[Thank you for your patience as I've been trying to intentionally slow down blogging a little bit to allow me to focus on the remainder of the Fall semester.]
Here's a simple thought. I was struck today by Deuteronomy 34:9. This culmination of the Pentateuch has Moses passing on his positional authority to Joshua:
"Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the LORD had commanded Moses. (NIV)"
I see that Numbers 27 gives us a fuller account:
"Moses said to the LORD, "May the LORD, the God of the spirits of all mankind, appoint a man over this community to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in, so the LORD's people will not be like sheep without a shepherd."
"So the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand on him. Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him. He is to stand before Eleazar the priest, who will obtain decisions for him by inquiring of the Urim before the LORD. At his command he and the entire community of the Israelites will go out, and at his command they will come in."
"Moses did as the LORD commanded him. He took Joshua and had him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole assembly. Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the LORD instructed through Moses. (vv. 15-23, NIV)"
The Spirit filled Joshua because Moses had laid his hands on him. This occurred to Joshua, so the Israelites listened to him. I find this most ancient account of laying on of hands, filling with the Spirit, and the passing of authority to be fascinating.
Our belief is that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (at least, all but its last chapter). Does the fact that the Israelites followed an ordained leader when they had the first iteration of the "Bible" in hand tell us anything about the Catholic-Reformation debate?
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Original Creed: Catholic Church and Saints' Communion
In the combox of my previous post, Jim and I discussed the original intent behind the terms "holy catholic church" and "communion of the saints" in the Apostles' Creed. In the course of researching this point, I came across a fabulous resource worth noting here.
GoogleBooks has Union Theological Seminary Prof. Arthur McGiffert's "The Apostles Creed: Its Origin, Its Purpose, and Its Historical Interpretation" (1902). In analyzing the "catholic" and "communion" terms of the Apostles' Creed, McGiffert notes the following:
1) At the time "Catholic" was added to the creed, the word had an exclusive meaning, a belief in the particular institution of Church, and not a "holy church universal". McGiffert says, "The common Protestant interpretation of the article in the creed, which makes it refer to the holy church universal, is therefore historically incorrect. (emphasis added)"
2) Prof. McGiffert notes the historical obscurity of the origin of the "communion" term. But he says, "It was used sometimes to denote participation in sacred things, that is the sacraments, sometimes to denote communion with departed saints. And one or the other of these meanings probably attaches to the article in the creed." Further, "There is no sign that the article was intended to express the communion or fellowship of believers with each other, or that it was meant as a closer definition of the word "church," as we so commonly interpret it to-day." Citing the first appearances of the term in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, McGiffert wraps up his thought:
"In which [of the above two senses "communion"] was understood when it was inserted in the creed we do not know; possibly in both [...], for the two meanings were closely associated and often appear together in the same writer. Whoever enjoys real participation in the sacraments enjoys also communion with the saints and vice versa.
"The interpretation which commonly attaches to the phrase to-day -- communion or fellowship of believers with each other -- cannot be regarded as correct, for if this were the meaning we should hardly expect sanctorum to the receive the emphasis which its position before communio gives it, and moreover this interpretation does not appear until much later, at any rate in that part of the world where the article was first added to the creed...
"And so the interpretation of the word communio as if it were a concrete noun and equivalent to congregatio [the Lutheran view] is also incorrect. (emphasis added; internal citations omitted)"
See the Wiki article on McGiffert for an interesting tale of his facing Presbyterian heresy charges for a book on church history he wrote five years earlier (I wrongly said in the previous combox that the charges were for the present book -- When McGiffert wrote this book, he had taken flight to the Congregational Church (though retaining his UTS professorship).
Assuming Prof. McGiffert is right, was the reformation right to commandeer the meaning of credal language to new uses? Why do it?
