Differences, Dissent and Division
I haven’t written in a while. I’m sorry. Maybe you’re not. I would like to write more often. I do have people insisting that I should just shut up and draw. My cartoons and my art says enough, they say. Perhaps my art and cartoons are incarnational. After all, the Word did become flesh. But that flesh did speak. So I think words are sometimes necessary. Like St. Francis of Assisi said, “Preach the gospel always. If necessary use words.” So today is one of those days when I feel I need to write something.
I’ve been reading some theology lately. Doped up following my nose surgery has lent itself to metaphysical thinking. I’m still slightly dopey. My mornings are okay, but as the day progresses my head begins to pound right behind my nose and eyes until the point of exhaustion. I pop some pills and that helps, theologically speaking.
I’ve met recently with a couple of friends who have left the local church and the faith as well. I love them, totally respect them, and listen hard to what they are saying. I’m interested in what they are reading and what they believe now. I’m fascinated by it. I think it is important for me to listen to what they believe and why. I think it is crucial to listen to what Hitchens and Harris and Dawkins are saying. I think it is necessary for me to listen to what science is saying. Evolutionists. Mystics. New Agers. Universalists. Syncretists. Neo-Gnostics. Everyone.
You know, in the earliest church, the Fathers contested with people with differing views as though they were a diverse and dissenting part of the larger community. I think, for instance, Irenaeus, when he challenged the Gnostics, betrayed a humble deference toward them. At the earliest point there was no clear line of division that separated the “heretics” from the “orthodox”. This came later with the councils and creeds. They mingled together in the same communities and churches. I personally think it is important to work towards a clear theology. Faith seeks understanding. But I also believe it is important and even required by charity to permit all voices an audience and to see all people and opinions as typical of a diverse community striving towards love and health.
When you think of it, when Paul said in the Corinthian correspondence that one prophet should speak; then when another stands up to speak the first one should be quiet and sit down; and that the content of what they say is held up to scrutiny, discerned and judged by the community… wasn’t Paul implicitly giving room for heresy? The root of heresy literally means an opinion that is contrary to another. Later it came to mean a belief that is contrary to the orthodox doctrine or the most popularly held opinion. I think we need to listen to more apparently “heretical” views because I personally believe that much of what is popularly held as true is in fact false and needs to be challenged by opposing views.
And, as Forrest said, “That’s all have to say about that.”
The photograph is a cropped version of my friend’s, Mark Hemmings, photo, “Kendo Fighters”.
Check out my tees HERE and my art HERE.
If you liked this post, or would like to use it, please buy me a beer!
Spoken like a true Canadian….and from one to another, I concur. How can one body or institution grow without being challenged to see things from a differing perspective? Without this we would become stagnant and irrelevant…oh wait….
I pray you are feeling better very soon!
~mp:)
I was reading that portion of Scripture the other day, David, where Jesus spoke of the only sin unforgiven being blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. The verses just before deal with kingdoms and houses being divided. Always it has been preached to me in the sense of an individual not being “concrete” in his thinking, torn by two thoughts or temptation or…you get the picture. It hit me, though, on this occasion: who is any more divided in their Biblical assessment than the Church at large? Indeed, I believe it why Christ followed such statements on bring “divided” with a warning about what we say, how we “box up” the Spirit. For me, it is the Third Member of the Trinity who is able to “make us one”. If, as you say, I can’t “hear” without losing what the reality of His indwelling brings to me, then something is lost in my salvation. I do not have to agree, I do not have to follow. But I ought to be able to walk in Him….
good point jim… i like what you’re saying.
keep writing, keep drawing, keep thinking, keep sharing!
Good words to chew on, and something I’ll be bringing up in a future discussion with friends.
As with any area of learning, one must be stable enough (in whatever stance) to be able to be challenged by anothers views without being wavering in their own. For some of us who are fine with “listening to the other opinions” its a matter of pride (ego perhaps?) to be careful of.
Man, you must have written this still all doped up.
YOU: When you think of it, when Paul said in the Corinthian correspondence that one prophet should speak; then when another stands up to speak the first one should be quiet and sit down; and that the content of what they say is held up to scrutiny, discerned and judged by the community… wasn’t Paul implicitly giving room for heresy?
——–NO. He would have assumed that the prophet would be speaking the word of God, not a heresy. Could heresy happen? Surely, but Paul would not expect it. He surely was NOT inviting it. Throughout his epistles he makes clear to not listen to heritics. Paul even tells Timothy to command men NOT TO TEACH false doctrines. Why? “These promote controveries rather than God’s work {1 Tim. 1:4}. And then he goes on to say that the “goal of this command is love.”
YOU: I think it is necessary for me to listen to what science is saying. Evolutionists. Mystics. New Agers. Universalists. Syncretists. Neo-Gnostics. Everyone.
——The apostle Paul would disagree with you. Romans 16:17-18
YOU: You know, in the earliest church, the Fathers contested with people with differing views as though they were a diverse and dissenting part of the larger community.
———–A sample of your proof, please.
YOU: I think, for instance, Irenaeus, when he challenged the Gnostics, betrayed a humble deference toward them.
———–Well, lets read what Irenaeus says.
BOOK I
Irenaeus: Against Heresies
PREFACE.
1. “INASMUCH(1) as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says,(2) “minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith,” and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.] These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves ***evil interpreters**** [stars mine] of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein. By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge;(3) and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.”
———You said “I think, for instance, Irenaeus, when he challenged the Gnostics, betrayed a humble deference toward them.”———–Ireneaus calling them “evil interpreters” does not sound like he had a “humble deference towards them.” You are right, it is just you thinking, but not for Irenaeus. His own words should speak for themself.
The apostle Peter makes it clear that there will be false prophets among the people. He gives great thought and warning about that in 2 Pet. 2. Peter warns about the false teachers and their teachings — and in no way can it be inimated, assumed, hinted at that he is telling the people to open their doors, even up your statement: “…even required by charity to permit all voices an audience and to see all people and opinions as typical of a diverse community striving towards love and health.” to give them an ear.
It is ludicrous to think that Peter would warn so strongly about the false teachers/prophets, who “will secretly introduce destructive heresies…, and then tell the people, intimate to the people that they should listen to them, as you advocate. No way does Peter want the people to give an ear the the false teachings. The false teachers have nothing of any use or value to teach.
Now in your modern, politically correct, tolerant, thinking that “Evolutionists. Mystics. New Agers. Universalists. Syncretists. Neo-Gnostics. Everyone,” have theological value, you go against the context of scripture.
It is important to know what false teachers teach. But to give them a voice at the table of the church is foolish and not the teaching of the Bible. Again, Rom. 16:17-18 make it crystal clear why divisers should not have a voice at the table in the church.
fishon
fishon,
I am with you!
The dissenters can certainly have a voice. I will defend that right!
But not in the church. The devil is already in the church. But lets not call him God.
I am no theologian or great thinker, but I think the point of listening to those with other views is to seek to understand them so we can respond and speak into them in a way they can hear. Its just a part of understanding the culture so we can talk to it.
We don’t change our message about Jesus but we are sometimes required to change our method so we can be heard and understood. This isn’t heresy or dilution, its being aware of the backdrop to our evangelism and the canvas upon which we work.
Understanding others and listening to them are simple acts of humanity, of giving dignity to others. We as the church shouldn’t be above humbling ourselves to listen to others with different views, because as we listen the Spirit may well speak to us about the person and where they’re at.
Most people who come to know Jesus do it because of kindness, friendship, relationship, offered to them by people who are able to listen to them and what they are really saying. If we are too busy calling them heretics or having a know-all manner, that is unlikely to happen. Its a matter of really getting to know people and caring about them – its slow, and sometimes hard work, but I don’t suppose Jesus dying was easy either.
Jesus died for us while we were still sinners; he preached peace to those who were far off and those who were near; he lived among the culture and still does. He became like a servant, humble, even though he didn’t have to. I believe it is part of doing our work intelligently for the Lord to be willing to listen to others and journey alongside them in an ongoing dialogue.
Many people are seeking and searching all over the. But we have to be able to operate in the conditions that we find ourselves in now, not last century’s methods, in order to be heard. Lets get on with it, folks are dying out there.
I wonder whether many people remember what its like out there, the days before we knew Jesus, what our life was like. How someone told us, led us, discerned something inside us that was searching maybe.
