Front PageJourney Twists
Submitted by Passing Through on Thu, 04/21/2005 - 07:18. Paradox
My soul is torn today. I watched a local 30 minute show last night that is sponsored by a local congregation. They do something a little different each wednesday night, but on occasion they air a sermon from a small congregation in Georgia. Now, to keep whoever reads this from dumping a load of political correctness on me, my next description is one of admiration and not racism. But the sermon is from a black preacher in a predominately black congregation. He spoke on Lot and the whole Sodom story. His style is similar to what you might think of when you think of an older, black, southern preacher. Lots of amens from the members, lots of enthusiasm. The reason I say my soul is torn is because, I thoroughly loved it. He spoke on carnal christians, he spoke to me. He didn't speak with the latest buzz words of Christianity, he told Lots story and applied it to me. No grey areas, plain and simple life truths of sin and the struggle to avoid it.
I am torn between a desire to be in a Christ centered community that does not try to enforce their perception of the rules and regs on its members, and one that also does not ignore the fact that sin is sin and as followers of christ, should be avoided. Is it possible to have both? Why can't we get there and what can I do to get there?
I think its all well and good to learn and to enlighten myself, to learn to not judge the person. Its a good thing to understand that even though the words were written to different people in a different time in history for specific reasons; but aren't there also un-deniable truths in the word that should not be brushed over or over analyzed and just accepted? Do we not still need a good dose of fire and bremstone? Don't we still need to be reminded there is a hell?
Maybe I misunderstand, I often do; just ask my wife. But as the pendulum swings, I feel I am losing something from the "old ways". I guess I fear that this journey may lead me, or lull me into a place I don't want to be.
In 1991 fate brought me face to face with a former drunk who made me face the reality that I was one also. Suppose that person had just said nothing to keep from being offensive or hurting my precious feelings? Where would I be now?
I really don't clearly know where I am headed with this. I suppose part of me sees value in not swinging too far with my search for freedom. I am not sure its a good thing to feel too free.
Jim
Bookmark/Search this post with:
philosophy
Submitted by Passing Through on Thu, 04/21/2005 - 09:30.
Hi Brain,
I can see where you're coming from, although, I don't really think of it as avoiding sin in order to get to heaven as much as I do avoiding its destructive influence. Could it be that many things that are sin are not as much damning to the soul as they are destructive to the body? And if they are destructive to my human body, are they then destructive to the church body? Are they things I would want my girls to be doing? Thats kinda how I look at it also.
But if we drift so far in freedom that nothing becomes sinful anymore, then where are we?
I am not talking either about the old ways of doing things where your sins are put on display for the whole community to judge, I am talking about where a loving brother is free to confront you. Not to save your soul in all cases, but maybe to simply save you from yourself. I for one can convince myself anything I do is ok, right up till the point I ruin my life or someone elses.
I agree that our lives should be about doing for and standing up for others as persons and I pray that I don't overlook a chance to do that. Its in doing so that we show others a different way to live and that someone cares. I just don't want, for myself, to become so complacent and free that the basics get lost. And I do believe there are some very cut and dry basics that apply to all ages throughout no matter who they were specifically written to.
Thanks for the comments also. They help me bat this around in my head.
Jim
» reply
Common Good
Submitted by bill on Thu, 04/21/2005 - 13:03.
Jim,
It seems that you've found a good motivator for you. Whatever motivates us to do good is at least indirectly good, is it not? If it works for you, then you should embrace it. But control, however useful, is not a motivator. Control limits extremes but fails to encourage improvement. That's mostly the point I tried to make in Absolute Truth is Neither and I'm convinced that Jesus taught it.
My experience is that someone focused on doing good will not only do good increasingly, but they will do wrong decreasingly. It's a matter of focusing on the goal and striving toward it. And it accomplishes two goals simultaneously. If there is an absolute, it is the common good. Still, I don't know what works for others. It took me forty years to gain reasonable confidence in this.
bill
» reply
Absolutes
Submitted by Passing Through on Thu, 04/21/2005 - 13:46.
Bill,
I am not talking about control really, at least I am not intending to. I am trying to find a middle ground in the authority in the church issue, and I really don't even mean authority, but accountability. Reido mentioned "ecclesiastical hierarchies" and how they become out of control.
