{"id":3027,"date":"2019-06-12T14:29:46","date_gmt":"2019-06-12T18:29:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/billykangas\/?p=3027"},"modified":"2019-06-12T14:58:15","modified_gmt":"2019-06-12T18:58:15","slug":"schmemanns-errors-in-context","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/billykangas\/2019\/06\/schmemanns-errors-in-context.html","title":{"rendered":"Schmemann’s Errors in context"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"\"<\/a>For newcomers in liturgical theology Fr. Alexander Schmemann is a figure that everyone comes into contact with eventually. For many, he is the figure which opened the door to liturgical theology in the first place. For many in the field, the conversation around him is a given and so rarely are there opportunities to pause the conversation and help bring students up-to-speed with who Fr. Schmemann was, and even rarer how people have continued to interact with his work.<\/p>\n

I myself, as a young liturgical theologian, encountered many instances in which people talked about the controversies<\/em> surrounding Schmemann and his errors but never took the time to explain what those controversies were or what Schmemann\u2019s errors were.<\/p>\n

As we continue our ongoing series examining We Give our Thanks to Thee<\/em><\/a> I am particularly grateful for the contribution of Eugene Schlesinger. His essay offers the newcomer a crash course in the controversy and conversation. Gene offers a helpful overview of the methodological approach Schmemann took in his work, not through the rose-colored lenses of idealism but in light of a careful reading of Schmemann, his errors and his critics; yet emerges with a vision of Schmemann as an essential voice with continued importance in the development of liturgical theology moving forward.<\/p>\n

It highlights two of the essential areas of controversy. Schmemann\u2019s association with resourcement and the historical errors he assimilated in some of his reconstructions, and secondly his critical relationship with the scholasticism of the west. These evaluations are primarily helpful in helping readers understand the criticisms leveled against Fr. Schmemann; but Dr. Schlesinger offers a few of his own perspectives and apologetics as well.<\/p>\n

The essay is a blast to read and gives ample fodder for the student of liturgical theology to dig into. Here are a few of my take aways from the chapter.<\/p>\n