In Which I Attempt Latin Translations

And in which I will also be scoring myself and giving an approximate success percentage! This will be fun.

I recently found on the Vatican's website a whole lot of stuff. Like Papal Encyclicals, including the first and second encyclicals from Pope Benedict XVI, and now the third. (I honestly somehow seem to have missed #2, but I can't complain too much because I haven't read any of them, or any encyclical ever, actually. I'm planning to remedy that soon.) At any rate...

I've gone through the list of encyclicals for Pope John Paul II and made my guesses as to what their titles mean. Note that the titles for encyclicals are generally taken to be the first...clause, I think, that appears in them. Anyway, for each encyclical I will give the Latin title, followed by my guess at the English, followed by the translation implied by whatever I can find in the Encyclical's intro section in its English translation on Vatican.va. I will then proceed to assign each of my guesses an accuracy of 0 to 2. 0 means I'm totally off, 1 means I attained about half-accuracy and 2 means either an equivalency or very close thereto.

Some of you may recall I used to do this in church, except it was trying to guess what the pastor was going to say according to his sermon note outline--I called it the "Sermon Note Guessing Game." But here it will be called "Translate that Encyclical."

Ecclesia de Eucharistia - Church of the Eucharist
Actual title: Okay, apparently I'm wrong about the whole "first clause of the letter" thing, BUT what I'm reading here is making it clear that it's an encyclical on the relationship of the Eucharist to the Church. Since I'm fairly certain "on the relationship of the Eucharist to the Church" is not the translation of "Ecclesia de Eucharistia" I'm going to give myself full marks on this one.
2/2

Fides et Ratio - Faith and Reason
Pretty sure from this that I've got this one right.
2/2

Ut Unum Sint - Something Unity Something
It's becoming clear that I got the unity part right. Unfortunately, I missed the other parts. Christian Unity--I should have guessed!
0/2

Evangelium Vitae - Life of Evangelism
Well, I think I got this one wrong. It really is about pro-life-ness; whatever it's about isn't actually the life of evangelism. :p
0/2

Veritatis Splendor - Splendor of Truth
I had some help on this one, because the Catholic blogger Jeff Miller, the "Curt Jester", seen in that link making an awesome commentary on who the new encyclical is for, named his website splendoroftruth.com. Evidence that I got it right can be found here.
2/2

Centesimus Annus - Annual Census?
I was off on this one too. It's actually on the hundredth anniversary of the social gospel encyclical known as Rerum Novarum. I don't know what that means, either.
0/2

Redemptoris Missio - Redemptive Mission?
"The mission of Christ the redeemer" begins the letter as noted here, and its sub-title makes it clear we're talking about the Great Commission. I'm going to give myself one point for this.
1/2

Sollicitudo Rei Socialis - Soliciting the Social King?
"The social concern of the church" leads off this one. Sub-title makes it clear that we're dealing with another anniversary encyclical. I got "social" right but I missed everything else.Evidence here. No points.
0/2

Redemptoris Mater - Redemptive Mother?
"The mother of the redeemer"! So close! I guess I now take a higher Mariology than the Catholic Church. In case that made anyone uncomfortable, I'm seriously just kidding. But seriously--so close!
1/2

Dominum et Vivificantem - Dominion and Life?
Seems to be more about the life of faith than dominion and life. So nothing environmental here, so much.
0/2

Slavorum Apostoli - Apostolic Slavery!
Apparently it's actually about the "Apostles of the Slavs." Who knew?
0/2

Laborem Exercens - Exerting in Labor
It's about human work. See evidence here if you disbelieve me. I'm going to count this as a one-pointer.
1/2

Dives in Misericordia - Divas in Misery
"God who is rich in mercy" quoted from Ephesians 2:4 leads this one. I'm afraid "Divas in Misery" was nowhere near as close as I might have liked...
0/2

Redemptor Hominis - Redeemer of humanity
"The Redeemer of Man" opens up this encyclical. Since whenever John Paul II or pretty much any other Pope says "man" and you're not sure they mean "male" they probably mean "humanity" I'm going to give myself full marks on this one. Good to end on a high note. I'm also fairly certain I've heard the translation somewhere, but I can't place it.
2/2

THE FINAL SCORE
11/26 points! I'm not going to lie, for what mostly consisted of random guesses from a guy who knows very little Latin (church or otherwise), I don't feel too awful about that score.

