Rose, don't go anywhere, I love reading your writing. This is great art criticism. And that you've actually written this after that is, well, pretty miraculous.
This is a phenomenal piece, I absolutely loved it! Your thoughtful analysis of art, reflections of Christ as Our Redeemer and the reality of the ressurection are all topics which I have been deeply resonated in and are core to how I have always understood my faith, especially, now as a postulant in an order dedicated to Christ the Redeemer, the Redemptorists.
I love this. I love the wrestling with the incarnation as well, and understand and feel it too. After a couple of years actually reading and praying I can honestly say I believe in the resurrection, body and all. He was human - and all that entails (except sin). He was God. When He died… I don’t know. I guess I kind of assume it’s the Incarnation that died, but God experienced it through the Incarnation? The Son always lived on, and always has, and always will as the Word. This is a late night train of thought - I love reading others musings and thoughts on this stuff!
Despite having abandoned Chalcedonian-Niceneian orthodoxy, I have arrived in a place similar to yours regarding my faith in the resurrection. I used to passionately argue for a non-literal (non-physical) understanding of the resurrection event - I still do if the opportunity presents itself. However, I have lately become less passionate about doing so. I have concluded that intellectual debate about the nature of Christ’s resurrection distracts from its true meaning. One affirms that meaning not in consenting or dissenting from particular beliefs about the nature of that event 2,000 years ago but by how we live today.
I have found the Death of God theologians to be very profound regarding this question.
When Peter Rollins was accused of denying the resurrection, he responded that,
“Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that I deny the resurrection of Christ. This is something that anyone who knows me could tell you, and I am not afraid to say it publicly, no matter what some people may think…
“I deny the resurrection of Christ every time I do not serve at the feet of the oppressed, each day that I turn my back on the poor; I deny the resurrection of Christ when I close my ears to the cries of the downtrodden and lend my support to an unjust and corrupt system.
“However there are moments when I affirm that resurrection, few and far between as they are. I affirm it when I stand up for those who are forced to live on their knees, when I speak for those who have had their tongues torn out, when I cry for those who have no more tears left to shed.”
Christianity would be so much better if, rather than endlessly subjecting it to intellectual debate, we spent more time discussing how we treasure the resurrection in our hearts and how we respond to it with our actions
Sorry if I misunderstood where you are coming from in your article. I enjoyed it and found it well-written (as always). I see some similarities between what Dom Sebastian Moore seems to say and what Peter Rollins has said. Maybe I am wrong?
That's interesting. I do disagree with Rollins on some things, but he has had a significant impact on me. Is there anything in particular you find nauseating about his phrasing?
I think my question is “can you say God suffers and dies (in a non-chalcedonian way) without becoming utterly irreverent and — i don’t use this word lightly — perverted; or is this why we in fact need to stick to the letter of the creed?”
OK, I think I understand where you are coming from and why you might have found my comment blasphemous. I operate within a (mostly) low Christology tradition, so I might not perceive such a lack of reverence in Rollins. That said, I hope I did not offend you with my original comment (I certainly didn't mean to). Thank you for replying to me and thinking about this with everything you have going on. It is really appreciated.
Admittedly, I read your post belatedly but I cannot remain just a sighing, silent lurker.
My heart truly breaks for your personal matter. You're in my thoughts — and will remain in my rosary.
(Not-so-recently I spent a week in hospital and — although this is a bit inapt — it wreaked inveterate havoc on my face. There is so much to be said for the creatures of home so I hope you are able to continue to convalesce as much as you are to keep comfortable & cosy!)
That was lovely. I think my faith is best defined by hymns and creeds. In the Bleak Midwinter, Dear Lord and Father of Mankind, My Song is Love Unknown.
My understanding of the two natures is that there is one person, Christ, who is both God and Man, in two natures. The person has a mother, hence Mary is the mother of God, and the person died, hence I would say that God died on the Cross. God the Son, not the Father or the Spirit. It's all a mystery though.
I'm always struck by the difference between the disciples before Easter and after. Before Easter they were afraid, after Easter they had no fear. It really is the most remarkable change. As you said, I think they understood what it meant for death to be defeated. I don't think I do, certainly not all the time. At times I'm brave, but at times I'm still afraid.
