term or whatever fits the quality of the Holy Spirit doesn't give me the right to call Him by that title.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Why not stick to what you know is Orthodox instead of wondering about something that we now know (thanks to Fr. Peter) is not Orthodox?
I don't believe we should create our own titles for the Holy Spirit, or any member of the Trinity for that matter, that is not biblical. Just because I think a certain animal/word/term or whatever fits the quality of the Holy Spirit doesn't give me the right to call Him by that title.
But its not a title, its just a metaphor! You're not asking it to be officially adopted by the Church, nor are you going to start substituting various kinds of birds for the Holy Spirit when you say the sign of the cross - your'e simply using a literary technique to make a point! The Holy Spirit I am sure, is FAR FAR more concerned with the actual message you are trying to put forward, than the method you use to communicate it.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=10952.msg132636#msg132636 date=1299747254]
I don't believe we should create our own titles for the Holy Spirit, or any member of the Trinity for that matter, that is not biblical. Just because I think a certain animal/word/term or whatever fits the quality of the Holy Spirit doesn't give me the right to call Him by that title.
But its not a title, its just a metaphor! You're not asking it to be officially adopted by the Church, nor are you going to start substituting various kinds of birds for the Holy Spirit when you say the sign of the cross - your'e simply using a literary technique to make a point! The Holy Spirit I am sure, is FAR FAR more concerned with the actual message you are trying to put forward, than the method you use to communicate it.
No no no. The wording we use to describe the Holy Spirit is an integral part of any "messages you are trying to put forward." The wording we use must be Orthodox - not only because this ensures that it is correct from a dogmatic point of view, but also so that we benefit spiritually from any points drawn out from the allegory.
And on whose authority can we be drawing up our own allegories on the Holy Spirit anyway? Who are we to make new ones up that suit us, when there are myriads of theologically correct and spiritually sound allegories already written by the Fathers of the Church?
I don't understand what you mean by "calling the Holy Spirit a wild goose without the Protestant ideas"? The idea is a Protestant idea, so such a separation is inherently impossible.
Why not stick to what you know is Orthodox instead of wondering about something that we now know (thanks to Fr. Peter) is not Orthodox?
Calling the HS a dove in and of itself is not Orthodox, just as a calling the HS wild goose in and of itself is not Protestant. It is what one means when they call the HS by that name.
I guess you missed my question, which went beyond whether we can call the HS a wild goose or not.
Certainly we can find other animals that can exhibit Orthodox understandings of the HS besides a dove. But we shouldn't start calling the HS by these names just because it "fits."
Putting aside the point that describing the HS as a wild goose tends to promote protestant ideology, is calling the HS by any animal (even if it fits with Orthodox understanding) that is not biblical, wrong?
It'd be a bit like asking about dry water, or bright darkness.
[quote author=epchois_nai_nan link=topic=10952.msg132638#msg132638 date=1299748785]
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=10952.msg132636#msg132636 date=1299747254]
I don't believe we should create our own titles for the Holy Spirit, or any member of the Trinity for that matter, that is not biblical. Just because I think a certain animal/word/term or whatever fits the quality of the Holy Spirit doesn't give me the right to call Him by that title.
But its not a title, its just a metaphor! You're not asking it to be officially adopted by the Church, nor are you going to start substituting various kinds of birds for the Holy Spirit when you say the sign of the cross - your'e simply using a literary technique to make a point! The Holy Spirit I am sure, is FAR FAR more concerned with the actual message you are trying to put forward, than the method you use to communicate it.
No no no. The wording we use to describe the Holy Spirit is an integral part of any "messages we are you are trying to put forward." The wording we use must be Orthodox - not only because this ensures that it is correct from a dogmatic point of view, but also so that we benefit spiritually from any points drawn out from the allegory.
And on whose authority can we be drawing up our own allegories on the Holy Spirit anyway? Who are we to make new ones up that suit us, when there are myriads of theologically correct and spiritually sound allegories already written by the Fathers of the Church?
So we must only be using a list of approved Orthodox metaphors? Are you seriously suggesting that the next time a Church priest decides to use a metaphor in his sermon, he must pore through the mounds of Orthodox literature and ensure that it has been used before? Such thinking is dangerously close minded in my opinion, and you will never be able to actually live it out.
