Adeodatus in Wonderland

Turns out that guys in their pajamas can take on the local bike shop, too.

J. and I found a great old mountain bike at the thrift store last week. $15 for a very nice machine that's just on the big side for him. The poor kid has been riding scrunched over a tiny two-wheeler since somebody reached over the fence and horked his shiny Mongoose. The only problem: this bike came caked with grease and grime. No worries: this bike is from my era, and I had the it stripped to the frame in minutes.

Having most of the tools you need is not the same as having all the tools. I pulled out the rear axle before getting the freewheel off, a dumb move which commits me now to getting that thing off the hub somehow without a four-prong Suntour tool.

I call the local bike store, and Dwayne says Sure! That'll be $20. When I scoff he says, But it's an expensive tool. I continue expressing my doubts and he drops the price right down to where it should be: $5.

Just for kicks I jump online to see how much such a tool actually runs a fellah.
Ahem.
ORDER
Qty Part # Part Name Desc | Price | Total
1 522188 PARK Freewheel Cassette Remove | 5.9900| 5.99
Options: Model: FR-3 Fits 4 notch Suntour

Yessir. That's $6 for the tool itself, including shipping. We'll be removing our own freewheel (again! and again!) Lil' man with no credentials as a bicycle mechanic sticks it to the professionals yet again thanks to the wonders of the internet. Expensive tool indeed.

It is the second week in September, which means along with College football, shorter days, and cooler nights, we have the pre-fall subscription drive for our local public radio beheamoth. If you happen to listen when it's not worth their effort, you can get your regular piped in programming (BBC world news, mainly). But God help you if you accidently click on your radio during the day thinking you will find something other than the Enlightened Radio Announcers explaining your duty to support this conduit for nationally syndicated programs.

I propose that Public Media take over from preachers (especially televangelists) the cultural role of money-grubbers. Images of weeping men with big Bibles and bigger hair have become more than a little trite since the days when Jesus was holding a switchblade to Jerry Falwell's throat demanding a few million cool ones. The ubiquitous hand out now belongs to the smiling faces on channels 6 and 12, and the folks who announce the time and the upcoming piped in talk-show on the local NPR outlet. They use the same old tactics: "Eghads! If we don't get your money right now, we will go off the air!" and "Look at all the benefits you will get by giving us your money -- fulfilled duty, a sense of peace, and some trinket or two."

So I propose that we craft some pithy aphorism to cement this new cultural ideal, this new idiom for a new age. Maybe something like, "That kid has his hand out for cash more often than an NPR persona." Only, well, more catchy and aphoristic.

Now that a week has passed and my expose of Justin's misuse has had time to sink in around the evangelical world, I present the rest of my thoughts on that topic:

There are a few more historical examples which come up short in the “Premillennial Interpretations of Christ’s Second Advent” section of Integrative Theology. On page 378 we read of Papias, “who tradition says was taught by the apostle John.” There follows a quotation of Eusebius attributing a literal understanding of the millennium to Papias: “there will be a millennium following the resurrection of the dead, when the kingdom of Christ is to be established physically on the earth.” However, Eusebius points out just a paragraph earlier in this quoted section that only Iranaeus supposes that his mentor Papias actually had contact with an apostle: Papias claims no such audience for himself. (III, 39) And in the sentence prior to describing Papias’ chiliasm Eusebius blasts him: “The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Savior, and some other more mythical things.” And in the sentence following: “I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts…For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses.” Of course, if all that is meant is to put forth an early example of premillennialism, the selected quotation works. However, it is interesting to note that the “first major postapostolic chiliast” was judged as not a little nutty by the Church’s premier historian.

It is interesting to note, too, that the only early historical examples given for the amillennial position are of the Alexandrian school, namely Clement and Origen. More specifically, it is interesting that their hermeneutical framework is set into their cultural context, “with their Greek aversion to matter and their allegorizing exegesis.” This is true and legitimate: theology is often influenced (and always nuanced) by historical and cultural contexts. However, we see no such sitz im leiben for the premillennial doctrines. What of Papias charismatic tendencies (along with Phillip and his daughters in Hieropolis)? Or his preference for “what he heard from the ‘living voice’ of the elders who heard the teachings of the disciples of the Lord over what was written in books”? (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., vol. II, pg. 866) Or the role that increased persecution had in influencing their eschatological hermeneutic? Or even the place that Judaizers may have had in the growth of this apocalyptic, earthly-Jerusalem-centered doctrine in certain spheres?

