RUaHeretic 3/3
Monatism, Mormonism and Revelation
Is God still speaking?

Our third and final session in our RUaHeretic Conversation Class at Fruitvale Presbyterian Church takes places this Wednesday, December 19th from 3-4:30pm.

This time we're talking about Monatism, Mormonism and God's Revelation.

Here's a few resources to help you discover what those words mean and discern where you are on the spectrum of faith:

1. Here's a tongue-in-cheek survey you can take on quizfarm.com entitled "Are you a Mormon?
" (HERE)

2. Monatism: It was judged to be a heresey in the early church, even though some of the big-wigs of orthodoxy embraced and supported it (showing the diversity present then and now in the discernement of the church body) In the mid-2nd-century Montanus traveled trough Asia Minor. He believed that he had received a series of revelations from the Holy Spirit, and even that he himself was the embodiment of the Paraclete on earth (John 14:16). He was followed and joined by two women, Prisca, sometimes called Priscilla, and Maximilla, who claimed the same special revelation and spiritual authority. Their militant belief in the continuing revelation of God split the church.

So what's the big deal you say? Here's a list of the major differences between Monatism and what came to be called "orthodox" Christianity:

The beliefs of Montanism contrasted with orthodox Christianity in the following ways:

• The belief that the prophecies of the Montanists superseded and fulfilled the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles.

• The encouragement of ecstatic prophesying, contrasting with the more sober and disciplined approach to theology dominant in orthodox Christianity at the time and since.

• The view that Christians who fell from grace could not be redeemed, also in contrast to the orthodox Christian view that contrition could lead to a sinner's restoration to the church.

• The prophets of Montanism did not speak as messengers of God: "Thus saith the Lord," but rather described themselves as possessed by God, and spoke in his person. "I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete," said Montanus (Didymus, De Trinitate, III, xli); This possession by a spirit, which spoke while the prophet was incapable of resisting, is described by the spirit of Montanus: "Behold the man is like a lyre, and I dart like the plectrum. The man sleeps, and I am awake" (Epiphanius, "Panarion", xlviii, 4).

• A stronger emphasis on the avoidance of sin and church discipline than in orthodox Christianity. They emphasized chastity, including forbidding remarriage.

• Some of the Montanists were also "Quartodeciman" ("fourteeners"), preferring to celebrate Easter on the Hebrew calendar date of 14 Nisan, regardless of what day of the week it landed on. The orthodoxy held that Easter should be commemorated on the Sunday following 14 Nisan. (Trevett 1996:202)

Jerome and other church leaders claimed that the Montanists of their own day held the belief that the Trinity consisted of only a single person, similar to Sabellianism, as opposed to the orthodox view that the Trinity is one God of three persons which Tertullian also had held. There were some that were indeed modalistic monarchians (Sabellians) and some that were closer to the Trinitarian doctrine. It is reported that these modalists baptized mentioning the name of Jesus Christ as opposed to mentioning the Trinity. Most of the later Montanists were of the modalistic camp

3. Mormonism: the term used to describe the practice, doctrine and organization of the CLDS of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. Mormonism is commonly considered to be the fastest growing religion on our planet today. It's based upon the leading and teaching of Joseph Smith, Jr. who claimed to have discovered some ancient, long-lost, scriptures which revealed that Christ has also come and taught in the New World after his resurrection in Jerusalem.

Mormons teach that the Gospel of Christ has existed since the days of Adam and Eve, and that throughout history a series of apostasies have occurred, always followed by a restoration; meaning that the doctrine taught by the LDS Church was on the Earth throughout history, but at some points was lost and later restored again. Mormons teach that one such apostasy occurred after the death of Saint Peter and the other original twelve apostles, and that the calling of Joseph Smith, Jr. marked a new restoration continued to this day.^{[citation needed]}

The publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, in Palmyra, New York, aroused great animosity among Protestants. Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon is holy scripture and, as another testament of Jesus Christ, a companion to the Bible. Some of the Mormons' practices and political clout in Ohio, Missouri and Illinois also contributed to early animosity. Mormonism's greatest conflict with other branches of Christianity has been over the issues of traditional views of Christ, additions to the scriptural canon and plural marriage (a form of polygamy, wherein a man can marry multiple wives, that was officially discontinued by the LDS Church in 1890).

4. Discussion Questions:
Some say that Mormons are not Christians because they believe in a new (although they consider it an old or original) revelation from God. The Monatists were judged as heretics because of many things, in particular their insistence upon new revelations from God and them being them.

The Methodists use a catching slogan these days, "God is still speaking" emphasizing that the revelation of the Bible ends with a comma and not a period. I'd agree. What is God saying about the debates and discussions characterizing the church today: sexuality, ordination, pluralism, how we read the Bible, and Christology. But how do we discern what is a revelation from God and what isn't? How do you do? How does the church do it?

The Golden Compass

More Online Resources and Conversations

I'm enjoying the discussion about the Golden Compass on the blog and elsewhere in the world of communication.

I just listened to a great interview with Phillip Pullman on 94.1 kpfa.org. Looking for it online at at the moment. I think you can find it in the archives here (http://bookwaves.homestead.com/) Thanks Lisa!

Also a friend sent me a link to a Christian Website - that's usually quite thougthful - with this week's major discussion about the film. http://www.tothesource.org/12_11_2007/12_11_2007.htm

Here's also the link to the official movie home page
http://www.goldencompassmovie.com/ (cool graphics and more goodies)

RUaHeretic:: 2/3

how is Jesus both divine & human?

donatism & the virgin birth

We're talking more today in our RUaHeretic discussion at church about faith, orthodoxy, and heresy. How are we to understand that Jesus of Nazareth is both divine and human? Is that why Mary had to be a virgin mom? What about the doctrine of Immaculate Conception? Does Mary have to be born to a virgin mother (Anne) in order to become a virigin mom? Can you still be a follower of Jesus if you struggle with the whole concept of the Virign birth? What's it all mean? How is it all related? Can we pick and choose what we believe, or is that merely syncretism disguised as personal authenticity or scientific political-correctedness?

Donatism was a heresy in the ancient church. They (named for the Berber Christian Donatus Magnus) were followers of a belief considered a schism by the broader churches of the Catholic tradition, and most particularly within the context of the religious milieu of the provinces of Roman North Africa in Late Antiquity. They lived in the Roman province of Africa and flourished in the fourth and fifth centuries.The primary disagreement between Donatists and the rest of the early Christian church was over the treatment of those who renounced their faith during the persecution of Roman emperor Diocletian (303–305), a disagreement that had implications both for the Church's understanding of the Sacrament of Penance and of the other sacraments in general.
The rest of the Church was far more forgiving of these people than the Donatists were. The Donatists refused to accept the sacraments and spiritual authority of the priests and bishops who had fallen away from the faith during the persecution.

Here's another fun online "Are you a heretic?" quiz from Quizfarm.com [Quiz] It has to do with Donatism. In our discussion today then we're comparing Donatism and belief - or the increasingly lack there of in the Virgin Birth in our modern culture/society.

The Question then for us today in terms of the Virgin Birth and our study of Heresy:

1. Is a Follower of Jesus who doesn’t uphold the virgin birth still a Christian?

2. If a pastor/priest/bishop who doesn’t believe in the Virgin Birth baptizes you, do you need to be rebaptized by one that does?

3. If a pastor/priest/bishop who doesn’t believe in the Virgin Birth serve you communion, is it communion – or just bread and juice?

If you're up for it, post your quiz score, and any perspective on these questions on the blog and continue the coversation in the Comments section below.