Worship Songs

Okay! This post is mostly about contemporary worship (by which I mean the stuff you hear that sounds kind of jazzy or bluesy or rock-influenced in church) but I believe lots of the cautions and concerns are also present and relevant in the context of, say, picking the correct hymn for an old-school Baptist church or the correct Alleluia for a Catholic Parish during Lent...

Just kidding, there are no Alleluias in a Catholic Parish during Lent. But that still applies any other time of year.

Disclaimers

I'm going to be picky and talk about audible, musical worship. That is, songs, especially songs intended to be sung in a Christian religious tradition by large numbers of people in reverence and reference to the Divine. This has of course been done by me in the past, but not here! I should note here: Anything you listen to on your free time? That's not my business or the business of many, if any, theologians. The content of the music as far as I'm concerned is subject to as rigorous a theological review as you see fit, but if you find yourself concerned about what a song is teaching you, it's highly recommended that you do do some review with respect to the author's intent and the spiritual effect it has on you to contemplate and sing those words. But here is a different story. I am discussing the content of songs put up for use by some kind of parish or congregation. That is, lyrics (and music) that a congregation will be singing and/or contemplating in the course of any kind of officially sanctioned worship-event, ranging from the Catholic mass to the Protestant youth-group worship night. I am assuming without proof that the acts of all worship leaders, music arrangers, liturgists, etc., are being carried out with the honest intent and good faith effort of drawing people closer to God. As such, their intent is not on trial here and neither are they. I am discussing the standards I am coming to hold in part of personal preference but also of the effect I think it might have, spiritually, on the persons doing the singing or hearing what is being sung and played!

My Perhaps Unreasonable or Badly-Reasoned Beliefs

1. Contemporary worship should avoid musical things which do little but distract from contemplation or audible worship of God. This is partly a subjective thing and the individual worshiper's experience will vary! But essentially I believe that any group of worship leaders, whether instrumentalists or singers, ought to be able to say that they are, in intent and effect, pointing people to God with their worship. This applies to Latin-mass choirs and teenagers with guitars alike.* If something, through no fault of the congregants, is causing them consistently to become overly distracted from worship and contemplation, then something is wrong. In my subjective experience this tends to include any guitar solo longer than four bars, or vocalists who drag out or syncopate vocal lines in completely unnecessary and hard-to-sing fashions.

2. Contemporary worship should avoid theological things which plant bad messages in the minds of congregants. First and foremost this means avoid heresy. This isn't that hard to do. Just keep a copy of the Nicene Creed with you when you examine the songs you're singing, and if something seems fishy when you put it against that, don't use it! It is also my belief that as a matter of taste, if not responsibility, the worship a given congregation is asked to sing or even to listen to ought to reflect the theological teachings of the church it is sung in. That is, a Wesleyan church ought not to sing hymns which teach on sovereignty to the detriment of the concept of man's free will, and a Calvinist church should not be singing hymns which really speak of human choice. This paragraph ties with #3, which is that...

3. Contemporary worship should avoid things which confuse the congregation on a spiritual level. This includes to my mind putting an excess emphasis on feeling with respect to God. This is dangerous because in one's relationship with God as in all others, feelings tend to come and go, and love needs to be based on something greater than how we 'feel' about or with God; there ought to be a basis in Truth and love, and a conscious choice to serve our God. All we have to do to see what happens when we think about God in terms of just our feelings is look at this graph:

Okay, so that was probably just a little bit darkly humored for my purposes. But frankly, having seen it happen to others and having had it happen (in part) to me, I cannot stress this enough: I have very little tolerance for music and worship practices that place significant importance on how one "feels" about one's relationship with God. I have learned the hard way that feelings aren't always trustworthy. That doesn't mean they aren't ever to be used as a guide, but they are not the guide and music presenting them as a key component of worship is not tolerable to me.

This does not mean I would ever push for an elimination of emotion or feeling from worship. I have enjoyed passionate worship sessions like many of the other people in the Church that I know; I have known how it feels to be kind of "high on the Spirit." It's a good feeling. But sometimes we get those experiences without the qualification that one's feelings are not the ultimate measure of one's relationship with God, via the music, the way the music is used, or the pulpit. And that does in my mind constitute a theological and pastoral problem.

4. The emotional-worship tack links to the notion of the "Jesus is my boyfriend" song: the songs which seem to provide little indication that they are really addressed to God rather than to one's significant other. Truth be told I am sure there is much to be had in the God-as-lover analogy, but sometimes there isn't enough clarification given of who, exactly, the congregation is singing to.

