Patristics and Succession

Looking at the patristic period of Christian history (c. 100-451), Christianity was far more theologically diverse than the Roman church gives it credit for. One of the Roman Church's arguments for its status as the true church is that the Roman Church is the development of the early periods of Christianity: it is most true to the early forms of Christianity. This assumes that there was a single type of Christianity which Rome adheres to and other denominations do not. However, there is no one theology of the patristic period. There were many, conflicting theologies. Different cities represented different schools of theology: the theologians from Alexandria are referred to as, surprise, Alexandrine theologians, and they are different from the theologians from Antioch, known as Antiochene theologians. Also, there were the theologians from North Africa, such as Tertullian and Augustine. The Roman Church may agree with some of these guys, but they cannot agree with them all. To give it credit, though, the Roman Church is probably the most diverse church, able to hold in unity the most disparate group of believers.

The Interpretation of Needs

"There is no difficulty in securing enough agreement for action on the point that education should serve the needs of the people. But all hinges on the interpretation of needs; if the primary need of man is to perfect his spiritual being and prepare for immortality, then education of the mind and the passions will take precedence over all else. The growth of materialism, however, has made this a consideration remote and even incomprehensible to the majority. Those who maintain that education should prepare one for living successfully in this world have won a practically complete victory...[Such an education] neither encourages reflection nor inspires a reverence for the good."
- Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1954), 49.

Freedom Old and New

Augustine makes a distinction between the freedom of the first man and the freedom of the last men, or as he puts it, the freedom of the first immortality and the freedom of the second immortality. The freedom of Adam was that he had the ability to not sin. The choice was his. The freedom of the resurrected is that they are unable to sin. In this way they are more like God, who also cannot sin. This inability is a gift from God and something for which we will be eternally thankful. The inability to sin must proceed from our hearts, which must then have no desire to sin. If the resurrected wanted to sin but were unable to, then their inability to sin would be bondage and not freedom. If Adam's freedom was less than the new freedom, then freedom is both doing what one wants and wanting the right things. Because Adam did not want the right thing, his freedom was less than the new man's. The freedom of the resurrected will be freedom from the battle of the soul which Paul talks about, freedom from wanting to please God but doing things that will displease him.

Every Sentence Shines

This is the great difference between some recent developments of Nonconformity and the great Puritanism of the seventeenth century. It was the whole point of the Puritans that they cared nothing for decency. Modern Nonconformist newspapers distinguish themselves by suppressing precisely those nouns and adjectives which the founders of Nonconformity distinguished themselves by flinging at kings and queens.

- Chapter 2 in Chesterton, Heretics

Christmas Songs

Click here for some of the finest renditions of two Christmas classics that you'll ever hear.

Also, I highly recommend the Sacred Sandwich, which is like Lark News but from a bunch of Baptists.

I Almost Cried

Superman Returns contains one of the most racking scenes that I have seen in a while. The movie portrays Superman as strong. While one might expect this from a Superman movie, I have heard that media often portrays Superman as comparatively wimpy. In the beginning of the movie, Superman crashes into the earth from space. Soon after his return, Superman gently lays a crashing Boeing 747 on a baseball field. Later Superman takes a complete round of a chain gun to the chest, grabs a giant, iron advertisement in the air in mid-fall, and lifts a huge boat out of the water, holding it in the air with one hand as he saves Lois and Richard with the other. He is strong. But when he lands on Lex Luthor's kryptonite laced island things change. Lex punches Superman down a staircase. He kicks him around, and then one of Lex's thugs fish hooks Superman under the chin and drags him through the puddles and across the rocks. The three thugs start to beat him heavily, kicking him in the chest and drowning him in puddles. Seeing Superman try to crawl away, then collapse, moan and cry out in pain hurts.

I have read a number of comments on the Christological imagery of the movie. A heavenly being sends down his only son to help men. Jor-El mentions that men are capable of good, but that they need a light for their feet and a lamp for their path. After Lex and his cronies thrash Superman Jor-El says that men are corrupt and have evil hearts but there is still hope for them. The scene of Superman's suffering presents some of the most visceral imagery, and it is reminiscent of the Passion scene in which the Roman soldiers flog Christ (I say scene because I'm comparing movie with movie). There are differences of course: Superman is not almighty; Christ suffered willingly. The Superman scene illustrates the Passion scene in that the contrast between Superman's strength and his weakness is so obvious and so humiliating to us, whereas Christ's strength is not as obvious. As Flannery O'Connor said, when saying something to deaf men you have to speak very loudly. Michael Collender at St. Anne's Pub remarks, however, that all in all Superman was irresponsible with its imagery. I'll let you listen to that on your own.

Procrastination

I am in the Vaughan Memorial library. I've wasted most of the day on pleasant diversions. When I got to school I spent several hours in the Div school study room and talked with fellow students. Wasted time is a bit harsh. It was quite fun. Here in the library I stopped looking for books and just looked around. This is the first time that I've looked around this library. I am sitting on the third floor, looking down on the second. The library is on a hill, so the first and the second floor are on ground level. What look like cow skulls line the wall across from me. The lights cast shadows on the ceiling, which looks like it's made up of aluminum tiles with ventilating holes. The tiles look like army camouflage pants only a lighter green. A purple banner hangs from the ceiling and reads in big white letters "Quiet Study Area." Coughs and the tapping of keys reverberate off the walls, disobeying the sign. Textbook pages are turning, as students study for exams. It is exam week. A guy and a girl just told the girl sitting in front of me that her exam is tomorrow, not Wednesday, and she got so frustrated. She cursed herself, defamed herself, bit, chewed, and tore herself. Her friends felt awkward, almost like it would have been better if they hadn't told her. Below me are the literature books, and far down the stacks of books, on the wall above them, hangs a large painting. Someone has dug a road through a wood. The road is unpaved and about the size for a car to drive on. The sun in shining golden off the upper part of the far window sill and reflecting on the wooden panelled wall. I am scared that I'll miss Jason if I wait any longer, so I have to go now.

Fiction as truth

Some people don't like fiction.  I don't understand it, but there it is.  Something to do with "waste of time."  However, there are few things as profitable as reading a good story.  Through stories hidden things are revealed; we see, whereas before our eyes were covered.  A good story teaches, through characters that do not exist, some truth, either a new truth or one that we already knew but needed to see afresh.

Once there was a great man who committed adultery with a gorgeous woman, and subsequently had her husband killed to hide his deed. Then a storyteller, knowing about this deed and wanting to reveal it to him, came up to the man and told him the following story.  There was a poor man with one lamb, and he loved the lamb dearly.  He cared for it, fed it, and it was his joy and delight.  Then a rich ruler, who had many lambs of his own, took the beloved lamb from the poor man to use at a feast for his guests, leaving the poor man desolate.  The great man fomented at this story, and exclaimed that the ruler ought to pay four lambs for the lamb that he took.  The storyteller, realizing that the great man was a bit obtuse and needed more prodding, said, That ruler is you.  And the great man, seeing what he had done, wept.