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.

Flowers for Algernon is a science fiction short story and subsequent novel written by Daniel Keyes. The short story, written in 1958 and first published in the April 1959 issue of The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, won the Hugo Award for Best Short Story in 1960.[2] The novel was published in 1966 and was joint winner of that year’s Nebula Award for Best Novel (with Babel-17).[3]

The titular Algernon is a laboratory mouse who has undergone surgery to increase his intelligence by artificial means. The story is told as a series of progress reports written by Charlie, the first human test subject for the surgery, and touches upon many different ethical and moral themes such as the treatment of the mentally disabled.[4]

I first read “Flowers for Algernon” way back when I was around 11 or 12. It was in an anthology of science-fiction short stories. Part of the story is when Charlie is beginning to lose his increased intelligence and tries to read some of his past journal entries – and can no longer understand what he wrote.

The last few years have experienced that a few times. When teaching the series on the book of Ecclesiastes went back to look at my exegesis paper on Ecclesiastes 7 – a rather difficult text.

Could barely understand half of it. Thought “wow this is brilliant! who wrote it?”

The post on the Septuagint and Masoretic Text – and Father Damick’s excellent reply – prompted me to look again at a presentation on the Samaritan Pentateuch I gave in Advanced Hebrew in 1998.

Scribbled notation for presentation: “did LXX and proto-Sam develop from this independently?”

Hunh?!?

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.

I would vote every single time for a classic liberal aka “conservative” who happens to be a black Muslim born in the Sudan running for president of the United States against a left-wing statist aka “liberal progressive” who is a white Christian born in Boston.

Is that clear enough for some people?

(I am aware that not everyone who defends the Obama administration plays the “conservatives just hate anyone who is not white not Christian not American” card. But boy there seem to be an awful lot of them. Some of them are “friends” on Facebook. For the record I do not agree with those who think President Obama is a Muslim and/or that he was born outside the United States.)

I know I have been trying to steer away from commenting on politics but my patience with ignorant nonsense – some of it coming from friends and colleagues – is wearing mighty thin.

Xi'an from top of Wild Goose Pagoda - note construction along horizon

This will be short.

It was moderately big news last week when China overtook Japan to become the number two largest economy in the world. The United States is still number one although it is predicted that within ten years China will overtake us as well.

One of the things that astounded me in China is the amount of construction. Everywhere you go roads being built. Enormous office buildings and/or apartment/condominium buildings rising everywhere. The horizon a forest of new buildings growing like bamboo.

Yes the Chinese economy is humming along and growing like crazy. And there are some things we can learn from them as we slog through the mire of our own economic almost depression. But underneath the Chinese economic landscape is a ticking time bomb.

Real estate.

Fueled largely by speculation. People buying properties for no other reason that to own property that they will sale at a later date for an enormous profit. The family that met me when I first left the airport their apartment – which they bought a few years ago for about $300,000(?) is now worth more than $1 million. Several times people in China mentioned to me their great concern about the red hot real estate market. Soon no one but the rich will be able to afford their own home. In the larger cities that is.

Forbes has an interesting article on this problem. One in four city apartments are unoccupied – which means they are being held by real estate speculators. The government is in a “darned if we let this continue and darned if we try to control it” dilemma. During my journey through China I read articles in China Daily about steps the government is taking to control the  situation. But it may be too late.

Chinese leaders, in the months ahead, have an impossible task. They must keep powerful property developers happy, not alienate hundreds of millions of Chinese who think they should be able to own their homes, and somehow repeal the law of supply and demand.

This leads me also to reflect upon the situation in the United States. Why does it seem that you cannot own your own home unless (a) you are a highly paid professional and/or (b) both spouses work? There are three major expenses that for decades have been rising faster than inflation: (1) housing (2) health care (3) higher education. To what extent was #1 fueled by speculators?

Cities.

Several times this website has addressed the significant divide between city and country. I am convinced it is right now the single most important dividing line in both American society and Chinese society. Although perhaps for different reasons. In American society the urban-rural divide manifests itself largely as social-cultural-political differences. In Chinese society that is still true – but the differences are more in terms of economic and technological development. In America one generally encounters a high – sometimes higher – standard of living away from the cities. My mother lives on a 150 acre farm in upstate New York. She lives in a nice energy efficient house. She has electricity and running water and so on. She drives on paved roads in generally good condition. About the only thing she does not have is fast internet access.

