A Small Bit of Humor From the Job Search

I was looking for jobs today and I came across something that made me laugh a little bit. I saw a posting for a "Spanish speaking pastor" and the mildly humorous part was that it was for a pentecostal church in California. My first thought was "huh? Don't Pentecostals believe in speaking in tongues anymore?"

I'm not intending to belittle Pentecostals or the gift of speaking in tongues. All I'm saying is that this job posting made me chuckle a little bit.

Ok, maybe it's only funny if you're a theology nerd like me... but I laughed. =)

Eccumenical Awesomeness!!!

His Eminence Bartholomew, ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, delivered the linked address to the synod of Catholic bishops at the Sistine Chapel on October 18, 2008. I love how the Catholics and Orthodox continue to dialogue about unification. Remember that they have been separated from each other since 1054 AD. (Some scholars debate the dating of this schism but we'll allow it to stand since it is fairly accepted.) This is very significant since it is, as Bishop Bartholomew states, "the first time in history that an Ecumenical Patriarch is offered the opportunity to address a Synod of the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, and thus be part of the life of this sister Church at such a high level."

It warms my heart that these two churches continue to seek unification after so many years and so many divergent issues. Let us continue to pray that one day all of the Christians may be unified under one banner.

Read the address here.

Thanks for Greg Sigountos who passed it along to me.


Some of my favorite quotes from the address:

We regard this as a manifestation of the work of the Holy Spirit leading our Churches to a closer and deeper relationship with each other, an important step towards the restoration of our full communion.

Mission and evangelization remain a permanent duty of the Church at all times and places; indeed they form part of the Church’s nature, since she is called “Apostolic” both in the sense of her faithfulness to the original teaching of the Apostles and in that of proclaiming the Word of God in every cultural context every time. The Church needs, therefore, to rediscover the Word of God in every generation and make it head with a renewed vigour and persuation also in our contemporary world, which deep in its heart thirsts for God’s message of peace, hope and charity.

This duty of evangelization would have been, of course, greatly enhanced and strengthened, if all Christians were in a position to perform it with one voice and as a fully united Church. In his prayer to the Father little before His passion our Lord has made it clear that the unity of the Church is unbreakably related with her mission “so that the world may believe” (John 17, 21)

For “hearing, beholding and handling the Word of life” (1 Jn 1.1) are not first and foremost our entitlement or birthright as human beings; they are our privilege and gift as children of the living God. The Christian Church is, above all, a scriptural Church. Although methods of interpretation may have varied from Church Father to Church Father, from “school” to “school,” and from East to West, nevertheless, Scripture was always received as a living reality and not a dead book.

In the context of a living faith, then, Scripture is the living testimony of a lived history about the relationship of a living God with a living people. The Word, “who spoke through the prophets” (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed), spoke in order to be heard and take effect. It is primarily an oral and direct communication intended for human beneficiaries. The scriptural text is, therefore, derivative and secondary; the scriptural text always serves the spoken word. It is not conveyed mechanically, but communicated from generation to generation as a living word.

The entire world is a prologue to the Gospel of John. And when the Church fails to recognize the broader, cosmic dimensions of God’s Word, narrowing its concerns to purely spiritual matters, then it neglects its mission to implore God for the transformation – always and everywhere, “in all places of His dominion” – of the whole polluted cosmos.

Within the life of the Church, the unfathomable self-emptying (kénosis) and generous sharing (koinonía) of the divine Logos is reflected in the lives of the saints as the tangible experience and human expression of God’s Word in our community.

And within the communion of saints, each of us is called to “become like fire” (Sayings of the Desert Fathers), to touch the world with the mystical force of God’s Word, so that – as the extended Body of Christ – the world, too, might say: “Someone touched me!” (cf. Mt 9.20) Evil is only eradicated by holiness, not by harshness. And holiness introduces into society a seed that heals and transforms. Imbued with the life of the sacraments and the purity of prayer, we are able to enter the innermost mystery of God’s Word.

When the world does not share the joy of Christ’s Resurrection, this is an indictment of our own integrity and commitment to the living Word of God.

As we struggle – in ourselves and in our world – to recognize the power of the Cross, we begin to appreciate how every act of justice, every spark of beauty, every word of truth can gradually wear away the crust of evil. However, beyond our own frail efforts, we have the assurance of the Spirit, who “helps us in our weakness” (Rom. 8.26) and stands beside us as advocate and “comforter” (Jn 14-6), penetrating all things and “transforming us – as St. Symeon the New Theologian says – into everything that the Word of God says about the heavenly kingdom: pearl, grain of mustard seed, leaven, water, fire, bread, life and mystical wedding chamber.” Such is the power and grace of the Holy Spirit...

Glory to God! Amen.

More thoughts on the Celebration of All Saints Day

As I continued to think about my previous post on All Saints Day and why I think Protestants need to celebrate it, I started thinking through possible resistance to this idea that I assume many low-church/fundamentalist Protestants would have. What I'm speaking about is not those who are merely ignorant of the Christian practice of All Saints Day, but those who would oppose it as irreligious, unchristian, Catholic, or for various other reasons.

One thought in particular that I had in regard to this and the current political fervor surrounding almost everyone right now was that many of these same Protestants who object to celebrating All Saints Day are some of the very same Christians who will be the first to remember the fallen who gave their lives for this country on Memorial Day and Independence Day.

On Memorial Day and Independence Day many Americans will proudly remember the long heritage of this Country. They will tell stories of the fallen who have show themselves to be heroic in face of the enemy. These same fallen men and women will be celebrated because it is on their dream and dedication that America now stands. In essence these two American holidays (holy days) are nothing more than despiritualized political versions of All Saints Day for our nation-state.

So to those Christians who strongly object to celebrating All Saints Day and yet proudly celebrate Memorial Day and Independence day I ask you where your citizenship lies. Are we Christians and then Americans or are we Americans and then Christians? How dare we celebrate the heritage of this nation and celebrate the lives and deaths of the fallen for this country and yet neglect heritage of the Church and those who have been killed for Christ by the governments of this world. How dare we seek to follow the example of those who fell for this country and yet allow the example of the Martyrs to be void from our churches? In my opinion it is indefensible for us to claim citizenship in heaven and yet act as though we are Americans first and Christians second.

Before I get labeled Anti-American let me say that I'm not arguing that we shouldn't celebrate Memorial Day and Independence Day as Christians, but I am arguing that those who call themselves Christians and chose to celebrate these holidays while refusing to celebrate All Saints Day show by their actions that they consider themselves citizens of the world first and citizens of heaven second.

To those who proclaim Christ while refusing to remember his Church, his martyrs, and the saints before us and yet celebrate this nation's heritage I challenge you to start celebrating the heritage of your true home (the people of God) or cease celebrating the rising of this nation. There is no other Christian option.

Nations and political causes rise and fall but those who lived and died for Christ will reign with him in glory forever.

