|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Are other Christians really Christian?
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Ruth
As God, Jesus is certainly "big, shiny and powerful." I just react when people start going on about the Church being "big, shiny and powerful." It sounds oh so self righteous and judgemental. It's glib and a cheap shot.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Ruth
As God, Jesus is certainly "big, shiny and powerful." I just react when people start going on about the Church being "big, shiny and powerful." It sounds oh so self righteous and judgemental. It's glib and a cheap shot.
Well FG, to someone who's not familiar with the RCC, it IS "big, shiny and powerful." It appears utterly monolithic and uniform, every priest, every nun, every abbot, every bishop, every cardinal, every altar boy in lockstep with one another and the Pope setting the pace.
As for the OC, it wasn't until I came onboard here last year and started reading you and MT's (among others) posts, that I realized Orthodox weren't just low-budget Catholics who really liked black. (OC priests are the ones I see wearing the all black vestments, correct?)
I can understand the RCC trying to ensure its own survival by setting up the exclusions and requirements JL has quoted (every religious or secular empire does likewise) but my complaint is they have signed God's name to their own org chart and have actively denied the grace of God to those outside that structure.
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Ruth
As God, Jesus is certainly "big, shiny and powerful." I just react when people start going on about the Church being "big, shiny and powerful." It sounds oh so self righteous and judgemental. It's glib and a cheap shot.
Now I'm just as much a sucker for liturgy as the next sane tat queen, but I think you need to take into consideration the manner in which God chose to interact with us -- as an itinerant preacher who regularly associated with the dregs of humanity. I'm not saying that God isn't big and shiny and powerful, but he eschewed that image in favor of something quite the opposite.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
It sounds oh so self righteous and judgemental. It's glib and a cheap shot.
Something you wouldn't know anything about? Bucket, please.
I was referring, as Erin said, to the human life on earth Jesus lived.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eanswyth
Ship's raven
# 3363
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Third, there's an air of smug arrogance inherent in the statement - I don't mean to accuse you personally of being smug or arrogant, but I find that it comes part and parcel with the statement. "If you're saved, you're really one of us in spite of yourself" is automatically off-putting - which is why I will no longer be saying comparable things about non-Christians. It's got the feeling of a clubby, self-congratulatory in-group.
My gut reaction to Ruth's comments here was to think of the Holocaust Jews who were retroactively baptized by Mormons. I feel a vaguely related (distaste? discomfort?) about a group that I have chosen to leave who might try to claim me after death. If you couldn't get me alive, leave me alone dead.
Posts: 1323 | From: San Diego | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I just react when people start going on about the Church being "big, shiny and powerful." It sounds oh so self righteous and judgemental. It's glib and a cheap shot.
Really? Which adjective is inaccurate, especially in the context of my post?
Perhaps I am not the only one having a visceral reaction.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
Wow, Fr. Gregory speaking up for the Church of Rome?
Next he'll be extolling the virtues of the Filioque.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I think its time people quit taking offense. People know their beliefs to be truth, or they would not believe them. Truth is exclusive. i.e. anything which is not within the truth cannot be true. In the case of people who believe salvation cannot be achieved without "subjection to the Roman Pontiff . . ." that is their belief, whether anyone else thinks it is true, or offensive, or not.
I don't think my beliefs are "truth". I hope that my beliefs (in the sense of my understanding at this moment in time of how things are, rather than my values, although it can sometimes be hard to separate the two) are true, i.e. correspond to reality.
Like anyone else who aspires to discourse in terms of reasoned argument, when someone says something that strikes me as wrong (factually wrong or value-wrong) I can try to demonstrate its wrongness by showing its inconsistency with other propositions of fact or value which stand some chance of being commonly-held premises.
If someone won't agree any premises of common values, and won't accept the validity of apparent facts, then we just have to agree to differ.
More often, it's possible to recognise a re-phrased version of the other person's proposition as bearing some resemblance to reality, and one's own proposition as having over-stated or over-simplified the case, and go away with one's own model of the world enriched by a different perspective, having resolved the apparent contradiction.
If however, their argument comes down to "I believe this without understanding it because someone else has told me that it is so" then there is no enlightenment to be had from them. If they further hold the view that "I don't trust my own powers of reasoning enough to revise said belief, no matter how much of a contradiction you can demonstrate with any other propositions that I claim to believe" then no enlightenment is going to flow the other way either.
