Translation:
Since we had heard about his faith, life and virtue at that time and we burned with desire for (meeting) him, we took up the pleasing journey to meet him. At the same time, since our heart was burning to write his life, we sought to learn in part from him how much as he could be asked and we learned in part from those were with him and knew him. (2) In fact, at that time, it was not possible to be believe with what humility, with what kindness he received us. He congratulated us very much and rejoiced in the Lord because he was held so important by us, for whom we took up a journey and sought him. (3) Miserable me- I almost don't dare to confess it- when he thought me worthy to invite us to his holy banquet, he himself brought water for our hands. In the evening, he himself washed our feet for us. Nor did we have the firmness to struggle against and oppose him. In this way, I was overcome by his authority so that I thought it wrong, if I would not have given in. (4) His conversation with me was about nothing else than the necessity to give up the allurements of the world and secular burdens so that, free and unencumbered, we would follow the Lord Jesus. He threw in the most outstanding example of that man, Paulinus, famous to us in the present time about whom we made mention above, who after casting aside the greatest wealth and following Jesus, he almost alone in his times, fulfilled the precepts of the Gospel. (5) It was he who we must follow, it was he, he shouted, who must be imitated: and that the present time was blessed with the proof of such great faith and virtue, when a rich man, who possessed much, by selling everything and giving it to the poor, made possible by his example what was impossible to achieve. (6) Truly, how so much gravity was there in his words and conversation! How great was his dignity? How acute, how effective, how ready and easy was he in solving scriptural questions! Since I know many don't believe at this point- obviously I have seen those who do not believe me when I report these things, I call on Jesus and our common hope to witness that I had never heard about such great skill, such good and pure conversation from that lips of anyone. (8) How trifling this praise is in comparison to Martin's virtues, save only that it was astonishing for an illiterate man that he did not lack this gift.
Commentary:
With this section, we're beginning the home stretch for this Life. Just as in classical biographies, Sulpicius is finishing his hagiography with a consideration of the character of his subject. What is more, in this chapter, he is reinforcing his claim for special authority in the Life of St. Martin by emphasizing his personal meeting with St. Martin. Given that historians and biographers gave special authority to eye-witnesses and personal autopsy, Sulpicius' discussion of his meeting with St. Martin and his community is a significant one. It suggests that those who wish to scoff at the details of his Life of St. Martin are on weak ground because Sulpicius has good evidence for what he has already spoken about. Given his frequent references to his sources, all this chapter does is make this claim explicit.
In St. Martin's behavior to Sulpicius, we find the familiar pattern of Martin's identification with Jesus which is so complete that the Jesus who is in Martin causes him to act in imitation of Him. Thus, we see him serving Sulpicius and washing his feet. Similarly, we find him a formidable exegete, even though he is illiterate. In St. Martin, we find a person who has connected with God inwardly to such a degree, that he begins to echo him outwardly which, I think, is the point of the scriptural parallels in the stories about St. Martin in this life.
The Paulinus mentioned in this passage is likely St. Paulinus of Nola, who, after the death of his son, was baptized and began to distribute his extensive fortune around 390 AD. This decision was widely acclaimed, especially in Western monastic circles. He was later ordained bishop of Nola around 403 AD and corresponded with such Christian leaders as St. Martin, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine and St. Jerome. The tone of this passage would seem to suggest an early date in Paulinus' life, so, perhaps the early 390s. This would establish Sulpicius' visit with St. Martin as occuring around then.
Part of me would like to stop there with this chronological point, but I think that would be ignoring the elephant in the room right now: both St. Paulinus' giving away of his worldly goods and St. Martin's approval. I think it important to plumb the depths of what makes me uncomfortable. After all, we're not talking about just tithing ten per cent here (which I'm not sure we're quite doing yet) or that we are stewards for what God has put in our hands (but we DO get to enjoy it while we're alive, don't we, Lord?), but the simple and literal obedience to Jesus' advice to the rich young ruler to give away all that he has and follow Jesus. Now, that is scary, especially to someone who lives in a highly consumerist society like ours. Examples like St. Paulinus or St. Martin or even modern monastics make me want to look for loopholes and ways of saying that I can get away with more possessions than I need. What I wish for is someone to reassure me that I can be rich (and as someone living in Canada in comparison to most of the rest of the world, I'm rich) and somehow obey Jesus on this point.
What I would like is to know how much is enough to take care of my family and how much is too much. I really don't know. Living in Toronto is expensive and we're on one income right now. Yet, I want things-books mostly, but other things: a nice house, a car, all the accoutrement's of suburban life-, so I don't know how to decide what is needed and what is not. Examples such as St. Paulinus and St. Martin don't let me get away with easy answers. I'm just not sure what to do with the hard answers.
Peace,
Phil
Monday, January 26, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Patristic Carnival XX- Call for Submissions
Welcome to Patristic Carnival XX. This month, we're back here at hyperekperissou.
The guidelines remain the same as the Modest Proposal entry back in November, 2006 and my additions in August, 2007.
The last day of submission will be January 31st and the postings will be up by the week of February 10th. .
Remember you can offer submissions on the carnival site or the dedicated e-mail (patristics-carnival@hotmail.com)
Peace,Phil
The guidelines remain the same as the Modest Proposal entry back in November, 2006 and my additions in August, 2007.
The last day of submission will be January 31st and the postings will be up by the week of February 10th. .
Remember you can offer submissions on the carnival site or the dedicated e-mail (patristics-carnival@hotmail.com)
Peace,Phil
Friday, January 16, 2009
Why Christians can't leave history alone?
This week, April DeConick has been reflecting on the different projects of theology and history. That is, theology "attempts to take old authoritative texts and read them doctrinally, with the big question at stake: what does this text say to me about my life as a Christian?", while history is a "pursuit that wants to know what happened in the past". That is, true enough. The concerns of theology and history as fields of studies are different and, if only for clarity, we need to remember this.
Yet, what interests me about this post is Dr. DeConick's perplexed reaction to the Christian practice of treating such things as the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus and the miracles of Jesus as historical fact. Again, one can sympathize with this perplexity because all three of these are, historically speaking, pretty improbable events. History, especially ancient history, rests firmly on assessing the probable reconstructions of past events, so improbability tends to disturb historians and cause them discomfort. To me, this demonstrates the limits of history and of human understanding, but doesn't necessarily rule out the action of God which can and, traditional Christianity would claim, did act exceedingly improbably, if there was a need. I don't think this will comfort Dr. DeConick because this really isn't a historical statement, but rather a theological one.
Ultimately, my intention with this post isn't to argue with Dr. DeConick or anyone else about the priority of history over theology when reading the various canonical and non-canonical Gospels. I recognize that the intellectual honesty of many historians who argue against the priority of canonical over non-canonical texts in explaining early Christianity. While I disagree with them, I hope that I'm aware of when I've placed myself on a historical/theological limb in claiming such events as the incarnation and the resurrection of Jesus as historical events; that is, events which actually happened pretty much in the way that the canonical gospels lay out. My historical proofs for these 'absurd' claims are flimsy at best, but, ultimately, it comes down to trusting these canonical sources not just as theological sources, but as historical ones. That may strike many of my readers as hopelessly naive, but, ultimately, as I've discovered in my apprenticeship in Classics, many decisions around historical reconstruction are based on how far do you trust this or that source. One's answer to that question will determine what version or versions one is likely to use as the basis for one's reconstructions. In the case of the canonical vs. non-canonical materials, Dr. DeConick and I disagree, so, as a result, our reconstructions differ. I can live with that because I really don't know how to adjudicate between these different reconstructions.
Yet, that begs the question of why can't Christian theologians just mind their own business and leave historians to do the history of early Christianity. Let history and theology do their own things. My answer to this question is that traditional Christian theology cannot abandon history because the notion that God intervenes in history is central to its theology ; first in the history of Israel, second, in the life of Jesus and, third, in the life of the church. Christians cannot divorce history from theology for the simple reason that their whole theological system falls apart if they do.
Take the doctrine of the Incarnation as an example. Now, here is an exceedingly improbable event: the God of the universe, somehow, becomes a human baby and spends a short lifetime as a human before being executed in a particularly nasty way. Never mind such mundane supernatural events as the virgin birth, how is this supposed to work historically? When has this happened before? Never. Which is rather the point, isn't it. This is a one-off and dramatic personal intervention of God into the world, designed to start putting it to rights. Sure, there will be a followup, but that just hasn't happened yet. So, how are we supposed to talk about a historical parallel or about historical probability. Yet, this is crucial to explain how God is putting the world to rights again and in explaining God's plan to save humanity and Creation. Ultimately, without an incarnation of God into historical time, there can be no resurrection and, without a resurrection, as Paul notes, our hope is in vain.
I have, of course, opened myself to the criticism that, just because something is theologically necessary, doesn't make it historically so. That is correct, but what I was trying to demonstrate wasn't the historical truth of the Incarnation in such a way that non-Christian scholars will acknowledge it, but rather why Christians simply cannot accept the divorce of theology and history which Dr. DeConick (and others beside her) recommend. Yes, Christians (and not just contemporary ones either) make historical claims which are exceedingly hard to prove. Yes, sometimes Christians overstate their claim. But, ultimately, asking Christians to accept this divorce is asking them to change their theology, not just their history, which is asking rather too much.
In this sense, whether Dr. DeConick realizes it or not, the suggested divorce of theology and history isn't a theologically neutral statement. That is, while I certainly agree that both Christian and non-Christian historians have to respect the same rules of evidence and rigourous historical method, a demand to separate theology and history is a demand to deny one's own spirituality. Respectfully, I decline to do that because I cannot afford the spiritual damage which I know will follow. That, I agree, isn't going to impress secular scholars, but I hope they will understand that what they are asking for something that Christians cannot do; set aside a search for God working in history.
So, ultimately, the answer to the question in my subject line- why Christians can't leave history alone?- is quite simple- they can't. Too much rides on a God who works in history. That is theology, of course, but, I am bold to say, it is also history.
Peace,
Phil
NB: I've gone through and cleaned up some of the language in this entry which was written rather too hastily and edited rather too little. If I've missed any errors, let me know. (19/01/09)
Yet, what interests me about this post is Dr. DeConick's perplexed reaction to the Christian practice of treating such things as the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus and the miracles of Jesus as historical fact. Again, one can sympathize with this perplexity because all three of these are, historically speaking, pretty improbable events. History, especially ancient history, rests firmly on assessing the probable reconstructions of past events, so improbability tends to disturb historians and cause them discomfort. To me, this demonstrates the limits of history and of human understanding, but doesn't necessarily rule out the action of God which can and, traditional Christianity would claim, did act exceedingly improbably, if there was a need. I don't think this will comfort Dr. DeConick because this really isn't a historical statement, but rather a theological one.
