Showing posts with label religious dialogue. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religious dialogue. Show all posts

Thursday, April 24, 2014

S. Dakota's Hillel Admits Messianic Jews


South Dakota State University’s Hillel affiliate, B’rith Sholom is more than the only Jewish cultural club in the entire state; its nine members constitute a unique diversity among America’s Jewish organizations, since about half of them identify as Messianic Jews, or those who engage in Jewish practices and accept Jesus as the Messiah.

Messianic Jews have historically been excluded from nearly every Jewish denomination and institution, even the most inclusive. Yet B’rith Sholom insists on its policy that all should be welcome.

The club began when Tim Hanna, a self-described “traditionalist” Jew, came to South Dakota State in 2010 following 11 years of active military service, in pursuit of a master’s degree in communication studies. He was also seeking, he said, “a little space.”

Hanna readily accepted the challenges of living an observant life in Brookings, S.D. But he missed having a Jewish community. And a search for other Jews led him to Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. native Rachel Hunt, with whom he formed B’rith Sholom. Hanna assumed the role of president.

Read it all here.


Saturday, January 19, 2013

Why Blame Religion for Cultural Tensions?


Lawrence Solum at Legal Theory Blog asks questions about religion and culture.


Caylee Hong and Rene Provost (McGill University - Faculty of Law and McGill University - Faculty of Law) have posted Let Us Compare Mythologies on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
    For several decades, "culture" played a central role in challenging the liberal tradition and its legal and philosophical foundations, a debate particularly acute in the field of human rights. "Religion," which also had posed a challenge to liberal thought for centuries, seemed to have almost faded away beyond constitutional debates regarding the limits of free exercise. More recently, however, religion seems to have reemerged as the new central challenge facing Western liberal societies. 
    This paper is the introduction to an edited volume that addresses the significance of the growing presence of "religion" in contemporary law and politics, and discusses the following questions: 
    Has "religion" indeed taken the place of "culture" as a center of political tension and social integration? 
    How have liberal democracies faced the rise of religion in the age of multiculturalism? 
    Do religious and ethnic groups pose similar challenges to modern liberal societies, or are these challenges significantly different? 
    Has the traditional struggle for "religious freedom" been transformed to a struggle for political recognition in line with the more contemporary "politics of identity"? 
    Are contemporary discussions of a "post-secular" society similar to those of "multi-cultural" societies? 
    Are notions of religious belief being merged with cultural practices to enlarge the constitutionally protected autonomy of minorities? 
    Can this destabilize societies viewing themselves as multicultural by relying on a common foundation presented as secular? 
    Can the notion of "citizenship" escape any religious overtone, given the significance of religious beliefs in the identities of so many groups constituting modern societies? 
    Is "secularization" itself, as some have argued, "culturally biased"? 
    Is "culture" in the final analysis nothing more than a "secularized" version of (Christian?) "religion"? 
    More generally, what is the philosophical and legal sense of "religion" and "culture"? Have these concepts and the phenomena they represent undergone a historical change? Are we in need of new concepts, doctrines and theories to comprehend and resolve the new challenges of religious revival in the post-multicultural age? 

Reading Solum's blog entry alongside Yoram Hazony's The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture has called my attention to the way that many regard the Bible and Christianity to be about the supernatural and revelation, and both as causes of cultural tension. Why do both Solum and Hazony lay this at the feet of Christians? Why not include Jews who believe the Bible is revelation, or Muslims who regard the Quran as revelation? I explore this more fully in "Genesis and Homosex: Beyond Sodom".




Saturday, July 21, 2012

Church of England Denies Roman Heritage


For five centuries England has been in denial about the role of Roman Catholicism in shaping it. The coin in your pocket declares the monarch to be Defender of the Faith. Since 1558 that has meant the Protestant faith, but Henry VIII actually got the title from the Pope for defending Catholicism against Luther. Henry eventually broke with Rome because the Pope refused him a divorce, and along with the papacy went saints, pilgrimage, the monastic life, eventually even the Mass itself – the pillars of medieval Christianity.

To explain that revolution, the Protestant reformers told a story. Henry had rejected not the Catholic Church, but a corrupt pseudo-Christianity which had led the world astray. John Foxe embodied this story unforgettably in his Book of Martyrs, subsidised by the Elizabethan government as propaganda against Catholicism at home and abroad. For Foxe, Queen Elizabeth was her country’s saviour, and the Reformation itself the climax of an age-old struggle between God, represented by the monarch, and the devil, represented by the Pope.

Fear of Catholic Spain, the greatest power in Europe, gave Foxe’s story urgency. That fear escalated under the Stuart kings, for all of them married Catholics, and were suspected of favouring their wives’ religion. The prospect of a persecuting Catholicism imposed by an apostate monarchy fuelled Protestant anxiety. It led to Civil War, and the execution of King Charles I. Ironically, Charles was a loyal Anglican, but both his sons, Charles II and James II, did eventually embrace Catholicism.

