contemplations of a pilgrim

Thoughts on Theological Methodology

2006-12-13T11:17:00.000-08:00

What follows is an excerpt from an essay I wrote on theological methodology. Most of the concepts in here are some of the results of my cogitation on the subject over the past year or so. I'm interested to hear thoughts, comments, and critiques (because I'm sure there are plenty!).
E
ast-West Differences in Theological Methodology
In chapter three of his book Being as Communion, Zizioulas hints at a key methodological difference in regard to the relationship of the Eastern and Western churches and their respective tendency toward Pneumatology (in the East) and Christology (in the West). He states: “For various reasons which have to do with the idiosyncrasy of the West (concern with history, ethics, etc.), a certain priority will always be given by it to Christology over Pneumatology. … Equally, for the East Pneumatology will always occupy an important place given the fact that a liturgical meta-historical approach to Christian existence seems to mark the Eastern ethos.” In this sense, Zizioulas’ contention points out the fundamental paradox that is foundational for understanding the later theological developments by both the Eastern and Western churches. The paradox lies in the fact that theological methodology governs theological doctrine while at the same time these developments in theological doctrine govern theological methodology. For this reason, the filioque seems to be merely the first evidential symptom of a much deeper problematic incongruency. Throughout the high era of Patristic theological development, the Eastern and Western churches were mostly compliant with one another, but the theological and methodological differences (in addition to numerous geographical and political struggles) eventually began to further separate the one Church into two churches. There is some debate on the issue of whether or not the filioque was the key first difference between the two systems of theological thought, but pragmatically it is evident that the cause of the differences had to either be the filioque or something quite similar because the parameters and details of the filioque seemed to lead to or at least have a place in the development of what some would see as a Christo-monistic West. On the basis of this Christo-centrism, the methodology of the Western Church is much more historical and rational than the Pneumatologically-focused Eastern Church, because of this methodological difference the advancements in theological understanding will soon diverge into two entirely different enterprises. But before turning to the resulting theological developments, it is necessary to begin to articulate the methodological differences between the two perspectives.
The convergence point of differing views on revelation and thus on theological methodology is the Church; it is for this reason that the Church has been divided for the majority of its existence. The methodological paradox wherein differing perspectives on the primitive, Pauline theology immediately began to show itself as having growing implications on the individual Eastern and Western theologies and thus on the development of theological methodologies. In this sense, the schism of the Church is merely the visible symptom of a methodologically-based cyclo-linear self-perpetuation of differing views on the fundamentality of Christian truth. The perspective one has on a certain theological issues carries pragmatic implications on the liturgical worship that takes place within the tradition of that ecclesial perspective. Once doctrine goes from theory to practice, the practice of that theory begins to color both the theological ethos of the liturgical and, by means of the lex orandi lex credendi, the basis and methodology of further theological development. Zizioulas’ points to this phenomenon in his statement that: “On the liturgical level these two approaches became quite distinct very early with the development of two traditions concerning the relationship between baptism and confirmation (or christmation). … Given the fact that confirmation was normally regarded as the rite of the ‘giving of the Spirit,’ one could argue that in cases where confirmation preceded baptism we had a priority of Pneumatology over Christology, while in the other case we had the reverse.”
In this sense, the life of the Church is inextricably linked with theology and thus any attempt at ecclesiastical reunion between the Eastern and Western churches cannot take place apart from the recasting of a unified theological methodology. As can be seen by the fact that theological methodology is linked to an epistemologically-driven priority regarding the Son and the Spirit, the ecumenical endeavor will at best succeed in the establishment of a superficial signification that is fatally flawed due to the fact that no deeper theological unity will exist if the dialogue does not turn in the direction of answering the following concerns: first, whether priority exists between the economic, historical manifestations of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ; second, the relationship of equal ontological dependence between the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ; third, the significance that theological methodology (and thus revelation) has on views of the heilgeschichte; and finally, the influence that these views and their effects have on the liturgical subject of God’s self-revelation.

Methodological Typologies:

West: Christological Bent
-“has been revealed”
-Perfect Passive Indicative
-Rational methodology
-ethics from Christ’s example
-natural theology
-Scripture is revelation

East: Pneumatological Bent
-“is being revealed”
-Present Passive Indicative
-Mystical methodology
-inward spiritual change
-mystical theology
-Scripture confirms revelation

IV. Ecclesiological Primacy of Theology and Revelation
As previously discussed, the liturgy serves as both the foundation and pragmatic manifestation of theological development. The reasons behind the ecclesiological primacy of theology are multifarious, but understanding these facets of the symbiotic relationship between theology and the Church is beneficial to the task of placing the theologian within the Church and its Tradition.
The Church is commonly understood to be the ordinary means of soteriological grace to the world, two things are implicit within this statement: first, the predication that the Church is the ordinary means of grace is built upon the assumption that God may choose to communicate his salvific grace at certain times and places to those and through those who exists outside of the Church; and second, the soteriological grace is always ordinarily communicated alongside of an epistemological, and proposition grace of revelation. Because of this, the Church understands the two-fold nature of revelation to be historically manifested in the Communion of Saints on the soteriological realm and in the Tradition of Christian doctrine on the epistemic realm.
The Tradition of the Church is historical record of the communally [consensus] accepted interpretation of the revelation of God in the Incarnation of Christ, in Scripture, in God’s actions in history, and in the experience of Holy Spirit. Equally important along with this revelation of God is the communal establishment of the categories by which to: first, interpret the facets and datum of God’s self-revelation; second, communicate this Truth to the laity standing within the Church via Apostolic ministry, sacrament, and exhortation against heresy, schism, nominalism, and other causes of strife within the Church; and third to the non-Churched world by means of witness in word and deed, apologetic argumentation, and signs and miracles.
The Church provides the faith atmosphere for theology to take place. What we find in those church traditions that emphasize the Christological to the detriment of the Pneumatological is a mistaken perspective wherein the present is eliminated because God has only revealed himself in the past. This sort of revelatory cessationism then must rely strictly upon the Scriptures for truth because they record both God’s actions in history, the revelation that come in the Incarnation, and the early stages of doctrinal development in the light of this fuller revelation. Likewise, the converse can be found in those church traditions that emphasize the Pneumatological to the detriment of the Christological in the sense that the Spirit empowered Christ in the same way that He empowers believers today; the canon of revelation is more open than it has ever been thus confirming the idea that the Scriptures only confirm the present revelation.
The integration point between this comes about in three things: 1) Recognizing that the Tradition of the Church is not a calcified historical entity, rather it has been and is the collection of affirmations by the Church community that provides the canon by which to judge the veracity of personal revelations. 2) Realizing that one can’t understand the present without understanding the past, and likewise one can’t view the past without at least standing in the present (otherwise the past is not the past). 3) Realizing that because the Gospels point to a symbiotic relationship between the Son and Spirit, this provides the foundation for understanding how past revelation and present revelation are interdependent upon one another. 4) By affirming that the Tradition only exists within the faith community of the Church, the liturgical and theological development should take place and move from within the Church to outside of it.

comments on the current discussion

2006-10-10T20:52:00.000-07:00

If you are just joining the discussion, see the excellent and insightful comments made by Curt in response to my series of posts on arguments for God’s existence. (see my previous post)

Curt, I agree with your comments regarding the ineffectiveness of the arguments for the existence of God to really bring about the true epistemological (et al) changes that must take place if one is to become a devoted follower of Christ. My reasoning behind formulating the post-script (in addition to clarifying my conclusion) was to attempt to demonstrate the falsity of the idea of the philosopher (and I would assert that even more so of the theologian) as a detached observer simply recording the facts as they appear on the page. The task of Christianity, science, philosophy, etc. is so much greater than that. If Polanyi is correct, and I think he is, in his assertion of the presence of a ‘tacit dimension’ in all people then we must begin to take seriously the idea of ‘faith seeking understanding.’ (I need to get you my copy of Tacit Knowing, Truthful Knowing about Michael Polanyi) I think history has shown us (as it so often does) that the arguments for God’s existence lend themselves to be equally strengthened or weakened on the basis of logic and intention.

In regard to what you said about non-Christians living in darkness and unbelief, I certainly agree with you. Might we be able to develop this further? From my perspective (as well as what little I know of Barthian Christological thought), I think that this distinction between non-Christians and Christians entails (as we all know) much more than a strict spiritual, behavior, ethical sense. What if our predication about Christ being the “mediator for the atonement of our sins” or “the wrath-absorbing propitiation”, et al, entails also an epistemological motif. I think we see this in the knowledge-ignorance motif. In the same way that the hypostatic union of human and divine enables salvation, I think it also enables a drastic epistemological shift. Just a thought I’ve been playing with for a while. Interested to hear your thoughts.

In a ‘faith seeking understanding’ model, this seems to go against the modernist notions (no doubt developed in the lab rather than the library or classroom) of an empirically-driven truth. If things can be proven, then they are truthful; ok, I accept that. What I do not accept is the idea that if things are truthful, then they can be proven. Going back to the ontological and cosmological argument discussion, I think we see that these arguments (as much as some might like them to be) are not the ordinary means by which God works, but they should be included in the category of extra-ordinary means. To take this discussion to a more practical level, does this mean that we should erase them from our Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler texts (I’m not trying to give them a bad name even though I don’t see them to be as helpful as they might insist), No. Are some people drastically changed by these means? Yes.

