I have never entirely understood the connection(?) between sin and death.

Let me confess that I am not much of a Satanologist. What do I mean by that? That in my understanding and teaching of the Christian faith do not emphasize the Devil/Satan/Lucifer.

Why? For at least three main reasons. First because it seems to give too much credit to evil. When bad things happen to Christians and they claim they are under attack from Satan I wonder “wow do you really think he has that much power?”

Second because I would rather emphasize the power and goodness of God than the power and activity of his enemies. Prayer is primarily about communion with God rather than praying against Satan.

And third because I was educated primarily by Jewish scholars and a primary focus of my years of graduate study was the Hebrew Bible aka Old Testament. And so my personal understanding of the Christian faith is heavily colored by the Old Testament in which Satan is at most a minor figure who appears quite late.

Speaking of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament there are forces that are opposed to God. It is not always clear however if these forces are personal or impersonal. The impersonal forces are the forces of chaos in various forms. Tehom. Leviathan. Behemoth. The sea(s). Creation in the Old Testament is not only calling something into existence. Creation includes bringing order – more specifically a just and compassionate order – out of chaos. See especially Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Drama of Divine Omnipotence by Jon Levenson.

But surely those forces opposed to the purposes of God are also personal. There are occasional references to other deities – however these are understood – such as Baal. The plague narratives in Exodus are partly about the victory of Yahweh over the gods(?) of Egypt. And the best example is pharaoh in the book of Exodus – oddly unnamed perhaps because he represents more than a single historical figure. See the commentary on Exodus by Terence Freitheim in the Interpretation series.

What I am still trying to figure out – and here I speak more as a scholar of the Old Testament than as a Christian pastor – is the relationship between chaos and what we might call (moral) evil. Is Satan simply the personification – dare we say hypostatization? hey that’s pretty good – of the primordial watery chaos which God restrains in Genesis 1 and later Genesis 7-8?

Or is chaos a symptom or manifestation of (moral) evil – understood as free beings (angelic or human) who choose against God?

Perhaps we can phrase the question as which came first – chaos or evil?

I would suggest that the Hebrew Bible seems to say chaos. But Christian theology would say evil – here understood as free personal beings acting in revolt against God.

Enter the Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky in his 137 summa theologicae entitled Orthodox Theology. He writes:

Evil originated therefore in the spiritual sin of the angel. And the attitude of Lucifer reveals to us the root of every sin: pride as revolt against God. He who was first called to deification by grace wishes to be God by himself. The root of sin is thus the third for self-deification, the hatred of grace. Remaining dependent on God in his very being, since his being was created by God, the spirit in revolt consequently acquires a hatred of being, a frenzy to destroy, a thirst for an impossible nothingness. (emphasis added) [ibid. 81-82]

This is a remarkable paragraph. For my purposes what is striking is not what Lossky says regarding the origin of evil so much as how he describes the psychology of evil.

A hatred of being. A frenzy to destroy. A thirst for an impossible nothingness.

Hold that thought because we will come back to it.

What Lossky wrote reminds me of another remarkable paragraph by J. R. R. Tolkien in Morgoth’s Ring The History of Middle Earth volume 10 edited by Christopher Tolkien. No serious student of Tolkien can afford to be without this book.

In an obscure discussion on the differences between Sauron and Melkor/Morgoth we find the following description of the psychology of Melkor/Morgoth who is the closest analogue to Satan/Lucifer.

Thus, as ‘Morgoth’, when Melkor was confronted by the existence of other inhabitants of Arda, with other wills and intelligences, he was enraged by the mere fact of their existence, and his only notion of dealing with them was by physical force, or the fear of it. His sole ultimate object was their destruction….

Hence his endeavor always to break wills and subordinate them to o absorb them into his own will and being, before destroying their bodies. This was sheer nihilism, and negation its one ultimate object: Morgoth would no doubt, if he had been victorious, have ultimately destroyed even his own ‘creatures’, such as the Orcs….

