Imprisoned in the Gulag by Stalin, A Russian-Jewish Doctor Becomes a Christian

Jews for Jesus ^

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I believe this claim is positively evil.

While we disagree on a lot, not here.

The last person I heard insist individuals were "responsible" for all evils that befall them was Shirley Maclaine.

God is the creator of every moment in our lives; and the suffering therein is, as you say, an opportunity to be closer to the suffering of Christ.

C.S. Lewis in "The Problem of Pain" spoke to this also.

Hopefully, God's gift of conversion to Dr. Kornfeld advanced him beyond this gnostic idea of karma and into a fuller understanding of God's sovereignty in all things.

[xzins]

positively evil

My guess is that it ties into his NOT having any Bible or other Christian literature available.

He's a new Christian; the only scripture he knows is the Lord's Prayer, and he derives his theology from "lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil."

I think we need to be sympathetic of his circumstances.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Of course you're right about that.

A harrowing, uplifting, life-affirming story, also, I should have added.

(I just really dislike Shirley Maclaine.)

[MarMema]

You're taking it out of context and adding a great deal to it that is of your mind, and not from the post.
No one said that God brought the suffering, nor that it was karma.
The statement itself, standing alone, is consistent with ascetic thinking in Russia.

"Suffering cleanses the soul infected with the filth of sensual pleasure and detaches it completely from material things by showing it the penalty incurred as a result of its affection for them. This is why God in His justice allows the devil to afflict men with torments." -
St. Maximos the Confessor (+ 662)

"If you are not willing to repent through freely choosing to suffer, unsought sufferings will providentially be imposed on you." -
St. Thalassios (7th c.)

Here is a quote from the Orthodox Church of America website

"Jesus Christ shows us that human suffering has redeeming and sanctifying significance. It can be the means of finding God in the fallen world, the means of purification from carnal passions, the means of enlightenment and communion with God for everlasting life."

"The apostle Paul tells us that "the sufferings of the present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us" (Romans 8:18). He says that our earthly sufferings are but the "slight momentary affliction" which "is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparision" (2 Corinthians 4:17)."
Those who suffer through sickness and disease with every virtue of Christ will receive "sufficient grace" from God to be strong in the Lord in their bodily weakness, and so direct their sufferings "not unto death" but to the "glory of God." (cf 2 Corinthians 12:7-10, John 11:4)

Suffering helps us to remember that this world is transient and unimportant. For whatever reason, it is clear that God allows a tremendous amount of suffering to take place around the world every day. Even if suffering is of demonic origin, to believe that God is almighty and all-powerful is to accept that God allows it. It is arrogant to question it, therefore, and the very essence of ascetic humility to place blame for your suffering upon yourself.

Pinging some friends to the discussion.

[MarMema]

You know, in the Orthodox church there is actually no greater suffering than sin, which separates us from God. Physical suffering pales by comparison.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is interpreted by us in this way. The Samaritan is Christ, who arrives to relieve us of our suffering of sin. When the Samaritan tells the innkeeper to spend whatever is needed to bring the wounded man back to health, and promises to pay for it, we consider that to be a parallel to Christ giving whatever is needed for our sins, so that we may be brought to "health".

Your comments?

[MarMema]

"Why do men learn through pain and suffering, and not through pleasure and happiness? Very simply, because pleasure and happiness accustom one to satisfaction with the things given in this world, wheras pain and suffering drive one to seek a more profound happiness beyond the limitations of this world. I am at this time in some pain, and I call on the name of Jesus - not necessarily to relieve the pain, but that Jesus, in Whom alone we may transcend this world, may be with me during it, and His will be in me. But in pleasure I do not call on Him; I am content then with what I have, and I think I need no more. And why is a philosophy of pleasure untenable? ... because pleasure is impermanent and unreliable, and pain is inevitable. In pain and suffering Christ speaks to us, and thus God is kind to give them to us; yes, and evil too - for in all of these we glimpse something of what must lie beyond." - excerpt from NOT OF THIS WORLD, Fr Seraphim Rose, A Russian Orthodox theologian

[George W. Bush]

Because of this belief in countries as Godlike or not so, he could then propose that a country could be allowed to suffer as a country for turning away from God.

