Politically Correct Lord's Prayer (Ok I'm still laughing at this joke published months back. It's so funny, yet so scary in its accuracy..).


Our (mis)Concept of Patriarchal Authority, who, it can be said, inhabits the metaphysical sphere, privileged be your signifier. May your social structure achieve dominance. May the enactment of your desire be manifested throughout the physical-metaphysical dichotomy. Empower us this day with the means of material production, And refuse to enforce sanctions against our behavior which some see as subversions of a moral perspective, just as we refuse to marginalize the moral perspectives of others who have exerted their individuality. Don't lead us into situations that some would (mis)understand as detrimental to the full expression of our humanness, but liberate us from the concept of "evil." For yours is the hegemony, and the dominance, and perceived mystification within the entire continuum of the Western concept of linear time.

from
St Matthew-in-the-City Anglican Church Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand

To Gina I offer this digital Swiss meat pie, for distinctive service in the field of girl friendery. :) (You will have to ignore a few mushrooms that they put in it however).


Actually I've been doing research , to get a handle on writings some new product descriptions for Holy Chocolate. And of course as you can guess I'm on the Swiss flavor...


So anyway after having some bouts of noninspiration, with whatever I tried to write sounded like a Ricola commercial stereotype... I finally decided to do some research to better understand swiss food & culture, especially the dairy theme that prevalent in their food. So anyway here a post that's more gourmet in nature for folks who've been bored some of the recent topics.


Here some articles I'm reading for inspiration and ideas when writing the new copy.


recipes/dishes (not really useful for Holy Chocolate purposes but I love reading and seeing cuisine from other counteries).
http://www.about.ch/culture/food/


Swiss Chocolate & Cheese (Milk is very important part of the flavor. And we use a very high quality pasteur fed cow milkmuch like the Swiss. So I'm looking for inspiration on that selling point).

http://www.schmerling.com/aboutchocolate2.asp

http://www.schmerling.com/aboutcheese2.asp


Explains How & Why Switzerland beccame a chocolate superpower
http://www.swissworld.org/eng/swissworld.html?siteSect=905&sid=4092990&cKey=1059987841000&rubricId=17125

Kristos Anesti!

Christ Is Risen! Glorify Him!

(ok... so I'm a few hours early. :) )

http://www.agpeya.org/welookfortheresurrrection.mp3

Symbolic Meaning of the Generations

Matthew 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.


You know I don't think I've read this bit of commentary anywhere. But one method of meaning from the scriptures comes from the symbolic meaning of various images, including numbers.


I will need to fact check here (will post later on this). But I recall Biblical "Higher Critics" have attacked the integrity of the scriptures because their are supposed to be "gaps" within the generations. Where some of Christ's ancestors got skipped, where the genealogy might actually skip a generation or two. (That part I need to fact check.) And they would claim this as "proof" that scriptures are not "inspired by God" (because they contain human errors etc.). Anyway as I stated I'm going to do a generational audit later. Such a thing breaks the usual integrity found in a genealogy.


Although there are some good reasons for this. Making it easier on the oral tradition caretaker who has to remember and pass this stuff. As well as the scribe who must dictate all this testimony.


Symbolism however I believe is the real reason behind. There are 14 sets of generations to each of the 3 great Ages leading to Christ. That is basically 7 sets of 6. In Biblical numerology "7" is the number of perfection and completeness, while "6" is the number of man, since Adam was created on that day. When you put it together you get the meaning that Christ's coming came during the perfect season/time for mankind. One Biblical term for this would be "The fullness of time". While still another would be the Greek term for time Kairon (for season), rather than Chronos (literal time, where we get words like "chronological" from.


Anyway my theory, if the Biblical Critics are right, is any ommision of ancestors of Christ made in the text was done deliberately. Either by the people righting the Gospel, of the God's hand of Providence. It would be comparable to such things as mentioning only 7 of Christ's miracles in the book of John, "The Gospel of All Ages". Or even how sacramental lists are drawn up by many of early churches. Where the gerrymander by making some sacraments defintions very very broad or narrow, etc. so they can come up with that magic number of seven at the end.


