Patristic Theology and Depth Psychology: An Interview with Pia Sophia Chaudhari

I sent questions to the author back in September, but Pia Sophia Chaudhari was able to get her answers to me only this week. But like fine wine, these were worth waiting for, not least as the intervening time allowed me to read her book again in a much closer way as a result of which I can say with even greater conviction that Dynamis of Healing: Patristic Theology and the Psyche is an extraordinary and welcome book for all sorts of reasons. If you have any interest in psychology of whatever school (object relations, self-psychology, Jungian, and even Freudian), of Orthodox theology, and of patristics, you will want to read this book. So will those of clinical background interested in understanding spiritual dynamics more deeply.

It is not only the most singular and important engagement of Orthodox theology and depth psychology I have seen. It is also full of the sorts of insights into the psychic and spiritual life, into both theology and psychology, that cause one to write such exclamatory notes in the margins as "At last!" when you come across an author giving welcome voice to what Christopher Bollas so memorably called the "unthought known." This is the sort of book that pays re-reading, and I will certainly be recommending it to students in the years to come.

Following my usual practice, I e-mailed some questions to Pia, and here are her answers.

AD:Tell us about your background, both as a scholar as a Jungian analyst in training. 

PSC: My doctoral work was in the department of Psychiatry and Religion at Union Theological seminary, where I entered with an interest in theology, early church history and psychology, and eventually focused on Orthodox Christian theology, anthropology, and psychoanalytic theory. Since receiving my PhD  I have taught, continued my research and writing, and started training as a Jungian analyst (I am currently on leave of absence from the program). In 2016 I also co-founded an initiative called APOCC—Analytical Psychology and Orthodox Christianity Consultation to further the conversation between the two fields of study.

AD: Tell us what led you to write this book, Dynamis of Healing: Patristic Theology and the Psyche.

PSC: My first serious engagement with Christianity came about 20 years ago, in a charismatic free church. Everyone there spoke of God’s power to heal, and I found myself drawn by both the hope of healing and a wondering as to how God actually does heal. It’s been a long and winding journey since then, and this book was an attempt to put down some of what I have seen. I don’t claim to have definitive answers, only observations and a continued hope that God does indeed heal, though not always (often!) in the way we expect.

AD: I have found that the very mention of Freud and Jung among some Orthodox and Catholic Christians awakens strong suspicion if not outright condemnation. Has that been your experience, and if so, how have you handled it?

Yes, there’s been some of that. I understand it, and sometimes even agree with it. I think we always have to be careful—and this is a trope that arises over and over again when talking with both these fields—to be curious about the ‘resistance’ (to use a Freudian term) to psychoanalytic insights, while also respectful of the major differences.  Sometimes the resistance is a fear of the psyche, a fear of the unknown, a fear of the body, desire, emotions, vulnerability, anger etc…a fear of oneself in the fullest sense.  Such a resistance can do a disservice to the possibility of healing contained within the psychological work. And these are fears all people have in some form, and which can be couched in any language.

But sometimes the resistance is also either to the overt dismantling of the religious beliefs, as you see in Freud, or to the re-interpretation of them as you see in Jung. As an Orthodox Christian I am firmly against the psychologization of the sacramental, as though it can be reduced to the psychological, even as, of course, it speaks to the psyche and has an impact on it. I think it important not to read either Freud or Jung, but perhaps especially Jung who writes about God, as theologians. They were doctors and their focus was clinical.  Lastly, I would say that we always have to keep in mind the difference between the created order and the uncreated order. Psychology belongs to the former (as do psychoanalysts as well as theologians) but God and His uncreated energies to the latter. They should never be conflated.

AD: Ann Belford Ulanov comes up by p.2 and is a regular interlocutor throughout your book. Tell us a bit about how and why you have found her helpful and insightful

PSC: Ann’s work became very meaningful to me early on in my own work, as her writing managed to convey both rigorous scholarship and deeply embodied application. There is very little that is abstract in her work. It speaks from and to the gut level of existence.

So much theology and psychology can be intellectually stimulating and gratifying, and yet leave you wondering how it applies to your immediate concerns, your underlying pain or emptiness, or even your most mundane joys. But Ann's work speaks to those issues with all the earthy wisdom of a clinician of many decades, and yet, it also manages to hold within it a deep joy and expectation of the transcendent. Of course, her focus on Christian theology and psychoanalytic theory also deeply formed my focus. Her work on the ‘feminine mode of being’ helped me find a toehold into a way of exploring these issues, which I sometimes joke is feminine-ist, rather than feminist.

