'Radical Orthodoxy'

[Mark Flory]

I haven't looked around here to see if there is a thread already devoted to the so-called "Radical Orthodoxy" movement (which, to coin a phrase I read somewhere, is neither radical nor Orthodox), but if there is not, would anyone care to discuss it? I am presently auditing a course about this movement, and it seems very clear to me that those of us who are actually Orthodox, and radical in the sense of truly patristically oriented, should have our own say about the topics that Radical Orthodoxy discusses in the name of traditional Christianity.

[John Wehling]

Mark,

What is "Radical Orthodoxy"? I have never heard of it, but I am interested if you want to fill me in.

Thanks,
John

[Mark Flory]

Well, what I know of it is that it is a movement coming out of the Oxbridge system, and it wants to give a traditional Christian response to postmodernism. It basically agrees that modernism failed, but sees a different way out of the modernist impasse. To this end they have recourse, so they say, to the Fathers; one of my major reservations concerns this claim, however, since the only "Fathers" they ever seem to get around to are Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. The leading figures and texts in the movement are John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward, though they have many friends: Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury), Philip Blond, Conor Cunningham, etc. They published a book of essays, "Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology," in 1999, which was the first in a series of RO books on all kinds of topics: the city, the body, nihilism, Aquinas, etc.

Milbank's basic argument is that secularism was the result of a shift within Christian theology (beginning primarily though not exclusively with Duns Scotus) whereby power was gradually shifted from God to the secular (which was a realm that previously had no independent existence), resulting in the formation of the modernist ideology of an independent secular sphere. The way out of this dualistic and destructive position is through returning theology to its earlier glory, by way of subsuming all other human disciplines to the queen of the sciences. At the same time, this return to the roots of Christianity is not intended to be mere reactionism, because it also admits the necessity of a critical response to the tradition.

Of course, this cursory statement will not suffice to give you a sense of the depth and subtlety of thinking that, I must admit, is found in all of the above-mentioned writers.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Mark,

alas, the depth and subtlety you are referring to is the obscurantism of utopian socialism. I went to an Episcopal Seminary that billed itself as Augustinian and Thomistic. The professors were homosexuals and communists, alcoholics and drug addicts. They loved to talk in a kind of neo-traditionalist gobbledegook. The only Anglicans these days that can be trusted are the evangelicals in Africa.

[Mark Flory]

Mr. Owens,

I beg to differ.

First, the writers we are talking about all tend to be very high church, even to the point of defending hierarchy. I think that it is not conducive to our understanding of this important contemporary movement to label them "utopian socialist," or to say that they can't be trusted.

Second, I have nothing against utopianism or socialism as long they are not atheistic. An honestly Christian socialist government would, in my view, be a damn sight better than what we've got.

Third, I paraphrase a story I once heard about the great British author, Evelyn Waugh. He was known for writing books which were very scandalous. At the same time he was a devout Church-goer. One day, when exiting the Church, he was accosted by a woman, who asked him if he was "that awful Mr. Waugh." He replied that, in fact, he was. She asked him what business a man as wicked as he could have in the Lord's house. He responded, "Madam, as wicked as I am, though I come to Church, how much worse would I be if I did not?" (If anyone could give me the source of that story, I would love to have it!) The point being, the Anglicans you dealt with, Mr. Jones, may indeed have been morally challenged, but thank God they at least were Christians! I think it comes mighty close to hubris to assume that a person's failings indicate their faith; we are all crippled by sin, and I for one would not like some of my behaviors and statements to be taken as testimony of my faith. Sometimes, I do not live up to myself!
Radical Orthodoxy is an important movement, if for no other reason than that it is the ONLY movement in Christian theology that has academic standing. Neo-thomism is dead; Evangelicalism is beginning to become less benighted, but still suffers its reactionary heritage; and Orthodoxy simply has not entered into the mainstream of Western dialogue. I would suggest that a careful study of RO would help to make clear those points within the postmodern world at which Orthodoxy can bring to bear the truth that it alone preserves.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Mark,

Alas, we see what this is all about: fighting those terrible reactionaries.

