Relationship of Warrant and Claim in Maintaining Tradition?

Macarius

Progressive Orthodox Christian
Supporter
Jun 18, 2007
3,263
771
The Ivory Tower
✟52,122.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
General question - I'm interested in particular in hearing (not debating, though I may ask follow-up questions for clarity) from the more traditionalist posters here, though others are welcome to chime in.

To what degree do we, as Orthodox Christians, feel it necessary to adopt not just the conclusions of ancient theological or exegetical debates, but the warrants / reasons given for those conclusions?

Since I've been absentee a bit the last few months (really, really busy term plus another little-one on the way for my family), I'll give some background. I'm working a lot on early ascetic texts, and a great deal of their reasoning is deeply embedded in a synthesis of Platonic and Stoic philosophy (which was simply the way the broad culture of the time reasoned), as well as ancient understandings of medicine (Galen, mostly derived from Aristotle though indirectly since Aristotle's texts were not known directly at the time) - this is the four humors stuff that ends up dominating medieval medicine and operates within dichotomies of hot/cold, wet/dry and the importance of balance in both body and soul.

The question, though, has obvious implications for much broader issues than arguments in favor of asceticism. Everything from the articulation of the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, to our understanding of creation, our concept of human nature, and on down to the minutae of what we fast from is heavily embedded, for its development, in the thought-world of its day. Medicine and Political theory, in particular, have changed dramatically and do not (at least to me) seem inherent to Christianity - that is, they were received from the surrounding culture and adapted to the Gospel. In order to be truly patristic, are we then compelled towards that same thought world (even if just on some level)? Or are we permitted to reject that thought-world in some degree in order to apply the same principle of adapting our own received culture to the Gospel?

How, then, does that relate to our reception of traditional theologies dependent on those now-questioned thought worlds? If we do not wish to question or re-evaluate those doctrines - that is, if we are committed to Tradition - as I believe that we are, what then do we do with the disparity in the cultural-symbolic framework (medicine, politics, metaphysics, etc.) that gave rise to those doctrines-as-articulated?

Again - I'm not looking to debate. At most I'll ask clarification questions. I'm interested in hearing what others have to say about this.

In Christ,
Macarius
 

beardedone

Newbie
Sep 30, 2009
127
22
OH
✟27,803.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Macarius--you stated it about as well as I think it needs to be stated: all things must be adapted to the Gospel. I think what bothers some is that the Gospel is being adapted to fit within any system. For me, as a mild traditionalist, that is the largest problem. From my perspective, based on the research I've done, the majority of orthodox theologians of the early Church knew what they believed and borrowed from the surrounding culture(s) (thought-worlds as you put it) in order to communicate said beliefs. What is happening today is that instead of borrowing from the surrounding culture(s) theologians are instead changing the inherent meanings/beliefs in order to fit within the surrounding culture(s).

And my own, rather simplistic, view also asks: what of God's providence? Perhaps the incarnation happened when it did because the time/place was able to communicate the Gospel in the most effective way possible. Which means the doctrines are perfectly true, and it is up to us to make them understandable/communicable in every given circumstance.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I think, if I am reading you right, that we need to "be the bee." whatever is good about politics, philosophy, medicine, etc from the world that we can use, baptize, and present as the Gospel is encouraged. if you look at the Fathers of Chalcedon, they pretty much bend over backwards to find what is legit in Monophysitism and Eutychianism to bring them back to the Church.
 
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Ummmm. I'll give a couple of related thoughts. I can't really address your question with good understanding though.

One thing I consider is whether or not the doctrines, teachings, etc. are not still sound even if the thought that gave rise to them might have been disproven? Rather like beardedone says, how do we know it didn't happen at that time/place because the thoughts of the day were ideal for the development of the truths God wanted incorporated? But if that is the only consideration, it would seem we might not owe loyalty to the thinking behind the doctrine.

But that is just one possibility. Perhaps in some instances, the thinking behind it WAS important in ways we may not recognize. Changes in the basis of ideas can give rise to subtle shifts that might eventually destroy more than we realize.

BUT on the other hand ... I have wondered such things like fasting - olive oil in particular is prohibited because it was once kept in containers made from animals? Since today they come in glass/plastic bottles, is that even relevant? If olive oil is better for my health, is it good that I put it aside and use corn oil instead, because olive oil used to be carried in animal skins? I'm not generally nit-picky about spiritual disciplines and I wish to embrace the benefits they can offer, but this thought has crossed my mind.

On the other hand, some of the thoughts about meats have been disproven. But are the ideas really so wrong in the way they can play out in our lives? I tend to think eating beef, for example, can have certain effects. But is chicken really so different from lobster and crab, except for the fact that I can't afford the seafood, LOL.

And perhaps most important of what I have to say is this: We have quite a tendency to look at our technological advances and think we've got it all figured out. This is somewhat affected by the field we may be more familiar with. Physicists or neurologists may be less prone to this thinking than MDs or engineers. And the truth is, we have made great technological strides in recent decades, and the pace in general seems to be escalating. But ... is there not some risk that we are being presumptuous in some things, and thinking "we have arrived" when in reality, 200 years in the future, new developments will show our current errors and we will be considered primitive ignorants in some areas by our descendants? If that is the case ... how wise are we really to modify thinking of the Church, especially if we believe it handed down in some sense by God, that has stood for 2,000 years? How can we be sure we are not doing this?
 
Upvote 0

gzt

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years
Jul 14, 2004
10,592
1,863
Abolish ICE
Visit site
✟116,222.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
I would consider myself a "traditionalist" generally, but the people here wouldn't, and I wouldn't identify with other soi-disant "traditionalists". For instance, I think it is wrong and actually harmful to deny evolution. However, I've also had some exposure to Galen, Aristotle's Physics, and other classical texts (quite a fair bit of ancient astronomy), so my thoughts might be of some interest anyway. I'm extremely busy this week, so I'll get back to this later, but I'll probably talk about a couple quotes from St Augustine, discuss what John Cassian said about nocturnal emissions (he said quite a lot), and a couple other issues in the history of science. I could even mention the calendar, but I don't actually know or care that much about the ecclesiastical side of the debate because it's utterly frivolous.
 
Upvote 0