This looked very interesting. I respect Dr. Seitz work–the little I’ve heard of it. This is clearly fragmentary but I fifnd myself in a different place from where I think he’s going because there’s a turn he doesn’t quite make (or that I don’t make in going where he says I go…)

I take as my starting point James Sanders’ work Torah and Canon as a starting point for thinking about how the Old and New Testaments fit together. Sanders basically argues that the Prophets, Wisdom, the other stuff is essentially reflection upon the Torah. Even the historical materials are theological documents that parse things different ways based on theological perspectives. The NT, then, is reflection upon the Torah in light of the person of Jesus Christ–the fulfillment (personification?) of the Torah. I don’t remember Sanders advocating, and in my appropriation of his work I do not see that the notion of “development” is a useful one. For one thing, dating plays havoc with any notion of linear “development”. Yeah, NT is reflection of a different order–that’s ’cause something really big happened to make it go that way!

I think that Dr. Seitz sets up unnecessary binaries here. There is an us and a them. But it’s not really that easy. My biggest issue with this reporting of his words (not his complete words or complete thought because I don’t know them for certain) is that he does not state how “orthodox” Bible-believers work with contradictory statements and entire lines of thought within the Scriptures. (After all, that’s why alternate ideas were floated…) Why is the notion of different/alternate reflections upon the same formative material and experiences so threatening? How can you look at 1 & 2 Kings, then at 1 & 2 Chronicles and not see that there wrestling with the same stuff but in fundamentally different ways for different reasons–most of which are theological? It goes back to the gospels–do we go back to clumsy attempts at harmonization or do we recognize that we have four different accounts utilizing interdependent sources? What is he advocated here? Thoughts?

On Homer…

The Odyssey is such a terrific book. If you haven’t read it recently, please do. The Robert Fitzgerald translation, please.

The *only* flaw with it is that it doesn’t end; it just stops.

Hecatombs here, there, and everywhere. Is our God as real to us as what Homer portrays?

My most substantive thought is that here we have one of the great epics of history constantly underlining and underscoring one of the primary virtues of civilized people, one of the primary virtues of the Old Testament, one of the primary virtues of the New Testament, definitely one of the prime virtues of the Benedictine tradition…do you know what I’m talking about?

Hospitality. Hospitality is absolutely central to the plot of the Odyssey. I would argue that both in liberal and conservative, Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical circles, this is one of the least understood and practiced of the virtues. And I don’t just mean the constantly used yet ambiguous defined “inclusion” either. I mean good old-fashioned Homeric style, Abrahamic, Johannine, and Matthean style hospitality. The kind that would take an absolute nobody who washed up on the freakin’ shore and outfit a boat to take them wherever in the Aegean they needed to go kind of hospitality. A hospitality that gives cold water and receives people into their communties kind of hospitality. I’m not talking about some loosey-goosey permissiveness here, I mean honest-to-God hospitality.

I sure know that I don’t do it and I’m not sure how I’d go about starting but…damn. What if we did?

Well–duh!

After analyzing Ælfric’s kerygma, I’ll make a few statements. It basically comes down to two main concepts, one from God’s side, one from ours. The divine initiative is alysednysse, redemption. This is how God acts; this is who Jesus is. Now, this ain’t justification by faith through grace. Instead, redemption for Ælfric is God’s act that makes it possible for us to attain our salvation. How? Well, that’s the other concept: gehyrsumnysse–obedience. This is our response. God created humanity to dwell with him and the angels because of the disobedience of the tenth angelic host, now the demonic order. Despite a really low bar, humanity failed through the devil’s deceptions. In being obedient to the devil rather than God, we swore allegiance to the wrong overlord and are now getting hell for it. Literally. God’s redemptive acts zero everything out. We can start again. Thus, we must determine our true overlord–God or the Devil–and act accordingly.

For Ælfric, worship, faith, and obedience are all tied up in a big package together. In a moving passage on the foundation of idolatry he portrays humanity falling on its knees before the demon-possessed idols and crying out: “You are our gods and we set our faith and hope/trust in you!” Simultaneously, he is giving us a picture of idolatrous worship and of the oath-taking service between an Anglo-Saxon retainer and his lord. Worship is allegiance. Allegiance is obedience.

