In F. E. Peters’ Islam: A Guide For Jews and Christians, a helpful distinction is made in regards the nomenclature of an “Islamic state.” This is helpful for current foreign policy, but also as a way to see the differences between Islam and Christianity when it comes to politics:

In the case of Islam, a distinction must be drawn between a Muslim State, one in which the majority of the population is professedly Muslim, and an Islamic state or society, whose laws are based to a greater or lesser extent on the sharia. Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and Turkey would be examples of the first, whereas Iran, Saudi Arabia, Taliban Afghanistan, perhaps, from a certain perspective, the Sudan and Pakistan, and fitfully Libya might all be argued– and disputed, chiefly by each other– as Islamic states. “Jewish” and “Christian” do not allow the same distinction. It is of no matter in the first case since there is only one state or society that qualifies in either sense of the word as “Jewish,” the State of Israel, even though it has no constitution and many Jews cannot or prefer not to imagine it as Jewish in the religious sense. There are, however, still many states where the majority of the population professes Christianity, but only one surviving state, the Holy See or State of the Vatican City, population 870, is governed by a version of Church law.

pgs. 212-213

And of course, the Reformation boldly claimed that the Bible forbids using “Church law” in the clerical sense to govern the State.

I blogged too soon with the Hitchens link.  Justin Raimondo has written some very sensible remarks as well:

David Brooks said on George Stephanapoulos’ Sunday program that he considers Sarah Palin “a joke.” What he didn’t say is that she was and is a joke played by the neoconservatives on the Republican party.

The Washington Post asks: “Is there something that could be called ‘Palinism,’ defining a political philosophy that could help her party win elections and turn her into a viable national candidate?”

Short answer: No.

Slightly longer answer: Where and when has Palin ever articulated a coherent alternative to the orthodox Republican doctrines of supply-side economics and endless war? She isn’t about to do it in her “book,” and she isn’t capable of it. What is especially irksome, however, is that there is indeed a populist champion of the Tea Party grassroots, someone with the knowledge, the organization, the proven fundraising ability, and the principles to lead the GOP out of its ideological and political morass: Ron Paul.

“Palinism” is a hairstyle. Paulism is a bona fide movement. The first has no future — no, she won’t be a major contender, come the presidential sweepstakes, as George Will predicted on the Stephanopoulos program. The second IS the future, if the GOP is to have a future.

You can read the other writers from The Hill commenting on the issue here.

I have to admit, when Sarah Palin first appeared, I thought she might work.  Sure, she seemed to bubble about nothingness, but “Hey,” I thought, “she’s a politician.”  Nothing unusual there.

But I couldn’t manage to persevere on the hokeyness train.  I just really can’t take it any more.  Sure Obama scares the daylights out of me, but I can’t say that Palin makes me feel much better.  She seems like one huge gimmick.

Christopher Hitchens also points out that, when under pressure, Palin has been quick to make her more extreme right wing opinions more PC.  Now, this might sound like good news to the average GOPer, but Palin’s whole raison d’etre is to supposedly be the “real deal” when it comes to conservative issues.  Not so.

(Not to mention that “real deal” conservativism would have a drastically different foreign policy from the typically Republican approach.)

And that dispensationalism…  ugh.

So I’ve been out of pocket for a while.  I was gone to Florida for Presbytery and the Trinity Presbyterian Church, Valparairso’s Family Advance for most of last week.  I had a great time, and it was especially fun to fellowship with the folks from Providence Presbyterian Church in Pensacola, Holy Trinity Reformed Evangelical Church in Greenville, as well as an Anglican or two.

I’ve also been working through a few books.

I’m still going through Bruce Gordon’s Calvin.  This is a very good book and not always so favorable towards Calvin and Geneva.  It has really made me question the system of discipline there.

C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity is fantastic.  Anna and I have been working through all of Lewis’ stuff for a sort of personal devotion routine.  The striking thing about Lewis is that he is easily accessible while profound.  This book could also be titled something like Meditations on Augustinianism.  The content wouldn’t need to change.

Veselin Kesich’s Formation and Struggles in the St. Vlad’s The Church in History series is also proving to be a great read.  I’m always happy to see the New Testament church included in discussion of “the early church.”

My school work also has me re-reading Geoffrey of Monmouth and Herodotus.  Last time I posted a book list, someone said I needed to read more fiction.  Well let me just say, both of these should count as fiction.  They are good reads, but a little fanciful.

And if I ever get some more free time, I’ll return to the John of Damascus series.

I did a radio interview with my friends Uri and Jarrod on the topic of Eastern Orthodoxy.  There should be three installments, with this being the first.

You can listen here.

