More Orthodox than I look... Thoughts on Marcion

I recently posted a paper on the Old Testament and was visited by Beowulf, who identifies as a Marcionite. He had some interesting things to say and after researching my books (Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions, Justo Gonzalez's The Story of Chrsitianity, and Bart Ehrman's The New Testament) as well as looking at his site and claims, I am finding that I'm much more orthodox than i look. Here's how:

I affirm and intersect with the following historians, all who wrote against Marcion in one way or another:

Irenaeus of Lyons thought that the crown of creation is humanity, and is a free and responsible being. The purpose of our lives is to enjoy an ever-growing communion with our creator, but on the other hand, the human creature is not made from the beginning in is final perfection. Instead, we are guided by God to become the perfect human which is found in Jesus Christ. God's purpose is to make us ever more like the divine, and thus Genesis was no the goal of creation, just it's beginning. so for Irenaeus, there is a fall, but it is a fall upwards.

Clement of Alexandria steps up and mixes the Jewish Law with Gentile Philosophy. he is convinced that there is only one truth since God is one and thus would be the truth and the classical philosophers and prophets were one in the same and were pointing to the ultimate truth of God. the texts have more than one meaning and the literal sense, while important, isn't the only way as the meanings beyond the texts that the truly wise must discover. God cannot be described in human words, only in metaphor and in negative terms, and human language can do no more than point to a reality that is beyond its grasp. pretty post-modern for a dude living around 215 CE huh?

Then up steps Tertullian of Carthage, the heretic hunter and bane of Marcion. he's legalistic and rigid and sets up inflexible doctrines. Anglican Boy would really get a thrill out of this guy's writing cause he's a lawyer, and a really good one at that. so much so that Tertullian despises speculation as he states:

Seek until you find, but once you find, you are to believe. Thereafter, all you have to do is hold to what you have believed. Besides this, you are to believe that there is nothing further to be believed, nor anything else to be sought.

Tertullian and i would not have gotten along. however, he's overwhelming in his case the incarnation stating how a suffering God is one unique to the Judeo-Christian scriptures. we are to seek what God as done and not speculate on what God could do or has in store and we can only do this through the use of the Gospel's and what the Gospels rest on, namely the prophets and the OT. he writes that Jesus and the God of Israel are not only one and the same, but the Christian God is the Jewish God and then resorts to saying how Christians now "own" the OT. i don't like that step, but i do like how informed and knowledgeable Tertullian is of midrash, the Talmud, and the rabbinic literature; not something i see too many church father's having, Marcion included.

In writing against Marcion he askes what good is Marcion's god. The God of the church and the OT made the entire world and all its wonders, whereas Marcion's god has not created a single vegetable.what was Marcion's god doing before the last revelation? Is this love just a quick affair?

thus it is with this type of inflexible logic and mordant irony that Tertullian writes against Marcion, Praxeas, and Demetritus and becomes the "champion of orthodoxy."

then up steps Origen of Alexandria who notes that there are more than one creation story in the bible. he focuses specifically on the two in Genesis, which wasn't really a big deal because the Jewish scholars were writing about this long before Origen gets around to it. the spin he puts on it was that the first creation was purely spiritual, and the second physical. Origen found a God who wants us to return to our spiritual home but yet know the pain and joy of a physical life. in the end, we'll all be reunited in universal reconciliation, since God is love. he even goes as far as to state that even Satan will be saved. there will be judgment, but more in the fact that we must admit that we haven't lived up to our higher ideals, that our potential wasn't fully reached. afterall, Jesus' first call was for us to "repent and believe the kingdom was close at hand." he expounds beautifully on that, where as Marcion had no judgment at all in his theology.

whereas Marcion had a profound dislike towards both Judaism and the material world and thus developed an understanding of Christianity that was both anti-Jewish and anti-material (Gonzalez 61). Jesus had some hidden knowledge or revelation that showed that his God was a God of love whereas the Jewish God was a God of Justice-and arbitrary justice at that. He sought to establish a benevolent God where no acts of genocide, war, or choosing one group over another are attributed to him. just as the fundamentalists decry today, you can't pick and choose, and thus the OT was the word of an inferior god and should not be read nor used as the basis for Christian instruction. Paul and Luke became the core message of Jesus' life; yet even then Marcion rejected or radically reinterpreted the doctrines of creation, incarnation and resurrection; namely Jesus appeared as a grown man during the reign of Tiberius, there is no judgement in his message, and God is absolutely loving and offers free grace. sounds an awful lot like J. Denny Weaver, James Allison, and other adherents to nonviolent atonement.

