(Thanks to our good friend Evagrius for news of an upcoming academic conference organized by the Orthodox Christian Studies Program at Fordham University. Registration for the Conference will begin in February.)
Orthodox Constructions of the West
(The Solon and Marianna Patterson Triennial Conference for the Theological and Historical Examination of the Orthodox/Catholic Dialogue)
June 28-30, 2010
Concept and Abstract:
In preparation for the publication of Orthodox Readings of Augustine (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2008), the co-founding directors of the Orthodox Christian Studies Program were struck by ways in which Orthodox authors, especially in the twentieth century, had created artificial categories of “East” and “West” and then used that distinction as a basis for self-definition. The history of Orthodox Christianity is typically narrated by Orthodox and non–Orthodox alike as developing in the ‘East’, which is geographically ambiguous, but usually refers to the region in Europe east of present-day Croatia, Hungary and Poland. In contemporary Orthodoxy, ‘West’ refers not simply to a geographical location, but to a form of civilization that was shaped and influenced by Latin Christendom, which includes both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. The “West,” thus, represents a cluster of theological, cultural and political ideas against which Orthodox self-identify. In other words, Orthodox self-identification often engages in a distorted apophaticism: Orthodoxy is what the “West” is not.
Given that much of the Orthodox world has until recently suffered oppression from the Ottomans and the Communists, one can read the creation of the “East-West” binary as a post-colonial search for an authentic Orthodox identity in the wake of such domination. After centuries of repression, it is not surprising that the Orthodox recovery of identity would take the form of opposition to that which is seemingly the religious, cultural and political “Other.” The question that the conference will attempt to answer is whether such a construction has as much to do with Orthodox identify formation vis-à-vis the West as it does with genuine differences. By creating this opposition to the “West,” do Orthodox communities not only misunderstand what Western Christians believe but, even more egregiously, have they come to believe certain things about their own tradition and teachings that are historically untrue? The importance of addressing these questions is not simply limited to the theological realm. There is evidence of anti-democracy and anti-human rights rhetoric coming from traditional Orthodox countries that have recently been liberated from communism, and this rhetoric often associates liberal forms of democracy and the notion of human rights in general as “Western” and, therefore, not Orthodox. In other words, the self-identification vis-à-vis the “West” is affecting the cultural and political debates in the traditional Orthodox countries in Eastern Europe. Insofar as this conference addresses the broader theme of identity formation, its impact is potentially far-reaching, as it hopes to influence the production of theological, cultural and political ideas within contemporary Orthodoxy.
The purpose of this conference is to explore how these artificial binaries were first created and, by exposing them, make possible a more authentic recovery of the rich Orthodox tradition that is unfettered by self-definition vis-à-vis the proximate other. It is also expected that the deconstruction of false caricatures of West will impact the discussion on culture and politics throughout the Orthodox world, as well as assist in moving the ecumenical conversation forward.
Eirenikon 
OK, this is very interesting. I’m beginning to see even the sane sort of bloggers engaging “in a distorted apophaticism”. I speak from first-person experience, of course. But I also wonder what are the actual differences.
We speak – in east and west – of God controlling history. And I ask on my blog a lot, “Do we really imagine a God who does XY or Z to a city or people?” But I do imagine a God that is working all things to our good (read, salvation) and so I must imagine that even those cultural differences in the churches about which we fight often, are in fact, being used to work out our salvation. Maybe the “legalistic” and the “mystical” sides are both needed.
I would add that Orthodoxy is still suffering under the Turks. This has not ceased.
Maybe the “legalistic” and the “mystical” sides are both needed.
Exactly. Both/and, not either/or. (I would use the term “juridical” rather than “legalistic,” though, since the latter term is so loaded — it is almost always used as a pejorative.)
Anyway, great observations….
Diane
This would be interesting, but will it be enough? I would argue, as would my patristics prof., that this goes back to Tertullian and Origen. Tertullian as the foundation of western theology and Origen as the foundation of eastern theology. What I mean by this is that Blessed/St. Augustine would not have thought the way he did had there not been Tertullian, and, St. Gregory Palamas would not have thought the way he did without Origen. To understands each side we need go to the source.
Subdeacon Joseph
much truth in what you write. The irony is that the influence of Origen in the East is monumentally influential even when they are reacting against him. With regard to the origins of the Holy Spirit for example: I think that the Byzantine tradition follows the Antiochenes in triadology (while it is very suspicious of it in Christology) essentially because the Alexandrian tradition, which has much more affinity with the West, brings back bad memories of origenist subordinationism. Of course, I think that that fear leads to an exagerated refusal of a role for the Son in the Spirit’s hypostatic procession – but saying that here is like agitating a red rag in a field full of bulls…
Sbdcn,
Except that Origen exercised a good deal of influence on Augustine.