If God can use the song of a small child to draw unto Himself one of the most influential –pastor-theologians of the Early Church, then he can use even the most broken and leaky vessels for his ministry. So it is with these arguments.

Next to come, my next post will attempt to develop a gift economy of theology from the writings of the Early Apologists, this will have implications both on the patron-client relationship between the man and God as well as on anthropological theological methodology.

post-script to ontological/cosmological arguments and Truth

2006-09-28T06:35:00.001-07:00

My apologies about the last post, I don’t think I communicated my thoughts clearly enough in regard to the links or correspondence between the cosmological and the ontological arguments. While taking my morning shower, I re-figured it all and found a better way of stating my question.

1. God, a being of whom there is nothing greater, exists both in the mind and thus must exist in reality (just suppose the veracity of the ontological argument with me, if only for a minute or two).

2. If God (a being of whom there is nothing greater) truly does exist, then he is the First Cause because he cannot be part of an infinite regression of causes (because if so, there would be something greater than God).

3. So, either the ontological argument is true thus proving the truth of the cosmological argument, or neither is true and we then must reconsider our idea of God.

4. We must change our idea of God because he cannot be both the greatest being and part of an infinite regression of causes, it is just a contradiction.

From this discussion, we see what I think is a bit of a flaw regarding arguments (I have yet to consider the teleological(s) and the religious experience argumentation, although my hunch is that the argument from religious experience will also hinge on the predication that stands as the fulcrum for the ontological and cosmological arguments), it is as follows: these arguments work just fine in a correspondence theory of truth. Thus functioning as evidence to back an a postiori claim, but don’t seem to hold enough water to function as a priori proofs. In other words, while I am not denying their ability to be used to convert atheist and agnostic skeptics into believers (or at the very least theists) (in this regard see my response to Ben about broken and leaky vessels), I think they a made to function in a ‘faith seeking understanding’ model.
Is it possible for them to function in an a priori, inductive sort of way?
Can they rightfully be used in a pragmatic test of truth?

Also, I’ll explain more about the argument from religious experience in a future post. As I was finishing this last section, I realized that the religious experience argument works best on a correspondence theory of truth as well (but more on that later).

Hope this clarifies things. I’d love to hear your comments.

post-script to ontological/cosmological arguments and Truth

2006-09-28T06:35:00.000-07:00

My apologies about the last post, I don’t think I communicated my thoughts clearly enough in regard to the links or correspondence between the cosmological and the ontological arguments. While taking my morning shower, I re-figured it all and found a better way of stating my question.

1. God, a being of whom there is nothing greater, exists both in the mind and thus must exist in reality (just suppose the veracity of the ontological argument with me, if only for a minute or two).

2. If God (a being of whom there is nothing greater) truly does exist, then he is the First Cause because he cannot be part of an infinite regression of causes (because if so, there would be something greater than God).

3. So, either the ontological argument is true thus proving the truth of the cosmological argument, or neither is true and we then must reconsider our idea of God.

4. We must change our idea of God because he cannot be both the greatest being and part of an infinite regression of causes, it is just a contradiction.

From this discussion, we see what I think is a bit of a flaw regarding arguments (I have yet to consider the teleological(s) and the religious experience argumentation, although my hunch is that the argument from religious experience will also hinge on the predication that stands as the fulcrum for the ontological and cosmological arguments), it is as follows: these arguments work just fine in a correspondence theory of truth. Thus functioning as evidence to back an a postiori claim, but don’t seem to hold enough water to function as a priori proofs. In other words, while I am not denying their ability to be used to convert atheist and agnostic skeptics into believers (or at the very least theists) (in this regard see my response to Ben about broken and leaky vessels), I think they a made to function in a ‘faith seeking understanding’ model.
Is it possible for them to function in an a priori, deductive sort of way?
Can they rightfully be used in a pragmatic test of truth?

Also, I’ll explain more about the argument from religious experience in a future post. As I was finishing this last section, I realized that the religious experience argument works best on a correspondence theory of truth as well (but more on that later).

Hope this clarifies things. I’d love to hear your comments.

Ontological/Cosmological Arguments and Truth Tests

2006-09-27T12:50:00.000-07:00

The Kalam argument goes as follows:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The form of the argument seems to be valid, we must then analyze the premises of the argument. First off, we have ‘whatever begins to exist has a cause’, we must asked about the nature of the existence of the cause. It does make sense that when things begin to exist, they must have something to cause them to being their existence; but what do we do about the ontology of the ‘causer’. If this uncaused cause is God and God is has existed eternally, then we have our solution. This tactic uses the logical operation found at the end of a reductio ad absurdum argument, thus in order to disprove the validity of the premise ‘whatever begins to exist has a cause’, we must attempt to pry into the absurdity that turns our attention away from a cause for God and toward the idea that God has existed eternally. What is eternity? Is it the absence of time? Is it the pure present of time and space with no voids or gaps and thus no movement? Is eternity even predicated to exist in some relation to the time/space continuum? For our purposes, I think a good answer in regard to the question of time is as follows: the measurement of movement in space. Thus time is linked to movement which is found in space, in essence, creating the space-time continuum. If this is our definition of time, then it is possible for God to exist eternally. But, we still haven’t linked time and eternity; if time is a measurement of the space a moving object traveled in relation to its speed and God is the First Cause. Then, it is valid to say that God exists eternally because before God began to create (or cause things to begin to exist), there was no movement and thus no time. This relates back to the typical form of the cosmological argument in that we still are left with two basic options, one being a little harder to prove than the other:
1. God is the First Cause and has existed eternally because before He began to create, there was no movement and thus no need for time as a measurement of that movement.
2. God is the main Cause but was Himself caused by something higher than God, thus this something must either be eternal or was itself caused by something even greater, and so on, and so on.

We are left with the same reductio ad absurdum argument on which this all begins.
We are left with one possibility, and this is purely conjecture on my part, what if we combine some of the parts of the ontological argument and the cosmological (Kalam, Aristotelian, Aquinian, or any other statement of it) argument. Can we do this? Well, yes and no. Yes, because both are dealing reductio ad absurdum argumentation (granted they are related to it in differing degrees). No, because unlike the ontological argument, the cosmological argument begins with a positive fact (things exist, or Kalam-‘things begin to exist) where the cosmological argument must begin with a negative fact (‘Only the fool hath said in his heart that there is no God’ while recognizing that there is a rational claim for God’s existence). Let’s skip to the last few steps of these arguments and attempt to integrate them.

1. Ontological: God, a being of which there is no greater, exists.
2. Cosmological: God is either the first Cause or is part of an infinite chain of regressions.
3. Ontological: We have an understanding of the idea of God, but believe he doesn’t exist. (we object to premise 1)
4. Cosmological: God must be the First Cause or we must change our idea of God.

Thus, we have gotten exactly to the point to which I wanted to bring us. This line of argumentation shows one substantial flaw of arguments for the existence of God. We come to them with an idea of God, thus the arguments are not pragmatic tests by any means, but more of evidential conglomerations. In our current philosophical zeitgeist, does a correspondence theory of truth hold any water or must we only resort to pragmatic tests?

My apologies on grammatical mistakes and/or faulty wording, I’ll read over this at a later time and edit it but for now this will have to do (I wrote this in about 20 minutes so forgive me for my hastiness).

Feel free to tear me apart on all of this. Comments, suggestions, and critiques are welcome.

Squabbles about the Ontological Argument: 'reductio ad absurdum' and modal logic approaches

2006-09-20T18:01:00.000-07:00

I must start off with voicing my affection for the ontological argument. I think it is one of the only arguments for God’s existence that don’t arrive at a conclusion in a purely deductive manner. I also see it as one that doesn’t arrive at or assume anything via negativa. What follows are two explanations that, in writing them all out, helped me find some veracity in the ontological argument. I must say that I agree with Kant’s dictum ‘copula-predicate’ critique of the ontological argument, but apart from that I think the argument still holds water (at least it holds more than it leaks). Much of the modal logic comes from my reading of Chellas work, Introduction to Modal Logic.

Anselm’s form of the argument as found in the Proslogian follows the logical form of a reductio ad absurdum aiming to refute the fool in Psalm 14:1 (The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God.) From this line of claim we are saying two things of the fool:
1. The fool understands the claim that God exists.
2. The fool himself does not believe that God exists.

If we understand that God is (as Anselm states) “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived,” then we move to the next point in Anselm’s argument, which is as follows:

“And assuredly, that than which nothing greater can be conceived cannot exist in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality, which is greater. Therefore, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, [then] the very being than which nothing greater can be conceived is one than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible.”

