This review resonates with me more than any other to date. The writer is not merely regurgitating what he likes about it, or gazing in admiration. He is applying the theses of the book comprehensively from his own perspective, and making sense of the world through it. I was particularly taken by this: "the emotional tenor of the present often resembles that of the fourteenth century, with its contagious ecstasies and terrors, more than the sober bourgeois rationalism of the industrial age." I find that far more convincing than the thesis of "Live Not By Lies" that somehow specifically communist methods are rearing their head in the skin of liberalism. The reviewer does, not, as far as I can see, view the 14th century as particularly good material for emulation -- its a measure of our current dysfunction. But a life that has meaning and purpose because it is integrated into a created whole is still a good part of the solution.
I remain, of course, committed the Reformation and the Enlightenment (yes, both of them) as good and beneficial and necessary steps forward out of the dark night of the medieval world. I also recognize they had negative impact -- everything does. Re-enchantment will too. I've been paying more attention lately to the connections between Wycliffe and Hus, the contributions of the Moravians and their influence on Methodism. I see "sola scriptura" not so much as an iron clad doctrine, but as a reasonable step out of reliance on an all too corrupt hierarchy as the source of Truth. We each have to search for ourselves, but with the humility that we're going to often be wrong, and yes, we can find re-enchantment in doing so.
What do you mean by "the dark night of the medieval world" and in what way do you find sola scriptura a reasonable step? Just curious, not arguing. I find it a step away from the people (who were just people, and who were going to die like everyone else before and after them, many of whom were not at all corrupt and some whom were saints) AND the truth, and toward at free-for-all in which people and institutions all fight constantly, some of them knowing next to nothing and some even "knowing" a lot of nonsensical things they say are in Scripture. I don't see this as an improvement.
To describe the medieval world as an unmitigated 100 percent dark night would be inaccurate. After all, there was a broad diversity of fruit crops (I've just been reading about an Italian effort to revive a variety of fruit trees that were sidelined by the standardization of agriculture in the 20th century), there was great art, considerable faith, and as you say, some were saints. Others were vicious mercenaries, opportunists, irrational monarchs, self-serving manipulators, and the methods of torture were both sophisticated and comprehensive.
Looking at both Wycliffe and Hus, sola scriptura was not, by origin, an icon of perfection. It was an alternative to an ossified, self-serving bureaucracy that had grown fat and wealthy, and responsive to politics more than to faith. Certainly the doctrine has itself been used by fat and wealthy, self-serving institutionalized tyrants. I was most amused when I found a decent video about Wycliffe, to note that the actor playing Bishop Courtenay, was the same actor who played the stuffed evangelical Mr. Brocklehurst in a movie version of Jane Eyre. Protestant institutions and leaders can fall into the same trap.
The free-for-all is, in my view, inevitable, because we humans are going to get it wrong to some extent, and often we're going to get it wrong in different ways that can produce as much conflict as between someone who got something right and someone pushing an opposite (and probably wrong) perspective. What I distrust is anyone engaged in the free-for-all who lacks the humility to say, I could be wrong about this. I do see a vicious tyranny in trying to determine at length and in detail what is the Transcendent Truth, reduce it to canon and dogma, and then enforce is by worldly means on all as The Final Word. Sure, that puts me at odds with many Protestant power houses too.
I'm aware of St. Francis De Sales polemic asking Luther and Calvin, how am I to know the right meaning of scripture, without a magesterium to instruct me? There is some logic to that. Unfortunately, that same magesterium is subject to ulterior motivation, political pressure, self-interest, etc. Its a bit like a scientific convention "voting" to "demote" Pluto from a planet to a planetoid, or "voting" on whether same-sex attraction is in some sense a disorder. Truth, empirical or spiritual, is not determined by votes or by authoritative institutions. It is what it is, and our understanding of what is actually true is going to change over time.
While some may view your statements as overly critical of the medieval world, I have become much more sympathetic to the distrust of ossified ecclesiastical hierarchies that I believe is one of the core issues at the heart of The Reformation.
I would think, for someone who has an innate suspicion of bureaucracies, it would be difficult to become/remain a Catholic. This could easily apply to other church organizations, but I have noticed it among the Catholic hierarchy.
One of the prayers in the Catholic church is "look not on the sins of Your church but on the faith of your people (paraphrasing)" but in this information age, it's impossible not to notice the sins of those running the church.
I agree to the extent that I am not Catholic, and could not imagine joining that particular denomination. I grew up in a Catholic neighborhood and have known many Catholics in my life, from fans of liberation theology or the Catholic Worker movement to conservative trads. I've been to mass a few times, and found it a moving worship service, sometimes even inspiring. The hierarchy is the deal breaker, and of course the hierarchy is fundamental to being Catholic. I could envision people choosing to practice Catholic rites, with a congregational form of church governance.
"Its a bit like a scientific convention "voting" to "demote" Pluto from a planet to a planetoid..."
Now, this is a silly comparison. It was a scientific convention that "voted" to "name" Pluto a planet in the first place, with very incomplete information. As more information became available (cf. Sedna, Quaoar, Eris, Haumea, Makemake, Orcus, Gonggong, etc) the scientific community was forced to either name many new planets or "demote" Pluto. Based on categories of orbital elements the right call was made.
