A Neglected Feast

Tags

Acts, Anglicans, Ascension, Augustine, Bede, Bible, Catholic, Christ, Christianity, Church Fathers, Cyril of Jerusalem, Holiday, Lutherans, Resurrection, Thomas Aquinas

Giotto, Ascension, Scrovegni Chapel, c.1305

In the spirit of “redeeming the time” and calling Christians back to their roots, both for spiritual renewal and the cultural renewal of the West, here are a few thoughts via the church fathers in regards to Ascension Day, considered to be a “Holy Day of Obligation” in the Roman church (i.e., mandatory), and also a “high” Feast or Festival day in the Anglican, Lutheran, and a smattering of other orthodox Western Christian traditions.  In fact, certain countries in Europe actually have today as a holiday, although most are ignorant as to its significance, meaning this is simply another day off.  This should NOT be the case! In fact, in many areas in the early church, Ascension Day had more significance than Christmas.  So what has the church always taught about this day, of which the primary text is Acts 1:1-11?:

Christ predicted His glorious ascension:

” ‘Where I am going you cannot follow me now, but later on’ (John 16). This was undoubtedly because they were not yet able to understand, not yet able to imitate the mystery of his passion and death.  Yet they truly recognized the majesty of his ascension as soon as they saw it.” Bede, Homilies on the Gospels, 2.11

The same body in which He was incarnate, suffered, and resurrected, now is with the Father

“He suffered a true passion in the flesh, died His own true bodily death, rose again by a true resurrection of His flesh and the true resumption of His body by His soul.  He ate and drank in His risen flesh, and then ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.  In the same flesh He will come to judge the living and the dead.” – Innocent III

Garofalo, Ascension

Christ in his Resurrected body transcends time and space so that he is actually “more near now than when he was on Earth” (Luther):

“Do not think that because He is absent in the flesh He is therefore absent in the spirit; He is here in the midst of us, listening to what is said of Him, seeing our thoughts, searching our hearts and souls; He is ready even now to present all of you, as you come forward for Baptism in the Holy Spirit, to the Father.” – Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 14

Pentecost is coming (the “birthday of the church”):

“When He ascended up to heaven they questioned Him not in words but followed with their eyes…Their human affections were saddened by the loss of their visible object.  But he knew that is would be for their good because that inward sign that the Holy Spirit would use to console them was the better sight.”  Augustine, Tractates on John, 94.3-4

Christ now sits with the Messianic Kingdom starting to come to fruition, as is now the Advocate and High Priest, but also Judge:

“Sitting denotes either abiding, or royal or judiciary dignity.  Hence, to sit on the right hand of the Father is nothing else than to share in the glory of the Godhead with the Father, and to possess beatitude and judiciary power.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 3.

Other fathers such as Gregory the Great, John Chrysostom, Leo the Great, and many others, emphasize the fact that Christ took his humanity with Him, which gives us great hope as “co-heirs,” (Romans 8:17), meaning we also look forward to the “Resurrection of the body,” as said in the ecumenical creeds.  A Happy and Blessed Ascension Day to you all!

The Ascension, Dosso Dossi, early 1500′s

What Does It Mean?

Tags

Apologetics, Baptist, Bill O'Reilly, Christ, Christianity, Church, Equality, Gay Marriage, hate, humanity, law, LGBT, love, Modern Chauvinism, Orthodox, Politics, progress, Rights, Roman Catholic, worldview

It is no secret that those who hold to the traditional classic Christian consensus on issues involving human sexuality, marriage, and family life are extremely unpopular these days, especially in the media and political arenas, in which the biblical, patristic, and orthodox consensus is frequently demonized and ostracized.  Faithful Christians (and others who hold to other traditional worldviews/ethics) are considered to be “bigots” or “purveyors of hatred” for not compromising with the modernist and politically correct definitions of love and freedom.  So how does this take place and what does it mean? How should faithful Christians respond?

These ideas are usually couched in high-sounding language of “equality,” “tolerance,” and certain libertarian ideas (it doesn’t hurt anyone right?).  Those who oppose are immediately labeled as “homophobic” (implying that one has a psychological disorder), “intolerant” (with tolerant = endorsement), or “anti-progress” (progress is inherently good).  As discussed in several other places on this site, this tactic is a favorite for the modern chauvinist, and involves even deeper philosophical assumptions that come out of late modernity.   Two articles that have recently been published from different orthodox Christian traditions help shed light on this, and should help those struggling with how to articulate why this is important, and also help those who think the historic-living church is wrong.