Let us take joy in the fact that we are Americans, but let us never forget that we are Christians first and everything is secondary to that. So celebrate and remember those fallen for our country if you feel so compelled, but as a Christian remember St. Stephen the first martyr, remember Sts. Peter and Paul who were killed by the Romans . Think also of those Christians who were imprisoned in the Gulag during the Soviet regime in Russia or those who die as I type in China at the hand of the Communists or the Philippines at the hand of militant Muslims. Follow Christ as Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch followed him even to their deaths and allow Maximus the Confessor who had his tongue cut out and his right hand cut off for confessing the truth of Christ to be your role model. Remember them and the cloud of witnesses that surround them for it is their blood that is the seed of the Church by the power of the good and live-giving Holy Spirit!

Why Protestants Should Celebrate All Saints Day

This may be a day or two late, but I figured it was probably still something worth posting. Many protestant churches have their harvest parties, chili cook-offs, and other fun gatherings this time of year and yet ignore the explicitly Christian feast of All Saints Day. The reason for ignoring this holiday probably has many reasons including the extremes of mere ignorance and anti-Catholic bias. It is my contention that even within a Protestant theological structure All Saints can and should serve as a life-giving feast of the Church that edifies believes and draws them closer to God.

Here are a few reason why I think Protestants should celebrate All Saints Day.

- The great cloud of witnesses listed in Hebrews does not end with the closing of the Canon. There have been holy men and women through the centuries that are examples of how one can and should live in faith, holiness, and love for God. In fact All Saints Day is a celebration of the Saints of Scripture as well as those that have lived after.

- The Faith is passed from one generation of faithful Christians to another generation of faithful Christians. While we Protestants may think that we are a "bible only" people, we are not. Without the faithful witness of the Church preserving the teaching and the scriptures we would be lost.

- God has chosen to reveal himself and to pass down the Faith through these faithful witnesses and it is surely good that we remember them and thank him for the faithful that have lived before us.

- Many Protestant congregations and individuals act like the Christian calendar consists of Christmas and Easter while a few others would include Advent and Lent. The Christian calendar provides a life-giving standard of living for the whole year and Protestantism needs to grab a hold of this. We desperately need to orient our lives to God and we need to approach this holistically. In order to orient ourselves in both body and soul we need to take upon ourselves the practice of fasting and feasting with the Church. We need to allow the church to dictate our calendars, meals, and practices. Recapturing All Saints Day is just a part of this larger issue.

- Just as Paul exhorts his readers to imitate him as he imitates Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1) so we too should be imitators of the holy saints that have gone before us, for in their martyrdom and testimony they have shown us how to imitate Christ.

- It's part of the tradition of the Church. Yes, I know this statement strikes at the very heart of Protestantism, but it is nevertheless true. The faithful of the church saw it fitting to include the remembrance of the saints through a feast for our spiritual edification. We cannot be so arrogant to ignore this exhortation. I realize that this sounds odd coming from a Protestant but as Christians we cannot believe whatever we want. We must remember that Christ said the gates of hell would not overcome the Church and as such we must believe what the Church hands to us. We are separated by ages and Holy Spirit has chosen to use the Church as his method for handing the faith from generation to generation.



Those are just a few reasons why we as Protestants must celebrate All Saints Day. We need to remember the Saints, Martyrs, and Ascetics that have gone before us. We should celebrate the feast of All Saints and thank the Father for faithfully handing down the gospel of his Son through these faithful men and women by the power of the Spirit. We should allow their holy lives to inspire us and as we celebrate this feast we should beg the Father to help us live in such a way that all of our life we will inspire future generations into holiness.

Soup, Stews, and Chili - an Ontological Discussion

I went to a Wesleyan church this Sunday in order to hear a friend preach and I ended up staying for their annual Chili Cook-off. On the way back from church I mentioned to Kristy that I'm not a huge chili fan, but that I love the recipe I have for "White Chili" (courtesy of Jennifer Lucrezio). This began a discussion as to what makes a chili different from a stew and what separates a stew from a soup.

We never really resolved the discussion (hence my reason for posting this) but here are a few thoughts/questions we had.

- Could there have once been a distinction implied in the language but as with most things in language (correct me if I'm wrong Diercks) it has become blurred over time.

- Does a chili necessarily have to be "red" or tomato based? If so then what is "White Chili?"

- Does a stew have to be thicker than a soup and runnier than chili?

- I think stew has bigger hunks of things than soup, but then there is the obvious contradiction of Potato soup.

So with these thoughts in mind here are some dictionary definitions from the Oxford American Dictionary on my computer:

Soup:
- a liquid dish, typically made by boiling meat, fish, or vegetables, etc., in stock or water

Stew:
- a dish of meat and vegetables cooked slowly in liquid in a closed dish or pan

Chili:
- a small hot-tasting pod of a variety of capsicum, used chopped (and often dried) in sauces, relishes, and spice powders. There are various forms with pods of differing size, color, and strength of flavor, such as cascabels and jalapeños.

I know the Chili definition doesn't really fit the discussion, but it's the only definition it would give me.


So the question: What is exactly entailed for something to be called chili, soup, or stew? And what, if any is the ontological difference that separates the three?

Thoughts are much appreciated.

Singleness and Ministry

The first time it happened I shrugged it off, the second posting I saw I ignored, but the trend that I've noticed while browsing pastoral job postings online came to a head the other day when I called about a position and was told not to apply because I was single.

I can understand if these churches were looking seeking a pastor only for unwed mothers or for some other small microcosm of the church like that. But most of these positions have been for your average run-of-the-mill pastor. The most recent one was for a UM church in Covington, Indiana looking for an Associate Pastor who's "ministry areas would focus on youth and children's ministry." The posting for this job said that they were looking for a "couple with elementary kids" and so I decided to call to see if this was just a preference or if it was a definitive restriction. When I asked the question to the Pastor he said "that's what we need to have" and as soon as I got the words "I was wondering because I'm a recent seminary graduate and I'm single" out of my mouth he make a quick move to close the conversation and pretty much hung up on me.

While I am very frustrated at this paradigm I can't fault the pastor for openly stating that a married couple with children is what his congregation needs. I have to respect that he has the needs of his parish in mind while looking for an Associate Pastor, but I do have to fundamentally disagree with his assessment that his congregation NEEDS a married couple WITH children.

Maybe he is right that his congregation does need that sort of couple. But it really seems to me that this case and the many others are indicative of the lie that Protestantism has largely embraced, namely, that being married is better and more edifying than being single.

This view, which dominates Protestant Christianity, is not Christian in either a biblical or historical sense. While I don't want to spend the time laying out an exhaustive case let me lay a little bit of a foundation.

In 1st Corinthians Paul makes an argument to the unmarried that thy should remain unmarried as he is. If this wasn't enough we also can remember that our Lord himself was single. These seem to present a solid enough case but one might be tempted to raise the passages in which it lists one of the qualifications of an Elder as having a spouse. I think it is significant that the verse uses "of one" or "only one." Thus implying that marriage itself isn't a requirement but that not having more than one spouse is.

Historically Christians have always valued singleness and celibacy. This is evidenced by the vibrant monastic life through the church and the many saints who were unwed (both male and female). One can also see extremes in this; such as the push for continent marriage among some of the later fathers. While we would recognize this extreme as ridiculous I also think that we have gone just as far in our thinking that singleness makes one not able to fully minister.

