« Nelson Mandela and the Frozen Embryo | Main | KJV RIP? »
July 07, 2006
G_dblog?
We're so used to this kind of thing that it passes right over us--but if it is still possible to discern a taking of the Lord's Name in vain, surely this thing called "Godblog," being held out in California (where else?), and in which we appear to be minor participants, should be recognized as a fine example. In fact, I can imagine few cruder, sportive, light, or commercial ways to use the name of the Creator of heaven and earth than to compound it with the abbreviation for "weblog."
Consider the Jews who do not even write out the Holy Name except as G_d, or use some other locution to avoid pronouncing it! Going overboard because they don't know our Big Buddy and Partner in All Our Schemes in the Sky, are they? Evidence is that they know him better than the godbloggers, who sound like the type that would use the Mona Lisa for target practice or an altar for a salad bar. Except this is worse, much worse.
Posted by S. M. Hutchens at 04:46 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/234392/5271424
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference G_dblog?:
Comments
I agree wholeheartedly - I'd suggest (borrowing from the Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 113) renaming it Vain Jangling Con.
Posted by: Russ | Jul 7, 2006 5:46:48 PM
Wow - that was pretty harsh. "God-bloggers" is in pretty common usage throughout the internet as those . Perhaps you object to the name of God being so tightly associated with an admittidly pedestrian and ugly-sounding word like 'blog'. But is it really blasphemous? Blasphemy
Wow - that was pretty harsh. "God-bloggers" has been in pretty common usage throughout the internet for several years now. And those who claim the term generally do so because they are attempting to bring the light of God (whom they revere) to bear on their online commentary.
You object to the name of God being so closely associated with an admittedly pedestrian and ugly-sounding word like 'blog'. But what makes that association necessarily blasphemous?
Is there something in the idea of blogging that is inherently disrespectful to our Creator? Is it the abbreviation, or lack of a respectful type-space between the words? (Would a “God-focused Bloggers Convention” been spared your ire?)
Or is it a matter of motive? If this be the case, as a close acquaintance of the organizers of GodBlogCon, I can vouch for the fact that the intention for picking that title for their convention was not in any way for purposes crude, sportive, light, or commercial. If you don’t believe me, I’d challenge you to attend the conference, meet the attendees and organizers, and judge for yourself how crude and blasphemous these Californians really are.
Posted by: Shea | Jul 7, 2006 6:26:30 PM
What evidence do either of you have for these assertions? Following the link provided by Dr. Huthcens, the first session at the conference, titled "Blogging as a Winsome Witness" has the following description:
"There is a difference between being passionate about an idea and angrily reacting against an idea – the blogosphere is filled with both of these camps of people. One of the biggest problems of the blogosphere is the tendency of bloggers to “rant” or present their ideas in an angry or bitter way. This kills the possibility of dialogue and makes the angry blogger’s idea seem unacceptable no matter how thoughtful it may be. Melinda Penner from Stand To Reason will speak on methods that bloggers can use to present their ideas, no matter how controversial, with wisdom and character thereby enabling their ideas to be heard, thought about, and discussed." I am not familiar with Ms. Penner's work, but this sounds promising and well within the realm of principles that should command the sympathy of Touchstone readers.
Some of the participants in last years conference, such as JollyBlogger, are quite thoughtful, while others, such as La Shawn Barber, though a bit more feisty, by no means deserve the suggestion that they are barbarians.
It is true that "Godblogging" has an unsophisticated sound to it, but I do not see that that necessarily correlates with disrespect. We should not mistake our own fastidiousness for moral principle. I preferred Touchstone's subtitle when it was "A Journal of Ecumenical Orthodoxy", a somewhat more sophisticated title than its current "Mere Christianity" as well as more descriptive. But the latter is arguably more comfortable to the tongue, and it does not seem that the contents have suffered much under the newer version, so I do not have any grave objection.
The people who participate in conferences such as these are actively engaged in confronting the culture for Christ's sake, and it is hardly inappropriate for them to apply do so under His name.
If anything, "Godblogging" is somewhat too generic for accuracy, but I doubt that many in our culture would mistake it for an Islamic or Buddhist movement, so it serves its purpose.