The whole point of dogmatics in the early Church was to PREVENT a free-for-all, seeing that the formation of "official" dogma was almost always a response to heretical novelties.
It's a matter of axiomatic reasoning: dogmas are axioms. When people go "Can't all reasonable people agree on"—no, just stop, no we can't. What we consider reasonable in the first place depends on our axioms. We either smuggle our own axioms into every "impartial" debate we're ever having, or we recognize them upfront—but they're present either way.
And that is a problem. Shutting down the free-for-all shuts down some weird and definitively wrong notions, along with a lot of plausibly true or beneficial notions, and creates a lot of in-grown politics over spiritual matters. There is no particular reason to think that church councils got it right, or that all the novelties were wrong. Its a bit like whether Meta should "fact-check" or remove posts for being inaccurate.
"There is no particular reason to think that church councils got it right, or that all the novelties were wrong."
Following that reasoning one could say exactly the same thing about Scripture. And some do.
As it turns out, part of my faith in the early Church is due to the fact that Scripture promised that the Spirit would guide us into all truth, and that the Church was the pillar and ground of that truth. You chuck the Church's authority and the Bible goes right along with it.
Re: Its a bit like a scientific convention "voting" to "demote" Pluto from a planet to a planetoid, or "voting" on whether same-sex attraction is in some sense a disorder.
Any word in any language is dependent on what people mean by it.
"Planet" was in effect redefined to mean something that eliminated Pluto from the category (though whether the people behind that had any natural right to redefine the word is open to question). And as to "disorder" what may be a disorder in some social milieus may not be in others. The Soviet Union in it later years regarded political; dissent as a disorder and even committed serious dissidents to mental asylums. Our nation does no such thing, regarding dissent as healthy and necessary, though there are nasty minorities on both sides of the divide who see disagreement not as "disorder" but as simply downright wicked.
The early Middle Ages, from the passing of Justinian to the rise of the Carolingians, was a bad time to be alive, in large part due to the lingering effects of the Volcanic winter and plague pandemic of the 6th century. But we should beware any black legends of the period in general. The early modern era was hardly paradisical, and in some ways even compares unfavorably with the medieval period. Nor has our present day been free of horrors.
Charlie, While the idea of "sola scripture" encompasses far more than what I have experienced in my faith life, I can positively assert that commitment to close and daily study of the Bible has immeasurably deepened my spiritual life, as well as my ability to apprehend God in daily life.
It is far from rote or legalism, but instead for me, an ability to meet and worship God in His divinely inspired words. What a gift we have to experience Logos directly, and not filtered through any bureaucracy or person's views.
I just finished Hebrews which stresses not just our adoption but our ability to approach Christ, seated on the throne, boldly, in both prayer and meditation.
Certainly we see through a glass darkly. Which is why I read commentaries to accompany my reading. And it also helps to allow Scripture to be its own commentary...i.e., not a good idea to cherry pick among Scripture.
Not sure if your comment is meant to illumine but assuming positive intent.
The individual reader of Scripture can always get things wrong. The early Church writers were very clear in that it had to be read with the mind of the Church, i.e., what had been passed down, which is why they were always very suspicious of novelties. The Scriptures are first and foremost the Church's book, and the individual believer should read them in that context.
So you and your Pentecostal friend's opinions are no better or no worse than the consensus fidelium? One wonders how the Canon of Scripture would have materialized under such a scenario.
Well you and I must agree to disagree. Of course the Church and other commentators enrich and enlighten study of the Word. But I don't agree that we must only read Scripture from the viewpoint of (other fallible humans). FWIW, I'm not Roman Catholic
I'm not Catholic either, but the Church is the body of Christ, not merely a collection of fallible humans. In fact, St Paul calls it "the pillar and ground of the truth." (I Tim. 3:15)
Since none of us come with a blank slate, none of us are qualified to prescribe the true and accepted meaning. That is between each of us and God, and we will all get it wrong, which I'm sure God knew from the beginning.
Of course it does. Thomas doubted the resurrection until he was presented with empirical proof. Peter denied Jesus three times, and then shoved to the front of the pack to claim leadership. Etc. They were charged with a great commission, but Jesus knew they were not equal to the task -- Jesus also knew he needed fallible humans to carry on as best they were able, and they put all they had into it.
Yet very shortly after the Apostolic period Clement of Rome was able to write that part of the reason the Apostolic message was successful was that, having witnessed the Resurrection, they knew what they saw and what it meant, and were "filled with certainty." The Resurrection had, so to speak, cured them of an epistemological lack of clarity. The Holy Spirit did in fact "lead them into all truth" as promised.
Thank you for saying it so well. I shake my head in bafflement over those who include The Protestant Reformation in the archive of plug - uglies.
It isn't possible that the opportunity to glut on The Word of God could tend to make a person less given to wonder. Everything which makes wonder possible comes from The Word. I feel doltish that I wrote the previous sentence, but given the anger against Protestants which I see around here, I felt it necessary that I do so. Perhaps they should consider that their antipathy to The Word is the problem, and that it may be impelled by something which isn't holy, precisely.
But NNTX, it's ALL our fault. Humanity lived in wonder until that horny, borderline monk got uppity. We should be ashamed of ourselves for not gagaing out on bliss, however that happens, but I guess it involves renouncing electricity, looking like the peasants in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and if at all possible, dying of the black death or cholera, at least.
