On "Using the Greek” (Why Evangelicalism is Falling Apart)

Evangelicalism’s original basis of corporate identity was coherent only as long as it was fundamentalism--a conservative Protestant alliance based on a common confession of the "fundamentals of the faith," against Protestant liberalism.  When it became Evangelicalism, an essentially apologetic movement with an orientation toward what is now called inclusiveness and a deadly fear of giving offense to the intellectual establishment from which its intelligentsia sought its accreditation, it immediately lost its original coherence.

Its new negative pole, opposition to fundamentalism rather than liberalism, and new positive pole, some sort of “orthodoxy,” cannot together generate enough binding force to keep the movement together. This weakness is the direct result of its progressive magisterium’s desire conform itself to the world rather than to seek out and reform itself according to the catholic faith, and the windy presumption of many of its more orthodox theologians that they actually represent it.

Do I have a formula for reform? I do. Evangelicals have always professed a strong devotion to the Bible. They must begin by ceasing to evade, and to deal honestly with, the numerous parts of it they don’t like. As I have noted elsewhere, the children have discovered egalitarianism using the very same tools their fathers, likewise using the Greek, employed to assert teetotalism and deny a number of other things. There needs to be a general movement away from self-assertion and self-definition towards shutting up and listening to older authorities, a re-entry into the life and mind of the Church as it was before Evangelicalism came along, and will exist when the movement is only a footnote to its history.

Comments

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

Two words: Thomas Oden.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Those children, having learned the circus acts in Greek after the pattern of their fathers, are merely the latest proof that a foundation of sola scriptura is a foundation of sand. For scripture is no authority at all where there is no authoritative human agency to interpret it. That was in fact what old style fundamentalism represented. Whether right- or wrong-headed, the fundamentalist "fathers" and those ordained by their hands, were truly a magisterium, for all practical purposes infallible in their interpretation of Holy Writ, such that their findings bound the consciences of the faithful.

What today is evangelicalism except a rejection of this storied (and to most a horribly embarrassing) past? It is not merely that "its progressive magisterium" desires to "conform itself to the world", but that there is in fact no magisterium at all. For the demon (private interpretation) let loose could only be contained for so long. The stout-hearted evangelical fathers (a.k.a., fundamentalists) bottled it up heroically. But, alas, they are mostly dead now. And their children are far more concerned with being "hip" and "relevant" than with carrying on an anachronistic (tho' thoroughly worthwhile IMO) fight with modernity.

Would that there was an "Evangelical Magisterium", an unequivocal voice to lead the way, to define Evangelical teaching for the Evangelical faithful, and ultimately give coherence to a movement that can no longer even define itself (except by what it is against, and that ain't much). But what you're asking for Mr. Hutchens is to put the demon back in the bottle. I wholeheartedly concur that ought be done, but have given up hope that it is any longer possible.

[Rev Dave]

I can't remember exactly the source of this little phrase (lost somewhere in the murks of my seminary education, I'm sure): "For the Reformers, sola scriptura did not mean nuda scriptura."

In other words, Calvin, Luther, and theri ilk did not rely only on scripture, but they went back ad fontes (to the sources). They actually read the early fathers of the church, who were now much more easily accessible thanks to Gutenburg. And they found that often the intevening theological developments lined up with neither the Bible or the Fathers.

[Bec]

AMEN Mr. Hutchens!

Maybe I misunderstood Rev. Dave, but had the Reformers been paying complete attention to the works of the early Church Fathers and putting them into practice we would, today, be short a few denominations. Instead, it appears to me, they applied the same "sola scriptura" principle, and proof-texted the Fathers just as their children now do to Scripture.

My understanding is that Luther himself was in contact with Orthodox hierarchs and ultimately rejected what they offered.

Now we have a gazillion denominations ranging from the Assemblies of God to Willow Creek (an "association" or whatever). Some of these feel it unnecessary to even attempt to observe the Holy Days this year.

Sigh.

[Peter Kim]

I'm sorry but you guys are ridiculous. I thought this magazine and this site was supposed to be somewhat "ecumenical". There's way too much evangelical-bashing on this site, much of which is unwarranted since evangelicalism is so broad--any attempt to characterize it is a gross, inaccurate generalization.

Yes, I am an evangelical and yes, there are some "strains" of evangelicalism which trouble me. But there's obviously a lot of good stuff happening within evangelicalism that I resonate with, which is why I still consider myself an evangelical.

If you're going to start bashing on a movement, please be very specific instead of making these huge overarching generalizations that are so broad that they are meaningless. There's a lot of stuff that Catholics and Orthodox believe that trouble me, but I'm wouldn't spout off on it on a site that claims to be ecumenical. I hope this can truly be "a place where Christians of various backgrounds can speak with one another on the basis of shared belief in the fundamental doctrines of the faith as revealed in Holy Scripture and summarized in the ancient creeds of the Church" as stated on your home page. This site is becoming more and more of a pro-Orthodox, anti-everything-else site; if that is your intention, I would ask that you would change your mission statement to reflect that.

[David Deavel]

Mr. Kim,

I would disagree with your assessment of the site as Pro-Orthodox and anti-everything else. I'm a Catholic, so I agree with much of the take on Evangelicalism, but there are lots of pieces that offend me, too. "Ecumenical" does not mean "never talk about your differences" but it does mean "talk about them with respect."

With respect to Rev. Dave, while much of Calvin and Luther's teaching lines up with the Fathers, much of it does not (eg, Calvin on the Eucharist).

[Steven Schmitt]

"There needs to be a general movement away from self-assertion and self-definition towards shutting up and listening to older authorities"

Really? Why? So we can go back to the old anti-Semitism, or perhaps regulation of sex to a mere 51 allowed days per year, and then must be confessed as sin even if it is between spouses, no one enjoyed it, and it was specifically aimed at procreation? Or should it be that the Pope is infallible, even when there are two of them and they do not agree? Perhaps we can return to buying our way (or others') into Heaven? After all, these teachings all came from the very same Church Fathers you idolize.

Perhaps we would have fewer denominations if the Roman Church had followed Scripture, rather than focusing on temporal power and wealth to the detriment of her flock.

Yes, this is an intemperate post. No less intemperate than the one to which it responds.

[Christopher Culver]

"I'm sorry but you guys are ridiculous. I thought this magazine and this site was supposed to be somewhat "ecumenical". There's way too much evangelical-bashing on this site, much of which is unwarranted since evangelicalism is so broad--any attempt to characterize it is a gross, inaccurate generalization."

Maybe I misunderstood Touchstone's mission, but I always thought it was a place where Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and conservative Anglicans (those with some claim to catholic faith) could cooperate against the apostate issues of the day. So, the point isn't dialogue with Protestants, but rather understanding that Protestants are just another sign of the modern age rejecting catholic teachings. Am I wrong?

[Steven Schmitt]

Aren't Anglicans considered Protestants? After all, the founder of the Church was excommunicated by the Pope, and as far as I recall Anglicans are outside of salvation in the eyes of Rome because they are outside the Roman Church.

Of course, ecumenism is looking more and more like an attempt by Rome to re-assert its temporal authority. "No one goes to heaven unless the Pope says they are" -- as one ecumenically-minded priest put it to me recently.

[David Gray]

>I always thought it was a place where Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and conservative Anglicans (those with some claim to catholic faith) could cooperate against the apostate issues of the day

Closer to the mark to say Easter Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Protestants. If in doubt review the backgrounds of the writers and editors. There is a marked Presbyterian presence for example.

[smh]

This comment was indeed broad and overarching. I meant it to be--the product of hard, cold analysis with nothing whatever intemperate about it. It is based upon a lifetime personal experience of fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, the taking of several degrees from Evangelical seminaries, and years of serious study of its history and doctrine, including a doctoral dissertation on its principal theologian. I am a Protestant who does not believe every old authority is right, and carefully avoided saying anything that would give a reasonable person the opportunity to invent the fables and straw men upon which several of these respondents depend for their criticism.

Nor did I say everything was wrong with Evangelicalism, or that all parts of it are in equally bad condition. I write about a movement as a whole, as a chronicler might summarize a national history or a king's reign. It is possible to do such things accurately when knowledge of the subject of which one is writing is deep and intricate enough.

There are a number of conservative Protestants who are not Evangelicals in the sense I am using the term here. They can usually be known by their refusal to identify themselves with this movement except in a very qualified way.

(One will find that almost all of the "Evangelical-bashing" in Touchstone publications is mine. I do this because I'm trying to wake a few people up--to help them see what has been happening to their churches in the course of the last several generations. The changes have been radical and far-reaching, and have moved from the relatively innocent (e.g. teetotalism) to the grave and heretical (egalitarianism). This isn't "bashing"--it's an attempt at cancer surgery, or at least helping those who are willing to be helped.)

[David Palmer]

Christopher asks,

"Maybe I misunderstood Touchstone's mission, but I always thought it was a place where Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and conservative Anglicans (those with some claim to catholic faith) could cooperate against the apostate issues of the day. So, the point isn't dialogue with Protestants, but rather understanding that Protestants are just another sign of the modern age rejecting catholic teachings. Am I wrong?"