AD: You seem (p.5) to be at pains to set out both Orthodox theology and depth psychology alongside one another, without conflating the two. Why is it important to maintain that distinction?

For two reasons. The one is that—and perhaps this comes from my early work in peace-building and conflict resolution!—that when inviting two parties to the table to talk I think it only respectful to allow each one to self-define. In other words, let psychology tell us what it is about, and Orthodox theology tell us what it in turn is about. If one party begins to define the other using its own unique terms and language, you’ve already collapsed the space between the two. (I’m sure I do this occasionally anyway even though I try not to.)

The second reason is the same that I gave earlier—particularly because I am Orthodox I am keenly aware of the sacramental side of faith, and I do not think, believe, or experience that you can psychologize the uncreated energies of God. To the degree Orthodoxy talks about anthropology (in the sense of what it is to be human), and to the degree psychology also talks about anthropology, we have a great deal to talk about. But-as above—when Orthodox talk about God as revealed in Holy Tradition and Scripture, I want to be careful not to psychologize this energy or experience or reduce it to its symbolic aspects.

AD: At the same time, you talk about the “meeting places” where the two may be encountered. Tell us a bit about what you mean by that phrase, and give us an example or two.

Well this is what I set out to explore in my work. And what I postulated was that if Orthodox ontological claims, in particular regarding the person, were true, then they ought to show up in our clinical insights and experience of how people heal. That’s what I mean by meeting places. The two main examples I look at in the book is the instinctual urge towards healing out of a kind of innate ‘blueprint’ we contain within ourselves, and then the incredible importance of the energy of eros in healing and flourishing.

AD: I confess that my own work in psychoanalytic thought has much more strongly gravitated towards Freud and the Middle/Independent school in Britain, including Klein, Coltart, Winnicott, Fairbairn, Guntrip, Adam Phillips, and Christopher Bollas. You cite some of these—Klein, Fairbairn, Winnicott—while having been obviously indebted to and influenced by Jung and the traditions developing after him. Tell us how you came to be drawn to Jung and what you think he in particular offers Eastern Christians among others. In your view is he a more congenial interlocutor to Orthodox Christianity than most other analytic and depth psychologists? 

Actually, I love many of the British school analysts you mention, and draw heavily on Winnicott, Fairbairn and Guntrip in my own thinking, in particular because of their relational emphasis. It makes for such interesting conversation with theologies of communion (or desire), as in Zizioulas, Loudovikos, and Yannaras. But my own experience has been more Jungian and many of my mentors have been Jungian as well, so in some ways I speak more from what I know in this realm.

Jung actually studied the Fathers a great deal, and you often will see him quoting St. Irenaeus and others, though I always wish he had managed to find and read the works of St. Maximus. I think there is a great deal to be said between them, and others (e.g Tympas) have explored this directly. Personally, I was drawn to a certain natural wisdom in Jung, as well as his sense of the psyche and Self as guiding and orienting us from within. I love his theory of dreams and the objective psyche and find that it imbues creation with an innate wisdom that is breathtaking and also un-nerving at times.  To some degree his theory of the archetypes could work well with Orthodox anthropology as well.

But I also think Jung can be more dangerous to people of faith because he does talk about God and Spirit in ways that are compelling but not always Christian. He was fascinated with Gnosticism for a period, seeing it as an inner path that compensated for—what he experience to be—the more externally oriented and moralistic Christian traditions.

And then of course he found alchemy, which is richly bound up in Christian mysticism, but I am not an expert on that so I should leave it there. There is always the danger of narcissism or solipsism in any ‘theory of the world’ and Jung is no exception. I think only Holy Communion saves us from that.

AD: I know some Christians who find Jung’s theologizing rather dubious, alleging that he confuses issues in unorthodox ways—e.g., his views on the “problematic fourth” with reference to the feminine and the Trinity. Were there areas where, as an Orthodox Christian scholar, you felt that parts of Jung’s project did indeed go too far outside the bounds of what the Church could accept?

Yes, of course. And it may sound surprising, but I never overly focused on those readings. My project was never to put Jung’s ‘theology’ in conversation with Orthodox theology. I think there would be little to say. My project was to put his ‘boots on the ground’ clinical insights in conversation with Orthodox theology and anthropology, all in the service of healing. I think he had a right, of course, to investigate and postulate what he wanted to about grand theological themes which formed part of his cultural background and of which he tried to make sense, but that is not the same as clinical insights accrued over decades of working with people. I give him far more credence in the latter than the former. I don’t mean that disrespectfully but as I said above, he was a doctor not a theologian and said as much himself.

