Out with the old, in with the new. Today is St. Andrew's Day, and I therefore decided that my Advent Fast would begin today. This was decided as I was staring at sausage pizza.
The beginning of the liturgical year also is an opportunity to clean up a few matters in the sidebar.
First, Kinesis is no more. Rev. Deacon Karen wisely decided to scatter her blog to the winds before entering her first call.
I now have the correct address of Dean Kniseley's fine Entangled States. It is a good mixture of science and sermons.
A couple of new blogs enter the fray. One comes from an Anglo-Catholic priest, who claims his parish is the most traditional and orthodox parish in the Diocese of Los Angeles. But they're staying! Yay! The hike to the OC would be a bit much, but I do like Father David's blog, and I think most of you would, too. He apparently also shares one of my hobbies, writing science fiction. I had been meaning to mention the blog for a while now, but I was spurred to action by a kind promotional e-mail in my Inbox from one of Father David's parishioners.
The other is Father Tony Clavier's self-titled blog, though I think "West Virginia Parson" is a much better title. Father Clavier is fighting cancer while having some quite interesting (and convicting) thoughts about mission and the Episcopal Church. I am still working on a response to his thoughts on Anglicanism.
All right, that's it. Go read the Postulant or something. But if you do read the Postulant's entry about a Network bishop etc. etc., please know that the rumor in question is a very old one and is related to his quite enthusiastic support of a "discreet" ex-gay ministry in his cathedral city and his unmarried state. Please... Hasn't anyone ever heard of the eunouchion pneumatike ?
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Friday, November 24, 2006
Father Clavier Discusses Anglicanism
Link to the original post , and I'll respond item by item.
1. Let us not forget from where our tradition of local expression, territorial basis, and community commitment comes. Someone, perhaps Thomas Cromwell, had the bright idea during the presenting dispute of the Henrician Reformation that there was just something about being emperor. It was not a particularly illogical idea. The Pantheon in Rome was not converted to Christian worship until the early 7th century, because temples were regarded as property of the Emperor, and it was not until the 7th century that the Popes felt sufficiently independent of the Emperor to subvert his jurisdiction. In Cromwell's time, Henry's nephew-in-law was the Emperor and was using his imperium in the form of an army to compel a decision in favor of the legitimacy of his aunt's marriage. If Henry became emperor in England, Ireland, Scotland, and France, the latter two realms being conceits of his, Cromwell theorized that Henry by virtue of his crown imperial (can you tell that I'm listening to Sir William Walton at the moment?) would have similar jurisdiction as the "Roman" Emperor over spiritual matters. (It's entirely possible that this theory pre-dates Cromwell, considering that Henry was anointed like a bishop at his Coronation contrary to papal legislation), and the Coronation crown was referred to as "Imperiall.") But the Act in Restraint of Appeals (1533) leaves no doubt as to a fundamental belief that England was an Empire and therefore entitled to a certain parallelism between temporal and spiritual jurisdiction,
The founding values of popular sovereignty and religious disestablishment (less ubiquitous but of the same antiquity) likewise have shaped American Episcopalians, in theology, outlook, and polity. The reconciliation of the schism over Secession would not have been so easy without the instinct to do things spiritually as it were temporally, asking only for conformity and accession to the equivalent to Constitution and Laws of the church. If Lincoln had evaded his assassin, the civil arrangements might have been nearly as amicable. As beautiful as the 1865 General Convention sounds, one only needs to read Dubois's The Souls of Black Folk and the records of South Carolina's wartime Diocesan Conventions to realize that brotherly reconciliation should have been mixed with some frank discussions. The same sins of the polity with respect to racism were visited on the church, time and time again.
It goes without saying that the influence of Anglicanism in many parts of the world including the United States can be traced to the strong association of the Church of England's missionary work with British colonization.
But there is something more to the local adaptation of Anglicanism than the spectre of Erastianism. For instance, wherefore the Episcopal Church of Scotland? The existence of such a church should have ceased after 1689 if Anglicanism simply was locally adapted to the temporalities. Anglicanism also bears the character of catholic Intramontanism. While the Pope was resisted by Henry, because Henry considered himself Supreme Head, his bishops generally held a limited view of papal power, something that surely would apply to the Ecumenical Patriarch or the Pope of Alexandria: the Church Catholic decentralized but united somehow. And it is in this odd, much-controverted, and wholly unresolved quality of "catholicity" that allows the Episcopal Church of Scotland to exist among Established Presbyterianism or the head of the Anglican Center at Rome to confirm or receive native Italians. And indeed the latter is so odd that some sort of Anglican distinctiveness must be invoked or else it must be asserted that Anglican adaptation is not merely local or territorial but catholic in the looser sense that is not solely credal or conciliar or episcopolitical or sacramental etc. but one that embraces the fullness of affairs in the name and in service of Christ as present locally. Many Anglicans don't seem to want that.
But Father Clavier is right to point out Anglicanism is not a sect etc. The definition of a sect really must be the assertion of nulla salus extra nos as opposed to nulla salus extra ecclesiam or nulla salus extra Christum. There is salvation outside of Anglicanism.
2. "It follows that we do not own our ecclesial reality..." Indeed, the Body of Christ is wider than Anglicans. Moreover, we do not construct an ecclesial reality owned only by us. Anglicans generally recognize the orders of some non-Anglicans, though limits vary. But what is important is that our concerns about the orders of others stem from concerns about apostolic succession and sacramental character and not truth games of about such things that really boil down to issues of authority. I fear that Rome's greatest objection to our scattered reception of women being valid matter for Holy Orders has little to do with the nature of the controversy (which often brings both sides close to heresy) but they really do believe our orders are valid, fear they might be wrong about women's ordination, and fear that those with certain spiritual gifts might realize this, thus weakening their authority.
"Neither our claims to be the Church, our formularies (doctrine, discipline and worship), nor our sacramental rites and ceremonies are self-generated: we didn't invent them."
And if there should be sort of re-alignment in Anglicanism, it would behoove liberals to consider these words carefully. And I would further warn that our reception process should be critical.
"Anglicanism rejects the sectarian ideal that churches are for like-minded 'saints' who agree about each others' virtue, or election, or enlightenment, or on an agenda other than the Catholic Faith as described in the Liturgy and other documents, and in the living voice of scripture, the living experience of the Tradition and the living application of sanctified reason."
It is this demand that Scripture, Tradition, and Reason be alive that is particularly interesting. Whenever someone asserts something other than a view of Scripture enthroned among the cherubim on the grounds of a trilateral or quadrilateral understanding, the common rhetorical tack becomes that Hooker or Wesley (or whoever) intended Scripture to be the final and unquestioned authority, no matter what. Let us be clear. The obsession with authorial intent is a fully modern concept, which if explained in its full sense and implications likely would dismay many of our fathers and mothers in the faith. It is closely akin to taking everything in its plain and grammatical sense as understood by English Protestants and believing that absolution by the Pope from reading something otherwise was still utterly damnable.
