Albania has been called the North Korea of the Balkans; but considering the country broke with the USSR in 1960 and with China in 1978, accusing both countries of compromising Communist principles, connecting Albania to North Korea might have one time been considered hard on North Korea. Today, however, things are different. As Albanian democracy and a free market take hold, it is more than visitable, it's even agreeable.
Hence, our class on Venetian Corfu took a boat ride there today (more on Corfu and Athens later on). Upon arrival our guide explained that there would be a funeral at the site of Butrint where we planned to go. Tragically, here's why. Thanks to a hangover from hardline Communism, Albania is still one of the poorest countries in Europe, and people still risk their lives to leave.
More importantly than either democracy or capitalism, what Communist dictator Hoxha declared would be the "world's first atheist state" is now enjoying religious freedom. The Orthodox heritage of Albania is quite strong. Our visit brought to mind a line from Over the Rhine, "You can't run truth out of town, only force it underground." Albania has a long way to go, but it's at least going, and is not without captivating beauty. History's next stop: North Korea.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
A Woman's Worth
One bizarrity of Princeton life is that despite there being a world-class Biblical faculty in town, the best insights into the Bible have, at least in my experience, come from a humble Tuesday morning Bible study (which, to be fair to the Seminary, is attended by one of its professors emeritus.) As we read the last chapter of Leviticus today, a retired television executive points out that according to the worth appended to individuals seeking to buy out of temple service, Judas got ripped off.
As a male between twenty and sixty years old, Christ should have gone for fifty shekels. Judas, of course, received only only thirty. Scholarly titan Bruce Metzger suggests that Matthew's "pieces of silver" refer to silver shekels; hence Christ was bought for the price of a woman.
Disputing a contemporary art theorist's claim that the Christian religion "harmed the cause of women and especially women artists tremendously," James Panero point out that "the early Christian church held a great attraction for women, who were excluded from mystery religions like the Cult of Mithras but could have equal access to Christ" (226). Add to that the first resurrection appearances, Galatians, and - thanks to a retired executive - Christ's identification, through his betrayal, with women. Conveniently, there's a nice way to remember it too. Leviticus 27:3-4 parallels Matthew 27:3-4.
A woman's temple worth may once have been thirty shekels. Christianity upped that price to the worth of God incarnate, making even Zimbabwe's inflation rate look tame.
As a male between twenty and sixty years old, Christ should have gone for fifty shekels. Judas, of course, received only only thirty. Scholarly titan Bruce Metzger suggests that Matthew's "pieces of silver" refer to silver shekels; hence Christ was bought for the price of a woman.
Disputing a contemporary art theorist's claim that the Christian religion "harmed the cause of women and especially women artists tremendously," James Panero point out that "the early Christian church held a great attraction for women, who were excluded from mystery religions like the Cult of Mithras but could have equal access to Christ" (226). Add to that the first resurrection appearances, Galatians, and - thanks to a retired executive - Christ's identification, through his betrayal, with women. Conveniently, there's a nice way to remember it too. Leviticus 27:3-4 parallels Matthew 27:3-4.
A woman's temple worth may once have been thirty shekels. Christianity upped that price to the worth of God incarnate, making even Zimbabwe's inflation rate look tame.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
Know Your Betters
When making sense of a 21st century American political options, Arguing the World provides ample ah ha moments. Watching this documentary (SWPL #57) is like discovering who one's grandparents are. In short, there are the two Irvings - the Socialist Irving Howe (no religion, thank you) who founded Dissent in 1953, and the neo-conservative Irving Kristol (religion has a role to play) who founded The Public Interest in 1965. The film's other two figures, the formidable Daniel Bell and amiable Nathan Glazer, fall somewhere in between the two Irvings.