Ultimately, my intention with this post isn't to argue with Dr. DeConick or anyone else about the priority of history over theology when reading the various canonical and non-canonical Gospels. I recognize that the intellectual honesty of many historians who argue against the priority of canonical over non-canonical texts in explaining early Christianity. While I disagree with them, I hope that I'm aware of when I've placed myself on a historical/theological limb in claiming such events as the incarnation and the resurrection of Jesus as historical events; that is, events which actually happened pretty much in the way that the canonical gospels lay out. My historical proofs for these 'absurd' claims are flimsy at best, but, ultimately, it comes down to trusting these canonical sources not just as theological sources, but as historical ones. That may strike many of my readers as hopelessly naive, but, ultimately, as I've discovered in my apprenticeship in Classics, many decisions around historical reconstruction are based on how far do you trust this or that source. One's answer to that question will determine what version or versions one is likely to use as the basis for one's reconstructions. In the case of the canonical vs. non-canonical materials, Dr. DeConick and I disagree, so, as a result, our reconstructions differ. I can live with that because I really don't know how to adjudicate between these different reconstructions.
Yet, that begs the question of why can't Christian theologians just mind their own business and leave historians to do the history of early Christianity. Let history and theology do their own things. My answer to this question is that traditional Christian theology cannot abandon history because the notion that God intervenes in history is central to its theology ; first in the history of Israel, second, in the life of Jesus and, third, in the life of the church. Christians cannot divorce history from theology for the simple reason that their whole theological system falls apart if they do.
Take the doctrine of the Incarnation as an example. Now, here is an exceedingly improbable event: the God of the universe, somehow, becomes a human baby and spends a short lifetime as a human before being executed in a particularly nasty way. Never mind such mundane supernatural events as the virgin birth, how is this supposed to work historically? When has this happened before? Never. Which is rather the point, isn't it. This is a one-off and dramatic personal intervention of God into the world, designed to start putting it to rights. Sure, there will be a followup, but that just hasn't happened yet. So, how are we supposed to talk about a historical parallel or about historical probability. Yet, this is crucial to explain how God is putting the world to rights again and in explaining God's plan to save humanity and Creation. Ultimately, without an incarnation of God into historical time, there can be no resurrection and, without a resurrection, as Paul notes, our hope is in vain.
I have, of course, opened myself to the criticism that, just because something is theologically necessary, doesn't make it historically so. That is correct, but what I was trying to demonstrate wasn't the historical truth of the Incarnation in such a way that non-Christian scholars will acknowledge it, but rather why Christians simply cannot accept the divorce of theology and history which Dr. DeConick (and others beside her) recommend. Yes, Christians (and not just contemporary ones either) make historical claims which are exceedingly hard to prove. Yes, sometimes Christians overstate their claim. But, ultimately, asking Christians to accept this divorce is asking them to change their theology, not just their history, which is asking rather too much.
In this sense, whether Dr. DeConick realizes it or not, the suggested divorce of theology and history isn't a theologically neutral statement. That is, while I certainly agree that both Christian and non-Christian historians have to respect the same rules of evidence and rigourous historical method, a demand to separate theology and history is a demand to deny one's own spirituality. Respectfully, I decline to do that because I cannot afford the spiritual damage which I know will follow. That, I agree, isn't going to impress secular scholars, but I hope they will understand that what they are asking for something that Christians cannot do; set aside a search for God working in history.
So, ultimately, the answer to the question in my subject line- why Christians can't leave history alone?- is quite simple- they can't. Too much rides on a God who works in history. That is theology, of course, but, I am bold to say, it is also history.
Peace,
Phil
NB: I've gone through and cleaned up some of the language in this entry which was written rather too hastily and edited rather too little. If I've missed any errors, let me know. (19/01/09)
Monday, January 12, 2009
Patristic Carnival XIX- December, 2008
Happy New Year and welcome to Patristics Carnival XIX. I hope all of you had a blessed Advent and Christmas season and as we move into the Epiphany season, let's look at the last month's patristic offerings.
New Under the Tent: New Patristic Blogs And Announcements.
Michael Bird on the Euangelion blog announces the Call for Papers of the Second British National Patristic Conference.
Front Gate: Introductions to the Fathers
greg on the Philosophia blog deals with some answers about some basic questions about the Fathers.
The Midway: Articles on the Fathers
Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers blog features a Christmas reflection.
Roger Pearse on his self-named blog discusses some of the legends around what the Chronicon Pascale says.
Lindsay on the Female Impersonator blog discusses how difficult it is to dis-entangle patristic insights from their male-gendered language about God and follows up with a post musing on what not using father-son language for God would look like.
Thos on the Ecumenicity blog analyzes the dispute over the date for Easter between Polycrates of Ephesus and Pope Victor I as indicative of orthodox-catholic controversial debate.
XRSe on the tantricmagus blog features an essay by Christopher Etter on non-violence in the early Church.
VC on the Synodos blog considers, in part three of a series, St. Ignatius' views on Real Prescence in the Eucharist.
David Jensen on itsjustdave's Catholic Blog considers St. Maximus Confessor's views on the primacy of Rome.
Justin Richter on The Way into a Far Country blog considers whether the Church Fathers' opinion on justification really matters, discusses St. John Chrysosthom's view of justification,
David on the He Lives blog considers the millenial 'day' and Adam's death according to the Fathers.
Drake on The Weight of Glory blog considers tradition and Scripture.
Father Matthew Jackson on the priestmatthewjackson blog offers a sermon on the occasion of the Orthodox Feast of the Holy Forefathers.
The Blog which is all about the RCiA features a discussion of the patristic basis for mystagogy and its application in today's Catholic Church.
Polycarp on The Church of Jesus Christ blog continues his discussion of Tertullian's On Modesty with parts VII, VIII and IX.
Beth B on the Luke 10:27 blog considers monoergism, Presbyterians and the Eastern Orthodox.
mlcullwell on the John 1:1 blog discusses the Early Church, the Trinity and the Oneness Myth.
Rick Brannon on ricoblog considers some parallels beween First Timothy and the Similitudes in the Shepherd of Hermas.
The Marketplace: Book Reviews
Steve on Triablogue considers some contradictions of the Catholic concept of unanimous consent of the Fathers as the basis of an authoritative argument.
Evan on the clavi non defixi blog gives a list of books included in the Centre for Early Christian Studies' (Australia's premier department for things patristic) series on the Fathers.
Pr. Stephan on the Patristica blog features a review of J. . Petruccione (ed.), Nova et Vetera. Patristic Studies in Honor of Thomas Patrick Halton
Reformed Reader on the Reformed Reader blog features a review of M.W. Holmes' edition of the Apostolic Fathers.
Rich Leonardi on the Ten Reasons blog offers a brief review of Pope Benedict's book on the Fathers.
Erma on the Christian Books: Church History blog reviews Robert Webber's Ancient-Future Worship: Proclaiming and Enacting God's Narrative .
Kevin Edgecomb on the biblicalia blog reviews the second edition of Frank Williams' translation of the first book of the Panarion of Epiphanes of Salamis.
Tim Trautman on the Army of Martyrs blog reviews Henry Chadwick's, The Early Church.
Exhibition Place: Biographies of the Fathers
No items this month.
The Rodeo: Patristic catenae
The NT Administrator on the Nicene Truth blog offers a patristic catena of pre-Augustinian Marian citations.
The Foreign Exchange Tent: Translations and Summaries
Seumas MacDonald on the Compliant Subversity blog features a summary of Tertullian's Trinitarian work, Against Praxeas, a summary of Novatian's de trinitate,
The Celesital Fundie on The Patristic Page blog features a translation of Theodore of Mopsuestia's Commentary on the Nicene Creed (translated by Alphonse Mangani)
On this blog, I feature the next installment of Sulpicius Severus' Life of St. Martin.
The Talmudic Tabernacle: Christianity and Judaism in the Ancient World
Kevin Edgecomb on the biblicalia blog continues his series on Jacob Neusner's Oral Torah with parts 13, 14 and the epilogue.
The Apocryphal Aisle: Christian Apocrypha
Tony Chartrand-Burke on the Apocryphicity reports on the Secret Mark session at the SBL.
April DeConick on The Forbidden Gospel blog reflects on the Judas forum at SBL, on a 'Judas' gem, discusses the dating of ancient sources, and discusses an article she wrote on Valentinian sex.
That's it for the patristic month that was. If you can be a host for the next carnival, let me know.
Peace,
Phil
New Under the Tent: New Patristic Blogs And Announcements.
Michael Bird on the Euangelion blog announces the Call for Papers of the Second British National Patristic Conference.
Front Gate: Introductions to the Fathers
greg on the Philosophia blog deals with some answers about some basic questions about the Fathers.
The Midway: Articles on the Fathers
Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers blog features a Christmas reflection.
Roger Pearse on his self-named blog discusses some of the legends around what the Chronicon Pascale says.
Lindsay on the Female Impersonator blog discusses how difficult it is to dis-entangle patristic insights from their male-gendered language about God and follows up with a post musing on what not using father-son language for God would look like.
Thos on the Ecumenicity blog analyzes the dispute over the date for Easter between Polycrates of Ephesus and Pope Victor I as indicative of orthodox-catholic controversial debate.
XRSe on the tantricmagus blog features an essay by Christopher Etter on non-violence in the early Church.
VC on the Synodos blog considers, in part three of a series, St. Ignatius' views on Real Prescence in the Eucharist.
David Jensen on itsjustdave's Catholic Blog considers St. Maximus Confessor's views on the primacy of Rome.
Justin Richter on The Way into a Far Country blog considers whether the Church Fathers' opinion on justification really matters, discusses St. John Chrysosthom's view of justification,
David on the He Lives blog considers the millenial 'day' and Adam's death according to the Fathers.
Drake on The Weight of Glory blog considers tradition and Scripture.
Father Matthew Jackson on the priestmatthewjackson blog offers a sermon on the occasion of the Orthodox Feast of the Holy Forefathers.
The Blog which is all about the RCiA features a discussion of the patristic basis for mystagogy and its application in today's Catholic Church.
Polycarp on The Church of Jesus Christ blog continues his discussion of Tertullian's On Modesty with parts VII, VIII and IX.
Beth B on the Luke 10:27 blog considers monoergism, Presbyterians and the Eastern Orthodox.
mlcullwell on the John 1:1 blog discusses the Early Church, the Trinity and the Oneness Myth.
Rick Brannon on ricoblog considers some parallels beween First Timothy and the Similitudes in the Shepherd of Hermas.
The Marketplace: Book Reviews
Steve on Triablogue considers some contradictions of the Catholic concept of unanimous consent of the Fathers as the basis of an authoritative argument.
Evan on the clavi non defixi blog gives a list of books included in the Centre for Early Christian Studies' (Australia's premier department for things patristic) series on the Fathers.
Pr. Stephan on the Patristica blog features a review of J. . Petruccione (ed.), Nova et Vetera. Patristic Studies in Honor of Thomas Patrick Halton
Reformed Reader on the Reformed Reader blog features a review of M.W. Holmes' edition of the Apostolic Fathers.
Rich Leonardi on the Ten Reasons blog offers a brief review of Pope Benedict's book on the Fathers.
Erma on the Christian Books: Church History blog reviews Robert Webber's Ancient-Future Worship: Proclaiming and Enacting God's Narrative .
Nick Norelli on the Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth blog reviews Edward R. Hardy's Christology of the Later Fathers.
Eric Sowell on the Archaic Christianity blog considers the first chapters of Ramsey MacMullen's Voting About God in the Early Church Councils, considers St. Augustine's views on the Seputagint,Kevin Edgecomb on the biblicalia blog reviews the second edition of Frank Williams' translation of the first book of the Panarion of Epiphanes of Salamis.
Tim Trautman on the Army of Martyrs blog reviews Henry Chadwick's, The Early Church.