How far the rules of civilised discourse insist that all beliefs have to be respected, or that offensive beliefs should not be propounded even if they are sincerely believed or there is good evidence for them, is an interesting topic for another thread.
quote:
Peter, and his successors the Popes, are the Church.
Please forgive my incurable pedantry. Seems to me that there are an awful lot of Christians down the ages who, while never having been made Pope, might reasonably claim to be a part of the Church. A better term for what Peter and his successors as Bishop of Rome are is "the Popes" or "the Papacy".
Whilst the eleven Apostles are recorded as having selected by lot a successor to Judas, it's not clear to me from anything I've read that they collectively selected (by whatever means) successors to each of them as they died off one by one. So that no-one was a successor to Peter as Apostle, or to any of the other Apostles.
quote:
originally posted by Archimandrite:
Is it a bad time to introduce the concept of the Magesterium of the Church into the discussion?
Speaking for myself only, if you can define it briefly in plain language, go ahead. JL could do with some support...
quote:
originally posted by Fr.Gregory:
As God, Jesus is certainly "big, shiny and powerful."
Are there two concepts of "worshipping Jesus" emerging here ?
One which says, Jesus was humble and self-emptying, let us individually and collectively be as like him as we can.
One which says, let's baptise all the bigness, shininess, powerfulness in the world, put it to good use in His name to proclaim His message and His kingdom.
Or is your argument more along the lines that "we look up to things and people that are big, shiny and powerful, therefore worshipping Jesus means attributing these characteristics to His underlying nature, regardless of how little He exhibited them in His life on earth" ?
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
FCB:
"Wow, Fr. Gregory speaking up for the Church of Rome?
Next he'll be extolling the virtues of the Filioque."
Perhaps, like Erin, he is, unbeknownst to himself, a Roman Cahtolic after all.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Russ
My only target here is the superior attitude which I believe is betrayed by the comment. The superiority is invested in the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is a grandiose corrupt organisation that perverts the simple message of Jesus. This MAY not what was intended by the sanitised reconstructed phrase "big, shiny and powerful" but it does read in the subtext as traditional Protestant polemic. That's why I think it is a glib cheap shot. I would challenge and defend any church that was spoken of in a similar way ... so I am not a closet or anonymous Roman Catholic nor am I about to buy into the flioque! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
This was Scot's post:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
If you follow what Jesus said you must believe in subjection to the Roman Pontiff.
I realize that this is tangential to your main point, but I disagree with this statement. There is no reason to assume that in order to be founded on Peter, a church must trace its lineage through the big, shiny, powerful official Holy Roman Catholic Church. Jesus's own ancestry provides a fine example of how lineage does not always follow the expected or obvious path. It often veers though the minor, the weak, the obscure, and the seemingly insignificant.
And what this is all about is whether you gotta be Catholic to be saved.
As a member of a church that could probably be said to be shiny, and whose power outstrips its size (at least if you're measuring by the number of Presidents who were Episcopalians), I don't really have a problem with big, shiny, powerful churches per se. I just have a problem with the idea that one must in some sense be a part of such a church to be saved.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Ruth
quote:
I just have a problem with the idea that one must in some sense be a part of such a church to be saved.
... and there we can be in complete agreement.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Please forgive me for being unclear. ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif) When I made the statement" If you follow what Jesus said you must believe in subjection to the Roman Pontiff" it was not to imply my personal belief, but to set out what I understand to be a Roman Catholic belief. My personal belief is that one need not be a member of the Roman Catholic church to be either saved or a christian.
My central point was that people ought not to take the beliefs of others personally.
Just as a question, what exact aspect of big, shiny, or lockstep did Mother Teresa display in the slums of Calcutta?
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Ruth
quote:
I just have a problem with the idea that one must in some sense be a part of such a church to be saved.
... and there we can be in complete agreement.
Yikes!
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
O man...
I just popped over to Cybergrace and posted on the Bible beliefs > Suffrage & Feminism thread, and while I saw some posts I could agree with, I also got to wade through a WHOLE LOT of "you aren't a real Christian if you don't agree with me" posts, and, as a result...