From this we see (as I have highlighted) some main points that are beneficial in outlining the argument. But before we can jump into the sequence of the logic of the reductio ad absurdum, we must make a distinction which is vital to the very strength of the argument; there is a distinction between existing in reality, existing in understanding, and existing in both realms. For instance, we can think of things like unicorns, aliens, the city of Atlantis, the Loch Ness monster, etc.; also, we also know that things exist in reality but we are uncertain about actually knowing them: undiscovered stars and solar systems, species, subatomic particles or energies, etc. We can also know that things exist and we are certainly knowledgeable of their existence, such as: Saddam Hussein, baseball bats, elements, etc.

Now, Let us outline the argument as follows:

1. Suppose (alongside the fool) that God exists in the understanding alone.
2. Given our definition, this means that a being than which none greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone.
3. But this being can be conceived to exist in reality. That is, we can conceive of a circumstance in which theism is true, even if we do not believe that it actually obtains.
4. But it is greater for a thing to exist in reality than for it to exist in the understanding alone.
5. Hence we seem forced to conclude that a being than which none greater can be conceived can be conceived to be greater than it is.
6. But that is absurd. (thus demonstrating that classic structure of the reductio ad absurdum argument)
Ergo…
7. So (1) must be false. God must exist in reality as well as in the understanding.

To this outline we add the final paragraph needed in outlining the argument, which supports our conclusion.

“Therefore, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, the very being than which nothing greater can be conceived is one than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence there is no doubt that there exists a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.”

I think utilizing this sort of structure of the argument shows its validity.

In short,
If we affirm that we understand the claim that God (a being of which none greater can be conceived) exists. And if it is greater to exist in reality [and be understood] than to exist in solely in understanding, then we must affirm that God exists in reality.

Another method of proving the ontological argument which was extremely helpful in my thought on this entails modal logic . First off, let me define the modal operators.
a. possible: True in at least one possible world.
b. contingent: True in some possible worlds, false in some possible worlds.
c. necessary: True in all possible worlds.

What we mean by the language of ‘possible worlds’ can be personified by an example such as the following: Bill Clinton was the president of the United States. This is a possible statement because there is at least one possible world where there really is a Bill Clinton, a president, and the United States all co-existent in a relationship as described in the example sentence. Possible statements can be contingent ones, and contingent statements by their very definition are possible. Thus it is a contingent statement to say that there is a world where the something is missing either in nouns found in the example and/or in their relationship to each other (i.e. Bill Clinton was not the president of the United States, et al). Moving on to necessary statements, a necessary statement is one that weaves a common thread throughout the worlds. Some necessary statements would be the law of non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle (it is either A or B and there is no middle ground), 2+2=4, etc.
From this example and definition, we see that a possible statement (one that’s true in at least one possible world) can also be necessary (true in all possible worlds), and all necessary statements are possible. However, a contingent statement (one that’s true in some possible worlds, and false in some others) cannot be a necessary statement, and no necessary statements are contingent.
With that in mind, we can move on to the actual argument.

Premise 1: (This statement rings true in all possible worlds)
If God (the greatest possible being having the highest possible existence ) exists, He exists necessarily. (Necessary existence being higher and greater than possible or contingent existence) Definition: God is defined as the greatest possible being. The greatest possible being would by definition have the greatest possible form of existence (if he exists). Since this statement is true by definition, it holds true in all possible worlds.. Therefore, because it is true as a consequence of definitions, in any possible world the following statement is true: if God (defined as the greatest possible being) exists he would (by definition) have the greatest possible form of existence (which is necessary existence).

Premise 2: It is possible for God to exist.
Definition: God is defined as the greatest possible being. If a being is possible, it cannot be impossible. Were it the case that the being was perfect to an extent that is not possible, it would not be the greatest possible being. Given its coherent meaning then, it would be irrational to claim that the greatest possible being cannot possibly exist.

→If God necessarily exists (i.e. if God exists in all possible worlds and reality is itself a possible world), then he exists.

To put it all very simply:
God, a being who has highest existence (that of existing in all possible worlds), exists in all possible worlds.
Reality is itself a possible world.
Therefore, if God exists in all possible worlds then he exists in reality.

Ok. So what do you think? comments, critiques, disagreements are welcome.

Meditations on Lent, part 12 of 40

2006-03-27T23:10:00.000-08:00

Fasting can be, when placed in the proper spiritual context, a means of grace by which we begin to focus solely on Christ thus on finding our true self in Him. As we seek, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, to be ever repentent and reflective on the state of our salvation- we are (to refer back to Lewis' analogy) seeking to see the Son and thus the true life, even if this means giving up our current perspectival view of the matters of this world. It is in standing in the beam of light that we see the Light and Life of all that exists-Christ. It is by our repentence that we move toward the light, and it is only by God's gift of grace that we can strive toward the light and eventually bask in its rays. This prevenient grace, as we respond to it, draws and woos us closer and closer to the Way and thus when we are in the Way we see what the Way points us to, which is simply the Way itself. The Trinity is the Gift and Giver, and need not the two be confused because the Gift is the Holy Spirit and the Giver is the Father's love for man enabled and empowered through the work of Christ. This Gift and Giver language points out, I think, an important point in regard to coming to a better understanding of what true Trinitarian spirituality really is- it is participation in the equality and simplicity of the three persons of the Godhead, while being personally enabled to do so by being in the Spirit which can only come about as a result of the work of the Son and the fulcrum on which the gifts of grace moves is the Father.

I want us to consider something I've been thinking about for a few days now, what if repentence isn't about striving toward personal perfection? This question may sound at first to be a bit off, but when we think about it we find that it cannot be farther from the Truth. Just like in the No Child Left Behind Act (don't even get me started on this ridiculous area of American education), when we focus on quantitative results, we lose both qualitative and quantitative results; but when we focus on qualitative results, we find a sudden increase in the qualitative results and thus a slow but steady increase quantitative results. I think the statement (or question as first mentioned) is better phrased as "repentence is about incorporated participation in the energies of the Godhead." When we focus on our own perfection, we lose all hope of perfection because we, like Peter, have lost sight of the Way to perfection. But when we don't focus on our own perfection and instead we focus upon Christ as the Giver of all good and perfect gifts (including perfection), we find that it is out of this uninterrupted 'I-Thou ' relationship that we find ourselves being perfected from the very center of our being and eventually all our actions are perfected because our being is perfected. How does this relate to Lent you might ask. It certainly relates because when we focus on eating certain things and not eating other things and sticking to the new 'diet' out of sheer will power, we miss everything. Our fasting should not be done out of the will to power to be perfected, it should be focused on Christ and should be ever-rememberant of Christ. What we find in this is the difference between being 'Christ-centered' and 'in Christ' (see previous meditation).

P.S. Sorry about my little sabbatical, I had to knock out some papers. I'll be writing alot of these to catch back up so keep an eye on the site. Comments are welcome!

Meditations on Lent, part 11 of 40

2006-03-22T07:58:00.000-08:00

In light of the last entry, if we are to be "in Christ" let us consider and contemplate what this might mean in regard to fasting. Fasting as an exercise in more fulling identifying with the passion of Christ leading to fasting as living into Christ. We are justified and made righteous in Christ, thus it is in Christ that we find our new life as Christians. As previously mentioned, life in Christ is enabled by the work of the Holy Spirit and it is through the Holy Spirit that we are sanctified and illumined in Christ. I want to consider the implications that "through the Holy Spirit" might have on both our life as Christians as well as our vocations to be Christian integrators of faith and learning.

C.S. Lewis states the following in the essay "Meditations on a Toolshed" found in the book, God in the Dock: "I was standing today in a dark toolshed. The sun was shining outside and through the crack at the top of the door there came a sunbeam. From where I stood that beam of light, with the specks of dust floating in it, was the most striking thing in the place. Everything was almost pitch-black. I was seeing the beam, but not seeing things by it. Then i moved so that the beam fell on my eyes. Instantly the whole previous picture vanished. I saw no toolshed, and (above all) no beam. Instead I saw, framed in the irregular cranny at the top of the door, green leaves moving on the branches of a tree outside, and beyond that, 90 odd million miles away, the sun. Looking along the beam and looking at the beam are very difference experiences."

He goes on to discuss various approaches to the act of thinking, but I think this little bit demonstrates my point exactly. If we merely look into Christ, we miss the whole point; thus it is only by being in Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit that we can begin to truly see God. So how do we, through the work of the Spirit, begin to live in Christ? By grace. By striving toward Christ only by the indwelling Holy Spirit which is itself a gift of God's grace.