5. This is more of an "ought" than a "what's wrong." Songs ought to express some truth about God. Some kind of capital-T Truth. It need not be the majority of the song, even, but something. This is partly a personal-taste thing, as a "what You've done for me" sort of song is in my book perfectly acceptable technically, at least in certain settings, even if it only conveys the minimum of theology implied in that statement. But it still ought to convey some Truth, and I generally prefer that it provide at least opportunity for a meditation on that Truth for persons like myself who, for partially subjective reasons, do not necessarily appreciate emotionally charged worship as much anymore.

What Contemporary Worship Songs Do Do

Well, there is one thing that they definitely do do correctly. They get people involved in singing. And in large amounts they get people involved in singing the Truth, and to the Truth. They're catchy, and they're easy enough to sing that even the most horrid of voices can join with the angelic choirs. This in my mind does constitute a good place for grace to work. I should note that many of the worship songs I have heard, sung, and contemplated, from various settings of worship, didn't have any of the problems I've described in writing or in execution; while I am not sure where the majority lies, it does speak well of the liturgists and worship leaders I have experienced that the definite majority of these songs that I have experienced have been in writing and in execution theologically and pastorally sound. That is my subjective experience and it may not be the same as yours, but in this post I have highlighted some things I think could be done better in contemporary worship music; it was only fair, if not a demand of Christian charity, that I note my overwhelmingly positive personal experience.

In conclusion, I do not think that doing better would necessarily involve changing it to be totally not-what-it-is in any and all circumstances. I think rather that this would involve smoothing off theological and pastoral rough-edges, making sure that the message sent in lyric and music and presentation is sound. This obviously looks different depending on the exact Christian tradition, but I believe it to be a worthwhile project, and one that would lend a greater coherence and consistency to the church.

--------------------

* If a Protestant youth-group teenager finds himself at a Latin mass, or a Catholic youth-group leader usually adjusted to said Mass finds himself listening to youth guitar-and-drums worship on a Wednesday night, and they are distracted, it is not necessarily the choice of music or language that is here at fault. Obviously part of the responsibility is assigned to the worshiper to make necessary adjustments to an environment in which they choose to worship; that is, it is their responsibility to adjust to those elements which they find distracting. It is also their responsibility to make sure that if they are in more participation-based (youth group) or more contemplation-based settings (sung Latin mass, but that may be so to me mostly due to my not knowing Latin), that these settings will help them worship, rather than distract.

Three Positions on Salvation

First let me thank Victor Reppert for the excellent link to the first explanation of Exclusivism, Inclusivism and Pluralism, the one with the questions I've used here. I should also thank Ben Schwarting for being the guy who wrote those excellent questions.

Warning: this is a large post. Please don't let that turn you off from reading it, but don't necessarily expect to finish it in one sitting.

The explanation is here, and features several interesting questions for each viewpoint. An alternative explanation of the topics being discussed can be found at Theological Studies. Both pages discuss the three basic positions on salvation as they pertain to Christianity.

If you don't want to hit any of those links (I'd recommend at least the first one; the second gives a better sense of where and how the theological/philosophical currents run) here's the basic rundown:

Exclusivism in a particular religion is the position that said religion's truth is superior to that of all others, and must be arrived at explicitly in order for 'salvation' (I use the word that is prevalent in Christian circles, thus it is quotation-marked, in recognition of the fact that transcendence or the successful seeking of Ultimate Reality is not thought of as 'salvation' in all religions) to take place.

Inclusivism is the position that said religion's truth is superior to that of all others, but does not have to be accepted explicitly in order for 'salvation' to take place.

Pluralism is the position that said religion is but one of many paths that are equal, or roughly equal, in terms of potential for 'salvation' and the successful seeking of an Ultimate Reality.

So a Christian exclusivist and inclusivist both believe that Jesus is a necessity for salvation; they disagree as to the exact mode of reception required on the part of an individual. A Christian pluralist believes that Jesus is not actually a necessity for salvation. Obviously, the beliefs and sentiments of particular individuals are a tad too fluid to fit neatly into these three categories, but they are helpful in providing a basic characterization of a given individual or religious group's stances.

So I will now attempt to answer the questions found on the first link for each viewpoint. Note that these questions assume we are working theologically, within Christianity; therefore they are discussed, well, with respect to Christ!