Shedd’s conclusion seems to sum up the historical situation of Millennarianism up through the 18th century: “1. That Millenarianism was never the oecumenical faith of the church, and never entered as an article into any of the creeds. 2. That Millenarianism has been the opinion of individuals and parties only, -- some of whom have stood in agreement with the catholic faith, and some in opposition to it.” (398) If Shedd’s analysis is correct, then Millennarianism took hold in only one theological venue, and that for only about 150-200 years. As Gundry puts it (in defending postribulationism): “The novelty of an eschatological view requires that evidence put forward in its favor be weightier than usual since it is unlikely that saintly and learned scholars or the mass of pious Christians should for centuries have misconstrued the teaching of Scripture on so important a point.” (The Church and the Tribulation, 172). True dat.

It is no surprise to readers of this blog that I have been brushing up on my eschatology. Since coming back from candidacy school I have read through a few books, some writings of Church Fathers, and several contemporary systematics. While I still find the arguments for chiliasm unconvincing, I also stumbled across some shoddy scholarship which (at least in my mind) brings into question the validity of the appellation "historic" assumed by the "We don't want to be Dispensational, but we still want an earthy millennium" premillennial folk.

This brings us to Integrative Theology, Vol. III “Christ’s Second Advent and Millennial Rule” p. 378. Here we read that “Justin [Martyr] apparently judged that millenarianism was held by all second century authorities except the Gnostics.” Since I had freshly looked at Justin, this immediately struck me as odd.

Here are Justin’s own words: “I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.”
[Dialog with Trypho, chapter 80 “The Opinion of Justin with Regard to the Reign of a Thousand Years, Several Catholics Reject It”]

The conclusion on Justin’s view of millennial catholicity in Integrative Theology does not flow from Justin’s own writings, but rather appears to cite the judgment of R. Bradley Jones in What, Where, and When Is the Millennium? (who himself is citing W. G. T. Shedd). Unfortunately, Mr. Shedd is apparently unaware of Justin’s declaration that premillennialism is not entrenched orthodoxy in the second century even if it was growing in popularity.

Even more unfortunate than this simple historical mistake (compounded three times!) are the secondary concerns this raises about citation and integrity. First, Integrative Theology does quote Justin himself immediately above the Jones citation, and this quotation is from chapter 80 itself, the same chapter quoted above where Justin elucidated the non-catholicity of the doctrine. While this appears to evidence a selective use of sources, the citation from Jones proves even more egregious. Quoting Shedd, he suggests that premillennialism was

not the received faith of the Church certainly down to the year 150… It was held only by individuals. These, in some instances, as in that of Cerinthus, were in hostile relations to the Church. And in the instance of those whose general catholicity was acknowledged – as Barnabas, Hermas, and Papias – there was by no means such a weight of character and influence, as would entitle them to be regarded as the sole representatives of orthodoxy. On the contrary, these minds were comparatively uninfluential, and their writings are of little importance. . .The period between the year 150 and 250 is the blooming age of Millennarianism; and yet even in this period it does not become the catholic faith, as embodied in the catholic creed. . .Irenaeus, on the contrary, speaks of opposers of Millennarianism who held the catholic faith. (p. 12-13)

So while Justin is (incorrectly) cited in Integrative Theology as upholding the catholicity of Millennarianism, nowhere is it mentioned that (via Jones) the position was a minority position at best until social conditions brought it to the forefront, nor that Irenaeus clearly denies its catholicity.

In a similar vein, Integrative Theology leads the reader to believe that if not established orthodoxy, chiliasm surely reigned as the dominant eschatological view: “the early church was as explicitly postribulational as it was premillennial.” (p. 380, quoting Gundry). But this is simply not true. As Shedd points out, “there are no traces of Chiliasm in the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Tatian, Athengoras, and Theophilus of Antioch…The ecclesiastical authority of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp is certainly much greater than that of Barnabas, Hermas, and Papias” (History of Christian Doctrine, vol. III, pg 390-291).

(I've got more, but it'll wait.)

She looks better. St’s kickboxing instructor is also a good friend who cuts people’s hair for a living. L. now sports a perky little ‘do, and from most angles she even looks like a little girl again.
--
There is no way to be totally sure, but I think I may be one of the few people who have made veggie lentil burgers and fried them up in bacon grease. They turned out dang tasty. Here’s a rough recipe:
1# Lentils, cooked
2 medium onions, finely diced
3 cloves garlic
1c diced cabbage
3 cups oatmeal, cooked (Tuesday’s breakfast leftovers)
1 tbl salt
½ tbl coarse black pepper
1 tbl cinnamon
½ tbl cumin
a splash or two of sesame oil

Dredge patties in a mixture of wheat flour & ground flax seed.
Fry in hot oil on a cast iron griddle out on the grill.
Serve over rice, topped with diced tomato, cilantro, spinach & just a bit more sesame oil.

I imagine they would be equally tasty crisped up in canola oil, but then you don't get the smug satisfaction of knowing that you have just cracked open a hippy paradigm.