Melkor’s final impotence and despair lay in this: … Melkor could do nothing with Arda, which was no from his own mind and was interwoven with the work and thoughts of others: even left alone he could only have gone raging on till all was levelled again into a formless chaos. And yet even so he would have been defeated, because it would still have ‘existed’. (emphasis added) [ibid. 395, 396]

Sauron was merely a control freak. Melkor/Morgoth on the other hand was a nihilist consumed with a hatred of being. Moral evil – here revolt against Eru Iluvatar. Its ultimate goal to reduce creation unto formless chaos.

The psychology of evil. And its relationship to (no longer so primordial?) chaos.

(To be continued)

Since seminary have used the lectionary and followed the Christian liturgical calendar. The two are related but distinct. Theoretically one can observe the liturgical calendar without following the lectionary. In fact back in 2000(?) when Keith Putt led University Baptist Church to make the transition to the liturgical calendar the congregations called upon me to explain and provide guidance for observing the Christian calendar and following the lectionary cycle.

After almost eleven years of service here have almost three full cycles of sermons and orders of worship. What is nice and saves time is that I can go back in my files and look up the order of worship for the same Sunday three or even six years ago. For example if this coming Sunday is the 15th Sunday in Ordinary Time (B) then I do not necessarily have to put together an order of worship from scratch. I can look through my files and see what we did on 15th Sunday Ordinary (B) in 2008 and 2005 and maybe even 2002. I might make some changes – hymns or which Scripture readings to use. Might make changes to the artwork. Might add some new or special elements such as a testimony or musical offering (what sometimes is called special music). But usually have something to work with.

(Now I can imagine some of my Baptist friends might not appreciate this. They might think this is laziness. But to me it represents consistency and rhythm. And frankly every hour saved in planning worship can be used to do something else.)

Lent and Pascha/Easter are unusually late this year. Ash Wednesday the beginning of Lent is not until March 9th. Last year it was February 17! And Pascha/Easter is not until April 29th! Last year it was April 7.

So what does this have to do with planning worship according to the lectionary and the liturgical calendar?

It means this year to my surprise I have nothing. For at least the last nine years there has been no 5th or 6th or 7th or 8th Sunday after Epiphany / Sunday in Ordinary Time (A). It is remotely possible that yes there is but somehow that worship guide was never saved – but so far as I can tell we are in semi-uncharted territory.

Dear readers might ask “so what?” Okay. But I find it interesting. And interesting how even with the repetition and rhythm and consistency of the liturgical calendar we can still have Sundays the likes of which we will not see for 9 or 12 or 15 or more years. Christmas comes every year. And the Christmas readings every three years. But 7th Sunday after Epiphany / in Ordinary Time (A) only comes every decade or two. There are still opportunities to be surprised by unexpected variations in the rhythm of the liturgical calendar.

Oh and Orthodox Christians and Protestant/Catholic Christians will celebrate Pascha/Easter the same day this year. (This happens roughly every 3-4 years.)

The excellent Opinionated Catholic – your one stop portal for Catholic and Football news – recently had an interesting post about Pittsburgh Steelers player Troy Polamalu and his Orthodox Christian faith.

I wanted to follow up by focusing on a couple interesting things Polamalu said in his interview with Ann Rodgers of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Liturgy of the heart

Polamalu says in this interview:

Before he became Orthodox, he said, songs in church sometimes moved him to tears. He now distrusts those passing feelings.

“I’d start crying and feel ‘This is awesome.’ If I’d had a Red Bull, I’d feel it even more. If I’d had breakfast, I’d feel good. If I didn’t have breakfast, I didn’t feel anything, I was grumpy,” he said.

“It was a very superficial experience. I was thinking, ‘God, why did I not feel you today?’ because I wasn’t feeling the music today. Orthodoxy is very sensitive to that, to take the emotion out of it, to really go after the heart.” (emphasis added)

Several weeks ago I addressed this very issue in “Beyond worship as emotivism or rationality – liturgy of the heart”. My observation is that sometimes in Protestant Christianity the goal of worship – especially more evangelical/contemporary forms – appears to be generating a particular emotional response.

What struck me in particular was what one might call emotivism. The worship and reports and prayers – especially the sermon – seemed largely oriented toward evoking an emotional response. We need to care! We need to cry! We need to repent! We need to get stuff done for the kingdom of God! An intense emotional response that would lead to renewed commitment and thence to renewed action.

