"Practical" Theology

I've been thinking about the interview Jonathon had with Steve Long, noted radical orthodox theologian. At a couple points, Jonathon tried to make the turn with Long toward "practical" applications of the radical orthodox position in the church. Long shied away from that altogether as a matter of course based on radical orthodox sensibilities.

However, I do not think radical orthodox positions are inherently impractical. We joke about how we believe in the Trinity, but do not see any "practical" value in it. Shame on us. If God is not relational within the Trinity, then we who are made in the image of God have no basis to be relational either.

The same with the hypostatic union. Christ has to be one person. Yet He has to be fully God and fully human. His deity makes perfection possible...both as an example and as being a blemish-free sacrifice. But if Christ were not also human, He would have no legitimacy in being our representative on the cross to take away the wrath that we deserve.

How can theology be more practical than reinforcing that there is a personal loving relational God (Trinity) as opposed to a blind mechanical elan vital? How can theology be more approachable than the way it underscores the lengths God is willing to go to (hypostasis) in order to renew fellowship with his broken, rebellious, separated creatures who were made in His image? Radical orthodoxy, though it has flaws, is there to remind us not that theology is anti-practical, but that theology already is practical if we simply take the time to reflect on it, instead of allowing our instant gratification culture dupe us into expecting nothing more complex than chicken fingers and fries for a theological basis for our faith. But I'll leave the topic of cultural distraction for another day.

Fallacy of Novelty

I was on my way to pick up some pizza for dinner at Buddy's, the dutiful husband that I am, when I encountered an interesting tidbit of radio idiocy on NPR. The feature, a response from Justice Stephen Breyer, argues against the judicial philosophy of "originalism" (espoused by those like Justice Scalia) which in essence says we need to accept the meaning of the Constitution as the framers originally intended as the foundation for American jurisprudence--especially at the Supreme Court level. Breyer, on the other hand espouses a significantly more "flexible" (cavalier?) interpretive framework, making the Constitution fit the times we live in. In this model, a supposedly more "democratic" approach is taken, because the words of the Constitution are all subject to the interpretation of judges over the ages. What was good for one age may not be so any longer, and vice versa. This not only hearkens back to literary theorists such as Stanley Fish and Jacques Derrida, it also holds one tenent which is taken as a given and unassailable: the times they are a-changing.

I believe such a mindset is inherently invalid. It first bopped around as the mind child of the Enlightenment concept of Progress (which catapulted to even greater euphoric heights through early Darwinists). Then as we have had our illusions shattered by reality during the 20th Century, we got rid of our optimism, but still kept this vestige of chronological snobbery (a la C.S. Lewis) alive. We still culturally seem to accept this mumbo jumbo that human beings, as they advance technologically, morph (since we can't "advance" anymore--the idea of Progress is dead). We morph morally, politically, culturally, psychologically to the point that we aren't the same humans anymore. At least that's how the thought process goes.

Instead, I agree with the maxim, "the more things change the more they stay the same." I think Solomon summed it up well when he said, "There is nothing new under the sun." Why is human cloning such a big deal except that it really is rehashing the old-fashioned struggle of the inherent God-given dignity of human beings versus a supremely naturalistic view of humanity? New technologies make sinful pleasures more private and more ubiquitous, but they do not fundamentally change the nature of how people respond when faced with temptation and vice. So did the framers anticipate the affirmative action debate? They had their own version of affirmative action with the 3/5 compromise when the Constitution was first adopted. Today we are thankful for the 14th Amendment, which more justly rectified the problems of racism that have been around since Babel. But societies are run by people who are eternally caught up in these things called bodies. We cannot deny that we are human, and that there is a continuity in our human nature which does not essentially change even when there is flux within the culture at large. The sooner we grow to accept this, the sooner we can cast off the fallacy of novelty and realize that we aren't so different from our ancestors and our potential progeny as we pretend to be.

Thoughts on Numbness

One of my sidelines of study recently has been besetting sin and the provision of God's grace to overcome them. In my meditations I have come to realize a good number of people (most? all?) use a variety of sins as a means to numb themselves against love. While I wholeheartedly agree with the Augustinian view that we are trying to fill a God-shapped hole in our hearts with all manner of things, I believe as we come to realize certain areas of our lives are crying out desparately for the love of God (even the love of God as expressed through the love of others--spouses, family, friends, general philanthropic love) we are equally aware that even unconditional love requires a response that is more effort than we are willing to put forth to receive it. And how much more so is this the case when that love is convenantal--where there is returned expression of love and commitment to stick by love through thick and thin. So we take our little idols--TV, alcohol, jobs, video games, porn, constantly vying for the attention of others--and we attempt to numb ourselves. These numbing distractions serve to feign immunity against the hurt of lovelessness while simultaneously creating a barrier to satisfy our souls with the one thing that will: the love of God.