Meditations on Lent, part 10 of 40

2006-03-19T16:30:00.000-08:00

Throughout the previous entries, I have made a plethora of mentions of 'striving toward Christ', 'live into Christ', et al. But what exactly is meant by these phrases? First off, I want to talk about a common phrase in Christian academic institutions (indeed, look at IWU's mission statement): "Christ-centered." While this is purely conjecture, I think in the use of 'Christ-centered,' we seem to subtly imply that we are in fact outside of Him. It is as if we are standing out in the cold looking in the window at a family celebrating Christmas Eve festivities; our descriptive usefulness comes only in proportion to how much we viewed through the window. Being 'Christ-centered' does also imply some helpful truths, but I prefer to use the phrase 'in Christ'. This phrase implies that we aren't "out in the cold looking in a window," rather we are in the house with the family taking part in the festivities. While we are not the family, nor are we of the same ontological essence as the family; our descriptive usefulness comes from firsthand experience of the loving community of the family rather than merely as a 'peeping tom'. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in his book Christ the Center, makes a statement which contains some contributions to the current discussion:

"Jesus Christ is for his brethren by standing in their place. Christ stands for his new humanity before God. But if that is the case, he is the new humanity. He stands vicariously where mankind should stand, by virtue of his pro me structure. He is the community. Not only does he act for it, he is it, by going to the cross, bearing sin, and dying. So mankind is crucified, dies, and is judged in him. Because he acts as the new humanity, it is in him and he is in it. Because the new humanity is in him, God is gracious towards it in him."(pg. 48-49)

Unpacking this a little, my foci for contributive ideas from this phrase is the progression within this statement as it describes first Christ's place then how Christ stands in humanity's place, and finally how we are in Christ because we are redeemed or judged in Him. Specifically the last little phrase, "God is gracious towards it in him", demonstrates something I have been pondering for the past four or five days. I completely agree Bonhoeffer on this point, and I think his language is adequate inasmuch as it leaves room for, but is inadequate in describing the parameters of the word "towards". Symeon the New Theologian makes the following statement in reference to the revelation of the Trinity, "It has been revealed to us in the Holy Spirit through Christ by the grace of God." If we unpack this we see three things: 1. The speaker is 'in the Holy Spirit' and thus is imparted to us as it is imputed in/to the Holy Spirit. 2. It is "through Christ" that we are given knowledge of the Trinity (although I do not at all think this is limited to knowledge, rather it applies to all graces), "through Christ" meaning (as Barth would talk about) that Christ is the epistemological nexus (my language of Barth's idea) as well as the broker for the grace from God and certainly the Savior and Judge of humanity. 3. That ultimately all things come from God the Father who is the first cause of "all good and perfect gifts."

p.s. Definitely more to come on this issue as well as how this related to fasting and preparation for Easter. Comments are welcome!

Meditations on Lent, part 9 of 40

2006-03-16T20:43:00.000-08:00

It is in the living into Christ that enables the Spirit to live and dwell in us and it is only by the grace of God that any of this is possible. A rich theological tradition, although often overlooked and misunderstood, exists in the history and development of Christian doctrine. God's grace enables our very life, it is by grace that we can begin to live, breath, and be what God does by nature. Indeed there is no spiritual life or knowledge of God without God's grace. God has graced us with revelation and it is by His grace and through Christ's work that we may begin to more fully apprehend God.

During this time of fasting and drawing near to Christ, let strive to more fully remember the grace of God. It is by our faith and pray that we may begin to ask, seek, and knock; but it is only by the work of the Spirit 'by the grace of God through the Son' (Symeon the New Theologian) that the door is opened and we are ushered into new life with Him by partaking of his divine nature. As the top of my blog states, prayer is the hinge by which the door to Christ-likeness opens. It is by grace that this door is opened.

I found this prayer during my reading today and I thought it was extremely powerful and enlightening. I'll talk more on it in the coming days, but I think we have lost a correct view of the Holy Spirit (I include that because this prayer is prayed to the Holy Spirit).

"Holy Spirit, you who proceed ineffably from the Father and live in us faithulf through the Son, spirit of life and understanding, spirit of holiness and perfection, good spirit and wise, friend of ma, gentle and glorious on who refreshes us with food and drink, all merciful giver of light and strength, divine spirit of patience, spirit who gives us joy and gladness, temperance, wisdom, knowledge, and sweetness, you make us forget all our injuries and cares here below, and bestow upon us the vision of the good things above. You drive off indolence and take away negligence, putting our curiosity and malice to flight. Spirit, revealer of mysteries, pledge of the kingdom of heaven, source of prophecy, vessel of instruction, remedy of sin and gateway of all repentence, you are like the gatekeeper who shows the way to all who are searching. Spirit of love, peace, faith, and moderation, spirit of desire inspiring desire, come and live in us and stay undivided and inseparable within us. Sanctify our hearts, transform and illumine them, you who are of the same essence and glory as the Son and the Father. You make gods of all who welcome you, wiping out every sin and bringing every virtue with your incoming. You do not have to look beyond yourself to meet all our needs, for you yourself are the substance of all that is good, and those in whom you come to dwell have in their hearts the essence of all good." - St. Symeon the New Theologian

Meditations on Lent, part 8 of 40

2006-03-13T08:00:00.000-08:00

Going along with the previous theme of the importance of right motives while observing the Lenten fast, I wanted to say a few more things. Seeing as this fast is not something which is forced upon us, but rather is done out of our own desire for Christ, we must keep ever in memory our aim for the spiritual benefits that come in drawing close to Christ. It is as if we are volunteering to take on some extracurricular reading for personal benefit, but as we are reading through the book, we grow bored and decide to read the book for the sake of accomplishing the goal of having read the entire book. If we are reading the book in a manner too expedient to actually grasp any of the information, then we have not actually done anything! As applied to Lent, fasting without spiritual sobriety is as beneficial as turning pages without actually reading the words.

So what is spiritual sobriety and how does this relate to Lent? Spiritual sobriety is simply remaining vigilant of both our moral successes and failures as well as the state of our heart and soul in regard to our motives behind our moral and spiritual strivings. Spiritual sobriety also means keeping the words and work of Christ always in our mind. Father Isaias makes the following statement about spiritual sobriety: "When you arise in the morning, before you begin your work, study the words of God. When you have the words of God as your constant companion, you will not be preoccupied with worldly matters, you will not be troubled, you will not sin." In this we see the mandate to keep the God forever with us in all thoughts, words, deeds, and motives. So how does this relate to fasting? As we deny the temptation for excesses of food and for certain foods, this should call to memory the reason behind our fasting: Christ. As we focus on Christ as our strength and core, we will be spiritually strengthened and nourished by the power of Christ.

A friend at Asbury has adapted the oft-repeated addage "I'll look into it" into something which seems to be more congruent with the curiosity for seeking God in all things, he says "I'll LIVE into it." I think this little thought perfectly summarizes our discussion. We should not just look into Christ as though we are still half-heartedly considering Christ as the center, we should live into Him because He is the center and source of our joy, love, strength, vitality, and effectiveness as Christians. During this Lenten season especially, may we seek to begin to live into Christ in all things and out of this will flow the love for Christ and our neighbor to which we have been called.

p.s. My apologies about the typos in these blogs, I don't really read over or edit them after writing.

Meditations on Lent, part 7 of 40

2006-03-12T17:27:00.000-08:00

On this first Sunday of Lent, we should find great encouragement in that we have jourrneyed one step closer to Christ's empty tomb. This is a time for joyful sadness, joyful in the sense that we should find joy in the hope of the transformational affects which this drawing near to Christ brings; and sad in the sense that our journey to Christ causes us to remember his salvific death on the cross. This vigilant anticipation for "the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come" (from the Creed) is somewhere past the horizon line, and between us and it stand hardships, temptations, suffering, selfishness-all of which would be completely eliminated and forgotten in "the life of the world to come." Father Atty said something today in church which really stuck out to me, he mentioned how the forty days of the Lenten season is but a microcosm of the whole of our lives because in this season we see rejoicing, suffering, anticipation, failure, forgiveness, and ultimately an authentic sadness in light of the suffering of Christ.

Now that we have seen that fasting the various elements we are fasting IS indeed possible, it is important we remind ourselves of the reason we are fasting: to draw near to Christ. If we merely partake of the fast to strengthen our ego by simply overcoming temptation out of sheer will, we are doing nothing. If our motives are not aimed at spiritual transformation, then our Lenten journey is meaningless.

Since today we are to remember and honor the live, work, and witness of St. Symeon the New Theologian, I thought it would be fitting to include some of his writing.

"Our sorrow before God is preceded by humility and followed by joy and a happiness that cannot be expressed. And this humility before God gives birth to the hope of salvation. The more a person thinkgs in his soul that he is the most sinful of men, the more does hope increase and flourish within his heart by this humility, giving us the confidence that it will be our salvation."

-St. Symeon the New Theologian from his Practial and Theological Chapters

Meditations on Lent, part 6 of 40

2006-03-10T19:32:00.000-08:00

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have mercy on me, a sinner.

This prayer, officially called the Jesus Prayer, stands as a fulcrum of spirituality in the pan-Orthodox Tradition. Pulling from both the Old Testament awe-filled authority and majesty of the tetragrammaton (the name of the Lord- YHWH) and the prayer of the publican in Luke 18:13. Seeking to obey Paul's imperative in I Thessalonians 5:17, Christian believers since early in the 4th century have sought the Jesus Prayer as a means of grace by which the Holy Spirit begins to indwell the inner self of the believer.

