|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Preaching the gospel to Roman Catholics
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I'm still stuck on the word knowing; KNOWING that someone is going to hell.
And while no one has actually responded to my repeated requests for the criteria by which they come to know that someone is Not a Christian and going to hell, here are some criteria that I have gleaned from some of the posts above:
not thinking the right things about God (according to the evaluator)
not following the Law, or what is perceived to be the Law, closely enough
not being enthusiastic enough about one's faith
Hmmm. Glad that Christ, and not some of my fellow Christians, is Lord of All, or else I, and indeed all of us, would be SOL, as we say in the States.
Last night I was reminiscing about my university days, and I remembered a night when a bunch of my fellow campus ministry rats and myself went to a contemporary Christian music concert -- Second Chapter of Acts, I think it was -- at the behest of one of our gang who "just wanted to see what they were like." This wasn't our cup of tea, but we said okay. Anyhow, we went, were unimpressed on many theological and other levels, and after the concert was over we headed to our favorite watering-hole for some beer, nachos and table talk to process what we had just experienced. But in trying to exit the auditorium we were pressed in at all sides by various itinerant preachers screaming about this or that thing. One memorable fellow was waving a Bible around and saying, "You may THINK that you're a Christian, but if you're a Christian lady, WHY ARE YOU WEARING PANTS? WHY DO YOU CUT YOUR HAIR?" and proceeded to sputter prooftexts out of Deuteronomy and whatnot about this egregious sin against God, blah, blah, blah.
So for this gentleman, short-haired women were obviously ipso facto Not Real Christians and headed for hell.
This brings up another problem with presuming to judge the hellworthiness of others: What if one judge's list doesn't match another judge's list?
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
Do you have a problem with the scenario I described LC?
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I have a problem with your assuming that your friend is Not a Real Christian.
Maybe he's just a bad one. A slow learner. You don't have access to what's going on in his head and in his heart, nor do you have access to knowledge about every single thing he does or doesn't do every day, so I think it's quite presumptuous to make assumptions about his state of grace based on your limited perception of his apparent lukewarm living-out of his Christianity. He may have spiritual struggles going on inside him that you know absolutely nothing about. He may have transcendent spiritual experiences that keep him connected, even in what you deem to be an insufficient way to the Church, that you know nothing about.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
Where have I assumed that?
I have said what I said in response to what he said. I have not assumed anything.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Lutheran Chick,
This is true. You've said a lot of stuff that I intend to reply to more fully later, when I'm not up to my eyeballs in Docetism, Appolarianism and the other stuff I'm doing at this very minute. However, your last post just got me there.
Of course he may be, nay is, having inner struggles that we don't know about. But why should that stop us doing anything? He simply be a bad Christian. But then again, he may not be a Christian at all, but merely have a penchant for calling himself an Anglican. Why do you have such a dislike to weighing up evidence on both sides, and deciding on the basis of reasonable doubt? And why do you assume the presence of other factors you don't know about, that have a big enough effect to sway the balance of evidence for this guy from "not a Christian" to "Christian"? A defendant in court wouldn't get very far with, "I didn't do the robbery, your honour. Though I was the only one in the street at the time the jewels went missing, there could have been someone else you and I didn't know about, who'd dug a secret tunnel into the shop and filled it in afterwards so it's undetectable."
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quantpole
I was going to reply to your scenario by pointing to the answer I gave to dinghy sailor. In short, it seems to me that, within normal bounds of courtesy and sensitivity, you can share your faith with this guy by taking him at face value. You may discover that you have different outlooks and vision as things progress - and you may get into deeper conversations which may be just as challenging to you. But I dont see that you need to know where he is with God. In the scenario you described there is an awful lot you dont know.
On the specific point you raised about being Christian and being good, it seems to me perfectly possible to share your own understanding and where it comes from. But there may be a central issue which could overshadow your conversations about faith.
There are some genuine complications arising from the fact that you're a Baptist and he is C of E, since you are likely to view the significance of infant baptism through different eyes. But that may be be as much a challenge to you as to him. If you feel, for example, that infant baptism is unbiblical and wrong, then it is going to be hard for you to understand someone who, on some level or other, is likely to believe that infant baptism is traditional and right. He might not say, in so many words, that he received the grace of God in baptism as an infant, but he might very well have a basic understanding that christening welcomed him into the church and be very puzzled if you deny the significance of that.
