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!
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
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
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
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
"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
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
Thursday, March 06, 2008
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
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
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
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:
Pelikan, in an attempt at clarity states that for the Fathers who finalized the creed at Constantinople
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
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
Monday, March 03, 2008
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
