Energetic Procession

Reformed writer Robert Letham speaks of the functional Unitarianism of Reformed worship. Of course he doesn’t call it that, but that is what it is. What is the old saying? Lex ordandi…? In considering and trying to remedy the lack of invocation and plain old mention of the Trinity in Reformed worship (deformed worship?) he doesn’t seem to stop and ask why it is that way in the first place. It might have something to do with how Protestant debates over the Trinity shaped their understanding.

In one of the chapters of my book, The Holy Trinity, I describe at some length how the worship of the Western Church has been truncated by the comparative neglect of the doctrine of the Trinity. For most Christians-and I include members of Reformed churches-the Trinity is merely an abstruse mathematical puzzle, remote from experience. Despite our reservations about many aspects of the Eastern Church, Orthodoxy in contrast has maintained a pronounced Trinitarian focus to its worship through its liturgy, which has roots in the fourth century. This is no incidental matter; worship is right at the heart of what it means to be Christian and what the church should be doing. The sole object of worship is God. The God whom we worship has revealed himself to be the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three distinct persons in indivisible union. I have argued elsewhere that this is his New Covenant name (Matt. 28:19-20). It follows that our worship in the Christian church is to be distinctively Trinitarian. Yet if we were to thumb through any hymnbook, we would be hard pressed to find many hymns that contain clearly Trinitarian expressions, while many of our favorites could equally be sung by Unitarians-think of “Immortal, invisible” or “My God, how wonderful thou art.” As for the average person in the pew, why not try a random survey next Sunday-ask a haphazard selection of half a dozen people what the Trinity means to them on a daily basis, and see what results you get? Then compare your findings with the words of Gregory of Nazianzus, who wrote of “my Trinity” and “when I say God, I mean the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

Read the rest of this entry »

The clip above while humorous is illustrative of one of the major problems with Anglicanism. It is so bad and has been for some time that the Church of England has de facto ceased to be a professing Christian body. I ask friends of mine who hold out hope, what makes the CofE Christian?

I used to be Anglican. I was raised as one and I was deeply committed to it. It had much to offer and I still fancy myself something of an Anglo-phile. I don’t write much about the goings-on in Anglicanism, particularly with respect its continuing splits. I do not think that this will end any time soon. In any case, I don’t much concern myself with it for the simple reason that I converted to Orthodoxy. Knowing what I know now about Orthodox teaching, I would have become Orthodox even if Anglicanism had remained de facto Christian in profession. To be sure the change would have been more emotionally difficult, but I still would have converted nonetheless. I am not an Anglican in exile.

Some seem to think that this or that new provision will solve the problems of the past. GAFCON is the latest offering. But since it does not address the fundamental issue of women’s ordination, I can’t see how it will do anything but set the stage for more schisms. Make no mistake, the fundamental issue is whether sex constitutes the human person or not. If it doesn’t then my sex or my use of it can’t function as a bar to ordination. The fundamental thesis is that “I am not my body.” For the record I simply don’t think there is something called “gender.” The distinction as I take it is supposed to be the difference between my plumbing and my psychological disposition or how I view myself. Taking reality as a cue, psychology is irrlevant. Cut and reshape what you like, but a man is a man is a man, even if he is a psychologically errant one.

Read the rest of this entry »

An interview with bishop Hilarion of Austria and Vienna on the nature of Hell.

Many Platonists in the ancient world thought of the circle as the most perfect shape since it is complete, continual and has no begining and no end. It is perpetual activity. This is one reason the ancients thought of the planets as the gods, since they were in perfect motion-they went in all directions. Reason is circular since via opposition something new can always be bought forward. This is why for any argument in philosophy or any objection to an argument there is always some new crafty version lurking. It is very hard to settle a matter.

There are a number of significant discussions taking place that some of you will find helpful. They will be helpful not because I believe they produce consensus or the right answers but are rather illustrative of the continuing problems in theology. In light of these discussions I think what we discuss here as the proper relation between free will and goodness in the Christology of Maximus the Confessor will be seen to be all the more profitable. (Don’t worry, ADS is operative in the discussions as well!) Or another way of saying the same thing, the attentive reader will notice how each side affirms some trtuh at the expense of some other truth, articulated by the opposing side and yet neither are able to bring these two truths together into a single vision or understanding to bring rest to their souls. Consequently the importance of what Maximus has to offer us, both intellectually and existentially is appropriately magnified.

So take a look at the discussions here and here. Round and round they go.

Below are comments in response to Robin Phillips. He asked me to comment on a debate that he had with Patrick Barnes on whether Protestantism was heretical. I comment first on David McIroy’s comments on the debate and then his own. You can find the debate on line here.

McIlroy wrongly assumes that  between Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox there is some common and neutral ground concerning Trinitarianism. I think this is dubious. The ground may be common, but it is not neutral.

He also speaks of universally accepted ecumenical Councils, but when we look at the canons and statements of those councils, there is so much that Protestantism rejects as to make the claim that these councils are universally accepted implausible.

He also tries to fend off the view that Protestant bodies amount to historical novelties. Given the significant differences between Classical Protestants in theology and practice, someone is a historical novelty. It is implausible to think that the early church consisted mainly of Baptists and Lutherans minus the designations. Further, historical studies by Reformed writers have in the last few decades made it clear that key Protestant distinctions are either novelties or later developments at best.

  Read the rest of this entry »

“I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we really more learned and more pious than our fathers? You will say, ‘One must glorify the Mother of God as much as Possible.’ This is true; but the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment. This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications, possessing as She does true crowns of glory and signs of dignity. Glorify the purity of Her flesh and the sanctity of Her life. Marvel at the abundance of the gifts of this Virgin; venerate Her Divine Son; exalt Her Who conceived without knowing concupiscence and gave birth without knowing pain. But what does one yet need to add to these dignities? People say that one must revere the conception which preceded the glorious birth-giving; for if the conception had not preceded, the birth-giving also would not have been glorious. But what would one say if anyone for the same reason should demand the same kind of veneration of the father and mother of Holy Mary? One might equally demand the same for Her grandparents and great-grandparents, to infinity. Moreover, how can there not be sin in the place where there was concupiscence? All the more, let one not say that the Holy Virgin was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not of man. I say decisively that the Holy Spirit descended upon Her, but not that He came with Her…I say that the Virgin Mary could not be sanctified before Her conception, inasmuch as She did not exist. if, all the more, She could not be sanctified in the moment of Her conception by reason of the sin which is inseparable from conception, then it remains to believe that She was sanctified after She was conceived in the womb of Her mother. This sanctification, if it annihilates sin, makes holy Her birth, but not Her conception. No one is given the right to be conceived in sanctity; only the Lord Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and He alone is holy from His very conception. Excluding Him, it is to all the descendants of Adam that must be referred that which one of them says of himself, both out of a feeling of humility and in acknowledgement of the truth: Behold I was conceived in iniquities (Ps. 50:7). How can one demand that this conception be holy, when it was not the work of the Holy Spirit, not to mention that it came from concupiscence? The Holy Virgin, of course, rejects that glory which, evidently, glorifies sin. She cannot in any way justify a novelty invented in spite of the teaching of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of imprudence, the sister of unbelief, and the daughter of lightmindedness”

Epistle 174