Way too much reading! The problem is, everything is really interesting. I want to read it all, carefully, in order to absorb everything, but it is going to be impossible. I haven’t finished my first week yet, and already I’m a book behind – not even counting all the reserve reading and handouts. Yet, it is great stuff! Plato’s Timaeus is the most difficult to wade through right now, and I can’t just skim it.
comments? e-mail me
Timaeus by: Plato
“We must, then, in my opinion, first of all make the following distinction: What is that which always is and is untouched by becoming? — and what is always in a state of coming-to-be but never is? Now that which intelligence grasps by way of a rational account is what always is self-identically; while that which is the object of belief by way of non-reasoning sense-perception is that which is coming into being and perishing but never in the proper sense is. Everything, though, that is coming into being must necessarily come into being by the agency of some cause; for it is absolutely impossible that anything should be in a state of coming-to-be apart form some cause.”
huh? Isn’t this fun!
A History of Christian Thought by: Justo L. Gonzalez
I know some of this stuff is common sense, but it is always good to be reminded. Plus, I like the way he puts things – to me he is very clear and concise.
“The task of the historian does not consist in mere repetition of what has happened – or, in this case, of what has been thought. On the contrary, the historian must begin by selecting the material to be used, and the rules guiding this selection depend upon a decision that is to a considerable degree subjective… This selection depends in good part upon the author, which means that every history of Christian thought is of necessity also a reflection of the theological presuppositions of the writer, and the historian of Christian thought who suggests that such work is free of theological presuppositions is clearly deluded.” (23)
“The presuppositions and value judgements of the historian determine the selection of the material, the bridging of gaps in the sources, and the very manner of presentation, which may appear so objective as to beguile the reader.” (25)
“Faced by these two positions,” (Docetism & Ebionism), “Christianity affirms that the truth is given in the concrete, the historical, and the particular, contained and hidden within it, but in such a way as never to lose its veracity for all historical moments.” (26-27)
“THE truth of doctrine will never be such that we can say: here is the eternal and incommutable truth, free of any shadow or conjecture of historical relativism. The truth of doctrine is only present to that degree in which , through the various doctrines, the Word of God (which is the Truth) is able to confront the church with a demand for absolute obedience. When this happens that doctrine indeed becomes the standard of judgment of the church’s life and proclamation.” (27)
“Are all doctrines then equally valid? Certainly not. Moreover, no doctrine is valid in the sense of being able to identify itself with the Word of God.” (27)
A History of Christian Thought by: Justo L. Gonzalez
“Just as the Israelites, when they escaped from Egypt, carried off some of the gods of their oppressors, so the Christians utilized the ideas and intellectual methods of their opponents in fashioning their replies. Broadly speaking, the intellectual concerns of the Christians, although theological rather than philosophical, placed them in the tradition of Greek philosophy, and even those Christians who, like Tertullian, decried the use of pagan learning , nevertheless in the acuteness of their reasoning were heirs of the classical heritage. But there was also a background in Judaism for intellectual pursuits. The synagogue was unique in the ancient world, a church without an altar, only a desk for the reading of the Law. And after the reading came the exposition, for the Law was to be interpreted. The desk in the synagogue was the lectern of a professor as well as the pulpit of a prophet. The rabbi was both. Significantly the first churches were modeled after the synagogue.” (14)
“The incarnation of God in the man Jesus involved another affinity of Christianity with Judaism and a divergence from the Hellenic approach to religion, because Judaism and Christianity see the primary self-disclosure of God to man in the events of history. The Eternal breaks into time. This is supremely the case with the incarnation, itself an event in time… The Word became flesh at a point in time. Therefore, Christianity must always be historically oriented. This also means that God in Christ was disclosing himself to man. This is revelation.” (15)
“This is essentially true of the Stoic and Aristotelian approaches and largely also in the case of the Platonic, where, form the shadows that he sees, man infers the realities that he does not see. In such a case, revelation, if such it can be called, proceeds from the ground up. It is not a deposit, but the object of a quest…. There need be no anchorage in the past, and there is nothing once and for all delivered.” (15)
This last sentence reminds me of the attitude among most of the Evangelical, and especially Pentecostal, Christians I know. The knowledge of history among most in the Church is atrocious. Historical ignorance is an American phenomena, so this characteristic isn’t something particular to the American Church. All the while many religious-right political leaders like to harken back to different periods in history to justify their political stands or their theological dictates, their use of history is often so selective as to render their pronouncements null and void. Of course, we find liberals doing the very same thing. Yet, if we are to be a church, a people, rooted in the historic understandings so to better understand the place of faith in our own time, we need to be well versed in history.
