Peter Rollins and The God Question
Last night, I "interviewed" the emergent church thinker/activist/theologian Peter Rollins before a small audience at his last-ever Ikon event in Belfast. Peter leaves for the United States this month: he'll be living on the east coast, writing books and speaking at events across the US. I suspect he will also try to develop Ikon-like communities in various parts of America. Peter is one to watch; he has already gathered a significant following of admirers and near-adherents following the publication of recent books that re-think and re-imagine traditional theological concepts.
I've used inverted commas to describe my interview with Peter because it was one of the oddest public interviews I can remember in a very long time. I was expecting conversation, but what emerged (sorry ...) was closer to a visit I might have made to a Sufi wise-man. I would ask a question, like, "Do you believe in God?", and Peter's answer would involve saying "Yes and No", followed by a parable, an illustration, a story, or a cryptic quotation. It perhaps didn't help that he was sitting on the arm of the two-seater couch, while I was placed on the far seat -- thus looking up at him while he performed his answers. We talked about belief in God, the meaning of the church, the claims of Christianity and other faiths, and we might have talked about ethics too had we not run out of time trying to answer the question, "Do you believe in God?" Peter has now blogged a fuller version of his more-considered answer to that question.
I wanted to know if Ikon was a "death of God" movement; whether Peter's ideas are, in essence (he would hate that term) "post-theistic". The answer? Yes, No and a parable. I suggested that he was developing the kind of "religious humanism" we find in Karen Armstrong's new book, The Case For God, albeit using some different sources. She, after all, has also embraced the via negativa and the apophatic tradition; and she, like Peter, has abandoned the idea of God as an extra-linguistic "reality" and sees religion as necessarily human-centred. Is Peter a religious humanist too? Maybe; maybe not.
After more than thirty minutes, was I any the wiser? Yes and No, really. Thinkers who are linked to communities often lack the freedom to think aloud when that community is listening in. That's just as true for an emergent thinker as it is for a radical Catholic priest or a progressive Presbyterian theologian. Mostly, I came away thinking about the claim that God exists. The best theologians in the world acknowledge that that claim is outrageous -- which is not to say that it is untrue. By "outrageous", I mean that it is a disruptive claim -- in fact, it is a violently disruptive claim, because it tears at the fabric of what we conceive the world to be without God. Our neatly drawn maps of reality are torn up by the claim that God exists. If God exists, that claim changes everything. If God is real, why would we expect to be able to talk for thirty minutes about that Reality in an ordered, neat conversation, using sentences with subjects, objects and predicates in self-evidently "correct" places. The philosopher Wittgenstien, in another context, spoke of language "going on holiday". That's what language did last night when I listened to Peter Rollins answering and not-answering my questions.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~14~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Peter never looked that glum when I knew him!
Complain about this comment
Maybe it's the thought of leaving Norn Iron.
Complain about this comment
Hmmmmm...
Do I agree with Rollins?
I guess the answer must be 'Yes and No'.
Complain about this comment
Parr
You forgot the parable.
In general,
&to quote Will ...
"I came away thinking about the claim that God exists. The best theologians in the world acknowledge that that claim is outrageous -- which is not to say that it is untrue. By "outrageous", I mean that it is a disruptive claim -- in fact, it is a violently disruptive claim."
Does it follow that 'Ikon' lacks the conviction to be outrageous? That deconstruction is too bland and inoffensive?
GV
Complain about this comment
I'm not quite sure I understands. Is he a gnostic or not?
Complain about this comment
> Thinkers who are linked to communities often lack the freedom to think aloud when that community is listening in.
That's what struck me when I got home and was discussing the evening's events.
To encourage free thought, there's almost a dancing on pinheads to avoid pinning personal theological views to the donkey. Yet it is certainly a refreshing change from some believe-it-or-be-damned sermons in more traditional religious settings.
Complain about this comment
In answering —
Do you believe in God?
“Before answering such a question I would need to spend considerable time showing how the chain of signifers above (’Do you believe in God’) should be heard differently in a Christian setting (i.e. they ought to signify something different to a mere empirical assent).”
That gets a ’speech-token’ mixed up with a ’speech type’. John Searle pointed this out to Derrida some time ago. Yep, different sentences can be heard differently in different contexts. They can be used differently by different speakers. I could put the same sentence in a satirical sketch, or a prayer, or whatever, and achieve different effects. You don’t need to invoke other cultures. That’s overkill, and it obscures the issue. Speakers *use* words. We can use extra-linguistic inferences and basic beliefs to discern how the words are being used.
So does it follow that **Will’s** speech act in **that** context didn’t make Will’s question clear? Not really. Do we know how Will was using the words? Pretty much.
How much of a description do we need to pick out a referent? I might refer to H2O, my daughter might talk about a clear, refreshing drink. We both refer to water. Our descriptions might even be slightly mistaken and revisable. I learn more and more about my wife, Nicola. But I don’t fall in love with a different human every morning. That would mean that I’m cheating on my wife with my wife. I just find more and more reasons to love the same person.
I don’t refer to a different referent (love a different person) than Nicola’s mother and father and friends. Her former teachers, the local grocer, our worship leader don’t know very much about her at all. They may even have deep misconceptions. But her family, her friends, and I can all refer to the same person.
At least, I haven’t seen any argument to believe otherwise, beyond the *possibility* that my beliefs about language may be wrong. And that argument cuts both ways. (And an argument’s an ARGUMENT, even if you dress it up in a parable.)
So a Muhammad, Ramanuja, Mudvah, Moses and Paul all referred to the one reality. (or they missed their mark entirely). They differed in many of their beliefs about that referent. But so what? They knew enough, held just enough in common, to hit the same ‘target’ with their beliefs.
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
I entitle that last piece - how I wasted a luch hour.
Yes/No/Parable.
Couldn't Brown and Cameron have used that technique against Andrew Marr?
Complain about this comment
Bernard
Is he a gnostic, or is he agnostic? The mystery deepens.
He's a very nice guy, I'm certain of that. Something wrong with a person who meets Peter and doesn't like him.
GV
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
What "jargon" do you find "incomprehensible" marcus? just out of interest?
"apophatic"? "extra-linguistic"? Or is it, as I suspect, "reality"?
Complain about this comment
BI;
Those aren't words you run across every day in ordinary speech. Usually that's the tip of the iceberg.
Wonder what rules I broke that caused the moderators to change their mind first publishing my posting and then deleting it. Maybe they just didn't like the suggestion that religion is actually just another business.
Complain about this comment
How do I say it in a way which does not sound dismissive? Pete is the best bullshitter I've ever heard.
Complain about this comment
Couldn't be my reference to the Twilight Zone. All religion requires some travel to that region of the mind.
Complain about this comment
Sanity warning, most, if not all (yeh it's probably all) of this post is a waste of time, if I were you I wouldn't read it, come to think of it I don't know why I wrote it. Maybe there's a book in it though.
John, that wasn't dismissive at all, in fact, not half as dismissive as it needs to be, so let me do a bit of tramping about and trash as much as I can.
It's not just the Yukon malarky, mind, which confuses the life out of me (confuses isn't the right word, but who's worried about getting the right word on a thread like this?) it's the evanjelly sub-culture in it's entirety which is doing my head in. And let's get this straight, Ikon and the like, whatever anyone says, are evangelical... to the very core, the only difference is the emergent ones like to say they're not, but they are, so it's another case of one of those yes no answers, like 'Oh no we're not, Oh yes you are'. And there's a least one word too many in there already, but sure, why use 3 words when 129 will do?
BTW, Helio, if you happen upon this post ignore it, I know what you're going to say.
:-)
So where to start? William wanted to know if Ikon was a death of God movement, no it isn't, it's a church, only the members think they're not a church, but they are; think of it like this, they're not, not a church (which is, again, just a couple of words too many, and a bit of self delusion thrown in for good measure). Ikon, you see is just another part of the sub-culture I'm sooooooooo beginning (well not beginning actually, continuing really) to be fed up at. (Incidentally see how you have to keep restating things in the negative, or the positive, you know, replacing your yes for a no or your know for a yes, which if you think about it sounds a bit like something Jesus said, only it isn't, which I suppose is the point if you see what I mean; you don't, no I don't either, but that's the great thing, you don't have to) Anyway that was just more words.
But here's the thing, and I'd like to know if anyone else has noticed this too, Krypton isn't the only evangelical movement at this business of organising events and creating sub-cultural gatherings, everybody seems to be at it. I mean the list is endless, traditional, contemporary, purpose-driven, seeker-friendly, emergent, divergent, contagious, relevant, Nellie the elephant, and the whole thing is premised on turning up, fitting in, and participating in the programme, or being in the audience. This is what Christianity is it seems. And everybody has their own idiosyncrasies, their own paraphernalia, their own something to clamour through before we meet God, or don't meet God or whatever. I mean does nobody actually bother to just speak to one another anymore? Do we always have to huff and puff and hid in our little ghettos, with our preferred thingamajiggy of a Christian event.
Honestly, I'm loosing interest, and fast; but I believe in God, and I'm wondering if there is a way of being the church without going to church.
Please feel free to say, yes, and no.
Oh, and William, I'd have moved seats, it's not like he's an icon or anything. The two seater sofa is real cutting edge though, don't you think, sort of incarnational, a type of manger, you know, 'god with us'... yet unseen, a theological antithesis.
And maybe I should have written that without punctuation, or spaces between the words, it would have made as much sense.
Complain about this comment
pm;
"Sanity warning, most, if not all (yeh it's probably all) of this post is a waste of time, if I were you I wouldn't read it, come to think of it I don't know why I wrote it."
Yep, next signpost up ahead, The Twilight Zone.
Complain about this comment
I have attempted to arrive at one logical, sensible conclusion from the above piece and I think I have it - "William Crawley obviously doesnt have hemorrhoids."
Marcus, just spent two weeks in your beautiful country and it is no wonder you are so authoritative on The Twighlight Zone.
From the bad-mannered, rude and unhelpful gestapo greeting us at the airport to the "I'm a non touch person" woman who slapped away my hand when I was introduced to her at church. No public transport system because, as I was told, General Motors would find that, that would harm car sales. Advertising bombarding you from the moment you awake to the moment you pass out with a sore head due to.... the advertising. Here's a big fat double burger with extra lard... Here's tablets to stop you getting fat... Here's tablets for penile dysfunction... Here's other tablets to stop you getting a heart attack if you take the tablets for penile dysfunction... ch-ching!
Not even possible to even watch a film without adverts every ten minutes, then when the film is actually playing, pop up adverts at the bottom of the screen. Pubs and restaurants where you cant hear yourself think for loud, pointless and uninformed clap trap being peddled as opinion. Absolutely no information whatsoever on the News about anything outside America.
I now completely forgive you for all the rubbish you have written on these threads. It is clearly not your fault.
(There were some nice things though. I saw at least three people who were under 26 stone and whose butts weren't couch shaped and my flight home was on time.)
Complain about this comment
!Theological schizophrenia!
Complain about this comment
I don't know why they don't all just become Anglicans - we do constructive ambiguity so much better - 450+ years of practice! There is also the bonus that, if you choose your church carefully, you can be almost guaranteed never to encounter a guitar.
Complain about this comment
Good grief, Peter, what can I say? This is where postmodernism leads you; I think Pete R is a hoot - he's been on SunSeq before, and I enjoyed his take on the Virgin Birth. But I think you're starting to see behind all the fluff, and we can't have that - the Emergent Church exists to allow you to interact with fluff in 360 degrees, AND up and down. The answer to Will's question "do you believe in god" MUST involve proton beams and certain orifices; no other answer category will do. Use that mind-state. Feel the energy. You are starting to understand what it feels like to be Helio.
Do I believe in god?
Of course I do - after all, we invented him.
Complain about this comment
rjb;
Welcome to America. Glad you got the full experience. Come back real soon, ya hear....and don't leave home without it. (Your credit card of course.) Isn't it nice to be back on familiar turf where all you have to worry about is whether you will get shot or bombed? Oops, forgot that's all in the past now. All that's left to do is march. There's no place like home, ain't dat da truth :-)
Complain about this comment
Helio
It's late, I'll reply tomorrow.
See... less is more... like cups of cold water.
:-)
Complain about this comment
My goodness people are very rude on this forum! The most offensive post was thankfully removed (the one which stated that I was in it for the money and to steal from victims in America like a telly-evangelist: despite the fact that I live in the village on an amount that I have never had to pay tax). On this site I have encountered two of the most rude, and I might say uncivilized, pieces of writing ever written about me. And all because William interviewed me about faith? I guess this is just power for the course, but I expected more from people who engage with William's work. And I just came onto the site to see if there was any interesting dialogue about the issues!
I would like to address some of the issues that Peter raises, but they are stated with such vitriol that it doesn't seem appropriate.
Complain about this comment
Does that mean you won't be back? Oh and I was so looking so forward to the exchanges you would have had with our own Pastorphillip. He's been the the only "professional" we could turn to regularly for spiritual guidance here. BTW, you wouldn't know anything about the bible would you? He left just a few questions unanswered, at least to my satifaction. Do you know anything about Andy McIntosh or Wilder-Smith? Their names came up here more than a few times as well as Dawkins. You remember him, the guy who said that if you belive in god you're nuts? He was here too. Well in spirit anyway. He was interviewed by William Crawley and he and his ideas were discussed at length although he didn't post here.
We have a saying in my country. If you can't stand the heat....get out of the kitchen. No free passes given here. Not while sherrif MarcusAureliusII is around anyway. Ever heard of the Reverand Sun Myung Moon? We in the colonies sooner or later get 'em all, see 'em all. Nothing new under the sun.
John W. did pay you a compliment. It's always notable to be the best at something.
Complain about this comment
Pete,
Is it conventional for emergents to be so sensitive? I didn't mean to be rude. I am post-evangelical myself and certainly identify with your desire to engage in a meaningful discussion about these questions, but I must admit I don't typically understand a word you say. To my mind there could be a couple of reasons for this:
1) I'm not smart enough. I don't think I'm dumb but I may not be as sharp a tool as you either. Perhaps your answer to the question of whether or not there is a God (and your every other answer to every other question) is too revolutionary for me to understand.
2) Alternatively, what you say may be more of a collection of loosely-distributed, random, non-cohesive thoughts which involve a little bad philosophy, some postmodern angst, faux profundity, reading-into-things-what-isn't-there, and some quite intelligent ideas, and maybe I just get too annoyed by the redefining of things which perhaps may not need redefined (like 'logic') to hang around?
Either way, no big deal. We're just not made for each other! I do find you entertaining, and you should certainly not feel in any way unsettled or upset by my opinion. Maybe I'll buy your book and give you a chance to grow on me. :-)
All the best with your move to the U.S. - I did it myself 5 years ago and am still enjoying myself, as much as I miss the old sod at times. (Question: do you miss the old sod John? Answer: Yes and no. In a metaphysical sense I miss it. But what does it mean to miss something? What does sod mean? And how old is it? Let me tell you a parable.)
[See what I did there? I'll be here all week.]
Complain about this comment
Marcus,
"Oh and I was so looking so forward to the exchanges you would have had with our own Pastorphillip. He's been the the only "professional" we could turn to regularly for spiritual guidance here."
Don't forget the other pastor here, Pastor Bradfield. You know, the one who shares your first name.
Complain about this comment
#21 Marcus--Americans never worry about being shot?
Complain about this comment
OK, let's give the lad a chance to explain himself and see if what appears at first glance to be pure gibberish actually is more than mere sophistry at best, incoherent ramblings at worst. Not judging if there is any merit to it yet, just whether or not there is any substance behind what seems smoke and mirrors. If it has substance, a critique is a way off yet for me. From his website's home page;
"We must avoid confusion between remaining silent and saying nothing. For while the former is passive the latter is active. By saying nothing we endeavour to speak of that which manifests in our world as a no-thing, as an absolute mystery which infuses our world with light and life."
In plain everyday common English, what the hell does that mean?????
"To undergo and then speak of that which is not a thing but which transforms our relationship with all things… this is a sacred and subversive vocation."
I can't make heads or tails of this one either. What is it trying to say? Is there something here or is this some lame attempt to be a later day Shakespeare?
"Here you will find my own fragile, failing attempts to be a mouthpiece for that transformative silence.""
"Failing attempts [to explain] is about the only words which carry meaning for me so far. He's right, I didn't get it.
I don't come from a nation of poets so metaphors that are deliberately ambiguous are lost on me and probably will be on most other Americans. We are a practical people who deal in specifics with tangeable examples. Oblique references to vague abstractions which don't connect to everyday experiences don't usually carry much weight here. Our culture doesn't identify with it. Even our most intricate and sophisticated abstractons must somewhere connect to the world we know. Poetry we identify with for example is "Casey at the Bat." Robert Frost is about as abstract as most of us can absorb. Don't expect to wow average Americans with this kind of talk. It may work in Ireland or the UK but it doesn't translate in a way we can understand. The beauty of language is lost on us unless clarity of meaning comes with it. Any attempts to snow us will be seen as condescending elitism and we don't take kindly to it. In our culture, that is one sin that is not given absolution.
If you are not bringing money of your own to support yourself or don't have a job lined up, you'd better check that your sponsor is not one of the hundreds of organizations affiliated with Acorn. In the coming months they may need every last dime they can muster to hire lawyers to keep themselves out of jail. There is a massive legal assault about to get underway against them. There could hardly be a worse time to come to America if you have to start financially from scratch. The economy is the worst it's been in 70 years since the great depression and competition in the "god biz" is as fierce as ever.
Complain about this comment
PeteRollins
I'd be more than happy to discuss some of the issues with you. I'm not being vitriolic, just taking the words I hear in the evangelical world and reusing them. It happens all the time you see, somehow, when a little edge is put on the words used there's a cool response. I genuinely interested in this, it isn't personal, but, it is I think a big issue for the Christian world in which I grew up, in which I am saturated and with which I have flirted.
As I said more than happy to engage, gotta run, talk later.
All the best.
Complain about this comment
Guys, can the conversation move away from the man and towards the ball at some point? Throwing defamatory comments around isn't the way to examine ideas. We've had way too much of that kind of rhetoric on the blog lately; it's unfair and it doesn't take the debate any further forward. Please be as forceful and as colourful as you like with your comments; I simply ask you not to defame people.
Peter: welcome to Will & Testament! Some of our bloggers have salty vocabulary, but they are willing to debate ideas seriously and at length too. I expect this post to enlarge and expand, in length and content, ad they talk about emergent theology, postmodernism, and what it means to believe (or want to believe) in God.
Complain about this comment
Hrrrm,
I think PM *was* aiming at a ball. Two in fact.
1) Has the Emergent Church escaped the Evangelical subculture? Or is it a prisoner of what it fears?
2) What does all this word play (sorry Peter R) actually achieve? PeterM uses it in jest, PeterR uses it in earnest. Has one succeeded in saying more that the other?
GV
However, the idea that Pete Rollins would want to set up a mega-church is hilarious! Who on earth got that impression?
Complain about this comment
"We must avoid confusion between remaining silent and saying nothing."
Can I take the risk of bringing this into the concrete for a moment, and bringing in another thread (in fact, another couple of threads.)
The Queen, The Pope and the Tory Party Conference in Manchester.
The Conservatives open their Conference with what they hope will be a vote catching (gut-wrenching) attack on the poor. The answer to all our woes would appear to be to attack benefit cheats. No mention of the monstrous greed of our Bankers who have stolen billions from us. Not a peep about many MPs who, already on extremely high salaries, screwed every penny they could on expenses. Nothing about corporate businesses who continue to get away with using tax loopholes to line their already stuffed pockets.
The hypocrisy and sheer evil of what is going on is nauseating.
The Queen, defender of the Faith, will remain silent AND say nothing.
The Pope, allegedly successor of Peter, will remain silent AND say nothing. What is happening in this country is just a microcosm of what is happening across the globe and these two 'Christian' leaders are struck dumb.
Personally, I'm not really concerned about what type of silence their silence is.
If Peter Rolling's work helps us to consider/articulate/identify/inform/organise/change the present state of affairs then it is extremely important work.
If it merely serves to further confuse an already weary and long suffering society, a society which is possibly ready to hear some clear and undiluted reflections on the Gospel - especially with regard to the poor, then its a waste of time.
Complain about this comment
PeteR, yep - welcome! We do like a little kick-about here, but trust me - we have all been exposed to it, and have come to regard it as fun. I have to say I think you are engaged in a very worthwhile project - making Christians *think* is no mean feat, and you certainly do that. I'm from a rather hard-edged science background, which I think means I would have a different take on a lot of issues, but I think we probably end up in pretty much the same place. In particular, you have raised issues on your blog and elsewhere that I do think Christians need to get their heads around; if they did, a lot of the "culture wars" with atheists would be seen as irrelevant.
To me, as a Christian Atheist, I see Christianity as my Desktop Wallpaper - I use it as a motif to organise things and as a set of useful heuristics, but where the classical fails (such as over issues like "does God exist", or "was Jesus even remotely aware of the status that some people would assign to him" - both of which I would answer as "no"), we can still use it to organise our thoughts.
but, like a desktop wallpaper, we can't let it dictate our response in new territory, and we need to keep reinventing it. That's why I started the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist blog. OK, very very few posts, but it's a work in sort-of progress.
You're very welcome, and after a wee while, like some of the rest of us, you will come to enjoy the vitriol - it generally means that your opponents are nutcases, but you knew that anyway :-) Take PeterM, for instance - he has slagged the heck out of me on any number of occasions, but I happen to know from my secret sources that he's really a nice guy. Ditto for Graham. Please do stick around, and I hope all goes well with the move (pity we're losing you).
BW,
-H
Complain about this comment
Peter R
If you look through some of the threads you'll find ex-Orangemen, Orangemen, a liberal Catholic priest, a conservative Catholic, an evangelical minister, atheists, scientists, Christian athiests, creationists, a few well meaning loonies, and many more.
Admittedly, we all have our moments but generally, given our collective histories, I think its not a bad blog.
Complain about this comment
RJB - don't want to be greedy but can I claim both Orangeman and well-meaning loony?
