Where was Jesus?

Ramsay MacMullen discusses the Christianizing of the Roman Empire and looks at what was taught in face to face encounters between Christians and pagans. He says:
“…monotheism, to begin with. That was taught, and God was compared, in familiar fashion, to a monarch with his companies of servants about him; and contrast was drawn between Him and mere imitations, the daimones that passed for gods by animating idols and so forth. Word was spread of divine wrath and punishments, the more readily imagined through being leveled at evildoers resurrected in the flesh; while immortal delights were also known to await the blessed. The very stark blacks and whites of this whole crude picture of Christianity, and the very unsteady focus on the role of Jesus, are most striking.”
In a footnote to this paragraph, MacMullen says:
“…on Jesus in the theology being presented, [see] the curious paragraph in Athenag., Leg. 10, with really no explanation of Jesus’ role; his entire absence in Minucius Felix (striking at 29.6) and in Theophilus, Ad Autol. (striking at 1.12, 2.9, and 2.22); and his total unimportance for the one recent convert whose theology we can actually form some idea of, namely, Constantine. See Kraft (1955) 60 and passim and Frend (1952) 153.”
The passage MacMullen refers to in Athenagoras is here and it is terrible as regards mentioning Jesus – the central figure of the universe and the Church. The Minucius Felix passage is here and is also a disaster when it comes to Jesus the Messiah. I haven’t read the works in question, so I’m taking MacMullen’s word for it, but it is painful to see these presentations of Christianity as a philosophy that really didn’t need to focus much on Jesus.

Ramsay MacMullen discusses the Christianizing of the Roman Empire and looks at what was taught in face to face encounters between Christians and pagans. He says:

…monotheism, to begin with. That was taught, and God was compared, in familiar fashion, to a monarch with his companies of servants about him; and contrast was drawn between Him and mere imitations, the daimones that passed for gods by animating idols and so forth. Word was spread of divine wrath and punishments, the more readily imagined through being leveled at evildoers resurrected in the flesh; while immortal delights were also known to await the blessed. The very stark blacks and whites of this whole crude picture of Christianity, and the very unsteady focus on the role of Jesus, are most striking.

In a footnote to this paragraph, MacMullen says:

…on Jesus in the theology being presented, [see] the curious paragraph in Athenag., Leg. 10, with really no explanation of Jesus’ role; his entire absence in Minucius Felix (striking at 29.6) and in Theophilus, Ad Autol. (striking at 1.12, 2.9, and 2.22); and his total unimportance for the one recent convert whose theology we can actually form some idea of, namely, Constantine. See Kraft (1955) 60 and passim and Frend (1952) 153.

The passage MacMullen refers to in Athenagoras is here and it is terrible as regards mentioning Jesus – the central figure of the universe and the Church. The Minucius Felix passage is here and is also a disaster when it comes to Jesus the Messiah. I haven’t read the works in question, so I’m taking MacMullen’s word for it, but it is painful to see these presentations of Christianity as a philosophy that really didn’t need to focus much on Jesus.

Converts can’t let it go

It seems that often when Protestants convert to becoming Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox they do the following:
– Convert their blogs into a constant stream of Patristic quotes. You’ll see a fine example of this here. Do they think no one has ever read these quotes before? Do they think people are hanging on these words and converting themselves due to reading them? Or does it merely feed their own self-narrative of being part of the new, most correct church? How is it that a brand new convert is best qualified to teach the world about his newfound Church?
– Turn all of their energy to attacking their previous, woefully mistaken ways as Protestants. Protestants had this, that and the other wrong. Augustine was bad, preaching was over-emphasized, art was neglected, Tradition ignored, Authority not thought through, etc.
These attempts at converting other Protestants who have not made whatever leap these individuals have made are puzzling. Do they need the justification of others making the same choice that they have made in order to feel better? Why is it that you never (in my experience) see these bold new converts out in the world evangelizing the lost? Where is the Great Commission in their new life? So let’s just say to them:
“Hey, you converted, that’s great. Now why don’t you go fulfill our Lord’s command and evangelize the lost world? Get back to us and tell us how that goes. Until then, lay off the constant attempts at proselytization of Protestants.”
It seems that often when Protestants convert to becoming Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox they do the following:
– Convert their blogs into a constant stream of Patristic quotes. You’ll see a fine example of this here. Do they think no one has ever read these quotes before? Do they think people are hanging on these words and converting themselves due to reading them? Or does it merely feed their own self-narrative of being part of the new, most correct church? How is it that a brand new convert is best qualified to teach the world about his newfound Church?
– Turn all of their energy to attacking their previous, woefully mistaken ways as Protestants. Protestants had this, that and the other wrong. Augustine was bad, preaching was over-emphasized, art was neglected, Tradition ignored, Authority not thought through, etc.
These attempts at converting other Protestants who have not made whatever leap these individuals have made are puzzling. Do they need the justification of others making the same choice that they have made in order to feel better? Why is it that you never (in my experience) see these bold new converts out in the world evangelizing the lost? Where is the Great Commission in their new life? So let’s just say to them:
“Hey, you converted, that’s great. Now why don’t you go fulfill our Lord’s command and evangelize the lost world? Get back to us and tell us how that goes. Until then, lay off the constant attempts at proselytization of Protestants.”