3. This item is a fun item. Father Clavier describes the just society grounded in Christian truth and Jesus' sovereignty. Ruth Gledhill has a story in the Times of London today about a study showing that the most irreligious democracies (i.e., those most fallen from Christian practice) have lower abortion and teen pregnancy rates, lower sexually transmitted disease rates, lower rates of juvenile and young adult mortality (like this week...), and lower homicide rates than the "religious" democracy, i.e., the US. Mayhap, it sounds that those in power honor the words of the Gospel but do not respect its power. The irreligious democracies, however, have lower birthrates...
But these points are not exactly germane, because the Lord instructs us that it will always be a losing battle. The Empire always strikes back, even if it means that the Christians become the Empire. The world will end in a big fiery cock-up, no matter what we do. I do not say this as a encouragement to inaction but because I fear what would happen if the religious left ever became the kind of political force the religious right is. The lust for mastery consumes us all. Father Clavier reminds us that Christians are the Disloyal Opposition to the Powers That Be and Emissaries of the Servant Emperor. Most Anglicans really feel drawn toward one role rather than the other. The Episcopal Church is leaning toward Disloyal Opposition, while its discontents yell that we aren't being Emissaries. The balance is slightly better in Africa, where even the Church of Nigeria's Pastoral Letters have fairly equal measures Great Commandment and Great Commission. But we're in a bad state when conservatives demean "Reign of God" as a liberal buzzword in the Presiding Bishop's correspondence to the Primate of All Nigeria.
Anglicanism as a whole might be better off reflecting how the Gospel might come with the Holy Spirit and with power in a world facing a variety of problems that will require greater cooperation among many kingdoms, peoples, and nation, not as something confused with particular national identities. We are the salt of the Earth, not the food, the leaven, not the bread. The Body of Christ is a network for good and for God. Too bad about those bonds of affection, no?
4. The Church Year is a discipline. It's a discipline we share with much of the rest of the Body. However, I do understand that is not shared with everyone. Easter and Christmas are universal (though strict Calvinists might not celebrate the latter), but the idea of season and of commemorations still strikes many originally non-Anglican evangelicals oddly in their bones.
5. One of the major tests facing Anglicanism is how corporate is corporate and to whom are we really accountable. Is it the local parish? Is it the clergy who set the corporate bar? Is it the lay leadership? Is it the diocese? The Province? The Primates? Lambeth? Father Clavier perhaps takes the approach I would take, in which the rule of belief is founded on the liturgy. It is an idea that Anglicans intuit fairly easily. But as Father AKMA points out, the divergent eucharistic liturgy of the Church is making the corporate level increasingly congregational. And Father AKMA is merely assuming that the authorized liturgies are followed. What happens when the General Confession and the Nicene Creed are no longer heard? The best question being asked by the re-asserters is "How much must 'my orthodoxy' be purged in order to fit into the corporate liturgical life of the Church?" It's not as shaggy a dog as they make it sound. Will the new arrangements of the Network mean the 1662 BCP? Will you purge those who believe in Real Presence thereby?
6. This item seems to relate the foundation of corporate practice on the Scriptures with the Triunity of God. I would add to this item that Anglicanism is really built on a careful tension between three Books: the Book of Life, the Holy Scriptures, and the Book of Nature (in that order, too). This is a concern of both Hooker and Donne, but it's not one that is really getting too much attention these days. I would argue that the natural sciences have a special status as a mediator of ecclesial discernment within our tradition, though not to the subjection of the Scriptures. This is why I have spent the last few years trying (and failing) to cultivate that sanctified mind of which Father Clavier speaks. "Caeli ennarrant..."
7. I'm not really sure what some of this item means. The basic model of Anglican clergy training is to ground the postulant for orders in the liberal arts and then treat divinity as a higher science requiring the skills developed within the septivium, but which is ideally done in combination with pastoral training. There was always a bit of tension between the Universities and the facere of the Church with this one. But I always appreciated how so many of the great bishops of the early American church received their training like apprentices with a master workman. Bishop White trained Muhlenberg and others in this way. It very much agrees with St. Hilda of Whitby's approach to theological education with its emphasis on a balance between study and pastoral work or with Benedictine ideas about balance. It also was a training in prayer as well. Muhlenberg began his training by saying Morning and Evening Prayer in St. Peter's Church. Later, he was allowed to preach under the old man's supervision. Yet he also followed White all over the place, shadowing him like an intern or a resident. Perhaps, clergy training needs to return to this model, which really did tend toward an Apostolic College. See my past comments about apostolic succession being more than laying on of hands.
8. We're still fairly new at the canonization game yet... But our tendency to speak of the laity as a particular order (rather than a general order) of ministry is suggestive of something. The fact that I can consider being a layman as my vocation for now, and the tradition of being "a churchman" is also suggestive. Is this pan-Anglican? Oh, wait, the Mother's Union is a byword in Africa...
9. This item is troublesome territory, because churches that are inclusive of the community they serve will be inward-looking. It's hard to maintain a catholic church this way. Only by citing Dominical authority does Father Clavier provide any way forward. He really should clarify what kind of inclusion he thinks the Reformers were performing, though I suspect he means something about making the Bible and the liturgy more accessible to the masses, which is now uncontroversially the kind of reform with which the Lord would agree, "The word is very near to you..." suffuses the readings for the Feast of St. Andrew. But the disagreements that consume the community presently concern the will of the Lord. My radical priests believe they have Dominical authority on their side and probably could quote copious Scripture on that score if forced to it. What keeps Anglicanism vital is the ability to listen and the ability to critique and be critiqued, to be drawn by one another toward Dominical authority. That is the only way to build an inclusive community under "the servant Emperor." A community of like-minded "right-thinking" people does not listen to dissent and does not know how to critique it, nor to accept critique.
Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that you may not stay up all night musing about divinity because that just makes it ever so much harder to awake for Lauds
1. Let us not forget from where our tradition of local expression, territorial basis, and community commitment comes. Someone, perhaps Thomas Cromwell, had the bright idea during the presenting dispute of the Henrician Reformation that there was just something about being emperor. It was not a particularly illogical idea. The Pantheon in Rome was not converted to Christian worship until the early 7th century, because temples were regarded as property of the Emperor, and it was not until the 7th century that the Popes felt sufficiently independent of the Emperor to subvert his jurisdiction. In Cromwell's time, Henry's nephew-in-law was the Emperor and was using his imperium in the form of an army to compel a decision in favor of the legitimacy of his aunt's marriage. If Henry became emperor in England, Ireland, Scotland, and France, the latter two realms being conceits of his, Cromwell theorized that Henry by virtue of his crown imperial (can you tell that I'm listening to Sir William Walton at the moment?) would have similar jurisdiction as the "Roman" Emperor over spiritual matters. (It's entirely possible that this theory pre-dates Cromwell, considering that Henry was anointed like a bishop at his Coronation contrary to papal legislation), and the Coronation crown was referred to as "Imperiall.") But the Act in Restraint of Appeals (1533) leaves no doubt as to a fundamental belief that England was an Empire and therefore entitled to a certain parallelism between temporal and spiritual jurisdiction,
"This realm of England is an Empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one Supreme Head and King having the dignity and royal estate of the imperial Crown of the same."
