The Gospel is – at its’ core – an unconditional promise: “God loves you, unconditionally”, but this is merely a statement of abstract theological fact. It does not begin to become “Good news” without some sort of elaboration attached: “That’s all well and good, but what does it mean for ME?”
“God loves you, unconditionally, therefore he has sent his son to take a bullet for you; to heal you; to take your spiritual sickness upon himself, dive into the depths of Hell and annihilate it forever.”
“God loves you, unconditionally, therefore he will never leave you or reject you, even if you leave him or reject him.”
“God loves you, unconditionally, therefore he will not allow you to commit spiritual suicide.”
“God loves you, unconditionally, therefore your eternal future is secure and you need not fear an everlasting Hell.”
If this promise is never spoken – if the radical implications of this promise are never preached from the pulpit – the Gospel is simply never being proclaimed; some other language game is being played.
A question is raised: To whom does God speak this promise? The answer should be obvious after even a cursory survey of scripture: He speaks this promise to the entire creation. Christ died for everyone and everything. Nothing and no-one could be excluded from his sovereign love and salvific will. Hell has no place in the eschaton.
But as Paul says in Romans: How are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!”
Many people in the present age are walking in darkness. They are already stuck in Hell. They are unaware that God’s love intends them, and that their future is secure. They fear the worst for themselves, their friends and their family. They are terrified that Hell may await for themselves and those whom they love. These people need to have the Gospel promise spoken to them, to liberate them from slavery to sin and free them for a life of love and thankfulness. This is why we must evangelise: God loves everyone, but not everyone knows it yet and until they do, God’s mission remains incomplete.
Relevant paragraphs from the Herlihy catechism concerning open communion:
Anyone may receive the Catholic Eucharist provided that they do not explicitly deny the real, substantial, physical presence of Christ (which is the only way it is actually possible to “receive unworthily”. Having doubts about the real presence does not constitute explicit denial). In this way, all are invited to the Lord’s table and all are welcome, including infants, provided that they are able to consume the host respectfully, not spitting it out or performing some other sacrilegious act of desecration.
Purely as a matter of prudence and to maintain reverence for the sacrament, in ordinary circumstances the Catholic Eucharist should be withheld from the unbaptised; but this is not an inviolable rule, so unbelievers and unbaptised people may be admitted in emergencies (and if some slip through and receive in ordinary times, it’s no grave scandal; not “the end of the world”)
Catholics may receive the Eucharist in any church where this sacrament is valid. But as a matter of prudence and politeness, they should respect the decision of whatever church they are attending in terms of whether or not to approach the table.
Catholics may never receive from churches with an invalid Eucharist even in emergencies.
Addendum: Being out of full communion wounds Christian unity, but does not prevent shared sacramental communion. Contrary to current Catholic opinion, sharing the Eucharist is not a statement of full communion in terms of dogmatic belief, although for some reason it is perceived as such at the present time.
“What is the church?” It’s a simple question with a by-no-means simple answer. Protestant ecclesiology is fairly simple: “The church is wherever there are two or three believers gathered in the name of Christ” or “The church is all true believers around the world”. In the Protestant account of things, the church is entirely invisible: it is not associated with any particular group or institution. In comparison to this simple and straightforward understanding, Catholic ecclesiology is a fascinating, complex topic. In this post we will consider all the historic schisms that have affected the Christian faith.
The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church
The four marks of the church enumerated by the Nicene creed are “One”, “Holy”, “Catholic” and “Apostolic”. This is a helpful starting point. In my understanding, the two most important marks are “One” and “Apostolic”.
To say that the church is “One” is a statement of numerical oneness: there are not two churches; there are not three churches; there is only one church. However to say that the church is “One” is not necessarily a statement of internal unity. I will return to this point later, but for now it suffices to say that not everyone who is in communion with the church fully agrees with and understands everything that the church teaches.
To say that the church is “Apostolic” is to say that the leadership of the church are able to trace a straight line of succession back through history via the laying on of hands all the way down to the Apostles and Jesus himself. A church must be led by a bishop, and this bishop must be able to trace his authority back through previous bishops all the way to the Apostles.
To say that the church is “Catholic” is to say that the church is universal: That is, the church is not tied down to any particular language or culture or ethnicity; everyone is welcome. It also implies that the church is the rightful owner of all truth, wherever it may be stumbled upon. Anything true and beautiful is universal, Catholic truth, even if such truth and beauty is found in non-Christian philosophies or other, totally different religions.