Read it all here.

Sunday, December 25, 2011

British PM: "We are a Christian Country"

The Bible has given Britain a set of values and morals which it should actively defend, says David Cameron.


The following is the prepared text of a speech by British Prime Minister David Cameron, delivered at Christ Church, Oxford, last weekend for the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Version of the Bible. In it, Mr Cameron says the UK is Christian country and that when Christians are confident of their own identity it provides greater space for other religious faiths too.

It’s great to be here and to have this opportunity to come together today to mark the end of this very special 400th anniversary year for the King James Bible.

I know there are some who will question why I am giving this speech. And if they happen to know that I’m setting out my views today in a former home of the current Archbishop of Canterbury and in front of many great theologians and church leaders they really will think I have entered the lions’ den. But I am proud to stand here and celebrate the achievements of the King James Bible. Not as some great Christian on a mission to convert the world. But because, as Prime Minister, it is right to recognise the impact of a translation that is, I believe, one of this country’s greatest achievements.

The Bible is a book that has not just shaped our country, but shaped the world. And, with three Bibles sold or given away every second, a book that is not just important in understanding our past, but which will continue to have a profound impact in shaping our collective future.

In making this speech I claim no religious authority whatsoever. I am a committed – but I have to say vaguely practising – Church of England Christian, who will stand up for the values and principles of my faith but who is full of doubts and, like many, constantly grappling with the difficult questions when it comes to some of the big theological issues. But what I do believe is this. The King James Bible is as relevant today as at any point in its 400 year history. And none of us should be frightened of recognising this. Why? Put simply, three reasons.

First, the King James Bible has bequeathed a body of language that permeates every aspect of our culture and heritage from everyday phrases to our greatest works of literature, music and art. We live and breathe the language of the King James Bible, sometimes without even realising it. And it is right that we should acknowledge this – particularly in this anniversary year.

Second, just as our language and culture is steeped in the Bible, so too is our politics. From human rights and equality to our constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, from the role of the church in the first forms of welfare provision, to the many modern day faith-led social action projects the Bible has been a spur to action for people of faith throughout history, and it remains so today.

Third, we are a Christian country. And we should not be afraid to say so. Let me be clear: I am not in any way saying that to have another faith – or no faith – is somehow wrong. I know and fully respect that many people in this country do not have a religion. And I am also incredibly proud that Britain is home to many different faith communities, who do so much to make our country stronger. But what I am saying is that the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today. Values and morals we should actively stand up and defend. The alternative of moral neutrality should not be an option. You can’t fight something with nothing. Because if we don’t stand for something, we can’t stand against anything.

Let me take each of these points in turn.

First, language and culture.

Powerful language is incredibly evocative. It crystallises profound, sometimes complex, thoughts and suggests a depth of meaning far beyond the words on the page giving us something to share, to cherish, to celebrate. Part of the glue that can help to bind us together.

Along with Shakespeare, the King James Bible is a high point of the English language, creating arresting phrases that move, challenge and inspire. One of my favourites is the line “For now we see through a glass, darkly.” It is a brilliant summation of the profound sense that there is more to life, that we are imperfect, that we get things wrong, that we should strive to see beyond our own perspective. The key word is darkly – profoundly loaded, with many shades of meaning. I feel the power is lost in some more literal translations. The New International Version says: “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror” The Good News Bible: “What we see now is like a dim image in a mirror”. They feel not just a bit less special but dry and cold, and don’t quite have the same magic and meaning.

Like Shakespeare, the King James translation dates from a period when the written word was intended to be read aloud. And this helps to give it a poetic power and sheer resonance that in my view is not matched by any subsequent translation. It has also contributed immensely to the spread of spoken English around the world. Indeed, the language of the King James Bible is very much alive today.

I’ve already mentioned the lions’ den. Just think about some of the other things we all say. Phrases like: strength to strength, how the mighty are fallen, the skin of my teeth, the salt of the earth, nothing new under the sun. According to one recent study there are 257 of these phrases and idioms that come from the Bible. These phrases are all around us from court cases to TV sitcoms and from recipe books to pop music lyrics.

Of course, there is a healthy debate about the extent to which it was the King James version that originated the many phrases in our language today. And it’s right to recognise the impact of earlier versions like Tyndale, Wycliffe, Douai-Rheims, the Bishops and Geneva Bibles too. The King James Bible does exactly that, setting out with the stated aim of making a good translation better, or out of many good ones, to make “one principal good one”. But what is clear is that the King James Version gave the Bible’s many expressions a much more widespread public presence.

