{Update: Deleted cute baby picture due to blogger problems}
You know about Lil’ G; here’s Lil’ H:
9 lb, 21″ long…

I’d do a trackback but Blogger doesn’t “do” trackbacks…

Lp has started an interesting discussion on Satan and on the lack of reference to Satan/the Devil/ the demonic/etc. in the sorts of academically rigorous moderate-to-liberal protestant semnaries of the type we have attended.

I inevitably get uncomfortable when such discussions start–but it’s rarely for the reason you might think. The way I break it down is like this:

1. I’m a rational person coming from a scientific worldview.

Now, this isn’t up for negotiation–especially if I’m being honest with myself. I think a lot of believing, traditionalist Christians want to pretend that this isn’t the case. But it is; this is who our generation is.

2. My tradition tells me that there are actual extant beings of a spiritual order–i.e., angels and devils and–by extension because they are of the same spiritual order–God and Satan.

But it doesn’t stop there. We also have to go with point three…

3. I have experienced things that have no obvious rational explanation. The angels/devils/God/Satan referenced above seem like likely non-rational explanations–but other explanations could cover the same territory as well including unlikely/strained rational explanations.

So what do you do? I’ve discussed this a little in reference to the creeds but on the strength of 3 I try to hold both 1 and 2 simultaneously and acknowledge that I can offer no compelling rational framework or set of mechanisms that can model 2 in scientific terms. So, I live in a post-Enlightenment scientific world and willing accept the presence of spiritual beings that I cannot explain.

The problem I spoke of before? It’s with those who have diffculty with or refuse to hold 1 and 2 in tnesion with one another. They either run with 1 and reject 2 or they run with 2 and reject 1. C’mon people, we don’t know it all. Healthy ambiguity is good…

The line that I like the least is this one: “Well, I really do believe that ‘evil’ exists. Yep, evil’s out there in the world but I don’t believe in a physical Devil guy with a tail, horns, and pitchfork. Instead, I think of the devil as the totality of all the evil out there–but personified.” Seen this one before? If there is discussion of Satan/the Devil at a mainline seminary, chances are that it’ll look like this…

I *really* don’t like it because it leads so easily here: “Well, I really do believe that ‘good’ exists. Yep, good’s out there in the world but I don’t believe in a physical God guy with a long white beard and a robe. Instead, I think of God as the totality of all the good out there–but personified.” …and that’s just not right. We who are Trinitarian Christians believe that God is more than an abstracxt personification of a principle. Indeed, we believe that one person of the Trinity became incarnate as one of us and that another moves in, among, and through us daily. The abstraction language is logical and rational…to a point. But it looses touch with what we actually believe.

That’s why I insist not on a resolution that pretends that I/we/humanity understand how everything fits together but on a healthy ambiguity that pragmatically holds together what seems to work.

131
Domine, non est [785]

1. O LORD, I am not proud; *
I have no haughty looks.
2. I do not occupy myself with great matters, *
or with things that are too hard for me.
3. But I still my soul and make it quiet,
like a child upon its mother’s breast; *
my soul is quieted within me.
4. O Israel, wait upon the LORD, *
from this time forth for evermore.

This was written as (essentially) an anonymous rant in a England-wide clergy directory. The author was a disaffected Anglo-Catholic who committed suicide when his authorship of the piece was discovered. I need to study it more but it is very thought-provoking; its statements in the first part on English patristic and biblical studies are absolutely true. There is an “English” way of doing biblical studies which is quite different from the German and subsequent American schools of wissenschaft divorced from the concerns of the churches. So–read it. Parts are a rant, especially against WO, but I think it’s worth knowing and engaging meaningfully.

But nobody has any idesa what the hell it is… Check it out. What does this mean? Nobody knows but the Network seems to be making more of a muddle of things than drawing clarity out of them. This is (IMHO) the Continuing Anglican malaise–nobody ever really knows who’s with who, who trusts who, and who communes with whom.

Ok–one more quick thought. It’s about mission. One of the key problems that people aren’t owning up to–or, at least, aren’t owning up to well–is the problem that we are not working in anything even vaguely approaching a homogenous mission field. Precisely the thing that some people want and need to hear and to bring them to the Gospel is what will drive someone else away. The unchurched and dechurched people with whom I interact on a daily basis are–let’s face it–disgusted with the notion of instutionalized prejudice. And that’s how most of them see certain Christian attitudes towards women and gay and lesbian people. There are others with whom I interact far less often who are–let’s face it–disgusted with the notion that God approves things like women priests or gay and lesbian couples receiving the Eucharist together.

