The Bible Tells Us

The following is a reflection I wrote in the beginning of 2008 for the Faith and Leadership House of 2008-2009. With the caveat that standard Catholic modifiers now apply to everything I endorse, I still endorse what I had to say pretty much wholeheartedly. Anyway I dug it up, read it, and thought it worth sharing as a piece of blog.

The Bible Tells Us

The Bible, the Old Testament at any rate, tells us to stone people for all manner of offenses, including but not limited to sex outside the context of marriage. The Old Testament provides a few humanitarian measures on the matter, mostly attempts to account for rape, and the New doesn't seem to call for stoning on almost anything, but still: all these old laws. How do we decide which parts of the Law still apply, and in what way? (And this is not even thinking of which punishments should still apply?) If we choose one over the other, must we sacrifice the unity of Scripture to do so?

The Bible tells us to submit ourselves to the governing authorities. Does this command have any veto power over the others? What are we to do if we believe it is given to us in Scripture not to lie, and the governing authorities tell us to lie? For that matter, what if our parents tell us? Does that commandment have so much power that we should? Is this a situational thing? Common sense seems to say yes, to me, but common sense also tells me that dead people stay dead and virgins don't have babies. Christianity is not a common-sense religion.

The Bible tells us to rejoice with those who rejoice and mourn with those who mourn. But what if our rejoicing is their mourning, or vice versa? If both parties try and do the noble thing, they're still not following the command, because one is still mourning and the other is still rejoicing. So what is to be done? Do both parties alternate the mourning and rejoicing? If this situation even arises, does that mean one party has done something wrong?

It is not only a question of when the rubber hits the road, but what happens when the rubber hits the road. At what point do contradicting ethical orders, or even contradicting theologies--and I do believe they are in play in the Scriptures--overrule each other, and how do we decide which one gets priority if there is a conflict between two or more passages?

But wait! You might turn to me and ask whether the whole problem hasn't already been solved by Christ, the Incarnate Logos, Jesus of Nazareth, who boldly put forth a mere two commandments as the sum of the Law and the Prophets: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind and strength. Love your neighbor as yourself. And who is your neighbor? Not the common sense answer, not just that jerk who puts up a 10-foot fence between your property and his or the nice old lady who keeps bringing you copies of Watchtower magazine. No, your neighbor is every man and woman: friends, enemies, short, tall, black, white, you name it, and to that end it strikes as logical that all our interpretations of Scripture, perhaps most when we see a conflict between two passages, ought to be guided by two principles: love of God, and love of humanity.

Of course, we believe that at least to a degree the problem has been solved, even if we don't know the solution. Christ establishes a new covenant. It isn't necessarily the case that every six-hundred-odd laws are still in effect. But as evidenced by the wandering writings of Paul on just about anything where the word "law" is involved, the matter is not simple, and at any rate, Jesus of Nazareth never gave us a chart of which verses trumped which. Whether he could have is a topic for another day!

Even at our most theoretical and uninvolved as Christians (and may I say in particular as an amateur Christian theologian) we are forced to get our hands dirty. Inevitably, it seems the case that one piece of the Inspired Word of God trumps another. And perhaps that is part of the point. Christianity is not a clean religion. It is not common-sense. If even the biggest theologians of a faith must get their hands dirty to do their work, what does this say for the lesser? If we're not getting our hands, hearts, and minds dirty as Christians, it means we might have to reexamine whether we're really going for the gold.

Thankfully, because we believe in a New Covenant it is allowed to us to talk somewhat of these things being a mystery, of not having everything handed to us on a silver platter, but handed to us nonetheless, of the world's issues having been addressed to some degree at least, and Sin in some sense atoned for, even though we don't really know why or exactly how. But when we get into specifics about what to believe, what to do, and what the Bible tells us--and to decide what orthodoxy meant, thousands of early Christians already had to do this, and imagine doing it without a defined canon!--when we get into the question of what the Bible tells us, of what we ought to believe and do, we get our hands dirty. We do have one agreement among us, at least, as a house; this is that God dirtied a hand for us in a very personal way. I suggest that it is our job, an imperative as Christians, to get our hands dirty in turn: by figuring out what we ought to believe and do, and by believing and doing it.

But not necessarily in that order.

Dan Reads the Catechism: Paragraph 103 and the Kneeling Argument

I remember having a huge argument once in the Faith and Leadership House. Actually, the argument was between the house and one of our directors over whether we should kneel at Mass. It was a pretty infamous incident for us and one that (still) stretches me on whether we were truly submitted to authority in Catholic fashion.

The authority in question was a professor at the University who asked us why we knelt during or near the consecration at Mass, and while we weren't all this vehement about it, she and one of the more staunch Catholics in our house got into a fairly intense debate about it. At one point, when she mentioned Christ being present in the reading Scriptures (the implication being, so far as I took it, we should kneel then).

Now the counterargument offered, and if I recall correctly it was at the time, was that there was a qualitative difference in these presences. (The authority this person exercised, by the way, was that of an official faculty director of our program, and the extended question was whether the instructions to Catholics in our area indicated we should kneel at the consecration or not. My question as to authority was whether we ought to have obeyed her recommendation despite believing we were right; what would Jesus do?)

But paragraph 103 says "For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body" (source).

Now intuitively, going on history, it seems like the Real Presence in the Eucharist is a qualitatively different presence from Christ's presence in the reading of the written Word of God . After all, I don't recall any Early Church Fathers ever saying that the letters of Paul were "the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" (source).

But paragraph 103 itself gives...little, if any, indication of such a difference. Perhaps some later paragraph (on the Eucharist, perhaps?) will clarify this for me. In the meantime I continue to be struck a tad confused by the lack of distinction drawn here. And it seems like the professor in question may have had, at the least, more intuition behind her thought than we wanted to grant at the time.

There's something about paragraph 82 that bugs me, too. I don't disagree with the paragraph. But it brought something to light that begs further investigation. More on that later.

Liturgical Awesomeness

The following link is to a lecture which was recently given at Catholic Univ. of America by Rev. Jeremy Driscoll, OSB. Fr. Driscoll teaches at Mt. Angel Seminary in Oregon and also at San Anselmo in Rome. He is also the author of the excellent book What Happens at Mass.