Much of that dissemination has come through our literature, through the great speeches we remember and the art and music we still enjoy today. From Milton to Morrison and Coleridge to Cormac McCarthy the Bible supports the plot, context, language and sometimes even the characters in some of our greatest literature. Tennyson makes over 400 Biblical references in his poems and makes allusions to 42 different books of the Bible.

The Bible has infused some of the greatest speeches from Martin Luther King’s dream that Isaiah’s prophecy would be fulfilled and that one day “every valley shall be exalted” to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address which employed not just Biblical words but cadence and rhythms borrowed from the King James Bible as well. When Lincoln said that his forefathers “brought forth” a new nation, he was imitating the way in which the Bible announced the birth of Jesus.

The Bible also runs through our art. From Giotto to El Greco and Michelangelo to Stanley Spencer. The paintings in Sandham Memorial Chapel in Berkshire are some of my favourite works of art. Those who died in Salonika rising to heaven is religious art in the modern age and, in my view, as powerful as some of what has come before.

And the Bible runs through our music too. From the great oratorios like J S Bach’s Matthew and John Passions and Handel’s Messiah to the wealth of music written across the ages for mass and evensong in great cathedrals like this one. The Biblical settings of composers from Tallis to Taverner are regularly celebrated here in this great cathedral and will sustain our great British tradition of choral music for generations to come.

It’s impossible to do justice in a short speech to the full scale of the cultural impact of the King James Bible. But what is clear is that four hundred years on, this book is still absolutely pivotal to our language and culture. And that’s one very good reason for us all to recognise it today.

A second reason is this.

Just as our language and culture is steeped in the Bible, so too is our politics. The Bible runs through our political history in a way that is often not properly recognised. The history and existence of a constitutional monarchy owes much to a Bible in which Kings were anointed and sanctified with the authority of God and in which there was a clear emphasis on the respect for Royal Power and the need to maintain political order. Jesus said: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

And yet at the same time, the Judeo-Christian roots of the Bible also provide the foundations for protest and for the evolution of our freedom and democracy. The Torah placed the first limits on Royal Power. And the knowledge that God created man in his own image was, if you like, a game changer for the cause of human dignity and equality.

In the ancient world this equity was inconceivable. In Athens, for example, full and equal rights were the preserve of adult, free born men. But when each and every individual is related to a power above all of us and when every human being is of equal and infinite importance, created in the very image of God we get the irrepressible foundation for equality and human rights -- a foundation that has seen the Bible at the forefront of the emergence of democracy, the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of women – even if not every church has always got the point!

Crucially the translation of the Bible into English made all this accessible to many who had previously been unable to comprehend the Latin versions. And this created an unrelenting desire for change. The Putney debates in the Church of St Mary the Virgin in 1647 saw the first call for One Man, One vote and the demand that authority be invested in the House of Commons rather than the King. Reading the Bible in English gave people equality with each other through God. And this led them to seek equality with each other through government.

In a similar way, the Bible provides a defining influence on the formation of the first welfare state. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus says that whatever people have done “unto one of the least of these my brethren” they have done unto him. Just as in the past it was the influence of the church that enabled hospitals to be built, charities created, the hungry fed, the sick nursed and the poor given shelter, so today faith based groups are at the heart of modern social action.

Organisations like the Church Urban Fund which has supported over 5,000 faith based projects in England’s poorest communities including the Near Neighbours Programme which Eric Pickles helped to launch last month. And St Ethelburga’s Centre for Reconciliation and Peace in London’s Bishopsgate a building once destroyed by an IRA bomb but now a centre where people divided by conflict, culture or religion can meet and listen to each other’s perspective.

In total, there are almost 30 thousand faith based charities in this country not to mention the thousands of people who step forward as individuals, as families, as communities, as organisations and yes, as churches and do extraordinary things to help build a bigger, richer, stronger, more prosperous and more generous society. And when it comes to the great humanitarian crises – like the famine in Horn of Africa – again you can count on faith-based organisations like Christian Aid, Tearfund, CAFOD, Jewish Care, Islamic Relief, and Muslim Aid to be at the forefront of the action to save lives.

So it’s right to recognise the huge contribution our faith communities make to our politics and to recognise the role of the Bible in inspiring many of their works.

People often say that politicians shouldn’t “do God.” If by that they mean we shouldn’t try to claim a direct line to God for one particular political party they could not be more right. But we shouldn’t let our caution about that stand in the way of recognising both what our faith communities bring to our country and also just how incredibly important faith is to so many people in Britain.

The Economist may have published the obituary of God in their Millennium issue. But in the past century, the proportion of people in the world who adhere to the four biggest religions has actually increased from around two-thirds to nearly three quarters and is forecast to continue rising.

