“. . . ἐκκλησίᾳ (ekklēsia) cannot be translated, it must be taken over.” Disentangling Otis Q. Sellers’s citation of Schmidt and Deissmann on “church.” A short detective story.

[Also on Substack]

Otis Q. Sellers “took over” the meaning of “church,” but not the way most Christians did.

In Christian Individualism: The Maverick Biblical Workmanship of Otis Q. Sellers  (Atmosphere Press, 2026; forthcoming), I devote a chapter to his deconstruction of “church” as most Christians in the dispensation of grace (Ephesians 3:2) have meant by that term. He held that ἐκκλησίᾳ (ekklēsia) in the New Testament (NT) is a governmental term that refers to no society in this dispensation.

Sellers didn’t deny the existence of “churches.” That would have been absurd, for those societies abound. He denied that there are ἐκκλησίᾳί (ekklēsiai) in the NT sense, no matter how many or for how long Christians have held that conceit.

The government in question is the Kingdom of God, worldwide in scope, revealed in part during the Acts period, and suspended during the current dispensation of grace until the that day in the future when it blazes forth (ἐπιφανείας, epiphaneias; 1 Timothy 6:14) so that all flesh see it together (Isaiah 40:6). This will be the second coming, not of Christ in the flesh, but of the Holy Spirt. John the Baptizer, Jesus Christ, and His apostles heralded that Kingdom’s arrival throughout the Acts period until the time marked by 28:28 in that book. That’s when the salvation-bringing message of God was authorized, that is, made freely available (ἀπεστάλη, apestalē) to all without the need for a human intermediary.

Back to our detective story. Sellers, an omnivorous reader, cited scholars who no more shared his radical conclusions than he did their modernism and its methodological naturalism. These writers did, however, share his love for exactitude in the meaning of words.[1] One such scholar was Karl Ludwig Schmidt (1891–1956); another, Adolf Deissmann (1866—1937). Unfortunately, Sellers did not always have collaborators to catch his rare, all-too-human failure to keep his references straight. I know what it’s like to be corrected because of that lack.

Karl Ludwig Schmidt

Schmidt gave Sellers qualified (certainly unintended) support for his own view:

The man Moses [Sellers writes] had a position out of God. He was ekklēsia, an out-called man. He was Israel’s Chief Executive, Supreme Judge, and Lawgiver. But let no one choke on the idea of one man being out-called of God. This is one truth that all must learn. As Karl Ludwig Schmidt, the renowned Greek scholar, puts it:

To put the matter in a nutshell: a single individual could be—would have to be—the ekklēsia if he has communion with Christ.[2]

A German theologian and professor of New Testament studies at the University of Basel (1935–1953),[3] Schmidt made this statement in “The Church” (Die Kirche), written for the third volume of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), edited by Gerhard Kittel. Sellers concluded his brief study with a statement he attributes, erroneously, to Schmidt:

. . . ἐκκλησίᾳ (ekklēsia) cannot be translated, it must be taken over.

My doubts about Sellers’s source for this pithy conclusion, expressed in my forthcoming book (as it went to press beyond cost-free emendation), only grew. In the book, I note both that Sellers (a) asserted that they are Schmidt’s words and (b) did not cite his source. Further research revealed that Sellers unintentionally melded what he had gotten from Schmidt with something that the older NT scholar, Adolf Deissmann, had asserted.[4]

Barking up the Schmidt tree in vain, I failed to find the words Sellers had attributed to him. For a while, I thought they might be from Schmidt’s article “The Church” in Theology Today (TT),[5] but to that journal I had and have no institutional access. My friend, Dave Lull, a retired public librarian, graciously alerted me to the Wayback Machine’s facsimile of this article.[6]

Again, to be clear, Sellers was not citing Schmidt in support of Sellers’s ecclesiology so much as enlisting him as an unexpected witness to the truth that careful attention to the Greek term ἐκκλησία is indispensable for getting at the truth that God intended to convey by breathing that word into various NT writings. I speculated that the elusive reference was the TDNT entry, but I see that’s only partially true. In the footnote on page 39 of the TT article, we read:

This is a shortened version of the article on ἐκκλησία in Kittel’s Theologisches Worterbüch zum Neuen Testament.[7]

But neither version has the words highlighted in this article’s title. Sellers ends “More about Ekklēsia,Seed & Bread No. 141, with two quotations, asserting that both came from Schmidt’s pen. In fact, only one of them did.

Worthy of note here [Sellers wrote] are two remarks by Karl Ludwig Schmidt: “Ekklesia cannot be translated, it must be taken over.” “It is desirable to establish the exact meaning of ekklesia, because this is a point at which linguistic accuracy makes a real contribution to Biblical theology.”

