At one point in his life Sergius Bulgakov reread the works of Soloviev. That's what I am doing with Bulgakov and John Milbank. They were so very wrong on some issues, but profoundly correct on others.
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Between superstition and gnosticism
Gnostic religious practices, at least in today's discourse as it is used as a swear word against those traditions which have a suspicion against materiality. Superstition is for those who place greater efficacy on material objects than God does.
Of course, water and wine and bread are necessarily good. But then I ask some people, "Well, what about anointing with oil?" The answers are interesting. It sounds papist or anchoretic. But St James says to anoint the sick with oil and pray over them.
Oil is good because God in his word blessed it so.
Of course, water and wine and bread are necessarily good. But then I ask some people, "Well, what about anointing with oil?" The answers are interesting. It sounds papist or anchoretic. But St James says to anoint the sick with oil and pray over them.
Oil is good because God in his word blessed it so.
Friday, July 17, 2015
On EO interpolemics
I want to be nice to EO guys. I believe that Protestantism represents the best of the kath-olos tradition, which means that there is much good in the Eastern world. Their hatred of logic and all things Western is troubling.
I won't attack them if they promise not to go up to Protestants and imply, given the logic (!!) of the argument, that the Protestants' baptisms are trash and that Jesus really won't hold on to them at the end. Grow where you are planted and we are cool.
I won't attack them if they promise not to go up to Protestants and imply, given the logic (!!) of the argument, that the Protestants' baptisms are trash and that Jesus really won't hold on to them at the end. Grow where you are planted and we are cool.
Monday, July 13, 2015
Theses on monarchy
My collected notes on why I think monarchy is less problematic than oligarchic republicanism (which, ultimately, are the only two options for government). We can say these are running theses in no particular order:
[1] Prima facie appeals to 1 Samuel 8 as a universal condemnation of monarchy are illegitimate.
[2] Yahweh specifically told Samuel the Israelites were rejecting Yahweh. My question: do evangelicals actually think and see the new America as ruled by Yahweh himself without a mediating figure?
[3] Some form of mediating figure is necessary (O’Donovan, 50). In order for their appeal to 1 Samuel 8 to be strong, they have to posit the same social form seen in 1 Samuel 8. During pre-Davidic Israel, Samuel was the mediating figure between Yahweh and the nation (1 Samuel 3:19-21). Thus, republicans have to posit some Samuel-ite figure to mediate between God and the nation (the papal overtones should not be missed). Few evangelicals will take this route.
[4] Per Leithart, If David was a “detour,” further, it is odd that the prophets again and again hold out the hope that Israel would return to the “detour” (Isaiah 9:7; 16:5; 33:15-26; Ezekiel 34:23-24; 37:24-25).
[5] Monarchy is an “angled mirror” that allows us to see other worlds, or to see around the power games of this world (N. T. Wright)
[6] Augustine teaches us (Civ. Dei, Book 19) that a people must be united around common objects of love. Historically, this has either been the liturgy/Faith or the monarch. This doesn't immediately rule out some forms of Republicanism, to be sure, but it does put it on a tight squeeze. Republicanism as a general rule
[7] This is a bit difficult. In Colossians 1:24 St Paul sees an interplay between Christ's Sufferings, His Sufferings, and his people's participation in one or the other. Perhaps monarchy can put this tension into sharp relief. Sergius Bulgakov saw the tsar as carrying the cross for his people, of the tsar not as the presiding authority in a police state, but as the symbolic focus of Russia in all its pain and confusion. To be a tsarist in this context was, he says, to share in that pain and confusion (Rowan Williams).
[8] Per [6] liturgy is how the Church embodies and acts out its faith. Liturgy is both vertical and horizontal. Western politicians at least since the age of King John of England have wrestled with the question of the limits of the king’s authority. They sought to “bind the king to the law,” or something like that. King’s could be bound to the law from time to time.
[1] Prima facie appeals to 1 Samuel 8 as a universal condemnation of monarchy are illegitimate.
[2] Yahweh specifically told Samuel the Israelites were rejecting Yahweh. My question: do evangelicals actually think and see the new America as ruled by Yahweh himself without a mediating figure?
[3] Some form of mediating figure is necessary (O’Donovan, 50). In order for their appeal to 1 Samuel 8 to be strong, they have to posit the same social form seen in 1 Samuel 8. During pre-Davidic Israel, Samuel was the mediating figure between Yahweh and the nation (1 Samuel 3:19-21). Thus, republicans have to posit some Samuel-ite figure to mediate between God and the nation (the papal overtones should not be missed). Few evangelicals will take this route.
[4] Per Leithart, If David was a “detour,” further, it is odd that the prophets again and again hold out the hope that Israel would return to the “detour” (Isaiah 9:7; 16:5; 33:15-26; Ezekiel 34:23-24; 37:24-25).
[5] Monarchy is an “angled mirror” that allows us to see other worlds, or to see around the power games of this world (N. T. Wright)
[6] Augustine teaches us (Civ. Dei, Book 19) that a people must be united around common objects of love. Historically, this has either been the liturgy/Faith or the monarch. This doesn't immediately rule out some forms of Republicanism, to be sure, but it does put it on a tight squeeze. Republicanism as a general rule
[7] This is a bit difficult. In Colossians 1:24 St Paul sees an interplay between Christ's Sufferings, His Sufferings, and his people's participation in one or the other. Perhaps monarchy can put this tension into sharp relief. Sergius Bulgakov saw the tsar as carrying the cross for his people, of the tsar not as the presiding authority in a police state, but as the symbolic focus of Russia in all its pain and confusion. To be a tsarist in this context was, he says, to share in that pain and confusion (Rowan Williams).
[8] Per [6] liturgy is how the Church embodies and acts out its faith. Liturgy is both vertical and horizontal. Western politicians at least since the age of King John of England have wrestled with the question of the limits of the king’s authority. They sought to “bind the king to the law,” or something like that. King’s could be bound to the law from time to time.
Liturgy, however, does not bind the king to an abstract “law,” but rather connects him via baptism to the people. King and commoner are thus bound together before God.
[9] The creational order is not egalitarian. There is a hierarchy (though not an ontological chain) in creation. Unless you have pure anarchism, someone is in charge of others. Hence, mediation is inescapable [3]. This means we have the following types of mediation:
- (a) some form of monarchy
- (b) a republican president
- (c) economic oligarchy
Royalists usually point out that (c) normally controls (b). To be elected you have to have financial backers. Therefore, any good you want to do for society is limited by not alienating your financial backers. There may be a host of problems with monarchy but this is not one of them. N.T. Wright said when he was on the House of Lords, only the Lords could truly debate what was good for society because they didn't have to worry about offending economic backers.
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Wright: The Case for the Psalms
In many ways this might be Wright's best work ever. I had always suspected something like his thesis when I read the Psalms (more on that below) but I couldn't articulate it. Wright says the Psalms transform the reader (better yet, the chanter and singer) because they place him or her at the intersection of Space, Time, and Matter--the very place where Jesus of Nazareth is.
People who pray the psalms will be learning to live in God’s time, space, and “matter” (the stuff we are made of) as well as our own (Wright 27). The psalms resonate with Jesus because he was the one who stood at the intersection of God’s time/space/matter and ours (30).
The threshold of God's Time:
The ebb and flow in the Psalms teach us an eschatological balance. The theme of time helps us with those instances where we are called to sing of the enthronement of Yahweh’s king (44). And we shouldn’t shrink back from the royalist overtones in our democratic age, for we are called to be his vice-regents.
More specifically, Yahweh also called Israel to care for the world (Genesis 12:3). But given Israel’s failure, God narrows his focus to the House of David. Therefore, the intersection of God’s time with our time--and always with the Davidic King in the foreground--comes into focus in Psalm 89.
Where God Dwells
The “Temple” is where God’s space and our space intersect. If the world’s Creator lives in Jerusalem, then it stands to reason (Ps. 2) that he will rule from Jerusalem.
“The temple turns out to be an advance foretaste of Yahweh’s claim on the whole of creation...It is a sign that the creator God is desiring...to recreate the world from within” (91).
1. The temple is a heaven-and-earth reality, a microcosm of creation.
2. Psalm 24: Yahweh takes up residence in his temple.
3. Temple and Torah are connected and both point ahead to God’s new place.
4. Temple Psalms and Pneumatology: the new Temple is indwelt by the Spirit.
5. Covenant renewal generates fresh idea of sacred space.
All the trees of the forest sing for joy
Western modernity sees matter as lifeless matter. The Psalms, however, see creation throbbing with the potential glory of God. God’s glory either already fills the whole earth or it will fill the earth (124).
This ties in with Covenant and Kingship: the true King will bring justice and peace to the earth, which will renew creation (Psalm 72).
Wisdom and Creation
Psalm 104:19-24 combines themes from Genesis 1 and Proverbs 8. Paul picks up this Wisdom-Creation tradition and places it in Jesus (Colossians 1:15-20, 2.2-3).
Summary of Theme
Time: the past of creation, the future of Judgment, and the present of celebration are drawn together.
Space: what was promised for the Temple is now promised for the whole world.
Matter: we are standing at the fault line of the original material of creation and the glory-filled material of the new creation (144).
Conclusion and Nota Bene:
The book is simply magnificent. I honestly can’t think of a single flaw.
Nota Bene
Wright says at one time in his life when he was witnessing to Gaia-worshiping pantheists, he felt an oppressive darkness and Yahweh gave him deliverance by bringing Psalm 97 (which happened to be the next Psalm in the prayerbook reading) to mind, “Yahweh is King. Let the Earth rejoice!” p. 175
People who pray the psalms will be learning to live in God’s time, space, and “matter” (the stuff we are made of) as well as our own (Wright 27). The psalms resonate with Jesus because he was the one who stood at the intersection of God’s time/space/matter and ours (30).
The threshold of God's Time:
The ebb and flow in the Psalms teach us an eschatological balance. The theme of time helps us with those instances where we are called to sing of the enthronement of Yahweh’s king (44). And we shouldn’t shrink back from the royalist overtones in our democratic age, for we are called to be his vice-regents.
More specifically, Yahweh also called Israel to care for the world (Genesis 12:3). But given Israel’s failure, God narrows his focus to the House of David. Therefore, the intersection of God’s time with our time--and always with the Davidic King in the foreground--comes into focus in Psalm 89.
Where God Dwells
The “Temple” is where God’s space and our space intersect. If the world’s Creator lives in Jerusalem, then it stands to reason (Ps. 2) that he will rule from Jerusalem.
“The temple turns out to be an advance foretaste of Yahweh’s claim on the whole of creation...It is a sign that the creator God is desiring...to recreate the world from within” (91).
1. The temple is a heaven-and-earth reality, a microcosm of creation.
2. Psalm 24: Yahweh takes up residence in his temple.
3. Temple and Torah are connected and both point ahead to God’s new place.
4. Temple Psalms and Pneumatology: the new Temple is indwelt by the Spirit.
5. Covenant renewal generates fresh idea of sacred space.
All the trees of the forest sing for joy
Western modernity sees matter as lifeless matter. The Psalms, however, see creation throbbing with the potential glory of God. God’s glory either already fills the whole earth or it will fill the earth (124).
This ties in with Covenant and Kingship: the true King will bring justice and peace to the earth, which will renew creation (Psalm 72).
Wisdom and Creation
Psalm 104:19-24 combines themes from Genesis 1 and Proverbs 8. Paul picks up this Wisdom-Creation tradition and places it in Jesus (Colossians 1:15-20, 2.2-3).
Summary of Theme
Time: the past of creation, the future of Judgment, and the present of celebration are drawn together.
Space: what was promised for the Temple is now promised for the whole world.
Matter: we are standing at the fault line of the original material of creation and the glory-filled material of the new creation (144).
Conclusion and Nota Bene:
The book is simply magnificent. I honestly can’t think of a single flaw.
Nota Bene
Wright says at one time in his life when he was witnessing to Gaia-worshiping pantheists, he felt an oppressive darkness and Yahweh gave him deliverance by bringing Psalm 97 (which happened to be the next Psalm in the prayerbook reading) to mind, “Yahweh is King. Let the Earth rejoice!” p. 175
Friday, July 10, 2015
When Puritanboard told me to become a Christian
That probably caught you off guard. Normally I point out the shortcomings of Orthodox Bridge (a necessary task, mind you), but I decided to change course. I had posted a book review of Jamie Smith's fine Imagining the Kingdom. One of Smith's arguments was that what we call "worldview," which better thinkers call "social imaginary" or "plausibility structure," doesn't simply function at the cognitive, intellectual level. It goes into one's very bones--literally.
All of this is common-sense to anyone who has ever learned a new skill or even a new spoken language. You don't learn something merely by cognitively massaging it. You have to practice it. This sort of learning takes place at the pre-cognitive level. As N. T. Wright notes elsewhere, "people who learn the serious business of prayer often discover something that therapists in other traditions sometimes stumble on as well: that prayer encourages a rhythm of breathing that facilitates a calmer and wiser bodily approach to life than might otherwise be the case" (The Case for the Psalms, 28).
Of course, there is a danger here. Some traditions literally gaze at their navels and it is not always clear if that isn't their primary goal in prayer. And we want to avoid fetishism--by these physical actions we can manipulate God. The question remains, though, is that necessarily what's going to happen?
This is why the truth doesn't lie with Descartes--on any point. If you don't believe that "presuppositions" or "worldview/story/social imaginary" goes all the way down to the precognitive level, then you posit some autonomous realm where the Ego remains untouched. The more vicious irony is that these guys are Van Tillians. I guess I am the true presuppositionalist. The discussion ended with a call for me to repent and believe the gospel.
All of this is common-sense to anyone who has ever learned a new skill or even a new spoken language. You don't learn something merely by cognitively massaging it. You have to practice it. This sort of learning takes place at the pre-cognitive level. As N. T. Wright notes elsewhere, "people who learn the serious business of prayer often discover something that therapists in other traditions sometimes stumble on as well: that prayer encourages a rhythm of breathing that facilitates a calmer and wiser bodily approach to life than might otherwise be the case" (The Case for the Psalms, 28).
Of course, there is a danger here. Some traditions literally gaze at their navels and it is not always clear if that isn't their primary goal in prayer. And we want to avoid fetishism--by these physical actions we can manipulate God. The question remains, though, is that necessarily what's going to happen?
This is why the truth doesn't lie with Descartes--on any point. If you don't believe that "presuppositions" or "worldview/story/social imaginary" goes all the way down to the precognitive level, then you posit some autonomous realm where the Ego remains untouched. The more vicious irony is that these guys are Van Tillians. I guess I am the true presuppositionalist. The discussion ended with a call for me to repent and believe the gospel.
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
On how I annotate books
Here are some pictures from reading Hegel's Phenomenology. I normally don't write in pen, but the paper is such that pencils won't show up well in anything but perfect lighting--and this was a cheap copy, anyway. Sorry that I can't get the pictures right side up, but you get the idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)