tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-86762286128408080182024-03-05T09:16:10.914-06:00Come Lord Jesusguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.comBlogger195125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-22109631406459790902013-12-27T19:40:00.001-06:002013-12-27T19:40:22.133-06:00Chrismated!i don't know if anyone reads this anymore. i just wanted to post to say i've reached a milestone. After 2 years of investigation and attending an Orthodox parish, i was received into the Orthodox Church by chrismation last Saturday, December 21st, under the name Boris. <br />
<br />
i decided to revisit some of the things i read the very first night my Protestantism unraveled. This included a blog in which Orthodoxy is criticized. After re-reading them, i'm not shaken or regretful of my decision in the least. i'm so grateful for the blessing to be part of the Orthodox Church, and i have already experienced the healing of the sacraments of the church. <br />
<br />
i'd love to write about all my experience and thinking throughout this journey. Maybe some day i will. (But sadly, for the time being, i have a dissertation to write!)guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-79958477085203715262012-09-04T09:55:00.000-05:002012-09-04T09:55:46.939-05:00Bullying<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 28px;"><span style="color: white;">Bullying: Defacing God’s Image</span></div><div class="author-link"><span style="color: white;"><a class="author-link" href="http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/profile/george-morelli">Fr. George Morelli</a></span></div><span style="color: white;"><span style="height: 24px; width: 450px;"></span></span> <span style="color: white;"><b><i>Chaplain's Corner</i></b><br />
<i>Short essays written for the La Jolla Veteran's Hospital newsletter in La Jolla, California</i></span> <br />
<span style="color: white;"><span class="firstcap">T</span>he recent arrest of local office holder in California for the corporal punishment and name-calling abuse of a child made headlines. Arrest, office holder, politician or not, bullying is always an egregious affront to God and to man whom He made in His image.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: white;">Plain and simple, bullying is abuse. Those who bully and those who are bullied are found everywhere. Bullies can be bosses, clergy, military superiors, parents, police, teachers or simply acquaintances etc.</span><br />
<span style="color: white;">Children and adults can be the brunt of bullying. They can be called loathsome names, be belittled, laughed at and/or be ignored. Emotional abuse is one form of bullying that is often most unnoticed because of its ubiquity and subtlety. These practices in our society are so common as to go virtually unperceived.</span><br />
<span style="color: white;">However, emotional abuse but can be equally devastating to the victim as physical and or sexual abuse. Research has shown that victims are susceptible, for example, to clinical depression, suicide and other disorders.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: white;">Helpfulness may be considered the opposite of bullying. A kindly disposition is inherent in the tenets of many religious traditions. In the fall of the year Hindus celebrate Karwa Chauth. While this feast mainly focuses on married women, the spirit of the celebration is prayer, relief from household duties, and giving gifts. Basically, it is to insure others’ "well being."<b><sup>i</sup></b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: white;">In Buddhist scripture we read: “Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world; by love alone is hatred appeased. This is an Eternal Law.” (The Dhammapada, Verse 5) In the Hebrew Sacred Scripture, we read that David, despite his position of power was a supporter and protector of his friend Jonathan (1Kg 20) and certainly not his bully.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: white;">Jesus goes even further in telling His Disciples what can only be the most extreme opposite of being a bully. He likens true helpfulness to agape — Godly selfless love: “Greater love hath no one than this that one should lay down his life for his friends." (Jn 15:13).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: white;">To help us supplant any tendency in ourselves to bully others we should cultivate the virtue of kindness. To accomplish this it might help to reflect on the spiritual perception of our Eastern Church Spiritual Father, St. Gregory the Theologian, who tells us: "[All] men are our brothers in God and [have] a nature like ours, being drawn from the same original mud, they are composed as We nerves and bones..."<b><sup>ii</sup></b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: white;">With this in mind we can see how horrific and un-Godly any form of bullying is. Echoing the words of the Prophet Hosea (6.7), Jesus told his listeners that the core of true worship of God: "I wish mercy, and not sacrifice." (Mt. 9:13) Considering that mercy is a disposition to be kind and forgiving, it can be shown how truly important being helpful and kindly is; and, conversely, how un-Godly any form of bullying is. Kindliness is next to Godliness.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: white;">http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/OT/view/bullying-defacing-gods-image#793</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: white;">i stole this from Orthodoxy Today's website. It's a topic dear to my heart, and throughout my religious life, i've always been shocked at how many devoutly religious people see no problems at all with bullying, and in some cases even encourage their kids to participate in a culture of bullying. i find this as morally deplorable as virtually any other issue in our time. Why isn't the church more vocal about such violence and abuse--especially among children? </span>guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-49886296589131946302012-08-27T07:25:00.003-05:002012-08-27T07:26:15.541-05:00On Nationalism<div style="color: black; font-family: Trebuchet MS, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 140%; margin: 0;"><b><a href="http://classicalchristianity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/St.-Justin-Popovich-2.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-10325" height="300" id="blkImgId3" src="http://classicalchristianity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/St.-Justin-Popovich-2-202x300.jpg" width="202" /></a>St. Justin Popovich 1894-1979</b><br />
<div style="color: white;">The Church is God-human, eternity incarnated within the boundaries of time and space. She is here in this world but she is not of this world (John 18:36). She is in the world in order to raise it on high where she herself has her origin. The Church is ecumenical, catholic, God-human, ageless, and it is therefore a blasphemy—an unpardonable blasphemy against Christ and against the Holy Ghost—to turn the Church into a national institution, to narrow her down to petty, transient, time-bound aspirations and ways of doing things. Her purpose is beyond nationality, Å“cumenical, all-embracing: to unite all men in Christ, all without exception to nation or race or social strata. “There is neither Greek nor Jew, their is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28), because “Christ is all, and in all.” The means and methods of this all-human God-human union of all in Christ have been provided by the Church, through the holy sacraments and in her God-human works (ascetic exertions, virtues). And so it is: in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the ways of Christ and the means of uniting all people are composed and defined and integrated. Through this mystery, man is made organically one with Christ and with all the virtues: faith, prayer, fasting, love, meekness, through compassion and giving alms, a man consolidates in this union and preserves himself in its sanctity, personally experiencing Christ both as the unity of his personality and as the essence of his union with other members of the body of Christ, the Church.</div><div style="color: white;">The Church is the personhood of the God-human Christ, a God-human organism and not a human organization. The Church is indivisible, as is the person of the God-human, as is the body of the God-human. For this reason it is a fundamental error to have the God-human organism of the Church divided into little national organizations. In the course of their procession down through history many local Churches have limited themselves to nationalism, to national methods and aspirations, ours being among them. The Church has adapted herself to the people when it should properly be just the reverse: the people adapting themselves to the Church. This mistake has been made many times by our Church here. But we very well know that these were the “tares” of our Church life, tares which the Lord will not uproot, leaving them rather to grow with the wheat until the time of harvest (Matt. 13, 29-30). We also well know (the Lord so taught us) that these tares have their origin in our primeval enemy and enemy of Christ: the devil (Matt. 13, 25-28). But we wield this knowledge in vain if it is not transformed into prayer, the prayer that in time to come Christ will safeguard us from becoming the sowers and cultivators of such tares ourselves.</div><div style="color: white;">It is now high time—the twelfth hour—time for our Church representatives to cease being nothing but the servants of nationalism and for them to become bishops and priests of the One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The mission of the Church, given by Christ and put into practice by the Holy Fathers, is this: that in the soul of our people be planted and cultivated a sense and awareness that every member of the Orthodox Church is a Catholic Person, a person who is for ever and ever, and is God-human; that each person is Christ’s, and is therefore a brother to every human being, a ministering servant to all men and all created things. This is the Christ-given objective of the Church. Any other is not an objective of Christ but of the Antichrist. For our local Church to be the Church of Christ, the Church Catholic, this objective must be brought about continuously among our people. And yet what are the means of accomplishing this God-human objective? Once again, the means are themselves God-human because a God-human objective can only be brought about exclusively by God-human means, never by human ones or by any others. It is on this point that the Church differs radically from anything which is human or of this earth. <i>(“The Inward Mission of the Church”, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ pp. 23-26)</i></div></div>guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-34238272718823409192012-07-27T22:39:00.002-05:002012-07-27T22:39:38.071-05:00A Prayer for Peace<span style="color: teal; font-size: large;"><strong></strong></span><span style="font-size: medium;"> We thank Thee, Master and Lover of mankind, King of the ages and giver of all <br />
good things, for destroying the dividing wall of enmity and granting peace <br />
to those who seek thy mercy. We appeal to Thee to awaken the longing for a <br />
peaceful life in all those who are filled with hatred for their neighbors, <br />
thinking especially of those at war or preparing for war. Grant peace to <br />
thy servants. Implant in them the fear of Thee and confirm in them love one <br />
for another. Extinguish every dispute and banish all temptations to <br />
disagreement. For Thou art our peace and to Thee we ascribe glory: to the <br />
Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and forever and unto ages <br />
of ages. Amen.<br />
<br />
We pray, Lord our God, for all those who suffer from acts of war, especially <br />
for the victims and all those in the struggle in <br />
[............................]. We pray for thy peace and thy mercy in the <br />
midst of the great suffering that people are now inflicting on each other. <br />
Accept the prayers of thy Church, so that by thy goodness peace may return <br />
to all peoples. Hear us and have mercy on us.<br />
<br />
Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy.<br />
<br />
Lord our God, remember and have mercy on our brothers and sisters who are <br />
involved in every civil conflict. Remove from their midst all hostility, <br />
confusion and hatred. Lead everyone along the path of reconciliation and <br />
peace, we pray You, hear us and have mercy on us.<br />
<br />
Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy.<br />
<br />
Let all believers turn aside from violence and do what makes for peace. By <br />
the strength of thy mighty arm save thy people and thy Holy Church from <br />
all evil oppression; hear the supplications of all who call to Thee in sorrow <br />
and affliction, day and night. Merciful God, let their lives not be lost, we <br />
pray Thee, hear us and have mercy.<br />
<br />
Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy.<br />
<br />
But grant, O Lord, peace, love and speedy reconciliation to thy people whom <br />
Thou hast redeemed with thy precious blood. Make thy presence known to <br />
those who have turned away from Thee and do not seek Thee, so that none of <br />
them may be lost, but all may be saved and come to the knowledge of the <br />
truth, so that everyone, in true love and harmony, O long-suffering Lord, <br />
may praise thine all holy Name. Amen.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">Taken from: http://www.comeandseeicons.com/peace.htm </span>guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-82249730934448632402012-07-18T13:43:00.002-05:002012-07-18T13:43:28.413-05:00East vs. West Concerning Sin and Salvationi find this article very helpful in understanding the differences between my old views and the views of Orthodoxy about the nature of sin and salvation.<br />
<br />
http://preachersinstitute.com/2010/04/27/ancestral-sin-versus-original-sin-by-fr-anthony-hughes/guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-85971171047164336662012-07-14T10:03:00.000-05:002012-07-14T10:03:18.731-05:00Are You an Obnoxious Christian?<a href="http://imperfectlyordinary.blogspot.com/2012/07/repost-how-not-to-be-obnoxious.html" target="_blank">Great blog post</a><span style="color: black;"> </span>about how lots of people are probably obnoxious Christians.guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-89622694749291797392012-07-07T13:23:00.000-05:002012-07-07T13:23:33.161-05:00The Difference Between the Protestant and Orthodox Gospels (with Chairs!)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/TZrsbCK5Hrg?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-73650566838141094412012-07-06T12:21:00.000-05:002012-07-06T12:21:28.414-05:00An Orthodox View of The Fall of Man<span class="text Gen-2-15" id="en-NIV-46">The <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.</span> <span class="text Gen-2-16" id="en-NIV-47"><sup class="versenum"></sup>And the <span class="small-caps" style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; </span> <span class="text Gen-2-17" id="en-NIV-48"><sup class="versenum"></sup>but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die. (Genesis 2:15-17)</span><br />
<br />
<span class="text Gen-2-17" id="en-NIV-48">i was talking to my priest last Tuesday morning and asking him to explain to me the Fall. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="text Gen-2-17" id="en-NIV-48">Here's the understanding if the Fall of Man in the early chapters of Genesis i was brought up with: </span><br />
<br />
<span class="text Gen-2-17" id="en-NIV-48">God made a law, the first humans broke it, so God administered due penalties. Adam and Eve didn't drop dead immediately, so 'you shall surely die' can't mean they would physically die upon eating the fruit from the forbidden tree. So instead, they died spiritually--they were hell-bound from the moment they broke the law. They committed a moral error which incurred legal penalty, and God's speech to them in Genesis 3 records God's meting out of justice and retribution for their moral slight. And it just so happens that proper retribution for the crimes of the first humans includes physical changes about the world. That is, God chose to punish human. So spiritual death meant that their relationship with God was broken in the sense that He became offended and mad at them, and as their judge had to punish them, and the laundry list of things He mentions in Genesis 3 are at least part of God's choice of punishment. </span><br />
<span class="text Gen-2-17" id="en-NIV-48"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="text Gen-2-17" id="en-NIV-48">So i've learned, this is not the way the Orthodox Church understands the Fall of Man.</span><br />
<span class="text Gen-2-17" id="en-NIV-48"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="text Gen-2-17" id="en-NIV-48">There's at least two very important differences between the view i've described above, and what Orthodoxy teaches:</span><br />
<span class="text Gen-2-17" id="en-NIV-48"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="text Gen-2-17" id="en-NIV-48">First, the consequences of the Fall are not 'punishment' or 'retribution.' The deacon at the parish i attend put it this way: Suppose you had a rodent problem in your house. And in order to get rid of the vermin, you set out several old-fashioned mouse-traps around the house. Then suppose your nephews or grandchildren want to come and visit your home. What would you tell them? "Do NOT go near those traps. If you play with those traps, your fingers will get snapped!" But, of course, what do children often do? They play with things they shouldn't even after you warn them. So pretty soon you hear it: WHAM! And then screams and crying. </span><br />
<span class="text Gen-2-17" id="en-NIV-48"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="text Gen-2-17" id="en-NIV-48">How is this analogous? It's analogous in that the injury that resulted from the disobedience was not a matter of punishment or meted out retribution. As Deacon Ezra put it, "The 'wham' was in the trap!" Your nieces/nephews/grandchildren's fingers aren't bruised and broken because you got mad and offended and decided to punish them. Rather, hurt fingers are just what happens when you play with mousetraps because that's how mousetraps work. This is (as i understand it) the Orthodox view of the Fall. The consequences of the Fall of Man do not manifest the punishment or retribution or penalty that God chose to mete out as a result of His offense that His creatures broke His law. From what i can tell so far in my intro-to-Orthodoxy classes at church, that's just not how Orthodoxy conceives of the character/nature of God anyway. The first humans who disobeyed had to face the consequences that they did because that's the way the world works. </span><br />
<span class="text Gen-2-17" id="en-NIV-48"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="text Gen-2-17" id="en-NIV-48">Second, "die" and "death" does not refer to a category or state or point-in-time. The death and the dying that resulted from mankind's disobedience is a process of decay and corruption. Father Jeremy told me that God is the source of all life and existence. When God created mankind and the world, God's life flowed into man, and through man into the world. But in the Fall, when man disobeyed, man unplugged himself from God, and thus the life of God no longer flowed into man nor through man into the world. </span><br />
<span class="text Gen-2-17" id="en-NIV-48"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="text Gen-2-17" id="en-NIV-48">It's as though man himself was a leaf on a tree. As long as the leaf is connected to the tree, the life of the tree flows into that leaf, and it remains green and functions the way it's designed to. But if you pluck the leaf from the tree, the tree is no longer feeding the leaf. Does it immediately "die"? Well, not really. It will probably stay green for a while. But every moment after it is plucked, it will wither and decay more and more. With every moment, that leaf will come closer and closer to returning to just dirt and dust. The leaf 'dies' in the sense that from the moment it is plucked, it loses its sources of life and begins to rot and decay. </span><br />
<span class="text Gen-2-17" id="en-NIV-48"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="text Gen-2-17" id="en-NIV-48">This is the spiritual death to which mankind is subject, and it is this state of things into which we are all born. We are born as corrupted, decaying bodies that are unplugged from God, the source of life. And so from the day we are born, we are heading back toward the dust. And not only does corruption refer to the mere aging and decay or our bodies, but this is also what is meant with our moral corruption. Our commission of sins and development of sinful habits--these are also marks of corruption and decay, being unplugged from the life of God. And the world itself is in a state of decay as well since the life of God does not flow through us to the world. </span><br />
<span class="text Gen-2-17" id="en-NIV-48"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="text Gen-2-17" id="en-NIV-48">This is really fascinating to me because from an Orthodox point of view, the metaphysical and the moral are not separable or extricable categories in the world. In some sense they describe the same reality or are co-extensive or something [i'm struggling for the appropriate philosophical description]. Whereas i think the view i was raised with treats the moral and the metaphysical as only arbitrarily joined--mankind did something immoral, and God decided to tack on metaphysical changes in man and in the world as a means of retribution for man's moral errors. </span>guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-27143818769759514702012-07-02T09:00:00.001-05:002012-07-02T09:00:16.506-05:00Extra-Biblical Sources and the History Channeli really love documentaries on the History Channel or PBS or National Geographic. i've just started watching through Ken Burns' 10-part documentary on the history of Jazz when an analogy occurred to me. The historical information for such documentaries is not prepared from a limited set of documents or records, but also whenever is possible, eye-witnesses are interviewed. How do we learn about Louis Armstrong? Not just police records or newspaper articles from his arrest in New Orleans when he was just 10 years old. But also many people who knew and interacted with Louis Armstrong are interviewed. Their comments and experiences are invaluable means by which various other documents or quotes from Louis Armstrong can be understood.<br />
<br />
In the case of the Bible, why then not do the same? Shouldn't the writings of, say, Polycarp or Ignatius--people who actually knew and interacted with the apostles--shouldn't their words be considered invaluable sources for understanding the written work of the apostles? Aren't such historical figures as these epistemically better situated than we are to understand the writings and teachings of the apostles? To refuse to allow them to contribute to our understanding of the Bible seems as arbitrary and harmful to our understanding of the Bible as would be History Channel documentaries that refused to include interviews with eyewitnesses or second-generation relatives and friends.guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-53344025523744957072012-06-30T10:40:00.003-05:002012-06-30T10:40:43.869-05:00How Exactly Right Do I Have To Be?Taken From:<br />
http://classicalchristianity.com/2012/06/27/on-zealotry-and-narrow-orthodoxy<br />
<br />
<strong>Hieromonk Seraphim Rose 1934-1982</strong><br />
<br />
<strong> </strong>
<br />
Even when it is not fanatical, this spirit of “correctness” for its
own sake turns out to be fruitless. As an example, I can tell you of a
very good friend of ours, one of the zealot fathers of Mt. Athos. He is a
“moderate” zealot, in that he recognizes the grace of New Calendar
sacraments, accepts the blessings of priests of our Church, and the
like; but he is absolutely strict when it comes to applying the basic
Zealot principle, not to have communion not only with bishops whose
teaching departs from Orthodox truth, such as the Patriarch of
Constantinople, and not only with anyone who has communion with him, but
with anyone who has communion with anyone who in any remote way has
communion with him. Such “purity” is so difficult to attain in our days
(our whole Russian Church Abroad, for example, is “tainted” in his eyes
by some measure of communion with the other Orthodox Churches) that he
is in communion with only his own priest and ten other monks in his
group on the Holy Mountain; all of the rest of the Orthodox Church is
not “pure.”<br />
<br />
<div>
Perhaps there are only ten or twelve people left in the world who
are perfectly “strict” and “pure” in their Orthodoxy — this I really
don’t know; but it simply cannot be that there are really only ten or
twelve Orthodox Christians left in the world with whom one can have true
oneness of faith, expressed in common communion. I think that you can
see that there is some kind of spiritual dead-end here; even if we had
to believe such a narrow view of Orthodoxy according to the letter, our
believing Christian heart would rebel against it. We cannot really live
by such strictness; we must somehow be less “correct” and closer to the
heart of Orthodox Christianity. <em>(excerpted from the talk “Orthodoxy in America”)</em></div>guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-2839473017316491772012-06-30T10:24:00.004-05:002012-06-30T10:24:50.545-05:00Worship: Dressing for the Assembly, by Alexander Campbell<h1 class="entry-title">
<span style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal;">Taken From:<br />http://oneinjesus.info/2012/06/worship-dressing-for-the-assembly-by-alexander-campbell/</span></h1>
<div class="entry-meta">
<span class="author vcard"> </span> </div>
The following is from an 1839 article by Alexander Campbell, “Worshipping Assembles — No. I / The Appearance of Things”:<br /><br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
Our meetings of all sorts are greatly
defective in many respects, and in none more visibly than in the dress
and manners of the professed worshippers. The present costumes and
general displays are in extremely bad taste. They are so in the judgment
of all well informed men of sense, out of the church; and certainly of
all persons in the church of unquestionable piety.
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
There’s a congruity between the persons,
places, and employments, which can never be violated without detriment
and disgust, if there are any persons of good education present. To see
worshippers appear in church as at a marriage feast, a presidential
levee, a theatre, a dance — either in dress, manners, or general
demeanor — strikes all persons of reflection as snow in summer or a <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/plaudit" target="_blank">plaudit </a>in the midst of a prayer.<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
… On the Sabbath and in the cathedral,
the nobility dress in their plainest garb. They reserve their splendid
equipage, their courtly attire, their gems and coronets, their
glittering decorations for courts and carnivals, for tilts and
tournaments, and appear in the sanctuary as though they sought not to be
worshipped, but to worship God. But we frequent the houses of prayer
and the places of worship with all our “finery” upon us, as though our
synagogues were theatres for fashion — and the “Ladies Book,” rather
than the New Testament, was the guide to our devotions. …<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
Kings and Prophets, the saints and the
martyrs of other times, were oftener seen in sackcloth and ashes than in
the gaudy fashions of a flippant and irreverent age. …<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
“Slovenly neglect and rustic coarseness,”
though also incongruous with good Christian taste, are nevertheless
more tolerable in Christian assemblies, than the gaiety and style now in
vogue amongst the American communities … .<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
Then let him change his apparel, sell his
finery and gold to those who can afford no higher honors, no brighter
glories — give the proceeds to the poor, and dress himself according to
the Christian mirror, in the plainest and most unassuming garb, and try
himself kneeling or lying upon the earth, in some deep cavern, in some
lonely alcove, in some deep forest, or in the secret chamber in the
lonely hour of even, or at midnight, and see how he feels in divine
converse with his Divine Father, or seated thus among the faithful at
the communion board, compared with himself on former occasions, with all
the pride of fashion thickly set upon him.<br /></div>
<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=qG0oAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA439&lpg=PA439&dq=Worshipping+Assemblies+--+No.+I+Millennial+Harbinger+%281839%29&source=bl&ots=Fwmapal1u3&sig=SOZaWGarEjcnxIJS9j4j359iCgo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YkjuT-3rCZOi8ATY0JiADQ&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=homespun&f=false" target="_blank">Vol. 3 <em>The Millennial Harbinger</em> No. 1</a>.guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-81884029282132915282012-06-30T10:18:00.000-05:002012-06-30T10:18:13.414-05:00This Is NOT Independence Sundayhttp://www.michaeljgorman.net/2012/06/29/reprise-this-is-not-independence-sunday/guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-92012850850658934972012-06-28T08:45:00.002-05:002012-06-28T08:45:18.543-05:00Sola Scriptura and the History of the Early Church<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> This is another email i wrote recently trying to explain my thinking about Sola Scriptura
to a relative of mine:</pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">All the stuff i sent you about Sola Scriptura isn't so much about trying to figure
out how all the books of the Bible came together. My point in all that is more about
this: Lots of churches take for granted that the Bible is their sole authority for all
their beliefs and practices. Is something someone said true or false? Well, the *only*
way to settle that is to prove it (or disprove it) by using Bible verses.
But think about this, is that the way the early church did it? During the time of the
apostles, did they all just go to their Bibles as the only way to settle what they should
believe/practice? Obviously they didn't--they couldn't have done that even if they had
wanted to because the Bible was written yet. The church was founded somewhere around
33ad, right? Scholars believe that the earliest book of the NT was either Galatians or
1Thessalonians, which may have been written as early as 50ad. That means that for at
least 17 years, all the Christians there were in the world didn't have any New Testament
whatsoever. And then, once one of those letters was written by Paul, only that church
had one letter; all the others churches still had no New Testament at all.
And even when the first book was written, that was only 1 book out of the 27 we now use.
How long did it take for the rest of the 27 to be written? Well, scholars put the
earliest dates for the writing of Revelation somewhere in the 80's, but some place it as
late as 100ad. That would mean that from 33ad all the way to either (say) 80 or 100, no
church had a New Testament. The early church taught and worshiped and practice for 50 or
70 years without a completed New Testament to settle anything for them. And then, even
when John wrote Revelation, that still doesn't mean that any church had all the books
together. From what evidence i've read, lots of churches went decades without having
copies of all 27 books. So the church even into the 2nd century believed, taught, and
worshiped all without 'the book' in order to settle things for them.
Part of my point is to note how big of a difference between that is churches today and
the early church. So how did the early church do it? --how did they function? They had
the apostles who met together with elders and other missionaries to settle questions
(Acts 15), they had the oral teachings of the apostles and missionaries who first
converted people, they had traditions that had been taught to them by those apostles or
missionaries both orally and in written letters(2Thessalonians 2:15), they had their
local leaders whose job it was to teach and even refute false doctrine (Titus 1:9) and
whom the people even had to obey (Hebrews 13:17). They had Paul's occasional letters, at
least one of which he commanded to be shared with other churches (Colossians 4:16). They
even had appointed leaders like Timothy and Titus whose job it was to oversee the church
in an entire area. And notice that Paul saw the need for Timothy not just to teach the
people things Paul had said, but to train them how to teach others after them the things
that Paul had said (2Tim 2:2). Clearly they saw themselves as needing a system by which
Christian teaching was passed down from generation to generation. And it included all
this stuff, not merely 27 books we call the NT.
Because of this, i felt like i need to look for a church that mimicked the early church's
authority structure.</pre>guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-32499117434821743492012-06-27T08:39:00.000-05:002012-06-27T08:39:43.687-05:00The Prophetic Defense of Sola Scriptura<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Someone might want to object to the self-referential argument against Sola Scriptura</pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">with what i will call 'The Prophetic Defense.' The following is an email i wrote trying</pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">to deal with this objection: </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Now, my guess is that you might address the self-referential problem by appealing to
the possibility that some of the 27 books of the New Testament seem to refer to themselves in
some sort of prophetic sense. In other words, perhaps there are parts of the New Testament
which refer to the 27, but those parts refer in a way that is *separate* from the
author's awareness or intent. For example:
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give
birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)
Now, i take it as granted that when Isaiah wrote this, he, himself, was likely unaware
that this prophecy was meant to refer to Jesus of Nazareth. Yet Matthew tells us that
this prophecy does refer to Mary's pregnancy with Jesus (Matt 1:22-23). Thus, God/The
Holy Spirit meant something by the words of Isaiah even though Isaiah himself didn't
intend or wasn't aware of that meaning. So it's true that Isa 7:14 references Jesus even
though this reference is not intended by the human author of Isa 7:14 [If you think this
is false, that's fine. It's not really a big deal; i'm just looking for an illustration,
and i picked this one. There are other examples in scripture of the same kind of
thing--Genesis 50:20.]
A person using the prophetic defense ("PD") could say something like this:
"It may be the case that the NT authors weren't aware that their words were
referring to the completed New Testament ("the 27"), but God intended that meaning
for their words. Thus some documents included in the 27 reference the 27 *apart*
from the human authors' intended meanings."
i wanna deal with PD because i believe PD is a fairly canned response from a
traditional CoC line of thought.
Objection to PD #1:
The PD at best only addresses my (1) and (2), but i do not see how PD addresses (3) or
(4).
[RECALL that the numbers here refer to the list i posted on Monday:
(1) The 27 books of the NT were produced by a church that didn't have
the 27 books of the NT. Thus, no single author whose document is
included in the 27 could've taught SS since the 27 didn't exist at
the time that any of them were written (except for whichever
document was chronologically 27th).
(2) The 27 books of the NT were produced by a church that clearly
didn't adhere to SS because she recognized other sources of
authority--namely the apostles themselves, the teachings of the
apostles passed on orally, and revelations given to those who
possessed certain types of charismata.
(3) Nowhere does any single document included in the 27 provide an
explicit list of which documents are meant to comprise the 27.
Thus for any single one of the documents included in the 27, we
cannot justify it's use in the faith and practice of the church by
means of SS. If we justify it's use by means of some authority
outside the 39-OT/27-NT, then we have already violated SS. But
again, if we stick solely to the 39-OT/27-NT, then we have no
clear authority for the use in faith and practice of any
particular document included in the 27.
(4) There at one time existed documents *beyond* the 27 which in
principle we would have every reason to accept as authoritative,
which even if such documents are not currently extant, it remains
the case in principle that there are more books than just the 27
that could serve as authoritative for the church's faith and
practice. (Take pre-1Corinthians as an example here: 1Cor 5:9)]
</pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Objection to PD #2:
PD seems to create more problems than it solves. How can we know that there are meanings
intended by God apart from the human author's intent? In the case of Isaiah, Matthew--<i>an
apostle</i>--told me that there was a prophetic level of meaning. What source could i use to
determine a prophetic level of meaning when it comes to the words of the apostles? How
could it possibly be tested whether a given statement by a NT author has a prophetic
level of meaning apart from that author's intent??
Objection to PD #3:
What compelling reason is there to think that PD is true *except when a person already
assumes Sola Scriptura*? In other words, what could motivate PD except a *prior*
adherence or wish to defend SS?
Now, i'm guessing here that the standard CoC line would be to turn to 1Cor 13:8ff or Eph
4:11ff and argue that "the perfect" or "until we all attain to the unity
of the faith" must refer to the completed NT. But i have a couple responses to this:
First, notice that my (4) above is still a major problem for this claim about a
'completed NT' because even according to the 27 there are more than 27, thus, we don't
currently possess the 'completed NT.' Or to put it another way, the 'completed NT' argument
used in the 1Cor 13 interpretation can only arbitrarily refer to the particular books we ended up
with, and <i>not</i> to all the books God actually inspired in the NT times. Even the theoretic
existence of #28 means that 27 is not a magic number, and thus 27 cannot be
taken as the 'completed NT' except in a pragmatic sense (i.e., "Well, 27 is all
we've got right now pending some archaeological discovery.").
Second, suppose the year was 110 A.D. and you and i were Christians. And we were members
of a congregation that had copies of both 1Corinthians and Ephesians. What reason would
we have to think that either of those passages referred to the 'completed NT'? Or more
importantly, what *exegetical* reason would either of us have to conclude that? To us in
our time, the NT doesn't exist as a unit in that sense. Some books circulate together,
but so far as we know, no one circulates the 27 together as some sort of 'exclusive'
unit. In fact, we know that some books *outside* the 27 are circulated (ex., 1Clement
and the Shepherd of Hermas). So, in fact, what reason would anyone *prior* to the
Reformation or, say, the Council at Carthage have for interpreting those passages that
way? (This is really just a finer restatement of the original objection: Why believe the
PD is true apart from a *prior* commitment to SS? :: Why believe 1Cor 13:10 refers to the
'completed NT' unless i have a *prior* conceptual awareness of and commitment to a
'completed NT' which = the 27?)</pre>guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-62595976486716701382012-06-26T08:47:00.001-05:002012-06-26T08:47:40.882-05:00Change and Development in the Church<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> The following is an email i wrote a while ago. i used to think that every New Testament church</pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">did everything exactly the same way as every other New Testament church. In fact, in a sense,</pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">i needed that to be true, because i took that unchanging and uniform view of the church and</pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">used it as a means to measure whether 21st century churches were engages in good or bad</pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">practices or beliefs. The trouble is, i realized (as i explain below) that the New Testament church</pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">just doesn't match up to that unchanging-and-uniform view: </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Something that has occurred to me is that i always assumed that the early church</pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">--the one written about in the New Testament--existed
in a sort of static, unchanged, everything fixed and all the details in place sort of
way. But i heard a guy on a radio program i listen to say "the church in Acts 2 is
not the same as the church in Acts 28," and i had never thought of it that way
before.
He's not saying that the church is different in identity or kind. What he means is that
throughout the life of the early church just in the pages of the New Testament, there is
constant change and development. Think about it:
In Acts 2, there were the apostles, and 3000 Jewish converts. And they had the apostles'
doctrine, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayer. And the converts had been
baptized.
Then in Acts 4 and 5, we read that money was pooled--given to the apostles and then
distributed charitably.
Then in Acts 6, we read that there is some group of widows and the office of deacons is
created.
Then in Acts 9, another apostle is appointed--Paul.
Then in Acts 10-11, the very first non-Jewish people join the church. Before this, the
church was only made up of Jewish people.
Then in Acts 14, Paul and Barnabas appoint the first elders for churches in 3 different
cities. We don't read about elders prior to this.
Then in Acts 15, the church holds a council in Jerusalem. There is a division in the
church--some people think it's wrong for Gentiles to be allowed to join the church unless
those Gentiles are willing to become Jewish proselytes first. The apostles and elders in
Jerusalem met together to consider what was the right thing to do about this (15:6).
Notice, they didn't sit around and wait for a particular revelation from God--they
actually discussed the matter and heard the evidence. Then at the end of the Council,
they decided that Gentiles didn't have to become Jews, but they needed to observe certain
rules for the sake of Jewish-conscientiousness in the cities where the apostles were
trying to convert people (15:19-21).
Then later on we read that there are certain formalized requirements for elders and
deacons (1Tim 3; Titus 1). And that Timothy and Titus are given authority to go to
Ephesus and Crete and appoint elders and deacons for all the churches in those places.
Then we later read that not only are there a group of widows, but that they are sort of
charged with service type jobs (1Tim 5:9-10).
We certainly read that the Jew/Gentile debate continues to be a problem, and Paul has to
write more and more bits of his letters about it--especially Galatians in which he says
that the Judaizers were teaching damnable false doctrines that could cost people their
souls (Gal 5:1ff)
But eventually there were people who taught that Jesus couldn't have been real flesh and
blood because flesh and blood is bad ("gnostics"). John clearly writes against
this idea in 1John, 2John, and his gospel--and he makes clear that this teaching could
cost people their souls (2John 9-11).
We also read that eventually there was a formalization of a special collection for a
special purpose (1Cor 16:1ff).
i could go on some more, but i'll stop here and make the point. i think i had always
just assumed that when i said something like "i wanna be like the New Testament
church"--that there was a sort of snapshot, static, unchanged way that the "New
Testament church" did things. But notice, that's not true. The church in Acts 2
didn't have all the offices and trappings right on the first day. We read that those
things developed over time, and many of them came about in response to particular
situations that arose. It's not like we have a completed blueprint for "how to
build the NT church" and we just look at the plans and build. The early church
didn't even have a blueprint for itself. It grew and developed and even made changed and
additions as it went along, as situations arose, as was necessary.
Notice how this is true especially in the case of the gnostics and the Judaizers. Would
we even have the book of Galatians if there hadn't been false teachers that came along?
Would we even have John's epistles if there hadn't been gnostics? Would we even be able
to read that Jesus Christ coming in the flesh is a non-negotiable line in the sand that
you're not allowed to cross--would we even have that written down for us if gnostics
hadn't come along and claimed that Christ was just a spirit? These teachings we
have--they came in response to problems and difficulties that arose as the church went
along. And the church--the apostles and elders and workers like Timothy, Titus,
Barnabas, and Silas--they wrote letters or created standards or even offices as was
needed and as situations arose.
There is clear development and change in the church over time even in the New Testament
itself. </pre>guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-23220412607881032922012-06-25T08:36:00.001-05:002012-06-25T08:36:08.505-05:00The Self-Referential Problem with Sola Scriptura<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The following is an excerpt from another email discussion i had with someone about</pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Scriptura. </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Now, in the last email i defined Sola Scriptura as:
"the belief that the 39 books of the OT and the 27 books of the NT are the exclusive
authority for the faith and practice of the church." So this is still what i intend
for you to understand when i use the term "SS."
So let me try and spell out the problem. SS is *itself* a part of the faith and practice
of the Church of Christ ["CoC"] (or any denomination that holds to SS for that matter). Therefore, if SS is
true, then the only way the CoC can have authority for including SS as part of its faith
and practice is if SS is taught by the 39-OT/27-NT. That is, if SS is true and a part of
the CoC's faith and practice, then SS must authorize itself (hence, 'self-referential').
But it doesn't! For at least the following reasons:
(1) The 27 books of the NT were produced by a church that didn't have
the 27 books of the NT. Thus, no single author whose document is
included in the 27 could've taught SS since the 27 didn't exist at
the time that any of them were written (except for whichever
document was chronologically 27th).
(2) The 27 books of the NT were produced by a church that clearly
didn't adhere to SS because she recognized other sources of
authority--namely the apostles themselves, the teachings of the
apostles passed on orally, and revelations given to those who
possessed certain types of charismata.
(3) Nowhere does any single document included in the 27 provide an
explicit list of which documents are meant to comprise the 27.
Thus for any single one of the documents included in the 27, we
cannot justify it's use in the faith and practice of the church by
means of SS. If we justify it's use by means of some authority
outside the 39-OT/27-NT, then we have already violated SS. But
again, if we stick solely to the 39-OT/27-NT, then we have no
clear authority for the use in faith and practice of any
particular document included in the 27.
(4) There at one time existed documents *beyond* the 27 which in
principle we would have every reason to accept as authoritative,
which even if such documents are not currently extant, it remains
the case in principle that there are more books than just the 27
that could serve as authoritative for the church's faith and
practice. (Take pre-1Corinthians as an example here: 1Cor 5:9)</pre>guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-38558421327375522062012-06-22T09:10:00.005-05:002012-06-22T09:10:45.949-05:00Sola Scriptura Again<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
This is another email i wrote. i was trying to explain to someone problems i was seeing with holding to Sola Scriptura and wanting to restore or imitate the early church:</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">(A) Each congregation of the apostolic church likely didn't possess or use 'The 27' for
probably some time after all 27 were written (in other words, even after John penned
Revelation and The 27 were in circulation, i take it as likely that each individual
congregation still didn't possess all of them for some years after that at least).
(B) The early church was not Sola Scriptura (they couldn't have been; The 27 weren't yet
completed).
(C) Even early churches that had a certain number (or even all if we're consider
post-first-century) of the 27 still didn't *function* as Sola Scriptura churches. In
other words, the books they did possess did not function as their sole authority for
faith and practice.
(D) We can't rely upon Sola Scriptura in order to determine whether Sola Scriptura is
true, appropriate, etc. (That's not to say there are no internal or inter-27 evidence,
but internal evidence alone may very well justify other alleged-revelation we would not
accept--proving that we can't be Sola-Scripturists when coming to Sola Scriptura.)
(E) Carthage did not rely upon The 27 themselves in order to determine the canonical
status of The 27. There were factors and criteria outside the 27 themselves that played
a role in determining canonical status.
(A) - (E) suggest to me two things:
(AE1) That if we aim to restore or imitate the early church's authority structure or the
way that scripture functioned in the early church's authority structure, then we won't
hold to Sola Scriptura.
(AE2) If we aim to restore or imitate the early church's authority structure or the way
that scripture functioned in the early church, then we ought to try to imitate/adopt the
features of the early church's authority scheme that served as the context in which
scripture functioned.
It's (AE2) that i'm not convinced we do in the CoC. i see that at least functionally,
we're Sola Scriptura. So it makes me wonder if major changes need to take place, if i
should attempt to make such changes, or if i should leave the CoC altogether in order to
pursue fellowship with some group that does comport with the project suggested by (AE2). </pre>guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-77701529525576952942012-06-21T08:47:00.001-05:002012-06-21T08:47:20.966-05:00What does "salvation" mean?<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
Last night during my Intro To Orthodoxy class, a meaningful illustration occurred to me about the difference in how i used to conceptualize "salvation" and an Orthodox understanding of it. </div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
i guess i never realized it in such simple terms, but now it dawns on me that in my upbringing, being "saved" really meant virtually nothing more than "heaven-bound upon death." 'Getting saved' or doing what's necessary to be 'saved' or asking whether someone is 'saved'--all that really just meant something like switching from hell-bound or heaven-bound. Thus, salvation becomes punctiliar--a point in time event sort of like buying your ticket to ride a train. </div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
Of course, some denominations teach that once you've got your ticket, there's no possibility of you getting off the train (apostasy); you will make it to the destination. The CoC teaches the possibility of apostasy (and in some churches, even the <i>probability </i>of apostasy!). So you do have to make an effort to stay on the train to make sure you eventually pull into heaven's station. Nevertheless, salvation is still punctiliar and categorical in nature--you either have your ticket on the train or not. </div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
And all the scriptural metaphors for salvation are applied to that kind of conceptualization. Getting your ticket punched is going from death to life, bondage to freedom, asleep to awake, etc.</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
The Orthodox conception of salvation is significantly difference from this punctiliar, categorical, "ticket-stamping" model. </div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
Last night the deacon teaching my Intro to Orthodoxy class mentioned that his father had been in a prisoner of war camp during WWII and often spoke of the day he was "liberated." This idea of liberation sparked a comparison for me.</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
Imagine the liberation of a Jewish labor camp in Germany during WWII. The allied soldiers entering the camp for the first time would've been shocked to see the condition of the individuals still alive in the camp. Are the prisoners they find there dead? Well, they're as good as dead. The prisoners certainly can't liberate themselves. They are like walking dead men. They are skin and bones. They are disease-ridden. They're covered in their own filth. They're bodies are so badly damaged that they can hardly engage in normal activities or even eat. They are so physically damaged that they have even lost much of their mental wherewithal. </div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
What would it mean to 'liberate' these prisoners? If the soldiers had a punctiliar, categorical understanding of liberation, the soldiers would remove the axis prison officers, unlock all the doors and fences, and then claim that the job is done. But what would happen? Most of the prisoners would still die. Many of the prisoners don't even have the strength to walk themselves off the grounds of the camp. Despite the absence of their axis captors, the prisoners would nevertheless be walking dead-men--as good as dead. </div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
What then would it mean for these prisoners to be brought back to life? To be liberated from what they've been subjected to by axis powers? Liberation or 'salvation' of these prisoners would not be punctiliar or categorical, but a process. Over a period of time, the prisoners would need to receive medical treatment, given clothing, steadily and incrementally being physically trained how to handle healthy amounts of food consumption again, cleaned up several times, trucked out to stations where they can be reconnected to people they'd been separated from, taken back to their homes, etc. etc. </div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
It would actually be difficult to identify the precise point-in-time these prisoners were 'brought back to life' or 'liberated' because their resuscitation would be processional or dynamic in the nature of the case. A number of events and treatments over a period of time would transition them from an existence qualitatively like death to an existence qualitatively like life. </div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
Orthodoxy sees salvation by Christ the same way. Salvation is not like getting your heaven-bound-train-ticket punched. In fact, for all we know, there are ticket-holders who aren't even in the Church. That's not the heart of the issue. The issue is transitioning people whose existence is qualitatively like death to an existence that is qualitatively like life. And that transition is a process. And it's mechanism is participation in the sacraments and community of the Orthodox Church. </div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
When i go to church or to confession or take Eucharist or pray--i don't do these things as efforts to make sure i don't lose my train ticket (the idea i was brought up with), and i don't do these things to prove that i have an irrevocably stamped ticket (similar to the teaching of impossibility-of-apostasy denominations). Rather, those activities don't really relate to the train metaphor at all. Rather they are like the treatments received by the labor camp prisoners. They are the means by which God in Christ removes the damages and traces of a death-like-existence from me.</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">That is a very different, and frankly, </span><i style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">liberating </i><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">way of understanding what it means to be "saved." </span>guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-85196453778825915882012-06-20T12:12:00.003-05:002012-06-20T12:12:54.359-05:00Letting Go Of Sola Scriptura<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
Here's another email snippet i wrote from several months ago:</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<pre style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">i guess i'm finding
that the Bible just isn't the sort of document that i've always been brought up to treat
it to be. i think i was taught that it's a reasonable expectation for it to function
like a how-to manual, and everything i'll ever need to know is in there. The Bible can
be treated a perspicuous, sufficient, and self-contained.
But i get no indication from the Bible itself that the text presents itself in this way.
(1) There is clear reference in the NT to other information had by the NT-recipients that
we just don't have. Hebrews 5:11-6:2 suggests that the readers of Hebrews had an entire
sort of "catechism" course that they had to complete and should've completed by
that time. Further, Acts refers to instances of sermons or teachings the content of
which we have no record and thus no knowledge of. Or the frequent mention by Paul of
"traditions" he had taught to his readers (ex., 1Cor 11:2; 2Thess 2:15). We
can claim "oh, well, surely we have the same content *elsewhere* in the NT,"
but there's absolutely no way to prove that or frankly to even think demonstrate that the
claim is likely. And in the case of the Hebrews passage, when compared to the rest of
the NT, we don't have any documents that come across as a "how to" or a
"101" on any of the subjects listed there.
(2) i take it that the NT epistles themselves simply weren't designed to contain the same
content as the oral teachings of the apostles. The epistles we have, so far as i can
tell, were all *follow-up* correspondences. That is, they were written works that
followed face-to-face meetings between the author and the readers--face-to-face
encounters that clearly included significant sharing of information between the parties.
And the epistles are written in a way that assumes the readers have knowledge of the
events and information shared during those face-to-face meetings. In other words, those
documents are clearly *not* written to *recount* the same information that was shared in
person. Yet, many of those documents even explicitly refer to information shared during
those encounters as important or what is being built upon.
(3) i take it from the NT documents themselves that we simply do not possess all of the
apostolic documents from that era. i think it's fairly clear from reading the Corinthian
letters that there was at least one more letter than we have, and some scholars actually
believe there are actually two letters between Paul and the Corinthians that we don't
have. Paul also refers in Colossians to an epistle to the Laodiceans. Some scholars
believe is just is Ephesians. Maybe it is, but it's at least still possible that it's a
different document altogether. We have no access to these written works and thus no
knowledge of their content. Yet the readers of those documents did.
(4) The text even refers to a process of oral transmission of teaching (2Tim 2:2). If
the Bible is meant by God to function as a sufficient record for us, why not tell Timothy
to just write people another inspired document? The fact that the letter of 2Timothy
exists in concert with this practice of oral transmission suggests to me that the text
(of at least 2Tim) wasn't meant to function apart from that ongoing process.
(5) What about the origin of the NT? Why do i accept *these* 27 books as opposed to more
or less? i don't really personally have an answer other than that i'm depending upon the
Council at Carthage (397) to have gotten it right. If that dependency relation is true,
how then can i justify not having a similar dependency relation with respect to other
Councils?</pre>guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-13104281035686540102012-06-19T08:18:00.000-05:002012-06-19T08:18:15.235-05:00Restorationism vs. Cessationism<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
i've decided to post some edited versions of email conversations i've been having with people leading to my decision to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. i've edited these in order to leave out the names of everyone else involved other than me. Here's one i wrote trying to formulate a deep tension i detected in my own theology as a CoC-er:</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<pre style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">What is the major tension/criticism? Right now, i'm going to express it as a tension, but
i think the 'criticism' part actually goes well beyond merely expressing a tension. So
to oversimplify, so far as i can tell right now, the tension is this:</pre>
<pre style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"> </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">A consistent adherence to a Restorationist project is in tension with adherence to Sola Scriptura.
THE RESTORATIONIST PROJECT: i admit that there's debate now (and i believe has always
been) about in precisely what sense the Restoration Movement ought to be
"restorative." Or put another way, what is it that we ought to be restoring?
Some see it as merely an aim to restore the unity of the early church. So far as i can
tell, this is a reductionist project: Let's get rid of all distinctively denominational
practices and beliefs, and try to just unify around a very minimal but core set of ideas.
The other side of the debate would say that the restorationist project is to attempt to
imitate and reproduce all the distinctive practices and beliefs of the early church.
There is a lot that could be said, but at this point i'm just taking for granted the
latter position. So what 'restorationist project' means as far as i'm concerned is that
in order to for me to be what the early church was or to have what they had, i need as
much as is possible to imitate and reproduce what they practiced and believed.
SOLA SCRIPTURA: It's also not hard to find out that there is also debate about precisely
what SS means--just glancing at the introduction to the Wikipedia article demonstrates
that (<a class="m1" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura</a>). Keith Mathison came out with a book
fairly recently (see here: <a class="m1" href="http://www.amazon.com/Shape-Sola-Scriptura-Keith-Mathison/dp/1885767749/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1325876450&sr=8-6" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/Shape-Sola-Scriptura-Keith-Mathison/dp/18
85767749/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1325876450&sr=8-6</a>) in which he argues that traditional
Protestantism holds to Sola Scriptura which leaves some room for tradition so long as it
is subordinate to Scripture whereas Evangelicals believe in what Mathison coins
"Solo Scriptura" in which all tradition is repudiated (to put it tritely, it's
a more "just me, God, and my Bible" version of the doctrine). i would argue
that we (The CoC) likely fall into the latter camp.
But to cut to the chase, let me try to state the meaning i'm assuming: Sola Scriptura is
the belief that the 39 books of the OT and the 27 books of the NT are the exclusive
authority for the faith and practice of the church. Now, i think further assumptions are
always made by default to those who would agree with my statement of SS even if those
assumptions are not strictly entailed by it, but i'll leave those alone for now and try
hard just to stick to this simple definition.
THE TENSION: The early church (that is, at least the church of the first century) could
not possibly have held SS. The 27 books of the NT did not all exist until the end of the
first century. They did not exist as an 'official' canon and unit until the 4th century.
They couldn't have even functioned as a practical unit for all the church for at least a
few decades after the first century if not more. And the early church clearly had and
recognized other sources of authority.
Notice then, if i take SS to be true, it is not <i>because of</i> my commitment to a
Restorationist project. Well, then why should i hold to SS? The typical CoC move here
(and probably the move of some other denominations too) is to say: Cessationism! And
what do we mean by cessationism? Strictly speaking, the term only refers to the belief
that the charismata (miraculous gifts of the 1st century) ceased, but i think our version is </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">more robust than that. We don't just take cessationism to mean that the gifts ceased, </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">but that God had always intended a transition from the gifts to the completion and </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">canonization of a written code--that the way that authority functioned in the early church </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">was infantile, temporary, undeveloped, a necessary but inferior structure, and this was </pre>
<pre style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">how God meant for it to be.
Enter the tension:
Side #1 of the tension: If we want to adhere consistently to our restorationist project,
then we won't hold to SS. Even if we can't restore the charismata, there are still other
features of the authority scheme of the early church (the oral teachings and traditions
of the apostles not contained in the 27 books of the NT). Doesn't our commitment to a
restorationist project commit us to restoring those features in addition to the
Scriptures? i don't see why not.
Side #2 of the tension: If we want to adhere consistently to our cessationism (and our
related commitment to SS), then we won't hold to a restorationist project. Why? Because
if what we say of cessationism is true, then it's <i>not</i> the early church we're trying to
restore, but it's God's intention/design for the <i>post</i>-apostolic church we're trying to
produce. Doesn't our commitment to cessationism (and SS) commit us to conceding major
(as in non-arbitrary and non-trivial) and unavoidable differences between ourselves and
the early church? Why then try to restore other of the early church's features? Or put
another way, why think we need to have beliefs/practices similar to that of the early
church <i>because of</i> a commitment to a restorationist project? --especially when these
beliefs/practices <i>already</i> seem to result <i>merely</i> from our commitment to
cessationism/SS! This additional reason is superfluous. (It's not our commitment to a
restorationist project that gets us weekly Lord's Supper and no-instruments; our brand of
cessationism and SS by themselves would still give us those conclusions!)
THE WAY I SEE IT: i've never really seen or heard anyone in the COC acknowledge this as a
tension. But i do see that we clearly lean toward Side #2 of the tension--that is, it
seems to me we're far more interested in consistently adhering to cessationism and SS.
If we do lean toward Side #2, then frankly, shouldn't we expect to have really darn good
reasons to believe cessationism or SS? </pre>guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-91437641715996813642012-06-18T08:34:00.000-05:002012-06-18T08:34:03.048-05:00A Big ChangeWell, i haven't posted on this thing in forever, and i don't even know if anyone reads it or visits anymore really. But i'm thinking of starting up some posts again. Why? Well, i've decided to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. i've now been attending an Antiochan Orthodox parish for about 6 months now. i'm thinking about using this blog space to work out in writing things i'm studying as they come up--mainly for the purposes of rehearsal and memory. i'm not nearly as concerned as i used to be about who or if anyone is reading this thing. i just know it'd probably help me to think out loud about some of what i'm reading and studying right now. If anyone is reading and is curious about Eastern Orthodoxy, i highly recommend ancient faith radio's website: ancientfaith.com<br />
<br />
<br />guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-90528819237468522912011-08-29T10:40:00.000-05:002011-08-29T10:40:28.140-05:00Why I Don't Sing The National Anthem<a href="http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/26/my-faith-why-i-dont-sing-the-star-spangled-banner/">Here's a good, brief piece on the matter about the controversy at Goshen college.</a>guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-3851883195571795462011-06-15T10:00:00.000-05:002011-06-15T10:00:15.960-05:00Presence of Mind<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTMuVi4JhSdzCvDDE48Ts-1cXRSmDiXjf9dtMn8ubW4wIToO9alJGPbmgWrAJI1B1NIfcOQLMbzqN2VXXf8eMaEzBxJipjyD6Axy8DBjn4uFZPG542hRVy7Nfl5LVypsnYJHI0Td347qah/s1600/mr-men-mr-worry.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTMuVi4JhSdzCvDDE48Ts-1cXRSmDiXjf9dtMn8ubW4wIToO9alJGPbmgWrAJI1B1NIfcOQLMbzqN2VXXf8eMaEzBxJipjyD6Axy8DBjn4uFZPG542hRVy7Nfl5LVypsnYJHI0Td347qah/s200/mr-men-mr-worry.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b><span class="woj" style="color: red;">But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.</span><span style="color: red;"> </span><span class="woj"><span style="color: red;">Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.</span> (Matt 6:33-34)</span></b></div><div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span class="woj"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span class="woj">i spend an awful lot of time anywhere but here and anywhere but now. i rehash past events in my life a lot. Old arguments and stresses and things that i wish had gone differently. It seems no matter what i'm doing, my mind is focused on what i'm not doing. My mind drifts into the future a lot as well, experiencing the angst of troubles that i've managed to imagine as possibilities. Even at this moment, my mind is cycling from a phone call i need to make, to a paper i'm not finished writing, to an appointment i forgot about early this morning, etc. i bring a lot of mental weight and burden on myself because of these heart-habits. </span></div><div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span class="woj"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span class="woj">Worry sucks. It's like being in a cage. There's so many things i could do right now. There's so much now i could soak in. There's so much i don't enjoy on account of not really being there. There's so much powerlessness i experience because i spend so much time focusing on things outside my control. There's so much freedom i fail to experience because i don't focus the entirety of my mental faculties on what i can do. i feel like i can't initiate things. My creativity is stifled. Anytime i let the present moment in, it feels like added pressure, so i quickly run away. i'm in a cage. Each bar has a name. Whatever mental item i'm not letting go of.</span></div><div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span class="woj"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span class="woj">i built the cage. It's my own doing. And it all amounts to doubt and fear. It all amounts to my lack of trust. Maybe it's about lying or hypocrisy in a way, because i'm not behaving as though i really believe the things i claim to believe. What do i believe?</span></div><div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span class="woj"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span class="woj">God is sovereign. My past and my future are in the hands of God. God is God over my past. i am not. God is God over my tomorrow. i am not. i will either decide to trust Him to do His job or i won't. Isn't it interesting that of all the topics Jesus could've covered in the Sermon on the Mount, so much space was devoted to worry? How did Jesus address worry? How did He address those with no peace about the present? Most of His commentary has to do with the power and providence of God. God does a perfectly fine job making sure the 'smaller' things of the world work as they should. "Are you not much more valuable than they?" </span></div><div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span class="woj"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span class="woj">It's a rhetorical question, i think. It's supposed to be obvious that i'm much more valuable than birds and flowers. But it's a harder question than it looks. The problem is i don't think i'm terribly valuable. My power and my significance seem quite limited. So all the things that i have to deal with in life seem much bigger than me. At least far bigger than i feel i can <i>peaceably </i>manage.</span></div><div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span class="woj"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span class="woj">But it doesn't matter. Tomorrow is not mine to control. My past is not mine to dwell in or dream about changing. God is the God of my past and my tomorrow. What does God give to me? Only today. Only this moment. Only right here, right now. When i spend all my time in doubt and fear about my past and future, i squander and waste what God <i>has</i> given me. God aims to take care of me. God means to bless me. God means to manage me and my life in a way that demonstrates that i am far more valuable to Him than lesser creatures who know no worry. And yet i sabotage my relationship with Him by my mistrust.</span></div><div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span class="woj"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span class="woj">i wrong Him when i worry. i harm myself. i rob those around me whom i love and who need me. </span></div><div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span class="woj"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span class="woj"><i>Holy Father, convict me of this doubt and mistrust. i want right now to kneel before You and to cast my past and my future at the foot of Your throne. They are Yours to command, not mine. Teach me gratitude. Help me see the beauty and richness of the present moment. Help me to accept and embrace where i am and when i am. Teach me to trust in Your goodness, Your mercy toward my past, and Your unfathomable power to control and direct my future. i have cheated You out of the trust and gratitude You deserve from me by my incessant worry. i'm sorry, Father. It's not right. You deserve better than that from me. Please have mercy on my foolishness. You are sovereign over all things. To You be all praise and adoration forever. Amen.</i></span></div>guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-16448564483842411462010-09-30T06:00:00.000-05:002010-09-30T06:00:03.267-05:00The Unfortune School-Is-Taking-Over-My-Life Hiatus<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yesterday's post marks the end of my pre-written blog posts, and i haven't had time to write more in weeks. Frustrating because i sure am studying a lot of stuff in school i care very little about, while there's plenty of topics for blog posts about which i am very interested (the list of posts in my "draft" box is very long). Not sure when i'll be back. Peace out!</span>guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676228612840808018.post-59576010069738278382010-09-29T06:00:00.000-05:002010-09-29T06:00:05.207-05:00Shape Notes Going Out Of Vogue?<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><a href="http://blog.al.com/living-news/2010/09/shape-note_singing_enthusiasts.html">Click here to read the article</a></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">i still to this day am very dependent on shape notes to know whether or not i'm hitting the pitches i mean to be hitting. Anyone else grow up learning to sing based on shape notes?</span>guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05548883062420560488noreply@blogger.com2