Christmas is now over. Boxing Day has passed (if we observed such a thing in the U.S.).
Next year will be a very different Christmas, and I do not think I will like the way it progresses. I want to be home with my family on Christmas (during Christmas time), but more-than-likely I will be involved with a parish and Christmas will revolve around a congregation, without a family of my own.
I watched a TV show yesterday on PAX television entitled: "Faith Under Fire." The premise of the show is to bring on guest participants holding opposing views on important and often controversial issues within the Church dealing with faith and society.
Yesterday, one of the segments dealt with the Christian faith in the 21st century, with guests Bishop Shelby Spong (retired Episcopal Bishop of Newark who is quite controversial for advocating a "new" Christianity for the sake of the religion's survival within the 21st century) and the president of a Southern Baptist seminary (I do not remember which seminary or the guy’s name, but he held to the current American-Fundamentalist position). They sparred!
Others have told me that I am too generous concerning my belief that the majority of those of the American American-Fundamentalists/Religious Right-Evangelicals are honest people wanting to know Truth just like me or anyone else. Those who make this accusation of me are themselves American-Evangelicals. Maybe I place too much faith and hope in what they say concerning their desire for Truth no matter what, and concerning their desire to love God and their neighbor. I don't know. Maybe. I'm starting to think I do.
Listening to the Southern Baptist president/theologian last night, and reading lots of other stuff (more recently Focus on the Family's stinging criticism of Newsweek's current article on Jesus), presents me with the regrettable thought that they only want and demand conformity to their own point-of-view. There seems to be no honest desire to "come, let us reason together," as St. Paul suggested to the Greeks, but only the requirement to conform to a very narrow and rigid version of Christian doctrine.
The experiential nature of Southern Baptists’ faith (as with any Christians’) is absolutely valid. The cognitive nature of Spong's and others’ faith is absolutely acceptable. The problem is that there are few given to accepting the possibility of Truth, or even valid questions, coming from the other side. Despite the testimony of experience with God coming from one side or the other, it is often not enough even for an acceptance that Christ may truly dwell within the heart of the opponent. Spong has a strong faith in God, in Christ, as does the Southern Baptist, but their faith looks very different one from the other.
I am more and more convinced that a base of our faith is truly in orthopraxis (right practice) rather than orthodoxy (right belief), although both are important. Orthopraxis, which rests in our encounter with the living God, willful and proactive, transforms us so that we are able to DO rightly: to love God with all of our being and to love our neighbor as ourselves.
Our different beliefs within Christendom are vast. Just consider for a moment the differences between strict Calvinist notions of predestination, as opposed to Arminius' ideas of free will (Arminianism), not even considering something like Open Theism. Just consider the fundamental differences between the Eastern Church and the Western Church on issues concerning original sin. Proclaiming the "right belief" of orthodoxy does nothing to secure "right practice." There is a danger in orthopraxis as well. Our salvation is not a result on simply being good people or doing the right thing. Here, Paul and James are important to consider as they bring forth a balance between the two. The must be held in balance and hypocrisy within both areas must be resisted.
In Life Together, Bonhoeffer argues for Sola Scriptoria, but at the same time condemns Fundamentalism for seeking a "paper pope" as they lift up the Bible as the only authority.
Many American-Fundamentalist/Evangelicals, and definitely through several of their denominational and para-church organizations, demand acceptance of a rigid and narrow "orthodoxy." Those who do not accept their view of things are not Christian, are not believers in the True God, the True Jesus, no matter what their experience may be. Adherents may be involved in gross and intolerable activities, but as long as they hold "right belief," they are still in the club. Despite the claim of acting only in love, I'm afraid they are about to convince the rest of American society that their brand of "Christianity" is the what being a Christian is, period.
Those like Spong, liberal Christians, however, who may demonstrate through their actions a desire for, love for, and faith in God and neighbor and a true and honest practice of their faith, are considered apostate because of differing belief. They do not acquiesce to a Fundamentalist mind-set, a Fundamentalist "orthodoxy," so therefore they are not Christians according to Fundamentalism.
All this is not new, of course. History attests to that. I just have to admit that there is little I can do - my testimony is worthless to them. The issues are so polarized that those attempting to hold to a middle-ground (even within Anglicanism, the classic place of via-media) are simply crying in the wilderness. Too many people wish only to have those around them who scratch their inching ears. No longer, it seems, is there a willingness to grant mercy or integrity to others who hold differing opinions. And the world watches and wonders whether this is an example of what their god wants and the way their religion tells them to behave, and if it is then to hell with them.
Orthopraxis centered in the Great Command of Jesus to love God and love neighbor always and with integrity, buttressed by an experienced relationship with and continued encounter with God through Jesus, seems to be winning the day in my sense of what is more appropriate to emphasize in the Church and in my ministry.
I've been listening to Skott Freedman after a very long while of not, and putting together stuff for my General Ordination Exams.
Skott Freedman is a wonderful performer - whenever I listen to his music he puts me in some kind of mood. Not really melancholy, although his music does cause me to think back and consider all those things that could have been, might have been, if only.
I went to see Alexander this afternoon with a fellow seminarian - another Bob. I wondered how explicitly Stone portrayed Alexander's bi/homosexuality. Between Alexander (Colin Farrell) and Hephaistion (Jared Leto), well, I think it would be difficult for someone who had no idea of Alexander's persuasion not to notice something was going on. I think Stone accomplished the fact tastefully.