Anyway I'll see if I can find who if any got ommited from the official genealogy later.

Apostolic Succesion, genealogy part 3


This idea of the three reasons stated functionf of the gnealogy of Christ naturally is the most controversial. But like my best friend always tells me, it's best "to define your terms at the start". So I will..... I've heard the term "The Church" as an "organic being", looked at "organically". Which is exactly what I'm thinking, and strangely enough many of the people who talk about the Church in "organic" terms strangely enough seem to be doing the opposite of what that term implies....


The word organic implies quiet literally that the Church is a "lifeform". That idea is expressed a number of times in scripture itself, where we refer to the Church as "The body of Christ", individual believers as "members" or "parts" of that body (like mouths, eyes, hands etc.). As an entity all the parts of the body must be unified. (This is the part of the body that is pretty much understood by everybody).


Bodies however are not just unified in their coherent structure. Bodies are also stable acrossed time. A person doesn't just start a baby one day, and tranfrom into a full grown adult in a blink of an eye. There is a continuity between what that body is one day, to the next day. So on and so on. Furthermore even when there is an obvious radical change in appearance. Like a skinny kid becomes very, very fat in later life. Their are some obvious characteristics that are the same throughout. That person has the same exact genetic ID that they did as a babe. They have the same exact face, voice etc. So even if they weigh 400 lbs more than they did 40 years ago, it still possible for other people to recongize them if they see those distinctive qualities.


In the Church this concept is fully understood in the term catholic. Catholic just doesnot refer to the Church everywhere. It also refers to the Church "at all times", even when the Church technically was the believing nation of Israel. So this term itself, besides that of "The Body of Christ" naturally implies an "organic" viewpoint of the Church. The Church basically grows from seed to mightly Oak in small incremental impercetebable stages acrossed time.


Ok so now at this point, you might be wondering what does this have to do with Apostolic Succession?

I would say "everything".

To start with I would say that many people who speak of an "organic" view of the Church, infact see it in a highly inorganci way. Meaning they believe the Church magically evolves organically from a kind of Holy Spirit driven Chaos theory. They however do not believe in any real need for a historic connection or unity with Christians of the past, their beliefs, practices etc. I would cite members of the Emergent/Postmodern "House Church movement" especially with this charge. They like to speak about being like "the First Christians", but their depiction of what that life was like ignores not only the testimony of Christians living in the next few centuries, but even things depicted in the Scriptures themselves (like the apostles worshipping and proclaiming the gospel at the synagogues, and temple). They basically are reading elements of the text of Ad 33-100 thinking they know the answers and time leaping forward to their current movement, bypassing everything that came in the middle. Not a very organic approach now is it?


And then you got Chaos theory.... It's really interesting if you look at the basic definition of "Emergence".

"Emergence is the process of complex pattern formation from simpler rules.
This can be a dynamic process (occurring over time), such as the evolution of the human body over thousands of successive generations; or emergence can happen over disparate size scales, such as the interactions between a great number of neurons producing a human brain capable of thought (even though the constituent neurons are not individually capable of thought). "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence


It really interesting for folks who are trying to come back to "the purity of the 1st Century Church" when this theory could actually explain the God Preordained "emergence" of areas of some of the things of the Church that they consider "pagan" like Ecumenical counsels, the role of the bishops, the importance of Christians meeting together for public worship and the alike. (Their own beliefs of seeing the Bible clearly in a tabula rasa way and believing they have a formula for creating an ideal church is actually very very modern).


Ok so what does this have to do with apostolic succession? Well I would say it has to do with some very fundamental notions that become part of that concept. The biggest is the importance of historical continuity. As I quoted before in this blog, from Tertullian


"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their BISHOPs, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first BISHOP of theirs] BISHOP shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, ùa man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man;

Tertullian, "On Prescription against the Heretics",32 (c.A.D. 200),in ANF,III:258


You know it interesting Jesus is high priest "in the order of Melchizedek". The great priest of Aalem who had no known lineage. But even given that fact, Jesus lineage is still an issue when it relates to areas of his being messiah, and so is still is given in the text. I also believe Jesus' not having an Aaronic lineage was a necessary aspect of his ministry (It would be just about impossible to be God incarnate and be an Aaronic priest, since that precludes things like virgin births, immaculate conceptions etc.).