He speaks about a very interesting subject: logike latreia (Romans 12:1, commonly translated as 'spiritual worship', but the same words are found in Eucharistic prayers East and West as 'reasonable worship')

http://trs.cua.edu/news/events/quasten-award.cfm

(The audio is bad for the first minute or two of Fr. Driscoll's lecture, but you don't miss anything substantial)

Under What Circumstances: #1

Is it acceptable to punch someone violently?

I'm not asking if it would be legal, I'm asking if there's a circumstance that would make it moral, or even obligatory, civil law aside. Note that the qualifier of violently is added to ensure we are not speaking of merely jovial and fraternal punches, which are a trivial case to my mind.

Let's play "construct the example" here. I'm not trying to argue for a non-Catholic ethic, and "punching people is intrinsically immoral" is an option, but I'm going to want a defense of that.

Canon Without the Canon

An old theology professor of mine used to talk about the "canon within the Canon"--those books we prefer implicitly over others in the Bible. Anyone out there have a "canon without the canon"--books they un-prefer over others? And willing to say what it is in comments?

Mine's Romans. Could also be said to be certain OT books, but that's mostly for lack of having read the OT all the way through in a comprehending fashion.

In Which I Respond to John Meunier's Question

John Meunier has a good question up which I think is kind of a good one if we're at all trying to navigate the postmodern wilderness that is the world.

I invite anyone reading this to make their own response to my response, or to Meunier's question, here or on their own blog. (But if not here, please let me know where because I want to see it.) I of course invite the other KBT to respond with their own posts if they want.

[Later edit:] The question is "If you had the opportunity to preach to a crowd of nominal Christians or non-Christians in an informal setting – like John Wesley’s field preaching – what would you preach?"

Here's my response:

Ask yourself this question: "Am I good?" And if you answer yes, justify it. Without appealing to grace or any coherent and concrete concept of goodness that does not change with culture and goes beyond just what we think it is. 

If you justified yourself, you probably don't really believe in good at all, at least, not good with a meaningful meaning. Maybe you're good thinking that goodness is relative, something that's not inherent in anything, or something we have to make for ourselves, but I'm not. It's not meaningful meaning if we can change it as we please.

If you couldn't justify yourself, then I guess you'll need some help to be good. Christ can help you with that. Sorry state that I'm in, you should see what state I get into when I close myself off to Him. And if you're at all interested in being good, even if you already think you're justified on that front or that all I'm saying is twiddle-twaddle, you owe it to yourself to see what kind of change Christ might make in you. 

So really, just try and live like Him. Try and fall in love with Him, even if--right now--you don't know what you believe about Him. 

I think you'd be surprised to see the difference.

Consistency, Hope, Scripture

(1) I generally hope, and I take this hope to be an action of the will, for the salvation of all; I find some encouragement in knowing that there is some sense in which God desires all to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.

(2) I doubt that this will actually happen, based on the weight of the Biblical evidence and a couple of rather conclusive-sounding things Jesus said about the narrow way and the wide gate, and the knowledge of some sort of predestination inextricable from the Christian tradition.

Is (1) consistent with (2)? (2), judging by the Christian tradition, certainly has more weight for our intellectual lives. Are they both consistent with the Scriptures?

More Yes Means Yes: Comments, Etc.

So I've actually finished reading Yes Means Yes now. There'll be some more reaction-posts coming, but there are some comments that have been made that warrant a further reaction. If you want this post to make the maximum amount of sense you should probably go back and read the initial post on YMY and then the follow-up post where I discussed some of the questions/comments a friend had left on the first post. Please note that I am pulling comments from both threads; if you're wondering why nothing of Eric's comment on the first post is here, it's because the second post was intended to address that. I'm going to save some of Eric, Nick and CJ's commentary especially for another post, because I think their comments were helpful to me in probing what this "modern notion of consent" is that we dislike, as opposed to the general notion of consent that I would argue should be agreed upon by Christians. Still to come on the YMY front: I'm going to attempt to respond to a particular essay in the book that has yet to be mentioned on this blog. I'm also going to attempt a post about "modern notions of consent" that seem so controversial. If I have the energy and the development on this front I might also attempt some post about what a Christian model of sexuality might actually be, because I'm not satisfied with the feminists' model, as a Catholic, at least not the Yes Means Yes crowd's model. Commenters will be addressed in alphabetical order.

Commenters' words will be in bold.
My responses will be in normal text.

Enjoy!

Stuff CJ said:

Dan, good reasons why women shouldn't initiate? If that's the way the cookie crumbles in the relationship, far be it from me to limit the way God's love works in people; however, while most of these radical feminists will probably scoff at my suggesting this, I have rarely met a woman who doesn't wish for the initiate from a real man (I think you know how I mean this) and not just these p[r?]etty boys we find in today's society. Physical archetypes would be the reason I would cite, but many people find the interpretation of physical realities woefully close-minded (though still living by the die-hard line of scientific method and empiricism).

Either by socialization or by biology, there's bound to be truth to what you're saying. Not sure if it's quite as scientific and empirical as you claim. The main trap I now consider it part of my project to avoid is considering female sexual desire as lower than male. (I don't think you're doing that.) Note that I don't necessarily consider either desire to be really, really important, but that I am simply saying they seem to be equal in importance if the persons are equal in dignity.

Plus, I'm still not sure how to apply such a concept in modern times.

I think you lost me a little. Which concept don't you know how to apply?

Yes, I know Dan, I really need to proof these things before I post them.

Yes. Yes you do.

Stuff Eric said:

Marriage does necessarrily include the physical. If two people "marry" with no desire to have sex (or to do so without children) they are entering into something of a sham marriage.

I do agree with you on this point (and, I should note, not just you but the Church) but I feel like we need to discuss this in such a way so as to leave room for, well, not calling the marriage of Mary and Joseph a sham. (For any non-Catholics who might be reading this, this is an issue that Catholics such as Eric and I have to deal with that you might not, because Catholic Tradition insists that Mary and Joseph's marriage had no physical intercourse.

What I said is that the physical union of the spouses is not the ultimate end, or the high point, of marriage, no matter how many spiritual analogies modern Catholic sex educators use.

Agreement. But then what is its ultimate end? I'm not tied down to one answer to that question.

