I'm a master's student in theology. AMA.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I go to Boston University School of Theology and will hopefully be graduating with my Master of Theological Studies degree in September.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How much crossover is there between theology and secular philosophy?

A lot. Theology and analytic philosophy only really cross over through Wittgenstein (sometimes), Lonergan (ish), and maybe a couple of other thinkers, but theologians, especially but not only left-leaning ones, draw quite a bit from Continental philosophy, and once you get back into the Early Modern period and especially the Middle Ages the line between philosophy and theology is very blurry. To my knowledge there aren't as many American philosophers who are sincerely interested in theological questions as there are American theologians who are sincerely interested in philosophical questions, mostly because of the limitations in terms of subject matter that the analytic tradition places on itself, but in other countries you get people like Gianni Vattimo and Jean-Luc Marion (whom I'm not necessarily endorsing by mentioning them).

What job do you intend to get with your degree?

I don't know.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

     How do theologians regard extrabiblical texts that have contributed to the modern understanding of Christianity (eg The Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost)?

Generally they're valued insofar as they make implicit or allegorical theological statements. So, for example, a theologian might take Dante very seriously indeed in his implied analysis of how different sins contain their own consequences, or how earthly loves can point us to heavenly loves, but wouldn't feel any need to take seriously the idea that there are such-and-such a number of distinct circles of hell. I'm not as familiar with the reception of Milton but I'd imagine it's similar, as is the reception of modern religious novelists like Dostoyevsky or Waugh or Endō.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Oh man I've got a few:

Are there any obscure theological questions or issues most people haven't heard of that you feel strongly about and/or find really interesting?

I feel very strongly about analogy of being (for) and presuppositional apologetics (against), am bored out of my skull and at times faintly repelled by the historical-critical method, read online comment threads complaining about liturgy for fun, and there are some nooks and crannies of missiology that I'm developing pretty specialized interests in, particularly regarding East Asia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OH yeah. BU is nominally Methodist, and about a third of the students in the School of Theology are interested in becoming Methodist pastors. Add in Holiness and Nazarene students, and it's more than half Wesleyan, with most of the rest being other kinds of Protestant; it also presupposes pretty thoroughgoing theological liberalism, although as I've pushed back against that I've found sympathy in places I wouldn't have expected. I'm the first student in the School of Theology to convert to Catholicism in about five years. When I first applied I was a convinced Episcopalian, but already quite High Church. But people seem to value my perspective and I've found common ground with other outlier students (a Jewish atheist, a Buddhist, and so forth).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is hard for me to answer.

A few years ago I would have said Simone Weil hands down, but her attitude towards Judaism bothers me more and more as time goes on (I don't know if the fact that she was from a Jewish family herself makes it more tolerable or less). I like von Balthasar but I don't know as much about him as I'd like; there's an Anglo-Catholic Mariologist called Sarah Jane Boss whom I've read a great book by called Empress and Handmaid: On Nature and Gender in the Cult of the Virgin Mary, but I'm not familiar with the rest of her body of work. Tolkien-as-theologian feels like kind of a cheat answer, as do O'Connor-as-theologian and Christina-Rossetti-as-theologian. Among pre-Moderns it's much easier to pick favorites--I'm very fond of the Cappadocian Fathers and Julian of Norwich (although in both cases I'm probably on the more orthodox/conservative end of the spectra of people who are fans of them), and I can get pretty defensive of Augustine although he certainly isn't perfect. My favorite theologian who couldn't in any meaningful sense be called "Catholic" is probably C.S. Lewis, as banal an answer as that may be, and my favorite non-Christian religious thinker (a superlative which obviously should not be taken as an endorsement) is a thirteenth-century Japanese monk named Ippen Shōnin; there's also a lot I admire about Yeshayahu Leibowitz, although the fact that he held ag-esque views on Israel despite living there for most of his life is not a good look.

