What are you afraid of? That your theology might be defective?

“Simply said, ” David Bentley Hart observes, “the earliest Christians were communists . . . , not as an accident of history but as an imperative of faith.” And if time and circumstances meant that not all subsequent Christians evinced communism as fully and intensely as the earliest, a call toward a vision of service to the common good echoed through the patristic period, founded on a truth taught by Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose of Milan, and John Chrysostom: “The goods of creation belong equally to all, and that immense private wealth is theft—bread stolen from the hungry, clothing stolen from the naked, money stolen from the destitute.”

Nor did such hopes, dreams, and practices cease with the patristic age. We can think of monasticism and mendicancy as well as such present-day movements as the Catholic Workers, the Bruderhof and the (usually Protestant) New Monastics. Such “purist” movements have great value and pertinence, as does the less “purist” yet still significant giving in face of need—serving at soup kitchens and homeless shelters, donating cars and groceries—that happens day to day and week to week in ordinary urban, suburban, and rural churches.— Naming Neoliberalism: Exposing the Spirit of Our Age, 109–10

<idle musing>
I recall when I was (much) younger and the threat of world Marxism (called Communism, with an upper case C) was a very real threat. The attempts by the Western church to rewrite the early chapters of Acts was almost comical. What were they afraid of? That they might be required to share their wealth?

Just an
</idle musing>

Those neglected fathers of the church

From Early Christian Readings of Genesis One, by Craig D. Allert—a book I picked up at the recent AAR/SBL Annual Meeting.

Severa1 years ago I was invited to give a presentation to an adult Sunday school class at a Mennonite church in my community. I called the presentation “Back to the Sources: An Introduction to the Great Thinkers of the Early Church” and was excited to share my passion for the church fathers with this audience. Unfortunately, my hearers did not share my excitement. At best they could not understand why we would need anything other than what we have in our Bibles. At worst, they could not understand why a good conservative Christian would recommend these figures from a church and an age that was, in their opinion, far from the purity of New Testament Christianity. Granted, my experience above may be unique, but I doubt it. An argument could be made that the necessity of an introductory chapter in this book about the importance of the church fathers is a symptom of a greater problem within our churches that my experience illustrates. For reasons beyond the scope of this book, our own Christian heritage, which includes the church fathers, has been deemed, at best, marginally helpful for the twenty-first-century Christian. At worst, the history between the apostles and the Reformers has been judged as an era best left in the past because of its perceived distance from “true” Christianity. For many Christians the idea that we should appeal to the church fathers, who belong to that era, as part of our own Christian heritage is foreign, suspect, or even impious. The Christianity of that age has been seen as transitory, naive, and even problematic, and therefore an unnecessary resource for Christian faithfulness today. (pages 13–14)

<idle musing>
I believe he sums up well the antihistorical attitude (and hubristic pride!) of the normal evangelical Christian—at least in my experience. I once had a seminary graduate say to me about the church fathers, "Those clowns? Why should we listen to them?" I could hardly believe it! Sure, they got some things wrong, but I suspect we have a whole lot more wrong than they do—especially with an attitude like that!
</idle musing>

But who wrote it?

“But who wrote these words is quite a pointless question when we believe confidently that the Holy Spirit is the true author of the book. The writer is the one who dictates things to be written. The writer is the one who inspires the book and recounts through the voice of the scribe the deeds we are to imitate.—Gregory the Great, Moralia as quoted in Ascetic Pneumatology from John Cassian to Gregory the Great, page 187

<idle musing>
As long as this doesn't degenerate into the oral dictation theory, I agree. Although I love researching who might have written what, in the end, it's the Holy Spirit. And unless we submit to the leading of the Holy Spirit, we are just beating the air...and even though beating the air might feel like you're doing something, it won't result in a changed life. Or a closer walk with Jesus. And that is the goal, isn't it?
</idle musing>

Origen got it right

For as the different strings of the harp or lyre, each of which gives forth a sound of its own seemingly unlike that of any other, are thought by the unmusical who do not understand the theory of harmony to be discordant because the sounds are dissimilar, so are they who have not ears to detect the harmony of God in the holy scriptures. . . . But if a reader comes who has been instructed in God’s music, one who is wise in word and deed, and for this reason may be called David—which is interpreted “skillful player”—he will produce the sound of God’s music. . . . For he knows that the whole scripture is the one, perfect, harmonious instrument of God, which blends the different sounds, for those who wish to learn, into one harmonious song of salvation.—Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew 2 in Philocalia 6.2 quoted in The Harp of Prophecy

<idle musing>
Yes, there really is a metanarrative in scripture. And Origen got it right here, despite his horrendous etymology for David's name : )

And I've got to get this book! But interlibrary loan says I have to wait until it is 6 months old! Another 3 months...

But, endnotes! Why? It is a scholarly book for scholars. There is no way to justify endnotes instead of footnotes! The software can easily handle footnotes. Why or why? Maybe so we could take up a Psalm of lament? : (
</idle musing>