There has been a lot of talk as of late that the iconic Brett Favre has asked to be released from the Green Bay Packers and that if he was indeed released then his most likely landing spot would be with the Minnesota Vikings.
If you know me at all then you know that I am a die-hard Vikings fan and that I have been such since 1st grade. However, if somehow this abomination took place and Brett Favre became the Vikings quarterback I would cease being a Vikings fan for as long as he is on the roster.
I'm not sure if it's because he's quarterbacked the team I have learned to hate for what seems like my entire lifetime (since '92), or because of the fact that the media constantly jeterates (read the article it's real good) him, or just because I've seen him beat the Vikings more times than I care to recall, but I cannot stand Brett Favre and I hope he never dons Viking purple....EVER!!! Even if the all-time NFL leader in interceptions helped the Vikings to win a Superbowl it would bring me no joy.
May this awful scenario never transpire. If you want thoughts on if Favre to the Vikings is a good or bad thing you can check out the plethora of good Viking's blogs suck as:
- Pacifist Viking
- Daily Norseman
- The Viking Age
- Vikings War Cry
On to baseball!! The Orioles are in last place of their division and are 3 games under .500 at the All-Star break. While I find that disheartening, I still hold to my preseason Kierkegaardian leap of faith. I still have faith that the Orioles can come back and win the division and make a run for the World Series. Even more delightful than this hope is the fact that the Orioles are a really fun team to follow this year. They play hard, they seem like they're having fun, and I have faith that they can pull out a win in almost any game. The young talent has had its share of bumps and bruises, but if they get it together this pitching staff will be something to be feared. I'm excited for what the second half of the season will bring.
Remember the word of the day is jeterate. If you didn't read the article then go back up and click on the link and read it. It's a great article about how good and yet overrated Derek Jeter is. He's the baseball version of Brett Favre but is way more loathsome in my book.
- Ben
Monday, July 14, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Final Ichthus Thoughts
I know Ichthus has been over for a few days, but I figured I'd give some final closing thoughts.
I spend my first two posts lamenting the poor audio quality but I do have to admit that the third day of the festival showed major improvement. The main stage was vastly better than the previous days. Not only was the audio tolerable and not painful, but it was actually quite good. I have a few different preferences when it comes to mixing, but all in all it wasn't painfully bad.
The 3rd stage was also much better. The second day of the festival I threw in some ear plugs at this stage because one or two of the frequencies were pretty painful, but they seemed to have worked out all of the problems and it sounded as good as a small stage with that kind of gear can be expected to sound.
The one exception to vast improvement to the audio quality was the 2nd stage. While this stage wasn't too bad the first two days it had some pretty serious feedback issues on the last day of the festival. After they fixed the feedback issues they still had issues with the mix being poor, but luckily most of the final bands were hard rock/punk rock bands and you can get a way with a bad mix if you crank the volume. One very noticeable problem on this stage was the drum kit for the MxPx show. Either the sounds guys weren't good or they just didn't have a lot of time to EQ it, but either way the kit sounded like a Fisher-Price drum set. It was horrible!! That show in particular was mixed pretty poorly, which made me sad, but served as a good catalyst to leave and see the Psalters at the #3 stage.
All in all the best concert from the entire weekend was the final act of the festival - the Psalters. They are amazing. As I said in the last post they are totally hippy-free-thinkers, but their music is both seemingly chaotic and cohesive. There were 7 or 8 of them playing instruments as varying as: the banjo, finger cymbals, various ethnic drums (djembe, congas, etc), bagpipes, an oboe, bass guitar, acoustic guitar, accordion, and much more. It's hard to describe their music other than saying it is eclectic, cultural, and theologically insightful. It was an amazing show full of energy, theology, and beautiful music. You can download some of their songs via their website. I recommend "Hosanna" and hopefully they will put up "Trisagion" soon. Both of these songs are taken from the Divine Liturgy (Hosanna quoting from the Psalms) and are thus full of theology. They may not be verbatim, but the content is close enough that it makes me like the Psalters even more.
To quickly address the other shows to which I was looking forward:
Delorean Grey: See last post
MxPx: The sound was crappy but it was fun for nostalgic purposes.
Code of Ethics: They are not near as cool as I remember them being when I was in 8th grade. Poor stage presence and average music
Family Force 5: Great show! High energy, good music (though occasionally cheesy lyrics) and great stage presence. You can tell they enjoy what they're doing.
Psalters: Best of the festival!
In the future I hope Ichthus improves their artist line-up as it seemed void of some of the biggest names out there and improves their audio quality or else I fear they will slowly see decreased attendance as people opt out for the larger festivals that seem to be run better (Creation, Kingdom Bound, Cornerstone).
Hopefully I'll get some more motivation and read the rest of Canonical Theism soon so I can write a short review. The book is great. I really like the approach though I'm hesitant to jump on a trend like I did the emergent thing in college (which proved to be largely heretical), but this one at its most basic level seems to be an effort to remain protestant while seeking to have a more Orthodox or Catholic (but especially Orthodox) approach to theology.
Blessings,
- Ben
I spend my first two posts lamenting the poor audio quality but I do have to admit that the third day of the festival showed major improvement. The main stage was vastly better than the previous days. Not only was the audio tolerable and not painful, but it was actually quite good. I have a few different preferences when it comes to mixing, but all in all it wasn't painfully bad.
The 3rd stage was also much better. The second day of the festival I threw in some ear plugs at this stage because one or two of the frequencies were pretty painful, but they seemed to have worked out all of the problems and it sounded as good as a small stage with that kind of gear can be expected to sound.
The one exception to vast improvement to the audio quality was the 2nd stage. While this stage wasn't too bad the first two days it had some pretty serious feedback issues on the last day of the festival. After they fixed the feedback issues they still had issues with the mix being poor, but luckily most of the final bands were hard rock/punk rock bands and you can get a way with a bad mix if you crank the volume. One very noticeable problem on this stage was the drum kit for the MxPx show. Either the sounds guys weren't good or they just didn't have a lot of time to EQ it, but either way the kit sounded like a Fisher-Price drum set. It was horrible!! That show in particular was mixed pretty poorly, which made me sad, but served as a good catalyst to leave and see the Psalters at the #3 stage.
All in all the best concert from the entire weekend was the final act of the festival - the Psalters. They are amazing. As I said in the last post they are totally hippy-free-thinkers, but their music is both seemingly chaotic and cohesive. There were 7 or 8 of them playing instruments as varying as: the banjo, finger cymbals, various ethnic drums (djembe, congas, etc), bagpipes, an oboe, bass guitar, acoustic guitar, accordion, and much more. It's hard to describe their music other than saying it is eclectic, cultural, and theologically insightful. It was an amazing show full of energy, theology, and beautiful music. You can download some of their songs via their website. I recommend "Hosanna" and hopefully they will put up "Trisagion" soon. Both of these songs are taken from the Divine Liturgy (Hosanna quoting from the Psalms) and are thus full of theology. They may not be verbatim, but the content is close enough that it makes me like the Psalters even more.
To quickly address the other shows to which I was looking forward:
Delorean Grey: See last post
MxPx: The sound was crappy but it was fun for nostalgic purposes.
Code of Ethics: They are not near as cool as I remember them being when I was in 8th grade. Poor stage presence and average music
Family Force 5: Great show! High energy, good music (though occasionally cheesy lyrics) and great stage presence. You can tell they enjoy what they're doing.
Psalters: Best of the festival!
In the future I hope Ichthus improves their artist line-up as it seemed void of some of the biggest names out there and improves their audio quality or else I fear they will slowly see decreased attendance as people opt out for the larger festivals that seem to be run better (Creation, Kingdom Bound, Cornerstone).
Hopefully I'll get some more motivation and read the rest of Canonical Theism soon so I can write a short review. The book is great. I really like the approach though I'm hesitant to jump on a trend like I did the emergent thing in college (which proved to be largely heretical), but this one at its most basic level seems to be an effort to remain protestant while seeking to have a more Orthodox or Catholic (but especially Orthodox) approach to theology.
Blessings,
- Ben
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Dispassion, worship, and an Ichthus update
In case you didn't see the link in the comments my friend Nathaniel posted a response to my questions on dispassion over on his blog. It is worth checking out if I confused you or if you have been thinking about this issue for a while like I (and apparently Kyle) have.
Here is the link to Nathaniel's post.
There is also an interesting discussion about the over emphasis of music in Protestant services over on my friend JD's blog.
You can click here to read the post and comments.
Sadly I wasn't able to attend much of Ichthus yesterday because thunderstorms resulted in most of the evening being canceled. I was able to make it to Sandy Richter's morning devotion, which was good and I thought very accessible to target audience (the youth). I also made it out to see Delorean Grey at the Edge Stage. This is the third or fourth time I've seen them in concert (though every other time I've been doing production) and I really like their music. Their stage presence isn't super-great or anything, but then again they aren't a band that draws thousands so it is sort of hard to get pumped about small crowds.
Concerning the sound at the Edge Stage:
It is about what I would expect from the #3 stage at a festival like Ichthus. It wasn't perfect and could have used some tweaking, but it sounded OK and good enough to pass as average or above average. The reason I'm so hard on the main stage audio is because that should be amazing sound quality for the equipment they should have and the bands they are having on the stage. It was not. Again, I'm looking forward to checking it out again today.
Blessings,
- Ben
Here is the link to Nathaniel's post.
There is also an interesting discussion about the over emphasis of music in Protestant services over on my friend JD's blog.
You can click here to read the post and comments.
Sadly I wasn't able to attend much of Ichthus yesterday because thunderstorms resulted in most of the evening being canceled. I was able to make it to Sandy Richter's morning devotion, which was good and I thought very accessible to target audience (the youth). I also made it out to see Delorean Grey at the Edge Stage. This is the third or fourth time I've seen them in concert (though every other time I've been doing production) and I really like their music. Their stage presence isn't super-great or anything, but then again they aren't a band that draws thousands so it is sort of hard to get pumped about small crowds.
Concerning the sound at the Edge Stage:
It is about what I would expect from the #3 stage at a festival like Ichthus. It wasn't perfect and could have used some tweaking, but it sounded OK and good enough to pass as average or above average. The reason I'm so hard on the main stage audio is because that should be amazing sound quality for the equipment they should have and the bands they are having on the stage. It was not. Again, I'm looking forward to checking it out again today.
Blessings,
- Ben
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Misc. Thoughts from Ichthus: 1
Searching to quench the boredom from being unemployed I volunteered to help Ichthus ministries out today and my reward was a free weekend pass to the festival. For those of you who don't know, Ichthus is the oldest of the Christian music festivals complete with Christian rock bands, speakers, and all the standard fun. Tonight was the first night of the festival and here are some thoughts ranging from audio thoughts to deep theological wrestlings.
1. The rumors were proven true. In my time running sound professionally I've had the opportunity to travel quite a bit and after I tell people where I live there is one thing that I've heard from a few different companies and stage hands from a few different places: "Isn't that where that Christian music festival is?.... I've heard the audio there sucks!" It seems Ichthus has a reputation for having some of the worst audio production around. Since I've never been to Ichthus until this year I could never offer a value judgment....well I'm sad to report that the rumors are true.
I'm willing to admit that I'm an audio snob and that I'm use to working with top of the line gear like VDOSC and the like, but tonight was fairly bad. It could be said that I came into the concert with a predisposition and thus only found what I was looking for, but I really tried to be open and honest with myself.
I did my nerdy sound guy walking around listening to different areas and aspects and there were very few areas that I thought sounded good. In fact, one of the poorest sounding areas was the one place that it is supposed to sound the best: around the sound board. I thought the line array they were using didn't disperse evenly, a few of the frequencies were too hot and made listening uncomfortable in some places, the vocals in some places were buried to the point of unintelligibility, amidst a few other things.
I'm not saying that I'm a magic sound guy and that I could have done better. In my inexperience I probably would have made it sound worse, but I've heard the same type of gear they were using sound a lot better. Granted they weren't using top of the line gear (cough VDOSC.... cough) but they were using OK equipment... either way it should have sounded better. I'm looking forward to the next day or two to see if they are able to work out some of the kinks.
2. Maybe I'm just old, but it didn't seem like Skillet gave as sweet of a concert as I've seen from them in the past. Don't get me wrong, they still rocked and I enjoyed it (sans the audio problems mentioned above), but their stage presence seemed to be lacking. John Cooper, the front man, seemed like he was trying to force his humor and it ended up being flat. I've enjoyed every other Skillet show I've been too, so I'm willing to chalk it up to them having an off night.
3. While the audio production left a bit to be desired I thought the visual production was done very well. Props to Ichthus for going big on the light rigs. It could have used a few more movers, but all in all it was done well.
4. I couldn't find a Houghton College booth. That made me sad, hopefully I just missed it.
5. Warning: This one will probably be long and theological.
I've been thinking a lot lately about sanctification or whatever term you want to give it: I personally like: Partaking of the Divine Essence (2 Peter 1.4). In the Patristic tradition there this a concept/attribute of "dispassion" that accompanies this sanctification. The concept of dispassion is most fully articulated by the Eastern theologians, though it seems to me that it is also found in some of the western theologians as well. I'm not sure that I really understand what it means to be dispassionate (in fact it really confuses me and I need to study more), but I couldn't help but have thoughts surrounding it tonight at Ichthus.
At my basic and elementary understanding (which could be dead wrong) to be dispassionate is to not be moved by the passions (pride, lust, anger, etc) and to have one's soul quiet before the Lord. This doesn't mean, to my understanding, that one is a mopey kill-joy from then on, but that one is not easily moved to ecstatic reactions. We are in essence dead to the world, insofar as we find our entire orientation toward God.
With this in mind I started thinking about rock music, particularly Christian rock. I love rock as much as the next person, but I think if I were to speak honestly, I would have to admit that it does not quiet my soul. In fact anyone in attendance would have a hard time quieting their soul. The question I'm wrestling with is: "If one of the character traits to which we are striving is dispassion (this may be up for debate) then is there room within this striving for such music (or anything) that steers us from that goal?"
This music application can be taken further to encompass the current Protestant tread of contemporary worship music. While I enjoy the theologically deep songs (sadly there are few) I wonder how the genre helps to quiet one's soul and foster dispassion. At the risk of making a fallacious jump, I wonder if this leads to the problem of the current obsession with worship: focusing on the concept of worship so much that we lose focus on the object of worship.
I know there are a lot of ifs in the last point. It's something I'm just thinking through and I obviously welcome thoughts. Like I said, I'm not sure if I understand dispassion by itself or as a soteriological byproduct of theosis/sanctification. I'm also not sure that if I understand dispassion I have appropriated it correctly.
So there are some initial thoughts. The plan is to post some follow up to the first few as I listen to more concerts tomorrow. There are a few I'm excited about, but all in all the lineup seems pretty sparse this year. A few bands on my must-see list:
- Delorean Grey: A local-ish KY band I've met a couple times. They rock.
- MxPx: Old School... can't pass it up.
- Code of Ethics: I can't believe they are still making music!
- Family Force 5: I've heard they give a killer show
- Psalters: A total hippy-free-thinker band, but their latest CD is based on the Catholic and Orthodox liturgies. It sort of freaks me out because there is so much going on, but it's kinda cool.
Blessings,
- Ben
1. The rumors were proven true. In my time running sound professionally I've had the opportunity to travel quite a bit and after I tell people where I live there is one thing that I've heard from a few different companies and stage hands from a few different places: "Isn't that where that Christian music festival is?.... I've heard the audio there sucks!" It seems Ichthus has a reputation for having some of the worst audio production around. Since I've never been to Ichthus until this year I could never offer a value judgment....well I'm sad to report that the rumors are true.
I'm willing to admit that I'm an audio snob and that I'm use to working with top of the line gear like VDOSC and the like, but tonight was fairly bad. It could be said that I came into the concert with a predisposition and thus only found what I was looking for, but I really tried to be open and honest with myself.
I did my nerdy sound guy walking around listening to different areas and aspects and there were very few areas that I thought sounded good. In fact, one of the poorest sounding areas was the one place that it is supposed to sound the best: around the sound board. I thought the line array they were using didn't disperse evenly, a few of the frequencies were too hot and made listening uncomfortable in some places, the vocals in some places were buried to the point of unintelligibility, amidst a few other things.
I'm not saying that I'm a magic sound guy and that I could have done better. In my inexperience I probably would have made it sound worse, but I've heard the same type of gear they were using sound a lot better. Granted they weren't using top of the line gear (cough VDOSC.... cough) but they were using OK equipment... either way it should have sounded better. I'm looking forward to the next day or two to see if they are able to work out some of the kinks.
2. Maybe I'm just old, but it didn't seem like Skillet gave as sweet of a concert as I've seen from them in the past. Don't get me wrong, they still rocked and I enjoyed it (sans the audio problems mentioned above), but their stage presence seemed to be lacking. John Cooper, the front man, seemed like he was trying to force his humor and it ended up being flat. I've enjoyed every other Skillet show I've been too, so I'm willing to chalk it up to them having an off night.
3. While the audio production left a bit to be desired I thought the visual production was done very well. Props to Ichthus for going big on the light rigs. It could have used a few more movers, but all in all it was done well.
4. I couldn't find a Houghton College booth. That made me sad, hopefully I just missed it.
5. Warning: This one will probably be long and theological.
I've been thinking a lot lately about sanctification or whatever term you want to give it: I personally like: Partaking of the Divine Essence (2 Peter 1.4). In the Patristic tradition there this a concept/attribute of "dispassion" that accompanies this sanctification. The concept of dispassion is most fully articulated by the Eastern theologians, though it seems to me that it is also found in some of the western theologians as well. I'm not sure that I really understand what it means to be dispassionate (in fact it really confuses me and I need to study more), but I couldn't help but have thoughts surrounding it tonight at Ichthus.
At my basic and elementary understanding (which could be dead wrong) to be dispassionate is to not be moved by the passions (pride, lust, anger, etc) and to have one's soul quiet before the Lord. This doesn't mean, to my understanding, that one is a mopey kill-joy from then on, but that one is not easily moved to ecstatic reactions. We are in essence dead to the world, insofar as we find our entire orientation toward God.
With this in mind I started thinking about rock music, particularly Christian rock. I love rock as much as the next person, but I think if I were to speak honestly, I would have to admit that it does not quiet my soul. In fact anyone in attendance would have a hard time quieting their soul. The question I'm wrestling with is: "If one of the character traits to which we are striving is dispassion (this may be up for debate) then is there room within this striving for such music (or anything) that steers us from that goal?"
This music application can be taken further to encompass the current Protestant tread of contemporary worship music. While I enjoy the theologically deep songs (sadly there are few) I wonder how the genre helps to quiet one's soul and foster dispassion. At the risk of making a fallacious jump, I wonder if this leads to the problem of the current obsession with worship: focusing on the concept of worship so much that we lose focus on the object of worship.
I know there are a lot of ifs in the last point. It's something I'm just thinking through and I obviously welcome thoughts. Like I said, I'm not sure if I understand dispassion by itself or as a soteriological byproduct of theosis/sanctification. I'm also not sure that if I understand dispassion I have appropriated it correctly.
So there are some initial thoughts. The plan is to post some follow up to the first few as I listen to more concerts tomorrow. There are a few I'm excited about, but all in all the lineup seems pretty sparse this year. A few bands on my must-see list:
- Delorean Grey: A local-ish KY band I've met a couple times. They rock.
- MxPx: Old School... can't pass it up.
- Code of Ethics: I can't believe they are still making music!
- Family Force 5: I've heard they give a killer show
- Psalters: A total hippy-free-thinker band, but their latest CD is based on the Catholic and Orthodox liturgies. It sort of freaks me out because there is so much going on, but it's kinda cool.
Blessings,
- Ben
Friday, June 06, 2008
Ramblings from an unemployed vagabond
One would think that I would post more now that the rush of finals week is done and the semester is finally over, somehow that has not been the case. Hopefully in the next week or so I'll get a few more of my thoughts worked out enough to post some stuff on here. Until then here is a short update on what's going on in my life:
1. I am now a Master of Theological Studies...or at least that's what I like to tell myself now that I've graduated with a degree by that name. I'm still waiting to receive my diploma in the mail, but I'm still calling myself a graduate.
2. I am unemployed. I'm been sending out resumes like it's my job since the middle of the school year and I am still trying to find a job. Hopefully I can find one soon. I fly out to Iowa at the end of the month of an interview and have had a bunch of phone interviews. I find that not having a denomination makes it hard to find Pastoral jobs.
3. I visited the original KFC in Corbin, KY the other day with Kristy. It was awesome.... well as awesome as a fast food joint can be. But it was fun and I was starving after a day of hiking in the woods.
4. Reading: Maybe I'm a dork but here is what I'm starting to read, though I find that I'm reading way too infrequently.
- St. John Chrysostom's homilies on Philippians
- William J. Abraham (ed.) Canonical Theism
So there is a short update. I would appreciate the prayers for a job, as my bank account is dwindling and school loans will be due soon.
I'll try to post more later.
Blessings,
Ben
1. I am now a Master of Theological Studies...or at least that's what I like to tell myself now that I've graduated with a degree by that name. I'm still waiting to receive my diploma in the mail, but I'm still calling myself a graduate.
2. I am unemployed. I'm been sending out resumes like it's my job since the middle of the school year and I am still trying to find a job. Hopefully I can find one soon. I fly out to Iowa at the end of the month of an interview and have had a bunch of phone interviews. I find that not having a denomination makes it hard to find Pastoral jobs.
3. I visited the original KFC in Corbin, KY the other day with Kristy. It was awesome.... well as awesome as a fast food joint can be. But it was fun and I was starving after a day of hiking in the woods.
4. Reading: Maybe I'm a dork but here is what I'm starting to read, though I find that I'm reading way too infrequently.
- St. John Chrysostom's homilies on Philippians
- William J. Abraham (ed.) Canonical Theism
So there is a short update. I would appreciate the prayers for a job, as my bank account is dwindling and school loans will be due soon.
I'll try to post more later.
Blessings,
Ben
Monday, April 14, 2008
On Tradition
As you should know by now I'm a huge baseball fan and as such I found myself spending my Sunday afternoon watching the Pirates vs. Reds game on tv and watching the Orioles game via mlb.com gamecast. During the telecast on FSN one of the announcers began to discuss baseball tradition and the important role it plays in helping teams and the game. The announcer also made the point that it is becoming necessary for the teams to bring in the players of older championship teams (i.e. the '79 Pirates) to help create some sense of belonging and connectedness to the organization with the younger players.
As I thought about this it seemed like a good idea to me, I long for the winning ways of the older Oriole teams, the days of the Oriole Way with Weaver, Palmer, Powell, the days of legend that I don't remember but that I've heard about time and time again. I also thought about football, of course I would love the Vikings to rise again and become the Purple People Eaters of yore.
It seems to me that Sports fans constantly talk about and long for tradition lived out in their teams. It seems that this desire is part of the torture of having a team relocate from one city to another. If a team moves then in a sense the tradition dies, the character seems to be ontologically changed and thus it just isn't the same. Think about when the Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens. Why did they change their name? In part is was because the city filed a suit against the NFL to retain the name and the records. Thus when a new team came back into Cleveland the name and records were in place and the tradition of the Browns could pick right back up where is left off with the dog-pound intact and everything.
It seems that it's not just sports fans that long for tradition either. Towns and communities seek to keep various traditions alive, our nation has traditions like the 4th of July and all the local customs that are entailed with that. Tradition is everywhere and is commonly held as a good thing to sustain within our culture, but the question I must as is, "Why is the church an anomaly to this?"
You may have though that this post was going to just be about baseball and football but really the aforementioned baseball commentator started getting me thinking about why if society (via sports and other things) values tradition so much then why does so much of the American church seek to rid itself of any sort of Christian tradition?
Why over the past 20+ years has American Christianity (especially Protestant Christianity) pushed to rid itself of the life-giving traditions of the Church? Why have we stopped following the Christian calendar? Why have we stopped fasting? Why have we left the songs of the faith and tried to push all forms of tradition out of our churches?
Granted the Emergent movement is trying to remedy this, but the problem with them is that they see tradition as merely something ascetic and enjoyable rather than an authoritative life practice. The problem with the Emergents is that they can embrace the traditions but they appropriate them in such a matter that they continue in their heresies and blasphemies just like the Nestorians and Arians of old.
I have heard the Jaroslav Pelikan once said that "traditionalism is the dead faith of the living, tradition is the living faith of the dead." I would add to that that the true faith of the Church is found in her traditions as they live and breathe among us. In fact our Holy Scriptures are very much a product of the tradition of the faith and we have them in part because holy men and women saw fit to preserve these letters and gospels and pass them on as authoritative texts.
Yes, there is a danger that the life-giving traditions can become dry and stale examples of nothing more than traditionalism, but it is our job to remember these things, to live them and to allow them to be authoritative to us so that we may be able to live in the heritage of the Christian faith.
Just as the FNS announcer saw it as a good thing for the Pirates and Reds to bring in their "cloud of witnesses" to attest to the younger generations the heritage of their organization so we must never forget our ways and embrace the traditions of the faith or else we risk forgetting the faith altogether. Why evangelicals see it as necessary to abandon tradition in hope of winning converts is beyond me. We do these hypothetical converts a disservice when we initiate them into a tradition-less faith that is devoid of the truth and the power of the gospel. Obviously we want to remove hindrances but in order to be of any salvific good we must live and breath the language of faith and then explain that language of faith with peace, patience and love to those who see the fullness of truth that is found in Christianity.
As I thought about this it seemed like a good idea to me, I long for the winning ways of the older Oriole teams, the days of the Oriole Way with Weaver, Palmer, Powell, the days of legend that I don't remember but that I've heard about time and time again. I also thought about football, of course I would love the Vikings to rise again and become the Purple People Eaters of yore.
It seems to me that Sports fans constantly talk about and long for tradition lived out in their teams. It seems that this desire is part of the torture of having a team relocate from one city to another. If a team moves then in a sense the tradition dies, the character seems to be ontologically changed and thus it just isn't the same. Think about when the Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens. Why did they change their name? In part is was because the city filed a suit against the NFL to retain the name and the records. Thus when a new team came back into Cleveland the name and records were in place and the tradition of the Browns could pick right back up where is left off with the dog-pound intact and everything.
It seems that it's not just sports fans that long for tradition either. Towns and communities seek to keep various traditions alive, our nation has traditions like the 4th of July and all the local customs that are entailed with that. Tradition is everywhere and is commonly held as a good thing to sustain within our culture, but the question I must as is, "Why is the church an anomaly to this?"
You may have though that this post was going to just be about baseball and football but really the aforementioned baseball commentator started getting me thinking about why if society (via sports and other things) values tradition so much then why does so much of the American church seek to rid itself of any sort of Christian tradition?
Why over the past 20+ years has American Christianity (especially Protestant Christianity) pushed to rid itself of the life-giving traditions of the Church? Why have we stopped following the Christian calendar? Why have we stopped fasting? Why have we left the songs of the faith and tried to push all forms of tradition out of our churches?
Granted the Emergent movement is trying to remedy this, but the problem with them is that they see tradition as merely something ascetic and enjoyable rather than an authoritative life practice. The problem with the Emergents is that they can embrace the traditions but they appropriate them in such a matter that they continue in their heresies and blasphemies just like the Nestorians and Arians of old.
I have heard the Jaroslav Pelikan once said that "traditionalism is the dead faith of the living, tradition is the living faith of the dead." I would add to that that the true faith of the Church is found in her traditions as they live and breathe among us. In fact our Holy Scriptures are very much a product of the tradition of the faith and we have them in part because holy men and women saw fit to preserve these letters and gospels and pass them on as authoritative texts.
Yes, there is a danger that the life-giving traditions can become dry and stale examples of nothing more than traditionalism, but it is our job to remember these things, to live them and to allow them to be authoritative to us so that we may be able to live in the heritage of the Christian faith.
Just as the FNS announcer saw it as a good thing for the Pirates and Reds to bring in their "cloud of witnesses" to attest to the younger generations the heritage of their organization so we must never forget our ways and embrace the traditions of the faith or else we risk forgetting the faith altogether. Why evangelicals see it as necessary to abandon tradition in hope of winning converts is beyond me. We do these hypothetical converts a disservice when we initiate them into a tradition-less faith that is devoid of the truth and the power of the gospel. Obviously we want to remove hindrances but in order to be of any salvific good we must live and breath the language of faith and then explain that language of faith with peace, patience and love to those who see the fullness of truth that is found in Christianity.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Glorious Feastday!!
In case you were wondering I didn't miss Easter. My church follows a different calendar than most in the west and so our Easter will take place in a little over a month. Today is, however, a very important holy-day no matter which calendar you use.
Today is March 25, and it is on this day that we remember that the angel visited Mary and announced to her that she would bear with child, to which she replied "may it be to me as you have said." Today is the Feast of Annunciation.
Today is the day that we realized that in 9 months we will celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ our God. And so we realize that Jesus, even in the fetal stages was God of God, light of light, begotten and not made, of one essence with the Father. We remember that the divine Word himself took the initiative to bring redemption to humanity because of his great love for us. Today the church feast teaches us that our God did not just take on flesh at birth or later in life at baptism as the heretical adoptionists assert, but that he indeed was united in one person from the very conception - when Mary the Mother of God said "yes" to God.
This is such a beautiful and amazing realization. Our God who cannot be contained was contained in a womb. Today the Son of God becomes the Son of a virgin. Today the creator of all makes his throne in the womb of his creation in order to redeem creation.
Glory to God in the Highest!
I wonder if so much of the "christian" pro-choice people would have been silenced long ago if the protestant church had continued to celebrate this feast. For Christ has taken flesh in the form of an unborn babe with all the risk and possible complications that are entailed therein.
Today is truly a glorious feastday! Glory to God!
Today is March 25, and it is on this day that we remember that the angel visited Mary and announced to her that she would bear with child, to which she replied "may it be to me as you have said." Today is the Feast of Annunciation.
Today is the day that we realized that in 9 months we will celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ our God. And so we realize that Jesus, even in the fetal stages was God of God, light of light, begotten and not made, of one essence with the Father. We remember that the divine Word himself took the initiative to bring redemption to humanity because of his great love for us. Today the church feast teaches us that our God did not just take on flesh at birth or later in life at baptism as the heretical adoptionists assert, but that he indeed was united in one person from the very conception - when Mary the Mother of God said "yes" to God.
This is such a beautiful and amazing realization. Our God who cannot be contained was contained in a womb. Today the Son of God becomes the Son of a virgin. Today the creator of all makes his throne in the womb of his creation in order to redeem creation.
Glory to God in the Highest!
I wonder if so much of the "christian" pro-choice people would have been silenced long ago if the protestant church had continued to celebrate this feast. For Christ has taken flesh in the form of an unborn babe with all the risk and possible complications that are entailed therein.
Today is truly a glorious feastday! Glory to God!
Friday, March 21, 2008
It's getting to be that time of year
It is fast approaching the start of the baseball season and thus this is the time of year where I make my kierkegaardian leap of faith and jump headlong into the belief that the Baltimore Orioles can, should, and will indeed, win the World Series.
Last year I took this leap and it was fun for a while but eventually I fell flat on my face as the Orioles ended the season with a losing record (yes that made 10 consecutive losing seasons). My predictions last year were well off the mark and I found the end of the season particularly despairing to watch...especially after the 30-3 drubbing at the hands of the Texas Rangers (a game I was supposed to be at with Ryals before we got rained out).
Last year I had all sorts of high hopes for Bedard, Roberts, and Markakis which made my leap of faith a lot easier while at the same time making it less of a leap. In the offseason, however, Bedard (one of the best and one of my favorite O's) was traded away in part of the rebuilding process. It also looks like Roberts, another favorite, might be on his way out. With the departure of these two and no big name superstars on the team it makes taking this leap of faith a bit harder. In fact, I would describe it not so much as a leap of faith but more like stripping naked and running through a field of thorns and briers with the belief that it won't hurt at all. Yes my friends, this is what asserting the Orioles will win the World Series is like. But I have faith that the briers of the baseball season will not thwart the Orioles!
Despite Bedard's departure and Robert's likely trade there are still a few bright spots that will keep me watching mlb gameday and glued to the box scores.
Nick Markakis is still on the team. Markakis should have another good season as he fills into his big league shoes. He's gotta be my second favorite Oriole on the team (assuming Roberts gets traded) because of his humility and his talent. Plus he's young so he should be a quality Oriole for a long time. Hopefully one of the cornerstones of rebuilding.
Jeremy Guthrie is another reason that I'll be glued to every O's box score (even though he'll only start every 5 games or so). Guthrie, a rookie last season, emerged as a solid starter and has the potential to hit huge. He may be a little old for a 2nd year guy, but last I became a huge fan as he came out of nowhere to be the O's second best pitcher (next to Bedard).
The O's have a host of young talent that will be fun to watch. A lot of them have high potential and should be fun to watch for years to come. One of their young stars is OF Adam Jones who came over in the Bedard trade. Between Jones and Markakis the O's will have two of the better outfielders in the AL for years to come. It will be fun and likely somewhat painful to watch the young pitching and field talent develop into a cohesive winning squad.
So there you have it. My yearly leap of faith and the highlights that will keep me glued to the O's this season.
Another non-Orioles reason I'm stoked about this season is that Josh Kinney, my cousin, should be returning to the Cardinals sometime in May. He was out last year with an injury, but once he got comfortable the year before that he was essential in helping the Cards win the WS.
Just think, the season is only 3 days away!
Blessings,
- Ben
Last year I took this leap and it was fun for a while but eventually I fell flat on my face as the Orioles ended the season with a losing record (yes that made 10 consecutive losing seasons). My predictions last year were well off the mark and I found the end of the season particularly despairing to watch...especially after the 30-3 drubbing at the hands of the Texas Rangers (a game I was supposed to be at with Ryals before we got rained out).
Last year I had all sorts of high hopes for Bedard, Roberts, and Markakis which made my leap of faith a lot easier while at the same time making it less of a leap. In the offseason, however, Bedard (one of the best and one of my favorite O's) was traded away in part of the rebuilding process. It also looks like Roberts, another favorite, might be on his way out. With the departure of these two and no big name superstars on the team it makes taking this leap of faith a bit harder. In fact, I would describe it not so much as a leap of faith but more like stripping naked and running through a field of thorns and briers with the belief that it won't hurt at all. Yes my friends, this is what asserting the Orioles will win the World Series is like. But I have faith that the briers of the baseball season will not thwart the Orioles!
Despite Bedard's departure and Robert's likely trade there are still a few bright spots that will keep me watching mlb gameday and glued to the box scores.
Nick Markakis is still on the team. Markakis should have another good season as he fills into his big league shoes. He's gotta be my second favorite Oriole on the team (assuming Roberts gets traded) because of his humility and his talent. Plus he's young so he should be a quality Oriole for a long time. Hopefully one of the cornerstones of rebuilding.
Jeremy Guthrie is another reason that I'll be glued to every O's box score (even though he'll only start every 5 games or so). Guthrie, a rookie last season, emerged as a solid starter and has the potential to hit huge. He may be a little old for a 2nd year guy, but last I became a huge fan as he came out of nowhere to be the O's second best pitcher (next to Bedard).
The O's have a host of young talent that will be fun to watch. A lot of them have high potential and should be fun to watch for years to come. One of their young stars is OF Adam Jones who came over in the Bedard trade. Between Jones and Markakis the O's will have two of the better outfielders in the AL for years to come. It will be fun and likely somewhat painful to watch the young pitching and field talent develop into a cohesive winning squad.
So there you have it. My yearly leap of faith and the highlights that will keep me glued to the O's this season.
Another non-Orioles reason I'm stoked about this season is that Josh Kinney, my cousin, should be returning to the Cardinals sometime in May. He was out last year with an injury, but once he got comfortable the year before that he was essential in helping the Cards win the WS.
Just think, the season is only 3 days away!
Blessings,
- Ben
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
"Liturgical" Dancing
Today in chapel there was what people like to call "liturgical dancing." By this I mean 4 people wearing white went on stage and danced to a song with the intention of conveying theological meaning.
As we were gearing up for chapel my friend Chad and I were wondering about the development of dance in the liturgy. I confess that I haven't really researched it but it seems to me that this must (save for probably some isolated instances) be a very very late development in the worshiping life of the Church.
As Chad and i pondered this we thought that maybe there was some use of dance, though not in the liturgy proper, in some of the early Christian meetings as sort of a hold-over from Judaism. But we figured that the current form of dancing probably comes from late, post-reformation roots - maybe around German pietism or later Celtic Christianity. If this is a correct assertion (which has yet to be proven) I wonder if this use of interpretive dance comes from syncretism with Druidic (which is was today's dance looked like) and other folk groups in those areas.
All wondering about development aside, what purpose does "liturgical" dance serve? First off the name is a complete misnomer. Sure it may be technically part of the "work of the people" and whatnot, but it seems to me that it really doesn't fit with the liturgical history of the Church as a whole.
It almost seems that the Protestant church is trying to harness dance and the other arts but that they really have no foundation for how to use art and/or convey theology through art because when they reacted against Rome they stripped the church of art, thus throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath-water.
I'm not really sure what point I'm making here. In fact, I find this post to be very scattered and incoherent. My excuse is that I'm tired and that I'm trying to read through David Bradshaw's book Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom today.
All that to say that I struggled with liturgical dance when I first encountered it in high school, I mildly accepted it out of a generous attitude in college and now that I understand the development and purpose of liturgy and the church service I find that it doesn't really fit. I would appreciate some thoughts and some suggestions on this issue. Maybe I'm narrow-minded, or maybe I'm just overlooking something. Shoot, maybe I'm right and you can help me articulate why.
- Ben
As we were gearing up for chapel my friend Chad and I were wondering about the development of dance in the liturgy. I confess that I haven't really researched it but it seems to me that this must (save for probably some isolated instances) be a very very late development in the worshiping life of the Church.
As Chad and i pondered this we thought that maybe there was some use of dance, though not in the liturgy proper, in some of the early Christian meetings as sort of a hold-over from Judaism. But we figured that the current form of dancing probably comes from late, post-reformation roots - maybe around German pietism or later Celtic Christianity. If this is a correct assertion (which has yet to be proven) I wonder if this use of interpretive dance comes from syncretism with Druidic (which is was today's dance looked like) and other folk groups in those areas.
All wondering about development aside, what purpose does "liturgical" dance serve? First off the name is a complete misnomer. Sure it may be technically part of the "work of the people" and whatnot, but it seems to me that it really doesn't fit with the liturgical history of the Church as a whole.
It almost seems that the Protestant church is trying to harness dance and the other arts but that they really have no foundation for how to use art and/or convey theology through art because when they reacted against Rome they stripped the church of art, thus throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath-water.
