What is in a name? Does the difference between onto-theology and theo-ontology direct the way from eco-theology to theo-ecology? Specific Russian theological perspectives

I approach this venture of figuring out the correct terminology to understand reality through the prism of two distinctive Russian Orthodox theologians, Pavel Florensky (1882–1937) and Sergius Bulgakov (1871–1944). The lens I apply mainly to their works is their respective understanding of cosmology, that is, ontology and epistemology. Therefore, I concur with Grenz to abandon the term ‘onto-theology’ and qualify the inverse as a Trinitarian theo-ontology. This honours the intimate connection between knowing and being, and prevents the bifurcation between fidelity and rationality. Mutatis mutandis, the same applies to ‘eco-theology’. This inversion reminds one of Hans-Urs von Balthasar, who bartered the concept of an aesthetic theology for theological aesthetics. Turning this question around would advance our dialogue with the sciences as the common denominator of the discourse is rather nature (creation) discerned from an acknowledged a priori (as all cognition do). In other words, the term theo-ecology is proposed.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: The purpose study is not ecological but rather an asyndetic use of the terminology about the science and religion dialogue, with reference to the nomenclature of ecology and theology. All observation terms and sentences are theory-laden. Religion can be viewed as a linguistic framework that shapes the entirety of life and thought. Truth claims should focus on the grammar (or rules of the game) and not the lexicon when expressive symbolism is employed.

Michael O’Brien’s Theological Aesthetics

This essay introduces and examines aspects of the theological aesthetics of contemporary Canadian artist, Michael D. O’Brien (1948–). It also considers how his philosophy of the arts informs understandings of the Catholic imagination. In so doing, it focuses on his view that prayer is the primary source of imaginative expression, allowing the artist to operate from a position of humble receptivity to the transcendent. O’Brien studies is a nascent field, owing much of its development in recent years to the pioneering work of Clemens Cavallin. Apart from Cavallin, few scholars have focused on O’Brien’s extensive collection of paintings (principally because the first catalogue of his art was only published in 2019). Instead, they have worked on his prodigious output of novels and essays. In prioritising O’Brien’s paintings, this study will assess the relationship between his theological reflections on the Catholic imagination and art practice. By focusing on the interface between theory and practice in O’Brien’s art, this article shows that conversations about the philosophy of the Catholic imagination benefit from attending to the inner standing points of contemporary artists who see in the arts a place where faith and praxis meet. In certain instances, I will include images of O’Brien’s devotional art to further illustrate his contemplative, Christ-centred approach to aesthetics. Overall, this study offers new directions in O’Brien studies and scholarship on the philosophy of the Catholic imagination.

De camino hacia la Cruz. El recorrido de la iconografía proto cristiana

El arte cristiano en general debe asumir el desafío de enseñar las profundidades de la fe, mediante un designio estético. En el Cristianismo de la Antigüedad, este proceso enfrentaba dificultades excepcionales: la convicción de vivir los últimos tiempos y la proscripción de las imágenes por parte del judaísmo; fueron necesarias nuevas generaciones que asumieran creativamente las “ultimidades” y que establecieron un fuerte nexo entre templo y comunidad. Luego debió asumir la Cruz, dolor y muerte, como emblema estético. Abstract: Christian art in general must take up the challenge of teaching the depths of faith through an aesthetic design. In the Christianity of Antiquity, this process faced exceptional difficulties: the conviction of living in the end times and the proscription of images by Judaism; new generations were needed to creatively assume the "ultimities" and establish a strong link between temple and community. Then it had to assume the Cross, pain and death, as an aesthetic emblem. Key words: Paleo-Christianity. Christ. Theological aesthetics. Truth. Cross.

Soundworld Spatiality and the Unheroic Self-Giving of Jesus Christ

This chapter argues that the spatial metaphor of resonant ‘edgeless difference’, which arises from our perception of musical sound, makes more conceptualizable a vision of kenotic freedom which the New Testament understands to be embodied in Jesus Christ and made accessible through the Spirit, to the glory of the Father. This proposal is briefly explored in conversation with the Christology and theological aesthetics of Rowan Williams (1950–), who works within a kenotic idiom. We discover that a conceptuality borne of musical phenomenology can liberate Christological grammar from modernist strongholds and can direct our attention to the multiple, interconnected freedoms of the New Creation (i.e., the cosmic, ecclesiological, and individual). In so doing, it supports the idea that a Christ-centred kenotic theory of self-emptying provides a radical alternative to certain modernist views of freedom.

Beauty by Roger Scruton

This review discusses the book Beauty by Roger Scruton (1944–2020), translated into Russian by the Theoaesthetics Foundation. Scruton opposes relativism with regard to beauty because beauty as a concept, as an object of attention in the 20th century, has moved to the periphery of art and its place has been taken by “interesting” and “impressive”. Scruton notes an important thing: the disdain for humanitarian knowledge that has been prevalent in society in recent decades can be linked to the rejection of beauty, which leads to the destruction of the humanities. They are perceived as something not as serious compared to exact sciences. Scruton shows that when someone talks about beauty, he is not talking about his own condition, but about the subject itself: “I am describing it, not myself”. This observation indicates that beauty is not just something subjective and relative. Nevertheless, the philosopher does not share the metaphysical understanding of beauty as one of the properties of God; he tries to reveal this concept without turning to theology. All this, as the author of the review shows, allows us to start a conversation about beauty and theological aesthetics.