Indeed. Apparently Housmann considered this the best of the many parodies of his work which circulated at the time.
As for ale - I presume we are talking about the traditional British cask or bottle-conditioned 'real ale' varieties than undergo secondary fermentation?
Beware of artificial substitutes.
'Angels dancing on the tongue,' as a southern beer writer described his first pint of Timothy Taylor's Landlord (the quality isn't always a good as it was back then, but even so).
Like fire, ale is a good servant but a poor master. I drink far less than I used to and that makes me appreciate it the more when I have the occasional pint.
I have to go easy. There is alcoholism in the family and I've seen its devastating effects.
I still enjoy an occasional glass of good ale in good company. But not, thankfully, in the copious quantities of my youth. Only death will put an end to that!
'Angels dancing on the tongue,' as a southern beer writer described his first pint of Timothy Taylor's Landlord
Was that before the first UK Foster's advert? 'tis a fine ale.
Fosters?! FOSTERS!!
For shame, sir! You blaspheme!
I remember an American Shipmate claiming that Fosters was the 'best beer in the world.' I won't name and shame.
It has to be the worst, surely ...
No, whilst the mass marketing of gassy piss purporting to be 'lager' has been the source of much grievous ill on the UK pub and supermarket 'take-home' scene, it's not what I had in mind.
When I was a student in Leeds in the late 70s/early 80s Taylors was pure nectar. Landlord was an extraordinary pint. It's still a cracking pint when it's kept properly and on form.
It was always at its best closer to Keighley where it was brewed but some Leeds pubs cellared it to perfection.
But as it spread out from the West Riding to other parts of the country it seemed to lose something. Most real ales don't travel well.
Tetley used to be wonderful in and around Leeds but could taste atrocious a few miles down the road.
'Angels dancing on the tongue,' as a southern beer writer described his first pint of Timothy Taylor's Landlord
Was that before the first UK Foster's advert? 'tis a fine ale.
Fosters?! FOSTERS!!
For shame, sir! You blaspheme!
I remember an American Shipmate claiming that Fosters was the 'best beer in the world.' I won't name and shame.
It has to be the worst, surely ...
No, whilst the mass marketing of gassy piss purporting to be 'lager' has been the source of much grievous ill on the UK pub and supermarket 'take-home' scene, it's not what I had in mind.
When I was a student in Leeds in the late 70s/early 80s Taylors was pure nectar. Landlord was an extraordinary pint. It's still a cracking pint when it's kept properly and on form.
It was always at its best closer to Keighley where it was brewed but some Leeds pubs cellared it to perfection.
But as it spread out from the West Riding to other parts of the country it seemed to lose something. Most real ales don't travel well.
Tetley used to be wonderful in and around Leeds but could taste atrocious a few miles down the road.
Let's get back to the OP.
It's still Lent and I need to be strong...
I remember when beer adverts were the best thing on telly. Including the brilliant early '80s Oz lager ads starting with Foster's. Not Fosters. Otherwise odd ov rit Fosters's wooden eye? That made a star of Paul Hogan so he could become Mick Dundee. And on a hot summer's day, I'm afraid ice cold lager hits the spot. In the first ad, Hogan guilelessly explained what the head of the lager was, 'the head'. And then sipped and said, 'Like an angel crying on your tongue'. How old is your quote?
I've been thinking about KarlLB's initial post, especially in terms of time. I think our human perception of linear time is not, AIUI, the divine experience of time nor of new creation.
The piece of it that I have trouble getting my head around is new creation. When you have a new thing, it is not the old thing which is slightly patched up and improved. A new thing is different from the old thing. If new creation works backward and forward through time, perhaps we are all Ships of Theseus, so to speak - both old and new at the same time.
'Angels dancing on the tongue,' as a southern beer writer described his first pint of Timothy Taylor's Landlord
Was that before the first UK Foster's advert? 'tis a fine ale.
Fosters?! FOSTERS!!
For shame, sir! You blaspheme!
I remember an American Shipmate claiming that Fosters was the 'best beer in the world.' I won't name and shame.
It has to be the worst, surely ...
No, whilst the mass marketing of gassy piss purporting to be 'lager' has been the source of much grievous ill on the UK pub and supermarket 'take-home' scene, it's not what I had in mind.
When I was a student in Leeds in the late 70s/early 80s Taylors was pure nectar. Landlord was an extraordinary pint. It's still a cracking pint when it's kept properly and on form.
