“You are much closer in work and disposition to the academic than the political. . . . I wonder if in work and disposition you were more sympathetic to the world of practical politics than the academic if you would be drawing such a distinction in the material (honest question)?”

Goodness, I know absolutely nothing of scholarship and perhaps less of politics.

Let me see if i can clarify my intent:

I did not intend to distinguish between scholarship and politics (which would be, surely, a formal distinction: qualis).

I wanted to suggest, rather, that the difference between the honors bestowed on the two men (Sarbanes and Williams) is only one of magnitude: quantum. That is to say, the two honors are formally (qualitatively) the same; they differ only in quantity.

In other words, both awards are ill conceived. One, however, appears to be worse.

I suppose I might confound things further by declaring that Sarbanes and Williams look exactly alike . . . especially Sarbanes!

To add to Michael’s question: You are much closer in work and disposition to the academic than the political. I am only familiar with your more ‘popular’ works (such as Christ in the Psalms) so I don’t know of your more serious academic works (pardon my ignorance) – but the connection is still there. I wonder if in work and disposition you were more sympathetic to the world of practical politics than the academic if you would be drawing such a distinction in the material (honest question)?

In any case I have a harder time with it because it is men like Dr. Williams who provide some of the intellectual ground for men like Mr. Sarbanes (who in any case are only representing the wishes of those whom elected him and if it was not him it would be someone else). “Serious scholarship” is really besides the point. Or, rather, ‘serious scholarship’ simply reveals the turning upside down of value at SVS. If ‘serious scholarship’ is not subsumed under higher values (in this case the Orthodox Christian mission of priestly formation of SVS – at least that’s what I take it reason for being is) then it means nothing.

In the meantime, I ask anyone going to the talk to ask Williams a question if they can; it was said in the announcement that written questions were welcome. On about Page 65 (I think) of Vl. Lossky’s “Mystical Theology”, he says “Between the Trinity and Hell there lies no alternative”. Since Williams did his D.Phil dissertation on Lossky, I wonder if he agrees with his master? Perhaps ask if he, like the Episcopal Diocese of Olympia in Washington State would have a Muslim/Episcopalian layman (Ann Redding) receiving communion?

First, I have found myself moved and enlightened by the tone of civility of the posts of the past few days.

If I may offer an observation from the Anglican side, we have found that a persons’ willingness to vest as a Bishop, use incense or even profess the Symbol of Faith at Consecration does not equate with orthodoxy of belief. I would also note that Dr. Williams’ obvious appreciation of ccons and the Orthodox ethos does not equate to acceptance of or respect for the orthodox (or Orthodox) faith and praxis.

For example, the Primates of the Anglican Communion have repeatedly called for an end to litigation for the properties of the parishes in the Episcopal Church or Anglican Church of Canada which have been compelled to leave for reasons of conscience, usually because the clergy and faithful are under pressure to conform with the Bishop’s toeing of the party line on christology and human sexuality. He has not brought the immense moral authority of his primacy on honour to bear on TEC or ACofC to cease this legal persecution. I agree with Fr. Johannes that he is indeed a scholar of note, but has he used his scholarship to “banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine” as the Book of Common Prayer requires?

I respectfully suggest that he has not, and there lies my dilemma with the conferring of this degree.

Oso

The blessing of the present moment is that we now see that, a common Creed and Chalice are not enough for our shared life in Christ. Our life must also be shaped by practical expressions of love and mutual respect. We must talk to each other if we ever hope to be who are prayers say we are already.

I would say that we must talk with each other especially on the matters on which we may differ. Anger and suspicion are always fostered and fester in silence.

If I am not mistaken, the Holy Scripture commands us to always be ready to give an explanation of what we believe in gentleness and respect. If someone asks me, I feel duty bound to give a response appropriate to the situation. There is no cannon, Scripture or ecclesial reason of which I am aware that indicates our priests and bishops should not follow the same command.

