Thursday, October 28, 2004
Films to Watch on Halloween
Alright, it being that time of year, allow me give my top ten favorite horror films. Now I really do not like horror movies. They are usually boring wastes of celluloid filled with stupid characters. But, occasionally, I have found a really good one.
Here is the breakdown:
Five of these films have vampires.
Four of these films are in black and white.
Four of these films were made by a great director.
Three are by Stephen King.
Three of these films have been remade.
Three of these films have sequels.
Three of these films have comedic parts.
Three of these films were made in the 1970s.
Two of these films are thorough comedies.
Two of these films were made in the 1990s.
Two of these films were made in the 1980s.
Two of these films have Frankenstein’s Monster.
One has an alien.
One has a human killer.
One has the living dead.
One of these films is a sequel.
One of these films is silent.
Only one has ghosts.
Only one of these films has the two Coreys.
Here are the films:
1. Nosferatu
2. Young Frankenstein
3. Psycho
4. The Shining
5. Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein
6. Army of Darkness
7. Salem’s Lot
8. It
9. The Lost Boys
10. Shadow of the Vampire
I'll be watching Young Frankenstein
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Fear and Loathing in November
As readers of Panis Circenses (and that previous blogspot) will know, I have not engaged in secular politics on my blog. In fact, I rarely engage in politics elsewhere. I used to be a very big political junkie, but, three years ago, my thinking turned around on this subject after reading C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity and I have never looked back. I mean, I still keep up to date with what is going on in the political arena but it is no longer a consuming passion for me. I’d rather focus on ministry and theology and literature and films. I am much, much happier.
On occasion, though, I have mentioned something political on my blog. My intentions have not been even remotely political but usually I mention politics because it dove-tails with another interest. Unfortunately, the reason often concerns my perception that SBC leaders are too much involved in secular politics.
Recently, I have noticed that I have put up a few more political posts than usual (three actually, now four), none of which are overly political. And, yes, this post will not be overtly political either.
The reason that I mention this is that I long ago came up with a win-win situation for elections. Yes, I conceived of a scenario in which no matter what happens in an election I will come out ahead. Really, I hate to lose, so it is only natural that I will try to come up with a way not to lose.
I begin by placing a bet against the candidate that I want to win. For example, if I wanted Abraham Lincoln to win the 1864 election, I would place a bet with someone (say $75) that Lincoln would lose. You see why? If Lincoln loses then I may be politically upset but at least I have the consolation of making $75. If Lincoln wins then I am politically happy but I only lose $75. And I would pay $75 to see Lincoln in office. I can’t lose.
To some of you this may seem to be a very negative and pessimistic way of doing business. It is, but it works. You see, you have to understand the beauty of pessimism.
The trick is to take a scenario that you hope turns out one way and predict that it will turn out its opposite. If the scenario turns out the opposite way you wished but exactly the way you predicted then you can say that you said so in advance. If the scenario turns out the way you wished but the opposite of the way you predicted then you can be pleasantly surprised. Regardless of the outcome, you have set yourself in a position to take advantage of whatever the outcome may be. It’s a win-win situation.
If more Americans applied this principle to their lives then most Americans would be happier. I mean, Americans love to win and can’t stand to lose, or so said General George S. Patton. We hate to see our favorite football team lose. We hate to see our favorite author or musician not sell well. We hate to see our party or our candidate lose an election. The need to win can either bring us to the heights of ecstasy or to the valley of the shadow of death. Why, last night I saw a documentary on PBS about the stock market leading up to the 1929 crash. So many people were so invested in the market and so many people were buying on margin that when the crash came they were devastated. Why did they do this? Greed? Yes, but it was greed and the desire to win, to win money, easy money. It was the desire to beat the Joneses and win the American Dream. Hunter S. Thompson in his book, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, writes about this desire to win the American dream while not working. But what does losing at the American Dream bring … fear and loathing. It was fear that caused the crash of 1929, fear that the illusion of winning was over. A panic swept investors and they sold, trying to keep their cash and still win. Then came the loathing.
Faith plays an important part in the market. J. P. Morgan and company knew this. The big business barons knew that as long as investors had faith in the market then the market would be fine. But as soon as that faith was gone … then came the fear. Then came the loathing.
Take an example from the Bible. Adam and Eve were faced with a choice of whether or not to disobey God. The fact that they had this choice created fear or anxiety. In this situation they should have trusted God, obeyed His word, and then they would not have had anxiety. But they did not. They chose not to trust and obey God and instead decided to trust themselves and become like God. What happened? The realization of this really caused fear and then guilt and loathing. They fled and tried to camouflage themselves and hide from the Lord in the trees.
The same scenario happens with all who sin. When confronted with a choice to sin or not to sin, we become filled with anxiety. The proper response is to trust God but, instead, we believe that we can handle the situation by ourselves. We trust ourselves. We have faith in ourselves. We believe that we do not need God in this scenario and we make gods of ourselves. But then comes the realization of our sin. Then comes the fear and the shame, the self-loathing, and we try to cover ourselves.
Now faith in God and faith in the market are two different things. God never makes a mistake and is a sure bet. He is the only sure bet. God Himself is a win-win situation. One only loses if one does not place his full trust in the Lord and places his trust in something else, like ourselves or the market or political parties.
Now not everyone who invested in the market in 1929 lost. No, some won. How did they win? They invested in halves. Some invested half for the market and half against the market. What happened? When the market crashed they made a fortune. But what would have happened if the market rallied? They still would have won. You see, they never had faith in the market and this lack of trust saved their fortunes. This distrust of the process put them in a win-win situation.
What have we learned? If you want to win at the game then you have to have a deep distrust of the game. Therefore, if you want to win in the political process then you have to have distrust of the political process.
But if you want to win the Big Game you have to have complete trust in God.
On occasion, though, I have mentioned something political on my blog. My intentions have not been even remotely political but usually I mention politics because it dove-tails with another interest. Unfortunately, the reason often concerns my perception that SBC leaders are too much involved in secular politics.
Recently, I have noticed that I have put up a few more political posts than usual (three actually, now four), none of which are overly political. And, yes, this post will not be overtly political either.
The reason that I mention this is that I long ago came up with a win-win situation for elections. Yes, I conceived of a scenario in which no matter what happens in an election I will come out ahead. Really, I hate to lose, so it is only natural that I will try to come up with a way not to lose.
I begin by placing a bet against the candidate that I want to win. For example, if I wanted Abraham Lincoln to win the 1864 election, I would place a bet with someone (say $75) that Lincoln would lose. You see why? If Lincoln loses then I may be politically upset but at least I have the consolation of making $75. If Lincoln wins then I am politically happy but I only lose $75. And I would pay $75 to see Lincoln in office. I can’t lose.
To some of you this may seem to be a very negative and pessimistic way of doing business. It is, but it works. You see, you have to understand the beauty of pessimism.
The trick is to take a scenario that you hope turns out one way and predict that it will turn out its opposite. If the scenario turns out the opposite way you wished but exactly the way you predicted then you can say that you said so in advance. If the scenario turns out the way you wished but the opposite of the way you predicted then you can be pleasantly surprised. Regardless of the outcome, you have set yourself in a position to take advantage of whatever the outcome may be. It’s a win-win situation.
If more Americans applied this principle to their lives then most Americans would be happier. I mean, Americans love to win and can’t stand to lose, or so said General George S. Patton. We hate to see our favorite football team lose. We hate to see our favorite author or musician not sell well. We hate to see our party or our candidate lose an election. The need to win can either bring us to the heights of ecstasy or to the valley of the shadow of death. Why, last night I saw a documentary on PBS about the stock market leading up to the 1929 crash. So many people were so invested in the market and so many people were buying on margin that when the crash came they were devastated. Why did they do this? Greed? Yes, but it was greed and the desire to win, to win money, easy money. It was the desire to beat the Joneses and win the American Dream. Hunter S. Thompson in his book, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, writes about this desire to win the American dream while not working. But what does losing at the American Dream bring … fear and loathing. It was fear that caused the crash of 1929, fear that the illusion of winning was over. A panic swept investors and they sold, trying to keep their cash and still win. Then came the loathing.
Faith plays an important part in the market. J. P. Morgan and company knew this. The big business barons knew that as long as investors had faith in the market then the market would be fine. But as soon as that faith was gone … then came the fear. Then came the loathing.
Take an example from the Bible. Adam and Eve were faced with a choice of whether or not to disobey God. The fact that they had this choice created fear or anxiety. In this situation they should have trusted God, obeyed His word, and then they would not have had anxiety. But they did not. They chose not to trust and obey God and instead decided to trust themselves and become like God. What happened? The realization of this really caused fear and then guilt and loathing. They fled and tried to camouflage themselves and hide from the Lord in the trees.
The same scenario happens with all who sin. When confronted with a choice to sin or not to sin, we become filled with anxiety. The proper response is to trust God but, instead, we believe that we can handle the situation by ourselves. We trust ourselves. We have faith in ourselves. We believe that we do not need God in this scenario and we make gods of ourselves. But then comes the realization of our sin. Then comes the fear and the shame, the self-loathing, and we try to cover ourselves.
Now faith in God and faith in the market are two different things. God never makes a mistake and is a sure bet. He is the only sure bet. God Himself is a win-win situation. One only loses if one does not place his full trust in the Lord and places his trust in something else, like ourselves or the market or political parties.
Now not everyone who invested in the market in 1929 lost. No, some won. How did they win? They invested in halves. Some invested half for the market and half against the market. What happened? When the market crashed they made a fortune. But what would have happened if the market rallied? They still would have won. You see, they never had faith in the market and this lack of trust saved their fortunes. This distrust of the process put them in a win-win situation.
What have we learned? If you want to win at the game then you have to have a deep distrust of the game. Therefore, if you want to win in the political process then you have to have distrust of the political process.
But if you want to win the Big Game you have to have complete trust in God.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
I'm Not Getting Political, I Just Like The Humour
(We take you now to the Oval Office.)
George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?
Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.
George: Great. Lay it on me.
Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.
George: That's what I want to know.
Condi: That's what I'm telling you.
George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes.
George: I mean the fellow's name.
Condi: Hu.
George: The guy in China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The new leader of China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The Chinaman!
Condi: Hu is leading China.
George: Now whaddya' asking me for?
Condi: I'm telling you Hu is leading China.
George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China?
Condi: That's the man's name.
George: That's who's name?
Condi: Yes.
George: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East.
Condi: That's correct.
George: Then who is in China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir is in China?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Then who is?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.
Condi: Kofi?
George: No, thanks.
Condi: You want Kofi?
George: No.
Condi: You don't want Kofi.
George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N..
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi?
George: Milk! Will you please make the call?
Condi: And call who?
George: Who is the guy at the U.N?
Condi: Hu is the guy in China.
George: Will you stay out of China?!
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi.
George: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone.
(Condi picks up the phone.)
Condi: Rice, here.
George: Rice? Good idea. And a couple of egg rolls, too. Maybe we should send some to the guy in China. And the Middle East. Can you get Chinese food in the Middle East?
George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?
Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.
George: Great. Lay it on me.
Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.
George: That's what I want to know.
Condi: That's what I'm telling you.
George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes.
George: I mean the fellow's name.
Condi: Hu.
George: The guy in China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The new leader of China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The Chinaman!
Condi: Hu is leading China.
George: Now whaddya' asking me for?
Condi: I'm telling you Hu is leading China.
George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China?
Condi: That's the man's name.
George: That's who's name?
Condi: Yes.
George: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East.
Condi: That's correct.
George: Then who is in China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir is in China?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Then who is?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.
Condi: Kofi?
George: No, thanks.
Condi: You want Kofi?
George: No.
Condi: You don't want Kofi.
George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N..
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi?
George: Milk! Will you please make the call?
Condi: And call who?
George: Who is the guy at the U.N?
Condi: Hu is the guy in China.
George: Will you stay out of China?!
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi.
George: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone.
(Condi picks up the phone.)
Condi: Rice, here.
George: Rice? Good idea. And a couple of egg rolls, too. Maybe we should send some to the guy in China. And the Middle East. Can you get Chinese food in the Middle East?
Thursday, October 21, 2004
The Great Nouthetic Counseling Debate
I wanted to post this discussion because I think it might be helpful.
Frank
I have no real problem with most nouthetic counseling just as I have no problem with most modern psychology.
But problems arise when the two begin to assume the role of the other.
Many whom I have talked to who support nouthetic counseling and dislike all modern psychology have only read a few Adams books. They hear Bible-only and believe that this way must be the best.
I am sorry but the Bible was never intended to be a counseling handbook anymore than it was intended to be a science book.
The Scriptures can be used to heal the soul and cure sin if one has faith in Christ.
But what about those who don't have faith? Or what about those who have a chemical imbalance? What about those with genetic problems? What about those with a behavioral problems? What about those with suffering from abuse?
There are three problems with much modern nouthetic counseling.
1) Many advocates have an incorrect view of the makeup of man.
2) Many advocates have an incorrect view of what psyschology involves.
3) Many advocates have an incorrect view of the purpose of the Scriptures.
If we continue in our inaccurate views about nouthetic counseling, we will become some new form Christian Scientists.
I hope these problems are just symptomatic of the diletantes of counseling and not the whole field of nouthetic counselors.
Earnest 1
2 Timothy 3:16
While it is true that nouthetic counselors generally may not prescribe drugs, it is not true that the scripture is not able to address problems of behavior and abuse. God's Word is the final authority whether one is a believer or not. Anyting that deviates is strictly the opinion of man and as such is highly susceptible to error.
Frank
But we are not speaking of opinions that deviate from Scripture. We are speaking of opinions that are not mentioned in Scripture and, therefore, are up for for grabs.
Some, perhaps, most behavior and much abuse can be and should be dealt with by nouthetic counseling. Very few believers would deny that truth. The issue is whether or not all problems that fall under the secular umbrella of psychology can be dealt with by nouthetic counseling or whether some problems must be dealt with using modern methods.
Not all problems that that physicians face are physical and not all problems that psychologists face are mental. It's not as clean cut as that. The human self is not as clean as that. Our minds are both spiritual and physical. The Bible speaks to both aspects of man (all of the spiritual issues) but not to all of the physical issues.
Yes, I suppose if we all had perfected faith then both the physical and spiritual aspects of our minds could be healed. If we have faith we can be healed of physical ailments, so says the Scriptures. Does that mean that we should cease seeing physicians and start forming nouthetic hospitals to cure the flu?
God gave us the abilities to prevent the flu. He gave us the abilities to help those suffering from mental problems. Let's not cause a whole lot of people to suffer because of another spiritual fad.
Earnest 2
quote: But what about those who don't have faith?
For these, the Bible has the answer.
quote: Or what about those who have a chemical imbalance?
Nouthetic counseling recommends that the first homework assignment for a counselee is a complete medical workup to rule out chemical imbalances.
quote: What about those with genetic problems?
What is the behavior or attitude that is affected by this? That determines how it is handled.
quote: What about those with a behavioral problems?
Behavioral problems are a lack of self-control, which is a fruit of the Spirit. The answer to this is always biblical.
quote: What about those with suffering from abuse?