It was always at its best closer to Keighley where it was brewed but some Leeds pubs cellared it to perfection.
But as it spread out from the West Riding to other parts of the country it seemed to lose something. Most real ales don't travel well.
Tetley used to be wonderful in and around Leeds but could taste atrocious a few miles down the road.
Let's get back to the OP.
It's still Lent and I need to be strong...
I remember when beer adverts were the best thing on telly. Including the brilliant early '80s Oz lager ads starting with Foster's. Not Fosters. Otherwise odd ov rit Fosters's wooden eye? That made a star of Paul Hogan so he could become Mick Dundee. And on a hot summer's day, I'm afraid ice cold lager hits the spot. In the first ad, Hogan guilelessly explained what the head of the lager was, 'the head'. And then sipped and said, 'Like an angel crying on your tongue'. How old is your quote?
Ok. I get the reference now. The quote predates those ads.
But that's my last word on the matter as I don't want to derail the thread further.
To get back to the plot ...
@Leaf. Yes, that's rather how I see things, but I'm hard pressed to unpack it all.
However we cut it, and at the risk of trotting out my usual both/and shtick it seems to me that at the heart of the Christian faith in all its forms is a requirement to hold paradoxical things in tension at one and the same time.
It's rooted way back in the Patristic tradition as they wrestled with the scriptures. Fully God and fully man ... or later with Luther's thing about us being both 'justified' and sinners at one and the same time.
All Christian traditions have paradox baked into the common 'dogmatic core' that we all share. And as traditions have developed and diverged they've had to deal with further paradoxes and contradictions.
Living with paradox and contradiction is something common to us all.
Gamma Gamaliel: Yes, I thought the both/and construct might appeal to you ;-)
I once pissed off a visiting evangelical scholar giving a presentation to a large group on the unity of science and faith. "Any questions?"
I put up my hand. "Doesn't the theory of entropy challenge the idea that the Holy Spirit will eventually unite all things? Doesn't it point to increased chaos and things falling apart?"
Deep frown, irritated tone: "No, no, no, that's not what entropy means." He kept talking, but what I felt he really meant was that he did not like being challenged and had no good answer.
My own current thinking resorts to paradox and the divine operation of time. It doesn't seem at all unlikely to me for there to be both complete entropy/heat death of the universe and also, at the same time, complete unity in the Spirit.
I’m wondering why entropy would be a problem for God. I mean, in some sense he invented it, and presumably he can stop/alter it at will. I wouldn’t expect him to do it lightly, but the parousia is not a minor thing.
I’m wondering why entropy would be a problem for God. I mean, in some sense he invented it, and presumably he can stop/alter it at will. I wouldn’t expect him to do it lightly, but the parousia is not a minor thing.
Indeed. That's why I think She can manage whatever reality She chooses to unfold. I think it would have been proper for the visiting scholar to acknowledge that, though. It doesn't help to deny chaos, or sin for that matter.
What's long in eternity? I won't be waiting mind. Counting down. Ten to the twenty one, ten to the twenty one minus one, ten to the twenty one minus two... It would distract from living in the moment. What else would I do? For two hundred trillion years?
I have no idea how any of this works but I have heard people talk about God's 'eternal now.' God outside of time and always 'in the moment' if we can put it that way.
If that means that the future eternity of infinity has already happened from past eternity, in God's now, i.e. eternalism, no. But the great majority say yes. Even without God.
The sacrament of the present moment or living in the eternal now, is one of the main themes of every spiritual tradition in the world. It's the main theme of 18th century Jesuit priest Jean-Pierre de Caussade's seminal "Self Abandonment to Divine Providence." The 20th century Indian sage, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj said it will "heal your mind and take you beyond."
The present moment is where time intersects with eternity. While time is obviously real for us, there are arguments both from physics, and from spirituality that it may have no objective existence. So the only place in which we can experience God is in the eternal now. How much of our lives do we spend living in the swirling mind, going from past memories, good and bad, to future fears, anxieties and insecurities? Mindfulness is a bit of a buzz word nowadays, but even from a psychological perspective, it can relieve a lot of mental suffering.
In the last few years, I've got somewhat into the Practice of the Presence of God, which can only be done in the present moment. I'm rubbish at it,cand my mind flies off at tangents all the time, but I do feel it's made me a calmer person. Several people who have begun this process of living in the present, for entirely non religious motives, have become much more spiritual as a result. If there was one practice to recommend, resting in the sense of "I am" or pure being, is the most spiritual practice one can undertake. It can also be approached from the perspective of dwelling in the eternal now or practicing God's presence.