GoogleBooks has Union Theological Seminary Prof. Arthur McGiffert's "The Apostles Creed: Its Origin, Its Purpose, and Its Historical Interpretation" (1902). In analyzing the "catholic" and "communion" terms of the Apostles' Creed, McGiffert notes the following:
1) At the time "Catholic" was added to the creed, the word had an exclusive meaning, a belief in the particular institution of Church, and not a "holy church universal". McGiffert says, "The common Protestant interpretation of the article in the creed, which makes it refer to the holy church universal, is therefore historically incorrect. (emphasis added)"
2) Prof. McGiffert notes the historical obscurity of the origin of the "communion" term. But he says, "It was used sometimes to denote participation in sacred things, that is the sacraments, sometimes to denote communion with departed saints. And one or the other of these meanings probably attaches to the article in the creed." Further, "There is no sign that the article was intended to express the communion or fellowship of believers with each other, or that it was meant as a closer definition of the word "church," as we so commonly interpret it to-day." Citing the first appearances of the term in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, McGiffert wraps up his thought:
"In which [of the above two senses "communion"] was understood when it was inserted in the creed we do not know; possibly in both [...], for the two meanings were closely associated and often appear together in the same writer. Whoever enjoys real participation in the sacraments enjoys also communion with the saints and vice versa.
"The interpretation which commonly attaches to the phrase to-day -- communion or fellowship of believers with each other -- cannot be regarded as correct, for if this were the meaning we should hardly expect sanctorum to the receive the emphasis which its position before communio gives it, and moreover this interpretation does not appear until much later, at any rate in that part of the world where the article was first added to the creed...
"And so the interpretation of the word communio as if it were a concrete noun and equivalent to congregatio [the Lutheran view] is also incorrect. (emphasis added; internal citations omitted)"
See the Wiki article on McGiffert for an interesting tale of his facing Presbyterian heresy charges for a book on church history he wrote five years earlier (I wrongly said in the previous combox that the charges were for the present book -- When McGiffert wrote this book, he had taken flight to the Congregational Church (though retaining his UTS professorship).
Assuming Prof. McGiffert is right, was the reformation right to commandeer the meaning of credal language to new uses? Why do it?
Sunday, September 23, 2007
More Credal Interpretation From The Reformers
In my old post Creeds and Catholicity, I noted the need to consider the "original intent" of the Creeds' progenitors. In reading more of the McNeil Edition of Calvin's Institutes, I came across an interesting observation of Luther and Calvin's interpretation:
"[Calvin] follows Luther in the view that in the Creed, "catholic church" and "communion of the saints" are terms that refer to the same entity, in which all Christians are members. The invisible church of the elect, whose membership is known to God alone, is differentiated but not dissevered from the organized church visible on earth, whose members are known to each other. (Intro. XII)"
An old judicial canon of interpretation goes something like this: 'where a list is given, no two terms are to be read as identical (or an interpretation reading two terms as identical is to be disfavored)'. The underlying rationale of this judicial canon seems relevant in this instance. Can we fairly say that in our short and carefully wrought creeds, where (otherwise) each term is distinct and precisely written to address some heresy or other, these two terms actually just mean the same thing?
"[Calvin] follows Luther in the view that in the Creed, "catholic church" and "communion of the saints" are terms that refer to the same entity, in which all Christians are members. The invisible church of the elect, whose membership is known to God alone, is differentiated but not dissevered from the organized church visible on earth, whose members are known to each other. (Intro. XII)"
An old judicial canon of interpretation goes something like this: 'where a list is given, no two terms are to be read as identical (or an interpretation reading two terms as identical is to be disfavored)'. The underlying rationale of this judicial canon seems relevant in this instance. Can we fairly say that in our short and carefully wrought creeds, where (otherwise) each term is distinct and precisely written to address some heresy or other, these two terms actually just mean the same thing?
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Was Calvin Augustinian?
After being referred to a noteworthy quote from Augustine posted on the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Justification", I wondered how Augustinian Calvin truly was.
The excellent Introduction to Calvin's Institutes provided with the McNeil Edition, citing B. B. Warfield, says "the Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the church. (Intro. X, on predestination)" Fascinating. Augustine's predestinarian thought (which was integral to Calvin's reformational 'doctrine of grace') prevailed by way of a methodology of which he would have disapproved. But was this thought even really Augustine's thought?
