endlesslyrocking
So, the blog's back up, and...
posted 24 March 2004, Wednesday
Well, let's see. Seems I'm either thick, opaque of expression, or downright craven. In the iddy-biddy rant I posted there is, it seems, a hidden call for us all to just keep quiet so as not to upset people. Well, no, it's about scandalizing people, and not in the good way. There also seems to be some confusion about whether I think one needs to become some sort of expert with a Ph. D., or some such, in order to 'muse' on books, the faith, and what not. To that, all I can say is heaven forbid most people should get the worthless Ph. D. and then act as if they know something.
(Just for the record, I am not nor have I ever been an academic. I hold no graduate degrees, and am not an advocate of gradual school with all its pomps, though there are some good seminaries aboot. Furthermore, I am not an intellectual of any kind. Given all that, it might be fun to see just what folks out there think I do for a living, because this might shed some light on their reactions to some of what I write. This is a pain in the ass digression, however, for which I cry you mercy. On with the rambling, incoherent post.)
No, my position here is a bit subtle, perhaps too subtle for me to clearly articulate it. You see, historically an 'apologist' was a specific calling, and most of the great apologists never sought that distinction in the first place. No, when you look at the likes of Maximus, Athanasius, Augustine, Gregory Palamas, and on and on, even that dastardly Cyril of Alexandria, you see men plucked, as it were, from their preferred work and thrust before patriarchs, emperors, kings and counselors. Such is the pattern right to the present day. One distinguishing feature of their work is this: they knew their opponents well. They were meticulously prepared. They had studied and prayed and spoke out of the full life of the Church in refutation of heresies they deeply, and in some cases sympathetically, understood. For instance, contra fine opinion of late, Nestorius's theology was pretty much exactly what Cyril said it was. Whether Cyril was 'nice' or not, he knew what the hell he was talking about. Moreover, the discipline and learning of these men give even their flaws and misunderstandings more integrity than most of us can claim. It wasn't for lack of study or craft.
That, I assert, is the pattern of life for a true apologist. The rest of us are simply witnesses to the faith, for most of us can claim neither the knowlege nor the learning nor, indeed, the lived experience with those with whom we differ, that could make us true apologists. But many of us rush into that role without a thought, thinking that we must somehow create situations where we can engage in disputation and argument with all those heretics out there. But this is neither necessary nor wise. No, for most of us, it's the simple witness and offer that are required. And for that, I've come to believe (quite recently, I might add, and the hard way, - I do have a life out there in the world), does NOT require that we constantly compare ourselves with others.
Again, I'm finding it difficult to be clear, so bear with me. How to proceed? Let's say you are indeed Orthodox and loving it, as well you might. You want to share with all who can hear the beauty and truth of the True Faith. You want folks to see that icons aren't idols, that the liturgy isn't vain repetition, and that the priesthood isn't an elite caste. Again, all that is true and good. But, suppose in the midst of that you, say, take a swipe at 'Anselmic justice,' by way of showing the superiority of the supposed Orthodox emphasis on Love. This is a common enough occurence, and it's annoying for the following reasons. First, the swipe is usually not grounded in a reading of Anselm, but in preconceived ideas about what Anselm said (ideas, mind you, that are shared by Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike). Second, what passes for 'Anselmic justice' cannot be found in Anselm! One can find all sorts of dippiness about replacing the fallen angels so the complement of heaven can be complete (a silly bit of Platonism if there ever was one), but no 'Anselmic justice.' In fact, the whole of Anselm's work is designed to show that salvation is precisely NOT a matter of strict justice, that the Son did not suffer to appease the Father - Anselm was a thoroughly Trinitarian christian, and so such a thought would be repugnant to him. Anyway, I don't want to go into a long-winded discussion of Anselm's faults and strengths. What I want to suggest is that to swipe at him whilst witnessing to the truth of the Orthodox Faith, while it may provide a frisson of pleasure, weakens the witness to the degree that your reader, or whatever, actually knows something about Anselm.