I could go on and on telling you about the history, the theology, the importance of the prayer in the spiritual life of an Orthodox believer, etc, etc; but I want to talk about a more personal element of the prayer. I have read numerous books on the prayer, but this hasn't come from any book, rather it has come from personal reflection on praying the prayer. Meditating on the prayer, we find it is saying not only that Jesus Christ is indeed Lord and Son of God; but, on a more personal level, the prayer is also implicitly stating that Christ is both capable of and willing to have mercy on us poor sinners. I think we see in addition to a true view of Christ, a true view of ourselves inasmuch as we affirm "a sinner", this nullifies any presumptions we may have about our status. Going back to what I mentioned in the part four, we can begin to see Christ truly when we see ourselves truly, and likewise we can begin to see ourselves truly when we see Christ truly. This paradox of spiritual, metaphysical, and theological unveiling begins to uncover the inter-relatedness of these things, and indeed all things, in Christ. In praying the prayer, we begin to identify ourselves with the publican in Luke inasmuch as we are, like he was, affirming both God's place as the Giver of mercy and forgiveness and our place as the one calling out in need of God's grace-filled gifts of mercy and forgiveness. How powerful a realization this has been for me, my prayer is that I can live obedient to those words that have been given me.

"I really need prayer in sorrow of heart,
more humble thought of how to go about saying
and doing what I say and do.
I try to act as if I were wise
But I do not have the fear of God without which
there is no beginning of wisdom.
I pray for mercy, but coldly.
What will become of me?
Mother of Mercy and Wisdom,
Take pity on me a sinner."
-Thomas Merton from Dialogues With Silence

Meditations on Lent, part 5 of 40

2006-03-10T15:09:00.000-08:00

To go along with the fasting/feasting idea mentioned in yesterday's blog, I thought I would include something that I found a while back which has always been a good reminder for me to keep everything in perspective. It is only through the grace of Christ that these can be authentically obeyed with right motives. So just as it is with the Lenten fasting, go for qualitative change rather than quantitative results.

FEAST on Christ dwelling in others
FAST from judging them.

FEAST on the unity of all life
FAST from emphasizing differences.

FEAST on the reality of light
FAST from apparent darkness.

FEAST on the healing power of God
FAST from thoughts of illness.

FEAST on phrases that purify
FAST from words that pollute.

FEAST on thankfulness
FAST from discontent.

FEAST on patience
FAST from irritability.

FEAST on promise
FAST from pessimism.

FEAST on God's fidelity
FAST from personal anxiety.

FEAST on appreciation
FAST from complaining.

FEAST on affirmation
FAST from gossip.

FEAST on unceasing prayer
FAST from unrelenting pressures.

FEAST on nonresistance
FAST from hostility.

FEAST on reconciliation
FAST from bitterness.

FEAST on compassion for others
FAST from self-centeredness.

FEAST on divine order
FAST from worry.

FEAST on hope
FAST from discouragement.

FEAST on realities that encourage
FAST from facts that depress.

FEAST on enthusiasm
FAST from apathy.

FEAST on truth
FAST from doubt and suspicion.

FEAST on dreams that inspire
FAST from thoughts that weaken.

FEAST on sunlight of serenity
FAST from shadows of sadness.

FEAST on purposeful solitude
FAST from meaningless chatter.

FEAST on prayer that sustains
FAST from problems that overwhelm.

O Lord and Master of my life, dispel from me the spirit of discouragement and slothfulness, ambition and vain talk; but rather grant to me, Your servant, the spirit of purity and lowliness, of patience and brotherly love; O Lord and King, make me aware of my own faults, and not to judge my brother, for You are blessed both now and forever. Amen. ~St. Epraim the Syrian

Meditations on Lent, part 4 of 40

2006-03-09T20:36:00.000-08:00

n this season of supposed 'asceticism', let us not forget the aestheticism of giving up so we may eventually partake in full. It does seem to be a paradox, but as we begin to dig deeper into this issue we find that it isn't much of a paradox at all. We fast so we may one day appreciate the feast. I don't think this paradigm can be applied to life as a whole, because while we are fasting in this life (from seeing Christ in a matter other than through a glass darkly) we are also feasting. The beauty and glory of the Lord is all around us, we need not look further than our neighbor to see the face of Christ. In this Lenten season, our preparatory fasting is not merely because it is the season of spring or because the Tradition of the church proposes that we fast, rather we are fasting in preparation for the event in the yearly life of the church which reminds us of both who we are and who our Savior is. All "you can't savor the sweet if you don't taste the sour" cliches aside. Fasting, like prayer, is a way by which the Body of Christ remembers its identity. It is a time for us, as members of the Body of Christ, to remember truly who we are, and, more importantly, who Christ truly is. Our ascetic practices lead us to identify with the suffering Christ, the all-too-human-Christ, the Christ who deigned to humbly,redemptively identify Himself with us. Let us not forget what we are spiritually preparing for.

note: the Psalm in the previous blog is Psalm 50, my apologies for not including that.

Meditations on Lent, part 3 of 40

2006-03-09T14:16:00.000-08:00

I wanted to include a tradition Psalm which is read in the liturgy and is reverberated in the hearts and minds of the faithful. I don't really think there is much to say about this Psalm of repentence, so I will let it speak for itself.

Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me; according to the multitude of Thy tender mercies, blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity and cleanse me from my sin, for I acknowledge my transgression, and my sin is ever before me. Against Thee, Thee only have I sinned and done this evil in Thy sight, that Thou mightest be justified when Thou speakest and prevail when Thou art judged. Behold, I was brought forth in iniquities and in sin did my mother bear me. But behold, Thou desirest truth in my innermost parts, and in my hidden parts Thou shalt make me to understand wisdom.

Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than the snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness, that the bones which Thou hast broken may rejoice. Turn Thy face from my sin and put out all mine iniquities far from me. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from Thy presence, and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation, and uphold me with Thy steadfast Spirit. Then shall I teach transgressors Thy ways, and sinners shall be converted unto Thee. Deliver me from blood-guiltiness, O God, the God of my salvation, and my tongue shall sing aloud of Thy righteousness. Open my lips, and my mouth shall show forth Thy praise.

For shouldest Thou desire sacrifice, I would give it Thee; but Thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifice of God is a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart -- these, O God, shalt Thou not despise.

Do good in Thy good pleasure to Sion; buildest Thou up the walls of Jerusalem. Then shalt Thou be pleased with the sacrifice of righteousness, with oblation and whole-burnt offerings. Then shall they offer young bullocks upon Thine altar.

Meditations on Lent, part 2 of 40

2006-03-06T20:58:00.000-08:00

During this Lenten season, we are fasting not merely for sake of strengthening our will and spirit to free ourselves of the preoccupation with the things of this world in order that we may draw near to Christ, we are fasting during this time with a specific preparation in mind: Easter (it is also called Pascha). Throughout the year, in our lustful and indulgent strivings, the world causes us to begin to forget about Christ's work as prophet, priest, and king. In essence, we have tendency to live as though Christ never came; even if we are living morally, we may be doing this more out of habit than out of intentional striving toward Christ-likeness. Nietzche is attributed with the following quote (I recognize that I am not giving the context here, if you want to hear the true meaning behind this quote then let's get coffee sometime): "God is dead... We have killed him- you and I." The reason I include this is because I think this is what we often to do in our everyday life, in our relationships with other people, and in our personal life. We live as though Christ never came, we reduce God to a mere "Unmoved Mover/Creator". While we would never call ourselves Deists or Atheists, this is in essence what we are. When we reduce God to the idea of a universal moral ideal by which we should live, we miss the whole point and definitely forget what Easter is all about. During this time of Lenten fasting, it is important after whom we are striving; let us not strive to become holy just for holiness sake, let us strive to become holy because God is holy and has come to earth to usher us into God's holiness. During this time, let our fasting from certain foods be a reflection of our fasting from sinning; not just to become less sinful, but to become more Christlike.

"Fasting gradually disperses and drives away spiritual darkness and the veil of sin that lies on the soul, just as the sun dispels the mist. Fasting enables us spiritually to see that spiritual air in which Christ, the Sun who knows no setting, does not rise, but shines without ceasing." -St. Symeon the New Theologian from his Discourses

Meditations on Lent, part 1 of 40

2006-03-06T14:30:00.000-08:00

Today starts the Orthodox Lenten season. Last night I attended Forgiveness Vespers with my sister at St. Michael's Orthodox Church. It was a wonderful Vespers service which ended with something very powerful. Everyone gets in a line and asks eachother for forgveness, but not only that- we also greeted eachother with the apostolic kiss (three kisses on the cheek, alternating sides). Kissing 100ish people and asking them for forgiveness (to which they reply "May God forgive us all") is an extremely powerful and penitential practice.
In this season of spiritually drawing closer to God, it is important we remember that the Father's forgiveness of our sin is contingent on our forgiveness of those who have, whether in intention or ignorance, sinned against us. For we can have no forgiveness leading to salvation if we cannot forgive those who have sinned against us.
The most important thing to remember during this Lenten fast is that it isn't about just keeping the fast from certain foods (or activities if you have opted to add those things on), rather it is about seeing the fast as merely a means toward growing closer to God by denying those things which we indulgently forgotten in the hustle and bustle of everyday life. The fast is not about comparing your own keeping of the fast with those who may not be observing the fast as faithfully; this destroys all value of fasting itself, for it leads to spiritual self-righteousness (the historical term is satiety). One monk put it so tactfully when he said: "Keep your eyes on your own plate."

