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.

I’m finally getting around to the mem that Anastasia tagged me for…

Remove the blog in the top spot from the following list and bump everyone up one place. Then add your blog to the bottom slot, like so.

1) dr four eyes
2) corndog
3) Jeni
4) Anastasia
5) Haligweorc

Next select five people to tag

I have no idea who reads me but hasn’t been tagged yet–
1) bls
2) King Alfred is above such silliness, of course, but if in the mood…

What were you doing 10 years ago?

January 1996: I was in my senior year of college. I was finishing up my big final project on theologies of suffering in Japanese Buddhism and Christianity and looking at seminaries for the next academic year.

What were you doing 1 year ago?
I was long-term temping at the place I work now and doing a lot of translating of OE for my dissertation

Five snacks you enjoy:

A. peanuts
B. extra-sharp cheddar on triscuts
C. chips and salsa
D. oranges
E. port salut on triscuts

Five songs you know all the words to: (Five is way too few, so here are five that have a special significance for me)

A. Battle of Evermore–Zepplin
B. Fascination Street–The Cure
C. Master of Puppets–Metallica
D. Lovesong–The Cure
E. Christ Whose Glory Fills the Skies–Wesley

Five things you would do if you were a millionaire: (oh c’mon–millionaires are a dime a dozen; let’s shoot for multimilli0naire, shall we?)
A. pay off debts
B. establish a foundation that applies the draw-down to the internet dissemination of quality scholarship for the humanities (especially biblical studies and medieval studies with a focus on digitization of manuscripts)
C. buy a hell of a lot of books
D. commission cool artwork for a church with accompanying ora pro nobis plaque
E. save a little bit

Five bad habits:
A. not going here today…sorry

Five things you enjoy doing:
A. learning/reading dead languages
B. creating obscure research databases
C. playing with my daughter
D. cooking
E. having theological/liturgical discussions with M

Five things you would never wear again: (I’m so out of it terms of clothes/fashion/etc. that this almost doesn’t make sense. I’ll just strip it down to the basics)
A. really oversized shirts

Five favorite toys:

A. Books
B. my Palm (since it kinda operates as my main computer these days…)
C. my desktop unit
D. wooden blocks
E. I keep wishing I had wood-working skills to the degree that I could build a really cool dollhouse sort of thing for G and Forth-coming One; it’d be modelled on an Anglo-Saxon hall, of course…

Yes, all computer people will tell you this. And all people computer-savvy enough to write and read blogs know it. It goes in the same category as “test your fire alarms every quarter.” We know we oughtta–but we don’t, do we?

I discovered when attempting to load a file to send off to a comrade (it’s coming, Anastasia ;-)) that my venerable (in tech terms, at least) flash drive has bit the big one. It was where I kept all of my dissertation data to avoid it being spread across six or seven different computers. It served well, but, alas, is no more.

Fortunately, I had everything saved somewhere else and had backed it up not too awfully long ago. I only had to reconstruct one file–it was a serious pain in the but because it consisted of about seven other files written in non-sequential order but I had a print out of relatively recent vintage to guide me.

In short–this could have *really* sucked, but it didn’t. So please: back up your data!

Stolen from LC

1. When you looked in the mirror first thing this morning, what was the first thing you thought?
“Hmmm. I know I have to shave…but can I get away with not washing the hair…” I decided on a yes… ;-)

2. How much cash do you have on you?
$2.20

3. What’s a word that rhymes with TEST?
Rest. Something I’m chronically lacking…

4. Planet?
Janet! (Throw rice on cue)

5. Who is the fourth person on your missed calls?
Don’t have any

6. What is your favourite ring on your phone?
The one that sounds like a phone ringing… I prefer the vibrate function though. And get your mind out of the gutter.

7. What shirt are you wearing?
a snappy white dress-shirt

8. What do you label youself as?
Hard to say. A suppose corporate goth will have to suffice for the moment. ;-)

9. Name the brand of shoes you’ve recently worn.
Nunn Bush–to go with the snappy shirt (board committee meeting today…)

10. Bright room or dark room?
dark.

11. What were you doing at midnight last night?
Just crawling into bed after a successful library run.

12. What did the last text message on your phone say?
No text messages, sorry.

13. Where is your nearest 7-11?
no clue

14. What’s a saying you say a lot?
None come to mind.

15. Who told you they loved you last?
M mumbled something resembling that when I left for work way too early this morning.

