Is there a sacred/secular divide?

The sacred/secular divide that we hear about so often is a thing that exists only as a result of sin. In a world without sin, whether we think of Eden or of the world to come, everything is filled with the glory of God, and there is no "secular." The earth is holy. Again, when Christ was in the world bodily, the kingdom of heaven was breaking in and the divide between the sacred and secular was breaking down. Sin and disease and hard-heartedness struggled for existence in the face of God's presence.

One call we Christians have in this world is to carry God's presence with us wherever we go, not as a hidden presence but as a redeeming presence. We know what God's presence does because we saw it in Christ: welcoming sinners and seeking out the outcasts, binding up the brokenhearted, comforting the afflicted but troubling the self-righteous and the complacent. God's presence welcomes the stranger, it creates brothers and sisters for us all, and it shows us a face by which we will know we are home. By love it creates a place where people gather for the hope that someone there will hear them, someone there will know them, someone there will call them by name and treasure them.

The sacred/secular divide breaks down whenever we dare to really know another person.

Why Hymns Do More Good Than Sermons

Four short reasons why I think that on the average Sunday the hymns do more good than the sermon.

• Even the most attentive church-goers won't remember much of a sermon, but they will memorize a good hymn.
• A person has to go out of their way to hear a sermon, but hymns stay in our minds and go with us into the world.
• In sermons, the pastor lifts up the name of God in church. In hymns, the believer lifts up the name of God wherever he goes.
• The shelf life of a good sermons is fairly short. Some of the best hymns have been around for centuries.

Of course that only applies to the good hymns, not the ones C.S. Lewis calls "fourth rate sermons set to fifth rate tunes."

Christian Reconciliation Carnival News

Our Christian Reconciliation Carnivals have been drifting later in the month due to various other commitments. I would like to schedule two more Reconciliation Carnivals this year: one for late this month and one for late November/early December, for a total of 11 rather than 12 carnivals this year. And I hope I'm not being a terrible Carnival hog, but I would like to host this upcoming Carnival because I have a topic I'd like to suggest and it would be really horrible of me to suggest the topic for someone else's carnival. So with that much said:

The next edition of the Christian Reconciliation Carnival will be hosted here, with posts due by 10/21/2007. The topic will be: If you had to choose one thing that you believe your church or tradition does the best, or one contribution you believe your church body makes to Christendom as a whole, what would that be? (The point of choosing one thing is to get a focus rather than a laundry list.)

The last 2007 edition of Christian Reconciliation Carnival is still available for anyone wanting to host in late November or early December. New hosts are encouraged and are always welcome. Then in December at some point I'll send out a notice for us to regroup for 2008, and people who intend to host a Carnival in 2008 can put in their requests for the month(s) most convenient to them. Thank you!

Praying for Sodom

In the last couple of weeks I've seen more than one piece around the blogosphere about Sodom and Gomorrah. It seems to be on peoples' minds lately. Recently I taught a teenage Sunday school class on one of the texts neighboring to that. We're studying times in the Bible when God revealed himself directly to people; God revealed himself directly to Abraham just previous to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Does everyone remember that scene in the Bible where Abraham argues with God and bargains with God and haggles with God? Do you know what Abraham was trying to do? He was trying to save Sodom. He was praying for Sodom, begging for Sodom, pleading for Sodom. He did not ask for the wicked to be counted righteous. He asked that the city be spared ("forgiven" in some translations) because of the righteous people who lived there. Abraham was counted not only prophet, but also a friend of God.

I can't help but notice the contrast between Abraham and all the rest of us. Abraham did not excuse the wickedness of the city; he did not define one sin as greater and another as lesser; he did not exult over the bad guys getting blasted. He considered it his moral obligation to contend for what was right, and it made him bold before God.

I know there is a lot to be said about Sodom and Gomorrah, and most of us have already studied and taken notes. All I ask is that we add one mental image to that set of notes: the mental image of Abraham, from whom we all reckon our spiritual heritage, praying for Sodom ...

Patristics Carnival #4

Welcome to the 4th edition of the revived Patristics Carnival with posts through 09/30/2007, organized by Phil Snider of hyperekperissou. For all of us who love early church history, drop him a post for the next carnival or let him know if you'd like to take a turn as a host.

In a month filled with commemorations of St. John Chrysostom, Phil -- the organizer of the Patristics Carnival -- contributes St. John Chrysostom and the Problem of Wealth.

Fred presents Rebirth of the Eagle posted at Deep Furrows. An ancient and patristic fable is still circulating online. Why? Because folks still find it helpful.

