I have little theological training and I feel like your argument was very easy to follow. Most people are just reading your work in bad faith. Currently rereading TAA and enjoying it even more.
We all know the “writer’s writer” or “director’s director,” but what about the “non-theologian’s theologian”? Here’s my blurb:
The book is easy to understand but difficult to live.
It clarifies what can be made clear then wisely stops short.
But that might just be the assessment of a reader ignorant of theology (me) and therefore easily impressionable.
The book offends neither my reason nor my morals, at least. And, unlike much that treats of doctrine within the established traditions, it reads as though it were written by someone who understands modernity. An unaffiliated reader can follow the argument with interest — and even offer his provisional assent.
Don’t mind me, though, I’m just here for the literature (and the occasional posterior).
One of the reasons I could never be a professional academic is that I couldn't bear to spend nintey percent of my time explaining for the forty-thousandth time "that's not what I said..."
It seems like most "debates" never actually begin, however long they've been ongoing.
Well, it was only with TASBS that that became my constant refrain. Mind you, theology is something of a problem, because the number of persons in the field far outstrips the number who should be in the field. There are too many positions in too many departments in too many universities and colleges with ecclesiastical foundations. It somewhat dilutes the general quality of mind.
Looking forward to your reflections anon. (And I've added your "may be among the best publication names on the platform" to the top of the about page...)
I’ve put some very simple notes here regarding Wilken’s Myth of Christian Beginnings. Although Hart noted that he had not read this particular book by Wilken, Hart had Wilken on his thesis board for Hart’s PhD.
Tradition and Apocalypse is your Organon, as far as I’m concerned. It is the closest you come anywhere in your corpus that I’ve read to just explicitly laying out a method.
I mean "Catholic liberalism" is just Catholicism as far as I'm concerned. (At least after Vatican II.)
I read your book. I remember on a Facebook group somebody made some long post regarding "sacred tradition" and in my blunt Episcopalian nature (and perhaps a big of Anglican irreverence) I just said "there is no such thing as 'sacred tradition'". I tried to point to arguments from your book, and they quickly corrected me to say that's not the proper interpretation, and that orthodox theology affirms a "living tradition" that allows for development. I just shrugged it off. When I was younger, I was told the exact opposite: orthodox theology was just a recapitulation of the teachings of the first five centuries of the church, particularly the eastern fathers.
Everyone except the very dim now admits the principle of development; they just don’t want to examine how it happened. Laws, sausages, and doctrines—no one wants to see how they’re made.
What I took away from your book was traditionalists of various sorts typically say things like "What we believe is what the church has always taught for the past 2,000 and what every Christian has believed for the past 2,000 years, and anyone who departs from it is a heretic, not a real Christian, et cetera" And many intellectuals who affirm this have a problem, because they understand many ideas developed over time. But the issue with any account of development is if you start from the first premise, you've already conceded it is wrong by the second. Because you've admitted what you believe isn't exactly the same as Christians in the past, and they end up just restating their own authority. I believe you call it a tautology.
You go over Newman, Lerins, and Blondel's theology and point out some issues here and there. Your solution is to point to some idea of apocalypse, and affirm that the Christian's faith is based off what has happened in any institution in the past, but what will happen. You do state that any theological formulation of belief is a process of innovation, retrieval, and synthesis. And to all those who tremble at any possibility of a lack of absolute certainty, that you might formulate things wrongly and God might curse you for it, you simply point out that's what having faith is about. That was how I understood your book.
And I did love your line about how the only people who deserve to be called heretics are people who use the faith to justify capitalism and support the 45th president, or as you called him once "orangino the clown".
Your summary is quite good, I must say. Probably better than mine would be. And it points to something Levering should consider: if I'm wrong, then the historical evidence tells us that, say, Nicaea was an arbitrary disjunction in Christian confession. If one does not allow that the eschatological horizon--which has a conceptual content even while remaining at present inconceivable as an experience--opens every formulation of the faith to further elaboration, as well as further critical reevaluation of the past, then one has no basis for belief in any dogma.
Jesse's post was very helpful and I appreciated him taking the time to write it; and this comment/conclusion above was what made me blanch when I first read your book. On further readings the conclusion has stayed the same but the trembling has subsided. As always, immensely grateful for your work.
Perhaps the terminal step once the process of innovation, retrieval, and synthesis is completed is “hardening,” where one finally claims that “this is what Christians have believed for the last 2000 years.” I haven’t yet read TAA so apologies if this is made explicit in the book.
Funny you should say “hardening”... Over the last year or more it’s occurred to me that for too many “Christians”, if not most, growth looks like the concrete hardening. As if petrifying one’s faith is good and Godly.
Yes, I read Jesse's post. When someone misconstrues an argument, it's usually because they have too heavily invested in traditional modes of thought to give a rival argument thoughtful and generous attention.
Well, for Matt there's either strict obedience to what he takes to be the clear propositional content of dogma or wanton and arbitrary "liberalism." The possibility of a view opposed to both is unthinkable to him. He's a nice guy, but he has small tolerance for complex arguments.
I have little theological training and I feel like your argument was very easy to follow. Most people are just reading your work in bad faith. Currently rereading TAA and enjoying it even more.
My heart soars like an eagle —as Old Lodge Skins used to say.
Thanks for the work you do David. Reading you has been a treasure the last few years.
We all know the “writer’s writer” or “director’s director,” but what about the “non-theologian’s theologian”? Here’s my blurb:
The book is easy to understand but difficult to live.
