GRAMMAR AND GLORY: EASTERN ORTHODOXY, THE “RESOLUTE” WITTGENSTEIN, AND THE THEOLOGY OF ROWAN WILLIAMS Dissertation Submitted to The College of Arts and Sciences of the UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Doctor of Philosophy in Theology By D. Michael Cox UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON Dayton, Ohio May, 2015 GRAMMAR AND GLORY: EASTERN ORTHODOXY, THE 'RESOLUTE' WITTGENSTEIN, AND THE THEOLOGY OF ROWAN WILLIAMS Name: Cox, D. Michael APPROVED BY: _____________________________________________________ Silviu N. Bunta, Ph.D. Co-Faculty Advisor _____________________________________________________ Brad J. Kallenberg, Ph.D. Co-Faculty Advisor _____________________________________________________ Kelly S. Johnson, Ph.D. Faculty Reader _____________________________________________________ William L Portier, Ph.D. Faculty Reader _____________________________________________________ Bishop Alexander Golitzin, Ph.D. Outside Faculty Reader _____________________________________________________ Daniel S. Thompson, Ph.D. Chairperson ii © Copyright by D. Michael Cox All rights reserved 2015 ABSTRACT GRAMMAR AND GLORY: EASTERN ORTHODOXY, THE “RESOLUTE” WITTGENSTEIN, AND THE THEOLOGY OF ROWAN WILLIAMS Name: Cox, D. Michael University of Dayton Advisors: Dr. Brad J. Kallenberg, Dr. Silviu N. Bunta This dissertation argues that the cultivation of a non-dual, Christian theological imagination can profitably be resourced by attending to the convergence between the linguistic non-dualism of Wittgensteinian philosophy and the theological-imaginative non-dualism of ancient Jewish and Christian mysticism (subsequently reflected in Eastern Orthodox theology, liturgy and iconography). I frame this convergence using the writings of Rowan Williams, whose engagement with both traditions witnesses to the fruitfulness of their further mutual encounter. First, as a matter of exposition, chapter one contends that Williams’s thought has been profoundly influenced by Orthodox theology, particularly in the “kenotic personalism” that inflects his Trinitarian theology, pneumatology and theological anthropology. Second, as a matter of interpretation, chapters two through four trace the trajectory of Williams’s thought from an overly formal notion of “intentional” union toward a much “thicker” notion of participation animated by his aesthetic reflection and by the fruitful interaction between the “vocabularies” of the divine energies and Thomistic participation. Finally, in a more constructive mode, chapters five through eight pursue a programme of mutually illuminating dialogue between the two non-dualisms, iv making further connections between the traditions with respect to theology proper, philosophy of language and the cultivation of a liturgical-theological imagination. The dissertation culminates with an examination of Williams’s reflections on the Orthodox liturgy, highlighting both the link between liturgy and poetry and the importance for theology of attending to the formation of a “liturgical humanity” capable of inhabiting a posture of “unselfing attention”—a patient attending to what is given—open to an astonished wonder at the world lit by the divine love. On this reading, the “manifest wonder” of the Eucharist distills a spiritual pedagogy in which both the cause and effect are liturgical. v To Jeannette, Elijah and Abigail. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to my dissertation committee, especially my co-chairs, Silviu Bunta and Brad Kallenberg. Fr. Bunta set me on the path toward this research, and I have benefited immensely from his guidance to the worlds of Orthodox theology and ancient Jewish and Christian mysticism. Dr. Kallenberg first introduced me to the study of Wittgenstein, and his generous and thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of this material challenged me to think more clearly and carefully. I owe a debt of gratitude to countless friends and intellectual companions, though none more than Ethan Smith. Our conversations about one another’s research afforded me a testing ground for many of these ideas, and our friendship provided valuable encouragement during the writing process. Finally, and foremost, to my wife, Jeannette, and our children, Elijah and Abby, whose love and support have been an inexhaustible source of joy. vii ! TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................iv DEDICATION .................................................................................................................vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................................vii INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1 I. KENOSIS AND APOPHASIS: EASTERN ORTHODOX THEMES IN THE THEOLOGY! OF ROWAN