I'm currently reading Stephen RL Clark's Mysteries of Religion and I am seeing that some of his claims there are a bit more irenic towards the traditionalists. He certainly does say that it is a fundamentally irreligious attitude that refuses to follow the truth where it leads since that is tantamount to a refusal to see that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies. He also says, however, that there are times when we need to maintain hold of a truer ancient vision against the tyranny of passing fads that hold us in thrall to quick dopamine fixes. And he also seems to defend or at least see as reasonable the attempt to resist changes in liturgy and doctrine since familiar and poetically powerful ancient forms conjure in us the right emotions or summon the appropriate gods or angels. The atavistic impulse may not always be a bad one. It is also curious though that traditionalists see attempts to reach back to to the first centuries are seen as modernism. My traditionalist friends, though, tell me that just because something is old doesn't mean it is correct, which seems to be a statement you would also hold. All of this seems to be so confusing to me. It seems to me that there are two equal and opposite errors and virtue lies in the mean. Do you think traditionalists go too far? And, on the other hand, do you also think that progressives can go too far in attempting to refashion the church in modernity's image? Where exactly do we draw the lines and are they as clear as some would suppose? Simple questions, I know.
Everyone can go too far. The real problem with the traditionalists is that they don’t care about tradition. They want a return to early modernity, not a creative reappropriation of the tradition from its deepest sources.
Do you have a reflection in any of your writings about what, or perhaps better "how" Jesus Christ engages tradition. Obviously, your book suggests things that encompass what Jesus Christ was up to, but I just wondered if you had an explicit reflection.
Well, I guess such a lapidary response is to be expected regarding Fr. Lonergan who, in Insight, starts a paragraph: "In the twenty-second place..." I am not very smart and no expert, but it seems Fr. Lonergan is certainly distinguishable from Newman and your critique. Anyway, thanks for your essay in Tradition and Apocalypse. It is helpful
That would be splendid and much appreciated by me. However, not being an academic, I have no sense of the present evaluation of Fr. Lonergan's work. Sadly similar in some ways to Thomists, one gets the sense that Lonerganians like at Boston College, have not helped, reducing genius to canned goods to
His immediate goal is mass murder. His long term goal is to keep NATO weapon systems out of Ukraine by installing a puppet government or simply re-annexing the country. But that’s the limit of my insight.
That made for a very enjoyable morning cup, well two cups, of New Orleans dark roast!
I had to pause & rewind at one point as I was unclear what you were talking about, when you stated that -
"The teams that rely on analytics don't do better than the teams who don't."
Which is to ask: MLB or theology guilds?
I was heartened by how you juxtaposed Jordan Daniel Wood's approach to those of Eriugena & Bulgakov vis a vis their rigor in drawing out the logical conclusions & practical consequences of various faith claims & teachings.
I was just yesterday juxtaposing your and Jordan's respective universalist logics & parsing how they seemed to unfold & cohere:
It would be great if, at some point, perhaps when his book comes out, you could address what you see as the strengths & weaknesses of JDW's Neochalcedonian Synthesis. In my own grappling with his hypostatic logic, I first framed my own assessment of Jordan's account of hypostatic identity in terms of how far beyond Cyril it seemed to go, using other radical Neochalcedonian accounts as a foil, e.g. Luther & Jenson. I suspect you'd agree that they proved too much, for instance, pushing their perichoretic logic beyong the theo-contours of simplicity vis a vis passibility.
In my own appropriations of Jordan's approach, &, for that matter, Bulgakov, too, I also want to jealously guard against determinist impulses & preserve Classical Theism's DDS, but have felt like Jordan's arguments are more rigorous & coherent than, for example, Jenson's.
Specifically, I suspect that Jordan's account could be squared, on the personalist front, with the thin passibility of Norris Clarke, & , on the metaphysical, with Joe Bracken's Divine Matrix conception, which conscientiously defers to Classical Theism, albeit neo-Whiteheadian. Some have used Bracken, in fact, to give Bulgakov a tune-up.