C'mon, to our shame we've not resolved the dispute with the 'Oriental Orthodox' that arose after the Council of Chalcedon after all that time.
Ever since the formation of the Evangelische Kirke (read Lutheran) reformation, we have worked with the Eastern Church to understand each other in order to come to an agreement. See here.
Here is the most recent paper on the Lutheran and Orthodox discussion on the Trinity
C'mon, to our shame we've not resolved the dispute with the 'Oriental Orthodox' that arose after the Council of Chalcedon after all that time.
Ever since the formation of the Evangelische Kirke (read Lutheran) reformation, we have worked with the Eastern Church to understand each other in order to come to an agreement. See here.
The Evangelicshe Kirche in Deutschland (EKD), formed in 1948, is Lutheran, Reformed and United Protestant. From what you linked, it appears that dialogue between the Lutheran World Fellowship—with the EKD being particularly active—and Eastern Orthodox churches began in 1967.
I think what @Gramps49 has in mind was correspondence between Philip Melanchthon and the Ecumenical Patriarch shortly after the Lutherans split with Rome.
The Germans wrote to the Greeks to tell them what was going on and to outline what the Reformers believed. There was some initial correspondence to-ing and fro-ing until the Ecumenical Patriarch fell silent for a while.
Eventually, he sent a reply to the following effect: 'Learned Germans, thank you for your correspondence. You raise many issues that we don't really want to consider right now. If you really ever do feel the need to write again, please do so out of cordiality and fraternal respect but please don't try to drag us into your controversies thank you. Bye-ee!'
I can imagine him putting rhe phone down on a tiresome salesman. 'Yes. Yes. Thank you. No. We've got double-glazing thank you. Bye!'
It was the Orthodox equivalent of 'Don't call us, we'll call you.'
Oh Gramps49, Gramps49. We love you to bits but you don't half get things wrong at times ... 😉
Okey-dokey. That was then. This is now. I'm pleased to see that there has since bern more constructive dialogue between the Lutherans and the Orthodox. That's all very positive.
But the point I was making in the post that Gramps49 referred to was the scandalously slow pace of rapprochement between the Eastern Orthodox- that is those who accepted the Council of Chalcedon - and the so-called Oriental Orthodox - those who didn't. The Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians and others.
They accused us of Nestorianism, but have since largely revised that opinion. We accused them of Monophysitism - and many of us know think we were wrong to do so. After 1500 years that's slow progress. So why can't we simply get round a table and sort it out once and fir all?
If we can't even manage to do that with churches we are probably closer to in style and ethos, then what hope is there for proper ecumenical dialogue with Rome, with the Lutherans, Anglicans and other churches?
It's great to hear that there's dialogue going on but there'll be beardy-wierdies on Mount Athos trying to put the kibosh on it all.
I think what @Gramps49 has in mind was correspondence between Philip Melanchthon and the Ecumenical Patriarch shortly after the Lutherans split with Rome. . . . .
@Gamma Gamaliel, I very well know the difference between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. I am not a dunce as you often make me out to be. I was just pointing out the progress between the World Lutheran Federation and the Eastern Orthodox.
@Nick The signatories to the Augsburg Confession referred to themselves as Evangelicals. or Evangelichishe long before the formation of the United Church. We became known as Lutherans during the Council of Trent, when the Romans accused Luther as setting up his own religion.
@Nick The signatories to the Augsburg Confession referred to themselves as Evangelicals. or Evangelichishe long before the formation of the United Church. We became known as Lutherans during the Council of Trent, when the Romans accused Luther as setting up his own religion.
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I’m aware of the historic use of Evangelisch/Evangelical in Germany and by Lutherans since—and at times by the German Reformed, hence the historic use of evangelisch‑lutherisch and evangelisch‑reformiert.
But since what you linked to was a page on the Lutheran World Federation’s dialogues with the Eastern Orthodox since 1967, I mistook your reference to the Evangelische Kirche to be a reference to the current EDK. Sorry about that.
@Gamma Gamaliel The extremely long running dispute between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches is a sign of the immovability of Orthodox Christianity. Whether Christ has two nature's, one human and one divine, or one nature that is both human and divine is a matter of semantics not worth a 1700 year split! I disbelieve anyone's claim to understand the nature of Christ in such small detail.
