Clement of Alexandria’s Aesthetic Theology

I just found out about the group Read the Fathers, and jumped right in.  We’re reading Clement of Alexandria’s Exhortation to the Heathen, and Clement’s extended musical metaphors soar!  Some excerpts from ch. 1:

“Behold the might of the new song!  It has made men out of stones, men out of beasts.  Those, moreover, that were as dead, not being partakers of the true life, have come to life again, simply by becoming listeners to this song.  It also composed the universe into melodious order, tuned the discord of the elements to harmonious arrangement, so that the whole world might become harmony.”

“And He who is of David, and yet before him, the Word of God, despising the lyre and harp, which are but lifeless instruments, and having tuned by the Holy Spirit the universe, and especially man,–who, composed of body of soul, is a universe in miniature,–makes melody to God on this instrument of many tones; and to this instrument–I mean man–he sings accordant:  ’For thou art my harp, and pipe, and temple.’–a harp for harmony–a pipe by reason of the Spirit–a temple by reason of the word; so that the first may sound, the second breathe, the third contain the Lord.”

“A beautiful breathing instrument of music the Lord made man, after His own image.  And He Himself also, surely, who is the supramundane Wisdom, the celestial Word, is the all-harmonious, melodious, holy instrument of God.  What, then, does this instrument–the Word of God, the Lord, the New Song–desire?”

“The instrument of God loves mankind.”

“Well, inasmuch as the Word was from the first, He was and is the divine source of all things; but inasmuch as He has now assumed the name Christ, consecrated of old, and worthy of power, he has been called by me the New Song.”

“This is the New Song, the manifestation of the Word that was in the beginning, and before the beginning … The Word, who was in the beginning bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our Teacher; that as God He might afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends.”

 

Those Manly, Racy Puritans!

Authors like Anne Douglas (The Feminization of American Culture) and Leon Podles (The Church Impotent:  The Feminization of Christianity) have documented what might be called the “feminization of the church.”  More recent offerings like Why Men Hate Going to Church bring statistical data and anecdotal evidence that men just don’t seem to like, or fit in, at most  churches.  While I think these authors all make good points, I was recently struck at how “feminine” certain Puritan theologians were.  For many in my conservative Reformed circles, the Puritans are the standard against which we measure our own orthodoxy and our spiritual fervor.  Many Puritans are revered for their “manly” courage and heroic gospel deeds.  I don’t want to belittle any of that–I simply want suggest that some of the these “manly” Puritans spoke, wrote, and preached in quite “feminine” terms.

 

The Blessed Unity of our Singing

In A New Song for an Old World:  Musical Thought in the Early Church, Calvin Stapert shows how important congregational singing was to the early church as a visible and audible expression of Christian unity:

Building on Paul’s exhortation in Romans 15:5-6, Stapert asks:  ”Does ‘with one voice’ refer directly to singing?  Probably not–at least not exclusively.  But no one can doubt that it articulates a principle that the church took very seriously for her singing.  The importance of singing ‘with one voice’ was a constant refrain among the early Christian writers.  Listen to some of its recurrences during the first few centuries of the Christian era.  Clement of Rome (ca. 96):

In the same way [as the angels] ought we ourselves, gathered together in a conscious unity, to cry to Him as it were with a single voice …

Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-ca. 215):

The union of many in one, issuing in the production of divine harmony out of a medley of sounds and division, becomes one symphony following one choir-leader and teacher, the Word, reaching and resting in the same truth, and crying Abba, Father.

Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260-ca. 340):

And so more sweetly pleasing to God than any musical instrument would be the symphony of the people of God, by which, in every church of God, with kindred spirit and single disposition, with one mind and unanimity of faith and piety, we raise melody in unison in our psalmody.

Ambrose (ca. 339-397):

[A Psalm is] a pledge of peace and harmony, which produces one song from various and sundry voices in the manner of a cithara …  A psalm joins those with differences, unites those at odds and reconciles those who have been offended, for who will not concede to him with whom one sings to God in one voice?  It is after all a great bond of unity for the full number of people to join in one chorus.  The strings of the cithara differ, but create one harmony (symphonia).”

Stapert comments:  ”Unity was an important matter to the early Christians, and, as these quotations show, almost from the beginning music was an expression of, a metaphor for, and a means toward unity” (25-26).

 

Lenten Humility

Lent is traditionally a season in the church year where we actively seek to live in a state of more humility and repentance.  Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann has some brilliant insights into how we are actually becoming more like God when we seek humility:

“But what is humility?  The answer to this question may seem a paradoxical one for it is rooted in a strange affirmation:  God Himself is humble! … In our human mentality we tend to oppose ‘glory’ and ‘humility’–the latter being for us the indication of a flaw or deficiency.  For us it is our ignorance or incompetence that makes or ought to make us feel humble … God is humble because He is perfect; His humility is His glory and the source of all true beauty, perfection, and goodness, and everyone who approaches God and knows Him immediately partakes of the Divine humility and beautified by it … How does one become humble … by contemplating Christ, the divine humility incarnate, the One in whom God has revealed once and for all His glory as humility and His humility as Glory …”

“The lenten season begins with a quest, a prayer for humility which is the beginning of true repentance.  For repentance, above everything else, is a return to the genuine order of things, the restoration of the right vision.  It is, therefore, rooted in humility, and humility–the divine and beautiful humility–is its fruit and end.  ’Let us avoid the high flown speech of the Pharisee,’ says the Kontakion of this day, ‘and learn the majesty of the Publican’s humble words …’” (Great Lent: Journey into Pascha, 19-20).

