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:

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

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:

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

One for the Road

I don't' know when I'll get the chance to post again and since it's 1:20am and I leave for the airport at 3:45am I thought that I would write a post instead of getting some sleep. As is usually the case with my longer posts, you'll have to forgive a lack of structure as I just string together a bunch of things I've been thinking about lately.

-----------

Today in church we sang a hymn that said "As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." That is really apropos of nothing, except for the fact that it was really cool. I may have been going somewhere with that, but I'm not sure now so we'll move on.

----------------------------

A while ago I attended a training seminar for my summer job and they constantly emphasized that they do what they do because they "love the church." While I support their foundation of love for the church (because I do love the church) it started me thinking about what it means to really be the church. This is an issue I've been wrestling with for a while. I think I started to think about this during my time at Houghton and then it really started to take off since I started going to St. Athanasius. I know that many of my Orthodox friends will have ready answers for these questions as their tradition has a well developed ecclesiology, but I'm sure I'm not the only protestant who lays awake at night and thinks these thoughts (don't laugh because I really do lay awake and think stuff like this).

So here are some of the thoughts I jotted down while in my seminar.

1. Is the church primarily institutional?
   
   
2. If the church is institutional is that institution contingent on a constant line of Apostolic Authority (i.e. The apostle Peter lays hands on Jim, who lays hand on Bob, who lays hands on Jeffy, etc.) or is it primarily tied to the apostolic tradition and teaching?
   
   
3. How big of a role to authority play into where the church is? If Apostolic succession and authority are necessary for one to be in the church then are all of us in the west outside of the church because of the rebellious act of inserting the Filioque ('and the Son') clause into the Nicene Creed?
   
   
4. To be part of the visible church does one need to celebrate the sacraments? If so then are we forced to eliminate the Salvation Army and other non-sacramental groups from "church" status?
   
   
5. Does one need to affirm all 7 ecumenical councils to be part of the church? If so what about the groups that are ignorant of the councils or don't accept one or more of them, but are still orthodox in their teaching?
   
   
6. Is the church primarily visible or invisible? If it is invisible then what is the point of visible sign acts like the Eucharist and baptism?
   
   
7. Does one need to be baptized in order to be accepted into the church? (Necessary for salvation? - Talk amongst yourselves).
   
   
8. If we assert that celebrating the sacraments are a necessary action for the visible church (and I think they are) does authority then also become essential? (cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch [ca. 150AD] - "Do nothing without the Bishop")
   
   
9. If the sacraments are given to the visible church can they be celebrated and acted outside of the church? (i.e. can they be separated from the Liturgical and Authoritative acts of the Church proper?)
   
   
10. What doctrines are essential for one to be the church? Is Trinity (I think yes)? What view on predestination or other disputed theological matters?
    
    
11. If correct doctrine is essential then is correct action essential? Can action and doctrine (orthopraxy and orthodoxy) even be separated? (I doubt they really can.)

One may ask how we can truly love the church if we have so many "if" statements. I content that even if we're not sure (as I'm still working through this) we can still love the church by loving the people of God, or rather, loving those who call upon God in Trinity and profess to be the "church."

So there are some thoughts on the church. I hope this doesn't cause anyone to have an ecclesiological crisis but these are some things to think on for sure. I'm sure we could even add more to the list, but we'll let that simmer for a while.

-----------------------------------------


Laying aside my questioning I will not turn to some asserting. But first...a back-story.

When I went home for my Grandpa's funeral a few weeks back I was outside with my 10 yr. old cousin and we were talking away. He asked me if I was seriously going to be a Catholic priest like I had told him I was a day or two prior (I like to mess with him like that). I told him no, but asked him why he cared. Oh and I should note that he's a fairly smart 10 yr. old. He proceeded to tell me that all the problems with the Catholic church and how they didn't believe like "we" (i.e. protestants) believed and thus they probably weren't Christians.

Now, I don't want to pick on my little cousin, because he is after all only 10 and that's not really a fair fight (he'd probably own men). But I am fairly certain that these thoughts didn't originate within himself. In fact, to be honest, I had many of the same thoughts in myself before I went to Houghton.

I tried to tell him that Catholics really don't believe some of the things that he claimed, but the big question that came to my mind is why protestants have such a beef with Catholics. I'm sure they'd have beef with Orthodox too, if they actually knew what they were. As I thought about this I came to a few conclusions. I think that many of the protestants who rail against catholics have had very minimal interaction with catholics, catholic services, and catholic writings. I also think that protestants have unfairly characterized catholics. I believe this characterization stems from not knowing what they believe, but also from being intimidated by the authority structure that is in place within Catholicism. I am willing to contend (and to be fair I would need to do much more research) that much of the negative reaction to Catholics by protestants is not really concerning beliefs (because most protestants don't really know what Catholics believe) but because they don't understand authority and have been taught that to have any priest other than oneself is of the devil.

I say this because one of the most common critiques of Catholicism that I hear is against confession. I am absolutely befuddled by the number of protestants who will go to their small group meetings and share that they are struggling with "sin A, B or C" and ask for prayer to help them, and then turn around and condemn Catholics for seeing a priest and confessing to him. What an absurd hypocrisy.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that much of protestantism has a sever problem with submitting to authority. It's sort of appropriate considering we still define ourselves as "protest-ant" (i.e. one's who are protesting against something - namely authority). Yes, authority can be taken too far. Yes, there have been some bad Popes, Bishops, and Priests. But there have also been some very godly and saintly Popes, Bishops, and Priests. In fact, one of the most saintly men that I have ever had the chance to meet was Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa. Fr. Cantalamessa visited Asbury in the fall and is the preacher to the Papal Household. Yes, that means he preaches to the Pope. Granted my interaction was limited, but I could tell from my limited interaction that this was a Saintly man who loved and served the Lord with great zeal. It was my delight to receive a blessing from him before he left.

So all that to say that I hope my cousin and most of protestantism will come around and appreciate the good that Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) has to offer. I think that this move has begun, but let us hope that it continues as good dialogue with Christian traditions and doesn't move into dialogue with non-Christian religions such as Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses.

-----------------------------------------

Book Review:

I finished St. Cyril of Jerusalem's Lectures on the Christian Sacraments a few weeks ago and it was great. The lectures are relatively short and one could easily read them all in one setting. Cyril writes his lectures around 348AD and so these lectures are a great insight into early sacramental thought. Cyril writes on beginning Catechism, The Eucharist, Baptism, and Holy Unction (not in that order).

There were so many good things allow me to just quote a few passages:

Speaking to catechumens concerning preparation for Baptism:

And what Solomon spoke of others will suit you also; for he said, There is a time to bear and a time to die; but to you, on the contrary, the time to die is also the time to be born; and one and the same season brings about both of these, and your birth went hand in hand with your death.
O strange and inconceivable thing! We did not really die, we were not really buried, we were not really crucified and raised again, but our imitation was but in a figure, while our salvation is in reality.

Concerning the Eucharist:

Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, 'This is My Body,' who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, 'This is My Blood,' who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?
He once turned water into wine, in Cana of Galilee, at His own will, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?...
Therefore with fullest assurance let us partake as of the Body and the Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Win His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mightest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are diffused through our members, thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, 'we become partakers of the divine nature.'...
Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and the Blood of Christ; for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith stablish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that though has been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ.

I'm not sure what else to say concerning the book, except that it is a good read and sheds some very good light on early liturgical practice and belief in the early church in Jerusalem.

-------------------------------------

St. Cyril serves as a nice transition into the next (and likely the last) topic: the Eucharist.

Since my senior and maybe junior year at Houghton I have been rethinking and reforming my sacramentology. Much of this formation has occurred in my view of the Eucharist since it is one of the most important things the church does. Since Houghton my view of the Eucharist moved from a strictly Zwinglian/memorialist view of Communion that holds that it is just a time where I remember Christ, to a more Lutheran/Methodist view of 'real presence' meaning that God is truly present in Spirit and imparts some sort of grace during the act.

I have continued to think on this over the past year and have pursued the issue in my research into early Church history. Although I am not sure if I am 100% committed, I do believe that I am leaning toward a sacramentology that posits not only real presence, but also real Body and real Blood. You may be asking why I believe I am coming to this conclusion. Here are a few reasons:

• As Luther wrote on the table when arguing with Zwingly: "hoc est corpus meum" or "It is my body." Jesus Christ said in the Gospel accounts that it was his body. While this could be metaphoric it seems to me that the evidence points that it is not.
• The evidence in the earlier sources suggests a very high eucharistic view and probably that of literal body and blood. We saw above that this view is fully articulated in St. Cyril in 348AD, but I believe we can see traces of this in St. Ignatius, and other second century saints.
• There is no biblical argument against it.
• There is no reason why we should not accept it. A paradigm that rejects the transformation of bread and wine into body and blood is likely entrenched in modernism and in the enlightenment emphasis on the scientific method. This worldview leaves no room for miracles and thus one might as well reject the resurrection if one rejects the miracle that is the transformation of the elements in the Eucharist.
• The emphasis in the earliest liturgies is that the Holy Spirit is the agent of change within the elements. This places the emphasis off of humans and back onto the gracious action of God for his people.
• Receiving grace in the eucharist is not juridical grace (i.e. salvific) but rather the grace of God's presence. A view that posits all grace as juridical is highly Anselmic and is not founded in the biblical worldview of grace.
• Even though it doesn't taste like it, as St. Cyril says, we must believe in faith. To help address this 'problem' one of my Orthodox friends says that it is more of a revealing than a changing. That is: Is it still bread - Yes. Is it still Wine - Yes. Is it real body - Yes. Is it real blood - Yes. It seems that this view posits that it is body and bread, and blood and wine all at the same time.

The reasons given above are why I am very close to believing that it is literal body and literal blood. I say 'very close' because it is a big move to change a whole paradigm and changing my mind to this is quite a task.


-----------------------------------------

Today was Pentecost Sunday. How many of your churches celebrated that instead of memorial day? Probably not many. That makes me sad. Just FYI.

-----------------------------------

Well I think that is it. I can't think of anything else to write. I am leaving for Minnesota tomorrow to work for Youthworks for the summer. I will be living in Duluth, Minnesota and will return back to KY on August 17th. I will try to blog throughout the summer, but I'm not sure how much time I'll have. If you need to get a hold of me just call my cell (if you have it) or post a comment and I'll get it when I check my email.

Concerning the reading list: Kung, Dostoyevsky, JND Kelly, and Witherington aren't going to make the flight because the first three are too big and the last one is low on the priority list. Maybe I'll get at these during the time between the end of youthworks and the beginning of school.


Blessings to you all in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit!,


Ben

About time eh?

Fear not, I have returned! After over a two month long hiatus I am back and wondering how I will ever begin to put all that is running through my head into a coherent blog. I will try to group it in sections so it's a little easier to follow, but who knows how that will go. With that said, dont' forget to check out my last post. I posted it yesterday and am particularly proud of it.

Part One: Ending the Summer - Learning to understand the development of heresy.

[note I have edited this section from the original post and have placed the restructured text in italics. Much is missing from the original and it is for the better.]

As I sit and reflect about the summer it really feels like it never had an end. I feel like it slammed right into the school year like a runaway train. I feel like I didn't really get a chance to catch my breath before the school year started, but I am still grateful for the summer. The job I worked was loads of fun even despite the countless sleepless nights and weary weeks and I met a bunch of great people and had some interesting experiences that I feel will form how I view people and ministry for years to come. On top of all that I learned a lot more about audio reinforcement and feel like I am a much better sound tech than I was at the beginning of the summer.

As I mentioned I feel like the summer ran right into the school year without a break. I think the reason for this is because I worked a gig the first two weekends I was back to school.

One of these gigs stands out because while I was there I had some interesting thoughts concerning the development of heresy in the early church. It seems to me that heresy could have developed by the bringing of the gospel to a place where it subsequently took root.

Over time - because the area was so isolated and was not connected to the global church- teaching began to develop in a heretical manner and thus that area became a breeding ground for heresy. Now we must be honest and say that this is just a hypothesis and surely not all heresies formed this way, but could it not be that is why all the early church fathers and mothers emphasized the importance of the bishop? They emphasized structure because it was the unity inherent in the structure that kept them connected in the bond they already shared - namely Christ's blood. It was this unity that allowed them to maintain the orthodox faith and determine what heresy was. If the church was to survive and to proclaim Christ for who he was the fathers knew that it couldn't hole itself up in a small geographic location, rather it must commune with believers the world over.

I fear that we, as the American church are in grave danger of doing this to ourselves. We neglect the worldwide church, we are ignorant of the defenders of the faith of ages past and when confronted with our neglect and ignorance we shrug and apathetic shoulder and continue on in our self-absorbed way of "Christianity." This is the travesty in the American church. This is why much of Western Christendom is bankrupt, and this is why we have scarcely a clue what true orthodoxy is in our churches.

Part Two: On the Incarnation

"Oh holy father Athanasius, like a pillar of orthoxy, you supported the church with your teaching, refuting the hertical nonsense of Arius - by asserting that the Father and Son are equal in essence."

Those are the opening lines of one the Athanasian hymn that is sung occasionally in my church. I'm not going to get into the issue of hymns to saints right now (for it would surely consume pages) but I write this to say that it is very true. Athanasius is deserving of sainthood. Even though he was mere scribe at the Council of Nicea and didn't really defend the co-substantial nature of the Father and Son at the council (contrary to popular belief), he truly proved to be a champion of the council's (and true Christian) teaching in his bishopric for years to come. One of his defences of this is his book On the Incarnation, which I finished at the end of the summer but will try to give a brief review here.

Let me say that the book itself is worth the read just for the introduction by C.S. Lewis in the St. Vladimir's Seminary publication. Lewis does an excellent job setting the framework - especially if one is reading this book as a protestant who has no clue what church history is, or what function church tradition should serve.

Aside form teh intro the book is absolutly amazing! I believe it to be a must read. Athanasius starts out discussing our problem as humans (namely the fall) and thus proceeds to describe God's solution to the problem - which is the glorious incarnation. He then describes the death and resurrection of Christ and why it must occur. After discussing and giving thorough explanations and defenses of the above he turns to the refutation of hypothetical objections by both Jews and Gentiles. My personal favorite passage of the book is found in his discourse on the resurrection.

If I could type it all out I would but I'm afraid that wouldn't be within copyright law so I will direct you to a link that you can find the whole section. Click here to find this passage.

In this section Athanasius defends the notion that death is completly and utterly destroyed by the resurrection. His defense of this includes the fact that "All the disciples of Christ despised death; they take the offensive against it and, instead of fearing it, by the sign of the cross and by faith in Christ trample on it as on something dead." Athanasius continues saying that before Christ's death and resurrection even the holy men feared death, but now death has no merit and should not be feared, stating that "all those who believe in Christ tread it [death] underfoot as nothing, and prefer to die rather than to deny their faith in Christ..." The holy saint continues in his defense of Christ's blessed triumph over death in what I find to be the most beautiful example: (let it be known that this example is a little sexist, but if we look at it from a patristic culture point of view then it truly is beautfil - I don't share the Saint's cultural sexism but do share his excitement that death is trampled.)

"...for men who, before they believed in Christ, think death horrible adn are afraid of it, once they are converted despise it so competely that they go eagerly to meet it, and themselves become witnesses of the Savior's resurrection from it. Even children hasten thus to die, and not men only, but women train themselves by bodily discipline to meet it. So weak has death become that even women, who used to be taken in by it, mock at it now as a dead thing robbed of all its strength. Death has become like a tyrant who has been completely conqured by the legitimate monarch; bound hand and foot as he now is, the passers-by jerr at him, hitting him and abusing him, no longer afraid of his cruelty and rage, because of the king who has conquered him. So has death been conqured and branded for what it is by the Savior on the cross."

Wow!! I can't believe that. I about fall out of my chair every time I think of this passage. Amen and Amen is all I can say.

This isn't the only part of the book I enjoyed but it is the part that brings me to tears of joy and sorrow at the same time (and it is one that allows me to launch into a rant). If you know me well, as most of you who read this do, then you can probably anticipate why I love this passage. My longing and expectance of martydom is no secret to many of you (as it has been a constant in my mind for the past 3 years) and this passage is encouraging as it makes me seem not so crazy for having no fear of death and even as the saint says running "eagerly to meet it. But more than that I find it so uplifting to know that the message of Christ's conquering of death is so essential and so connected to the incarnation and act of our Savior that we can scarcely meditate on Christ without thinking of it. Yes I long for martrydom, not as a mad man, but as one who has no fear of death. And this is where the rant begins.

It seems to me that this theology has left our churches. In general the protestant church as a whole fears death. In fact, we don't just fear death we fear almost everything. I can barely look at the western church today without seeing a group that is drenched in fear. If you doubt this take a look at the popular theological (or rather psuedo-theological) works that are popular among many christians. Look at the rise and expectancy of the pre-tribulation rapture and the numerous books and shows that propegate a theology that declares Christ's return in the next few years. Even examin at a distance the plethora of books (both fictional and non) about the evil powers that prevail against us and provide us with gimicks on how to overcome. The church today is drenched and filled with fear!!! We are afraid of the evil one, we are afraid of the powers, we are afraid of the government, and we are especially afraid of death. The question I ask is why?!?

Why on earth are our churches living in such states of fear? I propose that it is because we have no concept of the power of the cross. If Christ truly has conquered the power of death, and thus we should have no fear of it, then why in the world should we fear anything. It is by the power of the cross and ressurection that we are saved and thus are given authority and power as children of God. If we need not fear death then we also need not fear anything. All is in submission to the cross and if we bear that cross then we have nothing to fear... not even, as the cliche says, 'fear itself'. I suggest that the church reclaim this teaching, and walk in this boldness. Embrace the fact that we died and were raised with Christ in our baptism and run to our death. It may be a scary thought but we need not fear it. Out death may be immenant or it may be far off. My thought is who cares, pursue the cross and it matters not when death comes - for it truly comes in vain!!

Part Three: Solo (and not the DC Talk album)

Since sophomore year in college I have been under the opinion, which as with all of my opinions I do not hold to lightly, that solos (i.e. a guitar solo - though it could be any instrument or voice) are completely out of place in the worship of the church.

I came about to this thinking as a result of the mentorship of Troy Mcknight and Brian Emerson in Koinonia and continued to teach this idea as a leader in that ministry in undergrad and as a pastoral intern without giving much thought to an opposing view point. I say all this not because I'm questioning my thinking, because I would firmly argue that solos don't belong in the worship of the church for various reasons, but because I have met with some resitance to this thinking and am looking to clarify it. First let me lay out a few reasons why I think solos have no place.

1. They draw attention to one individual and are a novelty that takes the worship away form the Triune God and places it on the individual performing the solo.

2. As if 1 wasn't reason enough, they serve no theological purpose in ushering the community into the presence of God.

3. The spontaneous nature of the solo in the context of corporate worship, specificaly because it lacks introduction and explanation via the structure of the service or audible explanation, disengages the congregation and inturupts their participation in the worship of God.

4. The solo is inherently self-focused and being performed rather than serving as an integral part of the liturgy that allows the "work of the people" (literal meaning of liturgy) to continue.

Let me be clear on one of these points. In number 3 I am in no means rejecting any spontinaity in worship. Worship can and should have degress of spontinaity but, that spontinaity is often placed within the structure of the church's worship so that it is contextualized by the service, and thus explained, or is prefaced by an explanation of some sort that explains what the spontanious time is meant to do. Performing a solo without liturgical context or verbal explanation seems to be quite analogous to speaking in tongues without an interpretor in a corporate setting - and as we know, St. Paul tells us that this is right out.

Just incase it hasn't been clear so far I am mostly referring to an instrumental (and also a vocal) solo during a worship team lead liturgy as this is the most common venue for this occurance. The reason I write all this is because as I think about this I am at a struggle to precisely define what the difference is between a solo and such things as an interlude, a fill, or an anthem.

I think my above number 3 seems to set a solo off from an anthem but I am still interested in what you all are thinking - especially my friends from undergrad who have music degrees. What are the musical differences, how about theological ones? Do you think I'm right in my assertion or am I am off base? I would appreciate help in thinking through this. So let me know. As always comments are good but you are all my friends (unless your some stranger) and you probably have my phone number so calls are welcome as well.

Part Four: Community vs. the Trinity

Both at Houghton and at Asbury over the past few years there has been much discussion as to the great importance of community in the church. This has been brought to our attention through things such as postmodernism, the vast lack of a sense of community in the church, and the emergent movement. As a member of the worship design (aka Chapel Intern) at Asbury I have been examining and listening to our chapel speakers to see what is being emphasized in our chapels. I have noticed that quite often community is stressed, the practice of it is implored and the abandonment of it has been chastized. One other thing that I have noticed is that Community is mentioned 10:1 over the Trinity. And while the argument can be made that we frame our discussion of community trinitarianly I would argue that "framing" is not enough. If we hold to the Trinity as the ultimate truth of the Godhead revealed, which I do, then we must do more than use it to frame our thinking. Why on earth are we talking about community more than the Triune God? Has community become our new idol along with relevance? (see my earlier post entitled "Current??")

It worries me that the western protestant church is spending so much time worrying about community and not talking about the fullest revelation of truth. Are we or are we not a people who claim to worship a Triune God? If we are then I suggest we do it - with our "framing" with our words and with our actions. I believe that becasue the Trinity is in community then community will flow out of our worship of the Trinity, but I seriously doubt that true trinitarian worship can ever flow strictly out of the practice of community.

This emphasis on community is particularly emphasized in many of the self proclaimed "emergent churches," which as many of you already know I consider nothing more than a great basterdization of the church, but nonetheless they serve as another great example of the wrong direction the church is taking.

Many of these emergent churches have decided to meet in the "round" (cf. Doug Pagit "Re-imagining Spiritual Formation) which basically means that they design their seating so as to face each other in a circle. They do this so as not to elevate one person (ie the pastor) over the rest of the congregation and also to emphasize that everyone is important.

Now compare this seating design to that of the high-church Orthodox Church. In the Orthodox church the congregation always faces east to symbolize the direction in which Christ ascended and will return. An Icon of Christ is always placed at the front to focus the worship of the congregation on Christ our God. The priest, instead of facing the congregation for the whole service (as in western traditions) faces the icon to symbolize the priestly mediation of the prayers of the people ascending toward God.

Now tell me the implicit theological focus of each one of these seating designs. Who is the object, center and focus for the Orthodoxy - well the seating as well as the liturgy declare that it is Christ our God who recieves all Glory with the Father and the all Holy, Good, and Life Creating Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. While the design of the emergent gathering focuses on one another, on the "community" and thus places us as the object of worship.

This is a perfect example of how we are slowly elevating "us" to the center of worship. All this is is classic theological liberalism at it's best and paganism at it's worst. We can never get Triune theology out of community, but we can and will get community out of Trinity. The question posed to us as Christians is which do we want to emphasize.

Part Five: Regularity and Novelty

This one should be pretty short. I've been asked a few times (mainly by my parents) but also by a few other people how I can get anything out of church. To be fair this question is based on the fact that I go to an Orthodox Church which practices the same liturgy every Sunday. So the question is very fair and very appropriate.

There really isn't an easy answer. I do know that God reveals himself to me in the liturgy every Sunday. I know that as I recite the liturgy over and over I am begining to learn scripture and theology and allowing it to embed in my being deeper and deeper.

I don't want to assert that variety in worship is bad, but I do think there is much value to consitency and repetition. Our priest gave a great example of this the other day in church. He was expounding on the Orthodox practice of saying "Lord have mercy" repeatedly and pointed out that there are some prayers in which that line is said almost 50 times in a row. When questioned explaining how it could have meaning the 50th time he said that we really only understand what were saying the last 3 times. The first 47 times are preparing us and shaping our hearts to really understand and mean "Lord have mercy." I thought this was a beautiful illustration.

Another great explanation as to how repeated liturgy can be beneficial is offered by the great protestant theologian C.S. Lewis. Lewis says the following:

“A worship service works best when, through long familiarity, we don’t have to think about it… The perfect church service would be the one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God. But every novelty prevents this. It fixes our attention on the service itself; and thinking about worship is a different thing from worshipping… Tis mad idolatry that makes the service greater than the god. A still worse thing may happen. Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant…There is really some excuse for the man who said, ‘I wish they’d remember that the chart to Peter was ‘Feed my sheep’; not ‘Try experiments on my rats’, or even ‘Teach my performing dogs new tricks.’”

To Lewis' statement all I have to say is Amen. I do feel that there is so much novelty in so many of our church services that we lose sight of the true importance. We reject the great affirmations of the faith because we recited them every Sunday as kids, or we throw out theologically packed hymns because they're old and boring.

The problem, my friends, is not with the liturgy, the hymns, the creeds, no it is with us. We have allowed our entertainment cravings for something new to drive our worship of God. We have ceased to see ceased to see God in the ordinary things of the liturgy not because we they're too often said and thus God is not speaking through them, but because we've hardened our hearts to them because we're bored. As Ben Witherington once said "Boredom is the state of mind for those who lack imagination" and to be sure we have become theologically bored with the great traditions of the faith not because they are rote, but because we lack an imagination that is holy and constantly renewed by God.

Summer Ramblings: Part 1

It's been a long time since I posted and I know that you all have missed my ramblings greatly. Let me apologize for not posting and offer a few explanations.

1. I have been working like a dog. I don't know how the full time sound guys at our company do it, I fear this summer will be the death of me. But if it doesn't kill me I'll have some good experiences and a life skill in case this ministry things doesn't work out =) .

2. Ding Dong the Houghton Laptop is dead. I would offer a "may it rest in peace" but I'm pretty sure that it is burning in laptop hell because it truly sucked. So yeah, I probably won't be posting with any consistency until I'm able to buy a new laptop. I think I'm going mac so we'll see how that goes.

With that said, on to "Summer Ramblings: Part 1"

I'll try to break things into chunks so that you can skip various parts if you want.

Since I last posted I have finished reading one of the books on my list and started two others not on my list. I have finished "The Final Quest" and have started "One the Incarnation" by St. Athanasius and "Ancient-Future Time" by Robert Webber.

--------------Book Review ------------------

"The Final Quest" is a good book. I would probably describe it as "The Great Divorce" meets "the Lord of the Rings." The imagery is beautiful and it has quite a bit of substance. I really liked it, however, I feel that I can't put the book in the same place in which I gather the author would like the book to be put. In the preface the author notifies the reader that the book is not fiction but rather the transcription of a series of 3 prophetic visions he had. Although he does not claim that this should be taken as Canon he does allude that it should be just a few notches below it on the authoritative ladder.

I have no problem with prophecy nor with visions, but I still feel, after reading the book that it has little more weight to it than Lewis' "The Great Divorce." Although nothing in the book was blatantly heretical, and there wasn't anything that screamed "false teaching" a few things did catch my eye.

If we take the premise that the book is fully prophetic and truly a vision of heaven, then I am completely blown away at the non-Trinitarian nature of heaven and the end times. I am not saying it was anti-Trinitarian, but other than Christ the other two members of the God-head were scarcely mentioned, if at all. This troubled me greatly. He mentioned the Trinity about as much a normal Sunday at a Baptist church (read: not at all). This is problematic because the doctrine of the Trinity is THE foundational doctrine of all of Christianity. If an accurate vision of heaven is that only Christ is around, then we have some deep theological problems. Either we've been believing wrong for about 2,000 years, or the vision is not fully revelatory. I would opt for the latter.

The other thing that caught my attention was the general emphasis of the book. Although many of the things that were written I would agree with, it was evident that the terminology and various emphasizes were from a particular tradition (namely the Pentecostal tradition) this does not make these things any less true or legitimate, but the things that were emphasized and the things that were glossed over definitely pointed out that this was coming through a socio-Pentecostal lens.

So that's my take on the book, it's a good read and it makes some good points. I'm sure those who are big lit buffs (ie. Gustav and the rest of you who can write coherently) would question the literary quality, but hey, I'm a theologian so I don't pay no mind to that.

------End Book Review------

I mentioned the other two books I've started to read, and I won't write long on them except to say that "On the Incarnation" by St. Athanasius is amazing. It is a must read for anyone. It's worth the price just to read the introduction by C.S. Lewis in the interpretation published by St. Vladimir's Press.

-------Experiences from a Sound Guy-------

Although I've been working my tail off at the Sound Company I work for, I've only been at two shows. I've done a lot of work for other shows, but things have come up and I've only been able to make it to two places for the show (granted one was a 3 day long Blue Grass festival). I find it interesting that in both of the shows I've been at I've been engaged in some sort of theological discussion. I'm not the type of person to start a random theological conversations with random people unless I know they're church people who like to talk about stuff like that (or my sister, I just like make her listen to me ramble, it's fun that's not to say that she's not a church person but that she just doesn't like theological conversations), but I have conversations at shows that have been initiated by others.

The first show was a Billy Currington (some country artist) in Lebanon, KY. I was working on the stage with his bass player and we started talking about NY because he just happened to be from Geneva, NY just outside of Rochester. Once he found out that seminary was the reason that I came down south he started asking if we were "liberal" or "conservative" and it turns out that I am just as disgusted with the "religious right" and the "moral majority" as is he. While he can't stand them because of his extreme political views, I can't stand them because they try to label Christianity by their political stances (well that and some of their moral views). We then proceeded to talk about same sex marriage and other social issues. I find it extremely sad that he defines Christianity by politics and groups that try to legislate morality. I fear that to many people outside of the church (and probably inside as well: Jimmy Dobson and the like) Christianity is nothing more than a political force driven by greed and power just as much as any other political force. I find this notion disgusting and am sickened by those in Christendom that play so much politics that they forget was Christianity is truly about.

The second conversation was at the Blue Grass festival (FYI: Blue Grass is freakin sweet!!). The head guy started to engage me because he saw me reading a lot of theological articles while I was babysitting the light board at the show. Our conversation boiled down to the fact that he appreciated Christianity and liked to see young people be committed, but he sees so much power play and greed involved that he can't move past the notion that humans have corrupted this thing and thus it holds little to no truth. All in all this guy was just a regular run of the mill pluralistic deist. I find it interesting how his perspective allows him to love and sing along with the old blue grass gospel songs and yet see no truth in them. I also find it intriguing that he looks at history and sees nothing but corruption and I look at history and see God's preservation of the orthodox faith in spite of the massive corruption.

I know my stories make me sound heartless because I seem to me analyzing them on a purely intellectual level, but my heart really does break for these people. Even more my heart breaks for the thousands like them that know the church as greedy and self idolaterous, people who reject the faith, because the church has allowed herself to become syncritized with the American/world consumer culture and fall away from the faith handed down through the generations.

----------------

There is so much more going through my mind, and I'll try to bum one of my housemates computers to blog about them soon. I'm still working on sorting them out so that there at least coherent enough to blog about. So in the future look for one of these exciting topics:

- My Ecclesiological paradigmatic dilemma
- My church history musings
- Christianity in the South vs Christianity in the North thoughts
- Syncritism and American Christianity
- The "fluffy I" problem in Christian Music and in Worship music.
- another book review (when I finish them)
- more thoughts from work
- or who knows what.

Blessings to you all, and if you are too anxious and can't wait for me to get off my lazy butt and blog then just call my cell.

~Ben

Current?

This post has been in my mind for a while, and thus I finally decided to write it. [edit: I penned most of this right after Christmas/January break 1/29 to be exact, and didn't post it because it wanted to edit it. So now I am doing it. Any significant thoughts that I add will be indicated in brackets and italics.] [edit 2: I reposted it but it posted way down on the list so i'm changing the date and reposting it.]

The thoughts started while I was reading Os Guinness' Prophetic Untimeliness, a book that Kyle Nagy recommended to me a year or so ago. I decided to read it over Christmas break and am just finishing it up. [edit: at the end of January]

As I read the introduction I felt as if I was reading my own blog... Well at least the thoughts from my blog put in coherent sentence structure by an Oxford educated man. The thoughts that I am talking about are the ones in the post entitled Postmodernism and other similar posts.

Although I saw some similarities between my post and Os' introduction there was also a difference, namely, that while I was critiquing our emphatuation with Postmodernism, he was critiquing modernism or more specifically our view of time. He did this, ironically without embracing Postmodernism, yay!!

Guiness argues that we are too caught up in being relevant or as he phrases it "timely." Basically what it says is that we place way to much importance on staying current. This caused me to wonder about that nature and the development of theology in recent decades or even centuries.

It seems to me that so many theologians today are busy trying to come up with a new idea or trying to discuss the latest trend that they forget what made the great Christian thinkers of the past great - the trial of Church history. We bounce from idea to idea and consider men like Pinnock, Sanders, Piper, Pagit, and so many others to be great thinkers and the new standard for where theology is going. We hold them up with the great minds of Christian antiquity like St. Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, and Ignatius, forgetting that it wasn't the fact that Augustine and the rest came up with great ideas that made them great, rather it was that their ideas lasted the test of time. They were forged in Church history! Their ideas slowly progressed throughout the church and were slowly approved of by the masses of Christians throughout the world.

Today we dialogue about ideas in seconds and publish articles after a month or a year of thought. Once these things are published, Pastors, laity, and students who strive to be on the "cutting edge" grab ahold of them like they've found the Holy Grail. There is no sense of historical community, no trial by fire. We don't allow time for these ideas to circulate through the church and and be approved or repudiated by the masses.

One chief example of this is Open Theism. Clark Pinnock published a book and so did a couple of his friends, their ideas spread through the seminaries and Christian colleges like crazy. The ideas were new and trendy and it seems that may decided to embrace the idea because it appeared to "work" and it was the new thing.

There was little dialogue on this concept done in the churches, this concept was strictly and ivory tower debate among scholars. There was no time given for this idea to pass through the godly saints of the church, the masses of saints who are out of touch with scholarly circles. It was simple, they had an idea, the published the idea and now there are many open theists around the globe.