Anyway, on the walk back to the seminary, Bob and I talked about a variety of things - mostly about relationships. Freedman, the movie, our conversation brought up memories of my first relationship experience. It was tough. Both of us were fraught with guilt, and of course it did not last, although we remained friends for a while. It has been a very long time since I have spoken with him, but a first love is never forgotten.
He ended up marrying. She later found out about the history. I was asked never to contact him again. I googled him just now and found out that he has established a studio, which does very much suit him. I don't know whether they remain married. I wonder about his (their) two children, or perhaps more, who will be in their teens by now. I hope and pray he is happy.
Those things that might have been, could have been. Farrell portrayed his love and devotion for his boyhood friend, companion, his love. My thoughts go back to first things and what might have been. Acceptance of oneself, before God and all humanity, is a long process filled with many considerations and turns and decisions.
I hope and pray, God please, that he is happy with his life.
My last final exam is tomorrow in Ascetical Theology. I turned in my Liturgics paper today. I am taking an Incomplete in "Modern Western Thought on the Trinity and Christology" because I have far more to do in attempting to articulate some kind of personal understanding and competency in these two areas. I do not what to simply write a paper, but I want to come to terms with what I actually believe (well, really to competently articulate what I think I believe) concerning Christology.
One more semester to go, and six more months until I am ordained into the Transitional Deaconate (Lord willing and the creek don’t rise). Of course, there is the little matter of finding gainful employment!
The Emerging Church conversation/movement gives me great hope. I believe it is a natural reaction against Baby Boomer American-Evangelicals (and their excesses, especially the politicizing of religion) by their children. Still falling within general Evangelical ideals, hesitant concerning American cultural infiltration, and yearning for the ancient, mysterious faith, it is a place were all is new again, yet in the ancient and tried form of faith rather than in the wholesale rejection of all things traditional. In many ways, it is the Church in kairos - of the past, present, and future!
Here is a discussion board from an Emerging Church website in the UK. The beginning question dealt with how the Emerging Church deals with the controversial issue of homosexuality. Here is the link.
From a Netscape Channels article:
Why Men Don't Want to Talk at Night
What IS he thinking? After a hard day, he's thinking he'd rather surf with the TV remote than talk to his lady love. And don't nag him about the shoes he dropped on the family room floor or the clothes he left on the bedroom floor. He doesn't even notice them.
That's the word from social philosopher and author Michael Gurian, who claims that men are not lazy, sexist, or pigheaded. Instead, the male psyche is radically different than the female psyche due to distinct and profound biological differences in their brains.
Drawing on two decades of neurobiological research, as well as anecdotes from everyday life, Gurian reveals the deepest secrets of the male mind in his new book, "What Could He Be Thinking? How a Man's Mind Really Works."
While culture is important, Gurian maintains that the biological differences in the male and female brains explain just about everything that puzzles women about the opposite sex:
* It explains why men have such a thing about cars.
* It explains why he doesn't see the dust on the furniture--or realize it needs to be dusted.
* It explains why he won't let go of the TV remote.
* It explains why he thinks mowing the yard is more important than vacuuming the carpet.
* It explains why it's difficult for him to talk when he gets angry.
* It explains why he can remember all the pitchers' names and World Series scores, but not the conversation you had with him yesterday.
* It explains why he puts so much of his identity into his work.
* It explains why romance isn't as important to him as it is to you.
* It explains why he won't talk to you at night.
This is the big difference that explains it all: The male brain secretes less of the powerful primary bonding chemical oxytocin and less of the calming chemical serotonin than the female brain. Instead, the male hormones that bathe the brain are testosterone and vasopressin, which make him seek competitive, hierarchical groups to prove his self-worth and identity.
What does that mean in practical terms? While women find it relaxing at the end of a hard day to get involved in an emotional, touchy-feely conversation, the male brain just wants to zone out. And what better way to do this than use the TV remote control to mindlessly surf from channel to channel.
"The science has been crucial. Wherever I go, I start by showing PET scans and people can see for themselves the differences between the male and female brain," Gurian told Reuters. "I think that alters life and marriages."
He dares to suggest that men will never be able to meet all of women's expectations. "Popular culture focuses so much on trying to get people closer. Most people believe that marriages break up because men and women are not close enough. But what I am learning about the brain leads to the idea of intimate separateness, in which the brain seeks less intimacy at times." (Emphasis mine)
Here's the takeaway, ladies: Instead of asking, "What IS he thinking?" you should be asking, "What COULD he be thinking?" Just don't ask him that question at night.
There is a point, well actually many points if one is consistent, in all of our lives, but especially in the lives of Christians, when we must stop and examine our lives and repent.
We all fail and fall short of what God desires for our lives - whether in our temporal or spiritual lives. We all approach God asking for forgiveness, if we abide by our baptismal covenant that is. There is more, however.
There comes a point (many points during life's progression) when we must stop and repent - not only seek forgiveness, but turn away from that thing, whatever it may be, that stops our progression and interferes in our relationship(s) with God and with one another.
Living a Holy Life is possible; why is it impossible to live a holy life? Only in Christ, despite and through our failings, as long as we return to God in the midst of our failing and desire to live within the Way of God (life to the full!). Repent, and live.