Friday, October 06, 2006
[THO] Eastern Thinking is Frustrating
OK so I am digging into my second text for this Foundations in Eastern Theology course, the first one was a horrible book called Sweeter than Honey. But this next one is the same sort of crap. It is odd because I read lots of stuff I disagree with and it doesn't affect me like this. I was reading a synopsis of Rahner's idea of the Anonymous Christian, something that I am not really connecting with but I love reading and thinking through his ideas. But when I get to the Orthodox text I just find myself getting madder and madder? Then it hit me what the difference was. Rahner expects you to approach his work critically. There is no assumption that he has it right and you have to agree with him. But in the Orthodox books I've read so far disagreeing is not an option. I had this same problem with Mikloshazy's Benedicamus Domino! which was the first assigned text I refused to finish. I am just not interested in someone telling me that I've got it all wrong. I would love someone to show me the problems in my thinking, I am totally down with that, but there is just an arrogance in this stuff that I cannot stand at all. Anyway, I still have hopes for Schmemann, if anyone knows of a good, humble Orthodox theologian that I should read then let me know. I would hate to just have a negative opinion of Eastern theology.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Read anything by Lossky, Clement or Evdokimov. I assure you you will find a very different attitude there. Theh are no less sure of the validity of their position but there is no arrogance (well a bit in Lossky, but no more than you would find in any other confessional writer).
Have you tried John Zizioulas's Being and Communion?
I have Lossky on my shelf, it was the text last year and there have been recommended readings assigned from The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, because of how bad the other readings have been - I didn't want to have an aneurism over this course!
I need to pick up Being and Communion, I'm planning on researching Eastern Sacramentalism for my paper. How did you find Zizioula's attitudes towards the wider body of Christ?
Books (philosophy for me) that talk as if there is no way that they might be wrong are so hard for me to read. Not because I get mad, or even disagree with the text, but how do you think about a text that says "accept me as fact". The very nature of simply accepting and not considering hinders my ability to think long enough on an idea to (1) remind me to read the next chapter or (2) come to a sort of belief in the text.
It is kind of hard though, finding the balance between saying “consider this” and saying “I am not sure of this.” The later is destructive to ones thought so by saying “This is true” the author at least tells the reader “I know what I am talking about.”
Hum… how hard it is to express ideas in a language that helps ambiguity.
Part of the problem with the text I was reading yesterday is that it wasn't really saying anything, basically it strung truth claims together with a plethora of scripture references and quotes from early church fathers. There is a style of writing in evangelicalism that uses such a tactic and it is usually rife with problemmatic proof texts. And who is going to look up the 100th scripture reference?
Lossky is indeed better than Bouteneff. I also started a book by Ware "The Orthodox Way" which seems, so far, much more reasonable. Some of Lossky's ideas about apophatic theology are downright scary, check your brain at the door kind of stuff. I want to get Zizioula but it doesn't seem to be in stock at Amazon or Chapters - I can't afford to get something that won't come in in time for me to use on my paper. The bookstore at school is pretty good for ordering in stuff, but that gets pricey. We must have Being and Communion in our library though so I will get to work with it.
Post a Comment