Exhibition Place: Biographies of the Fathers
No items this month.
The Rodeo: Patristic catenae
The NT Administrator on the Nicene Truth blog offers a patristic catena of pre-Augustinian Marian citations.
The Foreign Exchange Tent: Translations and Summaries
Seumas MacDonald on the Compliant Subversity blog features a summary of Tertullian's Trinitarian work, Against Praxeas, a summary of Novatian's de trinitate,
The Celesital Fundie on The Patristic Page blog features a translation of Theodore of Mopsuestia's Commentary on the Nicene Creed (translated by Alphonse Mangani)
On this blog, I feature the next installment of Sulpicius Severus' Life of St. Martin.
The Talmudic Tabernacle: Christianity and Judaism in the Ancient World
Kevin Edgecomb on the biblicalia blog continues his series on Jacob Neusner's Oral Torah with parts 13, 14 and the epilogue.
The Apocryphal Aisle: Christian Apocrypha
Tony Chartrand-Burke on the Apocryphicity reports on the Secret Mark session at the SBL.
April DeConick on The Forbidden Gospel blog reflects on the Judas forum at SBL, on a 'Judas' gem, discusses the dating of ancient sources, and discusses an article she wrote on Valentinian sex.
That's it for the patristic month that was. If you can be a host for the next carnival, let me know.
Peace,
Phil
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Merry Christmas and Call for Submissions for Patristics Carnival XIX
I can't believe I'm posting this on Christmas Eve. Ah well, there is still a week before the end of the month and I'm calling for patristic entries for Patristics Carnival XIX. This month, we're back here at hyperekperissou.
The guidelines remain the same as the Modest Proposal entry back in November, 2006 and my additions in August, 2007.
The last day of submission will be December 31 and the postings will be up by the week of January 10th. (I'll be away until the 3rd).
Remember you can offer submissions on the carnival site or the dedicated e-mail (patristics-carnival@hotmail.com)
Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Peace,Phil
The guidelines remain the same as the Modest Proposal entry back in November, 2006 and my additions in August, 2007.
The last day of submission will be December 31 and the postings will be up by the week of January 10th. (I'll be away until the 3rd).
Remember you can offer submissions on the carnival site or the dedicated e-mail (patristics-carnival@hotmail.com)
Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Peace,Phil
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Doing Advent
Advent is time of waiting and expectation. All of us who attend liturgical churches know that and all of us know how much a challenge that waiting is amid the craziness of the Christmas season these days. For me, the weeks leading up to Advent and Advent itself involve marking, lesson preparation and the standard running-around which life as a teacher entails. By the time Advent comes around, I'm usually worn to a frazzle and trying to squeeze out the last reserves just to get done what I need to get done before the Christmas holidays really begin.
I don't think this overwhelmed feeling is uncommon at all. All of us are busy this time of year and Christmas preparations and socializing just add to that load. It is hard to find time to wait quietly and to reflect on the coming of Jesus, both on that night more than two thousand years ago and in the coming age (whenever that is). That is the dilemma that I found myself in this year...again.
As Advent started this year, I found myself catching up marking from a busy November, taking on an additional task at school (which I should never have taken on--when will I learn!) and I was getting very cranky. Two or three days into Advent, I was muttering under my breath that I didn't feel like I would get any Advent this year. That woke me up. Something was very wrong with my attitude and with me, if I was feeling that way so early in Advent.
That was when a thought came to my head: why not just leave work at work, do what I can and take Advent back for myself? Sounds simple doesn't it? Simple and, frankly, a little scary, given how behind I was feeling. How was I supposed to get work done and have Advent? Won't I just fall further behind and get more stressed, instead of relieving my stress by getting the work out of the way, even if it meant flogging myself to get things done? Given the way that my brain works, that actually made sense to me and made the decision that I was making seem a little crazy. I still made it, but with some trepidation.
So, what happened? I'd love to say that I was perfect in my resolution and didn't bring work home (I did a couple nights towards the end of the period, but only less than an hour's worth of work each night). I'd love to say that I had spiritual epiphanies each night (many nights I fell asleep reading or watching TV). I'd love to say that I had a fresh understanding of Christ child and the incarnation (see the previous parenthesis).
What did happen is that, instead of my stress increasing, I found it dropping and my productivity at school so much greater because I knew the work needed to get done there. I found I could take the time out to pray and to reflect (at least, before I fell asleep) on what Christ has meant to my life. I found I had time for my wife and son which was wonderful. I found I could be grateful for the good things in my life and to have compassion for others around me in a way I don't think I could have without that time. All those things are precious gifts and slowing down for Advent was what enabled me to receive them peacefully.
So, as Advent winds to a close, I'm still trying to keep a peaceful Advent. I still have some school work I want to get done. I still have many other tasks clamouring for my attention, but I still want to take the time out to wait for the coming of the Lord. There is always more things to do and there are more and better ways to keep Advent than the simple action I took this year. Still, I hope this is a start to a deepening of my Advent experiences. With God's help, I hope that the Advent season will be a time for us to prepare ourselves to meet Christ again; in prayer, in those we help and in those around us.
Peace,
Phil
I don't think this overwhelmed feeling is uncommon at all. All of us are busy this time of year and Christmas preparations and socializing just add to that load. It is hard to find time to wait quietly and to reflect on the coming of Jesus, both on that night more than two thousand years ago and in the coming age (whenever that is). That is the dilemma that I found myself in this year...again.
As Advent started this year, I found myself catching up marking from a busy November, taking on an additional task at school (which I should never have taken on--when will I learn!) and I was getting very cranky. Two or three days into Advent, I was muttering under my breath that I didn't feel like I would get any Advent this year. That woke me up. Something was very wrong with my attitude and with me, if I was feeling that way so early in Advent.
That was when a thought came to my head: why not just leave work at work, do what I can and take Advent back for myself? Sounds simple doesn't it? Simple and, frankly, a little scary, given how behind I was feeling. How was I supposed to get work done and have Advent? Won't I just fall further behind and get more stressed, instead of relieving my stress by getting the work out of the way, even if it meant flogging myself to get things done? Given the way that my brain works, that actually made sense to me and made the decision that I was making seem a little crazy. I still made it, but with some trepidation.
So, what happened? I'd love to say that I was perfect in my resolution and didn't bring work home (I did a couple nights towards the end of the period, but only less than an hour's worth of work each night). I'd love to say that I had spiritual epiphanies each night (many nights I fell asleep reading or watching TV). I'd love to say that I had a fresh understanding of Christ child and the incarnation (see the previous parenthesis).
What did happen is that, instead of my stress increasing, I found it dropping and my productivity at school so much greater because I knew the work needed to get done there. I found I could take the time out to pray and to reflect (at least, before I fell asleep) on what Christ has meant to my life. I found I had time for my wife and son which was wonderful. I found I could be grateful for the good things in my life and to have compassion for others around me in a way I don't think I could have without that time. All those things are precious gifts and slowing down for Advent was what enabled me to receive them peacefully.
So, as Advent winds to a close, I'm still trying to keep a peaceful Advent. I still have some school work I want to get done. I still have many other tasks clamouring for my attention, but I still want to take the time out to wait for the coming of the Lord. There is always more things to do and there are more and better ways to keep Advent than the simple action I took this year. Still, I hope this is a start to a deepening of my Advent experiences. With God's help, I hope that the Advent season will be a time for us to prepare ourselves to meet Christ again; in prayer, in those we help and in those around us.
Peace,
Phil
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Sulpicius Severus, Life of St. Martin 24
Here is the next installment of the Life of St. Martin. Enjoy!
Translation:
It is necessary to note, however, that there was, at almost the same time, a young man in Spain, who gained authority for himself with many signs. He was so puffed that he claimed he was Elijah. (2) When many people rashly believed this, he went on to say that he was Christ. In this claim, he deceived people to the point that a certain bishop, Rufus, venerated him as God because of which we see that he was later deposed from his bishopric. (3) Very many from our brothers reported that, at the same time, a certain person arose in the East, who boasted that he was John (the Baptist). From these events, we are able to conclude that, since false prophets of this type were arising, the advent of the Anti-Christ, who is already practicing through these people the mystery of iniquity, was at hand.
(4) But it seems that it is necessary not to ignore by what trickery the devil tempted Martin in these days. On that day, after prayers were made previously, the devil, being surrounded in purple light so that he might deceive people more easily by the brightness of the shining light, clothed even in royal clothing, wreathed with a diadem made out of gems and gold, his shoes gilded with gold, with a serene face and a happy expression so that he would be reckoned as anyone else except the devil, himself stood next to Martin, who was praying in his cell (5) Since Martin was stupefied by the first appearance of him, both held much silence for a long time. Then, the devil first said "Martin, recognize who you perceive: I am Christ. I will come down to the earth, but I first wanted to show myself to you." (6) When Martin was silent and did not respond to this, the devil dared to repeat the boldness of his profession: "Martin, why do you hesitate to believe, when you see it? I am Christ". (7) Martin, since the Spirit uncovered what was happening so that he perceived that this was the devil and not the Lord, said "Jesus did not say he will come clothed in purple and shining with a diadem. I will not believe that Jesus came unless in that same clothing and form in which he suffered, unless bearing forth the marks of the cross."(8) In answer to this, the devil at once disappeared alike smoke and filled the cell with such a stench that it left undoubted evidence that this was the devil. This happened as I reported above. I learned about it from Martin's own mouth. No one should reckon it fabulous.
Commentary:
This passage represents the climax of both the section dealing with Martin's dealings with the demons and the devil himself and of the whole Life of St. Martin. We have already seen an escalation in the seriousness of the human and diabolical enemies of Martin, but here we pass into eschatological language which places Martin into the midst of what is framed as the beginning of the Last Days. We can see that the first paragraph of this section sets the eschatological expectation which is central to the passage. Through his references to the false prophets in this paragraph and in the previous section (see section 23) which featured the would-be prophet, Anatolius, Sulpicius sets up his conclusion that he (and, by implication, Martin) was already living during the coming of the Anti-Christ. All this sets the stage for Martin's direct encounter with the devil.
Furthermore, this encounter is also, as many of the incidents in this work, meant to allude to Jesus' own life; specifically, Jesus' temptation by the devil (Matthew 4, 1-11; Mark 1, 12-13; Luke 4, 1-13). The content of the temptation is, of course, different. St. Martin isn't Christ. Yet, the pattern is similar. The devil tries to use the expectations set up in the Bible as a cloak to lure his intended victim to worship him and, thus, turn him from a true man of God to a false prophet such as the ones already noted by Sulpicius in the early part of this passage. He is foiled because the 'victim', through the Holy Spirit, sees through the fallacy of the devil's exegesis and his trickery. Thus, St. Martin sees through the 'coming again in glory' of the devil by noting that the wounds of Christ are not in prominent display as they should be in the real 'coming again in glory' of Christ. This results in the devil disappearing, quite literally, in a puff of smoke, the victim of St. Martin's superior spiritual discernment.