So every year we have to debate whether or not Halloween is a “pagan” holiday.  My usual practice is to ignore the protesters and dress up like a literary or film character because it is fun.  But, for some reason this year I devoted a bit of time to looking up some sources, and it was fairly ironic.

The first thing to note is that like all major Christian holidays (most notably Christmas and Easter), Halloween did have a precursor among pagan religions.  The most well-known one was the festival of Samhain.  It was a big “Fall Festival” where the people welcomed the changing seasons and made provisions for winter.  There typically weren’t vampire or zombie costumes, since those things hadn’t been invented yet.  Most Evangelicals today, however, in an attempt to get away from vampires and zombies, have reverted back to the “Fall Festival.”  In other words, to combat the things which Christendom added to the ancient pagan celebration, Evangelicals celebrate something similar to the original essence of Samhain.

Of course, Halloween is a uniquely Christian invention.  It comes from “All Hallows Eve,” the night before All Saints Day.  This was made a holiday to combat the pagan festivals which occurred at this time (again, like Christmas and Easter) , and the fixation on death was a direct accompaniment of the Christian doctrine of the communion of the saints and the coming resurrection.  Anyone who has read in medieval history, art, or literature knows that skulls and devils are ubiquitous.  This was due to several reasons, not the least would be the reality of the plague and the ongoing “spookiness” that came with the conversion of the barbarians and exploration into unknown lands. Halloween was also the time in the year when animals which could not be fed during the winter would be slaughtered.

Now, I encourage the celebration of the Reformation on this day as well.  I think it is a good thing.  However, Reformed Christians shouldn’t kid themselves into thinking that they are doing something radically different than Halloween.  I mean, just consider: we remember the lives of several famous saints, we retell stories from their days (complete with legendary accouterments), and sometimes we even dress in costumes.

Whatever your practice, you should remember that most of the stories going around about Halloween and its “pagan” or “evil” associations are exaggerated or simply false.  You also have to admit that Christian “spin-offs” are usually unattractive, even off-putting to many people (Christians included).  So be careful with they way in which you articulate what you do and why.  Perhaps most of all, remember our Lord’s teaching on judging.

A few helpful sources:

Halloween: From Pagan Ritual to Party Night (see the 2nd chapter especially)

Scottish Guising: Medieval and Modern Theatre Games

Soul Cakes: Hallowed Offerings for Hungry Souls

Some of my friends thought that Against Christianity was a tad too Anabaptist.  At first I had trouble seeing this, but the more I studied the differences between Reformed and Anabaptist, particularly through reading Yoder’s Anabaptism and Reformation in Switzerland, I began to see where those critiques were coming from.  The first generation of Anabaptists really meant that Christians were of the new polis and not the old one.

But happily, Leithart is not to be underestimated.  He has recently given some thoughts on the qualified nature of Church as polis, which can be found here.  A few lines are worth pointing out:

On this view, the church is never absorbed into earthly political order, never reduced to a national cult, even if the nation is thoroughly Christian.  The political order to which the church belongs is the eschatological political order of the heavenly city.  At the same time, this view seems to avoid some of the separationist tendencies that sometimes infect church-as-polis theories.   The church isn’t defined over-against the earthly city, but as the sacrament and “cult” of the city that is to come.

And just for the record, this is also what the Bible thinks. 

And on my sidebar it says:

Thomas H. only has 14 friends.
Help him find more friends.

Continuing with John’s Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, we read about the unity of the Godhead.  Now it must be understood that our contemporary manner of speaking, with clear and easy references to “the essence” and “the persons” is not the positive methodology of John.  He certainly distinguishes between ousia and hypostasis, but he also makes reference to the nature (physis) and the energy.  There is also the concept of names which will come up later.  Rather than simply using our modern notion of “essence,” it is better to speak of “the unity.”  The value of paying attention to the unity will become clear.

John writes:

And this may be perceived throughout the whole of creation, but in the case of the holy and superessential and incomprehensible Trinity, far removed from everything, it is quite the reverse. For there the community and unity are observed in fact, through the co-eternity of the subsistences, and through their having the same essence and energy and will and concord of mind, and then being identical in authority and power and goodness—I do not say similar but identical—and then movement by one impulse. For there is one essence, one goodness, one power, one will, one energy, one authority, one and the same, I repeat, not three resembling each other. But the three subsistences have one and the same movement. For each one of them is related as closely to the other as to itself: that is to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, save those of not being begotten, of birth and of procession. But it is by thought that the difference is perceived. For we recognise one God: but only in the attributes of Fatherhood, Sonship, and Procession, both in respect of cause and effect and perfection of subsistence, that is, manner of existence, do we perceive difference. For with reference to the uncircumscribed Deity we cannot speak of separation in space, as we can in our own case. For the subsistences dwell in one another, in no wise confused but cleaving together, according to the word of the Lord, I am in the father, and the father in Me: nor can one admit difference in will or judgment or energy or power or anything else whatsoever which may produce actual and absolute separation in our case. Wherefore we do not speak of three Gods, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but rather of one God, the holy Trinity, the Son and Spirit being referred to one cause, and not compounded or coalesced according to the synæresis of Sabellius. For, as we said, they are made one not so as to commingle, but so as to cleave to each other, and they have their being in each other without any coalescence or commingling. Nor do the Son and the Spirit stand apart, nor are they sundered in essence according to the diæresis of Arias. For the Deity is undivided amongst things divided, to put it concisely: and it is just like three suns cleaving to each other without separation and giving out light mingled and conjoined into one. When, then, we turn our eyes to the Divinity, and the first cause and the sovereignty and the oneness and sameness, so to speak, of the movement and will of the Divinity, and the identity in essence and power and energy and lordship, what is seen by us is unity.

~1.8

What is of interest here is John’s statement that “the difference is perceived” only in “the manner of existence.”  It should not be difficult to understand how Thomas Aquinas could make such use of the Damascene, as well as Pseudo-Denys.  The “Person” is a “manner of existence,” and this is also a relationship of “cause and effect”: Sonship and Procession.  There is much to say about this language of “cause and effect,” and John is clear that this has nothing to do with priority of time or nature.  It is only an ordering of relation.

To show that this is indeed what Western thinkers mean by God’s essence, we need to notice John’s language of “one motion.”  In the Trinity:

the community and unity are observed in fact, through the co-eternity of the subsistences, and through their having the same essence and energy and will and concord of mind, and then being identical in authority and power and goodness—I do not say similar but identical—and then movement by one impulse. For there is one essence, one goodness, one power, one will, one energy, one authority, one and the same, I repeat, not three resembling each other. But the three subsistences have one and the same movement.

John does not merely use the term “essence” or “nature,” but he does include these, as well as will, mind, power, energy, and other descriptions under the category of “unity.”  He concludes:

When, then, we turn our eyes to the Divinity, and the first cause and the sovereignty and the oneness and sameness, so to speak, of the movement and will of the Divinity, and the identity in essence and power and energy and lordship, what is seen by us is unity.

When we turn our eyes to the Divinity, what is seen by us is unity.

Here are a few of my tentative thoughts regarding public education:

1. One cannot make a Biblical case to forbid all Public Schools.
    a. Deuteronomy 6 does speak to fathers, but the speaker of the Lord’s words is Moses, the civil leader.
    b. Supposing a believing-state, the fathers could come together and delegate their teaching authority to public schools.
    c. Moses (Acts 7:22) and Daniel (Daniel 1:5) both benefit from royally-financed schools, even in non-believing cultures. They are not condemned for this, but rather commended as having obtained a genuine good.
2. The current controversy is both religious and political.
    a. It is religious in that the question concerns the role of a non-believing government (or non-committed government) in the lives of religious families. They must follow their biblically-informed consciences.
    b. It is political in that the question concerns citizens.
3. Public Schools cannot consistently omit religion.
    a. Religion, like philosophy, is ultimately inescapable.
        i. It cannot be relegated to a department. It is foundational for all departments.
        ii. Since God is pure Being, religion is metaphysical, and thus it stands under all else.
        iii. Goodness, truth, and beauty are ultimately one, and thus truth will bear direct implications on each of these (which will include every area of study).
    b. Christianity makes certain historical claims, and thus any ancient history class will interact with the Biblical history.
    c. Religion is essential to the proper understanding of social science, politics, and literature: the liberal arts.
    d. Given this, any parent concerned with true education will be rightfully concerned with their school’s religious foundation.
4. Public Schools should protect certain liberties.
    a. Proper diversity should be allowed.
        i. There is a proper distinction between essential and non-essential matters, as well as catholic articles and theological articles of religion.
        ii. Many matters are genuinely disputed and do not afford a public decision.
    b. Faith cannot be compelled.
    c. All decisions must be governed by charity.
5. There are times when private or home education is preferable to public education, and the civil sphere should protect this liberty.
    a. The New Testament shows the Roman example of allowing a certain amount of local Jewish sovereignty within the empire.
    b. Paul was educated in a parochial setting (Acts 22:3).
    c. Parochial and home-schooling can often provide superior education to that of public schools.
    d. Parochial and home-schooling can meet certain special needs that public schools cannot.
    e. The decision is one of wisdom and conscience, and will vary from group to group and family to family.