QUOTES: Ghandi on the roots of violence

via Ann on Facebook:
It's cool when my daughter sends me this link: sixty years ago Gandhi said the roots of all forms of violence are:

"Wealth without work, Pleasure without conscience, Knowledge without character, Commerce without morality, Science without humanity, Worship without sacrifice."

Here's another favorite Ghandi quote of mine:

“You Christians look after a document containing enough dynamite to blow all civilization to pieces, turn the world upside down, and bring peace to a battle-torn planet. But you treat it as though it is nothing more than a piece of good literature.”

DEBATE: Hitchens vs. Craig, April 5, 2009

SUNDAY, April 5. 2009
4:00 pm
at
Valley Covenant Church
3636 W. 18th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97405

http://www.valleycovenant.org/events/doesgodexist.htm

Christopher Hitchens, author of "God Is Not Great," is one of the most outspoken atheists of the last century. In this debate, he squares off against William Lane Craig, one the finest Christian philosophers of our time.

We invite you to join us for an exclusive web rebroadcast of this debate, which takes place live at Biola University the night before.
This debate is sold out at its original site and will not be televised. The webcasts are expensive, so this is the best way to see it now. We will give you a comfortable seat, a hot beverage and some munchies, as we watch the debate on a big screen. Then afterward, if you like, you're invited to stay and talk about it all with other interested and interesting folks.

Everyone is welcome, regardless of which "side" you might be on. We would like this to be an opportunity for open and honest sharing of ideas and an airing of the best arguments and support for and against belief in God.

There is no charge for this event, although donations to the ministries of Valley Covenant will be accepted. Please contact us with any questions or to RSVP at (541) 345-0055, but anyone is welcome to drop-in whether or not you called beforehand

Which gospel do you choose?

Scot McKnight poses a question: "Which Gospel do you Choose?"

Here's a first option, which I've slightly edited, and one that is becoming more and more a way articulating the gospel for some:

"The gospel is not a call to follow Christ's example or his teachings. It is not a proclamation of his kingly reign. It is not an invitation to enter the Church. It does not include a promise of his return. These are all aspects of Christian teaching. But the Gospel, very specifically, is the starting point that prepares for the teaching. The gospel is the good news that Jesus came to save us from our sins by dying on the cross and rising from the dead."

The second one comes from NT Wright, from his book called What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? :

My proposal has been that 'the gospel' is not, for Paul, a message about 'how one gets saved', in an individual and ahistorical sense. It is a fourfold announcement about Jesus:

1. In Jesus of Nazareth, specifically in his cross, the decisive victory has been won over all the powers of evil, including sin and death themselves.
2. In Jesus' resurrection the New Age has dawned, inaugurating the long-awaited time when the prophecies would be fulfilled, when Israel's exile would be over, and the whole world would be addressed by the one creator God.
3. The crucified and risen Jesus was, all along, Israel's Messiah, her representative king.
4. Jesus was therefore also the Lord, the true king of the world, the one at whose name every knee would bow.

Two options on the table here. What do you think? Which best captures the gospel for you? What would add to each or either to make it better?

It's an intriguing question. Actually, I wouldn't add anything: I'd edit them both down, the same way that those who have gone before us did. The liturgy puts the gospel at at its center in the memorial acclamation. It is short, sweet, memorable, and transcends every culture:

"Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again."

This puts CHRIST at the center, and requires us to position ourselves in relation to Him each moment of our lives, either to move toward Him, or away from Him.

Whether this proclamation of the gospel better coincides with #1 or #2 matters less than whether we are able to enter into it in faith, with hope, in order to love. I look forward to being able to make this confession every time we have communion at VCC.

My Theological Catena

impart

(Josef Pieper) ...in the beginning was the Gift.

... 1 Thessalonians 2:8 Having so fond an affection for you, we were well-pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God but also our own lives, because you had become very dear to us.

participate in

...John 17:21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.

incarnate

...1 John 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life--

...Acts 11:26, The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Trouble with Twitter

Trouble with Twitter: (via Mike on Facebook)

"Knowing"

We saw Knowing last night...an apologetic for Calvinism, or an opportunity to think about providence and prophecy? Depends who's watching it.

While I enjoyed the film, I had a hard time with its black-and-white orientation: "Either determinism or randomness." Either everything is caused, and stands in a long chain of cause and effect, or else nothing is caused. There is no option for metaphysical libertarianism, which defines freedom as the ability to act against a cause (contra-causal power). From this perspective, persons are regarded as agents, as initiators themselves of causal chains, but the film does not countenance that possibility.