Now to Augustine: "He who made you without your doing does not without your action justify you. Without your knowing He made you, with your willing He justifies you, but it is He who justifies, that the justice be not your own. (emphasis mine) (Serm. clxix, c. xi, n.13)"
The McNeil Edition is frank in admitting that Calvin "goes beyond Augustine in his explicit assertion of double predestination, in which the reprobation of those not elected is a specific determination of God's inscrutable will." And further, "He feels under obligation to close the door to the notion that anything happens otherwise than under the control of the divine will." If the former quote means that Augustine may have implicitly agreed with double predestination, I think Augustine above (...'does not without your action justify you.') belies the idea. Further, Calvin seems boxed in by the idea of God possessing a single will equally in force in creation as it is within the Godhead. "They will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven." Could double predestination (i.e., double election), if novel to Calvin in the 16th Century, be right?
The excellent Introduction to Calvin's Institutes provided with the McNeil Edition, citing B. B. Warfield, says "the Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the church. (Intro. X, on predestination)" Fascinating. Augustine's predestinarian thought (which was integral to Calvin's reformational 'doctrine of grace') prevailed by way of a methodology of which he would have disapproved. But was this thought even really Augustine's thought?
Now to Augustine: "He who made you without your doing does not without your action justify you. Without your knowing He made you, with your willing He justifies you, but it is He who justifies, that the justice be not your own. (emphasis mine) (Serm. clxix, c. xi, n.13)"
The McNeil Edition is frank in admitting that Calvin "goes beyond Augustine in his explicit assertion of double predestination, in which the reprobation of those not elected is a specific determination of God's inscrutable will." And further, "He feels under obligation to close the door to the notion that anything happens otherwise than under the control of the divine will." If the former quote means that Augustine may have implicitly agreed with double predestination, I think Augustine above (...'does not without your action justify you.') belies the idea. Further, Calvin seems boxed in by the idea of God possessing a single will equally in force in creation as it is within the Godhead. "They will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven." Could double predestination (i.e., double election), if novel to Calvin in the 16th Century, be right?
Friday, September 21, 2007
Predestinarianism and Functional Arminianism
Calvinism sees our freedom to be like that of water flowing down a hillI've recently been confronted with this assertion: those who rely on something other than faith alone for salvation are Hell-bound. This is based on an interpretation of Galatians 1:8-10, (in part) "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (NKJV)" [these interpreters invert the curse on teachers of an other gospel and put it on followers of the same.]
Syllogistically, this assertion would look something like this. 1) The "gospel" is salvation by faith alone, 2) an adherent of any other "gospel" is damned, 3) any admixture of works to the "gospel" makes it an other "gospel", 4) the Catholics (as the assertion I faced went) rely on works in their "gospel", therefore 5) Catholics (and others with such admixture of works) are damned.
Soteriology (with the role of Predestination and Free Will as a subset) strikes me as one of the three most difficult doctrines of Christian theology (along with Trinitarianism and Ecclesiology). In the syllogism above, the purity of one's adherence to sola Fide becomes of paramount, soul-saving importance.
A question remains stuck in my craw: does a functional recognition of free will effectively become an admixture of "works" to the True "gospel" of sola Fide?
Of Free Will and Good Works, we cannot have one without the other. If sola Fide is not a "gospel" of works, then we have to reject the notion that it involves the good "work" of accepting Jesus. And in rejecting the view that accepting Jesus is to our credit (hence a work), sola Fide must be a "gospel" of strict predestination. Sola Fide then is simply (and beautifully, a Calvinist should add) a statement of on-the-ground facts that one indeed has True Faith which evidences one's predestined election.
I humbly posit that most Calvinists, lay and ordained alike, are Functional Arminians. We seem strained to avoid some notion of free will and the ability of individuals to reject God's offer at the onset or at some point during the faith-walk. Is our avoidance of rejecting God's grace - is the discipline (of our free will) to remain faithful, a creditable work unto salvation? If it is, then it would seem to be an admixture of beliefs other than sola Fide and, under the syllogism above, is damnable.
