One of my favorite examples of ancient art

This Thursday evening my children and I will fly to upstate New York to spend a week visiting with my mom as well as my sisters and brother and his family who all live in Minnesota. My mom lives on a farm outside a village in rural upstate New York and internet access means driving into town and hanging out at a coffee shop. *ahem means probably not gonna update this for a couple weeks*

Simply put the state of New York has legalized gay marriage. Much more importantly has done this (a) through the legislative process and (b) with a Republican dominated state Senate. To put it bluntly that is how it should be done. Rather than by judicial fiat that often presumes to override the collective will of the citizenry even when they have amended their state constitution. The executive branch does not make law. The judicial branch should not make law although one can understand why some argue in a way it does. That is the job of the legislative branch. As Gay Patriot comments:

Elected state legislatures, I have always contended, are the appropriate fora to decide such issues.

The process was often messy, the rhetoric regularly exaggerated, the understanding of marriage generally at odds with the history of the institution, but at least those who made the final decision were elected by the people of the various jurisdictions of the Empire State and thus answerable to them at the ballot box.

We may not have had (and indeed did not have) the type of civil discussion of the importance and meaning of marriage that would have helped strengthen the institution (and not just in New York), but the branch of government responsible for deciding whether the state should privilege same-sex unions as it has long privileged different-sex monogamous unions resolved the issue.

And Instapundit earlier notes:

I think it’s good that it was passed by the legislature rather than imposed by a court.

Let me pause for a moment and lay out some of my thoughts on this issue:

I am a traditionalist and am convinced the Bible is the primary authority for Christian teaching and practice. The Bible is pretty clear that (a) marriage is supposed to be between a man and woman and (b) same-sex intercourse – along with a whole bunch of other things – is not compatible with the way of life in Christ. Some Christians who have no objections to same-sex attraction/relations/intercourse openly concede this. One cannot interpret the Bible in such a way to make it somehow endorse or tolerate same-sex intercourse. The only option for Christians who disagree is to say the Bible is just plain wrong on the matter.

Ah but how does that play out in the public square? That is where traditionalist Christians must recognize the issue is more complicated. There are many things that are not compatible with the way of life in Christ. But are we arguing that all of things should be prohibited by the government and said prohibitions enforced by the power of the state?

I have a great deal of respect for The Other McCain and by extension those they quote. But I cannot agree with the blanket statement that marriage is a religious institution and therefore our only options are (i) recognizing it even the point of amending the United States Constitution or (ii) have it removed from the government entirely because of church-state separation and have the government then enforce legal contracts between two or more adults.

Is marriage a religious institution? You betcha. But so is the church no? So what does the government have to do with that?

My undergraduate and graduate studies focused mostly on the history and culture and languages and literature of Ancient West Asia aka the Ancient Near East. I have some familiarity with how marriage worked in the Ancient East Mediterranean around 3200-400 B.C.E. They had it. I have read some marriage contracts in the original languages. Even plaster casts of the original cuneiform tablets. They were not Christians. Most of them were not Hebrews/Israelites/Jews. (Strictly speaking one should not use the terms Jewish or Judaism until after the Babylonian Exile.) Most of them were not trying to follow the teachings of God in the Bible. The point is that marriage is a very widespread very ancient legal-social institution that does not appear to be linked to any one specific religion. Marriage was not so much divinely ordained committed relationship between man and woman as it was a legal contract. This is not to say that is all it was. That there was never love or affection or any sense that this was somehow endorsed by the gods. We have interesting examples of how husbands and wives in the ancient world were bound together by love and affection.

Now I will confess that ancient marriage is not my area of expertise. I know what I have seen read and studied. There may be scholars who focus on this that have more to say on the subject. Particularly with regard to marriage as religious not just legal. Indeed one might argue that religious versus legal is an artificial distinction when talking about ancient societies. But I have reason to believe that most ancient societies did not necessarily regard social-legal institutions as expressions of relationship with the gods. Consider the distinctive character of the Book of the Covenant in the book of Exodus 21-24.

Where is all the above going? That we have the remarkable situation in the United States (and elsewhere) where clergy (of whatever religion) act as agents of the government when they perform marriages. If I perform a wedding and sign the certificate then those two people are legally married even if they never appear before a judge or justice of the peace. I have to say – well maybe I don’t but I say it anyway – “with the authority I have as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and from the state of Louisiana“. Do you see that? I have the power to enact(?) a significant legal contract/relationship between two people that must be recognized by the state.

My tentative point of view at this time is that the issue of gay marriage is so sticky partly because the Christian church along with other religious communities have allowed marriage as a religious institution to become confused and entangled with marriage as a social-legal institution.

I vaguely recall a couple years ago when Gay Patriot – along with others – argued that perhaps the Christian church needs to pull out of the legal marriage business. Allow marriage to be a social-legal institution. License then civil ceremony then certificate and so on. And then there can be a religious ceremony that enacts this new relationship as a recognized institution within that religious community. I could be wrong. But that is where I lean right now.

This may help clarify some of the controversy surrounding so-called gay marriage. And clarify some of the true motives of those who advocate or oppose gay marriage. So many Christians object to it. Therefore they think it should not be allowed by the state. Do you see the leap/jump there?

Now that does not mean there is no reason for that leap/jump. Some might reason “God – revealing himself and his will through Scripture – would have marriage be between a man and woman for life (except for certain unusual/extreme circumstances). God – ditto – would also warn us to eschew same-sex relations/intercourse. We understand that this is not (necessarily) a Christian society. We understand not everyone is Christian. Therefore why should we expect everyone to obey what we are convinced reflects the revealed purposes of God for humanity? Well there are plenty of other things God endorses or condemns that are allowed/permitted in our society. Nobody complains about those laws we already have that happen to agree with biblical law. Nobody complains well the Bible says do not steal so we can’t have any laws against theft. Nobody says well the Bible tells us to show compassion to the poor so we better stop that because separate of church and state ya know. So the revealed purposes of God alert us to what leads to a peaceful just society and those things that lead to disorder and injustice. That being so we may be able to articulate we these things are good for society and those things are not in ways that people of other religions or not religion can understand and support. One is reminded of the less well known but vitally important Socratic dialogue Euthyphro. Perhaps we can say these things are not good not just because God says they aren’t. God says these things are not good because they aren’t. Or in the language of Socrates that which is holy is loved by the gods because it is holy (Euthyphro 12). And thus so-called secular society for its own good reasons may decide that there should be such a legal institution called marriage and that these are its limits and requirements. Because that is what so-called secular society regards as the best most stable most healthy way to order and structure itself. In other words no to gay marriage – not because of God allegedly says but because we just don’t think it’s a good idea. How many examples of gay marriage do we find in the ancient world? Why did ancient societies – most of whom were not Christian/Jewish – do marriage this way and not that way?”