The Golden Compass

With all the faxes and emails I've received in the past weeks (and this past Sunday morning) I thought I'd check out the Golden Compass myself to see if I think it an aethiezing force. (Read my former blog entry on this HEREl.

This Movie will NOT make your child into an atheist (in my humble opinon).

This Movie WILL convince your child that violence is not only an appropriate answer to solve conflict but also the only and best one.

If you're going to the Movies this weekend, wondering if you should see it or not: I'd suggest seeing Atonement instead.

I wouldn't take my daughters to see it because of the violence. A bear's face is ripped off and flies across the field. Hundreds of people are stabbed, shot or empaled. The heroine, a 10 year old girl, finishes the movie by becoming violent herself.

I found the movie visually stimulating and beautiful, and the story too complex to be explained so briefly. I was not enthralled by any of the characters or sucked into the power of the story. (I'm reading the novel at the moment - an entry to come soon on Monteskewed - and it is entirely different.)

Here's the Movie Preview

Theologically the themes that are treated in the movie are way about the heads of children, and most likely so complex philisophically that most adults might not even catch the nuances regarding free will, temptations, and our nature. The movie seems a bit gnostic to me, encouraging duality versus integration. (I'd say that's my biggest beef with it). There is one scene in which a church is painted as the haven of the bad guys.

Things that the movie does treat in an interesting way:

Free Will: do we have it? at what age? what does it mean? is it a good or bad thing? can only children choose good?

Daemons (the animal respresentations of the soul that lives on the exterior of the human body). In the movie they're called "demons", yet in the novel it's "daemons." The difference is that a demon is always bad. A daemon can be good or bad, while a demon is always bad. A subtle difference that appears in ancient & medieval Christian Theology, but largely absent today in our post-This-Present-Darkness-Evangelical Age.

The Church: ok in the movie it's called the Magisterium. The Catholic church feels slighted and attacked by the metaphor (it's a Catholic word about the teaching institution of the Catholic hierarchy) It's there. (Much more in the book - but I'm only on page 85). It's a group of leaders that control the world by controlling the way that people can think, ensuring that they can only choose the "good", or what they deem to be the "good." Is it really that far off from some of the things that the church does? I don't think so. And I'm a card-carrying, ordained member. It could lead to great conversations about faith, religious communities, and the way in which we share with one another what we believe and base our lives upon.

If you haven't heard about this movie/book and the brouha-ha that it will convert our children into atheists you can read about this ideas and campaigns in the following links:

A Briefing for Concerned Christians (Albert Mohler)

Focus on the Family (on the Book) (on the Film)

Mary Fairchild Blog Entry on about.com

Spiritual Lessons from the film on Beliefnet.com

ABC News Report

RogerEbert Movie Review

If you've seen the movie and/or read the book, do leave a comment and contribute to the conversation that I'm hoping to start through the monteskewed blog community!
Thanks

RUAHeretic?

We started a class today at the church I serve as pastor entitled "RUAHeretic?" We've been learning about the Early Church, how things grew and developed and how it all effects how we are and who we are together as Church today here in the East Bay.

Thought I'd upload as much of our class/discussion to my blog for others who might be interested:

Take the "Are you a heretic?" quiz at quizfarm.com HERE.

Our Discussion today was about Gnosticsm:

Gnosticism is an esoteric religious movement that flourished during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD and presented a major challenge to orthodox Christianity. Most Gnostic sects professed Christianity, but their beliefs sharply diverged from those of the majority of Christians in the early church. The term Gnosticism is derived from the Greek word gnosis ("revealed knowledge"). To its adherents, Gnosticism promised a secret knowledge of the divine realm. Sparks or seeds of the Divine Being fell from this transcendent realm into the material universe, which is wholly evil, and were imprisoned in human bodies. Reawakened by knowledge, the divine element in humanity can return to its proper home in the transcendent spiritual realm.

Gnosticism was a religious philosophical dualism that professed salvation through secret knowledge, or gnosis. The movement reached a high point of development during the 2d century AD in the Roman and Alexandrian schools founded by Valentius. Scholars have attributed the origins of gnosticism to a number of sources: the Greek mystery cults; Zoroastrianism; the Kabbalah of Judaism; and Egyptian religion. The early Christians considered Simon Magus (Acts 8:9 - 24) the founder of gnosticism. His doctrine, like that of other gnostic teachers, had nothing in common with the knowledge of the mysteries of God that Saint Paul called wisdom (1 Cor. 2:7).

Christian leaders looked upon gnosticism as a subtle, dangerous threat to Christianity during the 2nd century, a time marked by religious aspirations and philosophical preoccupations about the origins of life, the source of evil in the world, and the nature of a transcendent deity. Gnosticism was perceived as an attempt to transform Christianity into a religious philosophy and to replace faith in the mysteries of revelation by philosophical explanations. (These descriptiions come from this helpful site.)

In our discussion we arrived at the conclusion that Gnosticism affirms the contrast/dualism between material vs. spiritual whereas "orthodox" Christianity affirm a dialectic/integration of the spiritual and the physical in that God in Jesus saves and redeems everything, giving every aspect of life infinite meaning and glory. Of course maybe the group that gathered at church today is all heretics too? :)

More online material (HERE)

If you liked the quiz try this one recommended by Deborah: The Belief O Matic: personality quiz about religious belief (HERE)

If you have thoughts or results from the quizes share them with the community by leaving a comment below!

Does Religion Have to Change?

I've had some interesting reading about faith (religion) and change/modernity in the past week. From the book Bobos in Paradise that concludes that our culture is spiritually bankrupt to the ways in which the Republican Presidential Candidates have been pandering a diverse group of Evangelical Christian Leaders (and vice-versa) jockeying for endorsements we see what philosophers have been claiming for the past few years: religion rather than confimring Nietzsch'e affirmation that "God is dead!" has experienced a hyper-resurrection in Western Culture. This is fleshed out in a great special report in the Economist last week "Religion and Public Life" HERE's an interview with one of those authors, to an article in today's SF Chronicle "Behold-religion just needs to dance," to some thoughtful blog article by friend and colleague Bruce Reyes-Chow on his blog (check out the entry on the same SF Chronicle article and "Number 1 Reason why the PCUSA... ").

Religion is increasingly (and has been now with the emergence of the cultural shift around President Bush years ago) playing a larger - or at least more visible (for good or for bad) - role in our culture, society and political establishment. But is it what faith is meant, or intended to be?

Does the church have to change? Hell yes. Read Bruce's entry and the comments/discussion. But that doesn't mean that the essence of faith does. For me what my faith is based upon isn't dogma, a religious establishment or ecclesiastical system, but rather a key teaching, a foundational example, an invitation to follow Jesus in what I do, how I think, the lens through which I view my neighbor and make decisions, as well as the forming factor of my relationships, commitments and raison d'etre. Faith needs to change, or be transformed, in its relationship - or enslavement to the Western paradigm of modernity. It needs to be liberated to what it orignially was (what Jacques Ellul calls X in the Subversion of Christianity), to a new vision, freed possibly by what we calls post-modernism or the emerging cultural shift happening in, around and among us all. Faith doesn't have to change because we've created it and want it to. We have to change the way that we talk about it, describe it with imperfect vocabulary, and experience it as communities of faith.

The Devil

Becoming Biblically Literate

111107

We're gathering at our church on Sunday for the next session of BBL with the them of "The Devil." Is there a devil? Is it an idea, a metaphor or a real person? Does the devil really do things in the world or is it merely an excuse that justifies our inaction or our naivete? If you're interested check out the following discussion starting readings (a summary of what I based out at our church) and come join the discussion on Sunday morning at 9:45am or do so online in the comment section of this entry.

I'm basing the following summary of options concerning the devil from a helpful book Christian Doctrine by Shirley C. Guthrie Jr. If you like the exerpts (my summarizing) buy the book!


Evil cannot come from God, for what God wills and does is good. It cannot come from an evil god who is the rival of the good God, for there is only one God. Nor can it come from human beings, for they are below God.

Where then does evil come from? According to scripture, it comes from the "Tempter" - Satan. He was already there in the form of the serpent at the very beginning of human history before human beings did anything. It was this already exisitng Evil One who put evil desires into the heart, mind, and will of the first human beings (the representatives of all humanity every since) and tempted them to choose to rebel against the Creator.

Who is Satan? According to the ancient Christian tradition, he is a creature of God - not a human creature but an angelic creature of some kind, who perhaps with other angelic creatures, rebelled against God and then became the sourve of corruption of God's good creation.

How can modern Christians understand the reality and power of this Evil One?

There are 2 possible ways:

1. A LITERAL INTERPRETATION

1.1 Some would say that if we are faithful to scripture we must believe in the literal existence of a personal devil and in invisible demonic powers at work in our lives and in the world around us. If you choose that option than there are 3 conditions:

1.2 Christians do not "believe in" the dveil. We confess our faith in God the Father Almighty, Jesus Christ the son, and the Holy Spirit. Christians believe not in but against the power of darkeness in God's good creation.

1.3 Our interest in the devil and demons must not become so central and intesne that their reality becomes more important to us than the reality and power of God. We must take the powers of darkness seriously, but we can never make them the center of our though, which gives them too much honor and power.

1.4 If we listen to what scripture tells us about Satan and his opowers of darkness, we will not look for their work only where there is obvious filt, obscenity, and godlessness in the world around us; we will also look at ourselves and at the Christian community. Satan is not only at work "out there." He is alsot at work especially where pious people try to use God to maintain their own pwersonal or social security, prosperity, and power instead of serving God.

2. SYMBOLIC INTERPRETATION

Some modern Christians believe that we can no longer believe in the reality of a personal Satan and personal demonic forces. Biblical talk about them, they would argue, is only a primitive way of expressing the truth that in God's world there is not only order but also chaos, not only huanity but also inhumanity, not only good but also evil.

One advantage of thinking of evil this way is that it enables us to think of impersonal as well as personal forces of evil at work in and among us. A question is if this effort to demythologize the interpretation of Satan is meant to secretly attempt to explain away the biblical way of talking about evil? And to be sure that we don't affirm that systemic evil is more powerful thatn God's goodness.

We have 2 major ways to interpret Biblical language about evil and the devil but a faithful reader of the Bible has to conclue that there is no explanation for the origin and reality of evil in God's world. The Bible presents with this profound simplicity, while biblical testimony encourages us to confess faith in the midst of chaos and order, to profess faith in the tension of suffering and blessing, and to affirm faith in a loving, good, powerful and personal God in the mix of good alongside evil.

So what do you think?
What view of the devil to you take? Literal? Symbolic?

I included a photo slideshow above with some funny pictures of who diverse people would say is the incarnate of the devil today...those 3 names come up when you google "devil." Not sure what that means?

The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence

SF Values &

The Meaning Made in & by Communion

Yesterday's SF Chronicle was plastered with a large picture of Archbishop George Niederauer who has come under attack for knowingly (or un-knowingly) served communion to two members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a drag-queen dressing justice-seeking group in San Francisco. The furor erupted when folks started asking if the Archbishop knowingly, or even possibly subversively, served the elements of communion to cross-dressing persons in a mass taking place in the middle of the Castro Street Faire. The archbishop has spun things a bit offering an oligatory (my words) apology for his actions. The SS troops of Fox News stormed into the affair, again lambasting the "SF Values" that characterize not just the city across the Bay Bridge, but most of the Bay Area Community. The whole affair really set me off - and got me writing (even if I'm supposed to be offline for vacation). Here's why.

1. Communion is more than a ritual, it's a sacrament (a visible expression of an invisible grace). So whether it's given to Sister Delta Goodhand, a homeless man who got dealt a bad hand, or to Bill O'Reilly, we believe and the ecumenical church community affirms, that communion is about both receiving the Love of God in Jesus the Christ and participating in it. So it's totally appropriate to share it.

2. Many complained that communion had been cheapened by serving it to the Sisters. Interesting. Are those that complained Catholic, Christians or followers of Jesus? Is Bill O'Reilly Catholic or Christian? If not what does he care? We believe - at least in my reformed family of followers of Jesus - that the simple bread and wine/juice become something mysteriously and powerfully real not by our efforts but by God's presence in our worshipping and seeking gathered community of faith. So how can we cheapen what only God's Spirit can make worthy or full of meaning both experiential and spiritual?

3. The article goes on to say that the Archbishop was simply following the "general sacramental principal" that you don't deny the sacrement to someone who request it. Interesting, for I myself a Anglo-American 30-something heterosexual male have been refused communion in mass at least half a dozen times in my life, not becuase of my sexual acitivty or preference, my clothing, or my politics, but because I follow Jesus in a protestant, or non-Catholic, way. So I'm not sure what the general sacramental principal is, because I've not experienced that. It seems to be more about church laws and church dogmatics than about inclusivity. Besides the Catholic church, under the leadership of the current Pope, affirmed and re-affirmed that the Catholic Church alone is the true church of Christ on Earth in a document entitled Dominus Iesus.

4. I was struck in the article - you have to read to the end of it - to read the included note from Sister Deltagoodhand, one of the two who received communion, who wrote to the church the following words: "Just a quick note to recognize the wonderful mass yesterday at your Church. Your entire congregation was so welcoming and it was great to be able to participate. You are a wonderfully inclusive Church." From my read of those words, they didn't come it to destroy or subvert things, nor did they seek to do so through the media (of course I admit I'm naive). They entered a worship gathering, were invited to be both present and participants, and left feeling like the Church, that church in particular, could not only have a place for them, but be the place for them. Isn't that what we're supposed to be about? Isn't that what Jesus taught: "Love your neighbor as God has loved you."?

You can read the article online HERE.
You can also read a great "Two Cents" photo-montage piece with diverse responses to the article and event HERE.

I find this whole event and media re-presentation challenging because of the question it asks underneath it all. SF Gate isn't really interested in declining church attendance, or imploding church systems, or even inclusivity and what it means in a Christ-centered and faith community-forming way. Why is it that we seem to always want to define who we are but who we aren't or who we won't let in? I think it's a theological or philisophical issue. In the end the whole hoopla is about who is and isn't part of the church, who is and isn't welcome, and who should be and shouldn't be welcomed. What a tragedy if we let Bill O'Reilly or our political parties shape and form our faith communities! I think our issues, and our struggles with how we form, articulate and define our "identity" as both individuals and communities reflects our brokeness - that "sin" that is so deeply embedded in who we are as human beings. Jesus himself challenged this, inviting all of us to find our definition of who we are in our relationship with God. We not Jew or Gentile, Free or Slave, Male or Female (as Paul writes in 1 Cornithians)....we're not gay or straight, righteous or of the devil...in God we are God's children. In Christ we're invited to claim that promise through the powerful mystery of the death and resurrection of Christ. By God's Spirit we're empowered to live lives with a new sense of identity, the one we're meant to live from and into....that we are the beloved children of God.

That's what following Jesus is all about. It's what the meaning of communion is and the meaning that it makes - a true sacramental marker of community - that in Christ the walls are broken down...walls that divide us from each other, from God, and from who we are created to really be. It's the power of the mysterious sign and symbol of communion - as we share the cup and bread we experience solidarity, we participate in saving community and we are connected through the only force in the Universe that can connect us together: the Living God.

Any thoughts?