For myself, I was very very messed up. A family took me in like their own child. They patched me up, fed me, heard me, taught me about God, most of all they SHOWED me. More than all the lectures in the world about straightening out my life, they loved me. Then I could hear.
I’m glad I can remember what a state I was in. Lost, and then I was found. Kindness and listening are hugely important in a hurting world.
Sorry to go on too much, but to me the outcome of this discussion is the most crucial matter for the world. Maybe much else of what we discuss, they can live without.
I like these thoughts. Let’s not be ostriches with our heads in the sand.
I love that quote from St Francis of Assisi, one of my favourite ones. I also join you in this belief:
“charity to permit all voices an audience and to see all people and opinions as typical of a diverse community striving towards love and health.”
Thank you!
In Philippians, one of the least contested of all the Pauline corpus, Paul says, “Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you.” This reveals a charitable attitude towards those of differing ideas. It is naive to think that the New Testament represents a uniform and monolithic theological position. And even though Paul and other New Testament writers, as well as the Early Church Fathers, used polemical language, it was used to address and challenge ideas AMONG them, not “out there” in the world.
Fishon,
Listening and hearing are two different things. Giving someone space to speak and having a dialogue, a conversation is different to “following what they preach”. And even if you do have a conversation and an attentive ear to other people and to what they believe.. Do you think if you let someone tell what they believe or think that people are so weak, that you or me, is so weak we would instantly just follow that person? We are not worth much then. People need to be thought to exercise their brain, and you really do need to give people more credit! I may be (am) a child of God, a woman even (shock horror!) but that doesn’t mean I am a brainless chick(en) who needs to be over-protected.
Sometimes people who are different from us can teach us new things and make our lives richer. God isn’t the sole property of Christians. He created us ALL in here planet Earth. He welcomes the prodigal son. He lets the sun rise to both good and evil, and to my knowledge it says in the Bible that where there is Love, there He is. LOVE isn’t the sole property of Christians. Hence we can learn a lot from people who do not necessarily share our beliefs! And I think it is awesome of David to have openness, as many things in the Church today are just traditions of men – we need to always be open and seeking God first and foremost – not the church tradition. A lot in the ways we do church or have been brought up to think etc. NEED to be challenged even. It’s really not all of God! Christians DON’T (necessarily) have it all right.
With regard to giving space to speak an image came to my head. In times gone by (or maybe still) the King/Queen used to have a time for his/her subjects to have space to bring things to his/her attention or speak up about something. The King gave them a space to speak. The possibility to be heard. (Actually they have this still in the Saudi Kingdom, I saw it in a BBC documentary) It did not mean he/she would do everything the people asked or grant all their wishes! But they were given space to be heard! Their experiences, thoughts and voice were honoured. (and is honoured)
We all have the right to speak. Others make up their mind then whether they agree or not.
Do we not have room for negotiation in our brain? Only the faith that is tested and stands through fire is pure, isn’t that right?
Think about it this way. If the back end of your faith has a potential Hell in it, why would you want any dissenting or differing opinions. It would be much safer to ensure that no one could possibly change your mind. I understand perfectly where Fishon is coming from.
If we are so insecure of what we believe that we cannot even discuss our faith with people who believe differently – then we have no faith worth discussing. Paul sat on Mars Hill and discussed his faith in Jesus with allcomers. And he did this respectfully, using the paradigme of his hearers to present his case. Christ followers need to get out of our religious circles and sit with the mystics, the agnostics and the like, and listen respectfully, and offer our faith with compassion and love. Perhaps then we might have the space to be heard.
You know, as a non believer (former believer) I am often unsure why I feel the way I do toward Christians and / or Christianity. It is difficult, I guess, to self diagnose the causes or influences of ones opinions and beliefs. After all, if I think I am right, how can I convince myself that I am wrong?
I disagree with much of what David believes concerning one thing, God. But this is mainly, or only because of one single difference – I don’t believe God exists. That’s all.
But I have much respect for him and I admire his attitude immensely.
I have known him pretty much exclusively through his blog, and a few emails, and one little water-colored winter scene I purchased from him a couple years ago. I check his blog everyday, a couple times a day, and getting to know him has been helpful in my recognizing certain…undesirable?…attitudes that I display from time to time, as I deal with the Christians in my life, and as I contemplate God, Jesus, etc.
As I read this post, I could see in David’s attitude, something that I desperately want others to see in me. Since I left the faith back in 2000, I have gradually gotten more ?militant? in my attitude toward Christians. At times, I am sure that, to them, I am a “fundamentalist atheist”. I was a “fundamentalist Christian”, so perhaps this is not surprising. Let’s just say I am passionate.
But, what I am discovering in me, and as I observe in others, is that “passion” for ones beliefs can be rather unattractive.
I know very little about Jesus. I know what the bible says about him, but that doesn’t really help me much, because I don’t know whether or not to trust everything the bible says. So, what to do?
All I can do is sit back and observe. I observe Christians on a regular basis, both in person and in the blogs. I find the attitude of most of the Christians I encounter to be…well…much like mine – undesirable. What that does is cause me to not want to get to know their Jesus.
Allow me to offer an example:
If you reread David’s post above, you find one who is probably as open-minded as is humanly possible, welcoming, non-combative, compassionate, willing to listen…actually listen, and desperately wants to understand. Almost makes me feel like, if I could sit down with David and talk, even though he has beliefs (conclusions?) that differ from mine, he actually wants to understand what I believe (conclude?) and why. I often times have a mental picture of people interacting with me, and I can see in David, him and I sitting in the sun at the edge of a calm stream, talking, pausing, napping, laughing, and just getting to know what goes on in each others head.
That is the kind of Jesus I would like to get to know.
Now, if you reread fishons response to David’s post, you see a very different disposition (fishon, please do not take this as a personal attack. I know we have discussed attitudes before, and I still love you
What I see in his response is combative, critical, accusatory, and a letter-of-the-law mentality. It gives me a visual of sitting down low in the first pew as fishon is preaching from the KJV, pounding on the podium as he raises one hand high and calls down fire on all the heretics and apostates.
That is the kind of Jesus I would like to avoid.
I have often said that one of the main reasons I am no longer a believer is because of the attitudes of believers.
All this causes me to ask one question: Which Jesus is the real Jesus?
It causes me to wish that David’s Jesus was real.
All this causes me to ask one question: Which Jesus is the real Jesus?
Both.
“What I see in his response is combative, critical, accusatory, and a letter-of-the-law mentality. It gives me a visual of sitting down low in the first pew as fishon is preaching from the KJV, pounding on the podium as he raises one hand high and calls down fire on all the heretics and apostates.
That is the kind of Jesus I would like to avoid.
I have often said that one of the main reasons I am no longer a believer is because of the attitudes of believers.
All this causes me to ask one question: Which Jesus is the real Jesus?
It causes me to wish that David’s Jesus was real.”
Bob,
I believe that Fishon is standing up FOR JESUS. I believe that Fishon wants to preserve Jesus Christ as exactly what He is…the sole revelation of God, incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins.
Anyone is free to believe whatever else they want to about God. It just doesn’t belong on the Christian Church. I wouldn’t expect to be allowed to stay in a Jewish Synagogue if I kept getting up and talking about Jesus Christ being the only way to God. They’d have every right to throw me right out.
To stand up and defend Jesus, as given to us in the Bible, is not being judgmental, it is speaking the truth and making a stand.
Jesus Himself said, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Jesus knew the message of He, and He alone, being the One that the Father has sent, would not be popular. He didn’t come to be liked by all and be popular.
The message of Christianity is this, and it ain’t popular….’Jesus only’.
Steve, you probably can’t see it and I know I am not very good at explaining it, but it becomes blatantly obvious to me that fishon, and you, seem content to make sure that people:
a) know what you believe concerning Jesus.
b) know where you think they are wrong concerning Jesus.
c) know that you are not interested in understanding why they believe what they believe concerning Jesus.
Steve, if your attitude is an example of Jesus, why would I want to get to know Jesus?
That may not be important to you. You may not care how you are perceived by people who do not agree with you, but I feel the need to make sure you understand that if your attitude is an example of what a Christian attitude is, I would not want to be a Christian. If your attitude is a result of following Jesus, I don’t want to follow Jesus.
Does that make any sense?
I am not trying to insult you. I know that many millions of Christians have a similar attitude as you do. I just do not want to have that attitude.
As the old saying goes, people are less interested in knowing that you know, than they are in knowing that you care…or something like that.