What I find particularly fascinating in this passage, however, is how St. Martin saw through the deception of the devil. Really, the vision of Christ's return provided here by the devil was a shrewd re-enactment. In St. Martin's time (and our own, in certain circles), the Second Coming was depicted as a purely martial event in which a mighty king will descend to smite the enemies of Christians all over the world. This. of course, picks up the imagery in Revelation 19, hence, is Biblical, as far as it goes. It, also, appeals to the expectations of those who joined the Church because it was the winning side in the politics of the Late Roman Empire or those who feel left out by the secularization of Western countries in the last century or so. Yet, as St. Martin recognizes, this is, by itself, an inadequate basis to judge that the Second Coming has occurred because it is too easy to be dazzled by glory in all its manifestations and miss the truly unique element of Jesus' incarnation- his self-sacrifice for us.
This is why St. Martin's declaration that he would not believe that Christ came unless he saw him in the same appearance as he left and bearing the wounds of the cross is so interesting. The latter proof may strike us as odd because St. Thomas is slightly rebuked by Jesus for insisting on seeing the same marks before believing Jesus' resurrection (John 20, 24-29). As an aside, I wonder if we over-do the emphasis on Thomas' doubt here, but this passage also establishes that Christ's wounds will remain as a mark of what He has done for us. This also picks up the image of the slain Lamb from earlier in Revelation (Revelation, 5,6-14) in the sense that the marks of the Lamb's slaughter remain, even while it is opening the Seven Seals which begin the final war against evil.
What all this suggests is that Christ's Second Coming will not only be a return in glory, but that the marks of the glory would be what were, before the resurrection, considered the marks of a shameful death. In that sense, what Christians should look for as marks of glory is not what the world and, here, the devil, think it should be-crowns and royal trappings- but, rather, the wounds inflicted on Jesus to humiliate him, but which provided him the means by which he defeated sin and death. That, by implication, is the true glory and what we Christians should be looking for in any Second Coming. The failure of the devil to understand this meant that, when he wanted to trick St. Martin, he missed entirely what the point of Jesus' first coming was. Given how big a mistake that was, is there any wonder that he simply didn't understand what the Second Coming will look like?
So, the devil's mistake here isn't just one of too much reliance on external glory on the analogy of the financier in the Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade who choose (unwisely) the gold-encrusted goblet as the true Grail. It was a fundamental failure to discern the cosmic Judo move which the Incarnation represents when the power of sin and death was broken by Jesus' willingness to sacrifice himself for us. Here, St. Martin reaches to the core of the meaning of the resurrection by recognizing from where Jesus' true glory comes.
Peace,
Phil
Translation:
It is necessary to note, however, that there was, at almost the same time, a young man in Spain, who gained authority for himself with many signs. He was so puffed that he claimed he was Elijah. (2) When many people rashly believed this, he went on to say that he was Christ. In this claim, he deceived people to the point that a certain bishop, Rufus, venerated him as God because of which we see that he was later deposed from his bishopric. (3) Very many from our brothers reported that, at the same time, a certain person arose in the East, who boasted that he was John (the Baptist). From these events, we are able to conclude that, since false prophets of this type were arising, the advent of the Anti-Christ, who is already practicing through these people the mystery of iniquity, was at hand.
(4) But it seems that it is necessary not to ignore by what trickery the devil tempted Martin in these days. On that day, after prayers were made previously, the devil, being surrounded in purple light so that he might deceive people more easily by the brightness of the shining light, clothed even in royal clothing, wreathed with a diadem made out of gems and gold, his shoes gilded with gold, with a serene face and a happy expression so that he would be reckoned as anyone else except the devil, himself stood next to Martin, who was praying in his cell (5) Since Martin was stupefied by the first appearance of him, both held much silence for a long time. Then, the devil first said "Martin, recognize who you perceive: I am Christ. I will come down to the earth, but I first wanted to show myself to you." (6) When Martin was silent and did not respond to this, the devil dared to repeat the boldness of his profession: "Martin, why do you hesitate to believe, when you see it? I am Christ". (7) Martin, since the Spirit uncovered what was happening so that he perceived that this was the devil and not the Lord, said "Jesus did not say he will come clothed in purple and shining with a diadem. I will not believe that Jesus came unless in that same clothing and form in which he suffered, unless bearing forth the marks of the cross."(8) In answer to this, the devil at once disappeared alike smoke and filled the cell with such a stench that it left undoubted evidence that this was the devil. This happened as I reported above. I learned about it from Martin's own mouth. No one should reckon it fabulous.
Commentary:
This passage represents the climax of both the section dealing with Martin's dealings with the demons and the devil himself and of the whole Life of St. Martin. We have already seen an escalation in the seriousness of the human and diabolical enemies of Martin, but here we pass into eschatological language which places Martin into the midst of what is framed as the beginning of the Last Days. We can see that the first paragraph of this section sets the eschatological expectation which is central to the passage. Through his references to the false prophets in this paragraph and in the previous section (see section 23) which featured the would-be prophet, Anatolius, Sulpicius sets up his conclusion that he (and, by implication, Martin) was already living during the coming of the Anti-Christ. All this sets the stage for Martin's direct encounter with the devil.
Furthermore, this encounter is also, as many of the incidents in this work, meant to allude to Jesus' own life; specifically, Jesus' temptation by the devil (Matthew 4, 1-11; Mark 1, 12-13; Luke 4, 1-13). The content of the temptation is, of course, different. St. Martin isn't Christ. Yet, the pattern is similar. The devil tries to use the expectations set up in the Bible as a cloak to lure his intended victim to worship him and, thus, turn him from a true man of God to a false prophet such as the ones already noted by Sulpicius in the early part of this passage. He is foiled because the 'victim', through the Holy Spirit, sees through the fallacy of the devil's exegesis and his trickery. Thus, St. Martin sees through the 'coming again in glory' of the devil by noting that the wounds of Christ are not in prominent display as they should be in the real 'coming again in glory' of Christ. This results in the devil disappearing, quite literally, in a puff of smoke, the victim of St. Martin's superior spiritual discernment.
What I find particularly fascinating in this passage, however, is how St. Martin saw through the deception of the devil. Really, the vision of Christ's return provided here by the devil was a shrewd re-enactment. In St. Martin's time (and our own, in certain circles), the Second Coming was depicted as a purely martial event in which a mighty king will descend to smite the enemies of Christians all over the world. This. of course, picks up the imagery in Revelation 19, hence, is Biblical, as far as it goes. It, also, appeals to the expectations of those who joined the Church because it was the winning side in the politics of the Late Roman Empire or those who feel left out by the secularization of Western countries in the last century or so. Yet, as St. Martin recognizes, this is, by itself, an inadequate basis to judge that the Second Coming has occurred because it is too easy to be dazzled by glory in all its manifestations and miss the truly unique element of Jesus' incarnation- his self-sacrifice for us.
This is why St. Martin's declaration that he would not believe that Christ came unless he saw him in the same appearance as he left and bearing the wounds of the cross is so interesting. The latter proof may strike us as odd because St. Thomas is slightly rebuked by Jesus for insisting on seeing the same marks before believing Jesus' resurrection (John 20, 24-29). As an aside, I wonder if we over-do the emphasis on Thomas' doubt here, but this passage also establishes that Christ's wounds will remain as a mark of what He has done for us. This also picks up the image of the slain Lamb from earlier in Revelation (Revelation, 5,6-14) in the sense that the marks of the Lamb's slaughter remain, even while it is opening the Seven Seals which begin the final war against evil.
What all this suggests is that Christ's Second Coming will not only be a return in glory, but that the marks of the glory would be what were, before the resurrection, considered the marks of a shameful death. In that sense, what Christians should look for as marks of glory is not what the world and, here, the devil, think it should be-crowns and royal trappings- but, rather, the wounds inflicted on Jesus to humiliate him, but which provided him the means by which he defeated sin and death. That, by implication, is the true glory and what we Christians should be looking for in any Second Coming. The failure of the devil to understand this meant that, when he wanted to trick St. Martin, he missed entirely what the point of Jesus' first coming was. Given how big a mistake that was, is there any wonder that he simply didn't understand what the Second Coming will look like?
So, the devil's mistake here isn't just one of too much reliance on external glory on the analogy of the financier in the Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade who choose (unwisely) the gold-encrusted goblet as the true Grail. It was a fundamental failure to discern the cosmic Judo move which the Incarnation represents when the power of sin and death was broken by Jesus' willingness to sacrifice himself for us. Here, St. Martin reaches to the core of the meaning of the resurrection by recognizing from where Jesus' true glory comes.
Peace,
Phil
Monday, December 08, 2008
Patristics Carnival XVIII- November, 2008
Welcome to Patristics Carnival XVIII. It has been a busy month. I hope you enjoy the offerings for this month.
New Under the Tent
Nothing new this month.
Front Gate: Introductions to the Fathers
Michael Haykin on the Reformata blog discusses the evangelical revival in patristic studies and its roots in the Puritan-Baptist tradition.
The Midway: Articles on the Fathers
Mike Aqulina on The Way of the Fathers blog discusses the cult of the saints in the patristic era, reprints part of an interview he had with the National Catholic Register about the Fathers, announces his new book, The Early Church, announces a second book, A Companion Guide to Pope Benedict's The Fathers.
Chad Pullins on the keeping the faith, never losing hope, always loving blog reflects on St. Irenaeus' concept of the fall as Adam (and, through him, humanity) growing up too fast.
Kevin on the Courting the Mystery blog offers an introduction to the patristic understanding of deification, summarizes a paper by Pak-Wah Lei, a PhD. candidate at the University of Durham on Moses as an exemplar in patristic writing
Kent Brandenburg on the What is Truth? blog examines the traditional evangelical understanding of the canon.
Kate on the kt-rae blog expresses her gratitude to the Fathers, even while preparing for a Church History exam (which is high praise, really. I usually felt bitter when I was studying for exams)
David Waltz on the Articuli Fidei blog examines what Arius may have actually taught.
William J. Tsamis on the Fidei Defensor examines the two most prominent non-Christian sources on the life of Christ, Josephus and Tacitus.
Tony-Allen on A Cathechumen's Tale offers a simple exegesis of the Nicene Creed.
Adam Couchman on the Set Apart in Christ blog wonders whether we will ever get past Augustine (I hope not! I happy to like Auggie!)
armsopenwide on the Arms Open Wide blog features a discussion of St. John Chrysosthom as a resource for helping parents of developmentally disabled children.
Roger Pearse on his self-named blog muses over whether Lampe's Patristic Lexicon could be made available online (pant-pant-pant- that's the sound of patristic scholars all over the English-speaking world). He discusses Gospel catenae with an introduction and posts on catenae on Matthew, Mark, Luke, John as well as Harnack's discussion of Gospel catenae. He notes an upcoming edition (hopefully) of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Contra Iulianum, muses on the reading of Crestianus vs Christianus in Tacitus, puzzles over a difficult Greek passage in Eusebius, notes a translation of Eusebius' Chronicle from Armenian,
frinls on the Cafe Church Leeds blog reflects on her community's early encounters with the Fathers (and Mothers).
suburban banshee on the Aliens in this World reflects insightfully on the relationship between women and the Church Fathers. (I particularly enjoyed voting Tertullian as the Father most likely to have a second career as a Bond villain).
Greg Boyd on his self-named blog analyses the influence of Hellenistic philosophy on the wording of the Chalcedonian Creed.
On the Bible Truth Online blog, St. Polycarp is contrasted favourably with St. Jerome.