Anyway historic continuity has always been very central to both Judaism and Christianity. And even when you have some exceptions like Jesus as high priest of Melchizedek, the Apostle Paul becoming a great apostle inspite of not being one of original disciples etc. Anyway it's funny how even when you have an exception to the rule, the rule gets reinforced later; because the most sure way to bring in false teaching is to make a break with the past. Because doing so means you have no accountability whatsoever and can fashion the gospel anyway you see fit.

Stirring up trouble


Your truely has been raising cane over this thread at Orthodoxchristianity.net


The Nature of Hell: Eternal or Not?


"Many will go to hell, but hell is not eternal...all will eventually be restored to Communion with God." (quoted from a Greek Orthodox Christian convert no less....)


Anyway its been both fun, and a good chance to sharpen my apologetics sword against a literal professing Origenist. Anyway its nice to know that when you get tired of "The Scandal of the Evangelical mind", there are a few "Orthodox" heretics that can give you a real run for your money! :)

Jesus as Messiah, Genealogy part2


Out of the 3) reasons I listed earlier why the genealogy of Matthew was given, this second reason is the most cited. To the point is its basically a Trueism. Basically a statement that is commonly held as a given so much that to speak about it, can almost seem like stating the obvious. Like saying the sky is blue, the existence of gravity etc.


Even though doubtless this is the case. It's still worth looking into. Because we often only have a very superificial understanding of the meaning and significance concerning this important Jewish and Christian doctrine.


To cover the basic will quote from this article which seems like it has a decent coverage of the topic.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-r004.html


"The word "Messiah" means "Anointed One," the name given to the promised Deliverer who would some day come to the people of Israel as their great Savior and Redeemer, "anointed" as Prophet, Priest, and King by God Himself."

............
The name "Christ" is the Greek equivalent of "Messiah," so that the name Jesus Christ really means "Jesus the Messiah," or "Jesus the anointed."

....

"The Old Testament Messianic prophecies were found to be uniquely fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ. There are hundreds of these prophecies, so that the possibility of their accidental convergence on any ordinary man is completely ruled out by the laws of probability."

......

"Similarly the promise was given to King David that the Messiah should be one of his descendants, as the King eternal, the one of whom God said, "I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever" (II Samuel 7:13). Isaiah said, "There shall come forth a rod out of the stem (literally 'stump') of Jesse (that is David's father), and a Branch shall grow out of his roots" (Isaiah 11:1). This is another name of the Messiah, and indicates that, even after it would appear that the family tree of Jesse has been cut down, yet one Branch will grow out of the stump. Evidently the very last one who could be known to have come of this lineage would finally prove to be the promised Messiah!
This was fulfilled uniquely in Jesus. His foster father, Joseph, was in the royal line from David and thus held the legal right to the throne (Matthew 1:1-16). His mother, Mary, was also a descendant of David, as shown by her genealogy in Luke 3:23-31. But ever since the time of Jesus, it would be quite impossible to establish the legal or biological lineage of any pretender to David's throne, as all the ancient genealogical records were destroyed soon after that."


Addai commentary- It is also worth noting some of the ways Jesus is portrayed by contemporary protestants. Most notably now by Brain Mclaren, in the Secret Message of Jesus, where one Chapter is devoted to the idea of "Jesus the Revolutionary". My best friend Stan eloquently explained why this is a bad analogy. As he stated "Jesus was not a revolutionary! Jesus was the rightful king! King Herod was the person who didn't have the right to the throne (Because he had Greek blood and his family came to power during the time of Alexander the Great through conquest).


