Orthodoxy Archives - Kuyperian Commentary

On October 16, 2018 By Steve Macias In Culture, Politics Like

Russian Orthodox Schism: Autocephaly and Eucharistic Communion

As of October 15, 2018, the New York Times is reporting “The Russian Orthodox Church on Monday moved to sever all ties with the Constantinople Patriarchate, the Orthodox mother church, to protest its moves toward creating an independent church in Ukraine.” In more ways than one this represents a real schism in the Eastern Orthodox Church and can undermine the Orthodox claim to be a faithful representative of the historic Christian faith. For the non-orthodox, this is a challenge to our understanding of institutional and denominational Christianity.

(ALEXANDER ZEMLIANICHENKO – Getty Images)

Political and Religious Schisms

It is important to note that this schism is hardly a surprise to any who have seen the political undercurrent in this ongoing feud between the Hellenic and Slavic Orthodox Churches. Certainly every church conflict can be said to have some degree of political posturing, whether it is Rome’s Imperial power grab of the Great Schism, Henry VIII in England, or even the German princes that enabled Luther’s work. But this present schism presents a greater crisis to the contemporary Orthodox church and its American diaspora.

The jurisdictional authority of Constantinople as an important patriarchate is an ancient tradition, one that can be traced back to the “pentarchy” – a term used to describe the five self-governing jurisdictions of the undivided church. Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were to be considered chief jurisdictions with special honor, authority, and significance. The stability of this five-headed church begins to fall apart in the 7th century as the Eastern territories are brought under Muslim rule, which happened to coincide with Rome’s increasing claims for universal jurisdiction. After the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, Constantinople becomes the Ecumenical Patriarch of the East and is recognized as “first among equals” of the Eastern Churches.

The Birth of the Russian Orthodox Church

The Russian Orthodox Church is born centuries later, first as a subordinate jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but then as the Byzantine Empire crumbled the Russian Church claimed its own canonical independence. It is interesting that just as Rome claimed control as the East fell to the Muslims, the Russian church claims control as Byzantium falls. It would be over a century before this movement of self-government or “autocephaly” was officially recognized by the other Orthodox Churches. Today, the Russian Church represent a large chunk of Orthodox Christians and claims canonical jurisdiction over the Slavic Orthodox churches in Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, Estonia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan as well as Orthodox Christians living in other countries who voluntarily submit to its jurisdiction.

The conflict between the Russian Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate over the canonical status of Ukraine has reached the point of schism. The Russian church is currently disallowing any of its members from celebrating communion with Churches under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In the United States, two-thirds of the Orthodox Christians are under the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople – what are commonly called Greek Orthodox. And over a hundred thousand Orthodox Christians in America are under Russian-origin jurisdictions like the Orthodox Church in America (autocephalous), the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, and the Churches of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Jurisdictional Multiplicity

Many American Christians are familiar with this sort of jurisdictional multiplicity and conflict. In my own tradition as an Anglican we have jurisdictions with identical prayer books, liturgies, and vestments, but completely out of communion. Some is justified, no Christian can or should commune with a female “bishop” as she prays to God using feminine pronouns, and denies the literal resurrection. Other breaks are similar to this current Orthodox struggle in that they are historically complicated and deeply political.

But this Orthodox question of canonical jurisdiction and authority of autocephalous churches poses an issue for all Christians. Many have fled the denominational chaos of Protestantism for the greener pastures of Orthodoxy as a solid, unified church. Perhaps believing that she was the sole representative of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Others frustrated with the canonical division of Orthodoxy turned to Rome, hoping the Pope to lead the church through these conflicts and the Lord gave them Pope Francis.

It is a great sadness that the Russian Church would bar an otherwise faithful Christian from its communion altar. Functionally, the schism excommunicates the majority of American Orthodox Christians, at least temporarily. Can any branch of Orthodoxy claim to represent the unbroken tradition while denying real Christians access to the Body and Blood of Christ? As an Anglican Priest ordained in the Western Apostolic Succession of Sts. Peter, James, and John, and Paul – I recognize that the seeds of these poisonous canonical divisions were planted nearly a millennium ago with the Great Schism of 1054.

