A friend forwarded me a couple of gems from a recently published text which purports to be “an Orthodox catechism for our times” and “a book with the big answers to the big questions every person asks themselves about faith, science and doubt” –
Western Christianity, in all its expressions (whether Catholic, Protestant or so-called Western Orthodox) shares the same ontological and dualistic ecclesiology. Following Plato’s dualism, Western Christianity speaks of a God outside the box and creates a church inside the box. For the West, the Kingdom of God exists in heaven, but it is men who create the Kingdom of God on earth.
Western worship, regardless of whether it is Catholic, Protestant or Western Orthodox so-called, is man-made.
I can think of no better example of the kind of pseudo-intellectual pablum that David Bentley Hart identifies as “something of a cottage industry in the Orthodox Church—especially among converts—to discover and ‘market’ ever newer ancient differences between Eastern and Western Christian theology, morality, devotion, spirituality, politics, cuisine, or whatever else one can think of.”
Or, as I’ve seen it called somewhere on the net, “Pop Byzantine.”
I’m told the back cover of this exciting new book bears the endorsement of Orthodox bishops. Kyrie eleison.
P.S. I’m also told that the author, a former Baptist seminarian, seems to be enamored of biblical higher criticism, e.g. the tired old “documentary hypothesis.” What such late 19th century unbelieving German protestant blather has to do with Orthodox Christian catechesis is beyond me. “Western captivity” indeed.
This tendency to exaggerate the differences between the eastern and western strains of apostolic Christianity is deeply ingrained in modern Orthodoxy and, consequently, among some Eastern Rite Catholics. It is not just “pop Byzantinism”.
I very much agree with the late Pope JP2 that the Church must learn to breath with both lungs and with the recent Council’s call for the Church to recover its patristic roots. I consider myself above all a Catholic Christian.
Thank you for the quote–do you have the citation off hand?
AH! I believe you are referring to “These Things We Believe”!
According to Regina Press, the author “Fr. Deacon Ezra is an Adjunct Professor of Ancient Humanities. He holds a B.A. in Philosophy, a M.Div. in Theology and an M.A. in History. He has done graduate studies at the Baptische Theologische Hochschule in Zurich, Switzerland, and doctoral studies at Baylor University. He is an ordained deacon and serves at St. Elijah Orthodox Church in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.” I wonder if his Antiochian Bishops know how he feels about his Western Rite fellows.
Increasingly my sense is the problem of “ByzPop” is simply bringing one’s fundamentlism with one into the EOC. Many Bad Experiences (including my own) could have been avoided by spending a few years in deprogramming before chrismation. We (and I continue to include myself there) think the problem is “Western” when it is “Fundamentalism”, the latter being the part that is man-made.
” I wonder if his Antiochian Bishops know how he feels about his Western Rite fellows.”
I, being one of those Western Orthodox “so called”, have had my Orthodoxy questioned by these self-proclaimed “guardians of Orthodoxy” more times than I care to remember. These people should just put the Cool-Aid down, then calm down, and become Orthodox.
My experience with the ethnic cradle Orthodox has been quite different. They tend to not really care about my Western Orthodoxy, as long as our bishops recognize us, and we can enjoy a good oozo/vodka with them.
If this chap is Antiochian, and he’s lumping us Western Orthodox with “the west,” does he realize that we are under the same bishops? If we are heretical, then he is in communion with heretics! How these people shoot themselves on the foot.
If the author is who I think he is, he seems to be one of a growing coterie of “converts”, especially from non-liturgical Protestantism, who thinks he has found the “pure, unchanged, undiluted, etc; faith” as found in the first Christians, exactly that faith that the first Protestant Reformers sought. There is thus that tendency, as shown in the above quote, to show any and all deviations from that early faith as “man-made”. Interesting to note also is that the “Platonizing” tendency expresses itself quite well in seeing the Orthodox faith as the pure Ideal, just a few feet above the ground of earthly, wordly concerns.
What concerns me most about many of the new Orthodox Christians, especially those from a non-liturgical Protestant background is they are often more interested in Orthodoxy as an ideology then the Church as a living, concrete community. The swap the Bible Answer Man’s “historic Christian faith” for the “historic Christian Church” but it is a disincarnate church they seek.
Alas. and as Evagrius suggests, this warped notion of the Gospel is not only not challenged it is sometimes confirmed by clergy & faithful who ought to know better.
G.K. Chesterton once said that a “word that does not become flesh is a bad word.” I suppose the same can be said of an unincarnate, abstract “church”: it is a bad church.
It may be packaged as “ByzPop” by a “johnny-come-lately,” but he is not saying anything that the Orthodox Church has not said in dogmatically ecumenical East-Roman conciliar declarations from the 14th century and more recently reemphasized by the Slavophiles and neopatristic thelogians from the Old World. It short, what claim is a recent convert development ain’t — its very old hat. Use all the snide ad hominems you want, but one thing that Black Bart has got right is the ontological gulf between the East and West.
Take a peasant from Greece and stick him in the same room as a peasant from Mexico, and their cosmology, approach to religion, God, and health are substantially the same, more than then they would be similar to the views of some of their co-religionists.
Take an academic theologian from the Orthodox Church and stick him in a room with an academic theologian from the Catholic Church, then you would have what passes for ecumenism these days: a lot of talk about Heidegger over cocktails.
Meta-narratives are nice, but they tend to reveal only agendas. Lots of smoke, little fire, no heat, and not much else.
“Meta-narratives are nice, but they tend to reveal only agendas. Lots of smoke, little fire, no heat, and not much else.”
Aye, what Arturo said.
My first introduction to Orthodoxy was not through an academic theologian, but through the mother of some Greek friends I grew up with in Huntington Park back in the seventies. Her name was Vasilia Rousopoulos (or Mrs. Rousopoulos to me), a stout, no-nonsense woman from a village in the Peloponesus. Her house was full of icons….and pendants to ward off the “evil eye.” She did a lot of praying for her children, as well as for me (she would later confess). I owe a lot to her, and if she thinks I, a “Western Orthodox so-called,” am Orthodox, then that’s good enough for me.
I think too often we forget, in our rather abstract discussions, that we are dealing with real people, trying to work out their salvation in the best way they can. Academic theologians-whether Roman Catholic or Orthodox-tend to think too abstractly, and so the faith becomes something more akin to some knowledge system that you have to assent to into in order to be considered TRULY Orthodox or Catholic. In the end, it is Christ who saves us, not our systems or meta-narratives.
Death Bredon:
I may have been a little touchy and uncharitable, for which I apologize to the good deacon. But a problem still remians. The claim being made here is that somehow, “Western Orthodoxy” reveals a dualistic ecclesiology at odds with Orthodoxy. This claim needs to be proven, and not just made as though it is a self-evident truth (begging the question). And if this is true, then our bishops are condoning heresy, and the good deacon is in communion with heretics. It is ultimately self-defeating.
Amd one more thing…my bishops say that I am Orthodox, but you and the good deacon in question seem to say otherwise. Who am I suppose to believe?
“Western worship, regardless of whether it is Catholic, Protestant or Western Orthodox so-called, is man-made.”
Hmm…
So If “Western Orthodoxy” is just as man-made and dualistic as its Latin counterpart… then by extension, are we Uniates still in possession of the real, er, “non-man-made” and “non-dualistic” worship?
Would the author of this passage turn around and say, “Eastern worship, regardless of whether it is Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Catholic so-called, is uncreated and Theandric”?
I’m guessing the answer there is NO.
“Uncreated” worship?
“Ontological gulf”?
It would be nice to have some clear definitions of these.
“It would be nice to have some clear definitions of these.”
True. But then again, these will reveal real differences, which constitute the basis for our disagreement.
You know them all.