In China as one moves away from the cities the level of development drops significantly. It is like being in a Third World nation. Dirt roads. Much lower levels of income. Simple homes made of brick. No running water. And so on. I once proofread a doctoral dissertation that studied different middle schools in China. I was surprised by her description of the rural schools. No heat – except maybe a coal/wood burning stove. No running water. Lack of playground equipment. Lack of educational materials. And so on.

One of the things that impressed me about cities in China is the extent to which they are centers of life culture and activity. They are generally very safe. You can walk the streets at night. City parks are full of people – from babies to retirees. People doing things together. Folk dancing. Music and singing. Sports. Games. In Beijing on the way back to my hotel from the Forestry Institute we stopped at a city park so my friend X_ M_ could show me where she goes one to two times every week to dance. Ballroom dancing. In a city park. At night. It was delightful.

I thought of American cities. And how in many ways they can be centers of violence and despair. Not just poverty. China has poor people too. But in too many American cities we have “ghettos” and generational poverty. Gangs and “street pirates”. People who are poor and less educated – which is one thing – but moreover seem completely unable to extricate themselves from their situation.

How and why did this happen?

This is not about “race” although in America clearly there is a racial dimension to this issue. It is much more about social and economic policy. About what we have attempted to do in the name of helping the urban poor. And about what appear to be the disastrous results of such policies.

I do not have all the answers – concerning how and why this came about nor concerning what we can do to repair the generational damage that has been done. What I very much do not understand is how “urban” became a euphemism for “African-American”. And by extension how “ghetto/gangster” became what some regard as the authentic “African-American identity/experience”.

One exceptional place to begin exploring the questions is “Politics, Policy, Pathology and Hope Within The Black Community”. The point is not simply that this is a “conservative blogger who happens to be black”. But rather this is someone who asks the hard questions – and has even come up with some answers – about the African-American community especially in urban settings. Three themes in particular: (1) failure to develop organic competency (2) failure to manage resources (3) failure to hold leaders accountable when they fail to do these things. Everyone who visits “Live the Trinity” needs to visit and bookmark “Within the Black Community”.

Other websites that address this issue are “Conservative Black Woman” and (had trouble locating the other one). Remember – this is not about “race”. This is about the suffering and struggle of the urban poor – who so often are African-American.

That is what my journey through China prompted. Why are Chinese cities – for the most part – places where people want to live and work? centers of life and culture? And why are some American cities – at least large portions thereof – places that we avoid if possible? centers of violence and despair?

Unknown; Illustrator of 'Speculum humanae salvationis', Cologne, c. 1450

(Ed – when I speak to Evensong on Sunday evenings I do not prepare a full “manuscript” but rather use brief notes. So when I “publish” them I throw in some some words here and there to help the reader make sense of something that is not much more than an outline.)

(Relationship between physical salvation/actions and spiritual transformation/salvation)
2 Kings 05
Richard M. Wright
Evensong
University Baptist Church
August 08 2010

[2 Kings 5:1-15]

What is salvation?

What is the relationship between salvation and physical reality? How do we understand salvation in spiritual terms and/or physical terms?

Story of Naaman one of my favorite in Scripture. Several dimensions of the narrative to explore.

Naaman – a foreigner. Enemy state. Worships different god. “Through him the Lord had given victory to Aram”.

Israelite girl – normally “us/native”. Foreigner. Captured. Worships Yhwh.

Powerful but powerless. Powerless but powerful.

Success and brokenness. Naaman is “successful” – king likes him his men like him he probably has a nice house and a good salary. But he experiences “brokenness” in the form of a disease.  All that in verse 1!

Men and women/girls. Role of women in story. Especially Israelite slave and Naaman’s wife.

Servants. Israelite girl slave versus servant of Elisha.

Immigration policy and procedure. Naaman enemy general visits Israel. How does that work exactly?

What is the problem? Verse 1. Naaman is a great man but he has a disease. Issue is physical healing. Naaman needs salvation. Here salvation in the physical sense.

What does he expect? Perhaps religion and/or magic. Based on human pride and effort. “Elisha will come to me. Wave his hands say the magic words”. And then Naaman will pay for the service.

What does he get? Something simple. Not dramatic. No magic words. Take a bath. Seven times. All he said was “wash and be clean”. If you would do something hard would you do something simple? Washes and his flesh is returned to him clean like a small boy and he is clean.

Earlier in story Elisha says to king of Israel, “So that he will know there is a prophet in Israel”. Then he says, “Now I know there is no God in all the earth except in Israel. I will no longer offer or sacrifice to any god except Yhwh”. Issue of physical salvation (healing) now becomes spiritual transformation. Salvation in the spiritual sense.