[Richard McBride]

“Radical Orthodoxy is an important movement, if for no other reason than that it is the ONLY movement in Christian theology that has academic standing.”

Dear Brother Mark:

You seem to have fallen off your fence with a thud. And I, personally, like it better as you
take a position; no more of that fence sitting.

But the sort of pale modernism I have recognized in your posts somehow strikes me as the same arguments used by postmodernist a couple of decades ago -- at the time they seemed to prefer a distance between themselves and that wicked old hound, modernism. But of course, it was quite clear, even then, that pomo was no more beyond that pale than is the stuff discussed here under “Radical Orthowhatever”.

It is interesting, how these false little phantasms come and go. I’m sure there are a great many more. There value is to warn the Faithful: The Faithful must become knowledgable about the ways leading to apostasy. We have heard from others with equal fascination over the illusory chaff of Gnosticism, blowing around about them. Only in a naive state are Orthodox likely to fall for this stuff. That is why I say, They must be knowledgable about their religion. True Christianity makes great demands upon the intellect, as well as the heart.

When one has read the Fathers sufficiently, when one weeps over the beauty of the Divine Liturgy (not simply at Pascha), when one has grown to love all the children equally, I anticipate that one will be fully armed against these false idols.

It is a good subject you offer us, Brother Mark, but I don’t think it has legs.

richard mcb

[Mark Flory]

RO is raising (and giving its own answers to) some very important questions: the relationship of theology to philosophy and other human sciences; the sources and problems of modernism (and, of course, postmodernism, which the postmoderns themselves often point out is a movement within modernism - and which attempts, like existentialism before it, to complete some of the abdicated tasks of modernism); the role of reason in theology (i.e., what can be rationally known of God); etc. These are issues which have more than merely contemporary interest; they are issues that can be found, in different guises, throughout Christian history. Were not the Apostolic Fathers concerned with the relation of theology to Greek philosophy? Have not such great saints as Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain and Theophan the Recluse delved into modern philosophy and social sciences in order both to utilize and critique 'worldly' learning?

Finally, in an age in which "religion" is confused with "institutional religion," and the latter is ipso facto considered by many as suppressing true religiosity, which they associate with some ill-defined "spirituality," would it not do us well to be concerned with defining what can and cannot be known of God? It was good enough for the Fathers, and it's good enough for me!

We may find RO distastefully modern and academic and non-ecclesial, but as I attempted to point out, no one else is addressing these issues with anything like the forum that these folks have achieved in an amazingly short span of time! Therefore, I think that their work bears scrutiny. I have no doubt that they are steeped in error and are probably all a bunch of benighted heretics. That didn't stop Clement, or Origen, or the Cappadocians, or Augustine from studying the Greeks, the Gnostics, the Arians, etc. How else could they address the issues raised by these groups? I do think that Orthodoxy possesses resources that are largely unknown in the Western world, much less Western academia. I believe that these should be brought to bear in that world, and in academia. Orthodox do not need to be reactionaries; they should be revolutionaries - after all, our hope is in Christ, who not only came once for our salvation, but IS COMING AGAIN! If we believe this, we should put all our efforts - prayer, liturgy, art, and study - into preparing ourselves and others for the eschaton. In this light, yes, I agree, RO is probably a passing intellectual fad, and an example of the dangers of apostasy.

Nevertheless, as such, its members and the people it influences are in grave danger, and we, as Orthodox Christians, have a responsibility to them, as we do to all of creation, to bring them the untainted Gospel.

[Clifton D. Healy]

Mark:

With all due respect, the Greeks the Fathers were studying were not purporting to advance Christian belief. That is to say, it was clear to the Fathers that the Greek philosophers were pagans. Indeed, the pagan philosopher contemporaries of the Fathers were a bit miffed at the use Christianity was making of Plato.

Furthemore, the starting point for the Fathers was the Tradition of the Church. Then they "found" in pagan authors, points of resonance they could exploit for the Christian faith. "Hypostasis" ring any bells?