Regardless of whether or not you happen to like the language of debt, it's clear that sex in Christian marriage is not necessarrily consentual in the modern sense, even if it should not for that reason be forced (though it does not mean one can use force or coercion, it is in fact a serious sin to deny one's spouse).

I agree that it's not consensual in the modern sense, but I should expand on that later. Regarding "serious sin:" Do you mean that anytime one's spouse asks, it would be a sin to deny? Or do you mean it would be a sin to deny for a significant period of time, unless one was doing so for some purpose considered legitimate? The Pauline passage--on my admittedly naive and un-scholarly reading--doesn't seem to force a reading that every request must be met on pain of sin. It seems, prima facie, at least as reasonable to read it simply as the admonition that all marriages have a healthy sex life. Nonetheless the Pauline passage does point to an irreconcilable difference between Christian views and the modern views of sexuality, which I'll get to in a later post.

Cho's scenario does not make sense in the context of marriage, because a spouse giving in to the other even though he/she doesn't really want it is not necessarrily a bad thing in marriage, whereas it is in the logic of modern sexuality. I don't say of course that it's an ideal in marriage, but it is something of a duty as far as I understand it.

Yes. I'll try and give some more nuanced thoughts on the subject later. I do think--and I don't know if I said this in my first post--but I do still think it's worthwhile for Christianity to speak to situations that aren't marital, if only to see if--as a temporary measure, not as a solution--we can help move them further from being screwed up. Many of the reasons Cho gives in her testimony for having said yes were pretty awful reasons, and might have been even worse in the context of marriage.

I don't think it helps anything to praise consentual fornication, simply because it does not pile on other sins.

I'll take progress where I can get it. I don't intend, however, to praise it as if progress automatically meant a lack of sin. In this case, 'those other sins' refers to one of the few things condemned by the Church as being never, ever, okay. I don't praise consensual fornication. But it's closer to Truth than rape.

In fact, it may in some way be worse because it stabilizes the sin. Someone who is able to maintain a reasonably stable sex life because they've embraced the rules of consent may be much further from seeing how damndable the whole situation is. In fact, it may in some way be worse because it stabilizes the sin. [...] It seems to me that people in this situation are only questionably better off morally, and in terms of the possibility of conversion may be much further off.

I do share your concern. In some ways it reminds me of Lewis's caution in The Four Loves that sometimes love is most dangerous when it most approximates the love of God, and yet is not that love. Certainly there is the danger that in trying to reach into an incredibly sinful situation we might accidentally simply decrease the sin and make the lesser amount of sin seem more acceptable than it is.

That said, I would prefer the situation of consent to the situation of rape because the latter seems not only worse in degree but also in kind--there is a perversion there of sinning not just against one's own body but also against the body of another, in a way not present in simple fornication. The question that must be immediately answered, for me, is not which situation we prefer--it is what we say and where we stand when someone says "no" to the proposition of sex--or even when they answer in a nonverbal "no."

I did not say feminism created this problem on its own, but that it helps to create the grey areas that make it possible. Obviously the wickedness of man's heart is reason enough for any sin, but we now have a social space in which this sin can be normalized and even embraced as a "lifestyle."

Eliminating those social spaces is tricky. I'm not sure any one culture has ever done it.

I don't necessarrily reject every possible idea which has ever been called "feminism" [...] by some liberal definitions of the word, I am a muslim. [...] I see no reason to constantly redefine the term in such a way that it becomes completely disconnected from the historical movement which gave it its name.

Hence my irritation with modern redefinitions of fundamentalist to include anyone who takes religion seriously.

I'm quite certain that we don't agree completely about what being "just Catholic" means, but I'm also quite certain that we don't disagree in any way so big as to make us opponents in any fundamental sense.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I take a slightly more minimal approach. But it is good to remember that we are together on the fundamentals.

Stuff Nick said:

From the "traditionalist" standpoint (hehe), there is a reason why Popes over the last few centuries have (repeatedly) spoken out against the idea of the State taking over Marriage (in order to confine it to the secular realm). The problem is that it strips Marriage of it's Sacramental character and thus cuts off it's ultimate ends, which are supernatural (Mat 22:30).

Interesting.

A secular marriage becomes ordered towards what currently benefits society, with it's ends limited only to the present - which is likewise "guided" by the ever changing wind of "popular opinion."

This would seem to flow logically.

But it seems like some of the societal ends do still matter, or at least, that the stability is--even if it is only an "in the meantime" solution--better than instability.

This is one of the core reasons why separation of Church and State is impossible for the Christian, and without this foundation any dialogue with "others" (e.g. feminists, Protestants, "Republican Party Catholics") is ultimately futile. Without that foundation, you're conceding 'home field advantage' to the lost, confused, or even downright evil 'opponent' - and at that point it's an up-hill and no-win game for you.

I am not at all married to our Constitution; I should much rather see a state reordered to human dignity and the law of God. However, it seems rather pessimistic to assume it is simply "an up-hill and no-win game" to venture out of one's "home field." Certainly it makes things more difficult, but I think the consistency of Catholic moral philosophy can serve as a witness even when we're not in the home-field, if we really say not only that "I agree with you about XYZ," but also "You're wrong about ABC, because really, this is the way things should be." (ABC doesn't mean artificial birth control here, but it could!) Of course, for this witness to really work, we've got to be living as a people with hope in the Resurrection, and living the philosophy we preach.

When the ultimate end is to assist their partner in attaining Heaven, things such as rape, grey area, even consent, 'drop out' of the equation because they inherently oppose that ultimate end. The modern notion of 'consent' is inherently wrong because it is not formed by Charity (Love), because it is based on selfishly consenting only when the person consenting sees them self in a position to gain ("take") and not as an unselfish fulfillment of duty. Consent formed by Charity is only possible in the Sacramental context, but at that point it resembles nothing of what the secular reader can make sense of.

There is truth to many of the nuances Dan is speaking of, but they need to be re-framed into the Christian framework and not left 'hanging' as if applicable to the secular view of marriage.

Yes. At the same time, being able to speak Catholic truth into situations that aren't immediately Catholic, and in a way which encourages conversion, would be a useful endeavor if we can manage it.

Stuff Shawn said:

As the only female commentor as of this moment, I will say that intimacy (which, from my angle, is the point of relationship in general, and marriage specifically) is certainly not limited to sex/intercourse (nor is intercourse a requirement for intimacy). Arrogance and entitlement are intimacy killers. Consent and desire will both be augmented by a move toward intimacy, which is fed by respect, self-sacrifice, and having your beloved's back...emotionally/physically/spiritually.