AD: There are also, of course, clear patristic influences in your work, including especially Maximus the Confessor, Athanasius, Irenaeus, and the Cappadocians. Tell us how you came to work with them, and why you found some of them congenial interlocutors in a book concerned also with depth psychology.

One of my first classes at Union was about the early Church, taught by Fr. John McGuckin (who later became my priest). I was fascinated by the history, and then increasingly by the theology. In fact, it became increasingly difficult for me to read the ‘moderns’, as Fr. John called them (by which he probably meant Aquinas!). I also benefitted from their focus on anthropology, and between Fr. John McGuckin and later Fr. John Behr, was privileged and delighted to enter in to a whole new world of learning.

I felt that the Fathers wrote out of an experience, with all the power of their formidable intellects and education, but still correlated to something experiential. You could feel an energy coursing through their writings, even as it was slightly different for each one, but there is a spiritual power there that I was drawn to. And this emphasis on experience is what made them congenial interlocutors for a book that tried to hold experience as valuable to the questions at hand.

Amazingly enough, by the way, I never intended to use St. Maximus’ work but as I was conducting my original research, I somehow kept being ‘nudged’ towards his work and I finally gave in and started reading him. Within days I knew I would have to redo my entire framework in order to include his work, as the ‘meeting places’ I had been trying to intuit seemed to closely align with his theory of modes of being and tropes of being. Obviously he then became a pillar of my work and thinking.

AD: Some of my recent work with Freud has been in overlapping areas as yours, especially the questions of fantasy, desire, and illusion, and how our images of God are often distorted by various ways, some of them unconscious. Tell us a bit about your clinical pastoral experience in this regard, working in chaplaincy and seeing some of these issues in patients. This book is not just an academic exercise, but also born out of such experience you have had and your patients have also had, yes?

Yes absolutely. I think the basic notions of project and transference are so useful in the clinical pastoral world. I’ve worked with people, for example, who had no contact with their own feelings of anger, but were convinced God was going to rain down hellfire on the people who had hurt them. And of course, people who felt God was punishing them with whatever issue they were struggling with.  I think in particular, with my focus on psychology, I was upset at hearing from people of faith that they believed they were simply given this or that painful diagnosis as a cross to bear, when from a psychological standpoint, it seemed like something that could be worked with.

But our projections onto God are fierce and tenacious, because God draws our projections of what is ultimately true—even if at the end of the day we must come to see that it is only ultimately true in our psyche. But that work of recalling such projections is painful and earth-shaking. And then, as Orthodox, I also want to hold open the space for what IS ultimately true to come in, however God chooses to meet each person, but that of course is the work of a spiritual mother or father and not something I can do.

AD: In your experience do you find that Orthodox Christians, in general, are open to talking about these issues more freely today, or are questions of desire, of psychological and mental health, and of our struggles still rather shrouded in shame or embarrassment, as though being people of faith we should somehow be “immune” to, say, depression or disordered fantasizing?

I do find people of faith are easily taken aback when I talk about desire, and even more so when I say that some of what I learned I learned from a very wise spiritual father! There is a kind of Puritanical aspect to religion that pervades our thinking and makes us prone to Freudian super-ego driven religion at times.

I don’t know how many people are aware of the riches of the Fathers and the tradition we have of the interior life. I know what you mean about feeling that one ought not to be prone to depression or fantasy if one has the ‘correct’ faith, but this is also why I wanted to write this book. As much as Orthodoxy has centuries of wisdom about the person, I think the conversation between Orthodox Christianity and the best of the mental health field is imperative—and not just contemporary cognitive/neuroscientific but these analysts we are discussing who plumbed the depths of the person. To the degree a depression or what you term disordered fantasizing can be found to have a meaning (and I do not dismiss chemical imbalances here either), which Jung postulated they often did, they may open up a goldmine of new life for the person. Surely to go in search of that lost or hidden life is a work of faith as well?

