A Living Text

Besancon writes:

More subtle and difficult to discern is the iconolatry not of the icon, not of the prototype present on the icon, but of the theology of the icon, or the religious domain delimited by the icon. I have pointed out the evolution of the icon toward the theological schema. The danger comes from the fact that, through the exaltation of a particular theology, one allows the honor due the icon to reflect not onto the prototype but onto the system, which is, in fact, the only thing represented. The face becomes a pretext to rejoice in being a disciple of Saint Gregory Palamas rather than of Augustine, to be Orthodox rather than Catholic or Protestant.

Of course atonement was part of the law and one could ‘keep’ the law. I have no quibble with that at all. The interesting thing to note that is coming from the reaction to the NP is that as Moises Silva writes:

“The fact is that the apostle nowhere (in Galatians or in his other letters) characterizes his opponents as people who are obedient to the law. He will admit to no such thing. In this very epistle, as many have pointed out, he specifically accuses them of not keeping the law (6.13). And in Phil 3:2-4, when describing a group of opponents who, to say the least, had some affinities with the Judaizers in Galatia, he deliberately depicts them as pagans.” (*Abraham, Faith, and Works: Paul’s Use of Scripture in Galatians 3:6-14; Westminster Theological Journal 63 [2001] 251-67)

Gathercole addresses this in the context of Romans:

“It is an assumption of the New Perspective on Paul that the Judaism with which Paul was in dialogue shared a similarly patterened structure to his own, with a belief in election as the way in, and with works, combined with repentance and atonement to “stay in.” However, many traditional portraits
of Paul have treated Judaism as if there was no sacrifice system. In response, protagonists of the New Perspective maintain that Paul could not be accusing his dialogue partner of “self-righteousness” because any pious first-century Jew knew that he was a sinner (Prayer of Manasseh; 1QS 11) but that God had provided a means of dealing with sin, namely, the temple cult with its sacrifices. This approach is misleading for several reasons, which are relevant here in discussion of Romans 2. The minor objections are: first, there is evidence for a possible downgrading of the sacrificial system among various
groups within Second Temple Judaism well before the destruction of the temple. Second, one could raise the question of the validity of taking liturgical texts such as the Prayer of Manasseh or 1QS11 and deducing anything about the spiritual condition of people on the ground. The liturgy of any religious group could scarcely be described as an index of the spiritual vitality or its users.

Yet these are peripheral issues. The most important consideration that is consistently neglected is that Paul is essentially dealing with a dialogue partner (a representative, as we have seen, of the nation) *who is unrepentant*, and (though not visibly) an apostate. Thus, Paul would assume that the sacrificial system was not effective for him, and the interlocutor himself would have a wrong attitude toward it.” (pp. 205-206)

Gathercole goes on to quote Rom 2.5; 2.27-29; 9.31 and 10.2 in support of this thesis. I would add that David makes clear in Psalm 51 that sacrifices must be offered with a broken spirit and a contrite heart, that God “delights in right sacrifices” and that it was obviously very possible for even the sacrificial system to be of no effect for the prideful.

Lately I have been using OpenOffice Writer at work instead of Word (or in tandem with Word). I’ve messed around with Writer on and off for a couple years. But since I am in a job that has me stranded with Word until I can figure out something better, I have had to be creative.

My first project was a monster manual that I inherited. It gagged and locked up every time I tried to save it from Word to PDF. And then you have the normal Word quirks, formatting changes, and general frustrations. In a fit of madness I downloaded the OpenOffice suite at work. It’s not perfect, but it matches Word in my book and exceeds it in some ways. OO is free first of all, so you don’t have to keep paying for Microsoft’s ridiculous new ‘improvements’ every few years. Writer is the OO equivalent of Word. It seems far less intrusive in terms of reformatting your document when you click tab or accidentally click the wrong menu command. It easily saves to PDF at the click of a button. It displays a floating pallet on the side of the screen like Word 2004 for Mac and FrameMaker (and most other new tools). All in all it seems far more sound and usable than Word, although it isn’t enough for me because it doesn’t achieve all the ends I need.

I haven’t been able to use Word 2007 yet, so I don’t know how it stacks up. But if you face dropping more money for yet another version of the Office sweet, I’d suggest downloading the latest stable version of OpenOffice instead.

More from the Forbidden Image. For Philo (the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher):

The characteristic of an image is refused the body; it is only the sanctuary of the image, and will be abandoned when the image has attained perfection.

How different from the Christian notion of the body this is! I think the resurrection is the key event that changed this conception of the body.