David Brosnahan on the LDS Doctrine blog discusses the relationship of the early Church Fathers (unlike the later ones who the Church of Latter-Day Saints consider heretical) to the doctrine of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, focusing primarily on St. Justin Martyr's position on the Trinity (selectively, to be sure).
Hierothee on the Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex blog considers whether the Council of Nicaea should be considered as more relevant to modern Catholics than Vatican II.
Andrew on the Theology of Andrew blog muses on the similarities between Englightement Deism and the Church Fathers.
kepha on the fides quaerens intellectum critisizes the assumption that Protestants can't remain Protestant and read the Fathers.
logismon on the diakrisis logismon blog compares the Orthodoxy tradition in reading the Bible to a scientific tradition, while contrasting this approach to the Frankish (read Western) tradition.
Will Huysmann on the Banana Republican blog considers whether Origen should be considered a Church Father.
Deacon Jim on his self-named blog deals with criticism that the Fathers, especially St. John Chrysosthom was anti-Semitic.
Jim Davilla on the PaleoJudaica blog reports that Paula Fredrickson, in her new book, Augustine and the Jews, defends Augustine's view of the Jews.
Mike Aubrey on the en epheso blog discusses a textual problem in Mandates 3.3. As a side note, Mike would put many classicists to shame in his desire to learn more about how Greek works. And that is really saying something! Wow! My brain is pudding just looking at his titles.
Rick Brennan on ricoblog discusses 1st Clement's 'love' chapter.
Ben Myers on the Faith and Theology blog explains St. Augustine's doctrine of grace by means of a song by Iron Wine.
Tim Trautman on the Army of Martyrs blog discusse St. Cyprian on unity, follows up with a post on how St. Cyprian would react to the possibility of a divided Church (note much, I can tell you), continues with a discussion of St. Cyprian's attitude to Eucharistic sacrifice and St. Cyprian on unity and the body.
On this blog, I muse on St. Gregory Nazianzus' view on the task of theology.
The Marketplace: Book Reviews
Brendon on the Christian Books: Orthodoxy blog reviews a translation of Writings from St. Maximus by Robert Wilikin and Andrew Louth, published in the Popular Patristics series from St. Vladimir Press. He also reviews Norman Russell's book, The Doctrine of Deification in Greek Patristic Authors.
Tristen on Christian Books: Orthodoxy offers a review of Rodney Whitacre's A Patristic Reader.
Seamus MacDonald on the Compliant Subversity blog reposts his review of D.H. Williams' book, Evangelicals and Tradition.
Deanna on the Notlukewarm blog reviews Mike Aquilina's new book, Signs and Mysteries.
Philip Sumpter on the Narrative and Ontology blog reviews Nicene Christianity: The Future for a New Ecumenism, Christopher Seitz editor. He follows up with an analysis of articles which he didn't feature in his previous post.
Exhibition Place: Biographies of the Fathers
Christine on the A Catholic View blog introduces us to St. Leo the Great.
Sornchai on the Back to School books blog reprints the Amazon reviews of Michael Holmes' 3rd edition of the Apostolic Fathers.
The Rodeo: Patristic catenae
Tiber Jumper on the Crossed the Tiber blog offers a short catena on Mary.
The Foreign Exchange Tent: Translations
On this blog, I continue my series of translations from Sulpicius Severus' Life of St. Martin.
The Talmudic Tabernacle: Christianity and Judaism in the Ancient World
This is an experimental category, but given the influence of Judaism and the parallel developments of the Talmud and the Fathers (who might be considered a Christian Talmud, or so it seems to me some days). Yes, I'm aware I'm openning a whole new can of worms.
Weekend Fisher on the Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength blog discusses the Jewish concept of the resurrection in light of the Talmudic Feast of the Blessed and in the analogy of the seed.
Philip Sumpter on the Narrative and Ontology blog discusses the Mishna as revelation.
Kevin Edgecomb on the Biblicalia blog continues his notes on Jacob Neusner's The Theology of the Oral Torah with parts 11 and 12. Kevin has posted the previous parts of this series for readers conveniently.
The Apocryphal Aisle: Christian Apocrypha
Tony Chartrand-Burke on the Apocryphicity blog discusses the role of women in the Gospel of Thomas and continues his answers to responses on his "Heresy Hunting" paper.
April De Conick on The Forbidden Gospel blog reports on the Judas section at the SBL convention this month.
Well, that is it for the month. I hope you enjoyed these posts and I hope you have a quiet and worshipful Advent!
Peace,
Phil
New Under the Tent
Nothing new this month.
Front Gate: Introductions to the Fathers
Michael Haykin on the Reformata blog discusses the evangelical revival in patristic studies and its roots in the Puritan-Baptist tradition.
The Midway: Articles on the Fathers
Mike Aqulina on The Way of the Fathers blog discusses the cult of the saints in the patristic era, reprints part of an interview he had with the National Catholic Register about the Fathers, announces his new book, The Early Church, announces a second book, A Companion Guide to Pope Benedict's The Fathers.
Chad Pullins on the keeping the faith, never losing hope, always loving blog reflects on St. Irenaeus' concept of the fall as Adam (and, through him, humanity) growing up too fast.
Kevin on the Courting the Mystery blog offers an introduction to the patristic understanding of deification, summarizes a paper by Pak-Wah Lei, a PhD. candidate at the University of Durham on Moses as an exemplar in patristic writing
Kent Brandenburg on the What is Truth? blog examines the traditional evangelical understanding of the canon.
Kate on the kt-rae blog expresses her gratitude to the Fathers, even while preparing for a Church History exam (which is high praise, really. I usually felt bitter when I was studying for exams)
David Waltz on the Articuli Fidei blog examines what Arius may have actually taught.
William J. Tsamis on the Fidei Defensor examines the two most prominent non-Christian sources on the life of Christ, Josephus and Tacitus.
Tony-Allen on A Cathechumen's Tale offers a simple exegesis of the Nicene Creed.
Adam Couchman on the Set Apart in Christ blog wonders whether we will ever get past Augustine (I hope not! I happy to like Auggie!)
armsopenwide on the Arms Open Wide blog features a discussion of St. John Chrysosthom as a resource for helping parents of developmentally disabled children.
Roger Pearse on his self-named blog muses over whether Lampe's Patristic Lexicon could be made available online (pant-pant-pant- that's the sound of patristic scholars all over the English-speaking world). He discusses Gospel catenae with an introduction and posts on catenae on Matthew, Mark, Luke, John as well as Harnack's discussion of Gospel catenae. He notes an upcoming edition (hopefully) of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Contra Iulianum, muses on the reading of Crestianus vs Christianus in Tacitus, puzzles over a difficult Greek passage in Eusebius, notes a translation of Eusebius' Chronicle from Armenian,
frinls on the Cafe Church Leeds blog reflects on her community's early encounters with the Fathers (and Mothers).
suburban banshee on the Aliens in this World reflects insightfully on the relationship between women and the Church Fathers. (I particularly enjoyed voting Tertullian as the Father most likely to have a second career as a Bond villain).
Greg Boyd on his self-named blog analyses the influence of Hellenistic philosophy on the wording of the Chalcedonian Creed.
On the Bible Truth Online blog, St. Polycarp is contrasted favourably with St. Jerome.
David Brosnahan on the LDS Doctrine blog discusses the relationship of the early Church Fathers (unlike the later ones who the Church of Latter-Day Saints consider heretical) to the doctrine of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, focusing primarily on St. Justin Martyr's position on the Trinity (selectively, to be sure).
Hierothee on the Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex blog considers whether the Council of Nicaea should be considered as more relevant to modern Catholics than Vatican II.
Andrew on the Theology of Andrew blog muses on the similarities between Englightement Deism and the Church Fathers.
kepha on the fides quaerens intellectum critisizes the assumption that Protestants can't remain Protestant and read the Fathers.
logismon on the diakrisis logismon blog compares the Orthodoxy tradition in reading the Bible to a scientific tradition, while contrasting this approach to the Frankish (read Western) tradition.
Will Huysmann on the Banana Republican blog considers whether Origen should be considered a Church Father.
Deacon Jim on his self-named blog deals with criticism that the Fathers, especially St. John Chrysosthom was anti-Semitic.
Jim Davilla on the PaleoJudaica blog reports that Paula Fredrickson, in her new book, Augustine and the Jews, defends Augustine's view of the Jews.
Mike Aubrey on the en epheso blog discusses a textual problem in Mandates 3.3. As a side note, Mike would put many classicists to shame in his desire to learn more about how Greek works. And that is really saying something! Wow! My brain is pudding just looking at his titles.
Rick Brennan on ricoblog discusses 1st Clement's 'love' chapter.
Ben Myers on the Faith and Theology blog explains St. Augustine's doctrine of grace by means of a song by Iron Wine.
Tim Trautman on the Army of Martyrs blog discusse St. Cyprian on unity, follows up with a post on how St. Cyprian would react to the possibility of a divided Church (note much, I can tell you), continues with a discussion of St. Cyprian's attitude to Eucharistic sacrifice and St. Cyprian on unity and the body.
On this blog, I muse on St. Gregory Nazianzus' view on the task of theology.
The Marketplace: Book Reviews
Brendon on the Christian Books: Orthodoxy blog reviews a translation of Writings from St. Maximus by Robert Wilikin and Andrew Louth, published in the Popular Patristics series from St. Vladimir Press. He also reviews Norman Russell's book, The Doctrine of Deification in Greek Patristic Authors.
Tristen on Christian Books: Orthodoxy offers a review of Rodney Whitacre's A Patristic Reader.
Seamus MacDonald on the Compliant Subversity blog reposts his review of D.H. Williams' book, Evangelicals and Tradition.
Deanna on the Notlukewarm blog reviews Mike Aquilina's new book, Signs and Mysteries.
Philip Sumpter on the Narrative and Ontology blog reviews Nicene Christianity: The Future for a New Ecumenism, Christopher Seitz editor. He follows up with an analysis of articles which he didn't feature in his previous post.
Exhibition Place: Biographies of the Fathers
Christine on the A Catholic View blog introduces us to St. Leo the Great.
Sornchai on the Back to School books blog reprints the Amazon reviews of Michael Holmes' 3rd edition of the Apostolic Fathers.
The Rodeo: Patristic catenae
Tiber Jumper on the Crossed the Tiber blog offers a short catena on Mary.
The Foreign Exchange Tent: Translations
On this blog, I continue my series of translations from Sulpicius Severus' Life of St. Martin.
The Talmudic Tabernacle: Christianity and Judaism in the Ancient World
This is an experimental category, but given the influence of Judaism and the parallel developments of the Talmud and the Fathers (who might be considered a Christian Talmud, or so it seems to me some days). Yes, I'm aware I'm openning a whole new can of worms.
Weekend Fisher on the Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength blog discusses the Jewish concept of the resurrection in light of the Talmudic Feast of the Blessed and in the analogy of the seed.
Philip Sumpter on the Narrative and Ontology blog discusses the Mishna as revelation.
Kevin Edgecomb on the Biblicalia blog continues his notes on Jacob Neusner's The Theology of the Oral Torah with parts 11 and 12. Kevin has posted the previous parts of this series for readers conveniently.
The Apocryphal Aisle: Christian Apocrypha
Tony Chartrand-Burke on the Apocryphicity blog discusses the role of women in the Gospel of Thomas and continues his answers to responses on his "Heresy Hunting" paper.