"The Lenten spring has come!
the light of repentence;
Let us, brother, cleanse ourselves from all evil,
crying out to the Giver of Light:
Glory to Thee, O Lover of man."

"Let us begin the time of fasting in light!
Preparing ouselves for the spiritual efforts.
Let us purify our soul; let us purify our body.
As from food, let us abstain from all passion
and enjoy the virtues of the spirit,
So that perfected in time by love
We may all be made worthy to see
the Passion of Christ and the Holy Pascha (Easter)
In spiritual joy!"
- both from the Forgiveness Vespers Service (which starts the Great Lent)

conjecture regarding a telos of knowledge

2006-01-14T01:23:00.000-08:00

Well... after a long silence, I have finally decided to blog. I suppose most of my thoughts weren't really ready for blogging because they were (and still are) in the redaction process. So here's a little something that probably has nothing to do with anything, or maybe it has everything to do with nothing, or maybe it doesn't really have to have a "place" or a "category" because it could just simply be what it is.
In the scheme of this multidisciplinary educational process, I think I have come across something that just might be worth considering. It seems to me that the very nature of knowledge could be not so much about answering questions or about questioning answers as it is about refining questions and asking them to the right personage. This sort of 'knowledge as power' motif which as seeming infiltrated Western epistemological perspectives seems to be quite removed from the idea of 'taking every thought captive according to the obedience of Christ.' Knowledge doesn't necessarily seem to be about affirmation of things that are, have been, will be, or could be; but true knowledge unto Christ seems to be more closely situated toward a 'knowledge as penitence' or 'knowledge as relation'. First off, a 'knowledge as power' motif cultivates an understanding that if one can learn and know about something, even if it is nowhere close to a view encompassing the totality of a thing, one ultimate begins to feel as though the have mastered the thing. When in reality the only being capable of true mastership is the One who has carefully and masterfully created everything. A 'knowledge as relation' motif could be said to be bent more toward a view that all things are to be viewed in context and valued in the sense that what they offer to the totalizing scheme is of axiological significance. A way to see this could be expressed analogically as follows: in the same way a precious gem is of great value and significane, it is truly only valuable (whether its projected value is found in being or in doing) when it is set on a ring or in a pendant because while it is truly magnificent apart from its setting, it begins to accrue true value when it can be utilized to be worn and thus offer its services to the wearer. A 'knowledge as penitence' motif seems to be, at least in part, where the locus of the true telos of knowledge can be found. Penitential knowledge admits that while some things can be posited in regard to God, ultimately nothing can be said authoritatively. The only thing to be truly known in this regard is that nothing can truly be known, no questions can truly be answered except by a prayerful and penitential asking, seeking, knocking. What does this look like? I have no idea really, but I can say that it seems to be more about carful observation of the glory of the Lord which is contained in His creation (and that means everything, even those who might truly annoy us or those who may not be living as if they know that they contain the glory of the Creator) and yearning to learn as much as possible about God's so as to point others toward beginning to yearn for the knowledge that quenches all thirst forever. Knowledge isn't about getting some handle on a thing so as to feel in control, but it more about the recognition that there is no knowledge apart from the handle who is Christ the Lord which is given through the prayerful supplication through the Holy Spirit. Shying away from theological jargon, I want to say that this affirmation of unknowing comes out as we begin to recognize our place, God's immeasurable grace, Christ as the epistemological nexus between man and God, and the role of the Holy Spirit as the Giver. In the same way that God gives grace to the humble, I think God also gives knowledge to the intellectually humble. While I think I completely failed at portraying what has been on my mind for the past bit, I hope something positive can be gleaned from this. I will try to develop my thoughts further and blog them. This sort of thing is for some reason almost impossible to elucidate, but I'll keep working on it. Comments are greatly appreciated as we yearn to learn together.

the need for improvement

2005-11-30T07:20:00.000-08:00

the bad news.
I decided that I am a failure at blogging. After around two months of blog-silence and the inclusion of one boring paper, I have made the decision that if I am going to make this blogging thing work (which I'd like to) then I am going to have start... well ... blogging.

the good news.
Since I realize that I have been failing at keeping up with blogs due to mass amounts of extra-curricular reading and other endeavers, really the only place to go from here is up. I do have thoughts, so I'll work on getting them blogged for all to read. With finals coming up, the blog will probably remain somewhat silent but there is more to come don't worry.

Nembutsu and the Jesus Prayer

2005-11-19T16:39:00.000-08:00

In response to a lengthy blog-silence period; I have decided to stop reading for a while and post a paper I wrote that juxtaposes the Pure Land Buddhist prayer called 'nembutsu' with the Orthodox Christian 'Jesus Prayer'. And now for the caveat emptor... As usual, the paper could use more polishing and I'm always open to constructive criticism as well as questions or whatever other forms engagement with material produces. Email me @ erick.moser@student.indwes.edu if you have questions

Nembutsu and the Jesus Prayer
Prayer is the chief spiritual act in which man communes and supplicates with the Divine, but can prayer be more than this? Can it be a method of attuning oneself to a higher degree of consciousness or a clarified perspective on life and the duty of man? Turning from this view of prayer toward a more Eastern (both Eastern Orthodox and Far Eastern), is it possible to find or develop an alternative nature of prayer that has the ability to cultivate within man “ceaseless prayer” (I Thessalonians 5:17) by which striving toward complete communion and supplication with the Divine is possible at all times. The “Jesus Prayer” in the Eastern Orthodox tradition affirms this ability within man to strive to be in constant supplication with God through Christ, but it has often been criticized by some as being a mantra of Far Eastern influence due to its similarities with Buddhist forms of meditative, contemplative, and repetitive prayer. While external similarities do exist, the entire framework and theology of the prayers are as separate as far as the East is from the West; the purpose of this paper, then, is to introspectively analyze Buddhist and Christian Orthodox prayer to determine how different or similar the two traditions of prayer really are.

I. Nembutsu
Within Pure Land Buddhism, a sect of Mahayana Buddhism which is mainly indigenous to Japan and parts of China, the nembutsu is a prayer which allows one the opportunity to reach salvation by being reborn into the “Pure Land” before reaching enlightenment or satori. Nembutsu comes from the shortening of the prayer Namu Amida Butsu meaning ‘homage to Amida Buddha.’ Pure Land Buddhists as well as their derivative True Pure Land Buddhists both emphasize the darkened and degenerate dharma (mappo) in which we live and affirm that it is because of this that humans cannot achieve salvation through their own efforts, called jiriki, be they the practice of ascetic virtues or the attainment of transcendent or esoteric knowledge; humans must therefore rely on help from a higher being called Amida, who is full of grace to be poured upon those who seek him. It is out of this framework that the nembutsu finds its relevancy and power; Honen, the founder of Pure Land Buddhism, taught that if one chanted the nembutsu ten times with perfect contrition and sincerity (especially powerful if said immediately preceding death), then he would be saved in the Pure Land where he could reside in a pleasure and painlessness until reaching satori.[1] Honen states the following in regard to the attainment of salvation by the saying of nembutsu ten times with perfect sincerity:
“When I attain Buddhahood, if all sentient beings in the ten directions, who aspire in all sincerity and faith to be born in my land and think of me [by uttering my name] even ten times are not born there, then may I not attain supreme enlightenment."[2]

Within Pure Land Buddhism, there exist three subcategories or ‘schools’ who each place the nembutsu on different a different category as far as its importance in the attainment of salvation. The Jodoshu, also called Pure Land Buddhism, was founded by Honen Shonin in 1175 and viewed the nembutsu as a means of reaching guaranteed salvation by being born into the Pure Land where one has the opportunity to learn the teachings of Buddha without distortion or distraction so that satori can be reached in an expedient and easy manner by learning the ways of Buddha and walk upon the ‘Holy Path’. The Jodoshinshu school, also called the True Pure Land school was founded by Shinran in 1224, sees nembutsu as an expression of gratitude for salvation or the faith that salvation will be reached by being reborn into the Pure Land. The Chinese Pure Land school views the practice of nembutsu merely as an aid to attaining a state of mind that is salvation into the Pure Land.[3]