Now, we can find the second one on page 8 of the Adam and Charles Black version of “The Church”: the words are Schmidt’s.[8]

And then my friend, whom some justifiably hail as the Argonaut of the Internet[9], hit paydirt: the phrase Sellers thought noteworthy comes not from Schmidt, but from Deissmann. That is, Dave Lull located[10] the text of Deissmann’s Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament.[11] On page 114, he found:

. . . Here we have [Deissmann writes] a truly classical example (classical in its age and in its origin) of the instinctive feeling of Latin speakers of the West, which afterwards showed itself among the Western Christians: ἐκκλησία cannot be translated; it must be taken over.

The word which thus penetrated into the West is one of the indelible marks of the origin of Christianity. Just as the words amen, abba, etc. are the Semitic birthmarks, so the word ecclesia (and many others besides) points for all time to the fact that the beginnings of Christianity must be sought also in the Greek East. [Emphasis added.—A.G.F.]

Adolf Deissmann

Here’s a JPG of the whole page under examination, again courtesy of Dave Lull:

Schmidt operated his form-critical hermeneutic within the modern historical-critical tradition, whose assumptions, alien to Otis Q. Sellers, bracketed or marginalized the supernatural, even if Schmidt framed his work mainly in literary and historical terms rather than in explicitly philosophical ones.

Deissmann’s linguistic scholarship, when not reflecting his broader assumptions, remains valuable. He worked within the historical-critical tradition, but we can, with  Sellers and others, appropriate his contributions to Greek lexicography and papyrology without adopting the hermeneutical framework characteristic of that tradition.

I believe that is how Sellers appropriated Deissmann’s scholarship even if, at least in this instance, he failed to acknowledge that debt. Sellers “took over” ἐκκλησίᾳ (ekklēsia) to clarify his distinctive understanding of the present dispensation of grace in which only Christ is ἐκκλησία and out of Whom no one today has a position.[12]

Notes

[1] According to their implicit subscription to modernism, the speech situation that holds between God and man as depicted in of the Bible is insurmountably problematic, even for God.

[2] Otis Q. Sellers, “What does Ekklēsia mean?,” Seed & Bread, No. 97. (Undated, but late 1970s.)

[3] A professor of New Testament Studies (1929—1933) in Bonn, Schmidt was dismissed from his position in September 1933 by the Nazi regime due to his resistance to “the Aryan paragraph” (der Arierparagraph), a regulation that barred Jews and those of Jewish descent from holding civil service, academic, or ecclesiastical positions.

[4] Schmidt and Deissmann were colleagues, the former having earned his doctorate under the latter at the University of Marburg in 1913 and later serving as Deissmann’s assistant at the University of Berlin. Following his dissertation on Mark, Schmidt dedicated his 1919 Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (“The Framework of the Story of Jesus”) to Deissmann, “with grateful respect.” Schmidt later organized the Festgabe für Adolf Deissmann zum 60. Geburtstag, which was published in 1926.

[5] Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “The Church,” Theology Today, 1952;9(1):39–54.

[6] https://archive.org/details/sim_theology-today_1952-04_9_1/page/42/mode/2up?q=schmidt

[7] Translation by J. R. Coates, full text published in Bible Key Words, Harper and Brothers, 1951.

[8] This link takes one to the Wayback Machine’s facsimile of the article.

[9] Patrick Kurp, “Happy Birthday, Dave,” Anecdotal Evidence, November 2, 2008. https://evidenceanecdotal.blogspot.com/2008/11/happy-birthday-dave.html

[10] https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100159554

[11] Trans. Lionel R.M. Strachan, New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1911; 2nd ed.; also found in the first edition published in 1910 (London, Hodder & Stoughton).

[12] Sellers held that Jesus Christ—the manifold wisdom of God (διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἡ πολυποίκιλος σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ; dia tēs ekklēsias hē polupoikilos sophia tou Theou) (Ephesians 3:10), whose position or name is out of God—is the preeminent out-called one.

Worldview “versus” Inquiry?

William F. Vallicella, PhD

[Also on Substack] Recently, my philosophy sparring partner and friend, William F. Vallicella, PhD, gave me an excuse to clear up a misunderstanding to which academic philosophers are susceptible, one that systematically impedes understanding what I’m up to in Philosophy after Christ. At first, it may strike one as a “chicken-or-egg” dilemma: Which comes first? Argument? Or worldview? Is asking one’s interlocutor for his worldview a forensic dodge?

The serious thinker is self-critical [Bill writes]: his examination of life, without which his life is not worth living, is a self-examination, even unto a painful thinking against himself. . . . He is not an apologist for a ready-made worldview. He toes no party line. His watchword is ‘inquiry,’ not ‘worldview.’ He would have a worldview if he could, but he must inquire to find one.[1]

By nature, however, Bill cannot help but have a worldview, which is not a proposition or a series of propositions arranged syllogistically. A worldview is the view of God, man, and the cosmos that one brings, self-consciously or not, to a proposition. He can, if he is epistemologically self-conscious, “trade” it up or down for another. What is not available to anyone “above the age of reason,” however, is a worldview-free existence. One’s worldview can be rendered in propositions that are then criticized, modified, or reinforced, but it is not equivalent to them. It is the way one views or gazes upon the world.