April De Conick on The Forbidden Gospel blog reports on the Judas section at the SBL convention this month.
Well, that is it for the month. I hope you enjoyed these posts and I hope you have a quiet and worshipful Advent!
Peace,
Phil
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Call for Submissions Patristics Carnival XVIII
Welcome to Patristic Carnival XVIII. This month, we're back here at hyperekperissou.
The guidelines remain the same as the Modest Proposal entry back in November, 2006 and my additions in August, 2007.
The last day of submission will be November 30 and the postings will be up by the week of December 6th. .
Remember you can offer submissions on the carnival site or the dedicated e-mail (patristics-carnival@hotmail.com)
Peace,Phil
The guidelines remain the same as the Modest Proposal entry back in November, 2006 and my additions in August, 2007.
The last day of submission will be November 30 and the postings will be up by the week of December 6th. .
Remember you can offer submissions on the carnival site or the dedicated e-mail (patristics-carnival@hotmail.com)
Peace,Phil
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The Task of Theology
Over the last couple of weeks, I've been reading St. Gregory Nazianzus' Five Theological Orations in the handy St. Vladimir Edition (On God and Christ). It has been an interesting read, largely because St. Gregory is one of those authors I knew I should read, but which, honestly, intimidated me (like the remaining Cappadocians- St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nyssa). The Cappadocians are so philosophical and foundational in determining the doctrine of the Trinity that I wasn't entirely sure that I'd get it. I've read the five orations now and I have to say that I'm not entirely sure I got all of it. I know my way around philosophy and theology, but this is not easy reading to say the least. Good reading, just not easy.
What I want to write about today is the first theological oration in which St. Gregory outlines what it means to be a theologian. This sermon was intended as an introduction to a series of sermons dealing with the neo-Arian Eunomians, who deployed Greek philosophical logic and ideas to deconstruct the Nicene conception of the Trinity, especially denying the sameness or similiarity of the substance of the Father and the Son. Strictly speaking, the Eunomians were never particularly powerful, largely because they were loathed equally by the Nicenes and the homoiousians. Yet, their critique was dangerous because it was so clever. Whatever else Eunomius and his teacher, Aetius, were, they weren't stupid. That was rather the problem.
Gregory take the position that his opponents, the Eunomians, are rather too clever for their own good. That is, they were more interested in "setting or solving conundrums (Or. 27,2) than learning from 'true religion'. Like many Fathers, he doesn't mince words. He calls the Eunomians "mere verbal tricksters, grotesque and preposterous word-gamesters- their derisory antics invite derisive description."(Or. 27,2) or, in a kind of WWF (or whatever they're calling it these days) style wrestling reference "they are like promoters of wrestling bouts not like those conducted in accordance with the rules of the sport and lead to the victory of one of the antagonists, but the sort stage-managed to give the uncritical spectators visual sensations and compel their applause (Or. 27, 2). That's strong talk, of course, and I'm sure Gregory meant every word of it.
Of course, accusing one's opponents of being over-clever (and, by implication, under-wise) was and is a common rhetorical move in philosophical circles. The simple fact is that naked logic is an exceptional weapon in an intellectual dispute, so it is usually a good idea to have a shield to protect oneself with. Using one's opponents' own weapon-proficiency with logic- against them is not only useful, but economical because the more logic one's opponent flings around, the less wise he looks. Logic can be a double-edged sword in a dispute. Its almost mathematical character makes it almost impossible to refute, if one accepts the premises of the logical system. Yet, one can undercut the whole system in one fell swoop simply by denying that those premises match with reality. This is of course, St. Gregory's polemical point which he drives home quite hard.
Yet, as important as this polemic is, this isn't why I wanted to write about this sermon. What struck me is St. Gregory's definition of the true theologians in which he argues that theology "is not for all people, but only for those who have been tested and have found a sound footing in the study and, more importantly, have undergone or, at the very least, are undergoing the purification of body and soul. For one who is not pure to lay hold of pure things is dangerous, just as it is for weak eyes to look at the sun's brightness (Or. 27,3)
To us, in the educated pluralistic West, this might strike us as not only elitist, but paternalistic. Sure, one might argue, it is better for the marketplace of the ideas to decide the soundness of an idea, not some kind of spiritual censor who eliminates the views of those who are not in the privileged 'in-crowd'. St. Gregory, with his late Roman contempt for anything even faintly smacking of democracy, rejects this idea and stresses the mission of the theologians is not a democratic right, but a spiritual discipline to be practiced.
Herein, I think, is the problem with the explosion of popular theology. There is widespread interest in knowing the things of God, but very little in integrating that knowledge into our lives. Theology isn't just one subject to study among others, but rather is a contemplation of God, a spiritual exercise, if you like. The aim of theology isn't knowing God-after all, who could really know God and his ways- but, rather, learning God's ways and doing it. To do that, we need to listen to the voices of the dearly departed-the Fathers, to be sure, but, really, all those who followed them- and the tradition which they passed on to us as a running commentary of who God is and how we, in the Church, seen how He has worked in the world. In that sense, novelty isn't the point in theology, faithfulness is. That is why the Eastern Orthodox stress that theology isn't just intellectual endeavor, but it is also prayer. They, better than we do in the West, understand the two-fold nature of true theology- intellectual and spiritual- and encourage those called to the vocation of theology to pursue both.
I'm sure we've all run into people, whether online or off, who want to argue for the sake of arguing about God, but who have no interest in the nitty-gritty of living a spiritual life. St. Gregory seems to say both to those who like to argue this way and those of us who set themselves to oppose them that we have lost the point of theology. Theological discourse isn't a purely intellectual game, but rather it is a spiritual vocation. And, if it is a vocation, doesn't that call for rather more discernment about who has that call than passing a few exams and writing a few essays (not that these things are bad things). Or, for that matter, to hoist myself on my own petard, creating a blog and just talking into the ether about what comes into our heads.
So that is the challenge of St. Gregory in this sermon: to stop regarding theology as something to learn as a subject or to argue about as a way to score debating points off each other. We need to recover theology as a form of prayer and to discern who has the gifts needed to serve the Church in this way. The good news is that we are starting to recover this sense of theology and I hope that we see more efforts to practice real theological discourse. For our sake and for the Church's, I hope that we learn to discern the real thing from the false and to practice theology, as we practice every other Christian vocation, for God's sake.
Peace,
Phil
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Sulpicius Severus, Life of St. Martin 23
This is rather a delayed post. I had the translation done last week, but I had decided to delay the commentary until I had more time. That turned out to be a longer period than I thought. So, here is the next installment of the Life of St. Martin.
Text:
When a certain person named Clarus, a very noble youth, soon to be priest, but now blessed with a happy death, came to Martin with all the rest, he became distinguished to the utmost height of his faith and all the virtues. (2) When he set up a tent not far the bishop's monastery and many brothers were staying at his house, a youth named Anatolius came to him, while pretending humility and innocence in his monastic profession, lived for some time in community with the rest. (3) Then, as time went on, he used to say that he was used to speaking to angels. When nobody believed him, he compelled many to believe him through signs. Later, he went to the point that he proclaimed that angels rushed between him and God and that he was wishing to be considered one of the prophets. (4) Nevertheless, Clarus could in no way be compelled to believe in him. Anatolius threatened him with the anger of God and present calamities because Clarus did not believe in one of the saints. (5) Later, it is reported he broke out with this speech "Behold, the Lord will give me shining-white clothing this night. Being clad in this clothing, I will be taken up in your midst. That will be a sign to you that the power of God is in me, who shall be given the clothing of God. (6) Then, the expectation of all in this declaration was great. In almost the middle of the night, the whole monastery in that place seemed to be disturbed by the clamour of people leaping on the ground. You would perceive that the cell in which that same youth was staying shone with many lights and the clamour of those rushing about in it and a certain murmuring of many voices was heard. (7) Then, when it became silent, the youth came out and called to one of the brethren, Sabatius by name, and showed him his tunic which he was wearing. Sabatius, astonished, called the rest together. Clarus even ran to there. All of them carefully examined the clothing with light applied to it. It was extremely soft, with outstanding whiteness, shining with purple and, nevertheless, it was not possible to be known what type of material it was. When it was handled by curious eyes or fingers, it seemed to be nothing else but clothing. Meanwhile Clarus told all the brothers to apply themselves in prayer so that the Lord would show more clearly what the clothing was. (9) Thus, the rest of the night was spent in hymns and psalms. When the day grew light, Clarus wished to take the youth, held by his right hand, to Martin, knowing well that Martin could not be deceived by diabolic arts. (10) Then, the wretch began to resist and shout. He said that he was told not to show himself to Martin. When they compelled him to go unwillingly, the clothing disappeared in the hands of those dragging him. Therefore, who would doubt that such was the power of Martin that the devil was not able to pretend any longer or hide his own deception when it must be brought to the eyes of Martin.
Commentary:
Text:
When a certain person named Clarus, a very noble youth, soon to be priest, but now blessed with a happy death, came to Martin with all the rest, he became distinguished to the utmost height of his faith and all the virtues. (2) When he set up a tent not far the bishop's monastery and many brothers were staying at his house, a youth named Anatolius came to him, while pretending humility and innocence in his monastic profession, lived for some time in community with the rest. (3) Then, as time went on, he used to say that he was used to speaking to angels. When nobody believed him, he compelled many to believe him through signs. Later, he went to the point that he proclaimed that angels rushed between him and God and that he was wishing to be considered one of the prophets. (4) Nevertheless, Clarus could in no way be compelled to believe in him. Anatolius threatened him with the anger of God and present calamities because Clarus did not believe in one of the saints. (5) Later, it is reported he broke out with this speech "Behold, the Lord will give me shining-white clothing this night. Being clad in this clothing, I will be taken up in your midst. That will be a sign to you that the power of God is in me, who shall be given the clothing of God. (6) Then, the expectation of all in this declaration was great. In almost the middle of the night, the whole monastery in that place seemed to be disturbed by the clamour of people leaping on the ground. You would perceive that the cell in which that same youth was staying shone with many lights and the clamour of those rushing about in it and a certain murmuring of many voices was heard. (7) Then, when it became silent, the youth came out and called to one of the brethren, Sabatius by name, and showed him his tunic which he was wearing. Sabatius, astonished, called the rest together. Clarus even ran to there. All of them carefully examined the clothing with light applied to it. It was extremely soft, with outstanding whiteness, shining with purple and, nevertheless, it was not possible to be known what type of material it was. When it was handled by curious eyes or fingers, it seemed to be nothing else but clothing. Meanwhile Clarus told all the brothers to apply themselves in prayer so that the Lord would show more clearly what the clothing was. (9) Thus, the rest of the night was spent in hymns and psalms. When the day grew light, Clarus wished to take the youth, held by his right hand, to Martin, knowing well that Martin could not be deceived by diabolic arts. (10) Then, the wretch began to resist and shout. He said that he was told not to show himself to Martin. When they compelled him to go unwillingly, the clothing disappeared in the hands of those dragging him. Therefore, who would doubt that such was the power of Martin that the devil was not able to pretend any longer or hide his own deception when it must be brought to the eyes of Martin.