By definition, there is no such thing as an “academic theologian” in Orthodoxy. Rather, Orthodox academics are historians of dogma and when they try to do more and fall into the Western pattern of speculative theology, which still happens all too often, well the results are very bad cocktails. I always try to stick with Orthodox academics that just try play it straight and tell it like is was.
BTW, who the hell is Heidegger?
“BTW, who the hell is Heidegger?”
Ouch, you must really hate the west. We got you pegged. So PI and hateful of you. :D
To be sure, this sort of false knowledge of another person’s tradition is not limited to the Orthodox church. :) I was just in England and heard a wonderful CoE sermon on how “Eastern Christianity” teaches that Holy Wisdom is a sort of 4th person in the Trinity. Don’t get me started on some of the Roman Catholics I’ve met. :)
I hope we can get to the point where we can just assume, at the outset of any discussion, that the ignorant people found in a tradition do not reflect the whole of the tradition.
And of course, forgive me, the most ignorant of all, for preaching to myself…
I think I get it now — if one doesn’t take the “Enlightment” and Modern Western European Rationalism seriously (I mean, really how can one? Voltaire, Hegel, etc., seriously?), then you are a “hater” and automatically excluded from the Great Conversation.
What’s next on “teh” entrance requirements — confession that Lance Armstrong is not a doper, that the Colonial Americans did treat the Indians nor ther chattel slaves that badly, that the Norman Invaders were peaceful pious men, that “Charlemange” could read and write in both Latin and Greek, and that the Frankish Crusader Kingdoms (Steve Runicman’s terminology) were just fine and dandy?
Sorry, Homey don’t play the game that begins with the a priori presumption that East and West necessarily start on equal footing.
But, please don’t peg me! ;-)
“BTW, who the hell is Heidegger?”
Well, he is apparently the intellect that the late modern academic Orthodox theologian must come to some terms with, either to ultimately reject while still borrowing from (Zizioulas), or to more or less embrace (Yannaras) or some such…..
Surely some go straight for the cocktails and forget the affected conversation of the ecclesiocratic intelligentsia. One must pity those unfortunate junior bishops who don’t give a hoot about Heidegger and get sent to these things. Perhaps at these meetings there is a bartender with some interesting stories.
A few of the last remarks seem to portray Orthodoxy as proudly anti-intellectual.
This is a shame since without having some sort of conversation with them, ( the intellectuals/ philosophers/etc;), one has foregone the injunction to preach the Gospel, ( see St. Paul, Justin Martyr, the Alexandrians, etc;).
For a good discussion of how Orthodox are discussing the “modern issues”, read Norman Russell’s “Fellow Workers with God: Orthodox Thinking on Theosis”.
Going straight to the drinks does not set a good example.
I think I need a drink or two (or three or four) after having to read through the combox today. Bottoms up! :-D
“Going straight to the drinks does not set a good example.”
Have you actually ever spent time with Catholics, Ev, I mean, not just online?
This may be somewhat ironic, coming from me, but I would bet my house that the bishops (both RC and EOC) who head straight to the bar and have a man to man chat with the bartender would be the ones most likely to come up with a statement that more than four people read ten years later.
The ones (both Catholic and EOC) who get so excited about Heideggerspeak are the ones who will get your hopes nowhere.
Anti-intellectual? What about just someone who thinks that Heidegger and most other highly talked about late modern continental philosophers are not all that helpful in the articulation of either Catholic or Orthodox theology? What about someone who has read just enough modern philosophy to know when 60+ year olds are still piggybacking the intellectual fads of their 20s when the rest of the intellectual world has moved on, thus in their very self-congratulatory attempts to write relevant theology only actually make themselves look quaint and pathetic to, say, I don’t know, anyone who even just reads the TLS each issue, let alone folks who actually teach and write philosophy?
If it was Wittgenstein that was all the rage, on the other hand, I’d be all for it. At least then we’d know there would be a good fight, and in addition to foo foo cocktails, they would serve Mad Dog and cheap beer.
If there is indeed some sort of “ontological” difference between Catholic and Orthodox liturgical worship, or between any other aspect of the two traditions, I think that it is the duty of the side claiming that those differences exist to preach the truth that they possess.
The fact that only a few – for the most part protestant converts – on the Orthodox side are even attempting to preach the truth and convert the “Hegelian pagans” at the ecumenical aerophagus, suggests to me that all you Orthodox claiming such a radical “crevasse” exists, either have a lot of work to do (preferably begun with your bishops) or else – and excuse my French – you all are simply full of b*llsh*t.
No normal Catholic or Protestant anywhere in the “West” (like my devout Catholic mother) has any idea of what you rabid Orthodox (probably from some freakish sect “formerly known as ROCOR” or else are Protestant converts) are preaching. Why? Two possibilities: either you’re insane, self- obsessed/ethnocentric ideologues, or..
I can’t think of a second reason. If what you say is true, then it should be common discourse, but it’s not. If the Paraclete is behind you why are all of you stuck in the fever swamps?
If you all have a Pauline chrism to counter the Petrine that Rome claims, then come.
Come Correct Him, to His Face. Correct the Pope. Draw a Council together, and correct him, as you finally did the Arians. Establish an “Orthodox” patriarch in Rome. Claim the West.
Already.
Otherwise, please just shut up already.. It’s all too exhausting to listen to.
Is there a bishop to equal Anathanasius yet to be found in the East? Can the Greeks and Slavs again claim the Imperium?
I don’t think you can. You’ve had about a thousand years to do it, and you haven’t yet.
I smell a bluff, cards down, now.
So I call your game. It’s B*llsh*t.
Och,
Have you read Russell’s book? If not, you should.
From what I’ve read, contemporary philosophy hasn’t really gone “beyond” Heidegger, or rather, hasn’t gone beyond the “problematic” that Heidegger, and quite a few others, ( the list is really quite long), were confronting. That “problematic” is really quite simple; what does it mean to be human today.
Traditional societies from Greece to Asia had responses to that question, responses that led to the rise of some very deep religions and philosophies.
But we’re not living in traditional societies and the response to the question needs to be re-articulated .
Russell, in the later chapters of his book, describes some of the attempts by contemporary Orthodox theologians, to respond to the question. The responses are not definitive nor final but in process and they are paralleled by theologians and philosophers in other traditions and religions.
I find it curious that you should be advocating “trendiness” in thinking deeply about the human condition.
Mr. Curtis,
I love the fever swamps line. It hits the target as it should – just as Buckley’s method was to rhetorically disenfranchise all conservatisms other than his own variety, by painting them all with the same brush, so you….
The “arch-ecumenist” Ecumenical Patriarch +Bartholomew uses the “ontological difference” language, so I am inclined to think we might be dealing with something more widespread and varied than the obscurity you suggest.
Ev,
No, have not read Russell’s book yet. Yes, you are right that I should. I plan to.
I don’t have any problem with asking what it means to be human in a late modern context, and I admit that the question is complicated by any number of recent “problems.”
Yes, I know the Heidegger is still a part of the game, but there are many readings of Heidegger out there. Look, can you think of one serious philosopher outside of Christian circles who turns to any of these theological readings of Heidegger for help in discerning, I don’t know, questions of ontology or other “problematics”? I can’t think of any. My point is that this “relevant” engagement is not really all that relevant. It is inevitably second rate and dated, not to mention self-righteous, hence my accusations regarding posturing and affect. In saying this I am not advocating the trendy. I am pointing out the absurdity of those who embrace late modern philosophy under the guise of using the current terms and concepts of these late modern “problems” (so as to be “open” and “reach out to the world” etc.) when, in fact, they are still meddling with the “problems” using the terms and concepts of a generation ago. My point is that if you are going to try to be trendy, at least be competent at it, and virtually all theological borrowings from late modern philosophy are decidedly not.
I tend to disagree with David B. Hart on some things, but his reading of the most common uses of late modern philosophy in current theological thought is not one of them.