Hang in there Bobby. My read, despite the imprecations of some faith leaders, is that there is no one "true faith" among Christian denominations. Hence my reference to Hebrews which makes it clear that we can approach the Throne of Grace directly, without intermediaries. Why else was the veil of the inner "Holy of Holies" in the Temple rent at Jesus's crucifixion.
Exactly. And I know that I probably am unfair to our host sometimes, something which he can grieve from the slum which is Budapest, but it really annoys me that every time he ticks off the chain of events which has lead to our current awfulness, he begins with The Protestant Reformation.
Re: Everything which makes wonder possible comes from The Word.
This would suggest there is no wonder or transcendence in other religious traditions, which is simply not true by obvious inspection. The source of wonder is ultimately God himself, however dimly he may be perceived and understood.
More than that, it negates the idea that there is wonder in the Creation. Granted, the Word is what ultimately put it there, but it's also true that we were created with the capabilitity to perceive it.
I don't see a dissonance between the written Word, the Word made Flesh, and what The Word has created ( Romans 1:20. )
Yes, dimly perceived, but perceived. Understood? That's arguable, considering the passion for human sacrifice in every imaginable form which has ridden the Earth since Eden.
There's a verse somewhere in the Old Testament which I, lying here with a sinus headache, haven't got the stamina to search for, but you can Google it: “He has put Eternity in their hearts, that they might seek Him.”
I trust you would agree with me that there can be no genuine peace in the soul of a nonChristian. That alone suggests that the statement which you are responding to is correct. Somewhere in The New Testament there is an allusion to unconverted Jews, who, it says, have a zeal for God, but a zeal which is not according to knowledge. This strikes me as a New Testament amplification of the Old Testament verse, with particular application to unbelieving Jews, and if reinforces my certainty about this.
There can be no genuine peace in a nonChristian’s soul, but there can be something far worse than lack of peace, a diabolical, lethally deceptive false “peace.” Remember the Hale - Bopp comet cultists of the mid nineties? You can find video of interviews with them not long before their group suicide. They have blissed out appearing countenances, and I don't doubt they believed the diabolism they had been taught was actually true.
"It isn't possible that the opportunity to glut on The Word of God could tend to make a person less given to wonder."
True, but no one here is saying that. The problem with the Reformation wasn't its increased attention to the Scriptures. In fact, that was one of the positives, as many scholars who are in other ways critical of the Reformation have noted.
The most important thing about the Reformation was breaking the monopoly of a hidebound bureaucracy posing as spiritual leadership. At the time Hus was first imprisoned, there were no less than three popes.
Precisely. Studying Scripture can do that for you, or me, or anyone who approaches the writing in that spirit -- but it doesn't make any of us the Authority to dictate to others exactly what it all means and how they should experience it. We can share with each other congregationally or corporately what we each find, and perhaps learn some perspective or insights from each other, but we can't prescribe to each other. Nor can a magesterium, church council, or hierarchy.
So it's a free-for-all after all. As I said above, one wonders how the Canon of Scripture would possibly have come to be under such a laissez-faire approach to truth.
Clearly, we don't. The Orthodox and Catholic churches accept 72 books, the Coptic churches accept 83, and Protestant churches accept 66. Which of us is right? Is it possible a few other texts would have been worthy to include? Is it possible one or more churches have accepted a text that is less than reliable? Luther at one point dismissed the epistle of James as "rubbish" because of its emphasis in certain places on good works. Luther also considered leaving out the Revelation to St. John, which I wouldn't necessarily have objected to. What virtually every Christian body has accepted, I definitely consider worth studying -- but aside from what is Authoritative, I keep in mind that God may have intended many layers of meaning -- one reason I prefer the sometimes ambiguous KJV to the NIV. I once heard the NIV lauded for "making everything clear," and immediately thought, perhaps in giving ever verse a "clear" meaning, a lot that God also intended to be there was unintentionally excised. Also, each translation runs a considerable risk of misunderstanding, misinterpretation, taking things out of cultural context, etc. (E.g., the original Hebrew text makes clear that Jeptha most certainly did NOT offer his daughter as a burnt sacrifice, which would have been an abomination, but translation to Greek substituted a word meaning burnt offering for one -- eloha -- meaning elevated to the service of God. Knowing that, even the translated text makes more sense -- the daughter doesn't mourn her death but her perpetual virginity.) Parts of the Koran can be very edifying and inspiring, others, not so much. Of course I take much more liberty in setting aside passages from the Koran.
Rob I am struggling to understand what you prescribe for believers. Are we to only study the Bible under the tutelage of priests?
FWIW, I am an Episcopalian/Anglican. Well familiar with the Articles of Faith and other accepted doctrines of the Church.
But I don't think that an individual is unable to apprehend the Truth of Scripture. What would you do for those Christians living in serious persecution that worship in house churches. Are they unable to apprehend God's word?
Of course not. Many of the believers in the Gulag and in concentration camps had no copies of the Scriptures at all and had to rely on memory.