And as Gina so aptly quoted from her blog, from this web site Orthodixie:

"We must remember that for a few hours Christ was indeed King on earth in this world of ours, for a few hours only and in one city. But as in Lazarus we have recognised the image of each man, in this one city we acknowledge the mystical centre of the world and indeed of the whole of creation. For such is the biblical meaning of Jerusalem, the focal point of the whole history of salvation and redemption, the holy city of God's advent. Therefore, the Kingdom inaugurated in Jerusalem is a universal Kingdom, embracing in its perspective all men and the totality of creation. The entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem came at the end of the entire process of preparation revealed in the Bible: it was the end of all that God did for men. And thus this short hour of Christ's earthly triumph acquires an eternal meaning. It introduces the reality of the Kingdom into our time, into all hours, makes this Kingdom the meaning of time and its ultimate goal. The Kingdom was revealed in this world - from that hour - its presence judges and transforms human history. And at the most solemn moment of our liturgical celebration, when we receive from the priest a palm branch, we renew our oath to our King and confess His Kingdom as the ultimate meaning and content of our life. We confess that everything in our life and in the world belongs to Christ, nothing can be taken away from its sole real Owner, for there is no area of life in which He is not to rule, to save and to redeem. We proclaim the universal and total responsibility of the Church for human history and uphold her universal mission."

Significance of the Genealogy, part 1

Rather than potentially boring some people with all the history, and literay criticism of the Gospel (especially when it comes to the original language it was composed in as far as Greek vs. Aramaic) I just decided to jump in and start talking about it.

So that brings us first of all to the genealogy. You know there is a lot of people who really don't know what to do with that. I especially recall that from my Protestant past, where the genealogies of both the Old and New Testaments were thought to be the most boring and potentially useless part of the text. I recall some people laughing and saying that if you had trouble sleeping at night you should read them. And a Charismatic preacher say, how if you really are a student of the Bible, or "in the Spirit" you will be blessed by everything......... even the genealogies!

Unfortately I think comments like that really show how we are in many ways alienated from the mentality and context of the Bible. As far as I can tell the genealogies serve at least 3 important functions.

I will only cover the first of these in this post.

The functions are: 1) Integral to the formation of Jewish and Christian idenity(to be explained later in this post),

2) establish Christ as the Jewish Messiah, 3) provide a background for future doctrine of Apostolic Sucession.

As far as the first function that I said was "integral to the formation Jewish and Christian idenity" that point came from a wonderful Rabinnic article I read 4 years ago online. And unfortately I have never been able to find since. But I will do my best to describe it to you. The article was on the Jewish passover Haggadah. I found it while searching for an articles on the passage "my father was a wandering Aramean". I had written a well received article on "The Kiss of Peace" for the web site the ooze and I was looking to maybe do a sequel on it. Where I talked about that verse, and how it was used liturgically by the Jews, and its potenial allegorical meanings. Anyway I found this great article. Called something like "Like Children and not slaves", written by a traditonal (non-Messianic) rabbai.

Anyway this article besides making some insightful comments about the Haggadah liturgy, and the part that verse played in it. It really said some wonderful things about the importance of genealogy, and lineage in the Jewish idenity, culture and Faith. The rabbai explained how genealogy and lineage were inextricably connected to Jewish idenity and Faith. Essentially everything a Jew did came because of the promises that Jews have received from God by promises made to their ancestors the patriarchs. A Jews entire idenity, and hope for a bright future came through that blood line. So rather seeing this as stuffy history, instead this reminds more of that passage of St. Paul that says Hebrews 11:1[ By Faith We Understand ] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’Exodus 3:15

The author especially noted the sinister affect of slavery. Slavery usually meant erasing the lineage of those held captive. Because families were frequently seperated, children sold off to other households at a young age, women raped and so on, all to undermine the will of the captives. Anyway slavery frequently resulted in a loss of one's lineage. For a Jew this was devestating because the loss of both their temporal heritage (their claim to specific land and property In Israel) and their greater spiritual heritage (their tribal identification which has great signifcance ot both their culture and their faith i.e. - are they members of the priestly tribe of Levi where the priests and Levites came from. This even affected then learning about their very Faith itself). As the rabbai said, "to be a Jew without any knowledge of his heritage is to be a Jew cut off from any hope of the future". It's basically a kind of excommunication, a curse, a kind of orphanhood.

