Sunday, July 6th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Here’s my thought for the fourth, I’ve written such on my blog in previous years, but there are new readers here so … From the book of Ruth chapter 1 we have:
And she said, “See, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law.” But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the Lord do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you.” And when Naomi saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more.
The poetic plea of Ruth’s, “For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the Lord do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you.” seems to me not far from the patriotic declamation of Captain Hale, “I regret I have but one life to give for my country.”
When one transposes the sentiment Ruth expresses for Naomi and love of one’s country I think there are strong parallels here. Patriotism is about roots, about earth, about home and hearth at it’s core. It is also at it’s heart, a parochial plea. It is exclusive. I love my country (and not yours). This is my land where I and my family will dwell.
I’m curious, does that jibe with you’re notion of patriotism?
Tuesday, June 24th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
When we read of the early church, there are accounts of entire nations converting to Christianity because their King or Prince converted. Our impression today is that this paints a very poor picture of the religious faith of those common people who converted on the “mere” say-so of their sovereign.
However, one might turn that around especially in our independent democratic age. For it might say more about what it truly means to have a King and Lord than about their personal devotion. As the Christians are a people lauding Christ as Lord … that lesson is one that might be taken more to heart.
Monday, June 9th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
The 12th Carnival of Christian Reconciliation will be held my home blog at Pseudo-Polymath.
For submission guidelines see this post. The carnival submission will be due by Midnight EST Friday June 20th, although technically I’ll probably do most of the work putting the carnival together over the weekend so the real “cut-off” will be some undetermined time on Sunday. It might be important to note that this carnival accepts multiple entries from each person. See the details on posting guidelines at the above link. The Question/Topic-of-the-Month for this month is:
In St. John Cassian’s Conferences Abba Moses teaches that our thoughts come from three sources, the Holy Spirit, Satan, or ourselves. He then teaches discernment is perhaps the most important Christian virtue, to separate those three in our minds and subsequently our actions. Our Church has split from one into so very many over the almost two millennia since Christ’s resurrection. Some have suggested that perhaps the prevalence and predominance of division in our church is a sign that it is God’s will that the Church be divided. But is this so?
In analogy to Abba Moses’ instruction, one might propose that the origins of any one of these divisions arises from the work or activities of the Spirit, Satan, or Man. One would expect that the latter two are the ones which, if one supports ecumenical movement, should be the ones we actively oppose. How should we discern the difference between these, if indeed that is even a thing we should attempt? Is the motive behind the division a thing which we should discern as we try to heal that same division? Is such a discernment (or claims to the same) today even useful?
Tuesday, April 15th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Henry Neufeld, at the Participatory Bible Blog,
I want to briefly point to something that we often miss in Bible study and theology in the western church–corporate identity. We are very individualistic, and that makes it hard to see when some form of corporate identity is in play.
This turns up in certain views of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Many view the baptism as a single event for the church on Pentecost, into which the individual believer is incorporated when he or she becomes a part of God’s people, normally through baptism. The separate baptism is a more individual idea. (I think there can be some accommodation between these views; I simply want to point out the corporate identity inherent in at least one of them.)
Paul says in Romans 6:3-4:
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. (NRSV, cf. 2 Corinthians 4:10-12)
Again, our baptism incorporates us into God’s people, and by this means we have a part in the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Individualization of faith and church, as exemplified in the above or the notion of cafeteria Christianity is not a stranger to the American faith experience. I’d like to follow this notion of corporate connectedness and some consequences … below the fold. Read the rest of this entry
Tuesday, April 8th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
I have not tried anything remotely like this on this blog yet. Likely I won’t do it often. Let me know waddya think. So, with a little trepidation …
Once upon a time, a young man was selected from those in his parish to go on a mission. He was excited and had some nervousness in the months prior to leaving, and used every waking moment to prepare for his departure. He read some on the customs and languages of the place he was to go. But, as he was assured that he would have excellent guides he mostly worried about his studies and his faith. When he was at worship he tried to remember all of the parts of worship and liturgy. He tried to imagine for everything that he saw, did and observed, that if he was asked he might be called to remember why a thing was done and why it was so. Therefore he asked questions of everyone incessantly and constantly trying to make sure he had it all right. Then came the momentous day.
He was to leave. Departure and his journey passed in a confusing frantic blur, mixed with delay, and dark quiet airline seats and awareness that the sounds and smells and people around him were becoming less and less like those which he was familiar.
For the land in which he was going, people of his faith were rare and unknown. He would indeed be a stranger in a land of strange and unknown customs, patterns and practices. Accordingly, at all times he regarded himself as an ambassador of his faith. That his every fleeting contact, every action would be a chance to connect with these strangers, to show by his love, his charity, his presence what sort of faith and people he represented. At first every act he performed, he did somewhat self-consciously reflecting that each act would be observed, perhaps critically, by strange unloving, judgmental eyes. Those eyes, trying to discern by his actions what sort of man he was … and thereby what sort of a people those of his faith were. Eventually, the self-consciousness faded somewhat as many of his actions and responses became more habitual. But that didn’t help at all. For it really didn’t get easier, those things which became habit exposed all the other things which he was forgetting or didn’t learn as well as he should have during his prior frantic, inadequate, and continuing, but now more careful, study.
Then came the time to return.
How was he changed by his trip? Why did he even have to leave for that change to take place? Why don’t we all always treat our every action as if we are that man representing Christ and his Church here in this strange land here on the hard lonely side of the eschaton?
Tuesday, March 4th, 2008 at 8:02 am
It’s the day of the Clinton Firewall ™. Will she or won’t she (win TX & OH, stay in the race)?
Can Huckabee pull an upset in the Lone Star State? (Well, no, but feel free to comment anyway.)
Thus begins the open thread.
Tuesday, February 5th, 2008 at 8:00 am
An open thread for this biggest of days in this weirdest of presidential primary seasons. Discuss why you voted for whom you did or give us your analysis of the poll results as they are now or as they come in.
Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Happy New Year from all of us here. We’re still getting back to business after the holidays. In the meantime, I figured it was a good time to let you post your thoughts on anything going on in the news: Pakistan, Iowa Caucuses, Presidential Election, NFL playoffs, New Year’s Resolutions or whatever else is on your mind. So join in and we’ll chat about it.
Monday, December 17th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Steroids in baseball, Rick Warren’s side of the story, Putin as Prime Minister, Christmas traditions, and/or whatever else you want to talk about. Christmas break’s a-comin’, and it may get quite around the blog, so here you can start your own conversation.
Monday, November 19th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Thanksgiving is coming. What are you thankful for?
That and other topics in this open thread.
Monday, November 5th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
The thread is open. Speak freely. Talk amongst yourselves.
(Still no rain here in Georgia.)
Monday, October 22nd, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Thoughts on books you’ve read, the Republican debate, the baseball post-season, or whatever else. The open thread is officially open.
Monday, October 15th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
The first of our open threads. We’ll start doing this weekly, but if we get enough conversation, we’ll try doing it more often.
Pick a topic, any topic (within legality and taste).