Oh dear I may have neatly refuted myself. Well maybe not. But you get the idea. In a nutshell those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons might want to find ways to articular their case that do not depend solely or primarily on divine revelation. And we might need to separate marriage as legal institution from marriage as religious institution. I could be wrong. Neither is a hill for me to die on. I am not firmly convinced of either. But this is where I stand tentatively at this time.

And if any of those excellent friends at Gay Patriot stop by (c) they have articulated reasonable and principled arguments in favor of committed same-sex marriage and (d) the above paragraphs imply the possibility of non-religious arguments in favor of same-sex marriage do they not?

Our excellent friend Opinionated Catholic does however express grave concerns about the religious exemption language in the New York State law. This should not be overlooked. Because what good is it to say “okay hey separation of church and state and all that so let’s separate marriage as religious from marriage as legal institution” – perhaps in order to disarm and neutralize people who object chiefly on religious grounds – and then turn around and force religious communities to endorse/celebrate/tolerate/enact gay marriage because of the law? That’s a neat trick. Rather like how this administration disarms Americans by saying “it’s not a tax” and then argues “this is a tax” before federal courts. “It’s not a religious matter” in order to get gay marriage and then the government turns around and makes it a religious matter.

By the way in 16(?) years of ordained ministry not once have I preached a sermon about same-sex relations or abortion or stem-cell research. On only a few occasions have I expressed my views on these subjects in private conversation/correspondence. So who really focuses on these issues hmm?

And also by the way would commend to you an excellent post “Stray Thoughts on Gay Marriage” at Ace of Spades HQ. Which outlines how to a large extent gay marriage has been achieved by dishonest (and inconsistent even contradictory) arguments. That’s not to say Ace has any particular beef with gay rights as such. But like Ace I happen to believe that the means to a just end must also be just. I don’t like it when people deceive and manipulate to get what they want. Even if I happen to agree with that goal.

Back to New York because this is really the main point I would like to make.

James Taranto makes some particularly brilliant points in his recently piece “Dire Straits”. He reminds us that one year ago New York State became the last state to enact no fault divorce. Think about that. And then think about what gay marriage advocates think they just won. But this is not really or primarily about gay marriage. Therein lies his brilliant point.

Deroy Murdock made a good point some years back when he observed, in a column posted at NRO, that “social conservatives who blow their stacks over homosexual matrimony’s supposed threat to traditional marriage tomorrow should focus on the far greater damage that heterosexuals are wreaking on that venerable institution today.”

Murdock should have written “have wreaked for decades,” because the developments we note all long predate any serious consideration of the idea of same-sex marriage. …

Thus for the foreseeable future, civil marriage is likely to retain its character as little more than a financial arrangement. To be sure, many individual marriages are deeply committed relationships. But under a regime that permits either spouse to opt out of the commitment at will, the legal recognition of marriage is mere symbolism.

Boom. It’s like getting upset that water is getting into your house when for decades you haven’t done anything to maintain the roof and walls. People are upset about gay marriage when they should have been paying more attention to marriage.

What is marriage? Why bother getting married instead of living together? And – this is where many Christian friends will disagree with me – it’s not enough to say “this is what God ordained”. One would like to think even God ordains things for a good reason. Can we articulate those reasons? And articulate those reasons in ways that both people within and people outside our religious communities can understand and appreciate? We/some/they say gay marriage is such a terrible thing that will result in the collapse of healthy stable social order. Well maybe. But have we explained why we should have marriage to begin with?

Christians have not failed to make the case against gay marriage. They failed to make the case for marriage.

An old friend/classmate from Great Britain posted a link to a recent article by Jonathan Dudley entitled “My Take: Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality?”.

I thought “ho hum another article/piece/post on the subject” and made the mistake of reading it.

My friend should put on his English teacher hat and evaluate the article as a piece of writing. Can one identify a thesis? crux? clear conclusion? What exactly is the position Dudley is attempting to defend? Do his arguments support his conclusion insofar as one can identify it? What other conclusions would his arguments support? How relevant is the evidence he brings to bear on the discussion? Even if you agree with him this is not a very good article.

Let me put it this way. Let us assume for the sake of argument that same-sex relations are entirely compatible with the Christian way of life. If so the piece by Dudley is a poor attempt to defend that conclusion.

An aside. Did a search to see who has rebutted and/or responded to Dudley. Surprisingly the only people who take note of his work are those who already agree with him. And it’s not like there’s a shortage of more traditional Christian scholars who are afraid to take on the position(s) he takes. This suggests (a) that this recent piece simply has not attracted much attention yet and/or (b) that those who normally would respond do not think this piece is worth their while.

Also found it odd that Dudley is often described as a Bible expert or scholar. Compared to the average American sure. But compared to thousands of people who would disagree with him and who have studied and taught and published more? In fairness to Dudley he is probably not running around touting himself as a Bible expert/scholar as much as those who wish to use his writing to bolster their own views.

He’s been to seminary and apparently did very well. Meaning no disrespect at all to his real accomplishments as a student and a writer so what? Been there done bought the t-shirt.

One of harsher criticisms of his article is the reductionism. He only focuses on explicit condemnations of same-sex relations. In one place – Romans 1. And characterizes the nature of Paul’s argument in the most simplistic terms. “Argument from nature”. That’s it? No attempt to delve into the entire biblical and theological background to Romans 1? No attempt to analyze possible differences between (his characterization of) Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 11? To what extent does Dudley engage the small libraries of scholarship on (1) Romans (2) sexual ethics in the New Testament (3) the issue of same-sex relations in the Bible and in Christian tradition let alone (4) the theological-anthropological framework in which Christian tradition addresses same-sex relations? To what extent has Dudley attempted to wrestle with the work of scholars like Robert Gagnon?

In fairness to Jonathan Dudley perhaps he has done so at length elsewhere. Just not here. Often when one writes an article/post there are time and space limitations. “I wrote a 50 page paper refuting 12 books on the subject. But I’ve got an anatomy exam next week and this article can’t be more than 500 words so this’ll have to do”.

(Added 2011/06/22 - Found another couple pieces/interviews and unfortunately so far it looks like variations of the “shellfish argument”. The Bible condemns x and it also condemns eating crawfish. No one worries about eating crawfish so why should we worry about x? A bright 7 year old might point out that x includes such things as bestiality or incest or defrauding the poor of their wages and so on and so on. This is why the title of the recent piece “The Bible condemns a lot of things why focus on?” is amazingly stupid. In fairness someone else such as an editor almost certainly assigned that title.)