I just had a conversation with my Church priest on the subject. To quote him, 'The Orthodox tradition is not static, it is a living tradition.' The CORE of our tradition, its meaning, remains the same, but it must be made relevant to the situation in which it is presented - that is why we use English and not Arabic in our liturgies and sermons in Western countries. This doesn't mean changing dogma, it means recognising that symbols are distinct from the things they represent, and language is separate from the meaning it conveys.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=10952.msg132640#msg132640 date=1299749442]
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=10952.msg132637#msg132637 date=1299748226]
I don't understand what you mean by "calling the Holy Spirit a wild goose without the Protestant ideas"? The idea is a Protestant idea, so such a separation is inherently impossible.
Why not stick to what you know is Orthodox instead of wondering about something that we now know (thanks to Fr. Peter) is not Orthodox?
Certainly we can find other animals that can exhibit Orthodox understandings of the HS besides a dove. But we shouldn't start calling the HS by these names just because it "fits."
Putting aside the point that describing the HS as a wild goose tends to promote protestant ideology, is calling the HS by any animal (even if it fits with Orthodox understanding) that is not biblical, wrong?
We believe in a God of Spirit and Truth, i.e. a God that sees the HEART and MEANING of things, unlike humans who tend to focus on the outward appearance of things and judge them on that. Your intention is clearly not to insult the Holy Spirit by calling Him/It names! Your intention is to use a language technique to better communicate your point - God knows this. Provided your point is a good one, how could it be wrong to do so?
I would be concerned that anyone hearing or reading an Orthodox authority using this term would conclude that anything else using it is OK. It is not.
The early Christians of the British Isles did not use this term.
I do not believe that all metaphors are forbidden. Often when communicating the Gospel there is a need to use equivalents. There are jungle tribes who have no idea what bread is, and their staple food is something else. Mission takes this into account even while the Church does not change.
But the wild goose is not helpful because it belongs entirely to a modern Protestant culture and comes with too much baggage.
It is better to stick with the tested and approved analogies and metaphors as used by the Scriptures and the Fathers.
I think we might be talking past each other on this point, Unworthy1, in which case I will leave your question to be answered by an actual Orthodox person. I only want to clarify that I understood your question but take issue with this idea that you can leave aside Protestant ideology when using and talking about terms or concepts created within and unique to that ideology.
It'd be a bit like asking about dry water, or bright darkness.
That's interesting. I don't completely disagree with you. But certainly a dove doesn't capture all the qualities of the HS. It does have an untamed side. It is not unorthodox to think that we should be led by the Spirit wherever it takes us, even if it seems like a "wild goose chase". What is unorthodox is the idea that the Spirit is tamed by the church and her rites/rituals. That second point is a protestant view. An orthodox view can be that the HS is like a wild goose and the adventure He leads us on is not of saving people in Africa, but of fasting and prayer and doing anything God asks of us, that is truly being wild in your faith.
One way to look at it is protestant, another can be orthodox.
Or maybe I am incorrect.
If I am not, can we call the HS a wild goose as long as we have an orthodox understanding of it?
I think we fall into a slippery slope with that logic. What is I said the HS is like your radio, He is always speaking, it is up to you to turn it on and listen? Maybe that was a bad example, but we shouldn't lower any member of the Trinity to something that makes our point easy to understand.
But what I do not think is acceptable, and this is the case with the wild goose, is to build a complex spirituality around a metaphor.
We should not address the Holy Spirit in prayer by way of a 'non-authorised' metaphor. And this is one reason to avoid the wild goose. It associates us with a non-Orthodox spirituality and forms of prayer.
To draw an illustration from some aspect of the world around us is a normal aspect of homiletics. Sermons are theological but are not normally lectures on systematic theology. But we do not elevate the illustration to something more than it is. We are concerned with the reality. And words do matter and so require great care. A great deal of confusion has been caused by the adoption of technical Roman Catholic terms into the Church for instance. It is my opinion that the wild goose idea is another technical but protestant term that should be avoided.