What is the problem? Disease. What is the issue? Naaman will know God.

What is salvation? For Naaman salvation means physical healing. For story (also?) spiritual transformation. Salvation as relationship with God. (Verb shub in story – “returned to him clean” – can mean “turn/return to God”. Tshubah in later Hebrew “repentance”. Naaman does not use shub to talk about healing in Syria. But servants do not use shub in “wash and be clean”. Story understands his healing in terms of shub even if Naaman and servants do not. This may not be valid interpretation especially since tshubah as “repentance” is post-biblical Hebrew.) The story presents salvation as physical reality. And salvation as spiritual reality.

Chris Andrew of First Methodist last Sunday raised this issue. Salvation is about forgiveness and eternal life and heaven. But not only that. In Hebrew Bible salvation always has concrete meaning. When we talk about salvation solely in spiritual terms we cheapen and limit its meaning.

In the Old Testament: Save me! from my enemies. From sickness. From death. Salvation as healing or rescue.

Several months ago (when Church of the Nations met with University Baptist Church) I talked about salvation as healing. Several times in the book of Luke – “You faith has saved you”. Physical healing. Emotional/mental healing. Social healing. New Testament also save/salvation often physical reality. And often spiritual reality. But raises question of whether they are so separate.

Back to Naaman story.

Physical condition. Physical act – wash in water. Physical healing. But also spiritual result.

Or physical/spiritual condition. Spiritual/physical act – because Naaman trusts Elisha/God. This produces a physical/spiritual change.

To what extent can physical actions have spiritual effects? And spiritual actions/changes have physical effects? *** Do we separate too much and/or too often spiritual/physical (a) salvation (b) change/transformation (c) work of God?

Consider stories of the saints – sometimes saints would shine with light, or get along with wild animals. Their spiritual condition sometimes produced concrete visible physical results. What is resurrection if not a physical/spiritual sign? (We do not teach “immortality of the soul” but the radical healing/transformation of the body.) We pray “Your will be done on earth as in heaven”.

To what extent have we removed God from physical reality (without realizing it of course)? To what extent do we overlook the dynamic relationship between spiritual changes/salvation/reality and physical actions/salvation/reality? What difference would it make in how we pray/worship/believe/minister?

Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Riding through the land
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Without a merry band
He steals from the poor
And gives to the rich.

- Monty Python’s Flying Circus

The Chevy Volt. Electric car. Mostly. Costs $41,000. Wow that’s expensive. No average American can afford to buy that. But wait! The government provides a whopping $7,500 subsidy to offset that cost. So now it only costs $33,500.

The general rule of thumb is you can afford a car that is up to 1/3 your income. So the only people who can reasonably afford a Chevy Volt – with the subsidy – are those who make more than $101,500 per year.

And where does that $7,500 subsidy come from? Taxpayers like me. Who cannot afford a Chevy Volt with or without the subsidy.

Jonah Goldberg outlines brilliantly the absurdities in his recent article “Low Volt-age”:

“Like the EV1 that GM tried to peddle in the California market,” Kenneth Green, an environmental scientist at the American Enterprise Institute, says, “the Volt is a vanity car for the well-off that will be subsidized by less well-off taxpayers at all stages, from R&D to sales and to the construction of charging stations.”

So upscale urban liberals – an important base of support for President Obama – can not only purchase the Volt to show off how environmentally conscious they are. (And who would care? Not me.) They can do so at the expense of taxpayers who cannot afford one.

I would love to buy a hybrid. Not just for the killer gas mileage. Certainly not for any real savings in money – it takes years to make up the difference in cost over a conventional vehicle. But just the principle of it. Use less petroleum which is a finite and diminishing resource? Yes please.

But the dirty little secret of going green is that it’s expensive. The average American cannot afford many of the changes that going green can involve. I remember an article in the Baton Rouge Advocate about 2-3 years ago about a couple who redesigned their house so that they would not have to use air conditioning in the summer. You know. Better insulation. Adding new windows to get cross breezes going. That sort of thing. You know what it cost them?

$150,000.

That’s more than the value of my home.

I think what they did is great. I would like to do that for my house. But I can’t afford it.

I was not planning to post about this. But had an interesting conversation last Friday during English Conversation that set me thinking.

The host is a contractor. Great guy. He apparently ran into someone who knows me. Stan Zamek and his family – visited them in Hong Kong – are in the States for a few weeks and stopped in Baton Rouge to visit friends.