 

Getting the Reformation Wrong

Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings by James R. Payton Jr. My rating: 4 of 5 stars James Payton has produced what promises to be a remarkable book. I haven’t gotten very far, but he is already cutting the legs out from under many standard Reformed evangelical lecture quotables. I don’t know if this book will make many friends for Dr. Payton in the world of conservative Reformdom (or conservative anything-dom), but it deserves a careful reading by all those are serious about the study of history. (On a personal note, Dr. Payton is a careful scholar, as well as a kind one. When I was doing my M.A. research, he was kind enough to send me a copy of his doctoral dissertation, which related to my topic. He also helped me with a short bibliography on a topic I was pursuing at Trinity Theology College.)  Here are some of the golden nuggets I’ve found in the book so far:

Renaissance Humanism It is a truism in discussions of Christian “world-view thinking” to say that the Renaissance was a move towards a man-centered worldview, in other words, humanism. Dr. Payton shows that we have totally mis-read the “h-word” in regard to the Renaissance: “But during the Renaissance umanista carried no philosophic implications. Rather, it had pedgagogical ones: a ‘humanist’ was someone who taught the ‘humanities’–the liberal arts. These Renaissance figures focused not on some perceived or alleged philosophical differences from their scholastic opponents, but on the pedagogical difference from them. Where scholastics concentrated on logic, dialectic and metaphysics, Renaissance humanists focused on grammar, poetry, rhetoric and history. Rather than ensconcing themselves in the ‘professional’ schools at the universities (law, medicine and theology), the Renaissance figures emphasized the importance of preparatory or undergraduate education in its own right. Their purpose was to prepare their students to become capable and functioning members of society–not as specialists in law, medicine or theology, but as well-rounded individuals who could serve the needs of the burgeoning society in Italy. Burckhardt’s [first real historian of the Italian Renaissance] readers had committed an egregious category mistake: they had misappropriated the understanding of ‘humanism’ of their own day, with all its philosophical and humanity-centered implications, to interpret the ‘humanism’ of the Renaissance, a movement that had no such philosophical emphasis or implications,” (61-62).

“Renaissance figures produced a great deal of devotional literature, careful textual studies of the New Testament and treatises on various doctrinal topics. Rather than dismiss these as holdovers from a superstitious upbringing, scholars have come to recognize them as evidence of the Renaissance figures’ ongoing Christian commitment” (64).

View all my reviews

 

The Sacred Meal – Review

The Sacred Meal: The Ancient Practices Series by Nora Gallagher

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I found Gallagher’s book simultaneously illuminating and infuriating. To start on a positive note, Gallagher definitely has a gift for writing. I’m used to reading fat books by scholars on this subject, but Gallagher brings a lot of wit and earthy wisdom to this topic. And, I’ll certainly agree that the scholars have muddied the waters quite a bit. Jesus told us to do something really simple, but we’ve managed to fragment this sacrament of unity into a hundred thorny questions. Gallagher’s catchy metaphors appropriately turn our attention away from whatever might be going on “inside” the bread, and she exhorts us to remember that “we” are the Body of Christ, when we gather as the Church. When we take communion, she exhorts us to “Look around you,” something I’ve said when I’ve administered communion. Don’t try to conjure up some deep, mystical experience–just look around at all other messed up people that God is in the process of healing. Gallagher has many wonderful stories about her experiences with partaking, and administering, communion–stories about real people being transformed by ancient rite. She helps us to look at this “ancient practice” from lots of new angles, and I think much of what she says is spot on and quite helpful.

But … there were a few parts which made me gag a little. I think Gallagher is far too quick to buy into the neo-liberal reading of Jesus which highlights Jesus’ supposed critique of “empire.” Now, I freely confess that we should do more to care for the poor. I confess that our government is not righteous. I acknowledge that there are more than a few unsettling analogies between America hegemony and the pagan Roman Empire. But, I’m just not convinced that this is the right way to read the Jesus narratives. However, I will agree enthusiastically with one of Gallagher’s conclusions: “So part of waiting in Communion is examining what we did last week to find the kingdom of heaven in our midst and to help others find it” (pg. 37).

A quibble–I didn’t really buy her imaginative reconstruction of Jesus’ encounter with the Canaanite woman (Matt. 15:21-28). I find Kenneth Bailey’s interpretation much more convincing (see Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, ch. 16).

