Orthodox Readings of Augustine

The title of this book should read *Augustinian Readings of Orthodoxy.* The set up of this book was weird. It was published by an Orthodox Seminary, yet most of the authors were Roman Catholics and Augustinian Anglicans, I think. Most of the authors were quite critical of many Orthodox distinctives. I wonder if the editors/publisher thought all of these things through. While I don't want to dwell on this point too long, a few things bear mentioning. While published by an Orthodox seminary, the overall tone of the work is radically pro-Latin/Roman. The editors go out of their way to distance themselves from hard, recognizable Orthodox distinctives. For instance, they snub the work of Fr John Romanides, Vlad Lossky, and Florovsky to a lesser extent--noting how we have moved beyond "those neo-Palamites." Okay, if they are so wrong, refuting them should have been so easy. Where's the refutation? Anyway, I felt I had to say that.Contents of the book:Notwithstanding, most of the essays were good. Demacopolas gives an interesting survey of Augustinian studies in the past few centuries. He gives particular notice to the neo-Palamites, noting that they have done the most in framing the Augustinian debate as a fierce East vs. West battle. Interestingly, almost all of the authors in the book, even the pro-Orthodoxy ones, will critique this move of neo-Palamism. However, none of the essayists actually *refute* the neo-palamist arguments.Some of the essays are just weird. Flogaus argues that Palamas was influenced by Augustine. While that's shocking, Flogaus certainly cites his sources and is fairly convincing. Except Flogaus doesn't seem to think that he is actually convincing? It's like "Yeah, Palamas borrowed from St Augustine, but not really." I am not kidding. That is his conclusion. Brian Daley gives an interesting comparison between Maximus and Augustine. While many Westerners (von Balthasar, most notoriously) think there is one pure line of thought from Augustine to Maximus to Aquinas to one's favorite movement today, Daley actually puts the breaks on that reasoning. He does note some similarities between the two authors, but supposes that could simply be the common Catholic consensus of the time, rather than Maximus overtly borrowing ideas from Augustine. Instead, Maximus almost doesn't quote Augustine--if at all--especially in places where it would have been most pertinent had he done so.Joseph Lienhard discusses Augustine's use of the Cappadocian fathers. It's not clear what Lienhard was actually arguing. I don't remember a specific argument. It is true that Augustine quoted a few of the Cappadocians around a dozen times, but that doesn't prove--nor does Lienhard specifically argue thus--that the Cappadocians were basically Augustinians. I would like to have seen Lienhard specifically interact with Augustine's use of St Basil. Augustine quotes Basil as advocating original sin, which Basil emphatically denies (Hexameron, Homily 2.5; 9.4). ??????????The main event of the show is the Trinitarian discussions by Ayres, Hart, Behr, Bradshaw, and to a strange degree, Jean-Luc Marion. Ayres writes a fantastic essay, even if I demur at points, arguing for a metaphysics of the Spirit. He makes many outstanding insights, most notably that each act of "sending" is also an act of "revealing" (130). The essence is the Trinity itself (Behr offers a corrective to that essentially true insight). Ayres via Augustine sees the revelation of the Spirit as an invitation to reflect on the Triune economy (143). Nevertheless, I do not find Ayres' filioquist reasoning persuasive simply because such reasoning is convoluted to begin with and can also be used to argue for precisely the opposite conclusion. However, that shouldn't take away from the otherwise brilliance of the essay.David Bentley Hart argues that the Nicene ontology destroyed the old pagan metaphysics. The Father did not generate the Logos with respect to creation, nor was the Logos's generation a "second moment" of the Real, but the Logos is the reality of God. Hart makes many insightful points to that respect; unfortunately, he tries to take on David Bradshaw. He says that Bradshaw mistranslated and misunderstood Augustine on "intelligibis," making Augustine to say that the mind comprehends the divine nature. Hart says that's not what intelligibis means (never mind that Latin theological dictionaries do render the word in the way that Bradshaw used it). Hart tries to rebut Bradshaw when Bradshaw says that for Gregory of Nyssa the divine names refer to the divine energies primarily, not to the Divine Nature. Yet in the next few sentences Hart admits that for Gregory the divine names refer to how God manifests himself toward us, which is another way of saying they are the divine energies!!!!!!!!David Bradshaw gives a brief summary of his book Aristotle East and West. He notes that for Augustine, truth is defined as convertible with being, and the more united (unitary?) one is, the more being it has. More importantly, for Augustine God's being is identified with God's will--God's eternal act of willing. The implications are staggering--and which Hart doesn't want to face, given his commitment to Absolute Divine Simplicity: if God's being is necessary and natural, and God's eternal act of willing is identical with God's being, then could God have willed otherwise? If yes, then how does that follow with the identification of being and willing? If no, how is that not a form of Origenism? And putting necessity on God? Hart doesn't really give an answer to this question.Fr Andrew Louth closes with a gentle reminder that we should read Augustine on the psalms, for in the psalms we hear the voice of Christ speaking to us.

Augustine often gets a bad rap in theology, especially from Eastern perspectives. This text sheds light on ways in which the Orthodox/Eastern Christians can study and benefit from Augustine's contributions, and valuable criticism on interpretations of Augustine.

The past century has seen a trend in Eastern Orthodox theologians who have attempted to distance their own theology from that of the west with historical revisionism that questions St. Augustine as part of the authentic Christian tradition. For a good detailed study of this trend see,  The Revival of Political Hesychasm in Contemporary Orthodox Thought: The Political Hesychasm of John Romanides and Christos Yannaras . But is Augustine's work truly a divergence from that sacred tradition or are his detractors too quick to dismiss his influence on the east? This is the question asked at the Orthodox Readings of Augustine conference held in 2007. The intent of the conference was ecumenical in that it sought to find the common Augustinian ground between east and west. It is encouraging that an Eastern Orthodox publisher has taken up this collection but it is unfortunate that most of the essay authors are from the western tradition.Still, the case for Augustinian influence in the east that directly challenges the assertions of those Father Payne referred to as "political hesychasts" is thorough, scholarly, and convincing. The articles range somewhat in depth with many that are difficult to follow without a good background in the ancient languages as well as philosophy. Other articles are more conversational and easier to follow; professor Carol Harrison's article, "De Profundis: Augustine's Reading of Orthodoxy" is such an article, not only as a good play on the book title but as a refreshing understanding of sacred tradition as a living tradition. Harrison's essay alone is worth the cost of the book and, though conversational in approach, is profound in content yielding a wealth toward meditation.Several articles take to task the influence of Augustine's work on Gregory Palamas and the Cappadocian fathers that has to make one doubt the dichotomy insisted upon by the "political hesychasts." The dichotomy is only present in a shallow understanding of Augustine or of the eastern fathers if we follow these articles to their logical conclusions. And again we are faced with the very real probability that the differences between east and west are not based in real theological disagreements but in a refusal to look to the other side with the goal of understanding rather than polemic. We can only hope and pray that readers of these essays will be able to overcome those biases that drive us toward polemic and seek to truly find the common ground that has for too long eluded us.

Not sure if I just wasn't in the mood, or if these were too theological for simple me. There are some interesting essays, and the topics covered seem comprehensive, but I found it too difficult a slog as a read for interest. Perhaps better suited to academic use and those with more knowledge and education than myself.