From The Ochlophobist:
OK, I know this isn't news to Orthoblogdom, but I did get this promo in an email today:
Archbishop of Canterbury to deliver Schmemann Lecture and receive honorary doctorate at St. Vladimir's Seminary
Archbishop of Canterbury to deliver Schmemann Lecture and receive honorary doctorate at St. Vladimir's Seminary
[SVS Communications / Yonkers, NY] On Saturday afternoon, January 30, 2010, The Most Rev. and Rt. Honorable Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury and senior bishop of the worldwide Anglican communion, will deliver the annual Father Alexander Schmemann Memorial Lecture at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary. The archbishop will speak on the topic "Theology and the Contemplative Calling: The Image of Humility in the Philokalia."...
Is it just me, or does Fr. Chad's statement seem decidedly laconic?
I have appreciated a number of the ABC's scholarly essays on Orthodox matters, and I found his book on Arius helpful in certain respects, though obviously I take issue with a number of his conclusions. But after having read only his scholarly works over the course of about a decade, for some reason still not clear to me, I decided once to pick up one of his cheap spirituality paperbacks, and since then I have not read another work of his, with that bad taste remaining in my mouth. I had a similar, but more drastic, experience recently with another of Fr. John Behr's friend's works - Frances M. Young's Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture was, pun intended, a formative a work in my 20somethingish intellectual life. When I saw that Fr. Behr had praised a cheapie paperback she had written, Brokenness & Blessing: Towards a Biblical Spirituality, I thought, what the heck, it's less than 10 bucks. As it turned out, the book was the sort of religious dribble you expect from Mainline Protestant Theology these days - sentimental, purposefully vague, throwing names of famous spirituality celebrities (Jean Vanier, Merton, etc.), and rather tedious, slightly sappy prose, the sort you might expect from someone who likes to sit on committees. There were a few patristic points of moderate interest, but the book was not worth the time it took to read, and it did not take much time. I did learn that Frances M. Young is a United Methodist pastoress, which I had not known before.
I hear Williams is quite an agreeable man in person. There is the Welsh factor to consider.
The line about "Rowan William's research and contribution to the field of Orthodox theology" and his being deemed a pioneer in that field are just slightly provocative statements. In English theological arts there have been waves of pursuit of Eastern interests in academic theology and there was a surfable wave forming around the time Williams was starting his academic career. He was certainly among the leaders in the pack within the last generation. But within Orthodox circles you almost want to demand a caveat. William's research and writing on Orthodox themes has not, and should not, inform Orthodox dogma or praxis in any substantial manner. When I think of what I have read of him on, say, Palamas, the word that comes to mind when thinking about how an Orthodox might read Williams on Palamas is complicated.
I know SVS is and is seeking to be an Orthodox institution where serious academic theology is taught and advanced. I am not necessarily against such a project, given the right caveats and constraints. And if one is going to play such a game and you can get an extremely learned ABC to come and give the Schmemann lecture then I suppose that is what one does. I think when January 30 roles around I will pick up a copy of the Journals for a bit and chuckle to myself at speculations as to what Fr. Alexander might have thought of such a spectacle. Fr. John Behr has all of his English allegiances to which he must surely have to show the proper respects. But like Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Fr. John is a Francophile. Perhaps he has an appreciation for the Théâtre de l'Absurde.
I have appreciated a number of the ABC's scholarly essays on Orthodox matters, and I found his book on Arius helpful in certain respects, though obviously I take issue with a number of his conclusions. But after having read only his scholarly works over the course of about a decade, for some reason still not clear to me, I decided once to pick up one of his cheap spirituality paperbacks, and since then I have not read another work of his, with that bad taste remaining in my mouth. I had a similar, but more drastic, experience recently with another of Fr. John Behr's friend's works - Frances M. Young's Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture was, pun intended, a formative a work in my 20somethingish intellectual life. When I saw that Fr. Behr had praised a cheapie paperback she had written, Brokenness & Blessing: Towards a Biblical Spirituality, I thought, what the heck, it's less than 10 bucks. As it turned out, the book was the sort of religious dribble you expect from Mainline Protestant Theology these days - sentimental, purposefully vague, throwing names of famous spirituality celebrities (Jean Vanier, Merton, etc.), and rather tedious, slightly sappy prose, the sort you might expect from someone who likes to sit on committees. There were a few patristic points of moderate interest, but the book was not worth the time it took to read, and it did not take much time. I did learn that Frances M. Young is a United Methodist pastoress, which I had not known before.
I hear Williams is quite an agreeable man in person. There is the Welsh factor to consider.
The line about "Rowan William's research and contribution to the field of Orthodox theology" and his being deemed a pioneer in that field are just slightly provocative statements. In English theological arts there have been waves of pursuit of Eastern interests in academic theology and there was a surfable wave forming around the time Williams was starting his academic career. He was certainly among the leaders in the pack within the last generation. But within Orthodox circles you almost want to demand a caveat. William's research and writing on Orthodox themes has not, and should not, inform Orthodox dogma or praxis in any substantial manner. When I think of what I have read of him on, say, Palamas, the word that comes to mind when thinking about how an Orthodox might read Williams on Palamas is complicated.
I know SVS is and is seeking to be an Orthodox institution where serious academic theology is taught and advanced. I am not necessarily against such a project, given the right caveats and constraints. And if one is going to play such a game and you can get an extremely learned ABC to come and give the Schmemann lecture then I suppose that is what one does. I think when January 30 roles around I will pick up a copy of the Journals for a bit and chuckle to myself at speculations as to what Fr. Alexander might have thought of such a spectacle. Fr. John Behr has all of his English allegiances to which he must surely have to show the proper respects. But like Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Fr. John is a Francophile. Perhaps he has an appreciation for the Théâtre de l'Absurde.
Posts
It's good to see other people picking this up. I'm curious to see if more people start to wonder...
ReplyDelete