Theology, Ethics, and Spirituality centered on the Trinity and Incarnation, experienced through Theosis, in Sacramental Life, leading to Apokatastasis, explored in maximally inclusive ways. And other random stuff.
I love "world building" science fiction: The kind where a big sprawling universe is created which includes all kinds of details about the history, culture, sociology, religion, economics, and politics of future society. One frequent form of future society that particularly interests me is a kind of "technological monarchy" which you can find in works such as "The Mote in God's Eye" and Peter Hamilton's "The Night's Dawn Trilogy". This is not a Star Trek style galactic republic, nor a Star Wars style Evil Empire. Rather, it is a form of society that combines monarchy (and often a "State Church") with forms of representative government, with advanced technology, with religious and cultural pluralism, with free market economics, with various socialist policies, to create something really different. Could anything like this ever exist? Could there be a coherent ideology to hold such a system together? Let's see if we can develop a thought experiment to put together a sympathetic worldview which might make this possible.
In the school where I am chaplain, two of the skills we try to teach students are: First, how to build an evidence-based argument, and second, how to present the view you hold without demeaning or belittling those who disagree. This is especially true with controversial subjects that people hold strong opinions on. Since we give feedback about this so often, to so many of our students, I thought I would create an example of a controversial, evidence-based argument, which was presented in a way that sought to include even those who disagree with my conclusion. And voila: This sermon was born. The texts read before this sermon included: Psalm 19.1-9; Acts 17.27-28; Romans 1.19-20; 1John 4.7-16. As we continue our journey through Epiphany, the season when Christ's Light shines on ALL kids of people, through ALL kinds of experiences, I wanted to challenge you a little today about HOW we see God's Light. And this challenge comes from a question I frequently get asked, and that I was asked again last week. The question goes something like this: "Fr. Nate, you seem like a smart guy. How come you still believe in God?"
It has been years since I have read through the Hebrew prophets continuously. On this read through it strikes me that the “standard” American interpretation of these texts is almost perfectly engineered to get people to miss the point of the prophets. (Engineered by whom or what? This is a great question!) This “standard” interpretation is to treat the prophets as some cryptic road map to a mythic future “end times” scenario. This places our attention in the future, rather than God’s action, and our responsibility, in the present.
Recently, a very thoughtful Roman Catholic student of mine asked me the following questions: "What do you think about the changes [in the Lord's Prayer] Pope Francis plans to implement? Will TMI be adopting the changes, or will TMI not? Is there a centralized Episcopal authority that decides things like that, or does it depend on the Priest/Pastor?" In response, I sent him the following essay, in addition to the video posted above, which is a fairly good, basic level summary of the proposed "change". And it is important to note that while this "change" does involve altering the words, it does not actually change the meaning of the text, but actually better brings out the intended nuance Jesus almost certainly meant when he originally taught the prayer. But, before we get to that, we need to look at the diversity of translations of the Lord's Prayer.
When teaching Introduction to Philosophy, we often end with a discussion of the "Masters of Suspicion": Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche. These thinkers mark the so-called "Interpretive Turn" (or "Hermeneutic Turn") into what is often called "Postmodern" Philosophy*. What this means is that ideas and beliefs are no longer what they seem to be about, but must be interpreted to see what values or commitments are REALLY motivating these convictions. All three of these "Masters of Suspicion" insisted that surface readings of our ideologies-- ideas about God, ethics, beauty, social order-- missed the true deep intent of the discussion. The deep, structural insight is this: Our ideas are always about something other than what we represent them as:
Recently I've started practicing what is called "passage meditation". This is where you take a short chunk of Scripture and repeat it prayerfully over and over for a period of time, until it is driven deep into your consciousness, and it becomes a kind of prayer or mantra for you. It is based on ideas such as this: Psalms 119.11 I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you. How does one hide the word of God in your heart? While there may be many methods, one sure fire recipe that has been used across time, across cultures, and across religions is this: Mindful, committed, intentional, repetition. Repetition. Repetition. When we repeat something over and over again intentionally, it will bubble up later in daily life, in stressful situations, and even in dreams.
A Sermon for Christ the King Sunday 2018. Based on Romans 6 and John 18:33-37. Today is Christ the King Sunday. And in a democratic culture where we have no King, where we are free to pursue anything we can imagine, and purchase anything our heart desires, it can be hard to wrap our minds around what it means to think of Christ as OUR King. So, to help us wrap our minds around Jesus Christ as the King of kings and Lord of lords, I would like to begin with a story:
