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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
How do you evaluate Fr. Bernard Lonergan's treatment of tradition?
thank you DBH again...
off topic question...What do you think the fallout/aftermath is going to be in the War in Ukraine?
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!
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. 🤓