The founding values of popular sovereignty and religious disestablishment (less ubiquitous but of the same antiquity) likewise have shaped American Episcopalians, in theology, outlook, and polity. The reconciliation of the schism over Secession would not have been so easy without the instinct to do things spiritually as it were temporally, asking only for conformity and accession to the equivalent to Constitution and Laws of the church. If Lincoln had evaded his assassin, the civil arrangements might have been nearly as amicable. As beautiful as the 1865 General Convention sounds, one only needs to read Dubois's The Souls of Black Folk and the records of South Carolina's wartime Diocesan Conventions to realize that brotherly reconciliation should have been mixed with some frank discussions. The same sins of the polity with respect to racism were visited on the church, time and time again.
It goes without saying that the influence of Anglicanism in many parts of the world including the United States can be traced to the strong association of the Church of England's missionary work with British colonization.
But there is something more to the local adaptation of Anglicanism than the spectre of Erastianism. For instance, wherefore the Episcopal Church of Scotland? The existence of such a church should have ceased after 1689 if Anglicanism simply was locally adapted to the temporalities. Anglicanism also bears the character of catholic Intramontanism. While the Pope was resisted by Henry, because Henry considered himself Supreme Head, his bishops generally held a limited view of papal power, something that surely would apply to the Ecumenical Patriarch or the Pope of Alexandria: the Church Catholic decentralized but united somehow. And it is in this odd, much-controverted, and wholly unresolved quality of "catholicity" that allows the Episcopal Church of Scotland to exist among Established Presbyterianism or the head of the Anglican Center at Rome to confirm or receive native Italians. And indeed the latter is so odd that some sort of Anglican distinctiveness must be invoked or else it must be asserted that Anglican adaptation is not merely local or territorial but catholic in the looser sense that is not solely credal or conciliar or episcopolitical or sacramental etc. but one that embraces the fullness of affairs in the name and in service of Christ as present locally. Many Anglicans don't seem to want that.
But Father Clavier is right to point out Anglicanism is not a sect etc. The definition of a sect really must be the assertion of nulla salus extra nos as opposed to nulla salus extra ecclesiam or nulla salus extra Christum. There is salvation outside of Anglicanism.
2. "It follows that we do not own our ecclesial reality..." Indeed, the Body of Christ is wider than Anglicans. Moreover, we do not construct an ecclesial reality owned only by us. Anglicans generally recognize the orders of some non-Anglicans, though limits vary. But what is important is that our concerns about the orders of others stem from concerns about apostolic succession and sacramental character and not truth games of about such things that really boil down to issues of authority. I fear that Rome's greatest objection to our scattered reception of women being valid matter for Holy Orders has little to do with the nature of the controversy (which often brings both sides close to heresy) but they really do believe our orders are valid, fear they might be wrong about women's ordination, and fear that those with certain spiritual gifts might realize this, thus weakening their authority.
"Neither our claims to be the Church, our formularies (doctrine, discipline and worship), nor our sacramental rites and ceremonies are self-generated: we didn't invent them."
And if there should be sort of re-alignment in Anglicanism, it would behoove liberals to consider these words carefully. And I would further warn that our reception process should be critical.
"Anglicanism rejects the sectarian ideal that churches are for like-minded 'saints' who agree about each others' virtue, or election, or enlightenment, or on an agenda other than the Catholic Faith as described in the Liturgy and other documents, and in the living voice of scripture, the living experience of the Tradition and the living application of sanctified reason."
It is this demand that Scripture, Tradition, and Reason be alive that is particularly interesting. Whenever someone asserts something other than a view of Scripture enthroned among the cherubim on the grounds of a trilateral or quadrilateral understanding, the common rhetorical tack becomes that Hooker or Wesley (or whoever) intended Scripture to be the final and unquestioned authority, no matter what. Let us be clear. The obsession with authorial intent is a fully modern concept, which if explained in its full sense and implications likely would dismay many of our fathers and mothers in the faith. It is closely akin to taking everything in its plain and grammatical sense as understood by English Protestants and believing that absolution by the Pope from reading something otherwise was still utterly damnable.
3. This item is a fun item. Father Clavier describes the just society grounded in Christian truth and Jesus' sovereignty. Ruth Gledhill has a story in the Times of London today about a study showing that the most irreligious democracies (i.e., those most fallen from Christian practice) have lower abortion and teen pregnancy rates, lower sexually transmitted disease rates, lower rates of juvenile and young adult mortality (like this week...), and lower homicide rates than the "religious" democracy, i.e., the US. Mayhap, it sounds that those in power honor the words of the Gospel but do not respect its power. The irreligious democracies, however, have lower birthrates...
But these points are not exactly germane, because the Lord instructs us that it will always be a losing battle. The Empire always strikes back, even if it means that the Christians become the Empire. The world will end in a big fiery cock-up, no matter what we do. I do not say this as a encouragement to inaction but because I fear what would happen if the religious left ever became the kind of political force the religious right is. The lust for mastery consumes us all. Father Clavier reminds us that Christians are the Disloyal Opposition to the Powers That Be and Emissaries of the Servant Emperor. Most Anglicans really feel drawn toward one role rather than the other. The Episcopal Church is leaning toward Disloyal Opposition, while its discontents yell that we aren't being Emissaries. The balance is slightly better in Africa, where even the Church of Nigeria's Pastoral Letters have fairly equal measures Great Commandment and Great Commission. But we're in a bad state when conservatives demean "Reign of God" as a liberal buzzword in the Presiding Bishop's correspondence to the Primate of All Nigeria.
Anglicanism as a whole might be better off reflecting how the Gospel might come with the Holy Spirit and with power in a world facing a variety of problems that will require greater cooperation among many kingdoms, peoples, and nation, not as something confused with particular national identities. We are the salt of the Earth, not the food, the leaven, not the bread. The Body of Christ is a network for good and for God. Too bad about those bonds of affection, no?
4. The Church Year is a discipline. It's a discipline we share with much of the rest of the Body. However, I do understand that is not shared with everyone. Easter and Christmas are universal (though strict Calvinists might not celebrate the latter), but the idea of season and of commemorations still strikes many originally non-Anglican evangelicals oddly in their bones.