Suppose this process had been the case with Arianism back in the early centuries of the church (300-500ad). We would have surely had a problem on our hands. Suppose for a moment that Arias had and idea, wrote a book and published it. Suppose the communication was as quick as it is now. Arianism would have spread geographically to all parts of the church. The Orthodox faith of the Trinity would have been attacked from all sides [This is not to say that Arianism has not spread, but rather to say that it's spread was contained by the filter of Christian Saints testing and approving (or in this case disapproving) this teaching.]

I wonder, if open theism had been proposed in the early centuries of the church (say 300-500ad) would the Fathers and Mothers of the faith have been so willing to accept it without a moments notice? Wouldn't it have taken years to discuss and dialogue. [I think this is just one example where we run into danger by our emphasis on staying current and relevant. I'm not saying (yet) that Open Theism is a heresy (although it's right on the edge), but because this teaching is so new and so incredibly 'original' we should be very wary. This is just one example.]

[Along these same lines, is something that I briefly touched on above. Namely that I think scholars and those of us who run in scholarly circles often find more joy in coming up with a new thought or idea than we do when we internalize an important truth about God. I find this is especially the case with Protestant scholarship. The Protestant community has long forgotten that any church history happened before Luther nailed his infamous 95 Theses to the Door of the Wittenberg Cathedral. We have allowed ourselves to ignore church history and the teaching of the great cloud of witness that has preserved the scriptures through the ages. We emphasize the latest trends and hot topics and forget that if something is new it should be tested and weighed heavily. In fact some Saints of the church held to the belief that if there was anything new in their writing then it must be discarded at once (cf. Tozer, C.S. Lewis). We feel that in the name of good scholarship that we can treat the text how we want, this however is absurd. We have been handed the scripture through the witness of generations of Christians before us, what makes us think that we, being increasingly more removed from Christ's earthly life, have superior insight into what he really said. Yes we may gain some better insights and understanding through the analysis of texts and recent discoveries, but if anything is truly different than what the church has believed for centuries then what real good is it?]

[I think I rambled a bit there in the last paragraph and didn't really express my thoughts clearly. I'm tempted to put off posting these thoughts until I can better refine them but as the story of this post accounts, that may not be a good idea, as I probably won't get around to it again until July. So I guess I'll leave the thoughts as they are. They're a work in progress and as always I open myself up to your insights and thoughts on the matter. Maybe I'm completely off base or maybe I hit the nail right on the head, who knows. ]

Holy Jealousy

"...For I the Lord your God, am a jealous God.." Ex 20:5

"...For the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God..." Ex 34:14

I just finished reading a few chapters in Walter Brueggemann's The Prophetic Imagination and was struck and burdened with a thought that might be worthy of sharing.

In his book Brueggemann speaks of the role of the prophet and how it is a needed role for the church today. He sets the message of the prophet firmly in the tension between what we perceive as liberalism and conservativism. In his chapter entitled "Prophetic Criticizing and the Embrace of Pathos" Brueggemann (from here on out Walter, because it's easier to type) discusses Jeremiah and his intense laments and weeping over Israel. Walter writes:

"His [Jeremiah's] passion is, as Abraham Heschel has seen, the passion of this God who knows what time it is (Jer 8:7). God knows, and his prophet knows with him, that it is end time." p 48

"Jeremiah has pressed where his contemporaries would not readily go, to the pain of God, to a place where only Hosea had ventured before. Yahweh is no longer an enemy who must punish or destroy but the helpless parent who must stand alongside death, like Mary at Calvary, like David over Absalom, "My child, my child," but he is helpless and can only grieve." pp 54-55

"The prophet is not addressing behavioral problems. He is not even pressing for repentance. He has only the hope that the ache of God could penetrate the numbness of history." p 55 (author's italics)

Walter's book and specifically these quotes (although they're probably better understood in context) caused me to think of something: Yahweh is still a jealous God. He is jealous for his people. The church, the people of God, have turned their backs on him.

When this thought first struck me it filled me with hope. I have often wept over the church. I've laid awake at night pleading with God to purify his people, to do anything, revival, persecution, anything, just purify the church. I was filled with hope, because we do worship a jealous God, he is zealous for his people. I believe he will purify his church, he will bring us back to him.

As I thought, I began to dread the jealousy of the Lord. I desire for the church to be brought back, but how will God enact it? Will we have our own "exile" it is a fearful concept, because great and terrible is the day of the Lord.

Is it comforting that God is still jealous? Emphatically YES!! Is it frightening that he is still jealous for his people? YES, terrifyingly so!

But my heart aches for the purification of the church. I say: Come Lord Jesus, move as you must, purify the Church through whatever means necessary, even if it means that many have to die in persecution. I will die, I long to die a martyr's death, if it means the church will realize her sin and return to the Lord. What a great joy for my blood to prove the saying true: "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church."

Come Lord Jesus, do what you must! Will you declare this with me? I pray that you will.