De-Repose-ition

Alas, twas much more than a multitude of fortnights since thou hast been graced by my presence. "Why forth wast thou in said state of repose?," you asketh. Wherewith I was disenfranchised by the utterly innocuous conundrum of drum-like patterns repetitiously rattling throughout my cranium once read from the monitor of substandard socio-political persuasion, I twas benighted by the bewildering bananza of biblically oriented Oriental (that is to say Asian) offerings which hath been proffered by those who prefer the excruciating task of exegetical exactitude to the deep things of God, yea, the deep, deep things of God, so graciously groaned forth in a manner akin to the most violent inbraking of stomach cancer by the hagia pneuma, yes the τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τοῦ θεοῦ. Such is to say that the lack of theo-contemplation of the pseudotheological persuasion¹ produced irreducible conniption fits in the core of my inner sanctum, my most holy of holies, that is my essentially essential essence, thus forcing my repose until such a time as this, when one Mr. Stefan Vázquez has called forth my memory in a kind and gracious act of allusion which eludes even the most barbaric of biblical studiers (LINK). This kind and gentle soul has added the rennet of deep theo-contemplation to the milk of biblica-blogging so that the curd of Ψευδοθεολογια could rise to the top leaving the whey of biblical bumbling in its wake. Hence it is with the recoiling of my memorandum that I return from my decomposed repose to once again bless world with my wit and wisdom.

¹ Of course by 'lack' I do not include the meanderings of Halden, Kim Fabricius, or any theobloggers of the like. There is never a shortage of Ψευδοθεολογια from these my esteemed colleagues.

Audacity

Wonders shall never cease to mystify and exemplify the studiousness of serious theo-interaction with divine contemplation through which we engage a crying world drenched in tears of ill conceived torment hurled in its direction from the audaciously judgmental "Christians" of the land wherewith they feel most-highly enough to suggest that the actions that clearly allow god's creatures to exist in blissful ignorance and happy interaction with others of like minded persuasions are somehow 'wrong' (blech!) or 'sinful' (gasp!) as if they had never engaged in questionable behaviour. Whether or not they have 'repented' (whatever that might mean) and sought the Lord's forgiveness for this behaviour is clearly irrelevant since it is the same thing no matter how different it actually is. Rather than call god's creatures to 'holiness' (whatever that is) we should embrace the carnality of all since it is said carnality that binds the fallen creation so that it might be hoisted up by the community of self-giving lovers: Mother, Daughter, and Sophia.

Ignorance, Understanding, and Carlos Barth

The utter dismality apparent in the current state of so-called "biblio-blogging" is as degenerate and disastrous as wealthy wo/men with gambling problems. The analogous import of the aforementioned sentencinal structure is this: there exists an abundance out of which substance the ignorant can continue to support their own habit. This became ever-evident on this very day from the post of Nick Norelli who enunciated his utter ignorance and lack of understanding. I quote him in part:

I’d advise against [reading Barth's illustrious Die Kirchliche Dogmatik] on this basis: Everyone I have read (either in books or on blogs) who has read through CD has ended up either more confused or more confusing for doing so. That’s why I have purposed to only read through CD I/1 and find out if Barth can really be labeled a modalist or not.

The sheer arrogance exhibited in this thought that doing theology is supposed to result in coherent thought or understanding is tantamount to heresy! For it denies the true substance of theo-contemplation which is an agnosticising of the divine so that we recognize our utter inability to be conceived as anything other than that which cannot conceive of the inconceivable conception of YHVH.

Furthermore, I find his question concerning Barth's alleged 'modalism' (a term might I add that has little force in modern speculative theology for we cannot conceive of any actual difference in the theo-team) to be totally misplaced. The question is not whether or not the great Carlos Barth was a 'modalist', but rather the question is was his modalism speculatively justifiable in quantifiable terms of the word association that we call communicative language. The answer is a resounding yes for any and everything which challenged the status quo of comfortable theology and traditional 'exegesis' must be validly accepted as acceptably valid.

