Thread: What on earth (or elsewhere) is the point of church? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029594
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
The "man-friendly Christmas" thread in the nether regions of this fine vessel have made me wonder about this question.
I suspect that it has many strands, and is probably not resolvable this side of eternity.
The first question is whether its existence is strictly mandated in the New Testament. This seems to be taken as a given, particularly by evangelicals, but I see it as growing out of the ministry described in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles, rather than being an absolute linear continuation of it, or being a response to a direct command of Christ. This, for me, makes the church more provisional in a very helpful fashion, because underlines the pointlessness of excessive focus on being like the first-century church, which I'm not sure even existed in a form with direct comparability to life as a Christian now or throughout 95% of Christian history. We need to be informed by the first-century church, as by the rest of Christian history. It is not helpful or productive to be held to ransom to it.
The choice of a particular church is another question. In a consumerist world, it appears to equate to brand and to brand loyalty. At very least, it expresses identity on a collective and an individual level. Ego therefore becomes involved, and makes this membership as much about the members themselves as about the church/denomination or God. At times, God can become irrelevant, as demonstrated by some within the Sea of Faith movement, and by the experiments in secular "church" gatherings.
So, what are we part of and why? Does it have a purely spiritual function, a social one, both, neither? Why do we feel moved as part of our expression of being Christians to be part of such a thing/things?
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on
:
Well, the building is a handy place to hang bells to keep the ringers busy...
AG
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
I think it was Geza Vermes who said something along the lines of, Jesus proclaimed the immanent arrival of the Kingdom of God but what arrived was the Church. I've always rather liked that statement. In truth I think I hold more to Moltmann's theology which would also assert that Vermes statement to be true but that the church is a symbol of the breaking in of that kingdom. So yes, it has a social, political and spiritual function.
[ 11. December 2015, 12:35: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I think it was Geza Vermes who said something along the lines of, Jesus proclaimed the immanent arrival of the Kingdom of God but what arrived was the Church.
According to Wikipédia it was French theologian Alfred Loisy: quote:
« Jésus annonçait le Royaume, et c'est l'Église qui est venue »
"Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom, but what we ended up with was the Church".
I had it as my sig. for a while.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Having got that out of the way, here are a couple more thoughts.
- It's important to distinguish between a local gathering of believers and the Church Universal - a distinction that gets blurred in millenial-leadning groups, as I can attest.
- Jesus promised to build the Church and enjoined us to seek the Kingdom. Often, people seem to attempt to build the Church themselves and assume Jesus will bring the Kingdom, which is exactly the wrong way round.
- When the above happens, churches and other Christian agencies get bloated with layers of organisation, administration, and power, and suck in resources. They become an end in themselves. My working illustration for this is "Church as Disneyland".
- My working vision of the local church is, not Disneyland but a service station/rest area: somewhere for believers to stop off and be resourced before heading off on their journey in the world.
- Having tried both resource-intensive and virtually-no-resources-at-all ways of church planting, I can assert on the basis of experience that "God made it grow".
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
One thing I like about churches is that they have no point. Of course, you can adduce plenty of points about them, but still, I recall the space and emptiness in the eucharist, where purposes and causes melt away. But maybe this is idiosyncratic.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Euty:
quote:
According to Wikipédia it was French theologian Alfred Loisy:
quote:
« Jésus annonçait le Royaume, et c'est l'Église qui est venue »
"Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom, but what we ended up with was the Church".
I had it as my sig. for a while.
Thank you.
You spiked my interest in locating this because I knew I hadn't read it in Loisy and found I had read it in E P Sanders (Christianity and Judaism, P91) and not Vermes (apologies). The exact quote is; " Jesus proclaimed the coming of the kingdom, but it was the church that arrived." Loisy is a good bit before Sanders; naughty plagiarist!
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The choice of a particular church is another question. In a consumerist world, it appears to equate to brand and to brand loyalty.
I think it's actually the same question surely? Now, there's John Stuart Mill's point of course that if he'd been born in the Ottoman empire he'd be expected to be a Muslim, but as he's English he's expected to be CofE, but in the days where deciding to go in the first place is more of a considered decision I'd be surprised if it wasn't a bit more theologically grounded than brand loyalty.
If you have a high view of the sacraments, then of course church exists to receive the sacraments. Evelyn Waugh, deeply backwoods traddie that he was, was by no means alone in his view that the church exists to enable the sacrifice of the mass - everything else, social teaching, charity, is just peripherals.
Alternatively, the Puritans were rather keen on getting together to pray, others want to be "spiritually recharged", etc.
I'm not sure where the ego comes into it beyond having to sign up to something presented to you by one church or other. Ever since there ceased to be one church to sign up to or not (obviously some think there still is, including at least 2 of the churches themselves...) there has had to be an element of ego insofar as a decision is arrived at that one or other is "right."
I think that goes for many things in life though. Ego is surely more important if you're either starting your own (hello L Ron Hubbard), or in a position to be actively proselytising for whichever one it is that you're a member of - "join US, not THEM, because..."
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The first question is whether its existence is strictly mandated in the New Testament. ..... or being a response to a direct command of Christ.
Christ's direct command to 'do this in remembrance of me' presupposes a group - which we call 'church'.
[ 11. December 2015, 14:53: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
To put this in software-development terms, I would say that "the church" is one implementation of Christianity but not the only possible one.
Posted by Felafool (# 270) on
:
HCH said
quote:
To put this in software-development terms, I would say that "the church" is one implementation of Christianity but not the only possible one.
I think it might be a more basic level, as in the binary system that underlies all other software - everything is coded using '1' or '0'. A very loose and unsatisfying analogy would be that 'the church' is like that, people are either in it or not in it, in Christ or nor in Christ.
At a different level, you can belong/participate/avoid any of the manifestations of the institution, but you may or may not be in 'the church'?
Going back to the OP, if 'the church' has any use, is it perhaps to be the body of Christ on earth, filled with his spirit, and continuing his ministry of declaring, demonstrating and welcoming the Kingdom of God on earth?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
God wants us to co-operate with each other and with God as we worship and as we serve. This has been made clear in every possible way in the scriptures, and is apparent in the teachings of Jesus and in the way the early churches formed and grew.
Love cannot operate alone.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
The purpose of the church is to prepare us for the Kingdom. To be both its agents and its recipients.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
The Church is the Body Of Christ through which he continues His work on earth. We do the local church thing because none of us is big enough to be the Body of Christ alone. (It's a slightly different matter when God providentially puts us in a situation of being alone; then He promises us what we need)
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Many of the replies so far seem to me to set out what the church aspires to do, but I'd like to take them to pieces.
This will inevitably be offensive to some, but again I think there is something worthy of comment in that very offence. It arises, to my mind, from a very strong identification between a church and its members. We feel like part of the kingdom by being part of the church.
To my mind, and from my experience, the real problem with this comes from the fact that the church thinks it already is the kingdom, rather than being in search of it, or a stage in its building. This can make the church excessively self-satisfied and resistant to any kind of criticism or challenge to change, and therefore all too frequently to the holy spirit.
There's another aspect to this question which I'd like to raise. Is the church only the Church as body of Christ at the local level? Or at the universal level? Can one be an authentic part of the body of Christ without being part of an ecclesiastical body with a definite view of the wider picture?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
To my mind, and from my experience, the real problem with this comes from the fact that the church thinks it already is the kingdom, rather than being in search of it, or a stage in its building. This can make the church excessively self-satisfied and resistant to any kind of criticism or challenge to change, and therefore all too frequently to the Holy Spirit
Wise words with which I agree. The Church has got an identity crisis on it's hands which began way back in the last Century. It does still provide a function for some, whether any one will notice or care if that function continues to decline looks debatable.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
To my mind, and from my experience, the real problem with this comes from the fact that the church thinks it already is the kingdom, rather than being in search of it, or a stage in its building. This can make the church excessively self-satisfied and resistant to any kind of criticism or challenge to change, and therefore all too frequently to the holy spirit.
That's interesting, I think the exact opposite. Most of the problems exist because we don't recognise the kingdom is here.
quote:
There's another aspect to this question which I'd like to raise. Is the church only the Church as body of Christ at the local level? Or at the universal level? Can one be an authentic part of the body of Christ without being part of an ecclesiastical body with a definite view of the wider picture?