Now it would be dishonest to imply I never judge and evaluate experiences that way. And how exactly does one distinguish worship that stirs up emotions versus worship that engages the heart? Nevertheless I appreciate what Polamalu says and agree that worship that engages the heart – not emotions or rationality – is the goal.

It’s not just about winning

Polamalu also says during the interview:

He doesn’t claim that practicing the faith improves athletics. The player known for crossing himself on the field has seen his faith grow more from his injuries than his interceptions.

“When I got injured, I learned so much from it spiritually, just thanking God for the health that I had when I was healthy,” he said.

“People have this idea that the more pious and devout I am, the more successful I am. Which is very dangerous. If you look at faith in that way, you’re bound to fail at both — spiritually and in your career.”

This also got my attention. I could be wrong but it seems that sometimes Christians in almost any vocation/profession focus on how God helps us be successful. Believe in Jesus so that you can have a happier healthier more successful life.

Polamalu doesn’t go there. One is reminded of the apostle Paul when he wrote:

But [the Lord] said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. 10 That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
- 2 Corinthians 12:9-10 (New International Version)

Good words and testimony.

H/T Opinionated Catholic

Papyrus Fouad 266 - 2nd oldest Greek Old Testament text from 1st century B.C.E.

Needed to get by this weekend a Bible to present to my fellow minister on the occasion of her ordination this evening. She recently said something about “really need to read the Apocrypha” so found a nice New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha. Just like the hardback edition I used through seminary that at this point is held together by moving tape not to mention lost after a recent Bible study. So got one for myself.

Hold that thought.

Have been listening in the car to two recent podcasts by Father Thomas Hopko dean emeritus of Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York. One on reading the Old Testament and one on reading the Bible.

The reason for bringing these up is they were interesting and surprising. Especially in light of the recent exchange I had with an Orthodox priest concerning the Septuagint and its relationship to the original(?) text(s?) of the Hebrew Bible. I was more interested in the scholarly question of which preserves the original(?) Hebrew text(s?) better – the Septuagint or the Masoretic Text.

Father Hopko made some interesting comments about the extent to which the Greek Bible was the Bible of the apostles. The Greek Bible was a Bible that the biblical writers used. And we must remember it is a translation and that makes a difference in how we understand the way the biblical writers and apostles used the Greek Bible.

Put it this way. I have studied Hebrew and Greek. But in a Bible study I might quote an English translation. Later historians should not on that basis conclude that the English translation is the Bible of the Christian church.

Father Hopko also touched on the issue of which preserves the original(?) Hebrew text(s?) better. And gave examples where he thinks the Masoretic Text makes more sense than the Septuagint. The excellent Doctor Eugenia Constantinou in one of her podcasts mentions that there are examples where the Septuagint clearly is more correct.

My intent is not to argue with Orthodox Christians one way or the other. Only to share that Father Hopko made some interesting points which do suggest the issue is not as simple as some Orthodox Christians seem to say.

He also spent considerable time addressing the relative worth of different English translations. This is not entirely unrelated to the issue of Septuagint versus(?) Masoretic Text because most English translations of the Old Testament are based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

His personal favorite English translation is the Revised Standard Version. And he spends quite a long time explaining why he thinks the New Revised Standard Version is simply unacceptable and recommends that Christians not use it for personal devotion or in worship.

This is one day after I spend more than fifty bucks on a nice new copy of the New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha.

I have studied Greek and Hebrew but admittedly have not done an exhaustive comparison between original and translation. Some of the examples of poor translation in the New Revised Standard Version that Father Hopko provides are new to me.

Interesting no? How the Revised Standard Version is his favorite. And the New Revised Standard Version – very popular among mainstream Protestants and is what we used throughout seminary – is unacceptable.

One of my professors in seminary was part of the translation team for the New Revised Standard Version. On one occasion he shared how the editor sometimes ignored and/or changed what the translation teams recommended. The power of the editor!

So now what? I prefer to have a Bible that includes the Apocrypha whether or not one regards them as Holy Scripture. One of the few modern translations that includes the Apocrypha is the New Revised Standard Version.

Luke 20 is one of the lections for this Sunday the 24th Sunday of Pentecost year C.