You, being a non-Catholic, are in an intellectual sense freer than I am to take union as being the end of marriage. I, being Catholic, am free to take it as being an end of marriage. I do however think intimacy is bad phraseology for anything that is supposed to be "the point" of marriage specifically. I assume when you say intimacy you mean intimacy that is found in a sense of marital union--otherwise, if you just wanted intimacy, why wouldn't you just go monastic? A faith community is plenty intimate. Something about marital intimacy must be different. So if you meant to say that intimacy itself was the point of marriage specifically, I would have to say I think you're wrong on that point.

From where I'm sitting, many of the less savory components of "feminism" are essentially self-defense or at worst reactionary.

To be honest, most of the things I dislike most aren't even the reactionary things, they're the things that comes from a worldview that's very much outside of Christianity.

The sad part is that women felt the only way to be as valuable as a man was to be like a man. This should make us all sad..."femininity" was sacrificed on the alter of not being second class. Tragic.

To a degree, I agree. I don't think most women have actually made that switch in its entirety (or if they have, our culture is doing a poor job of showing us this shift.)

Feminism has had some unfortunate fall out, but it was necessitated by oppression (generally at the hands of men, often those who used religion and "headship" as a cheap crutch).

From where I'm standing, with my admittedly naive readings of Paul, it looks like headship exists, and that it does seem to be the husband's. That seems to be a reality that we've all got to deal with if we're seeking to be historically Biblical Christians. The question is what it means. I lean more complementarian on that than you do, but I have no fully formed opinion on it except that it definitely includes a strong sacrificial component.

To sum up my thoughts, I'm tickled pink (yes, it's a girlie color, and I LIKE it!) to hear men (primarily, so far) having this conversation. It gives me hope for a better future, where we all embrace the unique ways we were designed.

I suppose my big question would be whether a belief in uniqueness of the sexes puts any serious limitation on straight-up egalitarianism.

In general, some of the assertions you made in comments about abortion and dogma are not necessarily Catholic positions; I feel that at least for the present conversation I've addressed those sufficiently here.

A Quick Misuse of Paul

We've seen lots of awesome discussion on this blog recently. Some of it's been rather heavy. So to lighten the mood I'm going to purposefully and blatantly abuse a quotation from the Apostle Paul. Here's the famous passage where he told Christians to go get smashed (taken, minus verse numbering, from Biblegateway, NIV, 1 Thessalonians 5:6-7 (edit: actually it was chapter 5):

So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us [...] get drunk at night.

In case that's not enough context for you, let's have a little more. At this point it becomes clear that Paul is only recommending drunkenness implicitly:

"So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep [...] For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, get drunk at night."

Okay, so maybe that's not enough context.

So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be alert and self-controlled. For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, get drunk at night.

It should be clear that Paul is here recommending that at night we go out and get smashed with caffeinated liquor of some kind (for the alert-ness, and to help keep us from losing our moral reason.)

Of course at this point my abuse is blatantly obvious. Thanks for indulging me.

Solid Quotation on Implications of Belief

A website called amtheomusings has a post with a solid quotation from theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar about, well, practice of belief. I think language like this could go a way in a real dialogue on faith and works.

Not a Theology Textboook: The End of the Affair

So this is the first in what will hopefully be a decent series on books that I love or found useful theologically (most of them if not all of them will be books by Christians) but which are nowhere near being theology proper, or as a literal creed of their authors, and should probably not be read as such, even if the total amount of theological error attained by such a reading is small. Now you might ask, what do I mean by a theology textbook? I mean something that is either designed primarily to teach/explain theology and/or advance the work of theology proper in a non-narrative format. Thus, for instance, The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a theology textbook. St. Augustine's De Catechizandis Rudibus is a theology textbook. St. Augustine's Confesiones is not. That does not mean it's not beautiful theological writing, but its aims are more mixed between reflection/exposition/speculation than DCR, which is essentially a catechism, not a narrative.

The End of the Affair hit a bunch of key themes for me. Oddly enough, the meaning of Christian love between persons wasn't a theme that I felt was so big in the book. I think there's a fair amount of it that gets practiced by the characters (some of them, anyway) but that's not really so much the point. I think a bigger point is how we can come to Love God, even in circumstances which aren't always quite so awesome, or even if we're people (always!) who aren't quite so awesome. Now a relative of mine who read this particular book didn't seem to get much out of it except that the characters were all idiots. (I haven't spoiled anything there; this fact will be readily apparent to most readers within the first fifty pages.) And that's part of Greene's charm. These idiots are loved by God, and God uses their messed up lives to draw them closer to Him.

In that vein, one of the big ideas here is that faith in God need not start with Love for God, or even with belief. This is true intuitively true if we think about it. We have all heard of the more irrational sorts of atheist who declares to hate God, and might as such be just a step away from faith. But more-so I think many of us have either had, or heard of, the experience of having faith that God is there before we actually have faith that God can truly be loved and trusted. Another big theme of the book is how one can fight God every step of the way on something--even on being Loved, and still yield. We really don't want to give up control. In their idiocy these characters demonstrate that time and time again, but they also demonstrate how they are not actually beyond redemption. God's Love, for Greene, is bigger than the fact of our sin or our Original Idiocy. And it uses what's there; the old creation doesn't just get replaced by the new; it gets transformed, which means sometimes that bitterness and cynicism have to be transformed, slowly and painfully.

I happen to believe the error is smaller for Graham Greene's The End of the Affair than it would be for many other books--including much of the theology proper I've been assigned in my day--but that doesn't mean it's nonexistant. Some persons, at least according to his Wikipedia article, charge Greene with giving sin a "mystique," a charge which I sort of understand, even if I don't agree. I'm more than willing to bite the bullet and suggest that maybe Greene has done so somewhat, but I doubt he did it intentionally, and I'd invite critics along those lines to consider that that's part of how sin gets us at the outset: It projects a mystique. One of the things Graham does well, is show us what happens when that projection is broken.

Besides this, I suppose it is possible that Graham Greene has given us too much optimism about what God can do with a broken situation...wait, what am I saying? Too much optimism about the power of God? Nevermind!

