Literally Macron.
In one election cycle swept the Presidency and the parliament with a new political party. Completely reshaped the French political landscape.
In the end turned out to be kind of disappointing.
When I'm in spaces like this I sometimes think wistfully about academia ... And then I remember how bad a student and academic I am, and how the theological academy is currently crumbling (and the secular academy isn't far behind).
And, oh yeah, that's right. Going into academia ... Not the move.
I've been doing a short course on critical theory this week for fun — focusing on Axel Honneth's theory of recognition. Great group for the class, really deep discussions, everyone's bringing something different.
Do Trad Caths look at breakfast menus and just say, "ah, the Benedict option."
Think I'm just going to put this essay on my blog.
I'm re-reading an essay I wrote a year and a half ago to stimulate some work I'm doing in my day job. Sometimes (just sometimes) I cook — with massive thanks to Amy Plantinga-Pauw:
In terms of church growth there are two choices:
Counting butts on seats or weighing souls.
It's a lot easier to count butts.
The liturgy should be like Barth's description of doctrine: like a cathedral. It's an open space to explore, not a linear message to receive and digest.
I've spent the last 2 years or so not writing new prayers for worship. Relying almost entirely on authorised resources, and some fan favourites (Gail Ramshaw, Jan Richardson, etc.). It's immensely freeing. And gives back some of the agency to the people to find their own meaning.
In my tradition (Uniting Church in Australia) the homespinning of new prayers each week is connected to the disappearance of ex tempore prayer (despite our Methodist roots), and the move towards didactic worship. The liturgy is used to reinforce the singular theme of the preacher.
At the same time, the assumptions need disrupting.
"I support church engagement and pastoral care."
"Oh, so you're a minister."
"No, I'm not ordained. I've done a few things in the church, and try to bring that to our work."
*them confused*
"So what actually is pastoral care?"
*me confused*
There are lots of times when being a rev would make my life easier. People assume I'm a rev, ask if I'm a rev or pastor. Saying, "yeah." Would be a lot easier than navigating the ambiguity.
Navigating the ambiguity is necessary and important work. It's challenging to disrupt people's assumptions.
The blessing of God
whose mercies are as manna
new each morning
food for the journey.
Broke: worshipping the economy
Woke: worshipping God
Bespoke: worshipping the economic Trinity
Opposing a 3 year transition to compliance for native logging to delay any changes to environmental laws is counter-productive. It will mean more logging for even more time.
#auspol #insiders
The simple binary between project approvals and environmental protection is a very unhelpful contribution to the current policy discussion. +
Sarah Hanson-Young on the new environmental laws, about coal and gas projects: "they'll be getting fast yeses, unless we put them in the slow lane."
Is she suggesting bureaucratic inefficiency is a deliberate policy of the Greens? +
Writing my newsletter for work, and honestly I think I've gotten the Hebrew and Greek to an acceptable amount.
The Liberal party's commitment to extinction at least comes with some integrity, with their clear offer to go first.
#auspol
We don't explain away the Trinity within broader doctrinal apparatus. The cross is factum. Mere fact. It simply is. It may be the only thing that is: the dehumanisation of God that is our salvation. The dehumanisation of God is empirical, that this might be turned to our salvation is the miracle.
In truth the crucifixion is the whole of the Trinity acting in concert. "The judge judged in our place." The Father is the Son, the Spirit is the power of the Father in the Son. The cross is the cypher for the Trinity, not the other way around.
This is part of the other legitimate critique that social trinitarianism lapses easily into tri-theism. On this account the cross is a three actor drama: the father doing to the son by the Spirit.
It then makes the cross subservient to our speculative account of God. And so interprets the cross as mere sign of the deeper truth of the Trinity. The opposite must be true! The Trinity is the sign of the deeper truth of the Cross!
Because axiomatic to the doctrine of the Trinity is: "what we must say about God if Jesus of Nazareth is Christ the Word." Social trinitarianism anchors our understanding of God in a speculative community, and not in the cross.
Setting aside the fact that the economic / immanent distinction isn't ultimately helpful in the first place. The Trinity ought to be anchored in the saving work of Christ: if the crucifixion is a "problem" in light of our doctrine of the Trinity, then our doctrine is wrong.
Because the crucifixion is a rupture of the perfect community — the Father enacts cosmic child abuse. This becomes an essentially necessary interpretation if we accept social trinitarianism.
Also struck by yet more reasons social trinitarianism is not just wrong, but also bad. In setting up the immanent Trinity as a perfect community (and let's not kid ourselves the immanent Trinity is the "real" Trinity — just as the Father is "God God"), the crucifixion becomes impossible.
Also enjoying the jabs at Celtic Christianity. I'm always here for that pile on. (Less so the boogeyman approach to Gnosticism... alas.)
Reading Fleming Rutledge's book on the Crucifixion. Stunning. We're in the deep waters now.
Struck by the idea that what is powerful in the incarnation is not God's becoming human, but precisely God's become de-humanised.