Exclusivism
For several years of my life I was in this camp, and so I will probably be second-most-faithful in answering questions about exclusivism. I hope that A. Scott takes the opportunity to answer these questions as well, and possibly let me know if I have misrepresented the Calvinist viewpoint at any turn.

1) What about those who have not heard the gospel of Christ?

The book of Romans says that all persons are without excuse for failing to give glory to God (1:20-21) and in my understanding, in exclusivist circles the common interpretation of this passage is that the truths necessary for salvation have all been made available to all men; logically it seems that this must extend to, at the very least, the truth of a savior who died for one's sins. I had a conversation once with an exclusivist who stipulated that for someone who had not heard explicitly of Christ to be saved, they would have to know that someone had died for them. And he seemed to believe the truth was self-evident.

Following that, the best answer is that God's justice is above our own, God's ways above our own; therefore, even if the answer is “they are damned,” it is not for us to question; there is a higher justice at work that we do not know.

2) What about those who have wanted to believe, longed for faith, greatly sought after God, and yet have never received the light, inward peace, or assurance of forgiveness?

I find the qualifier of inward peace kind of odd for Christianity. However, the 'light'--which I assume means the ability to believe—does pose an interesting question. The best answer I can give is that they ought to believe to the best of their ability.

Now for circles where a conversion experience is considered essential for someone to be considered 'saved,' the picture gets a little more complicated. In Calvinism or other circles accepting foreordination, one might simply have to answer that the person is not among the elect. Though I stress that election and the predestinate are by no means concepts exclusive to Calvinism, this response does still bring with it all the problems associated with Calvinism. In Methodism or other circles accepting free will, the answer may be a similarly awkward "well, I guess you're not saved, then," and brings all the equivalent problems for free-will standpoints.

Note that I would hold that if one's particular brand of exclusivism does not hold to necessity of a conversion experience or 'enlightening' experience, one is free to believe that a will to believe can stand in for belief even when one's ability to maintain a faith is severely limited.

3) Does the doctrine that ‘salvation is only possible through Jesus Christ’ stay consistent with the belief that God wants all to be saved?

Yes, absolutely. There is nothing inconsistent about these two beliefs held concurrently. There's not much of an answer to this question except to say that I don't really see where the supposed inconsistency is. The Great Commission, which tells us to go out and “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:16-20, New American Bible, italics mine), seems the natural biblical countertext for such a claim of inconsistency.

4) Is it true that in the end times, God’s grace will triumph completely and all will come to a faith in Christ?

That's a good question, but I'm not sure if it's relevant to exclusivism alone. In terms of eschatology, especially if speaking as best I can on exclusivists' behalf, I am sort of forced to answer yes; it seems impossible for God to truly win in any manner even close to that described in the Revelation (yes, it's singular!), there's going to have to be a big reveal that Christ is truly God. This leaves us either to the askwardness of people coming to a knowledge of God when it is too late for them to be saved (a problem faced by most Christian soteriology, I would venture), or the awkwardness of having turned a faithful logical implication of Revelation into universal reconciliation. So this really creates problems for exclusivists and inclusivists alike.

5) Is it true that Christ must be acknowledged as Lord and Savior in this life, or otherwise those that don’t will be condemned to Hell? If yes, then how can you reconcile that with the biblical view of a God of love?

In traditional exclusivism, to say the least, it is my understanding that the answer for part (a) is yes. The answer for part (b) runs along the same lines as the answer to question 1, in particular the paragraph beginning with “Following that...”, with the addition that just as we do not know as well as God what justice means, we will not know as well as God what is meant by love.

Inclusivism
I will be able to answer these questions most effectively, as my current position is a somewhat exclusive inclusivism (though it is based in part on things not common to all exclusivists.)

1) What about those who do not cling to any faith? If they lead a good life, are they saved through the ‘unknown Christ’ as well?

See the answer to question two.

Regarding viewpoints not mine, I would find it difficult to conceive someone who I would not say is in any sense seeking the Ultimate Reality even though they are striving to live the 'good life.'

2) Where are the boundaries? What determines a religion that ‘saves’, and one which does not? Or should we just look at elements within each faith? If so, which elements?