At any rate, I'm hoping to come away with an assessment that Jordan has gifted us a - not radical, but - maximal Neo-Chalcedonian Synthesis, maximally Maximian.
Rather a lot to load into a comment box, I fear. Wood is more rigorous than Jenson, yes, and so avoids some of the anthropomorphisms that (paradoxically perhaps) diminish Jenson's grasp of divine personhood. For instance, Wood doesn't feel he has to introduce some sort of Urentscheidung into the picture that would reduce the divine identity in Christ to a kind of divine project, and that would turn the idea of a diversity of possible worlds into the idea of a diversity of possible Gods.
My disagreement with Wood is not particularly violent; I simply don't agree regarding the relation of hypostasis and nature, as well as regarding the need for an analogical metaphysics of a very specific kind, all for reasons that can't really be treated of here. Whether he's right, and my disagreement is with the neo-Chalcedonian synthesis as such (until fixed by Bulgakov), or he's wrong and my disagreement is with his reading of that synthesis, is an exegetical matter. And I long ago concluded that exegetical arguments are almost always irresoluble.
As it happens, that is the book blurb I offered for the volume. Along with a few other ringingly laudatory phrases: "not nearly as crazy as it seems at first," "printed with an excellent font," "April is the cruelest month," "sometimes engaging," etc.
Thanks, David. That response was both generous and helpful.
I don't know how Jordan's exegesis of the Maximian corpus will finally be received. It has occurred to me that he could be wrong about Maximus descriptively, per historical & interpretive criteria, but may have nonetheless offered a Neo-Chalcedonian Synthesis, which goes beyond Cyril, the Damascene & Maximus, and that's normatively, doctrinally sound, hence heuristically novel & fruitful.
In that case, Jordan will then be able to take the credit for a certain genius that belongs to - not Maximus, but - himself!
And JDW will be known in ages hence as Pseudo-Maximus! I say that with tongue only partly in cheek.
re my Bracken - Bulgakov reference
By tune-up, I only meant to suggest that Bracken has, for me, provided some images & metaphors, e.g. matrix & field, that have been idiomatically felicitous in helping me to better understand what Bulgakov's saying about the God - World relationship, and in such a way that Sophia, conceptually, very well illuminates, for me, both metaphysical & personal divine aspects.
In no measure, then, would I suggest, e.g. like Gallaher, that Bulgakov needs an engine overhaul by Bracken. In my estimation, they're saying a lot of the same things, only in different idioms.
I think Wood demonstrates the correctness of the great bulk of his judgments pretty persuasively. There are places where it's possible to quibble, of course. I find a certain ambiguity in Maximus's talk of "human nature" that Wood breaks up into (I believe) four different senses in which Maximus uses the term. There I pause. For me, though, the issue is not whether his is an absolutely flawless reading of Maximus--there are no readings of any interesting thinker that cannot be argued with--but whether he has done justice to how radical Maximus's theological vision was in grounding creation in (and as) God's incarnation. There he has clearly surpassed all those more timid readers of Maximus who feel obliged to explain away his most challenging formulations as rhetorical excesses (as if Maximus was ever carelessly imprecise).
Listening now. Thank you very much! Such a journey, indeed! Fr Sergius Bulgakov has thoroughly invigorated delight into my heart! Especially Jacob’s Ladder/regrading angels/. Suggestion: regarding the 2nd edition of The New Testament; please increase font size. 🤓
Praying for your health DBH - thanks for this treat ٩(◕‿◕｡)۶
Thanks.