I'm not going to pretend that I have more of a problem with this book than I do. Obviously in trying to find things to criticize, just to offset my praise of Greene's work, I'm going to run into error myself, unless I really know why I disagree with what I'm critiquing. I guess if there is any real criticism to be made, it's that at least here Graham Greene is focusing on the depths of sin and rebellion against God in a way that not everyone will really find helpful, and which might even be scandalous to people at the wrong points in their theological career. But that's okay, because it's intended to be a narrative about how Grace steps in to save us, not as an exposition of the same. It is, quite perfectly, not a theology textbook.

John Meunier is the Man

John Meunier has really awesome stuff on his blog. It's one of the most readable things ever, the posts are short and concise and to the point, basically the opposite of most of mine, and almost everything he says has some relevance to almost every Christian, even those who don't share his particular concerns about his church, the UMC. The post linked is about Holiness and the Scripture, and in it he proves again, that he's the man. I would recommend his blogging time and time again to people of pretty much any theological persuasion, because (a) he thinks about what he's saying and (b) he almost always says it well.

Architecture

Over at Mere Orthodoxy, Matthew Lee Anderson has some interesting thoughts on church architecture, including a quotation from Chesterton.

He raises (with at least some intent, I think) the excellent point that some aspects of architecture which might seem gaudy or wasteful to us today (such as stained glass depictions or stations of the cross) are serving actual purposes, particularly for the mentally disabled who might grasp faith more easily in a picture than a Proslogion.* I would add to Anderson's explicit note about mental illness that for many centuries it was a practical issue for illiterate people to have pictures they could see so that they could learn the stories of the Scripture and the Saints more easily, without having to read them in books.

It's a good post with good thoughts. Check it out.

---

* This sentence sounds so much like Chesterton to me that I went and did a brief internet search to see if I alluding to him. This was not the case, which I think means I'm only aping his style in a vaguely original way!

Some Stuff on a Couple of Marian Dogmas

So Austin and I had another big huge honkin' conversation with Austin last night. We've basically agreed that it's post-worthy. I should warn, it's long, but lots of its lines aren't full so it'll probably read faster than it seems. It's worth noting that Austin and I have been talking theology for a long time, so we don't always set our reverence-filters to max, even when we're talking about Marian dogmas.

Dan: ok

TBH i'm not the best person to ask about immaculate conception and perpetual virginity

Austin: yeah

i do understand that

Dan: the two doctrines you seem mainly to take issue with, if i'm reading you right

Austin: well now

Dan: we've talked about theotokos

Austin: immaculate conception.... i forgot what that specifically means

please re-define it

Dan: it means being born w/o original sin

Austin: oh, Christ being born w/o?

Dan: nope

that's a Marian one

obviously it also applies to Christ, but that's because he's God and is like us in all things except sin

Austin: so the idea is that mary was immaculate?

Dan: i dunno

i think the main idea is

immaculate vessel for the Son of God

Austin: ah

i thought that the sin was through adam's descendants

Dan: in vulgar terms, since her belly is the holy of holies...

and i was applying that one to Immaculate Conception...but basically, since she's carrying the son of God, the basic rationale is that she should also be without sin, OSLT. there might also be something there in terms of how Jesus received a human nature

i've no idea if that made any sense at all

Austin: i am thinking about it a bit

it just seems like the concept of an immaculate mary is not something that is based on any scripture but is a theological construct based on the necessity for it, because of the way that the theology was made in the first place

Dan: what, what with the Trinity and the Incarnation, etc.?

Austin: no, i mean those make sense

they are theological constructs out of necessity because we see them in the scripture

Dan: okay

Austin: but i don't necessarily see why God cannot be conceived in a sinful womb

especially with the HS at work

Dan: hmm

hmm

Austin: i mean, if there was a principle that led me to believe that

i could understand how (implicitly) immaculate conception could be constructed

Dan: ok

so what if it were an implication of a scriptural construct like the incarnation?

it seems then that it would be necessary

Austin: yes, indeed

iwould definitely agree with it then.

Dan: yeah

btw, when i was talking about references of Scripture

in the mass

i was including the many implicit references

in addition to the explicit ones, like "Lord, I know am not worthy to receive you, etc."

Austin: ah yes

you know, i really don't have much problem with the mass structure or the things they say even

or the prayers

it's just the theological stuff about mary

like, that SERIOUSLY trips me up

Dan: what about the declarations on free will?

Austin: free will (even with my strong views on it) is still something i'm willing to debate and consider

but i really am not open to the idea of mary being a pure human being

Dan: what's your objection?

like, how does it contradict the Scripture?

(btw, I'm playing dumb a little: I do have my own objections along those lines)

Austin: it mildly contradicts but i would argue that something so foundational should be more based on scripture

(aye, don't worry about it)

there is little mention of Mary outside of the gospels

Dan: this is true

Austin: i can't think of any epistle references to her off-hand

and none of them mention the idea that she was sinless, though the majority of the epistles talk about Christ as being pure and sinless

i just sorta think that if they were writing it, they might throw in a shout-out to Mary, you know

Dan: ...heh

Austin: something like "Jesus, He was pure and sinless, just like His mom"

:\

Dan: maybe

the thing that i'm working on is this greek word that people won't agree on

it's in luke 1:28

the Catholics are the only ones who translate it as "full of grace" but they, or at least their websites, disagree with CARM about what the word is in the greek

and I myself couldn't say b/c from CARM's site it might just be a different way to spell said greek word in english

Austin: which word?

Dan: that's part of the problem i'm not sure

Austin: ah

being from a reformed church

i am inevitably in much agreement with CARM.ORG [Note: The relevant article on that site is “Mary, full of grace, and Luke 1:28. – KK]

Dan: carm's anglicization: kexaritomena

Austin: so it's not a great place for me to check things out

Dan: catholic answers's: kecharitomene [Relevant article on catholic.com: “How to Defend the Immaculate Conception,” probably anything with that title, but Jason Evert if there's more than one. - KK]

you see my problem?

those look JUST similar enough that the people might be seeing the same greek word and writing it different

now it IS quite clear that they're translating it differently

Austin: yeah

Dan: but one or both might be mixed up about what the word actually IS

and that's a problem

Austin: OH

found the word

hang on let me get this copied for you

Dan: link?

yes

Austin: http://gknt.org/cgi-bin/gnt?id=0301 [Note: This link will be important later. - KK.]

scroll down to 28

it's near the halfway point

after a comma

Dan: yeah, that's a bigass greek word

Austin: yes it is sir

i was thinking the exact same thing

Dan: i wonder if, in some comic awesomeness, the apologists are breaking the word down at different places resulting in different roots/conclusions?

