Allan R. Bevere

Anchors Aweigh! Sailing Forward on the Sails of Tradition

2013-06-18T06:00:00.000-05:00

Peter Enns links to and comments on a post by Father Ted Bobosh who wrote a post entitled, "The Ship of Salvation's Sail not its Anchor." Bobosh writes,

Tradition, like Scripture, is not made holy by being carved into stone, but rather by being interpreted within a community, by being the heart of the community's relationship to God and the world. Tradition is thus alive and constantly relating to the world, not written in stone and frozen in some past understanding.

Pete comments,

A very new thing happened in the Gospel that previous iterations of God's word were not able to grasp–namely a messiah who was executed by the Romans rather than defeating them and then raised from the dead. The tradition had to be transformed to account for this.

Pete notes that in some conservative Protestant circles tradition is rejected in favor of a flat reading of Scripture that mutes the Bible's dynamic quality. He is correct. I would also say in that in my own mainline Protestant experience, more than a few liberals reject tradition as simply outdated dogma that enlightened folks can no longer believe.

As Jaroslav Pelikan rightly observed, "Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. And, I suppose I should add, it is traditionalism that gives tradition such a bad name."

Indeed.

A Theological Showdown in the Wild East

2013-06-17T06:16:00.000-05:00

Scot McKnight writes a post on Ronald Heine's new book, Classical Christian Doctrine: Introducing the Essentials of Ancient Christian Faith. Heine argues that the biggest theological showdown in church history was not the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, nor the split between the Eastern and Western Churches in the eleventh century. The most important debate in the the history of the Christian Church took place in the fourth century between Arius and the advocates of what would result in the Nicene Creed. Scot writes,

The issues: the earliest Christians believed in one and only one God. They believed as well that Jesus, the Son of God, was fully God. How to articulate Jesus as “God” and, at the same time, hold firmly to one God? That’s the issue. Some attempts made the Son a second kind of god, while modalism ended up with one God but appearing in different modes over time, while some simply said Jesus wasn’t God like the one God. He had to be human.

Arius of Alexandria believed in one God, and believed the one God was absolutely unique and his term was that this one God was “unbegotten.” The Son, Arius argued, was “begotten.” Since the term “begotten” would have meant the Son had the same “nature” as the Father, which is what orthodoxy affirms, Arius made it clear that his understanding of “begotten” meant “created” and that meant the Father and the Son did not have the same nature.

The debate lingered but this became the orthodox position of the church. This council did not determine this orthodox theology for this theology existed prior to Nicea. This was a precise and clear articulation and an articulation on which the bishops agreed and one that became orthodox christology. It is still orthodox christology.

Athanasius argued, and he was orthodoxy’s most articulate theologian, that death cannot be defeated by a human; only God can defeat and undo death. This is an early glimpse of Anselm. And one can worship Jesus Christ only if he is God.

I quite agree.

Scriptures and Prayer for the Fourth Sunday after Pentecost

2013-06-16T06:00:00.000-05:00

Old Testament: 2 Samuel 11:26-12:15

Epistle: Galatians 2:15-21

Gospel: Luke 7:36-8:3
___
Merciful God, your ready forgiveness makes us bold to confess our sins. Grant that we may die to sin and become fully alive by faith in Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Saturday at the Cinema: Science and Genesis

2013-06-15T07:16:00.000-05:00

Pencil and Pipe

2013-06-13T09:13:00.000-05:00

Jamie White, a student at Ashland Theological Seminary has a new blog devoted to C.S. Lewis. Her blog was started as a field study project in conjunction with a study group that meets bi-weekly. After the project is completed, she will expand the scope of her blog, but for now she is focusing solely on Lewis.

Here are two posts worth reading:

Lewis's Mind Matters

Why Uncle Andrew Couldn't Hear the Animals Speak

Jamie is a thoughtful writer. Stop by her blog, Pencil and Pipe, and leave a comment if you desire.

Prophet as a Dangerous Profession: A Lectionary Reflection on 2 Samuel 11:26-12:15

2013-06-11T06:00:00.000-05:00

2 Samuel 11:26-12:15

Being a prophet is tough. Prophets are called to speak the truth and sometimes the truth is not popular. It is not only difficult to speak the prophetic word, it can be dangerous.