But, just looking at who's the most heavily represented on my shelf, on some level it's still probably Weil, which I'm not entirely comfortable with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't understand the appeal of John Duns Scotus or Adrienne von Speyr. I suspect there are some Reformed, Evangelical, and ultra-liberal theologians I'd probably like less, but I don't really interact with those schools of thought enough to be able to put names to them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm actually often annoyed by how little my inner life has changed; I've been in a very stubborn patch of spiritual dryness for several years now. But it's helped me come to peace with that and accept that it doesn't make me A Bad Christian. It's also convinced me of the absolute necessity of weekly or more-than-weekly Mass attendance and daily or more-than-daily prayer, in some sense not in spite but because of the fact that I don't feel much subjective spiritual gain from those practices.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Japanese Language and Literature. The work I'm actually submitting to people and am in principle Here To Work On has to do with receptions of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular in Japanese art, literature, and media.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What specifically do you find objectionable in theological liberalism?

There's no there there. I actually have a fairly high opinion of people like Schleiermacher and even Bultmann who are manifestly working within some sort of definite religious framework, even if it's an unorthodox one, and are willing to defend at least the principle of the primacy of the demands of faith over other kinds of demands, but I have a hard time reading sentences like "John Shelby Spong (1931–), Episcopalian bishop and very prolific author of books such as A New Christianity for a New World, in which he wrote of his rejection of historical religious and Christian beliefs such as Theism (a traditional conception of God as an existent being), the afterlife, miracles, and the Resurrection" or "Matthew Fox (b. 1940), former Roman Catholic priest of the Order of Preachers; currently an American Episcopalian priest and theologian, noted for his synthesis of liberal Christian theology with New Age concepts in his ideas of 'creation spirituality', 'original blessing', and seminal work on the 'Cosmic Christ'; founder of Creation Spirituality" without concluding that these people are making up whatever the hell they feel like to suit preexisting commitments to non-religious or extra-religious ideas.

Content-wise the issue is that it has too low a view of God's grandeur and power over creation. All the other problems I have with it come from that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's about even, since almost nobody here is seeking ordination in a denomination that doesn't ordain women. Even a lot of Catholic schools of theology these days are about even because they have degree programs for people who want to do things like academic theology or spiritual counseling or canon law, and interest in doing religious work other than the priesthood skews female.

My faith, Mormonism, doesn't really have theologians in the same way other churches have. Did you cover Mormonism at all in your studies, and if so, how did you approach it?

We didn't really cover Mormonism, no. I wish we had.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why did you choose a Wesleyanish institution if you were a high church Episcopalian when applying?

Because I wanted to stay within New England and the Episcopal-oriented divinity schools in New England are/were all hot messes except for Yale, where I didn't finish my application to in time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The same thing I find repelling about theological liberalism in general--it subordinates Biblical interpretation to concerns that are fundamentally not theological in character. One doesn't need to entirely abdicate scholarly concern with the material to avoid this; I'm a big fan of Brevard Childs's canonical criticism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many of them are on the chaplaincy track, which at BU isn't really specifically Christian any more. They do have a hard time with some of the material in the core classes, which teach about the Bible and Christian history at some length (and generally well, managing to give sympathetic treatments to both medieval Catholicism and the Reformation!), but it's taught in such a way that you don't really have to have much background knowledge to pick it up (although there's a certain professor who simultaneously seems to assume that we're all here to rebel against the conservative Evangelical background that she has and that we thus all must have, right?).

Has studying theology strengthened your faith in God and an afterlife? If so, what theological arguments or concepts have really helped strengthen your faith?

It hasn't really; as I said in a previous answer, there's been very little change to my inner life since I've been here. Reading the accounts of other believers who have gone through periods of spiritual dryness has, however, made me more adamant about sticking with it anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are some I like more and find more interesting than others. I have a lot of interest in Buddhism, partly because of what I studied in undergrad, but I don't think it's compatible with Christianity the way a lot of people think it is or wish it would be. I'm very fond of certain strains of Jewish thought. I don't know nearly as much as I'd like to about other religions, including Islam.

What types of people are you in school with? Why do others want to study religion? Why would an atheist make it their discipline? What do they intend to do with their degrees? What are their own backgrounds that allow them to engage in this field?