Gregory Alms of incarnatus est considers ancient Christian worship in Sunday liturgy in 150 A.D. and in Hippolytus on the Eucharist containing part of an order of service dated to the mid-100's.

The Way of the Fathers considers Secret Mark and methods for detecting ancient document forgeries Archko Forgery Fingerprint.

Aardvark Alley commemorates Gregory the Great, doctor of the church.

Ex corde ecclesiae presents John Chrysostom: Coherence between Ideas and Real Life.

Continuing with the commemorations of Chrysostom, Mike Aquilina pays his own respects. He also relays Pope Benedict's recent homage to Gregory of Nyssa.

John Hobbins of Ancient Hebrew Poetry reflects on the interplay between the Word of God and the people of God in Did the Church create the Bible, or the Bible create the Church?

Biblicalia presents some useful excerpts on patristic use of Scripture and other ancient writings from Lee Martin McDonald's book, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority.

Mark Thoma reviews two church fathers' comments on usury and economic justice.

My own modest contribution is a brief introduction to the early church's views on authorship, pseudo-authorship, and acceptance in the canon of Scripture.

Apocryphal Corner
Apocryphicity considers orthodoxy and heresy in earliest Christianity.

April DeConick of the Forbidden Gospels blog considers rewriting early Christianity and whether Luke is a trustworthy historian.

---

That's all for this month's Carnival. Keep the church fathers in mind for next month's Carnival due out the begnning of November.

Authorship, pseudo-authorship, and acceptance in the canon

From time to time I hear the argument made that because pseudo-authorship was an accepted and honored practice in certain ages and places therefore it is likely enough that certain books of the Bible are works of pseudo-authorship. I have even seen an article suggesting that dispute of pseudo-authorship for any given work must be on "sentimental" grounds, as if the existence of the practice of pseudo-authorship in some circles was enough to settle the question as soon as the suggestion was made for any given work. Thankfully, not all discussions of authorship and pseudo-authorship are so dismissive of genuine discussion on the question of authorship.

In New Testament studies, the claim of pseudo-authorship is commonly made of various letters attributed to Paul as well as several other works included in the New Testament. The arguments about authorship are far too broad for a single blog post. Here I intend to focus on some assumptions that tend to be made implicitly during the course of discussions on pseudo-authorship: that the identity of an author was of little importance to those receiving or evaluating the works, and that anonymous works of pseudo-authorship were received in the same way and with the same authority as the works of a known author.

Pseudo-Authorship and the Muratorian Canon
The Muratorian Canon is one of the earliest Christian canons of Scripture, usually dated to the end of the 2nd century (i.e. late 100's A.D.). It contains two passages bearing on the question of pseudo-authorship. First, after listing the letters held to be written by Paul, it continues:

There is said to be another letter in Paul's name to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrines forged in accordance with Marcion's heresy, and many others which cannot be received into the catholic church.

Before commenting on the first passage, it would be good to review the next also:

But the letter of Jude and the two superscribed with the name of John are accepted in the catholic church; Wisdom also, written by Solomon's friends in his honor.

The Muratorian Canon was very early in its discussion of the list of books to be received in the New Testament canon, and later discussion made some few adjustments to this early list. Still the early date and the assessment of pseudo-authorship are relevant here. The letters "forged" in Paul's name are rejected in plain terms on the basis of their pseudo-authorship, while the book of Wisdom has a kindly remark on its pseudo-authorship that it was "written by Solomon's friends in his honor". The comments on John's letters may also express some mild doubt as to their authorship, though it is more subtly stated. This suggests that, very early, the Christian community may have had a nuanced approach to the practice of pseudo-authorship. If the book of Wisdom was received largely based on its content, then its authorship was unimportant. If the letters of Paul were received largely based on their authorship, then pseudo-authorship was unacceptable. On the other hand, if the pseudo-letters of Paul (Laodiceans and Alexandrines) were rejected largely based on their plainly non-Pauline teaching, then it remains an open question how pseudo-authorship would have been received in the case of more Pauline teachings. In any event, pseudo-authorship was a recognized phenomenon, and the question of real or pseudo-authorship was part of the consideration for how a writing would be received.

The Bishop of Antioch and The Gospel of Peter
One work of pseudo-authorship which is known to this day is the Gospel of Peter. The early church was aware of this gospel and of its circulation under the name of Peter. Some early comments on this gospel are recorded by Serapion, Bishop of Antioch (d. circa 211 A.D.):

We, my brothers, receive Peter and all the apostles as we receive Christ, but the writings falsely attributed to them we are experienced enough to reject, knowing that nothing of the sort has been handed down to us. (Recorded in Eusebius' History of the Church vi.12.2)

Here again we see knowledge of the practice of pseudo-authorship. In the case of Peter and the apostles, the question of authorship was a question of certainty and authority; the apostles of Christ were believed to speak with authority on the matter of Christ. Serapion's unapologetic and unreserved rejection of the Gospel of Peter is on the basis of its pseudo-authorship.