I personally think that this misconstrual by the Protestant church has done more damage than good. Besides the obvious problems that this may bring; such as problem marriages, high divorce rates and the like, I think the biggest problem with this mindset is that it prohibits Protestantism from having monks and nuns.

Granted there are other factors (historical and ecclesial) that contribute to the complete absence of protestant monasteries. But with this diminished view of the single person and the single person in ministry Protestantism shoots itself in the foot by implicitly setting a stance that is contrary to the monastery.

You may be asking why the monastery is so important. It is my contention that monasteries are absolutely vital to the health of the Church. In fact, I would argue that one of the reasons why protestant theology is in such a mess right now is because we have not had a monastic presence to norm theological development. Not only do monasteries provide a place for spiritual retreats and pilgrimages with individuals who have committed themselves to be dead to the world, focus solely on God, and live by a strict rule of discipline. But they act as a vital place of piety and theology for the church and the individuals. Through history as the church has started to deviate from the apostolic faith one of the major factors that has kept the church on course has been the voice and call of the monastics. These men and women spend their lives breathing, praying, and living the faith out in its fullness and as such the Church in the trenches must rely on their holy advice in times of trial.

To come full circle, it seems to me that the attitudes exemplified by this pastor in Indiana and the countless others that I have seen that require a potential minister to be married are very dangerous to the Church as a whole. We, as Protestant Christians, need to learn from our Orthodox and Catholic brothers and sisters that have a strong theology of singleness and marriage. I'm not sure if or how one could develop a Protestant monastery for as I said the roadblocks are numerous, but we need to realize that singleness is not a plague and that single people may have more to offer the Church that just inexperience.

As an addendum it may be helpful in-case anyone stumbles across this post to know that while I am not married I don't feel that my call in life is to remain unmarried. And for my friends who read this: yes, I am still with Kristy.

I'm not dead yet....

Don't worry, even though it's been over a month since my last post I haven't disappeared. I would like to offer some wonderful excuse as to why I haven't blogged in a long time, but basically it comes down to me being lazy and having a super crappy internet connection at the apartment in which I'm living.

Some updates:

- Still no job. Yep, unemployed life is starting to suck real bad. Honestly, I'm baffled by this, I spend most of my day-time at the Seminary library trying to apply for as many jobs as I can find and nothing! I've applied for positions as a senior pastor, youth pastor, with para-church organizations, with private Christian schools... pretty much anything which involves some sort of ministry and will allow me to use my calling, skills, gifts, and my education. Still nothing! I've had a few interviews, but they usually boil down to not having enough experience or making it down to the last cut before they choose the other person. True I have had two offers but one was a real bad situation and the other one didn't pay enough for me to be able to pay back school loans and still eat.

- With that said, I'm still in KY until I find a job or run out of money and have to move home with the rents or live out of my car.

- I'm also still reading Canonical Theism. I haven't finished it yet because I'm lazy and haven't felt like reading much lately. I do pick it up occasionally and I am then reminded why I think it's such a great book. As I read this book I realize that they (it's a collection of essays) are articulating what I have come to believe, but could not coherently express. I think I've mentioned it before, but the subject matter of the book is how and why we need to recapture the entire canonical heritage of the church. It's a great book, go read it!

- I'm still occasionally running sound for the company I work for in Lexington. I really don't want to work for them full-time, but my bank account will soon be informing me that I will need to put pursuing ministry on hold and work for them for a year or pursue living in my car. But either way I don't have to work the dreaded Questapalooza show this year, as I'm on assignment at another show.

- The evil Brett Favre did not end up in Minnesota so now my football season has been saved. I also had my fantasy football draft (for my primary league) and I think my team looks OK, but it also has the potential to totally suck. For our 12 team league here is my team:

QB: Tony Romo; Kurt Warner
RB: Reggie Bush; Michael Turner; LenDale White; Kenny Watson; Ray Rice
WR/TE: Andre Johnson; Jerricho Cotchery; Calvin Johnson; Drew Bennett; Ted Ginn Jr. (despite the fact he played for OSU); Robert Meachem; Eddie Royal
K: Ryan Longwell
DST: Patriots


Nothing else is really new in life, but there are some basic updates. Hopefully I'll get a little more motivation soon and be able to finish off Canonical Theism which will give me something a little more substantial to post about.

Well I guess I should get back to applying for jobs.


- Ben

Sports update

There has been a lot of talk as of late that the iconic Brett Favre has asked to be released from the Green Bay Packers and that if he was indeed released then his most likely landing spot would be with the Minnesota Vikings.

If you know me at all then you know that I am a die-hard Vikings fan and that I have been such since 1st grade. However, if somehow this abomination took place and Brett Favre became the Vikings quarterback I would cease being a Vikings fan for as long as he is on the roster.

I'm not sure if it's because he's quarterbacked the team I have learned to hate for what seems like my entire lifetime (since '92), or because of the fact that the media constantly jeterates (read the article it's real good) him, or just because I've seen him beat the Vikings more times than I care to recall, but I cannot stand Brett Favre and I hope he never dons Viking purple....EVER!!! Even if the all-time NFL leader in interceptions helped the Vikings to win a Superbowl it would bring me no joy.

May this awful scenario never transpire. If you want thoughts on if Favre to the Vikings is a good or bad thing you can check out the plethora of good Viking's blogs suck as:
- Pacifist Viking
- Daily Norseman
- The Viking Age
- Vikings War Cry



On to baseball!! The Orioles are in last place of their division and are 3 games under .500 at the All-Star break. While I find that disheartening, I still hold to my preseason Kierkegaardian leap of faith. I still have faith that the Orioles can come back and win the division and make a run for the World Series. Even more delightful than this hope is the fact that the Orioles are a really fun team to follow this year. They play hard, they seem like they're having fun, and I have faith that they can pull out a win in almost any game. The young talent has had its share of bumps and bruises, but if they get it together this pitching staff will be something to be feared. I'm excited for what the second half of the season will bring.


Remember the word of the day is jeterate. If you didn't read the article then go back up and click on the link and read it. It's a great article about how good and yet overrated Derek Jeter is. He's the baseball version of Brett Favre but is way more loathsome in my book.


- Ben

Final Ichthus Thoughts

I know Ichthus has been over for a few days, but I figured I'd give some final closing thoughts.

I spend my first two posts lamenting the poor audio quality but I do have to admit that the third day of the festival showed major improvement. The main stage was vastly better than the previous days. Not only was the audio tolerable and not painful, but it was actually quite good. I have a few different preferences when it comes to mixing, but all in all it wasn't painfully bad.

The 3rd stage was also much better. The second day of the festival I threw in some ear plugs at this stage because one or two of the frequencies were pretty painful, but they seemed to have worked out all of the problems and it sounded as good as a small stage with that kind of gear can be expected to sound.

