gabriel4580

Palamas' Homilies: Back in Print Soon

2009-08-30T17:51:00.000-07:00

After dwelling in "St. Tikhon's Limbo" for years, Christopher Veniamin's Mount Thabor Publishing will be reprinting the entire Homilies of St. Gregory Palamas in one massive 800-page edition. Amazon has the release date set for November. There is a pre-order discount of 26%. Normally I wouldn't advocate purchasing through a "middleman," but the Mt. Thabor website currently has nothing up about it.

August 15-16 O.S. - The Limits of Historiography

2009-08-29T11:52:00.000-07:00

History and Orthodox Life

2009-08-29T11:47:00.000-07:00

An excellent online essay has been produced: “American Orthodox Historiography: The Methodological Problem.” I suspect it is the first and only of its kind. It’s a surprising piece in some respects. Maybe its most surprising feature is its length. For a “range” of history so relatively small, there is quite a bit of space given to outlining how daunting the task is. That is, a considerable selection of “data” (though, to be clear, none of these things were likely produced to be “data” for a historiographer) is suggested as useful. It goes far beyond what one might traditionally have thought to be “primary sources,” e.g., “charters, wills, mortgage agreements, or some other kind of legal instrument intended to either document a contemporary legal reality or to generate a new one” or “the products of record-keeping by bureaucracies such as state ministries, charitable organizations, foundations, churches, and schools.” These pools of “data” could have some limited use for all sorts of studies. For example, an article-length discussion of the placement of, say, Eastern European Slavic Orthodox immigrants’ illegitimate children in state care or the bequeathing trends of moderately successful sub-middle class industrial workers to their local religious institutions between the years 1880-1900. All of these ideas and more could probably be worked into papers and, for better or worse, published in some journal. People have received tenure for lesser things which expand our understanding of certain trends and phenomena. I think the author of this essay is trying to do more.

In the introductory pages to his outstanding study of terrorism, Blood & Rage, Michael Burleigh writes that his “book focuses on [the] life histories and actions [of terrorists] rather than the theories which validate them, roughly in accord with St. Matthew’s precept ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’” It’s a very “unscientific” approach from the standpoint of modern historiography, not the least because Burleigh is willing to engage in what social scientists call “value judgments.” This is more than just the fact that Burleigh morally condemns the subjects of his study and their actions. It’s that he has selected certain ones on the basis of a prudent evaluation of their lives and actions without recourse to “method.” He has not confined his analysis to “methodologically appropriate” evidence or even selection criteria. The reader, of course, is free to disregard his efforts wholesale. I imagine some already have. Reading it attentively, however, will likely leave most thinking Burleigh has not only done his job as a historian well, but has done it with such care and penetration that they are better off in their understanding of human beings generally and modernity specifically than they were before. It’s not that they know the particularities of this-or-that terrorist in excruciating detail; it’s that they now know something about terrorism. Making evaluative judgments about what comes in, what goes on, and what the actual intent of a given work being produced is should be paramount. Is it? Recall Leo Strauss’s assault in Natural Right and History on the “value free” social science of Max Weber and his admonition that regardless of what one is studying, a scientist must distinguish between “genuine” and “mere” manifestations. As Strauss says, “Would one not laugh out of court a man who claimed to have written a sociology of art but who had actually written a sociology of trash?”

It seems, then, as a first matter that whoever wants to study the history of Orthodoxy in America and, from there, compose some analysis of some, if not all, of it, the “genuine” and the “mere” or the “spurious” must be made. Equally important, some evaluation will have to be made concerning what is valuable to such a study. And then, and only then, will further thought have to be given to “the point.” For what purpose is this being produced? What will we know from reading it? Minute details excruciatingly drawn out which have little-to-no bearing on any relevant trends or phenomena today or something integral about Orthodoxy and, indeed, the Church herself? Knowing something about the latter is not, it seems, unimportant to many people today. At the same time, one might wonder whether or not the Church, in her fullness and life at any time or in any place, can really be captured through a recitation of “facts”—facts drawn out of “data” which, as noted, were never intended to be such. But maybe these are “meta” issues which don’t need to be taken into consideration at the moment. Admittedly, they fall outside of what modern historiography wants to accomplish; a history of Orthodoxy that is actually a history of some ethnic grouping would not be laughed out of court so quickly in an environment which largely fails to distinguish between the two anyway.

