In Search of Beauty

A few weeks ago we were talking about sexual identity. and this interesting essay. 

You will recall that the writer postulated that the concept of sex-based identity for humans is a modern construct and that the terms, heterosexual and homosexual, which have multiplied and produced a plethora of sex-based identities for post-moderns to choose from, did not exist before the mid-1800s and were popularized by Freud in the early 1900s (the behaviors were, of course labeled and discussed before that time but those behaviors were not considered to have to do with a person’s core identity but rather the result of being a sinful, fallen human being whether male or female).

I’ve lately become more and more interested in Church and Medieval history, well, not history per say but interested in early and medieval thought, especial in the life of the Church. That’s because I like C.S. Lewis. Lewis, for me is one of the marker stones that I always come back to for understanding of theology, philosophy and practical Christian life. Whether it’s Meditations on the Taro, Hermeticism, or Plato, Lewis’ profound understanding of medieval literature coming from a life devoted to its study is a sure pathway.

Anyway, one thing led to another which led to this interesting essay by Anthony Esolen about friendship and how it has been defiled by arbitrary and convenient redefinition

His fine essay takes me back to my experiences as a boy and young man. Mine was, I’m sure fairly typical for men my age – distant parents who were working hard to make a materially better life for themselves and their children while at the same time leaving the yeoman’s work of discipline, direction and affirmation to the schools and the Church and mostly for the kids to figure out on their own. Our parents came from an age where that was possible. Boys and young men could possibly have relationships with extended family and others in the community without much fear of the dangers that plague families and communities today.

In Captains Courageous, Kipling paints a beautiful picture of healthy relationships between men and boys, “Tis beautiful to see how he takes to ut,’ said Long Jack, when Harvey (a 14 year old) was looking out by the windlass one thick noon. ‘I’ll lay my wage an’ share ‘tis mor’n half play-actin’ to him, an’ he constates himself he’s a bowld mariner. Watch his little bit av a back now!’

            “That’s the way we all begin,” said Tom Platt. “The boys they make believe all the time till they’ve cheated ‘emselves into bein’ men, an’ so till they die – pretendin’ an’ pretendin’”

I think I can state pretty confidently that I’m not the only man my age that would have benefited greatly from more influence in my young life from unconfused, honest, older men. I am, at the same time very thankful for the men that did have an influence on my life like my father and grandfather. When I was a little older there was a burly German mechanic who worked for a Porsche racing shop where I hung out every chance I had. A little later another German Porsche mechanic taught me how to tear down and rebuild 6-cylender Porsche engines and to drink St Pauli Girl and Courvoisier. And, a little later yet, and most influential was a Pastor who was willing to put up with this brash, confused and insecure young man. He and I spent many an hour drinking coffee till my eyes couldn’t focus for the jitters. For his patience and kindness I will forever be grateful.

This essay and others are pointing to something. Esolen does a fine job of stating the problem but, as a Christian, what can I do to make it better instead of wringing my hands, restating the problem and lobbing condemnation on the media, the politicians and the schools? What is the missing ingredient? What am I not understanding?

Lately I’m beginning to think that the missing ingredient has to do with beauty and our response to it.

But more on this later

Abram has visitors

Separation

Funny dream last night. In it I had the opportunity to confront someone who had deeply offended me many years ago. I was not angry. I had prayed through and talked out the situation several times before and had long since made my peace. I did not speak in malice or with any desire to hurt but I spoke so that person would understand. They understood. You’re thinking that maybe they asked for forgiveness and we had a happy ending, but they didn’t. It wasn’t necessary. What was necessary was for me to articulate my hurt and anger to someone whom I will likely never have the opportunity to speak to in this life and feel that they understood my hurt.

It was such a stark and realistic dream that it woke me up immediately after I had said my piece. As I lay in bed pondering it I realized that I still had a sliver of a thorn in my heart that I was not aware of. Job chapter 33 says, “For God speaks in one way, and in two, though man does not perceive it. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls on men, while they slumber on their beds. . .”  God spoke to me in my dream.

