11.19.08
The End of the Bulgakov Conference and Beyond
Speaking of finishing things, I’ve finally gotten around to reading the last two installments of the Bulgakov Conference on The Land of Unlikeness. I am not qualified to offer a detailed scholarly analysis, but I would like to jot down some impressions. When I initially read Joshua Delpech-Ramey’s report (see my previous posts under the Sergius Bulgakov Category to the right), I was thinking he was going in the right direction, and without reviewing why I thought that, I’ll go on to say that I think he veered off course in his latest post. I would have agreed more with him a year or two ago. He seems to speak of transcending our personhood into Absolute Divine Simplicity while simultaneously recovering the magic dormant in the created universe. And while my previous impression of Janet Leslie Blumberg was of Augustinian defensiveness, I found her to tweak Joshua’s point a bit to a more personalized, humbly Derridian (whom I am inclined to interpret gently), respect for the amazing cosmos, while maintaining her own personhood in a desire for union with God, but perhaps along a too deterministic path.
So my ignorant, less informed view which is probably based on misinterpretation, is that they are right to open themselves to union with God which will lead to transcending fallen humanity, but their method seems to be alchemistic – seeking to combine physical properties in the right combination to do this. Maybe Janet redeems the goal by saying it should be done by embracing tradition rather than leaving it behind, and I am not sure if she is talking about Credal Christian tradition only, or Sacramental Tradition, which is how we find God in the elements. And maybe her determinism is about uncovering the logos in everything, which is predetermined in Christ, rather than the over-riding of free will.
And as I brought out at the end of my last post on the Conference, I am becoming more sensitive to the off-balanced method of putting the ideas “transcendence”, “Cosmic union”, “latent power” before Person. We are not to throw ourselves into the abyss of ideas expecting an explosion of power and awareness (gnosticism), though perhaps I am neglecting a proper understanding of apophaticism. Instead we are to focus on the Person of Christ, and how He reveals Himself and ourselves to us. I have enjoyed the positive attitude conveyed in works like the above, and think there is merit to it. We are to be joined to love and awareness, but I am beginning to think it will be more concrete than how it came across. I’m thinking a hierarchy of God in Trinitarian relation (which Bulgakov has some valuable things to say about), repentant man, the powers, and material creation will keep us from going off the deep end.
Which brings me to the latest post, Revolution, Paradox, and the Christian Tradition: A Chestertonian debate between John Milbank and Slavoj Zizek, which may make the corrections, or maybe just clarifications, I have begun to intuit. I also value the scholarship in the above posts as I am coming to appreciate reading a wide range of bright people, even if we don’t have the same order of idealogical priorities. I also find their dispassionate and calm relating of atheists’ points very refreshing.
Janet Leslie Blumberg said,
November 19, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Andrea,
I was so happy to read this post (and your others on the Bulgakov conference). No one commented on the dialogue Joshua and I carried on and I was beginning to think we had been unreadable.
You put your finger on the place in Joshua’s thought where I pull back and, as you say, want to be “maintaining her own personhood in a desire for union with God.” That Romantic annihilation of the self in the abyss of the Absolute really gives me pause…. Even though so many in the meditative or contemplative disciplines teach us that we must let go of the ego and experience that undifferentiated union with the All, I still want to cry out that Christianity is about persons, and union with God is a union because it is a meeting of the personal self and the personal God, through the im-personed union of divine and human natures in our saviour, Christ.
I was very interested that you feel those reservations, too. (Of course, there may be a great difference between the “ego” and the true self created by God.)
Also, I am — yes, absolutely — referring to the sacramental tradition as well as credal when I want to preserve the past. And the Iconic tradition! I am an Episcopalian and we shared our church building for some years with an Orthodox mission congregation. We celebrated the Western/Eastern Holy Week together the year they coincided and we really loved each other and worked together. Although they are now in their own building and growing fruitfully, they changed and enriched us forever, we think. Sacramentalism is precious to me.