To say that an individual can't fully apprehend the truth of Scripture is not to say that he can't apprehend it at all. But the early Church Fathers were very clear on the idea that Scripture read in isolation would necessarily tend to error. As someone once put it, put ten people on an island with ten copies of the New Testament and you'll end up with eleven different theologies. St Vincent of Lerins said that this approach would, if possible, lead to the notion that there were as many theologies as there were men. I think he was only half kidding.
I once heard a Baptist minister say that if you have two Baptists in a room you have three opinions. He meant that as something to be proud of. That's only a problem if ten people with eleven opinions are willing to kill or fight to the death over the difference. The more accurate approach is, you may be right brother, but that's not how I read the text, and when we get to the other side God will make it all clear to us.
That really is a great review! I am reading it now and have so many questions. I am also in the middle of "The Decline and Fall of Sacred Scripture" by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker (which is less academic version of "Politicizing the Bible,"), and find the two books oddly consonant. Their thesis about how the Bible became a book people wielded to control others and how the historical-critical method of reading Scripture came about, is very much like what I've read in your book so far, including some of the same players. Reducing the Bible to a "text" that can be taken apart and Jesus to dual "historical" and "religious" figures is part of reducing the world to what can be verified by the scientific method.
Great to read such an intelligent appreciation of your work Rod. I have come to your writing v recently and have just devoured Living in Wonder, and am about to finish The Benedict Option, both of which have resonated very powerfully with me, while provoking much careful thought. Thank you for what you are doing.
The review author can write. That was an exceptionally well constructed and executed analysis. It weaved together a multitude of perspectives and did so seamlessly. It was a pleasure to read but also highly instructive.
I particularly liked the point about “trickster knowledge.” This is especially widespread in the social sciences, where the incentives are to make counter-intuitive and “clever” arguments, as opposed to true ones, often just for the sake of the argument.
Richard Hanania is a good example of this, but there are many, many others besides, and of varying quality. Very social sciencey and “rigorous” in a facile way. Fun at times, but ultimately not to be taken too seriously. But for too many of our thinkers, that is all they’ve got because it is the only way they have been trained to think.
It is a great review, amazing, and I could can barely imagine the level of brilliance that produced it - but I do not know why the review completely misuses the term "trickster knowledge", equivalencing it with so-called left brain thinking. <<< ""people in the West have come to systematically privilege the left-brain (analytical, abstract, external) way of knowing – what in political anth
Thei attribution of "left-brain" analytical thinking to trickster knowledge is almost the opposite of what the concept actually represents in political anthropology. It's typically associated with what might be called "right-brain" characteristics - intuitive, contextual, and relational ways of knowing. Trickster knowledge is liminal "operating in the spaces left unaccounted for by systematic, analytical thinking." - - The article is brillian, however, and I don't want to over-focus on this one thing.
I am glad this review put us on to this journal. I've discovered the most recent issue can be read free online. They use the term "trickster knowledge" in other articles.
Hanania is kind of the poster-child for that. But he makes more "sense" when one understands that he is primarily engagement farming when he does this -- and it's pretty effective for that purpose. It's another example of how our current digital existence serves to create and encourage many distortions.
Well, it is my impression that that the more apparently intelligent the reviewer, the more they like Rod's book. Almost like direct proportionality. Of course, pretty much every review has been quite positive. I especially liked this one - the author understands how materialism is rational, as Rod does, and so is able to address it. That is something that is beyond me....(Materialism just does not seem rational to me.)
Rod - that is the best review yet. Paul O'Connor really "gets" you and resonates with your thinking. How terrific is it that this essay came out on the heals of your pilgrimage to Mt. Athos? Very good timing, I should imagine.
While it can be criticized for not offering any kind of criticism of Rod’s ideas, it is a fair minded, thorough, and A-plus account of what is actually claimed in Living in Wonder. A joy to read! I hope Rod can use some of it in promoting his book. Russ Nieli
One finds a sense of enchantment in the wisdom monologue in the eighth chapter of the book of Proverbs, not only in the way it is written, but also seemingly being experienced by Wisdom herself as she rejoices in the LORD's inhabited world and delights in the children of man:
Proverbs 8:27–31
[27] When he established the heavens, I was there;
when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
[28] when he made firm the skies above,
when he established the fountains of the deep,
[29] when he assigned to the sea its limit,
so that the waters might not transgress his command,
when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
[30] then I was beside him, like a master workman,
Congrats, Rod, on a great review. Since the Benedict Option, your writings have been spot on for the cultural moments of the time.
This review resonates with me more than any other to date. The writer is not merely regurgitating what he likes about it, or gazing in admiration. He is applying the theses of the book comprehensively from his own perspective, and making sense of the world through it. I was particularly taken by this: "the emotional tenor of the present often resembles that of the fourteenth century, with its contagious ecstasies and terrors, more than the sober bourgeois rationalism of the industrial age." I find that far more convincing than the thesis of "Live Not By Lies" that somehow specifically communist methods are rearing their head in the skin of liberalism. The reviewer does, not, as far as I can see, view the 14th century as particularly good material for emulation -- its a measure of our current dysfunction. But a life that has meaning and purpose because it is integrated into a created whole is still a good part of the solution.