A clear example of this Functional Arminianism is our inclination to command those considering conversion to a heretical church to walk cautiously and pray about the dangerous ground on which they tread. Why? If God has strictly predestined that one is going to walk away from an outward appearance of sola-Fide faith, and if God is truly immutable, those prayers would be to no avail. But I doubt that any true red-blooded Evangelical will go there. Prayers move God to compassion, as we see time and again in the Scriptures. [Consider two other examples of our Functional Arminianism: 1) how predestinarians treat those who have left the faith, and 2) how we treat those who have lost an infant child.]
I for one think that Arminians and Calvinists alike can receive Salvation. I think we should show respect to those who believe that Christ may say "I know thee not" on the day of judgment unless we have fed the hungry and clothed the naked.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Fed Picks Religion In Prison?
Check out this post (referring to this article) regarding alleged Executive Branch selection of "approved" books at Federal Prisons.
From my studies of the Religion Clause(s) of the First Amendment, I honestly am skeptical of the veracity of this report. It stretches my imagination to believe that the Attorney General would be interested in flying in the face of prevailing First Amendment jurisprudence.
For government to pick approved religious texts for prisoners, who are otherwise not able to exercise their religious freedom, the government would have to make a religious determination. The principle of government not answering religious questions was firmly settled over 50 years ago in United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944). It said, "The Fathers of the Constitution were not unaware of the varied and extreme views of religious sects, of the violence of disagreement among them, and of the lack of any one religious creed on which all men would agree. They fashioned a charter of government which envisaged the widest possible toleration of conflicting views. Man's relation to his God was made no concern of the state." [There are probably much better cases on point, but I don't have time to avocationally write a legal memorandum.]
From my studies of the Religion Clause(s) of the First Amendment, I honestly am skeptical of the veracity of this report. It stretches my imagination to believe that the Attorney General would be interested in flying in the face of prevailing First Amendment jurisprudence.
For government to pick approved religious texts for prisoners, who are otherwise not able to exercise their religious freedom, the government would have to make a religious determination. The principle of government not answering religious questions was firmly settled over 50 years ago in United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944). It said, "The Fathers of the Constitution were not unaware of the varied and extreme views of religious sects, of the violence of disagreement among them, and of the lack of any one religious creed on which all men would agree. They fashioned a charter of government which envisaged the widest possible toleration of conflicting views. Man's relation to his God was made no concern of the state." [There are probably much better cases on point, but I don't have time to avocationally write a legal memorandum.]
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
"I Hate Divorce," Says The Lord
Malachi 2:16 teaches, rather plainly, ""I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel... "So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.""
I noted in a post I made before anyone knew I blogged that the so-called "Pauline Privilege" taken from 1 Cor 7:15 evidences the liberal tendencies of America's democratic churches. I did not directly address there Matthew 19:9, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery. (NIV)"
I find convincing the argument that in Christ's supposed exception to His no-divorce rule, he was actually speaking of breaking off the betrothal contract.
The verb for "divorce" in Matthew 19:9 is the same as that used when Joseph intended to put Mary away quietly, apoluo. We know they were not married, but betrothed. By way of distinction, 1 Cor 7:27 ("Are you married? Do not seek a divorce."), which is the extension of our "Pauline Privilege" passage, uses the different verb lusis for "divorce".
Apoluo, according to Strong's, means "to free fully, i.e. (literally) relieve, release, dismiss..., or (figuratively) let die, pardon or (specially) divorce." When can we have such a release or dismissal? Christ says in the case of porneia, which simply means harlotry or fornication. The NIV uses "marital unfaithfulness" as its translation of porneia, but this is only sensible if one presupposes that apoluo is referring to our notion of divorce -- breaking the already-consummated marriage covenant. The verse more literally says something like 'whosoever shall release his woman, except in the case of fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery'.
It seems manifestly reasonable to think that this exception was for the marriage contract (the betrothal), when a man discovers that his bride is not actually a virgin. The betrothal period was to allow a man to work and save for a dowry payment. The worth of a woman, the cost of the dowry, plummeted if she were not a virgin. Would a man be held to his contracted dowry price for what turned out to be a lesser bride? By analogy, if you sign a contract to buy a house on a one-acre lot, and before closing day discover that the plot is actually only a fifth of an acre, you are not a contract-breaker for refusing to purchase the property. If the woman were not what was betrothed (i.e., a virgin), then the man did not break the contract by refusing to consummate the marriage.
