Mariology

A genuine question: how do Roman Catholic theologians view these verses?

" ²⁷While he was saying these things, some woman lifted her voice above the murmur of the crowd: "Blessed the womb that carried you, and the breasts at which you nursed!"

²⁸Jesus commented, "Even more blessed are those who hear God's Word and guard it with their lives!" (Luke 11:27-28).

what if

what if the Gospel is so big that even the people who get it wrong, still get it?



addendum (due to general confusion):

To anyone confused and wondering idly if I'm falling into heresy - some clarifications on this thought that came to me.

in brief, the setting was such: I was reading an LDS ("Mormon") friend's blog (what up, K, if you're reading this!), and she mentioned that her greatest passion was "for the Gospel".

It struck me how, as a Protestant Christian, I - and, I'm guessing, you guys - would say the exact same thing is our passion: the Gospel, the good news that God loves and saves a broken world. But yet we do mean, I think, fairly theologically different things when we say "I love the Gospel".

Then I flipped it - what if I approach the question, not from the angle of "what does it mean when I say - I love God", but from the angle of "what does it mean when God says - I love you"? To whom does He say this? Who can read John 1:12 ("Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God") and rejoice?

This extends to other communities. What about, for example, the Roman Catholic communion? I believe firmly that I fellowship with several Roman Catholic brothers and sisters; I love them, I trust that they love me, and, more importantly, I trust their love for God. I don't know if their doctrine is 100% correct - but I do believe that they are, underlying and interacting with their doctrinal belief, simply in love with Jesus Christ.

It makes me wonder what kind of thing the Gospel is. Is it something that we have to "know about" in order to obtain? I don't think many of us would want to say you have to understand philosophy about Jesus in order to receive love from Jesus - one reason being that this is actually impossible.

Now, when we ask questions about the Gospel, we're still talking about a pretty specific statement. Jeff points out to me that "the Gospel" is objectively defined, shaped by a specific and unique historical context.

My point isn't to be a universalist - saying, everyone, everywhere, is loving God. That's too broad, and it just rings untrue. That's not what I mean when I say, "getting it wrong."

What I do mean when I think about us "getting it wrong" is that I wonder what role knowledge and doctrine play in our love of God. God not as an abstract, nonspecific, vague concept, but God as a real, all-loving, all-powerful, incredibly present being whose presence and direct intervention is found throughout the world and human history. I think good teaching is vastly important - but even good teaching gets some details wrong sometimes. Does Jesus still love us when we make mistakes when talking about him?

...

This is meant to be a rhetorical question. The answer, I believe, is Yes.

But this begs a further question: "how many mistakes can we make, and still be talking about Jesus?"

And this is a very real question.

It's a big question: Which details matter? If you and I are both talking about our favorite cars, and I mention mine - the Mazda RX-7 FC3S - I might be picturing a white car, while you picture a red car. No big deal - we're still talking about the same thing.

But if I talk about an RX-7, and you picture a VW bug, or a horse, or a birthday cake, we're on pretty different pages. That's become a conversation whose details are so disconnected that it's not even a conversation "about" RX-7's any more.

And that's a question whose answer comes into focus when we humbly examine Scripture, seek God in prayer, listen to our mentors/disciplers, and so on.

A thought

Arrogance has been on my mind a lot, recently.

I've been perusing some of the writings of Canadian Skeptic James Randi, listening to recordings of the aggressive Atheist debate of Richard Dawkins, and reading through weblogs self-identified with the freethought and Brights movements, in addition to exploring conversation with quite radically anti-religious persons (dialogue being altogether too bilateral a label for what I've experienced).

The standard rhetorical aesthetic of such fora of discussion seem to be a self-righteous anti-religiosity; transcending the boundaries of cheerily areligious belief, the new wave in modern atheism seems to have a bitterly antagonistic bent towards religion, a condescending, sneering sort of spite directed towards the faithful. In such systems, characterizations of theist beliefs often involves words and phrases such as the following: "magic," "imaginary friend," "arbitrary," "unfounded," &c.

Such discussions, and their underpinnings, truly sadden me for two reasons: (I) First, and primarily, as one who believes - intimately, personally - in the being of a loving, wonderful, perfectly fulfilling God who has created and does sustain all of existence, it saddens me that there are people who would so decisively and boldly cut away the possibility of a relationship with that loving God. All rhetorical flourishes aside, the loss of an inexhaustible source of infinite care and grace, even if only metaphysically so, seems as though it ought to bring grief in some degree.

For this reason, I don't feel quite the same way for those atheists who renounce God, but do so with a sense of the loss of the sweetness of what could have been: I can empathize with the humanness of loudly pronouncing, God is not; but, whispering, if only he were. But the point of view that I have recently encountered - rare, I think, in my postmodern surroundings - and that which has been grieving me, is the outright arrogant proclamation: God is not, and it's damn finer than if he were!

If God is not truth, but tale, might we at least admit the beauty of the story‽

(II), such discussions do elicit a fair degree of nervousness in myself: how much of such militant and callous opposition to the very concept of God is social karma for the past wrongs of "Christianity" [the sum of Christians-in-name] (or Christianity [the sum of Christians-in-truth, putatively distinct])? Was there an era - or manifold periods? - in Christian history where theologians, being found bearing the greater weight of authority in their respective societies, were found so overbearing, cocky, swaggering in their clerical roles, that they thus disparaged those honest dissenters in their midst?

Do I? Regularly, I'm sure. How often, in my own unthinking stagger through life, have I hurt, damaged, even spited others, and all while proclaiming, in my best Christian guise, to be an earthly representative of the all-loving Heavenly Father? Of course, I've spoken faithful testimony of being a "broken human being," to being a "sinner in constant need of grace". But has my life born witness to these truths? Or has my life reflected a know-it-all, condescending, self-proselytizing wretch content and happy to sow self-glorifying pride?

A thought.