To me, the most telling scene occurred in the MIT classroom, as Koestler lectures. He equates purpose with determinism. In a world starved for final causality, it is refreshing to hear the word "purpose" even mentioned in a film. (No, I am not a Purpose- Driven Groupie. If anything, my sympathies lie much further down the line, with Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas). But what if there is a God who allows us the freedom to determine our own ends? Then there would be purpose without either a "hard" or "soft" determinism. Then we could understand and appreciate Ezekiel 18.

If you roll with its presuppostions, the film is certainly a thriller. It has the definitive image for Malachi's "Day of the Lord," though I found its (super?) natural beings at the end not at all convincing.

Bottom line: Worth the ticket, but Signs was better.

Here's Roger Ebert's review

and there's more (including spoilers) at Roger Ebert's Journal.

There's a great resource for Christians interested in the question of God's omniscience, foreknowledge and human freedom here.

And finally, there's this little video explanation of determinism by David Sosa, chair of the philosophy department at the University of Texas, Austin.

Thought for the Day

Palau de la Música, by Lluís Domènech i Montaner

Joshua 13:33

"But to the tribe of Levi, Moses had given no inheritance; the LORD, the God of Israel, is their inheritance, as he promised them."

Riches I heed not, nor man’s empty praise,

Thou mine Inheritance, now and always:

Thou and Thou only, first in my heart,

High King of Heaven, my Treasure Thou art.

Lord,

Thank you for being my inheritence.

Help me to not be content with anything less than You.

A Chinese Feast

Two nights ago, D.Y., our Taiwanese-American friend (who has been tutoring Joanna in Mandarin) made us a most fabulous meal. His Taiwanese parents owned a restaurant, so he knows what real Chinese food should taste like. We have only had the popular American variety, and he was anxious to introduce us to the Real Thing. All I can say is, it's a whole 'nother cuisine! Thanks, D. for opening up this new world to us.

The photos below are the nearest visual equivalents that I could find on the web to what D. served us. I wonder what the marriage feast of the Lamb will be like if it can be this good, this side of heaven?


- Miso Chilean Sea Bass. It was marinated in sake and rice wine.I am not a fish lover, but this was truly extraordinary.


Yuxiang Eggplant. This was a real hit. D. kept apologizing for its greasiness, but we are Bilynskyjs and not afraid of oil. After all, neither was Aaron.





Chinese Broccoli w/ Oyster Sauce




-Baby Bok Choy w/ Shiitake Mushrooms





- NiuRou Zuan Bing (Beef wrapped in Green Onion Pancake with
Hoison Sauce). These are Chinese burritos. I wish they were as widely available as the Mexican ones.




- and Potato Salad
sliced apples gave it an Asian twist.

Gounod's Sanctus

Continuing to think about music that feeds my soul. Here's Stephen Costello singing the "Sanctus" from Gounod's St. Cecilia Mass.



One of my favorites. What would it be like to worship with such music? I've got to hand it to the Chinese....

Music for moving toward Holy Week

I have discovered another great work by John Taverner. Listen to his Funeral Ikos here. (An ikos is a poetic hymn which is part of a Greek Orthodox service of worship).

These are the words:

Why these bitter words of the dying, o brethren,
which they utter as they go hence?
I am parted from my brethren.
All my friends do I abandon and go hence.
But whither I go, that understand I not,
neither what shall become of me yonder;
only God who hath summoned me knoweth.
But make commemoration of me with the song:
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

But whither now go the souls?
How dwell they now together there?
This mystery have I desired to learn; but none can impart aright.
Do they call to mind their own people, as we do them?
Or have they forgotten all those who mourn them and make the song:
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

We go forth on the path eternal, and as condemned,
with downcast faces, present ourselves before the only God eternal.
Where then is comeliness? Where then is wealth?
Where then is the glory of this world?
There shall none of these things aid us, but only to say oft the psalm:
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

If thou hast shown mercy unto man, o man,
that same mercy shall be shown thee there;
and if on an orphan thou hast shown compassion,
the same shall there deliver thee from want.
If in this life the naked thou hast clothed,
the same shall give thee shelter there, and sing the psalm:
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

