On seeing the Church

I often read a few books at a time. As a result when I was younger I rarely finished most or even some of the books I was reading. To break myself of that habit I decided I could buy no new book until I had finished the old. As it worked for my mother at the dinner table, "Put a reasonable amount on your plate. You can always have seconds." - so it has also worked here. Additionally, I had to acknowledge that no two books were created the same. That which I can read just before going to bed is not the same as what I can read fully alert during the day.

On Facebook there is a group called "I can't understand Vladimir Lossky, but he sure is fun to read." Lossky is not a read as you go to sleep author, but he is someone you can read and learn a new approach to on a topic, which I find refreshing. I am particularly interested in the introductory section from his work on Mystical Theology where he explains not only what that is, but how one should approach the study of a Church's theology (of which mysticism is the "crown") in the first place.

To his thinking, this form of study cannot be done impartially as one would tackle a scientific experiment; it is a thing that must be experienced as you are informed by the theology (which is available to all for study) and mysticism (which is unique to the believer) in a way that the unbiased commentator cannot understand much less make judgments about.

If you wish to study the theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church you have two choices. The first is to look through the prism of the Western Church and understand the theological concepts of the East through the eyes of a Western Christian. The second is to live and believe as an Eastern Christian and learn from the inside. This would seem to fly in the face of modern critics who parachute in from above, write down their impressions, and then make recommendations for improvement. The U.N. is awful at this sort of thing (see: Rwanda and Eastern Europe), the nonpartisan author might actually be worse because not only can he confuse and conflate, but because he can find a middle road where none exists. I don't mean this in an anti-ecumenical way, but one that acknowledges that some things are so dear to one side or so anathema to the other that no creative editing or compromise is a short-cut to real solutions.