Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad

Thread: Purgatory: Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001007

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

So spoke Orwell as the animals took over the farm. I submit that there is a religious equivalent. "Jesus good, Church bad." This dichotomy sets the present against the past, the individual against the community, freedom against responsibility. Arguably, modern technocratic post-Christian cultures are built on this dichotomy and couldn't exist without it. So, how do we rehabilitate the Church in our thinking or is this article in the Creed still a step too far for many ...

"I believe in one holy, catholic apostolic Church ...."

[ 27. February 2006, 22:39: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :

The thing is --Fr. Gregory - what is the "church"? Everyone has different ideas of what it consists of. And I don't find this necessarily a bad thing.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

For the purposes of this OP I shall define the Church as a Christian community that is the necessary context for my claim to be a Christian. In other words, I am deliberately opting for a reductionist negative. A person is not a Christian if he or she practically (not theoretically) rejects the Church absolutely (not relatively).

Posted by Pure as the Driven Yellow Snow (# 9397) on :

My understanding of 'God is love' is relational. The Trinity is relational. The church is a necessity, as we are designed to be relational. With humanity as well as God. Having made that statement, I would concede that for some online communication is church. Going to the pub can be church. I think the statement "Jesus good, Church bad." is inherently false; The church is one means to get to know Jesus better, for a whole swag of reasons.

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

I have no difficulty with this element of the creed, so long as it is accepted that the `catholic apostolic church' is something we need to move towards, not something we are in danger of falling away from. For a (small-c) catholic church to truly exist, it must be genuinely universal. To be universal it must be capable of accomodating, and be willing to learn from, people whose views lie more than two standard deviations from the mean of mainstream opinion.

In my view, the problem is that too many people think that `The Church' was complete and fully formed around 325CE, and has been falling apart ever since. I think the opposite -- that with hard work, luck, and God's grace we will establish the universal church sometime around 3000 CE [Smile]

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :

Fr. Gregory, would be alright if I added something to this thread?

I wanted to post this on another thread -- that sometimes us churchless people can seem really negative about church and I'm sorry for that.

I was hoping that people who love the church or are involved in some way could share some experiences of how their faith was strengthened or how going to church positively affects their faith. If this has been anyone's experience, perhaps it could add to this discussion.

[ 01. February 2006, 07:33: Message edited by: Joyfulsoul ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think the definition of the church is of vital importance here. Church as Christian community is not generally rejected - as long as you understand that community in a wide sense. Church as organisation/building/structure is being rejected, especially when it gets in the way of church as community. Quite rightly too, IMO.

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

Is that based on a reading of biblical texts, CC, or some other tradition?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

{Sails through, giving usual "We're ALL the Church and we can't cut and paste the institutional churches back together--so just play nicely with each other!" argument.}

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

I think that would be very helpful Joyfulsoul. I think I can say that without the Church I would be spiritually very lonely and confused. The Church helps me to have a closer relationship with God through my brothers and sisters in Christ. God has seen my need and met it, (thousands of years ago of course).

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Is that based on a reading of biblical texts, CC, or some other tradition?

No, it's a vague hope based on a compromise between wishful thinking and cynicism about human nature [Smile]

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

Interesting way to formulate doctrine, but to each his own.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Dear CrookedCucumber

Can you name me one human society that is not an organisation? Even a family is an organisation ... it has limited membership, structure, common goals. After all, organisation is simply a way of being and relating toward with a common purpose. You can be "dis-organised" but not "not-organised."

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

Since "God is love" and has given his/her life for the church because he/she values us so much, listens to our prayers, enjoys our worship, lives within us, shines within us, inspires us, the church is a precious, not-bad community of individuals.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

I think it springs from an oversimplification of what me mean when we talk about, try and do or be loving. It is easy to love Jesus and say He was s great guy who said all the right things but when we have to love in community (i.e. church), when we have to actually really love and know people it all goes tits up.

Selfish and lazy, unwilling to see that love is firstly sacrificial. Unhappy that the truth of Jesus love is that to follow Him we must first forget self.