Bet you didn’t buy a greeting card for that.

The famous and in fact only exchange between Jesus and the Sadducees in the book of Luke.

I will be preaching on this text again this Sunday. And will emphasize that the Christian faith does not teach what we often call immortality of the soul. It teaches resurrection of the dead.

First a point of self-correction. Although the Sadducees ask a question about the resurrection in the future the response Jesus gives is not primarily a defense of resurrection in the future so much as a demonstration of life with God in the present.

Joseph Kommanchak marvelously compares comments by N T Wright with commentary by Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas quotes the Orthodox(?) bishop Theophylact with reference to Luke 20:

If the patriarchs had returned to nothing so as not to live with God in the hope of a resurrection, He would not have said, ‘I am,” but “I was,” which is the way we usually speak of things dead and gone, e.g., ‘I was the lord or master of that thing.’ But since he said, “I am,” He shows that He is the God and Lord of the living. This is what follows: ‘But he is not a God of the dead, but of the living, for all live unto him.’ For although they have departed from life, yet they live with Him in the hope of a resurrection.”

Compare Wright:

Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees, in fact, does point towards the refocusing of the resurrection hope which was to take place later, not least through the work of Paul. It speaks of a different quality of life, a life which death can no longer touch, and hence a life in which the normal parameters of mortal (i.e. deathbound) life, including procreative marriage, are no longer relevant. It speaks of an intermediate state in which all the righteous dead are held in some kind of ongoing life while waiting for the resurrection which everyone, Pharisees and Sadducee alike, knew perfectly well had not happened yet. It speaks about YHWH’s past word to Moses, in order to indicate a present reality (the patriarchs are still alive), in order thereby to affirm the future hope (they will be raised to a newly embodied life). [emphasis added]

How delightful to see this confluence of Orthodox with Catholic with Anglican commentary!

So when my excellent teacher in seminary Isam Ballenger emphasized “Christianity does not teach immortality of the soul it teaches resurrection” that is mostly but not entirely correct. There is a kind of continuation of the soul beyond death. But without resurrection of the body this continuation is an incomplete form of immortality(?). Komanchak quotes Aquinas on 1 Corinthians 15:

Two answers may be given. First, if the resurrection of the body is denied, it is not easy, in fact it is difficult, to maintain the immortality of the soul. For the soul is naturally united to the body, and for it to be separated from it is against its nature and per accidens; soul stripped of its body is imperfect for as long as it is without its body. Now it is impossible that what is natural and per se be finite and almost nothing, while what is against nature and per accidens is infinite, [which is what would be the case] if the soul were to perdure without its body. That is why Platonists, positing immortality, also posited reincarnation, even though this is heretical. Therefore, if the dead do not rise, it is only in this life that we have hope.

Second, man naturally desires the salvation of himself. But the soul, although it is a part of the human body, is not the whole man, and my soul is not me [anima mea non est ego]. Hence, although the soul attains salvation in another life, I do not, nor does anyone else. Besides, since man naturally desires salvation of his body also, that natural desire would be frustrated [without the resurrection of the body].

This may by the way represent a definitive answer to my earlier post “Those who ‘sleep’ (or) Moebius syllogism?”

Let me confess that on the one hand my conviction that the teaching of the resurrection is one of the essential teachings of the Christian faith but on the other hand is the teaching I find most difficult to believe.

God? Okay. Trinity? You bet. Jesus the God-man? Sure why not?

Resurrection of the dead? Oh man that’s hard. Hard to conceive. Hard to imagine. Hard to believe. So far removed from our normal day to day existence that this is where the scientific(?) rational(?) side of me says are you kidding me?!?

Do not misunderstand. I believe it. Teach it. Proclaim it. Base my life upon it. But where I too cry out “I believe Lord help my unbelief!”

One of funnier moments in Introduction to Christian Mission was when Isam Ballenger then wondered aloud:

How much does God need to resurrect? And what happens if I lose part of my body during life? What if I cut my fingernail or lose an arm? Will I get that nail or arm back? My my my! (very paraphrased from rough memory)

Yeah we had a short laugh at that. But what he said has haunted me since. His questions raise a serious issue. How exactly will we be raised?