In reality, I'm very sympathetic to Orthodox Christianity. Following the old saying "the further from the source, the muddier the water" I think is a visitor from Mars wanted to know what was closest to "real Christianity" they should look first to the Orthodox which is closer by far historically, geographically, linguistically, and culturally to the cradle of Christianity. This could just as easily be the Oriental Orthodox as anyone else.
What it certainly isn't, is Protestantism invented in 16th century Germany, at a time and distance remote from Jesus and his world. It's the mentality that "because the rest of the Christian world left us behind, it's them who have to change, not us" mentality that I find off putting. Such as asking converts to repent of having belonged to a false church. An example of a compromise which could be made between East and West would be for the East to adopt a modern calendar, and for the West to drop the filioque from the creed. It would take a lot more to achieve unity. But it would be a grand gesture. Try getting it psst the monks at Mt Athos!!
When I lived in London before 2015 I occasionally went to the Antiochian Orthodox Divine Liturgy at St Botolph's, Bishopsgate. To me it had an exotic authenticity to it, as does the Traditional Latin Mass, of a liturgy 1500 years or older, totally lacking in modern church services in the West. There is an English speaking Divine Liturgy once a month only 20 miles from where I live and I'm gearing up to go again soon.
@Gamma Gamaliel, I very well know the difference between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. I am not a dunce as you often make me out to be. I was just pointing out the progress between the World Lutheran Federation and the Eastern Orthodox.
@Nick The signatories to the Augsburg Confession referred to themselves as Evangelicals. or Evangelichishe long before the formation of the United Church. We became known as Lutherans during the Council of Trent, when the Romans accused Luther as setting up his own religion.
Alright. I accept that and apologise for my off the cuff and cutting comments.
It's just that the Lutheran link, interesting as it undoubtedly is, bore very relevance to the issue I'd raised - which was the egregiously long-running split between two Christian blocs which are actually very close on most issues.
@pablito1954 raises similar questions and concerns from the 'outside' as I would from the 'inside' as it were.
Be all that as it may, I apologise for my curmudgeonly response.
It's the Orthodox Holy Week so I really ought to be more careful.
@Gamma Gamaliel The extremely long running dispute between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches is a sign of the immovability of Orthodox Christianity. Whether Christ has two nature's, one human and one divine, or one nature that is both human and divine is a matter of semantics not worth a 1700 year split! I disbelieve anyone's claim to understand the nature of Christ in such small detail.
In reality, I'm very sympathetic to Orthodox Christianity. Following the old saying "the further from the source, the muddier the water" I think is a visitor from Mars wanted to know what was closest to "real Christianity" they should look first to the Orthodox which is closer by far historically, geographically, linguistically, and culturally to the cradle of Christianity. This could just as easily be the Oriental Orthodox as anyone else.
What it certainly isn't, is Protestantism invented in 16th century Germany, at a time and distance remote from Jesus and his world. It's the mentality that "because the rest of the Christian world left us behind, it's them who have to change, not us" mentality that I find off putting. Such as asking converts to repent of having belonged to a false church. An example of a compromise which could be made between East and West would be for the East to adopt a modern calendar, and for the West to drop the filioque from the creed. It would take a lot more to achieve unity. But it would be a grand gesture. Try getting it psst the monks at Mt Athos!!
When I lived in London before 2015 I occasionally went to the Antiochian Orthodox Divine Liturgy at St Botolph's, Bishopsgate. To me it had an exotic authenticity to it, as does the Traditional Latin Mass, of a liturgy 1500 years or older, totally lacking in modern church services in the West. There is an English speaking Divine Liturgy once a month only 20 miles from where I live and I'm gearing up to go again soon.
I must admit, I'm not surprised to hear this given some of your previous comments on these boards.
I'd pretty much go along with your impressions and comments. Including what's 'off-putting'.
I think that's changing slowly, at least with those who are out there engaging with other Christian traditions and not barricading themselves away on Mount Athos.
At the same time there's an influx of right-wing 'anti-woke' agitators who seem to regard Orthodoxy as the last bulwark against liberal and progressive ideas.
That's the last thing we need.
We want people seeking Christ not ideology. Although that isn't to say we can dispense with 'ideology and float away on fluffy clouds.
There are communal and communitarian aspects to Orthodoxy which need to be strengthened against the autocratic and reactionary elements that creep in and which the Putins of this world try to exploit.
