« 2007 June | Main | 2007 April »
Thursday, May 31, 2007
A Great Day for the Church
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Religion Quiz
Prophetic
Speaking of Moore
The Dumbing Down of America
Good Advice
We spent the weekend at St. Nicholas Ranch for the Spring Family Camp offered by our Metropolis. As this was Pentecost weekend, the theme was raising "spirit-filled children". One of the parents, when it came time for discussion on what we can do to transmit the faith to our kids, and ensure that they remain in a relationship with Christ and his Church, quoted Gerontissa (Abbess) Markella of the Monastery of the Life Giving Spring (pictured), who said, "Talk more to God about your children, than you do to your children about God." What a good reminder about who is really in charge. We can certainly damage or help our children's relationship with God, but God is the one ultimately in charge. In all aspects of life, we are better off praying first and acting later.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Lenses
I'm trying to figure out where he's going with all of this. Perhaps I'm being too critical, and I don't know much about Dr. Jenkins views of things, but he seems to look at the spread of the Kingdom in extremely secular terms. In order to spread your version of Christianity, have lots of babies and keep the Gospel relevant to the culture in which you are working. If he's not saying the latter, in particular, then what is his point? I think that Scripture - all of it - resonates with us today as much as it does with poor, agrarian Africans. The degree to which it doesn't resonate reflects more on our spiritual hard heartedness than it does on flaws in Scripture. That is, after all, what he is implying. That Scripture doesn't hold much meaning for us in the North.
Okay, to be really honest, he's mostly referring to the Old Testament, not the New. However, this doesn't necessarily change much. It seems that the only hope for Christianity in Europe and the U.S. is for us to revert to a bygone agrarian era. Otherwise, Scripture won't mean much to us and we'll leave it behind.
On the other hand, maybe Dr. Jenkins is mistaken about Orthodoxy. Maybe the very hope for the spread of the Gospel in the North is that the Orthodox Church provides for an interpretation of Scripture that makes it relevant for people of all times and places. Surely the Church has spread in both the poor parts of Africa to the greatest empires the world has known. However, the Orthodox Church doesn't look at the Old Testament through the lens of our daily experience, but through the lens of the Gospel itself. We see the fallen nature of man spoken of again and again. We see the theme of God's love and plan of redemption again and again. Finally, we see hint and shadow all throughout, of the coming of the Messiah, his death, and his glorious resurrection. That method is relevant regardless of whether we're wealthy and living in California, or poor and living in Nigeria.
I'm not saying that people from agrarian societies can't grasp certain elements of Scripture better because of their background. I just doubt that this is crucial to the spread of the Gospel.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
The Challenges of the Continuing Church
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
House Update
A Great Day for the Church
On the feast of the Ascension, the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) was reunited with the Russian Orthodox
Church (often referred to as the Moscow Patriarchate or MP). The creation of a
separate body was necessary in the early days of the Bolshevik regime, as the
Bolsheviks were busily selling U.S. property in the interest of generating much
needed cash.
At any rate, by the time of the fall of Communism the two bodies had grown apart. The Patriarch and many bishops were either accused of or actually guilty of (I'm not in any position to assign guilt to anyone) collusion with the Communists. This and other issues of human weakness seemed to make it unlikely that the two groups would ever reunite, even though there were no doctrinal issues separating them.
However, God is everywhere present, and He would not permit this to remain. For what may be the first time in history, two separated Churches overcame their political differences and reunited as they should(unlike other reunifications I've witnessed, where theological differences exist, yet are ignored. This is not true unity). Fr. John Whiteford has a series of postings at his blog on the trip to Moscow for the reunification. There are also other entries covering the history of the Church, and a sad, yet reassuring video on the destruction of Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow by Stalin. Sad, because you watch the Church being demolished. Reassuring, because Stalin and Communism failed, and the Cathedral has been rebuilt. Glory to God.
At any rate, by the time of the fall of Communism the two bodies had grown apart. The Patriarch and many bishops were either accused of or actually guilty of (I'm not in any position to assign guilt to anyone) collusion with the Communists. This and other issues of human weakness seemed to make it unlikely that the two groups would ever reunite, even though there were no doctrinal issues separating them.