JL and FG, I disagree with lots of RCC and OC doctrine and policy, but, FWIW, ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) thank you both for never exhibiting the level of snot I saw on that thread from some of those posters. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
"Now I must away to bathe and refresh myself with water nobly hot and with rare scented oils and costly unguents, for lo, I do feel as though I have tap-danced daintily across the heaving crust atop a mighty river of sewage." ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
RuthW, thank you for reading my post carefully.
Fr. Gregory, if you would read as carefully as RuthW does, you would see that my phrase was descriptive rather than judgmental. In fact, my entire post was about the danger of making value judgments on the basis of size, appearance or strength. It would be refreshing if on occasion you could respond to what I actually write instead of assuming that my words are just “traditional Protestant polemic.” That is your bogeyman, not mine.
Tortuf, my post spoke of the RC church as an institution, not of individual Catholics. My point was not “Catholic bad, Protestant good” as Gregory would have it. Rather my point was that we have no reason to assume that the RC church is the only descendant of the original Christian church. The fact that it is the biggest does not make it the only. Thus, it is hard to claim that Jesus commands subjection to the Pope.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Well, now that we have established that: - The RC church has some exclusivist dogma
- The Missouri Synod is rather exclusivist
Is this the end of the exclusivist's among us?
Come on...there has to be somebody else? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OgtheDim:
there has to be somebody else?
"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Theophilus
Shipmate
# 2311
|
Posted
Let's introduce some new material. Which of the following do you consider 'not Christian' and/or 'not saved' (phrases to be defined as you see fit.) No particular order. For 'deny' clauses, assume that the person believes all other tenets of what you consider to be orthodox Christianity (Not that this would, in all cases, be rationally possible, but never mind.)
(For 'not saved', I'm not trying to say that anyone is definitely 'going to Hell', but that believing or not believing this particular belief or set of beliefs impairs the salvific effiacy of the message of the Gospel.)
Orthodox Jews
Mormons
Literal inerrantists
Jehovah's Witnesses
Unitarians
Those who deny the physical resurrection
Those who deny the Virgin Birth
Those who deny any penally substitutionary element in the atonement
Those who deny the authority of Scripture
Those who deny the authority of the Church
My answers:
No/No
No/No
Yes/Yes
No/No
No/No
No/No
No/Yes (Saved, but not Christian, in the sense that I think the VB is a central tenet of historic Christianity.)
No/No. (Sorry. Start throwing things, people.)
Yes/Yes
Yes/Yes
Hope that gets the ball rolling.
--------------------
If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort, you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair. C.S. Lewis
Posts: 57 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
So are you saying that Orthodox Jews and Mormons are not saved? Regardless, I don't agree that anyone is automatically not saved. God can save whoever he wants however he wants, and I cannot even begin to imagine that he'd limit himself to a human institution or theological checklist.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
Theo,
"Those who deny the physical resurrection
Those who deny the Virgin Birth
Those who deny any penally substitutionary element in the atonement
Those who deny the authority of Scripture
Those who deny the authority of the Church"
These may be viewed as trick questions. Do you mean those who explicitly deny these propositions, or do you mean those who IN YOUR OPINION (or in the opinion of some group of people) deny them? I think it might make a difference in the way some respondents answer the questions.
A litmus test for Christian belief cannot easily be articulated and will be even more difficult to apply.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
This one is easy:
maybe
maybe
maybe
maybe
maybe
maybe
maybe
maybe
maybe, and finally
maybe
Exclusive categorization and litmus testing are exactly the sort of thing that gets my hackles up.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Wait a second.
Dear Scot,
Are you suggesting that Orthodox Jews maybe are Christians?
Thanks.
Just checking.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I don't think the problem is the simultaneous part. Rather it's another one of those things where somebody is told that they're really something they vehemently claim to not be.
Reader Alexis
[infinitives split while you wait]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
Erin, Fr. Gregory, amd Messianic Jews. Strange bedfellows indeed.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karin 3
Shipmate
# 3474
|
Posted
Doesn't the word Christian (in it's original sense, at least) simply mean one who believes in Christ as Lord and Saviour and tries to follow his example: one who accepts that he/she is far from perfect, but does his/her best, and accepts other people imperfections and all, with Christ's help ?
Isn't the rest irrelevant, except in the sense that it reflects our personal preferences?