Let me put it this way. What if we cut our nails – how long will they be at the resurrection? What if we lose an arm – will we get it back?

Let us raise the stakes. What if we never had an arm – will our resurrected bodies now have arms? What if we have extra digits or limbs – will we have the usual number? What if we are deaf or blind – will our resurrected bodies be able to hear or see? What if we are hermaphroditic – will we be one clear distinct sex? What if we have Down’s Syndrome – will we have a complete set of chromosomes? What if we have dwarfism – will we be normal size? What if we are conjoined twins – will we have separate bodies?

The last group of questions are more difficult because if we say yes then what are we saying about people with these characteristics? I have read of deaf people who are offended by the notion that they will hear after the resurrection because they regard their deafness as difference rather than something that needs to be “fixed” even by God.

Let us continue with some more general questions. How old will we be? Will someone who died at 110 be raised as if they are 30? Will someone who died at birth be raised as if they are 20? And since resurrected life is theologically continuation of this life then what kind of memories and personality will a resurrected infant have?

Hold that thought.

Will we have sex? Probably not.

Will we reproduce? Probably not.

Will we eat and drink? This is a serious question because the reason we eat and drink and breathe is so that we will not die. As one of my teachers Alan McNeil at Cornell University said “the Second Law of Thermodynamics is why we eat lunch”. But if the resurrection signifies the final defeat of death and we will never die then why would we need to eat drink and breathe? For the fun of it? Quite possibly. The Bible frequently refers to the eschatological banquet.

Okay then. Will we go to the bathroom? How will the resurrected body metabolize food and drink?

Oh right. Science-fiction.

The most serious attempt to wrestle with the implications of resurrection is the Riverworld series by Philip Jose Farmer. No matter how old you were you are “resurrected” having a particular age. Although there is a special planet set apart for people younger than 5 – so that they have a chance to learn and grow. Farmer also attempts to explore the exact “technology” that would allow resurrection. Every human being from conception(? trying to recall) has a wathan which is an artificially created “soul” that retains a perfect record of the whole person and his/her life and personality.

Obviously Farmer’s theoretical version of resurrection is not the reality that the Christian faith teaches. But it is the only serious attempt to flesh out *cough* what resurrection of the dead would look like in practice.

I believe in the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

But I have some questions. Which may not matter.

Amen.

H/T The Anchoress by the way.

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.

Provocative post by Coach Shef who serves with North Point Community Church in Atlanta area. I have heard the pastor Andy Stanley speak many times when attending the Catalyst Conference.

I believe one of the most destructive ideas for for ministry in church history is the idea of adult Sunday School.

…

The reason I think adult Sunday school is a destructive idea is this:

If leadership decided we needed to start adult Sunday school they would destroy our vibrant, growing, effective student ministry.

It is a little difficult to figure out from the post exactly what he is talking about. But it appears he is comparing small group ministry to Sunday school. They have a great small group ministry with middle school students. If they tried to have an adult Sunday school it would wreck that great small group ministry.

For what it is worth I now avoid the expression “Sunday school”. School? On Sundays? Yeah that will get people to come to church on Sundays. I prefer to say “(Sunday morning) Bible study”. Emphasizes that the purpose is to study the Bible. Helps get away from some of the latest-fad-book-study mayhem that one sees in some classes(? Sunday morning small groups?) at University Baptist Church.

However at this stage of my life I am convinced Bible study and nothing but is not the best way to prepare Christians to live for their faith. Bible study is crucial. But should be part of a larger whole that was around during the first centuries of the Christian church.

Catechesis.

What about theology? church history? missions? askesis? accountability? There are people at University Baptist Church who have been in Sunday school or Sunday morning Bible study – take your pick – for 70+ years. They know their Bibles pretty well. I have heard people say this to me in conversations. “We get tired of studying the same lessons over and over again”. They want something new and fresh and challenging and different. Often they continue to use the standard Bible study material but supplement it heavily with other topics and material. Yesterday I photocopied for a great brother in Christ a handout that outlines twelve different explanations for suffering in the world. It is one way that group of brothers keep things interesting.