Very deep?
“Very deep?”
– yes I am now a confirmed Orthodox convert to Ochlophoby.
Pro-West, anti-intellectual and what have you – used as pejorative labels these distinctions are worthless and counter productive to the exchange of ideas and real growth. They do win browny points with the faithful in one’s camp, I’ll grant you that. But we here are beyond that, aren’t we? It would seem imperative that we are, unless of course “Towards Orthodox-Catholic Reconciliation” is meant merely to be a catchy by-line, not something we practice.
Read Fritz Buri, ” The Buddha-Christ as the Lord of the True Self”, an examination of the religious philosophy of the Kyoto School and Christianity.
The Kyoto School is the name given to a group of Japanese Buddhist philosophers, ( Kitaro, Tanabe, Suzuki, Hisamatsu, Nishitani, Takeuchi, Ueda and Abe), who have sought a philosophical dialogue between Buddhism and Christianity. Heidegger is a prominent figure in their discussions.
Perhaps you should broaden your reading horizon to beyond that of the English-speaking world.
ev,
Using Heidegger to appropriate Western forms into the practice of Zen Buddhism is hardly an argument for the importance of Heidegger to Christian theology. Well that is unless your Christian theology is that of the man Christ escaping samsara through enlightenment… :)
Increasingly my sense is the problem of “ByzPop” is simply bringing one’s fundamentlism with one into the EOC.
Amen! Preach it, brother. ;)
I would not be a Christian at all if not for such diverse Westerners as Professor Donald Macleod, current Principal of the Free Church college in Edinburgh or the late yet treasured John Cosin of Durham or Conrad Noel but all the same, when dealing with Rome and Romanism, as a former Anglo-Catholic, I find it profitable to recall Newman’s words about moderation being the silken string that runs through the pearls of virtue. It is ontologically (seeing as we are using the word) untenable to claim that western theology is the root of all ecclesial evil and those who persist in it find it indefensible sooner rather later or, to be more exact, their readers do. On the other hand, to claim that the differences are cosmetic and that East and West are the two lungs of the Church is to suggest Christ has allowed His Body to become seriously maimed. It’s as foolish to ignore differences as it is to invent them.
Magaret, may I respectfully suggest that we ix-nay with the “Romanism”? It is a pejorative term coined and routinely used by anti-Catholics, and most Catholics (including myself) find it somewhat offensive. Sorry if that comes across as hypersensitive. Thanks!!
Diane
P.S. Does this toga make my butt look big?
OK the comments are getting weird(er).
But I will add my amen to Margaret’s, “It’s as foolish to ignore differences as it is to invent them.”
Nathaniel,
The response is to Ochlophobist who asked for referrals to the use of Heidegger by non-Christians.
The Kyoto School is of some relevance since it’s a response to Christianity, the “West” and modernity by some interesting Japanese philosophers. I find that reading them refreshes my thinking since I then return to Christian theology with some new questions and new insights.
Evagrius, two comments, not to be nitpicky. :)
1. I meant “Western” in my post above in a way that would include the general traditions of both RC and EOC. I wasn’t picking on “teh West.”
2. I think the point that Och was trying to get at was that engagement with philosophers such as Heidegger has traditionally been done in an apologetic fashion; “spermatikos logos” and all that… Thus, for example, a serious engagement with the Kyoto School would require a significant learning on our part of their tradition, including their ancient writers. Heidegger does not represent this. In spite of being decidedly non-Catholic/Protestant and in spite of his essentially creating a new Aeon (Dasein), the majority of his “following” is likely to be located *within* Christianity. Thus, it cannot, in any sense, be “reading Plato to win the Greeks” or the sermon at Mars Hill. I’ve perhaps oversimplified too much. But I think that was what Och was getting at… Owen, let me know if I’m wrong…
I want to go on record as saying that I have no blessed clue what y’all are talking about.
Forgive me for my use of too many words during a fast.
Official Ochlophobic answers to everything follow:
I like this McCallum fellow.
I would only add that for the work of Christian theologians who claim to be “engaging” the modern/late modern world of thought via use of Heidegger and other late modern continental thinkers to actually or successfully engage, there would seem to have to be an actual dialogue, and not a monologue. Thus if we grant that late modern philosophy is attempting to answer questions of, say, ontology, and, say, what it means to be human in a late modern context, and we assert these are good questions to be asking, and we (Christians) make use of some of their methods to deal with these questions, but, then we see that those from whom we borrowed these terms and methods (and/or the communities of thought that use them as their primary tongue) do not respond by taking note of our usages, in other words, they do not engage us in conversation, then, well, it would seem we have not engaged, that our attempts at relevance have not been deemed relevant by those we were attempting to (impress?) relate to and dialogue with.
I did think of one Christian thinker who has engaged Heidegger and whose engagement has been picked up by non-Christian philosophers of some note – Milbank. I don’t know how I forgot about him when I asked Ev the question, other than to say that I am now deep into my mid-thirties and thus (as one no longer in my 20s nor one who is paid to come up with something that sounds new even when it is a tired dead horse) no longer read “radical orthodoxy” writings anymore.
Both David B. Hart and, in a sly way, Fr. John Behr have engaged Milbank in a manner I find fruitful.
All of this begs questions of epistemology. As I have said to Ev on many occasions in the past, I don’t think we agree on enough to actually disagree in a coherent fashion, though I am still trying to find some point on which we might actually converse. I follow Newman’s assertion that in order for a genuine debate to take place, there has to be a relatively high amount of agreed upon terms. In the epistemological anarchy of our age, most “disagreements” are not at all capable of rising to real debate or real dialogue. This is one reason I find most dialogue fruitless. That said, I believe that a real dialogue between an old Thomist (like my current favorite – Tracey Rowland) and an Orthodox (say, a serious Palamite thinker, perhaps a David Bradshaw) is possible.
Ev,
Is the Suzuki you mention in that list of Kyoto thinkers D.T. Suzuki? I have read several of his books and his correspondence with Merton. If it is this Suzuki whom you refer to, is D.T. Suzuki representative of the Kyoto school?
I may have asked you this before, but what do you think of John Ching Hsiung Wu?
All readers of this thread, and Irenical one:
I have been whining and moaning and ranting and issuing polemical edicts against Byzatine Rite Evangelicalism, Baptidoxy, ByzPop, “product-placement” Ancient Faith™ Trinketadoxy, and the like for years now. Where have y’all been all this time? Still, I welcome you at the 11th hour.
The fundamental point here is one that Mr. McCallum suggests above – in the quote given by the Irenical one in the post above, as with all modern Orthodox critiques of “the West” – we see Western methods of critique employed against the West. This is not really ironic, though it appears so (it might be ironic only in the sense that there are apparently some folks who are unaware that their own hatred of the West is a Western variety of self-hatred). Orthodoxy is, intellectually speaking, a part of the West, and the occasional attempts to divorce Orthodoxy from its own intellectual patrimony are silly. The great genius of the West, its intellectual charism, as it were, is self-critique. It can be toxic, it can also be grace filled. Every Orthodox critique of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism employs Western methods of criticism and analysis – even Romanides, even St. Mark of Ephesus, even St. Gregory Palamas. It is not a question of whether a Western argument, but rather, which Western argument.
Now, some have noted this in a manner that suggests that the results of such usages must be false, I suppose because the users are not so up front about their own intellectual dependencies. I disagree with this. Take, for instance, David B. Hart’s criticisms of 20th century Orthodox assaults on the work of St. Augustine. Hart has argued that, basically, the analysis offered in this respect is recent, and thus it may be dismissed as non-Orthodox. I would say this. The analysis in question is recent. It employs modern and late modern methods of criticism and analysis (which those doing the analyzing seem to either not be aware of or do not much want to draw attention to). But this, in my mind, does not mean that the analysis and criticism is wrong. Elements of St. Augustine’s thought may indeed have influenced Roman Catholic and Protestant thinkers to go the directions that they did in the manner the critiquers suggest. That Orthodox were not saying this, in this manner, before, may have to do with the fact that this particular method of analysis was one they were not familiar with in the past, or it may have to do with the fact that they have spent a fair amount of time in the last 500 years getting martyred and harassed. I think the analysis regarding St. Augustine’s influence (unintended, I think in the opinion of virtually everyone) on later thought should be accepted or rejected on the merits of the arguments themselves (many of which are poorly done, some of which deserve attention, in my opinion), and not dismissed simply because anti-West writers use Western arguments.
It is a curious thing to me, perhaps others find it curious as well, that the intensity of animus against the zealous, fervent, anti-Western convert to Orthodoxy that we read so much of in caricature, is almost always being derided by persons who are also converts to Orthodoxy. By far, it seems to me, most Orthodox persons who attack this “bad” sort of convert are themselves converts, presumably of a “good” nice, pro-ecumenical, West loving sort. Might there be some particular phenomenon of convert on convert loathing going on here? The caricature of the West-hating convert that Hart and others make is, at best, incomplete. As the recent Confession Against Ecumenism suggests yet again, anti-Western converts borrow the language of anti-West from cradles. There is a plenty of anti-West rhetoric from cradles. That said, what is not discussed enough, in my opinion, is that the desire to embrace this anti-West rhetoric is itself a decidedly Western impulse (the West has been on bash the West mode for a good century plus now). Thus, some, at least, of these zealous converts have brought an anti-West psychology with them into the Church. I would suggest that some pro-ecumenical convert Orthodox were pro-ecumenism before they became Orthodox, and brought that pro-ecumenism with them into Orthodoxy, and naturally gravitate toward Orthodox voices (including no shortage of cradles) that are pro-ecumenist. Thus, it seems to me, both sides in this affair bring postures into the Church with them. I think the questions should be, what does the Church say to these postures? What are the parameters the Church might provide us for the use of Western critiques of the West? What is, as it were, baptizable and what is not?
In my opinion, both sides are guilty of embracing agendas that have been framed outside of the Church, and are inserted into Church contexts in an ideological manner.
Perhaps I am wrong. It has happened four times before.
Diane,
May I have a picture of you in that toga to post on my site?
Ochlophobist
may we be furnished with some bibliographical elements concerning David B. Hart’s treatment of Augustine and his Orthodox critics. The subject greatly interests me.
Fr. Paul,
In the September 2007 issue of Touchstone, Dr. Tighe has a report from the Orthodox Readings of Augustine conference at Fordham. He mentions Hart’s comments in that report (it is not available online, so far as I can tell). They have since been repeated online and have been much talked about (my review of Tighe’s review is at http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html ), and Hart has been reported to have repeated them at other conferences and talks. As I recall the book coming out of the Augustine conference does not mention the comments, as they came out of a discussion that took place after Bradshaw’s talk, with which Hart disagreed. If someone can direct me to anything in print by Hart dealing with the matter, I would appreciate it.
I understand the attempt by Orthodox-haters and “Mere Christianity” Ecumenists to revise history and pretend that Augustinian trinitarianism was always accepted in the East until the recent blast of cant from ugly, New-World converts, as (1) any good faith investigation of the merits of the Augustinian trinitarianism will always reveal that it is a speculative innovation based on substantively pagan philosophical content and is incompatible with all prior Christian tradition; and (2) so many New World converts to Orthodoxy do fall into an superifical, simplistic, triumphal, supposedly Orthodox, “FORMdamentlism” — “Hello, my name is Demetry Jones, I am Orthodox, the Pendallion (Rudder) and Typicon were handwritten by God himself, and you are going to hell, beardless heretic” — that attaching any doctrine to them as a group is a brilliant rhetorical trick. But, unfortunately for the revisionists, its just a trick. Indeed, from the get-go, orthodox Christianity has consistently and decidedly rejected Augustinian trinitarianism because it is both innovative and fundamentally inconsistent with received Christian Tradition.
Indeed, the first time Orthodoxy critically engaged a product of Augustinianism, the still controversial filioque, occurred during the so-called Photian Schism. And at the ecumenical council of 879, which rehabilitated Photios and which was favorably received by the See of Rome as the Eighth Ecumenical Council for several centuries until silently abandoned after Frankish “acquisition” of the Papacy several centuries later, both the fiilioque and the substance on which is was crafted, that is Augustine’s substantively pagan, Neo-Platonic, concept of divine hyper-simplicity, were rejected as heretical.
The next big engagement with Augustinianism, which by that had become unquestionable dogma in the Germanic-Latin West and the one foundation upon which the Thomists and other Schoolmen built, occurred during a series of medieval, Byzantine (East Roman) councils, usually referred to as the Hesychast or Palamite Councils which condemned the speculative theology of the Easterner, Baarlam the Calabrian, whose religious ideas were formed by Western (Frankish) scholasticism. We should note that this condemnation was not simply on the basis of the geographical origin Baarlam’s ideas, but rather was built of the critical and substantive examination of those ideas by such Eastern theologians as Gregory of Cyprus, who did a wonderful job of clarifying traditional Orthodox trinitarianism and expressing the “Orthodox filioque” — the doctrine that each person of the trinity eternally manifests the other persons, i.e., the doctrine of perichoresis or circumsessio or co-inherence, first systematically codified by St. John Damascene. Also, Gregory’s work showed how St. Maximos the Confessor could have confused the Augustinian filioque for sound theologoumena by too charitably attributing the sound, Orthodox doctrine to the barbarian West.
In sum, the historical record makes abundantly clear that later day Orthodox criticism of Augustinianism and Thomism, which together indubitably constitute the spine of Western theological thought regarding content or method or both, all has its roots in late antiquity and the high middle-ages, and represents the perennial, consensus Orthodox response to the two big Western “isms.” Indeed, in the past three centuries, resurgence within Orthodoxy of the traditional criticism of Augustinianism has been led by Old-World, Cradle Orthodox writers, not New-World converts.
DB,
But neither St. Photius nor the Palamites specifically name St. Augustine as the paradigmatic culprit, nor do they analyze the manner in which his thought was specifically responsible for the errors they sought to address. St. Gregory himself quotes Augustine, without citing him, in some of his writings. To my knowledge these quotes are always used in support of his own position. This is not to say that Photius or the Palamites in any way endorsed Augustine’s Trinitarian thought. It is not to say even that they did not ascribe error to it. It is only to say that the matanarrative which ascribes to Augustine this position as heresiarch or heterodoxiarch or some such is decidedly a late modern phenomenon. Can you find one Orthodox work prior to the mid 20th century that traces the thought of Augustine through the Christian ages showing its malignant results in further “western” developments? I cannot think of any. And it seems to me this form of analysis is decidedly late modern. As I stated above, this does not mean that Augustine did not influence filioquan thought, or that he did not influence later scholastic thought. Obviously, one can trace these forms of thought to Augustinian ideas. But there were a host of readings of Augustine prior to both of the things you mention, thus the degree of Augustine’s culpability is debatable. It is conceivable that in similar circumstances a host of soteriological error could have derived from the work of St. Gregory of Nyssa. Again, this is not to say that I disagree with the bulk of Romanides’ points (especially with regard to the Franks), it is only to say that this method of revisionist and grand scheme searching analysis is decidedly late modern and Western. We see here the playing out of the last 100 years of historiographic thought and method, and its appropriation by Orthodox, it seems to me.
Och,
1. Of course there is always the question whether the “ism” is fairly attributed to its purported originator. Was Nestorius really a “Nestorian,” was Augustine really an Augustinian in the Carolingian Frankish sense?
