08 November 2009

Of Jesus as an 'interest' on Facebook in itself


Whether Jesus can be an 'interest' on Facebook?
We proceed to the First Article: --

Objection 1:
It would seem that Jesus could be an interest on Facebook as he is my best friend, and I love to spend time with him. For that which is before all; namely, the Christ, has the capacity to serve not only as God, but as interest alongside 'laughing' or 'cooking with friends' or 'coffee' or 'rainy days.'

On the Contrary, A theologian says: "The gospel is not a truth among other truths. Rather, it sets a question mark against all truths."

I answer that, Facebook is a tool to be used as an end, thus, when something is 'tagged' or added as 'interest,' it is subsequently subjected to an lesser, commodified end. That is to say, to attempt to put Jesus under our feet is completely to the contrary to the Apostle: For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. Therefore, it seems utterly foolish to list 'Jesus' with other enumerated interests, as he himself is the Son of God and Lord of the Universe.


* Needless, to say...I'm reading the Summa for class.

31 October 2009

Barth and Preaching



Parishioners come expectantly, waiting to hear a word, the Word. Is it true, pastor? Please tell me it is true, Preacher! Please. What is the pastor to do? What is the proclamation that he or she is to make? Who are they to tell others? Barth seems to highlight this question quite well. He forthrightly offers up two big ideas (not only two, but for this reflection, I will offer up two) when approaching the text: the manner in which ministers are to treat their congregations and in-approachability of the “practice” of preaching.

Congregants come wanting to hear from God, to hear something big, something transformative. “They want to find out and thoroughly understand: they do not want to hear mere assertions and asseverations, however fervent and enthusiastic they may be” (108). What should be the pastor’s response to her congregation? Seriousness must be of utmost importance in the pastor’s posture. Barth writes: “They expect us [pastors] to understand them better than they understand themselves, and to take them more seriously than they take themselves” (109). While the task of “understanding” parishioners seems daunting, the preacher is given the Word in the word to the end that all who might come might be known, not simply by the reverend, but by the God of the universe.

What elevates the pastoral role? What should drive one who stands up in front of a group and speaks for or from God? Barth talks of his desire to “speak to the people in the infinite contradiction of their life, but to speak the no less infinite message of the Bible, which was much a riddle of life” (100). Indeed, what should drive he who preaches is paradox of life. We are alive yet dead, blessed yet sinful. But the good news of the Gospel is that “this No is really Yes. This judgment is grace” (120). The No of our existence is overcome by the Yes of God’s grace.

Preaching should not be done. Those with the weightiest task of telling of the God who judges all. James tells us that those who teach will be judged with greater harshness, more scrutiny. How dare one sermonize? Proclaim? The question before the minister is not how does one do it, but How can one do it” (103)? Who am I, o Lord, that I should stand before the assembly? To take the words, the Word, on my lips, to stake my life on it? It is evident that preaching is intensely eschatological. It proclaims that which is to come, and tells of that which is now as it ought or should be. The words are of ultimate significance.

The Biblical word of God is a weight that a human or even a community cannot bear. It is far too heavy, too much to stand. “The preaching of the Biblical word of God is laid upon us with the whole dead weight of a historical reality and cannot be shaken off” (115). All of history is culminated, recapitulated, summed up in the person and work of Jesus Christ, a Jew for the salvation of the world. The weight is not the job of the minister to carry. The minister speaks the promise, the hope. “Speaking the word of God is the promise of Christian preaching. Promise is not fulfillment. Promise means that fulfillment is guaranteed us…Promise is man’s part, fulfillment is God’s” (124). What is proclaimed is of ultimate importance, but the word is God’s and not any individual’s. Barth speaks of the inaccuracy of labeling something “my theology,” we are merely in a line of those who have come before, seeking to faithfully testify and proclaim the Word in the fragmented and broken words of humanity, the groanings of the Spirit. All that to say, we must take people more seriously than they take themselves and to humble ourselves, lying prostrate before the eternal Word as we open the Good Book and ask for God’s blessing.

*all page numbers come from the essay, "The Need and Promise of Christian Preaching"

28 October 2009

Is it ok that this makes me nauseous [and sad]?

http://letsbuildabridge.com/

Thanks to Matt for this thoughtfully crafted commentary.
...and one at Everyday Liturgy.