The one exception to vast improvement to the audio quality was the 2nd stage. While this stage wasn't too bad the first two days it had some pretty serious feedback issues on the last day of the festival. After they fixed the feedback issues they still had issues with the mix being poor, but luckily most of the final bands were hard rock/punk rock bands and you can get a way with a bad mix if you crank the volume. One very noticeable problem on this stage was the drum kit for the MxPx show. Either the sounds guys weren't good or they just didn't have a lot of time to EQ it, but either way the kit sounded like a Fisher-Price drum set. It was horrible!! That show in particular was mixed pretty poorly, which made me sad, but served as a good catalyst to leave and see the Psalters at the #3 stage.

All in all the best concert from the entire weekend was the final act of the festival - the Psalters. They are amazing. As I said in the last post they are totally hippy-free-thinkers, but their music is both seemingly chaotic and cohesive. There were 7 or 8 of them playing instruments as varying as: the banjo, finger cymbals, various ethnic drums (djembe, congas, etc), bagpipes, an oboe, bass guitar, acoustic guitar, accordion, and much more. It's hard to describe their music other than saying it is eclectic, cultural, and theologically insightful. It was an amazing show full of energy, theology, and beautiful music. You can download some of their songs via their website. I recommend "Hosanna" and hopefully they will put up "Trisagion" soon. Both of these songs are taken from the Divine Liturgy (Hosanna quoting from the Psalms) and are thus full of theology. They may not be verbatim, but the content is close enough that it makes me like the Psalters even more.

To quickly address the other shows to which I was looking forward:
Delorean Grey: See last post
MxPx: The sound was crappy but it was fun for nostalgic purposes.
Code of Ethics: They are not near as cool as I remember them being when I was in 8th grade. Poor stage presence and average music
Family Force 5: Great show! High energy, good music (though occasionally cheesy lyrics) and great stage presence. You can tell they enjoy what they're doing.
Psalters: Best of the festival!


In the future I hope Ichthus improves their artist line-up as it seemed void of some of the biggest names out there and improves their audio quality or else I fear they will slowly see decreased attendance as people opt out for the larger festivals that seem to be run better (Creation, Kingdom Bound, Cornerstone).

Hopefully I'll get some more motivation and read the rest of Canonical Theism soon so I can write a short review. The book is great. I really like the approach though I'm hesitant to jump on a trend like I did the emergent thing in college (which proved to be largely heretical), but this one at its most basic level seems to be an effort to remain protestant while seeking to have a more Orthodox or Catholic (but especially Orthodox) approach to theology.

Blessings,

- Ben

Dispassion, worship, and an Ichthus update

In case you didn't see the link in the comments my friend Nathaniel posted a response to my questions on dispassion over on his blog. It is worth checking out if I confused you or if you have been thinking about this issue for a while like I (and apparently Kyle) have.

Here is the link to Nathaniel's post.


There is also an interesting discussion about the over emphasis of music in Protestant services over on my friend JD's blog.

You can click here to read the post and comments.



Sadly I wasn't able to attend much of Ichthus yesterday because thunderstorms resulted in most of the evening being canceled. I was able to make it to Sandy Richter's morning devotion, which was good and I thought very accessible to target audience (the youth). I also made it out to see Delorean Grey at the Edge Stage. This is the third or fourth time I've seen them in concert (though every other time I've been doing production) and I really like their music. Their stage presence isn't super-great or anything, but then again they aren't a band that draws thousands so it is sort of hard to get pumped about small crowds.


Concerning the sound at the Edge Stage:

It is about what I would expect from the #3 stage at a festival like Ichthus. It wasn't perfect and could have used some tweaking, but it sounded OK and good enough to pass as average or above average. The reason I'm so hard on the main stage audio is because that should be amazing sound quality for the equipment they should have and the bands they are having on the stage. It was not. Again, I'm looking forward to checking it out again today.


Blessings,

- Ben

Misc. Thoughts from Ichthus: 1

Searching to quench the boredom from being unemployed I volunteered to help Ichthus ministries out today and my reward was a free weekend pass to the festival. For those of you who don't know, Ichthus is the oldest of the Christian music festivals complete with Christian rock bands, speakers, and all the standard fun. Tonight was the first night of the festival and here are some thoughts ranging from audio thoughts to deep theological wrestlings.


1. The rumors were proven true. In my time running sound professionally I've had the opportunity to travel quite a bit and after I tell people where I live there is one thing that I've heard from a few different companies and stage hands from a few different places: "Isn't that where that Christian music festival is?.... I've heard the audio there sucks!" It seems Ichthus has a reputation for having some of the worst audio production around. Since I've never been to Ichthus until this year I could never offer a value judgment....well I'm sad to report that the rumors are true.

I'm willing to admit that I'm an audio snob and that I'm use to working with top of the line gear like VDOSC and the like, but tonight was fairly bad. It could be said that I came into the concert with a predisposition and thus only found what I was looking for, but I really tried to be open and honest with myself.

I did my nerdy sound guy walking around listening to different areas and aspects and there were very few areas that I thought sounded good. In fact, one of the poorest sounding areas was the one place that it is supposed to sound the best: around the sound board. I thought the line array they were using didn't disperse evenly, a few of the frequencies were too hot and made listening uncomfortable in some places, the vocals in some places were buried to the point of unintelligibility, amidst a few other things.

I'm not saying that I'm a magic sound guy and that I could have done better. In my inexperience I probably would have made it sound worse, but I've heard the same type of gear they were using sound a lot better. Granted they weren't using top of the line gear (cough VDOSC.... cough) but they were using OK equipment... either way it should have sounded better. I'm looking forward to the next day or two to see if they are able to work out some of the kinks.


2. Maybe I'm just old, but it didn't seem like Skillet gave as sweet of a concert as I've seen from them in the past. Don't get me wrong, they still rocked and I enjoyed it (sans the audio problems mentioned above), but their stage presence seemed to be lacking. John Cooper, the front man, seemed like he was trying to force his humor and it ended up being flat. I've enjoyed every other Skillet show I've been too, so I'm willing to chalk it up to them having an off night.



3. While the audio production left a bit to be desired I thought the visual production was done very well. Props to Ichthus for going big on the light rigs. It could have used a few more movers, but all in all it was done well.



4. I couldn't find a Houghton College booth. That made me sad, hopefully I just missed it.


5. Warning: This one will probably be long and theological.

I've been thinking a lot lately about sanctification or whatever term you want to give it: I personally like: Partaking of the Divine Essence (2 Peter 1.4). In the Patristic tradition there this a concept/attribute of "dispassion" that accompanies this sanctification. The concept of dispassion is most fully articulated by the Eastern theologians, though it seems to me that it is also found in some of the western theologians as well. I'm not sure that I really understand what it means to be dispassionate (in fact it really confuses me and I need to study more), but I couldn't help but have thoughts surrounding it tonight at Ichthus.

At my basic and elementary understanding (which could be dead wrong) to be dispassionate is to not be moved by the passions (pride, lust, anger, etc) and to have one's soul quiet before the Lord. This doesn't mean, to my understanding, that one is a mopey kill-joy from then on, but that one is not easily moved to ecstatic reactions. We are in essence dead to the world, insofar as we find our entire orientation toward God.