So there are sensitivities in your conversation regardless of whether you perceive him to be a Real Christian or not. And scope for misunderstanding as well.
In summary, faced with that scenario (and I also go to a church which practises believers baptism) it just seems a lot more straightforward to take the guy at face value, see what emerges from the conversations and not regard it as up to you to form a human judgement on where he is with God.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
And while no one has actually responded to my repeated requests for the criteria by which they come to know that someone is Not a Christian and going to hell,
Lutheranchik
I think the reason that no one has responded is because no one here is talking about making that assumption at all.
I think people here are thinking of something far more like "In view of my considered position that the Christian Gospel is x, and that you seem to believe it is y, I am under the impression that you are very much mistaken about some quite important things..."
Really, this requires no consideration on my part whether the person is Hellbound or not, and therefore I have never had to make a list.
Finally, I would point out that many (if not most) New testament letters warn against the issue of false teaching as a salvation affecting factor. Now, you may disagree with Gordon (or quantpole or dinghy sailor) over what is and what isn't false teaching, but I would put it to you that all of us need to (and indeed do) apply that principle somewhere or other.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
Barnabas:
The last paragraph there is what I would try to do. It is near impossible not to make human judgements about things and people but I try to keep myself aware enough to notice when I do it. I liked what you said about 'faith-sharing' and I'll nick that phrase for future use if you don't mind!
The problem I have on this thread is the implication that we should be treading so softly around issues of faith. I have conversations about footie every day where I disagree with my mates, but I don't just shut up then. There also seems to be displeasure that I would talk to someone who may or may not be a christian (I don't think I can ever recall an instant where I have said someone is Not a Real Christian) differently. That is preposterous: all our relationships are informed by what we know about a person. I wouldn't talk the same way to my fiance as I would with my mates. That is not me changing my personality between the two (I would hope not anyway) but simply a sign of the difference in the relationship. In the same way, how I approach the hypothetical situation I gave is different to how I would talk to someone in my homegroup about faith.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
quote:
I think the reason that no one has responded is because no one here is talking about making that assumption at all.
Oh, yes, they did. I think Barnabbas can vouch for that.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
I think Custard may have posted about a hypothetical situation, but that was it. One post. And I didn't see many people rushing around saying they know everyones hearts.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think people here are thinking of something far more like "In view of my considered position that the Christian Gospel is x, and that you seem to believe it is y, I am under the impression that you are very much mistaken about some quite important things..."
Really, this requires no consideration on my part whether the person is Hellbound or not, and therefore I have never had to make a list.
This is an important point. There are all sorts of reasons why I might want my co-religionists to change their minds. And I think we should remember that it cuts both ways - liberal and conservative.
Speaking as someone of a moderately liberal persuasion myself, I would like my conservative brethren and sistren to hold different opinions. Of course one reason for this is intellectual pride, but I'd like to claim there is some altruism there as well.
My university Christian Union, which is mostly Conservative Evangelical, likes outreach and evangelism. And the subtext of their message is that non-Christians, ie most of the student body, are all going to Hell. I disagree with this: and if I'm right, then the CU is libelling God in the eyes of the world. What would you have me do?
[Post 666! Crosses self thoroughly and seeks holy water to anoint screen.]
[ 10. February 2006, 17:08: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Responding to the comment about making people aware of supposed "false teaching"...then I guess no one here will be offended if I offer the following suggestion: That, if our "god" is that in which we put our ultimate, radical trust; and we put our ultimate, radical trust in our own ability to get it right about God, whether via correct theology or "making a decision" or doing enough stuff/avoiding the right stuff; we have ipso facto made ourselves our own little gods, instead of placing our ultimate, radical trust in the saving power of Jesus Christ; and that mindset violates the very first commandment: You shall have no other gods before me.
I hope I've now satisfied your contention that good Christians should be concerned about others' eternal welfare, by my pointing out of your own school of thought's grave soteriological errors.
Boy...this judging thing is fun. I should do it more often. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
quote:
I think the reason that no one has responded is because no one here is talking about making that assumption at all.
Oh, yes, they did. I think Barnabbas can vouch for that.