Listening and hearing are two different things. Giving someone space to speak and having a dialogue, a conversation is different to “following what they preachâ€. And even if you do have a conversation and an attentive ear to other people and to what they believe.. Do you think if you let someone tell what they believe or think that people are so weak, that you or me, is so weak we would instantly just follow that person?
I don’t know whether this is true, but you don’t seem to know the power of words.
We are not worth much then.
And I’m glad that Jesus gave Himself up for those who don’t worth much like me, and not just intellectually powerful people like you.
People need to be thought to exercise their brain, and you really do need to give people more credit! I may be (am) a child of God, a woman even (shock horror!) but that doesn’t mean I am a brainless chick(en) who needs to be over-protected.
Of course, I agree with this, but there’s a difference between nurturing people to use their brains, and throwing them out to be bombarded to death. And if there’s anything I’ve learned through my own short ministry, is that when you have such radical ideas like these, you don’t just lay them out and after that leaving thinking you’ve done what you can do. You have the responsibility to see the implementation of these suggestions through. Should I assume you know how ugly things can turn out to be without this?
Sometimes people who are different from us can teach us new things and make our lives richer.
Agreed.
God isn’t the sole property of Christians.
Why yes. Rather, it’s the other way around. It’s the Christians who are the property of God.
He created us ALL in here planet Earth. He welcomes the prodigal son.
There’s a difference between a Creator, and a Father. Yes, He welcomes the prodigal son. The prodigal SON. I’m pretty sure you know it’s not a parable of the prodigal servant. One may be God’s creation, but not necessarily His son. One does not automatically becomes a son just because he’s a creation. Else, even a monkey’s His son!
He lets the sun rise to both good and evil, and to my knowledge it says in the Bible that where there is Love, there He is. LOVE isn’t the sole property of Christians.
Of course, love isn’t the sole property of Christians. Wait, which love are talking about? I know that Agape first came from the Father, and then to His children (Christians). “We love because He first loved us?” You can argue about how many Christians are not loving, but why should we be talking about people who seems to have never experience Christ but calling themselves Christians. And if we’re so loving, why should we bring them up and judging them?
Hence we can learn a lot from people who do not necessarily share our beliefs! And I think it is awesome of David to have openness, as many things in the Church today are just traditions of men – we need to always be open and seeking God first and foremost – not the church tradition. A lot in the ways we do church or have been brought up to think etc. NEED to be challenged even. It’s really not all of God! Christians DON’T (necessarily) have it all right.
Of course, if Christians got EVERY SINGLE THING right, it’ll be scary, not to mention intimidating, right??? And getting every single things right would prolly be the prohibitor to a life with Christ, not a catalyst. It’ll prolly only attract intellectuals and intellectual-wannabes who want to feel secure knowing that their facts are correct.
And what’s wrong with human traditions? God worked through and with human traditions from OT to NT times. All good things can be abused. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Wait, I’m sensing something very weird with what you wrote. You said we can learn a lot from people who do not necessarily share out beliefs. Then about David’s openness. Then about how the churches has a lot of “tradition of men.” If I connect them correctly, are you asking us to bring in non-Christians traditions and understanding of God into churches? Throwing out theology by Christians and bringing in theology by non-Christians. Hmm… Not that I would object tho, as long as they’re biblically sound.
With regard to giving space to speak an image came to my head. In times gone by (or maybe still) the King/Queen used to have a time for his/her subjects to have space to bring things to his/her attention or speak up about something. The King gave them a space to speak. The possibility to be heard. (Actually they have this still in the Saudi Kingdom, I saw it in a BBC documentary) It did not mean he/she would do everything the people asked or grant all their wishes! But they were given space to be heard! Their experiences, thoughts and voice were honoured. (and is honoured)
Heh, it didn’t really mattered whether people meant it or not, eh? As long as they appear to be so. I guess all one needs to do is to create an illusion where one’s right is upheld. Not suggesting that the people in your example are faking it though.
We all have the right to speak. Others make up their mind then whether they agree or not.
Prolly out of topic, but an interesting article about this, the part where it says “You have no right to an uninformed opinion.”
Do we not have room for negotiation in our brain? Only the faith that is tested and stands through fire is pure, isn’t that right?
Prolly out-of-topic again, but I never liked people who make an appeal that their listeners be open-minded about the things they say/about to say. I find these people hypocritical, because they are most probably the most closed-minded people in the room. Do as they say and they wouldn’t stop dumping stuff into your brain.
I’m sorry Steve. Apparently trying to make clear someone’s opinion to another person is not deemed as caring.
You failed.
People always say that Christians are very judgemental. From that very statement, it’s obvious that who’s being judgemental here.
So bob, I like you. I think you and I have something in common, and that is being judgemental.
zefi, I don’t think I made that statement, or used the word “judgemental” in my response, but somehow you seem to be connecting it to me. But yes, we all judge people by their attitudes. Is that wrong? I mean, that is what we all do as we interact with others, is it not?
I am not judging anyone’s genuineness, dedication, knowledge, even whether or not they are correct or right. What I am judging is their Jesus…(your Jesus?) by their attitude. Is that not what you want me to do? Don’t Christians want me to see the Jesus they believe in when I see them?
zefi, what do you think?
Can I ask, how do you think you did in your previous response? Is that the Jesus you wanted me to see?
People always say that Christians are very judgemental. From that very statement, it’s obvious that who’s being judgemental here.(Zefi)
The problem isnt your faith, the problem is you think everyone else will perish if they dont believe it. My judgement of Christianity isnt Jesus, its with the people who push it down others throats both emotionally and intellectually. You dont need to believe what I believe and you know what? You will be no worse for that belief, unfortunately you dont allow me the same, you will either imply I am a heathen or I will go to hell. Theres a big difference in Judgement, the problem is the Plank is much bigger in your eye.
Matthew 7:1-5
This just means you will get what you give. Judgement.
There is a time and a place for culture warriors, and some people are gifted with an attitude which mades them culture warriors. I mean that sincerely, and from the perspective that these are gifts from God. I would surmise that fishon and perhaps Steve Martin are a couple of these culture warriors. But not everyone is one, not every situation is ripe for one, and not every unbeliever (or former believer or heretic) is susceptible to culture warriors. When I was an unbeliever, I loved for culture warriors and Christians who thought they could argue me into the Kingdom of Heaven to engage me. Why? Because I knew (or at least thought) that I could refute all their arguments, and even when I could not, it did not bring me into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. Some it did and does–but not all. What brought me in was (1) people with a loving, Christ-like attitide and (2) those who would listen to me and engage me in spite of some of the flakey things I chose to believe. My point: there is room for both in the Christian community. Listening to other views and perspectives is not some heresy to be rooted out, but it does require some stability and confidence.
John Fariss
Bob,
Close…but not quite.
I do want people to know what I believe about Jesus. Absolutely right on that one. The part about letting people know where I believe they are mistaken about what scripture tells us about Jesus. Yeah, I’ll give you that one too. (although point ‘a’ and ‘b’ pretty much go hand in hand)
But point ‘c’ is not correct. I am interested in knowing why people believe what they believe. I am very interested. I just don’t believe that those differing views should be aired in a Christian church. The Church is for the preaching and teaching of the Word (God’s law and His gospel) and the administering of the sacraments. It’s not a forum for different views of God.
Zefi,
No pproblem, kiddo! It does not bother me that we don’t agree on everything…not at all. It doesn’t bother me that Bob and I don’t agree, either.
I, state the truth (as I see it and as I read it in Holy Scripture) and then I just let the chips fall where they may.
Thanks very much!
My goodness Steve, how many churches have you been in? “It’s not a forum for different views of God.” That’s exactly what the church is now. It always has been a place of different views of God. But how does one get to uniformity in belief without some kind of cleansing? Which, by the way, we are forbidden to do (tares and wheat, etc.). That’s God’s business, not ours.
I think that is wher the pastor comes in. The pastor needs to shepherd the faithful with repect to the beliefs of the Christian faith. There is truth and it is one truth. Not that we get it all right, all the time, but the story in scripture is a rescue story where God in Jesus Christ saves us from ourselves, the world, and the devil.
When we bring other saviors into the story, we are getting away from true faith. That is why the creeds were formulated and that is why the Church still uses them. They keep us grounded…anchored in Christ.
Wheat and tares…agreed…we cannot know who the real believers are. But we can know what their confessions are. If they are not confessing Christ…that’s fine…maybe they will hear something if they stick around. But if they are confessing another gospel (a different christ) then the pastor cannot allow them to stay and poison the rest of the flock. That would not be a loving thing to allow.
Thank you John Farris.
Attempting to refute Christian arguments is something I have reveled in for quite some time. Suddenly, I am seeing it as such a waste of time and effort. Not the “throw my hands up in frustration” kind of revelation, but I am just coming to the point of realizing that, pointing out how much I disagree with someone, and why, is void of purpose and product. It accomplishes nothing.
I have felt for a long time that, if by my words, some Christian stopped believing, I would feel no joy as a result. I would actually feel sad. So, why do I continue to openly disagree with them? It is beginning to feel like a character flaw.
I am not sure what NP said that bothers a lot of people on this forum so much – he’s not really promoting anything we are not willing to do – listen to opposing viewpoints – that’s kind of a facet of living life if you ask me.
I really liked Bob’s comments – they strike at the heart of the conversation – this struggle for the interpretation of Jesus (who he is and what he taught). Isn’t this the quest Jesus posed to Peter at one point ‘who do people say that I am’? And we see, in our current times, this question is still relevant.
To me, the problem is about the content of what Jesus said and taught – some fall into the what people ’say’ is of more importance than what they ‘do’. I fall into the category of what people ‘do’ is the key component of what someone believes – from their inner thoughts come their outer behaviors. But what we have in churches is some terrible confusion on this issue – let me explain.
Churches hold doctrinal statements of so called ‘beliefs’ as key components of having faith in God…these include things like the bible is innerrant, God is a Trinity, Jesus is 1/2 man and 1/2 God, the virgin birth, etc. Those are not beliefs – not in the biblical sense of the term ‘belief’ – or if they are a form of belief they are disconnected from any relevance to you and I. None of these ’so called’ beliefs affect much of what you do with your life – knowing about a virgin birth won’t give you the tools to be a better parent – these ‘beliefs’ do not function like that – they are more suppositions about the character of God.
When one gets into the ‘meat’ of what Jesus taught in and throught those gospels – these are not hihglighted points of his personal message on the kingdom – Jesus never asks people – do you believe in the virgin birth – or that God is a trinity – those things are non-existent in his message for some odd reason (but they are core pieces of church doctrine in our current realm). One must ask – why are those doctrinal pieces so damn important – when in Jesus’ message they are either not found or on some backburner?
Jesus’ core message in most of the gospels is about ‘belief’ in God – but belief that means something – is tied to something – is shown in one’s actions. To refute this – one must rip out those pages of Jesus’ actual teachings that are very concerned with your actions towards others around you (and for the betterment of yourself). Jesus’ message can be summed up very simply:
Repent – change your behavior – you have been given this ability
For the kingdom of heaven/God – there is a core amount of teachings to help guide your process of change – things to live/abide by
Is at hand – The time is now for that change – one need not look further than these teachings is they want some change in direction (here and now)
How else do you explain pretty much all of Matthew which is dedictaed to teachings on dealing with one’s life – ideas for change? From the sermon on the mount to the parables – these things are teachings on the kingdom of God to be enacted here and now – for change in our personal endeavors (or direction/guidance). Those things I am fairly sure God does care about – summed up simply in – ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ or ‘treat others how you want/desire to be treated’. Those are the core beliefs of Jesus – he even states that quite clearly when discussing them (as summations on Torah and Propherts).
Who is Jesus – we must ask this again and again? Jesus was the messiah (according to himself and his followers – an authoritarial voice) that taught on the kingdom of God (principles of guidance that God seems to approve of) for the betterment of humanity (concern for one another is core to his teachings). Beyond that we can get speculate on who and what about God – but even these sentences do not matter as much as ‘what you do with you are taught’.
To me, Jesus is solidly a great teacher of Torah and Prophets – offering guidance and building people’s faith in God – and this can only be done as we exercise the teachings and allow them to become ‘flesh’ (live them out in our lives). I would ask anyone to read through those gospels and tell me what I am saying is not close to the mark – you wil felt you have been taught by a ‘rabbi’ (teacher) – and he’s offering guidance on principles from a place where God exists.
john fariss,
What is a “culture warrior? Seriously, I do not have a clue.
YOU: When I was an unbeliever, I loved for culture warriors and Christians who thought they could argue me into the Kingdom of Heaven to engage me.
—–If that is your definition of a ‘culture warrior,’ then that ain’t me. I NEVER, NEVER, engage anyone in a religious conversation unless they ask me first. NEVER! Why?
Because it is impossible to “argue” anyone into heaven. And I try and live by 1 Pet. 3:15, “…who ASKS you to give a reason….”
YOU: What brought me in was (1) people with a loving, Christ-like attitide and (2) those who would listen to me and engage me in spite of some of the flakey things I chose to believe.
——Then you would not have had a problem with me. You won’t believe, well maybe you would, some of the flakey things that some of the folks in the church I pastor believe, and I listen to.
YOU: Listening to other views and perspectives is not some heresy to be rooted out, but it does require some stability and confidence.
—–Oh, I agree. But the problem with NP’s article, whether he meant it that way or not is that he seems to be opening up the door to things that the apostles warned against {paragraphs 4 & 5}. On a personal level, people need to be informed–but, and NP may not have meant it this way, but I took it that way, there is no room for teaching in the congregation by false prophets or false teachers.
Now you may not agree that it is dangerous and a stupid idea, but there are pastors that invite Muslims in to teach [under the guises of information] from their pulpits. That is dangers, and the apostles would not have allowed it.
And lastly, John, you will notice that NO ONE has answered Romans 16:17-18::::::::
17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.
***I didn’t write Romans, Paul did, so I go by his words, not what NP THINKS.
***Read 2 Pet. 2 and tell me if Peter is ok with allowing those “dogs” to teach in the
churches?
***Take a look at what Jesus, himself, told the Churches of Pergamum and Thyatira.
He even says in Rev. 2:20b, “You tolerate….” What does Jesus say he is going to
do to this person who was teaching against his Word? Not quite the same as
what NP would say.
Again, John, I didn’t write the words I have asked you to read. It is scripture.
fishon
Societyvs….
very good post…one of yr recent best I think ,as well as the others, ,who wd fall in behind or at least beside you with a more balanced and informed assessment of all the multiple stories to digest in our earliest traditions. Your respect for the authentic voice of Jesus that is still to be found in and under the multiple layers of the synoptics strikes the right note against those whose view is characterized by PAUL LARGE and everything else ,a pale footnote. Obviously, Paul was a force to be reckoned with, but as David suggested,his use of polemics,not to mention the recently (40 yrs)discovered art of ancient rhetoric help us to place his words in the category of particular and avoid the generalities of “one size fits all”This is important stuff to consider when trying to make sense of an apostle that wished castration on some,while preaching a gospel of love to all the world. Imagine ,for a minute,Mother Teresa saying that to a dying leper in her arms.Different times call for differnt measures.
faithlessinfatima,
Paul wanted to make known his antipathy for those who would willingly lead people to hell. For those that would put people under the yoke of slavery again (the law), that (castration) might be a fitting punishment. In reality, I think the punishment for leading people away from Christ might be a whole lot worse. They might wish that they had never been born.
What’s all the fuss about? Jesus Christ…that’s what. People just don’t want Him, or they want their version of Him. They can’t stand the idea that God has decided to reveal Himself in one way and one way only.
This is why it is important to not let those that would lead people away from the all sufficient Christ and into some morphed ‘a lttle bit of me and a little bit of Jesus’ replacement theology.
It matters. Otherwise God would not have gone to the cross. He would have just lined us all up and compared our good works or just said, Oh what the hey, it doesn’t matter what you believe all can enter the Kingdom.” That would have been a whole lot easier than being staked to wood and left to die.
Steve…thx for the contextual reminder,but it doesn’t take away from my point of Paul’s use of rhetoric in his defense of his gospel or his polemic. As well,let’s not forget, the influence of Paul’s belief in the imminent return of jesus and how that wd colour his language . Also,if yr familiar with conservative scholar,Luke Timothy Johnson,the allusion to the dynamics of ancient rhetoric can be found in his writings/lectures on Paul.