With this in mind I started thinking about rock music, particularly Christian rock. I love rock as much as the next person, but I think if I were to speak honestly, I would have to admit that it does not quiet my soul. In fact anyone in attendance would have a hard time quieting their soul. The question I'm wrestling with is: "If one of the character traits to which we are striving is dispassion (this may be up for debate) then is there room within this striving for such music (or anything) that steers us from that goal?"

This music application can be taken further to encompass the current Protestant tread of contemporary worship music. While I enjoy the theologically deep songs (sadly there are few) I wonder how the genre helps to quiet one's soul and foster dispassion. At the risk of making a fallacious jump, I wonder if this leads to the problem of the current obsession with worship: focusing on the concept of worship so much that we lose focus on the object of worship.

I know there are a lot of ifs in the last point. It's something I'm just thinking through and I obviously welcome thoughts. Like I said, I'm not sure if I understand dispassion by itself or as a soteriological byproduct of theosis/sanctification. I'm also not sure that if I understand dispassion I have appropriated it correctly.



So there are some initial thoughts. The plan is to post some follow up to the first few as I listen to more concerts tomorrow. There are a few I'm excited about, but all in all the lineup seems pretty sparse this year. A few bands on my must-see list:
- Delorean Grey: A local-ish KY band I've met a couple times. They rock.
- MxPx: Old School... can't pass it up.
- Code of Ethics: I can't believe they are still making music!
- Family Force 5: I've heard they give a killer show
- Psalters: A total hippy-free-thinker band, but their latest CD is based on the Catholic and Orthodox liturgies. It sort of freaks me out because there is so much going on, but it's kinda cool.



Blessings,


- Ben

Ramblings from an unemployed vagabond

One would think that I would post more now that the rush of finals week is done and the semester is finally over, somehow that has not been the case. Hopefully in the next week or so I'll get a few more of my thoughts worked out enough to post some stuff on here. Until then here is a short update on what's going on in my life:

1. I am now a Master of Theological Studies...or at least that's what I like to tell myself now that I've graduated with a degree by that name. I'm still waiting to receive my diploma in the mail, but I'm still calling myself a graduate.

2. I am unemployed. I'm been sending out resumes like it's my job since the middle of the school year and I am still trying to find a job. Hopefully I can find one soon. I fly out to Iowa at the end of the month of an interview and have had a bunch of phone interviews. I find that not having a denomination makes it hard to find Pastoral jobs.

3. I visited the original KFC in Corbin, KY the other day with Kristy. It was awesome.... well as awesome as a fast food joint can be. But it was fun and I was starving after a day of hiking in the woods.

4. Reading: Maybe I'm a dork but here is what I'm starting to read, though I find that I'm reading way too infrequently.
- St. John Chrysostom's homilies on Philippians
- William J. Abraham (ed.) Canonical Theism


So there is a short update. I would appreciate the prayers for a job, as my bank account is dwindling and school loans will be due soon.

I'll try to post more later.


Blessings,

Ben

On Tradition

As you should know by now I'm a huge baseball fan and as such I found myself spending my Sunday afternoon watching the Pirates vs. Reds game on tv and watching the Orioles game via mlb.com gamecast. During the telecast on FSN one of the announcers began to discuss baseball tradition and the important role it plays in helping teams and the game. The announcer also made the point that it is becoming necessary for the teams to bring in the players of older championship teams (i.e. the '79 Pirates) to help create some sense of belonging and connectedness to the organization with the younger players.

As I thought about this it seemed like a good idea to me, I long for the winning ways of the older Oriole teams, the days of the Oriole Way with Weaver, Palmer, Powell, the days of legend that I don't remember but that I've heard about time and time again. I also thought about football, of course I would love the Vikings to rise again and become the Purple People Eaters of yore.

It seems to me that Sports fans constantly talk about and long for tradition lived out in their teams. It seems that this desire is part of the torture of having a team relocate from one city to another. If a team moves then in a sense the tradition dies, the character seems to be ontologically changed and thus it just isn't the same. Think about when the Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens. Why did they change their name? In part is was because the city filed a suit against the NFL to retain the name and the records. Thus when a new team came back into Cleveland the name and records were in place and the tradition of the Browns could pick right back up where is left off with the dog-pound intact and everything.

It seems that it's not just sports fans that long for tradition either. Towns and communities seek to keep various traditions alive, our nation has traditions like the 4th of July and all the local customs that are entailed with that. Tradition is everywhere and is commonly held as a good thing to sustain within our culture, but the question I must as is, "Why is the church an anomaly to this?"

You may have though that this post was going to just be about baseball and football but really the aforementioned baseball commentator started getting me thinking about why if society (via sports and other things) values tradition so much then why does so much of the American church seek to rid itself of any sort of Christian tradition?

Why over the past 20+ years has American Christianity (especially Protestant Christianity) pushed to rid itself of the life-giving traditions of the Church? Why have we stopped following the Christian calendar? Why have we stopped fasting? Why have we left the songs of the faith and tried to push all forms of tradition out of our churches?

Granted the Emergent movement is trying to remedy this, but the problem with them is that they see tradition as merely something ascetic and enjoyable rather than an authoritative life practice. The problem with the Emergents is that they can embrace the traditions but they appropriate them in such a matter that they continue in their heresies and blasphemies just like the Nestorians and Arians of old.

I have heard the Jaroslav Pelikan once said that "traditionalism is the dead faith of the living, tradition is the living faith of the dead." I would add to that that the true faith of the Church is found in her traditions as they live and breathe among us. In fact our Holy Scriptures are very much a product of the tradition of the faith and we have them in part because holy men and women saw fit to preserve these letters and gospels and pass them on as authoritative texts.

Yes, there is a danger that the life-giving traditions can become dry and stale examples of nothing more than traditionalism, but it is our job to remember these things, to live them and to allow them to be authoritative to us so that we may be able to live in the heritage of the Christian faith.

Just as the FNS announcer saw it as a good thing for the Pirates and Reds to bring in their "cloud of witnesses" to attest to the younger generations the heritage of their organization so we must never forget our ways and embrace the traditions of the faith or else we risk forgetting the faith altogether. Why evangelicals see it as necessary to abandon tradition in hope of winning converts is beyond me. We do these hypothetical converts a disservice when we initiate them into a tradition-less faith that is devoid of the truth and the power of the gospel. Obviously we want to remove hindrances but in order to be of any salvific good we must live and breath the language of faith and then explain that language of faith with peace, patience and love to those who see the fullness of truth that is found in Christianity.

Glorious Feastday!!

In case you were wondering I didn't miss Easter. My church follows a different calendar than most in the west and so our Easter will take place in a little over a month. Today is, however, a very important holy-day no matter which calendar you use.

Today is March 25, and it is on this day that we remember that the angel visited Mary and announced to her that she would bear with child, to which she replied "may it be to me as you have said." Today is the Feast of Annunciation.

Today is the day that we realized that in 9 months we will celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ our God. And so we realize that Jesus, even in the fetal stages was God of God, light of light, begotten and not made, of one essence with the Father. We remember that the divine Word himself took the initiative to bring redemption to humanity because of his great love for us. Today the church feast teaches us that our God did not just take on flesh at birth or later in life at baptism as the heretical adoptionists assert, but that he indeed was united in one person from the very conception - when Mary the Mother of God said "yes" to God.

