The Boy Scholastic kissed a girl!

Well, sort of. While walking to the park, he got carried away trying to decide if he should go back and put sugar in his coffee when he walked into a girl. They both fell down but were more or less OK, although he hit the ground so fast that all of a sudden all he saw was sunlight, and he thought that he had been blinded by divine light. "But I'm not ready," he said after he'd reached his favourite bench (having apologized hastily to the girl in question and running the rest of the way). "But then again, when was anyone ever ready for what really matters?"

Things seem to be moving so quickly for me, even though my life itself is in that temporary stasis before the start of every quarter. It's my own fault, though, for putting off a very burning question for far too long. The longer I hang around, the more I realize that it's going to be impossible for me to dismiss Rudolf Bultmann's theology without addressing it head on, but what frightens me is that, the more I acknowledge that I disagree with it, the more it compels me.

The one topic that is really getting to me right now is the subject of the Resurrection. As a lot of you know, I've been spared most of the crisis that people face on the subject of miracles by a strong acceptance of the fact that God does what he wants, but it is the other side of Bultmann's argument that is getting to me. I realized while I was back home spending time with the more fundamental of my theological friends that they place primary importance on the Resurrection and not the Crucifixion. Now, I've spent a large amount of time in the Gospel as of late, and the one thing that I've taken away in this reading is something that Bultmann stressed -- that the Crucifixion is the important element. Christ died for our sins, he was born to die, he was the sacrificial lamb. It's not that he was resurrected for our sins (that doesn't even make sense when I think about it). The notion of the Resurrection is, by and large, another sign of Christ's authenticity, much like his lineage or the Virgin Birth.

And to be quite frank, I would follow Christ with no less vigour if there was no prophecy surrounding his being. It isn't an old prediction fulfilled that compels me to take up the Cross, it's the truth of the Word, it's the power of the personage of Christ, of his life, of his action as the perfect incarnation of his teachings. Don't get me wrong, though, by believing that I don't believe in any fulfilled prophecy -- but I see it more as a sign for those who need it. Paul needed no such sign, though, and neither do I. The life of Christ is more than enough for me, and there's nothing to boats about that, either. It's simply a matter of in which manner a person best hears the call, and I hear it in his life, not in the fulfilment of a prophecy.

But I digress -- what really begins to worry me is the notion of the Resurrection as a physical, historical event when juxtaposed against the importance of the death. Namely, when the body dies, it begins to decompose. It's death. The notion of re-animation is a bit absurd, because you either die or you don't -- to come back from death is to not have died. Furthermore, and most troubling to me, is that the idea that Christ walked to the Cross knowing that he would be physically resurrected is like walking into a fight knowing the other guy's going to throw it. Christ's death has to be the perfect sacrifice to atone for the sins of the many, and a death like that doesn't fit the bill. He needs to have actually died, to have quit this mortal coil, and the more I think about it, the more that calls for a spiritual, non-historical, resurrection. It doesn't rely on an empty tomb, but it's far more meaningful when I think about it, than any returning body. Paul would seem to support this, in a way, as he considers himself an Apostle because he saw the Resurrected Christ, though he experienced the personage of Christ rather than seeing some re-animated corpse. As misguided as the internet meme "Zombie Jesus", it sort of sums up what I'm talking about. If I'd seen the Christ in a bodily Resurrection, I'd have thought he never died. But a spiritual resurrection, one of a heavenly nature, would be the clinching proof that he was The Christ.

It's just that, the more Bultmann sinks into me, the more I worry about adopting his entire theology, which creates in me a great anxiety (as Bultmann thinks it should). But Christ is the King of Peace, and His doctrine shouldn't breed in men an anxiety about their lives, but inspiration and hope. And without a notion of the eternal soul, where then is God's justice? His wisdom? His mercy? I can't find it anywhere, least of all where Bultmann says it should be, and so I sit here, in an odd position. But at the same time, I am filled with wonder, that in the midst of all this confusion, my only wish is that it was Sunday, that be singing songs of praise. For now, I will be still, and know that He is God.

The Boy Scholastic can't decide on his favorite color.

He realizes that it's not the most important decision that he's had to make, but it's been a slow day, "So what's the harm?" he thinks. "And your favourite colour says so much," he rationalizes. If I go with green, people might think that I enjoy broccoli or that I'm Irish." (he is, but why give it away?) "But if I go with orange, people might think that I want to start a fire." But he had started a fire, a long time ago, and there no longer needs to be a reason to hide it.