Youth and the beauty of the body fade at the hour of death,
and the tongue then burneth fiercely, and the parched throat is inflamed.
The beauty of the eyes is quenched then, the comeliness of the face all altered,
the shapeliness of the neck destroyed; and the other parts have become numb,
nor often say: Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

With ecstasy are we inflamed if we but hear that there is light eternal yonder;
that there is Paradise, wherein every soul of Righteous Ones rejoiceth.
Let us all, also, enter into Christ, that we may cry aloud thus unto God:
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

Advaita Ad on Facebook

Across my foundering deck (aka Facebook) has flashed this ad: 10 Week Course in Practical Philosophy. Sounds intriguing, I thought. Wonder what they mean by "practical" philosophy, I thought. Wonder if they need any online instructors, I thought. So I hit the icon. Then I read:

This course is for anyone who’s asked themselves ‘What am I doing here?’, who wants to expand their world, their thinking, and the view they have of themselves.

Discussions are underpinned by the philosophy of unity, or Advaita, a universal, non-denominational teaching literally meaning ‘not two’. This is Eastern in origin, but of universal application because it points to the unity underlying all things....

Advaita is a universal non-denominational teaching that points to the unity underlying all things. The key principle is that within each of us there is something that is common to all and is unchanging, pure and free.
Many people believe the concept of Advaita is implicit in Western teachings and philosophical works including the Bible, Plato, Shakespeare and Emerson.

The School believes this philosophy to be of real value in dealing with the problems that arise in our everyday lives, and also with the conflicts between communities and nations.

The approach to teaching philosophy is essentially practical, based on the notion that the only way we can really know something is to observe or experience it for ourselves. Participants are therefore asked neither to accept nor reject the ideas put forward for discussion, but instead to put them to the test in practical experience, and use what is found to be valid and helpful.

Does anybody know anything about these people? It sounds like quite a racket, if not something worse. Are they affiliated with these people?

(from the FAQ's:)

Who are the instructors?
Following the principle of learn and teach, instructors are appointed on the basis of having a firm understanding of the philosophic principles. They have attended the School for a number of years and demonstrated an appreciation of the practice of philosophy in their daily lives. All instructors remain students as well since the learning process never ends. No remuneration is received for tutoring in the School.

How much does it cost?
In New York City, the cost is $175 for the 10 sessions with a price of $85 for full-time students. If claiming a student discount, you will need to register in-person with your student-id. Check the Locations/Register page for details on other locations.

For distance learning:
The fee for this course, will be $100 for the ten sessions. In addition, we will schedule a one-on-one session prior to the first class to check out the technology and make sure you are comfortable with and capable of joining the web-conference.

Some final thoughts:

1) It's stuff like this that makes Christians suspicious of all philosophy, and interpret 1 Cor. 1:18-25 to be prohibiting it. But that is exactly what the Enemy wants. If he can't get us to hold a worldly philosophy, then he wants us to reject philosophy altogether. Anything but having the mind of Christ!

2) "Many people believe the concept of Advaita is implicit in Western teachings and philosophical works including the Bible, Plato, Shakespeare and Emerson." How many of us would be able to engage in a discussion with the instructors, to challenge the idea that the Bible is consistent with Advaita?

3) Since the economic collapse, I'm noticing that people are more open, seeking answers to these perennial questions: "What can I trust?" "What is real?" "Is there some one thing which underlies and unites everything, or is what is real just a lot of diverse, individual things?" "Is everything changing, or is there anything that is unchanging?" "Is it spiritual or material?"

Christians are the only people who can give a both-and response to these questions, rather than take one side against the other. This is because we believe God is Trinity. We need to be able to communicate the Father, incarnate the Son and be led by the Spirit, so as to provide the waters of Life to those who are metaphysically thirsty.

4) I'm remembering Steve's sermon last Sunday, where he preached on this very passage, as he works his way through Corinthians:

"What Paul is trying to get across to us is that we must never expect Christian faith, especially the message of the Cross at the center of our faith, to be justified by popular practical wisdom. Whenever we think that our faith can be justified in terms of what the world wants and values, then we’ve abandoned real Christianity, abandoned the message that the world in all its seeming wisdom just can’t understand."

Our faith can be justified, though, in terms of Christ's power to transform us, to make us into the people we really ought to be. May we live out our faith in Him, not only with our minds, but in our hearts, souls, bodies and relationships with others.