For example, it is now thought there are at least 65 million protestants in China and 12 million Catholics – more Christians than there are members of the communist party. Official numbers indicate China has about 20 million Muslims – almost as many as in Saudi Arabia – and nearly twice as many as in the whole of the EU. And by 2050, some people think China could well be both the world’s biggest Christian nation and its biggest Muslim one too.

Here in Britain we only have to look at the reaction to the Pope’s visit last year, this year’s Royal Wedding or of course the festival of Christmas next week, to see that Christianity is alive and well in our country.

The key point is this. Societies do not necessarily become more secular with modernity but rather more plural, with a wider range of beliefs and commitments.

And that brings me to my third point.

The Bible has helped to shape the values which define our country. Indeed, as Margaret Thatcher once said, “we are a nation whose ideals are founded on the Bible.” Responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, self-sacrifice, love pride in working for the common good and honouring the social obligations we have to one another, to our families and our communities these are the values we treasure.

Yes, they are Christian values. And we should not be afraid to acknowledge that. But they are also values that speak to us all – to people of every faith and none. And I believe we should all stand up and defend them. Those who oppose this usually make the case for secular neutrality. They argue that by saying we are a Christian country and standing up for Christian values we are somehow doing down other faiths. And that the only way not to offend people is not to pass judgement on their behaviour.

I think these arguments are profoundly wrong. And being clear on this is absolutely fundamental to who we are as a people what we stand for and the kind of society we want to build.

First, those who say being a Christian country is doing down other faiths simply don’t understand that it is easier for people to believe and practise other faiths when Britain has confidence in its Christian identity. Many people tell me it is much easier to be Jewish or Muslim here in Britain than it is in a secular country like France.

Why? Because the tolerance that Christianity demands of our society provides greater space for other religious faiths too. And because many of the values of a Christian country are shared by people of all faiths and indeed by people of no faith at all.

Second, those who advocate secular neutrality in order to avoid passing judgement on the behaviour of others fail to grasp the consequences of that neutrality or the role that faith can play in helping people to have a moral code.

Let’s be clear. Faith is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for morality. There are Christians who don’t live by a moral code. And there are atheists and agnostics who do. But for people who do have a faith, their faith can be a helpful prod in the right direction. And whether inspired by faith or not – that direction, that moral code, matters.

Whether you look at the riots last summer, the financial crash and the expenses scandal, or the on-going terrorist threat from Islamist extremists around the world, one thing is clear: moral neutrality or passive tolerance just isn’t going to cut it anymore. Shying away from speaking the truth about behaviour, about morality has actually helped to cause some of the social problems that lie at the heart of the lawlessness we saw with the riots.

The absence of any real accountability, or moral code allowed some bankers and politicians to behave with scant regard for the rest of society. And when it comes to fighting violent extremism, the almost fearful passive tolerance of religious extremism that has allowed segregated communities to behave in ways that run completely counter to our values has not contained that extremism but allowed it to grow and prosper in the process blackening the good name of the great religions that these extremists abuse for their own purposes.

Put simply, for too long we have been unwilling to distinguish right from wrong. “Live and let live” has too often become “do what you please”. Bad choices have too often been defended as just different lifestyles. To be confident in saying something is wrong is not a sign of weakness, it’s a strength.

But we can’t fight something with nothing. As I’ve said, if we don’t stand for something, we can’t stand against anything. One of the biggest lessons of the riots last Summer is that we’ve got stand up for our values if we are to confront the slow-motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations.

The same is true of religious extremism. As President Obama wrote in the Audacity of Hope: “…in reaction to religious overreach we equate tolerance with secularism, and forfeit the moral language that would help infuse our politics with larger meaning.”

Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and a much more active, muscular liberalism. A passively tolerant society says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values.

But I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in certain values and actively promotes them. We need to stand up for these values. To have the confidence to say to people – this is what defines us as a society and that to belong here is to believe in these things.

I believe the church – and indeed all our religious leaders and their communities in Britain – have a vital role to play in helping to achieve this. I have never really understood the argument some people make about the church not getting involved in politics. To me, Christianity, faith, religion, the Church and the Bible are all inherently involved in politics because so many political questions are moral questions.

So I don’t think we should be shy or frightened of this. I certainly don’t object to the Archbishop of Canterbury expressing his views on politics. Religion has a moral basis and if he doesn’t agree with something he’s right to say so. But just as it is legitimate for religious leaders to make political comments, he shouldn’t be surprised when I respond.

Also it’s legitimate for political leaders to say something about religious institutions as they see them affecting our society, not least in the vital areas of equality and tolerance. I believe the Church of England has a unique opportunity to help shape the future of our communities. But to do so it must keep on the agenda that speaks to the whole country.