Why was my host friend over there? To install some solar panels.

How much? $70,000. Wow that’s a lot of money. Yeah but they get a tax credit? rebate? that covers eighty percent of the cost. So they only spend $14,000. No more electric bills. The panels generate everything the house needs.

That’s the same day Jonah Goldberg wrote that brilliant piece on the Chevy Voltswagen.

It got me thinking. Who pays that eighty percent of the cost of their super cool solar panels? Why – we do. The average American taxpayer. And who has enough money up front to install those solar panels? Average American taxpayers? Nope – only people with higher incomes.

I would like to install solar panels on my own house. But I don’t see how we could come up with $50,000(?) to do it. And do we really want to ask fellow Americans to subsidize eighty percent of that cost?

How many other examples are there? “Make this change to your home or your lifestyle. If you do there is a credit/rebate from the state/federal government”. But even with the credit/rebate it is expensive.

My family was one of the first and only in our small Massachusetts town to have solar water heating back in the late 1970′s. I was and remain proud of this. But now I realize that other people paid for our pride.

Going green is great. Hybrids and solar panels and all the rest! And maybe the government should encourage such moves with credits/rebates. That is not necessarily the issue here. What troubles me is the apparent pattern. Average Americans helping pay for green changes that only wealthier people can afford.

(There is usually a reason for the images I choose.)

(How theology matters)
Richard M. Wright
Evensong at University Baptist Church
Sunday August 01 2010
Colossians 1

“Spaceships? Our space fleet is the ships the Settlers came in from Urras nearly two centuries ago. To build just a ship to carry grain across the sea, it takes a year’s planning, a big effort of our economy”.

Oegeo nodded. “Well, we’ve got the goods, all right. But you know, you’re the man who can tell us when to scrap this whole job – throw it all away”.

“Throw it away? What do you mean?”

“Faster than light travel”, Oegeo said. “Transilience. The old physics says it isn’t possible. The Terrans say it isn’t possible. But the Hainish, who invented what we use now, say that it is possible, only they don’t now how to do it, because they’re just learning temporal physics from us. Evidently if it’s in anybody’s pocket, Dr. Shevek, it’s in yours”.

Shevek looked at him with a distancing stare. “I am a theoretician, Oegeo. Not a designer”.

“If you provide the theory, the unification of Sequency and Simulteneity in a general field theory of time, then we’ll design the ships”. (Ursula LeGuin, The Dispossessed, 86)

Theory and engineering. Perhaps theology and practice. What we believe and what we do.

Imagine that someone says, It does not matter what you believe about chemistry or physics or mathematics – what matters is how you drive your car. But of course it does matter. If someone does not understand chemistry or physics or mathematics it may not even be possible to build that car we drive.

And yet how often do we hear, It does not matter what we believe about Christ. What matters is that we follow Christ.

It sounds reasonable. And there is a lot of truth to that. We should follow Christ.

Consider the writings of the apostle Paul. Paul writes to churches that are having concrete problems. First Corinthians – divisions within the church. Galatians – do Gentiles need to follow Jewish law in order to be Christians? Ephesians – unity? Philippians – unity? Colossians – special holidays and dietary regulations. First Thessalonians – concern for those who have died before the Parousia. Second Timothy – idleness. First Timothy – life of the Christian community. And so on.

Problems with behavior. How people live. What people do. How does Paul respond to practical concerns? With “theory”. This is who God is. This is who Christ is. This is what God has done through Christ. Therefore. Paul offers theology to address practical issues of life within the Christian community.

But that itself raises another important point. For Paul all theology is practical. There is no theory for the sake of theory. Correct belief is not the goal. Life in Christ is the goal. Christianity is not a system of thought. It is a way of life.

Consider Friedrich Schleiermacher. In his book Christian Theology: An Introduction Alister McGrath describes fifteen theological movements of the modern period. Schleiermacher one of key figures of “liberal protestantism”. (The goal of which is to bridge the gap between Chrsitian faith and modern knowledge.) In his book Christian Faith (1821-1822) Scheliermacher argues Christian teaching/understanding must be consistent with the essence of Christianity. Which is God has redeemed humanity through Jesus Christ.

Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What has God done through Jesus Christ? What is the human condition? What is redemption? How do human beings live because God has redeemed us through Jesus Christ?

This is precisely how and why Schleiermacher defends the traditional teaching that Jesus Christ must be at one and the same time God and a human being. We cannot emphasize one over the other. Or deny one in favor of the other. Not simply because that is false belief versus true belief. But in order to uphold the possibility and the reality of our redemption.