However, God is everywhere present, and He would not permit this to remain. For what may be the first time in history, two separated Churches overcame their political differences and reunited as they should(unlike other reunifications I've witnessed, where theological differences exist, yet are ignored. This is not true unity). Fr. John Whiteford has a series of postings at his blog on the trip to Moscow for the reunification. There are also other entries covering the history of the Church, and a sad, yet reassuring video on the destruction of Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow by Stalin. Sad, because you watch the Church being demolished. Reassuring, because Stalin and Communism failed, and the Cathedral has been rebuilt. Glory to God.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Religion Quiz
Try this quiz (answers are at the link). I scored
a 92, which is an A. Couldn't get the Buddhism answer. The scarier part is how
many of this guy's students, regardless of their religious affiliation, perform
on this quiz.
What Is Your Religious Literacy?
1. Name the four Gospels. List as many as you can.
2. Name a sacred text of Hinduism.
3. What is the name of the holy book of Islam?
4. Where according to the Bible was Jesus born?
5. President George W. Bush spoke in his first inaugural address of the Jericho road. What Bible story was he invoking?
6. What are the first five books of the Hebrew Bible or the Christian Old Testament?
7. What is the Golden Rule?
8. “God helps those who help themselves”: Is this in the Bible? If so, where?
9. “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God”: Does this appear in the Bible? If so, where?
10. Name the Ten Commandments. List as many as you can.
11. Name the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism.
12. What are the seven sacraments of Catholicism? List as many as you can.
13. The First Amendment says two things about religion, each in its own clause. What are the two religion clauses of the First Amendment?
14. What is Ramadan? In what religion is it celebrated?
15. Match the Bible characters with the stories in which they appear. Draw a line from one to the other. Hint: Some characters may be matched with more than one story or vice versa.
Adam of Eve Exodus
Paul Binding of Isaac
Moses Olive Branch
Noah Garden of Eden
Jesus Parting of the Red Sea
Abraham Road to Damascus
Serpent Garden of Gethsemane
What Is Your Religious Literacy?
1. Name the four Gospels. List as many as you can.
2. Name a sacred text of Hinduism.
3. What is the name of the holy book of Islam?
4. Where according to the Bible was Jesus born?
5. President George W. Bush spoke in his first inaugural address of the Jericho road. What Bible story was he invoking?
6. What are the first five books of the Hebrew Bible or the Christian Old Testament?
7. What is the Golden Rule?
8. “God helps those who help themselves”: Is this in the Bible? If so, where?
9. “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God”: Does this appear in the Bible? If so, where?
10. Name the Ten Commandments. List as many as you can.
11. Name the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism.
12. What are the seven sacraments of Catholicism? List as many as you can.
13. The First Amendment says two things about religion, each in its own clause. What are the two religion clauses of the First Amendment?
14. What is Ramadan? In what religion is it celebrated?
15. Match the Bible characters with the stories in which they appear. Draw a line from one to the other. Hint: Some characters may be matched with more than one story or vice versa.
Adam of Eve Exodus
Paul Binding of Isaac
Moses Olive Branch
Noah Garden of Eden
Jesus Parting of the Red Sea
Abraham Road to Damascus
Serpent Garden of Gethsemane
Prophetic
Once again, F.A. Hayek has been shown to be a 20th century
prophet. His argument that Socialism must lead to totalitarianism has been
shown to be true time and again. The latest instance involved Hugo Chavez.
First he returned oil to state control, then he received broad powers from Venezuelan Assembly, which made him
virtual emperor, and now he is shutting down opposition TV stations . Next, you can expect the
disappearance of opposition leaders, followed by the suppression of
religion.
What a great place to live that will be. I can't wait for Danny Glover and Michael Moore to move in down there. Of course, they'll be connected, so as is the case in all totalitarian regimes, they will have nothing to worry about. At least until they say something wrong.
My favorite quote from Moore:
On a recent appearance that I made on MSNBC's Hardball which was being guest hosted by Norah O' Donnell, she introduced me as someone who has been photographed with "dictator" Hugo Chavez. After the introduction and in a very short subsequent break, I looked at her and said: "You know President Chavez is not a dictator. He has been democratically elected to his office 8 times."
To which she replied: "We had a big discussion about that and we decided that he ruled like a dictator." That statement really shocked, yet irritated me, because I can't believe that MSNBC and Norah O'Donnell would perpetuate the myth that President Chavez is a dictator and mislead and misinform their viewers, because contrary to facts, they "decided that he ruled like a dictator."
No, he doesn't rule at all like a dictator.
What a great place to live that will be. I can't wait for Danny Glover and Michael Moore to move in down there. Of course, they'll be connected, so as is the case in all totalitarian regimes, they will have nothing to worry about. At least until they say something wrong.
My favorite quote from Moore:
On a recent appearance that I made on MSNBC's Hardball which was being guest hosted by Norah O' Donnell, she introduced me as someone who has been photographed with "dictator" Hugo Chavez. After the introduction and in a very short subsequent break, I looked at her and said: "You know President Chavez is not a dictator. He has been democratically elected to his office 8 times."
To which she replied: "We had a big discussion about that and we decided that he ruled like a dictator." That statement really shocked, yet irritated me, because I can't believe that MSNBC and Norah O'Donnell would perpetuate the myth that President Chavez is a dictator and mislead and misinform their viewers, because contrary to facts, they "decided that he ruled like a dictator."
No, he doesn't rule at all like a dictator.
Speaking of Moore
I recently read this article about Moore's previous work of
fiction, Bowling for Columbine. I'm thinking the writer for the National Review
has it right. Moore is really having fun at the expense of the liberal elite of
the world.
The Dumbing Down of America
We all know that too many video games can be bad
for kids. We worry about grades when not enough time is spent on studies
(ignoring for the purposes of this post the negative impact on health as well).
We even worry a bit about iPods - will the sound level be too high, will porn
appear on the video iPods, will...?
So Apple added parental controls to the iPods, including a volume maximum setting. It turns out, though, that they didn't allow for the transmission of garbage in the guise of University Education. The flaws and shortcomings in this whole subject area are well known . Here is a brief piece by N.T. Wright, Anglican Bishop of Durham. Now I need to warn my children to not download any material from Stanford. Maybe Apple will add that to the next rev. of iTunes software.
So Apple added parental controls to the iPods, including a volume maximum setting. It turns out, though, that they didn't allow for the transmission of garbage in the guise of University Education. The flaws and shortcomings in this whole subject area are well known . Here is a brief piece by N.T. Wright, Anglican Bishop of Durham. Now I need to warn my children to not download any material from Stanford. Maybe Apple will add that to the next rev. of iTunes software.
Good Advice
We spent the weekend at St. Nicholas Ranch for the Spring Family Camp offered by our Metropolis. As this was Pentecost weekend, the theme was raising "spirit-filled children". One of the parents, when it came time for discussion on what we can do to transmit the faith to our kids, and ensure that they remain in a relationship with Christ and his Church, quoted Gerontissa (Abbess) Markella of the Monastery of the Life Giving Spring (pictured), who said, "Talk more to God about your children, than you do to your children about God." What a good reminder about who is really in charge. We can certainly damage or help our children's relationship with God, but God is the one ultimately in charge. In all aspects of life, we are better off praying first and acting later.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Lenses
At a recent Pew Forum conference, Philip Jenkins
spoke about the growing increase in influence
of Christianity in the Southern Hemisphere on Christianity in the North. There
is much to digest in his comments, but a friend pointed out one particular
portion about birthrates and the Orthodox Church. Jenkins surmises that the day
will come when Anglicanism will be bigger than Orthodoxy, due to the fact that
birthrates in historically Orthodox countries are extremely
low.
Any Orthodox Christian will explain their view that the Orthodox Church is the Church that Christ founded. As such, there is the necessary corollary that said Church cannot fail. Membership may decline, people will fall away, but it will not fail. Dr. Jenkins appears to think that it will. This is fine, as he isn't Orthodox, so he's not contradicting himself in holding that view. What I do find interesting is that he doesn't seem to be asserting that Orthodoxy will fail because the message they are delivering is wrong, but rather because they aren't having enough babies. It seems, then, that the key to the spread of Orthodoxy would be to have evangelists and missionaries sneak into Orthodox houses, and destroy birth control.
At the same time, Dr. Jenkins explains the spread of Christianity in Africa because the Old Testament is more relevant to their experiences. We'll ignore the implication that Orthodoxy doesn't teach Scripture for a moment as a lack of understanding on his part. What's more troubling is the assertion that Christianity is growing in Africa because the message is more relevant to them.
Any Orthodox Christian will explain their view that the Orthodox Church is the Church that Christ founded. As such, there is the necessary corollary that said Church cannot fail. Membership may decline, people will fall away, but it will not fail. Dr. Jenkins appears to think that it will. This is fine, as he isn't Orthodox, so he's not contradicting himself in holding that view. What I do find interesting is that he doesn't seem to be asserting that Orthodoxy will fail because the message they are delivering is wrong, but rather because they aren't having enough babies. It seems, then, that the key to the spread of Orthodoxy would be to have evangelists and missionaries sneak into Orthodox houses, and destroy birth control.
At the same time, Dr. Jenkins explains the spread of Christianity in Africa because the Old Testament is more relevant to their experiences. We'll ignore the implication that Orthodoxy doesn't teach Scripture for a moment as a lack of understanding on his part. What's more troubling is the assertion that Christianity is growing in Africa because the message is more relevant to them.
"But there's a more basic thing: if
you're in a new church in Africa or Asia, the Bible speaks to you as a more
immediately relevant, more direct text, than it does for many Global North
people for whom the Bible is basically part of the wallpaper. "
I'm trying to figure out where he's going with all of this. Perhaps I'm being too critical, and I don't know much about Dr. Jenkins views of things, but he seems to look at the spread of the Kingdom in extremely secular terms. In order to spread your version of Christianity, have lots of babies and keep the Gospel relevant to the culture in which you are working. If he's not saying the latter, in particular, then what is his point? I think that Scripture - all of it - resonates with us today as much as it does with poor, agrarian Africans. The degree to which it doesn't resonate reflects more on our spiritual hard heartedness than it does on flaws in Scripture. That is, after all, what he is implying. That Scripture doesn't hold much meaning for us in the North.
Okay, to be really honest, he's mostly referring to the Old Testament, not the New. However, this doesn't necessarily change much. It seems that the only hope for Christianity in Europe and the U.S. is for us to revert to a bygone agrarian era. Otherwise, Scripture won't mean much to us and we'll leave it behind.
On the other hand, maybe Dr. Jenkins is mistaken about Orthodoxy. Maybe the very hope for the spread of the Gospel in the North is that the Orthodox Church provides for an interpretation of Scripture that makes it relevant for people of all times and places. Surely the Church has spread in both the poor parts of Africa to the greatest empires the world has known. However, the Orthodox Church doesn't look at the Old Testament through the lens of our daily experience, but through the lens of the Gospel itself. We see the fallen nature of man spoken of again and again. We see the theme of God's love and plan of redemption again and again. Finally, we see hint and shadow all throughout, of the coming of the Messiah, his death, and his glorious resurrection. That method is relevant regardless of whether we're wealthy and living in California, or poor and living in Nigeria.
I'm not saying that people from agrarian societies can't grasp certain elements of Scripture better because of their background. I just doubt that this is crucial to the spread of the Gospel.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
The Challenges of the Continuing Church
Anglicanism in the United States has been
physically divided for quite a long time. As early as 1873, when the Reformed
Episcopal Church was formed, the Church of England was subject to splits and
divides. Things picked up steam in 1976 with the St. Louis Conference, and many
more breakaway groups were formed. Somewhere along the way they became known as
the "Continuing Churches", because each group declared that they were continuing
the traditions of Anglicanism. The continuing churches have suffered from a
couple of problems. The most obvious is a general lack of growth. The REC,
which now over 130 years old, sports 13,000 members worldwide. The more
significant problem, though, is that the continuing churches have undergone
subsequent splintering from the original founding
groups.
Stephen Cooper has written an analysis for David Virtue's site, which I think has much to commend it. In the article, he identifies one significant cause underlying the fractious nature of the "continuum" is simply power politics. No rational person can disagree with that - for similar problems can be observed in basically every religious body imaginable. The jurisdictional problem of the Orthodox Church in the U.S., although not rooted in power politics, now finds resolution challenging precisely because of power politics.