You certainly are wrong brother - go back to the masthead where you can read “Touchstone is a Christian journal, conservative in doctrine and eclectic in content, with editors and readers from each of the three great divisions of Christendom — Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox.”

And whilst I understand both Mr Hutchens’ rhetorical stance as well as his taken stance within US religious history of the past 50 years, I would like to point out that in Britain and its former colonies the word, “evangelical” had an honourable history reaching back into the 18th Century and stood for those noted for their orthodoxy and orthopraxis (in a post Reformation sense).

Where I agree with Mr Hutchens is that with the withering of “old fashioned” liberalism, we are now seeing the next lot of “evangelicals” sloughing off into new manifestations of liberalism, this applying whether we talk about the new perspective on Paul or the emerging church or open theism or mega churches with closed doors on Christmas Day, or the slippery slope of egalitarianism, or churches populated by people falling within the strictures of 1 Cor 6:9 and not being corrected (=disciplined) for such ungodly ways.

Within the context that I am familiar with (Presbyterian, Australia), we now never use the word “evangelical” without coupling it to “reformed”, and indeed we like “confessional” and orthodox” as well.

[smh]

It is also, I believe, very important to add this: I am extremely careful about making specific prescriptions for Evangelicalism, and have in fact made very few of them. They amount to two: stop mishandling scripture--clear your consciences on this--and restore the Lord's Supper, no longer denying the Words of Institution, to its proper place in the service of worship. It seems to me that all the necessary reforms will flow from these in the course of time, when their meaning is given proper weight.

Evangelicalism is theologically weak-rooted--a very unformed thing--despite the spate of Evangelical theologies written in the last twenty or so years. Because of this the serious Evangelical theological thinker, who cannot simply "stay with" Evangelicalism as it is, has two very different paths open naturally before him, and upon which his thinking may proceed, a catholicizing, re-racinating, path and a liberalizing one in which the deracination continues until the plant is dead.

The catholicizing path may not lead him to Rome or Orthodoxy (it has not done this for me), but will link him to the history of the Church as a living authority, and hence ecumenize him with the conserving churches, catholic and protestant. This attitude, I believe, is what marks the Touchstone Protestant, who is not at all easy with Evangelicalism, especially with its intelligentsia.

[Pr. Dave Poedel]

Ah yes, remember, the original "evangelicals" were those (we,, since I are one now!) pesky Lutherans! With the emphasis on being "born again", and that not being baptismal regeneration, and many other things, we no longer qualify! Now we are evangelical catholics or confessing evangelicals. Oh, for the good old days!

[David]

Mr. Hutchens and Mr. Nicoloso,

During time of year where we celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace why not take a break from 'discussing' the problems a Christian group of which you are not a part of? We Evangelicals are certainly not immune from criticism, and I wouldn't deny you your voice, but perhaps a better use of our voices right now would be to join together and sing, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men!"

We have many differences, and they matter, and I don't propose ignoring them. But I think a Mere Comments version of the WWI Christmas Truce would help us remember that we have so much more in common. And that it what I appreciate most about Touchstone.

David

[smh]

Alas, David, if only we could.

But I have before me an Evangelical Bible (the TNIV) that makes the angels' song, "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests"--"men" (anthropois) removed.

Who should give up his principles to join the angel choir? Will the egalitarian sing "men," or the rest of us sing "those"? Do you begin to see what kind of damage has been done by the innovators--what kind of wound they have inflicted upon the Church? It does not stop bleeding during Christmas. If anything, it gets worse.

The egalitarians, whose translation this is, constantly involve us in nothing less than the question of whether we worship the same God. They must consequently worship in their own places, and we will worship in ours. They should have thought of their inevitable estragement from Christendom before they changed the Bible. Or maybe they did.

Yours is a nice thought, but while there may be lulls in the battle, there can be no truce.

[Patrick]

This whole conversation makes me rather sad.

How wonderful if we could find unity within Christ, under the wise words of the Creed which was established during a time of unity, rather than insisting others not only take the creed but also must follow our interpretations of the various points.

The Early Church had it right, keeping things simple in regard to unity and thus communion. Evangelicals may have it wrong in many ways, but we're in a long line of such error, with many of these errors now being enshrined in the Churches we are supposed to embrace. The mote is in the eye of all the various traditions.

[Christopher Culver]

"How wonderful if we could find unity within Christ, under the wise words of the Creed which was established during a time of unity, rather than insisting others not only take the creed but also must follow our interpretations of the various points."

But the Creed wasn't created in a time of unity. It was created when the Arian heresy was tearing apart the Church and God's people vitally needed a statement of faith with ONE single interpretation that would continue to ensure the Church was steered down the right path forever.

[Patrick]

I'm curious also. Why are the older authorities more trustworthy?

Did they lead holier lives? Were they more in tune with the Kingdom of God? Did the Holy Spirit inspire their interpretations then, but leave us to trust the words of men who lived during times of anything but peace?

Why in the 3rd millenium should I trust the thinkers of the 2nd millenium to have a better interpretation of the 1st millenium?

"Because I said so, so shut up" is not a very cogent argument for dismantling the call upon each Christian in each era to pursue the depths of Christ in prayer and study.

[Christopher Culver]

SMH, Greek "anthropois" doesn't refer exclusively to males, and so "men" isn't an ideal translation into modern English. Anyone with a modicum of training in Greek knows that "anthropois" is generally gender-neutral (someone wanting to ensure the idea of males would have used "andresi"). I think gender-neutral Bibles do a lot of inappropriate things, but this isn't one. The translation with "men" would have been fine few hundred years ago when English "men", although already not generally gender-neutral, was still used for the sense of human beings in general. However, should we be translating God's word into a dead idiom, or follow the proud traditions of Sts Cyril and Methodius and Stephen of Perm in translating it into the modern vernacular that is familiar to all?

[Steve Nicoloso]

AFAIK, David, Mr. Hutchens is an Evangelical. That's why he self-identifies as the most "bashing" of the Touchstone editors toward Evangelicalism (it's true, BTW), and why he speaks so astutely upon it. I myself was up 'til only very recently an Evangelical, and I know well of the pervasive (no, not ubiquitous) problems of which I speak. I lacked the faith, that Mr. Hutchens has, in the reform of the thing, for I became convinced that the only way "back" was through a Fundamentalism, whose spirit, grit, and spunk I admire, but whose doctrines I quite frankly detest.

I say celebrate the coming of the Prince of Peace by meditating on what sacrifices will need to be made, what wounds we shall need to take upon our own bodies, completing the things lacking in the Sufferings of Christ, in order to make that promised Peace a reality.

[Patrick]

Christopher, a very good point there.

Then having established this creed, what other barriers are then raised to present unity?

What is sad now is that I can say this creed with the fullness of faith, and would die rather than deny this creed. Yet, that's not enough for today's churches to allow me to partake in communion.

I am of a lesser sort because while I would have unity with the earliest of Christians I am not allowed that same unity with their representatives over issues entirely left out of this unifying creed.

[smh]

Indeed Patrick, but have you heard the modernized versions of the creeds--the ones used by Egalitarian churches? Would they, to celebrate Christmas, deign to say "for us men and our salvation he came down from heaven . . . and was made man"? Why should they? This would be just as contrary to their faith as the declarations that removed male representative headship and obscured the significance of the maleness of Christ would be to ours.

And for years we have had to listen to sad people, telling us how sorry they are that we are so mean and schismatic and unkind and rigid and unecumenical because we won't be nice and give a little, that is, go along with the changes they have instituted. After a while, one becomes, of necessity, hardened to that kind of appeal, sort of like people who live next to the railroad tracks and no longer hear the trains.

[smh]

Oh yes, and we have had to put up with people who tell us what we would understand if we had only a smattering of Greek, too. I normally refer them to Father Reardon.

[David]

Unbelievable. You couldn't let it rest for even one hour.

You want to argue about Bible translations, about the finer points of Sola Scriptura, about the exact nature of the relationship between faith and works, fine, you can have it! Those arguments have been going on for some time now, I'm guessing they'll still be there in a few weeks. I’m not asking you to give up your fight, indeed I would probably agree with most of what you say. But there are better things to focus on this time of year.

I'll end my involvement in this matter with part of my favorite carol. I hope this is at least one thing we all can agree on.
"Veiled in flesh the Godhead see;
Hail th’incarnate Deity,
Pleased as man with men to dwell,
Jesus our Emmanuel."

David

[Tony Esolen]

For Christopher: The best article I have read about "inclusive language" was written by Paul Mankowski, for Touchstone, about four years ago. You might find it on the archives.