I remain, of course, committed the Reformation and the Enlightenment (yes, both of them) as good and beneficial and necessary steps forward out of the dark night of the medieval world. I also recognize they had negative impact -- everything does. Re-enchantment will too. I've been paying more attention lately to the connections between Wycliffe and Hus, the contributions of the Moravians and their influence on Methodism. I see "sola scriptura" not so much as an iron clad doctrine, but as a reasonable step out of reliance on an all too corrupt hierarchy as the source of Truth. We each have to search for ourselves, but with the humility that we're going to often be wrong, and yes, we can find re-enchantment in doing so.
What do you mean by "the dark night of the medieval world" and in what way do you find sola scriptura a reasonable step? Just curious, not arguing. I find it a step away from the people (who were just people, and who were going to die like everyone else before and after them, many of whom were not at all corrupt and some whom were saints) AND the truth, and toward at free-for-all in which people and institutions all fight constantly, some of them knowing next to nothing and some even "knowing" a lot of nonsensical things they say are in Scripture. I don't see this as an improvement.
To describe the medieval world as an unmitigated 100 percent dark night would be inaccurate. After all, there was a broad diversity of fruit crops (I've just been reading about an Italian effort to revive a variety of fruit trees that were sidelined by the standardization of agriculture in the 20th century), there was great art, considerable faith, and as you say, some were saints. Others were vicious mercenaries, opportunists, irrational monarchs, self-serving manipulators, and the methods of torture were both sophisticated and comprehensive.
Looking at both Wycliffe and Hus, sola scriptura was not, by origin, an icon of perfection. It was an alternative to an ossified, self-serving bureaucracy that had grown fat and wealthy, and responsive to politics more than to faith. Certainly the doctrine has itself been used by fat and wealthy, self-serving institutionalized tyrants. I was most amused when I found a decent video about Wycliffe, to note that the actor playing Bishop Courtenay, was the same actor who played the stuffed evangelical Mr. Brocklehurst in a movie version of Jane Eyre. Protestant institutions and leaders can fall into the same trap.
The free-for-all is, in my view, inevitable, because we humans are going to get it wrong to some extent, and often we're going to get it wrong in different ways that can produce as much conflict as between someone who got something right and someone pushing an opposite (and probably wrong) perspective. What I distrust is anyone engaged in the free-for-all who lacks the humility to say, I could be wrong about this. I do see a vicious tyranny in trying to determine at length and in detail what is the Transcendent Truth, reduce it to canon and dogma, and then enforce is by worldly means on all as The Final Word. Sure, that puts me at odds with many Protestant power houses too.
I'm aware of St. Francis De Sales polemic asking Luther and Calvin, how am I to know the right meaning of scripture, without a magesterium to instruct me? There is some logic to that. Unfortunately, that same magesterium is subject to ulterior motivation, political pressure, self-interest, etc. Its a bit like a scientific convention "voting" to "demote" Pluto from a planet to a planetoid, or "voting" on whether same-sex attraction is in some sense a disorder. Truth, empirical or spiritual, is not determined by votes or by authoritative institutions. It is what it is, and our understanding of what is actually true is going to change over time.
While some may view your statements as overly critical of the medieval world, I have become much more sympathetic to the distrust of ossified ecclesiastical hierarchies that I believe is one of the core issues at the heart of The Reformation.
I would think, for someone who has an innate suspicion of bureaucracies, it would be difficult to become/remain a Catholic. This could easily apply to other church organizations, but I have noticed it among the Catholic hierarchy.
One of the prayers in the Catholic church is "look not on the sins of Your church but on the faith of your people (paraphrasing)" but in this information age, it's impossible not to notice the sins of those running the church.
I agree to the extent that I am not Catholic, and could not imagine joining that particular denomination. I grew up in a Catholic neighborhood and have known many Catholics in my life, from fans of liberation theology or the Catholic Worker movement to conservative trads. I've been to mass a few times, and found it a moving worship service, sometimes even inspiring. The hierarchy is the deal breaker, and of course the hierarchy is fundamental to being Catholic. I could envision people choosing to practice Catholic rites, with a congregational form of church governance.
"Its a bit like a scientific convention "voting" to "demote" Pluto from a planet to a planetoid..."
Now, this is a silly comparison. It was a scientific convention that "voted" to "name" Pluto a planet in the first place, with very incomplete information. As more information became available (cf. Sedna, Quaoar, Eris, Haumea, Makemake, Orcus, Gonggong, etc) the scientific community was forced to either name many new planets or "demote" Pluto. Based on categories of orbital elements the right call was made.
"What I distrust is anyone engaged in the free-for-all who lacks the humility to say, I could be wrong about this."
Sorry, this sounds very self-referential, like a version of Epimenides paradox that isn't sure there is such a thing as lying.
The whole point of dogmatics in the early Church was to PREVENT a free-for-all, seeing that the formation of "official" dogma was almost always a response to heretical novelties.
You are of course correct. I just pointed out that Charlie wants a free-for-all but with his own restrictions, so it’s not so free after all.
It's a matter of axiomatic reasoning: dogmas are axioms. When people go "Can't all reasonable people agree on"—no, just stop, no we can't. What we consider reasonable in the first place depends on our axioms. We either smuggle our own axioms into every "impartial" debate we're ever having, or we recognize them upfront—but they're present either way.
Right -- I was attempting to reinforce your point.
What restrictions?
