Those who can't do Blog.

I am hoping that this will be read by people who don't know me, so we can engage in some simple introductions, and hopefully build that up into the reason why I feel compelled to take up more precious space on Google's cloud. I am a theology student, and worse than that a first year theology student. "Why?" Some will ask, "is being a first year theology student a bad thing?" I'm personally inclined to say its not, it is a life choice that I thought was necessary and appropriate given my sense of vocation; however, theology students, and theologians in general, at their best say unsettling things. Its pretty much what we do. Though there is a time for cloistering ourselves and shacking up in the library that's not what we're called for. We're called to do things. And for some people that makes us a pretty shitty bunch. (By the way, I may be a bit vulgar at times. Maybe we'll talk about what the Biblical imperative agains "swearing" means later, but for all other questions/comments see my definition of heterodoxy at the top.)

Again a question arises. "Why is saying unsettling things a bad thing? Aren't we supposed to speak truth to power, and proclaim the word of the Lord?"

Thank you for asking. Yes. Yes we are.

"Why then is that a bad thing?"

Wikipedia Dr. Martin Luther King and scroll down to the part about that thing that happened in Memphis.

Here's the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.

As good as our intentions are, and regardless of our conviction some people will continue not to like us. Glen Beck's recent attacks on Liberation Theology are an example of this. And it's not just right wing types that dislike what we do. Even the most liberal theologian will at times find the secular left a bit pissed. This "God talk" is really distancing to a lot of people, so much so that a first year theology student (like myself) is apt to think that I'm going into a profession that isn't entirely "appreciated", and if you are "appreciated" too much you're probably doing something wrong. Maybe its what we get for following a role model that was dealt with pretty brutally. (See: Crucifixion.)

To be honest, and honesty is important, its becoming rather evident that I need to get out of the library a bit and take it to the interwebz, that great network of tubes that is so conducive to enlightened conversation and articulate thought, and make it public. There's no point in saying unsettling things to academics. They're pretty used to it by now. A liberal arts education in the post-modern era tends to be a bit desensitizing.

Though I will say some fairly immoderate (and sometimes downright stupid) things I will do this much for you, dear reader, I will try very hard not to be heretical. Not to say that I will succeed, but I will try.

Why I believe the Nicene Creed.

The fact of the matter is that I am a "Nicene Christian", in as much as there is a "Nicene Christianity." All this means is that I think it is important that we believe the Nicene Creed. Is it necessary to a healthy faith? No. Not necessarily. Is it helpful? I tend to think so. It's been helpful to me. That is not entirely to say that it's been helpful in the sense that's it has brought me joy and comfort, though at times my belief in the triune nature of God has been quite a comfort to me. The idea of the Holy Spirit as the Paraclete has brought me a special hope in some of my darkest times. Do I think it is required to believe the Nicene Creed in order to be saved and to see that glorious resurrection? I will not speak to the salvation of anyone. It is essential that we recognize that the trinity is a post-textual (that is, post-scriptural) development, and, to quote one of my beloved professors, post-textual arguments are only wrong if they are not true. What is truth? Hell if I know. I've cast my lot with the trinity, but I'm taking the same wager as anyone else.

Where I find the creed to be especially helpful is as the basis of a systematic theology. Do you have to require a sinless birth of Christ? If Mary and Joseph were married at the time of Christ's conception, danced the no-no-cha-cha, and then had our Lord and Savior would that qualify as a sinless birth? Was Mary raped by a centurion and then fabricated the whole "virgin birth" thing? Again, I don't know. What I do know is that if you deny the virgin birth you end up with a fight on your hands when it comes to defining your soteriology. For Christ to be the "lamb without blemish" does it require the virgin birth? Would he have been born in the "sin of Adam" if not from his divine lineage? If you say that he was born without the original sin and then became the Christ (in the literal sense of "anointed one") when he was baptized in the Jordan and God then showed favor on him you are showing some more logical consistency, but you again have a problem in that you have to show that original sin doesn't apply to anyone or that Christ was an exception and he was shown favor in the womb.

I could go on. I'll just say I find it problematic, and I invite discussion.

The other reason that I find the Nicene Creed helpful is the fact that there is quite a bit that is not included in the Creed. When we say "We believe in God the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen." We are not saying "We believe in God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth (in seven, twenty-four hour periods) of all that is seen and unseen (including a physical manifestation of evil that lives below the earth and is actively plotting our destruction, and the twelve spheres of heaven where the hierarchy of Angels live in the immoveable ether.)" The writers of the creed were not stupid, nor was this a consensus decision. (See: Filioque Clause.) There are quite a few things that then are not "articles of faith" in the strictest sense of the word. We have a great deal of wiggle room on a great many things that the Fathers had the sense not to bicker about.

I would be a bit too optimistic if I said that orthodoxy ended there. (Though it probably should.) There are a lot of other things that entail orthodoxy, there are a lot of things that have piled up over time that have been given to us as a codification of orthe-doxa or correct belief.

I have a bit of a problem with this.

Which leads me full circle to the impetus for this Blog. I'm going to prod some things that are considered orthodox that I feel deserve a little bit of prodding. I will however stay Nicene, and I hope you stay with me.