In terms of God's relationship with his people, this is more than sensible, but flows from our experience. Paul tells us that a Christian marriage is a type of Christ and the Church. Christ is betrothed to his bride, the Church, and (eschatologically) we eagerly await the great wedding feast and the consummation of this marriage. She is properly called bride even before consummation, but we need not fear that God will simply call off the wedding! For, God hates divorce.
I noted in a post I made before anyone knew I blogged that the so-called "Pauline Privilege" taken from 1 Cor 7:15 evidences the liberal tendencies of America's democratic churches. I did not directly address there Matthew 19:9, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery. (NIV)"
I find convincing the argument that in Christ's supposed exception to His no-divorce rule, he was actually speaking of breaking off the betrothal contract.
The verb for "divorce" in Matthew 19:9 is the same as that used when Joseph intended to put Mary away quietly, apoluo. We know they were not married, but betrothed. By way of distinction, 1 Cor 7:27 ("Are you married? Do not seek a divorce."), which is the extension of our "Pauline Privilege" passage, uses the different verb lusis for "divorce".
Apoluo, according to Strong's, means "to free fully, i.e. (literally) relieve, release, dismiss..., or (figuratively) let die, pardon or (specially) divorce." When can we have such a release or dismissal? Christ says in the case of porneia, which simply means harlotry or fornication. The NIV uses "marital unfaithfulness" as its translation of porneia, but this is only sensible if one presupposes that apoluo is referring to our notion of divorce -- breaking the already-consummated marriage covenant. The verse more literally says something like 'whosoever shall release his woman, except in the case of fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery'.
It seems manifestly reasonable to think that this exception was for the marriage contract (the betrothal), when a man discovers that his bride is not actually a virgin. The betrothal period was to allow a man to work and save for a dowry payment. The worth of a woman, the cost of the dowry, plummeted if she were not a virgin. Would a man be held to his contracted dowry price for what turned out to be a lesser bride? By analogy, if you sign a contract to buy a house on a one-acre lot, and before closing day discover that the plot is actually only a fifth of an acre, you are not a contract-breaker for refusing to purchase the property. If the woman were not what was betrothed (i.e., a virgin), then the man did not break the contract by refusing to consummate the marriage.
In terms of God's relationship with his people, this is more than sensible, but flows from our experience. Paul tells us that a Christian marriage is a type of Christ and the Church. Christ is betrothed to his bride, the Church, and (eschatologically) we eagerly await the great wedding feast and the consummation of this marriage. She is properly called bride even before consummation, but we need not fear that God will simply call off the wedding! For, God hates divorce.
UPDATE: Ware And Church History
In an earlier post about Ware's discourse on church history, I made a huge gaff. I omitted a section of substantial importance to sustain my proposition that corruption and illicit practices do not negate the legitimacy of Catholic bishops any more than of Orthodox bishops.
On page 105 (2nd Ed.), Ware discusses the 15th Century treatment of heretics:
"Joseph [St., Abbot of Volokalamsk] upheld the view all but universal in Christendom at this time: if heretics are recalcitrant, the Church must call in the civil arm and resort to prison, torture and if necessary fire."
I raise the matter primarily because I've heard from some considering Orthodoxy that they could not consider becoming Roman Catholic, as that church has tortured and killed people to convince them into the Church. It seems the shoe is on the other foot as well.
On page 105 (2nd Ed.), Ware discusses the 15th Century treatment of heretics:
"Joseph [St., Abbot of Volokalamsk] upheld the view all but universal in Christendom at this time: if heretics are recalcitrant, the Church must call in the civil arm and resort to prison, torture and if necessary fire."
I raise the matter primarily because I've heard from some considering Orthodoxy that they could not consider becoming Roman Catholic, as that church has tortured and killed people to convince them into the Church. It seems the shoe is on the other foot as well.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Jewish Scholar Re-Interprets Psalms
Listening to NPR on the way home today, I was struck by this report:"Robert Alter, a professor of Hebrew and comparative literature at the University of California Berkeley, has published a new translation of the Psalms, The Book of Psalms.