But, until such time as the West rejects the Carolingian-Frankish Augustinian Synthesis, the question seems purely academic to me, as we know Augustine was not purposefully heretical in that he expressly wrote that his writings were subject the judgement and censor of the Church and we also know that he lived a very pious and holy life, and that some of his writings — for instance on just war theory — are completely consistent, and are perhaps the best expression of, Christian Tradition. So yes, I consider him a Saint and a minor Father — but not one to be relied upon for trinitarian exposition because, at minimum (though I personally find it impossible to excuse his adoption of absolute divine simplicity from pagan philosophy as the definition qua definition of God), his writings on this topic are so patient of error.
2. Of course, Orthodox authors who raise the question, or even forcefully assert, that Augustinianism (or in some cases Augustinism) is directly at fault for many of the modern and contemporary failures of Far-Western Post-Christendom must be a new thing, by definition. But, even this critique originates from the Old World (Romanides).
And, as New-World Orthodox converts have found Love in the Ruins, so too speak, it is not at all surprising that a scholarly Orthodox-convert thinker, such as David Bradshaw, who has a tremendous affinity for the positive aspects of Western Christian Civilization and who, I believe, would consider himself an Orthodox Westerner and not a convert to any particular or general Eastern cultural milieu, would investigate the where-when-and-how of the demise of his own culture and in different ways than, and with much more tact and sensitivity than, Romanides, I might add.
Indeed, the difference between a Roman-Catholic critic of Post-Christian Western Modernity, such as, say Walker Percy, and an Orthodox one, like Bradshaw, is that simply they come to differing and not necessarily completely inconsistent about conclusions about Western rot. The former identifies the incursion of modern rationalism as the culprit, while the later sees the failure to keep classical rationalism (the substance of Neo-Platonism or Aristotelianism) safely and firmly in check, which Justinian did and the Carolingian Franks did not. In any event, the Orthodox critique of Augustine, Anslem, and Acquinas — as traditionally understood in the West — has merely been extended from its original theological objections, which were raised in late Antiquity and the Middle-Ages, to a critic of the perceived negative affects of the errors (ideas have consequences). And again, for point of emphasis, this extension of the Eastern critique of the West is fully consistent with Eastern tradition and originated in the East.
In any event, by reference to their protests voice at this website and others, I take it that Western Augustinians (or Orthodox Latinoprones such as D.B. Hart), consider ALL critiques of the Augustine, Augustinianism, and the making of any conextion between them and the fall of Christianity from ascendency in the West to be A PRIORI, pathological anti-Westernism. Indeed, the notion seems to be, that to engage in any debate or ecumenical dialog, Orthodox are required to start with the proposition that Augustine and Augustinianism validly represents a continuation of received Christian tradition however much at odds with the historical record that may be. And, if rejecting “a priori Augustinianism” makes me a West-hating “Orthodox convert bigot,” then color me Eastern.
Och,
Not that I all think we should jump on St. Augustine (who is personally one of my favorite Christian exegetes), however, the protocol of finding an ancient heresiarch as the cause for a modern heresy is an old one. Irenaeus uses it of the Gnostics (Simon Magus). Hippolytus uses it against Pope Callistus. It is used against Paul of Samosata, Arius and others.
Certainly the application of this pattern against St. Augustine is a modern use, but the pattern itself is very old. As you implied, each case must be taken on its own merit (and most, IMHO, lack merit).
DB, “Love in the Ruins” made me laugh, considering I just returned from Cartago, Costa Rica. The ruins of the old cathedral there are a popular place for a certain type of congress not fitting of a cathedral. :)
I once was in a situation where a group of people from a variety of traditions were reading various Fathers. It became common, at the beginning of the discussion following the reading, to ask the question “Is this orthodox?” This question was asked of Mathetes, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius and others. When we got to De Trinitatae, no one asked the question. It was almost bizzare. So, being the fool that I am, I asked the question. It was if I had spoken the deplorable word (HT to you Lewis fans). I might as well have just killed Ghandi.
Why? I think this is the question that most reasonable Orthodox are asking. Many of us have experienced similar things. I’m not looking to condemn him, but we should at least ask the question. I’m not sure any Orthodox thinking has really come up with a satisfactory answer for this prejudice. But there is clearly a sort of assumption that Augustine *is* the Tradition, at least in some circles. Any RCs/Prots care to comment?
Nathan,
Yes, but in these cases the heresiarchs were recognized as false teachers long before they were applied to a causation scheme. In the case of Augustine, we do not see a formal recognition of him being a teacher of grave error on the Greek side. Though there are cases where it can be argued Eastern fathers made note of some of his argumentation and made a point to avoid the adoption of it. With Augustine the causation scheme requires an apparent revision of former readings of Augustine, or at least the introduction of a hermeneutic that was not attempted in any manner before, so far as we know. The manner in which this is done, even in a Romanides, strikes me as very late modern. [Romanides studied at Yale and St. Sergius during a time when such revisionist approaches to history were becoming all the rage.] The question, “why have things gone so terribly wrong in the West,” is a distinctly late modern question. The West has always been about self-critique, but not until recently in a manner so fraught with an awareness of its own self-destruction.
Again, this is not to say that his conclusions must be wrong.
But if one is going to posit an effective polemic, it seems to me all questions of method and intellectual pedigree need to be on the table.
I very much sympathize with how DB ends his last comment. I would go so far as to say that one might turn Hart’s attack on the “Augustine-haters” back on its head. It may be that there was no such polemic against Augustine as Augustine prior to the 20th century, but neither does there seem to be any tradition or inclination prior to that time for Orthodox to turn to Augustine for anything having to do with Trinitarian thought, etc. He was read for his pious writings, as it were. His commentaries seem to be the most widely read of his works among Orthodox. Had his Trinitarian thought been pushed in Greek lands, perhaps there would have been a revolt against his work. In any event, if it is novel to suggest that Augustine is widely dismissed by the Christian East, it would be just as novel to suggest that the Christian East ever view him as an authority on such matters, or take seriously a theological tradition that is framed by his Trinitarian speculations. DB and Nathan are quite right that for some folks (ideologues?), any criticism of Augustine or later Western (Augustinian?) theological constructs is taken to be pathological, no matter how precise a criticism it might be.
If one wants to play the game of caricatures that DB suggests, we might play it the other way. We all know the caricature of the zealous, fervent West-hating Orthodox convert. But what about a caricature of the occidentiphile pro-ecumenist Orthodox convert? If I were to suggest a caricature, it would be a fellow who came to Orthodoxy disaffected with his last ecclesial habitat, not really coming on the basis of a decided commitment to Orthodox dogma and praxis being uniquely true, but more because he or she has no other place to go, or felt that Orthodoxy was the least bothersome place to go. This convert is very attracted to certain modern Orthodox agnosticisms on certain theological issues, and mistakes this for theological license, and goes for a modest antinomianism within a “safe” context (a desert fathersish do not judge anyone for any reason, but still no homosexual marriages and no women priests, all while perhaps being hypothetically “open” to the idea of women priests, of course). A love for ancient form but also for Schmemann/Dix style historical criticism applied to the history of liturgy and dogma. An irrational anger toward all things Athonite. A tendency to tease deliberate expressions of traditional Orthodox piety, most especially any convert who tries to embrace said piety. Avoid “True Church” talk at all costs and instead use language like “fullest” or “most full” and so forth. One did not so much convert from something or away from something but saw one’s former tradition as “completed” or “fulfilled” in Orthodoxy. Talks like one of those persons who claims to be theologically conservative but yet stayed in ECUSA for years past the time Spong was pumping out a heretical treatise every 6 months – when speaking about spiritual things, uses soft, gentle voice, slightly hushed voice. Believes that somehow the salvation of mankind depends upon the reunion of Christian East & West. Fetish for Anglicanism and/or RCism – closely watches Anglican and/or RC affairs. Loves to talk about Bach, Augustine, Anselm or Aquinas, and favorite blends of tea. Palamas is considered stupid and philosophically unsound. Postures himself/herself as if to suggest that he/she “gets” Orthodoxy in the common-sense don’t overly think about it manner of the “real” cradles, even though they are frequently talking about the many thoughts they have about Orthodoxy and those who disagree with their understanding of Orthodoxy on their blog, or in their latest lecture…
Of course, such caricatures are so rarely accurate in the particular….