I am pondering this family of God environment in a so called enlightened age and how to avoid the historical control, but yet, help each other to follow Christ.
The realities of mankind is that we drift and follow paths of our sinful nature. If we as brothers in this family; in this church, are affraid of treading on anothers freedom by talking to them about what is destructive, we won't have a family for long.
Lets try this, is the addiction of a family man to porn right or wrong? Can we agree that its an absolute that nothing good for that man or his family can come from it? Does not a love for him demand something be said? Is that an act of control or an act of love?
If we agree that we are obligated to help each other in these ways, then how does church hierarchies fit in this, or does it at all? I think the problem comes when it goes beyond a brotherly love and concern and into the hands of "leaders". Leaders by nature have a job to do. Jobs require sets of rules and ways of doing things, and to me, thats where legalisms start and love ends. That is when we get a mentallity of you're in and you're out and levels of sin start coming forward.
Is any of this making sense?
I am still very much interested, drawn actually, to beginning a home worship environment and these questions are very much an issue in that. If one choses to not go to the big building every sunday and sit in the pew, but still wants the community of believers around him, what do you do? You gather believers and sit in the back yard. Sounds simple till the humanity in us kicks in.
Jim
» reply
Against These There Is No Law
Submitted by reido on Thu, 04/21/2005 - 17:55.
Bill wrote...
"It seems that you've found a good motivator for you. Whatever motivates us to do good is at least indirectly good, is it not? If it works for you, then you should embrace it."
Does freedom in Christ allow for, even encourage seeking living water wherever it may be found? Let's suppose that the concept of a church without walls were to evolve into an "anti-church" sentiment -- that is, becomes as exclusive towards this chosen expression of faith as sometimes particular groups have been towards it. Then, I believe the result is nothing more than one more selfish human contrivance.
There are a number of ways in which I recieve a blessing from hearing or contemplating something. As I see it, God created all to be partaken of with thanksgiving...seek, ask, knock and it will be given to you.
reido
» reply
Bill's Threshold Theory
Submitted by bill on Thu, 04/21/2005 - 21:59.
Reido,
I understand that the first level of spirituality to obtain in kabbalah is awe. This fits well with Bill's Threshold Theory of learning.
The theory says that, in any area of knowledge or skill, there is for each person a threshold at which the learner knows enough to be confident of their mastery. Just beyond that threshold of learning, the learner comes to understand just how much they don't know. This is the point from which real progress can be made. Until I step over that threshold, I will learn nothing that I don't already know.
The best way to keep the great unwashed laity in line is get them to that threshold while keeping them from stepping beyond it. So, the institutional church forfeits boundless spiritual growth for the prize of political unity.
So the big question is this: can we have boundless spiritual opportunity and political unity?
bill
» reply
The Threshold or the Barred Door?
Submitted by reido on Fri, 04/22/2005 - 12:08.
Bill
You asked..."The best way to keep the great unwashed laity in line is get them to that threshold while keeping them from stepping beyond it. So, the institutional church forfeits boundless spiritual growth for the prize of political unity.
So the big question is this: can we have boundless spiritual opportunity and political unity?"
My view would be "No". We can attempt both, or one without the other, but on all counts, won't it just be a compass point? Jim is on target with the weak link in the chain of freedom being the relative ease of the individual taking a journey down a destructive path.
On the other hand, it can also be said that the more restrictive a system is, the more opportunity for Threshold diminishes.
Of course, we could suggest a middle ground of static and dynamic. As I view it, the middle ground is where the Mainstream wants to be. But what if the individual finds very little relevance in the Mainstream? While the consensus group might be happy as bugs in a rug, the individual on the fringe will be stifled and feel force fed cold oatmeal.
The question that comes in this analysis is, where did Jesus fall in the Mainstream of his day?
reido
» reply
Jesus was way outside the box
Submitted by bill on Fri, 04/22/2005 - 13:05.
Reido,
Jesus was way outside the box. And many of the early followers of Jesus and Paul were extreme. As an example, some chose celibacy and/or withdrew from family life. Whether Jesus intended this I don't know. But it's clearly in his words and his own lifestyle.