One thing that strikes me as just a bit odd is how he conflates the issue of same-sex relations with the issue of gay marriage. I know that plenty of people do that but one must be careful to distinguish issues that are related but distinct. I dare suggest that one can favor gay marriage and think same-sex relations are incompatible with the Christian way of life. And one can oppose gay marriage and have no problem with same-sex relations. One must distinguish between how is a disciple of Jesus Christ the son of God supposed to live? and what kinds of family structures should society – which includes people who are not Christian – permit or encourage? In case dear readers are curious I lean towards the former position. There are plenty of things that are not compatible with the Christian way of life that perhaps society and government should not attempt to regulate.

Okay so the Christian church has had varying attitudes toward marriage and celibacy during its first 1500 years. What does that have to do with the specific issue at hand today? Was the Christian church against marriage during that time? No? So how is that piece of evidence (which we will take at face value for the moment) relevant to the issue at hand? This is another serious flaw with Dudley’s argumentation. Not “that is wrong” but “even if that’s correct so what?”

Let us also assume that modern evangelical Christians take many stances that would have been considered heresy a few hundred years ago.

Yale New Testament professor Dale B. Martin has noted that today’s “pro-family” activism, despite its pretense to be representing traditional Christian values, would have been considered “heresy” for most of the church’s history.

Dare we ask how well so-called progressive Christianity would have been regarded for most of the church’s history? Is Dudley arguing that what evangelical Christians promote is just as much “heresy” as what modern liberal-progressive Christians promote? If x is flawed how does that help y?

I think Dudley reveals his larger agenda when he brings in abortion. Wait a second. Are we talking about same-sex relations? and/or same-sex marriage? and/or abortion?

Again Dudley muddles the issue. He argues that the church has not historically and traditionally supported the idea that life begins at conception. Okay. Without doing further research am inclined to agree with that. I mean gee whiz how long have we known about conception? But that’s not the same as saying the church has always thought elective abortion is just fine. The church historically and traditionally has opposed elective abortion – am unaware of any evidence to the contrary – but not because of some particular view about human conception. So Augustine had some doubts about when the body has a soul. Does that mean he favored terminating pregnancies? Evidence x does not lead to conclusion y.

(Added 2011/06/22 - Have often noticed that progressive/liberal Christians group these stances together. Let me put it this way. My views on same-sex relations and abortion are pretty traditional. But I have no problems with evolutionary theory and many evangelicals would be horrified by my views on hell or the “security of the believer” or atonement theory. Am not “all or nothing” when it comes to these issues. And yet nearly every time I see progressive/liberal Christians defend elective abortion in the same breath as same-sex-relations-are-just-fine. As if they go together. Indeed are inseparable. Still struggling to understand quite why this is so. Can anyone anywhere point to an example of someone who says “elective abortion is unjust but same-sex relations are perfectly fine for Christians”?)

Dudley points out that evangelical Christians take stances against same-sex marriage and elective abortion – claiming that the Bible supports them in this – but can be pretty loose about other issues that the Bible clearly addresses such as divorce.

Okay. Fair enough. The church is arguably inconsistent. Although it is odd that when discussing divorces Dudley focuses on what Jesus teaches and ignores what Paul says. Whereas when discussing same-sex relations focuses solely on Paul. There is an apparent inconsistency in his methodology.

But this is where Dudley’s conclusion? position? thesis? is clearest and strongest. If there is any worthwhile value to be found in his writing it is this:

Evangelical Christians need to come to terms with two problems with positions they commonly take on moral-social issues. First – they claim that the position they take is “traditional/historical” when it might not be. [Rw - Okay this one is weaker and more debatable.] Second – they oppose these things that they think the Bible condemns but they are very tolerant of those things that others claim the Bible also condemns.

Evangelical Christians need (1) to improve how they understand and articulate the positions they take and (2) to be more consistent(?) with regard to what issues they care about.

Now this is not to get into the issue of just whether they are truly inconsistent or not. It depends on how one interprets Scripture does it not? Oh man there’s that common liberal refrain. Progressive/liberal Christians would say “you are wrong with regard to what the Bible says about sex and marriage and abortion and wrong with regard to what the Bible says about money and war and justice”. Dudley accuses evangelicals of explaining away Scriptures that deal with divorce. Dare we ask if progressives/liberals explain away Scriptures that deal with sex and procreation and marriage?

I would say yup. See my critique of Wright Knust:

These two examples illustrate what may be a problem with Wright Knust’s methodology. Which is what I call Heads I win, Tales you lose. Yes the Bible is often ambiguous and not entirely consistent. But what we see is when the text is ambiguous Wright Knust consistently chooses the reading that most undermines traditional Christian teaching on sexuality and marriage. If there is the remotest chance that a text could be read in such a way as to endorse something other than sexual-relations-within-heterosexual-marriage then that is how we choose to read it. And if there is a remote chance that a text can be read in such as way that it does not warn against sexual-relations-outside-heterosexual-marriage then that is how we choose to read it. Clear texts are no longer clear. And ambiguous texts are no longer ambiguous.

Dudley raises a good point about consistency and hermeneutics. But that point cuts both ways.

Gee whiz maybe evangelical Christians should heed Dudley and start opposing liberalization of divorce.

By the way this raises the question of exactly what Dudley is attempting to accomplish. Okay let us assume that evangelical Christians are inconsistent. They oppose x y and z but are lenient on p d and q which the Bible also condemns. What then? Is the goal to help the Christian church be more consistent? more faithful to what the Bible teaches? What exactly does Dudley want Christians to do? It would seem consistency and better understanding of tradition/history are not his true or ultimate concerns. Speaking of charades and honesty.

One last thing. Jonathan Dudley needs a mirror.

Whether the topic is hair length, celibacy, when life begins, or divorce, time and again, the leaders most opposed to gay marriage have demonstrated an incredible willingness to consider nuances and complicating considerations when their own interests are at stake.

See he actually makes a good point. How often are we just advancing our interests rather than what the Bible and/or Christian faith and tradition really teach? We need to ask ourselves that question. But what about progressive/liberal Christians?

Let me wax harsh for a moment. This was the part that struck me as downright offensive.

On the other hand, it’s not at all difficult for a community of Christian leaders, who are almost exclusively white, heterosexual men, to advocate interpretations that can be very impractical for a historically oppressed minority to which they do not belong – homosexuals.

Where to start? Dudley ignores and dismisses how many Christians who are neither white nor male? And he better not respond “yeah but those women and non-white Christians are just repeating what others tell them” which to be perfectly blunt is sexist and racist. As if women are not capable of forming their own opinions regardless of what men tell them. As if Christians of color are not capable. (That last sentence is exactly what many liberal Episcopalians often argue. I have seen it and have had people say it to my face.)

