Over the past few days I attended two public lectures at Oklahoma universities. Thursday, Oklahoma Christian University hosted the first lecture in a MOTB-sponsored series about the influence of the Bible on American presidents. The lecturer, Dr. Ted Steinbock, spoke about George Washington’s relation to Christianity and the Bible—a topic that has been discussed among scholars of American history for years. Washington has been said to be a Christian, a deist, an atheist—and probably everything in between. Dr. Steinbock did not come up with a new conclusion or theory. His lecture was mainly about showing evidence that should be considered in the debate and that suggests Washington’s closeness to the Christian tradition.
Firstly, Washington seems to have gone to church regularly. He was a warden in the Anglican church, but also regularly attended services of other Christian denominations. In his speeches and writings, Washington made extensive use of biblical imagery and set his political goals in relation to divine will. When he directly spoke about “God,” however, he rarely chose explicitly biblical terminology. Dr. Steinbock presented an interesting chart that arranged the terms Washington used according to their frequency. As it turned out, his favorite words—by far—were providence and deity. Terms like “Christ” also appeared, but only infrequently.
This “vague” terminology seemingly points towards a theistic or deistic position, and some of Washington’s contemporaries apparently also doubted the “orthodoxy” of his beliefs. His affiliations with different churches and use of biblical imagery and terms, however, makes clear that he identified himself with the Christian tradition. Yet, we cannot distinguish in how far Washington’s actions were determined by political goals, mediated through his cultural environment, or actually reflected his beliefs. Although Dr. Steinbock put much emphasis on Washington’s closeness to Christianity, I cannot follow the conclusion that he must have been an “orthodox” Christian on the basis of the evidence presented. Washington was clearly close to Christianity, but to what degree his beliefs may have tended towards a more general theistic/deistic stance cannot be definitely decided.
Thomas the Twin
On Monday, I went to another public lecture. At the University of Oklahoma, Dr. Charles M. Stang from Harvard spoke on the topic The Apostle Thomas and the Origins of Syrian Christianity. Unfortunately, I missed the first ten minutes of the lecture due to an unforeseen number of construction sites on my route. Dr. Stang’s lecture, however, was really worth hearing, although I am not entirely sure about all of his conclusions.
His main point was that in the earliest Eastern (especially Syrian) church, a “theology of twinning” (as he called it) may have been popular. During his lecture, he traced the roots of this concept back to the Gospel of John, in which the disciple Thomas is called “twin” (didymos). Since the Aramaic name tôma also means twin, Dr. Stang pointed out that Thomas might not be the actual name of the disciple, but rather a nickname.
Some early Christians seemingly had the same idea: at the beginning of the Gospel of Thomas, it is said that these words were written down by “Didymos Judas Thomas.” This can be read as an identification of the disciple nicknamed Thomas/Didymos with Judas, the brother of Jesus known from the synoptic gospels. This tradition continues in the Syriac Acts of Thomas. In this text, Dr. Stang argued, the early eastern “theology of twinning” becomes visible in the scene when Christ appears as Thomas’ divine twin. Coming from this passage, Stang explained that the core of the concept is the belief that everybody has a divine/transcendent counterpart (or “twin”). The legacy of this belief can be found later on one side of the Christological debates during the 5th century: Nestorius’ argument for a separate divine and human nature in Christ was influenced by the “theology of twinning” that arose out the Thomas motif, as Dr. Stang claimed.
At the moment, however, I cannot see how texts that have traces of a Thomas motif can provide enough evidence to argue for a whole “theology of twinning,” which later on became the basis of “Nestorian” Christology. In my understanding, early Christian “apocryphal” literature generally tends to use strange/enigmatic/unclear passages of NT writings as a “narrative hook” to create a story around them. The mentioning of the twin in John is exactly the type of passage that triggers people’s imaginations and acts as a starting point for more stories. Of course, the continuation of the motif could eventually have led to a specific theological belief. In order to see if there is sufficient evidence to make this claim, and if the thesis really contributes to understanding early Christianity, we might have to wait for Dr. Stang’s upcoming book on the subject titled Our Divine Double.
Food
Now for a more important topic: food. Without exaggeration, at least 70% of conversations here revolve around food.
Last Friday, Brian invited me to Old Germany Restaurant in Choctaw. It can hardly get more stereotypically German than this place. Upon entering, we were welcomed by an almost two-meter-tall Nussknacker (“nutcracker”). The waitresses were wearing dresses in the style of Bavarian dirndls, the whole interior was wooden, and the menu mainly featured schnitzel, different kinds of sausages, and lots of beer. I had a really good schnitzel with potato salad. It tasted quite authentic—unlike all the other attempts on German food I have come across so far in America. The only secret, however, that Americans will probably never crack is making good “German-style” bread.
The next day, Norm took me out for lunch at Cattlemen’s Steakhouse. Besides a delicious 12-ounce porterhouse steak for the main entree, we had “lamb fries” as appetizers. As Norm told me, “lamb fries” is the euphemistic term for battered and fried lamb/bull testicles. As unappetizing as this may sound, they were actually quite edible—very neutral on their own. I guess if you slice something very thin, fry it, and serve it with a spicy sauce, you can make anything taste acceptable. It makes you wonder what you might be getting at places like KFC.