J.R.R. Tolkien as apologist

I found this excerpt from J.R.R. Tolkien’s letters to be an interesting apologetic for the Roman Catholic Church:

The ‘protestant’ search backwards for ‘simplicity’ and directness – which, of course, though it contains some good or at least intelligible motives, is mistaken and indeed vain. Because ‘primitive Christianity’ is now and in spite of all ‘research’ will ever remain largely unknown; because ‘primitiveness’ is no guarantee of value, and is and was in great part a reflection of ignorance. Grave abuses were as much an element in Christian ‘liturgical’ behaviour from the beginning as now. (St. Paul’s strictures on eucharistic behaviour are sufficient to show this!) Still more because ‘my church’ was not intended by Our Lord to be static or remain in perpetual childhood; but to be a living organism (likened to a plant), which develops and changes in externals by the interaction of its bequeathed divine life and history – the particular circumstances of the world into which it is set. There is no resemblance between the ‘mustard-seed’ and the full-grown tree. For those living in the days of it branching growth the Tree is the thing, for the history of a living thing is part of its life, and the history of a divine thing is sacred. The wise may know that it began with a seed, but it is vain to try and dig it up, for it no longer exists, and the virtue and powers that it had now reside in the Tree. Very good: but in husbandry the authorities, the keepers of the Tree, must look after it, according to such wisdom as they possess, prune it, remove cankers, rid it of parasites, and so forth. (With trepidation, knowing how little their knowledge of growth is!) But they will certainly do harm, if they are obsessed with the desire of going back to the seed or even to the first youth of the plant when it was (as they imagine) pretty and unafflicted by evils. The other motive (now so confused with the primitivist one, even in the mind of any one of the reformers): aggiornamento: bringing up to date: that has its own grave dangers, as has been apparent throughout history. With this ‘ecumenicalness’ has also become confused.

“Letters” page 394

Lost books from Livy or Aristotle

The thought of lost books from Livy or Aristotle being unearthed is so cool, check this out:

Classical treasures threatened by Vesuvius

An earthquake or volcanic eruption is likely to destroy a library of ancient books at Herculaneum, near Pompeii, before they can be excavated unless urgent action is taken, according to the founder of a new group based in Oxford. Scientists have discovered new ways to read 1,800 charred manuscript scrolls already found in the ruins of the so-called Villa of Papyri at Herculaneum, a city that, like neighbouring Pompeii, was buried in volcanic matter when Vesuvius erupted in AD79.

Scholars are convinced that many more scrolls lie awaiting discovery there, among which are probably lost books by great authors such as Aristotle and Livy.

“The chances are very high that much remains to be found in three newly identified and unexplored levels,” Professor Robert Fowler told a meeting of the Herculaneum Society at Wadham College, Oxford, at the weekend.

The society was founded last year to promote the excavation and preservation of sites at Herculaneum before it is too late.

The ancient city on the Bay of Naples, covered by up to 100ft of lava, lies on a fault line like that which led to the Indian Ocean tsunami, and renewed volcanic activity or an earthquake could destroy its remains for ever.

Vulcanologists believe that an eruption of Vesuvius is overdue.

In an eyewitness description of the eruption of AD79, Pliny the Younger wrote of the sea retreating, as in the Indian Ocean disaster, while the ground shook.

“A dense haze was following at our backs, like a stream flowing on land,” wrote Pliny, “and night fell on us, like the darkness in a closed place without a lamp.”

Though he was on the other side of the Bay of Naples, he was lucky to escape, shaking ash from him as he went, feeling it weighing him down and choking him.

The huge Villa of the Papyri, which belonged to Julius Caesar’s father-in-law, extended for 250 yards along the shore. “It must be possible that a family capable of owning such a villa also possessed a copy of Livy’s History of Rome, of which more than 100 of the original 142 books are missing,” says the writer Robert Harris, author of the best-seller Pompeii.

“It appears that slaves had been trying to carry crates of books to safety when they were overwhelmed by the eruption,” he says. “There may be lost plays by Sophocles, Euripides and Aeschylus, or even the lost dialogues of Aristotle.”

Scholars at the Herculaneum Society meeting agreed that works lost to humanity for two millennia could be retrieved.

But strong opposition to immediate excavation came from Professor Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, director of the British School at Rome and an acknowledged expert on Herculaneum.

“It would be a scandal to expose the Villa of the Papyri to the daylight now, before we can guarantee that it would be saved for the future,” he said.

Prof Wallace-Hadrill pointed to damage suffered by parts of Herculaneum excavated in the 1930s and 1990s.

“Restored roofs are in collapse, broken tiles litter mosaic floors, the precious carbonised wood crumbles constantly, rain forms pools on marble floors and against plastered walls, and the frescoed surfaces fade, leach in Hercusalts, bubble up, explode and fall from their walls.”