Posted by: Jack | Jul 7, 2006 6:57:38 PM
Oops. Sorry, Shea. My remarks were directed to the Dr. Hutchens and the previous comment. You evidently type faster than I do ;)
Posted by: Jack | Jul 7, 2006 6:59:59 PM
This raises the larger issue, Dr. Hutchens, of whether the word "dignity" has retained any of its traditional meaning today. I suspect that for most people it has become virtually synonymous with "pomposity."
Posted by: Bill R | Jul 7, 2006 7:00:25 PM
God isn't actually his name.
Posted by: Patrick | Jul 7, 2006 7:33:04 PM
I am a big fan of Touchstone, an Orthodox Christian, and have never thought of myself as taking the Lord's name anything but seriously. My first God Blog paper dealt with Platonism and blogging. . . with a discussion of live versus preserved discourse. It was not Chrysostom, but it was not the stereotype presented here.
In short, the stereotypes of California (home of millions of traditional Christians . . . more I venture than almost any other state) and of blogging in general are not deserved. Dr. Hutchens should remember that Christian (containing Christ) was a put down by Romans adopted by the Church to good purpose. Would he have sniffed at this misuse of the Holy Name of Christ in adopting pagan put downs?
My great books program (sponsor of the conference) is taking on a name used by both critics and friends, like Christian was originally, and trying to make something thoughtful and alive of it.
Posted by: John Mark Reynolds | Jul 7, 2006 9:09:39 PM
A longer take. . . with an offer for Hutchens to attend for free at one of the nasty things, a blog. . .see www.johnmarkreynolds.info.
Posted by: John Reynolds | Jul 7, 2006 9:44:40 PM
It is too bad it couldn't have been something thoughtful to begin with.
Posted by: Joel | Jul 7, 2006 9:47:58 PM
Joel,
I agree. It would be good if the whole world were holy now. . . and thoughtful. We can both work to make our bit of space more that way.
Terms like "godblog" may have started as terms of abuse. . .or marketing. . . or silly web shorthand. . . but they are here to stay and can be transformed just as the very architecture of pagan Rome was made Christian and noble from its very bad start (far worse than mere web crudity).
Posted by: John Mark Reynolds | Jul 7, 2006 9:54:31 PM
I'm curious. Should I not use the word "theology". It is theos and logos combined. Which to a Greek speaker means words about God.
To a 21st century Christian that's what a Godblog is too.
Much more vain things have been said in theology departments about God than in these blogs I imagine.
Or is God only offended by English usage?
Posted by: Patrick | Jul 7, 2006 11:13:49 PM
In the UK, there is a Christian TV channel called "The GOD Channel": http://www.god.tv.
They've even registered the name "GOD" as a trade mark: see http://tinyurl.com/mcjw4. It's registered in the name of "Dream Brands Limited".
Posted by: John H | Jul 8, 2006 4:50:09 AM
What else should we expect from the continent that brought us the "WorshipGod06" conference and the TrueImages Bible among countless other religious trivialities?
Posted by: Ryan | Jul 8, 2006 8:31:33 AM
Well, it seems Dr. Hutchens post seems to have ruffled the feathers of many who have personal/emotional investments in "Godblogs", "God conventions" and the like. Still, he has a point - what about God's Holy Name? Christians should know that God does not mean to us the generalized "god" of the times, but something more - God himself. I just saw a bumper sticker yesterday that read "God is my best friend" and I thought to myself "No He is not! He is your creator, and maybe your redeemer, and the only "friend" you really have, but not "my best friend" in the sense those words usually meant"...
Posted by: Christopher | Jul 8, 2006 10:36:40 AM
I posted something on the God is your best friend line at http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/middlebrow/archives/sniffery-and-our-best-friend/
Posted by: John Mark Reynolds | Jul 8, 2006 11:18:32 AM
It seems to me that the potential offensiveness of the word is that it shoehorns the divine Name into a compound word. Perhaps "God blog" would be less offensive. On the other hand, it is true that theology, theocracy, and theomachy also put the divine Name into a compound word, and, so far as I know, are not considered offensive by any reasonable person.
Posted by: James Kabala | Jul 8, 2006 11:27:10 AM
Sorry: I misremembered the meaning of "theomachy." It means a battle among gods and therefore can only refer to the pagan gods. The word I meant was "theophany," a divine appearance.