Bishops and Princes

The temptation for Catholic-minded Christians is to abuse our Apostolic identity as license to become the sole institutional representatives of Christ’s Kingdom. Bishops and Archbishops, Patriarchates and Metropolitans, are tempted to leave their chief calling to be shepherds of souls for the form of princely rule and worldly control.

Should the Russian Church maintain its stand against the Ecumenical Patriarchate, what effect does this have on the Orthodox identity as the faithful representative of the undivided church?

It is likely that Orthodox Christians in both jurisdictions are troubled over this – I’m sure they want Christ’s Church to be one. But perhaps rather than attempting to maneuver the canons into the favor of one jurisdiction or another, may we seek a humbler solution. Perhaps this moment is a time for Orthodox, Catholic, and Apostolic Churches to revisit what it means to be “one church.”

A Eucharistic Ecclesiology

In evaluating the merits of Russian autocephaly or the canonical authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch, perhaps we have overlooked the basics of Christian ecclesiology. The Holy Spirit brings the risen Life of Christ to us through faithful proclamation of the Gospel and His Sacraments. Imagine what it might look like to return to the simple eucharistic unity of our Apostolic fathers like St. Ignatius of Antioch who wrote: “Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

The Eucharist is the symbol and the means by which the Church becomes one with Christ and thus one with each other. St. John Chrysostom declares that Christ “mixed Himself with us and dissolved His body in us so that we may constitute a wholeness, be a body united to the Head.” To extend Eucharist fellowship is to recognize another Christian (and their doctrine) as part of the body of Christ. As St. Paul teaches, “For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” Just as to deny or bar one from Eucharist fellowship is to declare them outside of the body.

Perhaps at this time, when the dangers of building entire ecclesiastical structures off the flimsy merits of institutional jurisdictions are most visible, we can seek renewal around the Eucharist. The wounds suffered at 1054 have not healed, but the institutions that emerged have limped their way through a thousand year desert. Here now, as the churches become more and more divided – may we return to the Eucharistic promises of Christ’s real presence and to the reality of a undivided church around a shared altar.

On August 18, 2017 By Kuyperian In Politics Like

Conservatives on the Cutting Edge

Guest Post by Troy Green

In James K.A. Smith’s excellent book, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-secular Theology, he explains recent developments in theology and philosophy among mostly post-liberal (some Catholic) theologians. As with everything Dr. Smith writes, his prose is accessible and written with clarity and precision as he describes the contribution made by some of these post-liberal scholars.

One quote caught my attention. He quotes Wolterstorff saying, “I have long thought, that . . . it’s remarkable that Karl Barth should have arrived in the 1920’s at the views which I characterized as those of the Yale theologians, views which we can now recognize to be….postmodern views. But it’s even more remarkable that Abraham Kuyper should have arrived at postmodern views of academic learning fifty years before that, more than a hundred years ago.”Abraham Kuyper was a brilliant theologian and politician of the latter 19th century who remains in high esteem among conservative evangelical scholars. Yet, Wolterstorff finds it remarkable that Kuyper could be on the cutting edge of theology some 50 years before men like Barth came along and 100 years before Yale theologians.

Question: Is this an anomaly or true to form for conservative evangelical theologians to be so far advanced in comparison to certain philosophical and theological trends of their day?

Smith describes the general consensus of the Radical Orthodox movement: “They are all particularly wary of the danger of adopting secular frameworks for Christian theological and theoretical reflection insofar as such secular paradigms are, ultimately, pagan (i.e., religious but misdirected or apostate). In short, there is no secular, if by “secular” we mean “neutral” or “uncommitted”; instead, the supposedly neutral public spaces that we inhabit–in the academy or politics–are temples of other gods that cannot be served alongside Christ.”

Wow. There is no secular. There is no neutrality. Since this is the recent big discovery over the past several decades of post-liberal theology, I wonder if we could go back some 50 years and look at some of the conservative evangelical theologians to see what they were saying in the 1950’s and 60’s. A simple reading of anything by Cornelius Van Til one could find similar statements. Of course, this doesn’t even come close to plundering other works–which are replete with such statements–from men like R.J. Rushdoony and Francis Schaeffer.

