My primary method is historical in nature. By tracing the development and the context of theological ideas, and the lives of those who embodied those ideas, I hope to gain insight into the meanings and ends of doctrine and spirituality for use today.
I general, I hope I have been able to approach a post-schismatic theology by rooting myself first in that spirituality which has historically transcended confessional boundaries (e.g. the life and counsels of St Isaac of Nineveh, who is revered by Byzantine and Oriental Orthodox, as well as by the Church of the East). Secondly, I have tried to cultivate a worldview and practice drawn from those historical epochs before the schisms took full root, in other words, a Medieval approach to theology and life. In consequence of this approach being embodied in a 21st centruy context, it cannot fail but be transformed and impacted by the concerns brought up in today’s world.
Confessionally, I do place myself under the authority of the bishops and hegoumenoi of the Orthodox Church, despite my more frequent association with Orthodox Rabbis. I do privilege the Byzantine Orthodox as the principle around which I generally, though not exclusively, organise my historical approach. Being a part of that denomination, however, means that I must also question, challenge, and critique it as I do anyone and anything I love. This is not a betrayal, but an act of belonging, even if at times it raises uncomfortable questions.
My position, therefore, is in many ways progressive in that it is historically oriented and seeks to call others to take into account how doctrine and practice has been viewed at other times and in other places. Just as a person can remain the same although the appearance changes from use, so also with theology. It remains unchanging so long as it returns constantly to its roots; it remains relevent to others so long as it takes into account the creativity of living fully.