Complain about this comment
Here are some more quotes attributed to Peter Rollins. Wonder if anyone can explain what these mean as they are equally mystifying to me as his blog's main page. If they are not his, my apologies;
1. ""Just as light in the room cannot be seen but rather allows us to see, so God is not directly experienced but rather is the name we give to a whole new way of experiencing. The thoughtful believer is not questioning or denying the value or importance of positive descriptions, but simply refusing to let those provisional, fractured descriptions take on the guise of absolute authority. For what gives birth to the believer stands before all descriptions and remains free from them.""
The source of light can be traced, discovered, measured. What about god? So does the second sentence simply state the obvious that the accuracy of a broken or incomplete description even if positive should be questioned? What insight does that give us? From what medical science has recently discovered, spiritual feelings that give birth to believers may be nothing more than chemical reactions in the human brain. Even without that, does this mean that nobody can explain why they believe? Believe in what, god? Chocolate sundaes with whipped cream? What does all this mean? Is it telling me to give up my old religion even if I like it for this new one whatever it is?
2. ""For in the Bible the face of a helpless, suffering child has a greater call on us than any institution or heavenly voice. It is the face of the suffering child or the flesh of a tortured man that the ethical demand of God is written. For this reason we can embrace Christianity as that which is lived wholly in the world, as that which finds God in the act of giving to those in need and receiving from others as we are in need. We can approach Christianity as a grounded faith, rooted firmly in the soil of the world. It is as we live fully in the world, taking total responsibility for our actions, that we demonstrate our faith.""
In the first sentence, is the helpless child a metaphor for the baby Jesus? If it is, isn't that identical to the heavenly voice on earth according to Christian theology? If it isn't, if it is the "cry of suffering humanity" then what is it saying, charity before religion? Save your money for alms for the poor, don't put it in the church's collection plate and trust them to spend it?
What is the rest telling me, from each according to his ability to each according to his need? A sort of Christian Socialism/Communism? Are we our brother's keeper? Anything new here? I'm getting the sense that all this is some sort of not so unique variant on justification for 1960s christian/socialist style communes and the kind of society those who participated in them advocated for the rest of us. This all seems very retro, very much an echo of the past. Some especially in Ireland might consider it fair to midling poetry though.
Complain about this comment
Parrhasios
Thats the trouble with you orangemen, you cant see green cheese... (lol.)
Complain about this comment
Hey John, I actually really liked your comment! No problems there at all. I love strong debate about the issues etc. I can even take a bit of abuse (such William's post has a few great digs which I love). There were just two posts, one removed, that genuinely shocked me. The worst one accused me of so many things I was shocked. You should have seen it!
I must say that, Peter, your post also was a lot to take. But I accept that you didn't mean to belittle me and that you are interested in the real issues rather than venting your anger. And indeed some of what you say is worth discussing. Not simply to solidify our own positions and state what we think but to gain more insight etc.
I know at least a few of my weaknesses and, being from NI, my friends take great pleasure in showing me others. But when it comes to public forums I hope we can, as William hints at, avoid Ad Hominem attacks.
And thanks for the welcomes from other people.
Complain about this comment
PeteR (and Helio, you'll find this fills in a few gaps for you!:-)
Hi.
I appear to have created a bit of a kerfuffle with my comments above, and I've even got some people being extremely nice and trying to explain my comments for me. First up though, if I caused you any offence, apologies, that really wasn't my intention and I'd like to try and clarify, where I'm coming from. In my defence I'll just say that my introduction to this blog was in response to the New Atheists and their 'religious people are nutters cause they believe in santa', approach to life... we've all moved on though :-) And it's not an excuse for lack of manners anyway.
A brief religious background.
Conservative Presbyterian, til my early 20's.
Member of a CFC church plant, which blew up in our faces, we were all to blame I suppose.
Disconnected from church for 3 or 4 years.
Drifted round a few churches for a year or so, and influenced by a Mennonite based fellowship.
Attended a 'seeker friendly' styled church for a while.
Read alot of Emergent stuff online.
Eventually went back to my roots.
Still have lots of questions.
The main question is one which I've tried to ask to hint at on Will and Testament a few times and to be honest I was a little taken aback that you thought it vitriolic. Honestly, it was an attempt to reflect back the language of the sub-culture, play with it, take it apart. That's what I thought Ikon did.
This is the thing which has really bothered me this last ten years. Sometime after the end of the church plant, a girl who was also part of it asked me, "Peter, what is left of Christianity when the trappings are removed?" It's a good question, and it's one I've been trying to answer ever since. She used the word 'trappings', I have come to us the word 'sub-culture', and by it I mean all those things we do, organise, label, sell, promote, speak of and use to identify ourselves with, which seem superfluous to the life of Jesus.
I have tried, over and over, to engage, provoke, communicate my concerns, yet I find that the general response is that the sub-culture of evangelicalism carries on regardless, in fact in many ways it finds questions, and I agree I can be pointed at times, threatening.
Yet what of my sub-culture, what of me, for I am only asking questions I have already asked myself? If I'm honest for most of my life I've been high on the sub-culture of church and low on substance. What is the measure of my Christianity when the trappings of church are removed? You see when I begin to think about loving enemies, or mercy, or patience, or kindness or incarnation or forgiving and forgiving and well, just forgiving, then I wonder what the point of organising the meeting or the event was. Sure I had a sub-culture that was safe and secure and comfortable and made me feel as if I belonged, but it was also good for hiding behind.
Peter, I understand your desire to deconstruct the theology of the evangelical world, I've done that too, but I am deeply suspicious of church meetings repackaged, and I'm sorry to have to say it but that's what Emergent looks like. What am I to do? And think about this, if you find it bad enough living in Belfast, trying getting a discussion going in the countryside!
Peter, some of us don't want any more meetings. Some of us just want the chance to drink a coffee, stumble along with other Christians (and hopefully non-Christians too) and find a little mercy together in the daily circumstances of life and run the risk of passing it on. If that's not possible, I'm no longer sure what the point is. I suppose it's a bit like what RJB said at the end of post 32.
Anyway, Pete, all the best, I hope America works out.
And Helio, who's your source, Secret Squirrel?
Complain about this comment
If I could interject, Peter and Pete, as ye two shall be known for the purposes of this thread.
I don't think Ikon consists primarily of evangelicals, actually. In that sense I think Peter has it wrong. Yes, many emergent groups seem to be merely repackaged evangelicalism, replacing a band with a DJ and singing with listening and sermons with sharing, and church bulidings with pubs. But Ikon represents that percentage of the emergent movement (not sure how big it is) which seems to consist primarily of people looking back at evangelicalism, from a position beyond it; people who have even essentially moved beyond theism in some ways but who aren't quite prepared to give it all up, are still interested in theology and care about the things Jesus cared about.
(Thus far, I'm with them. Where I part company is that I don't buy into the postmodernist approach in many ways. But that isn't an indictment of the group; I just don't share its belief that these are the best ways to get to the truth of a matter and thus characterize it as I did above!)
So, Peter, maybe Ikon is for you after all? Maybe all that you've read about the emergent movement describes the basis for Ikon but not Ikon itself? After all, it's not very 'evangelical' to struggle with the answer to the question of whether God exists. :-)
Complain about this comment
"Sunday 19th at 8pm is an Ikon SPEAKS, with Pete planning to talk around "Understanding transformance art: faith, fetish and religion without religion"."
"Religion without religion." I guess that says it all.
"We must avoid confusion between remaining silent and saying nothing."
I get it now. He doesn't remain silent but he says nothing.
Complain about this comment
Helio
"I think you're starting to see behind all the fluff"
Not so fast my friend! (say it like a Bond villain!)
First of all I take the view that it doesn't have to be post modern to be fluff. We all do fluff at some time or other. For example, I was at Communion in church on Sunday, and if I were to take the view that somehow I'd earned the right to be there, that would have been 'fluff'.
Here's a bible reference to help explain, and you know I don't do bible references much on here, James 1:22 "Do not merely listen to the word and so deceive yourselves."
Flip, that one gets me every time.
Does it matter whether the word is preached by a graduate of Westminster Seminary or mixed in Garage Band and flashed up on a screen in a pub if the result is me deceiving myself?
That's another way of explaining the core of my problem, there's been a lot of self delusion going on. It's easy to do in church. The very place which speaks of truth, which offers a welcome to the worst, without judgement, the hope of redemption and justice in the community, seems, I'll put it no more strongly, to allows us to hid behind words; the great irony being that in Christianity of all faiths, that words are the basis of life and renewal, words are supposed to effect change (and we're back to RJB again, that and cups of cold water)
It is my view that we need the story of incarnation, forgiveness, redemption, and, as I consider the 'story' to be true, it means I'm traditional and conservative, but, it is also my view that we have lost the story, can't see the story for the sub-culture if you like, and it seems to me that it makes no difference whether we are traditional, contemporary, emergent, or whatever else I put in the list in post 15, if we miss the practicalities, the reality of the story, we've missed it all. This explains why in previous conversations with you I've tried to emphasise the ordinariness of Christian faith and it explains why I am not an atheist.
Incidentally, why do I suppose these things, simply because they are true of me, I keep missing the point, even when I'm sitting in Presbyterian communion; but it seems I'm not allowed to say.
Oddly, you are one of the few who listen.
Complain about this comment
John
I see what you're saying, but if you're looking back at evangelicalism, it means you were there once!
That's one of the points I was trying to make when I said evangelical to the very core. Without evangelicalism there would be no deconstruction of it and it doesn't matter what we call ourselves now, the focus of so much of the Emergent world is a response to their evangelical past, that's how it seems anyway.
Of course I could be wrong, I've never been to an Ikon event but I have followed the website from it's pre Wiki days and what I read was primarily a critique of evangelicalism; indeed I'd go further and say that what I read there would have been best understood by having an evangelical past. Whatever any individual emergent group is now, it is largely, a product of the evangelical/charismatic world.
In a way Dave Tomlinson's book 'Post Evangelical' and Sheffield's NoS was the introduction to emergent for a lot of people, including me.
It's a big issue of course and there is a danger of generalising in light of personal experience, but my main point stands, it's another church sub-culture, and I still think we're all, if we say we're christians (of whatever flavour), in danger of creating for ourselves little groups, alien to, misunderstood or ridiculed by those who do not belong. And honestly surfing in Portstewart, even in October, is more appealing than that.
You see, I'm not looking for direct links like 'DJ or band', or 'sermons or sharing', that's not the point, rather, I think, it has something to do with what we are.
So, let me quote an Irish Presbyterian minister to finish, John M. Barkley, "It is what a man is, not what he professes, which is the important thing in life." And it seems to me that the word 'professes' can be applied in lots of ways, and that one gets me every time too.
Complain about this comment
Peter M
I've been away for a couple of weeks. Did a bit of thinking about Church/God etc..
I was surprised when I got back to see the tone of many of your posts. Normally one of the most stable guys on here, I've seen you frustrated, angry, almost soul searching. Maybe, 'rudderless' would be a good word.
I dont quote scripture much either but you might like to reflect on the parable of the sower and the seed, (being a Cackie, I dont have the chapter and verse numbers to hand.) Maybe a few spiritual pennies might drop for you, or new horizons come into view.
Complain about this comment
Haha, Peter Morrow, you are rudderless!
It is certainly the case that these people are mostly coming out of more traditionally evangelical places. Where would you like them to be coming from? Is it merely the existence of Christian groups that bothers you? FYI, I haven't been to church regularly in 5 years, and don't miss it.
Complain about this comment
Hi PeteM (too many Petes - Jesus would have a lot of rocks on which to build his church on this blog, eh?)
I sort of see what you mean; there is a great story there; I happen *not* to believe that is "true", but that doesn't change its power as a story, and that's one reason why I sometimes describe myself (as the regulars will know to their intense boredom) as an Atheistic Christian. But a lot of what you say is very sensible, very *anti*Christian, but very pro-Jesus. I have extolled the Good Samaritan (you could call it the "Good Homosexual", the "Good Atheist", etc if you like, and have ministers and pillars of the church etc passing by on the other side) before as the very model of Jesus's *deprecation* of religion; TBH I think the very LAST thing he wanted to do was make a *new* one.
But I don't think you are rudderless - if anything, you have discovered the Core, and are trying to reconcile that with the Fluff.
I'll be honest - I feel lucky to be an atheist. If I had been aware of folks like Chris Hudson when I was shedding my coccoon in Israel in 1993, I would likely have ended up a Unitarian. I went to All Souls in Belfast a few months back, and found it most congenial to an atheist like me; much as I am intrigued by PeteR's ikon, I don't think there's really room there for me to be atheistic in an open and frank way. Oddly the Non-Subscribing Presbyterians just strike me as more my thang.
But then maybe my Jordan-Israel bike ride in November (google Heliopolitan Nazareth bike ride, folks ;-) is me trying to reconnect with something too.
Crikey - reading that over, it sounds a bit rudderless too. Will, you should have PeteR on SunSeq a lot more, and Chris Hudson too. I genuinely think a lot of Christians are unaware that Freethought is an option.
Complain about this comment
And therein lies the very best of the emergent movement: freethought is an option. If such freethought had more diverse results (more atheists, more modernists, more right-wingers, etc.) and wasn't so geared toward people whose views are similar to Rollins', it may be the perfect post-evangelical movement. As it is, at least it's encouraging freedom of thought, and it is thus better than any other expression of church.
Complain about this comment
PeterM
Let me rephrase the 'rudderless' comment, if not for your benefit, for others. You have always struck me as someone who has a pretty deep grasp of the gospel.
Your description of your past (above) moving from church to church gives me the impression that you have always searched for something deeper than what has been on offer where ever you've been. You perceive what others dont.
I was extremely fortunate in that, as a leader of a community, I could actively take steps to create a Christian Community rooted in the Gospel. Not many people have that opportunity, I now realise.
You, my friend, are not rudderless in that sense, many churches are. What I was trying to say was, whatever it is you are searching for, I hope you find it.
Complain about this comment
John
This first answer is for you!
Rudderless? I don't even have a boat anymore!
RJB
Thankyou for your comments (I'm not being ironic this time)
Besides my comment to PeteR about coffee and mercy, Helio about merely listening and John about John Barkley, I'm not sure what else to say at this point, except this...
Maybe 'rudderless' would be a good word, I hadn't thought of that, but here's what I have been thinking all summer, "There's an awful lot of words in Christianity." and I'm wondering what good they do. And believe me if you'd grown up in a church where the 'word' was preached twice on a Sunday, every Sunday, and on a Wednesday night, you'd realise just how many words we can get through.
But I can't shake the idea that the words (of the gospel) are supposed to change me, and others, for the collective good. Maybe I've just come across too many people on the fringes of life, people who don't fit, people who need a friend, people who want to be a friend, people for whom getting through another day is tough.
And in the middle of all that, yes, protests against the Pope, superstar preachers flying in from Amerikay, arguments over who the new church pastor will be, conflict about the music we play and the songs we sing, do get me frustrated.
But tell me more about Matthew 13 and the sower, you knew I'd know the reference didn't you! (Here's another one John 5: 39 and 40, and that's enough bible for one day!) Just occurs to me that I should explain that, by that I'm referring to my expression of church, not your ref. to the sower parable. But I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, any pointers?
and RJB, I've just seen your post 48, there was no need to clarify, I'm more than happy to do a bit of self reflection, (we Presbyterians read it every time we take communion, I can hear the words... "In the same way after supper He took the cup.....A man ought to examine himself"), but thanks, I appreciate your sensitivity.
Helio
Tell me a bit more about this bike trip. Visiting any gardens on the way?
And bikes don't need rudders, but I do hope you have a pumpture kit!
Complain about this comment
John
Your other questions, quick answer for now. "Where would I like them to be coming from?" Doesn't matter where I'd want them to come from I was just making the point that the evangelical world is where they're from. Can the blog stand another frivolous comment about this? It's like asking, "When is an evangelical not an evangelical?"
And, "Is it the existence of Christian groups which bother me?" Well, I've been trying to answer that, but another quick response, no it's just that I think the church has a lot more potential than simply organizing another event. I mean, you want to hear some of the discussions I've sat through about how to make the church more 'relevant'.
Complain about this comment
It is a lonely furrow I plough plugging liberal Anglicanism on the blog but really Helio we have been doing free-thought for centuries. You could be atheistic in an open and frank way in many a CoI parish and nobody would bat an eyelid but then maybe nobody there would think you were really being all that radical either.
My own views have been described as post-modernist and I can very much see where Rollins is coming from in much of what he says. Language communicates at many levels beyond the rational and meaning reverberates beyond semantics. It is sometimes necessary to speak in these terms to convey to a particular audience both how one can in fact make some semblance of sense out of non sense, and what one might apprehend of that which lies beyond comprehension.
I consider such efforts an occasionally necessary evil when attempting to let people see what makes me tick but I agree whole-heartedly with RJB as to what constitutes the essence of Christian faith and practice. Jesus' message was simple in the extreme, we might even say painfully simple. If we look for our Lord where we are most likely to find him (in engagement with the poor, the disconsolate, and the marginalised) the inadequacy of language takes on a wholly different meaning.
Even Post-modernists do not agree all the time - I would have had no difficulty answering William's question asking if I believed in God. I would have said quite simply - "No, I do not. I have no aspiration ever to believe in God. I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which I would believe in God". Of-course then I would suggest that any use of the idea of belief is quite likely to signal a category mistake...
Complain about this comment
PeterM
I had a sermon once that I was about to give after reading (sorry, "proclaiming" - is that what you mean about the b/s that creeps into Christianity?) - the gospel of the sower and the seed. I never gave that sermon. Instead I went off on a total tangent.
I actually started to visualise a parish which was rock. Well structured, financially secure, organised, stable etc.. But the parish lacked heart, it had little deep concern for the poor. The Word simply couldnt be heard in such a parish. The priorities of the parishioners were not the priorities of the gospel.
A parish full of thorns - People who were choking each other with gossip, criticism, undermining each other, back-stabbing each other etc.. (Remind you of anything?) Again, the Word couldnt be heard.
A parish on thin soil where the emphasis was on externals, appearances etc..
I gave other examples before coming to the seed which landed in the deep soil and began to reflect on what the deep soil actually is.
My point is, that since I've listened to you on this site, you've actually been doing that all along. You've been answering that question for yourself and for others.
I've heard the Word being bastardized on here consistently, used to smash like a boulder, to stab and wound like a thorn and used with utter shallowness. Tht's the real blasphemy.
I hope you continue to whisper it, to treat it like treasure, like the mustard seed, the pearl of great price. You are not falling on as many deaf ears as you might think.
Complain about this comment
PeterM
Just read John 5, 39-40.
Exactly!!
Complain about this comment
"Guys, can the conversation move....towards the ball at some point?"
Here it all is in a nutshell. It's even worse than I thought. By the time these people are through if they ever have their way, we'd all be sitting around singing Kumbaya, Kumbaya after we'd been lobotomized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church
This is the first posting I've ever seen on Wikipedia with a warning and this warning is that the article contains weasel words which the warning itself explains.
Reminds me of the Star Trek episode where everyone found peace in "Landreau" who controlled their thoughts and turned out to be a computer. Lots of room for demagogues to move into this act along the way. Lots of isolated little splinter sects in communes using mind control to keep converts captives. We know where that kind of thing ultimately winds up. Jonestown, Branch Davidians, and countless others like it. I say hold on tightly to your money, lock your doors, and pray this devil doesn't pay you a visit. Very dangerous indeed. Forewarned is forearmed. Utterly subversive with shades of megalomania and world government as its ultimate goal IMO.
Complain about this comment
Wasn't this thread meant to be about Peter Rollins? Not Peter Morrow?
Now why is a relatively conservative evangelicals soul-searching more interesting than an Emergent's musings?
GV
Complain about this comment
RJB
Church hopping is part of the Evangelical sub-culture. I have been -in order - Baptist, Brethren, Baptist, Independent, Baptist, Presbyterian. Getting fed up with the inevitable sub-sub-cultures is just an occupational hazard.
Evangelicals lack a sustantial doctrine of the Church. We're very clear on the gospel. But without agreement on what the Church is for, or what it does, the Gospel can get obscured. Church can get reduced to meetings.
I think that the Reformed gambit to replace the Sacraments with Preaching has failed. I'm not sure of it's Biblical warrant in any case. To my mind the Plymouth Brethren were moving towards a deeper doctrine of the Church in their practice, by focusing on the Lord's Supper and Baptism. It answers the question - what is the Church for? What can you get at Church that you can't get by reading a good commentary, or chatting with a group of Christian friends? Communion.
However a Fundamentalism and a lack of structured leadership has been their undoing.
GV
Complain about this comment
Come across, Graham. We've all the Sacramentalism we can get our hands on.
:)
Complain about this comment
GV
Sacraments can get in the way of listening to/perceiving Christ, just as much as endless words, endless liturgy, endless meetings etc..
I would argue that in my church, people have gotten so used to being spoon fed the Sacraments that they've stopped actually seeking God. Go to Church, go to communion, go to confession and chuck yer whack in the plate. End of.
One of the most revelatory and powerful eras in Jewish history was the periods of exile when, effectively, they were removed from the Temple and all the trappings of their religion.
Suddenly, the Psalms were born.
Again, it comes down to a genuine seeking on the part of the person/community. When I look around at my church and I look over the 1500 comments on the WW thread, how many people are genuinely seeking God? Strikes me that too many people believe they've actually found him.
Its also why Christ could do nada with the Pharisees. How can you penetrate the heart of someone who is so sure that he or she knows the truth?
Peter Morrow strikes me as someone who is, and always has been, seeking truth. And isnt that the essence of what Peter Rollings is doing and therefore what this particular thread is actually all about, regardless of what language we use?
Complain about this comment
RJB
In a Brethren communion service there is no 'sacramentalism'. There is no moment when the bread's nature changes, Christ being present as long as two or three are gathered.
The service is open. Anyone can give a hymn or pray. Anyone with a recognised gift of teaching can bring a message. (In practice this means any man, unfortunately.)So listening is all important. As is prayer and worship - perceiving. Periods of quiet reflection are included. If you notice the importance of communion, it's actually a radical rethink of the "priesthood of all believers".