I will add something to Mankowski's excellent analysis -- which shows that indeed "man" is, linguistically, an irreplaceable and natural translation (I won't try to do justice to it in a few short lines; it is full and closely argued and unassailable). It's this: the claim that "ho anthropos" is strictly gender-neutral is nonsense, for these reasons:

1. It is of masculine grammatical gender.
2. It is related, perhaps distantly, to "ho aner," adult male; utterly unrelated to "ha gyne," adult woman.
3. It is never the natural word used to refer to one woman.
4. It is analogous to Latin "homo," whose grammatical gender is also masculine, and is felt as more properly referring to males than to females.
5. Proof of 4 is the shift in that word's meaning from "person in general, particularly male person," to "adult male": cf. Italian "uomo," French "homme," Spanish "hombre".
6. So natural is the association of "adult male" with "person in general" that in many languages the indefinite pronoun is simply an unstressed form of the word for adult male: French "on," Portuguese "om," analogous to German "man," from "Mann".
7. Languages will adopt the word for adult male to mean person in general (and male in particular), or the word for person in general (and male in particular) to mean adult male: so Latin "vir," "adult male," is the same word as Old English "wer" (person in general; cf. werewolf); but Old English "guma" (man; warrior; cf. English "groom") is the same word as Latin "homo".
8. The question is not whether such words as "homo" and "anthropos" are masculine in force, but exactly how masculine they are. Proof of this comes when you ask whether it is conceivable that Pilate could have referred to Mary Magdalene and said, "Ecce homo!" rather than "Ecce mulier," "Ecce domina," or "Ecce femina."
9. In most languages, words for "woman" are function words that specify a type of human being -- that narrow the focus from genus to species. So, for instance, a woman suckles babies (Latin "femina"), or gives birth (Greek "gyne"). They are strictly delineated, separated, from the words for males AND the words for persons in general.

So those are arguments from the original language; Mankowski takes care of arguments from the receptor language. No other translation besides "man" conveys exactly the same idea. It's a brilliant article he wrote.

[Fr. William Mouser]

Tony and others piqued by his reference to Mankowski,

The article is indeed in the archives, here:

http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=14-08-033-f

[Scott Walker]

Patrick, divisions among Christians are a scandal. We should all pray for an end to them. That being said, we cannot pretend that the Great Schism and the Reformation never happened. They did, and as a consequence we mean different things when we confess the Creed. I'm Orthodox. When I confess "one holy catholic and apostolic Church" I mean something very specific: the Church of the Ecumenical Councils, where issues are resolved in conciliar fashion by bishops who are in the apostolic succession. My Roman Catholic brothers say the same words, but invest them with different meaning. The one holy catholic and apostolic Church they confess is the Church whose head on earth is the bishop of Rome, who speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra. My Reformed sister has yet a different meaning when she says the Creed. My Baptist brother differs from all of the above. Now if truth means anything, we cannot all be right, but we are all obliged to be faithful as best we know. The reality is that if we confess the same Creed but mean different things, we aren't confessing the same Creed. Far better to love one another and to pray for one another than to accede to a least common denominator faith in the interest of superficial unity.

[Christopher Culver]

Mr Esolen, for that translation to be acceptable English would have to maintain the double meaning of "man" as both male and "human being" that it had for much of its history and which Greek had. Language changes naturally, and the meaning of "male" is no longer strong in ordinary English parlance. The continual translation of anthropos as "man" shows an unrealistic prescriptivist idea about language, and prescriptivists simply never win.

[David Gray]

>for that translation to be acceptable English would have to maintain the double meaning of "man" as both male and "human being" that it had for much of its history

And it does in circles that aren't concerned with being conformed to the Spirit of the Age.

[Christopher Culver]

Furthermore, this is a folk etymology: "In most languages, words for "woman" are function words that specify a type of human being -- that narrow the focus from genus to species. So, for instance, ... a woman gives birth (Greek "gyne")."

While they look similar in Greek, the words for "generation/birth" and "woman" come from separate Proto-Indo-European roots. In PIE, the first began with a palatal velar and the second with a labiovelar. Those two consonants merely happened to fall together in Greek. I'm sorry to see Mr Mankowski pitching this etymology, since it has been frequently debunked (in fact, I just yesterday saw this in Sihler's "Language History")

And the identification of words for human being with males is a feature of some Indo-European languages. The Uralic languages, for instance, generally maintain a very firm lexical division between the concepts. Being trained in historical linguistics, I simply cannot see these arguments to hold water.

[Christopher Culver]

"And it does in circles that aren't concerned with being conformed to the Spirit of the Age."

Mr Gray, language change is entirely natural. Your remark is equivalent to saying that because our society no longer speak Proto-Germanic, we've made some kind of terrible compromise.

[David Gray]

>Your remark is equivalent to saying that because our society no longer speak Proto-Germanic, we've made some kind of terrible compromise.

Not really. Change which is driven by ideology naturally reflects the ideology which underlies the change. Rejecting the presuppositions of that ideology will logically lead one to reject the change.

[Christopher Culver]

You can reject the change all you want but, as I said, prescriptivists ultimately never win.

[David Gray]

>You can reject the change all you want but, as I said, prescriptivists ultimately never win.

I remember when the Bolsheviks claimed inevitability as well. Great argument if your opponents are fool enough to buy into it.

[Christopher Culver]

Well, Mr Gray, can you ever show an example of prescriptivists winning in the long term? The author of the Appendix Probi tried hard to protect Latin, but in the end so much of Europe ended up speaking Romance languages. Greeks held on to quaint language for a long time in the form of Katharevusa, but it's finally bit the big one and modern Greek isn't bound by the prohibitions of the ancient grammarians. Irregardless of the human causes, from a perspective of hundreds of years language change can be seen to be morally neutral. I'm sure I'm not the only student of historical linguistics who thinks (like many mathematicians) that these fascinating and perpetual permutations only speak to the glory of God.

I can't find the folk etymology of "gyne" in the article of Paul Mankowski, S.J., so I assume that it is Mr Esolen's interpolation.

[David Gray]

>Well, Mr Gray, can you ever show an example of prescriptivists winning in the long term?

Well, Mr Culver, how do you derive from your statement that the case of one particular sort of change, consciously pursued by an anti-Christian mindset, will inevitably come to be accepted in common use? Or will it wind up like Teddy Roosevelt's conscious attempts to alter the English language?

[Christopher Culver]

Mr Gray, these inclusive translations get the support they do because people are subconsciously aware of the diminishing use of "man" to refer to human beings in general. Even Rev Mankowski notes in his article that its lexical scope has decreased significantly. Granted, the double use does survive in literary speech, but generally language change occurs through a much lower stratum of the language.

[Patrick]

"The reality is that if we confess the same Creed but mean different things, we aren't confessing the same Creed."

Indeed, and therein lies the problem. I wonder, however, if it is our own sense of superiority which keeps our definitions from defining our unity.

Right now the various denominations and churches have volumes of explanations to define what the creed means. However, in their wisdom the creed wasn't volumes long, it was quite short, enough to get at the heart of our faith, knowing there would be distinctions in each community with other matters.

I wonder if our unity is not found in insisting on our own path but letting go, so that I can, in faith, accept the Orthodox interpretations as valid, accept the Catholic interpretations as valid, and accept the Protestant interpretations as valid. Certainly not one of us has a mastery of the fullness of Christ, and so we're all wrong in some respect. However, in faith, we all pursue the depths of Christ, finding salvation through the grace poured down on us, finding new life even in this present life. This is a unified pursuit, with distinctions of worship, which, if it honors Christ above all things, seems acceptable.

It seems that if we let go, if we empty ourselves and allow the unity to be discovered within the nature of Christ, all the other things won't disappear, but they will be relegated to something other than preventing unity.

I'm a person who fits in with the Emerging Church, yet my heart and being resonates more with the volumes of the Philokalia than anything I've ever read. Their words of faith, of prayer, of discretion, say to me that above all things there is only the pursuit of Christ, anything which hinders or separates is a work of the enemy who wishes to divide either by making us too lax or too demanding. Our call in Christ is to be unified to those who are also called to Christ, however they choose to offer their praises weekly or daily.

Mr. Hutchens, there is certainly wonderful merit in your words. I've spent a great deal of time in my life offering similar critiques. Yet, I can't help but think of Luther, or any of the other reformers. They made unacceptable interpretations in their eras, yet we find something like Vatican II essentially saying much Luther tried to assert. The efforts of reformers have always offered new life to the Church, whether it be Luther, or Anthony, or Benedict or Wesley. The Church has listened, and while traditions should be honored they are not inviolate especially if they have erred at some point in the reflection of Christ.

[Steve Nicoloso]

I can't help but think of Luther, or any of the other reformers. They made unacceptable interpretations in their eras, yet we find something like Vatican II essentially saying much Luther tried to assert.

The Church is not split over any doctrine except for one: whether or not the Church may be split.

[Tony Esolen]

Christopher,

Yes, "gyne" is my fault. I will have to look it up again. But I'll bet that I have mistaken which function of females it originally denoted.

