I’m going to slow down my blogging over the next two months. I’d like to read some books that have nothing to do with theology, as well as some theological books that are difficult to blog on. Blogging can be a wonderful discipline—it forces me to read and then at the very least summarize what I’ve read and perhaps even learned—but it can also be a prison, for the same reason. To be a successful blogger, one has to blog regularly, week after week. What this means is that you will probably notice less “substantive” articles until after Labor Day, as well as some reblogs of previously published material. Of course, I’ve said that in the past and then ZAP! I get inspired and find myself writing a new series on something-or-other. So who knows.
I’ve already started reading a novel on Arthur and Merlin—The Pendragon by Catherine Christian. I first read it thirty years ago or perhaps even longer than that. I remember enjoying it at the time and have wondered if it was worth a revisit. I’m very much enjoying it. I had never heard of Christian, but apparently this was the last novel she published. After I’m finished with Pendragon, perhaps I’ll read a detective mystery or start Moby Dick (not likely!) or play some chess. Eventually I want to find my way back to St Gregory Nyssen’s Life of Moses but without the pressure of having to blog on it. And after that I want to tackle Pseudo-Dionysius and the Metaphysics of Aquinas, but I definitely don’t want to blog on it. Talk about being out of my intellectual depths! If I can understand a tenth of the book, I will judge myself blessed.
I will also be commenting from time to time on Dale Tuggy’s on-going series on the Trinity, if only to keep my blogging oar in the water. I really do think that Dale is going about this the wrong way. One just doesn’t rip the Scriptures from the creedal, sacramental, and pastoral life of the Church and then ask, Does the Bible teach the Trinity? The doctrines of the Church aren’t read off the pages of Scripture like that. Nor will it do to blame the flourishing of the trinitarian dogma on imperial coercion. If that is all the Nicene homoousion had going for it, it wouldn’t have survived the intrigues of Byzantium or the barbarian invasions. But more importantly, it does not explain why important theologians in the Church invented the doctrine to begin with. Why not just stick with the mediating theology of Eusebius of Caesaria?
So if you are an Eclectic Orthodoxy fan, don’t worry if you don’t see an article for a week or two. I’m still here—just chilling out and enjoying a little down-time.