The first article is by Reformed Baptist pastor Jonathan Leeman who specializes in political theology, and discusses the nature of what it means to be human, and how those who argue for “marriage equality” are actually making a dehumanizing argument.  Those who argue for it are actually at root arguing for a sort of determinism, in which one’s behavior or tendencies define what it means to be human.  The Christian worldview offers something much deeper, and much more liberating than this sort of behavioristic naturalism:

“There are several assumptions behind the idea that a person with same-sex attraction might say “I am a homosexual” in the same way someone might say “I am a male” or “I am black.” First, one assumes that homosexual desires are rooted in biology and therefore a natural part of being human. Second, one assumes that our natural desires are basically good, so long as they don’t hurt others. Third, one assumes that fulfilling such basic and good desires are part of being fully human.

All the talk about “equality” depends upon these foundational assumptions about what it means to be human.

Marriage then becomes an important prize to be won for people with same-sex attraction because, as the oldest and most human of institutions, marriage publicly affirms these deep desires. Everybody who participates in a wedding—from the father who walks a bride down an aisle, to the company of friends, to the pastor leading the ceremony, to the state who licenses the certificate—participates in a positive and formal affirmation of a couple’s union. It is hard to think of a better way to affirm same-sex desire as good and part of being fully human than to leverage the celebratory power of a wedding ceremony and a marriage.

Make no mistake: The fundamental issue at stake in the same-sex marriage debate is not visitation rights, adoption rights, inheritance laws, or all the stuff of “civil unions.” Those are derivative. It is fundamentally about being publicly recognized as fully human.

Biblically minded Christians, of course, have no problem recognizing people with same-sex attraction as fully human. There are members of my church who experience same-sex attraction. We worship with them, vacation with them, love them. What Christianity does not do, however, is grant that fulfilling every natural desire is what makes us human.

Christianity in fact offers a more mature and deeper concept of humanity, more mature and deep than the person engaged in a homosexual lifestyle has of him or herself.”

The full article is well worth the read, and also discusses why faithful Christians cannot participate in this sort of revisionism: “Love and the Inhumanity of Same-Sex Marriage”

The second article is by a Roman Catholic priest, Rev. Marcel Guarnizo in response to a famous media personality, who discusses the sort of argument in the public sphere involving reason and law and those who claim “I don’t care” or “it doesn’t hurt anyone.”  One of the most dangerous things about this cultural debate is the inherently subjective nature of creating classes and categories based on behavior and tendencies, rather than actual objective realities.  In other words:

“The problem here is that if non-normative tendencies become the criteria for constitutional or state law, law itself will become biographical. This atomization of law, culminates in the inability for us to have fundamental rights, as human beings. Things are institutionalized after centuries in law and custom, because they are recognized as normative, and, in the case of marriage, as a good for society. The legal institution of marriage is the normalization of that which is de facto normative in man. Marriage institutionalized in law and by religion is the proper effect the fruit of a normative tendency in man. Heterosexual, monogamous unions were not simply admitted into the marriage franchise (to which others now seek entry), it is rather the author that produced marriage as we know it. They have as it were, authorship rights over marriage since they produced the institution.”

“Creating institutions in law and possibly at a constitutional level, using non-normative tendencies (which are many and vary greatly in our society), as the justification is unreasonable and theoretically unsound. Equality under the law in this sense is already being assaulted by post-modern philosophy, as unfair. Precisely for this reason, “the notion of “equality under the law,” is now seen by many as failing to address the biographical preferences and tendencies of all kinds of biographical groups in society.  If we continue down that path, there will be no end, except the end of what we now know as the rule of law. It is unreasonable to legislate on constitutional order in this fashion.”  Full article: A Response to Bill O’Reilly on Homosexuality and Marriage

It is important to note that both the Baptist and the Roman Catholic are passionate about (and the articles include this) reaching those who struggle with this in love, and that the church should not simply “shut out” those for which this is a real struggle.   In fact, it is love and concern for those struggling on this, and society as a whole, why these were written (and why I am writing).

After reading both articles (please don’t comment without doing so), what should the Christian response be? How active in the public sphere should Christians be in contending for the Christian worldview in love?