It is good to recall that the German word for “worldview” is Weltanschauung, a calque of the Greek kosmotheoria. A worldview is a network of first truths that constitute our pretheoretical propensity to see (theoria) the world (kosmos), which includes God, mankind, and nature. The Greek theoreō (θεωρέω) means to look at; gaze; spectate; form a picture. “Theory” comes from the noun for “spectacle” and the verb “to behold,” theaomai (θεάομαι), from which we get “theater.” A theoros is a spectator. “When all the people who had gathered to witness this spectacle (θεωρίαν, theōrian) saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away” (Luke 23:48). “He [Jesus] beholds (θεωρεῖ) a commotion with people crying and wailing loudly” (Mark 5:38).

As it pertains to the ontology of epistemology—its existence and the conditions of our theorizing about knowledge—worldview precedes the latter: it comes first. It is “under the floorboards” of any framing of the problem of epistemology.[2] Therefore, I’m not going to argue for the primacy of worldview but rather disclose it by indulging in the guilty pleasure of self-quotation. You may have a better way of expressing my insight, but here is how I tried to do it in my book, to whose pages parenthetical numbers refer. Bill says the “watchword is [or should be] ‘inquiry.’”

I beg to differ: Continue reading “Worldview “versus” Inquiry?”

The Premillennial Kingdom: Sellers’s 1950 Summary of His Most Distinctive “Distinctive”

In yesterday’s post, I mentioned Otis Q. Sellers’s discovery of the Premillennial Kingdom:

Otis Q. Sellers (1901-1992) … was testing his discovery of the premillennial Kingdom of God. He announced this in The Word of Truth, Volumes XI, 1949-1950 under the series entitled “The Order of Things to Come.” He’d develop this idea during the 1950s, but [after working on the idea for five years, that is, since 1945] he was ready to present it publicly in that volume’s fifth issue, dated January 1950 and therefore written probably during the last weeks of 1949.

Here is his summary of the multipart series, with key sentences emboldened:

The Premillennial Kingdom of Heaven

The title of this study will seem to be discordant to many. We have been so prone to think of the millennium as being the kingdom of heaven that the thought of a premillennial kingdom will seem like a contradiction in terms. Nevertheless, this title has been chosen with great care as it expresses accurately the truth I desire to declare that there will be an aspect or phase of the kingdom of heaven that will precede the millennial form of the kingdom.

This may not appear to be a new idea to some, since many dispensational fundamentalists hold that there is in existence today “the kingdom of heaven in its mystery form” and that this is “Christendom.” I do not agree with this, for it is impossible for me to believe that there is anything on earth today that can honestly be called the kingdom of the heavens. To say that “Christendom” is the kingdom of the heavens, as many do, is to call evil good, to put darkness for light, to put bitter for sweet (Isaiah 5:20).

It is my conviction that God for 1,900 years has been engaged in a great demonstration of grace, and that during this time He has dispensed nothing but grace. His purpose in this is to demonstrate and establish the graciousness of His character. I believe that when this purpose is completed to His satisfaction, great and marvelous changes will take place, and men will be living under vastly different conditions than what they are today. The following is to be expected when God’s present purpose is complete.

(1) The salvation of God returns to Israel, thus reversing the declaration of Acts 28:28;

(2) Israel is received by God as a nation, and they become Ammi or “My People” once again;

(3) this brings about such a radical change in the world (the order or system in which and under which men live) that it is described as “life from the dead” (Rom. 11:15);

(4) God ceases His policy of dispensing nothing but grace and begins a work wherein light is predominantly dispensed to mankind;

(5) mankind is enlightened concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment, and each man will be responsible and accountable under this light (John 16:7-11);

(6) this, in time, will result in the earth being purged of disobedient men and the sons of the kingdom being established in the earth. The details concerning this will be found in the study that follows.

Ever since I was led to dedicate my meager talents to the work of perpetual and progressive Bible study, I have labored unceasingly to uncover, recover, or discover the truth that God has placed within His Word.

I consider this truth of the premillennial kingdom of the heavens to be the most transcendent that it has been my privilege to uncover and declare. It is a truth that is needed for the times in which we live.

It is a message of joy and hope in a time of almost universal sorrow, discouragement, and despair. To my great God, I offer humble praise for the grace that has made possible the uncovering of this glorious truth.

The conclusions set forth in this study have been developed over a period of five years. My studies in this subject are by no means complete, and the presentation here is partial. The things set forth here will be enlarged and clarified in future studies.

If anything in this study contradicts or clashes with anything I have said before, then this must be considered as my latest light.