This is such a beautiful and amazing realization. Our God who cannot be contained was contained in a womb. Today the Son of God becomes the Son of a virgin. Today the creator of all makes his throne in the womb of his creation in order to redeem creation.

Glory to God in the Highest!

I wonder if so much of the "christian" pro-choice people would have been silenced long ago if the protestant church had continued to celebrate this feast. For Christ has taken flesh in the form of an unborn babe with all the risk and possible complications that are entailed therein.

Today is truly a glorious feastday! Glory to God!

It's getting to be that time of year

It is fast approaching the start of the baseball season and thus this is the time of year where I make my kierkegaardian leap of faith and jump headlong into the belief that the Baltimore Orioles can, should, and will indeed, win the World Series.

Last year I took this leap and it was fun for a while but eventually I fell flat on my face as the Orioles ended the season with a losing record (yes that made 10 consecutive losing seasons). My predictions last year were well off the mark and I found the end of the season particularly despairing to watch...especially after the 30-3 drubbing at the hands of the Texas Rangers (a game I was supposed to be at with Ryals before we got rained out).

Last year I had all sorts of high hopes for Bedard, Roberts, and Markakis which made my leap of faith a lot easier while at the same time making it less of a leap. In the offseason, however, Bedard (one of the best and one of my favorite O's) was traded away in part of the rebuilding process. It also looks like Roberts, another favorite, might be on his way out. With the departure of these two and no big name superstars on the team it makes taking this leap of faith a bit harder. In fact, I would describe it not so much as a leap of faith but more like stripping naked and running through a field of thorns and briers with the belief that it won't hurt at all. Yes my friends, this is what asserting the Orioles will win the World Series is like. But I have faith that the briers of the baseball season will not thwart the Orioles!

Despite Bedard's departure and Robert's likely trade there are still a few bright spots that will keep me watching mlb gameday and glued to the box scores.

Nick Markakis is still on the team. Markakis should have another good season as he fills into his big league shoes. He's gotta be my second favorite Oriole on the team (assuming Roberts gets traded) because of his humility and his talent. Plus he's young so he should be a quality Oriole for a long time. Hopefully one of the cornerstones of rebuilding.

Jeremy Guthrie is another reason that I'll be glued to every O's box score (even though he'll only start every 5 games or so). Guthrie, a rookie last season, emerged as a solid starter and has the potential to hit huge. He may be a little old for a 2nd year guy, but last I became a huge fan as he came out of nowhere to be the O's second best pitcher (next to Bedard).

The O's have a host of young talent that will be fun to watch. A lot of them have high potential and should be fun to watch for years to come. One of their young stars is OF Adam Jones who came over in the Bedard trade. Between Jones and Markakis the O's will have two of the better outfielders in the AL for years to come. It will be fun and likely somewhat painful to watch the young pitching and field talent develop into a cohesive winning squad.

So there you have it. My yearly leap of faith and the highlights that will keep me glued to the O's this season.

Another non-Orioles reason I'm stoked about this season is that Josh Kinney, my cousin, should be returning to the Cardinals sometime in May. He was out last year with an injury, but once he got comfortable the year before that he was essential in helping the Cards win the WS.

Just think, the season is only 3 days away!

Blessings,

- Ben

"Liturgical" Dancing

Today in chapel there was what people like to call "liturgical dancing." By this I mean 4 people wearing white went on stage and danced to a song with the intention of conveying theological meaning.

As we were gearing up for chapel my friend Chad and I were wondering about the development of dance in the liturgy. I confess that I haven't really researched it but it seems to me that this must (save for probably some isolated instances) be a very very late development in the worshiping life of the Church.

As Chad and i pondered this we thought that maybe there was some use of dance, though not in the liturgy proper, in some of the early Christian meetings as sort of a hold-over from Judaism. But we figured that the current form of dancing probably comes from late, post-reformation roots - maybe around German pietism or later Celtic Christianity. If this is a correct assertion (which has yet to be proven) I wonder if this use of interpretive dance comes from syncretism with Druidic (which is was today's dance looked like) and other folk groups in those areas.

All wondering about development aside, what purpose does "liturgical" dance serve? First off the name is a complete misnomer. Sure it may be technically part of the "work of the people" and whatnot, but it seems to me that it really doesn't fit with the liturgical history of the Church as a whole.

It almost seems that the Protestant church is trying to harness dance and the other arts but that they really have no foundation for how to use art and/or convey theology through art because when they reacted against Rome they stripped the church of art, thus throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath-water.

I'm not really sure what point I'm making here. In fact, I find this post to be very scattered and incoherent. My excuse is that I'm tired and that I'm trying to read through David Bradshaw's book Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom today.

All that to say that I struggled with liturgical dance when I first encountered it in high school, I mildly accepted it out of a generous attitude in college and now that I understand the development and purpose of liturgy and the church service I find that it doesn't really fit. I would appreciate some thoughts and some suggestions on this issue. Maybe I'm narrow-minded, or maybe I'm just overlooking something. Shoot, maybe I'm right and you can help me articulate why.

- Ben

More Lenten Thoughts

If my recent post entitled "Approaching Lent" provoked some thoughts then check out my friend Nathaniel's blog entry (here).

He, being Orthodox, does a better job than I in describing the Orthodox approach to lent. His post is short and thorough so pop over there and hopefully that will give you a little better understanding of what I'm talking about.

- Ben

On the Untenable Nature of Calvinist/Predestinarian Theology

As I've mentioned before I'm taking an independent study in the historical and theological development of Eastern Christianity. I find that as I read through books like Jaroslav Pelikan's The Spirit of Eastern Christendom that I am learning not merely about Eastern Christian thought and theology, but that I am finding a much deeper grounding in the holy orthodox doctrines of the entire Church.

In my recent reading I came across a deep discussion by Pelikan concerning the council of Chalcedon and the discussion regarding the dual natures of Christ. Without getting into the depth of this issue and trying to articulate the issues concerning hypostatis, ousia, and the like, I'll try to cover the highlights in a more understandable way.

Coming out of the third ecumenical council held in Constantinople (680-681AD) the Christian Church reaffirmed that Christ was/is a unified being in his divinity and humanity and thus had two natures as the council at Chalcedon had decreed (451AD), and also that he did indeed have TWO wills. One can easily assess this by glancing through scripture at the passages where Jesus says he is here to do not his will but his Father's will, those where he acts out of divine foreknowledge, and various other passages.

If we hold this creedal assertion to be revealed dogma to the church, which we should, it raises some interesting questions. While Protestants may balk at the idea of asserting this creed as authoritative, it should be recognized that not until very recent times did any Christian anywhere question the authority of the creeds. Even Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, fully embraced them. Historically adherence to the 7 ecumenical creeds, of which Nicea (325AD) was the first, was one of the primary, if not the primary, markers to determine if one was in line with the teaching of the Church. These creeds were not viewed as new doctrinal assertions, but rather recapitulations of what the Holy Scriptures, the Apostles and the earliest Fathers had always taught though not necessarily in clarity for which the times called.