It's all very messy.
But enjoy the English-speaking liturgies when you get to them. And if you pray, pray for us as we pray for the union of all.
Oh, FWIW, I wouldn't say that Protestantism was 'invented' in the 16th century. That makes it sound like a manufactured boy-band.
Rather, I'd say it developed out of particular trends and tendencies that were already apparent - for better or worse - in late medieval Western Christianity.
It was in part a response and reaction to some of those trends and a taking of others to their logical conclusion.
The Orthodox tend to see Protestantism and Roman Catholicism as two sides of the same coin. That doesn't mean we don't distinguish between them or are dismissive of positive and attractive aspects within each.
You will, of course, encounter plenty of grumpy Orthodox who think that anything 'Western' is to be rejected and despised. Sadly.
I hope I'm not one of them. But I have enough of my own sins and failings to be going on with.
@Gamma Gamaliel I think Germany had been ripening for a split with Rome for a couple of hundred years before it happened. Writers such as Johannes Tauler, and the Frankfurter who wrote the "Theologia Germanica" along with movements such as the Beguines and the Friends of God were a real challenge to papal authority. French Beguine Marguerite Porete was burned at the stake in 1310 for her mystical masterpiece "The Mirror of Simple Souls" and my favourite of all time Meister Eckhart was hauled before the Inquisition only to die before they could get hold of him.
I still think the reformers threw the baby out with the bathwater though. To insist on Sola Scriptura, without the authority of Pope and magisterium to interpret Scripture results in many thousands of Protestant groups who may disagree about minor things. To insist on Sola Fide, and describe James as an Epistle of Straw results in a belief that people only have to believe in order to be saved, not make positive changes in their lives on the road to Theosis or Sanctification. And it more or less killed stone dead, Christian mysticism within its jurisdiction. That's not to deny that there was much in the medieval church that needed reforming.
Sure. From an Orthodox perspective The Reformation was an understandable reaction against the Papacy and elements of late medieval Roman Catholicism, but it ended up going too far. As indeed did the Counter-Reformation response from Rome.
The main gripes the Orthodox would have with the Reformers are with the 'solas' (not that we have a Magisterium of course) and the way they carried certain Augustinian ideas even further. Calvin is the last of the Medieval Scholastics from an Orthodox point of view.
We wouldn't criticise the Reformation emphasis on personal faith - as long as it didn't become individualistic - nor the missionary endeavours that arose from the Reformation. The Orthodox tend to make a distinction between the Magisterial Reformers and later developments. They are particularly averse to some of the millenialist and revivalist stuff that gained traction within some parts of Protestantism from the 1830s onwards.
Many Orthodox have a soft spot for Wesley though.
But it's mixed. I've found some Eastern Europeans making no distinction between JWs and Mormons, say, and bog-standard independent evangelicals for instance.
I can't comment on Eckhart and other medieval Western mystics as I've not read enough about them.
I can't comment on Eckhart and other medieval Western mystics as I've not read enough about them.
It is interesting to note that Vladimir Lossky, one of the great Russian Orthodox Theologians of the twentieth century, wrote his doctoral thesis on Eckhart.
Gamma Gamaliel: Yes, I thought the both/and construct might appeal to you ;-)
I once pissed off a visiting evangelical scholar giving a presentation to a large group on the unity of science and faith. "Any questions?"
I put up my hand. "Doesn't the theory of entropy challenge the idea that the Holy Spirit will eventually unite all things? Doesn't it point to increased chaos and things falling apart?"
Deep frown, irritated tone: "No, no, no, that's not what entropy means." He kept talking, but what I felt he really meant was that he did not like being challenged and had no good answer.
My own current thinking resorts to paradox and the divine operation of time. It doesn't seem at all unlikely to me for there to be both complete entropy/heat death of the universe and also, at the same time, complete unity in the Spirit.
Lewis is a bit outmoded now in terms of his literary criticism but yes, he makes some good points.
We'll have to disagree about Lewis' literary criticism, I suppose. (While other approaches may be more popular currently, that doesn't make Lewis' approach, or conclusions thereof, any less true.)
Lewis's literary criticism was well out of date when I was at university 40 years ago.
English literature as a discipline has changed, in that when Lewis was writing it tended to be something like a branch of ethics or aesthetics, and now it has become much more theory heavy with a tendency to look like applied sociology. But in terms of what English literary criticism used to be doing, Lewis's criticism is still worth reading.
