From a while back, a pretty balanced take on the Coptic church (which has been in the news off and on recently) and Chalcedon. Some interesting theological history and implications.
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Michael Kruger recently posted an argument for early historical for substitutionary atonement. The whole topic is a big one, I will say up front that substitution is affirmed by most of the patristic writers, I think. But a friend referred me to his article and here’s a few thoughts:
1 Alone thou goest forth, O Lord,
in sacrifice to die;
is this thy sorrow naught to us
who pass unheeding by?
2 Our sins, not thine, thou bearest, Lord;
make us thy sorrow feel,
till through our pity and our shame
love answers love’s appeal.
David Brooks on some interesting cultural swings. Serious implications. From the last paragraph:
The romantic culture of self-glorification has to be balanced with an older philosophic tradition, based on the realistic acknowledgment that we are all made of crooked timber and that we need help to cope with our own tendency to screw things up.
Now that religious freedom has become a hotly debated thing (which is odd, given I used to depend on the left-leaning justices of the Supreme Court to help protect it), what is the future. Here’s a collection of some articles that touched on elements of the debate.
From the Reclaiming the Mission Blog, here’s a more progressive Christian take. It urges Christians to avoid being part of ideological battles. There’s a point there, but I wonder if there can be peace on this issue given the current social and political climate.
I think that is the point (or at least part) of Ross Douthat’s set of questions. Where are there boundaries? Presumably for most there are some limits, but no one seems to be able to describe where state mandated requirements will end.
Which leads to Kevin Williamson’s essay about the war on the private mind. Perhaps this is the endgame, at least for some. Here’s an interesting comparison:
Like Antiochus and the Jews, the game here is to “oblige them to partake of the sacrifices” and “adopt the customs” of the rulers. We are not so far removed in time as we imagine: Among the acts intended to Hellenize the Jews was a ban on circumcision, a proposal that is still very much alive in our own time, with authorities in several European countries currently pressing for that prohibition.
So back to Douthat and his interview with a Christian. More or less a self-interview. With a balanced and thoughtful Christian defense of traditional Christian teaching.
Perhaps we will need to end up with the Benedict option. Not for the first time in Christian history.
And then there’s one essay asking what is driving the intensity of the debate. Could it be Selma envy? There’s at least something to the notion, though it is certainly not the whole story.
We live in interesting times.
Jonathan Merritt interviews Kevin Kruse on his book One Nation Under God: How Corporate American Invented Christian America. For those who know history, the early stuff is not so new. Some of the information about more recent events – especially the role of Corporate America in pushing a Christian America theme – may be more surprising. Here’s his key observation:
Most of the markers that Americans invoke when they argue that we are one [a Christian nation] – the words “under God” in the pledge, the national motto of “In God We Trust,” the National Prayer Breakfast, the National Day of Prayer, etc. – are creations of the modern era and, more specifically, creations of corporate America.
Here’s an interesting take on what the church should be like. It’s another book to read, I guess! From Scot McKnight.
Recently saw this post about a syllabus by W H Auden where students were required to read 6000 pages (and for only 2 credits!). Not sure that is the right goal, but it should silence some student criticism!
Adam Garfinkle highlights a problematic trend. And it’s not a partisan one. It includes Bush haters and Obama haters as targets. There’s some interesting history in the essay, as well as measured criticism of the recent “deal” with Iran (which is not some much a deal as an agreement to work toward a deal, at least as I understand it). But that is not the main point. Here’s part of what he says:
Whatever else they do, the internet and kindred social media technologies seem to have democratized the popularity of politics as bloodsport. The bottom-feeding frenzy seems to intensify day by day, judging by most of the from-the-hip commentary that trawls beneath the waterline of feature essays. Its crypto-theological dogmatism is unmistakable, and not surprising in an age when politics so often trumps religion as creedal anchor number one. It does so in the case of the Iran portfolio despite the leavening details of the prospective framework accord with Iran, and despite Friedman’s interview of President Obama this past Saturday.