Anyway when we read the genealogies in the Bible, both here and the old Testament I really think that is the kind of thing to keep in mind when we think of why they are there and what purpose they serve. I will also submit later, that this severing of the past, equated with slavery in Judaism creates confusion in present day Christianity as well. But that will be a point to develope for another day....

Splitting the Blog


I am seriously considering adding a new Blog. The basic idea is that I've been disillusioned with one web board that I was a frequent participant of. While I'm not completey giving up on it, I really gives me the impetus to crank away on more solo projects. Which I think can be a lot more substantive than what is typically found in cyberspace.


Anyway the idea is to spin this blog more in the area of serious study and discussion of the Bible, Liturgy, Church Fathers, Liturgy, doctrine, Church history, and the alike.


And then have another Blog which talks specifically about contemporary issues both in Orthodox and in the general American Evangelical climate.

So the basic idea is to try to add more substance to what is typically out there. As well as some more lasting material. One thing I've noticed about participating on a message board. It's like you can give the most brilliant well thought out presentation on something. And then someone new comes along.... And they bring up all the old issues you previously addressed. So there can be a lot of "wash" rinse" "repeat". Where it's almost like things said evaporate into thin air (unless you want to necro and copy and paste those old bits of wisdom which I often do). Anyway I like the fact that on Blogs each post gets saved and spidered seperately so I think there is more of a lasting influence on anything you do. So with that I think I'm going to take my blogging more in a serious direction. Not in the sense of being unfun, but in the sense of putting much more thought and work into it. Instead of the "Oh I found this new Coptic, or Orthodox thing! Isn't it neat!" way of doing things before.

Aramaic Origons,


"He moreover hands down, in his own writing, other narratives given by the previously mentioned Aristion of the Lord's sayings, and the traditions of the presbyter John. For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be fount in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]"

Papias


(Addai Note - in early times Romans and Greeks typically named a language spoken by foreigners after the foreigners who spoke it and assumed this was their native language. This happened with the Greeks to Aramaens in Syria, the Greeks called their language "Syriac", which is a name that stuck. According to Josephus and other historical sources this also happened to the Hebrews with Aramaic which was their spoken language at the time. Both Romans and Greeks refered to this as "Hebrew". Since it was the language of the Hebrews at the time. But in most of these cases it is almost guranteed that this language was not Hebrew since that language had become a dead/Holy language, much like present day Coptic, or Slavonic for the Russian Orthodox. A language spoken only in temple/synagogue, and not one that your average common person in the market place would be fluent in.).


Other Patristic quotes

Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews n their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)"As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language."


Eusebius, H.E. 3.24.6"Matthew had first preached to Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent."


Epiphanius (ca. 315-403), bishop of Salamis, refers to a gospel used by the Ebionites (Panarion 30. 13.1-30.22.4). He says it is Matthew, called "According to the Hebrews" by them, but says it is corrupt and mutilated. He says Matthew issued his Gospel in Hebrew letters. He quotes from this Ebionite Gospel seven times. These quotations appear to come not from Matthew but from some harmonized account of the canonical Gospels.


Jerome also asserts that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language (Epist. 20.5), and he refers to a Hebrew Matthew and a Gospel of the Hebrews-unclear if they are the same. He also quotes from the Gospel used by the Nazoreans and the Ebionites, which he says he has recently translated from Hebrew to Greek (in Matth. 12.13).

More than a Narrative (The Gospel According to Matthew).


I thought the first aspect of commentary I would do would be concerning the significance of the Books title, "According to Matthew", or "The Gospel According to Matthew" in the original Greek/Aramaic.


I wanted to say that I think this is much more than "A narrative". And here is the wiki link to that literary concept if you want to brush up on what I'm getting at here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative


I'm mentioning it here because I think some people, namely fans of Biblical Higher Criticism, and most notably today postmodern / emerging evangelical Christians, have really trivialized certain aspects of the Bible. So for instance, "telling stories" as a way of doing sermons, teaching is all the rage now; because that is a way that gets around some of the problems that they see with modernity (reductionism, scholasticism and the alike). They also note that Jesus told stories as a way of showing spiritual truth and so on.


