The Ark and The Dove

Augustine's Newest Homilies

via Pewsitter...

Apparently, some lucky library archivists discovered medieval manuscripts containing six sermons from Augustine.

What to do with "Fitna?"

You've probably heard of the nutty Netherlander Geert Wilders very short film "Fitna."
Some people are saying he made it as a political stunt.
Some people are saying it's hate speech.
I don't think it's going to win any Oscars.
For the most part, it's just a montage of radical Muslims calling for violence and, of course, graphic footage of Islamic terrorists mutilating victims. The hate speeches and images of extremely violent terrorism are all widely available on the Internet already, so there's nothing really new in the film.
That being said, I realized that I had blocked out many of the images that I had already seen.

Apparently, what is getting Wilders in trouble is that each segment of the film is set off with a passage from the Koran calling for the destruction of non-believers. I certainly don't think the film will inspire peaceful negotiations with terrorists, and the connections with the Koran are not going to open a space for friendly dialogue.
Still, it does serve as a poignant (if belabored) reminder of terrorists' barbarity and why the world needs to take a stand against ideologies of hate and violence.

Happy Easter!

No sign of furry neo-pagan fertility gods hopping around depositing pigmented poultry hors d'ouvres yet, but maybe my tapping at the keyboard is scaring him away...

Benedict vs. bin Laden

Bin Laden's latest v-blog apparently contains a rant against the pope, and the Vatican has just released its response.

I find it curious that articles on bin Laden's anti-papistry don't seem to pursue what appear to me as obvious connections. The articles mention bin Laden's hatred for Western free press, and they might mention that the pope has been trying to improve ties with the Middle East, but no one wants to suggest there might be a link between the pope's effective diplomacy and bin Laden's angst.

The pope may well be a far bigger threat to terrorism than the entire United States military because the pope is working in dialogue with Muslim leaders to find a way to alleviate Islamic hatred towards and misinformation about the West. If Muslims learn that Westerners are not occupiers or violent aggressors, then the terrorists will have a much more difficult time recruiting children and teenagers who have been programmed to hate.

And Another Thing...

I had one of those Protestant preachers on the car radio while driving back from Isabel's.

A woman called in and asked him if it was okay to read her children stories that weren't from the Bible and to draw them pictures of non-Biblical figures.
Her example was Winnie the Pooh.
His answer was no, it was not acceptable, and that a good parent would only teach their children stories that would help them understand the Bible.

My three quick responses:
1) Intertextual theory pretty much supports the claim that ANY text can be taught in relation to ANY OTHER text. It seems to me that whatever is true and good in any children's story can be made helpful to Biblical instruction. Furthermore, it makes sense to sharpen our critical techniques and exercise our reading skills on non-Scriptural texts before trying them out on something more serious as adults.

2) In On Christian Doctrine, St. Augustine clearly argues that any body of knowledge can be helpful in interpreting the Bible. He is thinking more specifically about ancient pagan learning as a means of decoding obscure passages, but I would argue that much of what we learn about the world is bound to come from modern secular sources...and that information can still have bearing on our proper understanding of God.

3) Thbbbbbppppt! (that's the closest I can come textually to representing a raspberry.)

Lenten Wrap-up

It's Holy Week, and I'm a little worried about my progress this Lent. As grown-up life has crept up steadily on me, I've found the trivial...and sometimes not quite so trivial...business of material existence creating more and more static.

I'm grateful that I can still recognize the static for what it is.

One tool that I have found useful for at least recognizing where I've fallen short of the mark this Lent has been Charles Williams' The Place of the Lion. My mom stuffed it in my Christmas presents since Williams ran in the Lewis/Tolkien circle, and it's been suggested that Williams leonine imagery had an influence on his companions.

I have about thirty pages left, so I'm not fully prepared to give it the Peter Terp Imprimatur (it's a short book, but, as I mentioned, there's been a lot of static). Nevertheless, I highly recommend the book for anyone who is, has been, or hopes to be involved with graduate studies in the humanities. Almost a hundred years after the fact, and Williams' depiction of Damaris writing a dissertation is still uncanny.

It's hard to say why he's uncanny without giving too much away, but he essentially depicts the destructiveness of separating academic humanities from sincere spirituality...and the danger is on both sides. Isolated from one another, both academic inquiry and faith in the supernatural corrupt those who would pursue them. Both, according to Williams, become exercises in self-reflection and self-aggrandizement, whether through the prestige of publication or alleged power through neo-pagan superstition.