It is why (as MLK said) so many churches are social clubs with a thin veneer of religiosity.

P

[ 01. February 2006, 08:10: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

It's a question that tests me, perhaps because I'm a liberal Protestant, hooked on the quest for the historical Jesus, and politically left-wing and therefore dismayed by the embarrassing history of the Church.

I would get into fewer arguments if people agreed that the Church has behaved appallingly in the past. It has. It still does. Christian community at all levels is again and again a bitter disappointment and an obstacle to faith in God. It's also creative and healing and inspiring and all that, but I need to affirm the negatives and not have people tell me I must reverence and respect the Church and make allowances for it.

We cannot have a Churchless Jesus, and the hard work of community is indeed an inevitable test of the reality of our claim to love. I agree with these points, too.

Nonetheless I think there is something important about the Jesus-Church tension. Jesus called people into a new relationship with God, new wine that would burst old practices and thought forms. I think he still does this in relation to the Church as he did in relation to the worship of the Old Covenant. He is a living critique of our tendency to ossify, to be content with form and habit, to choose death rather than life. I think that when we say 'I love Jesus and I hate the Church,' though we may be being immature, we may be about to say the important thing, and recall the community to the way of Jesus.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Fr G

I think we may need to find different ways of talking about obedience. In modern culture, there are no wise elders any more. There are the control freaks and the out of touch.

Everyone fears loneliness. From first principles, koinonia (communication, communion, contribution, distribution, fellowship) which is the practical function of the visible church should be very attractive.

But folks fear being "told" what to do and "told" what to think. You can never be quite sure about the ones who are doing the telling, no matter how well authorised, gifted, committed and trained they might be. Respect for all forms of authority is very low. Far safer to be a lone ranger - you can have whatever aspects of Jesus you want. You can pick and mix. Paul Simon was quite prophetic when he wrote these words.

Here within my womb
Safe within my room
I touch no one and no one touches me
I am a rock, I am an island

And a rock feels no pain
And an island never cries

People want community and are afraid of its power to control. They are ambivalent about it. That is one of the tragedies of our modern world, reflected both in the decline of respect for political authority and the decline of organised faith communities (coupled with a big rise in the search for individualised spirituality).

And it is entirely wrong to say that there is no justification for their fears. It is all very well for me, and I guess lots of other Shipmates, to say that my commitment, in my case through thick and thin, for over 30 years, to a particular (and pretty imperfect) community has been the best choice I ever made in my life. I discovered this truth for myself. Unless you become part of something which is greater than yourself, you cannot understand what it might mean to be truly whole.

But it is a truly scary jump for many people. I think we may need to acknowledge this reality first, then consider what the threshold problems are. Why is it hard for folks to join, despite the fact that most retain some need to be a part of something bigger. Why does it become hard for some to stay?

(Joyfulsoul

The penultimate paragraph to Fr G is my short answer to your good request. Depending on how the thread goes, I may add to it.)

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Can you name me one human society that is not an organisation? Even a family is an organisation ... it has limited membership, structure, common goals. After all, organisation is simply a way of being and relating toward with a common purpose. You can be "dis-organised" but not "not-organised."

Err... where did I say I was opposed to organization? I'm not anti-organization in general or even anti-church in particular. I don't think I said you could have a church without its being an organization, did I? If I did, I didn't mean to. I didn't for a moment suggest that people should not attend churches, whether they ascribe to mainstream doctrine or not.

What I was alluding to was the tendency for people with strong denominational ties to read

``one catholic aposolic church'' as
`` our catholic apostolic church''

For me, a (small-c) catholic (universal) Church is one that will welcome everybody who reveres and follows Jesus, and who wants to work towards establishing the Kingdom of God. To be a member of that Church it won't be necessary to subscribe to particular views on (just to mention a few that have cropped up here lately) baptism, the Eucharist, salvation, validity of the sacrements, etc. All that will be necessary is to follow the example of Jesus, and love and serve God with humility and an open mind.

Because I'm not totally naive, I realize that some of the divisions between existing Christian denominations come from deep doctrinal disagreements. I'm not suggesting that these doctrinal disagreements can be overcome, or even should be; the challenge, as I see it, is to build a universal Church that accomodates doctrinal differences while maintaining commonality of purpose.

And, yes, before anybody else says it, I guess I am talking about establishing the Unitarian Church of Cucumber here.

However, I'm not arguing for a new church; I'm saying that I would like to see the churches we currently have put their common purpose above their doctrinal differences, and work towards unification in what will invitably be a long-term project.

Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

It is why (as MLK said) so many churches are social clubs with a thin veneer of religiosity.

We know what MLK and you mean, but doesn't religiosity really consist in the better sort of social club, anyway? Pure religion and undefiled and all that?

Posted by Teapot (# 10837) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
People want community and are afraid of its power to control. They are ambivalent about it. That is one of the tragedies of our modern world, reflected both in the decline of respect for political authority and the decline of organised faith communities (coupled with a big rise in the search for individualised spirituality).

Real community does not control. It loves and welcomes without precondition beyond “you are a fellow child of god, my brother/sister”.

When there is not love and welcome, we try to manufacture community through edict and enforcement, driven by fear from feeling so exposed and alienated. Trying to make heaven with power rather than with love. It wont work, hell [Biased]

its what satan tries to do; make an alternative heaven by an act of will.

quote:
Unless you become part of something which is greater than yourself, you cannot understand what it might mean to be truly whole.

Indeed. Most are scared that it means they get obliterated in a “collective” where they are but a mere resource to the needs of such. Quite the opposite, it is about sharing without strong concern for yourself because are no longer endangered. You “cup runneth over”. The catch is you cant get there through selfish desire; only through altruistic remembering that all are your brothers and sisters. Your needs will be met and you will know that you are loved but only if you can pull your walls of fear down and drop the fearful ego in favour of loving others.

It is the modern alienated, estranging society, made by enforcement where you are a resource to the machine. In a community you a fellow participant – it may feel like you might be “less” when you base your identity on fear, but it is the fear that is less and not you. [Smile]

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
What I was alluding to was the tendency for people with strong denominational ties to read

``one catholic aposolic church'' as
`` our catholic apostolic church''

For me, a (small-c) catholic (universal) Church is one that will welcome everybody who reveres and follows Jesus, and who wants to work towards establishing the Kingdom of God. To be a member of that Church it won't be necessary to subscribe to particular views on (just to mention a few that have cropped up here lately) baptism, the Eucharist, salvation, validity of the sacrements, etc. All that will be necessary is to follow the example of Jesus, and love and serve God with humility and an open mind.

<snip>

However, I'm not arguing for a new church; I'm saying that I would like to see the churches we currently have put their common purpose above their doctrinal differences, and work towards unification in what will invitably be a long-term project.

This hits the nail on the head for me. If Christians were more (practically) focused on loving Jesus and following his example rather than on whether a particular set of rules were followed or expectations met, church would be a healthier, more welcoming, more empowering experience. As it is, speaking entirely experientially here, church in its traditional sense (that is, the place down the road where the Christians meet) is entirely the opposite.

Unlike Fr Gregory, I think it was, I found being in church lonely and have known next to nothing of loneliness since I left. There is little in life more isolating than being among people who don't accept the non-conforming (not someone who is being difficult; just someone who has integrity and cannot say yes to meet expectations when really they mean no).

Also, in 21st century life there are other means of belonging to a church than attending the building with St Something over its doorway. Community can happen over the phone, online, by text, email and in the pub over a beer. Of course the bosses are invariably not around to keep an eye on such renegade members of their flock, but so what?

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

I accept some of the reasons given for being part of a church. They make good sense in some ways. But personally I don't see them as good enough reasons to prioritise church when it comes to how to spend my time.

For most people I don't think this is really about the rights and wrongs of church. Even in terms of commitment to God and truth, if we see that as a priority, choosing to express that commitment through participation in church does not immediately look like the best way of doing it. Unless of course you happen to like the style and content of a local one.