In theory I think this gets things right, and is a step forward. But the lack of structured leadership crippled the Brethren from the outset. Factions sprang up early. The "priesthood of all believers" became anyone can say whatever they like. Teaching became devalued.
There were also problems with Fundamentalism - actually they were the original Protestant Fundamentalists. JN Darby gave us 'Dispensationalism', with it's two-stage Second Coming, and it's tendency to Biblical literalism.
All this is a real shame, as it has meant that their ideas on the Church could be built on.
GV
Complain about this comment
RJB
Is Peter Rollins seeking truth - in the sense that he would like to find it? Wouldn't that make him what he calls a 'gnostic'?
He seems more interested in passion. But passion in what? Passionate why? We don't seem to be allowed to say, as that would make us 'gnostics' and rob us of the passion. Or so it seems.
Showing that belief in the truth of propositions is not sufficient for faith does not mean that belief in propositions is not necessary for faith.
It's hidden behind a lot of words about Hegel and signifiers. But that seems to be the underlying assumption. It's difficult to make sense of caricatures like 'Dr IM Smug' and accusations of 'gnosticism' without that assumption.
There was a view in ethics that 'good', 'duty', 'wrong' etc where not truth claims, but expressions of emotion. So "abortion is wrong" translates "Abortion, yuk!"
Now Peter Rollins seems to be saying "I believe in God" means "Jesus , Yipee" or "Jesus, wow!". This should be followed by action. But he also thinks that 'God' is a meaningful term. We can make truth claims about a "supreme being".
It is possible on this view to say "I believe, falsely, that...". That's up there with 'gyring and wambling'. There is so much equivocation on the word believe that it becomes useless.
There are ways you could make this coherent, but I don't see any reason why I should. I can't see why truth claims are immoral in religion. I also think that without some propositional content the whole thing becomes blind. How should we act?
Now theoretical belief in a supreme being is not faith. Theoretical belief may not even be necessary for faith. But belief in the same reality for different reasons is possible. You may believe more about the reality in question as you have different grounds and motivations for your belief.
Of course he can just say I'm misreading him. But he was very clear when he felt offended, and offered no parables on that occasion. So I'm not sure that he can dodge the accusation that he is bluffing. I don't think he is. But some posters do, and I think that they are within their rights to make the accusation.
You were asking some very probing questions about silence and politics, and what the effect of all this rhetoric is. Marcus (no longer in Troll mode) has asked probing questions about the politics. Do they advance beyond Hegel. Peter Morrow has asked -in a manner as clear as any parable- what is the use of this type of language? He has also asked if 'Ikon' isn't a prisoner of what it rejects.
John Wright was blunter than Peter Morrow (yet oddly, received kinder comments). Again he wants to know what the language on Peter's page (and Marcus has given a fair sample of that language) achieves.
Parrhasios is more open - but wants to know what all the fuss is about. He can say heretical things with greater clarity in his Church, and no-one minds. Heresy went mainstream at the end of the 19th Century. We've had the "Death of God Incarnate". So I'd like to know, isn't this all a little bit boring?
(BTW Parrhasios features quite a bit in my lessons. GCSE students are always asking - what do 'Liberal Christians' believe?)
Now there's a wide range of interesting, challenging questions. The ball has been played. In fact it was played from the start.
SO - can we have our ball back? Can we have some answers?
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Marcus, I hardly ever hit the complaint button, but I did just now to stop everyone being accused of defamation. You came very close. By the beebs rather arbitrary definitions.
Anyhow, if I picked your post up right
1) D. A. Carson, has characterized the emerging church movement as primarily a movement of protest in which participants are reacting against their more conservative heritage. Carson has pointed out that emergent books and blogs are more preoccupied with this protest than they are with any genuinely constructive agenda" I see it as more of a political movement.
To someone who lived through and was forced to observe the 1960s for ten interminable years, this seems like an echo of the past. Like chain letters, pyramid schemes, and other relics of history, this seems to me to be at most a set of new variants on an old and badly discredited trend that all but died a long ago death. The fractured nature of the movement gives new opportunity for many because the decentralized nature of the thing with all its variants can give rise to lots of small heirarchies rather than a few large ones.
Then you warn us to watch out for ..."the drivers of human behavior, the lust for money, power, fame, and sex, the particular combination of each one..." and essentially not to take PEOPLE IN GENERAL on face value.
Because you're suspicious of everyone so far as I can tell.
Think that covers it, and keeps us out of trouble. Fight the inner troll man. Life's sticky enough on the blog at the mo,
Graham
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
What do you know, they left it up!
So it's not defamatory --- but PM's is. Right. It all makes perfect sense to me now. I can see exactly where the problems are.
GV
Complain about this comment
63 mentioned a name --- that's not defamatory either.
All of a sudden I've an urge to watch the film 'Clueless'...
Complain about this comment
Marcus
Fight the Troll, man, fight it! YOU-DON'T-HAVE-TO -LISTEN-TO-IT!
Complain about this comment
Good call, Mr Moderator! Now Marcus will push the envelope as far as he can. My odds of getting answers just went into minus numbers.
Complain about this comment
Jerry Jones plays for the Dallas Cowboys. Jim Jones went into the Jungle.
If you're going to screw the discussion up with bizarre references to cults you might *read* something about them first.
Just being alive in the 1960's doesn't count.
GV
Complain about this comment
For your information
The second deleted post made vague references to the FBI, Jim Jones, David Koresh, bluetooth, the jungle, 9/11 and a large amount of money.
Oliver Stone could have made a very good film out of all that.
Complain about this comment
My church is the restaurant, the ultralounge, the bar, the mall. I think this is what you mean, Peter M, by not having "just another event." When I talk to people about life and ask them to reflect on a thought or a concept - about life, philosophy, theology - and they do, it's the kind of 'church' I want. What I'm doing here, of course, is redefining the word 'church' to mean something else. This is what Rollins does, which has the benefit of making people think while the pitfall of being completely abstract and not talking about the same thing at all.
But the result of my refusing to sit in a room and listen to a guy tell me what to believe every Sunday is that I now explore these ideas myself in social places which have become my church (as I always did anyway of course even while I was going). After I stopped going, for the first few weeks, a good friend and I met at Roast coffee shop every Sunday morning for coffee, bagels with cream cheese and a healthy dose of banter and reflection. It became my church, and I haven't looked back.
(By the way I have a whole host of views on why religions evolve the way they do, and the 'need' to meet on a Sunday is one reason Christianity survived and thrived; the social aspect was vital, and the fittest survives. So there's a reason we have church on Sunday and the belief that Sunday church meetings are important. But it does no harm to disagree.)
Complain about this comment
I find a couple of things weird in regard to this particular thread. One, that having observed, and to one degree or another participated in, the deconstruction process proposed by the Emergent community and, two, having followed the re-imagining of christian theology with a particular emphasis on the need to move beyond the old paradigms of traditional churches (and that stated with some vigour), that my questioning should be met with such displeasure.
It is odd, is it not, that the very communites which have actively encouraged Christians to betray, to shatter their old certainties should want us not to speak of further heresy? Is this somehow a new orthodoxy, a new context for 'belief' to which we must all show fidelity? Are we permitted to question the questioners?
Understand too, that while I found myself unable to give myself whole heartedly to what has been called third millennium Christianity, I have been close enough to understand the main thrust of the movement. I have read at least some of the books, the musings of the online communities, the parables, the blogs, and the interesting, perhaps the 'horrific' thing is that in recognizing the limits of my own faith, my own ability to 'believe' I have been driven back to the certainty of an historic story of incarnation, redemption and the 'fidelity of God'. This is a story which has been told for centuries in all Christian communities, the story of love, mercy, forgiveness, hope, redemption. Doubt demands nothing of us.
Doubt, in the end diffuses the field of our vision, it shrouds us in a peaceful haze, it allows us to avoid the sting of love, the sting of selflessness.
Do I 'believe' in God? We ask the question as if our ability to believe was a virtue, it isn't, I am certain of that. It is like asking the question a lawyer asked Jesus; in the end, our endless questions betray our motives, and like the lawyer we keep on asking, desiring to justify ourselves. "Who is my neighbour?" "What is belief?" they are the same question, and I am certain we cannot justify ourselves.
The most penetrating statement of all on this thread was written by William, "If God exists, that claim changes everything." Indeed it does. If Christianity is true, it changes everything, the same way Jesus changed the lawyer's question. In the end it is no longer, "Who is my neighbour?" rather it is "To whom must I become a neighbour?" In the end the Samaritan was the neighbour, not the wounded man.
Christianity, teaches us that Jesus became our neighbour, to 'believe in him' is to understand that we need his neighborliness, his fidelity towards us. In the story Jesus is the Samaritan, we are the wounded ones, it is only when we understand this that we find it possible to believe, possible to love others.
Anyway, that's my answer, and it is, I believe(!), the forever told story of the Christian church; it is the story of God. And perhaps in view of the idea of rewriting parables I'll add my own.
Father in Heaven
Shallow is my name
My kingdom is done.
My will has run
It's course on earth.
I have this day
More than my fair share of daily bread.
Can You forgive me?
For I have failed to forgive others,
And succumbed to many a temptation.
Deliver me from the evil one
(Again)
And may I see Your kingdom
Your power and Your glory
Forgiver and Forgiver
Amen.
Complain about this comment
Cripes, guys! How long to wallow in the fluff, eh? We all have our journeys; as I mentioned above, *we* invent god. It's bottom-up, not top-down.
Peter, since you asked, the bike ride is from Amman to Jerash to the Dead Sea, up the Jordan Valley to Lake Tiberias (eastern shore), cross by boat, then Tiberias up to Nazareth EMMS Hospital. It's to raise money to establish a bursary fund to help train nurses from disadvantaged backgrounds (mainly Arab Muslim, Christian, Bedouin, Druze) in the Galilee area, and thereby help lift them and their families out of poverty, and foster self-confidence and break down barriers in the region. A good thing, I think you will agree.
I mean, look at us - here we are tearing strips off each other, but we would have no hesitation in buying each other a pint. Let's share the wuv.
Complain about this comment
Since it is clear this thread is to be a platform for propaganda rather than a two sided discussion or debate, it is pointless to try to present an opposing view. I now see why the Catholics wanted independence from BBC and its owner the British Government.
Complain about this comment
Graham - an extraordinarily succinct summary of my thoughts. I am sure you are well aware, of-course, that I do not consider my position heretical! :-)
Complain about this comment
Markie, did a British Post-Modernist Emergent Church member run over your cat or something? That's a pretty hefty chip on your shoulder there.
Look, let me put this in context - there are 2 principal ways of looking at things - top-down and bottom-up. Top-down: god creates everything. Bottom-up: we create god. You don't need to *believe* things - indeed, that's a positive disadvantage; that way leads to Error. We start from where we are and work outwards. Maybe PoMo floats some people's boats - I'm a scientist, so I can't really relate to it. But if we can promote freethinking, and a rejection of the automatic assumption of theism, that is a start.
Complain about this comment
H
"here we are tearing strips off each other"
I hope not.
"but we would have no hesitation in buying each other a pint."
Quite true, maybe we should some time.
And the bike ride, yea, a good thing indeed, very good in fact. Will you be able to 'twitter' your progress, I'd like to follow it if you could.
Complain about this comment
I can't come up with a parable but here's a little story, it's even a true story. RJB and PeterM's exchange put me in mind of it.
I once went to the funeral of a Roman Catholic friend. It was on Low Saturday and the church was stripped of decoration. The Blessed Host had been removed to the sacristy, the Tabernacle door was open, and the Sanctuary Lamp extinguished.
The chapel was deep in the country and I noticed most of the congregation still genuflected before taking a seat in the pews. Wondering if it was done consciously and for the same reason an Anglo-Catholic might give, I asked the friend who accompanied me "Are they reverencing the Holy Cross?" - she looked at me blankly. I repeated the question. She said "No, you know we bow to Christ in the Sacrament". I didn't point out that the Tabernacle was bare.
The story illustrates, rather nicely, how you can take God, in this case quite literally, out of Church and the congregation won't even notice. We could take God out of most of our churches and nobody would notice. I would go further and say that you could take God out of most of our churches and it wouldn't really matter.
Church is not about God, it is certainly not for God. Church is for people and for fellowship. It enables those who think about God to support one another and to bounce ideas off one another. When, for example, has anyone last heard a public prayer purely and exclusively addressed to God? Public prayer is largely and commonly just a means to facilitate one Christian's addressing of his fellows indirectly.
We encounter the reality of God not in a building or in a group but when we align our deeds with His nature. The Word of God is written in the faces of the poor. Real prayer is a transformative dissection of the self in the love of God. Authentic worship is the service of the needy. True communion is empathy with the suffering. We proclaim the Gospel of Christ only when we live His life in the world.
Complain about this comment
Graham Crackers;
Jerry Jones plays for the Dallas Cowboys. Jim Jones went into the Jungle.
Was Jim Jones a personal friend of yours? I see you were familiar on a first name basis.
"If you're going to screw the discussion up with bizarre references to cults you might *read* something about them first."
I did. That's how I became interested in Northern Ireland.
"Just being alive in the 1960's doesn't count."
Between the war in Vietnam and the draft, the race riots, the inner city crime waves, the drug culture, the bizarre religious sects, and the rest of the lunacy of that era, just surviving the 1960s in one piece does.
While the seperation of Church and State in the US is a fact of American law, the marriage of Church and money in the US is a fact of American culture. Anyone who does not know that religion is big business in America doesn't know the first thing about the US. I suspect it's no secret anywhere.
Complain about this comment
Re 60
I think we're not getting our ball back.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
Everyone else in America is fixated by money, is it really any wonder that the churches are the same? I got the feeling that if a priest or minister were to stand up and preach against the love of money (and live it as well) he would be treated like some sort of oddball.
Parrhasios
Your parable actually touches on quite an important point for the catholic church at the moment.
Vatican II tried to give a more prominent place to the Scriptures in our churches (something learned from our Protestant brothers and sisters.) The Lectern was given a more prominent place on the sanctuary, while the Tabernacle was moved to a side altar, often to a side chapel.
When I made that move in my own parish, people still genuflected out of habit even although the Blessed Sacrament was no longer there. Over a period of months I gently 'reminded' people of this. People could also see with their own eyes that, after the distribution of communion, the remaining hosts were taken to the tabernacle in the side chapel. They still genuflected.
I went to some lengths to try and explain the move. I spoke about how up until the era of Pope John the XXIII, receiving the Eucharist was at most, a weekly if not monthly, event, which had to be preceded by Confession and a long period of fasting (normally from Saturday evening right through til Sunday.)
John wanted to change all that. He wanted people to receive the Eucharist as often as possible. He encouraged people to receive it, not just on a weekly basis, but on a daily basis. You no longer 'had to' go to Confession and fasting was reduced to one hour.
We thus arrived at a situation where far more people were going to communion far more often - yet we still retained things like Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and Benediction. (The latter didnt actually make sense any more because people actually had the Blessed Sacrament inside them.)
Again, I tried to explain. Would any of you ever dream of behaving disrespectfully in front of the tabernacle? Would any of you ever dare to sin in its presence? No.
So why then would any of us curse at, swear at, gossip about, hurt or offend our neighbour, who has effectively become a living, breathing, walking tabernacle, loved by God and containing the Eucharist within them?
Most people got it and it made them totally rethink the way we treat each other. (I do remember one parishioner who didnt get it, complaining bitterly to others about me after Mass one Sunday, "My God, he's replaced the Tabernacle with a yukka plant!!")
To me, it didnt really matter that the folk were still instinctively genuflecting to the front, something done out of force of habit. What thrilled me to my core was that they were now, effectively, genuflecting to each other, treating each other with respect, dignity, compassion, understanding and forgiveness. Treating each other as tabernacles.
This new awareness was actively encouraged by our Bishops. Priests were backed up by the hierarchy when they brought about these changes. (It also had huge implications for relations with our Protestant brothers and sisters.)
The utter tragedy for the Catholic Church is that over the last ten years, there has been a backlash. Priests, most of whom did their 'training' in Rome, have gradually infiltrated our parishes, shifted the Lectern back to the side of the sanctuary and stuck the tabernacle emphatically back to centre stage. The statement they are making is all too obvious. They have powerful friends in Rome and any local Bishop who opposes them will soon find himself 'pressurised' by Rome. (At the moment they have managed to get the Tridentine Mass re-established in parishes, backed fully by Benedict, and are attacking any Bishop who refuses to co-operate with them.)
People, having been brought to a new understanding of the Eucharist, have now had that vision demolished. They have simply walked away. The galling thing is that these extremely arrogant, right wing clergy are standing up in their pulpits and, in the few sentences they utter which arent in Latin, blaming those who tried to practise Vatican II for emptying our churches and leading the faithful "into error." (Error is such a favourite word of theirs.)
The real reason our churches are emptying is that, having been lead to a new understanding of Church/Christ/Christianity, having been freed from quite an oppressive religiosity from the past, they are not prepared to be led back to that past again.
So, Parrhasios, your little parable actually was an extremely relevant one for understanding where Catholicism is at the moment.
My apologies to all those Christians on here who arent at all interested in any of this and to atheists on here who will simply be bemused by it. I just wanted to reply to Parrhasios.
Complain about this comment
Parrhasios, that's an interesting post, because as you probably observe, god doesn't actually have to *exist* for that to be the case. Hence Christian Atheism, of course.
Complain about this comment
RJB, the deleted comments related to the fact that if someone travels to a foreign country not as a tourist, or to retire, or to study but to offer a product or service, they'd better know the local market expectations, business practices, and what the competition offers. If they don't, if they just bring their wares convinced they have a superior product, a better mousetrap and that the world will beat a path to their door, they are likely to get clobbered and quickly. This is as true in religion as in any other line of business. Perhaps some in NI feel offended that I compared religion to other businesses and those who practice it as at least in part to businessmen but the truth, cynical as it sounds is that is how it is in the US. Perhaps that explains why so many people switch religions on a fairly regular basis. As they become disillusioned with one product, the competiton comes along with one that looks newer and shinier. We buy and trade cars, houses, marriages, everything else the same way. That is what e-bay is about, the internet version of a garage sale, flea market, swap meet, storefront. "The business of America is business." I think President Coolidge said that and it's always been true.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
I certainly got the drift of what you are saying when I was over there. The business of America isnt business, though, its Capitalism. I think there's a difference. It is an ideology, a religion if you like. I also think it is lived out by most Americans, unreflected.
Business, where you bring your product to the market place, people buy or dont, freely, doesnt have 'victims.' Capitalism does have victims, and many of them.
I actively 'observed' on this visit, largely due to you (and JW's) defence of American culture, for want of a better word. I began, I think, to understand what makes America tick. There is something far more brutal, far more ugly, than 'business' underpinning your country.
Put simply, the dollar is given a higher priority and is treated with more respect, than the person.
Your country must be a fantastic place to be if you have money. Not pleasant at all though, if you dont.
Complain about this comment
RJB;
"Your country must be a fantastic place to be if you have money. Not pleasant at all though, if you dont."
If you expect to sit around and have life handed to you on a silver platter the way European nanny states do you are right. But countless tens of millions of people without a dime to their name including my grandparents came to America having fled genocidal Europe and made prosperous lives for themselves that were as full and rich as any anywhere, certainly far better than they could have dreamt of in Europe. America is not a land of guarantees, it is a land of opportunity. You really didn't learn much on your vist at all. You view America through the typically distorted European prism of ingnorance and jealousy. That is why you came to the conclusion you did.
"The business of America isnt business, though, its Capitalism. I think there's a difference."
Having lived an entire life bombarded by the most effective advertising in the world, I am on to your sophistry, your word games and I see right through them as clearly as I see through a window pane. I won't play that game.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
Funny this conversation comes up as we approach Columbus day. Ask the native population what they think of the land of opportunity. (Thats if you can find any.)
There were victims then and there are now.
Complain about this comment
RJB;
As poetry day is upon us, ask the native population of NI what they think of the land of ad-verse. There are about 1.8 millin NIers, and about 1 million Native Americans. On most days I can't find any of either.
As for NIers, there were victims then, there are victims now. March, march, march.
Complain about this comment
"I must say that, Peter, your post also was a lot to take. But I accept that you didn't mean to belittle me and that you are interested in the real issues rather than venting your anger."
What are the real issues? Why was Peter's post so hard to take? In comparison to being called a bullsh88ter?
I must say that I'm confused. I thought that we wanted a substantial discussion.
Complain about this comment
RJB
You're feeding a 'troll'.
Google the term if you're unfamiliar.
Complain about this comment
GV
I was actually aware of Marcus' tactics long ago and exactly what he does. However, I didnt realise that there was a term for the condition.
Having done some psychology, I was also aware of what to do when you are confronted by extremely toxic people - disengage!
Complain about this comment
RJB;
In the four hundred years that Catholics and Protestants were at war with each other on your accursed island, how many people do you think got killed? I'd say it was numbers beyond counting. Before America became an independent nation, the people killing native Americans were for the most part...British subjects. When America became independent, the civil war in Ireland had been going on for nearly two hundred years. It's a sobering thought...if there is such a thing in some places.
Veale Chops;
You have demonstrated clearly through your actions how your religion like most or even all others deals with people who say things they don't like. They eliminate them. Today in the western world you can only legally eliminate the printed or posted words to a limited degree but in earlier centuries and in other places such as in the Moslem world, they eliminated the people. You are no better IMO than the Taleban. You have exactly the same mentality they do.
Complain about this comment
RJB - your post # 80 was a fascinating read and a real insight into the spirit of an exciting period when liturgy and symbol came vividly to life. Thank you for sharing it. I share your concern at more recent reversals.
Helio - your short comment (# 81) requires a long answer - when I'm less tired!
Complain about this comment
Aww, nobody will play with the widdle troll...
Complain about this comment
So Veal Chops, going down fighting to the last. Seems you still want to play. Since I know you'll read this if it gets published, I want to point out that Peter Rollins may have been incensed at my insinuations, my suggestion of possibilities of his motives, but he never denied them. Could it be that I hit more than a raw nerve, that I hit the nail squarely on the head? Methinks the preacher doth protest too much.