I’m appreciative to see many of these post-liberal theologians stating similar conclusions to that of Van Til. I am delighted to see them make contributions to revive a much needed political ecclesiology—the institutional church—in light of the realization that there is no secular or neutral ground. Conservative evangelical theologian, James B. Jordan, has been pushing an ecclesiocentric theology for decades. This is needed in both conservative and liberal churches as Smith mentions in his book exposing the shortcomings of the fundamentalist and liberal theologians of the modern 20^th century.

But before I jump too much in my appreciation of post-liberal thought embracing a virgin birth and the resurrected Jesus, I don’t want to ignore all the areas it’s still wrong (e.g. views on feminism, socialism, homosexuality, etc.). I want to say something to these post-liberal theologians in light of the historical battles – very costly battles – fought by conservative evangelicals defending the integrity of the Bible and the fundamentals of the Christian faith against the claims of liberal predecessors: Welcome! Welcome to the 1960’s. If you are this elated about the discoveries of the sixties, imagine how ecstatic you will be when you reach the eighties and discover cassette tapes, classic rock, and Theonomy/Reconstructionist debates within conservative evangelical theology.

My assumption: Abraham Kuyper is not an anomaly. Neither was R.L. Dabney on Education, John G. Machen on Liberalism, R.J. Rushdoony on the Politics of Guilt and Pity, and Cornelius Van Til on everything. These men are true to form. To believe the Bible is God’s Word–and to study it as such–is to always be on the cutting edge.

Post originally published at Theopolis.

Rev. Troy Greene is Pastor of The King’s Chapel in Brooklyn, New York.

On May 5, 2016 By Uri Brito In Theology 1

The House and the Ascension

Long ago, our Father in Heaven had a plan. His plan was to create the world as a theater to display his glory. The world was to be a house that reflected his name. The Shekinah glory was to remain there forever. And through many dangers, toils, and snares, the house was little by little losing the purpose the builder had for it.

It would appear that God’s building project had become an abysmal failure. But God’s construction plans are not like our building projects. His ways are not our ways. He had a plan. He had a restoration project. He was going to restore, rebuild, and reclaim his own house. This time, the house was not going to be built on spiritual adultery or religious idolatry. It would be on the Rock, which is Christ. The builders rejected him, but the new humanity composed of men and women, and children united to the Rock, will no longer deny him.

In the life of Jesus, the foundation was poured on the earth. In his death, the wall and roof were placed to cover the world and give it shade. In his resurrection, fresh, clean water is available. Come and drink of the river that never runs dry. But there is one part of this earthly construction that is missing. There is a foundation, a roof to protect you from the storms, running water to shower and be replenished, but now we need to turn it on. We need electricity! We need the power to turn the refrigerator, stove, microwave, air conditioner, heater, fan, laptops, cell phones, etc. We need to activate the house so that everyone can live with a purpose. I propose that the Ascension of Jesus is that singular event in history that gives life to everything; that sets everything into motion. It is the electricity that the Church needs to disciple the nations.

Without the Ascension, we are living in an almost finished property. The Ascension means that the house/world is ready to be inhabited once and for all. The power is on. We can now move in together as a Church and take care of it. The workers can all go home. Our only task is now maintaining the house. Now, this house is the world. And the world is a big place. It needs to be energized by the Ascension. The Ascension is God’s way of saying: “My Son’s work is done! Now it’s your turn!” (more…)

On March 14, 2016 By Uri Brito In Politics, Theology 2

The End of the Evangelical Christian? A Response to Russell Moore

The rise of Donald Trump has caused Christians of all varieties to question their conservative bona fides. There are many reasons conservatives have chosen Donald Trump. Some have chosen the real estate mogul as the most suited to destroy the Washington machine. Some support the former Apprentice host as the voice of anger for those silenced by the mainstream media and the establishment GOP. Others find his open hostility to illegal immigration his most redeeming value. But while conservatives may have a few reason for voting for the Donald, conservative Christians, in particular, are having a more difficult time. After all, these conservative evangelicals are contemplating voting for someone who believes in God but has not sought God’s forgiveness. In Trump’s world, that is not a contradiction, and for some evangelicals, the contradiction is an acceptable compromise.^a

The result has been unnerving for many evangelicals who are generally on the side of Ted Cruz; a conservative Southern Baptist from Texas, who speaks the evangelical language with extreme ease. They cannot fathom why conservative Christians have endorsed someone who does not understand the most fundamental of evangelical commitments.