The future of our country is at a pivotal moment. The values we draw from the Bible go to the heart of what it means to belong in this country and you, as the Church of England, can help ensure that it stays that way.

How is religion measured in the UK?

 
Reprinted from here.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Crime of Simulating Catholic Orders and Sacraments

Patricia Fresen is not a Roman Catholic bishop, but another vagante. Fresen was excommunicated in March 2008 for “the crime of schism” for “having pertinaciously rejected a definitive truth of the faith,” and for “the crime of simulation of the administration of the sacrament of holy orders.”  The excommunication decree issued by St. Louis Archbishop Raymond L. Burke.

Fresen  was a Dominican sister for 45 years.  She studied in Rome at the University of St. Thomas and at the Gregoriana, where she earned a licentiate in theology.

She was ordained in a secret ceremony. “The ceremony she talks about was secretive,” Feuerherd said. “That is a problem. From my understanding, she doesn’t identify who that person is.”

Read more here.
 
 
Fresen belongs to an organization called Roman Catholic Womenpriests. It is a group that I've tried to engage in the past, but fruitlessly. They are not in pursuit of truth.  They are in pursuit of "equality" (power) and by their actions distort the True Priesthood.
Alice C. Linsley

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Superficial Commonality of Evangelicals and Orthodox

Two posts ago, I attempted to give a quick overview of some of the doctrinal underpinnings of Orthodox understandings of the Atonement. Whether or not I expressed it well, key to my discussion was the Orthodox attempt to hold several core theological beliefs together. First, Orthodox are committed to believing in the immutability of God. Secondly, Orthodox are committed to believing that Jesus Christ is "theanthropos," the "God-man." As a part of this belief, we also assert that Christ's two natures, human and divine, are each fully complete and unconfused with each other, such that he can be said to possess a complete divine nature, as the Father does, and a complete human nature, as Adam does, and not any sort of distorted admixture of the two. Third, Orthodox are committed to the invincibility and impassibility of the Divine Nature. That is, God is by nature not able to be harmed or to be caused to suffer. We believe that each of these beliefs can be found in the Scriptures, and that they were explicitly or implicitly a part of the original gospel proclamation of the Christian Church.

Evangelicals as a group believe many good and right things about God. Certainly, they are much better students of the Scriptures than are their liberal Protestant counterparts. Moreover, by some act of God's mercy, they also nearly universally uphold many of the doctrinal formulae which were promulgated by the ancient Ecumenical Councils, though they nearly always reject the authority of these councils themselves as binding upon their faith (inasmuch as they are even aware that the councils ever took place).

As such, I can say with confidence that Evangelicals as a block believe in the Holy Trinity, in the two natures of Christ, in God's omnipotence and in his omnipresence. Moreover, I think it would also be appropriate to say that Evangelicals believe in God's immutability, though this is an aspect of God that I have only rarely heard discussed in evangelical circles.

So I think that we can say that, on the surface of it, there is a great commonality between Orthodox and Evangelical believers on many central Christian teachings.

Nevertheless, while Evangelicals have many of the right words and ideas, they are often combined together in ways that the ancient Fathers explicitly rejected as heretical.

Perhaps the most common Evangelical confusion relates to something at the very center of the faith: the Incarnation. What does it mean when we say that the Son of God became a man? What does it mean when we say he has two natures?

Obviously, Evangelicals have the same words as we do about these doctrines, but what content do they fill their words with? Generally speaking, I find that most Evangelicals (including myself when I was one) do not understand phrases like "perfect God and perfect man" in the Orthodox manner. This is perhaps most clearly borne out in their language about the Atonement.

In referencing the Atonement, many Evangelicals speak about Christ's death culminating in "God being ripped from God." Using texts such as 2 Cor 5:21, wherein we read that the Father made Christ "to be sin, who knew no sin," and Hab 1:13, wherein we read that God's eyes are "too pure to look upon evil," they assert that the Father somehow "turned away" from his Son in his wrath toward the sin his Son was bearing, separating them and allowing his Son to go down to the dead.

However, in this view, we see something which is clearly not the Orthodoxy of the Fathers. To the Fathers, Christ is truly God. And to be truly God implies that one has the same nature or essence as God (i.e. the Father). But as we have already seen, Evangelical theology embraces many Orthodox doctrines about God, including for instance God's omnipresence and his inability to be harmed or killed. So what do we mean by the Incarnation? What do we mean by the death of Christ?

