"That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God."
What?!
This is the first recommendation in the agreed statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation (hereon known as NAOCTC) in regard to the Filioque issue (link).
As is my want, I was browsing Wikipedia this morning and happened to go from an article on Gregory of Nazianzus (Wiipedia's featured article today) to an article on The Filioque (using my basic knowledge of Latin I translate this as "and the Son").
It's another fascinating insight into the inner workings of the Christian Church. I find the whole period of early Christianity compelling since most of what we know today about the Church was formed during the first few hundred years after Christ. These little tidbits (e.g. The Filioque) are very interesting to me since, not only do they contain archaic language (some nice Latin) and great history, but they show how important the ideas, prejudices and foibles of Man are to the Church.
This issue over the Holy Spirit and from whence it emanates is one that helped split east-west the Church a thousand years ago and still rages today, although the current Pope seems to favour reconciliation over this in some way.
The NAOCTC put together a document to help mend the schism. The quote above is the first line. What struck me this morning most is that they feel that there's a need to write this down and that God has an "inner life"! What does that mean? Where He does His shopping, what music He listens too (Genesis obviously)?! It made me laugh anyway (more of an intellectual pat on the back/chuckle than a guffaw).
..
The wife and I spent a lovely New Year's Eve watching telly and drinking fizzy wine. We watched 2 hours of "Earth - The Power Of The Planet" which is an excellent programme about the science of the Earth. Not only is it fascinating and insightful, but just a little bit environmentally preaching. I don't blame Dr Stewart at all for his viewpoint: I think it's a necessary one, however we were both slightly depressed by the implication that, as a species, we're basically fucked! Unless of course the environment doesn't quite manage to slip into another deep ice age.
The issue of global warming is hardly off the radar of any conscientious Westerner these days, but I still can't help thinking that it will either
a) be fine: the Earth is much more homeostatic than we think (certainly over the timescale of hundreds of years)
b) be the kick up the arse that humanity needs
With regard to the second point I believe that humanity is in desperate need for some sort of catastrophe in order to give it the jolt it needs to start behaving better to itself. I am reminded of Star Trek and its rose-tinted view of humanity when I think of this stuff. Perhaps I too have the same spectacles on, but I hope that humans can get it together before it's too late. It's up to our governments to do more to ensure that we're doing the right thing instead of pandering to the easy and populous arguments.
It may be too late for the human-friendly environment, but in any event this would unlikely wipe out the species. It's not too late for us as humans though and any of us that survive the next catastrophe (there will be one at some point) should be more like Roddenberry's vision than Thatcher's.
No comments:
Post a Comment