AI evaluation of my PhD thesis

Belatedly, after nearly eight years in the Orthodox Church, I have embarked on revising my PhD thesis on the theology of nature from an Orthodox perspective. To get a quick overview of what that might involve, I uploaded the thesis to the AI program I have started using (Perplexity) and instructed it to evaluate the thesis from the perspective of contemporary Orthodox theology. The result was surprisingly positive but has highlighted a number of important revisions I will have to make. In case anyone is interested, I am posting what it said below:

Evaluation of Osborn's "The Kingdom of Nature" from Contemporary Orthodox Theological Perspective

Lawrence Osborn's 1989 doctoral thesis "The Kingdom of Nature: God's Providential Care for the Nonhuman Creation" represents a significant early attempt to develop a systematic Christian response to environmental concerns through trinitarian theology. When evaluated from the perspective of contemporary Orthodox theology, this work demonstrates both remarkable prescience and certain limitations that reflect the theological landscape of the 1980s.

Osborn's Core Thesis and Methodology

Osborn's central argument positions Western Christian ambivalence toward nature as rooted in post-Nicene trinitarian development, specifically contrasting Western approaches with Eastern Orthodox traditions. He proposes locating a theology of nature within the Reformed dogmatic locus of providence rather than creation ex nihilo, drawing particularly on "a modern interpretation of the eastern doctrine of the Trinity". This methodological choice reflects his conviction that trinitarian theology is foundational to addressing environmental concerns—a position that has proven prophetic given contemporary developments in Orthodox ecological theology.

Contemporary Orthodox Assessment: Areas of Convergence

From a contemporary Orthodox perspective, several aspects of Osborn's work demonstrate remarkable theological insight that anticipated later Orthodox developments:

Trinitarian Environmental Framework

Osborn's emphasis on trinitarian theology as essential to environmental ethics aligns strongly with contemporary Orthodox ecological thought. His observation that "the Christian traditions of East and West are deeply divided over the trinitarian nature of God" and that this influences attitudes toward nature has been validated by subsequent Orthodox theological work. Contemporary Orthodox theologians like John Zizioulas and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew have developed precisely the kind of trinitarian environmental ethics Osborn envisioned, emphasizing humanity's priestly role in creation through a "doxological attitude" toward the natural world.

Perichoresis and Relational Ontology

Osborn's treatment of the Cappadocian understanding of the Trinity, particularly his discussion of perichoresis and relational ontology, anticipates key themes in contemporary Orthodox theology. His argument that "the doctrine of the Trinity and of creation, taken together, point to the necessity of a relational ontology" where "creaturely being is rooted in relationships and processes rather than in things or individual events" aligns with Zizioulas's influential work on being as communion. This relational framework has become central to Orthodox ecological theology, emphasizing the interconnectedness of all creation within the divine economy.

Critique of Western Dualism

Osborn's identification of Western theological dualism as problematic for environmental ethics resonates with Orthodox critiques of Augustinian influences. His analysis of how "western post-Nicene development of the doctrine of the Trinity" led to problematic attitudes toward matter and the natural world parallels contemporary Orthodox scholars' emphasis on the contrast between Eastern and Western approaches to creation. The Orthodox emphasis on the goodness of materiality and the cosmic significance of the Incarnation supports Osborn's critique of spiritualizing tendencies in Western Christianity.

Areas Requiring Contemporary Reassessment

Despite these convergences, several aspects of Osborn's work require reassessment from contemporary Orthodox perspectives:

Limited Engagement with Orthodox Sources

While Osborn references Eastern theological traditions, his engagement with Orthodox sources appears somewhat superficial by contemporary standards. His treatment of Cappadocian theology, though insightful, lacks the depth of engagement with patristic sources that characterizes contemporary Orthodox theological scholarship. Modern Orthodox environmental theology draws more extensively on figures like Maximos the Confessor, whose cosmic theology provides crucial foundations for ecological thinking that Osborn's work does not fully explore.