The answer to this is found in Scripture as well, aligning one's view of life with the truth of God.
Very often, people underestimate the value of the Bible because of the line that "the Bible is not a counseling manual." That is a very limited view of the Bible.
Frank
But what about those who don't have faith?
"For these, the Bible has the answer."
Yes, but what if they disbelieve the Bible. Do we refuse to help them when other methods work they will accept work.
Which brings up another point ... Do modern methods of psychology work?
Or what about those who have a chemical imbalance?
"Nouthetic counseling recommends that the first homework assignment for a counselee is a complete medical workup to rule out chemical imbalances."
Good.
What about those with genetic problems?
"What is the behavior or attitude that is affected by this? That determines how it is handled."
Autism, mood disorders, personality disoders, schizophrenia, etc.
What about those with a behavioral problems?
"Behavioral problems are a lack of self-control, which is a fruit of the Spirit. The answer to this is always biblical."
Autism, attention deficit, schizophrenia, sleep disorders, Tourette's syndrome, dissociative identity disorder (MPD), amnesia, "stuttering", etc.
Yes, the person cannot control his self. In many cases the fact that he cannot control his self is not because he hasn't the fruit of the spirit but because we live in a fallen world and bad things happen to good people.
"The answer to this is found in Scripture as well, aligning one's view of life with the truth of God. Very often, people underestimate the value of the Bible because of the line that 'the Bible is not a counseling manual.' That is a very limited view of the Bible."
Alligning one's view of life will not make all bad things go away. It will not always cure cancer or heart disease or cure autism and MPD. The Bible will teach one about Christ and how to have a relationship with Him. In this trusting relationship one finds peace inspite of the sufferings whether physical or psychological or spiriutal.
I don't think I have "limited view of the Bible" but I do beleive I have a accurate view. I have seen books on how to use the Bible to get wealthy, to get healthy, and to predict the future. The Bible Codes, anyone? Today, I see books about the Scriptural view of diets. And don't even get me started on science and how God created creation as reflected in the Scriptures.
I am sure those who dabble in Old Testament diets think they have a high view of the Scripture too.
I think we do damage to the witness of the Scriptures when we start applying it to thigns it was never meant to be applied. We then distract from what it was intended to do.
Earnest 2
quote: But we are not speaking of opinions that deviate from Scripture. We are speaking of opinions that are not mentioned in Scripture and, therefore, are up for for grabs.
Such as?
quote: Not all problems that that physicians face are physical and not all problems that psychologists face are mental.
Actually, physicians refer patients with problems that they believe are mental.
quote: God gave us the abilities to prevent the flu. He gave us the abilities to help those suffering from mental problems. Let's not cause a whole lot of people to suffer because of another spiritual fad.
I absolutely agree. The spiritual fad that should be rejected is integrationism ... the minimization of the Bible to the mere level of human psychology. The Bible has a much higher position than that. We should not cause people to suffer by offering solutions that don't really work in the long run.
Earnest 2
quote: Yes, but what if they disbelieve the Bible. Do we refuse to help them when other methods work they will accept work.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "work." Do you want real solutions or not?
quote: Autism, mood disorders, personality disoders, schizophrenia, etc.
Autism is not a problem treatable by counseling. The other things you mention all have biblical solutions, if we will pursue them.
quote: Autism, attention deficit, schizophrenia, sleep disorders, Tourette's syndrome, dissociative identity disorder (MPD), amnesia, "stuttering", etc.
Some of these are not really behavioral problems per se. You are mixing some things up here. We need to make valid distinctions between behavioral disorders such as ADD or ADHD (which is dealt with by the biblical discpline of self-control) and things such as sleep disorders (which can stem from a number of issues including an unbiblical approach to worry and stress), amnesia (which has nothing to do with behavioral issues), etc. Some of these are genuine medical issues and some are not.
quote: Yes, the person cannot control his self. In many cases the fact that he cannot control his self is not because he hasn't the fruit of the spirit but because we live in a fallen world and bad things happen to good people.
There are no good people. One of hte problems of modern pscyhology is the misdiagnosis that there are good people. All are sinners and we live in a sin cursed world. All of these problems stem from that to be sure. But a lack of self-control is always a lack of the fruit of the Spirit. That is the root cause.
quote: Alligning one's view of life will not make all bad things go away. It will not always cure cancer or heart disease or cure autism and MPD. The Bible will teach one about Christ and how to have a relationship with Him. In this trusting relationship one finds peace inspite of the sufferings whether physical or psychological or spiriutal.
Having a proper view of God and life will not make the bad things go away, but it will enable the individual to deal with those bad things in a biblical way. Your last statement sums up the issue that you have seeminly argued against. When you know Christ and understand him, there are answers to these problems. It doesn't cure medical issues to be sure; no one should claim that it does. But it does deal with the spiritual side of man, which is where most counseling problems come from.
quote: I have seen books on how to use the Bible to get wealthy, to get healthy, and to predict the future. The Bible Codes, anyone? Today, I see books about the Scriptural view of diets. And don't even get me started on science and how God created creation as reflected in the Scriptures.
Some of these types of books are misuses of hte Bible. But with respect to the last part, much of the problem in modern psychology comes from teh denial that man was the special creation of God in his own image.
quote: I think we do damage to the witness of the Scriptures when we start applying it to thigns it was never meant to be applied. We then distract from what it was intended to do.
I completely believe this and that was my point to begin with. When we lower its value to a mere commentary on history, rather than that which equips us for every good work, then we have lost its value.
Frank
“Such as?”
Mental and physical problems not addressed in Scripture (these are the problems that good psychology attempts to address)
“Actually, physicians refer patients with problems that they believe are mental.”
Exactly! They refer patients to others because the mental and spiritual is not their expertise. The mental is the expertise of the psychologists and the spiritual is the expertise of the Christian minister. I would prefer a Christian psychologist that can counsel both to the mental and the spiritual. Why should be abandon counseling of the mind to the secularists? We then lose the chance to witness to the lost and guide them to Christ.
“I absolutely agree. The spiritual fad that should be rejected is integrationism ... the minimization of the Bible to the mere level of human psychology. The Bible has a much higher position than that. We should not cause people to suffer by offering solutions that don't really work in the long run.”
Really the negative integrationism that is being applied by many is a Platonic view of the self (as opposed to the Biblical model) that was perpetuated by many of the Apostolic fathers, Augustine included. Many of these men of God were not necessarily minimizing the Bible but, instead, were trying to explain the Biblical principles to a pagan world by using Greek philosophical principles, much like how John uses the Logos in his Gospel. Did they go too far at times? Oh yes, and their followers took it even further down the road to heresy. There were other Apostolic fathers who went the other route and wanted to show the world the diametrically opposed Kingdom of God. These men of God were not necessarily isolating the church from the world with which they were supposed to be witnessing but they occasionally went too far and some their followers certainly went too far. There is definitely a balance that must be maintained.
Solutions to sin can only be found in Christ as found in the Scriptures. But problems that are not sin can be dealt with by other means, means that work both in the short run and in the long run. Will psychological methods cure the problem of sin? No.
Frank
“I guess that depends on what you mean by "work." Do you want real solutions or not?”
Solutions to sin: nouthetic. Solutions to physical and mental problems that do not come under the umbrella of sin: well?
“Autism is not a problem treatable by counseling. The other things you mention all have biblical solutions, if we will pursue them.”
Actually autism can be treated with counseling.
Many of the other problems I mentioned are caused by more than just one cause. Some are biological (neurological, genetic), others are behavioral (social, etc.), others are spiritual.
“Some of these are not really behavioral problems per se. You are mixing some things up here. We need to make valid distinctions between behavioral disorders such as ADD or ADHD (which is dealt with by the biblical discpline of self-control) and things such as sleep disorders (which can stem from a number of issues including an unbiblical approach to worry and stress), amnesia (which has nothing to do with behavioral issues), etc. Some of these are genuine medical issues and some are not.”
“Behavior” is defined as “a way of conducting or acting.” The behavioral sciences (sociology, psychology, etc.) study human behavior.
AD/HD, again, has both biological (neurological, possibly genetic) and psychosocial causes.
Yes, sleep disorders can be caused by unbiblical approaches to worry and anxiety but not always. The question is if the problem is not an unbiblical approach can or should a Christian counselor use other methods?
Sometimes problems are physical and sometimes problems are mental and sometimes problems are spiritual. We shouldn’t look at man through the eyes of Plato and Descartes.
One talks about integration … Here is the real integration. The church has adopted a secular view of man.
The world views man as totally material. The Bible teaches that man is also spiritual. The world tends to divide man into the physical-material and the psychological-material. They see psychology as addressing psyche (the soul) which they view as the mind which they view as material and unspiritual. The church responds correctly that man is more than just material but incorrectly assents to the world’s view of assigning all “unphysical” problems to the realm of psychology.
The secular world equates spiritual problems with mental problems and attempts to address both. While these two are not mutually exclusive, neither are they identical. Secular Psychologists are unequipped to deal with spiritual matters. Now the contemporary view of nouthetic counseling is attempting to ill-equip Christian counselors to deal with both mental and spiritual problems. What will happen? People with both mental and spiritual problems will go to secular psychologist for help. We are ceding a whole discipline by being misinformed by the world about the nature of man.
“There are no good people. One of hte problems of modern pscyhology is the misdiagnosis that there are good people. All are sinners and we live in a sin cursed world. All of these problems stem from that to be sure. But a lack of self-control is always a lack of the fruit of the Spirit. That is the root cause.”
I meant good as a relative term, but I’ll rephrase my statement: Bad things happen to righteous people.
Not everyone who cannot control an aspect of his self is lacking the fruit of the Spirit. (Autism, Tourette's syndrome, learning disorders, etc.)
“Having a proper view of God and life will not make the bad things go away, but it will enable the individual to deal with those bad things in a biblical way. Your last statement sums up the issue that you have seeminly argued against. When you know Christ and understand him, there are answers to these problems. It doesn't cure medical issues to be sure; no one should claim that it does. But it does deal with the spiritual side of man, which is where most counseling problems come from.”
You said “most counseling problems come from the spiritual side of man.” I agree, but not all problems come from the spiritual side of man. Some problems are mental and others physical. My issue is whether or not we can treat mental problems that are not sinful in nature and whether or not Christian counselors should be trained by Christian colleges and seminaries to do so. I think they should. I prefer Christian doctors, Christian mechanics, Christian lawyers, and Christian psychologists. Whether or not we have physical and psychological problems we still need the peace of God. And if we find the peace of God that doesn’t mean we can ignore our physical and mental problems.
“Some of these types of books are misuses of hte Bible. But with respect to the last part, much of the problem in modern psychology comes from the denial that man was the special creation of God in his own image.”
True, much modern psychology denies Biblical truths. Much modern medicine denies Biblical truths. Much modern sociology really denies biblical truths. What then do we do? Cede the entire discipline to the world, including those truths of that discipline?
“I completely believe this and that was my point to begin with. When we lower its value to a mere commentary on history, rather than that which equips us for every good work, then we have lost its value.”
I agree.
It’s “good” to treat cancer but the Bible doesn’t tell us how to do so. It’s “good” to fix my Windows XP but the Bible doesn’t tell me how to do so. If we say that the Bible is indirectly equipping us to treat cancer and fix Windows XP then we can say that the Bible is also indirectly equipping us to use the psychology to treat problems that the Bible doesn’t directly address. If we say that treating cancer and fixing Windows XP is not the “good” that is being expressed by the Bible then these disciplines, as well as psychology, fall out of the purview of the Scriptures.
Frank
I have no real problem with most nouthetic counseling just as I have no problem with most modern psychology.
But problems arise when the two begin to assume the role of the other.
Many whom I have talked to who support nouthetic counseling and dislike all modern psychology have only read a few Adams books. They hear Bible-only and believe that this way must be the best.
I am sorry but the Bible was never intended to be a counseling handbook anymore than it was intended to be a science book.
The Scriptures can be used to heal the soul and cure sin if one has faith in Christ.
But what about those who don't have faith? Or what about those who have a chemical imbalance? What about those with genetic problems? What about those with a behavioral problems? What about those with suffering from abuse?
There are three problems with much modern nouthetic counseling.
1) Many advocates have an incorrect view of the makeup of man.
2) Many advocates have an incorrect view of what psyschology involves.
3) Many advocates have an incorrect view of the purpose of the Scriptures.
If we continue in our inaccurate views about nouthetic counseling, we will become some new form Christian Scientists.
I hope these problems are just symptomatic of the diletantes of counseling and not the whole field of nouthetic counselors.
Earnest 1
2 Timothy 3:16
While it is true that nouthetic counselors generally may not prescribe drugs, it is not true that the scripture is not able to address problems of behavior and abuse. God's Word is the final authority whether one is a believer or not. Anyting that deviates is strictly the opinion of man and as such is highly susceptible to error.
Frank
But we are not speaking of opinions that deviate from Scripture. We are speaking of opinions that are not mentioned in Scripture and, therefore, are up for for grabs.
Some, perhaps, most behavior and much abuse can be and should be dealt with by nouthetic counseling. Very few believers would deny that truth. The issue is whether or not all problems that fall under the secular umbrella of psychology can be dealt with by nouthetic counseling or whether some problems must be dealt with using modern methods.
Not all problems that that physicians face are physical and not all problems that psychologists face are mental. It's not as clean cut as that. The human self is not as clean as that. Our minds are both spiritual and physical. The Bible speaks to both aspects of man (all of the spiritual issues) but not to all of the physical issues.
Yes, I suppose if we all had perfected faith then both the physical and spiritual aspects of our minds could be healed. If we have faith we can be healed of physical ailments, so says the Scriptures. Does that mean that we should cease seeing physicians and start forming nouthetic hospitals to cure the flu?
God gave us the abilities to prevent the flu. He gave us the abilities to help those suffering from mental problems. Let's not cause a whole lot of people to suffer because of another spiritual fad.
Earnest 2
quote: But what about those who don't have faith?
For these, the Bible has the answer.
quote: Or what about those who have a chemical imbalance?
Nouthetic counseling recommends that the first homework assignment for a counselee is a complete medical workup to rule out chemical imbalances.
quote: What about those with genetic problems?
What is the behavior or attitude that is affected by this? That determines how it is handled.
quote: What about those with a behavioral problems?
Behavioral problems are a lack of self-control, which is a fruit of the Spirit. The answer to this is always biblical.
quote: What about those with suffering from abuse?
The answer to this is found in Scripture as well, aligning one's view of life with the truth of God.
Very often, people underestimate the value of the Bible because of the line that "the Bible is not a counseling manual." That is a very limited view of the Bible.
Frank
But what about those who don't have faith?
"For these, the Bible has the answer."
Yes, but what if they disbelieve the Bible. Do we refuse to help them when other methods work they will accept work.
Which brings up another point ... Do modern methods of psychology work?
Or what about those who have a chemical imbalance?
"Nouthetic counseling recommends that the first homework assignment for a counselee is a complete medical workup to rule out chemical imbalances."
