Category Image Theology


There are certain blogs that I need to be careful with, that I don't simply link to everything in it. Fr. Freeman's blog is one of those. So, I may now go to the other extreme and not highlight enough of his stuff. This one , however, I cannot pass up.

God's providence often allows for a convergence of a number of things. This topic is hot on the mind of a number of bloggers, podcasters, and friends. This morning, I was listening to Fr. Huneycutt's podcast, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Phronema ", while shortly before that I was listening to an interview of an author who has written much on Athonite Monasticism, and today's interview spent a lot of time on the subject of spiritual growth.

The other day, I was speaking with a friend about how my reading list has changed quite a bit since we converted. For me, what I'm reading reflects a lot about me. I suspect that is true for anyone who is an avid reader - just as what movies an avid movie goer is watching, or what shows and avid TV viewer is watching would reflect on them. Before we converted, and even right after we've converted, I read mostly books on theology the way the West would understand it. I would read philosophical and doctrinal definitions and arguments about who God is, and what we believe about Him. I usually have several books in process at the same time. So, if you exclude a couple of books on Chess (that haven't been given enough time, to be sure), or novels (such as the Brothers Karamazov which I'm currently reading), all of my "Christian" reading is mostly focused on praxis. I'm reading a book on the Divine LIturgy, which is a series of sermons that is mostly focused on our engaging the Liturgy more fully. I'm also intermittently reading a book on Orthodox Psychotherapy , which while seeming theological, really is focused on the healing of our heart/soul. Finally, I'm reading the Spiritual Counsels of St. John of Kronstadt. While at the Monastery for Family Camp , I bought one book on the life of a 20th century elder, and one on healing the person. I was reading a layman's version of the Ladder of Divine Ascent, a very significant Praxis book, but I had to give it back and I've committed to not buying any more books until I read everything I own.

I think this change in reading reflects, at a fundamental level, the difference in Theology between East and West. Especially with the rise of Scholasticism, although not fully worked out until the era of the Palamite controversy, we see a dichotomy between knowing with the intellect and knowing with the nous, or (imperfectly stated) the heart. The West has become predominantly, but not exclusively, focused on intellectual knowledge of God, while the East has remained focused on experiencing God. I strongly recommend reading Fr. Freeman's article, because he spends a great deal of time elaborating on what it means to experience God. First and foremost, one needs to purify one's self in order to experience God. So-called spiritual experiences absent purification are generally understood to be delusion. This helps us avoid falling into the trap of the Episcopal Church where one's experiences, without regard to state of spiritual development, takes precedence over all. At the same time, the Eastern focus on drawing closer to God through purification helps manage the risk of pride that comes with intellectual knowledge.

This isn't, however, to detract from intellectual knowledge and dogma. We focus our praxis in areas consistent with knowledge/doctrine and dogma, so as to avoid being drawn into delusion, just as we purify ourselves to avoid the same. There is a balance here, to be sure. Satan is perfectly happy if we either succumb to intellectual delusion or spiritual delusion, intellectual pride or spiritual pride (think for this one of those churches who insist on praying in tongues as being the only sign of a spirit-filled Christian). God is about truth and humility (and humility itself reflects a true understanding of things), Satan is about delusion and pride.

I think this approach best explains one of the biggest challenges we would see in the Episcopal Church with regard to the Gospels. Jesus never seemed much focused on theology in a Western sense. He kept talking about love, taking care of the poor and sick, following him. When certain groups within modern Christianity look at the often loveless world of "orthodox" theologians, they don't see Christ. The whole debate has grown rather tired, but even ignoring folks like the Rev. Fred Phelps, your average person in the homosexual lifestyle does not see, coming from the "orthodox" theologian (Western style), a concern about them, but rather a concern about being right. Looking back through the archives of this blog, I'm guilty of precisely that on a number of topics. So, to generalize more, the "modernist" abandons so-called orthodoxy, because there appears to be no love, and like a child raised in an abusive household, falls for that church/group that makes them feel good, instead.

I think the Orthodox approach is more one of, I know that x is a sin, but so is y, which is my personal one. So, why don't we work out our salvation together, in the Church, with all of the other sinners. So, I spend less time learning dogma, as I know more than I probably should, and instead I spend more time reading books that challenge me to actually be an Orthodox Christian.



Posted: Thursday - June 21, 2007 at 10:51 AM          

©