Now, there are some other “lesser” marks of the church which were not included in the Nicene creed, but are nevertheless considered important in Catholic ecclesiology: In addition to the four marks, the Church is also “Visible”, “Eucharistic” and “Monarchical”.
To say that the church is “Visible” is to say that it is possible to identify the church in a tangible, physical sense. How this plays out in the Catholic understanding is that any given diocese IS the one true church, provided that the bishop who governs that diocese has valid apostolic succession. There is only one single church in the entire world, however that one single church manifests all over the world in the form of the many and various dioceses. Now, there are many dioceses, but there are not many churches, there is only one. In any case, each and every diocese, headed by a bishop who has been validly ordained, represents a concrete manifestation in a particular place of the one true church.
To say that the Church is “Eucharistic” is merely an implication of the fact that the church is “Visible” and “Apostolic”: A bishop who has valid holy orders has the power and authority to consecrate bread and wine and transubstantiate them into the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. This Eucharist is God himself coming to us under a visible form. Christians gather around this visible, physically tangible presence of God. The Eucharist is a focal point of church unity; those who share in the lord’s supper together enjoy a profound spiritual communion with God and with each other; they become “one body of Christ, in Christ”. The Eucharist transforms the church from merely being an impersonal organisation and an impassionate institution, into being a lively community of faithful human individuals, united together in a profound love.
The final mark of the church is the mark of Monarchy, and this is the most contentious mark of all, representing a stumbling block to many, both Christian and non-Christian. To say that the church is “Monarchical” is to say that the church has a single, supreme leader. As before mentioned, at the level of a diocese, the supreme leader is the bishop or archbishop. However at the level of the entire, mystical body of Christ spread throughout the world, the supreme leader is the successor of Peter: the Catholic Pope.
Two Kinds of Schism
I mentioned before that the church being “One” does not imply strict unity. Within the church there are disagreements and dissensions. These disagreements and dissensions wound and damage the unity of the church, without totally destroying that unity. In recent years, the Catholic church has come to call this situation “partial communion”: within the church there has been a split between two parties, however this split does not represent a total destruction of unity between those two parties; they are still united, but imperfectly. This is indeed a schism, but it is a schism within the church: the two parties involved have not actually separated themselves from the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church.
There is, however, another sort of schism. This would be a schism of separation. Such a schism would be one in which the two parties involved disagree at such a fundamental level that one of the parties has actually separated itself from communion with the church entirely.
What would lead to these schisms coming about? In the case of the first kind of schism – that of a schism within the church – all that would be required is for the church in full communion with the Pope to declare an ecumenical dogma, and for the remainder of the church to refuse to assent to that dogma. Such a refusal to assent does not necessarily constitute an explicit, dogmatic rejection of the dogma in question, and therefore does not lead to a total cutting off from the one, true church. However such a refusal to assent does represent a division within the church, because there are people within the church who are not “on the same page” as the rest of the church. Such a schism can therefore be referred to as a schism of non-assent, and it represents a situation of “partial communion” between two parties: the communion has not been destroyed, but it has been wounded.
On the other hand, if the party not in full communion with the Pope were to come together and formulate their own dogmatic statements which flatly contradict the dogmas of the church in full communion with the Pope, the communion between the two parties would be entirely severed. This would not merely be an implicit or tentative rejection of Catholic dogma, it would instead represent a final and definitive rejection of the truth. Such a schism would lead to the actual separation of the dissenting party from the one true church. This would no longer be a schism within the church; it would be an actual separation of one church into two churches, one valid and one invalid. I call this a schism of dissent.
An Abolition of Authority
Remember that one of the marks of the church is that it is monarchical: It has a supreme leader, the successor of Peter, and you must be in at least partial communion with him in order to be said to be a member of the one true church. If you damage your communion with him, it’s not the end of the world, as this is a schism of non-assent and therefore does not exclude you from communion. But what happens if you completely destroy your communion?
I suspect that a community which were to fully and completely destroy its communion with the one true church – in such a way that there is not any communion remaining – would lose it’s authority to perform the sacraments. I suspect that such a community’s Eucharist would become invalid, and their holy orders would be nullified. The reason why is that they have completely cut themselves off from the head of the church. All sacramental power flows from Christ to the Pope to the bishops. To completely cut yourself off from the Pope is to completely cut yourself off from Christ.
The Great Schisms
Now lets apply all these reflections to the actual history of the church.
