In a previous post, I spoke of the modern divorce between Scripture and Theology, and cited R.R. Reno’s article from the First Things website. Well, Reno has a follow-up article today which responds to criticisms he received from his first article. Basically, the “biblical scholars” are reacting exactly as he predicted: they think the theologians are getting a little uppity and are speaking of things they can’t possibly understand, namely, the Bible.

The money quote from Reno:

One would think that historical criticism is primarily concerned with, well, history. It isn’t. As Collins makes his case for the continuing central, authoritative role for the historical–critical tradition, writes Legaspi, “What was once an intellectual project for making sense of the Bible appears to have become a sociopolitical proposal for regulating dialogue.” Biblical scholars are important primarily as gatekeepers. They are academic officials who designate what does and does not count as “responsible” interpretation of the Bible.

That was the primary feeling I got when I first began my study in modern biblical scholarship. For all the protestations of scholars against the “confining” aspects of Christian orthodoxy, I found that the “orthodoxy” of biblical scholars is far more restrictive and punishment for straying outside the orthodoxy far more severe. If a biblical scholar were to publicly declare his adherance to traditional Christian orthodoxy, he would automatically disqualify himself from employment at many top universities, his scholarship would not be accepted as legitimate, and his chances for professional success would be severely limited.

Kudos to Reno for engaging in this important discussion. I have seen evidence that the stranglehold of the orthodoxy of the scholars has been weakening in the past few years; hopefully Reno and others can keep up the attack.

Today is the first day of Lent for the Eastern Orthodox, who follow the Julian calendar instead of the Gregorian calendar for calculating the date of Easter. Most years the Catholic Easter and the Orthodox Easter fall on different days (this year they are a week apart), but next year we have the delight of celebrating the Lord’s Resurrection on the same day. As a personal aside, I have always been dismayed that all Christians do not celebrate Easter on the same day – it seems to be such a minor thing to correct, but I understand how cultural and historical forces have worked against such a rapprochement.

The Eastern Lent is similar in intention to the Western Lent, except it is much more severe in practice. They are asked to give up all meat, dairy products and alcohol throughout the entire season (think of that when you are complaining about not eating meat this Friday). They also calculate the days differently than in the West – we do not count Sundays, whereas they do and they end the counting before Psalm Sunday and consider Holy Week a whole different penitential “season.”

In honor of the day, I’ll post a link to a story of a Lutheran pastor who recently became an Orthodox priest. Whereas I wish he was in full communion with the Catholic Church, I rejoice that he has joined an apostolic Church with valid sacraments.