The last post got me thinking about this so I thought I’d share…

Interestingly enough, the modern study of Old English (quick note: the language is Old English, the culture is Anglo-Saxon; people don’t speak Anglo-Saxon) was kicked off by the English Reformation. One of the topoi used to justify the Reformation was the restoration of the Ecclesia Anglicana defined as the “authentic” English church before its corruption by Romish and Papistical practices. The way these apologists handled it was by looking at Ælfric’s sermons… In fact, the very first OE text ever *printed* on the printing press was Catholic Homily 2.15, one of Ælfric’s sermons for Easter where he speaks in some detail about the Eucharist. This was done to prove that the “authentic” English Church didn’t buy into “that transubstantiation crap”… That was less than the last word on the subject, though, scholars, church historians and others have been arguing ever since then about the true meaning of the sermon. (Fr. Former Priest among them, Anastasia…) Here’s the bottom line. There were two guys, Radbertus and Ratramnus, Catholics claim the first as teaching proto-transubstantiation, Calvinists claim the second as teaching a purely symbolic understanding–both wings are over-reaching in my book. Anyway, Ælfric deftly merges the two, using the arguments from Ratramnus but the illustrations from Radbertus. So does he support it or not? Well, he certainly supports a literal Real Presence but doesn’t seem much to care about precise definitions of how it happens.

My realization is these apologist who appealed to Ælfric unknowingly did something rather interesting. First, they strengthened the Benedictine character and heritage of the emerging Anglican church (always a good thing in my book). Second, in arguing from Ælfric, they lept back to a pre-scholastic period. The true, formal, and proper definition of transubstantiation comes with Scholasticism and wasn’t formalized until that great scholastic century, the 13th (4th Lateran Council, 1215). Thus, these apologists were essentially advocating an Anglicanism heartily informed by *early* medieval Catholicism rather than *high* medieval Catholicism. I’m likin’ the way they were thinkin’… ;-)

As I’ve said before on this blog, the Western Christian Tradition can’t be reduced to a single big ‘T’ Tradition. There are strands; there are periods. You learn a lot about any liturgical enthusiast by considering what century they want to model off of and why. For instance, the Ritualists and Anglo-Catholics take the 14/15th centuries as their model. They essentially want to pretend as if the Reformation didn’t happened. The most recent liturgical renewal movement prefered the 4th century. They want to go back to the earliest complete sources and wipe out the intervening 16 hundred years. This line of thought adds fuel to MY fire…maybe an early medieval, more Benedictine, less Scholastic, style hearkens most clearly to the intent of at least one section of the Anglican Reformers. Hmmm. I’m going to have to look into that a bit more…

Found here. Hat-tip to Dr. Nokes.

In reponse to bls’s comment–here’s some real early medieval theology for ya! It’s a chunk of chapter 2 wherein I collect from several sources the fundamental narrative that Aelfric works from. My working title for this file is “Aelfric’s Kerygma.” Enjoy…