The difference with the RO folks is that they do not start with a patristic mindset. They start with a modern mindset, then read back into and from the Fathers what resonates with them.

That the RO group is going back to the Fathers, however truncated is that list, I take as a good thing. Just keep in mind that the RO approach is directly opposite to that of the Fathers.

[Marvin Vann]

I agree with Mark that serious Orthodox thought is regrettably absent from the academic arena outside of that corner of theology interested in liturgics, patristics and Byzantine studies. But, I would hesitate to count Rowan Williams, proponent of homosexual rights, women priests, and himself an "ordained" pagan "priest" (Welsh Druid, or whatever; in any case, a fortiore a syncretist and hence not a Christian in any orthodox sense of the term) a fellow-traveller.

[Owen Jones]

People in Anglicanism like Rowan Williams love to talk about how Orthodox they are and their affinity for the East. But they are not honest or serious about that. They are referring to the kind of aesthetic experience that you have when you are sitting around in your vestments drinking tea with the remmants of incense wafting through the drawing room. In Orthodoxy, you pray a price for the aesthetic experience.

[Richard McBride]

"you pray a price" ?

Is that seminary-speak? Its quite a pithy little notion, though isn't it, Seraphim; even if its a freudian slip.

[Fr Averky]

WE have gone through "God is Dead", "Situational ethics" and the like, and the so -called "Radical Orthodoxy" seems to be yet another attempt to intellectualize Orthodoxy. Over the years there have always been those who accuse the Orthodox Church of being anti-intellectual. On the worldy level, it may very well seem so, but the Fathers, not just ancient ones, but recent saints like Theophan the Recluse and Ignatius Briachaninov always warned that we cannot rely on the mind to find God as do the Latins. Not knowing about this movement, and not being an intellectual , I would only hope and pray that this movement at its very best will only confirm to those who are involved in it that the truths of Holy Orhodoxy are and will always remain the same. The Fathers themselves were not just inspired by the Holy Spirit, but were well educated and erudite men- real intellectuals. The big difference here is they were indeed inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit, not the particular intellectual movement of an age. It was given to them to uphold and protect the purity and integrity of the faith.

In the 1960's, the Church of Rome decided to take a "renewed" look at its traditional teachings in the post modern age, and the results have been sheer disaster. Thankfully, the Orthodox Church has always looked to the Holy Fathers of the Church for its foundation in truth, and not the various "movements" which have had such a bad effect on ohter religious institutions, shaking them to their very foundations Thankfully, as St. Athanasius of Alexandria has said, "We do not worship the times, we worship God."

Fr. Averky

[Daniel Jeandet]

Once I heard about something called christianarchy.

Sounded interesting at the time.

Now I feel like another coffee, and its raining really hard outside. I like the sound.

My little boy is having a nap. If I ask him who made the moon, he says "Jesus".

[Tim Kerry]

As I understand it, St. Ignaty wrote a fair amount in defense of the Faith specifically addressed to the Russian Intelligenstia. Most of this, however, has not been translated. For anyone who has experience or familarity with Academia, especially with philosophy and theology, it is tempting to engage "our times" with Orthodoxy. However, where does one start? While the Fathers did not write extensive tracts attempting to define and defend what might be considered an "ontology" or "metaphysics," when considering the differences between the Orthodox East and the West, it is hard not to think that the two do not share the same "ontology" or the same "metaphysic." Philip Sherrard explores this theme in a few of his books, as does Vladimir Lossky. While many Orthodox clergy will implore the faithful to avoid intellectualizing these matters and concentrate on prayer and the life of the heart (as they should), it is difficult not to engage the philosophical errors one encounters in western academia. Orthodox theoria, however, cannot be separated from her praxis which makes any dialogue with western philosophy unsatisfactory. I am reminded of Alistair MacIntyre's beginning to "After Virtue" in which he likens our situation to one in which a great catasrophe has occured, obliterating a full-fleged scientific culture and its knowledge: the survivors of the cataclysm have only bits and pieces of this former civilization's knowledge and make an idol out of it, speaking its language without any real understanding of it. MacIntyre likens this to our moral situation: we in modernity speak a moral language using ethical concepts that have been completely cut loose from the original way of life and belief system that infused them with meaning. Perhaps this is what has happened to Christianity in the West: existentially and ontologically, while it speaks a "similar" language, it has cut lose from the liturgical and mystical source that give it life. To lead them out of this requires a new way of thinking altogether that cannot be reduced to conceptual analysis alone -- though it may be a necessary "first step."