David is the king of Israel. He is a powerful man. Powerful leaders tend to find themselves surrounded by advisers who say the kinds of things they think the king wants to hear-- "Your Highness, things are going splendidly. Your subjects adore you." "Your Majesty, while it may be going outside the law, the safety of the people is a top priority." And when kings find themselves surrounded only by loyal toadies, they can become insulated and think they live by a different standard than everyone else. They can come to believe that they are above the law and their actions, though wrong for others, are in the best interest of the common good.

And then kings get used to getting whatever they want. And they can tend to want less of what is good for the kingdom, and more of what is desirable to the king. David desires Bathsheba. He gets what he wants. Bathsheba has no say.

Nathan must now give to David the difficult word of truth. If Nathan doesn't, no one else will. David has acted treacherously, dishonestly, and selfishly. He believes that because he is king he is entitled to what is off limits to others. The king bears unique burdens. Shouldn't the king have special perks? It is Nathan's task to dispel such allusions. The prophet exists to remind the king that he who is to administer justice is not permitted to be unjust. As ruler, he is to execute the law, not trample upon it; and that is just what Nathan does.

Nathan tells the heart-wrenching story of two men, one with more than enough, the other with very little. While the rich man has flocks and herds in abundance, the poor man had only one lamb that not only provided milk--sustenance-- but companionship. The rich man needs to entertain a traveler-- the code of hospitality demands it. But he is too stingy to take from his vast flock; and so he steals the poor man's beloved lamb and slaughters it to feed to his guest.

David is justifiably angry, and he is ready to exact justice on the wealthy man who has behaved in such an evil manner. "Then David's anger was greatly kindled against the man. He said to Nathan, 'As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.'"

"And then Nathan said to David, 'You are the man!'" The king's court must have fallen silent.

David is king. He has the army at his disposal. Nathan is a prophet. He has no army. David is powerful. His generals will carry out any order. Nathan has no generals at his disposal. David has a sword. Nathan has no weapon other than the spoken word-- the sword of truth.

If David had desired, he could have squelched Nathan's word and Nathan along with it. It's dangerous being a prophet, but the word of the Lord must be spoken in season and out of season (2 Timothy 4:2). Nathan does so at great risk to himself. But he is a prophet. His task is to preach the word of the Lord, to speak the truth. The personal consequences are not to be weighed.

Indeed, being a prophet is quite dangerous.

Church Used to Be Fun...

2013-06-10T14:23:00.002-05:00

(Click on the image to enlarge)

___
A Cartoon by Dave Walker (HT: Richard Hall)

Valedictorian Speeches: It's Not About Courage, It's About Integrity

2013-06-10T06:00:00.000-05:00

As a United Methodist pastor, I serve in a tradition that practices infant baptism. Many years ago we had issues with candidates for ordained ministry that would hide their opposition to baptizing infants until they were ordained. Then after their position was secure they would announce that they would practice only believer's baptism and therefore would only baptize adults upon their confession of faith. When I was the chair of a District Committee on Ordained Ministry, the first committee to interview possible ordinands, I would say to candidates struggling with the practice of infant baptism that it was OK to raise questions about the practice, but if they decided that they could not in good conscience baptize infants, then they needed to show some integrity and find a church tradition in keeping with their views. I suggested that it lacked integrity for candidates for ministry to hide their views and then announce them after their ordination.

Honesty is critical for integrity. Deception destroys it. When we hide our intentions to break the rules even though we agree to them, at least implicitly, we lack integrity.

Meet Roy Costner IV, the Valedictorian for 2013 at Liberty High School in Liberty, SC. He was told by the school board that he was not permitted to mention religion in his speech and that his words had to be approved ahead of time. He agreed to the ground rules and never revealed his intentions to scrap the speech in favor of reciting the Lord's Prayer. Costner said, "'I decided God is such an important part of my life. I feel like if we take Him out of school, it's going to hurt the school more than help. But I've noticed this past year more types of arguments, more types of fights going on that I think could be prevented with bringing God back into school,' he explained."

Now, I am not going to get into the issue of what it means to bring God back to school, which I find to be a real strange perspective. Rather, I want to suggest that young Roy Costner IV, who I am sure is a fine young man, demonstrated a serious lack of integrity in doing what he did without informing those who were laying down the ground rules of his speech that he was intending to recite the Lord's Prayer, something that was against the rules. This is not an issue of whether or not one agrees with the rules; rather it is a matter of honesty. To hide one's intentions, even though one knows the rules, and then break those rules lacks integrity in a way that detracts from the gospel instead of representing it.