Mankowski shows that you're wrong when you describe this change as natural -- or even when you assert that the change has occurred. I notice how people speak when they aren't under political pressure -- or how naive people speak, who don't even notice the political pressure. (Mankowski makes some of these points):

1. Nobody misunderstands "mankind". Spontaneous errors in use should arise, if the word really has been taken over by another. Nobody hears a phrase "the origins of man" and thinks only of adult males: and that phrase is common in popular science. Nobody hears "pleased as man with men to dwell," in the hymn cited above, and thinks that Jesus spent his life in a male barracks. Nobody is confused by "He who laughs last, laughs best," or "Man proposes, God disposes," or "the heart of man" or innumerable other phrases and constructions.
2. "Man" is still a productive morpheme. This would certainly not be the case if it were causing confusion, or if its function had been lost. So we have "airman," "seaman," "man-made," "man-eating," etc. "Defenseman" is used in many sports, even when played by women and girls, without awkwardness or embarrassment. In field hockey, you can talk, without misunderstanding or unintentional comedy, of being penalized for having an extra "man" on the field.
3. "Those," "all," "persons," "human race," and so forth do not really translate "man". Some of them are vague pronouns that could refer to any beings, human or otherwise; or to human beings, without conceiving of them as united in any ontological way; or to human beings, united only in so far as they are in a collection. But "man" is a collective that is also a singular unity. This is actually a linguistic point that touches upon the profoundest doctrines of Christianity: we have been made subject to death by the sin of one man, and have been redeemed by the obedience of Christ, one Man. We are not in either case just separate human beings corraled into a collective; we are also a unity, a singular unity -- as in these stark contrasts: man and beast, man and angel, man and God.
4. We are even now, in popular speech, adopting masculine words to refer to "people in general". On any college campus, you will hear kids of both sexes referring to groups of their friends as "guys," without confusion -- though they will NEVER say, of one female, "I saw some guy walking down the street." Thus "guy," in that lower linguistic register, has become roughly comparable in use to Latin "homo". The same process has long been at work in the word "kid". I'll have to look this up, but it seems to me that the word originally denoted children of either sex indiscriminately, but now, in certain contexts, it refers in particular to boys or males (thus the process has been moving in the other direction from that of "guy" -- but always between the well-established poles). So, for instance, if you are talking about a twenty-year-old rookie on your baseball team, he's "a good kid"; not so if you are talking about a young woman on a soccer team. I've been noticing this oddity for years.
5. Some languages have "third" terms, denoting "human beings in general," but look more deeply at these .... German has "der Mensch," built from the noun "Mann", turned adjectival, "maennisch". How neutral is that noun? Well, the pronoun that will refer to it is masculine, as are other words in special constructions: consider Schiller's Ode to Joy: "Alle Menschen werden Brueder" ("all men will become brothers").
6. The real objection to the use of collective-unitive "man" is not at all linguistic but political and theological. Here's where the deep trouble lies. Christianity is not egalitarian in the way that the feminists and their fellow-travelers want it to be. To abolish "man" from the translations is just a sign of what the critics want to do to the masculinity of Jesus Christ (simply happenstance, we are told), or to the image of God as Father (culturally conditioned), or to male headship in the Church and in the home (blasted patriarchy).

[David Gray]

>Mr Gray, these inclusive translations get the support they do because people are subconsciously aware of the diminishing use of "man" to refer to human beings in general.

If you believe that you really are kidding yourself.

[dilys]

And if these discussions are to take place at all, what better forum than Touchstone? -- a locus drawing on a range of believers, with some deep veins of scholarship, that has never claimed to be "What Evers who go along to get along," or a journalistic Christmas card (tiptoeing off to cancel the subscription should that prevail...)

On the other hand, deep aesthetic and philosophical differences displayed here -- differences in breadth, rigor, and evident political and psychosocial agenda as well as content, which leapfrog themselves as society incorporates the products of the recent educational enterprise -- convince me that division and demands for acknowledgement among people who call themselves Christians will continue. Some, propelled by enthusiasm, confusion, anger, or genuine conversion, will cross Rivers in either direction. But for the most part, without some major Divine tap of the dominoes, I do not see the reform Mr. Hutchens outlines happening in the current institutional arrangement. Certainly when not only Scripture but The Fathers and the Creeds are becoming multiplied fodder for a wider field of individual interpretation outside Tradition, and teeth-gritting deconstruction to support accompanying alliances.

So it's Tares and Wheat, traditionally interpreted as describing the church in this age, however that searing parable plays out. One can only pray earnestly and with some justified fear root around for the spiritual botanical soil to grow as wheat.

Simple practicality may suggest that someone who has read Mr. Hutchens a few times can expect either to savor or dislike his brave and radical perspective, especially notable in view of his ardent personal refusal to abandon the Protestant world to the currents he describes.

[Fr. Stephen Lourie]

You guys have too much time on your hands.

[Barry]

I don't know why anyone would be shocked at Mr Hutchens attacks. He is excellent at finding the problems in other movements while generally ignoring the one in the movement he associates with.

I certainly don't have a problem with his desire to remove "cancer," but the attitude of the articles doesn't seem to be that of a loving doctor.

[joe]

Patrick,

Re: "I'm a person who fits in with the Emerging Church, yet my heart and being resonates more with the volumes of the Philokalia than anything I've ever read. Their words of faith, of prayer, of discretion, say to me that above all things there is only the pursuit of Christ, anything which hinders or separates is a work of the enemy who wishes to divide either by making us too lax or too demanding. Our call in Christ is to be unified to those who are also called to Christ, however they choose to offer their praises weekly or daily."

The Philokalia (translated "love of the beautiful") are considered to be "Advanced Texts" for Orthodox Christians. There is much profit to the study and application of the teachings in the Philokalia, but also many dangers if this study is undertaken without the guidance of a spiritual Elder (or Father Confessor)or if the texts are applied out of the context of the liturgical life in the Church. Chief among these dangers is what the Orthodox call "plani" in Greek, "prelest" in Russian. Plani/Prelest is spiritual delusion. I recently read of some Greek monks who referred to the Philokalia as the Philoplaneia (love of delusion) in reference to to those who in ready eagerness and heedlessness of the dangers attempt to tackle these advanced texts on their own.

Your saying: "Their words of faith, of prayer, of discretion, say to me..." No, Patrick, the writings of the Saints in the Philokalia say what they say.

I'm sure you can proof text some of their words to make your point, but if the Philokalia says anything, it says that one must cleave unto the Orthodox Church and stay away from the teachings of heretics, including Protestants, "Emergent" or otherwise.

A hard teaching, but then again the Lord came "not to bring peace but a sword."

I would encourage you not only to study the Philokalia under the guidance of a spiritual elder in the Orthodox Church, but also the Holy Scriptures. You might learn something.

Joe (a former evangelical Protestant)

[joe]

Patrick,

A proof text:

The Gospel according to St. Matthew, Chapter 10 and verse 34:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

[joe]

Re: "The efforts of reformers have always offered new life to the Church, whether it be Luther, or Anthony, or Benedict or Wesley. The Church has listened, and while traditions should be honored they are not inviolate especially if they have erred at some point in the reflection of Christ."

It is easy to say that “the Word of God—not some new revelation or personal opinion—may correct or supplement what the Church has always believed,” but it is in fact the opinion of a person or group of persons about the Word of God that is set against the continuing tradition. This is what John Henry Newman called the tyranny of “private judgment,” which is not unlike heresy—from haeresis, meaning choice.

- Richard John Neuhaus (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0308/public.html#haeresis)

[Josh S]

"Men" and "man" take on gender depending on context. In the English language, we have a number of word pairs consisting of a marked, gender-specific noun and an unmarked noun that is gendered when used of specific entities and nongendered when used generically. Examples: dog/bitch, cat/tomcat, god/goddess, cow/bull. You can say "dog kennel" without people coming to the conclusion that female dogs can't be kept there, or "he herds cows for a living" without people thinking that his entire herd is female. Also, some words come in gendered and nongendered triples, i.e king/queen/monarch and sow/boar/pig. Man/woman is of the former, not the latter kind. This is simply the way the English language works and why "men" is a far better translation of anthropois than a generic pronoun.

For example, when numerous references were made to "the race of men" in the Lord of the Rings film, no one was wondering why women were excluded, especially as the story very blatantly includes women. But by contrast, "woman" is specifically marked for gender, so "the race of women" has a far, far different connotation in our language. Likewise, if one hears on the radio that a man-eating tiger is on the loose, no one assumes that women and children are safe. So it is quite obvious that "man" and "men" retain their gender-neutral meanings in our language when used generically, regardless of the taboos enforced by the establishment.

The problem with egalitarianism isn't that it's trying to be gender-neutral. It's that in trying to be gender-neutral, they strip certain passages of their meaning and make them far more ambiguous by replacing singulars with plurals or by replacing specific references to man as a whole with ambiguous pronouns that don't have the same universal connotations, e.g. "those on whom his favor rests" means something different than "man, on whom his favor rests."

[Patrick]

Joe, good advice. Except having read through the philokalia and finding my love and devotion for Christ expanding far beyond what I ever expected, I suppose I'll trust the fruit of the Spirit from my reading rather than the advice of someone who does not know me.

Then, also, if you believe the writers of the Philokalia would argue for cleaving to anything except Christ, abandoning anything which interferes or deludes or distracts, then I suspect you haven't read through these writers with proper guidance. There is nothing apart from me and Christ. Indeed, the whole of the philokalia suggests that it is anathema to judge the faith of another Christian, or to dare to limit the reading of Spiritual things. They honor the writings, and having gone through all the volumes I never found anything resembling your suggestion. So pardon me if I will keep on reading them as they seem to indicate rather than depend on the authority of an intermediary to tell me how to think. The Spirit will teach me all things, and Christ will make up for those things I seem to miss.