Timothy

[Owen Jones]

Timothy,

I agree with the thrust of your comments, quoting MacIntyre especially. Christian thinkers would do well to explore the works of Eric Voegelin, who has done much to recover the classical experience. Most modern theological problems are, at root, philosophical errors. the result is a double-mindedness on the part of Orthodox Christians.

Owen Jones

[Cyril Guerette]

Wow. This site is great. It is an honour for an Evangelical philosophic theology professor from Heritage Baptist College, Cambridge, Canada ... who attended "Episcopalian" University of Cambridge for his Masters where he was taught by some of the Radical Orthodox theologians (Catherine Pickstock) and attended the same Catholic college St. Edmund's as Conor Cunningham ... who is finishing a PhD on Anselm at the University of Toronto at the Catholic St. Michael's College ... who discovered the Desert Fathers and then the Church Fathers from a Catholic Priest and scholar, Dr. T. Allan Smith, who makes Greek Orthodoxy his special area of study ... all this because of finding Radical Orthodoxy to be an intellectual wellspring for thinking orthodox in a postmodern system.

The return to our rich sources should indeed be hailed as a possible move to bringing the Church closer together worldwide ... although there are always dangers ... and some of the tendecies of "episcopalian" seminaries excesses highlighted above will be found is certain of the authours in the first book "Radical Orthodoxy"... but the circle keeps broadening ... with James K. Smith making a significant contribution from the Evangelical perspecitve.

i find it most interesting that the Radical Orthodox thinkers have come the closest to articulating a particularily persuasive account of the "Ontological Aesthetics" i've seen being discussed in a another refeshing post i waded through in here ... the recovery of some of Plato's positives, especially in the light of the great Fathers doctrinal correctives is an important step in North American theology especially i beleive ...

their emphasis on participation and the inclusion of divinization language (following Aquinas' utilization of the Orthodox Fathers) will be especially appealing to some amongst you i would beleive.

thank you for taking the time to read an outsider for a second ... God Bless those who truly love Him

http://www.propheticpoetic.com

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Cyril,

They are not your rich sources and they are not given to be hailed as a possible move to bringing the "Church" closer together worldwide.

Matthew

[Cyril Guerette]

do you by saying "they are not your rich sources" mean that because I am not of the Greek Orthodox tradition that they have not been a deep source for the tradition in which i find myself? I would disagree greatly, and have found much solace in that which i have had time to delve into thus far. like the Scriptures they are siginifcant for the historical formation of our faith and i would argue for today. i hope you are not being too quickly dismissive friend.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Professor Guerette,

You would not now be in the Evangelical situation if they have been a "deep source" for the tradition you find yourself in.

You would not have written

(The return to our rich sources should indeed be hailed as a possible move to bringing the Church closer together worldwide)

if you had that tradition in your situation.
You can convey all of your knowledge of the historic formation of your faith and write statements like

(The return to our rich sources should indeed be hailed as a possible move to bringing the Church closer together worldwide)

and I know that you would disagree greatly. So you have found much solace in that which you have had time to delve into thus far and are able to write

(The return to our rich sources should indeed be hailed as a possible move to bringing the Church closer together worldwide)

I find no solace in those words whatsoever.

Hence I'm not being to quickly dismissive.


Matthew

[Fr John Wehling]

Cyril,

Welcome to Monachos. Don't be daunted.

Perhaps you can tell me what fellowship the Desert Fathers have with Anselm? I'm not baiting you, just curious as to how you see them related, if at all.

And it is it true that Augustine and Aquinas are the two central sources of RO thought?

