Happy Bright Monday/Dyngus Day

Bright Monday is Easter Monday. The Orthodox, of course, have many traditions associated with it, as you can read here. Especially fascinating is this one:

Since the entire week of Pascha, otherwise known as Bright week, is the "eighth day", and according to the Lord, " in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30), it is a pious tradition that those who are married "be as the angels". This is abstinence not because of fasting, as marital abstinence otherwise is, but because of the joy of the resurrection. Not everyone can bear this, and the marriage bed is undefiled in any case, but for those who can observe this custom, there is profound meaning.

We are also warned of this danger:

It is very easy to feast with foods, and let down spiritually, and forget the inner feast of Pascha. Too much rich food makes it impossible to pray. It also can incite other serious passions, such as lust, anger and despondency. Sometimes people hardly pray during this week, because of overeating, and tiredness. The mind of the church, in her ascetical tradition, has always known this. The church lessens the prayer rule during Bright week so that it is easy to pray, but only if we continue to make an effort, and do not over abuse our freedom to eat delicious foods. We emulated the Apostles and the Myrrh bearing women by proclaiming "Christ is risen" multiple times during the Paschal vigil, likewise, let us emulate them in joyful, although abbreviated prayer during the period of Bright week.

Today the Poles are celebrating (?) "Dyngus Day" by having the men chase the women with squirt guns, drenching them, and switching their legs with pussy willows. Tomorrow the ladies get to throw crockery at the men. Go figure.

Just Wondering: Barna on Designer Faith

The Dec. 3, 2007 Barna report "identifies several patterns that are significantly affecting the development of American culture. Those transformations were described as Americans’ unconditional self-love; nouveau Christianity; the five Ps of parenting; and designer faith with rootless values." Today I want to wonder about this one:

Designer Faith, Rootless Values

"As young adults, teenagers and adolescents have become accustomed to radical individualism, they have introduced such thinking and behavior into the faith realm, as well. Faith is an acceptable attribute and pursuit among most young people. However, their notions of faith do not align with conventional religious perspectives or behavior. For instance, young people are still likely to claim the label "Christian," but the definition of that term has been broadened beyond traditional parameters.

In fact, the values that young people are prone to embrace are often consistent with Christian beliefs but are not based on biblical foundations. For instance, while young Americans have adopted values such as goodness, kindness and tolerance, they remain skeptical of the Bible, church traditions, and rules or behaviors based upon religious teaching."

Hmm. Is Barna confirming what I have only informally observed? "Radical individualism" seems to be another way of talking about nominalism. While it is interesting to see this sociological evidence, I would like to see it taken further, because I don't think nominalist thinking is found only among young people.

Is it possible to be a Christian (no matter young or old!) and be skeptical about the Bible and church traditions and teachings? Can one be a Christian without the "baggage" of a community? I have a refrigerator magnet that says, "Friends are the family you choose for yourself." It may be proper for Jesus to call us His friends, and establish His church, but do we have the same power to pick and choose? As I read John 15:16, we do not. Yet this is the great question of our time: is the church a gift, or is it the product of social contract? If it is a gift, then it is not ours to design, but receive and grow into.

Remember those bulky sweaters Aunt Hortense used to knit as Christmas presents? They were always too big in December, but by fall the following year they fit just fine. Is it the same way with Christ's body? The church may contain all sorts of doctrines, people, and practices that may not immediately "fit" us--and indeed, which may feel uncomfortable, causing us to scratch and chafe--but nevertheless they are good for us, and eventually we are grateful. They transform us to reflect Christ.

However, if the church is not a gift, but instead is socially constructed, then we can design the Bible, traditions, teaching, and behaviors however we please. We can have faith without religion; church without institution, spirit freed of the limiting confines of body. I can re-invent myself, as often as I feel the desire to do so, answering to no one but myself. Ultimately, Christianity boils down to Me and Jesus, and Jesus begins to look a lot like Me.

Are Christ and Christmas (and by extension, Christ's body) a gift we receive? Or are Christ and Christmas (and by extension, Christ's body) a product of my own choice and construction?

Let all mortal flesh keep silence
And with fear and trembling stand
Ponder nothing earthly minded
for with blessing in his hand,
Christ our God to earth descendeth,
our full homage to demand.

King of kings, yet born of Mary
As of old on earth he stood,
Lord of lords in human vesture
In the body and the blood,
He will give to all the faithful
His own self for heav'nly food.

O how shall I receive you, how greet you Lord aright?
All nations long to see you, my hope, my heart's delight!
O kindle Lord most holy your lamp within my breast,
To do in spirit lowly all that may please you best.

Hand Me Down Wor(l)d

Steve's sermon for tomorrow,"Hand Me Down Wor(l)d," May 13,2007 (Mother's Day) was not inspired by the comments surrounding Beckwith's conversion but is certainly an appropriate comment upon them. No doubt it would drive Groothuis, Reformation Fellowship and the McKenzie Study Center crowd bonkers! It's available at http://www.valleycovenant.org/sermons.htm.

