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
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
Book Review: "Three Treatises on the Divine Images" by St. John of Damascus
This will be the last post before the semester starts. Hopefully that doesn't mean that my blogging will drastically decrease, but it does mean that I have to assess the amount of success (or in my case failure) to actually finish the books on my reading list for break.
I'm not sure if I have reading ADD or what, but instead of finishing the three books I wanted to finish before the semester I actually started two more. Why? I'm not sure.
I did, however, finish one of the books. In case you couldn't guess from the title of the post; I ended up finishing St. John of Damascus' Three Treatises on the Divine Images. The edition that I read (here) was by St. Vladimir's Press and was translated by Andrew Louth. While I'm not a Byzantine Greek scholar, I do think that Louth's translation was very thorough. His footnotes were explanatory and he was good about highlighting vocabulary nuances as well as providing citations to referenced scripture passages and other Fathers of the Church.
St. John (died around 750AD) defended of the use of icons in the life and worship of the Church during the time in which the Emperor Leo III condemned icons as a violation of the 2nd commandment (no idols). As the debate between the iconoclasts (those destroying and condemning the icons) and the iconodules (those in support of icons) raged St. John penned his three treatises in favor of the use and practice of veneration of icons.
In general St. John's treatises might be a little heavier reading than some of the other church fathers that I have read and subsequently reviewed. The topic may also be one that causes many protestants much grief and dismay as icons are very foreign to the Western Church. However, it is probably safe to say that if it wasn't for St. John's treatises on the Divine Images there would be little-to-no room for any Church art.
As I read through St. John's work his words and phraseology made it very clear that for him this was not a dry theological debate. St. John's concern is rooted in his deep love for God and his love for the Church and the faith which it has carried down from the Apostles. John views the use of icons in worship as something which has early and even apostolic roots even if it isn't embedded in scripture. Along these lines St. John quotes from St. Basil to exhort his readers:
Building upon this John pleads with his adversaries and with the Church as a whole:
While this material and some of the language that St. John uses will likely make many protestants uncomfortable it is worth a read. St. John's treatises form a concise discussion on icons and their place in worship. In his third treatise St. John also sets forth a valuable discussion of worship and how it is to be approached by the Church and the Christian. At times the work felt redundant because of repeated arguments between the treatises and repeated citations, but it is an essential work for any student of Church history to read. This work seems to inform and provide much of the basis for the decision of the Seventh Ecumenical Council which approved of the use of icons. If nothing else is achieved by reading this work it will help protestants understand and appreciate the position of the Catholic and Orthodox Christians concerning this matter.
As I said before, I think one of the most beautiful things about this work is not that St. John is concerned with ivory tower theology, but that he is concerned with health and life of the Church. St. John views icons as essential parts of the worship of the faithful and as aids to holiness. It is obvious to even a casual reader of this book that St. John desires holiness for the people of God and views the iconoclast position as impious and destructive to the faith of the Church.
So there is a short review for the only fun book that I managed to finish this January break. Hopefully I'll get back to posting some more of my random thoughts soon.
Blessings to you all,
Ben
I'm not sure if I have reading ADD or what, but instead of finishing the three books I wanted to finish before the semester I actually started two more. Why? I'm not sure.
I did, however, finish one of the books. In case you couldn't guess from the title of the post; I ended up finishing St. John of Damascus' Three Treatises on the Divine Images. The edition that I read (here) was by St. Vladimir's Press and was translated by Andrew Louth. While I'm not a Byzantine Greek scholar, I do think that Louth's translation was very thorough. His footnotes were explanatory and he was good about highlighting vocabulary nuances as well as providing citations to referenced scripture passages and other Fathers of the Church.
St. John (died around 750AD) defended of the use of icons in the life and worship of the Church during the time in which the Emperor Leo III condemned icons as a violation of the 2nd commandment (no idols). As the debate between the iconoclasts (those destroying and condemning the icons) and the iconodules (those in support of icons) raged St. John penned his three treatises in favor of the use and practice of veneration of icons.
In general St. John's treatises might be a little heavier reading than some of the other church fathers that I have read and subsequently reviewed. The topic may also be one that causes many protestants much grief and dismay as icons are very foreign to the Western Church. However, it is probably safe to say that if it wasn't for St. John's treatises on the Divine Images there would be little-to-no room for any Church art.
As I read through St. John's work his words and phraseology made it very clear that for him this was not a dry theological debate. St. John's concern is rooted in his deep love for God and his love for the Church and the faith which it has carried down from the Apostles. John views the use of icons in worship as something which has early and even apostolic roots even if it isn't embedded in scripture. Along these lines St. John quotes from St. Basil to exhort his readers:
Of the dogmas and preachings preserved in the Church, some we have from the written teaching, others we received from the tradition of the Apostles, handed down to us in secret, both of them having the same force for piety. No one who has the least experience of the laws of the Church will object to these, for if we try to dismiss that which is unwritten among the customs as of no great authority, then without noticing it we shall damage the Gospel.
Building upon this John pleads with his adversaries and with the Church as a whole:
I entreat the people of God, the holy nation, to cling to the traditions of the Church. For just as the removal of one of the stones of a building will quickly bring ruin to that building, so will the removal, ever so little, of what has been handed down. Let us be firm, unflinching, unmoved, established upon the secure rock, which is Christ, to whom is due glory, honor and veneration, with the Father and the Spirit, now and for ever and to the unbounded ages of ages. Amen.Cutting to the core content of the work (or works if you prefer) John argues for the allowance of the veneration of icons, both of Christ and of the "friends of God." In order to defend this stance St. John argues, following Basil, that the honor given to the image passes to the archetype. Through his work John defines and distinguishes between worship and veneration as well as different types of veneration. He also tackles the accusation that icons violate the second commandment by illustrating from scripture the multiple times where images are made and honored and yet not worshiped.
While this material and some of the language that St. John uses will likely make many protestants uncomfortable it is worth a read. St. John's treatises form a concise discussion on icons and their place in worship. In his third treatise St. John also sets forth a valuable discussion of worship and how it is to be approached by the Church and the Christian. At times the work felt redundant because of repeated arguments between the treatises and repeated citations, but it is an essential work for any student of Church history to read. This work seems to inform and provide much of the basis for the decision of the Seventh Ecumenical Council which approved of the use of icons. If nothing else is achieved by reading this work it will help protestants understand and appreciate the position of the Catholic and Orthodox Christians concerning this matter.
As I said before, I think one of the most beautiful things about this work is not that St. John is concerned with ivory tower theology, but that he is concerned with health and life of the Church. St. John views icons as essential parts of the worship of the faithful and as aids to holiness. It is obvious to even a casual reader of this book that St. John desires holiness for the people of God and views the iconoclast position as impious and destructive to the faith of the Church.
So there is a short review for the only fun book that I managed to finish this January break. Hopefully I'll get back to posting some more of my random thoughts soon.
Blessings to you all,
Ben
Sunday, February 03, 2008
A Quick Non-Theological Post
Since today is Super Bowl Sunday, I've decided to allow myself an obligatory football post, though it's not about the Super Bowl. If any of you are fans of the Minnesota Vikings (in reality the only reader who is is probably my dad, but it's my blog so whatever) you are likely sitting in disbelief that Chris Carter got passed over for a first-ballot Hall of Fame selection.
Yep, that's right. Chris Carter, Mr. "All he does is catch touchdowns" didn't make the Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility. So who did make it? Art Monk.
I'm not going to chronicle the entire case against Monk and for Carter here as it has already been done by Pacifist Viking over here. While I'm still undecided if I share the opinion if Art Monk deserves to actually be in the Hall of Fame, I do think that PV offers great analysis of the issue. So check it out if your into sweet nerdy arguments as to why one retired football player is better than another.
With this and the trends in baseball Hall of Fame voting I'm begining to lose my faith in the Hall of Fame voters. So often I think they decide on or against players for stupid reasons without analyzing all the pertinent data. One prime example is the dork who didn't vote for Cal Ripken Jr. to make the baseball hall of fame this year. Seriously!?! That person should be taken out to the street and put in the stocks.
Ok, that's it for now.
Peace.
Yep, that's right. Chris Carter, Mr. "All he does is catch touchdowns" didn't make the Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility. So who did make it? Art Monk.
I'm not going to chronicle the entire case against Monk and for Carter here as it has already been done by Pacifist Viking over here. While I'm still undecided if I share the opinion if Art Monk deserves to actually be in the Hall of Fame, I do think that PV offers great analysis of the issue. So check it out if your into sweet nerdy arguments as to why one retired football player is better than another.
With this and the trends in baseball Hall of Fame voting I'm begining to lose my faith in the Hall of Fame voters. So often I think they decide on or against players for stupid reasons without analyzing all the pertinent data. One prime example is the dork who didn't vote for Cal Ripken Jr. to make the baseball hall of fame this year. Seriously!?! That person should be taken out to the street and put in the stocks.
Ok, that's it for now.
Peace.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
The one where I write about a lot of different things
This one might be a long one as I've been intending to post on some of these topics since before Christmas. I'll try to section off the topics so you can easily scroll ahead if you find one of the topics to be boring, but then again chances are you might find all of these topics, if not the whole blog in general, to be rather boring. Nevertheless here it goes.
********Happy Birthday Jesus***********
I think I alluded to this in my last post. While I was home the kids in my parent's church gave a little Christmas program during the Sunday service. The program focused on the fact that Jesus was celebrating a birthday and thus they should give him appropriate gifts (the eventual conclusion being that we must give him our hearts). As I sat there I began to think about how insufficient the commonplace "happy birthday Jesus" emphasis that we give our children is.
Maybe we think that we're helping our kids understand Christmas by telling them that it is Jesus' birthday, for it is, in fact, the day that we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. But I'm wondering if this isn't yet another example of the protestant problem. Meaning that in an effort to contextualize and to make the message of the faith easy to understand we end up settling for a lesser faith and selling short ourselves and the eventual converts into the faith.
Granted young children can't understand phrases like incarnation, hypostasis, and perichoresis, but do we still not have a duty to teach our children the true faith even if it means they ask questions and don't understand it all at first? Maybe the issue now is that this cycle of "settling" has gone on so long that most Protestant Christians don't know what the faith is anyways? But I digress. How much do we need to dumb down the faith for kids? I would argue that while we may not use the same terminology we still need to teach the essential concepts and, as I see it, "happy birthday Jesus" falls short on so many levels.
So why is "happy birthday Jesus" insufficient? It seems to me that it downplays the significance of the birth of Christ. While it is, and always will be, important to emphasize that Jesus was born in the same way as we were born the sole emphasis of his birth downplays his divinity. The reason that Christ's birth is so important is not merely because he was born, but because God himself chose to take on flesh through the womb of a virgin and to be born and live among us. I've not heard "happy birthday Jesus" teaching to children that emphasizes the fact that God came down and dwelt among us. I've also not heard this teaching mention that Christ was born of the Holy Spirit as well as the Virgin Mary. How great is this opportunity to make a Trinitarian teaching point to children and yet we sell out in favor of birthday cake and parties for our kids.
This emphasis also seem problematic in that we fail to appropriately distinguish between the celebration of Jesus' birthday and our birthday. Thus we teach a low Christology that implicitly places Jesus on our level. This means, as mentioned above, that we deemphasize the divinity and thus we celebrate Jesus' birth because he is a good man whom we strive to be like. If he is merely a good man then nothing distinguishes him from the likes of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and the rest of the social advocates around the world. This is nothing more than old-fashioned liberal theology and should be eradicated from our places of worship.
Time also seems to play an important part in this discussion. If we focus on using the "happy birthday Jesus" paradigm for teaching our kids while Christmas is important we also neglect to teach them about the eternality of Christ. Yes he was born in time about 2,000 years ago. However, he is eternally begotten of the Father. It would be disastrous for us to leave our kids thinking that Jesus came to be 2,000 years ago and that's it. We must teach our kids that while Christ was born in time on earth there was never a moment that he did not exist. This is something that I didn't learn until college and we are perpetuating these low Christologies in part by teaching our kids that we celebrate Christmas because it's Jesus' birthday and then we stop.
We may indeed be able to use birthday language to help our kids grasp the concept of Christmas, but we must only do so if we can use it to discuss the context of the Holy Incarnation. Yes, we likely will not use the word incarnation as kids don't understand it, but we have to convey the concept. Wait, why should we not use the word incarnation? Kids learn vocabulary by hearing it and asking questions concerning the meaning of words. Why should the building blocks of our Children's vocabulary not be words and concepts like incarnation? What could be more important? Granted this may turn them into nerds, but not necessarily and who cares. Too dumb down the faith for kids and to merely talk about Christmas in terms of birthday is insufficient and is embedding in our kids a weak Christology that has hurt the Church and will undoubtedly hurt the Church in the long run.
********Virtual Eucharist***********
I read the following announcement on our Asbury email forum thingy before Christmas and am just getting to posting about it:
Just so you all know the context of the email I have left the content intact, minus the greeting and salutation, though I have bolded the section that I would like to address.
As soon as I read this email I started wondering exactly how this co-celebration of the Eucharist would work. If it is being celebrated by a leader from the Florida Campus while in the telelink room I can only assume that this leader will be in Florida. This new age of technology surely raises some interesting pragmatic questions.
As my friend Chuck pointed out when I emailed him and a few others about this issue if one holds a memorialist view of the Eucharist there really is no issue at hand. He's right, if one holds this view of the Eucharist then of course one could remember Christ through telelink and everyone should be fine with this. Though I don't want this to become a post defending my Eucharistic views I think this view of the Eucharist is the least biblical, historical, and thus desirable of all the views. Theoretically the seminary should not be endorsing this view as it is a seminary in the broader Wesleyan tradition and it is evident that John Wesley and early Methodists did not hold nor teach this view.
I suppose that one probably wouldn't have that much of a problem with this practice of telelink Eucharist if they held to a consubstantiatory view either (I think this was also suggested by Chuck, but maybe Tony). I guess the logic here would be that the Holy Spirit surrounds the elements and the Holy Spirit can move upon the elements and the communicants through video conferencing just as well as if the person praying over the elements and saying the words of institution is present.
I personally hold to a more transubstantiatory view and logically object to this practice. The issue I want to raise though is that this practice should be raising questions amongst the seminary community and is an undesirable practice even if one holds a consubstantiatory view.
