HOW IS THEOLOGY BEING TAUGHT THESE DAYS?

© 2003 by Orchid Land Publications  

[20031005]

    Recent correspondence from an Orthodox seminarian (at a reputable Orthodoxy seminary) amazed me.  I was informed that he barely knew what a certain common philosophical term meant--one without which one could not distinguish Eastern and Western Grace, soteriology, etc.--not even the Eastern and Western theological uses of the word translated "corruption" ("decay" vs. "moral failure").  It was strongly hinted that, on an internet forum, I should refrain from using unfamiliar terminology with him "and those on his website" (a technically very good one).   Several questions come to mind, aside from the question of why adults (not to speak of graduate students) cannot look up an ordinary term in a dictionary--either an ordinary dictionary or a philosophical dictionary.  I was taught to use a dictionary in junior highschool or earlier.

1. Theology without technical terminology?   Every craft and every discipline has special terms to indicate objects or ideas (e.g. ways of doing or thinking about something).  Further, theology cannot avoid using some of the terminology familiar in philosophy--which doesn't mean that one is depending on philosophy when doing theology!  Orthodoxy would not exist without St. Athanasios's homoousion, a purely theological (i.e. non-philosophical term).  Terms such as ontology/ontologicical and juridical are as basic as the cognition and volition that they correspond to.  Terms like Filioque "and the Son" began as ordinary words and then developed into large distinctions on how to think about the Trinity--whether Its Oneness lies with the Person of the Father (as in Orthodoxy) or with the single Essence (as in the West ).   How one is supposed to discuss any subject among its practicioners without using its terminology would be as great a mystery as the mysteries of the Faith, if it were not a pseudo-mystery.

2. The foregoing brings up the question of academic discipline; has it gone the way of all flesh?  We know that certain sects take pride in turning off their brains when dealing with religion.  When did this sort of philistinism enter the domain of Orthodox theology?  Can one imagine this attitude with the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Maximos, St. John of Damaskós, or St. Gregory Palamâs?  Why is this philistinism proper in theology when any branch of physical science or philosophy would consider the idea infantile?  One may object at the vacuity of liberal theology, but it at least does no eschew an academic level of endeavor.

3. The problem of the Latin captivity of Orthodox theology.  Until a Greek translation of Augustine’s On the Trinity was made in late thirteenth century and subsequently of works by Anselm and Aquinas, the Orthodox knew nothing of Augustine or of the formative influence on Western Scholastics of “the Muslim Aristotle,” as it was called.   Latin views of God and the uncreated Light were rejected by the Orthodox Ninth Ecumenical Synod (chiefly at its session of 1341).  Later, following the Turkish conquest of Constantinople and the Balkans, when the printing of religious books in the Balkans was forbidden by the authorities, the Greeks sent books to Venice to be printed.  There the ecclesiastical authorities eliminated the Eighth and Ninth Orthodox Ecumenical Synods, along with St. Photios the Great and St. Gregory Palamâs the Theologian (one of only three Saints having that epithet).  This resulted in “the Latin captivity of Orthodox thinking.”  The Pedálion (“Rudder”), a collection of the universal canons edited by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain still contains, both in Greek and in the English translation, what the Latins (abetted by a Greek priest) interpolated into that volume.  The changes brought tears to the eyes of St. Nikodimos.   Decades before Tsar Peter the Great invited the Jesuits to take charge of Russia’s education, Metropolitan Peter Mogila of Kiyev produced a Confession of Faith whose Latin categories and teachings contravened the consensus of the Eastern Fathers.  Many mistakenly regard as Orthodox various writings that appeared during the Latin captivity, whose reach is still evident in some Orthodox quarters, as well as of course among Byzantine Catholics under the Papacy.

4. Aside from misquoting another, there are 50 mis-arguments in discussions (CLICK HERE) that the editor has met with on the internet and correspondence.  The most egregious error is--instead of arguing  that IF X is assumed, THEN Y must be true--to define something as X and then show that Y must be true, since it follows from one's truth-invulnerable definition or premise. You have got to be very naïve to fall into that circularity, but it is routine on web postings I have examined.   Anyone completing college should know what a paradigm (a set of basic axioms about reality and a given discipline) and a paradigm-shift are.  The concept and consequences of paradigms are common to all disiciplines I know of.  Paradigm-shift virtually has the status of an idiom in English.  See also R285.

A QUASI-MODEST PROPOSAL

     In England, one does not have to attend the equivalent of a seminary or divinity school to study theology.  It is possible to study theology like any other subject.  One can study theology with no intention of becoming a member of the clergy, especially if it is one's minor field rather than one's field of concentration.  One can take a subject like history or physics--but more commonly Classics--and also study theology; or theology can be one's AB subject while one also studies Classics.  It's too bad that a similar option doesn't exist in the better non-Church-related universities of the USA.  The main problem (not a problem in England with its state Church and adjunct courses offered at, say, a neighboring Methodist institute, whose students can in turn attend University lectures) is which theology to offer.  Programs in Orthodox Patristics, Latin theology, and Protestant theology as well as Jewish theology could be offered but would require at least four faculty members in addition to a historian of doctrinal development.  All could be borrowed from (have joint appointments) with any divinity school that happened to be part of the university (as at Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Vanderbilt, etc.) or borrowed part-time from some neighboring institute (as at the University of California at Berkeley).  Bible studies might somehow be taught in common.  The study of the Biblical languages (and for Protestants, German) could be offered in the relevant departments.  Such an academic approach would of course not undertake to offer or give credit for courses in pastoral theology, canon law, etc.; but the history of liturgy might be included in a theology program.  Non-credit courses could be offered at adjunct denominational houses.   The main problem, especially in Biblical studies, would be maintaining a balance, given the prevalence of liberal theology and far-out hermeneutics in Western Christianity so unacceptable to many who would be interested in studying theology without intending to become theologians.   And then what about ecumenics?  No student should be required to study ecumenics unless it was offered with a bias-free metalanguage framework (see HERE), especially a framework not biased toward relativism or syncretism, or some other non-academic view of truth.   
     Why would a university that has a divinity school wish to embark on the course outlined above?  Precisely because there are many who would like a minor or even a major in something more precise than "religion" (or "comparative religions") or "spirituality."  Since the approach would have to be academic (objective rather than doctrinaire) in order to meet the standards of a proper university education, this might not please many devout adherents to the religions in question unless such studies were (optionally) balanced with participation in (non-credit) latreutic activities (e.g. for the Orthodox:  the hours, akathists, and of course the divine Liturgy), as well as readings, discussions, lectures, and charitable endeavors at a neighboring religious establishment not part of the university.