Better Than I Could Say It…

Tags

Christianity, Church, culture, Donald T. Williams, fundementalism, Liberalism, Scylla and Charybdis, Touchstone Magazine, West, worldview

If there was ever a quote describing the often bewildering problems Christianity is experiencing in the West, this profound statement from Donald T.  Williams in Touchstone Magazine (Highly Recommended) accomplishes much more than I ever could:

“Faithful Christians with intellectual integrity seem increasingly to find themselves caught between two extremes. On the one hand are Fundamentalists who do not so much claim to have the correct interpretation of Scripture as deny that they are interpreting it at all. On the other hand are Christians influenced by postmodernism, who seem to think that, because everything is interpreted, it is not possible ever to have moral certainty about what the correct interpretation is. To confuse “Thus saith the Lord” with “Thus say I” or to be unable to say “Thus saith the Lord” anymore at all: surely these are not acceptable alternatives. Faithful Christians should steer between them as the Scylla and Charybdis that they are.” – Donald T. Williams, Touchstone Magazine  

Thoughts on the First Francis

Tags

Abortion, Bible, Christian, Christianity, conservative, Francis I, gay, homosexuality, liberal, liberation theology, Life, Mere Christianity, Poor, Pope, Rome

The first Jesuit, the first Latin American, and the first Francis, the new Pope/Bishop of Rome is the subject of note today.  So who is Francis and what does he represent?  I will provide my thoughts below, and after this, link to a couple of other write-ups about Francis and who he is.  For those of you who seem to be confused about where I stand in regards to my faith and relation to the Roman church, see my statement of faith here (wish I didn’t have to do this, but anti-Catholicism is a hobby for some, to the point of irrationality…how dare I try to be conciliatory with other Christians).

Why I Am Cautiously Optimistic

1. He is absolutely orthodox when it comes to what the Roman church teaches (and the church everywhere, regardless of one’s tradition), on everything shared from moral issues to doctrine.  This includes upholding the biblical, traditional, and natural law views of human sexuality, marriage (one woman and one man marriage for life, or celibacy),  and life as “conception to natural death.”  It is also safe to assume he will not be an advocate of such modern chauvinist causes such as “women priests” or many other modernist social agendas, since he is fully in line with the Roman tradition on these issues.  He was even called “medieval” by the Argentine president for opposing gay adoption, which is a great compliment in today’s post-Christian secularist world.

2.  He is also absolutely in line with Roman church teaching in his concern for the poor and economically disadvantaged.  However (thankfully), he has distanced himself from the Marxist “liberation theology” that was popular in Latin American circles during the 1970′s-1980′s (and still is with academics and liberal apostates of the Great Realignment).  Francis has instead said that personal holiness and a correct conception of who God is and how He acts in the world will naturally lead to a proper concern and action for the poor.   Now how he uses this in regards to the “City of Men” (temporal government initiatives) remains to be seen, but there is nothing new or innovative here in regards to teaching, and concern for the poor is certainly part of the Christian message (but not the only message either).

3. Francis (at least as an Archbishop/Cardinal), is well-known for his simplicity and austerity of life-style, shunning some of the trappings that come with certain ecclesiastical offices.  He would take the bus to work (instead of being chauffeured in a limo), cook his own food, and lived in a simple apartment.  This sort of simplicity is certainly a good indicator of why he chose Francis as his namesake, and also a good sign for those who think the Roman church is always about expensive art (its not, but perception is reality for some).

4. Related to his simple life-style, Francis is also known for both living and preaching humility.  When first on the balcony as Pope, he refused to be elevated above the other Cardinals, and actually bowed his head for the people to pray for him first, before giving the customary blessing.  He routinely emphasizes constant prayer (also like his name-sake), and seems to genuinely be one who does not hold himself above others, in spite of the nature of his office.

In other words, Pope Francis seems to have lived, be living, and will continue to live by James 1:27, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (ESV).  Far too many Christians have focused on only half of this verse at the expense of the other.  Some reduce Christianity to mere social concerns, while others focus on holy living at the expense of reaching the world.  Like many problems or disputes in Christianity today, the answer via James is “both/and” rather than “either/or.”

Areas of “Wait and See” 

1.  It remains to be seen as to how he interacts with other Christians (Protestant/Evangelicals, Eastern Orthodox etc…).  The Jesuit order was traditionally the “Marines” of the counter-reformation, meaning the attitude towards other Christians was hostile to say the least (and the sentiment was obviously returned).  However, Jesuits also have a reputation for being well-educated and for being good teachers, so we shall see how this plays out in his reaction with non-Roman Christians.

2. As one who will receive instant media attention, as one who is a “Head of State,” and because all of the visibility involved, pressure to be politically correct is always present.  The Roman church often lacks consistency in regards to the work of Christ and other religions.  For example, it rightly quotes Cyprian of Carthage saying “One cannot have God as father without the church as mother.”  Yet at the same time, after Vatican II, Muslims are considered to be worshipers of the “one God.”  Now this is considered preparation for the gospel, but it seems the church can often talk from both sides of its mouth when it comes to the other religions of the world.  Can one really be worshiping the one God while explicitly denying the Trinity and divinity of Christ? Probably not.  It will be interesting to see if Francis emphasizes evangelism (including Muslims) and the necessity of Christ, or if he tries to walk a politically-correct tight-rope and something that smacks of universalism (which of course has been condemned in the 5th council and several times after).