I'm currently reading Stephen RL Clark's Mysteries of Religion and I am seeing that some of his claims there are a bit more irenic towards the traditionalists. He certainly does say that it is a fundamentally irreligious attitude that refuses to follow the truth where it leads since that is tantamount to a refusal to see that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies. He also says, however, that there are times when we need to maintain hold of a truer ancient vision against the tyranny of passing fads that hold us in thrall to quick dopamine fixes. And he also seems to defend or at least see as reasonable the attempt to resist changes in liturgy and doctrine since familiar and poetically powerful ancient forms conjure in us the right emotions or summon the appropriate gods or angels. The atavistic impulse may not always be a bad one. It is also curious though that traditionalists see attempts to reach back to to the first centuries are seen as modernism. My traditionalist friends, though, tell me that just because something is old doesn't mean it is correct, which seems to be a statement you would also hold. All of this seems to be so confusing to me. It seems to me that there are two equal and opposite errors and virtue lies in the mean. Do you think traditionalists go too far? And, on the other hand, do you also think that progressives can go too far in attempting to refashion the church in modernity's image? Where exactly do we draw the lines and are they as clear as some would suppose? Simple questions, I know.
Everyone can go too far. The real problem with the traditionalists is that they don’t care about tradition. They want a return to early modernity, not a creative reappropriation of the tradition from its deepest sources.
Cool, something to give a listen to during my plan period!
Do you have a reflection in any of your writings about what, or perhaps better "how" Jesus Christ engages tradition. Obviously, your book suggests things that encompass what Jesus Christ was up to, but I just wondered if you had an explicit reflection.
No, nothing to speak of.
Thank you
How do you evaluate Fr. Bernard Lonergan's treatment of tradition?
Well, it’s complicated.
Well, I guess such a lapidary response is to be expected regarding Fr. Lonergan who, in Insight, starts a paragraph: "In the twenty-second place..." I am not very smart and no expert, but it seems Fr. Lonergan is certainly distinguishable from Newman and your critique. Anyway, thanks for your essay in Tradition and Apocalypse. It is helpful
Yes, but it’s not exactly addressing the same problem. But perhaps I should think about an article on it.
That would be splendid and much appreciated by me. However, not being an academic, I have no sense of the present evaluation of Fr. Lonergan's work. Sadly similar in some ways to Thomists, one gets the sense that Lonerganians like at Boston College, have not helped, reducing genius to canned goods to
be manipulated , to paraphrase Fred Lawrence.
thank you DBH again...
off topic question...What do you think the fallout/aftermath is going to be in the War in Ukraine?
No idea. One hopes it brings about Putin's downfall, but who can say?
I been surprised about how utterly incompetent the Russian military has been. I don't even know what Putin's goal is
His immediate goal is mass murder. His long term goal is to keep NATO weapon systems out of Ukraine by installing a puppet government or simply re-annexing the country. But that’s the limit of my insight.
Quite an ending
That made for a very enjoyable morning cup, well two cups, of New Orleans dark roast!
I had to pause & rewind at one point as I was unclear what you were talking about, when you stated that -
"The teams that rely on analytics don't do better than the teams who don't."
Which is to ask: MLB or theology guilds?
I was heartened by how you juxtaposed Jordan Daniel Wood's approach to those of Eriugena & Bulgakov vis a vis their rigor in drawing out the logical conclusions & practical consequences of various faith claims & teachings.
I was just yesterday juxtaposing your and Jordan's respective universalist logics & parsing how they seemed to unfold & cohere:
https://theologoumenon.substack.com/p/parsing-the-elements-of-a-universalist
It would be great if, at some point, perhaps when his book comes out, you could address what you see as the strengths & weaknesses of JDW's Neochalcedonian Synthesis. In my own grappling with his hypostatic logic, I first framed my own assessment of Jordan's account of hypostatic identity in terms of how far beyond Cyril it seemed to go, using other radical Neochalcedonian accounts as a foil, e.g. Luther & Jenson. I suspect you'd agree that they proved too much, for instance, pushing their perichoretic logic beyong the theo-contours of simplicity vis a vis passibility.
In my own appropriations of Jordan's approach, &, for that matter, Bulgakov, too, I also want to jealously guard against determinist impulses & preserve Classical Theism's DDS, but have felt like Jordan's arguments are more rigorous & coherent than, for example, Jenson's.