16. Last furry thing you touched?
The cat who thinks it’s great fun to bite my ankles in the dark.

17. How many drugs have you done in the past three days?
Caffeine. And lots of it.

18. How many rolls of film do you need to get developed?
None–but I need to get a new charger for the camera. Does that count?

19. Favourite age you’ve been so far?
I like this one.

20. Your worst enemy?
Sin

21. What is your current desktop picture?
A 9th century German manuscript of the Sermon on the Mount

22. What was the last thing you said to someone?
“I hate this database.”

23. If you had to choose between a millions bucks and being able to fly, which would you choose?
Flying is great–but it can’t buy you books…

24. Do you like someone?
I like many people. I especially love my wife and daughters.

25. The last song you listened to?
Dragula by Rob Zombie off the Matrix Soundtrack.

Does anybody else do this? Keep a list of random books you’d like to write just as soon as you have the liesure to do so? Maybe not… Anyway, here are three for today:

* An Early Medieval English Catechism
This would be a set of introductions and translations from Ae’s homilies and letters with maybe a Vercelli or two thrown in for good measure. It could look at such things as General understanding of Christianity, The Creeds, Lord’s Prayer, Ten Commandments, the Sacraments, the Saints, Mary, the 4 Last Things, clerical duties, etc. This could be useful for 1)Church History students who normally just get a drive-by that totally skips the early medieval period and that is only interested in the *thoughts* of the *big names* not in how Christianity was perceived and lived out. Or for 2) Medievalists who tend to know next to nothing about Christianity. (The medievalists I know tend to fall into one of two categories–they either are pre-Vatican II Catholics/Anglo-Catholics or maintain an active and willful ignorance of Christianity. Unfortunately, Christianity so informs the cultres that the second group has no choice…) 3) Anglicans interested in finding out what the Ecclesia Anglicana really did believe…

* A Handbook of Historical Magical Texts
This would be for fantasy authors and other generalists. One of my *biggest* pet peeves as a fantasy reader is when an author inserts some kind of magic *thing* that is totally alien to the culture. It’s not like the texts aren’t available but they’re not terribly common and most non-professional medievalists/classicists probably wouldn’t know where to find them right off. Please, y’all, if you’ve got a druid thing goin’ on, don’t have ’em start out by invoking the four elements–nails on a chalkboard…

* The definitive English language work on lectionaries and homiliaries
This one’s just begging to be written and may well be the first post-dissertation project…

I was reflecting upon the whole denomination discussion below, especially in light of Annie’s comments. I typically keep audiences in mind when I write, and I find that when I write on denomination/doctrine issues I often think of Annie and Anastasia; Annie reminds me to bear in mind an openness to the Spirit and the Jesus who steadfastly resisted the religious authorities’ attempts to nail him–and the God he proclaimed–down. Anastasia reminds me of the value of hierarchy, the weight and responsibility of the faith handed down from and by the saints, and the need for process and protocol when it comes to matters of doctrine. (The rest of y’all are floating around in there too–they’re just the two edges on *this* topic…)[Update: It just occurred to me how this title and paragraph could be construed…Annie and Anastasia are NOT the two heretics of the title; they show up down below…]

In a way, I want to uphold the value of both positions because there are truly important things that we need from both. The bottom line for me is that an openness to God is essential; the church should not be in the business of squelching anything and everything for the sake of institutional self-preservation (and yes–that goes for liberal churches too…). On the other hand, good theology is also important. We take this God stuff seriously for a reason and we need to have a good sense of what we do and don’t believe and why and how that participates in the openness towards God. Note that I don’t say “precise” or even “correct” theology. These adjectives seem to me to lack way too much humility. So–I’ll settle for “good” taking two sense of the word: more-or-less internally consistent and one that highlights the practice and presence of the virtues. (Needless to say, my starting point for this is the Triune God known through Jesus as explicated in the creeds.)

In some sense I’m arguing for an openness with controls. You’ve gotta have them or else things get *really* wacky. Want an example? I’m a fan of St Boniface. A good English boy originally named Wynfrið, he is the Apostle to the Germans and was the first Archbishop of Mainz. Despite the apostolic toitle, Germany had been a mission-field for quite a while before he arrived. Much of his work was in organizing the Christian presence there, and he did this with a decidedly Roman notion of organization and papal authority. Thus, he did a lot of running around and yelling about clerical celibacy which was big in Rome and not so big on the edges of the empire.

