Probably Really Good | Retractions

Written by Douglas Wilson

Tuesday, 27 September 2011 20:32

For those following the recent blog posts, there has been a goodish bit of interaction on the subject of Eastern Orthodoxy here and here.

It all began with a brief clip from CanonWIRED. In that clip I recommended a book on EO that I had not read -- Through Western Eyes by Robert Letham. I recommended it because I had read other stuff by Letham, which really was top drawer, and I assumed this would be the same. But, as a result of the hubbub, I went back and read his section on icons and prayer, which I really can't recommend. He doesn't give away the store entirely, but he does give away a good portion of the inventory. So here is my retraction. I still like Letham's other stuff, but this was not so hot.

While on this personal note, in the comments section of those posts I have been pressed to reveal what I had or had not read in preparation for my column in that infamous edition of Credenda way back then -- back in the days of the early church. To this point I have not replied to those demands, not because I wanted to look coy, or dig arabesques in the carpet with my shoe, but because I honestly had no idea. That column was written sometime prior to 1994, about 17 years ago.

This is not a retraction at all -- just a little sharing time. I have before had someone point at a book on my shelf and ask if I have read it. To my shame, I do not know. I pick it up and look through it, and my blue highlighter is all through it. Heh. I have sometimes thumbed through books I know I have read, and read some comment with blue exclamation marks beside it. The only problem is that I don't recall ever reading such a sentiment before in my life.

Now seventeen years from this time (2028), I will no doubt be assailed by a young man for my podunk reading schedule during these, the lazy days of his fourth grade year. And I will no doubt not be able to remember, aided in that lack of remembrance by the weight of seventy five winters. But I will say this, for this is how I operate -- I know I must have been reading something right about now. And boy, I bet it was good.

Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites

Comments

Only registered users can write comments!

oldfatslow

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 3:18 am

A corollary to forgetting
what you've read is buying
a book you already own. I've
done that a bunch of times.

ofs

Steven Wedgeworth - Bad Form

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 5:27 am

It's a common move for folks to demand that you read all of their library before you can "understand their position." We've sometimes seen Reformed people try this maneuver as well. It's a sign of a certain mentality that is not comfortable with classical dialectic.

Instead of admitting that there are general truths from which particulars are built upon (and thus a general accessibility once one is versed in the basic concepts), the assumption is that you must read any and everything for that super-sophisticated academic move that is just around the corner.

But once you do take up the challenge and read as much as you can, you learn that there is not one super-majority position among the learned but rather several competing general positions with a much larger collection of finer nuances among them. If you've read the Reformers and then 19th/early 20th cent. Dogmaticians like Hodge, Shedd, Dabney, and Bavinck, then you've come across as much material as you need to be generally conversant with the debate over icons as well as the doctrine of God.

The only specific academic field that I would encourage people to take up for a helpful added perspective is the new interest in Hebraism or Rabbinic Judaism and what broadly goes by the title "temple theology." Several of these scholars have done the really difficult work of connecting "the early church" (2nd cent., but more often 3rd/4th cent. Christianity) with the 1st cent NT church and the Jewish system which preceded it.

Matthew N. Petersen

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:51 am

Steven, the problem with reading only the Reformed is that it's one sided. "He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him."

Matthew N. Petersen

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:34 am

Just a minute: The reason I asked for your credentials was not that I was assailing you for your podunk reading schedule, but that you claimed to have read. If you claim to have read, you should be able to back it up, at least a little. That's all it was. No assault or anything. If you are going to take people to task for questioning your qualifications, you have a duty to have qualifications, and to offer them when pressed.

Douglas Wilson

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:21 pm

Matt, I do claim to have read. And I'll bet it was good, and compelling. So I do have qualifications here, but they are probably in the attic with our old check stubs.

Joel - Runciman

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 4:54 pm

One thing you may have read was Steven Runciman's "The Great Church in Captivity." It contains a chapter on the Calvinist Patriarch and his murder.

Matthew N. Petersen

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 5:05 pm

Thanks. I think we could have spared a lot of pain with that up front.

I would encourage you to reread if you want to engage Orthodoxy. Not that you need to engage, and not that the videos were exactly engagement.

Douglas Wilson

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 7:30 pm

Matt, you apparently have a pretty clear definition in your mind for "engage," as do I. But in my mind, arguments qualify you for engagement, and reading prepares you (or not) for the argument. Reading is a means to an end. We agree that if you say something you need to be prepared to defend what you say. I generally think of that as being prepared with an appropriate argument if challenged, which is not the same thing as being prepared to recall where I first learned the argument.

Matthew N. Petersen

Thursday, September 29, 2011 7:16 am

Except you claimed expertise when challenged, and when we asked you to back it up you mocked me, and acted as if expertise were unimportant.

To argue for something you don't need to be well read, but to argue against something you do--how else can you know what you're shooting for? That's one of your criticisms of, for instance, Chesterton's interaction with Calvinism. He could have done the reading, but he didn't his points miss their target. (At least when I took Lordship it seems it was.)

Douglas Wilson

Thursday, September 29, 2011 7:37 am

Matt,

"acted as if expertise were unimportant."

This is why I don't think you are reading carefully. There is a distinction between accepting your definition of what qualifies a minister to "engage" and my recognition that everyone who critiques something should be able to back up what they say.