The Philokalia is not magic or complex texts, hard to interpret. I'm not sure what would make them have the character of such to anyone else, except for the purpose of control.

This sort of advice adds to another thought which went through my mind. I wonder why we are so bothered by how others appropriate Christ. I think of the woman at the well, who Jesus met even if she was of the wrong sort. In all likeliehood she was not ever included in the church at Jerusalem, for she and those who believed in Jesus could not worship as the Jews wanted. Yet Jesus brought her into the fold.

It is so easy to act like the disciples did, demanding not only acceptance of Christ, but also our own approaches, even if, like Judaism, the practices are long ingrained in our worship. But why? Why do we demand others approach Christ the same way we do? Jesus never approached anyone the same way as another, and demanded different things of different people. The council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 is a wonderful text which illustrates how there was intentionally not a fixed set of rules and regulations involved in worshipping Christ. "Let there be differences, as long as these basic things are met," James said.

However, I see in all of this little more than a thirst for power. We want to control Christ, we want everyone to match our own sensibilities, we want to manage and orchestrate the faith of others so that we will be justified.

And that is the heart of the Church splits. It's about power, and the seeking after power by men through the centuries, grasping for temporal control in the name of the One who has eternal control. This is what caused the Schism, and the schisms since. We grasp after being god all in the purported service who did not need to do that but rather emptied himself. As Peter of Damaskos says, "Again it is not Authority which is bad, but the love of Authority" and far too much Church politics has been defined by the love of authority more than the love of Christ.

Joe, continuing tradition itself is a result of opinions by men who at a certain point in history set up certain methods or approaches. The Catholic Church decided to include the filioque clause, without regard to Tradition. Other Churches have set up other decisions, not to pursue Christ, but to establish authority.

What I cleave to is the Faith of the Fathers, communion with Paul and the Apostles. There is tyranny of private opinions to be sure, but there is also tyranny of old habits. But there is freedom in Christ.

[Scott Walker]

Regarding the Philokalia, when I was a catechumen I mentioned to our priest that I was dabbling therein. He warned me off, saying that I wasn't ready for it yet, and that I would likely become either confused or deluded should I persist. Patrick, a good entry level book would be "Unseen Warfare" as revised by St. Theophan the Recluse and published by St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. Lots of chewy stuff there. You might also try "Spiritual Counsels" by St. John of Kronstadt.

[Scott Walker]

Whoa, Patrick! Just read your most recent post. The fathers never advocate "me and Jesus" , which is how I'm reading your words, spoken like a true Protestant. If you're going to cleave to "...the Faith of the Fathers, communion with Paul and the Apostles", you have to be in communion with the Church of the Fathers. (Hint: it ain't emerging. It has emerged. Since Pentecost.)

[Evelyn]

I must echo Peter Kim's protest. This magazine seems less and less ecumenical to me all the time. I don't refer just to "evangelical bashing" but the generally narrow view of things. The "mere Christianity" of Touchstone is very narrow. I am a conservative Anglican who believes homosexual activity is sinful, who believes in the Creeds, etc. But Touchstone seems to be too narrow to include me. Positions on birth control, women's ordination, the role of women in general, etc. are very very narrow and do not include many who would otherwise fall into the category of "mere Christians".

[luthien]

Haven't you gentlemen got anything better to do than have long arguments about how to tranlate anthropois? Does it really matter? Grammatical gender is often unrelated to meaning or even actual sex of the thing in question. In OIld English, which had gender, women/wives were neuter not feminine. And feminine gender did exist! And in modern French, almost none of it makes sense! Homme is masculine, personne (ie person/people, can mean no one)) feminine, and gens (pple again) masculine. And that totally skips all their other gender issues... (like délice, which is masc. when singular amd fem. when plural...) You are reading way too much into one linguistic phenomenon. Please bear in mind that the Church is the Bride of Christ and Feminine, and Christians, including the gentlemen, are part of that. Now be nice to each other.

Going back to the original topic of the post, Evangelicalism, like all Protestantism, suffers from the fact that there is no final authority on hat the Bible means. Without Holy Tradition, how are we supposed to know what the Bible means? That led to not only many, many Protestant denominations but ultimately contributed to the rise of relativism. And yes, I'm an ex-Protestant, now Orthodox.

Mr. Schmitt, please avoid the Straw Man fallacy and appropriately present Roman Catholic doctrines. Arguing against twisted versions of each others' arguments will get no one anywhere.

May God bless all of you this Advent season, and please do try to comment with a bit more charity in the future.

[David Gray]

>Positions on birth control, women's ordination, the role of women in general, etc. are very very narrow and do not include many who would otherwise fall into the category of "mere Christians".

If they would "otherwise" fall into the category of mere Christians then they must not be mere Christians.

[Juli]

Amen to Evelyn and Lady Luthien.

"Please bear in mind that the Church is the Bride of Christ and Feminine, and Christians, including the gentlemen, are part of that." Well said - as an Orthodox priest I know put it, "Christ's is the only truly male priesthood."

[Patrick]

Scott, I appreciate your advice and I have come to the Philokalia after many years of reading, so it is not a place where I am starting, having found it through various other sources and many years, beginning with the Ante-Nicene Fathers and John Cassian.

Also, I believe that the teachings of the Fathers would not suggest a Church emerged, but a Church emerging since Pentecost. Until Christ returns. What we now know in part, we will then know in full. Along the way the Spirit continues to teach and guide.

Indeed, it has been suggested we all cleave to Tradition, as though this is something monolithic. What to do when Traditions differ? Shall I cleave to the Bishop of Rome, or the the other Patriarchs? Shall I hold onto the medieval liturgy, the recommendations of Vatican II, or the much more ancient gatherings as expressed in Tertullian's Apology ch. 39? Shall I decide according to Scholastic reasoning? Or shall I delve into the Didache to teach me about baptism and other ecclesial practices?

Indeed, it is the Emerging Church gatherings which seem to better reflect the activity and fluidity of what we find in Tertullian and earlier writings. And in this I can say I share communion with the Church of the Fathers, but have been refused communion with the Church of their descendants for reasons developed many centuries after, during times of darkness and confusion.

[Tony Esolen]

Lady Luthien,

It is the opinion of the Touchstone editors, and has been for many years, that what you are dismissing as irrelevant or trivial is actually crucial. Please read some of the articles on feminism contained in the back issues. It seems to me, just on the face of it, that the movement that has brought the death of millions in its wake has probably brought with it a lot of poison, too -- that maybe, maybe its fundamental assumptions are faulty, and even destructive of the Christian faith. Certainly it has been erosive of the strong idea of God as Father, revealed to us by Jesus. I ask you to reconsider those assumptions -- and please to read Fr. Mankowski's article on the linguistic situation.

For Evelyn: I'd like you to reconsider, as I had to reconsider, the matter of birth control. Ask yourself why it was that every Christian group forbade it for 1900 years, and (more embarrassing) what sorts of Christians were clamoring for a change in the doctrine around 1900, and why. (An aside: Jesus never does preach having "control" over your life. Quite the contrary.)

I know a priest who thinks that all those fights for three or four centuries on whether Christ possessed one nature or two, or one will or two, and so on, were wastes of time. He is wrong. Had Arius won his point -- and of course the Father would not have allowed it -- Christianity would long ago have devolved into a loose, Pelagian philosophy of life, rather like Confucianism or Buddhism. Had the Monothelites won their point, we would not be able to claim that Jesus shows us the way, since he would not have possessed a human will, and would not have been like us in all things but sin. Read what Chesterton says, in Orthodoxy, about the wild ride that orthodoxy is, when what seems like a hair's breadth separates you from sitting astride that horse and being thrown off.

[Patrick]

Scott, I appreciate your worry about the perceived "me and Jesus" comment, for that is certainly a pervasive sentiment. However, I did not mean it in terms of "Jesus is my best friend".

One of the more potent teaching throughout the monastics is "stay in your cell, and your cell will teach you everything." In this is the reality that it is the Spirit who leads us towards God, through prayer, ascetic practices, and spiritual reading, so that if we can get rid of the distractions which pull us away, we can fully approach Christ. The most important aspect in these writings is not affiliation with a specific group or leadership. The monastics were fervent and entirely flexible in their single minded devotion to the fullness of Christ in their lives. Nothing else matters. If anything interferes it is to be washed away, until there is a single minded devotion to God through the work of the Spirit. From this comes this quote, "As St. Basil the Great says, even when in a crowd the truly perfect are always alone with themselves and God." I think there are other passages which deal with the "myself and God" aspect of devotion, but I'm not quite that familiar with the texts to hunt it down. I'm still a beginner in many respects.

I personally find all this discussion entirely worthwhile. My hope isn't to win or lose an argument and continue the division. My hope in this is to embrace the different traditions reflected in the comments here, and to hopefully be a voice for what many consider a worthless approach.

The questions are not about tradition or no tradition, but about what tradition. I disagree with the notion that linear connection implies Spiritual descent, and thus what is presently the form of the ancient Church bears as much accumulated opinions as does the more recent approaches. Of course, people disagree with my disagreement, but this is not because one side or another wishes to reject Christ, but because both sides are so zealous about finding Christ.

I worry because while exalting certain liturical practices we neglect the more worthwhile connections we each do share.

"We know ourselves to be participants with the Holy Spirit when we offer to God fruits worthy of the Spirit: love for God with all our soul and genuien lvoe for our fellow beings; joy of heart issuing from a clear conscience; peace of soul as a result of dispassion and humility; generosity in our thoughts, long-suffering in our affliction and times of trial, kindness and restraint in our behavior, deep-rooted unwavering faith in God, gentleness springing from humble-mindedness and compunction, and complete control of the senses. When we bear such fruits for God, we escape from the domination of the mortal self; and ther eis no law condemning and punishing us for the death-purveying fruits we produced while still living in an unregenerate state. Once we have risen with Christ above dead actions the freedom of the Spirit releases us from the law of our fallen self." (Nikitas Stithatos)

It is this freedom we celebrate and honor during advent, however we choose to sing or express our respect for such a wonderful blessing.

[the forester]

As a reformed Presbyterian (PCA), I have been appreciating Mere Comments for several weeks. I even added it to the short list of 6 blogs that I link to on my own blog (seedlings.blogsome.com). Sadly, I just came across this post, and was reading through the comments until I hit this one from S.M. Hutchens, at which point I stopped reading: "It does not stop bleeding during Christmas. If anything, it gets worse. ... Yours is a nice thought, but while there may be lulls in the battle, there can be no truce."

I cannot tell you how sad I am to have felt, for several weeks, that I had discovered a kindred spirit in Catholic thinkers, only to find myself disillusioned.

Although I may return from time to time, I am removing my link to Mere Comments. This is not a punitive decision -- just a very disappointed one.

[Christopher Culver]

Patrick, Tertullian's writings are fairly eloquent and entertaining, but he ultimately left the Church and joined the Montanists, a heresy which also claimed to be going back to the time of the Apostles, so you can't really rely on them for spiritual guidance.

I'd second (or third) the statement about the Philokalia: those not yet deep in the bosom of Orthodoxy are warned away from it left and right because in spite of how plain you think the meaning is, it is too rich to be of use to non-Orthodox and can only lead astray. Quite a pity to see Bishop Kallistos' translation available for all and sundry at bookstores.

[Michael]

I'm not sure what the first comment on this post was intended to convey ("Two words: Thomas Oden"), but it seems to me that in his general editorship of the "Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture" that he has done more than any single person I can think of to get patristic writings into the hands of the general ecumenical public.

[luthien]

Dr. Esolen,
I've already read most of the Touchstone back issue articles available on the web. The ones not available online I don't currently have access to. (if you would consider making more of them available, say, a year after initial publication, it would be most kind) Mostly they just make me more confused, since there seems to be an underlying implication that men are somehow fundamentally better or more human or more in the image of God than are women in several. Would someone please explain where a woman's place is instead just telling me I'm wrong all the time? It would be more heplful, you know.

Mr. Schmitt, would you mind telling me where on earth you got 51 permissible days for sexual relations? That seems awfully low to me. 150-200 would sound a bit more on track. Also, who said that sexual relations in marriage are sinful? St. John Chrysostom said quite the reverse, actually. If I can find the quote I'll post it for you.

[joe]

You see, Patrick:

"The work of the cross is twofold. And this corresponds to the duality of nature which is divided into two parts: into endurance of bodily afflictions which comes about through the energy of the irascible part of the soul and is called PRACTICE; and into the subtle work of the mind in sacred studies and constant prayer and so called CONTEMPLATION. Practice purifies the passionate part throught power of zeal; contemplation refines that part capable of knowing by means of the energy of the love of the soul, which is its natural longing.

Therefore whoever before discipline in the former part [practice] passes eagerly - not to say slothfully - to that second because of its sweetness, brings to pass the anger which God breathes against him. This is because before he has put to death his members that are on the earth, namely, before he has healed the sickness of his thoughts by patiently enduring the labor and shame of the cross, he has presumed to imagine in his mind the glory of the cross. And this is what was said by saints of old: 'If the mind desires to ascend the cross before the senses cease from weakness, the anger of God will attack it.' [Abba Isaiah of Scetis]

The ascent of the cross that brings wrath is not the first part, that is the endurance of afflictions which is called crucifixion of the body; but the ascent of CONTEMPLATION which is the second part, that which follows the healing of the soul. Indeed, the one who, while his mind is defiled in shameful passions, hastens to imagine in his heart illusory ideas about the future, will be silenced with punishment. This is because, without purifying his mind by means of the afflictions incurred in subjucating the desires of the flesh, he ran headlong on the basis of what he had heard and read, to travel a path full of darkness, being blind.

If the small pupil of your soul has not been purified do not presume to gaze at the sphere of the sun lest you be deprived altogether of sight and you be cast into one the immaterial places which is darkness without God, like that one who presumed to enter the banquet in dirty clothes." [cf. Matthew 22:1-4]

- St. Isaac of Nineveh, Second Discourse

[joe]

I can't blame anyone for being attracted to the writings in the Philokalia as I have half a bookshelf of this material, but I take these teachings only in the small bits and pieces that are fed to me by my spiritual Elders. I've learned by bitter experience that the Philokalia are particularly dangerous to former evangelical Protestants.

Years of indoctrination into "once saved always saved/eternal security," salvation-in-an-instant and "nameitandclaimit" leaves scars if not open wounds that make the e-P particularly vulnerable to spiritual delusion. "I read it therefore I know it," sums it up pretty well.

The current crop of Emerging/Emergent brand evangelical Protestant leaders are probably most responsible for the recent unleashing of this mentality onto texts and spiritual teachings beyond e-P ken. They manifest a quality of "vulgarity" that is as harmful as it is hard to bear.

J.R.R. Tolkien defined this vulgarity as "a myopia that is proud of itself, a smugness and cocksuredness, and a readiness to measure and sum up all things from a limited experience, largely enshrined in sententious traditional 'wisdom'."

For example, the main Emerging/Emergent guru was formerly, by profession, a "technical writer," that is, a professional dilettante.

I can't imagine that there would be too much harm if a technical writer messed up a bit on say, a manual for programming a VCR, but if said technical writer presumed to apply his specialty to what "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard" then I would urge everyone to flee from such spiritual dilettantism.

[Michael]

Re BEC: "My understanding is that Luther himself was in contact with Orthodox hierarchs and ultimately rejected what they offered."

It was not Luther himself, but successors of his from Tubingen University who were in contact with Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople during 1572-1579, three decades after Luther's death.

[joe]

Patriarch Jeremias to the Lutherans:

"Go your own way, and do not send us further letters on doctrine but only letters written for the sake of friendship."

See: www.thechristianactivist.com/vol3/LutherHadHisChance1.html

[joe]

"But if someone claims that, simply by hearing about these things, he knows them as he should, he is a liar. Man's intellect can never rise to heaven without God as a guide; and it cannot speak of what it has not seen, but must first ascend and see it. On the level of hearsay, you should speak only of things that you have learned from the Scriptures, and then with circumspection, confessing your faith in the Father of the Logos, as St. Basil the Great puts it, and not imagining that through hearsay you possess spiritual knowledge; for that is to be worse than ignorant."

- St. Peter of Damaskos,"The Four Virtues of the Soul", from G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Bishop Kallistos Ware, "The Philokalia: Vol. III," (London: Faber and Faber, 1984), pp. 100 - 101

[joe]

Patrick,

Re: "I think there are other passages which deal with the "myself and God" aspect of devotion, but I'm not quite that familiar with the texts to hunt it down."

You will never "hunt" down any passages in the Philokalia that advocate your style of maverick Me-n-Jesus-n-the Holy Spirit-type devotion.

Monastics apply the teachings of the Philokalia in a cenobitic setting.

Cenobitic monasticism is a form of monasticism based on “life in common” (Greek koinobion), characterized by strict discipline, regular worship, and manual work. St. Pachomius was the author of the first cenobitic rule, which was later developed by St. Basil the Great (c. 329–379). (Thank you, Encylcopedia Britannica)

Strict discipline under an elder. Regular worship (Liturgy, Sacraments, especially the Sacrament of Sacraments, the Holy Eucharist, the food for our journey of Salvation). Manual Work (Idle hands are indeed the devil's workshop).

Patrick, you seem to be advocating your own personal form of idiorrhythmic monasticism ("also called eremitic monasticism (from Greek eremos, “desert”) the original form of monastic life in Christianity, as exemplified by St. Anthony of Egypt (c. 250–355). It consisted of a total withdrawal from society, normally in the desert, and the constant practice of mental prayer." (Enyclopedia Britannica)).

You said: "So pardon me if I will keep on reading them as they seem to indicate rather than depend on the authority of an intermediary to tell me how to think. The Spirit will teach me all things, and Christ will make up for those things I seem to miss. The Philokalia is not magic or complex texts, hard to interpret."

Only in very rare cases did a monastic go the "hermit" route, and never without prior formation in communal cenobitic monasticism. To do so was (and is still now) considered spiritual suicide, a sure manifestation of "plani" (delusion, beguilement).

[Gabriel Sanchez]

I've never seen so much erudite Christian discussion become so quickly conflated with absurdity and irony; I fear only Kierkegaard could even begin to appreciate it for all it's worth.

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

If anybody's still reading this, and as the original comment poster, I wanted to respond to Michael's Dec. 10 post above: Indeed, I often consult Oden's "Ancient Christian Commentary...'' on given passages (insofar as the extant portion of the series permits) but my reference to Oden was in response to Steve Hutchins' origninal comment,

"There needs to be a general movement away from self-assertion and self-definition towards shutting up and listening to older authorities, a re-entry into the life and mind of the Church as it was before Evangelicalism came along, and will exist when the movement is only a footnote to its history."

Here's what Oden said in Vol. 2 of his systematic theology, "The Word of Life," p. x ff:

"My mission is to deliver as clearly as I can that core of consensual belief concerning Jesus Christ that has been shared for two hundred decades ... I view my task as an extraordinary privilege -- that of unapologetically setting forth in an undiguised way the apostolic testimony to Christ in its classic consensual form. I want to show that most of what is enduringly valuable in contemporary biblical exegesis was discovered by the fifth century."

So I was merely recommending Oden to those who want to see what Steve was saying. Of course, Steve could disagree with me that Oden is worth recommending, but I have found him immensely worthwhile.

[Michael]

Thanks much for that clarification. I had wondered if in some way you were implying that Thomas Oden was an example of the things Hutchens was critiquing (perhaps the ensuing discussion had colored my perception) and I'm glad to see it's not the case. If there's anything that this discussion has proved, it's that Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox alike would indeed profit by "shutting up and listening to older authorities".

[Evelyn]

David Gray -- Of course it depends on who gets to define "mere Christians", doesn't it? Obviously my definition of "mere Christians" is less exclusive than yours.

Tony Esolen -- I *am* prepared to reconsider birth control, as well as many other issues. I am quite a "beginner Christian" in many respects (despite having been raised in a Christian family) and I know that there is much I need to learn (I am even considering doing a Master's in Theology). What I am not *prepared* for, is to be dismissed because my position is A or B. I don't doubt the sincerity or Christianity of those who, for example, are against women's ordination. I don't automatically assume they are sexist either. I believe that Christians can legitimately disagree on these issues (whereas they cannot legitimately disagree on whether Christ was resurrected).

I find it so amusing that I was once considered a wacko liberal, probably not even a real Christian, for not believing that the world was created in 6 days. Now that I have left the world of Evangelicalism for the Anglican church, I find that I am a conservative. Then I come here and I find I am apparently a liberal again!

[RIch Kirkpatrick]

The simple misunderstanding of the evangelical church is that it's glue is not traditions and forms, but rather mission and purpose. Thus the term "evangelical." Forms are in flux because the effectiveness of mission (telling, sharing and showing the good news or gospel) have to be updated and there is no coherent voice yet. This eclectic group can be such because of the purpose of reaching people with the news about Jesus. Where mainline groups have kept form, they have shifted theology. The only danger the evangelicals have is if they follow suit and hold on to forms while changing theology as opposed to finding new ways to tell the ancient truth of Jesus.

[joe]

"But 'finding new ways to tell the ancient truth*,' in a feverish sense that exists today, is a totally different thing. It is as if a man were perpetually carving a statue and smashing it as soon as he carved it...It is as if people began to dig up the foundations of a house before they had finished putting the roof on...It is simply instability and discontent; and one of the marks of it is that it cannot create a custom. It cannot, for instance, create a ceremonial, still less a legend."

- G.K. Chesterton

* "finding new ways to tell the ancient truth" here substituted for the original: "fashion"

[Rich Kirkpatrick]

Again...the misunderstanding of the unique nature of the missionally-driven evangelical church can now be seen in the above G.K. Chesterton quote. Hudson Taylor, Paul Rader and Billy Graham would be the "fashionable" in this argument. The message of the gospel can handle being put into context in any culture. What will not last, however, is our forms of westernized religion--regardless of their age, beauty and meaningfulness to the past. To be "cerimoninal" indeed is not an ends, just another means for the ancient truth of the gospel of Jesus found in scripture. Tradition should be honored and is, but it is second to the clear things in the unchanging scripture and obvious consensus of godly conscience.

[joe]

Pardon me, Rich, but what does "missionally" mean? I can't find this word in any dictionary of the English language! Is this one of those newly fashioned words?

Re: "The message of the gospel can handle being put into context in any culture."

I guess that depends on who is doing the handling.

"There are two dangers in approaching the task of contextualization: (1) The fear of irrelevance if contextualization is not attempted, (2) and the fear of compromise and syncretism if it is taken too far. There is a need to use existing cultural forms that can be baptized and pressed into the service of Christ if the Gospel is not denied in the process. Unless this is done it is likely that only the surface layers of a culture will be changed. But since by definition contextualization appropriates indigenous linguistic and cultural forms, it always risks cultural and religious syncretism." (Edward Rommen, former professor of Missiology at Columbia Biblical Seminary, now Fr. Edward Rommen oof the Orthodox Church)

I'm pretty sure that it is there is agreement here in MereCommentsland in the belief that the American "evangelical church" has made the "Mere Christian" classical understanding of the gospel irrelevant by its cultural and religious syncretism.

[Patrick]

I am hesitant to note this, except for the fact it is important to let texts speak for themselves. The problem with Tradition is not those who began Tradition. The tendency is for their descendents to increasingly build boundaries around the Traditions, so that what is finally passed on is significantly more narrow than what was originally intended.

Thus, the battle rages not between the core doctrines or their associated practices, but between the conceptions of contemporary thinkers that speak for such traditions even if they no longer really reflect such traditions.

Those in my part of the Church, then, have built up biases and fierce opposition to what they see as Tradition, and thus also reject much of Church History, for in their ignorance they see what is now as what has been. Which is sad, because what the Evangelical Church needs is depth, yet in the attempts to discover this depth we are debated not on the merits of the arguments but on our very ability to "handle" the texts. We are told we must go back to the Fathers, yet when we do we are told we cannot. This fact does not settle anything but rather ends the argument in continued non-communion.

What appears to be the case, to me, is that the Desert Fathers and those in the tradition of the Philokalia were, above all else, concerned with their own souls. If they could say something helpful they certainly did, but they preferred stillness and peace and the pursuit of God's continued salvation. Now, however, especially in much of the above comments, the focus seems to be on everyone else. It is not enough for me to be earnestly pursuing Christ, increasingly reflecting his light through the fruit and works, seeking above all things to be found in him. Rather, if I don't have the proper forms or signatures I'm abandoned as an apostate.

The comments here seem not to be about Christ, but about judgment, seeking to satisfy our own desire for acceptance by looking down on how others pursue the depths of Christ. I am not called to Christ to worry about how you are pursuing Christ. I am not called to be your judge, or mentor, or guide. I am called to pursue Christ, and seek the sanctification of my soul through grace.

I appreciate the concern others have for my soul. However, this isn't your responsibility. You do not know my life, and seek to judge me only according to your broad preconceptions of what Evangelical Protestants are like. Others might celebrate the fact that I, and others, are finding depths in Christ through the writings of those who found Light. I am sad many of the comments are not celebration but judgment, and condemnation for the very reality of how Christ has used these writings for my pursuit of humility, stillness, hope, faith, and love.

Such acts of judgment are why the Ancient Churches have lost their way in many cases. They have lost sight of the devotion to Christ to focus on making sure everyone is in line with the structures of power and control. It no longer is about the fruit of the Spirit, but about the forms and methods. I believe the prophets said a few things about such matters, as does sections of the New Testament, which despite their complicated and spiritual depths I'm allowed to not only read but also treasure.

So, I continue to seek Christ in fullness, and thank God we are no longer living in an era in which my pursuit of Christ is limited by those who mistake their own sensibilities with the work of the Spirit in this world.

[Patrick]

Joe, your words of concern are appreciated, if misplaced. As you don't know my story, except for the fact I am not Orthodox, it is certainly understandable that you offer words you truly believe would lead me towards greater light. However, I disagree with much of what you say, and find that I'll continue to trust Bishop Ware's decision to publish rather than your desire writings were not offered to all and sundry. As an educated part of the sundry the English makes it helpful, but not necessary, so I suspect I would wade deeply in any case. I am sorry this so deeply offends you, even if I cannot understand why it does so.

Indeed, it seems disingenious to reply to my various arguments by stating I'm not allowed to read such things, not even letting me treasure Tertullian anymore (whose Apology, by the by, is not considered part of his later, more suspect, montanist writings). I also appreciate the big words you use, and helpful short history of monasticism. Yet, I find what you say and what the writers themselves say to be in conflict. I would appreciate any pointers from the writers themselves to support your, and your spiritual guide's, assertion these are to be restricted to only certain approved people. I've read through these texts and find only earnest suggestions to pursue prayer, community, stillness, and humility in whatever setting best develops such traits.