[Cross-posted with Littlelady]

[ 01. February 2006, 11:41: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I'd guess that only people outside the church, with a feeling that the worldwide communion has become an authoritarian conspiracy in all it's manifestations would actually say/think 'Jesus good church bad'.

I can see that a great many protestant church members/churches might think "Jesus good our church following Jesus good most other churches missing the point very religious tradition bound."

Is that what you were getting at FG? More "Jesus good tradition/wider church bad" feeling? Or something more widespread than that?

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I submit that there is a religious equivalent. "Jesus good, Church bad."

Honestly, I'm more terrified of the slightly modified inverse, "Church good*, Jesus rather unnecessary except for a figure head to hang our doctrines and dogmas from."

*Good meaning perfect, all-knowing, and unable to err. Do not question it or disrespect it.

I think that what Fregory points out is probably a reaction to that more than anything else. I can't help but look over the Biblical churches and see a much different picture than anything we see today--Jesus spending his time walking the streets and hanging out with friends--OMG he wasn't even worshipping in the Temple on one Sabbath but instead was out HEALING PEOPLE (GASP)! Then the Pauline churches, that while I was growing up I actually pictured as buildings much like my Baptist church, with a pastor and elders and trustees and ushers and coffee and everything. They were probably more like houses, where people met together and prayed. And talked. (But where did their authority come from? Where was the structure?!)

All of that being said, I love my church. I love being a part of it. I love visiting Catholic and Orthodox services. I love the community I find in my church. But there is an attitude toward church that, I believe, creates a reaction against it in some.

-Digory

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Of course the church fails to be faithful to the example of Christ. It's made up of people.

Experience shows that the church cannot be rehabilitated - each new departure, each new movement, each new sweeping of the boards to begin afresh brings us back to the same errors - the same hypocrisy, the same sins. There is nothing new under the sun.

Can the church remain something useful - necessary even - despite it's many imperfections and failings? I'd say yes.

The follow-on question, then, is 'can the modern-thinking person accept something less than perfect to belong to?' Or do we only commit to the perfect, that meets all the right specifications, these days?

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
...'can the modern-thinking person accept something less than perfect to belong to?' Or do we only commit to the perfect, that meets all the right specifications, these days?

Seems to me that it depends on how you define "belong to" and "commit," my friend. [Smile]

-Digory

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

Just as soon as you find something perfect to commit to on this planet, I heartily suggest you run away screaming. Only God is perfect. Nothing that involves humans as part of its operational matrix could ever be "perfect". But part of the glory of the Church is that God has promised to mold us into a royal priesthood and an unblemished bride.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Can you name me one human society that is not an organisation? Even a family is an organisation ... it has limited membership, structure, common goals. After all, organisation is simply a way of being and relating toward with a common purpose. You can be "dis-organised" but not "not-organised."

I think there can be a distinction between having an organization and being one. Of course the church as community needs organization (if only to deal with mundane matters like having someplace to meet). But when "the church" becomes wholly identified with an organizational structure and hierarchy, there can be an alienating effect in which people come to see themselves as consumers of religion, and "membership" amounts to little more than brand loyalty (or like membership in one of those shopping "clubs" like Costco). When one Religious Service Provider somehow fails to meet your perceived needs, you might switch providers, or you might decide to eliminate the middleman.... I think that's what triggers the "Jesus good/Church bad" attitude.

Timothy

Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
... "Jesus good, Church bad." ...

I prefer a more Canadian formulation "Church if necessary, but not necessarily Church." I think some things make perfect sense in and of the church; corporate worship, for example. But, as a Reformed Christian, I don't need the church as much as the church needs me.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

2 Interesting Facts: (1) There's a heck of a lot about the Church in the New Testament and it's all positive. (2) There's much less positivity about the Church in contemporary western culture.

The simple answer beloved of many is that "we have lost the New Testament Church."

Maybe we have just lost New Testament Christians.

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :

And what was this New Testament Church like?

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

Is this Ship 'church'?

Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on :

Like a mighty tortoise, moves the Church of God;
Brothers, we are treading where we've always trod.
We are all divided, many bodies we;
Pretty hot on doctrine, weak on charity.

[ 02. February 2006, 00:49: Message edited by: Foaming Draught ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

You are engaging in satire, surely, FG...

All positive in the NT? Aside from the disputes, the drunken eucharists, the favouritism towards the rich, the 'luke-warmness'....

And as for having lost "New Testament Christians".... no, I won't go on, you're definitely taking the piss.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
"Jesus good, Church bad."

Thus "Head good, body bad." We've become GLGs (good little gnostics), not much of a surprise in that...

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Is this Ship 'church'?

It gets more like one every day.

P

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Hosting

quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
I think that what Fregory points out ...

Father Gregory has not accepted this as a friendly nickname, and the policy outside of Hell is that screennames are not to be mangled without permission.

RuthW
Purgatory host

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Dear mdijon

The doctrine of the Church was positive which was perhaps more noteworthy bearing in mind the occurence of similar conflicts and issues.

Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
(1) There's a heck of a lot about the Church in the New Testament and it's all positive.

I'm sure my thoughts about the Ananias/Sapphira story are not very worked out, but surely this indicates that there were at least some problems in the earliest days of the Church... if it was all positive and cut and dry, why would people be afraid?

And I thought I had detected some overtones of non-positive Churchy goings on in the Pauline epistles... but you know vastly much more than I do about these things. Is it possible that "it's all positive" is a significant oversimplification?

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Dear Jerry Boam

I find nothing in the New Testament that deprecates the Church in favour of being a Jesus follower. I find nothing in the New Testament that pits faith in Christ against Church membership. I find nothing in the New Testament that regards Church as an optional extra for any Christian ... yet I find all these views not only in society but also from the mouths of many Christians.

(By "negative" I don't mean "bad things happening" ... I mean views deprecating or marginalising the Church).

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Is this Ship 'church'?
It gets more like one every day.

P

Unlike virtually all other churches, the Ship doesn't link my believing with my belonging.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

... which is why it isn't a church, (there are lots of other reasons of course).

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

That wasn't the question though.

To me the Ship seems more like church (no indefinite article) than any other gathering I can think of.

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
That wasn't the question though.

To me the Ship seems more like church (no indefinite article) than any other gathering I can think of.

I'd second that.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

Posted by Father Gregory:

quote:
I find nothing in the New Testament that deprecates the Church in favour of being a Jesus follower. I find nothing in the New Testament that pits faith in Christ against Church membership. I find nothing in the New Testament that regards Church as an optional extra for any Christian ...

I find nothing in the New Testament that equates the church with a hierarchy or other artifacts of institution. However useful and necessary organization may be to a community, it is not the same thing as a community. Conflating the church with its institutional/organizational structure is equivalent to asserting that the government is the nation, or that the two are somehow inseparable. The New Testament church is pure community, with a nascent organization evolving to support it.

Other than that, I agree--we are called to join a community, not just to plug into Jesus on our own. I think there are historical reasons for the tendency(the rise of individualism over the past 300 years, the alienating effect of top-down ecclesiastical structures I mentioned before), but it is unfortunate.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Dear Timothy the Obscure

Who said anything about "hierarchy." This was the second post on my thread.

quote:
For the purposes of this OP I shall define the Church as a Christian community that is the necessary context for my claim to be a Christian. In other words, I am deliberately opting for a reductionist negative. A person is not a Christian if he or she practically (not theoretically) rejects the Church absolutely (not relatively).

In a sense you have proved my hypothesis ... you can't talk about "church" now in the west without HRS ... Hierarchy Reaction Syndrome.

On the other hand I would rather have a bishop as a hierarch than the minister of the local church. Distance sometimes lends a sense of affection. [Big Grin]

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
... which is why it isn't a church, (there are lots of other reasons of course).

Can you expand on this? It isn't obvious to me why this should be so and I think it links in with Timothy the Obscure's point about church as community.