This practice raises many questions. If this is a valid way to take the Eucharist then what is the need for ordination. I may be mistaken but it seems to me that one of the main purposes of ordination is to assure that the person celebrating the sacraments, liturgy, and preaching to the people is inline with the faith of the Church. If one can preach, celebrate the sacraments and liturgy over video conference then why ordain anyone? For that matter, why let anyone preach other than major denominational figures? For Catholics, why wouldn't the Pope just video tape his liturgy and then show it to all the Catholic churches in the world? This seems like it would work given the underlying presuppositions that allow this virtual Eucharist to take place. We have to admit that there is something important about the physical presence of a minister representing Christ to the people. We have to recognize the importance of the physical.
It seems to me that this practice is building upon and helping to foster the ever-present dualistic tendencies that exists all over western Christendom. I won't go so far as to call this practice gnostic (though I really want to) but I do think it is highly dualistic and implicitly asserting that the physical does not matter. If it doesn't then why do we take Eucharist anyways? Oh wait, I know!!
If we assert that the physical doesn't matter, as this practice seems to imply, then we take the Eucharist because it helps us to feel like a "community." This service is merely using (and I would argue abusing the Eucharist) to generate some generic sense of community between the campuses. Yes, the Eucharist is a unifying act, but it unifies us to God and thus as a result unifies us to others.
We are unified to Christians around the world not because we have the exact same person say the words of institution over the bread and wine and not because someone says the words via a video conference over everyone's bread and wine, no we are united with other believers because God unites us. We worship the same God and we celebrate the same supper, even if miles, oceans, or languages separate us. We don't need someone to institute the Lord's supper over a video-link in order to be unified.
The problems with this practice are many. It promotes a hyper-dualism that shouldn't be present in Christianity. It also operates on a faulty view of how exactly the Eucharist is a unifying act. It also is problematic because it raises the all-pervasive view of community above correct Eucharistic celebration. I still think there may be more at stake with this practice, but I'm not completely sure how to articulate it.
********Book Review: Whose Bible is it? by Jaroslav Pelikan***********
I've been finished with Jaroslav Pelikan's book; Whose Bible Is It? A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages, for some time now. I think I finished it mid-semester in the fall but haven't got around to posting about it until now.
In true Pelikan fashion Dr. Pelikan does a wonderfully thorough job of presenting exactly what the subtitle suggests "a history of the scriptures through the ages." Pelikan's style is very accessible since he uses very little jargon and he articulates clearly and concisely his ideas.
This book is a wonderful book and would serve well for any class that focuses on the introduction to scriptures. It would also be perfect for any person who wants to learn how we have the scriptures as we know them. Pelikan begins his discussion with the oral tradition of the Hebrew scriptures and then progresses linearly through history discussing the development of the Septuagint, the Talmud, the formation of the New Testament, the development of the canon, the scribal tradition, the development of the printed scriptures, the rise of textual criticism, and then concludes with a brief discussion of the far-reachingness of the scriptures and then worldview therein.
While this sounds like a lot of material Pelikan's book is a short 274 pages (including endnotes and appendices) and tackles these discussions without getting bogged down by needless rabbit trails.
I think Pelikan's book is a must-read for any beginning religious studies student and would be a helpful read for the inquisitive lay person. Though I thought the book seemed to drag a little bit after Pelikan began discussing the era of the printing press, I think this is largely due to the fact that I'm not as interested in the latter development of editions, translations, and textual variants of the Scriptures as I am in how the canon came to be and how we have received the text from our spiritual forefathers and mothers.
Though my copy of this book is filled with underlined text, circled phrases, and comments in the margins, I'm not sure if I can find a great quote to place in this blog. The book is filled with great insight, scholarly precision, and wonderful references to ad quotes from the Fathers of the faith.
One thing you may want to know before you read the book is something that I didn't find out until I was almost finished. Though Pelikan doesn't place a notation after quotes they are still referenced in back. I find this a little archaic and frustrating but it really is the only complaint I can lay against this book.
********Book Review: On Pascha by Melito of Sardis***********
I finished this book near the beginning of the summer and since I am writing the mother of all blog posts I thought I would write a short review in this post. In case you haven't noticed this post is the catch all for all that's fallen by the wayside over the past year or so.
Melito of Sardis' (ca. 190AD even though the wikipedia page says 180AD) treatise On Pascha is very short (about 30 pages of text in this edition) but it packed with rich theology but is easy enough to read that it can be used devotionally as a meditative aid. The introduction by Alistair Stewart-Sykes is a bit heavier and while it helps one to understand the occasion for and the issues surrounding Melito's writing it isn't as necessary as some introductions given the accessibility of Melito. The footnotes are also very explanatory for those who may not be familiar with some of the phrasing that Melito uses.
For those of you who don't know what Pascha is, it is, in brief, what the earlier fathers and the Eastern Church refers to as Easter. The term comes from the Greek word for suffering and is more consistent with the Jewish feast of Passover. This treatise by Melito is basically a wonderful recounting of Easter. Melito's treatise constantly links Christ as the Lamb back to the Old Testament sacrificial lamb of Passover. Melito beautifully draws out the Old Testament images as the type of which Christ was the fulfillment. I would suggest this as a wonderful Easter meditation for anyone. Here are a few of my favorite sections:
********************************
So there you have it. I know it's long and it probably bores most, if not all of you, but I think that catches up on most of what I've been thinking/reading as of late.
I start my last semester at Asbury in February and am stoked about being done. Although I am a little unsure of what I will do when I graduate. I'm taking three classes and am particularly excited about one of them. I am taking:
John Wesley's Theology for Today
Old Testament Theology
and the one that still has to be approved but that I'm really excited about is
Independent Study in historical and theological development of Eastern Christian thought.
I am currently working on finishing three books:
St. John of Damascus: Three Treatises On the Divine Images
St. Symeon the New Theologian: On the Mystical Life: Vol 1. The Church and the Last Things
St. Symeon the New Theologian: On the Mystical Life: Vol 2. On Virtue and the Christian Life
I'm also reading: Rob Bell: Velvet Elvis, but I must confess that I'm only reading Bell because I'm not a big fan and think that I should read more of his works in order to help refute the Rob Bell personality cult that exists at Asbury.
I'm hoping to finish the main three books before February, and while it should be doable I also am lazy and am watching way more movies than I should during this break.
Blessings to you all,
- Ben
********Happy Birthday Jesus***********
I think I alluded to this in my last post. While I was home the kids in my parent's church gave a little Christmas program during the Sunday service. The program focused on the fact that Jesus was celebrating a birthday and thus they should give him appropriate gifts (the eventual conclusion being that we must give him our hearts). As I sat there I began to think about how insufficient the commonplace "happy birthday Jesus" emphasis that we give our children is.
Maybe we think that we're helping our kids understand Christmas by telling them that it is Jesus' birthday, for it is, in fact, the day that we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. But I'm wondering if this isn't yet another example of the protestant problem. Meaning that in an effort to contextualize and to make the message of the faith easy to understand we end up settling for a lesser faith and selling short ourselves and the eventual converts into the faith.
Granted young children can't understand phrases like incarnation, hypostasis, and perichoresis, but do we still not have a duty to teach our children the true faith even if it means they ask questions and don't understand it all at first? Maybe the issue now is that this cycle of "settling" has gone on so long that most Protestant Christians don't know what the faith is anyways? But I digress. How much do we need to dumb down the faith for kids? I would argue that while we may not use the same terminology we still need to teach the essential concepts and, as I see it, "happy birthday Jesus" falls short on so many levels.
So why is "happy birthday Jesus" insufficient? It seems to me that it downplays the significance of the birth of Christ. While it is, and always will be, important to emphasize that Jesus was born in the same way as we were born the sole emphasis of his birth downplays his divinity. The reason that Christ's birth is so important is not merely because he was born, but because God himself chose to take on flesh through the womb of a virgin and to be born and live among us. I've not heard "happy birthday Jesus" teaching to children that emphasizes the fact that God came down and dwelt among us. I've also not heard this teaching mention that Christ was born of the Holy Spirit as well as the Virgin Mary. How great is this opportunity to make a Trinitarian teaching point to children and yet we sell out in favor of birthday cake and parties for our kids.
This emphasis also seem problematic in that we fail to appropriately distinguish between the celebration of Jesus' birthday and our birthday. Thus we teach a low Christology that implicitly places Jesus on our level. This means, as mentioned above, that we deemphasize the divinity and thus we celebrate Jesus' birth because he is a good man whom we strive to be like. If he is merely a good man then nothing distinguishes him from the likes of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and the rest of the social advocates around the world. This is nothing more than old-fashioned liberal theology and should be eradicated from our places of worship.
Time also seems to play an important part in this discussion. If we focus on using the "happy birthday Jesus" paradigm for teaching our kids while Christmas is important we also neglect to teach them about the eternality of Christ. Yes he was born in time about 2,000 years ago. However, he is eternally begotten of the Father. It would be disastrous for us to leave our kids thinking that Jesus came to be 2,000 years ago and that's it. We must teach our kids that while Christ was born in time on earth there was never a moment that he did not exist. This is something that I didn't learn until college and we are perpetuating these low Christologies in part by teaching our kids that we celebrate Christmas because it's Jesus' birthday and then we stop.
We may indeed be able to use birthday language to help our kids grasp the concept of Christmas, but we must only do so if we can use it to discuss the context of the Holy Incarnation. Yes, we likely will not use the word incarnation as kids don't understand it, but we have to convey the concept. Wait, why should we not use the word incarnation? Kids learn vocabulary by hearing it and asking questions concerning the meaning of words. Why should the building blocks of our Children's vocabulary not be words and concepts like incarnation? What could be more important? Granted this may turn them into nerds, but not necessarily and who cares. Too dumb down the faith for kids and to merely talk about Christmas in terms of birthday is insufficient and is embedding in our kids a weak Christology that has hurt the Church and will undoubtedly hurt the Church in the long run.
********Virtual Eucharist***********
I read the following announcement on our Asbury email forum thingy before Christmas and am just getting to posting about it:
On January 2, 2008 we will gather at 11am in the Distance Learning Room (BC 157) and in Florida in Room FL208 for a celebration of the the classic Wesley Covenant Renewal Service. Dr. Kalas will be leading the Covenant Renewal and a leader from the Florida campus will be celebrating the Lord's Supper. The service should take no longer than 45 minutes. Please mark your calendars and plan to be present if you are on campus.
Just so you all know the context of the email I have left the content intact, minus the greeting and salutation, though I have bolded the section that I would like to address.
As soon as I read this email I started wondering exactly how this co-celebration of the Eucharist would work. If it is being celebrated by a leader from the Florida Campus while in the telelink room I can only assume that this leader will be in Florida. This new age of technology surely raises some interesting pragmatic questions.
As my friend Chuck pointed out when I emailed him and a few others about this issue if one holds a memorialist view of the Eucharist there really is no issue at hand. He's right, if one holds this view of the Eucharist then of course one could remember Christ through telelink and everyone should be fine with this. Though I don't want this to become a post defending my Eucharistic views I think this view of the Eucharist is the least biblical, historical, and thus desirable of all the views. Theoretically the seminary should not be endorsing this view as it is a seminary in the broader Wesleyan tradition and it is evident that John Wesley and early Methodists did not hold nor teach this view.
I suppose that one probably wouldn't have that much of a problem with this practice of telelink Eucharist if they held to a consubstantiatory view either (I think this was also suggested by Chuck, but maybe Tony). I guess the logic here would be that the Holy Spirit surrounds the elements and the Holy Spirit can move upon the elements and the communicants through video conferencing just as well as if the person praying over the elements and saying the words of institution is present.
I personally hold to a more transubstantiatory view and logically object to this practice. The issue I want to raise though is that this practice should be raising questions amongst the seminary community and is an undesirable practice even if one holds a consubstantiatory view.
This practice raises many questions. If this is a valid way to take the Eucharist then what is the need for ordination. I may be mistaken but it seems to me that one of the main purposes of ordination is to assure that the person celebrating the sacraments, liturgy, and preaching to the people is inline with the faith of the Church. If one can preach, celebrate the sacraments and liturgy over video conference then why ordain anyone? For that matter, why let anyone preach other than major denominational figures? For Catholics, why wouldn't the Pope just video tape his liturgy and then show it to all the Catholic churches in the world? This seems like it would work given the underlying presuppositions that allow this virtual Eucharist to take place. We have to admit that there is something important about the physical presence of a minister representing Christ to the people. We have to recognize the importance of the physical.
It seems to me that this practice is building upon and helping to foster the ever-present dualistic tendencies that exists all over western Christendom. I won't go so far as to call this practice gnostic (though I really want to) but I do think it is highly dualistic and implicitly asserting that the physical does not matter. If it doesn't then why do we take Eucharist anyways? Oh wait, I know!!
If we assert that the physical doesn't matter, as this practice seems to imply, then we take the Eucharist because it helps us to feel like a "community." This service is merely using (and I would argue abusing the Eucharist) to generate some generic sense of community between the campuses. Yes, the Eucharist is a unifying act, but it unifies us to God and thus as a result unifies us to others.
We are unified to Christians around the world not because we have the exact same person say the words of institution over the bread and wine and not because someone says the words via a video conference over everyone's bread and wine, no we are united with other believers because God unites us. We worship the same God and we celebrate the same supper, even if miles, oceans, or languages separate us. We don't need someone to institute the Lord's supper over a video-link in order to be unified.
The problems with this practice are many. It promotes a hyper-dualism that shouldn't be present in Christianity. It also operates on a faulty view of how exactly the Eucharist is a unifying act. It also is problematic because it raises the all-pervasive view of community above correct Eucharistic celebration. I still think there may be more at stake with this practice, but I'm not completely sure how to articulate it.
********Book Review: Whose Bible is it? by Jaroslav Pelikan***********
I've been finished with Jaroslav Pelikan's book; Whose Bible Is It? A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages, for some time now. I think I finished it mid-semester in the fall but haven't got around to posting about it until now.
In true Pelikan fashion Dr. Pelikan does a wonderfully thorough job of presenting exactly what the subtitle suggests "a history of the scriptures through the ages." Pelikan's style is very accessible since he uses very little jargon and he articulates clearly and concisely his ideas.
