Maximus the Confessor as a European Philosopher
Sotiris Mitralexis, Georgios Steiris, Marcin Podbielski, Sebastian Lalla, Eds.
Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2017

Ever-Moving Repose: A Contemporary Reading of Maximus the Confessor’s Theory of Time
Sotiris Mitralexis
Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2017

In the English speaking world, three fields of study have grown tremendously in the last few decades: the study of “Byzantine philosophy,” scholarship on Maximus the Confessor, and research in “Continental Philosophy of Religion.” Maximus the Confessor as a European Philosopher is a critical and timely book for bridging these three areas of emerging scholarship. Byzantine philosophy in particular is a new area of research (often thought of as a supplement to the much better researched medieval Latin, Hebrew, and Arabic traditions), with no introductory text or handbook on the subject as of yet. Maximus is sometimes excluded from Byzantine philosophy (which is sometimes viewed as beginning either with Photios or John Damascene). This text takes up precisely this question of how Maximus should be placed within the history of philosophy. As Dionysios Skliris puts it, the questions of this volume are as follows (p. 3): “Is Maximus ‘European’?” “Is Maximus a ‘philosopher’?” “What is Maximus’ contribution to Europe?” “What is his contribution to philosophy?” Likewise, is Maximus more than just a Byzantine or just a theologian? Similarly, Sotiris Mitralexis asks in the introduction (p. xxi), “Should towering figures of Byzantine philosophy like Maximus the Confessor be included in an overview of European philosophy?” These questions connect Maximus scholarship both to the larger attempt to include Byzantine philosophers in the narrative of the history of philosophy, and to the dialogue between contemporary European philosophy and patristic texts, construing Maximus as a predecessor to continental philosophy.

In its attempt to make these connections, this volume is an important one. Maximus is among the most philosophically rich of patristic or Byzantine authors, and this text is an important first step in a much needed area of scholarship. In taking up this topic, the volume brings together several of the most important scholars on Maximus and Byzantine philosophy. Nonetheless, this volume is only a first step. Perhaps the most important question is, How is Maximus a European philosopher? The various contributors all answer the question in their own way, sometimes with divergent results, by either 1). examining how Maximus takes up philosophical themes and questions, 2). treating Maximus as a source for European philosophy, or 3). arguing that Maximus stands as an equal/dialogue partner/alternative to contemporary philosophers. Read More

This marks the first appearance of this article in English, translated exclusively for Orthodoxy in Dialogue. The original Arabic version appeared on June 22, 2002 in An-Nahar, one of Lebanon’s leading daily newspapers.  

Metropolitan George (Khodr) of Mount Lebanon

The humility of knowledge demands that no one appoint himself as judge, for only God judges hearts. However, many believe that they are the sole agents of this mystery, instead of focusing on the salvation of their souls. Many sects claim to know who is to be saved and who will perish. This has occupied a good margin of thinking in more than one religion. The large confusion in the Christian milieu is caused by the great Saint Augustine, who said: “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” In his defense, though, he said what he said against heretics in Africa who appeared in his time. His dream was to return them to the correct faith. We can positively deduce from his negative quote that “salvation is in the Church,” in the sense that it is the grace of God.

What confuses this research is that most Christians who pose the question pose it as follows: “Do non-Christians go to heaven?” The answer to this question is another question: “What is heaven?” In the popular belief heaven is the space above, manifested after the destruction of this world. But there is nothing in our Scriptures that confirms that this world will be destroyed and that we will occupy a margin in space beyond which there is no other space. God does not dwell in space, and if you’re with Him there will be no space that could limit you. He is neither above nor below; He is not in a location. The heart of the matter is a mode of existence in which your resurrected face will be in front of the face of God, who does not have a material existence. Read More

2017 is the centenary of the publication of Sigmund Freud’s Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, one of his most popular and widely translated works. Curiously, this is also the 90^th anniversary of the publication of The Future of an Illusion, Freud’s attempted debunking of “religion.” This latter book was and is his most controversial book, at least among Christians and Jews, many of whom ever after looked upon this “godless Jew” (as he wryly called himself) as an implacable enemy.

That book, alas, gave too many Christians an excuse not to read Freud and engage with him. Indeed, many disdained Freud based merely on summaries (invariably tendentious) of one or two parts of this book or some other work of his, missing the whole picture. Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians felt that Freud, along with Marx and Nietzsche—whom, collectively, the French Protestant philosopher Paul Ricœur dubbed the “masters of suspicion”—had to be ignored or even denigrated as an enemy of faith.  

But to ignore Freud in particular is, I have long contended, a big mistake because he offers crucial insights that Christians, no less than anybody else, very much need. Fortunately, not all Christians have been so defensive around Freud. I have recently discussed elsewhere certain Western Christians who engaged with Freud and the later analytic tradition. But what about the Christian East? Read More

On November 16 the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) website posted the minutes and reports from the September 19-22 meeting of the Metropolitan Council. The Council “consists of the Metropolitan as Chairman, the Chancellor, the Secretary, the Treasurer, two representatives from each diocese, one priest and one layman elected by the Diocesan Assemblies, three priests and three laymen elected by the All-American Council.” The membership of the Standing Synod in the Metropolitan Council, although not mentioned in this description, must be assumed because of the names of the hierarchs present and absent in the minutes.

The Chancellor’s Report by Father John Jillions shows, on his calendar since the previous meeting of the Metropolitan Council, that he attended the June 7-9 Symposium on Pastoral Care and Sexuality at the Amsterdam Centre for Orthodox Theology. (See page 9 of Officers’ Reports—page 12 of the PDF—here.) On the preceding page he notes that he gave a paper at this Symposium. His report is listed as item E on page 4 of the minutes.

Item I on page 6 has the heading, “Return to Father Jillions and the Chancellor’s Report.” The discussion seems to have revolved almost entirely around his participation in the Symposium on Pastoral Care and Sexuality, which had figured only as a minor entry in his report:

Fr. John Jillions was asked about the Amsterdam Conference, why he attended it, and what benefit was it to the OCA.

Met. Tikhon remarked that there are many complex sexual issues and proposed that a Bioethics Committee be established to provide answers to questions such as what is a person and how do we love God. He continued that we have to know what to say within the Tradition of the Church. Read More