3. Like it or not, the abuse scandal is relevant, even though it has also been gleefully sensationalized by the media.  Since Francis is a sort of outsider who is very much his own man, the possibility exists that he will reform the curia (Vatican bureaucracy), and deal with the transparency and punishment issue once and for all.

4. One of Benedict XVI’s successes was the liturgical/worship renewal of the Roman church.  Will this continue?

Regardless of how this plays out in global Christianity, pray for Francis, and the mission of the Roman church!  From a “mere Christian” perspective, this is something we should be doing for the church everywhere, not just those in communion with Rome.

For further reading:

A New Pope for a New Chapter of an Old Story (John Haldane, First Things) (This one is excellent in describing how Francis doesn’t neatly fit in any category).

National Catholic Reporter Profile

Defending Pope Francis on Gay Adoption (he opposes it, naturally)

The Loss of Benedict XVI as Bishop of Rome (and the future)

Tags

Anglican, Baptist, Benedict XVI, Christ, Christianity, Church, Concordia, Election, Lutheran, Lutheran Church-Canada, Mere Christianity, Moral Relativism, Mozart, News, Pope, Ratzinger, Religion, Roman Catholic, Timothy George, West, worldview

I will be honest from the outset, I admire Benedict XVI (or Herr Ratzinger if you prefer) greatly.  This may surprise some of my evangelical/fundamentalist brethren, but let me encourage you to cast aside the polemical blinders for a second, and take a look at one of the great theologians and Christian leaders in modern times.   A Christocentric, Scripturally adept, and thoughtful theologian who is also an accomplished Mozart pianist and one who understand the worldview shifts going on in the West better than most.  Anyone who publicly warns against the “tyranny of moral relativism” gets my attention.  This is who Benedict XVI is, and as such, he represents the best of the Roman tradition, and is to be applauded.  His trilogy on the life of Christ called “Jesus of Nazareth” should be read by all Christians, and in the words of one confessional Lutheran, the work is a victory for “Mere Christianity.” His defense of what has always been taught about life, marriage, and other moral issues are often stronger and more persuasive than some of the “playing nice” stuff that comes out of American evangelicalism in particular.

Now as one who is not in communion with the Bishop of Rome (Pope) over several areas of theological disagreement (with the Roman church in general), but who is tradition-minded, creedal, conciliar, and sacramental Western Christian, I am choosing to focus on the “Mere Christian” perspective, and wish more would do the same as the West becomes increasingly secularized.  A fundamental Baptist, confessional Lutheran, continuing Anglican, and traditional Roman Catholic have far more in common than they do apart, especially in a culture of increasing secularism and hostility to the Christian worldview.  Benedict was (and still is) an ally in this regard.  We can only hope and pray his successor shares the same willingness to challenge the secularizing of the West.

But rather than continue praise his merits as a leader, scholar, and yes, fellow Christian, I thought I would demonstrate what Christians in other traditions have written about him, to show that I am not alone in this thinking, but rather a little late to the party!  First, consider this article by Baptist theologian Timothy George at Beeson Divinity School:

Benedict XVI: The Great Augustinian

To quote George:

“Soon after Benedict emerged as the surprise choice of the most recent papal conclave in 2005, I wrote an essay on why Evangelical Protestants, among orthodox believers of all persuasions, should be pleased at his election. I summarized the promise of his new pontificate in five points. I emphasized that:

 

• he takes truth seriously, an antidote to what he called on the eve of his papal election “the dictatorship of relativism”;

• his theology is Bible-focused, building on the declaration of Vatican II that “easy access to sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful”;

• his message is Christocentric, boldly asserting that Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God and the only Redeemer of the world;

• he is a fierce champion of the culture of life, advocating for the most vulnerable members of the human community, the children still waiting to be born.

To these four items I added a fifth: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is an Augustinian.”

Read the whole article here. 

For another perspective which I alluded to above, a confessional Lutheran professor shares his thoughts, and says that “But, as a frail and exhausted man stricken in years now passes into the annals of history while remaining for a while alive on earth, I express my appreciation, admiration, sympathy, and prayers.” 

If you aren’t praying already for the Cardinals gathered in Rome to select a new leader, you should be.  There are many goats in the Roman church who want to compromise with the world and “change with the times,” and the media of course wants to choose someone who is politically correct.  Like any Christian tradition, Roman Catholic, Protestant/Evangelical, or Orthodox, there are many forces for ill both within and without, as the Great Realignment continues.  So pray!   Any other perspectives you would like to offer?