Otis Q. Sellers, The Word of Truth, Vol. 11, No. 5, January 1950, 97-98.

PDFs of the text of every issue are available for free download on the website of the Word of Truth Ministry.

“1949: What were my influencers doing?” Republished especially for the friends I’ve made since 2020.

In only six years, this post already reads like a time capsule. It’s sprinkled with tidbits that friends I’ve made since 2020 might be interested in. For this and other reasons, it deserves another airing. I’ve deleted only the closing section that lists posts to be reincarnated in my Christian Individualism: The Maverick Biblical Workmanship of Otis Q. Sellers.—A.G.F.

Last December 15th [i.e., 2029], in Birdland, 1949-1965: Hard Bop Mecca, I marked the 70th anniversary of the opening of that legendary Jazz club on Manhattan’s Broadway off 52nd Street. Over the weekend, I wondered what else was going on that year, but not the trivia one can learn from Wikipedia, such as:

    • President Harry S. Truman’s inauguration in January
    • Astronomer Fred Hoyle’s coining of “big bang” (a term of disparagement) in March
    • Hamlet’s Best Picture Oscar win later that month
    • The opening of Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman in February at the Morosco (six blocks south of Birdland’s near-future site)
    • The Soviet Union’s successful A-bomb test in August and Truman’s sharing that news a month later
    • Twin Communist victories: the proclamation of the People’s Republic of China on the first of October and of the German Democratic Republic a week later.

World War Two was in the rearview mirror. but the Cold War with its threat of mutually assured nuclear destruction was straight ahead.

No, I was remembering what writers who influenced me over the past fifty years were doing in 1949. Most of the embedded links below will take you to posts that elaborate upon that influence.

Herbert Aptheker, 1915-2003

In 1949 Communist Herbert Aptheker, a 34-year-old World War II veteran and a Columbia University Ph.D. (and my future comrade, friend, and employer), was compiling material for his A Documentary History of the Negro People in the United States, whose first volume came out in 1951. (The series would grow to seven.) In April, Aptheker received W. E. B. Du Bois’s letter in reply to Aptheker’s request that he testify for the defense at the Foley Square trial of Communist Party leaders. The trial had begun in January; Aptheker himself testified on August 19th.[1]

Anthony Flood, “Herbert Aptheker: Studies in Willful Blindness” (2019). Buy on Amazon.

Du Bois’s letter shows the address from which he sent it: 23 West 26th Street in Manhattan, originally a John Jacob Astor townhouse, built in 1881. In 1924 Astor’s son Vincent “sold the building for $30,000 to Frederick Vanderbilt Field [1905-2000]”—yes, those Vanderbilts—“a Communist who wrote for the Daily Worker published by Political Affairs Publishers, Inc.”[2]

Alphaeus Hunton on his release from prison 1951; Dorothy Hunton; Paul Robeson; W. E. B. Du Bois

The New York State Communist Party expressed interest in buying the building from Field in 1957. This was six years before Du Bois joined the Party. In 1949, however, Du Bois, Paul Robeson, Alphaeus Hunton, and Max Yergen had been meeting there since 1942 as officers of the Council on African Affairs, a Field-funded operation. In 1950 Du Bois ran for U.S. Senate on the American Labor Party ticket (the New York incarnation of the national Progressive Party). Field’s 1983 autobiography, From Left to Right (New York: Lawrence Hill), is a good read.

C. L. R. James (1901-1989)

The month Birdland opened, C. L. R. James slammed Herbert Aptheker’s work in African-American history.[3] But Aptheker the Stalinist wouldn’t give James, the author of The Black Jacobins and Trotskyist scholar, the time of day, let alone answer his criticisms. Aptheker had more in common with James, a fellow Marxist-Leninist, than with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., whom Aptheker preferred to debate. Schlesinger, historian of American liberalism, sparred with Aptheker at Harvard University about the Cold War and “The Vital Center” (the title of Schlesinger’s just-published book).[4]

Genuine believers in free institutions must be anti-Communists, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. ‘38, associate professor of History, said last night at a John Reed Club debate which overflowed Emerson D.  Opposing Schlesinger in the discussion, entitled “The Center and the Left,” Herbert Aptheker, associate editor of Masses and Mainstream, charged that the “vital center” of which Schlesinger is a proponent, “only maintains what exists, namely monopoly capitalism.” He called for a unity among all non-conservatives “so that a war against Fascism and capitalism can and must be successful.”[5]

Left totalitarians love to smear their opponents as “fascists,” don’t they.

Murray Rothbard (1926-1995). This was taken in 1943.

Murray Rothbard’s first publication, a review of A Mencken Chrestomathy, appeared in Analysis, August 1949.[6] The author, who became my friend when he was 58, was then all of 23. Earlier that year he heard Ludwig von Mises was going to lead a seminar at New York University in the fall. Murray was already a defender of free markets, but not yet a Misesian. Human Action, the expansion and translation of Mises’s Nationalökonomie, was published that October, intellectually converted the young  man.