Prof Fowler disagrees. “So long as there is a chance of finding the rest of the library – and everyone admits there is a chance, however strong or weak they rate it – we owe it to the world to dig.”

Because the rest of the villa lies beneath the modern town of Ercolano, Prof Fowler advocates tunnelling, a feasibility study for which should be concluded this year. But Professor Wallace-Hadrill quoted a warning made when modern-day excavations began in 1927: “Were we to make an excavation by which the ancient city died for a second time, it would have been better to leave it sleeping under the hard mud.”

One reason for thinking that lost works by Aristotle lie beneath the volcanic layers is that the hundreds of papyri already studied almost certainly belonged to Philodemus (110-35BC), a philosopher engaged in opposing Aristotle’s poetic theory.

The Herculaneum Society meeting gasped like spectators at a firework display when Nigel Wilson, of Lincoln College, Oxford, showed a slide of a blackened roll of papyrus on which no writing could be seen, and then showed what it looked like after multi-spectral digital imaging had been used on it. Clear lines of ancient Greek script appeared, like invisible ink held before the fire.

Inauguration

What can one say of an inauguration where the President favorably compares Judaism, Christianity and Islam? Where the priest of his church who favors gay marriage gives the invocation? Where the overarching theme seems to be a messianic belief in the nation-state to “end tyranny” and spread “freedom”? It seems to be a good reflection on the polytheistic spirit of this nation at least. Oh, and throw in a hymn written by Mormon Senator Orrin Hatch….
I guess one could say on the positive side that at least “god” was front and center in comparison to secular Europe, but is our national religion any better than their lack of religion?

War with Iran

Apparently we are trying to start a war with Iran. I hope this article is wrong but given this Administration’s history I doubt it.

Any action taken against Iran will blow the lid off our situation and could start a chain of events that will cost us dearly. From the article:

The immediate goals of the attacks would be to destroy, or at least temporarily derail, Iran’s ability to go nuclear. But there are other, equally purposeful, motives at work. The government consultant told me that the hawks in the Pentagon, in private discussions, have been urging a limited attack on Iran because they believe it could lead to a toppling of the religious leadership. “Within the soul of Iran there is a struggle between secular nationalists and reformers, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the fundamentalist Islamic movement,” the consultant told me. “The minute the aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy is shattered, and with it the ability to hoodwink the West, the Iranian regime will collapse”—like the former Communist regimes in Romania, East Germany, and the Soviet Union. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz share that belief, he said.

“The idea that an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would produce a popular uprising is extremely illinformed,” said Flynt Leverett, a Middle East scholar who worked on the National Security Council in the Bush Administration. “You have to understand that the nuclear ambition in Iran is supported across the political spectrum, and Iranians will perceive attacks on these sites as attacks on their ambitions to be a major regional player and a modern nation that’s technologically sophisticated.” Leverett, who is now a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, at the Brookings Institution, warned that an American attack, if it takes place, “will produce an Iranian backlash against the United States and a rallying around the regime.”

This is what I was afraid of with Bush getting re-elected; but I hoped Iraq would tame these impulses. I don’t know what to expect now.

Anglican Baptism

Anglican Baptism

The 39 Articles say of baptism:

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

The Baptismal rite is extensive and I will discuss it more later, but I would like to focus right now on the prayer that follows the baptism itself.

“Heavenly Father, we thank you that by water and the Holy Spirit you have bestowed upon these your servants the forgiveness of sin, and have raised them to the new life of grace. Sustain them, O Lord, in your Holy Spirit. Give them an inquiring and discerning heart, the courage to will and to persevere, a spirit to know and to love you, and the gift of joy and wonder in all your works. Amen.”

It is therefore acknowledged in the prayer that baptism bestows the forgiveness of sins and the new life of grace. Baptism saves in other words.

Gaffin on Wright

An earlier version of Gaffin on Wright.

I did not have the privilege of attending the conference in Monroe last week, but I note that Dick Gaffin reviewed *What Saint Paul Really Said* for the Westminster Theological Review back in the Spring of 2000. His review is quite negative and said in part:

Several caveats to this overall construction are in order. 1) I am not as confident as Wright seems to be that Saul can be identified as a Shammaite Pharisee, that is, committed to a particular agenda of Torah-rigorism and violent, eschatologically oriented political activism, which then, though modi fied, became a decisive determinant for Paul’s theology. My own reading in this area is hardly extensive but I see little reason on this point (whether Paul was a Shammaite or Hillelite) for questioning the judgment of Sanders, for one: “I do not believe we have any information that would enable us to deal with such a question.”2 Wright’s Paul, then, may well contain an element, potentially significant, of his own construction.