Peace,
Fr John Wehling

[Cyril Guerette]

(The return to our rich sources should indeed be hailed as a possible move to bringing the Church closer together worldwide)

wow. matthew turned a quick sentence into a refrain of absolute unorthodoxy!

(The return to our rich sources should indeed be hailed as a possible move to bringing the Church closer together worldwide)

rejoice brother that i am now discovering your treasure. and help me understand it better.

Father Wehling. thank you for the encouragement. in my readings of the ancient fathers, including some of the Syriac writers like Ephrem, i have been especially suprised by the Fathers sense of identification with John the Baptist and the Old Testament prophets. I've been writing on this finding a plethora of scriptural references in both the Western and Eastern tradition (when the division hadn't grown so sour).

As far as Anselm is concerned, i find his meditations to show a conjoining of logical and poetic modes of thought, based on a participation of Creation in God's being. i know his inclusion of the filoque will not make him popular in these circles but even Western Monasticism flows from the springs of Egypt. his dedication as a monk would be respected i hope. what are the orthodox reactions to the Proslogion's ontological argument?

for the most part Augustine and Aquinas do seem to be the two central rocks upon which Radical Orthodox thought rests up till this point. furthermore, Plato figures larger in Pickstock's work especially (against Derrida), while Smith seems to take exception to the participatory framework, something i'm finding unfortunately common amongst Protestants.

i am not in the radical orthodox camp per se but i do find their call to secular modernity one of the greater acheivements in modern Christian thought. however, there are most assuredly many many more sources left unexplored. and that is something i would like to begin to do myself. the Cappadocians for one, as much of their theology helped Augustine in the areas where he was right. Ephrem for his combination of poetry and theology.

i do ask forgiveness for my tradition's ignorance of your sources; it was one of her many blindnesses. of course i will do the same for those that i presently perceive in yours.

an area I'd especially like guidance by from an Orthodox source would be concerning texts on Divinization and Participation as they seem to be of extreme importance to ontology. I have already read some important material in other threads here, more would be appreciated.

on another front, is there any recent Orthodox work in relation to Physics? I found Pavel Florensky to be a great inspiration, in terms of logic and science, while his linguist thought predated the postmodern turn in positive respects without the unfortunate side-effects that come with atheism. has his stance on Sophia been confirmed as Orthodox? I know he died at Stalin's hands for Orthodoxy.

i have a feelin that if i stick around here, i will learn a lot i don't expect. i know ecumenism isn't a popular word in either or our circles but i do hope my interest in the Fathers can be an area of positive discussion, and help me with my further studies. may the Holy Spirit guide us further towards God.

[Jurretta J. Heckscher]

Dear Professor Guerette and fellow discussion participants:

You enquired about recent works on Orthodoxy and physics. You might wish to look at Light from the East: Theology, Science, and the Eastern Orthodox Tradition, by Alexei V. Nesteruk (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003). I have not yet read it so cannot address its merits, but as it is written by an Orthodox scholar who is also a physicist and concerns some topics in physics, among others, you may find it useful.

Yours in Christ,

Jurretta J. Heckscher

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Cyril,


wow. matthew turned a quick sentence into a refrain of absolute unorthodoxy!

No, that is not what I did. That is what you think I did. But if I ever see another bizarre ecumenical evangelical rendition of a icon I will no doubt recognize absolute unorthodoxy. As I do when I drive by a few of the many thousands of evangelical or baptist and all sorts of things and places on my way to Church. What I did do was not agree at all with the perceived worldwide notion of using the Church Fathers as you choose to. While the evangelicals are attempting to spread unorthodoxy in traditional Orthodox lands I will keep your words in mind. Now that you are discovering the Orthodox treasure Cyril, please bear in mind that is most precious to many of us.

Matthew

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Matthew P,

A bit of a surly response to a visitor from afar, don't you think? Is there some problem with us non Orthodox imbibing the Fathers, and learning and growing in Spirit and Truth in doing so? Perhaps you could share with us what exactly you are defending against.