He subsequently, however, develops a thesis that the main cause, the root, if you will, of the problems of the continuum is that it has failed to maintain the "continuation" of classical Anglicanism. His proposal is that if only the Continuum would abandon both low church Evangelicalism, and Anglo-Catholicism, it would succeed and be a united group. I think it is useful to unpack his position a bit. There are really two questions at issue here. The first is, "Is the divergence of theological positions within the Continuum sufficient to prevent unity". The second, perhaps even more important question is, "Will adherence to 'classical Anglicanism' provide the unity and growth so desired?" The author, being part of the continuing Anglican groups, assumes the second as a premise. He believes that classical Anglicanism is Scriptural, and is therefore reflective of the way the Church was being ordered by the Apostles.
I can easily agree with him that holding to a uniform theological structure would give a unity to the continuum that it clearly does not have now. This is the case, as well, within the actual Episcopal Church. I have blogged on this before. However, where I might diverge from Mr. Cooper is that I think the lack of uniformity is symptomatic, not causal. That is, Anglicanism, itself, tends toward a lack of uniformity. The 39 articles, although fairly Calvinist, are still intentionally vague. As Cardinal Newman pointed out , since the original articles establish the book of homilies as the acceptable source of interpretation of Scripture, we can use them to reinterpret the articles themselves (especially where the homilies appear to conflict with the articles). Basically we are left with Scripture, and a tradition of one generation, the homilies of the 16th century. This narrow tradition allows some to lean more heavily toward an evangelical, non-sacramental worldview, without contradicting Scripture nor much of the homilies, while allowing another group to become nearly Roman while still operating within the same framework. By jettisoning the first 1000 years of Church tradition, a necessary rudder is lost and the lack of uniformity follows.
As I've pointed out before , the Episcopal Church tolerates a huge range of theological positions - often contradictory - even within the narrow range of those who consider themselves "orthodox". The continuum is the same, it just doesn't allow the far left into the picture. Will that last forever? Honestly, I doubt it.
Stephen Cooper has written an analysis for David Virtue's site, which I think has much to commend it. In the article, he identifies one significant cause underlying the fractious nature of the "continuum" is simply power politics. No rational person can disagree with that - for similar problems can be observed in basically every religious body imaginable. The jurisdictional problem of the Orthodox Church in the U.S., although not rooted in power politics, now finds resolution challenging precisely because of power politics.
He subsequently, however, develops a thesis that the main cause, the root, if you will, of the problems of the continuum is that it has failed to maintain the "continuation" of classical Anglicanism. His proposal is that if only the Continuum would abandon both low church Evangelicalism, and Anglo-Catholicism, it would succeed and be a united group. I think it is useful to unpack his position a bit. There are really two questions at issue here. The first is, "Is the divergence of theological positions within the Continuum sufficient to prevent unity". The second, perhaps even more important question is, "Will adherence to 'classical Anglicanism' provide the unity and growth so desired?" The author, being part of the continuing Anglican groups, assumes the second as a premise. He believes that classical Anglicanism is Scriptural, and is therefore reflective of the way the Church was being ordered by the Apostles.
I can easily agree with him that holding to a uniform theological structure would give a unity to the continuum that it clearly does not have now. This is the case, as well, within the actual Episcopal Church. I have blogged on this before. However, where I might diverge from Mr. Cooper is that I think the lack of uniformity is symptomatic, not causal. That is, Anglicanism, itself, tends toward a lack of uniformity. The 39 articles, although fairly Calvinist, are still intentionally vague. As Cardinal Newman pointed out , since the original articles establish the book of homilies as the acceptable source of interpretation of Scripture, we can use them to reinterpret the articles themselves (especially where the homilies appear to conflict with the articles). Basically we are left with Scripture, and a tradition of one generation, the homilies of the 16th century. This narrow tradition allows some to lean more heavily toward an evangelical, non-sacramental worldview, without contradicting Scripture nor much of the homilies, while allowing another group to become nearly Roman while still operating within the same framework. By jettisoning the first 1000 years of Church tradition, a necessary rudder is lost and the lack of uniformity follows.
As I've pointed out before , the Episcopal Church tolerates a huge range of theological positions - often contradictory - even within the narrow range of those who consider themselves "orthodox". The continuum is the same, it just doesn't allow the far left into the picture. Will that last forever? Honestly, I doubt it.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
House Update
This is mostly some picture from this past
weekend. The project is fairly far behind at this point, which has me a bit
nervous. Mostly its just random difficulties - the biggest to date being rain
at inopportune moments (when the trench had been dug for the new
foundation/slab). So here are some fun photos of the house
destruction:
