Translating my thoughts into words.
I always wrestle with this, not so much the concept but the definition. I am preaching on June 8th and the readings are Hosea 5:15-6:6, Romans 4:13-25, and Matthew 9:9-13, 18-26.
So I ask, what do you all think of this ultra-simplistic definition of faith?
I am on the road today and tomorrow, but after lunch today I had the privilege of visiting one of the oldest Anglican churches in America. Trinity Church, Fishkill NY is over 250 years old and the building itself is 240 years old. The historical marker reads:
Organized by Rev. Samuel Seabury [in] 1756, built 1760. Provincial congress met here Sept. 1776. Used as hospital during Revolution
It is a very simple structure, not in the original layout, but form (so the rector told me). Note the stain-glass. There is no depiction of human or animal forms, but the lovely geometric representation of the Trinity. (Does anyone know what that is called? There must be some specific name, there always is in iconography.)
Tom+ has an article on the resurrection. I wonder what the special event would be to merit that. There is a curious a-f formatting of paragraphs, it is quite short, but to the point and of course wholly correct.
Nicholas T. Wright: The Resurrection Revolution – On Faith at washingtonpost.com
b. The word ‘resurrection’ in the first century, whether used by people who believed in it (Christians and some Jews) or by those who didn’t (pagans and some other Jews), ALWAYS meant something to do with people being physically, concretely, bodily alive having been physically, concretely, bodily dead. It acquires metaphorical meanings (e.g. to do with baptism and holiness) early on but still doesn’t lose its basic meaning. Thus if the early Christians had wanted to say ‘Jesus died and then went to heaven in an exalted state’, or ‘Jesus died but his cause lives on’, or ‘Jesus dies but we can still sense his presence with us’, they would never have used the word ‘resurrection’. They had perfectly good ways of saying those other things, and the word ‘resurrection’ (i.e. its Greek or Aramaic equivalents) wasn’t one of those ways.
And towards the end he says as well,
d. Jesus’ resurrection is thus the foundation — ontologically, and also epistemologically — for all the work Christians are thus called to do for the renewal of creation, society and human lives. Indeed, to be a Christian at all is to be called to be both part of that new creation, by the renewal of the mind and the obedience of the body, and also an agent of that new creation in the wider world. Believing in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is not, despite what many in North America imagine, a way of shoring up a ‘conservative’ world view with all the political fallout that that engenders. Resurrection always was, for the Pharisees and others who believed it would happen eventually and for the early Christians who believed it already had in one case, a highly revolutionary doctrine.
Do read it all.
As is so often the case, my friend Rick is right.
Presiding Bishop – Heal thyself!
Turns out that five Anglican primates have announced their intention to boycott the 2008 Lambeth Conference. (I wish they would not. Even if it turns out Lambeth 2008 is a waste of time and effort – at least give it one last chance if only to prove that playing by the rules is a waste of effort and time.) Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of the Episcopal Church had something to say about this:
The gathering will be diminished by their absence, and I imagine that they themselves will miss a gift they might have otherwise received… None of us is called to ‘feel at home’ except in the full and immediate presence of God. It is our searching, especially with those we find most ‘other,’ that is likely to lead us into the fuller experience of the body of Christ. Fear of the other is an invitation to seek the face of God, not a threat to be avoided.
Insofar as any bright eight year old can understand this I offered the following response at Midwest Conservative Journal by Christopher Johnson:
A painfully obvious question is whether she regards orthodox Anglican (arch)bishops as ‘Other’. (Just as rhetorically she assumes they regard her/ECUSA as ‘Other’.) And if so – are they a threat to be avoided? Does she think that searching with these orthodox/conservative Anglican leaders she and the TEC will be led into a fuller experience of the body of Christ?
We may surmise (such as from the aforementioned NPR interview) that her answer would indeed be ‘yes’. But we may also surmise that she already knows what this fuller experience of Christ looks like. She already knows where the search will take them. We may then challenge her and TEC – is it possible that by engaging the ‘Other’ (where ‘Other’ = Anglican leaders who differ strongly with you, those who may boycott Lambeth) your search will lead *you* (and TEC) somewhere you do not expect? such that you might need to do some repenting? (Fairness requires we raise the possibility that both ’sides’ will be led somewhere new that none of them expect.)
Her invocation of ‘Other’ may be rhetorical hypocrisy. (My guess it is.) She expects ‘them’ to walk with her (as ‘Other’ to them) but is not open to the reverse. But perhaps her rhetoric is somehow sincere. But even then is she sincerely open to its implications?
I am reminded by a famous question often asked by Linus the theologian from the cartoon “Peanuts”. “Has it ever occurred to you that you could be wrong?”
(Via http://livethetrinity.net/feed/atom/.)
Since I mentioned this in passing (expressing my disbelief that he could have called for such a think in the UK) I thought I should pass along a form of an update from Dave at “The Cartoon Blog.”
These are just things I’ve been thinking. Other people have said them, and other people have said them better. They don’t form a coherent argument.
Inevitable
I find it quite amazing when doing a Google search for sharia inevitable to see how many news websites report Rowan Williams as saying this, with quote marks around ‘inevitable’, when he didn’t even use the word ‘inevitable’ in the famous interview at all.Unavoidable
Rowan did use the word ‘unavoidable’ in the interview, but:
- It was the interviewer who introduced the word, a point which the BBC transcript of the interview omitted to mention. Context is everything. Well, it isn’t everything, but in this case I think you need the context to understand the answer.
- The question itself is a misquotation. “you’re words are that the application of Sharia in certain circumstances if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples’ religion seems unavoidable?” This isn’t what the text of the lecture says at all. The word ‘unavoidable’ in the lecture is talking about something else altogether.
Matt Wardman has gone into some depth about the BBC and their role in the whole affair.
As I mentioned yesterday I spent the day at General Synod. I did get an overwhelming sense that everyone there (bar the two members the papers managed to drag up at the weekend) was entirely supportive of the Archbishop. Here’s posts by two synod members which sum up pretty well what other people were saying:
Paul Roberts » As the dust settles at General Synod
It was good to meet Paul – we had a chat in the gallery and he pointed out some synod features – about which I’ll say more at some point.Mark Russell’s reflections: Rowan Willams
Mark: I was the scruffy-haired looking guy that was sitting with the Ridley people you spoke to at lunchtime.
(Via The Cartoon Blog.)