He's not quite so worth reading on Milton in that he spends a lot of time arguing against objections that he doesn't quite see the point of, and as he doesn't quite see the point of the objection he doesn't quite meet them.
But on Chaucer he's brilliant.
Comments
Indeed. Apparently Housmann considered this the best of the many parodies of his work which circulated at the time.
As for ale - I presume we are talking about the traditional British cask or bottle-conditioned 'real ale' varieties than undergo secondary fermentation?
Beware of artificial substitutes.
'Angels dancing on the tongue,' as a southern beer writer described his first pint of Timothy Taylor's Landlord (the quality isn't always a good as it was back then, but even so).
Like fire, ale is a good servant but a poor master. I drink far less than I used to and that makes me appreciate it the more when I have the occasional pint.
I have to go easy. There is alcoholism in the family and I've seen its devastating effects.
Was that before the first UK Foster's advert? 'tis a fine ale.
Fosters?! FOSTERS!!
For shame, sir! You blaspheme!
I remember an American Shipmate claiming that Fosters was the 'best beer in the world.' I won't name and shame.
It has to be the worst, surely ...
No, whilst the mass marketing of gassy piss purporting to be 'lager' has been the source of much grievous ill on the UK pub and supermarket 'take-home' scene, it's not what I had in mind.
When I was a student in Leeds in the late 70s/early 80s Taylors was pure nectar. Landlord was an extraordinary pint. It's still a cracking pint when it's kept properly and on form.
It was always at its best closer to Keighley where it was brewed but some Leeds pubs cellared it to perfection.
But as it spread out from the West Riding to other parts of the country it seemed to lose something. Most real ales don't travel well.
Tetley used to be wonderful in and around Leeds but could taste atrocious a few miles down the road.
Let's get back to the OP.
It's still Lent and I need to be strong...
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
I remember when beer adverts were the best thing on telly. Including the brilliant early '80s Oz lager ads starting with Foster's. Not Fosters. Otherwise odd ov rit Fosters's wooden eye? That made a star of Paul Hogan so he could become Mick Dundee. And on a hot summer's day, I'm afraid ice cold lager hits the spot. In the first ad, Hogan guilelessly explained what the head of the lager was, 'the head'. And then sipped and said, 'Like an angel crying on your tongue'. How old is your quote?
Whoops! Sorry.
The piece of it that I have trouble getting my head around is new creation. When you have a new thing, it is not the old thing which is slightly patched up and improved. A new thing is different from the old thing. If new creation works backward and forward through time, perhaps we are all Ships of Theseus, so to speak - both old and new at the same time.
Ok. I get the reference now. The quote predates those ads.
But that's my last word on the matter as I don't want to derail the thread further.
To get back to the plot ...
@Leaf. Yes, that's rather how I see things, but I'm hard pressed to unpack it all.
However we cut it, and at the risk of trotting out my usual both/and shtick it seems to me that at the heart of the Christian faith in all its forms is a requirement to hold paradoxical things in tension at one and the same time.
It's rooted way back in the Patristic tradition as they wrestled with the scriptures. Fully God and fully man ... or later with Luther's thing about us being both 'justified' and sinners at one and the same time.
All Christian traditions have paradox baked into the common 'dogmatic core' that we all share. And as traditions have developed and diverged they've had to deal with further paradoxes and contradictions.
Living with paradox and contradiction is something common to us all.
I once pissed off a visiting evangelical scholar giving a presentation to a large group on the unity of science and faith. "Any questions?"
I put up my hand. "Doesn't the theory of entropy challenge the idea that the Holy Spirit will eventually unite all things? Doesn't it point to increased chaos and things falling apart?"
Deep frown, irritated tone: "No, no, no, that's not what entropy means." He kept talking, but what I felt he really meant was that he did not like being challenged and had no good answer.
My own current thinking resorts to paradox and the divine operation of time. It doesn't seem at all unlikely to me for there to be both complete entropy/heat death of the universe and also, at the same time, complete unity in the Spirit.
Indeed. That's why I think She can manage whatever reality She chooses to unfold. I think it would have been proper for the visiting scholar to acknowledge that, though. It doesn't help to deny chaos, or sin for that matter.
I'm not sure I'm helping...
