Coming Clean

… is forgetting that theology is only as good as the relationship with Christ you have and continue to pursue.

How often we forget that and make theology our idol.

Makes sense though … having a perfect theology probably makes you feel a lot more secure than the tenuous ebb and flow, give and receive of earnest relationship. But that’s what Christ calls us to. He went to the cross to give it to us. We ought to be brave enough to stay true to Him in our hearts and lives as we know how before anything else - open to let the rest pour forth.

I doubt that’ll make everyone Catholic - oh, one come hope - but I do imagine it’ll bring us closer if the peoples of the faith can really latch onto that idea.

It’s not a place that we’re destined to. It’s a union to God through Christ; a perfect relationship. That’s something that starts now. It’s not what theology is. Theology informs us how to make it stronger. But so many people have got it backwards - it’s so easy to do because it’s so much easier … probably more comfortable, too.

…but not today. My radio silence of late has been due to trying to get things at home squared away. In terms of office space, that means getting all my hardware and software sorted out, and in the process of that, I decided to undertake a few special but needed projects.

If you visit the Personal link above, that’ll take you to the web server hosted off of my machine at home. There’s probably some kind of bogus rule on my ISP that says I can’t do that for too long - but I doubt I’ll get the kind of traffic that will make them take notice. Anyways … I’ve set up a new blog specifically to cover the Chastain Family experience - something I should probably think and talk about more AND something that Lisa can participate with me in, and hopefully the kids too as they get older. I also set up a new family photo album. I’ve got a few family pictures in it, but it will be growing quickly over the next few weeks. I’ve got something like 500 pictures to sort through and post.

Anyways … so that’s what I’ve been up to. Go check it out!

To get rid of the annoying SQL error message, the annoying “Here Are The PageLinks”, and, much to Roger’s chagrin I’m sure, I’ve modified the Abschicken button.

If there is enough complaints, Abschicken will return.

In my last post concerning original sin, I compared the effects of Adam’s sin to being like Adam breaking his leg and giving himself a black eye, doing so against the commands of God. Because of that, we are all now born with broken legs and black eyes. It’s not our fault; it’s really nothing that God did; it’s just the way we are because of what Adam and Eve did.

The baseline confusion / addition to the theology of original sin that was developed by the Protestants during the Reformation was changing original sin from a state of no fault into a proper, personal sin. Before the Reformation, it was taught that we just showed up in this world with black eyes and broken legs because of Adam’s sin and the consequent disgrace of mankind. The Protestants during the Reformation, however, said that isn’t quite right. The Protestants said that we are properly responsible for our blackeyes and broken legs. Essentially, it’s like saying that as soon as our little fetal bodies develop arms in the womb, then we start beating away at our eyes and our legs so that by the time we have arrived in the world we have done the damage to ourselves - we each have personally gone against God, we each have sinned.

This is an important development because it says that sin dominates our nature whereas before sin was an inevitability of our nature.

Consider the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Question 25: Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?

Answer: The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.

Compare that to the current Catechism of the Catholic Church:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

The real difference between these two visions of original sin is the role of concupiscience - the inclination towards evil. Prior to the Reformation, concupiscience was not held to be sinful in itself though certainly a product of sin - mankind’s corporate sin, Original Sin, to be precise. Nor was concupiscience’s dominion over the indivual considered total. Rather it was considered inevitable and ever present and the arena of all spiritual warfare. The Reformers then added that concupiscience is not only of sin but is properly a contracted sin in all men. In other words, Protestants believe that each man is guilty of sin because of his inclination towards sin - that wayward desires, regardless of how fleeting they may be and how they are responded to, are proper moral faults in each man. And in all things, in all times, man is always inclined to sin - and thus are sinning.

The simplest illustration I can think of to describe these two competing visions of human nature is through the idea of reconciliation. I’ve read elsewhere that:

The word “Reconciliation” is split up into: “Re / con / cilia / tion” which means literally: “again / together / hair / act of”. The reference to hair is a reference to eye lashes. Reconciliation is the act of bringing your eye lashes back together with the eye lashes of God, that is, to see eye-to-eye with God.

I pulled it from this website, though I’ve heard it elsewhere before.

In the Catholic understanding, mankind has turned its back on God and in doing so lost the eye-to-eye relationship that it needs for proper living though God’s position as far as His commitment and desire for mankind and each individual man has not changed. In the Protestant understanding, God in effect also turns His back on mankind because in each and every man He sees not a lost soul but the sin of Adam.

The sum effect is to produce two different economies of salvation. Both economies agree that God’s grace is in short demand. But one economy says that God’s grace is in abundant supply and the other says that God’s grace is in an as-needed supply. And that’s a topic for a later post.

This is a picture from a day hike Josh and I took over the summer. It was to the top of Kennesaw Mountain and back down. Josh walked the 1+ mile all the way to the top of the mountain by himself. We only had to take one break on that climb, and this picture is from that break.

There’s a number of things to note. First is the backpack. This is traditionally Josh’s mode of transportation for these types of excursions. This trip was a first in that he made it all the way through the first leg of the journey without need of this backpack nor Daddy’s arms.

Second is the little red dog. The little red dog is actually a doll of Clifford, the Big Red Dog. Josh likes Clifford a lot, but Clifford has been known to wind up on the ground during the various family excursions. Josh was carrying Clifford on this particular excursion, and Clifford was not dropped once.

Finally the water bottle. What you don’t see is that I had a sippy cup for Josh to use, and I prepared it for him at the beginning of the little break we’re having here. Josh however saw my larger water bottles and would have nothing short of his own larger water bottle. It was kinda funny watching slugging that water bottle back. The day was so warm/hot, neither I nor he particularly minded that it went places other than his mouth - namely down his neck and front.

At the top of the mountain, Josh and I feasted on fruit, cheese, and crackers - and lots of more water. Afterwards, Josh climbed into the back pack, and we headed back home. On the car ride to home, Josh fell asleep and took a big nap.

Josh had such a good day that day that I wanted to show him off. So a week or two later, we took a family trip back to the mountain and invited the Hollandseses along. Suffice it to say that Josh did not do as well that day. In fact, he and I had to split off from the rest of the group to have a little “discussion” about the temper tantrum he was throwing. Ah the life of the 2 and a half year old. It is so tempermentally unpredictable. The good moments are really good. And the not so good moments have a tendency to really not be such good moments. The good moments more than make up for it - as you can see, there’s much more to my recollection of our good trip over the bad.