I think you are referring to this by Custard: quote:
So let me get this straight. Suppose there's a group out there who somehow genuinely do know truthfully that you are going to hell unless you do something / believe something / whatever. You'd rather they didn't tell you?
I think quantpole is right that this was a hypothetical.
ETA: No Lutheranchik I'm not offended. Because, as I said above, I'm assuming you are telling me about my "error" because you are bothered about me thinking right things and being guilty of idolatry. I think you are wrong. This is where we can have a discussion, where I try to persuade you where I am right, and you try to persuade me of the same. I think it's possible to do that without need for either of us to become notches on each other's bedposts. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif) ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
[ 10. February 2006, 17:15: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
All very sad this.
The thing that sticks in my gullet is that, in some peoples' minds and perhaps on a casual perusal, it is the Roman Catholic Church which is the most judgemental of all, and excluding of all. And we do have a strong belief that the Catholic Church is the one build on the rock, Peter, and that all should be one with her. So a peremptory reading would be that we believe that those not in are definitely out.
Which is not true at all. In fact, the Catholic Church believes that ALL the baptised are in the Church, though some are separated from it. We are highly committed to restoring that unity which should exist, which is why we do not like shortcuts which make it seem like we have that unity when in fact we do not.
We would never, ever, presume to tell Christians of other backgrounds that they are damned, lost, in need of the Gospel etc. We never, ever, baptise someone who has already been baptised in another church. We receive them into "full communion" with the Church.
To those who think we, or any other kind of Christian, "need to hear the Gospel": well fek off - you obviously know nothing about it so I don't want to hear if from you anyway, thank you very much,
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Yeah - when I use the word "suppose", it is generally to introduce a hypothetical.
I don't know that any one individual is going to hell. I don't know exactly what constitutes saving faith (given that, for example, the bleeding woman had it). Nor do I know the state of anyone's relationship with God (though I have some ideas about my own).
My question, especially in context, was intended to be entirely hypothetical and directed against the idea that people should never share their faith with us.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Share their faith with us is one thing. Tell us we are damned if we don't share that faith is another.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Oh, and in response to Dark Knight's earlier question about how on earth anyone could be that sure that someone else was going to hell - I don't know (unless the person doing the knowing was Jesus). That's why I prefixed what I was saying with "suppose", and used the word "somehow" just before the word "knew".
Custard. // uberpedant
[ 10. February 2006, 17:25: Message edited by: Custard. ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Triple Tiara: Regarding Catholic judgmentalism: I've often thought that if I were hit by a speeding car at a corner and were lying on the curb, bleeding and in extremis , I'd much rather have the last rites administered to me by a Catholic priest than some ranting person screaming at me, "IF YOU DIE, ARE YOU SURE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HEAVEN? ARE YOU? ARE YOU REAL SURE? ARE YOU REAL, REAL SURE? CAN YOU SAY THE SINNER'S PRAYER? CAN YOU?..." "What would Jesus do," indeed...
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
And, my dear, if I was that priest I would give you all the spiritual goods I had in my power to give. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You've heard the lovely joke about that very situation, perhaps?
As told by Rabbi Lionel Blue - Jewish person knocked down dying, priest rushes up: "Do you believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?"
Answer: "I'm dying - is this a good time to ask me riddles?"
Or the variant:
Priest: Do you renounce Satan and all his works?
Answer: I'm dying - this is no time for me to be making enemies!
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think LutheranChik's question - prompted as you say by Custard's post, but also by the whole nature of the thread - is actually a very good and cautionary one. Which is why I kept repeating it! In the situation of meetings and discussions with self-declared Christians, if it causes folks to ask these two questions.
a) how can I know anyway?
and
b) can't we have a decent conversation about faith without bothering about it?
that would seem to be progress. There does seem to me to be a world of difference between leprechaun's very straightforward post (which points to the sort of vigourous discussions we can have with folks who see things differently) and the sort of rubbish LutheranChik has described as experiencing personally. Basically, that was abuse. Thoughtless, stupid behaviour. It seems to me possible to agree on that at least.
Funnily enough, I've been thinking about SofF as a place where issues are discussed vigourously and, certainly in Purg, with a fair measure of respect and courtesy. Given the stuff we get up to here, it all strikes me as rather good practice for faith sharing. I don't spot a lot of pussyfooting about. It is possible to be both respectful, loving even, and yet make it clear where you come from and why.