There is something missing from the history of Orthodoxy in America and, indeed, much history about the Orthodox Church in general: analysis of the experiences as containing in the writings and “symbols” (architecture, iconography, hymnography, non-ecclesial artifacts, etc.) which are still extant. It seems that one might learn a great deal of the experience of Orthodoxy in America by reading and interpreting the writings of (St.) Sebastian Dabovich. It seems that one might learn something about the experiences of congregants of Orthodox immigrants by studying the layout of their earliest churches, in particular the recourse of some communities to organs, pews, and architectural choices reflecting the dominant Protestant paradigms in the communities they chose to join. And what of the hagiographic tradition of Orthodoxy in America? It’s not “history” in the scientific sense, but it is a portrait of Saintliness which, arguably, is much more important to the direction and development of at least some, if not many, communities of Orthodox as they attempted to live out their faith in an environment where they were and, indeed, still are an undeniable minority.

There’s something else as well. What is, in the end, the “value” of a history of Orthodoxy in America? Or, to put it another way, what is the “value” of a scientific history of Orthodoxy in America? What will it tell us? Heaven forbid it should make us into what Nietzsche called “historical men” in The Use and Abuse of History for Life: “Looking into the past urges them toward the future, incites them to take courage and continue to engage in life, and kindles the hope that things will yet turn out well and that happiness is to be found behind the mountain toward which they are striding.”

Psalter Update

2009-08-25T13:47:00.000-07:00

I don't know if/when there will be an official website for it, but for those interested in ordering a comb-bound edition of the Russian Orthodox Psalter may do so by sending a check for $40 payable to Paradise Press, PO Box 530, Rye, NH 03870. The Psalter's compiler, David James, can be reached via e-mail at jamesdm4 at aol dot com. The Psalter is printed on heavy, durable paper in two colors with illustrations throughout. As mentioned, there is a wealth of additional material attached which typically accompanies Slavonic liturgical Psalters, e.g., all of the Kathisma prayers and hymns, various orders for reading the Psalter, excerpts from Patristic homilies, the Biblical Odes, and the select Psalm verses and Megalynaria for the major Feast Days and Commemorations. It is also worth mentioning that this is a very large volume and not something you can just haul around on trips easily. The comb binding does allow it to lay flat on a desk or stand for easy recitation, however.

Another Orthodox Psalter?

2009-08-24T14:55:00.000-07:00

Even though I've been steadfast in the past that the Holy Transfiguration Monastery's Psalter According to the Seventy is the best available Orthodox Psalter in English, I may be dissuaded from that view by David James's The Russian Orthodox Psalter (Paradise Press, 2009). Using the Coverdale Psalter as its base text, The Russian Orthodox Psalter is the only Psalter in English which conforms to the standard liturgical (or "augmented") Psalter of the Russian Orthodox Church. All of the Kathisma Prayers, rites for chanting the Psalter throughout the liturgical year and for special ocassions, Biblical Odes, prayer rules, and instructional material which--if available in English at all--are spread out amongst many books (some very difficult to find) are now brought together.

David James was kind enough to furnish me with an advance bound copy of the work. I was delighted to see that it is nicely illustrated in comformity with the Slavonic liturgical Psalters and printed on thick paper in two colors. It's not possible for me to comment on the translation yet and, to be honest, it may take some time for me to get used to it after spending so many years with the HTM edition. It's important to note that the HTM edition is based on an LXX text printed in Russia which itself is primarily drawn from the Codex Alexandrinus whereas this Psalter confirms the Coverdale to the Church Slavonic text. The divergences are few, but not unimportant for those who swear fidelity to the Russian practice.

I have not heard word yet as to when the text will be available for public purchase. When I do, I will certainly post the information on this web-log. Rest assured this book has my wholehearted endorsement.

