On the Virgin Birth

This question was posed:

> it is not necessary to believe in a literal
> virginal conception in order to believe in the Incarnation, which he
> certainly believed in. What do you think?

My answer:

I think that if we were busy about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, providing for those who can't provide for themselves, visiting the prisoners so that they do not despair, preaching the Good News and making disciples of all nations we would be much too tired to worry about where did Jesus get a Y chromosome.

Jesus is God incarnate. By definition we humans are not able to understand how that was accomplished. The issue is not who understood what or when about human conception, genetics etc. Personally, I am sick and tired of people trying to make the Bible be what it is not. Among the things it is not is a science book. We are the creatures, not the Creator and we need to accept the humility that imposes upon us.

The issue is can we trust God to do as He says or said He would? Speaking through Isaiah, God tells us that the messiah will be born of a person variously called a virgin or a young girl. Much has been made over the translation that it may (I can't read Hebrew) say young girl. Personally, I don't see the fuss. At that time any decent young woman would be a virgin until her marriage.

Once upon a time, all new human life was thought to come from women all by themselves without any help from anyone. Then it was figured out that only women who had sex with men had babies. Eventually, the pendulum swung too far the other way and men got all the credit for new life and women were but mere vessels, a field to be ploughed and sown. Such was the understanding in the first century.

As the framers of the Nicene Creed wrestled with elements of what we now call Christology, I am very sure that they too struggled with the idea that a woman who had not known a man sexually could not possibly conceive a child. They weren't stupid, after all. But let us remember that the references in the Creed to the virgin conception, are not made about Mary. They are made about Jesus. Just as calling Mary Theotokos is not a comment about Mary but about Jesus.

I am really a theological minimalist. My definition of orthodox Christianity is this:

-Loving God with all that we are, have or ever will be or have;

-Loving our neighbors as ourselves (which necessarily includes peace, justice, and care of the environment and anything so that people may simply live);

-Baptism and Eucharist;

-belief in every tenet of the Nicene Creed and the doctrines derived from the Creed.

It is my conviction that anything else requires us to reduce God to our finite human able to comprehend and once we do that, we have made Him too small to really be God.

I also think that we Christians have already spent much too much time over the centuries doing things Jesus did not command us to do, like our endless discussions of theology and what did the Bible really means about some passage as a distraction from doing that which the Bible is crystal clear about. We prefer theological discussions because in that manner we can continue to avoid looking at the way we each of us lives our lives in the ways that we think prevent us from feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, providing for those who can't provide for themselves, visiting the prisoners so that they do not despair, preaching the Good News and making disciples of all nations.

Does the Trinity use other religious traditions?

A question was posed:

must
> a human being profess faith in Christ while in this life or else never come
> to the Father, and so be cast into outer darkness or go to hell? Is there no
> way that the Trinity may use other religious traditions to lead those who
> are not Christians to eternal life in God, or is it your view that the
> Trinity does not use these other traditions? and do you believe that those
> who lived prior to Christ's saving ministry are condemned to eternal alienation?

Here is my admittedly limited attempt to answer this question:

At the very beginning of the Bible, we are told that God created humanity in His image and likeness. Among the many implications, one is that every human being has within themselves the innate capacity to respond to God. Because of free will, some chose to respond, others don't.

I don't believe it is given to us us humans to understand all that the Trinity is and does. Athanasius summed it up well in his creed: "Father incomprehensible; Son incomprehensible; Spirit incomprehensible." We know of God through His acts of deliberate self-revelation, we know Him in personal relationship but we can never, in this life, know Him completely or perfectly. God will do as God will do and all we can do is praise, thank Him and rejoice in His love for us.