Complain about this comment
:) You're priceless. Why all this talk of a-fussin and a-fightin?
:):)
Complain about this comment
Marcus
When, as you have shared, you had an elderly woman staying in your house, I now realise why the authorities felt it necessary to visit every two weeks to check on her health.
Complain about this comment
Bernard's Infight;
Since when was an Irishman not delighted by a good brawl or not found it irresistable to join in?
RomanJellyForABean;
That "woman" was my dear aunt and it is normal for the State of New Jersey to assure itself that people who are helpless and in need of help are receiving it. America may not be the nanny state most European countries are yet but the government is hardly indifferent to what happens to people. Don't believe everything you read in the newspaper or you hear on BBC about America. More often than not, they get it wrong.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
I know that woman was your "dear" aunt. You told us that before. And all those people you so heartlessly criticise and wish ill of, they have dear, sweet, wee aunties too.
Loads of dear sweet wee aunties were fried in Japan by your country (and elsewhere) and you fully support it.
Once you begin to show an ounce of concern for non-American sweet wee aunties, I'll try my best to feel sorry for yours. Lol!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Marcus
You're enough to drive the Irish not to drink.
GV
Complain about this comment
Has anyone else noticed the lack of discussion? The substance of worldviews unseen? The shape of ideas unheard?
Am I missing something?
GV
Complain about this comment
RomanJellyForABean;
Once America threw Britain out, no more dear sweet aunties or one day would be aunties were burned at the stake as witches. None killed by bombs put in letter boxes either although we did have some blown up when a Federal building was bombed by a domestic terrorist. You know what a domestic terrorist is don't you? Ireland had them on both sides killing dear sweet aunties...for four hundred years.
Complain about this comment
Graham, yes and no. There was once a man who decided to go on a long journey, but he had only one sock etc. :-)
Complain about this comment
Veale Chops;
"Has anyone else noticed the lack of discussion? The substance of worldviews unseen? The shape of ideas unheard?"
The quality of your contributions have been duly noted.
Complain about this comment
Veale Chops;
"Marcus
You're enough to drive the Irish not to drink."
Were that to happen on a wide scale and sobriety reigned supreme there....it's a sure bet I wouldn't win any peace prize.
Complain about this comment
Peter Rollins has certainly provoked some debate here. You can hear him talking for himself live on Sunday Sequence this week, in the first half hour of the show.
Complain about this comment
Graham
"Has anyone else noticed the lack of discussion?"
I'll give it a try.
This can be little more than a stereotype, and I'm aware of those limitations, but here goes.
There have been times over the last number of years when I have asked myself if I am or if I fit the profile of an emergent Christian. How so?
Well, I have read NT Wright, Thomas Merton and Henry Nouwen along with a longer list of Protestant and Catholic mystics and social justice writers. I have watched The Matrix (although I hated it!). I take the view that social and global issues should be the concern of the church. I have wondered if I can ever say anything is true. At times I tend to doubt. The thought of church in a pub was once a funky idea. I know how to use iMovie. I like the idea that the church is a community and all of life is worship. I think that the idea of salvation is more than atonement for personal guilt. I think that the idea of spiritual life is more than doctrine. I don't think it's up to me to decide who will be in hell, in fact I'm not so sure hell is a place. I think following Jesus has to do with how we live, and not simply what we believe. I think conversation between christians is very important.
However, after having figured out all the things I wasn't, some of the things the evangelical church could be rightly criticized for and those aspects of emergent thinking which were worthwhile I began to realise that the process of deconstruction, reflection, and rebellion had become an end in itself. I realised that the whole process was predicated on doubt, and not believing became more important than believing. This was more than questioning, very quickly it became the absence of faith. There were no longer any things which one could say 'yes' to. The great irony was that I became the kind of Christian I had criticised others for being. I became one focused on endlessly defining what I was or wasn't, it was just another version of the evangelical badge making I'd been used to for years. This new Emergent God never actually did anything and very soon he didn't exist. Sure I thought and talked a lot about him but he could never be known, because ultimately there was nothing to know.
And so, in the absence of a theology of justice, or love, or forgiveness, in the absence of revelation, in the absence of a God who has made Himself known and wants to be known, there was never anything to be done, except perhaps fret, and deconstruct some more.
Emergent has highlighted some important aspects of failing in the evangelical church, but it's own failing is that it no longer has a God in which to place it's faith.
And after all that, I began to realise that historic Reformed and Roman Catholic churches had recognised the need to marry faith and works and had been dealing with these theologies for centuries.
And Helio, only one sock? Well that sort of sums it up. Two socks or no socks, that what I say! But I sure hope you have at least three wheels, or at the very least a spare tyre!
And after all that, this post is basically the same as post 15
Complain about this comment
"You can hear him [Peter Rollins] talking for himself live on Sunday Sequence this week"
I think I'll wait until he gets to America. I'm sure sooner or later he'll wind up speaking at Times Square. Kind of like Speaker's Corner in London but a little different. If you've been there, you know what I mean. Have a nice day ;-)
Complain about this comment
Marcus
You are so passive aggressive.
Complain about this comment
JellyBrain
You're quite an oxymoron yourself.
Complain about this comment
It is my opinion that neither the Catholic Church, the Protestant Churches that broke away at the Reformation, the proliferation of break-away schisms since the 17th century, the cults nor the 'Emergent' church have authority to act in the name of God, know His will or understand what God fully requires from us.
All of these groups, if they are truthful, understand that there is much more that is revelant than what they teach. That is why we continue to debate religion. If there was one Church truly authorised by God there would be no need to debate. As there is no agreement to such a church existing, then I believe groups will continue to debate, proliferate, some alliances may be formed and new 'religious' philosophies will occassionally appear until a fully restored church, governed by Jesus Christ and structured with authority to teach truths and dispel error, like in New Testament times, is established.
On thing bothers me though, if such a church existed or was formed, would all those who view themselves as Christian react like the Sadducees and Pharisees toward it? They probably would.
Complain about this comment
I think following Jesus has to do with how we live, and not simply what we believe. I think conversation between christians is very important.
I hope this extends to Christian Atheists. To be honest, I think it's ALL to do with how we live, and our interpretations of our lives need to be dynamic; we need to be able to apply and revise layers on parables old and new. I've previously described the Jesus mythology as a sort of Desktop Wallpaper that we arrange the icons of our lives on (if we're Christian); we could do the same with a Jewish, Islamic or Norse or Pastafarian backdrop if it tickled our giblets.
This, though, leads to the heart of the Helio quandary re the Emergies. It's too postmodern for me. I think there IS a "truth" out there, and I think we CAN be precise in what we're talking about. I think there is no harm in coming right out and saying that we do NOT believe in gods; that doubt is the dog's.
Why the heck are people afraid of robust disagreement?
Will, glad you're going to have Peter on the show again - despite the above, I think the Emergies have a seriously important contribution to make in the whole area of Christian Atheism. Sometimes I just wish they'd come right out and say it ;-)
-H
Complain about this comment
Helio
The more I read what you say, the more it seems that you want Christianity, or at least some version of it, but you don't want God. Sorry, I don't know how else to describe this, but perhaps you could.
My genuine question, what's your trouble with God?
Complain about this comment
When Diogenes went to New York City with his lamp looking for an honest man...somebody stole his lamp. They swallow chum like this kid whole before breakfast and it doesn't even tickle going down.
Complain about this comment
Peter, it's not that I "want" Christianity - I have *got* Christianity. Equally I could have Judaism or Islam or whatever. My "trouble" (as you put it) with God is that, as far as I can tell, God does not actually *exist*; Jesus was not his "son", and did not rise from the dead, certainly not to "save" me from my "sins". What we have is a *story*, and we can do with that pretty much as we please.
PeteR has chosen one way of doing this; I choose another.
Complain about this comment
Helio
"Why are people afraid of robust disagreement?"
Have a wee listen to politicians at the moment. Their favourite word would appear to be 'robust.' You'll hear it in every interview, used at least twice. It definitely has to be up there for the 'spin' word of the year and it is used to cover a multitude of sins.
Complain about this comment
Just listened to the interview with Peter Rollins.
A number of things strike me, so here are a few quotes.
we're not a church we're a "community of people", we "explore faith and life together"
To be honest I find that a bit weird, having always thought of church as a community of people, having always thought that one of the reasons for church is to explore faith and life together. Traditional church calls it working out your salvation, surely this isn't a particularly new idea.
or another comment from the interview, theology... 'changes us and transforms us'... 'change people's hearts'
Surely this is standard, reformed theological language and thinking, and surely at some point we must try to be clear about what this change of heart looks like, be it in ourselves or in the community?
And then
"We try to offend everybody"
"Whatever you believe... you're probably wrong"
"Theology should be offensive... something that provokes us...never be something we can do easily"
And I'm wondering a number of things.
One, the 'offence of the gospel' is a standard fundamentalist defence when people don't like what has been said. Is emergent just offering a more pleasant kind of offence? Or perhaps emergent finds the new style offence less offensive cos they're in control of the offending? Basic psychology suggests that none of us find our questioning of others offensive or even our questioning of ourselves offensive. The offence usually comes when others question us.
Whatever you believe you're probably wrong. Like I said earlier, this means we can never be 'right' about anything, either our fundamentalism or our liberalism, it becomes the absence of any kind of belief, and if we're not careful paralysing. Yet Peter also says he believes in Ikon, believes in what they've been doing. Whatever you believe, you're probably wrong?
And of course theology isn't something we can do easily, of course it should provoke us, partly because traditional christianity has always asked us to question the core of who we are. That is one of the most offensive aspects of traditional Christianity. If churches haven't done this it isn't the fault of historic theology.
And, sorry, I have to ask this, if all this offending is so productive and worthwhile, what was so terribly wrong with my post 15? Like I said at the time, all I was doing was reflecting back the language of the sub-culture.
And I'll risk saying this too. I've spent time with people who have become almost dysfunctional because of their doubt, I've spoken with them, spent time with them and watched how they live (or don't live as the case may be), in comparison, the rest of us are us toying with questions, unbelief and doubt.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Helio - # 81.
If anyone were interested in understanding me and my thinking the first thing they would have to consider is my Anglicanism.
I am absolutely an Anglican: Anglicanism shapes every fibre of my being. If you understand this you will begin to understand why any remotely absolutist conception of truth is entirely foreign to me. I have zero interest in establishing any abstract truth and little more confidence in the possibility of so doing in any case. If something works, if it facilitates the enjoyment of life and the good of society that is enough for me.
When you speak of Christian Atheism you are taking a position, you are coming down very firmly on one side of an entirely intellectual argument, you are making a decision. I may be wrong but I suspect your religious background would tell you 'that's the way to do it'. My religious background would tell me that taking an intellectual position is wholly unnecessary and quite probably counter-productive.
I have little genuine interest in the existence or non-existence of God and cannot understand why William thinks it would be such a big deal if we could be sure he did exist. Equally I cannot understand why Christian theists attach such significance to intellectual arguments for God's existence: even if they come up with a clincher all they have done is move the point at which you still must make the leap of faith which is required for belief in the God of the Bible.
If we are to trust our intellects the only creator God we can reason is, at best, an amoral and disinterested being with unimaginable purposes - how this
claim is outrageous or disruptive of the fabric of thought escapes me.
If I were pushed as to what I think I suspect I would go for God as being an extra-linguistic reality. I cannot see, for example, how, if it is meaningful to speak of you or I as existing, the same word could be used of the being of God. To be honest, however, I do not really care. You see, for me, wuv and the warm fuzzies are every bit as important as thought. If Jesus lives within my heart that's all that really matters to me.
Complain about this comment
Parrhasios
Surely if it is possible for Jesus to live within my heart, it is also possible that he was 'put to bed' in a hollowed out stone 'manger', welcomed outcast shepherds as guests, was heard gladly by ordinary everyday people and continues to provide rest for the weary, thereby earthing faith, with, if I might put it this way, no 'leap' required!
You know and I know that incarnate grace is one of the distinctive features of Christianity, Anglican and Presbyterian, so why not both, warm fuzzy wuv, and "hard as nails" love too?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Clearly any posting which questions Rollins motives will be deleted. On this blog site, he's an icon which is beyond who is beyond all reproach, purer than Caeser's wife as they say. How ironic for a self appointed apostle whose dogma is questioning without limits. Only HE is off limits when it comes to being challenged. How hypocritically and quintessentially European.
Complain about this comment
But Marcus, I questioned your motives on this thread (#98) and you had it deleted!
I wonder is your hypocrisy on this issue quintessentially Amnerican? I wouldn't think so.
Complain about this comment
Marky, Marky, Marky
You were just being a troll.
Complain about this comment
After listening I'm absolutely sure that 'Ikon' is a prisoner of what it rejects. It can never move beyond a parody of the worst kinds of Protestant Fundamentalism.
That is, it is a parody of a caricature. I would not allow this description of Fundamentalism to pass in a GCSE RE class. Nor would an external examiner.
GV
Complain about this comment
The reference to 'Chick' and the blog itself makes clear that Protestant Fundamentalism is the target of what is an unfortunately juvenile critique.
For example, the advertised 'Tract' mocks -
"Dr I. M. Smug. He calls himself an expert on pre-tribulation studies and has written two small books on the subject (making him one of the few people who can claim to have written more books than he has actually read*). He spends much of his day watching for signs of the end times and sketching intricate diagrams describing the apocalypse. However, while he regularly refers to himself as a ‘Doctor’, it was recently revealed that he purchased the title for $25 from the Jesus-agrees-with-me Bible Seminary."
"Meet Mr Smarm. He doesn’t go in for all this thinking nonsense. ‘Others interpret the bible’ he says, ‘I just do what it says’. For Mr Smarm reason is a tool sent by the devil (like fossils, facts and Obama) designed to divert us from the true path. But Mr Smarm is not concerned for he knows that Jesus did not leave us alone on earth, but sent Fox news to guide and comfort us. Like Dr Smug he too is obsessed with the rapture and is glad to see wars and enviromental crisis, as they are signs of the end times."
Nothing judgmental about that.Perhaps the best response would be that Ikon is meant to be offensive. So why the horror expressed (so clearly) at Peter M's post?
The arguments seem thin - this has been our experience of church. Therefore this is the essence of church.
You can't say everything about God.
So you can't say anything important about God.
Christian faith involves other than rational assent to propositions. Therefore Christian faith does not include rational assent to propositions.
The arguments that aren't thin are obscure.
In any case, Heresy is dull. 'The word "heresy" not only means no longer being wrong; it practically means being clear-headed and courageous.' This was penned by GK Chesterton in 1905!! And in fact Chesterton (and Pascal for that matter) viewed Orthodoxy as a way of *embracing* the paradoxes and contradictions of life.
Maybe we should move on to other Emergents. Dallas Willard is orthodox, but is often classified as emergent. Any insight son this folk?
GV
Complain about this comment
Just took a read through this thread to get caught up. What a waste of time! Why anybody is paying attention to Marcus' trolling sidebar on Native Americans and other issues I have no idea; isn't this a conversation about Rollins' approach to theology and the emergent movement?
As far as that goes, I'd have to say I agree with the basic thrust of what Pete M has to say in criticism, and I'd add that it's difficult to have a conversation (if Ikon intends to 'be' a conversation) where the terms are being redefined so often and where the highest value seems to be on wordplay, and finding profundity in things which need not be seen as profound, and making things sound like paradoxes which can as easily be seen in fairly straightforward logical terms. I suspect it's the difference between modernism and postmodernism, and maybe that deserves a whole other thread (which I'd hope would do better than this one!).
By the way. I've been looking at emergent movement this side of the Atlantic (U.S.). One of the first links I saw was Rick Warren being supportive of the movement, and even seeking to plant an emergent-style church as part of Saddleback. I suspect Pete Rollins would be rather unhappy within that structure, which brings me to the question: does the emergent movement stateside tend to be more about style than substance? Do they think they're breaking free if they have a DJ rather than a band and a discussion rather than a sermon? Isn't Rollins' approach more ABOUT approach? Doesn't Ikon represent some significant and marked changes in theology as well as style? And if so, are there Ikon equivalents in the States?
Complain about this comment
"One of the first links I saw was Rick Warren being supportive of the movement, and even seeking to plant an emergent-style church as part of Saddleback."
I suppose that would be The Emergent Driven Life or The Emergent Driven Church. I wondered how long it would take before it went 'mainstream'.
Just 30 more years, I'll be over 70 by then, and I can expect the current disagreement about lack of Metrical Psalms to be replaced with some folks wanting to replace the rock band with Apple's GarageBand, and me, perhaps, saying, "Oh God has so faithfully used charismatic rock in the lives of so many people, we can't just go abandoning it!"
Flip me pink.
John then asks, "does the emergent movement stateside tend to be more about style than substance"
John, I think you could ask that about any aspect of the church programme or denomination, although I expect that Catholicism is less susceptible to faddishness. In fact it's what I said about me back in post 39, "Yet what of my sub-culture, what of me, for I am only asking questions I have already asked myself? If I'm honest for most of my life I've been high on the sub-culture of church and low on substance. What is the measure of my Christianity when the trappings of church are removed?"
And the frightening thing is that sometimes I think all of my Christianity has been about 'style'. This is why I can't for the life of me understand what is so radical about emergent, I don't need more trappings! A much more radical approach might be to, well, sell the church building (or the sound system) and give the money to the poor.
On this point I'm very much looking forward to William's programme Loosing Our Religion. It will be interesting to see what line he takes. Will it be an exploration of varying styles and presentations of 'church' (distinctive practices, like music). Will it be asking relatively safe questions like, "Do you sometimes think God isn't real", or will it ask questions about the substantial or what are supposed to be the substantial defining attributes of Christianity. Love for one's enemies, peace, gentleness, goodness, forgiveness, self-control and how this is supposed to happen? (dare I say it ultimately seen in Jesus?)
I'm no longer convinced, at all, that the style of the worship, or the collective, or the service, or the summer conference actually counts for anything. What does appear to count though is that straight-forward, yet elusive list beginning 'love for one's enemies' above.
And here's the thing, if I'm right about that, then I'm not so sure I actually am a Christian, but that's an entirely different thing from saying, "whatever you believe... you're probably wrong".
Here's the thing, the notion of 'relevance' in church is predicated on changing cultures and philosophies; "the poor we always have with us", and I don't think they care what song we sing.
Complain about this comment
William
At the risk of jumping the gun, and in the hope of a dedicated thread, can I say, great programme tonight, Loosing Our Religion, really enjoyed it, ample opportunity for debate, discussion, conversation, questioning.
Good job.
Complain about this comment
Get one thing straight Bernards Insight, I never clicked on complain about this comment on your posting or any one elses on this blog site ever. In all the years I posted on BBC blog sites I only complained about one posting being offensive one time and it didn't work, it was not deleted or even referred to the moderators so don't go throwing your false accusations around. Whether the moderators decided to remove it themselves or someone else complained I can't say.
Complain about this comment
John Wright, you don't like my postings because I said I do not believe what Peter Rollins says he is and would have us believe? Seems to me that there are others here who don't believe him either.....YOU for one.
How lucky for post #13;
"How do I say it in a way which does not sound dismissive? Pete is the best bullshitter I've ever heard."
"Why anybody is paying attention to Marcus' trolling sidebar on Native Americans and other issues I have no idea; isn't this a conversation about Rollins' approach to theology and the emergent movement?
It also seems to me much of this thread has been about people talking about themselves;
#55 gveale;
"Wasn't this thread meant to be about Peter Rollins? Not Peter Morrow?"
When someone posts something you don't like Mr. Wright, is calling them a Troll your ultimate retort? Why not argue the facts unless you haven't got any? Then all that's left to you is name calling.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, come on my friend, you enjoy talking about one thing above all others and that is how superior you feel the United States is to Europe and all its subissues; perfectly valid but not always relevant, and when it ain't relevant it's trolling. Since you're a longtime regular I have a little affection for you; not much, mind, but enough to explain myself. :-)
Complain about this comment
John Wright, I just enjoy giving Europeans a taste of their own medicine. Just a small taste. For them it seems an unfamiliar bitter pill to swallow...coming from an American. We've swallowed enough of theirs over the years that we aren't even conscious of it anymore.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
I like you when you're on topic, and not being mischievous. But Native Americans? You were trolling, and actually letting Ikon and Peter Rollins off the hook.
John
It's difficult to engage anyone in conversation when they won't talk back. I have to express disappointment at what I can only describe as Peter Rollin's evasiveness. Both here and on the thread "One Day I hope to Believe in God" on PeteRollins.net/ .
Maybe that's too critical. Take a read and let me know.
However "Emergents" can focus on style - Dallas Willard has forgotten more about Continental Philosophy than most po-mo theologians can articulate. He is extremely conservative theologically (an orthodox Quaker) - but wants to move beyond typical Evangelical spirituality.
So I don't think that Ikon can be taken as representative of the Emergent movement.
GV
Complain about this comment
I suppose that Evangelical churches can be so activist that they don't take any time to develop depth.
There's a real danger that we end up with "Evangelism + Preaching = Church". We can alter that formula slightly "Evangelism + Preaching + Small Groups" etc.
I'd maintain that the Brethren had interesting ideas that could correct these tendencies, without lapsing into sacramentalism. But the Brethren didn't get Church government in order, and fell into factionalism and fundamentalism.
GV
Complain about this comment
Has Plantinga anything sensible to say?
" ...we do something from the point of view of intellectual imperialism and self-exaltation that is much worse: we now declare that everyone is mistaken here, everyone except for ourselves and a few other enlightened souls. We and our graduate students know the truth; everyone else is sadly mistaken. Isn't this to exalt ourselves at the expense of nearly everyone else? Those who think there really is such a person as God are benighted, unsophisticated, unaware of the real truth of the matter, which is that there isn't any such person (even if thinking there is can lead to practical fruits). We see Christians as deeply mistaken; of course we pay the same compliment to the practitioners of the other great religions; we are equal-opportunity animadverters. We benevolently regard the rest of humanity as misguided; no doubt their hearts are in the right place; still, they are sadly mistaken about what they take to be most important and precious. I find it hard to see how this attitude is a manifestation of tolerance or intellectual humility: it looks more like patronizing condescension."