Indeed, I read through the introduction again to see if such writings were self limited, as opposed to being limited by much later commenters who seek to establish their own righteous authority. I note this, and note it not for myself, but for those who may be turned away from such elegant writings because someone said they should be hidden from view:

The writings of the Philokalia, according to the editors and translators, "presuppose conditions of life radically different from those in which most readers of this English translation are likely to find themselves. Is this tantamount to saying that the counsels they contain can be applied only within a monastic environment? Many hesychast writers affirm that this is not the case, and St. Nikodimos himself, in his introduction to the original Philokalia, goes out of his way to stress that 'unceasing prayer' may or, rather, shoudl be practiced by all. Naturally, the monastic life provides conditions, such as quietness, solitude, and regularity, indispensable for that concentration without which one cannot advance far along the Spiritual path. But, provided that the basic condition of active participation in the sacramental and liturgical life of the Church is fulfilled, then this path is open to all ot follow, each to the best of his or her ability and whatever the circumstances under which he or she lives.

"Indeed, in this respect the distinction between the monastic life and life 'in the world' is but relative: every human being, by virtue of the fact that he or she is created in the image of God, is summoned to be perfect, is summoned to love God with all his or her heart, soul and mind. In this sense all have the same vocation and all must follow the same spiritual path. Some no doubt will follow it further than others; and again for some the intensity of the desire with which they pursue it may well lead them to embrace a pattern of life more in harmony with its demands, and this pattern may well be provided for by the monastic life. But the path with its goal is one and the same whether followed within or outside the monastic environment.

"What is essential is that one does not follow in an arbitrary or ignorant manner. Personal guidance from a qualified teacher should always be sought for. If such guidance is not found, then active participation in the sacramental and liturgical life of the Church, always necessary, will have an added importance in the overcoming of obstacles and dangers inherent in any quest of a spiritual nature."

Of course, the depths cannot and should not be pursued in isolation. These are not a place to start, nor are they helpful to pursue unless one is able to digest meat. But, for those sundry so able, within the life of a accountable community, these writings speak of renewal and hope. Which is why Wesley, having read the Eastern Fathers especially liking Makarios of Egypt, translated their writings within a Western context. Wesley's willingness and yearning to do so may be unacceptable to Joe, but it is my suspicion that without the various Methodist revivals such a magazine about Mere Christianity wouldn't even exist in this country.

It is those outside the Ancient Churches, using the writings of the Ancient Church who have brought us to a point in this country where we still even care about being faithful to Christ and his calling for each of us.

Even if in doing so countless sensibilities were offended, and much harumphing took place by those who lingered in their spiritually declining congregations.

[joe]

Patrick,

I'm sorry that you feel that you have been "judged" and perhaps found spiritually wanting in a "You want the truth?! You can't handle the truth!" kind of way.

I and the other Orthodox Christians in this discussion have tried to warn not to judge.

These warnings come from the very texts in which you are engaging! As you seem to be well aware:

"But, provided that the basic condition of active participation in the sacramental and liturgical life of the Church is fulfilled, then this path is open to all ot follow, each to the best of his or her ability and whatever the circumstances under which he or she lives."

"Personal guidance from a qualified teacher should always be sought for. If such guidance is not found, then active participation in the sacramental and liturgical life of the Church, always necessary, will have an added importance in the overcoming of obstacles and dangers inherent in any quest of a spiritual nature."

As you yourself have pointed out in your last post, the bare minimum baby step towards living out the Philokalia is: "provided that the basic condition of active participation in the sacramental and liturgical life of the Church is fulfilled, then this path is open to all ot follow/"active participation in the sacramental and liturgical life of the Church."

Step One: Be Orthodox amd actively participate in the sacramental [The Holy Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ is absolutely essential to the pursuit of holiness in the philokaliac manner!] liturgical, and yes, ascetical life of the Church.

Without Step One, then things will get dangerous. (cf. the Philokalia Vol. 1, p.362: the entry on "Illusion")

I am quite aware of the twin driving forces of "willingness and yearning." As an evangelical Protestant I was very much drawn to the writings of the Fathers. I felt great excitement and joy in such revelations, but when they got down to the nitty-gritties, particularly the Sacramental Life of the Church, preparation for Holy Communion, the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, things WAY outside of my e-P life in Christ, I had to confess to myself that I had no clue what they were teaching, nor would I have any opportunity to experience the FULNESS of the Life in Christ that the Fathers were advocating if I just puttered along within
e-Pism supplemented with Patristics.

All this recent e-P/emergent/emerging talk of ressourcement/reclaiming/restoring our "ancient Christian" heritage is itself an illusion. How can one resource/reclaim/restore something that one has never had to lose in the first place?!

So you love the Philokalia, but you see no need to take the necessary Step One outlined in the Philokalia because the "Ancient Churches" have gone wrong, they're "spiritually declining" and because "contemporary" Orthodox Christians speak misconceptions about our Orthodox traditions because we "no longer really reflect such traditions"? All very good reasons! If only they were true! Just reads like sour grapes to me, and I'm sure to other former Evangelicals who have journeyed East.

I'm glad that you brought up Wesley. By all means feel free to read and apply the Fathers in a Wesleyan manner, a Calvinistic manner, a Lutheran manner any kind of Protestant manner, but please do not presume that in doing so, you are applying them in an Orthodox manner in the manner of the Desert Fathers.

You remind me very much of something that one of those Emergent gurus said to an Orthodox Seminarian:

"My Orthodox friends sometimes criticize me, thinking that I’m like the guy who goes into a candy shop and licks a lot of the lollipops – because I’m too cheap to buy just one and stick to it... That’s not to deny that it’s possible that I and others might be dilettantes or 'grazers' – that’s always a danger. But even then, we may be engaging with the meaning behind Orthodox practices more deeply than many Orthodox folk themselves – who, as you imply, don’t always know what treasure they have!"

"BUTWEMAYBE" is the WWJD for these New Kind of Evangelical Protestants. Acknowledge the danger and full speed ahead! Meanwhile laugh off the poor so-called Orthodox who don't even know, as they seem to know "what treasure they have!"

Anyway, to quote Patriarch Jeremias II, "Go your own way," just don't call your way the Orthodox Way.

[joe]

Re: "Of course, the depths cannot and should not be pursued in isolation. These are not a place to start, nor are they helpful to pursue unless one is able to digest meat. But, for those sundry so able, within the life of a accountable COMMUNITY, these writings speak of renewal and hope. Which is why Wesley..."

"Community" is the word that Protestants use to substitute for orthodox concept of "Communion" (i.e. the active sacramental and liturgical life of the Church) just like their use of "ordinances" to substitute for sacraments/mysteries.

Contrast "community" with "communion" and it is easy to see what is missing or has been lost that cannot not be regained by the reading of texts.

[joe]

excuse the typos: "..it is easy to see what is missing or has been lost that cannot be regained by the mere reading of texts."

[Michael]

I thought this thread had quietly ended ...

Joe says: "I and the other Orthodox Christians in this discussion have tried to warn not to judge."

Is that why you judge the perfectly honorable profession of technical writing to be inherently amateurish ("dilettante")? I don't know much about the "Emerging Church" (I'm rather part of the "Surviving Church" of little parishes on the prairie), and the "gurus" you mention may indeed be poor theologians, whoever they are. But if judging an entire industry (which goes far beyond owner's manuals) in terms of a poorly-written VCR manual is an example of spiritual wisdom, I'm not interested.

BTW, full disclosure: I've never been a technical writer, just a Lutheran pastor. Also BTW, to see the full context of Patriarch Jeremiah's "go your own way" statement (which I doubt was the direct inspiration for Fleetwood Mac ... )one can find the entire 16th Century dialogue between the patriarch and the Lutherans in a volume well-edited by Orthodox priest and scholar George Mastrantonis, entitled "Augsburg and Constantinople", published by Holy Cross Orthodox Press:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0916586820/qid=1134657251/sr=11-1/ref=sr_11_1/002-3884589-1688029?n=283155

May I point out that, though the patriarch's 1581 statement was intended to end nine years of dialogue (and I don't blame him for being wearied - as a Lutheran I admit the Lutherans in the dialogue could be embarrassingly, windily condescending), Mastrantonis' volume was designed to help open dialogue. From page 23:

"This correspondence between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the theologians of the University of Tubingen should not be accepted as final ... There is the opportunity for both parties to reopen again the discussion in the light of todays perspective without the external forces and influences which prevailed at that time between the Patriarch and the Lutheran theologians."

Mastrantonis makes this remarkably even-handed observation on page 17:

"Were there actually differences - essential differences - which caused the termination of this dialogue? Or was it a misunderstood emphasis which hammered a particular side of the discussion, and not the whole discussion itself? Ws the Patriarch's loyalty to Sacred Tradition and the Lutheran's to Sola Scriptura the real cause of disagreement and termination of the correspondence? It appears that the Orthodox underestimated the importance of Scripture and that the Lutherans underestimated Sacred Tradition."

[joe]

Michael,

The technical writer cum-Emergent guru himself is the source for this line: "That’s not to deny that it’s possible that I and others might be dilettantes or 'grazers' – that’s always a danger."

BTW, there is nothing derogatory about referring to a technical writer as a "professional dilettante." It's something of a given in the field of Technical Writing, especially for the generalist.

TW-cumEG acknowledged the possibility of danger in the dilettantish "licking" of the Orthodox metaphorical lollipops. I too acknowledged it.