And that description comes from a self proclaimed ochlophobist who blogs on ecclesial political matters, the most banal and unochlophobic of things to discuss.
Och,
It is possible to love both Bach and Palamas, right? ;)
Or as my music theory professor once said, “There are two kinds of composers in the world: Bach and everyone else.”
Nathan,
Half of the things I mention in that description apply to me. I am a man of many hypocrisies. I will talk blends of tea with anyone.
And the point is to suggest that all of these caricatures fail.
I am sorry I keep calling you Nathan when your name is Nathaniel. My haste is at fault. Forgive me.
Do any other Catholics post here? Halllooooo?
I’m sorry, but there’s something about posting at a place where someone refers to Augustine as a heresiarch that gives me the heebie-jeebies.
Mamma mia. Youse guys need to get out more.
Diane,
As Arturo’s posts continue to reveal that he is a closet Orhtodox — ;-) — more and more Ortho-geeks are flocking to his site.
And yes, we don’t out much, but when we do, we travel far and wide, even across the Urals and the Bosporus! Oh my, there is a sentient world beyond Western Europe. ;-)
Dear Death:
You know, I find all this talk about the fallen, corrupted, post-Christian West more than a tad ironic.
Holy Russia has the world’s highest abortion rate–and that rate has actually increased since the fall of Communism and the resurgence of the Russian Orthodox Church. Russia is also the world capital of child pornography rings. And, while most Russians profess to be Russian Orthodox, precious few of them actually go to church.
Greece is in a similar spiritual shambles. Only the yia-yias go to church.
So, what’s that again about the pathologies of the West? ;)
Do large parts of the developed West have serious moral and spiritual problems? Yep. But these problems, clearly, are not confined to the West…not by a long shot. Things are tough all over. Even in places that wouldn’t know an Augustinian-Carolingian whatchamacallit from a hole in the ground.
And oh yes–lest you blame Russia’s spiritual malaise on its 70-year bondage to the Communists: That dog won’t hunt. Greece is just as much a mess, spiritually, as Russia, and it was never Communist. Socialist, yes, but not a Communist totalitarian state.
good grief Diane.
It’s that dog DON’T hunt, not that dog won’t hunt.
At the very least can we agree on proper Suthrun?
Gheesh.
Well yes, Russia and the Greeks are in a mess, just as the EU (which now includes Greece, Lord help them) and the USA are — unless you’re Episcopalian, in which case, the state of the West has never been better.
But, most historians do consider the Western European virus of Marxist-Leninist Totalitarianism to have been somewhat disruptive factor in the life of the Russian Church, and I think its a bit premature to judge the post-Commie shake out.
Likewise, the Greeks, did have this mind set back for a few centuries called the Ottoman occupation — though, as you note, the more time does by, the more secular the Greeks seem to become.
In contrast, Western Christendom seems to have gone post-Christian (again, unless your Episcopalian) without any external force being applied. Indeed, no Islamic armies crammed the Enlightenment, the Reformation, or Post-Modernism down Western Europe and the New World’s throat.
Perhaps the difference in the two declines — internal versus external — is mere coincidence, but perhaps not. All we Ortho-geeks are saying is that it is a legitimate question to investigate. And, even if its just coincidental, dogmatic indifferentism among the pious remnant is not called for, nor should Christians blindly accept Augustinianism.
diane, you have to realize that all these posts aren’t backed by any human thought whatsoever. We’re actually testing an artificial intelligence computer program. All of these posts are randomly generated using pseudo-intellectual terminology fed into a synthetic speech generator. They are in fact meaningless…
We had you fooled though… :)
DB,
Have you ever been to Russia, or to Greece? I have not been to Greece. It seems to me that the Russian appropriation of Marxism was done in a manner that was, well, Russian. Perhaps I have read too much Billington. And it seems to me that post-Soviet self-destruction in Russia is done in a manner that reflects something of Russia. To suggest that the problems of the Russians have been principally due to foreign ideology seems to me to be both an ideological reading of things, and not in keeping with an Orthodox understanding of how human beings wear sin. There is not some magical Orthodox glory land for the Orthodox in Russia to return to. Most Russian
Orthodox I know are quite circumspect about these things. The initial euphoria witnessed in the 90s has largely passed, and the real work has begun. I will say this however, I am told by one Russian friend of a study that shows that the birth rates of Russians who regularly attend church are astronomically higher than Russians who don’t. The study was very influential – it is even suggested that the recent moves by the state to incorporate the Church more into political and cultural life are in part due to the state’s observation that the Russian Church is the only demographic hope the nation of Russia has. But, yes, things are quite dire. I do not believe I would be a Christian today were it not for experiences I had in Russia. I suppose in some sense I consider myself a spiritual son of Rus. But it is not Russian culture to which I owe my allegiance. It is Russian saints. It is a few monks I met.
The question of what went wrong with Western Europe is almost always answered along ideological lines (Hart’s ‘Christ and Nothing’ is a stirring anomaly, though I am not sure that it gets us anywhere). I increasingly wonder what fruit there is in even asking the question. I tend to think the best responses to it are found in things such as French absurdist theatre and the paintings of Georges Rouault and the writings of Kierkegaard. If you want to parse what went wrong in the West, it seems to me that the Orthodox answer is Solzhenitsyn’s – look in the mirror. We are all our own kings in this age.
Och,
I tend to think that the “what when wrong with the West?” is really a self-fuelled propagation. It seems to me that the paradigmatic Western work is City of God and that it has become something of a theological genre: namely, the Christian analysis of the collapsing society. The end result of which is a déformation professionnelle where society is always collapsing and we are always analyzing it so that we too may achieve the profundity of Augustine.
Its also why the “Orthodoxy will save the West from rot” always strikes me as such an absurdly Western claim. Perhaps the West is rotting. I’m not so convinced.
Two answers first; yes, the Suzuki mentioned is D.T. Suzuki. Suzuki was not a formal member of the Kyoto School though he was an influence on many of its members.
Interestingly enouh, when in Kyoto last fall, ( my wife is an Ikebana Ikebono, ( Japanese flower arranging), teacher who was able to attend a two week training and I was fortunate to accompany her), I visited quite a few temples, one of which was the Zen temple, Shunko-in, where Suzuki often sat zazen and met members of the Kyoto School. The temple was, for quite some years, supported by “hidden Christians”. The temple has a church bell cast in 1577. It also has murals with hidden Christian symbols, ( I noticed the panel with the spring motif contained three swallows circling each other) and it has a hidden Christian lantern.
Second, John C.H. Wu wrote one of the best books on Zen in China, The Golden Age of Zen. He also translated the Tao Te Ching.
As for the “collapse” of the West etc;. Yes, it is a collapse but it’s the result of reaching the limits of what the Enlightenment “project” was about. What’s needed is a recovery of tradition but not a repetition of tradition. Karen Armstrong’s “The Great Transformation” is an argument for that. It certainly may be a simplistic argument but I think she shows quite clearly that we are entering another “Axial” period unless those opposing such a transformation, ( or paradigm shift to use an overworked phrase), manage to derail it and lead the world into further chaos. It’s fairly clear that all the major religions are confronting challenges and need for renewal. Ecumenism, in the sense of clarifying what is authentic and inauthentic tradition, is needed precisely because without it, tradition will remain at the level of repetition .