Matthew N. Petersen

Thursday, September 29, 2011 2:43 pm

Or maybe this was not meant as a challenge to me, as it seemed when I read it. The last sentence can be understood either as a explanation of your view, or on the other hand, as a slightly veiled statement that I was in the wrong all along. Given the context where multiple people were telling me that your credentials were fine, and I should shut up, it seemed to be the second. If I misread it, I'm sorry.

Rick Davis - On Ignorance

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:48 am

I always like to tell my students about the Great Library at Alexandria. Before Caesar's boo boo with the fire, it contained about 800,000 books. This means that if you learned to read when you were 1 year old and read a book a day until you were 90, you would still only read 4% of the books in that library. In the intervening 2000 years millions more books have been written. This means that the at some point in your life someone will mention a book you haven't read. When this happens you can take the humble path like Doug does here...Or you can take the advice of Hilaire Belloc in his essay "On Ignorance.":

"Lastly...there is the method of upsetting the plates and dishes, breaking your chair, setting fire to the house, shooting yourself, or otherwise swallowing all the memory of your shame in a great catastrophe.

But that is a method for cowards; the brave man goes out into the hall, comes back with a stick, and says firmly, 'You have just deliberately and cruelly exposed my ignorance before this company; I shall, therefore, beat you soundly with this stick in the presence of them all.'"

Gregory Soderberg - Some Helpful Books

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:19 am

Hi, Mr. Wilson:

Greetings from North Carolina! In a comment on one of the previous EO posts, you mentioned the lack of Reformed interactions with EO. At Trinity College, I was actually studying the supposed influence of EO theology on John Calvin (quite a few scholars have claimed this, though not with much support), so I wanted to let you, and your readers know of a few books out there:

1. Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism - Mike Horton represents the classical Protestant view here, and does it quite well, showing great appreciation for EO, while offering substantive critiques.

2. Eastern Orthodoxy Through Western Eyes - Donald Fairbairn. Very helpful.

3. Light From the Christian East - James R. Payton. I believe Payton spoke at NSA in recent years. I've had some interaction with him. He's a gentleman, and a scholar.

4. Eastern Orthodox Christianity - Daniel B. Clendenin. (I don't believe Clendenin is Reformed, but he is Protestant.)

Matthew N. Petersen

Thursday, September 29, 2011 2:38 pm

This is why I don't think you are reading carefully: The sort of ethical (as in ethos, not as in morals) qualifications which Mr. Arasaki challenged you on, and which you implied you had, are precisely the ones you dismissed as irrelevant.

Second, in judging Mr. Callihan's piece, you do not take the authority to exhort against Orthodoxy, which I do not contest, and for which only a knowledge of Scriptures is necessary; but the authority judge over against Mr. Callihan the quality of the piece. For which you again need further ethical standing, particularly, the standing that being a qualified editor gives you, and the sort that you would require from a freshman rhetoric student--knowledge of your opponent. And it was precisely this knowledge which you mocked me for asking of you.

Similarly, your accusation that the Orthodox muddy the distinction between creator and creature stands only on ethical grounds--for you provide no argument--and the sort of ethical support which is necessary for that statement is not mere knowledge of Scripture, but knowledge of the Orthodox. Moreover, though we may disagree over whether the Orthodox muddy that distinction, it is a disagreement over fact, not over interpretation. Thus, in making the accusation, and in dismissing the charge that they do not muddy that distinction, you again claim the ethical standing the comes from familiarity with the Orthodox. Which is again, precisely the sort of ethical standing which you dismissed as irrelevant.

Now more recently, you have said that you have more qualifications that you were not then giving me. And I'm willing to leave it there.

But if you insist on getting the last word, and making it an insult, that's not ok. I am not willing to have you attack me (as you did implicitly in this post), nor to have you tell me that I am not reading closely. I understand the issues, and it is precisely because I have been following closely--evidently more closely than you--that I thought you have away the ship when you conceded your ethical standing.

katecho

Thursday, September 29, 2011 6:53 pm

Matthew just seems to want a pound of Doug's flesh at this point.

Matthew keeps saying things like: "Except you claimed expertise when challenged". I've asked to see a citation for such a claim by Doug, because all I've seen Doug admit is that he isn't an expert on EO.

The repeated accusation that Doug has somehow misrepresented his credentials is wearing thin.

Matthew N. Petersen

Thursday, September 29, 2011 8:31 pm

I am not going to attempt to defend myself any longer. Christ is my witness.

Matt Colvin

Saturday, October 01, 2011 4:21 pm

Matt, in my past debates with Doug, friends gave me counsel to stop after making my point. I didn't listen, and I ended up sinning against Doug out of my frustration that he would not admit that he was factually wrong, or that his rhetoric and debating methods were morally wrong.

I think he's wrong in the present discussion too, but I also think you should not do what I've done in the past, and let it irk you.

Matthew N. Petersen

Saturday, October 01, 2011 7:57 pm

Thanks. I'm not posting more.

Jeff Wencel - EO Books

Friday, September 30, 2011 7:26 am

Pastor Wilson,

You originally commended Letham's book, then pulled back a bit on that. Would you recommend some books on EO that you have found very helpful and could commend enthusiastically?

Thanks,

Jeff Wencel
New Covenant Church, Naperville, IL
Wheaton College grad student

About the Proprietor

Family Blogroll

Father
Sister Heather
Avuncular
Femina

Nate
Shadow Shroud
Nephew
Amoretti

About the Proprietor

Family Blogroll

Blogroll

Pastors Blogroll