Ælfric constantly returns to a core narrative of redemption throughout his homilies and other writings. While the content of this narrative is implicit inhis works, he explicitly presents it in four texts: the first sermon of the first book of the Catholic Homilies (CH I.1) where it is most clearly and directly defined, the Letter to Sigeweard (Sige) where it is interwoven with the whole history of Israel, and the Letter to Wulfgeat (Wulf) and the second Letter to Wulfstan (2Lup) where it appears in summary.
The heart of the narrative is the story of the creeds: The Holy Trinity, one God in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is eternal and pre-existent. [CH I.1.6-9, 17-21; Sige.30-44; Wulf] The Trinity–primarily through the Father and the Son–created the world, all things seen and unseen. [CH I.1.9-13, 21; Sige.28-34; Wulf] The Holy Spirit holds all things in life and forgives those who truly repent [Sige.40-44; Wulf].
In the process of creation, God created ten angel hosts. [CH I.1.22-26; Sige.51-54; Wulf] The tenth host, led by Lucifer, rebelled against God on account of Lucifer’s pride [CH I.1.29-43; Sige.67-101; Wulf] and were cast from heaven. [CH I.1.43-45; Sige.101-105] This host exists now as the demonic order. [CH I.1.26-27, 34-39, 57-62; Sige.105-107; Wulf] In order to replace this host, [CH I.1.62-64; Sige.113-116] God created humanity–first Adam, then Eve–and placed them in the garden, [CH I.1.64-73, 86-94; Sige.108-113; Wulf] presenting the tree in the center of the garden as a test of obedience and loyalty–the loyalty that Satan and his host lacked. [CH I.1.74-83; Sige.116-117] Through the devil’s trickery Eve was deceived [CH I.1.125-139; Sige.117-118; Wulf] and humanity disobeyed God’s command, [CH I.1.139-142; Sige.118-119; Wulf] receiving dismisal from the garden and death as a consequence. [CH I.1.142-154; Sige.119-120; Wulf]
From Adam came Noah who had three sons; [CH I.1.181-190; Sige.158-161] after God led them through the flood, [CH I.1.191-202; Sige.150-156, 195-197] the eldest of the sons, Shem was the ancestor of the Hebrews [CH I.1.222-231; Sige.239-241] whom God rescued from Egypt [CH I.1.232; Sige.325-359] and to whom the Law was given. [CH I.1.232; Sige.366-370]
From the Hebrew people God chose the Blessed Virgin Mary [CH I.1.236-241; Sige.891-892; Wulf] from whom Jesus was born incarnate by the Holy Spirit. [CH I.1.241-245; Wulf] Jesus performed a great many miracles that the people might believe that he was the Son of God. [CH I.1.253-261; Sige.900, 913-917] He taught that humanity must believe rightly in God, be baptized, and demonstrate faith with good works. [CH I.1.261-264] Fundamentally, though, he came for the redemption of humanity. [CH I.1.245-246, 270-273; Sige.918; Wulf] The devil used Judas to incite the Jews to kill Jesus [CH I.1.265-275] and he was crucified. [CH I.1.275-276; Sige.917-918; Wulf] After the crucifixion he was buried [CH I.1.276-277; Wulf] and descended into hell where he conquered the devil [CH I.1.277-278; Wulf] and freed Adam, Eve, and their descendants. [CH I.1.278-280; Wulf] He arose from the dead on the third day [CH I.1.280-281; Sige.918-919; Wulf] and rejoined his disciples, teaching them that they must go throughout the earth, teaching and baptizing. [CH I.1.281-284] On the fortieth day he ascended bodily into heaven and was seated at the right hand of the Father. [CH I.1.284-287; Sige.919-920; Wulf] He will come at the end of time on the clouds with great power and will raise all souls that they may be judged. [CH I.1.287-291; Sige.920-921; Wulf] The wicked will be cast into eternal fire; the righteous he will bring into the heavenly kingdom. [CH I.1.291-293; Sige.922; Wulf]

Things are proceeding well:
* M will be deaconing at our parish in Philly. Yay! It’s not a job, but at least she’ll be able to do some of the things that she’s called to do.
* We’ve been a little concerned with all the marketing, all the ads, all the Sanata/Frosty/Rudolph movies that Lil’ G may be unclear on the true meaning of Christmas. Not to worry. When we asked her what Christams is about at the dinner table a few nights ago she sang Happy Birthday to Jesus–then proceeded to blow out the Advent wreath…
* Chapter two has fit together with a big clunk. Not only do I now know all of the consitutent parts, I now know exactly how they fit together. Short form: The early medievals considered Scritpure to be eschatological epic. That is, it is a grand narrative of Christ’s battle against the devil for the redemption of humanity. Everything gets fit into this pattern. The exegetical tools are those of the literary arts becsause they allow the patterns of the redemption story to be found in isolated pericopes and the OT. The liturgical year too is a variant of this eschatological epic especially as it begins–in most early medieval kalendars–with Christmas (the birth of the hero) and ends with Advent (his triumphant return at the great Day of Judgement).
* Transit strike. Not so bad; I walk about 40-odd blocks and don’t get in terribly later than I usually do. It’s fun to whine about it though! ;-) I have no sympathy for the union. I only get a 3% cost of living increase and have to pay a hell of a lot more than 1% for basic benefits. My salary’s fairly comparable too but I have to have quite a bit more schooling (which, let’s not forget, costs money and still has to be paid back) to do my job. Oh well. We’re hoofin’ it for the foreseeable future.

Between the ice storm and the likely transit strike tomorrow’s commute is shaping up to be a whole barrelful of laughs…

So it’s almost Advent 3 and I’ve just now found my Daily Office Book for Year 2 from the box it was hiding in. I’ve been using my good ol’ BCP and Bible before now. I have to say–I’m annoyed. Since Advent is a penitential season (yes, less so than Lent but it’s still penitential…) I’ve been adding in the Litany or the Supplication on certain days. But they’re not in the Daily Office Book! What good is a penitential season if you can’t get all properly penitential? *sigh…* I’ll probably just go to Rite I for the season…