--------------------
Inspiration to live more generously, ethically and sustainably
Posts: 417 | From: South East England | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Karin 3
quote:
Isn't the rest irrelevant, except in the sense that it reflects our personal preferences?
No, from where we're coming from, the rest is certainly not irrelevant.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karin 3
Shipmate
# 3474
|
Posted
Why, Father Gregory? I mean, where I worship on Sunday is important to me, because it is where I feel comfortable, where I receive teaching that seems relelvant to me, but I am quite happy for my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to worship where they feel happiest. Do you have a problem with that, or was I not understanding quite what you meant?
--------------------
Inspiration to live more generously, ethically and sustainably
Posts: 417 | From: South East England | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I have no problem with worshipping where you feel comfortable Karin ... that is very important. No, I meant that not everyone and not all churches have a biblical opinion concerning Christ so saying "I believe in him" or "I follow him" begs a lot of questions.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
saying "I believe in him" or "I follow him" begs a lot of questions.
Such as what it means to believe in someone or to follow them ?
Seems to me that if you took a plain-English understanding of these words you wouldn't come up with either Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism as being what is meant by believing in Him and following Him.
I think you should admit that reaching your position, or JL's position, or any other denominationally entrenched position, requires some extra set of premises, let's call it P, above and beyond simply "believing in and following".
P may be believing that a particular institution embodies the teaching of Christ in some particular way. It may be a single proposition or several. Different denominations have different such premises.
Believing any particular version of P may be very reasonable. But it is still the case that one can be a "believer in and follower" without believing P.
You've suggested in the past that not everyone is ready for Orthodoxy, and JL has agreed that there are Christians outside the Roman Catholic Church, so hopefully the existence of P isn't too contentious.
I think you're saying that believing P isn't just a matter of taste and style, as Karin's post might imply, and would agree that it's more fundamental than that.
Some of us like to think that the gap - between being a "believer in and follower" and not - is or ought to be so large that whether or not one believes P is a relatively trivial difference by comparison (even if it constitutes a major philosophical difference on any other scale). That may be an over-optimistic view, but I see no evil in it. Under-emphasising differences of view over P may naively under-estimate the difficulties that any move to unity faces, but it causes no active harm.
What of the opposite error - the possibility of over-emphasising the importance of P ? Someone going too far in that direction ends up totally marginalizing the believing in and following of Christ, says that that counts for next to nothing beside the cosmic significance or believing or not believing P. What name should we give to such ? Is that not a far worse error ?
If one labels this premise or premises P as "God's Truth", then it's easy to mistake rejecting P for rejecting God. Going the other way, if the P-believers have "ownership" of P, so that it is "our traditional belief" which they exalt at the expense of "believing in and following", then it's not hard to understand the charge of idolatry which sometimes arises.
What can we do but be as honest as we can ?
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Russ
A bottom line candidate for "P" (not coterminous with belonging to the Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches) is the Nicene Creed. I know this to be the case as far as Orthodoxy is concerned because the Ecumenical Patriarch suggested this a while ago as a useful and positive starting point for ecumenism and no Orthodox church dissented from his view. That is also my bottom line. (Leave the filioque issue out of this for the moment please).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
The Nicene Creed seems like a practical meeting point for established churches. My only hesitation is over the potential for someone to claim that "our church is the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, so if you really believed the Creed, you'd all join our church." A similar play could be made for the one baptism, but I think it is far more likely with regard to the identity of the Church itself.
This begs the question, once we agree on the Creed, where have we gotten? I doubt whether such an agreement will result in the OCC or RCC changing its position on anything. I assume that those of us not in either church will still be considered to be outsiders. If such an agreement is a starting point, what do you conceive as the next step in the journey?
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karin 3
Shipmate
# 3474
|
Posted
Hmmm. I shall stick my neck out and say that I have met some Catholics for whom the believing and following was more important than "P", as Russ put it so succinctly, and I suspect there could be some Orthodox Christians for whom that it true - I've only ever met one and our shared language wasn't good enough to go into it in depth.
Moreover, I'm afraid to say, although I would class myself as a Protestant if I have to class myself as any kind of Christian, I have found some Protestants for whom "P" or one of it's close relations was more important than believing and following. (Hope that doesn't make me sound too heretical).