B.G. over at O.C. has been talking about separation lately, or how God pulls back to create space for us to discover our need and search for Him. It’s always amazing to me how God can accomplish more in a 30 second dream than I can in a lifetime. As I pondered, it was revealed to me how I had not really been angry at the offending party of my dream but that I had been angry at God. Now, I confess that I have had times when I’ve been angry with my Maker and there was no doubt between Him and me of that fact. I was angry and I let Him know it. He wasn’t impressed, by the way. But this was deeper.

I was taken back to the story of a small child who had been offended when his mother abandoned him in kindergarten and then later when that child grew to adolescence and was abandoned once again by divorcing parents and older siblings moving away from home. In both situations that child was forced to make decisions that he was not prepared to make and he chose to be angry about it. He thought he was angry at Mom and Dad and the rest of the world. In reality, by extension, he was angry with God, but he didn’t know it.

That is the story of my personal separation from God. I’m sure you have one too. You see, I had gone through those times thinking God was nowhere, that I was alone, that I had been forsaken and abandoned and, if it was to be, it was up to me. And I was angry.

The good news is that God was always there, I just didn’t know it. And, in a moment of time, in a dream, God gently pulled the sliver of a thorn out of the child/man’s heart, and that space between Him and me, in that moment became much smaller. As I continued to ponder on my bed I suddenly realized that my anger was gone. What I didn’t know was there but always knew was there was gone. Now it was my turn. I did the only thing I could do. In a moment I realized my fault and my sin and asked His forgiveness.

“ Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it.” – I Thessalonians 5:23-24

Heretical Schismatic 

Why I'm not Roman Catholic or Orthodox

Since this seems to be a theme for me lately . . . .
I have no bone to pick with the Romans or the Eastern Church. As I've said before, I have a great respect for the R/Os. I don't know if Western civilization would have survived without them, especially the Roman Church. Emperor Constantine was both a blessing and a curse to the Church and his influence is still felt in the Church today, even in the far edges of the Protestant Church.
I have been called a heretical schismatic by a Roman and though I took it as a badge of honor I do not consider myself to be protesting anything, only disagreeing on a few points that marked, and still mark the Reformed Church (aka - the Protestant Church by the R/Os).
Anyway, as I've been giving thought to the issue lately, I came across a great quote by C.S. Lewis who is, in my opinion, one of the defining voices for understanding reformed Christianity.

"And now we begin to see what it is that the New Testament is always talking about. It talks about Christians ‘being born again’; it talks about them ‘putting on Christ’; about Christ ‘being formed in us’; about our coming to ‘have the mind of Christ’.

Put right out of your head the idea that these are only fancy ways of saying that Christians are to read what Christ said and try to carry it out—as a man may read what Plato or Marx said and try to carry it out. They mean something much more than that. They mean that a real Person, Christ, here and now, in that very room where you are saying your prayers, is doing things to you. It is not a question of a good man who died two thousand years ago. It is a living Man, still as much a man as you, and still as much God as He was when He created the world, really coming and interfering with your very self; killing the old natural self in you and replacing it with the kind of self He has. At first, only for moments. Then for longer periods. Finally, if all goes well, turning you permanently into a different sort of thing; into a new little Christ, a being which, in its own small way, has the same kind of life as God; which shares in His power, joy, knowledge and eternity."

- Mere Christianity

I can't claim to have studied R/O doctrine deeply though I know a few R/Os - mostly Rs - but I have never encountered anything in the Roman or Orthodox realm that comes anywhere close to such clear and forthright statements of the Gospel as are found in the Reformed branch of the Church. Whenever I begin to consider the state of the Reformed Church and all the wacky stuff that goes on and all the wacky people on its fringes and I begin to consider the possibility of going Roman I take a breath, read my Bible and some Lewis. 

And, that is why I am not Roman or Orthodox.

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone

God's richest blessings to you and yours.

In response to Julie's links:

The writer makes some good points and, to be honest, my brief summary of "Scripture" was incomplete. There is much more that could be said. My primary purpose in the reply to my friend was to point out that what we call the Bible is indeed much more trustworthy a source of inspired writings than any other writing of that time. I personally believe that it continues to be so.

Fr Stephen makes very good points on the issue and his is very much my understanding of the Orthodox/Roman view of scripture. I do have some issues with the O/R view but I don’t claim to have any superior understanding and welcome discussion on the subject.

I lean heavily toward the Anglican tradition when it comes to the authority of scripture and, to a lesser extent, my personal studies and what seems logical to my understanding. Anglican tradition claims that the Church rests on a 3-legged stool, scripture, tradition and reason. Actually it’s a rather lopsided stool in that the leg of scripture is much longer than the other two. In other words, in fully recognizing the importance of Church tradition and reason, Holy Scripture is preeminent. I and many Anglicans would also add a 4^th leg, the Holy Spirit, for just as faith without works is dead, word without Spirit is tenured theology.

Fr Stephens seems to think that “Protestants” have made an idol out of the Bible. Perhaps some have. Most that I have known don’t know enough scripture to make the distinction (and even more O/Rs). For most “Protestants” the Bible is no more an idol than a statue of the Virgin Mary is to O/Rs. He also seems to think that “Protestants” view the Bible in the same way Muslims view the Quran. If they did they would get upset when someone burns or defaces a Bible the same way Muslims do when someone defaces a copy of the Quran. They don’t.

  

In the first essay Fr Stephen talks about the authority of scripture and how scripture was given by the Church and how the Church is preeminent in interpreting scripture.  My first issue is this, did the Church determine what was/is holy writ or did it recognize what is holy writ? The O/R view is the former, the Reform view, which I agree with on this point, is the latter. I respect the O/R view and I recognize that there is more to this view than many Protestants recognize. But, if the Church is equal to or above the Scripture then what is the Church? Is it strictly the priesthood or is it the entire body of Christ. For the Church to be the sole interpreter of scripture would seem to mean, the learned, ordained, apostolic members of the Church. I respect the need for traditional understanding and experience and I think we can all agree that we don’t want a novice interpreting scripture for us, even if there are exceptions but on the down side, without input by the whole body (the Church) the (c)urch is apt to develop interpretations, traditions and theologies that are self-serving which is the situation that provoked Luther’s 99 theses and the reformation movement.

In the second essay Fr Stephen makes a very good point about how the Quran is a false Bible. I whole heartedly agree. Islam is a cult as is Mormonism, and Rastafarianism and many others that twist and rewrite Scripture for their own benefit.

It is important to understand what the Bible is and isn’t. If you study the Bible as a scientist you will find many scientific errors. That is because, although there are many scientifically accurate entries, it is not a science book. If you study the Bible as a historian you will find many errors. That is because, although there are many historically accurate entries, it is not a book of history. What the Bible is is a book of Truth. I would personally say that it is not the only book that contains Truth but it is the most comprehensive, reliable and trustworthy book of Truth that exists and as such I consider it a gift from the living God to mankind.

He also talks about how Christianity is not a submitting to God. I understand what he is saying. It is not a forced submission. Conversion at the point of a sword or gun is not, usually, a true conversion, it is a conquest. I also appreciate what he’s saying about unity with God. Understanding our unity with our Creator leads us on paths of communion and fellowship that many saints have traveled before us. But, Christianity is a submission. It is a submission in the sense of a bride that submits herself to her husband, not legalistically or in fear but because he has won her. We do not submit to Christ because he has conquered our flesh but because He has conquered our heart. We do so willingly. Not out of fear.

I do passionately disagree with Fr Stephen when he attempts to attach Protestantism to Islam. It appears to me that he is taking rather liberal leaps of logic to encourage the Orthodox faithful to stay in the corral while at the same time apply guilt by association to the schismatics and heretical Protestants.  

To put it in modern political terms, one view believes that power and authority should be centralized and the other view is that individuals are generally intelligent enough to make good decisions when they are give the truth unfiltered.

It is not my intention to offend anyone with my views and, hopefully I have not. If I have I blame it on Julie who provoked me to expound ;-). My thoughts are not settled on the subject so please feel free to expound, expand, rebuke or reply. 

A little while back a young friend asked me what I thought about the books and writings about Jesus that didn't make it into the Bible and, by extension, the ideas found in books like The Da Vinci Code.
Here's what I wrote to him:

Dear . . . ,

Before answering your question I think a little background on the Bible may be in order.

1.       The Bible contains 66 books or letters, 39 Old Testament and 27 New Testament.

2.       These 66 books are considered to be the inspired Word of God by the Protestant Church. There are also several books called the Apocrypha that are also accepted as Old Testament Scripture by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and a few others. The Apocrypha is respected by most Protestant churches and valuable for wisdom and training but not considered inspired by God. 

3.       Why are these 66 book considered inspired by God and not others?

a.       The Gospels, the book of Acts and the Epistles (letters) were all written between about 45-50 A.D. and 110-120 A.D.

b.      The early Church had only the Old Testament to work from.

c.       The 39 books of the Old Testament were regarded by the Apostles as the Word of God mainly because they were Jewish and had long been accepted by the Jewish leaders as such. (the books of the Apocrypha were respected by the Jews but not considered inspired – which is why most Protestant Churches consider them as they do)

d.      As the Apostles and others began to travel, teach and plant churches they would write letters to those churches for instruction and correction. Also, wherever they went they told the story of Jesus, His life, death and resurrection.

e.      The oral history as told by the original 12 apostles eventually was written down and these histories, along with the letters would be read in the churches, copied and distributed to other churches.

f.        As the Church grew and matured – A.D. 100 – A.D 300 – the early fathers began to realize the serious need to canonize, or standardize and compile these histories and letters. The 27 writings we use now were not the only writings being distributed in the churches. There were many, many others. Some of the writings were genuine but many were fake. Much like today, there were people who either misunderstood or willfully twisted the truth of the Apostles and would write or edit the writings for their own purpose. These were the Arians, Gnostics and outright charlatans.

g.       Over the first 300-400 years  there were several councils consisting of the leaders and theologians of the Church. Their job was to establish what was and what was not true Christianity. It was vitally important for them to address the many heresies that were attacking the Church.

h.      Over the course of many years, through many councils and much prayer and heated debates the 27 writings were recognized and accepted as the inspired Word of God by the Church.

4.       So, to answer your question:

a.       Although extra-biblical writings can be interesting, they are nothing new. The Church Fathers read and considered more of them than archaeologists will ever discover.

b.      Most of them are, either by design or by error, a distraction from the Truth.

c.       We have the very Word of God. Why would we settle for anything less?

Blessings,
R.B.

November Has an 'R'

Old School Oyster Harvest

Here's a quikie for today:

John Wesley, the Methodist, found it natural to approach the Gospel with habits of thought formed by a classical education but he was quick to recognize the value of other approaches. The early Methodist meetings were often led by lay preachers with very limited education. On one occasion, such a preacher took as his text Luke 19:21, "Lord, I feared thee, because thou art an austere man." Not knowing the word "austere," he thought that the text spoke of "an oyster man." He spoke about the work of those who retrieve oysters from the sea-bed. The diver plunges down from the surface, cut off from his natural environment, into bone-chilling water. He gropes in the dark, cutting his hands on the sharp edges of the shells. Now he has the oyster, and kicks back up to the surface, up to the warmth and light and air, clutching in his torn and bleeding hands the object of his search. So Christ descended from the glory of heaven into the squalor of earth, into sinful human society, in order to retrieve humans and bring them back up with Him to the glory of heaven, His torn and bleeding hands a sign of the value He has placed on the object of His quest. Twelve men were converted that evening. Afterwards, someone complained to Wesley about the inappropriateness of allowing preachers who were too ignorant to know the meaning of the texts they were preaching on. Wesley, simply said, "Never mind, the Lord got a dozen oysters tonight."

- Source unknown