Now I get it. The reason Yahweh told Moses to take his sandles off was because they weren't Reeboks.

I interrupt paper-writing to refer you to a David Brooks editorial that finally sets an urgent record straight.

Gilead

I don't know what one can say for the literary establishment these days, but it should be noted that they gave Pulitzer to the most deserving of books. And for those to whom this fact may be important, the Times liked it too.

This is the kind of novel that leaves one feeling the reality we live in is the fiction, and the one the characters inhabit is real. I can't imagine something much more capable of fueling, for a graduating Seminarian, the conviction that ministry is simply something worth doing. I'm soon to graduate myself, but to more study instead of the pastorate; yet after Gilead I was surprised to find in myself a healthy dose of envy for those of my classmates with parish ministry in store.

Not being an avid enough fiction reader to judge the literary merit of the book, all I can say is that I liked it. But theologically, Gilead is top-shelf. The main character is a pastor that can read Feurbach for appreciation without losing his faith, and Barth for stimulation without weighing down his sermons. His faith is strong enough to not need frenzied defense. He tries to lead his congregation towards mystery, the Christian mystery - as oppose to proofs - and is not a little bit frustrated at the popular radio and television Christianity that foils his attempts.

The denomination that the pastor serves in is never mentioned in the book, an appropriate move seeing that his ministry seems to lay out the humble best of all American Protestant Christianity (at least in its rural form).

And for those well sick of the internecine disputes within that same Protestantism, there is balm in Gilead indeed.

Providence

Had an excellent discussion this week regarding Providence... in which the following thought emerged:

Just as it is heretical to deny the Lordship of Christ (Arianism), so is it heretical to claim to know exactly how that Lordship is composed (Nestorianism, Eutychianism). But of course, you insist.

Ah, but so it may be when considering history: It is certainly "heretical" to deny Providence altogether, but it also may be in a way "heretical" to claim to know exactly how that Providence plays out, or doesn't, in a given situation.

Of course the thought is only useful if one thinks heresy a bad thing.

To put it elsewise: As was clarified below, the apophatic move in theology (and Church history!) can take place - but only after and within the kataphatic move.

That being said, paper-production purposes demand my hibernation yet again. See you in an undisclosed period of time.

Once again it seems Jaroslav Pelikan gets the point.

"Schisms, like divorces, take a long time to develop - and reconciliations take even longer. It will be a celebration of the legacy of Pope John Paul II and an answer to his prayers (and to those of all Christians, beginning with their Lord himself) if the Eastern and Western churches can produce the necessary mixture of charity and sincere effort to continue to work toward the time when they all may be one."

Never would I have thought myself disappointed to get a free lecture from the Teaching Company.