"In religious belief as elsewhere, we must take our chances, recognizing that we could be wrong, dreadfully wrong. There are no guarantees; the religious life is a venture; foolish and debilitating error is a permanent possibility. (If we can be wrong, however, we can also be right.)"
"(A)theologian who does not believe in God is like a mountaineer for whom it is an open question whether there are any mountains or a plumber agnostic about pipes: a beguiling spectacle, but hard to take seriously."
"I am to remain a Christian, to take part in Christian worship, to accept the splendid and powerful doctrines of traditional Christianity. However, I am also to take it that these doctrines are only mythologically true: they are literally false, although accepting them (i.e., accepting them as true, as literally true) puts or tends to put one into the right relation with the Real. And how can I possibly accept them, adopt that attitude toward them, if I think they are only mythologically true — that is, really false? I could, indeed, believe that they are mythologically true; believing that, however, doesn't move one toward the right kind of life; it is only believing the teachings themselves that allegedly has that salutary effect. Once I am sufficiently enlightened, once I see that those doctrines are not true, I can no longer take the stance with respect to them that leads to the hoped-for practical result. I am left, instead, in the position of a sad and disillusioned Gnostic."
“Although this view is very much au courant and with-it in the contemporary intellectual world, it has consequences that are peculiar, not to say preposterous. For example, most of us think that the Chinese authorities did something monstrous in murdering those hundreds of young people in Tiananmen Square, and then compounded their wickedness by denying that they had done it. On Rorty’s view, however, this is an uncharitable misunderstanding. What the authorities were really doing, in denying that they had murdered those students, was something wholly praiseworthy: they were trying to bring it about that the alleged massacre never happened. For they were trying to see to it that their colleagues would let them get away with saying that the massacre never happened; that is, they were trying to make it true that it never happened; and who can fault them for that? The same goes for those contemporary neo-Nazis who claim that there was no holocaust; from a Rortian view, they are only trying to see to it that such a terrible thing never happened; and what could be more commendable than that? This way of thinking has real possibilities for dealing with poverty and disease: if only we let each other get away with saying that there isn’t any poverty and disease--no cancer or AIDS, let’s say--then it would be true that there isn’t any; and if it were true that there isn’t any, then of course there wouldn’t be any.”
G Veale
Complain about this comment
Sources - 'Warranted Christian Belief' and 'How to Be an AntiRealist' (which Plantinga has made available online).
Complain about this comment
veale chops;
There is a fine but clear line in America between political activism and political advocacy. It may not matter in Europe, I'm not sure what the laws are there but in the US, when you cross that line you are no longer tax exempt. The prohibition against making laws with respect to religion means that what constitutes a religion had to be clearly defined by the courts including tax courts no matter what an organization calls itself. Acorn clearly crossed that line, so flagrantly and in concert with aiding and abetting felonious activity that it lost public funding by an act of Congress, probably lost its tax exempt status (those affiliates which had it), is being investigated by many state governments and branches of the federal government, and some of its employees and associates will probably wind up in jail. That was of course an extreme case. But to retain tax exemption, religions in America do well to have lawyers who can tell them how far they can go in their zealous "activism." Ignorance of the law is no excuse and the IRS is always on the prowl for more contributors to the national coffers.
Other more sinister dangers lurk for babes wandering around lost in the American woods. Since 9-11 security concerns have been highly increased, measures to know what is going on and who is doing what greatly enhanced, and methods used by the government both legal and illegal far more intrusive. This is probably especially true of surveillance of foreigners. The buzz word is "granularity" which means that activities which might have been overlooked, ignored, not investigated years ago are passed through a much finer meshed sieve today.
Subversion of existing religions is nothing new and is hardly illegal in the US. Those Americans who are interested in religion who do not belong to mainstream congregations shop for new ones all the time like women shop for shoes at the bargain counter in Wall Mart. But in New York City, you will find what has to be the toughest, most cynical, most wary market for anything anywhere. The line from the song Frank Sinatra sings about New York; "if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere" accurately reflects just how tough a place it is. Nearby New Jersey is somewhat easier although it was chosen as the home of Tony Soprano. It's hardly soft.
Subversion in politics is another matter. Within the system, it is legal and encouraged. But cross that line and the transgression is viewed as a severe crime. People coming from a culture where armed revolution against authority is no stranger would do well to know that in the US, the most severe punishments are meted out to those who think they can bring that baggage with them with impunity. In the US life in prison without parole means exactly that, they never let you out of the cage. And we do have and use the death penalty in the most extreme cases. How far you go determines how far the government will go to match it.
Complain about this comment
So you think the FBI might shoot Emergents?
Complain about this comment
Depends exactly on what they do. David Koresh and his Wacko followers in the Branch Davidian sect in Waco Texas probably came within a hair's breadth. I could never understand why Janet Reno waited so long to have the the DOJ move in and take those guys out. Had they acted sooner, at least some of them might have been saved and even de-programmed.
Complain about this comment
Peter M-
On church subculture: Yes, that IS church, basically. For the most part you're absolutely right, it's about doing these things in a service and why, and saying these words and why, and decorating this way and why, and having this music and this drama and this mime and this powerpoint and blah.
On the emergent movement: It's either one of two things. It's either another repackaging of the above, or it's like an Alcoholics Anonymous for those who find repackaging lacking. I think Ikon may well be in the latter category, and thus - in concept - the emergent movement could comprise an interesting mix of people and ideas, coming in the wake of all these centuries of evangelicalism, rather than merely as the latest incarnation of it.
The interesting thing about what you said about selling the evangelical church and giving the money to the poor is that that sort of charity, when it occurs, is a relatively invisible act compared to the showiness of church. It's made by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons, and not necessarily in the name of Jesus, so we don't consider it 'church' when it happens. But maybe 'Live Aid' was church? Maybe moreso than 'church'?
In that case it's already happening and the only change is that the evangelical sideshow is dropping in ratings.
Complain about this comment
"it's about doing these things in a service and why, and saying these words and why"
Say the secret word and win a hundred dollars. For those who know and remember...(for those who don't you don't know what you missed.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wNK1Jt4JLg
Complain about this comment
#141 LOL
Pure dead brilliant, by the way!
Complain about this comment
"Say the secret word and win a hundred dollars."
You know Marcus....
I really hope not!
:-)
Complain about this comment
John
"Yes, that IS church, basically."
So it's more than just me thinks this?
Not sure that I can jump to 'Live Aid' being a church though. Having said that I did, a good number of years ago, try to figure out the difference between 'Live Aid' famine relief and 'church' famine relief.
Complain about this comment
Well that's exactly my point. Assuming that Jesus' message was about how we treat one another, who has done a better job of that? The church, or secular social action groups? Now I happen to think that both the Left and the Right are lacking the opposite something, but no matter, the question is, 'Did Jesus want to start another religion? Or was he proposing something else?' If he didn't want to start another religion, then the church has gotten it very wrong to claim that they're following his example.
Complain about this comment
"'Did Jesus want to start another religion? Or was he proposing something else?"
As I understand it he was considered a religious subversive. According to the anti-semitic point of view that has held sway in much of Christendom these last two millenia, that's why the Jews had him killed or killed him. Of course they would never want to blame it on the Roman Pontius Pilot especially since up until the time of the separation of the Orthodox Church and the Protestent movement, Christianity was Rome.
Complain about this comment
John/Peter
Can we get a bit of clarity here. Pre-coffee and pre12v1, the ol'noggins not respondin'.
"that IS church, basically" - Are you saying that this is all Church is and ever can be? Or that this is what the Evangelical Church has become, but it should be more?
'Did Jesus want to start another religion? Or was he proposing something else?' They didn't think in those terms 1st Century AD, as you both know. There's no controversy in saying that Jesus wanted to found a new movement within Judaism.
OK, so Jesus didn't want to found Saddleback? What follows? You're both going somewhere interesting, but yet two different places and my head's hurting.
I'll inject caffeine, hand out a detention and get back to you.
GV
Complain about this comment
One thing we know about 1st century Judaism is that the transmission and preservation of Truth was essential. We also know that the synagogue was the model for the early Christian Meetings.
So we should see the Church as the key for transmitting Truth down the generations. And we have to put teaching in the Church. The *application* of Truth was essential to Jesus and the Apostles.
The shared meal (Communion) was also essential to the Early Churches. Again this follows from the Gospels and the Epistles. This was essential to Christian identity.
Finally, the Churches exist to bring behavior in line with the Gospel. It isn't fashionable to say, but discipline was actually essential to the New Testament Churches. That's the stick. The Elders were meant to provide models for other Christians to follow. That's the carrot.
Okay, so Church has certain objective functions. That is, these functions should be obvious to a third-person observer who is not part of the Church.These functions do not have to be experienced to be observed.
The mistake I fear, is to view the Church as our primary source of First Person subjective experience. I don't think Church can play that role. That has to come form our own devotional life.
I'll take two examples. One is family. The Church plays a role in Christian identity. So it contains our Christian family.
But the experience of being a family is often disappointing and frustrating. That doesn't take away the fact that I am part of a family. And no matter how my family members behave, if I can identify them I have duties towards them.
The second is devotional. Religious experience without an object is blind AND empty. The Church provides the teaching and boundaries that allow me to shape and live an 'authentic' Christian life. But the Church cannot supply authenticity. That's getting Church and Christ mixed up.
In other words, I'd lower my expectations of Church when it comes to experience.
GV
Complain about this comment
"So we should see the Church as the key for transmitting Truth down the generations."
Now we have a movement that is subversive in the sense that all religions and political dogmas are subversive by trying to win converts. The process of subversion to be successful is often insidious starting with small tokens to win over they unsuspecting in small increments over an extended period. This works better than bludgeoning the target. In GITMO it might be something as simple as a MacDonalds meal, in the Soviet Gulag merely a cigarette. Usually subversion is performed to change the subject's beliefs or system of beliefs from one series of tenets to another, in other words in a political context what the communists called re-education and we call brainwashing. To those whose commonality with the abandoned tenets are subverted, the process is one of betrayal, the individual labeled a defector. To those who hold with the new tenets it is enlightment.
But what is the purpose of a religious movement that has as its only apparent goal the subversion of old beliefs without a replacement system of beliefs, new truths to replace it? This goes to motive. Are the followers of their process going to be left to themselves to wonder around to find the new truths or is a new dogma as yet undivulged going to be sprung on them once their confidence has been won over and their old beliefs abandoned? You can't help but be suspicious of a religious movement that has no clear goal except intellectual anarchy. One hint is its interest in social activism. This seems to point to where the new religion is going. But is it going to be one of secular humanism or of revolutionary communism with a christian slant? To this native New Yorker, the answer was clear with the first utterances. In the land where the ultimate methods for brainwashing were invented, Madison Avenue, nothing is taken at face value. Insight into the process and how effective it has been can be found in a book written by a Madison Avenue advertising insider called "I Can Sell You Anything." Google it and you should have no problem finding it on Amazon.com. I don't think it's been in print for a long time.
Complain about this comment
Insight into the process and how effective it has been can be found in a book written by a Madison Avenue advertising insider called "I Can Sell You Anything." ... I don't think it's been in print for a long time.
Quite the irony, don't you think?
Out of curiosity, when you want to find out some fact or piece of information, what sources do you turn to and why do you trust them? If a principle of passing on the truth is suspect, what do you regard as a mark of sincerity and trustworthiness?
Complain about this comment
"Out of curiosity, when you want to find out some fact or piece of information, what sources do you turn to and why do you trust them?"
I turn to those who have been most successful. When it comes to brainwashing, as the author of "I Can Sell You Anything" points out, people can be sold on the belief that one brand of laundry detergent is better than another even though by every objective test it is identical because of the way facts are twisted, insinuated, distorted. Packaging, weasel words, clever slogans, repetition of claims, presentation of only selective evidence, evidence out of context, among other techniques all take their toll. I personally hold no absolute truths. Everything is subject to challenge and revision. During the 30% of my life I'm asleep (less in recent years) you'd have a hard time convincing me that the real world even exists.
The first requirement to win even tentative credibility with me is for the one espousing some fact to preface it with words to the effect that "based on the evidence this is the best explanation we have" and to defend his belief in light of what may appear to be contradictory evidence or flaws in logical conclusions drawn from evidence that lead to his beliefs (hence my little game with pastorphillip over differing accounts between Genesis I and II) Those who profess absolute truth that is inviolable never get to first base with me. This is the difference between science and religion. Real science takes the postion I've stated while religions purport to offer unshakable truths that must be taken on faith alone. This can lead to disaster. For example, in Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipellago" he explains how in the 1930s Soviet agronomists who held that superior strains of wheat could produce higher crop yields had transgressed the religious dogma of the communism which held that it was nurture, not nature which governed to what degree crops would grow. Those who insisted otherwise could find themselves inmates of the Gulag. As a result, mass starvation, even famines that might have been avoided were the result. Today in our more enlightened western societies, physical punishment for heresy is not permitted. But the penalty of ostricism and fear of ostracism by the group can be just as effective an incentive to forcing conformity of thought especially among those who see the group as their only connection to other people, their only hope of survival. To enforce this method, religious sects are often kept in isolation by their demagogues as was seen for example in Jonestown and even recently among North Korean soccer players visiting Europe as reported by BBC.
So ultimately, while those who tell me anything may convince me that they are sincere in believing their story themselves (Hitler was convinced he was building a better society for the future of mankind) that doesn't mean that they are to be trusted. Ultimately for me, nothing is fully trustworthy. Everything is open to question. And when the answers are fudged or unresponsive to the challenge, the assertion is automatically assumed to be false, incapable of being supported by fact or logic.
Complain about this comment
M2
I enjoyed post 149 - *That* was mainly on target.
Emergents really aren't organised enough to hatch a conspiracy. So I think you can drop the paranoia.
But a movement can have *unintended* consequences. I think there are dangers, however, in opening our minds without question.
Eg. I read a post that *seemed* to argue that the Somali Pirates aren't as bad as capitalism. Add a utilitarian ethic to that and you've got trouble.
It's the vagueness that's potentially dangerous. How do you draw boundaries? How do you say, "Here's the Line We Won't Cross"?
So you may not be a million miles off target.
If you'd just stated your ideas with a little less psychosis...
Complain about this comment
John,
I've been meaning to get back to you about charity all day...but i lost access to my room at lunch. Maybe tomorrow.
In the meantime (in between time), in deciding how to tithe I've had to remember that secular charities are often better oragnised in helping the poor than evangelical counterparts.
I'm still unwilling to pray to St Bono, mind. If ever a face needed a good slapping..
GV
Complain about this comment
"If you'd just stated your ideas with a little less psychosis..."
Where I come from, everyone has a motive, sometimes very well hidden especially when it is sinister. That is a necessary instinctive reaction if you want to survive New York City. The City's culture may explain why New York City has the toughest consumer protectoin laws in the country. If there is a trick out there, they know it. Many of the most effective ones were originally invented there.
Complain about this comment
GV-
"Are you saying that this is all Church is and ever can be? Or that this is what the Evangelical Church has become, but it should be more?"
This is what it's become, and may be all it's been since almost the beginning! Max Weber's term "the routinization of charisma" springs to mind. Jesus was the charismatic founder of the movement, and it became routinized within a few generations of his death. Maybe we need to look to some newer charismatic leader who doesn't necessarily see himself as following in Jesus' footsteps? Okay, I realise that may be farther than either you or Pete M want to think. But it's worthwhile pointing out that since the 1st century the church has perhaps never been what we who lament it want it to be.
*Controversial statement warning:* Maybe the church would do best to throw away the evangelical model as it did the Roman model, and throw away the 1st century model as a basis for all?
"OK, so Jesus didn't want to found Saddleback? What follows?"
Maybe it doesn't matter what Jesus wanted to found. I'm sure it wasn't Saddleback, much as I love Saddleback when I've visited. But what if it turned out that the most 'Christian' of all the activities done by Christians is the drink they have after work where they share their time, company and moral support? Or the seeing someone hurting behind the veneer and doing something about it? The understanding of complex human relationships, the charitable things, etc.?
What if the Sunday service - be it lively rock concert, solemn ceremony, traditional, modern, expressive, boring, whatever - were merely the premise for keeping this community of people together, an excuse without which the community wouldn't happen, the relationships wouldn't form, the connections wouldn't exist?
Complain about this comment
"...were merely the premise for keeping this community of people together, an excuse without which the community wouldn't happen, the relationships wouldn't form, the connections wouldn't exist?"
Yeah, and if that got to widespread there'd be a real risk that all the walls that still separate the communities in Belfast might come down. But not to fear, I don't think that's likely anytime in the next few hundred years. The guns may be gone but the hatred lingers on and on and on....
Has it ever occurred to you Mr. Wright that the concept of "community" not only infers inclusion of those who are in it but exclusion of those who aren't including those deliberately kept out?
Complain about this comment
That's certainly true Mark.... in every community there is an 'exclusive' aspect. Maybe the best Christian community is the one which de-emphasizes the exclusion of people. After all, exclusion is always done on some basis - looks, IQ, background, lifestyle, whatever - Christianity is supposed to be for everybody.
Complain about this comment
John
Well, I think that *all* of 1 Corinthians 13 needs to be read and considered. Including the statements about giving to the poor and martyrdom.
There is also every indication that Jesus intended to found *some* movement. That's really not that controversial. So the 'routinisation' started with him.
But I'll get back tomorrow - your thoughts deserve a thorough response.
GV
Complain about this comment
Marcus, you seem to speak with great authority about the situation here in Belfast. I'm curious about what evidence you base your conclusion on. What proportion of bigots for example identify as Christians? What proportion of bigots are regular church-goers? To what extent is their bigotry rooted in something from church (i.e. is there causation rather than mere correlation)? What proportion of reconcilers identify as Christians? What proportion of them are regular church-goers? How does causation/correlation work out there? What are the stances of churches on the issue? What is being done in practical terms? Is this more or less or just plain different when compared to wider society?
As a Presbyterian I can offer the example of a major youth programme resourced by the denomination called PYP - Preparing Youth for Peace. To my knowledge there is no Preparing Youth for Bigotry. Or adults for that matter.
Complain about this comment
Graham/John
And there was me thinking we were clear!
Seriously isn't it interesting how we can use so many words and still end up having to clarify? This communication business is difficult if we are to really understand one another.
First up Graham, I'm not saying that 'sub-culture' or 'trappings' is all the evangelical church is, and definitely not saying that that's all it can be. What I do think though is that the sub-culture, the programme of activities, the style of music, the merchandise, cliched language and so on is often/usually what outsiders see of and think of the church. And these things are often what a lot of/most church members invest their time in. That has certainly been true of me. For example I can think of many discussions about doctrine, or the organizing of events, or orders of service and so on that I've been involved in, but I can't think of any time in the last 10 years when I heard other Christians pray anything much more than a version of "Dear God bless the service", or actually prayed for one another. Or when was the last time a mum was consistently encouraged to understand 'making up a bottle mix for her baby' as Christian service? Never mind Christians being honest with one another about the process of redemption in their own life, or a collective contribution to the non-christian community around, on that communities terms?
OK that's a bit provocative, but....
I think Jesus did intend the church, which means we have to ask the question, what is the church for? In terms of charity and in relation to the practical effect of this, I don't really see any difference between church and Live Aid; in fact I'd say Christians should always be happy to join with others, even (maybe especially) with those they disagree with in order to do good. But, the Church is this, and more Which brings us back to my first question. Maybe we'll get to it some time.
As for Jesus and religion, no I don't think he was starting another ritualistic way to God, I think he was saying, well he was saying, I am God, quit your religion and follow me, with 'church' being the followers. But we're not going to sort out the implications of that in a single post! But I will say that I understand Church to be more than 'models', or 'ritual' or 'charity' or 'social action' on their own. The frightening thing (be afraid Marcus, be very afraid!) is that Jesus claimed more than that, and Paul preached more than that. It's no wonder the Romans killed him and persecuted the church. Loyalty to nation was a stake! One Kingdom set against another, and there's lots of way to understand that. (there's a bit more provocation!) There are simply so many aspects to what church is!
I'm going to cut this post and get back later there's quite a but to respond to, but John, "Maybe we need to look to some newer charismatic leader who doesn't necessarily see himself as following in Jesus' footsteps?"
Em... nope, that wasn't on my agenda! In fact that's a more controversial statement that the one about a 1st Century church model. I'll do a 'Mars Hill' on you! It's all about Jesus. It's always about Jesus, it's only about Jesus! Remember I'm not into 'models' and that may relate to some of what Graham has said, but later, guys.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan
I'll attempt Marcus' answer for him! We all get this sort of treatment!
( J-Boy
"What proportion of bigots for example identify as Christians? What proportion of bigots are regular church-goers?"
Did it ever occur to you that all Christians are bigots and that all church goers are bigots no matter what they say? Doesn't matter what hymnbook you sing from the story is basically the same, see how these Christians hate one another. American Christians would be bigots too, only they're American and their Americana saves them from being bigoted. Remember god is from Texas, so god is an American too. That's the trouble with you Irish, you're not American, but you are good at hating one another. )
Complain about this comment
Jesus didnt inaugurate a church or a religion.
He heralded a kingdom. Included in that kingdom were - children, the little ones, the poor, the oppressed, the humble, the forgiving, the grieving, the sick, the imprisoned, the persecuted, the pure in heart, the repentant, those who hunger for justice, the merciful....
And those who exclude themselves - the rich, the unrepentant, the unjust, the hypocritical, the greedy, those who judge harshly, those who lie, those who exploit, those who hate, those who do evil....
The kingdom will not be limited by labels groups choose to give themselves and no one will have a monopoly on it.
Complain about this comment
RJB
Your very helpful post 162 makes me want to add some more clarity. When I use the word church as in "I think Jesus did intend the church", I mean, 'the people of the Kingdom'. I suspect we'd agree on a lot. (Which would, I suppose, to quote Father Jack, be an ecumenical matter!)
