parresia

From Beowolf to the GospelI

From Beowolf to the Gospel

I had the pleasure of going through the Beowolf book on tape a few days ago. Though there were many notable passages, words of interest, and textual importance I found myself struck most by a very simple and short couple lines that to my mind demonstrate the awesome sacrifice and blessing of Christ's death.

Just prior to these lines Beowolf had died in valiant battle, saving his people, for whom he had been king over 50 years, from a vengeful dragon whom he barely managed to destroy-- he fought alone, so his death could be seen as a sacrifice. Beowolf's brave companion says the following after he has discovered a vast treasure that was prior guarded by the dragon:

This hoard is ours
but grievously gotten; too grim the fate
which thither carried our king and lord.

I could not help but think of Christ's sacrifice on the cross for our sins: glorious life ever after is the "hord" we can call our own. Yet, that hord was secured on our behalf only by the grievous death of our Savior: indeed, our life everafter was "grievously gotten."

Too grim indeed-- the fate of Christ on our behalf, because of our sin.

!Socrates believed, according to Plato,

!

Socrates believed, according to Plato, that the true philosopher-- the true wise man-- is the man who admits that he, in fact, is not in the know: indeed, one might say, the wise man is aware of his ignorance.

Yesterday I came across this line in The Author's Idiot:

To attain perfection you have to start off by being ignorant of many things!

I pondered for some time; I started... If my corpulant ignorance is a sign of wisdom and perfection, then I must be well on my way to glorious perfection. *smiles*

New old stuff Radiohead's new

New old stuff

Radiohead's new live album, I Might Be Wrong, is out in stores tomorrow: Tuesday, September 13th. If you buy the album for no other reason buy it for the exquisite "True Love Waits."

From my experience, live Radiohead is even more impressive than studio Radiohead. There's my plug.

Compare with modern evangelicalismEarly in

Compare with modern evangelicalism

Early in the 4th century A.D. a Bishop in Armenia named Eustathius, who had a growing number of followers, had been teaching, among other false doctrines, that no one living in a state of marriage has any hope towards God. Evidently, it got to the point where "many misguided women had forsaken their husbands, and husbands their wives; then afterwards, not being able to contain, they had fallen into adultery."

The Church found it of such importance to hold a synod "to make definitions, which it has hastened to make known to all, for the removal of whatever has by [Eustathius] been done amiss." The entire body of The Council of Gangra (as it's known today) was devoted to setting staight the Church's view on matters of marriage, church practice, and similar things reacting to Eustathius.

What I found of most interest was the Epilogue written by the council:

These things we write, not to cut off those who wish to lead in the Church of God an ascetic life, according to the Scriptures; but those who carry the pretence of asceticism to superciliousness; both exalting themselves above those who live more simply, and introducing noelties contrary to the Scriptures and the ecclesiastical Canons. We do, assuredly, admire virginity accompanied by hujmility; and we have regard for continence, accompanied by godliness and gravity; and we praise the leaving of worldly occupations, [when it is made] with lowliness of mind; [but at the same time] we honour the holy companionship of marriage, and we do not contemn wealth enjoyed with uprightness and beneficence; and we commend plainness and frugality in apparel, which is worn only from attention, and that not over-fastidious, to the body; but dissolute and effeminate excess in dress we eschew; and we reverence the houses of God and embrace the assemblies held therein as holy and helpful, not confining religion within the houses, but reverencing every place built in the name of God; and we approve of gathering together in the Church itself for the common profit; and we bless the exceeding charities done by the brethren to the poor, according to the traditions of the Church; and, to sum up in a word, we with that all things which have been delivered by the Holy Scriptures and the Apostiolical traditions, may be observed in the Church.

Aside from the stunning clarity of their writing, symptomatic of their thoughts I would assume, and even excluding the very interesting, and might I say telling manner in which the council certainly, along side of Scripture, assumes Apostolic tradition as binding, I found that the words of the Bishops in the Epilogue are more than timely for today's contemporary church.

Does not our current church, in ways perhaps more subtle and sublime, view everyday activity (life outside of "the ministry") with the same abhorance as Eustathius did marriage? Can we not see parallels between Eustathius' teachings and the all too common views of modern evangelicalism, culminating in their "Christian blue pages, Christian rock music, Christian plumbers, etc....?

Praise God for our godly men of the past!

who else?Job 9:24 reads:The earth

who else?

