Book: Modern Orthodox Theology: Behold I Make All Things New (T&T Clark, 2019) - Overview. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Review Essay: “Three Contemporary Orthodox Visions of the Church.” Reviews of: Hilarion Alfeyev, Orthodox Christianity. Vol. I: The History and Canonical Structure of the Orthodox Church (Yonkers NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011). 350 p. and Vol. II: Doctrine and Teaching of the Orthodox Church (Yonkers NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011). Part Five: “The Church” (387-488); Boris Bobrinskoy, The Mystery of the Church [Le Mystère de l’Église, Paris, 2003] (Yonkers NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2012). 292 p. Jean-Claude Larchet, L’Église, Corps du Christ Vol. I. Nature et structure. Vol. II. Les relations entre les Églises (Paris: Le Cerf, 2012). Vol. I, 255 p.; Vol. II, 231 p. St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 58, 2 (2014), 217-234.
"COME AND SEE": ORTHODOX THEOLOGY'S APPEAL TO POSTMODERNISM
Studia Theologica Doctoralia, 2021
Orthodoxy is the personal self-disclosure of Divine Beauty. The challenge for the Orthodox Church today is to appeal to postmodern thinkers. The author proposes to focus on the Beauty revealed in the glory of Orthodoxy. On the one hand. both Orthodox theology and postmodernism often stand their ground differently. On the other hand, presenting few premises of interest for both postmodernism and theology is an essential endeavor for initiating an appeal to postmodernism. The premises proposed by this research deal with truth, metanarratives, hermeneutics, Apophaticism, mystery and spirituality. The point of this dialogue is not to be defensive or apologetic, but to stir the latent richness of Christian theology as an ontology of love and invite others to "taste and see" the beauty of the Orthodox faith.
Every scribe instructed for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old (Mt 13:52) Neopatristic theology, or in the catchy expression of Father Georges Florovsky, the "neopatristic synthesis, " 2 so dominated the Orthodox theological scene in the second half of the twentieth century that to many it became virtually synonymous with modern Orthodox theology. In recent years, however, criticism of neopatristic theology has been mounting and Orthodox theology has embarked on a period of introspection, a rethinking of the approach to Orthodox theology which predominated for the last half century. 3 1 I am grateful to Brandon Gallaher for his insightful comments on an earlier draft of this article. 2 Georges Florovsky's fi rst major public use of the term "neopatristic synthesis" was in an address at the formal opening of St Vladimir's Orthodox Th eological Seminary and Academy on November 4, 1948. Cf. "Th e Legacy and the Task of Orthodox Th eology, " Anglican Th eological Review 31/2 (1949): 70. 3 Nicholas Berdiaev fi red the fi rst shot at Florovsky's theological project with his multi-pronged scathing review of Th e Ways of Russian Th eology (Nicholas Berdiaev, "Ortodoksia i chelovechnost" [Orthodoxy and Humanness], [Review of Georges Florovsky, Puti russkogo bogosloviia [Th e Ways of Russian Th eology] [Paris: YMCA -Press, 1937; reprinted 1983], Put' 53 [Paris, 1937]). Disregarding Berdiaev's oft en emotional language, many of his points remain valid criticisms of neopatristic theology. For contemporary critiques of neopatristic theology in general and of Georges Florovsky's project in particular, see Paul Valliere, "Th e Limits of Tradition, " conclusion to his Modern Russian Th eology: Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov: Orthodox