It is, moreover, simply condescending and stupid. For that reason, I would have to say yes, indeed, you should have read everything you can get your hands on by an author if you are going to make sweeping statements about their work. If you don't care to read 'em, by all means don't. If you try to read 'em and dont' like it, no one says you have to continue. If that is the extent of your musing, or whatever, then fine, no one can or should ask more of you. But, and let me be very clear, if you are going to get into the 'Calvin said...,' 'Maximus was wrong because he was a...,' kind of mode, then you must have the goods to back it up. Or, failing that, admit you're just repeating what everyone thinks they know about the person in question, and let the readers make up their own minds. Barring that, you're being intellectually dishonest, and are therefore not entitled to your opinion.
I have hammered on the Orthodox, however, not because they are a special case, whereas everyone else is pure as driven snow. No, for it's a fact that Christians of all kinds rush in to become amateur apologists, when for most of us there is no call for such work. To witness is not the same as to fight an apologetic battle against the heretics, but such seems to be the hobby of more than one otherwise intelligent, devout christian. If I have hit the Orthodox so hard it probably has to do with an overload over the last couple of weeks of just this sort of heavy-handed condescension, most of it out there, in the world, and not here online. True, a couple of posts I read sort of catalyzed the reaction, but it was building for quite other reasons. What's more, I quite frankly think the Orthodox have so much to offer, such accumulated wisdom, that it's baffling why they feel the need to constantly compare and contrast in an effort to measure their stature against others. Fr. Hopko, Dean Emeritus of St. Vlad's, writes somewhere (can't remember where - this is that 'musing' thing I talked about) in response to the question of how Orthodoxy compares to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism broadly considered, that such comparisons are unwise. It's far better, he wrote, to boldly and without rancor witness to the Orthodox faith, commend it on its own terms. If the faith is attacked by another sort of Christian, how to respond? Well, if we aren't fitted out to be true apologists, might there be another more excellent way, one that is neither compromise nor condemnation?
All Christians could benefit from such an approach, be they Calvinists or Baptists or whatever. As for me, I will continue to read everyone, for I truly believe that even in their faults and failures men like Maximus, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, et. al. are greater than I can ever be. Holiness can be found anywhere - we cannot, however, collapse history and recover a purity that never was. Anyone, Orthodox or not, hoping to do that, is in for a big disappointment.
(Just for the record, I am not nor have I ever been an academic. I hold no graduate degrees, and am not an advocate of gradual school with all its pomps, though there are some good seminaries aboot. Furthermore, I am not an intellectual of any kind. Given all that, it might be fun to see just what folks out there think I do for a living, because this might shed some light on their reactions to some of what I write. This is a pain in the ass digression, however, for which I cry you mercy. On with the rambling, incoherent post.)
No, my position here is a bit subtle, perhaps too subtle for me to clearly articulate it. You see, historically an 'apologist' was a specific calling, and most of the great apologists never sought that distinction in the first place. No, when you look at the likes of Maximus, Athanasius, Augustine, Gregory Palamas, and on and on, even that dastardly Cyril of Alexandria, you see men plucked, as it were, from their preferred work and thrust before patriarchs, emperors, kings and counselors. Such is the pattern right to the present day. One distinguishing feature of their work is this: they knew their opponents well. They were meticulously prepared. They had studied and prayed and spoke out of the full life of the Church in refutation of heresies they deeply, and in some cases sympathetically, understood. For instance, contra fine opinion of late, Nestorius's theology was pretty much exactly what Cyril said it was. Whether Cyril was 'nice' or not, he knew what the hell he was talking about. Moreover, the discipline and learning of these men give even their flaws and misunderstandings more integrity than most of us can claim. It wasn't for lack of study or craft.
That, I assert, is the pattern of life for a true apologist. The rest of us are simply witnesses to the faith, for most of us can claim neither the knowlege nor the learning nor, indeed, the lived experience with those with whom we differ, that could make us true apologists. But many of us rush into that role without a thought, thinking that we must somehow create situations where we can engage in disputation and argument with all those heretics out there. But this is neither necessary nor wise. No, for most of us, it's the simple witness and offer that are required. And for that, I've come to believe (quite recently, I might add, and the hard way, - I do have a life out there in the world), does NOT require that we constantly compare ourselves with others.