5. One of the major tests facing Anglicanism is how corporate is corporate and to whom are we really accountable. Is it the local parish? Is it the clergy who set the corporate bar? Is it the lay leadership? Is it the diocese? The Province? The Primates? Lambeth? Father Clavier perhaps takes the approach I would take, in which the rule of belief is founded on the liturgy. It is an idea that Anglicans intuit fairly easily. But as Father AKMA points out, the divergent eucharistic liturgy of the Church is making the corporate level increasingly congregational. And Father AKMA is merely assuming that the authorized liturgies are followed. What happens when the General Confession and the Nicene Creed are no longer heard? The best question being asked by the re-asserters is "How much must 'my orthodoxy' be purged in order to fit into the corporate liturgical life of the Church?" It's not as shaggy a dog as they make it sound. Will the new arrangements of the Network mean the 1662 BCP? Will you purge those who believe in Real Presence thereby?
6. This item seems to relate the foundation of corporate practice on the Scriptures with the Triunity of God. I would add to this item that Anglicanism is really built on a careful tension between three Books: the Book of Life, the Holy Scriptures, and the Book of Nature (in that order, too). This is a concern of both Hooker and Donne, but it's not one that is really getting too much attention these days. I would argue that the natural sciences have a special status as a mediator of ecclesial discernment within our tradition, though not to the subjection of the Scriptures. This is why I have spent the last few years trying (and failing) to cultivate that sanctified mind of which Father Clavier speaks. "Caeli ennarrant..."
7. I'm not really sure what some of this item means. The basic model of Anglican clergy training is to ground the postulant for orders in the liberal arts and then treat divinity as a higher science requiring the skills developed within the septivium, but which is ideally done in combination with pastoral training. There was always a bit of tension between the Universities and the facere of the Church with this one. But I always appreciated how so many of the great bishops of the early American church received their training like apprentices with a master workman. Bishop White trained Muhlenberg and others in this way. It very much agrees with St. Hilda of Whitby's approach to theological education with its emphasis on a balance between study and pastoral work or with Benedictine ideas about balance. It also was a training in prayer as well. Muhlenberg began his training by saying Morning and Evening Prayer in St. Peter's Church. Later, he was allowed to preach under the old man's supervision. Yet he also followed White all over the place, shadowing him like an intern or a resident. Perhaps, clergy training needs to return to this model, which really did tend toward an Apostolic College. See my past comments about apostolic succession being more than laying on of hands.
8. We're still fairly new at the canonization game yet... But our tendency to speak of the laity as a particular order (rather than a general order) of ministry is suggestive of something. The fact that I can consider being a layman as my vocation for now, and the tradition of being "a churchman" is also suggestive. Is this pan-Anglican? Oh, wait, the Mother's Union is a byword in Africa...
9. This item is troublesome territory, because churches that are inclusive of the community they serve will be inward-looking. It's hard to maintain a catholic church this way. Only by citing Dominical authority does Father Clavier provide any way forward. He really should clarify what kind of inclusion he thinks the Reformers were performing, though I suspect he means something about making the Bible and the liturgy more accessible to the masses, which is now uncontroversially the kind of reform with which the Lord would agree, "The word is very near to you..." suffuses the readings for the Feast of St. Andrew. But the disagreements that consume the community presently concern the will of the Lord. My radical priests believe they have Dominical authority on their side and probably could quote copious Scripture on that score if forced to it. What keeps Anglicanism vital is the ability to listen and the ability to critique and be critiqued, to be drawn by one another toward Dominical authority. That is the only way to build an inclusive community under "the servant Emperor." A community of like-minded "right-thinking" people does not listen to dissent and does not know how to critique it, nor to accept critique.
Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that you may not stay up all night musing about divinity because that just makes it ever so much harder to awake for Lauds
Correction
Upon further review, MadPriest dislikes evangelicals because in his experience, they coddle the well-off, corrupt youth, and don't pay their diocesan assessments. His objection to the CUs is thus founded on the corrupting the youth bit. This must be a UK thing. Most of the evangelicals I know were "corrupted" long before college.
Events Across the Pond
MadPriest is on the warpath against Evangelicals, and frankly, he's becoming rather nasty about it. The casus Insanisacerdotalis indignantiae is the dispute in England and Scotland about university Student Unions disaffiliating Christian Unions (CUs), organizations nationally associated with the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF) on the grounds that their by-laws discriminate against non-Christians and "active" homosexuals (note that I did not use "non-celibate," "partnered" etc., because I am not clear whether the CUs are merely opposed to homosexual intimacy and intercourse or self-identification).
Five issues seem to have become entrained together by the intense convection of this dispute.
1. Whether there should be criteria for membership or leadership in a particular organization besides that they be registered students in good standing of the University. (My alma mater actually forbids student organizations to have such criteria in their by-laws with respect to membership, but not leadership if I remember correctly.)
2. Whether Christian organizations on a campus should be permitted to discuss controversial aspects of Christianity and teach with authority on the matter.
3. Since universities in the UK are generally publicly funded, there is some concern that the by-laws of the Christian Unions violate non-discrimination laws of some sort.
4. Some Christians seem incensed about the Doctrinal Statement that must be affirmed upon membership:
The main stumbling block (my own, too) is the assertion of the infallibility of Scripture, which is a novelty introduced by the Westminster Confession of Faith. There also might be objections to Word being capitalized in the same clause, but I note that though the Articles of Religion assert Jesus Christ to be the Word of God (lit. the Word of the Father), the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral assert that the Holy Scriptures are (apparently adopting another Westminster novelty). Thus, I would agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God, provided that this is meant in some different and lower sense than Jesus Christ being the Word of God. Otherwise, the statement appears to agree with the Articles and the catholic Creeds.
5. Campus Muslim organizations are discriminatory, too. Some have asked why they get a free pass from the SUs.
-------------------------------------------
Having recently been graduated from a university with student organizations occupying political positions in a spectrum from revolutionary Catholic monarchism to revolutionary international socialism and religious organizations just as varied, I will be the first to say that a campus with a wide diversity of ideas and opinions is far more educational and fun than one in which uniformity of thought is encouraged. Once you decide that universities ought to be fair marketplaces of ideas, which is the cornerstone of academic freedom, delisting student organizations with unpopular positions is no more justified than firing professors with unpopular research. At my present institution, a controversial professor with tenure was sacked sneakily. That sneaky trick has hamstrung the institution's work in his field to the present day. But perhaps you can endure a Holocaust denier in the Political Science Department (you would hope there would be grounds for removal for misconduct in such a case), but you could not endure a student organization that promoted Holocaust denial. Well then, bring back in loco parentis . You only can make a distinction between student and professorial liberty on grounds of order or parental supervision.
But the major problem seems to arise from the public funding issue. Should the UK Government be involved with funding organizations that hold to a Cliffs' Notes version of the Westminster Confession of Faith and have discriminatory leadership requirements. In the United States, the answer would be simple. No public funding for the Christian organizations of any kind, no funding for the Muslim organizations either. In the United Kingdom, the situation becomes far more complicated, since the government funds educational foundations of the non-Established Churches (funding Catholic Schools in Scotlnd, for instance). For a Student Union to claim that the Christian Union cannot be supported on account of non-discrimination legislation is suspect in England and farcical in Scotland, where the Kirk is Established and the Catholic schools are regulated in such a way to ensure their Romanity. The Student Unions would be far better off waiting for the more obvious constitutional issues of the church-state conflict before going off on their own.