2) Wright’s assessment of the Reformation tradition’s understanding of Paul will come up again below. Here we may note that, particularly over against that tradition, he asserts that the pre-Christian Saul “was not interested in a timeless system of salvation, … in an abstract, timeless, ahistorical system of salvation” (32; cf. 118). That continues to be true as well for Paul (60), especially in his teaching on justification (118, 129, 131). I myself have used such language in the classroom over the years and occasionally in writing to signal the advance brought by Geerhardus Vos and Ridderbos, among others, in alerting us to the controlling salvation-historical context of all biblical revelation, and to remind that the truth of Christianity, especially of its message of salvation, is not in tension with history, nor somehow to be secured above or beyond history.

But speaking this way without adequate qualification, which Wright does not provide, is subject to misunderstanding because, well, abstract! To charge globally, for instance, that classical Protestant theology is “ahistorical” in its formulations is unfair because overstated (Vos himself notes, for instance, that in its doctrine of the covenants on its historical side Reformed dogmatics is a precursor of what we now call biblical theology3). Again, to assert flatly that the Bible is not interested in “an abstract or timeless system” (e.g., 118) too easily leaves the impression, particularly within current theological discourse, that all truth, as historically qualified, is no more than relative and socially constructed, and so lacks enduring validity. This is not to suggest that Wright denies that Paul’s teaching has such validity, as chapter nine (“Paul’s Gospel Then and Now”) plainly shows (though not unproblematically, as we will note below). At any rate, however, we should not hesitate to say that, properly understood, Paul teaches “a system of salvation” and that it is “timeless,” that is, valid until Jesus returns.

3) In connection with distancing Saul from the notion of a “timeless,” “ahistorical” salvation, Wright maintains that Jews like him “were not even primarily interested in, as we say today, ‘going to heaven when they died.’” Rather, their dominating interest, “very different from the normal Western view of ‘heaven,’” was “to share in the life of the promised renewed Israel and renewed world” (32–33). Again, they “were not primarily interested in the state of their souls after death; …” To be sure, to this he immediately adds, “that was no doubt important, but no doubt God would have the matter in hand” (118). But, he never explains, here or elsewhere as far as I can see, why it was important or how God had matters in hand.

a collect

this was our collect yesterday:

Father in heaven, who at the baptism of Jesus in the River Jordan proclaimed him your beloved Son and annointed him with the Holy Spirit: Grant that all who are baptized into his Name may keep the covenant they have made, and boldly confess him as Lord and Savior; who with You and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, in glory everlasting.

I love this reference to keeping our covenant and boldly confessing Jesus.

evangelicals as modernists

from Anglican Angst:

In the period Katerberg covers, Evangelical Anglicans generally had a visceral objection to Anglo-Catholicism, rooted in what they perceived to be core Protestant doctrinal commitments. Evangelicals fought high church liturgical developments tooth and nail, calculating that the gospel itself was at stake. The enemy was “ritualism.” Modernists, however, were often seen as welcome coalition partners: Evangelicals and Liberals together was then in vogue. Their alliance was based on a common revolt against the dead weight of tradition. I suppose one might say that evangelicals are model Modernists in that they excel at having no sense of history.

2 views of the Reformers

Modified from a comment on Tim’s blog

I think there are 2 ways of viewing the Reformers:

1) defending their doctrines to the death as timeless truths – Piper, Duncan, etc

2) defending/using their methods – Wright et al.

The Reformers were humanists who took a “back to the sources” approach to the text and the Church. Their modern heirs by and large think that all doctrinal thinking is done and it is now our place to defend these doctrines to the death. Therefore any threat to those doctrines must be:

A) wrong

B) crushed by any means necessary

And yet from my biased POV those who oppose Wright have utterly failed in regards to the NPP. If the reporting coming from Monroe is accurate it would seem like Dick Gaffin failed to score any points against Wright. Other men like Seifreid, Carson, Moo, Gathercole and Das seem to either agree with him or slightly modify what he says. Seemingly they are holding their finger in a dam that is about to burst.

I think all these men see that the old pat answers in theology no longer work when it comes to Paul. Scholarship has moved on and will not go back. There is still no good answer out there to Sanders, let alone Wright, and we are 30 years on. But at the popular level it is just now filtering down and you are seeing these hysterical reactions as if Nicene orthodoxy was being challenged or something.

The Reformation and the context that created it – a state church – is over and will not happen again. Something new will happen, that’s how God works. Doctrinal insights from that time will be re-presented and maybe will catch fire again someday. But those who think that simply saying the same things over and over again will somehow spark a return to the past are mistaken. Read the history of the Reformation, it happened at the same time as kings were seeking to break away from the control of Rome for *political* reasons. Politics and theology went hand in hand or it would never have happened. But now, in a day with no state church and with no functional Christendom, some act as though nothing had changed.

I may be wrong but I think that accepting reality is the first step towards doing anything to change it. Acting as though we lived five hundred years ago and can simply do what Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer, etc. did and be successful at is misguided.