Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
48 of 53 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Flawed Work on a Much Needed Topic, March 2, 2001
Victoria Clarke, a British journalist with a wide range of experience in Eastern Europe, has written a book which is noble in its effort but regrettably mistaken and unenlightening.The topic is a good one -- Orthodoxy. In the decade since the end of the cold war, the Orthodox Church has reemerged in Eastern Europe as a strong cultural and political force. It is becoming increasingly clear that in order for Westerners to understand the region well, a thorough understanding of Orthodoxy is also needed -- and there are remarkably few works that address the contemporary situation of Orthodoxy in these countries. So far so good. Where Clarke's book misfires, however, is in its approach to Orthodoxy. Rather than trying to understand Orthodoxy as a spiritual system, as a religion, and attempt to understand its force in that way, Clarke instead focuses on the worldly aspects of the Orthodox Church, leaving the reader with a good understanding of how worldly some Orthodox prelates can be, but with almost *no* understanding of what really drives the rank and file of Orthodoxy in their beliefs. In other words, Clarke fails to delve deeply enough into Orthodoxy to really explain it well to anyone, and this is a very serious shortcoming in a work that is an attempt to explain Orthodox Europe to Westerners. Because Clarke never really excapes her Western/Secular viewpoint (which must be thoroughly entrenched to have survived her tremendous exposure to Orthodoxy), neither does the reader -- and the result is that the reader is given a Western/Secular understanding of Orthodoxy. This is the equivalent of "Orientalism" done this time not for the Near East, but for Eastern Europe. Clarke poses the question "Why do Angels fall" as the issue of her book, and answers it, for Orthodoxy, in one word: phyletism (religious nationalism). That is a fine perspective to have, but it really does not explain Orthodoxy at all other than as an expression of nationalism. Clarke spends almost no time explaining Orthodoxy as a spiritual system, exploring the meaning of Orthodox liturgy and worship, the forms and meaning of Orthodox piety, the differences between East and West. In other words, Clarke fails to address some of the central issues that must be understood well, in order for a Westerner to understand the tenaciousness of Orthodoxy in Eastern Europe, why it is experiencing a revival there currently, and why it remains so apparently stubbornly recalcitrant in its relations with the West. Religious nationalism is a part of the picture -- but focusing on that aspect to the exclusion of a broader, spiritual perspective provides a woefully incomplete, and therefore unsatisfactory, picture. In the end, the most complete picture the reader gains from "Why Angels Fall" is that of the typical Western/Secular view of the Orthodox Church. Clarke provides this in flying colors, and to her credit she does not hide her own views. Clarke is clearly upset at the political incorrectness of Orthodoxy (her choice to begin the work with a lament of her inability to visit Mount Athos due to her gender sets the tone for the book), upset at its doctrinal exactitude (exemplified in a heated chat Clarke has with an Orthodox Bishop, where she is clearly disturbed by his stubborn insistence on Trinitarianism), discomfited at the level of its faith, time and time again. Perhaps it is this discomfort with the "religious" aspects of Orthodoxy that led Clarke to focus on the more "worldly" aspects of the Church -- but, in any case, it was not lost on those with whom she spoke (one perceptive Serb Bishop noted that Clarke seemed awfully interested in politics for someone writing a book about Orthodoxy). Ultimately, because there are so few works on Orthodox Europe, Clarke's book deserves a read. But, to be honest, the most enlightening thing the reader will take away is an accurate portrait of how the Secular West views Orthodoxy -- not "what makes Orthodoxy tick".