But let us think about this for a moment. It is somehow in the interest of white male heterosexuals to interpret Scripture and Christian tradition this way. Really? How? I have yet to hear a persuasive explanation. How exactly does a white male heterosexual benefit if he says “the Bible says no same-sex relations”? or for that matter “the Bible says no sleeping around with gorgeous women you are not married to”? or for that matter “no destroying an unborn child because you do not want her to be born”? or for that matter a host of other things?

Probably Dudley and/or others would offer some deconstructionist/theory-based scholarship or the like to demonstrate that yeah somehow such people do benefit. But I do not see it. Never have. Would it not be easier to say “well heck have sex with whomever or whatever you want”? Would it not be easier to say “child with Down’s Syndrome? abort it and don’t feel any guilt about it”?

If I embraced the whole progressive/liberal Christian panoply in many ways life would be easier. If nothing else would receive more approval and praise from the surrounding culture. The opposite of 1 Peter. But so far as I can tell the ones who truly benefit(?!?) are those who say “no no no the Bible and Christian tradition do not really restrain us so much from doing whatever we feel like doing”.

Dudley talks about “own interests” (see below). But how are more restrictive interpretations in our “own interests”? The opposite – that progressive/liberal Christians have their own desires in mind – appears more likely to be the case.

Dudley concludes his piece:

The [evangelical] community gave me many fond memories and sound values but it also taught me to take the very human perspectives of its leaders and attribute them to God.

So let’s stop the charade and be honest.

Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own.

He makes a leap here in these last paragraphs. I don’t think he has truly proven that opposition to same-sex relations or gay marriage or abortion are the very human perspectives of its leaders or not the Bible’s values. He might be right. But he has not really proven this. All he has done so far is raise good questions – good and fair questions – about tradition and consistency.

Set that aside for the moment. Dare we ask about the very human perspectives of the leaders of progressive-liberal Christianity? Do they never attribute those to God? Do they never engage in charade? Are they always honest with themselves and others? Are they always defending the Bible’s values? Do they never use the Bible to defend their own?

Based on a quick and dirty internet search Jonathan Dudley is a fine young man who is now studying medicine and already doing some wonderful things for people with regard to medical care. Glory to God for this. (And of course evangelical Christians do many of the exact same things and more.) I would respectfully ask the good doctor(-in-training) to examine himself as well.

Addendum:

Where are Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity in this discussion? It’s all very well to pick on evangelical Christians and their flaws. But traditional Christianity is much more than evangelical Christians in America. How might Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christians contribute to this discussion? Dare we find out?

Update 2011/06/22 - Our excellent friend Opinionated Catholic kindly links here but more importantly offers a few excellent points of his own. Note especially the problems with how Dudley deals with history/tradition particularly with regard to the Jovian controversy. Hate to say it but it looks like Dudley just mangles if not downright misrepresents the historical record. This is a serious problem that forces me to re-evaluate my estimation of Dudley as a student/scholar/writer. I often disagree with what someone writes but can respect the quality of their thinking/scholarship. But poor scholarship is just not acceptable even in defense of a position with which one happens to agree.

This raises the issue of why are progressives/liberals promoting this young man’s work when it does not hold up well to scrutiny? The question almost answers itself. “Look! A Christian and Bible scholar who agrees with us!” One is reminded of 1 Kings 22.

Update 07/12/2011:

I chose not to respond any further to the comments offered because (a) my policy has always been there is a point at which one needs to just let people have their say otherwise the back-and-forth will continue forever and (b) although some decent points were raised (seriously) they were buried in so much {could not think of a diplomatic way to say it} I decided they did not merit any further response.

Therefore I commend both the post and the replies-to-objections made by Josh Gelatt. He clearly has more familiarity with (a) history of philosophy and theology and (b) some of the biblical/textual issues than I and his response to Dudley (and his would-be defenders) is much better than the poor offering above. Which recommendation calls into question the rhetorically clever but empty claim that my post is “best but still bad”.

Where Gelatt writes from a Reformed Baptist point of view let me also mention “A Critique of Jonathan Dudley’s ‘Take’” by Joe Hargrave at Non Nobis. He writes from a firmly Catholic point of view. Like the Opinionated Catholic – who *ahem* is not a Louisiana Tech undergraduate – he also suggests that the article by Dudley (along with Protestant replies thereto) demonstrates a serious problem with Protestantism and its emphasis on sola scriptura. In other words the debate over same-sex relations is a very Protestant debate. I am inclined to agree. Although I would argue that one does not have to be a Roman Catholic to see problems with the piece by Dudley.

Another Protestant response is “A Response to Jonathan Dudley” at Know It’s True.

Update 2011/08/21:

Despite (1) let people have their say and (2) some comments might not merit response – I was curious about the comment that Robert Gagnon recognizes the problem of argument from nature in Romans 1 regarding same-sex relations but regarding long hair for women in 1 Corinthians 11. Not exactly. Yes Gagnon recognizes the similarity between Paul’s argumentation in both pericopes (the relevant pages are 373-384) but does not conclude it represents a problem the way Jonathan Dudley presents. One can disagree with Gagnon’s analysis and conclusions but it is not accurate to imply Gagnon agrees with Dudley on this point.

There has been some rumblings lately concerning whether there is ideological-political bias in academia. In a nutshell whether academia generally (a) excludes those of a conservative and/or classic liberal persuasion and thereby (b) is dominated by those of a leftist persuasion.

The reality is that 45-50% of academics are Democrats but only 9-16% are Republicans. Party affiliation does not always reflect political persuasion. About 45% describe themselves as liberal about 46% as moderate and only about 9% as conservative. (But see also Gross and Simmons 2007: 26 where 62% describe themselves as extremely to slightly liberal.) [ed - numbers corrected in response to comment.]

My experience at Cornell University was that professors who were Christian and/or classical liberals* were generally in the hard sciences and engineering fields. In the humanities and social sciences they could be counted on one maybe two hands. These were largely concentrated in Near Eastern Studies and Classical Studies departments. One politically liberal aka conservative or openly Christian professor could be found in Government (Political Science) in History in Philosophy and in English departments.

*[Quick excursus about terminology:

I refuse to use the terms liberal and conservative as most modern Americans typically understand them. Conservative is a relative term as Friedrich Hayek explained well. And liberal properly refers to someone who supports individual liberty - hence the need for the expression classic(al) liberal(ism). The term left(ist) is more appropriate to describe so-called liberal(s/ism). I am aware than not all so-called conservatives are classical liberals. And not all so-called liberals would regard themselves as being on the left. There is at least one more axis besides liberty-statism. In my opinion the terms liberal and conservative are generally still useful when discussing religion. My primary point is that the usage we find in current American political discourage - those who favor central/state control over individual liberty are liberal and those who favor liberty are conservative - is unacceptable.]

