I just got this message and I’m not sure when you sent it…
My poem means what you make it mean. To me, it is a response to a line in an Avett Brothers song: “Always remember: there is nothing worth sharing like the like the love that let us share our name.”
I just finished my first reading assignment for ACU: The Didache. It’s a short, almost terse, work (16 brief chapters) that was possibly penned in the first century CE. The author(s) is unknown as is the recipient(s) - it is simply said to be the teaching of the twelve apostles. We may have some hint of the author/recipient, however, in that the writer seems to know Matthew’s gospel, quoting several passages from what he calls the “Gospel of our Lord”.
The work follows this general outline: (1) a description of the “path that leads to life”, (2) a description of the “path that leads to death”, and (3) instructions to the church on (a) baptism, (b) fasting and prayer, (c) the Eucharist, (d) treatment of prophets and false prophets and (e) watchfulness.
The professor gave the class these questions to guide the reading:
1. According to this text, what are the principal early Christian practices and what are the attitudes toward them?
The principal practices recorded in this text are baptism, partaking of the Eucharist, prayer, fasting, and righteous living. These practices are meant to place the Christian on the path to life so that they will be ready when the Lord returns. The work maintains a sectarian tone throughout - an “us” and “them” feel to the commands. Only those baptized may partake in the Eucharist and fasting is to be done on the fourth and sixth days so as to be different from those who fast on the second and fifth days.
2. How would the Didache have been useful in its time?
How to spot false prophets seems to be the most obvious practical application. There is also some liturgy sprinkled on the section concerning the Eucharist that would have been of practical use to churches. The Didache could easily have been an introduction for new converts to teach the purity required in day-to-day living. This early Christian document would also be encouraging and supportive to young Christians/Churches.
Love those two! (Taken with instagram)
My blog has changed its shape and purpose many times and though I should have stopped writing a blog long ago, it is taking on a new form today! The new blog name is “FIFTY PAGES” and here is why:
I am very excited to start graduate work in Abilene, TX this January, and as a way to keep up with all of the reading I will be doing, I am planning on stopping every 50 pages or so (sometimes more, sometimes less) and writing a brief summary of what I have just read. I am doing this in hopes of becoming a better writer and reader. If you decide to read any of my future blogs, here are my courses for the semester:
1. Intro to Philosophy of Religion
2. Church History I
3. The Epistemology of Theology
Wish me luck…
Sometimes blood is all too wanting,
when test too tiring come down.
and blood too thin bound by nothing,
is too quiet for such a sound.
Sometimes kin are all too wanting,
they test too much for bond.
and blood too thin for all the testing,
is too weak under such a strain.
Sky (Taken with instagram)
This morning I read some astute comments made by Michael Graziano in a Huffington Post article entitled Is Spirituality a Byproduct of Evolution? In it Graziano contends that our sense of spirituality is merely a product of millions of years of evolutionary development. It is no different than “male nipples and the gill slits in human fetuses”. Though I agree with Graziano in his understanding of the genesis of spiritual thought, his article is brief and in need of a pragmatic follow-up of sorts. I hope to do so in my own brief article by answering the question: what does a Christian do with Graziano’s conclusion?
If Graziano is correct then I would put forth three major options for a Christian. (1) Stop believing and give up the Christian faith, (2) ignore the evidence and continue Christianity turning a blind eye to scientific data, or (3) reshape theology to fit this new-found data into the Christian faith.I would contend that the third option is the most plausible and healthy for a believing Christian and certainly a real possibility. So how do these first two options synthesize into the third? Let’s look at each option more closely.
(1) Stop believing and give up the Christian faith. This is what many religious people do when faced with various difficulties - namely historical and scientific innaccuracies in the biblical text. This is not to say that atheism is not a legitimate path or that those who take that path cannot lead healthy, happy lives. What I fear, however, is that this repsonse short circuits the process to a deeper faith and theological development. In any endeavor, it seems unhealthy to quite at the first sign of conflict.
(2) Ignore the evidence and continue in the exact same faith. Just as above, I believe that the atheist and the blind believer have equal right to follow their respective paths and that each path can be healthy and happy in their own ways. This option, however, posses the same problem as the first. A close mind will not evolve and grow. To hide from truth is also to short circuit the growth process and in the end is not a Christian act.
(3) Reshape theology. This is the Judeo/Christian history in one phrase. As a Christian, our past is filled with characters believing strongly one way, being faced with counter-evidence, and reshaping their beliefs and practices. From stopping Abraham from killing his son, to sending the Israelites into exile, to bringing them out of exile, to entering our space-time universe incarnate, to blinding Saul on the road to Damascus, to not returning as soon as we expected, God has always been in the business of surprising his followers. And many willing followers have been ready to continue following faithfully by being open to learning more about this strange God and reshaping what it means to believe in God.
Two questions in closing. First, who is to say that God is not still behind all of these evolutionary changes? Could this not simply be a new finding into the complexity of the God we as Christians serve? To me, it seems entirely possible to look to neurological activity and evolutionary biology to obtain a better understanding of the “what” of our spirituality and still look to God and mystery to maintain the “who” and “why”. Second, what if Graziano (and other’s) have found some type of proof that there is no God (though this certainly is not his intent, especially in the above mentioned article)? Does the Christian faith still not offer something to humanity, even when speaking on an evolutionary level? Religion, from a evolutionist’s standpoint, maintains a certain cohesion and order in a society that not even politics can. If God is not real, does Christianity loose all of its prudence and value? I would argue that it is still a good life with much to offer to society and the process of evolution that humanity is still undergoing.
In short: continue being a Christian, but re-shape theology and thus praxis. Thoughts such as the one offered in Graziano’s article should not demolish faith. The Christian way of living should continue to be defined (as it always has) as faith seeking understanding. We are not turned off by Galilean cosmology or by Darwinian biology. We continue as Christians out of faith, hope, and love, not geocentrism, six-day creationism, and biblical inerrantism. The more we learn and evolve, the greater the need is for theological shifting.