“the idea that God has decided to reveal Himself in one way and one way only”
I think we differ in that I’m trying to ask questions about theology and it’s development and yr echoing Paul’s polemic.Let’s take SocietyVs’s cue and ponder what we find in a small sliver of the synoptics, with respect to The Virgin Birth
1)The first gospel-Mark(65-70AD)-no birth narrative-the story starts with John’s baptism
2)Matthew and Luke(70-90AD), using Mark as one of their sources ,have birth narratives,but Luke ,coming after Matthew, is far more elaborate.Including Mark, it’s like the difference between a cabin,a bungalow and a mansion.
Contrast this with John’s gospel(90-100)-like Mark,no birth narrative ,but no mere human either and we’ve moved up and out of the old neighbourhood …nothing less than the pre existent Word which is one with God.Now,that’s a serious leap in real estate.Does this not suggest development rather than the monolithic thud of a “faith once given”?
No doubt there are differing narratives. But all say that he was the One.
That people think that is a bit limiting, is nothing new.
Christ Himself knew He was a problem for many, and told us that would also be a problem for us (those that proclaim Him and Him alone)
I’m not one that believes that the Bible was dropped from Heaven with a bow on it. It is strictly a product of man and of God…like the sacraments…like Jesus Himself.
Jesus Christ is the great stumbling block. He always was and always will be. But the Church ought not stumble over Him but hold onto Him for all we’re worth.
Thanks very much, Faithlessinfatima!
This is sort of related…
http://extranos.blogspot.com/2008/12/fullfool-or-many-gospels.html
Interesting post.
Bob:
You are a passionate guy and that is good. When you were a believer you were passionate and now that you are not a believer you are passionate. Don’t be discouraged by the different responses of believers. A person’s greatest asset is their greatest liability depending on the circumstances. So, the quiet, reserved person will have the best response in some circumstances but no hutzpah when it is necessary and vice versa for the passionate person.
As far as God is concerned, I believe he wants me to serve Him by remaining silent sometimes. This is difficult for me. Like you, I am passionate and I like to debate. Sometimes, that is not a good thing. I am trying to be sensitive as to which demeanor is best and when. But there are times when “speaking up” is necessary and often Christians will not do it for fear of being disliked. This is not a good thing either. After all, Jesus was not liked. If you are doing Christianity correctly then someone is not going to like you.
Now, David and fishon have different delivery styles but that does not negate the importance of the debate happening on this post. You may not react well to fishon where others react well to him. I think anyone who likes to look at the issues will disregard the delivery style and look at the merits of the points of the arguments.
The problem isnt your faith, the problem is you think everyone else will perish if they dont believe it. My judgement of Christianity isnt Jesus, its with the people who push it down others throats both emotionally and intellectually. You dont need to believe what I believe and you know what? You will be no worse for that belief, unfortunately you dont allow me the same, you will either imply I am a heathen or I will go to hell.
So, let me ask you a question. You don’t believe that you’re a sinner, in need of saving? And I’m sorry about people like me who push it down other people’s throat. We just didn’t realise that we’re wasting our time. We just didn’t know that you preferred superficial Christians who said that they love you but preferred not to make you uncomfortable by not telling you about the Saviour.
Theres a big difference in Judgement, the problem is the Plank is much bigger in your eye.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realise that you would be able to notice mine when you’re having the same thing.
No pproblem, kiddo! It does not bother me that we don’t agree on everything…not at all. It doesn’t bother me that Bob and I don’t agree, either.
Ah, dearest Steve, I’m sorry you didn’t see the sarcasm in my remark. I was actually defending you!
zefi, I don’t think I made that statement, or used the word “judgemental†in my response, but somehow you seem to be connecting it to me.
Ah, I thought the reason was obvious. I’m sorry it wasn’t. It’s a wonder that you can ask such a question and still say “Attempting to refute Christian arguments is something I have reveled in for quite some time.“. Bad attempts maybe. Anyway, I accused you of being judgemental because of this:
and this
and this
Can I ask, how do you think you did in your previous response? Is that the Jesus you wanted me to see?
Of course that is the Jesus I wanted you to see. You’re not comfortable with my previous response? If I am the reflection of my God, I thought that’s how you’d like me to be. I stooped low to your level, and identified with you. Is that not enough?
And whoever told you that I’m a Christian? Just like you, and many of the other “bad Christians,” I might actually just a Churchian, or a Christianitarian.
You said you were a believer. Believer of what? Am I right to say that you believe in Christianity rather than the Christ? And you said that one of the main reason you stopped “believing” was because the attitude of believers. And you said that you know that many millions of Christians having the same attitude as Fishon, and that’s putting you off.
I have no qualms about you not believing, (or as you say, not anymore) but I feel indignant over something else. I’m angry over the fact that you are not willing to take responsibility of your own decision to not be a Christian (or Churchian or Christianitarian) but instead to blame the “million of Christians” for it.
No, I’m not angry for the fact that you said it’s our fault. I’m angry that you’re trying to pass this ridiculous argument hoping that we’d be simple minded to swallow it.
How about the millions of Christians with good attitude, who’s out there sacrificing their lives for others, showing such genuine love even to the point of death? Amazing these people’s attitude is not good enough a reason for you.
The #1 thing I can never swallow is bad logic and bad argument, and that is what you’re throwing at us. And no, this I-can’t-take-bad-logic attitude is not from Christ. It’s from my training in science and engineering.
I don’t know if this is on purpose, but the part about “I thought Christians are supposed to act so and so, with this and that behaviour” is plain blackmail and manipulative.
And I don’t know whether you realised it or not, but when you said what you said, you’re actually telling God, “Well, I wanted to know you and be part of the family, but no thanks. Your kids suck.” or that you’re actually telling Jesus, “Well, I wanted you to be my friend and brother, but I think your other siblings are worthless. Thanks, but no thanks.”
So, please do not confuse yourself. When you rejected the Christian God, you should realise that it’s between you and Him. Don’t use us as excuses. It’s plain lame.
Zefi,
Sorry about that! And thanks!
Sometimes I read too fast (or skip… bad dog!) And then I look like an idiot! (hey…if the shoe fits!)
You did a marvelous job of stripping away the veneer of piety (of others) in your last comment and exposing the problem that some people have with God.
I, for one, do tire of hearing how much the church stinks. Where else are we to go?
The culture? Talk about stench!
Thanks again, Zefi!
I’m sorry, I didn’t realise that you would be able to notice mine when you’re having the same thing. (Zefi)
I know Im judging you, Im using Matthew, For as you judge, so shall you be judged. As far as liking superficial Christians, I never implied that. I prefer Human beings who see themselves as inherently good, not inherently bad.
Wow zefi. Not sure where to begin here.
bob said – zefi, I don’t think I made that statement, or used the word “judgemental†in my response, but somehow you seem to be connecting it to me.
zefi said – Ah, I thought the reason was obvious. I’m sorry it wasn’t. It’s a wonder that you can ask such a question and still say “Attempting to refute Christian arguments is something I have reveled in for quite some time.“. Bad attempts maybe. Anyway, I accused you of being judgemental because of this:
zefi, if you notice, I went on to admit that I am judgemental, just like everyone else. So pointing out all these instances where I am judgemental was rather useless, don’t you think, since I had already admitted to exercising judgement?
zefi said – Of course that is the Jesus I wanted you to see. You’re not comfortable with my previous response?
It has nothing to do with “comfort”.
zefi said – I stooped low to your level, and identified with you. Is that not enough?
My level? Is that intellectual, spiritual, financial, social? I have no idea what my level is compared to yours, so your “stooping” is lost on me.
zefi said – And whoever told you that I’m a Christian? Just like you, and many of the other “bad Christians,†I might actually just a Churchian, or a Christianitarian.
Just an assumption. Was I wrong?
zefi said – You said you were a believer. Believer of what? Am I right to say that you believe in Christianity rather than the Christ?
No, you would be wrong. I was a believer in, and a follower of Jesus the Christ, the one spoken of in the New Testament.
zefi said – I have no qualms about you not believing, (or as you say, not anymore) but I feel indignant over something else. I’m angry over the fact that you are not willing to take responsibility of your own decision to not be a Christian (or Churchian or Christianitarian) but instead to blame the “million of Christians†for it.
zefi, please allow me to make my point clear: I hold no one “responsible” for my rejection of Christianity. There is no one who “caused” me to stop believing. It was a decision I came to over many years. I do not consider my leaving the faith as a bad thing. I am glad I left. And when I point to all those Christians that may have (inadvertantly) helped influence me to give up my faith, I am just saying that they really were no different than anyone else. They did not give any evidence (IN THEIR LIVES) that the God (Jesus) that they believed in, had any influence over them. Just like you. I do not know you outside of what little we have discussed here the past couple days. But in what I have read, I see absolutely no evidence that there is or was any kind of supernatural transformation in you as a person.