For Evangelicals, the answer seems to be that Christ, in the humiliation of his Incarnation, ceases to be God in the same way in which the Father is God. That is, Christ becomes truly localized and truly mortal without retaining the fullness of his divine nature, consubstantial to the Father's. Thus, whereas before the Incarnation, Christ is suspending the world with the Father and the Spirit by the power of his omnipresent Godhead, after the Incarnation, the Son ceases to hold the world in place and such duties fall entirely on the Father and the Spirit. Thus, the Son's essence changes in the Incarnation, what his divinity consists of changes, because the Evangelical probably cannot say that Christ, having become incarnate is still omnipresent and still upholding the universe with the Father and the Spirit. And even if he can say at the moment of Christ's Incarnation that he is still with the Father, the fact that he teaches that the Son and the Father are separated at the cross clearly reveals that the Incarnation has caused the Son to cease to have at least one property of divinity, because if he were still with the Father (and perichoretically "in" the Father), then he could not be "separated" from the Father.

I am in no way attempting to engage in a battle of ancient heresy name-calling. I can't stand it when Calvinists call virtually everyone they disagree with "Pelagians" for one reason or another, and I am similarly irritated by Orthodox and Catholics who engage in the same sort of thing. Nevertheless, I think it is important to point out that this Evangelical theology has much in common with the some of the worst elements of the ancient Monophysite heresy. That is, there is a failure to clearly distinguish Christ's natures, and this results in a sort of belief in the incarnate Christ as not God, but as a demigod. God cannot perish and God cannot cease to be in any place, because all places constantly have their being in him. If Jesus' divinity truly is the same divinity, "of one essence" with the divinity of the Father, then he cannot cease to be everywhere, and more than everywhere, he cannot cease to be in the Father just as the Father is in him.

Beyond this, this probable, latent Monophysitism in Evangelical theology challenges the ancient teaching on the immutability of God. If Christ is God in the same way that the Father is God, how can he give up his omnipresence, and, in the Atonement, his position "in" the Father and still remain of one essence or nature with the Father? The answer is that he cannot. Therefore, the best that the Evangelical who wishes to retain the "God ripped from God" narrative can say is that Christ is not of the same essence, but, like the extreme minority position at Nicea, that Christ has a "similar" essence to that of the Father. It is similar but not the same, for if it were the same it could not change, it could not cease to be everywhere, and it could not cease to be in the Father.

There are no doubt a number of other very important issues surrounding the Atonement and how Orthodox and Evangelicals understand it which I should write about, but this is probably long enough for one blog post, especially a post so very dense as this one. As a disclaimer to Evangelicals who I hope may read this, please know that it is not my intention to pleasure my sinful pride with triumphalism or to falsely exaggerate differences for some unholy end. It is my intention for you as it is for myself that we share in one true faith, worshiping the one Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who is revealed in the Holy Scriptures. There are in fact serious and wide divides between us, which I have alleged come from a common Evangelical misunderstanding of the nature of Christ's divinity. This misunderstanding gravely wounds Evangelical theology throughout a great portion of its content, as I may make plain in other posts if the Lord so blesses me with time and inspiration. The most important thing is that we be right about who God is. Everything else flows from that.

Grace in Jesus Christ,

Ignatius Edward Hunter

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Spanish Episcopal Conference: A New Version of the Bible

MADRID, Spain, FEB. 8, 2011 (Zenit.org).- The relativization of the Bible, which denies the value of Word of God, constitutes a genuine crisis that is both external and internal to the Church, says Cardinal Marc Ouellet.

The prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, who served as relator of the 2008 Synod of Bishops on the Word of God, stated this Monday in the opening address of a congress on "Sacred Scripture in the Church."

The congress, which closes Wednesday, has gathered 800 people in Madrid.

"In the last decades, a profound crisis is shaking the foundations of European culture," said the cardinal.

He continued: "A new raison d'etat imposes its law and tries to relegate the Christian roots of Europe to a secondary plane.

"It would seem that, in the name of secularism, the Bible must be relativized, to be dissolved in a religious pluralism and disappear as a normative cultural reference."

However, the prelate affirmed, "the crisis has also penetrated the interior of the Church, given that a certain rationalist exegesis has seized the Bible to dissect the different stages and forms of its human composition, eliminating the prodigies and miracles, multiplying the theories and, not infrequently, sowing confusion among the faithful."

Thus, he explained, disturbing questions arise: Is Sacred Scripture no more than a human word? Isn't it true that the results of the historical sciences invalidate the biblical testimony and, hence, the credibility of the Church? How can we continue to believe? And, finally, whom should we listen to?

Prayerful meditation

The 2008 Synod of Bishops was held "to confirm the Church's answer to these questions," clarified its relator.

Cardinal Ouellet recalled that "in the bishops' interventions was heard the urgency to reflect further on the way to address the biblical text."

He continued, "In addition to the historical-critical method, the merits and limitations of which were recognized, the synodal fathers strongly recommended lectio divina, prayerful meditation of the Word of God, and they called for the development of the spiritual meaning of the Scriptures, in the line of the great patristic tradition."

