Father John Behr

[wayseer]

Just wondering if anyone has read any of his books. I am reading him at the moment and find him a breath of fresh air.

 

[Dorothea]

Hmm, no I don't think I have. I've read Fr. John Braun's book though, years ago, and that was really good.

 

[Macarius]

I have read Mystery of Christ and his The Way to Nicaea; I also just got done with a seminar course led by him on Mystery of Christ (he's dean here at St. Vlad's).

He's a worldclass patristics scholar and a devout man of prayer - a lethal combo!

I really enjoyed his texts; he's recently published one on Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus (through Oxford Press) that they have here in the library and which I intend to read. Rumor is he's publishing a more expanded version of the systematic theology he began in Mystery of Christ sometime in the next year.

 

[Damaris]

He's as deep as he is tall. And he is tall.

 

[wayseer]

I have read Mystery of Christ and his The Way to Nicaea; I also just got done with a seminar course led by him on Mystery of Christ (he's dean here at St. Vlad's).

He's a worldclass patristics scholar and a devout man of prayer - a lethal combo!

I really enjoyed his texts; he's recently published one on Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus (through Oxford Press) that they have here in the library and which I intend to read. Rumor is he's publishing a more expanded version of the systematic theology he began in Mystery of Christ sometime in the next year.

Thank you for your input. I have only recently come to read him and find his views almost reassuring. One of the biggest problems I have with Western theology is that it seems almost totally divorced from tradition.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I have the Way to Nicaea and I was in his small group at the OCF College Conference back in 2006. a very deep and insightful guy who I could prolly listen to for hours.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Sounds like I need to read this fellow.

 

[jckstraw72]

i didnt get the chance to finish the Way to Nicea, but the part i did read struck me as Sola Scriptura-ish. dont ask me for details - i dont remember. but i know that was my reaction.

 

[Macarius]

i didnt get the chance to finish the Way to Nicea, but the part i did read struck me as Sola Scriptura-ish. dont ask me for details - i dont remember. but i know that was my reaction.

It can come across that way because, to be blunt, the early church was very, very scriptural (just in very specific ways); he's big on wanting to put aside the reformation dichotomy between scripture and tradition (though he wouldn't phrase it that way) and to try and see things through the eyes of the fathers (as much as possible) - not to parrot what they said, but to "think as they thought."

Mystery of Christ does a better / more direct job of describing his views on scripture. The first two chapters are probably the best non-polemic response to sola scriptura that I've read. I don't agree with everything he says, but it is hard to argue with his knowledge of the fathers. He genuinely understands the tradition from which he speaks.

 

[Kristos]

Me like

 

[wayseer]

It can come across that way because, to be blunt, the early church was very, very scriptural (just in very specific ways); he's big on wanting to put aside the reformation dichotomy between scripture and tradition (though he wouldn't phrase it that way) and to try and see things through the eyes of the fathers (as much as possible) - not to parrot what they said, but to "think as they thought."

Mystery of Christ does a better / more direct job of describing his views on scripture. The first two chapters are probably the best non-polemic response to sola scriptura that I've read. I don't agree with everything he says, but it is hard to argue with his knowledge of the fathers. He genuinely understands the tradition from which he speaks.

While I have to read all his work I would tend to agree with your assessment.

For me, I read Behr as challenging the Western idea that scripture is determined from a legalistic manner. This legalism has reach the point where one is supposed to only read the scriptures as a legal document. In order to break out of this one way trip into fundamentalism, Western theology has become 'critical', where being 'critical' amounts to anything goes. Both these options seem to me to be destructive.

Behr, a Westerner, neatly brings us back to basics - that canon means something more than a legal document where, as you rightly observe, there is no dichotomy between scripture and tradition. If we rightly understand tradition we will understand that scripture is tradition. But if we abuse scripture by pointing it to work for that which it was never intended, then we do fall into the trap of creating an apparent dichotomy.

 

[Megaloskhemos]

I found this a little while ago:

Fr. John Behr - Part 1 - YouTube

It's part 1 of a 7 part series; the remaining parts are easily found on YouTube.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Does Father Behr want to reconsider traditional Orthodox teaching on sexual morality? I have read suggestions of that at the AOI Observer. If so, I have no interest in reading him. If not, forgive my error.

 

[jckstraw72]

what does it say about him?

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

I cannot post the link, but it says the following:

"After doing this research, some things have become clear. There is a movement within the Orthodox Church in America to mainstream homosexuality. There are priests, bishops, and academics that are sympathetic to this movement. Some are providing quiet assistance. Some, such as Father Robert Arida, are publicly promoting a change in Orthodox teaching concerning same-sex marriage.
Quite a few of the members of this same-sex lobby within the OCA have ties to St. Vladimir’s Seminary, two of whose current faculty members (Al Rossi PhD and Fr John Behr) are members of the pro-homosexual rights Facebook Group run by Inga Leonova. Many of the people who are publicly working to change Orthodox Tradition concerning homosexuality have collaborated in the past with Mark Stokoe, who is the online voice of the anti-Metropolitan Jonah wing of the OCA."