Honestly, the only answer I can think of that addresses all of this is "it takes all kinds". My classmates are everything from devout Pentecostals to people one step up from Greatest I am. They're studying it for reasons ranging from personal enrichment to career goals (ministry, chaplaincy, academia) to just having a really strong interest in it for whatever reason. I imagine an atheist would make it their discipline for the same reason that I do a lot of study of Buddhism--interest in systems of thought other than one's own and desire to understand what makes other people tick. Backgrounds are mostly in the humanities but there are also quite a few people who are doing this as a second career; I know one guy who was some sort of tech venture capitalist and decided to study religion after realizing that a lot of what he was doing was unethical. One of my good friends was a roadie, of all things.

One of my favorite scholars is Bart Ehrman.

He began as a believer but the more he learned, the less he believed.

Has that been your experience?

Regards
DL

No. It has not.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

My type of faith, that man is above God, was also bolstered by studying Gnostic Christianity as well as the Jewish Karaite religion.

I see Jesus as saying with his, --- And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: ---

http://biblehub.com/mark/2-27.htm

 -- as fitting nicely with the notion that religions and Gods were created for man and not man for them.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

God is our Creator and Lord. Jesus can set norms for Sabbath observance because Jesus is God. The verse quoted does not mean "do whatever you feel like".

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If Jesus is God, then he could not have died.

You don't have even the most basic understanding of Christianity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're very welcome.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a very common interpretation of the verse among armchair liberal theologians.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Excuse me?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 Leave me alone, you pompous creep.

If I may.

You may not. This is my AMA and the question was directed to me. Make your own thread.

What are the irreconcilable differences between Buddhism and Christianity?

The most important differences imo are reincarnation, which Christianity (in all but a few forms) denies and Buddhism (in all but its most modernist forms) affirms, and the Buddhist model of an eternally existent and ever-recrudescent cosmos as opposed to the Christian model of a God Who creates ex nihilo from a definite beginning point. My position is that the traditional Buddhist refusal to speculate on the exact state of someone who has entered parinirvana means that it's not as irreconcilable with the Christian goal of eternal life in God as a lot of commentators think, but most scholars would probably disagree with me on that.

Greatest I am's answer is disjointed babbling, as usual.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christianity is the one I've committed to, for a number of personal reasons, but if I hadn't already done that I might have a hard time deciding on one over the other. Both have their more convincing and less convincing points, and both have produced fascinating interpretative and artistic traditions.

What exactly is the Holy Spirit, and why does it seem to be so underrated when compared to the Father and the Son?

Well. I haven't been able to devote nearly as much attention to pneumatology while I've been here as I initially wanted to, so this is probably going to be in some way very wrong, but here goes:

The Holy Spirit is the force (but a personal force) of God through Whose power creation and the sacraments are effected. It would be wildly heretical to outright conflate Him with Bergson's élan vital but we could tentatively and very loosely describe Him as a sort of élan vital who in fact can, as Lewis put it, "delay the senility of the sun or reverse the second law of thermodynamics". (This is why gender-neutral modifications of the Trinitarian formula like "Creator, Christ, and Holy Spirit" are, while well-intended, theologically inappropriate; all three Persons of the Trinity participate in the creation and sustenance of the world). He's underrated (outside Pentecostalism) because He's much more abstracted and generally doesn't speak in His own words (the Nicene Creed tells us that He has "spoken through the prophets").

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How closely does the Fallen World (as described in the Bible) resemble Samsara (as described in Buddhism)? Just in Genesis 3, we have men being chained to the earth, which absorbs their life force and spits it back out at them; women being chained to childbirth, by which they continue the existence of the human race only at the expense of their own well being; and both their descendants being cursed to bruise the head of the serpent which bites at their heels, which is almost an image of the ouroboros.

Of course, if you go back far enough, you have a world created, not out of nothing, but out of watery chaos, which could even imply previous cosmic incarnations.

Sorry if this isn't the sort of post you wanted in this thread, I've just been thinking about this a lot recently.

It's fine!