27 October 2009

Martin Marty on Rome and Canterbury

Top-knotch scholar, Martin Marty, speaks out about the recent decision by Benedict:
The top ecumenical – some are saying un- or anti-ecumenical – news of the year occurred October 20th with a Vatican announcement. Bypassing forty years of Anglican-Roman Catholic conversations-cum-negotiations and blindsiding Archbishop Rowan Williams, the head of the seventy-million-member Anglican Communion, Vatican officials announced that they were taking steps to receive Anglican (in the United States, Episcopal) clergy through conversion into the Roman Catholic priesthood. Headlines had it that Rome wanted to “lure,” “attract,” “bid for” or “woo” priests and congregations to make the drastic move, while the Vatican front man, as he fished for Anglicans, said he was not fishing for Anglicans.
What was behind the move? It was hard to read as a positive ecumenical gesture – Pope Benedict XVI has made some – since it did not revoke or revise what the Pope in 1896 declared and what is always reinforced: Anglican “orders,” for sacramental credentialing, were “absolutely null and utterly void.” As recently as last year, Rome’s ecumenical officer and Anglicanism’s ecumenical partner, “good guy” Cardinal Walter Kasper, spoke softly but carried a huge stick when he charged that some parts of Anglicanism had made things worse: Is it that the orders are now absolutely-absolutely and utterly-utterly null and void? The pope visits the U.K. next year. Wait and see.
What was at issue? There were subtleties on the side, irritations which had not yet prompted a radical twist, but observers agreed that a) ordaining women as priests and b) ordaining a gay bishop and more gay priests were the grand offenses. In the good old days Christian bodies fought over the Trinity, the Incarnation, Salvation, and Sacraments. In our epoch they and the media who cover them converge obsessively on issues of sex-and-gender, where contraception and abortion, “women” and “gays,” are the flame issues. Some Anglican moves have long alienated significant minorities; four dioceses and some parishes beyond them have pulled out of the Episcopal Church in the USA. They already sought and found what is legitimate and strategic in their sight, the cover provided by especially African Anglicans who also abhor gay and women priests.
Some Episcopal priests seemed ripe for plucking, and Rome set out to harvest, even if the Church will thus be accepting some married priests, while leaving their own home-grown priests-who-marry in exile. Those with even slight suspicion suspect that the Vatican initiative is also a desperation move to help solve the shortage of priests in the Roman communion. Some of the only half-gruntled Anglicans have uttered some “not-so-fast!” or “count-me-out!” cautions. As one leader among them reminded, “there was a Reformation, you remember,” as he spoke for those who knew that being received by Rome, even with gestures that would allow Anglican converts some liturgical and traditional free range, still demands a great doctrinal gulp. Converts would have to accept papal infallibility and, with it, the infallible doctrine (1950) of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin and other teachings which long offended non-Roman Catholics.
Archbishop Rowan Williams, though embarrassed by the surprise announcement of dealings behind his back, was characteristically Williamsian and old-style Anglican, as he reacted not in anger but with patience. The Anglican communion for centuries aspired to promote “comprehension,” doing what it could to prevent heresy and schism but in a spirit of openness. The papal visit next year will occasion fresh thinking and policies.

Why do the righteous suffer? Calvin, Job, and Double Justice


1554-1555 marked Calvin's year-long, verse-by-verse, sermon commentary on the book of Job. This collection includes some of his most beloved sermons, and there 159 of them to love. He articulately weaves in and out of the chapters, considering the holistic implications for not only the entire book, but for all of scripture. Calvin, differing from Gregory the Great's or many other Patristics' understanding, refuses to allegorize the text in any way. Rather, he insists on extracting the 'simple meaning' in order to ground the book. As such, Job for Calvin becomes a dialogue on the nature of providence between Job and his friends.

Calvin upholds the goodness of the created world and some knowability of the Creator from this ordered beauty, the 'theater of glory.' We are struck by the world's beauty and danger. Nonetheless, the book of Job presents the reader with an interesting problem. If we can know of God [in part] through creation and the God-ordained standards within the world, and those things seem to be upheld, why could/would one be 'unjustly' punished by God? Calvin says here that creation points us to God, but we are unable to 'crack the code' of God's providence in a likewise manner.

Job's problem is one of sight. We cannot fully know here on earth; 'we see through a mirror dimly...' would be one of Calvin's main tool for exegesis. The human optic is far from sharpened in the case of Job, and here Calvin finds it necessary to explain by means of noetic sin: Job cannot see well, while he might have good intents, he may or may not have been blameless.

In such a hermeneutical turn, Calvin proffers the idea of 'double justice.' He splits the idea of justice in two: a justice according to the ordinary divine standards and one that is beyond the given Law. This secret divine justice could condemn all, if God so willed, even the angels. And ultimately, it is hidden. Thus, ordinary justice is unable to challenge secret justice. So while Job appeared to be 'blameless' or 'just' according to the ordinary divine justice, he could have transgressed the secret justice. And if Job really were to reconsider, he would realize that he had transgressed this secret justice and repent.

But herein lies a question: Can God override divine ordinary justice according to divine secret justice? Calvin seems caught here. He doesn't want to say that God can just play with humans like marionettes. And while this idea could be an easy conclusion, Calvin assures his listeners that God does not act without cause. God's hiddenness is a secret justice not a secret power. The last thing Calvin wanted was to fill his congregants with the fear of an unreliable God. No, God will not arbitrarily break promises according to divine justice. In the end, Calvin must admit that God can act in accord with divine justice, but God cannot judge according to it.

Calvin's Job has no strict claim on God's justice. Divine secret justice, while beyond ordinary justice, insured that everything God did or did not do to Job was just. This sovereignty of Job's God scared even Calvin. It is one that situates God's freedom in the unchangebility of God's essence. Because here, God might not always be comforting and comprehensible, but God is always just.