Subscribe by Email
« Praise for Fr. John Savvas Romanides, of blessed memory | Main | An apology to those I have wronged »
Nathaniel McCollum misrepresents my theology and then is offended when I defend it.
By James Kelley | September 16, 2008
Here is Nathaniel McCollum’s recent message:
“James, I’m not offended at theosis or squeamish of the doctrine of the Fathers. I have not even once said that I disagree with what you say, only that its presentation is “a bit overstated.” Part of my objection is largely your acerbic tone, which you have now turned upon me. Please forgive me if I have wronged you.”
Here’s what Nathaniel originally accused me of:
“I think you have perhaps overstated your case and are tending toward guruism and some strange form of progressive revelation. Please remember that even Christ rose again “according to the Scriptures” and that “this was delivered once for all the saints.” Please be careful in your polemic not to distort the Orthodox faith as did Justin Martyr in his apologetics.”
Notice that Nathaniel not only oppunes my theology, but also that of St. Justin Martyr! How dare you accuse a Saint of “distorting” the faith! You are the one who is distorting the faith, sir. Your comments are distressing not only to myself, but also others who blog here. I know because many are my personal friends, and we’ve discussed it.
When total strangers get on my site and accuse me of “strange” teachings when I am merely restating the bedrock dogmas of the Orthodox Faith, I do not beat around the bush, but rather cut to the chase and point out the offending party’s error. People who do not know anything about the Faith are reading this site, and I refuse to let the theological waters be muddied. You would do well to recant your accusation that I “distort” anything about Orthodoxy. Nobody around here needs your “correctives” or your advice about theology.
Other than the above, I have no problem with you personally, Nathaniel. I apologize if you find my tone ascerbic, but I do not take back a single word I’ve written.
May God have mercy on us all,
James
Topics: Blog etiquette, General, Heresy, Intellectual honesty, Patristics, Prayer, Theology, Theosis, Truth |
September 16th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
How does “I’m not offended” turn into “offended”?
How does “be careful not to distort the faith” turn into “you are distorting the faith”?
How does “I have not even once said I disagree” turn into “oppunes my theology” and me attacking the “bedrock dogmas of the Orthodox Faith”?
Justin’s subordinationism is well accepted in the field of patristic scholarship. For an Orthodox endorsement of that fact, please see Dr. John Behr’s “The Way to Nicea.” There is no saint without error. Would you defend Saint Isaac of Syria’s Nestorianism? Constantine’s semi-Arianism? Cyril’s use of “two natures becoming one nature”?
But of course, I am of even greater error than all. Forgive me.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Nathaniel,
May I ask? To what purpose (and to what ‘end’) does this ‘information’, to which you post, benefit your own personal path to salvation ? I wonder what your Father-Confessor says of ?
In ‘place of’ John Behr, please read — Patristic Theology: The University Lectures by Fr. John Romanides +
Please read: The Danger of Delusion by Saint Ignatios (Brianchaninov) http://diakrisislogismon.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/the-danger-of-delusion/
In Christ,
Diakrisis Logismon
_
September 16th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
The Orthodox Church teaches that no saint is infallible. This is a far cry from ‘There is no saint without error.’ Dana Miller, in the epilogue to his translation of St Isaac’s homilies, has made it abundantly clear that to call St Isaac a ‘Nestorian’ is anachronistic and misleading. St Constantine the Great, the Equal to the Apostles, was not a theologian or teacher of the Church, so his example is rather impertinent, but nevertheless, he never to my knowledge confessed any heresy. St Cyril’s expressions, as Fr Georges Florovsky has pointed out, are not errors, but an example of ‘imprecise language’. Similarly, St Justin, who was martyred for his faith in Christ, writing in dialogue with pagans and before theological terms have been precisely defined, does not perhaps conform entirely to post-Nicene theological language. But to claim that he is in error is ridiculous. Generally speaking, ‘patristic scholarship’ rarely has much to do with the faith and piety of the Orthodox Church. If it leads you to call the Fathers heretics, you should not be reading it.
Furthermore, as St Photios the Great writes, ‘I do not admit that what you assert was so plainly taught by them, but if they happened to express some such thing, if they happened to fall into something unbecoming, then I would imitate the good sons of Noah and hide my father’s shame, by using silence and gratitude as a cloak. I would not follow Ham’s example, as do you. Rather, you are crueler and more impudent than he, for you publish abroad the shame of those you call your fathers. Now, he fell under the curse, not because he uncovered his father, but because he did not cover him. You, however, both uncover your fathers and vaunt your audacity. He tells the secret to his brothers; you tell yours not to brothers or to one or two persons, but turning the whole world into a great theatre, you trumpet with all urgency and shamelessness that your fathers are ignominious. You revel in their shame and delight in their dishonour, and you seek out fellow revelers with whom to make more conspicuous festival of their disgrace and shame. But you did not consider that they were human, and that no one constituted from clay and mutable matter can maintain himself forever superior to a human blunder. Indeed, it happens that a trace of some blemish clings even to the best of men.’ (Mystagogy, 70)
September 16th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
By the way, Nathaniel, after posting it occurred to me that I should probably have edited the above quote from St Photios. I don’t actually believe you yourself ‘revel in their shame and delight in their dishonour’!