Vladimir Lossky in his book Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church first helped me see this dynamic and essential relationship between theory and practice.

Far from being mutually opposed, theology and mysticism [? by which Lossky mans experiential knowledge of God] support and complete each other. If the mystical experience is a personal working out of the content of the common faith, theology is an expression, for the profit of all, of that which can be experienced by everyone…. There is no Christian mysticism without theology; but, above all, there is no theology without mysticism. (8-9)

Christian theology is always a means: a unity of knowledge subserving an end which transcends all knowledge. This ultimate end is union with God. Thus, we are finally led to a conclusion which may seem paradoxical enough: that Christian theory should have a practical significance”. (9 – edited for simplicity)

Scheiermacher and Lossky  make similar points although they frame/express those points quite differently.

Schleiermacher: The essence of the Christian faith is God has redeemed humanity through Jesus Christ. Christian teaching must be consistent with this essence.

Lossky: The goal/purpose of the Christian faith is union with God. Our theology must be such that union with God is even possible.

How would Paul phrase the goal or essence of the Christian faith? Dare we ask how Jesus would frame the issue?

I am not advocating that we become obsessed with theory or theological reflection. Nor we should adopt some stringent statement of doctrine that everyone must sign and to which all Sunday school teachers must adhere or else. Or that we give up concern with Christian living with following Christ with Christianity as a way of life. Nor am I arguing for a particular theological agenda.

(Well okay maybe. Part of what prompted me to talk about this is a recent article by Diana Butler Bass that drove me up a tree.)

Simply this. What we believe matters. What we teach matters. Theology matters. Not because the goal of the Christian faith is correct beliefs. The goal is very practical: practice/experience. But as Schleiermacher and Lossky and many others show – theory theology teaching matter. Because otherwise the goal of the Christian faith – however we understand or express that – is not even possible.

Postscript: A few people asked questions or made comments afterwards.

My excellent colleague the minister of music invited me to answer my own question. How would Paul or Jesus frame the issue? I suggested Paul would emphasize reconciliation and/or life in Christ (Greek en Christo). Jesus might say the goal is to love God and love neighbor.

Which led to one of my favorite sisters in Christ to say everything I had said but much better and in just a couple sentences. Something to the effect of how we practice the Christian life (say love God and love neighbor) might not even be possible without the right theology. She said it better and unfortunately cannot recall her exact words.

I would add that when Christians of a more liberal persuasion say “correct doctrine does not matter the goal is love God and love neighbor” my response would be “but does your theology even make it possible for sinful broken human beings to love God and love neighbor?” When Christianity is reduced to “look – just be nice to other people will you?” then it is unclear how exactly that is good news.

Moreover it raises the question whether telling people that (1) sexual ethics do not matter or (2) male and female do not matter – if we are ignoring basic human realities such that the above examples harm human persons. And by extension we are not loving our neighbor when we tell them it does not matter (1′) who they have sexual relations with (2′) how men and women relate to each other within the Christian community.

Do not misunderstand me. Perhaps theological liberals are correct on all or some of these and other issues. But they need to do a much better job of dealing with the underlying theological issues. And yes that applies to theological conservatives as well. “Because God said so” may not always be an adequate answer to the tough questions people ask.

Tomoe and Seibei in "The Twilight Samurai"

“Two Surprising Virtues”
Ecclesiastes 2
Richard M. Wright
Church of the Nations
10th Sunday of Pentecost (C)

Marry her you dummy!

“The Twilight Samurai” or <Tasogare Seibei>. A very good movie from eight years ago. Won twelve Japanese Academy Awards. Set in Japan during the nineteenth century the movie tells the story of Seibei Iguchi played by Hiroyuki Sanada. He is a samurai but now works as an accountant in a food warehouse. His wife became sick and died. He mother is old and losing her memory. He has two daughters. They are poor but have a home and enough to eat.

But somehow Seibei is happy. Mostly. He is lonely and his daughters need someone who will be a mother to them.

Everything changes when Tomoe comes back to town. She was in a bad marriage and is now divorced. She and Seibei were close friends as children. Tomoe spends time at the Iguchi home. Teaches his daughters how to sew helps them practice calligraphy takes them to a festival in the village.

Her brother Iinuma asks Seibei to marry her. He knows she loves him. But he says no. Because he is poor and she comes from a wealthy family. He does not want to her share his poverty. And Tomoe stops coming.