Two days ago got together for coffee with a friend who is the priest-in-charge for a storefront Orthodox church. Half the congregation is converts/inquirers the other half is cradle Orthodox. He explained how the cradle Orthodox are not quite sure what to make of Sunday morning catechesis. Class on Sunday morning at church?

Vaht? Vee not do that in old country! Vee learn everytink from liturgy! Sunday morninks and festivals! Please to pass turnip soup!

This is a distinctly Protestant(?) practice – the concept of Sunday school is a Protestant invention – that Orthodox churches in America have borrowed. But it serves them well as a format for catechesis - formation in the Christian faith.

So on the one hand we have a Protestant church in Atlanta that says “Death to Sunday school!” On the other hand we have an Orthodox church in Baton Rouge that has found life in Sunday school although they do not call it that.

I have nothing against Sunday school er I mean Sunday morning Bible study. University Baptist Church clearly regards these Sunday morning classes as their small groups. We do not need a small group ministry. We have Sunday school. Although there are some who think we should also look at small groups. Might be Sunday morning but off campus. Might be during the week. Sounds good to me. If people want to do that instead of Sunday school. Or in addition.

The only real point I am trying to make is something I have been saying at University Baptist Church for the last few years. I believe in Bible study. Goodness I spent enough years studying the Bible in graduate school! But I have come to believe in a broader vision of catechesis of which Bible study is a part. At church or off campus. Sunday morning or not. What we need is not just more Bible study. What we need is catechesis.

H/T my friend Jonathan who really needs to get a blog of his own or he can just take over this one.

“We cannot continue this dialogue if you continue along this path” [paraphrased].

Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) of the Russian Orthodox Church in his address to the Annual Nicean Club Dinner at Lambeth Palace on September 09 among other things said this to an audience that included Archbishop Rowan Williams:

The dialogue is doomed to closure if the unrestrained liberalization of Christian values continues in many communities of the Anglican world.

Metropolitan Alfreyev particularly referenced ordination of women and of people actively engaged in same-sex relationships (a long and difficult expression but better and more accurate than simply “unrepentant homosexuals”). I am not quite prepared to agree that these are the number one problem.

I have been listening to a series of podcasts that come from an Anglican-Orthodox conference last November at Nashotah House (seminary in Wisconsin in the Anglo-Catholic tradition). (I plan to write more about this later.) It is interesting to hear the presenters describe what they have in common and what they think might distinguish (separate? divide?) Anglican and Orthodox Christians. Some of them expressed the opinion that traditional Anglicanism is much closer to Orthodox Christianity than to Roman Catholicism. I also have read an essay by an Orthodox scholar who critiques the World Council of Churches partly because there is a tendency to approach the Christian movement in terms of Protestant and not-Protestant – lumping together Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity. Whereas the Orthodox see Christianity in terms of Orthodox and not-Orthodox – regarding Protestantism as an outgrowth of Roman Catholic Christianity.

Hold that thought for a moment.

Metropolitan Hilarion described the real dividing line as something other than Protestant / not-Protestant or even Orthodox / not-Orthodox:

All current versions of Christianity can be roughly divided into two main groups: traditional and liberal. The difference today is not so much between Orthodox and Catholics, or between Catholics and Protestants, but precisely between Traditionalists and ‘Liberals’. Some Christian leaders, for instance, tell us that marriage between a man and a woman is no longer the only way to build a Christian family: there are other available models, and the Church should become sufficiently ‘inclusive’ in order to recognize alternative behavioral standards and to grant them official blessing. Some try to persuade us that human life is no longer an absolute value, and that life in the womb may be ended at will. Traditionalist Christians are in fact being asked to reconsider their views under the pretext of keeping up with modern times. [emphasis added]

To be honest the issues of same-sex relations/marriage and elective abortion do not strike me as so central – even though my views on these issues are indeed more traditional aka “conservative”. What about the Trinity? Jesus the God-Man? the authority of Scripture and Tradition? proper understanding of the human condition and of salvation? Metropolitan Hilarion is vastly more intelligent and better educated than me – it’s true check out his website – and might have good answers to these questions. But my initial response is to agree with him in general – the chief dividing line is Traditional versus “liberal”. I am not prepared to agree with him on the particulars.

H/T several websites via Opinionated Catholic.

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.