Posted by: James Kabala | Jul 8, 2006 11:31:17 AM
I also found it amusing that this post charging blasphemy to those of us involved in GodBlog and attributing lots of other social attitudes having nothing to do with our actual beliefs came on the day my breviary said was the traditional Western feast of Saints Cyril and Methodius. . . who in their own day were sniffed at for using the language of the people to try to communicate the Divine.
As I said in an earlier post, I am a big fan of Hutchens. . .and all this points to the danger of blogging in the faith community. . . and a good reason for Touchstone being a sponsor of a discussion of it at GodBlog 2006.
Thanks Touchstone!
Posted by: John Mark Reynolds | Jul 8, 2006 11:41:41 AM
The strongest criticism of my blog, hinted at by several respondents, would be the accusation that I am in effect a Gnostic, that what I object to is the mixing of the name, and so the person, of God with base elements--that I am fundamentally anti-incarnational. It would not be true; there is no evidence for it, but I have had a number of critics for whom that has never been a bar to criticism.
It should go without saying that I do not view the blog-form as in itself an insult to the Creator, nor is it necessary for me to attend the conference to be shown that lots of very good people are involved, many of whom are doing very good work. That is not the point. And yes indeed, "God-focused Bloggers Convention," while raising the question of just what the organizers mean by "God," would not have set me off to write all these harsh, unreasonable, and unwinsome things about the term "Godblog." In the end, however, what can one say to those who don't see any problems with icons like this? It is like arguing with people who have no intuitive reaction against, who see nothing untoward, or even horrible, in "clown ministry," and will produce all kinds of arguments for it.
The strongest affirmation I have received for my point is from someone who does not agree: "Wow - that was pretty harsh. 'God-bloggers' has been in pretty common usage throughout the internet for several years now." And, of course, there is the chiding for my scolding of all the good, well-intentioned Christians who are involved. The first sentence confirms my initial comment that these things pass right over our heads. We have used this terminology for long enough now that it is sanctified vocabulary--we are inured. (I would not waste my time commenting if I didn't think the people who were doing it were well-intentioned Christians who could see the point.)
Now, if you will excuse me I will return to my work, and my (handsome, useful, and well-intentioned) "caffeinated Christianity" coffee cup.
Friends, we need to pay closer attention to things like this.
Posted by: smh | Jul 8, 2006 12:19:05 PM
Do the words Theology and Christianity bother you as well? You see to have a lot of time on your hands.
Posted by: Guy Arthur Thoms | Jul 8, 2006 6:57:34 PM
Mr. Hutchens offers us the bitter pill of rebuke, rendered slightly more palatable by the recognition of his own complicity (in "caffeinated Christianity").
The retort concerning the etymology of "theology" is interesting, but inadequate on two counts. First, "logos" means more than "words": Its use during the the apostolic and patristic eras connoted the most sublime aspects of rationality, especially philosophy and the pattern of divine causality behind creation. This is in sharp contrast to "blog," an abbreviation for "weblog," itself a reference to the most casual and ephemeral, and usually not well-considered, form of mass communication.
Second, the term "theology" emerged at a point in history when both terms "Theos" and "theoi" were taken seriously, as matters not to be trifled with. People undertaking the work of theology almost inevitably did so with a suitable level of holy fear -- or at least the face-saving pretence of it. This is hardly the case for our generation, neither in the universities nor in the blogs.
Posted by: DGP | Jul 8, 2006 9:24:03 PM
I am amazed at how many commenters seem to miss Dr. Hutchens' point entirely, namely, what does it mean to fear God today? Precisely because I am a Christian, I fear making my religion a hobby.
Posted by: Bill R | Jul 8, 2006 9:59:34 PM
Dr. Hutchens, I could agree with you more. True, God is not His name, but under that logic "G-- D--n" is not taking the Lord's Name in vain, nor it "Oh, my G-d," which has become so common place and accepted that it doesn't even merit giving a moving anything other than a G rating and is nearly ubiquitous on TV and other media. I would much rather give more deference than due than not enough.
Thanks for reminding use that His Name and everything else about Him is holy and how even Christians have become to loose about His holiness.
Posted by: GL | Jul 8, 2006 10:48:40 PM
Godblog = clown ministry? Hmmmm.
I'm more on the side of John Mark Reynolds on this issue than on Dr. Hutchens.
My reaction, taking this discussion, in another direction, is the way some people write God. A Jewish freind of mine always used to write that word as SMH does here - G_d. I found that rather odd, since he was not, in any way, a religious Jew. I've also seen some Christians do the same thing.
My personal take on writing God as G_d: I find it be little more than striking a holier than thou pose. As in, "look at me, I'm so close to the holy that I know I'm not actually supposed to even write G_d."
As one commenter has already written, God is not His name. If Christians really were to adopt that practice, why then do they write out the words Jesus or Christ? Shouldn't they, to be consistent, write those two words as J___s and C____t?
That's my 2 cents.
Posted by: Daniel C | Jul 9, 2006 7:12:36 AM
I share Bill R.'s amazement, and refer to his comment, above. I know that I must not have been too obscure, since some obviously understand what I am saying very well. But my goodness--to what can we attribute the extraordinarily high levels of incomprehension here?
I have tried to think of how to respond to Mr. Thoms' remark that I must have a lot of time on my hands without exploding, and I shall answer thus:
I have twenty-four hours in the day, about seventeen of them waking. They are parcelled out according to my judgment on priorities in the living of a life for which I shall be judged. The Touchstone project is very high on that list, Mere Comments has turned out to be an important part of Touchstone, and I have been asked by my fellow editors to contribute at least one blog a week. If I can find the time, which I often cannot, I prefer to tend the blogs I have written. (I am writing this while eating my lunch on Sunday afternoon, the plate before the keyboard.) But to judge that a man hasn't enough work to do--and announce it publicly--without knowing him, and in complete ignorance of what he has given in exchange for the time he spends writing blogs for Touchstone, which I am told tens of thousands of people read every month, well, that is really extraordinary.
Posted by: smh | Jul 9, 2006 1:34:07 PM
Apparently handling sarcasm isn't one of your better skills.
Godblog or Godblogging is simply the venacular of the day.
I think you are stumbling over something that with your education and capacity to reason, should easily be stepped around.
To me the term Godblog might pass as something related to theology itself, a bit of a synonym. Both are forms of thinking and writing about God and both are appropriate titles.
Theoblogy: internet based theology in blog form. Ya like?
Theology...Theoblogy. Hmmm, in fact I give you that term to coin or anyone who wishes to at this time.
Godblogging to me is about as appropriate as a title as one can use. Blogging (internet writing) about God. What gives?
Maybe it is the way it sounds coming from the lips, Godblogging.
Posted by: Guy Arthur Thomas | Jul 9, 2006 4:27:17 PM
"Godblog or Godblogging is simply the venacular of the day. "
Exactly, which is the point. You do get the point, don't you?
"I think you are stumbling over something that with your education and capacity to reason, should easily be stepped around."
Nope, you don't get the point.
Before you post any more sophmoric sarcasm, try to get the point. It's something that someone with your education and capacity to reason will be able to grasp if you try hard enough...
Posted by: Christopher | Jul 9, 2006 5:10:14 PM
Boy Christopher, I must admit your response was simply overwhelming. You win hands down.
Since the "sophmoric sarcasm" wasn't handled well maybe I should try some freshman sarcasm?
Posted by: Guy Arthur Thomas | Jul 9, 2006 5:19:49 PM
I'm no good at fancy arguments, so I'll simply say that I agree with Dr Hutchens completely. It seems to me that this use of God's name goes along with the trivialization of our faith found in bumper stickers, t-shirts, lousy 'Christian' fiction, etc. Where is the awesomeness and majesty of God in all that? Where is the fear of God that we should all have?
When people I know are true believers (not just pew-warmers), see nothing wrong in using the phrase 'Oh, my G_d' constantly, something important has been lost, and we don't even know it.
Posted by: Kathy B | Jul 9, 2006 8:54:45 PM
The whole idea of using God's name in vain means that we should not use God's name without fully understanding the meaning of what we are saying. That means
"Its use during the the apostolic and patristic eras connoted the most sublime aspects of rationality, especially philosophy and the pattern of divine causality behind creation."
So, the words biology, entymology, psychology, etc. and so on all are used to imply the sublime aspects of rationality, and the pattern of divine causality? Logos did have philosophic meaning but that meaning only is derived from its primarily mundane and common meaning. Theology means speech about God. Godblogs mean blogs (online words) about God. This is not using the name of God in vain, because when they say they are blogging about God, they are in fact blogging about the Creator of heaven and earth. I can't see the "vain" part.
Honoring God does not mean attacking his people for offending your own sheltered sensibilities.
A blog is a collection of words. These specific blogs emphasize their discussion of God. Thus they are theologoi.
This whole conversation reminds me a lot of watching Portugal play in the World Cup. Sure there may be real fouls and big hits, but when a light brush causes a person to take a dive and feign massive injury, it's really hard to take serious after a while.
God, you might remember, is the one who surprised everyone by sending his only son in the form of sinful humanity, making him human among humans, fully man.
I'm sure there would be those who would have words with God about abusing his grandeur in such a way.
Sometimes what is a scandal to the Jews is not a scandal to God. It's embarrassing, to be honest, to see how easily offended sensibilities can be mistaken for offense against God.
Somehow I think he'd much rather have people talking about his greatness and honor and work in this world instead of so-called defenders of his name taking potshots at those whose faith is certainly proven to be real.
Posted by: Patrick | Jul 9, 2006 11:11:33 PM
A man may cry, “My God!” and mean it as a prayer or as a cynical ejaculation. A man may blog about God, but not be a “godblogger.” It is not the term as such to which Dr. Hutchens objects. Rather, it is the attitude of many who may be otherwise unimpeachably orthodox Christians—an attitude devoid of Godly fear. But if we lack this fear, do we truly know the God of the Scriptures, Yahweh, the Great I Am? The cynicism here reminds me of the crucified thief who cried, “If you are the Christ, save yourself!” He was rebuked by his fellow thief: “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence?” Our sentence, praise God, has been suspended, but not our duty to fear God. Christian, do you not fear God? Your salvation by no means frees you of holy fear: before Him you are but dust and ashes. To acknowledge and reverence the holy dignity of God in this careless age requires more courage that most of us seem to have.
Posted by: Bill R | Jul 9, 2006 11:57:58 PM
"To acknowledge and reverence the holy dignity of God in this careless age requires more courage that most of us seem to have."
Real courage means a lot more than sniping at fellow Christians. That sort of activity is called something else, and it is not a noble virtue.
Posted by: Patrick | Jul 10, 2006 12:08:37 AM
Bill, your comment does remind me of the more classical use of the word theologian. As one source puts it, "To be a theologian in the full sense, therefore, presupposes the attainment of the state of stillness and dispassion, itself the concomitant of pure and undistracted prayer, and so requires gifts bestowed on but extremely few persons."
A man may talk about God, and even have an advanced degree which says he can talk very well about God but not be a theologian.
Those who blog about God are not challenging God, as did the thief, they are talking about God, maybe not with the depth of all the meaning the name of God should require, but neither do the vast majority, dare I say now all living, theologians.
There is simply no difference between saying theologian and Godblogger. Mock the one you have to mock the other. I would respect that. Have no Godblog conference, have no theology conference. That's respectable. That's courage. Rail against the word theology as missing the point in making what is a most holy topic into an academic subject. That is fighting against established powers of our world.
Isolating these bloggers is like robbing from the poor. It takes neither courage nor wisdom nor holiness nor honor. Making it seem there is a difference between the two words besides generational usage is little more than a curmudgeonly tantrum.
Make sure not to hit your baseball onto Dr. Hutchens' lawn. He'll steal it and shake his fist at the antics of kids. They're not like the respectable kids of his generation, who led us to this point in our culture.
Sad really, because it distracts from the usual insight and commentary of Touchstone and Mere Comments.
Posted by: Patrick | Jul 10, 2006 12:21:48 AM
We have entered an agora and an era when, mostly because of the internet, talk of God is a subject among subjects, allowing anyone who wishes to self-declare as an Apologist Contending for the Faith, tackling knotty issues with instant aplomb or wrinkled, concerned, embattled forehead. Careerism, commercialism, opinions, assertions, private devotions and revelations abound with God as the subject and a randomly assembled audience as the object. Or vice versa. And my own weblog and fast-draw-comment tendency has not hung back from the fray when I have been so disposed.
It wouldn't have occurred to me initially to have Mr. Hutchens' objections, only a subliminal shudder at the ugliness of the false rhyme of the word in question. But now that I think of it, "God blogging," particularly as an interest group [tote bags? hats? water bottles? bumper stickers?], is moving in the diametrical opposite direction from the discreet and considered and fertile silence of the Fathers and the Saints. Not a much of a recommendation, especially when the most fluent defense is that lots of people are doing it, and many mean well.
I still believe in social capital, transparency, and effective Armies of Davids. But for a stimulus to turn back to the basics in terms of sheltering to honor some of what is so readily spread in public, thanks to SMH. And Fr. Pat Reardon, who saw it so clearly so early.
Posted by: dilys | Jul 10, 2006 12:52:51 AM
"no difference between saying theologian and Godblogger"
Incidentally, Patrick, in the Orthodox tradition it is difficult to imagine a wider divide.
Posted by: dilys | Jul 10, 2006 1:05:43 AM
While I am often is pleasurable agreement with Mr. Hutchens, I am afraid that with this entry he has come off as quite the crank, and one unjustifiably irritated at others who think his argument not quite sound.
I think we all can agree that it is important that we reverence God and his name. But until we stop saying "God" when we complain about others use of it we had better come up with a much better and clearer argument of why specifically "Godblog" is irreverent while "theology" is not irreverent. Merely boldly and baldly asserting it again and accusing others of "not getting the point" seems a rude way to behave as a Christian.
I'm curious. Does Mr Hutchens or any of the editors of Touchstone write "G_d" in their theological articles? Does anyone think they are verging on clown ministry if they don't?
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | Jul 10, 2006 1:38:05 AM
Although Mr. Hutchens seems to have thought that I was criticizing him, I actually agree that the word is discomfiting on a gut level, but (like him, I might add), I have a hard time putting my finger on exactly why. The idea that it forces God into a compound word in a vulgar way is one possible reason, I think, even if Mr. Hutchens himself finds that "anti-incarnational." Another possible reason for my (and Mr. Hutchens's) dislike of the word it is that seems to be hinting that God can be fully encompassed in something as filled with human pride and vanity as a blog, that calling your blog a "Godblog" is a way of saying "I blog God," a way of asserting power and dominion over God and trying to encompass Him within your own limited thoughts and petty blog entries. Or maybe my prejudice against the word doesn't admit of a rational explanation. Unlike Mr. Hutchens, I won't get indignant at those who disagree.
Posted by: James Kabala | Jul 10, 2006 9:05:34 AM
To James Kabala's remarks I'd add (against Patrick) that not all "words" are equal. A "blog" is usually the most spontaneous, least well-considered -- dare I say vainest? -- form of communication. I can be for "theology" in an incarnational manner, and still against the generic term "Godblog" as an excessively flippant approach to religious discourse.
Posted by: DGP | Jul 10, 2006 10:16:11 AM
. A "blog" is usually the most spontaneous, least well-considered -- dare I say vainest? -- form of communication.
Nah, that would be IM. I have not added God to my buddy list. (Though I suppose IM at least has the humility not to leave a lasting record.)
Posted by: Juli | Jul 10, 2006 10:27:44 AM
It was a good question. One that we should always ask. It could have, maybe, been worded better, but why not ask it?
If we aren't reverent about the use of God and His many names, then we have stepped over the line.
Posted by: Nick | Jul 10, 2006 11:14:26 AM
God, who is hidden in his Revelation and revealed in his hiddenness, has been treated among many as "revealed" for so long, and in such a manner, that he has become familiar, the familiar God being no God at all, but an idol. The labor of the evangelist in this field will involve hiding God before the face of men. Only then will they be able to desire him once more.
Posted by: smh | Jul 10, 2006 11:47:40 AM
Patrick: “Real courage means a lot more than sniping at fellow Christians. That sort of activity is called something else, and it is not a noble virtue.”