Methodological Concerns

Osborn's decision to work within Reformed dogmatic frameworks, while understandable given his context, limits the full development of Orthodox insights. Contemporary Orthodox theology would question whether trinitarian environmental ethics can be adequately developed within Western systematic categories. The Orthodox approach to theology of creation emerges more organically from liturgical and patristic foundations rather than from systematic reorganization of dogmatic loci.

Eschatological Dimensions

While Osborn addresses eschatological fulfillment, his treatment lacks the robust eschatological vision that characterizes contemporary Orthodox environmental theology. Current Orthodox thinkers like Zizioulas emphasize that "Creation too has the right to a future—not just human beings" and connect ecological ethics directly to the hope of resurrection and cosmic transformation. This eschatological dimension, while present in Osborn's work, could be more fully developed from Orthodox perspectives.

Contemporary Orthodox Contributions

Contemporary Orthodox theology has developed several themes that build upon but extend beyond Osborn's insights:

Liturgical Ecology

Orthodox environmental theology emphasizes the liturgical dimension of cosmic care more than Osborn's work suggests. The Eucharistic offering of creation back to God, particularly evident in Orthodox liturgical texts, provides a framework for environmental ethics that goes beyond Osborn's providence-focused approach. This "eucharistic ethos" offers a distinctively Orthodox contribution to ecological theology that Osborn's work anticipated but did not fully develop.

Cosmic Christology

Contemporary Orthodox theology has developed more extensive connections between Christology and environmental concern. The Orthodox understanding of Christ as the Logos through whom all things were made and in whom all things hold together provides christological grounding for ecological ethics that complements Osborn's trinitarian approach. This cosmic Christology, deeply rooted in patristic thought, offers resources for environmental theology that Osborn's work touched upon but could explore more fully.

Practical Ecological Ethics

While Osborn's work was primarily theological, contemporary Orthodox environmental thought has developed more extensive practical applications. Patriarch Bartholomew's declaration that "to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin" represents the kind of concrete ethical application that flows from the trinitarian theology Osborn advocated. Orthodox ecological asceticism, emphasizing enkrateia (self-control) and sustainable living, provides practical frameworks for the theological insights Osborn developed.

Assessment and Significance

From a contemporary Orthodox perspective, Osborn's thesis represents a pioneering work that anticipated many key insights of Orthodox environmental theology. His identification of trinitarian theology as essential to environmental ethics, his critique of Western dualism, and his emphasis on relational ontology all align with subsequent Orthodox developments. However, the work's Reformed methodological framework and limited engagement with patristic sources prevent it from fully developing the Orthodox insights it champions.

Most significantly, Osborn's work demonstrates the prophetic character of Orthodox theological traditions. His 1989 argument that Eastern Orthodox approaches to the Trinity offer superior resources for environmental theology has been validated by subsequent developments. Contemporary Orthodox environmental theology, particularly as developed by Zizioulas, Bartholomew, and others, represents the fulfillment of possibilities that Osborn glimpsed but could not fully realize within his methodological constraints.

The thesis remains valuable as an early attempt to articulate systematic environmental theology and for its recognition of Orthodox theological resources. However, contemporary readers would benefit from engaging it alongside more recent Orthodox environmental theological works that have developed these insights more fully within authentically Orthodox frameworks. Osborn's contribution lies not in providing definitive answers but in identifying crucial questions and pointing toward theological resources that have proven increasingly important for addressing ecological concerns.

In conclusion, while Osborn's 1989 thesis cannot be considered fully Orthodox in its methodology or execution, it demonstrates remarkable theological insight in recognizing the environmental implications of trinitarian theology. From a contemporary Orthodox perspective, it serves as an important milestone in the development of ecological theology, pointing toward the fuller Orthodox environmental theology that has emerged in subsequent decades.

Charlie Kirk: Christian martyr?