Finally, Andrea, I am in awe that you have six children and a very full life and still read all these theologians and blogsites, and are so temperate and insightful about Derrida, for instance, who is a favorite thinker of mine. I don’t think he would ever have accepted the designation of atheist, by the way, and not only because it is too much of a positivity and a closure or containment. He wouldn’t say that he and his wife fell in love at first sight, either, but he eludes to an event that both recognized that would be falsified by speaking it formulaically. Andrea, I feel he served the coming Impossible goodness and justice with all his heart, mind, and soul and is at peace with God now, if I may be so bold as to say so, probably diminishing whatever truth I feel here by saying it so….
Anyway, thanks for commenting. I’m glad I found your blog and will try to visit you. I’m blessedly retired from college teaching now and able to think and write and meditate full time. Keep up the joy of knowing God in the wonder-filled joy of thought. Best, Janet
P.S. I’m not sure Augustine is so deterministic as you suspect. I think it’s as with grace and faith: even our faith ultimately comes from and depends upon divine grace, yet faith is our own human side of loving God that meets up with God’s side of loving us. There are two wills involved in any union. Choice is vital. But as fallen beings we are never free as Adam and Eve were endowed to be…. Does that make sense?
Andrea Elizabeth said,
November 19, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Dear Janet,
Thank you so much for so graciously filling in some of the gaps I was experiencing in such an agreeably clarifying way. I am an undisciplined dabbler in these things but I find them so fascinating that I keep coming back, and hope to understand better the more I read. Multitasking with homeshooling and increasing attention deficit makes it a slower process though.
I have heard a few stories of Anglican Churches taking in newly arrived Orthodox and sharing facilities. We owe a debt of gratitude to your generosity while we get ourselves on our feet.
I’m glad you didn’t find my comments offensive. Having engaged in some pretty “spicy” conversations with Calvinists, I am probably too hyper-defensive about St. Augustine, indicating the work I need to do on putting people before ideas! I will try to keep my mind open and get to reading more of his writings at some point, besides just focusing on the debate with Pelagius.
Oh, and somehow Derrida captured my heart at first glance between the lines. I’m glad to find another appreciator of him. I have also had the feeling that he is in a good place right now. I don’t remember exactly how I got the impression he was atheist. I want to get back to him at some point too.
Thank you so much for taking the time to read and comment. You are welcome any time.
Andrea Elizabeth said,
November 19, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Oops, I neglected this part, “But as fallen beings we are never free as Adam and Eve were endowed to be….”
I think our freedom has to be more actively sought and our sinfulness overcome because we are fallen. I also believe Christ healed human nature through His life, death, and resurrection, though it has to be individually realized in each person. And perhaps the OT people had some retroactive taste of this.
I am open to a combination of grace and choice that does not override free will. It places the people who don’t choose in an unchosen-by-God position. I prefer the possibility that anyone has the opportunity to choose. Perhaps God increases his energies at particular times to particular people, but I am currently going from the idea that somehow they, through their inclinations, are receptive to it. It’s mysterious and one must keep humbly attuned to the source of our life and love at the same time.
Still it’s hard for us to understand, even with the aid of Patristic teaching. And I’m not sure how important understanding the “how” is except that it can have ramifications on how we view the unchosen or unchoosing.
Thanks again, Janet.
Dan said,
November 19, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Andrea,
Much thanks for the kinds words about our humble website and the “biting off more than we could chew” Bulgakov conference. Please keep reading AND commenting, as I’m sure we’d all agree, we can use all the help we can get!
Best,
Dan
Andrea Elizabeth said,
November 19, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Thanks Dan for the invitation. I really admire you all’s interest in Father Sergius and am thankful that you shared your thoughts. He, like Derrida, gets mixed reviews among Orthodox, as someone on your site pointed out, I think, so I am glad to find such an appreciative audience.