Some evangelical leaders have embraced Donald Trump enthusiastically. Consider the very conservative Southern Baptist, Robert Jeffress, who endorsed Trump and referred to the Republican front-runner as a “great Christian.” Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. praised Donald as “a successful executive and entrepreneur, a wonderful father and a man who I believe can lead our country to greatness again.” (more…)

While the passion for a Trump candidacy seems to be on the rise, a vast majority of Conservative voices on the right and liberal voices on the left have found a surprising common ground: #nevertrump. (back)

On March 4, 2016 By Uri Brito In Politics, Theology 2

Andy Stanley’s Big Frustration with Little Churches

Post by Uri Brito and Dustin Messer

In a recent sermon, Andy Stanley made the staggering observation:

When I hear adults say, ‘Well I don’t like a big church, I like about 200, I want to be able to know everybody,’ I say, ‘You are so stinking selfish. You care nothing about the next generation. All you care about is you and your five friends. You don’t care about your kids…anybody else’s kids.’ You’re like, ‘What’s up?’ I’m saying if you don’t go to a church large enough where you can have enough Middle Schoolers and High Schoolers to separate them so they can have small groups and grow up the local church, you are a selfish adult. Get over it. Find yourself a big old church where your kids can connect with a bunch of people and grow up and love the local church.

Stanley has since apologized in the way modern preachers apologize: via twitter.

While we take him at his word (or tweet, as the case may be), this was not simply a slip of the tongue. While he may be sorry for the way in which he communicated the message—even sorry for a specific sentiment in the message—one can’t fake the sort of passion exhibited by Stanley as he described his antipathy for small churches. Again, we believe he’s genuinely sorry we’re offended, but Stanley clearly has heartfelt feelings about non-megachurches (microchurches?) that didn’t begin or end with the sermon in question. Below are three reasons we feel such a sentiment is harmful: (more…)

On July 17, 2014 By Steve Macias In Theology, Worship Like

What the Priesthood of All Believers is NOT

Two Controversial Concepts

There are few ideas as likely to breed contention as the two I intend to discuss below. Both relate to how a Christian is counted in the body of Christ and both speak to how we understand the Church’s catholicity. The first idea, sure to cause a stir anywhere it may appear, is the notion of hierarchy. Merely mentioning the existence of such a dirty thing as hierarchy comes across as un-American and surely anti-Christian in many modern circles, but if we take our Bibles seriously, we must recognize that hierarchy is inescapable. The second idea, which sorely needs to be discussed in Christendom, is the pernicious heresy of individualism. An idea which again brings forward, in American Christians, a tenet that may be seen as central to our faith and devotion. Yet despite the number of “Independent Bible Churches” erected, the nature of this oxymoron remains glaring. A Christian cannot be born, exist, or grow independent of the body.

These two concepts, hierarchy and individualism, are often given the syncopated resolution of the “priesthood of all believers.” In the minds of many, this doctrine is understood to mean that all the priestly functions of the clergy are available to all those who are believers, that our equal access to God means that we all have equal roles and rights in the Church. I believe much of this is due to our strong apprehension to any thing “Roman Catholic-y.” The result is the deletion of any distinction between the ordained ministry and the laity. This flattened view of the Apostolic order either obliterates the concept of ordination or undermines the meaning of the sacraments, oftentimes accomplishing both.

Understanding the “priesthood of all believers” begins with recognizing what this concept is not.

The priesthood of all believers in NOT the Papacy of all believers.

The Papacy does not have its own direct divine revelation from God, the Pope is not infallible, the Pope does not have universal jurisdiction, and neither do we. The priesthood of all believers is not an opportunity for each individual Christian to develop their own theology. No believer today comes to Christ through their own innovation, for we all must come to Christ through the historic community of believers. Too often have I heard, “All I need is my Bible.” This is the formula for a new cult, not orthodox Christianity. “My Bible” through the work of the Holy Ghost was given to the care of the Church. As the body of Christ, the Church has recognized, preserved, taught, translated, printed, and distributed “my Bible” to the Christians of the world throughout history.

“Me and my Bible” individualistic Christianity does not promote the purity of the Gospel, but serves instead to create mini-popes. If we are entitled to our own interpretation, who is to say what is correct? Like the Pope, we don’t speak ex cathedra. We have the received faith of the Bible, of the Creeds, and of the Church. Which in the progression of history have served to conciliate each other against individualism.