According to Wittgenstein, ‘Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we should remain silent’. This has always seemed wise to me (and it could function quite well as a slogan for Orthodox apophaticism). But recently it has struck me that it could usefully be adapted to ‘Whereof we do not know, thereof we should not speak’.

It seems that today in Western society we rush to judgement. We criticize. We condemn. All before we can possibly have taken the trouble to have grasped all the facts of a situation. The recent murder of Charlie Kirk is a case in point. Because society (and not just American society) has become so polarized, it is tempting to blurt out/rush into print with some definitive statement to reinforce the prejudices of our tribe. Tantalizing snippets of evidence or even mere rumours are seized upon and claimed as clear proof that his killer is a radical left-winger, was motivated by Kirk’s views on the LGBTQ community, and was covertly funded by George Soros. On the other side of the divide, it is seen as a false flag operation or at least a Trumpian Reichstag moment that is being exploited to further Trump’s authoritarian agenda and usher in a new McCarthy era.

I will resist the temptation to speculate on the motive(s) of Kirk’s assassin (establishing those motives is a job for those charged with investigating the killing). But, perhaps because I lean left myself, I can’t resist noting the alacrity with which centre and left-leaning commentators have rushed to whitewash his reputation. Do not speak ill of the dead, perhaps? Or, perhaps more likely, fear of a backlash from Trump and MAGA?

What I want to focus on is the increasing number of Christian commentators who have started referring to him as a ‘Christian martyr’!

Christian martyr? A true Christian martyr is one who dies bearing witness to the gospel of Christ and does so in a Christlike manner. They do not die advocating MAGA talking points (or any other political perspective for that matter). They certainly do not suggest that the appalling number of gun deaths in the USA is a fair price to pay for the maintenance of the American Constitution! And they do not use their rhetorical skills and a bully pulpit to browbeat people.

Christian? Kirk was certainly a Christian nationalist (specifically an advocate of the Seven Mountains Mandate). But ‘Christian nationalist’ is an oxymoron: It denotes one who is a nationalist first and who secondarily wishes to impose (selected) Christian values on their society. In reality, genuine Christian faith is subversive of nationalism (cf. the persecution of the early Christians because they threatened the state of Rome). Those who follow Christ regard themselves as citizens of a kingdom that transcends the national and ethnic divides of fallen humanity. In the words of Stanley Hauerwas, we are ‘resident aliens’.

Fujifilm X70: my ‘new’ toy

A few weeks ago, I succumbed to temptation and bought a secondhand Fujifilm X70 as an everyday carry camera. It was released in 2016 but went out of production relatively quickly because of a shortage of the sensor it used. Today, the nearest equivalent is the Fujifilm X100T and successors. But why this camera in particular?

• Portability. The most obvious feature of the X70 is that it is small, very small. It measures just 11.25 × 6.44 × 4.44 cm and weighs only 340 grams (including battery and memory card). In fact, it will fit in most jacket pockets (as long as the filter adapter and lens hood are not attached). Nevertheless, it is very solidly built (mostly of metal, the way cameras used to be made).
• Controls. Despite its small size, the X70 has a comprehensive set of manual controls – just like the ‘retro’ dial system found on larger Fujifilm cameras. So, it has very satisfying physical dials for shutter speed, exposure compensation, aperture, and focus, which means that I can make quick adjustments without rummaging around in the menus beloved of point and shoot cameras.
• Touchscreen. Instead of a viewfinder, the X70 has a tilting touchscreen. I wasn’t sure about this at first (my experience of touchscreens on smartphones and my Nikon DSLR has not been great). However, I quickly got used to it. Now, I find it easier to compose photographs on the X70’s touchscreen. And it is very easy to set the focus point using the screen.
• Autofocus. It uses the same hybrid autofocus system as the Fujifilm X-T1, i.e. up to 77 focus points, with the central 9 points offering phase detection. So the autofocus is fairly fast (though not as fast as more modern systems) and accurate. In addition, I have found that you can use the autofocus when the camera is set to manual focus and then use focus peaking and the focus dial to get things really sharp.
• Image quality. The X70’s image quality is really good thanks to its 16.3-megapixel X-Trans CMOS II sensor (again, like the X-T1) and its excellent 18.5mm f/2.8 Fujinon lens (equivalent to a full-frame focal length of 28mm ). The lens is very sharp and, even at maximum aperture, displays minimal distortion and little chromatic aberration. Yes, it’s a fairly wide angle fixed lens. That just means that I have to get closer to subjects than I would with the zooms I use on my DSLR. But it can focus down to about 10cm, so it possible to ger really close!
• Other features. Other nice features include the fact that the shutter is almost silent and in electronic mode can get down to 1/32,000s. Since I shoot in RAW, I don’t make much use of Fujifilm’s film simulation modes except that I have set up the touchscreen to show me the world in contrasty black & white (very handy when I am doing a mainly black & white shoot).