Ignoring Exegesis

One of the axioms upon which ψευδοθεολογια is dependent is that exegesis must be avoided, ignored, and side-stepped at all costs. This quasi-divine utterance (LINK) from pseudo-theologian Halden and the ruminations of Kim Fabricius that follow are the perfect example of this. Well done good sirs, jolly good show, jolly good indeed. Shame on those poor commenters who sought to exegete the text in its context and thus avoid the pretext for the proof text. Someone must explain to those types that this is not how theology is done!

Shabbos Shalom

Contemplating the complexity of complete complementarity comments on the commitment of commercial commingling in the consubstantiality of concomitant conversations among the conversant of the emergent movement whereby communion is more than a couple of onions but rather is the community of eternal fellowship lovingly interacting in a square dance of triangulated perfection giving and receiving, receiving and giving, hop scotching and skipping through the cosmic embrace of salvific sensuality irregardless of the consequential repercussions of violating the Lord's Shabbos. Thus, to acheive shalom in the home is to break the Shabbos of YHVH in a subversive act of disobedient obedience. כל טוב

9 Propositions on Ψευδοθεολογια

Because I could never attain to the heights of pseudotheologian Kim Fabricius I will grace the reader with but 9 propositions on pseudotheology:

1. To speak in the manner which the common man understands is to essentially bring the divine down to the level of humanity. Such speech is inadequate for the pseudotheologian and must be avoided at all costs.

2. Pseudotheology is the enterprise of interpreting exactly that which the Scriptures do not say and making such interpretations completely irrelevant to the human condition.

3. Ψευδοθεολογια is lost without Germans and young Americans who unsuspectingly eat up everything these Germans say.

4. The act of pseudoθεολογια is to wonder, ponder, and ask, yet never to figure out, apply, or answer.

5. Ψευδοtheologia would be naught if it weren't for the suffix -ation.

6. Stanley Hauerwas is the preeminent Ψευδοθεολογιαn in North America.

7. Jürgen Moltmann is his German counterpart.

8. 98.89% of all weblogs that pertain to theology are the epitomy of Ψευδοθεολογια.

9. Speculative theology is the process in which we see (via the spec-tacle) the rel-ative (i.e. the red headed step cousin) of proper God-speech which is no less than Ψευδοθεολογια.

Carpe Diem

While the commoners among us bicker and quarrel over controversial eschatological matters of "rapture" they fail to realize the existential realism in the New Testament's presentation of exactly what is "raptured" i.e., the day. One need search no further than the illustrious Latin of St. Jerome's Vulgate, a translation prepared for the common among us to see this relative truth so perfectly presented so as to presuppose our perfect perception of it.

Most misconstrue Rabbi Shaul's words in 1Thessalonians 4:16, 17:

quoniam ipse Dominus in iussu et in voce archangeli et in tuba Dei descendet de caelo et mortui qui in Christo sunt resurgent primi deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus

to mean that perhaps the Lord will rapiemur (i.e., rapture) his saints at his coming. Talk of timing is meaningless when referring to the eternally redemptive paradigm in which the Scriptures are set, so debate over when the tribulation occurs in relation to the "rapture" is futile. But it is the words of Messiah Yeshua in the tenth chapter of John's Gospel that lays this erroneous idea to eternal rest:

oves meae vocem meam audiunt et ego cognosco eas et sequuntur me et ego vitam aeternam do eis et non peribunt in aeternum et non rapiet eas quisquam de manu mea Pater meus quod dedit mihi maius omnibus est et nemo potest rapere de manu Patris mei

Yeshua is transparent in his presentation. No man shall rapiet/rapere (i.e., rapture) the saints from his and his Father's hands! To suppose that Jesus, himself a man, could "rapture" his saints is to spit in the eternally reflective face of the divine revelation mediated through the humanly articulated and pneumatically inspired utterances of the apostolic witness.

Quite the opposite, the Latin term translated into the English "rapture" is a translation of the Greek hαρπαζω which means to "seize" or "carry off by force." But the joyous transcendence of salvific elation is not forceful and the ever-existing give-and-take relationship of the triune life would never allow a "seizure" of God's people. Rather it is the day itself that is "seized" when the divine meets humanity and heaven is brought to earth. Carpe diem!