WILLIAMS .......................................................................12 !1. Williams’s Conception of the Person Is Both Kenotic and Ecstatic ....................17 2. Williams’s Trinitarian Teology Defines Personal Existence as Fundamentally Kenotic! ................................................................................................................23 2.1. Williams Articulates a Kenotic Account of the Trinity Wich Informs His ! Conception of Apophaticism ..................................................................................24 2.2. Williams Draws on the Orthodox Emphasis on the Spirit in His “Erotic” ! Reformulation of Trinitarian Doctrine ....................................................................29 ! 2.3. Williams’s Account of Creation Echoes His Kenotic Trinitarianism ..........................37 3. Williams’s Teological Anthropology Emphasizes Human Existence as Fundamentally! Called to Kenosis .........................................................................41 3.1. Williams’s Pneumatology Follows an “Eastern” Model that Emphasizes ! Incorporation into Christ .......................................................................................42 3.2. Williams’s Anthropology Emphasizes the Dangers of Self-Deception and the ! Need for Asceticism ...............................................................................................45 3.3. Williams Articulates an Apophatic Anthropology that Draws Together the Endlessness of Desire, the Fluidity of Language, and the Believer’s Incorporation ! into the Trinitarian Perichoresis .............................................................................52 ! 4. Conclusion ......................................................................................................61 II. WILLIAMS! AND THE DEBATE OVER PALAMISM ............................................63 1. A Brief Introduction to the Essence-Energies Distinction ................................67 2. Te Substance and Significance of Williams’s Criticisms of Palamism .............72 viii !2.1. Williams’s Criticizes Palamas (and Dionysius) for Platonic “Realism” ......................74 2.2. Williams’s Criticisms Set a Benchmark for Future Ecumenical Discussion of the ! Palamite Distinction ...............................................................................................83 3. Williams’s Article Misinterprets Dionysius and Palamas in Important Respects! ..............................................................................................................87 !3.1. Williams’s Methodology Mischaracterizes Palamas ..................................................87 3.2. Dionysius Is Better Interpreted in the Context of Syriac Christianity and His ! Transformation of Neoplatonism ..............................................................................92 ! 3.2.1. Te Dionysian Proödoi/Energeia Are “Neither Lesser Gods nor Less God” ......96 3.3. Palamas Was Heir to a Radical Dionysian Apophaticism that Relativizes Human ! Intellection ..........................................................................................................105 3.3.1. Apparent Tension between Dionysius and Palamas Can Be Mitigated by a ! “Grammatical” Reading of “Essence” ............................................................112 ! 3.3.2. Palamism and Personalism Are Complementary ..........................................117 4. Te Debate Over Palamism Reveals “Structural” Differences between Eastern and! Western Teological Vocabularies ................................................................120 4.1. Te Doctrine of the Divine Energeia Reflects the Difference Between Eastern and ! Western Traditions with Respect to Participation ..................................................121 4.2. Te Difference between Eastern and Western Construals of the Intellect’s Role ! Owes to Teir Reception of Alternative Streams of Neoplatonic Tought .............131 4.2.1. Augustine’s Intellectualism Reflects the Influence of Plotinian-Porphyrean ! Neoplatonism ...............................................................................................132 4.2.2. Aquinas’s Inheritance of Porphyrean Neoplatonism Distorts His ! Interpretation of Dionysius ...........................................................................138 ! 4.3. Divine Simplicity Is Differently Conceived in Eastern and Western Traditions ........146 ! 4.3.1. Divine Simplicity in the West Is Construed as Identity .................................146 ! 4.3.2. Divine Simplicity in the East Is Construed as Unity .....................................156 ! 5. Conclusion .....................................................................................................161