 

[Macarius]

Does Father Behr want to reconsider traditional Orthodox teaching on sexual morality? I have read suggestions of that at the AOI Observer. If so, I have no interest in reading him. If not, forgive my error.

I've not heard anything akin to that from him directly. I'd be cautious, though, about such a litmus test; a man can be wrong on something and still have many valuable things to say. I do not think he holds such views, but even if he did, his ability to describe and synthesize early Christians patristic theology would be no less valid or useful.

At the least I can say that no hint of liberal sexual ethics appears in any of his writings that I've read. If it truly concerns you, I can vouch that his main books are "safe" from that perspective, and entirely within Orthodoxy.

 

[Macarius]

I cannot post the link, but it says the following:

"After doing this research, some things have become clear. There is a movement within the Orthodox Church in America to mainstream homosexuality. There are priests, bishops, and academics that are sympathetic to this movement. Some are providing quiet assistance. Some, such as Father Robert Arida, are publicly promoting a change in Orthodox teaching concerning same-sex marriage.
Quite a few of the members of this same-sex lobby within the OCA have ties to St. Vladimir’s Seminary, two of whose current faculty members (Al Rossi PhD and Fr John Behr) are members of the pro-homosexual rights Facebook Group run by Inga Leonova. Many of the people who are publicly working to change Orthodox Tradition concerning homosexuality have collaborated in the past with Mark Stokoe, who is the online voice of the anti-Metropolitan Jonah wing of the OCA."

Read that very, very carefully. It is making statements intended to slight people by proxy / association - it is not making substantiated claims.

If the issue is homosexual rights (e.g. civil union) that is a different issue from homosexual communion in the church (e.g. church recognition of such unions as "marriage"). One CAN conflate those two issues, but they need not be so conflated - one can easily see them as two separate issues.

My point here is not to rehash that debate (e.g. are they separate issues), but to say that one can be in favor of equal treatment for all people under the law (including homosexuals), while still maintaining Orthodox ethics.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Read the whole article on AOI Observer. It seems alarming to me.

Why would any Orthodox, and particularly the Dean of SVS, want to participate in a schismatic homosexual rights Facebook group, even as a neutral observer?

I don't want to cause polemics; rather, I just want to focus my reading time on truly Orthodox authors and this one seems interesting. However, if he is saying we should read Scripture with an understanding of the Fathers but then rejects the consensus of the Fathers' teachings on sexual morality, that would seem inconsistent.

 

[Macarius]

Read the whole article on AOI Observer.

No. I do not need to hear people I know and interact with regularly slandered through propaganda techniques. For the same reason I do not read Stokoe, I will not read this.

It seems alarming to me.

It is designed to. Based solely on the paragraph you quoted, it is designed to use half-truths and associations with vague conspiratorial overtones to slander the good name of authentically Orthodox people.

Why would any Orthodox, and particularly the Dean of SVS, want to participate in a schismatic homosexual rights Facebook group, even as a neutral observer?

You'd have to ask him. If it ever comes up in an appropriate (e.g. non confrontational setting), I'll pose the question and, if appropriate (e.g. if its ok with him), I'll summarize his reply here.

My general sense, though, is that there are quite a few Orthodox who are ok with civil rights / liberties for those who self-identify as homosexual and / or experience same-sex attraction. I know Fr. Hopko was / is in that group (as he says as much in his book on the subject), and he was also a Dean of St. Vladimir's and a teacher of dogmatics, no less. There is nothing unOrthodox about wanting to treat our neighbors with love and respect, EVEN IF they do things we consider immoral.

If he harbors private opinions beyond that, I've never seen it in his writings nor heard him say it aloud in any setting in which I've interacted with him.

I don't want to cause polemics;

Then why bring this up? Why post a hyper-conservative blog's smear tactic?

rather, I just want to focus my reading time on truly Orthodox authors

Be careful about adding adjectives in front of "Orthodox." Generally, the more we add in front of it, the further we get FROM it. Orthodoxy is GENEROUS, not limited; the hyper-orthodox, fundamentalist impetus causes schism, not unity, and leads to error, not truth. There is room in the Church for multiple perspectives and views within the boundaries of the faith.

Instead of reading smear tactics stemming from a political ideology designed to discredit someone without substantiation, try reading the words of the man himself. You'll find them far, far more edifying.

However, if he is saying we should read Scripture with an understanding of the Fathers but then rejects the consensus of the Fathers' teachings on sexual morality, that would seem inconsistent.

Show me where he says that. You can't. Why? He doesn't. Why do you think he does?

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Thanks for you insights and do ask him if you can. I mean no calumny nor offense.

This struck me, especially since it seems to parrot what "emergent" pastor Brian Mclaren has written:

"Orthodoxy is GENEROUS, not limited; the hyper-orthodox, fundamentalist impetus causes schism, not unity, and leads to error, not truth. There is room in the Church for multiple perspectives and views within the boundaries of the faith".

I too can see a place for civil unions; that is a political question rather than a theological question. Yet the schismatic group described seem open to ministering to same sex couples as if they were in holy matrimony. Is it "generous" not to call sinners to repentence?

Again forgive me if I have misrepresented in any way the view of Father Behr or appear to inculpate him by association.