Again, I'm finding it difficult to be clear, so bear with me. How to proceed? Let's say you are indeed Orthodox and loving it, as well you might. You want to share with all who can hear the beauty and truth of the True Faith. You want folks to see that icons aren't idols, that the liturgy isn't vain repetition, and that the priesthood isn't an elite caste. Again, all that is true and good. But, suppose in the midst of that you, say, take a swipe at 'Anselmic justice,' by way of showing the superiority of the supposed Orthodox emphasis on Love. This is a common enough occurence, and it's annoying for the following reasons. First, the swipe is usually not grounded in a reading of Anselm, but in preconceived ideas about what Anselm said (ideas, mind you, that are shared by Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike). Second, what passes for 'Anselmic justice' cannot be found in Anselm! One can find all sorts of dippiness about replacing the fallen angels so the complement of heaven can be complete (a silly bit of Platonism if there ever was one), but no 'Anselmic justice.' In fact, the whole of Anselm's work is designed to show that salvation is precisely NOT a matter of strict justice, that the Son did not suffer to appease the Father - Anselm was a thoroughly Trinitarian christian, and so such a thought would be repugnant to him. Anyway, I don't want to go into a long-winded discussion of Anselm's faults and strengths. What I want to suggest is that to swipe at him whilst witnessing to the truth of the Orthodox Faith, while it may provide a frisson of pleasure, weakens the witness to the degree that your reader, or whatever, actually knows something about Anselm.
It is, moreover, simply condescending and stupid. For that reason, I would have to say yes, indeed, you should have read everything you can get your hands on by an author if you are going to make sweeping statements about their work. If you don't care to read 'em, by all means don't. If you try to read 'em and dont' like it, no one says you have to continue. If that is the extent of your musing, or whatever, then fine, no one can or should ask more of you. But, and let me be very clear, if you are going to get into the 'Calvin said...,' 'Maximus was wrong because he was a...,' kind of mode, then you must have the goods to back it up. Or, failing that, admit you're just repeating what everyone thinks they know about the person in question, and let the readers make up their own minds. Barring that, you're being intellectually dishonest, and are therefore not entitled to your opinion.
I have hammered on the Orthodox, however, not because they are a special case, whereas everyone else is pure as driven snow. No, for it's a fact that Christians of all kinds rush in to become amateur apologists, when for most of us there is no call for such work. To witness is not the same as to fight an apologetic battle against the heretics, but such seems to be the hobby of more than one otherwise intelligent, devout christian. If I have hit the Orthodox so hard it probably has to do with an overload over the last couple of weeks of just this sort of heavy-handed condescension, most of it out there, in the world, and not here online. True, a couple of posts I read sort of catalyzed the reaction, but it was building for quite other reasons. What's more, I quite frankly think the Orthodox have so much to offer, such accumulated wisdom, that it's baffling why they feel the need to constantly compare and contrast in an effort to measure their stature against others. Fr. Hopko, Dean Emeritus of St. Vlad's, writes somewhere (can't remember where - this is that 'musing' thing I talked about) in response to the question of how Orthodoxy compares to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism broadly considered, that such comparisons are unwise. It's far better, he wrote, to boldly and without rancor witness to the Orthodox faith, commend it on its own terms. If the faith is attacked by another sort of Christian, how to respond? Well, if we aren't fitted out to be true apologists, might there be another more excellent way, one that is neither compromise nor condemnation?
All Christians could benefit from such an approach, be they Calvinists or Baptists or whatever. As for me, I will continue to read everyone, for I truly believe that even in their faults and failures men like Maximus, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, et. al. are greater than I can ever be. Holiness can be found anywhere - we cannot, however, collapse history and recover a purity that never was. Anyone, Orthodox or not, hoping to do that, is in for a big disappointment.