Williams also challenges the reader by showing the dangers of completing separating reason and emotion. A faith based solely on emotion becomes either blind zealotry or complete self-gratification. On the other hand, a faith based solely on reason lacks genuine compassion and empathy. Neither faith is fully effective because the purpose of faith is to put us on the path to God, who is Love.
True love might be an act of the will, but, as Williams' protagonists discover, will is a hybrid of reasoned choice and emotional drive.

If you read the book, you'll see why it's a particularly Lenten reflection, and how it shows the paradox of human intentions. When we attempt to use prestige, power, subtlety, beauty, attention, or even love as stepping stones to our own apotheosis, they become stumbling blocks. It is only when we recognize how those things we want can become stumbling blocks that they become stepping stones to the Divine.

Give it 200%

I was thinking about the theology of Christ's nature being both 100% divine and 100% human today.
If you think of inherent being as a quantitative and mutually exclusive thing, it's easy to see why this would be a problem for some people to get their heads around. Let's say you have an eight ounce can. You can't fill the can with eight ounces of soda AND eight onces of apple juice. A sixteen ounce mixture will not fit in an eight ounce can.
But we could use another model.
If we associate humanity with the physical attribute of being a liquid, and divinity with the sensation of sweetness...we can have both simultaneously exist in the same space. An eight ounce beverage can 100% liquid (barring particulate matter and carbonation) and also perfectly sweet.
In this regard, we can think of ourselves as being a beverage that is perhaps less sweet. We are not 100% divine...but we might have some sweetness in us (and when we sin, we start to go flat).

The New 7 Deadly Sins

The way the news is reporting this reminds me of when Columbia tried to introduce the New Monkees.

Isabel was lamenting CNN's treatment of the document earlier today.

I now firmly believe that CNN stands for Confused News Network.

And, of course, Drudge has linked to two less than inspiring articles on the matter here and here.

Essentially, the idea seems to be to draw awareness of our moral complicity in contemporary sins that we might not think about in terms of moral theology, like unethical bio-engineering, intentional abuse of the environment, unjust trade practices, etc. None of the articles seem to recognize that what makes these mortal sins is the fact that they are particularized manifestations of the deadly sins.

Hate Is not a UMD Value (but Incivility Apparently Is)

I received a letter from the administration yesterday indicating that incivility is at an all time high among faculty on campus. The administration rightly acknowledged that there is no way to enforce civility...but it strongly encouraged us to be civil (which rather reminds me of Swift's Houyhnhnms).
In any event, later that day, I found myself surrounded by five colleagues who were all bashing conservative thinkers.
I remained silent for the duration. I know when I'm outgunned. Besides, I wouldn't want anyone to think I disapproved of their ideology. It might seem uncivil.

Whom Do You Want Welcoming the Troops Home?

By now you might have seen the hubbub over the "Whom do you want to answer the emergency phone at 3:00 AM" campaign ads being run by the Democratic candidates.

Personally, I would like to see a new advertisement:
"Whom do you want to welcome the troops home?"

Think about what kind of speech each of the candidates could give, and what their opening lines might sound like.

One might come off as the following:
"Welcome home, troops. I never thought this war was a good idea. In fact, I voted against it! Your actions caused massive chaos in the middle east and were entirely unnecessary! Really, I could have just flown over myself and handled the whole situation with a nice talk over some tea. Welcome home, and enjoy all the changes we've made while you were gone! You'll hardly recognize the place!"

Another might convey the following sentiment:
"Welcome back to the United States of America, comrades! We all know that you were all simply the victims of a massive government conspiracy...one that I fell prey to myself! So no hard feelings. The problems that you've left behind aren't your fault; we should blame my duplicitous predecessor for all of your comrades who fell in vain! And don't blame me for my party holding back funding for your equipment; it was necessary to risk your comrades' lives in order to prevent them from fulfilling the will of an American tyrant!"

And finally, the other frontrunner might say something like:
"Welcome back to America, soldiers. I know what it means to hear that. I also reckon that I have a good idea of what some of you are feeling right now and some of the questions you might have after this long operation. We've been here before. But, this time, know that the American people and myself have supported you all the way; we'll continue to support you; and we thank you for your brave service."

Or, he might not have to say anything at all. He might just have to look into the eyes of his fellow veterans, and they'll know it the way two people who have been through the same thing can just tell by looking at each other.