Yes, I don't accept any institutions claims to have any kind of monopoly on truth or in being the one true holy church of Christ. Stated or unstated.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't think that evangelicals in particular take 'church' as a given ... if anything, evangelicals have often been accused of having a 'low ecclesiology' ... although in practice I think it's true that they do put a lot of emphasis on the communal aspect - particularly at a local level.
Rather, as has been pointed out, there are those around with a far more 'developed' ecclesiology - even if that isn't worked out on the ground in as close-knit a fellowship sense as is often the case among evangelicals.
One of the issues I have with threads like this - and I'm not accusing Thunderbunk of doing anything wrong - is that it can too easily focus on 'church' as 'them' and not 'us' ... as if somehow all the ills and foibles of churches as institutions are somebody else's 'fault' and nothing to do with us ...
If we didn't have Church (Big C) or churches - with small c's - what would we have instead? We'd have groups of people making similar mistakes only not recognising the fact themselves ...
Or else we'd end up with people in glorious isolation with a tendency to think that they've 'arrived' or are too mature / spiritual / wise [delete as appropriate] to bother with those nasty, compromised institutions we call churches ...
I'm not sure that any Church or church - Big C or small c - that I'm aware of thinks that it's 'arrived' or somehow 'IS' the Kingdom ... that's certainly not in any of their official teachings as far as I'm aware ...
From what I can gather, all Christian traditions - to some extent or other - believe the Kingdom to be bigger than the Church and see the Church as the Kingdom's agent and representative - alongside others which may operate beyond its own boundaries ...
That seems to apply - in different ways of course - whichever Tradition (Big T) or tradition (small t) we belong to - or even if we imagine ourselves somehow to be gloriously cut-loose from T/traditions and somehow not beholden to them - which is, of course, an impossibility - and not a viewpoint I see expressed here.
I'd say there was plenty of point to the Church (and churches) but they are by no means the only agency through which the Almighty 'works' as it were ...
There are equal and opposite emphases to avoid ... to be so fixated with churchy things that we do little else - or else we set so little store by the corporate element that we head off as lone-wolfs enjoying the sound of our own howls.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Just to explain, I'm currently returning to this topic because I find myself forcibly but not entirely unexpectedly between churches, and am looking at what I am trying to achieve by being part of such a thing. So, at the moment, I'm kind of between first and third persons in this connection.
I'm also trying to tease out the effects of the different ways in which the word "church" can be interpreted.
Yes, the focus on evangelicals may be misleading, or indeed flat wrong - having been worshipping in anglo catholic circles for the last 20 years, I may simply have become too used to that version of near-ecclesiolatry to notice it, whereas I find it all too easy to detect that "this is what the bible says people did at the time it is talking about, therefore this must be exactly and directly what the church does now in order to have anything to do with Jesus" school of evangelical expression.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sorry to double-post, but while I think on't ...
An Anglican vicar once half-jokingly (half admiringly) observed to me of his local RC church that it reminded him of a 'filling station' - people stopped by to 'top up with Mass' on a Saturday or Sunday then skedaddled to get on with the rest of their lives ...
I quite like Eutychus's idea of the church as some kind of 'service station' along life's journey - a weekly 'equipping' as it were ... but wonder what form this can and should take ...
I mean, it's unlikely that everything that's offered at a particular gathering or service - of whatever style or stripe - is going to meet everyone's 'needs' or scratch where everyone itches ...
What are churches supposed to 'do' to equip people or empower them for the rest of the week?
If you spent one meeting/service, say, talking about work-place issues how does that help the retired couple or the old lady with Alzheimer's?
Surely it's as much about what we 'bring' as what we take away?
I read something the other day that gave me pause. An Anglican writer contributing a piece about Anglican worship for an old-ish second-hand book I have about various traditions/styles of worship, observed that Anglican worship - as originally conceived in the 16th century - had never really 'worked' insofar that most Anglicans went in for Sunday observance only, as it were, rather than following the pattern of daily offices of morning and evening prayer throughout the week.
That only 'worked', the writer suggested, in a college or other institutional context ... it didn't really work out in conventional parish life.
I can only speak as I find and whilst I do try to follow some form of daily office I find myself with some 'disconnect' whenever I attend a service that doesn't 'fit' with that overall pattern and which ignores the lectionary readings or the calendar for that particular time ...
Obviously, that's only going to be a problem for people like me - but I'm sure there are parallel issues with those who don't follow a set pattern of that kind.
I can't remember whether it was here or elsewhere but an Orthodox person once observed that church was like a gym - we didn't 'enjoy' it necessarily - it's not 'Disneyland' in the entertainment sense - but it did us good ... a hospital for the soul and so on ...
I'm not sure I 'enjoy' motorway service stations - although they have improved in recent years - but they're handy places to have a pee and grab a coffee.
The analogy surely only applies if we know what we're going to get - fruit machines (if we want them) one of those chair machines that give you a back massage (should you so wish), a newsagents/sweetie shop, a loo, a Costa or another coffee outlet ... a set of picnic tables overlooking the hard-shoulder ...
With the more sacramental traditions the round of services and prayer trundles along - it's happening round the clock in monasteries and so on as well as parish churches and cathedrals - you can dip in and out - take what you need.
With the newer or less formally sacramental traditions then you're setting out your stall differently each week - or imagining that you are ...
I'm not saying one is right and t'other is wrong, but there's a limit to what you can do for a few hours on a Sunday morning. However you cut it.
The bigger issue, surely, is how the Church/churches are expressing Christ throughout the week - in people's work-places, homes, schools, businesses etc etc.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Fair do's ThunderBunk ... I can understand this ...
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Just to explain, I'm currently returning to this topic because I find myself forcibly but not entirely unexpectedly between churches, and am looking at what I am trying to achieve by being part of such a thing. So, at the moment, I'm kind of between first and third persons in this connection.
I'm still involved - just about - with my evangelical Anglican parish but do visit the liberal-catholic one here from time to time, as well as churches of other traditions ...
I'm not at all clear what I am 'achieving' or not achieving through my involvement - although they're grateful for the work I do on the church magazine and for my leading the prayers/intercessions about once every 5 or 6 weeks.
I've no idea what the answer is. I've not hung around Anglo-Catholic churches that much - I've probably got more contact with RCs and Orthodox than Anglo-Catholics ... so I can't comment on that. Some of them seem overly obsessed with rubrics, tat and doing things 'properly' ... I visited an AC parish in South Wales in the summer and it seemed to be run with military precision ... the incumbent was on holiday and everyone seemed to be breathing a huge sigh of relief ...
Evangelicals, in my experience (that's been my background) are equally obsessive but in different ways ...
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Again "trying to achieve" is a limited account of what I'm thinking about - just a shortcut really to expressing what I actually mean.
What I mean is something like this:
- At what level does the church exist - individual congregations? Denominational structures? The church universal? All/none of these?
- What is the church's account of its members and how they play a part in its life?
- What is my presence is doing/saying to me?
- What I am doing/saying to other people by being there?
- How does all of this relate to what I do outside the church - both in terms of secular employment and my personal devotions and other things I am starting to do?
To engage with what you are saying, I can theoretically see the point of the "filling station" but as an experience I find it utterly repellent and alienating. It lacks any sense of gathering, which to me is essential to worship. Church is not a spiritual utility; it's an expression of faith, an engagement with God, and God is not to be delegated to priests, being far too precious for that.
Having said that, liturgy for me is vital to the way I live and express my faith. I find the structure hugely helpful both in expressing collectively something that otherwise only finds internal, intangible expression and in providing a structure through which things which don't see daylight otherwise can do so, as other things are held "out of the way".
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
In societies where people no longer live their lives in a fixed location churches are a place to encounter, or create, a community.
A church is where people who have not spent a lot of time thinking about what their God calls them to do can hear from people who have spent that time.
A church is a place to make contemplation of God intentional and focused.
A church is a place where people gathered together can accomplish good in ways that individuals cannot; carrying out - however imperfectly - the command of Jesus to "follow me."
Are churches always like that? They are gatherings of us imperfect humans. So, no.
On the other hand, so what?
I have come to the conclusion that we get closer to God as we realize our own imperfection. Not because being imperfect is a way to excuse bad things, but because we are less apt to build barriers between ourselves and God.
So, our churches are imperfect. We are imperfect and that is how we are created by God. Churches can be a unique experiment in a group experience of being OK with our imperfection and a concurrent realization that God loves us just as we are.
That is not going to be accomplished by scholastic discussion. It may not be accomplished by the time the Earth disappears in a giant explosion caused by an expanding Sun. It can be started by humble people acting out their faith in a church of their choice and letting others see how good that can be.
Jesus didn't say "Be perfect for me." Jesus didn't say "Come up with a set of rules by which you can judge your performance as well as the performance of others." Jesus said "Follow me." That is enough.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
All good questions and observations - none of which deserve trite answers - but it's hard not to sound trite when trying to engage with them ...
When we're dealing with God, the meaning of life, the universe and everything then whatever we do or don't do, what 'church' has to 'offer' or doesn't 'have to offer' ... is going to sound pretty trivial ...
I don't think Eutychus's 'service station not Disneyland' model - or ideal - obviates the communal aspect ... what he's saying is that churches are not the destination in and of themselves, but rather like an inn or an oasis - if we want to use an old travelling analogy rather than the rather anonymous one of a petrol filling station or motorway cafe ... they are there to help us on our journey.
I s'pose the answer to the question whether the church 'exists' or can be perceived boils down to the thing about those 'born of the Spirit' being like the wind - you can't 'see' the wind but you can feel its effects ... so it is with the divine agency of the Kingdom - through the Church and elsewhere ...
I'm not sure that sacerdotal/sacramental traditions are 'saying' that the divine afflatus etc is the sole preserve of priests ... although what has certainly happened is that the 'God-stuff' tends to be left to the 'professionals' in the popular imagination - if we can still talk about such a thing.
It's often said about people around here that they are not against religion - provided someone else is doing it ...
On one level, I don't think you're going to find the answers to your questions - because not only is all this 'too precious' to leave with priests - as you put it - but it's also too precious and too profound to admit of easy answers.
What 'good' did it do hermits (or anyone else) for the Desert Fathers to do what they did?
How can anyone - a monk in a cell, a youth worker on a housing estate, someone house-bound through age or illness - ultimately 'know' whether what they are doing has any 'value' as such?
How your experience of church - or lack of it at the moment - relates to your work, your domestic life, your spiritual life/devotions isn't anything that any of us can answer nor prescribe - and I'm not sure it 'admits' of any definitive answers you might come up with in your own exploration.
Yet there's always the exploration. There's always 'the journey' to use a trite cliche.
I find myself identifying with aspects of what you say - the liturgical dimension, for instance. But for that structure to be in place there needs to be some kind of gathering or community aspect - unless one were to work one's way through a daily office in splendid isolation.
All of which is a round-about way of saying, 'I have absolutely no idea ...'
However, we might see through a glass-darkly, but we still 'see' ...
Whatever our experience of Church or churches has been, we 'see' something ... surely?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
A place where 1% of the village focusses 1% of the time.
Where it takes an eternity to 'this do in remembrance' of Him. Waugh was right. But more is less.
New Year's 4 years ago my new final wife and I had two village churches ALL to ourselves. I tear up remembering it. Sublime. I LOVE empty churches.
Where grandiose things are declared in song and prayer and preaching.
I like the Peace. And the 'fellowship' afterwards.
Monday night, home group. Often good. When me missus comes. Church is increasingly meaningless to her, she has no sense of 'duty', which is not a criticism. I do. Which is a hollow thing. Habit. Custom.
1st Tuesday in the month, men's group. Starts too early. Good when I can make it. Men's talk!
Last Saturday in the month, men's breakfast, NOW you're talking! I do the best. BLACK PUDDIN'! Awesome speaker last time. A former terrorist. The plot to kidnap Blair's children was taking too long. The one to blow him up in a suicide attack would have worked just fine.
Friday night. The homeless and vulnerably housed. Where I met my friend Peter. Who I AM church to. And my wife. The God slot is SUCH a challenge. I missed it last night. Summoned home by the missus. And I did miss it. The challenge of being inclusive where utter twaddle is being said. Which I'm working out on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday too ...
Here. This is church. For me.
Two thousand years of most dubious battle. 30 years of cultic cul-de-sac. And now this mediocrity, enlivened by the emergent and Francis' first year or so, but fading back to full un-blown mediocrity.
Which I MUST remember to thank God for.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
I don't see discussion as a matter of coming up with answers, or at least not final, complete answers. Rather, I see it as a way of avoiding foreclosing on questions. My purpose in starting this discussion was to air my answers and the questions I have been avoiding asking.
In that sense, I see this really as having characteristics of a deceased equine, in that it is a discussion that is played out every time Christians get together - and arguably every time we do something individually in the consciousness that others elsewhere are doing the same thing - or when we do the reverse with any degree of self-consciousness.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The purpose of the church is to prepare us for the Kingdom. To be both its agents and its recipients.
That'll do for me. Very nicely put.
Most of the argument relates to the subordinate "yes but what and yes but how" questions viz;
What is the Kingdom?
How do we become recipients?
What does our agency responsibility mean for our behaviour (both individual and corporate)?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Again "trying to achieve" is a limited account of what I'm thinking about - just a shortcut really to expressing what I actually mean.
What I mean is something like this:
- At what level does the church exist - individual congregations? Denominational structures? The church universal? All/none of these?
- What is the church's account of its members and how they play a part in its life?
- What is my presence is doing/saying to me?
- What I am doing/saying to other people by being there?
- How does all of this relate to what I do outside the church - both in terms of secular employment and my personal devotions and other things I am starting to do?
To engage with what you are saying, I can theoretically see the point of the "filling station" but as an experience I find it utterly repellent and alienating. It lacks any sense of gathering, which to me is essential to worship. Church is not a spiritual utility; it's an expression of faith, an engagement with God, and God is not to be delegated to priests, being far too precious for that.
Having said that, liturgy for me is vital to the way I live and express my faith. I find the structure hugely helpful both in expressing collectively something that otherwise only finds internal, intangible expression and in providing a structure through which things which don't see daylight otherwise can do so, as other things are held "out of the way".
Perhaps the best definition of 'church' is in terms of 'the community of believers within which God wants me to serve at the moment'.
I don't belong to a church of my choice, but to the one God led me to. I had to learn to get used to ways of worship that do nothing for me, and to have patience with those who don't behave in ways or use words which extend the loving kindness I would hope for, but it remains where God wants me to be for now, as has been affirmed in many ways.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I tend to be wary of talk of God 'leading us' to this that, or the other church ...
Increasingly, I tend not to see it as a case of the Almighty micro-managing our course through life -- but I certainly still have room for providential threads and strands.
If I go to church X, Y or Z then it must surely come down to personal, individual choice - even if I choose an option that doesn't necessarily 'fit' in a conducive sense ...
I dunno ... perhaps I'm reacting against my more pietistic background. My mum-in-law, who became charismatic in the early days of the charismatic renewal in the CofE - always felt drawn towards the Pentecostals in the town in the north-west of England where she ended up ... 'For two pins I've have headed to the Penties,' she would say, 'But God called me to remain at the parish church ...'
Even in my more full-on pietistic days I couldn't see why this would be and what the outcome would have been one way or another ... I couldn't quite see what she 'achieved' by remaining Anglican over and against what she might have done had she become some kind of posh Pentie ... (she's pretty middle-class) ...
Nor vice-versa - what would have been 'better' about being a Pentie?
Neither her old parish church nor her nearest Penties are going particularly great guns from what I can see ...
Perhaps I'm just cynical or have been round the block too many times ...
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I tend to be wary of talk of God 'leading us' to this that, or the other church ...
Increasingly, I tend not to see it as a case of the Almighty micro-managing our course through life -- but I certainly still have room for providential threads and strands.
If I go to church X, Y or Z then it must surely come down to personal, individual choice - even if I choose an option that doesn't necessarily 'fit' in a conducive sense ...
I dunno ... perhaps I'm reacting against my more pietistic background. My mum-in-law, who became charismatic in the early days of the charismatic renewal in the CofE - always felt drawn towards the Pentecostals in the town in the north-west of England where she ended up ... 'For two pins I've have headed to the Penties,' she would say, 'But God called me to remain at the parish church ...'
Even in my more full-on pietistic days I couldn't see why this would be and what the outcome would have been one way or another ... I couldn't quite see what she 'achieved' by remaining Anglican over and against what she might have done had she become some kind of posh Pentie ... (she's pretty middle-class) ...
Nor vice-versa - what would have been 'better' about being a Pentie?
Neither her old parish church nor her nearest Penties are going particularly great guns from what I can see ...
Perhaps I'm just cynical or have been round the block too many times ...
If we are in God's service, it's not about what we achieve but about what God is doing through our service. That won't always be apparent to other people.
I understand why you are wary, and it is right to be wary, as we can lead ourselves all over the place if we allow our imaginations to run riot, but if we are in God's service, spending time in prayer and doing our best to listen to God, in whatever way God blesses us with his guidance, we will conform to his will and forget about satisfying ourselves (except that we are satisfied if we are carrying out God's will).
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If we are in God's service, it's not about what we achieve but about what God is doing through our service. That won't always be apparent to other people.
I understand why you are wary, and it is right to be wary, as we can lead ourselves all over the place if we allow our imaginations to run riot, but if we are in God's service, spending time in prayer and doing our best to listen to God, in whatever way God blesses us with his guidance, we will conform to his will and forget about satisfying ourselves (except that we are satisfied if we are carrying out God's will).
All of that is fine, but it leads us into "holy" drone territory. We are created as we are, and it seems to me to be wrong to ignore the signals which come from our nature. We are beloved children of God, made in God's image, and that image is sufficiently trustworthy to tell us when we are slogging ourselves to death rather than doing anything life-giving, to ourselves or those around us.
Or at least, this is what I am currently trying to learn and/or tell myself. There are many brick walls against which I could hurl myself until I was nothing but a mush. Or I could look until I find something which is a door leading to life. In a season like Advent, it seems to me that the better course is the latter.
[Edited to restore Raptor Eye's words]
[ 12. December 2015, 16:29: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
@Thunderbunk. Of the many questions you've listed, which one, if answered, would make the most difference to what you do next?
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
The core issue (as others have alluded to) is defining what you mean by "church".
If you mean a continuing number of Christians who talk to each other, then yes, there is a mandate and a point. The point being mainly to learn from others, support others and help others.
If you mean a systematic structure that dictates what is acceptable to believe then I believe the answer is no, it was not mandated and the main point is to give people a chance to be sanctimonious and religious, while ignoring the actual teachings of the originator.
I know from where I stand, the church as an organisation, the buildings, the clergy, the ceremony and suchlike, no point. And yes, this is from an evangelical perspective, but also from the perspective of someone who has been hurt and damaged by the church.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@Thunderbunk. Of the many questions you've listed, which one, if answered, would make the most difference to what you do next?
Impossible to say at the moment, I'm afraid. They're all mixed together in a general feeling of "what do I do next, where do I go and why does it matter?" The latter, of course, in a personal context - it clearly doesn't matter to the rest of creation what I do or don't do, but it matters to me, and I believe that it at least partly matters to God.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Go where you're needed nearest to your door mate. Go where you can give want you need to get.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I get that, ThunderBunk ... and I get Truman White's questions too ... but sometimes there ain't no single, straight-forward answer ... in fact, I'd suggest that most times there isn't ...
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@Thunderbunk. Of the many questions you've listed, which one, if answered, would make the most difference to what you do next?
Impossible to say at the moment, I'm afraid. They're all mixed together in a general feeling of "what do I do next, where do I go and why does it matter?" The latter, of course, in a personal context - it clearly doesn't matter to the rest of creation what I do or don't do, but it matters to me, and I believe that it at least partly matters to God.
Sleep on it mate. Look back over your questions and pick three. Doesn't matter which ones - not a question of getting the "right" question to get the "right" answer. More about finding the next bit of the question to explore. You can go back to t'other questions anytime, so's more a case of what you want to focus on first.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Bugger. What.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
All of that is fine, but it leads us into "holy" drone territory. We are created as we are, and it seems to me to be wrong to ignore the signals which come from our nature. We are beloved children of God, made in God's image, and that image is sufficiently trustworthy to tell us when we are slogging ourselves to death rather than doing anything life-giving, to ourselves or those around us.
Or at least, this is what I am currently trying to learn and/or tell myself. There are many brick walls against which I could hurl myself until I was nothing but a mush. Or I could look until I find something which is a door leading to life. In a season like Advent, it seems to me that the better course is the latter.
[Edited to restore Raptor Eye's words]
To give ourselves to God does not take away our personalities, quite the opposite. We do take account of our feelings, God also guides us through our feelings, but that does not mean that we are constantly looking to satisfy our own desires. Rather, we look to serve God even though we might not like the kind of liturgy or people in the church where we currently worship. For all we know, it might be going to change soon and we will be in place to be one of the people who help when it does. God knows, we don't.
Doors close too, however. Sometimes God is clearly saying that we are to leave one church and go to another. Prayer and discernment are our constant companions as we search for the door that leads to life in service. If busy-ness is taking away our prayer time and we are not serving God but the system, God is not being invited to grow the kingdom through our work, as you have said.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I tend to be wary of talk of God 'leading us' to this that, or the other church ...
Yes, I think that is indicative of a failure to take responsibility for our own actions as adults. We're not pigs with rings in our noses that God pulls around. We are his "rational sheep" (in the words of the Orthodox liturgy) and are responsible for making decisions and acting as free, unforced agents.
Flip Wilson played a character whose constant refrain, when caught doing something wrong, was "The Devil made me do it!" (Geraldine? I think that was the name of the character.)
We need to stop playing like we're babies, or like we're horses "who need bit and bridle before they will come near you." We're moral agents responsible and accountable for our actions. Infantalizing talk, and blaming our decisions on God or on the Devil, are an abdication of the responsibility that is ours alone.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
God is indeed the one whom to serve is perfect freedom (possibly the first time in my life I have quoted St Augustine). The question is how not to exchange that freedom for slavery to that which is not God.
To hone it a little further, my particular dilemma is having a side that is very sensitive to structure and appreciative of its role, and another which wants to cast structure aside as an impediment to the relationships that are the basis of all true human interaction. I am also increasingly suspicious of the claims of ecclesiastical structures to facilitate the work of God in creation; they seem to me primarily, and sometimes exclusively, to serve their own preservation. The more they perceive a threat, the more this is true.
How do others walk that line? I am asking both those who are ordained and those who aren't - either side of that line there are compromises and paradoxes to walk/live with.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
I am also increasingly suspicious of the claims of ecclesiastical structures to facilitate the work of God in creation; they seem to me primarily, and sometimes exclusively, to serve their own preservation. The more they perceive a threat, the more this is true.
Sometimes the church as an institution is great and sometimes it sucks, but I think when it has truly sucked in the moments I recall, somewhere in all of it I think I have perceived that God has worked in spite of us. That can be read in two senses and perhaps both are true.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Structures draw the needy to huddle in their shadow, if they're big enough.
We can lift a little finger in their direction. Over that line.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes - that ...
Both what Mousethief wrote and what Fletcher Christian observed ... I'm afraid it's one of these both/and things.
On the leading/guidance and discernmnt thing - the older and uglier I get, the more I think it boils down to making informed choices based on available evidence and consideration of consequences rather than any 'promptings', feelings or combinations of 'providences' and what might be 'confirmation basis'.
That's not to denigrate the 'spiritual' side - but it is to obviate an overly dualistic approach.
On the issue of whether Church or churches are 'self-serving' institutions - the same could be said of any group - or we ourselves as individuals.
As has been said, God works inspite of us - I don't see any grounds for believing that the Church or individual Churches are going to get things right all the time - but if we see the Church as the Body of Christ and therefore possessing both human and divine characteristics at one and the same time, then we can put up with foibles and not expect perfection.
That's not to take us off the hook of course.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, I think that is indicative of a failure to take responsibility for our own actions as adults. We're not pigs with rings in our noses that God pulls around. We are his "rational sheep" (in the words of the Orthodox liturgy) and are responsible for making decisions and acting as free, unforced agents.
Flip Wilson played a character whose constant refrain, when caught doing something wrong, was "The Devil made me do it!" (Geraldine? I think that was the name of the character.)
We need to stop playing like we're babies, or like we're horses "who need bit and bridle before they will come near you." We're moral agents responsible and accountable for our actions. Infantalizing talk, and blaming our decisions on God or on the Devil, are an abdication of the responsibility that is ours alone.
I agree that our decisions are ours and that we are wholly responsible for what we say and do. We are free to do so. We have minds capable of rational thought and therefore of discernment.
That said, we are influenced: by our culture and upbringing, by our own genetic make-up, by 'the media', and also by God and by the devil, where the devil might be tempting us in the form of a supernatural being or in the form of our own harmful tendencies, take your pick.
We are also influenced by God, whether we like it or not. God is constantly there guiding us to do what is good and right. When we are ready to willingly serve God, we may continue to do what we think, but we might also learn to listen to God and over time find ourselves more attuned to God's influence. Through discernment, we learn how to filter out our own imaginations and desires. This is not playing babies, rather it is maturing into spiritual adulthood.
I maintain that God will lead us to where we are best able to serve, if we are willing to listen.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
This is in danger of turning into my blog, which is not what the Ship is for.
I'm not quite sure what to do, other than to note that temporary shelter within structures, as extended to me by the cathedral this morning, can be very welcome. It felt very gentle.
Just have to see how my understanding and this thread develop.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think if I lived in one of the old cathedral cities, I'd certainly be inclined to take refuge in one ...
What's not to like? Why wouldn't we? Good choral music, intelligent preaching, no-one trying to mess with your head ...
But we don't all live in cosy cathedral cities, and some, like Eutychus, are 'pioneering' in less salubrious conditions.
However, from what ThunderBunk has told us the cathedral sounds like a tonic for the time being.
As for God calling us to churches where we can 'serve' - how does that apply to those who feel their prime 'vocation' lies in 'the world' rather than the church?
If I understand Eutychus correctly, his 'vision' is for the church to help facilitate believers' mission in the world rather it being a 'crash-pad' or the place where Christians spend an inordinate amount of time.
I think both ends of the ecclesial spectrum can absorb inordinate amounts of time and energy, if we're not careful - and prevent us from active and meaningful engagement in the world around us. I'm less involved with church now than I've ever been since my evangelical conversion in 1981. I still 'believe' in church and supporting / serving a local congregation in some way but my focus is also on local politics, on community arts activities and developing links in creative writing and so on - as well as juggling family and freelancw work responsibilities.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for God calling us to churches where we can 'serve' - how does that apply to those who feel their prime 'vocation' lies in 'the world' rather than the church?
If I understand Eutychus correctly, his 'vision' is for the church to help facilitate believers' mission in the world rather it being a 'crash-pad' or the place where Christians spend an inordinate amount of time.
I think both ends of the ecclesial spectrum can absorb inordinate amounts of time and energy, if we're not careful - and prevent us from active and meaningful engagement in the world around us. I'm less involved with church now than I've ever been since my evangelical conversion in 1981. I still 'believe' in church and supporting / serving a local congregation in some way but my focus is also on local politics, on community arts activities and developing links in creative writing and so on - as well as juggling family and freelancw work responsibilities.
As ever, it's both/and and not either/or. We serve as the body of Christ, the Church, within relationship with our brothers and sisters in Christ, both receiving and giving in our church communities.
We not only serve by helping the organisation to thrive but also by reaching out to others in every way we can, in whatever proportion God calls and guides us into service.
Naturally, any one of us can only do so much, and there's the problem. If others are not doing their bit, it all falls on some who end up straining and in the end failing to hear or to know what God is calling them specifically to do. All they can see is what they think needs to be done. It's surprising how if they stop doing it, God brings someone forward to fill in, lets it fold as it was not necessary in the first place, or affirms in their hearts that this is the service they are currently called to. Faith grows.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I wish I could share your sunny optimism, Raptor Eye.
What I tend to see are people immersing themselves in church-life to the extent that they are so heavenly minded to be of little earthly use ...
Others becoming so earthly minded that they are of no heavenly use ...
Or the onus on keeping things afloat falling on the same people over and over again to the extent that they eventually buckle under the weight ...
Of course, things aren't as stark as I've painted them ... there's a balance somewhere ...
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
So, what are we part of and why?
The Kingdom of God. Because it's good for us.
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Why do we feel moved as part of our expression of being Christians to be part of such a thing/things?
Because it's easier than doing it alone. And it moves it from the mystical to the concrete.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wish I could share your sunny optimism, Raptor Eye.
What I tend to see are people immersing themselves in church-life to the extent that they are so heavenly minded to be of little earthly use ...
Others becoming so earthly minded that they are of no heavenly use ...
Or the onus on keeping things afloat falling on the same people over and over again to the extent that they eventually buckle under the weight ...
Of course, things aren't as stark as I've painted them ... there's a balance somewhere ...
It seems to me that the purpose of observing behaviour in others is to help us to judge and temper ourselves. As you said, there's a balance somewhere - and that seems to apply to everything.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes - of course it applies to everything.
It's all about perspective. One person's exemplar of godliness and virtue is someone else's pietistic pain in the backside ...
My point is that - on the whole - I think there's an imbalance within most churches - of whatever tradition - to the extent that they are pre-occupied with their own services/meetings, own members and own structures/buildings and what-have-you to the extent that they hobble themselves in terms of their 'effectiveness' in the wider community.
I think that's what Eutychus is driving at with his 'Disneyland' analogy.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
I don't know whether there is an imbalance within 'most' churches. Some, yes. Others do lots of community but little spirituality.
In the end, is it for us to migrate to where someone else will provide what we want, for us to step forward to provide what others want, or for us to allow God to help us to be balanced?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't know whether there is an imbalance within 'most' churches. Some, yes. Others do lots of community but little spirituality.
In the end, is it for us to migrate to where someone else will provide what we want, for us to step forward to provide what others want, or for us to allow God to help us to be balanced?
I don't think there can be a single right answer to that. There may be a time in one's life where one has nothing to give, and truly needs a safe place, and migration is called for. There may be other times when one is stable and really needs to pay forward what they've received. The hard thing is knowing when to do what, and to get off one's tuchus and act. Comfortable people, especially, can be slow to help others, unfortunately.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I tend to be wary of talk of God 'leading us' to this that, or the other church ...
Yes, I think that is indicative of a failure to take responsibility for our own actions as adults. We're not pigs with rings in our noses that God pulls around. We are his "rational sheep" (in the words of the Orthodox liturgy) and are responsible for making decisions and acting as free, unforced agents.
Flip Wilson played a character whose constant refrain, when caught doing something wrong, was "The Devil made me do it!" (Geraldine? I think that was the name of the character.)
We need to stop playing like we're babies, or like we're horses "who need bit and bridle before they will come near you." We're moral agents responsible and accountable for our actions. Infantalizing talk, and blaming our decisions on God or on the Devil, are an abdication of the responsibility that is ours alone.
As a matter of interest, how does this fit your Orthodox doctrine of synergia? If we're co-workers together with God (as Paul put it) seems to imply that God's part of the activity, not just standing aloof from our decisions. How's that work in your tradition?
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't know whether there is an imbalance within 'most' churches. Some, yes. Others do lots of community but little spirituality.
In the end, is it for us to migrate to where someone else will provide what we want, for us to step forward to provide what others want, or for us to allow God to help us to be balanced?
My spiritual director brings me back to four dimensions of service. He gets me think about service to God (which I will sacrifice anything for, pay the price for) to the church (stuff they ask me to do - I make decisions about what I respond to) to my ministry (which goes beyond my home church) and to people outside the church. There's no solid dividing line between the four - thinking about them just helps me sort my priorities out and keeps me asking the question "who on God's earth am I here to serve?"
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
To hone it a little further, my particular dilemma is having a side that is very sensitive to structure and appreciative of its role, and another which wants to cast structure aside as an impediment to the relationships that are the basis of all true human interaction.
Howzabout you focus on this for a mo'. Where does structure help you?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I wondered about the 'synergia' thing too, Truman White - and obviously, not being Orthodox and not being Mousethief, I shouldn't really try to answer a question you've posed to him.
However, as I was agreeing with the broad thrust of what I think he was saying, I will say something ... with the caveat that I don't pretend to understand the synergia thing in the same way that the Orthodox do - nor am I presuming to answer the question on Mousethief's behalf.
What I will say, though, is how I tend to view this sort of thing these days ... and yes, I've been influenced by the Orthodox to a considerable extent on this one ...
I'm not sure that synergia necessarily works in a 'conscious' way - nor that - on God's side - He's always micro-managing what we do ...
It's a bit like St Augustine's 'Love God and do what you like ...' thing ...
It's somewhat 'panentheist' ... God infusing and influencing things whether we are aware of it or not.
Now, it would be easy to topple over into a form of Deism - God as some kind of distant Divine Architect who sets the thing in motion, winds the clock, if you like - and then steps back.
I don't see it working like that, but neither do I believe the Almighty plans his day around what you or I or anyone else here thinks he ought to be doing ...
It seems to me that many (not all) evangelicals and charismatics are obsessed with issues of divine guidance and leading - and also tend to have a quick-fix mentality. Our local evangelical charismatic vicar seems inordinately pleased with the outcome of the Paris Climate Change summit because it will 'save millions of lives in the longer term' and some how make up for all the distressing media coverage of the 129 people killed in the recent terrorist attacks ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It's as if he can't abide bad news or shit happening so has to latch onto good news to even things out ...
I'm pleased at the agreement too - but it'll take a lot of hard graft to implement anything practical and positive - and whilst it'd be great if it stops Bangladesh flooding and so on - it doesn't alter the fact that innocent people were mown down during a Friday night out.
Ok - that's probably not a brilliant example, but it's one I've come across recently.
I s'pose what I'm saying is that there isn't some kind of Mr Fix-it approach with miracles happening every 15 seconds and happy endings all ways round.
As I've often said on these Boards, it doesn't matter how wonderful the service/meeting was you still have to get up and go out to work, you still have to wash your socks and after you've had a dump you still have to wipe your arse.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Or to put it less crudely, 'Put your trust in God, but keep your powder dry ...'
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
As a matter of interest, how does this fit your Orthodox doctrine of synergia? If we're co-workers together with God (as Paul put it) seems to imply that God's part of the activity, not just standing aloof from our decisions. How's that work in your tradition?
I'm not sure synergia is meant to apply to the decision of what church you go to, what car you buy, or whom you marry. The purpose of our synergia with God is our transformation. As St. Clive says, that other stuff is the raw material God works with, not the end product He is trying to bring about.
The largest part of synergia involves taking part in the sacraments (especially, once you're dunked, the eucharist and confession/absolution), and taking part in the life of the church, especially through its disciplines, especially fasting, prayers, and almsgiving.
But one wouldn't say "God is leading me to fast." Whether you fast or not is on your head.
Does this help, or have I missed your point, or clouded the issue?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
To hone it a little further, my particular dilemma is having a side that is very sensitive to structure and appreciative of its role, and another which wants to cast structure aside as an impediment to the relationships that are the basis of all true human interaction. I am also increasingly suspicious of the claims of ecclesiastical structures to facilitate the work of God in creation; they seem to me primarily, and sometimes exclusively, to serve their own preservation. The more they perceive a threat, the more this is true.
How do others walk that line? I am asking both those who are ordained and those who aren't - either side of that line there are compromises and paradoxes to walk/live with.
Churches as we know them are hard work, but unfortunately it seems that trying to de-construct things and using an alternative set-up is even harder work. We live in an age when even churchgoers are reluctant to devote significant time and effort to church of any sort; but someone has to, or else Christian community and nurturing becomes a mere abstraction, or the result of chance meetings in Tesco.
Maybe one of the upcoming forms of 'alternative' will be Christians who openly offer themselves as spiritual 'agents', praying, pilgrimaging, evangelising, studying the Bible, and so on, devoting themselves to specifically religious activities on behalf of the vastly more numerous people who have little interest in doing these things themselves, but would like them to be done.
Vicarious religion isn't new, of course, but perhaps we need a new way of naming it, a new theology. It might help church people feel that what they're doing (i.e. the spiritual stuff as well as the social engagement) really matters beyond themselves; and a dialogue could be created with people outside the church, who could request not only prayers but other religious activities to be carried out with them in mind.
It's not Protestantism as we know it, though....
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... Maybe one of the upcoming forms of 'alternative' will be Christians who openly offer themselves as spiritual 'agents', praying, pilgrimaging, evangelising, studying the Bible, and so on, devoting themselves to specifically religious activities on behalf of the vastly more numerous people who have little interest in doing these things themselves, but would like them to be done.
Vicarious religion isn't new, of course, but perhaps we need a new way of naming it, a new theology. It might help church people feel that what they're doing (i.e. the spiritual stuff as well as the social engagement) really matters beyond themselves; and a dialogue could be created with people outside the church, who could request not only prayers but other religious activities to be carried out with them in mind.
It's not Protestantism as we know it, though....
Interesting idea, but I'm not convinced, Svitlana. Can we have someone do Christian faith on our behalf, fast so that we don't have to, pray so that we don't have to, go on pilgrimage so that we don't have to? How about having someone else to love my neighbour so that I don't have to? Be faithful to your spouse so that I can commit adultery against mine?
No. Sorry, that's a Fresh Expression too far.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
As a matter of interest, how does this fit your Orthodox doctrine of synergia? If we're co-workers together with God (as Paul put it) seems to imply that God's part of the activity, not just standing aloof from our decisions. How's that work in your tradition?
I'm not sure synergia is meant to apply to the decision of what church you go to, what car you buy, or whom you marry. The purpose of our synergia with God is our transformation. As St. Clive says, that other stuff is the raw material God works with, not the end product He is trying to bring about.
The largest part of synergia involves taking part in the sacraments (especially, once you're dunked, the eucharist and confession/absolution), and taking part in the life of the church, especially through its disciplines, especially fasting, prayers, and almsgiving.
But one wouldn't say "God is leading me to fast." Whether you fast or not is on your head.
Does this help, or have I missed your point, or clouded the issue?
Cheers mate. I get that synergia is about become Christlike. Maybe another angle will help what I'm thinking about. Some of the Fathers talk about the "inner flame" warming the heart towards God. Through constant communion you get to know how God feels about the choices you're making, and you get to appreciate what draws you closer to him and what cools your love. Looked at that way, we'r not thinking about some kind of mechanistic relationship where God downloads insructions to your spiritual sat-nav. Seems to be more about a getting to know what's good got you and what makes God smile.
Enlighten me further me ol' son.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I've never heard about warming of spiritual hearts, outside of Methodism. The way I've heard it spoken of is the unclouding of the "nous" which in Orthodox spirituality means something like "the spiritual inner eye" through which we see the Holy. Because of sin, death, trans fatty acids, etc., our nous is clouded and unable to see what is right. Part of theosis, then, is the cleansing of the nous. But I've not heard a connection between this and everyday decisions. It's meant to make you stop wanting to sin.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Thanks Mousethief, that's helpful.
I don't know whether Truman found it so, but I did.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
As an aside - and as an outsider - I have heard Orthodox priests and others speak warmly (ha ha) and approvingly of the Wesleyan 'warmth' - only with the kind of caveats that are implicit in Mousethief's response.
Those of us who come from warmly pietistic Western traditions have to be wary of 'reading' our own proclivities into what we see the Orthodox do -- and that cuts both ways. We can get the misapprehension that it's all 'dead', cold and formal - because they don't seem to be getting as excited about things as charismatics and Pentecostals - or else we can layer it with assumptions about mystical experiences in a somewhat vatic way ...
It strikes me that we have to uncouple ourselves from these sorts of assumptions to a certain extent if we are to 'get' what the Orthodox are about and what they mean by these things.
There are parallels with the Quaker approach - although we can't draw analogies and apparent similarities too closely. The Quaker belief in the 'inner light' and 'worship meetings for clearness' doesn't necessarily imply direct and vatic 'revelations' of whatever kind ... still less any sense of 'directive' prophecy and so on.
We're not talking about the Delphic Oracle.
No, it's an issue of sober, prayerful consideration.
Finding the 'mind of Christ' isn't about having goose-bumps or whishty-whashty feelings about what we think God might 'like' ... it's a question of aligning ourselves with what we read and understand from the scriptures, from tradition/Tradition (whichever we espouse) and a regular, systematic attempt to do what we believe to be right.
Would God 'prefer' me to be a merchant banker, say and earn loadsa money - providing I gave Him some every now and again as if He's hard up - or would he prefer me to work as a supermarket check-out operator?