The first major schism was with the Church of the East, sometimes known as “The Nestorian church”. Was this schism a schism of non-assent, or was it a schism of dissent? From my reading of history, it seems to me that it was merely a schism of non-assent, because the church of the east never produced a counter dogma, and therefore at the institutional level the Church of the East never definitively denied any Catholic dogmas. And so the Church of the East did not therefore cut itself off entirely from the Pope. In this way, their sacraments remained valid, and their dioceses continued to represent visible manifestations of the one true church. This was a schism within the church.
The next big schism was with the group of churches who in the modern era are referred to as the “Oriental Orthodox” churches. From my reading of history, this too was a schism of non-assent. The Oriental Orthodox could not bring themselves to assent to the Christological statements of Chalcedon. Despite the fact that they disagreed with the dogmas, this disagreement was never expressed in final, dogmatic terms of their own. In this way, their sacraments remained valid, and their dioceses continued to represent visible manifestations of the one true church. This too was a schism within the church.
Next was the most famous schism of all: the East-West schism, sometimes referred to as “The Great Schism”. This was between the Eastern Orthodox and the Western Catholics. It’s actually hard to pin down exactly when and how this schism occurred; many dates are given, sometimes as early as 400AD, sometimes as late as 1800AD, the most common date given is 1058 but there is not unanimous agreement on this. The fact that it is so ambiguous when this schism actually occurred is quite a significant hint that this too was not a schism which lead to a total separation of communion. At no point did the east ever produce a counter dogma which contradicted the dogmas of the Western ecumenical councils, so this schism, if it ever actually happened, was also a schism of non-assent. The eastern sacraments remained valid, and their dioceses continued to represent visible manifestations of the one true church.
Things were different with the protestant reformation. During the protestant reformation, both apostolic succession and the Eucharist were abandoned. These are essential aspects of the one true church, and without them, unity is entirely severed. The protestants cannot even be said to be in partial communion. Their communion has been entirely abolished. There is still a sense in which we have communion with them, but it is a virtualcommunion based on a limited degree of shared belief, rather than the robust communion enjoyed by members of the one true church. Such a virtual communion is also shared with atheists and members of other religions. Everyone is connected to the church to a greater or lesser extent, but it is only those communities which possess the 7 marks of the church which can be said to enjoy a realcommunion.
Further solidifying the point is that the reformation schism was a schism of dissent: many of the reformation churches produced their own statements of faith, which explicitly and dogmatically bound members of those communities to a rejection of Catholic dogma. The situation is complicated by the fact that reformation churches do not even officially believe in in the concept of dogma, and so it is hard to say whether or not their rejection of Catholic dogmas constitutes a final, irreformable and irreconcilable rejection. It is therefore ambiguous whether or not these churches are in a schism of dissent or merely schism of non-assent. However their rejection of apostolic succession and the Eucharist is sufficient to entirely break down communion. Protestants are not members of the one true church.
In conclusion, The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East together represent one single church. All of the dioceses of these institutions represent manifestations of the one true church in a particular place and for a particular culture. All of these institutions have valid sacraments, and gather around a valid Eucharist. These institutions are in a state of schism with each other, but this is a schism withinthe church, and does not represent a real split of one church into many churches. The schism is merely one of non-assent, and therefore does not represent a total break in communion. The communion has been wounded, and this is not an ideal situation, however the communion has not been wounded beyond a point where ecumenical repair is possible.
I want to re-emphasise the importance of being in at least partial communion with the successor of Peter: Without maintaining a level of communion with the successor of Peter, apostolic succession is nullified and the Eucharist is therefore invalidated. The Orthodox churches are all in partial communion with the Pope, and this is enough to ensure that their sacraments are valid, however if they were to finally, definitively and entirely break from communion they would lose this privilege. Exactly this has happened with the protestants, and it makes the task of reunification infinitely harder. Pray for unity!
A culture that embraces contraception is a culture that cheapens sex by taking the procreative element out of it. All of a sudden sex becomes solely about love and pleasure and has nothing to do with marriage, family and babies; it becomes consequence free; it becomes something to be engaged in as often as possible with as many people as possible.
More often than not, people won’t bother with contraception as they get wrapped up in the heat of the moment. Next thing you know the “unplanned pregnancy” statistics are sky-rocketing, as so many people are having insane amounts of unprotected casual sex.
With so many unplanned pregnancies, many young parents are pressured into seeking abortions. Abortion rates fly through the roof. People start to depend on brutal murder of their unborn baby as a form of last minute contraception.
And apparently the leftie solution to all of this is to deny that a baby is a baby and that murder is murder, while screaming “More condoms! More casual sex! More abortions!”
