Theodulf of Orleans and the Libri Carolini

It is no surprise to long time readers of this blog that I really enjoy the Carolingian era of history. So, when an avalanche of sales, discounts, and gift cards piled high enough to make Ann Freeman’s Theodulf of Orelans: Chralemagne’s Spokesman against the Second Council of Nicaea available I jumped at the chance. I wanted this book for several reasons. One, I cannot get enough about the Carolinigian era, a time that is ignored by historians both secular and religious. Two, I want to know all I can about Theodulf. Three, the general consensus is that Alcuin must be the author of the Libri Carolini. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia claims Alcuin as the best possibility. This book argues, I believe convincingly, that Theodulf of Orleans is the author.

The book is scholarly, so if you are not interested in the subject save your money. Also, if you are limited intelligence like me be prepared to read many sections multiple times. However, the book is really a collection of essays and articles so that each chapter makes a nice breaks and some chapters recover material often in an easier to understand format before expanding your information base. The book does deal with other issues other than just authorship. It has a great chapter about the view of images and icons put forth by the Libri Carolini, as well as books that speak to the general history of the Frankish church about images and about Theodulf himself.

The main point of Ann Freeman’s contention is that the original uncorrected version (found only in this century) provides much new information. Seeing the corrections made by the correcter over the original shows us that the corrector was a person who learned Latin as a second language or book Latin and the original author was a native speaker whose Latin was already turning colloquial. In fact, one can even track the author’s Latin to Visigothic Spain. This makes Theodulf a leading candidate since he was a Visigoth from Spain. It hurts Alcuin as the candidate since he would have learned Latin as a second language in England. The thrust of her research revolves around the Liturgy in common use in Spain. She is able to show that many times in the Libri Carolini the scripture quotes are from the Liturgy. There are a few examples of the corrector not taking off the liturgical phrases like ‘and the people said Amen’ (my example, the real ones are in the book). The Spanish Liturgy at the time was not using the Vulgate, and the Scripture quotes can be shown to be from this alternate version. This evidence makes one overwhelmingly favor Theodulf as the author. When matched up with the traditional objections to Alcuin, such as it does not fit his known timeline (he is supposed to have been in England at the time) and that his earliest biographer does not include the Libri Carolini as one of his works, the evidence demands a verdict of Theodulf of Orleans as the author of the Libri Carolini.

I do admit that this evidence does not point to Theodulf directly, but rather only to a Visigoth from Spain. This is the weakness in the book. There were more than one Visigoth at Charlemagne’s court, and they cannot be ruled out from any of the arguments I read. However, it is not disputed that Theodulf was the greatest Visigoth scholar at the court and probably stood only behind Alcuin when ranking the scholars at court (an argument could be made Alcuin stood behind Theodulf). It is obvious from other actions that Charlemagne trusted Theodulf with big responsibilities. Thus, it stands to reason that Theodulf would be the author. It just needs to be noted that the arguments do not point directly to him, but rather to his region of the world and he is the top candidate from that region.

All in all, I really enjoyed this book, and I learned a great deal from it.

Pittsburgh Pirates '08

Today begins my other passion, Pittsburgh Pirates baseball. Yes, the official pitchers and catchers work outs have begun. Again, I have very high hopes for the Pirates, but will wait before making predictions for the Pirates until we have a better idea of their lineup.

The reasons for my high hopes revolve mainly around the departure of Jim Tracy the now former manager. This new manager, John Russell, is a mystery. I have to admit that it was depressing when they hired him. He has no real track record on which to be judged, so that may still turn into adulation. However, Tony Pena was available, and I thought it would have been better to go get the former Pirate standout who does have previous managerial experience and has been learning with the Yankees for a few years now.