Lastly, I believe Gallagher goes too far in her desire to be inclusive and welcoming. She writes: “Communion is so important to me that I don’t think there should be rules about who can take it and who cannot” (pg. 88). Now, I fully applaud the motive here. I’m trying to write a dissertation on some of the reasons why churches should celebrate the Supper more often. It’s important to me. But not more important than the Word of God. Gallagher doesn’t want to create “rules” about who can, and who can’t, take Communion (pg. 89). The only problem is that the Apostle Paul lays down some pretty tough rules in 1 Cor. 11:27-32. Perhaps Gallagher has some exegetical reasons for why Paul isn’t setting up some sort of “fence” around the Table. If so, it would have been nice to have those reasons summarized. She also appears to drive off the cliff of tolerance when she writes: “Thieves are welcome here, and embezzlers; so are murderers and prostitutes and sex abusers and those who have been or are abused … Everyone.” (pg. 92). Now, I agree that no sin should keep us away from the Table, but I would add that no sin we “repent” of, should keep us away. What about 1 Cor. 5:11? When Jesus refused to condone the stoning of the woman caught in adultery, he did not just dismiss her sin. He commanded her, “Go, and from now on sin no more.” (Jn. 8:11). The Eucharist is medicine for sick souls, and repentance (the process of turning away from sin) must be part of how approach the Table (Ro. 6:22).

I’m thankful to Gallagher for writing this book, and for forcing us to re-think a ritual that so many of us take for granted.

View all my reviews

(Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze®.com <http://BookSneeze®.com> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”)

 

Breaking The Da Vinci Code – Review

Breaking the Da Vinci Code: Answers to the Questions Everyone’s Asking by Darrell L. Bock

My rating: 3 of 5 stars
Bock’s little book is an able response to The Da Vinci Code. I think studying The Da Vinci Code is valuable simply because it enables us to discuss what really happened. Too many Christians simply have no clue where the Bible came from. We need to have a response ready for when we talk to folks who have read the book or think it’s true just because Tom Hanks said it.

View all my reviews >>

 

Happy St. Patrick’s Day!

Articles on St. Patrick and Celtic Christianity from Christian History.

 

Well, at least he stopped branding faces …

People tend to lament the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine to Christianity.  Yes, he wasn’t perfect.  Yes, he probably chose Christianity to unify his empire.  But, it wasn’t all bad. 

John Meyendorff highlights the mixed-bag nature of the Christianization of the Roman Empire: “If the Roman  state, now Christian-inspired, hardly modified its philosophy of marriage, it did begin to integrate some principles of Christian family ethics.  Thus help was provided to parents unable to feed their children and tempted to abandon them.  The sale of children to slavery and their use for prostitution was severely punished.  Laws prohibiting celibacy, which was encouraged by the Church, were abolished.  Homosexuals were to be burnt at the stake.  Earlier, Constantine had condemned pederasts to gladiator’s fights, but soon decided to abolish such fights altogether, after also forbidding mutilation, by fire-branding, of a criminal’s face because ‘it bears the similitude of God’” (Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions, 10-11). 

So, in the midst of what most would consider barbaric punishments, we have laws against child-abuse, and a thoroughly Christian reason for not branding criminals on their faces! 

I love Meyendorff–although he is Eastern Orthodox, he is truly objective.  He doesn’t shy away from the messy (or objectionable) details of church history, and nor does he over-emphasize the virtues of the early church.

 

Evangelical Traditionalism

Evangelicals are supposed to be totally devoted to the Bible.  Sola Scriptura! we shout.  But, as Craig Allert shows, Evangelicals are just as prone to following traditions as any other branch of Christendom.  (Just where in the Bible does it say to close your eyes when you pray!??)

Allert writes:  “What is actually happening in contemporary North American evangelical circles is that traditionalism has gradually crept into our understanding, or lack thereof, of the fundamentals.  Jaroslav Pelikan’s famous statement is apt here–’Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is he dead faith of the living.’  Traditionalism is doing or believing something simply because it is a custom, even if it is devoid of understanding, meaning, and/or significance.  This is what contemporary evangelicals have done in retaining their core set of essentials … The evangelical is exhorted to believe the sore set of doctrines because they have ‘always’ been seen as essential …

“Thus, not only have certain nonessentials been given essential status, but also some foundational aspects of theology have been underemphasized or even ignored and therefore undervalued, and this to the detriment of the body of Christ.  The rich liturgical tradition of the church becomes confined to musically induced emotionalism.  The importance of the community of faith for the life of the believer is reduced to crass marketing strategies and the newest ‘get spiritual quick’ scheme.  The living voice of the Bible in theological history becomes lost in individual interpretation and defense of a rather static propositionalism” (A High View of Scripture?  The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon, 33-34).

Evangelicals have been used by God to preserve and fight for some very important doctrines.  However, we always need to re-examine our beliefs, to make sure we are not simply holding on to ideas and doctrines because that’s “what we’ve always believed.” 

Allert’s book is about how the NT Canon was formed.  Most evangelicals (and most Christians in general) have no idea how we got our Bible.  This is peculiar, since we say we believe it is the Word of God.  Wouldn’t you want to know how the Word of God got into your hands!?

I’m sure I’ll be posting more on this topic …