For my personal view, these two questions are sort of the same, because I guess I don't place the definition of what it means to be an anonymous Christian on whether the person has been raised in the correct religion; rather I look at it in terms of the individual's faith. Have they accepted what of the truth has been revealed to them, or at least put themselves on the road to doing so? Are they truly seeking the truth, such that if missionaries (and I mean good missionaries, mind you) came, they would be open to the message? Leading a good life plays into things insofar as good works play into any Christian's salvation: they are to say the least a sign of the inner workings of the heart even from the perspective of faith alone; thus the individual in question might not lead a perfect life, and in certain respects (for not all the moral code of Christianity is equally intuitive) more excusable for a non-Christian than a Christian, much moreso a non-Christian who has not been exposed to the fullness of the Truth. So in my view, I suppose the thing depends primarily on openness to God. Now for those who "do not cling to any faith" as the question asks, it would work similarly, as a function of the openness of their hearts to God.

3) What is the importance of missionaries if people can be saved through other faiths?

The answer to this is twofold. First, the Great Commission commands that we make disciples of all nations. It seems to be a fairly clear commandment, and commandments from the Incarnate Logos are pretty hard to ignore. So that's the first response.

The second response comes from my personal reasoning on the matter. We have two options, A and B. (In both of these responses, since the question works on "if people can be saved through other faiths," I am assuming inclusivism.) In option A, Ted is saved in the afterlife because he meets whatever criterion he must meet under exclusivism, even though he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ. But his understanding of the truth, even his ability to live fully as intended by the Divine, is hindered in this life. In option B, Joe is saved in the afterlife because he meets explicit criterion that would satisfy even a staunch exclusivist (explicit acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.) But in this case Ted has access, at least more ready access if not more access, to the fullness of truth and the full experience of the Divine. In other words, it's a case of earthly searching (however joyful it might be) and heavenly salvation versus earthly salvation and heavenly salvation. What is the greatest good for Ted?

Of course it's option B! If we can bring him Jesus now, we ought to do so!

There also may be persons who might not meet the inclusivist criteria for salvation and have never heard of Jesus. The role of a missionary in their lives might be so vital as to be used by God to change a soul's course from the path to hell to the path to heaven, in whole or even in part. In other words, missionaries still fill a massive need with respect to those souls that may not have been ultra-inclined to seek the Divine in the first place.

The importance of missionaries is to take the commandment of the Great Commission seriously, and bring people to Jesus, whether that means bringing them to Jesus sooner or bringing them to Jesus period.

Pluralism

This is easily going to be the hardest one for me to cover, as it's not a perspective I've ever really held, at least not in full and for very long. I kind of wish I could be one at times; I feel like it would make religion easier to embrace, in a sense.

1) What about faiths which have no place for a god, such as Advaitin Hinduism, or Therevada Buddhism – how do they lead to God?

All religions reflect the same Ultimate Reality; they simply reflect it differently. So there's no real difficulty in saying a given religion 'leads to God' because it's a reflection thereof. Therefore even in non-theistic religions or religions not including a personal God, there are still ideals set forth and paths to follow that lead the person closer to the Divine ethically, and more in tune with the Divine as it is expressed in themselves and others.

2) Is it possible to find salvation through something which is not true, even though it seems to satisfy its followers?

On this earth, it's not necessarily possible to find salvation proper on this earth, through things that are not true--but from a pluralist perspective it's not that it isn't true; it's just one more subjective interpretation of the same truth, a great Ineffability that we do not in this life know directly--even though some religions interpret it personally and others impersonally, it is still the same reality interpreted. Therefore in a sense all religions become true and all also become false; they all reflect the Truth, but they all reflect it falsely. So it is possible to find salvation through something which is not true; else we've gone straight from universal reconciliation to universal damnation (which I, speaking in these parentheses as a non-pluralist, would be forced to admit isn't totally unjust!). But this seems to eliminate part of the point of pluralism, which is to reconcile God's desire for salvation for all with the fact of many different religions and cultures, and many different individuals who seem to have no real control over the early formations of their religious beliefs.

3) Is a pluralist a Christian, or just a God-believer?

It depends on how you define Christian. Here I am working, as I have implied, from John Hick's idea of pluralism, which advocates in a sense the idea that all religions are simply cultural reflections of the same Ulimate Reality. So pluralist definitely believes in God, or at least in some Ultimate Reality that humanity is striving for. But the pluralist also believes that in their search, they themselves must follow Jesus--that the path for Christians is to take up one's cross and follow. So I would say a pluralist can indeed be a Christian, but only if their understanding of their religion includes following Jesus. Note that I am not claiming a pluralist is an orthodox Christian; I don't really buy that so much. But I do think there's a sense in which they can still be following Jesus.

