John Rose, an Associate Editor at First Things, reports on Philiip Jenkins delivering the annual Erasmus Lecture at the Union League Club in Manhattan. Jenkins apparently touched one of the issues raised in Pope Benedict's Regensburg speech: the relationship between Christianity and  Hellenistic culture.  Those who have read the speech know that the Pope asserted a strong link between the two.  Here are Rose's observations:

But to look at the picture Jenkins painted of the future Churchon average, non-European and un-Hellenizedis to call into question the universality of Romes marriage. If, a century from now, Africa and a freer China are the scholastic centers of Christianity, with folklore and Mencius taking the place of Aristotle, what then are we in the West left to conclude about the synthesis of faith and reason described by Pope Benedict at Regensburg?

A friend sends this along on the subject: The sun of grace has shone on our part of the world, and we [Western Christians] must be grateful, avoiding all arguments about how Socrates was more critically rational than Confucius. Had Christ been born, per impossible, on the Yangtze, or had Muslim arms conquered Europe, which was all too possible, the face of Christianity would doubtless look different today.

That said, at what point does different become other? Is a creedal Church that goes behind Nicea or Chalcedon, as was asked at our meeting, still Christian? Certainly Christians living before the councils must be considered orthodox.

Personally, I think I need to do some more thinking on this.  How about the rest of you?