Many on the left have attempted to answer this charge not by arguing that there is no bias. There there are perfectly good reasons. That when hiring faculty no one asks “who did you vote for in the last election?” All they care about is your academic credentials and your areas of research/teaching specialty.

Megan McArdle at The Atlantic addresses this in her recent article “What Does Bias Look Like?” Many readers on the left took issue with the claim that academia systematically excludes classical liberals aka conservatives:

Those people offered their own alternate theories, which boiled down to:

•Smart people are almost always liberal
•Curiosity and interest in ideas is a liberal trait
•Conservatives are too rigid and authoritarian to maintain the open mind required of a professor
•Education erases false conservative ideas and turns people into liberals
•Conservatives don’t want to be professors because they’re more interested in something else (money, the military)
•Conservatives don’t want to be professors because they’re anti-intellectual
•Conservatives hold false beliefs that make them ineligible to be professors

Uh right. No bias there.

McArdle address many of these points and attempts to explain how bias – individual or institutional – can happen even if there is no explicit rule that excludes members of one group in favor of another group. It is remarkable that leftist academics – often so quick to point out how subtle racial discrimination can be – do not see the obvious parallels. Substitute the word “blacks” or “Jew(s/ish)” for “conservative” in the above theories and see how they sound.

This does not mean every time a classical liberal and/or committed Christian fails to secure a tenure track position it must be because of bias. A few years ago I attended a Veritas forum meeting at Louisiana State University for Christian academics. The scientist leading the discussion pointed out that sometimes the reason a committed Christian does not get the job is simply because s/he is less qualified. His/her research teaching and publishing record is not strong enough to be hired or to be granted tenure.

Ultimately classical liberals and/or Christians need to demonstrate excellence as teachers and scholars just like everyone else.

Which is why I do not support quotas. Rather the solution is to identify and address ways in which classic liberals aka conservatives are excluded from academia for reasons other than their academic qualifications.

I do believe that all factors being equal we would still have more leftists than classical liberals in academia. Although I could be wrong about that.

See also:

Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, “The Social and Political Views of American Professors”

Megan McArdle, “Unbiasing Academia”

H/T The Other McCain and Targuman

East Shanghai Church

One of the three goals for my journey through China back in May-June was to observe directly what is happening with the Christian church in the People’s Republic of China. I visited both registered churches and house churches. And had long conversations with representatives of both. Also spent an evening with a classmate from graduate school who teaches in Beijing and provides to the Chinese government information and advice on religious affairs.

One of my conversations was with an intelligent and accomplished young man who is active in one of the largest house churches in Beijing. His summary of the situation? Complicated. Changing. But encouraging.

From the Church of England newspaper:

The Chinese government has announced plans to “guide” Protestant Christians worshiping at unregistered “house churches” towards worshiping in the state approved China Christian Council/Three Self Patriotic Movement.

In its agenda for the coming year published on Jan 24, China’s State Administration for Religious Affairs (SARA) said bringing all Protestants into the fold of the CCC/TSPM would help the activities of Protestant churches proceed in a normal and orderly way. However, details of how this guiding would take place have not been revealed, the Peking-based People’s Daily reported.

SARA stated it would also work to “educate” China’s Catholics on the principle of self-governance in church affairs, “guiding” Catholic churches in China to independently select and consecrate bishops, rather than defer to the Vatican.

The agenda said the SARA will strengthen regulation of foreign nationals’ group religious activities in China and resist foreign infiltration under the pretext of religion.

This is not encouraging. And represents a movement in the opposite direction from what some Chinese Christians were beginning to observe.

Could the situation in China be worse? Yes. China is not North Korea or Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia or a host of other nations where it is more difficult and/or dangerous to be a Christian. But also it could be much better. My impression is that the Chinese government allows freedom of religion so long as it does not challenge the authority and power of the Chinese government or threaten what it regards as the stability of Chinese society.

With regard to “foreign nationals’ group religious activities” personally I prefer to conduct Christian missionary work openly and legally. But will not criticize or judge Christians who choose to work secretly or under the pretext of being in China for some other purpose. There may come a time in my life when I live and work in China. And engage in missionary work. And not openly or with the approval of the government. But who knows?

Although in a way one can understand where the Chinese government is coming from – Opium Wars anyone? – the chief problem with their current policy is that they presume to define the limits and parameters of what is acceptable/permissible Christian teaching and practice. One doubts a pastor/priest/preacher serving at a registered church could ever say that elective/forced abortion is bad public policy. Just to pick an example. As one Christian sister said to me the current situation  places Chinese Christians in the position of sometimes having to obey the government rather than God.

H/T Midwest Conservative Journal via Opinionated Catholic

Update:

Well obviously it helps to see the original article in China Daily. Here is link to website of State Administration of Religious Affairs but it is in Mandarin Chinese.

"Distracts participants from critical examination and transformation of those unjust systems"?

Interesting article at Chronicle of Higher Education by Timothy Beal entitled “Among the Evangelicals”.

Yet as soon as evangelicalism becomes a subject, it splinters and splits. Indeed, taken together, recent studies by more-or-less outsiders show there is no such thing as evangelicalism. The term represents a broad range of significantly different theologies, practices, and religious movements within Christianity, and there are often tensions among and within them. Which is no revelation at all to most more-or-less insiders, who call themselves evangelicals, however qualified, and who argue as much with others who do the same as with those of us who don’t.

One recent study of evangelicalism offered an interesting conclusion:

Their approach challenges the “strict church thesis” of earlier sociologists of religion, which argued that conservative, hard-line suppliers of religion (fundamentalists, conservative evangelicals) thrive, while lenient ones (liberals, progressives) decline. On the contrary, these five profiles suggest that the key to success is not theological or political strictness but effective marketing. Indeed, part of what allows these evangelical innovators to be so successful is that they find ways to “overtly avoid (yet subtly address)” potentially controversial issues among their constituents, Lee and Sinitiere write. One of the big take-aways from their research is that the evangelical movement is, they say, “far more elastic, far more complex, and far more contradictory than what popular accounts reveal.”

Overall a good and interesting piece. One can discern some bias on the part of researchers – bias that reflects a basically leftist/statist understanding of society and politics. This is particularly evident in the discussion of black televangelists. Within the Black Community would probably have some trenchant words to offer in response.

But Beal himself may recognize this tendency among academics to regard religion particularly evangelical Christian religion as the “other”:

Why has there been such a lack of familiarity, indeed, of interest, among academics in the cultural depth and complexity of American evangelicalism until so recently? Perhaps we don’t do as much book browsing as most people do in Wal-Marts and Targets, and so are less likely to encounter evangelicalism in everyday life. Being among the least-churched populations in the United States, moreover, most academics don’t hear about it on Sunday mornings, when we’re more likely to be reading The New York Times than listening to a sermon. Beyond that, I wonder if there is a sense among many of us that the whole world of evangelical Christianity represents academic culture’s other, the antithesis of who we are as scholars and educators.

