Gareth Bezett

I'd like to take a test that would tell me how evangelical, charismatic, etc, etc I am. Maybe someone knows of an Interet-based one. These labels are completely useless except for talking to people who care about these things. A Generous Orthodoxy is a good book to throw some light on this area.

So what sort of theology should we have? I wonder if there is or could be any consensus on this.

One smart idea might be to align our beliefs and practices with a group or individual who we think has got it right. Some options might include:

• A local leader/personal mentor
• The Pope
• The primitive church (Acts 2 maybe?)
• The church fathers/sub-apostolic church/pre-300AD
• Jesus

For me there are some non-negotiables (does this make me fundamentalist?). The resurrection and the Trinity would make it into my list. I think a non-negotiable list sould be as short as you can make it. I'm unsure about what to do with the sacrements (baptism and communion) as for me they are very important, but the Salvation Army's non-use of them doesn't make them any less of a church in my book.

I'd like to be considered fairly orthodox, but even the meaning of that word probably depends on your theology.

Labels: theology

I was discussing some elecments of Chrisitan belief with an 8 year old boy recently, as I do in various children's ministry programmes from time to time. At some point, he said to me "So Jesus was God? How can he be God's son and God?" I might have been overreaching a bit when I tried to explain the Holy Trinity to him.

Let me point out that Trinitarianism is not an optional belief in The Church. The Nicene Creed states that Jesus is of the same substance of the father and the Athanasian Creed leaves no wriggle room on the matter. The Anlgican church (and most other catholic denominations) holds the Nicene Creed as fundamental and Athanasius' Creed as being a true and valid description of the Christian Faith. To be Christian is to be a Trinitarian. Other groups on the periphery of Christianity dissent from this view, Unitarians being the most obvious.

There is a great deal of history around this point in the first centuries of Christianity. The question came into open debate in when Arius, a priest in Alexandria, starting publicly arguing with his bishop. The Christians who thought that Jesus was a lesser being than God (though certainly still far greater than humans) were knows as Arians. The Council of Nicaea (325) formulated a doctrinal statement that was supposed to present an anti-Arian position. This was adopted with only 2 objections. However, Arianism still flourished and Arians were the majority in many churches. When the Emperor Constantine was baptised on his death bed, is was an Arian who performed the sacrement (good point for refuting the Da Vince Code). Eventually, the Council of Constantinople (381) adopted the Nicene Creed (somewhat modified from the 325 text) as an official statement of faith.

Arius has some flawed but persuasive arguments and I can see why so many faithful Christians would be swayed by them. For a start, the idea that Christ was a created being (albeit of an entirely different order to us) is an easier idea to grasp that the notion that God is Three and yet One.

I'm almost relunctant to engage in discussion on the point because the idea that God paid our penalty himself is essential to popular theology. Could a perfect being that wasn't God take our place on the Cross with the same effect? Someone once told me that to be a fundamentalist meant to believe that it was essential to believe in Christ Crucified and Risen, which begs the question "who was Christ?". Orthodox Trinitarian Christian belief answers empathically that Jesus was God Incarnate. This is what we celebrate at Christmas: God became human, the Word became flesh.

I'm strangley compelled to reassess my faith in light of the question "what if Arius was right?" Now, I don't think he was, but I'm a bit afraid to think too hard on the matter. Is Trinitarianism really essential? I think it might be, but what if the rest of my faith remains viable without it? Is the penalty for heresy still death?

Labels: theology

I've have taken the time to read what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about what we call The Church. Clauses 817 to 819 deal with the fact that there is division in the Body of Christ. The treatment (post Vatican II) of this topic seems very fair and even generous. This is vastly different from what many Catholics, clergy and laity, have to say on the matter.

Some of the significant points are:

• "Men on both sides were to blame" for many of the divisions
• The sin of separation does not rest with the current members of Christian communities outside the Catholic Church
• "All who have been justified in faith and baptism are incorporated into Christ"
• "Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means [sic] of salvation"
• The Catholic Church accepts us "with respect and affection as brothers"

Note that this is the official English language version of the Catholic Church's faith. The Catechism is meant to be used by local churches to create their own catechisms for instruction of the faithful.

I essentially agree with most of what the catechism has to say on the nature of The Church. Clearly, I have trouble with the doctrine of Petrine precedence (Rome is the senior church because Peter was the senior apostle and he founded the church in Rome and the Popes are his successors), but the Marian points are less troublesome for me.

Labels: theology

http://www.kencollins.com/pray-34.htm

This is a new one to me.

Labels: theology

Notes from yesterday's sermon are now published. The opening paragraph is included below. You can download the entire sermon from here. This was week 5 of the Old Testment Challenge 2.

Our prayer life is a fundamental part of our ongoing walk with God. It is impossible to grow to spiritual maturity without a healthy prayer life. So what does a healthy prayer life look like? What lessons can we learn from Samuel’s birth and ministry?

Labels: sermon, theology

In the intercession requests that come my way, prayer for guidance is second only to health issues.

Is this how it's supposed to be? Is the path supposed so obscure or do we just make it harder than needs to be?

The conventional wisdom seem to be that God doesn't let us know much beyond the next step so that it takes faith to be obedient and so that we aren't scared off by stuff that we can't currently imagine ourselves doing, but we will be prepared for when the time comes; but why do we have such a hard time figuring out what the next step is?

Labels: theology

Just in case you were wondering, this very handy resource is now online. This is much better than popping into the city libaray to look something up. I find Catholic doctrine a great place to start as they have acutally written down what they believe (as apposed to the Anglican Church which can't even agree within itself). The CCC is well cross-referenced.

Labels: theology