Marcion may have been onto something, but questions of theodicy are never so easily solved. he seems to miss the "more-than-literal" readings that both Origen and Clement spoke about. he dismisses the incarnation with a docetic model. he is anti-semetic (not that Tertullian or many of the church fathers weren't) but worse, he's anti-material. no love of human emotions or urges has he, he makes Augustine look like a hedonist.

what i read in Beo's writings as well as other "reconstructionist" movements like the Toltec, Gnostic, and Hellenistic writings is a desire to do away with the bad parts of history, and pick out only the good. to say "that wasn't me" and not allow oneself to be implicated in history. but you are. like it or not, if you're white in the US, you're condemned for slavery. if you're male, sexism. if Christian, crusades and "slash-and-burn" fundamentalism. we're not pure. not ever.

 it's no secret that people use all sorts of crap to justify their bad behavior or exploitive practices. God and reason, religion and science are all co-opted to betray our best intentions. 

this is humanity. it's flawed. we're strange and dangerous and we hurt each other. but this is our doing. the desire to hide the nakedness of our greed and our natures in "polite" society on serves to veil the brutal facts of human life from itself. the inevitable hypocrisy which is associated with all collective activities of the human race, springs chiefly from this source: that individuals have a moral code which makes the actions of collective humanity an outrage to their conscience.

i think it's in the OT that we get the best insights into the outrage of the human character as well as our surprising redemptive and altruistic intentions. we get stories of resistance and subversive communal living within the limitations of all that it means to be human. of which, Jesus is grounded in and exemplifies. one without the other doesn't work, IMO. 

Evangelism

"I am here to recruit you" -Harvey Milk

We recently discussed evangelism and it's role in the church in class. I thought it was a full discussion and really cool. we used William Abraham's book "The Logic of Evangelism" as a starting point.

The book was written in ’89 and 20 years later, it’s still really relevant and brings up some great questions and problems with certain models and definitions of evangelism.


The most common definition is Evangelism as pure proclamation. the pro's of this style is that it is not results based and allows the work of God to happen. namely that if people don't listen, the evangelical would just knock the dust off his or her shoes and continue on just as in Matt 10:1-16. however, the problems here out weigh the pros as it dismisses the idea of the MAKE disciples of all nations command that implies a bit of formation. there is a disconnect between the ideas of preaching and teaching and tends to emphasize preaching as in "crazy street corner guy" like Brother Jed.





The Pirate did a great job on articulating the difference between Evangelism and Proselytizing in this post.

Another definition of Evangelism is using certain techniques or methods of church growth. This approach is cool cause it values insights of Social Sciences and looks to what people are doing in context. There's an emphasis to the here and now and not to the 'great beyond' and a practical approach. however, the downside is that many church growth leaders, namely the mega-church pastors,  have become pretentious concerning what they have achieved. Growth has led to some questionable things including: Harvest theology, theological disarray, shallowness and indifference.


Yet Abraham proposes that evangelism is an initiation into the Kingdom of God. It's actively seeking participation that is communal, intellectual, moral, experiential, operational, and disciplinary. It does not seek to simplify complex things so that they are easily handled. it involves formation and communal action and individual responsibility.


I enjoyed our reading of this book and the in class discussion. so often Christians throw around Evangelism without thought to what it means. it was helpful and i would like to put my own two cents in here.


At Trinity, there is a sign that hangs in Nancy’s office that says “Preach the gospel at all times, if necessary use words.” Like Harvey Milk stated at the top, I'm here to recruit you. Like an apple tree, my purpose here isn't to produce apples, it's to produce another apple tree. 


wait, wait... did I just recently write on Sabio's blog that i'm not here to convert anyone? right! well, isn't that contradictory to what you just wrote in the paragraph above? no, let me explain:


An apple tree drops a ton of apples in the hopes that they will be eaten and the seed will be spread around. I have a diverse set of readers here and they are reading my dribble and considering it and responding to it both negatively and positively. each discussion helps both people sharpen their own views and become a better person within their own tradition. if a reader meets another person who has similar thoughts that are expressed here, it is my hope to be networked with. i want to change the image of a monolithic Christianity. i want ppl to get the idea that there are other types of Christians out there than the pop-understanding. 


if these words jive with someone, it is my hope to be a resource in their journey. but it's not an active conversion experience, it's a passive one. much different than the "by the sword" or "slash and burn" method used by active evangelists. it's organic, based in love, and on the principles of Natural Church Development. 


