Over at Conciliar Post, we’ve got a nice collection of short write-ups on the books that some of our writers have been reading. My contributions are included below, but I’d encourage you to check out what else we’re been reading by clicking here. Continue reading
Papa, you reign above all creation, you are beyond my capacity to approach.
Let your power and reign come into our world, into our lives; let your plan and desires become our plans and desires; let our world become as good, true, and beautiful as your paradise.
Bless us beyond our wildest imaginations, Papa; give us and others all that we need and more.
Hold not our wrongs against us; don’t punish us where we go astray—but empower us to live our your mercy, love, compassion, and forgiveness in every aspect of our lives.
Papa, protect and preserve us—save us from sin, death, and the power of the devil; let evil and wickedness have no place or power in our lives.
For yours, Papa, are all good things—all power, all goodness, all majesty, all glory, and all beauty—yours truly are all these things, now and forevermore.
Let all these things be so.
Based on the Lord’s Prayer.
Did God command Israel to commit atrocities when conquering the Promised Land? Does He approve when people go to war in His name? Is the God of the Old Testament truly a homicidal maniac, as some have said?
In The Old Testament Case for Nonviolence, Matthew Curtis Fleischer tackles these questions—and much more—with a thorough and contextual reading of the Old and New Testaments. Fleischer marshals evidence that says no to these queries, at least in a nuanced sense. His chief argument in defense of God’s character is the concept of incremental revelation: that in order to best reveal Himself (in the person of Jesus for the work of the Church), God incrementally revealed His ethical expectations and character throughout the Old and New Testaments. Continue reading
This was unexpected. For weeks, pundits were talking about the flexibility of polling (it looks like the major polls were ~3-4% points off) and the unknowability of the “Silent Trump vote” which came out en masse yesterday. This was yet another election where the experts were off in their predictions enough that it mattered in the end.
Social media matters. The idea that any press is good press undoubtedly assisted President Elect Trump during this election. Election-themed hashtags are here to stay. Additionally, our reliance on social media made it near-impossible to forget that yesterday was election day or who was running. Trump’s traditional “ground game” was non-existent in some places, but his social media furor helped alleviate those concerns. Our country is changing how we communicate and Trump did a solid job embracing that reality.
There are some intriguing parallels to the Obama 2008 election. Both Trump and Obama ran on outsider, change-centered platforms, a possible indication that the electorate really doesn’t really like either party just change. Both candidates offered rhetorically strong campaigns but did not rely much on rhetorical sophistication (“Make America Great Again” and “Hope and Change”). Obama and Trump have also “rewritten” the electoral map (insofar as you can rewrite anything that, by definition, changes constantly and very clearly every four years) in ways that pundits will be digesting and discussing for what will feel like endless election-cycles to come. Continue reading
Between the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) and the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), many controversies erupted from the Alexandrian and Antiochene positions on the person of Christ. The Council of Constantinople (381 AD) condemned the belief of Apollinarius that Christ only had one will, that of the divine. While the Church believed that Christ had a divine will, there was too much scriptural and philosophical support for the position that Christ had a human will as well. How else can one explain Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane, “Not my will, but yours, be done” (Luke 22:42), and other verses that seem to indicate that Christ had a human will? For God to be the redeemer of man, He needed to include full humanity as Irenaeus and Tertullian had emphasized years before. Continue reading
C. S. Lewis once said that if the incarnation happened, “it was the central event in the history of the earth.” What is the incarnation? And why has it been such an important area of theological consideration since the earliest days of Christianity? The term ‘incarnation’ may be defined as “a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or quality.” For the Christian tradition, the man who has been understood as deified has been Jesus of Nazareth; but the Christian claim of Jesus as God, not merely as one who embodied God, historically presented a plethora of questions to the early Christian theologians.
In determining what the incarnation means for Christians, the Early Church Fathers sought to determine more concerning the person Jesus. Maurice Wiles writes that “the heart of Christian faith is the person of Christ and what God has done in him.” The orthodox Christian Church has always professed monotheism based upon the Jewish tradition and the scriptures. Given this monotheistic belief however, the early Church viewed Jesus not as a simple messenger of God, but worshiped Him as the Son of God. This is especially evident in the writing’s of Irenaeus, who refers to Jesus as “the Word, the Son of God.”  Continue reading