AD: I found your discussion of the schizoid type, and of Guntrip’s work, which I have also read with great interest, a very helpful reminder that when it comes to being or feeling split between, as it were, our heads and our hearts, that we all can experience this at different points in time and along different spots of a spectrum. Christopher Bollas has also argued something similar about notions of “madness” and how it’s not an all-or-nothing experience but we dip into and out of it in milder and stronger versions from time to time. Is this a helpful reminder that Christians need to hear—that we can slip into, or out of, various states of health and disease, and that both Orthodox Christianity and therapy can be helpful here, offering us both discernment and ways of healing?

PSC: Such an interesting question! I think we do need to be reminded that we are human and prone to slipping into all kinds of things! And also, I think we need to be reminded of the importance of community in all aspects of our lives. Ann used to say that a ‘complex’ (Jungian term) comes up behind you and just throws a bag over your head, and suddenly you are acting completely unreasonably and don’t even know why. We can do the work, and hopefully get some ‘elbow room’ as she also used to say, between us and our patterns/complexes, but the big ones are rarely fully gone—we are just better able to see them coming and hopefully dodge their onslaught. It helps having people who know you and love you, both pastoral and therapeutic, as well as of course your Church community. And as a wise priest reminded me, for some things,  and maybe the most painful and traumatic things we experience, the only answer ultimately is the Cross.

AD: Tell us a bit about your hopes for the book, and who would benefit from reading it

As you mentioned above, it is both academic and, I hope, clinically and pastorally oriented. I hope that anyone with an interest in these two fields might find that there is something helpful in it. Again I think the closer I’ve drawn to the questions, the bigger the answers have become, so I don’t claim to have corralled any final or complete answers into my pages but just to bear witness to an exploration which I undertook and which hopefully others will also undertake in their own ways and we can keep sharing our findings. The goal is to contribute maximally to the field of healing with the best of what we know.

AD: Having finished such a book as this, what is next for you? What are you working on now?

I ended this book with a nod towards the importance of beauty. I have since started working more in this area, both professionally and also in my research. I find the aesthetic emphasis to be so important, especially these days when we are being daily conditioned by an aesthetic (all the computer and phone and tablet screens everywhere) which humans have never before experienced. I worry it is shaping our way of thinking and interacting and that we need to be thinking and writing about this, and naming the effects---especially on young people—from both theological and psychological perspectives.

I did an exploratory paper last year on the archetype of Aphrodite, and the philosophy of Byung Chul-Han (Saving Beauty, and The Agony of Eros) and attempted to connect it with St Maximus. It was just a nascent foray, but I hope to continue in this direction!

New Works on Irenaeus of Lyons

Irenaeus of Lyons has long remained one of the most interesting and important figures of very early Christian history, and the twentieth century began a return to the study of his thinking. A good bit of this return and renewed study has been led by the Orthodox scholar John Behr, who has previously published a number of studies on Irenaeus of Lyons, including, in 2003, Irenaeus of Lyons: Identifying Christianity as well as the earlier work, a translation of On the Apostolic Preaching (SVS Press, 1997).

Now this year he has brought out Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement (Oxford UP, 2017), 280pp.

About this new study we are told by the publisher:

Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement examines the ways in which Irenaeus and Clement understood what it means to be human. By exploring these writings from within their own theological perspectives, John Behr also offers a theological critique of the prevailing approach to the asceticism of Late Antiquity. Writing before monasticism became the dominant paradigm of Christian asceticism, Irenaeus and Clement afford fascinating glimpses of alternative approaches. For Irenaeus, asceticism is the expression of man living the life of God in all dimensions of the body, that which is most characteristically human and in the image of God. Human existence as a physical being includes sexuality as a permanent part of the framework within which males and females grow towards God. In contrast, Clement depicts asceticism as man's attempt at a godlike life to protect the rational element, that which is distinctively human and in the image of God, from any possible disturbance and threat, or from the vulnerability of dependency, especially of a physical or sexual nature. Here human sexuality is strictly limited by the finality of procreation and abandoned in the resurrection. By paying careful attention to these two writers, Behr offers challenging material for the continuing task of understanding ourselves as human beings.

Also released this year is a study by James Bushur, Irenaeus of Lyons and the Mosaic of Christ: Preaching Scripture in the Era of Martyrdom (Routledge, 2017), 220pp.

About this book we are told:

Recent theological scholarship has shown increasing interest in patristic exegesis. The way early Christians read scripture has attracted not only historians, but also systematic and exegetical scholars. However, the Christian reading of scripture before Origen has been neglected or, more often, dominated by Gnostic perspectives. This study uses the writings of Irenaeus to argue that there was a rich Christian engagement with scripture long before Origen and the supposed conflict between Antioch and Alexandria.

