What is Mystery

Both the charismatic  Evangelical and the Eastern Orthodox have a mutual tilt, that is, a bent toward disenchantment. Either seeking more concrete and direct revelation by an ecstatic oracle or a room filled with wood, stone and canvas as instruments both liturgical and pedantic, the outcome is the same. And what it displays seems to be a dissatisfaction with the mundane appearance and nature of the simple Word and Sacrament, which is more mystical and incarnational than either the charismatic or the iconologue may claim to be. (more…)


But the “excitement” of Easter cannot be given to man by man himself. Even more than his exinanition, Christ’s exaltation is the consequence reached by God himself through his power in action. God himself is the rector and the master and the king of this whole history which is his covenant with us. Either we understand God as master and subject of this history or we do not understand this history at all. Thus the question we have to answer now is not: “Can I admit that all this has occurred?” but: “Where do I stand vis-à-vis God the master? Do I live ‘with’ God? Do I live in keeping with God’s deeds?” And since we know these deeds mainly and primarily through the Scripture, the question of faith is first a question of reading the Bible. One cannot pray without reading the Bible, without getting a knowledge of the divine history directed by God wherein we discover what we need: faith in God the rector and sovereign and living master of Christ’s history which “comprehends,” that is, embodies, sums up, locates and fulfills our own history.

~Karl Barth “The Faith Of The Church”

Canonical Thoughts

This is from a book that I had started reading and sort of set aside or misplaced; happens when you try to read too many books like I seem to do. Anyway, I saw something that reminded me that I needed to come back and finish it and this is where I had left off. Food for thought, enjoy.

Once “orthodoxy” is defined in fourth-century terms as ecclesiastical doctrine hammered out by the various ecumenical councils, any doctrinal core preceding fourth century can be considered “proto-orthodox” at best. Thus, the validation of the Bauer-Erhman thesis becomes in effect a self-fulfilling prophecy. Bauer, Erhman, and others have cleverly recast the terminological landscape of the debate, most importantly by narrowing the term “orthodoxy” to a degree of doctrinal sophistication only reached in subsequent centuries, so that everything else falls short by comparison. Then they put “diversity” in the place of what was conventionally understood as orthodoxy. (The Heresy Of Orthodoxy, pg 70, by Andreas J. Kostenberger and Michael J. Krueger.)