Why must a community link believing with belonging to be 'church'?

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Because in both the Old and the New Testaments Israel / Church (New Israel) manifests a communal covenant relation ... not an individual one. Please explain explain how you can have community without any actual belonging within that.

[ 02. February 2006, 23:19: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

I did not deny that community and belonging are connected - it could be said that I belong to the Ship community. Certainly that community has (yet [Razz]

) to expel or exclude me.

However your earlier post denied above that the Ship is 'church' because it does not connect belonging with believing not because it has no concept of belonging.

I still don't understand why a community must, in your view, link believing with belonging to be 'church'?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Three "B"s apply to communities.

Belonging - which I reckon always comes first

Believing - identifying in some way with the purposes, ideas and values of the community

Behaving - accepting the community norms as a sign that membership of the community is a communal thing.

For most community members the reality of membership is worked out dynamically as folks come to terms with the costs and benefits of these three "B"s. These are not always evident at the beginning.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

So is the Ship 'church' in your view?

Or do you agree with Father Gregory that it isn't because it doesn't link belonging with believing?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

You have to register don't you? Which involves signing up to the 10 commandments - and a certain view of how the net should be used....

To my mind, church involves a belief in the incarnation and resurrection. On the other hand, I don't necessarily think every member has to believe in that... so maybe the SoF is part of the church.

Does it matter?

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

Father G--

I don't actually disagree with you, I was trying to describe where I think the "Jesus good/Church bad" attitude comes from--the tendency of hierarchies to act as if they own the Church being one factor among many, along with the willingness of laity to buy into that construct. I don't say it always happens, but it's a risk inherent in that sort of structure.

Back in the 1980s, William F. Buckley wrote a column about one of JPII's encyclicals that a lot of American Catholcs were disappointed in (I have no memory of what it was about--probably sex, if it got that much attention). This was about the time of the New Coke fiasco, and Buckley took that as his metaphor, saying that the Pope was giving the faithful Classic Coke doctrine, refusing to bow to market pressures, even if many would have preferred New Coke doctrine. This is not to pick on the RCC, because I know plenty of Catholics who refuse to regard themselves as mere customers (and I don't think JPII thought of them that way). But the fact that an intelligent and theologically sophisticated man like Buckley would not see the grotesqueness of that metaphor, and how that kind of thinking that has permeated Western culture corrodes our ability to see ourselves as members of the Church (or any community) is quite telling.

Posted by Dwynwen (# 3900) on :

It seems to me that the inordinate amount of time given to interacting with a screen is impeding, if not corroding, our will to communicate face to face in a community.

We are encouraging a generation of desensitised individuals who prefer to be in control of the interaction rather than sensitively reacting in a social group setting in any organisation. Self absorption not awareness of 'the other'and their needs.

I have to say that I have not experienced this in any of the church communities I have belonged to over the years. Fellowship in religious groups is how the Church began. The loving and learning therein is necessary to give meaning to our spiritual journey. I thank God for the spiritual direction I receive and for our caring community who encourage one another in the faith.

I do agree that many are shy of entering the church for whatever reason but they would be the first to protest if their parish church was no longer there.

Peace,
Dwynwen.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You have to register don't you? Which involves signing up to the 10 commandments - and a certain view of how the net should be used....

Thinking about this, it occurs to me that perhaps the Ship does illustrate something that might be transferable to 'real life'.

The 10 Cs are not in general related to the content of what goes on here in any way. What we've signed up to are rules that the management's experience tells them are necessary for an online community to function well. There's a historical connection with Christianity that no doubt influences who notices the Ship's existence, which in turn means most people here have some Christian connection.

But in terms of beliefs, it's only the tolerance or otherwise of who happens to be here at any one time that places any limitation on who's allowed on board. Whatever happens here arises out of interpersonal interaction while we're here. That's nothing as far as I can see to do with any belief requirement from the management.

And yet all this stuff, whatever it is that makes the Ship a community, keeps on happenning. Why couldn't real life church, 'Christianity', work the same way?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0