Listening patiently,

Richard

[Daniel Jeandet]

Hello Cyril,

In your reading of the Fathers, dont forget about Saint Maximus, how his tounge was cut out for his resistence to a heretical doctrine that had captured the Church of his time. Ecumenism? Unpopular? Not if you want to keep your tounge in your head.

Here is a good article on science and faith and the pseudo-conflict that is imagined to exist between them. Very good reading.

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/metallinos_gnosiology.html

Can I ask why you posted that link in your other post?

Hope you can get something out of this site, dont mind if we are sometimes a bit harsh. We are mostly freindly, most of the time.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Richard and Cyril,

I can only write that my sins are many and I try not to commit so many so often. Before confession and before a Priest I often struggle in calling so many to mind. I know that my only hope of salvation is in the Orthodox Church, where the Truth and fullness of faith are. It is the vineyard that HIS right hand has planted.

In Christ,
Matthew

[Cyril Guerette]

Dear Matthew,

I also sadly sin daily, and pray that I might not offend my Orthodox brethern, even as I question and express my opinions to date (as much as they are saturated by the worldly system and need constant cleansing). Peace to you, and I hope to learn from your sincere heart over time.


Dear Daniel J,

My encounters with St. Maximus are much to brief indeed, but I found his wisdom deep. It appears to me that even amongst the Orthodox their are significant divisions. Each claims they are truly "Orthodox" and the others aren't. This is what many of my tradition has seen as the Arrogance of the Orthodox. I would hope that you would at least hope for some ecumenical discussion within your own tradition, and that you could see that Christ wishes to call all his followers into true fellowship. What exactly is the Orthodox position on the salvation of adherents to other traditions such as mine?

The link you gave me was fantastic reading, thank you. I found it curious that there was a claim against the West of "dualism" yet the conclusion seemed to be a dualism in types of knowledge. I am also suprised at how little Aquinas actually seemed to be read ... he too considered Theology a Practical Science, both Theoretical and Practical actually. What I did gain greatly from was the discussion of the ascetic practice as an "empirical" knowledge of God. I never thought of it in that way. I see now how great the Fathers were, and are, in their building of knowledge direct from encountering our Lord in faith.

The dualism towards intellectual knowledge does bother me, but I am now realising that we only have so much time on this earth, and a balance must be struck. The more I learn about God with my intellect the more I can experience him and vice versa ... but it can often block this existential knowledge as the link pointed out.

As for including the link to my website - I don't know really. I guess I've become part of this e-world where I like to know who I am talking with and I gave you the opportunity to see the type of ministry me and my wife are beginning. May I ask how you perceive the action?


Dear Jurretta,

Thank you for the book recommendation, it looks like it is exactly what I was looking for.


May Christ Shine on You All,
Cyril

[Daniel Jeandet]

Hey Cyril,

Sorry, I didn’t realise that the link was to your own website until I looked at your profile, then I went back and saw your picture and stuff, so now I get it. Cyril, seerIll, Illseer, I was confused at first; I thought it was just a music site, unrelated to Christianity.

"the discussion of the ascetic practice as an "empirical" knowledge of God. I never thought of it in that way."

Forgive me Cyril, but as a professor of Theology, what else did you think Christ meant when he said:

"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God".

What is a pure heart except for one cleansed of passions? And how do we free ourselves of passions except by ascetecism? Why would there be a way to know God except the way Christ taught, through purity of heart?

If God does not reveal Himself to you, how are you going to learn about Him and how are you going to teach others about Him? Why would He reveal himself to you in a different way than he did to the Holy Fathers, who labored in ascetecism and obedience for years and years before they dared to write anything about God?

Sorry about all the questions, I dont mean to be rude, but you really havent any idea about Orthodoxy.

Orthodox Theology is not what you think it is. The Holy Fathers were not great thinkers like Auqinas or Anselm. You cant take some of what they said and leave the rest. Is it not the height of arrogance to cut and paste the Fathers together with thier enemies, the scholastics, in your quest for a radical Orthodoxy, when the Orthodox Church is right in front of you, preserved unchanged? In the face of the modern theological relatavism, that even forgets the words of the Savior, how does our submission to the apostolic traditions and teachings of the Fathers make us arrogant?