Now my wife Kelly has pointed out that sometimes the numbness is not even a conscious choice. And I have to acknowledge this often is the case. And many people do not know that they are in reality craving God's incomparable love. But I still believe in such cases we subconsciously count the cost--albeit with bad logic or incomplete information--and all we discern is that our current idols are easier to hold onto. They don't seem worth the risk. Better the devil we know than the sacrifice for an unknown quantity. Is it any wonder that people recoil at the Gospel? People say they want peace, redemption, success, fulfillment, and security--but they want it on their own terms. And I am not exempt from idol-chasing in those hidden areas of my life that no one sees, and that I myself am oblivious to until the Holy Spirit mentions them to me. Am I ready to relinquish my numbing idols and let God pour out His love in the dark places within? Even the places that sting? And can I help others be aware of the same conundrum in their lives without being a hypocrite?

The Death of Fraternity

I just got my Touchstone in the mail yesterday, and I was drawn to the cover article on friendship (sorry there's no link to it on their website--they just link a few teasers like this one). Anthony Esolen writes concerning the severely negative impact the sexual revolution, in particular its fruit in the homosexual movement, has had on building male identity and man to man friendships. I agree with his assesment. We see how the ACLU has attacked institutions such as the Boy Scouts and the Citadel, which were once paramount institutions which fostered male comraderie and the glories that men who weren't neutered could achieve if allowed to thrive as God has created them.

Don't get me wrong, I am not issuing a clarion call to a return to "patriarchy." There are quite a number of roles that men and women can and should equally fulfill as they demonstrate the aptitude. But men and women are different creatures, with different strengths and weaknesses for a reason--God made them different. And I, for one, believe it's time to recapture manliness from the grip of beer-soaked-oversexed-be-happy-with-your-sports attitudes or the equally dangerous trap of androgyny. Paula Cole asked it well? "Where have all the cowboys gone?" Well men, let's get back in the battle. And it'll be scary to reclaim such brilliant attributes as brotherhood, chivalry, initiative, and testicular fortitude. But as John Wayne said, "Courage is being scared to death--but saddling up anyway."

Love & Props for Bishop Benny of Rome

An article in Boston.com (Boston Globe) about the Pope Benedict XVI's speech to a Roman Catholic conference on families is chock full of intelligent sound-bite-sized quotes that defend the traditional Christian worldview and teaching on sexuality.

Here are some samples:

We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires.

It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good.

The various forms of the dissolution of matrimony today, like free unions, trial marriages and going up to pseudo-matrimonies by people of the same sex, are rather expressions of an anarchic freedom that wrongly passes for true freedom of man.

While I am not Roman Catholic, nor do I think I ever could be due to key theological differences, it's just this kind of stuff that makes me proud of the past two bishops of Rome. I agree with my wife's assessment that it's this very type of thing that's part of the appeal of the Catholic church. Maybe we are among those who are "baptized by desire" and are one with Rome in heart if not in actual practice.

Frontlines & Home Fires

I have been thinking about my blog of late. While I really enjoy the fun things, the cultural critiques, the theological ruminations, there is still a hurting world that needs the love of Jesus expressed to them in practical ways. Anyone who trusts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is part of His Body. And we need to be His hands and feet, not just His mouth. Because of this, you will notice a new section under the general links list called "HELP OTHERS." Given, some of us are frontline fighters for these and similar organizations, but those of us who keep the home fires burning, need to step out with dollars where our feet are unable (hopefully not unwilling) to go. I heard someone say once that commitment is spelled "Money." If you are committed to Jesus and His mission, I encourage you to take your stand and select one of these tried and true organizations to support:

The One Campaign
World Vision
Gideon's
Doctor's Without Borders
Habitat for Humanity
The Salvation Army
Open Doors
Prison Fellowship
Samaritan's Purse

Of course, if you are able to do more than give, don't stop with mere cash. Get on the frontlines and be where Jesus is--among those who need Him most.

Dagnabbit!

I'm feeling a little impish today. Ever want to be creative with a witty, devastating, yet biblical retort when someone cuts you off in traffic? Or maybe you've forgiven your requisite 70X7 and you're thinking, "That's number 491, it's payback time!" Well, here is an Internet tool for you. The Biblical Curse Generator, brought to you from our friends at Ship of Fools. And if you don't like it, "Woe unto thee, O thou offspring of a squashed cockroach, for you will be as welcome as a fart in the queen's bedchamber!"