[edit: 3:35 PM] And, to make it explicitly clear: The arrogance to which I'm referring does not fall exclusively within the atheist camp. My attention has been drawn, increasingly, to my own personal arrogance, theological, intellectual, and otherwise in nature, the pervasive reality of which is pretty challenging and self-perception-shattering (or perhaps, better put, is spurring me on towards redrawing my self-perception).

Regarding Judaism and Israel

A quick thought, prompted by an exchange with a college friend, following an earlier (if not the earliest) post on hyphenated-Americans, along with beginning to watch (a process that will likely take a substantial amount of time) Spielburg's modern classic Schindler's List:

Whenever discourse includes a discussion of the Jewish people, it is vital that we separate the Jewish people and the modern nation of Israel. It is perilously easy to conflate (a) disagreement with the actions of the Jewish state in the geopolitical landscape and (b) Anti-Semitism. This is a form of an ad hominem, but one which seems to be more insidiously prevalent.

That's how it seems to me, anyways. Am I wrong, and (a) reduces to (b)? I strongly don't think so, but am open to arguments in the positive.

Question on Lewis

Famously from Lewis's Weight of Glory:
"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."

What happens when mud pies become genuinely (though not necessarily actually) more attractive than a holiday at the sea?

Children Bearing Gifts: the Relationship of Christians to Art.

Children Bearing Gifts: the Relationship of Christians to Art.

Originally given at Café a Dieu, 04.04.2009,

at The Golden Center, St. Thomas More Catholic Chapel and Center at Yale.

The first personal encounter with art that I can recall comes from the age of ten, when my sister and I attended a class taught by a professional artist from our church. Once a week, we would pick up our sketchbooks and shoeboxes full of art supplies, be packed up in the back of our minivan, and dropped off at a church classroom. There, Mrs. Barrett would teach us about perspective, colors, or shading, then turn us loose, pencils and oil paints in hand. Our parents, as they arrived to pick us up, were be greeted by arms filled with paintings and sketches, the fruits of our labors and their monthly tuition checks.

Even now, returning home, I still occasionally come across sketchbooks filled with my youthful handiwork. Browsing through the artwork, I often wonder what my mother must have thought, every week, as her son returned bearing page after page of lovingly, painstakingly, and poorly drawn STAR WARS spaceships.

My mother has preserved sketchbooks that are literally filled, cover to cover, with illustrations of X-Wings, TIE Fighters, and the occasional attempt to illustrate the Battle of the Death Star. And, let me tell you: what I lacked in aesthetic skill, I more than made up for in productivity.

By high school, I had begun to regard these drawings with a hint of embarrassment. It wasn’t that I had grown artistically; but I had grown ashamed of my youthful enthusiasm for Luke Skywalker. Recalling my younger artistic streak, I would wonder what could possibly have motivated my parents to store such pitiful things away so carefully.

Reflecting back now, I think I’ve begun to understand why my parents saved those drawings. It’s not that my art - in either content or execution - was of any aesthetic value. But they are still dear to them because of what they represent: memories of me running up to my mom after class, bearing my latest work, filled with the childish joy and simple pride of spending my youthful reserves of skill and energy to produce something just for her. And, while my mother has never been a STAR WARS fanatic, her love for me transformed my interests and delight into her own. For this reason, I think, my mother finds twofold pleasure in that artwork: first, as a symbol of her importance to me; and, second, as a genuine representation of me as I was at the time; my childhood interests and passions.

I suspect that the work of a Christian Artist is best performed when it stems from similar desires, turned towards God: beyond displays of ability, or the production of aesthetically stunning works, the Christian who finds herself engaged in Art is engaged in the same pursuit as that child painting, singing, or dancing for his loving parents: we are conveying, to God, His unequalled significance to us; and we are producing work that brings its audience into an honest encounter with the truth of our love and passions.

I. To convey to God our unequalled enjoyment of Him.

These may sound vague: what does it mean to tell God that He is of unequalled importance to us?

The first answer that springs to mind comes from the Protestant and Catholic catechisms, which open by addressing the goals of human existence: in the Reformed Church’s Westminster Shorter Catechism, the first question is asked, What is the chief end of man?, and this answer provided: Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever. Similarly, the Second Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church begins with a prologue that trumpets that “The Life of Man” has as its purpose “To Know and Love God”.

To Know God; to Glorify Him; to enjoy Him; to Love Him. If these are the primary ends for which we, as Christians, believe we have been created, how do we pursue them? How do we, limited, weak, fragile human beings, bring Glory to an almighty God?

In 1^st Peter Chapter 2, Verse 9, the apostle writes that “you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, so that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” Receiving the love and care of a vast and intimate God uniquely enables us to bring Him glory by proclaiming in His presence our joy at having seen ourselves “called out of darkness, into His wonderful light”. We were once guilty of an infinitely terrible crime, and faced with an infinite punishment, the only escape from which comes by an infinite grace, which, having been received, evokes in us infinite gratitude and joy.

And, in just the same way that my youthful dedication to my parents led me to hand them the fruits of my artistic labor – poorly executed, but faithfully offered – our infinite gratitude to God finds its expression in faithfully handing Him the poor fruits of our lives: our paintings and poems, songs and dances. In every facet of our selves, including the artistic, it is right to find ourselves desiring, first and foremost, to bring God praise, by demonstrating the quality and abundance of our lives in Him. As we begin to understand what it really means to be saved by grace, this desire to respond in joyful gratitude begins to push out all the other competing desires and patrons clamoring for our attention and service.

But, there is an objection that can be raised to all this; after all, it may sound troubling to limit the scope of our artistic expression simply to those things which bring God glory. After all, why can’t we let art be free of such external constraints, let it simply be “art for art’s sake”?

Well, for one thing, love, even as it brings freedom, also necessitates limits. Any mutual love imposes on the lives of those whom it touches; but it is a joyful imposition! Yes, Love limits us; it limits us in our impatience, when we desire to withhold forgiveness; It restrains us in our jealousy, in our boasting, in our pride, and in our anger. Love, when truly tasted, makes us long to stare into its depths and lose sight of everything else as we contemplate and adore the object of our love.

II. To provide audiences an honest encounter with the truth we find surrounding us.

And also, by saying that our art should bring God glory, I don’t simply mean that the truths we convey have to be uniformly pleasant.

A natural part of becoming a Christian is that a man gradually finds himself peering into two worlds at once: the world that is “real-at-the-moment”, and the world of “actual reality.” The world of the moment is the world of suffering, of distance, of sin; but, being brought more and more sharply into focus as we grow more familiar with God, is the world as it actually was intended to be: a world of peace, of intimacy, of healing and loving unity.

This is what I mean by saying that it the second goal of the Christian Artist to provide the audience with an honest encounter of truth: God’s revelation of Himself – at once intimately personal and immensely large-scale – provides the Christian with two points of view, both of which serve the artist as inspiration. To limit the scope of artistic revelation to one or another of these viewpoints rings false: while our hope is sure and our faith secure, to claim that we can distill our experience of Christ into feel-good, pastel-colored images of serenity and passivity is a dramatic oversimplification. If we do so, we create kitsch, a shallow sentimentality that is the opposite of Good Art, because it has no connection to the complex experiences and dreams of the audiences we invite to partake in the artistic experience with us.

The opposite oversimplification – presenting the dire state of sin, while withholding a sense of overpowering hope – is equally poor art, for it is also untrue. As Christians, for whom “in all things, we are more than conquerors, because of Christ who loved us” (Rom. 8:37), it is disingenuous to pretend that our eternal well-being can be jeopardized by the passing and momentary ills of this world.

We Christians have space to discuss both despair and hope precisely because our hope can be counted on to endure. In the Christian life, there is room for both the sad truth of the fallen world as well as the glad tidings of the redemption that is beginning to shine through its cracks. After all, without death, resurrection is meaningless; but, without resurrection, death is simply a cold, inevitable end-of-story. So it is necessary to present, in our every creative work, the full trajectory of the Gospel, never shrinking from honestly portraying the total story of fallenness and redemption; but always hinting at glimpses of the Hope to overcome the despair, and the Comforter who seeks us out in our loneliness.

Art expresses the truth, hope, and passion that we have found, or want to find, in the world around us. At age 10, I found my passion in STAR WARS; and my art reflected that. But now, for today, and tomorrow, and increasingly as the days pass, that passion is focused on the being and character of God. And I hope that the work of my hands can come to daily reflect that focused passion more and more.

Once, I drew pictures of spaceships, and happily presented the results of my work to my parents. Today, right now, we are all creating, not just as artists, but as humans going about our daily lives. I pray that we can, one day, happily present the results to our Heavenly Father.

Fundamentally speaking

The questions seem to proceed, in rational order:
Am I alone?
Where is the Other, the self, and the other self?
Are they sustainable?

If we cannot - do not - share in suffering, then do we share? (Is it categorically selfishness to share joy and not pain?)

From where does a conception of duty arise, and to what extent are its boundaries self-determined?


Grace must cover it all over.

[Xanga] A Personal Statement of Faith - Draft

I'd appreciate feedback on any or all of this statement. It's a work in progress - I tried to support most of it Biblically, and address as many issues of faith and doctrine as I could, but I'm certain there are things that I forgot/overlooked/am too ignorant about to have anything to say. It's something I'd always wanted to get around to, and now I'm doing it as part of the materials for raising support for my post-graduation internship in the church.

---

Personal Statement of Faith

Jesus Christ

I believe that Jesus Christ is and was fully God (John 8:58, Acts 13:38) and fully man, with all human emotions (John 11:35, etc.), limitations, and experiences, having taken ?voluntarily and willingly ?upon himself human form (Phil. 2:7), in order to, in some way, enable fallen men to come before God the Father (John 14:6). I believe that the life of Yeshua bin Yusuf, Jesus the legal son of Joseph, is a historical fact, including his birth to Mary, Joseph wife (Luke 1-2), his life, ministry, death (as related by the Jewish historian Josephus, as well as the four Gospels of the New Testament), resurrection, and ascension (Luke 24). I believe that he will come again at the end of history to judge the living and dead (Revelation 20:11-15).

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah attested to by the Jewish prophets and prefigured by Jewish law. I believe that fulfillment and happiness lies in a personal relationship of gratitude towards, love for, and obedience to Christ (John 14:15). The characterization of Christ and His teachings that I have seen revealed in Scripture, meditation, and prayer is one of peacemaking, love, sacrifice, righteousness, and humility (Matt. 5:1-14). I believe that Christ has been eternally and everlastingly present in relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

I believe that Jesus Christ is the most important element of Christianity: acceptance of the truth of His miraculous birth, life of love and guidance, sacrificial death, and miraculous resurrection and ascension is critical for a Christian believer, second only to a personal understanding and experience of His person (Romans 8:1-8).

God the Father

I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who created all things (Genesis 1-2), and is omnipresent (Ps. 139:7), omnipotent (Eph. 3:20), and omnibenevolent (Ps. 18:30). I lean towards a limited view of omnipotence (i.e., that omnipotence is limited to those actions logically possible), because I believe that God will, sovereign over all things, allows his willing self-limitation, though I am also open to an unlimited view of omnipotence. I take a skeptical view of open theism, and lean rather towards a belief in an atemporal God, who is not constrained to experiencing and moving through time in the same manner that we do. I believe that shalom (completeness, wholeness, rightness) and goodness are tied to and defined by the character and being of God.

I believe that the perfection of God encompasses many attributes, including (but not limited to) His perfect mercy, grace, love, justice, gentleness, forgiveness, and strength. I believe that God desires for all created beings to be in a loving relationship with Him, through Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:21) and the Holy Spirit, and for all creation to give Him praise and rejoice in Him eternally, and that these goals are accomplished through His grace given to mankind (James 1:17).