Austin: interesting thought

however i wonder what the difference between the latin and this version is

i think that's more to do with it

Dan: well yes, SORT of.

the latin version translates a lot more explicitly as 'full of grace'

the problem with the CARM argument is that it relies on the latin being the source of the confusion without considering the possibility that maybe the latin translation was keeping in mind marian language that had already become part of the church

in which case the early church, if CARM is right, must have been awfully set on contrabiblical teaching

Austin: indeed

when did the marian doctrine emerge, exactly?

in reference to the latin vulgate

Dan: ...well the nature of emergence requires me not to give an exact date

however, w/r/t latin vulgate, at least two dogmas can be seen earlier than the vulgate

these being, IIRC, perpetual virginity and immaculate conception

Austin: i see

Dan: (there's also one that's still got a chance of being dogmatized, but it only shows up in anywhere near full force in st irenaeus among the fathers, IIRC)

Austin: so it is a possibility that the translation was influenced through these dogmas

Dan: yes

but that would also imply that these dogmas were commonly held in the early church

Austin: perpetual virginity really doesn't make sense to me either :\

she got married to a dude and didn't ever sleep with him

Dan: which presents a problem for CARM guys, if they care about being the historical Christian church

is this not possible?

actually, the best argument i've heard for perpetual virginity

Austin: this is VERY possibly

*possible

i've heard it happens a lot in modern marriages

:D

Dan: heh

Austin: i'm just saying that i don't understand why it's held as a dogma

is there some virtue in not having sex?

Dan: there might be

you'd have to ask someone more awesome than i about that

Austin: ah bummer

i must have been mistaken

i thought i was talking to the most awesome one :(

Dan: sorry

Mary's basic question "How can this be if I'm a virgin", doesn't necessarily make sense if we assume virgin simply means "unsexed one"

i mean

i'm sure she was well aware of human biology

so on some level, if she had vowed some sort of virginity, it makes a little more sense

Austin: wait, so you mean that

Dan: i'm not totally convinced by the argument, but it struck me better than most

Austin: it doesn't make sense for her to say, "how can this be, since i've never had sex?" but it DOES make sense for her to say, "how can this be, since I vowed never to have sex?"

Dan: yes, kind of

actually, yeah, that is pretty much the arg

Austin: i do not wish to be unkind

Dan: say it

Austin: that argument [fails very badly]

Dan: not as hard as you think

Austin: well

maybe i'm missing something

but how is vowing not to have sex any different than not having sex

Dan: ...it's not any different

let's take the first part:

''it doesn't make sense for her to say, "how can this be, since i've never had sex?" '

of course that doesn't make sense

Austin: well first

what is she responding to

what exactly does the angel say here

Dan: and that's the issue

okay

on my rereading of luke the argument DOES fly

and the perpetual virginity IS supported

the angel doesn't say HOW she'll conceive

Austin: ok. lay it on me brotha

Dan: UNTIL she mentions her virginity

let's go with assumption A: when Mary said 'virgin' she meant she'd never had sex

under this context

the angel tells her she's going to conceive

that she's GOING to

not that she has

Austin: aye

Dan: he doesn't even give a time frame

and her response is "how can this be if i've never had sex"

even though she is currently bethrothed

Austin: so he says, "in the future you will conceive a child"... i see what you're saying

Dan: BUT

if 'virgin' implies 'i'm not planning on having sex ever'

then it seems more sensible to say 'but angel dude, how can i have a baby without having sex?'

Austin: yeah

dude

all i'm thinking is

Dan: which of course if she were planning on having relations with joseph, would be silly

Austin: joseph signed up for the WRONG marriage here

if mary was a super hot chick

Dan: HEH

Austin: he would totally not dig that

Dan: possibly not

but if an angel came and told YOU to dig it

you might reconsider

Austin: yeah maybe

you have a point

Dan: it is also not impossible for Catholics to believe that Joseph was actually a widower; in fact it's fairly common belief in the tradition

not defined, but common

i hope the argument makes more sense to you NOW though

i thought it was in trouble for a second myself, then i read the angel's initial anunciation more carefully

it also makes more sense to me now why Calvin and Luther held to perp. virginity: they knew their exegesis

Austin: pretty much all the translations here are future tense

so there's a good indication that the greek is future tense

aye. well perpetual virginity could make sense, then. now i understand why it is a plausible dogma

Dan: dangit xeirx, now i convinced MYself basically

even if i didn't convince you

Austin: wait

convinced yourself of perpetual virginity?

honestly dude, don't try it

it's too hard

Dan: ?

hello

Austin: mary's a champ

for sticking with it

Dan: we're already part of a religion that believes in the RESURRECTION

oh

HEH

i thought you were talking about the doctrine

Austin: :D

i know :)

Dan: no, i only intend on that if i discern that i'm not getting married

but i've also discerned that i'm not ever joining the priesthood unless God has a really evil sense of humor

bonus: Catholic answers' analysis of the bigass greek word agrees with the site you sent

Austin: nice

my video card pulled another overheating trick

Dan: insofar as they gave their analysis of the verb as a verb

Austin: so now i am in the cold kitchen :(

Dan: i am sorry :/

Austin: hey, so far this has been a good discussion but i'm really tired

Dan: ok

Austin: and i need to get out of the house as soon as i can tomorrow

because my sister's friend is coming over and she has a wicked crush on me

Dan: i shall ttyl

Austin: i just don't wanna deal with that crap

Dan: HEH

ok

have a good day

and good luck avoiding women as you often have to do

we shall discuss this more later

Austin: can you put our conversation on keyboardtheologians?

Dan: yeah!

actually

i will!

Austin: sweet!

Dan: unless you want the honors

Austin: well as long as you give me credit for a post i don't care who does it

Dan: ok

Austin: it's nice to collaborate and talk about stuff

Dan: yeah

Austin: if this were a work night i would be screwed

Dan: hehe yeah

Austin: no more work nights until i get a job again!