If young Mr. Costner wanted to reflect the image of Jesus, he should have made it clear to the school board that if he could not mention his faith, then he could not in good conscience speak. Thus, he would reflect honesty and he would be true to his convictions, while letting the school board know those convictions and then allowing them to decide whether or not he could speak. Instead, he went ahead and submitted something that would be approved and then dishonestly did something else that he knew was against the rules. Can one imagine Jesus being this deceptively dishonest?

Can we also imagine someone sitting in that graduation ceremony, who is perhaps on the edge of their faith, not sure if they believe or not, and then to have to endure a follower of Jesus willfully and dishonestly doing something other than expected, something that he ahead of time agreed to do? What would persuade that person to follow Jesus, who supposedly is the truth, when his followers cannot be honest with the truth? Jesus himself said that Christians should be the kind of people whose words reflect their character... so much so that they should not need to take oaths that they are indeed being honest-- let your yes be yes and your no be no (Matthew 5:37).

Many years ago, I received a phone call from the fire chief in the town where I lived wondering if I would offer a prayer of dedication for the new firehouse. In the midst of the conversation he said to me that my prayer would have to be generic and vague since there would be people there of differing religious convictions. In other words, I could not mention Jesus in my prayer. Since I am opposed to vague prayers offered to a non-specific deity, I respectfully declined to offer the prayer saying that as a Christian I had to pray in the name of Jesus, so in respect to the ground rules of the public prayer, I would pass on the invitation. It would have been a lack of integrity on my part to agree to the ground rules and then break them to make some point about the gospel in a crass and dishonest. way. Integrity demanded that I graciously decline the offer.

To my fellow followers of Jesus, I say get over your desire to be in charge and in control. Our salvation is possible only because our Lord and Savior gave up his control and submitted himself to death on a cross. And you undermine the truth of the gospel when it is more important for you to one-up the non-believers, than to bear witness to the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And we cannot do that without integrity.

And without honesty, there can be no integrity; and no one will take Jesus seriously until we act in ways that we must be taken seriously.

Scriptures and Prayer for the Third Sunday after Pentecost

2013-06-09T06:00:00.000-05:00

Old Testament: 1 Kings 17:8-24

Epistle: Galatians 1:11-24

Gospel: Luke 7:11-17
___
Beckoning God, as you moved in the lives of Elijah and Elisha, move in our lives, inviting us to journey to unknown territory, to listen for your voice, and to speak your prophetic word in a world that does not want to hear empowered by your Spirit, grant us the courage we need to journey, trust, listen, speak, and accept your commission to be your faithful servant people. Amen.

Saturday at the Cinema: Is Sex About Power?

2013-06-08T08:00:00.000-05:00

Do the Names of Children Reveal the Politics of Parents?

2013-06-07T13:00:00.000-05:00

When I see studies like this, I must admit I get skeptical. In any case, it is interesting.

___

by Stephanie Pappas, Live Science:

Quick, make a guess: Are Liam's parents Obama voters, or did they pull for John McCain? How about Kurt's mom and dad?

If your gut suggested that Kurt's parents might swing conservative while Liam's are liberal, congratulations. A new study of baby names does, indeed, show that parents in liberal neighborhoods are more likely to choose softer, more feminine sounds, such as "L," for their babies' names, while conservative parents go for macho-sounding K's, B's and D's.

The same research finds that liberal, well-educated parents are more likely to pick obscure names for their children, while conservative, well-educated parents take a more conventional naming path. Both methods seem to be a way of signaling status, said study researcher Eric Oliver, a political scientist at the University of Chicago — though it's unlikely parents realize what they're doing.

The results revealed that overall, the less educated the parent, the more likely they were to give their child either an uncommon name (meaning fewer than 20 children got the same name that year in California), or a unique name (meaning only one child got that name in 2004 in California). When parents had less than a college education, there were no major ideological differences in naming choice.

However, among college-educated whites, politics made a difference. College-educated moms and dads in the most liberal neighborhoods were twice as likely as college-educated parents in the most conservative neighborhoods to give their kids an uncommon name. Educated conservatives were more likely to favor popular names, which were defined as names in the top 100 in California that year.