The Holy Spirit

I believe that the Holy Spirit is and has been present and active in the world (Genesis 1:2), and is so in the hearts and lives of men and women. I believe that the continual indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a gift unique to the Christian believer (Acts 2:18), but that the Spirit may also come upon those who do not have a relationship with Christ (Acts 2:17), in order to stir them to action, reveal truth to them, or otherwise act in their lives. I believe that many functions of the Spirit are revelatory, including revealing sin, the need for salvation, the comfort of belief in Christ, etc. I believe that the Spirit, like Christ and the Father, has been eternally present in relationship to Christ and the Father. At the moment, I hold to no view on the doctrine of procession and the filioque clause, though I recognize the necessity for a Christian in ministry or position of spiritual authority to have understood and acknowledged the historical and theological difficulties associated with that debate, and to have prayerfully considered them.

The Trinity

I believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are simultaneously one being and three entities, the mystery of the three-in-one relationship extant therein uncomprehensible to human minds. I believe that it is fundamentally important to emphasize the monotheism of Christianity and also to emphasize the relational aspect of the three entities within the Trinity, and view as heresy any theology that claims Trinitarianism as a polytheistic doctrine, or the nature of God to be less than three-in-one, or any member of the Trinity to be less than fully God. It is important, too, to emphasize that the Trinity is a Biblical concept (Matt. 28:19). I believe that the Godhead possesses and defines all Good characteristics, including male and female attributes. As such, though I see God as male because of His self-revelation as such through Jesus Christ and Christ descriptions of His Father, I also emphasize the need for a subtle view of gender roles and characteristics of the Godhead (Is. 55:8-9).

Man

I believe that man was created in the image of God , and that the purpose of man existence is to praise God, to e His glory? and to rejoice in Him throughout eternity.

I believe that the fundamental problem of man, and consequently the universe, is sin, defined as ebellion, conscious or unconscious, against the will of God, and pursuit of an end other than the fulfillment of that will?(Isaiah 53:6). I believe that the ultimate origin of sin is one of the unknowable mysteries of the Bible, but fully affirm that God is not, in any way, responsible for its creation. I believe that men are, as a species, sinful (Romans 5:12), but that the sin nature is not essential to man nature, but rather a perversion of the true nature of man, the template of which has only been seen in history in the fully human Jesus Christ (Romans 6:5). I affirm the stewardship of man over all of creation (Gen. 1:28). I believe that man was created with real free will (Deut. 30:16-17), but that this is reconcilable with the sovereignty of God (Eph. 1:4).

I affirm that no man can, by virtue of his own efforts, be blameless before God (Romans 3:23), but that all men may, through an acceptance of Christ sacrifice, find salvation and eventual restoration to an eternal relationship with God (Romans 6:11, John 3:16).

I condemn Gnosticism, and any theology that proclaims humans or the human Christ to be disembodied and only spiritual beings (1 John 5:6): I affirm embodiment as characteristic of humanity, and the fundamental ontology of human beings to be both physical body as well as disembodied soul, both of which are present in our earthly journey and will be present, in a changed form, after the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:35-54).

Other Beings/Angelology and Demonology

I believe that there are such beings as angels (Luke 1:26, Matthew 1:20, Mark 8:38, etc.) and devils (Jude 1:6), including Satan. I believe that all things are created by God. I believe that the primary purpose of angels, as revealed in Scripture, is to present the will or messages of God. I believe that men may be, have been, and used to be tempted, accused, and possessed by demons, but that their powers are limited by the loving will of God. Most of all, however, I acknowledge the scarcity of Biblical information on the subject of angels and demons, and, at the moment, remain hesitant to judge otherwise-Biblical theologies for any particular doctrine of such beings.

Salvation/Soteriology

I believe that salvation, the removal of an individual man or all men from a state of sinfulness and distance from God, was accomplished through the atoning death of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 9:21-28), and is effected in each individual life only through the power of the blood of Christ to place an individual under the aw of the Spirit?(Romans 8:1-2). I lean towards the view that salvation is only effected by a life-changing, conscious understanding of the necessity of Christ death and the subsequent establishment of a personal relationship between the individual and Christ, but remain curious about certain theologies (such as those of Karl Rahner) which proclaim that the gift of Christ sacrifice may be accepted unconsciously in certain special circumstances (especially in consideration of Romans 2:12-16). Above all, I see the Church, in proclaiming the message of Christ death, as God chosen people in this age, to carry the message of salvation throughout the world (Matt. 16:18, Eph. 5:23-27).

I believe that salvation is an internal transformation with external consequences; that, at the moment of salvation, the believer in Christ is justified and sinless in the eyes of God, but that this inward justification will be confirmed by outward signs (James 2:20). I believe that the signs of each inward transformation are highly variable, and cannot be enumerated specifically, but that common to every actually saved believer is a love for God and, thereby, an increasing obedience to and awareness of the fullness of God commandments (John 14:15, 1 John 3:18).

I believe in Heaven as a real place, in the eternal and everlasting presence and glory of God, made beautiful by that presence. I believe in Hell as a place of eeping and gnashing of teeth?(Matt. 13:42, Luke 13:27) and of utter and truest darkness (Jude 1:6). I believe that the ultimate decision regarding salvation is, has been, and always will be dependent on the judgment of God (Rom. 2:16). Regarding any sort of theology of predestination or double predestination, I remain undecided, though I do reassert the sovereignty of God will as an element of any theology.

The Scriptures

I believe that Scripture is God-inspired (literally, od-breathed?, a source of divine revelation, and useful for many types of teaching and learning (2 Tim. 3:16). I affirm the infallibility of Scripture, but draw a distinction between infallibility and inerrancy; I remain undecided on, leaning towards denial of, inerrancy. I believe that any part of Scripture may be understood by anyone, irrespective of their level of understanding or knowledge, through the revelation of the Holy Spirit. Despite this, I believe that it is important for the Christian believer to desire to increase his or her personal understanding of the textual and cultural context of every part of the Bible, because I believe that it is critical for the reader to approach the Bible from a place of humility: in pursuing scriptural revelation, one ought to approach the text with an attitude of humility, eager for correction and teaching, rather than an attitude of pride, eager to see in the Scriptures what the reader has already decided ought to be there, in order to avoid the possibility of subscribing to a self-centred, rather than God-centred, understanding of the Bible.

I believe that the Scriptures were written by sinful, imperfect men, inspired by perfect God, and translated/transcribed by such men. As such, I understand the difficulties inherent in accepting any one translation of the Bible, and suggest that Christians take seriously, and use for reference, the various legitimate competing vernacular texts. I do not think that it is incumbent upon every Christian to achieve any level of understanding of Hebrew or Greek, but affirm that any believer desiring to pursue hermeneutics or Biblical exegesis beyond a basic level should consider strongly pursuing such capabilities.

I have little understanding of the Apocrypha, but lean towards the Protestant view of the Biblical canon: 66 books, with the books of the Apocrypha as useful but non-authoritative works. I strongly believe in the historicity and historical verifiability of the canonical books, and view the Gnostic Gospels and other similar non-canonical works claiming Scriptural status as heretical. I believe that commentaries and other writings can and should be used to gain perspective of the words of Scripture, but that ultimate authority in interpreting Scripture lies in the Holy Spirit.

Prayer

I believe that prayer may take many forms (intercessory, petition, praise, thanksgiving, confession, etc.), but that all prayer is fundamentally a dialogue with God, modeled on the Apostles?Prayer (Matt. 6, Luke 11) laid out by Christ for His disciples. I believe that a strong prayer life includes not only spoken or explicit communications with God, but also extends into the manner and details of one life and daily activities: in such a manner, I believe that one may learn to ray ceaselessly?(1 Thess. 5:17) and thereby be in continual communication with God.

Because of verses such as 1 Thessalonians 5:17 and stories such as those in Daniel 6, I think that prayer is not only beneficial to the Christian believer and a natural complement to his or her theological growth, but that the believer is called to regularly come before God in prayer, as an individual and corporately with others. In fact, I believe that it is in prayer for and with others that the work of the Spirit to create bonds between brothers and sisters of the Church is best done.

I tend to pray to God the Father, but believe that prayers to Christ and the Holy Spirit are not heterodox. I view prayers to Mary, canonized Saints, and any other entities as unbiblical, and am strongly cautious about condoning views of prayer which would see such prayers as an major part of the expression of the Christian faith.

The Church/Ecclesiology

I believe that the writings of the Desert Fathers and early Church leadership should be taken seriously as guides to church polity and governance, but that the ultimate guide to the direction and structure of the Church is the leading of God, revealed to those called as members of the Body of Christ (Eph. 4:4-6).

One area of doctrine that I have been wrestling with over the last two years is that of church structure and definition. I believe that there are two churches: the earthly church, comprised of those who claim to accept Jesus Christ as son of God and Lord of their lives, and the true Church, comprised of those . Not all of those who publicly proclaim to be in the church are truly so (Gal. 2:4), and I think it is possible that there are those who will never proclaim to be in the church who are (Rom. 2). However, I wonder how important a well-defined structure is to the functioning of the Church and the entrance of the Kingdom of Heaven into the hearts and lives of the secular world. On the one hand, I believe that God is a God of precision and exactitude (as demonstrated in Gen. 6, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc.), and that this is reflected in His revealed will. On the other hand, I also believe that God reasoning and plans are inscrutable to man (Is. 55:8-9), and that His secret will is thus unknowable. In-part because of this view of God will, I think that it is important to emphasize the need for a historically grounded, highly structured, organized church, adaptive to contemporary needs and worldviews, while also emphasizing the need for a highly flexible parachurch, often less-grounded in church history and organized around specific goals and theological emphases. The question of how to support and be active in both, or which to emphasize over the other, is one on which I still have much thinking to do.

My uncertainty regarding the various ways of structuring the Church also pertains to the ordination of pastors, ministers, and priests. At the very core, I see the role of pastor or Church leader as a God-given ability (Eph. 4:11), to be used for the advancement of the Kingdom of God and the salvation and growth of Christians. The question of the Church role in discovering, nurturing, training, and promoting these gifts is also one on which I desire to spend much time, along with the questions of who ought to be permitted to teach, preach, or be publicly acknowledged as a minister.

I believe that the Church should be present in every day of a believer life, in common prayer, fellowship, eating, worship, and shared experiences (Acts 2:42-47). The Sabbath day of rest, moved from the modern Saturday to Sunday, having been chosen by the historical Catholic church as the day of assembly, should be honored both in order to deepen the fellowship and faith of the individual believer as well as the congregation of all saints as well as to follow a God-ordained model (Heb. 10:25, Mark 2:27, Gen. 2:2).

I believe that many spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12, Romans 12, Eph. 4) are granted to different individuals. I tend to lean away from charismatic understandings of spiritual gifts, and am partial to a cessationist view, but openly seek further conviction on these matters.

Evangelism

I believe that evangelism ought to be approached as the good proclamation of a good message (eu-, ood?or ell?+ angelos, essenger?or essage?, and that it is among the joyful, central, duties of all believers in Christ (Matt. 28:16-20). I believe that evangelism will take many forms, including lifestyle witness, initiative outreach, ministries within the church, overseas missions, etc (1 Cor. 9:22). Most importantly, however, any form of evangelism is effective only through the grace of God and the work of the Spirit in men lives and hearts.

I also place critical emphasis on the fact that we, as followers of Christ, ought to strive to bring our personal spiritual lives into consistency with our proclamations of the Gospel and the truths revealed to us through prayer, meditation on Scripture, and other believers, in order to present a broad witness of the fullness of the life-changing revelation of salvation.

Justice

Though I deny the view of the ocial gospel?proclaimed in many mainline Catholic, Methodist, Anglican, and other denominational churches, I am strongly convicted that for Christians o be doers of the Word, not hearers only?(James 1:22) involves living lives consistent with the messages we proclaim, including the image and character of God reflected in His Creation, especially in the natural and human worlds, and the radical peacemaking, love, and forgiveness preached by Christ.

Towards this end, I think it important for Christians to understand the continual refrain found in Scripture on serving the poor (Is. 61, Matt. 25:40), disenfranchised (including the targets of racism, socioeconomic discrimination, and age or gender bias), and needy (Luke 6:17), and to commit ourselves to pursue means to do so more and more effectively and lovingly. It is also important for Christians to examine Biblical views of stewardship and understand how those views play into, or sometimes contradict, popular views of environmentalism and conservation.

I am also convicted that, as citizens of various countries and members of various demographics, Christians must also realize that their actions have ramifications on a political scope. I believe firmly that Christians should not buy into partisan views or agendas, but rather emphasize that the political duty of a Christian is motivated by the same factors as all other duties in life: to serve God and demonstrate His character, love, and salvation to all men.

Christianity and Other Religions

I believe that other world religions represent solutions ?at best incomplete, at worst thoroughly wrongheaded ?to the emptiness of a life lived without a personal relationship with God. As such, I believe that there is some grain of truth within each religion, and the duty of Christians in dialogue with believers of other faith traditions is to, through appeal to the Holy Spirit and living Scripture (Heb. 4:12), learn to separate truth from falsehood, in order to affirm the true desires of non-Christian believers while exposing the falsity of claims to salvation or fulfillment that lie outside of Christ.

I believe that Christians ought to approach adherents of other religions with the attitude of Christ (Phil. 2:3-8): to affirm them as worthy creations of God and potential adopted children of God (Eph. 1:5), and, as a result, to approach apologetic and polemic discussions not as an exercise of intellectual or spiritual dominance ("It is a wicked prayer to ask to have someone to hate or to fear, so that he may be someone to conquer." - Augustine, City of God, IV.15), but rather as an opportunity to ive the reason for the hope that you have? with gentleness and respect?(1 Peter 3:15). Throughout such dialogues, I believe that the spirit of the true Redeemer may shine truth and light into the lives of others, drawing them to Himself.

Eschatology

I believe that the end of history, the time of the return of Christ to udge the living and the dead?(as the Apostolic Creed proclaims, from 1 Peter 4:5), is quickly approaching, and has been imminent (1 Thess. 5:2) ever since the Ascension of Christ; that, in fact, the end of history has been looming near throughout the entire age of the Church.

While I do affirm that the end of history will bring with it great torment and sorrow to those who have chosen to live in rebellion towards Christ, I believe to have received enough conviction from my personal meditation on Scripture and relationship with Christ to be significantly troubled by many popularly-held views of the End Times, especially those concerning Rapture. However, due to my theological ignorance on these matters, I am highly interested in a thorough study of the Book of Revelation, in order to further form my doctrines regarding eschatology, prophecy regarding the future, and the like.

The Christian Life

In addition to the other views I have listed above regarding living out the Christian life (in particular, Phil. 2 and Acts 2), I think that the passage in 1 Timothy 3 on the qualifications of a church deacon (v. 8-13) to be excellent guidelines, in general, for the outward actions springing from a repentant and Spirit-filled soul in this age of the Church.

[Xanga] "atheism"?

What does it mean to be an atheist?

If I am living in a predominantly Christian country, the statement "I am an atheist" seems to very likely equate to the statement "I do not believe in the Christian god", or perhaps, "I believe that the Christian god does not exist," largely because the only conception of god to which I may have been properly exposed (at least, to the level at which I feel comfortable rejecting it) is the Christian conception.

But, if I am living in a predominantly Hindu country, the same statement seems to equate to "I do not believe in the Hindu god(s)," or, "I believe that the Hindu god(s) do not exist," for much the same reason.

To generalize: for atheist thinker T exposed to a set of n religions R: {R1, R2, ..., Rn}, to the degree of being comfortable rejecting them, T's statement "I am an atheist" actually equates to proposition A1: "I believe that god, as defined in any member of R, does not exist" (the former reading, "I do not believe in..." is treated below).

If this reading is true, the atheist claim A1 is merely a specialized form of agnosticism, which identifies the negative aspects of (a possible-existing) god: it leaves open the possibility of belief in "god, as not defined in any member of R." In fact, A1 is a stronger claim about the nature and character of god (as Maimonides might point out) than an agnostic view wants to admit: in labelling (possibly-existing) god with negative characteristics (eg., "if god exists, he is nothing like such-and-such a religion's conception of god"), such an atheist runs the risk of ascribing characteristics (albeit negative) to god, and thus subconsciously accepting a certain definition of god (if he exists), opposed to the agnostic claim that god (who may or may not exist) is unknowable and indefinable in character and attributes (both positive and negative).

But my intuition on this may be off, and perhaps the claim "I am an atheist" is actually the claim A2: "Any god, conceivable or inconceivable to me, conceived or not conceived by me, does not exist." However, there are still problems with this statement: primarily, it seems unreasonably difficult to support a proposition regarding an entity that is explicitly inconceived by the speaker (because of limits either anthropological or epistemological in nature). Perhaps what is actually being claimed is A3: the denial of the possibility of knowledge of or belief in that entity described in A2. But in asserting A3, we find ourselves back at agnosticism, for this is not actually a claim regarding god, but rather a claim regarding the limits of our own knowledge. Moreover, it is a claim which seems unintuitive, and not actually the natural interpretation of the self-descriptive statement in question.

All three interpretations of the atheist statement seem problematic: A1 and A3 reduce atheism to a special (and even perhaps weakened) form of agnosticism. A2 differentiates itself from the agnostic claim, but does so by making a claim that seems both unsupported and irrationally accepted.
Boris responds:
"...[1] In short, you really should seek an analogy between the atheistic/God claims and Higgs boson/AIDS vaccine. Perhaps a better example is a "negative" or "nonexistence" claim, like the late 19th/early 20th century claim "the ether does not exist".

Or for another example, "God does not exist" should be similar to "a (living) jackalope does not exist on Earth".

[2] And, of course, if your argument is correct, what is wrong with atheism being a special sort of agnosticism?..."
I respond:

(1) I agree that the nonexistence claim A2 is the strongest reading of the statement but, at the same time, it's also the most difficult claim to stake. You're right that I should explore further the analogy between god and a Higgs boson, etc.

And one of the things that I find when exploring the analogy between "a god" and "the ether" is that, no, i'm actually uncomfortable in staking the claim that "the ether in no way exists: whether in a way conceivable or not, conceived or not," simply because I'm not that confident in the ability of the human mind to rule out, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the existence of many things. I realize that this may cause problems with the positive assertions of theism (and thus I may be actually indirectly advocating agnosticism, through rendering both atheism and theism rationally undesirable), but I think that those problems (a) exist anyways, and so I am merely noting, not promoting, them, and (b) can be answered on the part of theism (in short: that theism is, in its best form, a "relation of the finite to the infinite" and thus defiant of rationality).

I find a fundamental difference between a jackalope (living or dead) and god (existing or not) being that the actual existence of the jackalope compels absolutely no reaction on my part, whereas the actual existence of a god may very possibly necessitate some sort of reaction on my part. To be more specific: The existence of jackalopes, Higgs bosons, or AIDS vaccines, are propositions of actual existence (PE with general form "entity X actually exists/has existed/will exist in the real world," and its negation). (This is undeniably loose categorization, and it would be good for me to rigorously categorize PE, because actually there are several propositional types that fall under PE, differentiated according to temporal and metaphysical status: "Jackalopes have never existed," "Higgs bosons cannot exist," "An AIDS vaccine will never exist").

There is strong evidence to believe, however, that the existence of god entails not only claims of the sort that fall under PE, but also metaphysical and moral propositions. I think that the analogy is at least as properly drawn between "God exists" and "Murder is morally wrong," as between "God exists" and "The United Kingdom exists," and possibly even more properly.

(2) I don't think there's anything wrong, per se, in atheism being agnosticism: but that doesn't make it a meaningless statement. Rather, what makes it an interesting claim, is that people are identifying themselves, or others, as believing in atheism, and that has certain ramifications. Rather than this, I'd prefer we "call them like we see them".

Just because "Judaism actually turns out to be equivalent to Zoroastrianism" isn't necessarily bad for Judaism or for Zoroastrianism doesn't mean it's meaningless to state and support that claim: it may affect those claiming to be Jews, when they understand the reality of their assertions. Someone may be completely comfortable with Judaism, as he conceives of it, but strongly averse to Zoroastrianism (and rightly so): the realization that asserting the tenets of Judaism entails some degree of acceptance of Zoroastrianism may lead him away from Judaism. Likewise, if someone is thinking to herself "I am an atheist!", and thinks that she can, as a result of this, prima facie rule out any notion or concept of God as obtaining, the realization that the proposition she asserts by claiming "I am an atheist" does not actually grant her the right to claim "and therefore the existence of God is false," might lead theoretically to a shift in her metaphysics and, pragmatically, make her receptive (and here's where I put on my normative-Christian-belief hat) to her experiencing God in a way that defies both explanation and doubt (but might be rejected under the assumptions of her atheism).

[Xanga] thoughts

Abstract: My intent here is to argue apologetically that the charge of
Christianity being an intolerant religion, even if true (which I gladly
admit to being plausible, if not even perhaps probable, under a
specific definition of ''intolerant'' not to be here strictly
discussed), fails to raise a strong objection to the Christian religion
in itself. The reason for this is that it fails to take into account
both (a) differing definitions of of intolerance and (b) differing
foundational metaphysical beliefs.

This is going to be vague. I apologize in advance.

I don't understand why people seem to have an issue with certain ramifications of holding a Christian worldview; specifically, the charge that it is an "intolerant" religion. Well, that's not true. I think I understand why. But I disagree that it's a strongly justified objection to the orthodox Christian religion.

The arguments against intolerance (and for pluralism or inclusivism) seem, on the whole, to be drawn at heart from a moral valuation of actions and choices derived from a particular belief set. As such, they take certain tenets of a relativist worldview, most comonly that a choice implies the soundness of its outcomes; that fairness is equivalent to
equality and, moreover, to be desired very (if not most) highly; that an individual's identity is the sum of their life choices; and that morality is socially defined. To wit: I will admit that Christianity is intolerant, inasmuch as I believe in a God who will not tolerate sin. I just think that the logical intermediary between "Christianity is intolerant" and "Christianity is not a valid theology" fails to compel assent.

Questions like "How can God damn men to hell for making a choice [to sin] that he presented them with in the first place?" (the same question is also phrased as "So, just because I made choice X, God is going to send me to hell?") seem to take as a noninferential premise that we are to be treated equally (not to mention, some particular misunderstandings of Christian doctrine). That is, if God was really good or loving or fair, he would grant unqualified mercy to unlimited people. At the very least, this question takes as noninferential premises properly basic beliefs that support this premise, beliefs which, I would argue, are not, in their totality, in the set of foundational beliefs which I, and a majority of other Christians, do not subscribe to. [I'm not too happy about this example of an polemically atheological question. I just can't think of a better one right now.]

The fact that the crucial distinction lies in two disjoint sets of properly basic (and therefore either irrefutable or very difficult to refute) beliefs implies that, while the Christian (or, generally, theistic) interlocutor may not provide satisfying answers to the polemicist, this is not due to her theology lacking empirical or rational completeness. Rather, it proceeds from an intuitive disagreement; and while intuition is obviously widely-held (outside of skeptical circles) to be a good guide towards tracking the truth, it is certainly not reliable all, or even most, of the time. As such, it bears strong consideration that, when questions are raised akin to those presented in form and specifics above, the issue is likely not one which may be argued out rationally, but instead one which proceeds from prima facie beliefs. The discussion must then turn to the warranted apprehension and dismissal of such first premises. One thing is clear: using logical (as opposed to pragmatic or empirical, and not as opposed to illogical) arguments, once this point of contention has been reached, is at best frustrating.

Or am I raising up a straw man? Does the atheologian have a more compelling argument for holding his properly basic beliefs than I do?

---

Addendum I: The argument for intolerance.

Abstract: Not only does the charge that Christianity is intolerant fail
to compel disbelief in the propositions of the Christian religion, but
I go on to argue that every coherent belief set requires intolerance (a
definition of which I lay out, but fail to justify beyond its intuitive
reasonability) as a foundational belief. Therefore, I claim, any
attempt to malign a belief set because of its supposed intolerance is
actually a fatal misconception of both intolerance as well as one's own
belief set.

Above and beyond what I argue above, I would moreover like to sketch out a defense of the following:

Every set of beliefs is intolerant.

The outline of the argument is as follows:

(1) Every set of beliefs contains propositions which are subscribed to as true.

(2) An intolerant belief set may be defined as "not accepting as internally tenable non-empty belief set [x]"

(3) It is incoherent for a belief set to accept as true a proposition which is the negation of a proposition contained within the belief set.

---

(C) Therefore, every set of beliefs [b] is intolerant to a second belief set [btwo], [btwo] being the set of beliefs [~b1, ~b2,...,~bn].

(Note that this is an overly rigorous (C). It is sufficient to prove that [b] is intolerant to any belief ~bm, m < n+1).

The strongest objection to this argument lies in the belief that there may exist propositions of a class who admit their negation; phrased in another way, the natural line of argument in opposition to mine is that there exist belief sets [c] who admit belief in contradictory propositions (an example of this is some construals of Buddhism, wherein seeming
opposites are embraced as koans or paths toward Enlightenment).

Such a vaguely-held belief set would accept the plausibility of [b1] and [~b1], but merely withhold judgment as to which obtains, or claim somehow that the inconsistency between [b1] and [~b1] is due to our ignorance. Such belief sets of vaguely-held beliefs (formulations of religious pluralism among them) are, however, intolerant towards at least one proposition: [~c1], belief in [b1] and belief in [~b1] is not compossible ([c1] being, of course, the foundational set belief that belief in both [b1] and [~b1] is possible).

The choice between a "tolerant" and "intolerant" belief set is thus fatally misconstrued by those arguing against Christianity, theism, or even, in general, "intolerant" belief sets. They would claim that their belief sets apprehend some intuitively praiseworthy concept of tolerance, whereas my belief set is fundamentally flawed because it
lacks this tolerance. What they fail to comprehend is that they are equally intolerant (in the sense of failing to admit belief in x) as I, merely towards a different class of proposition. Instead of being intolerant towards moral propositions or formulations of moral (or metaphysical) fact, they are intolerant towards propositions regarding the tenability of certain belief sets.

Now, it is very possible that my sort of intolerance has some intrinsically discrediting flaw, whereas their sort is either praiseworthy or neutral. Regardless, saying that "am tolerant; you are intolerant" is a radically different claim than "we are both intolerant, but my form of intolerance is better than yours.

In the words of Shawn Carter, "just my thoughts, ladies and gentlemen/ Just what I'm feelin at the time, you know what I mean?"

[Xanga] the validity of postmodern influences on the interpretation of the Bible?

Postmodernism is a movement that is at once, depending on the individual with whom you're discussing it, ill-defined, vitally crucial to intellectual endeavours, a complete crock of nonsense, or the most revolutionary (and true, whatever that means) paradigm to come along in the history of human knowledge (again, whatever that means). Regardless of one's stance on the postmodern worldview, however, one is hard-pressed to not at least admit that it has strongly influenced post-Enlightenment readings and conceptions of truth.

My question is whether the postmodern hypothesis, construed by me to in general be such: "the meaning of any text is solely a matter of cultural and social interpretation," (and I readily admit that this may be a straw man, and that postmodernism in its true form would hold to something other than this tenet; though I would defend this statement as one which is strongly characteristic of a postmodern worldview) has any bearing (or what bearing it has, if any) on the interpretation of the Bible by a Christian; the latter designation I take to mean "one who believes in the existence of God as a trinitarian entity, and moreover in the doctrines of divine creation, incarnation, atonement, intercession of the Holy Spirit, and special as well as general (including Biblical) revelation." (generally, one who accepts in full the Nicene Creed, though I find it plausible, if improbable, that one would reject in part the Nicene Creed but still fall under the ability to receive the intercession of the Paraclete [Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost] in the revelation of Scripture)

As a caveat preceding the following, I note that my line of thought follows the presumptions that I stated above under the designation of a Christian. The validity of these assumptions (both in their use to define Christian as well as their truth value) may be called into question, but for now I beg the use of these.

The basic question at hand is to what degree I may lend credence to the version of the Bible that I own, that now sits on my desktop. I see two general categories into which a Christian, in good faith, may place his or her belief regarding the veracity of that Bible: first, that it is in whole and in part the work of God, from the first writing divinely inspired and subsequently divinely translated, with every word yet extant and meaning what it did when it first "proceeded from the mouth of God". Second, that it is a human translation of a divine text, whose original language was and yet is divinely ordained, but the translations of which contain human error and bias; the latter which may yet be of value, but require great thought in order to "rightly divide the word of truth" and thereby arrive at the original meaning of the text from a corruption, as applying a Photoshop filter to sharpen a blurry or corrupted image file (On a side note, I take this second stance to be that of many Muslims, who find it necessary to study Arabic in order that their examinations of the Qu'ran be examinations of the direct words of Allah, not born of any intermediary). (Note that I ask here not whether or not the Bible is the extent of God's revelation to man, but where the extent of the Bible's authority falls: divine revelation or human translation. This question limits its scope to the Bible; another, equally [if not more] crucial issue, is whether or not the scope of divine literary revelation is likewise limited, an issue of great importance to Muslims, Mormons, and certain other religions. Regardless of the Bible's current translation as either a human or divine work, one may hold that it is or is not the whole extent of literary revelation, though I tend to believe that the most reasonable reading of the Bible in my native tongue is a claim to exclusivity among literature.)

These overly bold statement - that one's belief may only fall into one of these two categories - immediately begs the question, as to whether or not one may hold another. Is there a middle ground, or a third point of view?

(work in progress)