"He heralded a kingdom". I like that.
Complain about this comment
Peter M-
Of course my comments about a new charismatic leader are tongue-in-cheek, I'm not looking for a new leader. I'm not looking for any leader, actually, and I know there are big gaps between you and I theologically on that point and many others. The point we agree on is that the church is not what either you or I think it could be. (Whether I'd return to a church that you approved of is another matter!)
Complain about this comment
Pete
Its a really crucial distinction. 'The Church' and 'people of the kingdom' are not one and the same. Many, many church people do not display the fruits of the kingdom, as you know, and many, many people who wont have anything to do with the Church have the kingdom within them and lead exemplary lives of service to the poor, the sick, etc...
Complain about this comment
RJB-
"many people who wont have anything to do with the Church have the kingdom within them"
Assuming you're right, do you think all of them know this? Or are they possibly areligious but actually part of the "kingdom" in your eyes anyway, despite what they profess to believe?
Complain about this comment
RJB
Again, I'll not disagree. Many church people do not display the fruits of the kingdom (I fear I may be one of them! Words are easy!)
Maybe one of my unnecessary frustrations is that I'd like more of the visible church (is that only a Protestant term?) to be more in touch with the Kingdom of God. I suppose I haven't much control over that though, and maybe that's what you were asking me to think about with the sower parable a while back!?
And maybe deep down I'd like to be able to identify with people who stood out because their association with the message and person of Jesus was so jaw-droppingly, staggeringly, compassionate that it was difficult to ignore. So here's a question and I'd be interested in your answer. How can people who have been mesmerised by the magnanimity of God's attitude, seen in love and forgiveness towards them, pass a little bit of that on, without the 'ritual' (maybe not the best word but you know what I mean) getting in the way?
BTW This online footy is malarky is great, I can watch Northern Ireland and blog at the same time! 0-0, not bad!
Complain about this comment
Pete
Watching the footie and blogging at the same time might be held against you later if your posts aint up to scratch lol.
I'll say something to you which I was going to say a while back on the subject of the kingdom. (And I think it touches on your question about ritual.)
I was going to tell you that in my opinion you arent far from the kingdom. My reason for saying that is that sense of those who 'hunger and thirst' for justice or for what is right.
I think Jesus knew that we are often powerless to attain these things, our yearnings, but the fact that, that is where our heart lies, is enough. That, and just doing what we ARE able to do.
You touched on it earlier, a mother (or father!!) making the baby mix - for the kingdom. St Teresa of Lisieux spoke about lifting pins off the floor for the kingdom, doing ordinary things, extraordinary well.
In many of your posts you express a yearning for authentic, gospel values to be shared and lived in communion with others. But its not within your power to achieve that. The fact that you yearn for it, is itself enough, I think.
Complain about this comment
RJB/John
I think there is a tendency in Evangelical circles to talk about our subculture and think we're talking about the Truth.
Evangelicals want individuals to be part of the Kingdom - accept Christ as Savior and Lord personally, or develop a 'saving trust' in Christ.
That's because certain things are true. We are fallen, we need forgiveness, we need hope and as Jesus is Lord he can provide.
However the Evangelical message can very easily become - we expect people to have certain stereotypical experiences, and give verbal assent to certain propositions.
And that quickly becomes - I want people to join our subculture.
The lack of reflection that leads to these problems is very difficult to address.
GV
Complain about this comment
JW post # 166
I dont think a lot of people whom Jesus would regard as 'in his kingdom' are aware of it. The parable of judgement day is so pertinent because those who feed the hungry, visit the sick etc.. are blissfully unaware that they are doing anything special - but when did we see you hungry and feed you? etc..
And the ones who 'thought' they were upright were equally unaware of their total disdain for the plight of others. They were, in fact, culpably ignorant.
I grew to a realisation that very often, religion and its practices can actually hinder the kingdom.
I'll give an example. On Holy Thursday, it has become liturgically fashionable for twelve parishioners to have their feet washed by the priest/minister. The twelve would have to be contacted, asked to 'volunteer', a meeting held, an explanation as to what was going to happen, a practice undergone, etc..
Probably more time is actually spent in many parishes regarding this 'symbolic ceremony' than in actually doing what this ceremony symbolises i.e. serving the poor.
Taken to its extreme, on Holy Thursday the Pope goes to a Rome soup kitchen. 'Nice' homeless people are chosen. (The alcoholic/drug users/rough poor are air brushed out. A dignitary hands a sandwich to the Pope who in turn passes it on to the homeless person. Its more ritual than anything else. A photo op, to be brutally honest. The Pope then returns to his palace.
Its in his palace where the Pope can really effectively do something for the poor he has just met. He can use his Office, his power, to bring about change for these poor people. But he doesnt. Maybe he thinks that what he did that day was 'an act of charity.' If he does, he has deluded himself.
In this way I think religion can obscure the truth and take people away from the gospel rather than towards it.
Complain about this comment
RJB;
I hope you all forgive me for the steering way off tangent I'm about to do, but I was particularly interested in this;
"Its in his palace where the Pope can really effectively do something for the poor he has just met. He can use his Office, his power, to bring about change for these poor people. But he doesnt."
How?
The reason I ask is that I often hear the argument that, if the Pope really cared about people he would sell off the entire assets of the church and give it to the poor. It always seemed a poor argument to me, not least because it would not possibly be that simple.
Say the pope declared a fire sale of all church assets? What should he do with the money?
I know that isn't the point you're making, but it always struck me that money spent on golden crosses and gothic domes isn't really the problem. No doubt, if the money from these were somehow distributed to the poor, the rich would soon find a way of clawing it back.
For anything like that to be effective, the entire world would have to change. One organisation, no matter how big and wealthy, selling of its assets and somehow distributing its wealth would make little to no difference in the long run. The poor will always be with us.
Unless we change society completely. Which I suspect is closer to what you're getting at.
But does the pope have the power to change society completely, and if so, how should he change it?
I'm not sure I agree with the pope doing anything more systemically politically than what he already does. Tells us that we ought to care for the poor. I don't think he should endorse one political system over another, for example.
The pope gives guidance in ideals. He tells us that we should ALL love the poor. If we were ALL to love the poor, the amount of Gold owned by the church would be neither here nor there.
Again, complete tangent, so feel free to ignore it. I haven't much to add to this protestant "emergent" stuff, as it's all just protestantism to me! No offence.
:)
Complain about this comment
Boyds of a feather;
"Marcus, you seem to speak with great authority about the situation here in Belfast. I'm curious about what evidence you base your conclusion on."
Admittedly a rather flimsy source....a recent BBC report. Just can't really trust those British. It was they who claimed there were still a fair number of barriers in Belfast (can't remember how many but I was surprised at how high the number was) that separates communities indicating that much hatred between Catholics and Protestants there still exists. Their words not mine. So we aren't ready for everyone in Belfast to sit down together in one Church and sing Kumbaya, Kumbaya just yet. How about drinking in the same pubs, can they at least stand each other long enough to get drunk together?
Complain about this comment
RJB, I can't help but think that you're casting your net a little wide with the sheep and the goats.
The whole section from Matthew 24 onwards seems to me to be a warning for those who are complacent about the kingdom. There is the foolish servant who ignores his duties while the master is away, the virgins who take no oil with their lamps, the man who makes no use of his talents and then those who fail to serve Christ by failing to serve humanity. It seems from the overall theme that true people of the kingdom are being distinguished from false people by their actions. It's not that the actions exclusively and comprehensively define kingdom people, but they are a necessary mark, without which one cannot be said to be part of the kingdom. There doesn't seem to be surprise among the sheep that they are in the kingdom, but rather surprise that some of their actions were specifically for Christ.
To see what it is that brings one into the kingdom (as opposed to that which when lacking excludes someone) I think you'd have to go elsewhere e.g. Matthew 28:19. More directly relevant to the passage you quoted would I suppose by Matthew 24:3-14 which the sheep and the goats is elaborating on. Verse 13 tells us that 'But the one who endures to the end will be saved,' which raises the question of what enduring means. The sheep and the goats says that a necessary component of that is compassionate service, but there are more distinguishing marks before that. Verse 12 talks about love growing cold, which is similar, but verses 4 and 5 speak of a knowledge of Christ in contrast to the deceptions of the world and false teachers and the temptation to fall away that troubles will provide.
I'm not sure how you could reconcile your statement 'I dont think a lot of people whom Jesus would regard as 'in his kingdom' are aware of it.' with this necessary knowledge of Christ. Certainly people could do things for God without knowing it and be in his kingdom, but it seems fairly clear that they couldn't not know him and still be in the kingdom.
In other words, compassion is a necessary quality of kingdom people, while knowing Jesus as 'Christ' is a distinguishing feature.
Complain about this comment
Hi Bernard
I've also heard that argument about the Vatican selling off its riches and realise that is not the answer. The answer to poverty, I think we'd all agree, has to be a political one.
And, Jesus seemed to be calling on people to make a change of heart as opposed to fighting for a change of government etc..
However, there are political ramifications to the gospel. (We have to make a distinction between party politics here and what some people call, 'pre-politics.')
I'm also quite sure that Jesus, who suffered the death meted out to a political transgressor not a blasphemer (stoning was the prescribed punishment for that), himself would have been accused of acting 'politically.'
I would also argue that putting a penny in the poor box, as well as being an act of charity, is also an act of protest (protest at the structures which render the poor, poor), and is therefore a political act.
So I think we need to define what being political is before we decide whether someone is acting politically or not.
However, the Pope could change his heart. He could decide to 'cross over' to the side of the poor as Boff and Sobrino said (and did.) Well, lets face it, as Christ did. He could decide to root his Papacy on "What I want is mercy, not sacrifice" instead of, "Thou art Peter..."
I think it would be foolish of anyone to claim that the Pope alone could 'make poverty history', but he could make an almighty impact were he to take it seriously.
By the way, in the week long meetings of the Cardinals prior to the Conclave starting, it was agreed unanimously that the most important issue facing humanity and therefore, the Church, was world poverty. From what has happened since Ratzinger's election, you certainly wouldnt think so.
I also disagree that poverty is an unfortunate, but necessary evil - the poor you will have with you always - Jose Miranda, in Communism in the Bible, claims that the Hebrew word for 'always' is used 17 times in the NT and is translated on every other occasion as 'still.' He makes some pretty thought provoking arguments about how the scriptures have been deliberately "softened" by theologians and hierarchs who, in the 'Our Father' which they recite every day, have ejected the kingdom into some future place instead of being a present reality, thus removing any urgent concern from them to actually DO something about it.
Complain about this comment
Marcus,
There is the 'source' of your problems. Obviously as a British company it is in the interest of the BBC to further division in the name of 'divide and conquer.' Keep the populace at war and you can rule them easily. Perhaps as an ex-colonialist you should send in your own reporters who can cut through the imperialist propaganda. I hear that Fox are bastions of truth and light, so perhaps you could commission a special report from them?
Taking my tongue firmly out of cheek, if you're using Catholic and Protestant in a cultural sense, there's an element of truth in what you say, but there aren't too many people ready to start a riot because someone doesn't believe in sola fide. In fact if you use the phrase, you're more likely to be assumed to be speaking Gaelic.
Complain about this comment
Jonathon
While I agree with much of what you said, I disagree that knowledge of Christ is a necessary component of being in his kingdom. There are many examples in the gospel of Jesus pointing out worthy behaviour in people who have no knowledge of him whatsoever.
We're possibly moving into the subject of anonymous Christianity here. A person who reaches out to one of the least of these brothers of mine, does it to me. The poor person IS Christ. To recognise suffering is to recognise Christ.
Complain about this comment
Bernard
Good job on the "creationism" thread, and good luck.
It's a shame that you haven't had a look at Peter Rollins thread (and there are Roman Catholics at 'Ikon'). Your philosophical background is similar to Peter's. You might be able to figure out what on earth is going on.
GV
Complain about this comment
Hi graham;
I did have a quick look, but to be honest it seemed like the kind of mish-mash of reasonable and pointless questioning I'd expect of post-modernists, shot through with a dose of some of these "evangelical subcultures" you all keep talking about.
Personally, I think it makes things less complicated to have a set of ritual and ceremony that is absolutely open to all at many different levels, but the historical and symbolic richness of which is also common currency, should you choose to think about it.
I'm unwary of arguments that EVERYBODY simply MUST tie themselves in philosophical knots about their faith in order to prove that they have it. for many people, faith is extremely simple, and, although they recognise the underlying complications, have no real need to untangle these.
RJB;
I hope to give you a full response to a good post (174) a little later - hopefully it won't be too confusing to keep you on two different discussions in the same thread!
Complain about this comment
RJB, I quite agree that there are examples of worthy behaviour found in a vast array of people, believers and unbelievers alike, however you seem to be equating worthy behaviour with kingdom membership. I wonder how you square that with what I pointed out about behaviour being necessary but not distinctive, whereas knowledge seems to be both necessary and distinctive
To put it another way, if knowledge is neither necessary or distinctive, then why does Jesus say 'See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray ... And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray ... But the one who endures to the end will be saved' (Matthew 24:4-13)?
Complain about this comment
Jonathon,
I hope I am not coming across as anti-intellectual here. I do of course agree that it is good to reflect on why we do what we do.
But knowing Jesus and doing good works, though the ideal, are not equally necessary, I believe.
Jesus IS the homeless wretch on the street, he IS the man dying of cancer, he IS the inconsolable widow, the orphan and yes, we have been led astray.
We have made our "relationship" with Jesus something distinct from our "love" of the poor. In fact we have given it a pedestal far above what we do for the poor.
Look at all the hundreds of years these Bishops and Theolgians have gathered to discuss the wording of our liturgies, (even willing to go to battle over the 'filioque' clause etc..) Centuries of discussion on morality, church behaviour, etc.. etc.. Very little on the poor. They were so wrapped up in their relationship to Jesus, they failed to recognise him here on earth, staring up at them.
So no, knowledge of Jesus is not necessary. You already know him when you help the poor.
Complain about this comment
RJB,
I fear we are in danger of going in circles. I quite agree with you that our treatment of other people is in some way our treatment of God. After all, Jesus seemed to set up the two greatest commandments in a way that suggests that love of God is linked to love of neighbour.
However, when you go on to say that that is sufficient for kingdom membership/salvation/however you wish to express it, it seems to me that you're speculating rather than following a chain of logic or presenting evidence. My case for saying that knowledge of Christ is necessary comes from my understanding of Christ's words. If you have an alternative explanation of those words I quoted, I would be eager to hear it and we can continue the discussion.
If on the other hand, those words are irrelevant and you base your belief on your speculation, then there's no point in continuing with this discussion.
In other words, we both agree that Christians should be compassionate and by loving people they love God. Our disagreement regarding the sufficiency of that can only result in useful discussion if we have common ground to continue the discussion on, which would be the words of Christ. If you want to debate interpretation of the Bible, let's do it. If you want to stick to your speculation, we may as well leave things as they are.
Complain about this comment
RJB
I understand that when you say knowledge of Jesus is not necessary you actually mean that it is. That is in the sense that as we help the poor, the sick, the starving and the needy we are being obedient to Jesus who, if He were standing were we are, would be doing that thing He asked us to do. The acts that He require of us put us in the place of Jesus and give us the opportunity to feel like He does. In this way we not only come to know Him through feeling like He would but by our actions we become like Him. John 17:3 can only be realised by this process.
What I think J_B is saying is that these things must be done with faith in Jesus or else they lack the power to provide salvation (Phil 2:12, 2Tim 3:15) Remember, we, being evil, know how to give good gifts (Matt 7:11). All giving is not associated to righteousness - our motives determine this.
Complain about this comment
RJB and Jonathan.
I wonder if a little reflection of the influences on my Christianity will help. I'll either bridge the gap or fall through the hole!
I'm a Presbyterian and prefer the theological label 'Reformed' to 'evangelical', it's a moot point but helps explain my understanding of personal salvation. I fully accept the theological explanations relating to 'fall', 'sin', 'substitutionary atonement', 'resurrection', 'grace', 'faith', 'scripture'. The 'five solas' are fine by me. (I've often found it odd that there were five though! Five alones!) :-)
I also have charismatic tendencies at times (that sounds like an admission of guilt!), but put simply it means that I have time for those who promote prayer ministries and spiritual gifts. Some of these churches are very good at community. (Although some are also wacky!)
However one of the main 'external' influence on my thinking has been the church's attitude to the poor of this world. I have read Catholic devotional writers on this subject and have been influenced by Protestant traditions like the Mennonites. And what strikes me again and again is the trouble Protestant traditions have in getting what we might call 'personal salvation' and 'social justice' together. In fact I'm not even sure those terms are helpful; personal salvation is more than 'going to heaven when you die' and social justice is, I think, more than a good deed. Perhaps the word Shalom captures the essence of God's activity in Jesus. Personally I've found N. T. Wright helpful on this.
I'm left then with something of a problem, and it is this. When I read what RJB writes I find that I have an affinity with it, much of it rings true. RJB doesn't use 'my' language, the language of 'personal salvation', yet his understanding of the Kingdom of God, proclaimed by Jesus, requires his change. It is, it seems, impossible to understand the Kingdom of God in this way and not be salvaged, or rescued from much of what it horrible in this world.
This has happened to me again and again as I have read Christian traditions who emphasise the Kingdom in this way. I say that I am being saved, I affirm my faith, I speak of transformation yet many of these people look like they are being transformed. This 'speaking', on my part, and the 'looking like', on the part of others, is something I find impossible to ignore.
Jonathan, I read your recent posts and I understand them and find myself agreeing with them, I could probably have written them (!) And then I read RJB, "They were so wrapped up in their relationship to Jesus, they failed to recognise him here on earth, staring up at them." (#180) I can no longer escape this. It seems possible, it is possible. It is possible I am a Pharisee.
And then RJB goes and has the nerve to suggest that I am not far from the Kingdom. I mean really! Me! I thank God I'm a Presbyterian, I attend worship every week, sometimes twice. I know my bible, and can quote it chapter and verse. I affirm the supremacy of Jesus and grace and salvation by faith alone, I...
Cover note. I'm not implying anything about anyone else, but Jonathan, as a (I presume) fellow Presbyterian, and with me a conservative one at that, can you see my dilemma?
RJB, you're supposed to laugh!
Telling Protestants they're not far from the Kingdom, for flips sake!
Complain about this comment
PTS,
Certainly I agree with you that Christlikeness can't be determined by actions alone, but require an examination of motives, faith etc. However, I would go slightly further than what you say in that I believe that faith itself is salvific, not works done in faith. The classic reformed position of works demonstrate saving faith rather than being any sort of cause.
If we go to Galatians for a moment, we find Paul writing in chapter 5 about loving your neighbour and identifying that as living by and walking by the Spirit. The Spirit and the word are quite closely connected and indeed Paul goes on in chapter 6 to talk about the importance of the word and teaching, while still maintaining his discussion of the Spirit. RJB might argue (and here I'm speculating, so please correct me if I'm wrong!) that people may not be aware of the Spirit working in them, but in bringing in the idea of right teaching, Paul seems to be saying that a particular conscious knowledge of Christ, an assent to certain truths, is an integral part of living/walking by the Spirit, which you could apply back to the situation in Matthew.
Complain about this comment
If I can take your points back to front, JB and PTS, please.
PTS I'm not saying that the charitable person is Christ. This is really important. It is the person who is receiving the charity who is Christ. Rather than the person dispensing the kindness/compassion.
The sufferer is Christ (and therefore in his kingdom) and the person who reaches down to help him is opening the door to that kingdom and entering in himself.
JB - I base my view on a picture/feeling I have of Jesus, learned over really the last 25 years, rooted in the scriptures and in the people I have met. The passages which have led me to such an understanding are-
- I thank you Father, Lord of heaven and earth for hiding these things from the learned and the clever, and revealing them to mere children...
- It is to such as these (a child who has absolutely no understanding of who Jesus is) that the kingdom belongs...
- Blessed are the poor, theirs is the kingdom...
As you will realise, there are dozens of such passages and I'm sure you dont need me to list them all.
Secondly, two downs syndrome adults I know. Their knowledge of Jesus is very limited. If there is such a thing as a kingdom, these two individuals are in it. I deduce this from the complete lack of guile, purity of heart, generous spirit, lack of prejudices, beauty etc.. I find present in them both.
I could give other examples from working in India, Africa and Latin America, but the above examples are closer to home and exemplify the point I'm making.
Over the last few months we have had some pretty lengthy and heated debates about the scriptures. If when you say, "there's no point in continuing this discussion" this means that you will cut off if I happen to have a different understanding of the scriptures from you, neither of us will learn anything from each other.
If you mean that I'm just arguing from the basis of idle speculation, you are very wrong.
Complain about this comment
Big Boyd;
"Perhaps as an ex-colonialist you should send in your own reporters who can cut through the imperialist propaganda."
Well to tell the truth, none of our news networks seem to send any reporters to NI because unless an unusual event that's newsworthy happens there, nobody here seems to care unless they're from there. I don't, I'm just here for laughs. It can be interesting though to see a strange view of life from an unfamiliar perspective. Strange to me anyway.
Complain about this comment
RJB (part I),
Thanks, that was the kind of response I was interested in. If it came across from my previous post that I was interested, then I apologise - all I meant to say was that for fruitful discussion to take place, there had to be something other than our personal opinions to discuss. I'm very happy to hear from each other why we interpret scripture in various ways.
Peter,
Thanks for your post as well, it was helpful. Like you, I would identify here as reformed rather than evangelical - though not because I don't consider myself evangelical. Rather it is because the words seems to be largely misunderstood and carries too many possible connotations. 'Reformed' seems to be a more clearly defined label that I can be more confident will coincide with my principal beliefs. Also like you, I recognise that people form other traditions can play an important part in helping us grow in faith, in some case by pointing out our deficiencies. And certainly poverty/social action is an area where those of us with a reformed theology can fall short. Ironically enough, I can attribute a certain amount of evangelical (didn't I just ay I wasn't going to use that word?) zeal to an atheist once inviting me to participate in a debate about God's existence. REalising he thought I would argue against it was something of a kick up the backside for a hitherto private and complacent Christian. Besides, it's really quite Presbyterian to accept light from any quarter!