I'm actually with quantpole on pussyfooting around in normal conversations - but in order to speak frankly to people on serious matters, it is important to have some mutual respect, a common vocabulary and permission.
I note Triple Tiara has joined in the fun - I'd begun to wonder where the Catholics had gone. Here am I, mr nonco nonco, holding out for a non-judgmental approach - together with a Lutheran! BTW, happy to have the Last Rites in that unhappy hypothetical. Dont think I need them, but what's the point of being arrogant .....
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
GoodCatholicLad
Shipmate
# 9231
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
All very sad this.
The thing that sticks in my gullet is that, in some peoples' minds and perhaps on a casual perusal, it is the Roman Catholic Church which is the most judgemental of all, and excluding of all. And we do have a strong belief that the Catholic Church is the one build on the rock, Peter, and that all should be one with her. So a peremptory reading would be that we believe that those not in are definitely out.
Which is not true at all. In fact, the Catholic Church believes that ALL the baptised are in the Church, though some are separated from it. We are highly committed to restoring that unity which should exist, which is why we do not like shortcuts which make it seem like we have that unity when in fact we do not.
We would never, ever, presume to tell Christians of other backgrounds that they are damned, lost, in need of the Gospel etc. We never, ever, baptise someone who has already been baptised in another church. We receive them into "full communion" with the Church.
To those who think we, or any other kind of Christian, "need to hear the Gospel": well fek off - you obviously know nothing about it so I don't want to hear if from you anyway, thank you very much,
Couldn't agree more.
--------------------
All you have is right now.
Posts: 1234 | From: San Francisco California | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
I have conversations about footie every day where I disagree with my mates, but I don't just shut up then. There also seems to be displeasure that I would talk to someone who may or may not be a christian ...
I think this comment goes right to the heart of the matter. I might disagree with a friend or colleague deeply and irrevocably about the merits of the football team he or she supports; I might tell or her so in no uncertain terms. But I wouldn't therefore argue that he is not a `real football supporter'. I wouldn't ever harbour the idea that he or she doesn't take his footie seriously, or is lukewarm in his support for his team.
Sure, I'm prepared to argue for the correctness or coherence of my theological views, vigorously if necessary, and with anybody who cares one way or the other. What I'm not prepared to do is to assume that I am right on a priori grounds and that other people need to be brought around to the `proper' way of thinking. I can't imagine ever being sufficiently certain of the correctness of my understanding to feel that way, and I have an implicit distrust of people who do.
So, in short, evangelism in the sense of spreading the Good News, fine. Evangelism in the sense of re-aligning faulty theology, not so good.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
So, in short, evangelism in the sense of spreading the Good News, fine. Evangelism in the sense of re-aligning faulty theology, not so good.
Indeed. Which is why we are discouraged from referring to people who are received into full communion with the RC Church as "converts". Converts are those who come from outside the Christian family and need to be baptised.
Not that we adhere to this though! "Convert" still usually means someone who was once an Anglican ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Barnabas, thank you for being such a nice supportive nonco nonco ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I might disagree with a friend or colleague deeply and irrevocably about the merits of the football team he or she supports; I might tell or her so in no uncertain terms. But I wouldn't therefore argue that he is not a `real football supporter'. I wouldn't ever harbour the idea that he or she doesn't take his footie seriously, or is lukewarm in his support for his team.
Depends what the theology is. If it's that we get to Heaven because we've paid priests lots of money, and that's because the church will be pleased with us (Jesus? Who's he? Where does he come into the matter?) then it definitely does need correcting. (No, I know the RCC doesn't teach that.) Or what about our theology, or study of God, is that we hate God? That certainly needs some serious correction.
And yes, what LutheranChick experienced sounds pretty grim. But we should by no means assume that just because a practice has been abused at some point, that practice is wrong. Democracy may have brought about dictators, but that doesn't mean that I think we shouldn't have democracy.
As for her (and Barnabas's) oft-repeated question, well as Lep said, it's not about knowing. It's about being increasingly certain. And when the likeliness of a belief being true passes a certain arbitrary point, most people say that they 'know'. Plus, people are complex. There's no golden rule you can apply to work out whether someone's a Christian or not. The symptoms, of belief or unbelief, will be different in any person, and there are as many different ones as there are people. Too many to list on a bulletin board, therefore. I'm sure that must be obvious, so really it was a silly question to ask.