I hope to steer away from the modernist viruses in the church which resulted in conquest and control models, mechanism, analytic reductionism, individualism, organizationalism, and consumerism. i find myself in the "wide-stream" the generous orthodoxy of Christianity and i love it. yet i see the faults certain traditions have. like a river, parts can be too deep, too muddy, too shallow, and some are filled with garbage. should there be some determining ethos to say "this image of Jesus should be in bounds, while this Neo-Nazi Jesus is unacceptable" yes. how can we do that? well, aren't we called to judge a tree by it's fruits. if a particular image causes people to hate their neighbor, why isn't that image out of bounds?


in conclusion to this long rant based on a great class, i would like to say that i'm not here to convert you. i'm here to recruit you to the idea that there are other Christians out there. that maybe you'd like to be a friend to these type of Christians, that there is value to a community like this, that service is a good thing regardless of the grounds for it, and history and tradition is important for followers of various principles, systems, and philosophies. I hope to sprout some new apple trees yet will not be discourage that they aren't Lindon Apples and that's it's okay if there are some Gala, Fuji, Golden Delicious, Granny Smiths, Sabio's, Jay Bird, John T, Yael, and other types of apple trees out there... or even if they are orange trees. or whatever.

Part I: Sacraments and the Good News

Sacramentology


I have no use for dual natures of things. I have no knowledge of how God is present in the elements at communion or baptism, nor should I know. That is part of the Divine Mystery. What I do know is that the church marks time for its people while reminding them of the Gospel. Baptism is a symbol of being loved even though we are powerless to do anything to earn this love. Communion is the joy and celebration of gathered friends and family with recognition that the table will change and people will die and yet we hope to one day share the table again with them. There could be more sacraments similar to the Catholic sacramental model, but I affirm the Protestant argument for two sacraments. I do, however, see the need for the church to observe other “markers” of an individual’s passage through a community and life. Events like confirmation (passage into young adulthood), blessing of vocation (an “ordination” if you will), marriage, blessing of the sick, and funeral rites should all be observed and marked for the good of the individual and the community. All things we do in remembrance of the Triune God.

Good News for Today

The early church’s radical inclusivity broke with the social conventions and traditional spirituality of its era but struck a responsive chord within the souls of people who had been marginalized and minimized by the in crowd. The vision and words of Christ are always attractive: Come unto me all ye who are tired and heavy laden; Come to me all who feel burned out on religion, and I will give you rest in the unforced rhythms of grace.

That means that our words have to look like Jesus: a mother nursing her babes, a father holding the hand of his loved ones and whispering real encouragement, a servant who steps down so that there is room for another to step up. Like Christ, the church should not be judge and jury, gatekeeper or the morals police but rather the incarnated Christ of its age, for without him there is only the stink of arrogance in the room.

Every church has to face challenges and deal with them with clarity and conviction. We know that we will never get it totally right all the time because we are only human. But we cannot pretend that the church’s actions do not cripple us sometimes and violate our best intentions as disciples. And unless we are practicing and proclaiming a Word that lifts the burdens of others with our music, our worship, our liturgy, our organization, and the way we share information as well as in acts of living compassion, then we are living under the judgment of Christ as exposed in scripture.

With this doctrine of the church, the church can do away with its competitive nature and live in celebration of diversity. The church can do away with the fear of change and live in the assurance of God’s grace through Christ as sustained to us by the Holy Spirit. This view honors the vision of Christ that the community brings good news to the economically and spiritually poor, sets captives free, and proclaims the Jubilee that is grace (Luke 4:18-21). This view honors the past traditions and spiritual practices, but does not hold one above the other. Each denomination adds a part to the full understanding of the Gospel. Luther, Calvin, Erasmus, and the other reformers are honored and their spirit of reform is followed, as the church cannot rest upon their answers but adapt their model to time and context.

Most of all the church should be about articulation and interpretation of grace. It is the proclaimer and not the source of grace. The church is a gift from God to the world, but it is not the conduit from which grace comes. What history has taught us about this view is that the church gets power hungry and corrupts the Gospel through dividing people in its definitions, doctrines, and creeds. As Justo L. Gonzalez wrote, “And because we believe, we commit ourselves: to believe for those who do not believe, to love for those who do not love, to dream for those who do not dream, until the day when hope becomes a reality. ” The church can no longer afford to divide people—it must bring them together. The church must honor that many colors and ideas are needed to paint a single landscape. The church will then have many generations with many income levels. The church will affirm diversity and cultivate a “Generous Orthodoxy” that includes all races, sexual preferences, and abilities. It will know its history and have a communal memory and vision not just a pastoral or consistory’s view. It will be a place of divine guidance.

Part I: Sin and Salvation

Sin and Salvation


It is this simple. We are saved through Christ’s life and subsequent death on the cross. Jesus did not die for us—anyone can die for something, but to LIVE for something: WOW! That in and of itself is divine. The death is only meaningful if the life was worth knowing about! There is suffering and evil in the world, and the church should not try to explain how they were created. Suffering and evil just exist, and we must deal with them. We can provide new insights, we can remind people of philosophical and moral ideals, but pastors should not be in the absolute answer business but rather in the questions and insight business.

“The church is not in the morals business. The world is in the morals business… and it has done a fine job of it, all things considered. The history of the world's moral codes is a monument to the labors of many philosophers, and it is a monument of striking unity and beauty. She is not in the business of telling the world what's right and wrong so that it can do good and avoid evil. She is in the business of offering, to a world which knows all about that tiresome subject, forgiveness for its chronic unwillingness to take its own advice…But the minute she even hints that morals, and not forgiveness, is the name of her game, she instantly corrupts the Gospel and runs headlong into blatant nonsense. Then the church becomes, not Ms. Forgiven Sinner, but Ms. Right and Christianity becomes the good guys in here versus the bad guys out there. Which, of course, is pure garbage for the church is nothing but the world under the sign of baptism.” (Capon, Hunting the Divine Fox 132-133).

If grace is true and to be trusted, we must have faith in it. We cannot worry that this will lead to all sorts of permissiveness and such open minds that our collective brains will fall out. We are to take the example of the parable of the prodigal son. Jesus tells us that the son gets a kiss instead of a lecture, a party instead of probation. By bringing in the elder brother at the end of the story and having him raise objections Jesus gives a great example to the church. The brother is angry about the party. He complains that his father is lowering standards and ignoring virtue—that music, dancing, and a fattened calf are, in effect, just so many permissions to break the law. And to that, Jesus has the father say only one thing: “Cut that out! We’re not playing good boys and bad boys anymore. Your brother was dead and he’s alive again. The name of the game from now on is resurrection, not bookkeeping.”

This view renders all saved through Christ period. I view all need for justification as largely a human need of reassurance. The church provides this but keeps this in check by saying to the concerned parishioner “Yes, you’re saved in Christ and given the grace of God, just like everyone else.” The church is to make no distinction or try to step into God’s role and come up with formulas as to figure out who is in heaven and who isn’t. As far as the church is concerned, everyone is getting into heaven because of Christ’s saving life and this is the Good News to be preached to the world. The church is at its best when it’s in a Universalist mindset. What God has done through the incarnation and the death and resurrection of Jesus conquers and saves all (NO Limited Atonement!). However, there is still room for a hell, which would be a disbelief and self-exile from God’s grace. Jesus came for the sick, not for the healthy (Mark 2:17), so it is a mistake to think that everyone will come through the doors of the church. That doesn’t mean the church should keep quiet, but instead proclaim without anxiety and with confidence.

Part I: Historical Church

Part I: THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

(The purpose of part I of the ordination paper is to provide a way for the student to share his present grasp and understanding of the teaching and traditions of the Christian Church down through the ages and to relate this to his own theological perspective.)

I always try to go with the simplest answer. When Asked what The Greek word used for “church” in the New Testament, “ekklēsia” just means “assembly, congregation, council.” In other words, a church is a group of people, a community. This entails everything it means to be human—being sinners and yet a little lower than angels. The church, like humanity, is a living paradox, limited and sinful yet hopeful and the continued incarnation of Christ on earth.

I have no need of Nestorian ecclesiology, which is the error dividing the church into two distinct things or states of being: namely the heavenly and invisible and the earthly and temporal. I instead favor a unified view that it is in the church’s best interest to focus on the here and now knowing that grace flows from God and everyone makes it to “the Pearly Gates.”

For too long the church has had no purpose and has been content to rest on its old answers. It felt that if it challenged too much, it would alienate people, lose its members, and die. It has done the opposite, and this has alienated people, lost the children and grandchildren of its members, and started the downfall of the church. The institution as it is cannot stand, and it must be resurrected into something new. The church should become a new institution that is localized and flexible. The church should be controlled by its members and guided by its pastor. This model is a side by side model, not a top down nor a pastor leading and people following. If someone stumbles, the best position to be in to help is at the person’s side. A top down model is not the model Jesus used. He never brandished his power, he led by serving. It has been shown that the pastor out front will focus on the supposed destination and will not check to see if anyone is following his or her lead.

This church I have in mind is not a religious institution. "I want you to set aside the notion of the Christian religion, because it's a contradiction in terms. You won't learn anything positive about religion from Christianity, and if you look for Christianity in religion, you'll never find it. To be sure, Christianity uses the forms of religion, and, to be dismally honest, too many of its adherents act as if it were a religion; but it isn't one, and that's that. The church is not in the religion business; it is in the Gospel-proclaiming business. And the gospel is the good news that all man's fuss and feathers over his relationship with God is unnecessary because God, in the mystery of the Word who is Jesus, has gone and fixed it up Himself. So let that pass" (Capon, Between Noon and Three: Romance, Law, and the Outrage of Grace 163). Instead it is a practical institution. It does not spend time on high theological language and theories because Christ talked in everyday language and images. “When Jesus told his parables to the people, his disciples asked, ‘Why do you talk to them in riddles?’ And his answer was: ‘So they won’t catch on. Because anything they could catch on to would be the wrong thing. As Isaiah said, seeing they don't see and hearing they don't hear, neither do they understand [Matthew 13:10-17]. That’s why I talk to them like this: because I don’t want them to have little lights go on in their heads. I want to put out all the lights they’ve got, so that in the darkness they can listen to me.’” (Capon, Hunting the Divine Fox 78-79).

Above all, the church needs to be relevant and simplistic, giving a new and unexpected light to the world that is both warm and inviting as it is bright and blinding. The church should be practical and full of purpose. Its purpose should not be to prevent people from sinning or to tell people what to do. God in Jesus did not prevent sinners from sinning. He went around forgiving them right and left. If the church wants to represent him, it should not misrepresent his methods. Instead the church should focus on forgiveness and healing.

The church should not rest. It should always seek answers to questions it knows will never be solved completely. The church should know where it comes from but be “theologica reformata et simper reformanda”—reformed and always reforming. It should not seek the answers as much as the correct question for any given situation.

The church should take joy in the gift of the scriptures. It should not place claims that the Bible itself does not claim nor that our Jewish brothers and sisters make (as they have had the TaNaK longer). Thus the scriptures are not inerrant, infallible, or to be taken literally. Gifts are to be loved, celebrated, and used responsibly and with great care.

The church should not be an enclave of refugees from the world; it is the sacrament of God's presence in the world by the mystery of the incarnation. It looks just like the world but with a slant and twist that turn everything upside down. It is at once totally familiar but totally disorienting. The church should exemplify what H. Richard Niebuhr labeled “Christ Transforming Culture.”

The church should not await a “second coming of Christ.” Christ has already come again. He was born into this world (the first time) and then again at Easter (the second time). Christ comes again every time a stranger is fed, a prisoner is visited, and the least of these being cared for (Matthew 25:31-46). The Gospel of Thomas states, “His disciples said to him, ‘When will the rest for the dead take place, and when will the new world come?’ He said to them, ‘What you are looking forward to has come, but you don’t know it.’” (Gospel of Thomas #34). Nor are we waiting for the kingdom of God, for Jesus said, “If your leaders say to you, ‘Look, the (Father'’) kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father’s) kingdom is within you and it is outside you” (Gospel of Thomas #3). We are awaiting the completion of the kingdom of God, which God will finish, but we must seek to do God’s will and do our part.

The ideal plan for the church is best laid out in Matthew 7: 6-12 as reframed in the Message: “Don’t be flip with the sacred. Banter and silliness give no honor to God. Don’t reduce holy mysteries to slogans. In trying to be relevant, you’re only being cute and inviting sacrilege. Don’t bargain with God. Be direct. Ask for what you need. This isn’t a cat-and-mouse, hide-and-seek game we’re in. If your child asks for bread, do you trick him with sawdust? If he asks for fish, do you scare him with a live snake on his plate? As bad as you are, you wouldn’t think of such a thing. You’re at least decent to your own children. So don’t you think the God who conceived you in love will be even better? Here is a simple, rule-of-thumb guide for behavior: Ask yourself what you want people to do for you, then grab the initiative and do it for them. Add up God’s Law and Prophets and this is what you get.” This view gives a whole new spin on sin and salvation and the sacraments.

Thinking about Christian History In America

Corporate or Colonial

The Movement is unstoppable…
Future Markets, Holy Wars
Been tried ten thousand times before
If you think that God is keeping score, Hooray!
–Clairaudients (kill or be killed) by Bright Eyes

It’s hard for me to find a whole lot to affirm in the Christian History in America. While there are small pockets of Christian behavior, the lot of it is a story of genocide, greed, and colonial expansion. But such is the history of man. When wasn’t this the case?

With the decimation of the Native Americans and the history of slavery, I struggle to see the good. I take some comfort that Noll is aware of this. He writes that American was a place “where Christian heroism, Christian exploitation, and the quite realities of day-to-day Christian life were all defined by the experiences, the assumptions, and the values of the European Churches” (Noll 8). I am still unsure how to hold this with integrity.

Olaudah Equiano asks the “polished and haughty European recollect, that his ancestors were once… uncivilized and even barbarous?” When I read this question, I was hit by a ton of bricks. This question is directed at me! Here I am feeling polished and so much more enlightened than those Christians who were first exploring this land. Don’t I fail to see that I too am just as limited by my own cultural and individual biases? Maybe ten, twenty years from now I’ll read my own writing and be appalled? And even my children or grandchildren could be embarrassed by the assumptions I make here and now. Just like my Christian ancestors who came to this land, I am living out my faith in the best way I know how, with the interpretation I have, and in the context I find myself in. My intention is to do good and be light to the world, but my actions have unintended consequences.