Still, the line up for the Pirates looks good. Jason Bay will probably not bat 50 points under his career average again. Ronnie Paulino showed a lot of life at the end of the season, and hopefully he will be back up to a .300 hitter in his third year, and hopefully improved defense. Freddie Sanchez started this past season hurt and basically had his Spring training during the Pirates games in May. He now has a long term deal in his back pocket and should be able to be an MVP type player. Xavier Nady, despite a few injury problems, did exactly what you would expect of him. He hit about his career average of .275. If more people were on base in front of him, his RBI’s would be higher. And Adam LaRoche might actually put together an entire season of being good. He starts every year off ice cold. Hopefully this year he can at least keep the cold start to hitting above .200. I am not counting on much from him, but his bat will heat up with weather and he does provide long ball power. The constant question mark of center field may finally be answered as well. Chris Duffy, Nate McClouth, and Nyjer Morgan will all compete for the starting job in center with the runner up earning a spot on the roster and the loser going to the minors. I think that Duffy and McClouth were greatly misused by Jim Tracy as their speed was never taken advantage of, and Nyjer’s late season call up ended with a man hitting nearly .300 and making highlight real grabs in the outfield. If he wins the starting spot, I will be overjoyed. I fully expect McClouth to earn the back up spot, and Duffy (who is recovering from an injury to start off in the minors). Duffy will be traded before the season is over as the outfield is crowded considering the top prospect, McCutchen, in the organization will probably be called up in September to play center. Third base is still a hole, but Neil Walker may be ready by mid season, and that would turn that position around.

This year the bullpen will be almost totally new. That makes it a question mark, but also makes it hopeful. The best of the best were kept, such as closer Matt Cappas and set up man Desmond Marte both had ERA’s under 2.50. John Grabow probably has a safe spot in the bullpen, but the last four spots could be open. With Grabow and Marte both being lefties one would think that Franqueils Osario and Evan Meek have the inside shot at making the team. Meek is a ground ball pitcher with a big fastball making him very intriguing. Jonah Bayliss and Josh Sharpless played some with the club last year and are in the mix as is Japanese Masumi Kuwata who started strong last year, but ended up in the minors. Hector Carrasco and Jaret Wright were invited to camp and are veterans of other clubs. However, I am hoping for a youth movement. Shawn Chacon, Tony Armas, and Solomon Torres are all mercifully gone, and there is no need to replace them with aging veterans when so many young guns are in the organization. If too many of the older guys make the team, it will be a bad sign for the organization. In addition to about a half dozen other young arms vying for spots in the bullpen are big time starting prospects John Van Benschoten and Bryan Bullington. The starting five appears to be set with Matt Morris as one of them (I am less than thrilled with him). It would make sense that one of these guys deserves a shot at being the long man from the pen.

It will be a fun Spring Training to watch with so many open spots on the team. The bullpen competition will be strong, and the back up first base position is up for grabs as is the third string catcher spot. The starting center field spot as well as back up utility infielder, which brings with it the heir apparent title to aging Jack Wilson. The Pirates ought to be able to compete in a still weak NL Central. If they cannot, expect wide spread trades and changes.

Wright on Life After Death

Bishop N.T. Wright recently gave an interview to Time Magazine where he explained why the traditional view of life after death is wrong. I found this article because of Barb at Whilin Away the Hours who defends Bishop Wright as teaching "very good" and did not see this article as a rejection of Christian teaching despite the name of the article which Wright agreed with when asked. So, I thought I would quickly show exactly where Wright is rejecting orthodoxy and the traditional view of heaven and life after death.

I should start with some agreement, so let me agree with Barb that the main point of Bishop Wright’s’ article is to describe the ultimate state, the one of a reunited soul and body after the return of Jesus. Bishop Wright wants to put more emphasis on this final state. That is not wrong. All Christians have believed that the ultimate state is one of a resurrected bodies, and perhaps one can make the case that this is too often ignored. Bishop Wright’s motivation comes from a desire to recapture that doctrine of Christianity. However, it seems he may desire to emphasize that because he thinks that the traditional view allows people to do whatever they want with their bodies now, and that might lead people to not care about "acid rain or greenhouse gasses" or even if we bomb "civilians in Iraq". So, it is fairly clear that Bishop Wright wants to draw attention to an orthodox point of doctrine; however, his motives may indeed be based in politics and social gospel stuff.