I guess what I am trying to say is this: If the creator of the Universe, the one and only God, all powerful and all knowing, is living inside of you, zefi, shouldn’t I see some kind of difference, some kind of “goodness” that is not present in, say, myself? But I don’t see it. You are not much different than me. You have your opinions, your judgmental attitudes. You obviously get riled rather easily and have no problem displaying what some might call “righteous indignation” at my honesty.
So, rather than blame or accuse you, and other believers, for my leaving the faith, I am simply saying that you and other believers just help(ed) to foster doubt in my mind that God is real.
I hope that makes my point clear. I am not trying to insult you. I am just trying to say that I really see little or no difference between you and I, other than our beliefs. Your beliefs don’t seem to make you a “better” person, and my lack of beliefs don’t seem to make me a “worse” person.
zefi said – No, I’m not angry for the fact that you said it’s our fault. I’m angry that you’re trying to pass this ridiculous argument hoping that we’d be simple minded to swallow it.
I do hope that my comments above clear up your notion that I was saying it is your fault. I don’t fault anyone.
zefi said – How about the millions of Christians with good attitude, who’s out there sacrificing their lives for others, showing such genuine love even to the point of death? Amazing these people’s attitude is not good enough a reason for you.
I am not quite sure who you are talking about, so I can’t comment.
zefi said – The #1 thing I can never swallow is bad logic and bad argument, and that is what you’re throwing at us.
I don’t know what I have said that is illogical.
zefi said – I don’t know if this is on purpose, but the part about “I thought Christians are supposed to act so and so, with this and that behaviour†is plain blackmail and manipulative.
I have to assume that I really upset you. All I have done here is be honest. Of course, I realize honesty is sometimes best kept to ones self. This is probably one of those times that I should have just read, and kept my fingers off the keyboard.
zefi said – And I don’t know whether you realised it or not, but when you said what you said, you’re actually telling God, “Well, I wanted to know you and be part of the family, but no thanks. Your kids suck.†or that you’re actually telling Jesus, “Well, I wanted you to be my friend and brother, but I think your other siblings are worthless. Thanks, but no thanks.â€
I see it another way. I was not telling God anything because I just stopped believing in his existence. Why would I, or how could I say something to him, as you point out, when I no longer believed in him? Is your point really logical?
zefi said – So, please do not confuse yourself. When you rejected the Christian God, you should realise that it’s between you and Him. Don’t use us as excuses. It’s plain lame.
I could offer my opinion, but I think I will just be repeating myself.
Let me just say, I don’t hate Christians. I am in love with, and have been dating a Christian lady for almost four years.
My mother is a Christian. I love her so much. One of the finest ladies alive.
I can think of several Christians who I knew when I was a bible believer, who were such wonderful examples of what a loving and caring person is.
But I also knew Christians who disappointed me with their selfishness and hatefulness. And I then began to find people who were not Christians, who were also extremely compassionate, caring, and generous, and of course, some who were just plain old mean.
So, what I have found is this: other than beliefs, there really is little difference between those who believe and those who didn’t. Those who believe that they have the Holy Spirit living in them are really no different than those who don’t believe the Holy Spirit exists.
In our day to day lives, going to work, eating out, shopping at the mall, talking to the mailman, I am guessing to the outside observer, they probably would not be able to tell much difference between zefi and bob.
That is all that I was trying to say.
Dear fishon,
I didn’t mean to insult you, and if you took it that way, please accept my apology.
By “culture warrior,” I mean someone who takes on culture–generally the one in which they live/minister–and do so as though the culture is an enemy. Now having said that, there are different approaches or styles. Some take a very combative stance, others are more laid back, but all understand their culture as an enemy to be conquored. Rev. Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, is often cited as an example of the classic “culture warrior.” There are others of course, but I cite him out of familiarity as I am a Southern Baptist myself. Something about the tone of your response to NP led me to believe that you so regard culture as the enemy. If I am wrong, please accept my appology.
At any rate, you and I seem to have gotten different things from NP’s entry. You seem (and again if I am wrong, apologies) to have heard him saying that church–or perhaps worship–is to be a forum for conflicting ideas and opinions about God and His revelation, therefore diluting the message of Jesus Christ with all sorts of semi- and full-blown heresies. I heard him saying that those of us in the church should be open to listening to conflicting opions/ideas (and some culture warriors will listen), BUT with the attitude that “I am not the repository of all truth” (or perhaps even to questioning if all of God’s truth in revelation is propositional) and therefore to be open to what is true regardless of its source. In this view, culture is not an enemy, but a medium in which unsaved people are trapped, or have trapped themselves (sort of a tar-baby situation).
Most of my ministry has been in troubled churches. One thing I have found in them is that dysfunctional congregations are often peopled by some folks who (1) have a bent towards control and (2) are spiritually immature no matter how long they have been Christians. Whether one is causal, whether one attracts the other, or if it is just coincidental, I do not know, but I have often found them together. And control people are not comfortable with conflicting opinions and views. I formerly served alongside a minister of music who had that perspective, and he believed he had to be at every meeting of most every group in the church in order to keep “chaos,” i.e., uncontrolled ideas, from errupting. I am not sugesting that everyone who worries about heresies in the church is a control freak, but there is (IMHO) an element of control at play in the unofficial “thought police” which many churches have. Unofficially, this is heard as comments like, “We’ve never done it that way before,” or “Old Rev. So-and-so (an idealized figure from the church’s past glory days) never had to do that to get people in and build up the congregation.” There is often (in such churches) an official group which serves the thought-police function, though of course, they do not go by that name. In such churches, there may a body, group, or committee which serves as a “permission denying” group. It may be an adminsitrative oversight committee, a pastor-parish relations committee, a vestry, a board of deacons, or some other official group, but they attempt to exercise control and keep the church’s doctrine “pure” by their standards, which can be quite narrow. This is the sort of thing I find frustrating and which I think NP does also, and very possibly it is more extreme than what you have encountered. My attitude is that you don’t have to accept everything that comes down the pike just by being open to listening to everything. And my “response” to your quotation of Romans 16: 17-18 is Acts 5: 34-39, “But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed them: ‘Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God’.”
Blessings,
John
John,
Nice response. I made a promise to Laura in another NP piece that I would refrain from postings until after Christmas. You can e-mail me at pastorkrew@hotmail.com and I will respond to your post.
Make it a great day.
fishon
“I would refrain from postings until after Christmas” (Fishon)
Now that fishon is gone I can reply to his comment and try to ‘rip’ him a new one (LOL) – but honestly – I am going to reply anyways.
“And lastly, John, you will notice that NO ONE has answered Romans 16:17-18::::::::
“I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.â€
I am not sure how this relates to NP’s post – unless he’s advocating on behalf of people that ‘cause division and teach contrary to the gospel’. Basically fishon, if you wanted to generically apply that idea – almost everyone on this blog could be included and yet you still converse with us. I would say the quotation is fairly straight-forward and I think you are mis-using it in some regards.
Paul is urging the people in Rome about others that want to cause division, put obstacles (like being circumcised for example) in people’s ways, or teach contrary to how Paul has taught them. (**Oddly enough Peter, James, John and Paul were teaching differently than one another in some places – see Galatians 2). Paul’s problem begins with people that want to divide the church – lead people from Paul’s message to another version of faith (likely the one that see’s Gentiles following the law and being circumcised as part of conversion).
Paul likely had little problem with hearing various views on life – he was Jewish – and a Pharisee at that. He knew of the Saducee’s and Herodians and the differences within Judaism in 1st century – and as a Pharisee – he was on the outside of that system. He also was well versed in Greek philosophy it would seem – so he heard that viewpoint – likely even studied it. NP is not saying anything different than Paul would have heard in his lifetime – and NP is not backing away from the gospel either (or his message to his congregation).
So what if we need to learn all the different persepctives from around the bloge – the world got smaller (more in touch with one another) or haven’t you noticed that? I need to know about Mormonism, Muslims, Deepak, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc…why? These are the people you are going to meet in multi-cultural America. Why not know something about their beliefs prior to meeting them? I see this as what NP is promoting – and I agree – I own copies of the Muslim, Jewish, and Mormon scriptures myself.