Rose, don't go anywhere, I love reading your writing. This is great art criticism. And that you've actually written this after that is, well, pretty miraculous.
cheers 👍
This is a phenomenal piece, I absolutely loved it! Your thoughtful analysis of art, reflections of Christ as Our Redeemer and the reality of the ressurection are all topics which I have been deeply resonated in and are core to how I have always understood my faith, especially, now as a postulant in an order dedicated to Christ the Redeemer, the Redemptorists.
I love this. I love the wrestling with the incarnation as well, and understand and feel it too. After a couple of years actually reading and praying I can honestly say I believe in the resurrection, body and all. He was human - and all that entails (except sin). He was God. When He died… I don’t know. I guess I kind of assume it’s the Incarnation that died, but God experienced it through the Incarnation? The Son always lived on, and always has, and always will as the Word. This is a late night train of thought - I love reading others musings and thoughts on this stuff!
Despite having abandoned Chalcedonian-Niceneian orthodoxy, I have arrived in a place similar to yours regarding my faith in the resurrection. I used to passionately argue for a non-literal (non-physical) understanding of the resurrection event - I still do if the opportunity presents itself. However, I have lately become less passionate about doing so. I have concluded that intellectual debate about the nature of Christ’s resurrection distracts from its true meaning. One affirms that meaning not in consenting or dissenting from particular beliefs about the nature of that event 2,000 years ago but by how we live today.
I have found the Death of God theologians to be very profound regarding this question.
When Peter Rollins was accused of denying the resurrection, he responded that,
“Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that I deny the resurrection of Christ. This is something that anyone who knows me could tell you, and I am not afraid to say it publicly, no matter what some people may think…
“I deny the resurrection of Christ every time I do not serve at the feet of the oppressed, each day that I turn my back on the poor; I deny the resurrection of Christ when I close my ears to the cries of the downtrodden and lend my support to an unjust and corrupt system.
“However there are moments when I affirm that resurrection, few and far between as they are. I affirm it when I stand up for those who are forced to live on their knees, when I speak for those who have had their tongues torn out, when I cry for those who have no more tears left to shed.”
Christianity would be so much better if, rather than endlessly subjecting it to intellectual debate, we spent more time discussing how we treasure the resurrection in our hearts and how we respond to it with our actions
I don’t think this is the right tactic and I find it blasphemous in a very serious sense.
Sorry if I misunderstood where you are coming from in your article. I enjoyed it and found it well-written (as always). I see some similarities between what Dom Sebastian Moore seems to say and what Peter Rollins has said. Maybe I am wrong?
no I do agree that there are similarities but I find Rollin’s phrasing nauseating
That's interesting. I do disagree with Rollins on some things, but he has had a significant impact on me. Is there anything in particular you find nauseating about his phrasing?
I need to think about this more. it’s a problem with Weil too. but her christology is so high that I think I can bear it. it’s to do with reverence
I think my question is “can you say God suffers and dies (in a non-chalcedonian way) without becoming utterly irreverent and — i don’t use this word lightly — perverted; or is this why we in fact need to stick to the letter of the creed?”
OK, I think I understand where you are coming from and why you might have found my comment blasphemous. I operate within a (mostly) low Christology tradition, so I might not perceive such a lack of reverence in Rollins. That said, I hope I did not offend you with my original comment (I certainly didn't mean to). Thank you for replying to me and thinking about this with everything you have going on. It is really appreciated.
Admittedly, I read your post belatedly but I cannot remain just a sighing, silent lurker.
My heart truly breaks for your personal matter. You're in my thoughts — and will remain in my rosary.
(Not-so-recently I spent a week in hospital and — although this is a bit inapt — it wreaked inveterate havoc on my face. There is so much to be said for the creatures of home so I hope you are able to continue to convalesce as much as you are to keep comfortable & cosy!)
God bless you, Rose.
Edit: creature *comforts* of home
That was lovely. I think my faith is best defined by hymns and creeds. In the Bleak Midwinter, Dear Lord and Father of Mankind, My Song is Love Unknown.
My understanding of the two natures is that there is one person, Christ, who is both God and Man, in two natures. The person has a mother, hence Mary is the mother of God, and the person died, hence I would say that God died on the Cross. God the Son, not the Father or the Spirit. It's all a mystery though.
I'm always struck by the difference between the disciples before Easter and after. Before Easter they were afraid, after Easter they had no fear. It really is the most remarkable change. As you said, I think they understood what it meant for death to be defeated. I don't think I do, certainly not all the time. At times I'm brave, but at times I'm still afraid.