The priesthood of all believers in NOT the Presbytery of all believers.

What is the true Church? Who are the True Christians? Are Roman Catholics Christians? How about Mormons?

The priesthood of all believers is not an invitation for Christians to sit in judgement of the salvation of other Christians or to develop their own standards for what constitutes a Christian Church. For those unfamiliar with the term, a presbytery (or classis) is a leadership council of higher ranking clergy that rule over various issues that may arise from the church. As a human institution, the Church will always face a degree of scandal throughout history, but Christ appointed Apostles who appointed Overseers, Presbyters and Deacons to handle human conflict that may arise in the church.

This hierarchy was established to protect the unity of the Church and the verity of the Holy Gospel. Returning again to the idea of a received faith, the Bible serves as the ultimate authority in establishing the various Church officers and our historic faith outlines the basics of what it means to be a Christian. It is this emphasis on our continuity with the historic Church that explicitly limits women and homosexuals from serving as Overseers, Presbyters and Deacons. To ordain a woman or a homosexual not only serves as a contradiction to the Bible, but is also against the accepted order of ministry we have in the writings of those serving at the time of the Apostles through the Ecumenical councils and to very recent Christian history.

Remembering that the intention of the Reformation was to restore the Holy Catholic and Apostolic church, not to create a new Church. Their goal was to return to the undivided Church of the Creeds. No Christian alone acts as an Ecumenical council and cannot impose their particular dogmas upon the conscience of otherwise faithful Christians. The “priesthood of all believers” does not give me the authority to excommunicate a papist unsubmissive to the five points of Calvinism, and it does not give Rome the right to excommunicate me for refusing to acknowledge the immaculate conception of Mary. Yet, refusing to recognize a Biblically ordained hierarchy creates this exact situation. To receive the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is to recognize that the councils of the first five centuries have spoken to all things necessary to salvation and upon these I can add no extra burdens.

The priesthood of all believers in NOT the Piety of all believers.

Authority and hierarchy were quickly challenged after the establishment of the early Church. Roman persecution tested the integrity of the men assigned to protect the faith and while many were heroically martyred – some fled or gave over Bibles to the Romans. These leaders were then labeled, “traditores” and their entire ministry was called into question. Was their ordination invalidated by their lack of moral character? Was someone baptized by one of the “traditores” really baptized? In the 4th century, a group under the leadership of Bishop Donatus leveled such a charge and denied the ordination and authority of a Bishop who didn’t meet their new standard. This small North Africa sect inserted a division in a way that many modern Christians seem to employ regularly: priesthood by piety.

Against the Donatist idea of the priesthood by piety, St. Augustine drew a distinction between the visible and the eschatological church, not as two churches but rather as two moments in one and the same church. His position was that here on earth the church is holy, but not all its members are holy; it is the Body of Christ, but still having wheat and tares. Instead of deriving the piety of the Church from the level of virtue of its individual members, he maintained that the piety of the Church is based entirely on the holy nature of its Head, Jesus Christ.

In it is this framework that we can trust nothing more than the authority and hierarchy of the Church. In the balance of authority between the Overseers, Presbyters, Deacons of the universal Church against the Councils and Creeds in light of the Holy Writ, there is the surest form of appeals we can hope for on Earth. Every just sphere of authority whether it be civil or familial follows the church’s example in this hierarchical process of appeals. Our faith is then put into the received faith and order of Christ and his Apostles and not the trust of mere men. Modern individualism imbibes all the dangers of Donatism by refusing either the authority of Ancient Christianity and the hierarchy of its living church.

The Priesthood is His Priesthood

The Priesthood of All Believers is to be primarily understood in relation to worship. The Reformation wrestled some very important aspects of worship back from Rome. The first is the participation in worship, much of the medieval mass is done at the altar by a particular priest at the exclusion of the congregation. Even singing and the recitation of scripture was taken over by lectors and choirs. The reformers gave the music, singing, and scripture responses back to the church and returned congressional participation to the liturgy. The priesthood must be more than simply participation for it to be a true priesthood, it must have initiation and rites attached to its purpose. Like the Aaronic line, we are brought into the priesthood through a rite of baptism. Through baptism one is granted the authority to come to the Lord’s table and commune with Christ. This idea of eating the “sacrifice” should in itself remind us of the priestly language of the Old Testament. We are made partakers of the Sacrament by the nature of our priesthood. Thus, the nature of the “priesthood of all believers” is primarily sacramental.