The findings of an ideological split mostly among the well-educated are no surprise, Oliver said, as only about 20 percent of the American public holds strong political principles, and those people tend to be college educated. In that group, he said, the data suggest that liberals are looking to distinguish themselves for their culture and education by choosing esoteric names. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to pick traditional names that will distinguish their kids as economically successful.

___

The entire post can be read here.

Once Again, Confirmation Bias

2013-06-07T06:00:00.000-05:00

With the Obama Administration mired in and distracted by various scandals of late, which seems to be the norm in a second presidential term, once again we find that some of the president's detractors are piling on looking for anything they can to implicate President Obama directly, even reading more into some of the evidence than is warranted. On the other side, the president's supporters are minimizing the damning evidence and/or trying to spin the evidence in order to deflect away from the misdeeds of those in the IRS, the DOJ, and the State Department.

To be sure, there has been some serious misbehavior, but people continue to debate how bad it actually is and how far up the chain-of-command it goes. We may never know the answer to the latter. But regardless of one's politics and whether one is apt to give the Obama Administration the benefit of the doubt or assume its guilt, it is a good idea for all of us to think, once again, how every single one of us struggles with confirmation bias. Science Daily defines confirmation bias:

"In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors. Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis."

The fact that confirmation bias exists does not mean we can never get to the truth of something, but we must realize that it seems very natural for us to minimize or discard completely the evidence that undermines our position and exaggerate the information that confirms what we already believe. So, while we cannot avoid confirmation bias, we can be aware of it, and attempt to be fair and consider everything that is before us.

By the way, confirmation bias is not only a problem in politics; it is present in theological reflection and biblical interpretation as well. Perhaps this is one important reason why that regardless of the topic of discussion, we should seek to intentionally gather different voices at the table. Confirmation bias becomes more entrenched when we associate only with the like-minded.

Ultimately, it's not about what we want to believe; it is about what is actually true.

Caption Contest... And the Winner Is...

2013-06-06T14:08:00.000-05:00

Bruce B.: "Introducing McDonald's new Infant Happy Meal."

On Waiting Lists and Lung Transplants: Even in Medicine Resources Are Limited

2013-06-06T10:16:00.000-05:00

The very difficult and tragic case of Sarah Murnaghan, the ten-year-old girl who needs a lung transplant in order to survive has made national news.Since Sarah is under twelve years of age, she cannot be on the adult transplant list, which would increase her chances of receiving a transplant. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has been put in the very difficult position of making an exception to put young Sarah on the adult waiting list. She has resisted doing so, but now a federal judge has ordered her to do just that.

This is an extremely difficult and agonizing situation. On the one hand, I completely understand Sarah's parents' desire to see their daughter live. If she were my daughter, I would be fighting tooth and nail to get her that transplant. On the other hand, I also understand the other side of the issue as well. In putting Sarah at the head of the line will that action mean someone else's death whose time will run out before another lung is available? I do not understand the criticism from some conservative pundits suggesting that Secretary Sebelius has become a one-women death panel. It seems to me that her position is the politically conservative one-- that laws should not be changed or exceptions made based on emotional whims. Of course, it is preferable in my view to save a young girl who potentially has her entire life ahead of her than to give those same lungs to someone who has already lived most of her or his life. Every life is precious. A price tag cannot be attached to anyone, but the reality is decisions are made every day, even in medicine, that affect the lives of others.

One of things that is seldom discussed or acknowledged is that medicine, health care, just like everything else in life has limited capabilities and resources. The medical resource well is not bottomless. Medicine is and always will be rationed-- it doesn't matter whether the health care system is a purely private system where the insurance companies decline medicines and procedures for various reasons, or whether it's a single payer system where the government gives that task to an agency of some kind. In medicine money, time, and resources are not without end. So when Secretary Sebelius says that some live and some die, she is correct. Of course, it can be difficult to accept that truth when it's your loved one whose life hangs in the balance. We must remember that the other person who is ill that we do not know and who will be denied their life-saving procedure because they are now one place down on the list is loved and cherished by others too.

I am not suggesting that organ transplant regulations should not be revisited. I am also not saying that young Sarah should go to the head of the line nor left on the children's transplant list. As I said, this is one of those tragic and agonizing situations where no decision is perfect. What I am saying is that as we work to make sure that everyone has access to basic health care (a good thing) and as we seek to offer the best medicine we can (another good thing), we need to remember that medicine is not and will never be the gift that keeps on giving for all time. It cannot achieve immortality. Eternity is in the hands of God alone.