I'm not The Girl Scholastic, so perhaps I have no way of understanding, but the notion of female empowerment is an odd one to me, at least as a lot of people (apparently) view it. I'll cut to the quick, and post what I'm thinking about:

LOS ANGELES (Sept. 11) - A 22-year-old woman in the United States is publicly auctioning her virginity to pay for her college education, sparking a heated on-line debate about sex and morality. The student from San Diego, California, who is using the pseudonym Natalie Dylan for "safety reasons," said she had no moral dilemma with her decision and found it "empowering."

There apparently is this notion that it is empowering to women to aspire to the sexual standards our culture has layed upon men, that is, for women to no longer aspire to marry, and as virgins. As I understand it, it is the notion of leveling the playing field by removing the double-standard of praising the man who has a large number of sexual partners while diminishing the woman who does the same.

It should be obvious that I agree the double-standard is unfair as it is obvious that I feel that women are running the wrong way, or rather, the easy way. All of this stems from a thousand things, most religious, many practical, and not a few personal, and it's not worth a discussion, because (to be quite frank) you either buy it or you don't. What interests me is that this girl thinks this is empowering, because by my book, she is rejecting the feminist empowerment system in favour of the culturally traditional gender relations, and within that system, making herself a prostitute in the worst sense of the word.

By actioning her virginity, she's acknowledging (perhaps passively) that virginity is something of value and is worth something, which feminist empowerment rejects, as virginity amongst men is looked down upon as undesirable. So she's either acknowledging the importance of virginity for herself or exploiting people who view it as important. The former makes her anything but a feminist and the second one makes her the equivalent of a person who exploits the ignorant because she isn't and serves to gain by it. Like the faith healer who puts on a show for money, or a dirty insurance salesman who wants to capitalize on people's fears and hopes.

Empowering? I can at least understand the feminist position as much as I disagree with it, but her position doesn't even compute. But as someone who finds true empowerment in the life of a servant and a shepherd, some things may be beyond me. But a pole of my female room mates says that I may not be insane.

The Boy Scholastic spent the last five minutes trying to imagine infinity.

He nearly gave up, but then a pretty girl walked by humming a lovely song, and suddenly realized that imagining was the wrong way to go about it.

It's funny how much we can think about something just to know so little about it. I used to think myself impervious (or at least, well-guarded) against such uncomfortable revelations, as I take great pains not fall among the ranks of those Senators who advocate the posting of the 10 commandments but can't list them. But for the life of me, I can't write down what I believe to be a "good" definition of theology. I can provide the Greek roots, I can tell you what it is supposed to be, but I can't express it. And that bothers me.

I've so far refused to look at anyone else's definition, because it's important to know what I believe it to be. At the very least, it would grant me a measure of insight into who I am and what God means to me. The best thing to do, I think, would be to talk about what it isn't but even that is difficult to do. Theology isn't apologetics, but it should be apologetic: good theology should provide clarity about the relationship between man (men) and God. But the point of theology isn't to offer an apology, but something more. It's not about rhetoric, though it is rhetorical, and it isn't about convincing, though it does seek to be right as opposed to wrong. Theology isn't intellectual, but it should be rational and logical: it should apply to everyman, regardless of who his father was or how many sheepskins hang on his wall. Theology isn't history, but is should be historical; it isn't invented, but it should be constructed; it isn't of man, but it should be anthropological. Try to focus too much on the one, and you get criticized by the others.

I think of the great theologians that I admire, but why are they theologians? They created theologies, certainly, but what? Barth has his theology of crisis, Bultmann his theology of κήρυγμα, Gutiérrez his theology of liberation, but they all speak to different things, and while at times they do, it is not inherent that they overlap. An Augustinian view of sin neither affirms nor denies a Lutheran view of determinism. But these are theologies versus theology. I don't wish to confuse an object and its form.

I know what you're saying -- it's simple to see that the entomology is right -- but much of theology is what we don't know about God, or how we can't study God, or how even speaking about God with the belief that we assert knowledge of God is sinful. But even in that we're saying that we know something about God. But it's like saying that, if we preach tolerance, we should be tolerant of intolerance. It's both true and false at the same time, or rather, there is an element of falsity and an element of truth to the statement due to its simplicity.

In the end, answering this question is the same for me as speaking about God is for Bultmann -- when I say what theology is, what I am actually saying is what theology is to me. And that's the ticket. There is some fantastic link between theology and God other than what would appear at first glance. Theology is the study of the relationship between man and God, which gives insight both into the actions of God and into the being of man.

Now that I've said it, it seems very obvious.