Death: OK, I get it. Russia’s a mess, but it’s the West’s fault. Because the All-Holy East can do no wrong. :o
Do you know how very, very silly that sounds? It’s like blaming George Bush for Hurricane Katrina. ;)
I suppose it was also the West’s fault that Russia had serfs after the rest of the civilized world had abolished slavery. And I’m sure it’s also the West’s fault that those pious Russian Tsars were so fond of butchering the Jews in all those pogroms and stuff.
I’m curious, though. We Westerners in the Free World managed to avoid Marxist takeovers via violent revolution. So, if it was all our fault that the Bolshies took over Russia, how come we weren’t susceptible to similar takeover? I mean, if we thought this stuff was such a great idea, why didn’t we do it ourselves before exporting it to Holy Russia? If our pernicious influence rendered the Russian people vulnerable to Commie revolution, how come we didn’t perniciously influence ourselves into similar vulnerability? ;)
Och: Thanks for the thoughtful posts…and for correcting my Southrun. D’oh!
Nathaniel,
Very interesting theory. That is an insightful take on the matter, I think. One could place the papal encyclical tradition of the last 150 or so years as a late modern manifestation of the paradigm you suggest. So many are devoted, in some form or another, to analysis of the collapsing society, etc. It seems that +Bartholomew has gone this route as well. What I find interesting in such an approach is that the language stays in the realm of general themes, but so rarely gets down to specifics of Christian obligation. For instance, if there is the impending environmental doom that +Bartholomew sees coming, why does he not state outright specific instances of overconsumption that are always unacceptable for the Christian to engage in? Why does he not state that Orthodox who do not fast from meat on fasting days are contributing to the destruction of the world through their overconsumption of meat, which carries a huge carbon footprint (usually), and thus these should be denied access to the chalice (extraordinary exceptions allowed, etc.)? I suppose that would be too Chrysostom a way of speaking as a bishop. But until he does say such things, I will continue to believe that his environmentalist rants are just a striving for a gravitas that is not there. Put some bite in the bark, or quit whining. But perhaps that is too ochlophobic a way of looking at things.
Sometimes I think there is a decadence and necessary posturing involved with any “what went wrong with the West” theory. They seem to help very little in asserting or providing real guidance with regard to what a Christian should actually do and what he or she should actually be. Yet the theories are often quite good in convincing folks that they are very helpful. They are helpful in making me feel as if I am being helped, though I do nothing to change my life, my beliefs, or my intentions with regard to engagement with the world after I read such.
Ev,
That is very interesting about Suzuki and the hidden Christians at that temple. Perhaps that encouraged Suzuki to look at Christianity in the light that he did. I have both the Wu books you mention, and have enjoyed them. I find the story of Wu’s life to be intriguing.
Diane:
I’m not defending the idea that “it’s all the West’s fault” here, but a few facts are in order.
First, from Peter the Great on, the secular powers-that-were in Russia were enamoured with the West. This directly affected the Church in several ways; the Church became, effectively, a department of the State. The Patriarchate was abolished.
Related to this, there was simultaneously a long period of “Western captivity” in Russian theology. Promising clerical scholars were sent abroad, either to Protestant or Roman Catholic schools, for higher education. Within Russia, theology was actually taught in Latin for a time.
Further, while the West did not succumb to Leninism, it did succumb to something in many ways very similar: Nazism/Fascism, and this, as you know, in both Protestant and Roman Catholic countries (Germany, Italy, and Vichy France). A soft Fascism controlled Spain, a predominantly RC country, from the end of the Spanish Civil War until Franco’s death.
“First, from Peter the Great on, the secular powers-that-were in Russia were enamoured with the West. This directly affected the Church in several ways; the Church became, effectively, a department of the State. The Patriarchate was abolished.”
Dear Father Greg,
I’m not clear about what you’re saying. The idea of the Church being a department of the State is hardly a western idea. Russia need only have looked to Byzantium for such a model of Church/State relations. While the State and the Church were closely aligned in the west, there was always, at least in theory if not always in practice, a clear distinction and separation of the temporal and the spiritual authorities.
Father Greg, perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. :)
I have never said that the West was problem free; to the contrary. I pretty much agree with the comboxers here that we are going to Hell in the proverbial handbasket. I have never even remotely intimated otherwise.
I don’t think you will find, in general, that Catholics feel this compulsion to whitewash their own culture and history. Indeed, I rather think we tend to go a bit overboard in precisely the opposite direction. Some of our Orthodox brethren, OTOH, seem incapable of admitting that anything has ever been less than perfect in Orthodox culture and history.
IOW, I have not been concerned here with defending the West, and I have certainly NEVER claimed that the West does not have very serious problems. Rather, my purpose has been to resist the absurd contention that the East has no similar problems–and that whatever problems those spiritually superior Easterners may seem to have are all the West’s fault.
As an ex-history major, I can assure you that I am well aware of Western influences in Russia, and of course I know about Peter the Great. Please give me the benefit of the doubt and credit me with at least a minimal high-school-level familiarity with history. (Please pardon my prickliness, but, as one of the few women who weigh in on such discussions, I do get a tad tired of being patronized, and I do wish my male interlocutors would stop assuming that I am as dumb as a brick and as ignorant as a cracker. Thank you. :)
So, OK, there were Western influences in Russia. May I respectfully suggest that this is beside the point?
Ideas are like seeds. They can germinate only in fertile soil. The ideas that sparked the Bolshevik Revolution may have come from the West, but they would never have germinated in Russia if they had not found fertile soil there. I think that is what Och is getting at, and I completely agree with his assessment.
We’ve all read those 19th-century Russian novels wherein wild young intellectuals go racing around embracing every radical “-ism” out there, from nihilism to anarchism to various and sundry socialisms. If these novels reflect something of the reality of Russian intellectual life in the 19th century, then the question arises: Why? Why did all these “-isms” exercise such fascination for the Russian intelligentsia?
I don’t think you can just facilely blame the West. The same ideas were current in the West, yet by and large they did not lead to the same results. There had to have been something in the Russian social climate that fostered and encouraged radicalism. Fertile soil, so to speak. We Westerners may have sent the ideas, but we didn’t send the topsoil, mulch, and compost. The Russians themselves provided that. And there’s the rub.
It all gets back to the messy, complex topic of causation. Why was France racked with one revolution after another between 1789 and 1848, while England managed to avoid violent revolution–even though the same ideas were certainly available (and even fashionable in certain circles) in both countries? The reasons are many and complex, and we can probably argue about them till doomsday. But I do think we can safely say that there was something in the French social climate that provided fertile soil for the revolutionary “seed.” Same goes for Russia. And no, I don’t think Russia’s “fertile soil” is the direct (much less the exclusive) result of the Westernization project of Peter the Great. I think Holy Russia managed to provide plenty of fertile soil of its own. And, yes, I think the Russian Orthodox Church bears some of the blame. But, as I say, it’s all messy and complex, and we’ll never be able to untangle all the “causes.”
In any event, there are certain negative features of Russian culture and history that certainly can NOT be blamed on the West in ANY way, shape, or form. (Was serfdom our idea? How about the pogroms? :o) Might it be that radicalism was so attractive for 19th-century Russian intellectuals because centuries of Tsarist injustice–long predating Peter the Great–had aroused widespread and justifiable indignation?
Bottom line: Western ideas influenced Russian society. That’s a given. But so what? I would respectfully suggest that it is simplistic to blame the West for Russia’s adoption and implementation of some of the most pernicious Western ideas. A) No one was sticking a gun up their back. No Westerner was FORCING the Russian intelligentsia to radicalize. B) The radicalization would never have occurred if there hadn’t been “fertile soil” for it. C) The same radical ideas were floating around in the West, yet they did not result in anything resembling the 70-year Russian Communist experiment.