One of the comments asks appropriately how these scholars would like to be on the receiving end of their own research.

But overall a fascinating and welcome perspective.

H/T The always brilliant Ann Althouse.

Supporters of full inclusion for gays and lesbians in The United Methodist Church drape the central table in black cloth during a demonstration on the floor of the 2008 United Methodist General Conference

Was perusing Lectionary Homiletics for December as part of my weekly sermon preparation. Noticed how many contributions are from Ed McNulty. Wonder who that is? Do a search. Come across a website that might tell me more. Turns out to be the blog of a very liberal Presbyterian minister who serves a congregation in a town located in northeast Tennessee. Hey wait a minute. I recognize that town. That’s where my wife was born and grew up! And we even visited that church once around Christmas. Even then recall we thought it was a good and interesting experience but we probably would not go back next time we were in town.

Took a few minutes to look over this pastor’s blog. Curious about where he comes from. What his basic views are.

Look – I went to Baptist Theological Seminary of Richmond which is across the street from Union Theological Seminary / Presbyterian School of Christian Education. Cross-registered and took several classes at the historic Presbyterian seminary. Regularly attended their chapel services. Had plenty of Presbyterian friends. Yeah many of them were pretty liberal.

They had nothing on this guy in Tennessee. Compared to him they are staunch traditionalists.

The point is not to knock this active and passionate Presbyterian pastor who happens to serve in my wife’s home town. Just giving some background.

Among his other big causes – which include 9/11 trutherism for which I have little respect or patience along with Peak Oil an issue with which I do have some sympathy – is equality in the Christian church for Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender(?) persons. Fair enough. That is his prerogative.

(In this post I will not specify his name or congregation or URL of his blog. Not out of contempt or disrespect. But because this is not personal - this is not about him but about something he wrote and what it represents. Plus this is one of those times where I would rather not invite conflict.)

Among other things he shares his response to a questionnaire regarding Amendment 10A which has something to do with changing the rules about ordination to Christian ministry in the P(resbyterian)C(hurch)-USA:

How would you respond to those that say that if we pass 10a individuals and congregations will leave the PC(USA)? That question fosters co-dependence and bullying. We need to treat people like adults and expect adult behavior. If folks cannot in good conscience stay in the church, then I guess they will go. No one is forcing them to stay or to go. However, many people have already left the church because of our discriminatory policy. Some even have been defrocked. You do the right thing and let the chips fall. I think once the church passes 10a we will become stronger. We certainly will be more in the spirit of Jesus.

This response is the one that jumped out at me the most. Try to follow the reasoning and then I will address the larger implications.

1. People say they will leave if we make this change? That is a form of co-dependence and bullying.

There is some truth to this. People at University Baptist Church occasionally play the “don’t do this or I will leave” card and it can be a form of emotional blackmail. Although this is a difference between “don’t make this change in the time and style of Sunday morning worship” and “don’t make this change in whether or not we ordain people in same-sex relationships to the Christian ministry”.

2. If people really have that much of a problem with this change then they will leave. No one is forcing them to stay or go.

Well that is not entirely true is it? If you belong to an institution or organization because of what it stands for and it makes what you regard as a fundamental change that you believe turns its entire purpose upside down then there is a sense in which yes you are being forced to leave because to stay is a violation of your conscience yes? How many liberals or rather leftists said they would leave the United States if George Bush was re-elected president? Gee why did they say that? Were they being forced to leave? In one sense no – no one was putting a gun to their head. But in other sense yes – because to them it means “I can no longer in good conscience remain a citizen of this nation”. How can someone who presents himself as so liberal and open-minded and understanding and all that good stuff not understand something so basic? That people are forced to leave because to stay represents a violation of their basic convictions? And this pastor cannot say “oh come now that’s no violation of your Christian convictions” because whether that is so or not is not the point. The point is how these persons and congregations view the proposed change.

This above is the most significant part of this pastor’s argument and we will return to it.

3. So we lose some people and churches. Yeah but have we not lost people and churches because of the current policy?

Well first of all consider the Episcopal Church. Have they lost more or gained more what with the consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop? Are same-sex couples suddenly flocking to the Episcopal Church and asking to be baptized? Are people who think same-sex relationships are morally neutral suddenly flocking to the Episcopal Church and asking to become members? No? Yeah sure a few people are attracted to liberal churches and liberal denominations. But far more leave and/or never seek to join because they are either repulsed or just plain uninterested.

And while we are at it just how many people and churches have they lost because of the current policy? Care to throw out a number with some hard evidence behind it? Or is he just blowing rhetorical smoke?

But that is a weak argument. Ultimately one should do something because it is right not because it is popular. This pastor is aware of that. Well – sometimes. In fact he plays both the we’ll gain more than we lose and the we just need to do the right thing cards in the same paragraph.

We do have to grant one point. If by we’ll be stronger he means that the Presbyterian Church (USA) will no longer be conflicted because of this issue then yes that is probably correct. After the dust settles and many people and churches leave then yes they will have tremendous unity on this otherwise divisive issue. They will be known for their stand and people will join them or not.

Now back to that very significant statement If folks cannot in good conscience stay in the church, then I guess they will go. No one is forcing them to stay or to go. However, many people have already left the church because of our discriminatory policy.

This is the painfully obvious point and question.

If the church stands for something that goes against their conscience and convictions and therefore people will be free to leave… and the church currently stands for something that they think is fundamentally wrong… then why don’t they leave?

Why do you seek to radically change this organization/institution to suit your convictions? Why not join some other organization/institution? Why not form your own?

If you do not care for the terms of your marital relationship why does the other person have to leave and you get to keep the house?

Ah… perhaps therein lies the answer.

It is easier to take something that someone else created – not to deny that you may have helped along the way – and change it. That it is to create something new and different that reflects your desires.

See – generations of Presbyterians have lived and given and served and died to help create this denomination. Because of what it stands for. And if change it such that these people think it is radically different – no longer traditional biblical Presbyterian Christianity – then that bothers them very much indeed. They do not want to give up what they built – and yes I recognize that liberals in some sense helped build this house and we can debate the difference that makes or not – to people who want to change it into something they regard as fundamentally different in character and purpose.

But the liberals want to take over change the denomination – and it is about much much more than same-sex relationships and one only has to read this pastor’s blog to recognize that the issue of same-sex relationships is the tip of a much larger theological and ideological iceberg – in ways that traditionalists cannot endure and say oh well no one’s forcing you to stay. So the traditionalists what? give up the churches and seminaries they helped to build? the organizations into which they poured their lives?

They have to leave the house and either move into some other house or starting building a new one from scratch.