You mentioned deification, as if it is just another idea. To see God is not a luxury, or the result of many years of learning, or some freak occurrence given at random to “mystics” or the extremely intelligent. The Vision of God is the purpose of life. It is given to the pure in heart and does not depend on ones learning or mental abilities. It is perfectly normal; the return to Paradise, and it is Salvation. One of the hardest things about Patristic Theology is that 90% of it consists of instruction in the ascetical life. To take the Fathers seriously, in order to acquire Theology (knowledge of God) is to follow this instruction. The results of that life, True Theology, cannot be expressed or written down; otherwise we would all know God, just by reading.

It can be hard, when defending Orthodoxy, not to offend at times. This is especially true in regards to debate concerning modern “theology” and ecumenical trends, as these rest upon the separation of Truth and Love, which cannot be separated. At times, it seems as though the only way to be seen as loving to those outside the Church is to compromise our Orthodox Faith. But to want to be seen as loving is not to worship the Truth, but to idolise appearances. So though my words may seem hateful, I truly write them in love, out of love for Truth. I hope I dont drive you from the forum.

Try this link -

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/riveroffire.html

and this one -

http://free.hostdepartment.com/a/away/

I think, if you read these, you will see how Orthodoxy is completely different to the Other faiths, and cannot be reconciled to them.

I would love it if you would read them, so we can discuss further.

[Richard McBride]

monochos: radical stuff

How blessed you are, Cyrill, that Daniel has offered to be your guide. I pray you take advantage of the offer.

Very pithy:


"True Theology, cannot be expressed or written down; otherwise we would all know God, just by reading."

and:


"...to want to be seen as loving is not to worship the Truth, but to idolise appearances."

Very well said, Blessed of the Lord Daniel

[Jonathan Tallon]

Some comments have been made on this thread about Rowan Williams, who is in no position to answer them.

For the record, he is NOT a syncretist; to imagine that being given an honour for Welsh poetry makes you a druid is to believe too much what you read in the papers (or the web). Secondly, how do you know that he imagines 'Orthodox' to mean a wafting of incense? This is frankly insulting someone who has an international reputation academically as a patristics scholar, and a reputation as a fine and loved pastor from his time as Archbishop of the Church in Wales.

Please, if you are going to criticise, criticise him for what he actually believes or says. (The same goes for the offhand remarking dismissing all Anglicans outside of Nigeria).

Jonathan

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Richard,

I recently had a discussion with the Archbishop regarding icon terminology. In short, first an iconographer writes the lines then he applies paint.

The Russian word pisat, means both painting and writing therefore the Russian Church has not chosen to disregard the Byzantine preference for the 'writing' of icons I can assure you.

If you hear iconographers talk they often say I'm painting a particular icon, painting the robe etc.
The word "writing" pertaining to icons is greatly emphasized nowadays.

Actually, the Russian Orthodox Church Archbishop master iconographer that Father Averky was referring to has done an enormous amount to restore Byzantine iconography. If you ever saw a 72 year old Russian Archbishop of small stature climbing up high scaffolding to write large icons and thousands of square feet to cover by dipping his 1/4 inch brush in various jars of paint (maybe over a few million times he told me he was not counting) you would see a very high regard for the Byzantine preference for the 'writing' of icons.

That regard would increase watching him climb up and down the scaffolding to make sure the perspective is just right looking from the ground up. It would further increase seeing him 65 feet high laying on his back for hours on wood planks with paint dripping on him for many years. So he understands paint and Orthodox theology I'm sure.

From my perspective if an iconographer paints an icon with humility, prayer and Orthodox theology in his heart then it is written within the Byzantine tradition, for the glory, joy and adornment of the Orthodox Church.

I know that you had been addressing Father Averky, I hope you don't mind my response and I hope you take no offence at my words. It's a matter of experience, understanding and semantics.

In Christ,

Matthew

[Matthew Panchisin]

Sorry,

The post was intended for the Icon of the Theotokos thread.

Matthew