The training of all four of the "New York Intellectuals" was astonishingly rigorous. If, in the 1930s intellectual streetfight forums connected with the City College of New York, one delivered a public oration on a given position for less than two hours, one was considered less than serious. Some speakers - advocating Trotskyism or Marxism - could go on for five or six. Coming of age in this environment made Marxists of all four of these figures, but then the 20th century played its course. History proved, claimed Kristol, that there was an organic connection between Leninism and Stalinism. The only one who held to his radical dreams was Irving Howe. But the fact remains that whatever their position, contesting in such a context resulted in four seriously sharp minds.
Then came the Boomers. As different as Howe and Kristol are, they both perceived a distinct lack of rigor in the "New Left," who seemed interested in mere dissent. For young sixties radicals, even Irving Howe was suspect. He was old. The documentary interviews the now aging leaders of the student movement, leaving the unmistakable impression of inferior minds, inferior for not having submitted to one's elders, whether radical or neo-con.
Irving Kristol, in Memoirs of a Trotskyist, explains:
The tradition, however, is still there, and discovering it can be uncanny. Perhaps you will share with me the odd sensation that a careful, one-and-a-half minute reading of Summa Question 12, Article 1 solves most theological problems that best-selling books today are spinning their wheels about.
And where they don't spin, they get reinvented.
The training of all four of the "New York Intellectuals" was astonishingly rigorous. If, in the 1930s intellectual streetfight forums connected with the City College of New York, one delivered a public oration on a given position for less than two hours, one was considered less than serious. Some speakers - advocating Trotskyism or Marxism - could go on for five or six. Coming of age in this environment made Marxists of all four of these figures, but then the 20th century played its course. History proved, claimed Kristol, that there was an organic connection between Leninism and Stalinism. The only one who held to his radical dreams was Irving Howe. But the fact remains that whatever their position, contesting in such a context resulted in four seriously sharp minds.
Then came the Boomers. As different as Howe and Kristol are, they both perceived a distinct lack of rigor in the "New Left," who seemed interested in mere dissent. For young sixties radicals, even Irving Howe was suspect. He was old. The documentary interviews the now aging leaders of the student movement, leaving the unmistakable impression of inferior minds, inferior for not having submitted to one's elders, whether radical or neo-con.
Irving Kristol, in Memoirs of a Trotskyist, explains:
The radicalism of the 1930s was decidedly an adult movement, in which young people were permitted to participate. We young Trotskyists were as numerous as the adult party, but we unquestioningly accepted the authority of the latter. In contrast, the radicalism of the 1960s was a generational movement, bereft of adult models and adult guidance.The theological parallels to this intellectual generation gap are unsettling. In his autobiography A Broad Place (ht: RJN), German theologian Jürgen Moltmann describes a 1971 conference including key figures such as Wolfhart Pannenberg, Johann Metz, John Cobb, Schubert Ogden, and Joseph Sittler.
The discussions were hard but heartfelt, for our common concern was the one common truth. The conference was one of the last of its kind, before postmodern arbitrariness set in, and everyone was content with his own truth.Keep in mind, that is not the complaint of a fighting fundy, but of a ranking liberal German theologian. Perhaps this is why contemporary theological ruminations of the "post-Evangelical" sort feel so - to use a fittingly unsophisticated adjective - lame. Like the "New Left," the dimness has much to do with not having learned the tradition, a tradition that many (though certainly not all) of our elders dismissed.
The tradition, however, is still there, and discovering it can be uncanny. Perhaps you will share with me the odd sensation that a careful, one-and-a-half minute reading of Summa Question 12, Article 1 solves most theological problems that best-selling books today are spinning their wheels about.
And where they don't spin, they get reinvented.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Regarding Protestants converting, Anastasia is on a roll.
In his theological commentary on Matthew (the one written well before theological commentaries were the done thing), Dale Bruner illuminates the same subject: "A believer needs a steady diet of both Paul and Matthew, of both gospel and law, in order to walk the narrow path into the kingdom."
In his theological commentary on Matthew (the one written well before theological commentaries were the done thing), Dale Bruner illuminates the same subject: "A believer needs a steady diet of both Paul and Matthew, of both gospel and law, in order to walk the narrow path into the kingdom."
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)