A purely Biblical Christianity would have a lot of these kinds of inchoate and chaotic narrative rough edges that connect with other religions in all sorts of interesting ways, yeah--which is part of why I find it more interesting to study the Hebrew Bible academically than the New Testament, because the Hebrew Bible was compiled over a much longer period of time and has a greater multiplicity of perspectives. But the Christianity we have now is also a Christianity of traditions and theologians, who have sanded down some of those narrative rough edges by being what one of my professors calls "consistency-building readers" and have found--I might even say discovered, although I'm not sure that's the right word to use for philosophical theology--principles like creation ex nihilo, the absolute primacy and supremacy of God, and so on. Then again Christianity never loses its narrative focus (a focus which is a lot less essential in many other religions, including Buddhism actually) and it shouldn't be "demythologized" too much; I'd say a good rule of thumb is that demythologization that lessens the fundamental principle of God's majesty and grandeur, by presupposing against the miraculous or whatever, is best avoided.

The Fall as creating a samsara-like condition is a really interesting idea; my only objection to it would be that most forms of Buddhism don't posit an original pre-samsaric state.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Fall as creating a samsara-like condition is a really interesting idea; my only objection to it would be that most forms of Buddhism don't posit an original pre-samsaric state.

IIRC, both Hinduism and Jainism posit an evolutionary model of the cosmos, with some epochs more enlightened than others. Is there no similar concept in Buddhism? Or am I misunderstanding things.

There's a similar (but, again, cyclical) concept in Buddhism, yeah. The key point is that every more enlightened epoch emerges as a proto-dialectical resolution of the conditions of less enlightened ones.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why did you choose a Wesleyanish institution if you were a high church Episcopalian when applying?

Because I wanted to stay within New England and the Episcopal-oriented divinity schools in New England are/were all hot messes except for Yale, where I didn't finish my application to in time.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'hot mess'? Do you mean like organizationally, or in terms of even more theologically liberal than what you described BU as, or something else entirely?

Sorry to keep coming back to this, but its kind of interesting that you are going to an institution so far outside of your tradition, especially liturgically.

Both. BU was represented to me as theologically moderate; it isn't exactly, but at least it still requires Bible and Church history classes and has a specific class on postmodern theology rather than every theology class being a postmodern theology class. The problems with EDS, the main specifically Episcopalian school of theology in the Boston area, where I did briefly consider going, go far beyond that and go into severe mismanagement and money problems, such that the place is now effectively defunct.

The other main reason is that figures I respected (and still respect!) a lot within my Episcopalian milieu recommended BU to me.

The Fall as creating a samsara-like condition is a really interesting idea; my only objection to it would be that most forms of Buddhism don't posit an original pre-samsaric state.

IIRC, both Hinduism and Jainism posit an evolutionary model of the cosmos, with some epochs more enlightened than others. Is there no similar concept in Buddhism? Or am I misunderstanding things.

There's a similar (but, again, cyclical) concept in Buddhism, yeah. The key point is that every more enlightened epoch emerges as a proto-dialectical resolution of the conditions of less enlightened ones.

Are you familiar with Giambattista Vico and his efforts to reconcile linear history and cyclical history?

If so, what's your opinion of Vico?

I'm not as familiar with Vico as I'd like to be, no.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Is it still common for theology students to learn Latin/Greek?

Not nearly as much so as it used to be, unfortunately, unless they're doing specifically Biblical or Patristic theology. The best foreign languages for modern theology are Italian and German. I have a smattering of Greek from earlier in my life but no Latin. I'd dearly like to improve my Greek and get some command of Latin and Hebrew but I don't know when I'll have time for that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

An expert in any field will probably have a "unless you have read THIS book, I'm probably wasting my time talking to you" moment regarding something they've read that's formative to their thought process. What's yours?

(I don't mean to phrase that in a rude way, I mean that there's something you've read or learned that leads to a fundamental experience gap vs ordinary people)

Not entire books, but probably the "Chance" chapter from Gravity and Grace, or else "The Hound of Heaven".

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What do you think of complementarianism?