Jesus does say "I am the way, the truth and the life." He also says that "in my Father's house there are many mansions." Paul tells us that there are those who have never heard the Law lived as though it were engraved upon their hearts. I've always thought that those latter 2 verses when connected to being created in the image and likeness of God meant that there could people who never having even so much as heard the name "Jesus" and who would never have a chance to hear the Gospel, could respond to God and live in relationship with Him and be redeemed and sanctified. But in this day and in the Information Age, it is increasingly unlikely that there are people who not know of Jesus.

A few years ago I read an article in Scientific American about tracing genes or genomes or something and how the further back one goes the gene pool gets smaller and smaller. In that same article there was to me the amazing discovery of what happened to the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel after the Assyrians conquered the Kingdom of Israel and carted those tribes out of Israel. According to this article and genetic studies, a goodly number of them were deposited at various points along the Silk Road.

What has fascinated me the most about this bit of history is that the tribes were hauled away in the 7th century BC and the late 6th century BC we have Confucius, Lao Tze, the Buddha all offering a moral code that is staggeringly similar to that of Judaism. I have heard theories that say the similarity is based on just plain common sense, that the shared moral code is just the way people work best together. And yet, now we know that Jews were placed along the main thoroughfare of that day. I have no way to prove it, I have no idea how to go about proving it, but it is my personal, untested and untestable conviction, that the reason so many of the world's religious traditions have so much in common is because of those 10 Lost Tribes, used by the Holy Spirit as witness to the One True God.

Having acknowledged that there is much the world's religious traditions have in common, we must also acknowledge the ways in which they diverge from Christianity. I think that we ought not minimize those differences. I think we must also closely examine the goals, so to speak and for wont of a better word, of those religions. What Christianity and the the religions share in common can lead to knowing God, but I also think that which is different in those religions will lead people away from Him.

"By their fruits you will know them." There are many people in many religions who do right, live right, love expansively. Will they be saved? It's up to God and only up to God. Something our present age could really use is to reclaim humility and a sense of what it is God asks of each of us individually. It is far better, IMO, to embrace humility and obedience and accept that some questions will not be answered until we stand before the Throne of the Lamb. Once we are there, I daresay all the theological questions which so enthralled us on earth will no longer manner because we will see that the only answer there is ever to be had is the one Job got.

Is Jesus the Only Way?

A question:

must
> a human being profess faith in Christ while in this life or else never come
> to the Father, and so be cast into outer darkness or go to hell? Is there no
> way that the Trinity may use other religious traditions to lead those who
> are not Christians to eternal life in God, or is it your view that the
> Trinity does not use these other traditions? and do you believe that those
> who lived prior to Christ's saving ministry are condemned to eternal alienation?

At the very beginning of the Bible, we are told that God created humanity in His image and likeness. Among the many implications, one is that every human being has within themselves the innate capacity to respond to God. Because of free will, some chose to respond, others don't.

I don't believe it is given to us us humans to understand all that the Trinity is and does. Athanasius summed it up well in his creed: "Father incomprehensible; Son incomprehensible; Spirit incomprehensible." We know of God through His acts of deliberate self-revelation, we know Him in personal relationship but we can never, in this life, know Him completely or perfectly. God will do as God will do and all we can do is praise, thank Him and rejoice in His love for us.

Jesus does say "I am the way, the truth and the life." He also says that "in my Father's house there are many mansions." Paul tells us that there are those who have never heard the Law lived as though it were engraved upon their hearts. I've always thought that those latter 2 verses when connected to being created in the image and likeness of God meant that there could people who never having even so much as heard the name "Jesus" and who would never have a chance to hear the Gospel, could respond to God and live in relationship with Him and be redeemed and sanctified. But in this day and in the Information Age, it is increasingly unlikely that there are people who not know of Jesus.

A few years ago I read an article in Scientific American about tracing genes or genomes or something and how the further back one goes the gene pool gets smaller and smaller. In that same article there was to me the amazing discovery of what happened to the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel after the Assyrians conquered the Kingdom of Israel and carted those tribes out of Israel. According to this article and genetic studies, a goodly number of them were deposited at various points along the Silk Road.