I have no idea how our culture of death can ever recover from the situation in which it finds itself. Technology only marches forwards, not backwards. Condoms and abortions are something we have to live with now. How can we recover a reverence for life and respect for the procreative, conjugal act under such circumstances?
Pray for all the Holy Innocents throughout history. Memory eternal
The original Sola Fide rested on the conviction that salvation is a promise, not an offer. If it’s an offer, then it depends on us to accept it. The key phrase there is “it depends on us”; in other words it is a violation of Sola Gratia and Sola Fide. Whereas if salvation is a promise then it depends entirely on God, which is much more in accord with Monergistic Calvinism and Lutheranism, rather than Arminianism. If salvation is a promise, then it doesn’t depend on how much faith we have, or whether we even have any faith at all; instead it depends entirely on God’s love and sovereignty.
The only question left if you’re on board with all of this is “To whom does God speak this promise?” Luther’s answer was “Whoever has been baptised”; he was very sacramental. Whereas Calvin’s answer tended more towards “preaching as sacrament”; that is, whenever the preacher declares his congregation justified in the name of the risen Christ, the unconditional gospel promise has been spoken; the final judgement has taken place; and the congregation is divided into sheep and goats in that very moment; there are those who trust the promise and those who don’t; those who do are saved into the life of the age, while those who do not are condemned.
But the key point here is that the promise has been spoken, and at the end of the day this promise cannot fail, on account of the one who is really speaking it. If God – through me – declares you justified, then that’s damn well how it is, regardless of whether you trust the declaration or not. However, you won’t experience the salvation that Christ has won for you, and that is presently being declared to you, until you place your trust in that declaration.
So yes, if one does not have faith, they are not saved. But you are nevertheless elect, regardless of whether or not you have faith, because God declares that it is so, and the divine declaration of God completely and entirely trumps a person’s lack of faith.
This is what bugs me about typical evangelical distortions of Sola Fide. They get everything totally back to front. They will claim that it’s only after we have faith that God declares us righteous. But this is just silly: How am I supposed to have faith in God’s declaration when God hasn’t even spoken that declaration to me?
This is why Luther put everything on baptism; because his interpretation of the sacraments was that they are the objective, tangible moment when the declaration of justification is made. They therefore give you something to anchor your faith on. Whereas the Evangelical construal requires me to have faith before I even have an object to anchor my faith on in the first place. This distortion of the doctrine of Sola Fide is clearly the work of Satan as he constantly battles and compromises the doctrines of the church.
So according to evangelicalism, I’m required to have faith in the declaration. But how can I place my faith in the declaration if the declaration is not even spoken until I have faith? It’s a chicken and egg impossibility.
Whereas the original Sola Fide went more like this: “Christ died for you, and therefore your future is secure” – None of this pointless speculation about who is elect and who is not. For you can be 100% assured and certain that you are saved by the blood of Christ, and this is not because of anything you’ve done – not even your faith.
Similarly, you can be 100% assured and certain that whoever it is you are talking to is also saved by the blood of Christ. This is because scripture clearly says so, and this therefore gives you the authority to proclaim the divine declaration of justification to that person as an unconditional promise, in the name of Christ and the good God on high.
Eternal damnation is always a completely abstract hypothetical. It’s for people who are not present, and this is why we must evangelise. We need to proclaim the declaration of righteousness to everyone, and help them to believe it. Remember Romans 10: “How can they believe if they have not heard? How can they hear if no one is sent to them?” etc etc
But remember: The moment your gospel preaching gets contaminated with conditions and “ifs”, you’re preaching some other gospel. “If you get circumcised”, “If you get baptised”, “If you go to confession”, “If you die without committing mortal sins”, “If you believe in Jesus” – all of these are false gospels.
The one true gospel goes something more like this: “Christ died for you, and so I confidently promise you that your eternal destiny is secure”, and to go even further you could say “and if by chance you do end up in Hell, I promise you that I will come down there and help you to escape.”
Every false gospel preaches law in the form “If x then y”, whereas the true gospel preaches promise in the form “because a then b”.
Compare “If you believe, Christ will save you”, to “Because Christ has saved you, you may now trust him and rejoice!!!” The first proclamation is law, it generates works or efforts or εργα, and as you know, we are not saved by works or efforts. Whereas the second proclamation is gospel, good news! The first proclamation places a massive burden on the hearer: they must try as hard as they can to fulfil the stated condition. But how on earth does one even begin to believe?
