Advent

For an above- decent article on Advent, go here.

Here is an excerpt from the article that struck me in particular:
"I don't remember this opposition of Christmas and the Christmas season when I was young. When I was little—ah, the nostalgia of the childhood memoir—I always felt that the days right before Christmas were a time somehow out of time. Christmas Eve, especially, and the arrival of Christmas itself at midnight: The hours moved in ways different from their passage in ordinary time, and the sense of impending completion was somehow like a flavor even to the air we breathed."


The above quote strikes me because I have been thinking about how religious folk and non-religious folk think about time. Modern history is very linear. However, the Biblical and Christian view of time is that there are times that are "high times" which connect us in a mystical way with things that have happened either in the past or will happen in the future, or both. Modern understandings of time have been stripped of mystery, or their attachment to something or Someone beyond time. The above quote helps me to remember and to celebrate the high times, especially this Advent and Christmas. I encourage you to read the above quote again.

Grace and Peace,
Andrew

Quotes Along The Narrow Way

"Most want to possess the kingdom without labors and struggles and sweat, but this is impossible."
-Psuedo-Macarius (Homily 5, section 6; circa 380C.E.)

"That in which a man rests as in his last end, is master of his affections, since he takes therefrom his entire rule of life."
-St. Thomas Aquinas

"As we make progress in Him, through our way of life - in faith, in discipline, in virtue, and in community - our hearts will expand with the inexpressible sweetness of love; with hope we shall run together along the path of God's grace and commandments and we shall share in his divine life and his glorious kingdom."
-Adapted from the Prologue to the Rule of Saint Benedict.

"Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord;
seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.
For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.
Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge,
and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness,
and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.
For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins.
Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;
for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you."
- 2 Peter 1. 1-11

Thoughts on Hauerwas' Sermon, A Glimpse At The City Of God, "Open Theology" Blown Wide Open, and J. Wesley on Religious Nuts and Libertines

I have not had much work lately. This is good news for you and partial good news for me, as it has given me reading and pondering time. Therefore, there is an exciting lineup of topics in this entry.
(Possible good news for me: there is a chance that I will be getting a job teaching ESL come January.)
I would suggest reading all articles this week, but not all in one sitting. (I say weekly because I will try to post weekly... on either a Friday, Saturday or Sunday every week).
I apologize for the length. I know that some are busy and some are lazy.

In This Issue:
1) Comments And Thoughts on Hauerwas' Sermon On The Badness Of The Reformation
2) A Glimpse At The City Of God
3) D.A Carson: "Open Theology" Blown Wide Open
4) J. Wesley on Religious Nuts and Libertines

1) Comments And Thoughts on Hauerwas' Sermon On The Badness Of The Reformation
In my last blog entry I drew attention to Stanley Hauerwas' Reformation Sunday (29 Oct, 1995) sermon on the why the Reformation was not so positive. In the sermon, Hauerwas, who is an Protestant, was critical of the Reformation and argued that the effects were more negative than positive. Actually, I'm not even sure if Hauerwas made one positive remark about the Reformation. This does not matter very much to me.
After reading Hauerwas' sermon, a friend of mine drew attention to the fact that Hauerwas was far too critical of the Reformation, because there have been very many good effects (such as the reformation of the Catholic Church, Christianity becoming more enlivened; all in all, a less corrupt Christian society).
I took a stance in between, agreeing with my friend that the Reformation has been very beneficial in many regards, but that we should be critical of it (especially as Protestants, who naturally want to view it in a positive light).
However, it must be asked: would the benefits of the Reformation been achieved without the Reformation, a little more patience, etc.? It must also be asked whether or not the long term results of the Reformation have been that good. My current position is realistic, in that we cannot turn back the clock. But I am also more critical than my previous fence-sitting position.
For instance, consider this important quote from Charles Taylor's monumental book about how the modern secular society came to be, A Secular Age: "True, it [the Reformation] reacts to another period of shocking laxity and corruption in high ecclesiastical places, but the Catholic Church it rejected had itself been the locus of reform efforts for several centuries..." (P. 243ff)
An important point that I take from this both is and is not Taylor's point. From this quote it is shown that, in the history of the Church, that reformation and renewal has always been important. From monks to confronting heresy and more, the Church has always been seeking godliness through types of reform. For the most part, though, these had happened inside the church walls. To be more blunt: If one of the driving forces within the Church is repentance, by which a person seeks unity within themselves (i.e. purity, holiness, etc.), then wasn't a less violent, lowercase 'r', reformation worth hoping for and being patient for? However, I concede that there are times when repentance must, in a way, cause violence within ourselves, which is obvious in the case of a drug addict bravely resisting powerful cravings.
As we know, much blood was spilled over the Reformation, many hard lines were drawn, great, though dwindling unity became discord (what did St. Paul have to say about this, as he feels unity to be so important), and divisions over leaders were made (again, what does St. Paul think about this; see 1 Corinthians 3). Would bearing with one another (Colossians 3:13) have been both more godly and more prudent? "For it is God's will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil" (1 Peter 2:15,16). But perhaps the Reformation was a just and prudent, and therefore godly undertaking.
Also, I think that it can be argued that the Reformation was a type of revolution (and those living at the time must have thought of it as both a political revolution and a religious renewal, considering how religion was such an important part of the polis), a protestation against the governing authorities. Like many revolutions, the Reformation saw its goal as divine and just. Through this Reformation both church and state might be reformed!, the Reformers thought. But I would argue that it was the Devil who took hold of this thought; it was the Devil who twisted noble goals into ignoble goals in the heart of man, the results being shown much later. The result was that, ever so gradually, these people (all sides, since religion and nation were affiliated in the minds of all involved) combined religious goals with civic goals. This, in turn, brought people to think of their kingdoms and nations as sort of kingdoms of God on earth.
Whether this account is fully accurate or not, I think that it is true in outline. And this combining of the kingdom(s) of man with the Kingdom of God was further twisted by the Devil so that "this immense effort [of reforming the lives of citizens so that all might be godly, as is the goal of the church] seems itself to have obscured the essentials of the faith, and to have led to a substitution of something secondary for the primary goal of centring everything on God" (Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, p.244). Therefore, man's goals (including those of many Christians) become man-centered (anthropocentric), not God-centered (theocentric).
Perhaps thinking about the Reformation is a waste of time. It is not. It is true that we cannot turn back the clock (even if we want to), but we can learn for the future. One thing I have learned is this: Christians (and everyone really, even communist Atheists) must not look for the City of God to come to earth before Christ's return. To confuse the City of Man for the City of God is one of the biggest mistakes that can be made. To consider any man other than Jesus to be the Messiah, the Saviour (capital initial letters) is a tremendous problem, even when it results from good intentions. The Devil can dress up as an angel of light and incite men - who are ever so willing, and even if we are not, we are often dull enough to follow his plans - to build up the Tower of Babel once again.
I believe that many current problems and possibly many future ones can be explained by something like what is found in the remainder of this paragraph if we do not act on lessons learned: The City of Man, taught by the Devil, was inspired by the City of God to reach for a perfection which it cannot have. It is the problem of Babel all over again. In hoping that heaven could be accomplished on earth ( the wish of those who originally and even today want to build the Tower of Babel), men built a city based on their own abilities, which took divine agape, which is the property and great virtue of the City of God, and replaced it with philadelphia (which is also a godly virtue, if it is rightly ordered). But the love of man can only be understood rightly if there is some kind of love for God. As Aquinas points to, Seeing light is to loving God is as seeing colour is to loving man. It is only through seeing light that colour is illuminated (See the Summa Theologica II, II, Q.25, Art 1, IAT). Because it is no longer found in its proper order, love of man, or philadelphia, will also become a deformed, twisted sort of love. And philadelphia turns into self-love, emotivism and the rule of the will. Thus, God has scattered the people who have made Babel, and each speaks his own language; each has his own separate will and wants it alone to be done. However, men, from the after effects of true philadelphia, wanted to make a good society based on fairness. The truth is though, that most men know that they have weak wills and not enough power to get what they want, so they created societies based on rules and contracts so that the greatest amount of people could get the most of what they wanted. But there are and will be men with the power and the will get what they want. This is Nietzsche's Ubermensch,, the Superman, the strong-willed and powerful one who will take over the world. This is an antichrist. Will the righteous allow this continual twisting of what is good?
These troubling thoughts are almost too much for an article that began with considering the good of the Reformation, but they are not too much. However, I admit that this article has been presumptuous and too far-sweeping or all-engrossing, for which I apologize. I also apologize for what might seem to be a melodramatic end. I have sought to bring you on a journey of the mind that I have been on for a while and I have given you the cheep and fast tour.

2) A Glimpse At The City Of God

Continuing on my theme of the City of God and the City of Man, I want to meditate on a quote from Augustine's The City Of God Against The Pagans (otherwise known simply as The City Of God) Book V, Chapter 16. Read it slowly if you have the time. Here is the quote with my commentary (in blue):

[Augustine is trying to explain to his audience that the reason the Vandals (these were barbarians to the Romans) are able to attack Rome and give it so much trouble is not because they have started worshiping the Christian God and have largely turned from the Roman gods. In the process, he has to explain why God, in His providence, made Rome so glorious, even before it was officially a Christian republic/kingdom. He has just made the point that those virtuous Romans of the past sought only human glory, and that they have, in the words of Jesus, "received their reward in full" (Matt 6.2).]
Very different is the reward of the saints [which is not so small, nor as readily tangible and is not received on earth]. Here below they endure obloquy [reproach] for the City of God, which is hateful to the lovers of this world [the City of God itself and the idea of enduring reproach for something not tangible are both hated by the lovers of this world]. That City is eternal [and is therefore not to be found fully in time]; no one is born there, because no one dies. There is the true felicity, which is no goddess [Felicity was the name of one of the many Roman goddesses], but the gift of God [felicity is the gift of God, it is not to be got through honour from men, nor is it to be found by an earthly city. It is bestowed on us by God, we do not earn it]. From there we have received the pledge of faith, in that we sigh for her beauty while on our pilgrimage [the pledge of faith is the Holy Spirit that gives us a longing for the life that will be with God after death and also makes sense of our groaning for the life to come. We are pilgrims, sojourners, viators. This means that Christians are a people "on the way". We know we have not reached the final happiness, our final destination, but it is certainly real to us, and tangible in many ways. Our final joy is not in an earthly kingdom, but with God in eternal life, in the City of God. Christians must be patient on this journey, knowing that good and evil will often be mixed together during this life. Therefore, Christians must cultivate the godly virtues of faith, hope, patience, gentleness, and love]. In that City the sun does not rise 'on the good and on the evil' (Matt. 5:45) [Augustine had earlier made reference to this quote from Jesus. The point was that God has chosen a wise way of rewarding and punishing people during this life. I really recommend reading City of God, Book I, Chapter 8 for a good teaching on this, which helps us to understand why God allows evil to sometimes flourish during this life, while we have to wait for complete felicity in the life to come]; the 'sun of righteousness' (Mal, 4.2) spreads its light only on the good; there the public treasury needs no great efforts for its enrichment at the cost of private property [Having made earlier reference to giving life through birth, Augustine now makes reference to another resource that human cities need: taxes. Augustine highlights life and taxes as deficiencies in the state that need to be supplied, whereas St. Paul draws his readers attention to how the earthly city needs control over the lives and taxes of its citizens (see Romans 13:4-7) to maintain order]; for there the common stock is the treasury of truth [Happiness, truth, no taxes, and no death sounds nice to me. The goods of the City of God are held in common, which cannot be done on earth].

But more than this [that is, the Roman Empire was destined by God to be glorious in its pre-Christian days (and this lesson can be applied universally) not just so that the men would "receive their reward in full" for their human virtues of courage and valour, but there is a further purpose]; the Roman Empire was not extended and did not attain to glory in men's eyes simply for this, that men of this stamp should be accorded this kind of renewal. It had this further purpose, that the citizens of that Eternal City, in the days of their pilgrimage, should fix their eyes steadily and soberly on those examples and observe what love they should have towards the City on high, in view of life eternal, if the earthly city had received such devotion from her citizens, in their hope of glory in the sight of men [the further purpose was to incite Christians to be jealous of the love and virtues that the pre-Christian Romans had for Rome, so that they might be moved toward love of and virtue toward the City of God].

3) D.A Carson: "Open Theology" Blown Wide Open
Whether you know what "Open Theology" is or not, this seminar talk given by D.A. Carson is fantastic and illuminating. You can find the audio file here under Don Carson-Openness of God Theology.mp3. It is worth listening to all the way through.
"Open theology" is a theological position that attempts to solve the problems of there being evil in the world and the problem of predestination. (see Augustine's City of God Book I, Chapter 8 for some of Augustine's thoughts on the mixing of good and evil in the world and Book V, Chapters 9-11 for a decent discussion of God's providence and human will.) It does this by saying that God has chosen to limit himself by making it so that he cannot know exactly what is going to happen ahead of time. Sure, he can guess, and is a good guesser who is prudent and wise, but he doesn't really "know" the future. It is an interesting theological position that ends up with worse problems than double-predestination (the idea that God predestines people both to heaven and to hell).
I agree with Carson on many points, but I don't think on all.

4) J. Wesley on Religious Nuts and Libertines
I picked up John Wesley's A Plain Account of Christian Perfection about a year ago and I have been reading it on and off. It can serve as a good devotional book. In the book Wesley makes a good, intellectual, well-explained, case for what he means by "Christian perfection" and why it is possible to attain to. It reminds me of Andrew Murray's Absolute Surrender in some respects.
Nearing the end of the book, I was pleasantly surprised to find two sections that really struck my fancy. The first section is on what Wesley calls "enthusiasm", but what I have might call "Christian superstition" or "religious nuttery". The second section that I found interesting is directly after the first and has to do with religious libertines, or "antinomians", which are Christians who believe that the law does not apply to them, that they need not pray, nor read the Bible often. In simple English, an antinomian is anti=against, nomos=law. These sections really struck my fancy because I have fallen into ways of thinking similar to these before.
(To find the sections I am talking about, go to an online version, left click on Edit, at the top of your browser, left click on Find in This Page, and type in (without quotation marks) "what is the Second advice". The section on "enthusiasm" is under Q. 33 and the section on "antinomians" is under Q. 34)
There is much that I could draw attention to in from Wesley's discussions on enthusiasm and Antinomianism, but I am of little energy right now. Read them for yourself. Despite my reluctance, I do want to point out that, though many moderns/postmoderns might think that enthusiasm is for extreme (maybe right-wing) Christians and antinomian thinking is for nominal (liberal) Christians, they both spring from a presumption. Presumption makes you think that you have something (have achieved a goal) without having done the work for it (achieving the end without the means).
For enthusiasts, this means that the have an imagination to think that God is specifically talking to them, often through signs, dreams, visions, etc. These people are often thinking that they can read the inner sins of another and they let the other person know. Now, I know people who have been like this, both truly godly and not. Sometimes it is genuine. Wesley tells these people to "test the spirits".
For antinomians, presumption comes in the form of ideas like this: "I don't need to have specific times to pray each day, for I am praying without ceasing;" "every moment is a holy moment, so I need not go to church;" and, "why read the Bible consistently when the Spirit is informing me of his will every moment." This is presumption because the spiritual life is a journey, where we are growing in holiness, though Christ has already imputed it upon us. Antinomianism involves presuming that you are at a spiritual stage in your life that you are not at.

A Hauerwas Sermon, Wesleyan Hymns And Devotion, Aristotle On The State, and Equality Is Evil

Hello. I am happy to present you with an interesting lineup of articles for this posting. If you have time for any of the articles, let it be #4, as it is the most interesting, controversial and perhaps most important article you may ever read in your life. Enjoy.

In This Entry:
1) An Old(ish) Stanley Hauerwas Sermon On Why The Reformation Maybe Was not So Good.
2) Wesleyan Hymns And Devotion
3) Aristotle On States as Natural And The Highest Form Of Community
4) My Thoughts On How Equality Is Often An Evil.

1) An Old(ish) Stanley Hauerwas Sermon On Why The Reformation Maybe Was not So Good.
I was directed to an old(ish) sermon of Stanley Hauerwas' earlier today. The sermon was preached on Reformation Day, October 29, 1995. Although Hauerwas is a an Anglican and Reformation Day is supposed to be a day where all Protestants celebrate breaking away from the Catholic church, in this sermon Hauerwas bemoans the Reformation. The sermon is quite interesting. To read the sermon, click here.

2) Wesleyan Hymns And Devotion
I have recently realized that hymns are fantastic for devotional times. Though contemporary worship songs are often emotional, catchy, and musically decent, they leave something to be desired. I find that a number of more contemporary songs are a little "fluffy" and leave a lot to be desired theologically.
And so I have turned to hymns. Hymns can be musically boring, and are sometimes fluffy as well. But, when a good hymnist is discovered, their works provide for deep devotional times. Recently, I have discovered the hymns of Charles Wesley. Charles Wesley's hymns are poetic, theologically deep, and emotionally deep. If you are interested in doing something different for devotions, then consider going to the Wesley Center Online and looking at Charles Wesley's hymns.
Here is one of Charles Wesley's hymns chosen at random (capital letters are where new lines begin):
1 AUTHOR of faith, to thee I cry, To thee, who wouldst not have me die, But know the truth and live; Open mine eyes to see thy face, Work in my heart the saving grace, The life eternal give.
2 Shut up in unbelief I groan, And blindly serve a God unknown, Till thou the veil remove; The gift unspeakable impart, And write thy name upon my heart, And manifest thy love.
3 I know the work is only thine, The gift of faith is all divine; But, if on thee we call, Thou wilt the benefit bestow, And give us hearts to feel and know That thou hast died for all.
4 Thou bidd'st us knock and enter in, Come unto thee, and rest from sin, The blessing seek and find; Thou bidd'st us ask thy grace, and have; Thou canst, thou wouldst, this moment save Both me and all mankind.
5 Be it according to thy word! Now let me find my pardoning Lord, Let what I ask be given; The bar of unbelief remove, Open the door of faith and love, And take me into heaven.

3) Aristotle On States as Natural And The Highest Form Of Community
I think that people should read and attempt to understand much of Aristotle's works, as I have found them deep, wise, and of considerable importance. If you have not opened up any of Aristotle's works, you should check out his Nicomachean Ethics, or his Politics, as they are more easily understood and more readily applicable than some of his other works.
Here is a most interesting quote from Aristotle's Politics in which he comes to the conclusion that the state is a natural and the highest form of community. Previous to this quote, Aristotle has been talking about smaller groupings of people, such as families and tribes/villages.
"When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society [families, tribes, villages] are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. [By This Aristotle means that a thing is most what it is supposed to be when it has developed fully. For example, a child does not show the nature of a human, for a child is said to be underdeveloped; whereas, a fully grown, intelligent, fully functioning adult is said to be the exemplar of what it means to be a human. Therefore, the most fully developed state of a thing is the end or goal of what a thing is supposed to be. In this case, Aristotle is arguing that the State is the fullest natural consequence of the relational nature of human beings.] For what each thing is hn fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of man, a horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end and the best.
"Hence, it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity."
I wonder what Aristotle would have to say about the United Nations or the European Union. Something tells me that he would think that they might be something of an abomination, or a lesser for of political community than the state. See some of Pierre Manent's thinking on this.

4) My Thoughts On How Equality Is Often An Evil.
Is it just me, or are some things more important than other? For instance, (1) the eye is more important than the little toe, (2) the boss is more important than the worker, (3) the governor is more essential than the civilian; and, (4) the intellect is more important than the emotions.
It is interesting that two of the books on political and societal change that I am reading both mention how important the idea of equality was in distorting society. In Charles Taylor's A Secular Age, one of the main points seems to be that, in the secularization of the West, equality has been a major factor. Taylor points out that this idea of equality began in the church (especially in the Protestant sects), as leadership thought that all people should be attaining to the same high level of piety. The same idea was floating around in society, as it was in the church, for a more moral citizen would make for a better citizen.
This idea of equality (which is now coming into its most fullest form of fruition, where people of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ages are equal) went against an older form of thinking that said that the distinctions between people are important. The idea was that of "hierarchical complementarity". Just as in the body, the intellect should be in charge so that the passions could be guided correctly and so receive the best forms of pleasure, so there were higher and lower levels in society, family, and church. However, it was not simply a matter of higher being better, or more essential (though they were), but that each level served their purpose. For instance, in medieval society, the poor, though low in social status, were thought to be more holy. The point is that, although there is a hierarchy, the levels complement each other and help to provide society, church, family with its fullest array of beauty and excellence.
This thought is looked down upon today. If a person says that a man is the proper leader of the family, many, if not most, would strongly disagree. But this idea of equality, of the great leveling of humanity, has with it a denial of there being an ordered creation, where God has given each thing its proper nature and end. If everything is equal, then there is no order to creation, and then there probably isn't a God. It is very interesting to learn how important equality has become in this secularization process, as Taylor points out many times throughout his book (and he is simply stating this as a fact, not arguing that it is good or bad).
This very same idea is important in Dostoevsky's The Possessed, which is something of a prophetic novel of how Communist ideals began to infiltrate Russian society. "Everything must be reduced to the common denominator of complete equality" says Peter Verkhovensky, one of the main characters. Good and evil, men and women, rich and poor, virtue and vice all become equated by the progressive socialists throughout the story. But even the main theorists in the story know that there must be a ruling class and a "normal human" class, which is, in fact, just how communism happened. It is interesting how this equality often brings along with it the rejection of theism, as it did with Communism, with many socialists, and as is the trend in this "secular age".
It is amazing to think that this idea of hierarchical complementarity, which is so frowned upon by many these days, is what most people have thought for most of history. And I would even go so far as to argue that those who believe the Bible is true must largely accept this hierarchical view of life.
Once again, this idea is expressed in a conversation in The Possessed: "By the way, Shatov insists that if an uprising were started in Russia, it would have to begin with atheism. Maybe he's right. There was a gruff, white-haired old captain among them. He sat in silence, but then he suddenly got up, stood in the middle of the room, and said aloud, but you know, as though he were talking to himself, 'If there were no God, how could I be a captain?' Then he picked up his cap, shrugged, and walked out."
The idea that the captain was voicing, though rather discreetly, in the above quote, is that, if there is no hierarchy, there is no God. If there is no God, then things have not been designed, and therefore, the old idea, that God gave things specific qualities, jobs, and natures, is false. The idea is expressed by J. P. Sartre, in his The Humanism of Existentialism: "When we conceive God as creator, He is generally thought of as a superior sort of artisan… When God creates He knows exactly what He is creating, thus, the concept of man in the mind of God is comparable to the concept of a paper cutter in the mind of the manufacturer" And since Sartre was an atheist, he thought the opposite: "Man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. ... There is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Not only is [each individual] man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence." This, is man's dignity, according to Sartre. And one of Dostoevsky's more extremely atheistic characters, decides that he wants to kill himself, as it is the most fearless act of self-creation, most fearless act of his own will.
But this is overtly un-Christian. In fact, this is anti-Christian! What a discovery!
It seems obvious that, in the Bible, men are to be leaders, political leaders are essential, good is better than evil, and that God is the highest in and beyond all creation. In the Bible, hierarchical complementarity is presupposed. So, perhaps we did something wrong when we decided to go against nature and start equalizing everything? I think that a strong case can be made that the Church Universal needs to go back to a more classical understanding of how creation actually works, for we seem to be conceding more and more as we agree with this idea of equality.
Equality is often an injustice. In stead of equality, we need to be exercising justice. Justice is giving something its due, and involves placing something in its rightful position, according to how God created it.
The church (and humanity in general, but I have more faith in Christ's church) needs to somehow regain the truths of the classical world and yet retain the good points of the post-classical world. How is this to be done? Perhaps I should write a book. This subject would be well worth researching!

Book Review: A Prayer to Our Father

Review: A Prayer to Our Father - Hebrew Origins of the Lord's Prayer

A Prayer to Our Father by Nehemia Gordon and Keith Johnson is the latest book that I have received as an Ooze Viral Blogger. While I was awaiting the arrival of the book I began to question my choice. Am I really interested in a book that does what so many others have done (that is, commented on the Lord’s Prayer)? After having read the book, I am glad to say that I enjoyed my time with the book, especially since it had so much in it that I did not expect.
A Prayer to Our Father is short (170 page), easy to read, moderately insightful, and quite entertaining. The premise of the book is that a devout, intellectual Jew named Nehemia Gordon and Keith Johnson and an African American Elder in the United Methodist Church (miraculously?) meet and team up to deliver a book that Chronicles their adventure to better understand the Lord’s Prayer, or the “Our Father”/ “Pater Noster”.
Due to the complex nature of Gordon and Johnson’s meeting, their journey, and the meaning of the Hebrew version of the Lord’s Prayer, the book can be divided into four major sections. The first section comes after the introduction and chronicles how the two very different authors, from two quite different backgrounds were able to come together. In the second section, the authors tell the very interesting story of how they came to be friends, and their discovery that the Lord’s Prayer, and the whole of the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (though this was new to them, this is not new to biblical scholars, though it is often undervalued).
The third section of the book was one of the most exciting parts for me, because it involves the two authors trying to find the actual place where Jesus spoke the Sermon on the Mount, which contains the Lord’s Prayer. The description of the place where Jesus probably preached the famous sermon will stick with me and be an incredible mental picture that will enliven that text for me.
In the fourth part, the authors explain and comment on the Lord’s Prayer using insights gained from the Hebrew text, which often brings clarity and insight to the passage. Though this part of the book was good, it was not great. However, I still believe that the gems that can be gathered from this section make this part of the book worth a glance.
Another major component of the book is that it involves a Jew and a Christian getting together and meeting on common ground. This provided insights that could not have been gleaned otherwise.
All in all, the book was mostly a pleasure to read (though there were moments where it got bogged down and the insight was almost anti-insightful to me). I would recommend this book, especially for the storyline and the discovery of the spot where the Sermon on the Mount was probably preached.

Check out the book's website here.
Listen to a interviews with the authors here and here.

News-Media, Devotional Life, Alexisonfire, and a Controversial News Article

In this blog:
1) News-Media
2) Straight Talk on Devotional Life
3) Alexisonfire's Anti-Christian Album
4) A Controversial News Article About War

1) News-Media
There were a few interesting articles in the Atlantic, October 2009 edition, especially revolving around media. The two articles that I would like to highlight are "The Story Behind the Story" by Mark Bowden and "Cheap Laughs" by Christopher Hitchens.
First, I thought that Christopher Hitchens made an interesting point in his article, "Cheap Laughs". The subtitle to the article reads: "the smug satire of liberal humorists debase our comedy - and our national conversation." Very interesting. Though I enjoy watching Jon Stewart from time to time and although I quite enjoy the Colbert Show and despite the fact that I enjoyed Al Franken's The Truth (With Jokes) I must say that I agree with Hitchens in his critique of how people have allowed these comedians to become major news analysts. Although satire can be very helpful in small doses (especially if it is done well - and a big part of the article is that it is not being done well). But if satire becomes the main source of news, it will help to sour its viewers even more, and this will take away from any possible national unity. Whereas the prophet is traditionally supposed to point out the evil in a nation, he should also give some hope, and he should be concerned about national unity. My basic argument is that when a nation's or generation's diet is solely or mostly or even substantially satirical, that generation or nation will turn on the government that provides a fairly good life. Though Hitchens doesn't seem to make the same argument that I am making, it certainly lies in his premise that the national conversation is debased by satire.
Secondly, Mark Bowden's "The Story Behind the Story" is an article that points to the fact that a lot of news coverage is nothing but the opinions of ideologists who drag up dirt and info, with little true, objective research in order to get their view across.
To make his case, Bowden takes the case of the resent Sotomayor nomination to the Supreme Court. Do you remember that, during Sotomayor's nomination, the news coverage was against her? The supposed evidence that Sotomayor was a racist, law-making judge were based on words that were directly from her mouth... though - Bowden proves - the statements were greatly taken out of context. But where did this pieces of evidence come from? who drug them up from Sotomayor's history?
It turns out that Morgen Richmond, a right-wing Christian (Sotomayor is a Democratic judge), randomly came across what he saw to be evidence against Sotomayor's judicial integrity and therefore legitimacy. Richmond posted a speech clip on his friend's site and on YouTube and left it at that. He was surprised to see it all over the news during Sotomayor's nomination.
The point that Bowden makes (and he uses only the case of Sotomayor's nomination, I believe) is that the news companies did little of their own research into Sotomayor, but relied on some media clips to stir up some controversial news that was more interesting and less work for them. These clips came from an under-researched, ideologically-driven source. (Granted, everyone is ideologically slanted, but there is a difference between basing your preference on researched truth than simply searching to back up your preference with under-researched 'truth'.)
Considering the power of news-media, it is extremely important that reporters and journalists do due diligence. We expect no less of any other job.
The classic (Platonic-Aristotelian) view of the soul is that the intellect comes first, then the will. The important thing to notice is that it is the intellect that moves the will. The intellect must properly see or perceive what is right and then move the will to do it. Bowden is getting at this same idea when he says, "Journalism, done right, is enormously powerful precisely because it does not seek power. It seeks truth" (p. 54).

2) Straight Talk on Devotional Life
A friend recently asked me what I do to try and keep my faith vibrant. I gave several answers that I believe to be important: Read the Bible consistently, pray consistently, write letters to God, read good authors, and be involved in a small group.
I said that it is up to us to to exert effort and to try and encourage a positive attitude in ourselves. Often, when we are down and not really feeling God moving, we tend to feel bad, and to blame God. Both of these reactions are counterproductive.
If we are feeling bad because of sin, we should remember the words of John Wesley: "And when the sense of our sin most abounds, the sense of his love should much more abound." It is true that we should feel bad about our sins and to do something about them, but to dwell on sin leads us into despair. We must know that, though our sin is great, God's mercy is all the greater and he loves us.
Sometimes when our spiritual lives are down we blame God. We blame God for not being tangible to us, for not being understandable to us, for not making us happy, etc. The truth is though, that God's goodness is the same all the time, so we really have reason to rejoice at all times. Rather than blaming God, it is important for us to continue or start developing our spiritual lives. We are the inconstant ones. We are the sinful ones. We are the ones that tend to pride and laziness. Read 2 Peter 1.3-11 to see what Peter recommends. He says that God has given us everything necessary for a god-ward life of virtue and unity with God, but that we must exercise and build upon our spiritual lives. We must use what God has already provided for us. And the ability to live such a life is given to people who have been cleansed of past sins.

3) Alexisonfire's Anti-Christian Album
Probably few readers of this blog are fans of the edgy band, Alexisonfire (Alexis on fire). However, to those readers who enjoy Alexisonfire, it is might be interesting to note how anti-Christian their new album, Old Crows/Young Cardinals is.
Here is my view on three of the songs on the album. I previously sent this in an email to a friend. There are a few changes here.
1) Born and Raised seems to be a raising of the question: "Is there a Creator who has made everything and therefore a hope of things beyond or is everything here through chance?" Perhaps they are settling with some sort of agnosticism. Fair enough. Perhaps we all feel a pull between wanting something better and yet seeing the indifference in nature. But the ideas of truth, justice, etc. seem to confront us with a universe that is very concerned with goodness.
2) The Northern seems to be a stinging critique (as it should be) of a type of Christianity that seems to be vindictive against people who disagree with it. I disagree with that view as well. It says in the case that it is based on an old hymn. The song reminds me that they are reacting against what Christians might call a "heresy" if we were living before 1700 or so. But now it is just one view among a few. A more proper view is strangely expressed by J.P. Sartre in his play No Exit where people are in hell due to their own vices and choosing. Also, without the punishment of wrongs after death, it is hard to argue that fairness or justice during life are anything but arbitrarily enforced.
3) Accept Crime surprised me as kind of a stupid argument after the at least semi-intellectual songs before it. They seem to be basing their argument for using their bodies as they please (especially in regards to the physical pleasure of sex) on the fact that no outside authority can tell them how to act. True enough. They don't have to listen. I would say that the authority must be internal to be consistent. In fact, I think their authority argument can go against them. It seems that many people use something external to retard sex: i.e. birth control. Also, it often seems to be our culture (an external authority/pressure of sorts) that leads us to consider that using our bodies as we please is the best thing to do. Many fail to consider that, perhaps, there is a greater pleasure (different than physical pleasure of course, which is palpable to even children) that can be grasped through self-control or temperance.

4) A Controversial News Article About War
Here is a link to a controversial article that might help us to reconsider the value of force and the necessity of injustice in war: Civil Fights: Goldstone's recipe for never-ending conflict by Evelyn Gordon.

Pierre Manent on Political Philosophy

Recently, I discovered Pierre Manent, a French political philosopher. Some of his stuff is genius and I will enjoy reading his books one day (hopefully soon, but I have some other to get through first). But for now I am left with an article he wrote for First Things back in May 2000, titled The Return of Political Philosophy.
The article is a bit lengthy and technical, but if you are at all interested in political philosophy or are discontent with modernity and modern politics, take a look at the article. It will be worth your while.