I think we can make a case that God sometimes considers nations as a whole in judgement. But that is more typical of nations in the Old Testament. I tend to believe, and it is merely my own opinion, that under the New Covenant, God deals more with individuals and that there are essentially only two nations remaining in the world: the true Christian church (wherever its members may be) and all the rest of mankind. Of course, one could make the case that rich and free and powerful nations who choose evil may experience God's punishment or that He might withhold His protection from them. Many American Christians, for instance, have wondered if the 9/11 attack was a result of having tolerated abortion and riotous living for so many years. I'm still not convinced that God was punishing us in that way. I just don't feel that if God was punishing us for such grave sins that it would have been limited to a few thousand lives. I think that if God were punishing us, it would be much worse. Perhaps you can make a stronger case for Russia in turning to an antichristian system but the vast majority of the Russian people did not really make that choice. Much like in Nazi Germany, the horror was upon them before they knew it.

This story was rich and wonderful in its way. The doctor, whose parents were "cosmopolitan" Jews, a class of people who had been persecuted and were outside the 'pale' in Czarist Russia, looked at Christianity as their enemy. And so it was. When church and state march hand in hand, as did the Russian church and the czars, evil always happens. The same happened with the Roman church and empire, with the established church of England and with many other examples of state religions. The establishment of a state church has a very poor history, regardless of which religion is the state religion.

The Jews of Russia wrongly saw Christianity as their enemy. It was in fact those who represented the church and lead it who were most unchristian toward the Jews and they used the power of the state to persecute them. It is not rational to expect people to know the love of Christ because you are persecuting or punishing them. It never works.

One has to recall that Stalin even had a secular Jew, Molotov, as his foreign minister for a number of years. Russian Jews felt that there was a cause for hope. But this doctor and many other Jews found out that the new communist system was even worse than the old czarist system. And in the midst of the wreckage of his own life, the doctor saw the simple message of Christ, saw Christ as his only hope, found the freedom in Christ and the courage in Christ to lead a moral life in an utterly immoral situation. And as a result of his stand for the Christian faith, something he himself would never have expected, his story is known to us today in the person of Solzhenitzyn, the heir of his Christian belief. The doctor's work in saving Solzhenitzyn's life was no more important than the influence he had in his Christian testimony to the young Solzhenitzyn. In some sense, the doctor, in Christ, had a victory over Stalin. But the good doctor would already know this because he is likely, inasmuch as we know his spiritual state from Solzhenitzyn, to be in heaven and Stalin is almost certainly in hell. And Russia is free, more or less, of czars and commissars and state religions. There are many indications that Christian churches may prosper there.

It is, all in all, a very sweet story and well worth remembering.

[RnMomof7]

That is an interesting rerading of the good Samaritan...I have never considered it that way, But there is surely a parallel  ..I need to think on that a bit. Off hand I like it alot..just wonder about giving His life..but he does say whatever it costs

thanks for the study idea

[George W. Bush]

The parable of the Good Samaritan is interpreted by us in this way. The Samaritan is Christ, who arrives to relieve us of our suffering of sin. When the Samaritan tells the innkeeper to spend whatever is needed to bring the wounded man back to health, and promises to pay for it, we consider that to be a parallel to Christ giving whatever is needed for our sins, so that we may be brought to "health".

This is a nice teaching. I think it may have limits though.

"Suffering cleanses the soul infected with the filth of sensual pleasure and detaches it completely from material things by showing it the penalty incurred as a result of its affection for them. This is why God in His justice allows the devil to afflict men with torments." - St. Maximos the Confessor (+ 662)

I think Western Christians would not agree much with this teaching.

"If you are not willing to repent through freely choosing to suffer, unsought sufferings will providentially be imposed on you." - St. Thalassios (7th c.)

I believe that Western Christians would vehemently object to this teaching. Seeking suffering is not a virtue. The wicked are not always punished (in this life). Perhaps the most disturbing portion of this to American Christians is the idea that Christians should "repent through freely choosing to suffer". Unless Thalassios was simply speaking of renouncing our sins (a mild suffering and we would not use that term), few of us could agree with this statement. If he was referring to anything that resembled the ascetic orders of monks of the Roman church, we would most certainly not agree. Suffering, of itself, is not holy. Renouncing sin and embracing freedom in Christ, as the doctor in our story did, is the end of suffering and the beginning of eternal life in Christ.

Perhaps there is a broader cultural context within which some of these Orthodox statements should be understood. I've often recognized that each church denomination has a distinctive culture and history and that outsiders never truly grasp the meanings that members take for granted. There is, within scriptural limits, always room for charity between Christians of differing language and backgrounds. When we look at our missionaries' work around the world, we know this to be true.

