The stupid statement of the day comes from the solitary Joel Miller

 

 

Here:

The early Church flourished without any political power.

The early church was a political power.

The statement is breathtakingly oblivious to the irreducible political nature of man, most memorably articulated in antiquity by Aristotle, reinterpreted in St. Paul's notion of the one body of Christ and its many members, and most famously embraced by the Christian theologian Aquinas. You have to be a dumb animal, eating the grass of the field, not to grasp the self-evident fact that the early church itself constituted a (rival) political force which took over the Roman Empire from within because it became socially dominant.

From Aristotle, Politics 1, 1253a:

From these things therefore it is clear that the city-state is a natural growth, and that man is by nature a political animal, and a man that is by nature and not merely by fortune citiless is either low in the scale of humanity or above it (like the “clanless, lawless, hearthless” man reviled by Homer, for one by nature unsocial is also ‘a lover of war') inasmuch as he is solitary, like an isolated piece at draughts. And why man is a political animal in a greater measure than any bee or any gregarious animal is clear. For nature, as we declare, does nothing without purpose; and man alone of the animals possesses speech. The mere voice, it is true, can indicate pain and pleasure, and therefore is possessed by the other animals as well (for their nature has been developed so far as to have sensations of what is painful and pleasant and to indicate those sensations to one another), but speech is designed to indicate the advantageous and the harmful, and therefore also the right and the wrong; for it is the special property of man in distinction from the other animals that he alone has perception of good and bad and right and wrong and the other moral qualities, and it is partnership in these things that makes a household and a city-state.

Thus also the city-state is prior in nature to the household and to each of us individually. For the whole must necessarily be prior to the part; since when the whole body is destroyed, foot or hand will not exist except in an equivocal sense, like the sense in which one speaks of a hand sculptured in stone as a hand; because a hand in those circumstances will be a hand spoiled, and all things are defined by their function and capacity, so that when they are no longer such as to perform their function they must not be said to be the same things, but to bear their names in an equivocal sense. It is clear therefore that the state is also prior by nature to the individual; for if each individual when separate is not self-sufficient, he must be related to the whole state as other parts are to their whole, while a man who is incapable of entering into partnership, or who is so self-sufficing that he has no need to do so, is no part of a state, so that he must be either a lower animal or a god.

Therefore the impulse to form a partnership of this kind is present in all men by nature; but the man who first united people in such a partnership was the greatest of benefactors. For as man is the best of the animals when perfected, so he is the worst of all when sundered from law and justice. For unrighteousness is most pernicious when possessed of weapons, and man is born possessing weapons for the use of wisdom and virtue, which it is possible to employ entirely for the opposite ends. Hence when devoid of virtue man is the most unholy and savage of animals, and the worst in regard to sexual indulgence and gluttony. Justice on the other hand is an element of the state; for judicial procedure, which means the decision of what is just, is the regulation of the political partnership.

Depart from your cell, Joel, and join the human race.

Roman Catholics, Orthodox and fundamentalists fear Donald Trump's Protestantism

Here, here, and here, just to name three recent examples: Trump can't be a good Christian according to Cardinal Dolan because he supposedly doesn't welcome the stranger, or doesn't have a high enough view of the Lord's Supper, or hasn't repented and been born again.

Mitt Romney's Mormonism was supposed to be off limits in 2012, but suddenly fellow Christians get to pile on Trump.

Better watch out. He's been known to fight back.

Parochial Joel Miller is offended that Donald Trump doesn't venerate the host

Here:

Trump went on to explain the role of the eucharist in his routine. “When I drink my little wine . . . and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of asking for forgiveness,” he said. Little wine? Little cracker? I winced both times I read the word. He might as well have said adorable or dainty. Frankly, even Trump’s flippant toss of the word cracker is off-putting. Even if the thing in his hand is identifiably a cracker, it’s not a cracker. It is the bread of life, the broken body of Christ, the bread of heaven, the food of angels, the medicine of immortality. This is how the Bible and early Christians spoke of Trump’s crumb. For him to call it a cracker is to demonstrate he knows nothing of what he is doing.

This may come as a shock to Joel Miller, but hostility to wafer-worship is as American as the father of our country, George Washington, who declined to attend communion so often that when his pastor complained he was setting a bad example stopped coming to church altogether on communion Sundays.

That, too, would no doubt exasperate Miller because the Orthodox and the Catholic cannot imagine a service without the Mass.

Trump, a Presbyterian, has gone to his communion enough times to describe accurately the typical mainline Protestant version of the sacrament, which is more than can be said for the surprisingly parochial Joel Miller.

Joel Miller rebukes the therapeutic view of marriage but is consumed by it like the rest of Christianity

Here (emphases mine):

[T]he church understands marriage to be a sacrament, a gift of God’s grace for the transformation of the recipients. Look for a moment at two examples: baptism and eucharist. The first moves us into relationship with Christ and his church, while the second gives us the life of Christ so we can become more like him. Marriage is the same way. The endgame is union with God as we grow in Christ. ... Our marriages have the power to transform us into the likeness of Christ. ...

Marriage is now primarily a relationship for the betterment and self-fulfillment of two individuals. Two are stronger than one, after all. Together two individuals can better gratify each other’s desires and fulfill each others needs—right up until the moment they no longer seem able or willing, of course.

None of that is false, so far as it goes.

-------------------------------------------------

You will search the essay in vain for the words "baby" or "children" or "reproduction", the essential object of marriage.

It's as if a "proper" view of marriage never existed in the whole history of all humanity before the followers of a crazed Pharisee called marriage a mystery of Christ and the church in the epistle to the Ephesians.

The tyranny of that one line is the culprit behind the distortion of the immemorial view of marriage as humankind's divinely ordained outlet for expressing God's creativity through the family. The idealizing conception of marriage as spiritually transformative has exposed marriage to all the worst elements of an unattainable mysticism which has bred the contempt for the institution which now plagues the West. Instead of ordering our culture around marriage and children and family we have done everything to delay, deny and redefine what nature and nature's God demands. And then we complain when we lose control of our politics.

Maybe if we had done what God has always commanded we wouldn't now be alone and ashamed as a tiny army of homosexual enemies invades our gates and routs us.

"How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them;

They will not be ashamed

When they speak with their enemies in the gate."

-- Psalm 127:5

Incidentally Joel Miller, Martin Luther included the Pericope Adulterae in his German translation of the Bible, along with James

See for yourself here and select the edition of 1545.

"Wer unter euch ohne Sünde ist, der werfe den ersten Stein auf sie", eh Joel?

-- Johannes 8:7

Anti-protestant silliness on the Pericope Adulterae from Joel J. Miller

Joel Miller here on John 7:53ff., the favorite New Testament cudgel of liberals everywhere:

"[W]hat should we make of the faith of all those Christians that lived before this reconstruction [which excludes the pericope from John], including great exegetes like Augustine or Chrysostom, or pastors who led the church before even the canon (let alone this imagined reconstruction) was settled?"

Well, what should we make of the faith of all those Christians that lived with a Gospel of John without the passage, including the readers of:

Papyri 66 (c. 200) and 75 (early 3rd century); Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (4th century), also apparently Alexandrinus and Ephraemi (5th), Codices Washingtonianus and Borgianus also from the 5th century, Regius from the 8th, Athous Lavrensis (c. 800), Petropolitanus Purpureus, Macedoniensis, Sangallensis and Koridethi from the 9th century and Monacensis from the 10th; Uncials 0141 and 0211; Minuscules 3, 12, 15, 21, 22, 32, 33, 36, 39, 44, 49, 63, 72, 87, 96, 97, 106, 108, 124, 131, 134, 139, 151, 157, 169, 209, 213, 228, 297, 388, 391, 401, 416, 445, 488, 496, 499, 501, 523, 537, 542, 554, 565, 578, 584, 703, 719, 723, 730, 731, 736, 741, 742, 768, 770, 772, 773, 776, 777, 780, 799, 800, 817, 827, 828, 843, 896, 989, 1077, 1080, 1100, 1178, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, 1333, 2193 and 2768; the majority of lectionaries; some Old Latin, the majority of the Syriac, the Sahidic dialect of the Coptic, the Gothic, some Armenian, Georgian mss. of Adysh (9th century); Diatessaron (2nd century); apparently Clement of Alexandria (died 215), other Church Fathers namely Tertullian (died 220), Origen (died 254), Cyprian (died 258), Nonnus (died 431), Cyril of Alexandria (died 444) and Cosmas (died 550) ?

What were those Christians, chopped liver?

"Rather than a collection of texts written in and for the church and recognized as valid by that church, biblical books and even minute passages now become arbitrated by scholars."

Well, no. The above collection of texts without the pericope is arbitrated as valid by scribes, who presumably were themselves Christians. But apparently their voices don't count as the voice of the church to Joel Miller.

"If the church doesn’t validate the text, who does? In this instance, scholarly consensus is consulted to 'uncanonize' a portion of generally received scripture."

Sorry, no. The absence of the pericope suggests churchmen "uncanonized" it long before contemporary scholars did. Martin Luther did nothing different. Joel Miller just doesn't want to face it.

"Sola Scriptura becomes queer indeed when ideas from outside Scripture are determining what goes into it."

Well, if some extra-Biblical principle was at work excluding the pericope from the manuscript evidence, it pre-dated the Reformation by a thousand years and was operating in scriptoria funded by churches all over the place. What's with the anti-protestantism, Miller?

"[I]nerrancy becomes equally queer when ... Christians have been hearing a bunk passage read from the lectionary and expounded from the pulpit for centuries."

Just because there are obvious suspect passages like John 7:53ff. and the famous 1 John 5:7f. and Mark 16:9ff. based on the manuscript evidence doesn't "bunkify" the rest of John, 1 John or Mark anymore than the selectivity exercised by lectors in churches for 1,900 years has.

No one suggests Matthew 10:23 isn't original to Matthew just because it's avoided by the church like the plague.

Joel Miller Misunderstands "Martyr" From Every Angle

Joel Miller, here:

"Coptic Christians have long tattooed their wrists with small crosses, little blue-green marks that silently profess their faith. It’s not without irony that the word witness in Greek is martyr. Copts are often harassed by Muslim neighbors for their markings, and reports of Christian girls forced into Muslim marriages include references to having their crosses cut out or burnt off with acid."

Not only did Greek "martyr" not have the sense Christians later came to invest it with but had instead a long judicial pedigree which informs the main sense of "witness" in the New Testament itself, the idea of actually craving to be tortured and killed for Christ like Ignatius is probably the last thing on the Copts' minds when they get a small tattoo on the wrist. It's like an identity card you flash to identify yourself to a fellow Christian, or to a westerner you assume is Christian, in a country where you need all the friends you can get. 

Joel Miller Shouldn't Blame Luther For Attacking Tradition. He Should Blame Jesus.

 

Joel J. Miller here says Luther bears the blame for everything from religious factionalism to individualism and moral relativism, as if Protestantism's "dangerous idea" had no basis in the Bible itself. (Why John Wycliffe and Jan Hus get a pass is anyone's guess.)

Against this the antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount immediately leap to mind, but so do the moral critiques of the prophets against Israel and Judah. In fact, Matthew's Jesus displays a moral vision so redolent of the critical spirit which animates the prophets that it is inconceivable to imagine his oeuvre as collected in the gospels apart from it.

But Protestants continue to try, which is the real problem with Protestantism, not to say Christianity generally. Today's Protestants prefer to emphasize the Pauline compromises, like living at peace with all men, rather than taking seriously the Jesus they claim to worship, the one who upset the tables of the moneychangers and came to set the earth of fire. Today's Protestants don't seem to be simply ignorant of the teaching of Jesus as Paul seems unaware of it. Protestants today generally pretend the Jesus of the gospels doesn't even exist. And the reason for that is that he represents a threat to the status quo of their church in the world.

The value of Luther's rediscovery of the Scriptures is that this opened the discussion anew about why there is such a difference between what the Scriptures teach and what we mistakenly imagine to be God's kingdom.

The more things change the more they stay the same. Catholics didn't like it then, and now Protestants don't. It's a family tradition.