A Generous Orthodoxy - Printable Version
+- The British Orthodox Church - Fellowship Forum (http://britishorthodox.org/forum)
+-- Forum: General Lounge (/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Forum: General Conversation (/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: A Generous Orthodoxy (/showthread.php?tid=130)
- Rick Henry - 27-05-2008 02:23 PM
While still pursuing "A Generous Orthodoxy" possibly under the sub-title: "Its nature, limits, and boundaries," I would like to share that I was reading the blog of a community member yesterday. In this blog, under the title "How Should We Approach What We Believe" there was some discussion about the 'personal and the subjective' and the 'institutional and the objective. '
Specifically, there was a quote from the introduction to On the Mystical Life, that caught my attention. And, this quote caused me to stop and ponder two things: 1.) The complete subjectivity of this thread about A Generous Orthodoxy; 2.) Why does there need to be such a tension between the personal/subjective and the institutional/objective within Orthodoxy? And, to share this provocative quote in the following Alexander Golitzin, in the introduction to On the Mystical Life, says of St. Symeon the New Theologian:
Quote:He makes use of a long-established vocabulary of theological thought, of even older liturgical and ascetical traditions, and reads these traditional elements -- which he understands very well--through the lens of his own, personal experience. But there is no conflict, let alone rupture, between the last element and the preceding ones. Symeon is not an apostle of the personal and subjective over the objective and institutional -- though, as we will observe in our Introduction, he may strain certain tensions to their limits. Rather for him Orthodoxy and the ascetic tradition serve to illumine and define his experience while the latter provides the substantiation or proof, of the former."
We seem to have a fresh supply of new members who have signed up in the past few months, so I am wondering if any of you would care to comment on this?
But, again, why do these so called tensions need to be strained to their limits, as was said of St. Symeon's approach . . . or to hold that up to the light and turn it a different way yet, lest we narrow our view severely how can these types of things be considered to be in opposition as it relates to a promotion of the Life in Christ?