David Bradshaw

The doctrine that Christ has two natural energies was confirmed at the Sixth Ecumenical Council and became thereafter a hallmark of Orthodoxy. Precisely what is added by the qualification "natural"? Not all energies are natural, and to speak of an energy as natural was in fact relatively uncommon prior to the Council. My aim in this article is to clarify what it means to speak of a natural energy by examining the origins and development of the concept. As we will see, the attempts to define it were problematic in various ways and raise questions to which there are not always simple answers.

St. Paul says that same-sex sexual acts are "contrary to nature." Plainly this is intended as a condemnation, but beyond that its meaning is obscure. In particular, we are given no general account of what it means to be contrary to nature, including what other acts might fit this description. This article attempts to provide such an account. It relies for this purpose on the biblical and classical sources of this idiom as well as its subsequent use within the Greek patristic tradition. It argues that the core meaning of "contrary to nature" is that of violating the integrity of structure and function of the human body. The article further contrasts this biblical and Greek patristic understanding with that of the "sin against nature" developed in the West during the Middle Ages. It argues that they are different in important ways and that a recovery of the biblical and Greek patristic view can help restore the concept of the unnatural to its proper place within Christian ethics.

I seek to address five inter-related questions. (1) Could not God find some way to enable the wicked to repent after death? (2) Since God is the Good and thus the aim of all human desire, how is it possible that the damned could know God as the Good and yet fail to be drawn to Him? (3) What about the verses that foretell a time when God will be “all in all” and will “gather together in one all things in Christ”? How are they consistent with some being eternally damned? (4) What becomes of those who never had a chance to hear the Gospel? (5) If someone’s fate is fixed at death, what are we asking for when we pray for the dead?

Despite its many strengths, Engelhardt's After God displays two surprising features: an affinity for voluntaristic ethics and a tendency to oppose Eastern Orthodoxy (as a purely revealed religion) to philosophy. Neither of these is in keeping with the mainstream of Eastern Orthodox tradition. Here, I offer a modest corrective. I begin with the figure of Socrates as presented in the Apology and Phaedo, highlighting the role that faith plays for Socrates and the reasons why he was widely admired by the early Church. I then describe more broadly the attitude of the Greek Church Fathers to philosophy, showing that, although they were cautious of its potential errors, they nonetheless embraced the ideal of philosophy as a way of life dedicated to the pursuit of wisdom. For many, in fact, Christianity is itself simply the true philosophy, an attitude that led many of the most eminent patristic and Byzantine theologians to draw extensively on philosophical sources. Finally, I discuss the Euthyphro dilemma, contrasting the voluntaristic approach favored by Engelhardt with the Platonic approach adopted by the mainstream of Orthodox tradition.