I don't have a problem with that. But many times the term "telling stories" is done in a way that lowers the bar. Not all stories are equal, some stories are greater, more authoritative, have more testimony around them, and make much greater claims then others. So what bugs me is many times the gospel "narratives" are talked about in the same exact vein as a person "spinning a yarn" to make a point, or some other literary work like something from Homer. Shakespeare and so on.


The Gospels are in a whole different category. Obviously first of all because of the message. I'm sure I'm probably preaching to the choir and you all understand the significance of that. But moreover, especially do to the nature of those "stories" themselves. While the Gospels are "stories", it would be more much accuracte to call them "testimonies", as in the notion of a "sworn testimony" in the legal sense. Because the Gosples themselves were eye witness accounts of people that had seen and heard first hand the most incredible message and events that had ever taken place in the World. The Gospel writers like Matthew were giving their emphatic testimony to that affect. They were literally staking their reputation, and the future of their life and limb on the truth of those "stories". And holding up the veracity of that "narrative" against repreated scourgings, imprisonments, and finally execution itself. The character of the evangelists, and the nature of their suffering for that message was considered "evidence" concerning the Truth of that message (Because people will not give themselves over to such things if they believe a message is a lie. And the Sannhedrin were not only spinning the the story that disciplies had lied concerning the Resurrection, and were doing everything they could to undermine and extinguish their testimony). So clearly both the content of the Gospel and the great sacrifice and belief of the Evangelists themselves sets this apart from all other "narratives".

Coming soon..... an indepth study of the book of Matthew.


And when I mean "indepth' it will probably be my typical obsessive compulsive disorder degree of coverage. I am planning on covering the book from such angles as: Greek/Coptic, Syriac/Aramaic, as well as contemporary thought from the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Judaism. And probably will even work in some compare and contrast between my viewpoints and lets say more recent works like "The Secret Message of Jesus" by Brian Mclaren, and the recent flap over the "Gospel of Judas" (and some of the other bits of late breaking Christian news) just for kicks.


Anyway it should be pretty good! Will most likely start posting on it monday evening or Tuesday morning depending on Holy Chocolate schedules.

Jolly Blogger


By the way, I've found out over the last two weeks, I really like "Jolly Blogger". He's a Reformed Church guy, who talks about a lot of what going on in the American evangelical church world, emergent included. He seems pretty well read, circumspective and thoughtful, (he conservative and traditional without making a rush to judgement on a lot of issues including Emergent, but on the other hand he sticks to his guns more then some)


http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/


Anyway Jolly in his last post, covers Emergent evangelism, and he echoes some of my concerns (that some pomo/emergents are soft shoeing the exclusivity of the Christian gospel).


And on some of these issues I've been doing lots and lots of thinking, and praying and been thinking about doing some writing on such topics as Orthodox evangelism, and discussing some troubling trends that I think are going on in American Christianity .

[edit - add on. Some more quotes and web sites]

this blog/post is also worth noting too

"I guess I just wonder if the emerging leaders are coming close to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. "

www.emergingevangelism.com


"The Truth:The Emergent, syncretized, neo-pagan gospel soup is best described by the late Dr.
Francis Schaeffer:

"While I was in Finland some years ago, A Bible-believing university professor there used the following illustration. A new liberal, he says, is like a shopkeeper who keeps many things under the counter. When the old-fashioned liberal comes in and asks for old-fashioned liberalism, the new liberal reaches under the counter and says, 'That is just what we have here.' When the Bible-beliving Christian comes in, the new liberal reaches under the counter and says, 'That is just what we have here.' The new theology is able to do this because of its both-and mentality. Opposites can still be mutually true." (The Church Before the Watching World, p. 125)

http://herescope.blogspot.com/2005/11/emergent-post-colonial.html

Essen Sie koptisches?