Good.
What about those with genetic problems?
"What is the behavior or attitude that is affected by this? That determines how it is handled."
Autism, mood disorders, personality disoders, schizophrenia, etc.
What about those with a behavioral problems?
"Behavioral problems are a lack of self-control, which is a fruit of the Spirit. The answer to this is always biblical."
Autism, attention deficit, schizophrenia, sleep disorders, Tourette's syndrome, dissociative identity disorder (MPD), amnesia, "stuttering", etc.
Yes, the person cannot control his self. In many cases the fact that he cannot control his self is not because he hasn't the fruit of the spirit but because we live in a fallen world and bad things happen to good people.
"The answer to this is found in Scripture as well, aligning one's view of life with the truth of God. Very often, people underestimate the value of the Bible because of the line that 'the Bible is not a counseling manual.' That is a very limited view of the Bible."
Alligning one's view of life will not make all bad things go away. It will not always cure cancer or heart disease or cure autism and MPD. The Bible will teach one about Christ and how to have a relationship with Him. In this trusting relationship one finds peace inspite of the sufferings whether physical or psychological or spiriutal.
I don't think I have "limited view of the Bible" but I do beleive I have a accurate view. I have seen books on how to use the Bible to get wealthy, to get healthy, and to predict the future. The Bible Codes, anyone? Today, I see books about the Scriptural view of diets. And don't even get me started on science and how God created creation as reflected in the Scriptures.
I am sure those who dabble in Old Testament diets think they have a high view of the Scripture too.
I think we do damage to the witness of the Scriptures when we start applying it to thigns it was never meant to be applied. We then distract from what it was intended to do.
Earnest 2
quote: But we are not speaking of opinions that deviate from Scripture. We are speaking of opinions that are not mentioned in Scripture and, therefore, are up for for grabs.
Such as?
quote: Not all problems that that physicians face are physical and not all problems that psychologists face are mental.
Actually, physicians refer patients with problems that they believe are mental.
quote: God gave us the abilities to prevent the flu. He gave us the abilities to help those suffering from mental problems. Let's not cause a whole lot of people to suffer because of another spiritual fad.
I absolutely agree. The spiritual fad that should be rejected is integrationism ... the minimization of the Bible to the mere level of human psychology. The Bible has a much higher position than that. We should not cause people to suffer by offering solutions that don't really work in the long run.
Earnest 2
quote: Yes, but what if they disbelieve the Bible. Do we refuse to help them when other methods work they will accept work.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "work." Do you want real solutions or not?
quote: Autism, mood disorders, personality disoders, schizophrenia, etc.
Autism is not a problem treatable by counseling. The other things you mention all have biblical solutions, if we will pursue them.
quote: Autism, attention deficit, schizophrenia, sleep disorders, Tourette's syndrome, dissociative identity disorder (MPD), amnesia, "stuttering", etc.
Some of these are not really behavioral problems per se. You are mixing some things up here. We need to make valid distinctions between behavioral disorders such as ADD or ADHD (which is dealt with by the biblical discpline of self-control) and things such as sleep disorders (which can stem from a number of issues including an unbiblical approach to worry and stress), amnesia (which has nothing to do with behavioral issues), etc. Some of these are genuine medical issues and some are not.
quote: Yes, the person cannot control his self. In many cases the fact that he cannot control his self is not because he hasn't the fruit of the spirit but because we live in a fallen world and bad things happen to good people.
There are no good people. One of hte problems of modern pscyhology is the misdiagnosis that there are good people. All are sinners and we live in a sin cursed world. All of these problems stem from that to be sure. But a lack of self-control is always a lack of the fruit of the Spirit. That is the root cause.
quote: Alligning one's view of life will not make all bad things go away. It will not always cure cancer or heart disease or cure autism and MPD. The Bible will teach one about Christ and how to have a relationship with Him. In this trusting relationship one finds peace inspite of the sufferings whether physical or psychological or spiriutal.
Having a proper view of God and life will not make the bad things go away, but it will enable the individual to deal with those bad things in a biblical way. Your last statement sums up the issue that you have seeminly argued against. When you know Christ and understand him, there are answers to these problems. It doesn't cure medical issues to be sure; no one should claim that it does. But it does deal with the spiritual side of man, which is where most counseling problems come from.
quote: I have seen books on how to use the Bible to get wealthy, to get healthy, and to predict the future. The Bible Codes, anyone? Today, I see books about the Scriptural view of diets. And don't even get me started on science and how God created creation as reflected in the Scriptures.
Some of these types of books are misuses of hte Bible. But with respect to the last part, much of the problem in modern psychology comes from teh denial that man was the special creation of God in his own image.
quote: I think we do damage to the witness of the Scriptures when we start applying it to thigns it was never meant to be applied. We then distract from what it was intended to do.
I completely believe this and that was my point to begin with. When we lower its value to a mere commentary on history, rather than that which equips us for every good work, then we have lost its value.
Frank
“Such as?”
Mental and physical problems not addressed in Scripture (these are the problems that good psychology attempts to address)
“Actually, physicians refer patients with problems that they believe are mental.”
Exactly! They refer patients to others because the mental and spiritual is not their expertise. The mental is the expertise of the psychologists and the spiritual is the expertise of the Christian minister. I would prefer a Christian psychologist that can counsel both to the mental and the spiritual. Why should be abandon counseling of the mind to the secularists? We then lose the chance to witness to the lost and guide them to Christ.
“I absolutely agree. The spiritual fad that should be rejected is integrationism ... the minimization of the Bible to the mere level of human psychology. The Bible has a much higher position than that. We should not cause people to suffer by offering solutions that don't really work in the long run.”
Really the negative integrationism that is being applied by many is a Platonic view of the self (as opposed to the Biblical model) that was perpetuated by many of the Apostolic fathers, Augustine included. Many of these men of God were not necessarily minimizing the Bible but, instead, were trying to explain the Biblical principles to a pagan world by using Greek philosophical principles, much like how John uses the Logos in his Gospel. Did they go too far at times? Oh yes, and their followers took it even further down the road to heresy. There were other Apostolic fathers who went the other route and wanted to show the world the diametrically opposed Kingdom of God. These men of God were not necessarily isolating the church from the world with which they were supposed to be witnessing but they occasionally went too far and some their followers certainly went too far. There is definitely a balance that must be maintained.
Solutions to sin can only be found in Christ as found in the Scriptures. But problems that are not sin can be dealt with by other means, means that work both in the short run and in the long run. Will psychological methods cure the problem of sin? No.
Frank
“I guess that depends on what you mean by "work." Do you want real solutions or not?”
Solutions to sin: nouthetic. Solutions to physical and mental problems that do not come under the umbrella of sin: well?
“Autism is not a problem treatable by counseling. The other things you mention all have biblical solutions, if we will pursue them.”
Actually autism can be treated with counseling.
Many of the other problems I mentioned are caused by more than just one cause. Some are biological (neurological, genetic), others are behavioral (social, etc.), others are spiritual.
“Some of these are not really behavioral problems per se. You are mixing some things up here. We need to make valid distinctions between behavioral disorders such as ADD or ADHD (which is dealt with by the biblical discpline of self-control) and things such as sleep disorders (which can stem from a number of issues including an unbiblical approach to worry and stress), amnesia (which has nothing to do with behavioral issues), etc. Some of these are genuine medical issues and some are not.”
“Behavior” is defined as “a way of conducting or acting.” The behavioral sciences (sociology, psychology, etc.) study human behavior.
AD/HD, again, has both biological (neurological, possibly genetic) and psychosocial causes.
Yes, sleep disorders can be caused by unbiblical approaches to worry and anxiety but not always. The question is if the problem is not an unbiblical approach can or should a Christian counselor use other methods?
Sometimes problems are physical and sometimes problems are mental and sometimes problems are spiritual. We shouldn’t look at man through the eyes of Plato and Descartes.
One talks about integration … Here is the real integration. The church has adopted a secular view of man.
The world views man as totally material. The Bible teaches that man is also spiritual. The world tends to divide man into the physical-material and the psychological-material. They see psychology as addressing psyche (the soul) which they view as the mind which they view as material and unspiritual. The church responds correctly that man is more than just material but incorrectly assents to the world’s view of assigning all “unphysical” problems to the realm of psychology.
The secular world equates spiritual problems with mental problems and attempts to address both. While these two are not mutually exclusive, neither are they identical. Secular Psychologists are unequipped to deal with spiritual matters. Now the contemporary view of nouthetic counseling is attempting to ill-equip Christian counselors to deal with both mental and spiritual problems. What will happen? People with both mental and spiritual problems will go to secular psychologist for help. We are ceding a whole discipline by being misinformed by the world about the nature of man.
“There are no good people. One of hte problems of modern pscyhology is the misdiagnosis that there are good people. All are sinners and we live in a sin cursed world. All of these problems stem from that to be sure. But a lack of self-control is always a lack of the fruit of the Spirit. That is the root cause.”
I meant good as a relative term, but I’ll rephrase my statement: Bad things happen to righteous people.
Not everyone who cannot control an aspect of his self is lacking the fruit of the Spirit. (Autism, Tourette's syndrome, learning disorders, etc.)
“Having a proper view of God and life will not make the bad things go away, but it will enable the individual to deal with those bad things in a biblical way. Your last statement sums up the issue that you have seeminly argued against. When you know Christ and understand him, there are answers to these problems. It doesn't cure medical issues to be sure; no one should claim that it does. But it does deal with the spiritual side of man, which is where most counseling problems come from.”
You said “most counseling problems come from the spiritual side of man.” I agree, but not all problems come from the spiritual side of man. Some problems are mental and others physical. My issue is whether or not we can treat mental problems that are not sinful in nature and whether or not Christian counselors should be trained by Christian colleges and seminaries to do so. I think they should. I prefer Christian doctors, Christian mechanics, Christian lawyers, and Christian psychologists. Whether or not we have physical and psychological problems we still need the peace of God. And if we find the peace of God that doesn’t mean we can ignore our physical and mental problems.
“Some of these types of books are misuses of hte Bible. But with respect to the last part, much of the problem in modern psychology comes from the denial that man was the special creation of God in his own image.”
True, much modern psychology denies Biblical truths. Much modern medicine denies Biblical truths. Much modern sociology really denies biblical truths. What then do we do? Cede the entire discipline to the world, including those truths of that discipline?
“I completely believe this and that was my point to begin with. When we lower its value to a mere commentary on history, rather than that which equips us for every good work, then we have lost its value.”
I agree.
It’s “good” to treat cancer but the Bible doesn’t tell us how to do so. It’s “good” to fix my Windows XP but the Bible doesn’t tell me how to do so. If we say that the Bible is indirectly equipping us to treat cancer and fix Windows XP then we can say that the Bible is also indirectly equipping us to use the psychology to treat problems that the Bible doesn’t directly address. If we say that treating cancer and fixing Windows XP is not the “good” that is being expressed by the Bible then these disciplines, as well as psychology, fall out of the purview of the Scriptures.
Monday, October 18, 2004
I Went Back To Ohio
This weekend I flew to Ohio to visit the wife's family. We had a good time. We ate well, laughed well, and didn't get much sleep.
On Saturday, we went to my niece's high school soccer game. She cheerleaded in 42 degree weather while we watched in 42 degree weather.
Now I love all things British but I will never like soccer. We sat and watched two teams for two hours kick a little ball around and tie the game. No one won! No one cared! That isn't a sport. Players would get penalties but no one seems to no why. Give me football any day.
Anyway, my other niece has two children four and below. We spent much time playing with them and what not. Good kids.
One thing about the world of children that I have noticed is the awlful songs they sing. I had forgotten how dreadful children's songs are, especially Christian children's songs. I remember when I was younger and had to take a long journey with my younger siblings - I had to undergo hours of sappy songs. Now I don't think this is what Jesus meant when he said "suffer the little children to come unto me."
So on the plane home, I began to write or re-write my own Christian children's songs. If you'll endulge me ...
God said to Noah,
"Go build an arky-arky,
Fill it with animals,
the ones that go 'moo', 'barky-barky'.
It's gonna rain and
get very darky-darky."
God's gonna wipe out the earth.
(Not bad, eh? Here's the second verse.)
God said to Noah,
"It's about to get funky-funky,
Tie down the animals,
especially the monkey-monkeys.
It's gonna flood and
Kill all the honkey-honkeys."
God's gonna wipe out the earth.
(My wife thinks I'm terrible, so I came out with another song about Neo-Orthodoxy.)
Soren Kierkegaard had many sons
Many sons had Soren Kierkegaard
And I am one of them
And so are you
So let's just name them all
Karl Barth
Soren Kierkegaard had many sons
Many sons had Soren Kierkegaard
And I am one of them
And so are you
So let's just name them all
Karl Barth, Frank Stagg
Soren Kierkegaard had many sons
Many sons had Soren Kierkegaard
And I am one of them
And so are you
So let's just name them all
Karl Barth, Frank Stagg, Bultmann
(And it goes on like that with Brunner, Niebuhr, Moody, Tillich, etc.)
It'll be these songs David Bowie and Ren and Stimpy's "Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy."
Yes, my kids are going to need quite a bit of therapy.
Another interesting thing that occurred during my trip was my attendance at two churches Sunday morning.
The first church I attended was for an early morning service. The church (which I will call C.C.) was in a realtively "bad" part of town. The older building had been renovated on the inside and looked somewhat good. But the balconies partially hid the screen to the right and the sound was atrocious. My dad would have had a fit having to lead worship with sound that bad.
The early service was almost empty, only a few dozen attendees, of which 60% were African-American. The pastor, though, was white but prerached in a slighty African-American manner. The service itself was structured similar to an African-American church service.
The worship service was contemporary. The pastor noted that the usual worship leader was out and the Thursday night band had stepped in. They were not too bad but the singing from the three worship leaders was off.
But all this stuff is peripheral a part from the teaching of the Scripture. The pastor came up and began an expository sermon on 1 Kings 17:1-16. This was the second part of a series called "To Have in a Have Not World." Yes, my friens, this was a health and wealth sermon.
The pastor taught about God providing "perfected prosperity" and "abundance" to all who have faith in Him. And this wasn't fruit of the spirit but finances.
Despite the expository nature of his sermon, he totally mis-interpreted the text again and again. Even the details were wrong. He said that the Zarephath widow was a Philistine. But the Philistines were from the South and Zarephath is in the north. She could not have been a Philistine. I looked in vain through the Bible for any hint that she might have been. He also allegorized parts of the text to seek his own meaning. The hermeneutic applied was rancid.
At one point he went on a tanget about those who are "heresy hunters" in churches. He mentioned a fellow pastor whose church had a couple who frequently visited and seemed to fit in well but suddenly stopped attending. When this fellow pastor went to find out what was wrong he discovered that the couple disliked that the church, Trinitarian though it was, baptized in the name of the Jesus only and not the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
Now the pastor preaching ridiculed this couple as being "heresy hunters." But from what he said, this couple had a theological problem with the church, did not raise a stink in the church, but only decided not to attend. Now that was their choice and they behaved civially about the matter, but becasue they had a problem with a church they are now suspect according to this pastor. Hitting a nerve, reverend?