This book is a wonderful book and would serve well for any class that focuses on the introduction to scriptures. It would also be perfect for any person who wants to learn how we have the scriptures as we know them. Pelikan begins his discussion with the oral tradition of the Hebrew scriptures and then progresses linearly through history discussing the development of the Septuagint, the Talmud, the formation of the New Testament, the development of the canon, the scribal tradition, the development of the printed scriptures, the rise of textual criticism, and then concludes with a brief discussion of the far-reachingness of the scriptures and then worldview therein.
While this sounds like a lot of material Pelikan's book is a short 274 pages (including endnotes and appendices) and tackles these discussions without getting bogged down by needless rabbit trails.
I think Pelikan's book is a must-read for any beginning religious studies student and would be a helpful read for the inquisitive lay person. Though I thought the book seemed to drag a little bit after Pelikan began discussing the era of the printing press, I think this is largely due to the fact that I'm not as interested in the latter development of editions, translations, and textual variants of the Scriptures as I am in how the canon came to be and how we have received the text from our spiritual forefathers and mothers.
Though my copy of this book is filled with underlined text, circled phrases, and comments in the margins, I'm not sure if I can find a great quote to place in this blog. The book is filled with great insight, scholarly precision, and wonderful references to ad quotes from the Fathers of the faith.
One thing you may want to know before you read the book is something that I didn't find out until I was almost finished. Though Pelikan doesn't place a notation after quotes they are still referenced in back. I find this a little archaic and frustrating but it really is the only complaint I can lay against this book.
********Book Review: On Pascha by Melito of Sardis***********
I finished this book near the beginning of the summer and since I am writing the mother of all blog posts I thought I would write a short review in this post. In case you haven't noticed this post is the catch all for all that's fallen by the wayside over the past year or so.
Melito of Sardis' (ca. 190AD even though the wikipedia page says 180AD) treatise On Pascha is very short (about 30 pages of text in this edition) but it packed with rich theology but is easy enough to read that it can be used devotionally as a meditative aid. The introduction by Alistair Stewart-Sykes is a bit heavier and while it helps one to understand the occasion for and the issues surrounding Melito's writing it isn't as necessary as some introductions given the accessibility of Melito. The footnotes are also very explanatory for those who may not be familiar with some of the phrasing that Melito uses.
For those of you who don't know what Pascha is, it is, in brief, what the earlier fathers and the Eastern Church refers to as Easter. The term comes from the Greek word for suffering and is more consistent with the Jewish feast of Passover. This treatise by Melito is basically a wonderful recounting of Easter. Melito's treatise constantly links Christ as the Lamb back to the Old Testament sacrificial lamb of Passover. Melito beautifully draws out the Old Testament images as the type of which Christ was the fulfillment. I would suggest this as a wonderful Easter meditation for anyone. Here are a few of my favorite sections:
And today those things of value (the OT sacrifices) are worthless, since the things of true worth have been revealed.
For then the (the OT) the slaughter of the sheep was of value,
now it is worthless because of the Lord's life.
The death of the sheep was of value,
now it is worthless because of the Lord's salvation.
The blood of the sheep was of value,
now it is worthless because of the Lord's Spirit...
The Jerusalem below was of value,
now it is worthless because of the heavenly Jerusalem.
One the narrow inheritance was of value,
now it is worthless because of the breadth of grace.
For it is not on one place, nor in a narrow plot, that the glory of God is established,
but on all the ends of the earth.
For his grace has been poured out
and the almighty God has made his dwelling there.
Through Christ Our Lord,
to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. (44-45)
O mystifying murder! O mystifying injustice!
The master is obscured by his body exposed,
and is not held worthy of a veil to shield him from view.
For this reason the great lights turned away,
and the day was turned to darkness;
to hid the one denuded on the tree,
obscuring not the body of the Lord but human eyes.
For when the people did not tremble, the earth shook.
When the people did not fear, the heavens were afraid.
When the people did not rend their garments, the angel rent his own.
When the people did not lament, the Lord thundered from heaven,
and the most high gave voice. (97-98)
This (Jesus) is the Pascha of our salvation:
this is the one who in many people endured many things.
This is the one who was murdered in Abel,
tied up in Isaac,
exiled in Jacob,
sold in Joseph,
exposed in Moses,
slaughtered in the lamb,
hunted down in David,
dishonored in the prophets.
This is the one made flesh in a virgin,
who was hanged on a tree,
who was buried in the earth,
who was raised from the dad,
who was exalted to the heights of heaven.
This is the lamb slain,
this is the speechless lamb,
this is the one born of Mary the fair ewe,
this is the one taken from the flock,
and led to slaughter.
Who was sacrificed in the evening, and buried at night;
who was not broken on the tree,
who was not undone in the earth,
who rose form the dead and resurrected humankind from the grave below.
This is the one who has been murdered.
And where murdered?
In the middle of Jerusalem.
By Whom? By Israel.
Why? Because he healed their lame,
and cleansed their lepers,
and enlightened their blind,
and raised up their dead;
and therefore he died...
What a strange injustice have you done, O Israel?
You have dishonored the one who honored you,
you have disgraced the one who glorified you,
you have denied the one who owned you,
you have ignored the one who made you known,
you have murdered the one who gave you life. (69-73)
He it is who made the heaven and the earth,
and formed humanity in the beginning,
who was proclaimed through the law and the prophets,
who took flesh from a virgin,
who was hung on a tree,
who was buried in earth,
who was raised from the dead,
and ascended to the heights of heaven,
who sits at the right hand of the father,
who has the power to save all things,
through whom the father acted from the beginning and for ever.
This is the alpha and omega,
this is the beginning and the end,
the ineffable beginning and the incomprehensible end.
This is the Christ,
this is the King,
this is Jesus,
this is the commander,
this is the Lord,
this is he who rose from the dead,
this is he who sits at the right hand of the Father,
he bears the Father and is borne by him.
To him be the glory and the might for ever.
Amen. (104-105)
********************************
So there you have it. I know it's long and it probably bores most, if not all of you, but I think that catches up on most of what I've been thinking/reading as of late.
I start my last semester at Asbury in February and am stoked about being done. Although I am a little unsure of what I will do when I graduate. I'm taking three classes and am particularly excited about one of them. I am taking:
John Wesley's Theology for Today
Old Testament Theology
and the one that still has to be approved but that I'm really excited about is
Independent Study in historical and theological development of Eastern Christian thought.
I am currently working on finishing three books:
St. John of Damascus: Three Treatises On the Divine Images
St. Symeon the New Theologian: On the Mystical Life: Vol 1. The Church and the Last Things
St. Symeon the New Theologian: On the Mystical Life: Vol 2. On Virtue and the Christian Life
I'm also reading: Rob Bell: Velvet Elvis, but I must confess that I'm only reading Bell because I'm not a big fan and think that I should read more of his works in order to help refute the Rob Bell personality cult that exists at Asbury.
I'm hoping to finish the main three books before February, and while it should be doable I also am lazy and am watching way more movies than I should during this break.
Blessings to you all,
- Ben
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Rejoice!
I find that with all the holiday-ness and end of the school year stuff surrounding Christmas I have trouble rejoicing in Christmas the same way I do Easter. While for Christians, Easter is the chiefest of holy days Christmas is still a day to rejoice in, for Truly God is incarnate and our salvation is now at hand in the form of a babe!
I picked up a book while I was at the monastery and though I am not a big fan of extensive mariology I read something that helps me to put Christmas into perspective and brings tears to my eyes and makes my heart want to leap out of my chest for joy.
Building on the Angels proclamation for Mary to "rejoice" (Lk. 1.28), the beginning of the akathist to the Theotokos reads:
I know a lot of that language may make some of you uncomfortable (to be honest it does that to me a little as well). But how glorious is this incarnation!! God has taken flesh, but not merely flesh, but has become a babe! This is not merely Jesus' birthday that we celebrate (more on this later) but the incarnation of our God! Jesus Christ, God of God, Light of Light, the begotten of the Father before all ages has condescended and become human. The eternally begotten one of the Father is now brought forth through the womb of a young girl in order to die and rise again so that humans can becomes friends of God.
With the incarnation of our God the beginning of the end has come for sin and death. The curse of sin is being tread under foot by an infant yet unable to walk. God has taken flesh and the tears of Eve are wiped away and the groans of creation are subsided. Glory to Jesus Christ!!
Let us praise God that a young girl when confronted with the proclamation from an Angel said: "He am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word," for it was through her womb that the creator of all things took on flesh and was born in order to redeem us all from the curse of sin and death.
Glory to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit!! Let the joy of Christmas ring not merely because we get to see family and friends, but because our God took flesh and was born this day! Let the tears of Eve be blotted out this day, for today our Savior and our God - Jesus Christ - is born!! Hallelujah! Glory to God in the highest!!
May you all have a joyous Christmas!!
- Ben
I picked up a book while I was at the monastery and though I am not a big fan of extensive mariology I read something that helps me to put Christmas into perspective and brings tears to my eyes and makes my heart want to leap out of my chest for joy.
Building on the Angels proclamation for Mary to "rejoice" (Lk. 1.28), the beginning of the akathist to the Theotokos reads:
An Angel, and the chiefest among them, was sent from heaven to cry: Rejoice! to the Mother of God. And beholding Thee, O Lord, taking bodily form, he stood in awe, and with his bodiless voice he cried aloud to her such things as these:
Rejoice though through whome joy shall shine forth. Rejoice, thou through whome the curse shall be blotted out.
Rejoice though the Restoration of fallen Adam. Rejoice, thou the Redemption of the tears of Eve.
Rejoice, Height hard to climb for human thought. Rejoice, Depth hard to explore, even for the eyes of Angels.
Rejoice, for thou are the Throne of the King. Rejoice, for thou sustainest the Sustainer of all.
Rejoice, Star that causest the Sun to appear. Rejoice, Womb of the divine Incarnation
Rejoice, thou through whome creation is renewed. Rejoice, thou through whome the Creator becometh a babe.
Rejoice, thou Bride unwedded.
I know a lot of that language may make some of you uncomfortable (to be honest it does that to me a little as well). But how glorious is this incarnation!! God has taken flesh, but not merely flesh, but has become a babe! This is not merely Jesus' birthday that we celebrate (more on this later) but the incarnation of our God! Jesus Christ, God of God, Light of Light, the begotten of the Father before all ages has condescended and become human. The eternally begotten one of the Father is now brought forth through the womb of a young girl in order to die and rise again so that humans can becomes friends of God.
With the incarnation of our God the beginning of the end has come for sin and death. The curse of sin is being tread under foot by an infant yet unable to walk. God has taken flesh and the tears of Eve are wiped away and the groans of creation are subsided. Glory to Jesus Christ!!
Let us praise God that a young girl when confronted with the proclamation from an Angel said: "He am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word," for it was through her womb that the creator of all things took on flesh and was born in order to redeem us all from the curse of sin and death.
Glory to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit!! Let the joy of Christmas ring not merely because we get to see family and friends, but because our God took flesh and was born this day! Let the tears of Eve be blotted out this day, for today our Savior and our God - Jesus Christ - is born!! Hallelujah! Glory to God in the highest!!
May you all have a joyous Christmas!!
- Ben
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Shared Experiences
Much of what is below is still a work in progress (especially given I just started thinking about this about 3 minutes ago) but I wanted to throw it out there before I forgot it (as I usually do).
I was just youtube-ing at work since the student center is completely empty and I have another hour and a half to work, and I came across a sweet video via my friend Tegan's blog. I promptly sent the link to my sister with whom I was IM-ing to pass the time.
After a period of no response from my sister (not an unusual thing) I asked if she watched it yet? She replied that she hadn't and thus I exhorted her to watch "now." I told her it was great and gave her a few reasons to watch it. After prodding her to watched it I began thinking about the youtube phenomenon and blogging and things of that nature.
I began to wonder how much of this is more the desire for shared experience than actually just the dissemination of cool videos and ideas. I'm sure it's a bit of both, but it seems that one of the driving forces behind youtube and really all the internet fads is shared experience.
As I think about this I wonder if this is need or craving for shared experience has helped to feed into the various popular Christian movements over the past few years. Think about the Emergents. What do they emphasize? They build upon a need for experience and collective-ness at the expense of Christian orthodoxy, even to the point of holding heretical views and ignoring essential Christian tenets. I personally am absolutely dismayed that the emergent movement continues to thrive. This is a cancer growing through protestantism that is causing us to forsake the Christian faith all for some sort of collective experience and liberal idealism. In my mind many of the emergents are no better than the heretics of old such as Arius, Nestorius, Montanus, etc.
I also wonder if desire for shared experience helps to contribute to the Rob Bell craze. While I'm still working on reading through some of this guy's books, I do have to say that I'm not a big fan. His nooma videos are junk and I think they are mostly fueled by this desire for a shared experience or a desire to be 'timely' (see my post: Current? and yes I do realize that I'm being a bit contradictory by posting these thoughts so quickly)
The students here crave Bell and the Emergents. They get all starry-eyed when someone mentions their names and quickly bristle when someone like me says that they're not that great and may indeed hold heretical beliefs (emergents). I find it disturbing that students champion these people and drink the proverbial Kool-Aid so quickly. Why must our shared experience be found in the latest fad and not the timeless beliefs of classic Christian orthodoxy? Why do we champion these new thinkers for innovative ecclesiologies when they lack the substance of the faith and are doing nothing more than leading people down the path to hell with their watered down theology and absence of anything genuine?
If these men and women teach something contradictory to classic Christian Orthodoxy and they cease to become "nice" and "slightly misguided" people that we should learn from and they become impious God-haters (to use some of the phrasing for those anathematized at the ecumenical councils).
Just so I don't get misunderstood and get a ton of backlash let me be clear: I am not calling Rob Bell a heretic. I am also not calling ALL of the Emergents heretics. I have, however, had a conversation with one high-profile Emergent leader in which he claimed the Trinity was just Greek philosophical ideals and not really Christian and thus not a necessary or even important doctrine. I also think that Emergent theology down plays Christian orthodoxy to a dangerous extreme and thus runs fearfully close to falling into heresy (like the aforementioned leader).
My concern is that Asbury Seminary students and undoubtedly students, ministers, and lay people across the country and buying into these faulty paradigms because they desire a shared experience. This is absurd. The shared experience should be the Holy doctrines of the Church which help us to partake of the divine essence of God as St. Peter says. I am absolutely disgusted with the hero worship the students around this campus give to folks like Rob Bell and the emergents.
While the same charge of hero worship could be thrown at me and the way I read the saints of the church, I will just say that my hero's have lasted the test of time, and were actually building up and codifying Christian orthodoxy not ignoring it and leading people astray.
