Originally posted by George Blaisdell

The limits of logic are given their nominal, but not their ontological, due, dear George, in the neo-scholastic phronema of the Protestant west... It does not strike me as odd at all that I argue against arguing... In the individualism of the American West, and of the post-enlightenment west generally, the bedrock of the phronema is the sacro-sanctity of the individual human mind... Yet the Biblical and Patristic understanding is that we are all a part, one of another, of one another, in the Body of Christ... And until you have experienced the power of another acting for you within that Body, the power of intercession, you simply have no basis for understanding anything other than individuated cognitive efforts of understanding and willing... And this individuated mode of being is fallen and worldly and fleshy... Life in Christ is in the Holy Communion of His Body and Blood, and this koinonia is well transliterated as common-nous, or common mind...

The mind of fallen man is scattered in its being, diffracted amongst all the cares and concerns of the world, in the [frequently frantic] efforts required to address the issues that life unto death in the flesh entails, not to mention self... Repentance is the turning of ones concerns from these scattered and material matters and unto God alone in faith, and this effort is what Christian disciples have been doing from the time of Christ, because one cannot ascend to God in Spirit when one is turned from God and distracted by the cares of the world... In many respects, through the askesis of discipleship, the nous is re-gathered and re-concentrated, and this consecration is then brought in the closet of prayer to God in worship... In the Liturgy we sing in prayer "Let us now lay aside all our worldly cares..." And each of us does so, according to the degree of repentance we have ontologically attained in our praxis of the faith, and together we ascend as one, some high, and some hardly at all [like me]... Yet all together, partaking of the Body and Blood of our Lord in great Mystery...

And when one is alone, the ascent is in prayerful silence, and thanksgiving, and tears, for one is not alone, but moving in silence and power and illumination of the nous, and in union of the person with the uncreated energies of God...



Just as there are two levels, if you will, of 'saints', so there are two levels of theology - scholastic, which is the study of what people say, and Holy, which has to do with the ontology of the person in the Body of Christ.

Now the priest to be needs to be trained, and especially in the errors that can come across his responsibilities, and so that his training in the schools is designed to equip him for errors that he will have to deal with as a priest. And indeed, the Holy Fathers you cite, who entered the great 'debates' of the Church, battling the great heresies, did so to combat error, and not to practice the faith. The reason they so successfully combatted error was because they successfully practiced the faith, and they confronted error from experience, and not from intellectual deduction and proof... The proofs came from their experience of God... In very important ways, their "theology" is discriptive, not deductive... Zizoulas, for instance, at his best, could not write as he does without having had some degree of illumination of his nous within the Church following a pretty good praxis of the faith - And indeed, that is there for anyone who enters the faith of the Church and sincerely makes the Life of the Church his life, and the prayers of the Church his prayers, and the praxis of the Church his practice... This discipleship is unto God, and God is faithful, and provides the help needed within His holy body, the Church...

And having forgiven me my miscreances, could I please further impose upon you and ask that you pray for me, a sinner?

Thank-you, my brother...

George -

I'm just going to respond to this last post since I think we've sufficiently belabored some of the other matters. & I'm going to have the temerity to suggest that we are closer than you may think on this matter, and that at least some of the difference is due to the theological tradition that we operate from.

It seems to me that what you call "Holy" theology corresponds at least approximately to what I would call the life of faith itself, the Christian's relationship of trust and love with God and with the Christian community which is made possible by Christ and mediated by the Holy Spirit. (Of course I am speaking very briefly and inadequately.) Doing what you call "scholastic" theology is one activity that flows from that relationship, and corresponds to what I have been calling simply
"theology" - "the teaching concerning God and divine things."

Properly speaking, "scholastic" theology cannot be done except as an aspect of "Holy" theology. In that it is distinguished from "religious studies" which can be done even by non-Christians. (And whose results, I would add, may be useful to Christians, just as studies by non-Christian archaologists may help to illumine passages of scripture.) Thus the statement that theology is "faith in search of understanding", fides quarens intellectum, & this is why, as I noted earlier, Luther said that only prayer makes the theologian.

And while "theologizing" in this sense is something that may be done by individual Christians, it must be done as part of the church: The theologian must be in the fullest sense a man or woman of the church whose primary concern is not just to come up with interesting ideas but to support the life and mission of the church. And that is the case even if one must criticize and oppose what is going on in the church - as Athanasius stood contra mundum.

Now I want to emphasize that what I've said here does not represent an attempt just to paper over differences and pretend to agreement that doesn't really exist. There are aspects of Orthodox teaching and practice with which I, as a Lutheran, disagree, and I won't hesitate to express them when it's appropriate. But I think that we should be glad when there are things that we can agree on, even if only in part, and it seems to me that this is one thing on which we're in at least some degree of accord.

You are in my prayers.

Shalom,
George