A good start, however, is usually that someone identifies on forms that their religion is in fact the denomination their parents grew up in, but the word "Trinity" conjoures up images of the Matrix in their heads before anything else. I'm not saying that that's a guarantee of being Hellbound (or even non-Christian), but it indicates this person belongs to a group among which, on the evidence available to me, there exist a smaller percentage of people who can be expected to know Jesus (from my experience of a large number of people in this group) than the percentage that probably exists in the congregation of the church I'll go to on Sunday.
Satisfied?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fauja
Lesser known misfit
# 2054
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
So, in short, evangelism in the sense of spreading the Good News, fine. Evangelism in the sense of re-aligning faulty theology, not so good.
ok, so let's say that the good news is that Jesus loves you. Now let's imagine that a person believes in Jesus as far as he/she thinks but also believes that they need to live according to a particular religious code in order to be accepted more by Jesus. Would it not also be good news to learn that that is in fact not the case and therefore re-aligning on this issue could help them to have more faith rather than relying on their own efforts.
I agree if you're saying that evangelism should be motivated by a desire to help rather than correct.
Posts: 829 | From: uk | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Depends what the theology is. If it's that we get to Heaven because we've paid priests lots of money, and that's because the church will be pleased with us (Jesus? Who's he? Where does he come into the matter?) then it definitely does need correcting. (No, I know the RCC doesn't teach that.) Or what about our theology, or study of God, is that we hate God? That certainly needs some serious correction.
Corrected? On what basis? You don't have any means of proving your take on God is right.
How is correction ever preferable to dialogue in this context?
[ 10. February 2006, 21:42: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
dinghy sailor
I'm not sure I want to fight anyone on this point. Where the rubber hits the road is when, in a discussion based on mutual respect, common vocabulary and permission, one party discovers that the beliefs of the other are so seriously flawed (in that person's view) that the others' salvation is in some way endangered. Let's say that one trusts in the efficacy of baptism and the other in the efficacy of personal commitment. What's to be done? Each trusts in God, but in different ways. And each has community support for their differing views. Maybe each may have grounds, now, for believing that the other will go to Hell. Or maybe, just maybe, each may have made an interesting discovery. That the love of God is wider than the measure of man's mind and the heart of the eternal is most wonderfully kind.
You never know what might happen as a result of a genuine discussion between self-declared Christians from different parts of our sorely disunited community. Despite the theological impasse, each may "recognise" something of Christ in the other. And the theological differences get put into a different frame of reference.
I remember in my salad days in the Brethren a discussion with a lovely old guy about scriptural authority. After a pretty serious disagreement, he came up to me, smiled, and said "I love you, you heretic". And I laughed and told him I loved him as well. He went to his grave thinking one thing and I expect to go to my grave thinking another. Our eternal reunion should be fun. He was a sweet, gentle man, much nicer than his fierce theology. Strange, surprising things happen when you speak the truth with love.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
I love you too, you heretic. Well, unless you're one of maybe a dozen or so people from Norfolk I know then I've never met you, but hey.
Since when has evangelising, been it to Catholics or otherwise, been unloving? Surely you do it because you love someone, and want the best for them. What LutheranChick was describing, well, that was a perversion of it. My democracy and dictators point.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
quote:
A good start, however, is usually that someone identifies on forms that their religion is in fact the denomination their parents grew up in, but the word "Trinity" conjoures up images of the Matrix in their heads before anything else. I'm not saying that that's a guarantee of being Hellbound (or even non-Christian), but it indicates this person belongs to a group among which, on the evidence available to me, there exist a smaller percentage of people who can be expected to know Jesus (from my experience of a large number of people in this group) than the percentage that probably exists in the congregation of the church I'll go to on Sunday.
Satisfied?
No.
I think it's arrogant and presumptuous to think that you can rate the quality of someone's Christianity on the basis of their church affiliation.