In a sense the Global South has it easier–their cultures *seem* (to an outsider in any case) to be more homogenous than the Western context. Thus, they know what to say when in order for the Gosple to be heard.

We’re in a much different place. I’d love for the Church to move ahead in mission–but it’s a pushme-pullyou kind of thing, isn’t it?

[And I know some reading this may be thinking–no, it’s not about “casting the message” a certain way, it’s just about bold proclamation and let the chips fall where they may! But let me tell as a teacher of rhetoric and preaching–it doesn’t work that way… Even simply picking up the Bible and reading aloud as an act of proclamation contains a host of rhetocial and theological decisions.]

Who knows–maybe a divided Anglican witness may be able to spread the gospel more effectively than a unified one…though I’d hate to see it come to that.

Ever feel like being a theological isolationist? Like putting up some walls and saying–look, I know y’all don’t like the way me and mine receive and practice our Christian heritage…just let us do our thing in peace. You’re probably not gonna change my mind, mostly you’re just pissin’ me off, and if you *were* trying to change my mind–pissin’ me off sure as hell isn’t the way to do it… (yeah, my country/Southern comes out when I get pissed)

*Sigh* Isolationism just doesn’t work, though. The age of isolationist feasibility ended about seventy years ago and with the digital age there’s no going back. What we need are better filters, I’m afraid. Filters that enable us to talk to those who really do want to talk, to answer questions from the truly questioning, to ask good questions of our own of those from whom we can learn [preposition abuse, anyone?], and to block out those who are interested in none of the above but are just trying to stir up trouble…

Quick note here. This from someone with a Danish last name and soon to be two daughters with quite Scandinavian names… I think that by and large American commentators have missed one of the major presenting issues in the whole international cartoon war.

We’re Americans, so when we think about Muslims our first thoughts tend to be about 9/11 and Iraq. What we miss is the cartoons in their specifically European context. We miss that it’s as much or more a class issue as it is a religion issue. I’ve give you a quick hint–most of the illegal immigrants who do the dirty low-paying jobs and threaten lower and lower-middle class jobs in Europe don’t come from Mexico…

Let’s just say it’s a very complicated issue all around.

Kudos to Dave on a good post about what one liberal Methodist looks like. Dave and I don’t agree on a number of things–mostly politics and football–but it’s nice to see somebody articulating a progressive agenda without also attempting to do away with the majority of Christian doctrines.

From this morning’s Office:

39
Dixi, Custodiam [638]
I said, “I will keep watch upon my ways, *
so that I do not offend with my tongue.
I will put a muzzle on my mouth *
while the wicked are in my presence.”
So I held my tongue and said nothing; *
I refrained from rash words;
but my pain became unbearable.
My heart was hot within me;
while I pondered, the fire burst into flame; *
I spoke out with my tongue:
LORD, let me know my end and the number of my days, *
so that I may know how short my life is.
You have given me a mere handful of days,
and my lifetime is as nothing in your sight; *
truly, even those who stand erect are but a puff of wind.
We walk about like a shadow,
and in vain we are in turmoil; *
we heap up riches and cannot tell who will gather them.
And now, what is my hope? *
O Lord, my hope is in you.
Deliver me from all my transgressions *
and do not make me the taunt of the fool.
I fell silent and did not open my mouth, *
for surely it was you that did it.
Take your affliction from me; *
I am worn down by the blows of your hand.
With rebukes for sin you punish us;
like a moth you eat away all that is dear to us; *
truly, everyone is but a puff of wind.
Hear my prayer, O LORD,
and give ear to my cry; *
hold not your peace at my tears.
For I am but a sojourner with you, *
a wayfarer, as all my forebears were.
Turn your gaze from me, that I may be glad again, *
before I go my way and am no more.

How long, O Lord?

I covet your prayers for lp, his family, and all the rest of us as well.

I’m on break from some sports show on TV.

There are folks who only come to church on Christmas and Easter. They’re not sure what page to be on or where the “S” section is to be found in the hymnal. And I’m okay with it–it takes all kinds.

Well, that’s me and professional sports. I just watch the Superbowl out of some vague obligation that it’s what an American ought to do.

I’m checking the status of Three Imaginary Boys which I’m loading onto M’s computer. Our halftime show thoughts so far are embodied by the title–M’s insight and contribution.

That is all.