Specifically, I suspect that Jordan's account could be squared, on the personalist front, with the thin passibility of Norris Clarke, & , on the metaphysical, with Joe Bracken's Divine Matrix conception, which conscientiously defers to Classical Theism, albeit neo-Whiteheadian. Some have used Bracken, in fact, to give Bulgakov a tune-up.
At any rate, I'm hoping to come away with an assessment that Jordan has gifted us a - not radical, but - maximal Neo-Chalcedonian Synthesis, maximally Maximian.
Now, here's hoping we can Play Ball!
Rather a lot to load into a comment box, I fear. Wood is more rigorous than Jenson, yes, and so avoids some of the anthropomorphisms that (paradoxically perhaps) diminish Jenson's grasp of divine personhood. For instance, Wood doesn't feel he has to introduce some sort of Urentscheidung into the picture that would reduce the divine identity in Christ to a kind of divine project, and that would turn the idea of a diversity of possible worlds into the idea of a diversity of possible Gods.
My disagreement with Wood is not particularly violent; I simply don't agree regarding the relation of hypostasis and nature, as well as regarding the need for an analogical metaphysics of a very specific kind, all for reasons that can't really be treated of here. Whether he's right, and my disagreement is with the neo-Chalcedonian synthesis as such (until fixed by Bulgakov), or he's wrong and my disagreement is with his reading of that synthesis, is an exegetical matter. And I long ago concluded that exegetical arguments are almost always irresoluble.
I'll take that as a book blurb: "My disagreement with Wood is not particularly violent."
As it happens, that is the book blurb I offered for the volume. Along with a few other ringingly laudatory phrases: "not nearly as crazy as it seems at first," "printed with an excellent font," "April is the cruelest month," "sometimes engaging," etc.
You forgot, "only slightly improved with colorful pictures"
Rather: "could be only slightly improved..."
It has the added advantage that, excised from context, it could work equally well in a discussion about best deck-building materials.
Cedar.
Inarguably cedar, incidentally.
Indubitably, of Lebanon.
Thanks, David. That response was both generous and helpful.
I don't know how Jordan's exegesis of the Maximian corpus will finally be received. It has occurred to me that he could be wrong about Maximus descriptively, per historical & interpretive criteria, but may have nonetheless offered a Neo-Chalcedonian Synthesis, which goes beyond Cyril, the Damascene & Maximus, and that's normatively, doctrinally sound, hence heuristically novel & fruitful.
In that case, Jordan will then be able to take the credit for a certain genius that belongs to - not Maximus, but - himself!
And JDW will be known in ages hence as Pseudo-Maximus! I say that with tongue only partly in cheek.
re my Bracken - Bulgakov reference
By tune-up, I only meant to suggest that Bracken has, for me, provided some images & metaphors, e.g. matrix & field, that have been idiomatically felicitous in helping me to better understand what Bulgakov's saying about the God - World relationship, and in such a way that Sophia, conceptually, very well illuminates, for me, both metaphysical & personal divine aspects.
In no measure, then, would I suggest, e.g. like Gallaher, that Bulgakov needs an engine overhaul by Bracken. In my estimation, they're saying a lot of the same things, only in different idioms.
I think Wood demonstrates the correctness of the great bulk of his judgments pretty persuasively. There are places where it's possible to quibble, of course. I find a certain ambiguity in Maximus's talk of "human nature" that Wood breaks up into (I believe) four different senses in which Maximus uses the term. There I pause. For me, though, the issue is not whether his is an absolutely flawless reading of Maximus--there are no readings of any interesting thinker that cannot be argued with--but whether he has done justice to how radical Maximus's theological vision was in grounding creation in (and as) God's incarnation. There he has clearly surpassed all those more timid readers of Maximus who feel obliged to explain away his most challenging formulations as rhetorical excesses (as if Maximus was ever carelessly imprecise).
Listening now. Thank you very much! Such a journey, indeed! Fr Sergius Bulgakov has thoroughly invigorated delight into my heart! Especially Jacob’s Ladder/regrading angels/. Suggestion: regarding the 2nd edition of The New Testament; please increase font size. 🤓