Now that we all agree the ultimate state of man is both resurrected body and soul, we can move on to his rejection of what happens to the dead believer prior to the return of Christ. Of course, Bishop Wright mischaracterizes it and uses a book by Maria Shriver (Arnold’s wife) to buttress his point rather than an actual book by a theologian. The traditional view of life after death is that a man’s soul goes to be with the Lord in heaven, and there awaits the final resurrection, but while there the soul is engaged in activity such as worship. Bishop Wright does not deny that we are somehow in the presence of God, but Wright goes on to say we are:

resting and being refreshed. Paul writes that it will be conscious, but compared with being bodily alive, it will be like being asleep.

He quotes another idea favorably:

"God will download our software onto his hardware until the time he gives us new hardware to run the software again for ourselves." That gets to two things nicely: that the period after death is a period when we are in God's presence but not active in our own bodies, and also that the more important transformation will be when we are again embodied and administering Christ's kingdom.

Of course the ultimate reason that church has believed the wrong thing for so long is that we are too Greek and not Jewish enough. Same old, same old. Plato is the real enemy and Second Temple Judaism is the savior. Yada, yada, yada. He does briefly touch on a few verses that uphold the traditional view. He rejects Jesus saying to the thief ‘Today you will be with me in Paradise’ because Jesus is not resurrected for three days, so it must be some intermediate state. Wright here ducks the question by trying to answer it as a resurrection question rather than what happens right after you die question. He also seems to imply that Revelation 4 and 5 are about the worship of the church on earth right now and not in heaven, but I must admit I may not be completely understanding him at this point as there really are a lot of possible views on the book of Revelation.

So in essence Bishop Wright is advocating some sort of peaceful conscious sleep that is like being uploaded into God to wait until we get bodies. This is not the traditional view, and allow me to give some Scriptures that more clearly deal with life after death. The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus given in Luke 16 is the best example. There the rich man is suffering torment and Lazarus the beggar is with Abraham. Yet, communication is possible. The Rich man pleads with Abraham, who is also there, and the two talk. Clearly, no bodily resurrection is in view, but hell exists, punishment is being given and rewards are being given. The Soul, sans the body, is able to feel and communicate. They are not sleeping nor simply downloaded. They both seem very active. Another place is Revelation 6. Regardless of how one reads 4 and 5, chapter 6 presents a problem for Bishop Wright. Verses 9-11 tell of the fifth seal where the Martyrs cry out. Here the martyrs are under the altar and crying out for God to avenge them. So we can see we are pre-bodily resurrection because the word "souls" is used in verse 9 so this is not soul plus body. We know it is pre-return of Christ because that appears to be what they are asking for. And we know that the souls are crying out. Speaking. Communicating. They are active in a sense that Bishop Wright seems to reject. 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 prove problamatic for Wright as well. As Paul speaks of a man being caught up into the Third Heaven which he also calls Paradise (providing problems for Wright’s rejection of the Thief on the Cross), and in that third heaven Paul heard wonderful words. It was not a place of rest, but rather a place of revelation from God. Of course Elijah provides problems as a man who avoided death. But even more of a problem is the Transfiguration where Elijah and Moses appear with Christ. Clearly we do not yet have a bodily resurrection, but two men are seen with Christ and they are recognized. And then John 14:2-3 seem to militate against the Wright redefining of life after death. There Jesus tells the people he goes to prepare a room for them in His father’s house. And he shall receive them Himself. Now Wright seems to indicate that Jesus always spoke of coming again to us, but here is one clear occasion where Jesus spoke of us going to Him.

