The Feast of The Annunciation

This is a repost from what I wrote last year on this day.

Today the church exhorts us to join in a great paradox of feasting even in the midst of our Lenten fasting since today is the feast of the Annunciation. Today is the day that we celebrate and remember that glorious day when the Angel Gabriel came to the Virgin and proclaimed:

Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you...Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And now you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of the his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end....The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God....For nothing will be impossible with God. (Luke 1:30-33,35,37 NRSV)

Today is the day when we can see the full spectrum of our salvation. We look ahead to Good Friday when we remember our Lord's death, and we even glance beyond Good Friday longingly looking toward Easter Sunday, the feast of feasts, when we celebrate our Lords glorious resurrection. We look ahead like this today as we think of the angel's visitation to the Virgin. We recognize today, maybe more fully than at any other point, that our Lord came as a child to die and rise again for us and for our salvation.

The Lord and maker of the heavens, he who is uncontainable humbled himself so much that he allowed himself to take on flesh and to be contained in a womb. He who knows the expanse of the universe and who spoke to the darkness at creation is the same incarnate word that came and took on flesh as a fetus (if such an impersonal word can be used). We celebrate this day the incorporeal Son, the second person of the Trinity, taking on flesh so that humanity may be united to God. We rejoice in the fact that Christ our God took on every part of what it means to be human and yet was without sin. Our Lord took upon himself not only our flesh, but also our will - assuming everything that is intrinsic to us, for as St. Basil states: "that which was not assumed cannot be redeemed."

Today we also remember Mary's response to the Angel: "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word" (Luke 1:38). We remember that her response was a free choice and that it was not forced upon her. In this same way we remember that we are called to emulate her and to respond to God daily with the same words. Theotokos, the God-bearer, that is the title given to Mary by the early church, not as a sign of her exultation but to proclaim the mystery we celebrate today that God himself, in the person of the Son chose to be born. The uncreated one who is withoutbeginning chose to unite himself to humanity so thoroughly that we can say with confidence that Mary bore God in her womb. To say this statement is hard and absurd is true, and yet it is also beautiful in the truth it proclaims. Christ is the fullness of God, and yet also the fullness of humanity and today we proclaim his love. We can see this love clearly as we remember his incarnation and look toward the cross and resurrection.

Glory to God in the Highest! Our redemption is at hand, for Christ our God is conceived in the womb of the virgin so that he may cleanse us from our sin.


Sadly this holy-day is forgotten in most of Protestantism probably due to a number of reasons, chief of which may be (and I'm just offering a hypothesis here) connected to the staunch rejection of anything having to do with the Virgin Mary at the time of Luther's reformation. I believe it would do us well to remember this day with our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters. I believe this feast helps us to think more accurately about the incarnation of our Lord. It helps us to avoid the heresy of adoptionism and some gnostictendencies that run deep in some of our traditions.

So let us today join with our Catholic and Orthodox friends and boldly sing the praises of God. For today we can see both the incarnation and the crucifixion/resurrection clearly. Let us praise God for his redemption of humanity for today we celebrate the coming of grace as the Son of God becomes the Son of the Virgin!

By the Waters of Babylon

Lent, my favorite time of the year, is quickly approaching. I think I love the season of Lent so much because it places my sin, my weakness, my mortality, and my deep need for God at the forefront of my mind. The fasting inconveniences my life and challenges me to think of God at every turn and helps the increased devotional reading pierce my soul in ways it normally wouldn't.

I really do love Lent because it prepares me for Easter and helps me to clearly see my God. I think there may be no greater travesty among Protestants than the slow removal of Lent from our calendars.

During seminary while I attended St. Athanasius Orthodox Church I heard one of the most wonderfully piercing Lenten hymns I've ever experienced. This hymn brings me to tears every time I hear it because it reminds me of deep ravine that separates who I am from what I am called to become by the grace of God. I was reminded about this hymn today on an Orthodox blog that I often read - Glory to God for All Things. This is the blog of Fr. Stephen Freeman and it is a wonderful wealth of wisdom and spirituality.

The hymn that I'm talking about is "By the Waters of Babylon" and is based on Psalm 137. Here is are a few of the lyrics re-posted from Fr. Stephen's post (here).

By the waters of Babylon we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion. Alleluia.
We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. Alleluia.
For there they that had taken us captive required of us a song;
and they that had carried us away required of us a hymn, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. Alleluia.
How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land? Alleluia.
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand be forgotten. Alleluia.
If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem as my chief joy. Alleluia.

How does this Psalm bespeak of Lent? It tells of the exile of Jerusalem and how they chose to worship God even when they were separated and driven from the true place they belonged. It reminds us of our condition that we meditate strongly on during Lent - that we too are exiled. We must keep our hope, we must continue to sing the Lord's song even in this strange land.

So let us prepare ourselves for this Lenten journey. Let us ready ourselves that we might truly embrace the fast and let us sing the Lord's song even as we remember our sin, our mortality, and our exile from Eden.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

- Ben

If you're interested there is a great Lenten "pastoral note" by Fr. Justin Paterson at the top of the St. Athanasius web-page (here). You can also scroll down if you are interested in learning more about Eastern Christian fasting practices during Lent.

Tactile Inspiration

I was just sitting here watching ESPN's College Gameday and they had a special spot on how most of the high profile college football programs have an inspiration object that they touch for motivation before they run onto the field. This spot chronicled teams such as Notre Dame who has touched their "Play Like a Champion" sign since the Lou Holtz era in 1986 and Texas who touches a pair of long horns before running onto the field.

During this spot the discussion approached near spiritual terms. According to the program, not only do these tactile expressions create motivation, but they also unify the team and create a sense of identity for the players.

As Christians what are we to make of these physical expression of "faith." Should we condemn the practice because these individuals are offering respect and honor to physical objects or should we just play it off as enigmatic of sports and declare that because it is not done in a religious context it has no real spiritual meaning. How do we respond if we realize that we can't dichotomize our spiritual lives from our "regular lives" because all of life is indeed spiritual? I really don't have these answers but this does prove to be an interesting issue. I wrote a bit about the issue of seemingly religious "touching" in conjunction with sports after the Super Bowl in February (here) so you can check those thoughts out if you're interested.

This topic does make me think about our own practices of tactile religious practices. Before relocating to NC I spent about three years attending St. Athanasius Orthodox Church. While I am not Orthodox, I don't think my love for Orthodoxy is any secret and I think there are many ways that we Protestants can learn from our Orthodox brothers and sisters. One of the things that we can learn is that worship, just as much as it is mental and emotional, it is also physical.

Since fully reentering the protestant world there have been many, many times where I have felt my body aching to be involved in the worship of our holy triune God. At times my arms and hands have felt cheated when I was hesitant to make the sign of the cross over my head and chest in holy reverence. My nose has been left out by not being able to smell the incense that symbolizes the prayers of the congregation as they rise to God. My knees have become soft with the lack of bowing and my eyes long to see the beauty of the Father made manifest in the images of his Son and the holy saints. I'm adjusting, and I don't mean this to sound like a complaint against the things we do at my church or against Protestantism in general. But maybe ESPN is right. Maybe we are tactile beings and touching things does inspire us and motivate us. Maybe looking upon a sign and touching a common object can create unity amongst us. And maybe this is part of the reason that the iconoclastic heresy was so detrimental to the faith and was rightfully condemned at the 7th ecumenical council.

Surely our worship practices do more than these sports practices. We do things for more reasons than to inspire, motivate, and create unity amongst ourselves. We are not "spiritual beings having a temporary physical experience" as I once read on a "Christian" bumper sticker. For if that were true then why would Christ our God become truly human and physical in order that we might be fully redeemed. Indeed we are both spiritual and physical and as such our worship must be both physical and spiritual or else by our practice we deny the truth of the incarnation and become no better than the Arian heretics of the First Council of Nicea.

May we all worship Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with body, mind, and soul.

- Ben

EDIT: Here is the link to the original video from College Gameday.

Gameday: Pregame Touch Traditions

The Ark, the Ethiopians, and the Monophysites

I just read an article from WND again and it goes into more elaborate explanation and actually talks about some "experts" in the field. It's worth a read. You can find it here.

Honestly I feel like I'm one of those trashy newspapers you see at the grocery store check-out because I keep posting all of this. In fact, until it hits real news I think I'm gonna lay off of it. It's great and interesting, but when this last article started quoting bible prophecy "experts" from TBN and the like I decided that I'm not going to pass anything else along.

However, I should address the questions I raised about the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. One of my good Orthodox friends pointed me a page I missed on the Ethiopian Church website. In these pages (here and here) it explains how and why the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is not in communion with either the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. I would suggest reading both the articles, but the first is much more explanatory.

To give you a quick summary (for those of you who don't want to read the articles) the Ethiopians are non-Chalcedonian in their creedal heritage. What this means is that while all of Christianity embraces the 7 major ecumenical councils the Ethiopian Orthodox do not embrace the council of Chalcedon.

The council of Chalcedon (451 and the 4th council) declared that Christ had two distinct natures (Divine and Human) united in one person (hypostasis). Traditionally the Ethiopians would be referred to as monophysites which were condemned as heretics at the council. The monophysites taught that Christ had only one nature (divine and human combined together like a milkshake) and one person. If you read the article you will realize that the Ethiopians really don't like to be called monophysites and prefer the term "miaphysite." While their description is much closer to the orthodox Christian description given at the council and they are correct in rejecting monophysite teaching they are still, as a result of this disagreement still not in full communion with the Christian churches that hold to the 7 ecumenical councils.

I hope that brief description helps and doesn't confuse anyone. This discussion is heavy and sometimes I confuse myself. So if any of you all are more educated in this than I am please feel free to provide input.

All that to say that the Ethiopians are not in communion with the Orthodox and the Catholics and as such it is a huge step that the Ethiopian patriarch is talking to Rome and is willing to show the pope what the Ethiopians believe to be the true Ark of the Covenant.

The Ark of the Covenant!

If you grew up in the church, read the Old Testament, or even seen the Indiana Jones movie Raiders of the Ark you know about the Ark of the Covenant. The container of Aaron's staff, the Ten Commandments (not the movie), and some manna is said to have disappeared a long long time ago.

There have always been rumors that the Ark made its way to Africa in the time of King Solomon and the queen of Sheba and then somehow (the rumors aren't too clear) found its way into an Ethiopian church much later in history. The legends and even some discovery channel specials have alluded that the Ethiopian church has closely guarded and kept secret the official place of the ark. Over the years the Ethiopian church has refused to allow anyone except for a few choice monks and patriarchs to see the ark but has confirmed reports that they are in possession of it. Well, apparently all of this is about to change.

According to "World Net Daily" (here: hat-tip to Laura Hubel via facebook) the Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is going to allow the bishop of Rome (read: Pope) and the rest of the world to view the Ark of the Covenant.

Now, I'm not sure how reputable "World Net Daily" is. For all I know this could be a fake news site like the Onion, but it doesn't seem to read like one. I will continue to search for info on this and pass it along as I find it. But if this is indeed a credible story think about how amazing it is that the Ark, if this is the true Ark, is finally being allowed to be seen. Making this even more awesome is that the unveiling of this will be an ecumenical event and will help to mend the strains dividing the Catholic and Orthodox churches (providing the Ethiopian church is not in schism... could one of my Orthodox friends help me with this?).

While this is a great event and I rejoice in it, it also raises some pretty big questions, especially if this really is the true Ark of the Covenant.

• Given the New Covenant given to us by Jesus does the Ark still need to be handled in the same manner as the OT prescribed and if so who will fulfill this priestly duty?
• If the Ark does need to still be handled with in the same manner does the fact that the Ethiopian church can transport it validate their claim on being the true apostolic church?
• Will they allow anyone who is not special Ethiopian clergy to touch the Ark thus testing to see if if it validates their church?
• Will the church allow the Ark to be tested and historically dated?
• What will be the Jewish reaction to this claim? (I'm guessing complete rejection of the validity)
• Will they open the Ark?
  
• Will this produce a multitude of converts? To Christianity in general? To Orthodoxy? To Catholicism?

The questions are really endless and my mind is consumed by the multiple scenarios that this has to offer and thus my productivity at work has screeched to a halt even though I'm not 100% certain of the validity of this story. But think about it, either this is the true Ark of the covenant or it isn't.

I just found another story online that provides the report from INN (I think that stands for Israeli National News). Click Here.

Hopefully I'm not just posting a bogus story, but I was too excited by this not to put it on here. I'll post updates as I find them.

Blessings,

- Ben

Passion Narratives with Ehrman

This post is long overdue but that's never stopped me before.

I had the chance a couple of weeks ago to see arch-heretic and blasphemer Bart Ehrman's appearance on the Colbert Report. For those of you who don't read much in the field of biblical studies Ehrman is a New Testament scholar who has turned away from the faith and has been publishing books about the Bible is unreliable and is full of mistakes and whatnot. Ehrman continues to go well beyond just technical criticism by attacking the fundamental teachings of Christianity and opting for a form of gnostic belief.

During his interview with Ehrman, Colbert asked him for examples about concerning his view that the gospels just don't fit together. Ehrman cited the passion narratives as a prime example of contradictory textual evidence. He claimed that Jesus' countenance is drastically different in all four narratives and thus they are incompatible and should be jettisoned from belief.

A day or two after seeing this interview I decided to drive to Greensboro to go to an Orthodox church for the vespers of Good Friday with the 12 passion gospels. As I participated 2+ hr evening service I found great delight that not only were we reading the passion narrative of one gospel or two of them but we were reading all the passion narratives interspersed among each other. In this service we slowly walked through the events leading up to the crucifixion, recounting each word, deed, and action portrayed in the readings.

As we slowly read each of the 12 segments from the gospels I couldn't help but think of the interview I saw just days prior. Ehrman looks at the passion narratives and sees contradiction, he sees a mythos about the person of Jesus and because he looks this way he falls deeply into heresy, blasphemy, and life without the living God. The church on the other hand is called to live within the scriptures. We are called to read the scriptures through the lens of faith. We were passed down a tradition from the apostles and it is within that tradition that we read the gospels. We start knowing that Jesus is divine and human and as such we read the scriptures that way. Ehrman on the other hand, starts with the assumption that Jesus is not divine (because scientifically humans can't be divine) and thus the scriptures are wrong and are full of lies and contradictions.

I realize I'm not doing justice nor adding to the conversation of "how to read scripture" but I did want to share this delightful juxtaposition that I experienced.

You can see the Ehrman interview here via Ben Witherinton's blog.

You can also see Witherington's critique of Ehrman's books via his blog if you click here.

I haven't read Witherinton's critiques, but from my experience he does a good job refuting the heretical beliefs of individuals like Ehrman.

Glorious Feast!

Today the church exhorts us to join in a great paradox of feasting even in the midst of our Lenten fasting since today is the feast of the Annunciation. Today is the day that we celebrate and remember that glorious day when the Angel Gabriel came to the Virgin and proclaimed:

Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you...Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And now you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of the his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end....The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God....For nothing will be impossible with God. (Luke 1:30-33,35,37 NRSV)

Today is the day when we can see the full spectrum of our salvation. We look ahead to Good Friday when we remember our Lord's death, and we even glance beyond Good Friday longingly looking toward Easter Sunday, the feast of feasts, when we celebrate our Lords glorious resurrection. We look ahead like this today as we think of the angel's visitation to the Virgin. We recognize today, maybe more fully than at any other point, that our Lord came as a child to die and rise again for us and for our salvation.

The Lord and maker of the heavens, he who is uncontainable humbled himself so much that he allowed himself to take on flesh and to be contained in a womb. He who knows the expanse of the universe and who spoke to the darkness at creation is the same incarnate word that came and took on flesh as a fetus (if such an impersonal word can be used). We celebrate this day the incorporeal Son, the second person of the Trinity, taking on flesh so that humanity may be united to God. We rejoice in the fact that Christ our God took on every part of what it means to be human and yet was without sin. Our Lord took upon himself not only our flesh, but also our will - assuming everything that is intrinsic to us, for as St. Basil states: "that which was not assumed cannot be redeemed."

Today we also remember Mary's response to the Angel: "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word" (Luke 1:38). We remember that her response was a free choice and that it was not forced upon her. In this same way we remember that we are called to emulate her and to respond to God daily with the same words. Theotokos, the God-bearer, that is the title given to Mary by the early church, not as a sign of her exultation but to proclaim the mystery we celebrate today that God himself, in the person of the Son chose to be born. The uncreated one who is without beginning chose to unite himself to humanity so thoroughly that we can say with confidence that Mary bore God in her womb. To say this statement is hard and absurd is true, and yet it is also beautiful in the truth it proclaims. Christ is the fullness of God, and yet also the fullness of humanity and today we proclaim his love. We can see this love clearly as we remember his incarnation and look toward the cross and resurrection.

Glory to God in the Highest! Our redemption is at hand, for Christ our God is conceived in the womb of the virgin so that he may cleanse us from our sin.


Sadly this holy-day is forgotten in most of Protestantism probably due to a number of reasons, chief of which may be (and I'm just offering a hypothesis here) connected to the staunch rejection of anything having to do with the Virgin Mary at the time of Luther's reformation. I believe it would do us well to remember this day with our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters. I believe this feast helps us to think more accurately about the incarnation of our Lord. It helps us to avoid the heresy of adoptionism and some gnostic tendencies that run deep in some of our traditions.

So let us today join with our Catholic and Orthodox friends and boldly sing the praises of God. For today we can see both the incarnation and the crucifixion/resurrection clearly. Let us praise God for his redemption of humanity for today we celebrate the coming of grace as the Son of God becomes the Son of the Virgin!

Post Super-Bowl Thoughts

Contrary to what the title may convey, this post is more about theology and popular piety than it is about the Super Bowl.

For the past three years up until I moved to NC I attended an Orthodox church. In this church I've been fed and nourished in the faith. I have come to love Orthodoxy very much (even though I don't have any current plans to convert) and I believe that those of us who belong to the Western Church would greatly benefit from a strong dose of Eastern theology and piety.

As friends and family visited me and attended church with me one of the major points of questioning, curiosity, and ridicule (though very rare) was that things (in particular holy things) were venerated through kissing. For example: icons, the chalice, and other things of theological and liturgical significance are kissed as a sign of reverence.

As I watched the Super Bowl Trophy presentation the other day I couldn't help but notice that almost every player and coach anxiously awaited his chance to not only touch the trophy but to kiss it as well. As I watched these grown men kissing this small metallic trophy I recounted sport event after sport event where this same scenario has played itself out. Whether it be the World Series, the Stanley Cup, the NBA Finals, or the Super Bowl, each year I see grown men kiss a trophy and I have never heard a single individual remark how odd, weird, or creepy it is.

I'm not mentioning all this to condemn anyone, but rather just as an observation. It's interesting how some actions can cause us distress in one setting while in a completely different setting they seem perfectly normal. I especially think this whole concept is odd when you consider it from a Protestant perspective.

Conservative Protestants are typically the first group of people to criticize Catholics and Orthodox for their ritual movements and posturing. They criticize when they cross themselves, when they kiss holy objects, when they repeat written prayers, and when they kneel repeatedly during services. Yet these same conservative protestants are the first ones to salute the American flag, put their hand over their heart during the national anthem, say the pledge of allegiance, and kiss super bowl trophies and the like.

I find it very interesting that we can support and accept a set of actions when they are directed toward a nation-state or a championship trophy, but yet utterly reject them when they are directed toward the holy things of God.

I'm sure there are many more reasons for this disparity but I thought I'd begin the discussion here.

Eccumenical Awesomeness!!!

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

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

Read the address here.

Thanks for Greg Sigountos who passed it along to me.


Some of my favorite quotes from the address:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glory to God! Amen.

More Lenten Thoughts

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

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

- Ben

On the Untenable Nature of Calvinist/Predestinarian Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings to you all,


- Ben

Approaching Lent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Ben