What has fascinated me the most about this bit of history is that the tribes were hauled away in the 7th century BC and the late 6th century BC we have Confucius, Lao Tze, the Buddha all offering a moral code that is staggeringly similar to that of Judaism. I have heard theories that say the similarity is based on just plain common sense, that the shared moral code is just the way people work best together. And yet, now we know that Jews were placed along the main thoroughfare of that day. I have no way to prove it, I have no idea how to go about proving it, but it is my personal, untested and untestable conviction, that the reason so many of the world's religious traditions have so much in common is because of those 10 Lost Tribes, used by the Holy Spirit as witness to the One True God.

Having acknowledged that there is much the world's religious traditions have in common, we must also acknowledge the ways in which they diverge from Christianity. I think that we ought not minimize those differences. I think we must also closely examine the goals, so to speak and for wont of a better word, of those religions. What Christianity and the the religions share in common can lead to knowing God, but I also think that which is different in those religions will lead people away from Him.

"By their fruits you will know them."

Some thoughts on Vocation

Seems to me that if there is one question more than any other i was
asked when i was a kid it it was some form of "what did I want to be
when i grew up?" Also seems that since the question was asked once i
was really old enough to have serious thoughts on the matter, what I
wanted to be when I grew up seemed to influence all the choices that
were mine to make.

I should hope that as Christians we believe all of our choices and
commitments to have a God-given transcendent quality to them, that
they have a faith dimension. And while we may not know which
decisions to make, I think we can safely say that our deepest longings
may well proceed from a developing sense of vocation.

The goal of vocation as i understand it, is transformation by God, our
deification if you will. And by that i don't mean that we become
gods, but that we become the most fully realized individuals it is
possible for us to be. I explain. From the instant of our individual
creation, God implants a spiritualizing direction within our inmost
being, the Imagio Dei. Jer. 20.9 for instance. As he does this, God
consecrates us. We belong to Him from the beginning and are designed
to be completely his at the end. All of us.

When we use the word vocation, sometimes I think we fail to realize
what a comprehensive term it is. I think it refers to 3 separate
'callings' which, similar to the mystery of the Trinity, are 3 inter related
aspects of a complex mystery. These 'callings' are : Who God calls us
to be; How the Lord calls us to become ourselves in Him and What the
Lord calls us to do for God and for others. Or one could also say:
self-identity; lifestyle and mission or ministry. Think of Who, How
and What as 3 intersecting circles and the point of intersection is
vocation. It is also our most truest self, our most true identity.
God desires us to give life, movement and being to that identity, that
our external self we present to the world is as 100% congruent with
our interior self as we can possible achieve, with God's help.

Who: we are called to be fully ourselves; a whole; a person deified
in Father, Son and Holy Spirit; totally realized individuals
transformed by God in participation in God; we may never in this life
know completely who we are; as faith intensifies, we receive an
increasing insight into the 'who'. (Col 1:9 speaks to this, i believe)

How: there are many hows on our spiritual journey such as aspects of
disciple ship ( Jn8:31, 13:35); works of mercy ( Mt. 25-34-40)
implementation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit ( Gal 5: 22). But
there is a special "how" which serves as an all-embracing umbrella of
those other hows: our vocational lifestyle in which God calls us to
personal divinization in the context of a certain way of life. Now,
some lifestyle choices are mutually exclusive, for instance, a person
can't be both married and single at the same time. An apostolic
lifestyle can co-exist with any calling.

What: God brings all of us into this life to do something, accomplish
a mission, somehow make a personal contribution to the body of Christ.
And several missions can co-exist at the same time in the same
person. Fr,. Mike Russell for example, my rector, is simultaneously
husband, father, priest, scholar, bread baker. And ministries or
careers might succeed each other. Fr. Eric Funston used to be a
lawyer and is now a priest.