Grazie Santità!

The Great Realignment

Tags

ANCA, Anglican, Apologetics, Christ, Christian, Christianity, culture, Eastern Orthodox, ELCA, Evangelical, Fathers, History, LCMS, Lutheran, Metropolitan Jonah, Modern Chauvinism, Occident, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Protestant, Roman Catholic, theology, tradition, WELS, West, western, worldview

“This is not the protestant/catholic divide; it is not the evangelical-charismatic vs. mainline divide. It cuts across all communities in the West, even affecting the Orthodox and Roman Churches in some degree…It is creating a massive realignment within Christianity; those who hold to the traditional Scriptural and patristic Faith and discipline of Orthodox Catholicism; and those who reject it, criticize it, and I will add, as you well know, persecute it…There is a radical cultural shift away from traditional Christianity, toward something unrecognizable.”
- Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), addressing the assembly of the Anglican Church in North America (ANCA). 

What is happening to the church in the West?  To summarize Metropolitan Jonah, an apostasy is taking place, where good portions of people claiming to be Christian are utterly compromising with the post/anti-Christian western world, to the point of claiming God endorses sin as part of his design, and denying the exclusive truth that is the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and everything that entails.  While heresies have always plagued the church from the very beginning (Gnostics, Arians, etc…), the wholesale rejection of the classic Christian ethic on issues such as the family, sexuality, life, and evangelism is new in the history of Christianity.  It is an interesting time when the “global south” or “third world” has to call out Christians and church bodies that previously evangelized them!

This split has its roots in some of the “higher criticism” that came out of the misnamed “Enlightenment” of the 18th century, and the radical break with traditional Christianity in academic circles in the 19th century.  In fact, this conflict would come to a head in the 1920′s-30′s “fundamentalist vs. modernist” controversy that affected all of the major Christian communities in the United States.  While the “modernist” group early on compromised on essential parts of the Christian faith (such as the Virgin Birth, bodily Resurrection of Christ etc…), there was enough residual Christian worldview and Western culture that the shift wasn’t as noticed in the overall culture until later on in the 20th century, when the invention of “new theologies” and the rise of ultramodern/postmodern thought came to the fore.  While the following chart is not absolute by any means (thank God for the faithful still remaining and trying to turn things around, and every faithful group has goats), it does demonstrate where the general trends are in the different Christian traditions, and what groups are at least attempting to be faithful to the “traditional Scriptural and patristic faith” as Jonah put it (for brevity, I will focus on three traditions in the U.S.):

Confessional/Traditional/Orthodox   —- Modernist/Compromising
———————————————————————————————————-
Anglicans                                                         Anglicans
Anglican Church in North America                       Episcopal Church
Orthodox Anglican Church
Continuing Anglican Groups

Lutherans                                                                     Lutherans
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod                    ELCA (Evan. Luth. in America)
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
American Association of Lutheran Churches

Presbyterians                                                Presbyterians

Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)                  Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Bible Presbyterian Church

With very little variance, those on the right-hand side tend to take a “progressive” and “new” view on things such as women in ministry, sexuality, abortion, euthanasia, liberation theology, and the like.  The biblical text is considered “important,” or “central,” but modern chauvinist readings of the text and “alternative theologies” are accepted or even encouraged.  The classic consensus of the church (based on the Scriptures, the fathers, the ancient councils and creeds etc…) are given historical value, but are not part of an active, living and breathing faith handed down since the beginning.  This allows them to engage in politically correct sociopolitical actions, and to change theology on the whims of cultural trends.  Those who actually maintain the faith handed down are branded “(prefix)-phobic, patriarchal, oppressive, unloving” and many other favorite pet-labels of the modern chauvinist.

By contrast, those on the left hand side almost always subscribe to a confession of faith that is considered normative and binding on believers everywhere (all three include the ancient councils and creeds), and maintain the biblical (as the actual inspired word of God) and natural law positions on sexuality, family, etc…The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions officially maintain what has always been taught on these issues like those on the left-hand side, but there is much rebellion in the ranks of the average congregant and some of the lower clergy, as Jonah notes above, meaning the most tradition-minded churches are not immune.

The Great Realignment is taking place, so where do you stand?  One encouraging development has been a renewed interest in the consensus-bearing era of the church (first 700 years or so), as a way of Christians expressing a common heritage.  Other developments include faithful Christians joining together in statements such as the Manhattan Declaration, or in visual support such as that of Metropolitan Jonah to the faithful Anglicans.  We should also pray for those who have been seduced by the post-Christian west to return to the faith handed down, and for those faithful who remain within to try to work for renewal.  Kyrie Eleison!

Hill of Slane Ruins-Ireland

(Let us hope and pray that the new Pontiff of the Roman church is firm, faithful, and addresses these issues head on). 

Copycats and Truth

Tags

Apologetics, Christ, Christianity, Copycats, History, Judaism, Mithras, Myth, Nativity, New Testament, Persia, theology, Trinity, Zoroaster

(This column originally appeared in the Idaho State Journal and can be found here, which is response to an earlier column found here).

In a recent column that appeared in the Journal, the idea of Christianity as not unique was put forth, even arguing that it is dependent to a certain degree upon pagan religion (or pagan-influenced Judaism). To the author’s credit, it is noted that there is no proof that the major religions borrowed from each other, with a couple of exceptions involving Christianity. This requires a response, both on how orthodox Christianity views truth and other religions, and also to address the “copycat” idea.

First, it is important to remember that orthodox Christians have always recognized a fundamental principle: that all truth is God’s truth. This should not be a surprise, since God (by definition, if you believe in such) is the ultimate source of all things, including time, space, and matter. Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the blessed Trinity, con-substantial and co-eternal with the Father and Holy Spirit, claims to be the Truth Incarnate (John 14:6). Because of this, we should not be surprised when we find throughout the world similar statements about matters of faith and philosophy, since we all live in the same world created and sustained by God. All humans naturally yearn for their creator, born with a “God-shaped vacuum” that only God can fill as C.S. Lewis (and others such as Augustine) aptly puts it. Moreover, the Holy Scriptures also attest that all mankind is created in the Image of God (Genesis 1-2, 5:1-3,), and that all have access to a certain amount of natural revelation, so that people are without excuse (Romans 1:18-22), and that the law of God is written on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15). So rather than being shocked by finding similarities in the religions in the world, it is to be expected! This can be seen in the early figures in the history of the Church, such as the Greco-Roman convert Justin Martyr calling Christianity “the true philosophy,” or Clement of Alexandria postulating that God gave the Greeks philosophy just as he gave the law to the Jews. However, orthodox Christians still maintain people can only can come to the Father through the work of Jesus Christ exclusively (John 14:6), and that false religions can be even malevolent in character (I Timothy 4:1, I Corinthians 10:20).

It is unfortunate then, that there are some modernists who claim that these easily observed similarities of human experience equate to some sort of inherent dependency. Much of this line of reasoning comes from the discredited “history of religions” school that was in vogue in the late 19th century into the middle of the 20th century, which sought to read a certain progressive view of culture into the religions of the world, past and present. One way in which this idea has become popularized is claiming that the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is somehow based on pagan mystery religions or Gnostic sects, with figures as diverse as Mithras, Osiris, Dionysius, and Attis being postulated as “sources” for the Christian narrative. Sometimes this is also expanded to other religions such as Zoroastrianism because of a supposed reliance of Judaism on Persian thought via the exile. Most of these supposed parallels are only such if the very loosest forms of similarity and definitions are utilized, and are often a case of trying to find what one wants to find. In the words of 20th century liberal historian Adolf Von Harnack, “By such methods one can turn Christ into a sun god in the twinkling of an eye, or one can bring up the legends attending the birth of every conceivable god, or one can catch all sorts of mythological doves to keep company with the baptismal dove…the wand of “comparative religions” triumphantly eliminates every spontaneous trait in any religion” (Quoted in “Reinventing Jesus 227, by Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace). It should be noted also that often the dependencies arrived at are the reverse of what skeptics are asserting, with paganism trying to imitate Christianity!

For examples of this, let’s examine two proposed sources for Christianity that appeared in the aforementioned article, Mithras and Zoroaster. Contemporary scholarship asserts that the Roman version of Mithras (not in continuity with the Persian version earlier) arose in the 1st century A.D. in Turkey, and there are no features of what we know as Roman Mithraism existing before 100 A.D (Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, 322-323). This is important, since Christianity was founded 60-70 years before this, meaning if there is any dependency, it is Mithraism reacting to the spread of Christianity. It also seems that Mithraism was a religion of the soldiers, meaning it did not spread among the masses like Christianity, and excluded women. Mithras also did not experience a death or resurrection (at least not a true physical death, and the Tertullian reference to this is again much later, and based on his recollections), which eliminates much of the supposed Eucharistic/Sacramental parallels. The idea that Mithras quotes a parallel to John 6 in a sort of Eucharistic celebration comes from a medieval text published by Cumont, meaning if there is any copying, it is Mithraism responding to Christianity. It is true that Justin Martyr alludes to some sort of celebration in the mid-2nd century, but this is again 100 years after the founding of Christianity, and no formula is included (for more on Mithras, see http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html ).