I am getting a more firm grasp of how you interptet certain passages to relate to a situation – what I call the ‘cut n paste’ technique. You have answered NP’s blog with passages from Romans, Peter, and Revelations – as if all those passages are making the same point…they are not. Revelations, when you read that passage, has to do with a ‘prophetess’ who is leading some believers into ‘actions’ of immorality – things that were ‘bad to do’ – then and now likely – point being – being led to immorality (which NP does not promote either in his blog).
When NP starts promoting ‘immorality’ (against the teachings of morality) – I’ll be the first one to criticize the teachings of NP – as of now – that hasn’t happened. His promotion of being open to hearing various viewpoints is absolutely fundamental to developing a well rounded view of life I am not sure why anyone would even disagree? In order to be a good judge (Matt 7:1-5) – one must also hear both sides of the story so they can weigh in with some measure of parity in their findings. NP is being just in this writing for hearing our various perspectives (my personal judgement/opinion).
If Christianity is ‘one-sided’ then its justice is also not ‘fair’. Scales are tipped and uneven – and need to be re-balanced for a more fair critique. I found I was this way for 6 years of my faith – within Christian denoms Evangelical and Charismatic in appeal – after leaving I was more open hearing the ‘whole’ story from all sides…then weighing in. Am I more balanced in my critiques – yes. But I didn’t get there by hearing only a certain type of Christian viewpoint.
Well said SocietyVs….you can go to the head of the class..well,mine anyway…a very thoughtful and well reasoned polemic,,,Bravo!
Thanks Fif – just weighing in on the issues at hand.
I read the majority of the posts above, however I started to get lost! All this quoting the Bible, discussing how to talk about Jesus and opinions bouncing back and forth is making my head spin. I am a person who has dealt with guilt and shame the majority of my life. I am not someone who was raised in the faith. I have been on the brink of emotional destruction in the last year. The one thing that has given me Faith, Grace and Peace has been people who have crossed my path and showed me how God does not deal in shame or even works. God will take me as I am, no need to know everything in the Bible or even do everything that my church says I have to do. It is incredible how Christ shows himself through other people. For that I am beyond grateful….
Fishon, you forgot to mention that it was a “promise” no one asked you to make. Please do not use my request for you to try to be pleasant once a week as a way to make yourself look like a victim and me the “bad guy”
Thanks
“make yourself look like a victim and me the “bad guy†(Laura)
‘Bad girl’ – its ‘bad girl’ – your a girl not a guy silly.
“I think it is crucial to listen to what Hitchens and Harris and Dawkins are saying.”
It is crucial to listen. It’s just as crucial to recognize where their arguments are simplistic, generalized, flawed, etc.
“I think it is necessary for me to listen to what science is saying.”
Science doesn’t “say” anything. Scientists say things. The universe reveals God. The Bible reveals God. Both are subject to interpretation. Interpretation is a human (and thus fallible) process. We should beware that our interpretation of either the universe (science) or the Bible (theology) doesn’t become so inflexibly dogmatic that it flies in the face of truth.
“Evolutionists. Mystics. New Agers. Universalists. Syncretists. Neo-Gnostics. Everyone.”
Sure. We need to listen to everyone. But not with our brains turned off.
Is there any other way to listen? And when I say we need to listen to them, I mean not to find their flaws but to hear the truth in what they are trying to communicate.
Laura,
You are not a/the bad guy and I am not a victim.
In fact, I have never been a victim in my life. I try to live by Victor Frankl’s saying:::
“There is one thing you can never take from me, and that is my freedom to choose how I will react to whatever you do to me.”
I have had many things said about me on this blog site–I have had a couple of folks hint that I should leave and one ask me to go. That doesn’t make them bad guys, and it doesn’t make me a victim.
By the way, instead of seeing you as the “bad guy,” many folks in this site would consider you a hero if you could shut me up for a week.
Well, we are in blizzard conditions here, so I think I will go take a nap.
MAKE IT a great day.
fishon
Again Fishon, wasn’t trying to shut you up. Just asked you to make a conscious decision to post one pleasant comment a week.
Why not just give it a go and see what happens?
SV- LOL! I’m aware of my gender. I just think “bad girl” has entirely different implication than the one I was trying to make.
I know – just thought I would try make you laugh
Dear fishon,
This is kind of wierd. If I want you to respond to my comment, e-mail you, because you promised someone else you wouldn’t respond to any more blogs until after Christmas–and this after responding to a blog and asking me fore a reply? I’m sure you don’t mean it that way, but it almost sounds kind of juvenile. Anyway, if you feel you need to answer me and don’t care to through this medium, feel free to e-mail me at pastor-john@comcast.net
Because He lives,
John Fariss
SV- you did!
Your quotations is an interesting one. Let me highlight certain interesting things so that they’re clearer:
Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing.
He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.
It seems to me Gamaliel was saying, if this division that these men brought was not of divine origin, someone would come and oppose them and have them removed.
Ops, bad tag. The above should be like this:
Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing.
After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.
It seems to me Gamaliel was saying, if this division that these men brought was not of divine origin, someone would come and oppose them and have them removed.
We can listen to find the truth they communicate, but sometimes the truth they think they are communicating is not truth.
Preference has nothing to do with facts. I’m glad for you, if you are able to find much goodness in yourself, while I, as much as I know myself, knows exactly how wretched a person I am.
Perhaps you do not require saving, but I do.
You, who are healthy do not need the Doctor. He is for the sick, like me.
God doesn’t help those who help themselves; He helps those who are helpless. But then again, that’s the God I came to know. I don’t know about yours.
Zefi, that sounds incredibly condescending. Just saying.
Well, before that you seemed to be requesting the proof of you being judgemental. You seem to say “where the hell did you get the idea of me being judgement from the things I said???” or something like that. Now, asking for a proof of being judgemental and confessing of being judgemental is two different issues altogether.
Oh well, then I apologize for mistaking the sentence as a request for proof.
It seems like we have a confusion here. My bad. I expect you to understand what I meant by “believe” since you said you’re an ex-Christian. You said that you were a believer in, and was a follower of Jesus the Christ, the one spoken of in the NT. Now, if I’m correct, what you meant is that you subscribed to the idea that there’s this real, historical Fella, God incarnate, died for the sins of mankind, conquered death and rose again on the third day. If so, that was not my question.
Believing in Jesus Christ is not like believing there is a 10th planet in the Solar System. It’s like believing in your dad, or mom, or George W. Bush. I’m asking whether you’ve experienced Jesus, that you’ve “met” Him. Gosh, I hope I didn’t sound like an occult.
You said you don’t blame anyone, and then you go on saying all these things. Bob, a rose by any other name is still a rose.
But then, whatever you say Bob, whatever you say.
I think you guessed wrongly what you’re trying to say. From the moment I read your reply to Steve’s very polite reply, I knew you’re not looking for any “proof of exceptional, very different goodness.” If you forgot how you replied him, scroll up.
I don’t know much about you, but from the very little that you wrote, you only read what people wrote the way you want to read it, which is of course not a bad thing in itself. The issue is, no matter how one replies, whether politely and patiently and lovinly like how Steve did, or judgementally and provocative like mine, you’d still label us as undesirable and “the proof that Christianity did not change the world for the better(this is a hyperbole).” And again, if you forgot how you replied him, scroll up.
There’s one thing I think you’re ACTUALLY, REALLY looking for in a Christian is tolerance. In certain areas, fine. But in other areas where 1+1 is =2, tolerance is ridiculous, because 1+1 is =2 even if you want it to be 3. If you find this sentence confusing or irrelevant to you, then don’t bother. If you get it, you get it. If you don’t, you don’t. That’s the least of tolerance I’m able to show.
Should I assume that you know it was an analogy?
I didn’t say that you hate Christians. Did I even implied that? I hope I didn’t. If I did, I’m sorry. I don’t want to be putting words into your mouth.
Of course there would be no difference between those who believe in the idea that they have the Holy Spirit living in them, and those who don’t believe in the idea. There is only REAL difference in those who ACTUALLY have the Holy Spirit in them. Believing yourself to be an immortal won’t make you one. (another analogy)
If you’re really serious about looking for real Christians whose lives were changed by the Holy Spirit, don’t bother looking for them on the internet or your previous church (since you seem to imply that you hardly find a convincing specimen there). If this Christianity thing is truly life-changing, do you think these changed people would still waste their time hanging around here? They’ll be doing serious work in this badly-stricken world! Do you think they have time for the internet??? Okay, maybe a few. But the rest would be us bad, so-called-Christians-but-don’t-seem-to-be-any-different-from-you to entertain you and to rough you up.
