theologiaviatorum's reviews
206 reviews

Honestly I read this for one short section. I was looking for the quote in which he sums up the work of the atonement saying, "That which he has not assumed he has not healed." This collection of works from St. Gregory Nazianzus contains his five theological orations where he discusses theology proper, that is, the doctrine of God and the Trinity. Also included are his Two Letters to Cledonius. His chief interlocutors seem to be Apollonaris and Nestorius. St. Gregory Nazianzen insists on the full union of Jesus' two natures where neither one replaces or destroys the other. This means that he is one person (contra Nestorianism) and that he has a human mind and a human soul (contra Apollonarianism). If he does not take those things on himself then they are not healed in us. This collection is a good look into Christological issues of the fourth century.

I finished this collection of partial texts from Theodore of Mopsuestia, or Theodore the Interpreter. He is a controversial character in Christian history. All of his life he was considered orthodox but many years after his death he was retrospectively anathematized by The Second Council of Constantinople in 553. Nestorius, the famous heretic, said that his position was best expressed by Theodore. But is that so? Most of history has agreed, but more recent scholarship has revisited the question. One can see why there is ambiguity. The question is whether Theodore's conception of the union between the humanity and the divinity of Christ was a sufficient union. Sometimes he says things which seem perfectly orthodox. When commenting on Romans 7 he says, "Because he was speaking of two natures, he used 'me' in both of these statements as referring to two distinct realities aptly distinguished by their natures, yet being one; that is, he is speaking of these two as being one person because of the body's bonding with the soul. So also when our Lord speaks of his humanity and his divinity, he uses this 'I' referring to the common person" (104). Here he maintains the distinction between Jesus'two natures. He is not a mixture, a demi-god of half-man and half-god. He is wholly God and wholly Man. But neither does Theodore divide the person. He affirms the singularity of Jesus. But then he says odd sorts of things like this: “Seeing how fully God forknew what sort of person Christ in the flesh would be when He United him to Himself from the very moment of his fashioning" (134). He seems here to consider a man who is separate but assumed by the Word. Indeed he often speaks of the one assumed and the One assuming. "If this union [between the assumed one and the Assumer] is dissolved then the one assumed is seen to be nothing other than a mere man like us. This is why the holy books have insisted upon the two designations for the single Son, to make us know in our profession of faith the glory of the Only Begotten Son and the honor bestowed on the man whom He has clothed" (161).  His work is certainly ambiguous enough to allow heretics like Nestorius to make use of him. But should he be condemned for taking a position which had not yet been decided by the Church? Is a retrospective anathema deserved? Maybe his reputation was decided by an unfortunate association with Nestorius with whom he may have disagreed with personally. Whatever the case, this work was an interesting read and an intriguing look into the Christological controversies of the post-Nicean period.

I was researching critiques of James Fowler's Stages of Faith Development and came across one by Bonnie J. Miller-McLemore. I was impressed by it so when I saw this book recommended on Amazon I gave it a look. I was skeptical. The impression I got from the summary of the book was that she would review differing theologies of children, namely, children as victims, as sinful, as gifts, as labors of love, as agents, and then show why these—whichever "these" might be—ought to be rejected and why this one—whichever one that might be—should be accepted. I was wrong. She accepts all of these as true but she seeks to determine how they are true. Miller-McLemore discusses how each of the above ideas has been rejected by some and abused by others. She offers critiques of both, showing herself aware of the dangers of extremes, and seeks to find a solid Christian ground upon which to stand. This was especially valuable to me. She seeks the unique resources that only Christianity has to offer. This theology of children comes from a feminist maternal theology. She is very much in tune with the ways in which children like other marginalized groups are abused, taken advantage of, and deprived of agency. Respecting the unique contributions and agency of children is a theme which runs throughout her work. I was challenged and delighted by this short but dense scholarly work. I highly recommend it to anyone who works closely with children, whether parents, volunteers, ministers, or academics.

St. Justin Martyr's Dialogue With Trypho is the first work of the early Church Fathers I ever bought and I am only now getting around to reading it. This is a record of a conversation St. Justin had with the Jew, Trypho. In it he seeks to show that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ of God, the long awaited Savior of the Jews as well as the Gentiles. In so doing he marshals lengthy Old Testament quotations. He often comes across as particularly anti-Semitic, calling them "stupid", "ignorant", "stubborn", and "hard hearted." But he also demonstrates that the Hebrew scriptures are Christians scriptures. In Justin we witness the allegorizing hermeneutic of the early Church and the suspicion of a solely literal interpretation, often associated with Judaism by ancient Christians. This manner of Old Testament interpretation was integral to Christianity. John Henry Newman went so far as to say, "It may almost be laid down as a historical fact that the mystical interpretation and orthodoxy will stand or fall together." He is not my favorite of the patristics but he is one of the earliest and oft cited.