Vocationally Speaking: who we are, how we are becoming and what we Are
sent to do initiate with God and redound to God. The fact that any of
us exist at all is not merely accidental. That our lifestyle is such
and such is not an arbitrary thing. That we are involved in this or
that mission is not by chance. The Lord chooses us to be unique
persons, to become ourselves in a certain manner and to bear lasting
fruit like that of John 15:16

We can't be our true self in the Lord until we become that person in
the way that God wills and until we do that which God desires of us.

It seems to me that it is impossible to discuss vocation, vocational
discernment and lifelong commitment without discussing the mystery of
God's will. I think of Rom 11:33-34 in this regard.

Here are some basics I believe in: we Christians want to know God's
will and God wants us to know His will so that we can intentionally
and lovingly participate in it. This raises 2 immediate questions:
How does God will and What does God will? I daresay that #1 is
something we don't know, that we are not given to know it and that the
answer lies within the inner life of the Trinity. #2, OTOH, that's a
practical question and has it's answer in the core of our own personal
salvation history. I think of Mt:7:24 and 12:50 here.

That we can think and speak of God only by way of analogy is a
formidable limitation to the discussion of the divine will. At best we
conceive of God in terms of metaphor and similitude. And i suspect
that in every analogy there is more dissimilitude than sameness.
Whatever we say of God expresses some truth but in reality the Lord
infinitely transcends our best attempts at truth.

Anthropomorphism is one of analogical models of imaging God, as if the
Lord were merely human and thinks, speaks and wants as we do. How do
we want? What does it mean for us to will? We set our hearts on
something we deem valuable; we direct our will to its attainment; we
want it when we want it at the time we want it (instant
gratification). Our will can be strong, deliberate, precise, neutral,
arbitrary, vague. We might want something specific done in a
particular manner. Or we might have only a vague general objective in
mind without a care as to how it is accomplished.

With this idea of what it means for us humans to will and some idea of
what is good, better, best, many people or so it seems to me, apply
these judgments and characteristics to God's will. They would say
that God's will is immutable, absolute, uniform and rigorously
determined. This is the classic formula of those who believe this
way: God wills good directly; physical evil only indirectly and He
merely permits evil. This idea of divine will is also the context in
which some people think of predestination, foreknowledge and divine
providence.

But can't there be a more dynamic view of God's will? Instead of a
static, absolutist view, what about one that is evolutionary and
relational? No matter how dynamic a theology of divine will our faith
understanding remains sorely limited due to our finite abilities and
no matter how much we would prefer it to be otherwise, we continue to
speak of God analogically and anthropomorphically. We see through the
glass darkly.

God is both immanent and transcendent. God is both incarnate and
holy. Associated with God's divine transcendence are the
inter-related ideas of God's absoluteness and self-sufficiency.
Absolute in the sense of to be free from all restriction or restraint,
to be independent of anything arbitrary. Self-sufficiency denotes
self-containment, freedom from every contingency. SO...

How from an evolutionary and relational perspective can we preserve
intact God's utter transcendence while at the same time experience
more deeply God's immanence in terms of His receptivity, relativity
and responsiveness to the whole unfolding human situation?

**Western** Trinitarian perspective: The Father knowing Himself from
all eternity generates the Word, His Son. The Father and the Son
loving each other from all eternity spiriate the Holy Spirit. The
Holy Spirit enjoys a special association with God's loving/ willing
rapport with creation. What is this analogy and possibly theology
tell us? The Holy Spirit is viewed as transcendentally relational,
wholly dynamic and extremely elusive and if this is true of the Holy
Spirit then it is also the fundamental qualities of God's will.

SO.... because God's will is transcendentally relational it can be
interrelated with our own use or abuse of freedom. Because God's will
is immanently dynamic, it can be in relationship with our own will.
Because God's will is mysteriously elusive, it may be considerably
more general than many people think.

I stress these qualities in contradistinction to but not necessarily
in contradiction with the classic conceptualization of God's will as
immutable, absolute and specific.