Disjointed Post Before my Wife Returns

2009-08-23T17:06:00.000-07:00

Nietzsche famously described the Übermensch as Caesar with the soul of Christ. Pity. After this weekend, I think that may be an apt description for my youngest son.

In just a couple of months my wife and I will have the experience of three children ages three and under before either of us hits 30. It’s a fact whose mention elicits such varied (and sometimes alarming) reactions from people that I too often succumb to the temptation to drop it…just to see. Similar scenarios have played out over the course of my relatively brief married life. When Laura and I were still in graduate school and expecting Jonah’s birth to come just shy of our first anniversary, we both had to put up with our share of subtle (and sometimes unsubtle) admonishment. This replaced the much less tolerable admonishments we had received from certain people prior to our marriage because we were suspected of being materialistic, child-hating, birth control loving pseudo-Orthodox due, in no small part, to my publicly stated views on the ends of Christian marriage. To be clear, neither “back then” (four or so years ago) nor “today” do I believe my views are all that controversial. At least, they’re not controversial if you accept, say, St. John Chrysostom’s views as being uncontroversial. What was controversial then and still is now seems to be my absolute revulsion at the righteous indignation which accompanies most (though not all) public discussions of “birth control,” “conception control,” “contraception,” etc. (call it what you will) and Orthodoxy. I have never understood why it became and remains a sort of “litmus test” for the “authenticity” of a particular marriage or the moral fiber of its members. There are certainly moral questions involved—very important, fundamental moral questions. But the public rhetoric, even when it’s not mean-spirited, so often comes across as an expression of sour grapes from individuals who apparently had to miss the boat of free and frequent trips to the mattress before jet setting to Europe to drink overpriced wine in the finest mid-range tourist hotels in London, Paris, and Madrid because their darn priest wouldn’t let them use rubbers.

I know there are well meaning individuals out there who have proffered very thoughtful discussions of the Orthodoxy/contraception “issue.” But for every analysis which contains both moral and intellectual rigor, there are two-dozen crackpot screeds animated by an inner “logic” of some phony baloney “naturalism” which should entail all of us making prostrations before the icon corner every time we try and subvert God’s will by alleviating our headaches with ibuprofen.

Really, though, I don’t want this post to open up the contraception question for debate. As I always tell people, “Go ask your priest” or, if they seem particularly distraught, “Let me tell you about how much I love my children…” What vexes me is that the current and future composition of my household is about the only thing which gets me a “pass” to even be mildly reproachful of those within the Church (and even some outside of it) who simply cannot get past contraception as the alleged “root of all evil.” It’s not at all dissimilar to the “free pass” I received during law school to criticize the Supreme Court’s affirmative action jurisprudence because I happen to have the “right” last name. I realize that there is a temptation to look down upon and/or criticize married Orthodox couples in one’s age bracket who are perfectly capable of procreating and yet “choose” not to. Children are wonderful, but man, they’re a lot of work. The next childless married Orthodox Christian I meet who tells me how “nutty” or “strange” it is that I have three children better hope my Guardian Angel is on duty; otherwise, they’re getting a punch to the sun. No trips to Madrid for my clan, not now or in the near future. But life goes on and besides, as I have discovered twice in the last tear, Huntington County, Pennsylvania is really pretty. We’re fine going there for vacation every so often.

I love my family. I really do. I love my two sons despite the fact they have tested their poor father’s weak heart time and again the past three days. To every fool who tells me they’re waiting for the “right time” to have children, I’m inclined to say that the “right time” was probably back when they were 22 and still had the hope of keeping pace with young boys who, even in their happy moments, are strangely akin to poo-flinging chimps. I feel almost out of date to be doing this stuff, but it’s still some of the best way imaginable to spend my time. I just hope that when one of them takes the desperate Major League ballclub which happens to draft them during the first round for a ride and inks a $15+ million contract, they remember that dear old dad is still paying off his student loans.