The present moment is where time intersects with eternity. While time is obviously real for us, there are arguments both from physics, and from spirituality that it may have no objective existence. So the only place in which we can experience God is in the eternal now. How much of our lives do we spend living in the swirling mind, going from past memories, good and bad, to future fears, anxieties and insecurities? Mindfulness is a bit of a buzz word nowadays, but even from a psychological perspective, it can relieve a lot of mental suffering.
In the last few years, I've got somewhat into the Practice of the Presence of God, which can only be done in the present moment. I'm rubbish at it,cand my mind flies off at tangents all the time, but I do feel it's made me a calmer person. Several people who have begun this process of living in the present, for entirely non religious motives, have become much more spiritual as a result. If there was one practice to recommend, resting in the sense of "I am" or pure being, is the most spiritual practice one can undertake. It can also be approached from the perspective of dwelling in the eternal now or practicing God's presence.
Ever since the formation of the Evangelische Kirke (read Lutheran) reformation, we have worked with the Eastern Church to understand each other in order to come to an agreement. See here.
Here is the most recent paper on the Lutheran and Orthodox discussion on the Trinity
The Germans wrote to the Greeks to tell them what was going on and to outline what the Reformers believed. There was some initial correspondence to-ing and fro-ing until the Ecumenical Patriarch fell silent for a while.
Eventually, he sent a reply to the following effect: 'Learned Germans, thank you for your correspondence. You raise many issues that we don't really want to consider right now. If you really ever do feel the need to write again, please do so out of cordiality and fraternal respect but please don't try to drag us into your controversies thank you. Bye-ee!'
I can imagine him putting rhe phone down on a tiresome salesman. 'Yes. Yes. Thank you. No. We've got double-glazing thank you. Bye!'
It was the Orthodox equivalent of 'Don't call us, we'll call you.'
Oh Gramps49, Gramps49. We love you to bits but you don't half get things wrong at times ... 😉
Okey-dokey. That was then. This is now. I'm pleased to see that there has since bern more constructive dialogue between the Lutherans and the Orthodox. That's all very positive.
But the point I was making in the post that Gramps49 referred to was the scandalously slow pace of rapprochement between the Eastern Orthodox- that is those who accepted the Council of Chalcedon - and the so-called Oriental Orthodox - those who didn't. The Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians and others.
They accused us of Nestorianism, but have since largely revised that opinion. We accused them of Monophysitism - and many of us know think we were wrong to do so. After 1500 years that's slow progress. So why can't we simply get round a table and sort it out once and fir all?
If we can't even manage to do that with churches we are probably closer to in style and ethos, then what hope is there for proper ecumenical dialogue with Rome, with the Lutherans, Anglicans and other churches?
It's great to hear that there's dialogue going on but there'll be beardy-wierdies on Mount Athos trying to put the kibosh on it all.
@Nick The signatories to the Augsburg Confession referred to themselves as Evangelicals. or Evangelichishe long before the formation of the United Church. We became known as Lutherans during the Council of Trent, when the Romans accused Luther as setting up his own religion.
But since what you linked to was a page on the Lutheran World Federation’s dialogues with the Eastern Orthodox since 1967, I mistook your reference to the Evangelische Kirche to be a reference to the current EDK. Sorry about that.
In reality, I'm very sympathetic to Orthodox Christianity. Following the old saying "the further from the source, the muddier the water" I think is a visitor from Mars wanted to know what was closest to "real Christianity" they should look first to the Orthodox which is closer by far historically, geographically, linguistically, and culturally to the cradle of Christianity. This could just as easily be the Oriental Orthodox as anyone else.
What it certainly isn't, is Protestantism invented in 16th century Germany, at a time and distance remote from Jesus and his world. It's the mentality that "because the rest of the Christian world left us behind, it's them who have to change, not us" mentality that I find off putting. Such as asking converts to repent of having belonged to a false church. An example of a compromise which could be made between East and West would be for the East to adopt a modern calendar, and for the West to drop the filioque from the creed. It would take a lot more to achieve unity. But it would be a grand gesture. Try getting it psst the monks at Mt Athos!!
When I lived in London before 2015 I occasionally went to the Antiochian Orthodox Divine Liturgy at St Botolph's, Bishopsgate. To me it had an exotic authenticity to it, as does the Traditional Latin Mass, of a liturgy 1500 years or older, totally lacking in modern church services in the West. There is an English speaking Divine Liturgy once a month only 20 miles from where I live and I'm gearing up to go again soon.