Pseudo-Authorship and Eusebius
Eusebius' History of the Church contains various comments on authorship and pseudo-authorship. Peter and Paul are the subject of much modern speculation about authorship and pseudo-authorship; the same questions were being reviewed and studied in the days of Eusebius. On Peter's writings, Eusebius makes these comments:

Of Peter one epistle, known as hist first, is accepted, and this the early fathers quoted freely, as undoubtedly genuine, in their own writings. But the second Petrine epistle we have been taught to regard as uncanonical; many, however, have thought it valuable and have honored it with a place among the other Scriptures. On the other hand, in the case of the Acta attributed to him, the Gospel that bears his name, the Preaching called his, and the so-called Revelation, we have no reason at all to include these among the traditional Catholic Scriptures, for neither in early days nor in our own has any church writer made use of their testimony. (iii.3.1-2)

Eusebius' research shows signs of familiarity with writings of earlier ages. He gauges a writing's antiquity by how early the writing was received. This may include knowledge of whether the writings were received by those who knew the apostles in person. Again Eusebius shows a nuanced treatment of pseudo-authorship, with more of a three-tiered approach than a two-tiered approach. Peter's first letter is undoubtedly genuine and so unreservedly accepted. His second letter is doubtful as to authorship but considered valuable in content, and with its mixed credentials has a mixed reception. Still others were undoubtedly works of pseudo-authors and had nothing to recommend them; these were plainly rejected. In the case of writings attributed to Peter, Eusebius shows that there is more to the question of authorship and acceptance in the church than a straight-line acceptance or rejection of pseudo-authorship. While genuine authorship by an apostle was a guarantee of acceptance, pseudo-authorship was a consideration which weighed against a writing but not always irreparably.

In the case of Paul's writings, Eusebius made the following comments:

Paul on the other hand was obviously and unmistakably the author of fourteen epistles, but we must not shut our eyes to the fact that some authorities have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, pointing out that the Roman Church denies that it is the work of Paul: what our predecessors have said about it I will point out at the proper time. As for the Acts attributed to him, no one has ever suggested to me that they are genuine. (iii.3.3)

Again we see the concern for authorship coupled with an open discussion of disputes of the day. Again we see that while certain authorship by an apostle is a guarantee of acceptance, uncertain authorship may or may not lead to the ultimate rejection of a book. And once again the early church already has singled out a book on which modern scholarship questions the authorship.

Conclusion
This is only the briefest of introductions to the topic of pseudo-authorship and how it affected the status of various writings. It is not meant to settle the question of the authorship or pseudo-authorship of any particular work, nor even to exhaust the materials available in the works cited. It is only meant to call attention to some early Christian perspectives on authorship and pseudo-authorship and how that issue affected the status and recognized authority of writings in general. The early appraisers of the church writings showed a subtlety, scholarship, and discernment with which they are rarely credited. They showed an interest in authorship together with a contemporary knowledge of the practice of pseudo-authorship which allowed them to make principled decisions regarding the acceptance and rejection of various works of uncertain authorship.

Popes: Of infallibility, humility, and repentance

There's no two ways about it: disagreements are just not edifying. I have to force myself to write such a post as this, even to reply to such a kind soul as Japhy. And I have to wonder how much good is accomplished. If any good is accomplished, it would have to be this: to make a clear statement about exactly what the disagreement is, and what causes it, and what might repair it. Otherwise it becomes more a matter of rehearsing differences (or worse, rehearsing grievances) which accomplishes nothing good. I might even hope to offer reasons why the entrenched positions should be open to reconsideration.

Writing this, I know full well that the most likely reaction is -- must be -- that it will be dismissed out of hand based on entrenched positions that are not open to reconsideration, that it will be read not in the spirit of seeing whether it has anything useful to say or any insight or any gain for moving forward, but in the spirit of finding how it is -- how it must be -- wrong. That is the nature of such a division. That is one of the saddest parts of our divisions: that two followers of Christ could be robbed of their ability to see each other, hear each other, listen to each other, by the assumption that the other simply must be wrong and therefore simply must be dismissed, simply must have nothing to contribute to a conversation on that particular subject. In that scenario, the conversation really has no right to take place: there is no basis for disagreement, only an error that needs correcting. And so a conversation does not take place.

