Another Quote

[Discussing Jer. 22:16] Remembering the cause of the needy is not something that good, respectable, paternalistically inclined, philanthropically oriented people do after they already know God. No, the remembering the cause of the needy is the way to know God. —Dr. Mark Taylor, Princeton Theological Seminary

Wandering

As I was reading the Bible today, I came across the story of Cain and Abel. As I read the famous story, I found a part of the curse placed upon Cain by God quite interesting. God says, "You [Cain] will be a restless wanderer on the earth" (Gen. 4:12). I found it interesting that restlessness and wandering is given as a curse. American culture has always valued the lone wanderer, whether it be a Clint Eastwood cowboy or a Jack Kerouac novel. But is this a virtue or a curse? Do we all long for belonging, for community more than fierce independence? Or perhaps independence detached from fellowship. Can a wanderer truly survive without community? Or are we are at least searching like Kerouac for a brotherhood of wanderers? Do we search for roots, belonging, to be known and to know, because that is hardwired to our identity? Perhaps I should return to Bonhoeffer's 'Life Together'...

A funny convo from freshman yr of college

Austin: "Kenny, who is better: Jesus or Tupac?"

Kenny: "hmm...I think they're even."

Austin: "Really? Why?"

Kenny: "Well for three reasons: First, both Jesus and Tupac's respective deaths brought reconciliation. When Tupac died it ended the East coast, West coast rivalry. Second, both leaders were killed by their enemies and their followers still believe they're alive and teaching. Finally, I'm pretty sure Tupac's 'To Live and Die In LA' saved my soul."

Austin: "So what does Heaven look like then?"

Kenny: "That's easy. Heaven is like Jesus, Tupac, the Buddha, John Lennon, and Mohammad sitting around a table drinking beer and eating fried chicken."

Austin: "That sounds like a Heaven I want to be a part of."

Kenny: "Me too, Austin. Me too."

Freestyle

I'm at a coffee shop just chillin. Coffee shops are for members of the "I'm a free spirit but like to conform to free spirit motifs". Everyone comes here looking the same, or at least attempting to capture that 'I belong in a 60s counter-culture movement'. Odd, if you look like other nonconformists you are cool, if you look like no one else you're crazy. Perhaps I'm just not cool enough to understand how counter-cultures or simply being counter-cultural works. But I assumed it meant you had to be different from everyone else. However, not so. Thick black glasses, v neck shirts, tight pants, coffee, and ironic t shirts are all part of the new youth counter culture. Yet I feel we are all trapped in the same cycle. Whether you wear and tie and go home everyday to a nice suburban home or live in the artsy inner city...we're all searching for meaning. I mean, what is an indie kid dancing in the rain like they read in a book or going to a local restaurant actually attempting to do? I suppose find meaning. Belonging. St. Augustine would say that they are searching to love and be loved. And isn't this the same as the person in the suburbs? The same search just with different clothes and language. We're all just fools, blind people searching for light. Our only hope is that somewhere along the way we find someone who understands. Who seeks to soothe our souls in this journey we call life. For me, I am learning to transcend the endless game of role creation. To understand that we are all the same, there is no difference. Whether you dance in the rain or watch a movie, all of us are simply searching for meaning. Our paths are diverse, but our search is the same. To love and to be loved.

Second thought

Is beauty in itself an attribute which emanates from God or is it when his energies are perfectly embodied? Does beauty exist on its own or is it found in the incarnation of God? Does beauty occur when heaven and earth harmonize? Do we recognize beauty when harmony is achieved among the energies of God or does it exist separately? In short, do truth and beauty radiate from God in the same way? Or are all attributes of God simply participatory on our side of heaven so that incarnation is the only medium by which we can experience them? In which case Christ is the highest expression of himself God can possibly make to humanity.

Random thought

Our concept of the proper relationship between scripture and tradition have always been pivotal in the history of Christianity. Indeed, the Protestant schism was founded upon the concept of Scripture as over and above tradition. I was thinking today that perhaps Scripture and Tradition should work hand in hand. I mean, whether you recognize it or not, tradition is often the lens through which we view Scripture. Although our heritage is "people of the Book" often tradition becomes pivotal. But we cannot allow tradition to become too overwhelming in what we do. Certainly this was the error of the religious leaders of Jesus' day and in our own. Ultimately, the teachings of Scripture and the practices of tradition are meant to be embodied. These things are meant to be incarnated. So perhaps as St. Maximus the Confessor would argue, the incarnation is a natural expression of God which must happen because according to his nature incarnation occurs. The incarnation of the divine attributes in Christ and reflected in our own process of incarnation is a fundamental principle of the universe.

A Church Home

Finding our place amidst the modern church can be rather difficult. Centuries of theology, what are we to do? We cannot change the past and we must live in the present. As Abelard demonstrated, not even the Church Fathers agree with one another on every point. Troubles with original sin. Troubles with immaculate concept. How are we to even be Christian? What does that even mean? However, perhaps we find comfort in our examination of our forefathers. Examine the Gospel of Mark, look at the character of the disciples. These are individuals who believe, but still doubt. St. Peter announces that Jesus is the Christ, yet he doubts Christ’s mission. He proclaims that Jesus is the Son of God, yet he cannot walk upon the water while looking into the eyes of his savior. The first disciples profess Jesus as God and yet they struggle with their own doubts, insecurities, and personal dilemmas. The very people who conversed with divine reality had reservations. How then are we, who have not seen the Lord, not to have problems? How are we, who encounter the imperfect Bride, not to have doubts? And to have doubts is a necessary part.

When all doubt is gone, we have lost the mystery of faith. A lack of uncertainty often means that the mystery has been solved. The article of faith has been rationalized so as to be immediately accepted. To have no questions, no doubts, is to enter into a stage of static theology. Growth has stopped. The tree has fully matured. But even the disciples continued to wrestle, continued to struggle even after Christ had risen! Even after Pentecost, in which they were filled with the Holy Spirit they still struggled to understand! How so must we! If the mystery is gone, then everything that the saints and the defenders of the faith fought for is in vain. The heretics, who claimed to understand God, have won. But if questions still exist, if doubt still challenges us to travel further, then perhaps there is hope. Christ asks that we bring what we have to him. Even when all we can offer is some bread and fish He can work miracles. The journey of faith is the same. We join the Church not because we are confident that every question will subsequently be answered but that they community of faith will continue to foster our growth and guide us as we dive further into the mystery of God.

The subjectivity of religion

An interesting strand in theology is one called "apophatic theology" or the knowledge of God obtained through negation. The strand is quite old, dating back to the church fathers like Athenagoras of Athens. In fact, the great St. Thomas Aquinas was a major supporter of apophatic theology. These theologians believed that God is so perfect he is unlike anything that is created and as such God can only be described as what He is not. This strand tends to emphasize the transcendence of God (although often employed by mystics), that a infinite God is unable to be comprehended by a finite mind. Our Eastern Orthodox brothers highly value the idea of the mystery of God. At a certain point, we must rest in the unknowability of God. Perhaps my Protestant brothers would recall Job's final realization that God's ways are higher than his ways and must simply trust in that mystery. So, with this in mind, must we accept that to a certain extent religion is subjective? We cannot truly say anything with complete certainty about God so we must rest in this mystery. That being said, we must also affirm that the special revelation of God via the person of Jesus Christ and the prophets must provide objectivity. But can we say that our verbal equations, called theology, truly captures the person of God? Where do we, or even should we, allow for subjectivity in our understanding of our religion and theology?

Another interesting quote

"They [the first few ecumenical councils] are like the light of the moon--reflected from the sun and yet helpful in the black night of ignorance and error" -Roger Olson

Interesting Quote

"At the end of the Old Testament period the Israelites know more about God than they knew at the beginning but they are not more able to obey God. And this is where the Christian narrative begins, understanding that if you are relying on human work and animal sacrifices to please God you will fail because it is part of a flaw in human nature." -Dr. James D. Nogalski, Baylor University