Co-ops

Seven principles of co-ops:

1. Voluntary and Open Membership
2. Democratic Member Control
3. Member Economic Participation
4. Autonomy and Independence
5. Education
6. Cooperation among Cooperatives
7. Concern for Community

This is fundamentally the same thing I am trying to accomplish with the Community of Solitude:

1. If you believe in what we believe then join us!
2. We have no "one head" but rather a council which is duly elected and who rotates.
3. In our case it means tithe to your church.
4. Yes - that is what Solitary is all about.
5. We have a strong and organized formation program to keep everyone challenged at all levels
6. I guess we call that 'charity' or 'love'
7. And finally - through our silence we go deep into our 'cells' - that is our ZIP code, and engage all we meet in a prayerful way.

I like this.

Free will

An interesting study on free will reported on SciAm (see here) gives an even more interesting result: "after people are made skeptical of free will, they cheat more."

This has some theological implications. A few questions that immediately spring to mind are: do double-predestination Calvinists cheat more? Are Open Theism advocates more ethical? Are Compatibilists able to cheat without getting caught?

This questions are only partially in jest. It seems to me that the free-will debate will never be successfully questioned/explained until we have some agreed-upon definitions of what freedom is, what is the will, and what is free-will. We probably need to answer what is determinism, predestination. We also need to think deeply about destiny, teleology, and the role of unidirectional time (i.e. the flow of history fro past to future) in the individual actions. Oh yeah, and we have to define agent, individual, and perhaps even choice!

Sounds like a cop out but in fact these questions are important. Jesus came to save me. Now which 'me' is that? Was it a choice Jesus made pre-incarnation? Did he then have no free-will during the incarnation? And on and on.

The question of free-will/predestination has to hover over the Crucifixion and Resurrection, like the Spirit over the waters.

And our minds must stay there for a while too, asking over and over not 'why' did Jesus die for me, that's obvious, but rather ask what 'me' did he die for? I.e. 'who' did He die for?

The first question asked of those who suddenly find depth in their lives is "Why am I here?". Later on they graduate to "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Eventually, if they persist long enough they will begin asking "Who?" not 'why'. "Who is at the center of it all? Who brought existence into being? Who?" A much deeper question.

And when we get into the Who question, then we also turn to look at who we are - are we some sort f self-contained monad? Are we porous like a sponge? Perhaps my self is just an epiphenomenon? A strange attractor for multiple time data - sensory, historical, etc.

These are not trivial questions. When we look into this darkness, what do we see?

Keep looking, the eyes may never get used to the total darkness, but there may be a Light....for in your Light we see light (Ps. 36)

Love is not loved

Love is not loved

I am barely opening Francis' nugget
So simple really. And further: everything loves. Everything.
Sure sometimes we misplace it, like a sock in the wrong drawer;
At times we lose sight of it, like a locket that falls behind
A heavy dresser; and at times we throw it away thinking it trash,
Like that important phone number crumpled

How long ago when I saw, felt, knew that the whole of every thing
every little thing
Was a cooperative. The universe cooperates.
Not just operates, like a machine, but instead is aware and
Helps each other out to the best of its ability

As last night the moon helped me in my sleeplessness
And this afternoon the wind kept our lips cool and moist
The car filled with desire and soft afternoon breeze

And love - a word I tread through carefully, a minefield, a bog
But Love, that is the rule and warrant of all cooperation
It is a voluntary reaching out

Everything loves, and cooperates
And lovers we all are, united, saint and sinner, lost and found
Into God's Heart

Domine Iesu, noverim me, noverim te

St. Augustine (354-430)

Lord Jesus, let me know myself, know You.
Let me desire nothing but You.
Let me hate myself, love You.
Let me do everything for Your sake.
Let me humble myself, exalt You.
Let me think of nothing but You.
Let me die to myself, live in You.
Let me accept whatever happens as from You.
Let me banish myself, follow You,
And ever desire to follow You.
Let me flee from myself, take refuge in You,
That I may deserve to be defended by You.
Let me fear myself, fear You,
And let me be among Your elect.
Let me distrust myself, trust You.
Let me obey for Your sake.
Let nothing affect me but You,
And let me be poor for You.
Look upon me, that I may love You.
Call me that I may see You,
And for ever enjoy You. Amen.

[Original text]

Domine Iesu, noverim me, noverim te,
Nec aliquid cupiam nisi te.
Oderim me et amem te.
Omnia agam propter te.
Humilem me, exaltem te.
Nihil cogitem nisi te.
Mortificem me et vivam in te.
Quaecumque eveniant accipiam a te.
Persequar me, sequar te,
Semerque optem sequi te.
Fugiam me, confugiam ad te,
Ut merear defendi a te.
Timeam mihi, timeam te,
Et sim inter electos a te.
Diffidam mihi, fidam in te.
Obedire velim propter te.
Ad nihil afficiar nisi ad te,
Et pauper sim propter te.
Aspice me, ut diligam te.
Voca me, ut videam te,
Et in aeternum fruar te. Amen.

Athanasian Creed (Quicumque vult)

It appears that the Creed named to the learned Doctor from Alexandria was not really from his pen, though as the champion of the Trinity he would probably have approved.