Perhaps one of the gifts the church can give to the world is to be the kind of people who live their lives in such a way that we bear witness to the finitude of our existence, which means that there comes a time when we willingly no longer fight even death. Perhaps we need to be reminded that ultimately our lives rest not in the hands of physicians, but in the hands of God. Perhaps our desire to be kept alive beyond all reason testing the limits of medicine can demonstrate a lack of faith in the One who gives us all our days and who is with us in all our days.

The only thing without limit is the love of God who is with us in life and in death.

Let us pray for Sarah Murnaghan.

All Your Summer Reading Is Right Here

2013-06-05T06:00:00.000-05:00

Check out Energion's Summer Reading sale.... more here than you can devour in a summer.... I dare you.

The Pharisees-- Setting the Record Straight

2013-06-04T13:55:00.002-05:00

Scot McKnight on Derek Lehman on the Pharisees:
___
There are several reasons why the Pharisees are misunderstood:

>Josephus, who was a Pharisee, exaggerated their power and influence

>The later rabbis (third through sixth centuries), whose origins were in the Pharisee movement, exaggerated their power and influence when writing about the first century

>The other parties (Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians) all ceased to exist after 70 CE

>Yeshua (Jesus) clashed with the Pharisees on some matters of Torah

>Un-careful reading of the Gospels leads people not to notice the Sadducees and chief priests were the main villains, not the Pharisees.
___
The entire post can be read here.

The Economic Future of the States: How Economic Prosperity Is Shifting

2013-06-04T11:36:00.000-05:00

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Caption Contest

2013-06-03T06:00:00.000-05:00

Scriptures and Prayer for the Second Sunday after Pentecost

2013-06-02T06:00:00.000-05:00

Old Testament: 1 Kings 18:20-39

Epistle: Galatians 1:1-12

Gospel: Luke 7:1-10
___
Beckoning God, as you moved in the lives of Elijah and Elisha, move in our lives, inviting us to journey to unknown territory, to listen for your voice, and to speak your prophetic word in a world that does not want to hear, empowered by your Spirit, grant us the courage we need to journey, trust, listen, speak, and accept your commission to be your faithful servant people. Amen.

Saturday at the Cinema: The Philosophical Breakfast Club

2013-06-01T13:00:00.000-05:00

Ten Reasons Pastors Leave the Ministry

2013-06-01T07:00:00.000-05:00

By Tim Peters at Church Leaders
___
1. Discouragement. Fifty percent of pastors report feeling so discouraged they would leave the ministry if they could.

2. Failure. Seventy percent of pastors say they have a lower self-image now than when they started.

3. Loneliness. Seventy percent of pastors do not have someone they consider a close friend.

4. Moral Failure. Thirty-three percent of pastors confess having involved in inappropriate sexual behavior.

5. Financial Pressure. Seventy percent of pastors feel grossly underpaid.

6. Anger. Each year, 4,000 new churches begin and 7,000 churches close.

7. Burnout. Ninety percent of the pastors report working between 55 to 75 hours per week.

8. Physical Health. Seventy-five percent of pastors report significant stress-related crisis at least once in their ministry.

9. Marriage/Family Problems. Eighty percent of pastors believe pastoral ministry has negatively affected their families.

10. Too Busy/Driven. Ninety percent of pastors feel they are inadequately trained to cope with the ministry demands.
___
The details are here.

On Not Looking Back: A Lectionary Reflection on Galatians 1:1-12

2013-05-31T11:46:00.000-05:00

Galatians 1:1-12

During his ministry responded to someone who wanted to follow him after he bid farewell to his family, "The one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is not fit for the kingdom of heaven" (Luke 9:62). In a sense Paul is saying the same thing to the Christians in the region of Galatia. They were looking back, returning to a form of Torah observance, which Paul will later suggest to the Gentile Christians is equivalent to embracing once again their former pagan ways.

Paul's concern is what he calls "the works of the law," which does not refer to good works, but to the practices that had become identity markers for the people of God, Israel-- circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath observance. These markers functioned in a way that separated Gentile churches from the Jewish lifestyle that was so connected to the current understanding of the covenant. Paul writes to the Galatians to defend the existence of the Gentile churches apart from the synagogue in effect taking issue with some of his Jewish Christians who wanted the Christian movement to remain within the social bounds and bonds of Judaism, that is, ethnic Israel.