So if we hold to this creedal assertion of Christ having both a divine and a human will we can make some interesting observations - one of which I find to be very problematic for those who would like to hold a Calvinistic/predestinarian point of view. It would be interesting to see how Calvin himself treated this creed.

As the Fathers clarified the doctrine of the two wills of Christ (technically: dyotheletism) and thus ruled the notion that Christ has one will (technically: monotheletism) as heresy, the idea of free will rose near the forefront of the discussion. As a document from that time, entitled The Doctrine of the Fathers states: "his power to make choices shared in our being"

Thus part of the ontology of Christ's human will was the freedom of choice. As Maximus the Confessor, a deep defender of dyotheletism, states:

He was endowed not only with a will in accordance with his being god and homoousios [of the same substance] with the Father, but also [with a will] in accordance with his being man and homoousios with us.

Pelikan, in an attempt at clarity states that for the Fathers who finalized the creed at Constantinople

Every rational soul had to possess a decision-making capacity that was free of coercion. Even an unsympathetic interpreter of this Christology is obliged to admit that 'there is noticeable in dyotheletism [the doctrine of two wills]....a reaction against the overriding power of the divine nature in favor of a true and free humanity in Christ.' The freedom of the human will of Christ was not to be overwhelmed by his divinity, so that even such a patristic notion as "the deified will" was not permitted to obliterate this freedom.

If this is the way of Christ our God, even in his deified human will, then how can we begin to assert that our wills are coerced and ultimately predestined? The more I read church history the more I see that the predesitnary strain of theology is very small until it explodes with Calvin and Zwingly. I find this particular theology to be untenable and in light of this Holy orthodox doctrine of the church I find it nigh heretical. I am not willing to assert that it is indeed heretical, but I would really like to know how a good Calvinist theologian deals with this creedal doctrine of the Church, without merely dismissing the creed itself. I find the dismissing of the creed to not be a Christian option.

I'm sure more thoughts will come as I continue to dig deeper into the Faith and particularly the development of Eastern Christian thought. The reading for this independent study is absolutely amazing even though it makes my head want to explode because of its depth. I find it shameful that it took great initiative on my part and a very gracious professor for me to learn in depth these doctrines of the Church and their life-giving power.

Blessings to you all,


- Ben

Approaching Lent

I know this post may be a little late (seeing as how most of you who are reading this blog have been in Lent for the past 2-3 weeks) but I've been pondering this for a while and figured late is better than never.

A little over a month ago I was in New Orleans on my way back from Mexico and my friends and I decided to take in a Mardi Gras parade (don't worry there was none of the stereotypical decadence). As I sat watching the parade and thinking about the sites from New Orleans that I had seen earlier I began to think about the evolution of Mardi Gras and wondered how it began. I also, and maybe more so, began to contemplate the difference in both Eastern and Western approaches to the pre-Lenten days.

Most of us are fairly familiar with the Western tradition of Mardi Gras and especially Fat Tuesday (I must sadly confess a favorite of mine). Thinking about this tradition I find it interesting that many Western traditions approach a time of intense fasting/drawing near to God with gluttonous and decadent festivals. As I thought about this I wondering if this was the case with Global Catholicism (not that I'm trying to single out our Catholic friends, most merely associate Mardi Gras with Catholicism - even if it is nominal Catholicism) or if this was merely a pocket of American Catholicism that has been syncretized. Is this practice common in France? Italy? Spain? I also wondered about the development of things such as the infamous beads of Mardi Gras. Did they evolve from (heaven forbid) Rosary beads?

As I continued to think about this I thought about the practice of anticipating Lent that I see in the Orthodox Church. I don't see and emphasis akin to Mardi Gras. The Orthodox practice, as far as I understand it, is to approach Lent gradually by emptying one's house of meat two weeks prior to lent (thus there is a week of eating a lot of meat) and then emptying one's house of dairy products one week before lent (thus a week of a lot of milk and cheeses). While this practice could turn into two weeks of gluttony I have yet to see it manifest itself as such. I do admit, however, that my experience is from a very small sample size and I am forced to wonder if these two weeks manifest themselves in Mardi Gras fashion in countries that are more heavily (and possibly nominally) Orthodox such as Russia, Greece, Turkey (though this is just a question not an assertion). If, however, this doesn't manifest itself like Mardi Gras in other places I find the approach to lent in both traditions (Eastern and Western) to be in stark contrast.

I wonder if the difference in approach between the Eastern and Western traditions is founded in a possible difference that the traditions may approach the Law or laws and thus atonement. I confess that I would need to study this more, but I am wondering if the highly juridical and very Anselmic emphasis in the West has led to the laws or rules of the church being see as a hindrance and something that keeps us from fun, enjoyment, etc. While the East with a not so juridical and not as influenced by Anselm approach tends to view law as life-giving and freeing.

In the West we tend to often view the effects of sin like breaking a law and thus something remedied legally. In contrast the East, and I may be wrong, tends to view the ramifications of sin as something more akin to a cancer or disease that is healed. Thus, and I am hypothesizing here, maybe the Western approach is more easily justified because if they break a law they will easily be rectified during Lenten confession and fasting, while in the East the approach differs because they would not want to break a law that is life-giving and thus put the cancerous sin into their souls.

Please let me be clear that I am trying to tread very carefully in that any point of this thought process could be wrong and thus end up being an over generalization or fallacy. But maybe it makes sense. If I'm correct in my assumptions and assertions I do indeed find the Eastern approach to be much more healthy for the Christian and for the Church as a whole.

I hope that is at least moderately clear. I'm just trying to process through some of these thoughts between the two traditions. This is something that I've been pondering for a little while and was more recently brought to the forefront of my mind as my Orthodox friends begin to prepare for lent.

- Ben

Great Minds Think Alike

Apparently I'm not the only one with thoughts along the line of my last post. Check out my friend Isaac's blog post (here). He takes a slightly different approach in that he's more calm and probably nicer about it, but either way here is a slightly different perspective on the same issue.

And I don't think he read my post before he wrote his.

Enjoy.

- Ben

Why I don't Like Protestant Worship Music

I'm trying to catch up on some reading for classes so I can't write a long post, but I wanted to jot down this thought before I got distracted.

For my independent study I've been reading the second volume of Jaroslav Pelikan's wonderful church history set entitled The Rise of Eastern Christendom. Since Pelikan's work chronicles the history of theology and thoughts I am finding that it's a moderately heavy read, especially given that even at seminary many of these historical concepts have not been taught to me.

Today I was reading about the Nestorian, Jacobite, and Monophysite heresies and on the hypostatis of Christ. Since Pelikan quotes from so many primary sources (something that is often missing in many church histories) I found myself getting a little confused concerning the hypostasis of Christ and what orthodox doctrine taught. Instead of turning to wikipedia or another source that would of taken a lot more time to find some resolution I remembered that there is an ancient hymn of pascha that briefly discusses the hypostasis of Christ. Since I had my ipod on me I decided to turn to the music of the church to teach me the orthodox way and bring about clarity of thought.