To have and to hold

I am a pastor's wife.

(I love how the Chinese have a special title for us, shi mu).

Today I keep thinking of several people who are having relationship troubles. Some are simply seeking to have better relationships with others around them. Others are in more desperate situations.
I am also reflecting on the gift I have been given in my husband.

There are some relationships where to hold is to crush

Sometimes we smother others.
Sometimes others are so free spirited, or so skittish or distracted that even to provide a safe resting place feels confining to them.

Then there are some relationships where to hold is to disintegrate .

Sometimes we are so passionate that it causes others to melt, and lose themselves.
Sometimes others are so fragile that they shatter to the touch.

But then there are some relationships where to have is to hold, and to hold is to have

Lord,

I am yours.

Hold me in your hands, that I might not be afraid to be held.
Hold me in your hands, that I might understand how you want me to hold others.

Thank you for my husband, who holds me in you.

Quote: Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

there are days when I wish I could haul out Avicenna for my students...

Those who deny [Aristotle's] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped.

- Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

Namaste: the Lost and the Found

You probably already know about this site, but I'm kinda slow. A friend recently told me about the Doc Jensen. In terms of theories and speculation, it outshines the best efforts of any pretrib millenialist, living or dead. It's actually quite entertaining. Anyway, being a "Lost" fan, and being that tonight was a repeat of last week's show, I stopped by tonight to check out what the good Doc had to say.

One of his offerings was the above video. I dare you to watch it all the way to the end. Once you do, please tell me:

1) how many people do you think have watched this video?
2) How many of us watching were Christians? How many were not?
3) How many of us could give a coherent, well thought- out response to this video, a la 1 Peter 3:15?
4) How many of us will use it as an occasion to share that response with those around us who do not know Jesus Christ?

Now combine this with the results of the American Religious Identification Survey 2008:

"The percentage of Americans claiming no religion, which jumped from 8.2 in1990 to 14.2 in 2001, has now increased to 15 percent...

According to Dan Whitmarsh on Abet, the discussion list for Covenant clergy,

In sum, the findings show or lead to the conclusion that:
1) Religion and Christianity are on the decline in the US;
2) Protestantism is doing worse than Catholicism due to Catholic immigrants;
3) Mormonism is keeping up with population growth, and Islam and NewAge/Wicca are exceeding it;
4) Atheism, while still a small percentage of the population, is on the rise; and
5) "Spirituality,"--or non-organized belief in God--is still vibrant in the US.

It is finding no. 5 that engages me, and makes me think that all is not lost if we can use Lost to reach the lost.

Meditation for Worship: March 8, 2009

Helping Hand by Audrey Reid
Copyright ©2004

Sermon text for this week:
Romans 4:13-25

Sermon: "Unwavering Faith"


Lord,
The world is telling me that
I am what I do.
If I am tolerant I am a good person.
If I look out for number one, then I’m not a burden.
If I am autonomous, then I am mature.
The world is telling me,
You are what you do.

Lord, your Law tells me that
I am what I do.
If I lie, I am a liar.
If I steal, I am a thief.
If I don’t follow the entire thing, I am not only a loser,
I am lost.

Both the world and your word echo together:
You are what you do.

But what I do is miss the mark.
What I do is constantly screw up.
And what I do isn’t enough.
Or it's too much.
I even do what I don’t want to do;
And that all makes me into
something I don’t want to be.

You see this and You try another tack.
You come alongside me.
You forgive me.
You call me your friend.
You die for me, and then rise again.
Extending your strong arm to me, you declare:
Now do what you are!”

Ah, Lord Jesus, I am yours!
May your Spirit always remind me of this,
so that --With faith in you--
I can at last begin to do what I am.

Build a Better Baby

Kyrie Eleison.

Gilbert Meilaender warned about this long ago in
his Bioethics: A Primer for Christians. Life is not a commodity; children are not art projects. Time to go watch Gattaca again; and especially take note of the alternative ending.


Fertility Doctor Will Let Parents Build Their Own Baby

Clinic's Service to Custom-Design Baby's Hair and Eye Color Sparks Controversy
By GIGI STONE
March 3, 2009

Imagine if you could choose your baby the same way you pick out a new outfit from a catalogue. Perhaps some blue eyes, a bit of curly hair, and why not make her tall, lean and smart? One fertility doctor now says that he may be able to deliver....continued here

Just Wondering...about economics and history

Transition of Virgin into a Bride/Le Passage de la Vierge à la Mariée by Marcel Duchamp

The Second Coming

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight; somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

--William Butler Yeats

It's better to be a dog in a peaceful time than be a man in a chaotic period"

(寧為太平犬，不做亂世人; pinyin: níng wéi tàipíng quan, bù zuò luànshì rén)

One of the marks of the end of the middle ages (premodernism) is the end of feudalism and the beginning of capitalism.