For the Gentiles in Galatia to take on these practices-- the works of the law-- is to deny the significance of Christ's death as Paul will point out in 2:21. For Paul, this is a different gospel; indeed, the apostle sees what his Jewish Christian opponents are promoting as an anti-gospel, and those who proclaim it should be accursed (1:8-9). Paul's anger at the Galatians is justified. April Yamasaki writes,

Paul wrote to the Galatian church to recall the to the gospel of Jesus Christ-- not the gospel-and-anything-else. They were not to be confused by any other teaching. They were not to seek the approval of others by adding anything else. He used all the apostolic authority he could muster to convince them in his letter. In the same way, this text of scripture challenges us and recalls us also back to the heart of the gospel.

To look back to the law of Moses is tantamount to a return to the Galatians pre-conversion pagan ways. It is only in the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ that the Galatians can move forward in the journey God has in store for them.

It is the gospel and the gospel alone-- not the gospel and anything else.

What Is a Methodist?

2013-05-30T13:00:00.000-05:00

Steve Manskar posted an excellent series on his blog a couple of months ago answering the question.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

It's good stuff.

America Is Losing Religion, But Is It a Religion Worth Recovering?

2013-05-30T08:52:00.002-05:00

A new Gallup poll reveals that 3 out of 4 Americans surveyed believe that religion is losing its influence in the United States, and nearly the same percentage think that is not a good thing.

But my question is what kind of religion are we losing, and is it worth recovering? I will let Stanley Hauerwas speak for me.

Even if more people go to church in America, I think the US is a much more secular country than Britain. In Britain, when someone says they do not believe in God, they stop going to church. In the US, many who may have doubts about Christian orthodoxy may continue to go to church. They do so because they assume that a vague god vaguely prayed to is the god that is needed to support family and nation.

Americans do not have to believe in God, because they believe that it is a good thing simply to believe: all they need is a general belief in belief. That is why we have never been able to produce interesting atheists in the US. The god most Americans say they believe in is not interesting enough to deny, because it is only the god that has given them a country that ensures that they have the right to choose to believe in the god of their choosing. Accordingly, the only kind of atheism that counts in the US is that which calls into question the proposition that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and happiness.

A people so constituted will ask questions such as "Why does a good god let bad things happen to good people?" It is as if the Psalms never existed. The story that you should have no story except the story you chose when you had no story produces a people who say: "I believe that Jesus is Lord – but that is just my personal opinion."

Jesus did not die on the cross and walk out of the tomb simply to make us nice and decent people. Those who think that Christianity is basically about being nice and upstanding citizens can keep that version of Christianity as far as I'm concerned. If that is the kind of religion we're losing in America, then I say good riddance.

Nice and decent are OK, but cross and resurrection point in a different direction. Nothing less than renovation and new creation will do.

On Getting Jesus Right-- Heresy Revisited

2013-05-29T08:36:00.002-05:00

Scot McKnight has an excellent post on the importance of getting our language right in reference to understanding Jesus' relationship to the Father. His post and the comment thread are worth your time. Of course, this gets us into Trinitarian language and the question of heresy.

Scot recommends two very good books-- Robert Heine, Classical Christian Doctrine: Introducing the Essentials of the Ancient Faith, and Ben Quash and Michael Ward (editors), Heresies and How to Avoid Them. In addition to these, I would encourage you to read Alister McGrath's Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth. McGrath defines heresy as

A heresy is a doctrine that ultimately destroys, destabilizes, or distorts a mystery rather than preserving it. Sometimes a doctrine that was once thought to defend a mystery actually turns out to subvert it. A heresy is a failed attempt at orthodoxy, whose fault lies not in its willingness to explore possibilities or press conceptual boundaries, but in its unwillingness to accept that it has in fact failed.

McGrath notes that in theology, doctrine "preserves the central mysteries at the heart of the Christian faith and life" (p. 30). That these central affirmations are mysteries is important. Doctrine is not, nor has it ever been, an attempt to explain and understand God exhaustively, as if that were possible. When St. Augustine says that if we can explain it, it isn't God, he is not suggesting that theological investigation and doctrinal explications are insignificant and unimportant. He is reminding us "that the human mind struggles and ultimately fails, to cope with the grandeur of God" (p. 29). But while our doctrine cannot disclose God exhaustively in God's grandeur, it can and must disclose God decisively in his character.