In conclusion, I think that Wright wants to place more emphasis on the body, and there may be a real place for that, but Wright has gone to the other extreme and minimized the soul. He seems to say that without the body man is unable to do things like worship, communicate, and exist in a physical place. He prefers the software to hardware analogy. Software is useless without hardware, but that is hardly the picture we get from the Bible of our souls after death. He starts off worrying that we ignore our bodies, and ends up making us almost nothing but bodies.

[The following should be viewed as redacted. I did not corretly remember and represent the position of Philip Schaff. I leave it set off in italics for historical purposes. See discussion in comments for more details]
And for those of you wondering about how this fits into the thesis that most of the FV/Shepherd/Wright stuff is a revival of Mercersburg Theology, Philip Schaff taught a Middle State very similar to this. It was the only time he was censured by the Board of Visitors of Mercersburg. He promised to not teach it, and the Visitors agreed not to turn him over to Synod for a trial. However, we now know that it appears he continued to teach it anyway. There is nothing new under the sun.

My Day as a Lobbyist

I spent the better half of Super Tuesday lobbying state legislators. I have to admit, I felt dirty. It was sort of sprung on me. Another pastor friend of mine and I went down to Pierre for Pastor’s Day put on by a group loosely affiliated with Focus on the Family (name of the actual group withheld to protect the pseudo-innocent). It was advertised to us as a chance to tour the capital, meet with some lawmakers, and pray for them and talk with them. Then we were to have a nice lunch where lawmakers would come and talk to us, and it was sort of understood that there would be some sort of recruiting speech as well. Well, it turned out the ‘meet and pray for the legislatures’ was actually a lobby these two bills for us. The one I was given, I didn’t even really agree with. It had to do with restricting ‘Adult Content’ business. I feel that is more of a local matter and the state government should not bother trying to zone municipalities. So, I walked around with a few guys and was shown the lobbying ropes, but I never said anything. I did meet one of my representatives and one state senator. I discovered that lobbyists are treated like bothersome flies by most legislators, and with good reason. We wandered around the floor of the House and Senate bothering people while they looked like they were trying to work. I did end up having a few good conversations. I just did my own thing after a while. I did ask a few legislators if there was a way I could uphold them in prayer, specific needs, that sort of thing. I thanked a few of them and that seemed to get the best response. And I got to talk with one Pro-Life Democrat who knew someone in Herreid. We chatted for some time until the professional lobbyist saw us together and made my friendly conversation a dirty lobby-like one. Still the legislator wanted his picture taken with me and my friend. The rest of the day did go about as expected, but it was an eye opening look into political life and the work of lobbyist. I came away with a few lessons.

1. Lobbying is a lot like bribery. A saw lots of gift bags from different groups.
2. Lobbying is a lot of intimidation. The professional lobbyists are ignored, so they bring in ‘constituents’ like me and try to make it look like I am not with him, but just a concerned citizen. Our badges said ‘Pastor’ so that it looked like I was representing not just myself, but a lot of other voters too.
3. Legislators have to hide to do real work. I saw a lot of them do this. And a few would stop the group I was with after the first sentence or so because they had already been talked to twice that day. I bet it gets annoying.
4. There are lots of lobbyists. I saw at least a large group of Midwife lobbyists and I met the Planned Parenthood lobbyist leader, or was shown whom she was without being allowed to speak to her. I also saw ‘Blue tag lobbyists’ those are the lobbyists from the government. They often lobby themselves. Yes, my taxpayer dollars pay for the Depratment of Education to come lobby the Legislature about taking over preschools around the state.
5. Theocrats love the government no matter how much they pretend they don’t. This organization was a Theo-conservative organization. They wanted the government to require lots of things in bills that supported their worldview. They had no problem with the government coming in and taking away a bookstore owner’s right to sell smut within a certain distance of about everything in a city. Yet, they were upset about a bill that would take away the right of a Pharmacist to not sell RU486 and other contraception. Their view of government is a bit contradictory. If you are wondering about the Republican Party dilemma, Theo-conservatves are the reason the Republican Party is moving left.
6. Lobbying without knowing what you are talking about is ridiculous. We were given large sheets of paper to discuss things about each bill. Try talking to a legislator sometime having to look down at a sheet of paper to get your talking points, not to mention the name of the bill. I bet a lot of people laughed at us all day.