Am I going to wake up morning to see the answer in words of blazing fire on my bedroom wall?
No, this isn't how I see this stuff working.
Apologies for the tangent ...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
As a recent CVM contact uniquely honestly said, we talk well.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As I've often said on these Boards, it doesn't matter how wonderful the service/meeting was you still have to get up and go out to work, you still have to wash your socks and after you've had a dump you still have to wipe your arse.
Buddhist teacher Jack Kornfield calls this "After the ecstasy, the laundry", and wrote a book by that title.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Perhaps I ought to write one called, 'You still have to wipe your arse' ...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And every incontinent in all its meanings one else's.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As I've often said on these Boards, it doesn't matter how wonderful the service/meeting was you still have to get up and go out to work, you still have to wash your socks and after you've had a dump you still have to wipe your arse.
Buddhist teacher Jack Kornfield calls this "After the ecstasy, the laundry", and wrote a book by that title.
I've heard it called the "Post-Spiritual-High Letdown Blues."
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've never heard about warming of spiritual hearts, outside of Methodism. The way I've heard it spoken of is the unclouding of the "nous" which in Orthodox spirituality means something like "the spiritual inner eye" through which we see the Holy. Because of sin, death, trans fatty acids, etc., our nous is clouded and unable to see what is right. Part of theosis, then, is the cleansing of the nous. But I've not heard a connection between this and everyday decisions. It's meant to make you stop wanting to sin.
I reckon this might be a bit of "both/and". St Theophan (the reclusive one) said "Learn to perform everything you do in such a way that it warms the heart instead of cooling it. Keep your inner stove always hot by reciting a short prayer, and watch over your feelings in case they dissipate this warmth."
So that sits well with your nous cleansing. St Dimitri of Rostov encourages the believer...
"To kindle in his heart such a divine love, to unite with God in an inseparable union of love... And the heart, set on fire, will warm the inner man, will enlighten and teach him, revealing to him all its unknown and hidden wisdom..."
Great stuff isn't it? Revealing hidden wisdom strikes me as being a basis for some good daily life choices.
St Theophan says more about the effect of the fire. "As soon as this warmth is kindled, your thoughts will settle, the inner atmosphere will become clear, the first emergence of both good and bad movements in the soul will become plainly apparent to you.... The Lord will come and shed his light on your understanding, to purify your emotions, to guide your actions... You accept all that is pleasing to God, while all that is sinful you reject. All your actions are conducted with a precise awareness of God's will regarding them."
Seems like whole of life stuff. The everyday decision bit isn't about asking the Guide what to do next. Seems more about aligning our desires with Christ's, (an inseparable union of love). Our everyday decisions are the overflow of that.
Last visit before some festival or other takes over. Enjoyed the chat Mr M - enjoy the quotes whatever you make of 'em.
TW
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm sure Mousethief is likely to be familiar either with those quotes or others like them, Truman.
I know you mean well, but it sounds to me here that you are trying to put MT straight about his own Tradition ... one that he is part of and involved/engaged in ... not one that he simply reads about online or in isolated quotes from this, that or the other Saint or Recluse ...
It'd be a bit like a Benedictine monk, say, posting on here telling you what charismatic evangelicals do or don't do or are supposed to believe.
Whose 'take' on the Orthodox position on this one am I likely to trust most? Yours or mine - as outsiders - or Mousethief's as someone who is involved from the inside?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I can see what you're getting at, that by cultivating the inner spiritual life - or flame - if you like - we learn to discern what best pleases the Almighty and align our lives accordingly ...
But that still doesn't necessarily imply some kind of sense of 'guidance' or minute by minute, day by day 'direction' ...
Can you see the difference I'm trying (struggling/) to highlight here?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Definitely your point Truman.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Gamaliel makes one very good point, or at least hints at it: Orthodoxy isn't a list of propositions to believe. It's a life lived in community within the Orthodox Church. We have the Two Great Dogmas (the Incarnation and the Trinity, as explicated in the Creed), and we have the Church (the fourth "I believe in" of the Creed). Everything else serves that.
I may not agree with everything my church teaches. I may not, for medical reasons, be able to keep the fasts just-so. But I am in a community that lives this life. We as a community celebrate the feasts and the fasts. We as a community worship. We as a community share our hopes and dreams in Christ, our grief for departed loved ones, our explosive joy at the Resurrection, our vegan chocolate cake recipes, our disgust with shrimp as Lent nears its end.
Not everything every saint says is Holy Writ. Not everything every saint says applies to every Orthodox Christian. You can find a saint saying just about anything (just as you can find myriad Bible verses to bolster any point you want to make). If you wanted to defend antisemitism from the saints, one of our absolute greats is right there with hunks of quotable quotes. You could similarly defend not acknowledging anybody else being a Christian who is not Orthodox. You could defend women not going to church whilst they're menstruating. You can find anything you want.
Just because a saint said something doesn't make it so. What matters is how that saint's words are absorbed into, and acted upon in, the community of faith. Which can be very subtle. And which is the point at which (if ever) that saint's words become relevant to our lives.
----
Another meaning of "point" is a way of keeping score in a game. I hope nobody here thinks this is some kind of game that requires keeping score.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The very idea mousethief! ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
If you're looking for analogies, the church is the wilderness which Israel was pitched into when she agreed to follow God. That was the negative example. The positive one, the one where the candidate responded well, was when Christ was led by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness. No murmuring at the lack of food and water there...
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
Excuse the back to back post, but this is more support for the view.
Another positive example is that of Abraham:
Genesis 22:12He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
God tests those who covenanted with Him to be His loyal followers.
The writen record of these precedents proved to be a boon to the early church, when they went through the same testing:
1 Petee 4:12Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; 13but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation.
1 Corinthians 10: 6Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
None of us suffers for Christ. As for evil things, like what?
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
None of us suffers for Christ.
Speak for yourself.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
None of us suffers for Christ. As for evil things, like what?
See that's the problem. To get the full benefit of the information it's necessary to go through a conversion experience, a journey which those born Christian do not make.
Even those who go through a conversion have to experience the right conversion. I had a conversion experience, from nominal Buddhism to Christianity, and even though I did not then realise the implications, there was a transition from one state to another, so I could make comparisons.
Those born into Christianity don't have to make the transition, so the significance of the journey from Egypt to the Promised Land is not so obvious.
The period of residence in Egypt exposed Israel to the goals and methods of the world. They enjoyed cucumbers and garlic, sated their appetites, worked for food that never filled, led to hungering again. Working for treasure that perished isn't evil in itself, futile yes, but not evil. However, the way in which earthly treasures are gathered are often unethical. This is the common perception among Christians in the work place, the feeling that often times, they feel pressured to do unethical acts. It's not called unrighteous mammon without reason. This then is the cry to God, to rescue them from the oppression of Egypt, from being forced to sellout . They recognize that those made in the image of God are aliens, foreigners, sojourners in this world.
In Israel's case, the oppression was physical, not spiritual. God heard Israel and promised to take them to a country flowing with milk and honey, where they would live in houses they did not build, drink from wells that had not dug. All they had to do was to serve God, do the counterintuitive things, things that would mean loss and failure in thd world. Those with two coats should give one coat to the brother who was without. Seeking the Kingdom.
In return God would supply their needs. These were things people of the world chased after, but God knew that they were needed and would provide. The relationship was not employer/employee, linked by a wage contract, but father/children, linked by a blood tie, kinship, with the attendant benefits of provision and care that that relationship entailed.
The Covenant Israel agreed to was to accept God as their father, and God tested their loyalty by withodling food and water.
Whilst Christ understood that it was more important to seek God's revelation about why He did what He did, like Job ( man living by every word that proceeded forth from the mouth of God) Israel went ballistic, did a nutter.
That's that.
The information that further supports my view is related. Israel was chosen, even though she was the devil.
John 6:70Jesus replied, "Didn't I choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is the devil?
She craved the things she had in Egypt, the things she had to beg borrow or steal to get, futile things, food that never sated permanently, drink that quenched thirst temporarily, objects that satisfied passions momentarily.
More importantly, God's attention caused pride. The promise to Abraham gave them a feeling of entitlement, a sense of owning of privileges.
Remember that Christ was the Son of God, rightly entitled to status, privilige and protection from Him, on the basis of that kinship.