The NY Times Doesn’t Care

I think the latest possible cell broken up in New York was very serious. They had bomb making notes, trips to Pakistan, backpacks, fuses, etc. Their goal was probably to blow up the subways in New York like London and Madrid before them. And yet the left doesn’t want this message of messy warfare to disrupt the new enlightened moment we are in since last November. I looked at the NY Times this morning and there is nothing on the top fold of the front page on the story at all. The newspaper in the very city that would have experienced death, disruption and misery doesn’t want to talk about Muslims who wanted to kill them. What a joke that paper is. I don’t know why I still read it. A bunch of shills for the Party who need to take a course or two in Western Civ from St. John’s or New St. Andrews, not NYU or Yale.

Office Live

Since I have a little used Sky Drive account I checked to see if I qualified for the roll-out today of Office Live (Office 10 online) which competes with Google Docs and Acrobat.com (Buzzword). I also have an Office Live Spaces account which I only use to see what it does. Anyway, I do indeed have an invite to use Office Live. Right now I can only create and edit Powerpoint and Excel files. All I want to do is edit Word files, so I’m impatient to see how that works.

I think Adobe might also be doing a Buzzword update tonight, and I find that more interesting right now. It makes sense however that Office Live will use Skydrive as storage and Spaces as a kind of online SharePoint.

Romanism and Orthodoxy

Steven Wedgeworth’s lectures on the subject are now available here. The subjects are:

“Why I’m Not A Roman Catholic”
“Lost in the Shamayim: A Psychology of Conversion”
“The Eternal City and the Seven Councils: Just Who is the Church?”
“What’s a Reformed Catholic to Do?: Towards an Equilibrium of Christendom”
“Why I’m Not A Roman Catholic”
“Lost in the Shamayim: A Psychology of Conversion”
“The Eternal City and the Seven Councils: Just Who is the Church?”
“What’s a Reformed Catholic to Do?: Towards an Equilibrium of Christendom”

Hans Kung downgrades the Bible

I am sort of reading Hans Kung’s book Does God Exist? When it comes to theologizing Kung parrots the tired liberal line that peaked in the 60‘s. I am reading it because he does a good job of outlining various philosophical high points in recent history that I am too ignorant of.
Kung seems given to the notion, at least at the time of the writing of this book, of an advancing secularism. He mentions the “modern process of secularization and emancipation…” This ‘modern process’ strikes me as a widely-held fallacy of modernist Westerners writing in the post-war period and seems to still hold sway in the minds of the plebs in America. Quite to the contrary, much of the world is becoming more religious all the time.
Kung embraces evolution and sees that doing so necessitates abandoning the Biblical account of Creation and the Fall. He writes:
With regard to the origin and evolution of the world and man, has not science established the very opposite of such a perfect original state of the world and man: that there is no place in the scientific understanding of the world for a story of paradise and of the sin of a single human couple, if this is understood as a historical account and not a statement of principles?
Kung of course embraces higher criticism. In discussing Blaise Pascal he wishes that higher criticism had been embraced earlier:
A precondition, of course, for a different approach would have been a new critical understanding of the Bible in the light of the discoveries in astronomy and physics and increasingly in biology and medicine.
This doubt in the Bible is of course nothing new. It is everywhere present in modern thinking and has infected every corner of the Church. People want to be taken seriously by the world and the Academy and so they abandon the embarrassing notion of Creation in the Bible, never mind that Jesus himself said “the Scripture cannot be broken” which is about as high a view of Scripture as you’re going to find and it comes from a pretty reliable source! Contrast Kung’s surrender of the text to scientism with James Jordan’s thought in his Through New Eyes:
Moses, educated in all the learning of the Egyptians (Acts 7:22) – which was thoroughly “evolutionary” in its commitment to a “scale-of-being” philosophy – was doubtless as surprised at Genesis 1 as any modern philosopher would be. No impersonal forces here! No gradual shades of “being” from animals to man with all sorts of things (satyrs, sphinxes, etc.) in between. No huge cycles of time. Just a series of immediate personal acts, in a brief span of time, initiating linear time. This was not what Moses had been taught by his Egyptian tutors.
Jordan takes the text seriously, Kung doesn’t.

I am sort of reading Hans Kung’s book Does God Exist? When it comes to theologizing Kung parrots the tired liberal line that peaked in the 60‘s. I am reading it because he does a good job of outlining various philosophical high points in recent history that I am too ignorant of.

Kung seems given to the notion, at least at the time of the writing of this book, of an advancing secularism. He mentions the “modern process of secularization and emancipation…” This ‘modern process’ strikes me as a widely-held fallacy of modernist Westerners writing in the post-war period and seems to still hold sway in the minds of the plebs in America. Quite to the contrary, much of the world is becoming more religious all the time.

Kung embraces evolution and sees that doing so necessitates abandoning the Biblical account of Creation and the Fall. He writes:

With regard to the origin and evolution of the world and man, has not science established the very opposite of such a perfect original state of the world and man: that there is no place in the scientific understanding of the world for a story of paradise and of the sin of a single human couple, if this is understood as a historical account and not a statement of principles?

Kung of course embraces higher criticism. In discussing Blaise Pascal he wishes that higher criticism had been embraced earlier:

A precondition, of course, for a different approach would have been a new critical understanding of the Bible in the light of the discoveries in astronomy and physics and increasingly in biology and medicine.

This doubt in the Bible is of course nothing new. It is everywhere present in modern thinking and has infected every corner of the Church. People want to be taken seriously by the world and the Academy and so they abandon the embarrassing notion of Creation in the Bible, never mind that Jesus himself said “the Scripture cannot be broken” which is about as high a view of Scripture as you’re going to find and it comes from a pretty reliable source! Contrast Kung’s surrender of the text to scientism with James Jordan’s thought in his Through New Eyes:

Moses, educated in all the learning of the Egyptians (Acts 7:22) – which was thoroughly “evolutionary” in its commitment to a “scale-of-being” philosophy – was doubtless as surprised at Genesis 1 as any modern philosopher would be. No impersonal forces here! No gradual shades of “being” from animals to man with all sorts of things (satyrs, sphinxes, etc.) in between. No huge cycles of time. Just a series of immediate personal acts, in a brief span of time, initiating linear time. This was not what Moses had been taught by his Egyptian tutors.

Jordan takes the text seriously, Kung doesn’t.

Pessimism

Muggeridge says of Christianity:

Pessimism has, indeed, been Christianity’s great strength, and the reason for its survival. The concept of this world as a wilderness, and of human life as short and brutish, fits the circumstances of most people most of the time. The contrary proposition-that earthly life can be satisfying within its own dimensions and on its own terms-leads to such mental strain and confusion as to be scarcely tenable, other than briefly and artificially.

Our leaders

Malcolm Muggeridge wrote about British Prime Ministers and what he said applies entirely to our elected leaders:

We like to persuade ourselves that our leaders betray the trust imposed in them and distort the aspirations of those who elect them. Actually they represent us all too exactly…No one is miscast. Each leaves the country appreciably poorer and weaker, both spiritually and materially, than when he takes over, giving an extra impetus to the Gadarene rush already under way.

Wedgeworth on Orthodox converts

A money quote:

This is a common occurrence with the radical converts too.  They never convert to Orthodoxy in order to meditate silently atop a mountain.  No, they get a wholesale makeover and then begin talk talk talking again.  They shift from Right Wing fundy-extremists to pacifist vegans.  They start talking about “the Jews” this and “the Freemasons” that.  They join Serbian liberation movements.  There’s more than a bit of identity crisis involved here.

Why is that converts to Rome and the East don’t blaze a trail of evangelizing the lost, but rather start using endless quotes from the Fathers to bash their previous existence as Protestants? There is an identity crisis at work, just look at the shambles that is now Frank Schaeffer.