And that is a problem. Shutting down the free-for-all shuts down some weird and definitively wrong notions, along with a lot of plausibly true or beneficial notions, and creates a lot of in-grown politics over spiritual matters. There is no particular reason to think that church councils got it right, or that all the novelties were wrong. Its a bit like whether Meta should "fact-check" or remove posts for being inaccurate.
"There is no particular reason to think that church councils got it right, or that all the novelties were wrong."
Following that reasoning one could say exactly the same thing about Scripture. And some do.
As it turns out, part of my faith in the early Church is due to the fact that Scripture promised that the Spirit would guide us into all truth, and that the Church was the pillar and ground of that truth. You chuck the Church's authority and the Bible goes right along with it.
Of course its self-referential... I have to remember that I don't have the answers either.What's your point?
Re: Its a bit like a scientific convention "voting" to "demote" Pluto from a planet to a planetoid, or "voting" on whether same-sex attraction is in some sense a disorder.
Any word in any language is dependent on what people mean by it.
"Planet" was in effect redefined to mean something that eliminated Pluto from the category (though whether the people behind that had any natural right to redefine the word is open to question). And as to "disorder" what may be a disorder in some social milieus may not be in others. The Soviet Union in it later years regarded political; dissent as a disorder and even committed serious dissidents to mental asylums. Our nation does no such thing, regarding dissent as healthy and necessary, though there are nasty minorities on both sides of the divide who see disagreement not as "disorder" but as simply downright wicked.
The early Middle Ages, from the passing of Justinian to the rise of the Carolingians, was a bad time to be alive, in large part due to the lingering effects of the Volcanic winter and plague pandemic of the 6th century. But we should beware any black legends of the period in general. The early modern era was hardly paradisical, and in some ways even compares unfavorably with the medieval period. Nor has our present day been free of horrors.
Mhm.
Charlie, While the idea of "sola scripture" encompasses far more than what I have experienced in my faith life, I can positively assert that commitment to close and daily study of the Bible has immeasurably deepened my spiritual life, as well as my ability to apprehend God in daily life.
It is far from rote or legalism, but instead for me, an ability to meet and worship God in His divinely inspired words. What a gift we have to experience Logos directly, and not filtered through any bureaucracy or person's views.
I just finished Hebrews which stresses not just our adoption but our ability to approach Christ, seated on the throne, boldly, in both prayer and meditation.
For me it has been revelatory and wondrous.
"What a gift we have to experience Logos directly, and not filtered through any bureaucracy or person's views."
Except your own, of course. No one comes to the text with a blank slate. As soon as you read, you inherently "filter."
Wouldn't that also include the Magisterium?
A Catholic commenter would likely answer that better than I could.
Funny, that's the way we Protestants tend to feel about our pastors.
Certainly we see through a glass darkly. Which is why I read commentaries to accompany my reading. And it also helps to allow Scripture to be its own commentary...i.e., not a good idea to cherry pick among Scripture.
Not sure if your comment is meant to illumine but assuming positive intent.
The individual reader of Scripture can always get things wrong. The early Church writers were very clear in that it had to be read with the mind of the Church, i.e., what had been passed down, which is why they were always very suspicious of novelties. The Scriptures are first and foremost the Church's book, and the individual believer should read them in that context.
The mind of the Church is not the mind of God. It is no better and no worse than any other two or more gathering in His name.
So you and your Pentecostal friend's opinions are no better or no worse than the consensus fidelium? One wonders how the Canon of Scripture would have materialized under such a scenario.
Rob,
Well you and I must agree to disagree. Of course the Church and other commentators enrich and enlighten study of the Word. But I don't agree that we must only read Scripture from the viewpoint of (other fallible humans). FWIW, I'm not Roman Catholic
I'm not Catholic either, but the Church is the body of Christ, not merely a collection of fallible humans. In fact, St Paul calls it "the pillar and ground of the truth." (I Tim. 3:15)
Since none of us come with a blank slate, none of us are qualified to prescribe the true and accepted meaning. That is between each of us and God, and we will all get it wrong, which I'm sure God knew from the beginning.
Does that "none of us" include the Apostles?
Of course it does. Thomas doubted the resurrection until he was presented with empirical proof. Peter denied Jesus three times, and then shoved to the front of the pack to claim leadership. Etc. They were charged with a great commission, but Jesus knew they were not equal to the task -- Jesus also knew he needed fallible humans to carry on as best they were able, and they put all they had into it.
Yet very shortly after the Apostolic period Clement of Rome was able to write that part of the reason the Apostolic message was successful was that, having witnessed the Resurrection, they knew what they saw and what it meant, and were "filled with certainty." The Resurrection had, so to speak, cured them of an epistemological lack of clarity. The Holy Spirit did in fact "lead them into all truth" as promised.
Thank you for saying it so well. I shake my head in bafflement over those who include The Protestant Reformation in the archive of plug - uglies.
It isn't possible that the opportunity to glut on The Word of God could tend to make a person less given to wonder. Everything which makes wonder possible comes from The Word. I feel doltish that I wrote the previous sentence, but given the anger against Protestants which I see around here, I felt it necessary that I do so. Perhaps they should consider that their antipathy to The Word is the problem, and that it may be impelled by something which isn't holy, precisely.