:D

Dan: we might be able to talk more tomorrow though, depending when i'm home

Austin: okay, cool

Dan: have a good one though

Austin: i'll keep my eyes open

you have a good one too, and Gby

Dan: Gby2

Austin: 'night

Anyway, as always, anyone who has further thoughts on the stuff we talked about is welcome to provide them.

Dialogue with Austin on a Bunch of Stuff

Decided it would be cool if as a 50th post I posted some dialogue Austin and I had a few years back now. This was during my Modern Christianity class, so that would've been Fall of 2006, that this was happening. At the time I was just learning about the initial debates between Arminias and the others in the Reformed camp and the formation of TULIP, and was about to learn about Pietism. The cool thing about this conversation is how it wanders and meanders. We didn't actually type like this; the text has been sort of regulated to be more dialogue-quality, but ideas should be all there. That doesn't imply that the ideas are necessarily accurate ones, to history or to our current modes of thinking; I've made at least a few corrections in footnote format based on errors I made or based on my developing thoughts since; for example, I've gotten more Catholic and Austin's gotten less into more traditionally Calvinist/Reformed modes of worship. If Austin wants to add some footnotes or reflection of his own to this post, that would be awesome.

KKairos: ...What exactly do you mean by 'Wesleyan books'?

Xeirxes: Well, the teachings of Wesley; bear with me, I'm not familiar with Arminianism at all.

KKairos: Um, not really considered canon.. they're considered sources of Wesleyan-Arminian thought and theology, obviously. as would Arminias's stuff. (Remember that Arminias started out in the reformed tradition.)

Xeirxes: I see. Hmm.

KKairos: The thing is. Arminias said some stuff. Many people disagreed. TULIP was actually a reaction to that stuff he said...at least that's what my church history reading is indicating.

Xeirxes: Hmm. I also heard, the Arminians came up with a spinoff that was intended to contradict TULIP.

KKairos: They may have, but I think we're talking about the same thing.

Xeirxes: After it was made, but it was really controversial and not all AArminians believed it. I think.

KKairos: At any rate there was controversy in the reformed tradition. Obviously, even though Arminianism lives on in the Wesleyan tradition, Calvinism wins in the reformed. I’d have to reread. There wasn't really any acronym listed for either system. Just that the councils were post-Arminias..

Xeirxes: Ah, ok.

KKairos: (The TULIP thing was listed in passing in my book.)

Xeirxes: Passing. Oh. I read that "as passing" rather than "in passing."

KKairos: In other words, tacked on at the end of a paragraph that explained it in more detail. Heh.

Xeirxes: So, I got a ton of sola scriptura verses. But they basically say that proverbs thing.

KKairos: That's good. ...Hrm. I’m still interested in seeing them.

Xeirxes: Galatians 1:8 is good too.

KKairos: I do think Wesley adopted sola scriptura, sort of. Remember that Luther wasn't opposed to using tradition in liturgy. That was more Calvin's thing.

Xeirxes: Ah, Ok.

KKairos: Wesley's quadrilateral makes scripture the trump card.

Xeirxes: Wait, just to clarify--

KKairos: If tradition, reason, OR experience is contrabiblical, than the bible wins

Xeirxes: Liturgy would be literature used in the religion?

KKairos: Ok. So for worship and stuff. This is the way it was explained to me in modern Christianity, is that for Luther, anything that scripture didn't forbid was allowed. But for Calvin, anything that wasn't commanded was forbidden. Obviously there's quite a difference in those two attitudes.[1]

Xeirxes: Yes, okay.

KKairos: So early Calvinists, apparently, took their hymns directly from the scriptures. My understanding, assuming I understand correctly, is that Lutherans would've been allowed a bit more leeway as to, say, the words or tune of a hymn.

Xeirxes: That makes sense; we really don't have much other than a piano and hymns in our church.

KKairos: Yes, but you're still not the same as the very early Calvinists. at least, not if you've sung anything like “You Are My All in All.”[2]

Xeirxes: They probably made their women cover their hair, right?

KKairos: As I think I may have picked up [reference to the hymn.]

Xeirxes: Yeah, we've sung that :)

KKairos: ...It's crazy how all these different ideas grow and develop.

Xeirxes: Yeah, it is :D

KKairos: There was one guy I thought was especially cool; unfortunately in his immediate time his ideas didn't make much impact. They basically had to do with what could be considered essential belief for salvation. Can't remember his name. But basically his theory was that while we could look at scripture and find new things that we considered part of Christian belief, that was fine. However. the only stuff that could make someone heretical would have to be found somewhere in the first 500 years or so of the church. Because in that time there was sort of much more unity as to who was a heretic and who was saved and whatnot.

Xeirxes: Hmm. Well...

KKairos: It's a flawed theory sort of, but I enjoyed learning about the possible origins of the idea about essential and non-essential belief.

Xeirxes: There've definitely been some heretics recently :)

KKairos: Yes.

Xeirxes: Harold Camping, saying that the bible says we shouldn't go to church and they should just listen to his radio show.

KKairos: Who are you thinking of specifically?

Xeirxes: Also this one pastor of my church. He was, like, really doing a bad job, and not caring at all.

KKairos: Well the bible does not really say "go to church on Sunday at 11:00 am and worship God for approximately an hour and fifteen minutes." But it's certainly one of the better methods that's been developed for fulfilling the commandment :). What do you mean by not caring?

Xeirxes: Nope, but he said that the church is going to become evil and that you don't need to gather on Sundays

KKairos: Hrm.. that's...kind of stupid :)

Xeirxes: At least, from what I gather. He was sort of into the Revelations stuff. Eschatology.

KKairos: Eschatology is great.

Xeirxes: So, Arminians DO believe in sola scriptura.

KKairos: Unless you get to being one of those people who won't buy a house or settle down anywhere because Christ could come any day. It sort of misses the point :/

Xeirxes: Yeah :D

KKairos: I would guess that the oldest Arminians would have. For instance Jacobus Arminias himself. I’m not sure what Wesleyan-Arminianism says on the subject. The thing is--

Xeirxes: Hmm.

KKairos: I’m thinking that sola scripture doesn't necessarily mean that no tradition is allowed. but I’d have to check on the subject. Because if that's what it meant it seems Luther wouldn't have allowed any tradition in liturgy.