--------------------
Inspiration to live more generously, ethically and sustainably
Posts: 417 | From: South East England | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Scot
quote:
If such an agreement is a starting point, what do you conceive as the next step in the journey?
(Let's leave the rest ... I've not raised it).
Each Church (including the Orthodox Church) would engage in a MODERATED self assessment on how faithfully the creed was implemented in its own faith, life and structures. Deficiencies would then be identified NOT by the moderator(s) but by the same church itself. Those deficiencies would then become a program for renewal and reform. If everyone did that the churches would inexorably move closer whilst retaining diverse and legitimate traditions. The only "deficiency" in the Creed itself (because it was not designed to cover such an issue) is worship. There is, for example, no reference to the Eucharist. This is not because the Eucharist was of litle importance to the fathers of Nicaea ... far from it. What we need for worship is a close examination of early forms of worship which in their commonalities represent basic principles, contents and forms. These could then be used as yardsticks for similar self assessments in the area of worship.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fatprophet
Shipmate
# 3636
|
Posted
One should unpack "believing and following". The phrase is not adequate to explain christianity unless we explain the object of our belief.
At the very least the one believed in and followed is worthy of such treatment, but this is not quite enough to suggest a religious or spiritual dimension to the activity as one can believe in and follow any political or other hero. Believing and following Jesus as "only" another human guru is utterly different from an intellectual and moral point of view, from believing and following Jesus as the revelation of God, God with us, Christ, Living Lord etc.
Being christian involves a superlative belief and following par excellence because of the nature of its object and goal; It is a believing and following that extends its vision beyond time and space towards eternity. It is a believing and following that ultimately invests supreme confidence in the reliability and veracity of the one believed in and followed, through trials and temptations. One stakes one's eternal destiny and the destiny of the whole world on following this particular person. Thus following Jesus, because he is divine, differentiates christianity from all other non-religious followings and beliefs.
In sum, I believe a christian is one who believes and follows a divine Jesus (however that divinity is understood) but it at least includes the idea that he is Lord of heaven and earth, time and eternity.
This is the bare irreducible minimum of christian religion. However for those who cannot manage even that level of belief, while they are clearly outside of the umbrella of the worldview and tradition that is the christian religion no one should say that they must be also outside of God's grace.
--------------------
FAT PROPHET
Posts: 530 | From: Wales, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
I think many Baptists would be reluctant to engage in anything that resembles assent to a creed. They are historically non-creedal. They would probably have little difficulty affirming the beliefs that are expressed in the creeds, but they oppose the codification of these beliefs in creedal form
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karin 3
Shipmate
# 3474
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
I think many Baptists would be reluctant to engage in anything that resembles assent to a creed. They are historically non-creedal. They would probably have little difficulty affirming the beliefs that are expressed in the creeds, but they oppose the codification of these beliefs in creedal form
Greta
True, but I know some who have found it's not so terrible after all. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I imagine it's about being open to God and not being afraid to try something from a different tradition if God seems to lead us toward it.
Of course, it's probably easier for me because I didn't grow up in any Christian tradition.
Are any of you familiar with the concept of Renovare? The idea is to achieve a balance of the 6 disciplines practised by the different Christian traditions:
Contemplative: The Prayer-filled life;
Holiness: The Virtuous Life;
Charismatic: The Spirit-Empowered Life;
Social Justice: The Compassionate Life;
Evangelical: The Word-Centered Life;
Incarnational: The Sacramental Life.
Richard Foster looks at these at length in his book, "Streams of Living Water".
--------------------
Inspiration to live more generously, ethically and sustainably
Posts: 417 | From: South East England | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
I think many Baptists would be reluctant to engage in anything that resembles assent to a creed. They are historically non-creedal. They would probably have little difficulty affirming the beliefs that are expressed in the creeds, but they oppose the codification of these beliefs in creedal form
Greta
When the General Baptists were faced with some of their churches becoming unitarian they needed something to say as to why unitarianism was "wrong" - the creeds became very useful, which is why by Baptist standards the former General Baptists tend to be creedal. Why reinvent statements?
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fatprophet:
I believe a christian is one who believes and follows a divine Jesus (however that divinity is understood) but it at least includes the idea that he is Lord of heaven and earth, time and eternity.