In my experience, when I've had ambassadors of Christian luv try to tell me why I should come away from the dark side, they speak out of complete ignorance of Lutheran theology and practice. So they don't even know what they're criticizing. It's just a knee-jerk, "Not evangelical/sacramental/liturgical = Unreal Christian = I must save you" assumption.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
We know you've had bad experiences with people. We've made it very clear that their behaviour is not acceptable. Why do you keep on going on about it?
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
And that post wasn't talking very specifically about religious affiliation, anyway. It was answering the question that I thought you asked (on many occasions) about evangelising someone, even though there's a tiny chance that they may already be a Christian for reasons you don't know about. And the title of this thread isn't "evangelising Roman Catholics in a bad way". It was "Evangelising Roman Catholics". Why can't you get over the idea that not all people abuse others while spreading the good news? Next thing I know, you'll hate all national leaders, because Pol Pot was one.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Because I want people on your side of the street to understand why your "evangelization" behavior is so distasteful to Christians who do not need to be evangelized. Several posts ago the words "respect" and "permission" were given as good prerequisites for persons wanting to engage in Christian outreach.
My point: If someone does not respect my Christian faith tradition -- which is a reasonable assumption if s/he is trying to "convert" me out of it -- then s/he does not have my permission to engage with me. And when I express my disinterest in further discussion, then s/he should graciously stop.
I'm "going on about it" in the (frankly dim) hope that someone will share this conversation with a church evangelism group somewhere and get a discussion going about respecting other Christians, working under the assumption that they ARE Christians, and not assuming that they're just more fresh meat for "conversion" attempts. I'm "going on about it" because I live in the United States, where you can't spit without hitting some literally Bible-waving fundamentalist screaming at people.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Guys, it wasn't you that suffered. Just try thinking about what actually happened - and where that mad behaviour was rooted and grounded. And the underlying thought processes that led to it. It's all very well saying "we wouldn't do that". The real question is a different one, namely, what is there in evangelical theology as practised today which produces such unruly children.
Motes and beams, guys. God help us all if we turn our backs on evangelism. The church is for the lost the last and the least. But it sure ain't about doctrinal imperialism. Each of us from within the evangelical framework would do well to recognise these stormtroopers not just as mistaken, but feeding off some of the structural and cultural weaknesses within modern evangelicalism. We're just not used enough to critiquing our own faith structures - and seeing the consequences. And taking some personal responsibility to speak out about the unruly beliefs as well as the unruly children.
I'm knackered and off to bed - I may regret some of the above when I wake up. But its good enough for now. Night night!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
<tangent>
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Priest: Do you renounce Satan and all his works?
Answer: I'm dying - this is no time for me to be making enemies!
That's actually not a joke. Or rather, it's a historic joke. It was actually said by Voltaire on his deathbed when indeed asked by a priest to renounce Satan: "Now now, dear man, this is not the time to be making enemies." (I assume he said it in French though...)
He also said: "If there were only one religion in England there would be danger of despotism; if there were two they would cut each other’s throats. But there are thirty, and they live in peace and happiness."
</tangent>
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'm "going on about it" in the (frankly dim) hope that someone will share this conversation with a church evangelism group somewhere and get a discussion going about respecting other Christians, working under the assumption that they ARE Christians, and not assuming that they're just more fresh meat for "conversion" attempts.
I agree. And if the discussion extended into consideration of the need for respect for the beliefs of not just other Christian traditions but other sincerely-held beliefs about God as well, who knows where it might lead.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
There seems to be a recurring position that you're working from on various threads, Dave. I can't quite put my finger on it just yet. I'm trying, though.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
A sort of unequal but opposite one, perhaps?
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
A sort of unequal but opposite one, perhaps?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Nice one, Dave.
On waking, I'm pretty content with my previous post. Should have said "people" rather than "guys". But the motes and beams thing looks pretty good this morning.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Christians who do not need to be evangelized
I need to be evangelised. We all do. Even in Isaiah 52:7 (whence the word "evangelised" from the LXX), the proclamation of good news is to Zion.
I want people to share with me the reason for the hope that they have - it's encouraging. And I want them to do with with gentleness and respect, just the same as I hope I'd show to anyone I spoke to about my hope, whether they are Christians or not.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fauja
Lesser known misfit
# 2054
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I need to be evangelised. We all do. Even in Isaiah 52:7 (whence the word "evangelised" from the LXX), the proclamation of good news is to Zion.