One of the features of modernism is capitalism, and its doppelganger, Marxism.

Marxism has faded.
Is capitalism fading, as well?

If so, are we living in a time of transition, as modernism takes its last gasps?

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Even more exciting: if we are living in a time of economic, historical and philosophical transition, how can we Christians witness to the hope that is within us, bringing harmony and joy as we are ambassadors of Christ, the Center?

We live in interesting times.

Let's stop "loving on" people and start loving them

There it is, once again. Someone has used the expression, "we need to love on him." Sorry to be a curmudgeon, but the premodernist hackles in me rise whenever I hear "love on." I get a mental picture of a splatted paintball helmet, or worse. (See above.) That's because I don't take persons to be Leibnizian monads-- metaphysical atoms, or, if you prefer, billiard balls or bb's. (See my entry, "Metaphysics Made Visual")

Of course, for modernists, taking persons to be discrete units is the only way to go. Some Christian modernists fudge, however, when they assume that one discrete unit is capable of relating to another discrete unit in any meaningful way, such as "loving" one another. To do so means that the individual/atom (ατομος/átomos, α-τεμνω, which means uncuttable) must somehow open to bestow something from within itself upon another individual/atom. But if we overlook that little inconsistency, the rest follows nicely: the individual cannot love another individual; only "love on" him.

No wonder the substitutionary model of atonement has been the premiere (and often the only permissible) way to understand Christ's work on the cross, since the Reformation. Penal substitutionists are nothing if not consistent! Because He is fully God, only Christ can "open" Himself and "cover" the individual with His righteousness.

Note that that His righteousness never penetrates to the core, to actually change the individual. If it did, the model would no longer be one of imputing  but of infusion. Infusion requires a different metaphysical understanding of the person, one in which she is not taken to be a discrete, impenetrable individual. On the modernist understanding, His righteousness merely "covers" the person. It is the best picture of "loving on" that we could imagine, but is "loving on" the best (or only) way to understand the power of Christ's blood?

I am not saying that the modernist picture isn't good news; but I am saying that it isn't good enough news. If I am more than a billiard ball dancing according to the laws of cause and effect, if I am instead capable of real relations, and not just accidental ones, then I need a Savior who can not only position me correctly in relation to God and others, but who can also penetrate and transform me.

And if that is what Christ is trying to do in me, shouldn't we imitate Him and not just "love on" others, but try to love them?

Then no longer will we be paintballers, splattered back and front with shots of sentiment, and discharging our affections at others through drive-by encounters. "Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work."

Lord, this Lent, please teach me to treat others as persons and not as things. May your love pierce me, and not just whitewash me. Transform me, so that I might truly love not only my neighbor as myself, but You.

Analogy of Being or Analogy of Faith? Both, Please!

I've discovered a fascinating blog, Millinerd, and highly recommend perusing Mathhew J. Milliner's musings. Milliner is a graduate of Wheaton and the Princeton Theological Seminary, and is now pursuing his doctorate in art history at Princeton.

Last Thursday night at Free Range, I gave my spiel about premodernism, modernism, and postmodernism. There wasn't time to go into detail, but I tried to suggest that one way of understanding premodernism is that it affirms the analogy of being, whereas the other periods do not. Tonight I stumbled on Milliner's blog entry that provides further support for this idea. I reproduce it in its entirety below, and encourage you to check this fellow out for yourself. He's a both-and kind of guy, without being wishy-washy.

Who's Afraid of the Analogia Entis?
Saturday, December 16, 2006

For those wondering what the analogia entis is (the "analogy of being"), allow me to explain in a way that probably won't satisfy full-time theologians (whom I respectfully don't intend to satisfy), but hopefully will satisfy newcomers to the term: It is the notion that the very being (entis) of the created world offers an analogy by which we can (in a very limited way) comprehend God. For example, if you've looked at a sunset and wondered that perhaps God is similarly beautiful, you've intuitively employed what theologians call the analogia entis.