Commentary:
This passage has several interesting features to it. First, for two-thirds of the story, this isn't really about St. Martin. Really, for that first two-thirds, the focus is on the conflict between Clarus, the young, but spiritual disciple of St. Martin and Anatolius, a rival Christian teacher. Clarus doesn't have any position at the time of the story to base his authority other than his loyalty to God and his spiritual discernment which prevents him from being convinced or compelled to abandon his faith in Christ in favour of Anatolius' wish to take on the spiritual leadership in the community loosely associated with St. Martin. Really, it isn't until the very end, when Clarus thinks to solve the problem of the white clothing-- a problem which he himself could not solve, even if he had the right impulse to pray about it. It is ultimately Satan's reluctance to get into a contest with St. Martin which causes the hoax to be revealed and Anatolius to be revealed as demonically inspired.
To be sure, this incident is intended to highlight St. Martin's spiritual power which was so great that even Satan got the idea not to go up against him openly. Rather it is through stealth and a pretend monk that Satan tries to corrupt the community of St. Martin. Clarus' efforts to prevent are only successful when he gets ready to call out the big guns: St. Martin himself. This is, of course, a feature of hagiographies stories and a feature of Jesus' own experience with Satan. Here Satan tempts and displays power, but he withdraws hastily when He encounters a holy man because he knows he's outmatched.
Second, this story also demands some effort to unpack what was going on with Anatolius. One way we can look at him is to dismiss him as a deluded lunatic. That is, his claims to speak to angels and, eventually, to be a messenger from God would probably land him up in a psych ward today, not necessarily a monastery. Mind you, deluded lunatics don't necessarily produce unusually white mystery cloth as a rule, so that little detail would seem to argue against this interpretation. This is, of course, why Clarus and the other monks were so freaked out by Anatolius. He was able to manifest signs and material items to back up his story which is something that a complete fraud or a madman has a problem coming up with. Severus explains these signs as being the result of collaboration with Satan. Given that Satan has power, if inferior to God's, he could help manifest signs and get a hold of odd fabrics to confuse the monks of St. Martin's monastery.
Another way to look at Anatolius is to see him as some kind of misunderstood proto-charismatic. That is, his claims to hear angels and to spiritual authority based on these manifestations might be seen, at least in Anatolius' eyes, as charisms--gifts of the Holy Spirit. One of the results of these gifts is that Anatolius might come to that these experiences give him spiritual authority over others. That would explain his threats to Clarus. Anatolius is believing his own press and bases his authority on it.
Furthermore, if we accept Anatolius as a proto-charismatic, we have to admit that there was precedent. Montanism, for instance, stressed prophecy and gifts of the Spirit in such a way that the new dispensation of Montanus overrode the old one of the New Testament writers. Was Anatolius a proto-Montanus? Perhaps. The problem is, of course, that we can't really know how much he was a lunatic and how much a sane, if pushy charismatic.
This is a bit of a moot point, of course. Clearly, Severus regarded Anatolius as a dupe of Satan, whose professions of innocence and humility were merely a cover for a snare sprung on St. Martin's monks, designed to seduce them away from God. We moderns are squeamish about the idea of a Satan, who intervenes in human life to twist it away from God. We come by that squeamishness honestly because the figure of Satan in popular culture has become so ridiculous that it is difficult to take him seriously as a real force in the world. We have a tendency to relegate him to horror flicks or low comedy in such a way that his opposition isn't so much against God, but against us. And since he is against us, we all know who will win. That's right us. In many ways, I wonder if the secularization of the image of Satan isn't also a domesticization of him into something which we can handle, if we need to.
Yet, in Severus, Satan is a cunning opponent who threatens to win out against most mortals. Only a superlatively holy man could possibly be close enough to God to drive away Satan. Our archetype for this holy man is, of course, Jesus, so it is hardly surprising that it is Christ who gives us our example of Satan's ultimate weakness when measured against God. While the unveiling of Anatolius is a triumph of St. Martin, it is, more importantly, a triumph of God over evil. That, of course, explains what the story is doing in this Life of St. Martin.
Peace,
Phil
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Patristic Carnival XVII is up
Weekend Fisher has Patristics Carnival XVII up over at Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength. It looks good and, if I ever dig out of the mountain of marking I'm working on, it looks like I'll have some interesting articles to read.
Thanks very much to Weekend Fisher for her hard work on this month's carnival! Stay tuned for Patristics Carnival XVIII.
If you'd like to host a Patristics Carnival, please get in touch with me!
Peace,
Phil
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Why Heresy Matters.
A few weeks back, as I reflected on the comments for my entry on Hunting Heresy in the Fathers, I realized that I was opening myself up to the criticism that I was denigrating the importance of heresy by critisizing those who were trying to identify heresy where they find it. I don't think I was, but I wondered if I needed to do a companion piece on why it was important that we identify and, if necessary, confront heresy.
Heresy hunting has, of course, a bit of a bad name. Many people tend to remember heresy trials throughout history and the frequently grim executions which resulted from these proceedings. This kind of thing is exactly the kind of thing that anti-religious people like to mention when they're trying to argue why religion has been the author of oppression and violence over the ages. Nor are they entirely wrong because I honestly think that these trials were un-Christian, although I really wish that these critics would remember that the executions were the state's job and, while the Church can and should be critisized for colluding in the trials and for endorsing the use of violence, the state bears a responsibility in this oppression and violence which is only rarely acknowledged.
What is more, there has been something of a linguistic shift in the last few decades in the use of the word heresy. There was a time, not so long ago, that calling someone a heretic was fightin' words. It was, at any rate, an insult. Yet, these days, a lot of people call themselves heretics because they see this as evidence of the independence of their minds. Orthodoxy is seen as too narrow and oppressive, so heresy is fresh and pleasantly unique. In that sense, heresy is an exciting eccentricity, nothing more.
So, all this begs the question of why we should bother with heresy in this day and age. Either we risk being seen as a cold-hearted oppressor or as a narrow-minded kill-joy. So, why should we as Christians care about heresy? Surely, this isn't about keeping a clipboard with all the things we need to believe to check off as we listen to each other?
At the end of the day, dealing with heresy is about how our beliefs affect how we relate to God. This is something that the Fathers themselves realized. We all know that St. Athanasius critisized Arianism based on its soteriological implications: the effect of making the Word/Son a creature is that it removes our mediator with God and the benefits of the resurrection (especially with the doctrine of recapitulation which is so characteristic of eastern theology of the period). St. Augustine critisized Pelagianism because of its tendency towards perfectionism. St. Irenaeus critisized Gnosticism because of its spiritual elitism and dualism. The Fathers didn't stand around with a clipboard to tick off the spiritual faux pas of their followers, but they were ardently concerned with the spiritual health of those under their spiritual care. If heresy is a distortion, a disease affecting our perception of God, surely we should diagnose the problem and try to treat it.
Heresy distorts our image of God and that is the source of this problem which heresy engenders. I know, in my own life, that my affinity to Deism- the 18th century heresy that God created the world, but no longer directly intervenes in His Creation- was a stumbling block for a very long. At the root of my sympathy to this heresy was a tendency to see God as remote to my life and a willingness that this remoteness continue. By God's grace, I learned about a God who was involved in the world and was actively redeeming it from the mess that we've made of it. I learned about a God who cares about me and who actively redeems my life from the various mistakes that I've made in my life. From this perspective, Deism strikes me as being a barrier to a stronger relationship with God.
That is, of course, a very personal example, but I think it is no less valid because of that. Part of the Christian life is to seek closeness to God, so anything which prevents that is something we need to deal with- lovingly and gently, but firmly. Ignoring it would be spiritually harmful which would be inimical to Christian discipleship.
Peace,
Phil
Heresy hunting has, of course, a bit of a bad name. Many people tend to remember heresy trials throughout history and the frequently grim executions which resulted from these proceedings. This kind of thing is exactly the kind of thing that anti-religious people like to mention when they're trying to argue why religion has been the author of oppression and violence over the ages. Nor are they entirely wrong because I honestly think that these trials were un-Christian, although I really wish that these critics would remember that the executions were the state's job and, while the Church can and should be critisized for colluding in the trials and for endorsing the use of violence, the state bears a responsibility in this oppression and violence which is only rarely acknowledged.
What is more, there has been something of a linguistic shift in the last few decades in the use of the word heresy. There was a time, not so long ago, that calling someone a heretic was fightin' words. It was, at any rate, an insult. Yet, these days, a lot of people call themselves heretics because they see this as evidence of the independence of their minds. Orthodoxy is seen as too narrow and oppressive, so heresy is fresh and pleasantly unique. In that sense, heresy is an exciting eccentricity, nothing more.
So, all this begs the question of why we should bother with heresy in this day and age. Either we risk being seen as a cold-hearted oppressor or as a narrow-minded kill-joy. So, why should we as Christians care about heresy? Surely, this isn't about keeping a clipboard with all the things we need to believe to check off as we listen to each other?
At the end of the day, dealing with heresy is about how our beliefs affect how we relate to God. This is something that the Fathers themselves realized. We all know that St. Athanasius critisized Arianism based on its soteriological implications: the effect of making the Word/Son a creature is that it removes our mediator with God and the benefits of the resurrection (especially with the doctrine of recapitulation which is so characteristic of eastern theology of the period). St. Augustine critisized Pelagianism because of its tendency towards perfectionism. St. Irenaeus critisized Gnosticism because of its spiritual elitism and dualism. The Fathers didn't stand around with a clipboard to tick off the spiritual faux pas of their followers, but they were ardently concerned with the spiritual health of those under their spiritual care. If heresy is a distortion, a disease affecting our perception of God, surely we should diagnose the problem and try to treat it.
Heresy distorts our image of God and that is the source of this problem which heresy engenders. I know, in my own life, that my affinity to Deism- the 18th century heresy that God created the world, but no longer directly intervenes in His Creation- was a stumbling block for a very long. At the root of my sympathy to this heresy was a tendency to see God as remote to my life and a willingness that this remoteness continue. By God's grace, I learned about a God who was involved in the world and was actively redeeming it from the mess that we've made of it. I learned about a God who cares about me and who actively redeems my life from the various mistakes that I've made in my life. From this perspective, Deism strikes me as being a barrier to a stronger relationship with God.
That is, of course, a very personal example, but I think it is no less valid because of that. Part of the Christian life is to seek closeness to God, so anything which prevents that is something we need to deal with- lovingly and gently, but firmly. Ignoring it would be spiritually harmful which would be inimical to Christian discipleship.
Peace,
Phil
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Patristic Carnival XVII- Call for Submissions
Welcome to Patristic Carnival XVII. This month, the carnival is at Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength this month.
The guidelines remain the same as the Modest Proposal entry back in November, 2006 and my additions in August, 2007.
The last day of submission will be October 30 and the postings will be up by the week of November 6th. .
Remember you can offer submissions on the carnival site or the dedicated e-mail (patristics-carnival@hotmail.com)
Peace,Phil
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Mike Aquilina, Signs and Mysteries. Revealing Ancient Christian Symbols
This is Mike Aquilina's, author of several popular patristics books like The Way of the Fathers, The Fathers of the Church and The Mass of the Early Church. , most recent offering and it is an excellent one. He is also the author of The Way of the Fathers blog- the sine qua non of patristic blogs. In Signs and Mysteries. Revealing Ancient Christian Symbols, Aquilina combines his interest in the Fathers with his fascination- demonstrated on his blog- with early Christian material culture. The combination in this book produces a unique resource and one which I would heartily recommend anyone, Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, purchase for their own libraries.
