Comments on: The Conflict Between ‘Charismatic’ and ‘Academic’ Theology Not New in Orthodox Christianity

By: Christopher

Christopher — Mon, 04 May 2015 18:46:55 +0000

Such theology, as best represented by SVS and their parent, St. Serge in Paris, is shallow, disconnected, and ultimately borrows an unbelieving, skeptical hermeneutic from the world.

I hear what you are saying. I have wondered out loud at some of the “scholars” of the english speaking Orthodox world, and in particular at the Paris/Oxford/(too a lessor extant) SVS axis that appears to currently have Bishop Kallistos as the spine. Why the slovenly devotion to “Climate Panic”? Why the willingness to entertain the “ecclesiastical archaeology” of women’s ordination when the Faithful are so very confused by the secular cultures definitions of anthropology and “rights”? What about the pushing of “theology” that just happens to line up a little too easily with left wing/progressive politics, such as the Orthodox Pacifist Fellowship (I know, I renamed it 😉 )?

This kind of self-congratulatory “conference Orthodoxy” is hollow and pathetic compared to the witness of the holy monastics, or even just simple priests who actually love to pray, rather than engage in a bunch of idle talk.

Such as this:

http://www.alumni.fordham.edu/calendar/detail.aspx?ID=4059

Bishop Kallistos is of course there, along with the very important “juried competition of research posters.”… 🙂 Does something like this actually have any influence at all on the coming Great Council? I have to admit I hope it does not. It appears to be another gathering of “progressive” Orthodox talking amongst themselves.

these are the scholars to whom we ought to listen, not Paris-school modernism, warmed over from the 70s.

I hear ya. Yet, when I read/listen to *some* of the scholars out of Oxford, such as Fr. John Behr, I don’t get the sense that it is ALL bad…

By: Isaac

Isaac — Mon, 04 May 2015 15:41:53 +0000

In reply to Karen.

I agree, Karen. I thought to myself that this person, himself an academic, has not moved beyond his own perspective in order really to obtain balance. What fathers does he cite for this “bitter disagreement”?

The monastic must of course be educated and be within the canonical and dogmatic sphere of the faith– but if the saints are any indication, the monastery is the real place to learn the theology of the Church. Scholarship is good but it is quite often subject to academic fads, egoism, and the scourge of what Fr. Seraphim (Rose) called, “theology on a full stomach.” Such theology, as best represented by SVS and their parent, St. Serge in Paris, is shallow, disconnected, and ultimately borrows an unbelieving, skeptical hermeneutic from the world.

“Ignorant monks” can certainly be a problem. Much more of a problem, however, in our day, are the pseudo-intellectual academics who have drunk deeply from unbelieving Western sources and methodology. A string of letters at the end of ones name does not, at the end of the day, mean that these people have mastered the teachings of the holy fathers. More often, they have mastered how not to take them seriously, as though they too had been academics and not those whose eyes saw into spiritual realities. This kind of self-congratulatory “conference Orthodoxy” is hollow and pathetic compared to the witness of the holy monastics, or even just simple priests who actually love to pray, rather than engage in a bunch of idle talk.

America is and probably always will be the cultural backwaters of Orthodoxy. Nothing serious comes from us. Russia, Greece, Romania, Serbia– these are the fountains from whence there have been marriages between great scholarly learning and deep interior piety. Such luminaries as St. Justin of Chelije (who nearly obtained his doctorate from Oxford), Blessed Fr. Mikhail Pomazansky (who obtained degrees from the great theological academies of pre-revolutionary Russia), and Blessed Met. Antony Khrapovitsky, a great scholar and a profound confessor of the faith and a reformer of Russian theology to wean it from dependence upon Western vocabulary, and even in our own day: the great Archimandrite Irenai (Steenberg) and Fr. Josiah (Trenham), these are the scholars to whom we ought to listen, not Paris-school modernism, warmed over from the 70s.

By: Karen

Karen — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:51:24 +0000

It’s disappointing to me that someone as learned as Fr. John apparently is trots out the old canard that the Apostles Peter and Paul “argued bitterly” over issues of adherence to the Mosaic Law in the early Christian community. If this is taken to mean that they were genuinely at odds over what they believed the Holy Spirit was leading the Church to do in the question of whether or how Gentiles were to be incorporated into the Church, this is not supported by Acts 15, nor it seems to me even by Paul’s report of his confrontation of Peter at one point with Peter’s hypocrisy resulting from his fear of the circumcision party (Galatians 2). Considering God’s revelation that the Gentiles were to inherit the Kingdom through Christ apart from the Law as well as the Jews was given initially to Peter, not Paul, (Acts 10) and that Peter was among those who gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul to go as an apostle to the Gentiles and didn’t even compel Paul’s Greek disciple, Titus, to be circumcised, the issue does not appear to be a real difference of opinion between Peter and Paul, but rather Peter’s capitulation out of fear to “judaizing” Christians (“false brethren”) in a moment of weakness (Galatians 2:9). It seems to me the fact that Peter was considered a “pillar” in the early Church plus the fact that he capitulated for a time out of fear to the judaizers leads some to conflate these two facts to infer Peter was leading the judaizing efforts contra Paul in the early Church. I believe that notion is false.

By: Eric Russell

Eric Russell — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 02:52:40 +0000

Very well said, Father John! Thank you for posting.

By: Tom Acker

Tom Acker — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 20:27:58 +0000

This is Fr. John at his very best. His understanding of the Gospel as originally written in Greek is so helpful. One must understand and interpret the Gospels in the language in which they were written. We are in the season of The Great Fast. Unfortunately, the English translations of that key word metanoeite say Repent — the Greek really says “Advance your thinking” or “Think next” or “Think forward” Repent says think back — Jesus says think ahead or think anew for the Kingdom of heaven is nigh.

Fr.John, write more — you are good. Tom Acker, S.J.