believing in sola scriptura makes one an evangelical, then sola scriptura must be faulty.

phenomneological perception is the most basic metaphor of wisdom, and as such it participates strongly therein.

life is a co(s)mic, musical drama played out on the precarious plain of being.

this blog is kinda lame now. i mostly blog on mixi, a japanese social networking site … kinda liek facebook. i rarely have nething2say in english nowadays. classes r bizzeh and life is busy.

i’m going to teh UK in teh summer to study at teh centre for medieval and renaissance studies …

i think teh fact that i’m not studying any philosophy atm means that i have very little to blog about.

only by grace, into union with Christ, do our works, joining and being transformed by Christ’s perfect work, merit us our salvation

a good deal of teh present US finanical crisis stems from a moral crisis wherein avarice is justified … and commercialized, and where debt is encouraged.

Ruth 1:6-13: Naomi Loses Hope

Though Naomi’s name means “pleasant” and signifies a blessed state, the state we find her in is the exact opposite. (cf. vv. 11-13) Naomi here declares that there is no more hope for her and her family. She lost her husband and her two sons.

Orpah makes the natural choice: she goes back to Moab. It is clear that this involved not only going back to Moab, but going back to becoming a Moabite and serving the Moabite gods. In contrast to this, Ruth takes a vow to follow Naomi and to join her people and serve her God. And Naomi, once she sees that Ruth cannot be dissuaded, does not even talk to her. She sees no hope even as she returns to the land of Judah. Naomi went out full and with hope for the future, but she comes back to die and to be forgotten. She tells people to call her Mara, not Naomi, since she has suffered bitterly.

The author of Ruth, however, is clearly not seeing things the way Naomi is. From the moment we see Ruth and her faithfulness to her mother-in-law, we know things are going to change. The worry that we have in vv. 11-13 is how God is going to be faithful to his promise and covenant. We immediately recognize the answer to that in vv. 16-17. Ruth’s faithfulness provides hope for Naomi (even though Naomi does not see it); but more importantly, Ruth’s faithfulness reveals the faithfulness of God to the Davidic line.

Finally, in this passage, the author notes that Naomi and Ruth came to Bethlehem in the beginning of the barley harvest (April). Again, this is a sign of hope. It is a sign that things have changed in Bethlehem. The land was barren when Naomi left, but now it is fruitful. When she returns, she is bereft of her offspring, and she is barren and apparently her children are barren as well. But things are different, and the harvest–the changed situation–points to a hope.

What happens next in the story? What is this hope?

The faithfulness of God is not simply about blessing us. What do you think God’s faithfulness is about?

tehy wur expurts in teh liturgy …

i wonder wot most m.div. students in teh reformed world r expurts in. it’s certainly n0t teh lituryg.

at teh musical glasses :o

i only half believe it

chelsea looks liek both her parents …. i wish she wudn make headlines.

there is a certain kind of genius which cann0t be contained in a “book” very well. perhaps pascal and wittgenstein were of such genius.

teh glory of teh Lord is not identical to teh Lord, jsut as teh radiance of teh face is not identical to teh face itself.

yet, one cannot obtain w/out teh other.

mmmmmm, good theology!

teh work of teh priest is as moch manual labour as nethin else …

it takes hands to consecrate, to bless, to embrace, to turn teh pages, etc.

She had them Apple Bottom Jeans
Boots with the fur
The whole club was lookin at her
She hit the flo

Karl Barth — Reformed
Hans Urs von Balthasar — Roman Catholic
Alexander Schmemann — Russian Orthodox

teh 20th century has been a tremendously encouraging century theologically and in every other way. ppl who talk about teh “crisis” and demise of western civilization … are not really wrong in wot they say. they just miss teh point.

we’ve finally had theology that surpassed teh reformation era. teh church has suffered, has grown, and has deepened.

we also have rather problematic things, such as baptists, charismatics, etc. but these serve to highlight teh problems of teh mainline churches, and shud not be dismissed. rather, they shud humble us as they show us teh areas in which teh church has failed to a great extent.

e.g., wif baptists, wot it really shows is how unfaithfulness to teh covenant on teh part of teh church has meant that, liek circumcision for many of teh jews, baptism became merely an outward sign whose natural effect was stemmed by unbelief and spiritual death. baptism thus became a much abused sacrament.

wif teh eucharist as well, it was much abused by teh mainline churches, since teh middle ages at least. these abuses led to teh reactionary eucharistic practices of most protestants.

again, all these splinterings of denominations do not show that one denomination is right and that another is wrong, so much as highlight teh problems within each.

that having been said, teh church was never meant to be separated. what? was christ’s body divided? did he not remain whole even in death as in life?

there is only 1 church.

not putting aside theological differences, but rather bringing ourselves into conformity with teh historic church, we shud gather ourselves together and present ourselves as one body under Christ before the father.

there is one baptism and one holy, catholic and apostolic church. those who have strayed from this church are in great peril.

eventually, teh church must be brought back to apostolic succession, to one baptism, and to the catholic fold. any motion less than this is not ultimately a motion of teh body of christ.