But NNTX, it's ALL our fault. Humanity lived in wonder until that horny, borderline monk got uppity. We should be ashamed of ourselves for not gagaing out on bliss, however that happens, but I guess it involves renouncing electricity, looking like the peasants in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and if at all possible, dying of the black death or cholera, at least.
Hang in there Bobby. My read, despite the imprecations of some faith leaders, is that there is no one "true faith" among Christian denominations. Hence my reference to Hebrews which makes it clear that we can approach the Throne of Grace directly, without intermediaries. Why else was the veil of the inner "Holy of Holies" in the Temple rent at Jesus's crucifixion.
Exactly. And I know that I probably am unfair to our host sometimes, something which he can grieve from the slum which is Budapest, but it really annoys me that every time he ticks off the chain of events which has lead to our current awfulness, he begins with The Protestant Reformation.
Re: Everything which makes wonder possible comes from The Word.
This would suggest there is no wonder or transcendence in other religious traditions, which is simply not true by obvious inspection. The source of wonder is ultimately God himself, however dimly he may be perceived and understood.
More than that, it negates the idea that there is wonder in the Creation. Granted, the Word is what ultimately put it there, but it's also true that we were created with the capabilitity to perceive it.
On those points I agree.
I don't see a dissonance between the written Word, the Word made Flesh, and what The Word has created ( Romans 1:20. )
Yes, dimly perceived, but perceived. Understood? That's arguable, considering the passion for human sacrifice in every imaginable form which has ridden the Earth since Eden.
There's a verse somewhere in the Old Testament which I, lying here with a sinus headache, haven't got the stamina to search for, but you can Google it: “He has put Eternity in their hearts, that they might seek Him.”
I trust you would agree with me that there can be no genuine peace in the soul of a nonChristian. That alone suggests that the statement which you are responding to is correct. Somewhere in The New Testament there is an allusion to unconverted Jews, who, it says, have a zeal for God, but a zeal which is not according to knowledge. This strikes me as a New Testament amplification of the Old Testament verse, with particular application to unbelieving Jews, and if reinforces my certainty about this.
There can be no genuine peace in a nonChristian’s soul, but there can be something far worse than lack of peace, a diabolical, lethally deceptive false “peace.” Remember the Hale - Bopp comet cultists of the mid nineties? You can find video of interviews with them not long before their group suicide. They have blissed out appearing countenances, and I don't doubt they believed the diabolism they had been taught was actually true.
"It isn't possible that the opportunity to glut on The Word of God could tend to make a person less given to wonder."
True, but no one here is saying that. The problem with the Reformation wasn't its increased attention to the Scriptures. In fact, that was one of the positives, as many scholars who are in other ways critical of the Reformation have noted.
The most important thing about the Reformation was breaking the monopoly of a hidebound bureaucracy posing as spiritual leadership. At the time Hus was first imprisoned, there were no less than three popes.
Precisely. Studying Scripture can do that for you, or me, or anyone who approaches the writing in that spirit -- but it doesn't make any of us the Authority to dictate to others exactly what it all means and how they should experience it. We can share with each other congregationally or corporately what we each find, and perhaps learn some perspective or insights from each other, but we can't prescribe to each other. Nor can a magesterium, church council, or hierarchy.
So it's a free-for-all after all. As I said above, one wonders how the Canon of Scripture would possibly have come to be under such a laissez-faire approach to truth.
Why do we need a Canon?
How do we know which works are genuine and which are not? Is the Qu'ran Scripture for Christians? The Book of Mormon? The Gnostic "gospels"?
Clearly, we don't. The Orthodox and Catholic churches accept 72 books, the Coptic churches accept 83, and Protestant churches accept 66. Which of us is right? Is it possible a few other texts would have been worthy to include? Is it possible one or more churches have accepted a text that is less than reliable? Luther at one point dismissed the epistle of James as "rubbish" because of its emphasis in certain places on good works. Luther also considered leaving out the Revelation to St. John, which I wouldn't necessarily have objected to. What virtually every Christian body has accepted, I definitely consider worth studying -- but aside from what is Authoritative, I keep in mind that God may have intended many layers of meaning -- one reason I prefer the sometimes ambiguous KJV to the NIV. I once heard the NIV lauded for "making everything clear," and immediately thought, perhaps in giving ever verse a "clear" meaning, a lot that God also intended to be there was unintentionally excised. Also, each translation runs a considerable risk of misunderstanding, misinterpretation, taking things out of cultural context, etc. (E.g., the original Hebrew text makes clear that Jeptha most certainly did NOT offer his daughter as a burnt sacrifice, which would have been an abomination, but translation to Greek substituted a word meaning burnt offering for one -- eloha -- meaning elevated to the service of God. Knowing that, even the translated text makes more sense -- the daughter doesn't mourn her death but her perpetual virginity.) Parts of the Koran can be very edifying and inspiring, others, not so much. Of course I take much more liberty in setting aside passages from the Koran.
Rob I am struggling to understand what you prescribe for believers. Are we to only study the Bible under the tutelage of priests?
FWIW, I am an Episcopalian/Anglican. Well familiar with the Articles of Faith and other accepted doctrines of the Church.
