Orthodox theologians do not speak in tongues

An Orthodox theologian is assumed to be traditional. He really doesn’t care about currency, or the challenges of the age. The world has never liked the Cross, and it has always complained about the difficulties of Trinitarian dogma. The ethical acerbities which stem, inexorably, from Holy Tradition the modern age has taken as “moralistic,” even “fundamentalistic.” A long time ago, when Orthodoxy got too conservative (or seemed that way), relevant philosophers who "responded" to "contemporary challenges" forged a nominalism that made Grace a far less frightening thing, and intellectualized it into something less than a phenomenon. Too, the West could now take its ethics in spoonfuls, in casuistic legerdemain.

Now, Orthodoxy must seem too conservative again, and no one likes the heady alum-tasting mix of dogmatic Trinitarianism, Christology (with a real historical and male Jesus), episcopal authority and responsibility, agrarian sensibility, creationism, anti-contraception, asceticism, familiar and terrible mystery.

Once again, the reaction is burgeoning, this time on two sides. One is a renewed attempt at caesaropapism. The other is a quasi-pentecostal celebration of Eurospeak, with eschatological hopes vested in the EU and a bi-pulmonary ecclesiology.

Apart from these new developments, an Orthodox theologian only cares about being understood in the vernacular: this is not the same as responding to challenges of the age. The world has always "challenged." But the Church has always proclaimed the Gospel instead, recognizing that under the cover of plaintive “challenges” (which are almost always chock full of impish denunciation of authority, like 7th graders acting out against a disrespected teacher), there really does exist a hunger and thirst for truth (rather than gaseous constructs like "consensus"). This is the need for the Gospel and Holy Tradition: and in this dynamic response to the impassive Uncreated, there really is, as some have said, "a deifying vision of conviction and commitment, capable of transforming the whole world." As nice as that sounds, there is also, at the same time and without contradiction, a structured system of truth and a study of doctrinal formulations. There is, dare we say it, the unavoidable, authoritative witness of exclusive, even offensive, dogma (“exclusive,” i.e., “every other theory is wrongheaded”).

Christianity is a sacred tradition, to be sure, and the fullness of liturgical contemplation should be restored to its center. But it is more obstinate than Sherrard would like, I'm afraid, and nearly approaches what he would call "intolerance" with regard to "other sacred traditions."

(It is not surprising that the word "dogma" is not treated with deference in the demesne of  Gollywood: the movie Dogma, 1999, cannot be said to be all that catechetical, not with an abortion clinic worker helping an unknown apostle named Rufus prevent 2 defrocked angels from re-entering heaven. The movie illustrates the status of the term, right about the level of used car salesmen, oil executives, and televangelists with white shoes.)

For many strange reasons, some Orthodox speakers/writers/thinkers wish to throw old-fashioned words like "dogma" and "moralism" into the dustbin of contemporaneous refuse. They think that in the very old good old days, the Fathers did not have to insist on undebatable issues like sexual morality, and complete devotion to dogmatic statements like "Jesus" (the historical One we witnessed in the Gospels) "is Lord" (the everlasting One, the Second Person of the Trinity). The entire struggle with heretics, both inside the Church and out, reflects a concern for rightness of belief -- that is, "orthodoxy" -- that today would elicit catcalls of doctrinaire patriarchalism and monocultural superiority.

Moreover, they miss the point that we are living in an age very much like that inhabited by the first patristic generation: it is filled with gnosis and anti-gnosis, denunciations of mystery, and fabrications of other worlds and entelechies and defacements of the Incarnation. This age isn't just Arian anymore, or non-Chalcedonian. Those heresies are benign by comparison to what surrounds us now. We're back to the catacombs when real Christianity was just barely tolerated, and the very air is Gnostic. Astrology is back. Alchemy is back (and some even wish it's Christian). I'm waiting for arithmancy to make its splash in pop Christian culture. Religion -- bad religion -- is plastered on the net and the checkout aisles.

Let's buck up: it's really time for Orthodox theologians to be more dogmatic, not less.

Thus, the Orthodox theologian will speak with honest rhetoric and in the vernacular (with a spattering of Greek, Latin, Russian, French). St. John of Damascus' Exposition needs translated again (Schaff is getting old), with a complete apparatus. Sermons need to be filled with Trinity and Christology: exorcise self-esteem issues to make room. Holy Tradition needs to be the standard and pattern of our speech and language. That -- not a fuzziness that sounds obliquely mystical to be amenable to the cognoscenti in New York and Brussels -- is what the world needs to hear.

An Orthodox theologian will not speak in tongues. He will not lapse into the postmodern glossolalia of Newspeak, Eurospeak, Statespeak, Darwinspeak, Femspeak, Gayspeak, Bloombergspeak, Technospeak, Emergentspeak, Fullerspeak, or Gaiaspeak.

Such a one will not replace truth with correctness, nor reality with ideology. He will neither demand to see evil, nor will he even expect it: but in his realistic appraisal he will not be surprised by evil when he sees it.

Every philosophy can be recognized by its language. The Orthodox theologian will be known by his witness to the Apostolic Vision. Others will be known by other, and lesser, visions.

Orthodox theologians speak of what they know, not of what they figure out. They believe and they lead others to belief, not intellectual struggle. At the end, belief is the certainty that nothing else makes sense. It is also the discovery that everything makes sense only in belief.

Comments

[evagrius]

I think I've said before, in earlier posts, that in my estimation the Orthodox "theologian" (if anyone can be called that before he has reposed for at least four centuries)of this generation is David Bentley Hart.

Only in English.

[Fr. Jonathan]

No, because I have neither read nor even perused a copy. I have struggled with the arguments I critiqued in various quarters, some in the ecumenicist milieu, others in more strident settings. I don't want to point fingers either, Maximus: I'll stick to the arguments as they stand, and not make the associations. Thanks for writing.

Isaac, I think I've said before, in earlier posts, that in my estimation the Orthodox "theologian" (if anyone can be called that before he has reposed for at least four centuries)of this generation is David Bentley Hart. I admire Fr. Behr's work immensely, and I need to read much more of him. Thanks for your kind remarks.

[Maximus Daniel]

I do not mean to point a finger. But was this inspired by the Patriarch Bartholomew's new book?

[Isaac Crabtree]

Bless Father,

Just found your blog the other day and already it's become a favorite. I have nothing important to add to your excellent post, but maybe a few questions.

1) What are we to do with "modernizers" who have the de facto status of "theologian" in our Orthodox circles here in America? Are there any to "look out" for, in your opinion?

2) This is unrelated to the first question: Have you read anything of Fr. John Behr's (new dean of St. Vladimir's seminary)?