The cardinal noted that in "a parallel way to this reflection of the universal Church, the Spanish Episcopal Conference was perfecting an official version of the Bible, adapted to present-day culture, with all the guarantees of scientific rigor and ecclesial communion."

"I hope that Spain will benefit from this initiative and that it will be able to show Europe, today as in other periods, a renewed way for the proclamation of the Gospel," he said.

The prelate spoke about the post-synodal apostolic exhortation "Verbum Domini," in which Benedict XVI brings together the conclusions of the synod and gives impetus to the new evangelization, "inviting pastors, faithful and experts on the Bible to find the Divine Word again in the human words of the sacred text."

Cardinal Ouellet stated, "In face of the secularization of the Christian West and of Christianity's identity crisis in pluralist environments, the Church responds with a new proclamation of the living Word of God in Jesus Christ, which invites us to a renewed act of faith in the Sacred Scriptures."

From here.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Jeremy Vine: Christian Living "Socially Unacceptable"

Jeremy Vine, the BBC presenter, has claimed that it is becoming "socially unacceptable" to be a Christian in Britain.The Radio 2 host said that he feels unable to talk about his faith on his show because he fears how people would react.

He argues that society has become increasingly intolerant of the freedom to express religious views.

"You can't express views that were common currency 30 or 40 years ago," he said.

"Arguably, the parameters of what you might call 'right thinking' are probably closing.

"Sadly, along with that has come the fact that it's almost socially unacceptable to say you believe in God."

Read it all here.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Islamic Publisher Prints "Forged" Bible

Abu Islam Ahmed Abdallah, owner of the Islamic Enlightenment Publishing House, has printed a version of the Bible that he claims is "forged," prompting Egypt's Coptic Church to consider filing a complaint with the Attorney General against the book, which it considers an "insult to Christianity."

In the book's 65-page introduction, Abdallah wrote that the Bible version had been "written before the Genesis," noting that the reason for its publication was to prove that Christians had themselves forged the books they hold sacred.

It was not uncommon to read in the margins of some Bible versions that certain words were not original and that certain phrases had been added by transcribers, or that certain figures were incorrect, the publisher wrote. This, he added, had prompted some Christian theologians admit that their holy book was not sacred in itself, but rather represented an account of sacred events.

Coptic Bishop Abdel Messih Bassit, for his part, said the Coptic Church was "extremely offended" by the perceived "act of contempt" for Christianity.

“Do Christians have the right to publish manuscripts of the Koran from our own point of view?” he asked. “Can Christians print the Koran and add their comments to it?”

Bassit added that Abdallah did not understand the essence of the Bible, its original Hebrew and Greek versions, or the rules of translation, contending that the publisher had used differences in translations and the evolution of language as a means of discrediting the Bible.

“The translation of this version was written in Levantine Arabic 400 years ago,” Bassit explained. “With the development of language from generation to generation, the meaning of certain words was changed.”

From here.

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Bethlehem: Hard Place for Christians

Bethlehem (AsiaNews) - This Christmas in Bethlehem, the cross has been banned from souvenirs for tourists and pilgrims in the Holy Land. Some textile workshops in Jerusalem and Hebron have begun to print and sell T-shirts depicting the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem without the cross. Because of the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in the Palestinian territories, the cross was also removed from t-shirts of football teams.
 
Interviewed by AsiaNews, Samir Qumsieh, journalist and director of the Catholic television station Al-Mahed Nativity TV in Bethlehem, said: "I want to launch a campaign to urge people not to buy these products - he says - because the removal of the cross is an intimidation against Christians, it is like saying that Jesus was never crucified. "

Like every year, thousands including authorities, faithful and tourists from all over the world crowd, the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem for midnight mass on the night of 24 December. It will be celebrated by the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem and will be attended by the highest offices of the Palestinian Authority.

Qumsieh says that the population is living these days with joy, but the situation for Christians is still dramatic. According to the journalist, the dialogue of recent years between Muslims, Christians and Jews has not changed the situation.

"In the Holy Land - said Qumsieh - the emigration of Christians is growing, even if the authorities refuse to give precise numbers. Every day there are people who flee to other countries. As Christians, we live in a constant feeling of fear and uncertainty, and if you live in constant tension and pessimism you can not plan anything.

Read it all here.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Religion and Green Investing

Ron Robins

Religious and faith groups have huge investment portfolios representing the third largest category of investors globally, says UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. And their investments are increasingly focused on ethical and green investing.

Though religion’s main interest is spirituality, we also know it is concerned with ethics, morality and stewardship of our environment. In Christianity, Islam and Judaism, God has dominion over all creation and everyone is expected to be good shepherds of it. In Hinduism, the earth is divine and to be respected. Buddhism preaches compassion for all life forms and the unity of all creations. Similar sentiments are expressed in most other religions too.