|
|
|
30 of 33 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
interesting travelogue, but..., January 4, 2001
Victoria Clark has written an interesting and perceptive travelogue of her journies to Mount Athos, Serbia, Macedonia, Greece, Romania, Russia, Cyprus and Istanbul and her interviews and encounters with Orthodox ecclesiastical officials, monastics, and believers. These journies were motivated by her desire to understand and make known the costs and ongoing liabilities in present-day Europe to both the Christian east and west of the Catholic-Orthodox schism of 1054 and its corresponding mutual mistrust. Her primary thesis is that this schism cost the west its heart and the Orthodox east its mind and that the two are unbalanced without one another. Sort of a journalistic "two lung" theory Clark makes these journies under the influence of her years as a journalist in the Balkans and Samuel Huntington's provocative thesis that present day history is a function of the clash of distinct civilizations including, western europe and Orthodoxy. Clark is not a Christian, but claims to be a theist. Most evident though, is her secular humanism. Clark frames these journies in terms of two forces in Orthodoxy, phyletism and hesychasm. Clark posits these as the basest and highest expressions of Orthodoxy and she journies about in order to see how these interact in contemporary Orthodox Europe. The great strength of this book is Clark's writing of her encounters with Orthodox who are expressive of either or sometimes both of these traits. She brilliantly evokes some of these personalities and makes their presence palpable to the reader. The great liability of this book is that Clark's theses don't take the Orthodox on their own terms but through the lens of Clark's secular humanism. As a result, one senses the frustration of Clark that the Orthodox "don't get it", and the frustration in some of the people she encounters that Clark "doesn't get it". To Clark's credit, she doesn't hide this. The most illuminating instance of this dynamic is Clark's interview with and subsequent reading of some answers that the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomeos provided for her at the end of her book. In it he posits the goal of Orthodoxy as being "theanthropic", i.e. the communion of the human person with God. Clark seems a bit befuddled by this. Clark's secular humanism seems to want to reduce Orthodoxy to "religion" which is in service to European or "World" harmony or peace. But this entirely misses the point for the Orthodox. The missing presence in this book is Jesus, communion with whom is the reason for Orthodoxy, but who is not mentioned at all in the book. This fundamental disconnection makes for interesting, well-written but ultimately frustrating encounters as Clark insists on her secular humanist viewpoint which necessarily distorts the people she is trying to understand and explain. Fr. Ugolnik is correct in his observation that the book is very interesting for how Orthodox are viewed by secular humanists.
|
|
|
14 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
One reporter's view, June 23, 2002
For most westerners, Eastern Orthodoxy, if they consider it at all, is a riddle wrapped up in an enigma. I'm one of those westerners. Living in Turkey made me curious to know more about these enduring adherents to the Christian faith, and that led me to pick up Victoria Clark's book. She traces her physical journey from Mount Athos, a monastery and holy shrine off the coast of Greece, through Eastern Europe to Siberia and back to Istanbul. At the same time, she weaves into the narrative the historical "journey" of eastern Christianity from grand Byzantium through the schism of 1054 and into the present day of monastic revival and nationalism. Her main thesis is that the schism of 1054, which divided the western and eastern churches, was a catastrophe of history that is still being played out today. In addition she sharply criticizes the tendency of the Orthodox churches to get involved in nationalist politics, the so-called "philetism" wing, while praising the "hesychast" movement of mystic piety. These are the fallen angels to which the title refers. Indeed it's her analysis of philetism that is the most chilling and eye-opening, complete with quotes out of the mouths of supposed holy men and women that truly chill the blood. On the other hand, Clark gives ample space to the more winsome and moderate people she encounters on her visits to monasteries and church offices, albeit at times with a patronizing "what a cute monk" tone. She is a good storyteller, which keeps the history and political analysis rooted in the present and lively. The reviews on this site have been largely negative but it seems to me that they mistake the book for an academic study. It is rather a personal encounter with Orthodox Europe (not necessarily Orthodox doctrine), and that will appeal to some while obviously leaving others wanting more. However if you want to explore the East-West split, it's necessary to acknowledge the real reactions western people have when coming into contact with Orthodoxy, is it not?Such books are necessary and timely. Right now the world is occupied by the bloody collision of Muslim fundamentalism with the West, but at the same time Slobodan Milosevic sits at the Hague spinning similar tales that the West "has it in for" Orthodoxy. As Clark points out, his tales may find some resonance in a large segment of the world's population. Up until now, this religious culture has been hidden from our attention largely by the Iron Curtain and the veil of the Middle East, but that is bound to change as Europe seeks to expand and unify. Clark's book is about this decade's conflicts, but may actually end up being ahead of its time. We can hope that others will pick up the study and provide deeper analysis.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|