4) Does the bible have any relevance to a pluralist? Is biblical truth only relevant for those who believe in that faith, and other faiths have other truths?

Everyone's truth is relevant to everyone's faith--we need to look at all the ways in which the Ultimate Reality is interpreted throughout the world and come to the best possible conclusions as to what the truest reflection ultimately is. (Pun intended.) It seems as though the basic truths that can be gathered this way are ethical; but what to do when the ethics of one faith run up against the ethics of another? I suppose the only real answer is to talk it out and try and figure out what is in the best interest of service to the Ultimate Reality, and argue for one's own faith only when one truly believes is in this best interest.

Conclusion
Whoohoo. That was a monster of a post. I know it took me like, three weeks since I've told some of you, maybe more like a month and a half, but there it is. Three questionnaires about sin and salvation answered from the perspectives of three different approaches in soteriology, to the best of my ability. All three have varying sub-perspectives, and I'm inviting the other people who might read this to comment and offer some ideas about what perspectives they take on the issue of salvation; I'm particularly interested in seeing people who consider themselves to fall into one of these camps and take a perspective different from the one I assumed when working from these camps; I am especially interested in other inclusivists who do not take inclusivism to be the same that I take it.

A Funny Bit of Dialogue from Awhile Ago

Xeirxes: Hi.
KKairos: Hey. What is up.
Xeirxes: Not much, Went to church and had to work in the nursery :-\
KKairos: Heh. Mixed blessing it sounds like.
Xeirxes: Heh, I’m not complaining really. The kids are great.
KKairos: Ah. That's good.
Xeirxes: Plus, complaining is a sin :)
KKairos: They taught you that complaining is inherently sinful? Or just that it leads that direction. ?
Xeirxes: Well, complaining is sinful depending on the context of course. Complaining about your arm bleeding is probably a good thing.
KKairos: Heh.
Xeirxes: Complaining about how hard you think your work is just causes strife.
KKairos: True.
Xeirxes: Or, complaining about a person. Or a situation. It says in Phillipians, "do all things without grumbling."
KKairos: I would say venting about a person can be okay, but it has to be watched [b/c] it very easily turns to gossip. yeah
Xeirxes: True, I don't mind talking about a person's attitude too much, as long as it doesn't become gossip

Vows

As I turned 20 this year, I made vows to last the entire year. I also have created a new blog to journal my year with respect to the vows. Since it is related to theology, I thought that it would be a reasonable idea to link to it here.

Vows

Who Crucified Jesus?

The Scriptures tell us it was an easily swayed mob that called for Jesus to be crucified and Barabbas to be released. Not the Jews as a whole but rather those in position of power over them who led the drive for crucifixion. They could just as easily have been Americans swayed by powerful politicians. The mob, I might venture, was poor and working-class, whatever meaning working-class could have had in that day. The people in power were likely better off, and possibly even some of them rich. Who crucified Jesus? The rich and the poor, the blind and the seeing, the sheep and the goats. All of these. Even Peter, who in the Catholic Church is regarded as the first Pope, in a sense crucified Jesus by his vehement denial of Christ. In a theological sense it is taught, and I believe it proper to believe, that you and I share the responsibility for this Crucifixion. But what does that mean historically? Does it mean that had we been there we would have been among the ringleaders or the mob? Was there not one human being in all of the Roman Empire who knew of the Crucifixion and did not somehow consent? Or does it simply mean that by virtue of our sinful nature we contribute to the necessity of Christ's death and resurrection? Is there any other sense in which it is proper to say that we crucify Jesus?

The Central Doctrine

What is the central doctrine of Christianity?

Is it the Incarnation? Do we consider the Resurrection as a doctrine separate from the Incarnation event, the Christ-event as it were, and as such a separate choice as the central doctrine of Christianity? If so, are they equal or is one more important than the other? Is either of these more important than the doctrine that God created the world? Is the doctrine of Creation even really a valid choice here, given that it is hardly specific to Christianity?

I am tempted to say, if we take Christian-specific doctrines as the standard, that the central doctrine of Christianity would have to be the Incarnation of Christ. I'm still working on that, though; I haven't looked at much material on what the central doctrine is.

If I were worried merely about being funny and not about my orthodoxy I might even venture to say that the central doctrine of Christianity is "God wins." Thoughts?