When it comes to Zoroaster, there exists no scholarly consensus on who did the borrowing, with some arguing that the Persians learned from the Jews (such as Daniel or Ezekiel). Our primary source for Zoroaster, the Avesta, dates from the 4th century A.D., with our earliest manuscript showing up in the 1200’s. There is also a huge range of dates regarding the figure of Zoroaster himself, and given the late date of the main sources, one should not expect a consensus anytime soon. Contrast this with the huge amount of manuscript evidence for the New Testament (over 5800 manuscripts, some dating to the 2nd century), and also how early books in the Old Testament contain the ideas supposedly borrowed. The book of Job for example, is dated by many scholars to the divided Monarchy (over 300 years before the exile, and Gleason Archer dates it back to Moses as the earliest book), and includes the figure of Satan, and the idea of the bodily resurrection (Job 19:26-27). The “devil-equivalent” in Zoroastrianism is the dualistic opposite of the good god, which is not congruent with the Judeo-Christian worldview, in which nothing can be the opposite of God, since everything derives from God (for more on Zoroaster, see http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.html).

There is simply nothing like the Christian message, that of the creator Triune God of the universe (not finite “gods”) taking on flesh through His creative power for the salvation of man. Taking Christian concepts and reading them into the past, searching for similarities does not change this. Truly at the birth of Christ in Bethlehem, “the hopes and fears of all the years, are met in thee tonight.”

A Slappy Holiday?

Tags

Advent, Christ, Christianity, Christmas, Church, Education, Fathers, Gene Edward Veith, Gospels, History, Orthodox, Patristics, Religion, Santa Claus, St. Nicholas, theology, tradition, West, World Magazine

Today the church throughout the world honors St. Nicholas of Myra, the origin of what has become the Santa Claus idea (via the Dutch Sinterklass, meaning Saint Nicholas).  Many places in Europe actually give the majority of their presents to each other today.  Most people who study Nicholas are quite familiar with his helping of three daughters whose father could not afford a dowry, saving them from slavery or prostitution. Nicholas tried to sneakily deposit gold in the family’s house, and some versions have the gold landing in stockings drying over the fire.  This is just one of many charitable acts Nicholas was known for, and in the eastern traditions of the church, he is also known as a “wonder-worker” due to the miracles associated with him.

What many people do not know however, is how committed to the orthodox Christian faith and sound doctrine Nicholas was.  He was at the first Council of Nicaea in 325, and was so offended by how the heretic Arius demeaned Christ, that he slapped him across the face in front of the council!  The eastern church adds that he was put under arrest for a night for this bad behavior, but then woke up in the morning with a copy of the gospels hand-delivered by Christ himself.  For a good and often hilarious take on this (and an idea to “retake” Santa Claus), see this article by Gene Edward Veith:

Slappy Holiday 

May we all defend the orthodox Christian faith with the same zeal as Nicholas, although perhaps not with the same method!

My friend over at The Pocket Scroll posted on this last year and it is worth a read:

Saint of the Week:  St. Nicholas of Myra

A Challenge To Read

Tags

Bible, Christ, Christian, Christianity, Church, classical, culture, Education, Fathers, History, Occident, Patristics, Religion, theology, tradition, West, western, Western Civilization, worldview

A fantastic initiative is taking place in an online community, and I heartily recommend to those of you reading this to participate.  It is simply called, “Read the Fathers,” and can be found at readthefathers.org.  By dedicating yourself to reading just 7 pages a day, you will become familiar with the great treasures of early Christianity, and deepen your faith and worldview in the process.  Here are just 5 reasons in no particular order of why I hope many do this:

1. You Will Know Your Family History.  Many Christians from a variety of traditions often refer to “our church family” and point out the frequent family language used throughout the Scriptures.  There is of course nothing wrong with this, but the view of family here is often limited to one’s local congregation.  Our family is MUCH bigger than this, and includes those who have gone before us (and are still alive in Christ).   In an age when orthodoxy is mocked and every opinion considered equally valid, reading and studying the fathers will show how temporal much of what passes for modern trendy theology and church is.