RJB (part II),
Speaking as someone who has a relative with Down Syndrome, I can identify with what you're saying. The issue of people with limited ability to comprehend, whether they're infants, Down Syndrome or whatever is a pretty murky one and I'd be very hesitant to make sweeping statements beyond directly quoting Jesus and saying it's in his hands.
When we were talking about compassion for the poor though, I assumed we were talking about adults with no impediments to their comprehension and it seems clear from the passages I've suggested that where comprehension and acceptance of Christ are possible, they are necessary. At least, that's how I would reconcile all those passage (yours and mine).
How would you reconcile them? If no comprehension and acceptance are necessary where they are possible (and I'm purposefully limiting my question to such people), why do Jesus and Paul warn about false teachers and speak of the need to know, and trust in Christ in a particular way? One of the passages you quote, with the concealing and revealing surely explicitly says that a particular knowledge is necessary (while saying that it is revealed by God, rather than force of intellect, as Paul also said to the Corinthians)?
Marcus,
It's okay, I don't think too many people take the news over here too seriously either. More seriously than we take Americans though. Endless claims to Irish ancestry amuse us no end - but then you've probably been told that already and I get the impression that you're American through and through, no Irish/Limey/whatever blood. Whether that means you're Indian or simply chiselled out of the earth itself I've no idea. Though with your chosen name, perhaps you fancy yourself to be of some Latin descent? Incidentally, are you picturing me with yellow feathers, or are you trying to chose between green and orange? Personally, I think blue is more befitting a Presbyterian.
Complain about this comment
RJB
Just read my 183 again. I hope you didn't misread it, especially the last sentence. I actually really appreciate your comments to me and should have made that clearer.
Complain about this comment
Pete
Sorry I didnt see your post 183 til now. I'll give it the once, or maybe even twice, over and get back to you.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan
You say, “...I believe that faith itself is salvific, not works done in faith. The classic reformed position of works demonstrate saving faith rather than being any sort of cause”.
I take it, therefore, that you believe that faith alone is enough for salvation.
I, personally, find it incredible that anyone can accept this doctrine seeing there appears to be so much more required for salvation, according to the Bible. The classic reformed position or Luther’s argument is not Biblical in my opinion and demonstrates nothing.
Did Luther not read James chapter 2? James tells us that faith without works is dead. He tells us that it is by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Inserting the word ‘alone’ after ‘faith’ in Romans 3:28 in his translation of the Bible was a bit cheeky and hardly the way to demonstrate anything. Luther understood there was something wrong with the Christian church; but it needed restoring rather than reforming and it’s quite obvious, given his conduct and attitude, that he didn’t qualify for the latter. Luther and James would hardly have seen eye-to-eye, but I know who’s words I would prefer to accept.
RJB you say, “I'm not saying that the charitable person is Christ. This is really important. It is the person who is receiving the charity who is Christ. Rather than the person dispensing the kindness/compassion.
The sufferer is Christ (and therefore in his kingdom) and the person who reaches down to help him is opening the door to that kingdom and entering in himself.”
I can sort of get what you are saying here but am I Christ when I’m hungry, thirsty, alone, naked, ill or in prison because I have been all of these at one time or another and surely never felt that I was in any shape or form divine?
However, having been in the conditions above I have empathy for those who are and when I reach down to lift up, I at times get a sense of the divine. Helping others is a blessing that helps me feel better than I think I am and increases my empathy for those whom I feel I can help.
Jesus has commanded that we should be perfect (Matt 5:48) and John 17:3 states that we need to know Him. Reading the bible (alone) will not help me know him or become perfect (although obtaining the word is important). I will only come to know about Him by reading. However, it is by becoming like Him - doing the things He has asked me to do (works) - that I will come to know Him and how He feels.
What these few correspondences have shown is how we each have a different understanding of what it means to lead a Christian life. I think it would be helpful if there was a prophet who could relay the Lord’s view of what is required to live the Christian life.
Complain about this comment
John Boyd;
"Endless claims to Irish ancestry amuse us no end"
I don't know why. Maybe about 25 years ago I saw a report published that said around 40 million Americans can trace at least some of their ancestry to Ireland. During the great potato famine in the 19th century a very large number of Irish emigrated to the US. Through intermarriage down through the generations the number cited is not at all surprising. On Saint Patrick's day, we are all Irish. I'll eat corned beef and cabbage and drink beer although it will not be Irish beer and it will not have green vegetable coloring in it. When I lived in Manhattan, the Blarney Stone chain of bars and restaurants were among my favorite eateries. No pints though.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
Ever bump into Artie who runs the Blarney Stone along from Maddison SQ Gdns?
Complain about this comment
Guys, I feel I have a million questions to answer here, so for now, I wont go into specifics and just see what develops. My 'take' on all of this is pretty simple anyway and probably very predictable.
A passage which is probably relevant to a lot of the above is Jesus stating that the day was coming when we'd worship the Father, neither in the temple or on the mountain. We will worship him in spirit and in truth.
Could it be that our focus on religion masks the truth from us? Is it dulling our senses? Have we stopped seeking? (And thats why I say you are not far from the kingdom, Peter, because you are permanently seeking!! Knock and the door will be opened etc... What door? The door to the kingdom...)
My aunt is a nun. She has spent her life picking up broken bodies from the dirt in Africa. She gives that person a comfortable bed, clean water, medicine to ease the pain, the knowledge that someone on this planet of ours cares and some dignity and privacy in death.
She absolutely recognises that person as the crucified Jesus Christ, his broken body. It doesnt even enter her logic, "What would Christ do in this situation? What would he feel? Am I emulating Christ authentically? Am I showing enough compassion?"
I also believe that through her love, that person experiences Christ in some way, without his name having even been mentioned.
Knowledge of Christ, in the way which has been discussed above, is a luxury most of the population of the world have never had and will never have. And I'll be quite forceful on this, how dare we even suggest to them that they are required to 'know' Jesus.
Too much of Christianity appears to be 'driven by' Christ instead of being 'drawn to' him.
Why do we run to the Bible to find 'the mind of Christ?' Ask Christ the Big Issue seller how he feels. He'll tell us - humiliated. Christ the terminal cancer sufferer - Frightened. Christ the widow - I'm lonely.
Maybe we've dogmatized, sanitized, scrutinized the life out of the gospel and obscured its simple meaning - Love one another as I have loved you.
Complain about this comment
RJB
It's been many years since the Blarney Stone. But I think now they're on 34th between 7th and 8th avenues. Whenever I go that way between the Lincolon and Midtown tunnels, I pass it and remember all the times I spent with friends at those "pubs." Great place for lunch too. At least it was in the 70s. There, I'm dating myself. It probably hasn't changed a bit....except the prices of course. Maybe next time I'm in Manhattan and have to wait around for a train I'll stop in for a beer and a hot roast beef sandwich.
Complain about this comment
Puretruthseeker you say "I think it would be helpful if there was a prophet who could relay the Lord’s view of what is required to live the Christian life".
I think that is one of sentences which has annoyed me most of all the annoying things I have read on this blog. If we had another prophet we would persecute and/or ignore him just as we have done every prophet, including Christ, from the world began. That's not just my opinion - it's Christ's. (See, for example, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus).
Christ's message was simplicity itself - he distilled the thrust of the Law and the Prophets into: love God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbour as yourself. We don't need to think about it or agonise about it or seek guidance about it - we need to get up off our asses and do it.
Even the whole evangelical understanding of the gospel, if I've got it right, is entirely captured in "There is a green hill far away" - put, as our Lord helpfully suggested, so that a child could grasp it. Really everything beyond that is dross or drivel whether it's concern about transubstantiation or the double thingummy that exercised the Calvinists.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
Its exactly where you describe it. (If I remember right, Macey's is just down the road from it.) And still does the hot roast beef sandwiches too. It was my 'local' when I was over there and they couldnt have been more welcoming.
Complain about this comment
PureTruthSeeker
You could try *reading* Luther, before assuming that he missed the book of James. Just an idea. And in any case, Jonathan was promoting a Reformed, and not a Lutheran, position.
GV
Complain about this comment
RJB, on a hard roll with mustard?
Complain about this comment
Yip!
By the way, bring yer darts. There's a photo of me on the wall. Lol.
Complain about this comment
RJB;
Back in the mid 70s when I lived and worked in the area, The Blarney Stone was in a different location somewhere around 32nd between 6th avenue and Broadway. It moved when I wasn't looking. Macy's main store is half a block away and still advertizes itself as the world's largest store. My grandfather's first job when he came to America was in that store over 100 years ago.
Complain about this comment
Well nowadays its up from Maceys. If you gave your streets a name instead of lazily choosing numbers, I'd remember!! Aurelius Avenue, eh?!
Big food counter on your left as you go in and about eight drunk guys on the right.
Through the back, photo's of loads of ex-pro Scottish footballers on the wall.
Nice place.
Complain about this comment
ref 193 RJB
It depends what you mean by religion. My religion is about putting my faith in Jesus Christ by doing what He asks me, repenting of my sin when I fall, forgiving others because I realise that like me they are not perfect, being of service to my brothers and sisters in the world who need my help, obtaining God’s word for instruction, praying to my Father in Heaven for His help and enduring to the end with hope that I will be found spotless because of the Saviours atonement. In this way I feel that I do worship Him in Spirit and in truth and I know that as I have journeyed through life that I have had moments when God has revealed part of Himself to me and I have got the impression, that with all my faults, He loves me and is pleased with my progress as I have strived to follow His Son.
I kind of get your analogy and your sister’s experience and I think it’s fine and have no argument with the way you or anybody else want to experience Jesus. I just think that when Jesus said “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it onto me”, He was speaking a parable. Now, my view is that He was saying if you say you love me, love those who need your help, love those who don’t need your help, love your neighbour and for good measure, love your enemies too. Or, if you claim to love me who you can’t see (shortly), then love those whom you can see and whom I love.
You say, “Knowledge of Christ ... how dare we even suggest to them that they are required to 'know' Jesus.”
To begin with, I didn’t suggest to ‘them’ at all. I quoted what Jesus asked us to do and made no interpretation. Thereafter, I said what I(ie, me) feel I must do. So don’t be forceful with me for ‘daring’; take it up with Jesus. As well as John 17:3 maybe you should also look at Jeremiah 31:34, Hosea 2:20 and 1John 4:8
You say, “Too much of Christianity appears to be 'driven by' Christ instead of being 'drawn to' him.
Surely the Gospel is about drawing us to Christ but once we are His, the Gospel in our lives is driven by Him through His example. I always thought this was the case.
You say, “Why do we run to the Bible to find 'the mind of Christ?'“
I say, where else will we find it? Where did you get your ideas of Christ?
You say, ”Maybe we've dogmatized, sanitized, scrutinized the life out of the gospel and obscured its simple meaning - Love one another as I have loved you.”
If we were perfect beings, the Gospel message could just be - Love God and love each other. Unfortunately, we are not perfect and there is more - but still not enough – in the scriptures, where we are commanded to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
The more I read and ponder, the more I realise that there is something awfully wrong with Christianity and there has been for a long time. From I have come on to this blog, that is what I have been saying. Surely, I have the right to air my concerns. After all, I may see something important from my position that you have failed to see. Would you want me to keep it from you?
Complain about this comment
195 Parrhasios
You say, “I think that is one of sentences which has annoyed me most of all the annoying things I have read on this blog”. (direct quote)
I’m sorry my view about a prophet annoys you so much but I am shocked with what you charge me with.
Remember, not every one persecuted or ignored prophets in the past. If what you say is Christ’s opinion, I wonder why He agreed to having prophets in the early church? See Acts 13:1,15:32,21:10; 1Cor. 12:28; Eph. 2:20,3:5,4:11. Furthermore, what is the point of Amos 3:7
Christ’s message was indeed simple but there was more to it than – loving God and our neighbours - as I have said to RJB in my last post to him. I really don’t have to think or agonise over that message, I probably do it as best I can under the circumstances – so, I think I am off my ass, as you say. However, there is more to the bible message than that.
In the past when I attended church certain leaders tried to tell me that as long as I believed in Jesus; that was sufficient for me to gain eternal life. As I began to prayerfully study the Bible, there were lots of things that cried out that there was more. I discovered that Jesus established a Church with structure, authority, power, and doctrine. I also discovered that there was no Christian church that I could identify that bore any similarity to His church. I am not a member of any church therefore.
My reading of the Bible told me, that as well as loving God and man, the scriptures are important and are more than dross or drivel as you say. I discovered that the scriptures:
” ...testify of Jesus” John 5:39
“...are written for our learning” Rom 15:4
“...are for doctrine and instruction” 2Tim 3:16
“...we should live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” Matt:4:4
But maybe you err, not knowing the scriptures. Matt 22:29
To me, if we were members of the TRUE church and if we had a prophet, like they did in the church that Jesus established, to dispel the confusion that obviously exists, we would have no need to be debating “truth” or trying to find more of it; we would know truth.
I just hope this doesn't annoy you - it is not meant to.
Complain about this comment
RJB;
I don't know what the law is now but I think in the old days business establishments like that have to close at 6 AM for at least one hour giving the owner time to sweep the place out.
Macy's is bounded by 34th and 35th streets and by 7th Avenue and Herald Square where Broadway meets 6th Avenue. After Prohibition ended, its liquor store had New York State Liquor License #1. It went out of that business probably in the late 1970s. The Blarney Stone is about halfway down the next block on 34th street directly opposite 1 Penn Plaza. Madison Square Garden is behind it and 2 Penn Plaza fronts 7th Avenue between 33rd and 31st streets. Penn Station lies below the entire complex. The Empire State building is also on 34th street between Madison and 5th avenue. This is the heart of Midtown Manhattan. Had the terrorists managed to topple or collapse the Empire State building (102 stories) I think even more havoc would have ensued. A small plane actually did crash into in I think back in the 1930s. You can google it for the details.
Complain about this comment
Ref 197 gveale
Thanks for pointing that out. All the same, I have read some things about Luther to know that he was not a man of God as some try to claim. You should read his critics who have unearthed his writings which were 'suppressed'. Quite an eye-opener. Therefore, I have little interest in what he has to say.
Calvin promoted a ‘reformed’ position but he wasn’t much better than Luther, given his treatment of Michael Servetus and others he considered heretical. Unlike many people who call themselves ‘Christian’, I have no confidence in Reformations, reformed positions or most of the doctrine they teach; especially 'grace through faith alone'.
The way I see it is this; if the Catholic church was considered to have lost it’s way and adopted false practices, then a restoration was necessary and not a reformation – a point I have been making for the last three months. Is it only me that see this?
Complain about this comment
PTS
You've got the wrong end of the stick. My post 193 was a response to various points by various people. "Guys."
To be honest, PTS, I hadnt even read your post when I wrote 193.
Of course you are welcome to say whatever you like about Jesus and the importance, for you, of knowing Jesus.
Complain about this comment
Ref 206 RJB
Sorry. It's just that I had 'intervened' uninvited at 182 in response to 181 where Jonathan seemed to think things between you and him were going circular. I was trying to state what I thought was the obvious. You followed that up in 185 and told me you really thought what i didn't think was obvious. I responded in the 2nd part of 190 which you obviously didn't see, where I highlighted that it is essential not only to know about, but know Jesus. When i read your post in 193, seeing that it was I who was stressing more the need to know Christ, I assumed that of the 'guys', it was this guy you were directing your 'how dare we' comment to. Although I'm sure I was part of the 'we'.
Anyway, you got me thinking. Maybe you could help me out here.
If a person receives charity from a Muslim does the receiver become Allah?
From a Hindu do they become Shiva, say?
From a Buddist do they become ????what?
From a messer do they become Groucho Marks (He's a god you know) ;-)
Complain about this comment
PTS
The act of being given to or being at the receiving end of charity doesnt turn you into anything. Read again what I've been saying. The person who is suffering so badly is the crucified Christ, regardless of whether you, me or anyone else stops to help. I cant put that any more simply.
The person who recognises the other's suffering and who responds in love opens himself up to the kingdom and learns something about Christ in that moment, confronted with that suffering person.
I'm really glad for you that the Bible provides such sustenance for you and helps you 'know' Christ better.
For me, the most powerful way in which I have experienced Jesus, come to know who he is, has been in moments where I have been face to face with human suffering.
I didnt know him in a descriptive sense, in a historical sense. I didnt know him as an instruction manual or as a list of moral do's and dont's. I knew him as love.
After such moments, the gospel then has meaning.
Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists and Messers are God's children as utterly, totally and fully as you or I.
Complain about this comment
RJB
I do get what you are saying and what I am saying is that by reading the scriptures we can come to know ABOUT Jesus but it's only by obedience we come to know him personally.
Complain about this comment
PTS - 'But maybe you err, not knowing the scriptures. Matt 22:29'
I know the scriptures extremely well: they were an absolutely integral part of the fabric of the traditional Anglicanism in which I grew up. Many people do not realise the extent to which Scripture permeates the Church of Ireland liturgy: it is read, it is sung, it is prayed, and it is expounded.
I respect the Bible as the vessel containing the mythos of the Christ and have huge regard for the insight it provides into man's search for God. It is just as valuable, however, for the lessons it provides on how that search can go horribly wrong as for the inspiration offered by its record of those people who truly connected with the Divine.
The Biblical texts are interesting but I do not consider them as authorative - neither historically nor morally.
I have very little time for theology: the presumption of the premise is matched only by the vacuity of the pursuit. From concern about justification to obsession with eschatology Christian doctrine serves but to divert us from the way, bury the truth, and extinguish the life.
Complain about this comment
Ref210 Parrhasios
You say you have very little time for theology. Surely theology is the study of God in an attempt to understand Him as revealed in the Bible. Surely Anglicans have a theology. Surely the mythic world view which produced the mythos of Christ, which you respect, is a theology. Surely every different Christian group have their own particular theology and understand God and what the Bible says in their own distinctive way. Surely you have your own understanding of what the Bible means. Surely that is your theology.
If a prophet of Jesus Christ existed he would be able to say, “so sayeth the Lord” If a prophet existed, therefore, there would be no need for Anglican theology, Catholic theology, Evangelical theology, Emergent church theology or any other theology for that matter. We would have truth which only the truly wicked could argue against. Then again, what would all those Anglican theologians and ministers do for a living? What would all the rest of those who feed off religion do? I suppose they would go to the ends of the earth to oppose it in whatever way they could. They would probably try to discredit the prophet. They would probably twist his words for fear of losing their congregations to him. They would probably kill him. Maybe they would be proved to be the wicked ones. Maybe they would be shown to be antichrist.
You say, referring to the Bible, “It is just as valuable, however, for the lessons it provides on how that search can go horribly wrong as for the inspiration offered by its record of those people who truly connected with the Divine.” So you consider the study of the Bible as a two edged sword. With a prophet, it wouldn’t have to be.
You say, “The Biblical texts are interesting but I do not consider them as authorative - neither historically nor morally.” Do you prefer to study the Encyclopedia Britannia then, seeing you consider the study of God's word to be a pointless pursuit?
You say, ”...Christian doctrine serves but to divert us from the way, bury the truth, and extinguish the life.” True Christian doctrine would direct us to the way, reveal the truth and create the life – all which has been mangled by the competing current Christian doctrine.
I wonder what the Apostle Paul would make of all the different views we have created about God and His word? I doubt that he would know where to start.
Complain about this comment
PTS - I do not consider the Bible God's word. The Bible is a collection of entirely human narratives resulting from man's attempts to find meaning in existence, to order society, and to account for the occasional intrusions of the numinous into everyday life.
I think it impertinent to consider God an object which can be studied and futile to think we could ever understand Him: all we can hope for is to experience something of Him and to transform ourselves in the knowledge of His love. There is consequently, even without another prophet, no need for any theology: we learn nothing important about God by attempting dissection.
The lesson of the Old Testament is clear - it was God's own people who ignored or persecuted the prophets. Jesus went further; he said people wouldn't heed His message "even though one rose from the dead" and, you know, he was right. He did and they didn't!
Jesus' life and teaching said all that needed to be said about the path to God. He was shockingly clear, fearfully explicit. There is absolutely nothing a prophet could usefully add. Seeking more smacks to me of seeking an excuse for our own failures or seeking the indulgence of peripheral concerns when the crucial centre is urgent, demanding, and abundantly clear.
Complain about this comment
Ref 212 Parrhasois .
You say, “I do not consider the Bible God's word,...and it is a collection of entirely human narratives...”.
There is little doubt the history of the process by which the books of the Bible were collected and recognised is almost hidden in obscurity. However, we know that the servants of the Lord have been commanded to keep records even from the earliest times, and that those records have been revered by the faithful. The various O.T. prophets wrote or dictated to scribes who wrote (such as Jeremiah to Baruch – Jer. 36, - this also mentions that the Lord told Jeremiah to, “Take thee a roll of a book and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee...”) and thus the sacred books were produced and collected.
In N.T. times the apostles and prophets kept records, giving an official testimony of the earthly ministry of the Saviour and the progress and teachings of the Church. The general concept is clear that the servants wrote what they knew to be true of Jesus. Thus came the Gospels. The epistles were primarily written to regulate affairs among the members of the Church.
The Old and New Testament is considered scripture. The word scripture means ‘a writing’, and in the context of the Bible it is used to denote a writing recognised by the Church as sacred and inspired. It is so applied to the books of the O.T. by the writers of the N.T. (Matt.22:29; John 5:39; 2Tim. 3:15). So, even though all the words were not spoken by God, they must have been spoken under the direction of the Holy Ghost. God wants us to have these scriptures because as Paul states to Timothy, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” Now my question to you is this: how can the man of God become perfect and how can he be thoroughly furnished unto good works if he did not use scripture (inspired by God) for instruction?
You say, “I think it impertinent to consider God an object which can be studied and futile to think we could ever understand Him...”
Really? We do not have the intellect of God but surely within our capacity we must strive to Know Him as per John 17:3. If we don’t, then this verse is surely implying that we wont achieve eternal life. I suppose your would disregard this as you don’t consider it God’s word – even though it was uttered by Christ Himself.