Hey, you want to be convinced of a life-changing Christianity? You’re looking at all the wrong places.
If you want to be convinced, start researching. Well, only if you REALLY want to be convinced.
Anyway, amidst the disagreements and all, I BELIEVE that you’ve learned something today, that you were a Christianitarian like me, and not a Christian.
Be specific David, which part?
The one where I said I’m sick?
Or the part where I said the God that I came know is one who defends the helpless?
Or simply for the fact that I was being factually intolerant?
Your comment about yourself seems to place yourself firmly in what you believe is the correct theological position and the other outside of it.
But I learned that from you.
Zefi,
.)
fishon
Zefi,
Re: your 12/20 5:25 comment, it looks to me as though you are making some leaps of logic here. If Gamaliel meant that what these men promoted, “was not of divine origin, someone would come and oppose them and have them removed,” which you seem to suggest means “kill,” why did’nt Gamaliel draw that specific conclusion? He didn’t, and only said that if what they proposed was of human origin, it would fail, and if of divine origin, “you” would find yourself strrieving against God. I hesitate to go where you went. Maybe I am reading too much into your answer, but you seem to be saying that if someone is opposing God, “someone” has a duty and responsible to step into the fray and “oppose” them. Of course then, we get into the whole issue of how you know something is opposed to God. Some things are obvious–if one advocates for instance something in opposition to the clear teaching of the Bible, such as that murder is good, that compassion is evil, or extramarital sex is permissible; but some other matters are less clear, such as which political party is on God’s side, or whether consuming beverage alcohol in moderation. What exactly did you mean?
John
Whoops–the next to last sentence should have been, “Some things are obvious–if one advocates for instance something in opposition to the clear teaching of the Bible, things like that murder is good, that compassion is evil, or extramarital sex is permissible; but some other matters are less clear, such as which political party is on God’s side, or whether consuming beverage alcohol in moderation is a sin. It is when Christians get (or appear to get) dogmatic over such debatable matters that all Christians get villified, and often loose credibility with the unsaved.”
John
Zefi
If youre such a piece of shit, why not just kill yourself and hurry up and get to heaven?
WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DO NOT DO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is so NOT cool titfortat!!!!!!
My, my. I troubled myself finding a less extreme word and finally decided to use the word “removed,” and here someone’s saying that I seem to suggest a “killing” (should I assume you meant physically?) Correct me if I’m wrong, but when you questioned why he didn’t draw that specific conclusion, did you actually meant why he didn’t state it explicitly? If that’s what you meant, well, I don’t know. Maybe it’s not a state-level speech competition?
What I was trying to address was YOUR leap of logic. Or so I thought. I interpreted your intention at quoting that verse as saying, “Don’t oppose these people. If they’re wrong, they will just fall away without anyone opposing them.” And that is not true, because those people fell away partly because someone took to task to oppose them.
But now that I re-read it, either I misinterpreted what you’re trying to say, or you’ve quoted the wrong verse as a response to Fishon’s. Romans 16:17 talks about avoidance, and Gamaliel seems to imply the same thing. Seems like your verse is supporting Fishon’s argument, or was that your intention all along?
Oh, cool down Laura. Either someone’s using his nick, or he’s just showing his very true colours, or he’s just testing me, seeing how I would react. Let’s just give him the benefit of doubt, shall we?
My, my. What interesting logic you have. So, just because I know I’m wretched, I’m a piece of shit? Is that the result of the “elitist” mentality of “I prefer Human beings who see themselves as inherently good, not inherently bad,” that whosoever cannot see themselves as such should “kill themselves [and hurry up and get to heaven]?”
Well, perhaps you’re right. Perhaps I’m a piece of shit. If so, I’m grateful all the more that God should come to save a piece of shit like me. That is the other half of the story I’ve yet to tell. And I never knew how glad I am to not having to live in a humanistic society. Today, I do.
I just hope that you don’t go around telling people, “if you think you’re bad, you might as well go and die!” Please spare my future brothers and sisters.
Wretched, piece of shit……..Semantics
I just hope that you don’t go around telling people, “if you think you’re bad, you might as well go and die!†(Zefi)
I only say that to the people who think that their life is wretched and they “know” that it gets better when they die.
I will wish you a merry christmas though.
zeif said – Believing in Jesus Christ is not like believing there is a 10th planet in the Solar System. It’s like believing in your dad, or mom, or George W. Bush. I’m asking whether you’ve experienced Jesus, that you’ve “met†Him.
You are asking me if I have “met” and “experienced” Jesus, in the past, when I claimed to have been a believer? The only reason I use the term “believer” is because when I use the term “Christian” to describe my past, some Christians accuse me of never having been a “true” Christian. Of course, some may accuse me of never having “truly” believed, but I tend to get less of that than when I say I am a former Christian.
Anyway, I am getting the feeling that I am on the verge of being told that I was not what I thought I was (a “true” Christian).
I can answer your questions. No, I never “met” Jesus, nor did I ever “experience” Jesus. But…BUT…when I was a believer, I was confident that I had met and experienced Jesus. Now though, as I look back, and since I no longer believe it is possible to experience or meet a man who died 2,000 years ago, I now understand that what I thought was “experience” was instead, emotions and faith.
zefi said – There’s one thing I think you’re ACTUALLY, REALLY looking for in a Christian is tolerance. In certain areas, fine. But in other areas where 1+1 is =2, tolerance is ridiculous, because 1+1 is =2 even if you want it to be 3.
Your analogy is lost on me. You will have to be specific if you are going to want me to believe that I have ever wanted you to ignore mathematical certainties.
zefi said – If you’re really serious about looking for real Christians whose lives were changed by the Holy Spirit, don’t bother looking for them on the internet or your previous church (since you seem to imply that you hardly find a convincing specimen there).
Please tell me where I need to look? I live in a small town in southwestern Virginia, USA. Where am I to start?
zefi said – If this Christianity thing is truly life-changing, do you think these changed people would still waste their time hanging around here? They’ll be doing serious work in this badly-stricken world! Do you think they have time for the internet???
I have no idea.
zefi said – Okay, maybe a few. But the rest would be us bad, so-called-Christians-but-don’t-seem-to-be-any-different-from-you to entertain you and to rough you up.
?
zefi said – Anyway, amidst the disagreements and all, I BELIEVE that you’ve learned something today, that you were a Christianitarian like me, and not a Christian.
Actually, I was a Christian, not a “Christianitarian”. I don’t know what that is.
ok guys !…line up for foot-washin’
Zefi. ok…I’ll chill. I just really, really, really, really hate the idea of anyone killing themselves. and for someone to actually tell someone, joking or not, to do that, is just assine to me. Completely unacceptable in every circumstance. EVER…it shoud never be tolerated.
that’s me chilled on this subject by the way.
Of course it gets better when we die. But I think it’ll be such a waste to miss the process of getting there. It’s not any less beautiful than the destination.
I’m just glad I’m not your kid. But then again, I don’t think you’ll ever want a kid like me. Heh. But even if out of your compassion and kindness that you would actually accept me, I don’t fancy having my dad one day telling me, “If you’re such a piece of shit, why not just kill yourself and hurry up and get to heaven?”
Believe it or not, but I can certainly identify with that! Coming from a Chinese culture that would bow down to anything that would prolly provide good things, what you just described seems like something I’m very familiar with. It’s almost like an imaginative friend, aye?
So, what you’re saying is, much more than other Christians not showing persuasive proof of lives changed from an encounter with Jesus, it is the lack of change in your own even after feeling confident that you’ve met and experienced Him that caused you to decide to stop believing? Or there has been changes in your life after you became a Christian, but you found out that these can easily be explained away?
Well, I don’t know. I guess it was just me being delusional. There’s prolly no millions of Spirit-filled and Spirit-changed Christians. No such people in the underground churches in Communist countries, no addicts who turned a new leaf after encountering Jesus (miraculously, though to what extent this has to be, to be accepted as a convincing proof by you is unknown), no news site links of such things, nothing! Well, let’s not talk about those Koreans who went to Afghanistan and got themselves abducted. That’s just sheer naivety, and that’s not the kind of proof you’re looking for, aye?
?