Prelude to forthcoming posts (also: the Orthodox catechumenate and two videos)

Free post

In the next few posts (they may be just two in number, but I’m keeping it open-ended), I will look at “the perennial philosophy” and religious syncretism from a pragmatic perspective. Increasingly, I have come to believe such an exercise might be useful. The old accusation leveled at “mysticism” — that it begins in a mental “mist,” centers on “I,” and ends in “schism” — isn’t without some justification. Pragmatism is one way to dispel the mist. Philosophically, “pragmatism” is a method only, as William James stressed repeatedly. As a method, it has no dogmas (propositions) but is concerned with arriving at truth. One might very well arrive at a dogma pragmatically, but the arrival shouldn’t be confused with the means of getting there.

In short, [pragmatism] widens the field of search for God. Rationalism sticks to logic and the empyrean. Empiricism sticks to the external senses. [But] Pragmatism is willing to take anything, to follow either logic or the senses and to count the humblest and most personal experiences. She will count mystical experiences if they have practical consequences. She will take a God who lives in the very dirt of private fact — if that should seem a likely place to find him. (James, Pragmatism, Lecture II)

A serious pragmatist, of course, must be willing to make divisions: this way as opposed to that way; this belief as opposed to that belief; this practice as opposed to that practice. And so on. In this sense, Jesus forces on his would-be disciples an unabashedly pragmatic response — one that demands division in their lives: “He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:37); “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Matt. 16:24); “And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, ‘You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.’ At that saying his countenance fell, and he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, ‘How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!’” (Mk. 10:21-23)… The examples could be multiplied.

Jesus’ cross simultaneously divides from “the world” and forms (or should) an alternative fellowship — an imperfect fellowship made up of flawed people, to be sure, but (ideally) a fellowship based on the love of God and neighbor. It has two inseparable aspects: the one called must renounce certain things and be joined to others, and these aspects must become part of one’s life permanently. The most crucial division is that between the follower of Jesus and “all that is in the world (kosmos)” but “is not of the Father,” the latter sharply delineated in 1 John 2:16 as “the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life.”

This is on my mind at the moment for personal reasons. Tomorrow (Sunday, the 4th of August), I will stand at the door of the Orthodox church I attend and make a series of renunciations, before being admitted as a catechumen. Admittedly, I won’t be renouncing anything I haven’t renounced pragmatically before, but — as C. S. Lewis said someplace in words to this effect — it’s good for us that the body should make its obeisance.

As some of you know, I was raised a high-church Episcopalian (and was ordained a priest), became a Roman Catholic for some years, only to return to Anglicanism — this time as a member of the Church of England. What many do not know is that I contemplated becoming Orthodox in the late 1970s (when there were still healthy relations between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, most notably in the Fellowship of St. Alban and St Sergius — which still exists in a depleted state), nearly joined circa 1981, and didn’t go through with it out of a sense of loyalty to my Anglo-Catholic friends (in particular, the All Saints Sisters of the Poor in Maryland). The Orthodox priest with whom I was preparing to become a catechumen told me that, one day, I would be back. Well, forty-plus years later, here I am. In the meantime over the years, some of my closest friends, family members, fellow priests, and even one of my most influential seminary professors have become Orthodox, even ordained, and in some cases I have been instrumental in urging them along (undoubtedly, the most ironic feature of all). At any rate, the draw towards Orthodoxy has never let me go, no matter where else I’ve wandered. The one thing I can say about it is that I’m very much aware of Orthodoxy’s problems (both in the present and the past, some quite serious indeed), and I don’t enter the fold with blinders on or stars in my eyes. But I would rather help shoulder their problems than those found in any other communion.

How does any of this connect to a pragmatic approach to Perennialism and syncretism, which I will be exploring in future posts? I will just say that I retain a modest belief in a form of Perennialist religious philosophy, but only up to a point. And what I regard as legitimately “perennial” in Perennialism are — in pragmatic terms indeed — those common aspects of practice (ascetical and moral) to be found in virtually every human culture. Regarding “syncretism,” more about that in another article.

To conclude this meandering post, I will embed two videos below.

The first is a talk by Jonathan Pageau regarding the controversial opening ceremonies of the Olympics. If you’re unaware of the controversy, you are probably a happy soul whose peace of mind should remain undisturbed by any exposure to it. That said, Pageau’s remarks stress the divisions between “the world” and the clear obligations of Christian discipleship that so often today are blurred — frequently by Christians themselves in their tendency to engage in impassioned political pugilism and oneupmanship.

The second video is something altogether different — a critical appraisal of popularized versions of “Eastern” philosophy from the “Living Philosophy” channel. Some of you may object to the gist of its argument. Nevertheless, I think the video is worth a listen. The presenter, as far as I can tell, is not a Christian, but I believe that some of the values he wants to uphold are found in Christianity (as well as in Judaism and also Islam). My purpose in sharing it is tied to the appeal to pragmatism made above. As I said, pragmatism tends to divide — or, better, it tends to discover where divergences must inevitably appear in grand systems, theories, arguments, and schemes. Where Perennialist philosophy (in all its varieties) or syncretistic tendencies are concerned, the application of pragmatism offers a sober appraisal.

The videos: