Friday, October 5. 2007
Sally Morgenthaler, author of the book Worship Evangelism, has given up on the notion. In this article she despairs that her thoughtful book became an excuse for churches to develop an "if you build it they will come approach" to evangelism that has both failed in developing proper worship and truly effective authentic evangelism. Today, instead, she challenges leaders to separate worship from evangelism so that we can honor God in the first and live with and love our neighbors as the means to the second.
Read the whole thing at It Takes a Church.
Thursday, October 4. 2007
From the Free Online Dictionary: 1. Specious or excessively subtle reasoning intended to rationalize or mislead. 2. The determination of right and wrong in questions of conduct or conscience by analyzing cases that illustrate general ethical rules.
It's odd that a word would have two such antithetical usages, but one can see how the perjorative usage could have grown out of the second. The subject arises because Prof. Deneen takes a look at Georgetown Law's decision to permit internships at institutions which are not consistent with Catholic teachings. The Prof sees in that decision a failure to apply the necessary casuistry to the issue.
Sunday, September 30. 2007
1 Timothy 6:6-19 (ESV) 6 Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment, 7 for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. 8 But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. 11 But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. 12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. 13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, 14 to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen. 17 As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. 18 They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.
Sunday, September 23. 2007
That is why the rich young man was so loath to follow Jesus, for the cost of his following was the death of his will. In fact, every command of Jesus is a call to die, with all our affections and lusts. But we do not want to die, and therefore Jesus Christ and His call are necessarily our death and our life. .
 If I were a preacher, I would like to have preached this sermon: Believing is Seeing, by R. Maurice Boyd of the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church (1991).
It seemed relevant to all of the miracles reported in Luke 5. One brief quote: Science isn't a matter of believing only what you see. Science is a matter of believing and seeing by believing. One of the greatest scientists tells us that. Einstein said that it all begins in an attitude and the attitude is one of wonder which is not far from faith. He says that astronomy began not when somebody looked at a star through a telescope. It began when somebody said, "Twinkle, twinkle little star. How I wonder what you are." Say that seeing is believing, but if you do, don't expect to be a scientist.
Read the whole thing. Photo: A Hubble photo of infant stars in a star nursery.
Since my group is doing Luke 5 this week, I thought I'd post some. Simon Peter's reaction to the haul of fish is notable. As a friend said, a natural reaction might be "Hey, Jesus - how the heck did you do that?"  Luke 5: 1-11
1 And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret,
2 And saw two ships standing by the lake: but the fishermen were gone out of them, and were washing their nets.
3 And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon’s, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship.
4 Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a adraught.
5 And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have atoiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net.
6 And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net abrake.
7 And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink.
8 When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.
9 For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken:
10 And so was also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt acatch men.
11 And when they had brought their ships to land, they aforsook all, and bfollowed him. Image: Duccio (c.1308) The Calling of Peter and Andrew
Friday, September 21. 2007
Aimee at Historical Christian takes a detailed look at the past and present role of much-maligned and historically-abused indulgences (h/t, Dr. Bob). I do not know a lot about Catholic practice, but I liked what I read. I am a somewhat religious man. I worship and seek a relationship with a God of Truth and Mercy, through Jesus. I believe that sin is sin, and that action is required to undo it. I believe that sin alienates us from God and from our fellow humans. I believe that we are all sinners - but that's no excuse. Indulgences, which are a current Roman Catholic practice, are part of the way sin can be addressed. One quote: The practice of indulgences dates to the very earliest days of the Church, where it existed in nascent form (though the term “indulgence” did not come into use until later). It is based on revelation, is closely associated with repentance and forgiveness of sins, and the understanding and practice of it has and continues to develop. From the beginning it was a spiritual practice and did not involve money, but primarily involved prayer, fasting, and almsgiving to the poor. It wasn’t until around the 11th century (when Europe was moving from a barter economy to a money economy, and money became more widespread) that a donation of money to the Church according to one’s means, as a work of charity, began to be accepted as a spiritual practice that could result in an indulgence.
Read the whole, meaty thing. (It is fitting, but just by chance, that I post this on Yom Kippur.)
Sunday, September 16. 2007
The purpose of your life is far greater than your own personal fulfillment, your peace of mind, or even your happiness. It's far greater than your family, your career, or even your wildest dreams and ambitions. If you want to know why you were placed on this planet, you must begin with God. You were born by his purpose and for his purpose. -- P.17
Another quote from Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life, via John Hawkins
Sunday, September 9. 2007
 Opie sent us this one:
A man and his dog were walking along a road. The man was enjoying the scenery, when it occurred to him that he was dead. He remembered dying, and that the dog walking beside him had been dead for years. He wondered where the road was leading them. After a while, they came to a high, white stone wall along one side of the road. It looked like fine marble. At the top of a long hill, it was broken by a tall arch that glowed in the sunlight.
When he was standing before it he saw a magnificent gate in the arch that looked like mother-of-pearl, and the street that led to the gate looked like pure gold. He and the dog walked toward the gate, and as he got closer, he saw a man at a desk to one side.
When he was close enough, he called out, "Excuse me, where are we?"
"This is Heaven, sir," the man answered.
"Wow! Would you happen to have some water?" the man asked.
"Of course, sir. Come right in, and I'll have some ice water brought right up."
The man gestured, and the gate began to open.
"Can my friend," gesturing toward his dog, "come in, too?" the traveler asked.
"I'm sorry, sir, but we don't accept pets."
The man thought a moment and then turned back toward the road and
continued the way he had been going with his dog. After another long walk, and at the top of another long hill, he came to a dirt road leading through a farm gate that looked as if it had never been closed. There was no fence.
As he approached the gate, he saw a man inside, leaning against a tree and reading a book.
"Excuse me!" he called to the man. "Do you have any water?"
"Yeah, sure, there's a pump over there, come on in."
"How about my friend here?" the traveler gestured to the dog.
"There should be a bowl by the pump."
They went through the gate, and sure enough, there was an old-fashioned hand pump with a bowl beside it. The traveler filled the water bowl and took a long drink himself, then he gave some to the dog. When they were full, he and the dog walked back toward the man who was standing by the tree.
"What do you call this place?" the traveler asked.
"This is Heaven," he answered.
"Well, that's confusing," the traveler said. "The man down the road said that was Heaven, too."
"Oh, you mean the place with the gold street and pearly gates? Nope. That's hell."
"Doesn't it make you mad for them to use your name like that?" "No, we're just happy that they screen out the folks who would leave their best friends behind."
 Jeremiah 18: 1-11
The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2“Come, go down to the potter’s house, and there I will let you hear my words.” 3So I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was working at his wheel. 4The vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as seemed good to him. 5Then the word of the Lord came to me: 6Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done? says the Lord. Just like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. 9And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. 11Now, therefore, say to the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: Thus says the Lord: Look, I am a potter shaping evil against you and devising a plan against you. Turn now, all of you from your evil way, and amend your ways and your doings.
Image: Jeremiah, approx 1311. Museo dell'Opera del Duomo, Siena. From Web Gallery of Art: "...the Slaughter of the Innocents (which also portrays Herod in the act of ordering the slaughter) is fully explained in the scroll of the prophet Jeremiah, where one can read: "Vox in Rama audita est, ploratus et ululatus multus: Rachel plorans filios suos" (Jeremiah 31, 15: A cry is heard in Rama, a groaning and bitter lamentation: Rachel is weeping for her sons).
Sunday, September 2. 2007
Luke 14:1, 7-14 7 When he noticed how the guests chose the places of honour, he told them a parable. 8‘When you are invited by someone to a wedding banquet, do not sit down at the place of honour, in case someone more distinguished than you has been invited by your host; 9and the host who invited both of you may come and say to you, “Give this person your place”, and then in disgrace you would start to take the lowest place. 10But when you are invited, go and sit down at the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he may say to you, “Friend, move up higher”; then you will be honoured in the presence of all who sit at the table with you. 11For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.’ 12 He said also to the one who had invited him, ‘When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbours, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. 13But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. 14And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.’
Sunday, August 26. 2007
Luke 13: 21-30 22Jesus went through one town and village after another, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. 23Someone asked him, “Lord, will only a few be saved?” He said to them, 24“Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able. 25When once the owner of the house has got up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us,’ then in reply he will say to you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’ 26Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ 27But he will say, ‘I do not know where you come from; go away from me, all you evildoers!’ 28There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrown out. 29Then people will come from east and west, from north and south, and will eat in the kingdom of God. 30Indeed, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.”
Sunday, August 19. 2007
Jeremiah 23: 23-29 23Am I a God near by, says the Lord, and not a God far off? 24Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them? says the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord. 25I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy lies in my name, saying, “I have dreamed, I have dreamed!” 26How long? Will the hearts of the prophets ever turn back—those who prophesy lies, and who prophesy the deceit of their own heart? 27They plan to make my people forget my name by their dreams that they tell one another, just as their ancestors forgot my name for Baal. 28Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let the one who has my word speak my word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat? says the Lord. 29Is not my word like fire, says the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?
Friday, August 17. 2007
Re those Brit Christians who want to call God "Allah": I am not one of those who says "It's all the same god, so what does it matter what we call him/her/it?" They aren't "all the same," and I happen to be a happy monotheist. I like this from Insty: "I SAY CALL HIM "HERMAN," OR I'LL START BLOWING SHIT UP."
Monday, August 6. 2007
 For the fine arts to revive, they must recover their spiritual center. Profaning the iconography of other people's faiths is boring and adolescent.
Thus comments atheist Camille Paglia in her excellent essay. She makes the case, with which I agree, that art without a spiritual center quickly degenerates into narcissism, commercialism, propagandizing, or adolescent shock-art. Another quote: A primary arena for the conservative-liberal wars has been the arts. While leading conservative voices defend the traditional Anglo-American literary canon, which has been under challenge and in flux for forty years, American conservatives on the whole, outside of the New Criterion magazine, have shown little interest in the arts, except to promulgate a didactic theory of art as moral improvement that was discarded with the Victorian era at the birth of modernism. Liberals, on the other hand, have been too content with the high visibility of the arts in metropolitan centers, which comprise only a fraction of America. Furthermore, liberals have been complacent about the viability of secular humanism as a sustaining creed for the young. And liberals have done little to reverse the scandalous decline in urban public education or to protest the crazed system of our grotesquely overpriced, cafeteria-style higher education, which for thirty years was infested by sterile and now fading poststructuralism and postmodernism. The state of the humanities in the US can be measured by present achievement: would anyone seriously argue that the fine arts or even popular culture is enjoying a period of high originality and creativity? American genius currently resides in technology and design. The younger generation, with its mastery of video games and its facility for ever-evolving gadgetry like video cell phones and iPods, has massively shifted to the Web for information and entertainment. I would argue that the route to a renaissance of the American fine arts lies through religion.
Read the whole thing in Arion. h/t, reader. Image: One of Andy Warhol's Tomato Soup images, to my mind just one example of "art" lacking in a center - unless his idea was to mock the very idea of artistry. He made himself fabulously wealthy with this sort of stuff, but his Hollywood-style celebrity was at the core of it all.
Sunday, August 5. 2007
Read the Amazon reviews of Piper's Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. I ordered it yesterday. I am grateful to a Brit friend for letting me know about Piper, whose church in Minnesota he attended last week while on a cross-country road trip. The high points of his trip? Meeting Piper, and camping in Glacier National Park.
 A summer message to the congregation from The Rev. Charles Hoffman, rector of Grace Episcopal Church, Old Saybrook, CT:
Fundamentalism is not a four letter word. Dear Friends in Christ: The present controversy in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Community is primarily over the issue of the authority of scripture and our interpretation of it. Those who hold to a devotion to the Bible as the Word of God are called many names from “conservatives” to “fundamentalists,” as if these are derogatory terms. I have come to believe that being faithful to the fundamentals of the Christian faith contained in the Apostles and Nicean Creeds and in the 39 Articles of the Church is essential to the preservation of the core doctrines of the Christian Church. Much of orthodox Christianity depends on the way we understand God’s written word to us. When I was ordained a priest in the Episcopal Church in 1969, the Bishop of Chicago asked me the following questions from the Book of Common Prayer (1928): “Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ?” “And are you determined out of said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge; and to teach nothing, as necessary to eternal salvation but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture?” To which I replied: “I am so persuaded and have so determined, by God’s Grace.” (1928 BCP p. 542) By this oath I promised to uphold the authority of Scripture in my life, my ministry, and in the church I was called to serve. When I came into the fullness of faith through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and was born again and baptized in the Holy Spirit, I personally accepted the Bible as the Word of God to be the rule of my life. As I began to preach more faithfully from the Bible and to call people to new life in Jesus Christ, I was accused of sounding like Billy Graham, as if that would not be a great honor, and I was often called a fundamentalist. When asked the question of whether I took the Bible literally, I often responded by saying, “I take the Bible literally where it is meant to be taken literally. I take the Bible figuratively where it is meant to be taken figuratively. But I always try to take the Bible seriously.” So what does it mean to be called a fundamentalist? Fundamentalist Christianity or Christian Fundamentalism is a movement that arose mainly within British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by evangelical Christians, who in a reaction to modernism actively affirmed a fundamental set of Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible (Sola Scriptura), the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent return of Jesus Christ. While there was no single founder of of fundamentalism, many ideas and themes had been suggested by American evangelist Dwight L. Moody (1837-1899) and British preacher John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). The original formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference (1878-1897) and in 1910 to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which distilled these into what became known as the “five fundamentals:” 1. The inerrancy of Scripture
2. The virgin birth and deity of Jesus
3. The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God’s grace and human faith
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus
5. The authenticity of Christ’s miracles (or alternatively, his pre-millenial second coming)
(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) But consider these questions: Are these five fundamentals not the core of the Christian faith and life as contained in the Creed and traditions of the church? Are they not held as the teaching of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as reflected in the teaching and praying of the Book of Common Prayer? Are they not what the church has believed throughout its history? So why should we be ashamed of being called a fundamentalist? Perhaps if the Episcopal Church returned to these fundamentals of doctrine, we would find our way back into the fullness of the Christian faith and heal the many divisions in the church. So the next time someone calls you a fundamentalist, respond by saying: “Yes, and which of these fundamentals do you reject?” In Christ,The Rev. Charles L. Hoffman, D. Min.
Rector
Wednesday, August 1. 2007
A re-post from over a year and a half ago: "With so much being written by the Left and the Right side of politics on the subject of Faith and Legislation, Judgeships and War, I have found some interesting essays and a 20 year old homily given by newly elected Pope Benedict XVI covering the topics discussed in the Congressional corridors, blogosphere, campuses, and in the homes of concerned citizens. These men, leaders in their fields of poetry, philosophy and religion, comment and forewarn of the dangers of men who tread on the domain of the Highest Power and whose thoughts of glory can at times lead Humanity into the Abyss from which it cannot escape. When kids sit in a History classroom learning about the Age of Antiquity and say," why do we need to learn this? It is so old." The teacher answers back, "because we cannot learn from our mistakes if we do not revisit them." Well, at least that is what I remember saying." "The child who dwells inside us trusts that there are wise men somewhere who know the truth. That is the source of the beauty and passion of intellectual pursuits -- in philosophical and theological books, in lecture halls. Various "initiations into mystery" were also said to satisfy that need, be it through the alchemist's workshop or acceptance into a lodge (let us recall Mozart's Magic Flute). As we move from youthful enthusiasms to the bitterness of maturity, it becomes ever more difficult to anticipate that we will discover the center of true wisdom, and then one day, suddenly, we realize that others expect to hear dazzling truths from us (literal or figurative) graybeards."
Christian faith has destroyed the myth of the divine state, the myth of the state as paradise and a society without domination. In its place it has put the objectivity of reason. But this does not mean that it has produced a value-free objectivity, the objectivity of statistics and a certain kind of sociology. To the true objectivity of men and women belongs humanity, and to humanity belongs God. To genuine human reason belongs the morality that is fed by God’s commandments. This morality is not some private affair; it has public significance. Without the good of being and doing good there can be no good politics. What the persecuted Church laid down for the Christian as the core of its political ethos must also be the core of any active Christian politics; it is only when good is done and recognized as good that a good human social existence can thrive. To bring to public acceptance as valid the standing of morality, the standing of God’s commandments, must be the core of responsible political activity.
"Such is the gospel of the idealists. But it is also true that cosmos has sometimes degenerated into chaos. It is futile to rush with a fire brand through the priceless architecture of an ancient civilization chanting 'Excelsior' as each tower topples and each temple is destroyed. The mere efflux of time is not synonymous with progress: alteration is not necessarily repair; change may as easily connote decay as its opposite."
And again from Czeslaw Milosz, from a letter written to English poet Stephen Barker:
"How do you write about suffering and still be able to approve of the world at the same time? If you really think about the horror of the world, the only suitable attitude seems to be to reject it. I've always regretted that I'm made of contradictions. But, if contradiction is impossible to overcome, we have to accept both its ends."
Tuesday, July 31. 2007
"Five reasons why I love Jesus." Anchoress
Monday, July 30. 2007
 Some folks like to read and think about reason and revelation. For some reason, when I think about it much my brain gets numb. Maybe I believe that existence itself is a mysterious dream from the mind of God.
Dr. Bob takes on the subject of reason and faith once again. A quote: Sweeping generalizations about what “most Christians think” seem common among those who understand little of what any Christian thinks, and miss the mark anyway: the standard is not what “most Christians” believe, but what Christianity as a faith has taught and maintained throughout its two-thousand year history. And while Christianity maintains that aspects of its core beliefs may be reached through reason alone — such as the existence of God, the nature of the soul, and the existence of a natural moral law — Christianity is above all a faith based on revelation. It maintains that God exists, that He is personal, and that He has intervened in human history, making Himself known both by written revelation and through the person of Jesus Christ. While the secular materialist views such a position as irrational – contrary to reason — Christianity maintains instead that it is supra-rational: not contrary to reason, but above reason by the very nature of God. It stands to reason that man — confined by his very nature to space and time — cannot through reason alone understand a Being who transcends space and time — eternal and self-existent in nature, unlimited in intellect and power, unchanged and unbound by time, having existed both before time and throughout eternity.
Sunday, July 29. 2007
I like this quote from Bob at One Cosmos (whose puns and triple-edged spelling you have to let yourself enjoy), from a piece of the above name: Eckhart said that we are held back or "estranged" from God by three primary conditions, time, multiplicity and matter. As a result, one cannot "know" God per se. Rather, one can only undergo him. Bion would have oppreciated this observation, for he recognized that if one cannot suffer pain, one cannot suffer pleasure, and knowledge is rooted in the pain of separation -- separation from O. Unknowing this separation is the highest form of knowledge, but it can only happen if you exert enough passivity or strive with enough effortlessness.
Me? I've given up completely.
One of my favorite letters of Paul - 1 Corinthians, 1:18  For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” 20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
Sunday, July 22. 2007
 Colossians 1:15-29
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. 17He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. 19For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross. 21And you who were once estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through death, so as to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him— 23provided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope promised by the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven. I, Paul, became a servant of this gospel. 24I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church. 25I became its servant according to God’s commission that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, 26the mystery that has been hidden throughout the ages and generations but has now been revealed to his saints. 27To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28It is he whom we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone in all wisdom, so that we may present everyone mature in Christ. 29For this I toil and struggle with all the energy that he powerfully inspires within me. Photo: The Wellfleet MA First Congregational Church. Its clock chimes ship's bells instead of landlubber time. Photo from here.
Wednesday, July 18. 2007
The New New Atheism by Berkowitz in Opinion Journal. A quote: Unlike the Enlightenment atheism of the 18th century, which arose in a still predominantly religious society and which frequently went to some effort to disguise or mute its disbelief, the new new atheism proclaims its hatred of God and organized religion loudly and proudly from the rooftops. And unlike the anti-modern atheism of Nietzsche and Heidegger, which regarded the death of God as a catastrophe for the human spirit, the new new atheism sees the loss of religious faith in the modern world as an unqualified good, lamenting only the perverse and widespread resistance to shedding once and for all the hopelessly backward belief in a divine presence in history.
Is it not odd that intelligent people would view that as an important thing to do? I often think of modern proselytizing atheism as a form of religion, in which they replace God with a devil, who now must be driven from the land. I agree with Berkowitz' piece that the arguments are both thin and emotion-based, with minimal philosophical or theological background.
|