Certainly, if a fellow believer, priest or bishop inquires of me why or questions the spirit behind my actions, I am compelled by my own conscience to examine myself more deeply and respond.

We need to ask more often, in gentleness and respect. We need to expect real answers. Genuine obedience and spiritual renewal will come of such work.

When considered in the light of Matthew 5:23-24 “23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.”

There are many who are deeply greived by the decision of SVS to invite Dr. Williams and confer an honorary degree on him. Matthew makes no mention of whether the greivance is justified or not, merely that the greivance exists. The humility to act in obedience to Matthew’s words is often difficult, but what about the Christian faith is easy?

Of course, we should work just as hard not to give offense unnecessarily by working to control our passions. That’s not easy either, but it is the work to which we are all called.

May the joy of our Lord be with us now and in the coming Lenten journey.

I have a genuine question: What is the value of ‘serious scholarship’ if the entire spirit of the material purportedly studied is twisted and/or ignored?

When I was studying history I was always taught to look for the truth, go where the evidence led me, don’t impose my own views on the evidence. That is one of the ways that Jesus used to lead me to the Church.

How can scholarship be ‘serious’ if it is merely an intellectual antiquarian exercise or a conscious attempt to find ‘evidence’ to fit one’s own persuppositions and apply the odious method of presentism to one’s interpretation.

Isn’t that why the Church has always reserved the formal title of Theologian for those who actually experience communion with God and are able to describe it within the context of Holy Tradition and the revealed truth of Holy Scripture?

What worries me most is that the invitation to Dr. Williams indicates, perhaps, an approach to the training of priests at SVS that is overly intellectualized and antiquarian in nature.

Our rite of baptism proclaims the Chrisitan life to be a rejection of the ways of Satan, union with Christ, and obedience to the teachings of the Church. How does Dr. Williams in his scholarship and in his leadership demononstrate those charateristics?

Andrew inquires:

“I also wonder what the difference is between the GOA honoring Paul Sarbanes as an Archon and SVS honoring Rowan Williams with a doctorate?”

The difference, I believe, is material, not formal. They are formally the same thing. They differ only degree.

That is to say, the honor bestowed on Mr Sarbanes is vastly more reprehensible than that received by Dr Williams.

Dr Williams has at least a track record of serious scholarship.

The political track record of Mr Sarbanes cries to heaven for vengeance.

Eliot is correct. This is why it can be argued that if Rowan Williams really respected Orthodoxy he would decline the invitation recongizing his presence and opinions would cause too much scandal for the Seminary and Church. Instead he is going to show up and stir the pot at SVS and then jump on his plane to Davos to solve the world’s problems.

I think its pretty obvious SVS has painted themselves into a corner. Any response they give will raise more questions or make them look silly. The only thing they can do at this point is hope the event blows over and the damage from the storm is manageable.

In the meantime the elites at SVS certainly have given us this impression that studying Orthodoxy is more honorable than trying to live an Orthodox life. In the face of a challenge the seminary leadership folded. This is the real tragedy and then we are left with the question:

What happens when everyone is done congratulating themselves?

Politely asking for permission to express the way I see the whole story: The argument can’t be with SVS alone. I would say that the “certain regard, even respect” that Dr. Williams appears to have for Orthodoxy is being used to lure us to impiety. Dr. William is a knowledgeable person, a professor at one of the famous “hot bed of atheism” universities. Now, add the fact that he has personal view on ‘lifestyles’ identical to those promoted by the Hollywood film industry.

What part(s) of Orthodoxy does he respect? The martyrs, the saints, the fathers? One has to have certain respect for those who were ready to suffer persecutions, exiles, tortures and even death for the sake of the truth, and for those undefeated by the many generous favors of the rulers. SVS appears to have been defeated by Dr. Williams’ generous favor to … have a look at Orthodoxy.

Do we (still) seriously consider the fearful judgment? I pray that God, Who foreknows and foresees, will straighten the fallen and illuminate the way of the blind.