Those are my early thoughts about a day of being a dirty no good lobbyist. I did get a lot free books and got to see government up close and tour the capital without a tour guide. All in all, I guess it was worth the day trip.

Primaries

I simply find the Republican Primaries fascinating this year. You see a lot of people pulling the pragmatic argument out for John McCain. You hear Rush Limbaugh make the Idealist argument, which now only applies to Mitt Romney. And you hear people on Meet the Press giggle with joy about McCain downing the Republican establishment. It is not all that dissimilar an argument from the Church Growth movement about do you make people Christian so they will join the church or do you get people to join the church and hope they become Christians later. I am unable to get enough of this much for same reason you have to slow down to watch trains wreck.

Long time readers of this blog will know that I prefer the Idealist argument made by Mr. Limbaugh. However, after listening to Limbaugh rant today I still do not think he has it right. Limbaugh blames John McCain for wanting to pull the party to the left, and so did a lot his callers. However, I do not believe that is the case. The blame rests mostly on President Bush and a little on Limbaugh/conservatives himself/themselves. Let me explain.

People are up in arms about the perceived left-ward stance of ‘Maverick’ John McCain. They point to Campaign Finance Reform, they point to McCain’s stance on Amnesty, and they often point to other things like his environmentalism on display after his endorsement by Gov. Terminator in California. Opposition to tax cuts also makes the list, but I will deal with that in a minute. When you look at all of the above things (tax cuts excluded) John McCain is no more to blame than George Bush. Bush signed into law Campaign Finance Reform. Bush promoted Amnesty. Bush had liberal Republicans like Arnold and Rudy Guiliani speak at the Republican Convention in 2004. That was the glimpse of the future of the Republican Party, and commentators like Limbaugh missed it. Or at least they did not make enough of a fuss. It makes no sense to fight against McCain and accept President Bush. President Bush was elected in 2000 on a more conservative platform, although he told Republican it would be a modified Conservatism by the simply title ‘Compassionate Conservative’. He passed things like No Child Left Behind and then went completely away from his conservative roots after 9/11. 2004 saw everyone stand by their Commander-in-Chief, and they overlooked the non-conservative nature of his governing. He tried to push Harriet Meyers as a Supreme Court Justice and tried to push Amnesty for illegals. His short lived attempt to revamp Social Security did not receive the same sort of effort put into adding Prescription Drugs to Medicare.

The only difference between George Bush and John McCain is tax cuts. McCain has a stronger belief in a balanced budget than does President Bush, but neither actually believes the government should shrink. Not at all. They fundamentally believe that the government ought to have your money to fill its needs first, then maybe you can have some back. That is what not voting for tax cuts until the budget is balanced means. Government first, tax payer second. The conservative revolt ought to be a revolt against Bush, but for some reason it is completely directed at John McCain. They are two peas in a pod.

The other thing that I do not think is getting enough attention is Congress. Lots of people talk about the 2006 victory for the Democrats. Some, Rush included, chalk that up to the Conservative base being upset. To some degree I believe that is true, but what no one really ever mentions is that this is the effect of having a liberal Republican heading up the party as the Conservative Revolution of 1994 expired. Many people were stepping down because they promised in 1994 to only serve 12 years. Bill Frist is a good example. He was the majority leader, but had served his time. Senator Frist is not the most conservative of men, but he is just the first example off of the top of my head. True conservatives were not able to be recruited because the leadership of the Republican Party was not conservative. They pulled funding from winnable seats like Representative J.D. Hayworth in Arizona because he stood for being conservative. You won’t find any conservatives running this time either and very winnable seats like South Dakota’s Senate seat occupied by Tim Johnson will go without a challenge because what conservative can follow John McCain as a standard bearer. Again this fact has been passed on by powerful leaders like Rush Limbaugh. He broke the immigration bill when it was in the legislature, but he seems slow to speak out on the liberalization of the Republican Party under President Bush. Now he wants a return to conservative roots rather than follow Bush’s example with McCain. It is too late now. The only option conservatives have is a new party.