I was scarcely familiar with Mises’s name, outside of the usual distorted story of the socialist calculation debate, and was therefore surprised to learn in the spring of 1949 that Mises was going to begin a regular seminar at NYU [New York University]. I was also told that Mises was going to publish a magnum opus in the fall. “Oh,” I asked, “what’s the book about?” “About everything,” they replied. Human Action was indeed about everything. The book was a revelation to those of us drenched in modern economics; it solved all problems and inconsistencies that I had sensed in economic theory, and it provided an entirely new and superb structure of correct economic methodology and theory. Furthermore, it provided eager libertarians with a policy of uncompromising laissez-faire; in contrast to all other free market economists of that day or later, there were no escape hatches, no giving the case away with “of course, the government must break up monopolies,” or “of course, the government must provide and regulate the money supply.”[7]

Sidney Hook (1902-1989) and John Dewey (1859-1952), 1949.

In February of 1949 the New York Times published “Should Communists be permitted to teach?” by Aptheker’s nemesis (and future NYU philosophy professor of mine), Sidney Hook, whose writings served as a halfway house for me as I broke with Stalinism in the mid-‘70s. (A few years ago, I applied Hook’s principles in “Is Herbert Aptheker a Historian? Can a communist tell the truth?”), now the fourth chapter of my Herbert Aptheker: Studies in Willful Blindness.)

Anti-Communist demonstrators outside the Waldorf Astoria, March 25, 1949

In March 1949, Hook and other anticommunist academics and cultural figures protested the Communist front operation that the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which met at the Waldorf Astoria in 1949 and 1950, revealed itself to be.[8] That year Hook also penned, among many other articles and reviews, a tribute to his mentor, John Dewey.[9]

Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984). This was taken in the 1940s.
Brand Blanshard (1892-1987). This was taken at Swarthmore College in 1941, two years after The Nature of Thought was published.

In 1949 Bernard Lonergan, S.J., whose magnum opus I used to extricate myself from the rationalism of Brand Blanshard’s The Nature of Thought, began to present to small groups papers that would eventually become Insight, his “essay in aid self-appropriation” published in 1953. That year also saw the publication of the fourth and fifth installments in his series, “The Concept of Verbum in the Writings of St. Thomas Aquinas” in Theological Studies.[10] In 1983, when he was convalescing at the Campion Center (a Jesuit infirmary in Weston, Massachusetts), I spoke with him about Austrian economists. “Well, they’re deductivists. And you know what I think of deductivists.”

Susanne K. Langer (1895-1985). Fortune Magazine, March 1945

Lonergan was impressed with Susanne K. Langer’s Feeling and Form enough to cite it a couple of times in Insight. That’s how I learned of her work, and around 2008 I finally got around to marking up her Philosophy in a New Key: a Study in the Symbolism of Reason Rite and Art. For the first time, the arts were for me not just enjoyable, but also intelligible. First published in 1942, a mass market paperback edition hit the stands in 1949.

What could Langer, a materialist (or naturalist) in all but name, offer Lonergan a Transcendental Thomist? Monsignor Richard M. Liddy, who wrote his dissertation on Langer after studying under Lonergan in Rome, supplied an answer in “What Bernard Lonergan Learned from Susanne K. Langer.”[11]

Eric Voegelin (1901-1985). Early 1930s.

In 1949 Eric Voegelin, another profound influence with whom I had a chance to speak (also in 1983, my annus mirabilis), published a paper on Plato’s Gorgias.[12] The publication of the first volume of his Order and History still lay seven years in the future.

Will Durant (1885-1981), Ariel Durant (1889-1981). This was taken in 1948.

In 1949 Will Durant was struggling to finish the fourth volume of The Story of Civilization. The Age of Faith, a five-year project, was taking six. From its inception, Ariel, Mrs. Durant, had been a partner in this enterprise; her name joined his on the covers of the series beginning with the seventh volume, The Age of Reason Begins.

M. Stanton Evans (1934-2015)

A teenaged Medford Stanton Evans, a future conservative thought leader and author of, among many other writings, the myth-shattering Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight against America’s Enemies, realized he was a man of the Right in 1949 after reading George Orwell’s 1984. “It was about communism . . . I said: ‘Well, I’m against communism. What am I for?’” As for becoming a writer, “No, it never crossed my mind. I did not even think in that day and age about becoming a writer of any type. If I’d had my druthers in 1949, I would have played left field for the Brooklyn Dodgers.”

 

Otis Q. Sellers (1901-1992). This was taken in 1921, the year he attended Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.