This seems to be such a common sense notion, but it is lost on most of us. Especially within Pentecostalism, where the idea of God doing new things through the Holy Spirit is so engrained that every whim of excess can quickly sweep through whole denominations and church-groups. It is a pop-theology, a pop-expression of Church, and the very thing we want – the one and forever Truth – can be quickly lost in the urgent and the now. If God truly is the same yesterday, today, and forever, world without end, then the one and forever Truth is there to discern and understand, but we have to be open to understand, even if the understanding completely upturns our clenched current beliefs. As Father Wright writes, “If one is to avoid becoming a mere prisoner of present perspective, then one must transcend the conventional wisdom of the immediate past, avoid the tyranny of the ‘tract-rack’ theology, for the past must be surveyed before it can be surmounted.” and “Participation in the future by interpretation of the past.”
A quote from Father Wright’s handouts for our Patristics class: “To comprehend and assess the fundamental elements and basic positions of the Anglican tradition and its relationship to the wider church… And, as an Anglican, to be able to distinguish tradition, ‘the living faith of the dead,” from traditionalism, ‘the dead faith of the living.'”
comments? e-mail me
I went for the interview at NYU Medical Center, and got the position. This summer, I will be at NYU MC for CPE!
comments? e-mail me
First day of the spring term. I have to miss one of my classes today. I scheduled my CPE interview with NYU Medical Center at 2:00, not realizing that Patristics begins at 1:20. It is going to be a cab ride to the interview today – too far to walk on a very cold day. During the summer, I suppose it would only be about a half hour walk – not too bad.
I’m nervous about this term. I truly have no blocks of time to study during the day, except Fridays. I don’t know how this is going to work. I may end up getting up early again, because attempting to study in the evening just doesn’t work. There is going to be a lot of work, but I am looking forward to all my classes, especially OT2 with Judy Neuman. I just like her.
I certainly hope the NYU CPE position is offered and over with. I have to start focusing on financial aid. I received an application form from the Society for the Increase of the Ministry – quite an extensive form. There is going to be a lot of work for this one grant, alone.
comments? e-mail me
Celebration of Discipline by: Richard Foster
“…if we can quite ourselves enough to listen.” (25)
“Whereas the study of Scripture centers on exegesis, the meditation of Scripture centers on internalizing and personalizing the passage.” (26)
Chapter 3: The Discipline of Prayer
“Prayer catapults us onto the frontier of the spiritual life. It is original research in unexplored territory.” (30)
“The closer we come to the heartbeat of God the more we see our need and the more we desire to be conformed to Christ.” (30)
“But when we pray God slowly and graciously reveals to us our hiding places, and sets us free from the.” (30)
“…we should remember that God always meets us where we are and slowly moves us along into deeper things.” (31)
“It is Stoicism that demands a closed universe, not the Bible.” (32)
“Sen Kierkegaard once observed: ‘A man prayed, and at first he thought that prayer was talking. But he became more and more quiet until in the end he realized that prayer is listening.” (34-35)
“The prayer of guidance constantly precedes and surrounds the prayer of faith.” (35)
“If we are still, we will learn not only who God is but how His power operates.” (35)
“Coincidence? Perhaps, but as Archbishop William Temple once noted, the coincidences occurred much more frequently when he prayed.” (38)
“Units of prayer combined, like drops of water, make an ocean which defies resistance.” (39)
Chapter 6: The Discipline of Simplicity
“Simplicity is freedom. Duplicity is bondage. Simplicity brings joy and balance. Duplicity brings anxiety and fear.” (69)
“The Christian Discipline of simplicity is an inward reality that results in an outward life-style.” (69)
“Experiencing the inward reality liberates us outwardly.” (70)
“Inwardly modern man is fractured and fragmented… He has no unity or focus around which life is oriented” (70)
“Asceticism and simplicity are mutually incompatible.” (74)
“Asceticism renounces possessions. Simplicity sets possessions in proper perspectives.” (74)
“The central point for the Discipline of simplicity is to seek the kingdom of God and the righteousness of His kingdom first – and then everything necessary will come in its proper order.” (75)
In just a few hours, the second term of my seminar career begins. I complained last term that it seemed I had no chunks of time during the day to work on homework, well, this term, I know I have no chunks of time. My classes are spread out throughout the day. Plus, I have five solidly academic classes this term – a lot more work, I think. The only saving grace is that I am settled in now and have a better understanding of what is required. I am hoping that I can find the groove that avoided me all last term.
I’ve accomplished a lot over break. Not nearly what I had hoped for, however. I got to spend a lot of time with Ashton, which was wonderful. I got a lot of papers organized to file, but haven’t done any filing yet. I have piles that are still piles. I have not finished Celebration of Discipline, nor the four other books I am in the middle of. I worked a lot on my webpages, and they are looking much better. I still have a long way to do before I will be satisfied, if I ever am.
I have taxes, financial aid, and CPE interviews to worry about now, along side my course work.
I feel so bad for Ashton. Ashton’s dog, a Dalmatian, is 14 years old. She is showing her age. It may not be long before Ashton has to put her to sleep. It will be horrible. Through two long-term but negative relationships, through everything, the one companion that always loved him was his dog. He was 21 when he got that dog as a puppy – practically his whole adult life. He just doesn’t know what to do, and he hurts.