The format of the book focuses on chapters dealing with the images themselves; twenty-five all told in addition to one background chapter. Each chapter works out the origin of each image, considers the Scriptural connection, highlights what the symbol means in a Christian context, discusses notable artifacts employing the symbol and cites patristic and modern writers who explain the symbol. Just as importantly, Aquilina's superb illustrator, Marie Ravotti, has provided illustrations of many of these notable artifacts so that the reader can see as well as read about the symbols as they were employed in the early Church. The combination of text and image gives us an excellent resource for unlocking the common stock of Christian symbols which is the inheritance of all Christians.
Aquilina's writing is, as usual, lucid and easy to read. This is a hallmark of Aquilina's books which combine an easy-to-read style with careful thought and testing of the evidence. Aquilina rarely goes past the evidence and is careful, in this book, to note when an image could be ambiguous (used by more than just Christians) so that the reader will not make the elementary error of mis-identifying the use of, say, the ankh in a non-Christian context. Or we hope. Experts have made such errors as well.
Aquilina's main aim in this book was to create a symbology- a kind of key to the 'language' of Christian symbols and how they connect to our faith. This is a crucial task in our post-Christian environment in North America, where knowledge of the Bible and Christian symbols is minimal even among many believers, so many Christians wouldn't know a Christian symbol or what it means if it came out and bit them. Yet, we find ourselves in the West in the very peculiar position of being surrounded by Christian symbolism which has been disconnected from its original context and is in danger of being reduced to a kind of post-modern chaos of images and art. If we Christians want to reclaim our tradition, we have to learn again the symbolic 'language' of our art and literature. We need to remember that our Christian faith hasn't emerged fully formed out of God's forehead, but rather is the result of centuries of reflection, written and non-written, on the truth of our faith. Signs and Mysteries is an excellent resource in unpacking the meaning of this reflection.
This concern with symbology also warms my heart because it connects with my own theological sensibilities. One of the major influence on my theological thinking was a book I read several years ago: George Lindbeck's, The Nature of Doctrine. In that book, Lindbeck emphasizes the importance of doctrine as a 'grammar of faith'. That is, he argues that doctrine helps us speak about our faith intelligibly and meaningfully because it provides for us the 'language' of how to speak about God. Aquilina's book helps us with that grammar and connects it to the visual realm as well as the written. This is what makes it such a useful resource.
I heartily recommend this book for anyone interested in deepening their understanding of the 'language' of our faith. The language, I grant, has a Roman Catholic lilt to it, but not in such a way as to make it unintelligible to the Eastern Orthodox or Protestant reader. In fact, I plan to purchase a copy for the church library at the Anglican church I attend. It is too valuable a resource not to spread around a bit.
Peace,
Phil
The format of the book focuses on chapters dealing with the images themselves; twenty-five all told in addition to one background chapter. Each chapter works out the origin of each image, considers the Scriptural connection, highlights what the symbol means in a Christian context, discusses notable artifacts employing the symbol and cites patristic and modern writers who explain the symbol. Just as importantly, Aquilina's superb illustrator, Marie Ravotti, has provided illustrations of many of these notable artifacts so that the reader can see as well as read about the symbols as they were employed in the early Church. The combination of text and image gives us an excellent resource for unlocking the common stock of Christian symbols which is the inheritance of all Christians.
Aquilina's writing is, as usual, lucid and easy to read. This is a hallmark of Aquilina's books which combine an easy-to-read style with careful thought and testing of the evidence. Aquilina rarely goes past the evidence and is careful, in this book, to note when an image could be ambiguous (used by more than just Christians) so that the reader will not make the elementary error of mis-identifying the use of, say, the ankh in a non-Christian context. Or we hope. Experts have made such errors as well.
Aquilina's main aim in this book was to create a symbology- a kind of key to the 'language' of Christian symbols and how they connect to our faith. This is a crucial task in our post-Christian environment in North America, where knowledge of the Bible and Christian symbols is minimal even among many believers, so many Christians wouldn't know a Christian symbol or what it means if it came out and bit them. Yet, we find ourselves in the West in the very peculiar position of being surrounded by Christian symbolism which has been disconnected from its original context and is in danger of being reduced to a kind of post-modern chaos of images and art. If we Christians want to reclaim our tradition, we have to learn again the symbolic 'language' of our art and literature. We need to remember that our Christian faith hasn't emerged fully formed out of God's forehead, but rather is the result of centuries of reflection, written and non-written, on the truth of our faith. Signs and Mysteries is an excellent resource in unpacking the meaning of this reflection.
This concern with symbology also warms my heart because it connects with my own theological sensibilities. One of the major influence on my theological thinking was a book I read several years ago: George Lindbeck's, The Nature of Doctrine. In that book, Lindbeck emphasizes the importance of doctrine as a 'grammar of faith'. That is, he argues that doctrine helps us speak about our faith intelligibly and meaningfully because it provides for us the 'language' of how to speak about God. Aquilina's book helps us with that grammar and connects it to the visual realm as well as the written. This is what makes it such a useful resource.
I heartily recommend this book for anyone interested in deepening their understanding of the 'language' of our faith. The language, I grant, has a Roman Catholic lilt to it, but not in such a way as to make it unintelligible to the Eastern Orthodox or Protestant reader. In fact, I plan to purchase a copy for the church library at the Anglican church I attend. It is too valuable a resource not to spread around a bit.
Peace,
Phil
Friday, October 10, 2008
Patristics Carnival XVI- September, 2008
Well, it's finally done. Patristics Carnival XVI! Enjoy!
Front Gate: Introductions to the Fathers
Nothing this month
The Midway: Articles on the Fathers
malcolmxyz on the From The Outside In blog reflects on St. Ephraim, ecumenism and 'evil-doers' in an interesting application of a patristic author to a contemporary problem.
Weekend Fisher on the Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength blog discusses anniversary offerings for the dead in Augustine's Confessions.
indignus on the Scriptorium blog reviews the various web and live response to Nancy Pelosi's comments on abortion and the Fathers.
matthew on Matthew's Random Rantings looks back at the stages of his encounter with patristic authors over the last few years.
Sam Harrelson on his self-named blog speculates about what would have happened if Constantine had converted to Judaism rather than Christianity. He also reflects on the impact that the persecutions had on Christian identity.
VoxClamantis on the Fish Eater's Forum posts an interesting analysis of St. Augustine's complex attitude to women, written by Maureen McCew. I don't usually include re-postings of articles, but this one is definately worth reading!
Joseph Walker on the felix hominum blog reflects on St. Cyprian's Unity of the Church, with an eye to the Anglican ecclesial 'Time of Troubles' in several parts- Intro, part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6 and part 7. The series actually started in late August and I missed it, but this is a must-read not only for Anglicans, but for all those who love the Church.
Damon on the How2BecomeChristian blog reviews the Mormon (mis-)use of the patristic concept of deification.
Paul Cat on the Alive and Young blog posts an activity connecting Scripture and the Nicene Creed for his Grade 8 Religion class.
Alex on the Your Own Personal Jesus blog reflects on St. Athanasius's On the Incarnation from an evangelical standpoint.
Eric Sowell on the Archaic Christianity blog reacts to some of the offerings from the last Patristic Carnival (XV) dealing with the canon, reflects on reading John's Protoevangelon in Greek, considers anti-Marcionite prefaces to Latin Bibles,
northwestsemitic on The Reformed Reader blog considers whether the Fathers are relevant to contemporary Biblical Studies in the view of Gerald Bray's book, Out of Egypt.
Ron Corson on the Adventist Media Response and Conversation blog reflects on Origen's theological legacy from an Adventist point of view.
Macrina on the Vow of Conversation blog reports on a conference dealing with St. Cyprian recently held in Amsterdam.
R. Scott Clark on the Heidleblog considers whether there was an apostolic hermeneutic of Scripture and whether we can imitate it. And I like the name of the blog.
Edward Moore on the Musings of a Christian Platonist blog considers patristic discussions about the Creator from a Platonist perspective.
Eastcoastdweller on the In Search of Isis blog meditates on the Didache and Martyrdom of Polycarp, with some reservations.
Father Ernesto Obregón on the OrthoCuban blog considers Scripture, Tradition and the Ecumenical Councils.
TurretinFan on the Thoughts of Francis Turretin considers the suppressed 'patristic' texts at Nicaea II.
Albert M. on the Labarum blog considers Nicaea II and the suppression of iconclast texts in response to the preceding blog entry.
John Uebersax on the Catholic Gnosis blog considers patristic psychology and its possible applications to how to quit smoking.
Peter Head on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog takes notes on the Shepherd of Hermas
David Waltz on the Articuli Fidei blog considers soteriology in the Fathers.
Scott Bosse on The Pope Podcast blog outlines the life of Pope Victor I.
Roger Pearse on his self-named blog considers claims that 1000 Christian Arabic manuscripts were destroyed in World War II.
Mike Aquilina on The Way of the Fathers blog muses on rock music's patristic expert, Dion and discusses the authenticity of recent discovered Augustine sermons.
Philip Sumpter on the Narrative and Ontology blog discusses the patristic contribution of Andrew Louth, considered canon and the 'history of religion' and analyzed allegory and the problem of 'history'.Tim Trautman on the Army of the Martyrs blog discusses apostolic succession and authority, considers Augustine's views on sacrifice and the martyrs and argues that heretical doctrines don't develop.
Polycarp on The Church of Jesus Christ blog discusses Justin Martyr (amongst others) and the scandal of factionalism in today's churches, considers Vincent of Lerins and why the Church determines interpretation of Scripture (from a Protestant slant), discusses why the Church is apostolic in three parts (part 1, part 2, part 3), discusses my posting on heresy hunting in the Fathers.
On this blog, I discuss the practice of hunting for heresies in the Church Fathers.
The Marketplace: Book ReviewsNick Norelli on The Rightly Dividing the Truth blog provides an extensive review of John Anthony McGuckin's, The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology
Kevin Edgecomb on the biblicalia blog reviews Mike Aquilina's new book, Signs and Mysteries. Revealing Ancient Christian Symbols. I still owe my review, forthcoming in the next month.
Jeff Miller on the Curt Jester blog reviews Mike Aquilina's new book, Signs and Mysteries.
Eric Sowell reviews Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities.
On this blog, I review Mark Husband's and Jeffrey Greenman's collection of papers from the Wheaton Theology Conference in 2007, Ancient Faith for the Church's Future
Exhibition Place: Biographies of the Fathers
Stu on the What Matters to Me blog discusses the martyrdom of St. Polycarp.
Father Check on the Seek His Face blog discusses St. Jerome on the occasion of his memorial.
The Rodeo: Patristic catenae
Polycarp on The Church of Jesus Christ blog features a refreshing patristic catena on modesty. It isn't just for women anymore.
mattymojo on the Uncle Matt's Discoveries offers a patristic catena on reincarnation, representing both pro and con sides.
The Foreign Exchange Tent: Translations
On this blog, I translate another installment of Sulpicius Severus' Life of St. Martin.
The Apocryphal Aisle: Christian Apocrypha
Nothing this month.
Well, that's about it for this month. Look for Patristics Carnival XVI over at Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength!
Peace,
Phil
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)