[MarMema]

I believe that Western Christians would vehemently object to this teaching.

Yes and I am not surprised. My point was not to sell the idea, but to show that the statement in the story is consistent with Russian Orthodox ascetic beliefs. Self-chastisement, for instance, is considered a virtue.

[George W. Bush]

In pain and suffering Christ speaks to us, and thus God is kind to give them to us; yes, and evil too - for in all of these we glimpse something of what must lie beyond.

This statement does not resemble my experience of God. God is sweetly generous to me, who deserves nothing from Him. Suffering is what I impose on myself when I sin or forget Him and His rightful place in my life. But that is my fault, not God's. If there are hard lessons I must learn, He is always there, always faithful. But He is not the author of sin as the Bible tells us. And in my experience, He is not to be considered the author of suffering. Nor am I certain that He finds any special merit in it. Christ calls us to new life and to freedom in Him, not to suffering. He has paid the price for us if we belong to Him.

It's not a perfect statement to answer any and all historical objections that might be brought against it but I thought I'd share with you a more common perspective from Western churches. At least, from any Protestant or Baptist or evangelical church I have heard of.

Nevertheless, there are some stories of people's lives in our traditions where they affirm that God taught them a great thing through a trial or suffering, something that was previously unknown to them and that they could have only learned through a trial of personal suffering. So, we are not solely some sort of spiritual hedonists as compared to the Eastern Orthodox. But a focus on asceticism or suffering is not central to a life of faith in the churches I'm aware of.

[MarMema]

Actually here is a fairly good overview if you are interested in our "take" on these things.
God does not manifest Himself to an impure heart.

[George W. Bush]

Yes and I am not surprised. My point was not to sell the idea, but to show that the statement in the story is consistent with Russian Orthodox ascetic beliefs. Self-chastisement, for instance, is considered a virtue.

I think an explanation offered earlier on the thread by another poster explains it better. The doctor simply had not had an opportunity to fully study and grasp all that scripture had to teach. And yet, his ignorance was no obstacle to God's purpose in his life nor did it cause him to fail in his personal Christian integrity as a camp doctor or in his witness to the young Solzhenitzyn. We might still wish that the doctor had had more time to learn scripture and to have a happier ending in his earthly life.

I wrote a bit about your mention of "self-chastisement" but erased it because I thought I should ask exactly what you meant by that phrase. There are certain practices known as "mortification of the flesh" which are held by the Roman church (more weakly in modern times) but which are rejected by non-Roman churches in the West.

[George W. Bush]

Actually here is a fairly good overview if you are interested in our "take" on these things. God does not manifest Himself to an impure heart.

But this describes only the monastic life, it seems. It does not describe your priests or patriarchs or ordinary believers, the vast bulk of your church. Surely these standards do not apply to ordinary clergy or believers. Nor would they actually seem directly applicable to the doctor in our story.

You should understand that for most of us here, the monastic life is largely incomprehensible. In many non-Roman churches in the West, it is emphasized that we are a priesthood of believers and that we are to be in the world but not of this world. I'm not sure that we practice that though, at least in the same sense as the great apostles did.

[MarMema]

Our patriarchs come from the monastic life. It is considered a countermeasure against power-lust. If you spend ten or more years living in a monastery, you are less likely to emerge as worldly and political in nature. Therefore more trustworthy to oversee within the church, you see.

All Orthodox Christians are called to the ascetic lifestyle, not just the monastics. We are to advance as our spiritual leaders believe us ready and as we gain spiritual maturity. The quality you defined as quaint earlier is one "sign" of this spiritual training.

If suffering and redemption are not closely linked, why did Christ suffer so severely in order to redeem us?

[MarMema]

great lent

This might be helpful in explaining our view.

[xzins]

I agree. Shirley Maclain makes my skin crawl...

Wasn't she with "the partridge family" or something? The 'kids' of that family were all screwed up in real life. She probably gets some of the credit.

[George W. Bush]

What practices are included in "mortification of the flesh" in the Orthodox tradition? You are perhaps aware of some of the excessive practices within the church of Rome historically.

[George W. Bush]

That was Shirley Jones, I think.

Shirley Maclain is much stranger. Actually everyone would have forgotten her entirely except for her New Age religious practices. After that television special, she was so widely ridiculed as a gullible idiot that she pretty much disappeared. Fortunately, the Hollywood crowd tends to completely implode when they turn toward some (false) religious practice.