Otis Q. Sellers (1901-1992), an early influence, but one from whom I walked away to chase my intellectual lusts and to whom I’ve returned as a prodigal son, was testing his discovery of the premillennial Kingdom of God. He announced this in The Word of Truth, Volumes XI, 1949-1950 under the series entitled “The Order of Things to Come.” He’d develop this idea during the 1950s, but he was ready to present it publicly in that volume’s fifth issue, dated January 1950 and therefore written probably during the last weeks of 1949. Here’s a passage:

 

Many there are who believe that the next great event of prophecy is the rapture or catching away of all living believers, followed by the resurrection of the dead in Christ, this to be followed by the great tribulation upon the earth, the second coming of Christ, the millennial kingdom, then the new heavens and the new earth. This, in brief, is the position held by most dispensational fundamentalists, a position which we have often designated in these pages as the Darby-Scofield system of prophetic interpretation. However, it is my conviction that this system has failed to recognize those prophecies which reveal an aspect of the kingdom of heavens which precedes the millennial kingdom, and, therefore, precedes the second coming of Christ. This I call the premillennial kingdom of the heavens since it precedes the millennial kingdom.

I continue to appreciate the intellectual delights afforded by the scholars named above, especially those who, like Blanshard, had a literary gift. Compared to the joy of grasping Sellers’s insights into God’s Word, however, and reflecting upon the industry and integrity which he brought to his pursuit of that pearl of great price, those erstwhile pleasures pale. I no longer long for the fleshpots of academia.

Notes

[1] Here’s the letter.  For a discussion of the trial, see Gary Murrell, “The Most Dangerous Communist in the United States”: A Biography of Herbert Aptheker, UMass Press, 2015, 76-77.

[2] “The Astor Offices at Nos. 21 and 23 West 26th Street,” The Daytonian, August 4, 2012.

[3] C. L. R. James [“J. Meyer”], “Herbert Aptheker’s Distortions,” Fourth International, Vol. 10, No. 11, December 1949. But see also C. L. R. James [“J. Meyer”], “Stalinism and Negro History,” Fourth International, Vol. 10, No. 10, November 1949.

[4] As Schlesinger recalled the event: “The ever reliable Herbert Aptheker denounced ‘The Schlesinger Fraud’ in the Communist monthly Masses & Mainstream as a program groomed to the needs of a ruling class seeking war and fascism.’ In 1949 Aptheker and I held a debate. Neither of us persuaded the other of anything.” A Life in the Twentieth Century: Innocent Beginnings, 1917-1950, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2000, 519. The Aptheker article had appeared in the October 1949 issue of Masses & Mainstream and reprinted in a collection of Aptheker’s essays entitled The Era of McCarthyism, New York: Marzani & Munsell, 1955, 115-129.

[5] “Aptheker clashes with Schlesinger,” The Harvard Crimson, December 3, 1949. For discussion, see Murrell, 82-84.

[6] For Rothbard’s appreciation of analysis’s founder Frank Chodorov who gave Murray’s “fledgling work” a platform, see “Frank Chodorov, R. I. P.,” Left & Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought, 1967; republished here. For Rothbard’s mature celebration of Mencken, see “H.L. Mencken: The Joyous Libertarian,” New Individualist Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, Summer 1962, pp. 15–27; republished here.

[7] Murray N. Rothbard, The Essential von Mises, Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute at Auburn University, 108. The link will take you to an expanded edition of an essay Rothbard wrote in 1973.

[8] Here’s the CIA’s overview: Origins of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, 1949-50. For the impact of this “peace conference” on a cultural giant caught in the political crossfire, see Terry Klefstad, “Shostakovich and the Peace Conference,” Music and Politics, Vol. 6, No. 2, Summer 2012, 1-21; and Phillip Deery, “Shostakovich, the Waldorf Conference and the Cold War,” American Communist History, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012, 161-180.

[9] Sidney Hook, “John Dewey at Ninety: The Man and His Philosophy,” The New Leader, October 22, 1949, S-3, S-8.

[10] The series was compiled into a book, edited by David B. Burrell, C.S.C.: Verbum: Word and Idea in Aquinas, University of Notre Dame Press, 1967.

[11] Lonergan Workshop, Vol. 11, 1995, 53-90. I posted the text of this article on my older site. It’s a good introduction to both thinkers.

[12] Eric Voegelin, “The Philosophy of Existence: Plato’s Gorgias,” The Review of Politics, Vol. 11, No. 4, October 1949, 477-498.

[13] Video and transcript of “The Theme is Freedom: Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition,” Booknotes (C-SPAN) interview of M. Stanton Evans, February 5, 1995.

[14] “The Premillennial Kin

Christian Individualism and Dialectic, Part 5: It Was Time for a Reset

[Also on Substack]

It’s been a while.

After rereading Part 4, however, I realized I’ve been talking more to myself than to you. I needed to step back. With this reset, my tonedeafness ends. At least, that’s my hope.