MadPriest's ire really seems to be focused on the opposition of the CUs to homosexual intimacy (see "I would like to marry gay people."). I share with him the sentiment but not the ire. Punishing or slandering someone solely or principally on account of their objections to homosexual intimacy is merely reciprocation. Mix that with the lust for mastery and you become the Empire ( qua idea) in the present age. The situation would be much different if the CUs were going seeking to replace the SUs so that organizations would be funded only if they subscribed to the Cliffs' notes version of the Westminster Confession.
Five issues seem to have become entrained together by the intense convection of this dispute.
1. Whether there should be criteria for membership or leadership in a particular organization besides that they be registered students in good standing of the University. (My alma mater actually forbids student organizations to have such criteria in their by-laws with respect to membership, but not leadership if I remember correctly.)
2. Whether Christian organizations on a campus should be permitted to discuss controversial aspects of Christianity and teach with authority on the matter.
3. Since universities in the UK are generally publicly funded, there is some concern that the by-laws of the Christian Unions violate non-discrimination laws of some sort.
4. Some Christians seem incensed about the Doctrinal Statement that must be affirmed upon membership:
( Courtesy of the University of York Christian Union ).
There is one God in three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
God is sovereign in creation, revelation, redemption and final judgement.
The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired and infallible Word of God. It is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behaviour.
Since the fall, the whole of humankind is sinful and guilty, so that everyone is subject to God's wrath and condemnation.
The Lord Jesus Christ, God's incarnate Son, is fully God; he was born of a virgin; his humanity is real and sinless; he died on the cross, was raised bodily from death and is now reigning over heaven and earth.
Sinful human beings are redeemed from the guilt, penalty and power of sin only through the sacrificial death once and for all time of their representative and substitute, Jesus Christ, the only mediator between them and God.
Those who believe in Christ are pardoned all their sins and accepted in God's sight only because of the righteousness of Christ credited to them; this justification is God's act of undeserved mercy, received solely by trust in him and not by their own efforts.
The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners, enabling them to turn to God from their sin and to trust in Jesus Christ.
The Holy Spirit lives in all those he has regenerated. He makes them increasingly Christlike in character and behaviour and gives them power for their witness in the world.
The one holy universal church is the Body of Christ, to which all true believers belong.
The Lord Jesus Christ will return in person, to judge everyone, to execute God's just condemnation on those who have not repented and to receive the redeemed to eternal glory.
The main stumbling block (my own, too) is the assertion of the infallibility of Scripture, which is a novelty introduced by the Westminster Confession of Faith. There also might be objections to Word being capitalized in the same clause, but I note that though the Articles of Religion assert Jesus Christ to be the Word of God (lit. the Word of the Father), the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral assert that the Holy Scriptures are (apparently adopting another Westminster novelty). Thus, I would agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God, provided that this is meant in some different and lower sense than Jesus Christ being the Word of God. Otherwise, the statement appears to agree with the Articles and the catholic Creeds.
5. Campus Muslim organizations are discriminatory, too. Some have asked why they get a free pass from the SUs.
-------------------------------------------
Having recently been graduated from a university with student organizations occupying political positions in a spectrum from revolutionary Catholic monarchism to revolutionary international socialism and religious organizations just as varied, I will be the first to say that a campus with a wide diversity of ideas and opinions is far more educational and fun than one in which uniformity of thought is encouraged. Once you decide that universities ought to be fair marketplaces of ideas, which is the cornerstone of academic freedom, delisting student organizations with unpopular positions is no more justified than firing professors with unpopular research. At my present institution, a controversial professor with tenure was sacked sneakily. That sneaky trick has hamstrung the institution's work in his field to the present day. But perhaps you can endure a Holocaust denier in the Political Science Department (you would hope there would be grounds for removal for misconduct in such a case), but you could not endure a student organization that promoted Holocaust denial. Well then, bring back in loco parentis . You only can make a distinction between student and professorial liberty on grounds of order or parental supervision.
But the major problem seems to arise from the public funding issue. Should the UK Government be involved with funding organizations that hold to a Cliffs' Notes version of the Westminster Confession of Faith and have discriminatory leadership requirements. In the United States, the answer would be simple. No public funding for the Christian organizations of any kind, no funding for the Muslim organizations either. In the United Kingdom, the situation becomes far more complicated, since the government funds educational foundations of the non-Established Churches (funding Catholic Schools in Scotlnd, for instance). For a Student Union to claim that the Christian Union cannot be supported on account of non-discrimination legislation is suspect in England and farcical in Scotland, where the Kirk is Established and the Catholic schools are regulated in such a way to ensure their Romanity. The Student Unions would be far better off waiting for the more obvious constitutional issues of the church-state conflict before going off on their own.
MadPriest's ire really seems to be focused on the opposition of the CUs to homosexual intimacy (see "I would like to marry gay people."). I share with him the sentiment but not the ire. Punishing or slandering someone solely or principally on account of their objections to homosexual intimacy is merely reciprocation. Mix that with the lust for mastery and you become the Empire ( qua idea) in the present age. The situation would be much different if the CUs were going seeking to replace the SUs so that organizations would be funded only if they subscribed to the Cliffs' notes version of the Westminster Confession.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
XV. Of Christ alone without sin
Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh, and in his spirit
It is a sad comment on the state of Anglican Christianity in this country (a common lede these days) that there is a Bishop in this Church who described the Lord Jesus in the diocesan newspaper as sinful. It still boggles my mind what utility such a position could have for theology. C. Fitzsimons Alison argues that Bennison sees the Crucifixion and Resurrection as God's obligatory rescue from an evil world that is evil on God's account, not ours. I should note that Alison's critique misreads Jack Miles' Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God , or else Alison does not recognize that Miles' position, though somewhat revolutionary, is not entirely subversive. Miles can be read to suggest that Jesus came to minister to the lost sheep of the House of Israel (i.e., all of them), bear their unrighteous vengeance for feeling betrayed by God (see the Gospels' account of mockery on the Cross), and bring a more universal vision of the just Kingdom of God. But since I do not have Miles' book with me, I can't confirm my reading. But frankly, Alison's critique has at its root the interminable discourse of penal substitution. And thus if you don't follow the formula to the letter, Alison thinks you're a heretic. Going too far down this course makes the other Alison (James) a heretic, Jerome a heretic, and puts Augustine in Hell (hyperbole...).
But one could have a variety of other soteriological hypotheses and still rely on Christ's sinlessness:
Christus Victor: How could one victorious over sin be implicated in it?
Christus Advocatus (my combination of Job and Hebrews): Lawyers generally should not be felons.
Christus Exemplar: Why imitate someone sinful?