Xeirxes: Well, even we have tradition.

KKairos: Also I get to read about Pietism next, which means I get to read about john and Charles Wesley and the earliest Methodists. Yes.

Xeirxes: But the argument Calvinists make, or at least in my church is, you do not need ANYTHING other than the bible to come to saving knowledge.

KKairos: Oh.. I agree with that.

Xeirxes: And also, the bible is the sole word of God, and no other books are required for advice or anything.

Xeirxes: Like in terms of running the church, counseling, etc.

KKairos: As far as what's necessary for salvation I agree. However I would not take that so far as to say that extrabiblical sources (particularly spiritual ones) would be necessarily bad sources of those things.

Xeirxes: Well, the extrabiblical sources should preferably be based entirely on scripture.

KKairos: For instance josh harris is an extrabiblical source, but he's not necessarily contrabiblical (I’m making up words here, but I think you understand what they mean). Yes. but the ultimate test (for me) is "does this tradition contradict scripture?"

Xeirxes: Ah, I see.

KKairos: Or "does this author contradict scripture?". and wherever they do, either a) the contradiction must be reconciled or b) the scriptural position must be accepted.

Xeirxes: Well, that's where our church would differ.

KKairos: And of course making things more complicated are the dozens of interpretations coming out of almost any particular passage of scripture.

Xeirxes: Because a lot of things could be accepted, for instance Rick Warren's teaching and stuff. Because it does not have a solid biblical base (he quotes scriptures out of context) we simply do not recommend his books or sell them at the bookstore.

KKairos: But Rick Warren's teaching still isn't considered scripture.

Xeirxes: True, but it's not based on scripture. So we don't look to it for any sort of guidance.

KKairos: In Wesleyan thought nothing that's not scripture (aside from, I would hope, God) can be even on par with scripture, much less be above it.

Xeirxes: Hmm

KKairos: As for Rick Warren. He's...seeming interesting.[3]

Xeirxes: He scares me :o

KKairos: I’d have to read what he's got to say and see how it works with or against the scriptures. Well if certain reports are true he definitely scares me. (I believe certain reports say he's backing some 'Christian' video game where you can pick your side, or something). I don't really like the idea of 'Christian' video games; I think it'd be awesome if someone could convey allegory or Christian morality IN a video game.

Xeirxes: Oh, that stupid left behind series game. Where you can play as an anti-Christian as well.

KKairos: But usually whenever someone actually makes a religious video game it just comes across hokey. Ah, that's the one, thne. then. Ack :/

Xeirxes: If I made a Biblical game I’d make a strategy game based off of the Old Testament.

KKairos: Heh.

Xeirxes: Except for the fact that like 90% of the battles were won through supernatural force :P

KKairos: Yeah.

Xeirxes: So, it'd be predictable; every time.

KKairos: Or really tedious. like having to pick out which of your soldiers lap up the water like dogs. and which ones scoop it with their hands :).

Xeirxes: Hahahahah.

KKairos: And make sure that only the right kind (I forget which) go into battle.

Xeirxes: That's a funny thought :D. Getting the pathfinding to work when they walk around Jericho's wall.

KKairos: Having to wait till EXACTLY the 7th day to blow the freakin' trumpet.

Xeirxes: Yeah, Hahaha.

KKairos: And if you're off by more than a second you lose the mission and must restart.

Xeirxes: "Ooops! You blew the trumpet too early. Start over!"

KKairos: Also, having to go in as the spies and hide in Rahab's roof

Xeirxes: Hahaha. OR even worse: David being chased through the countryside by Saul, and not being able to kill him, but he can kill you.

KKairos: Racing games :)

Xeirxes: :D. oh yeah, so back on sola scriptura. Luther said: “Unless I am overcome with testimonies from Scripture or with evident reasons -- for I believe neither the Pope nor the Councils, since they have often erred and contradicted one another -- I am overcome by the Scripture texts which I have adduced, and my conscience is bound by God's Word.” And this is quoted from www.fivesolas.com. And then, the Belgic Confession: “We believe that [the] holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein...Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures nor ought we to consider custom or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God...Therefore, we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule.”

KKairos: Yeah.

Xeirxes: So, it sort of does agree.

KKairos: Yeah.

Xeirxes: Because it basically says they can't have equal value, it doesn't say NOT to use them.

KKairos: Yeah.. and if they contradict--I would add 'truly contradict,' to be safe--then scripture is the winner.

Xeirxes: Yeah. A winner is scripture!

KKairos: Of course that is reformation stuff. while there was a Catholic reformation, the Catholic church has never accepted the principle of sola scriptura.

Xeirxes: Whoa, really?

KKairos: No. scripture and tradition are considered on equal footing, at least that's my understanding. So they're considered to be in harmony with one another.

Xeirxes: Wow. that's pretty scary.

KKairos: I don't think that means that nothing in tradition can ever be challenged. Well naturally it's scary to you; you're one of them people of the Westminster confession :p

Xeirxes: Haha.

KKairos: And actually it was pretty weird to me the first time I heard it.

Xeirxes: Well, if you are curious about that. Matthew 15:2-6. That seems to sum it up for me at least.

KKairos: Heh, yeah.

Xeirxes: A lot of Catholic tradition is fine to me, but there's some stuff that 'lives on the edge' from what I’ve seen. like the veneration of the saints.

KKairos: Ah yeah, veneration :/. there's quite a few things that are sticking points for me, still.

Xeirxes: My mom said, when she was a child, they actually prayed to saints per different illnesses experienced or something like that.

KKairos: sounds about right for some families. also I highly recommend reading about the earliest Arminian/Calvinist thought. It's interesting how they make their distinctions regarding divine election.

Xeirxes: There's a joke in our church, when Peter is with Jesus and he's about to ascend to heaven, and Moses and Elijah are there, Peter wants to set up a shrine for each and my pastor interjected, "See? he's already becoming Catholic."

KKairos: Well your pastor got that wrong or you did, because that was at the transfiguration. :p

Xeirxes: Oh yeah. I did. :D

[1] I definitely got the Calvin part wrong. It's definitely that anything not expressly permitted is forbidden.
[2] Modern worship song considered by some to be a modern hymn.
[3] In years since this conversation I've actually developed a large amount of respect for Warren.