Sunday Thought

2009-08-23T16:16:00.000-07:00

If it is true that since the Renaissance and the birth of modern science we are not simply accustomed, but indeed conditioned, to understand the world through secondary concepts, is it any wonder that we so seldom experience it as the creation of God? That is to say, we understand—or purport to understand—the mechanics of the natural world through the science whose basis is the abstracted mathematics handed on to us by Descartes et al., but in privileging, nay, deifying that understanding, we uncritically accept a divorce from creation itself while simultaneously divorcing it from the One who called it into being ex nihilo. To be clear, even if we could get behind the modern secondary concepts alone, we would not somehow “see God” or “understand God,” despite what the Romantics down the street might tell you. We would not necessarily be ignorant that there is a creator, but that minutia of theological knowledge should not be overplayed. It’s not a gateway to the Beatitudes.

Welcome Steve Hutchens

2009-08-22T10:15:00.000-07:00

I have just received word through the grapevine that this blog's latest follower is none other than Steve Hutchens of Touchstone fame. After so much edifying back n' forths with the man over the last several years, it's a real honor to know he's still peering from across the great divides of cyberspace.

Weekend Fun With the Boys

2009-08-21T14:05:00.000-07:00

I know this is a bit "off beat," but I thought I would mention that today begins the greatest venture yet of my fathering years: Watching both of my sons, Jonah (3) and Manuel (practically 2), for the weekend. My wife left at 4:30a.m. this morning for O'Hare and onward to Boston to see one of her close friends from college. I shall not be relieved of my single parenting duties until sometime after 7p.m. on Sunday. Until then, I wonder: How shall I survive?

I am trying to look at this as a personal challenge. It's not that I haven't watched both boys for extended periods of time, but never more than, say, 8-10 hours (if that). In their minds my presence during the day is the exception, not the rule. Jonah is at least old enough to comprehend that mama is gone for a few days and, like it or not, he'll have to endure the ocassional tyranny of his father over the soft despotism of his mother. Manny, on the other hand, has requested mama a few times now. The best I can do is divert his attention by doing something patently ridiculous...even if we're in a public place.

So far, the day has consisted of making it to the Metra, hopping a bus over to the Field Museum, and looking at dionsaurs, exotic plants, and some Indian pillars which scared Manny. Oh, there was also some lunch; some macaroni going all over the floor; and explosive watermelon. It's nothing that frazzling, but I miss being able to come home and share the small triumphs and tragedies of fatherhood with my wife. I suppose the "triumph" of the day was just getting out of the house in under an hour after I woke up. The "tragedy" was undoubtedly Manny diving over my arm and lap on the train and wiping out on the floor. He was more scared than injured, but I felt like a schmuck dad. At least the elderly Latino lady who didn't speak English was kind enough to keep an eye on Jonah while I consoled his brother by offering advice from Nietzsche: "Whatever doesn't kill you..." Without mama or his stuffed lamb, however, Manny's response was quite Schopenhauerian: "This is the worst of all possible worlds..."

Now both boys are napping. Maybe I should do that too. Don't expect much in the way of blog posts this weekend or, rather, not much more than this. It's all my mind is capable of.

It Sure Took Them Long Enough

2009-08-17T18:09:00.000-07:00

In the back of the latest issue of Interpretation (the only scholarly journal I actually subscribe to) was an advertisement for the launch of the Leo Strauss Center at the University of Chicago. One of the center's first projects will be to create digital archives of all of Strauss's recorded lectures and post them up on the website. In addition, the Center eventually plans to transcribe his lecture notes and other writings for publication as well.

As most people who have read my blog for some time realize, Strauss's thinking has had a considerable influence on me. I regard him as one of the few true intellectual giants of the 20th C. and someone who ought to be a central focus for students of Philosophy, Theology, and Political Science. Unfortunately, as many well know, Strauss's character has been viciously attacked by both the Right and the Left over the last eight years. As certain myths would have it, Strauss--from beyond the grave--helped orchestrate the Iraq War, drive the country into serious debt, and clubbed a baby seal. Fortunately for Strauss, he left behind a large pool of extremely talent and erudite students who have done their best to defend his intellectual legacy and, through their own works, demonstrate that Strauss's attempt to revive political philosophy was not a failure. Though I am far from being a "disciple" of Strauss, I remain indebted to many of his works and am hopeful that as more "unpublished" material becomes available, a great deal of the nonsense surrounding his life and thought will be put to rest.