Some of you get what I’m doing; for others, though, it’s not “landing.” I’m serving up ideas I’ve worked on for decades, but they’re not connecting. So, I’m going to encapsulate what I’m up to here, but without dreaming out loud.

My citing of sources moved too quickly, inconsiderately so, from Dialectic to Foundations. In expounding my understanding of Bernard Lonergan’s Method in Theology, I was answering questions none of you were asking. Remember how I began Part 4?

It’s a challenge to write about dialectic without engaging in it, that is, without evaluating examples of dialectic from one’s position. It’s a challenge because dialectic presupposes experiences or documents that one has interpreted and historically contextualized, and the ability to engage in such activities varies from person to person.

But then I proceeded cluelessly, oblivious to the difficulty I had just described. I soon found myself in the predicament of the centipede who couldn’t walk because he was too busy counting his feet.

So, on what foundation did I resolve to survey dialectical strife and derive my positions (or doctrines)?

Scripture. All of Scripture and only Scripture is not only necessary but is also sufficient for Christians living in the present Dispensation of Grace, that is, in the time since the end of the Apostolic age marked by Acts 28:28. Scripture alone is the source of apostolic teaching.[1] Continue reading “Christian Individualism and Dialectic, Part 5: It Was Time for a Reset”

“You’ll never regret it!” Gus Hall welcomes me into the Party.

[A shorter version of this was published two years ago under the title “The anniversary of a foolish decision.”]

Yours truly, freshly minted young Communist and Xavier Military Institute (High School) senior, 1971

Fifty-five years ago today, on a muggy Tuesday evening, I arrived at 23 West 26th Street, Manhattan. The Communist Party USA was headquartered there, and I was about to be enlisted in its ranks.

Decades later, I learned that in the 1940s, members of the Council on African Affairs, including W. E. B. Du Bois (chairman), Paul Robeson (vice-chairman), and Alphaeus Hunton (educational director), met there to further the cause of Pan-Africanism. Ironically, out of the offices of that edifice and its neighbor, Number 21, built in 1881, the real estate empire spawned by John Jacob Astor (1763-1848) conducted its business.

The diary entry of Xavier High School student and research assistant to Herbert Aptheker for May 25, 1971, reads:

Got over to 23 West 26th Street [headquarters of the Communist Party USA] about 6:45 [P.M.]. Whatta nice place! The meeting was on the third floor, where pictures of famous comrades and covers of magazines and pamphlets were displayed. Gus [Hall, 1910-2000, General Secretary of the Party] answered questions very well. He described how the Party operates from top to bottom, about international relations. My questions concerned the time a college student needs to be an active member and about the 2 vouchers + age stipulations [minimum age, 18]. Rasheed [Storey, 1936-2016] and Gus were the vouchers and I was let in even though I[’m] still 17!!!! I really feel like a complete person. As Gus said to me, I’ll never regret it.

The former lumberjack and steel worker congratulated me with a handshake that risked rendering useless my guitar-pick-holding fingers.

I really have commitment and the enthusiasm and the vision. I’m proud of the Party. I want to make the Party proud of me. [See also Anthony Flood, “Herbert Aptheker: Apothecary for a Red Teenager,” October 25, 2018.]

The building where my formal turning to the political dark side occurred has a storied past. (See “The Astor Offices at Nos. 21 and 23 West 26th Street,” The Daytonian, Saturday, August 4, 2012.) John Jacob Astor IV (1864–1912) was a passenger on the Titanic. His son, Vincent (1891-1959), “commissioned the architectural firm Peabody, Wilson & Brown to give No. 23 a neo-Federal facelift in 1922. Only two years later he sold the building for $30,000 to Frederick Vanderbilt Field (1905-2000), a Communist who wrote for the Daily Worker ….”

Thirty-thousand dollars, a century ago. That wouldn’t buy you a bathroom in Manhattan today. And, yes, a Vanderbilt. One of the most intriguing and revealing autobiographies I’ve ever read was his From Right to Left (Lawrence Hill Books, 1983).

May Day flashbacks: Memories of a Communist and working-class leader
Same year, 1971: Gus Hall, in hat (above “MU”), marching on Fifth Avenue in New York City [People’s World Archives]. I believe the bespectacled gent to Hall’s right is Arnold Johnson (1904-1989); James E. Jackson (1914-2007) is the second person to Hall’s left.
On June 9th, two weeks after my induction, I attended Xavier High School’s graduation ceremony at Hunter College (Lexington Avenue and 68th Street). My diary records my regret at missing a talk by James E. Jackson (1914-2007) at the Center for Marxist Education, located at 29 West 15th Street. That building, now a co-op, abuts a 21st-century extension of my pre-Civil War alma mater.

Midday on September 18, 1974, I met fellow Aptheker research assistant (and non-communist Civil Rights Movement historian) Hugh Murray for lunch; at six, I’d meet my then-closest comrade and friend, Kurt Stand, who would be convicted of spying for East Germany in 1998, “to discuss a great decision I feel I must make once and for all.”

