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.

To remind myself that I’m not crazy, I wanted to think out loud for a minute.  I really appreciate and have learned from the following authors:

Alexander Schmemann
John Meyendorff
David Bentley Hart
Andrew Louth
Veselin Kesich
Aristotle Papanikolaou
George Demacopoulos
Alexander Golitzin

Of course, I have points of disagreement with each of these authors, but whenever one of them makes a statement, I take that statement seriously.  The only exception is when David Bentley Hart says something about Calvin and Luther.  He typically doesn’t give them a legitimate treatment at all, and so I tend to tune him out there.  But if he wants to talk about the fathers, medievals, or even postmodern philosophers, I’m all ears.

I only even say this because apologetics get me down.  I start to question myself, thinking that maybe I’m just a jerk TR on the inside.  But when I remember that no, there are, in fact, people with whom I disagree but still respect and consider my superiors, things look a little better.

This should give you a glimpse into the current status of my brain-

Currently Reading:

A Secular Age by Charles Taylor

Calvin by Bruce Gordon

Just Arrived (and soon-to-be atop the stack):

Jewish Christianity by Hans-Joachim Schoeps

Eucharist and Institution Narrative: A Study in the Roman and Anglican traditions of the Consecration of the Eucharist from the Eighth to the Twentieth Centuries by Richard Buxton

Imperial Lives and Letters of the Eleventh Century by Mommsen and Morrison

“Cosmos Constructors: An Investigation of the Tabernacle-Building Labors of Merari, Gershon, and Kohath as Recapitulations of Genesis One.” Biblical Horizons Occasional Paper No. 24 by James B. Jordan

John of Damascus definitely “starts with” the unity of the divine nature.  In his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, under the chapter heading of “Concerning the Holy Trinity,” John writes:

We believe, then, in One God, one beginning, having no beginning, uncreate, unbegotten, imperishable and immortal, everlasting, infinite, uncircumscribed, boundless, of infinite power, simple, uncompound, incorporeal, without flux, passionless, unchangeable, unalterable, unseen, the fountain of goodness and justice, the light of the mind, inaccessible; a power known by no measure, measurable only by His own will alone (for all things that He wills He can), creator of all created things, seen or unseen, of all the maintainer and preserver, for all the provider, master and lord and king over all, with an endless and immortal kingdom: having no contrary, filling all, by nothing encompassed, but rather Himself the encompasser and maintainer and original possessor of the universe, occupying all essences intact and extending beyond all things, and being separate from all essence as being super-essential and above all things and absolute God, absolute goodness, and absolute fulness: determining all sovereignties and ranks, being placed above all sovereignty and rank, above essence and life and word and thought: being Himself very light and goodness and life and essence, inasmuch as He does not derive His being from another, that is to say, of those things that exist: but being Himself the fountain of being to all that is, of life to the living, of reason to those that have reason; to all the cause of all good: perceiving all things even before they have become: one essence, one divinity, one power, one will, one energy, one beginning, one authority, one dominion, one sovereignty, made known in three perfect subsistences and adored with one adoration, believed in and ministered to by all rational creation, united without confusion and divided without separation (which indeed transcends thought). (We believe) in Father and Son and Holy Spirit whereinto also we have been baptized. For so our Lord commanded the Apostles to baptize, saying, Baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

~ Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1.8

Notice that he says there is one energy.  This is because the energy is an attribute of the one essence.

In conjunction with some of my recent discussions, I taught a Sunday School class on the essence of the Church and its historical visible development.  This may be of interest to some of you.