In place of my normal blogging, here is some wonderful stuff to get your teeth into.
- God who Writes Like Dostoevsky by Fred Sanders
- "I hear the words of love2 by Horatius Bonar
- The Secularization of Justification: An Interview with Bishop C. Fitzsimmons-Allison
- Global Abortion Rates by the Economist
- Posts on Rowan Williams by Jason Daniels and Chris Green on Per Crucem ad Lucem
- The Problem with Christus Victor by Mark Galli
Dostoevsky peoples his novels with “characters that speak in their own voices, not merely as mouthpieces for their author.” Zosima speaks his own point of view, which may be right or wrong; Ivan Karamazov argues the devil’s point of view so forcefully that the author seems helpless to silence him. If Dostoevsky were a director of a war movie, one gets the sense he would equip the actors with live ammunition. “What Dostoevsky projects into the world of his works is not a finished plot but unfinished voice ideas.” (p. 330) [incidentally, in my more heretical moments I have pondered whether God writes like Kierkegaard... ask me about it sometime]
I change, He changes not,
The Christ can never die;
His love, not mine, the resting-place,
His truth, not mine, the tie.
logizomai [imputation], is logos - in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. And it's the verb form of logos. And it's not merely that by his action Jesus Christ has made it possible for us to have mercy, but that it's because of what the Logos did - it was the verb, the action of the Logos. I am imputed as righteous even though I am not righteous, and by that wording of me as righteous, I begin to become that kind of righteousness that we see in the second person of the Trinity.
the Archbishop’s theological reflections sound quasi-masochistic. For example, he returns again and again in his work to the idea that the ‘inner readiness to come to judgment’ (OCT, p. 32) is the mark of the true disciple... I would argue, however, that it belongs to a complex of other readinesses that together constitute the form of faithfulness. In other words, openness to judgment is genuinely Christian only insofar as it is wedded to the humble audacity—to take up the S. Bulgakov’s idiom—also to receive blessings and to offer judgments in Christ’s name.
Both [Penal Substitution and Christus Victor] actually include dimensions of personal guilt and victimhood, but as I listen to the discussion today, it seems that Christus Victor highlights our state as victims. Substitutionary atonement focuses on our guilt. In Christus Victor, we are liberated from hostile powers out there. In substitution, we are forgiven, and liberation is from ourselves and our addiction to our sin. Naturally, both models speak to truths of the human condition! And both have nuances worth exploring. But I'm concerned at the rising popularity of Christus Victor when it comes at the expense of substitution.
I've also been think a lot about Luke 7:47:
Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.
If I want to love God more the answer is not to dwell on his essence, but on his action. I say that not because his essence is not essentially important (intentional pun ;-)), but because the way to his essence is his action.
"to know Christ means to know his benefits, and not as they teach to reflect upon his natures" (p. 21f, Philip Melanchthon, Loci Communes 1521 in Melanchthon and Bucer)