On September 23rd, internally still a Stalinist, I entrusted my resignation letter, addressed to the comrade who chaired the meetings, to the doorman of her building located at the southwest corner of Seventh Avenue and 14th Street. “Now I can relax and decide more clearly what I’m going to do with my life.”

To resign was a wiser decision than the one it negated, but it could not reverse the latter’s effects.

Christian Individualism and Dialectic, Part 4: Bias, the Infirmity We Cannot Help But Bring to Dialectic

Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984), late ‘40s/early ‘50s

[Also on Substack. See Part 1, Part 2, Part 3]

It’s a challenge to write about dialectic without engaging in it, that is, without evaluating examples of dialectic from one’s position. It’s a challenge because dialectic presupposes experiences or documents that one has interpreted and historically contextualized, and the ability to engage in such activities varies from person to person.

In every dialectical exchange, the opponents have achieved a certain level of personal development, a level they cannot improve “on the spot.” That is, awareness of truth-inhibiting biases, like the ability to evaluate experiences or documents, is person-variable. One goal in a dialectical exchange is to bring those biases to light, to expose not only the gnat in the interlocutor’s eye, but also the camels clogging one’s own esophagus. (Matthew 23:24) Not everyone welcomes such exposure. Continue reading “Christian Individualism and Dialectic, Part 4: Bias, the Infirmity We Cannot Help But Bring to Dialectic”

Christian Individualism and Dialectic, Part 3: The Task Rendered Manageable (with more than a little help from Bernard Lonergan)

[Also on Substack. See Part 1, Part 2]

I was not always dispensationally conscious, or even worldview-conscious. Becoming so required me to reorient and regiment my thinking, to trade in (or up) the pretension of human autonomy in philosophy for “heteronomy,” the “hetero” ( “other”) being God as He is revealed in Scripture.

Dialectic (from διαλέγειν, dialegein; “to speak across”) is a situation before it is an approach to it.

If positions are both topically related and opposed to each other, then they imply a dialectic. The position-holders need not be aware of this. Each side is presumed to be oriented toward truth, however imperfectly, even if they sinfully suppress and distort the truth (which, of course, depends on some grasp of the truth).

What I call the “metaproblem” of dialectic is a problem insofar as ignoring this fact of life hampers the opposed sides in their efforts to resolve their disputes. That is, it’s not a first-order problem, one they set out to tackle. It’s a second-order problem that “comes with the territory” of being human this side of the Kingdom. Continue reading “Christian Individualism and Dialectic, Part 3: The Task Rendered Manageable (with more than a little help from Bernard Lonergan)”

Dispensationalism, Diversity, Dialectic, Part 2

[Also on Substack. See Part 1]

I was not always dispensationally conscious, or even worldview-conscious. Becoming so required me to reorient and regiment my thinking, to trade in (or up) the pretension of human autonomy in philosophy for “heteronomy,” the “hetero” ( “other”) being God as He is revealed in Scripture.

Dispensationalism helps me situate myself not only historically between divine administrations (i.e., between the charismatic dispensation of which the Book of Acts is the history and God’s future manifest Kingdom on earth), but also dialectically among fellow believers who see things very differently. We must stake out our positions knowing that others will contradict them, ever asking ourselves, “What could be said against what I believe?”

According to my interpretation of Scripture, which I summarize tendentiously hereunder (but have defended in many posts on this site), Christian believers who have lived since the time marked by Acts 28:28 occupy the “parenthesis” between the “ear” stage of the Kingdom and its “full grain in the ear” stage (Mark 4:26-29), a regnum interruptum, if you will.

Bernard Lonergan thought that when we’re linked to each other by shared meaning, but opposed in our interpretations, our societies (families, churches, civil societies, parties) develop, not genetically, but dialectically. The goal of the dialectician, Lonergan writes, is neither to prove nor refute but rather Continue reading “Dispensationalism, Diversity, Dialectic, Part 2”

Is Green the new Red? Why on Earth does Earth Day fall on Lenin’s birthday?

[Slightly updated, this was first published here two years ago.]

Fifty-six years ago this afternoon, classes being over, I trekked two blocks east from Xavier High School along 16th Street to Union Square Park, where I’d take the No. 6 subway to the Bronx. To my astonishment, the park was jam-packed with people. Thousands of them, in the middle of the day. It had the vibe of an anti-war demo. It was replicated elsewhere in Manhattan and in many other cities around the country, all too familiar to us today in its size and planning.

“What’s this?,” I muttered. “Earth Day?  You gotta be kidding me!”

A newly minted Stalinist (and Jesuit high school student), I knew that that day marked the centennial of the birth of Vladimir Illych Ulanov, known to history as Lenin. Continue reading “Is Green the new Red? Why on Earth does Earth Day fall on Lenin’s birthday?”