You say, “...all we can hope for is to experience something of Him and to transform ourselves in the knowledge of His love”.
Ok. How do we go about this without some authoritative instruction?
You say, “There is consequently, even without another prophet, no need for any theology: we learn nothing important about God by attempting dissection”.
Then how do we learn what is important about God without analysis, instruction, guidance, etc?
You say, “The lesson of the Old Testament is clear - it was God's own people who ignored or persecuted the prophets. Jesus went further; he said people wouldn't heed His message "even though one rose from the dead" and, you know, he was right. He did and they didn't!”
Not all the House of Israel ignored or persecuted the prophets and Jesus gave prophets to the church He established. If the Bible is to be accepted on any level, there is no escaping these facts. Furthermore, Jesus was using a parable and was not saying that the honest and humble would not accept the words of a prophet. So, why do you consider my view, for the needs for prophets to sort out the mess of Christianity, to annoy you more than anything else you have read on this blog? Answer me that.
You say, “Jesus' life and teaching said all that needed to be said about the path to God. He was shockingly clear, fearfully explicit”.
If what you say is true, is the Pope’s interpretation of Jesus life and teachings the same as that of Ian Paisley, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Benny Hinn, Pete Rollins, et al? Do I hear a “no”? And you got annoyed at me! No doubt you will find something somewhere else in what I have said and make me, “...an offender for a word...” rather than address this.
You say, “There is absolutely nothing a prophet could usefully add. Seeking more smacks to me of seeking an excuse for our own failures...”
I tell you what: the slightest thing a prophet could add would be more useful than anything you have said here. Being satisfied with your understanding smacks of laziness and coping out.
You say, “...seeking the indulgence of peripheral concerns when the crucial centre is urgent, demanding, and abundantly clear”.
So, everything, apart from ’loving God and man’, is peripheral. If I was foolish enough to accept your view, I could get that quote framed, hang it on the wall and throw the Bible in the bin. The scripture in 2Tim 3:7 come to mind. It’s a good chapter, that. Furthermore, nothing is abundantly clear, given the variety of interpretations within the different so-called Christian churches - that's the only thing that is abundantly clear. If anything, the existence of this blog screams that. Maybe if you prayerfully studied the words of Jesus and His authorised representatives a bit more, you would get a better understanding and be less annoyed when someone makes a reasonable suggestion.
If you dont want to reply I will understand.
Peace.
Complain about this comment
What does God require of us?
According to the PROPHET Micah, ONLY this -
"To act justly, to love tenderly and to walk humbly with God."
Complain about this comment
Ref 214 RJB
Micah had a specific message for the people of his day which included prophesy for a future time. Now, we can't condense the O.T. and the N.T. into sound-bites. Furthermore, we can't take one verse and add the word 'ONLY' to it. Surely that's just wrong.
While we are talking of Micah, he warns of the (false) prophets that make the people err 3:5. Should we consider this important?
He also talks of those who pervert all equity and in 3:11 he includes the priests who teach for hire. Does that not bring paid ministry to mind? It does to me.
In chapter 4 he talks about the last days when the house of the Lord will be established and in verse 12 he states that the nations will not know the thoughts of the Lord. Why?, I wonder. Could it be that they don't have a prophet?
As well as what Micah said,which is perfectly true, Jesus added that we must be born again.
He also said that no man cometh unto the Father but by Him.
Paul said "...godly sorrow worketh repentence to salvation" 2Cor 7:10. Goodness, we need to be repentant too.
Jesus said that we must forgive others or our sins would not be forgiven (Sermon on the Mount)- and you know that no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God.
By grace are ye saved through faith (in Christ) Eph 2:8 - faith is nessary too it seems.
1Peter 3:21 tells us that "...baptism doth also now save us"
We are told to endure to the end. Matt 10:22
John 17:3 tells us that, "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" It doesnt say 'know about thee' but 'know thee'. Not my words but the words of Christ.
Eph 4:5 informs that there is "One Lord, one faith and one baptism" Just what does God think about the Many Lords, the many faiths and the many baptisms?
Micah told us some things but his statement didn't encompass everything. Did it?
Im not a prophet to know the mind of God, but if I were God, I wouldn't be too pleased at the sorry mess of the clutter of churches that claim to be His.
The Bible, despite the efforts of those who would water down the Gospel for whatever reason, can not be reduced to a mission statement for salvation. There is a lot more to it than that
Complain about this comment
PTS you ask me two questions:
"So, why do you consider my view, for the needs for prophets to sort out the mess of Christianity, to annoy you more than anything else you have read on this blog? Answer me that."
"... is the Pope’s interpretation of Jesus life and teachings the same as that of Ian Paisley, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Benny Hinn, Pete Rollins, et al?"
Taking the latter first, the answer is no, they are not the same but anything that any of them teaches beyond that the essence of the Gospel is the communication of God's love to the world through emotional and practical engagement with the poor, the desolate, the suffering, and the marginalised is either superfluous or wrong.
As to your first question, there is an exceedingly irritating Radio Ulster advertisement in which Connor Bradford parrots the words of his producer saying "We need more... more... more... more..." Christianity today is just the opposite - we need less, less, less: less of everything but engagement in love with the need of our fellow man. You don't require a prophet to tell you that - you've got me and, if he doesn't mind my borrowing his name, RJB.
Anyone who pleads God's cause with His people could be called a prophet - I have no problem with that understanding - there are at least a couple on the blog. The authoratative prophet who claims to speak definitively with the voice of God is quite another matter. If you have not read Norman Cohn's The Pursuit of the Millenium take a look - the path you suggest is one which has all too often led to danger and indeed to tragedy.
Complain about this comment
Parrhasois
It was 5 questions I asked you not 2.
Just one thing. Who do the poor, the desolate, the suffering and the marginalised get to help to be able to follow Jesus? Or are they just pawns for you and those who think like you to achieve salvation on the back of?
Just another while Im at it. What about overcoming the natural man. Did God wave a magic wand and make you, and others you consider christian, perfect? I thought part of following Jesus was to become like Him. Do you not have to overcome greed, pride, vanity, envy, gluttony, hatred, bad temper, lust and procrastination? Do you not have to master your desires like looking at pornography, drinking alcohol, being dishonest; and so on and so on?
One last thing. How can you plead God's cause if you just say all we must do for salvation is love God and the man? As I have pointed out with references, there is more to 'God's cause' than that. If you claim to be pleading God's cause and you lack authority then chances you are selling Him short and can be rightly referred to as antichrist. Would you agree with that? "No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron" Heb. 5:4.
So, we have a couple of prophets on the blog. Are these men or women called of God with authority given to them like Paul or Moses? Are they one with Christ and each other? Or do you just like to think they are prophets because they satisfy you understanding?
Complain about this comment
PTS - I made that four things! :-)
The poor, the desolate, the suffering, and the marginalised can help each other. I do not speak of those categories as a class distinct from myself - there are times in all of our lives when we need to be touched and healed.
I do not consider sin a useful concept; I would prefer to speak of the virtues of attempting to overcome our selfish instincts. Theory doesn't help much there - getting out and doing stuff is what matters. I am not interested either in some abstract called salvation - knowing God changes us whether we will it or not. Extending the love we find in Him to others is not an end it is a consequence.
I do not fear judgment.
I think I'm with RJB and Micah on the extent of God's cause - love one another with a pure heart fervently.
I don't do authority in religion. We don't need it. It doesn't work. It is exceedingly dangerous. A prophet would solve nothing. Would all denominations agree he was genuine? Who would interpret what he said?
Complain about this comment
Parhassios
When you become 'aware' as you obviously are, and perceive God in the poor, as you obviously do, there are normally a set number of responses. I dont know if you'll have come across them:
Some will accuse you of 'reductionism' and will argue that to be a Christian is a bit more complex than you have been led to believe.
Another favourite, "He's not a priest, he's a social worker!" (Note the use of the third person, they have a tendency to say it about you, rather than to you.)
"We should be helping people at home first, not people miles away in other Continents." - A favourite from people with short arms and long pockets.
Those are three I got hit with. One guy who exposed such people brilliantly was Bishop Helder Camara from Brazil, (You've probably heard it) -
"When I give food to the hungry, they call me a saint. When I ask why the hungry have no food, they call me a Communist."
This guy was one of the few who wore a wooden pectoral cross (instead of a gold, be-jewelled one) all the time, including at meetings in the Vatican. And he regularly and quite openly mixed with prostitutes, sharing everything with them except their beds.
As you'll imagine, the list of criticisms he got was quite extensive.
Complain about this comment
PTS
I've often said that our situation here in the West does not allow us to hear the radical call of the gospel. Here's a link to the story of someone who did hear that call. It probably describes where I'm coming from much better than I could.
http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2009/07/bishop-of-slums-dom-helder-camara-and.html
Complain about this comment
Parrhasios
What hope have we when neither of us can even count? Lol
“The poor, the desolate, the suffering, and the marginalised can help each other. I do not speak of those categories as a class distinct from myself - there are times in all of our lives when we need to be touched and healed.”
You say this like it’s children playing shop or doctors and nurses. Whether some one is poor or rich, desolate or cheerful, sick or healthy, marginalised or included; they all need to hear ‘the Good News’ and be shown a good example from the messenger. Living alone I know what you mean by needing to be touched and I go to a qualified doctor when I need healed.
You say, “I do not consider sin a useful concept; I would prefer to speak of the virtues of attempting to overcome our selfish instincts.”
What ever way you want to put it, mastering our baser desires is a commandment, essential to following Jesus and additional to serving others. Did Jesus not say, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect”? Matt. 5:48. Now in case you want to put a spin on this let me refer you to a couple more scriptures. Matt. 9:21; Luke 8:14; Eph. 4:12,13; Col. 1:28, 4:12; 1Thes. 3:10; 2Tim. 3:17; Heb.6:1,11:40,13:21; James 1:4, 2:22; 1Peter 5:10 (Well, you know I can’t count). As you prayerfully read these you will realise that no amount of ‘pop’ theology or interpretation can be placed on the need to be perfect. Any attempt would be to denying Christ’s words and those of His authorised servants. James tells us, “...receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your soul” (1:21) First, we need to obtain Gods word then do it. Then we can be doers of His word and not hearers only, deceiving our own selves. (1:22)
It has absolutely nothing to do with theory trying to get an understanding of God’s word. It’s about trying to live by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God or His authorised servants. It’s more than having a mission statement like RJB and Micah offer, important as it may be. It’s about having a proper strategic plan with what it is exactly that we do, how we go about it, to whom do we do it, what our aims are, etc; what our values are, how we excel and so on. Getting out and doing it is very important but understanding why we are doing it is essential.
The purpose of Jesus coming to this world and doing the things He did is more than having us all doing good works, essential though they may be. We need to understand that He organised our world under the direction of His Father and ours. We need to understand that He was the God of the Old Testament. We need to understand that He was the son of God the Father in the flesh. We need to understand that even though He had the choice, He chose to live a sinless life and be completely obedient to the laws of Heaven. We need to understand that, because He had the ability to live forever as a God and His body was indestructible, that he took upon Him the pain of our sins, regrets, and sufferings until His body shed blood from every pore that He could hardly bear it – just so that we would not need to atone for them ourselves. We need to understand that that He chose death that, in some way beyond our comprehension, He would break the bands of death that is governed by some eternal law; so that all mankind would be able to be resurrected with a new body that would never die again. We need to understand that He organised a Church with authorised representatives to instruct others unto Him. We need to understand that the authorised organisation does not exist anymore for some reason. We really mustn’t be serious when we pray, “thy Kingdom come as it is in Heaven . Surely, the state of Christianity (the Kingdom) cannot be equated to Heaven. With all due respect, I wonder do you really get any of this?
It seems that there is much that ‘you don’t do’ about the Gospel. Maybe you should ditch Christianity because you sound like a Humanist to me.
You say, “I don't do authority in religion. We don't need it. It doesn't work. It is exceedingly dangerous.”
So, why was authority important in the days of Jesus - Matt.21:23; Mark1:22, 13:34; John 15:16; Acts 14:23, Heb. 5:4? No wonder Christianity is in the state that it’s in. Can you not see this? How appropriate is the scripture, “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” 2Tim 3:7. Please try to understand; not for my sake but for yours.
A prophet would restore truth and would not need to be interpreted. Would all the denominations agree? Good question. Well, lets put it this way; if you were a minister of religion, getting reasonably well paid, had a cushy wee number, were considered a bit of an authority in your field, you had devoted your life to you particular denomination, you were well respected and you got ‘top table’ invites to various functions – would you throw that all away by allowing your congregation to leave or would you do everything in your power to discredit someone trying to say there is only one authorised way? Somehow or other, I don’t think that those who work for ‘filthy lucre’ and status would stand for an authorised prophet. It seems you may not; but I might.
Complain about this comment
RJB
I see the author of this article compares him more favourably than the leader of your religion. What an indictment.
He is compared to Abraham Lincoln.
He promoted a liberation theology.
He politicised the clergy under him.
He did little to seperate church and state.
His affect on the slums has done little to relieve them from drug gang oppression.
He sided with communists. Where their leaders not oppressors too? Stalin?
A scripture comes to mind. Render onto Caesar the things that are Ceasars.
Complain about this comment
PTS
If 222 is a true reflection of what you took from the article then our difference is not just theological, it is also a problem of education.
You make seven points (and a scripture quote) and manage to get at least four of them wrong. The three statements you get right, rather than being indictments, were his virtues.
Parhassios
Oops! I forgot one of the MOST popular criticisms you receive when you see Christ in the poor and work for them - "Look, he's acting politically!"
Complain about this comment
RJB
I must apologise for speed reading an article and making comment. I did so as I was going to be busy taking care of other business but I have been able to postpone some of that business and I feel that I can now be fairer in my comments. Unfortunately, due to my background, my formal education stopped when I was 15. I did learn to read however.
Nevertheless, I have, more recently, tried to educate myself. If I am not at your educational level it doesn’t mean that I’m not your intellectual superior anymore than you are mine. Furthermore, if my understanding of the Bible has a tendency to be simple and child-like, it doesn’t make it any less valid than much of the twisted understanding I have read on this blog from other contributors.
What I should have said was that the article showed Dom Helder Camara in a more political than spiritual light. I say this due to the references that I have cut from the article and pasted below.
instigator of the liberation theology
campaigner against military dictatorship
the liberationist trend that he championed.
Dom Hélder was such a person; Abraham Lincoln was another example.
His political clout was reflected when he became one of the main advisers of President Juscelino Kubitschek
National Council of Brazilian Bishops (CNBB) Dom Hélder aligned the Catholic Church with Kubitschek’s development model.
During 1963 and 1964 Brazil became extremely polarised. Dom Hélder moved to the left, eventually resulting in a complete break with the country's rich elite.
Dom Hélder campaigned in support of President Goulart's efforts
Dom Hélder was attempting to articulate a radical version of Catholic social policy
1967 Dom Hélder attempted to launch a third political party,
The Medellin statement was a landmark in the history of liberation theology and Latin American politics.
One glaring mistake that I said was that he sided with Communists. I got that wrong. I apologise again.
The indictment I was referring to was on the present leader of your church, being less favourably compared to him. Other than that the other comments are fairly accurate.
As a Catholic, you probably see no conflict of interest between God’s kingdom and man’s government. I, on the other hand, see no scriptural basis for it. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Just one other thing. If you want to disagree with me, don’t go running for support to someone else in this online community. It makes me feel that I may be being ganged up on and ultimately marginalised. It’s just I wouldn’t want you to undermine your Christianity by being responsible for marginalising me, then become the good Samaritan as you come to my rescue. That would be hypocritical. Peace and love
Complain about this comment
PTS
You do accept that your intellect is going to be challenged if you state that an article says one thing, when in fact the article says the complete opposite?
Camara was also one of the most dedicated anti-drugs/gangs, anti-prostitution (anti all the social ills which befall the poor) who ever walked the planet. He worked tirelessly to support the base communities which fought these social ills. He actually tried to take the teaching of Jesus and ACTUALLY put it into practice on behalf of the poor - (liberation theology, which you mark down as an indictment.)
But it does reveal a difference in our effective stances though. You would appear to want to lecture the drug user. I'd prefer to challenge the dealer and all those who make themselves rich from the misery of others.
He didnt politicize the clergy, he encouraged them to live and preach the gospel. But he had to continuously put up with that lie being levelled at him. Did he send his trainee priests to take degrees in politics? He sent them to the barrios to live with the poor and learn about Christ.
Church and State? When the State stood up for the poor, he backed it. When it didnt, he opposed it. He lived his life under constant threat of assassination..... by the State!
I've never needed a gang, PTS.
"As a Catholic, you probably see no conflict of interest between God's Kingdom and man's government."
You obviously havent absorbed a single post I've made in the last year.
Complain about this comment
PTS
You do accept that your intellect is going to be challenged if you state that an article says one thing, when in fact the article says the complete opposite?
Camara was one of the most dedicated anti-drugs/gangs, anti-prostitution (anti all the social ills which befall the poor) who ever walked the planet. He worked tirelessly to support the base communities which fought these social ills. He actually tried to take the teaching of Jesus and ACTUALLY put it into practice on behalf of the poor - (liberation theology, which you mark down as an indictment.)
But it does reveal a difference in our effective stances though. You would appear to want to lecture the drug user. I'd prefer to challenge the dealer and all those who make themselves rich from the misery of others.
He didnt politicize the clergy, he encouraged them to live and preach the gospel. But he had to continuously put up with that lie being levelled at him. Did he send his trainee priests to take degrees in politics? He sent them to the barrios to live with the poor and learn about Christ.
Church and State? When the State stood up for the poor, he backed it. When it didnt, he opposed it. He lived his life under constant threat of assassination..... by the State!
I've never needed a gang, PTS.
"As a Catholic, you probably see no conflict of interest between God's Kingdom and man's government."
You obviously havent absorbed a single post I've made in the last year.
Complain about this comment
rjb
I suppose you are right. Im going to keep out of politics from now on. I suppose he was doing the very best he could under severely difficult circumstances. Fair play to the guy. I don't think I could have done what he did. Then again he had an advantage. I bet that everywhere he went he would have disarmed the people and had them in stitches thinking he was Sid James.
Complain about this comment
It will be interesting to see how the boy wonder makes out with his immigrant church in the big city. While there is formal separation of church and state, there is no separation of church and politics. NYC is not particularly friendly to fringe sects, they don't find much soil with which to plant roots there. Religiously the region is carved up into fairly well defined groups. There's a large Jewish community, perhaps the largest in the world outside of Israel. There is a large Catholic segment. There are the usual mainstream protestant religions, and the black community has their own churches especially in areas like Harlem, South Jamiaca, and Brownsville. It's hard to see where this sect will fit in or what type of attention or resentment from locals it will meet. Clearly someone going to live there as opposed to just pay a visit of weeks or months or going to study there is in a different situation. By American standards, NYC is not considered a friendly place. I'm sure we'll periodically get updates but there is every possibility he will simply disappear into the vast consuming melting pot that is NYC. The city is so big and fast it just has a way of swallowing people up.
Complain about this comment
Is Peter going to New Yoik?
Complain about this comment
parrhasois
I took the time to respond to your wild statements and 2 questions which you posted at 218. My response is at 221. Now, I take seriously the things that I say and write. If I make a mistake and am shown it, I will apologise. However, my understanding has been formulated by prayerfully studying (not merely reading) the scriptures. I trust no Christian teacher because I find that they are more academical than spiritual. I have done this since reading John 14:26 and subsequently 1Cor 2:13 and 1John 2:17. These verses impacted on my brain and heart and I have relied on that Spirit since. I'm not saying that I know the mind of God or anything like that but since I pray for the Holy Ghost to teach me and allowed Him to do so, my confusion on many topics has cleared and my understanding has increased
Complain about this comment
sorry, my laptop has a mind of it own some time.
So, if you respond to something I say and I have the courtesy to reply, I would be grateful for an acknowledgement whether you intend to reply or an indication if you intend to ignore me. Time is important to me. Im sure you can appreciate that. Cheers
Complain about this comment
Parrhasois et al
I made a decission a while back to refrain from posting on this blog. I did this because I came to the conclusion that it is used as a pulpit for all those with entrenched views and that nobody here is really looking for understanding. I started posting because the Whitewell controversy was 'near' to me and I predicted that, despite the questions being asked, none of them would be answered and the dust would be allowed to settle and therefore, business as usual would result.
A full month later, I had a look at the blog to see if there was any further developments. There wasn't and I was right. I suppose I should have realised how futile this media is and got out then but, I got caught up again with the Benny Hinn thread and then the Peter Rollins 'confusion'. Im sorry I did.
I have found this community to be like most others. There are those who dominate and set the pace, and those who would challenge for supremacy; while there are the 'yes' men and a*s lickers currying favour. There are the less sophisticated trying to be heard but get ignored and treated with distain. I fall into the latter bracket.
I wish you all the best and hope that one day you will be able to help each other to move toward some common understanding. As for me, I'm away to live more of my religion. Cheers
Complain about this comment
PTS - I hope you read this because I am about to administer what a friend of mine, like you from the Shankill, would call a slap on the back of the neck. :-)
I have not yet replied to your postings purely because I am extremely busy. There are two older comments of PeterM's to which I wish to reply and a misunderstanding by OT that I desperately want to correct but all will have to wait.
I work long hours and attempt to put my Christianity into practice in other ways outside those hours. If you look at the pattern of my comments you will see they are fewer than those of many other commentators and often posted late at night or mid morning when I often take a short break. That is all the time I can spare.
I engaged with you because I thought it worthwhile, I considered you had something to say and that you thought for yourself. I hoped you would be combattive and enjoyed such exchanges as we have had. I have never made any assumptions about anyone's intellect or education and would never allow such matters to influence me. I have never modified my own language or expression for anyone else and, in this context, never would. I repudiate absolutely the assertion that I might have ignored you or treated you with disdain.
Now for the slap - lose the chip on your shoulder, you don't need it!
Hope you're back with us soon.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS