I know you said (in your article on Seraphim Rose and Eros) that you are a former Orthodox priest. Please, if you don’t mind my asking, are you still Orthodox? Or would you describe yourself more as a gnostic?
I am on my own journey and find what you write resonates deeply (as does Philip Sherrard). But I’m not sure what to make of or how to interpret your differentiation here between the Christ and Jesus.
In order to better understand you, I feel like I need some sense of whether you are writing from within a capital “O” Orthodox framework or now from outside it?
To be clear, I am not wanting to pigeonhole you or judge. I just want to understand further the context of your thought and what you mean.
Briefly, yes, I'm still Orthodox; I'm a communicant of the Church and I attend liturgy every Sunday and I love it deeply. I'm not so much attending to a gnostic current here (though I think there is a properly Orthodox sense of "gnosis") as to a current coming from the radical empiricism of James, Dewey, and Wieman. Especially Wieman -- reading him recently, his metaphysics identifying the base of reality as felt experience of quality really struck me. I found myself wondering if this could be a bridge to interpret the Gospel to completely secular people. But more, to the one in me who doubts all the massive metaphysical certainties of the received shape of traditional Christianity. It had the ring of truth, of something important. I found a lot of rich reflection flowing from it, and "trying it on" as a faith orientation felt powerful and made sense of some other experiences and quandaries -- as I note in the piece. TL;DR please don't take it as strong claims, take it as an exploration of a way of approaching the faith that makes sense of the experience I and others have of the world.
I love the church, and I love the liturgy. I also think I have to be honest, and after a lot of years in the church (and some years away from her) I feel that there is a place for me to be in her and also to doubt, to question, to explore. I am always trying to find a way to interpret Jesus to myself that places him in the place I think he should occupy in my life and longing. Yet there are other things that also demand a place in my soul and I am unwilling to cast them out; I am trying to bring all of it into a creative synthesis. So I end up being a rather unorthodox Orthodox. But -- I think this is a good way to be in the world as it is. The traditional churches, especially Orthodox and Catholic, are having "a moment" and many are coming in. They're young fundamentalists, mostly, who are desperate for a solution to the world's ills, but they are so young in the faith, so young in the journey of carrying faith in their lives. I think if they stay, it will be because they are doing the kind of thing I am doing here: discovering freedom within the tradition, widening their sphere of sensitive appreciation of experience.
Thank you so much for this answer. I have so much I would like to say and ask in response. But, first, I am wondering if you have read Timothy Patitsas’ book “The Ethics of Beauty” and/or Iain McGilchrist’s “The Matter with Things”?
Timothy’s understanding that the aesthetic sense is a fundamental form of cognition seems to me to dovetail or harmonize deeply with what you write here about “feeling” as our deepest ground of knowing. And also the necessary dipole relationship of opposites that holds the entire Cosmos in being — subjective/objective, Self/Other, Oneness/distinction in communion…
I have not, and you're the third person who has recently recommended Patitsas to me (have not read McGilchrist, mostly because my study time is limited, and I am reading a lot of old books!). I will take this as a sign to bump "Ethics of Beauty" up the list...
For a different take, have you read Freya Matthew's "For Love of Matter"? I would recommend it; someone coming into a pantheistic eros from the direction of atheism and formal philosophy.
I would suggest that there are those who believe in imaginative charity, and those who are hostile to it—and that this is a defining split of the final “meta-religion,” the Everlasting Gospel. This is the divide between the enemies and the friends of the Holy Ghost; between those who seek salvation, and those who positively desire Hell.
I know you said (in your article on Seraphim Rose and Eros) that you are a former Orthodox priest. Please, if you don’t mind my asking, are you still Orthodox? Or would you describe yourself more as a gnostic?
I am on my own journey and find what you write resonates deeply (as does Philip Sherrard). But I’m not sure what to make of or how to interpret your differentiation here between the Christ and Jesus.
In order to better understand you, I feel like I need some sense of whether you are writing from within a capital “O” Orthodox framework or now from outside it?
To be clear, I am not wanting to pigeonhole you or judge. I just want to understand further the context of your thought and what you mean.
Thank you.
Briefly, yes, I'm still Orthodox; I'm a communicant of the Church and I attend liturgy every Sunday and I love it deeply. I'm not so much attending to a gnostic current here (though I think there is a properly Orthodox sense of "gnosis") as to a current coming from the radical empiricism of James, Dewey, and Wieman. Especially Wieman -- reading him recently, his metaphysics identifying the base of reality as felt experience of quality really struck me. I found myself wondering if this could be a bridge to interpret the Gospel to completely secular people. But more, to the one in me who doubts all the massive metaphysical certainties of the received shape of traditional Christianity. It had the ring of truth, of something important. I found a lot of rich reflection flowing from it, and "trying it on" as a faith orientation felt powerful and made sense of some other experiences and quandaries -- as I note in the piece. TL;DR please don't take it as strong claims, take it as an exploration of a way of approaching the faith that makes sense of the experience I and others have of the world.
I love the church, and I love the liturgy. I also think I have to be honest, and after a lot of years in the church (and some years away from her) I feel that there is a place for me to be in her and also to doubt, to question, to explore. I am always trying to find a way to interpret Jesus to myself that places him in the place I think he should occupy in my life and longing. Yet there are other things that also demand a place in my soul and I am unwilling to cast them out; I am trying to bring all of it into a creative synthesis. So I end up being a rather unorthodox Orthodox. But -- I think this is a good way to be in the world as it is. The traditional churches, especially Orthodox and Catholic, are having "a moment" and many are coming in. They're young fundamentalists, mostly, who are desperate for a solution to the world's ills, but they are so young in the faith, so young in the journey of carrying faith in their lives. I think if they stay, it will be because they are doing the kind of thing I am doing here: discovering freedom within the tradition, widening their sphere of sensitive appreciation of experience.
Thank you so much for this answer. I have so much I would like to say and ask in response. But, first, I am wondering if you have read Timothy Patitsas’ book “The Ethics of Beauty” and/or Iain McGilchrist’s “The Matter with Things”?
Timothy’s understanding that the aesthetic sense is a fundamental form of cognition seems to me to dovetail or harmonize deeply with what you write here about “feeling” as our deepest ground of knowing. And also the necessary dipole relationship of opposites that holds the entire Cosmos in being — subjective/objective, Self/Other, Oneness/distinction in communion…
https://youtu.be/PoGne2XcxRQ?si=yMRBJx-gcCDrC3Io
I have not, and you're the third person who has recently recommended Patitsas to me (have not read McGilchrist, mostly because my study time is limited, and I am reading a lot of old books!). I will take this as a sign to bump "Ethics of Beauty" up the list...
For a different take, have you read Freya Matthew's "For Love of Matter"? I would recommend it; someone coming into a pantheistic eros from the direction of atheism and formal philosophy.
Ah yes! I came across that book 15 years ago and had completely forgotten about it! Thanks!
I quite liked David Abrams' books as well: Spell of the Sensuous and Becoming Human. The first being the better one.
I would suggest that there are those who believe in imaginative charity, and those who are hostile to it—and that this is a defining split of the final “meta-religion,” the Everlasting Gospel. This is the divide between the enemies and the friends of the Holy Ghost; between those who seek salvation, and those who positively desire Hell.