The pastor went on to call all such matters trivial and such distinctions a matter of nuance. "What does it matter about whose name you Baptize in as long as the Holy Spirit was working there?"
I saw a thousand chapel sermon examples in this one pastor pass before my eyes.
He ended the service with prayer, a prophecy concerning a man worried about his job, and a call for anyone to recieve Christ as his Lord and Saviour.
I assume this church is Baptist though it does not say so on its name. The bulletin calls on anyone to come for membership, Baptism, and communion and the church has a baptismal pool up front. Sure signs.
I also noticed that services are recorded for TV a few times a week, and for radio many times a week.
I was not to happy with the sermon to say the least. More than anything, the misuse of Scripture, too many to mention, grated on my nerves. And these were not legitimate mistakes but careless hermeneutics like sloppy research, allegorizing, and eisegesis. Nevertheless, he presented the material in an expository manner. So all is well.
Now, I may have come at a bad day. It's possible. I may have come in the middle of a sermon series on health and wealth. Heck, last year I went home to visit a church and the pastor chose that Sunday to preach on tithing. He came up to me after the service and said, "I don't usually preach on tithing; just once a year. It figures that the one Sunday I get a seminary student in the service I have to preach on this subject." I have heard similar stories over the years.
Which brings me to the other church (which I will call H.H.). This church is a SBC church in Ohio. It must be because they showed a Cooperative Program video about China in the 11:00 am service.
This was a great church. They have a single head pastor but many other pastors working in the church. The have two church plants with which they are working. Their ministries include helping the poor, sending missionaries, and they are currently building a separate building on the other side of town to reach the people for Christ.
Their service is contemporary and the band is good. Real good actually. The worship leader is great and his back up singers are VERY good. The songs they chose are good as well.
I mentioned the building program. The bulletin insert had half a dozen testimonies about tithing. There was a video testimony during the service about tithing. Tithing was mentioned by the pastor during the announcements.
It happens.
Now I have met this pastor before and he is tremendous. He is very humble and mild-mannered and a joy with which to be. I respect him greatly.
His sermon was on the subject of the "peace" of God. He had collected together numerous passages and verses together to teach this topic. Hardly expository. He touched on the source of peace, the substance of peace, and the scope of peace. All his points were biblical and interepreted correctly. He even touched on the subject of finances and how we have or don't have peace despite our economic circumstances. Nice.
Amazing how a non-expository sermon was truer to the Scriptures than a non-expository sermon. Funny that.
Of course, an expository sermon is like inerrancy: everyone believes in it but no one is sure what it means.
Anyway, I greatly enjoyed the sermon and it sparked many thoughts in my mind. Finiteness and freedom can cause anxiety and fear. Faith/trust in God brings us peace. Lack of faith/trust in God brings self-reliance, pride and idolatry. All of this can be found in Reinhold Niebuhr's The Nature and Destiny of Man, Volume I, Human Nature.
Interestingly, H.H. is advertising a new Ohio proposition to protect marriage. The pastor told everyone to vote yes on this proposition and some youth passing out yard signs to all the members after the service.
All in all, this was a great trip. I filled my belly on homemade cabbage rolls and brought home two suit cases full of second-hand but never worn clothes (three pairs of dress shoes, several shirts, many sweaters, and a pair of pants). All in all a great haul.
So if you see me dressing fine you'll know I went back to Ohio.
On Saturday, we went to my niece's high school soccer game. She cheerleaded in 42 degree weather while we watched in 42 degree weather.
Now I love all things British but I will never like soccer. We sat and watched two teams for two hours kick a little ball around and tie the game. No one won! No one cared! That isn't a sport. Players would get penalties but no one seems to no why. Give me football any day.
Anyway, my other niece has two children four and below. We spent much time playing with them and what not. Good kids.
One thing about the world of children that I have noticed is the awlful songs they sing. I had forgotten how dreadful children's songs are, especially Christian children's songs. I remember when I was younger and had to take a long journey with my younger siblings - I had to undergo hours of sappy songs. Now I don't think this is what Jesus meant when he said "suffer the little children to come unto me."
So on the plane home, I began to write or re-write my own Christian children's songs. If you'll endulge me ...
God said to Noah,
"Go build an arky-arky,
Fill it with animals,
the ones that go 'moo', 'barky-barky'.
It's gonna rain and
get very darky-darky."
God's gonna wipe out the earth.
(Not bad, eh? Here's the second verse.)
God said to Noah,
"It's about to get funky-funky,
Tie down the animals,
especially the monkey-monkeys.
It's gonna flood and
Kill all the honkey-honkeys."
God's gonna wipe out the earth.
(My wife thinks I'm terrible, so I came out with another song about Neo-Orthodoxy.)
Soren Kierkegaard had many sons
Many sons had Soren Kierkegaard
And I am one of them
And so are you
So let's just name them all
Karl Barth
Soren Kierkegaard had many sons
Many sons had Soren Kierkegaard
And I am one of them
And so are you
So let's just name them all
Karl Barth, Frank Stagg
Soren Kierkegaard had many sons
Many sons had Soren Kierkegaard
And I am one of them
And so are you
So let's just name them all
Karl Barth, Frank Stagg, Bultmann
(And it goes on like that with Brunner, Niebuhr, Moody, Tillich, etc.)
It'll be these songs David Bowie and Ren and Stimpy's "Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy."
Yes, my kids are going to need quite a bit of therapy.
Another interesting thing that occurred during my trip was my attendance at two churches Sunday morning.
The first church I attended was for an early morning service. The church (which I will call C.C.) was in a realtively "bad" part of town. The older building had been renovated on the inside and looked somewhat good. But the balconies partially hid the screen to the right and the sound was atrocious. My dad would have had a fit having to lead worship with sound that bad.
The early service was almost empty, only a few dozen attendees, of which 60% were African-American. The pastor, though, was white but prerached in a slighty African-American manner. The service itself was structured similar to an African-American church service.
The worship service was contemporary. The pastor noted that the usual worship leader was out and the Thursday night band had stepped in. They were not too bad but the singing from the three worship leaders was off.
But all this stuff is peripheral a part from the teaching of the Scripture. The pastor came up and began an expository sermon on 1 Kings 17:1-16. This was the second part of a series called "To Have in a Have Not World." Yes, my friens, this was a health and wealth sermon.
The pastor taught about God providing "perfected prosperity" and "abundance" to all who have faith in Him. And this wasn't fruit of the spirit but finances.
Despite the expository nature of his sermon, he totally mis-interpreted the text again and again. Even the details were wrong. He said that the Zarephath widow was a Philistine. But the Philistines were from the South and Zarephath is in the north. She could not have been a Philistine. I looked in vain through the Bible for any hint that she might have been. He also allegorized parts of the text to seek his own meaning. The hermeneutic applied was rancid.
At one point he went on a tanget about those who are "heresy hunters" in churches. He mentioned a fellow pastor whose church had a couple who frequently visited and seemed to fit in well but suddenly stopped attending. When this fellow pastor went to find out what was wrong he discovered that the couple disliked that the church, Trinitarian though it was, baptized in the name of the Jesus only and not the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
Now the pastor preaching ridiculed this couple as being "heresy hunters." But from what he said, this couple had a theological problem with the church, did not raise a stink in the church, but only decided not to attend. Now that was their choice and they behaved civially about the matter, but becasue they had a problem with a church they are now suspect according to this pastor. Hitting a nerve, reverend?
The pastor went on to call all such matters trivial and such distinctions a matter of nuance. "What does it matter about whose name you Baptize in as long as the Holy Spirit was working there?"
I saw a thousand chapel sermon examples in this one pastor pass before my eyes.
He ended the service with prayer, a prophecy concerning a man worried about his job, and a call for anyone to recieve Christ as his Lord and Saviour.
I assume this church is Baptist though it does not say so on its name. The bulletin calls on anyone to come for membership, Baptism, and communion and the church has a baptismal pool up front. Sure signs.
I also noticed that services are recorded for TV a few times a week, and for radio many times a week.
I was not to happy with the sermon to say the least. More than anything, the misuse of Scripture, too many to mention, grated on my nerves. And these were not legitimate mistakes but careless hermeneutics like sloppy research, allegorizing, and eisegesis. Nevertheless, he presented the material in an expository manner. So all is well.
Now, I may have come at a bad day. It's possible. I may have come in the middle of a sermon series on health and wealth. Heck, last year I went home to visit a church and the pastor chose that Sunday to preach on tithing. He came up to me after the service and said, "I don't usually preach on tithing; just once a year. It figures that the one Sunday I get a seminary student in the service I have to preach on this subject." I have heard similar stories over the years.
Which brings me to the other church (which I will call H.H.). This church is a SBC church in Ohio. It must be because they showed a Cooperative Program video about China in the 11:00 am service.
This was a great church. They have a single head pastor but many other pastors working in the church. The have two church plants with which they are working. Their ministries include helping the poor, sending missionaries, and they are currently building a separate building on the other side of town to reach the people for Christ.
Their service is contemporary and the band is good. Real good actually. The worship leader is great and his back up singers are VERY good. The songs they chose are good as well.
I mentioned the building program. The bulletin insert had half a dozen testimonies about tithing. There was a video testimony during the service about tithing. Tithing was mentioned by the pastor during the announcements.
It happens.
Now I have met this pastor before and he is tremendous. He is very humble and mild-mannered and a joy with which to be. I respect him greatly.
His sermon was on the subject of the "peace" of God. He had collected together numerous passages and verses together to teach this topic. Hardly expository. He touched on the source of peace, the substance of peace, and the scope of peace. All his points were biblical and interepreted correctly. He even touched on the subject of finances and how we have or don't have peace despite our economic circumstances. Nice.
Amazing how a non-expository sermon was truer to the Scriptures than a non-expository sermon. Funny that.
Of course, an expository sermon is like inerrancy: everyone believes in it but no one is sure what it means.
Anyway, I greatly enjoyed the sermon and it sparked many thoughts in my mind. Finiteness and freedom can cause anxiety and fear. Faith/trust in God brings us peace. Lack of faith/trust in God brings self-reliance, pride and idolatry. All of this can be found in Reinhold Niebuhr's The Nature and Destiny of Man, Volume I, Human Nature.
Interestingly, H.H. is advertising a new Ohio proposition to protect marriage. The pastor told everyone to vote yes on this proposition and some youth passing out yard signs to all the members after the service.
All in all, this was a great trip. I filled my belly on homemade cabbage rolls and brought home two suit cases full of second-hand but never worn clothes (three pairs of dress shoes, several shirts, many sweaters, and a pair of pants). All in all a great haul.
So if you see me dressing fine you'll know I went back to Ohio.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Oxford Trip 2004 VIII: Grasmere
On Tuesday July 20th, we departed Oxford for our journey towards Scotland. This was a very, very long drive - 10 hours on a bus. This trip more than any other sapped the wind from our sails.
We traveled up the west coast of England through the beautiful Lake District, stopping to have lunch in Grasmere, the home of William Wordsworth.
Here are the mountains around Grasmere where we ate our apples and packed sandwiches.
This is the mainstreet of Grasmere. Wonderful stone buildings.
This is the back street that leads up to the house where Wordsworth lived.
And here, of course, is Dove Cottage, the home of William Wordsworth.
"Why, William, on that old gray stone,
Thus for the length of half a day,
Why, William sit you thus alone,
And dream your time away?"
And here is a picture of Lake Grasmere, "the loveliest spot that man hath ever known."
After leaving Grasmere, we set out again on our long, long journey to Edinburgh, Scotland.
In this picture there are forty people. None of them can be seen. In this film we hope to show you how not to be seen.
Bye.
We traveled up the west coast of England through the beautiful Lake District, stopping to have lunch in Grasmere, the home of William Wordsworth.
Here are the mountains around Grasmere where we ate our apples and packed sandwiches.
This is the mainstreet of Grasmere. Wonderful stone buildings.
This is the back street that leads up to the house where Wordsworth lived.
And here, of course, is Dove Cottage, the home of William Wordsworth.
"Why, William, on that old gray stone,
Thus for the length of half a day,
Why, William sit you thus alone,
And dream your time away?"
And here is a picture of Lake Grasmere, "the loveliest spot that man hath ever known."
After leaving Grasmere, we set out again on our long, long journey to Edinburgh, Scotland.
In this picture there are forty people. None of them can be seen. In this film we hope to show you how not to be seen.
Bye.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Books of Interest
Beckett, by Jean Anouilh
A Man For All Seasons, by Robert Bolt
Galileo, by Bertolt Brecht
The Cost of Discipleship, by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
A Clockwork Orange, by Anthony Burgess
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, by James Joyce
The Trial, Franz Kafka
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, by Ken Kesey
1984, George Orwell
The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denkisovich, by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Every Good Boy Deserves Favor, by Tom Stoppard
The Agony and the Ecstasy, by Irving Stone
A Man For All Seasons, by Robert Bolt
Galileo, by Bertolt Brecht
The Cost of Discipleship, by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
A Clockwork Orange, by Anthony Burgess
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, by James Joyce
The Trial, Franz Kafka
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, by Ken Kesey
1984, George Orwell
The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denkisovich, by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Every Good Boy Deserves Favor, by Tom Stoppard
The Agony and the Ecstasy, by Irving Stone
Monday, October 11, 2004
Quiz Show
My beautiful wife rented Quiz Show this weekend. I has always heard that this film was good and I was not dissapointed. I highly recommend this film to all. The acting by Ralph Fiennes, John Turturro and Paul Scofield are worth the price of admission. The script is excellent. Its rare for a Hollywood film to be both well acted and well written.
Friday, October 08, 2004
In Search of Lost Titles
This week, as my nightly reading, I began and finished Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass. This is not a great accomplishment since a) it is only 12 chapters and b) it is a children's book. Nevertheless, I tremedously enjoyed the book, as always. In fact, I came to the conclusion that I enjoy this book more than the previous, Alice in Wonderland. I think because the former is more structured and the latter is more or less organic in its composition, I prefer Through the Looking Glass.
Last night, as I was planning to go to bed, I began to search for a book to read. I decided on fiction because ... well, just because.
I pondered seriously over Homer's The Odyssey but I am not in the mood for poetry. So no Whitman or Dante.
I am not in the mood for a play either so no Stoppard, Shakespeare or Beckett.
Yes, I want a novel.
I hadn't yet read Irving Stone's bio-fiction of Vincent Van Gogh, Lust for Life. I previously read his bio-fiction of Michelangelo The Agony and the Ecstasy. It was very good which is why I purchased Lust for Life. But I am not in the mood for painting books.
I thought about a Thomas Pynchon novel but those are to vulgar for my current tastes.
Next, I thought about Umberto Eco's Baudolino. I hadn't read it yet. His The Name of the Rose, Foucault's Pendulum and The Island of the Day Before were all good if not great but I heard this new book was somewhat dissapointing and I want a book that I know will be good.