It's not a question I'm especially interested in any more, partly because I haven't discerned a vocation to either the priesthood or marriage and partly because thinking too hard about gender issues dredges up really bad personal vibes. If I were still super-interested in it then I doubt I would be converting to Catholicism. I definitely don't like the way a lot of conservative Christian commentators use the concept as a way of consecrating whatever gender roles happened to be prevalent when they or their parents were kids.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Although you still don't know what you intend to do for a career after you graduate, what jobs would you say are most optimal for or popular among theology grads?  Are they generally best for people on the ordination path or work in academia, or are there other jobs for which such a degree might be appropriate (i.e. philanthropy, humanitarian work, etc.)?

All of the above. Other than ordained ministry or chaplaincy, the nonprofit sector in general is probably the most common future career goal for theology students at BU. I think it's probably different elsewhere; it probably has to do with our emphasis on social and political theology.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The big one:

How would you explain the Trinity, both in a simple but accurate metaphor to someone new to Christianity, as well as in a deeper theological sense, that also fits together well with Jesus as the Incarnation of the Son?




(For example, in the theological sense, I've heard from a theology class before that the theory is the Son results from God's/Father's perfect self-knowledge, and that the Holy Spirit results from the perfect love between Father and Son... and the Father always had perfect self-knowledge and love, so the Trinity has always existed, co-equal and naturally self-sustaining.

And that the implications are, since both love and self-knowledge create perfect co-equal persons, that in a way self-knowledge when it is perfect automatically brings us to love and love when it is perfect automatically brings us to self-knowledge, and the path to God is through true love and true self-knowledge. As well as implications that, since the Son is from self-knowledge, and Jesus is the Incarnation of the Son, you could say that the Son and the Jesus Incarnation results from God/Father "seeing himself" and "knowing himself" in a particular human. And the implication that the Holy Spirit results from God/Father beginning to "see himself" and "know himself" in other people due to the Son and their love for each, and that love now extending to them too... and this incorporating of us into that divine union/love/self-knowledge-in-creation is "heaven" "kingdom of God" and Jesus' promise of "eternal life" [as well as the meaning of Jesus' talk in the Gospel of John about how he dwells in the Father, the Father in him, asking people to dwell in him, so he can dwell in them and therefore God in them and them in God, and in the epistles of how God is love])

I can't really improve on that explanation in a theological sense--that's my understanding of the Trinity as well.

The metaphor that I like best is probably Lewis's metaphor of three books that have been stacked on top of one another from eternity, such that the position of the topmost books is ontologically dependent on the bottom book even though there was never a time when they weren't on top of it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What are your general thoughts regarding eschatology?

I'm really not sure. I have a conviction that a sound eschatology is really important to Christian belief and practice, but haven't yet developed one myself, in part because I have emotional difficulties believing in an afterlife even though I do assent to the idea.

What led you to convert from Episcopalianism to Catholicism?

Growing suspicions over how much the Episcopal Church flattered my political preconceptions, primarily (which should not necessarily be taken to constitute a change in those preconceptions).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I know you have previously voiced your dislike of presuppositional apologetics (a sentiment I share, having once been sucked into it), but are there any apologists in particular that you find especially enlightening?

I've mentioned Lewis a couple of times already. Frederick Copleston is the hidden treasure of modern Christian apologetics imo. A lot of my Catholic friends really like Scott Hahn but something about him rubs me the wrong way. I also have to put in a good word for The Questions of King Milinda, obviously not because I agree with its conclusions but because it's an enlightening read simply in the sense of teaching one way more about the relevant religion than one probably knew before.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What proportion of your colleagues is non-cis and non-hetero?

A lot, more so non-hetero than non-cis. I'd say maybe a fifth or so but I could be way off because I don't socialize with my cohort outside of class as much as I did last year (nothing against them, I just have other scenes now). There's an active LGBT student organization in the School of Theology. The default position of the faculty and administration is affirming as far as I can tell.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You'll find plenty of liberal Episcopal churches in New England! It tends to be Broad-to-Low, if churchmanship is something that concerns you, because of the Puritan/Unitarian cultural heritage. I'm not too familiar with Connecticut but my impression is they're actually thicker on the ground there than in Massachusetts. Outside certain urban and college-town parishes it'll probably be mostly olds because the younger generation in suburban/rural New England is if anything even more unchurched than in the cities (much to my chagrin), but other than that I don't think you'll have any problems finding what you're looking for.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I briefly considered seminary at one point. My pastor counselled me not to go to a liberal school because, "they train social workers, not pastors" among other things. When I skimmed the curriculums of several liberal and conservative Presbyterian seminaries that certainly appeared to be the case.