Now I come from an evangelical background and have knocked on doors for the purpose of evengelism but even I find that statement OTT. What we really need is to be loved and respected as we are and not for what other people want us to be.
I'm quite happy for someone to remind me of what the good news is but if evangelism becomes a function - something you just do to someone else, then it should come as no surprise that the person on the receiving end feels like they are being treated like an object.
Posts: 829 | From: uk | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Of course some of are just waiting for Gordo.
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
Barnabas and LC, this was what I said about 100 posts ago:
quote:
No worries LC, I can fully understand where you're coming from. Like Gill H I've been a party to behaviour I regret now (my CU did a talk entitled Roman Catholicism: Another Religion? once), though nowhere near as bad as what you have described. It doesn't matter if the 'target' is a Christian or not - that sort of behaviour is inexcusable.
There is a very real danger in evangelicalism to see people as targets and take on a sort of martyr mentality of "doing the Lord's work". I would say that the situation seems to be somewhat worse in the US than over here though.
Since then LC has been fixated on the word 'know' for no apparent reason, has said that I assume people aren't Christians which I don't, and now seems to be asking for me to take responsibility for people's actions I don't know and indeed from the sounds of things would be embarrassed to share the label 'evangelical' with.
Do you think I don't know there are things wrong in evo-world? Why do you think I'm on here in the first place? You have absolutely no idea whether I try to encourage better practice or not, and that is not what this discussion is about. I'm frankly tired of being made to feel I should apologise for being an evangelical.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quantpole
Sorry for the offence. I only disagree with you about one thing. The OP provided scope for consideration of three things.
1. The appropriateness of preaching to self-declared Christians
2. The manner in which that is done
3. The reasons for people doing it.
I think the rest follows from that.
I'm glad you posted the way you did before and overlooked that in the context of your later post (and as a result, misunderstood them to some extent). That was a mistake. It looks like you and I have a lot in common. Well, I did say I might live to regret my late night post - wish I'd looked back a bit further this morning.
My apologies once again.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
Thanks Barnabas, it's been a bit confusing because from what you've posted before it seems like we're on a similar wavelength ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Anyway, I would be more than happy to have a discussion on what within evangelicalism gives rise to the behaviour that has been described.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
DangerousDeacon
Shipmate
# 10582
|
Posted
There has been a lot of discussion here on the word "know". As a matter of simple logic, I cannot "know" whether someone else is saved or not, at least in the same way as I know 2 + 2 = 4, or know that my mother loves me. Why? 2 + 2 = 4 and my mother are finite things. I can know them. God is infinite - it is pure arrogance for a finite being to claim to "know" the mind of the infinite being, and whom God has saved or not saved. So, thats the logic of epistemology applied to the claim of the knowledge of God's will. However ....
We also believe that God has revealed his will to us, and indicated to us those things necessary to salvation. And salvation is a very good thing. So if someone has not done those things or believed those things necessary to salvation, or is doing things imperilling their eternal soul (nod of head to universalists here), then they are in deep trouble. Further, as Christians we hold to a faith based on evangelisation (small 'e'), and on love of others - together this would mean that we should actively seek to help those whose souls are imperilled.
Hmmm. So, what principles should we hold here. Firstly, who is the suitable 'target' for evangelisation? Second, how should we evangelise?
First, I would think that any active member of a Christian denomination is likely to be "saved", so why would you assume otherwise and waste your time? Surely a bit of humility here is also good - no one has the absolute purchase on truth, and to assume that your denomination is qualitatively different from another denomination sharing the same credal basis is bizzare. Sharing our differences is a good thing, as we have much to learn from each other - but to try to "convert" other Christians seems a stange thing. At the other extreme, we probably can recognise people to whom we do have a clear duty to evangelise - but other Christians are not among them, I would think.
This then leads onto the question of appropriate evangelistic methods. In this I am reminded of Paul on the Aeropagus - in his speech he was respectful and did not once quote scripture. But perhaps this is something for another thread. Suffice it to say that quoting bible verses at other Christians and telling them they are not saved smacks of both earthly pride and false knowledge. If this is the "evangelism" that people on this thread are objecting to, then I am with them, at least partly for the reasons set out above (and with apologies for the length of the post)
--------------------
'All the same, it may be that I am wrong; what I take for gold and diamonds may be only a little copper and glass.'