I thought about Kafka. Amerika, The Trial, The Castle. I decided against this because I don't fancy a book so close to my own present circumstances. So no Rand, no Orwell, and no Huxley.
Finally, as I was debating about picking up my beloved Ulysses for the umpteenth time, I spied my two volume copy of A La Recherche Du Temps Perdu, by Marcel Proust. This book has been translated into English as either Remembrance of Things Past or In Search of Lost Time. The former title is more widespread though the latter is more accurate.
It is a seven book novel written in the early decades of the twentieth century. It is considered to be one of the greatest novels of all time. Its relative obscurity is due to its length. I mean, it's difficult to make the book into a film for mass distribution though it has been done. Its obscurity is also due to its complexity. I would not put it up on the level of Finnegans Wake or Ulysses but certainly it would come within the same group as these novels and The Divine Comedy.
Now I haven't actually read the entire novel. I first heard of this work while I was in college. When I was not studying history I was teaching myself about the works of classical literature. I finally found a used book store that had all seven of the books in a two volume set for $16. (This was the same store where I found my translation of the complete works of Rabelais, the five books of Gargantua and Pantagruel and the first U.S. Edition of Joyce's Stephen Hero. Good store.
When I did purchase A La Recherche I began reading it but, like most people, I found myself disinterested after a few dozen pages. I mean, Proust spends the first thirty pages describing how the narrator turns and returns over in his bed before going to sleep! This book is over 2,500 pages!
So I began reading a number of books about the work, critical commentaries and that sort of thing. I even read specific passages in the different books, but never the whole thing.
But last night I decided once again to sally forth and venture through the maze that is A La Recherche. The reason that I am posting this is that I wish to use Panis Circensesas a literary accountability group. If I say publicly that I am reading the book then I'll have to continue. If this works then I'll use this method to get through Tolstoy's War and Peace and Thomas Mann's Magic Mountain.
So wish me luck. I have started book one, Du Cote De Chez Swann, or Swann's Way.
Last night, as I was planning to go to bed, I began to search for a book to read. I decided on fiction because ... well, just because.
I pondered seriously over Homer's The Odyssey but I am not in the mood for poetry. So no Whitman or Dante.
I am not in the mood for a play either so no Stoppard, Shakespeare or Beckett.
Yes, I want a novel.
I hadn't yet read Irving Stone's bio-fiction of Vincent Van Gogh, Lust for Life. I previously read his bio-fiction of Michelangelo The Agony and the Ecstasy. It was very good which is why I purchased Lust for Life. But I am not in the mood for painting books.
I thought about a Thomas Pynchon novel but those are to vulgar for my current tastes.
Next, I thought about Umberto Eco's Baudolino. I hadn't read it yet. His The Name of the Rose, Foucault's Pendulum and The Island of the Day Before were all good if not great but I heard this new book was somewhat dissapointing and I want a book that I know will be good.
I thought about Kafka. Amerika, The Trial, The Castle. I decided against this because I don't fancy a book so close to my own present circumstances. So no Rand, no Orwell, and no Huxley.
Finally, as I was debating about picking up my beloved Ulysses for the umpteenth time, I spied my two volume copy of A La Recherche Du Temps Perdu, by Marcel Proust. This book has been translated into English as either Remembrance of Things Past or In Search of Lost Time. The former title is more widespread though the latter is more accurate.
It is a seven book novel written in the early decades of the twentieth century. It is considered to be one of the greatest novels of all time. Its relative obscurity is due to its length. I mean, it's difficult to make the book into a film for mass distribution though it has been done. Its obscurity is also due to its complexity. I would not put it up on the level of Finnegans Wake or Ulysses but certainly it would come within the same group as these novels and The Divine Comedy.
Now I haven't actually read the entire novel. I first heard of this work while I was in college. When I was not studying history I was teaching myself about the works of classical literature. I finally found a used book store that had all seven of the books in a two volume set for $16. (This was the same store where I found my translation of the complete works of Rabelais, the five books of Gargantua and Pantagruel and the first U.S. Edition of Joyce's Stephen Hero. Good store.
When I did purchase A La Recherche I began reading it but, like most people, I found myself disinterested after a few dozen pages. I mean, Proust spends the first thirty pages describing how the narrator turns and returns over in his bed before going to sleep! This book is over 2,500 pages!
So I began reading a number of books about the work, critical commentaries and that sort of thing. I even read specific passages in the different books, but never the whole thing.
But last night I decided once again to sally forth and venture through the maze that is A La Recherche. The reason that I am posting this is that I wish to use Panis Circensesas a literary accountability group. If I say publicly that I am reading the book then I'll have to continue. If this works then I'll use this method to get through Tolstoy's War and Peace and Thomas Mann's Magic Mountain.
So wish me luck. I have started book one, Du Cote De Chez Swann, or Swann's Way.
Oxford Trip 2004 VII: Windsor Castle
Today we traveled to Windsor Castle to visit the home of the Royal Family.
As the Sex Pistols said, “God Save the Queen …”
I really enjoyed Windsor. It was very much worth the entrance fee. I was able to see the armor of Henry the VIII and even his burial place. He is also buried with his favorite wife and Charles I, including his head.
Here we are walking up toward the castle. I imagine the rent is quite high on that place.
A little bit closer.
Here you can see that they are working on the castle. You might remember that Windsor Castle caught on fire a few years ago. The fire damage has been fixed and looks quite nice now.
A tour guide told us that while the fire was raging, Prince Phillip was yelling, “The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire!”
Design at Gates to Windsor Castle.
Don’t you wish you had a garden like this?
This piece goes with the one below.
It was the only way I could get the whole lot in.
What I wouldn’t give to know what he is thinking. Probably something along the lines of “We don’t need no water …”
Here I catch the end of the Windsor band. They do a mean version of Ted Nugent’s “Stranglehold,”
This one is good. You can see the Japanese tourists taking pictures in the background and the SWBTS students planning how to make the guard laugh in the foreground.
It worked! And it appears that when they are about to laugh they must start marching to recover themselves.
We talked to one off-duty guard. He had just returned from Iraq.
And here is the statue of Queen Victoria. The symbol of what it means to be British. Her father is German, her husband is German, and she’s half German.
And, lastly, here is the picture I took of the Queen and Prince.
For me, the best part of the tour was St. George’s Chapel. Unfortunately, photography is not allowed inside the chapel or the castle. Oh, well.
As the Sex Pistols said, “God Save the Queen …”
I really enjoyed Windsor. It was very much worth the entrance fee. I was able to see the armor of Henry the VIII and even his burial place. He is also buried with his favorite wife and Charles I, including his head.
Here we are walking up toward the castle. I imagine the rent is quite high on that place.
A little bit closer.
Here you can see that they are working on the castle. You might remember that Windsor Castle caught on fire a few years ago. The fire damage has been fixed and looks quite nice now.
A tour guide told us that while the fire was raging, Prince Phillip was yelling, “The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire!”
Design at Gates to Windsor Castle.
Don’t you wish you had a garden like this?
This piece goes with the one below.
It was the only way I could get the whole lot in.
What I wouldn’t give to know what he is thinking. Probably something along the lines of “We don’t need no water …”
Here I catch the end of the Windsor band. They do a mean version of Ted Nugent’s “Stranglehold,”
This one is good. You can see the Japanese tourists taking pictures in the background and the SWBTS students planning how to make the guard laugh in the foreground.
It worked! And it appears that when they are about to laugh they must start marching to recover themselves.
We talked to one off-duty guard. He had just returned from Iraq.
And here is the statue of Queen Victoria. The symbol of what it means to be British. Her father is German, her husband is German, and she’s half German.
And, lastly, here is the picture I took of the Queen and Prince.
For me, the best part of the tour was St. George’s Chapel. Unfortunately, photography is not allowed inside the chapel or the castle. Oh, well.
Oxford Trip 2004 VI: Bath and Stonehenge
Today we departed for the town of Bath. This, for many of the students and professors, was the best visit of the entire trip. I myself quite enjoyed it. Bath was a haunting ground for both Jane Austen and Charles Dickins. And, more importantly, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales contains a character called the Wife of Bath. The Wife of Bath is considered to be one of the greatest characters in all of English Literature. She is right up there with Falstaff, Hamlet, and Leopold Bloom. If you have the chance, read the Prologue to the Wife of Bath; it's short but wonderful.
Here is the famous Bath Abbey.
Here is the door to Bath Abbey. Quite nice, eh?
And here are the insides. This is quite a wonderful sight.
And, of course, one of the Abbey's stained glass window.
Bath is also known for having ancient Roman baths, hence the names. I didn't go in because it was 15 pounds ($30). What I did do was go around the back of the building and peak of the wall to see the baths for free. Here is a picture of a young lady dressed as a statue. She would stay perfectly still and wait for a kid to look her over and then she'd stick out her tongue. Nice work if you can get it.
And here is the Royal Crescent. Bath was once a holiday place for the idle rich and royalty. The crown greated this place for the royal family to stay. Now it has become apartments.
We left Bath and next made our way to Stonehenge. You notice the fence around the stones? It cost 7 pounds ($15) to go on the other side of the fence. Of course, one can also not pay the fee and walk up to the fence. The people who do pay are only allowed to go a foot closer than those who do not pay.
I'd rather spend my pounds on other things.
And now ...
Stonehenge
Where the demons dwell
Where the banshees live
And they do live well
Stonehenge
Where a man is a man
And the children dance to
The pipes of pan
Stonehenge
'Tis a magic place
Where the moon doth rise
With a dragon's face
Stonehenge
Where the virgins lie
And the prayers of devils
Fill the midnight sky
And you my love
Won't you take my hand
We'll go back in time
To that mystic land
Where the dew drops cry
And the cats meow
I will take you there
I will show you how
The above lyrics are from the the film, This Is Spinal Tap. Truly, one of the funniest films of all time. It just so happens that I have rented the film this weekend.
Incidentally, all my Oxford Pics without the commentary can be found here.
I hope everyone has a good weekend.
God Bless.
Here is the famous Bath Abbey.
Here is the door to Bath Abbey. Quite nice, eh?
And here are the insides. This is quite a wonderful sight.
And, of course, one of the Abbey's stained glass window.
Bath is also known for having ancient Roman baths, hence the names. I didn't go in because it was 15 pounds ($30). What I did do was go around the back of the building and peak of the wall to see the baths for free. Here is a picture of a young lady dressed as a statue. She would stay perfectly still and wait for a kid to look her over and then she'd stick out her tongue. Nice work if you can get it.
And here is the Royal Crescent. Bath was once a holiday place for the idle rich and royalty. The crown greated this place for the royal family to stay. Now it has become apartments.
We left Bath and next made our way to Stonehenge. You notice the fence around the stones? It cost 7 pounds ($15) to go on the other side of the fence. Of course, one can also not pay the fee and walk up to the fence. The people who do pay are only allowed to go a foot closer than those who do not pay.
I'd rather spend my pounds on other things.
And now ...
Stonehenge
Where the demons dwell
Where the banshees live
And they do live well
Stonehenge
Where a man is a man
And the children dance to
The pipes of pan
Stonehenge
'Tis a magic place
Where the moon doth rise
With a dragon's face
Stonehenge
Where the virgins lie
And the prayers of devils
Fill the midnight sky
And you my love
Won't you take my hand
We'll go back in time
To that mystic land
Where the dew drops cry
And the cats meow
I will take you there
I will show you how
The above lyrics are from the the film, This Is Spinal Tap. Truly, one of the funniest films of all time. It just so happens that I have rented the film this weekend.
Incidentally, all my Oxford Pics without the commentary can be found here.
I hope everyone has a good weekend.
God Bless.
Autumnal Reading and Viewing
This week, while working on my Galatians paper, I have had the time to indulge in a bit of relaxation.
Here are some of the books I have read and currently am reading:
Apostasy, by Dale Moody
George Orwell and the Origins of 1984, by William Steinhoff
Kierkegaard, by Josiah Thompson
Soren Kierkegaard, by Brita K. Stendahl
Jesus, Paul and the Law, by James D. G. Dunn
Here are a few of the new movies that I have watched:
Rhinoceros with Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel
This is the film adaption of the play by Eugene Ionesco. It was suprisingly good. I liked it quite a bit.
Jacques Tati's Mr. Hulot’s Holiday
A very good film. It needs repeated viewing.
Akira Kurasawa’s The Hidden Fortress
The film that inspired Star Wars.
Fritz Lang’s M
A chilling tale. Almost as good as Lang's Metropolis.
An episode of Jeeves and Wooster with Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie
A nice subtle comedy of manners. Quite British.
Here are some of the books I have read and currently am reading:
Apostasy, by Dale Moody
George Orwell and the Origins of 1984, by William Steinhoff
Kierkegaard, by Josiah Thompson
Soren Kierkegaard, by Brita K. Stendahl
Jesus, Paul and the Law, by James D. G. Dunn
Here are a few of the new movies that I have watched:
Rhinoceros with Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel
This is the film adaption of the play by Eugene Ionesco. It was suprisingly good. I liked it quite a bit.
Jacques Tati's Mr. Hulot’s Holiday
A very good film. It needs repeated viewing.
Akira Kurasawa’s The Hidden Fortress
The film that inspired Star Wars.
Fritz Lang’s M
A chilling tale. Almost as good as Lang's Metropolis.
An episode of Jeeves and Wooster with Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie
A nice subtle comedy of manners. Quite British.
The New Creation of All Things: An Interview with Jurgen Moltmann
[Is the "Last Judgment" the final divine redemption of human history? The theme of Christian eschatology is the new creation of all things,not "the end". In all personal, historical and cosmic dimensions, eschatology follows this christological pattern: the beginning in the end. The teaching of hope is central to the protestant thinker and theologian Jurgen Moltmann. What is hope for eternal life and how does it relate to God's kingdom, the new heaven and the new earth? This interview originally published in November 1998 is translated from the German on the World Wide Web, www.DiePresse.at.]
Die Presse: Mr. Moltmann, eschatology is regarded as the "doctrine of the last things" or the "end of things"... The ambiguities of history will become unequivocal, the time of transitoriness will pass away. The unanswerable questions of people will end. Time and again the question about the end breaks forth out of the torment of history and the agonies of historical existence.
Moltmann: Eschatology seems to seek the "final solution" of all solvable problems as Sir Isaiah Berlin noted indignantly alluding to the 1942 Wannsee conference on the final "solution of the Jewish question" in the extermination camps. Theologic al eschatology seems to present the "final game" of the "theodrama" of world history. In history, eschatology is described pictorially as God's great world judgment over the good and the evil with heaven for one and hell for the other. Is the "Last Judgment" the final divine solution of human history? Others dreamt of the "final battle" in the struggle between Christ and Antichrist or God and the devil on the "day of Armageddon" whether with divine fire or with modern nuclear bombs. Eschatology always involves the end, the last day, the last word and the last act. God retains the last word. If eschatology were only this, it would be better to dismiss the term. The "last things" ruin the taste of the "penultimate things". The dreamt or desired "end of history" robs one of the freedom of the many possibilities of history and tolerance amid incompleteness and provisionalities. Whoever always emphasizes the end misses life. If eschatology were nothing but the final religious solution of all questions as the last word, it would actually be a very jarring way of theological dogmatism or even psychological terrorism as practiced by some apocalyptic exstortioners among our contemporaries.