I want to reach into the story grab this man by the shirt and shout What’s wrong with you? Are you crazy? Marry her you dummy!

The person who made this movie could be the same person who wrote the book of Ecclesiastes from which our Bible reading comes.

Completely useless! says the Teacher? Preacher? Professor? Completely useless. Everything is useless.

The book of Ecclesiastes is one of the strangest books in the Bible. We almost never read from the book of Ecclesiastes in the Christian calendar. This reading one time every three years. And chapter three once a year on Christmas. We do not read it hear it study it very often in the life of the Christian church. But in my opinion this book is one of the most important. Especially for the world in which we live today.

Most scholars believe it was written between four fifty and three fifty BC. During the time of the Persian Empire. A time of economic activity and opportunity. Business finance and commerce. Population moving from the country into the city. People making large amounts of money. Sometimes losing money. The growing problems of corruption abuse of power and bad leadership. Nobody seems to care about the poor or know what to do for them. People working all the time but not sure why. People have lots of knowledge but not sure it makes a difference. Society becoming less about family and community and more about the individual.

Does this sound familiar?

The writer of Ecclesiastes looks at the world at people at life and makes at least four main points:

• Nobody knows the future – you do not know what will happen tomorrow.
• Money and knowledge and power – none of these guarantee what will happen.
• Nobody knows and nobody can change what God is doing.
• Everybody dies.

The book of Ecclesiastes almost was not included in the Bible. Many teachers and scholars believe its message is very negative. Everybody dies. No one knows. Nothing we do is certain. I was fortunate to take a seminar on the book of Ecclesiastes with William Brown who is one of the top Ecclesiastes scholars in the nation. He transformed our understanding of this strange book that nobody reads. The book of Ecclesiastes in fact offers hope. It proclaims good news for human beings who live in a crazy and uncertain world.

I do not have time to share with you everything the book of Ecclesiastes teaches. This spring I taught a Bible study on this book for University Baptist Church. More than six hours. And that did not cover everything. We do not have six hours.

Of all the things the book of Ecclesiastes teaches there are two that are especially important. Two virtues.

From our Bible reading chapter two. There is nothing better for human beings than to eat and drink and find joy in their work. And I see that this comes from the hand of God. In chapter three. And I know that there is nothing better than to enjoy (or rejoice) and to do good in his life. And for every person to drink and eat and see good in his work. This is a gift of God. In chapters five and eight almost the same thing. In chapter nine. Go eat your food with joy. Drink wine with a good heart. God is already pleased with what you do. Enjoy life with the wife that you love all the days of your life.

Joy. Joy in our “daily bread” as we pray during Communion. Joy in what we drink. Joy with our friends and family. Even – and this is shocking and perhaps especially important – joy in our work. Not work so that when you are done you can enjoy life. But see the joy in your work. Because all these things are a gift from God. Receive with thanks to God the joy that God gives in each moment. In the small ordinary beautiful moments of life. Good food and drink. Good friends. Family. Our work.

Seibei somehow sees good in his work at the warehouse. Joy when he goes fishing with his good friend Iinume. He certain sees great joy with his children. But he does not receive the joy that Tomoe offers. Until later.

That is part of what Jesus talks about in the other Bible reading from the book of Luke. This rich farmer who saves and stores everything he has. But he does not share it. He does not enjoy it with others. He does not save treasure in heaven that nothing and no one can ever take away no matter what happens tomorrow.

The other virtue that Ecclesiastes proclaims is reverence.

Chapter three. Whatever God does lasts forever. Nothing can be added or taken from it. God has done this so that everyone will stand in reverence before him. Also chapters five and seven. In chapter eight Even if sinners do evil and hundred times and live long lives it will be better with those who fear(?) God because they stand in reverence before him. And at the very end of the book chapter twelve. The end of the matter. Everything has been heard. Fear(? reverence?) God and keep his commandments. That is the whole duty of everyone.

Reverence. English Bibles often translate this Hebrew word yara’ as fear or awe but I prefer reverence. Not fear as in be afraid of God. But more than respect. To have reverence is to recognize that we are human. We are finite. We are not perfect. We are not God. So on the one hand we are not arrogant. We do not talk or think or act like we are God. And on the other hand we are patient with ourselves. We do not worry. Because we trust God. And reverence is a virtue – who or what we are – that in turn shapes how we live.

Joy. Receive with gratitude the moments of joy that God places into the present.

Reverence. God is God. We are not. Know that. Respect that. Live that.