As sin fades from the public view, the culture at large takes up external ’sins’ that it can feel good about being against. So, while people don’t care much about the de-sacralization of sex, or blaspheming God, they get real emotional about global warming, smoking, and their bodily appearance. I’m not saying that their aren’t social ills, or group sins that we need to deal with. What I’m saying is that their seems to be a human need for righteous indignation with something or the other. Properly felt, it should be directed at least somewhat towards our internal evil. But lust is not talked about on national TV. The UN isn’t convening summits on how to deal with the global lust problem. Instead we have whipping boys like global warming and the lack of availability for abortions in the Developing world. That is our new public morality. You can’t legislate morality? Absurd. All legislation is by definition morality.

I am continuing to read and to love The Forbidden Image by Alain Besancon. He says of Plato:

Plato condemns art for being incapable of attaining truth and - this is a more serious matter - for turning men away from truth. Anyone who wishes to attain the true image of the divine must not take this path, but that of asceticism, an asceticism of body, soul, and intelligence.

So the roots of the perennial conflict between the lovers of life and its riches and the ascetics goes back to the beginning. Something strikes me as wrong whenever people think that asceticism is the higher path than that of a life fully engaged with art, work, and love. However, I don’t think they have to be mutually exclusive tracks. I see the need for asceticism, and I don’t doubt that holy men like John the Forerunner and Elijah were in some sense of the word ascetics.

Unrelated, but on an LDS note, Plato thought:

This world had a beginning; it was not created, but it was organized. Its “creation” was an imposition of order, and that order constitutes its beauty.

I find it interesting that the LDS critique of Christian “apostasy” is that we Hellenized some time ago. And yet the Platonic concept of creation is that of matter being organized - which is the same belief that Mormons hold. Perhaps they should think twice before casting the Hellenizing charge our way.

In light of my recent conversations with LDS folks, I wanted to ask some
questions of Protestants and tradition. We hold to a Christology and
view of the Trinity that are conciliar and were defined by the Church
Fathers. Granted, we see proof texts for these views in the Bible, but
most of the core definitions we have of ’substance’ and ‘hypostases’ are
from the ecumenical councils. And we are right to hold to these things.
I accept them by positing a view of inspiration, that the councils were
led by the Holy Spirit. Now let’s say we have a pastor who does not hold
to the two natures of Christ, or who is a modalist. We would all say he
is a heretic (I think). But by and large our condemnation of
non-Trinitarians or those who teach some incorrect form of Christology
would derive from conciliar definitions. This leads me to these questions:

1. As Protestants, what should our view of the councils be?
2. Did the Holy Spirit inspire those councils in some sense?
3. How can we pick and choose amongst the findings of those councils and
not make ourselves the ultimate authority?
4. Do we accept that the basis for much of our Trinitarian thinking is
rooted outside of the text of Scripture?

Perhaps I am not phrasing this correctly, I hope you understand what I
am driving at

“The history of Graeco-Roman Christianity resolves itself largely into a criticism of that undertaking and of the ideas upon which it rested; viz. that it was possible to attain a goal of permanent security, peace and freedom through political action, especially through submission to the ‘virtue and fortune’ of a political leader. This notion the Christians denounced with uniform vigour and consistency. To them the state, so far from being the supreme insturment of human emancipation and perfectibility, was a straight-jacket to be justified at best as ‘a remedy for sin’. To think of it otherwise they considered the grossest of superstitions.”
from the forward Christianity and Classical Culture by Charles Norris Cochrane

Many there are who cannot see these truths [the doctrines of God's sovereignty], who yet are in a state truly pleasing to God; yea many, at whose feet the best of us may be glad to be found in heaven. It is a great evil, when these doctrines are made a ground of separation one from another, and when the advocates of different systems anathematize each other…In reference to truths which are involved in so much obscurity as those which relate to the sovereignty of God mutual kindness and concession are far better than vehement argumentation and uncharitable discussion.
Charles Simeon

My reading of The Mathers by Robert Middlekauff, has already shed alot of light on the period and our reformed heritage to my dull mind. Richard Mather has impressed me, so has Increase. But I see something disturbing in the pastoral role of Increase that may be common in our circles:
“He slighted the pastoral functions, visiting the sick and catechizing the young, in favor of studying and preaching.”
Now, this seems a common trap to me: who cares about the “menial” work, the real hero gets in his study 50 hours a week and emerges like Moses from the mount to blast his listeners with heavenly knowledge. Don’t get me wrong, I’m impressed with Increase Mather, but not this aspect of his ministry. And then there’s this:
“For Increase, Christian charity was a limited concept. The ungodly did not excite his sympathy; rather, he felt only revulsion from them, a feeling he expressed in his insistence that good men should avoid them. Necessity, say the demands of one’s particular calling, might lead to some contacts but they should be kept to a minimum. The company a godly man kept constituted a test of his regeneration:…”
What did he make of Christ eating with sinners and tax-collectors I wonder? Maybe Middlekauff isn’t being fair, but I doubt it. The identification of New England as sort of a new Israel, chosen by God, seems to have originated with Increase’s generation. A good read thus far.