I read the book with great interest soon after it came out. I noticed a dissonance between two different ideas in the book that I hope you can resolve for me. On the one hand, you deny any kind of Christian historiography that looks back at the past as a process inevitably leading to the present state of things — a Christian version of the 'Whig interpretation of history,' which you attribute to Newman. But on the other hand, you speak of late modern secularity as a kind of inevitable outgrowth of forces latent in Christian history. It seems to me that you can't have both without affirming two contradictory historiographies. Am I mis-reading?
You are somewhat misreading. Nothing in my argument denies real historical consequences. It denies only that the story of development as Newman tells it can be defended from the actual evidence. If Christian tradition is indeed a unity rather than a mere congellation of diverse historical phases, then its unity must be found elsewhere than where Newman tried to situate it. The outgrowth of secularization from forces within Christendom, by contrast, is simply a matter of demonstrable causal continuities. You are conflating two unrelated issues.
So what you are saying is that the difference between Orthodoxy as the inevitable terminus of tradition, and secularization as the inevitable terminus of tradition, is a matter of evidence rather than method (finding a rationality in the process of history)?
No, not just that. Again, you are conflating two different questions. The special claim Christians make about their tradition is that it possesses an intrinsic unity, and that it has unfolded across time from seeds already virtually present at its origin. Newman thought that, despite all the evidence that seems discordant with this tale, he could demonstrate that it was true, and show that the tradition was not just the fortuitous product of material and historical forces, and could do so by way of a historical reconstruction of the evidence, and could provide criteria for judging the evidence. He failed in every dimension of that task. If the tradition is an intrinsic unity, what unifies it is not evident just from the historical data. The issue of whether secularism is a fruit of tensions within Christendom is not a claim about any intrinsic unity of any kind; it in fact is an argument entirely from the fortuity of historical and material causes. It is simply demonstrably the case that Christendom rose and fell without ever fully integrating Christian teaching and temporal power, and in the end the forces that Christianity set loose in culture broke free in a variety of disjointed forms. The secular West still presumes ethical categories, for instance, inherited from Christendom. The alliance of throne and altar meant that, with the overthrow of the former, the latter would be rejected as well. And so on. These are not even analogous sorts of claims. One concerns a unity that is not the product merely of historical circumstances, but of an inherent logic and consistency (supposedly). The other concerns a disunity that has no intrinsic consistency other than the brute force of historical circumstances.
Is hesychasm part of the Christianity you’re imagining in Tradition and Apocalypse? I’m reading Orthodox Psychotherapy by Metropolitan Hierotheos and he’s saying Eastern Orthodox Christianity is a spiritual hospital to heal for living now; not hanging-up on the Second Coming. “St Symeon The New Theologian says that he who has seen the uncreated light and united with God is not waiting for the Second Coming of the Lord but living it.” (Orthodox Psychotherapy: The Science of the Fathers by Metropolitan Hierotheos.)
The book is about the history of Christian dogma and practice, and whether that history possesses—or might possess—an intrinsic unity. Metropolitan Hierotheos’s remarks are a good example of the sort of conceptual plasticity over the years that might make such unity seem implausible.
I read the book with great interest soon after it came out. I noticed a dissonance between two different ideas in the book that I hope you can resolve for me. On the one hand, you deny any kind of Christian historiography that looks back at the past as a process inevitably leading to the present state of things — a Christian version of the 'Whig interpretation of history,' which you attribute to Newman. But on the other hand, you speak of late modern secularity as a kind of inevitable outgrowth of forces latent in Christian history. It seems to me that you can't have both without affirming two contradictory historiographies. Am I mis-reading?
You are somewhat misreading. Nothing in my argument denies real historical consequences. It denies only that the story of development as Newman tells it can be defended from the actual evidence. If Christian tradition is indeed a unity rather than a mere congellation of diverse historical phases, then its unity must be found elsewhere than where Newman tried to situate it. The outgrowth of secularization from forces within Christendom, by contrast, is simply a matter of demonstrable causal continuities. You are conflating two unrelated issues.
So what you are saying is that the difference between Orthodoxy as the inevitable terminus of tradition, and secularization as the inevitable terminus of tradition, is a matter of evidence rather than method (finding a rationality in the process of history)?
No, not just that. Again, you are conflating two different questions. The special claim Christians make about their tradition is that it possesses an intrinsic unity, and that it has unfolded across time from seeds already virtually present at its origin. Newman thought that, despite all the evidence that seems discordant with this tale, he could demonstrate that it was true, and show that the tradition was not just the fortuitous product of material and historical forces, and could do so by way of a historical reconstruction of the evidence, and could provide criteria for judging the evidence. He failed in every dimension of that task. If the tradition is an intrinsic unity, what unifies it is not evident just from the historical data. The issue of whether secularism is a fruit of tensions within Christendom is not a claim about any intrinsic unity of any kind; it in fact is an argument entirely from the fortuity of historical and material causes. It is simply demonstrably the case that Christendom rose and fell without ever fully integrating Christian teaching and temporal power, and in the end the forces that Christianity set loose in culture broke free in a variety of disjointed forms. The secular West still presumes ethical categories, for instance, inherited from Christendom. The alliance of throne and altar meant that, with the overthrow of the former, the latter would be rejected as well. And so on. These are not even analogous sorts of claims. One concerns a unity that is not the product merely of historical circumstances, but of an inherent logic and consistency (supposedly). The other concerns a disunity that has no intrinsic consistency other than the brute force of historical circumstances.
This is very helpful. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my inquiries!
And by the way I am a Plough subscriber. Yes, it is an indispensible publication.
Is hesychasm part of the Christianity you’re imagining in Tradition and Apocalypse? I’m reading Orthodox Psychotherapy by Metropolitan Hierotheos and he’s saying Eastern Orthodox Christianity is a spiritual hospital to heal for living now; not hanging-up on the Second Coming. “St Symeon The New Theologian says that he who has seen the uncreated light and united with God is not waiting for the Second Coming of the Lord but living it.” (Orthodox Psychotherapy: The Science of the Fathers by Metropolitan Hierotheos.)
The book is about the history of Christian dogma and practice, and whether that history possesses—or might possess—an intrinsic unity. Metropolitan Hierotheos’s remarks are a good example of the sort of conceptual plasticity over the years that might make such unity seem implausible.
Thanks. Great photos too! Living in Sicily I see a few old, abandoned church ruins