+Z’ev

Today’s assigned readings:
AM: Zephaniah 3:14-20, Titus 1:1-16, Luke 1:1-25
PM (Christmas Eve): Isaiah 59:15b-21, Philippians 2:5-11

There are also many rebellious people, idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision; they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for sordid gain what it is not right to teach. It was one of them, their very own prophet, who said, “Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.” That testimony is true. For this reason rebuke them sharply, so that they may become sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths or to commandments of those who reject the truth. To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure. Their very minds and consciences are corrupted. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their actions. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.
Titus 1:10-16

It’s interesting to me that this reading comes up today: why, on the week before Christmas, would even the reasonably centrist liturgical folk who made the Episcopal Church’s lectionary (back in the 1970s) pick a reading that urges the silencing of “especially those of the circumcision”?

John Chrysostom notes that this is an urging for bishops to silence those who teach heresy.

For if he has undertaken the office of a Teacher, and is not able to combat these enemies, and to stop their mouths who are so shameless, he will become in each case the cause of their destination who perish.

In addition to the traditional view that Paul wrote this letter, the wiki cites the critical view:

The Pastoral epistles are widely regarded by contemporary scholars as being pseudepigraphical. On the basis of the language and content of the pastoral epistles, many scholars today doubt that they were written by Paul, and believe that they were written after his death. Critics examining the text fail to find its vocabulary and literary style similar to Paul’s unquestionably authentic letters, fail to fit the life situation of Paul in the epistles into Paul’s reconstructed biography, and identify principles of the emerged Christian church rather than those of the apostolic generation.

Those scholars who consider Titus to be pseudepigraphical date the epistle from the 80s up to the end of the 2nd century.

That later date makes sense to me given the strong words. But it may make sense to others to have Paul, himself, say these words. Fr P.N. Tarazai makes a point that even if the pastoral letters are pseudepigraphical, this was a common enough practice for students and disciples to write letters in the name of their teacher. My only reply to that claim - which he uses to justify what moderns would consider forgeries - is that none of the Apostles wrote letters in the name of Jesus. But, ok… Be this Paul or a forgery (or a nameless disciple’s perfectly acceptable pseudepigraphical work) the thing is in our Bible now and, lo, we need to shut the teachers of heresy up. And fast. Especially the Jews.

I think it’s interesting to get this reading today for a personal reason as well.

Yesterday, in response to what I thought was one of my better postings, I received an anonymous and abusive comment (and, depending on how you read it, it’s also anti-semitic). My normal policy is not to accept anonymous comments from readers I don’t know (which is to say I know the source of every pseudepigraphical posting). But this comment was annoying - and, I think, echoes the author of Titus in a way that urges reply. Using rather childish language - I assume the author has issues with English as a second language, or else is a teenager - I was told “Please become a Jew because you suck as a Christian.”

“especially those of the circumcision; they must be silenced”

Of course one of the problems, here in the 21st century, is to decide what is heresy. We can use the Orthodox model, the Roman Catholic one, the Evangelical one, the liberal mainline Protestant one, and most all of these are mutually exclusive (although inclusive enough, each in their own way).

But that’s not what I want to look at.

No matter how you define heresy, Why do we treat heretics this way?

I’m one to talk: I ditched an entire denomination once, and all my friends, in the hopes of finding doctrinal purity. Oddly enough I found better forgiveness and love among those whom I’d ditiched than among the doctrinally pure. I posted as much, this morning, at a blog asking “Why are you no longer Eastern Orthodox?“

Well there are theological excuses and debates possible on both side, “by their love you shall know them.” I fled ECUSA seeking all the usual things - “the church” and “true theology”. But ultimately I found that on the whole - at least in the tiny corner of the EO within my reach - it was the heretics and schismatics who showed more love more forgiveness and charity to each other, to others, to outsiders, to insiders.

I know there are other places where EO functions differently. I’ve seen them online. But they are rare.

But even so, among the liberal folks, there is a tendency to ditch the conservatives. There are Anglican websites where conservatives are treated as pariahs.

To be certain, there are problems in other communities. I noted to one commentator on my other blog that I know of this problem in Wiccan communities, and she pointed it out in Jewish Communities as well. It seems that many of us are just human beings.

The general attitude among Christians, left or right, is “well, cool. Good bye. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.” Titus shows us it’s been a pretty common problem for a long while.

Why?

Much love,

Huw