One of my favorite sections of his correspondence is the record of the Synod of 25 October 745, Condemning Aldebert and Clemens. Here, Boniface had apprehended two bishops who he was arraigning on heresy charges. Let’s read about the second one first…

The other heretic, whose name is Clement, is opposed to the Church, denies and refuses to acknowledge the sacred canons and rejects the teaching of the holy Fathers St. Jerome, St. Augustine and St. Gregory. He despises all synodal decrees and declares on his own authority that, even though he has had two children born to him during his episcopate, he can still exercise the functions of a Christian bishop. He accepts the Old Testament ruling that a man can if he wishes, marry his brother’s widow and considers that the same doctrine is applicable to Christians. Contrary to the teaching of the Fathers, he affirms that Christ descended into hell to deliver all those, believers and unbelievers, servants of Christ as well as worshippers of idols, who were confined there. On the question of predestination he holds a number of damnable opinions which are contrary to Catholic belief.

So, this guy is for clerical–even episcopal–marriage, universal salvation, relaxed views on marriage laws, and takes a dim view towards the Church Fathers. This guy could be a time-traveller from our House of Bishops… I sometimes feel a little uneasy about this particular ecclesiastical smackdown. Given the way rhetoric and prosecutors function, I wonder how far outside the pale Clement really was or if the other issues were hopped up to add to the seriousness of the episcopal marriage problem. Clement makes me wonder about the abusive potential of the hierarchical system.

Then there’s the first guy…

Of Aldebert they say that I have deprived them of a saintly apostle and robbed them of a patron and intercessor, a doer of good deeds and a worker of miracles. But hear first the story of his life and judge for yourself whether or not he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

“Quite early in life he deceived many people by saying that an angel in the guise of a man had brought him from the other end of the world relics of extraordinary but rather suspect holiness, and that through their efficacy he could obtain from God whatever he desired. By such pretence he was able by degrees, as St. Paul says, to make his way into house after house, captivating weak women whose consciences were burdened by sin and swayed by shifting passions. He also deceived great numbers of simple folk who thought that he was a man of truly apostolic character because he had wrought signs and wonders. He bribed ill-instructed bishops to consecrate him, in defiance of canon law and, finally, with unbridled arrogance, put himself on the level of the Apostles. He insolently refused to consecrate churches to the honour of the Apostles and martyrs and used to ask people what they expected to gain by going on pilgrimage to the tombs of the Apostles. Later, he dedicated small chapels to himself – or, to speak more truthfully, desecrated them. In the fields or near springs or wherever he had a mind he erected crosses and small chapels [110] and ordered prayers to be recited there. As a result, throngs of people absented themselves from the established churches, flouted the injunctions of the bishops and held their services in those places, saying: ‘The merits of St. Aldebert will help us.’

“He distributed his hair and fingernails for veneration and had them carried round in procession with the relics of St. Peter the Apostle. Finally, he committed what I consider to be the greatest crime and blasphemy against God. Whenever anyone came to him and fell at his feet desiring confession he would say: ‘I know all your sins: your secret deeds are open to my gaze. There is no need to confess, since your past sins are forgiven. Go home in peace: you are absolved.’

“In his dress, his bearing, his behaviour., in fact, in all the details described by Holy Scripture, he imitated the hypocrites.

My own fingernails will be on sale on eBay shortly…
The document continues during the second session:

When he came in, Zacharias, the holy and blessed Pope, said: “Bring forward the life-story of the infamous man Aldebert, together with his writings which you had in your hands at the last session, and cause them to be read out before the present gathering.” Then Theophanius, the regional notary and treasurer, took them and read aloud the following opening sentences:

“In the name of Jesus Christ. Here begins the life of the holy and blessed servant of God, Bishop Aldebert, born by the will of God. He was sprung from simple parents and was crowned by the grace of God. For Whilst he was in his mother’s womb the grace of God came upon him, and before his birth his mother saw, as in a vision, a calf issuing from her right side. This calf symbolized the grace which he had received from an angel before he came forth from the womb.”

. . .

Denehard, the priest, answered: ” I have a letter here which he made use of in his teaching, saying that it was written by Jesus and came down from heaven.”

Then Theophanius, the regional notary and treasurer, took it up and read out the following words:

“In the name of God. Here begins the letter of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, which fell from heaven in Jerusalem [113] and was discovered by the archangel Michael near the gate of Ephraim. This very copy of the letter came into the hands of a priest named Icore, who read it and sent it to a priest named Talasius in the city of Jeremias. Talasius passed it on to another priest Leoban, who was living in a town of Arabia. Leoban sent the letter to the city of Westphalia, where it was received by a priest Macrius. He sent the letter to Mont St. Michel. In the end, through the intervention of an angel, the letter reached Rome, even the tombs of the Apostles, where the keys of the kingdom of heaven are. And the twelve dignitaries who are in the city of Rome fasted, watched and prayed for three days and three nights,” etc.

