Unsettled Christianity

One blog to rule them all, One blog to find them, One blog to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

Archive for the ‘Theology’ Category

May 21st, 2012 by Joel

Can you be too catholic to understand Catholicism?

Peter Leithart is. He has a series of questions for those moving away from Protestantism to Catholicism. I’m not a Catholic, although I am a pretty high church Protestant, so I’m going to answer these questions from experience. His questions are in bold. My reply is in blue.

Here’s the question I would ask to any Protestant considering a move: What are you saying about your past Christian experience by moving to Rome or Constantinople?  

The same thing anyone says about any move in Christianity. That they are growing. 

Are you willing to start going to a Eucharistic table where your Protestant friends are no longer welcome?  How is that different from Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentiles?  

Would Peter accept a Eucharistic table with emergents? Cool, if he does, but does he realize how many Protestants are against the Open Table concept? That is has a long standing history in Protestantism? That many churches, sects, and denominations practice the Lord’s Supper being given only to members or members in good standing? Is this all that different? Is it wrong? 

Are you willing to say that every faithful saint you have known is living a sub-Christian existence because they are not in churches that claim apostolic succession, no matter how fruitful their lives have been in faith, hope, and love?  

See the above question and think about how Peter’s post on Catholicism fits into his question. He is saying the exact same thing about Catholics that Catholics, he believes, says about him. 

via Peter J. Leithart » Blog Archive » Too catholic to be Catholic.

There is more in the post, but you’ll have to read it.

I love mirrors, because sometimes, the best ones, are those which we look into and think we are looking at someone else. Peter is not too catholic to be Catholic. He practices much of the same beliefs he sees as pitiful in others.

And honestly, icons are awesome. So is the host. If I could get my home church to put the un-eaten portions of the host into a container for meditation, I would – and don’t think that I haven’t asked, repeatedly.

Scripture isn’t a boundary, but a starting point and a guide. If Peter really feels like the Church can only permit what Scripture explicitly teachers, then he should not be Reformed, or Christian.

May 21st, 2012 by Joel

What is your theological cap?

Someone mentioned a theological cap yesterday. Got me to thinking…

Here are a couple.

The first is the firefighter. This cap fits those who only make theology up on the fly, to put down a theological fire by flooding it with war.

firefighter

The police hat are for those who like their theology well structured. No one steps outside the line. That’s it. Boom.

Digital StillCamera

And of course, my favorite. The Sherlock hate. The theological detective.

sherlock

 

 

May 19th, 2012 by Joel

The picture of why Evangelical theology fails

20120519-194935.jpg

You get it, don’t you?

May 19th, 2012 by Joel

Liberals Can’t Be Christians? I did not know that?

Christian Bible, rosary, and crucifix.

Christian Bible, rosary, and crucifix. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

But let’s define the terms first. The term “liberal” really refers to a person whose primary interpretive authority of reality is the Self…

By contrast, the term “conservative” refers to someone who seeks to “conserve” an external authority (a religious book, a religious body, a tradition within culture)….

The question then becomes, Can both of these maintain their essential identities and accept genuine Christianity at the same time? In other words, can one simply adopt Christianity within either grid? My answer is, No, and here’s why.

via Theological Sushi: Why Liberals Can’t Be Christians.

Oh? I wasn’t aware that Christ had excluded anyone from being a Christian. It is nice, however, that the author of the above ‘post’ has provided us with terminology, but the terminology is too well laden with the overtones he wishes to ignore. He essentially given those ignorant souls who boil everything down to democrat v. conservative some ammunition.

I don’t want to really discuss his straw men, and there is enough to build a shoddy house, but I do want to discuss the idea of the denial of the Self. This is really an ascetic method which is more liberal than the author would suggest. After all, each person who practices self-denial must, subjectively, invest in an outside force of their own choosing a measure of authority. What the author is actually suggesting is his version of Christians have divested themselves of authority and instead invested it in what they have chosen. (Isn’t this what Islam does as well? And secular humanism?) I’ll break it down further. Protestants have made themselves the authority of what the Canon is, what the Creeds should be, how theology should be interpreted, and for some, who can be and cannot be a Christian. Yes, they have invested into a book a certain amount of authority, but they control this investment and the returns (interpretation and theology).

This history of theirs, book, and the such, have given them their own interpretations. These are the interpretations which they have chosen. They have chosen the Christ which they feel best suits their theological interpretations. So then, it is possible that our new friend is still rather a liberal. I would also wager that he is a Christian as well. I hope that he will allow Christ to separate and refrain from doing such heavenly work.

Enhanced by Zemanta

May 17th, 2012 by Joel

How dare Mark Shea be right about Protestantism

My friend said he realized “I can be a Protestant or a Christian, but I could not be both anymore.”  The mood of skeptical corrosion that ate away at all the rest of the Catholic and apostolic deposit of faith reaches, finally, the sacred book the Church proclaims at her liturgies and the Bible-only Protestant faces a stark choice: he can do like my friend and acknowledge the fundamental blunder of using the Bible as a weapon against the community that wrote, edited, and collated it—or he can do like Ehrman and deconstruct the Bible as well, in the process destroying his faith and collecting his 30 pieces of silver and bravely facing the applause of the MSM.

via A reader asks about “Lost Christianities” |Blogs | NCRegister.com.

There is not such a strong dichotomy as Shea suggests, or at least that is what I tell myself as I ponder Petrine primacy, the mystery of the rosary, and the role Mary has been afforded.

April 21st, 2012 by Joel

Another Quote of the Day from Jason Vickers – Unity and the UMC

We are sinfully obsessed with anything and everything that threatens to divide us, and sinfully disinterested in things that are full of the eschatological promise of unity

via Vickers: ‘A vote of great theological significance’ | John Meunier.

John 17 is a personal mantra of mine. Anyway, you have to read the entire post to find out why.

April 20th, 2012 by Joel

Quote of the DECADE: Jason E. Vickers

I am more troubled by what United Methodists will not be talking about at General Conference. For example, what are the odds that United Methodists at General Conference will have a lively conversation about the Holy Trinity or about the need to recover a more prominent role for Mary in United Methodist beliefs and practices? And what are the chances that we will have an animated conversation about the nature of holiness or about whether two sacraments are really sufficient?

via The View from Here ~ O For a Thousand Dollars to Save ~ Jason Vickers « Next Step Evangelism.

March 26th, 2012 by Joel

Quote of the Day: Stuart James

Being my own Pope and Magisterium led me to the insanity of believing in myself.

via I do not doubt the fundamentals of Christianity, but I do doubt my ability to grasp them fully. | eChurch Blog.

The entire post it good. I share sentiments with Stuart… in that I once held absolute certainty, but the more my faith grew, so did my doubt. A lot of absolute certainty is exactly what Stuart says it is – we are our own doctrinal standards, and in a sense, our own gods.

Good stuff. Read and enjoy.

March 22nd, 2012 by Joel

Excuses, excuses – that’s really all Presuppositionalism is

Kevin DeYoung quotes Moises Silva:

In contrast [to this one way street], I want to argue not only that the exegete may address theological issues and suggest what bearing the text may have on theological reflection–I go a daring step further: my systematic theology should actually inform my exegesis. To put it in the most shocking way possible, my theological system should tell me how to exegete. (Interpreting Galatians, 207)

Your Theological System Should Tell You How to Exegete, Christian News.

They fall back on, only when it suites them, postmodernism:

“Third, and finally, my proposal will sound a lot less shocking once we remember that, as a matter of fact, everyone does it anyway” (209). If postmodernism has taught us anything it is that none of us comes to a text with a completely unbiased, blank slate.

I disagree. I do think you can approach exegesis without bias.

If you approach exegesis only to support your theology, this is the basis of presuppositionalism, and in my opinion shows a lack of faith.

March 22nd, 2012 by Joel

Thought this was interesting – Modern Jewish views on the Messiah

Mayim Bialik:

As a scientist and an observant Jew, I think a lot about the Messiah. The broad concept of a Jewish messiah has been around for thousands of years, so that you can even think of technological advances as a move toward a messianic age. The Jewish texts mention phenomena during the messianic age that are beyond miraculous—such as corn the size of your head. But we can now think of an example like that—which may have seemed unbelievable at the time—as having resulted from science, technology and elaborate genetic engineering. If someone had told me 30 years ago that we’d be able to ask a phone where the nearest Thai restaurant is, I wouldn’t have believed it. But this is a movement toward the miraculous and a true representation of progress. The Jewish concept of a messianic age doesn’t preclude these miraculous things from happening because of technology. The concept of a messiah is a general underlying and unifying notion that we are partners in making the world better, in moving the world forward. The Messiah is progress, participation, suiting up and showing up for life.

Mayim Bialik is a neuroscientist, she is the author of Beyond the Sling: A Real-Life Guide to Raising Confident, Loving Children the Attachment Parenting Way.

Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis:

Messiah today means the same thing that it has always meant, except that we are now a step closer to his arrival. We are living in the days of eekvesei d’mashiach—when the footsteps of Messiah become audible. However, we have to know how to recognize that sound, and sadly, in our assimilated, immoral, tumultuous world, we can no longer discern the sound of footsteps. We are the generation described by the Prophet Amos: “Hinei yamim ba’im—And days shall come upon you, sayeth the Lord, and I shall send a hunger into the land…. not a hunger for bread nor a thirst for water, but a hunger for the Word of G-d…”

Everything described in the Torah and in the Prophets regarding the period prior to the coming of Messiah has unfolded and continues to unfold before our very eyes. Events are happening with such rapidity that even those among us who can discern what others have difficulty identifying cannot comprehend, such as the rebirth of the State of Israel after almost 2,000 years, the ingathering of the Jewish people from the four corners of the world, and the present threat from Iran. It is written in the midrashic text of the Yalkut Shemoni that in the days before mashiach comes, the King of Persia (Iran) will develop a weapon that will “terrorize the world”…and we see it unfolding before our very eyes.

Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis is founder of Hineni, a Jewish outreach organization, columnist for The Jewish Press and author of four books.

Samuel Heilman:

It’s important to add “to whom” to the question because the Messiah means different things to different people… For Lubavitchers, it is both mystical and simplistically utopian, when the relationship between God and the believer is so direct that there’s no separation between human desire and what God wants. There’s another view, the seventh Lubavitcher rebbe’s view, that the messianic age can be hastened and will come as a reward for certain good behavior. And so he created a cadre of people to go to every corner of the world to get people to do Jewish acts in public: put on tefillin, light Shabbat candles, light the menorah. The cosmic significance in these acts is that they will hasten the Messiah…

Samuel Heilman is Distinguished Professor of Sociology at Queens College in New York and author of 11 books

Rabbi Shlomo Ezagui:

I believe that the Lubavitcher rebbe, Rabbi Schneerson, is the mashiach, though I realize that there is a controversy about this within Chabad. The Talmud says that if the mashiach is alive, it will be Rabbi Yehuda, but if he’s chosen among the dead, it will be someone like the prophet Daniel. This shows us that the mashiach can come from the dead and in fact, there are many different classic sources that talk about the mashiach as rising from the dead. It’s not that extraordinary: one of the 13 principles of faith is belief in the resurrection of the dead. I just feel, hope and pray that it happens soon. Even within Chabad, there are a lot of people who have doubts, and when the rebbe died, I also had many questions. The rebbe’s death shook up a lot of people, and not everyone was able to resolve their questions and move on with greater faith.

Rabbi Shlomo Ezagui heads the Chabad-Lubavitch house of North Palm Beach, Florida.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach:

Messianism is the belief in the linear progress of history. Whereas the eastern religions believed in a more cyclical universe, where things are created and destroyed constantly, the western monotheistic system at its heart believes in historical progress. Societies advance. You may have setbacks, dark ages, for example, but by and large things get better and better. Why do we spend billions of dollars looking for a cure for cancer? Because we believe there is a cure. That’s not a rational belief—why should there be a cure when it has eluded us for all this time? Or take Marxism, which at heart is a belief in messianism, because it’s a vision of utopia. All utopian ideas are messianic, even if they’re atheistic.

We need one person who will coalesce all of these disparate efforts of humanity into one powerful stream. Imagine the Messiah as a person of great wisdom, great learning, saintly authority, who could convince the world that war solves nothing. Once peace and harmony are established, the biggest beneficiaries are the Jews, because we’ve been the objects of so much violence throughout history. Once we don’t have to use all of our energy defending ourselves, we can concentrate on tending to the other messianic promises, rebuilding the temple, building a national polity based on our spiritual character rather than on our business acumen or our military might. You need one person to do it, and that’s who the Messiah is supposed to be.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is the author of many books. He is also running for Congress in New Jersey’s 9th district.

Chabad.Info – News | Jewish Magazine Discovers Moshiach.