This is the bare irreducible minimum of christian religion.
So the minimum shared premises (above and beyond believing in and following) for being a member of your church are:
a proposition about divinity
a proposition about Lordship
a proposition about the nature of heaven
a proposition about the nature of time and eternity
and do I detect a proposition that "religion" is the aim ?
Don't get me wrong. What you say sounds sensible in terms of criteria for identifying people who think sufficiently like you do to feel not-too-out-of-place in your church. And I think it's great that you place no limits on the grace of God, and don't look down on those "followers" who don't share your premises.
But I'm reminded that when Jesus called the disciples, he said "Follow me" and they did.
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tiffer
Shipmate
# 3073
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus:
Those who deny any penally substitutionary
I really am truly very sorry, but whats this morsellic piece of theology when it's at home?
And do I believe in it? Please, o Theophilus, do I get to come to heaven too!
Tiffer xx
(Dont u dare say no!)
--------------------
"All the Fat belongs to the Lord"
-Leviticus 3:16b
Posts: 411 | From: England (all over) | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Theophilus
Shipmate
# 2311
|
Posted
Greta, I think any sort of 'litmus test' has to be applied according to the beliefs of the person applying it, otherwise it becomes nonexistent, because different people use the same words in different contexts
As far as litmus tests in general go, I think basic justification for 'generalising' as to what beliefs constitute Christianity, or requiring some sort of creedal statement, can be found in Galatians: 'As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!' (Gal 1:9). Presumably, one has to demarcate what constitutes the apostolic gospel, and what does not. It is clear that apostolic authors taught that believing propositional facts about Christ was part of following him: e.g. 'This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.' (1 John 4:3-4a)
Fr G, the Nicene Creed, even without the filioque, is not really a formula for Christian unity - as you well know, the precise definition of 'one holy catholic and apostolic church' is hardly agreed upon. I can say the Nicene Creed in my Anglican service (while I also attend a free charismatic church out of term-time) but a Roman Catholic such as JL would undoubtedly believe that I had no right to say it with my current beliefs.
Tiff, 'penal substitution' is, put simply, the idea that Jesus got punished for our sins instead of us.
--------------------
If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort, you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair. C.S. Lewis
Posts: 57 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Theophilus
I offered the Nicene Creed because it was for many centuries the sine qua non of being a Christian. There has to be some cut off point or baseline for a reasonable consensus. I submit that the Nicene Creed remains such an instrument of ecumenical rapprochement. Not all will dance to that tune ... but it is a good tune that most know and feel able to jig about to.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Theophilus:
Tiff, 'penal substitution' is, put simply, the idea that Jesus got punished for our sins instead of us.
If this doctrine, that the Fater was compelled to kill *someone* because of our sins, and he decided that killing his Son instead of us would make everything okay, is necessary to being a Christian, Theophilus, then I am not a Christian.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
fatprophet
Shipmate
# 3636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
[QUOTE]]do I detect a proposition that "religion" is the aim ?
Don't get me wrong. What you say sounds sensible in terms of criteria for identifying people who think sufficiently like you do to feel not-too-out-of-place in your church. And I think it's great that you place no limits on the grace of God, and don't look down on those "followers" who don't share your premises.
But I'm reminded that when Jesus called the disciples, he said "Follow me" and they did.
Er, yes Russ. Christianity is a religion.
Yep, "following Jesus" is handy shorthand, but I don't believe for one minute that you really think that is all Christianity involves without a whole massive set of other propositions being relevant too.
If being a Christian is simply about "following Jesus" period with nothing more to be said, then the statement would be meaningless. A martian would immediately retort "follow Who? Where? and Why?" You must explain why Jesus should be followed rather than Russ or FatProphet.
I have no doubt whatsoever you have very definite ideas about what Jesus does and teaches and very definite ideas about who Jesus isn't and what he doesn't preach. Are you going to have a definition of Jesus that allows someone to be a Buddhist and a follower of Jesus? Maybe. What about an unrepentant racist or serial killer as a follower of Jesus? If the latter is inconsistent with following Jesus, Why?