I hope I can discipline myself to live a balanced life this term. We shall see whether I can or not.
comments? e-mail me
Here is another news article from Focus-on-the-Family. They just get it wrong, that’s all. The problem is that in their wrongness, they are trying to excerpt their wrong theological understandings onto the socio-political process. In other words, their goal is to remove, politically any law that might be favorable to homosexual people – not special-rights laws, but anything that presents homosexuals in a positive light or secures an equal footing in the same way heterosexuals enjoy. Likewise, in school curricula, in public forums relating to homosexuality, in popular-culture, etc., they demand that homosexuality and gay people always be presented in the most negative terms. After all, it is a devastating sickness and blatant sin that if left unchecked will cause all gay people to end up in the eternal fires of Hell and cause God’s intentional destruction of American. According to their generalized theories on and opinions of homosexuals, that is, which I don’t think is Biblically or spiritually truthful or empirically verifiable at all.
Anyway, here is the article:
Lesbian Awarded Money from Sept. 11 Victims Fund
By David Brody, Washington, D.C., correspondent
SUMMARY: The lesbian partner of a Sept. 11 victim gets more
than a half-million dollars from the federal government.
The Sept.11 Compensation Fund that was set up to provide
money for victims of the terror attacks has awarded more than a
half-million dollars to a lesbian whose partner died in the tragedy.
Sheila Hein died on Sept. 11 and her partner of 18 years, Peggy
Neff, believed she was entitled to financial compensation. The
federal government apparently agrees because the fund, set up
by the U.S. Department of Justice, gave her $557,000.
Jennifer Middleton, of the Lambda Legal Defense Foundation, is
happy with the decision.
“It’s important that the federal government has recognized that
Peggy and Sheila shared a household like any other married
couple … and that recognition is vitally important to respect
Sheila and help Peggy move on with her life,” Middleton said.
The decision is a clear victory for homosexual advocates, but it
has others worried.
Peter LaBarbera, associate director of the Culture and Family
Institute, feels sorry for the woman who lost a friend, but he said
a line has to be drawn.
“Nine-eleven or no nine-eleven, the government cannot reward
unhealthy homosexual relationships,” LaBarbera said. “We’ve
got to get over our sensitivity on this and deal with it, because
what the other side is doing is using nine-eleven to promote
homosexual relationships.”
Pro-homosexual groups will look at this decision as a clear-cut
case for legitimizing homosexual relationships. LaBarbera said
there’s an unfortunate truth to that.
“In a sense they’re right,” LaBarbera said. “If the government
starts recognizing homosexual relationships and treats them as
the same as normal healthy relationships, then we’re in trouble
because the government is giving these relationships
legitimacy.”
The man in charge of the Sept. 11 fund is Kenneth Feinberg — a
former chief of staff to Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., who was
named by Attorney General John Ashcroft last year to oversee
the fund. He did not return our calls.
What this article reveals is their anger that gay relationships are treated in the same way that heterosexual relationships are treated. If a straight man, who was divorced and remarried three times, had died in the 9/11 tragedy, then his wife of two years should receive the money. A lesbian relationship, that was 18 years old, should not. Homosexuality has simply become their sin de-jour, their sin that raises the most cash, their sin that enables them to scapegoat a whole class of people and generalize the worst within the gay community to be normative for all gay people. It enables them to hate something and to prove by comparing themselves to gays that they are in fact holy and acceptable to God, because they are not like THOSE people!
I honestly don’t have a problem with the honest ex-gay ministries who try to encourage people to live a life they see fit according to their interpretation of scripture. Fundamentalist expressions of Christianity do not allow for differences of opinion on Biblical interpretation, so they see only their opinion of scripture as being God’s. I don’t agree, and I think Biblical scholarship and the reality of most gay and “ex-gay” and”ex-ex-gay” people’s experience will not support their theories.
The problem is that the Religious-Right, the politicized Christian sub-culture, is taking their theological opinions and demanding that our nation adopt their viewpoint. They demand that civil law abide by their theological notions. It isn’t much different then Islamic law being implemented in many African and Middle-Eastern nations. They demand their notions of Christian law (really Mosaic and Levitical Law) be adopted by civil authorities. What they want is a theocratic form of government – defined by themselves and no other Christian opinion is tolerated. Homosexuality is the bogeyman that they feel is proof that they must succeed, else God will intentionally destroy American. Of course, not all believe this. Of course, there are some who believe that if we truly abide by scripture, then homosexuals need to be put to death, because that is what Leviticus demands. Yet, the prevailing “wisdom” among conservative Christians is that it is wrong, sinful, and destructive to pass laws that give homosexuals and homosexual relationships equal footing with heterosexuals and heterosexual relationships.
comments? e-mail me