Now I know you are taking an M.Th not an M.Div, but given that you have spent a fair amount of time researching Episcopal seminaries, do you believe this criticism of liberal seminaries M. Div programs is fair?

It's definitely true of some of these Episcopal or UCC seminaries. I wouldn't say it's true of BU, where there still is a genuine interest in making sure people know the Bible, Christian history, and worship practices, even if they're taught in a way that has a Schleiermacherian spin.

To what extent have your religious beliefs determined your political views?

On some issues very much, on others not so much. I'd describe myself as seeking a Christian politics, but not one that limits its applicability or acceptability to Christians, if that makes sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe that we have the ability and duty to respond to God's grace (which is freely offered without any preexisting merit on our part) and show Him that we have faith in it by doing good works. Yes, I believe in Purgatory.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What do you think of Rachel Held Evans?

I don't know enough about her to have an informed opinion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no idea, sorry.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't expect you to have an answer to this question, but it's worth asking anyway... do you know any good introductory books on haiku?

A decent translation of Oku no hosomichi, preferably with the Japanese text of the poems included as well as the English, is probably a better place to start than most formalized introductory works.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm a big fan of postwar Tanabe but other than that I think most of the Kyoto School philosophers were far too compromised by their behavior during the ultranationalist period. (Tanabe is appealing insofar as he's the one who admits this.)

What is your stance on predestination and election - would you consider yourself a Molinist?

I think so, although I'm not sure I understand all the implications of that stance well enough to take it definitively.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but considering that God's strongest desire is to forgive, I don't think this is as harsh a teaching as it's sometimes made out to be.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Strange how so many know the mind of a God who is said to be unknowable.

That sounds like wishful thinking and has nothing to do with Gods.

Only the most delusional minds will believe in a supernatural God that they understand.

Regards
DL

Do you have any actual questions for me?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What do you see as the main differences between the 4 Gospels?

If I were speaking about their weak points, I would echo Pasolini's opinion that John is too mystical, Luke is too sentimental, and Mark is too vulgar, and add that Matthew is too backward-looking. If I were speaking about their strong points, I'd say that Matthew is the most historically and prophetically grounded, Mark is the most uncompromising and starkest, Luke is the most compassionate and socially astute, and John is the most poetic and theologically definitive. In general I prefer the Synoptics to John narratively but I don't actually think that they tell incompatible stories, because I'm a big believer in taking the Biblical canon as we have received it rather than attempting to reconstruct what we think it should have been according to modern historiographical best practice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the Catholic Bible as it is is fine for Catholics and the Tanakh/Protestant Old Testament as it is is fine for Jews and Protestants. I do wish more people knew about Bel and the Dragon just because it's a delightful story, and the Book of Enoch and Protoevangelium of James are worth reading to understand where certain concepts in the tradition come from and for more stories about intriguing characters and situations from canon in general. I think Protestants in general should value stories that come down to us through the tradition more as stories, even if they don't treat them as theologically significant.

Why do you follow a God who is more Satanic-like than God-like?

I don't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A few more questions:

1) From a Protestant point of view, Catholic/Orthodox apologists often have this annoying tendency to give the farm away when it comes to higher criticism of scripture, but turn into obstinate fundamentalists when it comes to the historical evidence for 'their' traditions.

It's puzzling, because from my (admittedly biased standpoint), it seems like there is much better evidence for say, an early date for John's Gospel, than for early use of icons or prayers to the Virgin. How do you as a Catholic reconcile this apparent discrepancy?

I don't see it as a discrepancy mostly because I believe that there's both good evidence for a high view of Scripture and good evidence for an early origin for many Catholic/Orthodox traditions, or at least early things that developed into those traditions. For example, there's at least one extant Marian prayer that's probably from the third century--not the Apostolic Age, but pre-Constantine, so I'd still consider it "early Church". But, yes, I totally agree that there isn't high enough a view of Scripture among some of these people.