But I don't think that an individual is unable to apprehend the Truth of Scripture. What would you do for those Christians living in serious persecution that worship in house churches. Are they unable to apprehend God's word?
Of course not. Many of the believers in the Gulag and in concentration camps had no copies of the Scriptures at all and had to rely on memory.
To say that an individual can't fully apprehend the truth of Scripture is not to say that he can't apprehend it at all. But the early Church Fathers were very clear on the idea that Scripture read in isolation would necessarily tend to error. As someone once put it, put ten people on an island with ten copies of the New Testament and you'll end up with eleven different theologies. St Vincent of Lerins said that this approach would, if possible, lead to the notion that there were as many theologies as there were men. I think he was only half kidding.
I once heard a Baptist minister say that if you have two Baptists in a room you have three opinions. He meant that as something to be proud of. That's only a problem if ten people with eleven opinions are willing to kill or fight to the death over the difference. The more accurate approach is, you may be right brother, but that's not how I read the text, and when we get to the other side God will make it all clear to us.
That really is a great review! I am reading it now and have so many questions. I am also in the middle of "The Decline and Fall of Sacred Scripture" by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker (which is less academic version of "Politicizing the Bible,"), and find the two books oddly consonant. Their thesis about how the Bible became a book people wielded to control others and how the historical-critical method of reading Scripture came about, is very much like what I've read in your book so far, including some of the same players. Reducing the Bible to a "text" that can be taken apart and Jesus to dual "historical" and "religious" figures is part of reducing the world to what can be verified by the scientific method.
Congratulations! :)
Great to read such an intelligent appreciation of your work Rod. I have come to your writing v recently and have just devoured Living in Wonder, and am about to finish The Benedict Option, both of which have resonated very powerfully with me, while provoking much careful thought. Thank you for what you are doing.
Haven't heard of this scholar or the journal, but this cat definitely gets it. Great review.
The review author can write. That was an exceptionally well constructed and executed analysis. It weaved together a multitude of perspectives and did so seamlessly. It was a pleasure to read but also highly instructive.
I particularly liked the point about “trickster knowledge.” This is especially widespread in the social sciences, where the incentives are to make counter-intuitive and “clever” arguments, as opposed to true ones, often just for the sake of the argument.
Richard Hanania is a good example of this, but there are many, many others besides, and of varying quality. Very social sciencey and “rigorous” in a facile way. Fun at times, but ultimately not to be taken too seriously. But for too many of our thinkers, that is all they’ve got because it is the only way they have been trained to think.
It is a great review, amazing, and I could can barely imagine the level of brilliance that produced it - but I do not know why the review completely misuses the term "trickster knowledge", equivalencing it with so-called left brain thinking. <<< ""people in the West have come to systematically privilege the left-brain (analytical, abstract, external) way of knowing – what in political anth
Thei attribution of "left-brain" analytical thinking to trickster knowledge is almost the opposite of what the concept actually represents in political anthropology. It's typically associated with what might be called "right-brain" characteristics - intuitive, contextual, and relational ways of knowing. Trickster knowledge is liminal "operating in the spaces left unaccounted for by systematic, analytical thinking." - - The article is brillian, however, and I don't want to over-focus on this one thing.
I am glad this review put us on to this journal. I've discovered the most recent issue can be read free online. They use the term "trickster knowledge" in other articles.
Hanania is kind of the poster-child for that. But he makes more "sense" when one understands that he is primarily engagement farming when he does this -- and it's pretty effective for that purpose. It's another example of how our current digital existence serves to create and encourage many distortions.
This is a great review, both analytic and synthetic, as well as easily comprehensible.
Congratulations!
Well, it is my impression that that the more apparently intelligent the reviewer, the more they like Rod's book. Almost like direct proportionality. Of course, pretty much every review has been quite positive. I especially liked this one - the author understands how materialism is rational, as Rod does, and so is able to address it. That is something that is beyond me....(Materialism just does not seem rational to me.)
Rod - that is the best review yet. Paul O'Connor really "gets" you and resonates with your thinking. How terrific is it that this essay came out on the heals of your pilgrimage to Mt. Athos? Very good timing, I should imagine.
While it can be criticized for not offering any kind of criticism of Rod’s ideas, it is a fair minded, thorough, and A-plus account of what is actually claimed in Living in Wonder. A joy to read! I hope Rod can use some of it in promoting his book. Russ Nieli
This guy might be an academic but his review not only “gets” the book, it’s understandable by non academics. Congratulations Rod!
Such a thoughtful and respectful review, from a quarter where one might have anticipated some petty gatekeeping (or worse).
Spot on review of your book, I’m sending it to several people who i really want to read your book !!!
I think getting others to read your book is like an “Evangelical “ invitation to life!
One finds a sense of enchantment in the wisdom monologue in the eighth chapter of the book of Proverbs, not only in the way it is written, but also seemingly being experienced by Wisdom herself as she rejoices in the LORD's inhabited world and delights in the children of man:
Proverbs 8:27–31
[27] When he established the heavens, I was there;
when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
[28] when he made firm the skies above,
when he established the fountains of the deep,
[29] when he assigned to the sea its limit,
so that the waters might not transgress his command,
when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
[30] then I was beside him, like a master workman,
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing before him always,
[31] rejoicing in his inhabited world
and delighting in the children of man.