Die Presse: What is the goal of Christian eschatology?
Moltmann: Christian eschatology is the remembered hope of the resurrection of the crucified Christ and therefore speaks of new beginnings in the mortal end. "Christ's end was his true beginning", Ernst Bloch once said to me. Christian eschatology follows this christological model in all personal, historical and cosmic dimensions: the beginning in the end! So Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the theologian and resistance fighter sentencede to death in 1945 by the Nazis bid farewell to his fellow prisoner Payne Bast when he was executed in the Flossenburg KZ (concentration camp): "This is the end - for me the beginning of life." So John on Patmos saw the "Last Judgment" of the world not as destruction, conflagration of the worlds or cold death but as the first day of the new creation of all things: "Behold, I make all things new". I do not speak about Christian eschatology in terms of the "last things" or the "end of things" but of God's coming. In God's creative future, the end becomes the beginning. The true creation has still not occurred but is approaching.
Die Presse: Years ago, you explicitly affirmed Karl Barth's statement: "Christianity is altogether eschatology, not only in the appendix. Hope is prospect and orientation forward and therefore awakening and transformation of the present." Do you still emphasize this prospect and forward orientation?
Moltmann: In the last thirty years, I have gone a long theological way with surprises and curves. Little that happened was planned. I thankfully confess a deep influence of contemporary Jewish thinking in Ernst Bloch and Franz Rosenzweig. No one has hope for himself alone. Hope for Christians is always hope for Israel. The hope of Jews and Christians is also hope for the nations. The hope of the peoples is always hope for the earth and all its inhabitants. Back to your question: In a time when so many colleagues are only occupied with methodological questions, theological themes, their revision and innovation interest me. There is a personal reason for this interest. I wasn't very deeply socialized in a Christian sense but grew up with poets and philosophers of German idealism. Since I began studying theology - first in 1947 in a prisoner of war camp near Nottingham and then in Gottingen from 1948 - everything theological has been wondrously new. Still today theology is a vast adventure to me, a journey in an unknown land. If I have a theological virtue, it is curiosity or inquisitiveness. Therefore my intellectual style is experimental - an adventure of ideas - and my communication style takes the form of proposal. The sentences which I write are uncertain and risky. Some insist I say too much theologically and more about God than can be known. I feel deep humility before the mystery that we cannot know...
Die Presse: What do you propose with your eschatology?
Moltmann: An integration of the often divergent perspectives of so-called individual eschatology and universal eschatology, the eschatology of history and the eschatology of nature. Traditional medieval, protestant and modern eschatologies concentrated on individual hope with which questions of personal life and death were answered: What will happen to me in death, the Last Judgment and afterwards? Where is there a supporting certainty in life and death? The salvation of individual persons and the salvation of the soul in the individual person were so much in the center that the salvation of the body, human community and the cosmos were marginalized or no longer noticed. However if Christian hope is reduced to the deliverance of the soul in a heaven beyond death, then its life-renewing and world changing power is lost and smoulders into a gnostic longing for redemption in the vale of tears of this world.
Die Presse: Is there a "resurrection in death"?
Moltmann: Modern theologians have developed their own interesting "intellectual experiment" in this regard. They start from the idea that the true life of a person lived in body and soul with all the senses is reconciled, redeemed and transfigured by God, not the unlived life of the soul. God is not interested in the unlived life of the soul but in the lived life of the whole person. During his life, a person grows out of the world and the world grows in him.
Salvation doesn't separate what God joins together in this life. Therefore visions of hope for salvation must be world-embracing. Salvation is understood in an integrated sense as "resurrection of the dead", not "blessedness of souls". The resurrection of the dead belongs to God's "new earth" in which death will be no more. Universal eschatology cannot be reduced to individual eschatology but includes individual eschatology.
Die Presse: When does this holistic resurrection of the dead occur?
Moltmann: Life after death is something like the resurrection of the new body. This resurrection body is not the same as the molecules and atoms which perish inthe earth.
Die Presse: How can a "resurrection in death" be imagined?
Moltmann: One must start out eschatologically. The "Last Judgment" is not simply the last chronological day on the calendar but is eschatologically the "day of the Lord", the day of all days. If this is the day of the resurrection of the dead, then it appears to all the dead whenever they died temporally diachronically "in a simultaneous instant". If that is right, all individual death hoours of this age lead immediately to this eternal "day of the Lord". If the earthly time in human succession doesn't exist with God, then all people at whatever time they died meet God at the same time, in God's time, the presence of eternity. With this "intellectual experiment", the difference between the immortality of the soul on one side and the resurrection of the body on the other side is overcome. Many things in our life remain unfinished. We attempted a life project. We failed; the project came to nothing. Only mourning is left!
Die Presse: How can life here be "perfected" and completed?
Moltmann: We die with the unanswered question which we were all life long. Whatever we imagine under "eternal life", it cannot be the "perpetuation" of our beginnings in life and the experienced or intentional ruptures of life. Can "resurrection" in the life of the future world really happen in death as Luther and contemporary catholic theologians (Karl Rahner, Ladislaus Boros, Gerhard Lohfink) believe? Then it would appear as though this earthly fragmentary life were broken off with death and a different divine life accepted. Still we have not yet coped with this life. With "hell", "heaven" and "the future world", final states are meant which have no future any more but are eternally present and therefore don't offer any history any longer.
A Place without Distress
The spirit of eternal life is firstly a vast living space in which broken, disabled and destroyed life can develop freely. Already in this life before death, we experience the spirit of life as the enormous space where there is no distress any more. This will be true far more after death.
Die Presse: Isn't there a cosmic eschatology?
Moltmann: Yes, eschatology must be expanded into cosmic eschatology. Otherwise it becomes a gnostic doctrine of redemption and no longer teaches the redemption of the world but a redemption from the world, not a redemption of the body but the redemption of the soul from the body. Cosmic eschatology is not some kind of "universalism" but is necessary for God's sake. There aren't two gods, a Creator God and a Redeemer God but the one God. Gor his sake, the unity of creation and redemption must be emphasized. The program of a cosmic eschatology encounters considerable problems in the scientific-technical civilization since the cosmos as a whole and in all its parts has become the subject of the natural sciences. As far as these sciences proceed agnostically in their methods, they allow no theological statements in their provinces, neither about the beginning of the cosmos nor its end.
Die Presse: Mr. Moltmann, eschatology is regarded as the "doctrine of the last things" or the "end of things"... The ambiguities of history will become unequivocal, the time of transitoriness will pass away. The unanswerable questions of people will end. Time and again the question about the end breaks forth out of the torment of history and the agonies of historical existence.
Moltmann: Eschatology seems to seek the "final solution" of all solvable problems as Sir Isaiah Berlin noted indignantly alluding to the 1942 Wannsee conference on the final "solution of the Jewish question" in the extermination camps. Theologic al eschatology seems to present the "final game" of the "theodrama" of world history. In history, eschatology is described pictorially as God's great world judgment over the good and the evil with heaven for one and hell for the other. Is the "Last Judgment" the final divine solution of human history? Others dreamt of the "final battle" in the struggle between Christ and Antichrist or God and the devil on the "day of Armageddon" whether with divine fire or with modern nuclear bombs. Eschatology always involves the end, the last day, the last word and the last act. God retains the last word. If eschatology were only this, it would be better to dismiss the term. The "last things" ruin the taste of the "penultimate things". The dreamt or desired "end of history" robs one of the freedom of the many possibilities of history and tolerance amid incompleteness and provisionalities. Whoever always emphasizes the end misses life. If eschatology were nothing but the final religious solution of all questions as the last word, it would actually be a very jarring way of theological dogmatism or even psychological terrorism as practiced by some apocalyptic exstortioners among our contemporaries.
Die Presse: What is the goal of Christian eschatology?
Moltmann: Christian eschatology is the remembered hope of the resurrection of the crucified Christ and therefore speaks of new beginnings in the mortal end. "Christ's end was his true beginning", Ernst Bloch once said to me. Christian eschatology follows this christological model in all personal, historical and cosmic dimensions: the beginning in the end! So Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the theologian and resistance fighter sentencede to death in 1945 by the Nazis bid farewell to his fellow prisoner Payne Bast when he was executed in the Flossenburg KZ (concentration camp): "This is the end - for me the beginning of life." So John on Patmos saw the "Last Judgment" of the world not as destruction, conflagration of the worlds or cold death but as the first day of the new creation of all things: "Behold, I make all things new". I do not speak about Christian eschatology in terms of the "last things" or the "end of things" but of God's coming. In God's creative future, the end becomes the beginning. The true creation has still not occurred but is approaching.
Die Presse: Years ago, you explicitly affirmed Karl Barth's statement: "Christianity is altogether eschatology, not only in the appendix. Hope is prospect and orientation forward and therefore awakening and transformation of the present." Do you still emphasize this prospect and forward orientation?
Moltmann: In the last thirty years, I have gone a long theological way with surprises and curves. Little that happened was planned. I thankfully confess a deep influence of contemporary Jewish thinking in Ernst Bloch and Franz Rosenzweig. No one has hope for himself alone. Hope for Christians is always hope for Israel. The hope of Jews and Christians is also hope for the nations. The hope of the peoples is always hope for the earth and all its inhabitants. Back to your question: In a time when so many colleagues are only occupied with methodological questions, theological themes, their revision and innovation interest me. There is a personal reason for this interest. I wasn't very deeply socialized in a Christian sense but grew up with poets and philosophers of German idealism. Since I began studying theology - first in 1947 in a prisoner of war camp near Nottingham and then in Gottingen from 1948 - everything theological has been wondrously new. Still today theology is a vast adventure to me, a journey in an unknown land. If I have a theological virtue, it is curiosity or inquisitiveness. Therefore my intellectual style is experimental - an adventure of ideas - and my communication style takes the form of proposal. The sentences which I write are uncertain and risky. Some insist I say too much theologically and more about God than can be known. I feel deep humility before the mystery that we cannot know...
Die Presse: What do you propose with your eschatology?
Moltmann: An integration of the often divergent perspectives of so-called individual eschatology and universal eschatology, the eschatology of history and the eschatology of nature. Traditional medieval, protestant and modern eschatologies concentrated on individual hope with which questions of personal life and death were answered: What will happen to me in death, the Last Judgment and afterwards? Where is there a supporting certainty in life and death? The salvation of individual persons and the salvation of the soul in the individual person were so much in the center that the salvation of the body, human community and the cosmos were marginalized or no longer noticed. However if Christian hope is reduced to the deliverance of the soul in a heaven beyond death, then its life-renewing and world changing power is lost and smoulders into a gnostic longing for redemption in the vale of tears of this world.
Die Presse: Is there a "resurrection in death"?
Moltmann: Modern theologians have developed their own interesting "intellectual experiment" in this regard. They start from the idea that the true life of a person lived in body and soul with all the senses is reconciled, redeemed and transfigured by God, not the unlived life of the soul. God is not interested in the unlived life of the soul but in the lived life of the whole person. During his life, a person grows out of the world and the world grows in him.
Salvation doesn't separate what God joins together in this life. Therefore visions of hope for salvation must be world-embracing. Salvation is understood in an integrated sense as "resurrection of the dead", not "blessedness of souls". The resurrection of the dead belongs to God's "new earth" in which death will be no more. Universal eschatology cannot be reduced to individual eschatology but includes individual eschatology.
Die Presse: When does this holistic resurrection of the dead occur?
Moltmann: Life after death is something like the resurrection of the new body. This resurrection body is not the same as the molecules and atoms which perish inthe earth.
Die Presse: How can a "resurrection in death" be imagined?
Moltmann: One must start out eschatologically. The "Last Judgment" is not simply the last chronological day on the calendar but is eschatologically the "day of the Lord", the day of all days. If this is the day of the resurrection of the dead, then it appears to all the dead whenever they died temporally diachronically "in a simultaneous instant". If that is right, all individual death hoours of this age lead immediately to this eternal "day of the Lord". If the earthly time in human succession doesn't exist with God, then all people at whatever time they died meet God at the same time, in God's time, the presence of eternity. With this "intellectual experiment", the difference between the immortality of the soul on one side and the resurrection of the body on the other side is overcome. Many things in our life remain unfinished. We attempted a life project. We failed; the project came to nothing. Only mourning is left!
Die Presse: How can life here be "perfected" and completed?
Moltmann: We die with the unanswered question which we were all life long. Whatever we imagine under "eternal life", it cannot be the "perpetuation" of our beginnings in life and the experienced or intentional ruptures of life. Can "resurrection" in the life of the future world really happen in death as Luther and contemporary catholic theologians (Karl Rahner, Ladislaus Boros, Gerhard Lohfink) believe? Then it would appear as though this earthly fragmentary life were broken off with death and a different divine life accepted. Still we have not yet coped with this life. With "hell", "heaven" and "the future world", final states are meant which have no future any more but are eternally present and therefore don't offer any history any longer.
A Place without Distress
The spirit of eternal life is firstly a vast living space in which broken, disabled and destroyed life can develop freely. Already in this life before death, we experience the spirit of life as the enormous space where there is no distress any more. This will be true far more after death.
Die Presse: Isn't there a cosmic eschatology?
Moltmann: Yes, eschatology must be expanded into cosmic eschatology. Otherwise it becomes a gnostic doctrine of redemption and no longer teaches the redemption of the world but a redemption from the world, not a redemption of the body but the redemption of the soul from the body. Cosmic eschatology is not some kind of "universalism" but is necessary for God's sake. There aren't two gods, a Creator God and a Redeemer God but the one God. Gor his sake, the unity of creation and redemption must be emphasized. The program of a cosmic eschatology encounters considerable problems in the scientific-technical civilization since the cosmos as a whole and in all its parts has become the subject of the natural sciences. As far as these sciences proceed agnostically in their methods, they allow no theological statements in their provinces, neither about the beginning of the cosmos nor its end.
NO BLOODLESS MYTH: A guide through Balthasar's Dramatics
by Aidan Nichols
Although still too little known in English-speaking lands, the Swiss Roman Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905-88) ranks by common consent as one of the towering figures in twentieth-century theology. He never held an academic post of any kind; indeed, his doctorate wasn't even in theology. But after being awarded the doctor's degree in Germanistik (a kind of early cross-disciplinary field covering both German literature and philosophy) from the University of Zurich in 1929, he joined the Jesuits and saturated himself in the writings of the Church Fathers while studying theology near Lyons before being ordained priest in 1936.
In 1950, under the influence of a Protestant physician and mystic, Adrienne von Speyr, who converted to Roman Catholicism under his aegis, he left the Jesuits to found with her a "secular institute" (a kind of religious order without the traditional props of habit, common table, etc.). Its main apostolate, in effect, was to run a publishing house, the famous Johannes Verlag, founded first and foremost to keep in print almost all of Balthasar's vast output of monographs, translations, collected essays and - this above all - his theological trilogy in fifteen volumes.
There can he no doubt that the task facing the reader curious about this massively productive writer is a daunting one. The sheer immensity of Balthasar's output can bring on stupefaction: not counting translations, he published about 50,000 pages of sonorous German, sometimes in rather intricate periods; and English translations, long under way, are even now still appearing (about three-quarters of his work has been translated). For this reason alone, readers can be grateful to the English Dominican Aidan Nichols now at Blackfriars, Cambridge, for his efforts to guide the novice through the centrepiece of Balthasar's theology, the trilogy.
But first of all, why a trilogy? In effect, Balthasar's intent is to transpose all of Christian theology into the categories of the Platonic "transcendentals": the Beautiful, the Good and the True (called "transcendental" because they belong to all existing things by the sheer fact of their existing at all, and thus "transcend" any other particular property that the individual existent might have). Trilogies composed under this rubric have an honoured tradition in Western letters, perhaps the most famous being Kant's three Critiques, the Critique of Pure Reason, the Critique of Practical Reason, and the Critique of Judgment. But where Kant first took up the issue of epistemology, then proceeded to questions of ethics, and only at the end treated questions of aesthetics, Balthasar tellingly reverses direction.
For the Swiss theologian, the crucial point is to begin with the perception of the Beautiful, for beauty by its very nature elicits its own quasi-erotic response (otherwise we would never invoke the word "beautiful", to describe the object of perception). But precisely because of that erotic element in the response to beauty, the perceiver is not left merely spellbound but is called out of his or her own private concerns and into a life of committed action. Thus, Nichols explains, true aesthetics always flows into drama:
The one who has been encountered by beauty is not only challenged in his freedom, he is also branded for life, and thus becomes conscious of election. The elect person feels obliged to proclaim the Logos. Having a glimpse of the divine beauty sends the one thus privileged not only in the idiomatic sense of rendering him ecstatic (a coining for which we are indebted to the culture of Pop) but also in the theological sense of mandating him to go forth on a mission. The wonder of Being, communicating itself in the beautiful, tends of its nature to produce dramatic heroes - however ordinary (or extraordinary) their missions may be.
A passage such as this, however, might give the wrong impression that Balthasar's theodramatics is mostly concerned with the drama of the soul's Yes or No to God. Far more crucial for him is God's drama with the world, and his Yes to humanity in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:17-22). As Nichols rightly says, "Balthasar's purpose is, rather, to succeed where Hegel failed, by bringing into centre stage the drama intrinsic to divine salvation."
Not that Hegel was entirely wrong when he posited dialectical movement within the Absolute, as if all that Christian theologians have to do is to juxtapose the patristic doctrine of God's impassibility with Hegel's ever-absorbing Absolute Spirit. No, the drama of the Cross affects God too. Not perhaps in the way Hegelians or process theologians might imagine it. But precisely because the death of Jesus is a Trinitarian event, God must be fully engaged in that action, as Balthasar himself explains in the fourth volume of his Theo-Drama:
No element may be excluded here: God's entire world-drama is concentrated on and hinges on this scene. This is the theo-drama into which the world and God have their ultimate input; here absolute freedom enters into created freedom, interacts with created freedom, and acts as created freedom. God cannot function here as a mere Spectator, allegedly immutable and not susceptible to influence; he is not an eternal, Platonic "sun of goodness", looking down on a world that is seen as a gigantomachia, a "vast perpetual scene of slaughter". Nor, on the other hand, can man, guilty as he is in God's sight, lie passive and anaesthetized~d on the operating table while the cancer of his sin is cut out. How can all this be fitted together?
The short and long answer to that question is simply this: all these elements can be fitted together only by Christ's descent into hell - short because the answer takes only four words to say; long because of all that the descent into hell means. For Balthasar, the Cross of Christ can be salvific only if Christ's claim to be "the Way, the Truth, and the Life", (John 14: 6) is valid. But it is the very nature of that claim to be so provocative as to lead to his execution. (A note on historical criticism here: Balthasar freely admits that this claim struck Jesus' contemporaries more in his behaviour and demeanour than in his words as such. His recorded words, especially those in the Fourth Gospel, were, so to speak, "precipitated" in the text only after a process of reflection and refinement in the early Church's preaching, a preaching which itself always took as its starting point the totality of the Christ event in the light of the resurrection.)
But to any world-view whatever, such a claim, no matter how mediated, must lead to outrage. For a claim to be the Way, the Truth and the Life means at core that one white cap atop a wave claims to be not only the sea and the seabed but the generating matrix of the world as well ("Before Abraham was, I am"). Moreover, that claim is so preposterous that it can only be validated by God himself in the Resurrection. Thus the three together - Claim. Death and Resurrection - form a triadic pattern ("Gestalt", one of Balthasar's favourite words) that is the indissoluble core of the Christian proclamation.
But how can that claim continue to resound for all the rest of history, down to the last syllable of recorded time, without provoking yet another objection, one that sees the positivity of the existence of the historical Jesus fade and fade into the recesses of ancient history? In the words of a Swabian proverb that Hegel liked to quote from time to time: "That's been true for so long it has finally stopped being true." Altering his image of wave and sea slightly, Balthasar answers this objection by comparing the impact of any one human being in history to the ripple effect of a stone dropped into the sea. But with all other human beings, who emerge out of the components of the universe and merge back into them at death, their ripple effect eventually fades away. ("Do not abandon your heart to grief, bear your own end in mind", as Ben Sirach says in Ecclesiasticus 38: 20.) Thus the stone which is Jesus must differ in its radiating power, if Hegel's objection is to be met.
For Balthasar, that can only occur if this one stone, and no other, plunged all the way to the bottom of the sea on Holy Saturday (Easter Eve), when Christ descended into hell, landing, so to speak, with a thud that continues to reverberate from the ocean floor. But that can only happen if the weight of that single, historically unique stone can serve as the counterweight ("Schwergewicht", another key term in Balthasar's theology) outweighing all other truths and sufferings in the world, which is conceivable only in Trinitarian terms. Only then does the centre where the stone was dropped continue to reverberate and radiate outwards. Nor can the effects of Christ's reverberation extend only along time's future-bound arrow (as with all other human beings in history, whose effects live on only after their finite, temporal existence). On the contrary, Christ's outward radiation moves concentrically in such a way as to influence previous history as well. This, for Balthasar, is the essential soteriological significance of the scriptural references to Christ's descent into hell, where, according to the Petrine tradition, he rescues the "spirits in prison who disobeyed God long ago" (1 Peter 3: 19-20; see also 1 Peter 4: 5-6 and 2 Peter 2: 4-10).
When these startling images of stone, wave and sea are seen in their full implication, one arrives at what is perhaps the most startling innovation in Balthasar's theology: his quasiOrigenistic vision of the possible redemption of all these "disobedient spirits in prison". Origen's own theory was rejected as heretical after his death, in the mid-third century, no doubt because he posited an inevitable redemption of all souls, when God would be "all in all". (Perhaps he went astray here because of his habit of forcing revelation into the NeoPlatonic schema of exitus-redirus. Just as creation seemed an inevitable "emanation" for the Neo-Platonist, so too was the "return" of that creation to God's redemptive love inevitable in Origen's thought). But Balthasar grounds his hope of apokatastasis (to use the technical term for universal restoration of all lost souls) not in Neo-Platonism but in the event of Holy Saturday. In his descent into hell, Jesus experiences all that is hellish about the world in its difference, otherness and divergence from God, which means that hell is, in Balthasar's famous description, "a Christological place" where sinners experience, by the very nature of their isolated partiality, only a portion of what Christ himself experienced in a pre-eminent way. And since any experience of Christ is by definition salvific, we may at least hope for - if not confidently expect - the salvation of all.
It surely goes without saying that these speculations are daring, daring enough to call to mind the even bolder speculations of the German Idealists. Indeed, these speculations on the Trinitarian event of the descent into hell have led the twentieth-century Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner (1904-84) to worry out loud that Balthasar was indulging in what he called "a Schelling-esque projection into God of division, conflict, godlessness and death". According to Rahner, God must, if the word "God" is to continue to have any meaning at all, enter history in a way that does not lock God into its horror; by contrast for Balthasar, God transforms that horror by incorporating suffering and rejection into the Trinitarian process itself.
No wonder, then, that the central panel in Balthasar's theological triptych is called TheoDrama, for that prefix ultimately refers more to the drama inside the Godhead than to the dramatic events of Christian discipleship (in other words, to use the grammarian's terms, the first element of the titles is more a subjective than an objective prefix). And no wonder, as well, that the reader can feel grateful for Aidan Nichols's fine monograph, which sorts through all these issues in prose that is clear without oversimplifying, elevated without being haughty, elegant without being mannered.
The reader will probably emerge from a saturation with Balthasar's vision wondering what all this has to do with the real world, which looks so different from the triptych in his work, and from No Bloodless Myth. By the term "real world", I am referring not just to the radically de-Christianized world of our post-industrial culture, but also to the radically pluralistic world inside Christian theology. The dismay that greeted last year's Vatican declaration Dominus Jesus, on the universality of Christ's salvific reach, is only the most visible sign of this postmodern sensitivity to the potentially "hegemonic discourse" of a universalizing Christology.
Of course, in an author so culturally sensitive as Hans Urs von Balthasar, such dismay would not have come as a surprise. Nor would he have reacted to such dismay with a hand-wringing, revanchist polemic of his own. In fact, he concluded the last volume of the Theo-Drama with a treatment of exactly these issues; and with his usual lapidary flair, Nichols has summarized the central difficulty in any universalizing Christology:
Reaching the closing scene of the drama, Balthasar is suddenly afflicted with doubts - or rather, becomes all at once aware of the variety of doubts that may afflict his readers. Is it not simplistic to make a single drama from the labyrinthine plots of the world? To tie all human action to a single key furnished by a nexus of past events - is not this historically suffocating? How plausible is it to describe as "Love" the source of such a world as ours? And to see the offended divine Love as cosmically reconciled by one man's death? And in any case has the death of Jesus, understood as the world's atonement, actually changed the way the world goes? What is the evidence for claiming such? Are not the Church's dogmas castles in the air? And are not those who would channel into humanitarian causes the remaining energies of this ancient body realistic in implicitly recognizing that fact? How spectral appears today a Church kitted out in the ragged robes of former triumphs!
This situation has become the most recent Holy Week for the Christian Churches. But even that way of putting it seems too church-centred. For the real issue here is not so much the plurality of religions and the heightened sensitivity to cultural and religious imperialism. Much weightier is what church proclamation says validates the claims of the historical Jesus: that he plumbed the depths of the world's sufferings. That is today's Provocation. St Paul says, "this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison" (2 Corinthians 4: 17). But as Balthasar readily concedes in the fifth volume of the Theo-Drama, "To someone who is really suffering, Paul's words on the relationship between earthly suffering and heavenly joy are hardly to be endured." And yet, with St. Paul, and based on his own theology of Holy Saturday, Balthasar will go on to claim that suffering is something good. In a modern utilitarian world, whose ethic is largely based on a pleasure-pain calculus, such words will provoke outrage. But Scripture does not flinch from boasting of suffering. "I consider that the sufferings of this present age", says St. Paul, "are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us" (Romans 8: 18)
Although still too little known in English-speaking lands, the Swiss Roman Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905-88) ranks by common consent as one of the towering figures in twentieth-century theology. He never held an academic post of any kind; indeed, his doctorate wasn't even in theology. But after being awarded the doctor's degree in Germanistik (a kind of early cross-disciplinary field covering both German literature and philosophy) from the University of Zurich in 1929, he joined the Jesuits and saturated himself in the writings of the Church Fathers while studying theology near Lyons before being ordained priest in 1936.
In 1950, under the influence of a Protestant physician and mystic, Adrienne von Speyr, who converted to Roman Catholicism under his aegis, he left the Jesuits to found with her a "secular institute" (a kind of religious order without the traditional props of habit, common table, etc.). Its main apostolate, in effect, was to run a publishing house, the famous Johannes Verlag, founded first and foremost to keep in print almost all of Balthasar's vast output of monographs, translations, collected essays and - this above all - his theological trilogy in fifteen volumes.
There can he no doubt that the task facing the reader curious about this massively productive writer is a daunting one. The sheer immensity of Balthasar's output can bring on stupefaction: not counting translations, he published about 50,000 pages of sonorous German, sometimes in rather intricate periods; and English translations, long under way, are even now still appearing (about three-quarters of his work has been translated). For this reason alone, readers can be grateful to the English Dominican Aidan Nichols now at Blackfriars, Cambridge, for his efforts to guide the novice through the centrepiece of Balthasar's theology, the trilogy.
But first of all, why a trilogy? In effect, Balthasar's intent is to transpose all of Christian theology into the categories of the Platonic "transcendentals": the Beautiful, the Good and the True (called "transcendental" because they belong to all existing things by the sheer fact of their existing at all, and thus "transcend" any other particular property that the individual existent might have). Trilogies composed under this rubric have an honoured tradition in Western letters, perhaps the most famous being Kant's three Critiques, the Critique of Pure Reason, the Critique of Practical Reason, and the Critique of Judgment. But where Kant first took up the issue of epistemology, then proceeded to questions of ethics, and only at the end treated questions of aesthetics, Balthasar tellingly reverses direction.
For the Swiss theologian, the crucial point is to begin with the perception of the Beautiful, for beauty by its very nature elicits its own quasi-erotic response (otherwise we would never invoke the word "beautiful", to describe the object of perception). But precisely because of that erotic element in the response to beauty, the perceiver is not left merely spellbound but is called out of his or her own private concerns and into a life of committed action. Thus, Nichols explains, true aesthetics always flows into drama:
The one who has been encountered by beauty is not only challenged in his freedom, he is also branded for life, and thus becomes conscious of election. The elect person feels obliged to proclaim the Logos. Having a glimpse of the divine beauty sends the one thus privileged not only in the idiomatic sense of rendering him ecstatic (a coining for which we are indebted to the culture of Pop) but also in the theological sense of mandating him to go forth on a mission. The wonder of Being, communicating itself in the beautiful, tends of its nature to produce dramatic heroes - however ordinary (or extraordinary) their missions may be.
A passage such as this, however, might give the wrong impression that Balthasar's theodramatics is mostly concerned with the drama of the soul's Yes or No to God. Far more crucial for him is God's drama with the world, and his Yes to humanity in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:17-22). As Nichols rightly says, "Balthasar's purpose is, rather, to succeed where Hegel failed, by bringing into centre stage the drama intrinsic to divine salvation."
Not that Hegel was entirely wrong when he posited dialectical movement within the Absolute, as if all that Christian theologians have to do is to juxtapose the patristic doctrine of God's impassibility with Hegel's ever-absorbing Absolute Spirit. No, the drama of the Cross affects God too. Not perhaps in the way Hegelians or process theologians might imagine it. But precisely because the death of Jesus is a Trinitarian event, God must be fully engaged in that action, as Balthasar himself explains in the fourth volume of his Theo-Drama:
No element may be excluded here: God's entire world-drama is concentrated on and hinges on this scene. This is the theo-drama into which the world and God have their ultimate input; here absolute freedom enters into created freedom, interacts with created freedom, and acts as created freedom. God cannot function here as a mere Spectator, allegedly immutable and not susceptible to influence; he is not an eternal, Platonic "sun of goodness", looking down on a world that is seen as a gigantomachia, a "vast perpetual scene of slaughter". Nor, on the other hand, can man, guilty as he is in God's sight, lie passive and anaesthetized~d on the operating table while the cancer of his sin is cut out. How can all this be fitted together?
The short and long answer to that question is simply this: all these elements can be fitted together only by Christ's descent into hell - short because the answer takes only four words to say; long because of all that the descent into hell means. For Balthasar, the Cross of Christ can be salvific only if Christ's claim to be "the Way, the Truth, and the Life", (John 14: 6) is valid. But it is the very nature of that claim to be so provocative as to lead to his execution. (A note on historical criticism here: Balthasar freely admits that this claim struck Jesus' contemporaries more in his behaviour and demeanour than in his words as such. His recorded words, especially those in the Fourth Gospel, were, so to speak, "precipitated" in the text only after a process of reflection and refinement in the early Church's preaching, a preaching which itself always took as its starting point the totality of the Christ event in the light of the resurrection.)
But to any world-view whatever, such a claim, no matter how mediated, must lead to outrage. For a claim to be the Way, the Truth and the Life means at core that one white cap atop a wave claims to be not only the sea and the seabed but the generating matrix of the world as well ("Before Abraham was, I am"). Moreover, that claim is so preposterous that it can only be validated by God himself in the Resurrection. Thus the three together - Claim. Death and Resurrection - form a triadic pattern ("Gestalt", one of Balthasar's favourite words) that is the indissoluble core of the Christian proclamation.
But how can that claim continue to resound for all the rest of history, down to the last syllable of recorded time, without provoking yet another objection, one that sees the positivity of the existence of the historical Jesus fade and fade into the recesses of ancient history? In the words of a Swabian proverb that Hegel liked to quote from time to time: "That's been true for so long it has finally stopped being true." Altering his image of wave and sea slightly, Balthasar answers this objection by comparing the impact of any one human being in history to the ripple effect of a stone dropped into the sea. But with all other human beings, who emerge out of the components of the universe and merge back into them at death, their ripple effect eventually fades away. ("Do not abandon your heart to grief, bear your own end in mind", as Ben Sirach says in Ecclesiasticus 38: 20.) Thus the stone which is Jesus must differ in its radiating power, if Hegel's objection is to be met.
For Balthasar, that can only occur if this one stone, and no other, plunged all the way to the bottom of the sea on Holy Saturday (Easter Eve), when Christ descended into hell, landing, so to speak, with a thud that continues to reverberate from the ocean floor. But that can only happen if the weight of that single, historically unique stone can serve as the counterweight ("Schwergewicht", another key term in Balthasar's theology) outweighing all other truths and sufferings in the world, which is conceivable only in Trinitarian terms. Only then does the centre where the stone was dropped continue to reverberate and radiate outwards. Nor can the effects of Christ's reverberation extend only along time's future-bound arrow (as with all other human beings in history, whose effects live on only after their finite, temporal existence). On the contrary, Christ's outward radiation moves concentrically in such a way as to influence previous history as well. This, for Balthasar, is the essential soteriological significance of the scriptural references to Christ's descent into hell, where, according to the Petrine tradition, he rescues the "spirits in prison who disobeyed God long ago" (1 Peter 3: 19-20; see also 1 Peter 4: 5-6 and 2 Peter 2: 4-10).
When these startling images of stone, wave and sea are seen in their full implication, one arrives at what is perhaps the most startling innovation in Balthasar's theology: his quasiOrigenistic vision of the possible redemption of all these "disobedient spirits in prison". Origen's own theory was rejected as heretical after his death, in the mid-third century, no doubt because he posited an inevitable redemption of all souls, when God would be "all in all". (Perhaps he went astray here because of his habit of forcing revelation into the NeoPlatonic schema of exitus-redirus. Just as creation seemed an inevitable "emanation" for the Neo-Platonist, so too was the "return" of that creation to God's redemptive love inevitable in Origen's thought). But Balthasar grounds his hope of apokatastasis (to use the technical term for universal restoration of all lost souls) not in Neo-Platonism but in the event of Holy Saturday. In his descent into hell, Jesus experiences all that is hellish about the world in its difference, otherness and divergence from God, which means that hell is, in Balthasar's famous description, "a Christological place" where sinners experience, by the very nature of their isolated partiality, only a portion of what Christ himself experienced in a pre-eminent way. And since any experience of Christ is by definition salvific, we may at least hope for - if not confidently expect - the salvation of all.
It surely goes without saying that these speculations are daring, daring enough to call to mind the even bolder speculations of the German Idealists. Indeed, these speculations on the Trinitarian event of the descent into hell have led the twentieth-century Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner (1904-84) to worry out loud that Balthasar was indulging in what he called "a Schelling-esque projection into God of division, conflict, godlessness and death". According to Rahner, God must, if the word "God" is to continue to have any meaning at all, enter history in a way that does not lock God into its horror; by contrast for Balthasar, God transforms that horror by incorporating suffering and rejection into the Trinitarian process itself.
No wonder, then, that the central panel in Balthasar's theological triptych is called TheoDrama, for that prefix ultimately refers more to the drama inside the Godhead than to the dramatic events of Christian discipleship (in other words, to use the grammarian's terms, the first element of the titles is more a subjective than an objective prefix). And no wonder, as well, that the reader can feel grateful for Aidan Nichols's fine monograph, which sorts through all these issues in prose that is clear without oversimplifying, elevated without being haughty, elegant without being mannered.
The reader will probably emerge from a saturation with Balthasar's vision wondering what all this has to do with the real world, which looks so different from the triptych in his work, and from No Bloodless Myth. By the term "real world", I am referring not just to the radically de-Christianized world of our post-industrial culture, but also to the radically pluralistic world inside Christian theology. The dismay that greeted last year's Vatican declaration Dominus Jesus, on the universality of Christ's salvific reach, is only the most visible sign of this postmodern sensitivity to the potentially "hegemonic discourse" of a universalizing Christology.
Of course, in an author so culturally sensitive as Hans Urs von Balthasar, such dismay would not have come as a surprise. Nor would he have reacted to such dismay with a hand-wringing, revanchist polemic of his own. In fact, he concluded the last volume of the Theo-Drama with a treatment of exactly these issues; and with his usual lapidary flair, Nichols has summarized the central difficulty in any universalizing Christology:
Reaching the closing scene of the drama, Balthasar is suddenly afflicted with doubts - or rather, becomes all at once aware of the variety of doubts that may afflict his readers. Is it not simplistic to make a single drama from the labyrinthine plots of the world? To tie all human action to a single key furnished by a nexus of past events - is not this historically suffocating? How plausible is it to describe as "Love" the source of such a world as ours? And to see the offended divine Love as cosmically reconciled by one man's death? And in any case has the death of Jesus, understood as the world's atonement, actually changed the way the world goes? What is the evidence for claiming such? Are not the Church's dogmas castles in the air? And are not those who would channel into humanitarian causes the remaining energies of this ancient body realistic in implicitly recognizing that fact? How spectral appears today a Church kitted out in the ragged robes of former triumphs!
This situation has become the most recent Holy Week for the Christian Churches. But even that way of putting it seems too church-centred. For the real issue here is not so much the plurality of religions and the heightened sensitivity to cultural and religious imperialism. Much weightier is what church proclamation says validates the claims of the historical Jesus: that he plumbed the depths of the world's sufferings. That is today's Provocation. St Paul says, "this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison" (2 Corinthians 4: 17). But as Balthasar readily concedes in the fifth volume of the Theo-Drama, "To someone who is really suffering, Paul's words on the relationship between earthly suffering and heavenly joy are hardly to be endured." And yet, with St. Paul, and based on his own theology of Holy Saturday, Balthasar will go on to claim that suffering is something good. In a modern utilitarian world, whose ethic is largely based on a pleasure-pain calculus, such words will provoke outrage. But Scripture does not flinch from boasting of suffering. "I consider that the sufferings of this present age", says St. Paul, "are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us" (Romans 8: 18)
Oxford Trip 2004 V: Baptist History
We left bright and early on Thursday July 15th for a tour of some of the historic Baptist sights that England provides.
Our first stop was the town of Moulten and the church of the first Baptist Missionary, William Carey. Fed up with the strict Calvinism and cold ecclesiology of his day, Carey and his associates organized the first Baptist Missionary Society and set off for India.
This is a stain glassed window in Carey Baptist Church. The words read: “Expect Great Things From God; Attempt Great Things For God.”
Here is a mural inside the church. It has the biography of Carey from childhood to his mission to India.
This was a wonderful church. The members were very nice and Christ-like. They even had a female deacon. Quite a new thing, or so the Pastor told me. Not that having a female deacon or recognizing female deacons makes one Christlike ... or does it?
And here is the room that Carey worked in as a cobbler, a pastor, a teacher, and self-taught student.
We next traveled to the town of Olney to see the church of John Newton, author of Amazing Grace.
Here you can see my attempt at getting a picture of the wonderful stained glass windows of the church.
And here is an interesting figurine on one of the windows.
We next went to Kettering and the church of Andrew Fuller. Here we went to see the home of Widow Wallace where the first Baptist Missionary Society was formed. We also had lovely tea and biscuits provided by the people at the church.
Here you can see the guest book at the church which my wife signed when she visited Kettering last year.
Here is Fuller.
Cheers.
Our first stop was the town of Moulten and the church of the first Baptist Missionary, William Carey. Fed up with the strict Calvinism and cold ecclesiology of his day, Carey and his associates organized the first Baptist Missionary Society and set off for India.
This is a stain glassed window in Carey Baptist Church. The words read: “Expect Great Things From God; Attempt Great Things For God.”
Here is a mural inside the church. It has the biography of Carey from childhood to his mission to India.
This was a wonderful church. The members were very nice and Christ-like. They even had a female deacon. Quite a new thing, or so the Pastor told me. Not that having a female deacon or recognizing female deacons makes one Christlike ... or does it?
And here is the room that Carey worked in as a cobbler, a pastor, a teacher, and self-taught student.
We next traveled to the town of Olney to see the church of John Newton, author of Amazing Grace.
Here you can see my attempt at getting a picture of the wonderful stained glass windows of the church.
And here is an interesting figurine on one of the windows.
We next went to Kettering and the church of Andrew Fuller. Here we went to see the home of Widow Wallace where the first Baptist Missionary Society was formed. We also had lovely tea and biscuits provided by the people at the church.
Here you can see the guest book at the church which my wife signed when she visited Kettering last year.
Here is Fuller.
Cheers.
Oxford Trip 2004 IV: The Sights of Oxford
In my continuing adventure overseas, I journeyed toward the touristry parts of Oxford proper.
I first visited the University Museum. This a wondeful biological and geological museum. Every animal from Dinosaur to Dodo is contained here. They even have fossilized rocks going back hundreds of millions of years ... or 6,000 depending upon your interpretation of Scripture.
I next journeyed to Wadham College. This was one of the first colleges for girls at Oxford.
Here is a nice shot of Parks Road looking south towards Radcliffe Square.
Here is a great Oxford sight; the bridge over New College Lane. It reminds one of the Bridge of Sighs in Venice. I actually have a great "Bridge of Sighs" picture taken at Cambridge that I am anxious to post.
Here are the Gates to the Bodleian Library. The stone figure depict monks. The next few pics are of various library buildings inside the gates.
You can tell that I really like architecture.
Here is the great Bodleian Library building at Radcliffe square. This building is nearly impossible to enter. It has extremely odd hours and is almost never open at a reliable time.
Incidentally, almost all of these sights can be seen in the movie The Saint, starring Val Kilmer and Elizabeth Shue. It seems that they filmed the movie at Oxford and used the local sights for there scenery. The buildings are out of context but that's Hollywood for you.
I next made my way down toward Christ Church College (See above). This is the school where Lewis Carroll taught mathematics while he dreamed up Alice in Wonderland.
Looking at the buildings around town, the gargoyles, the statues of the monk heads, and all the animals like Dodos and such in the University Museum, I can imagine how one could write a book like Alice in Wonderland. Small wonder that this town has produced the world's greatest writers. And many KGB agents. So you never know.
Incidentally, here is the famous Alice Shop.
This is the shop that inspired Carroll to write chapter five ("Wool and Water") of Through the Looking Glass. It's a tourist trap; don't go in. There's is nothing of real interest inside the shop. Just take a pic and move on.
I next ventured into University Park. This is the recreation center of Oxford. You can often see students jogging, playing "football" and even rowing upon the river. Here we have a group of guys playing cricket.
And, finally, here is the aptly named High Bridge of University Park.
So ends all my pics of Oxford. I will have my pics of the William Carey, Andrew Fuller, and John Newton sights posted soon.
Cheers.
I first visited the University Museum. This a wondeful biological and geological museum. Every animal from Dinosaur to Dodo is contained here. They even have fossilized rocks going back hundreds of millions of years ... or 6,000 depending upon your interpretation of Scripture.
I next journeyed to Wadham College. This was one of the first colleges for girls at Oxford.
Here is a nice shot of Parks Road looking south towards Radcliffe Square.
Here is a great Oxford sight; the bridge over New College Lane. It reminds one of the Bridge of Sighs in Venice. I actually have a great "Bridge of Sighs" picture taken at Cambridge that I am anxious to post.
Here are the Gates to the Bodleian Library. The stone figure depict monks. The next few pics are of various library buildings inside the gates.
You can tell that I really like architecture.
Here is the great Bodleian Library building at Radcliffe square. This building is nearly impossible to enter. It has extremely odd hours and is almost never open at a reliable time.
Incidentally, almost all of these sights can be seen in the movie The Saint, starring Val Kilmer and Elizabeth Shue. It seems that they filmed the movie at Oxford and used the local sights for there scenery. The buildings are out of context but that's Hollywood for you.
I next made my way down toward Christ Church College (See above). This is the school where Lewis Carroll taught mathematics while he dreamed up Alice in Wonderland.
Looking at the buildings around town, the gargoyles, the statues of the monk heads, and all the animals like Dodos and such in the University Museum, I can imagine how one could write a book like Alice in Wonderland. Small wonder that this town has produced the world's greatest writers. And many KGB agents. So you never know.
Incidentally, here is the famous Alice Shop.
This is the shop that inspired Carroll to write chapter five ("Wool and Water") of Through the Looking Glass. It's a tourist trap; don't go in. There's is nothing of real interest inside the shop. Just take a pic and move on.
I next ventured into University Park. This is the recreation center of Oxford. You can often see students jogging, playing "football" and even rowing upon the river. Here we have a group of guys playing cricket.
And, finally, here is the aptly named High Bridge of University Park.
So ends all my pics of Oxford. I will have my pics of the William Carey, Andrew Fuller, and John Newton sights posted soon.
Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)