Yes, I thought you were responding to my decision. Please accept my apology for misreading you. I agree with everything you said, particularly the contribution that America can make to the more mundane institutional/management aspects of the Church. I suppose God has a use for our culture yet!

“Perhaps part of the reason for this mismanagement is a certain self congratulatory (and thus false) humbleness on the part of some of in the Body, such as Chrys post here.”
Pardon?
I am not sure if you are accusing me of promoting a “self congratulatory (and thus false) humbleness” or supporting my statement that (genuine) humility is necessary for the well-ordered soul. It appears to be the former. If I am wrong, however, please show how this is the case rather than merely claim it is so.
Since I was not sufficiently clear, I was, in fact, reflecting on Michael’s comment as it reflected on my own experience. These are issues that I know “from the inside.” I can attest to my own experiences of heated reactions that have often created the very tension that worsens rather than helps the situation. It takes real self-command NOT to react when accused, but to respond to one’s enemies with love.
In case you think I was referring to the issue which drove your response, I was not. For that, I apologize.
Regarding that issue, I can not abide any hint of fraud or the abuse of power; these inflict scandalous wounds on the Body. (As I noted on other threads, the unrepentant perpetrator is hanging a millstone around his neck when he harms so many little ones in Christ.) Those in power bear enormous responsibility along with their privileges, though power (or resentment) seems to regularly blind the holder to this fact. Indeed, I believe that our leadership would benefit enormously from suitable professional training (business, management, economics, etc.) and the kind of accountability structures that make American businesses much more transparent and reliable (for all their faults) than one finds elsewhere. As I have noted elsewhere, I think this may well be part of America’s contribution to Orthodoxy.
Thus, please accept my apologies if you felt accused. I failed to be sufficiently clear about the focus of my response. I hope this explanation has corrected that mistake.

Oh, I missed the note-card idea. I thought you meant holding up little placards, like people do at auctions. You meant passing notes to the moderators as a kind of protest.

My only point is bringing it up was to make sure we make the proper distinctions across the board. Dr. Williams was invited, so your frustration is properly directed at the seminary, not Williams.

And yes, this is damaging but whether it was intentional or not, and whether they answer the criticisms or not, will go a long way to determine how damaging it finally will be. Most people probably don’t know who Williams is, but the Anglicans sure do, and those Orthodox who do have a lot of influence over Orthodox life in America. So a response is entirely appropriate.

Give them a chance to respond. If they don’t, well, you are right, they will unfortunately distance themselves from the laity, many of whom want to support them. But I know they have been working hard to bridge that gap so again, let’s wait and see.

Father, I deeply respect your criticism. One thing I cannot understand is how one can have a regard for the Orthodox Faith while lending support to sex outside of marriage? What message does this send to the many people out there struggling to live chaste lives both in and out of marriage? Does chastity take a back seat to academics?

I also wonder what the difference is between the GOA honoring Paul Sarbanes as an Archon and SVS honoring Rowan Williams with a doctorate?

I apologize if my words are harsh but I believe that the questioning of Church leaders is an important part of growing as a Church. The GOA does not get a pass for honoring an advocate of abortion and holding him up as an example of the faith and SVS does not get pass for bestowing a high honor on an theologian whose message is sex outside of marriage is acceptable.

We all want SVS to succeed. We all want American Orthodoxy to succeed but no matter how much SVS tries to manage and spin this event there can be no question it has been damaging. What is worse is that the faculty and staff feel no obligation to answer the questions of the faithful whose donations pay their salaries. Is there not some sense of accountability? This certainly leaves an elitist taste in ones mouth.

As for the notecards. There is no reason men and women of common sense and good will should feel ashamed of this silent and polite protest. Not worthy written on the notecards at the lecture is a simple way to send a mature message of dissent while respecting the decorum of the event. Why not let the person screening the questions see for themselves?