Don’t believe me?

Look at the Episcopal Church once again. When Episcopal parishes say “we cannot live with the leadership and directions of this national church” they are not allowed to keep the buildings which they built and paid for (mostly or entirely – yes I am aware of how dioceses play a role in building up parishes). To the victors go the spoils. The losers have to start again.

So why don’t liberal Presbyterians just leave and form their own new denomination? Heck one can even let liberal Presbyterian congregations keep their facilities. Heck we can even let them keep a seminary or two. If they can keep them running.

No – what we see is these innovators would rather take over and co-opt something and change it to be more in line with their point(s) of view.

Melkor did not create the orcs. He could only take what Iluvatar created – men and elves – and change them into orcs. Melkor was not able to create anything original of his own.

Parasites do not produce or create so much as they co-opt other life for their own purposes. No I am not calling liberal Christians parasites. But I will dare suggest that this “we will start doing things you did not imagine when we first got married but you have to leave and we keep the house” attitude is a form of parasitism.

Honesty compels one to suggest some counterarguments.

a. We are not trying to turn our denomination into something different. We are trying to return it to its original nature and purpose. (Diana Butler Bass makes this argument explicitly – although inconsistently because she often appeals to changes in current social and cultural attitudes.)

One must then ask “at what point in the history of the Presbyterian church did a majority of Presbyterian Christians hold these views on Christian faith and practice?”

b. We are trying to return it to its original nature and purpose. You are the ones who have been taking our denomination in a new and wrong direction.

This sounds like the same argument as #a and perhaps it is but it relates to the fundamentalist takeover / conservative resurgence (depends on one’s point of view) in the Southern Baptist Convention. See – liberals are not the only ones who attempt to radically change something. My intent is not to bash the Southern Baptist Convention nor to defame evangelical/conservative friends and brethren. In fact I have started to identify again – partly – with Southern Baptists over the last few years. My goal is to understand their point of view. Moderate Baptists believed that the conservative movement of the 1980′s that was pretty much accomplished by 1990 represented a departure from historic Baptist Christianity. Obviously more conservative Southern Baptists do not see it that way. They believed liberal-moderate denominational leaders and seminary professors were the ones who were beginning to drag the denomination in a wrong direction.

One important difference is that the Southern Baptist Convention by definition could not take buildings and facilities away from more moderate Baptist congregations. Oh we can complain about professors losing their jobs and takeover and radical transformation of denominational institutions and structures. And as a matter of fact moderate Baptists to a large extent did end up having to create something new pretty much from scratch. I know. I went to one such seminary and most of my professors had been forced or pressured into leaving their positions at Southern Baptist seminaries.

(While we are it at surely the reverse is also true – that some conservative Baptists have felt compelled to leave a moderate Baptist congregation.)

But let me reiterate what I think is a key point and a compelling question.

Why do people who represent a minority viewpoint seek to transform an organization/institution/denomination so that it is more in line with their distinct convictions – rather than just leave and start their own?

In fairness I must acknowledge that there may very well be – indeed I assume that there is – a good answer to that question. But I have not figured it out yet.

Glory to God!

Two smoking articles in the Baton Rouge Advocate about Orthodoxy in Baton Rouge. One long article about St Matthew the Apostle Orthodox Church and its priest Father Mark Christian. And another about icons.

On a scale of 1 to 10 I thought the long article was an 11. Thorough and more than fair. Mark Hunter did an exceptional job. This is what reporting on religion can be.

Church of the Nations had our moment in the spotlight a few years ago. I am glad our Orthodox brothers and sisters got their moment this weekend.

In the name of Social Studies teachers at a public school in Wellesley Massachusetts took the 6th graders to a local church. Needless to say one parent was sufficiently concerned to volunteer as a chaperon and bring along a camera.

They heard a short invitation to faith from the pastor. They learned how to pray and even participated in a time of prayer. At one point a spokesperson for the church explains that public schools in America are “fertile grounds where the seeds of the Christian faith can be planted in the hearts of non-Christian students”.

Read the whole thing and watch the video at National Review Online.

Look. I generally avoid posting about Islam. But this is outrageous. Not because there is anything wrong with Islam. Even though it turns out plenty is wrong with this particular mosque and its leadership. It is outrageous because public schools should not engage in religious indoctrination.

And it once again points out the willful intellectual blindness and moral cowardice we see all too often from elected and unelected officials. Did no one have the sense and the fortitude to say “look – learning about Islam is all well and fine but isn’t taking the kids to this mosque and letting them participate in sullah way past the line of what is appropriate?”

Important addendum: In fairness to the school it is not that simple:

[Superintendent] Wong said the mosque visit took place as part of the sixth-grade social studies course, “Enduring Beliefs in the World Today,’’ which includes lessons on Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam. As part of the class, pupils also visit a synagogue, attend a gospel musical performance, and meet with Hindu religious representatives, she said.

But then that raises still more questions. If you are going to teach about religions then you must make difficult decisions about exactly which local faith community to visit and who gets to speak for that particular religion. Reform or Orthodox Jewish synagogue? Protestant or Roman Catholic or Orthodox church? Oh wait a gospel musical performance. Cornell University sponsored and funded an annual Festival of Black Gospel on the grounds that it was “African-American culture” not Christian worship. We laughed with joy when those leading the concert proclaimed to the audience “this is not about culture – we are here to worship the Lord!”

Holy Dormition Church in Beijing

The third goal for my journey through China was to understand better the state of the Christian church in China. Part of that goal was to find Orthodox Christians.

Kallistos Ware in his book The Orthodox Way provides a list of how many Orthodox Christians there are in different nations of the world. His entry for China is curious.

10,000-30,000(?)

Well that is strange. Why do we not know with any certainty? I asked the priest at St Matthew the Apostle Orthodox Church here in Baton Rouge about this. Interestingly he also has wondered about this figure. Why the question mark? He did not have any information about Orthodox Christians in China and could not offer any leads.

From “Church of China” at OrthodoxWiki:

Several Orthodox congregations, mainly of elderly individuals, continue to meet in Beijing and northeast China (including Heilongjiang), with, apparently, the tacit consent of the government. As of 2005 there was one priest; however, a number of Chinese nationals are currently studying in Orthodox seminaries in Russia, with the intent of returning to China to serve in priestly ministry.

Although there were not many Orthodox Christians in China to begin with the Cultural Revolution “destroyed the young Chinese Orthodox Church almost totally”.

On several occasions I asked my Chinese Christian friends about this. None of them had any knowledge of Orthodox Christian churches in Beijing. However they did report that they knew of some that were related to people of Russian descent particularly in northern China such as in Heilongjiang. It was not clear if they meant these are Russian people living in China or Chinese citizens with Russian ancestry.