It is a lovely little beast. I haven’t so much fun with a camera since the days when I was the happy owner of a Rollei 35S. The only problem is that I am now being tempted to upgrade my Nikon DSLR system to a Fujifilm mirrorless one (either the XT3 or the XT5).

Henri Cartier-Bresson on photographic technique

I have recently finished reading Henri Cartier-Bresson’s The Mind’s Eye: Writings on Photography and Photographers (New York: aperture, 1996). It is full of thought-provoking ideas and quotable quotes, so here are some of his views on photographic technique (taken from his 1952 work The Decisive Moment):

Technique is important only insofar as you must master it in order to communicate what you see.

[O]nly the results count, and the conclusive evidence is the finished photographic print

It is enough if a photographer feels at ease with his camera, and if it is appropriate to the job he wants it to do. The actual handling of the camera, its stops, its exposure-speeds and all the rest of it are things which should be as automatic as the changing of gears in an automobile.

In other words, photographic technique is embodied knowledge. It is not something that can be learned from a book. It can only be learned by taking a camera out and practising.

I am constantly amused by the notion that some people have about photographic technique – a notion which reveals itself in an insatiable craving for sharpness of images. Is this the passion of an obsession? Or do these people hope, by this trompe l’oeil technique, to get to closer grips with reality? In either case, they are just as far away from the real problem as those of that other generation which used to endow all its photographic anecdotes with an intentional unsharpness such as was deemed to be ‘artistic.’

For Cartier-Bresson, the point of photography was to communicate what you see not to create a pin sharp 2D rendering of it. But try telling that to some of the judges at camera club competitions or to the photographic know-it-alls who will tell you that Ansel Adams, for example, was let down on this front by inadequate equipment.

Fr Alexander Men (1935–1990)

Thirty years ago today Fr Alexander Men was assassinated while on his way to celebrate the Divine Liturgy. This murder has never been solved. 

A controversial figure in Russian Orthodoxy because of some of his views (he accepted the reality of biological evolution and favoured ecumenical dialogue with non-Orthodox churches), Men nevertheless became an influential presence in Soviet religious life during one of the most challenging periods for Christianity in Russia.

In spite of the restrictions on religious activity, he pioneered new methods of reaching believers and seekers alike in order to make Orthodox learning accessible to lay people and intellectuals who had been cut off from their religious heritage. His parish at Novaya Derevnya became a model of active Orthodox community life, attracting young people, university students, and professionals who travelled significant distances to participate in worship and hear his preaching.

In 2021, Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), one of the foremost theologians of the Russian Orthodox Church, suggested that in spite of his controversial view he might be a candidate for canonization:

Father Alexander Men was an outstanding preacher, catechist, and missionary of his time. His life took place in difficult conditions, when the Church was deprived of the opportunity to preach outside churches. He also preached in his church, where he served as a priest until the end of his days. He preached through books, and in his later years, as new opportunities opened up, he preached in secular audiences. His death was tragic. I think that if it is proven that it was a martyr's death, he can be canonized as a martyr.

Grant, O Lord, eternal rest unto Thy departed servant Alexander and make his memory to be eternal!