Comments on: Not a Book that Should Wait …Too Long That Is http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/05/14/not-a-book-that-should-wait-too-long-that-is/ Life from the view of a Christian pragmatist and educator. Wed, 20 Aug 2008 03:05:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Drew http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/05/14/not-a-book-that-should-wait-too-long-that-is/#comment-1454 Drew Thu, 15 May 2008 14:13:19 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=368#comment-1454 I totally understand that problem with Hart. He is very continental and rather Western in his approach. But I do think that he is doing something of important value to bridge the chasm between the traditions. I still have to read more, but that seems to be the case. And I agree that I would never read Hart as any kind of primer on Eastern Orthodoxy since that is not what he is doing with this volume at all - not even close. Lossky seems on target with the tradition as does Ware who I find to be very eloquent. I also like Schmemann who really does a nice job with the pastoral function of doctrine (like Ellen Charry's work on this with the patristics which is nothing short of fantastic) and Peter Gilquist for the Evangelical Orthodox view in the US. I totally understand that problem with Hart. He is very continental and rather Western in his approach. But I do think that he is doing something of important value to bridge the chasm between the traditions. I still have to read more, but that seems to be the case. And I agree that I would never read Hart as any kind of primer on Eastern Orthodoxy since that is not what he is doing with this volume at all - not even close.

Lossky seems on target with the tradition as does Ware who I find to be very eloquent. I also like Schmemann who really does a nice job with the pastoral function of doctrine (like Ellen Charry’s work on this with the patristics which is nothing short of fantastic) and Peter Gilquist for the Evangelical Orthodox view in the US.

]]> By: dtatusko http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/05/14/not-a-book-that-should-wait-too-long-that-is/#comment-2614 dtatusko Thu, 15 May 2008 14:13:19 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=368#comment-2614 I totally understand that problem with Hart. He is very continental and rather Western in his approach. But I do think that he is doing something of important value to bridge the chasm between the traditions. I still have to read more, but that seems to be the case. And I agree that I would never read Hart as any kind of primer on Eastern Orthodoxy since that is not what he is doing with this volume at all - not even close.<br><br>Lossky seems on target with the tradition as does Ware who I find to be very eloquent. I also like Schmemann who really does a nice job with the pastoral function of doctrine (like Ellen Charry's work on this with the patristics which is nothing short of fantastic) and Peter Gilquist for the Evangelical Orthodox view in the US. I totally understand that problem with Hart. He is very continental and rather Western in his approach. But I do think that he is doing something of important value to bridge the chasm between the traditions. I still have to read more, but that seems to be the case. And I agree that I would never read Hart as any kind of primer on Eastern Orthodoxy since that is not what he is doing with this volume at all - not even close.

Lossky seems on target with the tradition as does Ware who I find to be very eloquent. I also like Schmemann who really does a nice job with the pastoral function of doctrine (like Ellen Charry’s work on this with the patristics which is nothing short of fantastic) and Peter Gilquist for the Evangelical Orthodox view in the US.

]]> By: Kevin P. Edgecomb http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/05/14/not-a-book-that-should-wait-too-long-that-is/#comment-1447 Kevin P. Edgecomb Wed, 14 May 2008 21:19:21 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=368#comment-1447 Drew, Zizioulas is quite the different kettle of fish, as they say. For a good handle on Eastern Orthodoxy's engagement with contemporary philosophical trends, you'll be much better off reading him than Hart. The praise for Zizioulas is, so far as I've seen, unanimous. That for Hart is not. With Metropolitan John's writing I have not the slightest quibble, but rather I am quite awed by it. Not so with Hart. His Eminence's thought is by some considered to be reflective of the best in European philosophy, not simply Orthodox theology. The same has not been said of Hart. Even before Zizioulas, however, you should get a good handle on Lossky's <i>Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church</i>. I would also recommend two others by Fr Andrew Louth: <i>Discerning the Mystery</i> (which is unfortunately difficult to find at an affordable price) and <i>The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition</i> (the 2007 edition with an important afterword). So: Lossky, then Louth, then Zizioulas, with Hart last if at all. You can easily get along without Hart, in fact. And if you read them and internalize their ideas in this order, you'll find Hart not to be quite so impressive, in the end. Reading him is certainly not so necessary as some make it seem. Drew, Zizioulas is quite the different kettle of fish, as they say. For a good handle on Eastern Orthodoxy’s engagement with contemporary philosophical trends, you’ll be much better off reading him than Hart. The praise for Zizioulas is, so far as I’ve seen, unanimous. That for Hart is not. With Metropolitan John’s writing I have not the slightest quibble, but rather I am quite awed by it. Not so with Hart. His Eminence’s thought is by some considered to be reflective of the best in European philosophy, not simply Orthodox theology. The same has not been said of Hart. Even before Zizioulas, however, you should get a good handle on Lossky’s Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. I would also recommend two others by Fr Andrew Louth: Discerning the Mystery (which is unfortunately difficult to find at an affordable price) and The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition (the 2007 edition with an important afterword). So: Lossky, then Louth, then Zizioulas, with Hart last if at all. You can easily get along without Hart, in fact. And if you read them and internalize their ideas in this order, you’ll find Hart not to be quite so impressive, in the end. Reading him is certainly not so necessary as some make it seem.

]]> By: Kevin P. Edgecomb http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/05/14/not-a-book-that-should-wait-too-long-that-is/#comment-2615 Kevin P. Edgecomb Wed, 14 May 2008 21:19:21 +0000 http://notes-from-offcenter.com/?p=368#comment-2615 Drew, Zizioulas is quite the different kettle of fish, as they say. For a good handle on Eastern Orthodoxy's engagement with contemporary philosophical trends, you'll be much better off reading him than Hart. The praise for Zizioulas is, so far as I've seen, unanimous. That for Hart is not. With Metropolitan John's writing I have not the slightest quibble, but rather I am quite awed by it. Not so with Hart. His Eminence's thought is by some considered to be reflective of the best in European philosophy, not simply Orthodox theology. The same has not been said of Hart. Even before Zizioulas, however, you should get a good handle on Lossky's <i>Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church</i>. I would also recommend two others by Fr Andrew Louth: <i>Discerning the Mystery</i> (which is unfortunately difficult to find at an affordable price) and <i>The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition</i> (the 2007 edition with an important afterword). So: Lossky, then Louth, then Zizioulas, with Hart last if at all. You can easily get along without Hart, in fact. And if you read them and internalize their ideas in this order, you'll find Hart not to be quite so impressive, in the end. Reading him is certainly not so necessary as some make it seem. Drew, Zizioulas is quite the different kettle of fish, as they say. For a good handle on Eastern Orthodoxy’s engagement with contemporary philosophical trends, you’ll be much better off reading him than Hart. The praise for Zizioulas is, so far as I’ve seen, unanimous. That for Hart is not. With Metropolitan John’s writing I have not the slightest quibble, but rather I am quite awed by it. Not so with Hart. His Eminence’s thought is by some considered to be reflective of the best in European philosophy, not simply Orthodox theology. The same has not been said of Hart. Even before Zizioulas, however, you should get a good handle on Lossky’s Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. I would also recommend two others by Fr Andrew Louth: Discerning the Mystery (which is unfortunately difficult to find at an affordable price) and The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition (the 2007 edition with an important afterword). So: Lossky, then Louth, then Zizioulas, with Hart last if at all. You can easily get along without Hart, in fact. And if you read them and internalize their ideas in this order, you’ll find Hart not to be quite so impressive, in the end. Reading him is certainly not so necessary as some make it seem.

]]>