The more ambivalent and vague your definition the more people that you don't like it includes. This is of course what creeds are for. They exist to exclude, but some exclusion of certain beliefs and behaviours is necessary. Where you draw the line is the whole issue, and I think my definition encompasses every known denomination and movement recognised as christian, so its hardly sectarian. It obviously excludes secular total atheists, but I can hardly think why they would mind
You hint you have a problem Russ with a religious definition of Christian. I think its indispensable. Apart from being impossible to convey the significance of what it can mean to follow Jesus rather than any other pleb, you are faced with the problem that Jesus was himself, very religious. How could one be following him, if one denied the existence of God that he believed in? In fact one could say that one would have to share all of Jesus' religious and moral convictions if one was a Christian. We can argue what those religious convictions were, but we can't give up trying to approximate to them if following Jesus is not just a slogan.
--------------------
FAT PROPHET
Posts: 530 | From: Wales, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I think the word 'religion' is rooted in a Latin word (ligare, perhaps) meaning to tie or bind; as in 'ligature.' I think that Jesus was profoundly anti-religion in this sense, and I think that there are strands within Christianity which follow him in this way.
Christianity has obviously become a religion - perhaps many religions. Many Christians 'buy into' one of the Christian religions. It structures their lives, tells them what to do and think, even feel, and says why they are saved and who obviously isn't.
But I think that there is still a Jesus following beyond and within the Christian religions. Francis from Assisi threw all the status stuff away and started a new movement. Theresa of Calcutta did something beautiful in the slums. MLK, a randy, passionate, black and beautiful man, called the Kingdom down. Ghandi, a stranger to Christianity, turned out to be one of Jesus's best friends.
I am a full-time church functionary, God help me, but I believe that what really matters, matters in spite of the churches. As Russ said, you can still follow Jesus (whatever that means, we'll sort it out as we go). Nothing else matters much.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fatprophet:
In fact one could say that one would have to share all of Jesus' religious and moral convictions if one was a Christian. We can argue what those religious convictions were, but we can't give up trying to approximate to them if following Jesus is not just a slogan.
An excellent attempt at unpacking "believing in and following", which I wouldn't want to argue with.
Jesus' attitude to the institutionalised religion of his day is one of those convictions. The extent to which it is applicable to the institutionalised religion of our own day is one of those things on which Christians differ. So that the word "religion" can carry both positive and negative overtones.
My image of Jesus is such that I imagine His view of an unrepentant serial killer would be that he should repent. But that His view of a would-be follower from a culture that has been shaped by Buddhism wouldn't necessarily involve trying to convert him/her to western philosophical views on the nature of divinity, authority, time, etc.
I guess I'm just saying that we have to try to beware the temptation of identifying our version of Christianity (along with all its cultural preconceptions) with the "believing in and following" itself.
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
starrina
The rose warrior
# 3549
|
Posted
Having read the whole thread (yes, really!) there are a couple of points I want to make:
1) It's interesting that in anthropology of religion there are 7 basic definitions of religion that range from the very basic (eg a belief in a deity and a community of worshippers) to the very complex (eg a belief in a deity, a community of worshippers, rituals, priesthood, etc etc) and Christianity fits all of them!
make of this what you will.
I am not saying this is all there is to Christianity (I do believe quite happily that Christianity is more than the religion of pagans/tribal/classical society, but now I write this I can't think how to explain it properly)
2) On the Eucharist. I have been raised Protestant, with an unsacramental view of faith. However through certain circumstances I have ended up on the road of converting to Catholicism. I do attend mass and have only taken communion once (and taht was an accident, no one had told me to cross my arms over my breast when I went up for a blessing. This confused the priest and I was too embarassed to ask for a blessing at that point). That was a year ago and I have not taken communion since. I do miss it, but taht's not the point. The point is that if faith is sacramental (which I believe it is) the path of faith is upheld by both moral and spiritual boundaries. If our faith in christ is to mean anything then they must be made to count.
I understand people's frustration at not being able to take communion with Catholics (do I mean just Roman here? There is so much jargon floating about I am confused), but if you do not believe what the (ROman?) Catholics believe it is fair enough that you should not take communion. Perhaps it is harder on people like me who do believe in transubstantiation who still cannot take communion?? Yet oddly I have little problem with this.
--------------------
"what have you been doing while Bells has been maturing?"
"Drinking better whiskey."
Posts: 275 | From: the kwoon | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
