- Jun 18, 2007
- 3,263
- 771
- 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
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