I fully acknowledge that similarly radical ideas led to Nazism and Fascism. As I said before, my purpose was not to defend the West but to reject the silly whitewashing of the East. In any event, ISTM the West did a heck of a lot better job dealing with the Nazi-Fascist threat than the East has done dealing with Communism. Nazism did not last 70 years, after all. ;)
The idea of the Church being a department of the State is hardly a western idea. Russia need only have looked to Byzantium for such a model of Church/State relations.
Thank you, Edward. I nearly choked on my toothpaste when I read Father Greg’s astonishing statement that Western ideas were responsible for the conflation of Church and State in Holy Russia. “Sinfonia,” anyone? ;)
While the State and the Church were closely aligned in the west, there was always, at least in theory if not always in practice, a clear distinction and separation of the temporal and the spiritual authorities.
Amen. Thank you.
Diane
Diane,
You most certainly are misunderstanding the Orthodox contributors to the combox here. “That dog don’t hunt” still applies. The failure of political systems is a straw man.
The failure of political systems is a straw man.
LOL, whatever that means.
Who was talking about the failure of political systems? I originally mentioned the astronomical abortion rate in Russia (which has actually increased since the fall of Communism) as well as the fact that Russia is Child Porn Ring Central. Those are MORAL and spiritual failures, my friend. Nothing to do with political systems.
In response, several people argued that It’s All the West’s Fault that Russians are aborting their babies left and right, running child-porn rings, and staying away from church in droves.
This is ridiculous beyond belief. Outside the Internet, no one would take such nonsense seriously.
Some Internet Orthodox apologists are so consumed by anti-Westernism that they seem to believe the East can do no wrong (whereas of course the West is thoroughly evil, corrupt, etc.). No sane person thinks this way. The West has problems and issues out the wazoo. But so does the East. And no, the East’s issues cannot be facilely blamed on the West. Easterners do a very good job of creating their own problems, thank you very much.
Back in the day, comedian Flip Wilson had a comedy routine in which he always claimed, whenever he was caught in some mischief, “The Devil made me do it.”
Of course, the Devil doesn’t MAKE anyone do anything. People have free will. That is a basic tenet of our Christian Faith.
Well, the West (whom some of you portray as the Devil ;)) doesn’t force the East to do anything, either. Those Russian women having ten abortions, those Russian men steering clear of church — NO ONE is forcing them to do this stuff. NO ONE is sticking a gun up their backs. The West is not “making them do it.” They have free will. They are responsible for what they are doing. There comes a point where you have to stop blaming those nasty Western Marxists who exported their ideas to Holy Russia. There comes a point where people have to accept responsibility for their own moral and spiritual failings. If Russian women are actually having MORE abortions nearly 20 years after the fall of Communism, then the problem lies with Russian women and Russian society. The blame cannot be fobbed off on the West. That dog really don’t hunt.
Again, anywhere else but in an Internet combox, the argument that the West is responsible for all of the East’s ills would be laughed to scorn.
Diane
Diane,
I almost did’t reply. Some Internet Catholic say some wacky things too. To paraphrase the wonderful GK Chesterton, the problem with the world is me. If you see something in arguementation that looks like an agenda, it probably is one. I pray that we can all find freedom from the slavery of our own reasonings.
Wroof!
Nathaniel, I agree. There are some real Catholic wackos on the Internet. I may even be one. ;)
And for the record, yours were not the posts that annoyed me into passionate response, LOL. In fact, I thought your post about how y’all are all auto-generated cyber-wraiths or however you put it was very funny. I meant to say that.
Uh, Diane….
I don’t know you from Eve. I’ve never met you, never seen your picture. If I saw you on the street, I would not recognize you. For all I know, the responses with your name on them ARE computer-generated. Therefore, I of course had no way of knowing that you were a history major. However, in a sense, that is irrelevant. Your responses did not indicate a knowledge of the facts that I presented. Further, my presenting them did not presume that you were ignorant of them. Quite frankly, that question never even crossed my mind, one way or the other. IMHO, they simply need to be part of the discussion. I patronize no one, Diane, male or female. I’m sorry if you felt patronized, but I cannot take responsibility for what, from where I sit, looks like a psychological projection on your part.
Regarding Church-State relations in Russia: what happened in Russian beginning with Peter the Great went WAY beyond the “synphonia” of the East Roman Empire, a notion which presumably informed the relationship between Church and State in Russia prior to Peter. No, what Peter did was the erastianism of the English Reformation on steroids and as such, was indeed an idea, a strategy, imported from the West.
On a slightly different front, I happen to agree that Orthodox Churches in general would do well to be more self-critical: but then, I am not wedded to the idea that either the RCC or the EOC is the one true Church. It seems that all humans, and human institutions, are tempted to denial when it comes to their own shortcomings. This is a universal human problem, not one of East vs. West; however, at least in the West, self-criticism, however rarely engaged in, is to some extent celebrated as a virtue. This is a good thing.
But, as someone else said, all of this is really a strawman. Neither the political failures nor the moral failures of the wider society in which a Church in embedded speak directly to theological integrity.
Your responses did not indicate a knowledge of the facts that I presented.
Um, maybe that’s because my responses weren’t about the “facts that you presented”…? Perhaps the “facts” you presented were not particularly relevant to the point I was making…? (And that’s even assuming that you had all your facts straight: As at least one other person has observed, the claim that Western influence was responsible for Russian conflation of church and state is highly debatable, to say the least.)
Father, this is just an Internet combox, not a peer-reviewed journal. People post on the fly, which means they don’t necessarily take into account every single possible permutation of an argument–not in any single post, at least. We cannot possibly cover all the bases, but this does not mean we have not taken them into account. That was my one and only point.
I have already apologized for my prickliness. As I said, these comboxes do tend to be dominated by guys, and, for a woman, they are often a mine field.
From my very first post, I had made it clear that I shared the prevalent view that the West is a mess. I think my hackles went up when you pretty much ignored this and attacked a straw-man.
Bottom line: ISTM some people take these discussions entirely too seriously.
Sorry to be late with this, but…
Death Bredon:
“What’s next on “teh” entrance requirements — confession that Lance Armstrong is not a doper, that the Colonial Americans did treat the Indians nor ther chattel slaves that badly, that the Norman Invaders were peaceful pious men, that “Charlemange” could read and write in both Latin and Greek, and that the Frankish Crusader Kingdoms (Steve Runicman’s terminology) were just fine and dandy?”
Actually, Charlemagne could certainly read and write Latin (in which he was as fluent as a native speaker) and, most likely (the historical evidence is less conclusive), Greek as well (he reportedly counldn’t pronounce it properly).
What he could not do was write with any facility the new (for the time) dual Carolingian script (with upper and lower case characters). The notion that he was illiterate comes from a misreading of the observation by his biographer, Einhard, that Charlemagne kept wax tablets under his bed late in life so he could practice his letters.
I just point this out lest some people get too carried away in their historical “certainties”.
Historical “certainties”? Among this lot? I am shocked, shocked…. ;-)
I was asked to review this book by my priest because he was considering using it for our youth group. My initial skepticism upon seeing the chapter headings was confirmed within the first few pages. It’s a rather odd brew of ill informed apologetics with a little bit of Orthodox language added to taste. Nothing about the Holy Trinity, two natures of Christ, etc. but rather, as pointed out already, a lot of unnecessary and goofy western bashing. The result is pretty disgusting. This is unfortunately what happens when people become Orthodox simply because they want to be right. I sincerely doubt and very much so hope no Orthodox bishop has approved this book as a catechism and needless to say we won’t be using it my parish. I may have a chance next month to confirm with the Bishop quoted on the back of the book that he never actually saw the text before it was published. So for what it’s worth please accept sincere apologies from this convert to Orthodoxy.
Thank you, George!
People like you give me hope. :)
Never get dis or encouraged by combox entries.
However Margaret’s dictum still holds, as I see it:
“It’s as foolish to ignore differences as it is to invent them.”