It clarifies what can be made clear then wisely stops short.
But that might just be the assessment of a reader ignorant of theology (me) and therefore easily impressionable.
The book offends neither my reason nor my morals, at least. And, unlike much that treats of doctrine within the established traditions, it reads as though it were written by someone who understands modernity. An unaffiliated reader can follow the argument with interest — and even offer his provisional assent.
Don’t mind me, though, I’m just here for the literature (and the occasional posterior).
One of the reasons I could never be a professional academic is that I couldn't bear to spend nintey percent of my time explaining for the forty-thousandth time "that's not what I said..."
It seems like most "debates" never actually begin, however long they've been ongoing.
Well, it was only with TASBS that that became my constant refrain. Mind you, theology is something of a problem, because the number of persons in the field far outstrips the number who should be in the field. There are too many positions in too many departments in too many universities and colleges with ecclesiastical foundations. It somewhat dilutes the general quality of mind.
Looking forward to your reflections anon. (And I've added your "may be among the best publication names on the platform" to the top of the about page...)
I enjoyed your appraisal of David's position; I am also interested with what Wilken's work is about since I am unfamiliar with his work
I’ve put some very simple notes here regarding Wilken’s Myth of Christian Beginnings. Although Hart noted that he had not read this particular book by Wilken, Hart had Wilken on his thesis board for Hart’s PhD.
https://copiousflowers.substack.com/p/what-of-harts-tradition-and-apocalypse
Thanks!
Tradition and Apocalypse is your Organon, as far as I’m concerned. It is the closest you come anywhere in your corpus that I’ve read to just explicitly laying out a method.
Hey now, we don’t say that name.
Gosh, my mistake.
Comparing your book to Protestant liberalism is a pseudo-intellectual misreading on the level of Carl Schmitt.
Well, Matt mentions only Catholic “liberals”—but it’s amazing how many disparate thinkers he forces into that box.
Really, it’s just childish.
I mean "Catholic liberalism" is just Catholicism as far as I'm concerned. (At least after Vatican II.)
I read your book. I remember on a Facebook group somebody made some long post regarding "sacred tradition" and in my blunt Episcopalian nature (and perhaps a big of Anglican irreverence) I just said "there is no such thing as 'sacred tradition'". I tried to point to arguments from your book, and they quickly corrected me to say that's not the proper interpretation, and that orthodox theology affirms a "living tradition" that allows for development. I just shrugged it off. When I was younger, I was told the exact opposite: orthodox theology was just a recapitulation of the teachings of the first five centuries of the church, particularly the eastern fathers.
Everyone except the very dim now admits the principle of development; they just don’t want to examine how it happened. Laws, sausages, and doctrines—no one wants to see how they’re made.
What I took away from your book was traditionalists of various sorts typically say things like "What we believe is what the church has always taught for the past 2,000 and what every Christian has believed for the past 2,000 years, and anyone who departs from it is a heretic, not a real Christian, et cetera" And many intellectuals who affirm this have a problem, because they understand many ideas developed over time. But the issue with any account of development is if you start from the first premise, you've already conceded it is wrong by the second. Because you've admitted what you believe isn't exactly the same as Christians in the past, and they end up just restating their own authority. I believe you call it a tautology.
You go over Newman, Lerins, and Blondel's theology and point out some issues here and there. Your solution is to point to some idea of apocalypse, and affirm that the Christian's faith is based off what has happened in any institution in the past, but what will happen. You do state that any theological formulation of belief is a process of innovation, retrieval, and synthesis. And to all those who tremble at any possibility of a lack of absolute certainty, that you might formulate things wrongly and God might curse you for it, you simply point out that's what having faith is about. That was how I understood your book.
And I did love your line about how the only people who deserve to be called heretics are people who use the faith to justify capitalism and support the 45th president, or as you called him once "orangino the clown".
That's Orangino the Psychotic Clown, I believe.
Your summary is quite good, I must say. Probably better than mine would be. And it points to something Levering should consider: if I'm wrong, then the historical evidence tells us that, say, Nicaea was an arbitrary disjunction in Christian confession. If one does not allow that the eschatological horizon--which has a conceptual content even while remaining at present inconceivable as an experience--opens every formulation of the faith to further elaboration, as well as further critical reevaluation of the past, then one has no basis for belief in any dogma.
Jesse's post was very helpful and I appreciated him taking the time to write it; and this comment/conclusion above was what made me blanch when I first read your book. On further readings the conclusion has stayed the same but the trembling has subsided. As always, immensely grateful for your work.
Perhaps the terminal step once the process of innovation, retrieval, and synthesis is completed is “hardening,” where one finally claims that “this is what Christians have believed for the last 2000 years.” I haven’t yet read TAA so apologies if this is made explicit in the book.
Funny you should say “hardening”... Over the last year or more it’s occurred to me that for too many “Christians”, if not most, growth looks like the concrete hardening. As if petrifying one’s faith is good and Godly.
thanks for sharing
Yes, I read Jesse's post. When someone misconstrues an argument, it's usually because they have too heavily invested in traditional modes of thought to give a rival argument thoughtful and generous attention.
Well, for Matt there's either strict obedience to what he takes to be the clear propositional content of dogma or wanton and arbitrary "liberalism." The possibility of a view opposed to both is unthinkable to him. He's a nice guy, but he has small tolerance for complex arguments.