See His attitude to that position:
Matthew 4:5Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple,
6and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written,
‘HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU’;
and
‘ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP,
SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.’”
7Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, ‘YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.’”
A gratuitous display of His anointing would have demonstrated the power He had on tap, to turn on and off as He pleased, boosted His ego and confidence, had Jerusalem at His feet, roaring for His coronation as their promised King.
Instead, complete submission: He only spoke and did what God prompted. Insult Him with the sick puppet slander and He would take it as a compliment.
Now, let's examine the presumption of Israel, testing God, checking to see if their election "worked":
Numbers 14:44But they went up heedlessly to the ridge of the hill country; neither the ark of the covenant of the LORD nor Moses left the camp. 45Then the Amalekites and the Canaanites who lived in that hill country came down, and struck them and beat them down as far as Hormah.
Some people think their singling out is a sanction for fulfillment, they feel any action they take towards what God promised has His approval, forgetting that they must only speak the words God asks them to speak, do the works God wants them to do. In revealing their dependence, God is made more obvious as the source of the work:
The negative example:
Acts 5:9Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.” 10And immediately she fell at his feet and breathed her last, and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
The positive example:
John 3: 1Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; 2this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”
2 Corinthians 12:9And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting
Footwasher, stop posting extensive texts in addition to your own content. Please put quotes in appropriate format (visit the UBB practice thread in the Styx if needs be) and don't post content from elsewhere that is too long. People can follow links to longer texts if they wish.
/hosting
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It seems to me that many (not all) evangelicals and charismatics are obsessed with issues of divine guidance and leading - and also tend to have a quick-fix mentality. Our local evangelical charismatic vicar seems inordinately pleased with the outcome of the Paris Climate Change summit because it will 'save millions of lives in the longer term' and some how make up for all the distressing media coverage of the 129 people killed in the recent terrorist attacks ...
It's as if he can't abide bad news or shit happening so has to latch onto good news to even things out ...
I don't think it's a bad thing to look for a silver lining, but I suppose it's a question of personality. Everyone responds to these things differently, and that's the problem.
One way for the clergy to avoid rubbing people up the wrong way after these tragedies is to keep their comments very general, and in fact say very little at all. Praying for peace, for blessings on the innocent sufferers, and wisdom for leaders, etc., is what I'd normally expect in the churches I know.
quote:
I s'pose what I'm saying is that there isn't some kind of Mr Fix-it approach with miracles happening every 15 seconds and happy endings all ways round.
I don't think looking for something positive to come out of an awful situation is necessarily equivalent to looking for a 'happy ending'. It can be offensive, depending on how it's done, but when you consider that our whole religion is built on the supposedly positive outcomes of an appalling series of events it ill-behoves us to disapprove of the concept entirely.
Getting back on topic, we might ask ourselves if the church can ever be of any use when awful things are happening in the world. People have traditionally come together in groups for support when the world seems dangerous. Institutions are also useful when it comes to raising funds and material help. But in a society of very private people I think some mainstream churches are a bit uneasy with the first role, and often they don't have the resources to be as generous as they'd like regarding the second.
I know you've often complained about churches that take up too much of people's time. The advantage of MOTR churches is that you don't have too much pressure to get involved in things (unless there's a shortage of post holders). The downside is that if church folk spend little time with each other, they won't necessarily know each other very well, perhaps not well enough to feel involved with each other's lives even when a real need for closeness arises.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
What's the point of church?
To receive the Word of life, hearing it through Holy Scripture read and proclaimed, and feeding on it through the forms of bread and wine.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
OKayyyyyyyy. What about the other 167 hours of the week?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wondered about the 'synergia' thing too, Truman White - and obviously, not being Orthodox and not being Mousethief, I shouldn't really try to answer a question you've posed to him.
However, as I was agreeing with the broad thrust of what I think he was saying, I will say something ... with the caveat that I don't pretend to understand the synergia thing in the same way that the Orthodox do - nor am I presuming to answer the question on Mousethief's behalf.
What I will say, though, is how I tend to view this sort of thing these days ... and yes, I've been influenced by the Orthodox to a considerable extent on this one ...
I'm not sure that synergia necessarily works in a 'conscious' way - nor that - on God's side - He's always micro-managing what we do ...
It's a bit like St Augustine's 'Love God and do what you like ...' thing ...
It's somewhat 'panentheist' ... God infusing and influencing things whether we are aware of it or not.
Now, it would be easy to topple over into a form of Deism - God as some kind of distant Divine Architect who sets the thing in motion, winds the clock, if you like - and then steps back.
I don't see it working like that, but neither do I believe the Almighty plans his day around what you or I or anyone else here thinks he ought to be doing ...
It seems to me that many (not all) evangelicals and charismatics are obsessed with issues of divine guidance and leading - and also tend to have a quick-fix mentality. Our local evangelical charismatic vicar seems inordinately pleased with the outcome of the Paris Climate Change summit because it will 'save millions of lives in the longer term' and some how make up for all the distressing media coverage of the 129 people killed in the recent terrorist attacks ...
It's as if he can't abide bad news or shit happening so has to latch onto good news to even things out ...
I'm pleased at the agreement too - but it'll take a lot of hard graft to implement anything practical and positive - and whilst it'd be great if it stops Bangladesh flooding and so on - it doesn't alter the fact that innocent people were mown down during a Friday night out.
Ok - that's probably not a brilliant example, but it's one I've come across recently.
I s'pose what I'm saying is that there isn't some kind of Mr Fix-it approach with miracles happening every 15 seconds and happy endings all ways round.
As I've often said on these Boards, it doesn't matter how wonderful the service/meeting was you still have to get up and go out to work, you still have to wash your socks and after you've had a dump you still have to wipe your arse.
Gamaliel, I've started a new thread based on something you said above, here
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I'm glad you agree footwasher.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm glad you agree footwasher.
You are welcome. Forewarned is forearmed, eh?
Now, when you get it in the neck, you KNOW you have been converted.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
But like you I don't get it in the neck for identifying as Christian. I get it lower down.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
But like you I don't get it in the neck for identifying as Christian. I get it lower down.
Different strokes for different folks?
John 15:19“If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.
[ 03. January 2016, 08:33: Message edited by: footwasher ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The proctalgia, footwasher, isn't delivered by the world, but by Christianity.
No Christian is being persecuted ANYWHERE for loving Daesh.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The proctalgia, footwasher, isn't delivered by the world, but by Christianity.
No Christian is being persecuted ANYWHERE for loving Daesh.
I hope you are not implying that the persecution of Iraqi and Syrian Christians under ISIS is somehow not real unless they've made conscious acts of love towards ISIS and it's followers.
(Although there is this:Young Iraqi Christian Refugee Girl Forgives ISIS for Displacing Family)
The point of church is the salvation of souls. Everything it does must flow from that.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The proctalgia, footwasher, isn't delivered by the world, but by Christianity.
No Christian is being persecuted ANYWHERE for loving Daesh.
Identifying as a Christian as opposed to what? Saving a soul from what danger?
A careful examination of the sub text will reveal that Christ commended those who repented, meta noia-ed, from depending on the world. a futile-but with no visible alternative loyalty to its requirements, working, employing unethical methods for temporal food and other necessities, to working using righteous means, to save souls from this dependence on unrighteous mammon, and in the process storing up eternal wealth, seeking the Kingdom of God, receiving eternal rewards while receiving temporal provision supernaturally.
This is an offensive worldview, leading to persecution from the world, even family members, even from so called Christians who have not understood the Gospel, the Good News that, in Christ, that alternative is now a viable one.
Again, it's really offensive, the idea that the world is not your natural habitat, that the image of God in us demands we have a nobler dwelling place, that we are sojourners, aliens, foreigners in this environment that requires compromise, requires violence to survive, but delivers wealth which perishes. The futility of it all is dsplayed in the pointless existence of the animal kingdom, where the strongest gain, through force, resources, power... that fade away.
The Christian lays down his life for his brother, a seemingly counterintutive act, but he still prospers. Love does win.
That is the Gospel:
in Christ the self-sacrificial life is now a viable one (1 Corinthians 15:4 and parallels- a seed cannot grow unless it dies).
[ 05. January 2016, 10:57: Message edited by: footwasher ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0