By partaking of the sacramental body of Jesus Christ, we are exercising the true meaning of our priesthood. By eating his body together, we become part of the one body of the Church with Christ as its head. The sacramental meal in the Eucharist is the ultimate rejection of the individual as we all partake of one body together and in subordination to the hierarchy as our pastor acts as Christ feeding us the body of Christ. As we all partake of the one loaf, we become one body, one priesthood of all believers.<>site аудит а онлайн

On May 30, 2014 By Kuyperian In Scribblings Like

Happy 140th Birthday to G.K. Chesterton (Famous Quotes)

Relevant Magazine did us a great favor and provided 15 great quotes from the man who influenced C.S. Lewis:

The Nature of God

“The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man.” – Introduction to The Book of Job.

Creativity

“Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination.” – Orthodoxy

Mystery

As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. – Orthodoxy

Individuality

“A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.” – The Everlasting Man

Humility

“It has been often said, very truly, that religion is the thing that makes the ordinary man feel extraordinary; it is an equally important truth that religion is the thing that makes the extraordinary man feel ordinary.” – Charles Dickens: A Critical Study

Read the Rest.<>mobi online

On February 14, 2014 By Kuyperian In Scribblings Like

GKC: Seeing One Woman

by Gilbert Keith Chesterton

“I could never mix in the common murmur of that rising generation against monogamy, because no restriction on sex seemed so odd and unexpected as sex itself. To be allowed, like Endymion, to make love to the moon and then to complain that Jupiter kept his own moons in a harem seemed to me (bred on fairy tales like Endymion’s) a vulgar anti-climax. Keeping to one woman is a small price for so much as seeing one woman. To complain that I could only be married once was like complaining that I had only been born once. It was incommensurate with the terrible excitement of which one was talking. It showed, not an exaggerated sensibility to sex, but a curious insensibility to it. A man is a fool who complains that he cannot enter Eden by five gates at once. Polygamy is a lack of the realization of sex; it is like a man plucking five pears in mere absence of mind. The aesthetes touched the last insane limits of language in their eulogy on lovely things. The thistledown made them weep; a burnished beetle brought them to their knees. Yet their emotion never impressed me for an instant, for this reason, that it never occurred to them to pay for their pleasure in any sort of symbolic sacrifice. Men (I felt) might fast forty days for the sake of hearing a blackbird sing. Men might go through fire to find a cowslip. Yet these lovers of beauty could not even keep sober for the blackbird. They would not go through common Christian marriage by way of recompense to the cowslip. Surely one might pay for extraordinary joy in ordinary morals. Oscar Wilde said that sunsets were not valued because we could not pay for sunsets. But Oscar Wilde was wrong; we can pay for sunsets. We can pay for them by not being Oscar Wilde.”

Read “The Ethics of Elfland” from Orthodoxy here.<>купить контент для а

On January 11, 2014 By Kuyperian In Scribblings Like

Marc Hays: GKC – Something Odd in the Truth

There is little as refreshing or as challenging as reading through Chesterton’s Orthodoxy. It refreshes like breathing clean air; it refreshes like tasting good smoke. I am challenged because I don’t believe I think deeply enough; it is challenging because I don’t believe I think simply enough.

For your Saturday morning reading pleasure, here are the first three paragraphs of chapter VI: The Paradoxes of Christianity:

“The real trouble with this world of ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor even that it is a reasonable one. The commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not quite. Life is not an illogicality; yet it is a trap for logicians. It looks just a little more mathematical and regular than it is; its exactitude is obvious, but its inexactitude is hidden; its wildness lies in wait. I give one coarse instance of what I mean. Suppose some mathematical creature from the moon were to reckon up the human body; he would at once see that the essential thing about it was that it was duplicate. A man is two men, he on the right exactly resembling him on the left. Having noted that there was an arm on the right and one on the left, a leg on the right and one on the left, he might go further and still find on each side the same number of fingers, the same number of toes, twin eyes, twin ears, twin nostrils, and even twin lobes of the brain. At last he would take it as a law; and then, where he found a heart on one side, would deduce that there was another heart on the other. And just then, where he most felt he was right, he would be wrong.