It’s sad that you see a legitimate criticism as “sniping.” And it’s worse than sad to see your discourteous personal remarks about Dr. Hutchens (“Make sure not to hit your baseball onto Dr. Hutchens' lawn. He'll steal it and shake his fist at the antics of kids. They're not like the respectable kids of his generation, who led us to this point in our culture.”) But it is understandable: in my experience, lack of courtesy and lack of dignity go hand-in-hand. And their lack is neither noble nor virtuous.
Posted by: Bill R | Jul 10, 2006 12:10:52 PM
Aware that contributing to this discussion a few days after the initial exchange is like throwing a suitcase at a train that’s already left the station, I can appreciate Mr. Hutchens’s point. In a day when ministry has been overrun with a half-baked (something being only cooked on one side) teaching on the incarnation focused largely on the human “side” of the hypostatic union, a reminder of the holiness of God should not be quickly spurned.
At one time I espoused a “Why can’t we have communion with Ritz Crackers and Coke?” approach to Christianity. (Note: I’m not saying anyone on this blog has held a similar view.) Over the years, however, after reading a number of books both recent and ancient in which the holiness and “otherness” of God were addressed, I’ve come to realize how philistine I was and still am in my knowledge of God’s holiness. I need to be reminded regularly of God’s holiness.
A memorable essay by C.S. Lewis (which I wish I could locate and quote directly) addressed the tendency for Christians to dismiss events such as coronations and grand ceremonies as mere worldly pomposity. Yet, in Lewis’s mind these events serve the purpose of reminding those present that we are not the center of the universe and that (in contrast to the message of the world) there are certain things larger than ourselves that deserve to be treated with dignity (that’s at least what I took away from the essay.). Whenever I see a verbal circling of the wagons in response to someone bringing up the possibility of our having too casual an approach to God, I’m reminded of Lewis’s observations.
Posted by: Wayne Joubert | Jul 13, 2006 7:35:45 AM
Wayne,
Perhaps you are thinking of chapter 3 in Lewis's Preface to Paradise Lost:
"The modern habit of doing ceremonial things unceremoniously is no proof of humility; rather it proves the offender's inability to forget himself in the rite, and his readiness to spoil for every one else the proper pleasure of ritual."
The above was taken from page 17 of my edition (Oxford UP, 1961).
Posted by: Seth Holler | Jul 14, 2006 9:09:21 AM
Thanks, Seth. It's funny, about six months ago, I read major portions of Lewis's Preface to Paradise Lost; I was enthralled by Paradise Lost (still am), but I had not come across Lewis's book before then. The book I'm thinking of that I read perhaps 10-12 years ago in which Lewis spent a few paragraphs on ceremony was perhaps Christian Reflections or even The Seeing Eye? Do those ring a bell?
Thanks.
Posted by: Wayne Joubert | Jul 14, 2006 10:53:25 AM
Bill, I do not think my remarks were any more discourteous to Dr. Hutchens than his remarks were to those who are sincerely attempting to bring a theological discussion to a new area of discourse. He ends his post with this image referring to these bloggers, "who sound like the type that would use the Mona Lisa for target practice or an altar for a salad bar."
The tone for my comment was set up in the post, and it is this tone which I see as sniping adding to what is indeed genuine criticism. Would you accuse Dr. Hutchens of either a lack of courtesy or a lack of dignity as you are so willing to accuse me? My posts on this forum, while not always in agreement have in fact shown both dignity and courtesy.
I was attempting to get at an image of how I saw this argument. I did not attack Dr. Hutchens capability, denounce his spirituality, or insult his intelligence. I instead was stating my opinion that, in more formal language, Dr. Hutchens is offended because being of an older generation he does not have the same regard for newer approaches to discourse. Blogging is disregarded, even as in many circles to discuss the nature of God in a blog form can be a variously formal exercise.
There are those who write "God is cool and my best friend!" and then there are those who discuss very complicated and profound doctrines in a manner which encourages participation, discussion and development.
However, even with this all being the case if you see me as crossing the line here I do apologize to any offended. I mimicked the tone from the post and that may have been indeed a disrespectful action on my part.
Dilys,
You are certainly right. Orthodox theologians make for elegant reading far outstripping not only blogs but also most everything else published in other media. Blogs, however, are more accessible, can be in fact t-ologicial and give something to those who are not quite ready for the numinous.
Posted by: Patrick Oden | Jul 25, 2006 10:15:12 PM
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004