With our current example of the bishop of Rome as pope, I think the most useful place I can start is here: What is a pope? A Roman Catholic friend of mine once patiently explained that the pope is the fellow who speaks for the whole church. He is the bishop of the foremost see of the church, the one with primacy. He's only considered infallible under certain very limited circumstances: when issuing decrees ex cathedra for the whole church with the consensus of the whole church. Here he serves as the voice of the church, the unifying focal point of the church. Insofar as he speaks for the whole church united (one, holy, catholic, and apostolic), he can be assumed to have reached the right decision. I hope I've understood that correctly.

So if that is the theory, what is the historical reality? Where do we first see such a thing? The council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) took place early in the church's history. There was yet no bishop of Rome; the decisions for the whole church were made from Jerusalem. Still, there was a leader from the beginning. There is one who issues a decree ex cathedra, one who speaks from the primary see of the church of that day, one who is bishop of that primary see, one who gives voice to the decree of the church with the consensus of the church. That person is James. All the arguments in the world that when Jesus said "Feed my sheep" he meant "Have authority over the whole church" carry no weight when there is no sign that the person to whom it was addressed understood it that way, no sign that the person who recorded the conversation for posterity understood it that way.

Speaking for the whole church. The church has not been whole in any meaningful sense since Chalcedon. Before that, the breaches had not affected the major centers of apostolic Christendom. To get the feel for what happened at Chalcedon, consider this. Think of the little breaches before Chalcedon as "what would happen to the U.N. without Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, and Lithuania". Think of Chalcedon as "what would happen to the U.N. if China, India, Russia, and the U.S. would no longer sit at the same table." Nobody has spoken for the whole church since Chalcedon; the church has not been whole since then, and more than just crackpot heretics were swept away in that breach. There have been no valid decrees for the whole church since then because the whole apostolic church has not agreed on a decision since then. That breach broke fellowship with more than just oddballs who wanted to reinvent Christianity to suit their own preferences. That breach broke fellowship not between the apostolic church on one side and trackless, rootless heretics on the other, but pitted one apostolic church against another. The unity of the Christian church was broken, and nobody could claim to speak for the whole church because the church was not whole. Every voice was a partisan voice, the bishop of Rome against the bishop of Alexandria. Nobody can rightly judge a dispute in which he is a party. Rome eventually decided that Rome was infallible. Many Christians eventually decided that Rome, because she considered herself infallible, was therefore unreformable. I wouldn't go that far: almost anyone will realize they are fallible if they are humbled. I am not sure how far Rome would have to be humbled before she acknowledged that she was fallible.

From my point of view, the most necessary change is for Rome to become humble as Peter was, to admit mistakes publicly and accept correction graciously as Peter did, to know that repentance and humility are at least as necessary in the church body as they are in the individual members. See, here's the thing: I know a lot of Protestants who are tired of protesting. I know a lot of Protestants who wish Rome was what Rome claimed to be, who would dearly love to see the church re-united. But for most of us, we know too well which teachings were late-added, which were changed, which build up Rome more than they build up Christ, which are not from the apostles, which amount to human teachings. We know Rome isn't infallible. But it is the idea of her own infallibility that Rome guards the most jealously of all her late-developed doctrines. It's a given in Roman Catholic circles that Rome has never been wrong, that the protests are entirely mistaken, that there is no reason whatsoever for Rome -- or any individual Christian affiliated with Rome -- to listen when another Christian calls for reform in Rome, because we cannot possibly have a point.

In order for there to be a change, enough Roman Catholics would have to privately within their own ranks allow it to become thinkable that Rome has become partisan rather than catholic, has acted on her own behalf instead of for the good of the whole, that humility is in order, that fallibility is possible, that repentance is a virtue for the church herself. As long as it is unthinkable that we have anything worthwhile to say in our protests, we will not be heard but dismissed out of hand. And every time one Christian dismisses another out of hand, a brick is added to the wall of separation between us.

So we each have to make our appeal for unity as best we know how. Some Roman Catholics honestly believe that Rome is infallible and that the best they can do is to proclaim that until all the "erring brothers" come home. Some Roman Catholics are not convinced that Rome is infallible but know it's a one-way ticket out the door to say so plainly, and have no wish to leave. Others are not convinced that Rome is infallible but are frightened that, if Rome isn't infallible, then nobody is infallible and they would not be sure what to believe. All I can ask is that we be human beings to each other, brothers and sisters in Christ. For anything more than that, I have to trust each one to go forward as best he knows how.