Thus, it is not surprising to hear that it was probably religious groups who pioneered ethical investing. The foundations of Western ethical investing are traced to biblical times when directives were found on investing according to ethical values.

Increasingly, religious and faith groups focus on aspects of ethical investing that relate to environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, sometimes referred to as ‘impact’ investing. In a 2010 study by 3iG, the Spain based International Interfaith Investment Group, found that, “more than 70 per cent of religious institutions.... practice some form of impact investing, in areas such as community development, micro-finance, affordable housing and fair trade, and not just negative and positive screening [for ESG issues].”

The 3iG organisation itself represents a growing awareness among religions to better reflect religious values in their investments. 3iG is “designed to assist the Faiths in facilitating and advancing their engagement in the area of faith-consistent investing and to provide high-level research and information to enhance its development. The great challenge is to integrate faith-based principles into the world of business, particularly via investing.”

Unfortunately, it is usually difficult to obtain information on investment portfolio holdings of many faith based organisations. And even when they are revealed, real estate holdings are often not included. Nonetheless, there are some examples of how large and important are religious ethical investment activities.

One example is the bank administered by the Roman Catholic Church, based in the Vatican and known as the Institute for Works of Religion (ICW). It has assets somewhere around €5 billion, (according to the Financial Times) and these are said to be second in size to those of the UN. Its focus is on ethical investments with profits going to charities and religious organisations around the world. (Note though, that the assets of Roman Catholic Churches globally are many times that of the ICW.)

Some other Christian churches, particularly in Britain and Ireland, are however, quite transparent with their investments. According to the Church Investors Group (CIG), British and Irish churches have assets of £12.6bln. The CIG organisation aims at helping make church “investment portfolios reflect the moral stance and teachings of the Christian faith.”

In the US the Interfaith Centre on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) has nearly 300 religious and faith groups with $100bln. in assets. The “ICCR and its members work with conscientious individual and institutional investors as well as advocacy organisations, who share all or part of ICCR's commitment to a just and peaceful world.”

Besides the above organisations, there are other international influential faith groups assisting and promoting ethical and green investing as well. Two of the better known ones are the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) and the Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility (ECCR).

The ARC “is a secular body that helps the major religions of the world to develop their own environmental programmes, based on their own core teachings, beliefs and practices... [it] now work[s] with 11 major faiths… These faiths and their networks embrace 85 per cent of the world's population: some 5 billion human beings.”

The ECCR “is a church-based investor coalition and membership organisation working for economic justice, human rights, environmental stewardship, and corporate and investor responsibility. ECCR's British, Irish and international members include representatives of many Christian denominations, faith-based investors, religious communities and orders, non-governmental organisations, [and] ethical investment managers.”

Religious investing by individuals has seen extraordinary rapid growth as well, especially in the US. According to David Kathman, a Morningstar analyst, there are now about 80 US Catholic, Protestant and Islamic-compliant mutual funds with about $29.8bln. in assets, up from around just $500 million. in 1997.


Similarly, among Muslims, there has been vigorous growth of Islamic financial products in many countries with institutional and private assets now exceeding $1 trillion. Islamic financial assets are mostly channelled into ethically screened investments, with some portion of their profits mandated for social and humanitarian causes.

Religion’s roots go deep into our psyches, relating to not only the caring of peoples’ spiritual welfare but to their material sustenance as well. To help fulfil their aspirations to provide the material sustenance of humanity, religious organisations are increasingly applying their staggering financial resources to ethical and green investments. They are thereby a huge and growing force in ethical and green investing.


E-mail the writer: r.robins@alrroya.com

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Ayatolah Damad Speaks at Vatican

It’s not often that an Iranian Ayatollah addresses a Synod at the Vatican – in fact, until last week, it had never happened. But on Oct. 14, Ayatollah Seyed Mostafa Mohaghegh Ahmadabadi, popularly known as Mohaghegh Damad, gave an intervention at the Synod on the Middle East currently taking place in Rome, becoming the first Iranian Shi’ite Muslim ever to do so.

Speaking with him shortly after his speech, he discussed his relationship with the Iranian government and his controversial views on Israel but he also expressed concerns that secularism is leading to godless societies without values. A genial and somewhat eccentric Islamic scholar, he has a doctorate in law from the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium, and currently teaches law at Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran. A co-founder of the Common Word initiative which is trying to foster closer Catholic-Muslim relations, he said he has personally invited the Pope to visit Iran.

He was speaking Oct. 15 under the supervision of an Iranian government official at the country’s embassy to the Holy See in Rome.

From here.