Job 9:24 reads:

The earth is given into the hand of the wicked; He covers the faces of its judges. If it is not He, then who is it?

Did not God also send deceiving spirits into some prophets of old to have them deceive some others?

It seems clear to me that God has often acted in ways that seem, upon a superficial glance, to be inconsistent with what we know to be true of human justice and ethics. Here is another example, it seems to me, that even without holding to a Calvinistic view of providence one is faced with some difficult issues.

If both sides have difficult issues, why not side with God's soveriegnty?

A perspectiveWe read in the

A perspective

We read in the last chapter of Ezra that once the people of Israel rediscovered the law of God, among realizing their many sins and wanting to repent of those sins, they decided to put away (divorce) the pagan wives whom they had married. In the New Testament the Apostle Paul, in I Corinthians 7, tells us that we are not to put away (divorce) a pagan spouse, if they will remain with us.

It seems interpretations boil down to the following two explanations for this appearant inconsistency.

1. God changed His mind, in that He allowed or wanted pagan wives to be put away in times past, but now (New Testament era) He wants or allows pagan wives to be kept.
2. There is no inconsistency at all in that God did not intend ever for men to put away their spouses (pagan or not) and the people of Israel under the leadership of Ezra merely went about their repentence in the wrong way.

It seems to me that (2) is the better way to look at the text. We see that in the Ezra passage God never gives a command to put away the pagan wives; in fact, it is a priest counseling Ezra who convinces Ezra to command the people of God to put away their pagan wives.

Also, it seems that there are numerous examples in the Old Testament of men who have intention (and to some extent even succeed) to please God and live pious lives, yet do not fully conform to that Holy Law. One must only think of several of the Kings of Israel recorded in I and II Kings who were generally considered God fearing kings, but who did not comprehensively pursue things like taking down the altars to Baal, or the other pagan "high places."

So if God "blesses" or "allows" (in a broad sense) men who only in part follow His command, is it not possible that the men in Ezra's time, who put away their wives, were actually not doing the will of God-- even though the text makes it seem as if they were doing "the right thing" for all the right reasons: seeking to please God, making covenant with God, repenting, etc?

And people wonder why I'm

And people wonder why I'm not more of a sports fan...

My team (heCHemm), the Detroit Lions, are now 0-7. For those of you sportly challenged that's zero wins and seven losses. Dismal season to say the least.

In addition, my one big hope for vindication was UCLA football, but it appears after Saturday's loss my Bruins too are without much hope of a championship. I'm still, however, hoping for DeShaun Foster to win the Heisman Trophy...he had over a hundred yards again during Saturday's loss, and UCLA Basketball has a real chance to go beyond the sweet sixteen.

So hey, maybe Detroit's destined for yet another mediocre season, and maybe UCLA Football will have to wait until next year to go all the way, at least I've always got my Lakers!...okay fine, so I haven't been a Laker's fan for more than 3 years. Two questions: 1. Can anyone blame me for wanting once in a darn while to root for a winning team? 2. Can anyone say "bandwagon"?

I've often stated that one

I've often stated that one of the key reasons I'm fond of Dostoyevsky's writing is that he seems to describe my own psyche, inner conflicts, and turmoils: he is a man who seems to have peered into my soul and then went to tell the world.

With this holding true, time and time again, I come across quotes like the following, and yes I can relate to the feelings, but...I'm not proud of that. It almost hurts to see oneself in such dismal, yet perfectly true, descriptions of mind. Again, here are just a couple examples; there are many more like them.

A profound and constant awareness of his own mediocrity, and a concomitant overwhelming desire to convince himself that he was a man of supremely independent mind, had rankled in his soul ever since he was a boy.

He was a young man of envious and impulsive desires, apparently born with overwrought nerves.

I am a scoundrel, yes; But I am not a thief!

...but his words were remarkably incoherent. He was obviously shaken and bemused by something utterly beyond his comprehension.

His vanity must be even greater than his greed.

I can see now that you shouldn't be regarded as a wicked man, nor even a very corrupt one. I believe you are the most ordinary man that ever was, except for being very weak and not having a grain of originality.

Indeed, these quotes are just a random sampling from one book, The Idiot. I have right now avoided writing more-- Yes, many I came across even this morning I dare not type here. And that's the amazing aspect to it!

...And yet another beautiful Moon

...And yet another beautiful Moon tonight. Ain't it lonely in the evening, when the Sun goes down? (I thought I would quote some Ray Charles for those of you who think I only quote the Author).