I recently heard a seminarian state that they are tired of politics. Well, they had better drop out of seminary now, because there is politics everywhere! Especially in church! Most of the time, we get it wrong. Take the English Reformation, it was spawned by the King’s motivation to produce a male heir. In the process, the crown was able to seize the funds of the Catholic churches and monasteries and expand its own corporate wealth. The human need of security and profit oft times lead to sin. The English crown saw a market and went for it in the name of Christ; future market and a holy war in tandem, like the Bright Eyes song quoted above. Seeing this, the Puritans headed for a new land away from the politics of England. Their intention was noble, but it ultimately failed as they still couldn’t fully escape the influence of England. I do find the Puritans noble in the suffering they went through to pursue their beliefs. I felt relieved when I read about spiritually sensitive Christians like Jean de Brebeuf and his Jesuit colleagues. The majority, however; were not like the Jesuits and Christian history in the Americas is awash in the blood of the innocent.

I could despair at this fact if it weren’t for my view of history. To put it simply, when we know better, we do better. Meaning when we see the evil committed and the human toll it takes, we work to correct. We end slavery, we stop the genocide. However, this also works in the opposite way. We are incredibly good at war and killing large amounts people efficiently. My view though is that things are getting better, not worse. For Christians such as myself looking at history, we see the effects of the past and we work not to repeat them in the future. We acknowledge the mistakes and we don’t get apologetic about it. We ask forgiveness and work to end our own versions of slavery (i.e. sex slavery, sweat shops, racial tensions, etc), genocides, and war. We are working to get post-race/colonial/sexist/heterosexist/anti-semetic etc. towards a peaceful coexistence were oppression is minimized and justice prevails.

I, like my Puritan ancestors, hope to create a new society based on God’s kingdom as envisioned by Jesus Christ. At the same time, I seek to be as spiritually sensitive as Brebeuf in my interactions with those of other faiths and cultures.

Works Cited

Equiano, Olaudah. “Traditional Ibo Religion and Culture.” Pages 13-19. African American Religious History; A Documentary Witness. Second Edition. Ed. Milton C. Sernett. Duke University Press: 1999.

Noll, Mark A. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishers, Grand Rapids, MI: 1992.

A Good History

I've said it before, and i'll say it again. I'm tired of being a "Christian, but". I'm a Christian but I affirm other traditions, like the LGBTQ, believe in evolution, drink alcohol, don't believe in a sacred/secular split, etc. In my studies this semester, i'm taking "United Church of Christ: History, Polity, and Doctrine" and i'm loving it! I'm learning with each class that the UCC is definately my spiritual and historical home.

The UCC has been many things and it's hard to sum up. In short it comes from 4 denominations that merged in the 1950s. Those "4 Streams" are the Congregationalists, Reformed, Christian, and Evangelical churches. We affirm all four of those histories, some extending all the way back to the reformation, while others were home-grown American Revolutions.

UCC has poked fun of itself calling themselves:

• a heady and exasperating mix
• unitarians considering christ
• utterly confused christians
• universalists christ crazed
• un-tied christians

and yet stand as a church that wants to be:

• united and uniting
• reformed and reforming
• unity with variety
• unity in diversity
• looking for the living God
• affirming that God is still speaking
• believing "In essentials unity, in nonessentials freedom, in all things charity" (Eden Seminary's motto)

here's a brief overview of what each "Stream" brings to the UCC.

The Congregationalists: the Puritan and separatists were part of this tradition. intially it was called "The Way" and didn't want to be labeled anything as the prime beliefs being the autonomy of the individual church and the freedom to follow Christ in context and as the sole head of the church.

they were Calvinists and believed int he elect, primacy of scripture, and that all works are a responce to the freely given grace of God. they believe that creeds and confessions weren't all that important and cared more for conversation and education. the motif's in play were a sense of flexibility and adaptability, social awareness, realistic and practical, and great missional zeal.

some notables: Johnathan Edwards (Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God), John Wise (natural rights such as democracy, autonomy, and covenant is consistent with faith which lead to Congregationalist support of the American Revolution), and Washington Gladden (father of the social gospel: Christians must stand against injustice, rabid and selfish individualism, and economic exploitation).

The Reformed Church: has roots in Germany and names Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin as sources. Liked Calvin's simple worship and struck a balance between Luther and Zwingli in communion: not going as far as Luther but yet refraining from calling it "just a symbol" as Zwingli. Unlike the Congregationalists, this stream was confessional with a lot of creeds, the foremost being the Heidelberg Catechism. They focused that a highly structured church is a good thing and found freedom in the order as it provided helpful boundaries and easy identity.

Lancaster Theological Seminary where I attend was the only historical Reformed Seminary and also where Mercersburg Theology popped up. some notables include the hiding of the Liberty Bell during the revolutionary war, Philip Schaff, and John Williamson Nevin.

The Evangelical Church: didn't have a lot of money or members. They largely affirmed three things.

1. Pietism that sits between orthodoxy and rationalism
2. no creed but Christ crucified
3. in essentials unity... that phrase listed above.

H. Richard Niebuhr and his brother Reinhold Niebuhr both came out of this tradition.

The Christian Church: was largely absorbed by the Congregationalists. they were largely a small confederacy, loosely affliated with one another, that was based on Enlightenment Principles and affirmed: Law, unity, passion with no trained clergy. they wanted warm hearted leaders with a keen moral sense.

so there are the 4 Streams in a nutshell. each brings their own story and contributes in a unique way. there is also a UBER-PROGRESSIVE history behind each of these as the UCC was the first to ordain a woman, african-american, and openly gay ministers. started the first integrated anti-slavery society, wrote the 'Serenity Prayer', argued to uphold the treaties made with the First Nations Tribes, as well as many other firsts. Read more about these firsts here! Plus it would stand to mention that President Obama was UCC in Chicago; NOT MUSLIM. but since Rev. Wright, he's stuck to the National Cathedral, which is okay, Darth Vader is on the outside of the church, so it can't be all bad, right?

Needless to say it's great to know that i'm part of a progressive strain that has been at the forefront of the issues. many want to call Christians closed-minded, stiff-necked, and out-dated, but here is a whole history that says otherwise. they affirm a generous orthodoxy and have been exempt from a lot of charges now leveled at many Christians today.  i can't help but want to work to keep this proud history going! RAWK!

Thank you Julia!!!

Episode Three

Part One



Part Two

A Predestined Conversation, Episode Two

REFORM!!

Reformation: the sitcom, episode 1, The Magic Eightball parts 1 & 2. Commentary on Thursday! enjoy!

Part One:


Part Two:

Reformation: The Preview

Existential Crisis

originally written before the birth of Eve.. updated today, but i think it still serves... read and comment please!

the definition: Existential Crisis: a perceived sense of harsh confrontation experienced when a human confronts questions of existence and a change in one’s subjective perception their relation to their world.

the history: When i came into seminary i largely held a Palagian view of humanity.. mainly that had capacity to do good through reason and logic. when confronted with the truth, a person would adjust and change accordingly.

the opposite view of this is Augustine, who's view christianity has largely adopted, which is: argued that fallen man still has a free will (liberium arbitrium) but has lost his moral liberty (libertas). The state of original sin leaves us in the wretched condition of being unable to refrain from sinning. We still are able to choose what we desire, but our desires remain chained by our evil impulses.

Pelagius argued that Augustine's doctrine that humans went to hell for doing what they could not avoid (sin) was tantamount to the Manichean belief in fatalism and predestination, and took away all of mankind's free will. Pelagius and his followers saw remnants of this fatalistic belief in Augustine's teachings on the Fall of Adam, which was not a settled doctrine at the time the Augustinian/Pelagian dispute began. Their view that mankind can avoid sinning, and that we can freely choose to obey God's commandments.

the problem:: recent events have shown me that people are happy to be stuck in their situation... some people won't choose to get out of the situtation when the evidence is presented to them as they are comfortable with the pain. sort of like "the devil i know is better than the one i don't" sort of deal. this is highly frustrating. my high view of humanity has taken a large hit.. reason and logic won't always win the day.

it was pointed out to me by two great friends that i'm largely thinking of this because i'm bringing a child into the world. i'm pondering what sort of world this is. what is the core nature of humanity?

where I'm at now: I think a balance needs to be struck. Humans are limited and sin is a very real and universal state of humankind. I can see why one would believe the doctrine of original sin but I feel that this invites too many illogical support systems that need to happen. First a semi-literal interpretation of scripture is needed and belief in a shalomic state of being was intended. There had to have been a “garden” in which to fall from. This is inconsistent with science and serves no purpose. All it does is try to fit God into a human notion of good.

However, I’m not as confident as Pelagius was in human freedom and capacity to do good. I think humans do good when it serves their self-interests or interests of their group. This is not inherently sinful as Augustine would have insisted, but it does need some work. We need to see how we are connected to everything! We are entangled in relationships with other humans as well as our environment and animals that exist in that ecosystem. We are quantum entangled on a molecular level as well.

Quantum entanglement is a possible property of a quantum mechanical state of a system of two or more objects in which the quantum states of the constituting objects are linked together so that one object can no longer be adequately described without full mention of its counterpart — even though the individual objects may be spatially separated. This interconnection leads to non-classical correlations between observable physical properties of remote systems, often referred to as nonlocal correlations.

In short, we need to take our biological response for self and group-preservation and widen it to incorporate those who do not look or act like us.

Can Original Sin serve today? I don’t see how it can; there are too many additions one must add onto this doctrine to make it scientifically viable. It simply doesn’t fit with biology or physics. It makes for a good story and a great logical set up for the need for Jesus in a closed model, but once science enters into the picture, the story falls apart.

more research must be done... but i cannot hold that Eve is just as sinful as me... i mean doesn't my experience count for nothing?! i got 27 years on the kid! she's no more sinful than a snowflake. she will be living in a world where it's easy to learn this behavior.... so what i guess it boils down to is Freedom is a Pain in the Ass.

Ash Wednesday

HAPPY ASH WEDNESDAY!! oh wait.. tis not the season to be happy... anywho, we're in Lent now.

Here is my art project from last year from the Christianity and the Visual Arts:



i'll have to reconstruct that sometime again at LTS.

There are some traditional practices associated with Lent. The three traditional practices to be taken up during Lent are prayer (justice towards God), fasting (justice towards self), and almsgiving (justice towards neighbor). Some people give up a vice of theirs thus adding something that will bring them closer to God. I haven't given up anything since I gave up Lent in 2001 or so (around the time when i 'officially' broke from Catholicism). but now i feel i should reclaim it.

so i'm going to give up COMPLAINING. there is much to be thankful for! here at seminary we lose sight of this because we're overwhelmed, overworked, under-slept, or whatever the case maybe. wish me luck and call me out if something reeks of complaining on here!

Coptic Christainty

We visited St Mark's, home of the Coptic Pope, Pope Shenouda III. Who are the Copts and how are the different from Orthodox or Catholic Christianity?

According to ancient tradition, Christianity was introduced to the Egyptians by Saint Mark in Alexandria, shortly after the ascension of Christ and during the reign of the Roman emperor Claudius around 42 A.D. Some famous Coptic scholars were Athenagoras, Clement, Didymus, and my favorite, Origen, who is one of the most distinguished of the early fathers of the Christianity.

They also gave Christianity monasticism. the most prominent figures of the monastic movement were Anthony the Great and Paul of Thebes (who we've already talked about), and Macarius the Great (who we WILL talk about!).

The Copts had a HUGE impact on the rest of Christianity but are considered to be different, part of the Oriental Christian Tradition, NOT the Catholic or Greek Orthodox traditions. The Oriental Orthodox communion comprises six groups: Syriac Orthodox,Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (India) and Armenian Apostolic churches. These churches are different due to a disagreement at the Council of Chalcedon.

Chalcedon declared that Jesus has two complete natures, one human and one divine. The Copts argue that Jesus, though divine as well as human, is only one person. They likened Chalcedon's doctrine to the Nestorian heresy, condemned at Ephesus, which stated that Christ was two distinct persons, one divine and one human. In 2001, the leaders of Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy concluded that they had always believed in the same Christology, but differed over how this was to be formulated, thus healing has begun between the Orthodox and Catholic churches.

Here's the visit to St Marks:


During the Q&A session with the Pope, two really funny answers that stuck in my head.

Q: I like a girl, but she doesn't like me! I pine and yearn, but to no avail, what should i do?

A: I wish these boys loved God as much as they love these girls.

Q: I recently moved to Cairo from a small village. I'm finding city life has a lot more temptations than the village life. How can i keep from sinning amid all these temptations?

A: No one can make you sin. Your heart has to be open to it in the first place. Pray and go to church, but realize that you are the one making the decision to sin or not.

Both of these responces brought a deafening roar of approval from the crowd. it was like being at a rock concert or sports game. maybe i should do a weekly Q&A from my church or even on the blog... ummm......

Orthodoxy Check

A slight misunderstanding can go a long way. This is what I'm learning in my Church History class. I absolutely love history! It's great to find out why we do what we do and what historical origins and contexts brought these about.

Cody, who used to attend LTS but is happy at a seminary in NYC, had a high view of the church fathers. I must say, after reading the writings of the first fathers of the 1st to 3rd century, i'm highly impressed. but then came the Imperial Church and that's where i'm struggling.

in this era we see the church adopting the very thing it was fighting. the church took on the worldly power and mixed itself with imperial ideology so much that we still have this confusion today. here is where all the heirarchy, militaristic language and themes, and concern with catagories were spawned.

and y'all know what i think of categories! as Rabbi Heschel wrote "Trying to pierce the mystery with our categories is like trying to bite a wall."

Rule of Three:
Watching: King of Kong; a Fist Full of Quarters LONG LIVE STEVE WIEBE! He's got the true title, Billy is a punk! Watch the movie and email the site to state that Steve rules!!!
Listening: my Halloween rotation of Slipknot, Rammstein, and Type-O Negative
Reading: Change of Heart