tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41319565391204255102024-02-02T00:55:53.358-08:00Ex AnimusAn exploration of lifeKevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comBlogger209125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-26810747899068106792016-11-12T21:56:00.002-08:002016-11-12T22:07:06.841-08:00Ango-Catholic: Catholic but Not Roman<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzRh2AQeUQ8WcScrOSKram2A-zCon-vNg3GnAO65hyphenhyphen2-5G3Fz0f5gK6kjgwscS7bXq6GhMgH0ZPn55tNt9RWO_YIMenWCOS1jWibEp1fqLfWjGSt2wxkdLlVWGUHzZ3SqWwAD3EBVoC1ir/s1600/Sub-Deacon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzRh2AQeUQ8WcScrOSKram2A-zCon-vNg3GnAO65hyphenhyphen2-5G3Fz0f5gK6kjgwscS7bXq6GhMgH0ZPn55tNt9RWO_YIMenWCOS1jWibEp1fqLfWjGSt2wxkdLlVWGUHzZ3SqWwAD3EBVoC1ir/s320/Sub-Deacon.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I’m someone who defines myself as an Anglo-Catholic. On a
superficial level, this means I am an Anglican who loads up my Protestantism
with a lot of Roman Catholic flair. Yet it is more than that. As an
Anglo-Catholic my doctrine and spiritual practice share many things in common
with Roman Catholicism (and in a way Eastern Orthodox) doctrine and practice
that are alien to much of the Protestant world. This leads a lot of people,
especially Roman Catholics, to ask me “if you're already an Anglo-Catholic why
haven't you decided to take the plunge and become Catholic?” The answer to this
question is that as an Anglo-Catholic I believe I am already standing in the Catholic
tradition. That means I practice and believe many things most Protestants
don’t, but that doesn’t mean I buy into all of the claims of the Roman Catholic
Church. Specifically, while I do believe there is great importance to be
accorded to the Petrine See, I am not convinced of papal infallibility, nor of
the claim that all bishops depend upon the Pope for their authority.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Anglicanism as
Catholic<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What does it mean to be Catholic? The early Church referred
to itself as “Catholic” in many places, including its creeds. By this it meant
that it was the universal Church, both the Bride and Body of Christ in the
world. Yet, the religious movement adhering to the ecumenical creeds continued
to splinter as history moved on, and with reformation the Roman Catholic Church
(being those churches in unity with the Bishop of Rome) defined itself as <i>the </i>Catholic Church and all others as
apostates and schismatics</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As the Anglo-Catholic writer Fr. Matthew Kirby has aptly <a href="http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-means-this-word-catholic.html">described
it</a>, typical modern Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology holds that
“Any break in communion that discontinues the visibility of unity between one
Christian body and another, if the two groups were previously united within the
Catholic Church, must leave one group outside the Catholic Church until that
breach is visibly healed.” While this is certainly a logically tight position,
it doesn’t actually account for the historical reality we find in the church.
Fr. Kirby has compiled <a href="http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2006/01/catholic-ecumenism-and-elephant-in_16.html">several
examples</a> of this, two of which I’ll summarize here:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">During
the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meletius_of_Antioch" style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Meletian schism</a><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">,
there were two rival bishops of Antioch. Meletius was recognized by Eastern
bishops, but not by Rome. Yet, after the death of Meletius, his claim was
universally recognized. “[V]isible unity was broken without either side being
considered by anyone in hindsight as outside the Church.”</span></li>
<li>During
the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism" style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Western Papal Schism</a><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">
when there were several claimants to the papacy, clear visible unity in the
western church was broken, yet the Roman Catholic church has canonized saints
on both sides of the schism, and even today no official binding declaration has
been made as to which were the true Popes.</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Anglo-Catholic response to this reality, therefore, is
to argue for something often called the “Branch Theory.” Critics of this theory
often believe it claims that the Anglican Communion, the Orthodox Church, and
the Roman Catholic Church are three branches of one catholic (universal) Church
tree. This implies that they are organic developments of one core “trunk,” and
so each is perfectly fine as it is. But this is not really the Branch Theory as
originally formulated. The <a href="https://conciliaranglican.com/2013/11/17/biblical-catholicism-the-branch-theory/">actual
claim</a> of the Branch Theory is more minimal than this. Branch Theory claims
that catholicity is established by some basic adherence to:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Scriptural truth</li>
<li><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">the Traditions</span><b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> </b><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">of the primitive Church (particularly those enshrined in the seven
ecumenical creeds)</span></li>
<li>The right<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;">
</b><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">administration of the sacraments, including apostolic succession through
the “laying on of hands.”</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Anglo-Catholic theologian Edward Pusey has put it even more
minimally: “the only principle really involved in [Branch Theory] was that
there could be suspension of intercommunion without such schism as should
separate either side from the Church of Christ.” This idea that there can be
breach of intercommunion within the Church without separating from the Church
established by Christ is not unique to Anglo-Catholic thinking.<b> </b>Orthodox
thinker David Bentley Hart has pointed out that during the<b> </b>Council of Florence “both sides spoke of the division between East
and West as a wall of separation erected <i>within</i>
the one universal Church” (“The Myth of Schism,” emphasis mine). Schism between
bishops (and even Patriarchs) does not <i>necessarily</i>
create an ontological breach in the Church. As far as I can tell, the historical
reality supports this understanding much better than the official positions of
the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church (that the One Holy Catholic Church
is coterminous with the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox communion
respectively). This is not to say schism is all well and good. It is scandalous,
but the Anglo-Catholics don’t accept that this sad reality gives us no right to
call ourselves Catholic (<a href="http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-means-this-word-catholic.html">see
this article</a> for more on this point).<b><o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>The Validity of
Anglican Orders<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Even if one accepts the Branch Theory as I have described
it, the question of why I don’t convert to Roman Catholicism isn’t necessarily
settled. After all, maintenance of apostolic succession was one of the
conditions I mentioned as necessary for a communion to be part of the universal
Church. Thus, the catholicity of Anglicanism would depend upon the validity of
Anglican orders, something the Roman Catholic Magisterium denies. I believe it
is vital to salvation to be part of the Church universal, so if the Roman
Catholic rejection of our orders is correct, I ought to convert to a communion
with valid orders.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So what of the Roman Catholic argument that our orders are
invalid? The goalpost for <i>why </i>they
are invalid <a href="http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/12/ej-bicknell-on-anglican-orders-first.html">has
moved</a>. At first, it was claimed that the line of succession was broken.
This was not historically accurate, and eventually the claim was dropped. Then
it was argued that there was an insufficiency of form on the basis that much
theology had argued that the chalice and paten which the Roman church had taken
to presenting to candidates for ordination was the matter of the sacrament.
This, however, was shown to not hold when it was firmly established that this
was not the practice for the first thousand years of the church. The argument
was thus forced back onto claiming that the “intent” of the ordination was
wrong and invalidated our orders. This, we Anglo-Catholics do not accept. Since
intent is an internal matter, the burden of proof for claiming a lack of intent
must rest with those claiming it is lacking, and we are not persuaded by Roman
Catholic arguments that there was a deficiency of intent. As with the sacrament
of Marriage, validity should be assumed unless the lack of intent can be
definitively proven. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Specifically, the Roman Catholic<b> </b>claim is that the changes made to our ordinal during the
Reformation were meant to create a non-sacrificing priesthood, and so there was
a “defective idea of the priesthood,” thus invalidating our orders. Yet, the
intention of the Anglican Church during the Reformation was not to create a
non-sacrificing priesthood, but to return to antiquity because of a perceived imbalance
in late medieval Christianity. During the late medieval period, the priest’s
dual role as minister of word and sacrament had almost entirely been subsumed
into the sacramental aspect of the ministry. This was a problem even Trent
recognized. The intent was thus not to remove the priest’s sacrificing role,
but specifically to “continue those orders which had been in the Church from
the days of the Apostles, namely Bishops, Priests and Deacons, in the same
sense as they had always existed.” The intent in removing specific mention of
sacrifice was to restore the priest’s sacramental role into balance with its
other aspects. Nothing else. With such an intent, sacrifice is necessarily
included in the intention of our ordinal, for the Anglican Church “means her
orders to be those of the New Testament. As such she confers upon her priests
authority to 'minister the Holy Sacraments'. This includes the celebration of
the Eucharist. Here again her intention is that the Eucharist shall be all that
the Lord intended it to be. The sacrifice of the Eucharist is not something
additional; it is the Eucharist itself in one of its chief aspects.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Therefore, we consider ourselves to be a church that has
validly maintained apostolic succession and apostolic doctrine (both Scripture
and Sacred Tradition) and so to be part of the Catholic Church. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>But Why Not Convert? <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What I have said thus far should make it clear that I don’t think
it is as necessary to leave the Anglican Communion and join the Roman Catholic
Church in order to be part of the universal Church. Yet, as I said above, the
fact that there are different communions within the one Catholic Church does not
mean those communions are equally valid. Otherwise, I might as well hedge my
bet and join the Roman Catholic Church. There are areas in which I believe the
Roman Catholic Church has erred from apostolic doctrine in ways that are aberrations
rather than valid developments. I do not believe these are fatal, they don’t
invalidate the Roman Catholic Church as a church, but they are significant
enough to keep me from joining the communion and proclaiming that “I believe
and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims
to be revealed by God.” Chief among
these is the claims of the Roman Church regarding the role and authority of the
Pope.<sup>1</sup> As such, the question of “why not just go all the way and become
Catholic?” is somewhat moot<b>.</b> I do
not see myself as having gone part way to a goal but stopped short. I see
myself as faithfully living out the Christian religion as a member of the
universal Church. As one article has put it “Let us suppose that a man
believes, on grounds which seem to him sufficient, in the doctrines of
Transubstantiation, the Invocation of Saints and the Blessed Virgin, Auricular
Confession and Purgatory; that he finds spiritual value in the use of rosaries,
scapulars, relics, images, incense, holy water and what not; that he believes in
one authoritative Holy Catholic Church outside of which there is no salvation,
commissioned and empowered by God to preserve and transmit the faith and to
administer the sacraments. It does not follow by any rule of logic that he must
also believe that the criterion of catholicity is submission to the authority
of the Bishop of Rome and acceptance of his infallibility” (Review of “Why
Rome?” Christian Century, vol. xlvii., No. 51, December 17, 1930). But why don’t
I accept the claims of the Bishop of Rome to be the guardian of the Church’s
infallibility and apostolicity?<b><o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As a basic matter I
have no problem with primacy of the Pope. It seems to be a matter of primitive
doctrine and has clear scriptural warrant. Yet primacy is not the same thing as
being able to define dogmatic truth infallibly. The idea of the Pope as the
infallible Vicar of Christ (in its positive definition) is undeniably a development
of doctrine. To call it this is not to make any judgment on it as such.
Explicit doctrine develops from the deposit of faith. The question then
becomes, “What determines authentic development versus aberration?” The Roman
Catholic claim is that it is the Pope (in concert with the mind of the Church)
that determines what qualifies as authentic development. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Anglican position, in contrast, is that that it is
Scripture, as rightly interpreted by the mind of the Church (chiefly
represented by the seven ecumenical councils) that determines what qualifies as
authentic development. We believe that the bishops of the Church are the
guardians of faith, any particular bishop, including the Roman pontiff, can err
(even in official pronouncements). Roman Catholics often appeal to the
historical claim that no pope has ever officially defined heretical dogmas as a
defense of their position, yet as an apologetic claim this is fairly useless,
because it is tautological. There are many things Popes have officially taught
which Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics, etc. consider to be in error.