Posts: 506 | From: Top End | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
I think I agree with everything you've said there, DD. Though I'd just like to point out that I thought were were mainly discussing what you reference below:
quote:
Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
First, I would think that any active member of a Christian denomination is likely to be "saved", so why would you assume otherwise and waste your time?
Thing is, as far as I can see it, some on this thread have been saying (to my ears, anyway) that we should assume that anyone is 'saved' whether they're an 'active' member or not. Someone very close to me claims occasionally to be a Catholic, but reacts violently to any mention of "Christians". But then, he's of Irish descent, living in England, so I suspect the 'catholicism' could be more a cultural identifier than anything else. From what he says, I'm sure he's repressing something, but I'm not sure what it is. I've decided to take the position that I'm completely agnostic about whether he is or isn't a Christian, but that's probably because I want to be optimistic, becase I really like this person. I still try to evangelise him, though. That means to try and be a good example of Christianity to him, and let him know where I'm coming from. It means trying to defend Christianity against his accusations, and show why I feel it's a logical and wonderful thing. Hopefully he'll come to a fuller understanding of God through that.
Since this thread started off at least about Catholics, I'd like to add that I attended an RC church for years, so I'm not one of the uberProt Rome-haters. I do reckon that you get more cases like the guy I've described above in Catholicism than in most other denominations, though. At least where I'm at. Again, it could be to do with knowing a fair number of people whose ancestry is Irish, living in the UK.
[ 11. February 2006, 11:59: Message edited by: dinghy sailor ]
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Of course some of are just waiting for Gordo
to knock on their door and evangelise them.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quantpole
You were kind to me. Briefly (we've got visitors) I think there may be some value in another thread. I'm not quite sure of the focus - I keep remembering the title of a book by Carl Henry (which I haven't read) called something like "The uneasy conscience of modern evangelicalism (or maybe it was fundamentalism)". There's something in that "uneasy conscience" phrase that rings a bell with me - particularly in relation to LutheranChik's unfortunate experiences (she is by no means alone) and the need for both recognition and sorting.
Actually, I quite like her idea of including her experiences in discussions about the meaning, targets and processes of evangelism (and the difference between that and faithsharing). Personally, I think there has been a lot of value in her beating the drum and asking the knowing question. It's been pretty stimulating and there have been some pretty interesting responses already.
I'm mulling stuff over and hope to come up with a decent OP for a new thread. If you beat me to the punch - and feel free - I'm unlikely to be able to stay away. But we will be surrounded with grandchildren until Thursday. (You'll probably see posts from about 9pm onwards.)
God bless
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
There seems to be a recurring position that you're working from on various threads, Dave. I can't quite put my finger on it just yet. I'm trying, though.
Reading this again, I wonder if my first reply was unfairly dismissive. Sorry if that was the case. My "recurring position" as you put it is probably relevant here as the justification for and nature of evangelism goes to the root of my unease with traditional Christianity.
I believe we are being created. This seems the most useful way to sum up my position. Everything else, if consistency matters and I think it does, derives from that. What doesn't follow directly I don't think I have enough information to say I believe. But I can speculate, imagine, theorise about anything and everything, aiming for consistency with what I believe and observe and experience, refining my theories the more I learn about and experience. The better a theory fits the universe as I find it, the more confidence I can have in relying on it, rather than the expectations and opinions of others, when deciding what to think and do.
I don't need to adopt these theories as final though. The need to crystalise out beliefs, to say this is what I will believe from now on, only arises if I want to join a religion. It's the religion that has the need to say I believe X, Y, and Z, because it needs to define itself and therefore the beliefs of its adherents in order to exist.
So when people start talking about the need for others to know their particular version of religion, to hear their gospel, it seems appropriate now and then to ask why. Not because I'd rather people were persuaded to choose my version - I don't have one - but because any version I've yet come across is only a tribal identity, a cultural package that offers a pattern for living.
If someone finds such a package helpful, all well and good. But the notion that any religion's claims for its path to ultimate salvation are anything more than speculative is bogus. When evangelism is considered a duty, religion has lost sight of what it is, an aid to living this life. That's not something that anyone needs to know or be told, but an option to offer if we've found it works for us, a benefit of experience to pass on if it seems appropriate.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