- Ben
I was just youtube-ing at work since the student center is completely empty and I have another hour and a half to work, and I came across a sweet video via my friend Tegan's blog. I promptly sent the link to my sister with whom I was IM-ing to pass the time.
After a period of no response from my sister (not an unusual thing) I asked if she watched it yet? She replied that she hadn't and thus I exhorted her to watch "now." I told her it was great and gave her a few reasons to watch it. After prodding her to watched it I began thinking about the youtube phenomenon and blogging and things of that nature.
I began to wonder how much of this is more the desire for shared experience than actually just the dissemination of cool videos and ideas. I'm sure it's a bit of both, but it seems that one of the driving forces behind youtube and really all the internet fads is shared experience.
As I think about this I wonder if this is need or craving for shared experience has helped to feed into the various popular Christian movements over the past few years. Think about the Emergents. What do they emphasize? They build upon a need for experience and collective-ness at the expense of Christian orthodoxy, even to the point of holding heretical views and ignoring essential Christian tenets. I personally am absolutely dismayed that the emergent movement continues to thrive. This is a cancer growing through protestantism that is causing us to forsake the Christian faith all for some sort of collective experience and liberal idealism. In my mind many of the emergents are no better than the heretics of old such as Arius, Nestorius, Montanus, etc.
I also wonder if desire for shared experience helps to contribute to the Rob Bell craze. While I'm still working on reading through some of this guy's books, I do have to say that I'm not a big fan. His nooma videos are junk and I think they are mostly fueled by this desire for a shared experience or a desire to be 'timely' (see my post: Current? and yes I do realize that I'm being a bit contradictory by posting these thoughts so quickly)
The students here crave Bell and the Emergents. They get all starry-eyed when someone mentions their names and quickly bristle when someone like me says that they're not that great and may indeed hold heretical beliefs (emergents). I find it disturbing that students champion these people and drink the proverbial Kool-Aid so quickly. Why must our shared experience be found in the latest fad and not the timeless beliefs of classic Christian orthodoxy? Why do we champion these new thinkers for innovative ecclesiologies when they lack the substance of the faith and are doing nothing more than leading people down the path to hell with their watered down theology and absence of anything genuine?
If these men and women teach something contradictory to classic Christian Orthodoxy and they cease to become "nice" and "slightly misguided" people that we should learn from and they become impious God-haters (to use some of the phrasing for those anathematized at the ecumenical councils).
Just so I don't get misunderstood and get a ton of backlash let me be clear: I am not calling Rob Bell a heretic. I am also not calling ALL of the Emergents heretics. I have, however, had a conversation with one high-profile Emergent leader in which he claimed the Trinity was just Greek philosophical ideals and not really Christian and thus not a necessary or even important doctrine. I also think that Emergent theology down plays Christian orthodoxy to a dangerous extreme and thus runs fearfully close to falling into heresy (like the aforementioned leader).
My concern is that Asbury Seminary students and undoubtedly students, ministers, and lay people across the country and buying into these faulty paradigms because they desire a shared experience. This is absurd. The shared experience should be the Holy doctrines of the Church which help us to partake of the divine essence of God as St. Peter says. I am absolutely disgusted with the hero worship the students around this campus give to folks like Rob Bell and the emergents.
While the same charge of hero worship could be thrown at me and the way I read the saints of the church, I will just say that my hero's have lasted the test of time, and were actually building up and codifying Christian orthodoxy not ignoring it and leading people astray.
- Ben
Monday, December 17, 2007
In Response to a Weekend at a Monastery
I just spent my weekend (Friday night, Saturday, and Sunday until lunch) at St. Gregory Palamas Monastery in OH with a few guys from church. Although I came out of the weekend very tired, I also think that it was a great 'retreat' and would do it again in a heartbeat.
We arrived at the monastery around 11:30pm on Friday. As we settled ourselves we noticed a sign that informed us that the monastery practices silence from 8:00pm - 9:00am and thus we finished getting settled in silence.
In order not to bore you all with a lengthy more detailed account of the days let me just list our general schedule:
Friday:
11:30pm - Arrive
Saturday:
4:00am ~ 8:30am - Prayers, Matins, Liturgy at the Chapel.
Noon - Prayers and then lunch (in silence)
5:00pm - Prayers and then dinner (in silence)
7:00pm - Compline
8:00pm - 9:00am - Silence throughout entire monastery
Sunday:
6:00am ~ 11:30am - Prayers, Matins, hours, Liturgy
Noon - lunch (in silence)
1:30ish - depart in peace.
So that's the basic schedule. Since the three major emphasis of monasticism are Prayer, Work, and Silence even during the times that were not specifically designated as silent times we tried to remain quited and respectful. We were, however, able to have a few sit-down conversations with the Abbot of the monastery. Father Joseph (the Abbot) was an amazingly wise man and he said some very simple yet profound things to encourage us in our walks with the Lord.
Aside from the general tiredness from the early hours, I think the hardest part for me was the silence. It was wonderfully meditative, but it was also very hard. So often I just wanted to talk to one of the guys I was with, but had to remain silent. I think it was a good practice and it helped me to realize how much "idle talk" comes out of my mouth. It was particularly hard to eat in silence, though to be fair it wasn't complete silence. During the meals there was one monk who was assigned to read from a commentary, a sermon, or another spiritually edifying book. While everyone ate in silence he read. Even though I didn't grab everything that was read, I still caught bits and pieces of it and I thought the practice was healthy. Despite this, I still longed to just have a conversation during the meal. Maybe I'm just entrenched in the practice from society, but it seems like talking with the others one is eating with is only natural. I appreciated the vast amounts of silence. The Silence was really good, and I should probably focus on curbing my speech and talking less, but it was also really hard (though I guess that might be the point).
Another thing I struggled with was keeping my mind focused on the Lord during the long services. This was especially hard given the fact that I was very tired. Even while my thoughts during those hours were not sinful they still were unfocused and tended to stray towards football, lunch, and other randomness. When one of the guys from our group asked Father Joseph if he had any suggestions to help us focus more attentively on the Lord during the longer prayer vigils and liturgies, he said that people can focus on two things at once, but seldom three. Thus ,while listening to the liturgy (or the long sermon) it may be helpful to pray the Jesus prayer, or the Lord's prayer while listening in order to drive the distracting and/or sinful thoughts from our mind.
Another thing that Father Joseph said that I thought was very profound was that the goal of the monastic is to quench the passions which means in part being equally non-reactive to both compliments and insults. He told us a story of a young monk who struggled in not reacting to the insults hurled at him. The Abbot of this monk told him to go to the grave yard and hurl insults at the monks buried there. When the young monk returned the Abbot asked him what reaction he received. The young monk told him that they did nothing. The Abbot then told the monk to go cast compliments at the monks buried at the cemetery. When he returned the Abbot again asked him what reaction he received, and again the young monk said that the monks buried there gave no reaction. The Abbot then told the young monk that he should express the same reaction when confronted with both insults and compliments saying that we should neither be offended or angered by insults, and neither should we swell with pride at compliments.
While this isn't a full synopsis of the weekend I think it is a good representation. The weekend was great, though short and tiring. The monks were incredibly kind and what few conversations I had with them were enlightening. Like I said, Father Joseph was a very wise and holy man and his insight into spiritual things was full of great wisdom brought forth from the experience of walking closely and intently with the Lord for many years. I think it may be a very sad thing that Protestantism doesn't have a form or monasticism which could serve as pillar and exemplar of truth and piety.
- Ben
Coming up: A few book reviews from the semester and maybe some advent thoughts.
We arrived at the monastery around 11:30pm on Friday. As we settled ourselves we noticed a sign that informed us that the monastery practices silence from 8:00pm - 9:00am and thus we finished getting settled in silence.
In order not to bore you all with a lengthy more detailed account of the days let me just list our general schedule:
Friday:
11:30pm - Arrive
Saturday:
4:00am ~ 8:30am - Prayers, Matins, Liturgy at the Chapel.
Noon - Prayers and then lunch (in silence)
5:00pm - Prayers and then dinner (in silence)
7:00pm - Compline
8:00pm - 9:00am - Silence throughout entire monastery
Sunday:
6:00am ~ 11:30am - Prayers, Matins, hours, Liturgy
Noon - lunch (in silence)
1:30ish - depart in peace.
So that's the basic schedule. Since the three major emphasis of monasticism are Prayer, Work, and Silence even during the times that were not specifically designated as silent times we tried to remain quited and respectful. We were, however, able to have a few sit-down conversations with the Abbot of the monastery. Father Joseph (the Abbot) was an amazingly wise man and he said some very simple yet profound things to encourage us in our walks with the Lord.
Aside from the general tiredness from the early hours, I think the hardest part for me was the silence. It was wonderfully meditative, but it was also very hard. So often I just wanted to talk to one of the guys I was with, but had to remain silent. I think it was a good practice and it helped me to realize how much "idle talk" comes out of my mouth. It was particularly hard to eat in silence, though to be fair it wasn't complete silence. During the meals there was one monk who was assigned to read from a commentary, a sermon, or another spiritually edifying book. While everyone ate in silence he read. Even though I didn't grab everything that was read, I still caught bits and pieces of it and I thought the practice was healthy. Despite this, I still longed to just have a conversation during the meal. Maybe I'm just entrenched in the practice from society, but it seems like talking with the others one is eating with is only natural. I appreciated the vast amounts of silence. The Silence was really good, and I should probably focus on curbing my speech and talking less, but it was also really hard (though I guess that might be the point).
Another thing I struggled with was keeping my mind focused on the Lord during the long services. This was especially hard given the fact that I was very tired. Even while my thoughts during those hours were not sinful they still were unfocused and tended to stray towards football, lunch, and other randomness. When one of the guys from our group asked Father Joseph if he had any suggestions to help us focus more attentively on the Lord during the longer prayer vigils and liturgies, he said that people can focus on two things at once, but seldom three. Thus ,while listening to the liturgy (or the long sermon) it may be helpful to pray the Jesus prayer, or the Lord's prayer while listening in order to drive the distracting and/or sinful thoughts from our mind.
Another thing that Father Joseph said that I thought was very profound was that the goal of the monastic is to quench the passions which means in part being equally non-reactive to both compliments and insults. He told us a story of a young monk who struggled in not reacting to the insults hurled at him. The Abbot of this monk told him to go to the grave yard and hurl insults at the monks buried there. When the young monk returned the Abbot asked him what reaction he received. The young monk told him that they did nothing. The Abbot then told the monk to go cast compliments at the monks buried at the cemetery. When he returned the Abbot again asked him what reaction he received, and again the young monk said that the monks buried there gave no reaction. The Abbot then told the young monk that he should express the same reaction when confronted with both insults and compliments saying that we should neither be offended or angered by insults, and neither should we swell with pride at compliments.
While this isn't a full synopsis of the weekend I think it is a good representation. The weekend was great, though short and tiring. The monks were incredibly kind and what few conversations I had with them were enlightening. Like I said, Father Joseph was a very wise and holy man and his insight into spiritual things was full of great wisdom brought forth from the experience of walking closely and intently with the Lord for many years. I think it may be a very sad thing that Protestantism doesn't have a form or monasticism which could serve as pillar and exemplar of truth and piety.
- Ben
Coming up: A few book reviews from the semester and maybe some advent thoughts.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Christmas Break Reading List
I can't believe I just made it through the semester! I think 14 credits of graduate level work (if you can call some of it that) is a little much for me, but I made it through and I only had to pull about 4 or 5 all/most-nighters.
Now that I'm done with the semester (after I turn in the paper I just finished) I've got a little time on my hands to do some reading that I want to do. While I plan to fill my break with hanging out with friends and playing a good amount of video games I also hope to get through at least two if not three books that aren't required reading.
Thus, in typically Ben fashion I'm going to create a giant book list for my next post and probably only get one book from the list read. So, what suggestions do you all have for me to read over Christmas break?
Either email me or post your suggestions in the comments and in a few days, probably after I get back from the monastery I will post a book list I hope to read over break. I would really love some suggestions so post away.
Well it's time to get some sleep, I have to be up to turn in my paper by 9:00am and then I have to bake something for our student services party before noon.
Though I haven't posted about it, it is Advent.
Happy Adventing,
Ben
Now that I'm done with the semester (after I turn in the paper I just finished) I've got a little time on my hands to do some reading that I want to do. While I plan to fill my break with hanging out with friends and playing a good amount of video games I also hope to get through at least two if not three books that aren't required reading.
Thus, in typically Ben fashion I'm going to create a giant book list for my next post and probably only get one book from the list read. So, what suggestions do you all have for me to read over Christmas break?
Either email me or post your suggestions in the comments and in a few days, probably after I get back from the monastery I will post a book list I hope to read over break. I would really love some suggestions so post away.
Well it's time to get some sleep, I have to be up to turn in my paper by 9:00am and then I have to bake something for our student services party before noon.
Though I haven't posted about it, it is Advent.
Happy Adventing,
Ben
Monday, November 19, 2007
The lighter side
I mentioned last time that I would try to post something that is a little lighter and possibly not as theological just for a change of pace. Out of a sense of obligation I post this knowing that it may be equally boring, but nevertheless I continue.
Since I have a ton of work to do and there is no end in sight for the amount of papers I have to write before the semester ends, Luke and I figured the best way for us to start reading week would be to watch college football and then rent a couple movies. The football game was a bust as the evil Ohio State beat Michigan. Not that I was particularly cheering for Michigan, I just loathe Ohio State. The Penn State game followed but that game was quite boring so we opted to begin the movies.
We started with Amazing Grace which chronicled William Wilberforce's effort to abolish slavery in the British Empire. This was a wonderful movie. I didn't set my expectations too high coming into this movie since the driving force behind it was the Christian sub-culture and we all know how lame Christian movies are. This movie, however, greatly exceeded all my expectations. The dialogue and the plot kept me interested in the movie from start to finish. I think that the writers did an excellent job with this movie, except for a few cheesy lines. I would reccomend this movie to you all. As far as "Christian movies" go, I would place this slightly above Luther for one of the best Christian movies of all time. Though I must confess that I haven't seen Carmen's The Champion (that's a joke, I bet that move sucks) and I still have a warm place in my heart for Extreme Days (thanks to Josh Hazelton) despite all it's cheesiness.
Our original plan was to watch Amazing Grace first so as to not spoil it with our second movie choice: Spiderman 3. Despite the bad reviews that I read of Spiderman 3 I have wanted to see it for quite a while. I confess that I am a nerd and I loved watching the cartoon every Saturday morning as a kid, I mean, uh, teenager. I love comic book movies and thus I was excited for this one to come out in theaters. Although this move is exciting because it develops the Venom plot line, it is awful in so many ways that it almost makes me wish I hadn't seen it. The writing was poor and cheesy, there was too much of an emphasis on the CGI fight scenes, rather than plot, there were too many bad guys (3), and thus too little time was spent developing all of them. Sure I enjoyed seeing the plot develop, but I would have preferred that it stayed true to the comics/cartoon, and spent more time developing one or two villains rather than three. I think I almost would have preferred to let the cartoons fill me in on the plot instead of the movie butchering it.
So there is my obligatory, not-so-theological post. Not much else is going on other than I have a ton of school work to do and not a lot of time in which to do it.
Have a great thanksgiving.
- Ben
Since I have a ton of work to do and there is no end in sight for the amount of papers I have to write before the semester ends, Luke and I figured the best way for us to start reading week would be to watch college football and then rent a couple movies. The football game was a bust as the evil Ohio State beat Michigan. Not that I was particularly cheering for Michigan, I just loathe Ohio State. The Penn State game followed but that game was quite boring so we opted to begin the movies.
We started with Amazing Grace which chronicled William Wilberforce's effort to abolish slavery in the British Empire. This was a wonderful movie. I didn't set my expectations too high coming into this movie since the driving force behind it was the Christian sub-culture and we all know how lame Christian movies are. This movie, however, greatly exceeded all my expectations. The dialogue and the plot kept me interested in the movie from start to finish. I think that the writers did an excellent job with this movie, except for a few cheesy lines. I would reccomend this movie to you all. As far as "Christian movies" go, I would place this slightly above Luther for one of the best Christian movies of all time. Though I must confess that I haven't seen Carmen's The Champion (that's a joke, I bet that move sucks) and I still have a warm place in my heart for Extreme Days (thanks to Josh Hazelton) despite all it's cheesiness.
Our original plan was to watch Amazing Grace first so as to not spoil it with our second movie choice: Spiderman 3. Despite the bad reviews that I read of Spiderman 3 I have wanted to see it for quite a while. I confess that I am a nerd and I loved watching the cartoon every Saturday morning as a kid, I mean, uh, teenager. I love comic book movies and thus I was excited for this one to come out in theaters. Although this move is exciting because it develops the Venom plot line, it is awful in so many ways that it almost makes me wish I hadn't seen it. The writing was poor and cheesy, there was too much of an emphasis on the CGI fight scenes, rather than plot, there were too many bad guys (3), and thus too little time was spent developing all of them. Sure I enjoyed seeing the plot develop, but I would have preferred that it stayed true to the comics/cartoon, and spent more time developing one or two villains rather than three. I think I almost would have preferred to let the cartoons fill me in on the plot instead of the movie butchering it.
So there is my obligatory, not-so-theological post. Not much else is going on other than I have a ton of school work to do and not a lot of time in which to do it.
Have a great thanksgiving.
- Ben
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Quick Update
If you were wondering how the reader situation described the post below ended up I got an email today that said they were opting to strike the Nestorian Liturgy quote but keep the Origen quote.
I'm not thrilled with this option, but it's a little better and I have to live with it. Personally I think that both should have been taken out of the reader, but I'm not in charge and I can't make those decisions.
So if you're at Asbury and you are using the 2008 Lent reader for your devotions please know that I had nothing to do with that. Also know that I can only place my wholehearted endorsement on the Lent/Easter Day section of the reader. The other half may be great, but I still feel uncomfortable with Origen in the mix. I can appreciate the major contributions that Origen made to biblical studies and I can agree that it sucks that he was condemned a heretic posthumously, but I cannot agree with including him in a devotional reader knowing that he was condemned a heretic by people much wiser and knowledgeable than we are.
I'm sure these last two posts have bored almost all of the 5 people that read this blog so I'll try to post something light and/or funny next time around. Though I'm not making promises.
- Ben
I'm not thrilled with this option, but it's a little better and I have to live with it. Personally I think that both should have been taken out of the reader, but I'm not in charge and I can't make those decisions.
So if you're at Asbury and you are using the 2008 Lent reader for your devotions please know that I had nothing to do with that. Also know that I can only place my wholehearted endorsement on the Lent/Easter Day section of the reader. The other half may be great, but I still feel uncomfortable with Origen in the mix. I can appreciate the major contributions that Origen made to biblical studies and I can agree that it sucks that he was condemned a heretic posthumously, but I cannot agree with including him in a devotional reader knowing that he was condemned a heretic by people much wiser and knowledgeable than we are.
I'm sure these last two posts have bored almost all of the 5 people that read this blog so I'll try to post something light and/or funny next time around. Though I'm not making promises.
- Ben
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Does anyone care about Christian orthodoxy anymore?!
I should be reading for class right now so I'll try to make this quick. As a few of you probably know, I have spent my last few semesters here working on a couple devotional readers for the seminary for use during the seasons of Lent and KingdomTide (a season created in the 60s or 70s during the season commonly called Pentecost or proper time). I recently finished the Lent/EasterTide reader for 2008, of which I was responsible for all of Lent and Easter Sunday. The EasterTide section was taken by a student down at the Florida campus. In case you're wondering a typical day in the reader would consists of the following:
Opening Prayer - from the Book of Common Prayer, a Psalm or a Saint.
Gospel Reading - We segmented out the Gospel of John for each day on this one.
Historical Reading - A reading form a major figure in Church history. I use mostly cannonized saints (east and west) and John and Charles Wesley.
Prayer of Response - from the Book of Common Prayer, a Psalm, a Saint, or often I will write this to bring more cohesion to the above elements.
Some days will also include an OT reading, or be missing either an historical reading or prayer of response, but you get the idea. The woman with whom I am working at the Florida campus also uses roughly the same format, though I've noticed she likes to bring cohesion by writing more of her own material other than prayers.
Now to the issue that leads to my thoughts:
At the end of the reader we usually write short biographies to help the readership know more about the figures we use. As I was compiling the biographies I noticed that she used two sources that seemed suspect to me: "The Nestorian Liturgy" and Origen.
I took contention to these to figures because both Nestorius and Origen were condemned by the Church (back when it was unified) as heretics. I debated on whether or not to say anything because there is some debate whether Origen actually was a heretic (he was condmned posthumously) and it is popular to quote him. I was going to let Origen slide but I could not remain silent about including part of a heretical liturgy for our campus community to read devotionally. Nestorius (and thus the Nestorians) held that Jesus existed in two persons: Jesus the Son of God and Jesus the man. This means that it was not Jesus the Son of God who died on the cross, but that it was just the man that suffered.
Nestorianism is problematic because, as I believe it was St. Athanasias (though I could be wrong) said, "that which has not been assumed cannot be redeemed." In other words only God could free us from our Sin and thus Jesus Christ who was indeed fully man must be fully God in order for their to be any merit in his death and resurrection. I am aware that this is a truncated argument, but it will have to suffice.
After an exchange of emails she said that she was aware that these men were heretics but that they were condemned under "shady" circumstances and that we can still learn from them because they got "sidetracked." I'd be willing to allow her argument that his condemnation was "shady" to hold a little weight as Origen was dead when this happened, but not Nestorius. And she is dead wrong that Nestorius "got sidetracked" he was confronted by the Church and he refused to deviate his teaching. Nestorius' view strikes at the heart of the incarnation and devalues the entire Christ event. This is not a little slip up, this is huge!
To be fair the readings she included were not in and of themselves heretical. In fact, the small phrases she used were very orthodox, but that is not the point. While it may be important to read these things and talk about them in the classroom to help firm up our foundation on orthodox Christian teaching I do not agree that even the seemingly orthodox statements of heretics should become devotional material. I know that I am dangerously close to separating that which feeds the spirit from that which feeds the soul (something I don't like to do), but we cannot just openly endorse heretics.
I am also confused as to how one can be "open to exploration [of heretics] (as long as it is not teaching heretical stances)." We cannot think that one's heretical beliefs can be fully separate from the rest of one's beliefs. I argue that it is impossible to dichotomize a major belief unit from the rest of one's beliefs. How can one speak praise to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (which is what her Nestorian quote consisted of) while holding that the Son - Jesus Christ is two persons. To whom are you giving praise? The Son that is born of Mary and thus fully human or the Son that is only fully God and thus did not really die and rise for our transgressions?
I'm not intending to get on her case, but I do see this as problematic and didn't know how else to discuss it. She means very well, but in my opinion this is a major issue. I think the part that bothers me the most though is the reaction to many of those whom I've shared this with. People just don't care. I know that I'm a church history nerd and I know that I am very excitable when it comes to the doctrines of the faith, but am I really barking up the wrong tree here?
Why are these heresies that strike right at the heart of our faith suddenly open for discussion? Why is it ok to exalt these heretics to such high levels? Do we not care about the Faith?
We fight long and hard about moral issues, but yet we are not willing to fight for the substance of the Faith? The early church fathers saw little to no distinction between right belief and right practice. It is right belief in who Christ is that as Paul teaches is the basis for our right belief. Maybe, just maybe if we worried a little bit about what our faith is saying we would begin to put together correct Christian morality.
Maybe for us (though I think it's a long shot) we need to worry about other things more than doctrine. But even if that is so what kind of faith will we have to pass on to the next generation? If we continue to ignore the substance of faith and allow heretics to pass as Saints we will have no substance to pass on to our children and to their children. I don't believe it's an accident that the earliest Christian hymns and creeds embedded in the New Testament are very doctrinal and Christ focused - the doctrines of right faith are the soil out of which right morality grows.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not arguing for immoral behavior. I am just wondering why no one cares about the substance of the faith.
Frankly it just makes me sad.
The issue with the reader is just symptom of what is going on in the Church. We must read heretics as heretics and saints as saints. Heretics have no place in our devotional life and must be read cautiously. We can examine them to help inform as to how we got where we are, but we cannot just flippantly include them in communal devotional reading. Especially reading that as my friend Anna pointed out is inherently not conversational with the work or others. In my opinion the inclusion of a figure in the reader implies their endorsement for those who don't have the time or desire to read a lot of these figures. These quotes may get used in sermons, bible studies, and youth group lessons. These quotes may get googled and used within the context of the whole. My biggest fear with the quote form the Nestorian liturgy is that some student hoping to do a nice 'emergent' liturgical service will Google the liturgy and unknowingly have his or her parishioners partake in a heretical liturgy. For what we practice will slowly become embedded in us and become part of our belief system. This is one of the reasons why we must continue to celebrate the creeds in our services. But that's another post for another time.
As always I'd appreciate your thoughts on this matter even if you disagree with me, as I'm sure many of you will given the reaction I've gotten so far from some friends.
Opening Prayer - from the Book of Common Prayer, a Psalm or a Saint.
Gospel Reading - We segmented out the Gospel of John for each day on this one.
Historical Reading - A reading form a major figure in Church history. I use mostly cannonized saints (east and west) and John and Charles Wesley.
Prayer of Response - from the Book of Common Prayer, a Psalm, a Saint, or often I will write this to bring more cohesion to the above elements.
Some days will also include an OT reading, or be missing either an historical reading or prayer of response, but you get the idea. The woman with whom I am working at the Florida campus also uses roughly the same format, though I've noticed she likes to bring cohesion by writing more of her own material other than prayers.
Now to the issue that leads to my thoughts:
At the end of the reader we usually write short biographies to help the readership know more about the figures we use. As I was compiling the biographies I noticed that she used two sources that seemed suspect to me: "The Nestorian Liturgy" and Origen.
I took contention to these to figures because both Nestorius and Origen were condemned by the Church (back when it was unified) as heretics. I debated on whether or not to say anything because there is some debate whether Origen actually was a heretic (he was condmned posthumously) and it is popular to quote him. I was going to let Origen slide but I could not remain silent about including part of a heretical liturgy for our campus community to read devotionally. Nestorius (and thus the Nestorians) held that Jesus existed in two persons: Jesus the Son of God and Jesus the man. This means that it was not Jesus the Son of God who died on the cross, but that it was just the man that suffered.
Nestorianism is problematic because, as I believe it was St. Athanasias (though I could be wrong) said, "that which has not been assumed cannot be redeemed." In other words only God could free us from our Sin and thus Jesus Christ who was indeed fully man must be fully God in order for their to be any merit in his death and resurrection. I am aware that this is a truncated argument, but it will have to suffice.
After an exchange of emails she said that she was aware that these men were heretics but that they were condemned under "shady" circumstances and that we can still learn from them because they got "sidetracked." I'd be willing to allow her argument that his condemnation was "shady" to hold a little weight as Origen was dead when this happened, but not Nestorius. And she is dead wrong that Nestorius "got sidetracked" he was confronted by the Church and he refused to deviate his teaching. Nestorius' view strikes at the heart of the incarnation and devalues the entire Christ event. This is not a little slip up, this is huge!
To be fair the readings she included were not in and of themselves heretical. In fact, the small phrases she used were very orthodox, but that is not the point. While it may be important to read these things and talk about them in the classroom to help firm up our foundation on orthodox Christian teaching I do not agree that even the seemingly orthodox statements of heretics should become devotional material. I know that I am dangerously close to separating that which feeds the spirit from that which feeds the soul (something I don't like to do), but we cannot just openly endorse heretics.
I am also confused as to how one can be "open to exploration [of heretics] (as long as it is not teaching heretical stances)." We cannot think that one's heretical beliefs can be fully separate from the rest of one's beliefs. I argue that it is impossible to dichotomize a major belief unit from the rest of one's beliefs. How can one speak praise to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (which is what her Nestorian quote consisted of) while holding that the Son - Jesus Christ is two persons. To whom are you giving praise? The Son that is born of Mary and thus fully human or the Son that is only fully God and thus did not really die and rise for our transgressions?
I'm not intending to get on her case, but I do see this as problematic and didn't know how else to discuss it. She means very well, but in my opinion this is a major issue. I think the part that bothers me the most though is the reaction to many of those whom I've shared this with. People just don't care. I know that I'm a church history nerd and I know that I am very excitable when it comes to the doctrines of the faith, but am I really barking up the wrong tree here?
Why are these heresies that strike right at the heart of our faith suddenly open for discussion? Why is it ok to exalt these heretics to such high levels? Do we not care about the Faith?
We fight long and hard about moral issues, but yet we are not willing to fight for the substance of the Faith? The early church fathers saw little to no distinction between right belief and right practice. It is right belief in who Christ is that as Paul teaches is the basis for our right belief. Maybe, just maybe if we worried a little bit about what our faith is saying we would begin to put together correct Christian morality.
Maybe for us (though I think it's a long shot) we need to worry about other things more than doctrine. But even if that is so what kind of faith will we have to pass on to the next generation? If we continue to ignore the substance of faith and allow heretics to pass as Saints we will have no substance to pass on to our children and to their children. I don't believe it's an accident that the earliest Christian hymns and creeds embedded in the New Testament are very doctrinal and Christ focused - the doctrines of right faith are the soil out of which right morality grows.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not arguing for immoral behavior. I am just wondering why no one cares about the substance of the faith.
Frankly it just makes me sad.
The issue with the reader is just symptom of what is going on in the Church. We must read heretics as heretics and saints as saints. Heretics have no place in our devotional life and must be read cautiously. We can examine them to help inform as to how we got where we are, but we cannot just flippantly include them in communal devotional reading. Especially reading that as my friend Anna pointed out is inherently not conversational with the work or others. In my opinion the inclusion of a figure in the reader implies their endorsement for those who don't have the time or desire to read a lot of these figures. These quotes may get used in sermons, bible studies, and youth group lessons. These quotes may get googled and used within the context of the whole. My biggest fear with the quote form the Nestorian liturgy is that some student hoping to do a nice 'emergent' liturgical service will Google the liturgy and unknowingly have his or her parishioners partake in a heretical liturgy. For what we practice will slowly become embedded in us and become part of our belief system. This is one of the reasons why we must continue to celebrate the creeds in our services. But that's another post for another time.
As always I'd appreciate your thoughts on this matter even if you disagree with me, as I'm sure many of you will given the reaction I've gotten so far from some friends.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Flippancy with Orthodoxy
I'm writing a paper this semester on the addition of the "Filioque" clause (for a more detailed explanation click here) in the Nicene Creed. While this may seem like a really nerdy project, and indeed it probably is, the reason I've elected to write on it is because this is a topic that is historically important but also one that I find to be very important for personal piety - especially if I am going to lead a congregation in saying the creed some day.
One may think that this is just a creedal variant and thus it only makes a difference in the deep realm of theology and not in that of the average church. Let me say that I agree with the early church fathers when they often argued that godliness (holiness) were one and the same with correct belief. They taught that out of correct belief comes correct action. While I don't want to get into the deep ramifications of the Filioque insertion, I do believe that it affects our view of the Trinity and thus it effects our view of God. Since I believe we should try to think rightly about God I also believe that I should be concerned with this issue, especially since I hold the Nicene Creed close to my heart as a definitive statement of Orthodoxy.
Since I'm not sure how this inserted statement lines up with scriptural orthodoxy I have chosen to err on the side of not saying "and the Son" when I recite the Nicene Creed. Please know that I'm not saying all this to condemn those who don't think about this, I simply bring it up for two reasons: 1. it's something that I've been thinking through for the past year or so and 2. I catch a lot of crap for thinking this way.
The second reason is the one that I would like to address. Most of the crap that I catch for thinking so intently on this subject are from good friends who joke about it in good fun. I have no problem with this. I don't think it's sacrilege and I can take a joke. I'm sure I've probably been more sacrilegious than all of them combined. However, I am concerned with the number of people who flippantly don't care about this issue and joke about it based on that.
I don't want to be condemnatory toward the laity but I very disappointed in the seminarians who openly mock the notion that one would seriously think about this issue. This is seminary, this is the place where we are suppose to think on these sorts of things and I find it extremely disheartening that there are people on our campus that will argue about our ethos statement against drinking but will not think seriously about the creed we recite and what is says about our God. I am even more depressed when I think about being on chapel team last year. I was on a team that was supposed to lead the community in worship, of which the creeds were occasionally a part, and I was openly mocked by the team for declining to lead the congregation in the recitation of the Nicene Creed because I didn't want to lead them astray one way or the other.
I am amazed with the flippant nature Orthodoxy is treated with among the student body. I allow that this may be a "small issue" (though historically it may be the largest) but there is also a great deal of contempt that is shown toward historic orthodox doctrines in an effort to be creative and think outside of the box. While it is ok to think critically I find it disturbing when we treat historical Christian orthodoxy as chains from which to be freed. This even occurs among the faculty at times. I was in class the other day with a highly published professor and he closely approached the Arian line as he openly pondered if there was a point in eternity before creation at which Christ was unbegotten. He was very careful to say that there was always a Trinity (and thus avoided complete Arianism), but that there may have been a point in eternity when Christ was not begotten of the Father.
I shudder when i think about the generation of Pastors this seminary is training. We are neglecting the substance of the faith in an effort to create pastors that are able to memorize their sermons, use good illustrations, and learn how to be 'relevant'...and for what? So that they can recite sermons without substance from memory? So they can illustrate and perpetuate a form of weak Christianity? So they can lead people away from the Holy Faith and straight into nominal Christianity, in a nominal way?
Lord Have Mercy!!
May God save his people and bless his inheritance!!
One may think that this is just a creedal variant and thus it only makes a difference in the deep realm of theology and not in that of the average church. Let me say that I agree with the early church fathers when they often argued that godliness (holiness) were one and the same with correct belief. They taught that out of correct belief comes correct action. While I don't want to get into the deep ramifications of the Filioque insertion, I do believe that it affects our view of the Trinity and thus it effects our view of God. Since I believe we should try to think rightly about God I also believe that I should be concerned with this issue, especially since I hold the Nicene Creed close to my heart as a definitive statement of Orthodoxy.
Since I'm not sure how this inserted statement lines up with scriptural orthodoxy I have chosen to err on the side of not saying "and the Son" when I recite the Nicene Creed. Please know that I'm not saying all this to condemn those who don't think about this, I simply bring it up for two reasons: 1. it's something that I've been thinking through for the past year or so and 2. I catch a lot of crap for thinking this way.
The second reason is the one that I would like to address. Most of the crap that I catch for thinking so intently on this subject are from good friends who joke about it in good fun. I have no problem with this. I don't think it's sacrilege and I can take a joke. I'm sure I've probably been more sacrilegious than all of them combined. However, I am concerned with the number of people who flippantly don't care about this issue and joke about it based on that.
I don't want to be condemnatory toward the laity but I very disappointed in the seminarians who openly mock the notion that one would seriously think about this issue. This is seminary, this is the place where we are suppose to think on these sorts of things and I find it extremely disheartening that there are people on our campus that will argue about our ethos statement against drinking but will not think seriously about the creed we recite and what is says about our God. I am even more depressed when I think about being on chapel team last year. I was on a team that was supposed to lead the community in worship, of which the creeds were occasionally a part, and I was openly mocked by the team for declining to lead the congregation in the recitation of the Nicene Creed because I didn't want to lead them astray one way or the other.
I am amazed with the flippant nature Orthodoxy is treated with among the student body. I allow that this may be a "small issue" (though historically it may be the largest) but there is also a great deal of contempt that is shown toward historic orthodox doctrines in an effort to be creative and think outside of the box. While it is ok to think critically I find it disturbing when we treat historical Christian orthodoxy as chains from which to be freed. This even occurs among the faculty at times. I was in class the other day with a highly published professor and he closely approached the Arian line as he openly pondered if there was a point in eternity before creation at which Christ was unbegotten. He was very careful to say that there was always a Trinity (and thus avoided complete Arianism), but that there may have been a point in eternity when Christ was not begotten of the Father.
I shudder when i think about the generation of Pastors this seminary is training. We are neglecting the substance of the faith in an effort to create pastors that are able to memorize their sermons, use good illustrations, and learn how to be 'relevant'...and for what? So that they can recite sermons without substance from memory? So they can illustrate and perpetuate a form of weak Christianity? So they can lead people away from the Holy Faith and straight into nominal Christianity, in a nominal way?
Lord Have Mercy!!
May God save his people and bless his inheritance!!
Thursday, November 01, 2007
The Feast of All Saints Day
For those of you in the west today is All Saints Day, the day that we remember the dead in Christ who will rise first at the coming of our Lord.
It is good for us to remember those in the faith who have gone before us and to remember that death has no power over those who are in Christ Jesus.
This is my first All-Saints Day since I first experience the death of some one close to me. And so the Spirit testifies just as boldly now as He did the day I found out my grandfather died, that Death has been conquered and has been trampled down by death!
Here are some words from St. John Chrysostom's Paschal homily that I had the privilege to preach at my Grandpa's funeral.
So take heart and joy with the Church in celebrating not merely the lives of the cloud of witnesses that have gone before us, but the glorious reality in which we live - a reality in which Death has been trampled down by death!!
Glory to Jesus Christ, Glory Forever!!
Amen.
It is good for us to remember those in the faith who have gone before us and to remember that death has no power over those who are in Christ Jesus.
This is my first All-Saints Day since I first experience the death of some one close to me. And so the Spirit testifies just as boldly now as He did the day I found out my grandfather died, that Death has been conquered and has been trampled down by death!
Here are some words from St. John Chrysostom's Paschal homily that I had the privilege to preach at my Grandpa's funeral.
Let no one fear death, for the Death of our Savior has set us free.
He has destroyed [death] by enduring it.
He destroyed [Hell] when He descended into it.
He put it into an uproar even as it tasted of His flesh.
Isaiah foretold this when he said,
"You, O Hell, have been troubled by encountering Him below."
Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with.
It was in an uproar because it is mocked.
It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed.
It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated.
It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive.
Hell took a body, and discovered God.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not see.
O death, where is thy sting?
O [Hell], where is thy victory?
Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!
Christ is Risen, and the evil ones are cast down!
Christ is Risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is Risen, and life is liberated!
Christ is Risen, and the tomb is emptied of its dead;
for Christ having risen from the dead,
is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.
So take heart and joy with the Church in celebrating not merely the lives of the cloud of witnesses that have gone before us, but the glorious reality in which we live - a reality in which Death has been trampled down by death!!
Glory to Jesus Christ, Glory Forever!!
Amen.
On the Eucharist
I'm lying in bed tonight and I just can't sleep until I post this so it'll be quick. As I was lying in my bed I couldn't help but think about the day and how it was a great day. While it may be the great weather, the fact that I didn't do anything, or any combination therein, I firmly believe it is because today I had the Eucharist for the first time since the summer in Duluth.
Surely God must meet us in this Holy Sacrament. I can't explain it fully, but my countenance is lifted, my heart is more joyous, and my outlook is more positive than it has been in weeks (a much needed thing). Glory to God forever for giving us this Holy Gift - for giving us himself in this glorious actions.
Oh, that I could avail myself of this grace more often than once a week!!
I know that I'm firmly alienating myself from most of protestantism with these thoughts, but I can't deny the clear teaching of the Church for centuries and I can't deny my experience today.
Glory, praise, and thanksgiving to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit!! Amen.
Surely God must meet us in this Holy Sacrament. I can't explain it fully, but my countenance is lifted, my heart is more joyous, and my outlook is more positive than it has been in weeks (a much needed thing). Glory to God forever for giving us this Holy Gift - for giving us himself in this glorious actions.
Oh, that I could avail myself of this grace more often than once a week!!
I know that I'm firmly alienating myself from most of protestantism with these thoughts, but I can't deny the clear teaching of the Church for centuries and I can't deny my experience today.
Glory, praise, and thanksgiving to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit!! Amen.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Misappropriating the Incarnation?
I'm not really in the mood to blog right now, so this post (as have so many others) may be lacking in coherence and a well formulated argument, but I will post it nevertheless because it helps me to process things verbally (or in this case through typing).
We recently had Kingdom Conference on campus which is basically the Seminary's attempt at a four day mission conference nestled in the "church season" they like to call KingdomTide. (We'll avoid my soapbox diatribe against KingdomTide for now).
The topic of this conference was rethinking short-term missions and how we can do them well. I think this is a very important topic because so often short-term mission trips turn into vacations with just enough 'ministry' to ease the guilt of taking a vacation. We also want to avoid what my friend Eric Iverson from Youthworks calls "pimping poor people," or in some cases 'pimping the nationals' we go to work with. We want to make sure we do some good and we want to make sure that we are not only sticking a band-aid on the infection, but that we're treating the cause as well. We want to make lasting changes and almost work ourselves and our missionary friends out of a job. I'm not sure if I explained that well, but either way it's more of an aside and not the topic I wanted to discuss. (Don't you just love my flow of consciousness writing style?)
Given the topic we had a speaker in chapel that lectured on improving short-term missions. Our speaker was Dr. Miriam Adeney, a professor at Seattle Pacific, who was a fairly good speaker. I liked most of her points but during one of her lectures she said something that I remember thinking was a very poor analogy at best. In her effort to emphasize making long-term connections through short-term missions she said "What if Jesus had dropped in on earth for only two weeks?" This seemed to me to be an odd analogy and I remember taking some issue with it when she said it. I didn't really get too worked up over her comment until I saw it listed as the "Heard Around Campus" quote of the week from last week. I guess it seems that someone (and since they put it in there, I'm assuming multiple someones) thought that it was a very profound statement.
While it is a good point in that Jesus didn't just "drop in" and we should cherish that because the incarnation is absolutely essential to our salvation and for knowing the mind and the heart of God. It seems to me that she is just citing an extreme case to make a small point about missions. Maybe this is just a type of logical fallacy (and as I type this I think it is, but I can't remember it) or maybe this could be a form of Godwin's Law. To be sure, I have been guilty of such errors (regrettably too often in conversation) but this analogy just seems wrong to me and I'm having trouble articulating it. Maybe I'm not making sense but it just seems to me that placing relationship building in short-term missions (or in any sense) on the same level with the Holy Incarnation is just too extreme of an analogy. It bothers me even more that students (or at least one student) thinks this to be worthy of the quote of the week. Doesn't it bother anyone else that we just use the incarnation as a means to justify almost anything. The incarnation is one of the most glorious things and we treat it as though it were just an example that we should draw from when we want to make our argument fool-proof.
I'm not saying that I disagree with Dr. Adeney's points, I'm just disagree with her argument style/example. Maybe I wouldn't be so quick to point this out if I didn't think that we deified community here at Asbury. Maybe you're thinking that that last statement may indeed be the exact same fallacy that I'm arguing against, but I don't think it is, because I've heard some discussions (many of which come out of the chapel office) that make it seem (and I really think it is the case) that the seminary is more concerned with making sure our students value community than it is that they value and rightly think on the incarnation, the Trinity, or a plethora of other essential doctrines of the Church.
Maybe I'm making a bid deal out of nothing, but maybe these comments by Dr. Adeney and their glorification by the student(s) is just the tip of a bigger problem that is well entrenched in Western Christendom.
- Ben
We recently had Kingdom Conference on campus which is basically the Seminary's attempt at a four day mission conference nestled in the "church season" they like to call KingdomTide. (We'll avoid my soapbox diatribe against KingdomTide for now).
The topic of this conference was rethinking short-term missions and how we can do them well. I think this is a very important topic because so often short-term mission trips turn into vacations with just enough 'ministry' to ease the guilt of taking a vacation. We also want to avoid what my friend Eric Iverson from Youthworks calls "pimping poor people," or in some cases 'pimping the nationals' we go to work with. We want to make sure we do some good and we want to make sure that we are not only sticking a band-aid on the infection, but that we're treating the cause as well. We want to make lasting changes and almost work ourselves and our missionary friends out of a job. I'm not sure if I explained that well, but either way it's more of an aside and not the topic I wanted to discuss. (Don't you just love my flow of consciousness writing style?)
Given the topic we had a speaker in chapel that lectured on improving short-term missions. Our speaker was Dr. Miriam Adeney, a professor at Seattle Pacific, who was a fairly good speaker. I liked most of her points but during one of her lectures she said something that I remember thinking was a very poor analogy at best. In her effort to emphasize making long-term connections through short-term missions she said "What if Jesus had dropped in on earth for only two weeks?" This seemed to me to be an odd analogy and I remember taking some issue with it when she said it. I didn't really get too worked up over her comment until I saw it listed as the "Heard Around Campus" quote of the week from last week. I guess it seems that someone (and since they put it in there, I'm assuming multiple someones) thought that it was a very profound statement.
While it is a good point in that Jesus didn't just "drop in" and we should cherish that because the incarnation is absolutely essential to our salvation and for knowing the mind and the heart of God. It seems to me that she is just citing an extreme case to make a small point about missions. Maybe this is just a type of logical fallacy (and as I type this I think it is, but I can't remember it) or maybe this could be a form of Godwin's Law. To be sure, I have been guilty of such errors (regrettably too often in conversation) but this analogy just seems wrong to me and I'm having trouble articulating it. Maybe I'm not making sense but it just seems to me that placing relationship building in short-term missions (or in any sense) on the same level with the Holy Incarnation is just too extreme of an analogy. It bothers me even more that students (or at least one student) thinks this to be worthy of the quote of the week. Doesn't it bother anyone else that we just use the incarnation as a means to justify almost anything. The incarnation is one of the most glorious things and we treat it as though it were just an example that we should draw from when we want to make our argument fool-proof.
I'm not saying that I disagree with Dr. Adeney's points, I'm just disagree with her argument style/example. Maybe I wouldn't be so quick to point this out if I didn't think that we deified community here at Asbury. Maybe you're thinking that that last statement may indeed be the exact same fallacy that I'm arguing against, but I don't think it is, because I've heard some discussions (many of which come out of the chapel office) that make it seem (and I really think it is the case) that the seminary is more concerned with making sure our students value community than it is that they value and rightly think on the incarnation, the Trinity, or a plethora of other essential doctrines of the Church.
Maybe I'm making a bid deal out of nothing, but maybe these comments by Dr. Adeney and their glorification by the student(s) is just the tip of a bigger problem that is well entrenched in Western Christendom.
- Ben
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Cynical?
Given my (and a few of my housemate's) cynical attitude toward the seminary one of them posed the question.
"Is it cynicism if we're right?"
So that's the question I offer up to you. If our percieved cynical attitude is right are we really cynics or just the only ones that can see reality?
I'd love to read your thoughts in the comments. Have at it.
"Is it cynicism if we're right?"
So that's the question I offer up to you. If our percieved cynical attitude is right are we really cynics or just the only ones that can see reality?
I'd love to read your thoughts in the comments. Have at it.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Christ Our God?!?
Over the past few weeks there has been one phrase from church that has been constantly on my mind - the phrase "Christ our God." This phrase is repeated numerous times during the Divine Liturgy and is very clear in it's meaning - namely that Christ is our God and we worship him.
For some reason over the past few weeks this phrase has stuck out to me more than usual and thus I have been forced to wrestle with it's profundity and simplicity. I have been forced to realize what it means to truly say that Christ is our God. To say that in a seemingly nonsensical sense that we worship a man, but not just a man, we worship a person who is both fully God and fully man.
This truth is something I will die for and yet it is something that although I try, I cannot fully understand and so I am forced to stand in the paradox of confident humility.
While this is indeed is a good meditation, it was not where I had planned to go with this post, so let me get back on track.
As I have thought and have been forced to meditate on this phrase I have been equally dismayed by it's absence from Protestant services. I think I first noticed this because when I first started to think on this phrase I felt slightly uncomfortable and began to analyze why. I then realized that I don't usually hear the phrase Christ our God in worship. As I thought I realized that while I may have conversations about Christ's divinity and would defend it in a theological debate any day, I never have really experienced protestant worship that verbalized Christ as God and the object of worship in a doxological sense.
Now, I realize that I am opening up myself for a great critique here as I'm sure one could find a few counterexamples and will believe that to suffice for a refutation of my assertion, but I disagree. Think about our worship services, for you Asburians think about our Chapel services (which, though they should be the exception are likely to fail even more than our churches) when was the last time that the service was thoroughly Trinitarian? When was the last time that a service was Christo-centric in the sense that it drew your worship toward Christ and caused you to bless, worship and affirm Christ as both God and man? Are our services Trinitarian - rarely. Are they Christo-centric - mostly, but this Christo-centrism seems to be a thin veil in front of bland and vague affirmations about God, rather than a specificity that is uniquely Christian and prayerfully meditative of Christ as the object of our worship - the fully divine, fully human , God-man.
Now, I am not fully opposed to songs of worship that are very concerned with the intimacy to be had between the Christian and Christ (love songs with Jesus, if you will), but these are not a proper starting place. We must start with the foundational faith and then allow room for mystical expression and intimate experiences.
We must do a better job at teaching our people the faith and for most this will not effectively happen in the classroom or the pulpit, but my making these truths essential parts or our worship both in song and prayer. If we continue on the path of only emphasizing the essential truths of the faith in classrooms and teaching them only to pastors then the faith will cease to be passed down to the coming generations.
The early fathers closely linked godliness with correct theology and action. We wonder why our people don't live righteously- could it not be that it is because they are not grounded in the Truth?
For some reason over the past few weeks this phrase has stuck out to me more than usual and thus I have been forced to wrestle with it's profundity and simplicity. I have been forced to realize what it means to truly say that Christ is our God. To say that in a seemingly nonsensical sense that we worship a man, but not just a man, we worship a person who is both fully God and fully man.
God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
- Athanasian Creed
This truth is something I will die for and yet it is something that although I try, I cannot fully understand and so I am forced to stand in the paradox of confident humility.
While this is indeed is a good meditation, it was not where I had planned to go with this post, so let me get back on track.
As I have thought and have been forced to meditate on this phrase I have been equally dismayed by it's absence from Protestant services. I think I first noticed this because when I first started to think on this phrase I felt slightly uncomfortable and began to analyze why. I then realized that I don't usually hear the phrase Christ our God in worship. As I thought I realized that while I may have conversations about Christ's divinity and would defend it in a theological debate any day, I never have really experienced protestant worship that verbalized Christ as God and the object of worship in a doxological sense.
Now, I realize that I am opening up myself for a great critique here as I'm sure one could find a few counterexamples and will believe that to suffice for a refutation of my assertion, but I disagree. Think about our worship services, for you Asburians think about our Chapel services (which, though they should be the exception are likely to fail even more than our churches) when was the last time that the service was thoroughly Trinitarian? When was the last time that a service was Christo-centric in the sense that it drew your worship toward Christ and caused you to bless, worship and affirm Christ as both God and man? Are our services Trinitarian - rarely. Are they Christo-centric - mostly, but this Christo-centrism seems to be a thin veil in front of bland and vague affirmations about God, rather than a specificity that is uniquely Christian and prayerfully meditative of Christ as the object of our worship - the fully divine, fully human , God-man.
Now, I am not fully opposed to songs of worship that are very concerned with the intimacy to be had between the Christian and Christ (love songs with Jesus, if you will), but these are not a proper starting place. We must start with the foundational faith and then allow room for mystical expression and intimate experiences.
We must do a better job at teaching our people the faith and for most this will not effectively happen in the classroom or the pulpit, but my making these truths essential parts or our worship both in song and prayer. If we continue on the path of only emphasizing the essential truths of the faith in classrooms and teaching them only to pastors then the faith will cease to be passed down to the coming generations.
The early fathers closely linked godliness with correct theology and action. We wonder why our people don't live righteously- could it not be that it is because they are not grounded in the Truth?
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Unitarian Universalists
I went to a Unitarian Universalist Church the other day and it was an interesting experience. No, I am not converting, I had to go to another religious movement/cult for a class and they were the easiest to figure out when they met. I would write a total review, but I'm kinda lazy so I won't. I did however run into my friend Ed at the church (surprising because he goes to St. Athanasius as well) and Ed wrote a good review of the church on his blog.
I think Ed does a great job describing the UU church. His thoughts almost exactly echo mine especially when he mentions the service being boring. Oh my goodness, it was the most boring thing I've ever been to - even more boring than a Dr. Gould greek class.
The only thing I would add onto his post is that I agree that it looked much like the protestant/emergent services. In fact I would argue that it is a lot like so much of protestantism. A great deal of the service reminded me of seeker churches and even a bunch like the chapel services here at the Seminary. This, however, is not a good thing. I'm not making this point to say: "yay, look how close they are to the truth." rather it is surprising how far so much of weak protestantism (including so many of our chapel services here at the seminary) have strayed from boldly proclaiming the truth with any amount of urgency. This service really reminded me a lot of Quest Community Church which I have recently blogged about. That may be a cheap shot, but I really think(from what little I've seen) that Quest is a far cry from proclaiming the gospel and is so afraid at alienating people that they might as well be Unitarian Universalists.
I suppose that's it for now since my cults class is almost over. I had an idea for a post in class today but it may take some time to develop as I feel I should attend some services at Quest before I try to use our class paradigm to qualify them as a cult. But it should be a fun try.
- Ben
I think Ed does a great job describing the UU church. His thoughts almost exactly echo mine especially when he mentions the service being boring. Oh my goodness, it was the most boring thing I've ever been to - even more boring than a Dr. Gould greek class.
The only thing I would add onto his post is that I agree that it looked much like the protestant/emergent services. In fact I would argue that it is a lot like so much of protestantism. A great deal of the service reminded me of seeker churches and even a bunch like the chapel services here at the Seminary. This, however, is not a good thing. I'm not making this point to say: "yay, look how close they are to the truth." rather it is surprising how far so much of weak protestantism (including so many of our chapel services here at the seminary) have strayed from boldly proclaiming the truth with any amount of urgency. This service really reminded me a lot of Quest Community Church which I have recently blogged about. That may be a cheap shot, but I really think(from what little I've seen) that Quest is a far cry from proclaiming the gospel and is so afraid at alienating people that they might as well be Unitarian Universalists.
I suppose that's it for now since my cults class is almost over. I had an idea for a post in class today but it may take some time to develop as I feel I should attend some services at Quest before I try to use our class paradigm to qualify them as a cult. But it should be a fun try.
- Ben
Sunday, September 16, 2007
When paradigms collide
As most of you know I spent the summer living in Duluth, MN working for an organization called Youthworks. While you probably know from a previous post that I spent the summer facilitating short-term missions for Jr. High students, I do believe that I forgot to mention that every Tuesday we would take the groups that came to our site to a 'soup kitchen' to dine and fellowship with the people who ate there. While not everyone was homeless (though some were) most were among the poor of the city. This was a great stretch for me this summer. It made me uncomfortable and it pulled me out of my comfort zone (just like so much of the summer) but by the time the summer ended I looked forward to Tuesday nights and the people that I would meet.
Last week, about 3-5 weeks after my meals at the Mission had come to an end, I found myself working on the sound crew for an very prestigious show here in Lexington. The artist was Aretha Franklin, but the event was the TOBA (Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association) annual award ceremony. So while I'm use to seeing a ton of money dropped on concerts I don't know if I've ever seen money like this before. The event was in a large tent on a beautiful horse farm here in KY. The tent, however, was floored, carpeted and air-conditioned. Aside from the regular light trussing for the concert there was a light truss that ran the entire length of the tent on which hung three giant chandeliers (maybe about 7' tall x 3' around). I also heard rumors, which I wasn't able to verify, that the event was about $3,000 a plate.
I was both awed and disgusted by the money put into this event. To make matters worse the event was opened with an invocation which was prefaced by the reading of Jeremiah 29:11 "'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the LORD, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.'" I love it when bible passages are taken out of context to justify gross amounts of wealth and self-indulgence (this is not to say that I'm 100% innocent of this).
As the awards went on I began to think that just a few weeks before this event I was eating dinner with the poor and neglected and now I was sitting in the background amongst the wealthy, powerful, and oppressive. As I sat in the disbelief of this realization one of the presenters gave an impassioned speech about how everyone in attendance needs to be aware of the sad reality that the thoroughbred industry is not considered agricultural by the US government and thus they still have to do horrible things like pay taxes on horse food and whatnot. I just sat in disbelief, could this person even be arguing that thoroughbred breeding and racing should be a tax-exempt industry?!
I pretty much just sat in the numb and saddening reality of the smash-up of my two worlds until Aretha came on stage and I had to do work.
After tearing down from the concert and getting a solid 4 hours of sleep I woke up the next morning (Sunday) to go run sound for Questapalooza an event held by one of the Lexington churches (a C&MA church I might add) where Toby Mac was the headliner. I knew from working this show last year, that the day would be full of chaos, poor event management, and very bad theology, but I was still saddened and angered by what I saw.
Not only did I see the huge stage, sound equipment and lighting that my company provides, but I also saw carnival rides, a motocross jump, carnival food vendors, and swimming pools for baptism. While things such as the fake-ness, the foundational concepts that church is built on, the re-baptizing, the 'worship' music, and many other things bothered me greatly I would like to focus on one small part of the larger whole that I think will tie into the discussion above - namely the theme of the event.
The theme for Questapalooza as best as I could understand was "Loving our city through Questapalooza!" It seemed to me that what they meant by this is that they were giving the city a party so they could relax and enjoy (at about a $20 entry fee mind you), but also that they were going to give away things to people such as a Wii, an iphone, and a new car. To be honest I think they may have also collected food or raised money for some shelters or organization in Lexington but this was only mentioned once (very briefly) compared to the party terminology and the give-aways being mentioned a countless number of times. In fact the point was hammered home by the senior pastor (who was, to my shame, both a Houghton College and Asbury Seminary graduate) that Quest likes to give gifts because God likes to give us gifts. After giving away the car the pastor also said: "Just know that that's Jesus, that car is from Jesus." While this oozes with heretical prosperity theology tendencies, I am not going to rule out that God does provide for our physical needs. He may have indeed prompted this person to buy a raffle ticket and guided the pastor's hand to that ticket so she could win a car. What, however, I will react definitively against is a church and a concept of God that ties love so closely to material things and goods.
With a theme like "Loving our city through Questapalooza!" I can only assume that the people of the church and maybe even the pastor are being deceived. I can think of so many more worthy places to spend what was likely over $100,000. Just so you don't think I'm totally making this figure up let me explain how I get it. Last summer our mobile stage usually rented out for $10,000 a show not including audio and lighting (maybe another 10 grand or so?). When I was in college I inquired about booking Third Day ($70,000 at the time) and since Toby isn't as big as Third Day I'd estimate about $30,000. So at a rough estimate we're talking about $50,000 (with very conservative estimates) which doesn't include the two opening bands, food for all the volunteers, the carnival rides, the moto-cross riders (and building their jump), renting port-a-johns, hotel for the bands, and the fireworks amongst other expenses.
On top of the expense of the event it was also interesting to note that when I stood on stage and looked out I primarily saw the green volunteer t-shirts. So i'm baffled as to how Questapalooza is an example of love to the city of Lexington. It seems to me that at the very least a church shows love to a city by discipling believers to live lives full of God and at the most by serving the poor and needy of that city. I thought loving a city was doing things like I did this summer: meeting people, loving on them, eating with them, serving them and not throwing them a concert that many of them don't have interest in and don't want to spend $20 to go to. $100,000 could do a lot of things and help a lot of people and I am truly ashamed that a church in the denomination I grew up in is the force behind Questapalooza.
With that said let me make it clear that the people I met at quest were very kind even if they did have some sort of cultish affection for Quest. I also know that many other churches do this on both larger and smaller scales. Yes, they do it, but that does not make Quest any more right and these churches any more shameful.
So there is my story as to how my paradigms collided last weekend. I still have a hard time believe that just a few weeks ago I was eating with some homeless people and teaching kids about being part of a church that serves in love and last week I was sitting at a $3,000/plate dinner and part of a church event that somehow implicitly teaches (heretically so) that the love of God is best displayed by throwing cash around and having a big party.
May all of us better learn how to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves.
- Ben
Last week, about 3-5 weeks after my meals at the Mission had come to an end, I found myself working on the sound crew for an very prestigious show here in Lexington. The artist was Aretha Franklin, but the event was the TOBA (Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association) annual award ceremony. So while I'm use to seeing a ton of money dropped on concerts I don't know if I've ever seen money like this before. The event was in a large tent on a beautiful horse farm here in KY. The tent, however, was floored, carpeted and air-conditioned. Aside from the regular light trussing for the concert there was a light truss that ran the entire length of the tent on which hung three giant chandeliers (maybe about 7' tall x 3' around). I also heard rumors, which I wasn't able to verify, that the event was about $3,000 a plate.
I was both awed and disgusted by the money put into this event. To make matters worse the event was opened with an invocation which was prefaced by the reading of Jeremiah 29:11 "'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the LORD, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.'" I love it when bible passages are taken out of context to justify gross amounts of wealth and self-indulgence (this is not to say that I'm 100% innocent of this).
As the awards went on I began to think that just a few weeks before this event I was eating dinner with the poor and neglected and now I was sitting in the background amongst the wealthy, powerful, and oppressive. As I sat in the disbelief of this realization one of the presenters gave an impassioned speech about how everyone in attendance needs to be aware of the sad reality that the thoroughbred industry is not considered agricultural by the US government and thus they still have to do horrible things like pay taxes on horse food and whatnot. I just sat in disbelief, could this person even be arguing that thoroughbred breeding and racing should be a tax-exempt industry?!
I pretty much just sat in the numb and saddening reality of the smash-up of my two worlds until Aretha came on stage and I had to do work.
After tearing down from the concert and getting a solid 4 hours of sleep I woke up the next morning (Sunday) to go run sound for Questapalooza an event held by one of the Lexington churches (a C&MA church I might add) where Toby Mac was the headliner. I knew from working this show last year, that the day would be full of chaos, poor event management, and very bad theology, but I was still saddened and angered by what I saw.
Not only did I see the huge stage, sound equipment and lighting that my company provides, but I also saw carnival rides, a motocross jump, carnival food vendors, and swimming pools for baptism. While things such as the fake-ness, the foundational concepts that church is built on, the re-baptizing, the 'worship' music, and many other things bothered me greatly I would like to focus on one small part of the larger whole that I think will tie into the discussion above - namely the theme of the event.
The theme for Questapalooza as best as I could understand was "Loving our city through Questapalooza!" It seemed to me that what they meant by this is that they were giving the city a party so they could relax and enjoy (at about a $20 entry fee mind you), but also that they were going to give away things to people such as a Wii, an iphone, and a new car. To be honest I think they may have also collected food or raised money for some shelters or organization in Lexington but this was only mentioned once (very briefly) compared to the party terminology and the give-aways being mentioned a countless number of times. In fact the point was hammered home by the senior pastor (who was, to my shame, both a Houghton College and Asbury Seminary graduate) that Quest likes to give gifts because God likes to give us gifts. After giving away the car the pastor also said: "Just know that that's Jesus, that car is from Jesus." While this oozes with heretical prosperity theology tendencies, I am not going to rule out that God does provide for our physical needs. He may have indeed prompted this person to buy a raffle ticket and guided the pastor's hand to that ticket so she could win a car. What, however, I will react definitively against is a church and a concept of God that ties love so closely to material things and goods.
With a theme like "Loving our city through Questapalooza!" I can only assume that the people of the church and maybe even the pastor are being deceived. I can think of so many more worthy places to spend what was likely over $100,000. Just so you don't think I'm totally making this figure up let me explain how I get it. Last summer our mobile stage usually rented out for $10,000 a show not including audio and lighting (maybe another 10 grand or so?). When I was in college I inquired about booking Third Day ($70,000 at the time) and since Toby isn't as big as Third Day I'd estimate about $30,000. So at a rough estimate we're talking about $50,000 (with very conservative estimates) which doesn't include the two opening bands, food for all the volunteers, the carnival rides, the moto-cross riders (and building their jump), renting port-a-johns, hotel for the bands, and the fireworks amongst other expenses.
On top of the expense of the event it was also interesting to note that when I stood on stage and looked out I primarily saw the green volunteer t-shirts. So i'm baffled as to how Questapalooza is an example of love to the city of Lexington. It seems to me that at the very least a church shows love to a city by discipling believers to live lives full of God and at the most by serving the poor and needy of that city. I thought loving a city was doing things like I did this summer: meeting people, loving on them, eating with them, serving them and not throwing them a concert that many of them don't have interest in and don't want to spend $20 to go to. $100,000 could do a lot of things and help a lot of people and I am truly ashamed that a church in the denomination I grew up in is the force behind Questapalooza.
With that said let me make it clear that the people I met at quest were very kind even if they did have some sort of cultish affection for Quest. I also know that many other churches do this on both larger and smaller scales. Yes, they do it, but that does not make Quest any more right and these churches any more shameful.
So there is my story as to how my paradigms collided last weekend. I still have a hard time believe that just a few weeks ago I was eating with some homeless people and teaching kids about being part of a church that serves in love and last week I was sitting at a $3,000/plate dinner and part of a church event that somehow implicitly teaches (heretically so) that the love of God is best displayed by throwing cash around and having a big party.
May all of us better learn how to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves.
- Ben
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Final thoughts from a great summer
Let me start this post by saying that the summer I had in Duluth working for Youthworks was wonderful. I loved the work that we did and even more I loved the 3 people that I worked with every day. If I was guaranteed having a staff like the one I had this summer I would sign up for Youthworks again in an instant.
With that in mind I've been wanting to post for a while what I think is the most significant thing I feel I've learned this summer. As I talked to my staff at the end of the summer they expressed that this was a summer of growth for them. While I think that I grew this summer, I realize that my growth was less traditional than I would have anticipated. I think that my growth was through a few realizations I had this summer about my personality and about ministry in general.
The most profound thing that I realized was something that I already knew in part but nevertheless something that became part of a fuller realization. Throughout the summer I struggled a lot with feelings of loneliness and thus times of depression. While my staff was wonderful there were still countless times that I didn't quite feel that I fit in for various reasons but the most significant being merely the fact that I was the Site Director and thus I was, for lack of better description, "their boss."
Being the introspective person that I am, I thought about this for the summer and realized that this loneliness is, and will ever be, part of my life. While I have great friends and will likely make friends wherever I go, I will never fit in entirely. If I continue to pursue the calling that God has placed on my life (which I fully intend to do) I will perpetually be "Pastor Ben" and will never just be "Ben," just as during the summer it was not possible for me not to always live as "Site Director Ben." There will always be this sort of not fitting in as part of my life. Given this knowledge and my personality I also can infer that there will always be some form of loneliness in my life.
While I don't want to make the case that this is a part of ministry for all people, I do believe that this is the case for me. Does it suck? Yes! But, in my opinion, it's part of what I'm called to. While I don't believe that I'm called to loneliness and depression, I do believe that I am called into full-time ministry and for me and my personality it may just entail perpetual times of loneliness and hints of depression. And with this realization I still gladly say, "so be it, Lord have mercy."
Even in this the Lord has given me peace and still know without a doubt that I am called into ministry and it is good. This is what the Lord was speaking into me through the summer. He was allowing me to realize bits and pieces of the ramifications of the service into which I'm being called. Maybe this won't be the case my whole life but it seems to be part of who I am and how my personality deals with being in ministry.
I penned this in my journal this summer:
...I will always be "Pastor" and not just friend, just like now I am perpetually Site Director and not Ben. I have lost my identity...Is this the loneliness to which I am condemned? or rather not condemned, but called to rejoice in.
It seems to me that this was an essential realization of part of the cost for me of the ministry to which I am called into. While I learned a lot through these thoughts one of the best things was being able to end my time as Site Director and just relate to my staff as their friend. I can't wait until I can see them again and be able to just be friends and not have to be their Director. True, I will never be able to fully lay aside my heart for their spiritual growth as I saw myself as a Pastor to them this summer, but it will still be nice to have some of the baggage removed.
So I'm not sure if any of this makes sense. Maybe it's just hard to articulate since it's been a while since I was in Duluth, but either way it makes sense in my mind.
I dialogged a lot with Ryals on this issue over the summer. He has a few posts concerning foreseeable Pastoral loneliness on his blog. There are a few posts specifically about this issue and then some thoughts weave through his other posts.
Blessings,
Ben
With that in mind I've been wanting to post for a while what I think is the most significant thing I feel I've learned this summer. As I talked to my staff at the end of the summer they expressed that this was a summer of growth for them. While I think that I grew this summer, I realize that my growth was less traditional than I would have anticipated. I think that my growth was through a few realizations I had this summer about my personality and about ministry in general.
The most profound thing that I realized was something that I already knew in part but nevertheless something that became part of a fuller realization. Throughout the summer I struggled a lot with feelings of loneliness and thus times of depression. While my staff was wonderful there were still countless times that I didn't quite feel that I fit in for various reasons but the most significant being merely the fact that I was the Site Director and thus I was, for lack of better description, "their boss."
Being the introspective person that I am, I thought about this for the summer and realized that this loneliness is, and will ever be, part of my life. While I have great friends and will likely make friends wherever I go, I will never fit in entirely. If I continue to pursue the calling that God has placed on my life (which I fully intend to do) I will perpetually be "Pastor Ben" and will never just be "Ben," just as during the summer it was not possible for me not to always live as "Site Director Ben." There will always be this sort of not fitting in as part of my life. Given this knowledge and my personality I also can infer that there will always be some form of loneliness in my life.
While I don't want to make the case that this is a part of ministry for all people, I do believe that this is the case for me. Does it suck? Yes! But, in my opinion, it's part of what I'm called to. While I don't believe that I'm called to loneliness and depression, I do believe that I am called into full-time ministry and for me and my personality it may just entail perpetual times of loneliness and hints of depression. And with this realization I still gladly say, "so be it, Lord have mercy."
Even in this the Lord has given me peace and still know without a doubt that I am called into ministry and it is good. This is what the Lord was speaking into me through the summer. He was allowing me to realize bits and pieces of the ramifications of the service into which I'm being called. Maybe this won't be the case my whole life but it seems to be part of who I am and how my personality deals with being in ministry.
I penned this in my journal this summer:
...I will always be "Pastor" and not just friend, just like now I am perpetually Site Director and not Ben. I have lost my identity...Is this the loneliness to which I am condemned? or rather not condemned, but called to rejoice in.
It seems to me that this was an essential realization of part of the cost for me of the ministry to which I am called into. While I learned a lot through these thoughts one of the best things was being able to end my time as Site Director and just relate to my staff as their friend. I can't wait until I can see them again and be able to just be friends and not have to be their Director. True, I will never be able to fully lay aside my heart for their spiritual growth as I saw myself as a Pastor to them this summer, but it will still be nice to have some of the baggage removed.
So I'm not sure if any of this makes sense. Maybe it's just hard to articulate since it's been a while since I was in Duluth, but either way it makes sense in my mind.
I dialogged a lot with Ryals on this issue over the summer. He has a few posts concerning foreseeable Pastoral loneliness on his blog. There are a few posts specifically about this issue and then some thoughts weave through his other posts.
Blessings,
Ben
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