Alright. I accept that and apologise for my off the cuff and cutting comments.
It's just that the Lutheran link, interesting as it undoubtedly is, bore very relevance to the issue I'd raised - which was the egregiously long-running split between two Christian blocs which are actually very close on most issues.
@pablito1954 raises similar questions and concerns from the 'outside' as I would from the 'inside' as it were.
Be all that as it may, I apologise for my curmudgeonly response.
It's the Orthodox Holy Week so I really ought to be more careful.
I must admit, I'm not surprised to hear this given some of your previous comments on these boards.
I'd pretty much go along with your impressions and comments. Including what's 'off-putting'.
I think that's changing slowly, at least with those who are out there engaging with other Christian traditions and not barricading themselves away on Mount Athos.
At the same time there's an influx of right-wing 'anti-woke' agitators who seem to regard Orthodoxy as the last bulwark against liberal and progressive ideas.
That's the last thing we need.
We want people seeking Christ not ideology. Although that isn't to say we can dispense with 'ideology and float away on fluffy clouds.
There are communal and communitarian aspects to Orthodoxy which need to be strengthened against the autocratic and reactionary elements that creep in and which the Putins of this world try to exploit.
It's all very messy.
But enjoy the English-speaking liturgies when you get to them. And if you pray, pray for us as we pray for the union of all.
Rather, I'd say it developed out of particular trends and tendencies that were already apparent - for better or worse - in late medieval Western Christianity.
It was in part a response and reaction to some of those trends and a taking of others to their logical conclusion.
The Orthodox tend to see Protestantism and Roman Catholicism as two sides of the same coin. That doesn't mean we don't distinguish between them or are dismissive of positive and attractive aspects within each.
You will, of course, encounter plenty of grumpy Orthodox who think that anything 'Western' is to be rejected and despised. Sadly.
I hope I'm not one of them. But I have enough of my own sins and failings to be going on with.
I still think the reformers threw the baby out with the bathwater though. To insist on Sola Scriptura, without the authority of Pope and magisterium to interpret Scripture results in many thousands of Protestant groups who may disagree about minor things. To insist on Sola Fide, and describe James as an Epistle of Straw results in a belief that people only have to believe in order to be saved, not make positive changes in their lives on the road to Theosis or Sanctification. And it more or less killed stone dead, Christian mysticism within its jurisdiction. That's not to deny that there was much in the medieval church that needed reforming.
The main gripes the Orthodox would have with the Reformers are with the 'solas' (not that we have a Magisterium of course) and the way they carried certain Augustinian ideas even further. Calvin is the last of the Medieval Scholastics from an Orthodox point of view.
We wouldn't criticise the Reformation emphasis on personal faith - as long as it didn't become individualistic - nor the missionary endeavours that arose from the Reformation. The Orthodox tend to make a distinction between the Magisterial Reformers and later developments. They are particularly averse to some of the millenialist and revivalist stuff that gained traction within some parts of Protestantism from the 1830s onwards.
Many Orthodox have a soft spot for Wesley though.
But it's mixed. I've found some Eastern Europeans making no distinction between JWs and Mormons, say, and bog-standard independent evangelicals for instance.
I can't comment on Eckhart and other medieval Western mystics as I've not read enough about them.
It is interesting to note that Vladimir Lossky, one of the great Russian Orthodox Theologians of the twentieth century, wrote his doctoral thesis on Eckhart.
I suspect there may be many parallels and echoes between the great mystics of East and West, for all the differences in theology and approach.
Lewis’ A Preface to Paradise Lost (and, in my view, Lewis’ other books) is awesome!!
Advocaccy Comino'.
We'll have to disagree about Lewis' literary criticism, I suppose. (While other approaches may be more popular currently, that doesn't make Lewis' approach, or conclusions thereof, any less true.)
We'll have to disagree on that, of course...
I'm surprised @ChastMastr. I choose option 4 personally.
His main legacy is the Narnia books and stuff like 'The Great Divorce'. He wrote poetry too, but very uninspiring.
He's interesting as a popular apologist but was by no means a heavy-weight theologian.
That's not to denigrate Lewis at all. He's a significant figure with a wide appeal across all churches and denominations.
He's not quite so worth reading on Milton in that he spends a lot of time arguing against objections that he doesn't quite see the point of, and as he doesn't quite see the point of the objection he doesn't quite meet them.
But on Chaucer he's brilliant.