Reblogged from Richard Rohr: Unpacking Paradoxes:

True Christian “traditionalists” must honor the whole Judeo-Christian tradition, and very few actually do. Instead of the wisdom of Judaism>2000 years of Orthodoxy and Catholicism>Protestantism’s many major contributions, they just choose one little part of that full Tradition which they are familiar with. It has been said that most traditionalism is “the dead faith of the living”, just securing yourself now by quoting the past, with little first hand knowledge or experience yourself. True …

This one continues the former comment on conservatism. Worth reading.

Reblogged from Richard Rohr: Unpacking Paradoxes:

Why do I mistrust so much Christian “conservativism”? 1) It usually wants to “conserve” a very recent version of history or Christianity (theirs!) 2) It is almost always tied to money and power, which seems very unlike Jesus. 3) It loves the status quo too much, which is really to love one’s own comfort, security, and status. 4) It seldom loves the poor or the outsider, which Jesus consistently loved. 5) It invariably makes “pevlic issues” the test case instead of what Jesus consistently emphasized: power, …

How right is Fr Rohr here!
And this truth is often illustrated on some of the conservative comments on this blog.

Something worth considering by all those Protestants that struggle with the meaning of the Church.

Reblogged from Ioan Florin. În umbra Crucii celte:

Un prieten din îndepărtatul Fort Augustus îmi scrie zilele trecute și îmi dă de știre că venerabilul Ignatius Bacon este în căutarea unui secretar permanent pentru viitorul centru ortodox de pe Insula Iona. Poate m-ar interesa, glumește el, și adaugă: Iona e în calea furtunilor, după cum știi. Plouă de două ori pe zi și vîntul bate în continuu, iar noaptea se întîmplă să te trezești în zgomotul valurile care se zdrobesc de stînci. Hrana e cam sumară, va trebui să te …

Un text superb despre cel mai frumos loc de pe pamint, mai ales in sensul spiritual al termenului.

The views of Russian author Vladimir Solovyov on socialism and capitalism form the object of a recent article on Acton Institute website.

This may be of interest to you in light of the recent protests in the world, including Romania, against a capitalism without values and compassion.

* * *

In the third book of his work The Justification of the Good, Solovyov focuses on the dignity and infinite, moral potential of every human being, realized in human society. He believed that all social action ought to be limited by morality. Thus, he favored limitations to government power, writing, “[T]he demands of the positive law [of the state] are not absolute but are limited by the natural law which is sanctified by religion….”

In the realm of economics, this leads him to biting criticism of amoral laissez-faire economics and outright condemnation of socialism. According to Solovyov, “To proclaim laissez faire, laissez passer [apart from morality] is to say to society ‘die and decompose.’” The free market, to Solovyov, has no value divorced from morality. With regards to socialism, he writes,

Socialism envies [the rich] and Christianity pities them—pities them because of the obstacles which connection with Mammon puts in the way of moral perfection: it is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. But socialism takes that kingdom itself… to consist in nothing other than wealth, provided it is differently distributed. That which for Christianity is an obstacle, for socialism is an end; if this is not an antithesis, I do not know what else to call by that name.

One might wonder, with all his criticisms, what Solovyov’s political and economic views really were. One commentator has claimed that Solovyov was “an early advocate of… the democratic welfare state” due to Solovyov’s view of the state as “collectively organized compassion.” However, one must not forget that Solovyov would emphasize its moral limits. Indeed, he writes,

[E]veryone should have the means of existence (e.g. clothes and a warm and airy dwelling) and sufficient physical rest secured to him, and… he should also be able to enjoy leisure for the sake of his spiritual development. This and this alone is absolutely essential…; anything above this is from the evil one.

It is clear how far he intends the “collectively organized compassion” of the state to reach. In this he is no more a proponent of the welfare state than Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum. Indeed, after establishing that the state can be a means of morally limiting the market (e.g., by liberating Russia’s serfs), Solovyov cautions, “Reference to this fact does not prejudice the question to the extent to which such regulation may be desirable in the future….” Thus, one ought only cautiously to presume that he would have been for or against any particular, contemporary social program. No doubt, we can be certain that Solovyov’s position would be limited by humanity’s moral potential and innate and inalienable dignity.

Read HERE the entire article.

Sunt sigur ca cei mai multi evanghelici romani n u au auzit de Mark Driscoll sau de Ed Young. Si, sincer sa fiu, n-au pierdut foarte mult. Sunt sigur insa ca multi dintre ei sunt familiari cu cartile despre casatorie si mai ales cu aspectele sexuale ale vietii de familie traduse la noi dupa 1989.

Eu nu sunt dintre cei care considera sexualitatea un subiect tabu. Este evident insa, uitindu-ma la aceste carti, ca exista o obsesie psihanalizabila cu sexualitatatea in evanghelismul american (asa cum un fost prieten al meu, mare promotor – absolut interesat – al conservatorismului fatarnic, este cunoscut pentru predilectia lui pentru glumele cu tenta sexuala, un soi de masturbare verbala, in opinia mea.

Taina casatoriei (ma intreb citi dintre evanghelicii romani au citit cartea cu acest titlu a lui Mike Mason, publicata cu ani in urma de Editura Logos) pare sa fie un subiect mult prea mistic si ezoteric pentru evanghelici.

Asa fiind, lucrurile merg mai departe. Recent, Mark Driscoll, acest playboy al evanghelismului american, a produs, impreuna cu sotia lui, o carte despre (ce altceva decit) sexul in casatorie, in care descrierile grafice si afirmatiile fara perdea (adica indiscrete, cu privire la lucruri care nu au de ce sa iasa din dormitor) abunda. O alta instanta a patologiei psihanalizabile ilustrata mai sus.

Si Driscoll nu este singurul. Ed Young, un alt megastar evanghelic american in cautare de publicitate ieftina a ‘comis’ si el o scamatorie sexuala care a facut sa vuiasca prese. Se vede ca la acesti narcisisti eclesiali scopul zcuza mijloacele.

Deoarece nu am chef sa mai pierd vremea cu asemenea timpenii, va indemn sa va informati singuri, explorind textele din linkurile de mai jos.

Si, vorba lui Neculai Constantin Munteanu, ‘sa auzim mai degraba de bine’.

* * *

The Best Responses to the Driscolls and Youngs

Real Marriage: A Review part 1

Real Marriage: A Review part 2

The Trouble with Ed Young’s Rooftop Sexperiment

Reblogged from B-logoreea:

Deci, urmează un mic fragment din filmul unei/unor sesiuni tipice de navigare pe blogurile de limbă româna în care rolul principal și unic este jucat de subînsemnatul. Deci, primul popas este invariabil persona la care ajung via Bookmarks dacă aveți timp să intrați folosind linkul nu vă va lua timp mult ca să vă faceți o idee despre proprietar; este blogul în care găsesc cele mai multe articole care mă fac curios să merg cu cititul mai departe. Apar și teme care mă atrag mai puțin …

Sam povesteste despre citeva dintre blogurile pe care le viziteaza, din cind in cind. Sper ca va avea si continuare.
Ne este intodeauna de folos sa ne vedem in oglinda celorlalti.

The Internet Monk, also called Dispatches from the Post-Evangelical Wilderness, is a theology blog that I have discovered only recently and with great pleasure.

I invite you to explore it for yourselves.

And, as a teaser, here is a blog post about the ‘coming evangelical collapse’. No, it’s not the typical dooms day text, but something more thoughtful.

Whether you agree or not with the author, I think it is worth weighting his arguments:

1) Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This was a mistake that will have brutal consequences.

2) Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people the evangelical Christian faith in an orthodox form that can take root and survive the secular onslaught.

3) Evangelical churches have now passed into a three part chapter: 1) mega-churches that are consumer driven, 2) churches that are dying and 3) new churches that whose future is dependent on a large number of factors.

4) Despite some very successful developments in the last 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can hold the line in the rising tide of secularism.

5) The deterioration and collapse of the evangelical core will eventually weaken the missional-compassionate work of the evangelical movement.

6) Much of this collapse will come in areas of the country where evangelicals imagine themselves strong. In actual fact, the historic loyalties of the Bible belt will soon be replaced by a de-church culture where religion has meaning as history, not as a vital reality.

7) A major aspect of this collapse will happen because money will not be flowing towards evangelicalism in the same way as before.

* * *

This is the first in a series of 3 articles on this topic. The next two will deal with:

Part 2: What Will Be Left When Evangelicalism Collapses?
Part 3: Is This A Good Thing?

A voyaging ship was wrecked during a storm at sea. Only two of the men on it were able to swim to a small, desert island. The two survivors, not knowing what else to do, agreed that they had no other recourse but to pray to God. To find out whose prayer was more powerful, they agreed to divide the territory between them and stay on opposite sides of the island.

The first thing they prayed for was food. The next morning, the first man saw a fruit-bearing tree on his side of the land, and he was able to eat its fruit. The other man’s parcel of land remained barren. After a week, the first man was lonely and he decided to pray for a wife. The next day, another ship was wrecked, and the only survivor was a woman who swam to his side of the land. On the other side of the island, there was nothing.

Soon the first man prayed for a house, clothes, more food. The next day, like magic, all of these were given to him. However, the second man still had nothing. Finally, the first man prayed for a ship, so that he and his wife could leave the island. In the morning, he found a ship docked at his side of the island. The first man boarded the ship with his wife and decided to leave the second man on the island. He considered the other man unworthy to receive God’s blessings, since none of his prayers had been answered.

As the ship was about to leave, the first man heard a voice from heaven booming,

“Why are you leaving your companion on the island?”

“My blessings are mine alone, since I was the one who prayed for them,” the first man answered. “His prayers were all unanswered and so he does not deserve anything.”

“You are mistaken!” the voice rebuked him. “He had only one prayer, which I answered. If not for that, you would not have received any of my blessings.”

“Tell me,” the first man asked the voice, “what did he pray for that I should owe him anything?”
“He prayed that all your prayers be answered.”

For all we know, our blessings are not the fruits of our prayers alone, but those of others praying for us.

(Thanks to my colleague Jasmina Varupa for this story.)