And about anything involving putting on Christ or joining the Body of Christ to escape the wrath to come falls by the wayside, too.
Th difference between penal substitution and all other soteriological hypotheses is that in the first, God is a not free author of Grace, He compels Himself to offer Grace, suggesting disharmony between the Persons (heretical...) or a passionate desire for death and pain (also heretical...God neither has such a passion nor delight in the death of sinners). He also desires that they turn from their ways and live. But let us consider the alternative, why cannot God offer Grace freely to all? Well, I believe God can and has made that offer. But He constantly complains in the parables that we never accept it. Thus, whatever the exact means of salvation (too high a mystery), Jesus Christ is the means through which we accept that Grace. Perhaps, His one, perfect offering, sacrifice, and oblation is to be interpreted as satisfaction for sin alone. Or perhaps it shows the way for us to offer ourselves with Him in thanksgiving for Grace, because we cannot possibly repay Him. But anyone who denies Christ's sinlessness must explain why Christ is an effective conduit for Grace more than any other. Scripture and Tradition often answer that question by pointing out His sinlessness.
Getting back to the words of the Article itself, the phrase "in flesh and spirit" are ironically dualistic to me. But the Articulators mean as Christ did that we sin in "thought" as much as "word and deed." The Lord Jesus was sinless in every respect, including by the definitions of his own teaching.
He came to be the Lamb without spot, who by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world; and sin (as St. John saith) was not in him.
The Lamb without spot is the sacrificial victim of Passover, which is an odd choice for an offering of satisfaction for sin. It is a sacrifice of identity, liberation, and covenant. However, the Articulators speak of a sacrifice of himself once made, presumably referring to Hebrews 9, in which we are told that Christ's sacrifice was once for all. I have written elsewhere on Christ fulfilling the entirety of the sacrificial system, but I want to make it clear that the Articulators did not see Christ as the Passover victim alone.
But all we the rest, although baptized, and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things, and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
One of my instructors in college began to describe the views of Augustine of Hippo thus, "We sin constantly," to which a friend of mine snidely replied, "We're doing it right now." Perhaps, the less snide reply to the final section of this Article is to consider the tension between individual sin of the members and the corporate sinlessness traditionally associated with the Body of Christ. The issue is difficult, and I have no particularly clever solution to it. However, I think we must again look at the sinlessness of Christ to see the root of the idea. The sinlessness of the Body is founded on Christ and his acts and his continual intercession, which overwhelm in the eyes of God the sins of the individual members presumably justified by faith, "regard not our sins but the faith of your Church." The mistake is for us to say that X must be or must have been right, because the Church makes no mistakes, or we will not apologize for that, because the Body is sinless. But when we do so, we implicate Christ in X, because the sinlessness of the Body is founded on Christ. Do we really want to implicate Christ in X? Or are we sure Christ really is implicated in X? The Articulators warn us not to use Christ's sinlessness as justification for our own, so let us instead confess our sins and be cleansed from all unrighteousness on account of Christ's sinlessness and obedience.
It is a sad comment on the state of Anglican Christianity in this country (a common lede these days) that there is a Bishop in this Church who described the Lord Jesus in the diocesan newspaper as sinful. It still boggles my mind what utility such a position could have for theology. C. Fitzsimons Alison argues that Bennison sees the Crucifixion and Resurrection as God's obligatory rescue from an evil world that is evil on God's account, not ours. I should note that Alison's critique misreads Jack Miles' Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God , or else Alison does not recognize that Miles' position, though somewhat revolutionary, is not entirely subversive. Miles can be read to suggest that Jesus came to minister to the lost sheep of the House of Israel (i.e., all of them), bear their unrighteous vengeance for feeling betrayed by God (see the Gospels' account of mockery on the Cross), and bring a more universal vision of the just Kingdom of God. But since I do not have Miles' book with me, I can't confirm my reading. But frankly, Alison's critique has at its root the interminable discourse of penal substitution. And thus if you don't follow the formula to the letter, Alison thinks you're a heretic. Going too far down this course makes the other Alison (James) a heretic, Jerome a heretic, and puts Augustine in Hell (hyperbole...).
But one could have a variety of other soteriological hypotheses and still rely on Christ's sinlessness:
Christus Victor: How could one victorious over sin be implicated in it?
Christus Advocatus (my combination of Job and Hebrews): Lawyers generally should not be felons.
Christus Exemplar: Why imitate someone sinful?
And about anything involving putting on Christ or joining the Body of Christ to escape the wrath to come falls by the wayside, too.
Th difference between penal substitution and all other soteriological hypotheses is that in the first, God is a not free author of Grace, He compels Himself to offer Grace, suggesting disharmony between the Persons (heretical...) or a passionate desire for death and pain (also heretical...God neither has such a passion nor delight in the death of sinners). He also desires that they turn from their ways and live. But let us consider the alternative, why cannot God offer Grace freely to all? Well, I believe God can and has made that offer. But He constantly complains in the parables that we never accept it. Thus, whatever the exact means of salvation (too high a mystery), Jesus Christ is the means through which we accept that Grace. Perhaps, His one, perfect offering, sacrifice, and oblation is to be interpreted as satisfaction for sin alone. Or perhaps it shows the way for us to offer ourselves with Him in thanksgiving for Grace, because we cannot possibly repay Him. But anyone who denies Christ's sinlessness must explain why Christ is an effective conduit for Grace more than any other. Scripture and Tradition often answer that question by pointing out His sinlessness.
Getting back to the words of the Article itself, the phrase "in flesh and spirit" are ironically dualistic to me. But the Articulators mean as Christ did that we sin in "thought" as much as "word and deed." The Lord Jesus was sinless in every respect, including by the definitions of his own teaching.
He came to be the Lamb without spot, who by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world; and sin (as St. John saith) was not in him.
The Lamb without spot is the sacrificial victim of Passover, which is an odd choice for an offering of satisfaction for sin. It is a sacrifice of identity, liberation, and covenant. However, the Articulators speak of a sacrifice of himself once made, presumably referring to Hebrews 9, in which we are told that Christ's sacrifice was once for all. I have written elsewhere on Christ fulfilling the entirety of the sacrificial system, but I want to make it clear that the Articulators did not see Christ as the Passover victim alone.