I'm not really sure what point I'm making here. In fact, I find this post to be very scattered and incoherent. My excuse is that I'm tired and that I'm trying to read through David Bradshaw's book Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom today.
All that to say that I struggled with liturgical dance when I first encountered it in high school, I mildly accepted it out of a generous attitude in college and now that I understand the development and purpose of liturgy and the church service I find that it doesn't really fit. I would appreciate some thoughts and some suggestions on this issue. Maybe I'm narrow-minded, or maybe I'm just overlooking something. Shoot, maybe I'm right and you can help me articulate why.
- Ben
Thursday, March 06, 2008
More Lenten Thoughts
If my recent post entitled "Approaching Lent" provoked some thoughts then check out my friend Nathaniel's blog entry (here).
He, being Orthodox, does a better job than I in describing the Orthodox approach to lent. His post is short and thorough so pop over there and hopefully that will give you a little better understanding of what I'm talking about.
- Ben
He, being Orthodox, does a better job than I in describing the Orthodox approach to lent. His post is short and thorough so pop over there and hopefully that will give you a little better understanding of what I'm talking about.
- Ben
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
On the Untenable Nature of Calvinist/Predestinarian Theology
As I've mentioned before I'm taking an independent study in the historical and theological development of Eastern Christianity. I find that as I read through books like Jaroslav Pelikan's The Spirit of Eastern Christendom that I am learning not merely about Eastern Christian thought and theology, but that I am finding a much deeper grounding in the holy orthodox doctrines of the entire Church.
In my recent reading I came across a deep discussion by Pelikan concerning the council of Chalcedon and the discussion regarding the dual natures of Christ. Without getting into the depth of this issue and trying to articulate the issues concerning hypostatis, ousia, and the like, I'll try to cover the highlights in a more understandable way.
Coming out of the third ecumenical council held in Constantinople (680-681AD) the Christian Church reaffirmed that Christ was/is a unified being in his divinity and humanity and thus had two natures as the council at Chalcedon had decreed (451AD), and also that he did indeed have TWO wills. One can easily assess this by glancing through scripture at the passages where Jesus says he is here to do not his will but his Father's will, those where he acts out of divine foreknowledge, and various other passages.
If we hold this creedal assertion to be revealed dogma to the church, which we should, it raises some interesting questions. While Protestants may balk at the idea of asserting this creed as authoritative, it should be recognized that not until very recent times did any Christian anywhere question the authority of the creeds. Even Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, fully embraced them. Historically adherence to the 7 ecumenical creeds, of which Nicea (325AD) was the first, was one of the primary, if not the primary, markers to determine if one was in line with the teaching of the Church. These creeds were not viewed as new doctrinal assertions, but rather recapitulations of what the Holy Scriptures, the Apostles and the earliest Fathers had always taught though not necessarily in clarity for which the times called.
So if we hold to this creedal assertion of Christ having both a divine and a human will we can make some interesting observations - one of which I find to be very problematic for those who would like to hold a Calvinistic/predestinarian point of view. It would be interesting to see how Calvin himself treated this creed.
As the Fathers clarified the doctrine of the two wills of Christ (technically: dyotheletism) and thus ruled the notion that Christ has one will (technically: monotheletism) as heresy, the idea of free will rose near the forefront of the discussion. As a document from that time, entitled The Doctrine of the Fathers states: "his power to make choices shared in our being"
Thus part of the ontology of Christ's human will was the freedom of choice. As Maximus the Confessor, a deep defender of dyotheletism, states:
Pelikan, in an attempt at clarity states that for the Fathers who finalized the creed at Constantinople
If this is the way of Christ our God, even in his deified human will, then how can we begin to assert that our wills are coerced and ultimately predestined? The more I read church history the more I see that the predesitnary strain of theology is very small until it explodes with Calvin and Zwingly. I find this particular theology to be untenable and in light of this Holy orthodox doctrine of the church I find it nigh heretical. I am not willing to assert that it is indeed heretical, but I would really like to know how a good Calvinist theologian deals with this creedal doctrine of the Church, without merely dismissing the creed itself. I find the dismissing of the creed to not be a Christian option.
I'm sure more thoughts will come as I continue to dig deeper into the Faith and particularly the development of Eastern Christian thought. The reading for this independent study is absolutely amazing even though it makes my head want to explode because of its depth. I find it shameful that it took great initiative on my part and a very gracious professor for me to learn in depth these doctrines of the Church and their life-giving power.
Blessings to you all,
- Ben
In my recent reading I came across a deep discussion by Pelikan concerning the council of Chalcedon and the discussion regarding the dual natures of Christ. Without getting into the depth of this issue and trying to articulate the issues concerning hypostatis, ousia, and the like, I'll try to cover the highlights in a more understandable way.
Coming out of the third ecumenical council held in Constantinople (680-681AD) the Christian Church reaffirmed that Christ was/is a unified being in his divinity and humanity and thus had two natures as the council at Chalcedon had decreed (451AD), and also that he did indeed have TWO wills. One can easily assess this by glancing through scripture at the passages where Jesus says he is here to do not his will but his Father's will, those where he acts out of divine foreknowledge, and various other passages.
If we hold this creedal assertion to be revealed dogma to the church, which we should, it raises some interesting questions. While Protestants may balk at the idea of asserting this creed as authoritative, it should be recognized that not until very recent times did any Christian anywhere question the authority of the creeds. Even Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, fully embraced them. Historically adherence to the 7 ecumenical creeds, of which Nicea (325AD) was the first, was one of the primary, if not the primary, markers to determine if one was in line with the teaching of the Church. These creeds were not viewed as new doctrinal assertions, but rather recapitulations of what the Holy Scriptures, the Apostles and the earliest Fathers had always taught though not necessarily in clarity for which the times called.
So if we hold to this creedal assertion of Christ having both a divine and a human will we can make some interesting observations - one of which I find to be very problematic for those who would like to hold a Calvinistic/predestinarian point of view. It would be interesting to see how Calvin himself treated this creed.
As the Fathers clarified the doctrine of the two wills of Christ (technically: dyotheletism) and thus ruled the notion that Christ has one will (technically: monotheletism) as heresy, the idea of free will rose near the forefront of the discussion. As a document from that time, entitled The Doctrine of the Fathers states: "his power to make choices shared in our being"
Thus part of the ontology of Christ's human will was the freedom of choice. As Maximus the Confessor, a deep defender of dyotheletism, states:
He was endowed not only with a will in accordance with his being god and homoousios [of the same substance] with the Father, but also [with a will] in accordance with his being man and homoousios with us.
Pelikan, in an attempt at clarity states that for the Fathers who finalized the creed at Constantinople
Every rational soul had to possess a decision-making capacity that was free of coercion. Even an unsympathetic interpreter of this Christology is obliged to admit that 'there is noticeable in dyotheletism [the doctrine of two wills]....a reaction against the overriding power of the divine nature in favor of a true and free humanity in Christ.' The freedom of the human will of Christ was not to be overwhelmed by his divinity, so that even such a patristic notion as "the deified will" was not permitted to obliterate this freedom.
If this is the way of Christ our God, even in his deified human will, then how can we begin to assert that our wills are coerced and ultimately predestined? The more I read church history the more I see that the predesitnary strain of theology is very small until it explodes with Calvin and Zwingly. I find this particular theology to be untenable and in light of this Holy orthodox doctrine of the church I find it nigh heretical. I am not willing to assert that it is indeed heretical, but I would really like to know how a good Calvinist theologian deals with this creedal doctrine of the Church, without merely dismissing the creed itself. I find the dismissing of the creed to not be a Christian option.
I'm sure more thoughts will come as I continue to dig deeper into the Faith and particularly the development of Eastern Christian thought. The reading for this independent study is absolutely amazing even though it makes my head want to explode because of its depth. I find it shameful that it took great initiative on my part and a very gracious professor for me to learn in depth these doctrines of the Church and their life-giving power.
Blessings to you all,
- Ben
Monday, March 03, 2008
Approaching Lent
I know this post may be a little late (seeing as how most of you who are reading this blog have been in Lent for the past 2-3 weeks) but I've been pondering this for a while and figured late is better than never.
A little over a month ago I was in New Orleans on my way back from Mexico and my friends and I decided to take in a Mardi Gras parade (don't worry there was none of the stereotypical decadence). As I sat watching the parade and thinking about the sites from New Orleans that I had seen earlier I began to think about the evolution of Mardi Gras and wondered how it began. I also, and maybe more so, began to contemplate the difference in both Eastern and Western approaches to the pre-Lenten days.
Most of us are fairly familiar with the Western tradition of Mardi Gras and especially Fat Tuesday (I must sadly confess a favorite of mine). Thinking about this tradition I find it interesting that many Western traditions approach a time of intense fasting/drawing near to God with gluttonous and decadent festivals. As I thought about this I wondering if this was the case with Global Catholicism (not that I'm trying to single out our Catholic friends, most merely associate Mardi Gras with Catholicism - even if it is nominal Catholicism) or if this was merely a pocket of American Catholicism that has been syncretized. Is this practice common in France? Italy? Spain? I also wondered about the development of things such as the infamous beads of Mardi Gras. Did they evolve from (heaven forbid) Rosary beads?
As I continued to think about this I thought about the practice of anticipating Lent that I see in the Orthodox Church. I don't see and emphasis akin to Mardi Gras. The Orthodox practice, as far as I understand it, is to approach Lent gradually by emptying one's house of meat two weeks prior to lent (thus there is a week of eating a lot of meat) and then emptying one's house of dairy products one week before lent (thus a week of a lot of milk and cheeses). While this practice could turn into two weeks of gluttony I have yet to see it manifest itself as such. I do admit, however, that my experience is from a very small sample size and I am forced to wonder if these two weeks manifest themselves in Mardi Gras fashion in countries that are more heavily (and possibly nominally) Orthodox such as Russia, Greece, Turkey (though this is just a question not an assertion). If, however, this doesn't manifest itself like Mardi Gras in other places I find the approach to lent in both traditions (Eastern and Western) to be in stark contrast.
I wonder if the difference in approach between the Eastern and Western traditions is founded in a possible difference that the traditions may approach the Law or laws and thus atonement. I confess that I would need to study this more, but I am wondering if the highly juridical and very Anselmic emphasis in the West has led to the laws or rules of the church being see as a hindrance and something that keeps us from fun, enjoyment, etc. While the East with a not so juridical and not as influenced by Anselm approach tends to view law as life-giving and freeing.
In the West we tend to often view the effects of sin like breaking a law and thus something remedied legally. In contrast the East, and I may be wrong, tends to view the ramifications of sin as something more akin to a cancer or disease that is healed. Thus, and I am hypothesizing here, maybe the Western approach is more easily justified because if they break a law they will easily be rectified during Lenten confession and fasting, while in the East the approach differs because they would not want to break a law that is life-giving and thus put the cancerous sin into their souls.
Please let me be clear that I am trying to tread very carefully in that any point of this thought process could be wrong and thus end up being an over generalization or fallacy. But maybe it makes sense. If I'm correct in my assumptions and assertions I do indeed find the Eastern approach to be much more healthy for the Christian and for the Church as a whole.
I hope that is at least moderately clear. I'm just trying to process through some of these thoughts between the two traditions. This is something that I've been pondering for a little while and was more recently brought to the forefront of my mind as my Orthodox friends begin to prepare for lent.
- Ben
A little over a month ago I was in New Orleans on my way back from Mexico and my friends and I decided to take in a Mardi Gras parade (don't worry there was none of the stereotypical decadence). As I sat watching the parade and thinking about the sites from New Orleans that I had seen earlier I began to think about the evolution of Mardi Gras and wondered how it began. I also, and maybe more so, began to contemplate the difference in both Eastern and Western approaches to the pre-Lenten days.
Most of us are fairly familiar with the Western tradition of Mardi Gras and especially Fat Tuesday (I must sadly confess a favorite of mine). Thinking about this tradition I find it interesting that many Western traditions approach a time of intense fasting/drawing near to God with gluttonous and decadent festivals. As I thought about this I wondering if this was the case with Global Catholicism (not that I'm trying to single out our Catholic friends, most merely associate Mardi Gras with Catholicism - even if it is nominal Catholicism) or if this was merely a pocket of American Catholicism that has been syncretized. Is this practice common in France? Italy? Spain? I also wondered about the development of things such as the infamous beads of Mardi Gras. Did they evolve from (heaven forbid) Rosary beads?
As I continued to think about this I thought about the practice of anticipating Lent that I see in the Orthodox Church. I don't see and emphasis akin to Mardi Gras. The Orthodox practice, as far as I understand it, is to approach Lent gradually by emptying one's house of meat two weeks prior to lent (thus there is a week of eating a lot of meat) and then emptying one's house of dairy products one week before lent (thus a week of a lot of milk and cheeses). While this practice could turn into two weeks of gluttony I have yet to see it manifest itself as such. I do admit, however, that my experience is from a very small sample size and I am forced to wonder if these two weeks manifest themselves in Mardi Gras fashion in countries that are more heavily (and possibly nominally) Orthodox such as Russia, Greece, Turkey (though this is just a question not an assertion). If, however, this doesn't manifest itself like Mardi Gras in other places I find the approach to lent in both traditions (Eastern and Western) to be in stark contrast.
I wonder if the difference in approach between the Eastern and Western traditions is founded in a possible difference that the traditions may approach the Law or laws and thus atonement. I confess that I would need to study this more, but I am wondering if the highly juridical and very Anselmic emphasis in the West has led to the laws or rules of the church being see as a hindrance and something that keeps us from fun, enjoyment, etc. While the East with a not so juridical and not as influenced by Anselm approach tends to view law as life-giving and freeing.
In the West we tend to often view the effects of sin like breaking a law and thus something remedied legally. In contrast the East, and I may be wrong, tends to view the ramifications of sin as something more akin to a cancer or disease that is healed. Thus, and I am hypothesizing here, maybe the Western approach is more easily justified because if they break a law they will easily be rectified during Lenten confession and fasting, while in the East the approach differs because they would not want to break a law that is life-giving and thus put the cancerous sin into their souls.
Please let me be clear that I am trying to tread very carefully in that any point of this thought process could be wrong and thus end up being an over generalization or fallacy. But maybe it makes sense. If I'm correct in my assumptions and assertions I do indeed find the Eastern approach to be much more healthy for the Christian and for the Church as a whole.
I hope that is at least moderately clear. I'm just trying to process through some of these thoughts between the two traditions. This is something that I've been pondering for a little while and was more recently brought to the forefront of my mind as my Orthodox friends begin to prepare for lent.
- Ben
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Great Minds Think Alike
Apparently I'm not the only one with thoughts along the line of my last post. Check out my friend Isaac's blog post (here). He takes a slightly different approach in that he's more calm and probably nicer about it, but either way here is a slightly different perspective on the same issue.
And I don't think he read my post before he wrote his.
Enjoy.
- Ben
And I don't think he read my post before he wrote his.
Enjoy.
- Ben
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Why I don't Like Protestant Worship Music
I'm trying to catch up on some reading for classes so I can't write a long post, but I wanted to jot down this thought before I got distracted.
For my independent study I've been reading the second volume of Jaroslav Pelikan's wonderful church history set entitled The Rise of Eastern Christendom. Since Pelikan's work chronicles the history of theology and thoughts I am finding that it's a moderately heavy read, especially given that even at seminary many of these historical concepts have not been taught to me.
Today I was reading about the Nestorian, Jacobite, and Monophysite heresies and on the hypostatis of Christ. Since Pelikan quotes from so many primary sources (something that is often missing in many church histories) I found myself getting a little confused concerning the hypostasis of Christ and what orthodox doctrine taught. Instead of turning to wikipedia or another source that would of taken a lot more time to find some resolution I remembered that there is an ancient hymn of pascha that briefly discusses the hypostasis of Christ. Since I had my ipod on me I decided to turn to the music of the church to teach me the orthodox way and bring about clarity of thought.
Granted the hymn isn't a treatise, but I wasn't looking for a treatise, I was merely looking for a quick answer as to how many hypostates Christ has. This is when I realized that I was able to articulate one of the many reasons I don't like Protestant worship music - namely, that I don't like to guess and check when it comes to the doctrine conveyed within my church music.
Due to the plethora of music in protestantism and the constant desire to update the music I find that one cannot trust the theology that is conveyed in much of it. In strict juxtaposition to this is the music that is sung at the Orthodox church I currently attend. When I hear the hymns of the Orthodox church I am sure that what is being taught is theologically in-line with the 7 ecumenical creeds of the church. I don't have to guess if I'm being taught something heretical because the songs have been tried by church and found fitting to be used in the worship of the Holy Trinity.
Sure, there may be some great assets to protestant music, but as a whole it is theologically vapid and emotive to a fault. While it is always good to asses and think about what is being sung in worship, I think that having to constantly analyze and wonder if the music is teaching correct doctrine is counterproductive to the church service. The music of the church should be filled with dogmatically correct theology and should be able to be used as a basis for the lay person to refute or accept notions of the divine. One can very easily argue that our theology in protestantism is weak because we do not sing it and we do not sing it because it is weak. This cycle is a disastrous one that is hurting the church and leading people into ignorance of the divine. How can we, expect to truly become partakers of the Divine essence (2Pet 1.4) if we do not even know God as he has revealed himself to us?
I fear I'm approaching a tangent so I will conclude now. If the reason I set out to articulate wasn't clear above let me sum up. Part of my aversion to Protestant worship music is that it has no substance and that which it tries to pass as substance is often near heretical if not blatantly so. The songs of the church should be those which have been tried by years of reflection and should be able to be used as concise creedal statements of belief that will plant the deep truths of the faith into the hearts of clergy and lay persons alike.
May the faith grow deep within you all
- Ben
For my independent study I've been reading the second volume of Jaroslav Pelikan's wonderful church history set entitled The Rise of Eastern Christendom. Since Pelikan's work chronicles the history of theology and thoughts I am finding that it's a moderately heavy read, especially given that even at seminary many of these historical concepts have not been taught to me.
Today I was reading about the Nestorian, Jacobite, and Monophysite heresies and on the hypostatis of Christ. Since Pelikan quotes from so many primary sources (something that is often missing in many church histories) I found myself getting a little confused concerning the hypostasis of Christ and what orthodox doctrine taught. Instead of turning to wikipedia or another source that would of taken a lot more time to find some resolution I remembered that there is an ancient hymn of pascha that briefly discusses the hypostasis of Christ. Since I had my ipod on me I decided to turn to the music of the church to teach me the orthodox way and bring about clarity of thought.
Granted the hymn isn't a treatise, but I wasn't looking for a treatise, I was merely looking for a quick answer as to how many hypostates Christ has. This is when I realized that I was able to articulate one of the many reasons I don't like Protestant worship music - namely, that I don't like to guess and check when it comes to the doctrine conveyed within my church music.
Due to the plethora of music in protestantism and the constant desire to update the music I find that one cannot trust the theology that is conveyed in much of it. In strict juxtaposition to this is the music that is sung at the Orthodox church I currently attend. When I hear the hymns of the Orthodox church I am sure that what is being taught is theologically in-line with the 7 ecumenical creeds of the church. I don't have to guess if I'm being taught something heretical because the songs have been tried by church and found fitting to be used in the worship of the Holy Trinity.
Sure, there may be some great assets to protestant music, but as a whole it is theologically vapid and emotive to a fault. While it is always good to asses and think about what is being sung in worship, I think that having to constantly analyze and wonder if the music is teaching correct doctrine is counterproductive to the church service. The music of the church should be filled with dogmatically correct theology and should be able to be used as a basis for the lay person to refute or accept notions of the divine. One can very easily argue that our theology in protestantism is weak because we do not sing it and we do not sing it because it is weak. This cycle is a disastrous one that is hurting the church and leading people into ignorance of the divine. How can we, expect to truly become partakers of the Divine essence (2Pet 1.4) if we do not even know God as he has revealed himself to us?
I fear I'm approaching a tangent so I will conclude now. If the reason I set out to articulate wasn't clear above let me sum up. Part of my aversion to Protestant worship music is that it has no substance and that which it tries to pass as substance is often near heretical if not blatantly so. The songs of the church should be those which have been tried by years of reflection and should be able to be used as concise creedal statements of belief that will plant the deep truths of the faith into the hearts of clergy and lay persons alike.
May the faith grow deep within you all
- Ben
Monday, February 25, 2008
Reading the Fathers
There has been a lot of talk lately about protestants embracing their roots and turning to the Fathers of the Church for wisdom and guidance. If you need some evidence of this pick up the latest issue of Christianity Today or any one of magazines/journals that deal with the theological trends within protestantism. This marked interest in patristic reading (reading of the Fathers) is especially obvious when one looks around Asbury. There are a good number of students here that continue to express interest in patristic studies. Maybe I'm more aware of these individuals because this is my pet area of interest, maybe part of the trend on campus is fueled by the recent readers, or maybe it is just a part of this macrocosmic event happening in protestantism. Either way, the reason for this trend is unimportant to this post.
The reason I bring up this trend is because I find it disconcerting. This is something I've been thinking about for the past few weeks, but I recently was given some words to describe it by talking with my friend Nathaniel. I guess it's odd that I find this trend concerning because I'm such a lover of patristic studies and reading the Fathers has fed my soul for the past four years, so let me explain myself.
I find this trend concerning because of the way in which many people, especially at Asbury, approach the Fathers. This new found resurgence of the patristic witness at Asbury, in the Emergent communities, and in protestantism in general tends to approach the Fathers as nothing more than another source from which to feed personal agendas.
What I mean is that a plethora of individuals are reading the Fathers and Mothers of the faith, but that they approach them as if they were just another contemporary theologian that can be easily discarded if one disagrees with them. I would say these new readers treat the Fathers as just another Rob Bell, but fearfully Rob Bell is given much more respect and is more highly valued than any of the saints of old. These saints, who have died for the faith, who have lived through imperial exiles, who have loved the church even unto their last breaths are being treated as if they were peers, as Nathaniel aptly assessed.
In my opinion it is criminally prideful and nigh heretical for one to consider the Fathers and Mothers of the church as peers that can easily be used to profit one's theological agenda and then discarded like an old sweater when they disagree with how we want to live or think. As I have said these men and women are the ones who have preserved the Faith for us. They have fought, bled and died for that which they have passed on to us. They are not our peers! They are worthy of respect and honor and deserve to be considered our mentors and spiritual fathers and mothers.
Granted not all of the early church sources agreed on everything, of course there are matters of holy opinion, but we cannot be so willing to disagree with these men and women. They are the continuation of the cloud of witnesses talked about in Hebrews, they are those who preserved the faith that is the foundation on which the church was built, and it is their blood that serves as the seed of the church.
My argument is that we cannot claim the heritage of these Fathers and Mothers without accepting them as authoritative for our lives. We must give them the right to speak into our lives and allow them to have the authority to dictate how we must conform our lives to the Faith.
Granted my beloved Orthodox friends would likely agree with me and then argue that I am guilty of the problem that I lay out since I have not become Orthodox. I don't want to get into that issue right now, but nevertheless my point stands and protestant scholars, students, and lay people cannot continue to pretend that they are embracing the Fathers when they treat them as peers and do not allow them to speak authoritatively into their lives.
Without getting into a mess of tangential issues I think this goes to one of the roots of the Protestant problem. One of the beauties that I have seen in the time spent with my Orthodox friends is that the Orthodox church approaches the Faith as something handed down to which individuals and the Church itself must conform. The Faith is alive and exists in its fullness within Orthodoxy, but it is authoritative and something to which we must conform. Protestantism, on the other hand, seems to view the Faith as something fluid that must conform to personal belief. Thus there is no standard of authority save one's own belief system which dictates what the substance of the Faith is. I believe this is part of Protestantism's biggest problem and the reason why the Faith continues to be torn apart within Protestantism. And part of the reason why individuals think they can critique the Holy Fathers as if they were peers.
Yes, protestants are beginning to discover a great wealth of spiritual wisdom. This must be a good thing, but it saddens me beyond belief that these Holy saints of the church are treated with so much disrespect.
I often get chided for the fact that almost all of my deepest spiritual fathers and mothers have been dead for hundreds of years. But I must argue what better father and mother can one have than those that have been affirmed and validated by the church for hundreds and hundreds of years. They can dictate how I should live in holy pursuit of God any day because they are the ones who's writings have survived the test of time and the test of the Church and as such I will think long, hard, and prayerfully before I dare disagree with these holy saints.
May we all have such mentors that will encourage us to pursue God even unto death!
- Ben
The reason I bring up this trend is because I find it disconcerting. This is something I've been thinking about for the past few weeks, but I recently was given some words to describe it by talking with my friend Nathaniel. I guess it's odd that I find this trend concerning because I'm such a lover of patristic studies and reading the Fathers has fed my soul for the past four years, so let me explain myself.
I find this trend concerning because of the way in which many people, especially at Asbury, approach the Fathers. This new found resurgence of the patristic witness at Asbury, in the Emergent communities, and in protestantism in general tends to approach the Fathers as nothing more than another source from which to feed personal agendas.
What I mean is that a plethora of individuals are reading the Fathers and Mothers of the faith, but that they approach them as if they were just another contemporary theologian that can be easily discarded if one disagrees with them. I would say these new readers treat the Fathers as just another Rob Bell, but fearfully Rob Bell is given much more respect and is more highly valued than any of the saints of old. These saints, who have died for the faith, who have lived through imperial exiles, who have loved the church even unto their last breaths are being treated as if they were peers, as Nathaniel aptly assessed.
In my opinion it is criminally prideful and nigh heretical for one to consider the Fathers and Mothers of the church as peers that can easily be used to profit one's theological agenda and then discarded like an old sweater when they disagree with how we want to live or think. As I have said these men and women are the ones who have preserved the Faith for us. They have fought, bled and died for that which they have passed on to us. They are not our peers! They are worthy of respect and honor and deserve to be considered our mentors and spiritual fathers and mothers.
Granted not all of the early church sources agreed on everything, of course there are matters of holy opinion, but we cannot be so willing to disagree with these men and women. They are the continuation of the cloud of witnesses talked about in Hebrews, they are those who preserved the faith that is the foundation on which the church was built, and it is their blood that serves as the seed of the church.
My argument is that we cannot claim the heritage of these Fathers and Mothers without accepting them as authoritative for our lives. We must give them the right to speak into our lives and allow them to have the authority to dictate how we must conform our lives to the Faith.
Granted my beloved Orthodox friends would likely agree with me and then argue that I am guilty of the problem that I lay out since I have not become Orthodox. I don't want to get into that issue right now, but nevertheless my point stands and protestant scholars, students, and lay people cannot continue to pretend that they are embracing the Fathers when they treat them as peers and do not allow them to speak authoritatively into their lives.
Without getting into a mess of tangential issues I think this goes to one of the roots of the Protestant problem. One of the beauties that I have seen in the time spent with my Orthodox friends is that the Orthodox church approaches the Faith as something handed down to which individuals and the Church itself must conform. The Faith is alive and exists in its fullness within Orthodoxy, but it is authoritative and something to which we must conform. Protestantism, on the other hand, seems to view the Faith as something fluid that must conform to personal belief. Thus there is no standard of authority save one's own belief system which dictates what the substance of the Faith is. I believe this is part of Protestantism's biggest problem and the reason why the Faith continues to be torn apart within Protestantism. And part of the reason why individuals think they can critique the Holy Fathers as if they were peers.
Yes, protestants are beginning to discover a great wealth of spiritual wisdom. This must be a good thing, but it saddens me beyond belief that these Holy saints of the church are treated with so much disrespect.
I often get chided for the fact that almost all of my deepest spiritual fathers and mothers have been dead for hundreds of years. But I must argue what better father and mother can one have than those that have been affirmed and validated by the church for hundreds and hundreds of years. They can dictate how I should live in holy pursuit of God any day because they are the ones who's writings have survived the test of time and the test of the Church and as such I will think long, hard, and prayerfully before I dare disagree with these holy saints.
May we all have such mentors that will encourage us to pursue God even unto death!
- Ben
Thursday, February 14, 2008
What a wonderful holiday!!
That's right, today is the day that pitchers and catchers report to spring training! While there still isn't really a whole lot to watch or get excited about yet (i.e. no games are being played yet) this still means that baseball season has officially begun.
Soon enough our waiting and anticipation will be over and the regular season will be upon us, but until then we can fill our baseball addictions with thoughts of spring training and that somewhere in Florida and in Arizona grown men are starting to hone their curves, sliders, change-ups, and the rest of the pitches in their arsenal.
Fear not, I won't make any grandiose predictions for the Baltimore Orioles like I did last year. Well, that is, until it gets closer to the regular season and I actually know what the starting rotation for the O's is likely to be.
On another note today is also St. Valentines Day, if you're looking for my post on that click here. It's not the greatest post, but it's good enough that I don't need to repeat the exercise. Shoot, I have even cleaned up the spelling errors (or at least the two or three that jumped out at me).
Hope you all enjoy pitchers and catcher day!
- Ben
Soon enough our waiting and anticipation will be over and the regular season will be upon us, but until then we can fill our baseball addictions with thoughts of spring training and that somewhere in Florida and in Arizona grown men are starting to hone their curves, sliders, change-ups, and the rest of the pitches in their arsenal.
Fear not, I won't make any grandiose predictions for the Baltimore Orioles like I did last year. Well, that is, until it gets closer to the regular season and I actually know what the starting rotation for the O's is likely to be.
On another note today is also St. Valentines Day, if you're looking for my post on that click here. It's not the greatest post, but it's good enough that I don't need to repeat the exercise. Shoot, I have even cleaned up the spelling errors (or at least the two or three that jumped out at me).
Hope you all enjoy pitchers and catcher day!
- Ben
Monday, February 11, 2008
Book Review: "Three Treatises on the Divine Images" by St. John of Damascus
This will be the last post before the semester starts. Hopefully that doesn't mean that my blogging will drastically decrease, but it does mean that I have to assess the amount of success (or in my case failure) to actually finish the books on my reading list for break.
I'm not sure if I have reading ADD or what, but instead of finishing the three books I wanted to finish before the semester I actually started two more. Why? I'm not sure.
I did, however, finish one of the books. In case you couldn't guess from the title of the post; I ended up finishing St. John of Damascus' Three Treatises on the Divine Images. The edition that I read (here) was by St. Vladimir's Press and was translated by Andrew Louth. While I'm not a Byzantine Greek scholar, I do think that Louth's translation was very thorough. His footnotes were explanatory and he was good about highlighting vocabulary nuances as well as providing citations to referenced scripture passages and other Fathers of the Church.
St. John (died around 750AD) defended of the use of icons in the life and worship of the Church during the time in which the Emperor Leo III condemned icons as a violation of the 2nd commandment (no idols). As the debate between the iconoclasts (those destroying and condemning the icons) and the iconodules (those in support of icons) raged St. John penned his three treatises in favor of the use and practice of veneration of icons.
In general St. John's treatises might be a little heavier reading than some of the other church fathers that I have read and subsequently reviewed. The topic may also be one that causes many protestants much grief and dismay as icons are very foreign to the Western Church. However, it is probably safe to say that if it wasn't for St. John's treatises on the Divine Images there would be little-to-no room for any Church art.
As I read through St. John's work his words and phraseology made it very clear that for him this was not a dry theological debate. St. John's concern is rooted in his deep love for God and his love for the Church and the faith which it has carried down from the Apostles. John views the use of icons in worship as something which has early and even apostolic roots even if it isn't embedded in scripture. Along these lines St. John quotes from St. Basil to exhort his readers:
Building upon this John pleads with his adversaries and with the Church as a whole:
While this material and some of the language that St. John uses will likely make many protestants uncomfortable it is worth a read. St. John's treatises form a concise discussion on icons and their place in worship. In his third treatise St. John also sets forth a valuable discussion of worship and how it is to be approached by the Church and the Christian. At times the work felt redundant because of repeated arguments between the treatises and repeated citations, but it is an essential work for any student of Church history to read. This work seems to inform and provide much of the basis for the decision of the Seventh Ecumenical Council which approved of the use of icons. If nothing else is achieved by reading this work it will help protestants understand and appreciate the position of the Catholic and Orthodox Christians concerning this matter.
As I said before, I think one of the most beautiful things about this work is not that St. John is concerned with ivory tower theology, but that he is concerned with health and life of the Church. St. John views icons as essential parts of the worship of the faithful and as aids to holiness. It is obvious to even a casual reader of this book that St. John desires holiness for the people of God and views the iconoclast position as impious and destructive to the faith of the Church.
So there is a short review for the only fun book that I managed to finish this January break. Hopefully I'll get back to posting some more of my random thoughts soon.
Blessings to you all,
Ben
I'm not sure if I have reading ADD or what, but instead of finishing the three books I wanted to finish before the semester I actually started two more. Why? I'm not sure.
I did, however, finish one of the books. In case you couldn't guess from the title of the post; I ended up finishing St. John of Damascus' Three Treatises on the Divine Images. The edition that I read (here) was by St. Vladimir's Press and was translated by Andrew Louth. While I'm not a Byzantine Greek scholar, I do think that Louth's translation was very thorough. His footnotes were explanatory and he was good about highlighting vocabulary nuances as well as providing citations to referenced scripture passages and other Fathers of the Church.
St. John (died around 750AD) defended of the use of icons in the life and worship of the Church during the time in which the Emperor Leo III condemned icons as a violation of the 2nd commandment (no idols). As the debate between the iconoclasts (those destroying and condemning the icons) and the iconodules (those in support of icons) raged St. John penned his three treatises in favor of the use and practice of veneration of icons.
In general St. John's treatises might be a little heavier reading than some of the other church fathers that I have read and subsequently reviewed. The topic may also be one that causes many protestants much grief and dismay as icons are very foreign to the Western Church. However, it is probably safe to say that if it wasn't for St. John's treatises on the Divine Images there would be little-to-no room for any Church art.
As I read through St. John's work his words and phraseology made it very clear that for him this was not a dry theological debate. St. John's concern is rooted in his deep love for God and his love for the Church and the faith which it has carried down from the Apostles. John views the use of icons in worship as something which has early and even apostolic roots even if it isn't embedded in scripture. Along these lines St. John quotes from St. Basil to exhort his readers:
Of the dogmas and preachings preserved in the Church, some we have from the written teaching, others we received from the tradition of the Apostles, handed down to us in secret, both of them having the same force for piety. No one who has the least experience of the laws of the Church will object to these, for if we try to dismiss that which is unwritten among the customs as of no great authority, then without noticing it we shall damage the Gospel.
Building upon this John pleads with his adversaries and with the Church as a whole:
I entreat the people of God, the holy nation, to cling to the traditions of the Church. For just as the removal of one of the stones of a building will quickly bring ruin to that building, so will the removal, ever so little, of what has been handed down. Let us be firm, unflinching, unmoved, established upon the secure rock, which is Christ, to whom is due glory, honor and veneration, with the Father and the Spirit, now and for ever and to the unbounded ages of ages. Amen.Cutting to the core content of the work (or works if you prefer) John argues for the allowance of the veneration of icons, both of Christ and of the "friends of God." In order to defend this stance St. John argues, following Basil, that the honor given to the image passes to the archetype. Through his work John defines and distinguishes between worship and veneration as well as different types of veneration. He also tackles the accusation that icons violate the second commandment by illustrating from scripture the multiple times where images are made and honored and yet not worshiped.
While this material and some of the language that St. John uses will likely make many protestants uncomfortable it is worth a read. St. John's treatises form a concise discussion on icons and their place in worship. In his third treatise St. John also sets forth a valuable discussion of worship and how it is to be approached by the Church and the Christian. At times the work felt redundant because of repeated arguments between the treatises and repeated citations, but it is an essential work for any student of Church history to read. This work seems to inform and provide much of the basis for the decision of the Seventh Ecumenical Council which approved of the use of icons. If nothing else is achieved by reading this work it will help protestants understand and appreciate the position of the Catholic and Orthodox Christians concerning this matter.
As I said before, I think one of the most beautiful things about this work is not that St. John is concerned with ivory tower theology, but that he is concerned with health and life of the Church. St. John views icons as essential parts of the worship of the faithful and as aids to holiness. It is obvious to even a casual reader of this book that St. John desires holiness for the people of God and views the iconoclast position as impious and destructive to the faith of the Church.
So there is a short review for the only fun book that I managed to finish this January break. Hopefully I'll get back to posting some more of my random thoughts soon.
Blessings to you all,
Ben
Sunday, February 03, 2008
A Quick Non-Theological Post
Since today is Super Bowl Sunday, I've decided to allow myself an obligatory football post, though it's not about the Super Bowl. If any of you are fans of the Minnesota Vikings (in reality the only reader who is is probably my dad, but it's my blog so whatever) you are likely sitting in disbelief that Chris Carter got passed over for a first-ballot Hall of Fame selection.
Yep, that's right. Chris Carter, Mr. "All he does is catch touchdowns" didn't make the Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility. So who did make it? Art Monk.
I'm not going to chronicle the entire case against Monk and for Carter here as it has already been done by Pacifist Viking over here. While I'm still undecided if I share the opinion if Art Monk deserves to actually be in the Hall of Fame, I do think that PV offers great analysis of the issue. So check it out if your into sweet nerdy arguments as to why one retired football player is better than another.
With this and the trends in baseball Hall of Fame voting I'm begining to lose my faith in the Hall of Fame voters. So often I think they decide on or against players for stupid reasons without analyzing all the pertinent data. One prime example is the dork who didn't vote for Cal Ripken Jr. to make the baseball hall of fame this year. Seriously!?! That person should be taken out to the street and put in the stocks.
Ok, that's it for now.
Peace.
Yep, that's right. Chris Carter, Mr. "All he does is catch touchdowns" didn't make the Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility. So who did make it? Art Monk.
I'm not going to chronicle the entire case against Monk and for Carter here as it has already been done by Pacifist Viking over here. While I'm still undecided if I share the opinion if Art Monk deserves to actually be in the Hall of Fame, I do think that PV offers great analysis of the issue. So check it out if your into sweet nerdy arguments as to why one retired football player is better than another.
With this and the trends in baseball Hall of Fame voting I'm begining to lose my faith in the Hall of Fame voters. So often I think they decide on or against players for stupid reasons without analyzing all the pertinent data. One prime example is the dork who didn't vote for Cal Ripken Jr. to make the baseball hall of fame this year. Seriously!?! That person should be taken out to the street and put in the stocks.
Ok, that's it for now.
Peace.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
The one where I write about a lot of different things
This one might be a long one as I've been intending to post on some of these topics since before Christmas. I'll try to section off the topics so you can easily scroll ahead if you find one of the topics to be boring, but then again chances are you might find all of these topics, if not the whole blog in general, to be rather boring. Nevertheless here it goes.
********Happy Birthday Jesus***********
I think I alluded to this in my last post. While I was home the kids in my parent's church gave a little Christmas program during the Sunday service. The program focused on the fact that Jesus was celebrating a birthday and thus they should give him appropriate gifts (the eventual conclusion being that we must give him our hearts). As I sat there I began to think about how insufficient the commonplace "happy birthday Jesus" emphasis that we give our children is.
Maybe we think that we're helping our kids understand Christmas by telling them that it is Jesus' birthday, for it is, in fact, the day that we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. But I'm wondering if this isn't yet another example of the protestant problem. Meaning that in an effort to contextualize and to make the message of the faith easy to understand we end up settling for a lesser faith and selling short ourselves and the eventual converts into the faith.
Granted young children can't understand phrases like incarnation, hypostasis, and perichoresis, but do we still not have a duty to teach our children the true faith even if it means they ask questions and don't understand it all at first? Maybe the issue now is that this cycle of "settling" has gone on so long that most Protestant Christians don't know what the faith is anyways? But I digress. How much do we need to dumb down the faith for kids? I would argue that while we may not use the same terminology we still need to teach the essential concepts and, as I see it, "happy birthday Jesus" falls short on so many levels.
So why is "happy birthday Jesus" insufficient? It seems to me that it downplays the significance of the birth of Christ. While it is, and always will be, important to emphasize that Jesus was born in the same way as we were born the sole emphasis of his birth downplays his divinity. The reason that Christ's birth is so important is not merely because he was born, but because God himself chose to take on flesh through the womb of a virgin and to be born and live among us. I've not heard "happy birthday Jesus" teaching to children that emphasizes the fact that God came down and dwelt among us. I've also not heard this teaching mention that Christ was born of the Holy Spirit as well as the Virgin Mary. How great is this opportunity to make a Trinitarian teaching point to children and yet we sell out in favor of birthday cake and parties for our kids.
This emphasis also seem problematic in that we fail to appropriately distinguish between the celebration of Jesus' birthday and our birthday. Thus we teach a low Christology that implicitly places Jesus on our level. This means, as mentioned above, that we deemphasize the divinity and thus we celebrate Jesus' birth because he is a good man whom we strive to be like. If he is merely a good man then nothing distinguishes him from the likes of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and the rest of the social advocates around the world. This is nothing more than old-fashioned liberal theology and should be eradicated from our places of worship.
Time also seems to play an important part in this discussion. If we focus on using the "happy birthday Jesus" paradigm for teaching our kids while Christmas is important we also neglect to teach them about the eternality of Christ. Yes he was born in time about 2,000 years ago. However, he is eternally begotten of the Father. It would be disastrous for us to leave our kids thinking that Jesus came to be 2,000 years ago and that's it. We must teach our kids that while Christ was born in time on earth there was never a moment that he did not exist. This is something that I didn't learn until college and we are perpetuating these low Christologies in part by teaching our kids that we celebrate Christmas because it's Jesus' birthday and then we stop.
We may indeed be able to use birthday language to help our kids grasp the concept of Christmas, but we must only do so if we can use it to discuss the context of the Holy Incarnation. Yes, we likely will not use the word incarnation as kids don't understand it, but we have to convey the concept. Wait, why should we not use the word incarnation? Kids learn vocabulary by hearing it and asking questions concerning the meaning of words. Why should the building blocks of our Children's vocabulary not be words and concepts like incarnation? What could be more important? Granted this may turn them into nerds, but not necessarily and who cares. Too dumb down the faith for kids and to merely talk about Christmas in terms of birthday is insufficient and is embedding in our kids a weak Christology that has hurt the Church and will undoubtedly hurt the Church in the long run.
********Virtual Eucharist***********
I read the following announcement on our Asbury email forum thingy before Christmas and am just getting to posting about it:
Just so you all know the context of the email I have left the content intact, minus the greeting and salutation, though I have bolded the section that I would like to address.
As soon as I read this email I started wondering exactly how this co-celebration of the Eucharist would work. If it is being celebrated by a leader from the Florida Campus while in the telelink room I can only assume that this leader will be in Florida. This new age of technology surely raises some interesting pragmatic questions.
As my friend Chuck pointed out when I emailed him and a few others about this issue if one holds a memorialist view of the Eucharist there really is no issue at hand. He's right, if one holds this view of the Eucharist then of course one could remember Christ through telelink and everyone should be fine with this. Though I don't want this to become a post defending my Eucharistic views I think this view of the Eucharist is the least biblical, historical, and thus desirable of all the views. Theoretically the seminary should not be endorsing this view as it is a seminary in the broader Wesleyan tradition and it is evident that John Wesley and early Methodists did not hold nor teach this view.
I suppose that one probably wouldn't have that much of a problem with this practice of telelink Eucharist if they held to a consubstantiatory view either (I think this was also suggested by Chuck, but maybe Tony). I guess the logic here would be that the Holy Spirit surrounds the elements and the Holy Spirit can move upon the elements and the communicants through video conferencing just as well as if the person praying over the elements and saying the words of institution is present.
I personally hold to a more transubstantiatory view and logically object to this practice. The issue I want to raise though is that this practice should be raising questions amongst the seminary community and is an undesirable practice even if one holds a consubstantiatory view.
This practice raises many questions. If this is a valid way to take the Eucharist then what is the need for ordination. I may be mistaken but it seems to me that one of the main purposes of ordination is to assure that the person celebrating the sacraments, liturgy, and preaching to the people is inline with the faith of the Church. If one can preach, celebrate the sacraments and liturgy over video conference then why ordain anyone? For that matter, why let anyone preach other than major denominational figures? For Catholics, why wouldn't the Pope just video tape his liturgy and then show it to all the Catholic churches in the world? This seems like it would work given the underlying presuppositions that allow this virtual Eucharist to take place. We have to admit that there is something important about the physical presence of a minister representing Christ to the people. We have to recognize the importance of the physical.
It seems to me that this practice is building upon and helping to foster the ever-present dualistic tendencies that exists all over western Christendom. I won't go so far as to call this practice gnostic (though I really want to) but I do think it is highly dualistic and implicitly asserting that the physical does not matter. If it doesn't then why do we take Eucharist anyways? Oh wait, I know!!
If we assert that the physical doesn't matter, as this practice seems to imply, then we take the Eucharist because it helps us to feel like a "community." This service is merely using (and I would argue abusing the Eucharist) to generate some generic sense of community between the campuses. Yes, the Eucharist is a unifying act, but it unifies us to God and thus as a result unifies us to others.
We are unified to Christians around the world not because we have the exact same person say the words of institution over the bread and wine and not because someone says the words via a video conference over everyone's bread and wine, no we are united with other believers because God unites us. We worship the same God and we celebrate the same supper, even if miles, oceans, or languages separate us. We don't need someone to institute the Lord's supper over a video-link in order to be unified.
The problems with this practice are many. It promotes a hyper-dualism that shouldn't be present in Christianity. It also operates on a faulty view of how exactly the Eucharist is a unifying act. It also is problematic because it raises the all-pervasive view of community above correct Eucharistic celebration. I still think there may be more at stake with this practice, but I'm not completely sure how to articulate it.
********Book Review: Whose Bible is it? by Jaroslav Pelikan***********
I've been finished with Jaroslav Pelikan's book; Whose Bible Is It? A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages, for some time now. I think I finished it mid-semester in the fall but haven't got around to posting about it until now.
In true Pelikan fashion Dr. Pelikan does a wonderfully thorough job of presenting exactly what the subtitle suggests "a history of the scriptures through the ages." Pelikan's style is very accessible since he uses very little jargon and he articulates clearly and concisely his ideas.
This book is a wonderful book and would serve well for any class that focuses on the introduction to scriptures. It would also be perfect for any person who wants to learn how we have the scriptures as we know them. Pelikan begins his discussion with the oral tradition of the Hebrew scriptures and then progresses linearly through history discussing the development of the Septuagint, the Talmud, the formation of the New Testament, the development of the canon, the scribal tradition, the development of the printed scriptures, the rise of textual criticism, and then concludes with a brief discussion of the far-reachingness of the scriptures and then worldview therein.
While this sounds like a lot of material Pelikan's book is a short 274 pages (including endnotes and appendices) and tackles these discussions without getting bogged down by needless rabbit trails.
I think Pelikan's book is a must-read for any beginning religious studies student and would be a helpful read for the inquisitive lay person. Though I thought the book seemed to drag a little bit after Pelikan began discussing the era of the printing press, I think this is largely due to the fact that I'm not as interested in the latter development of editions, translations, and textual variants of the Scriptures as I am in how the canon came to be and how we have received the text from our spiritual forefathers and mothers.
Though my copy of this book is filled with underlined text, circled phrases, and comments in the margins, I'm not sure if I can find a great quote to place in this blog. The book is filled with great insight, scholarly precision, and wonderful references to ad quotes from the Fathers of the faith.
One thing you may want to know before you read the book is something that I didn't find out until I was almost finished. Though Pelikan doesn't place a notation after quotes they are still referenced in back. I find this a little archaic and frustrating but it really is the only complaint I can lay against this book.
********Book Review: On Pascha by Melito of Sardis***********
I finished this book near the beginning of the summer and since I am writing the mother of all blog posts I thought I would write a short review in this post. In case you haven't noticed this post is the catch all for all that's fallen by the wayside over the past year or so.
Melito of Sardis' (ca. 190AD even though the wikipedia page says 180AD) treatise On Pascha is very short (about 30 pages of text in this edition) but it packed with rich theology but is easy enough to read that it can be used devotionally as a meditative aid. The introduction by Alistair Stewart-Sykes is a bit heavier and while it helps one to understand the occasion for and the issues surrounding Melito's writing it isn't as necessary as some introductions given the accessibility of Melito. The footnotes are also very explanatory for those who may not be familiar with some of the phrasing that Melito uses.
For those of you who don't know what Pascha is, it is, in brief, what the earlier fathers and the Eastern Church refers to as Easter. The term comes from the Greek word for suffering and is more consistent with the Jewish feast of Passover. This treatise by Melito is basically a wonderful recounting of Easter. Melito's treatise constantly links Christ as the Lamb back to the Old Testament sacrificial lamb of Passover. Melito beautifully draws out the Old Testament images as the type of which Christ was the fulfillment. I would suggest this as a wonderful Easter meditation for anyone. Here are a few of my favorite sections:
********************************
So there you have it. I know it's long and it probably bores most, if not all of you, but I think that catches up on most of what I've been thinking/reading as of late.
I start my last semester at Asbury in February and am stoked about being done. Although I am a little unsure of what I will do when I graduate. I'm taking three classes and am particularly excited about one of them. I am taking:
John Wesley's Theology for Today
Old Testament Theology
and the one that still has to be approved but that I'm really excited about is
Independent Study in historical and theological development of Eastern Christian thought.
I am currently working on finishing three books:
St. John of Damascus: Three Treatises On the Divine Images
St. Symeon the New Theologian: On the Mystical Life: Vol 1. The Church and the Last Things
St. Symeon the New Theologian: On the Mystical Life: Vol 2. On Virtue and the Christian Life
I'm also reading: Rob Bell: Velvet Elvis, but I must confess that I'm only reading Bell because I'm not a big fan and think that I should read more of his works in order to help refute the Rob Bell personality cult that exists at Asbury.
I'm hoping to finish the main three books before February, and while it should be doable I also am lazy and am watching way more movies than I should during this break.
Blessings to you all,
- Ben
********Happy Birthday Jesus***********
I think I alluded to this in my last post. While I was home the kids in my parent's church gave a little Christmas program during the Sunday service. The program focused on the fact that Jesus was celebrating a birthday and thus they should give him appropriate gifts (the eventual conclusion being that we must give him our hearts). As I sat there I began to think about how insufficient the commonplace "happy birthday Jesus" emphasis that we give our children is.
Maybe we think that we're helping our kids understand Christmas by telling them that it is Jesus' birthday, for it is, in fact, the day that we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. But I'm wondering if this isn't yet another example of the protestant problem. Meaning that in an effort to contextualize and to make the message of the faith easy to understand we end up settling for a lesser faith and selling short ourselves and the eventual converts into the faith.
Granted young children can't understand phrases like incarnation, hypostasis, and perichoresis, but do we still not have a duty to teach our children the true faith even if it means they ask questions and don't understand it all at first? Maybe the issue now is that this cycle of "settling" has gone on so long that most Protestant Christians don't know what the faith is anyways? But I digress. How much do we need to dumb down the faith for kids? I would argue that while we may not use the same terminology we still need to teach the essential concepts and, as I see it, "happy birthday Jesus" falls short on so many levels.
So why is "happy birthday Jesus" insufficient? It seems to me that it downplays the significance of the birth of Christ. While it is, and always will be, important to emphasize that Jesus was born in the same way as we were born the sole emphasis of his birth downplays his divinity. The reason that Christ's birth is so important is not merely because he was born, but because God himself chose to take on flesh through the womb of a virgin and to be born and live among us. I've not heard "happy birthday Jesus" teaching to children that emphasizes the fact that God came down and dwelt among us. I've also not heard this teaching mention that Christ was born of the Holy Spirit as well as the Virgin Mary. How great is this opportunity to make a Trinitarian teaching point to children and yet we sell out in favor of birthday cake and parties for our kids.
This emphasis also seem problematic in that we fail to appropriately distinguish between the celebration of Jesus' birthday and our birthday. Thus we teach a low Christology that implicitly places Jesus on our level. This means, as mentioned above, that we deemphasize the divinity and thus we celebrate Jesus' birth because he is a good man whom we strive to be like. If he is merely a good man then nothing distinguishes him from the likes of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and the rest of the social advocates around the world. This is nothing more than old-fashioned liberal theology and should be eradicated from our places of worship.
Time also seems to play an important part in this discussion. If we focus on using the "happy birthday Jesus" paradigm for teaching our kids while Christmas is important we also neglect to teach them about the eternality of Christ. Yes he was born in time about 2,000 years ago. However, he is eternally begotten of the Father. It would be disastrous for us to leave our kids thinking that Jesus came to be 2,000 years ago and that's it. We must teach our kids that while Christ was born in time on earth there was never a moment that he did not exist. This is something that I didn't learn until college and we are perpetuating these low Christologies in part by teaching our kids that we celebrate Christmas because it's Jesus' birthday and then we stop.
We may indeed be able to use birthday language to help our kids grasp the concept of Christmas, but we must only do so if we can use it to discuss the context of the Holy Incarnation. Yes, we likely will not use the word incarnation as kids don't understand it, but we have to convey the concept. Wait, why should we not use the word incarnation? Kids learn vocabulary by hearing it and asking questions concerning the meaning of words. Why should the building blocks of our Children's vocabulary not be words and concepts like incarnation? What could be more important? Granted this may turn them into nerds, but not necessarily and who cares. Too dumb down the faith for kids and to merely talk about Christmas in terms of birthday is insufficient and is embedding in our kids a weak Christology that has hurt the Church and will undoubtedly hurt the Church in the long run.
********Virtual Eucharist***********
I read the following announcement on our Asbury email forum thingy before Christmas and am just getting to posting about it:
On January 2, 2008 we will gather at 11am in the Distance Learning Room (BC 157) and in Florida in Room FL208 for a celebration of the the classic Wesley Covenant Renewal Service. Dr. Kalas will be leading the Covenant Renewal and a leader from the Florida campus will be celebrating the Lord's Supper. The service should take no longer than 45 minutes. Please mark your calendars and plan to be present if you are on campus.
Just so you all know the context of the email I have left the content intact, minus the greeting and salutation, though I have bolded the section that I would like to address.
As soon as I read this email I started wondering exactly how this co-celebration of the Eucharist would work. If it is being celebrated by a leader from the Florida Campus while in the telelink room I can only assume that this leader will be in Florida. This new age of technology surely raises some interesting pragmatic questions.
As my friend Chuck pointed out when I emailed him and a few others about this issue if one holds a memorialist view of the Eucharist there really is no issue at hand. He's right, if one holds this view of the Eucharist then of course one could remember Christ through telelink and everyone should be fine with this. Though I don't want this to become a post defending my Eucharistic views I think this view of the Eucharist is the least biblical, historical, and thus desirable of all the views. Theoretically the seminary should not be endorsing this view as it is a seminary in the broader Wesleyan tradition and it is evident that John Wesley and early Methodists did not hold nor teach this view.
I suppose that one probably wouldn't have that much of a problem with this practice of telelink Eucharist if they held to a consubstantiatory view either (I think this was also suggested by Chuck, but maybe Tony). I guess the logic here would be that the Holy Spirit surrounds the elements and the Holy Spirit can move upon the elements and the communicants through video conferencing just as well as if the person praying over the elements and saying the words of institution is present.
I personally hold to a more transubstantiatory view and logically object to this practice. The issue I want to raise though is that this practice should be raising questions amongst the seminary community and is an undesirable practice even if one holds a consubstantiatory view.
This practice raises many questions. If this is a valid way to take the Eucharist then what is the need for ordination. I may be mistaken but it seems to me that one of the main purposes of ordination is to assure that the person celebrating the sacraments, liturgy, and preaching to the people is inline with the faith of the Church. If one can preach, celebrate the sacraments and liturgy over video conference then why ordain anyone? For that matter, why let anyone preach other than major denominational figures? For Catholics, why wouldn't the Pope just video tape his liturgy and then show it to all the Catholic churches in the world? This seems like it would work given the underlying presuppositions that allow this virtual Eucharist to take place. We have to admit that there is something important about the physical presence of a minister representing Christ to the people. We have to recognize the importance of the physical.
It seems to me that this practice is building upon and helping to foster the ever-present dualistic tendencies that exists all over western Christendom. I won't go so far as to call this practice gnostic (though I really want to) but I do think it is highly dualistic and implicitly asserting that the physical does not matter. If it doesn't then why do we take Eucharist anyways? Oh wait, I know!!
If we assert that the physical doesn't matter, as this practice seems to imply, then we take the Eucharist because it helps us to feel like a "community." This service is merely using (and I would argue abusing the Eucharist) to generate some generic sense of community between the campuses. Yes, the Eucharist is a unifying act, but it unifies us to God and thus as a result unifies us to others.
We are unified to Christians around the world not because we have the exact same person say the words of institution over the bread and wine and not because someone says the words via a video conference over everyone's bread and wine, no we are united with other believers because God unites us. We worship the same God and we celebrate the same supper, even if miles, oceans, or languages separate us. We don't need someone to institute the Lord's supper over a video-link in order to be unified.
The problems with this practice are many. It promotes a hyper-dualism that shouldn't be present in Christianity. It also operates on a faulty view of how exactly the Eucharist is a unifying act. It also is problematic because it raises the all-pervasive view of community above correct Eucharistic celebration. I still think there may be more at stake with this practice, but I'm not completely sure how to articulate it.
********Book Review: Whose Bible is it? by Jaroslav Pelikan***********
I've been finished with Jaroslav Pelikan's book; Whose Bible Is It? A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages, for some time now. I think I finished it mid-semester in the fall but haven't got around to posting about it until now.
In true Pelikan fashion Dr. Pelikan does a wonderfully thorough job of presenting exactly what the subtitle suggests "a history of the scriptures through the ages." Pelikan's style is very accessible since he uses very little jargon and he articulates clearly and concisely his ideas.
This book is a wonderful book and would serve well for any class that focuses on the introduction to scriptures. It would also be perfect for any person who wants to learn how we have the scriptures as we know them. Pelikan begins his discussion with the oral tradition of the Hebrew scriptures and then progresses linearly through history discussing the development of the Septuagint, the Talmud, the formation of the New Testament, the development of the canon, the scribal tradition, the development of the printed scriptures, the rise of textual criticism, and then concludes with a brief discussion of the far-reachingness of the scriptures and then worldview therein.
While this sounds like a lot of material Pelikan's book is a short 274 pages (including endnotes and appendices) and tackles these discussions without getting bogged down by needless rabbit trails.
I think Pelikan's book is a must-read for any beginning religious studies student and would be a helpful read for the inquisitive lay person. Though I thought the book seemed to drag a little bit after Pelikan began discussing the era of the printing press, I think this is largely due to the fact that I'm not as interested in the latter development of editions, translations, and textual variants of the Scriptures as I am in how the canon came to be and how we have received the text from our spiritual forefathers and mothers.
Though my copy of this book is filled with underlined text, circled phrases, and comments in the margins, I'm not sure if I can find a great quote to place in this blog. The book is filled with great insight, scholarly precision, and wonderful references to ad quotes from the Fathers of the faith.
One thing you may want to know before you read the book is something that I didn't find out until I was almost finished. Though Pelikan doesn't place a notation after quotes they are still referenced in back. I find this a little archaic and frustrating but it really is the only complaint I can lay against this book.
********Book Review: On Pascha by Melito of Sardis***********
I finished this book near the beginning of the summer and since I am writing the mother of all blog posts I thought I would write a short review in this post. In case you haven't noticed this post is the catch all for all that's fallen by the wayside over the past year or so.
Melito of Sardis' (ca. 190AD even though the wikipedia page says 180AD) treatise On Pascha is very short (about 30 pages of text in this edition) but it packed with rich theology but is easy enough to read that it can be used devotionally as a meditative aid. The introduction by Alistair Stewart-Sykes is a bit heavier and while it helps one to understand the occasion for and the issues surrounding Melito's writing it isn't as necessary as some introductions given the accessibility of Melito. The footnotes are also very explanatory for those who may not be familiar with some of the phrasing that Melito uses.
For those of you who don't know what Pascha is, it is, in brief, what the earlier fathers and the Eastern Church refers to as Easter. The term comes from the Greek word for suffering and is more consistent with the Jewish feast of Passover. This treatise by Melito is basically a wonderful recounting of Easter. Melito's treatise constantly links Christ as the Lamb back to the Old Testament sacrificial lamb of Passover. Melito beautifully draws out the Old Testament images as the type of which Christ was the fulfillment. I would suggest this as a wonderful Easter meditation for anyone. Here are a few of my favorite sections:
And today those things of value (the OT sacrifices) are worthless, since the things of true worth have been revealed.
For then the (the OT) the slaughter of the sheep was of value,
now it is worthless because of the Lord's life.
The death of the sheep was of value,
now it is worthless because of the Lord's salvation.
The blood of the sheep was of value,
now it is worthless because of the Lord's Spirit...
The Jerusalem below was of value,
now it is worthless because of the heavenly Jerusalem.
One the narrow inheritance was of value,
now it is worthless because of the breadth of grace.
For it is not on one place, nor in a narrow plot, that the glory of God is established,
but on all the ends of the earth.
For his grace has been poured out
and the almighty God has made his dwelling there.
Through Christ Our Lord,
to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. (44-45)
O mystifying murder! O mystifying injustice!
The master is obscured by his body exposed,
and is not held worthy of a veil to shield him from view.
For this reason the great lights turned away,
and the day was turned to darkness;
to hid the one denuded on the tree,
obscuring not the body of the Lord but human eyes.
For when the people did not tremble, the earth shook.
When the people did not fear, the heavens were afraid.
When the people did not rend their garments, the angel rent his own.
When the people did not lament, the Lord thundered from heaven,
and the most high gave voice. (97-98)
This (Jesus) is the Pascha of our salvation:
this is the one who in many people endured many things.
This is the one who was murdered in Abel,
tied up in Isaac,
exiled in Jacob,
sold in Joseph,
exposed in Moses,
slaughtered in the lamb,
hunted down in David,
dishonored in the prophets.
This is the one made flesh in a virgin,
who was hanged on a tree,
who was buried in the earth,
who was raised from the dad,
who was exalted to the heights of heaven.
This is the lamb slain,
this is the speechless lamb,
this is the one born of Mary the fair ewe,
this is the one taken from the flock,
and led to slaughter.
Who was sacrificed in the evening, and buried at night;
who was not broken on the tree,
who was not undone in the earth,
who rose form the dead and resurrected humankind from the grave below.
This is the one who has been murdered.
And where murdered?
In the middle of Jerusalem.
By Whom? By Israel.
Why? Because he healed their lame,
and cleansed their lepers,
and enlightened their blind,
and raised up their dead;
and therefore he died...
What a strange injustice have you done, O Israel?
You have dishonored the one who honored you,
you have disgraced the one who glorified you,
you have denied the one who owned you,
you have ignored the one who made you known,
you have murdered the one who gave you life. (69-73)
He it is who made the heaven and the earth,
and formed humanity in the beginning,
who was proclaimed through the law and the prophets,
who took flesh from a virgin,
who was hung on a tree,
who was buried in earth,
who was raised from the dead,
and ascended to the heights of heaven,
who sits at the right hand of the father,
who has the power to save all things,
through whom the father acted from the beginning and for ever.
This is the alpha and omega,
this is the beginning and the end,
the ineffable beginning and the incomprehensible end.
This is the Christ,
this is the King,
this is Jesus,
this is the commander,
this is the Lord,
this is he who rose from the dead,
this is he who sits at the right hand of the Father,
he bears the Father and is borne by him.
To him be the glory and the might for ever.
Amen. (104-105)
********************************
So there you have it. I know it's long and it probably bores most, if not all of you, but I think that catches up on most of what I've been thinking/reading as of late.
I start my last semester at Asbury in February and am stoked about being done. Although I am a little unsure of what I will do when I graduate. I'm taking three classes and am particularly excited about one of them. I am taking:
John Wesley's Theology for Today
Old Testament Theology
and the one that still has to be approved but that I'm really excited about is
Independent Study in historical and theological development of Eastern Christian thought.
I am currently working on finishing three books:
St. John of Damascus: Three Treatises On the Divine Images
St. Symeon the New Theologian: On the Mystical Life: Vol 1. The Church and the Last Things
St. Symeon the New Theologian: On the Mystical Life: Vol 2. On Virtue and the Christian Life
I'm also reading: Rob Bell: Velvet Elvis, but I must confess that I'm only reading Bell because I'm not a big fan and think that I should read more of his works in order to help refute the Rob Bell personality cult that exists at Asbury.
I'm hoping to finish the main three books before February, and while it should be doable I also am lazy and am watching way more movies than I should during this break.
Blessings to you all,
- Ben
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