It opens its labyrinthine passages in a most clear way bu defining the whole teaching of the Church: "This is what the catholic faith teaches: we worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity." This is what the faith teaches: worship. And not just any worship, but the worship of the one true God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Some background

Even though the opening is auspiciously clear, we are almost immediately thrown into the whorls of a complex Creed. Before we get lost, we should pause and take a look at the context of the writing. First, scholars are fairly certain the Creed was written around the 5th century in the region of Gaul (Western France). There are many similarities in style with the writings that came form that area at that time especially of St. Vincent of Lerins. This should help us understand the textual context of the piece, for everyone writes within a certain historical context, either in harmony with it or in revolt against it. But always in conversation with the main themes, motifs and topics of the time.

Next, the teachings of the Creed match those that came from the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcendon. Just like the Nicene Creed came from the Council of Nicea-Constantinople, and was a summation of the work of those Councils. The Creeds therefore were a sort of pill, when few people could read, and very few manuscripts were available, it was nice to have it all summed up in a Creed which would encapsulate the nuanced theological debates in an easy to memorize (and teach) formula. An important caveat: the Quicumque was not the work of those councils, it came later. The Nicene Creed itself was a work of the Councils. If we wanted to put weight to each I would say the Nicene Creed carries more weight.

One more thing, looking at the art from that time we see a predominance of what I would call "celtic motifs" - lots of spirals, and curves, and circular shapes. Clearly a culture which was familiar with ideas of circularity, repetition - indeed, one which found such things beautiful.

Finally, the Creed would be concerned with stopping the spread of heresy. This Creed is potent medicine against Arianism (which was being brought into Europe with the gothic invasions) as well as Nestorianism. A quick recap: Arianism did not believe the Sn was equal to the Father, but rather that he was a creature. Te Son, the Logos, was the first Creature and through Him all others were created, but He was also creator, and not Creator. Nestorianism posited two persons: Jesus and the Logos - this is different than saying the Jesus was one person with both a human and a divine substance. We need not concern ourselves with drawing out the implications of both these errors. Suffice to say they are errors, and when thought through they have profound implications for all things relating to the work of Christ, His sacrifice, and our redemption.

Ok. Having a little bit of background gives us better footing when dealing with the Quicumque vult. We should expect a teaching which would 'inoculate' the believer against various Christological heresies; that this teaching be full of circular references to appeal to a Gallic audience; and that it serve as a summary of the work done in recent Ecumenical Councils.

Persons and substances

In Latin (as in Greek) there were some technical terms which lose some of their significance when translated into modern English. 'Person' is one of those. For us a person is an individual, two persons mean two individuals. They are separate physically, mentally, spiritually even. A person, in this sense, is the smallest unit of being. This is not what is meant by person in the Creed (or in any Latin text). So the three persons of the Trinity are not three separate gods. Some people trying to avoid the idea of three gods, then fall into another error - of thinking that it is one God with three types of expression (three modes). A famous example is to think of God like the Sun. There is one Sun, but we can see it, we can feel its heat, and we can see its light. So three 'things' (three modes) of one thing. But that is also incorrect (and there are theological reasons for not going down that road either). What are we left with? Well, in short, a mystery! The Trinity of persons is a real, objective, eternal distinction (not division) within the Being of God Himself. And yet there is only one God. Put it this way if we could scan God we would find no divisions, no cracks, no splits. Just one God. And yet if we asked God God would use plural forms to describe Himself and His internal activities. So three but only one.

How about substance? The better translation in modern English would be a word like 'essence' or 'being'.

A writer in the 5th century would write: "To a lawyer a 'person' is a theoretical owner of rights and property; 'substance' is the aggregate of rights and property."

So three persons, one substance. In modern English it might make more sense to say three substances, one being.

The Creed

The Creed is roughly divided into two parts. The first (and longer) part goes over and over the various attributes of the Godhead, making sure each Person is labeled as such, and then always repeating "but they are one not three". It seems repetitive, but it is rather exhaustive (and some say exhausting!).

The first part ends with the words: "He, therefore, who wishes to be saved, must believe thus about the Trinity." True belief has always been of fundamental importance to the Church. Paul uses up much ink and papyrus to ensure proper belief. You see, works are much easier to be cataloged, judged, and corrected. If you feed someone who is starving there are not many ways to do ti wrong. But beliefs are more slippery. How can I judge your beliefs? Or in more contemporary terms we can ask the question this way: I can see your good actions but how do I know you had good intentions? The Creeds help us to ensure our intentions are properly calibrated.

The second part then brings together the ideas from the first and applies them to work of Jesus. It is a rather nice way to bring everything back together. It points out some of the dangers of not holding on to the proper belief.

It then ends, once more, with a warning: "Those who have done good deeds will go into eternal life; those who have done evil will go into the everlasting fire." This is just an echo of the teaching of Jesus who said: ""Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life." (John 5:24). And also said "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire." (Matt. 18:8).

For an in-depth study of the Creed go here: http://www.katapi.org.uk/CreedsIntro/Ch6.htm

If you read this blog - pat yourself in the back....

Movie Reviews