But all we the rest, although baptized, and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things, and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
One of my instructors in college began to describe the views of Augustine of Hippo thus, "We sin constantly," to which a friend of mine snidely replied, "We're doing it right now." Perhaps, the less snide reply to the final section of this Article is to consider the tension between individual sin of the members and the corporate sinlessness traditionally associated with the Body of Christ. The issue is difficult, and I have no particularly clever solution to it. However, I think we must again look at the sinlessness of Christ to see the root of the idea. The sinlessness of the Body is founded on Christ and his acts and his continual intercession, which overwhelm in the eyes of God the sins of the individual members presumably justified by faith, "regard not our sins but the faith of your Church." The mistake is for us to say that X must be or must have been right, because the Church makes no mistakes, or we will not apologize for that, because the Body is sinless. But when we do so, we implicate Christ in X, because the sinlessness of the Body is founded on Christ. Do we really want to implicate Christ in X? Or are we sure Christ really is implicated in X? The Articulators warn us not to use Christ's sinlessness as justification for our own, so let us instead confess our sins and be cleansed from all unrighteousness on account of Christ's sinlessness and obedience.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Things I've Done (Thanks to Lutherpunk Again)
01. Bought everyone in the bar a drink
02. Swam with wild dolphins
03. Climbed a mountain --how high exactly?
04. Taken a Ferrari for a test drive
05. Been inside the Great Pyramid
06. Held a tarantula
07. Taken a candlelit bath with someone
08. Said “I love you” and meant it
09. Hugged a tree
10. Bungee jumped
11. Visited Paris
12. Watched a lightning storm at sea
13. Stayed up all night long and saw the sun rise.
14. Seen the Northern Lights
15. Gone to a huge sports game (and survived the crush afterwards)
16. Walked the stairs to the top of the leaning Tower of Pisa
17. Grown and eaten your own vegetables
18. Touched an iceberg – does the entire frozen Arctic Ocean count?
19. Slept under the stars
20. Changed a baby’s diaper
21. Taken a trip in a hot air balloon
22. Watched a meteor shower
23. Gotten drunk on champagne -tipsy
24. Given more than you can afford to charity
25. Looked up at the night sky through a telescope
26. Had an uncontrollable giggling fit at the worst possible moment
27. Had a food fight
28. Bet on a winning horse
29. Asked out a stranger
30. Had a snowball fight
31. Screamed as loudly as you possibly can
32. Held a lamb
33. Seen a total eclipse
34. Ridden a roller coaster
35. Hit a home run (not in baseball...)
36. Danced like a fool and not cared who was looking -many times
37. Adopted an accent for an entire day -entire day?
38. Actually felt happy about your life, even for just a moment
39. Had two hard drives for your computer
40. Visited all 50 states
41. Taken care of someone who was drunk.
42. Had amazing friends
43. Danced with a stranger in a foreign country -I wish
44. Watched wild whales
45. Stolen a sign
46. Backpacked in Europe.
47. Taken a road-trip
48. Gone rock climbing
49. Midnight walk on the beach
50. Gone sky diving
51. Visited Ireland
52. Been heartbroken longer than you were actually in love
53. In a restaurant, sat at a stranger’s table and had a meal with them
54. Visited Japan
55. Milked a cow -gave a few pulls
56. Alphabetized your CDs
57. Pretended to be a superhero
58. Sung karaoke -One of my favorite activities
59. Lounged around in bed all day
60. Played touch football
61. Gone scuba diving
62. Kissed in the rain
63. Played in the mud
64. Played in the rain
65. Gone to a drive-in theater
66. Visited the Great Wall of China
67. Started a business
68. Fallen in love and not had your heart broken
69. Toured ancient site – Pompeii, Herculaneum etc.
70. Taken a martial arts class
71. Played D&D for more than 6 hours straight
72. Gotten married - not seriously...
73. Been in a movie
74. Crashed a party
75. Gotten divorced
76. Gone without food for 5 days
77. Made cookies from scratch
78. Won first prize in a costume contest -possibly
79. Ridden a gondola in Venice
80. Gotten a tattoo
81. Rafted the Snake River -tubed the Guadalupe
82. Been on television news programs as an “expert”
83. Got flowers for no reason
84. Performed on stage
85. Been to Las Vegas
86. Recorded music
87. Eaten shark
88. Kissed on the first date -though I don't think it counts for this question
89. Gone to Thailand
90. Bought a house
91. Been in a combat zone
92. Buried one/both of your parents
93. Been on a cruise ship
94. Spoken more than one language fluently well enough to have a decent conversation -The conversation was in Latin. Cool, eh? The other interlocutor was rather drunk, but his Latin was good and scurillimus .