So the first proclamation will either produce despair, or a proud Pharisee: Despair, as the sinner realises he is completely incapable of meeting the required condition. Or a Pharisee, when he fools himself into thinking that he has successfully managed to do it. Whereas the second proclamation is liberating; it confronts the listener so completely that their only response can be a free faith or a heart that yearns to explode into that free faith but is enslaved by questions, objections and doubts – all of which will be dealt with in due time, if only they would be humble and patient.
This is the essence of faith alone: Once the gospel has been correctly spoken, faith is the only possible response. If the gospel is proclaimed and there is no faith, then the person doing the proclaiming simply hasn’t done the proclaiming correctly, and the saving word of the gospel was therefore never actually spoken. In this way, if someone ends up in hell, it’s actually not their fault; it’s my fault, because I wasn’t able to evangelise them effectively.
But thank God for his unconditional promise, and the fact that his word always achieves what it sets out to achieve, and that we are authorised to spread that promise to the entire world, and that it can’t ultimately fail: eventually all will hear it, all will understand it, all will believe it, all will be saved, and God’s final victory will be complete.
The Anselmian argument in favour of everlasting punishment is fallacious. Here is a brief summary of the argument:
Every sin against God is an infinite sin because God has infinite dignity and the magnitude of sin is determined by the dignity of the one who is wronged. Infinite sin deserves an infinite punishment, therefore those who sin descend into the torturous flames of Hell and remain there for all eternity
This is unbiblical. The biblical view of retribution is “an eye for an eye”: the harm bestowed in retribution should be equal to the harm caused by the offence. Seeing as it is impossible to harm or offend God (he is immutable), sin simply cannot lead to any sort of divine retribution under this schema.
Instead, sin is it’s own punishment as the primary person who is harmed by sin is the sinner. Someone who hates and curses God does not harm God: they harm themselves. And so God never punishes anyone, he only ever rescues us and liberates us from slavery and bondage to selfishness, death, and pride.
There will indeed be a cosmic equalisation, where the rich will be made poor and the poor will be made rich. Hitler will experience the harm he has caused. Rapists will be made to feel the terror and torment they have inflicted. Justice will be done.
But the ending of the story is reconciliation, forgiveness and joy: Hitler will sing songs with the Jews, rapists and their victims will embrace, broken families will reunite.
At the centre of it all will be pure, triune love. The three divine, perichoretic circles that drive the cosmos to perfection. Love wins, Hell loses, and this is the only eternal reality we need to anticipate.
by David Bentley Hart I had been hoping to avoid this eventuality for some months now; and, but for a certain sense of justice that it is proving impossible to suppress in myself, I suppose I could have continued attempting to avoid it. I know Michael McClymond, and for some years have been watching […]
The protestant concept of forensic justification is laughable. Are we really expected to believe that God simply ignores our sin and pretends to see Jesus when he looks at us? Are we truly supposed to believe that God simply “credits our sins to Christ’s account” and “credits Christ’s righteousness to our account”? It is all completely incoherent. And yet… perhaps if we look a bit closer at the Lutheran tradition and bring some eschatological theories to the discussion; things might start to make more sense from the protestant angle.
In the previous post, justification was discussed in terms of “extrinsic righteousness” versus “intrinsic righteousness”. Perhaps there is a better way of conceptualising the issue.
Protestants understand Justification to be defined as “to be declared righteous”. Lets roll with that for a moment. In what sense are we “declared” righteous? Obviously God can’t be declaring me righteous if I am still a totally depraved sinner at core, this would be a legal fiction and a total lie – God is incapable of behaving in such an illogical and contradictory way. But what if he was declaring me righteous in an eschatological sense? So rather than declaring “You are righteous”, God is promising “You will be righteous”. The declaration does not pertain to the current time, it instead pertains to the end times, the eschaton. Through his declaration of justification, God is guaranteeing that we will be righteous at the final day, the day of judgement. In no way are we righteous right now, but we here have a promise from God that on the final day we will be righteous! In this way, the declaration is more of a promise and a guarantee, than a statement of present reality.
Any talk of being “clothed in Jesus righteousness” or “double imputation” remains a load of incoherent, heretical horse crap. However the protestant understanding of justification is still salvageable if we understand it in these terms: Justification is indeed a declaration of righteousness, however it is not an empty declaration. When God declares something, it is guaranteed to come about, similar to how when he speaks creation comes into being. God does not make empty pronouncements: If he declares that I am righteous, then that is damn well what is going to happen! So it is appropriate to understand Justification as both being declared righteous as per the protestant understanding, but also as being made righteous as per the Catholic understanding.
God sees as as we are, but he is omniscient and can therefore also see us as we will be. Now, if he speaks an eschatalogical promise of justification to us, this implies that he can already see us as righteous and glorified, just as we will be on the last day. So on what terms does he deal with us? Does he consider us primarily as the sinner that we are today, or does he see us as the glorified saint that we are predestined to become? I suspect that the latter is the case. So we are intrinsically sinful, but by appropriating God’s promise of justification, we become extrinsically righteous. This righteousness floods our soul and propels us towards the eschaton, wherein we will finally have the promised intrinsic righteousness.
God does not declare us righteous on the basis of some laughable exchange between us and Jesus wherein Jesus becomes a sinner and we get clothed in his righteousness. Such a doctrine is sickening. However the protestant understanding of justification as “being declared righteous” can be salvaged so long as the declaration is understood as being accompanied by a reality. God declares us righteous, because we will be righteous.
“By one man’s act of disobedience all men without exception were made sinners, but by one man’s act of righteousness all men without exception were justified and made alive” (Romans 5 – the scope of salvation is equal to the scope of sin: both are universal)
“God consigned everyone to disobedience, so that he might have mercy upon everyone.” (Romans 11 – we are all simultaneously vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy)
“Every knee shall lovingly bow, and every tongue will freely confess that Christ is Lord” (Phillipians – all men will come to freely and lovingly accept Christ in the eschaton)
“The full totality of the gentiles will be saved, and then the full totality of Israel will be saved too” (Romans 11 – need I say more? Everyone is going to be saved, even though some may be saved “through fire”)
I am trying to rustle up some money so that I can attend the 2020 Macquarie Ancient Language School intensive summer week. I intend to study biblical and patristic Greek for the duration of the week. I am also trying to gather funding to attend the Sydney Latin Summer School. Both of these weeks are taught in an intensive mode, which I personally find very effective and valuable.
I need $500 in total. $160 will pay for the tuition for the Greek week, and the extra $20 will cover the cost of the food catering for the week. The remainder ($320) covers the total cost of the Latin summer week including food and materials.
I do not have a very large or stable income. Which is why I’m asking for donations. The vast majority of my money goes into rent, and the rest of it goes into groceries. If you were willing to help out with supporting me in my academic and religious missions, it would mean the world to me.
I’m a second year arts student, studying ancient languages at the University of Sydney.
So far I have studied
Classical Latin (one year)
Attic Greek (one year)
Koine Greek (one semester)
Levantine and Modern Standard Arabic (one semester)
Mandarin Chinese (one semester)
Biblical Hebrew (one semester)
Sanskrit (one semester)
I am intending to continue with all of these languages over the next 5 or so years and strive to achieve mastery in them all at least in terms of reading fluency.
My motivation for this is that I am intending to go into academia and missionary work here in Sydney. There are many diverse religious communities in this city, each with a very important history, culture and deep tradition. The languages I am studying are highly relevant to the literature that has historically defined these communities.
In terms of the academic side of things, I’m intending to do comparative studies of Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Islamic, Jewish and Daoist philosophy/theology. I want to get deep into all of these traditions at once and study them via the original languages and primary texts.
In terms of the more practical missionary side of things, I spend much of my week visiting mosques, temples and churches in order to engage with members of these various traditions at both a lay and academic level. Learning these languages enables me to connect on a very deep level with all these people, as I’m able to articulate the theology which defines their faith lives in their own prestige language.
As a missionary, I don’t actually seek to convert anyone to anything. I merely aim to be a bridge between communities that tend to regard each other with suspicion and animosity (for example, evangelicals and Catholics, or Muslims and Christians). In other words, my goal is to teach Muslims about true Christianity and teach Christians about true Islam, and that sort of thing. There are many myths and lies on both sides of the divide and my mission is merely to shine a light and reveal the lies for what they are, and hopefully in the process get people talking and engaging with each other in a more friendly way.
A breakdown of which of the languages I am studying correspond to which religions:
Arabic – Middle and far Eastern Christianity, Islam of all varieties
Latin – Western European Christianity, the Vulgate, the eastern church fathers, the liturgy
Greek – Eastern European Christianity, the new testament, the Septuagint, the eastern church fathers, the liturgy
Syriac – The language of Jesus, the liturgy, the far eastern church fathers, the Peshitta
Hebrew – Judaism and all it’s related literature. The Torah, Mishnah and Talmud