How early is "early" for John's Gospel? The dates I tend to hear are within the last decade or two of the first century--after the other Gospels, but easily within a somewhat-longer-than-average lifespan assuming the Apostle John was in his late teens at the Crucifixion/Resurrection. The most annoying historical-critical argument about Gospel dating that I've heard was from my Intro to New Testament professor last year, who insisted on a post-Roman-Jewish War date for Mark because Jesus prophesies the destruction of the Temple in Mark. I pointed out that, entirely ignoring the fact that she, an ordained minister, was presupposing that Jesus wasn't supernatural, it's far from out of the ordinary for radical preachers to prophesy disaster, so it shouldn't be surprising even to a thoroughgoing naturalist that Jesus predicted something that did in fact happen. She refused to respond and acted affronted that I'd questioned her even though one of our readings for the class made the same point I had, and I left class that day with deeply mixed feelings about coming to BU for my theology degree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure, but I can speak to this anecdotally. Non-white/non-Western Catholics I know tend to be wary of some of what Francis is doing or trying to do on big sexy Western ~social issues~ but not as strongly critical of him otherwise as First World conservative Catholics tend to be. I have a Mexican Catholic acquaintance who explicitly identifies himself as "a trad" but strongly approves of the Pope on issues related to immigration/refugees, war, the environment, and so forth, despite being pretty alarmed by things like that one footnote in Amoris, and a Filipina Catholic acquaintance who seems to feel similarly, although I discuss Church politics with her less. Uncomplicated support of and uncomplicated opposition to Francis both seem to be "Western things".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't answer these questions until today because I wanted time to give some thought to this one. It's a good question, and frankly deserves still more thought than I've given it since yesterday evening.

Head of American Catholicism: I can think of things that I think the Church should have done differently in the recent past but am less sure about things that I think it could do differently now. A few things do come to mind, though:

1. Move away from trying to imitate Evangelicalism liturgically, stylistically, culturally, etc. If a young person wants that, she can easily just go to an emergent church and get it straight-up and with less problematic politics. The main genuine appeal that Catholicism qua Catholicism has at this point is to people with old-fashioned tastes and we need to own that. Lord knows there are plenty of Millennials who like vintage clothing and antiquing.
1a. This isn't to say that we need to completely abandon "hipster" appeal or jettison people like Audrey Assad, just that it shouldn't be the main focus/strategy of evangelization.
2. Get serious about vocational discernment for gay people and develop serious options to present in a committed, non-insulting way.
3. Form partnerships of some sort between healthier and less-healthy parishes to share people, resources, etc. rather than closing and merging parishes as a matter of first and only resort. Some positive steps in this direction are already being made, but not enough.

Head of mainline American Protestantism: The solutions here I think are simpler even though on paper mainline Protestantism is much further gone:

1. Stop ordaining ministers who can't get through the Apostles' Creed without crossing their fingers.
2. Rediscover a real sense of personal sin, not instead of social structures of sin but as complementing, contributing to, and being contributed to by them.
3. Get serious about redeveloping a significant media presence. The "image" of American Protestantism these days is almost exclusively Evangelical. It didn't used to be that way and it doesn't have to always be that way.

Head of American Evangelicalism: I don't know too much about Evangelicalism or issues within it, but these are the first issues that come to mind:

1. Move away from the "Republican Party at prayer" model of sociopolitical engagement, especially as it applies to manifestly morally stunted candidacies like Trump's and as it applies to prudential issues. Russell Moore has an anecdote about going through a period of doubt in his teens because he started reading ultra-hackish "Christian voter guides" and realized that in reality there was and should be no Defined Christian Position on issues like marginal tax rates, term limits, and gun control.
2. Discover some sort of appreciation for nice architecture, time-tested music, and so on, although not at the expense of current Evangelical aesthetics and styles.

*snip*

Greatest I am, I'm not going to give you the kind of answers you want and you're not giving me the kind of questions I want. Why don't you give it a rest?