Obviously, we can't all withdraw or we'd be back to hunting and gathering within a couple of generations. But it's a lie to say that Jesus wanted huge institutional enterprises to wear his name. He never even hinted at such an animal. It's even a lie to say that the first century church had a pattern. As late as one hundred years after Jesus' death there may have been more solitary Christians than there were members of formal groups. Christians fought over structure—or at least some tried to force others to comply with theirs—until Constantine chose one of the structures, or denominations, and nationalized it. After which those who won hunted down and eliminated their competition.
bill
» reply
Christianese and True Transformation
Submitted by John Martin (not verified) on Fri, 04/22/2005 - 10:53.
Jim,
I want to respond to two aspects of your post: (a) the Christian lingo (Christianese), and (b) the freshness of going to a different style Church.
(a) My impression is that a certain ‘code’ of speech exists in Christian circles. Part of this is just the limits of language: how many ways can you term “salvation” or “sanctification”. But on the other hand, Christian lingo can be a mask for actual transformation in my opinion—on wither side of the pulpit. We can become so used to a liturgy or a style of worship that it becomes meaningless. Also, we can give a Christian-sounding speech on any subject, throwing in identifying terms that show our initiation into the Bible or Christian literature.
(b). So, certainly changing the language can spark reflection among both the preachers and the congregants. I have been to Baptist, Catholic, Anglican, Black-style, Orthodox, and other churches. In my experience, the liturgy can be most meaningful when it’s fresh; i.e. when you weren’t forced during your whole childhood to recite it like a school assignment, but instead you came to it searching for the meaning and significance behind.
I think the most crucial aspect of the church experience is not the format or the layout of the liturgy. Saying “amen” after a prayer or reciting the Apostles ’ Creed can certainly edify us and even serve to proclaim our faith; however, without a sense of meaning and significance, any of these can become meaningless. No matter what the church, we must approach the alter of God with reverence and humility, not trusting in the style of music or the amount of hand-waving, but rather the unction of the Holy Spirit working in our lives towards our complete transformation.
--John
» reply
Straight Talk
Submitted by Passing Through on Mon, 04/25/2005 - 09:37.
Hi John,
And thanks for the response. I may have not been very clear with the point I was getting at, I'm usually not. :O)
I wasn't refering so much to the way it was preached as what he was preaching. With all our enlightenment and post modern approach to scripture, I think we have forgotten something and that is that there is a hell. This particular sermon was a reminder that even us Christians can be carnal creatures and it really doesn't hurt to have that reminder sometimes and that is what this fella was doing.
I like many of the sermons I hear today that are uplifting and encouraging and bring scripture into the realm of the here and now, but I also need a good kick in the pants sometimes. I think we all do.
Jim
» reply
Different philosophy
You know Jim, the same thoughts go through my mind everyday. I know I come across like a wild-eyed liberal, but in reality I live and wish others would live a more "conservative" life. When I stand up for homosexuals in society, it is not because I think their lifestyles are good or moral. It is because I believe in freedom. I also have come to believe the church has been more about trying to control people rather than showing them what a new life could mean to them and to the world.
I don't think the community of faith for which some of us envision is about allowing rampant sinning. In my life for instance, I filter everything through the trust God and love neighbor philosophy. Alchoholism is not acceptable in the community because it violates the neighbor rule. Adultery is not acceptable because it violates the neighbor rule. Working your way to heaven is not acceptable because it violates the trust God rule.
Homosexuality as expressed through committed relationships (gay marriage if you will) is not a violation of my philosophy. I see no damage being done to my neighbor by two people being together. Does it violate scripture? Perhaps. But many of the things we do today violate the literal scriptures. Our excuse is Paul gave us permission to do so. If Paul had said that marriage is more about the spirit of commitment rather than a narrow definition of it, would that have changed everything? Maybe, but doubtful. Paul did say throughout his writings that the spirit is more important the literal words of the Law, but still very few people understand that.
I don't think life is about avoiding sin to get to heaven. I think life is about standing up for the poor and marginalized. It is about trying to make this world a better place. Can I proof-text this philosophy with the Bible without excluding large sections of it? Probably not. But the worldview that created the Bible no longer exists in me and I cannot live by something that has not been varified by my own experience.
Brian