The historical claim thus proceeds from the doctrine rather than proving it. This
doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but it does mean it’s not very persuasive to those of
us who don’t already accept it. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Instead of Papal Primacy as the control of Development of
Doctrine, the Anglican Communion affirms a sense of Sola Scriptura. Some affirm
it in a very Evangelical sense, but Anglo-Catholics do not see it this way.
Scripture is not the source of doctrine. That is obvious because doctrine
existed as Tradition before Scripture. Scripture is written down Tradition and
so it can serve as a test of Doctrine, and thus as a safeguard (along with the
interpretive guide of the Creeds and the Fathers) against illegitimate
doctrinal development. So Scripture, rightly interpreted by the primitive teachings
of the church and the ecumenical councils, is a corrective to human error. From
what I have seen in my study of the early Church Fathers, they seem to be
operating on this principle. When they argue that a doctrine they are teaching
is part of the unchanging deposit of the faith, they bring Scripture forward as
their primary witness. Naïve sola Scriptura this is not, but rather is what the
Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas defended when he said “only canonical
Scripture is a measure of faith (quia sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei)”
(Thomas's commentary on John's Gospel). I am not claiming that Scripture can be
separated from the rule of faith and interpreted scientifically to discover true
doctrine. I am claiming that Scripture is the canon by which doctrinal
development is measured and that this is what we see the Church Fathers doing.
The Pope, because of his connection to Peter, has long been an important
authority in rightly measuring doctrinal development against Scripture, but
that is not the same thing as saying he is infallible. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I further have a problem with the Roman Catholic claims
regarding the Pope because they seem to functionally make all other Bishops
mere local representatives of the Petrine See in the same way that priests are
representatives of their bishop. This seems to undermine, rather than develop,
primitive understanding of the Episcopal office. Authentic development must
always deepen understanding of the unchanging deposit of faith, rather than undermine
it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Conclusion <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In conclusion, I am Anglo-Catholic because I believe in the
importance of catholicity for genuine Christianity, that is, union with the
original universal Church established by Christ. This means I accept the idea
of Sacred Tradition as an authentic vehicle of divine revelation, in contrast
to many other Protestants, and so believe and practice many things that are
often considered Roman Catholic distinctive (for example: auricular confession).
Yet, I do not accept Papal infallibility. Rather, I believe Scripture, rightly interpreted
by the rule of faith, is the measure of authentic doctrinal development.
Crucially, I believe that Anglicanism is authentically part of the universal
Church. I would, in fact, say that Anglicanism is authentically Catholic. Again,
I don’t expect to persuade any Roman Catholic by these claims. I am explaining
why I am not Roman Catholic, despite being Anglo-Catholic. For my part, I would
become a Roman Catholic if I ever became convinced that these Papal claims are
correct, or if I became convinced that it was no longer possible for me to be
an orthodox and Catholic Christian in the Anglican Communion. Given the way
certain parts of that Communion are headed, this is certainly a foreseeable
outcome. <br />
<br /></div>
<hr />
<ol>
<li><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">I
focused on papal infallibility in this essay, but my concerns with the papal claims
extend to the entire apparatus of the infallibility of the church as connected
to the Pope. Since the Roman Catholic Church believes that licit apostolic
authority requires communion with the Pope, it follows that the entire
infallible Magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church depends in some sense on
the Pope. </span></li>
</ol>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -.25in;">
<br />
<br /></div>
Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-29214455138839100922016-11-01T09:58:00.002-07:002016-11-01T10:00:29.687-07:00Hold Your Nose and Vote?: On the Wickedness of Voting for "The Lesser of Two Evils" <div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-563b9ce3-20d1-fee6-242e-033bf6bac54c"><span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline;"><img height="250" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/cvFGK1DfxCUV4_qlgqUE39BWnWA-Z1LYK1fwAWpPyLZrpouW9QHY8j172hqRuSpdxRHgIaxwgE5wczztyUB3dw556EPU-I_f61ixpbyMeCkDiwu1_V1Ln9iMnWUWxSzK82yX8pFj" style="border: none; transform: rotate(0rad);" width="400" /></span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Most Americans are disgusted with the primary candidates this year. If you're a conservative like me, you've probably seen your fellow conservative Christian friends and relatives squirm while they tell you that we simply must "hold our nose" and vote for Donald Trump. They tell you, “Trump is awful, but I have to vote for him, I have to because the alternative is Hillary Clinton, and that's worse!” The fear is obvious, and understandable. Leaving aside issues of personal evil, Hillary Clinton supports values that stand at odds with the values of politically conservative Christians. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“Perhaps,” you suggest, “there’s another alternative. We could always vote for a third party.”</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“No,” your friends and relatives tell you, “A vote for a third party is a vote for Clinton.”</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The force of this argument, as far as I can tell, rests on two concerns. The one is pragmatic—a third party candidate eats into votes that might have gone to Trump and so means that Clinton is more likely to win the majority and therefore the presidency. The reasoning here is that Trump is bad, but if he wins our values might at least get a seat at the table. If Clinton wins we’re cut out from power. A particular crux of this fear rests in the appointment of Supreme Court justices. The other crux of the argument though, and the one I think really drives people, is its moral force. We are citizens in a democracy. We are morally responsible for the course of our society, and the fear is that if we vote for a third party candidate we are morally responsible for a Clinton presidency. I have even seen one extreme example of this in a Facebook comment (in response to </span><a href="http://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/10/25/13380272/donald-trump-pro-life-abortion" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: blue; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">this post</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> on Vox) that argued that Christians who choose to not vote for Trump will have “the blood of all the abortions after this election” on their hands.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><img height="114" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/eOh8fbMTNgiaB5DAky0lUAyMkk8CaSC7qmeWBaq6pMD5NuhbI3UpJmJF_ezIqyqEkdbcZsoPXrrpHyL5xxlcFy0Zn_Wn0a825TYARR_AQgxlEjZ113blowo9vPQQ5Rv7WCBEWB3A" style="border: none; transform: rotate(0rad);" width="400" /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It’s undeniable that some who present themselves as social conservatives want power for its own sake. However, I believe that most want a seat at the table because they believe in their cause and they are convinced that they are morally on the line for the likely Clinton victory if they don’t vote for Trump. I should pause here to say that while I am focusing in this post on the conservative viewpoint, these same principles apply its liberal mirror. Even Michelle Obama has told liberal voters that if they vote for a third party liberal candidate they are voting for Trump, and as with the conservative side, I believe the force here is both pragmatic and moral. Michelle Obama is pointing to Trump and asking liberal voters, "Do you want to be responsible for that?"</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">However, the moral force of this argument does not hold up under closer scrutiny, and when that crumbles I believe that any case for voting for Donald Trump (or Hillary Clinton if you're a liberal who finds </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">her </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">reprehensible) crumbles with it.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Before I get to the reasoning behind this argument, however, I need to make a point of clarification. I am convinced that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are evil candidates. There’s been plenty of ink spilled on why that’s the case. Matt Anderson has a </span><a href="https://mereorthodoxy.com/should-evangelicals-vote-for-clinton-or-trump/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: blue; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">great post</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> arguing that point on Mere Orthodoxy. So, I’m taking the evil of Clinton and Trump as an assumption for the purposes of this post. I know there are plenty of people who disagree and think either Clinton or Trump admirable. I am not writing to them. I’m writing to those who want to “hold their nose” and vote for Trump.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Voting for the Lesser Evil to Save Your Soul</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">With that out of the way, let’s get to the idea that if you vote for a third party candidate you are morally culpable for the ultimate election of Hillary Clinton, and that we should therefore vote for Trump. Put formally, the argument looks like this:</span></div>
<ol style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A vote for Trump is a vote for an evil candidate.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A vote for Clinton is a vote for an evil candidate.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I am morally responsible for the evil of the candidate I vote for.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A vote for a 3rd party conservative candidate is a vote for Clinton for which I am morally responsible.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia";">Clinton is more evil than Trump because her ends are more evil than his.
</span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">∴</span><span style="font-family: "georgia"; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> I will vote for Trump.</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; text-indent: 18pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; text-indent: 18pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">I obviously agree with premises a) through c). I am convinced that we, as citizens in a democracy, have a duty to vote and share a responsibility in the direction of our society. I’ve already laid my cards on the table regarding how I feel about Trump and Clinton (personally, I think the premise that Clinton’s ends are more evil that Trump’s is debatable, but that isn’t my concern today). The real crux of the argument, I think, is the notion that if I vote for a candidate other than Trump, I am morally culpable for the evils of a Clinton presidency.</span></div>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To understand the morality of this from a Christian perspective, we need to take a step back and consider the basic anatomy of a moral action. In the classical Christian tradition, moral action rests on the free human will working itself out in the world. An actions moral content rests both on the ends sought and the means taken to reach that end. Various Christian philosophers, from St. Maximus the Confessor to St. Thomas Aquinas, have broken up the process of willing in different ways, but the general principles remain the same. Human beings have wills. These wills are free, but not arbitrarily so. Rather, we see ends that we wish to bring about, contemplate some action to accomplish those ends, and then engage in that action. Moral goodness and moral evil are both possible at any point along this spectrum. If I plan to kill someone, think up the means, and try and implement those means, I have committed moral evil even if I fail to kill them. By the same token, if I will to bring about world peace but choose as my means the eradication of people who stand in the way, I have also committed moral evil.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">At no stage in this process can I be morally culpable for things which happen outside of my will and the means I take to engage that will. To give an example, suppose one of my neighbors decides he very much wants my roommate’s television set. He has an end in mind (acquiring the TV), and has decided on means (burglary) which he engages in one night when no one is home. In this case, both the means decided on and the act actually engaged in are morally evil. That I happen to be out having dinner with my girlfriend when the crime occurs, (which makes it easier for him to commit the crime) in no way makes me culpable for his crime. I am not involved in the chain of cause and effect resulting from his will and ending in the burglary of a television. In the case of the burglary, the person committing the crime is responsible for their own action. I am responsible for burglary only if I choose to burglar someone myself. Even if a lot of people in my area decide to start burglarizing other people so that my area becomes an “unsafe neighborhood,” I am only morally responsible for the direct actions I take. Even the choice to go out for dinner with my girlfriend (despite the fact that I live in an unsafe neighborhood and there is a possibility my house will be burglarized) does not make me in any way morally complicit in the burglary.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So what about voting? Does my vote for someone like Evan McMullin count morally as a vote for Clinton if she wins? It should be fairly obvious that I am not directly responsible for the votes other people cast. Imagine that my best friend loathes NAFTA and decides that the best way to get rid of it is to vote for Clinton, who he judges to have more political savvy. He has an end in mind (NAFTA getting abolished), means (the election of Clinton), and an act he engages in to bring about his end (voting for Clinton). At no point in this process is my will engaged, nor can I do anything directly (short of criminal interference) to prevent him from voting for Clinton.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The possibility remains, however, that by voting for someone other than Trump I could be engaging in a sin of omission. We can be responsible to act to stop a moral evil being committed, and if we don't act we are doing something wrong. For example, if I came home to find my neighbor stealing my roommate’s TV and fail to call the police or otherwise interrupt the burglary, I bear some responsibility for the evil that results. Yet, the reason I bear some guilt is that by coming home during the burglary I become directly involved in the cause and effect chain. As a witness to the crime, I therefore either engage my will to stop the crime or to consent to it.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: transparent; clear: right; color: #333333; float: right; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><img height="239" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/nvL6QrSxMF_LNElmx1d2LbbxvnuaZrvKTg-DJqeoN0cFrnPSjWpT3LXcdm-KGUow-HhJEcSncfgY8NLLGfm1okCLoxcVTBoPubW9fa12HzwwXUIkGqYLE6GPF5GiEUI3EYW2Au4M" style="border: none; transform: rotate(0rad);" width="263" /></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I would argue that in the case of voting, no similar sin of omission is possible. When we vote, we engage in a very isolated moral scenario. We do not know for a fact how anyone else will vote. Individual voters decide indepently who they would like to represent them as the leader of their nation. When each individual voter has made their decision as to who to vote for, these votes are then added together state-by-state to determine who the States’ electoral votes go to. The electoral decision itself is thus not, strictly speaking, a moral one. No agent is, in and of themselves, choosing the state of affairs that come about. The electoral decision is like the case of the unsafe neighborhood. It is the result of many actions taken by individuals. As with the case of the neighborhood, I am responsible for the direct actions I choose to take. I am not morally responsible for the moral decision other voters make when they cast their vote, because there is no direct cause-effect relationship between my voting for, say Evan McMullin; three other people voting for Trump; and five more voting for Clinton. The fact that the outcome is an electorate that goes to Clinton is not a direct result of my vote, but of the combined results of our independent actions. As such, my action in that case can only rightly be construed as a vote for McMullin, not a vote for Clinton. Because the vote is blind, I act without direct knowledge of how anyone else is going to act. I can at best estimate based on past trends, but that’s not the same kind of moral action as </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">directly intervening to stop a crime (the crime is an event occurring; the predicted statistical outcome of an election is a projection—a likely but still imaginary scenario). My action in voting for a third party candidate is more like that of the choice to go out to dinner with my girlfriend despite the possibility of a burglary. It is at worst imprudent. It is certainly not morally evil.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; text-indent: 18pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; text-indent: 18pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Prudential Vote</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The question of prudence, then, brings us to the possibility of voting for Trump for merely pragmatic reasons. I may not think I am morally responsible for the election of Clinton if I vote for someone other than Trump, but I may think that the ends I have (ending abortion, for example) are better served by a Trump presidency, and so the most pragmatic means to bring about my end is to vote for Trump. It is possible that some who argue that a vote for a third party is a vote for Clinton are simply saying so as shorthand for this kind of pragmatic reasoning and intend to imply no moral culpability in the election of Clinton for those who vote for third party candidates. This pragmatic reasoning could be formalized as follows:</span></div>
<ol style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A vote for Trump is a vote for an evil candidate.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A vote for Clinton is a vote for an evil candidate.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Trump is more likely to support the causes I agree with.</span></div>
</li>
<li dir="ltr" style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; list-style-type: decimal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: "georgia";">It is pragmatic to vote for a candidate who will support the causes I agree with.
</span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">∴</span><span style="font-family: "georgia"; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> I will vote for Trump.</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "georgia";"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Yet, this kind of reasoning runs afoul of the classical Christian understanding of moral action described above. Moral evil is not merely relative to the ends I have in mind. The plans I come up with to reach that end and the means by which I engage those plans in the real world also have moral content. Going back to our example of burglary—if I stumble upon the burglary in progress and decide to stop it by torturing the burglar, I am guilty of moral evil. Indeed, the bulk of the Christian tradition would say that if torturing the burglar were somehow my only way to stop the burglary, then it would be better for me to allow the crime to take place than engage in evil to stop evil. In the case of voting, if Trump is evil and I intend to use him to reach the end I desire, my means are evil. Even if my end is something laudable, such as ending abortion, I am culpable for moral evil if I choose evil means to bring it about.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Indeed, this ultimately makes the point that even if the information available to me, such as polling data, so involves me in the chain of cause and effect that a failure to stop the election of Clinton by voting for Trump is something I would be morally culpable for, I could still never be justified in choosing the evil means that a vote for Trump represents.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Conclusion</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-indent: 18pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: "georgia"; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So, to summarize, you are responsible for the decision you make in voting, not the decisions others make, and choosing an evil candidate simply to stop a worse one is operating in a utilitarian mode that is at odds with Christian ethics. As such, the only real option for Christian voters is to vote for the candidate they consider to be the best potential leader for our country, not to vote for the lesser of two evils. As far as I’m concerned, that means voting for a third party candidate. This is true even though the moral decisions of others will probably mean a candidate. Which candidate is best, of course, still remains for you as the voter to judge.</span></div>
<span id="docs-internal-guid-563b9ce3-20ce-7ab6-ada4-1ff629bc2e4f"><span style="font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></span>Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-41370885052358989862012-12-04T00:03:00.003-08:002012-12-04T00:03:40.473-08:00Some ArtworkIt's been awhile since I've posted, as I've been approaching the end of my term, and my writing time has been consumed with papers, studying and various other studious activities. Some of my work involves listening, though, and while I cannot write while listening, I most certainly can draw. Here is the result:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://th07.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2012/338/e/c/le_voyage_dans_la_lune_by_ethawyn-d5n3vy1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://th07.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2012/338/e/c/le_voyage_dans_la_lune_by_ethawyn-d5n3vy1.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"Le Voyage dans la luna" <br />based on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Trip_to_the_Moon">A Trip to the Moon</a> by <span style="background-color: #f9f9f9; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 17.266666412353516px; text-align: left;">Georges Méliès</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/338/f/5/tripods_by_ethawyn-d5n3wlz.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="195" src="http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/338/f/5/tripods_by_ethawyn-d5n3wlz.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"Tripods"</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://th01.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2012/339/5/5/self_portrait_by_ethawyn-d5n3ws5.png?1" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="310" src="http://th01.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2012/339/5/5/self_portrait_by_ethawyn-d5n3ws5.png?1" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"Self Portrait"</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I've been playing around with a few different programs to create the above, namely Manga Studio Debut and Autodesk Sketchbook. I did start the third one by tracing an image, by the way, I'm rubbish otherwise at creating faces that look like the person I'm trying to draw. <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Hope this tides you over till I can return to writing. Cheers!<br /><br /></div>
Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-63645515104072215912012-11-06T09:00:00.001-08:002012-11-06T09:00:05.025-08:00Neither in Quietism nor Utopian Frenzy <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/121010031232-obama-romney-social-security-story-top.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="218" src="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/121010031232-obama-romney-social-security-story-top.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 13px; text-align: center;">From <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/10/news/economy/obama-romney-social-security/index.html">CNN Money</a> </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Today an important question will be decided. Today we will find out which man will lead the United States of America for the next four years.<br />
<br />
This is not something to be taken lightly. To vote is a solemn duty<sup>1</sup> of every member of the Republic, and the role of the president as leader of the most powerful Western nation is a crucial one.<br />
<br />
Yet, today, as we execute this duty, let those of us who are Christians not forget our highest allegiance. Christ alone is our Lord, and no early leader, be he liberal, conservative, or any other stripe, it the ultimate master of history.<br />
<br />
We are called by our Lord to work for good in this world, and that means, among other things, that we must do our right duties as members of whatever nation we find ourselves in. If that nation is a Republic, that means we should vote.<br />
<br />
We are not to be quietists, sitting on the sidelines and letting the world go whatever way it may. Or worse, as quietism all too often actually does, participating in the acts of the sinful world thinking it doesn't matter since God is in control.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, we must remember that the world will not stand or fall on the actions of any man but Christ. Let the heathens rage at the heavens, the ultimate good has been accomplished on the cross. No matter who wins today, the world will not end. Ultimately, we must remember that Utopia is not ours to bring, and that while the Lord will use the work we do in building His Kingdom, it is He alone who can finally usher it in.<br />
<br />
Do good work, but do not fret or fear. You stand secure in the One centre of all time and space who cannot be moved. The One is True, Good and Beautiful loves you and loves this world, and His word will be final. In the last day He shall come and wipe every tear from our eyes (Revelation 21:4) and justice at last shall be accomplished, but until that day let us in humility sow good seed in the little gardens we are given.<br />
<br />
Especially in a country like American, which for all its problems is no tyranny, the leader we choose will not ultimately be able to do either too great of good, or of evil.<br />
<br />
So I call to my Christian brothers and sisters to vote, in hope and peace of mind, and of course always with prayer upon our lips.<br />
<br />
____________________________________________<br />
1. It is a solemn duty I must confess I am failing in this year, as I was not responsible in ordering an absentee ballot in time.<br />
Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-7475635395641991372012-11-03T15:17:00.003-07:002012-11-03T22:39:37.702-07:00All Saints vs Reformation Day <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://uploads8.wikipaintings.org/images/albrecht-durer/all-saints-picture-1511.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://uploads8.wikipaintings.org/images/albrecht-durer/all-saints-picture-1511.jpg" width="282" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">from <a href="http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/albrecht-durer/all-saints-picture-1511#close">WikiPaintings</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
On October 31st, 1517 Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of All Saints Church in Wittenberg, Germany. For many, this marks the beginning of the Reformation, and the end of Roman dominion in the western church. Because October 31st marked the beginning of Protestantism, it is celebrated by many as Reformation Day.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is fine for those of us not in fellowship with the Holy See to celebrate what we see as the end of many abuses perpetrated by the Church of Rome. Yet, there is an even more important holiday that we should not forget to celebrate. For October 31st is the eve of All Saints. Last year, I wrote a<a href="http://ethawyn.blogspot.ca/2011/11/your-harvest-festival-is-pagan.html"> blog post</a> commending the celebration of Halloween over the celebration of Harvest Festivals, since in the celebration of All Saints we celebrate "the holistic communion between all the saints extended throughout history and geography - the catholic communion."<br />
<br />
This year, for the same reason, I want to commend the celebration of All Saints over the celebration of Reformation Day. As I said, it is fine to celebrate what we see as being gained in the Ninety-Five Theses, but we should not loose sight of the fact that Protestantism is an expression of a faith older and larger than it. The final reality we should all point to is the eschatological reality of union in Christ. The Church, despite her broken outward appearance, is spiritually one. To celebrate the communion of Saints is thus a much more noble thing than to celebrate any particular expression of that communion. Especially, it is greater than celebrating an event which, however important, was also responsible for the most serious visible fracturing of that Church since the Great Schism.<br />
<br />
Therefore, with all the Saints let us give glory to God the Father, through Jesus Christ, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, for the Passion and Resurrection of His Son by which we have been called from all peoples into one family. </div>
Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-12729524338955263502012-10-30T16:13:00.002-07:002012-10-30T16:13:16.896-07:00A Quick "Defense" of the Disney LucasFilms Buyout<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://eventservices.disney.go.com/files/10905661.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://eventservices.disney.go.com/files/10905661.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From <a href="http://eventservices.disney.go.com/files/10905661.jpg">Disney</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I have a big midterm tomorrow, so this is going to have to be quick. For those of you who don't know, Disney has <a href="http://ca.ign.com/articles/2012/10/30/the-walt-disney-company-acquires-lucasfilm-star-wars-episode-vii-set-for-2015">bought out LucasFilms </a>and made plans to release a new <i>Star Wars</i> film in 2015.<br />
<br />
Many fanboys and girls have dutifully announced the end of the world.<br />
<br />
It's an understandable reaction. Afterall, <i>Star Wars</i> has already been trampled on so horribly by Lucas, imagine what the Mouse might do. Nevertheless, I, for one, am cautiously optimistic.<br />
<br />
To begin with, let's face the fact that <i>Star Wars </i>will never be what the originals were. Even a film that matches their quality will never match their magic. Let's also admit that, as I said before, Lucas himself has trampled on <i>Star Wars. </i>The prequels are horrible. Moreover, <i>Star Wars </i>stuff is being made. There's already the <i>Clone Wars </i>TV show, plans for a live action show, and that peculiar Seth Green comedy being made.<br />
<br />Disney has also shown they can do <i>Star Wars. Star Tours </i>is a brilliant expression of the <i>Star Wars </i>universe (at least the original is, I'm not really acquainted with the new one).<br />
<br />
Not too long ago, Disney bought out Marvel, to similar fan distress. Now, that wasn't as big of a deal as this, but let's look at what's happened. Despite jokes to the contrary, Mickey Mouse has not waltzed into a Marvel film. Moreover, there's that little thing called <i>Avengers</i>. It hasn't all been perfect, of course - witness Disney's cancellation of the near perfect <i>Spectacular Spider-man </i>to replace it with an utter failure, but neither has it been disastrous.<br />
<br />
<i>Star Wars </i>has needed to be emancipated from Lucas for a long time. A cultural myth that big shouldn't be in the hands of one man whose vision for it is so utterly divorced from that of his fans. I suspect a new <i>Star Wars </i>film under the direction of Disney will be good. Not, as I said, as good as the originals (but we still have those, and who knows, maybe Disney will let us get our hands on the original originals again), but possibly at least as good as <i>Avengers</i>, which is considerably better than the disaster of the prequels.<br />
<br />
Here's to hope.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-88551401855968784922012-10-19T10:00:00.000-07:002012-10-19T10:03:28.379-07:00Holy Virginity<div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://uploads1.wikipaintings.org/images/fra-angelico/virgin-mary-annunciate-1433.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://uploads1.wikipaintings.org/images/fra-angelico/virgin-mary-annunciate-1433.jpg" width="262" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Virgin Mary Annunciate by Fra Angelico<br />
from <a href="http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/fra-angelico/virgin-mary-annunciate-1433">WikiPaintings</a> </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Sex is good. Or so I've been told, loudly and often, by churches eager to set themselves apart from a past perceived as anti-sex. We are not those old Greek Fathers who hated sex. We now see that the Jews perceived sex as unambiguously good, and so, therefore, should we. Nevermind, of course, that the culture which surrounded the Greek Fathers also saw sex as good, and engaged in it, apparently, in ways wild enough to make the sexual revolution look like a Victorian luncheon. Nevermind that when Socrates, in <i>Phaedrus</i>, contrasted love and sex, he was doing so in a society in which pederasty was the norm. Nevermind that Christianity, in making virginity a virtue for all people actually created great liberty for women.<br />
<br />
And certainly let's not ask how we got from the (admittedly extreme) place of St. Gregory of Nyssa insisting that the Song of Songs could only be allegory and not about sex at all, to a place where Mark Driscoll can claim it's not at all allegory, but just a sex manual.<br />
<br />
No, nevermind all that, the Greek Fathers were prudes, and we most certainly are not.<br />
<br />
Of course, we are quickly reminded, this is sex <i>in its proper context</i>, which is marriage. Till we can have this proper sex, we should wait. Virginity, then is virtuous.<br />
<br />
Yet what if the Greek Fathers had a point? Yes, sexuality is a good thing, when it is, and we should never cease to give glory to God for His gift to us of it. Yet in a world in which sin is a reality, it is hardly unambiguously good. Its not just promiscuous sex that's the problem either, married relations have their fair share of problems.<br />
<br />
I vehemently affirm the proposition that sex is good, and that we should not forget this fact. Yet, it's a fact that would be hard for us to forget in the world we live in. Our culture frequently tells us that sex is good. We tell ourselves sex is good. And let's not forget the huge problems that single men and women in the pastorate have in finding jobs, or the marginal place which single people are assigned in our churches. Nor is it unproblematic that, in my experience, the Christian desire for companionship looks almost identical to that of the contemporary non-Christian world, and radically different from that of the past. The pendulum has swung too far.<br />
<br />
Let us continue to affirm the goodness of sex, but let us recover virginity. Let us affirm the positive goodness of virginity as a virtue, and not just its negative goodness. In other words, let us not just see virginity as avoiding a sin of commission, but as a positive commission of virtue. Let us also not fall into the trap of thinking that spiritual virginity is asexual. To engage virginity as a Christian virtue is very much to engage ones sexuality. One cannot be a virgin without being a sexual being.<br />
<br />
We should also not let the religious virgins and sacramental marriages be two different worlds. Both expressions of Christian virtue ought to speak into and inform each other.<br />
<br />
Many of the great Saints of the Church, from St. Paul to St. Thomas Aquinas, and above all, of course, the Virgin Mary, have been such virgins. <br />
<br />
I will close by saying that it is not impossible to transverse from one world into another. For those, like me, who are single, but do not feel a call to lifetime celibacy, there is still a place for positively engaging our virginity as a special gift by which can be identified with the great Saints of the Church, and be shaped more into the image and likeness of Christ. We can, and ought to, engage our virginity as a prayer unto God, and not merely as a waiting room for the glorious future of marital bliss. Let us be present to where we are, that, in the sacrament of the present moment, we, with all the Saints, might be transformed by God's love so that our lives might be a good for the sake of others.</div>Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-80421698484134376772012-10-19T00:52:00.003-07:002012-10-19T00:52:41.239-07:00The Martyrs Testify: Christian Catholicity Against the Victim Mentality <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://uploads2.wikipaintings.org/images/annibale-carracci/the-martyrdom-of-st-stephen-1603.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://uploads2.wikipaintings.org/images/annibale-carracci/the-martyrdom-of-st-stephen-1603.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Martyrdom of St. Stephen<br />
by Annibale Carracci from <a href="http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/annibale-carracci/the-martyrdom-of-st-stephen-1603#close">WikiPaintings</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
A few weekends ago, Regent College had a conference on faith and politics. During this conference, Peter Leithart spoke on the role of martyrs in the transformation of society. He emphasized the powerful witness of the Christian martyrs against the system of power in the old roman world, and how this witness stood as a prophecy of the coming destruction of pagan Rome, and as a prayer to the God who would surely not let the seed of the martyr blood lie fallow. Leithart then emphasized that we ought to identify ourselves with the martyr witness.<br />
<br />
In response to this, Iwan Russel-Jones worried that to focus on the martyrs would simply encourage the harmful victim mentality of modern evangelical Christians.<br />
<br />
And he's right - it might. Indeed, I think it will if we continue to forget the catholicity of the Church. If we forget that we are one body with the martyrs past, present and future, then we may indeed exaggerated our own sense of cultural alienation into melodramatic martyr language.<br />
<br />
However, I believe that the prescription of Peter Leithart is precisely what we need to <i>cure </i>the victim mentality. For Leithart is not advocating a localized view of martyrdom and the church, but a global one. When we are truly catholic, remembering that many Christians today are true martyrs, and that they are our brothers and sisters, along with the saints in Heaven who's prayers continually go up before the throne of God, then we can be under no illusion that our present trials are martyrdom. <i>Our </i>witness will become the prayers, fasting and acts of service we do in honour of those whose lives have become true sacrifices.<br />
<br />
Let us remember the martyr-saints who have gone before us, and those who stand beside us in the Church militant. <br />
<br />
<br />Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-81486122411063364512012-09-29T21:44:00.001-07:002012-09-29T21:51:16.621-07:00A Reflection on Angels <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://uploads1.wikipaintings.org/images/giovanni-battista-tiepolo/the-prophet-isaiah-1729.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="224" src="http://uploads1.wikipaintings.org/images/giovanni-battista-tiepolo/the-prophet-isaiah-1729.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo via <a href="http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/giovanni-battista-tiepolo/the-prophet-isaiah-1729">WikiPaintings</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The grace of God is a terrible thing. Not in the more common parlance, but in the old sense of a thing likely to cause terror. For we, our faith tells us, have been creatures of the darkness who "loved darkness rather than light, because [our] deeds were evil" (John 3:19). The light blinds us, the message of God leaves us paralyzed.The Word of God, by whom we are made whole, is "like a refiner's fire" (Malachi 3:2).<br />
<br />
Is it any wonder then, that throughout scriptures, the presence of angels, the messengers who carry the words of God, leaves men stricken with holy terror? Often, this is understood as a result of the angel's otherworldly nature, for they are indeed utterly eldritch in their appearance. Yet, might it not be they themselves that terrify, but the message they carry?<br />
<br />
For though they bring good news, the message is also terrifying. We are called to give up ourselves, to raise crosses and be buried with Christ that we might live to God. That this is a scary thing should not be downplayed.<br />
<br />
To those in darkness, the messengers of God seem to bring death. Yet, though we die, if it be in Christ we shall live. Like Isaiah, though we be men of "unclean lips," God will make us clean that we might become messengers of His Kingdom (Isaiah 6:5-7).<br />
<br />
We will, and we should, fear this message of God, but more so should we hope. The messengers of God are but creatures, and the words they have brought us are not, ultimately, words of death, but words of life! Today, as we celebrate the Feast of St. Michael and All Angels, let us remember to whom their presence should ever point us. Let us, when we hear the message, like the blessed virgin Mary, declare to God, "Let it be to me according to your word" (Luke 1:38). Let us receive Christ this day, that "as we have known the incarnation of thy Son Jesus Christ by the message of an angel, so by his cross and passion we may be brought unto the glory of his resurrection; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen" (Angelus).Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-73061029196340498402012-09-29T21:04:00.002-07:002012-09-29T21:04:22.073-07:00The Paradox of the Altar<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://uploads5.wikipaintings.org/images/giovanni-battista-tiepolo/the-sacrifice-of-isaac-1729.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="234" src="http://uploads5.wikipaintings.org/images/giovanni-battista-tiepolo/the-sacrifice-of-isaac-1729.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">By Giovanni Battista Tiepolo via <a href="http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/giovanni-battista-tiepolo/the-sacrifice-of-isaac-1729">WikiPaintings</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Many of the desires we have are God given, for our Lord desires us to pursue our vocations, that by them we might make manifest His Kingdom.<br />
<br />
Sometimes God asks us to give up our desires though, even the things He has seemed to promise us. That giving up, however, is frequently not a permanent thing. We offer up that which we love most that we might receive it back holy - "whoever loses their life for me will find it" (Matthew 16:25). Like Abraham, we put the child of promise upon the altar trusting in the goodness of God.<br />
<br />
Yet there is a paradox, and one I am not at all certain how to live in. I have felt called to, at least for a time, sacrifice something dear to me. Nevertheless, I have a certain faith that God will give it back to me sanctified. How do I do this, though? How do I give up to God the promise, trusting all the while that He shall return it to me? How do I make God my end and not the thing I am giving up? For unless God is my desire, the Beloved who I yearn for with all my heart, then I cannot sacrifice this desire, and I will never then receive it back holy.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-63075160375610546032012-09-18T14:33:00.000-07:002012-09-19T08:02:13.849-07:00The Orthodox Way <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images.oca.org/readings/large/orthway.ware.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://images.oca.org/readings/large/orthway.ware.jpg" width="204" /></a></div>
I've always been an ecumenist. I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church, and believe that every creed professing person is a member of Christ's Church.<sup>1 </sup> A few years back, however, I had a few realizations that changed the form of my ecumenism.<br />
<br />
The first was the realization that <i>sola scriptura</i>, when seen in the ahistorical way many modern Evangelicals view it, is <a href="http://ethawyn.blogspot.ca/2010/11/theology-sola-scriptura.html">an untenable position</a>.<br />
<br />
Second, I realized that the sort of ecumenism I had developed bordered dangerously on <a href="http://ethawyn.blogspot.ca/2011/03/i-am-identity-in-submission.html">consumerism.</a> Denominations don't really matter, they're like fashion. I put on liturgy, you put on anabaptism and none of it matters substantially. I truly believe that ecumenism is good, but when it reduces to matters of taste, it becomes dangerously individualistic.<br />
<br />
These two realizations led me to the third. If I am to be a serious ecumenist, and not merely one who considers the diversity of the church merely a matter of fashion, then I need to take seriously the identity and claims of the branches of the Church. Moreover, since I could no longer hold to simplistic<i> sola scriptura</i>, I could no longer dismiss <i>out of hand </i>the claims of those branches of Christianity, namely the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, that depended upon the authority of tradition. At the same time, I was also reading much Medieval Philosophy, and beginning to see the coherence of some of the views of Roman Catholicism.<br />
<br />
I had always thought that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believers could very well be real Christians, just as easily as any Protestant could. However, this had always amounted to thinking they could in virtue of the fact that the core of what they believed matched what I believed. It was, in other words, a kind of patronizing ecumenism. They got in because, despite all their weird additions, they were in essence like me. Yet, both these churches claim for themselves the identity of being <i>the </i>one true holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The rest of us might be Christians, but we are so in virtue of being, as it were, accidental members of <i>their </i>faith. That's a serious claim, and I decided that if I would be a serious ecumenist, then I should give it genuine consideration.<br />
<br />
So, on and off for the last couple of years I have been giving Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy a serious look. This has not, necessarily, been with an eye towards converting, and I highly doubt I will. On the one hand, there is something about the two churches I find highly aesthetically compelling. At times I feel like Protestantism looks like a sketch of Christianity, while Roman Catholicism looks like a detailed Renaissance painting and Eastern Orthodoxy like one of its Ikons, with all the colour and symbolism it brings. Yet, there's too much about Rome and the East that doesn't sit easy with me, their absolute rejection of a female priesthood for example, so that even if some of their claims compel me, I'm not sure I could ever align myself with them.<br />
<br />
Still, in the end I want to seek Jesus where He may be found, and I at times I think there is something of Him in the Old High Churches that we have lost, so I continue to look at them and learn from them, and only God knows what will happen.<sup>2</sup><br />
<br />
Researching Roman Catholicism has been relatively easy. They have many books that clearly lay out their views and apologetics, including their very detailed catechism. Searching the East, however, has proved more challenging. I have long desired to find a kind of <i>Mere Christianity </i>of Eastern Orthodoxy, and had so far come up empty. I was, thus, understandably excited to see <i>The Orthodox Way </i>in the list of extra readings for one of my classes, and quickly picked it up.<br />
<br />
I am extremely happy with the book. It is beautifully written and clearly exposits the Eastern faith not merely propositionally, but as a living faith. I find that much written here I can wholeheartedly agree with, and those things that I don't agree with I at least find compelling. Most of all, the book fills me once again with wonder at God's glory and excitement about the future of my faith here on Earth, leading me in turn to fervent prayer. I have not been so wholly captivated by a work of theology since I read N.T. Wright's <i>Surprised by Hope </i>several years ago.<br />
<br />
As I said in my long preamble, I do not expect that I will ever go over to the East, but I am deeply grateful for this book, and it certainly gives me food for thought. If you are a Christian of any stripe, but especially one with questions about our brothers and sisters in the East, I heartily recommend a look at this book.<br />
<br />
There is much more I could say about this book, and I may indeed write more posts on it in the future weeks reflecting on what I have read within its pages. For now though, I simply want to leave you with a glowing recommendation.<br />
<br />
The peace of the Lord be always with you.<br />
________________________________<br />
1. This is why I am so opposed to re-baptism. If there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism," (Ephesians 4:5) by which "we were all baptised into one body" (1 Corinthians 12:13), then to re-baptise is to declare the other baptism unreal, and thereby to declare that all baptised in that other church aren't members of the body.<br />
2. I certainly hope you will pray for me as I ask these important questions. I don't want my decision to be based on fashion, the sexiness of a certain theological view, or even my own limited reasoning, but on the guidance of God's Spirit.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-47620710803477103082012-09-09T22:38:00.000-07:002012-09-09T22:43:42.624-07:00Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism Review <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://robinthecoach.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Retrieving-the-Tradition-Renewing-Evangelicalism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://robinthecoach.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Retrieving-the-Tradition-Renewing-Evangelicalism.jpg" width="211" /></a></div>
Something is wrong with Free Church evangelicalism, or so D.H. Williams (I would say accurately) claims in <i>Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants</i>. The Christian Church has gone through splits before, first in the Great Schism between East and West, and again in the Protestant reformation, yet the massive proliferation of splinter groups in recent memory is unprecedented. The Free Church isn't going away though, in fact, it's growing with incredible rapidity. Almost any Christian would say the growth of the Christian faith is a good thing, but the divisions D.H. Williams rightly finds troubling. The problem isn't just divisions either, but the theological free-for-all that feeds them. When it's every man for himself in theology, then every man's convictions can become a cause for division. Treating the Bible as an authority certainly doesn't seem to be enough either, as the long history of Christian heresies bears out.<br />
<br />
So how to solve the problem? Williams doesn't think the end of the Free Church is likely, or even desirable (he is a Baptist after all), but he does think the Free Church can be revitalized and given a theological center. The key, Williams claims, is to reclaim the early Tradition. He does not mean by the Tradition the Roman Catholic Magesterium, but rather the guides to theology, such as the Creeds, that act as lenses through which to read the Bible. What Williams wants to argue in his book is that Protestants, even Free Church Protestants, don't need to fear the tradition. The Reformers were right to emphasize scripture, but they also saw the place of Tradition as an aid in understanding and interpreting it. Indeed, they even used the early Tradition as weapons in their battle against the Roman Catholic church. There is no reason, Williams thinks, that the Free Church cannot lay hold of the benefits of the Tradition and still remain the Free Church.<br />
<br />
The argument of the book is certainly unique and definitely compelling, but I'm not sure it's entirely successful. I'm not, of course, the audience of this book, as I'm a high church Anglican with a pretty positive view of the role of the Church's Tradition in Christian orthodoxy, but I'm entirely sure how persuasive the argument laid out in the book would be to his audience. Moreover, I'm not sure that the Free Church really can be what it is and at the same time respect the Tradition. I don't know the answer to that quandary, as my own understanding of the relationship between Christian orthodoxy, Scripture and the Church's Tradition is still something I'm definitely wrestling with, but I'm suspicious. For one thing, while the Tradition is a valuable thing, it too can be open to interpretation, so I'm not sure it solves the hermeneutical puzzle that troubles Williams. If all he wants to do is encourage Free Church protestants to at least converse with the Tradition, more power to him, but it hardly seems likely to solve, in and of itself, the individualism that plagues that expression of our faith.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the biggest problem I see is a lack of clarity on the part of Williams as to what he means by Tradition. He makes the distinction, often made in certain circles, between Tradition and traditions, but I felt he did a rather poor job explaining what he saw as a difference.<br />
<br />
Neverthless, not all is bad with this book. Certainly, Williams is bringing an important part of the Christian faith to the attention of those in the Free Church, and he is doing it as an insider. He does succeed in arguing that Protestants don't need to fear the Tradition, and successfully dismantles Anabaptist myths of the "fall of the Church" after Constantine.<br />
<br />
So, there's certainly plenty of good material to be had here, but it's certainly not the earth-shattering book I was hoping for. Worth a read if your a Protestant, especially a Free Church Protestant, with questions about the Tradition, but it probably won't settle things for you.<sup>1</sup><br />
_________________________________________<br />
1. Another more detailed review of the book can be read over at <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/retrieving-the-tradition-and-renewing-evangelicalism-a-primer-for-suspicious-protestants-43">First Things.</a>Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-69200653454554800232012-09-01T12:54:00.002-07:002012-09-01T12:54:51.226-07:00What's So Wrong About Apologizing? <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/2008-08-02_Flag_of_the_United_States_of_America_backwards.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/2008-08-02_Flag_of_the_United_States_of_America_backwards.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">By Ildar Sagdejev (Specious) (Own work)<br /> [<a href="http://www.blogger.com/(http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)">GFDL</a> or <a href="http://www.blogger.com/(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)">CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0</a>], via <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3A2008-08-02_Flag_of_the_United_States_of_America_backwards.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney said a lot of things, mostly benign, a times nice, and occasionally utterly terrifying.<sup>1</sup> Some were also lies. This, of course, surprises no one. Politicians lie, we know that. I want to talk about one lie in particular, the claim that Obama began his Presidency with "an apology tour." As the Washington Post has pointed out, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-mitt-romneys-acceptance-speech-at-the-gop-convention/2012/08/31/70c3d8de-f31f-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_blog.html">this isn't true at all</a>.<br />
<br />
What I want to talk about here, however, is not so much the lying, but the nature of the accusation itself. Let's imagine it was true that Obama apologized because "America ...had dictated to other nations." I ask, what would be wrong with this? Is it not part of being a mature, adult human being that when you think you've done something wrong, you approach the wronged parties and apologize, ask forgiveness and seek reconciliation? Imagine knowing someone who had continually acted in a selfish manner, and had, to top it all off, refused to ever admit wrong, always blaming others and pridefully boasting of his actions? What would you call such a person? Manchild comes to mind.<br />
<br />
Now, America may not be like the selfish person described above. I actually do believe that, most of the time, the cases in recent memory where America really screwed up (i.e. Iraq) were still entered into with the best of intentions. Nevertheless, if you act with the best of intentions and you mess up, you apologize. Of course, it's another question entirely whether America did mess up, but if that's your point of contention, Mr. Romney, then say that. It's perfectly reasonable to say, "Mr. President, you apologized for dictating to other nations, but you shouldn't have apologized because we were right in taking those actions." To get upset merely over the fact of any sort of apology ever being made for anything, though, is backwards. Somehow though, it's gotten into the understanding of some Americans that any sort of admission of weakness is anti-American, a failure of patriotism.<sup>2</sup> That's silly. America is not the Kingdom of Heaven, but a human nation. Human nations err.<br />
<br />
I sincerely hope that Romney, should he become president, can find a place in his heart that will be okay with apologizing if the country, under his leadership, makes mistakes. I find it hard to imagine he will though, since doing so would mean admitting that America isn't always "the greatest country in the history of the world."<sup>3</sup><br />
_____________________________________<br />
1. However politically calculated, it's still nice hear a conservative emphasize the rights of women to have a political voice. On the other hand, calling optimism uniquely American is annoying, and promising to build up a military so powerful no one would ever dare to question us is horrifying.<br />
<br />
2. Moreover, I think this emphasizes just how thoroughly <i>not</i> Christian the American nation is. To recognize wrong, address it and seek forgiveness is a central part of the lived Christian faith, but to apologize for American misdoings is, apparently, anti-American.<br />
<br />
3. Quotes taken from <a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/08/30/160357612/transcript-mitt-romneys-acceptance-speech">NPR's transcript</a> of Romney's speech.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-36870427143583283932012-08-24T12:15:00.000-07:002012-08-24T12:15:16.166-07:00Sometimes Something Goes Right<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg" width="319" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">By NASA. Photo taken by either<br /> Harrison Schmitt or Ron Evans (of the Apollo 17 crew). <br />[Public domain], via <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AThe_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Sometimes something goes right in the world.<br />
<br />
It's been a rough week for sane readers of the news. With everything from a certain Republican showing an abysmal ignorance of female anatomy to horribly offensive topical bibles... it's been easy to fall to despairing.<br />
<br />
But sometimes, something goes right with the world, and I can't help but smile.<br />
<br />
You see, being pro-life should be about more than an opposition to abortion. It should be about a passionate respect for all life, and a commitment to the protection of those who cannot protect themselves, be they the unborn or rape victims. Yet, as Rep. Akin's comments earlier this week showed, those in the pro-life movement can sometimes loose sight of that fact.<br />
<br />
Then today I read <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-jim-ball/christians-support-epa-on-climate-change_b_1625951.html">this </a>piece of news at the Huffington Post. Go ahead, read it.<br />
<br />
Now let that soak in. 50,000 Pro-Life Christians are supporting care for the environment. 50,000 Pro-Life Christians are putting <i>life </i>first, not a particular issue. 50,00 Pro-Life Christians understand that protecting the environment is <a href="http://ethawyn.blogspot.ca/2011/02/philosophy-objectifying-environment.html">not about the defense of some abstract thing</a>, but about the stewardship of <i>our </i>world.<br />
<br />
Somewhere, right now, out there in America, 50,00 Pro-life Christians who <i>get it </i>are walking around.<br />
<br />
Sometimes something goes right in the world.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-77393530555327368802012-08-20T09:00:00.000-07:002012-08-20T09:12:29.614-07:00Every Man Just Wants To Be a Princess <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.feastoffun.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/princess-logo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.feastoffun.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/princess-logo.jpg" /></a></div>
Aaaand now that I have your attention.<br />
<br />
That's exactly what I mean. Well, almost exactly. "Every" is a bit of an exaggeration, since it's hard to say that every individual member of any particular group wants one thing. There's always exceptions (like sociopaths for example). But given that caveat, and the context I'll shortly be giving you, I'm pretty sure that what I said is 100% true.<br />
<br />
So, onto that all important context. If you're the sort of person who reads this blog, then you <i>probably </i>know what a complementarian is. Nevertheless, I'll give you the short of it. A complementarian is someone who thinks that there is an essential difference between men and women, and that this essential difference in some way suits them to different roles (that <i>complement </i>each other). Just what these different roles are can very wildly from one complementarian to another, but in general I've found it's not in terms of, say, work. I've rarely met a complementarian who just thought women should stay at home.<sup>1</sup> More often, the important axis for explaining the essential differences purported to exist between men and women is marriage.<br />
<br />
Frequently, the details of this essential difference are couched in mythic terms. In everything from <i>Wild at Heart</i> to the unintentionally ironic organization "Lancelot Lives" (which itself is apparently no longer alive<sup>2</sup>), the difference perceived between men and women is painted in vivid pictures of knights and princesses. This, they say, is no accident because those tales aren't accidental, they portray something essential about humankind. Men, you see, are knights, or at least desire to be, and women are princesses. The men want to fight battles, rescue the weak and defend there homes. Women want to be rescued, and... um.. be beautiful... and some other stuff I guess. Both parties, they say, want love, but love of a different kind. The men want their strength and leadership to be respected. The women want to be cherished.<br />
<br />
And I say that's a load of crock. Of course men want respect for what they've accomplished, but so do women. Men want to be cherished too. I don't there's a man in the world who, when faced with darkness, doesn't desire to be rescued, held, shown nurturing love. It's not always a romantic desire to be sure. Sometimes they just want it from friends, sometimes from their parents, sometimes from God. But they want it.<br />
<br />
Moreover, as a Christian I'm inclined to say this is a <i>good </i>thing. The faith we practice teaches us that we are dependent upon God, that we are literally <i>nothing </i>without Him. Every Christian, male or female, should experience points in their life where they fall on their knees and cry out to God for rescue, beg Him to come down, wrap His wings around them and cherish them. Moreover, every Christian, after having been cherished by God and fed at His table, should find the strength to gird themselves for the battle of faith and go out into the world as knights for the gospel, spreading not violence, but the very cherishing love they have been given. So, in short I agree with the complementarians that the myth of the knight and the princess is no accident. It tells us something about ourselves, but it isn't a lesson about gender. Every man just wants to be a princess, and every woman wants to be a knight.<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
___________________________________<br />
1. Though most are opposed to women in ministry.
2. At least I cannot find it anymore, but I saw it once, I swear.<br />
3. None of this is to say I don't think there's any difference between men and women. At the very least, our bodies are different, and I think that's important. I don't know what the difference is though, and I certainly think it's problematic to make it a matter of roles. Especially when those roles involve terms like "submission" and "leadership".<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-57073049189618351682012-08-16T21:35:00.000-07:002012-08-16T23:22:29.207-07:00The Windup Girl Review <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.worldswithoutend.com/covers/pb_thewindu.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://www.worldswithoutend.com/covers/pb_thewindu.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.worldswithoutend.com/novel.asp?id=1737">Worlds Without End</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>The Windup Girl<i> </i>by Paolo Bacigalupi </b><br />
<b><i>2010 Hugo Award Winner for Best Novel and 2009 Nebula Award Winner for Best Novel </i></b><br />
<br />
I'm a sucker for a good setting. After all, I was raised up on a steady diet of <i>The Lord of the Rings </i>and learned early that a well built setting is a wonderful compliment to a good story, and can even be a pleasure all its own. When you come down to it, that's probably why I love science fiction and fantasy - they're the only genres were I can indulge in the pleasure of world building. Well, <i>The Windup Girl </i>is an absolutely fantastic bit of world building, and I'll waste no more time in giving it high praise.<br />
<br />
Rather than being set on some far off planet or in a gritty metropolitan future, <i>The Windup Girl </i>takes place in a Thailand of the future, one that exists in a radically different, but utterly believable, political and economic world from our own. It's that believability that's so incredible about Bacigalupi's world. Our world has gone through many economic shifts, from agrarian to industrial and beyond. But who from an agrarian society could have pictured an industrial world? Of course, there's no guarantee the world will go the way of Bacigalupi's vision (hopefully it won't) but one can readily imagine it, and that makes it a wonder to behold.<br />
<br />
Without giving too much away, since so much of the pleasure of <i>The Windup Girl </i>is the slow unraveling of its setting, the world Bacigalupi builds is one of a post-industrial crunch. Well before the time of the book, the petroleum that fuels our world's economy ran out, without any comparable alternative being found, and the global economy quickly became a thing of the past. The world couldn't just go back to being agrarian though, because industry had changed the world forever. Alternative technologies provide for some of what petroleum provided before, though with nowhere near the power, and the world is slowly inching back towards a global economy. Maintaining these technologies is crucial, because during the industrial age the agro-businesses had created genetically engineered crops and plagues that guaranteed humanity would need to continue to rely on advanced technology to keep itself alive and fed.<br />
<br />
In the midst of this world of economic isolation and genetic disaster, the city of Bangcock is a boiler plate of political and economic tensions. Two major forces jostle for power within the city, as those who seek to protect the city from the outside world, the "White Shirts" of the environmental ministry, butt heads with those of the Trade Ministry who see salvation for Thailand in the recovering global economy. <i>The Windup Girl </i>is the story of one genetically engineered Japanese girl who becomes caught up in these forces.<br />
<br />
This book certainly won't be for everyone, however. It is a story about politics, and so naturally it moves at a lumbering pace. Mind you, I enjoyed nearly every minute of it, but it was certainly not a page turner and took me awhile to finish. Also, the exploitation which the titular Windup Girl Emiko faces throughout the story is not easy stuff, so if you've got a queasy stomach you should probably stay away. It's also not a book without it's flaws. The prose is perfectly serviceable, but not incredible, and the characters that inhabit it, while not flat, fail to really jump off the page.<br />
<br />
It's also not a book whose message I can get on board with, though that certainly doesn't mean its poorly done, or that I can't enjoy it. Without giving too much away, the books overall slant seems to be something of a Buddhist Transhumanism. Which, when you come right down to it, is a very interesting worldview, just one dramatically opposed to my own.<br />
<br />
So, if you love world building, and enjoy political stories, I can highly recommend <i>The Windup Girl. </i>If that's not your style, then this book is definitely not for you.<br />
<br />
Also, fantastic cover.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-26827342458389313342012-08-14T11:59:00.003-07:002012-08-15T12:41:25.068-07:00The Anti-American<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/White_House_lawn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="128" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/White_House_lawn.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I, Daniel Schwen<br />
[<a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html">GFDL</a>, <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">CC-BY-SA-3.0 </a>or <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5">CC-BY-SA-2.5</a>], via <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AWhite_House_lawn.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Anti-American is a phrase I hear bandied about a lot these days. Mostly, I'm afraid, it's in conservative circles. It's a phrase, however, that doesn't seem to have any clear content. Or, rather, it's a catchall for anything and everything the conservative speaker disagrees with. Obama is anti-American because he's "a socialist," for example.<br />
<br />
The thing is, I cannot imagine anything more <i>fundamentally </i>anti-American than this use of the phrase. The very foundation of what it is to be American, I would think, is to be (little "d") democratic. Our society is built on the principle that government serves by the will of the people. The <i>people</i>, the society, not you and your personal opinions. Of course, "the people" is an abstract concept - the will of "the people" really consists of the will of many of the people, and your personal viewpoint is one that must be taken into account in determining that will. That's why we vote.<br />
<br />
In the end though, sometimes the vote goes against you. Sometimes a president gets voted in on a mildly liberal platform, promises he'll reform healthcare and then actually does it. Well, you may not like it (I'm certainly not sure what I think of "Obamacare") but it is, to some degree or another, the will of the people.<br />
<br />
So it's not your will. Well, good thing is we are a democracy, and you can fight Obamacare, or anything else about liberalism you don't like, and try and get things changed. Of course the system isn't perfect, many people are disenfranchised in one way or another by our society because all human societies have at least some oppression built into them.<sup>1</sup> But you can try, and you won't be shot for it, and that's a good thing. More importantly, it's the fundamentally American thing, the ability to disagree, to debate, and then to build a society off of the results of that debate, in our case determined by vote.<br />
<br />
The flipside of that is, however, that if the debate doesn't go your way, you don't dare call the outcome anti-American (assuming the result isn't one that someone disenfranchises someone). To call viewpoints you disagree with anti-American is to subvert debate, to say that democracy is fine and all as long as it goes my way, and so is, in short, to be a tyrant. It is to be anti-American.<br />
<br />
________________________________________________<br />
<br />
1. I don't mean to be flippant about the oppression that exists in our society. I'm a Christian, I believe Christ came to set all captives free, and that all societies that exist for the sake of the small elite and the expense of the weak and downtrodden (read: all societies ever until Christ returns) are to some degree or another demonic. We should fight the demonic, and always strive to make society more equitable, even if we never reach our goal.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-62820628722569942402012-07-21T10:16:00.001-07:002012-07-21T10:16:06.235-07:00I Forgive<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Konfesjona%C5%82_katedra_Pozna%C5%84.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Konfesjona%C5%82_katedra_Pozna%C5%84.jpg" width="239" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">By Radomil [<a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html">GFDL</a> or <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">CC-BY-SA-3.0</a>,<br /> via <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AKonfesjona%C5%82_katedra_Pozna%C5%84.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Jared Wilson has <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/2012/07/20/some-reflections-just-one-explanation-and-apologies/">issued an apology</a> for the language used in his post on 50 Shades of Grey. For my part, I accept and acknowledge this apology, and extend my forgiveness for the language used.<br />
<br />
I wish that Jared Wilson could acknowledge the problems with the views he expressed (not complimentarianism per se, but the accusations he levelled against egalitarianism) but I'm not surprised. That remains a problem, but at least the harmful language has been addressed, and the apology given with immense grace and humility.<br />
<br />
Regardless of the problems I have with Jared's point of view, the manner of this apology shows character. Some in the comments have refused to accept his apology, some because they felt it inadequately addressed their problems with the original post (fair enough), but others who insist that it was insincere. To those people I offer an injunction. You cannot know someone's heart. If you don't want to accept the apology because you feel it inadequate compared to the hurt it caused you, fine, but do not insist that he did it just to save face. You can't know that, and it is wrong to assume you do.<br />
<br />
Jared, I accept your apology for the words used, and I continue to hope and pray you will see the problems with the viewpoint you advocate. Blessings to you, my brother in Christ.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-578757903291277292012-07-19T18:13:00.001-07:002012-07-19T18:15:33.911-07:00Colonization According to My Tin Poetic Ear<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/The_Dalles_Mural_(Wasco_County,_Oregon_scenic_images)_(wascDA0181).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="212" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/The_Dalles_Mural_(Wasco_County,_Oregon_scenic_images)_(wascDA0181).jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Gary Halvorson, Oregon State Archives [Attribution], <br />
via <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AThe_Dalles_Mural_(Wasco_County%2C_Oregon_scenic_images)_(wascDA0181).jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Warning: This post discusses sexual violence.<br />
<br />
In my last post I wrote about why, in the plainest English possible, I found the recent Gospel Coalition complimentarian post disturbing. I wrote it because I felt their defense in response to the outrage had completely missed the point. Anyway, earlier today I read <a href="http://thepietythatliesbetween.blogspot.ca/2012/07/benign-christian-patriarchy-and-50.html">this</a> post, which I felt did a much more thorough job of explaining the problem, and in the meantime defending egalitarianism, than I had done.
<br />
<br />
Reading this post led to a discussion with one of my roommates, and brought up some points I had glossed over in my last post. I mentioned in my footnotes that the language of colonization and conquest really are a problem, because no matter what you intend to be saying, the realities of public language can mean you're saying something quite different. I would think that at least the problem with the language of conquest <i>should </i>be obvious. War is hell, conquest is brutal. The connotations of that language can't be anything but dark.<br />
<br />
Yet, I'm inclined to think that the language of colonization is actually more disturbing, precisely because of the dissonance between its myth and its reality. The myth of colonization is one of brave men and women making a virgin land fertile. The reality was white settlers taking land that already belonged to other people, destroying those people and then reshaping the land in their own image.<br />
<br />
So with the language of colonization, you bring in a metaphor that is, as my roommate pointed out, very appropriate for patriarchy, but also very disturbing. The one thinks he is simply taking something fresh and unclaimed, the other is brutalized and destroyed. There is no virgin land to be taken, a person is already there, and she has the right to that land. If she invites you in, well and good, but if you colonize then you violate her, plain and simple.<br />
<br />
Perhaps I have, "a poetic ear like three feet of tin foil" but I do not think these implications can be missed. Do I think Wilson and Wilson were advocating rape? No. Do I think they intended their metaphors to carry these connotations? No, but they do anyway. Language is public, you can't bring in symbols without getting all their baggage. Moreover, a white man especially can't use the language of colonization without some very disturbing implications.
<br />
<br />Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-71513263019929960022012-07-18T14:59:00.000-07:002012-07-19T16:56:51.664-07:00Victim Blaming, or Missing the Point Entirely<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://restorationms.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/thegospelcoalition.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="199" src="http://restorationms.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/thegospelcoalition.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image Taken from <a href="http://restorationms.com/?p=158">Restoration Community Church </a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Warning: This post discusses sexual violence.<br />
<br />
Today, a friend drew my attention to <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/2012/07/13/the-polluted-waters-of-50-shades-of-grey-etc/">this</a> post over at The Gospel Coalition, then Rachel Held Evans' <a href="http://rachelheldevans.com/gospel-coalition-douglas-wilson-sex#.UAb9G63x-fY.facebook">response</a>, and finally TGC <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/2012/07/18/shades-of-outrage/?comments#comments">rebuttal</a>. <br />
<br />
In the original post, TGC writer Jared C. Wilson writes about the perverted sexuality of <i>50 Shades of Grey</i>, and quotes from Douglas Wilson’s book <i>Fidelity: What it Means to be a One-Woman Man. </i>The quote, which I won't bother to reproduce here since you can read it both in the original post and in Evans' response, has caused a great deal of outrage.<br />
<br />
The reason for this outrage is that Wilson and Wilson appear to be claiming that egalitarianism is ultimately responsible for the existence of rape, sexual violence and forms of sexual perversion that glorify them. In other words: victim blaming. Again.<br />
<br />
Wilson and Wilson, of course, responded to the outrage, but their response completely misses the point. They seem to think that they're being accused of advocating rape and other forms of sexual violence. I actually wouldn't be surprised if some people have accused them of it, since they use language of "conquest" and "colonization" in their description of "proper" sexual authority and submission,<sup>1</sup> which would quite rightly upset some people.<sup>2</sup> By-and-large, though, that isn't what people are complaining about.<br />
<br />
People get that Wilson and Wilson are saying that rape and sexual violence is bad. That's hard to miss. Unfortunately, it's also hard to miss when Douglas Wilson says "Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence." Wilson is, undeniably, claiming that egalitarianism creates the environment for sexual violence. He is saying that because woman desire something apart from the life of the curse, and desire to live in equality with men, rape happens. That is a highly disturbing thing to say, and I hope and pray Wilson and Wilson can come to see how horrifying what they're saying is.<br />
<br />
I know complimentarians I respect. I don't think that point of view is inherently evil, though I do think it's wrong, but this is not merely complimentarianism, it's sheer unbridled patriarchy, and it's wrong.<br />
<br />
________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">1. Douglas Wilson thinks that using these terms is okay because not all conquest and colonization is violent and destructive... apparently.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">2. Just because you intend to be saying one thing, your text can still be saying quite another. In a world in which sexual violence is so prevalent, the use of terms like "conquest" and "colonization" for healthy sexuality is not okay, even if you think you mean something different by it. Language is public. </span>Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-88360168871261182232012-02-22T16:15:00.002-08:002012-02-22T21:09:31.896-08:00That Cursed Tree<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/053/2/4/that_cursed_tree_by_ethawyn-d4qo1lp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2012/053/2/4/that_cursed_tree_by_ethawyn-d4qo1lp.jpg" width="241" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Death came by a tree, in the deception of the serpent, by the First Adam</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Life came by a tree, in the destruction of the serpent, by the Last Adam </div>
<br />Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-86480289813108580592012-01-30T14:46:00.000-08:002012-10-19T00:53:48.553-07:00The Passionate God<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Tesoro_de_Guarrazar_%28M.A.N._Inv.71210%29_01a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Tesoro_de_Guarrazar_%28M.A.N._Inv.71210%29_01a.jpg" width="144" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">by Desconocido Francais [GFDL]<sup>1</sup><br />
via <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ATesoro_de_Guarrazar_%28M.A.N._Inv.71210%29_01a.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It is an old axiom in Christian theology, borrowed from the Greek philosophers but supported by scripture, that God is unchanging. The reason for this, on the philosophical side, is that God must by nature be perfect. Any change is, however, either a change for the better or for the worse. Thus, God is immutable. Some points about that idea might be argued, but by and large I agree with it and it is not the focus of my post today.<br />
<br />
Rather, I want to address a particularly corollary of the immutability of God according to the Church Fathers and most who came after them - that God is passionless. Passions (or emotions) are themselves changes of state, encompassing certain physical and relational states experienced by the subject. Because they necessarily involve change, the Greek philosophers would argue, the passions are necessarily imperfections, and so God cannot have passions. This led to problems for the Church Fathers, who by and large accepted the Greek vision, but who also acknowledged the genuine incarnation of God as a human person who did indeed suffer. In explaining this, the Church Fathers appealed to Christ's nature as fully God and fully man. He suffered passions as a man, but not as God.<br />
<br />
Many, including myself, later questioned this explanation. This, in turn, leads to questions about whether or not God's perfection can in fact be understood in the manner the Greeks understood it. I think the answer is both yes and no.<br />
<br />
I say yes to the Greeks because I do believe perfection does in fact entail a kind of immutability. God, if He is truly perfect, cannot grow wiser, for then He would be less then perfectly wise. However, I think their understanding that all change is a change for the better or for the worse is at least partially flawed. For some things, the relative virtue of a change very much depends on that to which it stands in relation. For example, if I want to go to the store, which is to the right of where I am currently sitting, a turn to the left would be bad, while a turn to the right would be good. Lacking a goal, any turn would, of course, be neutral. This, as of yet, does not defeat the Greek's point. For, that I can turn either to the better or to the worse relative to my goal and I am thus not in the best of all possible positions (i.e. perfection) in which no change could either improve or worsen by case.<br />
<br />
What then, of passions? Passions themselves are, I believe, good or bad depending very much on circumstances. Fear is a good and appropriate emotion when faced with danger, but bad if it is in response to something neutral or helpful. Important in the world of passions is the conditioning of the emotional system. The perfect emotional being would always have the proper emotional response to every possible stimuli. Few of us, of course, have this. Even the most healthy mind might find itself experiencing fear at a needle bearing beneficial medicine. The point here is that fear is always good/right/fitting when facing genuine danger and always bad when not facing genuine danger. Though our emotional lives are often an admixture of the good and the bad, there is an ideal emotional state in which a change in emotions is not a change for the better or the worse, but simply the appropriate response to the stimuli at hand.<br />
<br />
My contention is that God, especially an incarnate God, can in fact have passions without those passions being changes for the better or worse, but instead appropriate. It is appropriate for God to have anger at sin, love for His creatures and joy in their salvation. Moreover, if God incarnates, then it would be appropriate for Him to experience fear at the threat of crucifixion or anger at corrupt and heartless religion. <br />
<br />
Divine passions would, of course, not look fully like ours (human language<a href="http://ethawyn.blogspot.com/2011/03/gods-will-is-not-triangle.html"> must always fall short </a>in describing the perfect being afterall). Certainly, God the Father would not experience the physical change of state that we associate with emotions. Questions of temporality come in too, but dealing with that is outside of the scope of this article.<br />
<br />
So is God immutable perfection? Yes, but that does not mean he is without appropriate passions. Understanding always, that until we meet Him face to face, we always see as in a mirror darkly (1 Corinthians 13:12).<br />
_______________________________________________________<br />
1. By English: Unknown Español: Desconocido Français : Inconnu (Luis García (Zaqarbal), 27–September–2008) [<a href="http://%28www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html%29">GFDL </a>or<a href="http://%28www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0%29"> CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0</a>]Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-73619772756619668972012-01-20T22:13:00.000-08:002012-01-26T18:00:02.320-08:00The Good Side of Prayers to the Saints<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/All-Saints.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="215" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/All-Saints.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">by Fra Angelico [Public domain] via <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All-Saints.jpg">Wikipedia</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It's been quite a while since I've written a post. As I've hinted at, I've been in a time of great transition, but that doesn't excuse the disservice I've done to you my readers. I thank you for your grace and your patience. I've started grad school now, and am settling into my new home in Vancouver quite well. This, of course, means I'll be quite busy, but it also means that I'm going to have a good deal of fuel for this blog. Already today, after being remonstrated by one of my fellow grad students for the lack of new postings on my blog, I have thought of two subjects to blog on. Hopefully this will continue.<br />
<br />
The second post will becoming soon, as well as (hopefully) an update on my life for those of you interested. First, however, I thought I would address again the topic I left you with last time - the saints. Specifically, I want to address the topic of prayers to the saints, and something I think we may have lost in giving them up.<br />
<br />
Before I do that, however, let me stress that I am <i>not </i>advocating that we pray to the saints, I certainly do not. I am, as a protestant, well aware that such prayers, particularly in their form as patrons of certain areas, walks dangerously close to paganism. Indeed, while the doctrine surrounding the practice is most emphatically not worship, it all do often degenerates into syncretistic worship in practice. This is certainly the case where my sister and brother-in-law minister in central Mexico, where the feast of the Virgin of Guadalupe is a more important celebration than Easter. Worse though, the practice in its actual application often puts a wall of separation between the people and Christ, denying that we can approach the throne of Grace boldly (Hebrews 4). Again, to my Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters, I must stress that I understand this does not represent the practice at its best, but is a corruption of it. <br />
<br />
However, I do not think the practice is, at least in it's general form (i.e. not in the form of patronage) as out of left field as many of those who share my confession might think. We are, as I talked about in my last post, a catholic church. Moreover, that catholicity is not merely geographical but also temporal. In Baptism we are joined under the headship of Christ to all the saints, both those living (Militant) and dead (Triumphant). Furthermore, I believe that prayer is first and foremost communal and only afterwards individual (that would have to be discussed in more detail in another post). In the communal nature of prayer, we both join together liturgically, and intercess for one another. When we do this, we join in with the Church Triumphant who forever stands before the throne of God giving Him glory and praise. If then, I can ask my friends or family to pray for me, it seems to me not insane that we could ask those now asleep for prayers as well. Of course, this begs further questions about temporality, the state of souls before the Resurrection and much much more.<br />
<br />
There is, of course, the question of just who stands in the Church Triumphant, which makes the patronage system of further dubiousness in my mind (though I understand that's the entire point of Canonization of Saints on the basic of attributed miracles). Nevertheless, I believe that this is largely why prayers to the Saints can be effective, because the saints are praying and (forgive me) God meets us in our weakness.<br />
<br />
However, I think by and large the Protestant restraint on this issue is a correct move. What I want to stress to those in my tradition, however, is that in emphasizing our direct access to Christ (which we are right to do) we do lose the constant awareness of the Church Triumphant which prayers to the Saints brings. I therefore think that we, as children of the Reformation, need to be extra careful not to loose that creedal truth. In light of that, it is I think important for us to emphasize or implement liturgical practices which bring to us an awareness of that truth. Thus, for example, the Anglican Church as part of its liturgical calendar recognizes feast days for saints without and the same time praying to saints. This, as I understand it, is traditionally put forward as a way of lifting up examples of good Christians past who we can emulate. That's a worthy goal, insofar as it goes, but I think we should moreover take those times to emphasize that these Saints are (insofar as we can know) <i>with</i> <i>us </i>in our worship of God.<br />
<br />
That, of course, is just one idea, and I'm sure there are many other ways Anglicans could express this truth liturgically, as well as ways in which other traditions might do the same.<br />
<br />
The Lord be with you.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-5682991284427956092011-11-02T11:29:00.000-07:002011-11-02T12:44:04.159-07:00Your Harvest Festival is Pagan<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/All_saint.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/All_saint.JPG" width="235" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">By Neznani slikar [Public domain], <br />
via <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AAll_saint.JPG">Wikimedia Commons</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So after a long period away, dealing with my day to day life, I'm finally back to the blogosphere.<br />
<br />
This post itself is slightly delayed, but I'm sure you'll forgive me. I want to talk to you about Halloween. Specifically, I want to talk to you about a certain trend that's been around for quite some time. The trend goes like this, a church wants to have celebrations for kids that are safe and fun on the night of the year that Halloween happens. This church, however, believes that Halloween is pagan and decides instead to have a "Harvest Festival."<br />
<br />
The practices of these Harvest Festivals are, on the whole, not much different from Halloween, except children and adults might be discouraged from wearing monster and witch costumes.<br />
<br />
There's a problem with this though. The problem is they have it all backwards. It's true that Halloween has its roots historically in a pagan festival of the dead, specifically that of Samhain. The latter was a Celtic festival of the dead, and it literally means "summer's end."<br />
<br />
The old church, with the understanding they applied to the creation of many of their holidays, used the summer's end festival to create a different and distinctly Christian holiday. This holiday would celebrate a distinctly Christian doctrine - namely that of the communion of all saints (which is one of those creedal doctrines that is essentially core to the faith). This day, November 1st, was All Saints Day, and celebrates the holistic communion between all the saints extended throughout history and geography - the catholic communion. There was another name for this day - All Hallows Day. The night before, then, was All Hallows Eve, which shortened is Halloween. Of course, the separation wasn't perfect, pagan rites did make their way into the celebration, and Halloween itself became a festival for the memory of those in purgatory. Naturally we Protestants wouldn't care for that part.<br />
<br />
Call it a Harvest Festival, though, and at least in your name you get rid of the distinctly Christian element, and go straight back to the pagan celebration of seasons. To call it "harvest festival" is to be more pagan than to call it Halloween.<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong, what is pagan isn't necessarily bad. After all, to use a Medieval analogy, the gold of the Egyptians was pagan, but the Hebrews were able to take it and put it to better use in the service of God. To take a time of year dedicated to the celebration of the dead spirits, and baptize it towards the celebration of the communion of Saints is a beautiful and characteristically Christian activity. There is also, as I've <a href="http://ethawyn.blogspot.com/2011/03/theology-sacramental-horror-of.html">talked about before</a>, a sacramental quality to the macabre.<br />
<br />
So celebrate Halloween. If you want to call it a Harvest Festival, fine, but don't think you're somehow making it less pagan if you do so. Most of all, if you call it a Harvest Festival, don't forget what it's about. Don't miss celebrating the communion of saints for a secular candy gorge (though don't forget to gorge on candy either, bodies are important and the celebration of the good material things in this world is also a very Christian thing).Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4131956539120425510.post-67442751749801022011-08-24T19:00:00.000-07:002011-08-24T19:00:34.682-07:00All Grace is Incarnation<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Job_and_his_friends.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="227" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Job_and_his_friends.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ilya Yefimovich Repin [Public domain], via <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Job_and_his_friends.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>"You're sufferning." Todd Hunter said to me across the table at Dick Church's this morning.<br />
<br />
Ouch. Yeah, that's it, I'm suffering. It's funny how sometimes when someone puts words to what you're feeling it can have such an impact. Much that I hoped on has been stripped away, people that I care about are in pain. I am suffering. It's not that I'm Job, I still have food on my table, I still have my family and friends who love me, and my body is not covered in boils.<br />
<br />
But I am hurting. I am longing to hope, but afraid to in the face of disappointment. So, it's hard to see grace right now, in my life. Friends of mine have pointed to some grace, but it remains hard to see. It's also frightening to point to one thing or another and say, "that's grace." It seemed like grace when I got into Trinity College, it seemed like grace when I couldn't pay for my visa and my church did, it seemed like grace when I found a place to stay in the weeks before I was supposed to move into school. Yet, after all those things, something came up that meant I couldn't go. Of course, that doesn't mean those things weren't grace, it's just hard to see now. Still, I believe God is with me. I believe there is grace.<br />
<br />
My aunt sent me a blog post entitled <a href="http://www.aholyexperience.com/2011/08/so-all-is-grace/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HolyExperience+%28Holy+Experience%29">"So all is Grace?"</a> She said it made her think of me, that they were things I might say, though in different words. I think that's true, one or to things aside, and I think it gives at least something of a picture of how I can find comfort now.<br />
<br />
In the face of suffering, it's easy to try and explain how it exists in God's world. That's what we in the philosophy world call a theodicy. Yet, as<a href="http://ethawyn.blogspot.com/2011/07/image-taken-from-tower-books-i-love.html"> I've said before</a>, theodicies all too often do violence to the reality of human suffering, they strip the raw pain away, abstracting it to an intellectual problem to be solved. Likewise, they often fail pretty miserably at being specifically Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish, etc), relying rather on a generic notion of God that is often far different from the one which has been revealed to us.<br />
<br />
I honestly don't know what the <i>reason </i>for suffering is. I believe, ultimately, that God is in control. I believe that He is good. But why do we suffer? Is it because of free will? Perhaps some larger plan? Is it to teach us? To punish?<br />
<br />
I don't know. I have my theories, but they're just that -theories, and in the face of real suffering they will always ring hollow.<br />
<br />
But there is something that does not ring hollow. God became man. God incarnated Himself into the world of suffering, and in that very same incarnate Self He gave us the first fruits of the New Creation. I know that whatever the <i>reason </i>for suffering is, I can trust the God who stand over that suffering because He was willing to enter into it.<br />
<br />
God the Father, in His eternal and unbreakable bond with Christ through the Holy Spirit, is with us in our suffering. And He is making everything new. I don't know why it hasn't come into its fullness yet, but I trust Him, for I once was blind, but now I see.<br />
<br />
All is grace. Yes.<br />
<br />
And all grace is incarnation.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.com