"Among the most noteworthy absences from his version is the soul. Why Psalms with no soul and no salvation? Robert Alter [says] those are concepts superimposed on the ancient poems in more recent times."
At the risk of sounding anti-you-know-what (I don't like to use the word "Semite", because it's so often misused), this made me think of something related to the Christian Canon. It reminded me that the decision of Christian Old Testament canonicity could only ever have been properly entrusted to a Christian body, and not to a council of Hebrew scholars at Jamnia circa 90 A.D. Of course, I don't mean to imply that the views of this Berkley scholar are representative of Jewish adherents writ large. At least, I hope they are not.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Repetative Mind-numbing Praise Music
Driving home from church early this afternoon, I had the radio tuned to a local Christian station. I heard a woman using seductive coloration in her voice to sing a song my church has done several times during our worship. Without thinking about the song's words, I decided I do not like 1) women singing Christian music in a fashion that mimics sex-dripping pop songs; and 2) the use of complex pop solo songs in corporate worship (no one person in my church could recreate those complex vocal over-stylizations, let alone all of us recreating them together).
Then I went home and looked up the lyrics. This song, Breathe, so ably typifies some other general problems I have with modern pop-mimic "church" music, namely 3) the repetitive nature, dulling and lulling worshippers into a mindless state so as to fail to consider the words which we are supposed to be professing corporately to God; and 4) the self-focused, vice God-focused, nature of praise music, commonly personified by the zealous use of personal pronouns.
Here it is:
"This is the air I breathe/This is the air I breathe/Your holy presence living in me
"This is my daily bread/This is my daily bread/Your very word spoken to me
"And I, I'm desperate for you/And I, I'm lost without you
"This is the air I breathe/This is the air I breathe/Your holy presence living in me
"This is my daily bread/This is my daily bread/Your very word spoken to me
"And I, I'm desperate for you/And I, I'm lost without you
"And I, I'm desperate for you,/And I, I'm lost without you,/I'm lost without you,/I'm so lost without you.
"I'm so lost without you.
"I'm so lost without you,
"This is the air I breathe/This is the air I breathe/Your holy presence living in me
"This is my daily bread/This is my daily bread/Your very word spoken to me
"And I, I'm desperate for you/And I, I'm lost without you."
To make my point seem more compelling than perhaps it is, I have put personal pronouns in RED, and GREEN was going to be repeat lyrics, but there were too many, so I put original lyrics in that color. With this exercise it occured to me that a personal pronoun appears in every line of the song (while God, the object of worship, was not so fortunate). Doulia, or Latria of the self?, one could ponder...
Then I went home and looked up the lyrics. This song, Breathe, so ably typifies some other general problems I have with modern pop-mimic "church" music, namely 3) the repetitive nature, dulling and lulling worshippers into a mindless state so as to fail to consider the words which we are supposed to be professing corporately to God; and 4) the self-focused, vice God-focused, nature of praise music, commonly personified by the zealous use of personal pronouns.
Here it is:
"This is the air I breathe/This is the air I breathe/Your holy presence living in me
"This is my daily bread/This is my daily bread/Your very word spoken to me
"And I, I'm desperate for you/And I, I'm lost without you
"This is the air I breathe/This is the air I breathe/Your holy presence living in me
"This is my daily bread/This is my daily bread/Your very word spoken to me
"And I, I'm desperate for you/And I, I'm lost without you
"And I, I'm desperate for you,/And I, I'm lost without you,/I'm lost without you,/I'm so lost without you.
"I'm so lost without you.
"I'm so lost without you,
"This is the air I breathe/This is the air I breathe/Your holy presence living in me
"This is my daily bread/This is my daily bread/Your very word spoken to me
"And I, I'm desperate for you/And I, I'm lost without you."
To make my point seem more compelling than perhaps it is, I have put personal pronouns in RED, and GREEN was going to be repeat lyrics, but there were too many, so I put original lyrics in that color. With this exercise it occured to me that a personal pronoun appears in every line of the song (while God, the object of worship, was not so fortunate). Doulia, or Latria of the self?, one could ponder...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