The Deeper Debate about Westminster Theological Seminary

There is a debate raging on-line about the direction of Westminster Theological Seminary. Some are worried that those who favor the more liberal direction of Biblical Theology and lean toward Shepherd and the Federal Vision are concerned that their voices may be silenced. They have started a Save Our Seminary website with all the details. Others like Rev. Lane Keister are concerned that the conservative voices are being silenced in favor of the Biblical Theology department and their innovations. Basically they are concerned for the exact opposite reasons as the Save Our Seminary group. This could be a new front in the war about Federal Vision-like theology, but it is really a strange battleground, one that has me thinking about seminaries in general.

Westminster Theological Seminary is an independent seminary. It serves many denominations, but it is not under any of them. Yes, it has a long-standing tradition and yes it does have a lot of control in the OPC, but it is not under any one denomination. This is not uncommon as most seminaries today operate as independent non-profit organizations including for self-disclosure’s sake the one from which I graduated. There is a long standing debate, especially in my own denomination, about whether or not it is appropriate for an organization that is outside of the church be allowed to train ministers to serve inside the church. And if the Bible gives the job of training men to the church, can the church then give it to these outside groups? We can argue some other time about whether or not seminaries are the way to go or whether or not the apprenticeship model is better. The question before us today is whether any of these people complaining about the direction of Westminster Theological Seminary have a right to complain or should they have expected change and drift from an independent organization?

I do believe that independent seminaries will change and cannot be expected to stay faithful to creeds or even their own original vision statements because they are organizations not under any real authority. It is not a church. One can do a lot of things to pretend a seminary is a church in and of itself. Some have chapels and other worship like activities, but that does not make it the church. It is true that most seminaries would consider their authority to be the church, but in reality it is the Board of Directors. And a Board of Directors is a lot of things, but it is not a church court. It is also shabby for oversight. Most directors do not live in the same area as the actual seminary and may not make every meeting. It may be that the Directors are cobbled together to try and spread the influence of the seminary around to other spots rather than to limit the seminary, to check the seminary, and to oversee the seminary. The President might have some sort of oversight, but the faculty usually has free reign over minds that have come not to oversee, but to be taught and learn. In a local congregation a minister preaches and teaches his congregation that hopefully has an attitude of coming to learn, but he is also preaching and teaching to elders who have oversight or at least a standing to bring complaints before an appropriate body.

Historically Westminster Theological Seminary has already seen trouble with this line between church and institution. It occurred with Rev. Norman Shepherd’s problems there back in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Shepherd was investigated by the seminary several times, but the church not so much. Then Shepherd was fired from WTS for not adhering to the Westminster Standards, but he remained a minister in good standing in the OPC. That was about to change when he transferred to the Christian Reformed Church. But the point here is that a man was suspected of teaching heretical doctrine in his class and the discipline stayed within the bounds of the seminary and did not go directly to the church courts. Years later because the workings of a Board of Trustees is not the same as the workings of a church court, the teacher is removed. Now he is in the unenviable position of being fired for unorthodox statements, but is considered orthodox by his denomination. It is just one example of many that could be referenced of trouble that comes from independent seminaries.

There are other reasons that independent seminaries will drift away from their standards other than the complete lack of oversight and authority. Namely the fact that seminaries are academic institutions by nature, and the fact that they are businesses that make more money the broader they become.

This controversy about the direction of Westminster Theological Seminary is an interesting one. However, it is only a symptom of a greater problem. Maybe this new uprising at WTS will lead to a bigger discussion.