( lol that translation coutesy of babel fish)


I've been wanting to do something foody lately. And was going to do something creative with Lenten cuisine. My actual

intention was going to take some dishes from my father's native Slovakia and Coptify them for Lent. But that didn't work out so good, because Czechs and Slovaks apparently like putting animal products into just about everything... even "vegetable soup". (Although you can sort of do a Lenten Strogannoff by using hummus or tahini in place of sour creme), but that project right now est kaput!

So I'm doing the easy thing showing a little Egyptian lenten food, food that maybe a little different than Antiochian and EO fare. Like this dish, above

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/koshary.htm

and let say probably a few other dishes that we eat that are unique, or probably wouldn't fit EO rules. Falafel is big since we don't have a rule against using oil during fasts. I have to admit falafel is one of those really good fasting foods, when you consider how boring and mediocre your average hamburger or meat sandwhich can be...

and then you got "Fuul". This recipe looks better than some I've seen online, except for the fact the lady has eggs in it, which is a "no, no".

http://egyptmonth.com/mag03012001/mag5.htm

And then you got baked goods. Actually the Egyptians do pretty good here, because I think they naturally make a fair amount of baked goodies without any animal products, not sure why this is exactly. But I it could possibly due to some of the Muslim food customs (Which are very similar to kosher), and they pick up some of the recipes that come out of that culture.

They got these cookies at church that one of the old ladies sells as a church fundraiser,that are really good, they are a kind of cresent shaped farina dough thing, stuffed with a date filling. I don't know the name of those yet, but I tend to buy them whenever I get the chance.

And then you got "Kanafa", which is described by one web site "Kanafa is a dish of batter "strings" fried on a hot grill and stuffed with nuts, meats, or sweets." (It looks to me like some kind of baklava coconut dish).

Deconstructionism and the hermeneutics of suspicion


I found this article on the web today, and thought I would plug it since its very useful in understanding the basic mentality going around not only in academia, but also in the American Christianity.

Try as I might just can't get off the anti-postmodernist train... Maybe this is one of those "working through kind of things".


"...The real purpose of the deconstructionist power brokers is to separate as many Americans as possible from their families and from their literature and traditions."

Monty Python Mclaren


Ok from henceforth I will be taking this blog in a much, much, more enlightened direction away from "foolish controversies" and towards the radiant light of Alexandrian Spirituality!

But... uh... I sort of found this cartoon and had to get one last dig in. I do however promise to move towards a more kinder, gentler approach that Jesus, Gina and Abouna will approve of....

Of course If I find more cartoons I most likely will suffer a relapse and post them as well. :)

An Illustration of Emergent "Being so open minded that your brain has fallen out."


Back before I was with the Coptic Church, I was formerly with another Church that had its apostolic lines from the Assyrian Church of the East (considered Nestorian by Oriental and Eastern Orthodox). In practice however it was more sacramental Protestant in how it did things. And my own personal theology (being a bit of a unofficial resident theologian) was more Orthodox in nature. It was only a few months after posting this that I actually left this church and joined the Oriental Church when I realized I actually fit the Oriental church much more than the Assyrian one. Anyway this is a bit of a "blast from the past", where you get to see the old pre Coptic Addai. It's basically a small chat thread excerpt where two of names have been withheld for the sake of the privacy of those I'm quoting.


M asks "The Virgin Birth?"
I have a question, more for pastors than anyone else? If there are different theological differences in your congregation regarding say, those who believe the virgin birth is very important and those who see it as a myth, how do you keep them from splitting the congregation?Obviously other topics could do the same, like the resurrection as metaphor or actual resuscitation of a dead body. Or are these things just not talked about?



Addai "RE: The Virgin Birth?"

The Virgin Birth is very important theologically. If you believe that Christs's suffering and death was necessary to redeem mankind, then the virgin birth is a necesaary part of that. Christ is suppose to be the last and ultimate sacrifice. To be that he is suppose to be without sin and iniquity. If he was not born this way how could we be sure of this? In fact, how could we be sure that the right man died period? These are actually very fundamental aspects of Chrisitan Orthodoxy! To not beleive them is simply to try to view and understand the faith through the eyes of Humanism and other philosophies rather than how it has been understood since its inception.