I do however think that his point that we shouldn’t be casually discussing the ‘errors’ of the Fathers applies to the present situation.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Nathaniel,
Though I agree with many things that Fr. John Behr has written, his overrated book, The Way To Nicea vol. 1, is full of the biases of Oxford-syle historiography. Where do you think Fr. John Behr got the idea that St. Justin was a subordinationist? Not from the Orthodox, but from a bunch of dusty old antiquarians-of-Angleland known as “Oxford theologians” (though not all taught at Oxford, but all are from the U.K.). These same Oxford scholars popularized so-called “NeoChalcedonianism” when they read about it from those lovers of Hegel and Kant at the Tubingen School early last century. Fr. John Romanides and others have discredited “NeoChalcedonianism” and the same will happen in due time to the false accusations about St. Justin. I might add that Charles Raven, one of the Oxford types, wrote a book called Apollinarianism which called St. Athanasius a heretic (and also St. Cyril of Alexandria). Dr. George Dion. Dragas has shown Raven to be unworthy of the appellation “scholar” and has traced the roots of the anti-Athanasian bias in Oxford theology to… you guessed it: Tubingen neo-Hegelianism and neo-Kantianism.
Hopefully Fr. John Behr, whose intellectual achievement is greater than I will ever know, will begin to show more of a “neo-patristic synthesis” in his work, and look to the Fathers and to theologians like Fr. Georges Florovsky for inspiration.
I have answered your other questions under the blog entitled “Fr. Michael Azkoul comments on man’s free will.”
In Christ,
James
September 17th, 2008 at 8:50 am
It seems to me that there is far too much ego floating around in some theological ‘circles’ and that occassionally, one of James’ posts, which to my limited knowledge has always been simple paraphrasings of patristic teachings, steps on the toes of Christian Dualists. This of course sets off some shrill objections that are devoid of real theological content, and are more akin to partisan attacks against the patristic teachings of Orthodox Christianity.
In my opinion, those who launch these Dualistic counter-attacks should stick to their guns. Don’t fire off a contradictory theological volley, then, once exposed, retreat behind an “objection” to “acerbic tone[s]“. This reeks of the cowardice of liberalism. Did James bold acclamation of Orthodox Patristics wound your inner-child? Well, maybe it’s high time your Westernized inner-child grow up a little. Truth is not always pretty, and doesn’t always taste like candy going down.
Maybe we could all enter these discussions with a little less ego and a little more Christian humility, and try to take a more dispassionate approach to this discourse. That certainly couldn’t hurt anyone. Intellectual honesty demands it, but more importantly, Christian Spirituality requires it. However, compromising fundamental Truths for the sake of making everyone on the internet feel warm and fuzzy when they visit this site is not high on the priority list. For daily affirmations, search elsewhere. In the words of Fr. John:
“We must slam down the brakes on these happiness mongering fools that are destroying society and culture.” - Fr. John S. Romanides.
Personally, as one who is new to Orthodox Spirituality, I would rather see more expositions on Orthodoxy rather than perpetual defense against Western heresies…and as I type this, I am realizing that perhaps there is no way to remove one from the other in these times of Spiritual crisis.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:56 am
JD, I second nearly everything you said in your post, but I think you should allow for the possibility that James’s tone does not so much wound inner-children as it raises the passions of fallen persons. I don’t think anyone posting on here is a dispassionate man. We are all easily aroused and particularly when we personally are being criticised. James’s response to me demonstrates that he is as much a prey to this as Nathaniel.
I also wonder in what way you think Nathaniel ‘dualist’. Elabourate a bit. Not saying that you’re wrong, but it’s not a characterisation that occurred to me.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:31 am
JD, What source is this Fr. John quote from? [“We must slam down the brakes on these happiness mongering fools that are destroying society and culture.” - Fr. John S. Romanides.]
Thank you …
Now, lest we forget … that when someone comes out into the ‘open’ to voice their singular [non-conciliatory] view based upon speculation, love must be the basis for admonishing, rebuking, etc … lest we be the ‘occasion’ for one cloistering themselves away from the true universality of the Faith, and their Orthodox brethren in Christ.
Let us follow the Path of the Holy Ones, and, find love of truth, as our foundation.
Forgive me a sinner.
diakrisis logismon
_
cf. http://diakrisislogismon.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/on-delusion/
_
September 17th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I’m someone who has both read ‘Way to Nicea’ and is taking Fr. Behr’s Patristics course at St. Vlad’s, so for what it’s worth…
For the record, I’m not entirely sure that Fr. Behr would call St. Justin a subordinationist. He points out certain subordinationist tendencies within Justin’s writings, but recognizes that Justin is in dialogue with pagan philosophy and that he’s trying to answer questions within a middle-platonic context. I think that St. Justin’s philosophical presuppositions create a blind spot for him, ones that we who have later clarity are able to see.