From the third:

When he had come in, Zacharias, the Pope, said: ” Have you any other writings belonging to those renegades which you ought to hand over to be read? ” Denehard, the priest, replied: ” Yes, my Lord. I have a prayer which Aldebert tried to compose for his own use. Here it is in my hand. Pray, take it.”

And Theophanius, taking it, read it aloud, beginning with the following words:

“O Lord, Omnipotent God, Father of Christ, the Son of God., and our Lord Jesus Christ, alpha et omega, who sittest on the seventh throne above the cherubim and seraphim, immense love and wonderful sweetness is with Thee. O Father of the holy angels, who hast created heaven and earth, the sea and all the things that are in them, I invoke Thee, I cry out and summon thee to my aid, wretch that I am. Thou hast deigned to say: Whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I give. To Thee I pray, to Thee aloud I cry, to the Lord Christ I commend my soul.”

And as he was reading from beginning to end, he came to the passage where it said: “I pray and entreat and besecch you, angel [115] Uriel, Raguel, Tubuel, Michael, Adinus, Tubuas, Sabaoc, Sirniel. .. .”

When he had read this sacrilegious prayer to the end, Zacharias, the Pope, said: ” What is your comment upon this, dear brethren? 11 The holy bishops and venerable priests replied: ” What else can we do except consign these writings, which have been read out to us, to the flames and to strike their authors with anathema? The names of the eight angels whom Aldebert invokes in his prayer are., with the exception of Michael, not angels but demons whom he has called to his aid. As we know from the teaching of the Apostolic See and divine authority, there are only three angels, Michael, Gabriel and Raphael. He has introduced demons under the guise of angels.”

There’s a problem with Aldebert. This guy should not be a bishop–and I really don’t think that I’m quenching the Spirit when I say that; he’s just wierd. What take from Aldebert is that there is a reason why we have to have boundaries on our beliefs. An openness to the Spirit is essential but we have to be able to say when some one has gone too far and crossed that line. To my mind, Aldebert is a fairly clear-cut case. But what about Clement? And who lies between Clement and Aldebert?

And how do we tell the difference between a heretic and a prophet? Take Jeremiah and Ezekiel–the religious leaders thought they were total nuts and they *did* act quite strangely at times too, but we declare that they were men of the Spirit.

Naturally enough, this topic leads to Spong, Pike et al. I’m not gonna take that up today. Where do–where should–the boundaries of hierarchy and theology lie–and who gets to make the call?

Just recently now in my circle of blogging acquaintances we’ve had two very different views on sin. The first is from bls; the second from D.C.

I can sympathize with DC. Modern scientific knowledge has improved. We realize that some behavioral problems are rooted in physical–chemical–causes. At the same time, I think that the logic of empirical materialism threatens to medicalize–and prescribe away–most everything. I wonder what the consequences of this are. I have alcoholism in my family. Religious people then would have said that my grandfathers were in “sin”; medical professionals today would say that they had a “disease”. Since we know that alcoholism is a disease, does it mitigate their behavior–or their actions when they were drinking?

To what extent are our medical conditions beyond our control, and therefore our volition which is one of the ways that I understand sin? At what point does medicalization of non-standard/deviant behavior become problematic? All over the papers last week was the death of a little girl who was terribly abused. Was her stepfather “mentally ill”? And if so–what does that say (or not say) about his moral state? Is he not responsible for his actions because of his medical condition?

This is the scientific version of the bondage of the will, isn’t it?

At the end of the day I come down with bls. While I know that medical conditions exist and effect our behavior, I can’t move beyond the fact that sin–real honest to goodness non-Vegas-poster-advertisment sin–is a reality in our world. As I’ve mentioned before, my most up close and personal experience of the true reality of evil was a lengthy pastoral visit in jail with an young man charged with attempted child molestation. I came away from that visit with a profound notion of the reality of evil and with the conviction that part of the Gospel is actively resisting real and living active evil. I’m convinced that sin and evil are realities. Because of these realities, we must build our communities and our liturgies in the face of it. Liturgy becomes far more serious to me when it is done knowing that we do it in the face of the reality of death and in the face of the reality of evil (two *different* things imo). This is where proclamation of Gospel and administration of the Sacraments really hits the road.

I just saw this over at CNN. It’s great fun to see people squabble over second place… :-D