M's reply
Obviously, many do not believe that Christ's suffering and death was necessary to redeem mankind. The 'rescue' idea is traditional but not universally held. Some think that, since most of the heroes of the age were reputed to be born of virgins and resurrected, these are mytns attached in the stories of Christ after his death. So, as a pastor, if you are a pastor, could your congregation accommodate people with such views? Would they be asked to leave? Would they be asked to keep quiet?


Addai's reply
This sort of thing is pretty much the lowest common denominator beliefs of the faith. Without it.. well Jesus becomes just a wise teacher, not much better than any other wise teacher. The first several centuries of Chrisitanity, was struggle over heresies, about the personhood of Christ.. Also what some people consider "myth" I see actually a great revolutionary force, one that is able to overcome death and the sword. Do people really lay down their life for something they think is just a good story or parable, but has no historic or actual truth? What your speaking of my friend seems to repeateing the modernist "Biblical Higher Criticism" of some of the liberal modernist Protestant denominations. I come from a much older Church line, that never bought into any of this thinking (From the Aramaic and Syriac church, which was started from the very first apostles). It's one thing to have a suspicion about the ancient past because you have no conection to it. If you are linked in a continuos succession with history however, your perspective changes. You would not doubt it anymore than you would your mother telling you a story about your great grandfather/mother who you never met, or showing you some letters or other documents belonging to him or her, or even some photos about him/her.I don't think there would be much point in a person not beleiving in the full diviinity etc. of Christ in our services. Still if a person lets say has an open mind on the issue, and their thoughts on this issue is more an expression of doubt, but not out and ideological stance.. I would feel more accomodating. For we all have doubts in our life over many things. But if they feel strongely on the issue, I think I would have to recommend they seek out someone whos views match much closer to their own.


M's reply
Guilty as charged. Post-modern all the way.But I am not sure that my liberal/traditional denomination is doomed just because we allow for a wide range of thought in our members and in our ministers. We could also be called schismatic/prophetic. But we are determined to deal with our diversity, perhaps a little clumsily right now but we will get better at it. I only asked the question because we are willing to profit from the experiences of others.


Pomo Pastor finally comes on and replies (intereting tid bits high lighted).
In our fellowship we have agreed to allow relationships to be the primary bind. If someone asks us what does your church believe we have to answer "I don't know...you will have to ask them".

The challenge has been our leadership. We have developed an open leadership community - any one desiring to lead - CAN - provided they agree to participate as a community (our understanding is this means we agree to permanent relationship). This means we can't leverage our disagreements by threat of leaving.This is somewhat problematic - but we are fighting the culture of the consumer church and the commodification of Christ - so we have agreed to live this way. The virgin birth issue came up in our leadership community as we were forming a statement about what we mean when we say we are "followers of Christ". I suggested that we adopt the apostles creed - but some rejected this because of the statement "born of the virgin Mary". Upon discussion some felt that the story of the virgin birth was a story of "holy rape and incest" God the Father forcing himself upon Mary (feminist theology) some did not believe becasue of scientific reasons - no evidence (empricist), others did not belive because of the parralells in mythology. Our dillema came as others in the leadership community were challenged to make relationship our bind - not belief - we are a "Christian Community" but it does not mean we all believe the same. We have many many diverse beliefs that exist simultaneously (our congregation has even been the subject in one book as "postmodernism gone wrong"). I contend all the time that - all congregations have diverse belief systems in spite of the churches attempt to form doctrinal statements. I ask pastors all the time "when you say this is what your church belives - who is it excatly that believes this - all the people who attend?, all the members?, all the elders? all the staff?, - who exactly is the belivers in this community?M, I think the challenge will be in leadership how will you structure the "ability to lead" the community. Sometimes leaders arise without any of the established positions - they lead simply by virtue of their "compelling relationship" My suggestion to organize not around belief - but organize around permanent realtionships that allow for diversity.