One of those "Well, Duh" Sorts of Headlines, also:

Well, I'm not sure this needed a news story. Though I think it probably is newsworthy, it's not like you wouldn't expect this from the UCC. I'll be reading the letter at my leisure and commenting accordingly, but hopefully it's good stuff.

I'm also working on a 5-day cycle of reading the Book of James. It's quite interesting and it's going to make me look at my life in uncomfortable new ways. In fact, it already has. Like the fact that I still fail the part in James 1:19 about everyone being quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry.

KPCN01: KKairos Posts Christology Notes

This is a new thing. I'm not good enough at paying attention to homilies yet to summarize those. But I will be posting my Christology notes (when sufficiently entertaining) this semester. Today is easily one of those days. I will post in each segment a "page #" followed by stuff on that page. About 1/4 of my notes for the day (and I suspect will be in the future) was stuff I wrote that just paraphrased the stuff in the handed-out outline. Another 1/4 is my individual speculation on things. The last half or so is notes to and from another amateur theologian who is strong in the Catholic tradition and sits next to me. Enjoy. All errors in my notes are reproduced, unless they spell something I can't write on a blog. Some stuff is followed by discussion.

Page #3

So the consensus seems to be that what's being condemned by the text is "conservative inclusivism and what is advocated is more "liberal" inclusivism? [The author of the text seemed to be advocating a reverence of other religions and/or the truth thereof while maintaining the uniqueness of Christ.]

Undoing the inauthenticity of the Hist-Jesus Quest [I believe this was about alternative/not-in-power beliefs being ignored in the historical Jesus quest, but that may be fuzzy.]

Barth a Hist-Jesus person? Or a Kerygma, nothing-to-say-about-history person? Hmm. I am not so sure. [the theologians of the "no quest" historical Jesus period were later represented in a light which allows for more acceptance on their part of access to history of Jesus; in other words this was under the impression that Barth was a little more pessimistic about access to the historical Jesus than I had thought he was, which might be true or might not.]

"Any person who closes the issue...[it's] out of an insecurity." - [A classmate]
generally true, but not mathematically. I'm thinking too mathematically!

People don't generally wake up in the morning and say to themselves, "I'm going to support the dominant social structure and make a better effort to be an intentionally sexist person" But it does happen, less intentionally so, but it happens. [This was a response to talk about how you usually wind up supporting a power structure that supports you, even in scholarly work, and even if you don't intend to.]

Page #4

CALVINISM [this was a response to my fellow theologian's emphasis in a note to me that our professor had told us that we would be introduced to Edward Schillebeeckx "And you will come to love him." The underlining was done by my friend, not really in her voice.]

I'm starting to think the egalitarian-authoritarian-complementarian relationship in Christianity is more complex and nuanced than any one specific viewpoint in Christian theology will ever grasp.

Egal-Comp-auth refers to:
* relationship of authority/egalitarianism with respect to Jesus, heirarchy and laity; what does it mean to be "equals" in a faith community?
* proper relationship of complementarianism/egalitarianism in a marriage, also with respect to Jesus' authority over the marriage or whether either spouse has authority over and above the other

[For now I'll let these notes speak for themselves. Trying to go into it would be too much.]

Anglican womenpriests fleeing to Catholicism. [a note to my friend after the professor noted the author's contention that a pour-and-stir approach to things (in this case merely adding women to the hierarchy without making much other social change) was inadequate, thinking of the the recent articles featured on The Curt Jester weblog.]

Dangerous memory --> challenges to Status QUO [a note about the notion of Jesus and early Christianity as a dangerous memory that challenges social structures instead of supporting them.]

So The Way = a prophetic and Wisdom tradition, Jesus as First Among Equals [I won't go into all of this, except to say that I'm not sure I understand the JaFAE phrase and that I'm really not sure I'm correctly interpreting my professor's synopsis of the author's claims about the relation of Wisdom to the Jesus Movement in Judaism. That said, I'm still fairly confident in said interpretation.]

So there you have it. My first posting of theology notes. Enjoy.

Coming in 2008

In an effort to make sure I stay awake/aware at Sunday night mass I'll be doing a brief analysis of all the homilies I hear on Sunday night or the Monday morning after. I'll also be taking Suffering and Death and Christology as my theology courses, so there'll be some extra fun there. I'll let Xeirx add his piece as he sees fit.