“It is this silent swerving from accuracy by an inch that is the uncanny element in everything. It seems a sort of secret treason in the universe. An apple or an orange is round enough to get itself called round, and yet is not round after all. The earth itself is shaped like an orange in order to lure some simple astronomer into calling it a globe. A blade of grass is called after the blade of a sword, because it comes to a point; but it doesn’t. Everywhere in things there is this element of the quiet and incalculable. It escapes the rationalists, but it never escapes till the last moment. From the grand curve of our earth it could easily be inferred that every inch of it was thus curved. It would seem rational that as a man has a brain on both sides, he should have a heart on both sides. Yet scientific men are still organizing expeditions to find the North Pole, because they are so fond of flat country. Scientific men are also still organizing expeditions to find a man’s heart; and when they try to find it, they generally get on the wrong side of him.

“Now, actual insight or inspiration is best tested by whether it guesses these hidden malformations or surprises. If our mathematician from the moon saw the two arms and the two ears, he might deduce the two shoulder-blades and the two halves of the brain. But if he guessed that the man’s heart was in the right place, then I should call him something more than a mathematician. Now, this is exactly the claim which I have since come to propound for Christianity. Not merely that it deduces logical truths, but that when it suddenly becomes illogical, it has found, so to speak, an illogical truth. It not only goes right about things, but it goes wrong (if one may say so) exactly where the things go wrong. Its plan suits the secret irregularities, and expects the unexpected. It is simple about the simple truth; but it is stubborn about the subtle truth. It will admit that a man has two hands, it will not admit (though all the Modernists wail to it) the obvious deduction that he has two hearts. It is my only purpose in this chapter to point this out; to show that whenever we feel there is something odd in Christian theology, we shall generally find that there is something odd in the truth.”

<>

On January 5, 2014 By Kuyperian In Scribblings Like

Still Need A Resolution? Might I Suggest…

by Marc Hays

Happy New Year! Are you still in need of a resolution? Me either, but the new year is an appropriate time to look at where you’ve been, where you are, and where you want to go. As you look at where you want to go, I know a guy who can help you get there, and the world is forever blessed in that most of his insight was, and therefore remains, uncopyrighted. If you know me, then you already know that I can’t make it 5 minutes without recommending that everyone under the sun read Gilbert Keith Chesterton.

If you’re reading this, then you have no excuse not to read, or to listen to, more Chesterton. A desktop, laptop, tablet, smartphone, or even a dumbphone is all you need. GKC’s seminal work, Orthodoxy, is free everywhere…

Online: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/130/pg130.html

The Project Gutenberg HTML is simple, plain, boring, drab, etc., except that it’s not. You’ll be reading Chesterton. For free. If this is your only access to Chesterton, then jump in and swim around. The water’s nice.

On Kindle: http://www.amazon.com/Orthodoxy-Moody-Classics-Gilbert-Chesterton-ebook/dp/B00DEUQ9GW

Don’t like the HTML? Tyr the Kindle App. It’s a free download, so you in very short order you could be on a fresh Kindle App reading G.K.C. for F.R.E.E. There are several free versions available on Kindle, but the address above links to one with a foreword by Matthew Lee Anderson. It ‘s great Foreword followed by a great book. Speaking of Matthew Lee Anderson, check him out at MereOrthodoxy.

On Librivox: https://librivox.org/orthodoxy-by-gk-chesterton/

Librivox describes itself as “acoustical liberation of books in the public domain.” The above link will take you to a page where you can download the entire book in one swell foop in the form of a ZIP file. Then you can extract it and put it in iTunes or whatever audio software you use. I put this version in my LG nv3 years ago. It’s great to have if your driving, or doing something else where you can’t read, but can listen for a while.

Also, the reader’s name is J. A. Carter. He is fantastic. I’ve listened to him enough now that when I read my hard copy of Orthodoxy in my head, I hear his voice and inflection. It’s pretty cool. Kind freaky, really.

So, do you have a new New Year’s resolution? Here’s a poem to help you remember this very important decision:

You can’t go wrong with G.K.C.

And you can read him now for F.R.E. …E.<>реклама на авто