I love my British heritage of early Christianity very much indeed. But the wild goose is no part of it.
So we must only be using a list of approved Orthodox metaphors? Are you seriously suggesting that the next time a Church priest decides to use a metaphor in his sermon, he must pore through the mounds of Orthodox literature and ensure that it has been used before? Such thinking is dangerously close minded in my opinion, and you will never be able to actually live it out.
Yes, I am seriously suggesting that this happen. Why on earth shouldn't it happen?
As you've rightly said, there are mounds and mounds Orthodox literature written by the Fathers on every possible subject under the sun. Why would you risk causing division and confusion by making up your own examples of who the Holy Spirit is, and how He works within the heart of the believer?
Why not use a metaphor you are absolutely certain is Orthodox, and furthermore WILL provide spiritual benefit to those who hear it? You cannot just put a blanket term over theology and tradition and claim that language is separate from the meaning it conveys.
As an example, when dealing with subjects such as the Nature of Christ or Trinitarian doctrines, the Egyptian Fathers translating important ecumenical documents from Greek to Coptic would retain technical words such as πνεύμα when talking about the Spirit rather than using the Coptic Nifi to ensure that the proper contextual meaning of the word was retained. Language cannot thus be separated from the meaning it conveys. Not necessarily. In the case of the Holy Spirit and the dove, the symbol of the dove (taken straight from the Bible) has such an intrinsic connection to the concept of the Holy Spirit to many people. Daily in the Church, with things like the iconography depicting the Holy Spirit as a dove, whenever I see a picture of a dove my mind immediately makes the connection with the Holy Spirit. Surely the fact that the Holy Spirit chose to descend in the form of a dove, and has always been represented in this way by the Church and the Fathers for many centuries means that it would not be befitting to liken Him to any other creature?
Words do matter very much. All metaphors simplify even as they help to communicate some partial aspect of a subject. If I was asked to talk to a group of children about the Holy Spirit I might well use metaphors and analogies from the world around us, but I think that even there I would probably prefer to use the Scriptural analogies.
The Holy Spirit is wind, fire, a dove. What do these mean? I am sure that there is enough material there in the Father's thoughts on these subjects than requires other metaphors. Yet I do not believe that this need exclude every metaphor and analogy from the world around us. If a child said, 'Is God always talking to us?', I might well refer to the way radio waves are all around us but we need to be tuned in to a station to hear correctly. That would not be where I began, but if I used that analogy in passing I do not believe it would be wrong.
The danger is that analogies and metaphors can become ALL that a person remembers as they grow up. The idea that the Holy Trinity is like a clover is inadequate at many levels, even plain wrong. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is useful for a 7 year old. But if the adult still thinks like that then it is problematic. This is why we must be careful what we say and how we say it. Adults should be taught an adult understanding of the teachings of the Church.
I do agree entirely with you that Orthodox Christians MUST bind themselves to the teaching of the Fathers. St Severus, perhaps the greatest of Church Fathers, the Light of the East, says that he is a disciple of St Cyril and refused to say anything other than St Cyril said, in the terminology that St Cyril used. This does not mean that he did not present that same teaching in an illuminating manner and according to the needs of his times. But he did not waver from a strict adherence to the teaching of the Fathers. I can think of several of his letters where he says of some phrase that someone has proposed 'None of the Orthodox Fathers have used that term'.
In Orthodoxy we are being formed into the image and likeness of Christ in His Body, the Church. We do not mould the Church into our own image and likeness. The Fathers of the Church are not dead, they are alive to us, and we turn to their teachings as to those of living and life-giving oracles of the Word of God. Our first thought on any subject should be 'What do the Fathers say?'.
I am sure that there are other interesting and spiritually beneficial reflections on the Holy Spirit which use a variety of metaphors. I expect that St Ephrem has written hymns on this subject. If we study and meditate on works such as these and use only those terms and metaphors which the Fathers use then we will be doubly blessed and preserved from error.
It/He
Epchois, the Holy Spirit is not an IT, the Holy Spirit is a Person of the Trinity and should not be referred to as an it. We should only say He. A pet peeve of mine. Interesting discussion nonetheless.