Humbly yours,
PseudoThomas
September 17th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
For the record, I’ve not been dispassionate in any way in this discussion. I have never been offended or hurt or angry. I have attempted to have an intelligent discussion of various topics. I have largely (and vocally) agreed with what many people have said. The response has been the twisting of my words to mean the exact opposite of what I have said and ad hominum attacks. I have been called a heretic (”You would do well to recant”). I have been (implicitly) asked not to comment on this blog anymore (”you may not want to post messages here” and “Nobody around here needs your ‘correctives’ or your advice about theology.”). At this point I must honor the wishes of the owner of this forum and discontinue my posting. Forgive me for my offences and errors.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Above “I’ve not been dispassionate” should read “I’ve not been empassioned.” I should probably proof-read more often.
September 21st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Aaron, thank you for asking what I mean by using the term Dualism. I suppose it’s become over-used and can be misinterpreted in many ways.
Essentially, what I meant is that there is a dual reality, the physical world as opposed and distinct from the metaphysical/spiritual world. I believe this is a false dichotomy. There is simply reality, which maintains a cyclical relationship between what is generally regarded as spiritual versus what is material. Instead, it is my understanding of Orthodoxy that mind, matter and spirit are all one.
God did not create us in phases or place a cap on our Spiritual capacity because we are of flesh and bone. God created our physical form in the same breath as our spiritual form. Man was simply created. Our flesh wasn’t separated from our Spirit at the fall, but rather our “Heart” was separated from our finite worldly intellect. Therefore, through asceticism, mind, body and Spirit dissolve the seeming divide between these aspects of mankind.
Flesh or matter cannot be antithetical to Spirituality. After all, flesh and matter was also created by God. However, the Dualism of Western non-Orthodox Christianity seems to hold that the physical man adn his physical world are, by their very nature, at odds with God. These implies that the only way we can return to a spirit world is through paganesque appeals to a Santa-like or Zeus-like God. Essentially, the Dualism of the West is Paganism that employs Christian terminology. At least that is my understanding.
September 21st, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Essentially, my usage of the term Dualism is synonymous with Nestorianism, as highlighted in passages of James’ work on The Nestorian Metaheresy.
September 22nd, 2008 at 8:16 am
JD> I think you’re quite right to say that ‘Flesh or matter cannot be antithetical to Spirituality’, and that any theology that does make them into antitheses is dualist. On the other hand, to say that the physical world is ‘distinct from the metaphysical/spiritual world’ seems Orthodox to me as long as we merely distinguish them without dichotomising them. The distinction is not the truly important one, which is the distinction between created and uncreated, but I think it’s useful and assumed by the Fathers even when not stated explicitly. Have you read St Maximos the Confessor’s ‘Mystagogy’? It contains a great description of the way the material and spiritual worlds permeate one another. He assumes the distinction without opposing the two.
September 24th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Aaron, thanks for pointing out the distinction between uncreated and created. I apologize for not being clear. I think that is a very astute observation you’ve made about making the distinction without dishotomising. In all honesty, I’ve only read a limited amount of the Church fathers writings, but I intend to read more and Mystagogy is certainly on the list.
Ortho-logic, if you take my meaning, is what caused me to conclude that there is no dichotomy between God’s creations and ‘the spirit realm’. It seemed simple to me: God is Spiritual; therefore, if we are Created in his image our nature is Spiritual too. If prayer can truly affect our physical being, than our physical being must be an aspect of our Spiritual existence. Heaven, Hell, Earth, Man, etc. are all “spiritual”. However, in my understanding, the divisions between these things are all dependent on our Free Will, and our conscious choice to become permeated with the Holy Spirit so that we can fully appreciate the Spiritual nature of life and death. In my understanding, these things (life and death, Spirit and body), Heaven and Earth) are not antagonistic, but rather they are either restored to their natural condition as they were Created and on their trajectory toward a harmonious existence with the unCreated, or they are divested of His Spirit/own their nature through the being’s choice.
I look at it like this, all things Created are a vessel. Everything from iron to human beings. Everything Created is Spiritually defined by the motivator behind it. No inanimate object is good or evil, it is how what we make it. In the same way, mankind is not good or evil by nature, but we are what we allow ourselves to become. Likewise, nothing we do is objectively good or objectively evil. Only God is objectively good. Therefore, even good deeds, if they are motivated by conceit and the desire for self-glorification, are evil. However, if the exact same act is motivated by God, then it is good. I hope I am making sense.
Again, as I’ve said before, I am no theologian and haven’t even begun to crack the books on these subjects. Please accept my thoughts here as subjects for discussion rather than my own personal ruling on the matter.
…And thanks for replying to my post, Aaron.
October 25th, 2008 at 11:52 am
…um…if I recall correctly, St. Cyril of Alexandria in his formula of union with John of Antioch corrected the “mia physis tou Logou tou Theou sesarkomene” formula to read “mia hypostasis” and this clarified what he meant in a perfectly Orthodox way.