The bottom line is this. I could not find or meet any Orthodox Christians during my journey through China. And my Chinese Christian friends did not seem to know much if anything either.

Let me cut to the chase. This surprises me. Why? Because I think Orthodox Christianity might be well suited to the Chinese people and their culture.

Before I elaborate yes that is a problematic statement. Because it implies that Orthodox Christianity fits some cultures better than others.

Let me mention a few reasons I think this.

• Importance of tradition in Chinese culture ~ tradition in Orthodox Christianity.
• Importance of ancestors ~ (similar to although not the same as) reverence for the saints.
• One of the difficulties that Christianity faces in China is the perception that it is “Western”. Orthodox Christianity is not Western. This does not entirely solve the problem because the Chinese government would still be concerned about the extent to which other nations – especially Russia – might attempt to influence China through Orthodoxy.
• An important principle of Orthodox missiology is to form local churches that reflect the local people and their culture.
• An important principle of Orthodox theology is the unity of heaven and earth – that we live in a “one story universe”. When I brought up this idea my Chinese friends in Shanghai said Chinese tradition holds to the same view. Western Christianity tends to emphasize more of a break(?) between heaven and earth.

These are preliminary thoughts that need to be developed more. But often during my journey through China I thought “the more I understand Chinese people and Chinese culture the more it seems that Orthodox Christianity should be thriving here”.

Addendum:

Well shucks. Turns out I was in Beijing when special celebrations took place at Holy Dormitian Church of Beijing on May 18 2010. Unfortunately I did not come across the Orthodoxy in China website until after returning to the United States. So one can find Orthodox Christians in Beijing and other cities. But most often in association with the Russian embassy.

A portion of the Greek manuscript Codex Vaticanus containing 1 Esdras 2:1-8

Have been listening to the “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy” podcast series made available through Ancient Faith Radio. It is a series of lectures given by Father Andrew Damick at Saint Paul Antiochian Orthodox Church in Emmaus Pennsylvania. It is largely a survey of Christian history and theology – comparing Orthodox Christian teaching to non-Orthodox teaching.

In the first podcast on the Classical Reformation he lists several problems with the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura – Scripture Alone. The teaching that the Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice.

For a long time – perhaps since college – I have not subscribed to Sola Scriptura but something more like Prima Scriptura - Scripture First. The Bible is our primary authority for faith and practice. But we must interpret it. And so tradition and reason also guide how we understand Christian faith and practice – perhaps more precisely guide how we interpret the Bible which in turn determines what we profess and practice. In other words for years I have held to what is essentially the Anglican view. See Articles VI and VII of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England.

Some dear readers may quibble with this or that so far. This is a highly simplified presentation of the issue so far. And is background for what follows.

Father Damick addresses the relationship between Hebrew Bible and Greek Old Testament. Basically for centuries the Greek Old Testament aka Septuagint was what Christians used. Not the Hebrew Bible. And Martin Luther and other Protestant reformers were wrong in several ways when they jettisoned the Greek Old Testament in favor of the Hebrew Bible.

• The Hebrew Bible is the product of the Jewish Council of Jamnia (90 AD) and was a reaction against Christian use of the Greek Old Testament. In other words Martin Luther used an anti-Christian canon to replace the traditional Greek Old Testament. (By the way there is some debate whether the Council of Jamnia actually took place.)
• Martin Luther was trying to get back to the source – perhaps continuing in the steps of Jerome. But the Hebrew Bible at the time of the Classical Reformation was based on manuscripts about 1000 years later than manuscripts for the Greek Old Testament. The Hebrew Bible is therefore in some sense less original than the Greek Old Testament.
• Even then the Hebrew Bible with which we are dealing is a consonantal text. There are different traditions concerning the vowels. The Masoretic vocalization of the Hebrew Bible consonantal text is only one among several. Once again the Hebrew Bible is less original than the Greek Old Testament. Moreover since the consonantal text can be vocalized more than one way how can advocates of Sola Scriptura be sure that the Hebrew Bible they translate/interpret reflects the original reading (vocalization)?

It is possible I misunderstand some of these points.

The points concerning problems with Sola Scriptura are excellent. But I am less persuaded by the arguments for why the Greek Old Testament is more original(?) than the Hebrew Bible. (Trying to distinguish the Scripture issue from the academic questions.)

The point concerning the Council of Jamnia is a good one. I admit to having a bias for the Hebrew Bible partly because of my graduate studies and partly because many of my professors are Jewish. Eric Mason is a Baptist scholar of the New Testament – and a rising star in book of Hebrews studies – who once challenged me on this very point. Basically he said that the Greek Old Testament has more claim than the Hebrew Bible to be the Old Testament of the Christian church.

The manuscripts argument is weaker than it sounds. Just because the manuscripts for any given book x are later than for book y does not necessarily mean that x is less original than y. It fails to address the possibility that the Masoretic Text preserves – at least in its consonantal form – earlier readings than the Greek Septuagint. We could be dealing with the accident of discovery. Except for those books in the Greek Old Testament that were composed in Greek the Septuagint is a translation of a(?) Hebrew original. One must consider the possibility that Hebrew Bible we have today is closer to this Hebrew original. Frequently in the course of my graduate studies I came across articles demonstrating examples of how the Hebrew Bible preserves accurately an earlier/original reading that the Septuagint translators did not understand.

(And what do we do with the Qumran texts aka Dead Sea Scrolls? Granted that there are differences between biblical texts found at Qumran and the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible – giving rise to several dissertations at Harvard University. We also need to consider Aramaic translations/interpretations of the Hebrew Bible.)

So the manuscript argument alone is not decisive. When the Septuagint diverges from the Masoretic Text – in meaning that is since the Septuagint is Greek and the Masoretic Text is Hebrew – one must make some minimal effort to show why the Septuagint reading is more original. Of course one could just as well argue the opposite – that we should make some minimal effort to show why the reading of the Masoretic Text is more original.

Different traditions regarding how to vocalize the Hebrew text. You do not need vowel pointing to have a pretty clear idea how to read the text. Just because you have a consonantal text does not mean you can insert any vowels you want. Otherwise speakers of Arabic would never be able to do something as simple as read a newspaper. And the different traditions do not – so far as I know – make much of a different in what the Hebrew text means. It is more correct to see the different traditions as different ways to pronounce the Hebrew text. But the meaning is still pretty much the same no matter which tradition one uses.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not arguing with Father Damick. There was another Ancient Faith Radio podcast in which Father Thomas Hopko said something similar. Rather my intent was to use this opportunity to reflect on the relationship between the Greek Old Testament aka Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible. Perhaps the Greek Old Testament is indeed somehow more original than the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible. But I am not sure that manuscripts and vocalization traditions are enough to establish that.