The prayer of Namu Amida Buddha has several interpretive meanings ranging from ‘Homage to Amida Buddha’ to ‘All praise to Amida Buddha’ to ‘total reliance upon the compassion of Amida Buddha,’ the different meanings of the nembutsu do not detract from its centrality in the life and spirituality of the Pure Land Buddhist follower. The prayer is directed at a being known as ‘Amida Buddha’ who is the intermediary between in the threefold embodiment of Buddha: the most abstract is Dharmakaya and can be considered the Unconditioned equated with reality itself; the intermediate level is Sambogakaya or Amida Buddha who is a spiritual being possessing all virtues and powers found in the nature of the Dharmakaya but unlike the Dharmakaya is immanently present to humanity; the least abstract is Nirmakaya who is the embodied person of Shakyamuni Buddha preeminently and is the driving spiritual force which sets the bodhisattvas and spiritual sages apart from the rest of humanity. The power of the nembutsu comes both in the recitation of the name of Amida Buddha as well as the perceived acceptance of the mystery and incomprehensibility of the meaning of the prayer. The deeper analysis of nembutsu is directed in a philosophical trajectory rather than a mystical or esoteric one because the true meaning, power, and nature of nembutsu can only be found in understanding the epistemic structures on which Buddhist spirituality is built. Namu, as used in the nembutsu, means ‘adoration’, ‘salutation’, or ‘praise’ and when it is added to the name of Buddha (Amida Buddha) as found in the second part of the prayer, the whole prayer thus acquires a new meaning. In the first sense when Amida is praised or adored as the object of utmost praise, “He is separated from the devotee standing all by himself. But when Namu is added to the Name the whole thing acquires a new meaning because it now symbolizes the unification of Amida and the devotee, wherein the duality no longer exists.”[4] Another aspect of the nembutsu to point out is that the attainment of salvation into the Pure Land is, congruent the Chinese Pure Land school’s understanding of the place of nembutsu in reaching a mindset which is the Pure Land, that the Pure Land may be visited or left as often as one says the prayer. When this level is attained between the devotee and Amida Buddha, the devotee has a “steadfastness of faith” which can precede the rebirth into the Pure Land as experienced in the Jodo Shu and Jodo Shinshu schools. This understanding of the Pure Land as a state of consciousness in this saholokadhātu, or world of particulars, rather than an event to happen in the rebirth into the next life will prove to be very beneficial in subsequent parts of the paper where an attempt will be made to articulate the similarities between Christian Orthodoxy’s ‘Jesus Prayer’ and Mahayana (specifically Pure Land Mahayana Buddhism) Buddhist nembutsu. The following poems by a devout Shin Buddhist poet named Saichi (1850-1932) explain the closeness and possibly even oneness of this world (saholokadhātu) with the Pure Land of the next. In the first poem there is a great closeness between this world and the Pure Land but there is a distinction or duality in regards to this world and the next, hence the statement of ‘I’m there and I’m back’. In the second poem however, there is found even a greater emphasis on the closeness between this world and the next even to the affirming of a non-duality or a monism of this world and the next, hence the statement of ‘I am the land of bliss’ and ‘I am Oya-sama’*. In the third poem, the emphasis on human becomingness to Amida through the nembutsu is even more absolutely stated as Saichi speaks in present tense about something which, in the Jodo shu and Jodoshinshu schools, is not to happen until rebirth into the next life in the Pure Land Buddhism.[5]
1.
“I am a happy man, indeed!
I visit the Pure Land as often as I like:
I’m there and I’m back,
I’m there and I’m back,
I’m there and I’m back,
‘Namu-amida-butsu! Namu-amida-butsu!’”[6]

2.
“How happy I am!
‘Namu-amida-butsu!’
I am the Land of Bliss,
I am Oya-sama.
‘Namu-amida-butsu! Namu-amida-butsu!’”[7]

3.
“Having finished his death and funeral,Saichi lives in this world with Namu-amida-butsu.Saichi is Amida,Amida is Saichi.Amida's Name having come to Saichi,And finished my last moment,How relieved I am in the nembutsu-’Namu-amida-butsu,’Into which I've been called, taken by you.”[8]

II. The Jesus Prayer
The Jesus Prayer is a prayer that developed in the Christian tradition and can be found as early as the 4th century in the writings of St. Macarius of Egypt (as well as the writings of other Desert Fathers contained in the Apothegmata Patrum or Sayings of the Desert Fathers) , but the actual repetition of the prayer of Jesus surfaces in the writings of Diadochos the Photike in the 6th century. Indeed, the very form of this prayer is Biblically-based for Luke 18:13 contains the prayer of the publican in a parable of Jesus. The power of the prayer lies in the invocation of the very Name of Jesus, this amplification of the Old Testament Judaic understanding of the power contained in the tetragrammaton carried over into the New Testament is revealed in Phil. 2:9-10, Acts 4:12, and John 16:23-24;[9] also the invocation of the Name of Jesus in the prayer is also powerful because the Holy Spirit is present in the very praying of the prayer since “no one can say ‘Lord Jesus’, except in the Holy Spirit.”[10] The prayer also focuses the mind on God so that eventually the mind is raised above the words of the prayer into constant communion with Christ, a statement regarding this ‘purity of mind’ is as follows: “Purity of spiritual mind is what allows the light of the Holy Trinity to shine forth at the time of prayer… The mind then transcends prayer, and this state should not properly be called prayer, but a fruit of the pure prayer sent by the Holy Spirit. The mind does not pray a definite prayer, but finds itself in ecstasy in the midst of incomprehensible realities. It is indeed an ignorance superior to knowledge.”[11]
St. Theophan the Recluse makes the following statement about the power of the Jesus Prayer: “Only you must attribute the power of this prayer, not to the repetition of certain words, but to the turning of the mind and heart towards the Lord in these words-to the action accompanying the speech.”[12] This prayer, when prayed continually first with the mouth, begins to slowly infiltrate the mind and very spirit of the subject; upon entering the mind, the prayer can be said at all times and during all actions, and at this point the prayer no longer becomes a trial of attention or effort but a thing of pure delight and joy. St. Gregory Palamas, says the following about unceasing prayer during physical activity: “When the Apostle commanded us to ‘Pray without ceasing’ (I Thess. 5:17), he meant that we must pray inwardly with our mind; and this is something that we can do always. For when we are engaged in manual labour and when we walk or sit down, when we eat or when we drink, we can always pray inwardly and practice prayer of the mind, true prayer, pleasing to God. Let us work with our body and pray with our soul. Let our outer man perform physical work, and let the inner man be consecrated wholly and completely to the service of God and never flag in the spiritual work of inner prayer.”[13] After the prayer his steeped within the intellect, it moves into the soul, where it refashions and purifies an individual by being in constant prayer to Christ. This prayer, when it is within the soul, is active at waking and sleeping; indeed even the heart wakes and invokes the name of Jesus even when the intellect is sleeping.
III. Differentiations
The structures of the two “prayers” parallel on two main points; they both are to be prayed in a repetitive format, and they both contain an invocation to the name of the deity (God in the Jesus prayer) to which they are praying: the Buddhist nembutsu view on the importance of the invocation of the name is as previously stated on page four of this paper and the Orthodox perspective on the importance of the invocation of the name of God is as previously stated on page six and seven of this paper. The dissimilar points between the two prayers are as follows: nembutsu contains an invocation of the savior Amida Buddha, but apart from the praise given to Amida Buddha no action is petitioned and no statement can be found about the one praying, the attributes of Amida Buddha (except those contained in ‘Amida’), or the procession of Amida Buddha from the most transcendent Buddha; the Jesus Prayer contains not only an invocation of the name of Jesus the Savior, but also a six word statement which articulates both the nature of Jesus as Lord and Christ as well as the relationship of Jesus to the fountainhead of the Trinity, God the Father, in “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God,…” the entire mystery of the Christ event is alluded to; the prayer contains an epiclesis of the Holy Spirit because [as previously stated] “no one can say ‘Lord Jesus’, except in the Holy Spirit”[14]; the Jesus Prayer contains a petition of action on the part of Christ [which is also an allusion to the very nature of Christ] in the following section of the prayer “have mercy on me”; the final part of the prayer contains a statement which articulates the humble state of the one praying as a sinner constantly seeking the salvific power of Christ[15].
In a comparison of the nembutsu and the Jesus Prayer, the facilitation of a dialogue between the Buddhist views on the nembutsu and Orthodox Christian views on the Jesus prayer, the Jodoshu school will serve as the Buddhist perspective on the less mystical use of the nembutsu and the Orthodox laity’s view of the Jesus Prayer will serve as the less mystical method of use of the Jesus Prayer. As previously stated, the Jodoshu school’s perspective on nembutsu is as follows: the nembutsu is a means of reaching guaranteed salvation by being born into the Pure Land where one has the opportunity to learn the teachings of Buddha without distortion or distraction so that satori can be reached in an expedient and easy manner by learning the ways of Buddha and walk upon the ‘Holy Path’. The Orthodox laity’s perspective on the Prayer is as follows: “We don't say the Jesus Prayer, or enter wordless contemplation, to get "some benefit." We don't pray to reduce our stress, or strengthen our immune system, or lose weight, or add years to our life. On the contrary, we enter prayer to follow Christ, to become open to Him. His way is the Way of the Cross.”[16] The more mystical use of the “prayers” can be found in the Chinese Pure Land school’s use of the prayer as the practice of nembutsu merely as an aid to attaining a state of mind that is salvation into the Pure Land.[17] The more mystical use of the Jesus Prayer can be found most frequently in the Greek and Russian Hesychast* Fathers, early forms in the Desert Fathers, and in more modern Russian works such as The Way of a Pilgrim and The Pilgrim Continues His Way; this perspective of the prayer places heavy emphasis on the inner prayer of the heart as well as postures and breathing methods during the saying of the prayer. The Hesychast position of the Jesus Prayer most properly articulates the mystical use of the prayer, and can be stated as an arrow prayer by which the heart becomes attuned to the Spirit and the mind becomes noetically conscious of the indwelling Trinity and the profundity of the grace bestowed on man in the Incarnation as well as in the grace-filled beatific vision of Christ as Divine light. “When you enter the place of the heart as I have shown you, give thanks to God and, while glorifying His goodness, always maintain this activity; it will teach you what you will never learn any other way. … And with much yearning and sweet attention there will also come to you a whole host of virtues: love, joy, peace and the rest, on account of which your every wish will be fulfilled through Jesus Christ our Lord.”[18] Another fruit of the Jesus prayer which could be considered to be much like the new perception Saichi expressed in his poems is also expressed by the author of The Way of a Pilgrim and The Pilgrim Continues His Way as follows: “When I prayed in my heart, everything around me seemed delightful and marvelous. The trees, the grass, the birds, the air, the light seemed to be telling me that they existed for man's sake, that they witnessed to the love of God for man, that all things prayed to God and sang his praise.”[19]
In conclusion, one can see by the articulation of the philosophies and histories of the two “prayers” that while they seem to be similar in form and philosophy on the surface, when viewed introspectively the vast differences in the prayers show themselves. One may ask after a discussion of this relative magnitude the question of ‘Where does the Truth lie?’ While this is a substantive question, its answer could be much more complex; Truth is not found in any specific or the mélange of various philosophies, it is found in the consubstantial person of Christ Jesus, who is the visible image of the invisible God, the author and perfector of our faith, and the fulcrum on which the Truth of the Gospel balances. The practice of the Jesus Prayer long predates any developments toward a working understanding of the nembutsu prayer and the Jesus Prayer finds its true, power, and value in the person in whom Truth, Value, and salvific power reside and have their being-the person of Lord Jesus Christ.
[1] Morgan, Diane. The Best Guide to Eastern Philosophy and Religion. Los Angeles, California: Renaissance Books, 2001, pg. 164.
[2] from the Sutra of Immeasurable Life or The Lotus Sutra. T. 360, 268a. Accessed from http://www.jsri.jp/English/Honen/TEACHINGS/senchaku/8types.html on 6 November 2005.
[3] Suzuki, Daisetz Teitaro. Mysticism: Christian and Buddhist: The Eastern and Western Way. New York, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1957, pg. 123-157.
[4] Ibid. pg. 123.
* Note in Ibid., pg. 124 which explains Oya-sama and its significance as a statement about the supposed monism to be achieved in this life is as follows: “To Saichi ‘Oya-sama’ or ‘Oya’ not only means Amida himself but frequently personifies the ‘Namu-amida-butsu.’ To him, sometimes, these three are the same thing: Amida as Oya-sama, the Myōgō (‘Namu-amida-butsu’), and Saichi.”
[5] Ibid. pg. 124.
[6] Ibid. pg. 124.
[7] Ibid. pg. 124.
[8] From Sato, Kemmyo Taira. “The Buddha Appears through the Individual,” A talk given at the 48th London EZA. Accessed on 7 November 2005 from http://www.purifymind.com/BuddhaIndividual.htm
[9] A Monk of the Eastern Church. The Jesus Prayer. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Press, 1997, pg. 24-25.
[10] I Corinthians 12:3 from an argument in Ware, Timothy. The Orthodox Way. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002, pg. 38.
[11] From Palamas, St. Gregory. The Triads. Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1983, pg. 38 B.I.iii.21. Quoted by Palamas from “Homily 32, ed. Theotoki, pg. 206. Isaac is presumably citing Gregory of Nazianzus, though the language is also very reminiscent of Evagrius.”
[12] “Delve Deeply” St. Theophan the Recluse. From Igumen Chariton of Valamo, compiler. The Art of Prayer: An Orthodox Anthology. London, England: Faber and Faber, 1997, pg. 91.
[13] “A Command Addressed to All” St. Gregory Palamas. From Ibid. pg. 87.
[14] I Corinthians 12:3 from an argument in Ware, Timothy. The Orthodox Way. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002, pg. 38.
[15] Only the Russian version of the Jesus Prayer contains the ending “a sinner” the Greek version of the Prayer does not contain this ending even though some Scriptures allude to it.
[16] From “Saying the Jesus Prayer” by Albert S. Rossi accessed at
http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/Albert-Rossi/Articles/Saying-the-Jesus-Prayer.html on 11 November, 2005.
[17] Suzuki, Daisetz Teitaro. Mysticism: Christian and Buddhist: The Eastern and Western Way. New York, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1957, pg. 123-157.
* From the word defined as follows: “Hesychia, impassibility, is the state reached by “sobriety” of the spirit, when the intellect controls the heart and the heart controls the intellect: “(It) is the appropriate Christian expression of apatheia, where action and contemplation are not conceived as two different orders of life, but on the contrary merged in the exercise of ‘spiritual action’- praxis neora” From Ouspensky, Leonid. Theology of the Icon, Vol. II. Anthony Gythiel, translator. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992. pg. 234. Taken From Lossky, Vladimir. The Vision of God. A. Moorhouse, translator. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1983, 142-3.
[18] From the Philokalia, quotation found in Brianchaninov, Bishop Ignatius. On the Prayer of Jesus. Liberty, Tennessee: Saint John of Kronstadt Press, 1995, pg. 72-73.
[19] Anonymous. The Way of A Pilgrim and the Pilgrim Continues His Way. translated by R. M. French. Seabury Press: New York, 1965.