Alexandria has a long history of producing intellectual giants so it is no surprise to find St. Cyril of Alexandria exercising such a great influence over the Christian world of the 5th century, and even further after his death into the 6th century and beyond. His work On the Unity of Christ addresses Nestorianism primarily (which he considers a sort of “twin” to Arianism, p.51), but occasionally argues against Apollonarianism as well. Nestorius (historically understood) taught that a perfect man was “conjoined” to the eternal Son, the Word of the Father, but was not “united” with him. The flesh was that of a “son of David” and was not the Son’s own. In contrast, Cyril argues for orthodoxy insisting from scripture that it was the Son’s own flesh which suffered and died. If it were not, how could our nature be healed? If the flesh were only that of a “son of David” then he receives life as a gift and having received it may not give it to others. Only if the Man Jesus has life himself as his very own may he pass it to others and so redeem our corrupt nature. He says, “[T]here was no other way to shake off the gloomy Dominion of death, only by the incarnation of the Only Begotten. This was why he appeared as we are and made his own a body subject to corruption according to the inherent system of its nature. In so far as he himself is life, for he was born from the life of the Father, he intended to implant his own benefit within it, that is life itself" (125). Since this union is real, and the flesh is God's own (not merely adopted from a separate "son of David") it is right to call Mary Theotokos, God-bearer, or Mother of God. Nestorius refused her this title, calling her only "Mother of Christ." St. Cyril also address the doctrine of Apollonaris who denied that Jesus had a rational soul. He taught instead that the eternal Word replaced in Jesus what would be the soul in any other man. This must be rejected, Cyril says, because otherwise he is not "in all points like as we are." For Man is not wounded merely in the flesh but also in his rational soul and what Jesus "has not assumed he has not healed" (cf. Gregory Nazianzus).  In this work there is an obvious emphasis on the incarnation which is often lost in the West. Frequently redemption and atonement are narrowed to the cross. The incarnation is not seen as having any redemptive effect except insofar as it is the necessary condition which makes his redeeming death possible. But according to Cyril redemption is "by means of" the incarnation. This is the way we are granted theosis, or deification. This is the great reversal. "God became Man that Man may become god." Or as Cyril put it, "He Who Is, The One Who Exists, is necessarily born of the flesh, taking all that is ours into himself so that all that is born of the flesh, that is us corruptible and perishing beings, might rest in him. In short, he took what was ours to be his very own so that we might have all that is his" (59). 

When this book was mentioned in class I had no idea just how up-my-alley this book would be. For years now I have had increasing interest in liturgics and the formative power of ritual. This is considered to be Westerhoff's most seminal work. Here he reflects upon and critiques Christian education built upon a school or lecture style model. Instead he champions "enculturation." Our children need not only to be filled with the right ideas but to inhabit a community, a whole world, a "culture" which is determined by Christian faith. This includes especially our rituals, our symbolism, our liturgy, the way we order our time, and our Christian speech. Children learn best when they are caught in a new imaginative world. This book points out the need and helps to point the way forward. This revised edition has Westerhoff reflect on his work in both retrospective critique, development, and reaffirmation. It also includes a study guide and short memoir. This is a landmark work which continues to speak to today.

This is the second in Smith's "Good and Beautiful" series which seems to take Dallas Willard's Divine Conspiracy and make it into a curriculum for Christlikeness.  The Good and Beautiful LIfe was fantastic. I enjoyed the first in this series, and thought there was much good that many need to hear, but I was not particularly awed by it. This book, however, is wonderful. It combines insight with accessibility and practicality. The first in the series sought to change how we think about God. This book is a walk through the Sermon on the Mount. And, true to its description as a curriculum of Christlikeness, every chapter is paired with a Spiritual Exercise wherein we open ourselves up to the Holy Spirit so that God's grace might transform us into his likeness. This is one of the most practical and easy guides to Christian practice I know. I highly recommend it.

I just finished St. Ignatius' letters. This edition from the Popular Patristics Series includes those genuine letters of St. Ignatius and the longer recension now attributed to Pseudo-Ignatius, as well an account of his martyrdom, a panegyric of Chrysostom in honor of Ignatius, and letters (likely from a medieval tradition) supposedly written to John and Mary. Traditionally, Ignatius is considered, along with Polycarp, a disciple of the St. John the Apostle. Further, tradition says that he was handpicked by St. Peter to be bishop over Antioch. So, as St. John Chrysostom says, "He was genuinely in the company of the apostles and enjoyed their spiritual streams." Ignatius writes these letters on the way to celebrate his martyrdom in Rome in imitation of Saints Paul and Peter. He exhorts the churches to holiness, warns them of false teachers (especially the Docetists), and commands their unity. An essential part of this unity, according to Ignatius, is communion with and submission to one's bishop. He writes in his letter to the Trallians, "For when you are subject to the bishops as to Jesus Christ you seem to me not to be living in a human way but in accordance with Jesus Christ who died for us so that, believing in his death, you may escape death. This it is required that you should undertake nothing apart from the bishop, as is already the case, but also that you be subject to the presbytery as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we will be found through living in him ... Likewise everyone should respect the deacons like Jesus Christ, and also the bishop, who is a representation of the Father, and the presbyters as a sanhedrin of God and company of the apostles. Apart from these nothing can be called a church." The Letters of Ignatius are one of the earliest extra-biblical writings we have and a worthwhile read for anyone interested in our history.

Newman's work on the development of doctrine took his lead from St. Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitorium or Commonitory which means something like "Remembrance-er."  It was a work to refresh his memory as to what distinguishes true doctrine from false. In this work he writes what comes to be known as the Vincentian Canon, a measurement by which we might determine truth from falsehood, namely, "Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus." We should believe that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. Put another way, the tests of truth are universality, antiquity, and consent. This work is important because the charge against the Catholic Church is that they add to pure religion. What you find in the Commonitory is that St. Vincent insists on preservation, not innovation. He is conservative in that regard. It is the heretics who are charged with novelty. The schismatics are those who introduce new doctrine. The "changes" of the Catholic Church are the genuine developments to be expected from a living thing. It is "progress," not "alteration." He writes, "The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same ... An infant's limbs are small, a young man's large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any [thing] to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this is the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant" (XXIII). The constant chorus throughout is the contrast of "sacred antiquity" against "profane novelty." This is a great primer in the development of Christian doctrine. Highly recommended to all.

I continue my journey with the Blessed John Henry Newman who is set to be canonized on the 13th of this month, just a few days after the anniversary of his own reception into the Church on October 9, 1845. This book is, in some sense, the work which brought him out of the Church of England and into the Church of Rome. The question he had was whether the developments of doctrine within the Catholic Church were genuine developments or corruptions. He set out to write an essay upon the topic and decided that if, when the project was finished his convictions lead him to the Catholic Church, then he would ask for admittance. He never finished the work. Part way through his convictions were such that he could wait no longer. The book was printed without alteration though with some rearrangement. In this book he takes his start from the Vincentian Canon of St. Vincent of Lerins, "Quod semper, Quod ubique, quod ab omnibus," that is, the true doctrine of the Catholic Church is that which is believed "always, every where, and among all" Christians.  Newman, however, recognizes that while this offers a good start it is not quite sufficient. Antiquity is not a sufficient test because changes take place over time and both living and dying things change. So we must ask, "How do I know if this 'change' in doctrine is that of life and growth or that of death, decay, and corruption?" John Henry Newman identifies seven notes of living ideas and their genuine development, namely: 1. Preservation of its type. 2. Continuity of its principles. 3. Its power of assimilation. 4. Its logical sequence. 5. Anticipation of its future. 6. Conservative action upon its past. 7. Its chronic vigor. He then observes the many groups throughout history which have claimed the Christian name. He applied the tests to the major groups and finds that only that one body which call itself Catholic has the notes of genuine development. All others, e.g. Arianism, Nestorianism, Docetism, Gnosticism etc. contain "developments" which are not genuine developments but corruptions.  In this book, Newman does not shy from objections. He faces them head on. He acknowledges that the Catholic Church looks significantly different from the Church pictured in the Bible. But, he responds, the difference is not the difference in a dolphin and a tiger or a fig and a grape. They are not differences in kind or type. The differences are that of the acorn and the oak. Yes, the acorn differs drastically from the oak, but they are the same "thing." The oak is the genuine development of the acorn. Or, another example, the difference is that of an infant and a full grown man or woman. The differences are stark, but they are genuine developments. They are the growth of maturity, not the decay of corruption and death. A compelling historical case is made here. I recommend it to all who are interested in such questions.