Granted the hymn isn't a treatise, but I wasn't looking for a treatise, I was merely looking for a quick answer as to how many hypostates Christ has. This is when I realized that I was able to articulate one of the many reasons I don't like Protestant worship music - namely, that I don't like to guess and check when it comes to the doctrine conveyed within my church music.

Due to the plethora of music in protestantism and the constant desire to update the music I find that one cannot trust the theology that is conveyed in much of it. In strict juxtaposition to this is the music that is sung at the Orthodox church I currently attend. When I hear the hymns of the Orthodox church I am sure that what is being taught is theologically in-line with the 7 ecumenical creeds of the church. I don't have to guess if I'm being taught something heretical because the songs have been tried by church and found fitting to be used in the worship of the Holy Trinity.

Sure, there may be some great assets to protestant music, but as a whole it is theologically vapid and emotive to a fault. While it is always good to asses and think about what is being sung in worship, I think that having to constantly analyze and wonder if the music is teaching correct doctrine is counterproductive to the church service. The music of the church should be filled with dogmatically correct theology and should be able to be used as a basis for the lay person to refute or accept notions of the divine. One can very easily argue that our theology in protestantism is weak because we do not sing it and we do not sing it because it is weak. This cycle is a disastrous one that is hurting the church and leading people into ignorance of the divine. How can we, expect to truly become partakers of the Divine essence (2Pet 1.4) if we do not even know God as he has revealed himself to us?

I fear I'm approaching a tangent so I will conclude now. If the reason I set out to articulate wasn't clear above let me sum up. Part of my aversion to Protestant worship music is that it has no substance and that which it tries to pass as substance is often near heretical if not blatantly so. The songs of the church should be those which have been tried by years of reflection and should be able to be used as concise creedal statements of belief that will plant the deep truths of the faith into the hearts of clergy and lay persons alike.


May the faith grow deep within you all

- Ben

Reading the Fathers

There has been a lot of talk lately about protestants embracing their roots and turning to the Fathers of the Church for wisdom and guidance. If you need some evidence of this pick up the latest issue of Christianity Today or any one of magazines/journals that deal with the theological trends within protestantism. This marked interest in patristic reading (reading of the Fathers) is especially obvious when one looks around Asbury. There are a good number of students here that continue to express interest in patristic studies. Maybe I'm more aware of these individuals because this is my pet area of interest, maybe part of the trend on campus is fueled by the recent readers, or maybe it is just a part of this macrocosmic event happening in protestantism. Either way, the reason for this trend is unimportant to this post.

The reason I bring up this trend is because I find it disconcerting. This is something I've been thinking about for the past few weeks, but I recently was given some words to describe it by talking with my friend Nathaniel. I guess it's odd that I find this trend concerning because I'm such a lover of patristic studies and reading the Fathers has fed my soul for the past four years, so let me explain myself.

I find this trend concerning because of the way in which many people, especially at Asbury, approach the Fathers. This new found resurgence of the patristic witness at Asbury, in the Emergent communities, and in protestantism in general tends to approach the Fathers as nothing more than another source from which to feed personal agendas.

What I mean is that a plethora of individuals are reading the Fathers and Mothers of the faith, but that they approach them as if they were just another contemporary theologian that can be easily discarded if one disagrees with them. I would say these new readers treat the Fathers as just another Rob Bell, but fearfully Rob Bell is given much more respect and is more highly valued than any of the saints of old. These saints, who have died for the faith, who have lived through imperial exiles, who have loved the church even unto their last breaths are being treated as if they were peers, as Nathaniel aptly assessed.

In my opinion it is criminally prideful and nigh heretical for one to consider the Fathers and Mothers of the church as peers that can easily be used to profit one's theological agenda and then discarded like an old sweater when they disagree with how we want to live or think. As I have said these men and women are the ones who have preserved the Faith for us. They have fought, bled and died for that which they have passed on to us. They are not our peers! They are worthy of respect and honor and deserve to be considered our mentors and spiritual fathers and mothers.

Granted not all of the early church sources agreed on everything, of course there are matters of holy opinion, but we cannot be so willing to disagree with these men and women. They are the continuation of the cloud of witnesses talked about in Hebrews, they are those who preserved the faith that is the foundation on which the church was built, and it is their blood that serves as the seed of the church.

My argument is that we cannot claim the heritage of these Fathers and Mothers without accepting them as authoritative for our lives. We must give them the right to speak into our lives and allow them to have the authority to dictate how we must conform our lives to the Faith.

Granted my beloved Orthodox friends would likely agree with me and then argue that I am guilty of the problem that I lay out since I have not become Orthodox. I don't want to get into that issue right now, but nevertheless my point stands and protestant scholars, students, and lay people cannot continue to pretend that they are embracing the Fathers when they treat them as peers and do not allow them to speak authoritatively into their lives.

Without getting into a mess of tangential issues I think this goes to one of the roots of the Protestant problem. One of the beauties that I have seen in the time spent with my Orthodox friends is that the Orthodox church approaches the Faith as something handed down to which individuals and the Church itself must conform. The Faith is alive and exists in its fullness within Orthodoxy, but it is authoritative and something to which we must conform. Protestantism, on the other hand, seems to view the Faith as something fluid that must conform to personal belief. Thus there is no standard of authority save one's own belief system which dictates what the substance of the Faith is. I believe this is part of Protestantism's biggest problem and the reason why the Faith continues to be torn apart within Protestantism. And part of the reason why individuals think they can critique the Holy Fathers as if they were peers.

Yes, protestants are beginning to discover a great wealth of spiritual wisdom. This must be a good thing, but it saddens me beyond belief that these Holy saints of the church are treated with so much disrespect.

I often get chided for the fact that almost all of my deepest spiritual fathers and mothers have been dead for hundreds of years. But I must argue what better father and mother can one have than those that have been affirmed and validated by the church for hundreds and hundreds of years. They can dictate how I should live in holy pursuit of God any day because they are the ones who's writings have survived the test of time and the test of the Church and as such I will think long, hard, and prayerfully before I dare disagree with these holy saints.

May we all have such mentors that will encourage us to pursue God even unto death!

- Ben

What a wonderful holiday!!

That's right, today is the day that pitchers and catchers report to spring training! While there still isn't really a whole lot to watch or get excited about yet (i.e. no games are being played yet) this still means that baseball season has officially begun.

Soon enough our waiting and anticipation will be over and the regular season will be upon us, but until then we can fill our baseball addictions with thoughts of spring training and that somewhere in Florida and in Arizona grown men are starting to hone their curves, sliders, change-ups, and the rest of the pitches in their arsenal.

Fear not, I won't make any grandiose predictions for the Baltimore Orioles like I did last year. Well, that is, until it gets closer to the regular season and I actually know what the starting rotation for the O's is likely to be.

On another note today is also St. Valentines Day, if you're looking for my post on that click here. It's not the greatest post, but it's good enough that I don't need to repeat the exercise. Shoot, I have even cleaned up the spelling errors (or at least the two or three that jumped out at me).



Hope you all enjoy pitchers and catcher day!

- Ben