This way of thinking is well expressed in contemporary idiom in addresses like this, but because of its heyday in the Medieval world, the analogia entis is best articulated by Medieval theologians such as Bonaventure: (continue...)

"All created things of the sensible world lead the mind of the contemplator and wise man to eternal God... They are the shades, the resonances, the pictures of that efficient, exemplifying, and ordering art; they are the tracks, simulacra, and spectacles; they are divinely given signs set before us for the purpose of seeing God. They are exemplifications set before our still unrefined and sense-oriented minds, so that by the sensible things which they see they might be transferred to the intelligible which they cannot see, as if by signs to the signified" (Itinerarium mentis ad Deum, 2.11, as quoted p. 165).

For those pleased by the preceding passage, it may surprise you that the analogia entis comes under severe Protestant attack. Why? Because of the dangers of abuse.

The 20th century Protestant theologian Karl Barth, in an overstatement that recalls Luther's remarks on the Mass below, called the analogia entis the "invention of the antichrist"(x). I imagine he did so because of its potential to obscure the mediating role that belongs to Christ alone. Instead Barth proposed the analogia fidei, (the "analogy of faith"), meaning the only link between ourselves and God is one of faith in Christ, recalling of course the Reformation's sola fide. In so doing, Barth burned all bridges but one, remembering that there is "one mediator" and "one foundation."

And in this Barth was right.

But consider the words of Pope Benedict in his recent Regensburg address, which, were they paying attention might have upset world Barthians as much as Muslims:

"The faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason, there exists a real analogy, in which - as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated - unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf" (9/12/06).

Benedict, speaking for the largest Christian tradition on the globe, makes three essential moves that when properly understood reasonably alleviates the fear of abusing the analogy of being:

1. First, he recalls the words of the Fourth Lateran Council ("maior dissimulitudo in tanta similitudine"), explaining that the church has for quite some time been on record saying that the world's dissimilarity to God is somewhat greater than the similarity to God. Woops - did I say somewhat? I misquoted. Let me start again: He said "unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness." This is, after all, a fallen world. Anyone therefore fearing that the analogia entis obscures God's transcendence, or leaves no room for apophatic (negative) theology, needs to run by Benedict's statement again.

2. Secondly, in words that could be addressed directly to postmodern reductionists, Benedict shows that the analogia entis is important because it's easy to overdose on negative theology (a danger especially near to wounded ex-evangelicals on a positivist hangover who just discovered that negative theology exists). Benedict says that "God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism," by which I take him to mean that the analogia entis safeguards us from the dangers of mysticism and subjectivism, thereby indirectly securing the essential benefits of both.

3. Finally, and most importantly, Benedict explains that the analogia entis is related to the logos - the ordering principle by which God created all that is. And this logos is none other than the Logos, Jesus Christ. The reason the analogy of being makes sense, even after God has definitively revealed himself in Jesus Christ, is because Christ is the one "through whom all things were made" and in whom "all things hold together."Therefore to contemplate an analogy between the being of the created world and the being of God is, properly understood, not something done independently of the Logos, Jesus Christ.

So, who'll it be? Bonaventure, Barth or Benedict? I'll take 'em all, the Barthian insight being wonderfully framed by the wider perspectives of Bonaventure and Benedict. All shed important light on an enormous truth. What cannot be accepted is Barth's (or Luther's) hyperbolic desertions of large swaths of the tradition. Just as Protestant condemnations of the Mass cannot reasonably be sustained in light of the Catholic Church's emphatic clarification (see pt. 1367) that the Mass is not a repeated sacrifice (which was the basis of the original protest), so Protestant condemnations of the analogia entis cannot in my judgment be sustained in light of Benedict's qualifications without running on the fumes of anti-Catholic prejudice (of which there is plenty).

For a more heavyweight discussion of this issue, consider how Hans Urs von Balthasar (p. 163) suggested that he could subsume Barth's analogia fidei into the Catholic analogia entis, or how David Bentley Hart (see p. 242) playfully turns the tables on Barth (a move which was debated at a recent session covered here and here), but as stated above, that may be more interesting to full-time theologians.

The matter is not whether there is more than one mediator or more than one foundation, but just how big that mediator and foundation is. The question is not which of the two analogies is true. They both are (with priority, I would submit, going to the analogia fidei). The question is in which can we afford to neglect. The answer is neither.