My letter to Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D

apropos his response to Frances Beckwith's blog:
http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2007/05/my_return_to_th.html
and his own blog entry:
http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2007/05/reversion-of-francis-beckwith.html

Dear Dr. Groothuis,

Can you please explain to me how you dare to include G.K. Chesterton in your list of favorite books on your blog profile? Haven't you read the final two chapters of St. Thomas Aquinas?

Surely this must pain "all true sons and daughters of the Protestant Reformation who lived and died for its truths." Aren't you in danger of embracing serious theological error by giving GKC such approval? After all, GKC certainly was "never well-grounded in the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, as articulated by the Five Solas of the Reformation." Why, the man even believed there was such a thing as (gasp!) philosophia perennis!

Until I hear how this inconsistency can be reconciled, I dare not take your criticisms of Dr. Beckwith seriously. And please, don't tell me its a matter of paradox. We protestants never have our cake and eat it too. It's Catholics like GKC that are into such paradoxes, not protestants! Once you let a paradox's nose in the tent, the whole Roman camel will follow. Sacraments! Thomism! Tradition! St. Theresa! The Culture of Life! Fides et Ratio! Whatever is true, noble, right, pure and lovely!

See what has happened to me? (grin) Reading Chesterton has just exacerbated things! I'd hate for it to happen to you!

P.S. Can you also please tell me, how can there be FIVE solas? I thought the only sola that mattered was Jesus. (Cf. Peter and Martha's confessions.)

Groothuis' reply:
http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2007/05/reversion-of-francis-beckwith.html

BB:There is no contradiction. I am listing authors who proved significant to me. That includes Roman Catholics like Pascal and Chesterson. So what? My favorite Chesterton book, Orthdoxy, was written before he became Catholic anyway.One need not believe everything a writer says to be shaped by him or her. I was helped enormously by John Searle's The Construction of Social Reality; it is one of the best defenses of realism I know. Searle is an atheist.
6:54 AM

7:18 AM
Karen LH said...
Dr. Groothuis,I had the same reaction as Beth to your including Catholics like G.K. Chesterton (and Pascal) in your list of influential authors.The reason has to do with the tone of your post here about Dr. Beckwith's reversion. It's one thing to say something like: "I disagree completely with Frank's reasons for returning to Catholicism." It's another to say: "Frank has done some excellent work over the years, but was apparently never well-grounded in the essential doctrines..."In other words, Catholics are not too intelligent and are poorly informed. I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but if that's what you think of them -- that they are not only wrong but stupid -- then it's a little strange that you would include them on a list of recommended authors.Chesterton wrote somewhere regarding his conversion (I looked and can't find the exact quote) something like the following: "When I became a Catholic, I thought that people would say: 'That Chesterton fellow is pretty smart: maybe there's something to the Catholic Church.' Instead they said: 'That Chesterton fellow used to be pretty smart: I wonder what happened to him.'"This seems to be the way a lot of people are treating Dr. Beckwith. If he "has done some excellent work over the years", then maybe he is still doing excellent work. If you disagree with him, then by all means say so and say why. But he deserves to be treated with more respect than a condescending dismissal.(As for Orthodoxy, while it's true that Chesterton wrote it before becoming a Catholic, as I recall it's an extremely Catholic book. Chesterton himself was Catholic for years before he entered the Church. You must know that.)
8:30 AM

Culture: Filter or Foundation?

# 1 in an occasional series, "Behind the Buzzwords"

This was originally composed over a year ago. Going through my files it seemed worth thinking about again.

Along with "passion," Culture is another hot word these days. Last night after a fine dinner and conversation with the Taloyos, I came home pondering "culture." Rob Johnston proposes that it be added to the Wesleyan quadrilateral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral )

because he sees it just as important as Reason, Tradition, Experience and Scripture in the Christian life and theological reflection. I've been chewing on that for a while now.

In good analytic fashion, I think we must first define our terms. Wikipedia lists four possible definitions of culture:
1) culture= civilization, as opposed to nature (this one is pretty much passe)
2) culture=worldview
3) culture= values, norms and artifacts
4) culture = patterns of products and activities
But what about culture as Wittgenstein's "language game?" or MacIntyre's narrative and practices? Worldview might include these, I suppose...

Another thought: IMO it seems that just as modernism idolized reason, so postmodernism idolizes culture. The pendulum always swings to the opposing extreme. Having spent over two centuries under the spell of Reason, are we doomed now to spend a century charmed by multiculturalism? And after that, what?

Culture is no more solid a foundation than Reason to stake one's life upon, yet we seem to be perpetually tempted to confuse filters with foundations. Both Reason and Culture can be helpful filters in life, enabling us to focus on important aspects of our experience and order it in order understand ourselves, the world, and ultimately God. But--in our sinfulness? -- we demand more: we want to make these filters into foundations. Rather than "seeing through" them to what is real and good and true, we make them into ends in themselves: we idolize them as what is real and good and true. The lie of modernism's idolization of Reason is to say that the particulars doen't matter; the lie of Postmodernism's idolization of culture is to say that universals don't exist.