95. Performed in Rocky Horror
96. Raised (raising) children (child)
97. Followed your favorite band/singer on tour
99. Taken an exotic bicycle tour in a foreign country
100. Picked up and moved to another city to just start over
101. Walked the Golden Gate Bridge
102. Sang loudly in the car, and didn’t stop when you knew someone was looking
103. Had plastic surgery
104. Survived an accident that you shouldn’t have survived
105. Wrote articles for a large publication
106. Lost over 100 pounds
107. Held someone while they were having a flashback
108. Piloted an airplane
109. Touched a stingray
110. Broken someone’s heart-unsure
111. Helped an animal give birth
112. Won money on a T.V. game show
113. Broken a bone
114. Gone on an African photo safari
115. Had a facial part pierced other than your ears
116. Fired a rifle, shotgun, or pistol
117. Eaten mushrooms that were gathered in the wild
118. Ridden a horse
119. Had major surgery -I was under for five hours, is that enough?
120. Had a snake as a pet
121. Hiked to the bottom of the Grand Canyon
122. Slept for more than 30 hours over the course of 48 hours
123. Visited more foreign countries than U.S. states
124. Visited all 7 continents
125. Taken a canoe trip that lasted more than 2 days
126. Eaten kangaroo meat
127. Eaten sushi
128. Had your picture in the newspaper
129. Changed someone’s mind about something you care deeply about - but not by intellectual debate
130. Gone back to school
131. Parasailed
132. Touched a cockroach
133. Eaten fried green tomatoes
134. Read The Iliad - and the Odyssey and the Aeneid
135. Selected one “important” author who you missed in school, and read
136. Killed and prepared an animal for eating
137. Skipped all your school reunions -So far
138. Communicated with someone without sharing a common spoken language
139. Been elected to public office
140. Written your own computer language
141. Thought to yourself that you’re living your dream
142. Had to put someone you love into hospice care
143. Built your own PC from parts
144. Sold your own artwork to someone who didn’t know you
145. Had a booth at a street fair
146. Dyed your hair
147. Been a DJ
148. Shaved your head
149. Caused a car accident
150. Saved someone’s life
02. Swam with wild dolphins
03. Climbed a mountain --how high exactly?
04. Taken a Ferrari for a test drive
05. Been inside the Great Pyramid
06. Held a tarantula
07. Taken a candlelit bath with someone
08. Said “I love you” and meant it
09. Hugged a tree
10. Bungee jumped
11. Visited Paris
12. Watched a lightning storm at sea
13. Stayed up all night long and saw the sun rise.
14. Seen the Northern Lights
15. Gone to a huge sports game (and survived the crush afterwards)
16. Walked the stairs to the top of the leaning Tower of Pisa
17. Grown and eaten your own vegetables
18. Touched an iceberg – does the entire frozen Arctic Ocean count?
19. Slept under the stars
20. Changed a baby’s diaper
21. Taken a trip in a hot air balloon
22. Watched a meteor shower
23. Gotten drunk on champagne -tipsy
24. Given more than you can afford to charity
25. Looked up at the night sky through a telescope
26. Had an uncontrollable giggling fit at the worst possible moment
27. Had a food fight
28. Bet on a winning horse
29. Asked out a stranger
30. Had a snowball fight
31. Screamed as loudly as you possibly can
32. Held a lamb
33. Seen a total eclipse
34. Ridden a roller coaster
35. Hit a home run (not in baseball...)
36. Danced like a fool and not cared who was looking -many times
37. Adopted an accent for an entire day -entire day?
38. Actually felt happy about your life, even for just a moment
39. Had two hard drives for your computer
40. Visited all 50 states
41. Taken care of someone who was drunk.
42. Had amazing friends
43. Danced with a stranger in a foreign country -I wish
44. Watched wild whales
45. Stolen a sign
46. Backpacked in Europe.
47. Taken a road-trip
48. Gone rock climbing
49. Midnight walk on the beach
50. Gone sky diving
51. Visited Ireland
52. Been heartbroken longer than you were actually in love
53. In a restaurant, sat at a stranger’s table and had a meal with them
54. Visited Japan
55. Milked a cow -gave a few pulls
56. Alphabetized your CDs
57. Pretended to be a superhero
58. Sung karaoke -One of my favorite activities
59. Lounged around in bed all day
60. Played touch football
61. Gone scuba diving
62. Kissed in the rain
63. Played in the mud
64. Played in the rain
65. Gone to a drive-in theater
66. Visited the Great Wall of China
67. Started a business
68. Fallen in love and not had your heart broken
69. Toured ancient site – Pompeii, Herculaneum etc.
70. Taken a martial arts class
71. Played D&D for more than 6 hours straight
72. Gotten married - not seriously...
73. Been in a movie
74. Crashed a party
75. Gotten divorced
76. Gone without food for 5 days
77. Made cookies from scratch
78. Won first prize in a costume contest -possibly
79. Ridden a gondola in Venice
80. Gotten a tattoo
81. Rafted the Snake River -tubed the Guadalupe
82. Been on television news programs as an “expert”
83. Got flowers for no reason
84. Performed on stage
85. Been to Las Vegas
86. Recorded music
87. Eaten shark
88. Kissed on the first date -though I don't think it counts for this question
89. Gone to Thailand
90. Bought a house
91. Been in a combat zone
92. Buried one/both of your parents
93. Been on a cruise ship
94. Spoken more than one language fluently well enough to have a decent conversation -The conversation was in Latin. Cool, eh? The other interlocutor was rather drunk, but his Latin was good and scurillimus .
95. Performed in Rocky Horror
96. Raised (raising) children (child)
97. Followed your favorite band/singer on tour
99. Taken an exotic bicycle tour in a foreign country
100. Picked up and moved to another city to just start over
101. Walked the Golden Gate Bridge
102. Sang loudly in the car, and didn’t stop when you knew someone was looking
103. Had plastic surgery
104. Survived an accident that you shouldn’t have survived
105. Wrote articles for a large publication
106. Lost over 100 pounds
107. Held someone while they were having a flashback
108. Piloted an airplane
109. Touched a stingray
110. Broken someone’s heart-unsure
111. Helped an animal give birth
112. Won money on a T.V. game show
113. Broken a bone
114. Gone on an African photo safari
115. Had a facial part pierced other than your ears
116. Fired a rifle, shotgun, or pistol
117. Eaten mushrooms that were gathered in the wild
118. Ridden a horse
119. Had major surgery -I was under for five hours, is that enough?
120. Had a snake as a pet
121. Hiked to the bottom of the Grand Canyon
122. Slept for more than 30 hours over the course of 48 hours
123. Visited more foreign countries than U.S. states
124. Visited all 7 continents
125. Taken a canoe trip that lasted more than 2 days
126. Eaten kangaroo meat
127. Eaten sushi
128. Had your picture in the newspaper
129. Changed someone’s mind about something you care deeply about - but not by intellectual debate
130. Gone back to school
131. Parasailed
132. Touched a cockroach
133. Eaten fried green tomatoes
134. Read The Iliad - and the Odyssey and the Aeneid
135. Selected one “important” author who you missed in school, and read
136. Killed and prepared an animal for eating
137. Skipped all your school reunions -So far
138. Communicated with someone without sharing a common spoken language
139. Been elected to public office
140. Written your own computer language
141. Thought to yourself that you’re living your dream
142. Had to put someone you love into hospice care
143. Built your own PC from parts
144. Sold your own artwork to someone who didn’t know you
145. Had a booth at a street fair
146. Dyed your hair
147. Been a DJ
148. Shaved your head
149. Caused a car accident
150. Saved someone’s life
20 Books (Courtesy of Lutherpunk)
Not in any particular order.
0. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (especially, Psalms, Job, John, the Letter to the Hebrews, Revelation).
1. The Book of Common Prayer . (1979 usually, but the "Historical Documents" section especially).
2. The Hymnal 1982
3. Galileo Galilei, Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina
4. Plato, Phaedrus
5. Dionysius Areopagites, On the Divine Names and the Mystical Theology
6. Madeline L'Engle, An Acceptable Time
7. John Chrysostom, Peri hierosynes (On the Priesthood)
8. Joseph Priestley, Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion
9. Joseph Butler, Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed, to the Constitution and Nature...
10. The Passion of SS. Sergius and Bacchus
11. Francis Wayland, Elements of Moral Science
12. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
13. Bede the Venerable, A History of the English Church and People
14. The Mishnaic tractate Pesahim
15. J.R.R. Tolkien, The Ainurdale
16. Phillip Pullman, His Dark Materials Trilogy
17. The Proceedings of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils
18. Augustine, City of God
19. Francis Bacon, The New Atlantis
20. C.S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia and the Space Trilogy
0. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (especially, Psalms, Job, John, the Letter to the Hebrews, Revelation).
1. The Book of Common Prayer . (1979 usually, but the "Historical Documents" section especially).
2. The Hymnal 1982
3. Galileo Galilei, Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina
4. Plato, Phaedrus
5. Dionysius Areopagites, On the Divine Names and the Mystical Theology
6. Madeline L'Engle, An Acceptable Time
7. John Chrysostom, Peri hierosynes (On the Priesthood)
8. Joseph Priestley, Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion
9. Joseph Butler, Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed, to the Constitution and Nature...
10. The Passion of SS. Sergius and Bacchus
11. Francis Wayland, Elements of Moral Science
12. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
13. Bede the Venerable, A History of the English Church and People
14. The Mishnaic tractate Pesahim
15. J.R.R. Tolkien, The Ainurdale
16. Phillip Pullman, His Dark Materials Trilogy
17. The Proceedings of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils
18. Augustine, City of God
19. Francis Bacon, The New Atlantis
20. C.S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia and the Space Trilogy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)