This is a focused examination of specific exegetical themes that undergird Irenaeus’ argument against his opponents. However, whereas many works interpret Irenaeus only as he relates to certain Gnostic teachings, this book recognizes the broader context of the second century and explores the profound questions facing early Christians in an era of martyrdom. It shows that Irenaeus is interested, not simply in expounding the original intent of individual texts, but in demonstrating how individual texts fit into the one catholic narrative of salvation. This in turn, he hopes, will cause his audience to see their place as individuals in the same narrative.

Using insightful close reading of Irenaeus, allied with a firm grounding in the context in which he wrote, this book will be vital reading for scholars of the early Church as well as those with interests in patristics and the development of Christian exegesis.

Irenaeus of Lyons

As I have frequently noted on here, we have seen a very considerable resurgence of interest in Irenaeus of Lyons in the last decade. Along comes another book from one of Orthodoxy's foremost patrologists, John Behr, set for release next month: Irenaeus of Lyons: Identifying Christianity (OUP, 2013), 320pp.

About this book we are told:

This book provides a full, contextual study of St Irenaeus of Lyons, the first great theologian of the Christian tradition. John Behr sets Irenaeus both within his own context of the second century, a fundamental period for the formation of Christian identity, elaborating the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy and expounding a comprehensive theological vision, and also within our own contemporary context, in which these issues are very much alive again. Against the commonly-held position that 'orthodoxy' was established by excluding others, the 'heretics', Behr argues that it was the self-chosen separation of the heretics that provided the occasion for those who remained together to clarify the lineaments of their faith in a church that was catholic by virtue of embracing different voices in a symphony of many voices and whose chief architect was Irenaeus, who, as befits his name, urged peace and toleration.The first chapter explores Irenaeus' background in Asia Minor, as a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna, his activity in Gaul, and his involvement with the Christian communities in Rome. The theological and institutional significance of his interventions is made clear by tracing the coalescence of the initially fractionated communities in Rome into a united body over the first two centuries.The second chapter provides a full examination of Irenaeus' surviving writings, concentrating especially on the literary and rhetorical structure of his five books Against the Heresies, his 'refutation and overthrowal' of his opponents in the first two books, and his establishing a framework for articulating orthodoxy.The final chapter explores the theological vision of Irenaeus itself, on its own terms rather than the categories of later dogmatic theology, grounded in an apostolic reading of Scripture and presenting a vibrant and vigorous account of the diachronic and synchronic economy or plan of God, seen through the work of Christ which reveals how the Hands of God have been at work from the beginning, fashioning the creature, made from mud and animated with a breath of life, into his own image and likeness, vivified by the Holy Spirit, to become a 'living human being, the glory of God'.

Created in the Image of God

The Catholic University of America Press recently sent me their catalogue for 2013, and there are numerous books in it that I look forward to seeing in print, including a collection edited by Thomas Albert Howard, Imago Dei: Human Dignity in Ecumenical Perspective (CUA Press, July 2013), 144pp.

Eastern Christians will be pleased to note that this collection includes an Orthodox perspective from one of Orthodoxy's leading theologians today, John Behr of St. Vladimir's Seminary. 

About this book the publisher tells us:

What does it mean when we speak of human dignity? What challenges does human dignity confront in our culture today? What is the relationship between contemporary understandings of human dignity and the ancient Christian doctrine of imago Dei, the view that human beings are created in "the image and likeness of God"? This book pursues these and related questions in the form of an ecumenical "trialogue" by leading scholars from the three major Christian traditions: John Behr from the Eastern Orthodox tradition, Russell Hittinger from the Catholic, and C. Ben Mitchell from the Protestant tradition. The book is the first of its kind to foster an ecumenical conversation around teachings of imago Dei and present-day understandings of human dignity. The three chapter-essays, the editor's introduction, and the afterword by Lutheran theologian Gilbert Meilaender draw from a wide array of sources, including Scripture, patristic works, ancients creeds, medieval and Thomistic writings, papal encyclicals, Protestant confessional statements, the works of modern theologians, and more.

Imago Dei will serve as an indispensable resource for those wishing to deepen their grasp of the theological bases for Christian views of human dignity, as well as for those who believe that Christ's words "that they be one" (John 17:21) remain a theological imperative today. The combination of ethical inquiry and ecumenical collaboration makes this timely book a unique and compelling contribution to present-day Christian thought.

Extra, Extra! World Scoop on New Orthodox Books!

I have returned from the annual meeting of the Orthodox Theological Society of America (OTSA). It was a chance to meet some thoroughly lovely people and listen to their edifying and enjoyable papers, re-connect with some friends, and hit up Arthur Avenue in the Bronx, New York's real little Italy for all the gustatory delights unavailable in the Mid-West.

Speaking of delights, you will doubtless be pleased to read here for the first time of books that OTSA members are working on, or shortly to publish. Here is the scoop:

Paul Gavrilyuk, author of such well-received studies as The Suffering of the Impassible God: The Dialectics of Patristic Thought (Oxford Early Christian Studies), and co-editor of the recent collection I discussed here, has a forthcoming book also from Oxford, Georges Florovsky and the Russian Religious Renaissance. Watch for more details as they are forthcoming.

The lovely Edith Humphrey, whom I interviewed here, has a forthcoming book out from Baker Academic in the spring of 2013: Scripture and Tradition: What the Bible Really Says. About this book the publisher says:

In some of the church's history, Scripture has been pitted against tradition and vice versa. Prominent New Testament scholar Edith Humphrey, who understands the issue from both Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox perspectives, revisits this perennial point of tension. She demonstrates that the Bible itself reveals the importance of tradition, exploring how the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles show Jesus and the apostles claiming the authority of tradition as God's Word, both written and spoken. Arguing that Scripture and tradition are not in opposition but are necessarily and inextricably intertwined, Humphrey defends tradition as God's gift to the church. She also works to dismantle rigid views of sola scriptura while holding a high view of Scripture's authority.

Fordham's Aristotle Papanikolaou, author of Being With God: Trinity, Apophaticism, and Divine-Human Communion, and co-editor of such important works as Orthodox Readings of Augustine and Thinking Through Faith: New Perspectives from Orthodox Christian Scholars, has a new book just released:  The Mystical as Political: Democracy and Non-Radical Orthodoxy (University of Notre Dame Press, 2012), 232pp.

About this book the publisher tells us:

Theosis, or the principle of divine-human communion, sparks the theological imagination of Orthodox Christians and has been historically important to questions of political theology. In The Mystical as Political: Democracy and Non-Radical Orthodoxy, Aristotle Papanikolaou argues that a political theology grounded in the principle of divine-human communion must be one that unequivocally endorses a political community that is democratic in a way that structures itself around the modern liberal principles of freedom of religion, the protection of human rights, and church-state separation.

Papanikolaou hopes to forge a non-radical Orthodox political theology that extends beyond a reflexive opposition to the West and a nostalgic return to a Byzantine-like unified political-religious culture. His exploration is prompted by two trends: the fall of communism in traditionally Orthodox countries has revealed an unpreparedness on the part of Orthodox Christianity to address the question of political theology in a way that is consistent with its core axiom of theosis; and recent Christian political theology, some of it evoking the notion of “deification,” has been critical of liberal democracy, implying a mutual incompatibility between a Christian worldview and that of modern liberal democracy.

The first comprehensive treatment from an Orthodox theological perspective of the issue of the compatibility between Orthodoxy and liberal democracy, Papanikolaou’s is an affirmation that Orthodox support for liberal forms of democracy is justified within the framework of Orthodox understandings of God and the human person. His overtly theological approach shows that the basic principles of liberal democracy are not tied exclusively to the language and categories of Enlightenment philosophy and, so, are not inherently secular.

Nicholas Denysenko, whose book on the blessing of waters on Theophany was just released, is next turning his attention to Chrismation in a work he is preparing for Liturgical Press. More details as they are forthcoming--and also an interview with him about the Theophany book in the coming weeks.

John Behr, author and translator of many studies in the Fathers (especially Irenaeus), including most recently, The Case Against Diodore and Theodore (Oxford Early Christian Texts), has two works forthcoming: another book on Irenaeus with Oxford, and a book with St. Vladimir's Seminary Press on theological anthropology. More details as they are known.

Pantelis Kalaitzidis, the director of the prestigious Volos Academy for Theological Studies in Greece, has just released a book Orthodoxy and Political Theology.

About this book the publisher tells us:

A trenchant critique, a hopeful vision - Features: * The first sustained treatment of political theology in Orthodox settings * A critique of traditional and contemporary practices of the churches - and of theologians * A vision for engaged Christians Why have the Orthodox churches not developed a full-throated political theological voice? While known for their robust ecclesiology and rich doctrinal and liturgical identity, the Orthodox churches have not strongly advanced political theology. Yet, for our time of momentous change and tumult, maintains Pantelis Kalaitzidis, such a vision is crucial. For the first time, here is a careful analytical assessment, well informed by historical insights, of the theological stance and public witness of the Orthodox churches in the political arena. Key to developing a distinctive political theology and public witness, Kalaitzidis maintains, is eucharistic community and renewed eschatology - that is, a deep faith in and expectation of God's active re-creation of individual, social, and even cosmic possibilities. A faith grounded in the risen Lord, he says, can offer a powerful religious vision, distinctively Orthodox in its deepest roots, not reducible to a nostalgic idealization of a theocratic past nor to a simple modern programme of social betterment.

I will have more details about some of these as they are forthcoming, as well as reviews in due course and, where possible, interviews with their authors. The bottom line is that Orthodox thought in the anglophone world is really flourishing, and new publications are appearing at a healthy clip. These are all greatly cheering events greatly to be encouraged. 

Theologians and Scientists in Dialogue

As we noted in the course of our interview, Orthodox theologians have not contributed as much or as frequently to contemporary debates and discussion between and among theologians and scientists. But the volume discussed in the interview, along with another recent one, go some considerable way to filling this lacuna: a recent collection containing at least two Orthodox contributions is Gerald O'Collins and Mary Ann Meyers, eds., Light from Light: Scientists and Theologians in Dialogue (Eerdmans, 2012), 256pp. 

About this book the publisher tells us:

In this volume renowned scientists and theologians discuss the concept of light as understood by modern physics and employed by biblical and patristic writers. Light from Light deepens readers' understanding of light as posited by recent cosmological and physical theories, drawing connections with "light" as a theological metaphor. Striking glimpses into new scientific developments offer additional insight and interest.

Orthodox contributors include John Behr and Kallistos Ware.  

The Creed

It was the Methodist theologian Will Willimon who, about fifteen ago now in a short article in The Christian Century (if my memory serves) wrote of once taking a class at Yale in which a Greek Orthodox bishop was asked to address the students on the role of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. At one point, a young student stood up and asked "What do you do when you can't say the creed?" The bishop responded to the effect: "You just say it; eventually you'll learn it." The young student, frustrated, responded: "But what do you do when you don't really believe certain parts, like the Virgin birth?" The bishop again responded "Well, you just say them, especially the difficult parts. Eventually it will come to you." Now really exasperated, the student demanded: "How can I profess a creed I don't really believe in?" The Orthodox theologian then asks how old this man is, and he's something like 21, to which the bishop responds with the lovely rebuke to this man's self-importance and narcissism by saying that nobody knows or understands anything at 21 and to remember that "it's not your creed: it's our creed. Just keep saying it and eventually it will come to you."

The creed is indeed a part of our common patrimony as Christians--Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic. A new DVD has recently been released and, taking a break from our usual bibliographic focus around here, I thought I would offer a review of The Creed: What Christians Profess, and Why It Ought to Matter. Directed by Tim Kelleher, and produced under the aegis of the journal First Things, this is a smartly produced short film that marries commentary from leading Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox scholars and writers with lush imagery and beautiful music, much of it courtesy of St. Vladimir's Seminary Choir.

About this DVD, the producers tell us:

A Film by Tim Kelleher. From the back cover: The Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed, professed by billions of Christians throughout the world, makes radical claims about the nature of reality and the identity of Jesus Christ. What are those claims? Can they withstand contemporary scrutiny? Who should care? Andy, why? In this remarkably succinct consideration, the 12 basic articles that compose the Creed are examined historically, theologically, philosophically, linguistically, scientifically and culturally, in order to appreciate more fully this treasure that is so often "hidden in plain sight." You are invited to join this stirring conversation, featuring an eminent group of scholars and thinkers, whose insights are the fruit of life-long study, prayer and reflection. Whether you are a student or a teacher; one struggling with questions of faith or a believer, THE CREED: What Christians Profess, and Why It Ought to Matter, will be a challenging and rewarding experience.

I watched this film, which is only thirty minutes long, chiefly as a professor trying to see if it would be suitable and useful in my classes. I have over the years seen again and again the amazement, and often the bewilderment, in students when first confronted with the messy and often hotly debated nature of Christian dogmatic history in the era of the ecumenical councils. I have also frequently seen the glazed-over look of too many people who mindlessly accept modern prejudices in assuming that creedal, doctrinal, or dogmatic statements are ipso facto boring, abstract lists of things nobody cares about and that such lists do nothing except make Christianty seem "intolerant" and irrelevant in a twenty-first-century world of technology and terrorism. Creeds, according to this mindset--the product of feverish readings of Foucault and Nietzsche--are little more than the products of a will-to-power in which the so-called orthodox try to "discipline and punish" the so-called heterodox, these latter often being portrayed as brave but persecuted dissidents fighting, well, a proleptic version of the French or American revolutions against jack-booted bishops who have not yet encountered the Enlightenment.

The DVD offers a very vigorous defense of the importance and the centrality of the creed against its modern despisers. It is generously ecumenical in the best ways, lucidly drawing on such prominent Orthodox theologians as John Behr, Catholic historians such as Robert Louis Wilken, biblical scholars such as Luke Timothy Johnson (himself the author of a 2004 book entitled The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why it Matters), particle physicist Stephen Barr, and other writers such as Frederica Mathewes-Green. 

My only criticism of this otherwise very well done production is that it is unaccountably short. It is an appetizer when I was expecting an entrée. Indeed, it ends with one of the commentators expressing the hope that parishes and others will form groups to dive into the creed in depth. That was exactly what I was hoping this DVD would do: not just present an apologia for the existence and use of the creed, but a more systematic exposition of each clause. We get some exposition throughout, but not all articles are covered, and none with as much historical detail as I was expecting and thought necessary. Still, if this does nothing so much as provoke people to consider anew the basic tenets of Christianity, this will have done a great good. If it raises new questions for people, that is all to the good, and the producers and participants are to be commended for this compelling and elegantly executed presentation. 

Christology's Bad Boys?

At the end of this month, in their wholly welcome and important series "Oxford Early Christian Texts," Oxford University Press will publish a new volume by the Orthodox theologian and dean of St. Vladimir's Seminary, John Behr: The Case Against Diodore and Theodore (OUP, 2011), 432pp.

About this book, OUP tells us:

This is a landmark work, providing the first complete collection of the remaining excerpts from the writings of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia together with a ground-breaking study of the controversy regarding the person of Christ that raged from the fourth to the sixth century, and which still divides the Christian Church. Destroyed after their condemnation, all that remains of the dogmatic writings of Diodore and Theodore are the passages quoted by their supporters and opponents. John Behr brings together all these excerpts, from the time of Theodore's death until his condemnation at the Second Council of Constantinople (553) - including newly-edited Syriac texts (from florilegium in Cod. Add. 12156, and the fragmentary remains of Theodore's On the Incarnation in Cod. Add. 14669) and many translated for the first time - and examines their interrelationship, to determine who was borrowing from whom, locating the source of the polemic with Cyril of Alexandria.

On the basis of this textual work, Behr presents a historical and theological analysis that completely revises the picture of these 'Antiochenes' and the controversy regarding them. Twentieth-century scholarship often found these two 'Antiochenes' sympathetic characters for their aversion to allegory and their concern for the 'historical Jesus', and regarded their condemnation as an unfortunate incident motivated by desire for retaliation amidst 'Neo-Chalcedonian' advances in Christology. This study shows how, grounded in the ecclesial and theological strife that had already beset Antioch for over a century, Diodore and Theodore, in opposition to Julian the Apostate and Apollinarius, were led to separate the New Testament from the Old and 'the man' from the Word of God, resulting in a very limited understanding of Incarnation and circumscribing the importance of the Passion. The result is a comprehensive and cogent account of the controversy, both Christological and exegetical together, of the early fifth century, the way it stemmed from earlier tensions and continued through the Councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople II.

Behr, whose work I have always enjoyed as being marked by great scholarly care, is the editor of several patristic studies and the author of several other important studies works, including his first book on St. Irenaeus of Lyons, and continuing through his recent series on the formation of Christian faith: The Way to Nicaea (The Formation of Christian Theology, V. 1) (Vol 1) and The Nicene Faith: Formation Of Christian Theology, 2 Volume Set (Pt. 1 &2). He has also written a Christological-eschatological study: The Mystery of Christ: Life in Death.

Watch for The Case Against Diodore and Theodore (Oxford Early Christian Texts) to be reviewed in Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies sometime in 2012 or 2013.