The Orthodox Way, part 1

2005-10-22T03:11:00.000-07:00

Kallistos (Timothy) Ware's The Orthodox Way, a book review. Disclaimer- I may not necessarily hold to every view presented in this review, there maybe typos, and some of the ideas aren't as Orthodox (in the Eastern Orthodox use of the word) as Ware would have liked them to be; that is to be articulated in following blog.

The Orthodox Way, an introduction to Orthodoxy Christianity written to be beneficial to both the theologically uninformed as well as those who have previous intellectual/theological/spiritual foundations, contains a basic articulation of Orthodoxy’s mystical theology [in the sense that Orthodox theology is based on experience and appreciation of the Divine Mysteries rather than purely a rationally-based theological hermeneutic in the post-scholastic West].

Presented first, the idea of God as “wholly other” and “incomprehensible” builds the very foundation of the Orthodox understanding of theology and spirituality. This idea of God as the polemic of transcendence and immanence is articulated by Ware as follows: “each finds that God grows ever more intimate and ever more distant, well known and yet unknown.” (12) As Ware works through the doctrines of God as intimately knowable and transcendently unknowable, he articulates (in a very basic form) the doctrine of God as unknowable in His essence (esse ipsum in Thomistic theology) yet knowable in His revelatory energeia. Before explaining that God first reveals Himself as person, Ware articulates the two streams of theological methodology: apophatic and kataphatic (more to come on these in another blog). While God is unknowable and incomprehensible, He has left revelatory evidences that we can know: first, we can know God through the world around us; second, we can know God from understanding ourselves; and third, we can are pointed to an understanding of God via relationships with other people. Ware’s treatment of the polemic between knowable and unknowable, while being a good introduction, lacks an articulation of the foundations of esse and energeia.

Ware’s appropriation and articulation of God as Trinity is, for the most part, in keeping with the Orthodox framework laid out throughout the Ecumenical period by the Greek Fathers. He speaks of the self-giving love that lies at the core of our God as Trinity thus adding the second self-revelation of God, that is God is love. The Trinitarian “three persons in one essence” (three hypostases/prosopon in one ousia) as affirmed by the Councils precedes an explanation of the distinct characteristics and energies of each person of the Godhead [both in relation to each other(immanent Trinity) and to the creation (economic Trinity)]. Ware meticulously retains a continuous apophatic theological perspective as he discusses the Trinity, the following statement articulates apophaticism regarding the Trinity: The Trinity is not a philosophical theory but the living God whom we worship; and so there comes a point in our approach to the Trinity when argumentation and analysis much give place to wordless prayer.”(31) Properly keeping with the Eastern, apophatic view of the Trinity over the Western one, Ware teaches how the Trinity can be prayed, worshiped, and ultimately lived.

The greatest energeia of God by which God can be known is the Creation event, this creative act was done out of love and freedom as God was not coerced or willed by anything or anyone that the cosmos should be created. In creating the cosmos out of love and freedom, God weaves into His creation a thread of contingency and dependency of the creation to the Creator; existence is therefore not a right of man, but it is a gift of God. In the “God as Creator” chapter, Ware gives the Orthodox doctrine of man as body, soul, and spirit- this tripartite metaphysical scheme states that the work of the soul and spirit are the following: the soul “engages in scientific or philosophical inquiry, analyzing the data of (man’s) sense-experience by means of the discursive reason,” and the spirit “understands eternal truth about God or about the logoi of created things, …by direct apprehension or spiritual perception.”(48)

Hello everyone

2005-10-14T23:41:00.000-07:00

Hello all fellow travellers,
This blog will be a place to find some of my thoughts as I make my intellectual/spiritual journey through life. Feel free to dispute anything written and leave plenty of comments as I am always open to criticism (preferably in a constructive manner). Definitely more to come.
in XP, Erick