2. You Will Be Inspired.  If as a Christian you do not weep at some point while reading the Martyrdom of Polycarp, you are doing it wrong.  And this is only one writing.  When you see these ancient Christians stand up to emperors, conquer the flesh, encourage the struggling, persevere through suffering, and do their best to live authentic Christian lives, it will make you want to “go and do likewise.”  This will also help you put our current situation in the West into perspective.  Speaking of the West…

3.  Restoring the West.  It is almost cliché to mention the decadence of the West, but the fact of moral, spiritual, and cultural decline is ever-present. One great way to help reclaim the culture is to rediscover our roots.  What is great about western civilization is founded on the Judeo-Christian and Classical traditions, and the church fathers were steeped in both.  Our own heritage is counter-cultural today, and one must be familiar with it in order to take action and educate others to “stem the tide.”  This is one way in which we can truly create culture, rather than just whine and complain about it.  Read Gregory the Theologian’s Poetry and set it to music if you must!

4.  It Will Help You Read the Scriptures.  As theologian Thomas C. Oden puts it, “The history of the church is a history of exegesis.”  The fathers knew the Scriptures extremely well (many had huge portions memorized), and many were active pastors teaching the Scriptures to their flock.  Reading how John Chrysostom teaches on Matthew, or how Gregory the Great deals with Job, will force you to dig into the text, and better understand the Scriptures yourself.  Even if you disagree with a conclusion, you will have to know why you disagree, meaning you are contending with Holy Scripture the entire time. The Holy Spirit has been with the church since Pentecost, so why not read how the Spirit guided what became some of the most foundational received doctrine in Christendom?

5.  It Will Help You Be Disciplined.  Self-denial and discipline, especially of the mind, are not popular in today’s entertainment and consumer driven culture.  We may admire those who are able to exhibit such behavior, but we rarely do anything ourselves.  By committing to do this in community, with a schedule and seeing how others respond, you will be amazed at how little time you will have for frivolous things.  In fact, if reading the fathers caused more Christians to get rid of most Christian self-help books based in individualist pop-psychology, many pastors would be in trouble (in a good way).  In a very real sense, reclaiming our classic Christian heritage could go a long way in regards to renewal in the church.

There are many other reasons for doing this, such as the reasons provided here at the Pocket Scroll.  He also has a great list of ways to NOT read the fathers, which I also recommend checking out.   The website has links to all of the works for free online in late 19th century editions, and also provides some recommendations for other more modern translations should you need them.  So, I challenge all of you to join me, just 7 pages a day, in participating in the community of saints.

Torment of St. Anthony, Michelangelo

We Acknowledge

St. Ignatius Icon of his Death

In honor of All Saint’s Day, we will be singing the Te Deum at Matins in the early morning hours.  This ancient Christian hymn names all the different parts of creation which praise God, including those faithful who have gone before us.  I think of old St. Polycarp and his bold confession of faith.  I think of St. Perpetua the young mother literally doing up her hair while being killed for her faith in order to demonstrate her joy.  Many, many more examples could be provided, and if you haven’t read anything about the early church, why not start today?  Here is the great Te Deum in English (Common Prayer translation, same used by other English-speaking churches):

WE praise thee, O God : we acknowledge thee to be the Lord.
All the earth doth worship thee : the Father everlasting.
To thee all Angels cry aloud : the Heavens, and all the Powers therein.
To thee Cherubim and Seraphim : continually do cry,
Holy, Holy, Holy : Lord God of Sabaoth;
Heaven and earth are full of the Majesty : of thy glory.
The glorious company of the Apostles : praise thee.
The goodly fellowship of the Prophets : praise thee.
The noble army of Martyrs : praise thee.
The holy Church throughout all the world : doth acknowledge thee;
The Father : of an infinite Majesty;
Thine honourable, true : and only Son;
Also the Holy Ghost : the Comforter.
Thou art the King of Glory : O Christ.
Thou art the everlasting Son : of the Father.
When thou tookest upon thee to deliver man : thou didst not abhor the Virgin’s womb.
When thou hadst overcome the sharpness of death : thou didst open the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers.
Thou sittest at the right hand of God : in the glory of the Father.
We believe that thou shalt come : to be our Judge.
We therefore pray thee, help thy servants : whom thou hast redeemed with thy precious blood.
Make them to be numbered with thy Saints : in glory everlasting.
O Lord, save thy people : and bless thine heritage.
Govern them : and lift them up for ever.
Day by day : we magnify thee;
And we worship thy Name : ever world without end.
Vouchsafe, O Lord : to keep us this day without sin.
O Lord, have mercy upon us : have mercy upon us.
O Lord, let thy mercy lighten upon us : as our trust is in thee.
O Lord, in thee have I trusted : let me never be confounded.

Christian Martyrs’ Last Prayer- Jean-Léon Gérôme